Call Racial “Affinity Groups” What They Are: Segregation

Image from Society for Human Resource Management

Segregation has a new brand name: racial “affinity groups.” Race-based “affinity groups” have exploded in prevalence across the United States over the last few years, moving from workplaces into schools, religious congregations, and other organizations all across the country. Affinity groups can also be organized around other identity categories such as gender, sexuality, disability, and religion, but affinity groups were first created around racial identity.

In 1969, Xerox employees based in San Francisco launched the Bay Area Black Employees (BABE) caucus, the first known workplace affinity group ("caucus," "employee resource group," and "affinity group," are all terms that have been used to describe the same idea).  Overall, Xerox's chairman at the time, Joseph C. Wilson, was an important leader in driving workplace integration. He reacted to race riots in the 1960's with a mission to increase integration and hire African-Americans who had previously been denied employment opportunities, and took numerous concrete actions to do so.

However, as has happened on numerous occasions to other well-intentioned leaders (including in response to other 1960’s race-riots), Wilson chose to take advice not just from integration-oriented civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King Jr., but from the Black Power activists responsible for the riots. Wilson enlisted the counsel of a group called “F.I.G.H.T.” While much of F.I.G.H.T.’s activism was productive and aimed at pushing back on genuine and oppressive racism, it was also a “decidedly militant” organization that “alienated much of the black middle class” and worked closely with the explicitly anti-integrationist founder of the Black Power movement, Stokely Carmichael.

Today, more than 50 years later, affinity groups have spread to 90% of Fortune 500 companies. These companies sometimes claim that racial affinity groups help foster communication and help bring new ideas to leadership. Corporations also point out that membership in racial affinity groups is usually voluntary, and therefore it cannot be a form of racial discrimination as banned under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

However, despite these claimed positives, many corporations have also found that affinity groups polarize employees, and many people of color are reluctant to join such groups for “fear of being reduced to their racial identity.” Even when they are organized and advertised as voluntary, the social pressures on individuals to join racial affinity groups are substantial. And although some data supports companies’ intuitions that affinity groups are helpful idea generators, these positive results may be better explained by the existence of a group creating increased discussion time, rather than the racial makeup of that group.

With affinity groups’ recent spread throughout K-12 schools, higher education, religious groups, and many other key institutions throughout our society, we face an even worse danger. While businesses are beholden to the profit motive, schools and other non-profit institutions are not. This creates more opportunities for affinity groups in non-profit institutions to advance a fanatical ideology, since organizational leadership doesn't need to worry, as businesses do, about the possibility that a Marxist ideological agenda would compromise their ability to operate in a financially viable manner.

Advocates of racial affinity groups claim they are not racist or segregationist, but do so while practicing racial segregation and making explicitly racist claims. For example, Truss Leadership, a so-called “racial equity” consulting group that works with numerous school districts, declares that “Racial Affinity Groups are NOT … Racist or segregationist,” but also says they are a place where white people can “reckon with their Whiteness” and non-white people can “take care of themselves and one another…in the absence of Whiteness.”

FAIR ally Ye Zhang Pogue has written beautifully for this Substack on how affinity groups in schools can harm our society by needlessly pitting people against each other along racial lines. What advocates of affinity groups often ignore is how prejudice and discrimination is often caused by diminished contact between groups, and can be overcome by increasing that contact and having group members work cooperatively instead of separately (one of psychologist Gordon Allport’s four conditions for reducing racial prejudice). This insight into the power of contact is the same idea that has driven FAIR Senior Fellow Daryl Davis’s pioneering efforts to get Klan members and neo-Nazis to give up their lives of hate.

Even racial affinity groups' most extreme and vocal advocates have acknowledged that “Caucusing can generate anxiety even at a visceral level for some. For people of color, history has shown that real harm can come from spaces exclusively reserved for white people. … People of color may also experience racial anxiety and stereotype threat, the fear of being viewed through societal stereotype ‘lenses’ by white colleagues and supervisors.” These are not ungrounded fears. Corporations seeking to pursue effective anti-racist strategies would do well to remember the horrors of the interoffice segregation of America’s past.

Segregation in the form of racial affinity groups today is disturbingly similar in concept to the separate bathrooms, water fountains, bus sections, and other spaces in generations past. Then as now, we ought to remember the worldchanging verdict from Brown v. Board of Education, that “Separate [is] inherently unequal.” As Supreme Court Chief Justice Fred M. Vincent explained in the Court’s also unanimous decision for McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, which was cited in Brown v. Board of Education, “To separate [children] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their-hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.”

The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism or its employees.

In keeping with our mission to promote a common culture of fairness, understanding, and humanity, we are committed to including a diversity of voices and encouraging compassionate and good-faith discourse.

We are actively seeking other perspectives on this topic and others. If you’d like to join the conversation, please send drafts to submissions@fairforall.org.