[bfsa] NACME

[Claudette Womack]

New Report Offers Guidance for Enhancing Diversity in Science and
Engineering, 
as Attacks on Minority Recruitment Threaten U.S. Competitiveness 

 



More than a year after the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the value of
diversity in higher education but struck down formulaic or points-based
approaches to undergraduate admissions, a new report attempts to clear up
the confusion created by the dual rulings. 

Standing Our Ground: A Guidebook for STEM Educators in the Post-Michigan Era
-- released Monday by AAAS, the world's largest general science society, and
NACME, the National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering --
clarifies legally defensible options for protecting diversity in science and
engineering programs. 

 

"In the particular context of science and engineering, this country's
under-utilization of its human resources is a problem of critical proportion
that will, if ignored, seriously impinge on the national and economic
security interests of this country," the report concludes. 

Standing Our Ground proposes eight "design principles" for increasing the
participation of minorities in science and engineering. Most importantly,
the report urges campus leaders to specify diversity goals within their
institutional missions, noting the lack of legal guidance from the U.S.
Administration, and by the intimidation tactics of special interest groups. 

"Without specific intent and legal guidance, minority recruitment,
enrollment, and support is inhibited," said AAAS President Shirley Ann
Jackson, president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and a report
contributor. "The need to promote educational and workforce diversity is
critical to America's future competitiveness on the global stage. Without a
strong science and engineering workforce our economic and national security
interests are at risk." 

The Phase III (Hart-Rudman) Report of the U.S. Commission on National
Security, issued only months before the September 11, 2001 terrorist
attacks, asserted that the "failure to manage properly science, technology
and education for the common good over the next quarter century" is "a
greater threat to U.S. national security over the next quarter century than
any potential conventional war that we might imagine." 

In fact, said John Brooks Slaughter, president and chief executive officer
of NACME, "Improving minority participation at all levels of higher
education, especially in scientific and engineering disciplines, is critical
for America. In this time of momentous global advances in science and
technology, our country can no longer afford to have a sizable and growing
portion of its population underrepresented in these increasingly important
fields." 

Standing Our Ground, emerging from a recent think-tank sponsored by the
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, provides legal guidance on two Michigan rulings
that affirmed the importance of a diverse learning environment, but struck
down the use of race as a quantitative "plus factor" in undergraduate
admissions decisions. The mixed Grutter and Gratz messages, issued in June
2003, triggered confusion among academic, non-profit, and federal
institutions seeking to extend the benefits of education to all. 

Historically, the U.S. federal government has helped institutions to
navigate such rulings, by providing legal interpretations, usually through
the Justice Department. Yet, the report notes, "It has been over a year
since the Michigan cases, and even the Office of Civil Rights remains
silent," except for two reports on "race-neutral alternatives," the
effectiveness of which have been questioned by analysts. 

At the same time, "Universities have been subjected to a campaign of
intimidation so that a bunker mentality now prevails, despite the fact that
targeted recruitment is still perfectly legal," said report co-author
Shirley M. Malcom, director of Education & Human Resources at AAAS. Since
the Michigan rulings, two advocacy groups -- the Center for Equal
Opportunities and the American Civil Rights Institute -- have questioned an
array of minority recruitment and other intervention programs. According to
The Chronicle of Higher Education (19 March, 2004), these two groups have
sent some 1,000 letters to colleges since last summer, threatening to file
complaints with the U.S. Office for Civil Rights. Further, the National
Association of Scholars said 23 March this year that it was sending letters
to "selective public colleges" in 20 states, demanding details on
"university policies, practices, or procedures, formal or informal, relating
to the use of racial and ethnic considerations in admissions to or
eligibility for any undergraduate, graduate, or professional school program,
activity, or benefit." 

How can program administrators protect diversity goals in the post-Michigan
era? Standing Our Ground features a "legal primer" to help guide university
counsels in interpreting the Grutter and Gratz rulings. It also describes
eight "design principles" that may serve as a checklist for faculty and
administrators alike. In summary, the report notes, "There is no
cookie-cutter approach" that will work in all settings. Instead, explains
report co-author Daryl E. Chubin, director of the AAAS Center for Advancing
Science & Engineering Capacity, "We propose that universities take a
program-by-program approach, and be mindful that 'race-neutral alternatives'
are not required; they simply must be considered." 

Specifically, Standing Our Ground provides guidelines or design principles
for developing legally defensible programs focused on the preparation of
minorities, women, and persons with disabilities for careers in science,
mathematics, and engineering. Most importantly, the guidelines urge
university leaders to ensure that diversity efforts fit within a broader
mandate. "Universities need to take on a strong leadership role that
unambiguously states a commitment to diversity in their mission statements,"
the AAAS-NACME report concludes. Planners also are urged, for example, to
specify program goals and target populations; to define the program's
character so that any consideration of race is "not mechanical, but
flexible;" to conduct evaluation and research on outcomes; and to pursue
diverse faculty recruitment and retention. Campus leaders must be "willing
to take risks in order to realize the rewards inherent in a more diverse
campus or organization," the report notes. 

Chubin adds: "Standing Our Ground provides practical advice on the problems
of bringing minorities into science and engineering fields, offering
strategies that go beyond holistic evaluation in admissions while preserving
the university's right to recruit and serve a diverse student population." 

The full report can be found here
<http://nacmeenews.c.topica.com/maacH11abatm6a8DkzDcaeQyfF/> here. 

  _____  

Since 1974, the
<http://nacmeenews.c.topica.com/maacH11abatm5a8DkzDcaeQyfF/> National Action
Council for Minorities in Engineering, Inc. (NACME) has provided leadership
and support for the national effort to increase the representation of
successful African American, American Indian and Latino men and women in
engineering and technology, math- and science-based careers. 

The  <http://nacmeenews.c.topica.com/maacH11abatm7a8DkzDcaeQyfF/> American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is the world's largest
general scientific society, and publisher of the journal, Science. AAAS was
founded in 1848, and includes some 262 affiliated societies and academies of
science, serving 10 million individuals. 

  _____  

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ysu.edu/pipermail/bfsa/attachments/20041025/886f3b7e/attachment.htm