Harvard's Guinier Discusses Diversity

On Monday, Feb. 5, Lani Guinier, a Harvard University professor, gave a lecture on "Race, Gender & Power." As she approached the podium, she commended everyone for being present despite the cold evening. She began her lecture with a short anecdote that would be a metaphor for what she would be speaking about later on. She told a story of watching her son and friends play a game of golf ball relay, where contestants had to carry a golf ball in a spoon down a path, and whoever was first won. The teams were organized into boys versus girls, and she noted that the girls repeatedly won despite the boys' attempts at victory. Looking at this result, Guinier and her colleagues began analyzing the behavior of the children, trying to deduce the reason for the girls' victory. During this conversation, Guinier's mother asked, "Who designed the game?" Her mother's poignant question made Guinier realize that the power structure shapes the way race and gender are viewed in society.

She then introduced the concept of the miner's canary, which miners used to determine the underground air quality, because the canary's air passages were more sensitive. Guinier argued that the experience of the canary, a minority, is not calculated into the solution of the problem. Extrapolating this to social dynamics she argued that without taking into consideration the minority's experience, nothing can be solved. "The experience of the minority is a potential diagnostic for the problems in society," she said.

Using these metaphors she delved into the US power structure, emphasizing three points for the control of power in society. "First is the visual conflict, or who is winning or losing," Guinier stated. She then pointed out that society pays the most attention to the visual conflict. Her second point was the idea of agenda setting, or who creates the rules. She referred to her son's experiences; since the girls had created the game, they were clearly at an advantage. Finally, she asserted that "The stories the winners tell about why they won and why the losers lose keeps the losers in the game."

Having laid out these concepts, she described her own experiences with gender inequality in higher education. A professor, Guinier told a story where she and a student once uncovered startling facts about gender inequality in law school using a survey. She stated that results showed that women were not nearly as active as men in class participation. Her colleagues offered many explanations for this odd discovery. Guinier said, "My colleagues said that admitted women chose softer majors in comparison to men, and were not used to the tough atmosphere of law school."

However, the true explanation laid in the rules of the "game". Guinier realized that the classes were structured to promote aggressiveness, in which students were forced to participate through asking questions. Whereas the men were able to take advantage of this system, the women were sitting back, biding their time until the right moment. "The women would be formulating the perfect response for the opportune moment, but their statements would be lost," she said. She then argued that instead of accepting visible conflict one needs to concentrate on the Canary's experience to fix the atmosphere.

Moving on from gender inequalities in higher education, she began to focus on race and class inequality in higher education institutions. She said, "Affirmative action is justified on the grounds that it creates a diverse student body but it is the wrong way of thinking about diversity and admission in higher education." Guinier continued, "Affirmative action is the pint sized gas mask for the canary. Fix the atmosphere and the miners can breathe."

She then shared the results of her findings from the University of Pennsylvania, which showed that only 14 percent of the time did LSAT scores predict first year grades. She then argued that these tests are better at predicting family wealth than academic performance. "The mission of higher education needs to be in the admissions criteria," she said. She explained that schools are thinking backwards when it comes students. She suggested that many higher education institutions have a mission of producing helpful citizens. "With keeping this goal in mind, institutions need to create graduates that help the community," Guinier said. She suggested that by using the experience of those not winning, the school can create a better admissions system,. because when the "winners" are telling the story, the status quo is maintained and the agenda is not changed.

Having provided an argument for the need for a change in admissions policy, she pointed to the example of Clark University. The institution was located in a poor neighborhood, but the university decided to fulfill their mission of serving the community and decided to invest in the local high school. "The university decided to base high school admissions criteriam: location," she said. She went on to explain the only requirement for entry into the school was that the applicants had to live in the neighborhood, thus fulfilling their mission of serving the surrounding community. Even though the entering students did not show strong academic skills, the school boasted a 100 percent graduation rate. She concluded that institutions need to re-evaluate their admission's policy to better tailor it to their mission. "If we are to be a democracy we cannot lose potential talent and breed resentment in the lower class," she said "We cannot afford to call ourselves a democracy when we are creating a plutocracy." She stated that higher education institutions need to pay attention to the minority in order to avoid perpetuating the status quoto pay attention to the minority, because listening to the story of the majority only perpetuates the status quo.