How did “diversity” come to occupy such a key position in public discourse, particularly concerning education policy? Given the widespread recognition of diversity, is there an intellectual tradition or philosophical orientation that informs its application to education? And, based on the traditions examined, what is gained and lost by focusing on the diversity rationale? This article examines the legal history of using the diversity rationale to justify affirmative action and the philosophical foundation of the ideal of diversity. This foundational analysis not only adds a new direction to the scholarship on the educational benefits of diversity but also illuminates the tensions associated with affirmative action in general and with this rationale in particular. The authors aim to influence educational practice in a direction that well serves a multi-racial/ethnic democratic society

No abstract

The author’s primary aims are to clarify the differing rationales for affirmative action that have emerged in five nations—France, India, South Africa, the United States, and Brazil—and to make the case for the most compelling rationales, whether instrumentally or morally based. She examines the different social contexts surrounding the establishment and public discussion of each nation’s policy. Next, she examines four justifications for affirmative action in these nations: remediation, economics, diversity, and social justice. She offers philosophical analysis of the justifications for affirmative action in each country and synthesizes federal and state legislation, court decisions, news media sources, and research-based scholarship. She argues that the social justice rationale ought to be invoked more centrally, underscoring affirmative action’s role in fostering a democratic society.

In this article, Michele Moses and Lauren Saenz explore a growing trend in education policymaking — the ballot initiative. Specifically, the authors question whether information presented to voters is sufficiently substantive to permit educated decisionmaking about influential policies. Their study, a content analysis of print news media related to the 2006 Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, shows that coverage of this initiative was largely superficial, documenting procedural or topical matters rather than addressing the deeper moral, practical, and historical issues involved. These results, they argue, highlight the important role that mass media should play in a direct democracy, currently an overlooked responsibility. Moses and Saenz end with an appeal to education researchers to monitor the media coverage of education policy debates and, upon finding insubstantial coverage, to present an alternative that is meaningful and accessible to the general public.