THE EDUCATIONAL VALUE OF DIVERSITY

By Jonathan R. Alger

Diversity is not a dirty word, but recent legal and political developments in the higher education context seem to suggest otherwise. In the 1978 Bakke decision, Justice Powell found the attainment of a diverse student body to be a constitutionally permissible goal for a university exercising its educational judgment, and he recognized race as one among a number of factors contributing to that diversity. In the 1996 Hopwood decision, a federal appellate court--with considerable judicial chutzpa--asserted that Justice Powell had been mistaken, and that diversity cannot serve as a "compelling interest" justifying race-based affirmative action programs in higher education. California, the nation's largest and most racially diverse state, has now banned the consideration of race in its higher education programs. Why has the affirmative consideration of race to achieve diversity in higher education fallen into legal and social disrepute?

One major reason is that diversity has become an end in itself, rather than a means to a greater educational end. In addition, the need for diversity has frequently been confused by its supporters and critics alike with the need to remedy discrimination. Although remedying discrimination has been recognized as a permissible basis for race-based affirmative action, it rests on different assumptions and relies on different evidence.

The opponents of race-based affirmative action have largely succeeded in convincing the courts and the public that the goal of racial diversity reflects and reinforces racial stereotypes, acts as a poor substitute for true intellectual diversity, and serves as a thinly disguised excuse for racial quotas. Too often these criticisms have been on target, in part because universities have failed to establish the fundamental link between diversity and their educational missions. If programs premised on the need for diversity are to survive in this legal and political climate, the educational value of these programs for all students must be fully and forcefully articulated.

The argument for the necessity of diversity is perhaps stronger in higher education than in any other context, but only if diversity is understood as a means to an end. The ultimate product of universities is education in the broadest sense, including preparation for life in the working world. As part of this education, students learn from face-to-face interaction with faculty members and with one another both inside and outside the classroom. Racial diversity can enhance this interaction by broadening course offerings, texts, and classroom examples, as well as improving communications and understanding among individuals of different races. The impact of diversity is evidenced by the inclusion of multicultural perspectives in many disciplines--authors such as Toni Morrison have joined the accepted canon.

A common criticism of race-based diversity programs, reflected in the Bakke discussion of intellectual diversity arising from different perspectives and life experiences, is that race is used as a mere proxy for a particular perspective or point of view. According to this critique, a university seeking diversity assumes that individuals of particular races will bring with them certain perspectives due to their racial backgrounds. This assumption is patronizing and misguided, of course, because members of every racial group differ in their life experiences. Proponents of diversity have all too often permitted the debate to be centered on this argument and have faltered in the courts when trying to defend the use of race to achieve intellectual diversity. Given the strict scrutiny with which racial classifications are judged under American law, it is not surprising that courts have frowned upon this justification for race-based diversity programs. In fact, the educational value of diversity can be defended largely on the basis of the exact opposite of this stereotypical assumption. The range of similarities and differences within and among racial groups is precisely what gives diversity in higher education its educational value. For example, by seeing firsthand that all black or Hispanic students in their classes do not act or think alike, white students can overcome learned prejudices that may have arisen in part from a lack of direct exposure to individuals of other races. One can imagine the impact on a white student from a homogenous white suburban background, whose views regarding blacks have been shaped primarily by television and movies, of a law school class featuring arguments from black students as diverse as Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas. Likewise, the recently immigrated Asian American student in the same class, who assumes that most white Americans think alike, may be surprised by white students with opinions as diverse as Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Similarly, prejudices can be overcome when students discover just how much they have in common with their peers from other races. Prejudice is learned behavior, and the prevalence of young offenders in racially motivated hate crimes demonstrates that it is learned at an early age. Due to local control of elementary and secondary education in this country, many students attend neighborhood schools that are segregated according to local demographics. Once in college together, however, students of different races may discover that their political beliefs or extracurricular interests provide as much or more common ground as does race. No textbook or computer can substitute for the direct personal interaction that leads to this type of self-discovery and growth.

This educational benefit is universal in that all students learn from it, not just minority students who might have received a "bump" in the admissions process. Indeed, majority students who have previously lacked significant direct exposure to minorities frequently have the most to gain from interaction with individuals of other races. The universality of this benefit distinguishes the diversity rationale from the rationale of remedying discrimination, under which minority students receive special consideration to make up for past injustices to their racial group.

Diversity as Institutional Mission
The diversity rationale also differs from remedying discrimination in that it stems directly from, and reinforces, the educational mission of the university as defined by the institution itself. In Bakke, Justice Powell cited the university's academic freedom interestin setting the criteria for selection of its students to meet its educational goals. This relationship of diversity to academic freedom and to the university's educational mission implies that each institution is in the best position to determine its own diversity goals in light of its educational objectives. For example, some institutions have religious roots and desire a student body that keeps those ties alive. Historically black colleges were founded to educate black students shut out of other institutions and have a mission that includes continued support of underprivileged groups. Moreover, the mission of each institution is determined to some extent by its service area and applicant pool, which can change over time as changes occur in the institution's size, stature, or program offerings.

Each institution's interest in and need for racial diversity will vary based upon these factors. As Harvard President Neil Rudenstine recently described, an internationally recognized college or university that draws students from all over the country and the world--such as Harvard or Stanford--might have as part of its educational mission a commitment to expose its students to individuals from all races represented in the nation or even the world. A publicly funded land- grant college, however, might have a special legal obligation to serve the citizens of its state, and its interest in diversity would reflect that mission and service area. A community college might be established to serve students in a distinct region or metropolitan area, whereas a tribally controlled college might have a statutorily authorized core mission of serving Native Americans of particular tribes.

In some of these cases, it may be that affirmative efforts are required to achieve the diversity needed to match the educational mission because traditional recruiting efforts are insufficient. For example, a predominantly white college in a rural location with little racial diversity may decide that its educational mission includes a need to broaden the horizons of its students by recruiting students of other races and from other places. Even if the college itself has no history of discrimination, it may need to make affirmative efforts to attract and retain such students, particularly until it develops a welcoming reputation for minority students.

Of course, this model of learning assumes that students will interact with peers of other races in a variety of settings once enrolled at a university. Clubs, cultural centers, or special events that celebrate the traditions and contributions of minority groups can be inclusive and send a welcoming signal to minority students. If minority students remain largely segregated in campus housing, dining halls, classes, and activities, however, much of the potential interactive educational value of diversity may be lost for all students. For this reason, university programs based on diversity should focus not merely on the initial admissions process, but also on retention and on involvement in the full range of fields of study and extracurricular activities.

Recent studies by Alexander Astin and others have shown that direct student experience with racial diversity corresponds to increased cultural awareness and commitment to promoting racial understanding. This exposure comes at a critical time in students' lives: the university in essence serves as a controlled microcosm previewing the larger society and working world into which the students will graduate. At that point, their employers will expect them to be able to work and interact with a wide variety of people in an increasingly global economy.

More research remains to be done, however, by colleges and universities seeking to define and develop their interest in diversity as related to their educational missions. In a recent survey of existing research on diversity, the Association of American Colleges and Universities reports that campus-based diversity initiatives have a positive impact on the education of all students-- promoting increased tolerance and understanding of differences, greater commitment to social justice, and improved academic success and cognitive development. As the frontline educators who serve as students' teachers, mentors, role models, and friends, faculty members are uniquely positioned to observe and evaluate these educational benefits of diversity in a variety of campus contexts. For this reason, AAUP's Committee L on Historically Black Institutions and the Status of Minorities in the Profession, along with other organizations in higher education, is seeking systematic faculty input to inform the debate over the nature and extent of these educational benefits.

Merit and Other Considerations
If racial diversity in higher education is a "compelling interest" for which there is no adequate alternative, it must still be "narrowly tailored" to fit its goals in order to meet the legal standards for programs in which race is considered. May a university give special consideration to race in its admissions process to a greater extent than to other diversity factors such as geography or religion? Similarly, may special consideration be given to some minority groups and not others? The answers depend upon the extent to which race-neutral admissions procedures provide an adequate cross-section of students with regard to these other factors.

This principle applies to recruiting for all sorts of university needs and activities. In some years a university might need to make special efforts to obtain a top-caliber quarterback for its football team or bassoon player for its orchestra, but not when it already has a wealth of applicants from which to choose who play quarterback or bassoon. Special consideration should be given to members of particular racial groups only to the extent necessary to achieve the diversity interest articulated by the institution at a given time. This need is subject to constant reassessment in light of changing demographics and other circumstances. The goals should never approach rigid quotas; flexible ranges are more legally sound and allow for the myriad of factors that must be considered in putting together a student body.

Critics of diversity argue that factors such as race should not be considered in admissions or financial aid because such decisions should be based solely on individual "merit." Traditionally, such critics have defined merit narrowly to reflect individuals' past academic achievement or potential as measured by grade-point averages and standardized test scores, perhaps allowing for consideration of certain types of special skills or talents such as athletic or musical ability. All of these factors can of course contribute to the education of fellow students, but they are not the only factors that contribute to the breadth and quality of the learning environment on a college campus. Looking at an entering class as a whole, any of a number of factors that distinguish a particular applicant from large numbers of other individuals in the pool may also contribute to the overall learning environment. An applicant's "merit" therefore cannot be measured in the abstract without reference to other applicants; each individual's characteristics must be compared with the needs of the class as a whole. A star high school quarterback may have "merit" based on his past athletic accomplishments, for example, but it may mean little at an institution at which fifteen other star quarterbacks are also applying--or which has no football team at all.

Ironically, other factors having little to do with a traditional definition of merit--such as relationships to wealthy alumni or high-level university administrators--have long been accepted as legitimate criteria in admissions and financial aid decisions. Consideration of these nonmeritorious factors has never been thought of as "stigmatizing" for the students who benefited. The critics of racial diversity and defenders of traditional "merit" would be much more convincing if they attacked these forms of preference with equal vigor, because consideration of such factors has historically had a strong adverse impact on minority applicants.

These critics also claim that consideration of other race-neutral criteria such as socioeconomic status or geographic origin--i.e., criteria not subject to strict judicial scrutiny-- could provide the same results as consideration of race. Studies of the impact of using such factors to seek racial diversity have not been encouraging, however. For example, estimates indicate that the cessation of race-based affirmative action in California will have an adverse impact on African American and Hispanic students, even if socioeconomic status is relied upon heavily in admissions decisions.

Far from reflecting a color-blind society, racial classifications receive the highest level of constitutional scrutiny precisely because race has been such a powerful and divisive force in American and world history. In the post-Cold War world, racial and ethnic tensions have emerged as the greatest single threat to societies all over the globe--ranging from the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia to South Africa, Rwanda, and even Canada. Face-to-face interaction in the higher education context can play a key role in developing genuine interracial understanding and tolerance to overcome such tensions. Racial diversity within institutions is a compelling need, because painful historical experience has demonstrated that "separate but equal" educational systems are never equal and breed prejudice, misunderstanding, and resentment. If universities want to avoid a relapse into increased racial segregation in light of the pressures against affirmative action in today's political and legal climate, they must make the case for the need for racial diversity to further the core educational purposes for which they exist--and enlist the help of their faculty in identifying and articulating its educational benefits.

Jonathan R. Alger is AAUP associate counsel and staff liaison for Committee L on Historically Black Institutions and the Status of Minorities in the Profession.

Reprinted with permission from Academe: Bulletin of the AAUP, Vol. 83, No. 1 (January-February), 1997. For more information on Academe, please contact: bgardner@aaup.org.