Reminders & Emily's Research on the Benefits of Diversity in Higher Education

REMNDERS: Continue reading in "The New Jim Crow." Remember that I plan to finish covering this book by Nov. 22nd, which is our last class before the Thanksgiving break. In this context, I will be handing out (or possibly emailing you) a description of our third and final short essay which will involve analyzing some aspect of "The New Jim Crow." Be looking for this as early as next Monday or Tuesday (Nov. 14 or 15). This will be due on the 22nd.

Also, I trust most of you have not forgotten about the Interview paper, which will be due on Thursday, Dec. 1st. You should have either done your interview by now or are planning to do it soon so that you will have time to write up the results. You will also be presenting a synopsis of your findings in class beginning on that Thursday.

EMILY'S RESEARCH ON THE BENEFITS OF DIVERSITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Let me preface these points that Emily covered in class on Thursday (11/10) by noting that this information came from footnotes #7, 8, & 9 from pp. 110-111 in Dr. Tatum's book.

Supreme Court case, "Grutter v. Bollinger"
* Grutter was a white Michigan resident with a high GPA and LSAT score who alleged that she was rejected by the University of Michigan Law School because race was a predominant factor in admissions. The case was argued on April 1, 2003 and decided on June 23, 2003. The Supreme Court ruled that the University of Michigan Law School's admissions program that gave special consideration for certain racial minority applicants did NOT violate the 14th Amnendment (equal protection clause, I assume). Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the deciding vote. She said that the Constitution does not prevent the law school's tailored use of race in admissions. It was her hope [and I would say the hope of affirmative action programs in general] that 25 years from now (around 2027), racial preferences should no longer be needed to insure diversity in education. Affirmative action should not be permanent, and eventually race-neutral admissions should be put in place.

*In contrast, another Supreme Court case in 2003, "Gratz v. Bollinger," the court ruled AGAINST the University of Michigan's stricter point-based admissions program for undergraduates because it was basically a QUOTA system. Justice O'Connor was in the majority on this decision too.

AS I NOTED IN CLASS, THIS SHOWS THAT THE COURTS, GOING BACK TO THE BAKKE CASE (IN 1979, I BELIEVE) HAVE CONSISTENTLY STRUCK DOWN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS THAT INVOLVED QUOTAS. HOWEVER, THE COURTS HAVE ALSO UPHELD THE USE OF RACE AS A FACTOR IN ADMISSIONS TO ENSURE DIVERSITY, AS WELL AS A MATTER OF FAIRNESS TO GROUPS THAT HAD BEEN EXCLUDED IN THE PAST.

PATRICIA GURIN, "THE MISSION OF HIGHER EDUCATION": This was part of the brief defending the University of Michigan Law School's admissions program. She argued that the goal is to prepare young people for participation in our democratic society, which is a diverse society [what Tatum called "democracy outcomes"]. Higher education is supposed to advance knowledge and to educate those who will become active in society. Being exposed to racial and ethnic differences helps in reaching these goals. Students develop better in diverse environments. Colleges and universities have an obligation to choose carefully the kind of student body that will create the best learning environment for all their students. "Because students in late adolescence and early adulthood are at a critical stage of development, diversity is crucially important in enabling them to become conscious learners and critical thinkers."

SILVIA HURTADO: Colleges can create conditions that maximize the learning that occurs in an environment with a diverse student body. Students who interact more with diverse peers demonstrate more complex thinking linked to both cognitive and social development.

***Let me add, clearly both Gurin and Hurtado support Dr. Tatum's claim that there are educational and social benefits to diversity in higher education. But I would still point out that the above statements still do NOT constitute EVIDENCE of these claims. We'd have to probe a bit deeper to see just what facts they uncovered to support these claims.

PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS PART OF WHAT YOU'LL NEED TO STUDY FOR THE FINAL EXAM.