2008 04 07 Wyoming by 9U10QL


									       Equity and Access:
 Thinking Transformatively about
Race, Opportunity, & Social Justice
                          john a. powell
   Director, Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity
Williams Chair in Civil Rights & Civil Liberties, Moritz College of Law

  Presentation at Social Justice Resource Center, University of Wyoming
                           Monday, April 7, 2008

               Presentation Overview
•   Race
      Thinking about race transformatively
      Talking about race
          4 common frames

•   Poverty
      Data
      Conditions for change
      Plan for action

•   Affirmative Action
      Current bans and their impact
      Framing affirmative action
           Implementation gap

           Implicit bias / unconscious networks

•   Race, Class, and Affirmative Action in Higher Education
      Aligning missions and admissions
      A new way to measure merit                             2
Thinking & Talking About Race

                         Defining Race
• As attacks on affirmative action increase, it is important to realize that
  how we conceptualize race is being contested.

• Race is a scientific fiction; it is a social construction.

• Race-based interventions are seen as unfair because race is thought of
  as phenotype alone.

                   The Role of Class

• Class is thought to be a good proxy for race.
    Correlation between race and class
    Less controversial

• Class is complex and multidimensional.
    Difficult to define yet must be understood to be utilized most

• The polarity is false—A class analysis cannot do the work of a race
  analysis alone. We need to understand the relationship between race
  and class to understand either one.

        Hesitancy to Talk about Race

• Most people do not know how to talk about race in constructive and
  transformative ways.

• Reasons for the hesitancy include:
    Fear of stigmatizing groups and creating self-fulfilling prophecies
    Concern about reinforcing negative stereotypes
    Fear of stimulating frames that create resistance to social-justice
     policy and encourage inter-group conflict
    Ignoring similar stresses of whites

   Why We Need to Talk about Race

• To not talk about race is to talk about race.

• Race plays a critical role in the creation and perpetuation of many
  social, political, and organizational structures that control the
  distribution of opportunities.

• Race affects all aspects of our lives.
    Where we live, who our children’s friends are, what social programs
     we support, how we vote, etc.

• We must address race to understand the history of our nation’s
  democracy and the future well-being of its people.

 Consequences of Not Talking about Race

• Racial disparities are masked
• Misperceptions about equality are reinforced
• Support for equitable interventions is decreased
• Diversity becomes less valued
• “Color-blindness” gains salience
• Inadequate proxies, such as class, become more visible
• Understanding of “linked fate” is weakened (we fail to see that
  institutional arrangements are functioning poorly for everyone)

• How messages are framed affects how they are perceived.

• Conversations about race and diversity must be honed to ensure that
  messages are effective.

• We need to start from the assumption that an awareness of racial
  disparities is fundamental to fostering race-conscious approaches to social
  justice policy.
    This is the first step in proactively achieving and maintaining diversity
      in our public institutions.

                        4 Frames Commonly Used
                          When Discussing Race

      1) Minimize the existence of disparities

      • Examples:

               “Things may not be entirely equal, but it’s not
                nearly as bad as it used to be.”

               “The racial ‘playing field’ is level.”

Source: Bonilla-Silva (2003) Racism Without Racists & Mazzocco (May 2006) “The Dangers of Not Talking About Race.”

           4 Frames Commonly Used
             When Discussing Race
2) Blame culture for racial inequality rather than societal
   structures or white privilege

• Examples:

      “Blacks are lazy and lack motivation.”

      “We get what we deserve in life. If some racial
       groups aren’t doing as well as others, people just
       need to work harder.”

           4 Frames Commonly Used
             When Discussing Race
3) Racial phenomena is “natural”

• Examples:
    “Racial segregation in housing is natural. After all,
     they prefer to live by themselves instead of
     interacting with us.”

      “They’d rather be with their ‘own kind’ anyway.”

           4 Frames Commonly Used
             When Discussing Race
4) Focusing on individuals and their traits, assuming that we
   all start from the same “position” in society

• Examples:
    “We should all be judged as individuals based on our
     personal merits. No one should receive special
     privileges. It’s not fair.”

      “People like Tiger Woods, George Lopez, and Oprah
       Winfrey are proof that anyone can be successful in
     Challenging These Frames
• These frames are not easy to challenge, especially
  those that draw upon our national values of
  meritocracy and individuality.

• It is important to confront all four of these frames
  at the same time; otherwise, people tend to just
  switch to a different frame rather than change their
  understanding of race.

           Other Semantic Moves

• “I am not racist, but….”   • “I kind of support and
                               oppose….” (views on
                               affirmative action, interracial
                               marriage, and other topics)

Thinking Transformatively about Race
  • Transactional vs. Transformative

       Affirmative action is predicated on a transactional
        approach. It assists individuals but does not alter the
        larger system of structures.

       A transformative perspective changes the arrangement of
        societal structures and consequently alters relations to

              The Web of Opportunity

• Opportunities in our society are geographically distributed and often
  clustered throughout metropolitan areas.

       This creates “winner” and “loser” communities, or “high” and “low”
        opportunity communities

       Fair access to these opportunity structures is limited by various
        spatial arrangements and policies, such as sprawl, exclusionary
        zoning, and fragmentation

      Connection Between
      Housing and Schools
Low Opportunity    High Opportunity

                The Web of Opportunity
•   Where you are situated within this web of opportunity plays a tremendous role
    in your life chances and outcomes.

        Where you live affects where you go to school

        Where you attend school affects the quality of the education you receive

        The quality of your education influences your ability to attain higher

        The amount of education you receive affects what job you will work

        Your job determines the amount of income you earn

        Your income affects where you live

Color-conscious Racism    Understanding
                          of Disparities

                  Present                   Absent
                  Extreme                   Minimal
                  Persisting                Declining

    SUPPORT               for Disparities                    OPPOSE
      AA                                                       AA
                  Structural            Individual
                  Historical            Cultural
                  Abnormal              Normal

                           to Disparities

                     Linked Fate

• Racialized structures and policies have created the extreme
  correlation of race and poverty in our urban areas.

• Consequently, it is assumed that those harmed or isolated by
  poverty are only people of color.

• In reality, these effects are far reaching and impact everyone –
  this is “linked fate.”
    Whites living in opportunity poor communities are also
    Poverty creates regional distress; this harms everyone in the
      region, including elites.

•   Economic Segregation and
       Racial Segregation in
         Public Schools:

     Cleveland & Akron, OH

    High poverty schools (Red
          and Yellow) are
      concentrated in African
     American neighborhoods
          (Areas in Gray)

                                            Poverty Data
    •    35% of the people in poverty in the U.S. are children
           In 2004, approximately 15% of white children (under age 18) lived in poverty.
           The numbers for Blacks and Hispanics were 33% and 29%, respectively – roughly
            double that of whites.

    •    Poverty rates are highest for families headed by single women

    •    13.3% of the US population living in poverty in 2006 (38.8 million people)

    •    Distribution by race (2006):
           White (non-Hispanic): 17.9 million in poverty, 9.3% poverty rate
           Black: 9.0 million in poverty, 25.3% poverty rate
           Asian: 1.4 million in poverty, 10.7% poverty rate
           Latino (all Latinos): 9.3 million in poverty, 21.5% poverty rate

CDF, The State of America’s Children 2005, page 5 (chart). & “The poverty rate for people in households headed by single
women is significantly higher than the overall poverty rate.” National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan.
                                           Poverty Data
      •    Over 3.1 million African Americans lived in Concentrated Poverty Neighborhoods in
           2000, Blacks and Latinos represent nearly 3 out of 4 residents in these

      •    Nearly 1 out of 10 Blacks lived in a concentrated poverty neighborhood in 1999,
           compared to 1 out of 100 Whites

      •    Whites only make 30% of people living in high poverty neighborhoods, although they
           represent 55% of the total population living in poverty

           The National Low Income Housing Coalition reported in 2006 that “minimum wage
           earners are unable to afford even a one-bedroom home anywhere in the country,
           and 88% of renters in cities live in areas where the FMR [fair market rent] for a
           two-bedroom rental is not affordable even with two minimum wage jobs.”

NLIHC, “Rental Costs Continue to Climb, Pricing Millions of Working Americans Out of Their Own Housing Markets.” December 12,
2006. www.nlihc.org/detail/article.cfm?article_id=3711&id=48
                                      Poverty Data

Jargowsky, Paul A. "Stunning Progress, Hidden Problems: The Dramatic
Decline of Concentrated Poverty in the 1990s." Center on Urban and
Metropolitan Policy. The Brookings Institution. May 2003.              26
Poverty Data

             Conditions for Change
• Moving from a transactional to a transformational paradigm requires
  structural change:

      Institutions should allow for participation and dissent of
       individuals in a democratic society

      For those in poverty, this participation is denied as they lack
       access to power, influence, and choice; thus, poverty is
         Structures act as filters, creating cumulative barriers to

      Reorganization of institutions to encourage the “emergence of
       differences” is one example of transformative thinking

              Conditions for Change

• Moving from a transactional to a transformational paradigm
  requires adjusting the poverty lens:

      Re-define, re-think, and re-frame
         Re-define: from an “income-to-needs” ratio to “Human
          Development Index”

           Re-think: unconscious vs. conscious racism
               Our emotional responses to poverty determine our
                willingness to help

           Re-frame: from a “welfare and charity” approach to an
            “opportunity for all” approach

                       Plan for Action
• To alleviate poverty:

      Move discourse away from individualistic framing

      Highlight poverty’s structural causes
         Frame poverty as the result of a structural deficiency

      Focus on our shared connections
         Poverty and marginalization do not harm just the poor

         Opportunity isolation harms the entire community

      Emphasize the need for strategies that expand access to opportunities

Affirmative Action

• Current affirmative action bans:
    California: Proposition 209 (1996)
    Washington: Proposition I-200 (1998)
    Michigan: Proposition 2 (2006)

• States with proposed affirmative action bans anticipated for the
  November 2008 ballot:
    Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, and Oklahoma

         The Role of Affirmative Action
•   Affirmative action:
      Addresses racial disparities

        Interrupts the cycle of poverty

        Responds to inequalities that stem from historical injustices and present-
         day structural impediments

        Ensures national security

        Provides a diverse and culturally competent workforce

        Creates more democratic institutions

        Works toward a legitimate democracy
                   The Benefits of Racial Diversity
                           in Education
 •     “Helps students avoid or overcome stereotypes by providing a range of
       experiences and viewpoints within a particular racial or ethnic group;

 •     Promotes cross-cultural understanding and helps students develop
       interpersonal skills for a multiracial world

 •     Prepares students for a racially diverse workplace

 •     Trains and educates a diverse group of leaders

 •     Contributes to better decision making on issues affecting our multicultural

 •     Fosters diversity among civic and business leaders”

Source: “Preserving Diversity in Higher Education: A Manual on Admissions Policies and Procedures After the University of Michigan Decisions.” Compiled
by the firms of Bingham McCutcheon, Morrison & Foerster, and Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe. Equal Justice Society, 2004.

                              Impact of the Bans
• Need to move fast to preclude the devastating consequences of
  similar initiatives in California, Washington, and Michigan

         Following the passage 209 in California, African Americans at
          UCLA and Berkeley Law programs plummeted 80%. Latinos
          dropped by 50% at Berkeley, and 25% at UCLA.

         UCLA saw the lowest levels of incoming African American
          freshman since 1973.

 Source: Killing Affirmative Action: Would it Really Result in a a better, more perfect union. Available online at:

                                    Impact of the Bans
                               University of California at Berkeley Admissions

Students offered admission




                                        Fall 1997          Fall 1998                 36
                  Framing Affirmative Action

• Affirmative action is complex; how it is framed impacts support.

         Affirmative action has gained support over past 10 years. In
          1995, 58% supported it. In 2003, 63% did.

         However, 42% felt it was unfair, and when the words
          ‘preferential treatment’ were used, 72% felt we should not “make
          every effort to improve the position of blacks.”

Source: Pew Research Center. Conflicted Views of Affirmative Action. Online: http://people-

  Dissonance between ideas and practices

• The idea of affirmative action is gaining support, but it is losing in the
  electoral contests. Why?

• Implementation gap: supporting an idea, but not the actual
  implementation of the idea

        Support for the idea                 Support of affirmative
        of affirmative action      GAP       action programs

               The Implementation Gap
•   A 1999 survey explored the racial attitudes of young Americans (ages 18 - 29)

        “A majority (54.5 percent) said that it was unlikely that the United States
         would elect a black president in the near future.

        In contrast, in the 1996 General Social Survey, 93.5 percent of those under
         the age of 30 said that they would vote for a black presidential candidate
         nominated by their party.

        This might suggest that while young Americans express rhetorical support
         for a black president, they know that their own attitudes and those of
         other Americans make such an eventuality unlikely.”

                       Implicit Bias
• Data are complex, but so are people.

• We unconsciously think about race even when we do not explicitly
  discuss it.
    Implicit thoughts can overpower our explicit positions

• People have multiple networks that may be activated without our
    Depending on the situation, one network becomes dominant over
     the others

• Even though we may fight them, implicit biases reside within us.

• Often these biases are socially unacceptable or embarrassing, so we
  try to hide them. Nevertheless, our unconscious networks are still
Our Unconscious Networks

 What colors are the following lines of text?

     1.   Vqeb peow ytro
     2.   Cvur zxyq brrm
     3.   Vhrn wwte zytn
     4.   Xoc jbni oew mne
     5.   Zre ytu vee mkp

Our Unconscious Networks

What colors are the following lines of text?

    1.   Red
    2.   Blue
    3.   Black
    4.   Green
    5.   Brown

Our Unconscious Networks

What colors are the following lines of text?

    1.   Sky
    2.   Grass
    3.   Dirt
    4.   Coal
    5.   Stop sign

Our Unconscious Networks

What colors are the following lines of text?

    1.   Dirt
    2.   Sunshine
    3.   Sky
    4.   Grass
    5.   Stop sign

Our Unconscious Networks

•    What colors are the following lines of text?

    1.   Green
    2.   Blue
    3.   Brown
    4.   Red
    5.   Black


• Our environment affects our unconscious networks.

• Priming activates mental associations.
    Telling someone a scary story activates a frame of fear

• Claude Steele’s “stereotype threat”:
    For example, tell students about to take a test that Asian students
     tend to do better than whites, the whites will perform significantly
     worse than if they had not been primed to think of themselves as
     less capable than Asians.


Race and Class in Higher Ed.

• Higher education currently relies on meritocracy, using
  indicators such as GPA and SAT scores to quantify individual
  ability and predict potential

• This is predominantly accepted as being:
    objective
    valid
    legitimate
    natural

              Racialization of
        Standardized Measurements
• This is problematic because these measurements are racialized.

      GPA depends on school
         AP/5.0 classes are predominantly in middle-class, white schools

      SAT results are racially disparate - stronger predictor of family

• There is also a hidden assumption that these measurements are
  aligned with a college’s greater goals and objectives.

     Aligning Missions and Admissions
•   Instead schools should start with their goals and work backwards to achieve

•   What constitutes a good student?
      Grades?
      Career success?
      Degree to which their career is financially or emotionally rewarding?
      Whether they give back to their alma mater and/or the greater community?

•   If merit is based on what we value, what does the way we measure merit say
    about our values?
      Do we value standardized test performance, or democracy?
      What is given the most weight in admissions? Curriculum?
      Is individual success more important than group? Can both be achieved?

  Transitioning from Individualistic Merit

• The way merit is currently used is individualistic.

• This is problematic because cumulative disadvantage is based upon
  group identity - race.

• Limitations of individualistic merit:
    Reinforces myth of the ‘American dream’ (hard work  success)
     and stigmatizes those who do not succeed.

       Marginalized groups do not benefit from a few members being
        given preference - need interventions that lift up groups collectively

                   Democratic Merit
•     Rather than awarding past achievements, democratic merit invests
      in the democratic potential of individuals.
         Admissions practices must confer rewards to those who will
          create a more just, more democratic society

•    Multi-dimensional: It involves the alignment of the “doing” of
     democracy with the creation of democratic citizens.

•    Inclusive and diverse schools create bonds between individuals
     and the larger community that encourage democratic

                      Aligning Missions
                       and Admissions
• The matter of who should get into any institution cannot be separated
  from the question of what that institution hopes to accomplish – what is
  its mission?

       The “core purpose” of the University of Texas – Austin is “to
        transform lives for the benefit of society.”

       UC-Berkeley: Among the admissions criteria, evaluators look for
        students who will “make a special contribution to our society and

• If diversity and citizenship are goals, consider alternatives to achieve:
    Democratic/citizenship merit
         Indiana 21st Century Scholars
         Reward those who will give back to the community

                    Aligning Missions
                     and Admissions
• Caution must be taken with admissions policies because many are
  thought to do the work of race, but fall short.

• When using class as a proxy, the number of students of color drops.
    Low-income threshold set too high
    Previous beneficiaries of affirmative action may not have been low
    Poverty is experienced differently depending on race: low-income
     white students significantly outperform Black and Latino/a students
    Household income may not be the best measure of economic
    Already reduced applicant pool

                      Aligning Missions
                       and Admissions
• Class fails to account for the cumulative effect of factors that act as
  gatekeepers for people of color:

       Segregated in high-poverty, low performing schools

       Higher drop/push out rates

       Less willing to go into debt with school loans

       Inadequate/little assistance in application process

       Racialized admissions policies


                           Next Steps
• The passing of amendments and initiatives that ban affirmative action
  sets potentially dangerous precedents for other states.

• We need to embrace the opportunities:
   Act on race in transformative ways
   Individual merit  Democratic merit

• This broad discussion is more challenging, but more fruitful.

        A Transformative Agenda

• Transformative change in the racial paradigm in the U.S. requires
  substantive efforts in three areas:

      Talking about race: Understanding how language and
       messages shape reality and the perception of reality.

      Thinking about race: Understanding how framing and priming
       impact information processing in both the explicit and the
       implicit mind.

      Linking these understandings to the way that we act on race
       and how we arrange our institutions and policies.

                   Linked Fates…
               Transformative Change
• Our fates are linked, yet our fates have been socially constructed as
  disconnected (especially through the categories of class, race, gender,

       We need socially constructed “bridges” to transform our society

       Conceive of an individual as connected to—instead of isolated
        from—“thy neighbor”

      Questions or Comments?
For More Information Visit Us On-Line:


        ~ The Miner’s Canary

Understanding Disparities

                  Causes and
           Perpetuation of Disparities
• Historical factors. Discrimination through:
    Slavery
    Jim Crowe
    de jure segregation
    Redlining
    The New Deal

• Present day factors. Disparities in:
    Public education
    Housing
    Healthcare
    Wealth disparities
    Crime & criminal justice

Model for Disparate Outcomes
 Historically                                     Today

                                                 De Jure
                  What is occurring here to     Structures
                replicate the outcomes today?


 Disparate                                      Disparate
 Outcomes        Individuals/   Structures/     Outcomes
                   Culture      Opportunity
            Attribution of disparities
• Dominant public paradigms explaining disparities: “bad apples”
    Defective culture
    Individual faults
    Personal Racism

• Overlooks policies and
  arrangements: “diseased tree”
    Structures
    Institutions
    Cumulative causation

      Illustration of Cumulative Causation –
                  Higher Education
• The present paradigm of “bad apples” leads many to believe that higher
  education is equally accessible to all

• External factors that affect access to higher education:
    Availability and quality of healthcare throughout childhood,
     extending back to prenatal care
    Access to preschool
    Neighborhood effects: lead, asthma, high-stress environments
    Family environment
    Neighborhood resources: libraries, community centers
    Nutrition
    Resources available to the public school
    School’s concentration of high-poverty students

• These combined institutions create a web of oppression that is more
  than the sum of the individual parts
                 The Role of Housing
• At the core of these issues is housing
• Housing is critical in determining access to opportunity

                     Childcare            Employment

                             Racialization of Poverty

       • African Americans are disproportionately concentrated in low-
         opportunity neighborhoods

       • The racial composition of neighborhoods determines the racial
         balance in schools, hence segregation

       • School segregation has been steadily increasing in the ’90s2
           Half of all African American students attend a central city district
           Only 1 in 6 white students does

Source: 1. Determinants of Residential Location Choice: How Important Are Local Public Goods in Attracting Homeowners to Central City
Locations?* Isaac Bayoh, Elena G. Irwin, Timothy Haab 2. David Rusk. Trends in School Segregation in Divided we Fail: Coming Together
through Public School Choice. The Report of the Century Foundation Task Force on the Common School. 2002.

The Link between Racial & Economic

• Strong correlation: nearly all schools with a majority of students of
  color are high poverty

• The average White student attends a school with student poverty
  ranging from 23-30%

• For the average African American student, school poverty ranges from

• The level of concentrated poverty is associated with the quality of the

                    But isn’t it getting better?

        • Many feel that this racialization of concentrated poverty has
          improved in recent years.

        • In 1960, African-American families in poverty were 3.8 times
          more likely to be concentrated in high-poverty neighborhoods
          than poor whites.

        •     In 2000, they were 7.3 times more likely.

Fact Sheet from the Opportunity Agenda, Housing Neighborhoods and Opportunity. www.opportunityagenda.org/site/
  Effect of Disparities: Contradict American Ideals

• REPRESENTATION: Public institutions do not reflect their constituents
• EQUALITY: A race-based social hierarchy predominates
• NON-DISCRIMINATION: Unresolved tensions between the public ideal
  (colorblindness) and reality (disparities)
• CITIZENSHIP: Membership in society conferred unequally
• OPPORTUNITY: Dominant ideologies in America such as open opportunity
  and individualism are hollow
• FREEDOM: People in poverty cannot fully exercise their freedoms
• DEMOCRACY: Cumulatively these represent an ILLEGITIMATE

 These contradictions must be communicated to the public

      Moving Forward:
The Impact on Higher Education
 Moving Forward in the Social/Political
• Although not an ideal social/political climate, this is a unique
  opportunity for higher education

• Colleges and universities have been defending diversity for
  decades, but not enough has been done for race or socioeconomic

• Attacks on affirmative action/diversity provide an
  opportunity to shift from a reactive to a proactive

• Need short, medium and long term strategies

                  Short, Medium, &
                Long Term Strategies
• Short Term
    Act quickly to develop policies that ensure a racially diverse campus
    Continue building public support for diversity
    Meet & collaborate with universities/states/stakeholders

• Medium & Long Term
    Develop ongoing research and data collection plans to understand the
     full effects of these bans
    Broaden and challenge the meaning of merit
    Revisit the university’s vision and mission, and ensure policies and
     practices are in alignment
    Bakke and societal discrimination/racial justice

Looking Ahead in Higher Education
                 • There are four primary areas for
                   higher education to consider:
                     Outreach

                       Recruitment

                       Admissions

                       Retention

• To ensure a highly qualified and diverse applicant pool, higher
  education must increase outreach efforts to high-poverty schools and

      Creating or expanding mentoring/tutoring support and summer

      Providing support to and partnering with community organizations

      Advocating for education reform and working to build a more
       equitable P-12 system

• After Initiative 200, the percentage of African Americans at the
  University of Washington decreased as a result in a decline in
  application rates.

• Schools must prepare for being perceived as an unwelcoming,
  exclusive environment.
    The “discouragement effect” (Weirzbicki and Hirschman)

• Schools should be proactive about emphasizing their commitment to
  inclusion and diversity, particularly when doing outreach to potential

• Revised admissions policies could also counteract this chilling effect.

• The work of creating a diverse institution does not stop with the
  demographic composition of the student body.

• Diversity is a transformative goal, not solely a numerical one.

• Harnessing the genuine benefits of diversity within and across an
  institution is a challenge.

           Teachers, administrators and staff must share the goal and be
            culturally competent.

           Teachers must have the skills and knowledge to create a safe,
            supportive, and inclusive space.
              Post Secondary Enrollment 1995-2004 (% of Total Enrollment MInority)
                              California, Michigan and Washington

                                                                                51.2   51.9
                                                            50.2      50.7
                                    49.1       49.2
50.0                      47.4



                                                                                20.1   20.7        20.7
                                                            19.4      19.8
20.0                      18.5      18.6       18.7
       17.0     17.5
                                                                                       19.5        19.7
                                                                      18.3      18.9
                          17.3      17.9       17.7         17.9
       16.6     16.9


       1995     1996      1997     1998        1999         2000     2001       2002   2003        2004

                                      California      M ichigan    Washington

              California: Post Secondary Enrollment 1995-2004 (% of Total by Race)

25.0                                                                      24.1       24.3
                20.4      20.7
20.0                                    19.0                                                                18.7
                                                     18.4       18.3                 18.4       18.6
                          17.8                                            18.1
       17.3     17.4


       7.6      7.6       7.8            7.6         7.6        7.5       7.5         7.5       7.5         7.7


       1.2      1.2       1.1            1.1         1.1        1.0       1.0         1.0       0.9         0.9

       1995     1996     1997           1998         1999       2000      2001       2002       2003        2004

                                 African Ame rican     Latino     Asian     Nativ e Ame rican

              Michigan: Post Secondary Enrollment 1995-2004 (% of Total by Race)
12.0                                                11.5       11.5
               11.1      11.2




 4.0                                                                                 3.5       3.4
                                                               3.2       3.2                               3.3
                          3.1           3.1         3.1
       2.8      2.9
                                                                                               2.6         2.7
                                        2.3         2.3        2.4       2.4         2.4
       2.1      2.1       2.2

       0.8      0.8       0.8           0.8         0.8        0.8       0.8         0.8       0.8         0.8

       1995    1996      1997          1998         1999       2000      2001       2002       2003        2004

                                African Ame rican     Latino     Asian     Nativ e Ame rican

              Washington: Post Secondary Enrollment 1995-2004 (% of Total by Race)
                                                                          9.3         9.3       9.4         9.4
 9.0                                                 8.7
       7.9       8.0


                                                                                                5.2         5.3

 5.0                                                                      4.6
                                                     4.3        4.4
                           4.2           4.2                                          4.1       4.2         4.2
                 3.9       4.0                                  4.0       4.0
       3.7       3.7                     3.8         3.8
 4.0   3.6


                           2.0           2.1
       1.8       1.9                                 1.9        1.9       1.9         1.9       1.9         1.8


       1995      1996     1997          1998         1999       2000      2001       2002       2003        2004

                                 African Ame rican     Latino     Asian     Nativ e Ame rican

                          Alternative Approaches
 APPROACH                   PUBLIC APPROVAL            RACIAL/ETHNIC               SES DIVERSITY              COLLEGE
                                                       DIVERSITY                                              PERFORMANCE

 Highest Grades,            Widespread support         Reduces # of qualified      Increase                   4% increase in
 test scores, teacher                                  African Americans and                                  graduation rate
 recommendations                                       Hispanics
 and demonstrated

 Lottery with               Approx 83% disagree        No effect                   Substantial increase       Reduced graduation
 minimal academic                                                                                             rates, lower standards

 Class rank                 Majority of the public     Slightly smaller pool,      Substantial Increase       May be under-
                            supports                   little change                                          prepared
 Class rank with            Support increases          Decreases                   Decreases                  4% increase in
 minimum academic           over class rank alone                                                             graduation rate

 Academically               Supported: 63% say         Share in the pool           Greatest increase.         4% increase in
 qualified, low-SES         low-income should be       compared to                 >10% increase              graduation rate
 students                   admitted over              enrollment indicates
                            comparable high-           possible decrease
                            income peer

Source: Created from Rose, S.J., Carnevale, A.P. (2003). Socioeconomic Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Selective College Admissions.
Available online at: http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/carnevale_rose.pdf
           Alternative Admissions Policies
•   Cooper, K. J. (1999). Admissions models for inclusion. Black Issues in Higher Education,
    16 (18), 34–35.
•   Lewin, T. (January 26, 2007). Colleges Regroup After Voters Ban Race Preferences. New
    York Times.
•   Moses, M.S., Marin, P. (2006). Informing the Debate on Race Conscious Education Policy.
    Educational Researcher 35, no.1. 3-5.
•   Rose, S.J., Carnevale, A.P. (2003). Socioeconomic Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Selective
    College Admissions. Available online at:
•   Schmidt, P. (November 2, 2006) Educational Testing Service Accused Of Suppressing
    Research On An Alternative Affirmative Action. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
•   Sternberg, R. (2005). Accomplishing the Goals of Affirmative Action With or Without
    Affirmative Action. Change.
•   U.S. Department of Education. Race-Neutral Alternatives in Postsecondary Education:
    Innovative Approaches to Diversity. Available online:

• Baez, B. (2006). Merit and difference. Teachers College Record,
  108(6), 996-1016.
• Guinier, L. (2003). Admissions rituals as political acts: Guardians at the
  gates of our democratic ideals. Harvard Law Review, 117, 113.
• Hendrickson, R. (2001). Rethinking affirmative action: Redefining
  compelling state interest and merit in admission. Peabody Journal of
  Education, 76 (1).
• Simpson, E., Wendling, K. (2005). Equality and Merit: A Merit-based
  argument for Equity Policies in Higher Education. Educational Theory.
  55(4). 385-398.
• St. John, E. P., Simmons, A. B., & Musoba, G. D. (2002). Merit-aware
  admissions in public universities: Increasing diversity. Thought &
  Action, 17(2), 35-46.

                          Benefits of Diversity
•   Astin, A. Diversity and multiculturalism on the campus: How are students affected? Change.
    v25 n2 p44-49 Mar-Apr 1993
•   Chang, M.J. & Astin, A.W. (1997). Who benefits from racial diversity in higher education?
    Diversity Digest, 1(2),13,16.
•   Chang, M. J., Whitt, D., Jones, J., & Hakuta, K. (2003). Compelling interest: Examining the
    evidence on racial dynamics in colleges and universities. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
•   Gurin, P. Y. (1998). Expert witness report of Patricia Y. Gurin, in Gratz et al. v. Bollinger et al.,
    No. 97–75321 (E.D. Mich). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan.
•   Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory
    and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 330–366.
•   Moses, M.S. & Chang, M.J. (2006), Toward a deeper understanding of the diversity rationale,
    Educational Researcher, 35(1), January/ February, American Educational Research Association
    (AERA), Washington DC.
•   “Preserving Diversity in Higher Education: A Manual on Admissions Policies and Procedures
    After the University of Michigan Decisions.” Compiled by the firms of Bingham McCutcheon,
    Morrison & Foerster, and Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe. Equal Justice Society, 2004.
•   Wells, A. S., & Crain, R. L. (1994). Perpetuation theory and the long-term effects of school
    desegregation. Review of Educational Research, 64, 531–556.
•   Yun, J.T. & Kurlaender, M. (2004). School Racial Composition and Student Educational
    Aspirations: A Question of Equity in a Multiracial Society. Journal for Students Placed at Risk.
    9(2). 143-168.
                 Talking About Race
• Center for Social Inclusion. 2005. Thinking Change: Race, Framing and
  the Public Conversation on Diversity. What Social Science Tells
  Advocates About Winning Support for Racial Justice Policies. The
  Diversity Advancement Project. Available online:
• Kirwan Institute UPdate. Fall 2006/Winter 2007. Available online:
• Mazzocco, P.J. (2006). The Dangers of Not Speaking about Race: A
  summary of research affirming the merits of a color-conscious
  approach to racial communication and equity. Available from the
  Kirwan Institute.
• Mazzocco, P.J. & Newhart, D.W. (2006). Color-blind racism and
  opposition to progressive racial policy: A new scale and supportive
  findings. Unpublished manuscript (available upon request).
• Pew Research Center for People and the Press. 2003. Conflicted Views
  of Affirmative Action. Online: http://people-

To top