The Issue with Affinity Groups

My first experience with affinity groups was when I was a corp member in Teach For America. I was told that we would separate into groups according to our shared racial identity.

This immediately confused me.

Growing up in NYC, I grew up surrounded by Latinos of all different countries and cultures. And while there certainly was a camaraderie between Latinos, there was also a distinct separation.To be frank, Latinos have elements of in-group fighting that stem from problematic colorist and neo-colonialist views. For example, Puerto Ricans are taught that Dominicans and Puerto Ricans quarrel due to our native history where native Dominicans would capture and cannibalize Puerto Ricans. This explanation is of course false. What is far more likely is that the Dominican Republic’s close vicinity to Haiti and higher concentration of Afro-Latino heritage has made it easy for Puerto Ricans (and others) to be discriminatory both in a colorist colonial society and in a racist American society (one might argue this is simple nationalism, while nationalism may contribute, Puerto Ricans do not share the same animosity for other Latinos).

An affinity group, while potentially helpful could perpetuate the same colorist and euro-centric bias that exists by making those problematic views a necessary status quo in the fight against white supremacy.

This bias is silenced by calls to “handle things behind closed doors.” But they never are. Instead we regurgitate the same colonialism, euro centric views about our community and any attempt to challenge it is considered a threat to unity. For example, the myth that “Colombians speak the best Spanish” is really just a regurgitation of the belief that people who speak Spanish that is close to Spaniard or Castellano Spanish it is somehow “better.”

While such an example may seem benign, when the very same group control serious matters it becomes point of concern. In Law school, affinity groups are often used as proxies to distribute resources to students of a particular race. You want to get a mentor? Do it through your affinity group. Firm dinners that help you network? Affinity specific ones are best. When you’re accepted to a firm, one of the first questions you’re asked is whether you want to participate in an affinity group. It’s become standard procedure to let affinity groups be the primary support system for minorities.

And that’s fine when you are in the dominant group in the affinity group. Not so much when you do not fit in.

For example, at Columbia Law School unsurprisingly many of the admitted students, including the minority students come from middle class backgrounds. Their parents have stable jobs or advanced degrees. In comparison, my family has fought for the stability we have. My parents were high school drop outs who clawed their way into the American middle class. I grew up with my feet in two worlds.

But socioeconomic status isn’t where it stops. Being Puerto Rican, I was part of a distinct minority in my 1L Latino class. The class was primarily comprised of Mexican or Central American students who shared far more cultural capital with each other than with me.

And that’s where affinity groups become a problem. No one intentionally acts in a bias manner, but when the needs of the group are dictated by the happenstance of a majority, then the notion of the Latino Affinity group serving Latinos may actually become Latino affinity groups serving some Latinos more than others.

I was blessed that my affinity group tried hard to fight against this bias. They tried their hardest to be inclusive and I never felt that life altering resources (i.e. access to networking opportunities, etc.) were unfairly distributed according to bias.

But we cannot count on blessings. Affinity groups are great and they should continue as conduits of support for minority students, but when they become the primary pillar of support we start to run into the issue of who watches the watchers. Who is making sure that the resources handed to affinity groups are being distributed in an equitable and unbiased manner?

Universities and organizations should make it so that affinity groups are not the primary source of support for minorities. Multiple sources of support should wrap around students of all identities to help serve their multi faceted needs. At the very least universities should not be afraid to question whether resources are being distributed equally.

In the meantime, affinity groups have a duty to constantly ask: who are we missing? Whose voice is being ignored and whose voice is taking up too much space? Specifically Latino affinity groups need to wrestle with the effects of colonialism and colorism and question why some Latinos tend to do much better than others. These questions should not weaken unity, but strengthen it. Without asking these questions, affinity groups become hollow institutions that serve to propagate particular iterations of minority culture that are aligned with a white supremacist, euro-centric status quo.