In 1995, the members of the BSU at College of the Holy Cross were livid when the student government found a clause, in their constitution requiring elected officials to be “of African decent,” discriminatory. Administration, as well as members of the group, argued that a group like the BSU has to have black leadership, and college officials overruled the student government’s assessment. To many, this decision may sound contradictory to the purpose of a Black Student Union. On our college Web site, for instance, the mission statement of the BSU states that the group’s purpose is “ to serve as a resource mechanism to foster social, political, cultural, and intellectual development of black students…the BSU seeks to engage all students that are dedicated to the above stated mission.” If the group is open to admitting students of all races, why then is the number of white students who participate in the BSU infinitesimally small, and why do the black members of BSU seem to associate solely with one another? By the definition of BSU given on the school Web site, the College should be questioning the validity of BSU on campus, and students should have the right to be upset that they are left out in defiance of the BSU’s stated mission.
The discrepancy lies in the difference between the definition of affinity groups on college campuses today, and the definition of affinity groups at their inception. College affinity groups in the United States started in the 1960’s as generally small, left wing organizations of political activists working together on direct action against racial discrimination on college campuses. Although some of these groups had open membership, most were very selective or closed. In the 1970s, affinity groups became more prevalent at schools across the country, organized tightly around a common interest or religion, racial, or gender background. The original intent of affinity groups was not to be inclusive—as suggested by our BSU and the student government of the College of the Holy Cross—but to be exclusive. As defined historically, it doesn’t matter who is included in the club; as long as BSU harbors a safe place for black students, it is doing its job.
So how did affinity groups end up with two definitions? In 1996, the year after the College of the Holy Cross case, the Supreme Court case Grutter v. Bollinger upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School. With diversity now eminently acceptable and encouraged as an admissions policy for the nation’s post-secondary institutions, these institutions felt pressed to advertise diversity and multiplicity amongst student-run clubs and organizations. Affinity groups, as widely accepted representatives of racial minorities on campus, became counted on to serve as a bridge between minority students and colleges’ white populations.
Contrary to what seems to have happened, the original form and definition of affinity groups from the 1960’s does not need to change, even if colleges and universities would like affinity groups to pursue inclusion. When these groups are advertised as inclusive, it causes other students to be disappointed and resentful when they prove to be more exclusive in practice. The truth is, even if BSU or any other group is exclusive, it does not mean that it is not serving a valuable purpose in the community. These groups provide comfort to minority students, a safe haven in a racially charged world, and because they have these affinity groups to fall back on, minority students are better equipped to be part of a diverse college. community.