Promise and Dilemma: Perspectives on Racial Diversity and Higher Education.

Promise and Dilemma: Perspectives on Racial Diversity and Higher Education by Eugene Y. Lowe. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 1999, 206 pages. $29.95, Cloth, ISBN 0-691-00489-7.

In March 1996, the annual Princeton Conference on Higher Education was held on the campus of Princeton University. Sponsored by Princeton and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the conference focused on several challenges facing American colleges and universities at the close of the twentieth century. Presenters addressed issues of racial diversity and affirmative action in student admissions at two conference sessions. Three years later, Princeton University Press published a collection of some of their papers in Promise and Dilemma: Perspectives on Racial Diversity and Higher Education, a 206-page volume edited by Eugene Y. Lowe.

Lowe's anthology includes articles on race-based affirmative action in student admissions, diversity, and the promotion of high academic achievement by non-Asian minorities. Considered collectively, the articles in Promise and Dilemma describe an antinomy in contemporary higher education as institutions struggle to reconcile their more recent commitment to the social values of diversity and pluralism with their longstanding commitment to individualistically oriented values of merit and fairness. Although Lowe's stated purpose is to examine the current status of affirmative action and diversity in selective higher education, the articles have significant implications for community colleges.

The opening article by Lowe briefly summarizes the history of affirmative action and racial diversity at selective higher education institutions. It also introduces articles by L. Scott Miller, Neil Smelser, Chang-Lin Tien, and others.

Lowe observes that traditionally American colleges and universities have been concerned with providing students an education that will enhance their lives and the well-being of their communities. The promise of selective higher education, simply stated, was this: Students who gained admission and worked hard to complete their studies could reach the earthly and secular promised land--material success and intellectual enlightenment. (The Biblical analogy is quite intentional for Lowe, an Episcopal priest and religion scholar.) Of course, many Americans could not reach the promised land because they were not welcome in higher education.

According to Lowe, the unequal distribution of educational opportunities in the past now presents institutions with a dilemma. Colleges and universities are "inextricably bound up in the history that roots them, while, at the same time, they seek to transform individuals and serve their host communities" (p. 7). This dilemma was apparent, Lowe observed, in the 1978 United States Supreme Court case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, and the 1996 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Hopwood v. State of Texas. Each of these court cases offered evidence that a commitment to individualistic values like fairness and merit in the student admissions process could not easily accommodate a commitment to social values like diversity and pluralism. In Bakke race-based affirmative action was given tepid approval (Glazer, 1979; Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978). In Hopwood, it was flatly rejected (Hopwood v. State of Texas, 1996; Olivas, 1996).

Lowe concludes his article with the assessment that, "progress towards inclusiveness has been impressive, but much hard work remains" (p. 41). According to Lowe, the hard work must begin with college and university presidents. These leaders must make diversity a real priority on campus. Once campus leaders demonstrate a clear commitment to this social value, institutions can begin to move beyond "the dilemma into a deeper appreciation--and belief about--the promise of diversity in our institutions of higher education and in our lives together" (p. 41-2).

Miller's discussion of the promotion of high academic achievement by non-Asian minorities complements Lowe's article nicely. Whereas Lowe's work reviews the theoretical and legal development of affirmative action and the notion of diversity, Miller's essay focuses on a more concrete subject. Miller presents data showing that in the context of traditional measures of academic performance, "non-Asian minorities are underrepresented among high achievers, from the primary grades through graduate school" (p. 48). This observation is followed by a discussion of the possible causes of this phenomenon such as differences in economic resources, racial and ethnic prejudice, and cultural differences among groups. Last, the author presents his recommendations for increasing the number of non-Asian high achievers and reports on the success that schools like the University of Colorado at Boulder have had with specific programs focused on this objective.

Smelser's article chronicles the intense political atmosphere that surrounded discussion of affirmative action in student admissions at the University of California (UC) in the mid 1990s. By the late 1980s, he notes, UC's implementation of affirmative action in student admissions went "very far in comparison with other educational institutions in the country" (p. 182). This was eventually followed by the UC Board of Regents' prohibition of affirmative action in 1995 and the passage of the California Civil Rights Initiative in 1996. The decision by the Board of Regents followed sharp disagreements between UC administrators, faculty, staff, and students, on one hand, and regents and political leaders, such as Governor Pete Wilson, on the other.

Chang-Lin Tien, former chancellor at UC Berkeley, endorses Smelser's description of the contentious affirmative action debate in California. Chang-Lin and Smelser believe that the resolution of the current political and cultural disputes in California higher education will not come as a result of settling the affirmative action issue. Instead, the fundamental challenge is to resolve the underlying racial, ethnic, and gender struggles.

By any reasonable reckoning, the essayists who contributed to Promise and Dilemma accomplished the editor's stated purpose: examining the current status of affirmative action and diversity in selective higher education. Nevertheless, students of the American community college will be disappointed that the contributors to this anthology fail to connect the lines of observation and argument with two-year institutions. A truly complete account of affirmative action and diversity in selective higher education would have acknowledged the importance of the community college.

For example, Lowe and Miller express concern with the need to increase the number of underrepresented minorities in selective undergraduate and graduate programs. Yet, they fail to say anything about one of the largest populations of non-Asian minority students in higher education, those enrolled at community colleges (Cohen & Brawer, 1996). Every community college president can offer accounts of disadvantaged minority students transferring to the flagship state university. Those of us who teach at community colleges know that many more do not transfer because of personal and financial, not educational, challenges.

Similarly, Smelser and Chang-Lin describe the volatile political situation in the UC system, but fail to say anything about how the demise of affirmative action at California's flagship institutions might affect the California State University system or the largest community college system in the nation.

Promise and Dilemma provides a very good account of affirmative action and diversity in selective higher education. For community college advocates, however, the anthology raises more questions than it answers. Can community colleges play a greater role in contributing to the diversity of senior institutions? Can they do more to identify promising non-Asian minority students? Can better collaboration between community colleges and four-year institutions be one of the first steps towards maintaining diverse student bodies as support for race-based affirmative action seems to be waning?

As Lowe notes, diversity efforts have stalled at some institutions because they continue to "manifest characteristics of an unconscious institutional racism expressed in the form of a hegemonic assumption and shared belief about the `normalness' of the social and intellectual traditions of the place" (p. 41). The challenge facing selective institutions in enrolling underrepresented minority students will only be increased if unconscious institutional racism is paired with unconscious institutional ignorance of community colleges as a potential source of competitive students.

References

Cohen, A.M., & Brawer, F.B. (1996). The American community college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Glazer, N. (1979). Commentary: A viable compromise on minority admissions. Washington University Law Quarterly, 93, 93-104.

Hopwood v. State of Texas, 78 F. 3d 932 (Ct. App., 1996).

Olivas, M.A. (1996, March 29). The decision is flatly, unequivocally wrong. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 42, 29, B3.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).

Clifford P. Harbour serves as dean of Academic Programs at Durham Technical Community College in Durham, N.C.