Category: Higher Education

Feb. 2004

“We Don’t Want to Integrate!”

That was the outcry

made by 4,000 students in 1963 when Texas A&M President, General Earl Rudder, convened a campus forum

to discuss plans to admit women. According to the Brazos Genealogical Society online, “Rudder’s

concluding remarks are drowned out by a chorus of boos.”
Even today at the College Station

campus, if 4,000 people are shouting together about something, it will not be a good day for

diversity.

How do we approach these persistent and discouraging dynamics? During Black

History Month, we are going to try to keep our scholarly wits. There are crucial questions to

answer.

For instance, we have yet to locate a document that supports the Texas A&M

announcement to extend the vestiges of Hopwood. We tried looking in the Regents’ agenda packet, but

there was absolutely no mention of race or affirmative action there.

Where is the

documentary trail that leads to the decision to uphold the vestiges of Hopwood and why was it made? It

is remarkable that the Regents didn’t put a single word in writing.

Professor Marco

Portales reports that A&M President Robert Gates met with “minority” faculty on Dec. 18, two weeks

after the announcement was made. So who did he meet with before?

As we continue to

collect materials and to think about the possibilities of winning a civil rights victory, we cannot

forget that we live in a state rich with civil rights intelligence. James Farmer, Sr., taught at Sam

Huston College in Austin (now Huston-Tillotson) and Wiley College in Marshall. He raised up a son,

alright, who was not a Young Conservative.

And speaking of Wiley College, we marvel at

the golden age of scholars who would today still be considered heroic for their intellectual

courage.

Oliver Cromwell Cox, for instance, who taught at Wiley College, wrote a durable

analysis of Caste, Class, and Race. For him, the anti-integration fervor of young people was not to be

explained by any innate tendencies to wickedness. These attitudes have to be cultivated. And behind

that cultivation, Cox looked for interests served.

So how do we understand the

conditions that cultivate such dreadful images as jungle parties, affirmative action bake sales, and

open protests against the arrival of a Vice President for Diversity?

As we continue to

sift for documentary evidence, we will also continue to read our Black History and reflect on the Texas

struggles that have brought us this far.

And we will not apologize for following quite a

different path of scholarship than what is being pursued by Young Conservatives these days, who are the

intellectual heirs of a staunch tradition to be sure. In the end, will the elite leaders of the state

do what Cox predicted they would do–cultivate neo-fascist youth–or will they stand up to the boos?

Mark your calendars for March 11, when the Univ. of Texas Regents have scheduled a

special meeting during Spring Break whose agenda has yet to be announced.

Greg

Moses
Site Editor

English Professor Marco Portales, who was active in the Faculty Senate

debates, read the following statement to Texas A&M University Presdient Robert Gates on Dec. 18, 2003

during an audience with “minority faculty”. Portales was not aware that the president’s own

taskforce on admissions had recommended affirmative action on Aug. 29, 2003. December 18, 2003

Why Texas A&M Should Accept the Grutter Supreme Court Decision

On June

23, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the use of race in college admissions policies in a Michigan

case precisely to help universities like Texas A&M recruit more minority students. Like the University

of Michigan and other top-ranked campuses, Texas A&M has been struggling for more than 20 years to

attract more qualified minority students. Today minorities comprise nearly 50% of the population of

Texas (33% Latinos, 12.8% African Americans, and 3.5% Asian American) and demographers predict

continued growth. Despite this phenomenal growth among minorities, Texas A&M only has an 8% Latino and

a 3% African American student population.

The Grutter verdict surprised many

people who continue to believe in a color-blind, race neutral society. The legal decision surprised

people because instead of embracing the color-blind Hopwood 5th Circuit Court of Appeals 1996 opinion,

the Supreme Court reasserted the 1978 Bakke decision. Bakke had allowed the use of race in college

admissions in that University of California/Davis case.

For this reason, Texas A&M’s

recent decision not to take advantage of the Grutter allowance is contrary to the Court’s intention.

That intention effectively nullified Hopwood, which legally prevented college admissions officials from

admitting more minority students. What universities have discovered over the years is that when race

cannot be weighed as a plus factor, it is nearly impossible to admit qualified minorities. Select

college admissions policies are designed to admit students with the best K- 12 educations and since

most minorities do not have access to the best schools or long-term financial support and parental

guidance, securing a first-rate K-12 education is extremely difficult for most minority

youngsters.

Hopwood (1996-2003) required color-blind, race neutral college admissions

criteria that Grutter now supersedes. This statement means that public universities such as Texas A&M

are expected to take advantage of Grutter, just as Rice and the University of Texas have done. As the

state’s public land-grant institution, Texas A&M cannot and ought not to be out of step with the legal

parameters that Grutter now affords.

Texas A&M’s new admissions policy, however,

embraces Hopwood’s color-blind criteria because our administration believes that including race in

admissions stigmatizes minority students. But the Faculty Committed to an Inclusive Campus believe that

qualified minority students admitted to Texas A&M would not be stigmatized if the university were to

undertake a campaign to explain to the general public the stringent criteria that each student admitted

has to meet.

Since the criteria that determine whether an applicant is admitted have not

been sufficiently promulgated to dispel “race-based” language and thinking, I call upon the campus

administration:

(1) to embrace race in its admissions policy, as the Supreme Court

provides in Grutter; and,

(2) to spell out admissions criteria so that the general

public can learn just how competitive students must be to enter Texas A&M. No one is admitted only

because of race, as some people may think.

Finally, I respectfully request that race be

included in admissions so that we can facilitate inviting, accepting and enrolling more minority

students at Texas A&M. Otherwise, it will be difficult.

Marco Portales
Professor

of English
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas 77843-4227
(979) 845-

8305
mportales@tamu.edu

Texas A&M President Buries
Summer Taskforce Findings:

Specially

Appointed Committee
Makes ‘Strong’ Recommendations
For Race in Admissions, but

Gates Dismisses “Diversity Domain”
And Fails to Release Findings
for Public

Discussion

By Greg Moses
Texas Civil Rights

Review
https://texascivilrightsreview.org/phpnuke

Three months before Texas A&M

University President
Robert Gates announced his decision to exclude
consideration of race in

admissions, his own specially
appointed taskforce strongly recommended that race
should be

included. According to documents recently divulged in an open
records request, the president’s

taskforce on Aug. 29,
2003, recommended a “three domain” analysis for
admissions: “These domains

consider potential for the
individual’s success in academics, leadership and
citizenship, and

commitment to diversity.”

Gates adopted the first two domains, “academics,
leadership

and citizenship,” but he overruled his own
taskforce on the question of “commitment

to
diversity.” It is not yet clear who else besides the
president was given an opportunity to

review and
discuss the taskforce report. Findings of the report
are not mentioned in materials

provided to Regents, in minutes of the Faculty Senate, or in discussions
reported in the student

newspaper.

“I valued the recommendations of the task force
appointed to consider

revising admissions and related
policies,” said Gates Monday in an email statement
solicited for

this story. “There was open and
prolonged debate about the explicit use of race as a
factor in

admissions, and I carefully weighed all of
them. After much thought, I decided that, for

Texas
A&M University, diversity would be best accomplished
by basing admissions decisions on

individual qualities
— potential and merit — while accompanying such
assessments with an

aggressive outreach effort to
attract more minority students.”

Findings of the report

remained undisclosed and out of
reach from public debate after Gates publicly promised to expand the

university’s diversity policies
following the Supreme Court’s Grutter ruling, which
vindicated

affirmative action in June, 2003.

Gates set the tone of public expectations on June

27,
for example, when he posted a statement on the
internet that promised to explore

“additional
opportunities” made available by Grutter. In the June
statement he calls attention

to the fact that, “I made
greater diversity one of the top four priorities on
which we would

focus our efforts during my time as
president.”

“Texas A&M University was the first

university in the
state to appoint a cabinet-level official responsible
for increasing

diversity,” said Gates in his email
statement Monday. “Also, to the best of my knowledge, Texas A&M

is the only university in the state subsequent to the Michigan decision to adopt new admissions

requirements that create more opportunities for minorities. Be assured that I strongly believe that we

are doing just that — creating more opportunities for minorities.”

As one faculty

source reported via email, “many of us
here THOUGHT the President was going to use race

in
admissions because his positions until that moment
(December) indicated he was leaning in

that
direction.” Professor of Sociology Eduardo
Bonilla-Silva says that many “minority” faculty

did
not find out about the taskforce report until after
the Regents announced the so-called race

-neutral
policy in December.

Another faculty source who was active in the

Faculty
Senate debate said he is still not aware of the
taskforce findings.

“President Gates met with concerned minority and
majority faculty AFTER he made his decision,

a
strategy that suggests he was not too concerned about having us on board,” writes Prof. Bonilla-

Silva. “Had he thought we were central to his diversity efforts, we would have been consulted in some

way.”

A cover memo to Gates from the taskforce chair clearly shows that, during the

summer of 2003, Gates had already formulated a position in opposition to
affirmative action. “Had

we suspected that, we would
have been on the offensive from August onward!” writes Prof. Bonilla-

Silva.

The Aug. 29 cover memo to Gates, written by taskforce chair, Associate Provost

and Dean of Faculties Karan Watson, says, “the taskforce is well aware of your concerns that the root

problems concerning low diversity at Texas A&M University lie in the areas of ‘who applies’ and ‘who

accepts admissions’ to a greater extent than any problem created by our current decision process for

admission.” Watson’s cover memo, however, “strongly” recommends adoption of diversity-based

admissions.

“Even if our decision process before was not the
greater problem, and

with full acknowledgment that any change at this point in the process may be something of a lightning

rod for strong criticism and
mis-characterization, changing nothing is also a
negative message to

many of the people with whom we need to communicate our true intent and nature as a University,” wrote

Watson.

The taskforce also recommended secondary consideration
of legacy status as

part of a “University Mission
Factor.” Gates abolished consideration of legacy
status in

January, after Texas officials and civil
rights organizations criticized the university

for
considering legacy without race. The taskforce report
demonstrates that race and legacy

policies were both
presented to the president before the Fall term began.

In the body

of the report, the taskforce spends a full
page of single-space type citing existing

statements
and commitments to diversity already adopted by the
university, including “Imperative

Six: Diversify and
Globalize the A&M Community” from the “Vision 2020”
strategic plan assembled

by the campus community.

In the language of the taskforce report, the

diversity
domain in admissions would look for, “Students who
have demonstrated a commitment to

the broader
understanding, deeper respect and stronger cooperation
among diverse cultures, and

individuals, or will help
our educational environment in developing these
commitments.”

The diversity domain would be evaluated in two
“dimensions.” First, a student’s

experiences and
commitments, including veteran status, living abroad,
second-language

proficiency, or migrant status.
Second, a student’s capabilities and characteristics,
including

visible minorities such as, “American
Indian, Alaskan Native, African-American, Black,

Asian
American, Pacific Islander, Hispanic, religious
commitment that is reflected in dress,

visible
disability, men in historically female disciplines,
women in historically male

disciplines, and visible
international applicants.” In each dimension
applicants would be rated

on a scale from Above
Average to Weak.

The taskforce document argues that the

inclusion of
visibly diverse students would help other students,
“learn to avoid stereotyping.”

“Currently,” says the taskforce report, “the groups
listed above often report the

sense that they are
treated differently, often in demeaning or hostile
ways, in courses and other

activities on campus. We
fully acknowledge that individuals from each of these
groups do not

represent a singular viewpoint,
background or commitment to diversity, but that is

the
educational point of having a diverse set of these
people, who often get cast into negative

or demeaning
stereotypes, present on campus.”

The taskforce report then calls for

annual and
bi-annual review of diversity policies.

“While I did not expect all

members of the campus

community to agree with my decision, I am encouraged
by the amount of

support this new policy has
received,” continued Gates in
his email statement.
“Because of their

loyalty to this university, many who
did not support my decision are nevertheless

working
passionately to promote the university’s diversity
goals. This serves as evidence of

the strong sense of
community that permeates this institution.”

The president’s

office will be a co-sponsor for a
planned Diversity Rally on Wednesday at the College
Station

campus. The primary sponsor of the rally,
Faculty Committed to an Inclusive Campus, will

be
speaking in favor of affirmative action in admissions.
The Texas A&M Student Senate has

announced that it
will break away from the Diversity rally to hold a
separate “Rally for Merit”

at the same time. The
student representatives do not want to be affiliated
with any groups

favoring the consideration of race in
admissions.

Today, it is difficult to say how

public debate might
have been affected if findings of the 2003 Task Force
on Admissions had been

released. The only document to
seriously address the question of diversity in
admissions at

Texas A&M University argued “strongly”
in favor of “narrowly tailored” considerations

of
race.

Although Gates says he gave the issue a lot of
thought, no document has

yet been found which makes
the studied case for the eventual adoption of
so-called race-neutral

admissions.

Notes:

The Texas Civil Rights Review will post the

complete
email from Gates along with copies of the report from
the Task Force on Diversity.

Please check the website
for updates at:

https://texascivilrightsreview.org/phpnuke

Special thanks to Associate Editor Tony Gallucci for
his help in preparing this

story.

SAN ANTONIO, Texas (June 24, 2004) – A new report documents the

continuing lack of racial and ethnic diversity at Texas A&M, the University of Texas at Austin, and

within Texas law and medical schools, despite many energetic efforts to try race-neutral

alternatives.

Go to Equal Justice

Society Web Site

EXCERPTS:

(1) We also conclude that the Ten Percent

Plan is “good but not good
enough” regarding racial/ethnic diversity because the percentage of Black

and
Latino graduates from the most competitive high schools in Texas are less likely
to enroll in

selective public universities in Texas than they were prior to Hopwood….. (2) Another policy reason

for moving beyond sole reliance on test scores and
grade-point averages is the need to evaluate

students’ promise within the context
of their opportunities, rather than cementing structural

inequalities in K-12
education. For example, across all Texas high schools, 21.6% of Whites

are
enrolled in AP courses, compared to only 11.4% of African Americans and 12.4%
of Latinos.

While the Edgewood litigation and the subsequent school finance
legislation played a major role in

making public school funding in Texas more
equitable, as it stands there is still a legally

permissible gap between the
funding per student in low-wealth and high-wealth school districts. [pdf

55]

(3) “Texas is deeply segregated, regionally and neighborhood-by-neighborhood in its

major cities, so
the majority of our high schools are almost entirely white or black or brown. This

law is colorblind,
but it used our bitter history of segregation to promote diversity.”–David

Montejano [pdf 55, note 230]

(4) While the diversity rationale is the focus of this

policy report, the Supreme
Court also recognizes that remedying the present effects of past

discrimination
can be a compelling interest for public entities to justify race-

conscious
affirmative action. In order for a university to institute affirmative action
based on

a remedial justification, it must establish that it has a “strong basis in
evidence for its

conclusion that remedial action was necessary.” [pdf 61]

GSC supports FCIC March for Diversity
By James Twine
Published:

Wednesday, February 18, 2004

The Texas A&M Graduate Student Council (GSC) said at its

meeting Tuesday that it would support Wednesday’s diversity

march.