Handbook on Diversity and the Law Navigating a Complex Landscape to Foster Greater Faculty and Student Diversity in Higher Education Navigating A Complex Landscape To Foster Greater Faculty and Student Diversity In Higher Education The Law Governing Effective Faculty and Student Body Diversity Programs in STEM and Related Disciplines…and Its Implications for Institutional Policy American Association for the Advancement of Science with participation by the Association of American Universities ©American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2010 Permission to publish or otherwise reproduce the logo of the Association of American Universities (AAU) is granted on a one- time basis only for the purpose of the use on the front of the report “Navigating a Complex Landscape to Foster Greater Faculty and Student Diversity in Higher Education.” Usage of the AAU logo for any other purpose related to this project must be given separately. Usage rights are not transferable from user-borrower to another user. User shall not add to, subtract from, colorize, pixelate or otherwise alter AAU’s logo without the written consent of John Vaughn or Miranda Young. With respect to color, the logo may be only be used in three color variations: black and white, grayscale, or the original blue (AAU blue) that it is transmitted in. Resizing does not require written permission. Primary Authors and Project Counsel Robert Burgoyne, Theodore M. Shaw, Ralph C. Dawson, and Rena Scheinkman, Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. and Arthur L. Coleman (also Chair, Expert Legal Advisory Board and Co-Editor), Steven Y. Winnick, Jennifer Rippner, and Scott R. Palmer, EducationCounsel LLC* Co-Project Director, Editor, and Author Jamie Lewis Keith, Vice President and General Counsel, University of Florida, Member, AAAS Capacity Center Advisory Board, AAU General Counsels Group* Co-Project Director and Contributor Dr. Daryl E. Chubin, Founding Director, Center for Advancing Science & Engineering Capacity, American Association for the Advancement of Science Co-Project Director and Contributor Dr. Shirley M. Malcom, Head of Education and Human Resources Programs, American Association for the Advancement of Science Project Liaison Dr. John Vaughn, Executive Vice President, Association of American Universities These materials were presented at a workshop hosted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science with participation by the Association for American Universities, held in October 2009, in Washington, D.C. ___________________________ *The research and editing assistance of Elizabeth Hutton and Allison Crawford of Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough (which is affiliated with EducationCounsel) and the contribution to neutral alternatives of Dr. Paul J. D’Anieri, Dean of the University of Florida College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, are gratefully acknowledged. -i- Project Funding Provided By: The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Supplementary Project Funding Provided By: The National Science Foundation The American Association for the Advancement of Science gratefully acknowledges the support of these sponsors of Phase I of this project. ____________________________________________________________ These materials represent the views and analyses of the authors and contributors, and do not necessarily represent the views or analyses of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Association of American Universities, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the National Science Foundation, the University of Florida, or any participating institution or representative attending any related workshop or contributing to the project. The report is available free as a PDF from www.aaascapacity.org. (Direct Link: http://php.aaas.org/programs/centers/capacity/publications/complexlandscape) -ii- TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I I. PREFACE AND PROJECT OVERVIEW......................................................................... 1 II. HISTORICAL CONTEXT................................................................................................. 7 III. THE COMPELLING CASE FOR DIVERSITY.............................................................. 11 A. The Diversity Imperative in 21st Century STEM Education................................ 11 1. Background.............................................................................................. 11 2. Diversity and STEM Education............................................................... 12 a. Educational and Civic Outcomes ................................................ 12 b. Economic and National Security Outcomes................................ 15 c. Conclusion: Benefits to All ........................................................ 15 3. The Challenges We Face ......................................................................... 15 4. Moving Forward...................................................................................... 20 IV. KEY DEFINITIONS........................................................................................................ 23 A. Race-, Ethnicity-, and Gender-Conscious, -Exclusive and –Neutral Policies ................................................................................................................. 23 B. Intentional and Impact Discrimination................................................................. 24 1. Intentional discrimination or Disparate Treatment.................................. 24 2. Disparate impact...................................................................................... 24 C. Strict, Intermediate and Rational Basis Scrutiny.................................................. 24 1. Strict scrutiny........................................................................................... 24 a. A compelling interest .................................................................. 24 b. Narrow tailoring.......................................................................... 25 2. Intermediate scrutiny............................................................................... 25 3. Rational basis scrutiny ............................................................................. 25 D. Diversity Interests.................................................................................................26 1. Diversity................................................................................................... 26 E. Remedial Interests................................................................................................ 26 F. Critical Mass and Racial, Ethnic, or Gender Balancing....................................... 27 1. Critical mass............................................................................................. 27 2. Racial, ethnic or gender balancing........................................................... 27 -iii- G. Underrepresented Students.................................................................................. 28 H. Individualized, Holistic Review........................................................................... 28 I. Inclusive Conduct and Multi-cultural Skills ........................................................ 29 V. RACE- AND GENDER-NEUTRAL ALTERNATIVES................................................. 31 A. Neutral Alternatives In General ........................................................................... 31 B. Inclusive Conduct and Multi-cultural Skills as a Criterion.................................. 32 1. Definition and Use of Inclusive Conduct and Multi-cultural Skills Criterion................................................................................................... 32 2. Relevance to Institutional and Academic Unit Mission and Goals and Value of Inclusive Conduct and Multi-cultural Skills. ..................... 33 C. Low Socio-economic Background/First In Family To Four-Year College As A Criterion ...................................................................................................... 34 1. Definition of Low Socio-economic Status and Uses as a Criterion......... 34 2. Relevance to Institutional and Academic Unit Mission and Goals and Value of Socio-economic Status ....................................................... 35 D. How Inclusive Conduct And Multi-cultural Skills And/Or Socio- Economic Status Are Considered With Other Eligibility Considerations ........... 35 1. Significance of Institutional Resources Committed ................................ 36 2. Assessment of Impact .............................................................................. 36 3. Commentary and Examples ..................................................................... 36 4. Examples of How Inclusive Conduct and Mulit-cultural Skills and Low Socio-economic Status May be Used in Diversity Efforts.............. 38 a. Advertisement, Interview and Evaluative Questions .................. 38 b. Target of Opportunity Funding and Positions For Those Having Strong Records of Inclusive Conduct and Multi- cultural Skills............................................................................... 39 c. Research Funding........................................................................ 40 d. Other Programs............................................................................ 40 E. Diversity Considerations, the First Amendment and Academic Freedom........... 41 VI. RELEVANT STATE LAWS: VOTER INITIATIVES AND ADMINISTRATIVE RULES........................................................................................... 43 VII. LEGAL