The New York Times (to their credit) published an article by a Smith College professor, who did a study indicating just the reverse.
From my POV, there’s nothing surprising. By removing bans on who it accepts, an institution widens its potential pool of members, which allows it to select stronger people. When an institution is forced to accept less-qualified people, that leads to weakening.
The study in question is worthless, because it attempts to measure perceptions. Perceptions are by nature subject to all kinds of social and cultural bias. This study offers little or nothing in the way of objective information - it’s just, “I feel better about some students than others…”
Given the US long history of hostility to blacks, and the abundant evidence of continuing discrimination in the workplace, justice system, housing, and education, it’s not surprising that a lot of people’s perceptions are anti-black.
If the real interest of the authors of the study (and AA opponents in general) was a stronger student body, they would be critiquing geographic diversity provisions, alumni preference, and the pro-male bias in admissions (women generally make better grades, so in order to balance out the sexes, men with lower grades are admitted).
Even with AA, the number of minority students at elite colleges is quite small. So the effects of minority enrollment, positive or negative, are not likely to be great.
Hispanic enrollment has little effect on any group’s ratings of the educational or racial climate. So AA is okay for Latinos but not for blacks? Or is meeting a lower admission standard okay as long as you don’t look too different?
Why not just admit that the goal is to keep out as many blacks as possible?
You’re confusing diversity with “preferential treatment of minority applicants”. Not the same thing in my opinion.
Yes, ISTM that the Times article did that, too.
Belowjob2.0 appears to be a member of the PC Police. Non-politically correct statements must be rooted oub, by being decried as racism.
However, I do agree with her/him that the study measures perceptions. That doesn’t make it worthless. What’s particularly interesting is that not only does the the U of Mich have no evidence that a diverse student body improves the quality of education for everyone, most people on campus don’t even agree with that position, according to the study. Maybe those who don’t agree with the UM position hesitate to speak out, for fear of being called “racists” by people like Belowjob2.0.
I’m sure it’s hard to measure either way. I’d expect that diversity of thought improves education, but that diversity of skin color does not. Unfortunately, most people mean the latter when they talk about “diversity”. Maybe because that kind of diversity is realatively easy to measure. Or maybe there is a hidden politcal agenda? Nawwwww…
What this study measures is that white students are less happy when they are around black students – especially opinionated, smart black students, and that student and faculty attitudes reflect racial stereotypes. This is neither surprising nor particularly relevant.
I was far different than others in my college class. I was currently poor, I had grown up alternately in mild poverty, just above poverty level, and working but not at all in poverty. I was not Catholic. I had traveled extensively instead of living in one place all my life. I got there with scholarships and grants. Some based on academic merit, some on my very low income level, and one based on where I lived.
I greatly enriched discussions. I lost count early on how many class discussions divided into me against the entire class except the prof. For the most part professors in those classes were quite glad to have me there and vocal because I not only had a different point of view, but I also expressed my opions cogently and could defend them well without resorting to logical fallacy like straw men. I know this because I spoke to these professors outside of class, some just to argue and discuss things in more depth. Some even expressed gratitude for my presence in their class.
Rhetoric I was the freshman English class there. No one was excused no matter how many AP credits they had in English. In that class, the professor I had often took positions in class which I found breathtakingly morally indefensible and just plain repugnant. If he said it, the rest of the students were willing to take up that position. They thought I was an idiot for disagreeing. Nearly every argument I was able to convince a few that their positions were morally precarious at best. I did help wake them up and even got some of them to think. Some certainly improved their discussion skills by debating me.
Now, ask the students, did my presence raise the quality of education. I believe the answer would be a resounding NO! I was cornered outside of freshman English by my fellow students and told that rhetoric class was no place for debate. They said they were there to learn about writing and literature, not to argue. They wanted me to argee to whatever the professor said like the rest of them. They felt I was holding up the class.
Actual diversity is important even if the students might not appreciate it.
Actually, I think it is incumbent on the diversity proponents to “prove” that their version of diversity enhances education. Has anyone seen a study by someone who acutally defined diversity in some meaningful way and was able to demostrate that it had a measurable improvement on education?
Why? Shouldn’t it be incumbent upon those opposing diversity to show why it is bad? What, in your opinion, is undesireable about a diversity that better represents the American populace.
Please note that this discussion is about the merits of diversity, and not about the means employed to achieve diversity. That is a separate debate, but I am interested in what John Mace and others have to say in defense of the assertion that, put simply, “diversity is bad.”
I didn’t say diversity was bad. There are those who push “diversity” as being good. I say prove it. If you can’t prove that’s it’s “good”, then don’t expect me to support it. Until proven otherwise, I say it’s neither good nor bad. In which case, why go out of your way to acheive it?
As I said, above, if I had to guess, I’d guess that diversity of opinion (or thought or whatever you want to call it) is probably good for education. However, I don’t believe that is what most people mean when they use the term.
Non-politically correct statements must be rooted out, by being decried as racism
Nope. Illogical arguments must be identified as what they are, illogical arguments. You quote a study where students, administrators, and faculty express increased dissatisfaction with the increase in the number of black students. You (and the authors) attribute this to the relatively new program of AA, as oppposed to the centuries long tradition of anti-black hostility in American society. (Note that Hispanics students, who also benefit from AA, did not arouse the same degree of hostility.)
In fact, this study could be used to justify AA. Do you really want to argue that the answer to negative perceptions of black students is to reduce the number of black students?
You also failed to answer my other objections. Why no critique of geographic diversity quotas, alumni preference, and gender balancing? If the goal is stronger academic perfomance then these programs should fall by the wayside. They won’t , though, because their constituencies are much stronger (and whiter) than those that benefit from AA.
In addition to being worthless, the study was also unneccessary. An objective study of the long-term effects of AA has already been done:* The Shape of the River* pup.princeton.edu./titles/6374.html. Not fuzzy-wuzzy, feel good-feel bad, anonymous venting about how some people dislike going to school with black people (the study that you quote). Factual, objective evaluation of the positive long term social outcomes from AA.
Right wingers usually cry, “PC! PC!” when they’ve run out of ideas.
And it all depends on what kind of education we’re talking about:
If I was putting together a poli sci course where discussion was important, I’d want to have Marxists, Libertarians, Dems, Reps, etc all represented. I’d call that diversity. I also wouldn’t care what the skin color was of the people holding those views.
If I was putting together an EE course, I wouldn’t give a hoot about the political leanings of the students. In fact I wouldn’t give a hoot about anything other than logical reasoning ability.
If a school accepted only well-qualified students of a certain ethnic group might, that might well improve perceptions of that group.
Because the lawsuit on race-based preferences at the U of Michigan will have oral argument before the Supreme Court in a few days.
This book has been widely praised by AA supporters. OTOH its analysis has been widely criticized by AA opponents. E.g., Thomas Sowell wrote
The Bowen & Bok study may be worthwhile, but it is hardly conclusive.
Well, if all other things are equal, isn’t it better to have a sample of the population be representative of that population? Isn’t it simply desirable, again, if we are in agreement that diversity is not in and of itself bad, to ensure that there is not a hint of the racism that has plagued our country for too long, or that people of different backgrounds might be able to take new skills and tools back to their varying communities?
I’ve conducted a poll. 89% of the baseball fans in Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Houston, and Atlanta believe that the “designated hitter” is bad for baseball.
I would say: it depends. In a college environment, one is expected to take a well-rounded curriculum of classes regardless of one’s chosen major. This includes classes which not only are improved by diversity, but in some cases fairly demand diversity to be very effective. Such could be something obvious, such as race and gender courses, or less obvious, such as political science courses, which will probably discuss (anti)discrimination in the political system.
This is, of course, disregarding the fact that we live in a pluralistic society outside of the academic environment. It has been well-noted that exposure to differences decreases fear of said differences, and often succeeds in dispelling stereotypes. Such would be a worthwhile cause in preparation for a life which will confront each graduate with a multitude of different backgrounds,
Does this require programs such as Affirmative Action? Debatable, I suppose. But diversity is a good thing, yes.
Who cares if it increases the quality of education or not? When it comes to state funded colleges, I dont see how that’s a legitimate reason to favor some students over others in the first place.
All things being equal, yes, a sufficiently large random sample of the population should be representative of the population. This ignores two things, however.
First and more importantly, college choice isn’t a random sample at all. Maybe Bob is more comfortable at Largely White U even though he also got into Representative Sample U and Largely Not White U. If so, I can’t see that it’s a problem for him to go to Largely White U. Nor can I see that it’s a problem for Largely White U to exist in the first place; if diversity is so darn wonderful, why should all our institutes of higher education be the same?
Secondly, I would suggest that requiring a sample to be representative of the whole means that not all things are equal. Seems fairly obvious to me that imposing an artificial constraint of some sort or another sort of wipes out any claim one might wish to make of perfect equality.
First of all, college is not necessarily supposed to be all about academics. Ostensibly, part of the purpose of higher education is to broaden one’s mind and be exposed to different ideas and cultures, which, I believe, is very important to being a well-rounded, educated individual.
A person who has been raised in a largely white town may have never really spent much time around blacks. (My town is a perfect example.) Having never interacted much with black folks, people, who are not necessarily racist, can still harbor some sterotypes about blacks. Diversity means that that person will interact with black people in the classroom environment and will be exposed to their ideas and life experiences. This can be very enriching for a student.
For the life of me, I have never understood the bitter resentment that some whites seem to have toward Affirmative Action. So what if blacks are getting preference? So what if the standards are changed so that they can gain admittance to the university? They still have to work hard while they’re there in order to graduate.
There are automatic advantages in this country which come with being white and middle class. These include, but are not limited to, better schools and tutoring programs. (A poor black kid is unlikely to have the same access to Sylvan Learning Center or to SAT prep courses.) It’s hard to learn in a disruptive environment from a burned-out teacher. Lowering some standards is a recognition of the fact that the student has been ham-stringed by a poor educational background.
However, once they’re in the university, the playing field is leveled. They are on equal footing with the white students and have equal access to help, if needed. They must get the grades to pass. No one is “letting them slide” into a doctorate: they’re just giving them extra help in entering the university in the first place.
** If we’re trying to create a test population for a psychological study of the general population, the answer is yes. If we’re trying to find qualified students, the answer is no. The ethnic backgrounds of the students are not related to their individual academic qualifications and test scores. Claiming otherwise is racism.**
[/QUOTE]
OP cite: Students, faculty members and administrators all responded to increasing racial diversity by registering increased dissatisfaction with the quality of education and the work ethic of their peers.
Is there any info about how big this increase was found to be? I found a separate article on this study by Rothman et al., but it doesn’t contain any figures about the size of the impact of increased diversity.
I also note that the multiple regression analysis they used to isolate the diversity factor did not take into account any measure of racism which might have influenced respondents’ perceptions. This is not to claim that “criticism of diversity necessarily equals racism”, just that the authors of the study didn’t come up with any clear way to distinguish in their study between real educational quality problems and racist whining.
So their results might mean that increased racial diversity is really a bad thing for colleges, or they might mean that students have a racist perception of schools with higher percentages of blacks and Hispanics as providing lower-quality education, or some combination of the two.
Interestingly, the Rothman et al. study also seems to suffer from the very same flaw that december quotes Thomas Sowell as complaining about with respect to the opposing Bowen and Bok study: namely, it “lumps together those black students who were admitted under the same standards as white students with those black students who were admitted under lower standards.” Did the decrease in perceived educational quality correlate to increased minority enrollment under affirmative action, or to increased minority enrollment in general?
That is, are respondents complaining because they’ve got more “underqualified” black and Hispanic students on campus, or simply because they’ve got more black and Hispanic students per se? Again, the study gives us no way to distinguish between the perceived effects of real problems and the influence of mere racist prejudices.