Princeton Report: Race Still Part of an Optimal Solution

Racism 101 All Over Again

By Greg

Moses

The spectre of race in Texas higher education was raised inside and outside the

state as soon as the King holiday weekend was over. A campus task force at the University of Texas at

Austin found new reasons to take race seriously. And a long-term study from Princeton dismissed highly

racialized suspicions that have swirled around the Texas “ten percent plan.”

As

quoted by the Houston Chronicle’s Todd Ackerman, the task force at the Austin campus, found that,

“people from various racial and ethnic backgrounds don’t understand each other.”

Therefore, according to the chair of the committee, “Rather than just providing

stopgap measures when issues arise, we hope to integrate racial respect and fairness throughout the UT

community.”

[http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2363406]

The bureaucratic neutrality of the findings, of course, fail to convey the fact that

one must understand white folk as a survival skill in American today (can you say Iowa caucus?), so if

different people are having trouble understanding each other, the problem is more likely to belong on

the side of white folks who still think they have so little to learn about people of color.

The Houston Chronicle report also neglects the stormy history of past attempts to

inaugurate “multiculturalism across the board” at the Austin campus. The English Department, once

upon a time, tried to require a textbook for freshman writing that included critical theory in race and

gender.

Hunter Thompson invented the term shithammer for the kind of politics that

came down during the “Texas Comp. Controversy” of 1990. It is shamefully amusing today to re-read

the complaints of stolid scholars complaining fourteen years ago about that, “highly politicized

faction of radical literary theorists” who dared to make race everybody’s business.

[http://lists.village.virginia.edu/lists_archive/Humanist/v04/0372.html]

And yet, some of the consequences of ongoing white ignorance about race could be read

between the lines of this week’s Princeton report, which found that careful scientific analysis did

not support popular prejudices, fed by media reports, that the state’s admissions laws were driving

better qualified, white students, out of state.

The prejudicial suspicions were never

quite uttered publicly as racist, but the demographics leave little question about the racialized

nature of the allegations.

The “popular complaint” goes like this: since the

state’s best universities have to admit the top ten percent of high school graduates under the “top

ten plan”, students from the worst high schools are taking places that ought to go to more students

from “better” high schools.

As the complaint continues, many students from the high

quality high schools, or so-called “feeder schools,” are therefore having to leave the state,

contributing to a Texas brain drain.

The racialized nature of the complaint may be found

in the history of the top ten plan, which was explicitly devised to substitute for affirmative action

during the Hopwood period in Texas history. In fact, to illustrate just how racialized the “ten

percent plan” was, professors Lani Guinier and Gerald Torres argued at the time that the ten percent

plan illustrated a brand new theory of race.

As the Princeton report points out, if

the ten percent plan works as a sort of semi-substitute for affirmative action, it is because Texas

high schools are still segregated.

In the words of Princeton authors Marta Tienda

and Sunny Niu:

“The Texas school segregation patterns that enabled H.B.588 [the ten

percent law] to restore some diversity at college campuses after 1996 imply disproportionate

representation of blacks and Hispanics at high schools where large shares of students are economically

disadvantaged. In fact, over 30 percent of black seniors and nearly half of Hispanic seniors graduated

from a high school designated as poor, but only 2.5 and 3.9 percent, respectively, attended one of the

“feeder” high schools. By contrast nearly 13 percent of non-Hispanic white students graduated from

feeder high schools, as did 18 percent of Asian-origin students.”

[http://www.texastop10.princeton.edu/publications/tienda011504.pdf]

Between schools that

are “feeders” and schools that are “starved” is a demographic of class and race, where vestiges of

separate and unequal remain.

But as Dallas Morning News reporter Kent Fischer tells us

in his Tuesday report, the results of the ten percent plan have not yielded much in the way of

diversity as far as Texas A&M University is concerned.

Fischer introduced Texas A&M near

the end of his story about the Princeton report, only to forget it precipitously as we shall soon see.

By interviewing thousands of students, the Princeton report is able to show us that

more Texas youth would prefer to leave the state. It’s not the ten percent plan that’s “forcing”

students out, rather it’s the rest of the country that’s attracting students away from the Lone Star

State. If truth be told, more students would have gone out of state for higher education had they been

more successful in meeting their goals.

As for the suspicion that the “poor” high

schools were producing poorly qualified candidates, the Princeton report notes that many of these

students landed some of the most competitive out-of-state offers.

And considering the

number of “feeder” school students who eventually won admission to college, the Princeton report

tells us that they do better than most students in the nation in terms of landing the schools they

want.

Not surprisingly, the Princeton report suggests that black students from Texas

tend to be more likely to set their sights out of state in the first place, and secondly are less

likely to want to go to Texas A&M at all. These are problems well known in College Station, even if

the Aggie solutions look more often like bad jokes.

Tienda and Niu raise questions about

the purpose of public higher education, which still has a sort of populist legacy in Texas. The

question of allocating seats is a serious public question, and they contribute to a tone of seriousness

about it.

And so the Princeton researchers conclude that, “a modified percent plan

combined with a narrowly tailored consideration of race would yield the optimal solution for

Texas.”

“That, in fact, has happened,” reports the Dallas Morning News. Say that

again? What has in fact happened. The Morning News, which had reminded us a few paragraphs back about

the predicament of Texas A&M admissions, now completely moves on.

[http://www.dallasnews.com/latestnews/stories/012004dntextop10percent.5e2c9.html]

Ignoring its own recently published reports about Texas A&M’s decision last month to

abolish its narrowly tailored considerations of race, the Morning News closes only with the example of

the University of Texas at Austin, which will employ a constitutionally refurbished affirmative action

plan. And never mind that the Austin campus still needs a fifteen member committee of presumably non-

radical literary theorists to soberly recommend systematic racial understanding.

In

their consideration of the Texas ten percent plan, Lani Guinier and Gerald Torres argued that a new

theory of race was in the making, one that superseded old paradigms of affirmative action. Yet, the

Princeton report and the outcry during the last month from Texas civil rights community indicates that

old lessons may still have legs. Affirmative action by any other name, is, after everything has
been

carefully considered, “the optimal solution.”

In light of these fresh reports, The

Texas Civil Rights Review is especially ea
ger to share with you the documentary evidence that Texas A&M

used to adopt its anti-affirmative action policy… as soon as the Texas Open Records Law is obeyed.

Please stay tuned.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s