This research project is an ethnographic study of political, legal, and administrative activities related to recent U.S. Supreme Court cases about affirmative action at the University of Michigan (UM) (Grutter v. Bollinger et al and Gratz et al v. Bollinger et al). With these Court cases, the concept of "diversity" has received intense public scrutiny. The existing scholarly literature on the diversity concept relies on macro-level, quantitative, legal, or text analyses, overlooking people's interpretations of diversity in their everyday practices. The project helps to fill in this gap by using a cultural analysis of the legal and non-legal meanings of diversity at UM. It examines a pair of socio-legal paradoxes concerning the discursive meanings and practical uses of diversity, asking (1) how do UM administrators, activists, the media, legal professionals, and political leaders involved in the lawsuits talk about the different, potentially contradictory legal and popular meanings of diversity, and (2) how do these groups mobilize these discourses to advance their shared or competing interests. More generally, it addresses how ideas related to law acquire constituencies and shape efforts to redress social inequalities. The project has 2 phases of fieldwork. The first phase focused on the political mobilization and legal activities around the Court cases. Research for the second phase (in progress) studies the impact of the Court's decision on the undergraduate admissions office and the broader organization of UM diversity programs, as well as the content of these programs, through observation of activities in the admissions office and events hosted by major campus diversity programs, conducting interviews, and collecting archival data.
