A controversial study submitted last November to the Stanford Law Review claims affirmative action has detrimental effects on black students.

The findings of University of California-Los Angeles law professor Richard Sander indicate that students chosen through affirmative action are more likely to receive worse grades, drop out or fail the bar exam.

According to Sander’s study, black students are at a disadvantage when they attend schools that use preferences to admit them and are 135 percent more likely to not pass the bar exam. The study also shows close to half of black law students are in the bottom tenth of their classes.

However, Sander’s findings have come under extreme scrutiny, and many have argued his findings are not founded. Next month’s Stanford Law Review will feature four authors from around the country who argue against Sander’s claims from a variety of viewpoints. One of those will include the response of Stanford law professor Michele Landis Dauber.

Dauber said in a phone interview Sander’s argument has been present for a long time.

“What’s new here is that Sander claims now to have some empirical evidence about the world that supports this view,” Dauber said. “I don’t actually think that it will … mature in the next ‘battleground’ [for affirmative action].”

Dauber said he doubted much would come from Sander’s analysis since many social scientists did not have the benefit of viewing it before it came out.

“It’s so badly done — it’s junk science,” Dauber said. “The consensus among [what] scientists [say] is this is very, very badly done, and as far as I know, I have certainly not met or talked to anyone who thinks this is right.”

Dauber added Sander’s information was incorrect due to data he used that bases conclusions on an unacceptably small sampling of black attorneys.

However, many have argued Sander’s claims are not so farfetched.

University of Wisconsin professor emeritus of economics Lee Hansen said some students who are admitted to highly competitive universities through affirmative action are put at a disadvantage academically. Hansen cited a study by Stanford psychology professor Claude Steele, whose “stereotype threat” claims certain groups like blacks are under extra pressure caused by the reinforcement of negative stereotypes and thus results in lower test scores.

“[Minority] students have told me that they tend to assume that many minority students were admitted because of the fact they were minorities,” Hansen said. “So they prejudge them in a way that’s not conducive to anybody’s well-being.”

Others argue the thought of affirmative action hurting students was not all that surprising.

UW professor emeritus of law Gordon Baldwin said the most selective and elite schools do a disservice if they admit marginal students.

“Those students might have self-esteem and just as good job prospects if they didn’t face quite the same competition [at another school],” Baldwin said.

Baldwin said he feared the larger threat was not to the diversity debated on campuses, but rather intellectual diversity.

“I think diversity means a hell of a lot more than skin color,” Baldwin said. “You want a wide range of experience. You want a wide range of intellectual curiosity.”