Amicus Curiae Brief — Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education

140 PO

“IN THE

Supreme Court of the Mnited States

PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS,

Petitioner,

v.

SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al.,

Respondents.

CRYSTAL D. MEREDITH, CUSTODIAL PARENT AND

NEXT FRIEND OF JOSHUA RYAN MCDONALD,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al.,

| Respondents.

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH AND SIXTH CIRCUITS

BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE

THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

AND THE WASHINGTON STATE PSYCHOLOGICAL

ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS

NATHALIE F.P.GILFOYLE JOHN PAYTON

General Counsel Counsel of Record

LINDSAY CHILDRESS-BEATTY DAVID W. OGDEN

Deputy General Counsel LEONDRA R. KRUGER

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL WILMER CUTLER PICKERING

ASSOCIATION HALE AND DORR LLP

750 First Street, N.E. 1875 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20002 Washington, DC 20006

(202) 336-5500 (202) 663-6000

Ae Eee ne ree a eR EE A A EN A A ce

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

AS CAe CEE OR idicccstncicctensscnssincistntatenaiucniinnnmsthini ili

INTEREST OF AMICI CURTAE....................cccccscsssescesceseesees 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ....................ccccscsccocsessocerescerenees 2

TT bianieniitichieisininsnnitintienentiiittacisin siieensoaaipiaaicaiipteenliiiets 3

I. RACIAL DIVERSITY IN PRIMARY AND SECON-

DARY EDUCATION CHALLENGES RACIAL

STEREOTYPES AND PROMOTES HARMONY

a Es TU © ecciteicesntnditainicittndiatictindtegtvsitatiiniiiinis 3

A. Absent Early Intervention, Normal Cogni-

tive Processes Can Lead To Racial Stereo-

typing And Racial Bias.....................0+ doaainainqeeinteinsit D

1. The nature and consequences of racial

I iserpnreniancitenanicsisinigenninsitipibhinnipiniiten 5

2. Once formed, racial stereotypes are

difficult to abandon ............scscescessecceseeees poonene 8

B. Racial Diversity In K-12 Education Can

Inhibit The Formation Of Racial Stereo-

SID TRI TIE TN ercccctisiiciantisitateericiitinbiginiancttiasinn 10

1. The importance of intergroup contact............. 10

2. Short-term effects of intergroup

contact in primary and secondary

a iiiteitaiiniitsocnnniisiitainaiiigilsincaiitiel tastes 14

3. Long-term effects of intergroup con-

tact in primary and secondary educa-

C. The Benefits Of Diversity In K-12 Educa-

tion Are More Likely To Accrue When

There Is A Critical Mass Of Students Of

Different Racial Backgrounds.............csscssesessereeeeee 20

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Page

Il. MEANINGFUL INTERGROUP CONTACT IS

UNLIKELY TO OCCUR IN PUBLIC K-12 EDU-

CATION WITHOUT THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS’

ERI Oe Week a ee ee 22

A. Because Of Largely Unconscious, Auto-

matic Cognitive And Emotional Re-

sponses, Individuals Often Avoid Inter-

IIIT. i scsissseinnieaininitilentnalciapnincieeadiiiiecbinevitintets 23

B. Because Of Intergroup Avoidance, Private

Choice Alone Is Unlikely To Produce Sub-

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Page(s)

Gratz v. Bollinger, 589 U.S. 244 (2008) .........cccccessceseeeeseeseeneees 3

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2008) .............0008: aE Ss 3,4

Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC, 497 US. 547

ITT chsch citi ohlacieiiibeciiendipesinadiatdidiiataneiepiiguliesesinieiietampimbeniies 2

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle

School District, No. 1, 426 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir.

ei aclicdlcieietiiiebiiacitandenimsenrieitistscipthinindiilatatapiaatiipilmenetniiiins 2,3

Regents of University of California v. Bakke,

Se ee cnsnscceseicdisinentiiasehadsdiesaticieicininepesvibnipaiaen 3

BOOKS AND ARTICLES

APA Resolution on Prejudice, Stereotypes, and

Discrimination (Feb. 2006), available at

http://www.apa.org/pi/prejudice_discrimination

i viacicinsccetinieviinas ecapereadabtniminiadadtiandanipceeinvictnean l

Aboud, Frances E. & Maria Amato, Developmental

and Socialization Influences on Intergroup

Bias, in Blackwell Handbook of Social Psy-

chology: Intergroup Processes 65 (Rupert

Brown & Samue! L. Gaertner eds., 2001)...........ccc0cc0e0 8,9

Aboud, Frances E. & Sheri R. Levy, /nterventions

to Reduce Prejudice and Discrimination in

Children and Adolescents, in Reducing Preju-

dice and Discrimination 269 (Stuart Oskamp

Allport, Gordon, The Nature of Prejudice (1954)............ 10, 11

Baron, Andrew Scott & Mahzarin R. Banaji, The

Development of Implicit Attitudes: Evidence of

Race Evaluations from Ages 6 and 10 and

Adulthood, 17 Psych. Sci. 53 (2006) ...........ccccccsseseseseceeeseees 9

Bettencourt, B. Ann & Nancy Dorr, Cooperative

Interaction and Intergroup Bias: Effects of

Numerical Representation and Cross-Cut Role

Assignment, 24 Personality & Soc. Psychol.

Sa: MN UNIIIEET slictiassninhdiiisanniiinieninntcnliamistanalsiabcoiiedsiibubsebeieccli 13

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Betts, Julian R., et al., Does School Choice Work?

Effects on Student Integration and Achieve-

ODIAE OG Gee ancccecsctncnttnsimicsininiilnbiaaitaiciicinciitaaaadinials

Bigler, Rebecca S. & Lynn S. Liben, A Cognitive-

Developmental Approach to Racial Stereotyp-

ing and Reconstructive Memory in Euro-

American Children, 64 Child Dev. 1507 (1993)...

Blair, [rene V., The Malleability of Automatic

Stereotypes and Prejudice, 6 Personality &

Soc. Psychol. Rev. 242 (2002) ..........scessescereereereesens

Braddock, Jomills & James M. McPartland, Social-

Psychological Processes That Perpetuate Ra-

cial Segregation: The Relationship Between

School and Employment Desegregation, 19 J.

BURR DUG, BST CAG) ancesciccsssseninisctanintneinasuasaniaaitiint

Braddock, Jomills Henry, II & Tamela McNulty

Kitle, The Effects of School Desegregation, in

Handbook of Research on Multicultural Edu-

cation 828 (James A. Banks & Cherry A.

McGee Banks eds., 2d ed. 2004) ..........ccccce . cesseeneees

Clotfelter, Charles T., After Brown: The Rise and

Retreat of School Desegregation (2004) ..........:00

Devine, Patricia G., Stereotypes and Prejudice:

Their Automatic and Controlled Components,

56 J. Personality & Soc. Psychol. 5 (1989) .............

Dovidio, John F., et al., On the Nature of Prejudice:

Automatic and Controlled Processes, 33 J. Ex-

perimental Soc. Psychol. 510 (1997) ...........cseseeees

Dovodio, John F., et al., Reducing Contemporary

Prejudice: Combating Explicit and Implicit

Bias at the Individual and Intergroup Level, in

Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination 137

(Stuart Oskamp ed., 2000).............csecscsccersessessesessees

V

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Contiaued

Page(s)

Dovidio, John F., et al., Why Can’t We Just Get

Along? Interpersonal Biases and Interracial

Distrust, 8 Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minor-

nisi nncnaciiihindetccnstebnidantubianennes 8, 24

Eberhardt, Jennifer L., et al., Seeing Black: Race,

Crime, and Visual Processing, J. Personality

Ss ees IU I cncctccesecnscvccnscanctesntesenstonsceczccsneccse 7

Fiske, Susan T., /nterdependence and the Reduc-

tion of Prejudice, in Reducing Prejudice and

Discrimination 115 (Stuart Oskamp ed., 2000)............. 13

Fiske, Susan T., Stereotyping, Prejudice and Dis-

crimination, in 2 The Handbook of Social Psy-

chology 357 (Daniel T. Gilbert et al. eds., 4th

Gaertner, Samuel L. & John F. Dovidio, The Aver-

sive Form of Racism, in Prejudice, Discrimi-

nation, and Racism 61 (John F. Dovidio &

Samuel L. Gaertner eds., 1986) ...........cccccccccceseceeees 7, 23, 24

Gaertner, Samuel L., et al., The Contact Hypothe-

sis: The Role of a Common Ingroup Identity

on Reducing Intergroup Bias Among Majority

and Minority Group Members, in What’s So-

cial About Social Cognition?: Research on So-

cially Shared Cognition in Small Groups 230

(Judith L. Nye & Aaron M. Brower eds., 1996)............. 13

Graham, Sandra & Jaana Juvonen, Ethnicity, Peer

Harassment, and Adjustment in Middle

School: An Exploratory Study, 22 J. Early

I sins 20

Johnson, David W. & Roger T. Johnson, The Three

Cs of Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination,

in Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination 239

ne IIIs TEIN ccsccesstssnnptiensatenbstantiecnesemtnatens 13

Juvonen, Jaana, et al., Ethnic Diversity and Peer

Perceptions of Safety in Urban Middle

Schools, 17 Psych. Sci. 393 (2006) .......c.csccscssesececseeereenees 16

vil

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page(s)

Killen, Melanie, et al., Morality in the Context of

Intergroup Relations, in Handbook of Moral

Development 155 (Melanie Killen & Judith

BI I ih it 6, 8, 10, 16

Killen, Melanie, et al., The Social Developmental

Benefits of Heterogeneous School Environ-

ments, in Lessons in Integration: Realizing the

Promise of Racial Diversity in America’s

Schools (Erica Frankenberg & Gary Orfield

is, I iictencecrtcnninnssentstiinninaittiteimanisiininaite 10

Lord, Charles G. & Delia S. Saenz, Memory Deficits

and Memory Surfeits: Differential Cognitive —

Consequences of Tokenism for Tokens and Ob-

servers, 49 J. Personality & Soc. Psychol. 918

Mackie, Diane M., et al., Social Psychological

Foundations of Stereotype Formation, in

Stereotypes and Stereotyping 41 (Neil C. Mac-

ig, Fes recittnicctisnineetiaitinnasisiieionininninnens 5, 6,8

Margie, Nancy Geyelin, et al., Minority Children’s

Intergroup Attitudes About Peer Relation-

ships, 23 British J. Developmental Psych. 251

McGlothlin, Heidi & Melanie Killen, /ntergroup At-

titudes of European American Children At-

tending Ethnically Homogeneous Schools, 77

ela Pe a cictecnincinnsdadninnpttcgnaniniineninmeiites 15, 16

McGlothlin, Heidi, et al. Huropean-American

Children’s Intergroup Attitudes About Peer

Relationships, 23 British J. Dev. Psychol. 227

Mckown, Clark & Rhona S. Weinstein, The Devel-

opment and Consequences of Stereotype Con-

sciousness in Middle Childhood, 74 Child Dev.

RES EI ee Oe oO RE NT ee ee TO 22

vii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Migdal, Michael J., et al., The Effects of Crossed

Categorization on Intergroup Evaluations: A

Meta-Analysis, 37 Brit. J. Soc. Psychol. 303

Mullen, Brian, et al., Ingroup Bias as a Function of

Salience, Relevance, and Status: An Integra-

tion 22 Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 103 (1992)...........scscceseeeeeeees 5

Mullen, Brian & Li-tze Hu, Perceptions of Ingroup

and Outgroup Variability: A Meta-Analytic

Integration, 10 Basic & Applied Soc. Psychol.

SET caionocenatiieieienieciteindaiiitasalilitasieaaeetasiitablntttetaaitatieasetaiedes 6

Pettigrew, Thomas F., Intergroup Contact Theory,

49 Ann. Rev. Psychol. 657 (1998) ..........scsceseecserseeeees 11, 13

Pettigrew, Thomas F. & Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-

Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory,

90 J. Personality & Soc. Psychol. 751

Pettigrew, Thomas F. & Linda R. Tropp, Does In-

tergroup Contact Reduce Prejudice? Recent

Meta-Analytic Findings, in Reducing Preju-

dice and Discrimination 93 (Stuart Oskamp

ic, See iiciinicsincieninscctniinteiibaiiactinndeansindinttinasbiilnaiiitnatisenen 12, 16

Rosenthal, Robert, Meta-Analytic Procedures for

Social Sctemee (Fev. OB. 1DD2) ....ccccciccerececsececsscccscssecceseceess ll

Schofield, Janet W., Black and White in School:

Trust, Tension, or Tolerance (1989)............-cceeeccsceeeeeeees 15

Schofield, Janet W., School Desegregation and In-

tergroup Relations: A Review of the Literature,

17 Rev. of Res. in Educ. 335 (1991)............cc0ccceseeeeees 13, 17

Schofield, Janet W. & Rebecca Eurich-Fulcer,

When and How School Desegregation Im-

proves Intergroup Relations, in Blackwell

Handbook of Social Psychology 475 (Rupert

Brown & Samuel L. Gaertner’ ads.,

Sei scecniasianielateitsinsincinbariesuasiiiestiniessialasiasbeisplits 17, 18, 19, 20, 21

viii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page(s)

Schofield, Janet W. & H. Andrew Sagar, Desegrega-

tion, School Practices, and Student Race Rela-

tions, in The Consequences of School Desegre-

gation 58 (Christine H. Russell & Willis D.

ICIS GNI; TEED rincesisesninsticintiipaeieteintiedamninilensio 18, 20, 21

Schofield, Janet W. & H. Andrew Sagar, Peer In-

teractions in an Integrated Middle School, 40

LEP a Sere a ee 15

Spencer, Steven J., et al., Automatic Activation of

Stereotypes: The Role of Self-Image Threat, 24

Personality & Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1139 (1998)................ 23

Stangor, Charles & David McMillan, Memory for

Expectancy-Congruent and Evxpectancy-

Incongruent Information: A Review of the So-

cial and Social Developmental Literatures, 111

ele Ses MN Ct inictivscennceseieisnlnenitaciltanadaiamsnnadiipiaiiaigs 7

Steele, Claude M., A Threat in the Air: How Stereo-

types Shape Intellectual Identity and Per-

formance, 52 Am. Psych. 613 (1997)...........0cscesescereeeerees 22

Stephan, Walter G. & Cookie White Stephan, /nter-

group Relations in Multicultural Education

Programs, in Handbook of Research on Multi-

cultural Education 782 (James Banks & Carrie

SI I I i 18

Stephan, Walter G. & Cookie White Stephan, Jm-

proving Intergroup Relations 47 (2001) ...........cccceeseeeee: 18

Stephan, Walter G. & Cookie White Stephan, /nter-

group Anxiety, 41 J. Soe. Issues 157

Sie cesrcncsindensietstiiantianesimeienisatanieiintisitinsbemnssianinatiaati 8, 24, 25

Stephan, Walter G. & Cookie White Stephan, /nter-

A a erictiinictatingintrcintrceasincnpentedanisilauitinns 19

Taylor, Shelley E., et al., Categorical and Contex-

tual Bases of Person Memory and Stereotyp-

ing, 36 J. Personality & Soc. Psychol. 778 (1978)........+: 21

ix

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Tropp, Linda R. & Mary Prenovost, The Role of In-

tergroup Contact in Predicting Inter-Ethnic

Attitudes: Evidence from Meta-Analytic and

Field Studies, in Intergroup Relations: An In-

tegrative Developmental and Social Psycho-

logical Perspective (Sheri Levy & Melanie Kil-

len eds., forthcoming 2006) .............c.ccsceseesereseeseeeees

Venezia, Andrea, et al., Betraying the College

Dream (Stanford University Bridge Project

eR cocintsvecenenesnenturenetenimnnsmigienetineetnipaningnnitiietatnne

Wells, Amy Stuart & Robert L. Crain, Perpetua-

tion Theory and the Long-Term Effects of

School Desegregation, 64 Rev. Ed. Res. 531

Wells, Amy Stuart, et al., How Desegregation

Change Us: The Effects of Racially Mixed

Schools on Students and Society, available at

http://ems.tc.columbia.edu/i/a/782_ASWells0415

04.pdf (last visited Oct. 9, 2006) ...........cccceeceerseneeee

Wilder, David A., Perceiving Persons as a Group:

Categorization and Intergroup Relations, in

Cognitive Processes in Stereotyping and Inter-

group Behavior 213 (David L. Hamilton ed.,

Wright, Stephen C., et al., The Extended Contact

Effect: Knowledge of Cross-Group Friendships

and Prejudice, 73 J. Personality & Soc. Psy-

Es ee Diinticrneechicinisinnanincacahduistibieaiianingtasitainen

Yee, Mia D. & Rupert Brown, Self-Evaluations

and Intergroup Attitudes in Children Aged

Three to Nine, 63 Child Dev. 619 (1992).................

Page(s)

INTEREST OF AMICI CURLAE

The American Psychological Association (APA)' is a

voluntary, nonprofit, scientific and professional organization

founded in 1892. It is the major association of psychologists

in the United States, with more than 145,000 members and

affiliates. The APA has 54 divisions representing the full

array of areas of emphasis within the field of psychology.

The objects of the APA include advancing psychology as a

means of promoting human welfare, diffusing psychological

knowledge, and encouraging the application of research find-

ings to the promotion of health and public welfare. The APA

places a high priority on the amelioration of stereotypes,

prejudice, and discrimination among individuals and institu-

tions. See APA Resolution on Prejudice, Stereotypes, and

Discrimination (Feb. 2006), available at http://www.apa.org/

pi/prejudice_discrimination_resolution.pdf.

Members of APA research psychological aspects of im-

portant social issues such as the causes and consequences of

racial and ethnic prejudice and stereotypes and the devel-

opment of such prejudice and stereotypes in children. A

body of social scientific knowledge provides a substantive

scientific context for considering these cases. Pertinent

studies are scientifically reliable and peer-reviewed, and,

taken together, bear directly on the empirical claims at the

heart of this matter.

The Washington State Psychological Association

(WSPA) is a statewide nonprofit scientific and professional

organization. Founded in 1947, WSPA has approximately

700 members and affiliates. WSPA’s mission is to support

psychologists and psychologists-in-training and to promote

the practice of psychology in order to maintain the vitality of

the profession in the public interest. WSPA promotes reli-

' The parties have filed with the Court letters consenting to the fil-

ing of all amicus cunae briefs in these cases. No counsel for any party

had any role in authoring this brief, and no one other than amici curiae

provided any monetary contribution to its preparation or submission.

2

ance on scientific evidence in crafting policies that enhance

the mental and behavioral health of Washington citizens.

WSPA joins the APA in this brief to present compelling evi-

dence ‘supporting the principle that local school districts

should be permitted to create school assignment plans to en-

sure diversity throughout public education.’

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

I. Extensive psychological research shows that, under

certain conditions, interaction among persons of different

races can diminish racial stereotypes and promote cross-

racial understanding, empathy, and mutual respect. These

findings apply with particular force in the context of K-12

education. Adults may find it difficult to abandon racial

stereotypes already formed, but children who interact regu-

larly with persons of other races are less likely to fall into

patterns of stereotypical thinking about other racial groups.

Primary and secondary schools provide an excellent setting

for this type of sustained interaction. Children and adoles-

cents in racially diverse schools—particularly schools de-

signed to facilitate cross-racial interaction among students-—

are more likely to learn to regard others as individuals,

rather than simply “the product of their race,” Metro Broad.,

Inc. v. FCC, 497 U.S. 547, 604 (1990) (O’Connor, J., dissent-

ing).

It is noteworthy that the courts below broadly acknowl-

edged, in the words of one judge, “the importance of teach-

ing children, during their formative years, how to deal re-

spectfully and collegially with peers of different races.”

Parents Involved in Community Sch. v. Seattle Sch. Dist.,

No. 1, 426 F.3d 1162, 1194 (9th Cir. 2005) (Kozinski, J., con-

curring). “The idea that children will gain social, civic, and

>APA and WSPA gratefully acknowledge the assistance of

Mary Margaret Brabeck, Ph.D., John F. Dovidio, Ph.D., Susan T. Fiske,

Ph.D., Sandra Graham, Ph.D. Melanie A. Killen, Ph.D.,

Clark Atwater McKown, Ph.D., Janet Ward Schofield, Ph.D., and Linda

R. Tropp, Ph.D., in the preparation of this brief.

3

perhaps educational skills by attending schools with a pro-

portion of students of other ethnicities and races, which pro-

portion reflects the world in which they will move, is a no-

tion grounded in common sense.” Jd. at 1196 (Bea, J., dis-

senting). As this brief explains, a substantial body of psy-

chological research confirms this understanding.

II. The diversity necessary to generate these substan-

tial benefits in public K-12 education is unlikely to result

purely as a matter of private parental choice. Fear of the

unknown and unfamiliar often leads individuals to shy away

from substantial interaction with persons of other races, and

instead to gravitate toward homogeneous neighborhoods,

communities, and schools. Even those who consciously dis-

claim racial prejudice often unconsciously harbor, and act in

accordance with, racial stereotypes and racial bias. These

phenomena help to explain why, all things being equal, many

parents are unlikely to choose to send their children to

schools predominantly populated by children of other races.

Thus, without school district involvement, children are far

less likely to reap the benefits of learning, at an early age, to

resist the racial stereotypes that so often result in division

and discrimination.

ARGUMENT

lL RACIAL Drversrry IN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCA-

TION CHALLENGES RACIAL STEREOTYPES AND PROMOTES

HARMONY AND MUTUAL RESPECT

This Court has long recognized that student body diver-

sity is a compelling governmental interest that “legitimately

may be served” by the consideration of race in admissions to

selective public universities. Regents of Univ. of Cal. v.

Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 320 (1978); accord Grutter v. Bollinger,

539 U.S. 306, 325 (2003); Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 268

(2003). The Court has explained that the benefits of racial

diversity in higher education are both “substantial” and

“real”: Assembling a racially diverse class “promotes cross-

racial understanding, helps to break down racial stereo-

types, ... enables students to better understand persons of

different races, promotes learning outcomes, [and] better

4

prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce and

society[.]” Grutter, 539 U.S. at 330 (internal quotation

marks and citations omitted).

Peer-reviewed professional literature shows that racial

diversity in K-12 education promotes precisely the same

goals, and therefore represents an equally compelling inter-

est. Indeed, racial diversity in primary and secondary edu-

cation is likely to have an even greater effect on inter-race

relations than diversity in selective institutions of higher

education. As a practical matter, because the majority of

children in the United States do not go on to attend selective

four-year colleges, the benefits of K-12 racial diversity are

likely to have a broader reach.’ And for many children who

do not go on to attend college, primary and secondary school

may be the only educational settings in which they have

meaningful interaction with persons of different racial back-

grounds.

Equally—if not more—important, early interaction with

individuals of different racial backgrounds can have pro-

found and lasting effects. Interaction between children and

adolescents of different races helps not only “to break down

racial stereotypes,” but to prevent the development of

stereotypical thinking. Children begin to classify people by

race and develop the capacity for stereotypical thinking in

their early years. Childhood and adolescence are important

periods for the formation of biases that may be expressed

either consciously or unconsciously throughout a person’s

lifetime. Interaction with others from different racial back-

grounds also enables children to develop notions of racial

equality and fairness. Early intervention thus can signifi-

cantly lessen racial prejudices among children and, ulti-

mately, the likelihood that they will engage in discrimina-

tory behavior.

* Cf. Andrea Venezia et al., Betraying the College Dream 14 (Stan-

ford University Bridge Project 2006) (approximately 20% of first-year

postsecondary students attend selective 4-year institutions, while 80%

attend non-selective or minimally selective 2- and 4-year institutions).

5

A. Absent Early Intervention, Normal Cognitive

Processes Can Lead To Racial Stereotyping And

Racial Bias

1. The nature and consequences of racial

stereotypes

As young children become aware of the world around

them, they begin to divide individual objects, situations, and

people into categories. This categorization is a normal cogni-

tive process that permits children and adults alike to sim-

plify a complex world. Confronted with an overload of indi-

vidual stimuli, people conserve scarce cognitive energy by

identifying the similarities between different stimuli and

grouping them together on that basis. When the stimuli are

people, this process leads people to group individuals into

social categories. See generally Diane M. Mackie et al., So-

cial Psychological Foundations of Stereotype Formation, in

Stereotypes and Stereotyping 41, 44-45 (Neil C. Macrae et al.

eds., 1996); Susan T. Fiske, Stereotyping, Prejudice and Dis-

crimination, in 2 The Handbook of Social Psychology 357,

362, 375 (Daniel T. Gilbert et al. eds., 4th ed. 1998).

This simple act of categorization can have dramatic ef-

fects on one’s attitude toward group members. Research

indicates that individuals tend to assign value to differences

between others and the group to which they belong, devel-

oping more favorable attitudes toward “ingroup” members.

See Michael J. Migdal et al., The Effects of Crossed Categori-

zation on Intergroup Evaluations: A Meta-Analysis, 37

Brit. J. Soc. Psychol. 303 (1998) (presenting-evidence con-

firming the existence of “ingroup bias”); Brian Mullen et al.,

Ingroup Bias as a Function of Salience, Relevance, and

Status: An Integration, 22 Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 103 (1992);

Mia D. Yee & Rupert Brown, Self-Evaluations and Inter-

group Attitudes in Children Aged Three to Nine, 63 Child

Dev. 619 (1992) (finding in-group favoritism among young

children). Indeed, “the mere existence of different social

groups is sufficient to foster biased behavior.” See David A.

Wilder, Perceiving Persons as a Group: Categorization and

Intergroup Relations, in Cognitive Processes in Stereotyp-

6

ing and Intergroup Behavior 213, 228 (David L. Hamilton

ed., 1981) (citing Henri Tajfel, Cognitive Aspects of Preju-

dice, 25 J. Soc. Issues 79 (1969)).

Categorization does not, however, inevitably lead to

stereotyping. Mackie et al., supra, at 47. Rather, stereotyp-

ing occurs only when a person ascribes certain traits to indi-

viduals solely on the basis of their group membership. /d. at

44, 47; Melanie Killen et al., Morality in the Context of In-

tergroup Relations, in Handbook of Moral Development 155,

163 (Melanie Killen & Judith Smetana eds., 2006). Viewing

social groups through the lens of stereotypic assumptions

tends to produce at least four kinds of cognitive responses.

First, people perce’ © greater homogeneity and less dif-

ferentiation within ai. outgroup than an ingroup. . That is,

people tend to assume that members of their own group will

possess a diversity of attitudes and beliefs, while others will

conform to stereotypic expectations. See Wilder, supra, at

226 (“{1Jngroup members [aJre assumed to have a wider

range of beliefs than outgroup members. Relative to the in-

group, the outgroup [is! thought to be more homogene-

ous ....”); see also Brian Mullen & Li-tze Hu, Perceptions of

Ingroup and Outgroup Variability: A Meta-Analytic Inte-

gration, 10 Basic & Applied Soe. Psychol. 233-52 (1989) (pre-

senting evidence confirming the outgroup homogeneity ef-

fect). People thus tend to see ingroup members as individu-

als, and members of other groups as “all the same.”

Second, people explain the causes of the actions of mem-

bers of other groups and their own group in different ways.

Negative behaviors of members of other groups are attrib-

uted to stable, internal factors (e.g., their personality or

character) and positive behaviors are dismissed as situa-

tionally caused. See Fiske, Stereotyping, Prejudice, and

Discrimination, supra, at 370 (citing studies). In contrast,

people tend to discount negative actions of their own group

and attribute positive behaviors to internal causes. See id.

In communication, they also talk about negative behaviors of

members of other groups and positive behaviors of members

of their own group in deeper, more abstract ways. See id.

7

Thus, these processes contribute not only to the formation of

personal stereotypes but also to the way members of groups

are thought about by others.

Third, stereotypic assumptions affect perception: Peo-

ple often resort to stereotypes to fill in the gaps in short, un-

focused, or partial sense impressions. See id. at 368. Stereo-

typic associations between social groups and concepts can

guide how people process visual stimuli in their environ-—

ment. See Jennifer L. Eberhardt et al., Seeing Black: Race,

Crime, and Visual Processing, J. Personality & Soe. Psy-

chol. 876, 889 (2004) (discussing stereotypic associations be-

tween African-Americans and crime). We are also quicker

to identify and process information that is consistent with a

stereotype. See Fiske, Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Dis-

crimination, supra, at 368 (citing studies).

Fourth, stereotypic assumptions distort memory. Par-

ticularly when people are overloaded with information—as is

often the case in everyday life—it is easier to recall informa-

tion that is consistent with a stereotype than information

inconsistent with that stereotype. See Wilder, supra, at 226

(“(T]he categorization of persons into an ingroup and an out-

group is sufficient to bias subjects’ recall of information

about the groups.”). See generally Charles Stangor & David

McMillan, Memory for Expectancy-Congruent and Expec-

tancy-Incongruent Information: A Review of the Social and

Social Developmental Literatures, 111 Psychol. Bull. 42

(1992).

Stereotypical thinking often has more tangible negative

ramifications. Such thinking is one source of prejudice—that

is, negative feelings about other groups. Negative thoughts

about other racial groups often contribute unconsciously to

prejudiced attitudes. This type of implicit prejudice, in turn,

ofteri manifests itself in discriminatory behavior, anxiety

when dealing with members of other groups, and in avoid-

ance of substantial interaction with members of other

groups. See generally Samuel L. Gaertner & John F.

Dovidio, The Aversive Form of Racism, in Prejudice, Dis-

crimination, and Racism 61-89 (John F. Dovidio & Samuel

8

L. Gaertner eds., 1986); John F. Dovidio et al., Why Can’t We

Just Get Along? Interpersonal Biases and Interracial Dis-

trust, 8 Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychol. 88, 92

(2002); Walter G. Stephan & Cookie White Stephan, /nter-

group Anxiety, 41 J. Soc. Issues 157-75 (1985). In short,

stereotypical thinking poses real and substantial obstacles to

harmonious relations among members of different racial

groups.

2. Once formed, racial stereotypes are difficult

to abandon

The cognitive processes that lead to the formation of

stereotypes begin early in life. Preschool-aged children have

been shown to categorize people along such varied dimen-

sions as gender, ethnicity, occupation, and age. See Mackie

et al., supra, at 46-47. Racial categories become salient at a

young age. See Rebecca S. Bigler & Lynn S. Liben, A Cog-

nitive-Developmental Approach to Racial Stereotyping and

Reconstructive Memory in Euro-American Children, 64

Child Dev. 1507, 1516 (1993).

This process of categorization has predictable effects.

As early as ages 5 and 6, children’s “perception of individual

differences declines in favor of ethnic differences,” a mani-

festation of the so-called homogeneity effect. Frances E.

Aboud & Maria Amato, Developmental and Socialization

Influences on Intergroup Bias, in Blackwell Handbook of

Social Psychology: Intergroup Processes 65, 71 (Rupert

Brown & Samuel L. Gaertner eds., 2001). At ages 3 through

9, children display demonstrably more favorable attitudes

toward members of the group to which they belong than

they do to members of other groups. See, e.g., Yee & Brown,

supra. Researchers have found that, between ages 6 and 9,

children attribute characteristics based on race. Killen et al.,

Morality in the Context of Intergroup Relationships, supra,

at 164-65.

During roughly the same period, children become aware

of racial stereotypes and become susceptible to memory ef-

fects that lead them to reinforce those stereotypes. These

9

effects were dramatically illustrated in an experiment exam-

ining the role of cognitive skill and racial stereotyping in a

sample of white children, ages 4 to 9, who had relatively lit-

tle contact with African-American children. The children

were asked to recall stories involving either African-

American or white characters associated with one of three

negative traits—meanness, dirtiness, or laziness. See Bigler

& Liben, swpra, at 1507-18. The data showed that children’s

memory for stories that were consistent with racial stereo-

types was better than their memory for stories involving

counter-stereotypic themes and behaviors. See id. at 1515.

That is, white children found it easier to remember stories

with negative depictions of African-Americans than stories

in which whites were portrayed negatively.

Critically, parents are generally not the principal influ-

ences on their children’s attitudes about race. Children do

not learn stereotypes solely from their parents, nor do chil-

dren necessarily imitate their parents’ attitudes toward dif-

ferent racial groups. See Aboud & Amato, supra, at 74. In-

deed, most studies have found only a smal! correlation be-

tween the racial attitudes of children and their parents. See

Frances E. Aboud & Sheri R. Levy, [nterventions to Reduce

Prejudice and Discrimination in Children and Adolescents,

in Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination 269, 278 (Stuart

Oskamp ed., 2000). Children’s racial attitudes largely stem,

instead, both from their cognitive development and their

own social experience. See Aboud & Amato, supra, at 74-76.

As children grow older, their thinking about racial cate-

gories tends to become more flexible. Around age 10, pref-

erence for ingroup members decreases. Andrew Scott

Baron & Mahzarin R. Banaji, The Development of Implicit

Attitudes: Evidence of Race Evaluations from Ages 6 and 10

and Adulthood, 17 Psych. Sci. 53, 56 (2006). Their earlier

perception of homogeneity within racial groups gradually

becomes “more elaborated in structure, . . . allowing children

to differentiate within ethnic groups and to use multiple

cross-cutting categories” to classify others. Aboud &

Amato, supra, at 72 (citations omitted). Older children be-

10

come better able to recognize similarities between different

racial groups, as well as to distinguish between societal

stereotypes and their own personal beliefs. Killen et al.,

Morality in the Context of Intergroup Relationships, supra,

at 163-64. This is a time when, in the right circumstances,

stereotypical thinking can fall away.

By the time children reach adulthood, however, re-

search shows that it may be difficult for them to abandon the

stereotypes they maintain. See, e.g., lrene V. Blair, The

Malleability of Automatic Stereotypes and Prejudice, 6 Per-

sonality & Soc. Psychol. Rev. 242, 255-58 (2002) (although

stereotyping and prejudice can be moderated, they can also

operate automatically and outside an individual’s conscious

intent). After years of formulating racial attitudes, adults do

not easily change their perceptions of racial difference.

Even adults who consciously desire to change their own

stereotypes, and who are generally able to keep from openly

expressing these stereotypes, often nevertheless spontane-

ously and unintentionally display implicit biases. See John

F. Dovidio et al., On the Nature of Prejudice: Automatic and

Controlled Processes, 33 J. Experimental Soc. Psychol. 510,

534 (1997); cf. Melanie Killen et al., The Social Developmen-

tal Benefits of Heterogeneous School Environments, in Les-

sons in Integration: Realizing the Promise of Racial Diver-

sity in America’s Schools (Erica Frankenberg & Gary Or-

field eds., forthcoming 2006). These findings underscore the

importance of early intervention to reduce stereotyping and

prejudice among children and adolescents, and better to

prepare them to live productively in a multiracial society.

B. Racial Diversity In K-12 Education Can Inhibit

The Formation Of Racial Stereotypes And Racial

Bias

1. The importance of intergroup contact

For the past half-century, psychological research has fo-

cused on intergroup contact as a touchstone for strategies to

reduce racial bias and conflict. Intergroup contact theory,

described in Dr. Gordon Allport’s seminal book The Nature

ll

of Prejudice (1954), holds that interaction with members of

other groups can disarm stereotypes, while promoting un-

derstanding and mutual respect. More specifically, inter-

group contact theory posits that, where four key conditions

are present—equal status between groups, common goals,

intergroup cooperation, and the support of authorities, law,

or custom—interaction among members of different groups

can be expected to reduce intergroup prejudice. See Thomas

F. Pettigrew, Intergroup Contact Theory, 49 Ann. Rev. Psy-

chol. 65, 66-67 (1998) (describing the basic features of All-

port’s hypothesis).

Intergroup contact theory is supported by voluminous

social science research. Field studies, laboratory experi-

ments, surveys, and meta-analytic reviews all confirm that

positive contact between people of different races typically

reduces racial bias and promotes positive race relations.

See, e.g., Thomas F. Pettigrew & Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-

Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory, 90 J. Personal-

ity & Soc. Psychol. 751, 752-53 (2006). A recent meta-

analysis—that is, a statistical analysis that pools the results

of a number of studies to determine their size and consis-

tency‘— examined more than 500 individual intergroup con-

tact studies involving more than 250,000 people from 38

countries. More than 90% of these studies showed that

greater intergroup contact resulted in lower incidence of

prejudiced attitudes among both majority and minority

group members. See Pettigrew & Tropp, A Meta-Analytic

Test of Intergroup Contact Theory, supra, at 757; cf. Thomas

F. Pettigrew & Linda R. Tropp, Does Intergroup Contact

Reduce Prejudice? Recent Meta-Analytic Findings, in Re-

ducing Prejudice and Discrimination 93 (Stuart Oskamp

ed., 2000).

Moreover, the research showed that intergroup contact

changes perceptions of the entire outgroup—not just those

* See generally Robert Rosenthal, Meta-Analytic Procedures for So-

cial Science (rev. ed. 1991).

12

outgroup members directly involved in the contact. See Pet-

tigrew & Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Con-

tact Theory, supra, at 759. Scholars have thus concluded

that “[ajctual intergroup contact, under specified conditions,

can be a powerful way of reducing intergroup biases.” John

F. Dovidio et al., Reducing Contemporary Prejudice: Com-

bating Explicit and Implicit Bias at the Individual and

Intergroup Level, in Reducing Prejudice and

Discrimination 137, 147 (Stuart Oskamp ed., 2000).

Some commentators had speculated that the findings of

intergroup contact studies might be affected by a potential

participant bias, such that intergroup contact would be ef-

fective in reducing prejudice only if people had willingly cho-

sen to engage in the contact. Specifically, because preju-

diced people are more likely to avoid intergroup contact than

tolerant people, it was thought that reduced prejudice may

simply be correlated with, rather than the result of, interac-

tion with members of outgroups. Studies have demon-

strated, however, that “optimal contact reduces prejudice

over time, even when researchers have eliminated the pos-

sibility of participant selection.” Pettigrew & Tropp, A

Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory, supra, at

753 (citations omitted). In other words, the positive effects

of intergroup contact are consistent and significant, whether

or not participants had a choice about whether to engage in

the contact. /d.

Intergroup contact is effective in part because it pro-

vides an opportunity for members of different groups to get

to know one another and to develop affective bonds—

feelings of personal closeness and common connection that

transcend race. See, e.g., Thomas F. Pettigrew & Linda R.

Tropp, Does Intergroup Contact Reduce Prejudice? Recent

Meta-Analytic Findings, in Reducing Prejudice and Dis-

crimination 93, 108 (Stuart Oskamp ed., 2004) (finding that

cross-group friendships are strongly associated with reduced

prejudice); see also Pettigrew & Tropp, A Meta-Analytic

Test of Intergroup Contact Theory, supra, at 766-67 (posit-

ing that “the process underlying contact’s ability to reduce

13

prejudice involves the tendency for familiarity to breed lik-

ing”). But intergroup contact has effects on cognitive, as

well as affective, processes. Many scholars have posited that

intergroup contact works because interaction with members

of other racial g oups helps us to deconstruct racial stereo-

types and create new social categories that cut across race.

As one study explains:

Negative stereotypes tend to lose their primary po-

tency and to be reduced when interactions reveal

enough detail that group members are seen as indi-

viduals rather than as members of an ethnic group.

All collaborators become “one of us.” In other

words, cooperation widens the sense of who is in

the group, and “they” become “we.”

David W. Johnson & Roger T. Johnson, The Three Cs of Re-

ducing Prejudice and Discrimination, in Reducing Preju-

dice and Discrimination 239, 247 (Stuart Oskamp ed., 2000);

see also Samuel L. Gaertner et al., The Contact Hypothesis:

The Role of a Common Ingroup Identity on Reducing Inter-

group Bias Among Majority and Minority Group Members,

in What’s Social About Social Cognition?: Research on So-

cially Shared Cognition in Small Groups 230, 232 (Judith L.

Nye & Aaron M. Brower eds., 1996); Pettigrew, Intergroup

Contact Theory, supra, at 75; Wilder, swpra, at 245. This

phenomenon is particularly well-documented in dozens of

studies of cooperative learning and work environments. See,

e.g., B. Ann Bettencourt & Nancy Dorr, Cooperative Inter-

action and Intergroup Bias: Effects of Numerical Represen-

tation and Cross-Cut Role Assignment, 24 Personality &

Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1276, 1288 (1998); Janet Ward Schofield,

School Desegregation and Intergroup Relations: A Review

of the Literature, 17 Rev. of Res. in Educ. 335, 360 (1991)

(citing, inter alia, research by Eliot Aronson et al. and

Robert E. Slavin); see generally Susan T. Fiske, /nterde-

pendence and the Reduction of Prejudice, in Reducing

Prejudice and Discrimination 115 (Stuart Oskamp, ed., 2000)

(describing how cooperative environments create the condi-

14

tions for seeing outgroup members as “individuals” and

“allfies]”).

These processes of individuation and recategorization

have extremely significant cognitive and behavioral conse-

quences. To begin with, they temper the harmful perceptual

distortions triggered by racial categorization. But even

more important, once individuals of different racial back-

grounds are categorized together on some non-racial basis,

powerful ingroup biases cause group members to view one

another more favorably. As leading proponents of the re-

categorization perspective have explained, “(t)ransforming

members’ representations of the groups to recognize a com-

mon ingroup identity can harness the psychological forces

that contribute to intergroup bias and redirect them, thus

improving attitudes towards people who would otherwise be -

recognized only as outgroup members.” Dovidio et al., Re-

ducing Contemporary Prejudice, supra, at 158.

2. Short-term effects of intergroup contact in

primary and secondary education

Dozens of studies have focused specifically on the appli-

cation of the intergroup contact theory to K-12 education.

Taken as a whole, these studies show that intergroup con-

tact among school-aged children is a vital condition for re-

ducing stereotyping, bias, and prejudice during this impor-

tant developmental period. A recent meta-analytic review

of 198 studies involving intergroup contact among children

and adolescents—57% of which examined the effects of con-

tact in school settings—shows that school contact between

youth from different racial groups corresponds with more

positive intergroup attitudes, and such positive outcomes

become even stronger when Allport’s optimal conditions are

established in the school environment. Linda R. Tropp &

Mary Prenovost, The Role of Intergroup Contact in Predict-

ing Inter-Ethnic Attitudes: Evidence from Meta-Analytic

and Field Studies, in Intergroup Relations: An Integrative

Developmental and Social Psychological Perspective (Sheri

Levy & Melanie Killen eds., forthcoming 2006).

15

Individual field studies provide concrete illustrations.

One early study, for example, analyzed student behavior in a

newly opened, integrated middle school whose student body

was drawn largely from segregated schools. See Janet W.

Schofield & H. Andrew Sagar, Peer Interactions in an Inte-

grated Middle School, 40 Sociometry 130-38 (1977).

Schofield and Sagar analyzed voluntary seating patterns in

the cafeteria during the first year of the school’s existence.

Their analysis revealed that seating became more and more

integrated over time—that is, members of different racial

groups sat together more as intergroup contact persisted.

See id. at 135 (taking note of “increasing interracial interac-

tion” over time). The authors of this study reported, there-

fore, that “highly integrated interracial schooling... does

foster increased voluntary association between Blacks and

Whites.” Jd. at 137. Researchers also found that contact

among school-age children reduces intergroup anxiety and

helps them to learn to work together more effectively. See

Janet W. Schofield, Black and White in School: Trust, Ten-

sion, or Tolerance 162 (1989).

In more recent studies, researchers have compared the

racial attitudes of children who attend non-diverse schools

against those who attend racially heterogeneous schools.

The results of the comparison have been striking. Presented

with an ambiguous situation involving characters of differ-

ent races, white children who attended racially homogeneous

schools displayed implicit racial bias in their interpretation

of the characters’ behavior, rating African-American charac-

ters more negatively than white characters. See Heidi

McGlothlin & Melanie Killen, /ntergroup Attitudes of Euro-

pean American Children Attending Ethnically Homogene-

ous Schools, 77 Child Dev. 1375, 1377, 1382-84 (2006) (exam-

ining implicit racial bias among first- and fourth-grade white

children who attend schools with white student populations

of 91.2% and 86.1%, respectively). By contrast, students

who attended racially diverse schools displayed no bias or

minimal bias. See Heidi McGlothlin et al., European-

American Children’s Intergroup Attitudes About Peer Rela-

tionships, 23 British J. Dev. Psychol. 227, 236 (2005) (exam-

16

ining bias among first- and fourth-grade white children at-

tending racially heterogeneous schools); Nancy Geyelin

Margie et al., Minority Children’s Intergroup Attitudes

About Peer Relationships, 23 British J. Dev. Psychol. 251,

264 (2005) (examining bias among first- and fourth-grade

minority children).

In a study of middle-school children of a variety of racial

backgrounds, the majority of whom were Latino and Afri-

can-American, children in more diverse schools reported

greater feelings of safety and fewer feelings of loneliness

than their peers in less diverse schools. Moreover, children

in diverse classrooms reported greater feelings of self-worth

than children in less diverse classrooms. See Jaana Juvonen

et al., Ethnic Diversity and Peer Perceptions of Safety in

Urban Middle Schools, 17 Psych. Sci. 393 (2006).

Studies have also found that, although the relationship

between racial diversity and views concerning cross-race

friendships are complex, children in non-diverse schools are

more likely to assume that they cannot form friendships

with children of other races. Compare McGlothlin & Killen,

supra, at 1383-84, with McGlothlin et al., swpra, at 242-43,

245, and Margie et al., supra, at 264. Meta-analyses of re-

search studies focusing largely on adults have shown that

cross-race friendships are strongly correlated with reduc-

tions in prejudice. Pettigrew & Tropp, Does Intergroup

Contact Reduce Prejudice?, supra. The same is true among

children. See, e.g., Aboud & Levy, supra, at 272. Signifi-

cantly, when people become friends with individuals of other

races, they are far more likely “to see that there are similari-

ties between people of different ethnicities and that people

of other ethnicities are not all the same.” Killen et al., Mo-

rality in the Context of Intergroup Relations, supra, at 167.

Cross-group friendships can also have positive effects on the

intergroup attitudes of other in-group members who become

aware of the existence of others’ cross-group friendships.

See Stephen C. Wright et al., The Extended Contact Effect:

Knowledge of Cross-Group Friendships and Prejudice, 73 J.

Personality & Soc. Psychol. 73 (1997). Children in integrated

oe

17

schools are far more likely to reap these benefits than chil-

dren in homogeneous schools.

To be sure, some of the studies on the impact of school

desegregation on intergroup relations have yielded inconclu-

sive or inconsistent results. See, e.g., Janet Ward Schofield,

School Desegregation and Intergroup Relations, supra.

Many of these studies were undertaken in the 1970s and

early 1980s, preceding significant changes in intergroun atti-

tudes and behavior, and many focused on schools’ experi-

ences during the first few years of desegregation. See id. at

343. Although intervening demographic and societal

changes do not render the earlier research invalid, they may

“limit its usefulness for drawing conclusions about the pre-

sent.” Janet W. Schofield & Rebecca Eurich-Fulcer, When

and How School Desegregation Improves Intergroup Rela-

tions, in Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology 475, 477

(Rupert Brown & Samuel L. Gaertner eds., 2001).°

Perhaps more important, the variation in the results of

the earlier studies may well reflect the fact that “desegrega-

tion can be implemented in very different ways, and...

these differences may well affect their outcomes.” Schofield

& Eurich-Fulcer, supra, at 477-78. Few of the early studies

were conducted in environments providing particularly fa-

vorable conditions for intergroup contact. See Schofield,

School Desegregation and Intergroup Relations, supra, at

360, 381. Notably, those few early studies that did “tak[e]

contact theory seriously” yielded “generally promising re-

sults.” Jd. at 360. Studies focused on school conditions found

markedly more positive intergroup relations where Allport’s

* Pettigrew and Tropp explored the question of timing in their meta-

analytic review of intergroup contact studies, noting that more recent

studies have tended to find larger effects in terms of prejudice reduction

than studies conducted before 1980. Pettigrew and Tropp concluded that

much of the differences in findings can be explained by differences in re-

search rigor, but that there is in fact a statisticaliy significant difference

between the results of pre-1980 and post-1980 studies. Pettigrew &

Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory, supra, at 765.

18

conditions were met relative to school environments in

which Allport’s conditions were not met. See Janet Ward

Schofield & H. Andrew Sagar, Desegregation, School Prac-

tices, and Student Race Relations, in The Consequences of

School Desegregation 58, 67-68 (Christine Rossell & Willis

Hawley eds., 1983); see also supra page 11 (describing All-

port’s conditions). Some scholars have concluded that inter-

group contact alone typically reduces intergroup prejudice.

See Pettigrew & Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup

Contact Theory, supra, at 753, 766. But it is widely recog-

nized that positive effects are more likely to be realized

when the proper conditions exist for productive contact

among members of different racial groups. See, ¢.g.,

Schofield & Eurich-Fulcer, supra. Scholars are thus gener-

ally in agreement that intergroup contact is a necessary—

even if not wholly sufficient—condition for producing re-

spectful and positive relations between students of all races.

See, e.g., Schofield & Eurich-Fulcer, supra, at 478.°

° The literature indicates that there are no equally effective substi-

tutes for intergroup contact. Research on the effects of educational pro-

grams designed to reduce prejudice among children in the absence of in-

_ tergroup contact has been for the most part inconclusive. Some studies

have shown positive effects from interventions designed to focus chil-

dren’s attention on individuating inforr.ation about outgroup members,

but have also noted that curricular approaches may also have no effect, or,

rarely, a negative effect. See Walter G. Stephan & Cookie White Stephan,

Intergroup Relations in Multicultural Education Programs, in Hand-

book of Research on Multicultural Education 782, 793-94 (James Banks

and Carrie McGee-Banks eds., 2004); see also Schofield & Sagar,

Desegregation, supra, at 87.

As a recent survey of techniques for reducing intergroup preju-

dice among school-age children explains, “there is too little research avail-

able to inform educators about which anti-racist programs successfully

reduce prejudice and stereotyping.” Aboud & Levy, supra, at 282; see

also Walter G. Stephan & Cookie White Stephan, /mproving Intergroup

Relations 47, 62-63 (2001).

19

3. Long-term effects of intergroup contact in

primary and secondary education

The benefits of early exposure to members of other

races reach well into adulthood. As a number of studies

have found, school integration has long-term positive effects

on relationships between individuals from different back-

grounds. See Schofield & Eurich-Fulcer, supra, at 476; Wal-

ter G. Stephan & Cookie White Stephan, /ntergroup Rela-

tions 79-82 (1996).

A recent review of studies on the long-term effects of

school desegregation demonstrates that attending a diverse

school typically leads to increased interaction with members

of other racial groups in adulthood. Jomills Henry Braddock

II & Tamela McNulty Eitle, The Effects of School Desegre-

gation, in Handbook of Research on Multicultural Educa-

tion 828, 834-35 (James A. Banks & Cherry A. McGee Banks

eds., 2d ed. 2004); see also Amy Stuart Wells & Robert L.

Crain, Perpetuation Theory and the Long-Term Effects of

School Desegregation, 64 Rev. Ed. Res. 531, 552 (1994). Re-

. search shows that students who attend integrated schools

are more likely than other students to work and live in inte-

grated environments as adults. Jomills Braddock & James

M. McPartland, Social-Psychological Processes That Per-

petuate Racial Segregation: The Relationship Between

School and Employment Desegregation, 19 J. Black Stud.

267 (1989) (presenting evidence that school desegregation

promotes desegregation in work environments).

In one study, white adults who attended racially diverse

schools reported their “decreased fear of people of color.”

Amy Stuart Wells et al., How Desegregation Changed Us:

The Effects of Racially Mixed Schools on Students and So-

ciety 16, available at _http://cms.tc.columbia.edu/i/a/

782_ASWells041504.pdf (last visited Oct. 9, 2006). And Afri-

can-American adults who attended racially diverse schools

cited their greater preparedness “to function in predomi-

nantly white environments.” /d.

Having reviewed the long-term effects of school deseg-

regation, scholars have concluded that racially diverse

20

schools can effectively “break[] the cycle of segregation.”

Wells & Crain, supra, at 531. Their work shows that the

benefits of K-12 diversity extend well beyond graduation:

Racially integrated schools have made demonstrable differ- -

ences in the lives of adults who spent their youth learning

alongside children of different races.

C. The Benefits Of Diversity In K-12 Education Are

More Likely To Accrue When There Is A Critical

Mass Of Students Of Different Racial Back-

grounds

Reduction in stereotypical thinking and prejudice de-

pends, at least in part, on the proportion of children of dif-

ferent races in the classroom. To begin with, meaningful in-

tergroup contact is possible only when a significant number

of children of different racial backgrounds are present:

“When a group is proportionately very small, outgroup

members have very little opportunity to interact with mem-

bers of (that group] even if they are inclined to do so.”

Schofield & Sagar, Desegregation, supra, at 71.

There is evidence, moreover, that where a minority ra-

cial group lacks critical mass, there are substantial implica-

tions for members of that group. Children whose ethnic

group is a numerical minority in a school setting may be at

greater risk for peer harassment. See, e.g., Sandra Graham

& Jaana Juvonen, Ethnicity, Peer Harassment, and Ad-

justment in Middle School: An Exploratory Study, 22 J.

Early Adolescence 173, 191 (2002). Children are also more

likely to self-segregate by race in order to maintain group

identity. See Schofield & Sagar, Desegregation, supra, at 71;

see also Schofield & Eurich-Fulcer, supra, at 483 (“Consis-

tent with the contact hypothesis, when minorities are a very

small proportion of the total student body self-segregation

seems to be heightened.”). Researchers have found, for ex-

ample, that when African-Americans represent less than

15% of a student body, they are significantly more likely to

choose friends on the basis of racial group membership.

Schofield & Sagar, Desegregation, supra, at 71. By its very

nature, self-segregation will significantly reduce intergroup

21

contact and thereby decrease the likelihood of cooperation.

Where students have self-segregated, all students are less

likely to learn to challenge social stereotypes or to focus on

the similarities, rather than the differences, between them-

selves and members of other racial groups.

Some scholars have theorized that intergroup contact is

ineffective at dispelling prejudice absent critical mass be-

cause without critical mass, the “equal status” factor identi-

fied by Allport is lacking. “[{I}f only a small number of stu-

dents of a given background are present, they are unlikely to

enjoy equal status since they form such a small group they

will be unlikely to exert much influence in the institution.”

Schofield & Eurich-Fulcer, supra, at 482-83; see also

Schofield & Sagar, Desegregation, supra, at 72 (when there

are small numbers of minority students, “traditional status

relations may be maintained because the . . . students lack

the sheer numbers to become an influential force in the life

of the school”). This lack of influence means, among other

things, that teachers and administrators may not recognize

the significance of diversity among their students and may

not see the need to organize classes in such a way as to pro-

mote cooperation and understanding among members of dif-

ferent racial groups.

Other scholars emphasize that where members of a ra-

cial or ethnic group are reduced to token status, they may be

evaluated unfairly. See Shelley E. Taylor et al., Categorical

and Contextual Bases of Person Memory and Stereotyping,

36 J. Personality & Soc. Psychol. 778, 792 (1978) (“[A] situa-

tion of token integration ... would... be especially condu-

cive to extreme evaluations and stereotyping of the minority

group member.”). Minority group representation in token

numbers can also negatively affect the performance of mi-

nority students even in the absence of active discrimination.

In particular, minority students with token status feel that

others view them primarily in terms of their race and feel

that they are constantly being evaluated on this basis. This

feeling of being “under the microscope” may cause emotional

stress and cognitive and behavioral deficits. See Charles G.

22

Lord & Delia S. Saenz, Memory Deficits and Memory Sur-

feits: Differential Cognitive Consequences of Tokenism for

Tokens and Observers, 49 J. Personality & Soc. Psychol. 918,

918, 923-25 (1985).

_ Minority students present in only token numbers may

also face “stereotype threat”: that is, the threat that others

will reduce them to a negative stereotype about the racial

group to which they belong. In the short run, the possibility

of confirming a negative stereotype can trigger an emotional

response in minority students that interferes with academic

performance. In the long run, it can affect minority stu-

dents’ very sense of identity, leading them to disidentify

with domains—such as scholastic achievement—in which

they face the threat of negative stereotyping. See generally

Claude M. Steele, A Threat in the Air: How Stereotypes

Shape Intellectual Identity and Performance, 52 Am. Psych.

613 (1997); Clark McKown & Rhona S. Weinstein, The De-

velopment and Consequences of Stereotype Consciousness

in Middle Childhood, 74 Child Dev. 498 (2003) (reporting

stereotype threat effects among elementary-school stu-

dents).

Thus, much as in the higher education context, in K-12

schools, a “critical mass” of students from different racial

groups is necessary to secure the benefits of intergroup con-

tact. For schools to lay the foundation for productive cross-

racial iriteraction among their students, numbers matter.

Il. MEANINGFUL INTERGROUP CONTACT IS UNLIKELY 75 Oc-

CUR IN PUBLIC K-12 EDUCATION WITHOUT THF SCHOOL

DISTRICTS’ INTERVENTION

Research shows that many individuals tend to avoid

situations in which they will have substantial interaction

with persons they perceive to be signifiaantly different from

themselves. Crucially for purposes othe present litigation,

this tendency to avoid intergroup contact means that par-

ents often will not make the kinds of choices that will afford

their children substantial opportunity to interact with chil-

dren of other races.

23

For that reason, to secure the benefits of racial diversity

in K-12 schools, there is no practical substitute for consid-

eration of race in school assignments. In particular, alterna-

tives that rely primarily on parental choice to achieve racial

diversity are likely to be far less effective than a system in

which school districts manage parental choice with the goal

of reducing racial concentration and providing opportunities

for meaningful intergroup contact in local schools.

A. Because Of Largely Unconscious, Automatic Cog-

nitive And Emotional Responses, Individuals

Often Avoid Intergroup Contact

Over the past several years, many have documented a

substantial decrease in overt expressions of racial prejudice.

See Gaertner & Dovidio, supra, at 61 (citing studies). Nev-

ertheless, numerous studies show that prejudiced attitudes,

like racial stereotyping, remain widespread. As described

above in Section I.A.1, ordinary cognitive processes cause us

to place people in social categories, and to favor our own

category over others. When people are exposed to societal

stereotypes about race, even those who maintain a conscious

commitment to racial equality often develop, if uncon-

sciously, a variety of negative feelings and thoughts (i.e.,

prejudices and stereotypes) about other racial and ethnic

groups. See generally Gaertner & Dovidio, supra.

Studies have shown that stereotypes operate automati-

cally, often independent of conscious attitudes, beliefs and

perceptions. See, e.g., Steven J. Spencer et al., Automatic

Activation of Stereotypes: The Role of Self-Image Threat, 24

Personality & Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1139 (1998). The effect of

unconscious stereotyping on cognition has been demon-

strated through a number of “reaction-time” experiments

measuring the speed with which two concepts are associ-

ated. The association between racial groups and racial

stereotypes is outside the conscious control of the individual.

See Patricia G. Devine, Stereotypes and Prejudice: Their

Automatic and Controlled Components, 56 J. Personality &

Soc. Psychol. 5 (1989); see also John F. Dovidio et al., On the

Nature of Prejudice: Automatic and Controlled Processes,

24

33 J. Experimental Soc. Psychol. 510 (1997). As explained

above, such stereotypes have significant cognitive effects.

Among other things, stereotypes cause people to minimize

the differences among individual members of another racial

group and to dismiss or forget information inconsistent with

their stereotypes. See supra Section I.A.1.

Research also shows that prejudice, like stereotypical

thinking, operates implicitly. Studies demonstrate that even

those who firmly maintain and articulate explicit attitudes of

racial equality and acceptance nevertheless implicitly harbor

a variety of negative feelings about members of other racial

and ethnic groups. See generally Gaertner & Dovidio, su-

pra. Studies focusing specifically on “aversive racism”—that

is, racist prejudice harbored by those who would find it

aversive to acknowledge their racial biases—has demon-

strated that these subconscious prejudices can trigger dis-

criminatory behavior. See id. It can also trigger avoidance:

that is, people who harbor prejudice—even implicit preju-

dice—will often shy away from contact with persons of other

races. See, e.g., Pettigrew & Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of

Intergroup Contact Theory, supra, at 753.

Some researchers emphasize that people often experi-

ence anxiety about interacting with members of other

groups. See generally Stephan & Stephan, /ntergroup

Anxiety, supra. The level of anxiety varies with a number

of factors. Among other things, lack of prior contact and the

presence of negative stereotypes lead to increased levels of

anxiety. Jd. at 161, 163. Individuals are “unlikely to antici-

pate positive interaction” with members of groups about

whom they harbor negative stereotypes. /d. at 163. And as

other researchers have noted, those whose implicit prejudice

is averse to their conscious beliefs are particularly likely to

feel a sense of anxiety and unease, rather than open hostility

or clear dislike, about interacting with persons of other ra-

cial groups. See Dovidio et al., Why Can't We Just Get

Along?, supra, at 90.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the “dominant response” to in-

tergroup anxiety is avoidance. Stephan & Stephan, /nter-

25

group Anxiety, supra, at 165. Individuals forced to interact

with one another may cope with their discomfort through

various other strategies, including resort to formal and

superficial interactions, withdrawal, hesitance, confusion, or

even aggression. See id. at 165-67. But the easiest way to

reduce anxiety is simply to avoid its source. /d. at 165. Par-

ticularly for those with less experience dealing with mem-

bers of other racial groups and those who harbor implicit

racial stereotypes and prejudice, that means avoiding inter-

actions with members of other racial groups when possible.

B. Because Of Intergroup Avoidance, Private Choice

Alone Is Unlikely To Produce Substantial Diver-

sity In Public K-12 Education

The phenomena described above have important impli-

cations for the question of how to achieve K-12 diversity.

Petitioners and their amici suggest that one race-neutral

alternative to race-conscious school assignments would be to

increase the quality of educational offerings at predomi-

nantly minority schools to give the parents of majority white

children an incentive to send their children to these schools.

See, e.g., Br. for the United States as Amicus Curiae Sup-

porting Petitioner, No. 05-908, at 23-24, 25-26 (suggesting

magnet schools and “additional investment in racially con-

centrated schools” as alternatives to race-conscious assign-

ment plans). The effectiveness of suggested alternatives

that depend on additional incentives to attract parents to

schools must be assessed in light of the distinct disincentives

to integration that are associated with implicit prejudice and

intergroup anxiety.

To be sure, incentives in the form of magnet programs

are often designed to ameliorate racial concentration in pri-

mary and secondary education, and they have led to in-

creased diversity in a number of schools. But magnet

schools generally serve a limited number of students. For

most students in a given school district, investment in pre-

dominantly minority schools to make them “equal” to other

schools in terms of resources and educational quality is

unlikely to provide their parents a sufficient incentive. Re-

26

search on the cognitive and emotional processes associated

with intergroup interaction predicts that, given the choice

between two schools of equal quality, parents may not per-

ceive the schools as equal. See supra pp. 6-7, 23-25. They..

are therefore likely to choose the school whose student body

appears more familiar to them, and likely to decide against

the school where their children will encounter significant

numbers of children of other races.

School choice patterns appear to bear out that predic-

tion. Studies of school districts across the country have

shown that white parents tend to choose schools with larger

percentage populations of white students, suggesting a pat-

tern of “white avoidance of racially mixed schools.” Charles

T. Clotfelter, After Brown: The Rise and Retreat of School

Desegregation 92-93 (2004). One study documented a similar

phenomenon among parents of minority children in his study

of the school transfer choices made by parents in the Mont-

gomery County, Maryland school system in 1985. Minority

parents tended to choose schools with larger percentages of

minority students, leading the researcher to conclude:

“Both whites and minorities seem to direct their choices to-

ward schools in which their children will be less likely to be

racially or socioeconomically isolated. Cultural familiarity is

a strong point of attraction.” /d. at 92, 94 (quoting Jeffrey

R. Henig, The Local Dynamics of Choice: Ethnic Prefer-

ences and Institutional Responses, in Who Chooses? Who

Loses?: Culture, Institutions, and the Effects of School

Choice 95, 105 (Bruce Fuller et al. eds., 1996)).

Some studies have shown that some minority parents,

perhaps conscious of the practical problems associated with

racial isolation, also choose schools with predominantly

white student bodies. See Clotfelter, supra, at 93. Even in

these studies, however, parents’ choices have proved less

effective than other strategies in producing student body

diversity. One such study, a recent examination of San

Diego schools, compared a pure-choice open-enrollment pro-

gram against other school choice programs employed in the

school district. The study found that the open-enrollment

27

plan “increases the exposure of whites to Asians but de-

creases the exposure of whites to blacks and Hispanics.”

Julian R. Betts et al., Does School Choice Work? Effects on

Student Integration and Achievement 44 (2006). By con-

trast, other school-choice plans specifically designed to pro-

mote racial diversity “unambiguously increase the exposure

of whites to nonwhites, and vice versa.” Id. at xvii. These

findings led the authors to conclude that “built-in mecha-

nisms aimed at promoting integration” may well be neces-

sary to achieve racial diversity. See id. at xvii; see also id. at

47.

The principle of intergroup avoidance described in the

psychological research on implicit prejudice and intergroup

anxiety helps to explain these and other similar findings re-

garding the effects of school choice plans. These studies in-

dicate that private choice alone is unlikely to produce schools

in which children of different races have the opportunity to

engage in meaningful intergroup interaction. Experience

thus suggests that school districts have an important role to

play in providing schools that help students overcome the

implicit biases and prejudices that have historically resulted

in de facto segregation.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, amici urge the Court to af-

firm the decisions below.

28

Respectfully submitted.

NATHALIE F.P.GILFOYLE JOHN PAYTON

General Counsel Counsel of Record

LINDSAY CHILDRESS-BEATTY DAVID W. OGDEN

Deputy General Counsel LEONDRA R. KRUGER

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL WILMER CUTLER PICKERING

ASSOCIATION HALE AND DORR LLP*

750 First Street, N.E. 1875 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20002 Washington, DC 20006

(202) 336-5500 (202) 663-6000

OCTOBER 2006