INCREASING INCLUSION: THE PURSUIT OF RACIAL DIVERSITY IN THREE HISTORICALLY WHITE UNIVERSITIES IN KENTUCKY, MICHIGAN, AND ONTARIO FROM 2000 TO 2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The University of Kentucky (UK) and University of Michigan (UM) present very different patterns in terms of black student enrollments and completions from 2000 to 2012 because of a structural explanation, a qualitative explanation, and a statistical explanation. Unfortunately, the patterns at the University of Western Ontario (UWO) are partial due to a lack of data.\nFirst, the structural explanation is that UK, as a university in the state of Kentucky, was under a mandate from the U.S. Department of Education to desegregate because they were in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education (KCPE) gave specific goals related to black student enrollment and completions. Substantial progress was made from 2000-2012, primarily during the time when Lee Todd Jr. created the President’s Commission on Diversity (PCD) which implemented strategies to achieve the goals. While the same federal laws applied to UM, as a northern state they were not under the same federal scrutiny regarding desegregation. UM was taking an aggressive approach with regards to increasing black student enrollments and completions under president Lee Bollinger, and he passed the process along to Mary Sue Coleman, but UM was faced with a negative response and resistance in terms of lawsuits in 2003 and legislation in 2006 (the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative or MCRI) which banned the consideration of race for all public colleges and universities in admissions. UM is highly selective, and a legacy of social movements by black students was stronger at UM than at UK, which may have increased media scrutiny and negative reactions. Essentially, UK’s success was based on an externally monitored topdown approach with little media scrutiny.\nSecond, archived university websites from 2000-2012 and interviews with 21 key informants at the three universities showed a difference in the way diversity initiatives were framed. The Kentucky Plan, the desegregation mandate, had concrete and explicit language in terms of requirements related to black student enrollment at UK. The implementation at UK, although sometimes using broad and general language, was accountable to the explicit requirements of the mandate and black student enrollments and completions increased during that timeframe. At UM, during the Mary Sue Coleman administration, what began as explicit policy under Lee Bollinger became more general and vague policy after the 2003 lawsuits and 2006 legislation banning affirmative action, corresponding with a decline in black student enrollments and completions. Under Coleman, some have questioned whether the legislation was truly an obstacle, or an excuse to rationalize inaction with regards to black student enrollments and completions as they declined. In Ontario the language was typically general, and race tended to be absent, with diversity often conceptualized in terms of internationalizing the student body.\nThird, the statistical explanation is based on the cross-sectional examination of available National Center for Education Statistics’ Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data available for the universities in both states in the U.S.A. in 2000, 2003, 2006, 2009, and 2012. Before 2006, state-level politics do not explain enrollments or completions. In 2009 and 2012, a variable representing the MCRI for four-year public universities in Michigan is significant in explaining decreased black student completions, however it was not significant for enrollments. This applies not only to two universities, it applies to the four-year public institutions in both states, but it does not apply to community colleges since they are primarily open enrollment.\nFinally, the cross-national comparison between the U.S. and Canada does not have concrete data because UWO, like all Canadian universities from 2000-2012, did not collect student data based on race. However, interview data and the framing of policies in this study shows significant problems with racial incidents and low black student enrollments. So under the Canadian multiculturalist regime, the common neglect of collecting racial statistics suggest the possibility of a multiculturalist parallel to colorblind racism that I call racism-blind multiculturalism.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".