On Diversity Policy and Undergraduate Admissions: Unanswered Questions (January, 1998)

Discussion of University of Wisconsin-Madison’s diversity policy over the last year, and the University of Wisconsin System’s hearings on diversity policy in the fall preparatory to this year’s reconsideration of the University of Wisconsin System’s Design for Diversity program, raise many questions. Over the past several months I have compiled a list of questions about the goal of student diversity and how to achieve it. Some of these questions are difficult to answer. Others can be answered but have not been answered. Until we have answers to more of these questions, the university community will not be adequately informed to make intelligent decisions about how to reshape its diversity policy.I am circulating these questions in the hope they will stimulate discussion about how diversity policy affects undergraduate admissions and will activate attempts to answer them. The results, I hope, will inform UW System and the Board of Regents as they decide upon a diversity policy for the coming decade.

My questions are grouped into seven clusters:

1. What aspects of Design for Diversity have been successful? Unsuccessful? Why?
2. What accountability is exercised by UW System and by the Board of Regents?
3. What evidence shows that the UW System discriminates against minorities?
4. What is the rationale for preferential admissions for minorities?
5. What is the rationale for preferential treatment for particular groups?
6. How do preferential admissions operate at UW-Madison?
7. What are the benefits and costs of the UW System diversity policy?

The last cluster of questions (now slightly revised) was presented at the University of Wisconsin System Hearing on Diversity for UW-Madison faculty and staff, November 25, 1997

The last cluster of questions (now slightly revised) was presented at the University of Wisconsin System Hearing on Diversity for UW-Madison faculty and staff, November 25, 1997.

1. What aspects of Design for Diversity have been successful? Unsuccessful? Why?
   1. How well has UW System and its individual campuses done in reaching the quantitative goals set out in the November 1988 Design for Diversity report and in the March 1994 report, Design for Diversity: A Midpoint Review?
   2. What accounts for the gaps between the quantitative goals set in 1988, and the updated goals set in 1994, and the results actually achieved in 1998?
   3. How well has the UW System and its individual campuses done as of 1998 in achieving the long run goal of proportional representation of minorities? How big are the remaining gaps?
   4. What accounts for the continuing gap between proportional representation and actual enrollment levels attained in 1998? How much of this gap is due to the inadequate academic preparation of minority high school graduates? How much is due to continuing discrimination by UW institutions against minorities? How much bigger would the gap be in the absence of preferential admissions for minorities?
   5. What individual components of the Design for Diversity program have been successful, and why?
   6. What individual components of the Design for Diversity program have been successful, and why?
   7. What lessons for the redesign of Design for Diversity can be distilled from the assessments described in questions 1-6?

2. What acccountability is exercised by UW System and by the Board of Regents?
   1. What accountability did the Board of Regents apply when the UW System’s agreed-upon goals established in 1988 were not met in 1994?
   2. What accountability did the UW System apply when the agreed-upon goals established by the individual campuses in 1988 were not met in 1994?
   3. What accountability will be exercised by the Board of Regents if the modified goals for diversity established by the UW System 1994 are not met in 1998?
   4. What kinds of accountability will be exercised by the UW System if the modified goals for diversity established by the individual campuses are not met in 1998?
   5. What kind of critical scrutiny will be given to whatever new goals and timetables are proposed by UW System before a new Design for Diversity program is brought to a vote by the Board of Regents?
   6. What binding assurances can and will be given, by the UW System and the UW Board of Regents, that the goals established in the new Design for Diversity program can be attained? What specific kinds of accountability will be exercised by the Board of Regents and by the UW System if these new goals are not realized?

3. What evidence shows that the UW System discriminates against minorities?
   1. What is the meaning of the statement (Design for Diversity: A Midpoint Review, March 11, 1994) that its “comprehensive plan especially targets institutional racism as a pernicious phenomenon and seeks to eradicate the negative impact it has on all students, faculty, and staff members”? What is the meaning of “institutional racism” in this context? How does “institutional racism” manifest itself in the UW System and at the UW-Madison? How extensive is this “institutional racism” within the UW System and at the UW-Madison? How does this “racism” harm (have a “negative impact” on) all students, faculty, and staff members?
   2. How is institutional racism defined? Does the underrepresentation of minorities by itself signify the existence of “institutional racism”? If so, what is the meaning of the term “institutional racism”?
   3. What is the relationship between racism and discrimination on the basis of race/ethnicity? How does discrimination that favors minorities diminish racism?

4. What is the rationale for preferential admissions for minorities?
   1. Why does diversity policy in the UW System, as described in the Design for Diversity program, require preferential admissions for minorities? Though a preferential admissions policy for minorities is not mentioned explicitly, does the program expect or require that minority applicants be given preferential admissions status?
   2. What is the meaning of the goal of addressing the “underrepresentation of minorities in higher education and the need for all segments of our society to better understand and work together to resolve that concern,” as stated in the UW System report, Design for Diversity, April 7, 1988? What is the exact nature of the “concern”? Is this concern being met effectively by the program?
   3. What is the educational basis for placing so much importance on the concept of “underrepresentation”? What educational benefits will accrue from eliminating underrepresentation?
   4. How do preferential admissions for minorities square with UW System and Board of Regents policy statements concerning “Equal Opportunity” and “Regent Policy on Nondiscrimination,” which appear both in The University of Wisconsin System: Introduction 1996-97 (p. 49), and on the University of Wisconsin System “Application for Undergraduate Admission” (p. 6)? The Equal Opportunity statement reads:
      

      The University of Wisconsin System is committed to equal opportunity for all persons, regardless of race, color, sex, creed, age, ancestry, national origins, handicap, sexual orientation, political affiliation, marital status, developmental disability, or arrest of conviction record in its education programs, activities, and employment policies.

      The Regent Policy on Nondiscrimination statement reads:

      It is the policy of the Board of Regents that racist and discriminatory conduct will not be tolerated within the University of Wisconsin System. Discrimination, discriminatory attitudes, and expressions that reflect discrimination are inconsistent with the efforts of the University of Wisconsin System to foster an environment of respect for the dignity and worth of all members of the university community and to eliminate all manifestations of discrimination within the university system.

   5. Does not the first statement on “Equal Opportunity” bar the University itself from discriminating in admissions, either for or against persons whose characteristics are identified explicitly in the “Equal Opportunity” statement? Does not the second statement, “Regent Policy on Nondiscrimination,” reinforce the prohibition of the Equal Opportunity statement, by indicating that any discrimination undercuts efforts to “foster an environment of respect for the dignity and worth of all members of the university community”?
   6. What is the rationale for giving preferential admissions to minorities in view of the University of Wisconsin’s long tradition of nondiscrimination, which grew out of the University’s efforts in the late 1940s and early 1950s to prevent Jewish students from being denied off-campus housing on the basis of their religion, and to force campus fraternities and sororities to eliminate from their national charters restrictive membership clauses that prevented students on the basis of their race or religion from joining these organizations?

5. What is the rationale for preferential treatment for particular groups?A. Racial-ethnic groups
   1. What is the meaning of the phrase “historically underrepresented”? Does this term refer only to Blacks/African Americans, and also to American Indians who, it is often argued, suffered longer and more systematically from past discrimination than any other targeted racial/ethnic groups?
   2. What is the justification for the UW System giving preference in admission to “Cambodian, Laotian, Vietnamese admitted to the U.S. after 12/31/75”? In what sense are they “historically underrepresented” and thus appropriate targets of diversity policy?
   3. What is the justification for the UW System and for UW-Madison giving preference in admissions to “Other Asian/Pacific Islanders”? In what sense are they “historically underrepresented” and thus appropriate targets of diversity policy?
   4. Why are not applicants who describe their “Racial/Ethnic Heritage” as “Asian” but who are not included among “Cambodian, Laotian, Vietnamese” or the “Other Asian/Pacific Islanders” groups given the same preferential treatment in admissions accorded to other racial/ethnic groups? To what extent have these Asians also been historically underrepresented?
   5. What is the justification for the UW System and for UW-Madison giving preference in admissions to “Hispanics/Latinos” applicants? In what sense are they “historically underrepresented” and thus appropriate targets of diversity policy?
   6. Why were females, who until recently could be described as “historically underrepresented,” never designated as a targeted group in the Design for Diversity program?

   B. Educationally Disadvantaged Groups

   1. How do applicants who are “disadvantaged”, “educationally disadvantaged”, “disadvantaged as a result of substandard education, family income, or ethnic background”, or those who are members of “specific groups . . . because of substandard income level” identify themselves in their application forms? Inasmuch as there is no provision for such categories, how can diversity programs take proper account of those applicants who fall into these categories? And, exactly how are these categories defined?
   2. Does their identification of applicants described by these terms rest on information applicants voluntarily include in their application? If so, how complete is the identification of applicants who fite these categories?
   3. Because the terms “minority”, “minority and disadvantaged students” and “minority and educationally disadvantaged students” are used frequently and seemingly interchangeably, what is the distinction among these terms? Does, for example, the term “minority and disadvantaged” refer to individual students who fit both categories or who fall into one category or the other? Is it likely that because of this language, nonminorities are less likely to be identified in these categories than minorities?

6. How Do Preferential Admissions Operate at UW-Madison?
   1. Why are applicants from minority groups and other special outreach groups (veterans, people out of school for two years or more years, etc.) who meet the minimum qualifications for admission “normally admitted,” whereas other similarly qualified entrants not members of these groups may or may not be admitted, depending upon the number of applicants who are admitted and estimates of likely acceptances from applicants already admitted?
   2. Why are applicants from minority groups and other special outreach groups who fail to meet the “minimum qualifications” for admission given “particular consideration” in the admissions process, meaning that they “may be considered” for admission “if, on the basis of other factors, they appear to have a reasonable probability of success,” whereas all other applicants (those who are not members of these groups) lacking these minimum qualifications are not admitted?
   3. What do we know about the quantitative impact of preferential admissions at UW-Madison? To be specific, how many minority and other special outreach applicants are admitted and enroll, by whether they meet the regular admissions standard or because of their special outreach status they are “normally admitted” or receive “particular consideration” for admission?

7. What are the benefits and costs of UW System diversity policy?
   1. How much being spent this year and how much has been spent during the Design for Diversity program?
   2. Does diversity mean anything more than increasing the number and proportion of targeted minorities who are admitted, enroll, and graduate from the various UW System campuses?
   3. How does increasing the number and proportion of enrolled minorities succeed in realizing the goal stated in Design for Diversity, one that “creates an environment in which we can appreciate our differences while increasing our common goals and values”? (Design for Diversity: A Midpoint Review, p.1) Is there any evidence this effect is being achieved?
   4. To what extent does diversity, as it is practiced, contribute to the stated goal: “we must prepare our students through education and by experience to live and work effectively in a far more multicultural society and economy than any of us experienced in our lifetimes.” (Design for Diversity: A Midpoint Review, p.1) Is there any evidence this effect is being achieved?
   5. To be specific about UW-Madison, how has its participation in the Design for Diversity program, combined with the Madison Plan, the ethnic studies requirement, and the faculty and student speech codes, contributed to the realization of the above mentioned goals of diversity? What progress over the past decade can be attributed to these efforts?
   6. How does diversity policy in admissions affect instruction, learning, faculty-student interaction, and campus climate?
   7. To what extent do the benefits of diversity hinge on the number of minorities who enroll as contrasted to the academic preparation of those minorities who enroll? Would diversity be promoted more effectively if a uniform standard of academic preparation were applied to all applicants, without regard to their minority status?
   8. What do research studies show about the favorable and unfavorable effects of diversity policy with respect to minority enrollments in higher education, and particularly at research universities? What are the effects of diversity on both minority students and nonminority students in research universities? To what degree do these effects differ between minority and nonminority students?
   9. What research has been completed by UW System Administration and by the various campuses to answer the above questions about the educational effects of diversity? For example, System Administration has on its staff a number of PhDs who are equipped to conduct institutional research of the kind suggested. So also do individual campuses. Exactly what have these people learned about the effects of diversity through their research? Are any staff seeking answers to any of the above questions?
   10. Finally, is there sufficient new knowledge — and new knowledge is what research universities are all about — for the UW System and the Board of Regents to devise a successful new Design for Diversity plan, one that can meet whatever diversity goals the System and the Board propose and ultimately adopt?
   11. Or will the System and the Board continue to keep in place a costly but largely unevaluated Design for Diversity plan?