After performing the skit, we had a variety of responses from eager volunteers wishing to express their opinion on the subject. The first point brought up was that this generally tends to be a problem with freshman. Since they have just entered a strange place and don't know anyone, it is human nature to drift to people who are like you. And the first thing that sticks out is your physical appearances and for that reason, many freshmen tend to migrate to people of their own ethnicity and race.

Someone stated that they didn't think that this was a campus wide problem and they didn't really see it as a source of concern since there is no violence and that people will eventually find their way throughout various groups as their years go on at Carnegie Mellon. That point brought out the fact that this may not be a problem at the campus wide level, but it is a problem for the individual who is involved. Apparently, without interacting with different cultures and migrating towards people based on physical features does not allow a person to have the flexibility they should and they lose out on valuable experience they could attain mingling with people who are different from themselves. Even then, someone pointed out that instances of voluntary segregation are largely due to issues of comfort rather than race and ethnicity.

Some people thought that the campus, in some ways, encouraged the segregation through organizations such as fraternities, sororities and ethnical organizations such as the Asian Students Association. In these organizations, you get segregated because these are the people you are spending most of your time with and you are bonded by that common interest. But many feel that the situation should be resolved by the individual and not the school. The individual should be willing and trying to reach out to various kinds of people and expand his/her horizons.

One question was raised by a member of the faculty of whether forcing interaction between different races in class groups is a good idea to solve the problem. A majority of the students in attendance were against that suggestion because they believed that people need to want to understand others well and interact with them at a classroom level. Also, they felt that a student works with a certain group of people because their mindsets are similar and they work well together and produce better work. To them, forcing interaction with people you don't work well with will only hurt the quality of the work.

After the performance of skit two on personal identity, various issues were brought up by the audience concentrating on their own personal experiences as well as what they had observed. Personal versus national identity emerged as being a primary problem here on Carnegie Mellon's campus. An international Italian male addressed the issue of being from another country. He found it imperative to keep his Italian family ties and bonds, but at the same time he desired to branch out and meet new people. He was caught between two sides of himself; he didn't want to ignore his culture/nation, yet he wanted to explore/experience something new.

Furthermore, personal versus national identity arose as a problem for Americans of a non-white race. Americans with non-American decent come to Carnegie Mellon and a label is attached to them and they are forced into a specific group, that they might not want to be placed into. You are placed into this group based on your race, even if you don't want to be associated with this specific group.

Language barriers evolved as a problem at CMU through our discussion as well. They were noted as a communication problem that leads to frustration and sometimes confused/hurt feelings. These hurt feelings surface because of ignorance among Americans not exposed to the particular language or culture of the international student. It's not necessarily that the American wants to make the international student feel uncomfortable or disrespect them, it's just that they don't know how to communicate effectively to reach him/her. Language barriers were then discussed to not be a problem because if a given person takes the time and care to explain something confusing (like an idiom) to an international student, then the problem is solved. This language barrier "problem" is negated IF you take the time to talk to the international students. Then in discussion, someone asked, "What if the person is shy, and doesn't feel comfortable approaching anyone to ask questions or even talk, then is it a problem?"

As the discussion started to wrap up, some solutions to these "problems" and final thoughts arose. A young Canadian woman stated that the issues we had discussed are only problems because they are recognized. Once you bring up an issue and discuss it, that is when it becomes a problem. Her point was that people should just live their lives and not dwell or worry about these issues. Secondly, someone suggested (in response to international students at CMU) that all international students receive a big sister/brother ethnically different from him/herself when entering CMU. This would provide a stable friendship for the student with someone of a different race. This would expose them to a different race and culture, and hopefully eventually integrate him/her into CMU's campus. Lastly, the idea was addressed to just make friends with people different from you. The one real way to get rid of stereotypes and help break down racial barriers is to befriend those that are different from you. You need to step out of your comfort zone and explore why being friends with those different from you is so beneficial.

In general, the response to the issue of discrimination between college departments was focused on stereotypes. There was not much discussion of the actual prejudices among the colleges, but more of how stereotypes are born, why and if they exist, and if they can be upheld. However, there were a few random comments and arguments about the difference between a computer science major and a drama major. People seemed to be discussing ideas that they had formulated for themselves or just based off of a friends' experience.

A large part of the audience seemed to believe that if a stereotype even exists, it must be true because it is supposedly there for a reason. Someone said that there are usually examples of people who do not follow the stereotypes, but that does not happen often; therefore, the stereotype is "true." Many agreed that there were several campus and inter-college stereotypes that exist and are most likely true also. Some of them can be negative, but not all of them. There was a lot of support for positive stereotypes also, or at least ones that do not cause harm to another.

There was a girl who responded to these comments by saying that a stereotype is formulated by personal experience alone, and it does not represent the majority of the "group" that is categorized and stereotyped. It just seems to be there because someone may not be able to let go of a first impression. She said that generalizations of a group should only be made for general reasons, but that is not something that happens often because people tend to have more detailed thinking patterns rather than a general one. To this comment, another person did not argue whether or not the campus stereotypes, or stereotypes in general exist, but rather he said that it was natural for everyone to hold stereotypes. He stated that some may be more true than others, but overall, they are not very prevalent problems because a stereotype does not affect anything or anyone unless it is recognized as being as negative thing. He said that you will "make friends with a person and not a stereotype" if they are given the opportunity. It depends on the application of the stereotype in personal lives because according to our audience, "a stereotype is only as powerful as we make it."

In the skit concentrating on sexual orientation issues in Carnegie Mellon, the response was very hesitant due to the fact that it is still not a very open topic for discussion. The discussion began with general comments as to how homosexuality is not the fault of the person themselves, but by the situations and environment they were put in early on in life. From there, a point was brought up that how parents raise their children affects the way that they deal with issues such as sexual orientation, whether they choose to discriminate against it or accept it willingly.

Many people discussed how they find it a shock at first when they realize someone is gay or bisexual. The solution they believed was to teach people to be more open minded and be exposed to people who are gay and bisexual. Because, by doing so, you see that sexuality is not a choice, but a part of who they are. Also, you can see how sexuality is not the only aspect of a person's personality and that there is so much more to them.

It was even brought up that the discrimination against sexuality goes even further into the issues of race, and it is just another factor used to separate people and ostracize them from the general community.

In the skit dealing with socio-economic factors, there was not a lot of reaction given by the audience since they did not think that it was really a big or obvious problem on campus. They believed that Carnegie Mellon does enough already to help the problem of the typical "broke college student." For example, the one dollar movies at McConomy Auditorium and the free activities taking place around campus help students enjoy various activities without having to spend a lot of money.

To some, it is considered an individual problem and should be up to the individual to find the things that interest them and prioritize them according to price and how much they are willing to spend on such an activity.