Brief History of Cultural Houses at Trinity College

After Black student demands for greater recognition, Trinity College established a Black cultural center at 84 Vernon Street in 1967. Previously known as the Brownell House, the building became known as the Black House. Its creation not only established a Black cultural center, but was part of a broader push for a more racially equitable organization in terms of admissions, resources, curriculum, students, faculty, and space. Over the next several decades, Latine and Asian American students drew on this experience of Black students and the later-named Umoja House as a model for new cultural centers. This brief history is a step towards understanding the creation of these cultural houses.

As of this writing, there are three  cultural houses : La Eracra, Asian American Students Association, and Umoja that continue in conjunction with other important efforts. Led by the Office of Multicultural Affairs and its Director,  Carol Correa de Best , these houses are directly supported by  Jared Delane , the Program Coordinator for P.R.I.D.E. and Cultural House Coordinator in Multicultural Affairs, and cultural house student coordinators.

In 2018, the Office of Multicultural Affairs became a part of the new Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. This new office is led by the Vice President Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion,  Dr. Anita Davis . In 2020, the Trustees of Trinity College pledged support for renovations for the cultural houses and programs through the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. In sum, these cultural houses are part of student and institutional efforts.

Thus, this history is part of understanding the broader Trinity College experience. Like other colleges, the establishment of these cultural houses have related stories. Using stories in the student newspaper,  The Trinity Tripod Digital Repository , we engaged this project with intent to feature the stories of these houses. As it will show, this brief history illuminates how the efforts to create these cultural houses helped move the College towards progress in various ways. Finally, this work also recognizes the former and current leaders that moved this effort - students, staff, faculty, administrators, and Presidents.

Note: This project is an individual scholarly project led by Robert Cotto, Jr., M'14, Ph.D. This is it not an official statement of Trinity College or Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

Momo Djebli '25 is a rising Junior from Marrakesh, Morocco majoring in American Studies and Human Rights. As the Cultural House Coordinator of Umoja House, Momo has been involved with cultural life on campus for the past two years. Momo also served in the Student Government Association as Class of 2025 Senator, along with Treasurer for Trinity’s African Students Association and an Organizer for the Trinity International Hip Hop Festival. 

Naiya Roe '25 is a rising Junior from Washington, New Jersey majoring in Psychology. On campus, she works as a Writing Associate at the Allan K. Smith Center for Writing and Rhetoric. Additionally, she has been involved with the Asian-American Student Association (AASA) since her freshman year and will serve as co-president for the ’23-’24 academic school year. 

Robert Cotto, Jr. M'14, Ph.D. is an educator and scholar. He started his career as a teacher of high school history and social studies and has taught university courses in education policy, teaching and learning, history of education, and global issues. His scholarship interrogates progress from the interactions between racialized people, organizations including schools, and the broader social contexts. After completing a Ph.D. in Learning, Leadership, and Education Policy in 2022, he has directed campus and community engagement with Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at Trinity College.

In April 1967, two Black male students - Robert Washington and Stuart Hamilton - wrote three essays in the Trinity Tripod explaining their concerns about the state of Black students at the College. Their letters were a reflection on their experience after connecting with Black students from colleges across the Eastern United States at a conference weeks earlier. Hosted in Princeton, New Jersey, the title of the conference was named “The Future of the Negro Undergraduate.”

In the essays reflecting on the conference, these students explained their concerns and needs for Black students at Trinity College. Like other campuses across the country with various forms of student activism, these essays were part of a new phase of demands from their perspective at the height of the Civil Rights era. While not directly requested at first, a cultural house became part of the results from the demands from Black students and the College’s response.

In their series of letters in The Trinity Tripod, Washington and Hamilton explored a number of issues related to Black students at the College and beyond. They addressed issues of staying connected to the broader Civil Rights and Black Power Movements, tokenism versus real integration, and the tensions of individual status and collective struggle, particularly as Black students at Trinity that would also likely return to their home communities.

"every goal involves a personal commitment, but the individual must incorporate his struggle into that of the many. For if he doesn't, he will feel himself easily satisfied and withdrawn from the cause."

As other scholars have noted, these students were part of a generation of Black male students balancing their personal growth and maintaining connections to their communities while pushing for respect in white, elite colleges and universities. Rather than a simple binary of racial integration versus separation, Black students at Trinity and around the country sought new forms of greater recognition and support as a racialized group on campuses with mostly white students, professors, and administrators.

At the end of their series, the authors were among all thirteen Black students at Trinity College that declared the formation of a group named the “Trinity Association of Negroes” (T.A.N.). As a loose affiliation of students, their spokesperson was Michael Williams ‘68. According to Williams, "the College had attempted to avoid dealing with Negroes as a group.” However, the group was “not here to shake up the College”, but “basically to bring awareness of the heritage of the Negro and to teach it.” In addition to this core concept, the group sought to meet with Negro community leaders, invite readings and exhibitions from Negro artists and writers, recruit Negro students and welcome them to campus, establish a library to provide information about Black people, and “increased participation in civil rights activities.” 

In April 1968, the Trinity Association of Negroes (TAN) led a sit in to protest the issue of the scholarship-matching fund issues. Led by TAN, roughly 150 students participated in the sit in at Williams Memorial. The College Trustees and other administrative staff were at the meeting and effectively blocked from leaving the building. The result was resolution of scholarship funds to be set aside for fifteen Black students. As Peter Knapp notes in his book, Trinity College in the Twentieth Century, a debate about punishing students persisted for some time afterwards. Despite students participating in the sit in receiving written demerits on their transcripts and service requirements, they won this debate. As  Trinity Alumni Magazine (1968)  suggested, these events came at a moment of student protest about institutional issues that coincided with physical development such as new buildings including the Life Sciences Center.

By 1969, the group had a slight change and list of the demands. Since their formation, the group changed its name to Trinity Coalition of Blacks (TCB). On January 23, the TCB sent a list of twelve particular demands to President Lockwood. The list included addition of Black staff in admissions, involvement of Black student involvement in admissions, representation of a Black educator in each undergraduate department at the undergraduate level, revision to the curriculum to “make all teachings relevant and meaningful to Blacks”, access to courses offered at other colleges, changes to admissions procedures to be adjusted to individual Black students, establishment of a program to deal with “black adjustment and ‘matriculation’ into the college", and minimum percentage of black students in future incoming classes with inclusion of Black women in the new co-education setting, hiring of an independent Black counselor to support Black students, funds to participate in Black programs in the region, and increase in pay for “all campus laborers” and the “establishment of a union or similar organization to act in the better interest of such workers.”

At a critical moment of American history with student protests ranging from academic concerns, civil rights, and global issues such as the Vietnam War, the Trinity Tripod published the entire list of demands. Despite debate within the student body, there were also supporters. For example, students such as Philip Khoury ‘71 connected to the needs of Black students by aiding the response to the previous sit-in demand for scholarship support. As the head of the Senate Scholarship Fund, a subcommittee of the Senate Race and Poverty group, Khoury collaborated with the President and other students to raise funds for a Black Scholarship Drive. Rather than an isolated group with obscure demands, the concerns of the TCB were recognized to varying degrees across campus.

In the next issue of the Tripod, President Lockwood responded to most of the demands in an open response. In a special insert named “Inside”, the Trinity Tripod featured both the TCB demands next to President Lockwood’s responses. The responses ranged in their levels from need for more information, planning, and early implementation. For example, the President offered a possibility of a visiting scholar program in response to the demand for a Black educator in each department. The reasoning was questioned, however, as recruitment from Black colleges and universities could be viewed as poaching talent that could potentially cause a “brain drain.” In sum, President Lockwood responded within his understanding of constraints. 

Many parts of the response were pragmatic. On curriculum, two new courses were offered, but a possible exchange with colleges in the region would likely be the most possible way to access courses in Black students. Rather than complete curriculum change or an in-house Black studies program, “interinstitutional cooperation” would form the “beginnings of a program in Afro-American studies.” For admissions, President Lockwood was open to improved recruitment efforts and noted the student concerns on campus making recruitment more difficult. Lockwood also invited three Black students to help improve admissions efforts to the College. Of particular note, the President proposed use of the Brownell House as a “social center for black students” that “like all areas on the campus, it must be open to all visitors.”

The President also acknowledged concerns, provided modest improvements, and shared limits on the institution at that time. In his postscript, President Lockwood noted 1954 as a reference to the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court case and difficulties of students. He invited the concept of “diversity” and more support for Black students. In addition to funding, admissions, and curriculum, most demands from TCB had a response. The Brownell house was soon named as "The Black House" on the campus map in the Student Handbook for incoming students.

But two demands did not get a response. There was no response for a “full-time black counselor to deal with Black students who shall be responsible to black students only.”  Also, there was no response to increasing pay for all campus laborers and establishment of a union or similar organization.

Less than two years later, the TCB would continue their demands. These demands included a Black Studies program, open Black student admission, guaranteed financial aid, more funding for the TCB, and better wages for Black and Puerto Rican laborers. The demands also included the renovation of the Black House at 84 Vernon Street, the addition of another nearby house. The TCB also demanded control of the Black Studies, hiring, and an open curriculum. On March 19, 1971, The Trinity Tripod editorial board (p. 5) disagreed with direct control of spending, hiring, and open admissions to all Black students. Not all of these demands from the TCB were met. But they had begun an important shift that would improve their experience and the College more broadly over time.

The organization persisted throughout the 1970s and a group of women also formed the Trinity Coalition of Blacks Women's Organization, which was later named Trinity Coalition of Black Women.

With the assistance from the Office of Admissions, Darryl Kevin Harris ‘80 composed a booklet named, A Minority Perspective, in 1980. On the cover, the booklet included the faces of minority students that were presumably at Trinity College. With these faces and content, the booklet goals were clear: who could attend Trinity College and what was there to support all students, including racial minorities.

First, the booklet stated that “Trinity College admits students regardless of sex and of any race, color, creed and national or ethnic origin to all the rights, privileges, programs and activities generally accorded or made available to students at the College.” Second, the booklet declared that “TRINITY NEEDS AND SEEKS Third World students who are committed to making the most of a top quality educational opportunity..." The booklet signaled both effort towards racial diversity and a way towards improvement that built on a physical space - the Black house - in the years ahead.

In order to meet these goals, the booklet better explained the College for potential minority students. In support of the academic program, the booklet included many of the results from the demands by the TCB a decade earlier. For example, the booklet explained more holistic admissions criteria, financial aid policies, and “programs to meet minority students.” These programs included minority peer counseling, a tutorial program, a writing center, a President’s Council on Minority Students, career counseling, and an Intercultural Studies Program (ICS) that provided study of “the multiple crises facing human cultures.” In addition, cross-campus, institutional, and study abroad programs were featured, as well as on campus activities and connections to Hartford. As evidence of the success “After Trinity”, the booklet also listed select Black and Latino alumni and their academic and professional accomplishments.

Importantly, the booklet also featured student groups for Blacks, Latins, Asians, and international students within the minority perspective. Reflecting changes in the student body, the booklet featured four student organizations that “provided a brief description of its purpose and activities.” First, there was the Trinity Coalition of Blacks (TCB) that promoted the “cultural, political, educational, and social development of black students of the College.” La Voz Latina (LVL) had a primary interest of “establishing a greater unity among Latin students.” The Trinity Asian Organization (TAO) addressed “bridging the gap between Asian traditional people and ideas and the more contemporary aspects of the Asian-American experience.” Last, the Trinity International Club (TIC) main purpose was, “to foster the awareness of international students at Trinity College and promote international or intercultural understanding.” In addition to these organizational missions, all groups noted their goals of improving the College campus more broadly.

Of particular note, the Trinity Coalition of Blacks noted a key point about space on campus. TCB shared that a, “major focal point of our activities is the Black House – our meeting facility which is being developed into a cultural center as well. Here, and on campus, TCB has sponsored films, lectures, concerts, and other activities like Black Culture Week.” The note was important because it located a key space for the TCB. At that point, various sources named the address for the Black House as 112 Vernon Street.

The booklet also noted potential connections to Hartford including the Black and Latino communities, as well as activities off campus. Campus activities included readings from Gwendolyn Brooks and Gil Scott Heron, talks by leaders such as Julian Bond, films and performances from artists such as salseros like Angel Canales y Sabor. These cultural activities and the Black House itself would later provide a guide for Latine and Asian American students.

Umoja’s position in the planning for Black History Month is important to emphasize because of its role as a safe and educational space. Umoja House has historically been used to celebrate Black culture, but also to create a social area that can be of comfort or safety for students of color on campus. Its commitment to Afro-American History Month only highlights its role in uplifting Black voices at and outside of Trinity. Specifically, at this time - 1982- the programming for the month was usually hosted in the house. As the article title indicated, “Umoja House Highlights Afro-American History,” it was not only a physical space, but one that was relational and relative. Umoja House came alive with the discussion, thoughts, and celebrations in it, as it was lauded as one of the centers that embraced Black history and raised awareness about events that had been historically neglected in history making.

In 1984, Trinity also made a commitment to diversity by appointing Deborah Mohammed as a Minority Affairs Advisor who oversaw the operations of the Umoja House. In fact, there was an interview with her about her plans for Umoja and goals for what it could be in the future. This interview showed how the purpose of the house was defined. Most importantly, goals were ever changing and based on students of color desires and needs.

Not only did Mohammed serve the Black community on Trinity’s campus, but she was also appointed to “reinforce Trinity’s [alleged] commitment to its Black and Latino students” with a focus on Trinity’s lack of development along these lines. Deborah also advocated for students with “academic deficiencies” emphasizing the need to “align [her]self as an advocate for students of color” in hopes of creating a more open and accepting campus.

She also emphasized how Umoja House did not just serve as a space for Black students on campus, but rather a center of “unity” (Umoja meaning) bringing Black students and other students of color together to discuss the pertinent issues they are facing on Trinity’s campus. Umoja House served as a safe haven to many, but also a site of conversation, discussion and change. It held the dreams of what the campus could look like for students of color, at a time where Umoja was the only cultural center at Trinity.

In early May of 1990, as finals were approaching and students enjoyed the last couple of weeks of social life on Vernon St, billiard balls were thrown at the Umoja House. This shattered the first floor windows. The incident marked increased tensions amongst the student body, especially when it was eventually concluded that members of the Crow House were responsible.

This can be read as some pushback on the existence of the houses, but also as a representation of the undeniable anti-black sentiments across campus, especially amidst the increasing desire to diversify as in this context. All of the cultural houses had not yet been established. Students who lived and cared for the houses throughout the school year noted that they felt this was a racially targeted act. Some even voiced concerns about the “emotional damage” done by this act and described it as “extensive.” This made many, particularly Black and Brown students, fear for their safety at Trinity College. In protest to the event, approximately 300 students rallied together in the Cave Patio making their way through the long walk to Umoja House advocating for Black students at Trinity and in colleges across the nation.

In response to a Tripod editorial in 1993, Black, Latino, and Asian American students petitioned, marched, and held a sit-in for two and half hours at a building on campus. During the march, some students carried a Puerto Rican flag and chanted, “Latinos, unidos, jamas seran vencidos.” (Latinos, united, shall no longer be defeated.) Students such as LVL President, Marlon Quintanilla ‘94, Andrew Wang ‘94, President of Asian Students International Association (A.S.I.A.), and Annette Fernandez ‘96, LVL Vice President.

The group had several demands. These students called for less use of media as “an oppressive tool”, more racial diversity of students, staff, faculty, and curriculum, greater support on campus for these groups, keeping an open campus to people in the community, and, "a house for Latin American Students and a separate house for the Asian-American Students within the next twelve months." Importantly, the demands also included a stop to, “treating racism as a Black/White issue” only (authors emphasis). Of particular note, these demands came at roughly the same moment as new ideas for the physical development of new structures on and off campus. These new houses would not open until 2000 at the same moment as the nearby  Learning Corridor  development.

When students returned to campus in September 1997, there was something missing. The Umoja House, formerly the Black House, was not in its location. Students arrived to campus and asked, “Where is the Umoja house?” As students quickly learned, the College moved the house on wheels down the road closer to Broad Street to create space for a new construction and open space. Yndia Lorick ‘99, a former member of the Pan African Alliance and now-named Imani, had her strong opinion. She noted,

“I was told the purpose of moving it was to provide more parking and to allow room for the new center. However, the Umoja house is a center for cultural and racial diversity, and they have secluded it in a remote part of the campus. In my opinion, the administration should have consulted more people before moving such a landmark at Trinity.”

As the Tripod also noted, “Since 1960, the Umoja House is a symbol of integration and cultural growth on the Trinity Campus” as the “oldest” and “most recognized ethnic house on the campus.”* In response, then-President Evan Dobelle stated, “we felt it important to leave the Umoja house on Vernon Street because it would be a celebration for the college. This would still mean moving the house down the road." Dobelle also noted that, “we are spending a significant amount of money to bring it up to code and fix it.”

The plan was to fix the building by November. But as students such as Charity Elder ‘00, the President of Imani, were “forced” to have the group’s first meeting in a lounge in the new Vernon Hall. By Winter 1998 (Jan. 20), the Tripod reported that Umoja house was “settling in.” But this movement of the Umoja house connected to student activism for the College to move forward on existing and new initiatives, including cultural house expansion for Latino and Asian American students.

Just two years later, there was increased concern about priority of diversity from students in the Multicultural Affairs Committee, or MAC. In March 1999, the MAC leadership sent a letter to President Dobelle with concerns about the College’s commitment to multiculturalism. These student leaders included J. Russell Fugett ‘01, Vice President of Multicultural Affairs, Alain Davis ‘02 Vice President of Multicultural Affairs-elect, Afua Atta-Mensah ‘01, Social Chair - Imani (Trinity College Black Students Union).

In particular, there was a delay in hiring a Multicultural Dean, lack of respect/support shown to faculty of color particularly in the hiring process, and lack of multicultural programming as a priority. In addition, there were concerns about retention of students of color, creation of alumni associations for Latino and Asian American students, and the planning to build Cultural Houses for the Asian American Students Association (AASA), LVL, and Hilell. Their concerns were published by the Tripod in April 1999. In addition, other students such as David Kim ‘02 wrote letters of support arguing that “Trinity Gets a “D” in Multiculturalism.” This was a moment of protest that built on the past.

A few days later (4/15/99), students marched to the President’s Office in frustration for lack of progress on these issues. The main issues were lack of speed on the demands listed in their letter to the President. The march began at Umoja House and students of various skin tones marched wearing mostly black attire, signs, and national Puerto Rican and Haitian flags. According to the Tripod, their signs wrote, “words are not enough", "Take action”, and “diversity, not rhetoric.” The protest marked a new phase and key effort in students’ long struggle towards progress. But it was not completely well-received.

Then-President Dobelle did meet with student marchers and argued his case. On the long walk, Dobelle stated, “there is every right for you to protest and I respect it.” But his response was met with skepticism from the students. In addition to these comments, President Dobelle also noted improvement on admissions, financial aid, hiring of the multicultural dean, and diversity hiring of an architectural company of the new cultural houses. He also shared a written response to marching students in the Tripod.

The campus response was mixed. While marchers knew their protest would likely keep going, other students continued a nearby softball game. And other students wrote their concerns in support or opposition to the protestors. For example, just that year, here was a collection of student essays with different responses to the march:

Opinion Writers:

“Mac Protest March Hurt More Than It Helped.” Malalai Wassil, April 20, 1999, p. 3

"Multiculturalism and Professors Run Amok at Trinity," Michael Zimmerman and Wojchiech Priog, April 20, 1999, p. 4

Letters to the Editor:

“The MAC Marchers Missed the Point,” Richard Walker ‘99, April 20, 1999, p. 2

“March Highlighted Problems With Commitment to Diversity,” Edward Hung ‘99, April 20, 1999, p. 5

"President’s Comment Perpetuates ‘Divide and Conquer’ Mentality," Stacey Chen ‘99, April 20, 1999, p. 5

This variety of responses had specific reasons for concern and support of the MAC protestors. Rather than a visibly clearer campus response to protesters in the Civil Rights and Black Power era, campus had a wide spectrum of responses in the 1990s.

By September 2000, many of the demands by the students were met. First, the new cultural houses opened ceremoniously. The celebration included the move of AASA and LVL from a shared building on 114 Crescent Street into these houses located on 66-69 Vernon Street, renovation of the Umoja House, and the next year's plan to build a new Hillel House. Speakers included President Dobelle, Dean of Multicultural Affairs, Karla Spurlock-Evans, CFO Michael West, LVL President Javier Sanchez, Imani President Jamal Lacy ‘03, and Kate Light ‘03, President of Hillel. Of particular note, Henry Zachs ‘56, the project’s benefactor also attended.

There may have been a representative from AASA, but no person in this student group was named by the Tripod. According to the Tripod, “The close proximity of these four houses is designed to enhance the cohesiveness and strength of Trinity’s multicultural community.” As the Dean of Multicultural Affairs noted, the student work to push for these houses supported these student groups and benefited the College more broadly.

"If you are not Black or Latino, or Asian…I encourage you to visit these houses, eat the food, talk to the people.

"Trinity is diverse, the world is diverse. They have realized that the only way to prosper is to embrace this diversity."

"become a more integral part of the multicultural community here on campus.”

"all our students, faculty, staff, and alumni will benefit from these houses."

"we are about the building of buildings, but also about the building of family and community...Trinity has given me a lot, and therefore I want to give back, not only to Hilllel, but to everyone in the city of Hartford.”

Although these major milestones were met, there were new concerns. As Amy Shin wrote just a few years later, multicultural affairs, which included the cultural house support, were both undervalued and underfunded by the broader community. In particular, she noted that the campus community was not outright hostility or discrimination towards people of color. Instead there was a silent, structural inequality including the ways budgets were allotted.

Since their opening, the cultural houses became a safe space for students of color where they could host social gatherings to increase cultural awareness and promote discussions about diversity. Even with all of the important work students were doing at the cultural houses, many students and faculty were concerned that there was a lack of social integration in the campus community between white students and students of color.

In 2004, writer Eileen Flynn reemphasized the importance of the cultural houses’ establishment on campus in response to an existing debate in the campus community about funding across the institution. Many were concerned about how certain organizations, such as the cultural houses, were getting support and why they weren’t being distributed to other areas of programming on campus in need of financial support, such as the Human Rights Program which was in danger of losing their director.

This article explained in detail how each of the houses received funding and included anecdotes from students in MAC organizations about how they have used the cultural houses. Jabeth Ocampo ’05, president of LVL, said that it was a place to learn more about his own culture and it was important to have a place on a predominantly white campus where they can feel like they belong. Priya Kalyan-Masih ’05, president of AASA, said that the organization works to educate students — including non-Asians — about the Asian culture and what it means to be a minority student. In this article, it showed how four years after the houses’ opening, students were pushing to emphasize the openness and accessibility of the houses to all students on campus.

Interestingly, one student wrote an opinion article in the Trinity Tripod titled “Diversity: Mix it Up with Alcohol” about how to solve the problem of lack of integration in the houses. He suggests that by allowing the cultural houses — which were designated as safe spaces, thus prohibiting alcohol — a larger crowd would be attracted to the events hosted at the houses. He writes:

These houses are great venues, and the organizations that use them are organized and active. So what’s the problem? Well, many students and staff have lamented that the houses could be the sites of important interaction between white and non-white students, but for some reason they are not. So what’s the answer? you guessed it: alcohol. Unfortunately, the cultural houses on Vernon St. are drier than chapped lips. No booze, as per Trinity’s rules. You walk into AASA, you might as well be walking into a bar in 1921.

Several questions arise after this student’s opinion article: Was it truly necessary to allow alcohol for the houses to serve its purpose of celebrating culture and stimulating educational discussions? To what extent were students aware of the various events being held at the houses?

Nevertheless, the houses have shown great examples of hosting events with diverse turnouts even without alcohol. In one article, the Asian American Student Association hosted an annual Filipino night on October 2, 2005 where they educated students on Filipino culture through an evening filled with homecooked food, presentations, and activities. Many community members attended, including administrators, AASA members, and students outside of the organization. Angelica Castaneda, a member of AASA, wrote “For a lot of people this was their first encounter with Filipino culture. The night is meant to be an informal introduction to one of many Asian cultures AASA represents on this campus.”

Momo Djebli '25 - During the time at Trinity, Momo participated in American Studies symposiums with a commitment to excavating silenced histories and emphasizing the importance of liberating minoritized peoples from the shackles of racial capitalism and colonialism. Living in Umoja has shaped much of the experience on campus, as Momo has been able to see how the houses are used and what they mean to students of color on this campus. The cultural houses have always been a safe haven for students, but Momo wanted to map out how they have historically represented our struggles but also our resistance to white supremacist hierarchical notions of race. 

Naiya Roe '25 - When Naiya first arrived on campus, she was fortunate to find a welcoming community and safe space in the AASA cultural house. It served as a home away from home where she knew she could always come in whenever she needed comfort. Over the years, it has warmed her heart to see the house used by students for cultural gatherings, AASA e-board bonding retreats, home cooked meals, and more. Naiya joined this project because she was always curious about the history of the houses as she didn’t see much of it documented in the houses themselves aside from old pictures hung up on the wall. Her hope is that by understanding and documenting this history, members of our Trinity College Community can truly realize the importance of the houses to underrepresented students from the past, present, and future.

Robert Cotto, Jr., M'14, Ph.D. - Over the last decade, collaborating with students at the cultural houses has been an important part of my experience at Trinity College. These experiences included La Voz Latina helping students at Hartford Magnet Trinity College Academy (HMTCA) form their own Latine club, students from many groups discussing a domestic diversity course requirement in 2016 (adopted by faculty in 2023), and all the houses hosting Halloween activities for children in the community. In many ways, these houses are key places important to Trinity College and connections to Hartford.

Based on these rich experiences, I was curious to learn more about the stories of how these cultural houses were created at Trinity. This interest was particularly relevant given that the College celebrated its Bicentennial this year (2023). A key point is that these cultural houses were and are part of diverse student efforts to build a more racially and culturally inclusive space and education at the College.

Even after creating this brief history with Momo and Naiya using this StoryMap platform, there is more to learn and build upon from here. As a public historian, Dr. Mary Mahoney notes, digital scholarship is useful in sharing and also editing stories as we learn more.

First, thanks to Momo and Naiya who added their time, research, and experience with the cultural houses to this project. Second, thanks to all the Trinity College team who helped make this work possible. Names are important, so my apologies if I missed anybody. But key people that helped move this project forward are Dr. Mary Mahoney, Erica Crowley, and Cheryl Cape. Also, thanks to the Public Humanities Collaborative team of faculty, including Prof. Hillary Wyss, and community partners, including Logan Singerman. Last, thanks to the people that have provided feedback about this project including Carol Correa de Best, Jared Delane, Karolina Barrientos, and Renita Washington.