Liliana M. Garces

Dynamic Diversity: Toward a Contextual Understanding of Critical Mass

Through an analysis of relevant social science evidence, this article provides a deeper understanding of critical mass, a concept that has become central in litigation efforts related to affirmative action admissions policies that seek to further the educational benefits of diversity. We demonstrate that the concept of critical mass requires an understanding of the conditions needed for meaningful interactions and participation among students, given the particular institutional context. To highlight this contextual definition of critical mass and to avoid further obfuscations in the legal debate, we offer the term dynamic diversity and outline four main components of dynamic diversity that institutions can attend to. By thinking of dynamic diversity as the goal, institutions and lawyers should be better poised to answer the question of how much diversity is necessary for leveraging its educational benefits.

Understanding the Impact of Affirmative Action Bans in Different Graduate Fields of Study

This study examines the effects of affirmative action bans in four states (California, Florida, Texas, and Washington) on the enrollment of underrepresented students of color within six different graduate fields of study: the natural sciences, engineering, social sciences, business, education, and humanities. Findings show that affirmative action bans have led to the greatest reductions in science-related fields of engineering, the natural sciences, and the social sciences. These declines pose serious long-term consequences for the United States since these fields provide specialized training critical to the nation’s ability to compete effectively in a global market and for ensuring continued scientific and technological advancement.

Racial Diversity in the Medical Profession: The Impact of Affirmative Action Bans on Underrepresented Student of Color Matriculation in Medical Schools

This study examines the impact of affirmative action bans in six states (California, Washington, Florida, Texas, Michigan, and Nebraska) on the matriculation rates of historically underrepresented students of color in public medical schools in these states. Findings show that affirmative action bans have led to about a 17% decline (from 18.5% to 15.3%) in the first-time matriculation of medical school students who are underrepresented students of color. This decline is similar to drops in the enrollment of students of color that have taken place across other educational sectors, including the nation’s most selective public undergraduate institutions, law schools, and various graduate fields of study, after bans on affirmative action were enacted in some of these states. The findings suggest that statewide laws banning the consideration of race in postsecondary admissions pose serious obstacles for the medical profession to address the health care crisis facing the nation.

Aligning Diversity, Quality, and Equity: The Implications of Legal and Public Policy Developments for Promoting Racial Diversity in Graduate Studies

Diversity today is considered central to the capacity of postsecondary institutions to thrive in an increasingly multiracial and multiethnic society. However, as universities take steps to reap the educational benefits of racial and ethnic diversity, legal decisions and state laws increasingly restrict the tools these institutions have historically implemented to further this goal. This article provides an overview of these legal and public policy developments and considers their implications for future policies aimed at achieving racial and ethnic diversity in graduate studies. The author emphasizes the need for institutions to reframe the ways concepts of diversity, equity, and quality are perceived and enacted through admissions policies.

Necessary but Not Sufficient: The Impact of Grutter v. Bollinger on Student of Color Enrollment in Graduate and Professional Schools in Texas

I implement a difference-in-differences analytic strategy to examine the impact of Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) on student of color enrollment in Texas graduate schools. Findings indicate that a permissive policy like Grutter can only set the stage for more targeted practices to increase student of color representation in graduate studies.

Beyond Declines in Student Body Diversity How Campus-Level Administrators Understand a Prohibition on Race-Conscious Postsecondary Admissions Policies

Guided by a bottom-up policy implementation framework, this study draws from semi-structured interviews of 14 campus-level administrators charged with implementing diversity policy at the University of Michigan to investigate how an affirmative action ban (Proposal 2) influenced their efforts in support of racial/ethnic diversity at the university. Our findings show that beyond contributing to declines in student body diversity, laws like Proposal 2 have negatively influenced work critical to the success of students of color on campus. The findings suggest institutions operating in an anti–affirmative action context would benefit from proactive policies and practices that empower administrators in legally restrictive environments and support conversation and action that directly address the ways race continues to matter on college campuses.

Social Science Research and the Courts Informing Post–Grutter v. Bollinger Developments in Higher Education Cases

During its 2013-2014 term, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of Proposal 2, a ballot measure that amended Michigan’s state constitution to ban the consideration of race in admissions at public postsecondary institutions. This article outlines the legal questions that have emerged in the case—Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action et al.—and identifies areas where social science research can inform answers to these questions. This analysis should help enhance the relevance of research to legal determinations in cases that have broad implications for educators.

A Strategic Racial Equity Framework

Despite the achievement of key civil rights milestones as well as growing public awareness and concern, educational inequities for students of color and other historically marginalized students con...

Expanding the Racial Diversity and Equity Agenda to Graduate Education

From preschool to graduate school, educational institutions in the United States derive public legitimacy from serving both the ideal of individual opportunity and the needs of a democratic public (Guinier 2003). Both graduate and professional education help fulfill this dual charge by providing individual professional opportunities and specialized training in fields with important consequences for the nation’s economic competitiveness and leadership (CGS 2010). Racial diversity in the student body furthers the goals of graduate education. In many graduate fields of study, racial diversity facilitates a more complete understanding of the issues being researched, prepares individuals for effective professional practice in multiracial settings (Harvey and Allard 2011; Rogers and Molina 2006), and fosters creativity and innovation necessary to tackle complex social problems (Page 2008; Woodrow Wilson Foundation 2005). Open pathways to graduate education for all members of our racially and ethnically diverse society also help “cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry” (Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 [2003]), sustaining the health of our democracy. For all of these reasons, we are pleased to draw attention in this special issue to the imperative and challenges of racial diversity in graduate education. Underrepresented populations have made great strides in postsecondary education in the past 40 years and are primarily responsible for growth in

Don't lose race-conscious policies

Using race as a factor in admission decisions by U.S. colleges and universities—so-called affirmative action—has once again become a lightning rod for debate. Last month, several universities defended Harvard University against a lawsuit that attacks its use of race in student admissions. The backdrop of this case, and a similar one against the University of North Carolina– Chapel Hill, is even more disturbing. Also last month, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Education (DOE), both under leadership appointed by the Trump administration, encouraged “race-neutral” admissions practices, rolling back previous guidance for achieving diversity by these very agencies. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly allowed higher education institutions to consider race as one factor, among many, in admissions decisions. The rollback does not change that precedent.