On Race & Affinity Groups
By: Safira Schiowitz
It is necessary to begin this article with some personal and familial history. Family history is often reduced to sparse bullet points to spare survey-readers the tedious and ostensibly redundant details that make us who we are, so that is what I will list for you now. I will do so with as little literary adornment as the creative part of my brain will allow.
I am multiracial. My maternal grandmother and her family are Mexican. My maternal grandfather and his family are Haitian (with Afro-Caribbean, French and English descendants). My paternal grandmother is English and non-secularly Jewish. My paternal grandfather was a first generation American of Romanian and Jewish descent.
My mother has the phenotypic characteristics of a light-skinned Black woman. My father has the characteristics of a white man.
The Academy recently sent an email announcing the creation of affinity groups for Exeter families. I realize that these affinity groups have been organized with all the best intentions in the world. But my parents found themselves wondering which affinity group they would fit into as a mixed-race couple with a multiracial daughter. At the bottom of the email, in italics, it stated:
Affinity groups provide opportunities for learning, fellowship, and support among members who share cultural experiences. You know you are in the right affinity group if you can say unequivocally, “I am __________” and speak to that group’s collective identity and experience from the “I” and “we” perspective.
My parents want the opportunity to bond with their fellow Exeter parents and families. The existence of affinity groups is contrary to their desires. Could my father go to the “Families of Latinx Students Gathering” as a white man who technically does not himself “share cultural experiences” with Latinx families? Can my mother go to the “Families of African-American/Black Students Gathering” if her identity consists of more than an Afro-Caribbean lineage?
I do not identify as one part of my identity or the other, since solely acknowledging one facet of myself means ignoring the others. This would not be a complete representation of what makes me who I am.
Identity is strange. Humans have been trying to find it for some time. We have come to understand that gender and sexuality are fluid and changeable identities. So then why is race largely considered an identity set in stone?
The definition of the word “race” is quite interesting. As Exonians strive to be anti-racist, I think this definition is important to mull over.
Google provides us with different contexts in which the word “race” can be used. The following is the most relevant definition for the sake of this article: It states that race is “each of the major groupings into which humankind is considered (in various theories or contexts) to be divided on the basis of physical characteristics or shared ancestry.”
What fascinatingly open-ended wording. It makes a powerful clarification, however—races are the major groupings of humanity considered in various theories or contexts. What does this mean? That the definition of race is subjective. That it is based on opinion. That it is based on the situation in which it is being used, is relative, and therefore is very much changeable and just as fluid as any other human classification.
The Exeter community has already been exposed to this concept. During this past week’s assembly, Dr. Anthony Ocampo discussed the correlation between perception and cultural identity. One person may consider someone from the Philippines to be a person whose racial identity is Asian, whereas others feel that a person of Chinese or Japanese descent is ‘more Asian’ because of their appearance. This example highlights something crucial: race is in the eye of the beholder.
In a different Assembly, Denise and Paul Pouliot discussed their activism and the history of their Native American tribe, the Abenaki. A question which arose during the Q & A asked “As white-passing indigenous people, what has been your experience with race?” The couple explained that there are many indigenous people—in the United States and in other parts of the world—who, when walking down the street, may look like any other group of white people. As I wrote before, race is in the eye of the beholder.
It has also been scientifically and sociologically proven that race is a social and political construct, and that its biological veracity extends only to its being related to evolution—how our ancestors developed certain features to survive in certain environments. It has nothing to do with differences in DNA structure since we are all part of the same species. It has nothing to do with a genetic reason for how a person behaves, their intelligence level, athletic prowess, et cetera.
The fact is, every single person in this world is different, and that is the most important and beautiful similarity between us. Forming a connection with someone based on race does not make sense to me for the reasons described above, but forming a connection based on shared interests, personalities, and a desire to get to know one’s peers as people does.
Thus arises another question: Why do racial affinity groups exist if there really is no such thing as race? People of color experience racism in similar forms, and people from similar backgrounds may want to connect over this fact, but a Black student and an Asian student can bond for the same reasons and may end up learning more from each other than if they remained in separated circles of people.
Exonians come to Exeter for the academic rigor, for the wonderful resources, for the fantastic teachers. But most of all, we come to intermingle with people from different backgrounds. If this is the case, why self-separate into affinity groups? It is my belief that Exeter is one large affinity group. An affinity group for people who are caring, empathetic, intelligent individuals who are willing to learn from their mistakes and who, when united, can make extraordinary things happen.
Dr. Roxane Gay suggested that all affinity groups come together on a regular basis to discuss similar problems that need solving. I cannot express how strong a proponent of this I am. The conversation must be broadened. I believe that by focussing on all our similarities, positive and negative, we will have far more success in being truly anti-racist.
There are so many possible subdivisions and sub-categorizations that can be made within racial groups that at some point it must become arbitrary to make them. People who are racist and who have such hate in their hearts will end up getting their way if we continue to voluntarily divide ourselves. Such an approach to affinity groups is not creating communities. It is dividing one that is already so welcoming and inclusive.
Any discussion around identity comes down to one thing: all lives matter. Though the white supremacists say it out of spite, hatred and ignorance, I mean it literally. All lives matter. Every race, color and creed under the sun matters. We must focus on this fact.
Members of the Exeter community must think long and hard about how they define race and how others around them define race. We must consider for what purpose do affinity groups exist and whether or not they achieve that goal. Our current approach, I argue, does not do so. Dividing ourselves into affinity groups is counterproductive to creating community because when you do not fit exactly into one group, you don’t belong. We must recognize the challenge affinity groups present toward creating a campus culture which celebrates difference and act accordingly.
