Should schools scrap diversity targets ?

[Anonymous]

The groups that have benefited the most from Affirmative Action after white females are mixed race kids and foreign blacks or a combination of both. And they usually pay full tuition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Cosmetic diversity is still valuable because even rich PoC in the U.S. have to consider and live with issues that white people don't.
Promoting friendships and maybe even facilitating interracial dating in elite schools is socially valuable because people in power extrapolate based on who they know and what feels normal to them.

My family is moving from a 100% white family to a biracial family because of diversity in elite institutions. I think this is healthy for America. There's no clearer sign to me of lessened racism than welcoming people into your family.

There is a reason why many students give lip service to the idea of attending a school that welcomes diversity. At the core is a hope for a more just and inclusive society. That hope might be naive but is better than a neutral stance in my opinion. Also many people genuinely enjoy studying with people who have different backgrounds. There is a lot of nastiness about international students right now but I have definitely enjoyed studying and working alongside people from different countries and I have sought that out.

Good rationalization for these schools pursuing diversity that is merely cosmetic. With that as cover, they can claim to be progressive while perpetuating the haves-havenots status quo and giving their families what they really want.

[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.

Wait - are we really having a convo with a chat bot generated response? It's getting a little creepy around here.

[Anonymous]

If you want to admit more black kids legally, just have quotas for PGC and certain areas of DC where there are practically no white people. Sure, you might miss out on black doctors' kids from Northwest who have been the primary target of affirmative action so far, and you might get the occasional Central American or Afghan refugee instead of a black kid, but it fulfills the supposed goal on balance, so why are not all progressive privates doing this now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you want to admit more black kids legally, just have quotas for PGC and certain areas of DC where there are practically no white people. Sure, you might miss out on black doctors' kids from Northwest who have been the primary target of affirmative action so far, and you might get the occasional Central American or Afghan refugee instead of a black kid, but it fulfills the supposed goal on balance, so why are not all progressive privates doing this now?

Because not everyone is clamoring to attend private school. When it comes to life, some people have more pressing matters than going to a fancy pants school.

Do you really think a refugee knows or even cares about the difference between a public school, charter school, private school or parochial school?

These are really cashmere problems.

And also, nobody cares about any of this private school business once you leave the confines of the DMV.

Most of these private school kids will have bosses who went to state school anyways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Most of these private school kids will have bosses who went to state school anyways.

And most will have been taught at their elite private schools by teachers who were educated in a public school system.

[Anonymous]

As a non-white parent of a white kid I do prefer the complete elimination of race quotas in school admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a non-white parent of a white kid I do prefer the complete elimination of race quotas in school admissions.

As a non-white parent of a white kid you should be pleased to know that there were no racial quotas in school admissions since at least the 70s.

Back when the private schools were integrating the mandate was to have not one but two black children per class.

One to desegregate and another so that the first would have someone to socialize with as to not disrupt the white social order of the day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want to admit more black kids legally, just have quotas for PGC and certain areas of DC where there are practically no white people. Sure, you might miss out on black doctors' kids from Northwest who have been the primary target of affirmative action so far, and you might get the occasional Central American or Afghan refugee instead of a black kid, but it fulfills the supposed goal on balance, so why are not all progressive privates doing this now?

Because not everyone is clamoring to attend private school. When it comes to life, some people have more pressing matters than going to a fancy pants school.

Do you really think a refugee knows or even cares about the difference between a public school, charter school, private school or parochial school?

These are really cashmere problems.

And also, nobody cares about any of this private school business once you leave the confines of the DMV.

Most of these private school kids will have bosses who went to state school anyways.

What a weird post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want to admit more black kids legally, just have quotas for PGC and certain areas of DC where there are practically no white people. Sure, you might miss out on black doctors' kids from Northwest who have been the primary target of affirmative action so far, and you might get the occasional Central American or Afghan refugee instead of a black kid, but it fulfills the supposed goal on balance, so why are not all progressive privates doing this now?

Because not everyone is clamoring to attend private school. When it comes to life, some people have more pressing matters than going to a fancy pants school.

Do you really think a refugee knows or even cares about the difference between a public school, charter school, private school or parochial school?

These are really cashmere problems.

And also, nobody cares about any of this private school business once you leave the confines of the DMV.

Most of these private school kids will have bosses who went to state school anyways.

What a weird post.

What a weird reply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Cosmetic diversity is still valuable because even rich PoC in the U.S. have to consider and live with issues that white people don't.
Promoting friendships and maybe even facilitating interracial dating in elite schools is socially valuable because people in power extrapolate based on who they know and what feels normal to them.

My family is moving from a 100% white family to a biracial family because of diversity in elite institutions. I think this is healthy for America. There's no clearer sign to me of lessened racism than welcoming people into your family.

There is a reason why many students give lip service to the idea of attending a school that welcomes diversity. At the core is a hope for a more just and inclusive society. That hope might be naive but is better than a neutral stance in my opinion. Also many people genuinely enjoy studying with people who have different backgrounds. There is a lot of nastiness about international students right now but I have definitely enjoyed studying and working alongside people from different countries and I have sought that out.

Good rationalization for these schools pursuing diversity that is merely cosmetic. With that as cover, they can claim to be progressive while perpetuating the haves-havenots status quo and giving their families what they really want.

My point is that it's better than nothing. It's not a rationalization in my personal life because my kids go to public school in a middle income town. However my family has pursued higher education at schools (Ivies, etc.) that have been focusing on diversity in various ways for a long time. I believe it matters. Any effort is better than unconcern.

[Anonymous]

Why should we pay your kid’s bills for you, their tuition, just for socioeconomic diversity? That is not worth paying for.

There is already a wide range of financial diversity among full pay families.

[Anonymous]

the conversation never comes down to "one rich white family compared to a rich asian family" but rather the admissions directors have to weave together a class/grade of kids who have gender and racial attributes, but also kids with different strengths and weaknesses, different learning styles and who contribute something to the community in the form of the arts, sports etc.

So there are a myriad of factors and just basing a decision on race is simply too myopic.