Capital Times Op-Ed, published Monday June 23, 2003
Diversity‘s positive educational benefits are central to the University of Michigan‘s defense of its admittedly race-based admission policy in the Gratz v. Bollinger case. The U.S. Supreme Court is likely to announce its decision on this case, which has become the focus of national debates about affirmative action, very shortly.
The educational benefits of emphasizing diversity are regularly celebrated by college and university officials across the country to support their continued use of racial preferences in admissions decisions. But, if diversity produces positive effects, might diversity also produce some negative effects? Like their Michigan counterparts, UW-Madison officials regularly assert, but without providing persuasive evidence, the substantial educational benefits of diversity while at the same time denying that minorities get preferential treatment. They too gloss over any negative effects. What are these effects? Why are they never discussed? As practiced at UW-Madison, diversity produces numerous negative educational effects. Most important, the new ideology of diversity corrupts the central mission of the university. Successful aspirants to high level administrative positions must be committed to diversity. Faculty, staff, and students who disagree with diversity and its implementation are reluctant to voice their criticisms. The result: Instead of a vigorous “sifting and winnowing” debate on diversity‘s educational effects, an unhealthy silence prevails. UW-Madison‘s commitment to diversity overrides important moral and legal precedents. It conflicts with the Board of Regents‘ historic 1952 resolution prohibiting discrimination on the basis of “race, color, sect, or creed” that forced fraternities and sororities across the country to eliminate their restrictive clauses. It turns upside down people‘s understanding of the historic 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlawed discrimination based on race and ethnicity. It brushes aside the important and meaningful distinction between affirmative action to enlarge the recruitment pool and using racial preference in making admission decisions. It violates 1990 State of Wisconsin legislation explicitly prohibiting discrimination in admission based on race and ethnicity. It fails even to state correctly the language of that legislation, the UW-Madison application form describes the law as prohibiting students from discriminating against other students rather than prohibiting the institution from discriminating against students. It disregards the adverse effects of diversity on individual students. It ignores the stigmatizing effects of preferential admissions on two groups of minority students, those admitted on academic merit who cannot be distinguished from those admitted because of their race/ethnicity, and also those admitted based on race/ethnicity who are in effect told they have a good chance of success even though their academic records indicate the contrary. It fosters a negative image among non-minority students about the academic capabilities of minority students. Most students know about the double-standard for admitting minorities. Many are aware of the much lower graduation rate for minorities. Some witness the struggle of less-academically-prepared minorities in the classroom. It pressures campus-wide allegiance to diversity by regularly highlighting threats from corporate employers to quit recruiting unless the campus is more diverse. But nothing is said about whether this threat comes from a single employer or many employers. By failing to fight back, it concedes that UW-Madison graduates will be ill-prepared to compete for good jobs until the percentage of enrolled minorities rises from its current level to some higher but unspecified percentage level. These negative educational effects of diversity are real, pervasive, and insidious. They undermine public confidence in UW-Madison. They create tensions among students, staff, and faculty. They undercut UW-Madison‘s primary mission of producing new knowledge and communicating that knowledge to students and the general public. If this distinguished world class university takes its much-talked-about commitment to diversity seriously, why not mobilize its outstanding research capabilities to produce evidence on the effects of diversity, both positive and negative effects? Then, students, faculty, staff, and the general public can better assess for themselves the pros and cons of diversity.
UW Ignores Diversity’s Flaws
Capital Times Op-Ed, published Monday June 23, 2003
Diversity‘s positive educational benefits are central to the University of Michigan‘s defense of its admittedly race-based admission policy in the Gratz v. Bollinger case. The U.S. Supreme Court is likely to announce its decision on this case, which has become the focus of national debates about affirmative action, very shortly.
The educational benefits of emphasizing diversity are regularly celebrated by college and university officials across the country to support their continued use of racial preferences in admissions decisions. But, if diversity produces positive effects, might diversity also produce some negative effects? Like their Michigan counterparts, UW-Madison officials regularly assert, but without providing persuasive evidence, the substantial educational benefits of diversity while at the same time denying that minorities get preferential treatment. They too gloss over any negative effects. What are these effects? Why are they never discussed? As practiced at UW-Madison, diversity produces numerous negative educational effects. Most important, the new ideology of diversity corrupts the central mission of the university. Successful aspirants to high level administrative positions must be committed to diversity. Faculty, staff, and students who disagree with diversity and its implementation are reluctant to voice their criticisms. The result: Instead of a vigorous “sifting and winnowing” debate on diversity‘s educational effects, an unhealthy silence prevails. UW-Madison‘s commitment to diversity overrides important moral and legal precedents. It conflicts with the Board of Regents‘ historic 1952 resolution prohibiting discrimination on the basis of “race, color, sect, or creed” that forced fraternities and sororities across the country to eliminate their restrictive clauses. It turns upside down people‘s understanding of the historic 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlawed discrimination based on race and ethnicity. It brushes aside the important and meaningful distinction between affirmative action to enlarge the recruitment pool and using racial preference in making admission decisions. It violates 1990 State of Wisconsin legislation explicitly prohibiting discrimination in admission based on race and ethnicity. It fails even to state correctly the language of that legislation, the UW-Madison application form describes the law as prohibiting students from discriminating against other students rather than prohibiting the institution from discriminating against students. It disregards the adverse effects of diversity on individual students. It ignores the stigmatizing effects of preferential admissions on two groups of minority students, those admitted on academic merit who cannot be distinguished from those admitted because of their race/ethnicity, and also those admitted based on race/ethnicity who are in effect told they have a good chance of success even though their academic records indicate the contrary. It fosters a negative image among non-minority students about the academic capabilities of minority students. Most students know about the double-standard for admitting minorities. Many are aware of the much lower graduation rate for minorities. Some witness the struggle of less-academically-prepared minorities in the classroom. It pressures campus-wide allegiance to diversity by regularly highlighting threats from corporate employers to quit recruiting unless the campus is more diverse. But nothing is said about whether this threat comes from a single employer or many employers. By failing to fight back, it concedes that UW-Madison graduates will be ill-prepared to compete for good jobs until the percentage of enrolled minorities rises from its current level to some higher but unspecified percentage level. These negative educational effects of diversity are real, pervasive, and insidious. They undermine public confidence in UW-Madison. They create tensions among students, staff, and faculty. They undercut UW-Madison‘s primary mission of producing new knowledge and communicating that knowledge to students and the general public. If this distinguished world class university takes its much-talked-about commitment to diversity seriously, why not mobilize its outstanding research capabilities to produce evidence on the effects of diversity, both positive and negative effects? Then, students, faculty, staff, and the general public can better assess for themselves the pros and cons of diversity.