A New Look at an Old Challenge: Whither Diversity in STEM?

1. A New Look at an Old Challenge:Whither Diversity in STEM? Shirley M. Malcom

2. Challenges to diversity efforts University responses

3. What problems was affirmative action developed to address?

4. The Early Years: Context for Discussion • 1896 Plessy vs. Ferguson • 1944 GI Bill • 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education • 1957 Sputnik • 1958 NDEA • 1964 Civil Rights Act • 1965 Executive Order 11246 – Affirmative Action • 1967 Amendment to cover gender discrimination

5. Milestones in Science, Mathematics, & Engineering Participation, 1972 - Present • Pre-1970s Post-Great Society • 1972-79 Pre-Bakke: Targeting/Individuals • 1980-87 Pipeline: Program Effectiveness (pre-evaluation) • 1988-94 Demographics/Institutions (MSIs) • 1995-2003 Accountability: Systemic Change (post-GPRA evaluation) • 2004  Post-Michigan: Post-Affirmative Action?

6. 1972-79 Targeting/Individual Focus • 1972 Creation of NIH MBRS/MARC • 1973 National data disaggregated by race/ethnicity • 1974 NACME founded • 1975 AAAS The Double Bind • 1976 AAAS Programs in Science for Minorities • 1978 Bakke decision NSF Minority Graduate Fellowship and RCSE established

7. 1980-87 Pipeline: Program Effectiveness (pre-evaluation) • 1980 EEO at NSF/creation of CEOSE (congressional mandate) • 1981 Dept of ED Harris Fellowship (terminated in 1997) • 1982 NSF Women & Minorities (biennially) • 1983 NSB Educating Americans for 21st C • 1984AAAS Equity & Excellence • 1986 OTA Demographic Trends and the S&E Workforce

8. 1988-94 Demographics/Institutions • 1988 OTA Grade School to Grad School • 1989 Task Force on Women & Minorities • 1990 AAMC Project 3000 x 2000 • 1991 AAAS Investing in Human Potential • 1991 OTA Federally Funded Research • 1993 OSTP/FCCSET Federal Investment in SMET Education • 1994 Medical school minority enrollment peak

9. 1995-2003 Systemic Change (post-GPRA evaluation) • 1995 Adarand decision AAAS The Changing Climate • 1996 Proposition 209 (CA) Hopwood (TX) Presidential Mentoring Awards (annual) • 1998 AAAS Losing Ground NSF Minority Graduate Fellowship discontinued • 1999 NSF merit review criteria revised OSTP/NSTC Workforce of the Future • 2000 Morella Commission Land of Plenty • 2001 BEST created • 2003 Michigan decisions

10. 2004  Post-Michigan: Post Affirmative Action? • Search for race surrogates • Access/admissions criteria (% plans, legacies, holistic) • Institutional leadership/Institution-wide programs (e.g., NSF ADVANCE) • Cultural competence (class configuration, curriculum) • Selective institutions re “critical mass” • Faculty diversity • State budgets (special impact on 2-yr institutions) • Mainstreaming programs & targeting (K-12 standards movement; role of minority-focused orgs) • Globalization & international workforce • Political will

11. 2006 Proposal 2 • Educational value of diversity (admissions and hiring) • Structural transformation • Culture of STEM disciplines • “Human nature” • Preparation for a diverse workplace Seattle & Jefferson County, KY • Overcoming the effect of residential patterns • Preserving local control of schools? • Educational value of diversity • Addressing opportunity to learn

12. Education: Does it matter where you get it? • Resources • Social networks • Assumed competence (or incompetence) • Added credentialing • Prestige • Workers and leaders

13. Employment • Access and opportunity • “Tokens” or critical mass • Advancement

14. “Why ‘push’ women and minorities into STEM fields when there aren’t jobs there?”

15. Is there a “shortage” of minority and/or women scientists and engineers?

16. Mainstreaming and targeting The case of the NSF Graduate Fellows Program

17. Graduate Research Fellowship

18. Lessons Learned • Climate • Outreach • Recruitment practices • Selection practices and selection bias • Perceptions of fairness • Reflecting what you value • Who decides?

19. What did Michigan decisions address, and what did they not address?

21. Legal Primer • Federal Equal Opportunity Standards • Titles VI, VII, IX, & ADA • Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses • Significant Federal Legal Opinions • Grutter & Gratz, Bakke, & Adarand • State-Based Equal Opportunity Standards • CA, WA, FL, TX, MI • Ongoing Federal Efforts • SEEOA, NSF Criterion II, EEO Standards

22. Design principles • Mission • Intent • Target population • Program character • Context • Evaluation and research • Faculty recruitment and retention • Leadership

23. Compliance • What is permitted and legally defensible on campus • How do the following apply to programs: • Strict scrutiny • Compelling interest • Narrow tailoring • Race-neutral alternatives • Critical mass

24. Needs • Data on impact of “percentage plans” (access) and interventions (aimed at degree completion) • How to conduct searches legally and effectively to diversify the faculty and administration • Developing “cultural competence” among current faculty, staff, and students • How to mainstream and institutionalize “special” (soft-money) programs • Nurturing U.S. student talent in the face of globalization

25. "There are no great men, only great challenges that ordinary men are forced by circumstances to meet.“ William F. Halsey

26. Michigan Challenges • Hiring and retention of faculty • Presenting a welcoming climate • Diversity as a core value • Increasing understanding of biases and barriers • Nurturing STEM talent • Monitoring and evaluating efforts • Changing policies • Continuous improvement • Optimism in the face of circumstances