Category: Higher Education

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.

“The need for change is the expansion of the faculty; more minority

recruitment in terms of our obligation to the state of Texas; expanding our research effort and taking

it to a new, national level; having A&M play on a national stage in important arenas; and more national

recognition for the achievements of our faculty.”

Texas A&M President Robert Gates

interview with Houston Chronicle reporter Todd Ackerman, Jan. 24, 2003. I read this (Jan. 26) within

an hour after talking to a state regulator who says there’s really not much the state is empowered to

do when it comes to directing A&M’s “obligations” to diversity. Placing “minority recruitment” in

the category of “obligations to the state of Texas” is an interesting construction. There were no

follow up questions published in the interview.

January 11, 2004
Bowen believes Gates made right decision
By JOHN

LeBAS
Eagle Staff Writer

Former Texas A&M University President Ray Bowen said his

administration considered dropping the school’s legacy program after the 1996 Hopwood court decision

took race out of admissions decisions. But officials eventually concluded that doing so could

actually harm the university’s efforts to increase the ethnic diversity of its students, he

said.

The current president, Robert Gates, on Friday ended a 14-year-old practice that

gave an edge to freshman applicants with relatives who attended the once all-white university. The

legacy program had been blasted recently by minority lawmakers and civil rights groups who argued it

discriminated against applicants of color.

“We studied it after Hopwood and determined

legacy was helping minorities in a small way,” said Bowen, who was president from 1994 to 2002. “But

nobody believes that.”

Still, he said Gates made the right decision in light of the

recent uproar.

Legacy critics have said the program’s end is a small step toward a more

diverse student body, which is 82 percent white. While Hispanics have been at the 127-year-old

university throughout its history, blacks were not allowed until 1963.

A&M officials

have blamed a slide on minority enrollment over the past seven years on the Hopwood decision. But Bowen

said his administration calculated that dropping legacy probably would have decreased the number of

minorities who enrolled by three or four a year.

While figures from the late 1990s

weren’t available late last week, legacy statistics from the current freshman class seem to support

that assertion.

For fall 2003, 878 applicants who weren’t eligible for automatic

acceptance but met academic standards earned legacy points during A&M’s review process. Seven were

African-American and six of those were admitted (85.7 percent).

Of 800 whites with

legacy, 312 got in (39 percent). Twenty-seven of 52 Hispanics were admitted (51.9 percent), as were

eight of 19 others (42.1 percent).

In all, 353 of the 878 legacy candidates (40.2

percent) won admission.

Bowen joined current A&M officials in arguing that legacy —

which counted for up to four of 100 points in the review process — was not the deciding factor for most

applicants. More points could be earned in other areas, such as leadership, extracurricular activities,

class rank and SAT or ACT score.

“It’s the danger, I think, of playing the statistics

too close,” he said. “You need to look at the big issues. I think the big issue here is perception, and

I think Dr. Gates addressed that through his decision. … If the public perceives this is unfair,

you’re wasting your time going through an exercise trying to convince people it’s not unfair.”

Many critics said the practice was especially unfair in light of a U.S. Supreme Court

decision last year that overturned Hopwood and allowed limited consideration of race in admissions.

Despite that, Gates said in December that A&M would stay away from using race and move to a totally

“merit-based” policy.

While lawmakers and activists still called for Gates to go beyond

ending legacy and reinstate affirmative action, one Texas-based group applauded his decision

Saturday.

“This is another step forward towards a truly merit-based system with equal

opportunity for all Texans,” Texas Civil Rights Initiative spokesman Austin Kinghorn said in a

statement. The group’s chairman is former Hopwood plaintiff David Rogers.

A&M’s legacy

program started in 1989 as part of an enrollment management effort at the burgeoning university. It was

the only formal legacy practice among the state’s public universities.

But legacy hadn’t

been heavily scrutinized until recent weeks, when minority activists threatened legal action to end the

program. Had such pressure been applied in the late 1990s, A&M would have stopped using legacy in

admissions, Bowen said.

“It’s a perception issue,” he said. “I don’t think it’s going to

have any effect on minority enrollment at all.”

(To

begin Week Two of the legitimation crisis in civil rights that was precipitated by the Texas A&M Board

of Regents, The Texas Civil Rights Review returns to the question of affirmative action as a civil

right.)

Summary: In 1980 the Texas A&M University Regents adopted affirmative action as

a “good faith” commitment to civil rights. In 2000, Governor George W. Bush agreed that affirmative

action would be pursued according to “controlling law.” With “controlling law” now back on the

side of affirmative action in 2003, what gives the Regents the right to reverse their own “good

faith” policy?

I have read with interest some of the weekend news reports that still

fail to acknowledge certain basic facts, chief among them being that Texas is one of a few states that

enjoys special status because the US Dept. of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has determined that

the state exhibits vestiges of segregation…..

This dimension of the question I am

dismayed to see buried under language about “diversity” and “preferences.” In fact, crucial civil

rights issues are being affected, and the people of Texas so far have not been given any explanation of

the likely civil rights implications of the Texas A&M policy, from either the president, Board of

Regents, Governor, or media reports.

To document the question more closely, here is a

quote (copied and pasted) from the “Texas Commitment” to the Office of Civil Rights signed by

Governor George W. Bush on May 11, 2000 and cited in the Fourth Texas Plan, p. 42 [a pdf version of the

Fourth Texas Plan may be found at the following

URL:

http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/pdf/0313.pdf%5D

Here is what

Governor George W. Bush promised:

“It is understood that when the public agencies or

institutions of higher education in Texas implement any of the measures or operate any

other
programs relating to admissions or financial aid in a race-conscious manner, they must operate

in conformity with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, and its implementing regulations,

applicable federal court case law, including Fordice, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke,

438
U.S. 265 (1978), Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996), and the U.S. Department of

Education’s published policy regarding race-targeted
financial aid, 59 Federal Register 4271 (Feb.

23, 1994), so long as they are controlling law.”

That is the verbatim

clip.

After the overthrow of Hopwood, doesn’t “controlling law” indicate that

affirmative action is a constitutional civil right, especially necessary under the textbook conditions

presented by Texas A&M University?

In 1980, the Texas A&M Board of Regents voluntarily

adopted a policy that included a “Commitment to Numerical Objectives.” Here’s what Texas A&M

University System Chancellor said at the time:

“The adoption of this resolution by the

Board will be the first official step taken by any governing board in Texas toward voluntary

compliance; and, in my view, will go a long way toward excluding Texas from the list of states who are

scheduled to receive letters of compliance from the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of

Education. If we can adopt this resolution and begin its good faith implementation, in the company of

other major colleges and universities in Texas, this action may well enable us to manage our own

affairs in the carrying out of various desegregation activities”

Affirmative action,

in other words, is the price that Texas A&M agreed to pay in order to maintain other freedoms in its

so-called desegregation strategy. From where, suddenly, did the Texas A&M Board of Regents derive the

freedom to de-segregate without affirmative action?

[For reference to the above document

from Chancellor Frank Hubert please visit the html collection of the Texas Civil Rights review

at:
http://pages.prodigy.net/gmoses/tcrr/edudocs.htm#hubert80a%5D

It has not yet been

made clear how the Texas A&M Board of Regents considered the special obligations that the school should

respect as a party to commitments that it made in 1980 and that were recently renewed by the Governor

in 2000.

So I restate the dilemma we face if we consider the decision by the Texas A&M

Regents as a “civil rights” decision.

Either the Board of Regents did not consider the

question of their civil rights obligations, and thereby disregarded their “good faith” civil rights

commitment altogether, or the board acted with respect to some specific judgment, advice, or consent

that has not been fully explained to the people of Texas.

Certainly, the statement

issued by the Texas A&M President addresses many things, but it does not address the question of

affirmative action as a commitment to “civil rights.”

In the absence of any discussion

whatsoever about this crucial matter, it would seem that the Texas A&M Board of Regents, which once led

the state into “Numerical Commitments” is now opening the gate the other way.

Who

would have given their support to the Texas A&M initiative if they had known the likely implications

for civil rights?

Under the Fordice ruling, which still stands as controlling law (even

as Hopwood has fallen) it would be presumed that states finding themselves in predicaments such as

Texas would be “expected” to administer a constitutional plan of affirmative

action.

Is the Texas A&M decision changing the shape of “controlling law” in civil

rights? Until the questions are fully addressed, I remain worried. It looks like the Texas A&M

decision has civil rights implications larger than the College Station campus. Furthermore, it looks

like the Board of Regents has not exemplified “excellence in leadership” when it comes to civil

rights.

What it looks like is that the Texas A&M Board of Regents promised to undertake

affirmative in “good faith” only so long as it could find no reason to break the promise. First

chance it had to wiggle out, there it went, without any “civil rights” discussion. That’s what the

evidence suggests so far.

Citizens of Texas deserve a full accounting from the Texas A&M

Board of Regents as to how their decision provides “leadership excellence” in the struggle for civil

rights in Texas.

But whatever the outcome of Texas A&M’s decision, Duke administrators say the children of

Blue Devils will continue to receive special consideration during the admissions process. [Chronicle of

Higher Education Onlline, by Cindy Yee, Jan. 22, 2004.]

A few more paragraphs clipped

below…
“As a broader educational or public policy issue, this is a fairly new subject,” [Duke

director of undergrad admissions Christoph] Guttentag said. “In the Texas A&M case, a tie was made

between legacy admissions and affirmative action. I’m not sure that they should be so closely tied,

but I think that the reason some people are paying greater attention to legacy admissions now is that

it has to do with a renewed interest in issues of affirmative action.”…

In fact,

[Provost Peter] Lange said, by establishing alumni loyalty through policies like the legacy admissions

policy, the University is able to fund other programs that actually increase diversity. “Among private

universities, the loyalty of alums is very important to a whole range of things we can offer, including

the kind of funding that makes Duke a great university and offers substantial amounts of money for

financial aid,” Lange said. “You can’t pull out one thread and ignore other ways of promoting

diversity. Need-blind financial aid is one of the biggest ways to achieve this

goal.”…

Even after Texas A&M announced its decision to abolish legacy admissions

preferences, some complained that taking this step to diversify the student body was like treating a

broken bone with a Band-Aid–the concept, they said, was admirable, but the decision will ultimately

have a negligible effect.