Nevertheless policies to encourage diversity eg af64257rmative action language policies and legalising illegal immigrants are still largely disputed and often understood as having contradictory and largely negative consequences The implementation of ID: 43600
Download Pdf The PPT/PDF document "Complementary rather than contradictory ..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Complementaryratherthancontradictory:diversityandexcellenceinpeerreviewandadmissionsinAmericanhighereducationleLamontandGraziellaMoraesdaSilvaDepartmentofSociology,HarvardUniversity,Cambridge,MA,USADiversityislargelyacceptedasapositivevalueinAmericansociety.Nevertheless,policiestoencouragediversity,e.g.afÞrmativeaction,languagepoliciesandlegalisingillegalimmigrants,arestilllargelydisputed,andoftenunderstoodashavingcontradictoryandlargelynegativeconsequences.Theimplementationofdiversityisstillseenasathreattomeritocracy,nationalcohesion,anddemocracy.Thispaperanalyseshowexcellenceanddiversityarediscussedintwoacademicdecision-makingprocesses:admissionattwoelitepublicuniversitiesandthedistributionofcompetitiveresearchfellowships.Wearguethatexcellenceanddiversityarenotalternativebutadditiveconsiderationsintheallocationofresources.Theadministratorsandacademicswestudiedfactordiversityinasanadditionalconsiderationwhendecisionsaretobemadebetweenapplicantsofroughlyequalstanding.DiversityislargelyacceptedasapositivevalueinAmericansociety.Nevertheless,policiestoencouragediversity,e.g.afÞrmativeaction,languagepolicies,andlegalisingillegalimmigrants,arestilllargelydisputed,andoftenunderstoodashavingcon-tradictoryandlargelynegativeconsequences.Theimplementationofdiversityisstillseenasathreattomeritocracy,nationalcohesion,anddemocracy.Inthispaperwelookatonerealmofthisdebate:howdiversityandexcellencearefactoredinacademicselectionprocesses,speciÞcallygrantandfellowshipallocation,andadmissiontoselectiveuniversities.UnderstandingtheinteractionbetweenexcellenceanddiversityinAmericanhighereducationsystemisespeciallyimportantduetotheirmultiplerolesintheproductionofknowledge,socialinclusion,andelitecreation.TheÞrstlegaluseofdiversityinpolicy-makingintheUnitedStatesoccurredintherealmofthehighereducation:inthe1978Bakkedecision(USSupremeCourt,1978).Diversitywasbroughtinto21stCenturySocietyVol.4,No.1,115,February2009 Correspondingauthor.MicheleLamont,DepartmentofSociology,HarvardUniversity,WilliamJamesHall,33KirklandSt.,Room510,Cambridge,MA02138,USA.Email:mlamont@wjh.harvard.edu1745-0144(print)1745-0152(online)010001Ð152009AcademyofSocialSciencesDOI:10.108017450140802535925 thedebateasaÔcompellinginterestÕthatenrichestheeducationalexperience.Diver-sitywasalsothekeyconceptofthe2003MichiganSupremeCourtdecisionthatallowedraceconsiderationanddiversityargumentstobefactoredinadmissiontopublichighereducationinstitutions.AlthoughPowellÑtheauthoroftheBakkeSupremeCourtdecisionÑstressedthemultiplemeaningsofdiversity,itwaslargelyinterpretedasawaytobalanceunequalgenderandracerepresentationinhighereducation.Recently,institutionalandsocio-economicinequalitiesareincreasinglyconsideredinpoliciesanddebatesaboutdiversity.However,publicopinionsurveysshowthatAmericansstillunder-standdiversitylargelyintermsofraceandethnicdifferencesÑwhich,accordingtosome,partlyexplainstheunderstandingofdiversitypoliciesinzero-sumterms(Bell&Hartman,2007).AsarticulatedbyGuinier&Sturm(2001),criticsofafÞrmativeactionstilltodayÞnditeasytopitmeritocracyagainstdiversity,arguingthatsomeÔgetinbymeritÕ,whileothersdosoÔbyquotaÕ.Whilepuristsarguethatonlyexcellenceshouldbetakenintoconsideration,progressivesbelievethatfactoringindiversityallowsfortheidentiÞcationofawiderrangeofformsofexcellence;theypurposefullyaimtobreakdowntheoppositionbetweenÔstandardsofexcellenceÕandÔdiversitystandards.Sincethisisadebatethathasbeengoingonfor30yearsintheUnitedStates,wecannotclaimtoexhaustalltheaspectsandnuancesofitinthispaper.Ourgoalhereistounderstandhowdecision-makersinacademicselectionprocessesframetheiruseofdiversityandexcellenceintheaftermathoftheMichigandecision.UsinginterviewswithAmericanpanellistsservingonfellowshipfundingpanelsandwithAmericanelitepublicuniversityadministratorswhomakeuseofafÞrmativeaction,wearguethatacademicdecision-makersdonotconsiderdiversityandexcellenceasmutuallyexclusive,butratherfactorbothintheirdeÞnitionsofqualityandfairselection.UniversityadministratorswhodeÞneadmissionpoliciesuseacollectiveinsteadofanindividualnotionofacademicquality:theybelievethatcreatingadiversestudentbodyisessentialtoatrulyexcellenteducationalexperience.Becausestudentswithdiversebackgroundcontributetothecreationofadiverseenvironment,itislegitimatetofactorindiversitywhenmakingadmissiondecisions(onthispointseealsoStevens,2007).Inthecaseofpeerreview,awardsaregenerallymadetoapplicantswhodistinguishthemselvesintermsofexcellenceanddiversity,althoughinvaryingproportion.Bothgroupsofacademicdecision-makersusemeritanddiversityasmultipliers,ratherthanasalternativestandardsofevaluation.Inaddition,inbothcases,intervieweesbelievethatinorderfordiversitytobetakenseriously,decision-makersneedtomovebeyondraceandtakeintoconsiderationÔdiversediversitiesÕ,includingsocio-economicandinstitutionalinequality(classandfromwhatkindofschooltheapplicantcomesfrom,forinstance).Westartbybrießypresentingourdataandmethods.WethendiscusstheemergenceofdiversityasanissueinAmericanacademia.Finally,wepresenthowexcellenceanddiversityarediscussedintwoacademicdecision-makingprocesses:admissionattwoelitepublicuniversitiesandthedistributionofcompetitiveresearchfellowship.M.LamontandG.MoraesdaSilva Whilethesetwoprojectswereconductedwithdifferentobjectivesinmind,theybothdocumenttensionsandcomplementaritiesbetweenexcellenceanddiversityinacademicdecision-making.Inthissense,theycanbeviewedastwowindowsintoasamephenomena,albeitshapedbydifferentinstitutionalfactorsÑforinstance,legalconstrainshavebeenmuchmorecrucialforadmissiondecision-makingthanforthedistributionofresearchfellowship.Ofcourse,theselectionprocessestheyarepartofalsodifferinthetypesofpopulationtheytarget,theirdegreeofselectivity,andthecriteriaofselection.Nevertheless,itisusefultoapprehendthedynamicbetweendiversityandexcellencethroughtheseparticularlensesifwearetoimproveourunderstandingofevaluativepracticesinAmericanhighereducation.ThedebateondiversityinAmericanAcademiaTensionsbetweenmeritocracyanddemocracyremainatthecentreofacademicselec-tionprocessesintheUnitedStates.ThesheersizeoftheAmericanhighereducationsystem,itsspatialdispersionoveraverylargeterritory,itsinstitutionaldiversity(coveringpublicandprivateuniversities,aswellasresearchuniversities,smallliberalcollegesandcommunitycolleges),andthesocio-demographicdiversityofadministra-tors,faculty,andstudentsalike,keepthesetensionsalive.Againstsuchadiverselandscape,inbothofourcasestudies,decision-makersaretochoseapplicantsfromavarietyofgroups,andthoseselectedhavetobesomewhatrepresentativeofthebroaderpopulation.Thus,evaluatorslearntocombinevariousconsiderationstoachieveapparentlycontradictoryendssimultaneously.Thiscontrastswiththesituationinothercountries,especiallyinEurope,wheredespitecross-societaldifferences,nationalhighereducationsystemsgenerallyremainsmallerandlessheterogeneous,andthuslesssubjecttocomplicatedweighingofcompetingconsiderationswhenitcomestoassessingacademicorscholarlyachievements.Thedemocraticimpulseattenu-atesthesteepinstitutionalhierarchiesthatcharacteriseAmericanhighereducation.WhileAmericanethnicandracialdiversityhasincreasedsigniÞcantlyinthepastthirtyyearsduetoimmigration,unequalaccesstohighereducationÑtothepipe-lineÑremainsstrong.RecentstudiesdemonstratetherelativelylownumberofwomenandminorityfacultymembersintheupperlevelsoftheacademicstratiÞca-tionsystem(withtheirrepresentationdecreasingfromuntenuredandtenuredpos-itions,fromteaching-orientedinstitutionstoresearchuniversities,fromlowtohighrateofproductivitygroups).Thus,itissafetoconcludethatdiversityconsiderationsaffectallformsofselectioninAmericanhighereducation,rangingfromuniversityadmissionsanddepartmenttenuredecisions,totheawardingoffellowships.Ourgoalisnottoexplainhowweendupwithpersistingpatternsofinequalitydespiteeffortstofostergreaterdiversity.Instead,wewanttogainamorenuancedunder-standingofhowdiversityisfactoredinwhenitis.UniversityofCalifornia(UC)Regentsvs.BakkeSupremeCourtcasein1978(USSupremeCourt,1978)wastheÞrsttimediversitywasformallyusedtojustifytheconsiderationofnon-academiccriteriainselectiontopublicuniversities.SupremeCourtwasdividedÑfourjudgessupportedthepetitionersandfourM.LamontandG.MoraesdaSilva aboutotherkindsofdiversitytendstobesuperÞcial,andmostAmericanshaveconsiderabledifÞcultyinrelatingtheconceptofdiversitytoclassinequality.Moreover,inbothlegalandeverydaydiscoursesaboutdiversity,racialboundariesbetweenblacksandwhitesaretakenforgranted.Moreover,thosewhosupportdiversityinprinciplehavemixedfeelingstowardstheconsequencesofpoliciesimplementedtoencourageit.Ourinterviewssuggestthatdecision-makersinacademicselectionprocesseshaveabroaderunderstandingofdiversitythanthatdocumentedbyBellandHartman.Theyconsidermultipletypesofdiversity,e.g.institutionalandsocio-economic,andtakeintoaccountunequalaccesstoresources,withthegoalofpromotemoreequalchances.Evenmoreimportantly,theirdeÞnitionsofexcellenceÑeitherindividualorcollectiveÑembracethenotionofdiversity.Lostintranslation:re-deÞningdiversityinelitepublicuniversitiesaftertheMichiganSupremeCourtcaseThe1980shaveseenabacklashagainstafÞrmativeactionintheUnitedStates.Intheacademicworld,stateuniversitiesweremostaffectedduetotheirdependencyonstateÞnance(andpolitics!)andtheirlargenumberofstudents.The2003MichiganSupremeCourtdecisionswereinfavourofafÞrmativeactionlegality,butagainstthepointsystemusedbytheuniversity.TheSupremeCourtcasesbroughtdiversitybacktothecentreofpublicdebate.Ironically,theadministratorsweinterviewedbelievethattheresistancetoafÞrmativeactiondidnotdeclineafterthedecision.Theconceptofdiversityhasreceivedcriticismbothfromtheleftandfromtheright.Criticsfromtherightarguethatitunderminessocialcohesion,canpotentiallymakethelearningprocessmoredifÞcult,andviolateindividualrights.Criticsfromtheleftarguethatthepro-diversitydis-coursemasksthedeepinequalitiesthatareassociatedwiththediverseexperiencesofvariouscategoriesofstudents.AsputbyoneAfricanAmericanfemaleadmissionsofÞcer,ÔDiversitygotlostintranslation....Wemayhavewonthecourtcase,butnotnecessarilypublicopinionÕ.Thisevaluationseemstoholdtrueonceonelooksatstatereferendumsoutcomes:The309decisionoftheSupremeCourt,whichfollowedanotherchallengetodiver-sitycomingfromtheUniversityofCaliforniasystemin1998,forbadetheconsider-ationofraceinadmission,causingthenumberofminoritystudentstodecreasesigniÞcantly(Chavez,1998).InthecaseofAfricanAmericanstudents,enrolmentwentfrom6.8perhundredin1997to2.3in1998ontheBerkeleycampus.TheUni-versityofTexassystemwasalsoforbiddentofactorinraceinadmissionsÑalthoughituseditagainaftertheMichigandecision(Tiendaetal.,2003).ThreeyearsaftertheMichiganSupremeCourtdecisioninfavouroffactoringdiversityinadmissiondecisions,astateanti-diversitypoliciesreferendumwonthemajorityofvotes(Schmidt,2006).AllthesesetbacksshowthemixedfeelingsAmericanshavetowardstheimplementationofafÞrmativeactionanddiversitypolicies,especiallythosetargetingraceandethnicdiversity.WebelievethattheuniversityadministratorsM.LamontandG.MoraesdaSilva latitudetoselectthosewhocanbeneÞtthemostfromusandthosewhowecanbeneÞtthemostfrominourapplicantpool.AndthatistheadmissionsofÞceresponsibility;wecannotsolvewhathappenedinK-12[AsawhitemaleadmissionsofÞcerputsit:[Tocreatesocialmobilityandreducesocialinequality]iscertainlyagoal.IthinkitisamorecentralgoaltocreateavibrantintellectualcommunitythatwillbeneÞteveryone.[...thinkthebesteducationalenvironmentsarebuiltbystudentswhohavedifferentlifeexperiences,differentbackgrounds.Andthegoodthingaboutcollegeisthatitshouldbepromotingthatopen,respectfuldialogue.So,IthinkitisagoaltohelpcorrectsocialinequalitiesbutIdonÕtthinkitisthemaingoal,itisagoal.Educationalexperienceisasmuchofagoalasthesocialinequality,theneveryoneofthesestudentsbeneÞt.ThislastquotationpointsoutwhatweconsiderthecentralredeÞnitionofexcellencethroughtheinclusionofdiversity:excellencebecomesaninstitutionalratherthananindividualgoal.Creatingdiversitymeanscreatingarichereducationalenvironment.AndthatispartofacentralreconceptualisationofthegoalsofafÞrmativeactionthroughdiversitysinceBakke:itdoesnotsimplymeansgivingachancetoastudentwhowouldnotgetadmittedotherwise,itmeanscreatingthebestinstitutionalenvironmentthatwillgraduatethebeststudents.TwowhitemaleadmissionsofÞcersagree:IthinkauniversityshouldneveradmitanunqualiÞedstudent.Period.SotheÞrstques-tionisthatindividualqualiÞed,andbythatImeandotheyhaveareasonableexpectationorprobabilityofsuccess?AnswerthatquestionÞrst.Thenthesecondquestionis,inthatpool,whoyoucanchoosetoguaranteethebesteducationalexperienceforeveryone.Ifyouchoosethetopscoringstudentsinyouradmittingclass,youaregoingtoendupwithalotofstudentswhoareessentiallyalikeineveryway.[...]Youseeitisasmuchimportanttoproducethebestgraduatingclass,asitistoadmitthebestfreshmenclass.Becausewhatwehavecontroloveristhefouryeartheyarehere.Itisimportanttoustoproducethebestgraduatingclassandthathastoincludeexposuretodifferentcultures,differenteconomicbackgrounds,differentracesanddifferentethnicities.Intheselectioncommitteeyouhavetokeepinmindthatyouwanttoformacommunityoflearners,createacommunitywithstudentswhohavetheacademicpreparationtobesuc-cessful.Thatistherealquestion.Itisnot[whethersomeare]higherorloweracademicallyqualiÞed.Qualityiscantheybesuccessfulinyouracademicenvironment.Iftheycan,nowyoucreateasituationinwhichpeoplebaseofftheirbackgrounds,experiences,academicandsocialexperiencestheyallcomeintoaclassroom,theyallreadthesameassignmentfromafacultymember,butwhentheycomebacktogethertheyallinterpretitindifferentwaysbecauseoftheirbackgroundsandthatiswhenreallearningtakesplace.TheseuniversityofÞcersappeartobelievethatthepromotionofdiversityispartofthemissionoftheAmericanhighereducationalsystem.Itisthroughthepromotionofdiversitythattherichnessofthesystemiscreated.Thepossibilityofexchangingideaswithpeoplefromverydifferentbackgroundsallowsstudentstolearnandenrichthemselves.Diversityinthatsenseguaranteesratherthanthreatensexcellence.OneAfricanAmericanmaleadmissionsofÞcerexplained:Thewholeideaofhighereducationinthiscountryhasalwaysbeentherobustexchangeofideas.Peoplewithdifferentideas.TheydidnÕtsayrace,inthosedays,butitwasmoredifferentregionsofthecountry.DifferentperspectivesonaparticularissuetobebroughtM.LamontandG.MoraesdaSilva Diversediversities:grantpanellistsunderstandingsofdiversityingrantSimilarlytopublicuniversitieswhoareopenlyinfavourofdiversityandafÞrmativeactionpolicies,thefundingagenciesincludedinthisstudyrequirethatpanellistsdonotdiscriminateandinsomecases,theyrequirethatpanellistsfactordiversityintotheirdecisions.Itisreasonabletoexpectthatallpanelliststakeitintoconsider-ationwhenmakingawards;diversityÕsrelevancetoacademicevaluationiswidelyacknowledgedinsettingswherepanelmemberstypicallyperformtheirday-to-dayworkasevaluatorsofcolleaguesandstudents.Intheworldoffundingpanels,diversitytakesmanyformsandcomesinmanyhues:panellistsconsiderracialandgenderdiversity,buttheyassignmostweighttoinstitutional(i.e.wheretheapplicantteaches)anddisciplinarydiversity:34%oftheintervieweesmentioninstitutionaldiversityanddisciplinarydiversityascriteriaofevaluation,comparedtoonly15%whomentionethno-racialorgenderdiversitywhendiscussinghowtheywentaboutevaluatingproposals.Additionally,framingthefundingofwomenandpeopleofcolourastheextensionofabroaderprincipleminimiseswhatcouldbeperceivedasanantinomybetweenpromotingexcellenceandfairness.DiversityintopicsisalsoapopularcriterionbutmoredifÞculttointer-pret.Onlyonerespondentmentionsgeographicdiversity.TheseÔDiversediversitiesÕ(Bail,2008)arevaluedasanintrinsicgoodthatcontributestotheoverallqualityoftheresearchenvironment.Awhitehistoryprofessorsays,ÔIdobelieveinhavingamix,asmuchofamixaspossible,asmuchdiversityofwhateverkind.AndthatincludesdiversityofbackgroundortrainingorinterestormaybeevenageorpersonalityÕ.Diversityisalsovaluedasmeanstoredresspastinjustices,leveltheplayingÞeld,andshapetheacademicpipeline.However,meritanddiversityoftenactasmultipliers,ratherthanasalternativestandardsofevaluation,asverygoodbutnotperfectproposalsarepushabovetheproverbiallinebecauseofdiversityconsideration.OnewhiteEnglishscholarassertsÔItÕsimportantforfoundationssuchasthesetoencouragetheproductionofaswidearangeofknowledgeaspossibleÕ,explainingthatthisÔhelpsuschecksomeofthebiasesthatweaseva-luatorsmaybringin.AndIthinkitalsoallowsustoÔleveltheplayingÞeldÕ.ThatÕsametaphorthatgetsusedoftenintermsofracialorclassdiversity,whichItotallythinkisimportantÕ.AnAfrican-AmericanpanellistalsodefendsfactoringindiversitybyappealingtofairnessbecauseofthisunevenplayingÞeld.Ashenotes:YouÕvegotpeopleapplyingwhoteachatinstitutionswheretheyhavemuchheavierteachingloadsandhavenÕthadopportunitiestopublishasmuch.ItisoftenthecasethattheirproposalsmaynotlookasslickandpolishedÑIshouldsaypolished,IshouldnÕtsayslick.TheymaynothavebeenabletomaintainconnectionstoleadersintheÞeldwhosenamescarrysomekindofweightorwhomayhavesomekindoffacilitywithlettersofrecommendationorkindoflikeanicestylewhereyoucommunicatewiththepanel.M.LamontandG.MoraesdaSilva theseorganisationswerenotinclinedtofundthem.SheexplainsthatsheÔwouldnotargueforthemaswomenÕsstudiesprojects,butasbeingexcellentÕ,statingthatgeneralstandardsofexcellencesandstandardspertainingtofeministscholarshiphavebecomebarelydistinguishableovertime.SocialscienceresearchhascontributedimportantÞndingsindiscriminationinperformanceevaluation(Castilla,2006).Forinstance,awidelycitedstudyofpeer-reviewedevaluationsofpostdoctoralresearchapplicationsshowthatreviewersconsistentlygavefemaleapplicantsloweraveragescoresthanmaleapplicants,despitesimilarlevelsofproductivity(Wenneras&Wold,1997).Morebroadly,weknowthatmenÕstraitsaregenerallyviewedasmorevaluablethanwomenÕs,andthatmenarediffusedlyjudgedasmorecompetent(Ridgeway,1997).Manypanellistsareawareoftheliteratureonbias.Awhitehistorian,whenaskedhowhedealswithquestionsofdiversityasheevaluatesproposals,says:I[donÕt]foregroundthem,butItrytotakethemintoseriousconsideration.[...]AfterIÕvegonethroughabatchofproposalsIlookforapattern.AretheonesthatIÕmscoringhigherdistinguishedbygender,bydiscipline?[Bybeing]atresearchuniversities,andsoforth.Twoverydifferentexamples:Onewaswhen[]anassistantprofessorwasapplyingforanadvancedresearchproject.Anumberofusremarkedthatthispersonseemedtobeunder-employed,oremployedatarelativelynon-prestigiousuniversityandcertainlydeservedabetterpositionbutatthispointstartingoutverylow.timesomeoneremarked,ÔHey,twoofthelastthreewerenotatmajoruniversitiesÕ.Andsuddenlysomebodyattendedtothatmatter,andwesaid,ÔYes,thatistrueÕ.Wewantedtomakesurewewerenotblindlyignoringthosekindsofthings.Butitisinstitutionaldiversitythatseemstobethemostcentralconcernofpanel-lists.WinnerscannotallcomefromafewselectinstitutionsintheNortheastÑthiswouldunderminebeliefsinthelegitimacyofthesystemasawhole,fromamerito-craticandademocraticstandpoint.ItwouldalsobeviewedasanorganisationalfailureandasbetrayingpoorefÞciencyorprocedures.Duringpost-deliberationinter-views,morethanone-thirdofthepanellistsmentionedinstitutionalafÞrmativeactionasacriterionofevaluation.FundingofÞcerscansometimesurgepanelliststoapplydifferentstandardsdependingontheresourcesofferedbytheapplicantÕsinstitutionandthestageatwhichtheapplicantisinhishercareer.ThechairofapanelsaysthatinaneffortÔtoavoidclustering[ofwinners]atthoseinstitutionsthatarebestatdoingthisÕ,heprovidedpanelmemberswiththisguideline:ÔTrytogetthebestofclusters,thenspreadthataround.Imean,donÕtgettwelveanthropologistsfromChicago.Takethebestofthoseandthengotothebestofthe[onesfrom]MichiganÕ.Evenwithoutthiskindofencouragement,panellistspracticeinstitutionalafÞrma-tiveactionbecausetheybelievethatprivate,elite,andresearchuniversitiesareprivi-legedinthecompetitionprocess.SuchinstitutionsputanarrayofresourcesatthedisposalofapplicantsÑincludinginternalgraduateresearchfellowshipcompetitions,closermentoringandmoreextensivegraduatecourseofferings.Onewhitewomanpanellistnotesthat:Occasionallyyougetaproposalfromsomeonethatisreallyoffthebeatentrackoftheseresearchuniversities.Clearly,theyareatabigdisadvantagebothinnothavingcolleaguesM.LamontandG.MoraesdaSilva considerationofneedsanddistributivefairness,inresponseinparttothehistori-callyascriptivesystemofdistributionthatfavouredeliteinstitutionssuchasOxfordandCambridge.Lookingahead,futurecomparativeresearchshouldfullyconsiderthemeaninggiventodiversityacrosshighereducationsystems,themechanismsputinplacetopromoteit,andtheconßictsthisgenerates.ThevariousEuropeanhighereducationsystemsarerespondingverydifferentlytothechallengesraisedbythegrowingethnicandracialdiversityofthepotentialstudentpopulation.TheAmericancasemayserveasaharbingerofthingstocome,orstandasacounterexampleagainstwhichtodeÞnenationalobjectives.Ineithercase,theAmericananswertodiversityinhighereducationcannotbeignored.Itisourhopethatthispapermayhelpsettheagendaforfuturereßectionsandpoliciesaroundthisnewchallenge.AcknowledgementsTheauthorsarelistedinalphabeticalorderbutcontributedequallytothispaper.1.Inordertopreservetheanonymityofinterviewees,itwasdecidednottoincludethenameoftheuniversitiesinwhichinterviewswereconducted.2.InthecaseofAfrican-Americanfaculty,forinstance,Allenetal.(2000)showÔserious,persistentobstaclestotheirrecruitment,retention,andsuccessÕ(seealsoJacobs,forthcoming;andPerna,2001).Onproblemsaffectingthepresenceofwomenintheacademicpipeline,seeespeciallyNationalAcademyofScience(2006).3.Beforethat,theargumentofdiversityhadbeenusedbyprivateeliteinstitutionstocreatequotastoexcludeJewishcandidates.4.SeealsothenotionofÔdiversityimperativeÕproposedbyRoska&Stevens(2007).Allen,W.R.,Epps,E.G.,Guillory,E.A.,Suh,S.A.&Bonous-Hammarth,M.(2000)TheBlackacademic:facultystatusamongAfricanAmericansinU.S.highereducation,JournalofNegro,69(1Ð2),112Ð127.Bail,C.(2008)TheconÞgurationofsymbolicboundariesagainstimmigrantsinEurope,AmericanSociologicalReview,73(1),37Ð59.Bell,J.M.&Hartmann,D.(2007)Diversityineverydaydiscourse:theculturalambiguitiesandconsequencesofÔHappyTalkÕ,AmericanSociologicalReview,72(6),895Ð914.Bowen,W.G.&Bok,D.C.(1998)Theshapeoftheriver:long-termconsequencesofconsideringraceincollegeanduniversityadmissions(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress).Castilla,E.(2006)Gender,race,andmeritocracyinorganizationalcareers(Cambridge,MA,DepartmentofOrganizationalBehavior,MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology).Chavez,L.(1998)Thecolorbind:Californiasbattletoendaf rmativeaction(Berkeley,CA,UniversityofCaliforniaPress).Guinier,L.&Sturm,S.(2001)Whosquali ed?(Boston,MA,Beacon).Jacobs,J.A.(forthcoming)Womeninhighereducation(NewYork,NY,RussellSageFoundation).Lamont,M.(2009)Howprofessorsthink:insidethecuriousworldofacademicjudgment(Cambridge,MA,HarvardUniversityPress).M.LamontandG.MoraesdaSilva