Hi. My name is Rachel Jiang from the class of 2019. I went to St. Andrew’s for four years, and now I am intending to major in sociology and political economy at Williams College. I recognize my privilege being able to attend a private school like St. Andrew’s and very grateful for all the opportunities, friends, and faculty there. However, there is a side of St. Andrew’s that I want to, and now desperately need to, talk about: the diversity and racism issue that everyone is aware of but silent about at the same time. The diversity issue refers to the fact that St. Andrew’s is a predominantly white space with a dominant upper-class white narrative. There are no spaces for students of color to feel safe and comfortable to be completely themselves except for an occasional affinity space tucked away in a classroom, completely separated, and sometimes a spectacle for the white space on the outside to look at. In a St. Andrew’s classroom, it is common for only one or two students of color to be present, or sometimes none at all. The racism issue refers to the fact that students of color at St. Andrew’s are discouraged to engage with their racial and cultural identity, and instead encouraged to assimilate. The racism is fueled by the failure of St. Andrew’s as an educational institution to introduce diverse, intersectional, multidimensional materials, and promote respectful, meaningful conversations around race. In a St. Andrew’s classroom, it is common for ignorant and racist comments made by white students to remain unchallenged by white faculty. At St. Andrew’s, it is common to see white faculty complicit within their own internalized racism. As a social space where students of color are instantly distinguished by the color of their skin, St. Andrew’s fails to address the rampant microaggressions that non-black students of color face daily and fails to protect its black students who face overt racism from their white peers.
Though the school incorporated more students of color than they ever have in the past, St. Andrew’s has still not formally addressed its history as a white flight school, and has not committed to truly overcoming its identity as an institution that preserves white privilege and silence, therefore traumatizing its students of color. Angela Davis once said diversity is a corporate strategy and asserts “diversity without structural transformation simply brings those who were previously excluded into a system as racist, misogynist, as it was before”. White flight is the phenomenon of white families sending their children to private schools in order to avoid integration in public schools. In Austin, “white Austinites reacted to the federal court order by following a pattern developed in other parts of the South. Bluntly, unable to accept the reality that their children could learn as well in integrated classrooms as in White classrooms, Whites began a process of urban emigration” (Pinkston 62). It should not be a secret or even ‘controversial’ then, that St. Andrew’s birth as a school was inherently racist and serves to continually oppress racial minorities.
The struggle of integration of what used to be white flight schools across the nation especially in the South is a complex issue deep-rooted in history and definitely not unique to St. Andrew’s. That being said, St. Andrew’s was one of the last schools to successfully desegregate and integrate in 1963, after Brown v. Board in 1955 (Pinkston 8). Caroline Pinkston was an alumnus and a teacher at St. Andrew’s who wrote her master’s dissertation on the history of St. Andrew’s. She writes: “with the enrollment of the first African-American student in 1966, St. Andrew’s continued to take slow and hesitating steps towards increased integration. In the late ’70s, the Board revised its financial aid and scholarship policies to increase the school’s ability to recruit low-income and minority students; several scholarships were specifically created for minority students. Between 1975 and 1981, the school graduated one black student in every year save two. These low numbers contributed to the school’s reputation even in the private school community: A Texas Monthly Guide to Private Schools from the late 70’s notes that at St. Andrew’s, “minority students are accepted, but their numbers are insignificant” (Pinkston 79).
While I and many alumni of color really want to recognize St Andrew’s slow and hesitating steps in attempting to address diversity and inclusion issues, as Kennedy Mccormack ‘16 puts it, “[slow and hesitating steps is] a very low bar.” It is clear to many students of color that we are never the school’s priority. The school paid 50,000 dollars to get an Assessment of Inclusivity and Multiculturalism (AIM) survey in 2019 to evaluate the school, more specifically “the result of an honest and comprehensive effort to assimilate the most salient contributions – remarks, commendations, and recommendations – provided by the ten discovery committees which took part in this multidisciplinary effort “(Evans, AIM Survey). Unfortunately, the AIM survey was hardly talked about or even read by members of the faculty, much less the parents and student body, even though it is a thorough investigation of various aspects of the school and what courses of actions can be taken. For example:
The school should create clear and transparent internal guidelines for mission-aligned hiring practices paired with a consistent appreciation for diversity in both operational and programmatic aspects of the institution, engage a diverse representation among the Parent Association (e.g. ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, religious minorities, etc.) in targeted DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) training via a parent education series (e.g. speakers, readings, etc.), likewise, offer a subgroup of parents the opportunity to partake in school-sponsored professional development, and provide SAS administrators with specific, targeted, and ongoing DEI training.
The 47 page AIM survey is rich with information, yet it is buried and not publicized among the community. St. Andrew’s has spent time and money to plan its diversity, equity, and inclusion goals, yet they are still never their priority. Educating their very students to be diverse, to be literate and competent, is not their priority. Protecting students of color is not their priority.
This piece aims to amplify the voices of students of color which are often overshadowed by voices of white discomfort and fragility. In addition to bringing attention to existing documents such as the AIM survey and many other writings or reports related to St. Andrew’s diversity and racism issue, here I want to bring attention and highlight the experiences, efforts, and legacies by students and alumni of color yet to be known or recorded formally. Although for an even more complete and extensive understanding of St. Andrew’s diversity but most importantly foundations of white supremacy, I strongly urge you as a reader to familiarize yourself with many of the writings that this piece reference: the AIM survey, the Brokeback Mountain controversy on TexasMonthly, and Caroline Pinkston’s The Gospel of Justice: Community, Faith, and the Integration of St. Andrew’s Episcopal School. All of which can be accessed and linked under the sources section.
At St. Andrew’s, students of color are often labeled as too outspoken or too quiet. On the one hand, we are traitors to our races, cultures, and heritages when we choose to be silent. On the other, we are too angry and even ‘racist’ according to white students when we choose to speak out. However, our voices and stories are not about pointing fingers. When we speak out about racism or diversity, it is never about guilt-tripping or condemning individuals for their whiteness. Like all humans, we don’t get to pick our racial identity, but it is important for us to understand the significance of race because humans have assigned social meanings and created policies to reinforce these meanings. Race matters. This is never about underscoring us vs. them, nonwhite kids vs. white kids, students vs. teachers, students vs. the administration. I want to dismantle this problematic duality that prevents people from truly listening and empathizing. This is about creating empathy and informing an otherwise generally apathetic and selectively ignorant white community that aims to be comfortable by perpetuating an environment, curriculum, and agenda to erase white guilt and shame and condone colorblindness. If St. Andrew’s is truly a community, then shouldn’t we all listen to each other without prejudice and hate? I am no outsider, and many people I’ve referenced here are those who were once or still are a part of the St. Andrew’s ‘community’. Whether they chose to be named or anonymous, many of the people who have helped me with this piece are fellow alumni, peers, and beloved faculty. For the alumni of color who have worked with me diligently by giving me their time, wisdom, exercising the incredible emotional labor that requires many of us to relive the traumas of being at St. Andrew’s, none of us should have felt like it was our duty to fight this diversity and racism issue. The fate of the school’s diversity shouldn’t be dependent on the efforts of students of color. For all of us, the diversity and racism issue has haunted us throughout high school while we were juggling academics, athletics, artistic endeavors and all the fun and dandy social battlefields of high school. But we have not given up, we want our voices to be heard and push for change so that the students after us wouldn’t have to go through what we went through.
I hope to bring attention to an institutional problem beyond the individuals, just as racism is a social construct policed by individual action and public policy. Change needs to happen on both a micro and macro scale. St. Andrew’s does have individual students and faculty that feel passionately about improving diversity, equity, and inclusion, but the issue cannot be resolved with individual effort. There needs to be an united effort on all sectors of the school. It is unfair to say St. Andrew’s administration hasn’t changed or doesn’t recognize the issue of diversity, equity, and inclusion on its radar--it does-- but change is painfully slow.