Chronicle of Higher Education
February 17, 2009
Peter Schmidt
Colleges have talked for decades about the educational benefits of diversity on their campuses without offering much research to show how students are affected by exposure to members of other racial and ethnic groups. In an effort to fill that gap in knowledge, James Sidanius, a professor of psychology and of African and African-American studies at Harvard University, led a team of researchers in conducting a long-term study of about 2,000 students who entered the University of California at Los Angeles in the fall of 1996. The students were surveyed in the summer before they entered UCLA, at the end of their freshman year, and again each year until their graduation or the end of their fifth year in college.
Mr. Sidanius and the co-authors of his study—Shana Levin, an associate professor of psychology at Claremont McKenna College; Colette van Laar, a professor of psychology at Leiden University, in the Netherlands; and David O. Sears, a professor of psychology and political science at UCLA–describe their results in a new book, The Diversity Challenge: Social Identity and Intergroup Relations on the College Campus, published by the Russell Sage Foundation. The Chronicle interviewed Mr. Sidanius by e-mail to ask him about the study's major findings.
Q. Please talk about how your study compares to other studies on campus diversity. Where did you tread new ground or try to build on—or put to the test—research that had been done before?
A. Our study, The Diversity Challenge, is unique in the literature concerning intergroup relations in two major ways. First, as far as we know, it is the longest panel (i.e., longitudinal) study of intergroup relations on campus ever done. And secondly, it is the most comprehensive study of its type ever attempted—that is to say, that asks the largest number of theoretically driven questions, using numerous indices of intergroup contact and intergroup attitudes.
Q. Your book says you had expected to find that "cultural diversity and the multicultural practices that universities have put in place as a response to it have some profound effects on students." What was your basis for having such expectations? Instead of finding profound effects—good or bad—your book reaches the bottom-line conclusions that cultural diversity and multicultural practices failed to either significantly change students' ethnic identities and views on race or to have the feared effects of heightening ethnic conflict and separation on campus. At the end of the day, does your study buttress—or does it undermine—the argument that race-conscious college-admissions policies serve a compelling government interest by producing educational benefits? In which direction (and how far) does your study move the ball in the affirmative-action debate?
A. We found that neither the multicultural policies of the university nor the general multiethnic environment had profound effects on the intergroup attitudes of the students. Thus, in broad terms, the students left the university with largely the same social and political views that they entered college with.
However, three facts show that this does not mean that there were no theoretically expected changes. First, in general, students did become less politically conservative, ethnocentric, and racist over four years of college. Secondly, for the most part, increased levels of intergroup contact (e.g., in the form of having roommates from other ethnic groups) did attenuate levels of racism, and increased positive affect for members of other ethnic outgroups. Thirdly, in terms of the effects of affirmative action, we were interested in addressing the issue of whether or not being an affirmative-action admittee affected the academic self-confidence and academic performance of minority students. The negative effects of affirmative action on student performance were complex and conditional. For example, for black students who thought that they were affirmative-action admittees, grade-point average was negatively affected, but only among those with high personal-identity stereotype threat (concerns about confirming negative stereotypes of their ethnic groups). However, among those with no such stereotype-threat concerns, being an affirmative-action admittee had no deleterious effects on academic achievement....
Q. On a related note, your study involves students who entered college 12 years ago. Are you confident that a study undertaken today would reach similar conclusions, or, especially given the election of Barack Obama, is there reason to hope students' attitudes toward race and ethnicity have changed?
A. While there is no reason to believe that, in and of itself, the 12-year time gap will have made a substantial difference in the results we found, we cannot be as certain about the possible effects of Barack Obama's electoral victory. While there is little reason to actually believe that Obama's election has sent America into a state of post-racialism, there is probably a substantial number of whites who might believe this to be the case. It is not at all clear what the net results of this will be. This election might augur in a period of substantially relaxed racial attitudes and attenuated levels of institutional discrimination. On the other hand, Obama's election might convince people that postracialism has indeed become a fact of American life, and that no further efforts to eliminate group-based disadvantage and discrimination are necessary. It is simply too early to tell.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/daily/2009/02/11811n.htm?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
No comments:
Post a Comment