Presented at
Federalist Society Meeting, Marquette University Law School
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
April 1, 2003
The University of Michigan‘s central argument in the Gratz v. Bollinger case is that the positive educational benefits of diversity justify using race/ethnicity, as one among many factors considered, in making undergraduate admission decisions. The University of Wisconsin-Madison makes much the same argument in its effort to promote diversity and particularly minority enrollment. These institutions fail, however, to point out the adverse effects of diversity and race-based preferences in their admission policies and practices.
To remedy this shortcoming, I offer five propositions about the adverse educational benefits of diversity, focusing on the effects here at UW-Madison.
Proposition #1, UW-Madison seriously compromises its commitment to objectivity and academic freedom.
It rationalizes its policy of preferential treatment of minorities in admissions decisions by resorting to the novel ideology of diversity, and in so doing ignores the meaningful distinction between affirmative action and its artful euphemism, diversity.
It requires that candidates for appointment to campus leadership positions make a commitment to support diversity, as evidenced by published job descriptions.
It makes faculty who might question diversity reluctant to express their concerns for fear of being marginalized by campus administrators, a development that is particularly disturbing at an institution that prides itself on its famous 1894 “sifting and winnowing” defense of academic freedom.
It implemented, as a key element of UW-Madison‘s Madison Plan, student and faculty speech codes in the hope they would help create a non-discriminatory environment that would further the Plan‘s goal of increasing race/ethnic diversity. Because these codes failed to incorporate the basic tenets of due process, academic freedom has been compromised in favor of diversity.
Proposition #2, UW-Madison violates the fundamental, Constitution-based concept of equal treatment by favoring applicants for admission based on their race and ethnicity.
It uses diversity to legitimize race and ethnic-based discrimination, thereby turning upside down people‘s understanding of the intent of the historic 1964 Civil Rights Act which was to outlaw discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity.
It ignores the path-breaking 1952 resolution by the Board of Regents that prohibited discrimination on the basis of “race, color, sect, or creed.”
It violates 1990 State of Wisconsin legislation, passed in full knowledge of the Bakke decision, explicitly prohibiting discrimination in admission based on race and ethnicity.
It fails in it official publications to state correctly the language of 1990 State of Wisconsin legislation that prohibited discrimination by the University of Wisconsin against individuals based on their characteristics, rephrasing it to prohibit discrimination between individuals.
Proposition #3, UW-Madison highlights what it views as the positive benefits of diversity while ignoring and in fact concealing its adverse effects.
It has assembled little or no evidence documenting the educational benefits of diversity at UW-Madison, relying instead on studies at other campuses, such as the University of Michigan whose undergraduate admission practices are distinctly different from those of UW-Madison.
It ignores the stigmatizing effects of its preferential admissions policy on two groups of minority students. One is those who are admitted based on their own individual merit but where the basis of their admission is not known to others. The other is those who would not have been admitted but who are told by being admitted that their chances of success are good even though the evidence shows their chances of success are very low.
It ignores the negative image that develops among non-minority students about the academic capabilities of minority students. Most students know about the double-standard for admitting minority students and its impact, notably the much lower graduation rate for minorities, especially for those who were not admitted on a competitive basis.
It regularly emphasizes statements from corporate employers that they will not recruit UW-Madison graduating seniors because the campus student body is not sufficiently diverse, and therefore these students will not be equipped to interact effectively with an increasingly diverse work force.
Proposition #4, UW-Madison, while priding itself as a world class research university, fails to carefully evaluate its multitude of diversity programs —to find out which work and don‘t work, and how well they work or don‘t work.
It has made little or no effort to evaluate the impact of its multitude of programs designed to improve minority enrollment, retention, and graduation rates. Indeed, it keeps adding new programs without any assurance they will work or that these new programs will not conflict with existing programs.
It is not able to describe in understandable fashion how its “holistic” freshman admissions process works. Nor has it undertaken any evaluation of the efficacy of this process on undergraduate admissions and on the academic success of minority students compared to non-minority students.
< It takes apparent pride in stating that it does not have any written documentation describing in detail how the “holistic” admissions process is carried out and the results it produces.
Proposition #5, UW-Madison ignores the obvious fact that its efforts to increase minority enrollment depend on a substantial increase in the number of minority high school graduates who are motivated and competitively admissible.
It consistently fails and has done so for three decades to reach its goal of proportional representation of freshmen minority students, overall and for specific minority groups, relative to the distribution of minority high school graduates.
It fails to make clear that its inability to recruit sufficient competitively admissible minority freshmen students requires it to apply a double standard in admitting them, with adverse consequences for retention and graduation. It falls short despite admitting as many as a third of its minority students who would not be admitted using a color-blind standard.
It seems uninterested, despite occasional lip service, in joining with state leaders, both public and private, to help improve the academic performance of minority students in grades K-12 and to do what must be done at pre-schools levels so that much greater proportions of minority students entering elementary schools are equipped so succeed, to graduate from high school, and to qualify for post-secondary education.
Conclusion
UW-Madison has not provided convincing evidence supporting its claim that diversity provides educational benefits for all students and thereby justifies its continued use of race/ethnic-based preferences in admissions.
If the educational benefits of diversity of diversity are so powerful, these benefits need to be identified and quantified so the public can assess their importance.
Which leaves us with the question: Should not a distinguished research university, one that takes seriously its commitment to diversity, mobilize its outstanding research capabilities to investigate and produce evidence on the important educational benefits it claims for diversity?
Federalist Society at Marquette University Webpage
On the Education Effects of Diversity Panel Discussion on Gratz v. Bollinger
Presented at
Federalist Society Meeting, Marquette University Law School
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
April 1, 2003
The University of Michigan‘s central argument in the Gratz v. Bollinger case is that the positive educational benefits of diversity justify using race/ethnicity, as one among many factors considered, in making undergraduate admission decisions. The University of Wisconsin-Madison makes much the same argument in its effort to promote diversity and particularly minority enrollment. These institutions fail, however, to point out the adverse effects of diversity and race-based preferences in their admission policies and practices.
To remedy this shortcoming, I offer five propositions about the adverse educational benefits of diversity, focusing on the effects here at UW-Madison.
Proposition #1, UW-Madison seriously compromises its commitment to objectivity and academic freedom.
It rationalizes its policy of preferential treatment of minorities in admissions decisions by resorting to the novel ideology of diversity, and in so doing ignores the meaningful distinction between affirmative action and its artful euphemism, diversity.
It requires that candidates for appointment to campus leadership positions make a commitment to support diversity, as evidenced by published job descriptions.
It makes faculty who might question diversity reluctant to express their concerns for fear of being marginalized by campus administrators, a development that is particularly disturbing at an institution that prides itself on its famous 1894 “sifting and winnowing” defense of academic freedom.
It implemented, as a key element of UW-Madison‘s Madison Plan, student and faculty speech codes in the hope they would help create a non-discriminatory environment that would further the Plan‘s goal of increasing race/ethnic diversity. Because these codes failed to incorporate the basic tenets of due process, academic freedom has been compromised in favor of diversity.
Proposition #2, UW-Madison violates the fundamental, Constitution-based concept of equal treatment by favoring applicants for admission based on their race and ethnicity.
It uses diversity to legitimize race and ethnic-based discrimination, thereby turning upside down people‘s understanding of the intent of the historic 1964 Civil Rights Act which was to outlaw discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity.
It ignores the path-breaking 1952 resolution by the Board of Regents that prohibited discrimination on the basis of “race, color, sect, or creed.”
It violates 1990 State of Wisconsin legislation, passed in full knowledge of the Bakke decision, explicitly prohibiting discrimination in admission based on race and ethnicity.
It fails in it official publications to state correctly the language of 1990 State of Wisconsin legislation that prohibited discrimination by the University of Wisconsin against individuals based on their characteristics, rephrasing it to prohibit discrimination between individuals.
Proposition #3, UW-Madison highlights what it views as the positive benefits of diversity while ignoring and in fact concealing its adverse effects.
It has assembled little or no evidence documenting the educational benefits of diversity at UW-Madison, relying instead on studies at other campuses, such as the University of Michigan whose undergraduate admission practices are distinctly different from those of UW-Madison.
It ignores the stigmatizing effects of its preferential admissions policy on two groups of minority students. One is those who are admitted based on their own individual merit but where the basis of their admission is not known to others. The other is those who would not have been admitted but who are told by being admitted that their chances of success are good even though the evidence shows their chances of success are very low.
It ignores the negative image that develops among non-minority students about the academic capabilities of minority students. Most students know about the double-standard for admitting minority students and its impact, notably the much lower graduation rate for minorities, especially for those who were not admitted on a competitive basis.
It regularly emphasizes statements from corporate employers that they will not recruit UW-Madison graduating seniors because the campus student body is not sufficiently diverse, and therefore these students will not be equipped to interact effectively with an increasingly diverse work force.
Proposition #4, UW-Madison, while priding itself as a world class research university, fails to carefully evaluate its multitude of diversity programs —to find out which work and don‘t work, and how well they work or don‘t work.
It has made little or no effort to evaluate the impact of its multitude of programs designed to improve minority enrollment, retention, and graduation rates. Indeed, it keeps adding new programs without any assurance they will work or that these new programs will not conflict with existing programs.
It is not able to describe in understandable fashion how its “holistic” freshman admissions process works. Nor has it undertaken any evaluation of the efficacy of this process on undergraduate admissions and on the academic success of minority students compared to non-minority students.
< It takes apparent pride in stating that it does not have any written documentation describing in detail how the “holistic” admissions process is carried out and the results it produces. Proposition #5, UW-Madison ignores the obvious fact that its efforts to increase minority enrollment depend on a substantial increase in the number of minority high school graduates who are motivated and competitively admissible.
It consistently fails and has done so for three decades to reach its goal of proportional representation of freshmen minority students, overall and for specific minority groups, relative to the distribution of minority high school graduates.
It fails to make clear that its inability to recruit sufficient competitively admissible minority freshmen students requires it to apply a double standard in admitting them, with adverse consequences for retention and graduation. It falls short despite admitting as many as a third of its minority students who would not be admitted using a color-blind standard.
It seems uninterested, despite occasional lip service, in joining with state leaders, both public and private, to help improve the academic performance of minority students in grades K-12 and to do what must be done at pre-schools levels so that much greater proportions of minority students entering elementary schools are equipped so succeed, to graduate from high school, and to qualify for post-secondary education.
Conclusion
UW-Madison has not provided convincing evidence supporting its claim that diversity provides educational benefits for all students and thereby justifies its continued use of race/ethnic-based preferences in admissions.
If the educational benefits of diversity of diversity are so powerful, these benefits need to be identified and quantified so the public can assess their importance.
Which leaves us with the question: Should not a distinguished research university, one that takes seriously its commitment to diversity, mobilize its outstanding research capabilities to investigate and produce evidence on the important educational benefits it claims for diversity?
Federalist Society at Marquette University Webpage