Final engaging diversity

ENGAGING DIVERSTY

Its Importance for

21st Century Education

Patricia Gurin | University of Michigan

February 27, 2013

GOALS FOR TODAY

Position the rationale for engaging diversity in higher education in affirmative action cases

Make a case for its educational importance beyond affirmative action – a case based in three major challenges the U.S. faces

Present intergroup dialogue as one educational approach that addresses these challenges

Discuss 21st education – cosmopolitan and outward oriented

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CASES

Baake; Grutter vs. Bollinger; Fisher v. University of Texas

Amicus briefs provide impressive evidence for educational value of diversity

But much broader rationale

THREE CHALLENGES

The Demographic Challenge –

Changing Demographics in the U.S.

The Democratic Challenge – Engagement of

all in light of growing economic inequalities

The Dispersion Challenge – “Rise of the Rest”

DEMOGRAPHIC CHALLENGE

1,970,000 1,980,000 1,990,000 2,000,000 2,010,000 2,020,000

White Babies No Longer Majority in the U.S.U.S. births in the year ending on July 2011 - the Census Bureau

2,019,176

1,988,824

Non-White

Babies

White

Babies


39%

71% 73%

93%

61%

29% 27%

7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

White Latinos/as Asian-Americans African Americans

2012 Voters for Obama and Romney

Obama Romney


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Community College 4-Year Institutions

57%

44%

25%

33%

10%15%

8% 8%

2050 Projections in Higher Education

Latinos

Whites

Asians

African Americans


Graduates, 1973 Graduates, 2008

Wealth Distribution in the U.S

The top 10% of

households have 80%

of the financial wealth

The bottom 80% have

7% of the wealth

(Domhoff, 2012)

Country/Overall Rank Gini Coefficient

1. Sweden 23.0

4. Norway 25.0

7. Austria 26

11. Finland 26.8

12. Germany 27

19. Denmark 29

29. Netherlands 30.9

34. Spain 32

36. Canada 32.1

44. Switzerland 33.7

60. India 36.8

87. China 41.5

99. Iran 44.5

101. United States 45

118. Costa Rica 50.3

123. Mexico 51.7

(Central Intelligence Agency, 2008)

The United States ranks

101st in the world in terms

of income inequality

Nine European countries

have less inequality than

the U.S.

So does Canada

And India, China, and Iran

DEMOCRATIC CHALLENGE

Democracy challenge from increasing

economic inequality

2007 Family IncomesPoverty

Unemploymen

t

Incarceration

Whites Latinos African Americans


05

101520253035404550

15

22.720.1

11.5

30.7

49.8

29.1

11.9

4.9 4.2

Comparison of UM and U.S. Household Income

UM Household Income U.S. Household Income

FAREED ZAKARIA

At the politico-military

level we will remain in a

single-superworld world.

But in every other

dimension –

industrial, financial, educ

ational, social, cultural –

the distribution of power

is shifting, moving away

from American

dominance.

DISPERSION CHALLENGE

“The Rise of the Rest” – Fareed Zakaria

Knowledge and Skills for

21st Century Education

Broad knowledge across many disciplines

Communication, problem

solving, collaboration across differences

Critical, creative, adaptive, flexible thinking

ENGAGING DIVERSITY

American Association of Colleges and Universities; Partnership for 21st Century Skills

INTERGROUP DIALOGUE: ONE APPROACH

TO 21ST CENTURY EDUCATION

The goals of intergroup dialogue:

Intergroup Understanding

Positive Intergroup Relationships

Intergroup Collaboration

Engaging diversity through:

A distinctive pedagogy

And communication processes

WHAT IS INTERGROUP DIALOGUE?

Two social identity

groups

Two facilitators

10-12 week course

4-module curriculum

FOUR-MODULE CURRICULUM

Module 1 Module 2 Module 3 Module 4

Learning

how to

dialogue

Learning

about

identity,

inequalities

& power

Dialoguing

about “hot

topics”

Alliance

building for

collaboration

PEDAGOGY

Content: Readings, Written Assignments

Structured Interaction, Equal numbers of

statuses, Active learning exercises

Facilitative Guidance

WHAT MAKES IT WORK?

DISTINCTIVE COMMUNICATION PROCESSES

Dialogic Process

Active Listening

Asking questions, follow-up, inquiry

Sharing

Critical Process

Identifying assumptions

Critical analysis of inequalities

Personal and collective critical reflection

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Does Intergroup Dialogue work?

Evidence of Effects

How does it work?

Evidence of processes that account for effects

MULTDIVERSITY RESEARCH PROJECT

Arizona State University

Occidental College

Syracuse University

University of California (San Diego)

University of Maryland

University of Massachusetts

University of Michigan

University of Texas

University of Washington

QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH DESIGN

Application

Randomized

DIALOGUE GROUP

WAITLIST CONTROL GROUP

Pretest

Pretest

Intergroup

DialoguePosttest

Posttest

1-Year

Follow-Up

Survey

1-Year

Follow-Up

Survey

PARTICIPANTS

52 Dialogue Experiments (26 race, 26 gender)

DIALOGUE GROUP n = 726

26%

24 %26 %

24%

Within People of Color:

38% African American

36% Asian/Asian American

21% Latino/a

5% Other

WAITLIST CONTROL GROUP n = 721

28%

23%27 %

22%

QUALITATIVE METHODS

Videotaping early, mid, and late session of 10

race and 10 gender dialogues

Interviewing all students in the dialogues that

were videotaped – 248 students

Content Analysis of the final papers of students in

all 52 dialogues – 720 papers

INTERGROUP EMPATHY

4.7

4.8

4.9

5

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

0 4 8 12 16

Dialogue Control

Months

STUDENT VOICES: EMPATHY

STRUCTURAL UNDERSTANDING

OF INEQUALITY

4.9

5

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

5.9

0 4 8 12 16

Dialogue Control

Months

STUDENT VOICES:

UNDERSTANDING INEQUALITY

INTERGROUP COLLABORATION AND

ACTION

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

5

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

0 4 8 12 16

Dialogue Control

Months

STUDENT VOICES: ACTION

SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS OF DIALOGUE

ON:

20 of 24 measures of psychological

processes, intergroup

understanding, relationships, and action

In both race and gender dialogues

For all 4 groups of students

Still evident a year later, time 1-3, on 21

Content

Structured

Interaction

Facilitation

Engaging Self

Learning from

Others

Critical

Reflection

Alliance

Building

Intergroup

Relationships

Intergroup

Understanding

Intergroup

Collaboration &

Action

Identity

Engagement

Openness

Positivity

Across

Difference

Pedagogy Communicatio

n Processes

Psychological

Processes

Three Sets of

Outcomes

THEORETICAL PROCESS MODEL

BACK TO THE CHALLENGES

A cosmopolitan education – Appiah & Nussbaum

Comprised of:

Pluralistic perspective

Critical thinking, often outside one‟s comfort zone

Empathy

Integration of specific group-based identities with

broader identifications

HOW DO WE DO THIS?

Deliberate use of diversity to foster

communication, problem solving, collaboration

across differences

Pedagogy that creates active learning and

communication processes, especially listening

and inquiry

Collective and private reflection

Connecting substantive & disciplinary knowledge

to intercultural competencies

EPILOGUE: STUDENT GRADUATES

The influence Intergroup Dialogue played in

their professional and personal directions

Addressing the demographic, democratic, and

dispersion challenges

STUDENT GRADUATES


QUESTION:

In what ways are you professionally and

personally engaged with people from various

identity groups and how are you bridging

differences by bringing people from different

backgrounds together?


Aaron James

“My own life has been circumscribed

by living in liberal, urban enclaves.

Now I am working in economic

development in rural areas and I am

trying in many ways to cross cultural

boundaries, to understand their

perspectives, and bond (including

learning to hunt) with rural residents.”


Chloe Gurin-Sands

“My personal and professional lives

are completely intertwined. My circle

of friends includes people from all

identity groups. . . I feel I am bridging

differences and bringing people

together all the time. Intergroup

dialogue has educated me that the

personal is political (and vice versa).


QUESTION:

What are you currently doing professionally

and how did your experiences in intergroup

dialogue play a role in your professional

direction?

In what ways is your work addressing

inequalities and aimed at created greater

social justice?


Denny Chan

“During my first two summers of law

school I helped litigate cases involving

federal voting rights laws. I also

worked on a gender discrimination

case against a large corporate retailer

and on a financial mortgage case

involving one of the nation‟s largest

banks. I see now how I can express

my concerns for social justice in

public sector law.”


Tara Hackel

“Participating in intergroup dialogue

helped me to better recognize

inequalities that I faced as a woman

in the engineering program. . . Then

becoming more in touch with

problems within the STEM fields

helped me recognize inequalities

affecting others, not just women.”


Kartik Sidhar

“My multiple responsibilities in

The Program on Intergroup

Relations has sharpened my

understanding of health

disparities and deepened my

commitment to create change

in that arena.”


QUESTION:

In what ways are you involved with people in or

from other countries? In what ways do you

consider yourself a global citizen?


Clare Wrobel

“I gained a commitment in intergroup

dialogue to learn about what I don‟t

know and to keep up-to-date about

international political movements. It

should not be up to my Egyptian-

American friend to explain to me

what is going on in Egypt. It is my

responsibility to continue to educate

myself and to have meaningful

conversations with people from

many countries.”


Adam Falkner

“In my classroom, I am constantly

trying to create settings that „uncork‟

creativity and grant my students

permission to connect with the

universal human desire for

communication. In my life and work as

an artist, the local is global and vice

versa. To me, being a global citizen

means to consider one‟s own role as a

contributing member of a society and

not in isolation from the most pressing

and urgent of global concerns.”

STUDENT GRADUATES

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

W.T. Grant Foundation

Ford Foundation

Russell Sage Foundation

National Center for Institutional

Diversity, University of Michigan

Division of Student Affairs, College of

Literature, Sciences and the Arts, Department of

Psychology, University of Michigan

COLLABORATORS

A FULLER ACCOUNT

Final engaging diversity

Economy & Finance

Transcript of Final engaging diversity