By Zachary Burd ‘19, Editor-in-Chief

The Newark Academy website features a new statistic, simple but profound, for the 2018-2019 school year: “Students of color represent 50% of the student population.”

Wedged between boasts about the new middle school and the seniors’ performance on the PSAT, this type of statistic is a familiar sight for those who have spent any time perusing colleges’ websites. Many of the most selective colleges and universities have recently set (and for the most part, achieved) their goal of having people of color—generally defined as anyone who is not of white and/or of European descent—constitute larger percentages of their student bodies.

Over the past 5 years, in response to the administration pursuing new diversity initiatives, the ethnic makeup of Newark Academy has changed in interesting ways. The Caucasian student population has trended downwards until it finally became a plurality, rather than an outright majority, this school year. Yet the Middle Eastern, Native American, and Pacific Islander populations have never eclipsed 1% of the student body, while other larger minority populations, such as the African-American and Latino/Hispanic populations, have shown only tepid gains.

The Asian population is the only student minority group that has grown significantly, with a 5% greater percentage of the student body over the first two years of the new diversity targets. This is in contrast with the 10% decrease in the Caucasian percentage in the past 5 years.

While surpassing the 50% mark of students of color may seem like a milestone in achieving Newark Academy’s stated goal of welcoming and celebrating diversity, the statistic tells the world, “we are 50% diverse.” That conclusion may seem self-evident, but as the gap between the Caucasian majority and the largest minority narrows, are we doing the best possible job at achieving greater diversity in the student body?

Say there’s a hypothetical private school, imbued with the same commitment to community diversity as Newark Academy, that consists solely of two ethnic groups, the Pinks and the Blues. The Pinks comprise 51% of the student body, and the Blues 49%.

After extensive discussion, the administration decides that they want to promote greater ethnic diversity in the school, and they consider admitting more minority Blue students. But the potential diversity value of increasing the minority population from 49% to 50% is little to none. Although every student (whether they represent a majority or minority group) brings something unique to the community, the differing cultural backgrounds that the school seeks by increasing diversity are mostly fulfilled by the other 49% of students in the same Blue minority group. In many ways, it would be a replacement of the current Pink majority with a Blue one, which does not reap greater benefits of diversity than before, even if the Pinks are the local or national ethnic majority.

But if a third ethnic group, the Greens, are brought into the school, the community would of course benefit from new, diverse perspectives in both social and academic situations. But one Green student would not make meaningful progress towards constructing the student-colored rainbow that the diversity initiatives aim to achieve. There needs to be significant representation of an ethnic minority for progress to be attained, with the more new perspectives the better (within reason).

Newark Academy has 6 ethnic groups represented in the student body, not including multiracial or undeclared/other. Of course I’m not suggesting that we move towards a quota system, with a little under 17% of the student body allocated to each of those 6 ethnic groups. That’s inflexible, unfair, and frankly, ridiculous. I’m saying that the 50% students of color statistic, although commendable, is the wrong mindset in which to think about diversity in an educational setting.

To fully achieve diversity, we need diversity of diversity, or as I call it, diversity squared. By that I mean we need more equal representation of different cultures and ethnicities to be able to call ourselves a 50% diverse community. If 40% of the student body is one minority group, that does not best accomplish diversity. Instead, it establishes a system with 2 large ethnic groups, which does not offer the same diversity value as several numerically-balanced minorities. If hypothetically that minority group was the only one represented at the school, we could not call ourselves 40% diverse. Diversity is not the representation of minority groups; it is the cultivation of a mosaic of different perspectives, backgrounds, etc., although this is commonly accomplished through minority representation. In this diversity squared mindset, we should work towards representing more minority populations, and in greater numbers.

One important consideration is that the 50% students of color is by no means an upper limit. In fact, the new schoolwide strategic plan, which will be available to students imminently, focuses on continuing to increase the diversity of both the student body and the faculty through greater minority representation. The administration needs to follow this diversity squared mindset, though, when formulating their diversity goals for now and the future, instead of viewing all minorities as a monolithic group of students.

When diversity initiatives are viewed as a tool to expose the student body to new perspectives, and not as a remedy for past discrimination, though, we must embrace all aspects of diversity: not just ethnicity, but also the diversity of socioeconomic background, geography, and opinions. As Mr. Guiteau, the new Director of Equity and Inclusion, put it, “My belief is that diversity cannot only be thought of as an issue of race—diversity can be found in homogenous racial groups if we are thinking about diversity of thought, or political affiliation, or personal interests.”

We’ve done a good job recently of embracing some of these other aspects of diversity. Our school’s great financial aid program allows for greater socioeconomic diversity, and in terms of geographic diversity, we have 599 students from 89 different New Jersey communities. For diversity of opinion, however, we have more of a mixed report card. Take a look at the other editorial in this set, “Dialogue in a Culture of Controversy” by my fellow Editor-in-Chief Sophie Gilbert ‘19, for a more detailed exploration of this issue through the lens of student experiences.

It’s easier to boost our school’s diversity in terms of ethnicity than opinion, as there is more ethnicity data available, which aids the efforts of the Admissions Office in meeting administrative objectives. But to best accomplish our stated community goals of welcoming and celebrating the diversity of our student body, we need to adopt a new mindset of diversity squared.

Newark Academy’s justification for the benefits of diversity in an educational setting (at least outwardly) are by no means concrete, relying on abstract notions of global-mindedness and teamwork, not to mention equity and inclusion. But a diversity squared mindset, while still fundamentally relying on those vague justifications, does a better job at least of leading to concrete results through its more explicit quantitative goals.