Boston Public Schools is facing a federal investigation into its efforts to separate staff into various race-based “affinity groups,” including one group for whites only, which could be a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
BPS’s use of affinity groups to divide employees and individuals based on race may fall under employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, watchdog group Parents Defending Education said in a letter to the Director and Regional Attorney of the Boston Area Office of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) this week. The letter asks the EEOC to investigate whether the district excludes certain races from such groups.
“If a district’s racially-segregated teacher support programs would earn a stamp of approval from the KKK, something has gone terribly wrong — and the fact that no administrators in the district seem to have opposed this programming raises additional red flags,” PDE President Nicki Neily said. “It’s not rocket science: including or excluding public school staff from opportunities on the basis of skin color is wrong.”
PDE pointed to multiple examples of BPS using race-exclusive training guides and curricula. One affinity group, for example, called “White Staff and Parents Challenging Racism,” appears “to be for white people only,” PDE wrote in its letter. In reference to that specific affinity group, one guide instructs participants to “Learn More about Each Other as White People,” which “[indicates] that only one race is allowed in the affinity group,” PDE wrote.
In a public document explaining the “guidelines and best practices” for affinity groups, BPS notes that the groups are foundational for creating “anti-racist department[s] or school[s].” In the guidelines, BPS explains the “value of distinct affinity groups based on racial/ethnic identity.”
“For various reasons (resistance to affinity groups, lack of skilled facilitators, urgency of particular triggering events), a school or department may choose to begin with interracial discussion. However, holding affinity groups early and often will greatly improve the likelihood that later interracial dialogue will be honest, constructive, and effective,” BPS says on the document.
One resource BPS encourages staff to review details “the value of anti-racist affinity groups for White people, and the role of White people in ending racism.” Another promoted resource explains why “people of Color need their own affinity group spaces.” Race-based affinity groups “for people of Color can give participants an opportunity to discuss and build capacity for anti-racist work, deepen their understanding of patterns of White culture, privilege, and supremacy,” the district says.
Affinity groups restricted to white people “are a place for White people to take responsibility for their own learning” and “to face their indoctrination and participation in White supremacy,” BPS says in the guidelines.
If staff are interested in interracial conversations or community meetings, BPS advises employees to have in the meetings “two co-facilitators who represent two of the largest demographic groups represented in the meeting. The co-facilitators should consciously plan the roles each will take during the meeting. For example, sometimes it is helpful if a White facilitator steps in if a White participant goes off track.” BPS also warns staff to “ensure that none of the participants, particularly White participants, dominate the conversation.”
PDE first discovered BPS’s promotion of affinity groups years ago, when the district launched and expanded its effort to create “anti-racist” spaces. The groups send a “detrimental message that students, faculty, etc, process events differently on the basis of race,” Neily said at the time.
BPS said in a statement to Fox News that affinity group membership is “voluntary and anyone is able to participate” and added that “any complaint received is thoroughly reviewed and investigated in accordance with our established procedures and in compliance with applicable laws.”