<p>fabrizio,
The article I cited does not make the statements you just made. The article indicates that continued ambiguity remains regarding definitions.</p>
<p>Thanks epiphany and hoedown. I'll definitly try to find time to read these and to have a more informed opinion, although certainly a study or two isn't going to settle a major ethics debate about human rights. But I'm pretty confident if everyone is listening and we all read good research and good philosophy we can start making improvements to the current system (hopefully starting with the fact that the poorest of the poor are left behind!).</p>
<p>Speaking of poverty, Just Browsing and everyone else who was a little upset with this thread, I think we can all agree on one thing: 30,000 children should not have died due to preventable disease today. So we could all spend some time well writing a letter like the one here advocating for them:</p>
<p>I know some people think I'm a racist because I want poverty-stricken Hispanics in Latin America to be given food, education, and health care, but I'm not going to stop. :)</p>
<p>epiphany,</p>
<p>The article did mention that quotas are illegal. Just to nitpick.</p>
<p>steve10c,</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know some people think I'm a racist because I want poverty-stricken Hispanics in Latin America to be given food, education, and health care, but I'm not going to stop.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Some people may, that's certainly true. But, I'm not one of them.</p>
<p>fabrizio, "Quotas are illegal" is not a definition. I was talking about the equivalencies you posited, which strayed from the content & purpose of the article. The article indicated that pro- and con- sides remain polarized, and that an additional cause of polarization (other than philosophical differences) was disagreement on terms/definitions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
certainly a study or two isn't going to settle a major ethics debate about human rights
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No. But then, just to clarify, that wasn't why I posted the study. It leaves wholly unanswered any questions about fairness when it comes to selective admissions or access to college. It simply provides one answer to the question you posed, which is why might a University value racial diversity (other than "political" reasons)? </p>
<p>I've seen others post similar questions (or complaints, like the poster who sniffed he'd never "seen one shred of evidence" suggesting diversity improved education, when it seemed pretty apparent to most of us he'd never bothered looking for any--which would be fine, as I don't expect every poster here to do loads of self-directed reading. But his imperious attitude that if there was anything to know, he'd already know it....well don't get me started. That is ignorance you hate to see on a board heralding the value of higher education. But boy, do I EVER digress). anyway.... </p>
<p>People wonder "why diversity" and there are lots of reasons why some people value it. I'm just showing one of many. The fact is, there is a body of research about thinking and learning that suggests that minds learn more and work better when they are pushed out of their ordinary patterns. And for all kinds of reasons, some of which would probably be interesting to explore in their own right, being around people of different races is one of the things that does seem to push minds out of their ordinary patterns.</p>
<p>So even without any discussion of opportunity, race relations, class privilege, or discrimination, one can see why some institutions might consider this kind of racial diversity educationally valuable (whether or not you agree with it, or with their means to achieve it). </p>
<p>This is a very broad issue, and it's not just about looking socially progressive (which is what I assumed you meant by "politics"). Many of these other issues get discussed (sometimes ad nauseum) on this board, but some of the other arguments for diversity, such as those used by U-M and those who filed amicus briefs, don't get much attention.</p>
<p>hoedown,</p>
<p>I think you nailed the "brick wall" in this issue. Anti-"AA" (as they refer to it) people will never acknowledge the value of racial diversity in an educational setting.</p>
<p>Hoedown and Bay, </p>
<p>I actually support AA. However, you're wrong as regards to evidence supporting value of diversity. As far as I know, there is no study done that confirms that diversity has a positive effect on learning etc. Please don't list statements without backing them up. I have bothered to look for evidence of the actual benefit of AA, in part for my own interest as a proponent of AA. However, there is nothing conclusive about it, and all the supporters of AA can bring is their "intuitive" sense.</p>
<p>Scientific American (I hope you realize this is a very respected mainstream journal) published the research of a group earlier which maintained that diversity in some areas was helpful, but the way that most current companies (no it did not analyze college education, but the way the study was organized the results should still have a degreeo of correlation) practiced it was instead harmful to productivity. I cannot find the exact issue right now, since my room's a mess, but I'm sure it's available at <a href="http://www.sciam.com%5B/url%5D">www.sciam.com</a></p>
<p>Also, the book BLACK REDNECKS AND WHITE LIBERALS has a strong section on education as well, which I would reccommend. The evidence in it backs up and is well documented with actual facts and figures. Also, the author who wrote it was black, which protects him from charges of racism and bigotry.</p>
<p>Bay,</p>
<p>Racial diversity is fine and dandy - when it's not forced through racial preferences.</p>
<p>These affirmative action threads are so stupid...lol its pathetic complaing about how your at a disadvantage...there are plenty of disadvantages that you will incur your entire life....the same way you believe that going to a good school = getting a good job and becoming successfull....is the same way schools view URM's at a disadvantage in applying to college because of the lifestyle they were brought up in and the oppurtunities MANY may of had that they did NOT</p>
<p>
[quote]
As far as I know, there is no study done that confirms that diversity has a positive effect on learning etc. Please don't list statements without backing them up.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Which statement needs backing up? That there is a body of work in this area? That this body of work is part of the reason why higher education champions diversity? What's to back up? I confess your comments confuses me. </p>
<p>I don't know where the Scientific American article is, but perhaps you can recall some of their criticisms of prior research. I can imagine a few possible weaknesses--for example, a lot of the CIRP-based studies focus on desirable education-related outcomes, rather than actual cognitive measures of learning. Other criticism might be that some of the studies (I'm thinking of what Gurin reported in her testimony) involved students' self-assessments of gains. One might also preach some caution about inference to college learning because the Tufts reseach (for example) is talking about non-classroom settings. Of course, if it's the latter, should you not level that same criticism against your own example, which was about productivity in corporations? However, I find it hard to dismiss such a body of research, even though it tends to measure things imperfectly. If you have the opportunity to find the SciAm article, I'd appreciate it.</p>
<p>FWIW, being black does not protect one from racism and bigotry--or even charges of it. Good heavens, have you seen the vitrol spewed at poor Ward Connerly?</p>
<p>Moderators, some of us would really appreciate it if you would fix the problem with the truncated posts. I've tried about 7 methods of posting my reply into this thread. Nothing's working. Enough already.</p>
<p>In the above spirit, please see post 583 in the thread "Daily Princetonian,etc."</p>
<p>kamikazewave,
It's in response to your post #27 on this thread. Had to type the whole thing in by hand, since the pasting wouldn't work, after a dozen attempts. My post is only one-half of my reply to your post, but I was afraid I'd be timed out.</p>
<p>Re #27 on value of diversity, this link talks about studies that shows AA diversity does not improve college education, and also a rebuttal.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16529%5B/url%5D">http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16529</a></p>
<p>I think affirmative action has run its course and is no longer a useful tool. Ballot proposals are popping in different states to ban it in public colleges. I believe diversity can still be achieved without the quota driven nature of "level the playing field". Diversity --yes, affirmative action--out dated.</p>
<p>bomgeedad, thanks for posting that. </p>
<p>One of my frustrations with the kind of research discussed there is that it is measuring what people think AA does for the campus, and whether it changes students behavior in certain ways that we assume are good (i.e. spending time with people of other races, being more active in the community in the future, etc). Perceptions are important, and so are certain behaviors, so I am not disparaging them. </p>
<p>But you know, what I feel particularly hungry for are studies which suggest that there may be improvements to student learning and cognition from diversity. I think this kind of research is out there, and it's fascinating. The theories are compelling and have face value (and are based, as I understand it, on long-held beliefs about human cognition)--and to the extent that researchers are now applying those theories to diversity on campus, I'm an eager consumer.</p>
<p>That interest is also why I am curious about the implication, earlier, that this research is all bunk--apparently so questioinable in its conception or execution so that posters like me (and you!) get chided by another community member for posting things without "backing our statements up." I am therefore eager to hear more from kamikazewave.</p>
<p>regarding post #33, evidence of the flaws in that study are further revealed in a posting in the "Daily Princetonian"... thread on this forum.</p>
<p>Education, and the process of cognition itself, is a complex, lifelong (the newest brain research acknowledges) series of interconnections, threshholds, plateaus, quantum leaps, and products that are ultimately not mathematically measurable or reducible. Objectifying the influences on our own education (let alone <em>while</em> we're in that process, such as in college, by college students) is an activity fraught with inaccuracy. </p>
<p>Further, it's really not important whether or not any applicant thinks he will like or does like a diverse classroom, or whether he "perceives" during that education that he will benefit or is benefitting from that. For one thing, the University's mission is not about serving an individual student's preference. That's why there are thousands of colleges in this country, of every variety from which to choose, some highly non-diverse. Secondly, as implied by the above paragraph, he will not necessarily appreciate the <em>cognitive</em> benefits of a diverse campus until many years down the road, and more likely, may never "scientifically" know which elements of his education contributed to what aspects of his intellectual growth.</p>
<p>It seems that the study focused on social relationships and "perceptions." I've never thought that AA was mostly about social relationships. There is the potential for a widening of social relationships, but this was never the original intent, nor the present intent. Some of the public-policy aspects of AA have been delineated in AdOfficer's posts, and can also be verified by further research into <em>documents</em> (versus "studies") published by Universities with a current or previous interest in AA. </p>
<p>At the very least, however, teachers and professors observe that a variety of viewpoints, learning styles, and life experiences are optimum to stimulating classroom discussions. Since oral exchanges of ideas can be demonstrated to further the intellectual progress of the individual (we don't learn in a vacuum), that in itself is a beneficial cognitive by-product of AA.</p>
<p>"regarding post #33, evidence of the flaws in that study are further revealed in a posting in the "Daily Princetonian"... thread on this forum."</p>
<p>What further revelation? It was just a copy of the second half of the content of my link and what I called "and also a rebuttal".</p>
<p>further was a bad descriptor.<br>
The poster did a favor, though, by posting an important section of it. Thanks to that poster.</p>
<p>I know it is violated all over the place on cc forums, but I do try to follow cc's rule on copyright.</p>
<p>Copyrighted Material & E-mail Content. Please do NOT post copyrighted material in our forum. Examples of copyrighted material include articles from publications or websites, book excerpts, or any other content which you have not created yourself. Fair use allows brief excerpts, e.g., a sentence or two, from copyrighted material for the purposes of review and commentary; please do not post massive excerpts from any source.</p>
<p>seems as if you should contact the CC administrators if you feel that Drosselmeier's excerpt was "massive," if it bothers you so much. I tend to like it when posters quote directly, as it makes replies a little more efficient. As long as it's on topic, I don't see the big problem.</p>