Last week, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development circulated a letter that declared race-based “affinity housing” violates federal anti-discrimination laws. This includes living arrangements that are voluntary, such as residence halls with dedicated space for Black student groups.
The letter, authored by Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Craig Trainor, reads, “For decades, American youth had the privilege of growing up in a post-civil rights movement America completely removed and repaired from its past tolerance for racial injustice. Rather than celebrate this remarkable victory for the Nation, its citizens, and its colorblind constitutional principles, many institutions of higher learning have propagated the pernicious idea that racial and ethnic divisions are a healthy — indeed, desirable — part of our national life. On campus, this has taken the form of racially separate residences, orientation programs, and graduation ceremonies. There is a term for these arrangements: neo-segregation.”
Trainor goes on to cite a “Black-Only” housing option for students at California State University, Los Angeles as an example of “neosegreation.” Trainor also calls out the University of California, Berkeley for featuring a photo of Black students on their housing website alongside a statement from a student who said, “I enjoy being around peers who look like me.” According to Trainor, these student living options are “morally contemptible,” and that a similar picture and statement from White students would be followed by public “outrage.”
“The law is clear: When educational institutions permit the existence of racially segregated student housing — or openly encourage separation on the basis of race, color, or national origin, advertise a discriminatory preference, or have policies that discourage students from one race, ethnicity, or nationality from living with students who do not share those characteristics — they violate the Fair Housing Act,” wrote Trainor.
He continues, “The Department will ensure maximum accountability for educational institutions violating the Act. No euphemism, woke rationalization, or appeal to ‘safe spaces,’ ‘affinity housing,’ or ‘cultural celebration’ will shield universities from liability where intentional unlawful discrimination is found. We will pursue every available remedy to bring discriminatory institutions into compliance, including, without limitation, compensatory and punitive damages, civil penalties, and injunctive relief.”
“Many institutions intentionally structure affinity housing or living-learning communities to be open to all students regardless of race while centering shared cultural, historical, linguistic, or educational experiences,” notes commentary by Nixon Peabody, a Boston-based firmed that advocates for increased diversity and equity. “HUD’s letter does not meaningfully distinguish between race-exclusive housing assignments and voluntary residential communities that are open to all participants but organized around particular themes or identities. Voluntary open-enrollment residential communities organized around shared cultural or educational themes present distinct questions, particularly where no student is excluded on the basis of race.”
