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’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.
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.
|