1. Social Studies: Class, Cultural Capital & Upward Mobility
UNIT 6
Social Studies: Class, Cultural Capital & Upward Mobility

2. Social Roles of Higher Ed
“Social engineering”
“Upward mobility”
“Distributive justice”
Social Roles of Higher Ed

3. “The betterment of society”
“Enhancing opportunity”
F&L: Education as the key to mobility, self-fulfillment and “the good life”
Increased earning power of those with a BA/BS

4. Do private institutions have the same social responsibility as public institutions?
Not-for-profit status?

5. If college admission officers shape an intentional community through the act of selecting a class, who’s “intent” guides the way?
Intentionality

6. Social engineering: the ability to create the class we want to create.
Who is “we”?
What values inform the process?

7. Stakeholders PUBLIC PRIVATE Trustees Trustees/Regents
President/Senior Admin
Voters
Legislature
Faculty
Trustees
President/Senior Admin
Faculty
Alumni
Others?
Stakeholders

8. “Social” Policies in Admissions
First-Generation college bound
LGBT
Is there a question on the application?
Transgender students at women’s colleges
Low Income/Pell Grant
Undocumented students
Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
International financial aid
Affirmative Action
“Social” Policies in Admissions

9. ¿Discussion Questions?
Do you believe that the Coalition App will achieve its intended goal of opening up access for low-income students?
What are your thoughts on the membership criteria for participation? Should there be more, less, different qualifications?
Is 2017 the right moment (New SAT, New FASFA, Supreme Court, No Beta) to role out this platform? If it isn’t when would be?
Will the new locker feature do more harm or more good?
What alternative ideas/proposals did you read about or think about that might be beneficial to the project?
¿Discussion Questions?

10. UNIT 7 In Pursuit of Diversity:
Race as an Admissions Factor & Its Alternatives

11. Diversity
What is it?

12. Goal: A critical mass of people from diverse backgrounds
Policy: Affirmative action has been the most common mechanism to increase diversity on a campus.

13. Legal Framework Bakke, 1978 Grutter and Gratz, 2003
Fisher, 2013 / 2016
Legal Framework

14. The Equal Protection Clause
United States Constitution Equal Protection Clause (1868)
Fourteenth Amendment contains the Equal Protection Clause: “No State shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
In the 20th century, the Equal Protection Clause was the basis for desegregation rulings.
Does the Equal Protection Clause apply to private universities as well as states? Unclear. Because universities receive federal financial aid funding, we can assume it applies.

15. Minority applicants to UC Davis Medical School were reviewed in a separate pool with sixteen available slots for them. Bakke, a white applicant, was denied admission.
The court could not agree on a single holding, but held that UC Davis violated the Equal Protection Clause by creating a quota for applicants based on race that excluded Bakke.
Recognized that race and ethnicity might be appropriately considered as part of college admissions when attempting to achieve the educational benefits of diversity so long as quotas were not used.
Bakke, 1978

16. Reaffirmed and expanded on Bakke
Reaffirmed and expanded on Bakke. The court employed “strict scrutiny,” meaning that the university must meet a high standard to show it does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Because race-based admissions practices are particularly suspect, the policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest.
The court in Gratz v. Bollinger held that the undergraduate admissions policy at the University of Michigan, which awarded a set number of points to applicants of certain races that accounted for a substantial number of the total points required for admission, was not narrowly tailored. It amounted to a quota.
Affirmed the idea that the educational benefits of diversity can constitute a compelling interest justifying the limited use of race.
Emphasized the need for individualized review (as opposed to automatic points for race).
Diversity goals must be mission-driven
“robust exchange of ideas” with “basic qualifications”
Applied flexibly
No quotas or rigid point systems
Sufficiently defined benchmarks
Grutter and Gratz, 2003

17. “One Factor Among Many”
Race can be one factor not the determining factor
Broad view of diversity that includes the full demographic range of the projected class
Race, Gender, Geography, SES, etc.
An articulated plan is essential.
“One Factor Among Many”

18. The rulings from Michigan allow institutional diversity goals.
An idea of what diversity means to an institution
Define it.
Prepare goals to achieve it.
“X percent of a given group is important to establish a critical mass.”
Establish a rationale.
Calculated risks are appropriate within an articulated plan.
Do not allow a population to degrade to a point where it is a negligible presence on campus.
AA ensures community representation.
An Articulated Plan

19. The court discussed the need for a “critical mass” of students from groups that had been discriminated against and suggested affirmative action should not be needed in 25 years time to achieve diversity on a college campus.
Sunset 2028?

20. Abigail Fisher, a white woman, was denied admission to the University of Texas in She sued, claiming the university violated the Equal Protection Clause.
The University of Texas admits students in the top 10% of every high school in Texas. This fills 81% of the class. The remaining 19% is filled using a holistic admissions process where race is a plus factor. Fisher was not in the top 10% of her high school class.
Fisher v. U of Texas

21. Fisher v. University of Texas: Possible Outcomes

22. 73 amicus briefs in support of the University of Texas were filed, including one by Tufts.
17 amicus briefs in support of Fisher were filed.

23. Narrow tailoring of affirmative action policy in support of a compelling interest.
Are there race neutral alternatives to achieve the same goal?
Fisher

24. Alternatives to Affirmative Action
Top 10% Policy
Lottery
Socioeconomic status as a proxy
Qualitative assessment
Race-Neutral
Zip Codes
Alternatives to Affirmative Action

25. The educational benefits of diversity.

26. Today, affirmative action is a legal, legitimate policy
For Now…