Traditional desegregation policies have improved but not fully solved the problems associated with the reproduction of inequalities and interracial prejudice in schools. This is partly because social networks are inherently segregated within integrated schools and the benefits of contact have not fully materialized. Therefore, new kinds of policies are needed to further improve the situation. This paper investigates the consequences and efficiency of seating arrangements on academic outcomes and prejudice using an agent-based model that reflects real-life asymmetries. We model interpersonal dynamics and study behavior in the classroomin the hypothetical case of a single teacher who defines students’ seating arrangements. The model incorporates the mechanisms of peer influence on study behavior, on attitude formation, and homophilous selection in order to depict the interrelated dynamics of networks, behavior, and attitudes. We compare various seating arrangement scenarios and observe how GPA distribution and level of prejudice changes over time. Results highlight the advantages and disadvantages of seating strategies. In general, more heterogeneous deskmate pairs lead to a lower level of inequality and prejudice in the classroom, but this strategy does not favor talent management. Further, we evaluate outcomes compared to the absence of external intervention whereby students choose their own deskmates based on homophilous selection. Our model takes into account the fact that homophilous selection may be distorted due to the ‘Acting White’ phenomenon and pre-existing prejudice. Accounting for these factors implies slower convergence between advantaged and disadvantaged students.

中文翻译：

---

通过座位分配在学校中进行关系整合

传统的种族隔离政策已得到改善，但并未完全解决与学校中的不平等现象和种族偏见相关的问题。部分原因是社交网络固有地隔离在综合学校中，并且联系的好处尚未完全实现。因此，需要新的政策来进一步改善这种状况。本文使用反映现实生活中的不对称现象的基于主体的模型，研究了座位安排对学术成果和偏见的影响和效率。我们在教室中模拟人际互动和学习行为，以假设单个案例定义学生座位安排的情况为例。该模型整合了同伴影响学习行为，态度形成，和同质选择，以描绘网络，行为和态度的相互关联的动态。我们比较了各种座位安排情况，并观察了GPA分布和偏见程度随时间变化的情况。结果突出显示了座位策略的优缺点。通常，更多异类的同伴对导致教室中的不平等和偏见程度降低，但是这种策略不利于人才管理。此外，与没有外部干预的情况相比，我们评估结果，而外部干预是根据同质选择来选择自己的同桌同学。我们的模型考虑了以下事实：由于“代理白人”现象和预先存在的偏见，同质选择可能会失真。