News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
July 24, 2007
There was a national sigh of relief on campuses in June when an altered U.S. Supreme Court left standing the historic 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decision supporting affirmation action in admissions. There had been widespread fear among civil rights advocates that a more conservative Supreme Court would seriously undermine or even reverse the 5-4 Grutter decision with its author, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, no longer on the Court. The voluntary school integration decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education was, indeed, a serious reversal for desegregation in K-12 schools but while divided on the constitutionality of the school plans at issue in the cases, all nine justices agreed that the decision had no impact on the Grutter precedent. The rights of colleges to use race in admissions decisions for student body diversity had survived scrutiny by the most conservative Supreme Court in more than 70 years. Since the Supreme Court rarely takes such cases, the Grutter precedent might last for a while. While a bullet was dodged, optimism should be restrained. The dike protecting affirmative action has held but the river that brings diverse groups of students to colleges may be drying up as a result of the latest decision.
Colleges and universities, especially selective institutions, tend to draw their successful minority applicants from interracial schools and their admissions offices know well that many of the segregated minority high schools fail to prepare their students well enough to succeed in college. Research by the Civil Rights Project has shown that too many segregated urban high schools are “dropout factories” where the main product is dropouts and successful preparation for college is rare. Conservative economist Eric Hanushek found that the damage was worst for the relatively high achieving black students, the very students likely to comprise the college eligible pool. So making segregation worse cuts the number of well prepared students. In addition to academic preparation, students from segregated backgrounds are also often not ready to function socially on a largely white, affluent campus. It also means of course, that the most segregated group of students in American schools, whites, also have less preparation to deal successfully with diversity. So colleges may have won, but also lost.
Even before the new decision, segregation had been on the rise for almost two decades in American public schools, partially as a result of three decisions by the Supreme Court limiting desegregation in the 1990s (Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, Freeman v. Pitts and Missouri v. Jenkins). Because this new decision struck down the most common methods of creating integrated schools in districts without court orders to desegregate, it will likely precipitate further increases in segregation. Since 1980 the tools most commonly used to create integrated schools combine parental choice of schools with magnet programs and racial diversity guidelines. Now the limitations that prevented transfers and magnet choices that increased segregation are gone and districts have to decide whether to do something more complex and multidimensional or abandon their integration efforts. It remains to be seen what will happen in various districts, of course, but the experience of other districts that have ended the consideration of race as a criteria in their student assignment policies suggests that race-neutral methods will lead to resegregation and growing inequality.
Research thus suggests that there are two significant implications for higher education to consider. First, rising segregation is likely to bring a rise in educational inequality and less prepared black and Latino students. Second, all incoming students are likely to have fewer interracial experiences prior to attending college meaning they will be less prepared for effective functioning in an interracial setting.
The Seattle and Louisville cases produced an outpouring of summaries of a half century of research by a number of groups of scholars. A subsequent review of the briefs by the non-partisan National Academy of Education confirms the central premise of Brown v. Board of Education that racially isolated minority schools offer students an inferior education, which is likely to harm their future life opportunities, such as graduation from high school and success in college. Racially isolated minority schools are often unequal to schools with higher percentages of white students in terms of tangible resources, such as qualified, experienced teachers and college preparatory curriculum, and intangible resources including low teacher turnover and more middle-class peers — all of which are associated with positive higher educational outcomes.
Although colleges and universities differ in their criteria and process for admissions, common elements to their admissions decisions for students include 1) whether a student has or will graduate from high school, 2) standardized test scores, and 3) number of advanced and Advanced Placement courses. Research consistently finds that minority students graduate at significantly lower rates in racially isolated minority schools; in fact, minority isolation is a significant predictor of low graduation rates, even when holding constant the effects of other school performance indicators. Academic achievement scores of students are also lower in segregated minority schools, and this effect can cumulate over time for students who spend multiple years attending segregated schools. Finally, many predominantly minority schools do not offer as extensive advanced curricular opportunities and levels of academic competition as do majority white or white and Asian schools.
In addition to offering different opportunities for academic preparation, research has also found that integrated schools offer minority students important connections to competitive higher education and information about these options. There are strong ties between successful high schools and selective colleges. Minority students who graduate from integrated schools are more likely to have access to the social and professional networks normally available to middle class white students. For example, a study of Latino students who excelled at elite higher educational institutions found that most students had attended desegregated schools — and gained academic confidence as well as critical knowledge about what they need to do to accomplish their aspirations (e.g., which courses to take from other, college-going students).
White students also lose if schools resegregate. Desegregation advocates assert that public school desegregation is powerful and essential because desegregated schools better prepare future citizens for a multiracial society. A critical component of this preparation is gaining the skills to work with people of diverse backgrounds. Segregated schools in segregated neighborhoods leave white as well and nonwhite students ill-prepared for what they will encounter in colleges and university classes or in their dorms.
Over 50 years ago, Harvard psychologist Gordon Allport suggested that one of the essential conditions to reducing prejudice was that people needed to be in contact with one another, particularly under appropriate conditions. Research in racially integrated schools confirms that, by allowing for students of different races and ethnicities to be in contact with one another, students can develop improved cross-racial understanding and experience a reduction of racial prejudice and bias. Importantly, research suggests that other interventions such as studying about other groups are not as effective or as long-lasting as actually being in contact with students of other racial/ethnic backgrounds.
Research on graduates of racially integrated elementary and secondary schools has also found that students who graduated from these settings felt their integrated schooling experiences had better prepared them for college, including being more interested in attending integrated higher education institutions. The Civil Rights Project has surveyed high school juniors in a number of major school systems around the country and students in more diverse schools report feeling more comfortable living and working with others of different backgrounds than did their peers in segregated high schools.
As schools become more segregated, it will become more incumbent on colleges and universities to intensify their outreach and retention programs to improve access for all students, and to consider the extra burdens borne by the victims of segregation who have done nothing to deserve unequal opportunities. In particular, it will be critically important for colleges and universities to continue to use race in their outreach and retention programs. As colleges and universities that have sought to defend affirmative action policies have long understood and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy recently wrote, “The enduring hope is that race should not matter, the reality is that too often it does.” Further, the need to help students understand how to productively live with others from diverse backgrounds will fall to higher education. As other institutions retreat from mirroring the racial diversity of our country, this may increasingly become a responsibility universities must shoulder.
Our incoming students already have more limited interracial experiences than the last generation of students, a trend that is likely to only get worse. We hope that many school districts will continue to value integration and seek more comprehensive policies under the new guidelines set forth in Justice Kennedy’s controlling opinion, but it is very likely that segregation will worsen. We believe that university faculty and researchers who may have expertise to assist local school districts find legal and workable solutions to maintain diversity should offer support at this critical time. Universities can also take a public leadership and education role in continuing to argue for the importance of integrated educational settings. These actions could help limit some of the ill effects of the resegregation of local schools and help keep alive the legacy of Brown in a period of judicial retreat.
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
Any preference for some is a punishment (discrimination) for others. The simple fact is white kids aren’t getting in to schools because they are white. How many minorities have claimed that they had to outperform their majority peer? Now its white males that need to out score their skin color and gender in order to get in a school.
Let’s not forget that affirmative action was choosing between 2 equally qualified candidates. Boosting minority SAT scores by 200 points or raising their high school GPA from 3.0 to 4.0 to get them in isn’t equally qualified candidates. The more the education industry tilts the scales to get their diversity percentage the more people will become offended and head to court.
Schools naturally reflect the racial mix of the neighborhood they are built in. Segregation is when people aren’t allowed to go to the local school because of their race and the court put a stop to it yet again. The truth is people want to force white kids into lousy schools in the hopes that their better off parents will fix things. That condemning minority kids to bad schools is a crime against humanity while doing to white kids is “social justice” demonstrates the hypocrisy, hatred, and prejudices of the people that craft these programs. Sounds like racial profiling to me.
This ruling was one more step towards a future where we are judged on the content of our character and not the color of our skin.
Michael
Michael, at 2:30 pm EDT on July 24, 2007
Gary Orfield and the Civil Rights Project have injected the invaluable concept of “resegregation” into national discussion, and their research over the years has been superb. But I do not like the air of managing decline in this piece, in which conservatives are able to establish resegregation as a given and then armies of educators have to thrash around doing damage control on socially destructive and legally faulty “colorblind” policy, only to continue to be insulted and hamstrung by those same conservatives. The only viable response is to restore national understanding of (and confidence in) the concepts of racial equality and racial integration in their contemporary nuances. Justice Breyer’s dissent, somewhat to my surprise, relaunches this effort for the federal bench by showing that the theory of colorblindnes lacks legitimate legal foundations; his dissent is also full of sympathy for daily policy struggles in the schools, based on a detailed historical knowledge one never sees in right-wing attacks on affirmative action. (For more on why anyone who wants racial progress should build on Breyer’s decision, see my entry at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund blog at http://scintegration.blogspot.com...blogger-beginning-of-end-for_20.html ). University folks should breathe no sigh of relief (as ongoing law suits should remind us), but take this opportunity to rebuild racial equity/integration’s legal and philosophical framework.
Chris Newfield, at 5:45 am EDT on July 25, 2007
I have been patiently waiting for someone to expose this linguistic sleight of hand, but no one seems to want to state the obvious.
There is no risk of schools “resegregating” or becoming “more” segregated after the recent Supreme Court cases. Segregation is an “all or nothing” concept. You cannot have “a little bit” of segregation (just like you can’t be “a little bit” pregnant).
Segregation is the legally imposed, absolute, separation of the races by government fiat. An obvious example would be the legally sanctioned provision of “all black” or “all white” public schools.
Similarly, “segregation” by sex would involve “all girl” or “all boy” schools. If a previously “all girl” school changed its policy and allowed boys into the schools, and 5% of its student population then happened to be boys, this would (obviously) imply that the school is no longer “segregated” by sex. The same principle applies for racial segregation.
There is no risk of public schools around the country becoming “segregated” (last time I looked no one was screaming “Segregation now, segregation forever!!” outside the schoolhouse door, although the ghosts of George Wallace no doubt exist in the shadows in some corners around the country).
The issue at hand is whether schools should strive for a racial composition reflecting the demographics of their community.
That is a completely different concept to the concept of “desegregation". That should properly be termed “racial balancing". Advoacates of “affirmative action” and “integration” are in truth simply advocates of “racial balancing".
There may be good reasons for “racial balancing” but they are not the same reasons given for “desegregation". For strong arguments in favor of “racial balancing", speak to any number of government officials who implemented Malaysia’s New Economic Policy — which was (openly and unashamedly) a policy of “racial balancing".
One can be fully supportive of (and indeed risk one’s life in support of) desegregation and equality of all peoples, but be absolutely and resolutely against (and indeed risk one’s life to oppose) racial balancing.
The above discussion elides this obvious distinction.
Timothy D. Mak, at 4:30 am EDT on July 30, 2007
Advertisement
or search for jobs directly.
A leader in academe, the University of South Carolina holds the Carnegie Foundation’s highest research designation and is ... see job
The University of California Riverside invests in your future through employee training and career development, access to ... see job
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Located just north of Houston, Texas, our five campuses serve 1,400 square miles. Our student enrollment is nearly 50,000 in ... see job
The University of California Riverside invests in your future through employee training and career development, access to ... see job
Everest Institute is a world-class educational organization and a rapidly growing part of Corinthian Colleges, Inc. At ... see job
Everest College, a respected member of the Corinthian Colleges’ network of schools, is dedicated to helping students ... see job
Northeastern University, founded in 1898 and located in Boston, is a private research university that is a leader in ... see job
The Institute for the International Education of Students (IES Abroad) is a US-based educational organization that instructs ... see job
Kennebec Valley Community College is seeking a full-time Dean of Student Affairs. see job
It’s probably true that tolerance is best learned by interaction with different folks. However, when people are pitted against one another for a valuable resource (a spot at an “elite” school or a scholarship) and one class is given a favorable position over another class of folks for what is seen as an arbitrary reason (skin color) then resentment is bound to flower. And you are seeing that on college campuses around the nation. Despite the backbreaking efforts of diversity deans, professors who style themselves as social activists and administrations fearful of seeming intolerant or producing embarrassing numbers in the next freshman class, students and citizens around the nation are registering their outrage at affirmative action with methods ranging from mock bake sales to ballot referendum (not to mention some uglier incidents that could well have been the result of such festering resentment). It’s a shame because most white folks would like to see minority students get ahead, but not if this means sacrificing the rights of their sons and daughters, most of whom are not to blame for any discrimination and who just happen to be born the color they were. The indifference to those kids (because, you know, they benefit so much from white privilege, right?) and their rights in the name of achieving the goal or integration (a goal found in both laudable and feel- good token forms) is striking among affirmative action advocates.It’s also hard to buy the arguments of most fans of affirmative action that these kids rights must be sacrificed so that colleges can get diversity which then will make for better business acumen among graduates. This from a group of people who would certainly (and rightly I think) oppose a host of other policies which may make for better business acumen but would threaten other educational values (let’s junk music and art and concentrate on engineering). Emphasizing merit is, and historically has been, a nuanced bag for groups with lower than average socioeconomic positions. While many groups will and were certainly kept down by merit based policies (since it is hard for them to get the proper training to excel without resources) these policies have also been a major gateway for others to escape social barriers that were holding them and their talents down (i.e., Asians and Jews). So knocking a value such as merit may have negative effects on raising social mobility for many groups; in addition it is knocking a value that has inherent value in an educational setting (where we try to overlook individual characteristics to try to judge arguments and research by more universal criteria; this process can only be assisted by embracing merit as a value).
Ken, at 11:20 am EDT on July 24, 2007