2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003

Black v Black: Campus Diversity Study Misses Demographics
Rebecca Goldin, March 12, 2007
The Washington Post reports possible admissions bias towards black immigrants over black Americans. But are all the immigrants actually immigrants? And was the admissions data examined?

Comparisons are always useful in suggesting that something is awry – or so goes the argument put forth by The Washington Post in citing a new study put out by researchers at Princeton and University of Pennsylvania. The Post’s headline provocatively reads “In Diversity Push, Top Universities Enrolling More Black Immigrants: Critics Say Effort Favors Elite Foreigners, Leaves Out Americans.” Before an even cursory look at the actual news article, readers are goaded into accusing these universities of some form of discrimination. But the facts of the story paint a much more complicated picture.

The study cited by the Post took a look at the black population in 28 universities. There were about 1000 students included in the study, of which 27 percent were considered black “immigrants”. But this same group only constitutes 13 percent of college-age blacks in the United States. So what is behind their overrepresentation in the universities?

For the purposes of this article, “elite foreigners” who “leave out Americans” has a strange definition. The citizenship of the students was not discussed, but the Post mentions the following deep in the story:

“Black immigrants were defined as students who emigrated directly from Africa or the Caribbean, including countries such as Guyana that are on the South American continent and nations in the black diaspora or their American-born sons and daughters.”

It seems that the American-born sons and daughters are among the elite foreigners who are gaining college admissions at the expense of left-out Americans.

Unfortunately, the confusion doesn’t stop there. Harvard University professor Lani Guinier is quoted as saying,

“The fathers of these students tend to be much better educated. This is not just true of immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean, this is true across the board. We have an admissions system that prefers wealth, that rewards wealth and calls it merit.”

Which demographic is causing immigrants to be favored over “native black Americans,” according to Guinier? Is it that the fathers have more advanced degrees, or that they are wealthier? Or is it, as the authors of the original study propose, that the admissions officers prefer immigrants out of some bias against African Americans (excluding those who are children of immigrants)?

Then there’s the question of what “more” means, when the Post states that elite universities are enrolling more immigrants. Is this “more” than what had been done in the past? No numbers to this effect were cited by The Post, however the article implies that universities are increasing their enrollment of black immigrants and taking credit for increasing their black population. The Post quotes one Camille Charles, a professor of sociology at University of Pennsylvania and an author of the study, as saying,

“A lot of these institutions have been promoting the increase in their black populations, but clearly this increase reflects a growth in their black immigrant populations.”

In fact, the study was based on data from 2006 entering freshmen. No comparisons over time were made by the study. And the Post makes no mention of the fact that the study did compare more selective and less selective schools, and concluded that the rates of immigrant students were higher in the more selective schools than the less selective ones. This would be an interesting topic for a news article.

The final blow comes, however, as the Post – and indeed the authors of the original study – suggest that black immigrants (including their American children) are disproportionately represented at universities because of some kind of bias by the admissions officers. Even a reliance on test scores as an admissions tool is an indication of bias, according to Guinier, because wealthier students have more resources to prepare for them – and immigrants are wealthier than “natives.”

The issue here is one of demographics. The two noted differences between black immigrants and black “natives” are that the immigrant families are wealthier on average, and have more educated fathers on average. The study abstract notes that,

“We found few differences in the social origins of black students from immigrant and native backgrounds.”

This provides a basis for their conclusion: since the two groups are very similar, perhaps immigrants exhibit nonacademic traits that are deemed more attractive to admissions officers at universities.

But there is a very serious problem with this reasoning. The study, and the Post, are only considering those students who actually enrolled in college, not the ones who did not. If the admissions officers were truly favoring those with immigrant backgrounds over native backgrounds, the difference would be observed if the backgrounds in the population as a whole (not just those enrolled in college) were comparable. In other words, the study would have to look at college-age black applicants, not just those who got into college.

Immigrants who come to the United States for their education, and immigrants whose American children apply to college, are not the same demographic as African Americans as a whole. As the authors note, the immigrant group is self-selecting. They are, on average, part of the most elite and well-educated sector of their own societies. They (or their parents) have enough ambition to leave their country and come to the United States. If they grew up in a foreign country, they were exposed to a completely different educational background.

Comparing this group to African Americans is like comparing apples to oranges. Not surprisingly, among those accepted to university, not too many differences can be seen. The real question is: are there big differences among the pool of applicants to universities? This is where real bias could be observed.

The Washington Post should exercise a little more restraint in making claims of bias. Especially when many of the “elite foreigners” are actually American.

View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry