This course will consider two principles that have shaped American higher education, and, in turn, American society: meritocracy and diversity. The ideal of diversity has shaped higher education at least since the Supreme Court's 1978 decision in Bakke v. University of California Regents. More recently, the Supreme Court has prohibited the use of race-based affirmative action in pursuit of diversity. And the Trump Administration has advocated for ideological diversity, while condemning the idea of racial diversity and approaches such as disparate impact and DEI, with which it is associated. The ideal of meritocracy is also embattled. As a pivotal feature of the development of modern society, meritocracy has also suffused academic institutions, providing a basis for the evaluation of student work, of research, and of applicants. In recent years, the idea of meritocracy has itself become subject to criticism. Some commentators allege that universities have failed to live up to meritocratic ideals, either in the admissions process or in the campus culture. Other commentators cite the fulfillment of the meritocratic ideal as the problem. As with diversity, meritocracy is subject to multiple meanings, which we will probe. The central inquiry of the course concerns the extent to which the ideals of diversity and meritocracy are intertwined with current controversies in higher education, from admissions criteria, to cost, student debt, and social mobility, to research, institutional orthodoxy, academic freedom, and free speech. Course Materials: The course materials will be varied and will include not only judicial opinions and law review articles, but also books, magazine articles, social science research, and podcasts. We will also read my book manuscript, The Miseducation of America, which addresses many of the issues we will discuss. Course Culture: This course will be conducted as a seminar, in which your active participation is essential. My hope is that we can ask hard questions and develop a dialogue that is simultaneously critical and constructive. My vision of success: that by the end of the term, we emerge changed people, transformed by our interactions with the ideas and each other. To have any hope of reaching this goal, we must each be open to a wide array of arguments and views. I want this course to be pervaded by a spirit of inquiry, humility, curiosity, and a willingness to learn from each other. To promote this culture of inquiry, I ask that you please observe Chatham House rules; you may share with others the substance of our discussions, but you may not identify any of the student speakers. Elements of Grading: There will be three elements of grading, weighted as indicated. 1: Two 2-3 page reflection papers responding either to the reading or to a prior discussion. (LAW 25%) Your aspiration should be to stake out a position that you believe to be true, but with which you expect most of your classmates would disagree. Alternatively, you could identify a question or line of inquiry that you believe is important, yet which most of your classmates would dismiss. (LAW 25% of grade.) 2: Class attendance and participation. (LAW 25%) During class, we want to identify interesting or controversial aspects of the readings, to highlight perspectives or interpretations that were not reflected in the readings, and to consider the implications of the issues raised. I am especially keen to hear about what you found particularly interesting, confusing, contradictory, irritating, or inspiring. (LAW 25% of grade.) 3: A final paper. (LAW 50%) There are two options for the paper: the short paper or the research paper. The short paper can be 4000-5000 words (roughly LAW 12-LAW 15 pages) and can be completed with minimal, if any, research beyond the course materials and discussion. The short paper may incorporate and extend the discussion in your reflection papers. The paper can be completed on your own, or you can work with a partner (or two); sharing ideas or thinking through an issue together is fine. (Of course, if you submit the same paper, you will receive the same grade on the paper.) Alternatively, you may choose to write a longer, more research intensive paper for R credit. If you choose the R paper option, we will workshop an outline or rough draft of your paper during one of the final class sessions. Those students writing R papers may wish to consult the book, Academic Legal Writing: Law Review Articles, Students Notes and Seminar Papers, by Eugene Volokh. After the term begins, students enrolled in the course can transfer from section (LAW 01) into section (LAW 02), which meets the R requirement, with consent of the instructor. Students taking the course for R credit can take the course for either 2 or 3 units of credit, depending on the paper length. CONSENT APPLICATION: To apply for this course, students must complete a Consent Application Form available at SLS Registrar https://registrar.law.stanford.edu/. Cross-listed with Education (EDUC 309W).
2-3 units · Law Honors/Pass/Restrd Cr/Fail
This course will consider two principles that have shaped American higher education, and, in turn, American society: meritocracy and diversity. The ideal of diversity has shaped higher education at least since the Supreme Court's 1978 decision in Bakke v. University of California Regents. More recently, the Supreme Court has prohibited the use of race-based affirmative action in pursuit of diversity. And the Trump Administration has advocated for ideological diversity, while condemning the idea of racial diversity and approaches such as disparate impact and DEI, with which it is associated. The ideal of meritocracy is also embattled. As a pivotal feature of the development of modern society, meritocracy has also suffused academic institutions, providing a basis for the evaluation of student work, of research, and of applicants. In recent years, the idea of meritocracy has itself become subject to criticism. Some commentators allege that universities have failed to live up to meritocratic ideals, either in the admissions process or in the campus culture. Other commentators cite the fulfillment of the meritocratic ideal as the problem. As with diversity, meritocracy is subject to multiple meanings, which we will probe. The central inquiry of the course concerns the extent to which the ideals of diversity and meritocracy are intertwined with current controversies in higher education, from admissions criteria, to cost, student debt, and social mobility, to research, institutional orthodoxy, academic freedom, and free speech. Course Materials: The course materials will be varied and will include not only judicial opinions and law review articles, but also books, magazine articles, social science research, and podcasts. We will also read my book manuscript, The Miseducation of America, which addresses many of the issues we will discuss. Course Culture: This course will be conducted as a seminar, in which your active participation is essential. My hope is that we can ask hard questions and develop a dialogue that is simultaneously critical and constructive. My vision of success: that by the end of the term, we emerge changed people, transformed by our interactions with the ideas and each other. To have any hope of reaching this goal, we must each be open to a wide array of arguments and views. I want this course to be pervaded by a spirit of inquiry, humility, curiosity, and a willingness to learn from each other. To promote this culture of inquiry, I ask that you please observe Chatham House rules; you may share with others the substance of our discussions, but you may not identify any of the student speakers. Elements of Grading: There will be three elements of grading, weighted as indicated. 1: Two 2-3 page reflection papers responding either to the reading or to a prior discussion. (25%) Your aspiration should be to stake out a position that you believe to be true, but with which you expect most of your classmates would disagree. Alternatively, you could identify a question or line of inquiry that you believe is important, yet which most of your classmates would dismiss. (25% of grade.) 2: Class attendance and participation. (25%) During class, we want to identify interesting or controversial aspects of the readings, to highlight perspectives or interpretations that were not reflected in the readings, and to consider the implications of the issues raised. I am especially keen to hear about what you found particularly interesting, confusing, contradictory, irritating, or inspiring. (25% of grade.) 3: A final paper. (50%) There are two options for the paper: the short paper or the research paper. The short paper can be 4000-5000 words (roughly 12-15 pages) and can be completed with minimal, if any, research beyond the course materials and discussion. The short paper may incorporate and extend the discussion in your reflection papers. The paper can be completed on your own, or you can work with a partner (or two); sharing ideas or thinking through an issue together is fine. (Of course, if you submit the same paper, you will receive the same grade on the paper.) Alternatively, you may choose to write a longer, more research intensive paper for R credit. If you choose the R paper option, we will workshop an outline or rough draft of your paper during one of the final class sessions. Those students writing R papers may wish to consult the book, Academic Legal Writing: Law Review Articles, Students Notes and Seminar Papers, by Eugene Volokh. After the term begins, students enrolled in the course can transfer from section (01) into section (02), which meets the R requirement, with consent of the instructor. Students taking the course for R credit can take the course for either 2 or 3 units of credit, depending on the paper length. CONSENT APPLICATION: To apply for this course, students must complete a Consent Application Form available at SLS Registrar https://registrar.law.stanford.edu/. Cross-listed with Education (EDUC 309W).
Offered in Autumn 2025 at Stanford University.