diversity in law schools study 2012 ssrn-id2101253

7/31/2019 Diversity in Law Schools Study 2012 SSRN-Id2101253

1/87Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2101253

DOESRACE MATTER INEDUCATIONALDIVERSITY? A LEGAL ANDEMPIRICALANALYSIS, 13 RUTGERSRACE AND THELAWREVIEW__ (Issue 2 forthcoming 2012 )

1

DOES RACE MATTER IN EDUCATIONAL DIVERSITY?

A LEGAL AND EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS *

byCHARLESE. DAYE, J.D.

andA. T. PANTER, PH.D.

THEUNIVERSITY OFNORTHCAROLINA, CHAPELHILL

WALTERR. ALLEN, PH.D. THEUNIVERSITY OFCALIFORNIA, LOSANGELES

LINDAF. WIGHTMAN, ED.D. THEUNIVERSITY OFNORTHCAROLINA, GREENSBORO1

* This study received funding from the Law School Admission Council (LSAC). The opinions and conclusiocontained in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of LSAC.1 Charles E. Daye is Henry P. Brandis Distinguished Professor in the School of Law, University of North CaroliA. T. Panter is the Bowman and Gordon Gray Distinguished Professor in the L. L. Thurstone PsychometLaboratory and the Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina; Walter R. Allen is Allan MurrCartter Professor of Higher Education and Distinguished Professor of Sociology, Graduate School of Education aInformation Studies, University of California, Los Angeles; and Linda F. Wightman is Professor Emeritus aformer Chair of the Department of Educational Research Methodology, University of North Carolina at Greensbo


2/87Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2101253


2

Abstract

On February 21, 2012, the US Supreme Court granted certiorari in Fisher v. University of

Texas at Austinthat could lead it to re-examine the educational diversity rationale of Grutter v.Bollinger. Grutterupheld considering race in law school admission decisions to seek student

diversity. We performed a ten-year study using interdisciplinary methodologies and drawing

insights from law, psychology, sociology, and educational research methodology. In this article

we report findings and address two empirical questions: (1) Do students differ by race upon

entering law school? (2) Do any differences contribute educational benefits to students,

institutions, or society? The short answer is that extensive quantitative and qualitative empirical

data support the finding that a racially diverse law student body provides educational benefits

for students, for their institution, and for society, especially if there is significant interaction

among students from diverse backgrounds.

We find that students differ in multiple ways upon enrollment in law school. Many of these

differences are associated with diversities of backgrounds, experiences, perspectives,

expectations, and outlooks that are related to their race. Many of the observed racial differences

among students contribute to learning because differences foster richer interactions and positive

educational outcomes that benefit students, institutions, and society. We find that race

contributes to the achievement of educational diversity. In addition, under conditions of

significant law school racial diversity and high intergroup contact during law school,

graduating law students perceived their law school as more open and respectful of diverse ideas.


3/87


3


A LEGAL AND EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION

P ART I. R ACE , E DUCATIONAL DIVERSITY , AND THE J USTICE Q UESTION

A. ProlegomenonB. Race and AdmissionsC. Educational Diversity and Justice

PART II. ANALYZING R ACIAL AND O THER DIMENSIONS OF DIVERSITY

A. Rationales for An Empirical Study of Race and DiversityB. The Theory of Diversity Constructs

Diversity of personal background

Diversity of family backgroundDiversity of experienceDiversity of perspectiveDiversity of educational expectationsDiversity of career goals and aspirations

C. Diversity Applied in Educational SettingsD. Profiles of Diversity Respondents and Samples

Baseline SampleTable 1. Comparison of Law School Attributes

Focus Group SampleThree-Year Follow Up Sample

E. Profiles of Diversity: Students Perspectives and Attitudes1. Race Relations and Racial IssuesTable 2. Race-Related Survey Items by Race and Gender

2. Discrimination Against Societal GroupsTable 3. Perceived Discrimination Experienced in Society Today

3. Pursuit of Social JusticeTable 4. Pursuit of Social Justice Governmental Domestic Programs and Expenses

4. Governmental Domestic Programs and Expenses Table 5. Funding for Federal Programs

5. Perceptions and Attitudes about Individual Rights by RaceTable 6. Individual Rights

Gay and Lesbian Rights AbortionEducation AccessImmigration National Defense and Patriotism

F. Profiles of Diversity: Background Factors and Relationships1. Diversity of Personal Background

Table 7. Personal Background Factors


4/87


4

Place of BirthArea in Which Student Grew UpAgeMarital StatusReligious Preference

SpiritualityWorked During Undergraduate YearsFinancial Responsibility for Self and OthersEducational DebtAge When Seriously Considered Law SchoolSpecific Influences on Going to Law SchoolPolitical IdentificationIncome and Financial Responsibility

2. Diversity of Family BackgroundTable 8. Diversity of Family BackgroundNeighborhoods, Social Contacts, High School Diversity, and Friends

NeighborhoodsAcademically Minded as Compared to FriendsParental Views on Ethnic Pride, Culture, Diversity, Bias, and Goals

Parental views on ethnic prideParental promotion of awareness of culture or historyParental talk about the value of diversityParental talk about ethnic and cultural biasParental Encouragement of Educational Goals

Identification, Solidarity, Common FateIdentification with people of same racial or ethnic descentCloseness in feelings to other people of same racial and ethnic

descentDesirability of spending time with people of the same racial andethnic descentPerception that ones fate is intertwined with persons of same race orethnic groupImpact of common fate among those who perceive a common fate

3. Profiles of Diversity: Experiences of Discrimination and Coping(a) Experiences of Discrimination, Coping and Collegial Interactions

Table 9. Experiences of Discrimination and CopingDiscrimination in Daily LifeDiscrimination in Law School Admission

Discrimination in Work PlaceEveryday DiscriminationCoping With Adverse Racial Reactions

(b) Collegial Interactions: Social and Educational Activities and EncountersTable 10

Discussion of racial issuesClose friends from different racial/ethnic groupsDate someone from a different racial/ethnic group


5/87


5

Study with someone from a different racial/ethnic groupTook an ethnic studies classTook a womens studies courseAttended racial/cultural awareness programsMet with a faculty member outside of class

Participated in an ethnic/racial student organizationHeld office in a student organizationModify views on political issue Interactions with Other Ethnic GroupsInteractions with Influential Mentor

4. Profiles of Diversity: Expectations about Law SchoolTable 11. Diversity of Educational Expectations

Class time to discuss racial issuesDiversity challenges all students to thinkDiversitys effects on abilities to work together Critical thinking enhanced by other points of view

Benefits of racial diversity on campusPersonal abilities enhanced by interactions with others from differenracial/ethnic backgroundsEducation enhanced from exposure to diverse points of viewCultural differences reflected in classroomsExpected effect of diversity among students

(1) Diversity will enhance my learning and educational experiences(2) Diversity will improve my understanding and ability to work with

others(3) Diversity will improve my ability to interact with diverse

individuals in the profession after law school

(4) Diversity will improve my ability to interact with diverseindividuals in society generally after law school

(5) Reasons for going to law school.(6) Appealing Work Settings(7) Race limitations after law school(8) Knowledge of the University of Michigan affirmative action cases

PART III. ASSESSING T HE E FFECTS OF R ACIAL DIVERSITY ON E DUCATION

A. Examining Educational Domains1. Individual Domain

2.

Institutional Domain3. Societal Domain

B. Toward a Matrix of Interactions: Diversity Constructs and Educational Domains1. Diversitys Direct, Derivative and Mediated Effects on Education 2. Diversity Factors as Affecting Goals, Actions, and Outcomes

Table 12. Educational Domains, Diversity GoalsTable 13. Educational Domains, Diversity Actions,


6/87


6

Table 14. Educational Domains, Diversity OutcomesC. Observed Effects of Race (and Other Characteristics) on Educational Diversity

1. Methodological and Background Reprise2. Students Voices: Confirmation of Data3. Findings Related to Race/Ethnicity and Gender

(a) Observed Diversity Principally in Individual Domain(1) Sociopolitical AttitudesAffirmative ActionTable 15. Affirmative Action Attitudes

Perceived Discrimination against Societal GroupsTable 16. Perceived Discrimination Experienced in Society TodayTable 17. Social and Race-Related Attitudes

(2) Personal Growth and ChallengesTable 18. Law School Person Fit:

(3) Students Voices on Individual Domain: Diverse World Views (b) Observed Diversity Principally in Institutional Domain

(1) Views About the Law School EnvironmentPerceptions of law school attributesSatisfaction with out-of-classroom law school experiencesTable 19. Perceptions and Satisfaction with Outside-The-Classroom

Law School Qualities:(2) Perceptions of Common Legal Cases

Table 20. Common Legal Cases(3) Race-Related Experiences and Behaviors During Law School

Social and academic intergroup interactionsTable 21 Social and Academic Intergroup InteractionsEveryday Educational Discrimination

Table 22. Educational Everyday Discrimination(4) Race- and Diversity-Related Attitudes about Law SchoolTable 23. Judgments on the Effects of Student Body Racial Diversity

(5) Students Voices on Institutional Domain: Diverse Perspectives

(c) Observed Diversity Principally in Societal Domain(1) Professional Plans and Meta-Judgments about Law School

Professional PlansLaw-School Meta-JudgmentsTable 24. Law School Meta-Judgments and Professional Plans

(2) Students Voices on Societal Domain: Diversity in Practice and Life

PART IV. F INDINGS , C ONCLUSIONS , AND IMPLICATIONS OF F INDINGS

A. Effects of Educational Diversity on Law Students Attitudes FIGURE 1.Final modelFIGURE 2.The practical significance of racial diversity

B. Implications of Findings about Educational DiversityC. Conclusion


7/87


7


A LEGAL AND EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION

Affirmative action is controversial. This is particularly true of admission in higheducation. The Supreme Court inGrutter v. Bollinger approved as a compelling state interest

judicious consideration of race to seek a diverse student enrollment when making law sch

admission decisions. Yet, the role of race in fostering educational diversity remains

controversial with strikingly different claims that lie at polar extremes: either race is critical

race is irrelevant. The question and the claims have been insufficiently examined empirically.

Our study, TheEducational Diversity Project (hereinafter EDP) , contributes information

for the discussion. As an interdisciplinary research team, we derive insights from la

psychology, sociology, and educational research methodology from three different universiti.

We address two empirical questions. (1) Do students differ by race in identifiable ways wh

they enter law school? (2) If students present observed racial differences, do such differen

contribute educational benefits to students, to institutions, or to society? We use a multi-methanalysis. We make quantitative examinations of survey data from over 6,000 students w

enrolled in a random representative sample of 50 ABA-approved United States law schools.

make a longitudinal examination of a subset of students using both focus group and survey d

at graduation.

This article consists of four parts. Part I examines the educational context of affirmati

action and whether educational diversity finds support in justice principles.

Part II identifies differences students present upon enrollment in law school and assess

whether relevant differences are associated with students race or other personal characteristics.

Part III analyzes observed differences among students to assess whether differences ha


8/87


8

educational relevance, and if so, whether differences are manifested in ways that support

understanding about the reasons for education. In Part III, therefore, we also analyze whet

diversity may enrich the value of educations for the students enrolled, the educational instituti

the students attend, or society.

Part IV addresses fundamental conclusions and implications we believe our findings support

PART I. R ACE , E DUCATIONAL DIVERSITY , AND THE J USTICE Q UESTION

A. Prolegomenon

Former United States Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day OConnor in 2010 called for more

research and analysis into issues of diversity in education.2

As the author of the Courts opinionin Grutter v. Bollinger, 3 Justice OConnors expression has greater significance than a retired

Supreme CourtJustices extra -judicial essay ordinarily might have.Grutter , as we know, is the

2003 affirmative action decision that approved judicious consideration of race when making

school admission decisions to foster diversity. In her 2010 essay, Justice OConnor stated that

Many benefits flow from having a racially diverse student body in

college and graduate and professional schools. This is an article of

faith for many, but further social science research is needed in

order to refine our appreciation of diversitys value and to enable

us to balance the value of diversity against the cost of achieving

diversity through race-conscious programs.4

2 Sandra Day OConnor & Stewart L. Schwab, Affirmative Action in Higher Education over the Next Twenty-fiveYears: A Need for Study and Action , in THE NEXT TWENTY-FIVE YEARS: AFFIRMATIVEACTION INHIGHEREDUCATION IN THEUNITEDSTATES ANDSOUTHAFRICA, 58 73 (David L. Featherman et al. eds., 2010) [hereinafterTHENEXTTWENTY-FIVEYEARS].3 Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).4 THENEXTTWENTY-FIVEYEARS, supra note 2, at 65 (emphasis added).


9/87


10/87


10

institutions to consider an applicants race when making admission decisions. 12

The United States Supreme Court employed the concept of educational diversity inGrutter

v. Bollinger. 13 Grutter held that a state university has a compelling interest in seeking the

educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body and it may pursue that interest

through a narrowly tailored admissions system for a time -limited period.14 Questions involving

race, diversity, and education are still being litigated in the courts.15

A long and difficult history preceded the judicial use of educational diversity to examine t

limits of admissions criteria. The history reaches from ending slavery and extends in success

stages, first, to prohibitory affirmative action designed to stop racial discrimination, second,compensatory affirmative action as a means of correcting for prior discrimination, and third

modern affirmative action to pursue diversity in university undergraduate, graduate, and

professional education. As important as discussion of the broader developmental issues would

12 The Supreme Court has said that the constitutional constraints that apply only to public institutions would applyany statutes that govern private institutions. Thus, regarding consideration of race, statutes such as in the CiRights Act of 1964, Title VI, 42 U.S.C. 2000d (governing nondiscrimination by private institutions that recefederal funds), and the post-Civil War provisions of 42 U.S.C. 1981 (governing nondiscrimination, inter aliathe making and enforcement of private contracts) would impose the same obligations on private institutions aparties that the Constitution imposes on public institutions regarding consideration of race. Grutter v. Bollinger, U.S. 306, 343 (2003) (citing Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265, 287 (1978)(Title VIproscribe[s] only those racial classifications that would violate the Equal Protection Clause or the FifAmendment) and General Building Contractors Assn., Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375, 389-391 (1982) (thprohibition against discrimination in 1981 is co-extensive with the Equal Protection Clause).13 539 U.S. 306 (2003).14 Id . at 343 ([The Court] expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessarto further the interest approved today. ).

Justice OConnors 2010 extra -judicial remarks were, influential, as noted, because she wrote the opinion. Inher 2010 remarks, Justice OConnor also observed, That 25 -year expectation is, of course, far from binding on any justices who may be responsible for entertaining a challenge to an affirmative action program in 2028. Tho justices will be charged as Lewis Powell was in Bakke in 1978, and as the Court was inGrutter in 2003 withapplying abstract constitutional principles to co ncrete educational endeavors. THE NEXTTWENTY-FIVE YEARS,supra note 2, at 62 (emphasis added).15 See, e.g., Fisher v. Univ. of Tex., 631 F.3d 213 (5th Cir. 2011) (holding that the University of Texas at Austinproperly sought to pursue the goal of a diverse student body through an admissions process modeled upon correcting for limitations on the Ten Percent Plan and other efforts to derive the educational benefits the SupreCourt identified inGrutter ); and Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Regents of the Univ. of Mich., 652 F.3d607 (6th Cir. 2011) (declaring unconstitutional a Michigan state constitutional provision enacted by referendum tprohibited affirmative action, inter alia, in public education).


11/87


11

in providing additional context and meaning for the questions analyzed in this report, th

discussion is not presented because it would unduly extend the length of this article. For read

who wish to examine the forms of affirmative action fully, please consult The Education

Diversity Projects website. 16 We encourage readers to do so.

C. Educational Diversity and Justice

In a society that articulates affirmative action as diversity, can a quest for justice for Blac

find grounding in either the concept of compensatory justice or of distributive justice? T

theory of John Rawls is that a discernible form of social cooperation and fairness must

attributed to a few principles of justice that are fundamental to any societys capacity tofunction.17 Rawls theory posits that fundamental principles are the principles that free and

rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position

equality asdefining the fundamental terms of their association. 18 Legal and philosophical

scholars theorize two forms of justice founded on principles characterized as compensat

justice ordistributive justice. Compensatory justice, also referred to as corrective justice 19 or

as restitution, 20 focuses onremediating members of society who have been victimized in the

past by persecution and discrimination inflicted by the dominant majority. 21 Distributive justice

focuses on the allocation of goods or utilities within a society in a fair and equitable manne22

Although distributive justice ordinarily refers to the distribution of public goods in a mark

16 See Diversitys Roots and Routes: The Rugged Road for African Americans ,

supplement to DOESRACEMATTER INEDUCATIONALDIVERSITY? A LEGAL ANDEMPIRICALANALYSIS posted on the EDP website athttp://www.unc.edu/edp/. 17 JOHNRAWLS, A THEORY OFJUSTICE10 (Harvard Univ. Press 1999) (1971). 18 Id. 19 MICHAELROSENFELD, AFFIRMATIVEACTION ANDJUSTICE: A PHILOSOPHICAL ANDCONSTITUTIONALINQUIRY30(1991).20 PETERSCHUCK, DIVERSITY INAMERICA: KEEPINGGOVERNMENT AT ASAFEDISTANCE151 (2003).21 Id. 22 ROSENFELD, supra note 19, at 29-42.
http://www.unc.edu/edp/http://www.unc.edu/edp/


12/87


12

context by political authorities,23 distributive justice analyzed in an affirmative action context

could apply to the distribution of a limited number of seats in a law admissions class among

number of applicants who exceed the number of seats available in that incoming class.

Diversity as a concept has been used in judicial decisions about higher education at le

since the mid-Twentieth Century.24 In Sweatt v. Painter 25 the Supreme Court held that a Black

student excluded from admission by the University of Texas Law School because of his race

been denied equal protection of the laws notwithstanding that he could attend what was then

all-Black state- provided law school. A major component of the Courts reasoning in Sweatt was

based on the diversity idea. The Court held that equal protection required that the law schoTexas would let the Black plaintiff attend must provide him an education that was substantially

equal to the education available to White students at the University of Texas Law School. The

Court decided that the all-Black law school was not substantially equal, among other facto

because of its lack of diversity among the students enrolled in the all-Black law school.26 This

was a prohibition of racial discrimination. It rested in part on the diversity idea and on a just

rationale of nondiscrimination.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 27 decided in 1978, carved out a narrow

23 Id. at 30.24 See generally , SCHUCK, supra note 20, at 19-39. Schuck explores the taxonomies of diversity by introducinganalytical distinctions that shape its understanding and suggest that it is context-sensitive. His analyses of sources and effects of diversity go far beyond what is necessary for purposes of this study, but he certainly remainleading authority on diversity's intellectual history, social valuations, and contemporary significance.25 339 U.S. 629 (1950). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals similarly recognized the important value of diversin the case that ordered the end to state exclusion of Black students from the law school at the University of NoCarolina. McKissick v. Carmichael, 187 F.2d 949 (4th Cir. 1951),cert. denied , 341 U.S. 951 (1951). It was overhalf century ago that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals analyzed diversity as follows: It has been said that theheart of legal education is found indiscussion with one's associates . The case system . . . is designed to compel thestudent to think for himself and to discover the legal principles underlying the decisions and to this end,to engage indiscussion with his fellows in and out of the class room . It goes without saying that if he is exposed to thecompetition of minds of diverse types his mental processes will be stimulated and his outlook will be broadened.

McKissick , 187 F.2d at 952 (emphasis added).26 Sweatt, 339 U.S. at 635.27 438 U. S. 265 (1978).


13/87


14/87


14

Equal Protection Clause.31 She was clear that the Court considersthe reasons the government is

making distinctions based on race, and she pointed out that thedemonstrated need for the

governments action is not merely relevant, but critical. She wrote, Not every decision

influenced by race is equally objectionable, and strict scrutiny is designed to provide

framework for carefully examining the importance and the sincerity of the reasons advanced by

the governmental decision maker for the use of race in that particular context.32

After pointing out that affirmative action admission as administered by the Michigan L

School, applied only to qualified underrepresented minority students, Justice OConnor set

forth the answer to the question of why race was permissible as a plus factor. She emphasithat By virtue of our Nation's struggle with racial inequality, such students are both likely to

have experiences33 of particular importance to the Law School's mission, and less likely to b

admitted in meaningful numbers on criteria that ignore those experiences. 34 The fundamental

factual grounding of the result is that race can be used as a plus factor for underrepresen

minority applicants becausehistorical racial inequality made itless likely that they would be

admitted if race were not a plus factor. Thus, it seems indisputable thatGrutter is grounded on

the underpinning of our nations history of struggling with racial inequality. 35 Justice OConnor

specifically explained that our history of racial inequality is the reason there is a need to consi

an African American applicants race in order to achieve a reasonable diversity of students,

including African Americans, in law schools.

31 Grutter, 539 U.S. at 327 (citingGomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339, 343-344 (1960)an equal protection caseholding that a legislative act redrawing a municipalitys town limits violated Black voters equal protection rights

because all but four or five of some four hundred Black voters were excluded from the town limits while not a sinWhite voter was excluded. This was an equal protection nondiscrimination case. It was about a justice rationale).32 Id. at 327 (emphasis added).33 Our survey has identifiedexperiences as one of our investigational diversity constructs. See Part II. B.infra andtext accompanying note 49.34 Grutter , 539 U.S. at 338 (emphasis added).35 This argument is not intended to ignore the Courts pointed discussion that the diversity in Michigans lawschool was not limited to race, but included other bases for diversity.See id. at 338-339.
http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1960122585&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=LawSchoolPractitioner&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.09http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1960122585&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=LawSchoolPractitioner&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.09


15/87


15

The constitutionally permissible goal is achieving diversity to support education

objectives. The Court understood that achieving the diversity goal requires understandin

accounting for, and taking remedial steps to reduce the present effects of a history of rac

discrimination in our society. It seems clear that a justice principle underlies the reasoning t

supports permissible affirmative action as diversity when we understand that the reason race

may be considered a plus factor to admit qualified African Americans is that they wou

otherwise be disproportionately excludedbecause of our nations history of racial discrimination

and racial inequality.

PART II. ANALYZING R ACE (AND O THER F ACTORS ) AND E DUCATIONAL DIVERSITY

A. Rationales for an Empirical Study of Race and Diversity

As shown in Part I, it can be argued that affirmative action as diversity can support a just

rationale in much the same way that affirmative action as remediation can. Whether th

argument is persuasive or not,Grutter, at the very least , permits an educational institution to

consider applicants race in pursuit of its compelling interest in achieving diversity. Race

therefore is central to further analysis.36 Our investigation takes as its burden gaining empirical

insight into two fundamental questions:Whether, and if so, how Black students are different in

significant ways from White students, and if differences exist, whether such differences

contribute to educational diversity?

As discussed in Part I, we employ the term educational diversity, a s it is used by the

United States Supreme Court, to refer to the educational benefits that flow from a diverse

student body. 37 Our study examines empirical evidence to determine whether there is

relationship between race and educational diversity and, if there is, to examine the characteris

36 The term race is used here to include common racial and ethnic classifications. See supra note 10.37 Grutter , 539 U.S. at 343.


16/87


16

associated with race and to assess the strength of those characteristics in fostering educatio

benefits. We see practical, analytical, jurisprudential, and justice reasons to make this empiri

study.

First, as a practical matter, the Supreme Courts Grutter 38 decision, affirming that race may

be a plus factor in educational admission decisions, did not end controversy, conflict, or politi

agitation about the role of race in America or even in the more limited context of educatio

admissions decisions. NotwithstandingGrutter , indeed because of it, debate still rages with

strident political39 agitation and academic40 arguments against consideration of race in university

admissions. Justice Scalia, one of the dissenting Justices, set forth issues that subsequent sumay challenge, including whether any educational benefits flow from racial diversity or

the bona fides of the institutions expressed commitment to the educational benefits of

diversity. 41 Moreover Justice OConnor, the author of the Grutter decision, as already

discussed,42 pointed out that, [F]urther social science research is needed in order to refine our

appreciation of diversitys value. 43

Second, as an analytical matter, proponents and opponents make starkly contrasting clai

about race and diversity in higher education. Proponents argue that racial diversity is critical

assure diversity of experience, perspective, expectations, and values in U.S. higher educati

38 539 U.S. 306 (2003).39 See, e.g. , Peter Schmidt,Foes of Affirmative Action in Michigan Plan to Take Their Battle to the Ballot , CHRON. HIGHEREDUC., July 9, 2003, http://www.utwatch.org/oldnews/chron_affaction_7_9_03.html (reporting on politicplans).40 Richard H. Sander, A Systemic Analysis to Affirmative Action in American Law Schools , 57 STAN. L. REV. 367(2004); PETER WOOD, DIVERSITY: THE INVENTION OF ACONCEPT (2003); Abigail Thernstrom & StephanThernstrom,Secrecy and Dishonesty: The Supreme Court, Racial Preferences and Higher Education , 21 CONST. COMMENT. 251 (2004).41 Grutter , 539 U.S. at 348-9 (Scalia, J., dissenting). Justice Scalia sets forth a laundry list upon which to seclarification and to challenge various particular plans. Pointedly he says, "Other lawsuits may focus on whether,the particular setting at issue,any educational benefits flow from racial diversity." Id . at 348 (emphasis added).42 See Part I.A. supra and text accompanying note 2.43 See THENEXTTWENTY-FIVEYEARS, supra note 2, at 62.


17/87


17

Proponents claim that such diversity improves education for all students.44 In contrast, opponents

claim that race is irrelevant. Opponents argue that all Blacks do not think alike and that

persons viewpoint is not determined by race. 45 The claims share a common deficiency. They are

based on speculation that is not substantiated by empirical evidence. The issue of color, th

remains controversial in the United States.46

Third, as a matter of jurisprudential theory, theGrutter decision may be seen as accepting

the following decisional syllogism:

Major premise : An educational institution has a compelling interest in achieving the

benefits of educational diversity. Minor premise : Racial diversity contributes to educational diversity.

Conclusion : Therefore, race may be considered as a plus factor in selecting students fo

admission (so long as race is used in a narrowly tailored, time-limited system).

The major premise focuses on constitutional and jurisprudential questions whichGrutter

recognized are informed by our Nation's struggle withracial inequality. 47 Educational

diversity is needed to further our highest national interests to educate workers for an increasin

diverse domestic workforce, to prepare qualified professionals for an increasingly dive

domestic society, to compete effectively in a global business world, to enable our military

carry out its mission of national security, to sustain our political and cultural heritage and there

maintain our society, and to work toward achieving our highest aspiration our dream of one

44 See Brief for Respondent at 2-4 Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003);See generally , Derek Black,TheCase for the New Compelling Government Interest: Improving Educational Outcomes, 80 N.C. L. REV. 923, 943-947 (2002) (identifying and discussing research on the benefits of diversity in education).45 See Brief for Petitioner at 6-9 Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).46 See DAVID LEVERINGLEWIS, W. E. B. DUBOIS: BIOGRAPHY OF ARACE1868-1919 279 (1993). DuBois spoke atthe dawning of the Twentieth Century but his words have meaning even at the dawn of the Twenty -First Century.See generally , THOMASC. HOLT, THEPROBLEM OFRACE IN THE21ST CENTURY(2000).47 Grutter , 539 U.S. at 338 (emphasis added).


18/87


18

Nation, indivisible. 48

Given the major premise, the logic of the syllogism rests upon the truth of the minor prem

that racial diversity contributes to educational diversity. After Grutter, therefore , research tasks

remain. These tasks include setting out a more articulated conceptualization of educatio

diversity, examining empirically with quantifiable data and qualitative insights whether ra

contributes to that diversity, and if race does contribute, analyzing how any contribution ra

makes is manifested. A clearer understanding of these issues is essential to explain ho

considering an applicants race supports permissible educational objectives that an institution

may pursue consistently with constitutional limitations. Part II and Part III address thequestions.

Fourth, if our argument that justice underlies using affirmative action to achieve diversity

persuasive, then the justice reason for our study becomes apparent. If the diversity rationale

supported by affirmative action as nondiscrimination and by affirmative action as remediati

diversitys successful implementation will contribute to the achievement of a better life for

African Americans and other minorities by removing some of the continued debilitating effe

of our nations history of discrimination. If we succeed in removing racially-correlated burden

and exclusions, we liberate members of these disadvantaged groups to achieve their high

potentials and therefore to make their fullest contribution to our nations progress that will

benefit everyone. Accordingly, determining whether the affirmative action as diversity ration

finds support in empirical data becomes a task that could further the pursuit of justice America.

B. The Theory of Diversity Constructs

48 Id. at 332.


19/87


19

First, we will examine whether students race (or selected other definable personal

characteristic49) is associated with attributes that contribute to educational diversity. We identif

six educational diversity construct areas in which diversity may be examined . We examine

diversity of: personal background; family background; experience; perspective; educatio

expectations; and, career goals and aspirations.

We use the following definitions for these six diversity construct areas:

Diversity of personal background includes gender, race, geographic origin, marital

status, religion and spirituality, education, work experience, and economic status.

Diversity of family background includes demographic and social factors such as family size,socio-economic status, culture, customs, and traditions that influence students perceptions and

interpretations of events in ones life.

Diversity of experience refers to positive and negative life experiences that each student

brings to the classroom and the campus. These might include exposure to a variety of custo

cultures, and perspectives as well as experiences of prejudice and disadvantage that mi

influence a students perspective on the social order.

Diversity of perspective includes, among other things, differences in values, beliefs,

conceptions of the world, and political orientation. It has been persuasively argued that a gro

of students whose members hold different beliefs about what is important, worthy, beautiful a

good in life will be more likely to discover for themselves the depth and interminability of

disputes in which human beings find themselves entangled than a group of students who

49 Other definable personal attributes include family background, ethnicity, gender, economic statues, andgeographic origin. We collect data using other demographic, ethnic, and gender factors as well as other identifitems that may allow insights into the relationship of diversity to attributes other than race. As stated earlier, threport primarily addresses race.


20/87


20

members share values that are homogenous within the group.50

Diversity of educational expectations refers to predispositions that students bring to both

curricular interpretations and classroom interactions. These predispositions will be manifested

rates of class participation, the way that assignments and class projects are prepared a

presented, and whether students participate in study groups, class project groups and ot

study/social interactions.

Diversity of career goals and aspirations ties differences in reasons for pursuing higher

education to different foci that students bring to issues. These items collect data about the w

students foresee that their educations will be beneficial to themselves or to their communitafter they leave the formal educational setting.

C. Diversity Applied in Educational Settings

In educational settings many diversityquestions can be explored. How will students

perspectives affect what they observe? How will students interact with each other and in vari

environments? What challenges will students perceive? What groups will students join? W

speakers will student groups invite or go to hear? Who will be or become the friends stude

make? What antagonistic relationships and events will students experience? What kinds

institutional actors and citizens will students turn out to be as a result of what goes on during

three years of law school we observe?

It has been suggested that only certain topics have content that would be affected b

differences in perspective. For example, investigators on this report have heard comments suas Biology would not be a course in which student diversity could matter. We do not concede

that proposition. We think it is demonstrable that educational diversity is not limited to t

50 Anthony T. Kronman, Is Diversity a Value in American Higher Education?, 52 FLA. L. REV. 861, 867 (2000).


21/87


21

contents of subjects. Diversity is manifested in the perceptions one brings to the observation

an event or stimulus and in the interactions individuals have with each other. One can conce

that in Biology class neither the anatomy nor the organs of a frog dissected will vary accord

to whether the dissector is Black or White or whether racially distinct or diverse dissectors

frogs work together or separately. But, one does not relinquish the proposition that if t

dissectors work together and have diverse perspectives, they might learn somethingabout each

other while dissecting the frog. For example, if the frog turns out to be deformed from expos

to a polluted environment, the students, if diverse in their perspectives, might just ha

something to share about governmental environmental regulation, the implications for humansenvironmental poisoning, and the amount of costs we ought to impose on those who wou

pollute the environment such that frogs are deformed.

At a deeper level, if a student has never before interacted with a student who has the

dissectors personal characteristics, family background, or life experiences, not to mention

having never before worked jointly with such a student, the students might both come away fr

the frog dissecting exercise not only with a new appreciation of frog entrails, but profoun

affected by the experience of working with a person who imparted different perspectives w

whom they were never that close to before.

One does not seem to have an intolerable burden to suggest that some courses in law sch

are ready candidates in which student diversity would matter. Criminal law and constitutio

law are fairly easy candidates. But we believe any course has a need -for-diversity potential.Property courses might raise issues of restrictive covenants which were used to exclu

minorities or might present cases of conduct that raise issues of fair housing laws. Contra

courses might raise issues of unfair terms that exploit the poor. Civil procedure might ra


22/87


22

issues, for example, of how to serve judicial notice on persons, some of whom might

disproportionately poor (among whom minorities are overrepresented), whose livin

arrangements are not stable or who are homeless, or who do not subscribe to newspapers t

carry legal notices or that announce class action settlements of cases. Torts might raise issu

that one element of personal injury recovery is based in part on lost income which means t

persons who are injured who have lower incomes than White men, which includes

disproportionate number of minorities, cannot recover the same as a higher income White m

even though both suffered the same kind of physical injury and could not work for identi

periods of time. In any event, law cannot be cabined in a society where interests differ, impadiffer, consequences differ, and considerations differ because law, at least in America,

pervasive. Differences of perspective will reflect the myriad ways law affects persons in

society formally committed to the rule of law. No less an influential speaker than Justice Oliv

Wendell Holmes observed that The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience. 51

In some respects, perhaps a fundamental respect, we can assess the likelihood of relev

difference that will contribute something to learning. The heart of the matter might deal w

perspectives. That is where we will start our analysis. In making our analysis we will n

relations between perspectives and other areasof the survey. Our hypothesis is that students

personal background and family background will influence the students experiences. Students

experiences, in turn, will influence their perspectives. Perspectives influence expectations for

educational setting, and combined with other factors the educational setting will influence caraspirations.

D. Profiles of Diversity: Respondents and Samples

51 OLIVERWENDELLHOLMES, JR., THECOMMONLAW 1 (1981).


23/87


23

Our analyses are based on a multistage, random sample of 6,100 students from a rando

sample of 50 ABA-Approved law schools, with an oversampling of law schools with hi

minority student representation. We followed these individuals over three years of law school

subsample of these individuals participated in focus groups and completed a web survey

graduation.

Baseline Sample . The law schools reflected 27% of law schools at time of the sampling, an

they match the geographic distribution of law schools. Analyses of the selected law schools

this sample related to the entire set of ABA-Approved law schools in the U.S. showed simila

on all law attributes (e.g., tuition, size, student-faculty ratio, percent private institutionselectivity, median undergraduate grade point average, median LSAT score, faculty minor

representation), except racial student composition, the dimension on which we oversampled.52

The baseline sample was 9.8% African American, 8.5% Asian, 8.5% Mexican Americ

2.4% Latino/a, 8.8% Multiracial (3.1% Multiracial of Color; 5.7% Multiracial White), 68.0

White. Our analyses in this article focus on observed differences and similarities between

Black students and White students, as well as gender. Fifty-two percent (52.1%) of the stude

were women. They were 25.41 years of age (SD = 5.15 years; range = 18 to 61 years), 46.

liberal, 95.0% heterosexual, 5.1% international, and 61.7% of the students grew up in fami

that had an income under $100,000. About a quarter of the sample was either Catholic (26.2

or Protestant (23.9%), and 13.1% of the sample indicated no religious affiliation. Stude

graduated from 837 colleges and universities.

52 For further detail about the EDP baseline samplingsee PANTER ET AL, AN EMPIRICALSTUDY OF THERELATIONSHIP BETWEENRACE AND EDUCATIONALDIVERSITY INU.S. LAW SCHOOLS: THE EDUCATIONALDIVERSITY PROJECT (2007), available at, http://www.unc.edu/edp/research_findings/documents/EDP%20Baseline%20Survey%20Diversity%20of%20Attites%2006-07.pdf [hereinafter PANTER ET AL.,THEEDUCATIONALDIVERSITYPROJECT(2007)].
http://www.unc.edu/edp/research_findings/documents/EDP%20Baseline%20Survey%20Diversity%20of%20Attitudes%2006-07.pdfhttp://www.unc.edu/edp/research_findings/documents/EDP%20Baseline%20Survey%20Diversity%20of%20Attitudes%2006-07.pdfhttp://www.unc.edu/edp/research_findings/documents/EDP%20Baseline%20Survey%20Diversity%20of%20Attitudes%2006-07.pdfhttp://www.unc.edu/edp/research_findings/documents/EDP%20Baseline%20Survey%20Diversity%20of%20Attitudes%2006-07.pdf


24/87


24

Table 1 provides additional characteristics of the students as well as the institutions fro

which they were drawn.


25/87


25

Table 1. Comparison of Law School Attributes for all ABA Law Schools and the EDP Sample

2004-2005American Bar Association

Data( N = 182)

Fall 2004EDP Baseline Sample

( N = 50) Variable Mean SD Mean SD Tuition $21,008.51 $9,165.68 $19,745.52 $8,687.71 Enrollment (Total Full-TimeStudents)

636.32 266.52 618.38 262.32

Student-Faculty Ratio 16.50 3.53 16.75 3.58 First-Year Full-Time MinorityStudents (Percent)

21.58 12.76 26.25* 18.42

Percent Accepted (selectivity) 27.25 9.36 26.96 8.16 Median LSAT Score 157.67 5.14 156.16* 4.92

Median Undergraduate Grade PointAverage

3.39 .19 3.35* .19

Note. EDP means marked with an asterisk are statistically significantly different from corresponding meapopulation values of ABA-approved law schools at the p < .001 level.

Focus Group Sample . As a way to recognize the complexity of student attitudes and provid

a nuanced view to our quantitative baseline data, the EDP conducted focus groups with a su

of baseline survey respondents during the second semester of each year of law school. These

provide a context for rich interactions, feelings and perceptions, as well as behaviors during law school years from the beginning until they approached graduation.

Each year we oriented our focus groups with a different theme (Year 1: diversity in law

school now versus undergraduate and analysis of legal cases during the first year; Year

relationship with faculty, mentoring, and views about how the second year was going). The Y

3 focus group protocol centered on global assessments of the law school experience, especia

with respect to the students evaluation of student diversity, diversity of relationships formed

during law school that may last over time, expectations about the future as to their career, con

with law students, Bar Passage, and the extent to which law school met their expectations

academics, intellectual life, and interpersonal relations.


26/87


26

Three-Year Follow-Up Sample . At the EDP baseline assessment in Fall 2004, respondents

were asked whether they would be willing to be re-contacted by the EDP research team at a l

point during law school. 64.4% of the respondents in the EDP sample ( N = 3,928) agreed to

allow the EDP research team contact them again. Wehad working email addresses for

reasonable email contact address for 90.1% of them (n = 4,738). We were aware that some email

addresses were no longer valid at the start of the study; for others, we learned this informat

due to the information we received during the study.

We had confirmed status from 61.3% of the students who agreed to be re-contacted by o

research team and had a working email address ( N = 2,906). Out of these individuals, (a) 78.3%completed our web survey ( N = 2,274); and (b) 21.7% were confirmed to be no longer enrolled

in that law school. The law school registrars at the 50 law school in the EDP sample provid

information about student enrollment status at the time of the study. We confirmed enrollmen

graduation for 100% of the students whom we intended to re-contact from the EDP assessmen

Study participants from the follow up sample were 57.1% women and an average age

25.87 years (SD = 5.48 years). The sample was 72.1% White, 8.2% Multiracial, 7.3% Afri

American/Black, 7.1% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 4.9% Hispanic/Latino/a.53 More than half of

the sample was never married (54.2%) and the remainder was married or cohabiting (41.3%

divorced (3.3%) or separated or widowed (1.1%, .1% respectively). About 15.5% of the sam

indicated that they had children.54

The constructs examined in the EDP baseline survey included: student background, fam53 We use the terms Black and African American interchangeably in this work. Our definition of Multiracincludes respondents who marked two or more major racial/ethnic categories (Black, Asian/Pacific IslandHispanic/Latino, or White). In other analyses we show that Multiracial White respondents and Multiracial of Corespondents have differential responding but due to the number of Multiracial respondents in the sample at Yeawe combine the two designations into one group here. We capitalize all racial/ethnic groups throughout this repas recommended by the AMERICANPSYCHOLOGICALASSOCIATIONPUBLICATIONMANUAL(6th ed. 2009).54For further detail about the EDP follow-up samplingsee DAYE ET AL., THE EDUCATIONALDIVERSITYPROJECT(2010),supra note 6.


27/87


27

background, perspectives and attitudes, experiences, educational expectations, and car

aspirations. All findings presented in the following sections statistically account for t

clustering of students within law schools in the sample. In general, we summarize findings

presentation in figures. Statistically significant differences by race are noted for men and wom

E. Profiles of Diversity: Students Perspectives and Attitudes

If all students came to law school with the same or even uniformly similar perspectives a

attitudes, for starters it is fair to observe that law school would likely be a less interesting, if

fundamentally boring place. From the vantage point of our study, uniform similarity might n

offer much to exchange during the students interactions with each other that could potentially

influence each others views of the worl d. Happily that unrealistic outcome is merely hypothesis.

It is intuitive to everyone and empirically demonstrable that people see things differently. T

may be taken as given, we think. Our tasks are to identify some relevant areas of difference

examine whether there is variance by race that accounts for differences in students perspectives

and attitudes, and to explore how those differences might have educational meaning in a l

school environment. As noted above, diversity of perspective includes, among other things,

differences in values, beliefs, conceptions of the world, and political orientation.

The perspectives section of the survey asked students to express their attitudes and beli

concerning items covering a range and depth of topics from race relations in general, to spec

governmental policies, and to social welfare, including discrimination in various contexts a

involving different groups.The goal of the attitude and perspective section of the survey was to obtain a snapshot vi

of the general socio-political beliefs students held when arriving at law school. We asked ab

attitudes in a number of different areas, grouped the items by content, and analyzed these data


28/87


28

multiple ways. These findings are based on analyses that statistically account for the depende

of responses that exists when students attend the same law school.

In the next sections we summarize findings by race/ethnicity and gender groups in a ser

of tables organized by substantive domain. Areas of both variance and lack of variance can

seen in law students belief systems and experiences as reported at entry into law school

(baseline data collection) and then at graduation (Third-Year data collection).

In the tables that follow, we present percentages, adjusted the clustering by law school,

race (White, Black) and gender (men, women). In these tables, the first column of each table

a specific interpretation. A law school class with only White male students might be expectedhave percentages reflected in the first column. That is, these percentages reflect what t

expected attitudes, experiences, beliefs, and perspectives would be if students of traditiona

under-represented racial/ethnic groups and women were not included in a law school class.

Second, we report inferential findings for gender, race, and the gender by race interaction

multilevel generalized linear models that account for both the measurement level of the surv

items (typically dichotomous or ordered categories), as well as the clusters in this sample due

law school. Each inferential model that we tested includes the main effects for gender and ra

the two-way interaction for the gender by race interaction, law school site (Level 2), in addit

to a number of other student characteristics (Level 1; age, family income growing up, verif

LSAT score, and liberal political orientation.) We focus on race, gender, and their interactio

given the focus of this article.1. Race Relations and Racial Issues

Table 2 presents the percentages by race and gender for several race-related attitud

involving affirmative action, the governmental role and responsibility to provide spec


29/87


29

treatment to Blacks, the importance of pursuing equality, and items related the general state

race relations in the U.S.

Table 2. Race-Related Survey Items by Race and Gender Men WomenSurvey Item White Black White Black Special Treatment

Government should only attempt to ensure that peoplehave equal opportunity, but it should not attempt toenforce equal outcomes. * 68.8 38.3 55.4 19.2Because Irish, Italians, Jews, and many other minoritiesovercame prejudice and worked their way up, Blacksshould do the same without any special favors. * 31.0 6.6 20.9 4.1The law should allow consideration of race in university

admissions decisions. * 27.9 79.0 30.6 75.9Some people believe that Blacks have beendiscriminated against for so long that the governmenthas a special obligation to help improve their livingstandards. Others believe the government should not begiving special treatment to Blacks. (PercentHas aSpecial Obligation to Help Blacks ) *x 27.6 76.2 32.6 82.5

Race RelationsRace relations in the United States aregetting(Percent Better at a Slow Pace, Better at aFast Pace ) * 66.7 50.0 59.0 32.3

How would you rate the state of race relations in theUnited States these days? (PercentGood, Very Good ) * 28.8 12.0 18.3 5.9 Note. All items were measured on a five-point, ordinal scale. Descriptive statistics were adjusted by clusterinwithin law school. * = race effect; = gender effect; x = race by gender interaction. The Bonferroni adjustment forthe six multiple comparisons was p-value of .05 was .008. Table entries show combined top two categories. Someitems (Government Should Ensure Equal Opportunity, Blacks Should Achieve Like Other Groups, and AffirmatAction) ranged fromStrongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5). Changing Race Relations in the United Statesranged fromWorse at a Fast Pace (1) to Better at a Fast Pace (5). The state of race relations in the United Statesranged fromVery Bad (1) toVery Good (5). Governmental Obligation to Help Blacks ranged fromShould Not BeGiving Special Treatment to Blacks (1) to Has a Special Obligation to Help Blacks (5).

The findings show that White students were significantly more likely than Black students

agree that the government should only attempt to enforce equal opportunity but not outcom

that race relations in the United States were getting better, that the race relations were good

very good, that Blacks do not deserve any special favors because other minorities overca


30/87


30

prejudice in the past without special favor.55 Black students agreed more than White students that

the Supreme Courts decision in Grutter, that the law should allow the consideration of race in

university admissions decisions and that the government has a special obligation to help Black

2. Discrimination against Societal Groups

The EDP baseline survey assessed participants perceptions of discrimination experienced

by 18 different groups in our society today using a scale ranging from None at All (1) to A Great

Deal (4).56 For the purposes of digesting the set of societal groups, we examine them in three

major groups: (1) Racial Minorities; (2) Social Groups; and (3) Religious Groups. It was

hypothesized that the endorsement or denial of societal discrimination against racial/ethnicminorities is diagnostic of a respondents judgment about the struggle s of certain groups and

about policies and laws reflecting these struggles.

55 Some of these views are sometimes referred to as symbolic racism. See P. J. Henry & David O. Sears,TheSymbolic Racism 2000 Scale , 23 POL. PSYCH. 253, 253-283 (2002) and David O. Sears & P. J. Henry,Over ThirtyYears Later: A Contemporary Look at Symbolic Racism and Its Critics , 37 ADV. EXP. SOC. PSYCH. 95, 95-150(2005). 56 Items were drawn from TOM WILLIAMSMITH ET AL., TAKINGAMERICA'S PULSEIII: INTERGROUPRELATIONS INCONTEMPORARY AMERICA , (2006), available at ,http://books.google.com/books/about/Taking_America_s_pulse_III.html?id=GxTuAAAAMAAJ.
http://books.google.com/books/about/Taking_America_s_pulse_III.html?id=GxTuAAAAMAAJhttp://books.google.com/books/about/Taking_America_s_pulse_III.html?id=GxTuAAAAMAAJ


31/87


31

Table 3. Perceived Discrimination Experienced in Society Today: Percentage Endorsing A Great Deal by Race and Gender

Men WomenSurvey Item White Black White Black Racial Minorities

Blacks * 36.2 80.8 46.7 81.6Hispanics/Latinos * 22.7 57.3 32.2 58.8

American Indians/Native Americans * 18.5 40.0 23.7 40.9Asians * 3.5 9.9 6.1 11.1

Social GroupsGays and Lesbians * 62.2 83.2 73.5 81.3People on welfare * 35.6 75.1 50.7 76.5People who are poor * 31.8 80.0 45.7 79.3Immigrants * 29.7 56.6 44.0 63.8People with disabilities * 13.9 30.4 26.6 39.8Older adults 6.1 12.6 14.0 21.2

Women *x

6.7 32.8 14.5 28.9Religious Groups Muslims*x 59.2 79.4 68.2 68.6Fundamentalist Christians 12.8 11.3 12.7 6.5Jews 8.6 14.2 6.6 11.8

Note. All items were measured on a four-point, ordinal scale. Descriptive statistics were adjusted by clusteriwithin law school. * = race effect; = gender effect; x = race by gender interaction. The Bonferroni adjustment forthe 14 multiple comparisons was p-value of .05 was .004. Items ranged from None at All (1) to A Great Deal (4).

As seen in Table 3, our key finding is that African American students compared to Wh

students perceived significantly greater discrimination for all of the societal groups with

exception of older adults and two religious groups (Fundamentalist Christians and Jews). In th

analyses we also observe a gender effect such that in nearly all cases women perceive grea

discrimination than men.

3. Pursuit of Social Justice

To assess attitudes toward socio-economic mobility in the United States and th

governments role in guaranteeing the existence of such mobility, participants responded to

questions about current social justice concerns, as shown in Table 4. These agreeme

percentages show that Black students were significantly more likely to endorse social just

concerns as a critical need in American society and less likely to agree that all U.S. citizens h


32/87


32

equal opportunity for economic success. Black students, compared to White students, were m

likely to report that the police treated one or more races unfairly in their community and w

less likely to believe that the government should have access to the personal records of all U

citizens or have the right to detain citizens without a lawyer for the purpose of national secur

However, Black students were equally likely as Whites to agree that rehabilitation is mo

effective than long incarceration for minor drug offenses and that being at the bottom of

economic scale is not a function of laziness.

Table 4. Pursuit of Social Justice: PercentageStrongly Agree or Agree by Race and GenderMen Women

Survey Item White Black White BlackSocial JusticeThe pursuit of social justice is a critical need inAmerican society. * 70.6 90.7 74.1 84.5Governmental benefits such as healthcare andwelfare should be an entitlement for allAmerican citizens. * 57.8 79.5 67.9 81.0In the U. S., the interests of ordinary,hardworking citizens are not adequatelyrepresented in the political process. * 53.3 77.2 56.0 80.1

Economic Success/Individualism

In America today, every person has an equalopportunity to achieve economic success. * 25.7 12.9 22.9 12.6People at the bottom of the economic scale are

probably lazier than those at the top. 10.7 7.0 5.1 2.5Criminal Justice Concerns

Rehabilitation is more effective than longincarceration for minor drug offenses. 81.3 80.6 83.5 85.0I believe that the police in my community tend totreat one or more races unfairly. * 31.2 60.7 36.5 61.5To combat terrorism, the American governmentshould have access to travel, credit, and medical

records of all U. S. citizens. * 19.9 11.5 15.2 11.2To meet the heightened security needs of ourcountry, the United States should have the rightto detain individuals without providing access tolawyers and/or pressing formal charges. * 12.9 3.3 7.2 6.5

Note. All items were measured on a five-point, ordinal scale ranging fromStrongly Disagree (1) toStrongly Agree (5). Descriptive statistics were adjusted by clustering within law school. * = race effect; = gender effect; x = raceby gender interaction. The Bonferroni adjustment for the nine multiple comparisons was p-value of .05 was .006.


33/87


33

4. Governmental Domestic Programs and Expenses

The baseline survey also assessed student opinions regarding how they would choose

allocate federal money toward three types of federal government programs (domestic progra

homeland security initiatives, and military aid). They were asked if a range of programs sho

be Cut Back , Kept about the Same , or Expanded .

As seen in Table 5, Black students were significantly more likely than White students

believe that domestic government spending should be expanded (education, healthca

violence/crime programs, and social security). Race did not significantly predict students

attitudes about homeland security initiatives or military aid spending. A gender effect emergsuch that women favored expanded funding to domestic spending programs, while men favo

expanded funding to homeland security and military aid spending.

Table 5. Funding for Federal Programs: Percentage Expanded by Race and Gender Men Women

Survey Item White Black White Black Domestic programs

Aid for education * 81.5 96.7 89.9 97.9

Health care *

67.7 93.4 82.0 96.9Programs to combat violence and crime * 51.6 74.7 60.6 74.5Social Security * 40.9 76.0 59.1 83.1

Homeland Security InitiativesGathering intelligence information aboutother countries 53.3 41.2 29.6 19.6Homeland security 41.7 43.3 29.8 34.6

Military aid Defense spending 23.3 19.4 15.3 13.4Economic aid to other nations 23.1 18.8 21.5 16.2Military aid to other nations 5.3 4.6 3.2 4.3

Note. All items were measured on a three-point, ordinal scale ranging fromCut Back (1), Kept About the Same (2),or Expanded (3). Descriptive statistics were adjusted by clustering within law school. * = race effect; = gendereffect; x = race by gender interaction. The Bonferroni adjustment for the nine multiple comparisons was p-value of .05 was .006.

5. Perceptions and Attitudes about Individual Rights by Race

The law students also provided their opinions on social attitudes, educational access, a


34/87


34

policies related to immigration and national defense, as shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Individual Rights: PercentageStrongly Agree or Agree by Race and Gender Men Women

Survey Item White Black White Black

Social AttitudesGay and lesbian couples should receive the same rightsand benefits that heterosexual couples receive for:

Health Care 79.1 75.5 86.8 72.4Pension Coverage 77.9 73.4 84.9 71.6Parental Rights 59.5 47.8 77.3 50.0Legal Marriage 58.7 46.7 72.7 42.3

Abortion (Percent A woman should always be able toobtain an abortion as a matter of personal choice) 51.4 57.7 67.8 65.0People should marry other people from their same racialand ethnic group. 7.8 12.6 5.8 14.9

Education AccessI believe that the college admissions process is fair withrespect to:

Family Background 36.8 27.7 39.6 24.4Economic Status 35.9 27.7 36.6 21.0Racex 29.0 33.7 31.3 19.5

There are always some people whose ideas areconsidered bad or dangerous by other people. Consider aperson who believes that Blacks are genetically inferior.Such a person should be allowed to teach in a college oruniversity. 23.6 19.3 13.8 12.1

ImmigrationGovernment benefits should be available to non-documented immigrants. 14.3 20.7 20.2 22.5Immigrants today are a burden on our country becausethey take our jobs, housing, and healthcare. 11.9 12.0 10.3 10.9

National Defense and PatriotismA citizen should be allowed to burn the American flagas an expression of free speech. 62.9 52.2 55.0 39.2The President of the United States sometimes has tomake tough decisions about war and should besupported in those decisions.* 41.7 20.5 34.1 14.1

The United States should employ military force to bringdemocracy to societies dominated by dictators. * 17.5 4.3 9.7 4.3 Note. All items were ordinal. Descriptive statistics were adjusted by clustering within law school. * = race effec =gender effect; x = race by gender interaction. The Bonferroni adjustment for the 16 multiple comparisons was p-valueof .05 was .003. All items ranged fromStrongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5), with Agree and Strongly Agree tabled, except for the four-point Abortion item (ranging from Abortion should never be permitted to A woman should always be able to obtain an abortion as a matter of personal choice ).


35/87


35

In the area of social attitudes, race was not associated with viewpoints on abortio

However, in social attitudes about gay/lesbian rights, Black students were generally less lik

than White students to agree that gay and lesbian couples should receive the same rights

heterosexual couples. Black students were also more likely than White students to believe t

people should marry other people from their same racial and ethnic group.

Regarding access and fairness in education, Black students were less likely to believe that

the college admissions process is fair with respect to race, economic status, and fam

background. Black students also were less likely than White students to support the idea t

professors with negative views about Blacks should be allowed to teach in a college university.

Race was not associated with predicted student viewpoints related to immigration a

national defense. In conjunction with collecting participants general views on race relati ons in

the United States, students were asked to indicate their beliefs regarding the state of immigrat

laws after September 11th, 2001 (the date of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and

the Pentagon). The responses indicated that African American students were only slightly m

likely to restrict Arab and Muslim immigration than White students. This difference by race w

also not statistically significant.

National Defense and Patriotism. When asked various questions about national defense,

Black students, on average, were less likely to agree that the United States should empl

military force to bring democracy to societies dominated by dictators,

and Black students werealso less likely to agree that tough presidential decisions regarding war should be support

Additionally, student attitudes about patriotism were assessed, and Black students were l

likely to think that a citizen should be able to burn the American flag as an expression of f


36/87


36

speech.

F. Profiles of Diversity: Background Factors and Relationships

1. Diversity of Personal Background

Table 7 summarizesdifferences in respondents personal background upon arriving at law

school in areas such as geographic origin, marital status, political views, religion and spiritual

education, work experience, income, and financial responsibility.

Black students were equally likely as White students to have been born in the United Sta

or to be married. Black students were more likely than White students to have grown up in a v

large city (over 1 million), to be Protestant, and to report being spiritual. They reported beingyounger age than White students when they first seriously considered attending law school.

Regarding economic standing and finances, most students in the sample reported that th

were financially responsible for themselves, with a higher percentage of Black students be

responsible than Whites, although not significantly so. Black students owed nearly twice

much for educational debt compared to White students (in the $20,000 to $30,000 range).

higher percentage of White students compared to Black students reported that during their h

school years their familys income was Over $100,000 and was Above Average to Far Above

Average related to the average family in the United States. During their undergraduate yea

both Whites and Blacks report having worked 20 hours or more during their undergradu

years.


37/87


37

Table 7. Personal Background Factors by Race and GenderMen Women

Survey Item White Black White BlackBackground Factors

Born in United States 96.2 88.8 95.1 88.1

Setting Growing Up Suburbs 36.2 19.5 31.4 23.0Small Town 19.1 13.5 22.2 12.0Small City (Under 1 Million) 18.1 23.2 17.5 19.9Rural 10.7 9.7 12.1 7.9Large City (Over 1 Million)* 10.7 25.4 10.6 31.9Moved Around a Lot 5.2 8.6 6.2 5.4

Age Considered Law School (Over 18 years ) * 76.7 59.9 71.6 57.7Married 23.6 16.0 15.8 9.3

BeliefsPolitical Orientation (Percent Extremely Liberal ,

Liberal ) *x

37.7 55.6 51.2 50.9Spirituality (Very Spiritual, Extremely Spiritual ) 27.2 50.3 27.0 65.2Religion Catholic x 25.3 16.3 30.0 9.3Protestant * 21.9 49.5 22.9 59.3Atheist or Agnostic * 15.2 3.8 13.2 0.8No Religious Preference 12.4 11.4 13.0 6.8Jewish 10.0 -- 7.3 --Nondenominational/Other Christian 6.7 13.6 7.6 19.4

Income and Financial Responsibility Financially Responsible for Self 76.9 84.5 75.1 80.6

Family Income, Dollars (Over$100,000 ) * 54.2 32.6 51.9 28.9Worked during Undergraduate Years (20 hours or more/week) 47.5 57.8 49.6 65.3Family Income, Rating ( Above Average, Far Above

Average )* 44.0 21.5 42.6 22.0Had Educational Debt (Over$10,000 ) * 31.1 48.1 32.8 57.9Financially Responsible for Others 17.6 19.3 7.7 14.2

Note. All items were ordinal. Descriptive statistics were adjusted by clustering within law school. * = race effec = gender effect; x = race by gender interaction. The Bonferroni adjustment for the 15 multiple comparisons was p-value of .05 was .002. Protestant includes: Baptist, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist, and Pentecostal. Due to lsample sizes, results are not reported for Mormon, Eastern Religions, Muslim, or Other. The political orientatiitem was: When it comes to politics, how do you usually think of yourself and was measured on a five-point sc

from Extremely Liberal (1) to Extremely Conservative (5). Spirituality was measured on a five-point scale rangingfrom Not at All Spiritual (1) to Extremely Spiritual (5). The income items were: Thinking about the time when youwere in high school What dollar figure best fits your family household annual income at the time? Compared withAmerican families in general at that time, what was your family income? Descriptive statistics were adjusted clustering within law school. Financial responsibility for Others was defined as: spouse, children, parents, othrelatives, or non-relatives.


38/87


38

2. Diversity of Family Background

Diversity of Family Background includes demographic and social family factors such as

family size, class, socio-economic status, culture, customs, and traditions that influence students

perceptions and interpretations of curricular material. Table 8 provides a profile of the diver

of family background of the law students in this national sample.

Table 8. Diversity of Family Background by Race and Gender by Race and Gender Men Women

Survey Item White Black White BlackSocial Context (Percent Agree )

Lived in neighborhood of the same racial or ethnicbackground * 87.6 55.4 88.4 54.3

Had close friends of their same racial or ethnicbackground. * 79.6 64.5 81.8 72.5Went to high school where most students were of their same racial or ethnic background * 74.9 29.6 75.8 31.1Had parents who preferred that they not socializewith people of a different racial or ethnicbackground 3.7 2.2 6.1 1.5

Parental Racial Socialization (PercentOften, Very Often ) Said or did things to encourage educational goals * 88.1 90.8 90.9 89.8Said or did things to address ethnic pride, culture,diversity, and bias * 35.1 71.9 42.8 79.9

Racial/Ethnic Identity Identification (PercentSomewhat Closely , VeryClosely ) * 70.2 85.4 72.9 89.3Common Fate (PercentYes) * 37.2 72.9 38.4 69.7

Note. All items were ordinal. Descriptive statistics were adjusted by clustering within law school. * = race effec = gender effect; x = race by gender interaction. The Bonferroni adjustment for the eight multiple comparisons w

p-value of .05 was .006. The social context items were measured as Disagree , Agree , and Dont Know . The parentalracial socialization items were rated on a scale from Never (1) to Very Often (5). The racial identity item (Howclosely do you identify with other people who are of the same racial and ethnic descent as yourself?) was rated oscale from Not at All Closely (1) toVery Closely (4). Common fate (Do you think what happens generally to peopleof your same racial or ethnic group in this country will have something to do with what happens in your life?) wrated on the scaleYes, No, Dont Know .

The findings show that the Black students were less likely than White students to ha

grown up with most of their neighbors being of the same racial/ethnic background, have cl

friends with their racial/ethnic background, or attend a high school where most students w


39/87


39

their same racial/ethnic background.

In addition, while nearly all students received positive messages about education from th

parents, Black students report that their parents did that more than White students. Bla

students, compared to White students, also reported greater parental involvement with messa

about culture and bias, great identification with their race/ethnicity and a stronger belief that th

ones fate is intertwined with persons of same race/ethnicity.

3. Profiles of Diversity: Experiences of Discrimination, Coping and Collegial Interactio

(a) Experiences of Discrimination and Coping

Respondents were asked to think about the negative experiences they had as related to thrace or ethnicity in their daily lives and other contexts, as well as different ways that they tend

cope with adverse experiences related to race/ethnicity when they occur. Table 9 presen

students experiences with different forms of discrimination (microaggressions or everyday

discrimination, specific incidents of discrimination, and general reports of discrimination, as w

as their reactions or coping mechanisms when adverse conflict based on race occurs.57

57 See A. T. Panter et al., Everyday discrimination in a national sample of incoming law students , 1 J. DIVERS. HIGH. ED. 67, 67-79 (2008); and Brian Stucky et al., An item response theory-based revision of the Everyday

Discrimination Scale , 17 CULT. DIVERS. ETHNIC. MIN. PSYCH. 175, 175-185 (2011).


40/87


41/87


41

service than others, being discouraged to pursue educational goals, and being stopped by pol

In most cases, the differences between Black respondents and White respondents are particul

large (everyday discrimination, being stopped by police, experiencing discrimination in t

workplace, being unfairly discouraged to continue education). Following an adverse interact

based on race, White women, especially, indicated that they would carefully consider t

viewpoints of others. Black students were more likely to indicate that they would work harde

prove the other person involved in the conflict wrong, talk to a friend of their own race abou

or pray about it, compared to White students.

(b) Collegial Interactions: Social and Educational Activities and EncountersTo explore the experiences that law students had as undergraduates, we assessed seve

domains of academic and social functioning, including intergroup interactions, as set forth

Table 10.


42/87


42

Table 10. Undergraduate Academic Experiences: PercentageOften, Very Often by Race andGender

Men WomenSurvey Item White Black White BlackContact Diversity

Had close friends from different racial/ethnic groups*x 41.8 63.0 39.5 42.6Studied with someone from a different racial/ethnic

group*x 36.5 55.1 40.5 42.1Dated someone from a different racial/ethnic group*x 11.1 27.6 12.0 8.5

Structured Educational Expe

diversity in law schools study 2012 ssrn-id2101253

Documents