Policy or Migration?

Since 1974, George Mason implemented a variety of policies to increase the number of Black students at their university. That growth was certainly achieved through the 70s and 80s, starting at 106 Black students in 1974 (Statistical Information, February 1974)and becoming 967 in 1989 (Factbook, 1988-1989). However, diversification in this era was not limited strictly to the university; in the same timeframe, Fairfax County’s Black resident population grew from 26,256 to 62,433 (USAFacts). As the source of a large portion of George Mason’s students, is it certain that the university’s Black student growth was not just a reflection of greater demographic changes in the area? Did George Mason’s desegregation policies have any real impact on the Black student population’s dramatic growth?

The narrowing of the gap between the Black percentage of students at Mason and the Black percentage of residents in Fairfax County indicates independent growth. If the growth of Mason’s Black student population was directly correlated to that of Fairfax County, the difference between these statistics would be the same number year after year, as the populations would be increasing at the same rate.  Instead, the difference dropped from 3.38 in 1974 to 2.64 in 1989. The narrowing of the gap between George Mason and Fairfax County supports the idea that the former’s growth was not simply a direct reflection of the latter’s.

Furthermore, the rate at which the percentage of George Mason’s students who were Black increased over the years compared to that of the Black percentage of Fairfax County residents indicates mostly independent growth. While Fairfax County experienced relatively stable growth, Mason’s Black percentage rose and fell erratically, with sporadic leaps in the data, the biggest of which approaching 40%. One could argue that since the two biggest leaps in the Black student population at Mason occurred in 1977 and 1983—both directly following leaps in the coordinating Fairfax County data—there is correlation between Mason’s growth and Fairfax County’s. However, the leaps in Mason’s data is disproportionate to the latters.  Also,the stark contrast between Mason’s dramatic growth and Fairfax County’s steadfastness further supports the idea that while demographic changes around the university may have had an effect on its diversification, there were other factors at play which lead to the differences in the data.