Should schools scrap diversity targets ?

[Anonymous]

By design co-ed schools try to have gender parity which is good. Now, my question is if they should continue to have some race targets. What I see is that in private schools they want to accept racially diverse students, but income wise very homegenous families. It is ok to keep this approach? Is it fair? Just basic questions since dc is so diverse and there are so many schools, not sure schools really need affirmative action. Moreover many times the non-white recruitment is highly discrecional. For some schools mean admitting more African Americans and for others more Asians. But is not clear that this is a fair or inclusive system at all since the admissions are highly dependent on the income of the parents.

[Anonymous]

It’s worth clarifying a few things here. Co-ed schools do indeed aim for gender parity, but the analogy to race and income isn’t as straightforward. Independent schools in the D.C. region (and nationally) have long faced a dual challenge: increasing racial and ethnic diversity and expanding socioeconomic access. Research shows that without intentional efforts, diversity by race often becomes concentrated among families of similar, affluent income brackets—precisely what you’re observing.

The policy question isn’t whether “affirmative action” is necessary in private schools—it’s whether schools that claim to value diversity are structuring admissions and financial aid in ways that align with that goal. Nationally, private schools rely heavily on tuition-driven models, which creates a structural bias toward higher-income families, regardless of race. Simply enrolling a racially diverse but economically homogenous student body risks creating what scholars sometimes call “cosmetic diversity”: visible variation without the deeper benefits of class, cultural, and life-experience diversity.

You raise an important point about discretion. Schools do exercise latitude in how they recruit—sometimes emphasizing African American representation, sometimes Asian, sometimes Latino. That variation reflects institutional histories, donor influence, and local demographics, but it does underscore the lack of a transparent or standardized approach. In other words, what you call “discretion” is a byproduct of each school navigating competing priorities—mission, market pressures, and financial sustainability.

So the fairer framing might not be: “Should private schools stop using race as a factor?” but rather: “How can private schools ensure that racial diversity initiatives are coupled with genuine socioeconomic diversity, so that these institutions mirror the broader community more closely?” From a research perspective, we know that students benefit—academically, socially, and civically—when schools achieve both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s worth clarifying a few things here. Co-ed schools do indeed aim for gender parity, but the analogy to race and income isn’t as straightforward. Independent schools in the D.C. region (and nationally) have long faced a dual challenge: increasing racial and ethnic diversity and expanding socioeconomic access. Research shows that without intentional efforts, diversity by race often becomes concentrated among families of similar, affluent income brackets—precisely what you’re observing.

The policy question isn’t whether “affirmative action” is necessary in private schools—it’s whether schools that claim to value diversity are structuring admissions and financial aid in ways that align with that goal. Nationally, private schools rely heavily on tuition-driven models, which creates a structural bias toward higher-income families, regardless of race. Simply enrolling a racially diverse but economically homogenous student body risks creating what scholars sometimes call “cosmetic diversity”: visible variation without the deeper benefits of class, cultural, and life-experience diversity.

You raise an important point about discretion. Schools do exercise latitude in how they recruit—sometimes emphasizing African American representation, sometimes Asian, sometimes Latino. That variation reflects institutional histories, donor influence, and local demographics, but it does underscore the lack of a transparent or standardized approach. In other words, what you call “discretion” is a byproduct of each school navigating competing priorities—mission, market pressures, and financial sustainability.

So the fairer framing might not be: “Should private schools stop using race as a factor?” but rather: “How can private schools ensure that racial diversity initiatives are coupled with genuine socioeconomic diversity, so that these institutions mirror the broader community more closely?” From a research perspective, we know that students benefit—academically, socially, and civically—when schools achieve both.

Agree 👏. Schools should promote opportunities for capable low income kids. Just admitting non-white upper income families doesn’t mechanically implies a diverse school. It’s more of a “cosmetic”!diversity as you mentioned.

[Anonymous]

You are assuming that these schools actually do want any kind of diversity beyond the cosmetic.

[Anonymous]

"Affirmative action”? I think it was our current president who once said "don’t worry about what someone else is getting, focus on what you are getting”.
If you just don’t want to be around blacks and Latinos, there are local schools that don’t have much of either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Affirmative action”? I think it was our current president who once said "don’t worry about what someone else is getting, focus on what you are getting”.
If you just don’t want to be around blacks and Latinos, there are local schools that don’t have much of either.

I am black and Latino. Just see the diversity as a way for the Rich to get a free pass on the admissions to competitive schools.