White Affinity: A Good Idea if Executed Correctly

By CHRISTIAN WESTPHAL ‘21

Milton prides itself on its diversity. Granted, 44% students of color is a pretty impressive number when compared to most other prep schools nationwide. Throughout the entire nation, students of color make up only 32% of all private school students (according to the Human Rights Project at UCLA). The incorporation of all these cultures, races, languages, and nationalities often requires significant involvement from school administrators – after all, trying to foster an accepting and functional community is not an easy task when everyone has a different experience.

 For a very long time, a key part of Milton’s strategy had been the transitions program, where students of color and international students came together a week before the official start of school and participated in multiple team building exercise. It wasn’t long, however, until people began to notice an unintended consequence: those who participated in this program tended to hang out exclusively with each other. Unsurprisingly, the freshmen coming in on the first day of school would feel excluded from the friend groups that had already been formed a week prior. To address this pattern, the Transitions Program decided to go in a new direction: last year, the faculty required all new students to attend. Personally, I thought this decision was great-- it allowed all students to gather together and have meaningful conversations about diversity, inclusion, and other related topics. In order to have an understanding community that incorporates so many different individuals, every student needs to reflect on and openly discuss identity. I am really happy that the new transitions program has been able to more effectively address this goal. 

However, I was a bit worried when I heard about the new white affinity group during last week’s Tuesday assembly. Is this new white affinity getting too close to the far-right? Is the OMCD taking these inclusion initiatives too far? But the more time I spent researching, the more I agreed with educational researcher Justin Cohen. In a 2016 article, he argued that white affinity groups may not be such a bad idea: he believes that “white people have so little experience discussing race, relative to their colleagues of color, that they need something akin to a remedial course.” The organization Racial Equality Tools provides even more insight: “a [white affinity group] provides time and space to work explicitly and intentionally on understanding white culture and white privilege and to increase critical analysis around these concepts.” It makes sense. White people shouldn’t rely on people of color to constantly teach them-- we need to make these connections and realizations ourselves. 

It goes without saying, however, that all these benefits come only if these groups are managed well, and we need to be careful with such a sensitive venture. My hope is that this space accomplishes what it was designed to do-- to help white people reflect on their privilege and catch up-- and that it doesn’t lead our school down another dark hole.