Harvard law professor Dr. Lani Guinier gave the keynote address at the University of Wisconsin-Madison 2012 Diversity Forum.
Given the context of Fisher v. University of Texas, a U.S. Supreme Court case that will affect the use of affirmative action in higher education admissions, Guinier called into question the metrics considered in the college admissions process.
In the law school admissions process, Guinier said, LSAT scores had only a 15% correlation with future success—which means, “85% of the time it’s wrong.”
Guinier added that standardized college-entry exams were better predictors of “the model of your parent’s car” and socioeconomic status than of future academic performance.
“We are defending the use of a system that does not work,” Guinier said.
Guinier used a metaphor of “canaries in coalmines” to describe students who underperform or citizens of lower economic status. Coal miners used canaries as an indicator of air quality in mines, she explained. The canaries became sick in coalmines, not because of their own weakness, but because the mine was unsafe, Guinier said.
At Harvard Law School, Guinier said, women performed consistently worse than men. When the problem was discussed among faculty, the quality of the female law student population was called into question.
Studies that followed post-law school success found that the female graduates of law school were considered the happiest and highest earning, while giving the most back to their communities.
In light of this, she said, underperforming students were indicators of problems with the overall environment of higher education. The students weren’t the problem, but merely indicators of it, she said.
Gunier said the American dream allows success as long as you work hard and play by the rules.
“But the American dream never talks about failure. What do you say to someone who works hard, plays by the rules, and still fails?” she said.
Guinier went on to explain a holistic admissions process, wherein the applicants are hired based on their strengths relative to each other.
“Say you have three applicants for two jobs. John, Jim and Jane apply. You give them a test… John gets 7 out of 10 right, Jim gets 6 out of 10 right, and Jane gets 5 out of 10. It’s a no-brainer, right? Hire John and Jim,” Guinier said. “But what if you looked at what they got wrong? What if John and Jim got the same questions wrong? What if the questions John got wrong are the questions that Jane got right?”
Guinier explained that a better system would be to hire “John” and “Jane” because they have different perspectives to bring to the table when working as a team.
“I am a woman with a cause, not a grievance,” Guinier said, citing advice she received early in her career.
She said her work would not have been as impactful had she encompassed a feeling of victimization, and advised affected students and educators not to give into these feelings. She urged the young audience members to take action.
After Guinier’s speech ended, Provost Paul DeLuca took the stage.
“Your talk was great,” he said, “but it makes me kind of nervous that I’m the owner of the mine.”
