Amicus Curiae Brief — Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., Petitioner v. University of North Carolina, et al.

Supreme Court briefAug 1, 2022

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No. 21-707

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

————

STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.,

Petitioner,

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al.,

Respondents.

————

On Writ of Certiorari Before Judgment to the

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fourth Circuit

————

BRIEF OF 1,246 AMERICAN SOCIAL SCIENCE

RESEARCHERS AND SCHOLARS AS AMICI

CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS

————

WILLIAM J. MURPHY

SAMANTHA A. MILLER

ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP

100 East Pratt Street

Suite 2440

Baltimore, MD 21202

CAROLINE E. REYNOLDS

Counsel of Record

DAVID A. REISER

ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP

1800 M Street NW

Washington, DC 20036

(202) 778-1800

creynolds@zuckerman.com

Counsel for Amici Curiae

August 1, 2022

WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................iii

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ......................................... 1

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ..................................... 2

ARGUMENT......................................................................... 3

UNC’s Race-Conscious Admissions Process has

Better Served the Compelling Interests Identified in

Grutter Than the Policies of Flagship Universities That

Are Forbidden to Consider Race. ......................................... 4

College Student-Body Diversity Promotes

Citizenship, Leadership, and Productivity in

Diverse Workplaces. ......................................................... 4

The Educational Benefits of Diversity

Depend on UNC Admitting Meaningful Numbers

of Under-Represented Minority Students Each

Year 7

Under-Represented Minority Students at

UNC Graduate at Higher Rates than Those at

Public Universities with Race-Blind Admissions

Policies. ........................................................................... 10

Claims of Harm from Academic “Mismatch”

Are Unfounded. ............................................................... 14

Assessment of UNC’s Progress Must Take

Into Account the Continuing Effects of Segregation

in North Carolina............................................................ 17

Race-Neutral Alternatives Are Not Yet as

Effective in Creating Diversity as UNC’s Holistic

Approach. ............................................................................ 20

Percent Plans Are Not an Adequate

Substitute for Race-Conscious Admissions.................... 22

Increasing Socioeconomic Diversity is Not an

Adequate Substitute for Race-Conscious Holistic

Admissions Policies. ....................................................... 24

Petitioner’s Contrary Evidence is Flawed. ........... 27

CONCLUSION ................................................................... 30

APPENDIX A: List of Amici Curiae ................................ A-1

APPENDIX B.................................................................... B-1

Survey Results Reflecting Undergraduate Student

Perceptions of Campus Racial Climate at the University

of North Carolina-Chapel Hill ......................................... B-1

University of California Gap Analysis................... B-6

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Grutter v. Bollinger,

539 U.S. 306 (2003)................................................. passim

N.C. State Conf. of NAACP v. McCrory,

831 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2016)............................................. 3

Shelby County v. Holder,

570 U.S. 529 (2013)........................................................... 3

Other Authorities

Alan Krueger et al., Race, Income, and College in 25

Years: Evaluating Justice O’Connor’s Conjecture,

8 Am. L. & Econ. Rev. 282 (2006). ................................. 27

Alice Xiang & Donald B. Rubin, Assessing the

Potential Impact of a Nationwide Class-Based

Affirmative Action System, 30 Statistical Sci. 297

(2015) ............................................................................... 26

Amy Lutz et al., How Affirmative Action Context

Shapes Collegiate Outcomes at America’s Selective

Colleges and Universities, 31 J. L. & Soc. Pol'y 71

(2019) ............................................................................... 16

Amy Lutz, et al., State Bans on Affirmative Action

and Talent Loss Among Blacks and Latinos in the

United States, 43 Ethnic Studies Rev. 58 (2020)........... 21

Angel Harris & Marta Tienda, Minority Higher

Education Pipeline: Consequences of Changes in

College Admissions Policy in Texas, 627 Annals

Am. Acad. Pol. & Soc. Sci. 60 (2010) .............................. 23

Angel L. Harris & Marta Tienda, Hispanics in

Higher Education and the Texas Top Ten Percent

Law, 4 Race & Soc. Probs. 57 (2012) .............................. 23

Anthony P. Carnevale & Jeff Strohl, How Increasing

College Access Is Increasing Inequality, and What

to Do About It, in Rewarding Strivers (Richard D.

Kahlenberg ed., 2010) ..................................................... 26

Anthony P. Carnevale & Jeff Strohl, Separate and

Unequal: How Higher Education Reinforces the

Intergenerational Reproduction of White Racial

Privilege (2013) ............................................................... 26

Ben Backes, Do Affirmative Action Bans Lower

Minority College Enrollment and Attainment?

Evidence from Statewide Bans, 47 J. Hum. Res.

435 (2012) ........................................................................ 13

Brief Amicus Curiae for Richard Lempert in

Support of Respondents, Fisher v. University of

Texas at Austin, No. 14-981............................................ 30

Brief of Amicus Curiae The University of North

Carolina at Chapel Hill Supporting Respondents,

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, No. 11-345 ...... 23

Catherine Horn & Stella M. Flores, When Policy

Opportunity Is Not Enough: College Access and

Enrollment Patterns Among Texas Percent Plan

Eligible Students, 3 J. Applied Res. on Child. 1

(2012) ............................................................................... 23

Charles T. Clotfelter, et al., School Segregation in

the Era of Color-Blind Jurisprudence and School

Choice, Urban Affairs Rev. (2021)............................ 18, 19

Christina Ciocca Eller & Thomas A. DiPrete, The

Paradox of Persistence: Explaining the BlackWhite Gap in Bachelor’s Degree Completion, 83

Am. Soc. Rev. 1171 (2018) .............................................. 13

Claude M. Steele, Whistling Vivaldi: How

Stereotypes Affect Us and What We Can Do About

It (2010) ............................................................................. 8

Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP),

2017 Freshman Survey, Institutional Profile

Reports, University of North Carolina at Chapel

Hill, https://tinyurl.com/bdh9kxsw ................................ 19

Daniel Hirschman & Ellen Berrey, The Partial

Deinstitutionalization of Affirmative Action in

U.S. Higher Education, 1988 to 2014, 4 Socio. Sci.

449 (2017) ........................................................................ 21

Daryl G. Smith, Diversity’s Promise for Higher

Education: Making it Work (2020) ................................... 9

Dirk Witteveen & Paul Attewell, The Earnings

Payoff from Attending a Selective College, 66 Soc.

Sci. Research 154 (2017) ................................................. 16

Douglas S. Massey & Margarita Mooney, The Effects

of America’s Three Affirmative Action Programs

on Academic Performance, 54 Soc. Probs. 99

(2007) ............................................................................... 14

Eddie Comeaux, The Long-Term Benefits of CrossRacial Engagement on Workforce Competencies for

Division I White Student-Athletes, 50 J. Student

Affairs Research & Prac. 37 (2013) .................................. 6

Eric R., Eide et al., Is It Where You Go Or What You

Study? The Relative Influence of College

Selectivity and College Major on Earnings, 34

Contemp. Econ. Pol’y 37 (2016) ...................................... 16

Graduation Success Rate, NCAA.org,

http://web3.ncaa.org/aprsearch/gsrsearch ......... 11, 12, 24

Helen F. Ladd, et al., The Growing Segmentation of

the Charter School Sector in North Carolina, 12

Educ. Finance & Pol’y 536 (2017) .................................. 18

Huacong Liu, How do Affirmative Action Bans Affect

the Racial Composition of Postsecondary Students

in Public Institutions?, Educ. Pol’y (2020) ..................... 20

Jack Mountjoy & Brent R. Hickman, The Returns to

College(s): Estimating Value-Added and Match

Effects in Higher Education, Nat’l Bureau Econ.

Research, Working Paper No. 29276 (2021) .................. 16

James Monks, The Returns to Individual and

College Characteristics: Evidence from the

National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 19 Econ.

Educ. Rev. 279 (2000) ............................................... 16, 17

James T. Minor, Segregation Residual in Higher

Education: A Tale of Two States, 45 Am. Educ.

Research J. 861 (2008) .................................................... 18

Jeffrey F. Milem, et al., Making Diversity Work on

Campus: A Research-Based Perspective (2005)................ 9

Jessica S. Howell, Assessing the Impact of

Eliminating Affirmative Action in Higher

Education, 28 J. Labor Econ. 113 (2010) ....................... 21

vii

Jim Sidanius et al., The Diversity Challenge: Social

Identity and Intergroup Relations on the College

Campus (2008) .................................................................. 8

Joanne W. Golann et al., Does the “Mismatch

Hypothesis” Apply to Hispanic Students at

Selective Colleges?, in The Education of the

Hispanic Population: Selected Essays (Billie

Gastic & Richard R. Verdugo eds. 2013) ....................... 14

Kalena E. Cortes, Do Bans on Affirmative Action

Hurt Minority Students? Evidence from the Texas

Top 10% Plan, 29 Econ. Educ. Rev. 1110 (2010) ........... 13

Kermit Daniel et al., Racial Differences in the

Effects of College Quality and Student Body

Diversity on Wages, in Diversity Challenged:

Evidence on the Impact of Affirmative Action

(Gary Orfield & Michal Kurlaender eds., 2001) ............ 16

Kimberly Sanders, Black Culture Centers: A Review

of Pertinent Literature, 4 Urban Educ. Research &

Pol’y Annuals (2016) ......................................................... 8

Liliana M. Garces & Uma M. Jayakumar. Dynamic

Diversity: Toward a Contextual Understanding of

Critical Mass, 43 Educ. Researcher 115 (2014) ............. 10

Liliana M. Garces, Racial Diversity, Legitimacy, and

the Citizenry: The Impact of Affirmative Action

Bans on Graduate School Enrollment, 36 Rev.

Higher Educ. 93 (2012) ................................................... 21

Liliana M. Garces, Understanding the Impact of

Affirmative Action Bans in Different Graduate

viii

Fields of Study, 50 Am. Educ. Research J. 251

(2013) ............................................................................... 21

Liliana M., Garces & David Mickey-Pabello, Racial

Diversity in the Medical Profession: The Impact of

Affirmative Action Bans on Underrepresented

Student of Color Matriculation in Medical

Schools, 86 J. Higher Educ. 264 (2015) ......................... 21

Lorelle L. Espinosa et al., Race, Class, and College

Access: Achieving Diversity in a Shifting Legal

Landscape (2015) ............................................................ 27

Marcella Alsan et al., Does Diversity Matter for

Health? Experimental Evidence from Oakland, 12

Am. Econ. Rev. 4071 (2019)............................................ 22

Mario L. Small & Christopher Winship, Black

Students’ Graduation from Elite Colleges:

Institutional Characteristics and BetweenInstitution Differences, 36 Soc. Sci. Res. 1257

(2007) ............................................................................... 14

Mark C. Long & Nicole A. Bateman, Long-Run

Changes in Underrepresentation After Affirmative

Action Bans in Public Universities, 42 Educ.

Evaluation & Pol’y Analysis 188 (2020) ........................ 20

Mark C. Long et al., Policy Transparency and

College Enrollment: Did the Texas Top Ten

Percent Law Broaden Access to the Public

Flagships?, 627 Annals Am. Acad. Pol. & Soc. Sci.

82 (2010) .......................................................................... 23

Mark C. Long, Changes in the Returns to Education

and College Quality, 29 Econ. Educ. Rev. 338

(2010) ............................................................................... 16

Mark C. Long, Is There a “Workable” Race-Neutral

Alternative to Affirmative Action in College

Admissions?, 34 J. Policy Analysis & Mgmt. 162

(2014) ............................................................................... 26

Mark E. Engberg & Sylvia Hurtado, Developing

Pluralistic Skills and Dispositions in College:

Examining Racial/Ethnic Group Differences, 82

J. Higher Educ. 416 (2011) ............................................... 7

Mark Long, The Promise and Peril for Universities

Using Correlates of Race in Admissions in

Response to the Grutter and Fisher Decisions, in

Gary Orfield et al., Alternative Paths to Diversity:

Exploring and Implementing Effective College

Admissions Policies (2017) ............................................. 26

Mary J. Fischer & Douglas S. Massey, The Effects of

Affirmative Action in Higher Education, 36 Soc.

Sci. Res. 531 (2007) ......................................................... 14

Matthew N. Gaertner & Melissa Hart, Considering

Class: College Access & Diversity, 7 Harv. L. &

Pol’y Rev. 367 (2013)....................................................... 29

Matthew N. Gaertner, Advancing College Access

with Class-Based Affirmative Action—The

Colorado Case, in The Future of Affirmative

Action (Richard D. Kahlenberg ed., 2014) ..................... 29

Meera E. Deo, Two Sides of a Coin: Safe Space &

Segregation in Race/Ethnic-Specific Law Student

Organizations, 42 Wash. Univ. J. Law & Pol’y 42

(2013) ................................................................................. 8

Michal Kurlaender & Eric Grodsky, Mismatch and

the Paternalistic Justification for Selective College

Admissions, 86 Socio. Educ. 294 (2013) ......................... 15

Michal Kurlaender et al., Access and Diversity at the

University of California in the Post-Affirmative

Action Era, in Affirmative Action and Racial

Equity (Uma M. Jayakumar & Liliana M. Garces

eds., 2015) ....................................................................... 21

Mischa Thompson & Denise Sekaquaptewa, When

Being Different is Detrimental: Solo Status and

the Performance of Women and Racial Minorities,

2 Analyses Soc. Issues & Pub. Pol’y 183 (2002)............... 9

Nicholas A. Bowman & Nida Denson, Institutional

Racial Representation and Equity Gaps in College

Graduation, 93 J. Higher Educ. 399 (2022) ............. 10, 12

Nicholas A. Bowman, College Diversity Experiences

and Cognitive Development: A Meta-Analysis, 80

Rev. Educ. Research 4 (2010) ........................................... 7

Nicholas A. Bowman, Promoting Participation in a

Diverse Democracy: A Meta-Analysis of College

Diversity Experiences and Civic Engagement, 81

Rev. Educ. Research 29 (2011) ......................................... 6

Patricia Gurin et al., Diversity and Higher

Education: Theory and Impact on Educational

Outcomes, 72 Harv. Educ. Rev. 330 (2002) ...................... 9

Patricia Gurin, et al., Dialogue Across Difference:

Practice, Theory, and Research on Intergroup

Dialogue (2013) ............................................................ 7, 8

Peter Arcidiacono and Michael Lovenheim,

Affirmative Action and the Quality-Fit Tradeoff,

54 J. Econ. Lit. 3 (2016) .................................................. 17

Peter Hinrichs, Affirmative Action Bans and College

Graduation Rates, 42 Econ. Educ. Rev. 43 (2014)......... 13

Richard D. Kahlenberg & Halley Potter, A Better

Affirmative Action: State Universities That

Created Alternatives to Racial Preferences (Oct.

2012) ................................................................................ 30

Richard H. Sander, A Reply to Critics, 57 Stan. L.

Rev. 1963 (2005) ............................................................. 15

Richard Sander & Stuart Taylor, Jr., Mismatch:

How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s

Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t

Admit It (2012) ................................................................ 15

Robert A. Dentler et al., University on Trial: The

Case of the University of North Carolina (1983)............ 18

Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Men and Women of the

Corporation (1977) ............................................................ 9

Roslyn Arlin Mickelson et al., Yesterday, Today, and

Tomorrow: School Desegregation and

Resegregation in Charlotte (2015) .................................. 18

Sandra E. Black et al., Winners and Losers? The

Effect of Gaining and Losing Access to Selective

xii

Colleges on Education and Labor Market

Outcomes, Nat’l Bureau Econ. Research, Working

Paper No. 26821 (2020) .................................................. 16

Scott Page, The Diversity Bonus (2017) ............................... 8

Sean F. Reardon et al., What Levels of Racial

Diversity Can Be Achieved with Socioeconomic‐

Based Affirmative Action? Evidence from a

Simulation Model, 37 J. Pol’y Analysis & Mgmt.

630 (2018) .................................................................. 24, 25

Shaun R. Harper & Sylvia Hurtado, Nine Themes in

Campus Racial Climates and Implications for

Institutional Transformation, 120 New Directions

for Student Services 7 (2007) ........................................... 8

Sigal Alon & Marta Tienda, Assessing the

“Mismatch” Hypothesis: Differences in College

Graduation Rates by Institutional Selectivity, 78

Socio. Educ. 294 (2005) ................................................... 14

Sigal Alon, Race, Class and Affirmative Action

(2015) ............................................................................... 25

Somnath Saha & Scott A. Shipman, Race-Neutral

Versus Race-Conscious Workforce Policy to

Improve Access to Care, 27 Health Affairs 234

(2008) ............................................................................... 21

Stacy Berg Dale & Alan B. Krueger, Estimating the

Payoff to Attending a More Selective College: An

Application of Selection on Observables and

Unobservables, Nat’l Bureau Econ. Research,

Working Paper No. 7322 (1999) ............................... 15, 16

xiii

Stacy Berg Dale & Alan B. Krueger, Estimating the

Payoff to Attending a More Selective College: An

Application of Selection on Observables and

Unobservables, 117 Q.J. Econ. 1491 (2002) ................... 15

Stacy Dale & Alan Krueger, Estimating the Effects

of College Characteristics over the Career Using

Administrative Earnings Data, 49 J. Hum. Res.

323 (2014) .................................................................. 15, 16

Susan R. Rankin & Robert Dean Reason, Differing

Perceptions: How Students of Color and White

Students Perceive Campus Climate for

Underrepresented Groups, 46 J. College Student

Dev. 43 (2005) ................................................................... 8

Sylvia Hurtado & Linda DeAngelo, Linking

Diversity and Civic-Minded Practices with

Student Outcomes, 98 Liberal Educ. 14 (2012) ............... 6

Sylvia Hurtado, et al., Enacting Diverse Learning

Environments: Improving the Climate for

Racial/Ethnic Diversity in Higher Education, 26

ASHE-ERIC Higher Educ. Rep. 19 (1999)....................... 9

Tatiana Melguizo, Quality Matters: Assessing the

Impact of Attending More Selective Institutions on

College Completion Rates of Minorities, 49 Res.

Higher Educ. 214 (2008) ................................................. 14

Thomas J. Espenshade & Alexandria Walton

Radford, No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race

and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus

Life (2009) ........................................................... 14, 21, 26

xiv

Tongshan Chang & Heather Rose, A Portrait of

Underrepresented Minorities at the University of

California, 1994–2008, in Equal Opportunity in

Higher Education: The Past and Future of

California’s Proposition (Eric Grodsky & Michal

Kurlaender eds., 2010) ................................................... 13

Top Public Schools, USNews.com,

https://tinyurl.com/yttaenh2........................................... 11

UC Regents, Discussion Item A1 (May 12, 2021),

https://tinyurl.com/28bt89jh ........................................... 28

Uma M. Jayakumar, Can Higher Education Meet

the Needs of an Increasingly Diverse and Global

Society? Campus Diversity and Cross-Cultural

Workforce Competencies, 78 Harvard Educ. Rev.

615 (2008) .......................................................................... 7

Uma M. Jayakumar, The Shaping of Postcollege

Colorblind Orientation Among Whites: Residential

Segregation and Campus Diversity Experiences,

85 Harvard Educ. Rev. 609 (2015) ............................... 5, 6

Uma M. Jayakumar, Why Are All the Black

Students Still Sitting Together in the Proverbial

College Cafeteria? A Look at Research Informing

the Figurative Question Being Taken by the

Supreme Court in Fisher, Higher Educ. Research

Inst. (2015) ........................................................................ 9

Univ. of California, Gap Analysis,

UniversityofCalifornia.edu,

https://tinyurl.com/y2rmmmvp ...................................... 28

Victor B. Saenz, Breaking the Segregation Cycle:

Examining Students’ Precollege Racial

Environments and College Diversity Experiences,

34 Rev. Higher Educ. 1 (2010).......................................... 5

Vinay Harpalani, “Safe Spaces” and the Educational

Benefits of Diversity, 13 Duke J. Const. Law &

Pub. Pol’y 117 (2017) .................................................... 8, 9

William C. Kidder & Patricia Gándara, Two

Decades After the Affirmative Action Ban:

Evaluating the University of California’s RaceNeutral Efforts, in Gary Orfield et al., Alternative

Paths to Diversity: Exploring and Implementing

Effective College Admissions Policies (2017) ................. 21

William C. Kidder & Richard O. Lempert, The

Mismatch Myth in U.S. Higher Education, in

Affirmative Action and Racial Equity: Considering

the Fisher Case to Forge the Path Ahead (Uma M.

Jayakumar & Liliana M. Garces, eds., 2015) .......... 12, 22

William C. Kidder, How Workable Are Class-Based

and Race-Neutral Alternatives at Leading

American Universities?, 64 UCLA L. Rev.

Discourse 100 (2016)................................................. 29, 30

William C. Kidder, Misshaping the River:

Proposition 209 and Lessons for the Fisher Case,

39 J. College & Univ. L. 53 (2013) ................................. 22

William C. Kidder, Proposition 16 and a Brighter

Future for All Californians: A Synthesis of

Research on Affirmative Action, Enrollment,

Educational Attainment and Careers at the

University of California (Oct. 2020) ............................... 22

xvi

William G. Bowen & Derek Bok, The Shape of the

River (1998) ............................................................... 14, 15

William G. Bowen et al., Crossing the Finish Line:

Completing College at America’s Public

Universities (2009) .......................................................... 14

Willis A. Jones, et al., The Benefits of Cross-Racial

Engagement on the College Satisfaction of

Student-Athletes, 54 J. Student Affairs Research

& Prac. 371 (2017) ............................................................ 6

Zachary Bleemer, Affirmative Action, Mismatch,

and Economic Mobility After California’s

Proposition 209, 137 Q. J. Econ. 115 (2022) .................. 13

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

Amici curiae are 1,246 researchers and scholars from

381 educational institutions and research centers

throughout the United States, including 32 members of the

National Academy of Education, 26 members of the

American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and 40 fellows of

the American Educational Research Association.1 The amici

have extensively studied diversity, race-conscious policies

in education, desegregation, equity, and race relations in

higher education institutions and in society. Their work

extends across numerous social science disciplines,

including education, psychology, sociology, demography,

economics, political science, history, and ethnic studies.2

As scholars, amici curiae have a particular interest

in providing the Court with comprehensive social science

research relevant to the educational judgments of The

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (“UNC”) and to

the implications of the Court’s decision for other institutions

and programs.

1 All parties have given blanket consent for the filing of amicus curiae

briefs in this case. This brief was not written in whole or in part by

counsel for any party, and no person or entity other than the

undersigned amici or their counsel has made a monetary contribution

to the preparation or submission of this brief.

A complete list of amici is included in Appendix A. Institutional

affiliation is provided for identification purposes only and is not

intended to imply endorsement of this brief by those institutions.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The district court’s factual findings that UNC’s

holistic admissions system is designed, implemented, and

assessed to reap the benefits of student body diversity are

supported by decades of social science research, including

work using current UNC data by social scientists called as

experts at trial. That body of research also affirms that it

would be premature today to forbid race-conscious

university admissions, six years shy of the benchmark this

Court set in Grutter. As the district court found, “while UNC

has not set forth a proposed time period in which it believes

it can end all race-conscious admissions practices, the

evidence unmistakably demonstrates that such a time has

not yet been achieved.” Pet. App. 62. The benefits of

consciously promoting racial and ethnic diversity continue

to be substantial, contrary to the “mismatch” theory

Petitioner embraces, as notably shown by a comparison of

UNC’s graduation rates with those of schools that are

forbidden to consider race in admissions.

Social science also bears out the district court’s

finding that race-neutral alternatives will not “allow [UNC]

to achieve the educational benefits of diversity about as well

as its current race-conscious policies.” Pet. App. 144.

Although, as the district court found, factoring socioeconomic diversity into admissions is itself educationally

beneficial, considering an applicant’s socio-economic status

is not a substitute for promoting racial diversity. Pet. App.

132. Both UNC and the district court seriously considered

race-neutral alternatives and found them insufficient to

serve UNC’s interest in enrolling a sufficiently diverse

student body.

ARGUMENT

In Grutter v. Bollinger, this Court upheld the

“narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to

further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational

benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” 539 U.S.

306, 343 (2003). One important aspect of that narrow

tailoring was that “race-conscious admissions policies must

be limited in time.” Id. at 342. “The requirement that all

race-conscious admissions programs have a termination

point assures all citizens that the deviation from the norm

of equal treatment of all racial and ethnic groups is a

temporary matter, a measure taken in the service of the

goal of equality itself.” Id. at 342 (cleaned up). The Court

stated its expectation that “25 years from now, the use of

racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the

interest approved today.” Id. at 343.

Petitioners seek to end race-conscious admissions

short of the mark forecast in Grutter. Hard-won but

incomplete progress can be mistaken for the eradication of

the effects of racial discrimination.3 But the evidence from

social science shows that it would be premature for the

Court to forbid the kind of race-conscious holistic

admissions policy UNC applies.

3 For example, the Court deemed Voting Rights Act preclearance no

longer necessary based on its assessment of current conditions nearly

50 years after enactment. Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529, 535

(2013) (“the conditions that originally justified these measures no longer

characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions”). But restrictive

measures enacted in North Carolina and elsewhere immediately

afterwards showed the continuing need for protection. See, e.g., N.C.

State Conf. of NAACP v. McCrory, 831 F.3d 204, 227 (4th Cir. 2016).

UNC’S RACE-CONSCIOUS ADMISSIONS

PROCESS HAS BETTER SERVED THE

COMPELLING INTERESTS IDENTIFIED IN

GRUTTER THAN THE POLICIES OF

FLAGSHIP UNIVERSITIES THAT ARE

FORBIDDEN TO CONSIDER RACE.

College Student-Body Diversity

Promotes Citizenship, Leadership, and

Productivity in Diverse Workplaces.

The compelling interest this Court identified in

Grutter is about more than classroom dynamics or life on

campus—it is about building communities that will not

continue to fracture along racial lines, cultivating leaders

with wide exposure to varied ideas, and preparing students

to succeed in workplaces with supervisors, subordinates,

and colleagues of different backgrounds. 539 U.S. at 330–32

(Because “universities . . . represent the training ground for

a large number of our Nation’s leaders, . . . [i]n order to

cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the

citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be

visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every

race and ethnicity.”) (citation omitted). The district court

found that UNC’s admissions policies are tailored to

advance those goals. See, e.g., Pet. App. 14, 16, 17, 19–20,

22, 57–58.4

4 The district court listed the educational benefits UNC aims to achieve

by admitting a critical mass of “underrepresented minority (‘URM’)”

students:



cross-racial understanding through living and learning

alongside one another;

breaking down stereotypes;

Substantial social science research confirms that

student body diversity in higher education serves

compelling interests. For example, a 2010 longitudinal

study using survey data collected at nine public universities

demonstrates that racially diverse college settings can

mitigate the lingering effects of precollege segregation by

promoting positive cross-racial interactions in the early

college years.5 A 2015, ten-year longitudinal study of 8,618

White students across 229 public and private postsecondary

institutions, nationwide, similarly showed that a raciallydiverse college experience interrupts persistent cycles of

residential segregation and racial division.6 The latter

study demonstrates that White students who grow up in

segregated neighborhoods tend to choose segregated

neighborhoods as adults; but students who attend a racially

diverse college—and engage in cross-racial interactions—

are more likely to choose a racially integrated neighborhood



improved

classroom

discussion

through

different

perspectives;

academic excellence;

promotion of innovation, new ideas, and problem-solving;

teaching students how to navigate the world;

the cultivation of leaders;

enhancing appreciation, respect, and empathy for others;

improving the experience of underrepresented groups so

that they were not isolated or having to act as spokespeople

for their race.

Pet. App. 57-58 (citations to trial record omitted).

5 Victor B. Saenz, Breaking the Segregation Cycle: Examining Students’

Precollege Racial Environments and College Diversity Experiences, 34

Rev. Higher Educ. 1 (2010).

Uma M. Jayakumar, The Shaping of Postcollege Colorblind

Orientation Among Whites: Residential Segregation and Campus

Diversity Experiences, 85 Harvard Educ. Rev. 609 (2015).

and lifestyle as adults.7 Because continued residential and

high school segregation remains an obstacle to successful

diversification of colleges, see infra at 18–19, interrupting

this cycle is important to achieving the goal of moving

beyond race to which Grutter aspired.

Another study, focused on former Division I athletes,

found that “White former student-athletes from both

segregated and racially diverse precollege neighborhoods

reported that their levels of interaction with individuals of

different races during college had lasting benefits on

leadership skills in the years after college.”8 These findings

are consistent with research showing that racial diversity

in college promotes enhanced civic engagement among

college graduates.9

Other studies demonstrate that exposure to diverse

racial and ethnic backgrounds in college fosters the

development of knowledge, attitudes, and skills that make

7 Id. at 629, 637.

8 Eddie Comeaux, The Long-Term Benefits of Cross-Racial Engagement

on Workforce Competencies for Division I White Student-Athletes, 50 J.

Student Affairs Research & Prac. 37 (2013). See also Willis A. Jones, et

al., The Benefits of Cross-Racial Engagement on the College Satisfaction

of Student-Athletes, 54 J. Student Affairs Research & Prac. 371 (2017).

9 Nicholas A. Bowman, Promoting Participation in a Diverse Democracy:

A Meta-Analysis of College Diversity Experiences and Civic Engagement,

81 Rev. Educ. Research 29 (2011); See also Sylvia Hurtado & Linda

DeAngelo, Linking Diversity and Civic-Minded Practices with Student

Outcomes, 98 Liberal Educ. 14 (2012).

students into more accomplished workers and better

leaders after college.10

The Educational Benefits of Diversity

Depend on UNC Admitting Meaningful

Numbers of Under-Represented Minority

Students Each Year

The majority in Grutter agreed that the school

needed to enroll more than token numbers of minority

students to avoid the harms of racial isolation and create

the necessary conditions for educational benefits to flow

from diversity. 539 U.S. at 329–30.11

Social science research strongly supports the

conclusion that merely token diversity would not advance

UNC’s compelling interest. While many of the educational

benefits of diversity derive from cross-racial interactions

among students, the opportunities for those interactions are

reduced when there are insufficient numbers of under-

Nicholas A. Bowman, College Diversity Experiences and Cognitive

Development: A Meta-Analysis, 80 Rev. Educ. Research 4 (2010). Mark

E. Engberg & Sylvia Hurtado, Developing Pluralistic Skills and

Dispositions in College: Examining Racial/Ethnic Group Differences, 82

J. Higher Educ. 416 (2011); Patricia Gurin, et al., Dialogue Across

Difference: Practice, Theory, and Research on Intergroup Dialogue

(2013); Uma M. Jayakumar, Can Higher Education Meet the Needs of

an Increasingly Diverse and Global Society? Campus Diversity and

Cross-Cultural Workforce Competencies, 78 Harvard Educ. Rev. 615

(2008).

11 The Grutter majority approved a holistic application process to pursue

a “critical mass” of groups of minority students “who without this

commitment might not be represented in [the] student body in

meaningful numbers.” 539 U.S. at 316 (cleaned up).

represented minority (“URM”) students.12 Low numbers,

likewise, diminish opportunities for institutionallyfacilitated cross-racial interactions and dialogue,13 both in

the classroom and through informal interactions on

campus. A dearth of meaningful cross-racial interactions

can solidify rather than challenge pre-existing biases and

stereotypes.14

Smaller numbers, moreover, increase URM isolation,

making those students more vulnerable to social stigma15

and more likely to experience racial tension16 and

Vinay Harpalani, “Safe Spaces” and the Educational Benefits of

Diversity, 13 Duke J. Const. Law & Pub. Pol’y 117 (2017); see also Meera

E. Deo, Two Sides of a Coin: Safe Space & Segregation in Race/EthnicSpecific Law Student Organizations, 42 Wash. Univ. J. Law & Pol’y 42,

83 (2013); Kimberly Sanders, Black Culture Centers: A Review of

Pertinent Literature, 4 Urban Educ. Research & Pol’y Annuals, 30

(2016).

13 See generally Gurin et al. (2013), supra, n.10, at 329.

14 Scott Page, The Diversity Bonus 142-61 (2017).

15 See Claude M. Steele, Whistling Vivaldi: How Stereotypes Affect Us

and What We Can Do About It 135 (2010). For URM students, academic

stigma and stereotype threats are “part of a larger set of minority status

stressors that can undermine minority students’ psychological and

academic outcomes.” Jim Sidanius et al., The Diversity Challenge:

Social Identity and Intergroup Relations on the College Campus 291

(2008).

16 See Shaun R. Harper & Sylvia Hurtado, Nine Themes in Campus

Racial Climates and Implications for Institutional Transformation, 120

New Directions for Student Services 7-24 (2007); Susan R. Rankin &

Robert Dean Reason, Differing Perceptions: How Students of Color and

White Students Perceive Campus Climate for Underrepresented Groups,

46 J. College Student Dev. 43 (2005).

tokenism.17 In environments where individuals feel

scrutinized and excluded, intergroup relations suffer.18

Students—of all races—in such environments are not likely

to experience the “confrontation with diversity and

complexity” that enhances cognitive and active thinking

processes, stimulates developmental growth, and prepares

students for life in a diverse society.19 Greater URM

representation, on the other hand, is shown to decrease

stigma and vulnerability to stereotypes.20

What constitutes a “critical mass” depends heavily on

context. Social science research supports the Grutter

17 See, e.g., Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Men and Women of the Corporation

206-42 (1977). Kanter’s research demonstrated that individual

members of an extremely underrepresented minority group are under

greater scrutiny and feel pressure to represent their group, while

majority group members are more likely to place them into existing

stereotypes. This documented phenomenon, sometimes called tokenism,

prevents the equal-status inter-group contacts necessary to reduce

racial prejudice. See also Daryl G. Smith, Diversity’s Promise for Higher

Education: Making it Work 296-97 (2020); Mischa Thompson & Denise

Sekaquaptewa, When Being Different is Detrimental: Solo Status and

the Performance of Women and Racial Minorities, 2 Analyses Soc. Issues

& Pub. Pol’y 183, 199 (2002).

Sylvia Hurtado, et al., Enacting Diverse Learning Environments:

Improving the Climate for Racial/Ethnic Diversity in Higher Education,

26 ASHE-ERIC Higher Educ. Rep. 19-22 (1999); Jeffrey F. Milem, et al.,

Making Diversity Work on Campus: A Research-Based Perspective 6

(2005).

19 Patricia Gurin et al., Diversity and Higher Education: Theory and

Impact on Educational Outcomes, 72 Harv. Educ. Rev. 330, 334, 337-38

(2002).

20 Uma M. Jayakumar, Why Are All the Black Students Still Sitting

Together in the Proverbial College Cafeteria? A Look at Research

Informing the Figurative Question Being Taken by the Supreme Court

in Fisher, Higher Educ. Research Inst. (2015); see also Harpalani (2017),

supra n.12, at 4-5, 128-35.

majority’s contextual description of critical mass as “defined

by reference to the educational benefits that diversity is

designed to produce.” 539 U.S. at 329-30.21 Thus, it is only

by assessing student experiences as they relate to racial

isolation, participation, and other educational benefits that

an institution can be satisfied that it has admitted a critical

mass of a particular ethnic group conducive to promoting

educational benefits.22

Under-Represented Minority Students at

UNC Graduate at Higher Rates than

Those at Public Universities with RaceBlind Admissions Policies.

Not surprisingly, graduation rates among URM

students have been shown to be higher at schools with

“meaningful numbers” of URM students.23 See Grutter, 539

U.S.

318–19

(“a

number

that

encourages

underrepresented minority students to participate in the

classroom and not feel isolated,” or “numbers such that

underrepresented minority students do not feel isolated or

like spokespersons for their race.”).

21 See, e.g., Liliana M. Garces & Uma M. Jayakumar. Dynamic Diversity:

Toward a Contextual Understanding of Critical Mass, 43 Educ.

Researcher 115 (2014) (summarizing research).

See supra at 17–19 (§ I.E) for a discussion of UNC’s incomplete

progress in these areas.

Nicholas A. Bowman & Nida Denson, Institutional Racial

Representation and Equity Gaps in College Graduation, 93 J. Higher

Educ. 399, 416 (2022) (in a national sample of 2,807 colleges, “the

findings suggest that same-race representation is associated with

reduced racial disparities in graduation rates, and different-race

representation of racially minoritized students and instructors also

frequently corresponds with smaller equity gaps.”).

UNC’s graduation data show at least partial success

in achieving the benefits of enrolling a “critical mass” of

URM students as compared to its peer institutions.24 As

shown in Table 1, below, Black students who entered UNC

between 2011 and 2014 graduated at a rate of 85% for the

four years combined—higher than all eight of the top public

universities with race-blind admissions policies (which

averaged a Black student graduation rate of 79%).25

Moreover, the Black versus White gap in graduation rates

is seven points at UNC (85% v. 92%), which is a smaller gap

than at seven of the eight top public universities without

affirmative action.

UNC has a 90% Latinx graduation rate—again,

higher than all eight of its peers with race-blind admissions

policies (which average 84%). And UNC’s Latinx-White

graduation rate gap of two points is, again, smaller than at

seven of the eight top public universities without

affirmative action.26

Universities reasonably similar to UNC in overall profile and

admissions selectivity were identified by focusing on the “top ten” public

universities as ranked by U.S. News & World Report in 2022. Top Public

Schools, USNews.com, https://tinyurl.com/yttaenh2. At eight of the

universities in the “top ten,” race-conscious affirmative action is not

permitted or is not used. The University of Virginia, like UNC, allows

for careful consideration of race in admissions and has high URM

graduation rates.

25 Table 1 presents graduation rate data drawn from the latest federal

graduation reports from the National Collegiate Athletic Association as

of July 2022. See Graduation Success Rate, NCAA.org,

http://web3.ncaa.org/aprsearch/gsrsearch. Averages reported for the

eight universities are unweighted.

Graduation rates for Asian American students at all of these

institutions (92% for UNC; average of 91% at the other eight schools)

Table 1

Graduation Rates at Public Flagship Universities

(Freshmen entering from 2011-12 to 2014-15)

UNC

UCLA

UC Berkeley

U Michigan

UC Santa Barbara

U Florida

UC San Diego

UC Irvine

Georgia Tech

Avg. for the 8

schools w/o

affirm. Action

Black

85%

79%

84%

75%

80%

79%

76%

Latinx

90%

87%

86%

89%

79%

89%

79%

78%

88%

White

92%

93%

91%

93%

85%

90%

85%

89%

79%

84%

89%

The data in Table 1 are consistent with earlier

published research conducting the same comparison among

“top ten” public universities in other years.27

Moreover, Table 1 is also consistent with a large and

reliable body of recent, high-quality, peer-reviewed research

showing a net positive association between affirmative

action and graduation rates,28 or (conversely) showing a net

were similar to the rates for White students. See Graduation Success

Rate, NCAA.org, supra, n.25.

27 William C. Kidder & Richard O. Lempert, The Mismatch Myth in U.S.

Higher Education, in Affirmative Action and Racial Equity: Considering

the Fisher Case to Forge the Path Ahead 105, 121 (Uma M. Jayakumar

& Liliana M. Garces, eds., 2015).

28 See, e.g., Bowman & Denson, supra n.23, at 412-13; Christina Ciocca

Eller & Thomas A. DiPrete, The Paradox of Persistence: Explaining the

Black-White Gap in Bachelor’s Degree Completion, 83 Am. Soc. Rev.

1171, 1195 (2018) (“Institutional structures such as affirmative action

negative effect of affirmative action bans on URM degree

attainment.29

These studies, and UNC’s actual experience as

reflected in Table 1, refute the speculation of several amici

supporting

Petitioner that

ending race-conscious

admissions will improve graduation rates for URM students

or otherwise reduce so-called academic “mismatch.” See

Brief for Richard Sander as Amicus Curiae in Supp. of Pet’r

at 24-30, 32; 32; Brief Amicus Curiae of Pacific Legal Found.

also play a role in raising black students’ BA attainment at the

population level. . . . Our own results confirm that higher-quality

colleges facilitate higher levels of BA completion among black students,

especially among students with higher pre-college dropout risk . . .”).

See, e.g., Zachary Bleemer, Affirmative Action, Mismatch, and

Economic Mobility After California’s Proposition 209, 137 Q. J. Econ.

115 (2022) (1994-2002 data for Black and Latinx UC applicants

indicates the affirmative action ban lowered degree attainment); Ben

Backes, Do Affirmative Action Bans Lower Minority College Enrollment

and Attainment? Evidence from Statewide Bans, 47 J. Hum. Res. 435,

437 (2012) (“All in all, although the effect sizes were modest, estimates

show that there were fewer black and Hispanic students graduating

from four-year, public universities following the bans, and those who

did graduate tended to do so from less prestigious universities.”); Peter

Hinrichs, Affirmative Action Bans and College Graduation Rates, 42

Econ. Educ. Rev. 43, 50 (2014) (“The results are clear: since fewer

underrepresented minorities are admitted to selective colleges when

affirmative action is banned, fewer underrepresented minorities become

graduates of selective colleges.”); Kalena E. Cortes, Do Bans on

Affirmative Action Hurt Minority Students? Evidence from the Texas

Top 10% Plan, 29 Econ. Educ. Rev. 1110, 1111 (2010); Tongshan Chang

& Heather Rose, A Portrait of Underrepresented Minorities at the

University of California, 1994-2008, in Equal Opportunity in Higher

Education: The Past and Future of California’s Proposition 83, 99 (Eric

Grodsky & Michal Kurlaender eds., 2010).

et al., at 22; Brief of Amicus Curiae Nat’l Ass’n of Scholars,

at 8-9.

Claims of Harm from Academic

“Mismatch” Are Unfounded.

A robust body of research, moreover, refutes the

notion that academic “mismatch” makes affirmative action

harmful to minority students.30 Of particular relevance to

UNC, one study analyzed 21 public flagship universities—

including UNC—and public university systems in four

states (including North Carolina), finding there is “no

support whatsoever” for the mismatch hypothesis.31

Another study, after controlling for selection bias, found

30 See, e.g., Joanne W. Golann et al., Does the “Mismatch Hypothesis”

Apply to Hispanic Students at Selective Colleges?, in The Education of

the Hispanic Population: Selected Essays 209, 222-23 (Billie Gastic &

Richard R. Verdugo eds. 2013); Thomas J. Espenshade & Alexandria

Walton Radford, No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in

Elite College Admission and Campus Life 235-37, 245, 258 (2009);

Tatiana Melguizo, Quality Matters: Assessing the Impact of Attending

More Selective Institutions on College Completion Rates of Minorities,

49 Res. Higher Educ. 214, 216-17, 223, 232 (2008); Douglas S. Massey

& Margarita Mooney, The Effects of America’s Three Affirmative Action

Programs on Academic Performance, 54 Soc. Probs. 99, 114 (2007);

Mario L. Small & Christopher Winship, Black Students’ Graduation

from Elite Colleges: Institutional Characteristics and BetweenInstitution Differences, 36 Soc. Sci. Res. 1257, 1272 (2007); Mary J.

Fischer & Douglas S. Massey, The Effects of Affirmative Action in

Higher Education, 36 Soc. Sci. Res. 531, 544 (2007); Sigal Alon & Marta

Tienda, Assessing the “Mismatch” Hypothesis: Differences in College

Graduation Rates by Institutional Selectivity, 78 Socio. Educ. 294, 296

(2005); William G. Bowen & Derek Bok, The Shape of the River (1998).

31 William G. Bowen et al., Crossing the Finish Line: Completing College

at America’s Public Universities 228 (2009); see also id. at 12-16

(describing study parameters); id. at 12, 101-05 (addressing UNC and

North Carolina).

that mismatch “has no reliable or substantively notable

bearing on grades, rates of credit accumulation, or

persistence.”32

In research employing the particular matching

methodology that Richard Sander has called “the most

reliable way of measuring mismatch effects,”33 Stacy Dale

and Alan Krueger used data from 27 mostly selective

colleges in the College & Beyond dataset, which included

UNC.34 They identified students with similar credentials

who applied and were admitted to the same institutions and

then compared outcomes for those who declined to enroll at

the most selective institution that admitted them versus

those who enrolled at the most selective college.35 Dale and

32 Michal Kurlaender & Eric Grodsky, Mismatch and the Paternalistic

Justification for Selective College Admissions, 86 Socio. Educ. 294, 307

(2013).

33 Richard H. Sander, A Reply to Critics, 57 Stan. L. Rev. 1963, 2016

(2005); see also Richard Sander & Stuart Taylor, Jr., Mismatch: How

Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why

Universities Won’t Admit It 108-09 (2012).

34 UNC participated in the College and Beyond data set, as decribed in

the landmark work, The Shape of the River. Bowen & Bok, supra n.30,

at xvii, 40, 60-61. Consequently, UNC is included in a number of

important studies using updated versions of this same dataset.

Stacy Dale & Alan Krueger, Estimating the Effects of College

Characteristics over the Career Using Administrative Earnings Data, 49

J. Hum. Res. 323 (2014). This study replicates the methodology Dale

and Krueger used in an earlier study on a cohort of 1976 graduates. See

Stacy Berg Dale & Alan B. Krueger, Estimating the Payoff to Attending

a More Selective College: An Application of Selection on Observables and

Unobservables, 117 Q.J. Econ. 1491 (2002). Sander & Taylor, supra n.33

at 108-09, cite the 2002 study as supporting the mismatch hypothesis.

To the contrary, according to Dale and Krueger, the 1976 data “suggest

that black students benefit from attending more selective colleges just

as much as other students.” Stacy Berg Dale & Alan B. Krueger,

Krueger found “for the 1989 cohort, the estimates indicate

the effect of attending a school with a higher average SAT

score is positive for black and Hispanic students, even in the

selection-adjusted model.”36 A substantial body of

scholarship from economists, sociologists, and educational

researchers, using a blend of methodological approaches,

confirms the benefit for URM students of attending

selective universities (with affirmative action contributing

to those enrollment choices) and later achieving higher

long-term earnings in the U.S. labor market, contrary to the

mismatch hypothesis.37 That scholarship contradicts the

Estimating the Payoff to Attending a More Selective College: An

Application of Selection on Observables and Unobservables, Nat’l

Bureau Econ. Research, Working Paper No. 7322, 28 (1999). Because

the 1976 sample contained such a small number of Black graduates,

however, Dale & Krueger declined to draw a “strong inference” as to

those benefits.

36 Dale & Krueger (2014), supra n.35, at 350.

37 See Sandra E. Black et al., Winners and Losers? The Effect of Gaining

and Losing Access to Selective Colleges on Education and Labor Market

Outcomes, Nat’l Bureau Econ. Research, Working Paper No. 26821

(2020); Jack Mountjoy & Brent R. Hickman, The Returns to College(s):

Estimating Value-Added and Match Effects in Higher Education, Nat’l

Bureau Econ. Research, Working Paper No. 29276 (2021); Eric R., Eide

et al., Is It Where You Go Or What You Study? The Relative Influence of

College Selectivity and College Major on Earnings, 34 Contemp. Econ.

Pol’y 37 (2016); Dirk Witteveen & Paul Attewell, The Earnings Payoff

from Attending a Selective College, 66 Soc. Sci. Research 154 (2017);

Amy Lutz et al., How Affirmative Action Context Shapes Collegiate

Outcomes at America’s Selective Colleges and Universities, 31 J. L. &

Soc. Pol'y 71 (2019); Mark C. Long, Changes in the Returns to Education

and College Quality, 29 Econ. Educ. Rev. 338, 346 (2010); Kermit Daniel

et al., Racial Differences in the Effects of College Quality and Student

Body Diversity on Wages, in Diversity Challenged: Evidence on the

Impact of Affirmative Action 221, 229 (Gary Orfield & Michal

Kurlaender eds., 2001); James Monks, The Returns to Individual and

crude descriptive statistics presented by Petitioner’s state

amici to argue that diversity and race-conscious admissions

do not subsequently benefit URM students in the labor

market.38 Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that even

Petitioner’s expert Peter Arcidiacono (representing his own

views) concedes in his review of the scholarly literature:

“Our conclusion from this literature is that, on the whole,

the evidence supports the claim that there are significant

returns to college quality.”39

Assessment of UNC’s Progress Must

Take Into Account the Continuing

Effects of Segregation in North Carolina.

The district court found that, while UNC’s “efforts in

pursuing the educational benefits of diversity are

substantial and ongoing,” it is not yet “where it needs to be.”

Pet. App. 22 (cleaned up). UNC’s periodic reviews have

found evidence of persisting and pervasive impediments on

its campus to meaningful interactions across race.40 These

studies, in addition to original data analysis of student

experiences, were detailed in the expert reports of Dr. Uma

College Characteristics: Evidence from the National Longitudinal

Survey of Youth, 19 Econ. Educ. Rev. 279, 286 (2000).

38 Brief of Amici Curiae Oklahoma and 18 Other States in Support of

Petitioner at 15-17 (citing Census data and university-level data with

scant discussion of sources and methodological caveats such as whether

their University of Michigan chart at page 17 controls for inflation and

other cohort effects when comparing post-graduation earnings across a

twelve-year span).

39 Peter Arcidiacono and Michael Lovenheim, Affirmative Action and the

Quality-Fit Tradeoff, 54 J. Econ. Lit. 3, 41 (2016).

40 See, e.g., J.A. 1601 (Jan. 2018 Expert Report of Uma Jayakumar) at

1639, 1660-70. See also Appendix B at B-1–B-5 (presenting charts

summarizing UNC survey data on these issues).

Jayakumar and Dr. Mitchell Chang, both of whom the

district court credited.41

The fact that UNC has achieved only partial success

in furthering the educational benefits of diversity cannot be

understood without examining UNC’s context within North

Carolina—a

“state

stunning

contrasts

and

contradictions,” which includes UNC’s own complicated

history with a federal consent decree throughout the

1980s42 and high levels of segregation that persist at the K12 school level.43 As a recent study found, North Carolina

has a high level of school segregation, even in places where

(court-ordered) neighborhood desegregation efforts had

been implemented for many years.44 This re-segregation is

shaped by recent state policies expanding charter schools

and providing state subsidies for private schools, which

41 See generally Jayakumar Report, supra, n.40; J.A. 1479-1544 (Jan.

2018 Expert Report of Mitchell J. Chang); Pet. App. 19, 21. This brief

does not rely on any material that was placed under seal in the district

court.

Robert A. Dentler et al., University on Trial: The Case of the

University of North Carolina 17 (1983); James T. Minor, Segregation

Residual in Higher Education: A Tale of Two States, 45 Am. Educ.

Research J. 861, 872 (2008).

Roslyn Arlin Mickelson et al., Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow:

School Desegregation and Resegregation in Charlotte (2015).

44 Charles T. Clotfelter, et al., School Segregation in the Era of Color-

Blind Jurisprudence and School Choice, Urban Affairs Rev. (2021)

(study using data on K-12 enrollments in public and private schools to

measure racial segregation in North Carolina in 1998, 2006, and 2016);

See also Helen F. Ladd, et al., The Growing Segmentation of the Charter

School Sector in North Carolina, 12 Educ. Finance & Pol’y 536 (2017).

have been shown to cause increased segregation in North

Carolina K-12 schools.45

As a result, substantial numbers of White students

are matriculating to the University from racially segregated

neighborhood and school environments that foster

unconscious racial biases, stereotypes, and resentments.46

Indeed, survey data shows that in 2016, more than 87% of

White UNC first years came to the University from

segregated neighborhoods.47

Such segregation at the high-school level directly

interferes with the educational benefits of diversity in

college, because those benefits derive from meaningful

cross-racial interactions. As the Jayakumar study of

residential segregation cited above shows, students who

were primarily socialized in and accustomed to segregated

environments prior to college are less likely to choose to

engage in cross-racial interactions (compared to their

counterparts

from

racially

integrated

precollege

environments).48 As long as pervasive residential and

school-based segregation persists, UNC is likely to need to

use race-conscious admissions policies.

45 Clotfelter et al. (2021), supra n.44, at 16; see also id. at 7, 8.

46 Jayakumar Report, supra n.40, at 59-65.

47 Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP), 2017 Freshman

Survey, Institutional Profile Reports, University of North Carolina at

Chapel Hill, https://tinyurl.com/bdh9kxsw.

48 Jayakumar (2015), supra n.6 at 635, 637; see also Appendix B at B-1–

B-5 (charts showing White versus URM students’ perceptions of racial

climate).

RACE-NEUTRAL ALTERNATIVES ARE NOT

YET AS EFFECTIVE IN CREATING

DIVERSITY AS UNC’S HOLISTIC APPROACH.

Grutter’s hope that effective alternatives to raceconscious admissions policies would quickly develop, 539

U.S. at 342, has not been realized. The district court found

that “UNC has engaged in ongoing, serious, good faith

consideration of workable [race-neutral alternatives

(‘RNAs’)],” but that “none of the models proffered by

Plaintiff nor Defendant would be viable RNAs that would

allow UNC to reproduce the educational benefits of

diversity about as well as its current approach.” Pet. App.

118, 126. The bottom line: “the University has

demonstrated that there are not workable or viable RNAs,

singly or in conjunction, that would allow it to achieve the

educational benefits of diversity about as well as its current

race-conscious policies.” Pet. App. 144.

A strong preponderance of relevant peer-reviewed

research shows that eliminating race-conscious admissions

policies at leading public universities similar to UNC leads

to a substantial erosion in URM student enrollment.49

Numerous studies demonstrate this effect in states that

49 See, e.g., Mark C. Long & Nicole A. Bateman, Long-Run Changes in

Underrepresentation After Affirmative Action Bans in Public

Universities, 42 Educ. Evaluation & Pol’y Analysis 188 (2020); Huacong

Liu, How do Affirmative Action Bans Affect the Racial Composition of

Postsecondary Students in Public Institutions?, Educ. Pol’y (2020),

https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904820961007.

have enacted affirmative action bans despite decades of

experimentation with race-neutral alternatives.50

Social science research also shows that affirmative

action bans decrease URM enrollment in United States

graduate school programs51 and medical schools.52 Highly

selective law schools and business schools where

affirmative action is banned encountered substantial

enrollment declines for URM students, providing real world

50 See, e.g., William C. Kidder & Patricia Gándara, Two Decades After

the Affirmative Action Ban: Evaluating the University of California’s

Race-Neutral Efforts, in Gary Orfield et al., Alternative Paths to

Diversity: Exploring and Implementing Effective College Admissions

Policies 25 (2017); Michal Kurlaender et al., Access and Diversity at the

University of California in the Post-Affirmative Action Era, in

Affirmative Action and Racial Equity 80 (Uma M. Jayakumar & Liliana

M. Garces eds., 2015); Amy Lutz, et al., State Bans on Affirmative Action

and Talent Loss Among Blacks and Latinos in the United States, 43

Ethnic Studies Rev. 58 (2020); Daniel Hirschman & Ellen Berrey, The

Partial Deinstitutionalization of Affirmative Action in U.S. Higher

Education, 1988 to 2014, 4 Socio. Sci. 449 (2017); Jessica S. Howell,

Assessing the Impact of Eliminating Affirmative Action in Higher

Education, 28 J. Labor Econ. 113, 116 (2010); Espenshade & Radford,

supra, n.30, at 361-64.

Liliana M. Garces, Racial Diversity, Legitimacy, and the

Citizenry: The Impact of Affirmative Action Bans on Graduate School

Enrollment, 36 Rev. Higher Educ. 93 (2012); Liliana M. Garces,

Understanding the Impact of Affirmative Action Bans in Different

Graduate Fields of Study, 50 Am. Educ. Research J. 251 (2013).

51 See, e.g.,

52 See, e.g., Liliana M., Garces & David Mickey-Pabello, Racial Diversity

in the Medical Profession: The Impact of Affirmative Action Bans on

Underrepresented Student of Color Matriculation in Medical Schools, 86

J. Higher Educ. 264 (2015); Somnath Saha & Scott A. Shipman, RaceNeutral Versus Race-Conscious Workforce Policy to Improve Access to

Care, 27 Health Affairs 234 (2008).

evidence of the limits of race-neutral alternatives.53 For

example, in the two decades before California’s affirmative

action ban, University of California medical schools

graduated a higher percentage of Black doctors than the

nationwide average, but that percentage dropped to more

than one-fifth below the national average in the two decades

after the ban.54 These long-term trends have profound

implications for society and the health of URM

communities.55

Percent Plans Are Not an Adequate

Substitute for Race-Conscious

Admissions.

The district court found that the “top X percent”

simulations proposed by Petitioner’s expert all presented

“significant complications, and/or severely undermined the

University’s ability to achieve diversity in non-racial ways.”

Pet. App. 141-42. Social science research has consistently

reached the same conclusion.

For example, an important study of the long-term

impact of the Texas Ten Percent Plan at both selective and

53 William C. Kidder, Misshaping the River: Proposition 209 and Lessons

for the Fisher Case, 39 J. College & Univ. L. 53, 118-23 (2013); see

generally Kidder & Lempert, supra n.27 (discussing law school

outcomes in the context of research on the question of mismatch).

William C. Kidder, Proposition 16 and a Brighter Future for All

Californians: A Synthesis of Research on Affirmative Action,

Enrollment, Educational Attainment and Careers at the University of

California (Oct. 2020), https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5t39d0qx.

55 See generally, e.g., Brief Amicus Curiae of Association of American

Medical Colleges. See also Marcella Alsan et al., Does Diversity Matter

for Health? Experimental Evidence from Oakland, 12 Am. Econ. Rev.

4071 (2019).

nonselective colleges found that increased diversity at

Texas colleges under the Ten Percent Plan was attributable

in part to “the soaring numbers of the non-White

population, particularly Latinos, among college-eligible

students” in Texas. 56 At the same time, controlling for these

demographic changes revealed that “underrepresented

students who are percent-plan-eligible are more likely to

enroll in a nonselective . . . institution.”57 These key findings

about the Texas Ten Percent Plan are consistent with a

substantial body of earlier peer-reviewed papers.58

Modeling by UNC, moreover, indicates that a

“percentage plan” would strain overall academic quality

compared to holistic admissions.59 And even though the

University of Texas at Austin had almost twice as many

undergraduates as UNC last year (37,601 versus 18,495 in

56 Stella M. Flores & Catherine L. Horn, Texas Top Ten Percent Plan:

How It Works, What Are Its Limits, and Recommendations to Consider,

in Gary Orfield et al., Alternative Paths to Diversity: Exploring and

Implementing Effective College Admissions Policies 14, 25 (2017)

(citations omitted). See also Catherine Horn & Stella M. Flores, When

Policy Opportunity Is Not Enough: College Access and Enrollment

Patterns Among Texas Percent Plan Eligible Students, 3 J. Applied Res.

on Child. 1, 15-16 (2012).

57 Flores & Horn (2017), supra n.56, at 25.

See, e.g., Angel L. Harris & Marta Tienda, Hispanics in Higher

Education and the Texas Top Ten Percent Law, 4 Race & Soc. Probs. 57,

60-61, 65 (2012); Mark C. Long et al., Policy Transparency and College

Enrollment: Did the Texas Top Ten Percent Law Broaden Access to the

Public Flagships?, 627 Annals Am. Acad. Pol. & Soc. Sci. 82, 101 (2010);

Angel Harris & Marta Tienda, Minority Higher Education Pipeline:

Consequences of Changes in College Admissions Policy in Texas, 627

Annals Am. Acad. Pol. & Soc. Sci. 60 (2010).

59 Brief of Amicus Curiae The University of North Carolina at Chapel

Hill Supporting Respondents at 33-36, Fisher v. University of Texas at

Austin, No. 11-345.

2020-21) and is not quite as selective as UNC, under a

Percent Plan (even one augmented by consideration of race)

it still has fewer Black students today in its undergraduate

student body compared to UNC (1,288 versus 1,546).60

Increasing Socioeconomic Diversity is

Not an Adequate Substitute for RaceConscious Holistic Admissions Policies.

Petitioners posit that universities can achieve the

educational benefits of diversity solely by maximizing

socioeconomic diversity. See, e.g., Br. for Pet. at 83. This is

contrary to the district court’s express finding that “none of

the socioeconomic models before it is a workable RNA.” Pet.

App. 137. Although the district court “accept[ed] that an

increase in socioeconomic diversity may be valuable in its

own right to a university seeking to attain the benefits of

educational diversity,” it found that “achievement of this

goal does not obviate a school’s interest in racial diversity

as well.” Pet. App. 132. Reliable social science research also

refutes the claim that a university can substitute

consideration of socioeconomic status for race in the

admissions process and still achieve racial diversity.

For example, one robust and empirically

sophisticated analysis of socioeconomic alternatives to raceconscious affirmative action used “agent-based” modeling to

analyze a nationally representative data set of students

applying to colleges.61 The results of multi-year simulations

60 See Graduation Success Rate, NCAA.org, supra, n.25 (undergraduate

enrollment counts).

Sean F. Reardon et al., What Levels of Racial Diversity Can Be

Achieved with Socioeconomic‐Based Affirmative Action? Evidence from

a Simulation Model, 37 J. Pol’y Analysis & Mgmt. 630 (2018).

on the top ten percent of colleges (i.e., highly selective

schools like UNC) are shown in Table 2, below, and confirm

the inadequacy of socioeconomic affirmative action

programs in terms of the percentage of URM first years

enrolled in the absence of race-conscious efforts.

Table 2

Modeling Top Colleges:

URM Percentage of Student Population Under

Multiple Affirmative Action Scenarios62

Race-Based?

None

Moderate

Strong

None

Moderate

Strong

SES-based?

None

Moderate

Strong

Moderate

Strong

% Black

1.9%

5.6%

11.0%

2.4%

3.4%

6.9%

16.0%

% Latinx

3.9%

9.3%

15.0%

5.1%

6.8%

11.0%

22.0%

Another well-designed study, using a representative

data set of selective colleges that included UNC, allowed for

an unusually robust analysis of socioeconomic alternatives

to race-conscious admissions policies, including wealth,

parental education level and neighborhood or school poverty

levels.63 All of the study’s economic simulations showed

declines in URM students’ enrollment, as compared to

current levels, when using socioeconomic alternatives.64

62 See id. at Appendix Figure A4.

63 Sigal Alon, Race, Class and Affirmative Action 182-84, 296-97 (2015).

64 Id. at 195; id. at 194 fig. 8.3.

The studies above are consistent with a larger body

of research.65 For example, Thomas Espenshade and

Alexandria Radford modeled class-based alternatives at a

group of elite private universities and found that taking

account of socioeconomic status was not a substitute for the

inclusion of race within a holistic admissions policy.66 Alice

Xiang and Donald Rubin made similar findings in a

national simulation of U.S. law schools, concluding that

substituting class-based affirmative action admissions

policies would significantly erode Black enrollment at

leading law schools without improving graduation and bar

passage rates.67 In addition, modeling simulations by Mark

Long show the upper-bound limits and inefficiencies of

using proxies for race, including proxies that most courts

would not deem race-neutral.68 In short, socioeconomic

status is not a sufficient race-neutral alternative because

“[t]he correlation between race and family income, while

65 See, e.g., Anthony P. Carnevale & Jeff Strohl, Separate and Unequal:

How Higher Education Reinforces the Intergenerational Reproduction of

White Racial Privilege 37 (2013) (finding class-based affirmative action

is not an effective substitute for race-conscious programs); Anthony P.

Carnevale & Jeff Strohl, How Increasing College Access Is Increasing

Inequality, and What to Do About It, in Rewarding Strivers 71, 165

(Richard D. Kahlenberg ed., 2010).

66 Espenshade & Radford, supra, n.30, at 361-64 (using the College and

Beyond data set that included UNC).

67 Alice Xiang & Donald B. Rubin, Assessing the Potential Impact of a

Nationwide Class-Based Affirmative Action System, 30 Statistical Sci.

297 (2015).

68 Mark Long, The Promise and Peril for Universities Using Correlates

of Race in Admissions in Response to the Grutter and Fisher Decisions,

in Gary Orfield et al., Alternative Paths to Diversity: Exploring and

Implementing Effective College Admissions Policies 49 (2017); see also

Mark C. Long, Is There a “Workable” Race-Neutral Alternative to

Affirmative Action in College Admissions?, 34 J. Policy Analysis &

Mgmt. 162 (2014).

strong, is not strong enough to permit the latter to function

as a useful proxy for race in the pursuit of diversity.”69

Consideration of race as part of a holistic admissions

process does not preclude consideration of socio-economic

status. Colleges with race-sensitive admissions are more

likely to also consider socioeconomic status than colleges

that admit students without attention to race.70

Considering race and socioeconomic status together (as

UNC does71) will produce “diversity within diversity” which

reduces stereotyping and maximizes the prospects for

positive interactions across racial lines.

Petitioner’s Contrary Evidence is

Flawed.

The district court found that UNC’s expert, Caroline

Hoxby, provided a reliable and rigorous analysis of raceneutral alternatives, while Petitioner’s expert, Richard

Kahlenberg, relied on “both unrealistic assumptions and

extreme changes to UNC’s admissions process.” Pet. App.

136. UNC expert Bridget Long also testified that

Petitioner’s expert (Kahlenberg) “overstates how effective

race-neutral alternatives have been or would be because

he’s not paying attention to the details” and he “fails to

account for the quality or the relevance of the research or

the particular data used,” or the context of the university at

issue. Pet. App. 113 (citation to trial record omitted).

Likewise, Petitioner and its amici cherry-pick low-quality

69 Alan Krueger et al., Race, Income, and College in 25 Years: Evaluating

Justice O’Connor’s Conjecture, 8 Am. L. & Econ. Rev. 282, 309 (2006).

70 Lorelle L. Espinosa et al., Race, Class, and College Access: Achieving

Diversity in a Shifting Legal Landscape 28-30 (2015).

71 Pet. App. 9, 28, 196-97.

or less relevant research to claim support for their favored

conclusions.

To start, Petitioner asserts that the University of

California “just admitted its ‘most diverse class ever,’”

Petitioner’s Br. at 70, but the cited statistics lose any force

as evidence of the success of race-neutral admissions

policies when demographic changes in the student

population are taken into account. In 1995, before

California banned affirmative action, 29% of UCLA’s

enrolled freshmen were URMs, compared to 38% of

California public high school graduates being URMs.72 A

quarter century later, in 2021, fully 58% of California public

high school graduates were URMs, yet notwithstanding

that massive growth, under the affirmative action ban, only

33% of UCLA’s freshmen class were URMs—a smaller

proportion of the public high school cohort than before.73

The same data source confirms that the statewide

University of California system also did not make progress

in URM freshmen enrollment in the 2016-21 period.74

Long-term demographic trends based on the

increasing percentage of URM high school graduates in

Texas are roughly comparable to the California example.75

For this reason, simplistic comparisons between recent

Univ. of California, Gap Analysis, UniversityofCalifornia.edu,

https://tinyurl.com/y2rmmmvp.

73 Id. See also Appendix B at B-6.

74 Id. This was a period of tumult due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but

also included the suspension of the SAT requirement for admissions,

which was an important “race-neutral” development. See UC Regents,

Discussion Item A1 (May 12, 2021), https://tinyurl.com/28bt89jh, at 7.

75 See generally Flores & Horn (2017), supra n.56.

URM enrollment data in California and Texas and the

experience in North Carolina can be misleading. The Court

should be skeptical of the simplistic nods to California and

Texas outcomes that have been presented by Petitioner and

its amici.

Petitioner also cites Matthew Gaertner’s research on

socioeconomic diversity at the University of Colorado at

Boulder.76 This book chapter and the 2013 companion

article from which it is derived77 describe a reasonably welldone study, but its results cannot be generalized. In fact,

the authors conceded the outlier nature of their findings,

given that CU Boulder was not a very selective school (with

an acceptance rate of 84%) and employed relatively weak

consideration of race before moving to race-neutral

alternatives.78 Nor has CU Boulder ever achieved a high

proportion of minorities in its student population. For

example, during the period of the study, only 1.6% of CU

Boulder students were Black (among the lowest proportions

at leading U.S. public flagship universities).79

A second and much lower-quality example is

Petitioner’s reliance on a book chapter by Halley Potter,

76 J.A. 438, ¶ 309, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and

Fellows of Harvard College, No. 20-1199 (citing Matthew N. Gaertner,

Advancing College Access with Class-Based Affirmative Action—The

Colorado Case, in The Future of Affirmative Action 175 (Richard D.

Kahlenberg ed., 2014)).

77 Matthew N.

Gaertner & Melissa Hart, Considering Class: College

Access & Diversity, 7 Harv. L. & Pol’y Rev. 367 (2013).

78 See id. at 370, 399-400.

79 William C. Kidder, How Workable Are Class-Based and Race-Neutral

Alternatives at Leading American Universities?, 64 UCLA L. Rev.

Discourse 100, 120-21 (2016) (critiquing limitations of CU Boulder

study).

which repeats findings from a report for the Century

Foundation by Ms. Potter and Petitioner’s expert, Mr.

Kahlenberg.80 The Potter/Kahlenberg report and chapter

claim that after race-conscious programs were replaced at

“seven of the ten” leading public universities in the study

(including the University of Texas Austin and the

University of Florida), “the representation of African

Americans and Latinos met or exceeded the levels achieved

when the universities had used racial preferences.”81 As one

reviewer of the Kahlenberg and Potter report noted,

however, these findings “were not peer-reviewed and do not

stand up when subjected to careful scrutiny,” including

consideration of increased URM populations of high school

graduates in those states over the period of the study.82

CONCLUSION

UNC should be allowed to continue its admission

process consistent with Grutter. The judgment of the

district court should be affirmed.

Respectfully submitted,

CAROLINE E. REYNOLDS

Counsel of Record

80 J.A. 438, ¶ 309, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and

Fellows of Harvard College, No. 20-1199 (citing Richard D. Kahlenberg

& Halley Potter, A Better Affirmative Action: State Universities That

Created Alternatives to Racial Preferences (Oct. 2012) (report for the

Century Foundation)).

81 Kahlenberg & Potter, supra n.80 at 12.

82 Kidder (2016), supra n.79, at 126; see also id. at 121-25 (for detailed

critique). See also Brief Amicus Curiae for Richard Lempert in Support

of Respondents at 32-36, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, No. 14981.

DAVID A. REISER

Zuckerman Spaeder LLP

1800 M Street, N.W., Suite 1000

Washington, DC 20036

(202) 778-1800

creynolds@zuckerman.com

WILLIAM J. MURPHY

SAMANTHA A. MILLER

Zuckerman Spaeder LLP

100 East Pratt Street

Suite 2440

Baltimore, MD 21202

Counsel for Amici Curiae

August 1, 2022

A-1

Appendix A

List of Amici Curiae

Marisa Abrajano, University of California, San Diego

Jasmine Abukar, Ohio State University

Nancy Acevedo-Gil, California State University, San

Bernardino

Annie Adamian, California State University, Chico

Gabrielle Adams, University of Virginia

Katherine Adams, University of North Georgia

Aditya Adiredja, University of Arizona

Anthony Affigne, Providence College

Tara Affolter, Middlebury College

Jody Agius Vallejo, University of Southern California

José M. Aguilar-Hernández, California State Polytechnic

University, Pomona

Earl Aguilera, California State University, Fresno

Julie Ajinkya, Cornell University

Jessica Albrent, Johns Hopkins University

Ursula Aldana, University of California, Los Angeles

Arshad Ali, George Washington University

A-2

Syed Ali, Long Island University-Brooklyn

Keisha Allen, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Walter Allen, University of California, Los Angeles

Alexandra Allweiss, Michigan State University

Sigal Alon, Tel-Aviv University

Kal Alston, Syracuse University

Alvin Alvarez, San Francisco State University

Cynthia Alvarez, University of California, Los Angeles

Robert Alvarez, University of California, San Diego

AJ Alvero, University of Florida

Ifeoma Amah, University of California, Los Angeles

Evelyn Ambriz, Cornell University

Mauriell Amechi, University of Illinois at Chicago

Akhila Ananth, California State University, Los Angeles

Subini Annamma, Stanford University

Marshall Anthony Jr., The Institute for College Access &

Success

Anthony Antonio, Stanford University

Pavan Antony, Adelphi University

Ana Carolina Antunes, University of Utah

A-3

Andrew Aoki, Augsburg University

Sofya Aptekar, City University of New York School of

Labor and Urban Studies

Adele Arellano, California State University, Sacramento

Diana Arya, University of California, Santa Barbara

Nina Asher, University of Minnesota

Aeriel Ashlee, St. Cloud State University

Amanda Assalone, University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Annabelle Atkin, Purdue University

Kathryn Au, University of Hawaiʻi, Mānoa

Larry Au, The City College of New York

Wayne Au, University of Washington - Bothell

Aram Ayalon, Central Connecticut State University

William Ayers, University of Illinois at Chicago

Jennifer Ayscue, North Carolina State University

Sahar Aziz, Rutgers University-Newark

Maria Azmitia, University of California, Santa Cruz

Hannah Baggett, Auburn University

Monisha Bajaj, University of San Francisco

Bruce Baker, University of Miami

A-4

Dominique Baker, Southern Methodist University

Bianca Baldridge, Harvard University

Estela Ballon, California State Polytechnic University,

Pomona

Tracy Ballysingh, University of Vermont

Martha Banks, Independent Scholar

Lori Barker, California State Polytechnic University,

Pomona

Erica Barnett, St. Norbert College

Cassie Barnhardt, University of Iowa

Ryan Barone, Colorado State University

Matt Barreto, University of California, Los Angeles

Tonya Bartell, Michigan State University

Michael Bastedo, University of Michigan

Abigail Bates, University of California, Office of the

President

Geoff Bathje, Adler University

Kevin Bazner, Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi

Cameron Beatty, Florida State University

Thomas Bell, University of Michigan

A-5

Corina Benavides Lopez, California State University,

Dominguez Hills

Margaret Beneke, University of Washington

Pamela Bennett, University of Maryland, Baltimore

County

Estela Bensimon, University of Southern California

Keisha Bentley-Edwards, De Anza College

Ellen Berrey, University of Toronto

Michael Beyerlein, Texas A&M University - College

Station

Zeynep F. Beykont, Harvard University

Rachel Bhansari, Portland State University

Saurabh Bhargava, Carnegie Mellon university

Kakali Bhattacharya, University of Florida

Margarita Bianco, University of Colorado Denver

Jalil Bishop, Villanova University

Mollie Blackburn, Ohio State University

Horatio Blackman, National Urban League

Richard Blissett, University of Georgia

Reginald Blockett, Auburn University

Gilda Bloom-Leiva, San Francisco State University

A-6

Courtney Bonam, University of California, Santa Cruz

Stephanie Bondi, University of Nebraska

Eileen Boris, University of California, Santa Barbara

Ginny Boss, University of Georgia

Mildred Boveda, Pennsylvania State University

Nicholas Bowman, University of Iowa

Katherine Branch, University of Rhode Island

Mark Branson, Fuller Theological Seminary

Bryan Brayboy, Arizona State University

Allison Briceno, San José State University

Leah Bricker, Independent Scholar

Anita Bright, Portland State University

Ellen Broido, Bowling Green State University

Charlotte Brooks, Baruch College, City University of New

York

Ashley Brown, Loyola University Chicago

Bryan Brown, Stanford University

Kenly Brown, Spencer Foundation

Michael Brown, Iowa State University

Khalilah Brown-Dean, Quinnipiac University

A-7

Jazmin Brown-Iannuzzi, University of Virginia

David Brunsma, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University

Lyudmila Bryzzheva, Adelphi University

Wen Bu, Indiana University Bloomington

Jessica Buckley, University of Louisville

Tracy Buenavista, California State University, Northridge

Long Bui, University of California, Irvine

Beth Bukoski, Virginia Commonwealth University

Erika Bullock, University of Wisconsin - Madison

Jungmiwha Bullock, University of Southern California

Edelina Burciaga, University of Colorado, Denver

Rebeca Burciaga, San José State University

Orville Vernon Burton, Clemson University

Adam Bush, University of Southern California

Kenneth Butler, University of Dayton

Sheretta Butler-Barnes, Washington University in St.

Louis

Ajani Byrd, Foothill College

Carson Byrd, University of Michigan

A-8

Nolan Cabrera, University of Arizona

Altheria Caldera, American University

Maria Apolonia Calderon, University of Maryland, College

Park

Shannon Calderone, Washington State University

Rebecca Callahan, University of Vermont

Keith Camacho, University of California, Los Angeles

Asian American Studies Center

Patrick Camangian, University of San Francisco

Albert Camarillo, Stanford University

Luiz Augusto Campos, Universidade do Estado do Rio de

Janeiro

Nancy Cantor, Rutgers University-Newark

Brendan Cantwell, Michigan State University

Kevin Carey, University of Waterloo

Josefina Carmona, New Mexico State University

Ñusta Carranza Ko, University of Baltimore

Deborah Carter, Claremont Graduate University

Jesus Casas, University of California, Santa Barbara

Elise Castillo, Trinity College

Milagros Castillo-Montoya, University of Connecticut

A-9

Erin Castro, University of Utah

Chase Catalano, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University

Colin Cepuran, Independent Scholar

Jacob Chacko, Rutgers University

T. Chahin, Texas State University

Crystal Chambers, East Carolina University

Esther Chan, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Jason Chan, Haverford College

Nathan Chan, Loyola Marymount University

Komal Chandra, Rutgers University-Newark

Briana Chang, Temple University

Connie Chang, University of Pennsylvania

Ethan Chang, University of Hawaiʻi, Mānoa

Mitchell Chang, University of California, Los Angeles

Asian American Studies Center

Paul Chang, Harvard University

Sofia Chaparro, University of Colorado Denver

Karina Chavarria, California State University, Channel

Islands

A-10

Laura Chávez-Moreno, University of California, Los

Angeles

Charissa Cheah, University of Maryland, Baltimore

County

Anthony Chen, Northwestern University

Brittany Chen, Health Resources in Action

Edith Chen, California State University, Northridge

Jondou Chen, University of Washington

Michael Chen, Independent Scholar

Stephanie Chen, California Institute of Integral Studies

Charise Cheney, University of Oregon

Katherine Cheng, Stanford University

Wendy Cheng, Scripps College

Hua-Yu Sebastian Cherng, New York University

Christabel Cheung, University of Maryland, College Park

Vichet Chhuon, University of Minnesota

Warren Chiang, Stanford University

Anita Chikkatur, Carleton College

Christina Chin, California State University, Fullerton

Cheryl Ching, University of Massachusetts Boston

A-11

Erica Chito Childs, Hunter College, City University of

New York

Katherine S. Cho, Loyola University Chicago

AnNa Choi, University of Texas at Austin

Yoon Ha Choi, Florida International University

Sapna Chopra, California State University, Fullerton

Candace Chow, University of Utah

Leah Christiani, University of Tennessee

Christina Christie, University of California, Los Angeles

Jennifer Chudy, Wellesley College

Angie Chung, University at Albany

Patrick Chung, University of Maryland, College Park

José Cintrón, California State University, Sacramento

María Cioè-Peña, University of Pennsylvania

Joyce Clapp, University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Christine Clark, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Danielle Clealand, University of Texas at Austin

Kevin Close, Spencer Foundation

Casey Cobb, University of Connecticut

Krystle Cobian, University of California, Los Angeles

A-12

Diane Codding, Northwestern University

Elizabeth Cohen, Syracuse University

Dana Cohen Lissman, University of Oregon

Carl Cohn, Claremont Graduate University

Kevin Cokley, University of Texas at Austin

Christopher Collins, Azusa Pacific University

Lisa Collins, Lewis & Clark College

Roland Sintos Coloma, Wayne State University

Eddie Comeaux, University of California, Riverside

Catherine Compton-Lilly, University of South Carolina

Gilberto Conchas, Pennsylvania State University

Lauren Contreras, University of Denver

Andrew Coppens, University of New Hampshire

Sean Corcoran, Villanova University

Kathleen Corley, Arizona State University

Krista Cortes, University of Pennsylvania

Rebecca Covarrubias, University of California, Santa Cruz

Rebecca Crandall, Oregon State University

Gloria Crisp, Oregon State University

A-13

Dean Cristol, Ohio State University

Marcus Croom, Indiana University Bloomington

Margaret Crosbie-Burnett, University of Miami

Cindy Cruz, University of Arizona

Marcela Cuellar, University of California, Davis

Edward Curammeng, California State University,

Dominguez Hills

Sarah Dahlen, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Mary Kunmi Yu Danico, California State Polytechnic

University, Pomona

Desa Daniel, Palo Alto University

Loan Dao, Saint Mary's College of California

William Darity Jr., Duke University

Denise Davidson, Bloomsburg University

Bridgette Davis, University of Chicago

Jonathan Ryan Davis, College of New Jersey

Charles H.F. Davis III, University of Michigan

Breanna Davis Tribble, School readiness consulting

Noah De Lissovoy, University of Texas at Austin

Cati de los Ríos, University of California, Berkeley

A-14

Martín De Mucha Flores, University of San Francisco

Janine de Novais, Independent Scholar

Linda DeAngelo, University of Pittsburgh

Elizabeth DeBray, University of Georgia

Janet Decker, Indiana University Bloomington

Sherry Deckman, Lehman College, City University of New

York

Jessica DeCuir-Gunby, University of Southern California

Jean Paul deGuzman, University of California, Los

Angeles

Dolores Delgado Bernal, California State University, Long

Beach

Donna Demanarig, Wheaton College (MA)

Menna Demessie, UC Washington Center

Patrick Denice, University of Western Ontario

Meera Deo, Southwestern Law School

Maharj Desai, San Francisco State University

Shruti Desai, Duke University

Gregory Desierto, Alliant International University

Louis DeSipio, University of California, Irvine

John Diamond, Brown University

A-15

Sarah Diem, University of Missouri

Erich Dietrich, New York University

Sandra Dika, University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Khanh Dinh, University of Massachusetts Lowell

Kelyn Disbennett, Southern Methodist University

Jude Paul Dizon, Rutgers University

Ashley ("Woody") Doane, University of Hartford (CT)

Ligaya Domingo, SEIU Healthcare 1199NW and Asian

Pacific American Labor Alliance

Kira Donnell, San Francisco State University

Jamel K. Donnor, William & Mary

Kevin Dougherty, Columbia University

Alison Douglas, Northern Illinois University

Alicia Dowd, Pennsylvania State University

Noah Drezner, Columbia University

Faustina DuCros, San José State University

Mary Duenas, University of Tennessee, Knoxville

John Dugan, The Aspen Institute

Ebony Duncan-Shippy, Washington University in St Louis

Julia Duncheon, University of Washington

A-16

Antonio Duran, Arizona State University

Richard Duran, University of California, Santa Barbara

Elizabeth Dutro, University of Colorado Boulder

Susan Eaton, Brandeis University

Eilene Edejer, Loyola University Chicago

Margaret Eisenhart, University of Colorado Boulder

Dora Elias McAllister, University of Maryland, College

Park

Becki Elkins, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse

Charity Embley, Texas Tech University Health Sciences

Center

Rachel Endo, University of Washington - Tacoma

Mark Engberg, Independent Scholar

Andrew Engelhardt, University of North Carolina at

Greensboro

Frederick Engram Jr., University of Texas at Arlington

Laura Enriquez, University of California, Irvine

Frederick Erickson, University of California, Los Angeles

Cindy Escobedo, University of California, Los Angeles

Michelle Espino, University of Maryland, College Park

Lorelle Espinosa, University of Southern California

A-17

Kevin Esterling, University of California, Riverside

James Fabionar, University of San Diego

Susan Faircloth, Colorado State University

Flora Farago, Stephen F. Austin State University

Keisha Farmer-Smith, University of Illinois at Chicago

Pamela Felder-Small, Black Doctorates Matter

Cecilia Fernandez, Rice University

Frank Fernandez, University of Florida

Beth Ferri, Syracuse University

Nicole Filler, University of Massachusetts Boston

Michelle Fine, The Graduate Center, CUNY

Gianina Fink, University of Louisville

Ashley Finley, American Association of Colleges and

Univerisities

Kara Finnigan, University of Rochester

Gustavo Fischman, Arizona State University

Seth Matthew Fishman, Villanova University

Linda Fitzgerald, University of Northern Iowa

Rebecca Flanagan, UMass Law School

Terry Flennaugh, Michigan State University

A-18

Amanda Flores, Michigan State University

Elena Flores, University of San Francisco

Nelson Flores, University of Pennsylvania

Stella Flores, University of Texas at Austin

Susana Flores, Central Washington University

Nadirah Farah Foley, New York University

Kelly Fong, University of California, Los Angeles

Karly Ford, Pennsylvania State University

Gabrielle Foreman, Pennsylvania State University

Michael Forman, University of Washington - Tacoma

Tyrone Forman, University of Illinois at Chicago

Zak Foste, University of Kansas

Raymond Foxworth, First Nations Development Institute

Valerie Francisco-Menchavez, San Francisco State

University

Erica Frankenberg, Pennsylvania State University

Jeremy Franklin, University of Utah

Lorrie Frasure, University of California, Los Angeles

Rhoda Freelon, University of Houston

Sydney Freeman, Jr., University of Idaho

A-19

Regina Freer, Occidental College

Julio Fregoso, San Diego State University

Alexandra Freidus, University of Connecticut

Rachel Friedensen, St. Cloud State University

Henry Frierson, University of Florida

Sharon Fries-Britt, University of Maryland, College Park

Milton Fuentes, Montclair State University

Eugene Fujimoto, California State University, Fullerton

Diane Fujino, University of California, Santa Barbara

Michael Fultz, University of Wisconsin - Madison

Michael Funk, New York University

Sara Furr, The Field Museum

Francesca Gaiba, Northwestern University

Sarah Gallo, Rutgers University

Denisa Gándara, University of Texas at Austin

Patricia Gándara, University of California, Los Angeles

Shreena Niketa Gandhi, Michigan State University

Herbert Gans, Columbia University

John Ganzar, University of Denver

A-20

Laura Garbes, Brown University

Liliana M. Garces, University of Texas at Austin

Crystal Garcia, University of Nebraska

Eugene Garcia, Arizona State University

Gina Garcia, University of Pittsburgh

Nichole Garcia, Rutgers University

Yolanda Garcia, Northern Arizona University

Lisa Garcia Bedolla, University of California, Berkeley

Inmaculada García-Sánchez, University of California, Los

Angeles

Paige Gardner, Seattle University

Susan Gardner, Oregon State University

Emma Gargroetzi, University of Texas at Austin

Juan Carlos Garibay, University of Virginia

Stacey Garrett, Appalachian State University

Rachel Garver, Montclair State University

Jason Garvey, University of Vermont

Regina Garza Mitchell, Western Michigan University

Melanie Gast, University of Louisville

LaGina Gause, University of California, San Diego

A-21

Tanya Gaxiola Serrano, University of Texas at San

Antonio

Gilbert Gee, University of California, Los Angeles

Casey George, University of Louisville

Chrystal George Mwangi, George Mason University

Kim Geron, California State University, East Bay

Christina Getrich, University of Maryland, College Park

Cyril Ghosh, Wagner College

Matt Giani, University of Texas at Austin

Kathleen Gillon, University of Maine

Amir Gilmore, Washington State University

Ricki Ginsberg, Colorado State University

Terri Givens, McGill University

Steven Gold, Michigan State University

Laura Gomez, University of California, Los Angeles

Rachel Gomez, Virginia Commonwealth University

Gena Gong, California State University, Fresno

Leslie Gonzales, Michigan State University

Teresa Gonzales, Loyola University Chicago

Deena González, Gonzaga University

A-22

Michael A. Goodman, University of Texas at Austin

Hava Gordon, University of Denver

Cynthia Gordon da Cruz, Chabot College

Isaac Gottesman, Connecticut College

Amelia Gotwals, Michigan State University

Kenneth Gould, City University of New York

Kimberly Goyette, Temple University

Sandra Graham, University of California, Los Angeles

Sandy Grande, University of Connecticut

Tricia Gray, University of Nebraska

Meghan Green, Texas A & M University-Commerce

Terrance Green, University of Texas at Austin

Christine Greenhow, Michigan State University

Dennis Gregory, Old Dominion University

Zareena Grewal, Yale University

Briellen Griffin, Northwestern University

Kimberly Griffin, University of Maryland, College Park

Nora Gross, Boston College

Sara Grummert, Institute for Mixed Methods Research

A-23

Juan Guardia, University of Cincinnati

Tonia Guida, University of Texas at Austin

Florence M. Guido, University of Northern Colorado

Patricia Gurin, University of Michigan

Suchitra Gururaj, University of Texas at Austin

Kris Gutierrez, University of California, Berkeley

Lorraine Gutierrez, University of Michigan

Rose Ann Gutierrez, University of Nevada, Reno

Justin Gutzwa, University of Utah

Alana Hackshaw, University of Maryland, College Park

Linda Hagedorn, Iowa State University

Meseret Hailu, Arizona State University

Gordon Hall, University of Oregon

Wendell Hall, Independent Scholar

Tyler Hallmark, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation

Anne-Lise Halvorsen, Michigan State University

Floyd M Hammack, New York University

Victoria Hand, University of Colorado Boulder

Craig Haney, University of California, Santa Cruz

A-24

Peter Hanink, California State Polytechnic University,

Pomona

Sharim Hannegan-Martinez, University of Kentucky

Jessica Hardie, Hunter College, City University of New

York

Linda Harklau, University of Georgia

Andre Harper, Columbia University

Casandra Harper, University of Missouri

Shaun Harper, University of Southern California

Michael Harris, Southern Methodist University

Frank Harris III, San Diego State University

Jeni Hart, University of Missouri

Nicholas Hartlep, Association of Public & Land-Grant

Universities

Matt Hartley, University of Pennsylvania

Megan Haselschwerdt, University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Siduri Haslerig, University of Oklahoma

Deryl Hatch-Tocaimaza, University of Nebraska

Qian He, Princeton University

Dan Heiman, University of Texas at El Paso

Walter Heinecke, University of Virginia

A-25

Robert Helfenbein, Mercer University

Darryl Heller, Indiana University South Bend

Donald Heller, University of San Francisco

Portia Rae Hemphill, University of Michigan

Jeffrey Henig, Teachers College, Columbia University

Pa Her, University of Wisconsin - Madison

Beth Herbel-Eisenmann, Michigan State University

Amelia Herbert, Rutgers University-Newark

Jane Hereth, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Edwin Hernandez, California State University, San

Bernardino

Susana Hernandez, Northern Arizona University

Estee Hernández, National Louis University

Kirsten Hextrum, University of Oklahoma

Elizabeth Higginbotham, Brandeis University

Michiko Hikida, Ohio State University

Nicholas Hillman, University of Wisconsin - Madison

Kip Austin Hinton, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

Daniel Hirschman, Cornell University

Evelyn Ho, University of San Francisco

A-26

Phoebe Ho, University of North Texas

Sandra Hodgin, Claremont Graduate University

Jennifer Holme, University of Texas at Austin

Aja Holmes, University of San Francisco

Harry Holzer, Georgetown University

Delia Hom, Independent Scholar

Laureen Hom, California State Polytechnic University,

Pomona

Catherine Horn, University of Houston

Anne Hornak, Central Michigan University

Daniel HoSang, Yale University

Ernest House, University of Colorado Boulder

Derek Houston, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville

Tyrone Howard, University of California, Los Angeles

Carollee Howes, University of California, Los Angeles

Ariane Hoy, Bonner Foundation

Betina Hsieh, California State University, Long Beach

Amy Hsin, Queens College, City University of New York

Carolyn L. Hsu, Colgate University

Funie Hsu, San José State University

A-27

Madeline Hsu, University of Texas at Austin

Susan Hua, Community College of Aurora

Belinda Huang, University of Maryland, College Park

Ellen Huang, University of Oregon

Nancy Hudspeth, California State University, Stanislaus

Adrian Huerta, University of Southern California

Álvaro Huerta, California State Polytechnic University,

Pomona

Bryce Hughes, Montana State University

Tarry Hum, Queens College, City University of New York

Yuen Huo, University of California, Los Angeles

Noelle Hurd, University of Virginia

Aida Hurtado, University of California, Santa Barbara

Sylvia Hurtado, University of California, Los Angeles

Sarah S. Hurtado, University of Denver

Vincent Hutchings, University of Michigan

Jennifer Huynh, University of Notre Dame

Liane Hypolite, California State Polytechnic University,

Pomona

A-28

Jason Immekus, University of Louisville

Arpana Inman, Rutgers University-Newark

Iheoma Iruka, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Ann Ishimaru, University of Washington

John Ishiyama, University of North Texas

Mackenzie Israel-Trummel, College of William and Mary

Susan Iverson, Manhattanville College

Curtis Ivery, Wayne County Community College District

Detroit

Huriya Jabbar, University of Texas at Austin

Elizabeth Jach, University at Albany

Charlotte Jacobs, University of Pennsylvania

Dimpal Jain, California State University, Northridge

Sarah James, Harvard University

Ashley Jardina, Duke University

Uma Mazyck Jayakumar, University of California,

Riverside

Rashné Jehangir, University of Minnesota

DeMarcus Jenkins, Pennsylvania State University

Louise Jennings, Colorado State University

A-29

Russell Jeung, San Francisco State University

Monik Jimenez, Harvard University

Korina Jocson, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Indrawati Joe, Stanford University

Amrik Johal, University of California, Los Angeles

Austin Johnson, University of California, Riverside

Dawn Johnson, Syracuse University

Royel Johnson, University of Southern California

Cheryl Johnson-Odim, Dominican University Illinois

Marc Johnston-Guerrero, Ohio State University

Alden Jones, Merrimack College

Antwan Jones, George Washington University

Nikki Jones, University of California, Berkeley

Sosanya Jones, Howard University

Amy Jones Haug, Columbia University

Michael Jones-Correa, University of Pennsylvania

Tiffany Joseph, Northeastern University

T.J. Jourian, Loyola University Chicago

Jane Junn, University of Southern California

A-30

Meiyang Kadaba, Wright Institute

Joseph Kahne, University of California, Riverside

Aurora Kamimura, Washington University in St. Louis

Vijay Kanagala, Swarthmore College

Byung'chu Dredge Kang, University of California, San

Diego

Miliann Kang, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Lauren Kapalka Richerme, Indiana University

Bloomington

Michael Karim, Fuller Theological Seminary

Philip Kasinitz, City University of New York, Graduate

Center

Micere Keels, University of Chicago

prabhdeep singh kehal, University of Wisconsin–Madison

Bridget Kelly, University of Maryland, College Park

Matthew Kelly, Pennsylvania State University

Nathan Kelly, University of Tennessee

Ivy Ken, George Washington University

Peter Kiang, University of Massachusetts Boston

William Kidder, UCLA Civil Rights Project

Melanie Killen, University of Maryland, College Park

A-31

Barbara Kim, California State University, Long Beach

Brian Kim, The Common Application, Inc.

Claire Jean Kim, University of California, Irvine

David Kim, University of San Francisco

David Kyuman Kim, Stanford University

Eui Kyung Kim, University of California, Riverside

Hyejung Kim, Binghamton University

Jae Yeon Kim, KDI School of Public Policy and

Management and Johns Hopkins University

Jeongeun Kim, Arizona State University

Jung Kim, Lewis University

Nadia Kim, Loyola Marymount University

Richard Kim, University of California, Davis

Rose M. Kim, City University of New York, Manhattan

Community College

Stephanie Kim, Georgetown University

Veda Hyunjin Kim, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Victoria Kim, University of Texas at Austin

Ezekiel Kimball, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Kathryn Kirchgasler, University of Wisconsin - Madison

A-32

Daniel Klasik, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Emily Klein, Montclair State University

Christopher Knaus, University of Washington - Tacoma

Jana Knibb, Community College of Rhode Island

David Knight, University of Washington

Corinne Kodama, University of Illinois at Chicago

Rita Kohli, University of California, Riverside

Shabnam Koirala Azad, University of San Francisco

Kari Kokka, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Suneal Kolluri, University of California, Riverside

Susan Komives, University of Maryland, College Park

Dorinne Kondo, Harvard University

Mindy Kornhaber, Pennsylvania State University

Carrie Kortegast, Northern Illinois University

Diana Kotzin, University of Pennsylvania

Yacine Kout, University of North Georgia

Karen Kozlowski, University of Southern Mississippi

Kevin Kumashiro, Independent Scholar

Anindya Kundu, Florida International University

A-33

Scott Kurashige, Independent Scholar

Michal Kurlaender, University of California, Davis

Paul Kuttner, University of Utah

Yvonne Kwan, San José State University

Jihye Kwon, University of Southern California

Yaejoon Kwon, Reed College

Frankie Santos Laanan, University of Utah

Celia Lacayo, University of California, Los Angeles

Clement Lai, California State University, Northridge

James Lai, Savannah Law School

Jennifer Lai, University of Vermont

Chryl Laird, University of Maryland, College Park

Vinay Lal, University of California, Los Angeles

Son Ca Lam, Dartmouth College

Candace Lamb, Independent Scholar

Sonja Lanehart, University of Arizona

Michael Lanford, University of North Georgia

Alex Lange, Colorado State University

Regina Langhout, University of California, Santa Cruz

A-34

Argelia Lara, Santa Clara University

Cristina Lash, University of Nevada, Reno

Anna Lau, University of California, Los Angeles

Chrissy Lau, California State University, Monterey Bay

C.N. Le, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Vicente Lechuga, Savannah Law School

María Ledesma, San José State University

Alice Lee, University of California, Riverside

Amos Lee, University of California, Riverside

Barbara Lee, Rutgers University

C. Aujean Lee, University of Oklahoma

Fred Lee, University of Connecticut

Helen Lee, University of Chicago

Helene Lee, Dickinson College

Jennifer Lee, Columbia University

Na Youn Lee, San José State University

Naeyun Lee, University of Chicago

Richard Lee, University of Minnesota

Robert Lee, Brown University

A-35

Sharon Lee, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Stacey Lee, University of Wisconsin - Madison

Taeku Lee, Harvard University

Ung-Sang Lee, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Katherine Lee, Sonoma State University

Lisa Lee, University of Illinois at Chicago

Jhacole LeGrand-Dunn, Relay Graduate School for

Education

Jane Lehr, California Polytechnic State University

Elaine Leigh, Strada Education Network

Richard Lempert, University of Michigan

Maxwell Leung, California College of the Arts

Vivien Leung, Bucknell University

Harry Levine, Queens College, City University of New

York

Rhonda Levine, Colgate University

Amanda Lewis, University of Illinois at Chicago

Consuella Lewis, Transformations Organizational

Consulting

Cynthia Lewis, University of California, Santa Cruz

Edith Lewis, University of Michigan

A-36

Maria Lewis, Pennsylvania State University

Tammy Lewis, City University of New York

Ramsay Liem, Boston College

Pei-te Lien, University of California, Santa Barbara

Roman Liera, Montclair State University

Naitnaphit Limlamai, Colorado State University

Ann Chih Lin, University of Michigan

May Lin, California State University, Long Beach

Robyn Linde, Rhode Island College

Mitchell Lingo, Independent Scholar

Daniel Liou, Arizona State University

Daniel Lipson, State University of New York at New Paltz

Michael Liu, University of Massachusetts Boston

William Ming Liu, University of Maryland, College Park

Kristina Lizardy-Hajbi, Iliff School of Theology

Teresa Lloro, California State Polytechnic University,

Pomona

Angela Locks, California State University, Long Beach

Deborah Loewenberg Ball, University of Michigan

Jinee Lokaneeta, Fielding Graduate University

A-37

Kelly Long, University of North Georgia

Mark Long, University of Washington

Susan Longerbeam, University of Louisville

Francesca Lopez, Pennsylvania State University

Gerardo Lopez, Michigan State University

Miguel Lopez, University of California, Los Angeles

Patricia Lopez, California State University, Fresno

Patricia D. López, California State University, Fresno

Tehama Lopez Bunyasi, George Mason University

Yang Lor, University of California, Merced

Aaron Lorenz, Ramapo College

Erica Lovano McCann, University of Southern California

Hailey Love, University of Wisconsin - Madison

David Low, California State University, Fresno

Karla Loya, University of Hartford

Ashley Lucas, University of Michigan

Audrey Lucero, University of Oregon

Cecilia Lucero, University of Notre Dame

Courtney Luedke, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater

A-38

Joyce Lui, San José City College

David Luke, University of Michigan-Flint

Belinda Lum, Sacramento City College

Cathy Lussier, University of California, Riverside

Amy Lutz, Syracuse University

Valerie Luzadis, SUNY College of Environmental Science

and Forestry

Pearl Ly, San Diego Mesa College

Jasmine Ma, New York University

Tamarie Macon, UNC Chapel Hill

Michelle Madore, Stanford University

Theresa Mah, Independent Scholar

Maria Malagon, California State University, Fullerton

Luz Maldonado Rodriguez, Texas State University

Mei-Ling Malone, California State University, Fullerton

Maruice Mangum, Jackson State University

Bryan Mann, PhD, University of Kansas

Kathleen Manning, University of Vermont

Lester Manzano, Loyola University Chicago

Dina Maramba, Claremont Graduate University

A-39

Ann Marcus, New York University

Patricia Marin, Michigan State University

Susan Marine, Merrimack College

Bryant Marks, Morehouse College

Helen Marrow, Tufts University

Kris Marsh, University of Maryland, College Park

Mark Martell, University of Illinois at Chicago

Blake Martin, North Carolina State University

Paolo C. Martin, Uniformed Services University

Andrea Martinez, Weber State University

Brandon Martinez, Providence College

Danny C. Martinez, University of California, Davis

Magdalena Martinez, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Ramón Martínez, Stanford University

Eligio Martinez Jr., California State Polytechnic

University, Pomona

Ana M. Martinez-Aleman, Boston College

Carlos Martínez-Cano, University of Washington

Valerie Martinez-Ebers, University of Borth Texas

A-40

Gina Masequesmay, California State University,

Northridge

Jessica Masterson, Washington State University

Natalie Masuoka, University of California, Los Angeles

Cheryl E. Matias, University of Kentucky

Martha Matsuoka, Occidental College

Madeline Mavrogordato, Michigan State University

Lanney Mayer, University of La Verne

Edwin Mayorga, Swarthmore College

Martha McCarthy, Loyola Marymount University

Paula McClain, Duke University

George McClellan, University of Mississippi

Katherine McClelland, Franklin and Marshall College

Laila McCloud, Grand Valley State University

Pace J. McConkie, Morgan State University

Alexander McCormick, Indiana University Bloomington

Adam McCready, University of Connecticut

Kathryn McDermott, University of Massachusetts

Amherst

Patricia McDonough, University of California, Los Angeles

A-41

Ligaya McGovern, Indiana University

Brian McGowan, American University

Theresa McGuinness, Boston University

Keon McGuire, Arizona State University

Maxine McKinney de Royston, University of Wisconsin Madison

Conor McLaughlin, San Diego State University

Ty McNamee, Teachers College, Columbia University

Jessica McQueston, Sam Houston State University

Mollie McQuillan, University of Wisconsin - Madison

Patrick McQuillan, Boston College

Catherine McTamaney, Vanderbilt University

Darris Means, University of Pittsburgh

Taneisha Means, Villanova University

Carmen Medina, Indiana University

Rocio Mendoza, University of Redlands

Natasha Merchant, University of Washington Bothell

Julie Lee Merseth, Northwestern University

Melissa Michelson, Menlo College

A-42

Roslyn Mickelson, University of North Carolina at

Charlotte

Jeffrey Milem, University of California, Santa Barbara

Vanessa Miller, University of Florida

Adrienne Milner, Brunel University London

Michael Minta, University of Minnesota

Beth Mintz, University of Vermont

Jeffery Mio, California State Polytechnic University,

Pomona

Nicole Mirra, Rutgers University

Joya Misra, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Tania Mitchell, University of Minnesota

Radomir Mitic, University of North Dakota

Dana Mitra, Pennsylvania State University

Steve Mobley, Jr., Morgan State University

Amanda Mollet, University of Kansas

Theresa Montano, California State University, Northridge

Robert Moorehead, College of DuPage

Amanda Morales, University of Nebraska

Demetri Morgan, Loyola University Chicago

A-43

Jana Morgan, University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Jerome Morris, University of Missouri, St. Louis

Jeana Morrison, Albion College

Michael Moses, University of California, Riverside

Michele Moses, University of Colorado Boulder

Yolanda Moses, University of California, Riverside

Suhanthie Motha, University of Washington

Jesse Moya, Siena College

Raquel Muñiz, Boston College

Avram Munoz, Our Lady of the Lake University

Susana Munoz, Colorado State University

Jen Munson, Northwestern University

Richard Murnane, Harvard University

Hardy Murphy, Indiana University - Purdue University,

Indianapolis

Liz Murray, University of San Francisco

Faheemah Mustafaa, University of California, Davis

Kit Myers, University of California, Merced

Mark Nagasawa, Bank Street College of Education

Kathryn Nakagawa, Arizona State University

A-44

Robert (Bobby) Nakamoto, San Francisco State University

Dana Nakano, California State University, Stanislaus

Evelyn Nakano Glenn, University of California, Berkeley

Kerry Nakasone Wenzler, Colorado State University

Rosa Nam, Colorado State University

Vickie Nam, University of California, Santa Cruz

Mitsu Narui, Ohio State University

Brady Nash, University of Texas at Austin

Pedro Nava, Santa Clara University

Stephanie Nawyn, Michigan State University

Adam Nelson, University of Wisconsin - Madison

Christine Nelson, University of Denver

Thomas Nelson Laird, Indiana University Bloomington

Arturo Nevárez, California State University, Stanislaus

Fanny Ng, University of Massachusetts Boston

Mae Ngai, Columbia University

Federick Ngo, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Bach Mai Dolly Nguyen, Oregon State University

David Hoa Nguyen, Indiana University - Purdue

University, Indianapolis

A-45

Diem Nguyen, Wright Institute

Mike Hoa Nguyen, New York University

Thai-Huy Nguyen, RAND Corporation

Mytoan Nguyen-Akbar, University of Washington

Selena Nguyen-Rodriguez, California State University,

Long Beach

Donna Nicol, California State University Dominguez Hills

Z. Nicolazzo, University of Arizona

H. Kenny Nienhusser, University of Connecticut

Tanya Nieri, University of California, Riverside

Tricia Niesz, Kent State University

Diane Nititham, Murray State University

Monica Nixon, NASPA

Janine Nkosi, California State University, Fresno

Chelsea Noble, Michigan State University

Joaquin Noguera, University of California, Santa Barbara

Pedro Noguera, University of Southern California

Derek Novacek, University of California, Los Angeles

Anne-Marie Nunez, University of Texas at El Palso

Stephen Nuño-Perez, Northern Arizona University

A-46

Gudrun Nyunt, Northern Illinois University

Colleen O'Neal, University of Maryland, College Park

Cindy O’Donnell-Allen, Colorado State University

Angela Ocampo, University of Texas at Austin

Anthony Ocampo, California State Polytechnic University,

Pomona

Dina Okamoto, Indiana University Bloomington

Sumie Okazaki, New York University

Wilson Okello, Pennsylvania State University

Maricela Oliva, University of Texas at San Antonio

Pamela Oliver, University of Wisconsin - Madison

Avery Olson, California State University, Long Beach

Joseph Oluwole, Montclair State University

Michael Omi, University of California, Berkeley

Paul Ong, University of California, Los Angeles

Kent Ono, University of Utah

Byron Orey, Jackson State University

Gary Orfield, University of California, Los Angeles

Cecilia Orphan, University of Denver

Leticia Oseguera, Pennsylvania State University

A-47

Nana Osei-Kofi, Oregon State University

Chinyere Osuji, University of Maryland, College Park

Sarah Ovink, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University

Cam Owen, California State Polytechnic University,

Pomona

Moira Ozias, University of Arizona

Sangha Padhy, Ramapo College of New Jersey

Scott Page, University of Michigan

Yoon Pak, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Gregory Palardy, University of California, Riverside

Callie Palmer, Eastern Oregon University

Gordon Palmer, University of Illinois at Chicago

Eujin Park, Stanford University

Jerry Park, Baylor University

Julie Park, University of Maryland, College Park

Lisa Park, University of California, Santa Barbara

Soyoung Park, Bank Street College of Education

Tina Park, Brown University

Eugene Parker, University of Kansas

A-48

Tara Parker, University of Massachusetts Boston

Girma Parris, Case Western Reserve University

Penny Pasque, Ohio State University

Leigh Patel, University of Pittsburgh

Ashley Patterson, Pennsylvania State University

Rolonda Payne, University of Maryland, College Park

Anna Pegler-Gordon, Michigan State University

David Pellow, University of California, Santa Barbara

Sumun Pendakur, University of Southern California

Rachel Pereira, St. Johns University

Patricia Perez, California State University, Fullerton

Rosemary Perez, University of Michigan

Lindsay Pérez Huber, California State University, Long

Beach

David Perez II, Syracuse University

Lara Perez-Felkner, Florida State University

Leyla Perez-Gualdron, University of San Francisco

Lisa Perhamus, Grand Valley State University

Laura Perna, University of Pennsylvania

A-49

Ebony Perouse-Harvey, Southern Connecticut State

University

Andre Perry, The Brookings Institutions

Gregory Petrow, University of Nebraska

Julie Pham, New York University

Minh-Ha Pham, Pratt Institute

Le Phan, San Joaquin Delta College

Ngoc Phan, Queens College, City University of New York

Kate Phillippo, Loyola University Chicago

Christian Dyogi Phillips, University of Southern California

Malaphone Phommasa, University of California, Santa

Barbara

Peter Piazza, School Diversity Notebook

Meghan Pifer, University of Louisville

Marcos Pizarro, San José State University

JoAnna Poblete, Claremont Graduate University

OiYan Poon, University of Maryland, College Park

Kamaria Porter, Pennsylvania State University

Shanette Porter, University of Chicago

Julie Posselt, University of Southern California

A-50

Farima Pour-Khorshid, University of San Francisco

Luis Poza, San José State University

Melanye Price, Prairie View A&M University

Melynda Price, University of Kentucky

Kim Pryor, Boston College

Mayra Puente, University of California, San Diego

Jyoti Puri, Simmons University

Tiffany Quash, American University

Johanna Quinn, Fordham University

Raquel Rall, University of California, Riverside

Brianna Ramirez, University of California, San Diego

Ricardo Ramirez, University of Notre Dame

Anthony Ramos, Elgin Community College

Jawanza Rand, University of Pittsburgh

Stephen Raudenbush, University of Chicago

Robert Ream, University of California, Riverside

Sean Reardon, Stanford University

Vikash Reddy, Campaign for College Opportunity

Marlo Reeves, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

A-51

Craig Reinarman, University of California, Santa Cruz

Tania Reis, Gannon University

Kathleen Remington, Stanford University

Laura Rendon, University of Texas at San Antonio

Kristen Renn, Michigan State University

Sonnet Retman, University of Washington

G.T. Reyes, California State University, East Bay

Pedro Reyes, University of Texas at Austin

Victoria Reyes, University of California, Riverside

Rema Reynolds, University of California, Los Angeles

Kathryn Ribay, San José State University

Meredith Richards, Southern Methodist University

Tiffani Riggers-Piehl, University of Missouri, Kansas City

Kathy Rim, Vanguard University

Cecilia Rios Aguilar, University of California, Los Angeles

Elizabeth Rivera Rodas, Montclair State University

Claire Robbins, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University

Sean Robinson, Morgan State University

Barbara Robles, University of Maryland, College Park

A-52

Alyssa Rockenbach, North Carolina State University

Aireale Rodgers, University of Wisconsin - Madison

Awilda Rodriguez, University of Michigan

Dylan Rodriguez, University of California, Riverside

Evelyn Rodriguez, University of San Francisco

Gabriel Rodriguez, Iowa State University

Noreen Rodríguez, University of Colorado Boulder

Sally Roesch Wagner, Syracuse University

Leoandra Onnie Rogers, Northwestern University

Kirk D. Rogers Jr., University of California, San Diego

Meredith Rolfe, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Lindsay Romasanta, Portland State University

Tom Romero, University of Denver

Curtiss Rooks, Loyola Marymount University

Alexios Rosario-Moore, University of Illinois at Chicago

Vincent Roscigno, Ohio State University

Jerry Rosiek, University of Oregon

Kelly Rosinger, Pennsylvania State University

Colleen Rost-Banik, University of Hawaiʻi, Mānoa

A-53

Stella Rouse, University of Maryland, College Park

Heather Rowan-Kenyon, Boston College

Stephanie Rowley, University of Virginia

Martin Ruck, The Graduate Center, CUNY

Dennis Rudnick, Missouri State University

Erendira Rueda, Vassar College

Joseph Rumenapp, St. John's University

John Rury, University of Kansas

Ann Russo, DePaul University

Tatiane Russo-Tait, University of Texas at Austin

Dalitso Ruwe, Queen’s University

Mark Ryan, National University

Sheeva Sabati, California State University, Sacramento

Jocyl Sacramento, California State University, East Bay

Victor Saenz, University of Texas at Austin

Raquel Sáenz Ortiz, Southwestern University

Thierry Saintine, Stockton University

Cinthya Salazar, Texas A&M University

Cristobal Salinas Jr, Florida Atlantic University

A-54

Margaret Sallee, University at Buffalo

Anna Sampaio, Santa Clara University

Michelle Samura, Santiago Canyon College

Bernadette Sanchez, University of Illinois at Chicago

Raquel Sanchez, Stanford University

Shena Sanchez, University of Alabama

William Sandoval, University of California, Los Angeles

Cindy Sangalang, University of California, Los Angeles

Otto Santa Ana, University of California, Los Angeles

Stephen Santa-Ramirez, University at Buffalo

Ryan Santos, California State University, Long Beach

Pietro Sasso, Stephen F. Austin State University

Anne Saw, DePaul University

Kai Schafft, Pennsylvania State University

Maryellen Schaub, Pennsylvania State University

Jim Scheurich, Indiana University - Purdue University,

Indianapolis

Ryan Schey, University of Georgia

Britt SchlaeGuada, California State University, East Bay

Barbara Schneider, Michigan State University

A-55

Sanford Schram, Hunter College, City University of New

York

Luke Schultheis, Fairleigh Dickinson University

Jonathan Schwarz, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

D’Artagnan Scorza, University of California, Los Angeles

Jamil Scott, Georgetown University

Janelle Scott, University of California, Berkeley

Yolanda Sealey-Ruiz, Columbia University

Eleanor Seaton, Arizona State University

Quentin Sedlacek, Southern Methodist University

Alex Seeskin, University of Chicago

Megan Segoshi, Boston University

Gary Segura, University of California, Los Angeles

Bilal Sekou, University of Hartford

Joel Scott Self, Abilene Christian University

Tesha Sengupta-Irving, University of California, Berkeley

Jaime Settle, College of William and Mary

Tamara Sewell, New York University

Nayan Shah, University of Southern California

Lauren Shallish, Rutgers University-Newark

A-56

Nitasha Sharma, Northwestern University

Elizabeth Sharrow, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Vivian Shaw, Vanderbilt University

Yen Ling Shek, Independent Scholar

Jiannbin Shiao, University of Oregon

Elena Shih, Brown University

Kristy Shih, California State University, Long Beach

Joyce Shim, State University of New York - Delhi

Richard Shin, University of Maryland, College Park

Allyson Shortle, University of Oklahoma

Genevieve Siegel-Hawley, Virginia Commonwealth

University

Ester Sihite, Stanford University

Janelle Silva, University of Washington

Michelle Silvers, University of Arizona

Andrea Simpson, University of Richmond

Wesley Sims, University of California, Riverside

Kathy Sisneros, Colorado State University

Kristan Skendall, University of Maryland, College Park

Rachel Skrlac Lo, Villanova University

A-57

Kelly Slay, Vanderbilt University

Christine Sleeter, California State University, Monterey

Bay

Chauncey Smith, University of Virginia

Darrick Smith, University of San Francisco

Rogers Smith, University of Pennsylvania

Spencer Smith, Ohio State University

Laura Smithers, Old Dominion University

Jeanette Snider, University of Maryland, College Park

Daniel Solorzano, University of California, Los Angeles

David Song, University of Oklahoma

Sarah Song, University of California, Berkeley

Joe Soss, University of Minnesota

Jose Soto, Pennsylvania State University

Deborah Southern, University of California, Los Angeles

Kyle Southern, The Institute for College Access & Success

Mariana Souto-Manning, Erikson Institute

Margaret Beale Spencer, University of Chicago

Paul Spickard, University of California, Santa Barbara

Frances Spielhagen, Fordham University

A-58

Laura Sponsler, University of Denver

Dian Squire, Loyola University Chicago

Gregory Squires, George Washington University

Beth Ashley Staples, Ohio State University

Jeanine Staples, Pennsylvania State University

Tehia Starker Glass, University of North Carolina at

Charlotte

Tiffany Steele, Oakland University

Abigail Stewart, University of Michigan

D-L Stewart, University of Denver

TJ Stewart, Iowa State University

Joseph Stewart, Jr., Clemson University

Amy Stich, University of Georgia

Dane Stickney, University of Colorado-Denver

Ashley Stone, Southern Methodist University

David Stovall, University of Illinois at Chicago

Rolf Straubhaar, Texas State University

Terrell Strayhorn, Illinois State University

Dara Strolovitch, Yale Univeristy

Kamden Strunk, Virginia Commonwealth University

A-59

Lisa Stulberg, New York University

Celina Su, City University of New York Graduate Center

Phi Su, Williams College

Federico Subervi, University of Wisconsin - Madison

Stephen Suh, San Diego State University

Jeffrey Sun, University of Louisville

Sarayu Sundar, University of California, Los Angeles

Kenzo Sung, Rowan University

Stacey Sutton, University of Illinois at Chicago

Teresa Swartz, University of Minnesota

Amanda Tachine, Arizona State University

David Takeuchi, University of Washington

Liza Talusan, University of Massachusetts Boston

Gregory Tanaka, University of California, Los Angeles

Eric Tang, University of Texas at Austin

Amanda Taylor, American University

Kari Taylor, Springfield College

Rebecca Taylor, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign

John Kuo Wei Tchen, Rutgers University-Newark

A-60

Adai Tefera, University of Arizona

Karen Tejada, University of Hartford

Shannon Telenko, Pennsylvania State University

Ty Tengan, University of Hawaiʻi, Mānoa

Robert Teranishi, University of California, Los Angeles

Sherod Thaxton, University of California, Los Angeles

George Theoharis, Syracuse University

Anita Thomas, St Catherine University

Rhianna Thomas, New Mexico State University

Devin Thornburg, Adelphi University

Margaret Thornton, Old Dominion University

Antar Tichavakunda, University of Cincinnati

Michelle Tichy, Cabrini University

Mara Tieken, Bates College

Marta Tienda, Princeton University

Gavin Tierney, California State University, Fullerton

William Tierney, University of Southern California

Daniel Tillapaugh, California Lutheran University

Gina Tillis, The University of Memphis

A-61

Derrick Tillman-Kelly, Ohio State University

Allyson Tintiangco-Cubales, San Francisco State

University

Stephanie Toliver, University of Colorado Boulder

Joshua Tom, Seattle Pacific University

Rowena Tomaneng, San José City College

Francisco Torres, Kent State University

Greg Toya, University of California, San Diego

Audrey Trainor, New York University

Linda Tran, University of California, Los Angeles

Nellie Tran, San Diego State University

Uyen Tran-Parsons, University of North Texas

Sophie Trawalter, University of Virginia

William Trent, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign

Monica Trieu, Purdue University

Nicholas Triplett, University of North Carolina at

Charlotte

Teniell Trolian, University at Albany

Jessica Trounstine, University of California, Merced

Adrea Truckenmiller, Michigan State University

A-62

Elise Trumbull, Boston University

Kimberly Truong, Harvard University

Vivian Tseng, William T. Grant Foundation

Eli Tucker-Raymond, Boston University

Tamelyn Tucker-Worgs, Hood College

Kofi-Charu Nat Turner, University of Massachusetts

Amherst

Karolyn Tyson, Georgetown University

Paul Umbach, North Carolina State University

Karen Umemoto, University of California, Los Angeles

Luis Urrieta, University of Texas at Austin

Phitsamay Uy, University of Massachusetts Lowell

Concepcion Valadez, University of California, Los Angeles

Carolina Valdez, California State University, Fullerton

Zulema Valdez, University of California, Merced

Richard R. Valencia, University of Texas at Austin

Angela Valenzuela, University of Texas at Austin

Jessie Vallejo, California State Polytechnic University,

Pomona

Edward Vargas, Arizona State University

A-63

Manka Varghese, University of Washington

Marissa Vasquez, California State University, San Diego

Julian Vasquez Heilig, Independent Scholar

Kehaulani Vaughn, University of Utah

Michael Vavrus, Evergreen State College

Tanner Vea, Pennsylvania State University

Blanca E Vega, Montclair State University

Desiree Vega, University of Arizona

Patrick Velasquez, University of California, San Diego

Veronica Velez, Western Washington University

Kara Viesca, University of Nebraska

Anthony Villa, University of California, Riverside

Cynthia Villarreal, Northern Arizona University

Linda Vo, University of California, Irvine

Daniel Volchok, Northeastern University

Rican Vue, University of California, Riverside

Naoko Wake, Michigan State University

Marjorie Wallace, Michigan State University

Sophia Jordán Wallace, University of Washington

A-64

Camille Walsh, University of Washington - Bothell

Emily Walton, Dartmouth College

Xueli Wang, University of Wisconsin - Madison

Yuejia Wang, University at Buffalo

LaWanda Ward, Pennsylvania State University

Natasha Warikoo, Tufts Uniersity

Chezare Warren, Vanderbilt University

Mark Warren, University of Massachusetts Boston

Paul Watanabe, University of Massachusetts Boston

Amanda Waters, University of Maryland, Baltimore

County

Mary Waters, Harvard University

Tara Watford, California State University, Northridge

Vajra Watson, California State University, Sacramento

Alison Watts, University of Utah

Marcus Weaver-Hightower, Virginia Polytechnic Institute

and State University

John Weidman, University of Pittsburgh

Jacqueline Weinstock, University of Vermont

Herbert Weisberg, Ohio State University

A-65

S. Gavin Weiser, Illinois State University

Meredith Weiss, University at Albany

Ryan Wells, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Kevin Welner, University of Colorado Boulder

Megan Welsh, University of California, Davis

Valerie Werner, Adler University

Nicole West, Missouri State University

Alisha White, Western Illinois University

Damani White-Lewis, University of Pennsylvania

Kenyon Whitman, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Amber Williams, California Polytechnic State University

Brittany Williams, University of Vermont

Tyrone Williams Jr, Independent Scholar

David Wilson, University of California, Berkeley

Naomi Wilson, The Spencer Foundation

Camille Wilson, Ph.D., University of Michigan

De'Sha Wolf, Portland State University

Gregory Wolniak, University of Georgia

Alina Wong, Macalester College

A-66

Janelle Wong, University of Maryland, College Park

Shelley Wong, George Mason University

Gloria Wong-Padoongpatt, University of Nevada, Las

Vegas

Hyeyoung Woo, Portland State University

Emory Woodard, Villanova University

Christine Min Wotipka, Stanford University

Sarah Woulfin, University of Texas at Austin

Dwayne Wright, George Washington University

Erin Kahunawaikaʻala Wright, University of Hawaiʻi,

Mānoa

Travis Wright, University of Wisconsin - Madison

Raquel Wright-Mair, Rowan University

Ellen Wu, Indiana University Bloomington

Tommy Wu, McMaster University

Nan Xiao, Ohio State University

Christina Yao, University of South Carolina

Shenghe Ye, University of Chicago

Jennifer Yee, California State University, Fullerton

Joliana Yee, Yale University

A-67

Christine Yeh, University of San Francisco

Aggie Yellow Horse, Arizona State University

Fanny Yeung, California State University, East Bay

Varaxy Yi Borromeo, California State University, Fresno

Grace Yoo, San Francisco State University

Monica Yoo, University of Colorado Colorado Springs

Travis York, American Association for the Advancement of

Science

Hirokazu Yoshikawa, New York University

Tara J. Yosso, University of California, Riverside

Jennifer Young, Stanford University

Michelle Young, Loyola Marymount University

Ryan Young, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Jing Yu, University of Wisconsin - Madison

John Yun, Michigan State University

Eboni Zamani-Gallaher, University of Pittsburgh

Rossina Zamora Liu, University of Maryland, College Park

Marjorie Zatz, University of California, Merced

Desiree Zerquera, University of San Francisco

Cynthia Zhang, Evergreen Campus LLC

A-68

Jenny Zhang, Spencer Foundation

Min Zhou, University of California, Los Angeles

Hilary Zimmerman, Loyola University Chicago

Mary Ziskin, University of Dayton

Ximena Zúñiga, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Richard Zweigenhaft, Guilford College

B-1

Appendix B

I. Survey Results Reflecting Undergraduate

Student Perceptions of Campus Racial Climate at

the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill1

Chart 1

Student Satisfaction with Racial/Ethnic

Diversity of the Student Body at UNC-Chapel Hill

(% Responding Satisfied + Very Satisfied) 2

1 UNC-CH Office of Institutional Research & Assessment, UNC-

Chapel Hill Undergraduate Student Perceptions of the Campus

Climate for Diversity and Inclusion: Highlights from Recent Surveys

(2019), https://oira.unc.edu/wpcontent/uploads/sites/297/2019/03/Undergrad-Diversity-SurveyHighlights.pdf (report analyzing responses to surveys of

undergraduates at University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill

conducted in 2015, 2016, and 2017).

2 Id. at 14.

B-2

Chart 2

Impact of Low Representation

“While at UNC-Chapel Hill I have been in situations where I

was the only person of my race or ethnic group.”

(% Responding Often + Very Often)3

3 Id. at 17.

B-3

Chart 3

Impact of Low Representation

“I feel pressured at UNC to represent the views

of all people from my racial or ethnic background.”

(% Responding Agree + Strongly Agree)4

4 Id. at 18.

B-4

Chart 4:

Campus Climate

“Overall, I feel comfortable with the climate

for diversity and inclusion at UNC-Chapel Hill.”

(% Responding Somewhat Agree + Agree + Strongly Agree)5

5 Id. at 26.

B-5

Chart 5: Respect for Diversity

“Students of my race/ethnicity are respected on this campus.”

(% Responding Somewhat Agree + Agree + Strongly Agree)6

6 Id. at 29.

B-6

II. University of California Gap Analysis7

Graph 1:

UCLA Freshmen versus California

Public High School Graduates, 1994-2021

Share of students who are African

American/Black, American

Indian/Alaska Native,

Hispanic/Latino

7 Univ. of California, Gap Analysis, UNIVERSITYOFCALIFORNIA.EDU,

https://universityofcalifornia.edu/about-us/information-center/gapanalysis (University of California system’s publicly-available analysis

of “[r]acial/ethnic groups as a share of California public high school

graduates vs. share of UC freshman applicants, admits, and new

enrollees”).

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.