FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
29 March 2003, Chetly Zarko

Internal U-Mich. Study: There Are “No significant differences among racial/ethnic groups,” Race Preferences Stigmatize and Don’t Change Attitudes.

An internal statistical survey analysis of student attitudes over time at the University of Michigan comes to several surprising conclusions. Among them, the report finds that racial preference programs actually stigmatize African-Americans, that individuals from different groups don’t show statistical differences in the way they think about education (their hopes, goals, and aspirations are similar), and that the concept and implementation of diversity could “benefit from a re-evaluation.”

The document summarizing these conclusions, written three years before the filing of the litigation challenging Michigan admissions policies, stands in stark opposition to the U-M’s current public position. It also contradicts ‘research’ U-M ‘commissioned’ after the litigation and has cited in its legal briefings in defense of racial preferences. The report calls into question at least three pillars of modern “diversity” thought. Since it was written at Michigan before the lawsuits, by researchers and decision-makers heavily in favor of affirmative action, it poses a more significant challenge to the legitimacy of their arguments.

The May 24, 1994 “Executive Summary of The Michigan Study Project from the Office of Multicultural Initiatives for the Retreat for the Committee on a Multicultural University” was found in the University of Michigan historical archives in the files of former president James Duderstadt. The U-M Freedom of Information Office cleared its viewing only 8 days before oral arguments to the Supreme Court, probably too late to make any legal difference.

“The Michigan Study” was commissioned in March 1990 shortly after Duderstadt became president and advanced his diversity initiative known as the Michigan Mandate. A sample of students from the 1990-91 freshman class were given a detailed survey of political and academic attitudes upon entering U-M and at the end of each year thereafter, until they left in 1994. The advantage of such a “time-series” study was that it allowed the researchers to draw conclusions as to how student attitudes evolved, as well as providing traditional snapshot data. The study sought to identify “students’ expectations, perceptions, and experiences with respect to diversity, [and] explored differences and commonalities among students of different racial/ethnic backgrounds in many other areas of their lives—their goals and expectations of college, experiences with faculty, interactions with fellow students and extracurricular involvement,” and a variety of other factors.

The report began by noting that the only real difference between racial groups involves the social and economic backgrounds from which students come to the university. African-American students have statistically fewer financial resources and their fathers have had less education. According to the report though, “in contrast to these large group differences in background, financial support and concerns, few group differences were found when we examined students’ general college expectations and orientations that are not directly focused on racial/ethnic diversity and multi-culturalism. For example, our findings do not support the common view in the literature on college students that students of color and first generation students generally are more interested in college for pragmatic, career, mobility reasons, and less involved in academic and intellectual endeavors. There were no significant differences among the racial/ethnic groups in the relative importance that the entering students assigned to items like ‘being a top student academically’ and ‘gaining a broad education and appreciation of ideas’ in contrast to ‘gaining knowledge and skills for a career’ when asked about their goals in coming to Michigan.” The report sums up the general section on racial commonality by noting, “the dominant pattern was of intergroup similarity in responses to a broad array of questions … about the size and complexity of the Michigan environment, their satisfaction with the intellectual quality of their classes, their relationships with faculty, their social and extracurricular activities.”

Essentially, this is an acceptance of the counter-argument to diversity that individuals from different groups don’t necessarily “think” differently. The idea of imposing racial/ethnic diversity upon a student population because it will expose them to a wider range of ideas depends implicitly upon the idea that we have less in common than we have in differences. Indeed, the writers of the report were astute enough to recognize a danger that the “diversity” argument brings in potential divisiveness. They recognized need “to understand the commonalities … and to challenge the stereotypes that may exaggerate differences, particularly the distinctions that involve invidious comparisons.” In this recognition, they saw an opportunity in “understanding what our students share in common can help us to recognize what might unite them as a learning community … ”

Where there were “some differences which, though relatively small,” the conclusions drawn actually support the opposition to racial preference programs. Quoting the report, “[O]ne is that students of color, particularly African-American students, less often feel that they are respected academically, and that their work is appreciated and fairly graded. This supports the concern in the literature on minority students that they feel stigmatized and academically disregarded by faculty at predominantly white institutions.” Here, the bias of the authors is reflected in how carefully they point the blame of “stigmatization” to the “predominantly white [nature of the] institutions.” It must be pointed out though that race preferences, ‘diversity’ programs, and the Michigan Mandate (a multi-cultural program lead by president Duderstadt in 1989) were in full force during the study. An equally plausible explanation for the minor ‘stigmatization’ felt by minorities is that the existence of racial preference in admissions influences both self-confidence and the faculty’s confidence in minority students. This section of the report however emphasizes again, “the general pattern … is one of intergroup commonality … Our data are in general not consistent with … the literature … that their [minorities] discontent with the racial climate on campus engenders a pervasive discontent with the total college experience.”

Attacking another pillar diversity thought is statistical evidence that racial preferences don’t work; and that they may even further exacerbate racial tension. The data implies that “it appears that much of the response to diversity and multiculturalism on campus is formulated in the opinions of students before [in original] the arrive at Michigan—little if any change occurs in the group positions. This is at once both good and bad news. The results do not support the claims by some that multicultural program and curricular efforts are in themselves causing division and tension on campus. It is clear that students are divided in some important ways on these matters before entrance. On the other hand, the results also do not lend support to the idea that attending a university with an increasingly racial/ethnic student body has much of an impact in educating large numbers of students on these matters (at least in the first year).” This last sentence is certainly an admission that an increased minority presence does nothing, by itself, to change racial attitudes. Diversity doesn’t work! The report startlingly concludes, “Quite simply, access is not enough; increasing the numbers of students who attend the institution from different racial/ethnic backgrounds does not in itself lead to a more informed, educated population; prepared to achieve in a complex and diverse world.”

According to the report, the ‘silver lining’ is that the lack of change itself indicates that multicultural programs “themselves” don’t cause “division and tension on campus.” Even though they reach this positive conclusion from the first-year snapshot data, they later find increasing ‘polarization’ when analyzing the change in individual perceptions over the whole four-year period. According to the report, “when students evaluate the university’s commitment to students of color, African American and White student perceptions are increasingly polarized. At entrance, 46 percent of African American students perceive a university commitment and at the end of the second year, this number decreases to 19 percent. For White students, the number perceiving a university commitment to students of color increases, from 57 percent at entrance to 70 percent in the sophomore year.” Supporting the report’s conclusion that “diversity can mean very different things to different people,” whites attempting to integrate socially with minorities often feel “personally rejected” when they encounter “students of color not as concerned with ‘social integration.’ ” Bringing their own prejudices with them, African American students “seem to assess diversity efforts in terms of more institutional [in original] aspects of the racial climate. Interpersonal contact or concern with ‘division’ are not as salient in their evaluations of diversity, as are issues of ‘university commitment,’ ’respect,’ and representation of African American experiences in the educational process. … Unfortunately, the desire to learn and understand other groups’ contribution to society (Asian American or Latino/Hispanic for example) does not appear to be an important component of their evaluation of diversity as of yet.”

What does this all mean? Increasing polarization, in a university priding itself upon a commitment to diversity, race preferential admissions, and multicultural curricula and programs suggests that something is wrong. Given that white students increasingly perceive a university commitment to minorities as they move through the system, it is clear that programs exist and are visible. While white students must accept some blame for the fact that “interaction is generally not occurring in close social networks,” some blame must be placed on the African American individuals who see “interpersonal contact … as less salient” to diversity. A number of causes are possible for the decline in African American’s perceptions of university commitment. University follow-up programs might either be insufficient or poorly supported, or paradoxically, the programs might be successful in teaching a philosophy of institutional victimization and tribalism that turns the blame back onto the very institution trying to effect change. If it is the former, it is clear that increasing or decreasing racial preferences and therefore raw numbers of minorities admitted will have no effect on racial attitudes. If it is the latter, then the educational paradigm of diversity, with all its trappings, is badly flawed. Either way, a program that doesn’t achieve its purported ends can’t provide a “compelling state interest” to meet the constitutionality tests of Bakke v. the Regents of the University of California.

The report also supports other archival research I have done suggesting that racial preferences could and should be replaced with a system of preference to anyone from a socio-economically challenged background (regardless of color). A system of economic preferences would be constitutional on its face (color-neutral), but even if challenged would be much more “narrowly tailored” than its counterpart. This alternative would recognize, just as the report’s authors concluded, a greater need to focus on educational financial assistance before and during college. It also alternative recognizes that minorities are statistically more likely to be so-challenged, but would help any individual (regardless of color) with similar disadvantages. Additionally, the program’s statistical benefit to any group has a built-in end. If society ever solved racial-economic inequity for one group, it would no longer have a statistical advantage.