Opinion
Hamilton should embrace the full range of diversity’s benefits
By Jeremy Adelman '13
February 2, 2012
Like nearly all her peer institutions, Hamilton College covets diversity, priding herself on statistics relating to “persons of color” and “first in the family to attend college.” However, the social science behind the recent push toward a browner campus reveals that the advantages of diversity are not gleaned merely by the admission of more minorities. Rather, the mechanism by which diversity benefits a campus requires frequent social interactions between different groups and a full panoply of viewpoints within each demographic fragment.
Though efforts to increase diversity in college classrooms began over four decades ago, only in the last few years have educators and social scientists rigorously scrutinized the results. Prior to the early 2000s, educators took for granted the benefits of learning in a diverse environment; hence, studies yielded, in the words of Jeffrey Milem from the University of Maryland, insufficient evidence to “meet the standards… that are applied by an attorney or a supreme court justice.” Indeed, in the case Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), the Supreme Court struck down an admission policy at the University of Michigan granting minorities automatic preference; many within the diversity community viewed this decision as stemming from a failure of the social sciences to adequately corroborate their belief in the benefits of diversity with hard empirical data.
Subsequent to Gratz, numerous psychological and sociological studies have examined the effects of diversity in the college classroom on real outcomes; the results are almost universally positive, with increased exposure to racial/ethnic diversity positively correlated to intellectual improvement, not just in areas related to empathy and tolerance but also in academic engagement and progress. However, the studies reveal that all diversity is not created equal; for instance, a study by Gurin, et al., in response to the Gratz case suggests that by far the largest benefits from campus diversity occur outside the classroom structure in what Gurin terms “informal interactions.” These results suggest the advantages of campus diversity are best achieved through promoting interethnic social—rather than academic—interactions.
Furthermore, attempts to elucidate the precise effects of campus diversity suggest intellectual diversity matters far more than skin color. A model proposed by Bowman and Brandenburg indicates positive effects of diversity result from experiences defying stereotypes about minority populations. In particular, the research lauds encounters with minorities whose views stand contrary to those stereotypically ascribed to their demographic facet. These results highlight the need for diversity not merely across groups but also within groups; that is, colleges benefit from admitting people who look the same but think differently far more than from assembling a class which looks diverse but lacks diverse worldviews.
Though Hamilton applauds herself for the ever-increasing diversity of her incoming classmates, changes are still required before this college can reap the full benefits of diversity. A simple walk through Commons at high noon illustrates the need for increased efforts to socially mix students of different ethnicities, and the community as a whole remains close-minded vis-à-vis the viewpoints of those they consider outside the mainstream. Furthermore, Hamilton lacks glaringly in geographic diversity, with New England and the Mid Atlantic states contributing over three quarters of campus population. Without efforts to draw students from outside our immediate neighborhood and the greater New York and Boston metropolitan areas, we compromise our ability to comprehend facets of our own nation’s culture.
Of course, the redress of these issues is not a simple endeavor; the College cannot, and should not, force more interactions across ethnic and socio-economic lines simply by administrative fiat. Further, lacking national name recognition, Hamilton is inherently limited by a regional applicant pool. But considering the College’s commitment to ameliorating her blanket homogeneity, we as a community ought to focus our resources not just on increasing the number and variety of enrolled minorities, but also on fostering diversity of viewpoints and cross-cultural conversation.