Our country has a strong tradition that celebrates cultural and ethnic diversity, and honors political and religious differences among citizens. In recent years, universities have become among the most diverse communities in the United States.
Yet there are few more divisive issues in American society than the mechanisms used for achieving this diversity. Consider, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court case challenging University of Michigan admission policies that take into account race and ethnicity in achieving a diverse student body. This case received a record number of amicus briefs, from civil rights groups, labor unions, the military, student groups, colleges and universities, and corporations.
For university presidents, affirmative action raises important questions about the role of educational institutions and their relationship to society, and it is from the perspective of an educator that I would like to address this issue.
Stanford has long recognized the importance of a diverse student body to achieve its educational goals and to meet its responsibility in helping produce leaders who are equipped to face increasingly complex social and political realities. One of the goals of the founding grant is “to promote the public welfare.” More than 100 years later, choosing students for admission to Stanford and other highly selective universities has become an incredibly difficult and intricate process. Although a wide range of considerations is taken into account, at Stanford, academic performance and intellectual potential are always the highest priorities. Historically, we have relied on consideration of race and ethnicity as one factor among many in our admission process to help achieve diversity.
That said, any advantage given to a particular trait, other than some objective measure of academic merit, introduces a value that is subjective. This is true whether the trait is race, athletic skill, legacy status, leadership ability or any other attribute. Although such consideration does not legally or effectively create a quota, it is reasonable to ask why we would support any such system, even one with perceived benefits.
Many factors play a role in creating the best learning environment. In my regular conversations with students and faculty, they often cite diverse perspectives as a critical component in Stanford’s singular educational experience. People coming from different backgrounds bring different understandings and approaches to academic questions. Diversity in its myriad forms—geographic, socioeconomic, gender, racial and ethnic—expands the intellectual base of the individuals engaged in research, teaching and learning. The result benefits all students and faculty.
Beyond that, by making our admission decisions on a case-by-case basis, we also are able to consider economic and educational circumstances that may have limited the opportunity afforded to some of our applicants. Our dean of admission, Robin Mamlet, has said that numbers can be “misleadingly precise.” Objective data such as SAT scores often do not speak to the challenges an applicant has overcome. We believe all applicants deserve the close attention that recognizes both their accomplishments and the context in which they were achieved. Remember that, in the end, the admission decision must strive to be more than a formulaic measurement process; it should aim to select those students who, with the benefit of a Stanford education, are likely to become major contributors, in the widest sense, to our society.
Stanford remains committed to the importance of diversity in the broadest sense, and we believe that the principles set forth in the Supreme Court’s 1978 Bakke decision are practical and appropriate means to achieve such diversity. That case, while striking down formulaic quotas, affirmed that race could be one of a number of factors considered in the college admission process. As a result, Stanford, with MIT, IBM, DuPont, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering and the National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering, signed an amicus brief supporting the Bakke principles in the case now before the Supreme Court.
Will there come a time when we no longer need to consider race in achieving a diverse class? I am an optimist. I believe, to paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King, that one day we will live in a nation where all people will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. It will be a day when the quality of our public elementary and high schools is uniformly high and no longer manifests the inequalities so rampant today. Until then, I believe that we must take positive steps to fulfill Jane Stanford’s directive that the University should keep “open an avenue whereby the deserving and exceptional may rise through their own efforts from the lowest to the highest station in life.”
