|
|
|
|
|
|
News Releases & Articles
| Statements by University Leaders & Others
| Press Kits, Photos & Media Contacts |
|
|
Rebuttal of Chetly Zarko analysis
Mr. Zarko's press release and various published analyses deeply distort the findings of the University of Michigan's research on diversity in the early 1990s and any implications for the later research by Patricia Gurin that is part of our expert testimony in the two affirmative action lawsuits. Furthermore, his choice of language — "lying," "manipulation," "secret" and "deception" — indicates an unprofessional bias against the University and is quite offensive. There is nothing in the materials he cites that supports the assertions he makes. Furthermore, the early 1990s research was shared with the plaintiffs in the discovery phase of the lawsuits. The Michigan Student Study was begun in 1990 in order to gain greater insight into our strengths and weaknesses relative to our diversity initiatives as part of the Michigan Mandate. It was a longitudinal study of students from the freshman through senior years. (We are now engaged in a followup to the Michigan Study.) The existence of this work, long before the trend of lawsuits against affirmative action developed, is evidence of the University of Michigan's deep commitment to a diverse student body and to creating a climate that maximizes the benefits students receive from learning in a racially diverse environment. Part of that commitment includes establishing ongoing assessments in order to determine how well our efforts are working. The executive summary dated May 24, 1994, was developed for a retreat hosted by the president and provost and involving about 50 people including executive officers, deans, and other representatives from their offices. The draft report was an early analysis of the first two years of data available from the Michigan Student Study. This early analysis was not "secret." It was shared widely with administrators, faculty, and students across campus and a number of follow-up presentations on the data were given both on campus and across the country. The initial report was later updated and finalized upon completion of the fourth year of the longitudinal study, as data after students' senior year became available for analysis. Nevertheless, all of the major conclusions or subject areas called out by Mr. Zarko are currently discussed in the final reports located on the website at http://www.umich.edu/~oami/mss/. And as noted above, both the 1994 report and the survey instrument used in the Michigan Student Study were given to the Center for Individual Rights, representing the plaintiffs in the two affirmative action cases, in the late 1990s as part of discovery in the litigation. Mr. Zarko complains that the University's handling of the 1994 report had the effect of making it difficult for him to get access to the materials. However, both the U-M's Bentley Library and the Office of Academic and Multicultural Initiatives (OAMI) followed consistent, well-established policies in making materials available to Mr. Zarko. In the case of the Bentley Library, administrative files that are less than 20 years old can be accessed readily through the FOIA Office. This process, provided for through the open records laws of the state of Michigan, ensures that information required to be kept confidential by law (such as student records) will not be inadvertently released. OAMI also has a written policy, providing for those conducting legitimate scholarly research to be able to file proposals for using the original data developed through the Michigan Student Study. Although institutions and individual researchers may vary in their precise policies for handling proprietary research data sets, they normally require some demonstration of scholarly purpose. It is worth noting that the Michigan Student Study is a single-institution data set, and as such, matters of student confidentiality are especially important. Furthermore, the study is ongoing and U-M scholars have an interest in completing their own analyses before sharing data widely with others. Eight doctoral dissertations have been produced from the data to date. The 1994 report is a preliminary and simple analysis of two years worth of data on students' perceptions of climate and their views on diversity. In contrast, Professor Patricia Gurin's analyses, done as part of the expert testimony, use three major data sets — a national data set housed at UCLA, the Michigan Student Study, and data from the U-M Program on Intergroup Relations, Conflict and Community — to examine the relationship between students' own experiences with diversity and their educational outcomes. Prof. Gurin's analysis involved complex multiple statistical regressions, using many control variables. The 1994 report does not contradict any of the work Prof. Gurin did later; it simply is not relevant because it uses different data sets and different social science methods to study entirely different questions. Measuring students' perceptions of racial climate does not tell us anything about students' actual experiences with diversity. It is troubling that Mr. Zarko attributes differences between the 1994 executive summary and later reports to manipulation or "prevarication." He fails to recognize that the results are bound to be enriched or to change as additional data are gathered and assessed. The purpose of a longitudinal study is to be able to assess new aspects of student experience as they occur over time. Mr. Zarko quotes partially from the 1994 report about whether having certain numbers of minority students is sufficient to bring about benefits associated with diversity. The complete quote is: "This suggests that much more needs to be done to infuse diversity into formal learning situations and the curriculum on campus. Quite simply, access is not enough; increasing the numbers of students who attend the institution from different racial/ethnic backgrounds does not in itself lead to a more informed, educated population prepared to achieve in a complex and diverse world." This is consistent with everything the University has said since, including Prof. Gurin's expert testimony. Here is a quote from her testimony: "Structural diversity (i.e., increasing the numerical representation of various racial/ethnic groups) is essential but by itself usually not sufficient to produce substantial benefits; in addition to being together on the same campus, students from diverse backgrounds must also learn about each other in the courses they take and in informal interaction outside the classroom. For new learning to occur, institutions of higher learning have to make appropriate use of structural diversity." And here is a quote from a Washington Post story April 1 on the racial climate on our campus: " 'One of the reasons why we're defending our affirmative action policy so strongly is that we're not there yet,' said Julie Peterson, a University of Michigan spokeswoman. The school has programs designed to bring students together, Peterson said, 'because it's not enough to just have people here. You have to do the work.' " Again referencing the 1994 report, it should not be surprising to learn that African American and white students have different views about what diversity means to them, and that underrepresented minority students continue to have concerns about the chilliness of the campus climate. Indeed, this is the argument made by intervenors about continued discrimination in educational settings across the country. We have never argued that discrimination does not exist; on the contrary, it is the continued segregation of high schools and the great impact that one's race has on one's life experiences that makes racial diversity on our campus such an important part of the educational process. The Michigan Student Study not only calls our attention to a number of issues regarding our students' views of diversity, but it also offers a number of concrete recommendations which are listed on the website. At the same time, the 1994 report also finds many similarities among racial groups, which Mr. Zarko claims "supports the counter argument to diversity, that blacks and whites don't think differently." Far from "hiding" this 1994 finding, we also feature it in our current report on the website, noting that "despite differences in parental backgrounds and racial/ethnic experiences students of all origins showed great commonality in their goals for college and their high academic investment and motivation." Our argument before the Court was not that students of particular races would always bring with them a certain point of view; rather, we seek to enroll meaningful numbers of minority students so that students can also see differences within racial groups and similarities across racial boundaries. It is this process that helps to break down stereotypes. Mr. Zarko also mentions the importance of socioeconomic status in a diverse student body. The University does believe that socioeconomic diversity is important and that it contributes to the robust exchange of ideas on campus, and it takes this factor into account in the admissions process. It is not, however, a substitute for consideration of race. For a variety of reasons, consideration of socioeconomic status alone cannot result in the enrollment of a student body that is racially and ethnically diverse. Both of these factors are important, and they contribute in different ways to the learning environment. Finally, it should be noted that Patricia Gurin's research does not stand alone in demonstrating the educational benefits of a diverse student body. A large and growing body of research by scholars across the country has demonstrated benefits while students are in the university setting, as well as benefits that continue to accrue after they graduate and prepare to live and work in a diverse democracy and global economy. Professor Gurin's research specifically has been reviewed and supported by other scholars. Leading, independent social science organizations such as the American Psychological Association and the American Educational Research Association filed briefs with the Supreme Court in which they recognized the value and importance of her research, and strongly supported the soundness of its methodology and conclusions. |
 |
|
Questions? Comments? Please send e-mail to diversitymatters@umich.edu.
|