Separating students into racial “affinity” groups is increasingly popular, writes Rick Hess of the American Enterprise in Education Week. But there’s no evidence it benefits students or school communities.

When Madison West High School in Wisconsin hosted segregated discussions for students and parents, “experts” called it a “a well established method,” writes Hess.

Wellesley (Massachusetts) public schools hosted a “Healing Space for Asian and Asian American students and others in the BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color) community” this spring, explaining the “safe space” was “*not* for students who identify only as White.” In response to parents’ concerns, school officials asserted that “affinity spaces are not discriminatory” and that hosting spaces is part of a long-term, evidence-based district strategy.”

Hess found only five articles that discuss the benefits of segregated affinity spaces.

The only article that even claims to review the research literature was a 2012 “online submission” to the Education Resources Information Center by Lindsay L. Schrader and K. C. Holder, in which they make the case for “formal affinity groups” and insist that “these groups have shown again and again to be a powerful investment for students of color.” Yet, of the 17 citations, just one supposedly justifies this strong claim. And that citation, “Batiste, G. (2006),” turns out not to be a study or report at all, but a data-free National Association of Independent Schools (NAIS) PowerPoint presentation sharing the “NAIS perspective” on affinity spaces.

The rest  provide no evidence of benefits, writes Hess. At most, they show that people who create and lead affinity groups believe they’re a good thing.

. . . Ryan Kimmet’s 2021 University of Pennsylvania dissertation on “student perceptions of white racial affinity groups,” raised some red flags. Kimmet reported that, while students found value in discussing issues of race, they made clear “that the spaces created for affinity groups were not, in fact, safe spaces.” He observed, “There were strongly negative social repercussions for making comments that the majority of students viewed as out of line with the majority’s way of thinking.”

It’s possible that segregated affinity groups are useful for minority students. And maybe for majority students. But we don’t know if that’s so and under what conditions.

In 2016, Karina Polanco, a Dominican-American at Columbia University, wrote about the limits of racial affinity groups in the Columbia Spectator.