The Fascist War on Diversity Now in Accreditation Business. Call to Action!!

From the Academe Blog:

BY MATTHEW BOEDY

Every AAUP member should be concerned about the new accreditation group recently birthed in Florida. This week Louisiana became the seventh state to say it was joining.

While only for now targeting states in the South the group’s business plan shows its strategy is to take on as clients public schools in any state. Its political strategy has been named by Governor Ron DeSantis as eliminating “woke” from schools. The governor of Louisiana said its goal was the ending of DEI-driven mandates. Its academic goals are to “streamline” accreditation so that institutions can innovate more quickly.

Whatever the words by its supporters, it would be the state controlling higher education to such a degree as to merit comparison to the era when the AAUP was founded. Whatever the faults of the accreditation system and any specific outlet, the system has stood in the way of those who want to move fast and break things such as academic freedom and shared governance. 

The Florida university system was the first to join the new group. I can only assume that as boards begin to meet for the academic year, other states that initially expressed interest like mine in Georgia will officially join. And soon thereafter comes a director and board members. From there the business plan suggests six schools in those states as its first clients. 

The only obstacle may be the price tag. That business plan says each founding state will give $4 million or equal labor to get the effort off the ground and into a future where it can rely on accreditation fees. It may take up to two years for the new group to get federal recognition and the prize of federal funding for its accredited schools. But the pieces will be put in place this fall. The time for faculty to act is now.

This is why I am calling on all faculty senates in public colleges across the South (and beyond) to pass resolutions disapproving of the new group and urging its administration and overseers at all levels not to join.

This kind of effort must be networked and done with speed. Fortunately for traditionally slow moving senates we have a model of a quickly developing process in the Mutual Defense Compact that flew through this spring in mainly Big Ten schools. There must be SEC and ACC and Big Twelve versions.

I took the liberty of revising that initial resolution for this new use. Feel free to revise and use as you see fit:  

Faculty Statement Against Political Power Grab of Accreditation  

WHEREAS recent and escalating politically motivated actions by governmental bodies pose a significant threat to the foundational principles of American higher education, including the autonomy of university governance, the integrity of scientific research, and the protection of free speech;

WHEREAS state governments across the South and aligned political actors at the federal level have targeted the independence of institutional accreditation with legal, financial, and political incursion designed to undermine the accrediation process and exert improper control over academic administration;

WHEREAS these state governments have routinely undermined faculty governance and academic freedom with state laws and policies;

WHEREAS these same state governments will choose the board members of the Commission for Public Higher Education and that board will chose a director, offices that will direct the commission; 

WHEREAS these same state governments will financially invest in the commission up to $4 million;

WHEREAS that money and influence will corrupt the independent accreditation process and allow states to steer colleges and universities toward policies, curriculum, hiring standards, and institutional benchmarks that will undermine higher education’s role in our democracy;

THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED that this faculty senate urges the administration of this school and its state higher education system leaders to formally declare it won’t become a client of the commission as long as it is overseen by state governments.  

Matthew Boedy is president of the Georgia AAUP. He can be reached on X/Twitter and Bluesky. 

 

Suggested Reading for Competency-Challenged White Boys and Men Screwing Up the West Wing

At a time when white incompetent men and boys appear to have taken over the U.S. Government, it’s time to offer them some solid research that could help them get beyond laughing stock status—if they were not entirely convinced of white male supremacy.  

Today’s suggestion is by Professor Scott Page (University of Michigan).  Originally published in 2008, this new edition includes a new preface by Dr. Page. 

(Support local bookstores and give Amazon the finger by ordering from bookshop.org.)

The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies - New Edition

In this landmark book, Scott Page redefines the way we understand ourselves in relation to one another. The Difference is about how we think in groups--and how our collective wisdom exceeds the sum of its parts. Why can teams of people find better solutions than brilliant individuals working alone? And why are the best group decisions and predictions those that draw upon the very qualities that make each of us unique? The answers lie in diversity--not what we look like outside, but what we look like within, our distinct tools and abilities.

The Difference reveals that progress and innovation may depend less on lone thinkers with enormous IQs than on diverse people working together and capitalizing on their individuality. Page shows how groups that display a range of perspectives outperform groups of like-minded experts. Diversity yields superior outcomes, and Page proves it using his own cutting-edge research. Moving beyond the politics that cloud standard debates about diversity, he explains why difference beats out homogeneity, whether you're talking about citizens in a democracy or scientists in the laboratory. He examines practical ways to apply diversity's logic to a host of problems, and along the way offers fascinating and surprising examples, from the redesign of the Chicago "El" to the truth about where we store our ketchup.

Page changes the way we understand diversity--how to harness its untapped potential, how to understand and avoid its traps, and how we can leverage our differences for the benefit of all. (Source: https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-difference-how-the-power-of-diversity-creates-better-groups-firms-schools-and-societies-new-edition-scott-page/8920038?ean=9780691271743&next=t&next=t)

Some review clips:

"Rather than ponder moral questions like, 'Why can't we all get along?' Dr. Page asks practical ones like, 'How can we all be more productive together?' The answer, he suggests, is in messy, creative organizations and environments with individuals from vastly different backgrounds and life experiences."---Claudia Dreifus, New York Times

"The Difference is brimming with so many intriguing insights and findings that I cannot do justice to them all."---Philip E. Tetlock, Science

"A fascinating and important book. . . . The Difference is a thought-provoking and stimulating read."---Diane Coyle, Business Economist

"[Page] redefines the way we understand ourselves in relation to one another. The Difference is about how we think in groups...and how our collective wisdom exceeds the sum of its parts. Why can teams of people find better solutions than brilliant individuals working alone? And why are the best group decisions and predictions those that draw upon the very qualities that make each of us unique? The answers lie in diversity...not what we look like outside, but what we look like within, our distinct tools and abilities." ― Education Digest

"In The Difference, Page reveals how groups that display a range of perspectives outperform groups of like-minded experts. Diversity yields superior outcomes, and he proves it using his own cutting-edge research. Moving beyond the politics that often clouds standard debates about diversity, Page explains why difference beats out homogeneity. And he examines practical ways to apply diversity's logic to a host of problems." ― Here is the City

"Page has written a book that offers a pragmatic defense of diversity practices, where having a diverse set of points of view in a group equates to better decision making. The book . . .illustrates the benefits of a different way of thinking about problem solving, providing people with conceptual tools to understand what lies behind some of the more popular treatments of topics and to reshape the public debate about the benefits and disadvantages of diversity."---Henry Farrell, Quality World

"The Difference is a very good book. I recommend it to all intelligent readers, especially to those who have not gone beyond the 'diversity' of political correctness. . . . Read this book."---Will Carrington Heath, Independent Review

"Though filled with three dimensional graphs, computer simulations, and other quantitative exercises that some will find intimidating, the book has the great advantage of being accessible to the nontechnical reader, at least one willing to invest considerable time and effort in following its clear but often complex reasoning. Where The Difference clearly succeeds is in bridging the gap between the more arcane technical literature found in the professional economics journals and writing intended for a general audience."---Russell K. Nieli, Academic Questions

Review

"Scott Page has brought to our attention a practically important proposition: diversity of viewpoints is of the greatest importance in solving the problems that face us individually and collectively. Diversity among a group of problem solvers is more important than individual excellence. Page's exposition remarkably combines lightness and breadth of knowledge with rigor and evidence."―Kenneth J. Arrow, Nobel Prize-winning economist

"Scott Page knows more about diversity than anyone anywhere. In The Difference, he shows why diversity matters, how it leads to better outcomes, and most importantly why achieving the significant benefits of diversity requires thinking well beyond traditional categories such as race, gender, or ethnicity. Knowledge of this book should be a litmus test for educators and diversity trainers―if you haven't read it, you are just talking metaphor. Stop playing defense and start playing offense by buying this book."―Bill Miller, Chairman and Chief Investment Officer, Legg Mason Capital Management

"The book is brilliant. Page has a dazzling eclecticism."―Max Bazerman, Harvard Business School

"Does diversity trump ability when it comes to problem solving? Scott Page shows that the answer is, at least sometimes, yes. You'd do better to add more diversity of perspectives to your problem-solving team than to increase the average ability of individual team members. Diversity in both experience and identity can spark a group's creativity. Page pursues the logic of diversity and shows why and when hiring people who differ can lead to a better bottom line."―Ian Ayres, coauthor of Why Not? How to Use Everyday Ingenuity to Solve Problems Big and Small

High School Diversity Program in VA Safe For Now

 From the National Coalition on School Diversity:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NCSD and REEL Policy Clinic Issue Statement on SCOTUS Order in TJ Case

Washington, D.C. – February 20, 2024 – Today, the U.S. Supreme Court released an order denying a petition to take up the Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board specialized school admissions case. The decision comes after multiple deliberations following a petition for writ of certiorari filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of the parent group challenging Virginia’s top-ranked public high school’s recently-adopted process for student placement. 

The National Coalition on School Diversity (NCSD) and Georgetown Law’s Racial Equity in Education Law and Policy Clinic (REEL Policy Clinic) commend the Supreme Court’s order given its implications for educational access, diversity, and equity. This decision to deny certiorari comes the same year Brown v. Board of Education turns 70, which at its core recognized that K-12 public education is about ensuring equitable access to high-quality education for all students. 

“Diversity in our nation’s schools is vital if we are to function as a multiracial democracy,” said Janel George, associate professor of law and director of the REEL Policy Clinic. “TJ has taken action to provide more children with access to its high-quality program, which is aligned with the goal of public education and with magnet schools historically.” 

Last May, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled to uphold the admissions policy for the selective-enrollment high school, finding that it had not discriminated against Asian American students as the plaintiffs alleged. One month later, the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action at Harvard University and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, ruling that such admissions policies violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. 

In crafting its colorblind rationale for the college admissions decision, the Supreme Court majority ignored the well-documented continuing impacts of systemic inequality and racial segregation in our nation’s public schools. Not only do schools remain deeply segregated by race and class, but students of color are more likely to attend underfunded and high-poverty schools with less effective instruction and reduced access to advanced coursework, extracurricular activities, and standardized testing preparation.

Within two months of the Supreme Court’s decision, the writ of certiorari was filed, asking the Court to declare that TJ’s pro-diversity admissions policy – which is explicitly race-neutral – violates the Equal Protection Clause. The changes to TJ’s process for student placement included 1) elimination of a standardized test, 2) establishment of new eligibility criteria (the top 1.5% of students at each public middle school who meet minimum standards); and 3) incorporation of a “holistic review of…students whose applications demonstrate enhanced merit.”

These changes aimed to acknowledge and help address the diminished educational opportunities, often correlated with a student’s race and socioeconomic background, due to long-standing and persistent systemic inequality. Following the murder of George Floyd and racial reckoning of 2020, the changes to TJ’s admissions policy can be seen as an attempt to provide a fairer chance for all students to access what is consistently ranked among the top ten best public high schools in the nation, according to U.S. News & World Report. 

While the plaintiffs alleged that the 2020 changes to TJ’s process for student placement were designed to reduce the proportion of Asian American students at the school, Asian American students still made up the majority of students admitted under the new policy. Of the students who received offers to attend TJ, 54.36% were Asian, 22.36% white, 11.27% Latino, and 7.9% Black. The first freshmen class included more low-income students, Black and Latino students, English-language learners, and girls than prior classes. Moreover, for the first time in over a decade, all 28 middle schools in Fairfax County sent students to TJ.

Although no formal explanation for the denial is given, Justice Alito wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Thomas, which focuses mostly on challenging the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning that there was insufficient “disparate impact” to violate the Equal Protection Clause.

“The fact that only two justices dissented from the denial of Cert is a good sign,” said Philip Tegeler, a legal advisor with NCSD. “It means that, at least for now, a significant majority of the court is unwilling to overturn the 2007 precedent that local school districts have the power, and the tools, to promote school diversity without selecting students on the basis of their race.” 

Given this reality, NCSD and the REEL Policy Clinic express appreciation for the Supreme Court’s denial of the appeal. We will continue to fight and strengthen our collective efforts to promote equal educational opportunity in our nation’s public schools and help ensure every young person has a fair shot at achieving their full potential.  

For media inquiries, please contact: Jenna Tomasello (jtomasello@prrac.org)

Founded in 2009, the National Coalition on School Diversity (NCSD) is a cross-sector network of 50+ national civil rights organizations, university-based research centers, and state and local coalitions working to expand support for school integration. NCSD supports its members in designing, enacting, implementing, and uplifting PK-12 public school integration policies and practices so we may build cross-race/class relationships, share power and resources, and co-create new realities.

The Racial Equity in Education Law and Policy Clinic (REEL Policy Clinic) centers its work on the intersections of education law, racial equity, and legislative advocacy. Student attorneys explore the origins of racial inequities in education and the role of law in entrenching or eliminating them. This work includes addressing issues that disproportionately impact the educational experiences and outcomes of students of color, including discriminatory school discipline practices, school segregation, resource inequities, and more.

The Compelling Research on Diversity

SCOTUS is about to hear the Fisher v. University of Texas appeal, and the American Educational Research Association has just released a press kit to help the public understand the issues involved in supporting policy to assure diversity in schools, whether college or kindergarten.

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin II

Research Supporting the Compelling Interest in Diversity

 

Angelo Ancheta, J.D., M.P.A. 

One of the key questions that the U.S. Supreme Court may address in Fisher v. University of Texas is whether the University’s interest in promoting student body diversity is a compelling governmental interest. In Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), the Court held that the interest in student body diversity is indeed compelling, and cited multiple sources, including scientific research findings, to support its ruling. The Court reaffirmed Grutter’s holding in the first Fisher v. University of Texas appeal, but the plaintiff has continued to argue that the University’s interest is not compelling. In particular, the plaintiff has proposed that promoting diversity among minority students (e.g., admitting African American students from different socioeconomic backgrounds) is unconstitutional. Nonetheless, research on the benefits of diversity remains strongly supportive of the University’s diversity interest, including promoting “intra-racial diversity.” To support the compelling interest in diversity, the AERA et al. amicus brief focuses on multiple lines of research, highlighting literature that has been published since the first Fisher litigation: 

1. EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS OF DIVERSITY
Research continues to show that student body diversity leads to important educational benefits. Among these benefits are:

•   Improvements in Intergroup Contact and Increased Cross-Racial Interaction
  
  •   Racially diverse educational settings are effective in reducing prejudice by
    promoting greater intergroup contact—both informally and in classroom settings—as well as encouraging friendship across group lines (e.g., Chang et al., 2006; Denson & Chang, 2015; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006).
    
  •   Meta-analyses (studies compiling and summarizing findings from several previous studies) show that positive intergroup contact reduces prejudice and that greater intergroup contact is associated with lower levels of prejudice (e.g., Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008).
    
•   Improvements in Cognitive Abilities, Critical Thinking Skills, and Self-Confidence
  

 Student body diversity promotes improvements in students’ cognitive skills, such as critical thinking and problem solving, because students’ exposure to
individuals different from themselves (as well as to novel ideas and situations arising from exposure) challenges their thinking and leads to cognitive growth (e.g., Antonio et al., 2004; Hurtado, 2005; Luo & Jamieson-Drake, 2009; Bowman, 2010).

 Greater Civic Engagement
 Diverse learning experiences also promote improvements in civic engagement,
including civic attitudes toward democratic participation, civic behaviors such as participating in community activities, and intentions to participate in civic activities (e.g., Bowman, 2011).
 Gains in Pluralistic Orientation
 Diversity leads to gains in “pluralistic orientation,” a metric tied to capacities for
thinking and social interaction that enable students to engage in cooperative behavior, to manage controversial issues, and to develop a high regard for others’ beliefs and backgrounds (Engberg & Hurtado, 2011). 

 Improved Classroom Environments
 Classroom learning is improved in diverse environments. For example, a survey
of over 500 students from the University of Michigan revealed that most respondents were engaged in positive interactions with students from different racial backgrounds, and that (a) greater diversity in the student body leads to increased classroom diversity and improved learning; (b) classroom diversity results in open minds and engaging classroom conversations; and (c) more structural diversity leads to greater participation by minority students and less tokenism (Deo, 2011). 

 Improved Intergroup Dialogues
 Recent research has also documented the necessity of diverse environments in
promoting intergroup dialogues in designated classes. One nationwide study of over 1,400 students found gains in students’ insights into how members of other groups perceived the world and increases in thoughtfulness about the underpinnings of inequality (Gurin et al., 2013).

2. HARMS OF RACIAL ISOLATION
Research studies examining the harms associated with racial isolation and tokenism, including negative stereotyping, “stereotype threat,” and overt discrimination, continue to reinforce the University’s interest in obtaining a diverse student body.

 Isolation and Negative Stereotyping
 Isolation, subordination, and negative stereotyping are commonplace in settings
where minority numbers are especially low and the norms of majority groups dominate (e.g., Thompson & Sekaquaptewa, 2002). Moreover, stereotyping by

white students can be exacerbated if they experience segregated pre-college and college environments; one study found that white students socialized in segregated environments are more likely to remain in white-dominated environments and less likely to engage in cross-racial interactions (Jayakumar, 2015). 

 

 Stereotype Threat
 Defined as the increased pressure on students arising from negative stereotypes
that leads to poor performance on tests and other measures, stereotype threat contributes to diminished academic performance among racial and ethnic minority students, as well as women in mathematics and science fields (e.g., Steele, 2010; Logel et al., 2012; Walton & Spencer, 2009).

 Overt Discrimination and Subordination

•   Hostile campus climates remain a problem on campuses with low diversity.
  Recent national surveys have found that problems of exclusion and discrimination were considerably more extensive on low-diversity campuses compared to high-diversity campuses. For instance, minority students were more often excluded from campus events and activities, were more often the target of discriminatory verbal comments, and had more experiences with offensive visual images (Hurtado & Ruiz, 2012; Hurtado & Ruiz Alvarado, 2015).
  
•   Racial animosity and violence have occurred with greater frequency on campuses with low numbers of minority students. One study of FBI data and educational data found a significant relationship between minority underrepresentation and hate crime incidents (Stotzer & Hossellman, 2012).
  

3. “CRITICAL MASS”
The plaintiff in Fisher argues that trying to obtain a “critical mass” of minority students to achieve student body diversity is inherently unconstitutional, even though critical mass was fully endorsed by the Grutter Court. According to the plaintiff, critical mass is undefined and ambiguous, or it amounts to an unlawful quota. 

Contrary to the plaintiff’s assertion, “critical mass” is not a fixed number or percentage, and the literature suggests that it must be examined dynamically and contextually. Relevant factors to assess how critical mass promotes diversity include a campus’s racial climate, its historical legacies and institutional signals, impediments to productive interactions, and the nature of cross-racial interactions (Garces & Jayakumar, 2014). For example, historical legacies and

institutional signaling are highly relevant to campus climate and to recruitment and admissions policies designed to constitute a diverse student body; in the case of the University of Texas, the state’s unfortunate history of legal segregation and exclusion, as well as the disincentives to minority students to attend the University, are key factors in determining critical mass.

4. “INTRA-RACIAL DIVERSITY”
   Promoting diversity along multiple dimensions, including the intersection of race and class (sometimes framed as “intra-racial diversity” or “diversity within diversity”), is fully supported by legal precedent and the research literature (Carbado, 2013; Harpalani, 2012). Diversity among minority students is particularly important because it counters the stereotype that minority students are monolithic and that they think and behave in the same way.
   Research shows that socioeconomic diversity in tandem with racial diversity can lead to improved cross-racial interactions and learning. For example, a nationwide study of nearly 15,000 students at 88 institutions found that individual students who reported higher levels of cross-class interaction had significantly higher levels of cross-racial interactions and co- curricular diversity activities (Park et al., 2013).
   
5. REFUTING CLAIMS THAT RACE-CONSCIOUS ADMISSIONS POLICIES HARM MINORITY STUDENTS
   
    Stigma
    The claim that stigma increases under affirmative action programs is
   contradicted by a number of recent studies. Recent research indicates that stigma among minority studies is lower in states with race-conscious admissions (e.g., Bowen, 2010; Onwuachi-Willig et al., 2008).
   

 Mismatch Hypothesis

•   The claim that minority students suffer academic harms when their admissions
  credentials do not “match” their institutions finds limited support in the
  scientific literature.
  
•   Research on undergraduates as well as on students at professional schools shows
  that minority students have higher graduation rates from attending more selective institutions (e.g., Kidder & Lempert, 2015; Kidder & Onwuachi- Willig, 2014; Bowen et al., 2009; Fischer & Massey, 2007; Cortes, 2010).
  

 For example, a recent analysis of law school admissions nationwide compared race-conscious policies with class-conscious policies and found that race-conscious plans would be more effective in increasing minority representation in the upper tier of law schools, and that there

would be no statistically significant changes in the graduation and bar
passage rates of any demographic group (Xiang & Rubin, 2015).
 Numerous studies show that minority students gain significant educational and economic benefits through their attendance at selective institutions—including
higher graduation rates and increased earnings and labor-force participation following graduation (e.g., Long, 2010; Dale & Krueger, 2014; Wolfe & Fletcher, 2013).

References

Deirdre M. Bowen, Brilliant Disguise: An Empirical Analysis of a Social Experiment Banning Affirmative Action, 85 Ind. L.J. 1197 (2010)

William G. Bowen, Matthew W. Chingos & Michael S. McPherson, Crossing the Finish Line: Completing College at America’s Public Universities (2009)

Nicholas A. Bowman, College Diversity Experiences and Cognitive Development: A Meta-Analysis, 80 Rev. Educ. Res. 4 (2010)

Nicholas A. Bowman, Promoting Participation in a Diverse Democracy: A Meta-Analysis of College Diversity Experiences and Civic Engagement, 81 Rev. Educ. Res. 29 (2011)

Devon W. Carbado, Intraracial Diversity, 60 UCLA L. Rev. 1130 (2013)
Mitchell J. Chang et al., The Educational Benefits of Sustaining Cross-Racial Interaction

Among Undergraduates, 77 J. Higher Educ. 430 (2006)
Kalena E. Cortes, Do Bans on Affirmative Action Hurt Minority Students? Evidence from the Texas

Top 10% Plan, 29 Econ. Educ. Rev. 1110 (2010)
Stacy Dale & Alan Krueger, Estimating the Effects of College Characteristics over the Career Using

Administrative Earnings Data, J. Hum. Resources 323 (2014)
Nida Denson & Mitchell J. Chang, Dynamic Relationships: Identifying Moderators that Maximize

Benefits Associated with Diversity, 86 J. Higher Educ. 1 (Jan./Feb. 2015)

Anthony Lising Antonio, Mitchell J. Chang, Kenji Hakuta, David A. Kenny, Shana Levin & Jeffrey F.

Milem, Effects of Racial Diversity on Complex Thinking in College Students,

15 Psychol. Sci. 507

(2004)

Meera E. Deo, The Promise of Grutter: Diverse Interactions at the University of Michigan Law School, 17(1) Mich. J. Race & L. 63 (2011)

Mark E. Engberg & Sylvia Hurtado, Developing Pluralistic Skills and Dispositions in College: Examining Racial Ethnic Group Differences, 82 J. Higher Educ. 416 (2011)
Mary J. Fischer & Douglas S. Massey, The Effects of Affirmative Action in Higher Education, 36 Soc. Sci. Res. 531 (2007)
Liliana M. Garces & Uma M. Jayakumar, Dynamic Diversity: Toward a Contextual Understanding of Critical Mass, 43 Educ. Researcher 115 (2014)
Patricia Gurin et al., Dialogue Across Difference: Practice, Theory, and Research on Intergroup Dialogue (2013)
Vinay Harpalani, Diversity Within Racial Groups and the Constitutionality of Race-Conscious Admissions, 15 J. Const. L. 463 (2012)
Sylvia Hurtado, The Next Generation of Diversity and Intergroup Relations Research, 61 J. Soc. Issues 595 (2005)
Sylvia Hurtado & Adriana Ruiz, UCLA Higher Educ. Res. Inst., The Climate for Underrepresented Groups and Diversity on Campus (2012)
Sylvia Hurtado & Adriana Ruiz Alvarado, UCLA Higher Educ. Res. Inst., Discrimination and Bias, Underrepresentation, and Sense of Belonging on Campus (2015)
Uma M. Jayakumar, The Shaping of Postcollege Colorblind Orientation Among Whites: Residential Segregation and Campus Diversity Experiences, Harv. Educ. Rev. (forthcoming Winter 2015)
William C. Kidder & Richard O. Lempert, The Mismatch Myth in U.S. Higher Education: A Synthesis of the Empirical Evidence at the Law School and Undergraduate Levels, in Affirmative Action and Racial Equity (Uma M. Jayakumar & Liliana M. Garces eds. 2015)
William C. Kidder & Angela Onwuachi-Willig, Still Hazy After All These Years: The Data and Theory Behind “Mismatch,” 92 Tex. L. Rev. 895 (2014)
Christine R. Logel et al., Unleashing Latent Ability: Implications of Stereotype Threat for College Admissions, 47 Educ. Psychol. 42 (2012)
Mark C. Long, Changes in the Returns to Education and College Quality, 29 Econ. Educ. Rev. 338 (2010)
Jiali Luo & David Jamieson-Drake, A Retrospective Assessment of the Educational Benefits of Interaction Across Racial Boundaries, 50 J.C. Student Dev. 67 (2009)
Angela Onwuachi-Willig, Emily Houh & Mary Campbell, Cracking the Egg: Which Came First— Stigma or Affirmative Action?, 96 Calif. L. Rev. 1299 (2008)

6

Julie J. Park, Nida Denson & Nicholas A. Bowman, Does Socioeconomic Diversity Make a Difference? Examining the Effects of Racial and Socioeconomic Diversity on the Campus Climate for Diversity, 50 Am. Educ. Research J. 466 (2013)

Thomas F. Pettigrew & Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory, 90 J. Personality & Soc. Psychol. 751 (2006)

Thomas F. Pettigrew & Linda R. Tropp, How Does Intergroup Contact Reduce Prejudice? Meta- analytic Test of Three Mediators, 38 Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 922 (2008)

Claude M. Steele, Whistling Vivaldi: And Other Clues to How Stereotypes Affect Us (2010) Rebecca L. Stotzer & Emily Hossellman, Hate Crimes on Campus: Racial/Ethnic Diversity and

Campus Safety, 27 J. Interpersonal Violence 644 (2012)
Mischa Thompson & Denise Sekaquaptewa, When Being Different is Detrimental: Solo Status and the

Performance of Women and Racial Minorities, 2 Analyses Soc. Issues & Pub. Pol’y 183 (2002) Gregory M. Walton & Steven J. Spencer, Latent Ability: Grades and Test Scores Systematically

Underestimate the Intellectual Ability of Negatively Stereotyped Students, 20 Psychol. Sci. 1132 (2009) Barbara L. Wolfe & Jason Fletcher, Estimating Benefits from University-Level Diversity (Feb. 2013)

Alice Xiang & Donald B. Rubin Assessing the Potential Impact of a Nationwide Class-Based Affirmative Action System, 30 Stat. Sci. 297 (2015)

How Corporate Takeovers in Newark and Montclair Spawned a New Solidarity Movement Against CorpEd

Terrific piece at Rethinking Schools by Stan Karp on how corporatization pushes in Newark and Montclair have brought poor and middle class parents and teachers together to save public education, children, and the profession.

If you thought corporate takeovers of public schools was just for poor districts, this is a must read.  A clip:

. . . in the summer of 2012, as Cami Anderson was hollowing out Newark, Montclair hired a new superintendent. Penny MacCormack was new to the state, had never been a superintendent, and wasn’t known to many in Montclair. But those who track state education politics knew she had been a district official in Connecticut who was recruited by Cerf to be an assistant commissioner in Christie’s DOE. The department had received several grants from the Eli Broad Foundation and was staffed with multiple Broad “fellows.” MacCormack, Cerf, and Anderson all have Broad ties.

MacCormack was at the N.J. Department of Education for less than a year when she suddenly resurfaced as the new Montclair superintendent without any public vetting, a clear sign the board knew this was a controversial hire.

Her welcome reception began with a video about the origins of the magnet system in the struggle to integrate the town’s schools. Some honored town elders who had played key roles were in the audience. MacCormack awkwardly attempted to connect her vision to the compelling town history framed in the video. Despite the town’s commitment to equity, she said, wide “achievement gaps” remained, and addressing those gaps would be her No. 1 priority.

MacCormack didn’t pledge to restore the equity supports that had been eroded in recent years or challenge Christie’s budget cuts. Instead, she announced that the Common Core standards and tests, and the state’s new teacher evaluation mandates, would “level the playing field” and “raise expectations for all.” “And,” she said, “I will be using the data to hold educators accountable and make sure we get results.”

After she finished, a latecomer took the floor and told the audience how lucky Montclair was to have MacCormack come to town. It was Jon Schnur, the architect of the Race to the Top. He also lives in Montclair. We later learned that Schnur was MacCormack’s “mentor” in a certification program she enrolled in after being hired without the required credentials to be superintendent.

In Montclair, there was no formal state takeover and no contested school board elections. Instead, the long reach of corporate education reform had used influence peddling, backdoor connections, and a compliant appointed school board to install one of their own at the head of one of the state’s model districts. . . .