Why Do Universities Want a Diverse Student Body?

[Rhea]

I am not opening a discussion about whether they should want diversity for moral reasons,

I am opening a discussion about why they **DO** want diversity. How do they make money from it, since it is likely all about money, in the end. Or if you think it's not, what do you think it is? Because they clearly want diversity. Many universities work very hard to get it.

So why do universities chase diversity?

More highly paying students?
Better name recognition for having alums in more communities?
Better endowments from the wealthy?
Better financial support from business and industry who are looking for a more diverse workforce?
More favorable press that results in better fundraising because donors feel better?
Improved innovation and hence grant success in research?
More exciting college experience to make future students want to apply?


What are your thoughts and what would evidence look like to support your hypothesis?

 

[laughing dog]

I know why at least one university wants a more diverse student body: larger base of potential students, help traditionally marginalized groups, and frankly to help some white folk overcome some misperceptions.

 

[rousseau]

It's generally bad practice to appear racist or homophobic when your customers are mostly well-educated liberals. Some schools likely care more than others, but most orgs need to follow the trends of the day or be outcast.

 

[Bomb#20]

I am not opening a discussion about whether they should want diversity for moral reasons,

I am opening a discussion about why they **DO** want diversity. How do they make money from it, since it is likely all about money, in the end. Or if you think it's not, what do you think it is? Because they clearly want diversity. Many universities work very hard to get it.

So why do universities chase diversity?

More highly paying students?
Better name recognition for having alums in more communities?
Better endowments from the wealthy?
Better financial support from business and industry who are looking for a more diverse workforce?
More favorable press that results in better fundraising because donors feel better?
Improved innovation and hence grant success in research?
More exciting college experience to make future students want to apply?


What are your thoughts and what would evidence look like to support your hypothesis?

Universities don't want affirmative action for the sake of diversity. They want diversity for the sake of affirmative action. The reason universities now invariably say they're pursuing diversity is that Lewis Powell decided pursuing diversity was a* legally acceptable reason for affirmative action. The other eight justices appear not to have cared much about diversity, but they split four-to-four on whether it was permissible at all, making Powell the swing vote.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Prior to Bakke, arguments for and against affirmative action hardly ever mentioned diversity. And U.C. Davis at least was plainly uninterested in a diverse student body. The reason Bakke sued in the first place is that Davis turned him down for the slots white people were eligible for in their quota system -- and the reason they turned him down for those slots in the first place was that he was too old. Davis was openly practicing blatant age-discrimination, because they wanted to admit a class of only young people, not a diverse student body.

(* The other acceptable reason is making up for recent previous anti-minority discrimination by the same institution; it's hardly surprising that universities aren't eager to get permission by claiming to be bigoted.)

 

[laughing dog]

Bakke was decided over 40 years ago. It is very possible the reasons for promoting and striving for diversity evolved in those years, especially if the institutions recognized educational and other benefits.

 

[southernhybrid]

This isn't something I know that much about, but since we live in a very diverse society, it makes sense to me that colleges and universities would want their students to reflect that society.

We need professionals who reflect the society in which we live. Having worked in healthcare, I think it's extremely important to have nurses and doctors from a wide range of cultural backgrounds. It has nothing do to with my political views. It's just common sense to me.

 

[Artemus]

I want to teach to a diverse student body because a diverse student body is part of the educational experience for all students. For example, a homogeneous white, Baptist, male student bodies tends to teach that, intentionally or otherwise, the only acceptable demographic is white, Baptist, and male. Echo chambers are powerful. Daily interaction with people from other backgrounds helps students understand that everyone is pretty much the same.

 

[Rhea]

Universities don't want affirmative action for the sake of diversity. They want diversity for the sake of affirmative action.

Then what do they get out of it? What does affirmative action give them?
How does it give them more money?

 

[Rhea]

I want to teach to a diverse student body because a diverse student body is part of the educational experience for all students. For example, a homogeneous white, Baptist, male student bodies tends to teach that, intentionally or otherwise, the only acceptable demographic is white, Baptist, and male. Echo chambers are powerful. Daily interaction with people from other backgrounds helps students understand that everyone is pretty much the same.

I feel that this gets at one of their reasons. I don’t really have any insider info on how they really think, but this seems consistent with their actions.

I think universities feel that students will not want to apply if they think it’s a white male atmosphere. And then the universities look at the books and think failing to act on this this will sink them.

They see (and again, I’m still just hypothesizing,) that if they don’t have a diverse campus,

the students of color will stop applying,​

and the women will stop applying,​

and then the white male allies will stop applying,​

and their school will sink Because the remainder is not enough to sustain a school.​

And if that is their thought process, it is completely valid for them to say that the university’s success depends upon something other than SAT scores. Because what they are selling is a college experience, not just a degree. The universities seem to think there is no market for just a degree. But there is a big huge, lucrative market for a college experience. (And this also explains HBCUs).

 

[Rhea]

It’s my supposition that generally speaking universities do not care very much about social justice. They care about enrollement. So they aren’t after affirmative action because they think it’s the right thing to do for society. They are after affirmative action because society wants it and that makes it a good thing for the bottom line.

And the supreme court (thinks it) addresses that by leaving them other avenues to continue to pursue affirmative action.

 

[laughing dog]

It’s my supposition that generally speaking universities do not care very much about social justice. They care about enrollement. So they aren’t after affirmative action because they think it’s the right thing to do for society. They are after affirmative action because society wants it and that makes it a good thing for the bottom line.

And the supreme court (thinks it) addresses that by leaving them other avenues to continue to pursue affirmative action.

While I cannot speak for all institutions of higher learning, I do know from direct experience that there can be multiple motivating factors. Yes, universities are driven to achieve sufficient enrollment. But they can be motivated ideas of equity, fairness and "social justice" as well. If those also help spur enrollment, so much the better.

 

[Rhea]

Well, that is good to know. I was approaching it rtather cynically, so it’s nice to hear a point of view with some inside information.

 

[Bomb#20]

Universities don't want affirmative action for the sake of diversity. They want diversity for the sake of affirmative action.

Then what do they get out of it? What does affirmative action give them?

A higher social credit score and a warm fuzzy feeling that they're on the right side of history.

How does it give them more money?

How does need-based student financial aid give them more money? You're anthropomorphizing.

A university is an organization. Organizations do not literally want anything at all, because they aren't conscious agents. Saying an organization wants something is a metaphor -- either for it acting in the way a conscious agent with wants would act, or else for whatever its human policy-makers literally want. People forget this because we're so used to seeing corporations act like they want more money and being run by people who literally want the corporations to have more money that there's no point in focusing on the distinction. But this doesn't happen by magic -- corporations act this way and are run by people like this because they're owned by shareholders. More money for the corporation means more money for its shareholders, and the shareholders literally want more money for themselves. So they hire executives who will pursue more money for the corporation, and if the executives don't aim for that then the shareholders sell their stock in a hostile takeover that will put a new management team in place. So the executives all know their own jobs and their own personal profit depends on the corporation getting more money.

The point is, none of that is the case in a non-profit. There are no shareholders. The managers owe their jobs to trustees, and the trustees are not personally enriched by the organization getting more money. There isn't anyone in charge who has a personal financial incentive to make the organization prioritize getting more money above other conflicting goals. If the president of the organization makes it a lot richer but in the process ticks off the trustees because he's neglecting whatever they really care about, all that extra money won't stop them from firing him, because they aren't getting the money. So it isn't realistic to expect a non-profit to choose what gives it the most money, the way it would be in the case of a for-profit corporation.

 

[RVonse]

I am not opening a discussion about whether they should want diversity for moral reasons,

I am opening a discussion about why they **DO** want diversity. How do they make money from it, since it is likely all about money, in the end. Or if you think it's not, what do you think it is? Because they clearly want diversity. Many universities work very hard to get it.

So why do universities chase diversity?

More highly paying students?
Better name recognition for having alums in more communities?
Better endowments from the wealthy?
Better financial support from business and industry who are looking for a more diverse workforce?
More favorable press that results in better fundraising because donors feel better?
Improved innovation and hence grant success in research?
More exciting college experience to make future students want to apply?


What are your thoughts and what would evidence look like to support your hypothesis?

Just my own opinion. Most of the people who manage universities are thinkers and not doers. Most have never worked manual labor less alone produced real value yet honestly want the world to present itself in their perfect mind view of what heaven looks like. They are the text book example of narcissistic self absorbed individuals.

So it has nothing to do with profit and everything to do with their religion.

 

[Rhea]

The point is, none of that is the case in a non-profit. There are no shareholders. The managers owe their jobs to trustees, and the trustees are not personally enriched by the organization getting more money. There isn't anyone in charge who has a personal financial incentive to make the organization prioritize getting more money above other conflicting goals. If the president of the organization makes it a lot richer but in the process ticks off the trustees because he's neglecting whatever they really care about, all that extra money won't stop them from firing him, because they aren't getting the money.

That is insightful. And that makes sense as a path to consider. If they are not impacted by any success in fundraising or attracting (or failing to attract) students, then that would indeed likely divorce them from reacting to those pressures.


So your comment sent me looking for more information on how trustees are chosen to try to understand what motivates them better.

I came across this, which is also illuminating, though it contradicts your point in some areas.

Defining the Role of College and University Board Trustee | BoardEffect

Expectations for college and university boards of trustees should be clear and they should be based on the needs higher education institutions.

www.boardeffect.com

When it comes to governance, colleges and universities have more at stake than the good name and reputation of their institutions. Colleges and universities were originally founded to educate the future leaders of the nation so they could go forth and help to build their communities. This premise holds true today. For this reason, the administrative and financial health of colleges and universities has a direct impact on the health of communities.

While the reasons for strengthening governance in colleges and universities haven’t changed, the current economic and societal climates require a change in the governance structure for institutions of higher learning.

Historically, there’s been a unique difference between college and university boards and other boards of trustees. In higher education, private boards have largely drawn their members from alumni and donors. The government typically appoints all or most board members for public boards. Either way, college trustees have largely been nothing more than figureheads and fundraisers, leaving the work of running the college to the senior managers.

Rising tuitions and saturated job markets are placing new and increased pressures on college and university leaders. An AGB survey showed that about 68% of trustee respondents said that the high cost of tuition was one of their top-three concerns. The other two major concerns were student debt and the ability of colleges and universities to respond to the changing needs of students and employers.

In recent times, there’s been mounting pressure from the public for college and university boards to take a stronger role in governance, mirroring the expectations for all other entities.

It’s time to recognize that the role of college and university trustees is changing, and more is required of them. Changes in the role of board trustees also change the dynamics between boards and senior managers, as trustees begin to accept greater responsibility for strategic planning and oversight. Expectations for college boards of trustees should be clear and they should be based on the needs of today.

The bolded part suggests that the people making the decisions are indeed those who need to value their jobs and do indeed lose out if the college has trouble making budget.


Still an interesting train of thought. Looking forward to more.

 

[laughing dog]

I am not opening a discussion about whether they should want diversity for moral reasons,

I am opening a discussion about why they **DO** want diversity. How do they make money from it, since it is likely all about money, in the end. Or if you think it's not, what do you think it is? Because they clearly want diversity. Many universities work very hard to get it.

So why do universities chase diversity?

More highly paying students?
Better name recognition for having alums in more communities?
Better endowments from the wealthy?
Better financial support from business and industry who are looking for a more diverse workforce?
More favorable press that results in better fundraising because donors feel better?
Improved innovation and hence grant success in research?
More exciting college experience to make future students want to apply?


What are your thoughts and what would evidence look like to support your hypothesis?

Just my own opinion. Most of the people who manage universities are thinkers and not doers. Most have never worked manual labor less alone produced real value yet honestly want the world to present itself in their perfect mind view of what heaven looks like. They are the text book example of narcissistic self absorbed individuals.

So it has nothing to do with profit and everything to do with their religion.

I think your view has some merit in some cases, but is an exaggerated position. There are many versions of university, but the traditional one is some sort of shared governance among administrators and the faculty. Most faculty (as well as administrators who move from faculty) worked to support themselves as undergraduate and graduate student. Most part time work for undergraduates is some sort of manual labor. And they see what their students go through to get through school.

I agree that there are narcissistic self-absorbed administrators and faculty. Just like there are narcissistic self- absorbed line in all lines of life and employment. Maybe the share in academia is higher, but I doubt it is significantly more.
The ones featured in the media tend to be loudest or the outliers.

In my experience, most are fundamentally good people who believe they have best interests of their students and institutions in mind. Most of the time they are on point.

Education is more than acquiring disciplinary content. At its core, it’s focus is personal improvement along intellectual, personal, social and civic dimensions. Institutions of higher learning are trying to do their best in that regard in a world where there is sometimes significant disagreement over the focus of each area.

The world is a more diverse place. Like it or not, societies are changing and adapting to that reality. It is not at all surprising to this old fart of a professor that universities feel and see the need to reflect that reality.

 

[Bomb#20]

The bolded part suggests that the people making the decisions are indeed those who need to value their jobs and do indeed lose out if the college has trouble making budget.

Still an interesting train of thought. Looking forward to more.

I didn't mean to imply their managers don't care about money, only that it isn't their top priority. In a for-profit corporation more money is an end in itself; in a non-profit it's just a means to an end. So of course managers have to do what it takes to make budget -- if the operation goes broke it won't be able to fulfill any of its higher priorities. But once a non-profit has enough to keep itself going, getting more than enough doesn't need to trump the ultimate goals.

 

[JohnG]

I am not opening a discussion about whether they should want diversity for moral reasons,

I am opening a discussion about why they **DO** want diversity. How do they make money from it, since it is likely all about money, in the end. Or if you think it's not, what do you think it is? Because they clearly want diversity. Many universities work very hard to get it.

So why do universities chase diversity?

More highly paying students?
Better name recognition for having alums in more communities?
Better endowments from the wealthy?
Better financial support from business and industry who are looking for a more diverse workforce?
More favorable press that results in better fundraising because donors feel better?
Improved innovation and hence grant success in research?
More exciting college experience to make future students want to apply?


What are your thoughts and what would evidence look like to support your hypothesis?

If you google "racial disparity in higher education" you will see study after study outlining the problem. I think there is a genuine interest in doing something about it. Continuing the way it is now is a losing proposition for everyone.

 

[Gun Nut]

assuming educational facilities' goals are related to providing quality education, a diverse student body promotes diverse discussion. A classroom is not a one-way lecture most of the time... There are peer influences. Questions and comments inspired from differing cultures broadens the educational experience, and rounds graduates' overall knowledge and experience.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'll raise the bar, why would society not want a diverse collegiate class? Are we otherwise shooting for permanent under-classes?

I am not opening a discussion about whether they should want diversity for moral reasons,

I am opening a discussion about why they **DO** want diversity. How do they make money from it, since it is likely all about money, in the end. Or if you think it's not, what do you think it is? Because they clearly want diversity. Many universities work very hard to get it.

So why do universities chase diversity?

More highly paying students?
Better name recognition for having alums in more communities?
Better endowments from the wealthy?
Better financial support from business and industry who are looking for a more diverse workforce?
More favorable press that results in better fundraising because donors feel better?
Improved innovation and hence grant success in research?
More exciting college experience to make future students want to apply?


What are your thoughts and what would evidence look like to support your hypothesis?

Just my own opinion. Most of the people who manage universities are thinkers and not doers. Most have never worked manual labor less alone produced real value yet honestly want the world to present itself in their perfect mind view of what heaven looks like. They are the text book example of narcissistic self absorbed individuals.

There you go. You did a great job labeling and judging a large group of people you don't know. Because you think you know their back story, how they work, and their values at the positions they've had.

I'm also so sick and tired of this populist ideal that "thinking" isn't work. I'm tired of intelligence being blindly denigrated.