Diversity

Justice Blackmun may be famous for having authored the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, but he's also famous for the "sappy" 1972 baseball antitrust decision Flood v. Kuhn, which exempted baseball from antitrust laws just because baseball is, well, special:

[Flood v. Kuhn] begins with a hopelessly sentimental ode to baseball and a long list of best players who "sparked the diamond" through the national pastime's glorious history. It was so sappy that two justices in the majority refused to join that section of the decision.

How bad and sappy? The blurb above, from a Tony Mauro article about the decision in today's Legal Times, doesn't really capture the florid wretchedness of Blackmun's writing in this opinion, which deserves some kind of bad writing award (on top of legal reasoning so poor that it stands as an embarrassment to lawyers everywhere):

Then there are the many names, celebrated for one reason or another, that have sparked the diamond and its environs and that have provided tinder for recaptured thrills, for reminiscence and comparisons, and for conversation and anticipation in-season and off-season.... [See entire list of players below.*] And one recalls the appropriate reference to the "World Serious," attributed to Ring Lardner, Sr.; Ernest L. Thayer's "Casey at the Bat"; the ring of "Tinker to Evers to Chance"; and all the other happenings, habits, and superstitions about and around baseball that made it the "national pastime" or, depending upon the point of view, "the great American tragedy."

So along came a controversial and best-selling book by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong called The Brethren (if you're applying to law school and haven't read it, you should, along with Jeffrey Toobin's forthcoming The Nine and Jan Crawford Greenburg's Supreme Conflict). The Brethren, which was overall very hostile to Blackmun, included a few sentences about the fact that Blackmun hadn't listed any black players in the first draft of his opinion and added them only at the behest of Thurgood Marshall. We were supposed to conclude that Blackmun was a bigot.

Turns out, "the story is false," according to Ross Davies in a recent interview with the Legal Times about an article he published in the current edition of the Journal of Supreme Court History entitled "A Tall Tale of The Brethren." (Ross is a professor at George Mason Law School, editor of the endlessly entertaining Green Bag, author of a new law school ranking called The Deadwood Report, and my former law review boss.) Ross's research shows that the infamous first draft omitting black players never existed.

Eagle-eyed readers of Ross's article might notice that this is not a battle of anonymous sources, as is so often the case, particularly with Woodward. The authors of The Brethren claimed to have relied on an actual draft of the purportedly all-white document, and they have yet to produce it. (See in particular pages 11-12 and 20-23 in Ross's article.)

What else can we take away from the Flood decision? As Brad Snyder, lawyer and author of a book about Curt Flood, explains in the Legal Times interview: "Even the best judges turn into pennant-waving schoolboys when they decide cases about sports."

* Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Tris Speaker, Walter Johnson, Henry Chadwick, Eddie Collins, Lou Gehrig, Grover Cleveland Alexander, Rogers Hornsby, Harry Hooper, Goose Goslin, Jackie Robinson, Honus Wagner, Joe McCarthy, John McGraw, Deacon Phillippe, Rube Marquard, Christy Mathewson, Tommy Leach, Big Ed Delahanty, Davy Jones, Germany Schaefer, King Kelly, Big Dan Brouthers, Wahoo Sam Crawford, Wee Willie Keeler, Big Ed Walsh, Jimmy Austin, Fred Snodgrass, Satchel Paige, Hugh Jennings, Fred Merkle, Iron Man McGinnity, Three-Finger Brown, Harry and Stan Coveleski, Connie Mack, Al Bridwell, Red Ruffing, Amos Rusie, Cy Young, Smokey Joe Wood, Chief Meyers, Chief Bender, Bill Klem, Hans Lobert, Johnny Evers, Joe Tinker, Roy Campanela, Miller Huggins, Rube Bressler, Dazzy Vance, Edd Roush, Bill Wambsganess, Clark Griffith, Branch Rickey, Frank Chance, Cap Anson, Nap Lajoie, Sad Sam Jones, Bob O'Farrell, Lefty O'Doul, Bobby Veach, Willie Kamm, Heinie Groh, Lloyd and Paul Waner, Stuffy McInnis, Charles Comiske, Roger Bresnahan, Bill Dickey, Zack Wheat, George Sisler, Charlie Gehringer, Eppa Rixey, Harry Heilmann, Fred Clarke, Dizzy Dean, Hank Greenberg, Pie Traynor, Rube Waddell, Bill Terry, Carl Hubbell, Old Hoss Radbourne, Moe Berg, Rabbit Maranville, Jimmie Foxx, Lefty Grove.

For an unrelated discussion of Blackmun's list of players by law professor/baseball fan/former Hall of Fame scholar-in-residence, see this 2006 article by Roger Ian Abrams.

An eagle-eyed Ivey Files reader just sent me the following:

Hope all is well! I ran across this [USA Today] article on helicopter parents and thought it was right up your alley. In case you didn't see it, here is the link.

It amused/disturbed me to discover that there is a national advocacy/interest group for parents of college students. Is that really necessary?!

Wow.

There's lots of good stuff packed into that article, not least the following about a study conducted by UCLA about the role of parents on campus:

[R]esearchers found significant differences among students of different racial backgrounds. More than 43% of Latinos, for example, said their parents were involved too little in choosing college courses, compared with 37% of Asian students, 33% of black students, 29% of American Indian students and 19% of white students.

I've written elsewhere about how employers who complain about coddled college students and their intrusive helicopter parents need to cast their net more widely. I've been especially impressed by the self-sufficiency of people coming back to school from the military, as well as the children of immigrants, and children who have been working in a family business since they could walk. Those are just some examples. Their resumes might look a bit more unusual, but I don't think it's asking too much of employers to look a little harder. There are plenty of great "kids" out there whose parents haven't been hovering all the time.

Which reminds me... I've been meaning to share this article in the Washington Post by a Georgetown college student who recently returned from a tour of duty in Iraq. Fascinating, and humbling.

When Columbia Law School accuses the law school admissions community of dissing minorities, I sit up and take notice. A recent press release from Columbia trumpets a new study it conducted that makes the following argument:

• African-American and Mexican-American applications have been steady over the last 15 years.

• During the same time, their LSAT scores and GPAs have been improving.

• During the same time, the number of law schools seats has grown.

• And yet, enrollment from among these two groups is down.

Their conclusion:

“The net result is that for African Americans and Mexican Americans, law schools are not progressing towards more inclusive admissions.  This affects everyone who is concerned about better education and a more representative legal profession.”

The press release raises the alarm more generally about a “disturbing decline in minority enrollment in U.S. law schools," and the study calls for a “diversity focused admissions plan,” or what the rest of us call affirmative action.

The charges being leveled are indeed troubling, if true, so I took a look at the underlying LSAC data to see if I could identify the same problems. Not even close.

Here’s what I see in the data*:

Black/African American enrollment went up by 8.9% in the last ten years. Not earth-shattering, but not too shabby either.

During the same period, there was a sizable drop in the category LSAC calls “Chicano/Mexican American”:  -18.9%. That does look pretty bad.

But wait... what’s that row right beneath Chicano/Mexican American in the LSAC tables? That would be the row called “Hispanic/Latino,” which saw a 62.4% increase in enrolled students in the same time period. That spike dwarfs the percentage increase in Asian American (43.3%), “Other" (57.3%), and white (5.8%) enrolled students. And for some reason, Columbia chose to focus on the drop in Chicano enrollment and ignore that much bigger jump in Latino enrollment.

So what's the scandal here? I don't think it's any "disturbing decline in minority enrollment," because I'm not seeing one. What's disturbing is that Columbia looks at this data, cherry-picks its numbers, and pretends there is a disturbing decline.

It's pretty cheeky to cherry-pick the data to make a point and then issue a breathless press release about how “the statistics help people focus on the numbers, not on ideology.”

Another interesting omission: while the Columbia study basically accuses the admissions community of failing to admit enough minorities (hence the call for more affirmative action or "diversity focused admissions plans"), here’s what the LSAC data show about the growth in the number of minority applicants who were admitted (note that admission is different from enrollment, hence the different sets of numbers):

Hispanic/Latino:                  +62.8%Other:                                 +51.7%Asian/Pacific Islander:          +36.5%Black/African American:        + 7.8%Caucasian/White:                 +  4.0%Chicano/Mexican American:  -23.0%Those numbers also paint a rather different picture than Columbia’s study or press release. In those numbers, I see admissions officers working very hard over the last ten years to create an ethnically diverse class, and doing a pretty good job at it, too.

Incidentally, I haven’t even touched on whether Asian Americans count as minorities. If they do, then Asian American admissions and enrollment data undermine Columbia’s argument even further. In any event, it would be helpful for Columbia to use more precision when it throws around terms like “diversity."

But back to the study: Columbia needs to be less selective with the data, and I would encourage the media who respond to the press release (some of whom have been calling me for comment, hence this posting) to dig into the underlying data. And if I’m reading the data wrong, I’m happy to be corrected.

_______________________________

*Here's a caveat: the Columbia study looked at LSAC data going back to 1992. The LSAC website currently gives data going back only to the class that started in fall 1997, so I have five fewer years to work with; I do have the latest ten, however. For those of you who want to take a look, go here, then roll over the Data button, then click on LSAC Ethnic/Gender Volume Summary. In that section, I looked at the enrollment and admissions tables in particular. I compared the numbers for “Fall 2007” to the numbers for “1996-1997” and calculated the percentage changes between those two points in time.

Minority MBA applicants (yes, that includes women, at least where top MBA programs are concerned), take note: Wharton is sponsoring a diversity day for you:Explore Wharton: Diversity in ActionSeptember 20-21, 2007

If you are a woman, an under-represented minority, or a LGBT prospectivestudent, we invite you to visit us at our annual prospective studentevent Explore Wharton: Diversity in Action on Thursday, September 20 andFriday, September 21, 2007.

Co-sponsored by the African American MBA Association (AAMBAA), WhartonHispanic American MBA Association (WHAMBAA), Wharton Women in Business(WWIB), Out for Business (Out4Biz) and Wharton's MBA Admissions Office,Explore Wharton gives you the opportunity to experience Whartonfirst-hand.  This two-day event focuses on Wharton MBA opportunities forprospective women, LGBT and under-represented minorities.  You will meetcurrent students and administrators, attend classes with Wharton's topprofessors and gain invaluable insights in the admissions process. 

Discover how our distinctively collaborative environment, innovativelearning channels, global reach, and diversity of talent, place you atthe leading edge of new ideas that shape worldwide practice in thebusiness, nonprofit and government sectors.

Register here:http://clubs.wharton.upenn.edu/proday/

WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU....

Judith S. Hodara, Ed.D.Senior Associate DirectorWharton MBA Admissions215.898.2585Even if special diversity events are not your cup of tea, you should go (assuming you fall into one of the designated categories). It's a great way to get some face-time with admissions officers.

Is affirmative action in law school admissions hurting the prospects of black attorneys? Gail Heriot, professor at University of San Diego Law School, argues yes in an opinion piece in the WSJ last week. She revisits an explosive law review article by UCLA law professor Richard Sander ("A Systematic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools"):Mr. Sander calculated that there are fewer black attorneys today than there would have been if law schools had practiced color-blind admissions -- about 7.9% fewer by his reckoning. He identified the culprit as the practice of admitting minority students to schools for which they are inadequately prepared. In essence, they have been "matched" to the wrong school....

Mr. Sander's original article noted that when elite law schools lower their academic standards in order to admit a more racially diverse class, schools one or two tiers down feel they must do the same. As a result, there is now a serious gap in academic credentials between minority and non-minority law students across the pecking order, with the average black student's academic index more than two standard deviations below that of his average white classmate.

Not surprisingly, such a gap leads to problems. Students who attend schools where their academic credentials are substantially below those of their fellow students tend to perform poorly.

The reason is simple: While some students will outperform their entering academic credentials, just as some students will underperform theirs, most students will perform in the range that their academic credentials predict. As a result, in elite law schools, 51.6% of black students had first-year grade point averages in the bottom 10% of their class as opposed to only 5.6% of white students. Nearly identical performance gaps existed at law schools at all levels....

Specifically, Mr. Sander found that when black and white students with similar academic credentials compete against each other at the same school, they earn about the same grades. Similarly, when black and white students with similar grades from the same tier law school take the bar examination, they pass at about the same rate.

Yet, paradoxically, black students as a whole have dramatically lower bar passage rates than white students with similar credentials. Something is wrong.

The Sander study argued that the most plausible explanation is that, as a result of affirmative action, black and white students with similar credentials are not attending the same schools. The white students are more likely to be attending a school that takes things a little more slowly and spends more time on matters that are covered on the bar exam. They are learning, while their minority peers are struggling at more elite schools....(This mismatch theory and critique of affirmative action is not new. It appeared, for example, in Dinesh D'Souza's Illiberal Education, which came out in 1991.)

Predictably, the legal establishment didn't react well, an attitude that is in keeping with the admissions community's code of silence on the subject:Unfortunately, fair-minded scholars are hard to come by when the issue is affirmative action. Some of the same people who argue Mr. Sander's data are inconclusive are now actively trying to prevent him from conducting follow-up research that might yield definitive answers. If racial preferences really are causing more harm than good, they apparently don't want you -- or anyone else -- to know.Take William Kidder, a University of California staff advisor and co-author of a frequently cited attack of Sander's study. When Mr. Sander and his co-investigators sought bar passage data from the State Bar of California that would allow analysis by race, Mr. Kidder passionately argued that access should be denied, because disclosure "risks stigmatizing African American attorneys." At the same time, the Society of American Law Teachers, which leans so heavily to the left it risks falling over sideways, gleefully warned that the state bar would be sued if it cooperated with Mr. Sander. Sadly, the State Bar's Committee of Bar Examiners caved under the pressure.I'll let people draw their own conclusions about the data (read the criticisms of the Sander article here and here and his responses here), but I can't say I approve of this don't-ask-don't-tell mentality when it comes to affirmative action. Let's get the facts out there and see what they tell us.

Today's NYT reports on elite colleges trying to introduce more economic diversity into their classrooms.  An excerpt:

The discussion in the States of Poverty seminar here at Amherst College was getting a little theoretical. Then Anthony Abraham Jack, a junior from Miami, asked pointedly, “Has anyone here ever actually seen a food stamp?”

To Mr. Jack, unlike many of his classmates, food stamps are not an abstraction. His family has had to use them in emergencies. His mother raised three children as a single parent and earns $26,000 a year as a school security guard. That is just a little more than half the cost of a year’s tuition, room and board, fees and other expenses at Amherst, which for Mr. Jack’s class was close to $48,000.

So when Mr. Jack, now 22 and a senior, graduates with honors on May 27, he will not just be the first in his family to earn a college degree, but a success story in the effort by Amherst and a growing number of elite colleges to open their doors to talented low-income students.

Concerned that the barriers to elite institutions are being increasingly drawn along class lines, and wanting to maintain some role as engines of social mobility, about two dozen schools — Amherst, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, the University of Virginia, Williams and the University of North Carolina, among them — have pushed in the past few years to diversify economically.

They are trying tactics like replacing loans with grants and curtailing early admission, which favors the well-to-do and savvy. But most important, Amherst, for instance, is doing more than giving money to low-income students; it is recruiting them and taking their socioeconomic background — defined by family income, parents’ education and occupation level — into account when making admissions decisions. . . .

For Mr. Jack, there were adjustments at this college, where half the students are affluent enough that their parents pay tuition without any aid from Amherst.

He did not let it bother him, he said, when wealthier classmates blithely inquired about the best clubs in Miami — as if he would know, Mr. Jack said dryly — before flying off to his hometown for spring break. Mr. Jack could afford to go home only at Christmas, and the end of the year, when Amherst paid his plane fare.

The article also points out the uncomfortable fact that traditional, race-based affirmative action benefits mostly middle and upper-class minorities.

One of the challenges these colleges will face is preparing economically and educationally disadvantaged students for the rigor of their classrooms. Many kids who've never attended fancy prep schools or received expensive after-school tutoring or perfected their study skills will have some catching up to do, and colleges should be aggressive in acknowledging that gap and offering academic assistance. It would be a huge disservice to those students to throw them into the classroom and expect them to fit right in with a bunch of kids who in high school were reading John Locke and taking Latin classes to help them with their vocabulary and conducting research projects with names like "The Influence of DNA Mismatch Repair on the Types of p53 Mutations Found in Msh2 Null and Msh2/Atm Double Null Transformants."

Congratulations and good luck to Anthony.

The CIA, like the Las Vegas Police Department, has figured out that it needs to think more creatively to reach Gen Y. Its newly unveiled recruiting website features lots of snappy Flash animation spy quizzes and 24-style sound effects. Oddly, their press release says that they've posted a diversity recruiting video featuring Jennifer Garner of Alias fame, but after much clicking around I can't find it. Guess I flunked that test, huh? I did find this rather lame diversity video, though. Where's Jennifer?

I was intrigued by the comments to my recent post ‘Study: Gen Y Narcissistic.’

Commenter AAO asked whether I "honestly blame the admissions community for 'admissions essays that have become standard in the application process,'" a reference to the “Look At Me!” essays I wrote about in the post.

Well, yes, my post made pretty clear that that’s what I honestly think. To back up that assessment, I’ll let my credentials as former dean of admissions at a top-ten law school and private advisor to hundreds of college, law school, and business school applicants over the years speak for themselves.

AAO continues:It would seem to me the admissions community (when applicants actually bother to talk with us) makes it very clear that we are interested in critical and creative thinking. Those "standard" essays don't get applicants very far, except to make it easier to reach a decision to deny an applicant who would not otherwise stand out at all.

My sense is that the trend you are discussing may be more accurate for undergraduate admissions than graduate admissions. I find it somewhat curious that you lump the two together in your criticism of the "admissions community". I don't at all feel a part of the world of undergraduate admissions, and suspect that most graduate school admissions officers are a bit less influenced by parental-funded summer programs that "save the world".AAO seems to be an admissions officer (“when applicants actually bother to talk with us”) -- for what kind of program, I don’t know, because AAO doesn’t say. I suspect -- and hope -- that, oh, dental schools aren’t as obsessed with the “personal qualities” of their applicants as some other grad schools.

However, I’ve seen over and over again how law school and business school applicants get rewarded for selling themselves -- who they are and what they’ve done; what they’re best at; where they’ve lived and what they’ve seen; what challenges and disadvantages they’ve faced and conquered; what marathons they've run and what mountain peaks they've summited; not to mention the inner-city school children they’ve inspired and the business problems they’ve tackled in their two or three decades of life. In short, “Look at Me!” That is not a phenomenon restricted to college applicants, and to say that admissions officers for two of the most popular graduate programs penalize a “Look at Me!” approach would be disingenuous.

The essay questions themselves give the game away. Most questions imply that abnormal or unique characteristics or experiences are preferred; others openly say so. Few, if any, ask applicants to "analyze" or "discuss" a subject (other than themselves), and the majority are focused on what kinds of life experiences the applicant will offer the incoming class (“bring to the table,” in popular parlance) if admitted to school X.  The universal (but unspoken) prompt for all of the schools is really "What do you offer?" That may be the best thing to ask when choosing an incoming class, and of course it’s the schools’ prerogative to set whatever gatekeeping criteria they want, but their approach should not be confused with a search for "critical and creative thinking."

Some examples from law school applications:Enclose a statement of about two pages describing important or unusual aspects of yourself not otherwise apparent in your application. (Stanford)

Such a statement may provide the Admissions Committee with information regarding such matters as: personal, family, or educational background; experiences and talents of special interest; reasons for applying to law school as they may relate to personal goals and professional expectations; or any other factors that you think should inform the Committee's evaluation of your candidacy for admission. (Columbia)

In reviewing the personal statement, the Committee looks for information that gives insight into the non-academic contribution you would make to the class. (Chicago)

The subject matter of the essay is up to you, but keep in mind that the reader will be seeking a sense of you as a person and as a potential student and graduate of Boalt Hall. Boalt Hall seeks to enroll a class with varied backgrounds and interests. If you wish, you may separately discuss how your interests, background, life experiences and perspectives would contribute to the diversity of the entering class. If applicable, you may also describe any disadvantages that may have adversely affected your past performance or that you have successfully overcome, including linguistic barriers or a personal or family history of cultural, educational or socioeconomic disadvantage. (Boalt Hall/Berkeley)

Our student body is one of Michigan Law School 's richest resources. Each entering class is composed of accomplished people who bring a spectrum of experiences and perspectives to our community. Your personal statement provides you with an opportunity to demonstrate the ways in which you can contribute your talents and experiences. (Michigan)

The statement is your opportunity to introduce yourself to the admissions decision maker and should include (1) what you think have been your significant personal experiences beyond what may be reflected in your academic transcripts and on your resume, and (2) your personal and career ambitions. (Duke)Notice some of the words the applications use in the instructions for the personal statements: unique, ambition, diversity, and -- above all -- personal. These are not the sorts of prompts that are going to produce 2-page discussions of "Ode on a Grecian Urn” or the Second Intifada or puzzles involving prime numbers or tensions between the First Amendment and hate-speech laws, or any kind of critical analysis of a subject other than oneself.

And that’s no surprise -- it’s much harder to evaluate thousands of pieces of critical thinking than it is to read thousands of warm and fuzzy essays about people's upbringing, activities, disadvantages, or multicultural experiences. How much easier it is on admissions officers to let a GMAT/LSAT/GRE score and inflated GPA stand in for critical thinking skills.

In fact, the only law school essay questions I can think of that expressly ask for examples of critical thinking are Yale’s famous 250-word essay, which invites a discussion of a “personal anecdote, an academic subject, or current events” (meaning that the essay doesn’t have to be about the applicant in any way other than to show how her mind works), and Chicago’s essay questions for “hold” applicants, who are asked to write about a particular legal problem (an example from this year: “Should parents be held liable if their children willfully cause damage to the property of others?”) Yale and Chicago are commonly thought of as the two most cerebral of the top law schools, so perhaps that’s no accident.

The "optional essays" are even worse, and they arguably contribute even more to the “Look At Me!” phenomenon. As commenter Kevin points out in the original blog posting: “Since not everyone has the up front diversity characteristics schools may be looking for (or in some cases holding admissions quotas for), there is pressure for many applicants to find or even invent personal aspects that make them "diverse" and thus special.” Here are some examples of diversity essay questions. You be the judge:

Describe how your background or experiences will contribute to or enhance the diversity of the Penn Law community (e.g. based on your culture, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, ideology, age, socioeconomic status, academic background, employment experience, etc.). (Penn)

Describe an experience you've had that speaks to the problems and possibilities of diversity in an educational or work setting. (Michigan)

Because we believe that diversity enriches the educational experience of all our students, Duke Law School seeks to admit students from a variety of academic, cultural, social, ethnic, and economic backgrounds. If you choose to submit this essay, tell us more about your particular life experiences with an emphasis on how the perspectives that you have acquired would contribute to the intellectual and social life of the Law School. (Duke)

So even when the applications ask for contributions to the "intellectual" life at a school, they're asking in the context of a diversity essay, which lends itself to a list of characteristics and personal experiences, not a demonstration of intellectual insight or achievement. 

Business school application essays are similarly focused on personal achievements and successes. To their credit, they also ask about weaknesses, ethical challenges, and teamwork, and even more to their credit they ask much more succinctly than law schools, but the focus is still very much on “me, me, me.” Some sample essay questions:

What is most important to you and why? (Stanford)

What are your three most substantial accomplishments, and why do you view them as such? (Harvard)

Each of our applicants is unique. Describe how your background, values, academics, activities and/or leadership skills will enhance the experience of other Kellogg students. (Kellogg)

Describe an impact you’ve had on an individual, group or organization. How has this experience been valuable to you or others? (Wharton)

Those kinds of questions are the norm, not the exception.

Business school offers more of the same in the classroom. For example, for a course on Leadership and Organizational Behavior at Harvard Business School, students were recently asked to conduct a “Reflected Best-Self Feedback Exercise” (for real!) expressly designed to focus on and reveal each student’s strengths. Not a bad exercise for future managers and CEOs to go through, but more of the same conditioning that causes people to think constantly in terms of me, myself, and I, and why I’m so special.

And so I continue to defend Generation Y, because they are simply responding to powerful incentives created by even more powerful gatekeepers.

I’ll also add that I’m absolutely complicit in this phenomenon. As an admissions officer, I stuck with the same kinds of application essay questions (boy, would I do things differently today), and in my current role I encourage applicants to write those kinds of essays because they work. It’s what admissions officers want, and it’s what they reward.

This article in Workforce Management magazine profiles a new advertising strategy that the Las Vegas Police Department recently deployed to attract millennials. They figured out that their old-school ads "featuring a group of racially diverse men and women in front of a patrol car with some message akin to 'Join Us"'  weren't cutting it (a shame -- I'm sure they paid some diversity consultant boatloads of money to come up with that one) and hired the geniuses behind the "What Happens in Vegas, Stays in Vegas" campaign. The results? A film-noir style cartoon advertising campaign. Take a look. What do you think?

Today's New York Times picks up where Dan Golden left off a while back in the Wall Street Journal, where he reported on Asian quotas at top colleges. (See my blog entry about that article here.) The NYT article profiles a profound demographic shift at Berkeley, where racial preferences have been banned by state law and Asian students now make up 46% of this year's freshman class. (They make up 41% of the overall undergraduate population, and 12% of Californians.)

The most interesting point comes from the chairman of Berkeley's History department, David A. Hollinger, who points out that the term "Asian" doesn't even mean anything in this context, because the category describes Chinese, Koreans, Pakistanis, Filipinos, Japanese, and Sri Lankans, among others.

Still, even if the term "Asian" covers a wide span of the globe, the demographic shift towards Asian students is fascinating and controversial when the state's flagship taxpayer funded school looks so different from the state itself.