Article summary of How university diversity rationales inform student preferences and outcomes by Starck et al. - 2021 - Chapter

What is this article about?

Higher educational institutions seem to embrace diversity and inclusion, and there are different rationales available for doing so. It seems that rationales which assert that diversity provides educational benefits (and is thus instrumental useful), seem to be consistently favored by the U.S. Supreme Court. In the current study, it was examined how instrumental, as opposed to moral, rationales for diversity shape the expectations and experiences of racial majority and minority group members. It was hypothesized that instrumental diversity rational should:

Be especially appealing to White Americans but not to low-status racial minorities. There are three reasons for this hypothesis. First, the purported educational benefits described in instrumental diversity rationales largely serve to provide educational benefits to White individuals. Second, instrumental rationales likely afford a greater sense of belonging to White Americans compared to moral rationales. Organizations than acknowledge and celebrate racial diversity tend to make White individuals feel excluded, and instrumental rationales can lead them to feel more included. Third, instrumental rationales as opposed to moral rationales may alleviate feelings of social identity threat for White Americans, who are often concerned with being stereotypes as ‘prejudiced’. There is also reason to think that for racial minority groups, this preference is not shared. First, the outcomes highlighted of diversity often pertain to the outcomes for White students. Second, it is not clear whether either diversity rationale would also encourage a sense of belonging for racial minorities. Third, instrumental rational might amplify social identity threat for low-status minorities who are stigmatized in educational domains, in comparison to moral rationales.

Dominate diversity discourse in higher education. It was expected that, if White Americans indeed prefer instrumental rational, that their relatively high numerical representation and power would incentivize university policy makers to adopt approaches to appeal to them. Second, universities may utilize instrumental rationales in order to comply with legal precedent. Third, rules that affirm instrumental rationales might make them seem like the default, normative approach to diversity. Based on these ideas, it was expected that universities would be more likely to utilize the instrumental compared to moral rationales.

Be associated with worse relative outcomes for low-status minority students. This hypothesis is based on the finding that instrumental rationales diminish the extent to which people focus specifically on racial representation in their diversity pursuits. This might lead community members to perceive weaker institutional commitments to racial diversity, and is thus less effective in compelling them to comply with or advance this commitment in their own actions.

What can be concluded?

In this study, it was found that instrumental rationales are indeed preferred by White, but not Black Americans. In addition, instrumental rationales were understood as suiting White students best. It was also found that they are the most common approach to diversity in higher education, and that, especially in the absence of a moral approach, they are associated with greater racial disparities in graduation rates. This study thus concludes that the most common approach to diversity in higher education is one that reflects the preferences of White Americans, and privileges the outcomes of them. In addition, these findings support the perspective that diversity and inclusion efforts gain traction when they serve to advance the interests of the majority group. However, these findings could also be interpreted as that moral interpretations are preferred by Black Americans and disfavored by White Americans, and suite Black students the best.