Author: mopress

  • Legacy Admissions Questioned at Texas A&M

    Jan. 3, 2004, 7:42PM
    Legislators slam A&M over legacy admissions
    Role of

    family ties in acceptance called `institutional racism’
    By TODD ACKERMAN
    Copyright 2004

    Houston Chronicle

    Blood ties to alumni, sometimes known as the other affirmative action,

    are the deciding factor in the admission of more than 300 white Texas A&M University freshmen annually,

    according to data provided by the school. Such students — known as “legacy admits” — equal

    roughly the overall total of blacks admitted to A&M each year. Only a handful of black students a year

    are admitted because of legacy points.

    “That’s a lot of kids being advantaged because

    A&M is where mommy and daddy went,” said state Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston. “Clearly, if you want

    to go to A&M, it pays to be a legacy applicant rather than black. I wonder why no one’s sued it on

    those grounds.”

    Legacy preference programs are receiving new attention as the nation’s

    universities reassess admissions policies in the aftermath of last spring’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling

    that race may be an admissions factor on a case-by-case basis. U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.,

    recently filed a bill to require colleges to disclose the race and economic status of first-year

    students related to alumni, and Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has called for an end to

    college legacy programs.

    A&M’s program is drawing particular fire because university

    President Robert Gates recently announced the university, now free from a court ruling prohibiting

    racial preferences, won’t consider race in admissions. Coleman and other black legislators cited a

    seeming contradiction between Gates’ rhetoric that students be admitted strictly because of merit and

    a program they say perpetuates class distinction and white advantage.

    Gates, president

    for 1 1/2 years, said he doesn’t have a gut-level feeling about legacies, much less a thought-out one,

    because he inherited the program and knows little about it. He said a task force will study its

    future.

    The task force won’t operate in a vacuum. State Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth,

    said he plans to file legislation to end A&M’s program, as early as this spring if a special session

    is called. Burnam filed such bills twice before, but both died in committee.

    Burnam said

    that because the data show so few minorities benefit from legacy preferences, he believes the school

    orchestrated protests of his bill by minorities during legislative hearings on one of his bills in

    2001.

    “I have never been as angry at state employees as I was at A&M’s during those

    hearings,” Burnam said. “Even then, I knew in my gut they were using minority kids to continue a

    program that reflects the past, meaning the institutional racism of the 20th century, rather than the

    future, which will be majority African American and Hispanic.”

    Typically, anywhere from

    1,650 to more than 2,000 A&M applicants a year receive legacy points, so called because they reward the

    grandchildren, children or siblings of A&M graduates. Such applicants receive 4 points on a 100-point

    scale that also takes into account such factors as class rank, test scores, extracurricular activities,

    community service and others.

    Most A&M applicants admitted with legacy points don’t

    need them to get in. But in 2003, 312 whites were admitted who wouldn’t have been without their alumni

    ties. In 2002, that figure was 321.

    The legacy program was the difference for six blacks

    and 27 Hispanics in 2003, and three blacks and 25 Hispanics in 2002.

    A&M officials noted

    that minority legacies are usually admitted at roughly the same rates as white legacies. They also

    stressed that having legacy points is no guarantee of being admitted.

    “I wish I had the

    numbers for how many applicants with legacy points don’t get in,” said Frank Ashley, A&M’s acting

    assistant provost for enrollment. “There are roughly as many of them. I know because I hear from

    alumni parents when their kid’s application is rejected.”

    Although A&M announced in

    early December it won’t consider race in admissions, Gates is pledging a greater commitment to

    recruiting minorities. Having already created a high-ranking position in the school’s administration

    to oversee diversity efforts, Gates says he will create scholarships for students who come from lower-

    income families and beef up outreach efforts to large urban areas.

    Legacy programs date

    to the 19th century, but they became more widespread in the early 20th century as universities became

    more selective. Ostensibly instituted to reward alumni support, they had the effect of limiting

    enrollment of Jews and other minorities.

    Today, nearly all selective private

    universities and some public universities give an edge to legacies, largely to boost alumni giving.

    Rice is among Texas’ private universities that take into account alumni ties — it has no point system

    — but A&M is the state’s only public school with such a program.

    The largest legacy

    population nationally is at Notre Dame, where sons and daughters of alumni comprise 23 percent of the

    student population. They’re more than 10 percent at most elite private schools, including Harvard,

    Yale and Princeton.

    At most top schools, legacy students are accepted at two or three

    times the rate of other applicants. Massachusetts’ Amherst College, for example, accepts nearly half

    of alumni children who apply, compared with 17 percent of all applicants.

    Because they

    aren’t racially discriminatory on their face, legacy preferences are considered less vulnerable to

    legal challenge than affirmative action. Politically, though, their fates seem inextricably

    linked.

    The University of Georgia, for instance, scrapped its legacy program after a

    circuit court struck down its affirmative action program. Critics cite studies that suggest alumni

    offspring score lower on admission tests. And legacy students sometimes describe an “uneasiness”

    about how they’re perceived similar to that described by minorities.

    But “unlike race,

    which is predominantly a proxy for disadvantage, legacy admissions are an attribute of advantage,”

    University of Houston law professor Michael Olivas wrote in an article in the latest edition of the

    educational journal CASE Currents. “They typically come from well-educated families and therefore are

    privy to many economic, educational and other psychosocial benefits.”

    Ashley counters

    that A&M’s admission categories include one that gives points for an applicant’s parents’ lack of

    education — up to 6 points if neither parent finished high school. That balances it out, he

    said.

    Although they also say legacy programs build a sense of community, most schools

    are candid about acknowledging that long-term financial support is the primary reason for preferences.

    Ashley said alumni parents of rejected applicants tell A&M they’re going to stop donating money or not

    follow through on plans to give, though he has no idea how often they make good on such

    threats.

    State Rep. Fred Brown, R-College Station, defends A&M’s program but said he

    would like it better if it were amended to give legacy points to students whose parents went to Prairie

    View A&M, A&M-Kingsville and other schools in the A&M system. He said he will file a bill to effect

    that change at the Legislature’s next regular session.

    But if Burnam, Coleman and

    others have their way, A&M might not have a legacy program by then. Passage of Burnam’s bill would

    make Texas the first state to ban legacy preferences, though some black legislators say they’re more

    interested in getting A&M to consider race than to discontinue legac
    y preferences.

    Until

    any change is made, national experts advise A&M to be proactive.

    “Universities with a

    history of statistically small minority populations should tread carefu
    lly if they’re going to

    maintain legacy programs,” said Dan Oren, a Yale professor of psychiatry and the author of Joining the

    Club: A History of Jews and Yale. “They better have other minority outreach programs to make up for

    that.”

  • San Antonio: Castro, Villareal, Menendez, & LULAC

    A&M ‘legacy’ policy seen related to lack of minorities

    By Matt Flores
    San Antonio Express-News
    Web Posted : 01/08/2004 12:00 AM

    Citing Texas A&M University’s poor record of attracting minority students, legislators Wednesday

    called on the institution to abandon its practice of giving a boost in the admissions process to

    children, grandchildren and siblings of alumni. “You can’t close the door on affirmative action and

    make birthright an entitlement to admission,” state Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-San Antonio, said in a news

    conference.

    He was joined by state Reps. Mike Villarreal and Jose Menéndez, also San

    Antonio Democrats, and members of the League of United Latin American Citizens.

    Simultaneous news conferences were held in Austin and Houston to denounce Texas A&M’s so-called

    “legacy” policy, which has come under growing criticism since the university announced last month it

    wouldn’t use race as a factor in its admissions policy.

    Wednesday’s move was the

    latest among several lawmakers who are pressuring Texas A&M to scrap the legacy policy. State Rep. Lon

    Burnam, D-Fort Worth, already has said he intends to file legislation aimed at ending A&M’s legacy

    program.

    The lawmakers and civil rights activists called on the university to

    reconsider its legacy policy, saying it effectively gives preferences to Anglo students at a time when

    the school is struggling to diversify.

    Last year, Anglos accounted for 82 percent of

    A&M’s student population while Hispanics made up 9 percent. African Americans accounted for 2 percent

    and Asian Americans accounted for 3 percent.

    By comparison, Anglos accounted for 60

    percent of the student body at the University of Texas at Austin — the state’s other public flagship

    institution — while Hispanics made up 14 percent and African Americans accounted for 3 percent. Asian

    Americans made up 17 percent.

    “The legacy program at A&M counters the worthy goal of

    closing the gaps in Texas institutions,” said Villarreal, a 1992 A&M graduate.

    He was

    referring to the state’s “Closing the Gaps” initiative to bring about greater parity in college

    attendance and graduation rates.

    The U.S. Supreme Court last summer cleared the way for

    Texas institutions to resume affirmative action practices, and some in the state, including UT-Austin

    and Rice University, have since announced plans to revamp their admissions policies to include race

    factors.

    Texas A&M is the only public university in the state that gives preferences to

    applicants who are the grandchildren, children or siblings of A&M graduates.

    Although

    in some years A&M gives a boost to as many as 2,000 legacy applicants, university data showed the

    consideration was the difference in admitting 345 new freshmen in 2003.

    Of those

    admitted because of the legacy consideration, 312 were Anglo, 27 were Hispanic and six were African

    American. Only about 300 African Americans were admitted to the university as a whole in

    2003.

    “More students were admitted because Mom or Dad went to A&M than the total

    number of African Americans admitted,” said Gary Bledsoe, state president of the National Association

    for the Advancement of Colored People, who spoke at the news conference in Austin.

    “The Texas A&M legacy program is inherently discriminatory toward minorities — and based on

    nothing even resembling merit,” Bledsoe added.

    Texas A&M officials didn’t respond to

    interview requests, but in defending A&M’s position, school officials have said that legacy

    considerations don’t guarantee admission and have noted that minority legacies are admitted at about

    the same rate as Anglo legacies.

    Late Wednesday, A&M President Robert Gates issued this

    statement:

    “As I indicated several weeks ago when I met with concerned legislators,

    the admissions process has been under review and will continue to be evaluated to ensure that it

    achieves one of the university’s primary objectives — that of having a student body that is more

    representative of the state of Texas.”

    And the university’s true problem in

    diversifying its student body, officials say, lies with persuading prospective students to enroll, not

    in admitting them. Fewer than half of Hispanic and African American students who are admitted to A&M

    each year actually enroll.

    Instead of concentrating on an affirmative action admissions

    policy, Gates has embarked on efforts to award more scholarships to needy, first-generation college

    students and to intensify outreach efforts in urban areas. Last summer, the school opened a center in

    HemisFair Plaza to facilitate applications for admissions, housing and financial aid.

    But Villarreal said he would give the university an “F” thus far in addressing minority

    enrollment.

    “They may be great efforts, but they are going to be judged on how their

    minority numbers improve,” he said. “What really matters is who attends and who eventually walks

    across the stage.”

  • Ellis, Barrientos, Dukes, Bledsoe, Harrington, & Others Call for Fairness at

    Jan. 7, 2004
    Press Release
    From the

    Office of State Senator Rodney Ellis
    State Officials, Civil Rights Advocates
    Call on

    Texas A&M to Correct Admissions Policies

    Austin, TX// Senators Rodney Ellis and Gonzalo

    Barrientos were joined by State Representative Dawnna Dukes the NAACP, LULAC, MALDEF, and the Texas

    Civil Rights project for a press conference on Wednesday focusing attention on the admissions situation

    at Texas A&M University. The Houston Chronicle recently reported that Texas A&M, while refusing to

    take race into consideration as an admission criterion, has the most active legacy admission program in

    Texas.

    “To continue the Legacy Program at A&M while removing race as a consideration

    for admission, in my mind, further erodes the image of this fine institution at a time that it needs to

    do more to attract minority students,” said Senator Gonzalo Barrientos.

    Similar press

    conferences with elected officials and civil rights advocates took place simultaneously in Houston and

    San Antonio as well. Participants in the press conferences highlighted the discrepancy in minority vs

    Anglo enrollment at Texas A&M as well as the gap in minority vs legacy

    enrollment.

    “More students were admitted because mom or dad went to A&M, than the total

    number of African Americans admitted,” said NAACP President Gary Bledsoe. “The Texas A&M legacy

    program is inherently discriminatory towards minorities, and based on nothing even resembling

    merit.”

    Texas A&M admitted 358 students last year through the legacy program. Of those,

    only six were African American and 27 Hispanic.

    Legacy admissions programs don’t just

    hurt minorities seeking an education,” explained Senator Ellis, “this program is even bad for white

    kids whose parents aren’t Aggies.”

    All three press conferences in Texas focused on a

    single theme: Texas A&M must change its admissions policies if it truly wishes to correct its minority

    gap.

    “As an alumnus of Texas A&M, I am truly disappointed that the University has

    chosen to create an admissions policy that is contradictory to their stated goal of seeking to improve

    minority admissions,” said Representative Dawnna Dukes. “Establishing scholarships for first

    generation disadvantaged minority students, while giving preference to second and third generation

    advantaged students is contradictory to an even-handed policy. An aggressive attempt to recruit

    historically disadvantaged applicants is not achieved by giving historically advantaged applicants a

    leg up. Such an admission policy cannot possibly increase minority student

    enrollment.”

  • Chertoff Rebuffs Congress, Too, Says Border Businesswoman

    McAllen business leader Monica Weisberg-Stewart said it’s no surprise that Americans are confused as to what documents they will need to re-enter the United States from land ports come Jan. 31.

    “That’s because the Department of Homeland Security has decided to ignore instructions from Congress to postpone the Western Hemisphere Initiative to June 2009,” said Weisberg-Stewart. “WHTI would have required Americans to use a passport to re-enter the U.S. at land ports. Homeland Security opposes the delay and has decided if they can’t require passports, they’ll require birth certificates instead.”

    Full Story: Rio Grande Guardian

  • Johnson-Castro: Dispatch on Border Wall Resistance

    DEL RIO, TX (Januar 7, 2007) Afternoon Border Ambassadors, Freedom Ambassadors, friends and allies…

    Attached are three documents.

    12/7/7 Transcript of Chertoff addressing his threatening letter to property owners on the Texas-Mexico border [chertoff.pdf]

    12/7/7 Chertoff threat of eminent domain to Eloisa Tamez [eloisa1.pdf]

    1/7/8 Legal notice to Chertoff from Attorney Peter Schey [schey.pdf]

    Everyone knows that the US Government has long formed and supported puppet governments all over the world. Unfortunately, in the process, the US has often propped up cruel dictators that wielded unrestrained tyrannical power over their own people…from China to the Middle East, from the South Pacific to all over the Americas. It seems to go with the territory of being a world power…and now a global power. It doesn’t seem to bother every day Americans very much…just as long as the local economy is comfortable and we have plenty of malls, box stores and buffets. So, what does that say about the moral values of our government, let alone “we the people”?

    Since the beginning of this decade, the 21st century, this millennium…the worm has turned. We have seen our own government turn on its own people like a cannibalistic rabid dog chewing on its own leg. What is happening is incomprehensible…but we shouldn’t be shocked. We have been heading in that “what you sow you reap” direction for a long time now. What more proof do we need than to look at the Department of Homeland Security.

    The current Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security is unquestionably one more puppet government…but this time with domestic dictatorial powers. Dictatorial powers over “we the people” of the United States. As an acid test, let’s just ask ourselves…”How many Americans presume that their phone is tapped and that their e-mail intercepted?”

    Just thirty days ago today, on December 7, 2007, Michael Chertoff sent out a threatening letter to American citizens who reside on the Texas border with Mexico, as well as to organizations like the University of Texas-Brownsville, folks who have exercised their rights and have refused to allow federal access to their private lands that the proposed border wall would cut through. If the property owner has not allow access, in his letter, Chertoff promises swift action against them, threatening to not forced entry to their land, but to confiscate it…seize it. A letter to one such recipient, Eloisa Tamez, a Native American, is attached. Today is the the deadline for all such recipients of that threatening letter , as Eloisa, to acquiesce to Chertoff…or else!

    Also attached is the transcript of Chertoff’s December 7, 2007 press conference on that same day in which he address that December 7th threat to border property owners. I have taken the liberty of highlighting many of his select rhetoric. Any Texan, any American…any person who has any sense of liberty…should be appalled at such dictatorial arrogance.

    When one looks at his ridicule of the Texas border residents with his “not in my backyard” accusations, his threatening rhetoric of eminent domain, all the way to the sending in of Blackhawks, one has to agree that we don’t need a dictator to be shaping the future of our country with unilateral and undemocratic, un-American and immoral decisions. In his 12/7/7 press conference, he clearly shows how he is using gradualism to heavily militarize the entire border, doubling the forces and “going to the next level”. He already acknowledges that not only the ACLU is his adversary, but the Chambers of Commerce as well.

    There is a rapidly growing coalition of Americans that is standing up to this dictatorial regime. The third attachment is the letter that is being sent today, January 7, 2008, to Sec. of DHS, Chertoff. It is being submitted by Peter Schey of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, in behalf of Eloisa Tamez, sending a volley back to Chertoff that his dictatorial powers have no legitimate standing in this country.

    In a totally legal, democratic and peaceful way, this growing coalition has been saying “Hell No!. You will not build a wall of apartheid on American soil…let alone here in Texas”. In a historic stand of solidarity, this alliance has been forming that represents a vast number of facets of America…with the exception of the ruling elite, the racist supremacists and the xenophobic. Our alliance crosses all barriers. We have the environmentalists, the faith based groups, the economists, the elected officials…from mayoral to Congressional, the law enforcement, the indigenous, the academic, the youth, veterans and every day grass roots Texans and Americans. Even the media. As Americans, we are standing tall against this domestic puppet dictatorship.

    If you or your organization would like join in this growing coalition to oppose the construction of a Berlin-like wall and the militarization of our borderlands, please let us know.

    Please feel free to post, share and circulate this information.

    In solidarity…

    Jay J. Johnson-Castro, Sr.

    jay@villadelrio.com