The general idea behind much of what is called ‘affirmative action’ or ‘diversity’ policy is to help boost the prospects of disavantaged groups.

So, for example, in looking at academic potential for prospective students universities might ‘take into account’ wider factors beyond mere exam results, to help give a chance to those students who may not have had top-end education or opportunities from the start.

Fair enough?

Various objections can be made to different parts of this policy. Who identifies which ‘groups’ or communities are disadvantaged? If they are in fact disadvantaged, is letting members of this group/community into universities where they might struggle to keep up a wise policy? Are people who get into university under such programmes likely to feel stigmatised in some way?

Along comes a new approach: to look at how far those ‘affirmative action’ students who get into tough STEM subjects (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) in fact progress. How many stay the course and do well, and how many can just not do the work and drift away into less testing subjects? If the attrition rate is unusually high, what might be done to help?

You’d think that universities want to know whether their policies in this area work. And you’d be wrong:

Colleges and universities are committed to the mythology that diversity happens merely because they want it and put resources into it, and that all admitted students arrive with all the prerequisites necessary to flourish in any way they choose. Administrators work hard to conceal the actual differences in academic preparation that almost invariably accompany the aggressive use of preferences. Any research that documents the operation and effects of affirmative action therefore violates this “color-blind” mythology and accompanying norms; minority students are upset, correctly realizing that either the research is wrong or that administrators have misled them.

In this scenario, administrators invariably resort to the same strategy: dismiss the research without actually lying about it; reassure the students that the researchers are misguided, but that the university can’t actually punish the researchers because of “academic freedom”. Note that in this dynamic, “academic freedom” becomes a device to protect the administration, not the faculty doing the research!

Surprised? Not. Read also the excellent suggestions as to what universities might say on this issue, instead of what they do say… And then the lively comments on what such research shows and why.