In this piece on Inside Higher Ed, University of Colorado education professor Michael Moses complains that people in Michigan just aren’t getting good information about the splendors of affirmative action in higher education, and then very selectively picks various facts that he thinks should easily settle the matter, such as that after California passed Prop 209, fewer minority students made it into the prestige law schools in the state. And of course, he mentions the Supreme Court’s Grutter decision, which he takes as proof that there are great educational benefits from “diversity.” In truth, the justices in Grutter, who are not experts in data analysis or educational policy, never really looked at the University of Michigan’s alleged evidence on “educational benefits.”
Moses overlooks some very powerful work that demolishes his position.
The University of Michigan’s “educational benefit” argument was subjected to devastating analysis in the amicus brief filed by the National Association of Scholars in the University of Michigan case. You can read it here.
Also, Princeton professor Russ Nieli has written a paper entitled The Changing Shape of the River: Affirmative Action and Recent Social Science Research that covers a wealth of research showing that the supposed benefits of “affirmative action” are illusory. You can read Nieli’s paper here.
The pro-racial preferences crowd would have you believe that the people who are in favor of MCRI are just a bunch of ill-informed yahoos who haven’t looked at the facts. The facts, however, do not lend any support to the notion that racial preferences in college admissions is a sound policy.