K-12 School Diversity and Social Cohesion: Evidence in Support of a Compelling State Interest

Abstract

Despite existing research that demonstrates the benefits of racial diversity in education, the Court has become increasingly disinclined to allow the use of race or ethnicity in education policy targeted to increase race/ethnic diversity, absent a compelling state interest. The debate over the merits of educational diversity has almost exclusively focused on individual-level outcomes, ignoring consequences for society at large. We argue that this restricted conception of the goals of diversity may limit our understanding of how diverse learning opportunities represent compelling societal interests. Using macro-level data of 29 U.S. metropolitan areas, we examine the societal impact of K-12 diversity on an important societal attribute, intergroup social cohesion. This research has the potential to inform education policy and judicial sentiment about diversity as a compelling state interest in an increasingly diverse society.

Keywords

K-12 diversity social cohesion desegregation race/ethnicity

Speaking at Yale, Hillary Rodham Clinton (2005) asks, “If racial integration is a compelling interest in higher education, then how can it be anything less than a vital first-order imperative for secondary schools?” (p. 219). Like Clinton, many educators, researchers, and policy makers believe that desegregation and educational diversity are important national interests (Mickelson & Nkomo, 2012). However, recent demographic trends show increasing racial and ethnic diversity (Humes, Jones, & Ramirez, 2011) coupled with growing school and residential segregation (Orfield, Kucsera, & Siegel-Hawley, 2012). These trends pose crucial challenges to national stability and well-being as racial isolation is not only associated with lower academic outcomes (Bankston & Caldas, 1996; Hallinan, 1998; Kurlaender & Yun, 2005; Mickelson, 2001), increased high school dropout rates for minority students (Balfanz & Legters, 2001), persistence of inter-ethnic tensions and prejudice (Braddock & Gonzalez, 2010), and the reproduction of economic inequality (Krivo et al., 2013), but also racial isolation seems to undermine social cohesion (Letki, 2008; Moody, 2001; Uslaner, 2010, 2011) and economic productivity of communities (Li, Campbell, & Fernandez, 2013).

Thus, many communities are faced with the challenge of how best to manage growing racial and ethnic diversity. On one hand, some large metropolitan communities have a long history accommodating diverse populations, successfully, or not. On the other hand, for other metropolitan communities, accommodating diversity represents a new challenge. The potential risks of failing to effectively manage growing racial and ethnic diversity through creating inclusive schools and neighborhoods are exacerbated by declining judicial support of desegregation and diversity initiatives in both public schools and higher education. This declining judicial support for K-12 diversity and affirmative action in higher education was made clear in 2007, when the plurality Supreme Court decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (hereafter PICS) deemed the districts’ use of student racial classification in their voluntary desegregation plan did not demonstrate a compelling state interest. More recently in 2014, in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, the Court upheld a voter mandate banning the use of affirmative action based on race/ethnicity in admissions to Michigan’s public universities. Waning judicial and public support for race-conscious diversity policies across educational institutions suggests that new research evidence may be needed to support efforts to implement policy initiatives promoting educational diversity. Since Brown v. Board of Education (1954), we have occasionally seen that educational research can influence public opinion and court rulings. In major cases with national implications, educational policy evaluators and other education and social science researchers have amassed considerable bodies of empirical evidence in amicus curiae briefs presented as testimony in support of diversity initiatives. As a result, in both lower court rulings and Supreme Court decisions, social science research has been cited to support legal findings regarding the appropriate use of race in achieving diversity objectives. Nevertheless, despite the mountain of research evidence that demonstrates the harms of racial isolation and the benefits of racial diversity presented in many recent major cases, the use of race in educational policy designed to foster diversity remains controversial. Affirmative action, or any direct policy initiative designed to mitigate past discrimination or encourage diverse learning experiences, has an inconsistent history in the Court system, yet the general trend has been toward curtailment (Barnes, Chemerinsky, & Onwuachi-Willig, 2012). As the Court continues to demand the most stringent of scrutiny to permit race-conscious diversity policy in support of a compelling governmental or state interest, we present evidence here that potentially assists in accomplishing two goals: (a) to provide evidence that diversity and racial integration in social institutions yield benefits that reach beyond the individual, and (b) potentially encouraging the Court to support race-conscious educational policy not only to mitigate centuries of discrimination against communities of color, but also to enhance intergroup social cohesion of our larger multiethnic society. In other words, while increasing institutional diversity may require direct, affirmative action on behalf of institutional behaviors and practices, the macro-level benefits extend to all.

Diversity and the Courts

That a race-conscious policy must demonstrate a “compelling state interest” is a guideline for determining the constitutional validity of a law against the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. If a law is to be upheld above and beyond an individual’s constitutional right to be free from it, the law under question must represent a state or governmental interest that is strong enough to rule against any individual’s claim of a violation of equal protection under the law. In 1978, the Court ruled in favor of the idea of educational diversity as a compelling state interest in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (438 U.S. 265), despite a writ large ruling against the University’s race-conscious admissions policy. Specifically, in Bakke, Justice Powell’s decision outlined that racial diversity was a compelling state interest, yet race must be considered as a factor in competitive admissions in addition to applicants’ other characteristics. As a result, subsequent diversity initiatives must (a) demonstrate a compelling interests, and (b) concurrently stand up to strict scrutiny that the use of race was narrowly tailored to the specific end of increasing diversity. Approximately two decades later, however, in 1996, the Court ruled in Hopwood v. Texas (78 F.3d. 832) that race could not be considered in admissions procedures, effectively reversing Bakke. In the years since, the Courts’ assessment of using race as a factor in higher education admissions policies and K-12 racial integration initiatives has yielded mixed results.

In cases such as PICS, and Gratz v. Bollinger, an affirmative action case at the University of Michigan, the use of research evidence speaking to the benefits of racial diversity at the institutional level as testimony was ultimately unsuccessful in reaching a ruling in favor of voluntary diversity initiatives implemented by the educational institutions in question. In PICS, one school district in Seattle and another in Louisville, Kentucky, had adopted a voluntary race-conscious student assignment policy to ameliorate the harmful effects of districtwide de facto racial segregation. An association of White parents in Seattle and one parent in Louisville brought a lawsuit against these districts citing a violation of the 14th Amendment, after their children were denied admission to their school of choice because of their race. The plurality opinion emphasized that a race-conscious K-12 student assignment policy implemented to increase educational diversity, barriers to which were created by past de jure racial segregation, was not compelling or narrowly tailored enough to overrule the individuals’ claim of equal protection before the law. Similarly, in Gratz v. Bollinger, the Court again overturned the University of Michigan’s affirmative action policy in undergraduate admissions, effectively ruling that using race as a factor in university admissions violates an individual’s right to equal protection under the law.

However, in Grutter v. Bollinger, another suit involving affirmative action at the University of Michigan, the Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s argument that using race/ethnicity as a “plus” in the admissions process did not represent a violation of the 14th Amendment; rather the University’s goal in increasing student body diversity through race-conscious admissions policy passed the Court’s strict scrutiny requirements to demonstrate a compelling state interest. As such, the Grutter decision supports a societal interest in receiving the educational benefits of racial diversity. The Court’s ruling in Grutter and other cases emphasizing compelling state interest requirements offer a potentially promising area in which researchers could provide new evidence in support of diversity initiatives. The future of the University of Michigan’s efforts to increase their student body diversity hangs in the balance, however, as the Court’s recent decision in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (2014) upheld a voter mandate to prohibit the use of race-based preferences as part of university admissions.

What the above cases have in common has been to frame either the harms or the benefits of race-conscious diversity initiatives in terms of an individual’s protection from the law under the 14th Amendment, or the educational benefits that individuals receive from diverse educational contexts later in life, such as in the military or corporate world. Considering a student’s racial or ethnic identity to achieve diverse learning opportunities (as in PICS), or the use of race as one factor in admissions processes for universities to achieve a diverse student body (Gratz, Grutter), has been likened to racial discrimination at the individual level by the plaintiffs of those and other cases (e.g., Fisher v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin). As Chief Justice Roberts asserted for the plurality in PICS, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race” (PICS v. Seattle). The aim of this article is not to engage in the debate on the merit of using race-conscious initiatives compared with race-neutral alternatives, rather the goal is to examine the impact of K-12 school diversity at the macro, rather than the individual, level. We learned in Grutter that there is potential in understanding diversity in higher education as a compelling state interest, yet this rationale has had less success in increasing diversity in secondary education. Examining the impact of K-12 diversity at the macro level can potentially reframe K-12 diversity debates in broader terms by not only focusing on harms and benefits to individuals, but also taking into account its impact on communities, directly. This broader community-level focus would not only highlight the key role played by social institutions in determining key aspects of community well-being, but also such a focus has the potential to provide a more direct means to demonstrate the compelling state interest of diversity initiatives.

Defining Diversity

Diversity, by definition, means difference or variety. In the realm of organizational policy, the term usually refers to social organizations and institutions that include a broad range of individuals representing variety along such lines as socioeconomic status, religion, gender, race, ethnicity, age, sexuality, disability status, and other personal or demographic characteristics (Hallinan, 1998; Herring, 2009). Herring (2009) writes,

Generally, diversity refers to policies and practices that seek to include people who are considered, in some way, different from traditional members. More centrally, diversity aims to create an inclusive culture that values and uses all talents of would-be members. (p. 209)

In this sense, diversity refers not only to differences, but also to an active inclusion of people who are not members of the mainstream, or “traditional members,” which usually refers to those who are White and come from a relatively affluent social class background. The inclusion of diverse groups—those who are different from “traditional members”—is accompanied by specific aims to value and effectively and equitably utilize the talents of all people.

Diversity, by and large, is celebrated (Bell & Hartmann, 2007). Colleges and universities readily advertise the diversity of their campuses. Particularly in corporate America, businesses promote themselves as equal opportunity employers, and futures are tenuous for businesses that do not value and encourage a diversity-friendly culture. The important question, though, is about how diversity is structured and managed at the institutional level. While any social institution may be ostensibly diverse, actual internal practices and policies may not reflect any actions taken to ensure equality of opportunity. Thus, diversity at the macro level can mask underlying inequities that continue to structure intergroup relations and minorities’ opportunities for advancement within organizations (Bell, 2003). Within education, the site where important steps for achieving social mobility occur, diversity needs to effectively “managed” (Thomas, 1990), so that equitable opportunities for advancement are no longer de facto reserved for the most socioeconomically advantaged groups. Echoing former Secretary of State Clinton’s sentiment above, if racial integration is a compelling state interest in higher education, it must also be one for K-12 schools, the stepping stones into our universities and colleges.

Diversity and Segregation

As a nation of immigrants, the United States has a long history of ethnic diversity. However, as our diversity has increased steadily over that past several decades, so have rates of segregation in our school districts. From 2000 to 2010, minority race/ethnic groups accounted for over half the growth of the U.S. population (Humes et al., 2011). In education, between 1980 and 2010, the percentage of Black and Latino students enrolled in 90% to 100% minority schools increased from 33% and 29%, to 38% and 43%, respectively (Orfield et al., 2012). The distinction between diversity and the effective management of diversity alludes to the familiar juxtaposition of desegregation with integration. Historically, desegregation and integration carry important implications for social justice and dismantling racial barriers to educational opportunity (Bell, 2003; Frankenberg, 2012). A segregated school generally refers to one that is racially isolated, where 90% to 100% of the individuals within a particular context are people of color (minority segregated) or 90% to 100% White (majority segregated). A desegregated context generally refers to the extent to which a specific school is less racially isolated. For a desegregated setting to be integrated, however, the social relations and other exchanges between people of various groups must occur on terms of equal social status.

Living in segregated neighborhoods and attending segregated schools has lifelong consequences. At the individual level, segregation has been shown to be self-perpetuating across institutional contexts, and over the life course (Braddock, 1980; Wells & Crain, 1994). Segregation and racial isolation also play important roles in the maintenance of racial inequality (Braddock, 1980; Wells & Crain, 1994). This cyclical process has been labeled perpetuation theory. This theory is informed by a substantial body of empirical evidence on the long-term adverse effects of school segregation on the life chances of racial/ethnic minorities, and on social isolation in adulthood among all race/ethnic groups. Extensive research shows that early experiences in segregated schools and neighborhoods lead to segregated experiences later in life, such as in higher education, residence, and workplaces, as well as persistent out-group biases and prejudice (Braddock, 1980; Braddock & Eitle, 2004; Braddock & McPartland, 1989; Dawkins & Braddock, 1994; Goldsmith, 2010; Stearns, 2010; Wells & Crain, 1994).

Diversity, as opposed to desegregation, however, is not grounded in the same legal history and does not connote the same ideal of social justice as the other terms (Bell, 2003). Diversity arose more recently as a political concern to mitigate the effects of a history of prejudice and discrimination that limited minorities’ equitable participation in society. The history of affirmative action shows that diversity, or diversification, is the only remaining basis for upholding race-conscious education policy (Hallinan, 1998). Diversification, or the creation of diverse, multicultural environments, is viewed as a laudable goal due to the research evidence that shows how racially desegregated schools decrease racial prejudice. Studies of higher educational institutions also show that positive social relationships between individuals of diverse race/ethnic backgrounds reduce racism (Hallinan, 1998). Hallinan (1998) also notes, however, that the positive effects of diverse institutions can be reduced or even eliminated if race-ethnic heterogeneity is not supported, or effectively managed by policy makers and other stakeholders leading educational institutions.

K-12 Diversity and Social Cohesion as Compelling Interests

Social cohesion is a figurative term, meaning that most people will have some idea of what it means (Chan, To, & Chan, 2006). The usual premise is that social cohesion is a “good thing” (Forrest & Kearns, 2001), and necessary for a stable democracy, especially in pluralistic societies, implying a “tolerance and respect for diverse others” (Oder, 2005, p. 78). Social cohesion is often defined as the aggregation of social attitudes, norms, and behaviors that include trust, a sense of belonging, and willingness to participate and help (Chan et al., 2006). Social cohesion in a diverse society necessitates a degree of social connectedness between diverse social (e.g., race/ethnic) groups.

Theoretically, communities with high levels of racial school and neighborhood segregation cannot be considered cohesive, even though there may be strong in-group bonds within segregated communities (Chan et al., 2006). Indeed, extreme in-group cohesion, or what Putnam (2000) refers to as “bonding” social capital, can result in social closure, leading to the exclusion of out-group others (Portes & Landolt, 1996). Closed, homogeneous social networks tend to be associated with the exclusion of non-members, which increases the bonding social capital of the in-group members, but often to the detriment of the social and economic integration of the group in larger society. Social cohesion between diverse groups, or “bridging” social capital, bridges individuals or diverse groups or networks (Briggs, 2003; Putnam, 2000). Bridging ties are the social connections between “socially dissimilar” people, or people who may differ along key demographic lines. Briggs (2003) suggests while close bonding ties provide crucial social support, bridging ties are most valuable for “getting ahead” (p. 10).

The link between K-12 diversity and positive student growth and development outcomes is well established (see review in Braddock & Eitle, 2004) and has been presented in arguments regarding the use of race-conscious policies in educational institutions (e.g., Ancheta, 2013). Strong evidence supports the direct benefits of diverse learning experiences for students’ cognitive development and their development of positive intergroup orientations later in life (Bowman, 2010). This type of evidence is presented as reason compelling enough for the government to hold an interest in preserving student body diversity. In recent higher education cases such as the initial 2013 Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin case and K-12 cases such PICS, even voluntary policies seeking to create diverse student enrollments have been overturned by the courts. As of June 23, 2016, however, the court of appeals for the 5th circuit overturned the initial 2013 decision at University of Texas at Austin, affirming that the race-conscious admissions policy of University of Texas-Austin was lawful under the Equal Protection Clause, with the Court ruling in favor of the university’s “holistic” admissions policy, involving the use of race as part of a strict scrutiny effort to increase student body diversity (Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 579 US_ (2016)).

Previous research examining the impact of K-12 educational diversity have almost exclusively focused on either short-term (e.g., cognitive or affective) or long-term (e.g., educational or occupational attainment) individual-level outcomes, and ignored important effects of educational diversity on institutions, communities, or society at large. Testimony in favor of racial/ethnic diversity policy presented in previous Court cases in which diversity initiatives were overruled (e.g., Gratz, PICS) tended to focus on individual-level short- and long-term benefits of racial inclusion and harms of racial isolation. We argue that this restricted conception of the goals of diversity, focusing on narrow issues such as whether test scores rise or fall after desegregation, or even broader issues such as whether life chances are enhanced as a result of desegregation, limits our understanding of how diverse learning opportunities represent compelling macro-level societal interests. Demonstrating that a race-conscious policy represents a compelling state interest also requires aggregate-level evidence that K-12 diversity is associated with positive outcomes that extend beyond individual-level benefits or harms.

Key to the successful incorporation of diverse groups into society is the effective management of diversity, and “ways to foster positive, diverse environments need to be worked out in all of our institutions” (Orfield et al., 2012, p. 13). Providing evidence in regard to K-12 school diversity as a compelling state interest could serve to encourage collective action around institutional diversity, rising above individual-level claims that have, in the past, too often served to thwart school districts’ well-intended policy initiatives and reforms to achieve equitable and diverse learning opportunities for all students.

Diversity Effects Research

Previous research on the relationship between K-12 diversity and social cohesion at the individual level of analysis is extensive, yet the societal-level impact of diversity in schools has received relatively meager attention. It is well established that diverse learning environments contribute to positive short- and long-term effects on individuals in terms of intergroup orientations (Gurin, Nagda, & Lopez, 2004; Hallinan & Smith, 1985; Hallinan & Teixeira, 1987; Killen, Crystal, & Ruck, 2007; Patchen, 1982), but research is mixed in regard to academic and occupational outcomes (Bankston & Caldas, 1996; Borman et al., 2004; Mickelson, 2001, 2006). Several studies have assessed the impact of diversity on individuals’ human capital outcomes, such as student achievement, and long-term outcomes tend to be positive, but short-term outcomes are both positive and negative (Mickelson, 2001). For example, Mickelson (2006) found that as the percent minority race/ethnicity in schools increases, standardized test scores for Black and White students tends to decrease.

Existing research on the long-term effects of K-12 diversity at the individual level focuses on outcomes such as educational and career mobility, and findings are more consistent. Most research in this area addresses the perpetuation of segregation across institutional contexts and how segregated educational experiences, for example, limit educational and career mobility for students of color (Braddock, 1980; Braddock, Dawkins, & Trent, 1994; Stearns, 2010). The primary reason segregation limits upward social mobility is by creating/maintaining systemic access barriers to important social institutions and resourceful social networks that can provide, for example, important future career or higher education information. Desegregated settings can also provide credentials and/or status that are perceived to be more desirable, and lead to rewarding occupational and education outcomes (Braddock & Eitle, 2004). These systemic barriers are deeply rooted in racially isolated schools and communities and serve to limit the extent to which minority individuals can equitably participate in society and have serious implications for racial equity and intergroup relations not only in education and employment, but also a multiethnic democratic society (Mickelson & Nkomo, 2012).

A significant portion of existing research on diversity pays attention to the significance of segregation, discrimination, and prejudice in segregated neighborhoods and schools that shape a variety of social cohesion outcomes, yet these outcomes are often limited to the individual level. Educational diversity research is relatively underdeveloped at the macro level. Consequently, our understanding of the societal-level impact of K-12 diversity remains limited. In general, diversity research focuses more on the impact of neighborhood diversity with relatively limited focus on K-12 diversity, perhaps due to the neighborhood-based school system in the United States. Diversity effects research on social cohesion outcomes include casual interracial contact such as friendship (Moody, 2001; Quillian & Campbell, 2003; Sigelman, Bledsoe, Welch, & Combs, 1996), interracial bridging ties (Briggs, 2003; Johnson, Bienenstock, & Farrell, 1999), generalized social trust (Gundelach & Freitag, 2013; Marschall & Stolle, 2004; Phan, 2008; Stolle, Soroka, & Johnston, 2008; Uslaner, 2011), intergroup prejudice (Wood & Sonleitner, 1996), indices of social capital, which include trust, voluntarism, and civic engagement (Gijsberts, van der Meer, & Dagevos, 2012; Laurence, 2011; Rothwell, 2011), and social distance and racial contact preferences (Braddock & Gonzalez, 2010; Kurlaender & Yun, 2005).

In an analysis of the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, which includes analyses of the social capital of 41 communities across the United States, Putnam (2007) found that diversity is inversely related to social trust. More specifically, he found that as community ethnic homogeneity increases (using the Herfindahl index across census tracts), so do residents’ interracial generalized trust; in relatively homogeneous and rural communities (e.g., Bismarck, ND and Lewiston, ME), residents trust “other races” more compared with their counterparts in more ethnically heterogeneous cities like Los Angeles or San Francisco (Putnam, 2007). In addition, he finds the same measure of diversity increases aggregate levels of intragroup trust and trust toward neighbors. Thus, Putnam (2007) argues that diversity threatens social solidarity and fosters social isolation as people living in ethnically homogeneous areas trust people more than those living in areas that are relatively more heterogeneous. He ultimately makes the claim that people in diverse communities are more likely to “hunker down” and associate less with their neighbors, regardless of race/ethnicity, due to overall lower levels of trust (p. 148).

Putnam’s (2007) central argument is that diversity strengthens “bonding capital,” leading to higher levels of race/ethnic group fragmentation in diverse communities. Putnam’s work on social capital and his conclusions regarding the impact of diversity on social cohesion across U.S. communities has stimulated extensive research on this topic. It is important to point out, however, that the negative impact of diversity on social trust and social cohesion may be short term. In the long term, Putnam (2007) argues that diversity can also foster “bridging” social capital—social ties across groups that bring people of different groups together leading to a “broader sense of ‘we’” (p. 139).

Uslaner (2010, 2011) argues that segregation explains the relationship between diversity and social cohesion: “high levels of diversity are compatible with perfect segregation, perfect integration, or anything in between” (p. 424). For example, under conditions of segregation and socioeconomic disadvantage, diversity is associated with lower trust (Gijsberts et al., 2012; Rothwell, 2011; Uslaner, 2010, 2011). Also utilizing survey data from the Social Capital Benchmark Survey, Uslaner (2011) finds that the impact of diversity on social cohesion across is dependent upon the relative segregation or integration levels in particular communities. A community can be either diverse and segregated, or diverse and integrated. People living in diverse and well-integrated cities such as Seattle, who also have diverse social networks, are more likely to be trusting compared with those in highly segregated cities such as Detroit, with more homogeneous social networks (Uslaner, 2011). In an analysis of data from the 2000 General Social Survey linked to U.S. census data, Rothwell (2011) finds that racial fragmentation at the macro level had no significant impact on trust or volunteering, but that two institutional-level diversity measures—residential racial isolation and multigroup entropy—had a negative impact. Thus, institutional segregation can mediate, or moderate, the relationship between metropolitan diversity and community cohesion/social trust.

If neighborhoods and schools are segregated, there is little opportunity for diverse groups to interact to form positive social relationships of any kind that increase social cohesion. The role of interracial contact in creating intergroup social cohesion in multiethnic societies has been widely investigated in empirical studies. Briggs (2003) assesses the impact of racial exposure on social capital, particularly bridging social capital. Racial exposure describes the probability of intergroup social interactions within metropolitan areas. He finds that through exposure between groups in cities, people are more likely to have out-group connections, or racial bridging ties, and thus become more likely to “extend trust and engage in rich exchanges with particular members of out-groups” (Briggs, 2003, p. 20). Bridging ties are particularly significant as they connect diverse individuals, potentially opening up “new worlds” of information, resources, and opportunities (Fernandez-Kelly, 1995; Johnson et al., 1999). For example, in their study of labor force participation of females in Los Angeles, Johnson and colleagues (1999) report that the nature and frequency of bridging social connections of minority women are more important in explaining employment outcomes than are predominating cultural explanations. Though this study analyzes employment outcomes at the individual level, their findings suggest that embeddedness in valuable heterogeneous social networks provided greater access to employment and education opportunities. Specifically, among Hispanic females, race-based network diversity was significantly associated with a greater likelihood of employment, compared with their counterparts in racially homogeneous networks.

In education, specifically, researchers have investigated how K-12 diversity and neighborhood diversity shapes students’ racial contact preferences (Braddock & Gonzalez, 2010; Kurlaender & Yun, 2005; Wood & Sonleitner, 1996). In a case study of the Miami-Dade Public School system, students from multiracial schools compared with racially isolated schools were found to have more positive racial attitudes and stronger desires to live/work in diverse environments as adults (Kurlaender & Yun, 2005). Racial isolation also affects students’ racial preferences and attitudes later in life (Braddock & Gonzalez, 2010; Wood & Sonleitner, 1996). In a nationally representative study, Braddock and Gonzalez (2010) found that early racial isolation in Black students’ neighborhoods increased perceived social distance from Whites and preferences for same-race neighbors and schoolmates for their children later in life. Racial isolation in schools also increased perceived social distance and preferences for same-race neighbors and classmates, but the significance of these effects varied by race/ethnic group. Wood and Sonleitner (1996) surveyed a sample of White adults (N = 292) who attended schools during implementation of an integration plan in Oklahoma in 1991. Whites who reported greater interracial contact as schoolchildren were less likely to hold traditional anti-Black prejudicial attitudes and less likely to adhere to racial stereotypes (Wood & Sonleitner, 1996).

The various positive social, educational, and occupation outcomes are well established when looking at the benefits to individuals who experience intergroup contact or other supportive diversity experiences. Still, knowledge on the societal-level outcomes of K-12 diversity in communities remains underdeveloped, yet may be the most promising area of research to fulfill the promise of Brown and equitable opportunities to learn.

Theoretical Framework

We draw upon theories of intergroup relations to describe how racial and ethnic diversity in K-12 schools shapes societal social cohesion. Social cohesion occurs amid the formal and informal activities that happen within communities, thus it matters where and under what circumstances social interactions take place. Both residential and school segregation may contribute to lower social cohesion across U.S. communities (Mickelson & Nkomo, 2012; Uslaner, 2010). Whether diversity is viewed as a “good” or “bad” thing for social cohesion depends upon two different theoretical perspectives about how people interact with each other (Uslaner, 2010). Intergroup contact theory and the racial threat hypothesis may help explain how diversity in educational institutions shapes intergroup relations in diverse metropolitan area contexts.

Intergroup Contact Theory

Achieving intergroup social cohesion in a diverse society requires a degree of non-hostile intergroup dynamics. The “contact hypothesis” specifies the ideal or necessary conditions that must be present in order for intergroup contact to lead to positive intergroup attitudes and reductions in race/ethnic prejudice (Allport, 1954/1958; Pettigrew, 1998, 2008). Allport (1954/1958) developed this theory in the 1950s to better understand the formation and maintenance of prejudice and discrimination. Examining the social psychological and structural roots of prejudice, Allport asserted that intergroup contact, under optimal conditions, could work to destroy stereotypes and lead to the development of positive interracial attitudes. The optimal conditions include equal status between groups within the situation, intergroup cooperation, common goals, and supportive structural arrangements such as the law, custom, or authorities (Pettigrew, 1998). From this perspective, it is not mere contact or exposure itself, but the nature and context of the contact that may shape social cohesion between diverse groups.

Segregated schools limit the possibility for intergroup social interaction, acting as a barrier to implementing the structural conditions necessary for positive intergroup social cohesion. Racial isolation “. . . [perpetuates] the myth that members of different racial groups have no shared interests and thus little basis for common understanding” (Rudolph & Popp, 2010, p. 78). In contrast, integrated settings, especially those in which interaction and equal status between groups is supported and encouraged, can foster the type of positive relationships between people of various backgrounds necessary to reduce prejudice. Allport (1954/1958) points to “. . . the desirability of starting integrated education with younger children”; younger children are more “free” from ingrained racial bias or prejudice (p. vi). Learning experiences in integrated schools allow for positive intergroup contact, and students are better positioned to develop positive attitudes and social ties between peers of different backgrounds (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; Slavin & Cooper, 1999; Slavin, Hurley, & Chamberlain, 2003).

Racial Threat Hypothesis

The racial threat hypothesis posits that higher levels of race/ethnic diversity cause majority group members to view the presence of minority race/ethnic groups as a threat to their own social and economic well-being (Blalock, 1967; Levine & Campbell, 1972). This perspective assumes a subordinate and superordinate relationship between groups, predicting that majority groups will display hostility toward minority groups due to increased physical proximity (Rudolph & Popp, 2010). Some research shows that the mere presence of significant proportions of minorities in a locality can increase racial inequality, racial hostility, Whites’ prejudiced attitudes against minorities, and residential and school segregation (see review in Taylor, 1998). Taylor (1998) found that a 10% increase in the Black population of a metropolitan area is associated with a significant increase in Whites’ anti-black prejudice, net of Whites’ perceived political or economic threat from Blacks, and net of residential segregation: “local concentrations of African Americans evoke negative reactions from White residents, [which is] not diminished in localities where residential segregation is extreme” (p. 531). The impact of the numerical presence of minority populations on Whites’ attitudes was found significant only for Blacks; results for Latinos and Asian Americans were not statistically significant.

However, Allport (1954/1958) argues that diversity would lead to more hostile group relations only if individuals are not able to have positive social experiences with out-group members, or when the institutional contexts in which diverse groups coexist are unsupportive of positive group relations and reproduce hierarchical race/ethnic group organization. Although either outcome is possible (intergroup contact reducing prejudice, intergroup contact increasing prejudice), Pettigrew and Tropp’s (2006) meta-analysis of studies testing the conflict and contact hypotheses found that the typically stronger path is that of intergroup contact reducing prejudice.

Racial Trust

Social trust is widely considered an important component of social cohesion and intergroup relations (e.g., Marschall & Stolle, 2004), and sense of community and solidarity among citizens (e.g., Letki, 2008; Phan, 2008). Social trust reflects an orientation toward people and society as a whole, referring to the general belief that another person will not do you harm (Kramer, 1999). Trust enables cooperation, facilitates bridging social capital (Putnam, 1993), and “above all, trust, by keeping our mind open to all evidence, secures communication and dialogue” (Misztal, 1996, p. 10). In other words, social trust is a mechanism that encourages social interactions of mutual reciprocity based on shared understandings, which in turn contribute to human cooperation and societal well-being (Heyneman, 2000; Misztal, 1996). Trust is not a spontaneous phenomenon, but rather is an interpersonal phenomenon generated through social interactions and socialization experiences. The nature and quality of social interactions that generate trust are contingent upon the contextual conditions in which they take place and develop. Interracial trust, or trust between individuals of different race/ethnic groups, is an element of social cohesion particularly important for social cohesion in a diverse society. Interracial trust has the potential to “. . . help individuals overcome racial prejudice and bridge racial gaps” (Rudolph & Popp, 2010, p. 74), which we argue is a social good to be appreciated and valued as a mechanism to decreasing racial/ethnic prejudice and tension.

The value in examining trust as an element of social cohesion is to understand the “. . . conditions in which people can learn to deal with one another in a trustworthy way without making everyone feel the same” (Misztal, 1996, p. 1). Chan and colleagues (2006) note that social cohesion does not solely involve people’s feelings at attitudes, but it is the subjective and objective components that constitute a cohesive society: “. . . a high level of willingness to cooperate and help would be meaningless unless it is also witnessed by a substantial amount of social and political participation” (p. 290).

Racial Bridging Ties

In multiethnic societies, social cohesion necessitates a degree of racial bridging ties to open up homogeneous social networks, particularly in resource-granting social institutions, such as schools. Racial bridging ties refer to social network connections among individuals in a diverse society, serving to open insular networks and widen access to resource-granting institutions, as well as cultivating social network connections across status lines (Briggs, 2003). The possibility of cultivating positive group relations through racial bridging ties is contingent upon the availability of opportunities to do so, which is more likely to happen within diverse schools and other racially/ethnically integrated social contexts.

In the United States, increasing racial and ethnic diversity associated with rapid non-White immigration underscores the importance of racial/ethnic bridging ties, which Briggs (2003) describes as “among the most precious” in light of this country’s long history of racial divisions (p. 3). The history of race and racism in the United States continues to have considerable influence on race/ethnic relations today, and although local dynamics of race bridging ties likely vary, social ties between all groups are a societal interest, in light of growing ethnic diversity of the United States.

Intergroup cohesion has been shown to play a unique and crucial role in expanding opportunities for educational and occupational advancement among diverse demographic groups (Briggs, 2003; Granovetter, 1973; Laumann, 1972; Portes, 1998; Putnam, 2000). Social cohesion in multiethnic societies necessitates a degree of racial bridging ties to open up homogeneous social networks. Briggs (2003) writes,

Bridging ties are particularly crucial when they bind diverse societies, expanding social and civic identities, opening up insular communities of interest, containing ethnic and other intergroup conflicts, and reducing inter-group status inequalities, for example, by widening access to valuable information and conferring endorsements across higher and lower status group lines. (p. 2)

Open social networks include a diverse array of social connections that facilitate individual growth and opportunity for educational and occupational advancement. Social relationships may partly reflect a personal choice, but with whom we may choose to form a relationship is also shaped by opportunity (Briggs, 2003). Lower frequency of racial bridging ties is an indication of racial isolation, which is both cause and consequence of structural patterns, such as racial segregation or isolation at various institutional levels.

Intergroup social cohesion is contingent upon institutional contextual factors that offer opportunities for social ties between individuals and groups. Social cohesion in a diverse society requires that individuals learn and develop the skills necessary to work with and engage with diverse peers, coworkers, colleagues, neighbors, and others. Moreover, in any society with high levels of racial inequality, social interactions and exchanges of ideas between diverse groups shape the collective prospects for social cohesion across entire localities. Thus, social cohesion in diverse communities depends on favorable institutional conditions, such as racially balanced schools, in which diverse individuals have the opportunity to cultivate positive social connections (Mickelson & Nkomo, 2012). It is through reducing segregation in our schools, then, that may offer the most effective manner by which we can meet the challenges of increasing diversity in our population.

The lifelong positive impact of integrated learning experiences for the individual is well established in education research, but it has yet to be demonstrated how K-12 diversity may affect society at large. It is the latter type of evidence, however, that may also be more effectual in the public and judicial arenas, where school districts, policy makers, and other community leaders and their constituents can move forward in improving the opportunities that their school districts can offer all children.

Data and Method

The data for this study come from a macro-level data set based on the sample of communities in the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS; Putnam, 2000). The objective of the SCCBS was to provide measures of varying levels of social capital across U.S. communities and various sociodemographic correlates, such as education and occupation. This project was also targeted at assessing how social capital affects individuals’ social trust, voting behaviors, and involvement in community organizations. Basing the present study’s data set on the SCCBS allows for measurement of individual-level attitudes and behaviors toward others to be aggregated to the community level to construct a macro-level indicator of social cohesion. Measures from other sources are then linked to these communities using U.S. Census geographic identifiers provided in each file (Briggs, 2003). The geography of the SCCBS communities surveyed was decided upon by local philanthropic organizations that helped fund the SCCBS data collection, and do not match identically to the U.S. Census metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). Any non-metropolitan areas represented in the SCCBS were excluded. The criteria for a match between a SCCBS community and an MSA are (a) if the SCCBS sample includes one or more major cities, and (b) over half the county areas are in the corresponding MSA (Briggs, 2003). In addition, if the SCCBS community is a single city (e.g., Seattle, Boston, or Grand Rapids, MI) the U.S. Census central city data were used. This matching procedure was taken directly from Briggs (2003), who also linked SCCBS data to Census MSAs. The final sample size is 29 communities (see Table 1 for further details on the MSAs and data sources). A broad range of communities is represented, from historically more diverse communities such as Chicago, Illinois, and Phoenix, Arizona, to more homogeneous communities such as Lewiston-Auburn, ME.

Table 1.

Summary Information for Metropolitan Areas in the Sample (N = 29).

Metro Area (or city)	Population (2000)	Racial/Ethnic Macro-Diversity Score (2000)range: 0-1.39	% Minority	Index of K-12 School Desegregation
Atlanta, GA MSA	4,112,998	1.03	40.20	.59
Baton Rouge, LA MSA	602,984	.84	36.10	.72
Birmingham, AL MSA	921,106	.80	33.60	.45
Bismarck, ND MSA	94,719	.27	5.10	.93
Boulder-Longmont, CO MSA	291,288	.62	43.80	.81
Boston (city), MA	869,045	1.22	16.40	.83
Charleston, WV MSA	251,662	.37	8.40	.78
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA	1,499,293	.86	28.80	.82
Chicago, IL PMSA	8,272,768	1.15	42.00	.50
Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN MSA	1,646,395	.58	16.50	.57
Cleveland, OH MSA	2,250,871	.77	24.60	.49
Denver, CO MSA	2,109,282	.93	29.60	.74
Detroit, MI MSA	4,441,551	.87	30.30	.48
Grand Rapids (city), MI	272,953	.97	27.70	.70
Greensboro-Winston Salem, NC MSA	1,251,509	.83	27.70	.87
Houston, TX MSA	4,177,646	1.25	53.90	.68
Kalamazoo, MI, MSA	452,851	.65	16.70	.76
Knoxville, TN MSA	687,249	.42	9.40	.69
Lewiston-Auburn, ME MSA	90,830	.22	3.80	.91
Los Angeles, CA MSA	9,519,338	1.31	68.90	.69
Minneapolis-St. Paul MN MSA	2,968,806	.65	15.40	.79
Phoenix AZ MSA	3,251,876	.96	34.20	.76
Rochester, NY MSA	1,098,201	.68	17.80	.63
San Diego CA MSA	2,813,833	1.20	45.00	.78
San Francisco CA MSA	1,731,183	1.26	48.80	.84
Seattle (city), WA	764,431	.89	30.30	.72
Syracuse, NY MSA	732,117	.53	12.00	.67
Yakima, WA MSA	222,581	.98	43.50	.75
York, PA MSA	381,751	.40	8.50	.65

Note. MSA = metropolitan statistical area.

Measurement

Social cohesion is a macro-level phenomenon having to do with the degree of togetherness or collectiveness that exists in a community. The present study utilizes two indicators of social cohesion that measure specifically interracial/ethnic social cohesion. Racial trust and racial bridging ties are operationalized as attitudinal (racial trust) and behavioral (racial bridging ties) indicators of social cohesion. These two concepts are drawn from the 2000 SCCBS. Interracial trust refers to respondents’ generalized trust toward other groups (excluding their own). Racial bridging ties are measured through an item that asks respondents to report on their friendships; respondents are asked to report the race/ethnicity of their closest friends (see the appendix for questionnaire item details). All dependent variables are coded so that higher values indicate greater levels of racial trust or bridging ties.

The focal independent variable is K-12 school diversity in the year 2000, which is measured through a multigroup school entropy index. There are various ways to calculate how diversity is structured across social institutions, such as schools and neighborhoods. According to Massey and Denton (1988) there are five conceptually distinct measures of segregation: evenness, exposure, concentration, centralization, and clustering. Each measure represents a theoretically distinct mechanism of separation between race/ethnic groups, although these different dimensions surely overlap in real life and are statistically correlated (Massey & Denton, 1988). In existing literature, measures of evenness and exposure are the most commonly utilized (Reardon & Firebaugh, 2002). Although Massey and Denton (1988) argue for the predominant use of the index of dissimilarity as a measure of evenness, they acknowledge that this index is a dual-group measure that cannot capture the evenness of the distribution of multiple groups across organizational units, a critique echoed in other literature on the subject (e.g., Iceland, 2004; Reardon & Firebaugh, 2002). As the diversity of the United States increases, dual-group indicators are becoming less and less adequate for describing patterns of racial/ethnic segregation (Reardon & Firebaugh, 2002).

For the present study, as the focus is on diversity across K-12 schools, a measure of evenness is the conceptual dimension of segregation of interest. Reardon and Firebaugh (2002) recommend the entropy index, or Theil’s H (also referred to as the information theory index), to measure evenness of multiple groups. The entropy index is a multigroup measure of “evenness” and describes how groups are distributed across schools within the larger MSA (see Iceland, 2004; Massey & Denton, 1988).

Calculation of the entropy index involves the metropolitan diversity score: first to measure the diversity of the larger geographical area, then once more for each organizational (school) unit within the larger MSA. Each school’s entropy is defined as

E_{i} = {\sum^{​}}_{r = 1}^{r} (Π_{r i}) l n [\frac{1}{Π_{r i}}],

where Π_ri refers to the population of a particular race/ethnic within each unit, for example, within each school in the larger area. This value is then used in the calculation of the entropy index (H), which describes the evenness of the distribution of each group within each school:

H = {\sum^{​}}_{i = 1}^{n} [\frac{t_{i} (E - E_{i})}{E T}],

where t_i is the total population of each school, T is the total population of the MSA, n refers to the number of schools within each larger area, and E and E_i are the measures of the MSA’s diversity score and each school’s (i) diversity score, respectively. The entropy index can be described as the average deviation of each school’s diversity score from the diversity score of the MSA. This index varies from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating a more uneven (more segregated) distribution of each group across each school. In this study, the value of the index for each metropolitan area is subtracted from 1, so that higher values indicate greater diversity.

We control for 2000 overall MSA diversity, which describes the racial/ethnic diversity of a given MSA, without accounting for differences in distribution of any group across organizational units (e.g., schools). For all diversity measures, we include four racial/ethnic categories: Non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Asian, and Hispanic. Additional control variables are 1990 economic inequality (Gini index), region (south, compared with northeast, midwest, and west), and metropolitan area population density (see Table 2 for descriptive statistics).

Table 2.

Means and Standard Deviations for Independent and Control Variables (N = 29).

	M	SD
Independent variables
Metropolitan diversity	0.810	0.283
K-12 School diversity	0.685	0.138
Control variables
Metro area population (1,000s)	1,992.45	2,312.83
Economic inequality, 1990	0.413	0.024

Results

Results from an ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analysis of K-12 diversity on racial trust and racial bridging ties suggest that K-12 diversity has a positive net effect on interracial social cohesion across U.S. metropolitan areas.

Table 3 presents both standardized (B) and unstandardized (b) OLS regression coefficients that estimate the effects of diversity on racial trust. Overall, MSA racial and ethnic diversity is inversely associated with racial trust: the more diverse a metropolitan area is, the more likely it is that there will be lower aggregate levels of racial trust. This initial bivariate association between metro area diversity and racial trust in column 1 shows that racial trust decreases aggregate levels of trust by approximately .287 for every one-unit increase in metro area diversity (b = −.287, p < .001). Column 2 introduces the multigroup entropy index of K-12 school diversity. Net of overall MSA diversity, school diversity is positively associated with racial trust (b = .367, p < .05). The statistically significant negative relationship between MSA diversity and racial trust persists, yet, when school diversity is taken into account, the direct effect of metro diversity on racial trust is reduced by 9%, indicating that school desegregation mediates this relationship. This pattern suggests that if MSAs effectively manage diversity through creating ethno-racially inclusive K-12 schools they can minimize any potentially adverse effects of metropolitan diversity on social cohesion.

Table 3.

OLS Regression of K-12 Diversity on Racial Trust (N = 29).

Predictors	1		2		3
Predictors	b	B	b	B	b	B
MSA diversity	−0.287*** (0.043)	−0.792	−0.260*** (0.042)	−0.754	−0.273*** (0.058)	−0.753
K-12 diversity			0.367* (0.169)	0.263	0.263** (0.079)	0.328
Economic inequality, 1990					−1.023* (0.501)	−0.223
South					−0.053^† (0.026)	−0.217
(ln)Population density, 1997					0.014 (0.016)	0.143
F	45.422***		28.182***		21.971***
R ²	.613		.660		.789
Constant	2.304***		1.948***		2.451***

Note. Standard errors in parentheses. OLS = ordinary least squares; MSA = metropolitan statistical area.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Column 3 in Table 3 reveals that school diversity has a significantly positive (b = .263, p < .01) influence on racial trust, net of statistical controls for MSA diversity, region, 1990 economic inequality and population density. Comparing the standardized regression coefficients reveals that metro-level diversity exhibits the largest effect of any factor considering racial trust (B = −.753). There are also significant regional effects: compared with the Northeast, Midwest, and West, metropolitan areas in the South tend to have lower overall levels of racial trust, which is expected given the South’s history of racial prejudice. Economic inequality also has a significant effect on racial trust: higher 1990 economic inequality is associated with lower overall racial trust across models (b = −1.023, p < .05). Adjusted R-squared values indicate that the factors examined in our models explain about 79% of the variance in racial trust, which is unusual in the social sciences in general, but not unexpected when analyzing aggregate data.

Table 4 displays results for the impact of K-12 diversity on aggregate levels of racial bridging ties as reflected through friendship networks. Overall, both MSA and K-12 diversity are found to increase racial bridging ties. While MSA diversity was inversely related to racial trust, an attitudinal dimension of social cohesion, it is strongly, and positively, associated with diversity of friendship networks (b = .798, p < .001). In column 3, results for the full model show that K-12 diversity has a significant positive impact on racial bridging friendships, net of regional effects and other factors (b = .543, p < .05). A comparison of the magnitude of each effect through the standardized beta coefficients (B) reveals that, similar to the models predicting racial trust, metro diversity still exerts the largest impact on racial bridging friendships across models.

Table 4.

OLS Regression of K-12 Diversity on Racial Bridging Ties Through Friendship (N = 29).

Predictors	1		2		3
Predictors	b	B	b	B	b	B
MSA diversity	0.798*** (0.112)	0.807	0.829*** (0.108)	0.839	0.590** (0.188)	0.597
K-12 diversity			0.475^† (0.238)	0.217	0.543* (0.257)	0.249
Economic inequality, 1990					0.104 (1.626)	0.008
South = 1					−0.050 (0.083)	0.083
(ln)Population density, 1997					0.083 (0.052)	0.311
F	50.593***		30.096***		14.185***
R ²	.639		.675		.702
Constant	.841***		.490*		.025

Note. Standard errors in parentheses. OLS = ordinary least squares.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

A portion of the literature on diversity and social cohesion predicts that racial/ethnic diversity leads people to “hunker down” and engage less with others in their community (Putnam, 2000). These results indicate, however, that diversity has the opposite effect on aggregate levels of racial bridging ties through diverse friendships. Bearing in mind the negative impact of metropolitan diversity on racial trust (Table 3), these results seem counterintuitive. If metropolitan area diversity leads to lower interracial trust, one may also be inclined to believe people would also be less likely to have different race/ethnicity friends, assuming trustworthiness is a common aspect of friendship. A potential explanation for this is that trust, as opposed to friendships, is a more abstract element of social cohesion, and intergroup relations in general, than is personal friendship. For example, if one is asked to report his or her close personal friends of another race/ethnicity, we could speculate that that respondent “trusts” those specific friends, assuming that friendship involves a degree of trustworthiness. A person’s trust toward out-groups in general, however, may have nothing to do with the individual’s specific and subjective personal relationships.

Summary and Discussion

The findings of this study underscore the importance of K-12 schools as sites of routine human interactions that create the contexts in which social cohesion may or may not emerge in diverse societies. In bivariate regression analyses across an attitudinal indicator of social cohesion, interracial trust, MSAs with more racially and ethnically diverse populations were shown to have lower social cohesion overall. This association is consistent with previous work (Alesina & La Ferrara, 2002; Costa & Kahn, 2003; Delhey & Newton, 2005; Putnam, 2007) and provided support for the racial threat hypothesis (Rudolph & Popp, 2010; Taylor, 1998). Studies reporting a negative association between macro-level ethno-racial diversity and social trust have raised widespread concern that immigration and increasing diversity might undermine the nation’s social cohesion (Castells, 2010; Fukuyama, 2000; Putnam, 2007; Reich, 1992). However, other evidence suggests that in diverse communities it becomes especially important to understand how to effectively structure or manage diversity in key social institutions such as education and housing.

In the present study, we find that K-12 diversity increases trust, net of MSA diversity and other factors. In addition, these results suggest that viewing diversity as a threat to social cohesion may only hold at the attitudinal level as MSA and K-12 diversity have positive effects on actual behaviors: racial bridging ties.

Community-level structural arrangements, including school (and neighborhood) diversity significantly affect social cohesion in American metropolises. The observed direct link between K-12 and racial bridging ties (social cohesion) provide important evidence of educational diversity as a compelling state interest. This finding goes beyond the impressive indirect evidence provided by an array of individual-level studies documenting the impact of diversity exposure on human resource outcomes. Clearly, developing the human and social capital of diverse individuals serves to benefit not only those particular people but their talents also contribute to the community’s collective well-being. Overall, greater diversity in schools is associated with higher levels of social cohesion across U.S. communities. These findings of this study not only challenge the argument that diversity is divisive (Putnam, 2007), but also offer strong support for the counterargument that school diversity and desegregation can be a compelling state interest.

Based on these analyses, it is our belief that without taking into account whether or not race/ethnic groups are structurally incorporated into key social institutions like schools, claims of diversity as a threat to the social good may be unfounded, and that ways to increase diversity in our schools should be worked out (Orfield et al., 2012).

More specifically, metropolitan diversity consistently exerted a strong and positive impact on racial bridging (friendship) ties. K-12 diversity also proved to be a significant mechanism for strengthening bridging ties across ethno-racial groups. These findings provide support for intergroup contact theory, rather than the racial threat hypothesis. Given that the possibility of cultivating positive intergroup friendships is largely contingent upon the availability of opportunities to cultivate such ties, development of racial bridging ties is most likely to happen within diverse social settings (Allport, 1958/1954; Pettigrew, 2008). Although intergroup contact theory specifies four conditions necessary for positive group contact to lead to improvements in intergroup relations that this study does not directly measure—equal status between groups, cooperation, common goals, and institutional support—the positive impact of school diversity shown here nevertheless reflects supportive institutional conditions, particularly as school diversity is measured using multigroup indices of desegregation. Insofar as K-12 school desegregation is a sufficient indicator of the potential for intergroup contact, albeit an indirect or proxy measure, it is clear from the evidence presented here that school diversity can have an overall positive impact on macro-level social cohesion in diverse metropolitan areas.

Collectively, these findings stand in stark contrast to arguments suggesting that diversity is inherently problematic because it creates barriers between people, causing them to trust others less. These arguments often undermine diversity initiatives, which, particularly in the United States, could serve to increase separation between race/ethnic groups in schools and neighborhoods, reversing decades of progress toward racial and ethnic equity since the Civil Rights Movement. Putnam (2000, 2007) and others have argued extensively about how race/ethnic diversity in society leads people to disengage in their communities because they are less likely to trust each other. The present study shows, however, that regardless of dominant normative attitudes regarding intergroup trust, K-12 school diversity actually serves to increase community-level racial and ethnic intergroup contact. In other words, the negative impact of MSA diversity on racial trust is partially mediated by implementing institutional practices that create structural opportunities for diverse residents to interact in ethno-racially inclusive settings such as schools (and neighborhoods). As a metropolitan-level analysis, this study cannot draw any substantive conclusions regarding individual-level behaviors, as potential variation in specific individual’s specific attitudes are obscured by aggregating individual’s responses up to the metropolitan area level. Nevertheless, on average, across individuals within metropolitan areas, we find compelling results of the positive impact of diversity on multiple indicators of social cohesion. Regardless of what any specific person may feel or behave toward diverse race/ethnic groups, this study shows that K-12 diversity, on average, positively affects the extent to which MSA residents are likely and willing to engage in social connections that bridge diverse groups.

Social science research on race/ethnic diversity in society has played a pivotal role in the creation and implementation of education policy. To that end, Brown targeted what many consider the ideal of the American school: its role as the avenue for upward social mobility and the path toward social cohesion in a democratic society. In recent years, however, we see policies on diversity and equity in education veering away from a focus on equality of opportunity, to more individualistic agendas such as accountability and student competitiveness (Noblit & Mendez, 2008), as well as a prevailing concern with the individual over the collective (Meyer, 2001). The findings of this study suggest the importance of expanding discussions surrounding diversity and equity in schools to include a greater focus on the collective or societal benefits of K-12 diversity and desegregation, not simply focusing on potential harms of race/ethnic isolation to individual freedoms of minority or majority group members. It is our belief, based on these careful analyses, that our results suggest that any affirmative action taken to increase educational diversity would have net positive effects that could potentially outweigh individual-level perception of harm. The present findings suggest that many communities derive direct benefits (e.g., social cohesion) from creating structural arrangements (diverse schools), which allow them to effectively manage population diversity. In contrast, failure to effectively manage diversity (e.g., implementing educational policies that are known to be associated with ethno-racial isolation in schools) can result in community fragmentation. The dialogue surrounding diversity as a compelling state interest in the Court has often been contentious and political. The history of diversity in the legal and judicial realm emphasizes the importance of extending the argument of the benefits of diversity beyond the individual. The results of this study suggest that increased K-12 diversity has positive societal-level benefits, in terms of increasing intergroup social cohesion, potentially leading to reductions in intergroup prejudices, opening up more equitable opportunities to learn.

As previously noted, the nation is becoming increasingly diverse. This diversity affects all levels—federal, state, local—of society, and elected officials have the challenge and responsibility of effectively managing these demographic shifts, just as they do with regard to other significant population changes. For example, just as MSA officials would be accountable for managing significant population growth by expanding capacity of public schools and expanding infrastructure (e.g., roads and public services), they also have the challenge and opportunity to adopt housing and education policies that create and support structural arrangements (i.e., diverse schools and neighborhoods) that are likely to optimize the potential benefits of growing population diversity within their communities while minimizing any potential harms of diversity that might result from adopting policies that may encourage racial isolation in schools and neighborhoods.

Social cohesion is in many ways a quality of life issue for residents of metropolitan communities. Most MSAs seek to create social circumstances that they are perceived to be ideal places to live, work, and play. Elected officials and civic leaders often bask in reflected glory if their community receives a favorable score on some well-known external, independent, annual report cards ranking MSAs on a variety of characteristics such as desirable places to live, or good places for business. However, if communities are as seen as fragmented and plagued by social problems such as inequality and racial strife, it can be not only harmful to the community’s standing in such rating systems but also detrimental to a community’s collective self-interest and reduce its likelihood of attracting (and retaining) residents and businesses for whom such conditions matter. As such, in diverse MSAs, creating and maintaining optimal structural arrangements, including diverse schools and neighborhoods, represents a compelling state interest on many different levels. To assure optimal structural arrangements in diverse MSAs, government officials and civic leaders must address routine policies in core institutions like education and housing. As Kohn-Wood, Samson, and Braddock (2015) suggest, community institutional practices are key to establishing either ethno-racially diverse or isolated schools and neighborhoods. For example, ostensibly mundane educational policy decisions such as potentially expanding—increasingly popular—charter schools in a district can have a significant impact on K-12 diversity as research shows that charter schools are often more racially isolated than both local traditional schools and magnet schools (Siegel-Hawley & Frankenberg, 2011).

School diversity, even in MSAs with higher than average rates of intergroup exposure in K-12 schools, seldom exists at optimal level (i.e., significant numbers of schools and students remain ethno-racially isolated). Thus, racial isolation often remains a challenge in metropolitan school districts that are relatively less segregated. This is true in part because efforts to achieve school diversity are constrained by neighborhood racial isolation. Nevertheless, in the long run, diverse schools can lay the foundation for future diverse neighborhoods (Mitchell, Batie, & Mitchell, 2010), which will in turn enhance future school diversity.

Footnotes

Appendix

Operationalization of Intergroup Social Cohesion—Questionnaire items from the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Ashley B. Mikulyuk is a sociologist residing in Portland, OR. She engages in active scholarship of issues related to educational inequality, diversity, and desegregation in U.S. society.

Jomills H. Braddock, II, a desegregation and education scholar, is professor of sociology at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida.

References

Alesina

La Ferrara

(2002). Who trusts others? Journal of Public Economics, 85, 207-234.

Allport

(1958). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. (Original work published 1954)

Ancheta

(2013). Brief of the American Educational Research Association Et Al. as Amici Curiae in support of respondents. Educational Researcher, 42, 183-197.

Balfanz

Letgers

(2001, January 13). How many central city high schools have a severe dropout problem, where are they located, and who attends them? Initial estimates using the common core of data. Paper presented at Dropouts in America Conference, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Bankston

III Caldas

S. J.

(1996). Majority African American schools and social injustice: The influence of De Facto segregation on academic achievement. Social Forces, 75, 535-555.

Barnes

M. L.

Chemerinsky

Onwuachi-Willig

(2012). Judging opportunity lost: Assessing the viability of race-based affirmative action after Fisher v. University of Texas. UCLA Law Review, 62, 272-305.

Bell

(2003). Diversity’s distractions. Columbia Law Review, 103, 1622-1633.

Bell

J. M.

Hartmann

(2007). Diversity in everyday discourse: The cultural ambiguities and consequences of “happy talk.” American Sociological Review, 72, 895-914.

Blalock

H. M.

(1967). Toward a theory of minority-group relations. New York, NY: Capricorn Books.

10.

Borman

K. M.

Eitle

T. M.

Michale

Elite

D. J.

Lee

Johnson

. . . Shircliffe

(2004). Accountability in a postdesegregation era: The continuing significance of racial segregation in Florida’s schools. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 605-631.

11.

Bowman

(2010). College diversity experiences and cognitive development: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 80, 4-33.

12.

Braddock

J. H.

II . (1980). The perpetuation of segregation across levels of education: A behavioral assessment of the contact-hypothesis. Sociology of Education, 53, 178-186.

13.

Braddock

J. H.

II. Dawkins

M. P.

Trent

(1994). Why desegregate? The effect of school deseregation on adult occupational desegregation of African Americans, Whites, and Hispanics. International Journal of Contemporary Sociology, 31, 273-283.

14.

Braddock

J. H.

II Crain

R. L.

McPartland

J. M.

Dawkins

R. L.

(1986). Applicant race and job placement decisions: A national survey Experiment. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 6, 3-24.

15.

Braddock

J. H.

II Gonzalez

(2010). Social isolation and social cohesion: The effects of K-12 neighborhood and school segregation on intergroup orientations. Teachers College Record, 112, 1631-1653.

16.

Braddock

J. H.

II McPartland

J. M.

(1989). Social-psychological processes that perpetuate racial segregation: The relationship between school and employment desegregation. Journal of Black Studies, 19, 267-289.

17.

Braddock

J. H.

II Eitle

T. M

. (2004). The effects of school desegregation. In Banks

J. A.

McGee Banks

J. A.

(Eds.), The handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 828-846). New York, NY: John Wiley.

18.

Briggs

(2003, January). Bridging networks, social capital, and racial segregation in America (Faculty Research Working Paper Series No. RWP02-011). Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

19.

Brown v. Board of Education , 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

20.

Castells

(2010). The power of identity: The information age: Economy, society, and culture (Vol. 2). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley.

21.

Chan

H.-P.

Chan

(2006). Reconsidering social cohesion: Developing a definition and analytical framework for empirical research. Social Indicators Research, 75, 273-302.

22.

Clinton

H. R.

(2005). Brown at fifty: Fulfilling the promise. Yale Law & Policy Review, 23(1), 213-224.

23.

Costa

D. L.

Kahn

M. E.

(2003). Civic engagement and community heterogeneity: An economist’s perspective. Perspectives on Politics, 1(1), 103-111.

24.

Dawkins

M. P.

Braddock

J. H.

II . (1994). The continuing significance of desegregation: School racial composition and African American inclusion in American society. The Journal of Negro Education, 63, 394-405.

25.

Delhey

Newton

(2005). Predicting cross-national levels of social trust: Global pattern or Nordic exceptionalism? European Sociological Review, 21, 311-327.

26.

Fernandez-Kelly

(1995). Social and cultural capital in the urban ghetto: Implications for the economic sociology of immigration. In Portes

(Ed.), The economic sociology of immigration (213-247). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

27.

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin , 570 U.S.__(2013).

28.

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin , 579 U.S.__(2016).

29.

Forrest

Kearns

(2001). Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood. Urban Studies, 38, 2125-2143.

30.

Frankenberg

(2012). School segregation, desegregation, and integration: What do these terms mean in a post-parents involved in community schools, racially transitioning society? Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 6, 533-590.

31.

Fukuyama

(2000). The great disruption: Human nature and the reconstitution of social order. New York, NY: Touchstone.

32.

Gijsberts

van der Meer

Dagevos

(2012). “Hunkering down” in multi-ethnic neighbourhoods? The effects of ethnic diversity on dimensions of social cohesion. European Sociological Review, 28, 527-537.

33.

Goldsmith

P. R.

(2010). Learning apart, living apart: How the racial and ethnic segregation of schools and colleges perpetuates residential segregation. Teachers College Record, 112, 1602-1630.

34.

Granovetter

M. S.

(1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380.

35.

Gundelach

Freitag

(2013). Neighbourhood diversity and social trust: An empirical analysis of interethnic contact and group-specific effects. Urban Studies, 51, 1236-1256.

36.

Gurin

Nagda

Lopez

G. E.

(2004). The benefits of diversity in education for democratic citizenship. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 17-34.

37.

Hallinan

M. T.

(1998). Diversity effects on student outcomes: Social science evidence. Ohio State Law Journal, 59, 733-754.

38.

Hallinan

M. T.

Smith

S. S.

(1985). The effects of classroom racial composition on students’ interracial friendliness. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 3-16.

39.

Hallinan

M. T.

Teixeira

(1987). Opportunities and constraints: Black-White differences in the formation of interracial friendships. Child Development, 58, 1358-1371.

40.

Herring

(2009). Does diversity pay?: Race, gender, and the business case for diversity. American Sociological Review, 74, 208-224.

41.

Heyneman

S. P.

(2000). From the party/state to multiethnic democracy: Education and social cohesion in Europe and Central Asia. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 173-191.

42.

Humes

K. R.

Jones

N. A.

Ramirez

R. R.

(2011). Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010. 2010 Census Briefs. March 2011. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf

43.

Iceland

(2004). The Multigroup Entropy Index (also known as Theil’s H or the Information Theory Index). Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/housing/patterns/about/multigroup_entropy.pdf

44.

Johnson

J. H.

Jr. Bienenstock

E. J.

Farrell

W. C.

Jr. (1999). Bridging social networks and female labor-force participation in a multiethnic metropolis. Urban Geography, 20, 3-30.

45.

Killen

Crystal

D. S.

Ruck

(2007). The social developmental benefits of intergroup contact among children and adolescents. In Frankenberg

Orfield

(Eds.), Lessons in integration: Realizing the promise of racial diversity in American schools. Arlington: University of Virginia Press.

46.

Kohn-Wood

L. P.

Samson

Braddock

(2015). Race, social identity, and generative spaces: Miami as a microcosm of categorical complexity in a 21st-century global city. American Behavioral Scientist, 59, 386-405.

47.

Kramer

R. M.

(1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569-598.

48.

Krivo

L. J.

Washington

H. M.

Peterson

R. D.

Browning

C. R.

Calder

C. A.

Kwan

M.-P.

(2013). Social isolation of disadvantage and advantage: The reproduction of inequality in urban space. Social Forces, 92, 141-164.

49.

Kurlaender

Yun

J. T.

(2005). Fifty years after Brown: New evidence of the impact of school racial composition on student outcomes. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research, & Practice, 6(1), 51-78.

50.

Laumann

E. O.

(1972). Bonds of pluralism: The form and substance of urban social networks. New York, NY: John Wiley.

51.

Laurence

(2011). The effect of ethnic diversity and community disadvantage on social cohesion: A multi-level analysis of social capital and interethnic relations in UK communities. European Sociological Review, 27, 70-89.

52.

Letki

(2008). Does diversity erode social cohesion? Social capital and race in British neighbourhoods. Political Studies, 56, 99-126.

53.

Levine

R. A.

Campbell

D. T.

(1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes, and group behavior. Oxford, UK: John Wiley.

54.

Campbell

Fernandez

(2013). Residential segregation, spatial mismatch and economic growth across US metropolitan areas. Urban Studies, 50, 2642-2660.

55.

Marschall

M. J.

Stolle

(2004). Race and the city: Neighborhood context and the development of generalized trust. Political Behavior, 26, 125-153.

56.

Massey

D. S.

Denton

N. A.

(1988). The dimensions of residential segregation. Social Forces, 67, 281-315.

57.

Meyer

J. W.

(2001). Reflections: The worldwide commitment to educational equality. Sociology of Education, 74, 154-158.

58.

Mickelson

R. A.

(2001). Subverting Swann: First- and second-generation segregation in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 215-252.

59.

Mickelson

R. A.

(2006). Segregation and the SAT. Ohio State Law Journal, 67, 157-199.

60.

Mickelson

R. A.

Nkomo

(2012). Integrated schooling, life course outcomes, and social cohesion in multiethnic democratic societies. Review of Research in Education, 36, 197-238.

61.

Misztal

B. A.

(1996). Trust in modern societies. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

62.

Mitchell

Batie

Mitchell

(2010). The contributions of school desegregation to housing integration: Case studies in two large urban areas. Urban Education, 45, 166-193.

63.

Moody

(2001). Race, school integration, and friendship segregation in America. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 679-716.

64.

Noblit

G. W.

Mendez

J. C.

(2008). Legacies of Brown versus Board: An introduction to the special issue. The Urban Review, 40, 1-4.

65.

Oder

(2005). The social cohesion role of educational organizations: Primary and secondary schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(1), 78-88.

66.

Orfield

Kucsera

Siegel-Hawley

(2012). E Pluribus . . . Separation: Deepening double segregation for more students. Los Angeles, CA: The Civil Rights Project.

67.

Patchen

(1982). Black-White contact in schools: Its social and academic effects. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

68.

Pettigrew

T. F.

(1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65-85.

69.

Pettigrew

T. F.

(2008). Future directions for intergroup contact theory and research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 187-199.

70.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Tropp

L. R.

(2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751-783.

71.

Phan

M. B.

(2008). We’re all in this together: Context, contacts, and social trust in Canada. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 8(1), 23-51.

72.

Portes

(1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 1-24.

73.

Portes

Landolt

(1996). The downside of social capital. American Prospect, 26, 18-24.

74.

Putnam

R. D.

(1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

75.

Putnam

R. D.

(2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American Community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.

76.

Putnam

R. D.

(2007). E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century The 2006 Johan Skytte prize lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30, 137-175.

77.

Quillian

Campbell

M. E.

(2003). Beyond Black and White: The present and future of multiracial friendship segregation. American Sociological Review, 68, 540-566.

78.

Reardon

S. F.

Firebaugh

(2002). Measures of multigroup segregation. Sociological Methodology, 32, 33-67.

79.

Reich

R. B.

(1992). The work of nations: Preparing ourselves for 21st century capitalism. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

80.

Rothwell

J. T.

(2011). The effects of racial segregation on trust and volunteering in US cities. Urban Studies, 49, 2109-2136.

81.

Rudolph

T. J.

Popp

(2010). Race, environment, and interracial trust. The Journal of Politics, 72, 74-89.

82.

Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action , Integration & Immigration Rights, 572 U.S.__(2014).

83.

Siegel-Hawley

Frankenberg

(2011, October). Magnet school student outcomes: What the research says (Research Brief No. 6). Retrieved from http://www.school-diversity.org/pdf/DiversityResearchBriefNo6.pdf

84.

Sigelman

Bledsoe

Welch

Combs

M. W.

(1996). Making contact? Black-White social interaction in an urban setting. American Journal of Sociology, 101, 1306-1332.

85.

Slavin

R. E.

Cooper

(1999). Improving intergroup relations: Lessons learned from cooperative learning programs. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 647-663.

86.

Slavin

R. E.

Hurley

E. A.

Chamberlain

(2003). Cooperative learning and achievement: Theory and research. In Reynolds

W. M.

Miller

G. E.

Weiner

I. B.

(Eds.), Handbook of psychology (pp. 177-198). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

87.

Stearns

(2010). Long-term correlates of high school racial composition: Perpetuation theory reexamined. Teachers College Record, 112, 1654-1678.

88.

Stolle

Soroka

Johnston

(2008). When does diversity erode trust? Neighborhood diversity, interpersonal trust and the mediating effect of social interactions. Political Studies, 56, 57-75.

89.

Taylor

M. C.

(1998). How White attitudes vary with the racial composition of local populations: Numbers count. American Sociological Review, 63, 512-535.

90.

Thomas

R. R.

Jr. (1990). From affirmative action to affirming diversity. Harvard Business Review, 68, 107-117.

91.

Uslaner

E. M.

(2010). Segregation, mistrust and minorities. Ethnicities, 10, 415-434.

92.

Uslaner

E. M.

(2011). Trust, diversity, and segregation in the United States and the United Kingdom. Comparative Sociology, 10, 221-247.

93.

Wells

A. S.

Crain

R. L.

(1994). Perpetuation theory and the long-term effects of school desegregation. Review of Educational Research, 64, 531-555.

94.

Wood

P. B.

Sonleitner

(1996). The effect of childhood interracial contact on adult antiblack prejudice. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20(1), 1-17.