In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

The Review of Higher Education 27.2 (2004) 259-260



[Access article in PDF]
Mitchell J. Chang, Daria Witt, James Jones, and Kenji Hakuta (Eds.). Compelling Interest: Examining the Evidence on Racial Dynamics in Colleges and Universities. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2003. 264 pp. Paper: $19.95. ISBN: 0-8047-4035-6.

On June 23, 2003, the Supreme Court handed down its decisions in two cases challenging the affirmative-action policies of the University of Michigan. The Court, influenced by social-science evidence, ultimately upheld the notion that furthering the educational benefits of diversity is a compelling goal justifying race-conscious policies in college admissions. Compelling Interest, edited by Chang et al., was written before these decisions; but given the narrow rulings and what will likely be continued assaults on affirmative action, its arguments are still relevant.

The book summarizes the social-science literature on racial dynamics. In not offering original research, it differs from William Bowen and Derek Bok's The Shape of the River, but like the latter it goes beyond most related books by linking traditional moral arguments with social-science evidence. The introductory and concluding chapters by Chang, Witt, and Hakuta, provide overviews of the issues associated with affirmative action, summarize the major findings covered more extensively in the other chapters, and explain why affirmative action is necessary at selective institutions. (The book's two appendices provide an historical overview of affirmative action and definitions of key concepts.) The introductory chapter discusses four commonly held misconceptions that are each addressed by the book's other chapters.

The first misconception is that past discrimination no longer requires attention. This point is addressed in the second chapter by William Trent et al. They use U.S. Department of Education data on early childhood education to illustrate, not surprisingly, that African Americans and Latinos, in particular, suffer cumulative disadvantages (such as poverty, poorly funded schools, segregated communities, and tracking) which explain and compound their poor participation in elite institutions. This chapter simply relates what many of us know already.

The second misconception is that merit can be defined by test scores, a point addressed by Linda Wightman in the third chapter. She discusses the uses and misuses of standardized admissions tests and offers an good explanation of the statistics behind standardized tests and what they actually mean. Her history of the tests should have discussed their roots in eugenics, as Nicholas Lemann does in The Big Test. What is interesting about this chapter is that it takes on the arguments both for and against such tests, and concludes, contrary to opponents' claims, that the tests are valid indicators of academic success. But it also argues that such tests are inappropriately used as the sole criteria for defining merit.

The third misconception is that fairness is best achieved through race-neutral policies. The fourth chapter by Shana Levin summarizes the social psychological research literature and concludes, not surprisingly, that race and racism are significant factors in how racial minorities are viewed by others and that, therefore, race neutrality simply ensures the continued oppression of racial minorities. While much of what this chapter conveys seems true, one should be leery of the dichotomies taken as given, such as individual versus institutional racism and adverse racism versus symbolic racism. While such dichotomies [End Page 259] may have heuristic value, they do not seem particularly real or at least distinguishable in everyday life.

The final misconception is that diversity initiatives benefit only racial minorities, a concept Jeffrey Milem discusses in his review of the literature on diversity in chapter 5. He concludes that diversity promotes individual, institutional, economic, and societal benefits. Milem's is a good review, but what I found most interesting in his chapter was his discussion of the institutional obstacles, particularly the pursuit of prestige, which actually thwart diversity.

Milem's point allows the reader to reconsider the argument made in the concluding chapter by Chang et al. that progressives and conservatives both agree on the value of merit but differ in how they define it. I...

pdf

Share