{\rtf1\adeflang1025 \ansi \deff0 \adeflang1033 {\fonttbl {\f0\froman Times New Roman;} {\f1\froman Arial;}{\f2\fmodern Courier;}{\f3\froman Arial Narrow;}{\f4\froman Arrus BT;}{\f5\froman Arial Black;} {\f6\froman Arrus Blk BT;}{\f7\fmodern MS LineDraw;}{\f8\fdecor Symbol;}} {\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue127;\red0\green127\blue0;\red0\green127\blue127;\red127\green0\blue0;\red127\green0\blue127;\red127\green127\blue0;\red127\green127\blue127;\red192\green192\blue192;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red0\green255\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;}\linex0 \sbknone \margl918 \margr925 \margt578 \margb583 \plain \headery480 {\stylesheet {\snext0 Normal;} {\s2 \sl240 \qj \tx204 \sbasedon0 \snext2 p0;} {\s3 \sl240 \qc \qc \sbasedon0 \snext3 c1;} {\s4 \sl240 \ql \tx4342 \li3425 \sbasedon0 \snext4 p2;} {\s5 \sl240 \qc \qc \sbasedon0 \snext5 c3;} {\s6 \sl240 \qc \qc \sbasedon0 \snext6 c4;} {\s7 \sl240 \qc \qc \sbasedon0 \snext7 c5;} {\s8 \sl240 \qc \qc \sbasedon0 \snext8 c6;} {\s9 \sl240 \ql \tx3588 \li2671 \sbasedon0 \snext9 p7;} {\s10 \sl240 \ql \tx4285 \li3368 \sbasedon0 \snext10 p8;} {\s11 \sl240 \ql \tx204 \sbasedon0 \snext11 p9;} {\s12 \sl651 \ql \tx204 \sbasedon0 \snext12 p10;} {\s13 \sl657 \ql \tx759 \li0 \fi760 \sbasedon0 \snext13 p11;} {\s14 \sl657 \ql \tx759 \tx1440 \li1440 \fi-680 \sbasedon0 \snext14 p12;} {\s15 \sl532 \ql \tx1440 \li522 \sbasedon0 \snext15 p13;} {\s16 \sl657 \ql \tx759 \li0 \fi760 \sbasedon0 \snext16 p14;} {\s17 \sl532 \ql \tx1440 \li522 \sbasedon0 \snext17 p15;} {\s18 \sl240 \ql \tx7148 \li6231 \sbasedon0 \snext18 p16;} {\s19 \sl240 \ql \tx1525 \li607 \sbasedon0 \snext19 p17;} {\s20 \sl532 \ql \tx1440 \li522 \sbasedon0 \snext20 p18;} {\s21 \sl240 \ql \sbasedon0 \snext21 t19;} {\s22 \sl240 \ql \sbasedon0 \snext22 t20;} {\s23 \sl328 \ql \sbasedon0 \snext23 t21;} {\s24 \sl240 \ql \sbasedon0 \snext24 t22;} {\s25 \sl240 \ql \sbasedon0 \snext25 t23;} {\s26 \sl240 \ql \sbasedon0 \snext26 t24;} {\s27 \sl240 \ql \tx9014 \li8096 \sbasedon0 \snext27 p25;} {\s28 \sl240 \ql \tx765 \li153 \sbasedon0 \snext28 p26;} {\s29 \sl328 \ql \tx1474 \li1474 \fi-709 \sbasedon0 \snext29 p27;} {\s30 \sl240 \ql \sbasedon0 \snext30 t28;} {\s31 \sl328 \ql \sbasedon0 \snext31 t29;} {\s32 \sl240 \ql \sbasedon0 \snext32 t30;} {\s33 \sl240 \ql \sbasedon0 \snext33 t31;} {\s34 \sl240 \ql \sbasedon0 \snext34 t32;} {\s35 \sl240 \ql \sbasedon0 \snext35 t33;} {\s36 \sl328 \ql \tx765 \li153 \fi-765 \sbasedon0 \snext36 p34;} {\s37 \sl240 \qc \qc \sbasedon0 \snext37 c35;} {\s38 \sl657 \ql \sbasedon0 \snext38 t36;} {\s39 \sl532 \ql \sbasedon0 \snext39 t37;} {\s40 \sl657 \ql \sbasedon0 \snext40 t38;} {\s41 \sl240 \ql \sbasedon0 \snext41 t39;} {\s42 \sl240 \ql \sbasedon0 \snext42 p41;} {\s43 \sl657 \ql \li158 \fi-759 \sbasedon0 \snext43 p42;} {\s44 \sl323 \ql \tx8662 \tx9382 \li7745 \fi-8662 \sbasedon0 \snext44 p43;} {\s45 \sl323 \ql \sbasedon0 \snext45 p44;} {\s46 \sl657 \ql \li158 \fi-759 \sbasedon0 \snext46 p45;} {\s47 \sl323 \ql \sbasedon0 \snext47 t47;} {\s48 \sl646 \ql \sbasedon0 \snext48 t48;} {\s49 \sl240 \ql \sbasedon0 \snext49 t49;} {\s50 \sl240 \ql \sbasedon0 \snext50 t50;} {\s51 \sl240 \ql \sbasedon0 \snext51 t51;} {\s52 \sl240 \ql \tx6145 \li5227 \sbasedon0 \snext52 p52;} {\s53 \sl240 \qc \qc \sbasedon0 \snext53 c53;} {\s54 \sl240 \ql \tx9377 \li8459 \sbasedon0 \snext54 p54;} {\s55 \sl323 \ql \tx204 \sbasedon0 \snext55 p55;} {\s56 \sl240 \ql \tx742 \tx1814 \li1814 \fi-1071 \sbasedon0 \snext56 p56;} {\s57 \sl240 \qc \qc \sbasedon0 \snext57 c57;} {\s58 \sl532 \ql \tx4342 \tx9382 \li3425 \fi-4342 \sbasedon0 \snext58 p58;} {\s59 \sl240 \ql \tx4427 \li3510 \sbasedon0 \snext59 p59;} {\s60 \sl240 \ql \sbasedon0 \snext60 t60;} {\s61 \sl657 \ql \sbasedon0 \snext61 t61;} {\s62 \sl240 \ql \tx204 \sbasedon0 \snext62 p62;} {\s63 \sl240 \qc \qc \sbasedon0 \snext63 c63;} {\s64 \sl657 \qj \tx759 \li0 \fi760 \sbasedon0 \snext64 p64;} {\s65 \sl657 \qj \tx742 \li0 \fi743 \sbasedon0 \snext65 p65;} {\s66 \sl657 \qj \tx204 \sbasedon0 \snext66 p66;} {\s67 \sl240 \qc \qc \sbasedon0 \snext67 c67;} {\s68 \sl651 \qj \tx725 \li0 \fi726 \sbasedon0 \snext68 p68;} {\s69 \sl651 \ql \tx725 \li0 \fi726 \sbasedon0 \snext69 p69;} {\s70 \sl323 \ql \tx918 \li0 \sbasedon0 \snext70 p70;} {\s71 \sl651 \qj \tx204 \sbasedon0 \snext71 p71;} {\s72 \sl323 \qj \li0 \sbasedon0 \snext72 p72;} {\s73 \sl232 \qj \tx204 \sbasedon0 \snext73 p73;} {\s74 \sl240 \qc \qc \sbasedon0 \snext74 c74;} {\s75 \sl240 \qc \qc \sbasedon0 \snext75 c75;} {\s76 \sl240 \qj \tx765 \li153 \sbasedon0 \snext76 p76;} {\s77 \sl657 \qj \tx742 \li0 \fi743 \sbasedon0 \snext77 p77;} {\s78 \sl240 \qj \tx7472 \li6554 \sbasedon0 \snext78 p78;} {\s79 \sl657 \qj \tx408 \sbasedon0 \snext79 p79;} {\s80 \sl328 \qj \tx765 \tx1474 \li1474 \fi-709 \sbasedon0 \snext80 p80;} {\s81 \sl240 \qj \tx204 \sbasedon0 \snext81 p81;} {\s82 \sl657 \qj \tx742 \li0 \fi743 \sbasedon0 \snext82 p82;} {\s83 \sl240 \qc \qc \sbasedon0 \snext83 c83;} {\s84 \sl323 \qj \tx204 \sbasedon0 \snext84 p84;} {\s85 \sl240 \qc \qc \sbasedon0 \snext85 c85;} {\s86 \sl240 \qc \qc \sbasedon0 \snext86 c86;} {\s87 \sl240 \qj \tx204 \sbasedon0 \snext87 p87;} {\s88 \sl240 \qj \tx4053 \li3135 \sbasedon0 \snext88 p88;} {\s89 \sl240 \qj \tx1474 \li556 \sbasedon0 \snext89 p89;} {\s90 \sl328 \qj \tx765 \li153 \fi-765 \sbasedon0 \snext90 p90;} {\s91 \sl657 \qj \tx776 \li0 \fi777 \sbasedon0 \snext91 p91;} {\s92 \sl240 \qj \tx805 \tx1519 \li1519 \fi-714 \sbasedon0 \snext92 p92;} {\s93 \sl345 \qj \tx1519 \li601 \sbasedon0 \snext93 p93;} {\s94 \sl240 \qc \qc \sbasedon0 \snext94 c94;} {\s95 \sl657 \qj \tx918 \sbasedon0 \snext95 p95;} {\s96 \sl283 \qj \tx204 \sbasedon0 \snext96 p96;} {\s97 \sl657 \qj \tx742 \sbasedon0 \snext97 p97;} {\s98 \sl657 \qj \tx918 \li0 \fi918 \sbasedon0 \snext98 p98;} {\s99 \sl240 \qj \tx776 \li141 \fi-776 \sbasedon0 \snext99 p99;} {\s100 \sl240 \qc \qc \sbasedon0 \snext100 c100;} {\s101 \sl657 \ql \sbasedon0 \snext101 p101;} }\fs20 \f0 \fs20 \f0 \fs30 \f0 \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \s3 \qc \sl-0 Nos. 01-1333, 01-1416, 01-1418 \par \pard \s3 \qc \sl-0 IN THE \par \pard \s3 \qc \sl-0 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS \par \pard \s3 \qc \sl-0 FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT \par \pard \sl-0 \par \pard \s3 \qc \sl-0 JENNIFER GRATZ, \fs28 \f0 \i et al., \par \pard \sl-0 \par \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 \pard \s4 \li4343 \sl-0 \tx4342 Plaintiffs-Appellants (01-1333, 01-1418), \par \pard \s4 \li4343 \sl-0 \tx4342 Plaintiffs-Appellees (01 -1416), \par \pard \sl-0 \tx4342 \par \fs20 \f0 \pard \s5 \qc \sl-0 \tx4342 V. \par \pard \sl-0 \tx4342 \par \par \fs30 \f0 \pard \s3 \qc \sl-0 \tx4342 LEE BOLLINGER, \fs28 \f0 \i et al., \par \pard \sl-0 \tx4342 \par \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 \pard \s4 \li4343 \sl-0 \tx4342 Defendants-Appellees (01-1333), \par \pard \sl-0 \tx4342 \par \pard \s4 \li4343 \sl-0 \tx4342 Defendants-Appellants (01-1416, 01-1418), \par \pard \s3 \qc \sl-0 \tx4342 On Appeal from the United States District Court \par \pard \s3 \qc \sl-0 \tx4342 For the Eastern District of Michigan \par \pard \s6 \qc \sl-0 \tx4342 No. \fs28 \f0 \i 97-75231 \par \pard \sl-0 \tx4342 \par \plain \fs28 \b \pard \s7 \qc \sl-0 \tx4342 BRIEF FOR \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 \i \b AMICUS CURIAE \par \fs28 \f0 \plain \fs28 \plain \fs28 \b \pard \s8 \qc \sl-0 \tx4342 STANFORD INSTITUTE FOR HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH \par \pard \s8 \qc \sl-0 \tx4342 IN SUPPORT OF AFFIRMANCE IN NOS. 01-1333, 01-1418 \par \pard \sl-0 \tx4342 \par \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 \pard \s9 \li3589 \sl-0 \tx3588 Jeffrey \fs28 \f0 \b F. \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 Liss \par \fs30 \f2 \pard \s9 \li3589 \sl-0 \tx3588 James \fs30 \f0 J. Halpert \par \pard \s9 \li3589 \sl-0 \tx3588 Elizabeth R. Dewey \par \pard \s9 \li3589 \sl-0 \tx3588 PIPER MARBURY RUDNICK & WOLFE LLP \par \pard \s9 \li3589 \sl-0 \tx3588 1200 Nineteenth Street, NW \par \pard \s9 \li3589 \sl-0 \tx3588 Washington, DC 20036 \par \pard \s9 \li3589 \sl-0 \tx3588 (202) 861-3940 \par \pard \sl-0 \tx3588 \par \fs28 \f0 \i \pard \s10 \li4286 \sl-0 \tx4285 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae \par \pard \s10 \li4286 \sl-0 \tx4285 Stanford Inst it ute for Higher \par \pard \s11 \sl-0 \tx204 Education Research \par \fs30 \f2 \plain \fs30 \f2 \pard \s12 \sl-651 \tx204 June \fs30 \f0 13, 2001 \par \fs20 \f0 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs28 \f0 \b \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \s8 \qc \sl-0 \tx204 DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS \par \pard \sl-0 \tx204 \par \pard \s8 \qc \sl-0 \tx204 AND FINANCIAL INTEREST \par \pard \sl-0 \tx204 \par \fs30 \f2 \plain \fs30 \f2 \pard \s13 \fi760 \sl-657 \tx759 Pursuant to Sixth Circuit \fs30 \f0 Rule 26.1, the Stanford Institute for Higher Education Research makes the following disclosure: \par \pard \sl-657 \tx759 \par \pard \s14 \li1440 \fi-680 \sl-657 \tx759 \tx1440 1.\tab Is said party a subsidiary or affiliate of a publicly owned corporation? No. \par \pard \sl-657 \tx759 \tx1440 \par \pard \s17 \li1440 \sl-532 \tx1440 If the answer is YES, list below the identity of the parent corporation or affiliate and the relationship between it and the named party: \par \pard \s16 \fi760 \sl-657 \tx759 \tx1440 2.\tab Is there a publicly owned corporation, not a party to the appeal, that has a financial interest in the outcome? \par \pard \sl-657 \tx759 \tx1440 \par \pard \s17 \li1440 \sl-532 \tx1440 No. \par \pard \sl-532 \tx1440 \par \pard \s20 \li1440 \sl-532 \tx1440 If the answer is YES, list the identity of such corporation and the nature of the financial interest: \par \pard \sl-532 \tx1440 \par \par \par \fs30 \f2 \pard \s18 \li7149 \sl-0 \tx7148 Date \par \pard \s19 \li1525 \sl-0 \tx1525 F.Lis~ \par \fs20 \f0 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs28 \f0 \b \ul \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \s8 \qc \sl-0 \tx1525 TABLE\plain \fs28 \plain \fs28 \b \ul OF\plain \fs28 \plain \fs28 \b \ul CONTENTS\plain \fs28 \plain \fs28 \b \par \pard \s30 \sl-0 \tx9036 \tab \ul PAGE\plain \fs28 \plain \fs28 \b \par \pard \s21 \sl-0 \tx6468 \tqdec \tx9518 INTEREST OF \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 \i \b ~'1Zi4JCl..J.S' CLJl?L4E \fs10 \f1 \plain \fs10 \f1 \plain \fs10 \f1 \tab \tab \fs28 \f0 \b 1 \par \pard \s21 \sl-0 \tx6468 \tqdec \tx9518 BA~i1(~IiROU14D\tab \fs10 \f1 \plain \fs10 \f1 \tab \fs30 \f2 3 \par \fs28 \f0 \b \pard \s22 \sl-0 \tx3276 \tqdec \tx9518 A~~~~ENT\tab \fs10 \f1 \plain \fs10 \f1 ...................... .{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 183 \\f "Symbol"}{\fldrslt}}.........................\tab \fs30 \f0 7 \par \pard \sl-0 \tx3276 \tqdec \tx9518 \par \par \par \par \par \fs28 \f0 \b \pard \s28 \li765 \sl-0 \tx765 THE COURT \fs24 \f0 \plain \b SHOULD REJECT SECTION \fs28 \f0 \plain \fs28 \b I \fs24 \f0 \plain \b OF \fs30 \f2 \plain \fs30 \f2 NAS's \fs24 \f0 \b BRIEF AS AN IMPROPER \par \pard \s28 \li765 \sl-0 \tx765 ATTEMPT TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD, ESPECIALLY SINCE PLAINTIFFS \par \pard \s28 \li765 \sl-0 \tx765 CONCEDED THE SIGNIFICANT EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS OF RACIAL \par \pard \s23 \sl-328 \tx731 \tqdec \tx9547 \tab DIVERSITY TO ALL STUDENTS\tab \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 7 \par \pard \sl-328 \tx731 \tqdec \tx9547 \par \fs24 \f0 \b \pard \s29 \li1474 \fi-709 \sl-328 \tx765 \tx1474 A.\tab THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT DIVERSITY \fs28 \f0 \plain \fs28 \b Is \fs24 \f0 \plain \b BENEFICIAL TO ALL STUDENTS, THEREBY CREDITING THE GURIN REPORT, IS A \par \pard \s24 \sl-0 \tx1474 \tx6168 \tqdec \tx9547 \tab QUESTION OF FACT \fs10 \f1 \plain \fs10 \f1 .........\tab \tab \fs28 \f0 \b 8 \par \pard \sl-0 \tx1474 \tx6168 \tqdec \tx9547 \par \par \pard \s29 \li1474 \fi-709 \sl-328 \tx765 \tx1474 B.\tab \fs24 \f0 \plain \b SECTION \fs28 \f0 \plain \fs28 \b I \fs24 \f0 \plain \b OF THE \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 NAS \fs26 \f0 \i \b AMJcus \fs24 \f0 \plain \plain \b BRIEF SHOULD BE REJECTED BECAUSE IT CANNOT SUPPLEMENT THE FACTUAL RECORD \par \pard \s24 \sl-0 \tx1474 \tx6168 \tqdec \tx9547 \tab \fs28 \f0 \plain \fs28 \b D \fs24 \f0 \plain \b E'V~ELOPED AT THE TRIAL LEVEL\tab \fs10 \f1 \plain \fs10 \f1 .\tab \fs28 \f0 \b 10 \par \pard \sl-0 \tx1474 \tx6168 \tqdec \tx9547 \par \par \pard \s29 \li1474 \fi-709 \sl-328 \tx765 \tx1474 C.\tab \fs24 \f0 \plain \b SECTION \fs28 \f0 \plain \fs28 \b I \fs24 \f0 \plain \b OF THE \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 NAS \fs26 \f0 \i \b AMICUS \fs24 \f0 \plain \plain \b BRIEF SHOULD BE REJECTED BECAUSE ITS ATTACK OF GURIN'S REPORT CANNOT BE PROPERLY \par \pard \s25 \sl-0 \tx1451 \tx6701 \tab TESTED\tab \fs10 \f1 \plain \fs10 \f1 .................................... \fs28 \f0 \b 13 \par \pard \sl-0 \tx1451 \tx6701 \par \par \par \par \par \fs24 \f0 \plain \b \pard \s29 \li1474 \fi-709 \sl-328 \tx765 \tx1474 D.\tab THE DISTRICT COURT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO CONSIDER \fs30 \f2 \plain \fs30 \f2 NAS's \par \pard \s26 \sl-0 \tx1405 \tqdec \tx9581 \tab \fs30 \f0 \i \b A \fs26 \f0 \plain \fs26 \plain \fs26 \i \b AIICUS \fs24 \f0 \plain \plain \b BRIEF\tab \fs28 \f0 \plain \fs28 \b 14 \par \pard \s23 \sl-328 \tx731 \tqdec \tx9547 II.\tab \fs24 \f0 \plain \b THE \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 NAS \fs24 \f0 \b BRIEF AND WOOD \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 & \fs24 \f0 \b SHERMAN REPORT ARE PERVADED BY\line \pard \s23 \sl-328 \tx731 \tqdec \tx9547 \tab METHODOLOGICAL ERRORS AND FAIL TO OVERCOME THE DISTRICT\line \pard \s23 \sl-328 \tx731 \tqdec \tx9547 \tab COURT'S FINDINGS CONCERNING THE SIGNIFICANT EDUCATIONAL\line \pard \s23 \sl-328 \tx731 \tqdec \tx9547 \tab BENEFITS OF STUDENT RACIAL DIVERSITY\tab \fs28 \f0 \plain \fs28 \b 15 \par \fs20 \f0 \plain \fs20 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs28 \f0 \b \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \s31 \sl-328 \tx731 \tx1474 \tqdec \tx9547 \tab A.\tab WOOD \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 & \fs24 \f0 \b SHERMAN INCORRECTLY ASSUME THAT SOCIAL\line \pard \s31 \sl-328 \tx731 \tx1474 \tqdec \tx9547 \tab \tab SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS FROM STUDENT\line \pard \s31 \sl-328 \tx731 \tx1474 \tqdec \tx9547 \tab \tab DIVERSITY CAN ONLY BE PROVEN THROUGH DIRECT EFFECTS\tab \fs28 \f0 \plain \fs28 \b 17 \par \pard \sl-328 \tx731 \tx1474 \tqdec \tx9547 \par \pard \s29 \li1474 \fi-709 \sl-328 \tx765 \tx1474 B.\tab \fs24 \f0 \plain \b WOOD \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 & \fs24 \f0 \b SHERMAN INCORRECTLY ASSUME THAT \ul BAKKE\plain \plain \b REQUIRES PRooF OF DIRECT EFFECTS ON EDUCATIONAL \par \pard \s32 \sl-0 \tx6701 \tqdec \tx9518 \tab \fs10 \f1 \plain \fs10 \f1 ...\tab \fs30 \f2 19 \par \pard \sl-0 \tx6701 \tqdec \tx9518 \par \par \par \par \par \fs28 \f0 \b \pard \s29 \li1474 \fi-709 \sl-328 \tx765 \tx1474 C.\tab \fs24 \f0 \plain \b WOOD \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 & \fs24 \f0 \b SHERMAN AND \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 NAS \fs24 \f0 \b INCORRECTLY ASSUME THAT DIVERSITY EXPERIENCES ARE "PROxIES" FOR STRUCTURAL \par \pard \s33 \sl-0 \tx1451 \tx6944 \tx7778 \tab DIVERSITY IN ~ I~'IODEL\tab \fs10 \f1 \plain \fs10 \f1 ......\tab ...................... \fs30 \f2 20 \par \pard \sl-0 \tx1451 \tx6944 \tx7778 \par \par \par \par \par \fs28 \f0 \b \pard \s29 \li1474 \fi-709 \sl-328 \tx765 \tx1474 D.\tab \fs24 \f0 \plain \b WOOD \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 & \fs24 \f0 \b SHERMAN AND \fs30 \f2 \plain \fs30 \f2 NAS \fs24 \f0 \b INCORRECTLY ASSERT THAT DIVERSrrY EXPERIENCES CAN YIELD BENEFICIAL EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES WITHOUT A RACIALLY DIVERSE STUDENT BODY \fs10 \f1 \plain \fs10 \f1 ............ \fs28 \f0 \b 21 \par \pard \s31 \sl-328 \tx731 \tx1474 \tqdec \tx9547 \tab E.\tab \fs24 \f0 \plain \b WOOD \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 & \fs24 \f0 \b SHERMAN'S AND \fs30 \f2 \plain \fs30 \f2 NAS' \fs24 \f0 \b ATTACKS ON GURIN'S USE OF\line \pard \s31 \sl-328 \tx731 \tx1474 \tqdec \tx9547 \tab \tab SELF-REPORTED DATA AND HER LIMITED CORRELATIONS\line \pard \s31 \sl-328 \tx731 \tx1474 \tqdec \tx9547 \tab \tab REGARDING GRADES ARE MISPLACED\tab \fs28 \f0 \plain \fs28 \b 21 \par \pard \sl-328 \tx731 \tx1474 \tqdec \tx9547 \par \pard \s36 \li765 \fi-765 \sl-328 \tx765 III.\tab \fs30 \f2 \plain \fs30 \f2 NAS \fs24 \f0 \b MISREADS THE SUPREME COURT'S OPINION IN \ul WYGANT\plain \plain \b \ul V. JACKSON BD. OF\plain \plain \b \ul EDUC.\plain \plain \b , IN A FARED ATTEMPT TO PLACE AN EVIDENTIARY BURDEN \par \pard \s34 \sl-0 \tx720 \tqdec \tx9518 \tab \fs24 \f2 \plain \f2 \b ON THE UNIVERSiTY \fs10 \f1 \plain \fs10 \f1 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 183 \\f "Symbol"}{\fldrslt}}......{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 183 \\f "Symbol"}{\fldrslt}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 183 \\f "Symbol"}{\fldrslt}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 183 \\f "Symbol"}{\fldrslt}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 183 \\f "Symbol"}{\fldrslt}}...........\tab \fs30 \f2 22 \par \fs28 \f0 \b \pard \s35 \sl-0 \tx3299 \tx8379 \tx9036 CONCLIJS14~N\tab \fs10 \f1 \plain \fs10 \f1 .~.\tab .\tab ... \fs30 \f2 26 \par \pard \sl-0 \tx3299 \tx8379 \tx9036 \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \fs30 \f0 \pard \s37 \qc \sl-0 \tx3299 \tx8379 \tx9036 ii \par \fs20 \f0 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs28 \f0 \b \ul \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \s8 \qc \sl-0 \tx3299 \tx8379 \tx9036 TABLE\plain \fs28 \plain \fs28 \b \ul OF\plain \fs28 \plain \fs28 \b \ul AUTHORITIES\plain \fs28 \plain \fs28 \b \par \pard \sl-0 \tx3299 \tx8379 \tx9036 \par \ul \pard \s27 \li9014 \sl-0 \tx9014 PAGE\plain \fs28 \plain \fs28 \b \par \pard \sl-0 \tx9014 \par \ul \pard \s42 \sl-0 \tx204 CASES\plain \fs28 \plain \fs28 \b \par \pard \sl-0 \tx204 \par \ul \fs30 \f0 \plain \ul \fs30 \pard \s46 \li760 \fi-759 \sl-657 \tx759 American\plain \fs30 \ul Council of\plain \fs30 \ul Certified Podiatric Physicians and Surgeons v. American Board of\plain \fs30 \ul Podiatric Surgery\plain \fs30 , \fs28 \f0 \i 185 \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 F.3d 606 \fs20 \f0 (\sub 6\plain \fs20 th \fs30 \f0 Cir. 1999) 9 \par \ul \pard \s38 \sl-657 \tqdec \tx9575 Bakal Brothers~ Inc. v. United States,\plain \fs30 105 F.3d 1085 \fs20 \f0 (\sub 6\plain \fs20 th \fs30 \f0 Cir. 1997)\tab 11\line \ul \pard \s38 \sl-657 \tqdec \tx9575 Bell v. Wolfish,\plain \fs30 441 U.S. 520 (1979)\tab 12\line \ul \pard \s38 \sl-657 \tqdec \tx9575 Cellnet Communications. Inc. v. FCC,\plain \fs30 149 F.3d 429 \fs20 \f0 (\sub 6\plain \fs20 th \fs30 \f0 Cir. 1998)\tab 11\line \ul \pard \s38 \sl-657 \tqdec \tx9575 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc.,\plain \fs30 \fs28 \f0 \i 509 \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 U.S. 579 (1993)\tab 9 \par \pard \sl-657 \tqdec \tx9575 \par \ul \pard \s46 \li760 \fi-759 \sl-657 \tx759 Dep't of\plain \fs30 \ul Taxation and Finance of\plain \fs30 \ul New York v. Milhelm Attea & Bros., Inc.\plain \fs30 , \par \pard \s39 \sl-532 \tx9371 512 U.S. 61(1994)\tab 12\line \ul \pard \s39 \sl-532 \tx9371 Gratz v. Bollinger,\plain \fs30 122 F. Supp. 2d 811 (E.D.Mich. 2000)\tab 4,5,8,10\line \ul \pard \s39 \sl-532 \tx9371 Groner\plain \fs30 \ul v. Golden\plain \fs30 \ul Gate Garden Apts.,\plain \fs30 \fs8 \f1 ___ \fs30 \f0 F.3d \fs8 \f1 ___, \fs30 \f0 2001 WL 557980\line \pard \s39 \sl-532 \tx9371 \fs20 \f0 (\sub 6\plain \fs20 th \fs30 \f0 Cir. May \fs28 \f0 \i 25, \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 2001)\tab 8 \par \ul \pard \s40 \sl-657 \tx9371 Grutter v. Bollinger,\plain \fs30 137 F. Supp. 2d 821 (E.D.Mich.2000)\tab 5,6,8\line \ul \pard \s40 \sl-657 \tx9371 Knetschv. United States,\plain \fs30 364 U.S. 361 (1960)\tab 12\line \ul \pard \s40 \sl-657 \tx9371 Pridev. BIC\plain \fs30 \ul Corp.,\plain \fs30 218 F.3d 566 \fs18 \f0 \b (\sub 6\plain \fs18 th \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 Cir. 2000)\tab 9 \par \pard \sl-657 \tx9371 \par \ul \pard \s44 \li8663 \fi-8662 \sl-323 \tx8662 \tx9382 Regents of\plain \fs30 \ul the University of\plain \fs30 \ul California v. Bakke\plain \fs30 , 438 U.S. 265 (1978)\tab \fs28 \f0 \i 5,8,16, \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 19,22,23,24 \par \pard \sl-323 \tx8662 \tx9382 \par \ul \pard \s45 \sl-323 \tx204 Resident Council\plain \fs30 \ul of\plain \fs30 \ul Allen Parkway Village v. United States Dept. of\plain \fs30 \ul HUD\plain \fs30 , \par \pard \s41 \sl-0 \tx748 \tqdec \tx9575 \tab 980 F.2d 1043(5~Cir. 1993)\tab 11 \par \pard \sl-0 \tx748 \tqdec \tx9575 \par \ul \pard \s44 \li8663 \fi-8662 \sl-323 \tx8662 \tx9382 Silverberg v. Indus. Comm'n\plain \fs30 , 128 N.W. 2d 674 (Wis. 1964)\tab 11 \par \pard \sl-323 \tx8662 \tx9382 \par \par \par \par \pard \s37 \qc \sl-0 \tx8662 \tx9382 iii \par \fs20 \f0 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs20 \f0 \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \s52 \li6145 \sl-0 \tx6145 th \par \fs30 \f0 \ul \pard \s44 \li8663 \fi-8662 \sl-323 \tx8662 \tx9382 Sovereign News Co. v. United States\plain \fs30 , 690 F.2d 569 (6 Cir. 1982)\tab 9 \par \pard \sl-323 \tx8662 \tx9382 \par \ul \pard \s58 \li4343 \fi-4342 \sl-532 \tx4342 \tx9382 United\plain \fs30 \ul Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell,451\plain \fs30 U.S. 56(1981)\tab 12 \fs20 \f0 th \par \fs30 \f0 \ul \pard \s38 \sl-657 \tqdec \tx9575 United\plain \fs30 \ul States v. Bonds,\plain \fs30 12 F.3d 540 (6 Cir. 2000)\tab 9 \par \pard \sl-657 \tqdec \tx9575 \par \ul \pard \s45 \sl-323 \tx204 United States v. Michigan\plain \fs30 , 940 F.2d 143 \fs20 \f0 (\sub 6\plain \fs20 th \fs30 \f0 Cir. 1991), \ul cert. denied\plain \fs30 , \par \pard \s47 \sl-323 \tx748 \tx9371 \tab 513U.S.925(1994)\tab 10,11,14,\line \pard \s47 \sl-323 \tx748 \tx9371 \tab \tab 15 \par \ul \pard \s40 \sl-657 \tx9371 Union Steam Pump Sales Co. v. Sec'y of\plain \fs30 \ul State,\plain \fs30 185 N.W. 353 (Mich. 1921)\tab 12\line \ul \pard \s40 \sl-657 \tx9371 Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of\plain \fs30 \ul Educ.,\plain \fs30 476 U.S. 267 (1986)\tab 3,22,23, \par \pard \s60 \sl-0 \tx9342 \tab 24,25 \par \fs28 \f0 \b \ul \pard \s42 \sl-0 \tx204 STATUTES\plain \fs28 \plain \fs28 \b \ul AND\plain \fs28 \plain \fs28 \b \ul RULES\plain \fs28 \plain \fs28 \b \par \pard \s48 \sl-646 \tx9320 Fed. R. App. P. \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 29\tab \fs28 \f0 \b 2\line \ul \pard \s48 \sl-646 \tx9320 MISCELLANEOUS\plain \fs28 \plain \fs28 \b \line \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 \pard \s48 \sl-646 \tx9320 4AM. JUR. \fs28 \f0 \i 2d.Amicus Curiae \fs36 \f1 \plain \fs36 \f1 \'a7\'a7 \fs30 \f0 3,8(1998)\tab 12,14\line \ul \pard \s48 \sl-646 \tx9320 Gurin\plain \fs30 \ul report\plain \fs30 \tab \fs28 \f0 \i passim \par \pard \sl-646 \tx9320 \par \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 \pard \s45 \sl-323 \tx204 RYAN JAMES HAGEMANN, \ul Diversity as a Compelling State Interest in Higher\plain \fs30 \par \pard \s49 \sl-0 \tx731 \tqdec \tx9558 \tab \ul Education,\plain \fs30 79 OR. L. REv. 493 (2000)\tab 23 \par \pard \sl-0 \tx731 \tqdec \tx9558 \par \pard \s55 \sl-323 \tx204 Note, \ul An Evidentiary Framework for Diversity as a Compelling Interest\plain \fs30 \par \pard \s49 \sl-0 \tx731 \tqdec \tx9558 \tab \ul in Higher\plain \fs30 \ul Education,\plain \fs30 109 HARV. L. REv. 1357 (1996)\tab 24 \par \pard \sl-0 \tx731 \tqdec \tx9558 \par \pard \s55 \sl-323 \tx204 MiCHAEL RUSTAND & THOMAS KOENIG, \ul The Supreme Court and Junk Social\plain \fs30 \par \ul \pard \s56 \li1814 \fi-1071 \sl-0 \tx742 \tx1814 Science:\tab Selective Distortion in Amicus Briefs\plain \fs30 , 72 N.C. L. REv. 91, 95 \par \pard \s50 \sl-0 \tqdec \tx1445 \tqdec \tx9558 \tab (1993)\tab 13 \par \ul \pard \s51 \sl-0 \tx9342 Thomas & Shavelson report\plain \fs30 \tab \fs28 \f0 \i passim \par \pard \sl-0 \tx9342 \par \par \par \par \fs22 \f0 \plain \fs22 \pard \s59 \li4428 \sl-0 \tx4427 iv \par \fs20 \f0 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs30 \f2 \ul \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \s62 \sl-0 \tx204 Wood & Sherman\plain \fs30 \f2 \ul \fs28 \f0 \b renort\plain \fs28 \plain \fs28 \b \fs8 \f1 \plain \fs8 \f1 .. \fs28 \f0 \i passim \par \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 \pard \s61 \sl-657 \tqdec \tx9558 WRIGHT & MILLER, \ul Appellate Practice\plain \fs30 \fs36 \f1 \'a7 \fs30 \f0 31.14 at 568 \fs30 \f2 (1999)\tab \fs30 \f0 11\line \pard \s61 \sl-657 \tqdec \tx9558 http://v.iww.stanford.eduIgroup/SUSE/research/siher.html\tab 2\line \pard \s61 \sl-657 \tqdec \tx9558 http://www.umich.eduIurel/admissions/new/gurin.html\tab 4 \par \pard \sl-657 \tqdec \tx9558 \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \fs18 \f0 \b \pard \s63 \qc \sl-0 \tqdec \tx9558 V \par \fs20 \f0 \plain \fs20 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs28 \f0 \b \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \s7 \qc \sl-0 \tqdec \tx9558 INTEREST OF \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 \i \b AMICUS CURIAE \par \pard \sl-0 \tqdec \tx9558 \par \fs28 \f0 \plain \fs28 \plain \fs28 \i \pard \s64 \qj \fi760 \sl-657 \tx759 Amicus, \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 the Stanford Institute for Higher Education Research (hereinafter "SIHER"), sponsors research projects that examine contemporary higher education planning 'and policy issues from a wide range of analytical perspectives, including those of social scientists and policy audiences in the United States and abroad. Since its formation in 1989, SIHER has sought to understand the dynamics of systemic change, productivity, management, and effectiveness pertaining to higher education organizations, as well as to offer suggestions for improvement. SIHER's projects examine a wide range of topics, including higher education finance, faculty, curriculum, governance, graduate education and academic restructuring. \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx759 \par \pard \s65 \qj \fi743 \sl-657 \tx742 Among the many research projects in which SIHER is currently involved are: (a) a project with the National Center for Postsecondary Improvement, a national research and development center, funded by a six year cooperative agreement with the United States Department of Education's Office of Educational Research and Improvement; and (b) The Bridge Project: Strengthening K- 16 Transitions, a project to build on changing perspectives in how scholars, policymakers, and reformers think about educational policy and school reform within the context of the entire United States educational system. Further \par \fs20 \f0 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs30 \f0 \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \s66 \qj \sl-657 \tx204 information about SIHER's projects and its distinguished researchers can be found on SIHER' s website, \fs28 \f0 \i http://www.stanford. edu/gro up/S USE/research/silier. html. \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx204 \par \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 \pard \s65 \qj \fi743 \sl-657 \tx742 SIHER submits this brief pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 29 in response to the National Association of Scholars' (hereinafter "NAS's") \fs28 \f0 \i ainicus \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 brief of May 14, 2001, and, its addendum, the report of Thomas E. Wood & Malcolm J. Sherman's (hereinafter "Wood & Sherman report") upon which it relies. SIHER is committed to objective, independent social science analysis of important issues confronting higher education in this and other countries. SIHER has a strong interest in defending the integrity of serious research and analysis concerning the factors that improve learning in higher educational institutions, and in improving the understanding of methodologies relied upon by courts and policymakers on questions of significance to the future of higher education. \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx742 \par \pard \s65 \qj \fi743 \sl-657 \tx742 This brief will assist the Court by addressing the procedural issues raised by the filing of the Wood & Sherman report in this Court by an \fs28 \f0 \i amicus curiae; \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 by explaining the implications of the principal differences in approach between the Wood & Sherman report and the Gum report which it attacks; by showing that it would be inappropriate to consider the assertions and new evidence in Section I of the NAS Brief and the Wood & Sherman report without a thorough opportunity for discovery, cross-examination and rebuttal by defendants; and by explaining that \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx742 \par \par \par \par \fs28 \f0 \pard \s67 \qc \sl-0 \tx742 2 \par \fs20 \f0 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs30 \f0 \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \s66 \qj \sl-657 \tx204 the burden of proof set forth in \ul Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Educ.\plain \fs30 , 476 U.S. 267 (1986), does not apply in the context of school admissions cases, such as this one. SIHER attaches the report of Professors Ewart Thomas and Richard Shavelson, "Analysis of Report of Wood & Sherman," (hereinafter "Thomas & Shavelson report") to this brief. The report and this brief contain a discussion of the methodologies relied upon by Professor Gum and Wood & Sherman, which will be helpful, we respectfully submit, in explicating for the Court some of the fact-intensive methodology questions raised by these competing expert reports. \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx204 \par \fs28 \f0 \b \pard \s8 \qc \sl-0 \tx204 BACKGROUND \par \pard \qj \sl-0 \tx204 \par \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 \pard \s65 \qj \fi743 \sl-657 \tx742 This case presents a fundamental question affecting the environment in which the people of our country are educated, the answer to which has the potential \fs28 \f0 \b to change \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 radically university classrooms and educational experiences across the \fs30 \f2 nation; \fs28 \f0 \b The question is this: Do \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 institutions of higher education have the freedom to administer admissions policies which take race and ethnicity into account, as one of many factors, when deciding to admit students? \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx742 \par \pard \s68 \qj \fi726 \sl-651 \tx725 Both the Plaintiffs and the District Court in this case expressly agreed that substantial educational benefits flow from a diverse student body, including one \fs30 \f2 that is racially and ethnically diverse. The District Court considered the University \par \pard \qj \sl-651 \tx725 \par \par \par \par \par \par \fs28 \f0 \pard \s67 \qc \sl-0 \tx725 3 \par \fs20 \f0 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs30 \f2 \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \s71 \qj \sl-651 \tx204 of Michigan's expert report by Patricia \fs30 \f0 Gum (hereinafter the "Gurin report")' and \fs30 \f2 found, as a \fs30 \f0 matter of undisputed fact, that "a racially and ethnically diverse student body produces significant educational benefits." \ul Gratz v. Bollinger\plain \fs30 , 122 F. Supp. 2d 811, 824 (E.D. Mich. 2000). \par \pard \qj \sl-651 \tx204 \par \pard \s65 \qj \fi743 \sl-657 \tx742 Thomas E. Wood, Executive Director of the California Association of Scholars, and Malcolm J. Sherman, Associate Professor of Mathematics and Statistics, State University of New York at Albany, released a report in May 2001 on behalf of NAS to refute the University of Michigan's Gurin report prepared for this litigation and admitted during the proceedings below. \ul See\plain \fs30 Addendum to NAS \fs30 \f2 Brief, filed May 14,2001. \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx742 \par \pard \s68 \qj \fi726 \sl-651 \tx725 NAS summarized many of \fs30 \f0 its arguments in general terms in an \fs28 \f0 \i amicus \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 brief filed with the District Court \ul before\plain \fs30 the Plaintiffs conceded the educational benefits of diversity. \fs30 \f2 However, NAS did not attempt to present a Wood & \fs30 \f0 Sherman critique of the \fs30 \f2 Gum report to the District Court either as an addendum to its \fs28 \f0 \i amicus \fs30 \f2 \plain \fs30 \f2 brief below, or as evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs. \par \pard \qj \sl-651 \tx725 \par \par \par \par \fs30 \f0 \pard \s70 \li918 \sl-323 \tx918 The Gurin report and Professor Gurin's supplemental reports are found at R-162, Appendix. Professor Gurin's most recent report is currently on the University of Michigan's website, \fs28 \f0 \i http://www.umich.edu/urel/admissions/new/gurin. html. \par \pard \sl-323 \tx918 \par \par \par \par \plain \fs28 \pard \s67 \qc \sl-0 \tx918 4 \par \fs20 \f0 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs30 \f0 \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \s65 \qj \fi743 \sl-657 \tx742 Plaintiffs decided \ul not\plain \fs30 to offer an expert report to challenge the Gurin report. Further, the Wood & Sherman report's criticisms of Patricia Gum's report were not raised during Professor Gurin's deposition, nor by any expert witness in the court below. \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx742 \par \pard \s65 \qj \fi743 \sl-657 \tx742 The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the University of Michigan with respect to its admissions programs for 1999 and 2000. In granting summary judgment in the University's favor, the Court found that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact. \ul See\plain \fs30 \ul Gratz\plain \fs30 , 122 F. Supp. 2d at 836. As the District Court noted, both parties asserted that the case involved a question of law surrounding the Supreme Court's decision in \ul Regents of the University of California v. Bakke\plain \fs30 , 438 U.S. \fs28 \f0 \i 265 \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 (1978). See \ul Gratz\plain \fs30 , 122 F. Supp. 2d at 816-17. Most important, the Plaintiffs "presented no argument or evidence rebutting the University Defendants' assertion that a racially and ethnically diverse student body gives rise to educational benefits for both minority and non-minority students." \ul Id\plain \fs30 . Indeed, during oral argument, counsel for Plaintiffs conceded that diversity at the university is "good, important, and valuable." Idf \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx742 \par \par \par \pard \s72 \qj \li918 \sl-323 \tx918 The same is true in the companion law school case, \ul Grutter v. Bollinger\plain \fs30 , 137 F. Supp. 2d 821 (E.D. Mich. 2001). While the \ul Grutter\plain \fs30 case went to trial, the Plaintiffs in that case also conceded the significant educational \par \pard \qj \sl-323 \tx918 \par \fs20 \f0 \i \pard \s73 \qj \sl-232 \tx204 (footnote continued to next page) \par \pard \qj \sl-232 \tx204 \par \par \par \par \pard \s74 \qc \sl-0 \tx204 5 \par \plain \fs20 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs30 \f0 \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \s65 \qj \fi743 \sl-657 \tx742 It was only after the District Court entered its opinion and Order in this case that the Center for Individual Rights, the organization representing the Plaintiffs in both this case and the companion law school case, \ul Grutter v. Bollinger\plain \fs30 , 137 F. Supp. 2d 821 (E.D. Mich. 2001), sought to take issue with Professor Gurin's expert testimony. Section I of NAS's Brief, filed as \fs28 \f0 \i ainicus curiae \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 in support of the Plaintiffs, should be rejected because (i) it is an impermissible attempt to supplement the factual record on appeal, and sidesteps the rigors of cross-examination and fact-finding that assure the integrity of facts found by the District Court, and (ii) it contains fundamental errors in methodology, making it insufficiently reliable to cast doubt on the Gum report admitted by the District Court. This Court should either decline to engage in a lengthy and complex reexamination \fs24 \f0 \b of \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 facts that were conceded by the Plaintiffs and accepted by the District Court, or, if it chooses to consider the Wood & Sherman report, reject it on its merits. \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx742 \par \par \par \par \par \par \fs20 \f0 \i \pard \s73 \qj \sl-232 \tx204 (footnote continued from previous page) \par \pard \qj \sl-232 \tx204 \par \fs30 \f2 \plain \fs30 \f2 \pard \s72 \qj \li918 \sl-323 \tx918 benefits of \fs30 \f0 diversity to all students. \ul Id\plain \fs30 . at 850. In fact, the \ul Grutter\plain \fs30 Court found that the educational benefits of diversity in the classroom are "important and laudable." \ul Id\plain \fs30 . \par \pard \qj \sl-323 \tx918 \par \par \par \par \fs24 \f0 \b \pard \s75 \qc \sl-0 \tx918 6 \par \fs20 \f0 \plain \fs20 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs28 \f0 \b \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \s8 \qc \sl-0 \tx918 ARGUMENT \par \pard \qj \sl-0 \tx918 \par \pard \s75 \qc \sl-0 \tx918 L \fs24 \f0 \plain \b THE COURT SHOULD REJECT SECTION \fs28 \f0 \plain \fs28 \b I \fs24 \f0 \plain \b OF \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 NAS's \fs24 \f0 \b BRIEF AS AN IMPROPER \par \pard \s76 \qj \li765 \sl-0 \tx765 ATTEMPT TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD, ESPECIALLY SINCE PLAINTIFFS \par \pard \s76 \qj \li765 \sl-0 \tx765 CONCEDED THE SIGNIFICANT EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS OF RACIAL \par \pard \s76 \qj \li765 \sl-0 \tx765 DIVERsITY'ro ALL STUDENTS. \par \pard \qj \sl-0 \tx765 \par \par \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 \pard \s65 \qj \fi743 \sl-657 \tx742 NAS submitted its \fs28 \f0 \i ainicus \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 brief for the "purpose of refuting the Report of Patricia Y. Gurin," NAS Brief at 2, which the University of Michigan submitted as evidence in the District Court. NAS filed its \fs28 \f0 \i amicus \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 brief despite the fact that the Plaintiffs themselves conceded the conclusion of the Gurin report\'97namely, that student racial diversity benefits all students. \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx742 \par \pard \s65 \qj \fi743 \sl-657 \tx742 NAS's belated attempt to contest the benefits of diversity by now offering a study attacking the Gum report must be rejected by the Court. Significantly, the Plaintiffs' concession that diversity provides significant educational benefits to all students was made \ul after\plain \fs30 NAS filed a similar brief with the District Court. The Plaintiffs deposed Professor Gurin, and, after evaluating whether to offer their own expert(s), made an informed decision to concede the benefits of student racial diversity. By contrast, the University has no opportunity to cross-examine or even respond on the record to Professors Wood and Sherman. \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx742 \par \pard \s65 \qj \fi743 \sl-657 \tx742 As for NAS, it filed an \fs28 \f0 \i amicus \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 brief in the District Court, but never attempted to present a detailed critique of the Gum report, much less its own expert report. \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx742 \par \par \par \fs28 \f0 \pard \s67 \qc \sl-0 \tx742 7 \par \fs20 \f0 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs30 \f0 \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \s82 \qj \fi743 \sl-657 \tx742 In any event, NAS's attack against the Gurin report is a strawman. The District Court found diversity to be a compelling governmental interest based on Justice Powell's decision in \ul Bakke\plain \fs30 , and correctly understood NAS's argument as \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx742 \par \fs18 \f0 \b \pard \s78 \qj \li7472 \sl-0 \tx7472 3 \par \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 \pard \s66 \qj \sl-657 \tx204 being directed at the narrow tailoring prong of the \ul Bakke\plain \fs30 analysis. \ul See\plain \fs30 \ul Gratz\plain \fs30 , 122 \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx204 \par \pard \s66 \qj \sl-657 \tx204 F. Supp. 2d 811. The court below credited the Gum report with demonstrating that diversity is beneficial to all students as a factual matter, and this point was conceded by the Plaintiffs. \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx204 \par \pard \s80 \qj \li1474 \fi-709 \sl-328 \tx765 \tx1474 A.\tab \fs24 \f0 \b THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT DIVERSITY IS BENEFICIAL TO ALL STUDENTS, THEREBY CREDITING THE GURIN REPORT, IS AN UNDISPUTED FINDING OF FACT. \par \pard \qj \sl-328 \tx765 \tx1474 \par \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 \pard \s65 \qj \fi743 \sl-657 \tx742 The validity of the statistical methodology employed by Professor Gum to show that student racial diversity in higher education is beneficial to all students is an undisputed question of fact that was properly decided by the District Court. NAS cannot circumvent the requirement to present evidence first to the trial court rather than on appeal. It certainly cannot do on appeal what the Plaintiffs should have done at the trial level. "A party may not by-pass the fact-finding process of the lower court and introduce new facts in its brief on appeal." \ul Groner v. Golden\plain \fs30 \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx742 \par \par \fs18 \f0 \b \pard \s81 \qj \sl-0 \tx204 3 \par \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 \pard \s72 \qj \li918 \sl-323 \tx918 Again, the same is true in the \ul Grutter\plain \fs30 case. 137 F. Supp. 2d at 850. Both \par \ul \pard \s72 \qj \li918 \sl-323 \tx918 Gratz\plain \fs30 and \ul Grutter\plain \fs30 were decided based on the District Court's legal interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision in \ul Bakke\plain \fs30 . \par \pard \qj \sl-323 \tx918 \par \par \par \par \fs24 \f0 \b \pard \s75 \qc \sl-0 \tx918 S \par \fs20 \f0 \plain \fs20 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs30 \f0 \ul \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \s83 \qc \sl-0 \tx918 Gate Gardens Apts.\plain \fs30 , \fs8 \f1 __ \fs30 \f0 F.3d \fs8 \f1 __, \fs30 \f0 2001 WL 557980 \fs20 \f0 (\sub 6\plain \fs20 th \fs30 \f0 Cir. May 25, 2001) \par \pard \qj \sl-0 \tx918 \par \pard \s66 \qj \sl-657 \tx204 (rejecting appellant's attempt to introduce a portion of a deposition on appeal that \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx204 \par \pard \s84 \qj \sl-323 \tx204 was never presented to the district court) (citing \ul Sovereign News Co. v. United\plain \fs30 \par \pard \qj \sl-323 \tx204 \par \fs20 \f0 \pard \s85 \qc \sl-0 \tx204 h \par \pard \qj \sl-0 \tx204 \par \fs30 \f2 \ul \pard \s84 \qj \sl-323 \tx204 States\plain \fs30 \f2 , 690 F.2d \fs30 \f0 \i \b 569, \plain \fs30 \plain \fs30 571 (6t Cir. 1982)); see \ul also\plain \fs30 \ul American Council of\plain \fs30 \ul Certified \fs30 \f2 Podiatric Physicians and Surgeons v. American Board of Podiatric Surgery\plain \fs30 \f2 , 185 \par \pard \qj \sl-323 \tx204 \par \fs30 \f0 \pard \s66 \qj \sl-657 \tx204 F.3d 606, 612-13 \fs20 \f0 (\sub 6\plain \fs20 th \fs30 \f0 Cir. 1999) (ignoring on appeal citations to affidavits not presented to the jury). \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx204 \par \pard \s65 \qj \fi743 \sl-657 \tx742 The requirement to present evidence to the District Court and not on appeal is particularly important in the case of expert evidence. The District Court, not the Court of Appeals, must function as a general "gatekeeper" when screening the scientific validity of expert testimony and evidence, such as that presented by the Gum report. \ul See\plain \fs30 \ul Daubert\plain \fs30 \ul v. Merrell Dow Pharm.. Inc.\plain \fs30 , 509 U.S. 579, \fs28 \f0 \i 597 \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 (1993). This Court \fs26 \f0 \i \b has \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 \plain \fs30 appropriately granted wide latitude to district court determinations regarding 'the admissibility of scientific te~imony, including the validity of the principles and methodology underlying the testimony. \fs8 \f1 ~, \fs30 \f0 ~ \ul United States v. Bonds\plain \fs30 , 12 F.3d 540, 556 (6 Cir. 2000) (affirming the magistrate's findings on expert scientific testimony); \ul Pride v. BIG Corp.\plain \fs30 , 218 F.3d 566, 578 \fs20 \f0 (\sub 6\plain \fs20 th \fs30 \f0 Cir. 2000) (affirming district court's decision to exclude scientific testimony). \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx742 \par \par \par \par \par \par \fs26 \f0 \i \b \pard \s86 \qc \sl-0 \tx742 9 \par \fs20 \f0 \plain \fs20 \plain \fs20 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs30 \f0 \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \s65 \qj \fi743 \sl-657 \tx742 The District Court decided this case on cross-motions for summary judgment, and found that there were no material issues of fact in dispute, including with regard to the benefits of racial diversity. \ul Gratz\plain \fs30 , 122 F. Supp. 2d at 815. The District Court, when considering the motions, evaluated the Gum report, and concluded that it constituted "solid evidence" of the educational benefits resulting from a racially and ethnically diverse student body. \ul Gratz\plain \fs30 , 122 F. Supp. 2d at 822. Specifically, the District Court considered NAS's criticism of the Gurin report's methodology, but was "persuaded, based upon the record," of the foundations supporting the study's conclusions. \ul Id\plain \fs30 . at 824. The District Court performed its gatekeeper role in expert testimony and its decision should not be disturbed. For this reason alone, Section I of the NAS brief should be rejected by the Court. \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx742 \par \pard \s80 \qj \li1474 \fi-709 \sl-328 \tx765 \tx1474 B.\tab \fs24 \f2 \b SECTIoN \fs28 \f0 \plain \fs28 \b I \fs24 \f0 \plain \b OF THE \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 NAS \fs26 \f0 \i \b AMIcus \fs24 \f0 \plain \plain \b BRIEF SHOULD \fs28 \f0 \plain \fs28 \b BE \fs24 \f0 \plain \b REJECTED BECAUSE IT CANNOT SUPPLEMENT THE FACTUAL RECORD DEVELOPED AT THE TRIAL LEVEL. \par \pard \qj \sl-328 \tx765 \tx1474 \par \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 \pard \s64 \qj \fi760 \sl-657 \tx759 NAS has inappropriately expanded its role as \fs28 \f0 \i "am icus curiae"\super 4 \fs30 \f0 \plain \super \fs30 \plain \fs30 by attacking the validity of Patricia Gurin's testimony presented at the district court level \fs8 \f1 \'97 \fs30 \f0 a proceeding in which NAS participated by filing an \fs28 \f0 \i amicus \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 brief. An \fs28 \f0 \i amicus curiae \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx759 \par \par \fs20 \f0 \plain \fs20 \pard \s87 \qj \sl-0 \tx204 4 \par \pard \qj \sl-0 \tx204 \par \fs30 \f0 \pard \s72 \qj \li918 \sl-323 \tx918 The term \fs28 \f0 \i "am icus curiae" \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 means friend of the court, not friend of a party. \ul United States v. Michigan\plain \fs30 , 940 F.2d 143, 164-65 \fs20 \f0 (\sub 6\plain \fs20 th \fs30 \f0 Cir. 1991), \ul cert. denied\plain \fs30 , 513 U.S. 925 (1994). \par \pard \qj \sl-323 \tx918 \par \par \par \par \fs24 \f0 \b \pard \s75 \qc \sl-0 \tx918 10 \par \fs20 \f0 \plain \fs20 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs30 \f0 \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \s66 \qj \sl-657 \tx204 cannot challenge the validity of testimony on the record, as it "has never been recognized, elevated to, or [been] accorded the full litigating status of a named party or a real party in interest." \ul United States v. Michigan\plain \fs30 , 940 F.2d 143, \fs28 \f0 \i 165 \fs20 \f0 \plain \fs20 (\sub 6\plain \fs20 th \fs30 \f0 Cir. 1991), \ul cert. denied\plain \fs30 , 513 U.S. 925 (1994) (quoting, for example, \ul Silverberg v. Indus. Comm'n\plain \fs30 , 128 N.W.2d 674, 680 (Wis. 1964) (striking \fs28 \f0 \i amicus \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 brief seeking to challenge validity of testimony in the record because this was not a proper \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx204 \par \pard \s84 \qj \sl-323 \tx204 function of \fs28 \f0 \i amicus) \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 (other citations omitted)). See also \ul Cellnet Communications\plain \fs30 . \par \pard \qj \sl-323 \tx204 \par \fs20 \f0 \pard \s88 \qj \li4053 \sl-0 \tx4053 th \par \pard \qj \sl-0 \tx4053 \par \fs30 \f0 \ul \pard \s84 \qj \sl-323 \tx204 Inc. v. FCC\plain \fs30 , 149 F.3d 429, 443 (6 Cir. 1998) (holding that an \fs28 \f0 \i amicus \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 may not raise additional issues or arguments not raised by the parties); \ul Bakal Brothers. Inc.\plain \fs30 \par \pard \qj \sl-323 \tx204 \par \ul \pard \s66 \qj \sl-657 \tx204 v. United States\plain \fs30 , 105 F.3d 1085, 1090 \fs18 \f0 \b (\sub 6\plain \fs18 th \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 Cir. 1997) (holding the same); \ul Resident Council of\plain \fs30 \ul Allen Parkway Village v. United States Dep't of\plain \fs30 \ul HUD\plain \fs30 , 980 F.2d 1043, 1049 \fs20 \f0 (\sub 5\plain \fs20 th \fs30 \f0 Cir. 1993) (holding that an \fs28 \f0 \i amicus \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 may not expand the scope of the appeal); \fs28 \f0 WRIGHT \fs30 \f0 & \fs28 \f0 MILLER, \fs30 \f0 \ul Appellate Practice\plain \fs30 \fs36 \f1 \'a7 \fs30 \f0 31.14 at \fs28 \f0 \i 568 \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 (1999) ("An \fs28 \f0 \i amicus \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 is limited in one major way: it cannot raise issues that the parties could have but did not."). For this simple reason, Section I of the NAS brief must be rejected. \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx204 \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \fs24 \f0 \b \pard \s75 \qc \sl-0 \tx204 11 \par \fs20 \f0 \plain \fs20 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs30 \f0 \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \s64 \qj \fi760 \sl-657 \tx759 Additionally, NAS cannot insert itself into the case and decide what the issues are on appeal \fs8 \f1 -- \fs30 \f0 in this instance with regard to the validity of Gum's report.~ An \fs28 \f0 \i amicus curiae \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 must take the case as it finds it and "accept the case before the court with the issues made by the parties." 4 AM. \fs28 \f0 JUR. \fs30 \f0 2d \fs28 \f0 \i Amicus Curiae \fs36 \f1 \plain \fs36 \f1 \'a7 \fs30 \f0 7 (1998). The Court should decline to consider NAS's arguments based on Wood & Sherman's attack against Gum's report because these arguments were not presented by the parties~ or by the lower court. \ul See\plain \fs30 \ul Dep't of\plain \fs30 \ul Taxation & Finance of\plain \fs30 \ul New York v. Miihelm\plain \fs30 \ul Attea & Bros.. Inc.\plain \fs30 , 512 U.S. 61, 76 n.l 1(1994) (refusing to consider \fs28 \f0 \i amicus' \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 arguments that were not addressed by the lower court); \ul United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell\plain \fs30 , 451 U.S. \fs28 \f0 \i 56, \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 61 n.2 (1981) ("We decline to consider this argument since it was not raised by either of the parties here or below."); \ul Bell v. \i \b Wolfish\plain \i \fs30 \plain \fs30 \plain \fs30 \i \b , \plain \fs30 \plain \fs30 441 U.S. 520, \fs28 \f0 \i 531 \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 n.13 (1979) (holding the same); \ul Knetsch\plain \fs30 \ul v. United States\plain \fs30 , 364 U.S. 361, 370 (1960) (declining to address argument presented oiiiy by \fs26 \f0 \i \b amicus curiae). \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx759 \par \par \fs18 \f0 \plain \fs18 \plain \fs18 \b \pard \s81 \qj \sl-0 \tx204 5 \par \pard \qj \sl-0 \tx204 \par \fs30 \f2 \plain \fs30 \f2 \pard \s72 \qj \li918 \sl-323 \tx918 As the Supreme Court \fs30 \f0 of Michigan stated in 1921, "the parties to the case have control of the issues and we find it necessary to only consider the issues raised by them." \ul Union Steam Pump Sales Co. v. Sec'y of State\plain \fs30 , 185 N.W. \fs28 \f0 \i 353, \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 354 (Mich. 1921). \par \pard \qj \sl-323 \tx918 \par \fs20 \f0 \pard \s87 \qj \sl-0 \tx204 6 \par \fs30 \f0 \pard \s72 \qj \li918 \sl-323 \tx918 This is true even if the Plaintiffs appear to want to adopt NAS as a co\-plaintiff in the ease. \ul See\plain \fs30 Proof Brief of Appellants at 42-44. \par \pard \qj \sl-323 \tx918 \par \par \par \par \fs28 \f0 \pard \s67 \qc \sl-0 \tx918 12 \par \fs20 \f0 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs28 \f0 \b \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \s80 \qj \li1474 \fi-709 \sl-328 \tx765 \tx1474 C.\tab \fs24 \f0 \plain \b SECTION \fs28 \f0 \plain \fs28 \b I \fs24 \f0 \plain \b OF TILE \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 NAS \fs26 \f0 \i \b AMICUS \fs24 \f0 \plain \plain \b BRIEF SHOULD BE REJECTED BECAUSE ITS ATTACK OF GURIN'S REPORT CANNOT BE PROPERLY TESTED. \par \pard \qj \sl-328 \tx765 \tx1474 \par \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 \pard \s65 \qj \fi743 \sl-657 \tx742 There is particular reason to be suspicious of social science methodology presented for the first time on appeal. The invective that NAS 's Brief heaps on the Gum report is troubling because the University defendants have no opportunity to respond through their own expert and this Court has no suitable mechanism for assessing independently the validity of its statements submitted for appellate fact-finding. By contrast, the Gum report was evidence that the University of Michigan properly and timely offered at trial. As a result, the Plaintiffs had an opportunity to test the evidence by conducting discovery regarding Professor Gurin's report, cross-examining her and challenging her findings by offering their own expert. \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx742 \par \pard \s65 \qj \fi743 \sl-657 \tx742 Section 1 of the NAS Brief is not subject to any of these safeguards. "The poorly ~oontrolled use \fs28 \f0 \b of \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 social science data by \fs28 \f0 \i amici curiae \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 may not only be prejudicial to the parties, but inimical to sound judicial decision-making." \fs28 \f0 MICHAEL RUSTAND \fs30 \f0 & \fs28 \f0 THOMAS KOENIG, \fs30 \f0 \ul The Supreme Court and Junk Social\plain \fs30 \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx742 \par \ul \pard \s83 \qc \sl-0 \tx742 Science: Selective Distortion in Amicus Briefs\plain \fs30 , 72 N.C. L. REv. 91, 95 (1993). \par \pard \qj \sl-0 \tx742 \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \fs28 \f0 \pard \s67 \qc \sl-0 \tx742 13 \par \fs20 \f0 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs30 \f0 \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \s66 \qj \sl-657 \tx204 To reward \fs28 \f0 \i amicus curiae \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 who participated in the District Court for conducting an ambush in the Court of Appeals would undermine this Court's decision-making process, and would produce the anomalous result of allowing a non-party to supplement the factual record. \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx204 \par \pard \s80 \qj \li1474 \fi-709 \sl-328 \tx765 \tx1474 D.\tab \fs28 \f0 \b THE \fs24 \f0 \plain \b DISTRICT COURT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO CONSIDER \fs30 \f2 \plain \fs30 \f2 NAS'S \par \fs26 \f0 \i \b \pard \s89 \qj \li1474 \sl-0 \tx1474 AMIcus \fs24 \f0 \plain \plain \b BRIEF. \par \pard \qj \sl-0 \tx1474 \par \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 \pard \s65 \qj \fi743 \sl-657 \tx742 The District Court was not obligated even to consider the \fs28 \f0 \i amicus curiae \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 brief that NAS filed below. Participation of \fs28 \f0 \i amicus curiae \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 in proceedings is solely within the discretion of the court. \ul See\plain \fs30 \ul Michigan\plain \fs30 , 940 F.2d at 164-65; see also 4 AM. \fs28 \f0 JUR. \fs30 \f0 2d. \fs28 \f0 \i Amicus Curiae \fs36 \f1 \plain \fs36 \f1 \'a7\'a7 \fs30 \f0 3, 8 (1998). Thus, NAS's present complaint about the District Court's response to its brief below \ul see\plain \fs30 NAS Brief at 20-21, is misplaced. In any event, the broad contours of NAS's current brief \fs8 \f1 \'97 \fs30 \f0 unlike its addendum \fs8 \f1 \'97 \fs30 \f0 restate the brief it filed with District Court. The District Court considered the arguments even though the underlying facts were not in dispute, and rejected them. This undisputed finding may not be attacked by a non-party who \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx742 \par \par \par \par \par \fs20 \f0 \i \pard \s73 \qj \sl-232 \tx204 (footnote continued from previous page) \par \pard \qj \sl-232 \tx204 \par \fs30 \f2 \plain \fs30 \f2 \pard \s72 \qj \li918 \sl-323 \tx918 NAS could \fs30 \f0 also have sought to intervene in the case and present the opinions of Professors Wood and \fs30 \f2 Sherman \fs30 \f0 either directly or in cooperation with the Plaintiffs. \par \pard \qj \sl-323 \tx918 \par \par \par \par \fs24 \f0 \b \pard \s75 \qc \sl-0 \tx918 14 \par \fs20 \f0 \plain \fs20 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs30 \f0 \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \s66 \qj \sl-657 \tx204 lacks standing. \ul See\plain \fs30 \ul Michigan\plain \fs30 , 940 F.2d at \fs28 \f0 \i 165 \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 (holding that an \fs28 \f0 \i amicus curiae \plain \fs28 is \fs30 \f0 not a real party in interest). \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx204 \par \fs28 \f0 \b \pard \s90 \qj \li765 \fi-765 \sl-328 \tx765 II.\tab \fs24 \f0 \plain \b Tm~ \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 NAS \fs24 \f0 \b BiuE\'b6 AND THE WOOD \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 & \fs24 \f2 \b SHERMAN \fs24 \f0 \plain \b REPORT \fs28 \f0 \plain \fs28 \b ARE \fs24 \f0 \plain \b PERVADED BY \par \pard \s76 \qj \li765 \sl-0 \tx765 METHODOLOGICAL ERRORS AND FAIL TO OVERCOME THE DISTRICT \par \pard \s76 \qj \li765 \sl-0 \tx765 COURT'S FINDINGS CONCERNING THE SIGNIFICANT EDUCATIONAL \par \pard \s76 \qj \li765 \sl-0 \tx765 BENEFITS OF STUDENT RACIAL DIVERSITY. \par \pard \qj \sl-0 \tx765 \par \par \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 \pard \s65 \qj \fi743 \sl-657 \tx742 The evidence that NAS seeks to introduce for the first time in the Court of Appeals is a methodological attack by Professors Wood and Sherman against the Gum report, and a number of other studies of the educational effects of \fs28 \f0 affirmative action in student admissions programs. The Wood \fs30 \f0 & Sherman report raises complex statistical issues, and is presented at a procedural juncture during which Professor Gurin cannot respond in the record. \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx742 \par \pard \s65 \qj \fi743 \sl-657 \tx742 In the unlikely event that this Court decides to evaluate the complex, fact-intensive issues raised by the Gurin and Wood & Sherman reports, SIHER offers as an addendum to this brief a relatively short analysis by Stanford Professors Ewart Thomas and Richard Shavelson of methodological differences between these reports. Professors Thomas and Shavelson are respectively the former Dean of the Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences and the former Dean of the Stanford School of Education. \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx742 \par \pard \s91 \qj \fi777 \sl-657 \tx776 The Thomas & \fs28 \f0 Shavelson report explains the central methodological \fs30 \f0 difference between both reports\'97Gurin's appropriate decision to examine the \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx776 \par \par \par \fs24 \f0 \b \pard \s75 \qc \sl-0 \tx776 15 \par \fs20 \f0 \plain \fs20 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs30 \f0 \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \s66 \qj \sl-657 \tx204 indirect effects of student racial diversity ("structural diversity") on educational outcomes, as opposed to Wood & Sherman's contention that indirect effects are irrelevant. This analysis shows that the Wood & Sherman report and Section I of the NAS Brief make a number of fundamental methodological errors. For these reasons, from a social science perspective as well as a legal perspective, it would be inappropriate for this Court to rely upon them absent a thorough opportunity for cross-examination and rebuttal. \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx204 \par \pard \s65 \qj \fi743 \sl-657 \tx742 Wood & Sherman diverge in a number of important ways from accepted methodology for analyzing effects on educational outcomes. These methodological errors, which pervade the NAS Brief, include: (1) rejecting relevant evidence of indirect effects; (2) assuming that social scientific evidence of the benefits of structural diversity under \ul Bakke\plain \fs30 must show direct effects; (3) assuming that in Gurin's methodology diversity experiences are "proxies" for student racial diversity; (4) claiming that the educational benefits of diversity programs in Gum's model could be obtained without affirmative action in student admissions; and (5) criticizing use of self-reported academic outcome data and reliance upon educational outcome data other than grades. \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx742 \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \fs24 \f0 \b \pard \s75 \qc \sl-0 \tx742 16 \par \fs20 \f0 \plain \fs20 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs28 \f0 \b \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \s92 \qj \li1519 \fi-714 \sl-0 \tx805 \tx1519 A.\tab WOOD & SHERMAN INCORRECTLY ASSUME THAT SOCIAL \par \fs24 \f2 \plain \f2 \b \pard \s93 \qj \li1519 \sl-345 \tx1519 SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS FROM STUDENT \par \fs28 \f0 \plain \fs28 \b \pard \s94 \qc \sl-0 \tx1519 DIVERSITY CAN ONEY BE PROVEN \fs24 \f0 \plain \b THROUGH DIRECT EFFECTS. \par \pard \qj \sl-0 \tx1519 \par \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 \pard \s91 \qj \fi777 \sl-657 \tx776 As Thomas \fs28 \f0 & Shavelson demonstrate, Gum's examination of indirect \fs30 \f0 effects of structural diversity is methodologically appropriate and a standard form of analysis in research concerning higher education outcomes. Thomas & Shavelson at 2, 9 & \fs26 \f0 \i \b n.5. \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 \plain \fs30 As they explain, Gurin's model is designed to test whether student racial diversity (structural diversity), "when combined with appropriate campus experiences, is a necessary condition to producing certain \fs28 \f0 improved educational outcomes." \ul Id\plain \fs28 . \fs30 \f0 at 2. In such a model, displayed graphically in Figure \fs28 \f0 1 of their report, student racial diversity remains necessary to serve the \fs30 \f0 compelling governmental interest, but operates \fs28 \f0 indirectly through student campus \fs30 \f0 experiences. \ul Id\plain \fs30 . at 4. \fs28 \f0 In this model, students do not obtain educational benefits of \fs30 \f0 student racial diversity simply because diverse students are at an institution, but because they interact with, and learn from, one another on campus in appropriate \fs28 \f0 settings. A similar example of indirect causation can be found in the causal \fs30 \f0 relationship between smoking and lung cancer, which is caused indirectly through \fs28 \f0 destruction of lung tissue. \ul Id\plain \fs28 . \fs30 \f0 at 2. \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx776 \par \pard \s65 \qj \fi743 \sl-657 \tx742 Wood & Sherman repeatedly and mistakenly attack Gurin's report on the ground that she has failed to prove that student racial diversity has \fs28 \f0 \i direct \plain \fs28 effects on \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx742 \par \par \par \par \fs24 \f0 \b \pard \s75 \qc \sl-0 \tx742 17 \par \fs20 \f0 \plain \fs20 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs30 \f0 \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \s66 \qj \sl-657 \tx204 improved educational outcome, misunderstanding her well-accepted methodology as a subterfuge. \ul See\plain \fs30 Wood & Sherman at \fs28 \f0 79 (calling her approach "absurd, \fs8 \f1 ... \fs30 \f0 a devious attempt to distract attention from" the absence of direct effects), 81-82. For the same reason, Wood & Sherman err when they claim that Gurin's "in turn" \fs28 \f0 (indirect effects) analysis fails because correlations between student racial diversity \fs30 \f0 and educational outcomes are not significant "when one properly controls for" campus experience diversity activity variables. \ul Id\plain \fs30 . at 82, 109; NAS Brief at 19-20. In fact, as Thomas \fs28 \f0 & Shavelson explain, this result "strongly supports" and is \fs30 \f0 "fully consistent" with Gum's indirect effects thesis, because in her model student racial diversity operates through campus experiences. If one controls for those experiences, these correlations would be expected to drop off. Thomas & Shavelson at 8, 10. \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx204 \par \pard \s65 \qj \fi743 \sl-657 \tx742 Wood & Sherman's failure to acknowledge the relevance of indirect effects forms the principal basis for NAS's objection to the Gum report and the District Court's finding regarding the benefits of diversity. ~ ~ NAS Brief at 6 ("The Gurin report is flawed because Gum does not even attempt to compare racial diversity directly with educational benefits. \fs8 \f1 . . . \fs30 \f0 Her study is therefore irrelevant to this case."); see also \ul id\plain \fs30 . at 8-9. \fs28 \f0 Ironically, \fs30 \f0 it is this very methodological error by \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx742 \par \par \par \par \par \par \fs24 \f0 \b \pard \s75 \qc \sl-0 \tx742 18 \par \fs20 \f0 \plain \fs20 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs30 \f0 \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \s66 \qj \sl-657 \tx204 Wood & Sherman that renders much of their attack on the District Court's decision unresponsive to Gum's evidence and essentially irrelevant. \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx204 \par \pard \s80 \qj \li1474 \fi-709 \sl-328 \tx765 \tx1474 B.\tab \fs28 \f0 \b WooD \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 & SHERMAN \fs24 \f0 \b INCORRECTLY ASSUME THAT \ul BAKKE\plain \plain \b \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 REQUIRES \fs24 \f0 \b PROOF OF DIRECT EFFECTS ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES. \par \pard \qj \sl-328 \tx765 \tx1474 \par \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 \pard \s65 \qj \fi743 \sl-657 \tx742 Wood & Sherman make the further mistake of assuming that proof of educational benefits under \ul Bakke\plain \fs30 requires proof of direct effects on educational outcomes. Wood & Sherman at \fs28 \f0 \i 53; \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 Thomas \fs28 \f0 & Shavelson at \fs30 \f0 3-4. While this explanation conforms to Wood \fs28 \f0 & Sherman's theory, \fs30 \f0 it is at odds not only with standard statistical methods for studying academic outcomes, but with the language of Justice Powell's opinion in \ul Bakke.\plain \fs30 ' \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx742 \par \pard \s65 \qj \fi743 \sl-657 \tx742 Wood & Sherman quote from \ul Bakke\plain \fs30 , but fail to point to any language in Justice Powell's opinion that requires proof of direct effects. Wood & Sherman at \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx742 \par \fs28 \f0 \i \pard \s66 \qj \sl-657 \tx204 53. \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 They also neglect to discuss a lengthy quote in Justice Powell's opinion from then President Bowen of Princeton University explaining that "a great deal of learning [from diversity] occurs informally" through interaction of students from \fs28 \f0 diverse backgrounds. \ul Bakke\plain \fs28 , \fs30 \f0 438 U.S. at 312 n.48; Thomas & Shavelson at 3-4 & \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx204 \par \par \par \pard \s72 \qj \li918 \sl-323 \tx918 Wood & Sherman's choice of the subtitle for their report, "Why Justice \par \pard \s72 \qj \li918 \sl-323 \tx918 Powell's Diversity Rationale for Racial Preferences in Higher Education \par \pard \s72 \qj \li918 \sl-323 \tx918 Must Be Rejected," makes plain the authors' disdain for the theory that \par \pard \s72 \qj \li918 \sl-323 \tx918 they attempt to describe statistically. \par \pard \qj \sl-323 \tx918 \par \par \par \par \fs24 \f0 \b \pard \s75 \qc \sl-0 \tx918 19 \par \fs20 \f0 \plain \fs20 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs30 \f0 \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \s66 \qj \sl-657 \tx204 n. I. The focus in Gurin's methodology on informal learning and student interaction, not Wood & Sherman's model, thus "appears entirely consistent with Justice Powell's opinion." \fs36 \f1 I~\'b1 \fs30 \f0 at 4. \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx204 \par \pard \s80 \qj \li1474 \fi-709 \sl-328 \tx765 \tx1474 C.\tab WooD & \fs24 \f2 \b SHERMAN AND \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 NAS \fs24 \f0 \b INCORRECTLY ASSUME THAT DIVERSITY EXPERIENCES ARE "PROXIES" FOR STRUCTURAL DIVERSITY IN GURIN'S MODEL. \par \pard \qj \sl-328 \tx765 \tx1474 \par \fs28 \f0 \plain \fs28 \pard \s91 \qj \fi777 \sl-657 \tx776 Another fundamental methodological error that pervades the Wood & Sherman analysis and Section \fs30 \f0 I of the NAS Brief is the assumption that in Gurin's \fs28 \f0 model student on-campus diversity experiences are mere "proxies for" (serve the \fs30 \f0 place \fs28 \f0 of) structural diversity. ~ kg., Wood & Sherman at 82-83; NAS Brief at \fs30 \f0 6-8, 10, 12. For example, the NAS brief complains that student campus diversity experiences are woefully inadequate" as proxies for student racial diversity. \ul Id\plain \fs30 . at \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx776 \par \fs28 \f0 \pard \s96 \qj \sl-283 \tx204 7. \par \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx204 \par \fs30 \f0 \pard \s65 \qj \fi743 \sl-657 \tx742 This complaint in no way undermines Gum's theory because, as Thomas & Shavelson explain, diversity experiences play an "entirely different" function in \fs28 \f0 Gurin's model. Thomas \fs30 \f0 & Shavelson at 6. In Gurin's model, diversity \fs30 \f2 experiences \fs30 \f0 are not a stand-in for student racial diversity, they are "intervening \fs30 \f2 causal variables." \fs30 \f0 "The causal effect of structural diversity on student outcomes \fs30 \f2 works through \fs30 \f0 the diversity experiences students have in an institution." Id. Therefore, this criticism, which pervades the NAS Brief, is misplaced. \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx742 \par \par \par \par \fs24 \f0 \b \pard \s75 \qc \sl-0 \tx742 20 \par \fs20 \f0 \plain \fs20 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs28 \f0 \b \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \s80 \qj \li1474 \fi-709 \sl-328 \tx765 \tx1474 D.\tab WOOD \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 & \fs24 \f0 \b SHERMAN AND \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 NAS \fs24 \f0 \b INCORRECTLY ASSERT THAT DIVERSITY EXPERIENCES CAN YIELD BENEFICIAL EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES WITHOUT A RACIALLY DIVERSE STUDENT BODY. \par \pard \qj \sl-328 \tx765 \tx1474 \par \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 \pard \s65 \qj \fi743 \sl-657 \tx742 Perhaps as a result of their erroneous assumption that campus diversity experiences are a proxy for student racial diversity, Wood \fs28 \f0 & Sherman claim that student racial diversity is unnecessary in order for students to obtain the educational benefits of campus diversity experiences. Wood & Sherman at \i 85; \fs30 \f2 \plain \fs30 \f2 NAS Brief at 8. Leaving aside the question of whether this hypothesis bears any \fs28 \f0 relationship to human experience, Thomas \fs30 \f0 & Shavelson prove algebraically that \fs28 \f0 according to Gum's model, this result is impossible. Thomas \fs30 \f0 & Shavelson at 10- \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx742 \par \pard \s66 \qj \sl-657 \tx204 12. This is so because in Gurin's model, a decline in the diversity of a student body produces a decline in the educational benefits of diversity. \ul Id\plain \fs30 . at 12. \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx204 \par \pard \s80 \qj \li1474 \fi-709 \sl-328 \tx765 \tx1474 E.\tab \fs28 \f0 \b WooD & \fs24 \f2 \plain \f2 \b SHERMAN'S \fs24 \f0 \plain \b AND \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 NAS'S \fs24 \f0 \b ATTACKS ON GURIN'S USE OF SELF-REPORTED DATA AND HER LIMITED CORRELATIONS REGARDING GRADES ARE MISPLACED. \par \pard \qj \sl-328 \tx765 \tx1474 \par \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 \pard \s65 \qj \fi743 \sl-657 \tx742 Wood & Sherman and NAS also complain that Gurin relies upon self\-reported data. Wood & Sherman at 81 & n.66; NAS Brief at 10, 12. As Thomas \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx742 \par \pard \s66 \qj \sl-657 \tx204 & Shavelson explain, "[tihis criticism is at odds with standard social scientific \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx204 \par \pard \s66 \qj \sl-657 \tx204 practice," including in the circumstances Gurin examines. Thomas & Shavelson at \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx204 \par \pard \s66 \qj \sl-657 \tx204 12. \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx204 \par \par \par \par \par \par \fs28 \f0 \pard \s67 \qc \sl-0 \tx204 21 \par \fs20 \f0 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs30 \f0 \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \s98 \qj \fi918 \sl-657 \tx918 Similarly, Wood & Sherman complain that her results regarding educational \fs28 \f0 outcomes on grades are statistically insignificant. NAS Brief at \fs30 \f0 11. However, this criticism ignores other categories of educational outcomes Gurin studied, such as engagement, motivation and democratic outcomes. All are "very important measures of educational outcome" and are consistent with the considerations in then President Bowen's letter quoted by Justice Powell in ~ 438 U.S. at 312 \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx918 \par \pard \s99 \qj \li777 \fi-776 \sl-0 \tx776 n.48.\tab Thomas \fs28 \f0 & Shavelson at 12. \par \pard \qj \sl-0 \tx776 \par \b \pard \s90 \qj \li765 \fi-765 \sl-328 \tx765 III.\tab \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 NAS \fs24 \f0 \b MISREADS THE SUPREME COURT'S OPINION IN \ul WYGANT\plain \plain \b \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 IN \fs24 \f0 \b A FAILED \fs24 \f2 \plain \f2 \b ATTEMPT TO PLACE AN EVIDENTIARY BURDEN ON THE UNIVERSITY. \par \pard \qj \sl-328 \tx765 \par \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 \pard \s98 \qj \fi918 \sl-657 \tx918 NAS contends that there must be a "strong basis in evidence for [the District Court's] conclusion that" the University's use of racial classifications to achieve \fs28 \f0 student racial diversity is "compelling." \ul See\plain \fs28 NAS Brief at \fs30 \f0 14-15 (citing \ul Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of\plain \fs30 \ul Educ.\plain \fs30 , 476 U.S. 267, 277 \fs28 \f0 (1986)). \fs30 \f0 NAS then claims that the Gum report does not meet the University's burden in this regard. \ul Id\plain \fs30 . at 15. \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx918 \par \pard \s65 \qj \fi743 \sl-657 \tx742 NAS misreads the plurality opinion in \ul Wygant\plain \fs30 . The Supreme Court in \fs28 \f0 \ul Wygant\plain \fs28 held that \fs30 \f0 if the justification for affirmative action is to remedy \fs28 \f0 \i past discrimination, \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 then \fs28 \f0 strong evidence of this discrimination must be present before \fs30 \f0 the institution \fs28 \f0 embarks on an affirmative action scheme. \fs30 \f0 \ul Id\plain \fs30 . Specifically, the Court found that a public employer, before embarking on a program to remedy \fs28 \f0 \i past discrimination, \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 "must have sufficient evidence to justify the conclusion that \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx742 \par \par \par \fs24 \f0 \pard \s100 \qc \sl-0 \tx742 22 \par \fs20 \f0 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs30 \f0 \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \s66 \qj \sl-657 \tx204 there has been prior discrimination [by that same public employer]." \ul Wygant\plain \fs30 , 476 U.S. at 277. \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx204 \par \fs28 \f0 \ul \pard \s91 \qj \fi777 \sl-657 \tx776 Wygant\plain \fs28 involves a different context from that in \ul Bakke\plain \fs28 and in this casey \fs30 \f0 however. Unlike the race-based plan at issue in \ul Wygant\plain \fs30 that provided minority employees greater protection against layoffs because of their race, the University's admissions policy does not have solely a remedial purpose. As such, an evidentiary analysis is not required to confirm the legal rule set forth by the \fs28 \f0 Supreme Court in \ul Bakke\plain \fs28 that a "diverse student body \fs8 \f1 . . . \fs30 \f0 clearly is a constitutionally permissible goal for an institution of higher education." \ul Bakke\plain \fs30 , 438 U.S. at 311-12. The Supreme Court has yet to decide an affirmative action case in the context of higher education with more than testimonial and anecdotal \fs28 \f0 evidence, and has not imposed an evidentiary burden with regard to the benefits of student \fs30 \f0 diversity on the defendant-university. Rather, the Supreme Court has found as a matter of law that diversity in education is a compelling government interest.'~ \ul Bakke\plain \fs30 , 438 U.S. at 311-12. NAS's attempt to graft an evidentiary burden onto this standard is entirely misplaced. \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx776 \par \par \par \par \pard \s72 \qj \li918 \sl-323 \tx918 The District Court, although it was not required to make such findings, \par \pard \s72 \qj \li918 \sl-323 \tx918 nonetheless found as an undisputed fact that student racial diversity at the \par \pard \qj \sl-323 \tx918 \par \fs20 \f0 \i \pard \s73 \qj \sl-232 \tx204 (footnote continued to next page) \par \pard \qj \sl-232 \tx204 \par \par \par \par \fs24 \f0 \plain \b \pard \s75 \qc \sl-0 \tx204 23 \par \fs20 \f0 \plain \fs20 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs30 \f2 \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \s91 \qj \fi777 \sl-657 \tx776 Furthermore, \fs28 \f0 \i the \fs30 \f2 \plain \fs30 \f2 exacting \fs28 \f0 evidentiary standard that may be required in other \fs30 \f0 contexts, such as remedial programs, is not appropriate in the context of academic institutions because \fs28 \f0 education requires academic freedom and implicates First \fs30 \f0 Amendment values. The Supreme Court has long recognized that educators' choices about academic matters have enjoyed considerable judicial deference. In \fs28 \f0 its evaluations of academic policies, the Court has attempted to leave space so as \fs30 \f0 not to constrain the "atmosphere of speculation, experiment and creation \fs8 \f1 . . . \fs28 \f0 so essential to the quality of higher education." \ul Bakke\plain \fs28 , \fs30 \f0 438 U.S. at 312. \ul See\plain \fs30 Note, \ul An Evidentiary Framework for Diversity as a Compelling Interest in Higher Education\plain \fs30 , 109 HIARv. L. REV. 1357, 1365 (1996); \fs24 \f0 RYAN JAMES \fs24 \f2 \b HAGEMANN, \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 \ul Diversity as a Compelling State Interest in Higher Education\plain \fs30 , 79 OR. L. REv. 493 (2000). \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx776 \par \pard \s65 \qj \fi743 \sl-657 \tx742 Finally, NAS's contention that the University must prove both that its admissions policy does not have a negative direct effect on student outcomes \fs28 \f0 \i and that \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 it has positive indirect effects is faulty. NAS Brief at \fs28 \f0 \i 15. \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 There is no reason in law or logic why this would be the case. The only support NAS cites for its contention is the Supreme Court's decision in \ul Wygant\plain \fs30 . However, in \ul Wygant\plain \fs30 , the \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx742 \par \par \fs20 \f0 \i \pard \s73 \qj \sl-232 \tx204 (footnote continuedfrom previous page) \par \pard \qj \sl-232 \tx204 \par \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 \pard \s72 \qj \li918 \sl-323 \tx918 University, achieved through its admissions program, results in significant \par \pard \qj \sl-323 \tx918 \par \fs20 \f0 \i \pard \s73 \qj \sl-232 \tx204 (footnote continued to next page) \par \pard \qj \sl-232 \tx204 \par \par \par \par \fs24 \f0 \plain \pard \s100 \qc \sl-0 \tx204 24 \par \fs20 \f0 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs30 \f2 \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \s101 \sl-657 \tx204 Supreme \fs30 \f0 Court explicitly distinguished the "school admission" cases, such as this one, from cases involving hiring goals. The Court found that the injury to a person denied admission into school is not of the same kind or degree as the injury to a person who is laid off from a job he already has. 476 U.S. at 283 n. 11. \par \pard \sl-657 \tx204 \par \pard \fi918 \sl-657 \tx918 In short, the University's admissions program seeks to advance \fs28 \f0 prospectively an entirely different interest from that in \ul Wygant\plain \fs28 , and one which has \fs30 \f0 been determined as a matter of law to be a compelling governmental interest. The \fs28 \f0 burden in \ul Wygant\plain \fs28 does not apply. \par \pard \sl-657 \tx918 \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \fs20 \f0 \i \pard \sl-0 \tx204 (footnote continued from previous page) \par \par \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 \pard \fi918 \sl-657 \tx918 educational benefits to all students. \par \pard \sl-657 \tx918 \par \par \par \fs26 \f0 \i \b \pard \s86 \qc \sl-0 \tx918 25 \par \fs20 \f0 \plain \fs20 \plain \fs20 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs28 \f0 \b \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \s8 \qc \sl-0 \tx918 CONCLUSION \par \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 \pard \fi743 \sl-323 \tx742 For the foregoing reasons, \fs28 \f0 \i amicus \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 urges the Court to affirm the judgment below. \par \pard \sl-323 \tx742 \par \pard \li4331 \sl-0 \tx4331 Respectfully submitted, \par \pard \sl-0 \tx4331 \par \par \par \pard \li4893 \sl-0 \tx4892 ~iss~' \par \pard \li4331 \sl-0 \tx4331 James J. Halpert \par \pard \li4331 \sl-0 \tx4331 Elizabeth R. Dewey \par \pard \li4331 \sl-0 \tx4331 Piper Marbury Rudnick & Wolfe LLP \par \pard \li4331 \sl-0 \tx4331 1200 Nineteenth Street, NW \par \pard \li4331 \sl-0 \tx4331 Washington, DC 20036 \par \fs28 \f0 \pard \li4309 \sl-0 \tx4308 202-861-3900 \par \pard \sl-0 \tx4308 \par \i \pard \s10 \li4286 \sl-0 \tx4285 Attorneys for Atnicus Curiae \par \pard \s10 \li4286 \sl-0 \tx4285 Stanford Inst itute for Higher \par \pard \li5006 \sl-0 \tx5005 Education Research \par \fs30 \f2 \plain \fs30 \f2 \pard \s62 \sl-0 \tx204 June 13, 2001 \par \pard \sl-0 \tx204 \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \fs24 \f0 \b \pard \s75 \qc \sl-0 \tx204 26 \par \fs20 \f0 \plain \fs20 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs28 \f0 \b \ul \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \s8 \qc \sl-0 \tx204 CERTIFICATE\plain \fs28 \plain \fs28 \b \ul OF\plain \fs28 \plain \fs28 \b \ul COMPLIANCE\plain \fs28 \plain \fs28 \b \par \pard \sl-0 \tx204 \par \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 \pard \fi743 \sl-657 \tx742 Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(C), the undersigned certifies this brief complies with the lype-volume limitations of Fed. R. App. P. 29(d) & 32(a)(7)(B). \par \pard \sl-657 \tx742 \par \pard \li743 \fi-742 \sl-323 \tx742 1.\tab EXCLUSIVE OF THE EXEMPTED PORTIONS IN THE FED. R. APP. P. \par \pard \sl-323 \tx742 \par \fs28 \f0 \pard \li777 \sl-0 \tx776 32(a)(7)(B)(iii), THE BRIEF CONTAINS: \par \i \pard \li1463 \sl-0 \tx1462 5,337 \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 words \par \pard \sl-0 \tx1462 \par \pard \li743 \fi-742 \sl-323 \tx742 2.\tab THE BRIEF HAS BEEN PREPARED: \par \pard \sl-323 \tx742 \par \pard \li1457 \sl-487 \tx1457 in proportionately spaced typeface using Word 2000 in Times New Roman 14-point type \par \pard \sl-487 \tx1457 \par \pard \li743 \fi-742 \sl-323 \tx742 3.\tab IF THE COURT SO REQUESTS, THE UNDERSIGNED WILL PROVIDE AN ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THE BRIEF AND/OR A COPY OF THE WORK OR LINE PRINTOUT. \par \pard \sl-323 \tx742 \par \pard \li743 \fi-742 \sl-323 \tx742 4.\tab THE UNDERSIGNED UNDERSTANDS A MATERIAL MISREPRE\-\fs28 \f0 SENTATION \fs30 \f0 IN COMPLETING THIS CERTIFICATE, OR CIRCUM\-VENTION OF THE TYPE-VOLUME LIMITS IN FED. R. APP. P. \par \pard \qc \sl-0 \tx742 32(a)(7), MAY RESUT IN THE COURT'S STRIKING THE BRIEF AND \par \pard \qc \sl-0 \tx742 IMPOSING SANCTIONS AGAINST THE PERSON SIGNING THE \par \pard \fi743 \sl-657 \tx742 BRIEF. \par \pard \sl-657 \tx742 \par \par \fs36 \f1 \pard \li8135 \sl-0 \tx8135 / \par \fs20 \f0 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs28 \f0 \b \ul \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \s8 \qc \sl-0 \tx8135 CERTIFICATE\plain \fs28 \plain \fs28 \b \ul OF\plain \fs28 \plain \fs28 \b \ul SERVICE\plain \fs28 \plain \fs28 \b \par \fs18 \f0 \plain \fs18 \b \pard \qc \sl-0 \tx8135 th \par \pard \sl-0 \tx8135 \par \fs28 \f0 \plain \fs28 \pard \li777 \sl-0 \tx776 I hereby certify that on this 12 day of June, 2001, pursuant to FRAP 25 \fs30 \f0 and \par \pard \s55 \sl-323 \tx204 6 Cir. R. 31, I caused a copy of the foregoing Brief of Amicus \fs28 \f0 \i Curiae \fs30 \f2 \plain \fs30 \f2 Stanford \par \fs30 \f0 \pard \s55 \sl-323 \tx204 Institute for Higher Education Research In Support of Affirmance in Nos. 01-1333, \par \pard \s55 \sl-323 \tx204 01-1418 to be filed, by Federal Express, with: \par \pard \sl-323 \tx204 \par \pard \s55 \sl-323 \tx204 Mr. Bryant Crutcher, Office of the Clerk \par \pard \s55 \sl-323 \tx204 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit \par \pard \s55 \sl-323 \tx204 Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse \par \pard \s55 \sl-323 \tx204 100 E Fifth Street \par \fs28 \f0 \pard \sl-0 \tx204 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3988 \par \par \fs30 \f0 \pard \s55 \sl-323 \tx204 I further certify that, on the same day and pursuant to the same provisions, I caused a copy of the above brief to be served, by First Class mail, on: \par \fs20 \f0 \pard \sl-0 \tx204 \par \fs30 \f2 \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \cols2 \colsx834 \colno1 \colw3946 \colsr834 \colno2 \colw3634 \marglsxn1405 \margrsxn2421 \headery480 \pard \s62 \sl-0 \tx204 David F. Herr, Esquire \par \fs30 \f0 \pard \sl-0 \tx204 Kirk \fs28 \f0 0. Kolbo, Esquire \par \fs30 \f0 \pard \s55 \sl-323 \tx204 Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand \par \pard \s55 \sl-323 \tx204 3300 Wells Fargo Center \par \pard \s55 \sl-323 \tx204 90 South Seventh Street \par \pard \s55 \sl-323 \tx204 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 \par \pard \sl-323 \tx204 \par \par \pard \s55 \sl-323 \tx204 Michael E. Rosman, Esquire \par \pard \s55 \sl-323 \tx204 Hans F. Bader, Esquire \par \pard \s55 \sl-323 \tx204 Center For Individual Rights \par \pard \s55 \sl-323 \tx204 1233 \fs20 \f0 \sub 20\plain \fs20 th \fs30 \f0 Street, N.W. \par \pard \qc \sl-0 \tx204 Suite 300 \par \pard \s55 \sl-323 \tx204 Washington, D.C. 20036 \par \pard \sl-323 \tx204 \par \pard \s55 \sl-323 \tx204 Kerry L. Morgan, Esquire \par \pard \s55 \sl-323 \tx204 Pentiuk, Couvreur & Kobiljak \par \pard \s55 \sl-323 \tx204 Suite 230, Superior Place \par \pard \s55 \sl-323 \tx204 20300 Superior Street \par \pard \s55 \sl-323 \tx204 Taylor, Michigan 48180 \par \fs30 \f2 \pard \sl-277 \tx204 Theodore \fs30 \f0 M. Shaw, Esquire \par \par \pard \sl-277 \tx204 Olatunde C.A. Johnson, Esquire \par \par \pard \sl-277 \tx204 Melissa S. Woods, Esquire \par \par \pard \li408 \fi-408 \sl-323 \tx408 NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. \par \pard \sl-277 \tx204 99 Hudson Street, 1 \fs20 \f0 \sub 6\plain \fs20 th \fs30 \f0 Floor New York, New York 10013 \par \par \par \pard \sl-0 \tx204 Godfrey \fs28 \f0 J. Dillard, Esquire \par \fs30 \f0 \pard \sl-277 \tx204 Evans & Luptak, P.L.C. \par \par \pard \sl-277 \tx204 535 Griswold Street \par \par \pard \sl-277 \tx204 2500 BuhI Building \par \par \pard \sl-277 \tx204 Detroit, Michigan 48226 \par \par \par \par \pard \s45 \sl-323 \tx204 Christopher A. Hansen, Esquire \fs28 \f0 E. Vincent Warren, Esquire \fs30 \f0 ACLU Foundation \par \fs18 \f0 \b \pard \li2330 \sl-0 \tx2330 th \par \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 \pard \sl-277 \tx204 125 Broad Street, 18 Floor New York, New York 10041 \par \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \marglsxn1405 \margrsxn2421 \headery480 \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \sl-277 \tx204 \par \fs20 \f0 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs30 \f0 \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \sl-277 \tx204 John Payton, Esquire \par \par \pard \sl-277 \tx204 John H. Pickering, Esquire \par \par \pard \sl-277 \tx204 Brigida Benitez, Esquire \par \par \pard \sl-277 \tx204 Craig Goldblatt, Esquire \par \par \pard \sl-277 \tx204 Anne Harkavy, Esquire \par \par \pard \sl-277 \tx204 Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering \par \par \pard \sl-277 \tx204 2445 M Street, N.W. \par \par \pard \s45 \sl-323 \tx204 Washington, D.C. 20037 \par \pard \sl-323 \tx204 \par \fs28 \f0 \pard \sl-0 \tx204 Brice M. Clagett, Esquire \par \fs30 \f0 \pard \sl-277 \tx204 Oscar M. Garibaldi, Esquire \par \par \pard \sl-277 \tx204 Keith A. Noreika, Esquire \par \par \pard \sl-277 \tx204 Covington & Burling \par \par \pard \sl-277 \tx204 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. \par \par \pard \sl-277 \tx204 Washington, D.C. 20004-2401 \par \par \par \pard \sl-277 \tx204 Leonard M. Niehoff, Esquire \par \par \pard \sl-0 \tx204 Phillip \fs28 \f0 J. Kessler, Esquire \par \fs30 \f0 \pard \sl-277 \tx204 Butzel Long \par \par \pard \sl-277 \tx204 350 South Main Street \par \par \pard \sl-277 \tx204 Suite 300 \par \par \pard \sl-277 \tx204 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 \par \pard \li4773 \sl-0 \tx4773 Brent E. Simmons, Esquire \par \pard \li4773 \sl-0 \tx4773 ACLU Fund of Michigan \par \pard \li4773 \sl-0 \tx4773 300 S. Capitol Avenue \par \fs28 \f0 \pard \li4671 \sl-0 \tx4671 Lansing, Michigan 48901 \par \pard \sl-0 \tx4671 \par \par \par \par \fs30 \f0 \pard \li4773 \sl-0 \tx4773 Patricia Mendoza, Esquire \par \pard \li4773 \sl-0 \tx4773 Mexican American Legal Defense \par \pard \li4893 \sl-0 \tx4892 and Educational Fund \par \pard \li4893 \sl-0 \tx4892 188 W. Randolph Street \par \pard \li4893 \sl-0 \tx4892 Suite 1405 \par \pard \li4773 \sl-0 \tx4773 Chicago, Illinois 60601 \par \pard \sl-0 \tx4773 \par \pard \li4773 \sl-0 \tx4773 Michael J. Steinberg, Esquire \par \fs28 \f0 \pard \li4671 \sl-0 \tx4671 American Civil Liberties Union \par \fs30 \f0 \pard \li4893 \sl-0 \tx4892 Fund of Michigan \par \pard \li4893 \sl-0 \tx4892 1249 Washington Boulevard \par \pard \li4773 \sl-0 \tx4773 Suite 2910 \par \pard \li4773 \sl-0 \tx4773 Detroit, Michigan 48226 \par \pard \li215 \fi-215 \sl-323 \tx215 NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. \par \pard \li215 \fi-215 \sl-323 \tx215 1222 I Street, N.W. \par \fs20 \f0 \sub \pard \li215 \fi-215 \sl-323 \tx215 10\plain \fs20 th \fs30 \f0 Floor \par \pard \li215 \fi-215 \sl-323 \tx215 Washington, D.C. 20005 \par \pard \sl-323 \tx215 \par \par \par \par \par \par \pard \li5029 \sl-0 \tx5028 Pipe Marbury Rudnick & Wolfe LLP \par \pard \li5029 \sl-0 \tx5028 1200 Nineteenth Street, NW \par \fs28 \f0 \pard \li5006 \sl-0 \tx5005 Washington, DC 20036 \par \pard \li5006 \sl-0 \tx5005 202-861-3900 \par \pard \sl-0 \tx5005 \par \par \par \fs24 \f0 \pard \s100 \qc \sl-0 \tx5005 2 \par \fs20 \f0 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs30 \f0 \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \qc \sl-0 \tx5005 ANALYSIS OF REPORT OF WOOD & SHERMAN, \par \pard \sl-0 \tx5005 \par \pard \qc \sl-0 \tx5005 ADDENDUM TO NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOLARS \fs28 \f0 \i AMICUS \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 BRIEF \par \pard \sl-0 \tx5005 \par \pard \qc \sl-0 \tx5005 BY \par \pard \sl-0 \tx5005 \par \pard \qc \sl-0 \tx5005 EWART A.C. THOMAS AND RICHARD J. SHAVELSON \par \pard \qc \sl-0 \tx5005 STANFORD INSTITUTE FOR HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH \par \pard \qc \sl-0 \tx5005 STANFORD UNIVERSITY \par \pard \sl-0 \tx5005 \par \pard \qc \sl-0 \tx5005 JUNE 12, 2001 \par \fs20 \f0 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs24 \f0 \b \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \qc \sl-0 \tx5005 Analysis of Report of Wood & Sherman, Addendum to National Association of \par \pard \qc \sl-0 \tx5005 Scholars Aniicus Brief \par \pard \sl-0 \tx5005 \par \plain \pard \qc \sl-0 \tx5005 By \par \fs28 \f0 \pard \qc \sl-0 \tx5005 Ewart \fs30 \f0 A.C. Thomas and Richard J. Shavelson \par \fs28 \f0 \pard \qc \sl-0 \tx5005 Stanford Institute \fs24 \f0 for Higher Education Research \par \fs28 \f0 \pard \qc \sl-0 \tx5005 Stanford \fs24 \f0 University \par \pard \sl-0 \tx5005 \par \pard \qc \sl-0 \tx5005 June 12, 2001 \par \pard \sl-0 \tx5005 \par \b \pard \li363 \fi-362 \sl-0 \tx362 I.\tab Introduction \par \pard \sl-0 \tx362 \par \pard \li1162 \fi-402 \sl-0 \tx759 \tx1162 A.\tab Qualifications \par \pard \sl-0 \tx759 \tx1162 \par \plain \pard \fi765 \sl-283 \tx765 Ewart \fs30 \f0 A.C. Thomas \fs24 \f0 is professor of Psychology at Stanford University, past dean of the Stanford School of Humanities and Sciences, and past chairman of the Stanford Department of Psychology. He received his Ph.D. in statistics from Cambridge University, England, in 1967. \par \pard \sl-283 \tx765 \par \pard \fi765 \sl-283 \tx765 Richard Shavelson is a professor of Education at Stanford University. He served as immediate past dean of the Stanford School of Education, as well as chair of the National Academy of Sciences' Board on Testing and Achievement. His research examines accountability and the assessment of student outcomes. Professor Shavelson earned his Ph.D. at Stanford University in Educational Psychology. \par \pard \sl-283 \tx765 \par \par \b \pard \li1162 \fi-402 \sl-0 \tx759 \tx1162 B.\tab Information Considered in Forming Opinions \par \pard \sl-0 \tx759 \tx1162 \par \plain \pard \fi765 \sl-283 \tx765 The Wood \b & Sherman Report \plain (hereafter referred to as "Wood & \b Sherman"), \plain attached as an addendum to the \i am icus curiae \plain Brief of the National Association of Scholars ("NAS Brief'), examines the research conclusions about the effect of affirmative action on student outcomes from a number of studies including the "Expert Witness Report of Patricia Y. Gum" (Gum, 1998, hereafter referred to as the "Gurin Report"). \par \pard \sl-283 \tx765 \par \pard \fi765 \sl-283 \tx765 In this report, we analyze the Wood & Sherman critique of the Gurin Report, and the theoretical and empirical analyses of the CIRP data in the Gurin Report. In preparation for this report, we have reviewed: (1) the Wood & Sherman Report, (2) the Gum Report, \fs26 \f0 \i \b (3) \fs24 \f0 \plain \plain the Gum supplemental responseEs] in the \ul Gratz\plain litigation, (4) the Gurin \fs28 \f0 Response to the Critique by the National \fs24 \f0 Association of Scholars of the Expert Witness Report of Patricia Gurin posted on the University of Michigan website on May 30, \fs28 \f0 2001; \fs20 \f0 \i (5) \fs24 \f0 \plain the district court's decision in \i Gratz v. Bc/linger; (5) \plain Justice Powell's opinion in \i Bakke; \fs28 \f0 \plain \fs28 and \fs24 \f0 (6) Argument I of the NAS Brief. \par \fs20 \f0 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs20 \f0 \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \sl-0 \tqr \tx8696 Analysis of Report of wood & Sherman\tab Thomas & Shavelson \par \par \par \par \fs24 \f0 \b \pard \qj \li760 \sl-294 \tx759 \tx1162 C.\tab Summary \par \pard \qj \sl-294 \tx759 \tx1162 \par \pard \qj \fi765 \sl-283 \tx765 Our \plain analysis is principally devoted to examining the fundamental conceptual difference between the methodologies of Gum and those of Wood & Sherman\'97Wood & Sherman's contention that indirect effects are irrelevant to a social scientific analysis of the effects of a diverse student body in an academic setting containing programs designed to enhance learning from a diverse student group. We conclude by assessing the scientific merits of the Gurin Report and the other principal elements of the Wood & Sherman critique. \par \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx765 \par \pard \qj \fi765 \sl-283 \tx765 We conclude that the Gurin Report follows an appropriate methodology for analyzing the effects of student racial (structural) diversity on educational outcomes in a higher education setting, and that this approach is fully consistent with conventional academic approaches to measuring the effects of such a variable on educational outcomes. It presents methodologically valid evidence that structural diversity, when combined with appropriate campus experiences, is a necessary condition to producing certain improved educational outcomes. \par \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx765 \par \pard \qj \fi765 \sl-283 \tx765 By contrast, the Wood & Sherman Report incorrectly rejects Gum's analysis of indirect effects, dismisses the relevance of important variables that she studies, and takes issue with standard social scientific methods that Gum follows. As a result, they fail to address Gum's major point, and fail to consider relevant information for assessing whether structural diversity, in the context of programs at the University of Michigan, affects campus outcomes. These errors are central to Wood & Sherman's attack on Gum's methodology, and fatally undermine their claim that Gum has failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the district court's factual findings concerning the benefits of diversity. \par \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx765 \par \b \pard \qc \sl-0 \tx765 II. Analysis \par \pard \qj \sl-0 \tx765 \par \pard \qj \li760 \sl-294 \tx759 \tx1162 A.\tab Whether It Is Appropriate to Analyze Indirect Effects of a Diverse Student Body \par \pard \qj \sl-294 \tx759 \tx1162 \par \pard \qj \fi765 \sl-283 \tx765 The core of the \plain methodological disagreement between the Gum Report and the \par \fs30 \f0 \pard \s84 \qj \sl-323 \tx204 Wood & Sherman Report \fs24 \f0 concerns whether it is \fs30 \f0 appropriate to analyze \fs24 \f0 indirect effects of a racially diverse student body. The Gum Report examines how the University of Michigan's affirmative action program operates in practice on campus. If structural diversity is present, it becomes an educational resource that needs to be translated into action to produce educational benefits. However, structural diversity is a necessary condition for those benefits. \par \pard \qj \sl-323 \tx204 \par \pard \qj \fi765 \sl-283 \tx765 The Gum Response to the NAS Critique found on the University of Michigan's website offers an instructive analogy in this regard. Cigarette smoking causes cancer through its effect on lung tissue. However, if one conducts a [regression] analysis that takes destruction of lung tissue into account as an independent variable controlling for all other variables, the direct effect of cigarette smoking on cancer disappears. Similarly, in \par \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx765 \par \par \par \fs20 \f0 \pard \qc \sl-0 \tx765 2 \par \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs20 \f0 \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \sl-0 \tqr \tx8696 Analysis of Report of wood & Sherman\tab Thomas & Shavelson \par \par \par \par \fs24 \f0 \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx204 Gum's analysis of education data, the direct effect of structural diversity on outcomes disappears when diversity experience enters the model because diversity experience appears as the causal mechanism. Structural diversity is a necessary condition that gives rise to the possibility of diversity experiences, and these experiences in turn affect outcomes. Simply having greater diversity alone does not guarantee positive outcomes. What is important is that racially diverse students (structural diversity) have common, positive experiences (diversity experience) and these experiences then produce positive educational outcomes. \par \par \pard \qj \fi765 \sl-283 \tx765 The Wood & Sherman Report challenges this approach, and examines only whether racial diversity, viewed in isolation and without consideration of contextual factors, affects academic outcomes. This critique does not undermine the value of the evidence offered through the Gum Report. \par \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx765 \par \pard \qj \li1831 \fi-329 \sl-294 \tx1502 \tx1831 1.\tab Analysis of \b Indirect Effects Is Consistent with Justice Powell's Opinion in \fs20 \f0 \plain \fs20 \i Bakke \par \pard \qj \sl-294 \tx1502 \tx1831 \par \fs24 \f0 \plain \b \pard \qj \fi765 \sl-283 \tx765 Wood & Sherman make a \plain central, and in our view, incorrect assumption that evidence that student racial diversity (structural diversity) is necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest can be established only through examination of its \par \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx204 direct effects on educational outcomes. They claim that "the Powell diversity rationale asserts that, holding all other variables constant, students benefit by attending racially diverse colleges." (Wood & Sherman, at \fs20 \f0 \i 53). \fs24 \f0 \plain By "holding all variables constant," they exclude and ignore effects on educational outcomes produced by students' diversity \par \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx204 experiences and other educational activities that depend on the existence of structural diversity. \par \par \pard \qj \fi765 \sl-283 \tx765 As we demonstrate below, examining indirect effects of a variable is an entirely legitimate social science methodology. Moreover, although Wood & Sherman call their approach "the Powell diversity rationale," their assumption that indirect effects should \par \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx204 not be considered appears inconsistent with the language of Justice Powell's opinion in \i Bakke. \par \par \plain \pard \qj \fi765 \sl-283 \tx765 Justice Powell's opinion nowhere indicates that indirect effects of structural \par \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx204 diversity are less relevant than direct effects, much less that indirect effects should not be considered. In fact, it appears particularly concerned with what social scientists term \par \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx204 indirect effects. Wood & Sherman quote selectively from \i Bakke, \plain but do not include in \par \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx204 their report a footnote ~n which Justice Powell quotes at length the President of Princeton University describing "some of the benefits derived from a diverse student body." These examples all concern informal learning and student interaction.\super 1\plain \par \par \par \par \fs20 \f0 \pard \qj \li726 \sl-232 \tx725 "[A) great deal of learning occurs informally. It occurs through interactions among students of \par \pard \qj \li726 \sl-232 \tx725 both sexes; of different races, religions, and backgrounds; who come from cities and rural areas, from various states and countries; who have a wide variety of interests, talents, and perspectives; \par \pard \qj \li726 \sl-232 \tx725 and who are able, directly or indirectly to learn from their differences and to stimulate one another to reexamine even their most deeply held assumptions about themselves and their world. As a \par \pard \qj \sl-232 \tx725 \par \par \par \pard \qc \sl-0 \tx725 3 \par \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs20 \f0 \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \sl-0 \tqr \tx8696 Analysis of Report of wood & Sherman\tab \fs24 \f0 Thomas \fs20 \f0 & Shavelson \par \par \par \par \par \fs24 \f0 \pard \fi765 \sl-283 \tx765 For this reason, social scientific methodology such as the one in the Gum Report examining how structural diversity combines with campus experiences to affect educational outcomes appears entirely consistent with Justice Powell's opinion. \par \pard \sl-283 \tx765 \par \pard \li1831 \fi-329 \sl-0 \tx1502 \tx1831 2.\tab \b Diagram Demonstration \par \pard \sl-0 \tx1502 \tx1831 \par \plain \pard \fi765 \sl-283 \tx765 A convenient starting point for understanding both the Gum Report and the Wood & Sherman critique is the Gurin Report's Figure 1--the "path diagram" (slightly revised in our Figure 1 below). This diagram depicts the hypothesized relationships among background and institutional variables, diversity variables, and student outcomes. \par \pard \sl-283 \tx765 \par \par \par \pard \li380 \sl-0 \tx379 1 .Student background \par \pard \li380 \sl-0 \tx379 characteristics (B) \par \pard \sl-0 \tx379 \par \par \par \pard \li3129 \fi-226 \sl-283 \tx2902 \tx3129 2.\tab Campus diversity experiences (E) \par \pard \sl-283 \tx2902 \tx3129 \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \pard \sl-283 \tx204 Figure 1. Hypothesized relationships among background and institutional variables, diversity variables, and student outcomes. \par \par \fs20 \f0 \pard \li726 \sl-232 \tx725 wise graduate of ours observed in commenting on this aspect of the educational process, 'People do not learn very much when they are surrounded only by the likes of themselves.' \par \pard \sl-0 \tx3571 \tx4285 \tx5000 \tab \fs12 \f1 *\tab *\tab * \par \par \fs20 \f0 \pard \li726 \sl-232 \tx725 In the nature of things, it is hard to know how, and when, and even if, this informal 'learning through diversity' actually occurs. It does not occur for everyone. For many, however, the unplanned, casual encounters with roommates, fellow sufferers in an organic chemistry class, student workers in the library, teammates on a basketball squad, or other participants in class affairs or student government can be subtle and yet powerful sources of improved understanding and personal growth." \fs22 \f0 Bowen, Admissions and the Relevance of Race, \fs20 \f0 \i Princeton Alumni Weekly \plain \fs20 7, 9 (Sept. 26, 1977). \par \pard \sl-232 \tx725 \par \i \pard \sl-0 \tx204 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, \fs22 \f0 \plain \fs22 438 \fs20 \f0 U.s. 265 (1978), at 312 n.48. \par \par \par \par \par \pard \qc \sl-0 \tx204 4 \par \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs22 \f0 \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \sl-0 \tx119 \tqr \tx8702 \tab Analysis of Report of \fs20 \f0 wood & Sherman\tab \fs22 \f0 Thomas & Shavelson \par \par \par \par \par \fs24 \f0 \pard \qj \fi765 \sl-283 \tx765 The variables in boxes 1, 4 and \i 5 \plain are presumed by Gum to influence the variables in boxes 2 and 3. As noted above, much of the disagreement between Wood & Sherman and the Gum Report centers around the role of direct and indirect effects. In Figure 1, \fs28 \f0 the \fs24 \f0 following are \i direct effects: \par \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx765 \par \fs20 \f0 \plain \fs20 \pard \qc \sl-0 \tx765 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 183 \\f "Symbol"}{\fldrslt}} \par \pard \qj \sl-0 \tx765 \par \pard \qc \sl-0 \tx765 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 183 \\f "Symbol"}{\fldrslt}} \par \pard \qj \sl-0 \tx765 \par \pard \qc \sl-0 \tx765 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 183 \\f "Symbol"}{\fldrslt}} \par \pard \sl-283 \tx447 \tqdec \tx1371 \tab \fs24 \f0 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 183 \\f "Symbol"}{\fldrslt}}\tab 4+3\line \pard \sl-283 \tx447 \tqdec \tx1371 \tab \fs20 \f0 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 183 \\f "Symbol"}{\fldrslt}}\line \pard \sl-283 \tx447 \tqdec \tx1371 \tab \fs24 \f0 \i {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 183 \\f "Symbol"}{\fldrslt}}\tab 5-~3 \par \fs20 \f0 \plain \fs20 \pard \qc \sl-0 \tx447 \tqdec \tx1371 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 183 \\f "Symbol"}{\fldrslt}} \par \pard \sl-0 \tx447 \tqdec \tx1371 \par \par \fs24 \f0 \pard \qj \fi765 \sl-283 \tx765 We depicted the direct effect of structural diversity (4) on student outcomes (3), the focus of Wood's and Sherman's critique, by a broken bold line in Figure 1. Wood & Sherman assert that "[s]ince the racial diversity of the student bodies in the CIRP database varies from institution to institution, it is possible to use the database to test the Powell rationale empirically using multivariate regression analysis. If the regression coefficient for racial diversity is statistically significant in a model that controls for all explanatory variables, one can say that racial diversity is associated with certain outcomes and is plausibly a cause of these outcomes" [path 4-)~3 \fs30 \f0 in \fs24 \f0 Figure 1]. (Wood & Sherman, at \i 58) \par \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx765 \par \plain \pard \qj \fi765 \sl-283 \tx765 However, student background characteristics (1), structural diversity (4), and other institutional characteristics \i (5) \plain may also have \i indirect effects \plain on student outcomes (3) through the effect of diversity experiences (2) on student outcomes (3): \par \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx765 \par \fs20 \f0 \i \pard \qc \sl-0 \tx765 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 183 \\f "Symbol"}{\fldrslt}} \par \pard \qj \sl-0 \tx765 \par \fs24 \f0 \plain \pard \qj \li765 \fi-385 \sl-283 \tx379 \tx765 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 183 \\f "Symbol"}{\fldrslt}}\tab 4->2-*3 \par \fs20 \f0 \pard \qc \sl-0 \tx379 \tx765 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 183 \\f "Symbol"}{\fldrslt}} \par \pard \qj \sl-0 \tx379 \tx765 \par \par \fs24 \f0 \pard \qj \fi765 \sl-283 \tx765 Thus, for example, structural diversity (4) may have a direct effect on student outcomes (3) (4 \fs8 \f1 -~ \fs24 \f0 3), an indirect effect through diversity experiences (2) \fs30 \f0 on \fs24 \f0 outcomes (4 \par \fs8 \f1 \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx204 -~ \fs24 \f0 2 \fs16 \f5 \b -* \fs24 \f0 \plain 3), or both. We highlighted the paths in Figure 1 from structural diversity (percent minorities (4), to diversity experiences (2), to student outcomes (3) because this is the major hypothesis set forth in the Gum Report. Structural diversity is hypothesized to act through campus experiences to affect student outcomes, a hypothesized indirect effect, \i not \plain a direct effect. \par \par \pard \qj \fi765 \sl-283 \tx765 Wood & Sherman assume that in Gum's report, diversity experiences (2) are merely a "proxy for racial diversity." (Wood & Sherman, at 82-83). This is a fundamental misinterpretation of Gurin's model because the Gurin Report does not claim that diversity experiences serve as a \i proxy measure \plain for (that is, serve in place of), structural diversity. Rather, the Gum Report's theory is that campus diversity experiences transform structural diversity, an essential "resource variable," into \par \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx765 \par \par \fs20 \f0 \i \pard \qc \sl-0 \tx765 5 \par \plain \fs20 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs20 \f0 \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \sl-0 \tqr \tx8696 Analysis of Report of wood & Sherman\tab Thomas & Shavelson \par \par \par \par \fs24 \f0 \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx204 educational outcomes. In other words, the structural diversity is a necessary condition for these educational benefits, but the causal effect of structural diversity on student outcomes works through the diversity experiences students have in an institution. This is entirely different than diversity experiences serving as a proxy measure for diversity. \par \par \pard \qj \fi765 \sl-283 \tx765 As Figure 1 shows, in Gum's model, diversity experiences (2) are viewed as intervening causal variables; not as "proxy measures of racial or ethnic 'diversity, as the NAS Brief claims. (NAS Brief, at 7). The fact that Wood & Sherman incorrectly regard diversity experiences as proxies may be the reason for their claim that "[a]s proxies for racial diversity, these variables are woefully inadequate." \i (Id.) \par \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx765 \par \plain \pard \qj \li1831 \fi-329 \sl-294 \tx1502 \tx1831 3.\tab Algebraic \b Demonstration \par \pard \qj \sl-294 \tx1502 \tx1831 \par \fs30 \f0 \plain \fs30 \pard \qj \fi765 \sl-283 \tx765 Through an algebraic depiction \fs24 \f0 of the Gum and Wood & Sherman models, one can pinpoint the fundamental difference between the arguments even though there is substantial overlap between the two models. This analysis shows that other than the methodological error in the Wood & Sherman model described above, the models are in fact highly similar. \par \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx765 \par \pard \qj \fi765 \sl-283 \tx765 In this algebraic demonstration: \par \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx765 \par \pard \qj \li765 \fi-385 \sl-283 \tx379 \tx765 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 183 \\f "Symbol"}{\fldrslt}}\tab B will denote the student background characteristics \i (e.g., \plain SAT composite, self-reported high school grades), \par \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx379 \tx765 \par \pard \qj \li765 \fi-385 \sl-283 \tx379 \tx765 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 183 \\f "Symbol"}{\fldrslt}}\tab P, the percentage of undergraduates who were students of color, will denote "structural diversity," \par \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx379 \tx765 \par \pard \qj \li765 \fi-385 \sl-283 \tx379 \tx765 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 183 \\f "Symbol"}{\fldrslt}}\tab G will denote the other general institutional characteristics \fs28 \f0 \i (e.g., \fs24 \f0 \plain selectivity, type, \par \fs28 \f0 \pard \s91 \qj \fi777 \sl-657 \tx776 control), \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx776 \par \fs24 \f0 \pard \qj \li765 \fi-385 \sl-283 \tx379 \tx765 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 183 \\f "Symbol"}{\fldrslt}}\tab E will denote "diversity ~xperiences" (or "socialization & discussion" in CTRP; \fs28 \f0 \i e.g., \fs24 \f0 \plain enrollment in an ethnic studies course, discussed racial issues), and \par \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx379 \tx765 \par \pard \qj \li765 \fi-385 \sl-283 \tx379 \tx765 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 183 \\f "Symbol"}{\fldrslt}}\tab Y will denote a "final student outcome." \par \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx379 \tx765 \par \pard \qj \fi765 \sl-283 \tx765 The substance of the arguments in the Gurin Report and the Wood & Sherman critique is exemplified by the following two excerpts. \par \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx765 \par \pard \qj \fi765 \sl-283 \tx765 1. \b Gurin \plain asserts that "[a]n important question to examine first is whether [P3 shapes classroom diversity and opportunities to interact with diverse peers. \fs8 \f1 . . \fs24 \f0 In order to examine [this question], I examined the relationships between [P3 and [E]. \fs8 \f1 . . \fs24 \f0 [P] had significant positive effects on [E3 among all students... In addition, the fact that these relationships are significant creates the possibility that [P3 will also affect [Y] (not just [E]) in indirect ways \i (e.g., \plain through [E]). These indirect effects can only occur if the measures of [E] are significantly related to [Y3, which is the major focus of the results in the next sections." Gum Report, at 115 Empirical Results, part 1. \par \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx765 \par \par \par \b \pard \qc \sl-0 \tx765 6 \par \fs20 \f0 \plain \fs20 \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs20 \f0 \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \sl-0 \tqr \tx8696 Analysis of Report of wood & Sherman\tab \fs22 \f0 Thomas & Shavelson \par \par \par \par \par \pard \qj \fi765 \sl-283 \tx765 2. By \fs24 \f0 \b contrast, Wood & Sherman's \plain methodology is set out in their discussions of Astin, Chang and Gum. In the section of their report discussing Chang and Astin that immediately precedes their analysis of the Gum Report, they assert that: \par \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx765 \par \pard \qj \li1287 \fi-522 \sl-283 \tx765 \tx1286 (a)\tab \fs30 \f0 "So \fs24 \f0 far as the diversity rationale is concerned, the correlation between \fs28 \f0 [E]... and \fs24 \f0 [Y] \fs30 \f0 are of \fs24 \f0 interest only to the extent that there is a positive synergy or interaction (called an 'interaction effect' by statisticians) between \fs28 \f0 [P, E and \fs24 \f0 Y]." \fs30 \f0 Wood & \fs24 \f0 Sherman, at 62; and \par \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx765 \tx1286 \par \pard \qj \li1287 \fi-522 \sl-283 \tx765 \tx1286 (b)\tab \fs8 \f1 ". . \fs24 \f0 .as far as the Powell rationale is concerned,.. .what one really wants to know from the CIRP studies is how much of a difference, if any, [P] has on [Y], given that [P] has a statistically significant impact on [E]. \fs8 \f1 . \fs24 \f0 .[T]he really crucial data.. .is the way that [E] interact[s] with [P and Y]. An interaction effect is essentially a measure of the positive or negative synergies between (in this case) [P. E, and Y]. \fs8 \f1 . . \fs24 \f0 [T]he interaction effects are certain to be very weak, since correlations that would be used in the calculations are very small, and because one gets the interaction effects essentially by multiplying probabilities." \i Id. \plain at 68-69. \par \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx765 \tx1286 \par \pard \qj \fi765 \sl-283 \tx765 A comparison between the quotes in (1) and (2) offers a distillation of differences between Gum's and Wood's and Sherman's theoretical rationales and statistical methodologies. As noted above, Gurin examines the effect of diversity \i in context \plain on educational outcomes. Wood & Sherman incorrectly assume that Justice Powell's opinion allows diversity to be a compelling interest only if it has a direct effect on educational outcomes regardless of the educational programs and opportunities for informal interactions between students that a university program may provide. \par \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx765 \par \pard \qj \fi765 \sl-283 \tx765 One can present the two rationales in simple algebraic form. For purposes of this analysis, let Y~, ~ and B\sub 1~ \plain be the levels of a final outcome variable, of the diversity experiences, and of the background characteristics, respectively, for the i'th student at the c 'th college, and let P~, and G~ be the levels of structural diversity and other general institutional characteristics, respectively, at the c'th college. \par \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx765 \par \pard \qj \li765 \fi703 \sl-572 \tx765 \tx1468 \tx1774 a.\tab \ul The Gum Approach\plain \par \pard \qj \sl-572 \tx765 \tx1468 \tx1774 \par \pard \qj \fi765 \sl-283 \tx765 Gurin tests the following model: \par \pard \sl-572 \tx1048 \tx5022 \tab \fs10 \f1 = \fs24 \f0 a\sub 0 \fs20 \f0 \plain \fs20 + \fs24 \f0 aiP~ \fs20 \f0 + \fs28 \f0 a\sub 2\plain \fs28 B~~ \fs20 \f0 + \fs24 \f0 ~\tab (la)\line \pard \sl-572 \tx1048 \tx5022 \tab \fs10 \f1 = \fs30 \f0 b\sub 0 \fs20 \f0 \plain \fs20 + \fs30 \f0 b\sub 1\plain \fs30 B\sub 1~ \fs20 \f0 \plain \fs20 + \fs30 \f0 b\sub 2\plain \fs30 E,~ \fs20 \f0 + \fs24 \f0 b\sub 3\plain G~ \fs20 \f0 + \fs24 \f0 e'\sub 1~\plain .\tab (lb) \par \pard \sl-283 \tx4302 P \fs10 \f1 = \fs24 \f0 structural diversity\tab E \fs10 \f1 = \fs24 \f0 diversity experiences\line \pard \sl-283 \tx4302 Y \fs10 \f1 = \fs22 \f0 final \fs24 \f0 student outcome\tab B \fs10 \f1 = \fs20 \f0 student background characteristics \par \fs24 \f0 \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx204 G other general institutional characteristics \par \par \par \par \par \fs20 \f0 \pard \qc \sl-0 \tx204 7 \par \page \headery480 \fs20 \f0 \fs22 \f0 \sect \sectd \linex0 \linemod0 \sbknone \headery480 \pard \sl-0 \tx119 \tqr \tx8702 \tab Analysis of Report of wood & Sherman\tab Thomas & \fs20 \f0 Shavelson \par \par \par \par \fs24 \f0 \pard \qj \fi765 \sl-283 \tx765 As stated above, Gurin first shows that the effect of structural diversity P (percent minorities) on (diversity experiences) E is significantly positive, \i i.e., \plain that a~ \fs20 \f0 > \fs24 \f0 0 in Equation (la). Next, Gum shows that diversity experiences are correlated with outcomes, \i i.e., \plain that b\sub 2 \fs18 \f0 \b \plain \fs18 > \fs24 \f0 \plain 0 in Equation (ib). Then Gum shows\super 2 \plain that, when E (diversity experiences) is in the regression, P (percent minorities) has a negligible effect on Y (educational outcomes), \i i.e., \plain that b\sub 4 \fs12 \f1 \plain \fs12 \f1 = \fs24 \f0 0 in Equation (ic). However, it does not change the relationship between P (structural diversity) and E (educational diversity), which is positive in all cases. P is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition to produce positive academic outcomes. \par \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx765 \par \pard \qj \fi765 \sl-283 \tx765 The fact that the direct effect of structural diversity on outcomes drops out when diversity experience is added to the model, far from undermining Gum's findings, strongly supports Gum's contention that P has an indirect effect on Y. To a social scientist, \fs28 \f0 Gum's \fs24 \f0 analysis shows that P (structural diversity) affects Y (educational outcomes) through E (diversity experience), as Gum argues. This conclusion is carefully derived because equations la-c, shown on the preceding page, allow us to isolate the "causal" effect of structural diversity, through educational diversity, and is entirely justified by Gurin's analysis. \par \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx765 \par \pard \qj \li765 \fi703 \sl-572 \tx765 \tx1468 \tx1774 b.\tab \ul Similarities of\plain \ul Gurin and Wood & Sherman Approaches\plain Wood & Sherman appear to posit the following model: \par \pard \qj \sl-572 \tx765 \tx1468 \tx1774 \par \pard \qj \li6503 \fi-5743 \sl-0 \tx759 \tx6502 Yic \fs10 \f1 = \fs24 \f0 b\sub 0 \fs20 \f0 \plain \fs20 + \fs24 \f0 biBic \fs20 \f0 + \fs24 \f0 b\sub 2\plain E~~ \fs20 \f0 + \fs24 \f0 b\sub 3\plain G~ \fs20 \f0 + \fs24 \f0 b\sub 4\plain P~ \fs22 \f0 + b\sub 5\plain \fs22 PcEic + e,c.\tab \fs24 \f0 (2) \par \pard \qj \sl-0 \tx759 \tx6502 \par \pard \qj \li4348 \fi-4348 \sl-0 \tx4348 P \fs12 \f1 = \fs24 \f0 structural diversity\tab E \fs10 \f1 = \fs24 \f0 diversity experiences \par \pard \qj \li4348 \fi-4348 \sl-0 \tx4348 Y \fs10 \f1 = \fs24 \f0 final student outcome\tab B \fs10 \f1 = \fs24 \f0 student background characteristics \par \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx204 G \fs10 \f1 = \fs24 \f0 other general institutional characteristics \par \par \pard \qj \fi765 \sl-283 \tx765 The "positive synergy or interaction" posited by Wood & Sherman is modeled by the term containing b\sub 5 \plain in Equation (2).~ This term is missing in Equation (ib, c) and this represents the formal difference between Wood's and Sherman's and Gum's theoretical rationales.\super 4\plain \par \pard \qj \sl-283 \tx765 \par \fs20 \f0 \pard \s91 \qj \fi777 \sl-657 \tx776 Yic \fs28 \f0 b\sub 0 \fs20 \f0 \plain \fs20 + \fs28 \f0 b\sub 1\plain \fs28 B\sub 1~ \fs20 \f0 \plain \fs20 + \fs24 \f0 b\sub 2\plain E\sub 1~ \fs20 \f0 \plain \fs20 + \fs28 \f0 b\sub 3\plain \fs28 G~ \fs20 \f0 + \fs28 \f0 b\sub 4\plain \fs28 P~ \fs22 \f0 + e'ic. (lc) \par \pard \qj \sl-657 \tx776 \par \fs16 \f5 \b \pard \qj \li181 \fi-181 \sl-0 \tx181 -\tab \fs22 \f0 \plain \fs22 In her "step \fs20 \f0 3" regressions discussed in wood \fs22 \f0 & Sherman at 88. \par \pard \qj \sl-0 \tx181 \par \pard \qj \sl-232 \tx158 ~\tab The inclusion of the term with b\sub 5 \plain \fs22 is the way in which most statisticians understand the concept of "interaction" within the methodology of multiple regression. It is possible that Wood & Sherman have some other formal model in mind, because, within this formal methodology, Wood's and Sherman's term, "synergies," has no place in the literature of social scientific methodology. \par \par \fs20 \f0 \pard \qj \sl-232 \tx158 ~\tab It is almost certain that the effects of \fs22 \f0 P on E and Y arc non-linear over the whole range of P values. \fs20 \f0 However, \fs22 \f0 it is likely that, for "small" values of P, \fs20 \f0 \i e.g., \plain \fs20 0