Racial Diversity Report of 1994 Wasn't 'Hidden'
(by Paul Courant, Provost,
U-Michigan)
The May 16 commentary "The Evidence of Things Not Seen" by Chetly Zarko (Taste page, Weekend Journal) misrepresents research on the educational benefits of racial diversity undertaken at the University of Michigan. His most outrageous assertion is that the university "hid" a report from 1994, since this material was provided directly and openly to the plaintiffs in 1998 as part of the two Michigan affirmative-action lawsuits now before the Supreme Court.
The 1994 report that he cites was a preliminary summary based on the first two years of data from a four-year longitudinal study of U-M students. It looked at student perceptions of racial climate and attitudes about specific university policies and programs.
In contrast, Prof. Patricia Gurin's work for the litigation applied sophisticated statistical analyses to the data from all four years of the Michigan Student Study, as well as to other data sets. Her work examined how actual experience with diversity affected students' own educational outcomes. Perceptions of racial climate and attitudes about university policies are neither actual experiences nor educational outcomes. The relationship between students' experiences with diversity and their educational outcomes is central to the issue of "compelling state interest" before the Supreme Court, and is entirely different from the focus of the 1994 report.
Prof. Gurin's work is part of a growing body of research around the country showing the educational benefits of racial and ethnic diversity in higher education. A number of prominent scholars and social science organizations filed amicus briefs in the U-M cases, supporting her research methods and findings.
Prof. Gurin and her colleagues have never claimed that simply having certain numbers of minority students is sufficient, by itself, to bring about the educational benefits associated with diversity. In her expert report, she writes that universities also must actively encourage student interaction.
Not only does the 1994 report fail to contradict Prof. Gurin's work, but it was far from "secret," as Mr. Zarko claims. It initially was shared widely both on campus and nationally, and then, as additional data became available, the reports were updated and published to the Michigan Student Study Web site. Both the U-M's Bentley Library and the Office of Academic and Multicultural Initiatives followed consistent, well-established policies in making materials available to Mr. Zarko.
Paul N. Courant
Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Mich.
Updated June 9, 2003 11:59 p.m. |
Diversity's Failures at University of Michigan
(by Chetly Zarko)
In regard to University of Michigan Provost Paul Courant's June 9 Letter to the Editor disputing my analysis of the little-known 1994 Executive Summary of the Michigan Student Study (MSS) (Taste page, Weekend Journal, May 16): MSS was one of three student surveys used in Patricia Gurin's 1999 expert testimony for the historic affirmative-action lawsuits. Recently, other work by Prof. Gurin was cited in oral arguments.
Prof. Gurin testified that social science data showed a "consistent pattern" that diversity enhances "democracy and educational experience" and that "this consistency is unusual." In contrast, the 1994 summary written by Prof. Gurin's husband (Gerald) presented a "mixed bag" of conclusions, some contradicting her and some independently undermining U-M's case.
Mr. Courant characterizes the 1994 summary's focus as different from Prof. Gurin's 1999 testimony. He argues that the 1994 summary can't contradict the 1999 testimony because, "Perceptions of racial climate and attitudes about university policies are neither actual experiences nor educational outcomes."
Ponder that remarkable statement. It still undermines Michigan's legal defense. The phrase itself is "spin" -- perceptions by necessity form the basis of all experience and education. The plain truth is that Michigan has relied on student "perceptions of racial climate," generally and specifically. Listed in Prof. Gurin's 1999 testimony appendix under "democracy outcomes":
• University's focus on diversity puts too much emphasis on group differences (reverse)
• University's emphasis on diversity means I can't talk honestly about ethnic, racial, and gender issues (reverse)
If these aren't "perceptions of racial climate" based upon "university policies," what are? Even if "irrelevant" to Prof. Gurin (implicating her completeness), diversity's "failures" still jeopardize the legal defense. One person's "democracy outcome" becomes another's tyranny!
Mr. Courant suggests the 1994 summary was "preliminary" and based on "only two years" of a four-year dataset. While it was "preliminary" and written without four-year data "attached," the real smoking guns reside in the roughly 160 documents contained in the same folder. While writing my analysis, I was aware of these charts and statistical regression measurements, but awaiting an expert review by Dr. Robert Lerner. Using all four years of data, the results are even worse. Dr. Lerner discovered that the questionnaires changed substantially in the final year (invalidating the "longitudinal" nature of the study). He also confirmed four-year trends of declining interracial friendships and increasing interracial tension as students were exposed longer to Michigan's multicultural system. (Full report at http://www.ceousa.org/pdfs/hiddendata.pdf ). If, as Michigan argues, it has one of the "best" multicultural programs in the nation, the entirety of the program (racial preferences, curriculum, interaction) is not performing as advertised.
Mr. Courant suggests that because the summary (U-M admits however that the "dataset" was never produced and refuses to disclose it under FOIA) was produced to counsel that it wasn't "hidden." Attorneys represent merely two individuals, not "the public." As to the public, Patricia Gurin did not cite (nor did she turn the dataset over to plaintiffs) the 1994 report in her court testimony, as seemingly required by federal law. The summary itself was found in a "restricted" portion of an historical archive.
In traditional science, "peer review" is the standard. Even if Prof. Gurin's analysis were accurate, we would never know. Real or not, the picture is one of legal need rewriting science.
Chetly Zarko
Ann Arbor, Mich.
Updated June 11, 2003
|
