CLYDESDALE HELPS SHAPE NATIONAL DEBATE ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Well before the Grutter v. Bollinger case at the University of Michigan Law School ignited the world of academia with the sparks of a Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action practices in higher education,Tim Clydesdale, sociology professor at the College, was immersed in his own research on affirmative action and law school admission. Now, he’s finding himself at the forefront of a national debate on the question, “Does affirmative action hurt minority law students?”

First reported in The Chronicle of Higher Education in mid-November, the national debate began when scholars and critics caught wind of the claims made in a forthcoming study by Richard H. Sander, professor of law at the University of California at Los Angeles.The report of Sander’s study, “A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools,” is scheduled to appear in an upcoming issue of Stanford Law Review. In it, he argues that “ending racial preferences in law school admissions would increase the number of black lawyers because it would help ensure that students attend law schools where they are more likely to succeed.” (Mangan, Kathleen S. “Does Affirmative Action Hurt Black Law Students?” The Chronicle of Higher Education 12 November 2004.)

Sander’s claims are based on his interpretation of a data set compiled from a comprehensive study of bar-passage rates conducted between 1991 and 1997.The study tracked 27,000 students who entered law school in 1991, and discovered an extensive gap between the grades and test scores of minority students and those of their white counterparts. Critics, Clydesdale included, were quick to contest Sander’s claims, accusing him of leaping to unsupported conclusions.

Clydesdale refuted Sander’s assertions with evidence from his own research. In 2000, Clydesdale received a grant from the Law School Admission Council (www.lsac.org) to work with and interpret the same data set from which Sander drew his recent conclusions; however, Clydesdale’s examination yielded contradictory results.

Clydesdale reported his findings in the fall 2004 issue of Law & Social Inquiry, a quarterly multidisciplinary research journal published by The University of Chicago Press. Conclusions drawn in the article titled, “A Forked River Runs Through Law School: Toward Understanding Race, Gender, Age, and Related Gaps in Law School Performance and Bar Passage” have been referenced repeatedly as the debate continues to escalate.

While Clydesdale agrees that there are significant achievement gaps to be concerned about, Sander’s suggestion of throwing out affirmative action all together, Clydesdale argues, is not the remedy. Clydesdale’s assessment found that minority students (older students, women, and those with differing abilities included) often feel like outsiders in law school, regardless of their ability, and that those feelings of intimidation can lead to poor performance.

“[My research] doesn’t argue a case for or against affirmative action,” Clydesdale said. “I originally set out to determine what factors make for the success of anyone in law school.”

Clydesdale’s research has been referenced alongside Sander’s claims in the November Chronicle of Higher Education article, as well as in subsequent Los Angeles Times and New York Times articles on the subject.

So what’s next in this debate? Clydesdale and colleagues David L. Chambers and Richard O. Lempert, both of the University of Michigan Law School, and William C. Kidder of the Equal Justice Society have drafted a response to Sander’s report, where they address the instances in which Sander lacked appropriate support for his claim.The article, “The Real Impact of Eliminating Affirmative Action in Law Schools: An Empirical Critique of Richard Sander’s Stanford Law Review Study,” is due to come out in the spring issue of Stanford Law Review.

Return to TCNJ update Home