by David G. Hinojosa, National Director of Policy- Intercultural Development Research Association, and counsel for various amici in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin since 2008
Last week during oral argument in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (UT), the Supreme Court found itself at ground zero between the pursuit of racial diversity and opportunity in higher education for all students and the desire of the “old guard” to maintain systemic privileges that tend to favor white students. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer touted the benefits of diversity and how UT’s dual admissions program (holistic and Top Ten Percent) satisfied the Supreme Court’s tenets of lawful affirmative action programs. Meanwhile, Chief Justice John Roberts asked how a student’s race could matter in an astrophysics class, and Justice Antonin Scalia suggested that selective universities like UT perhaps do a disservice to Black students by admitting them. Plaintiff Abigail Fisher did not raise these issues during oral argument or in her briefs, and they were not part of the evidentiary record, leaving many observers to speculate where these justices may be headed.
This is especially concerning because for nearly 40 years, the Court has grounded its affirmative action admission rulings by recognizing the important educational benefits that flow from diversity, including racial diversity, in higher education (and K-12 schooling in Seattle v. PICS, J. Kennedy concurring) and by deferring to the educational expertise of universities in determining their educational mission and how racial diversity fits in the mission. The record in Fisher shows how UT’s diversity plan does not run afoul of the Constitution by pursuing diversity solely for the sake of racial balancing. Instead, UT’s plan reflects “a reasoned, principled explanation for the academic decision” that adds race as one of several factors considered for non-Top Ten Percent applicants. And both UT’s brief, as well as several amicus briefs including those submitted by social scientists, psychologists and educational researchers, reflect substantial research showing the benefits of diversity and the link between diversity and greater opportunities for all students.
So what exactly are these “benefits” and who benefits? The research cited in the aforementioned briefs demonstrates that the benefits of diversity extend to learning opportunities for all students, not just those minority students admitted. For example, research examining the impact of diverse learning environments show that both majority and minority students’ cognitive skills improve. This should not be surprising as exposure to different opinions on a subject by students of different backgrounds could logically impact critical thinking and improve problem solving. A Michigan study of 500 students found the diverse classroom learning environment resulted in livelier and more engaging discussions. Diversity in higher education also promotes civic engagement, builds leadership, and prepares students for life after college. Several briefs filed by the business sector, including Fortune 100 companies, explained how racial diversity in university settings is “a business and economic imperative” in the growing, diverse global market.
The research also demonstrates that diversity helps reduce harmful effects on learning and social interactions in higher education. By increasing intergroup contact among different racial groups, diverse classrooms promote cross-racial understanding between majority and minority groups and dispel racial stereotypes. Diversity also prevents tokenism and racial isolation for the minority students, which can negatively impact academic achievement and social and psychological well-being. Recent research further shows that microaggressions (day-to-day verbal and nonverbal slights and insults) are reduced as campus diversity increases, lessening the impact of racial isolation on minority students and providing a greater sense of campus community.
Even beyond these benefits, the pursuit of diversity in higher education allows universities to take into account the uneven playing field for many student students of color in PK-12 schooling. As the amicus brief of the Intercultural Development Research Association points out, many students of color attend under-resourced schools in Texas and are subjected to far higher rates of student discipline, student mobility and dropout rates when compared to their white peers. Yet, in spite of these systemic challenges, many minority students remain competitive and holistic plans like UT’s allow universities to weigh the whole of the student. Undoubtedly, their achievement, resiliency and experiences would further the benefits of diversity in higher education.
With the overwhelming weight of the research showing the tremendous benefits of diversity and no live challenge to diversity as a compelling interest, this author guarantees that a majority of the Court will not strike down affirmative action. Perhaps the Chief Justice and Justice Scalia were merely being jurists, challenging the attorneys for UT on these hot-button issues in light of the extremely sensitive racial dynamics experienced in America today. But if they care to follow precedent, there is good reason in the record and the briefing in this case to show why the doors of opportunity should remain open to all qualified students-minority and majority alike- through diversity admissions programs.