 |
|
|
|
|
U-Michigan Online Response to ZR Op-ed
 The Wall Street Journal, May 16th, 2003. TASTE Section Page W7
PDF Version. Original. The Evidence of Things Not Seen, Wall Street Journal, May 16, 2003. Fair use reprint, © 2003, Wall St. Journal.
The U-Michigan Director of News and Information issued the following reply.
by Julie Peterson, Director, News and Information Services, The Univesity of Michigan.
Your press release deeply distorts the findings of the earlier research and any implications for the later research by Patricia Gurin that is part of our expert testimony. Furthermore, your choice of language -- "lying," "manipulation," "secret" and "deception" -- indicates an unprofessional bias against the University and is quite offensive.
The Michigan Student Study was begun in 1990 in order to gain greater insight into our strengths and weaknesses relative to our diversity initiatives as part of the Michigan Mandate. It was a longitudinal study of students from the freshman through senior years. (We are now engaged in a followup to the Michigan Study.) The existence of this work, long before the trend of lawsuits against affirmative action developed, is evidence of the University of Michigan's deep commitment to a diverse student body and to creating a climate that maximizes the benefits students receive from learning in a racially diverse environment.
The executive summary dated May 19, 1994, was developed for a retreat hosted by the president and provost and involving about 50 people including executive officers, deans, and other representatives from their offices. The draft report was an early analysis of the first two years of data available from the Michigan Student Study.
This early analysis was not "secret." It was shared widely with administrators, faculty, and students across campus and a number of follow-up presentations on the data were given both on campus and acrossthe country. The initial report was later updated and finalized upon completion of the longitudinal study, as data after students' fourth year became available for analysis. Nevertheless, all of the major conclusions or subject areas you have pointed to are currently discussed in the final reports located on the website at http://www.umich.edu/~oami/mss/.
The 1994 report is a preliminary and simple analysis of two years worth of data on students' perceptions of climate and their views on diversity. In contrast, Professor Patricia Gurin's analyses, done aspart of the expert testimony, use three major data sets -- a national data set housed at UCLA, the Michigan Student Study, and data from the U-M Program on Intergroup Relations, Conflict and Community -- to look specifically at the educational outcomes of diversity. Gurin's analysis involved complex multiple statistical regressions, using many control variables. The 1994 report does not contradict any of the work Prof. Gurin did later; it simply is not relevant because it uses different data sets and different social science methods. The 1994 study does not measure the relationship between diversity experience and educational
outcomes, as Prof. Gurin did in her expert report.
You quote partially from the 1994 report about whether having certain numbers of minority students is sufficient to bring about benefits associated with diversity. The complete quote is: "This suggests that much more needs to be done to infuse diversity into formal learning situations and the curriculum on campus. 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."
This is consistent with everything the University has said since, including Prof. Gurin's expert testimony. Here is a quote from her testimony: "Structural diversity (i.e., increasing the numerical representation of various racial/ethnic groups) is essential but by itself usually not sufficient to produce substantial benefits; in addition to being together on the same campus, students from diverse backgrounds must also learn about each other in the courses they take and in informal interaction outside the classroom. For new learning to occur, institutions of higher learning have to make appropriate use of structural diversity." And here's a quote from me in a Washington Post story April 1 on the racial climate on our campus: " 'One of the reasons why we're defending our affirmative action policy so strongly is that we're not there yet,' said Julie Peterson, a University of Michigan spokeswoman. The school has programs designed to bring students together, Peterson said, 'because it's not enough to just have people here. You have to do the work.' "
Again referencing the 1994 report, it should not be surprising to learn that African American and white students have different views about what diversity means to them, and that underrepresented minority students continue to have concerns about the chilliness of the campus climate. Indeed, this is the argument made by intervenors about continued discrimination in educational settings across the country. We have never argued that discrimination does not exist; on the contrary, it is the continued segregation of high schools and the great impact that one's race has on one's life experiences that makes racial diversity on our campus such an important part of the educational process. The Michigan Student Study not only calls our attention to a number of issues regarding our students' views of diversity, but it also offers a number of concrete recommendations which are listed on the website.
At the same time, the 1994 report also finds many similarities among racial groups, which you claim "supports the counter argument to diversity, that blacks and whites don't think differently." Far from "hiding" this 1994 finding, we also feature it in our current report on the website, noting that "despite differences in parental backgrounds and racial/ethnic experiences students of all origins showed great commonality in their goals for college and their high academic investment and motivation." Our argument before the Court was not that students of particular races would always bring with them a certain point of view; rather, we seek to enroll meaningful numbers of minority students so that students can also see differences within racial groups and similarities across racial boundaries. It is this process that helps to break down stereotypes.
Here is my response to the additional questions you posed in yesterday's e-mail:
"Why was the content of key questions (the ones leading to "unpleasant" policy conclusions) on the questionnaires used for the Michigan Study substantially changed from the entering junior year sample to the graduated senior sample?"
I challenge your assumption about the nature of the changes to the survey instrument. Such changes are common, and relate solely to things the researchers learned from conducting the first survey and refined as the study developed over time. Questions were added to cover topics that were not sufficiently addressed in the first survey, and others were dropped if they did not seem as centrally important. That's it, pure and simple.
"What race-neutral alternatives has U-M considered if it loses the Supreme Court case?"
The University has tried a variety of efforts to recruit, enroll and retain a diverse student body. These include targeted recruiting and outreach including visits to underrepresented schools and work with minority alumni, and attention to socioeconomic disadvantage, including overcoming significant personal obstacles (regardless of race). However, we do not believe that any effective race-neutral admissions system exists that will both maintain our high academic standards and result in a student body that is racially and ethnically diverse.
Expert studies by Steve Raudenbush and by William Bowen and Derek Bok reinforce this belief. Alternatives tried by other institutions are either ineffective, or are not really race-neutral -- or in many cases they have both failings.
Of course we will comply with the ruling of the Court. But we remain committed to building a diverse campus and to maximizing opportunities for students to learn from others who are different from themselves.
"Does U-M consider socio-economic preference systems alone to be an adequate alternative, and if not, specifically why not?"
We already consider socioeconomic disadvantage in our admissions system. But a system based on socioeconomic disadvantage alone cannot produce a racially diverse student body. There are two reasons why we reject this as an adequate substitute. The first is that there are many more impoverished white students than minority students, so the same problems with the pool size confront us as in the applicant pool as a whole. Using socioeconomic status alone would result in the admission of disadvantaged white students but would not ensure enrollment of underrepresented minorities. {emphasis-Czar's Court}
We also seek a racially diverse student body in order to overcome stereotypes, not to reinforce them. A student body that includes primarily disadvantaged minority students could reinforce the stereotype, for example, that all African American students must be poor students from urban schools. We want to enroll students, including minority students, from a variety of backgrounds and experiences so students can learn to see differences within racial groups and similarities across racial lines, as I've noted above.
If your article is published I would very much like to know when and where. I hope you will be willing to share with me the final outcome. |
Zarko Research responds
The author has never claimed that his writing (openly penned in op-ed style) didn't interject opininion with factual presentation. The "bias" of strong opinions should only be judged against the factual support for those conclusions. There is an equally "unprofessional bias" favoring diversity and also in all versions of the MSS, including the contradictory versions that was not published.
" ... the University of Michigan's deep committment to a diverse student body" has never been questioned. " ... the benefits students receive" is precisely the [internal] debate documented here.
The 50 or so top-level employees were attending the Council on Multicultural Affairs Retreat, hardly a group of people likely to or with an incentive to further publicize the documents. The report was not a "draft", it was a finalized "executive summary" (if it were a "draft," the FOIA officer could have withheld it from the author). The report referred to was dated May 24, not May 19, 1994.
The document obtained under FOIA from James Duderstadt's restricted files was "secret," until it was released. Other identical may not have been, but they were never widely advertised. The fact that U-M maintains secret historical collections opens it to this charge. The minimal circulations the author is aware of do not constitute "publication" in any meaningful way. The fact that U-M won't disclose the underlying dataset only reinforces the conclusions of "secrecy" and possibility of manipulation. Finally, and most importantly, the website cited by Ms. Peterson of the "final" MSS report was cited by the original expose. Although focusing on P. Gurin's expert testimony (given the title), the "internet version" of the MSS, although addressing some issues, does ignore major conclusions and subject areas I pointed out. U-M's outright claim that the "internet version" addresses these issues is either meant to intentionally deceive or is grossly uninformed.
The 1994 report was "preliminary," but it was not simple. It also used regression techniques. Through various methods, over a hundred pages of supporting documents have been discovered since the Lying expose. Professor Gurin's testimony, although citing two other national surveys, does rely on the same dataset as her third data source. Professor Gurin's use of the phrases "diversity experience" and "educational outcomes" were labels she attached to "outcomes" measured by MSS, which is the common source of the 1994 report and her testimony.
The full quote merely demonstrates the "bias" of the authors of the "contradictory report" in favor of diversity. My original analysis noted that the authors, albeit more scientific in tone than they were later, still showed policy bias in the first writing and that they 'tried to explain away unpleasant conclusions.' The 'partial' quote I quote also recurs at one other point in different context in the memo.'
This one section alone is not necessarily inconsistent with P. Gurin's testimony. Taken together with the evidence of "increased polarization," the group identity problems, the institutional committment perception declines, the self-segregation of blacks (which P. Gurin twists into self-segregation of whites), and other sections, the Gurin testimony is in direct conflict with her husband's co-authored executive summary conclusions.
Ms. Peterson quote that "... we're not there yet," raises two questions. When will we ever "be there." As Justice O' Connor would ask, when does it end. Second, the Gurin testimony concludes that Michigan's system does give appropriate structural and curricular diversity and that the system is moving in the right direction. The 1994 executive summary concludes that direction is either stagnant or negative. Finally, it would be immoral to have, let alone defend in court, a system that only gave "structural diversity" without the necessary other support systems. U-M would never admit that it "only creates structural diversity," as such, any measurement failure of U-M's system undermines all of diversity.
My opinion is that the intervenors argument is more based in reality than U-M's diversity argument. This is why socio-economic preferences alone offer a valid race-neutral alternative. Past discrimination, segregation, and disadvantaged "life experiences" are all measurable by financial position. Blacks are disproportionately economically disadvantaged, and such a policy would be a de facto racial preference only so long as that lasts.
Although the website version does include this tidbit, Patricia Gurin's expert testimony does not. Once again though, the fact that U-M didn't "hide" every 'single' finding I pointed out, doesn't mean that many or most weren't hidden. In fact, they were. Ms. Peterson's technique here has been to point out the exceptions to the rule. My original analysis focused on the expert testimony contradictions, not the many contradictions between the original 1994 report in the later 1998 internet version.
Stunningly, Ms. Peterson's response admits the changes to the survey instrument. This is a rebuke of the MSS, and destroys the validity of P. Gurin's allegedly "superior" analysis. "Pure and simple," such changes "ruin the point of a panel study," according to one scientist. My own quick analysis indicates 10 questions were dropped, one question on interracial tension substantially changed, and a battery of questions had the number of choices reduced from 5 to 4 responses. Additionally, such changes should be made in the "pre-test" phase of a study, not midstream.
A close examination of Bowen and Bok supports economic preferences, but that debate would take a long time. Economic preferences alone, in my opinion, have never really been tried. Universities are afraid of the tremendous costs they would impose. Statisticians could most likely design a system to overcome the "pool problem" (at least for undergrads), but accountants and politicians probably couldn't solve the financing issues. Federal and state policy is partially to blame as well here though, as universities couldn't be expected to bear the whole cost.
Amazingly, Ms. Peterson attacks socio-economic preferences using a conservative argument. If this criticism is true, then how is it that using racial status alone wouldn't reinforce the stereotype that certain minorities aren't as smart as other groups. This is a logical contradiction with the rest of U-M's position. This also contradicts the notion U-M does not engage in quotas: notice the word "ensure" which betrays that intent.
The pool problem is more one of unwillingness to spend more (and take in less in tuition and other services) on financial aid.
U-M has never tried an alternative, and it can't because it would undermine the legality of the current practice.
|
|
|
|
