Last week the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case Fisher v. University of Texas, a case that will have important implications for affirmative action policies across the U.S. that use, among other criteria, a student’s race. To understand the case, the importance of social science research in informing the Court’s decision and the larger context of affirmative action policies, I sat down with Liliana Garces, Assistant Professor of Higher Education at Penn State. Dr. Garces filed an amici curiae, or friend of the court brief, this fall in which 823 social scientists signed onto supporting the University of Texas’s holistic admissions policy that considers race in order to achieve broader student body diversity. The brief draws on the social science evidence that supports the benefits of diversity on campus (for example enhanced cross-racial engagement) and the necessity to use race in order to achieve diversity (as opposed to other indicators such as SES). In our conversation, Dr. Garces emphasized the importance of empirical evidence for informing the court and the importance of larger institutional practices in shaping access to higher education.
Dr. Garces believes that researchers have a role in translating empirical evidence for a legal audience so that the social science community can be more effective in influencing the legal arena. But she adds that this is a dual role, because there can also be a lack of awareness in the social science research community as to the importance of law and framing research to address critical legal questions. Bringing together such a wide group of researchers for the University of Texas brief has been a practice in these roles, “it’s been an amazing experience to have the opportunity to bring voice to the social science community in a case that could potentially have such large implications for educators. You don’t always have the opportunity to speak to the Supreme Court on these issues, much less to bring over 800 social scientists to present the evidence that we believe is relevant for the legal issues in this case”. It is clear from the amici brief and the conversation with Dr. Garces that there is strong evidence to support the University of Texas. But I wondered what Dr. Garces could speak to in terms of the empirical evidence that the side arguing for Fisher had behind them: could that side also employ research to support their arguments? She explained that there were amici briefs filed for Abigail Fisher, but not as many as were filed for the University of Texas. In particular, she explained Mismatch theory, which she said is not only highly controversial but also disputed and debunked. This theory was in the spotlight at the oral arguments last week when Justice Scalia said, “there are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well.” Mismatch theory, underlying Justice Scalia’s comments, besides being contested and debunked, also has inherent assumptions that Dr. Garces finds very limited and damaging for how we think about students of color. Dr. Garces argues that it is important for the social science community—when such theories are presented and take hold in the courts—to speak out with the evidence that is backed by the large majority of the social science community.
Dr. Garces argues that there needs to be a more fundamental change in higher education and K-12 education; that is, affirmative action is not the best policy, but it is what we have. When students attend highly segregated K-12 schools that has tremendous importance for outcomes in higher education. Dr. Garces elaborates, “Affirmative action is merely a band aid for what is a larger fundamental issue about resources and the quality of education that students can receive in K-12. But also the kinds of admissions practices that institutions engage in, particularly selective institutions, which undermine the goal of having greater representation from students of color”. Dr. Garces argues that without institutions critically examining the practices in place which make it necessary to employ affirmative action that we will not see any major changes in our society on this issue. So what can we expect from the Court as it rules on affirmative action? Dr. Garces reminds us that nobody expected the seven-one decision the first time around on Fisher, so right now it is just speculation. There is the possibility of another compromise where the case is sent back to the lower court again to gather more evidence and the plan is left as is. This would not necessarily mean striking the University of Texas plan down, but it would mean not really having that final word. It remains to be seen if the Court will give a final word on the use of race in university admissions, but Dr. Garces’ work should remind those of us engaged in the social science community that we have a critical role to play in providing the evidence that can inform the court’s final words.
Kendra Taylor is a PhD student in Educational Leadership at Penn State. Her interests focus on school segregation, restorative justice in schools and the school to prison pipeline. Before pursuing her PhD, Kendra received her M.Ed. in Applied Youth, Family and Community Education at Penn State where she conducted research on peace education in Morocco. Contact Kendra at kat5123@psu.edu.