The Shape of the Class

William G. Bowen and Derek Bok. The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998). xxxvi + 473 pp.; $24.95.

Elizabeth A. Duffy and Idana Goldberg. Crafting a Class, College Admissions and Financial Aid, 1955-1994 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998). xxi + 296 pp.

The Shape of the River is an extraordinary book that has received exceptional press, in part because it is a grandly ambitious volume, with well-known authors, big themes, and important subject matter. In addition, it has received exceptional press because the Andrew Mellon Foundation financed an extraordinary press-tour that resulted in widespread publicity. (In the spirit of full disclosure, I accepted an invitation to a press conference in New York City at the Mellon Foundation brownhouse offices at the foundation's expense and discussed the book with Presidents Bowen and Bok, both of whom I have met professionally. I also received an autographed copy of the volume. I understand several such briefings were held in New York City and elsewhere.)

The book even received what may well be the highest accolade possible in our popular culture when it figured in a "Law and Order" television episode in which a Black Ivy League student, who was failing his classes, killed his mentor because the mentor purchased exam answers for his young protégé. This humiliation, alleged defense counsel, drove the student into a murderous rage. The Bowen and Bok book figures in the cross-examination of a hostile defense witness--a social scientist and admissions official. (Talk about product placement in today's media!)

Because it is such a large undertaking, with nearly a hundred detailed statistical tables, this book invites substantial response--which it has received. From the left, Clifford Adelman (1999) has inveighed against the "elitism" of Bowen and Bok's narrow institutional focus. From the right, Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom (1999) have fulminated over the book's findings. From a high perch, Ronald Dworkin (1998) offered a generally positive view; and in a short review, Troy Duster (1999) was also positive. Terrance Sandalow, a former University of Michigan Law School dean, who took on the daunting task of reviewing the statistical tables, is generally critical of Bowen and Bok's analysis. He and Aldelman have both engaged in published exchanges with the authors (Furthermore, 1999; Bowen & Bok, 1999; Sandalow, 1999b.) ¹ In short, this book has received a substantial audience, both in scholarly and popular culture venues.

Because so much criticism and so many exchanges are already in the public domain, I have chosen to review the volume in a different vein, one not yet addressed in the dozen or so reviews I have read or cited above. I review the book in terms of its efficacy--that is, in terms of its avowed purpose, and how well it achieves that goal. Second, I consider its citations of research literature--that is, its reliance upon social science scholarship concerning the topics of admissions, access, and affirmative action. Here, I conclude that the authors engage in "imperial scholarship," despite their best intentions.

First, the book's efficacy. Noting that higher education affirmative action is under attack from legislation and litigation, the authors set out to "inform the debate by framing questions carefully and presenting what we have learned about outcomes" of thirty years of affirmative action in higher education (p. xxiv). Thus, the book is a "social science brief" for the defendants in important admissions litigation against the University of Michigan and the University of Washington, where Anglo applicants have sued to dismantle preferential minority admissions programs (Segal, 1998).

The book makes an extensive brief for minority admissions in elite colleges, arguing that Blacks more often than not make the grade, graduate, and become productive role models as a result of Bakke v. UC Regents (438 U.S. 265 [1978]), which upheld affirmative action...