Category: Higher Education

Members of the Columbia College Conservative Club staged an “affirmative action bake sale”

in Alfred Lerner Hall yesterday, prompting a small but vocal crowd to form on the Lerner ramps.

[Columbia Spectator, Feb. 6, 2004, “Bake Sale Prompts Debate In Lerner: Conservative Club Targets

Affirmative Action in Admissons,” by Jacob McKean]

For more clips see

below:

—–
Oregon State University traditionally admits around 90 percent of students

who apply. So legacy admissions and affirmative action aren’t as much of an issue as they are at Texas

A&M, which had been using a point system to admit students. That system included extra points for being

the son or daughter of an alumnus….

Angelo Gomez is director of the Affirmative Action

and Equal Opportunity Office at OSU. He said legacy scholarships do not have the same impact as a

system of legacy admissions policies, such as those at Texas A&M. Scholarships make access more

feasible to students, he said, but at OSU legacy scholarships have to be viewed in the larger context.

[Corvallis Gazette-Times, Feb. 6, 2004, “The question of legacy scholars,” by Theresa Hogue]
—-

–

—–
WASHINGTON, D.C – At Penn, they “take it very seriously.” At Michigan it

“gets you extra points.” At Harvard, it “is not ignored,” and at Notre Dame, they are “very open”

to it. “It” is “legacy”: an admissions designation used by most private and some public

universities for applicants whose relatives attended the school, and who, as such, get some degree of

preferential treatment. It’s a practice as old as colleges themselves , and is intended to boost

alumni support and donations and foster a sense of community.

It’s also racist, argue

its critics.

But, far from following A&M’s lead, most universities across the country

are chafing at the idea of additional restrictions on their admissions policies and speaking out

against the Kennedy bill. [Christian Science Monitor, Feb. 6, 2004, “Family ties: an unfair

advantage? mid debate over racial preferences, legacy admissions are suddenly cast in a harsher

light,” by Danna Harman.]
—–

—–
A student group at the College of William &

Mary fought successfully for restoration of their “affirmative-action bake sale,” a satirical event

designed to show harmful effects of race-based admission policies. [WorldNetDaily, Feb. 3, 2004,

“BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS. ‘Affirmative-action bake sale’ restored But college officials call parody

‘inexcusably hurtful,’ ‘abusive’.”]
—–

—–
Ohio State’s 2004 system

“eliminated all points” and included a “more individualized review process.” This review process

included four short-answer questions that “reflect Ohio State values” and optional parent and

grandparent information. The applications still allow for potential students to include their race, but

responses are optional.

While Freeman noted that Ohio State experienced a “decrease in

minority students, mainly African American” who applied to the university, she also noted that the

official realized that “educational diversity includes a number of factors,” not simply

race….

Bill Kolb, with the University of Florida’s admissions department presented

next. He pointed out that his school “didn’t change their practices as a result of the Michigan

case.” Rather, he said, another case in Florida forced the college to discontinue practicing

affirmative action in college admissions.

A plan called “One Florida” was developed

in the state and Kolb described how recruitment practices with local high schools helped the program to

be a success….

Deborah Smith from Georgia Tech’s admissions department then took the

podium and discussed how charges of reverse-discrimination filed by a South Carolina senior in the

early 1990s caused her school to drop the use of race in accepting students.

Although

Georgia Tech has increased overall student “quality” and maintained a diverse population, the school

is considering, after the results of the Michigan Case, potentially using race as a factor in its

admissions policy. [The Tiger Online (Clemson U), Jan. 30, 2004, “Officials discuss diversity

paradox,” by Caroline Stone.]—–

—–The One Florida Equity in Education plan

strengthens Florida’s commitment to diversity while eliminating some of the practices that have

permitted failure and been found to be unconstitutional in other states. Recently, we have seen race

based preferences in college admissions struck down by the courts in California, Texas and Georgia. In

anticipation that such rulings would likely occur, and to provide and alternative to a ballot

initiative that could have ended all affirmative action programs, Governor Bush created the One Florida

Equity in Education Plan.

On August 27, 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Johnson v Board of Regents of University of Georgia, 263 F. 3d

1234 (11th Cir. 2001) ruled that raced based admissions to colleges and universities were

unconstitutional. This ruling applies to Florida, essentially shutting the door on race-based

admissions in our university system. Unlike other states, Florida was ready. The One Florida Equity in

Education Plan was already in effect and working. Diversity in the State University System has

generally increased or held steady since the day Governor Bush announced the One Florida Initiative.

[oneflorida.org]—–

A recently released survey of Texas colleges and universities, regarding proposed responses

to the Supreme Court’s Grutter ruling, yields a fascinating study in contrasts. Nowhere are the

contrasts more striking than in the differences found between two presidents at the Texas A&M campus in

College Station. Well known by now is the initiative of Texas A&M president Robert Gates to disregard

affirmative action in admissions for the College Station and Galveston campuses. But what has not been

noticed is the quiet work underway at the Texas A&M Health Science Center, headquartered “across the

tracks” in College Station.

The report that follows is based solely on documentary

evidence made available through open records requests and internet searches. But the documentary

differences are astonishing and instructive. At Texas A&M, it is the worst of times, but also the

best.

On Dec. 19, 2003, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board asked the state’s

colleges and universities to report the changes they were planning to make in the wake of the Supreme

Court’s Grutter decision. The 5-4 decision, handed down during the Summer of 2003, written by Justice

Sandra Day O’Connor, vindicated affirmative action as a constitutional practice, providing that certain

criteria were kept in mind.

The Grutter ruling ended a seven-year period in Texas,

during which a regional opinion handed down in the Hopwood case, was widely enforced as a prohibition

against affirmative action. On June 27, 2003, Texas A&M President Robert Gates posted a statement at

his official web page, declaring that:

“Last Monday’s Supreme Court decisions involving

the University of Michigan appear to level the playing field with other universities throughout the

country, enhancing our ability to attract high quality minority students. Texas A&M already has a

number of initiatives and programs under way consistent with Texas law to attract such students. We are

looking to see if the Supreme Court decision offers us additional opportunities to assist in attracting

a student body more representative of all Texans.”

So it came as a surprise to Texas

media, legislators, and civil rights organizations when Gates announced in December that he would not

be recommending the resumption of affirmative action in admissions.

The admissions

policy that the Gates administration ushered through the committee structure at Texas A&M made no

references to race or affirmative action. It made no mention of Grutter.

Accompanying

the written plan were other initiatives by president Gates to put money into scholarships, recruitment

of students and faculty of color, and hiring a vice president of diversity. According to the chair of

the Faculty Senate, Martha Loudder, “These recommendations had been made every year since I have been

involved in the Faculty Senate. It was only when Dr. Gates came to Texas A&M in September 2002 that any

of them were seriously considered by the administration. Every single one of them has been

implemented.”

Dr. Gates argued publicly that by concentrating funding and energies in

other areas, the goals of racial diversity could be achieved without resort to affirmative action in

admissions. And his arguments won support from an admissions committee and the faculty senate.

But Gates’ public arguments were not submitted in writing as part of the official

minutes for any of the reports. Furthermore, there is yet no record to reflect that Texas A&M

considered its unique responsibilities to the ongoing process of federally-supervised de-

segregation.

What we do have is a list of bullet points, outlining some of the criteria

that will be considered during the admissions process, along with a note from the admissions committee

chair, “that time is of the essence.” The undergraduate committee report went from recommendation,

through Faculty Senate, crossed the President’s desk, and was approved by the Chancellor as an agenda

item for the Board, all within two weeks’ time.

Many faculty at Texas A&M who identify

with diversity read the Gates initiative in terms of the many things that would be done for

scholarships and recruitment, at last. However, in the highly unusual rush to final adoption, the

public record does not demonstrate any care whatsoever to present the new policy as a response to

Grutter.

In fact, one month after the adoption of the new admissions policy, president

Gates was calling on Regents to abandon legacy considerations, too. But nowhere does the written

policy reflect any consideration of legacy admissions. So we are not yet sure what else Texas A&M is

doing that is not mentioned in the bare bones document.

All this is history that may be

skimmed over, if you have been following the news of these events during the past two months. A little

further down, we will approach the example of the Texas A&M Health Science Center. But first, a brief

word about the responses from other university systems in Texas.

In contrast to the

Texas A&M reply, which returns an already-adopted document that makes no mention of Grutter, the

Coordinating Board also divulges working statements from Texas Tech University and the University of

Houston. The Tech proposal says that, “A category for ‘Diversity of Experience’ will be added to the

review process. Diversity of experience may include, but will not be limited to, study abroad,

knowledge of other cultures, proficiency in other languages, race/ethnicity and experience with college

preparatory programs.”

UH policy makers conclude that, “Therefore, to the extent

necessary to achieve a diverse student body, and after race neutral alternatives have proven

unsuccessful, we believe each component institution should have the discretion to adopt admission

policies which consider the totality of each individual applicant’s background and strengths, including

but not limited to cultural history, ethnic origin, race, hardships overcome, service to others, extra

curricular activities, grades, test scores and work experience. Further, an applicant’s background,

including race and ethnicity, should be an allowable but not determinative consideration in awarding

some discretionary scholarships.”

These statements by other university administrations

in Texas address Grutter directly as a policy matter for Regents to take seriously. Similar language

is being proposed by the University of Texas at Austin and North Texas University. Compared with their

peer systems in Texas, the documentary record from Texas A&M is peculiar in that it fails to take

notice in writing of the fact that a new constitutional framework is at hand.

Perhaps

this is why the Journal for Blacks in Higher Education offered the following headline on Dec. 11:

“Hopwood is Dead, but the Ruling Lives on at Texas A&M.”

The peculiar document produced

by the Gates administration is all the more astonishing when contrasted with the reported response from

the Texas A&M Health Science Center in College Station. Here is the complete text from the

Coordinating Board’s survey results:

“Health Science Center programs supply graduates to

meet the health workforce needs of Texas. Committees in each HSC discipline (Medicine, Dentistry,

Dental Hygiene, Public Health, and Graduate Education) are currently aligning admission requirements

with health workforce needs of Texas and these committees will recommend how race and ethnicity are to

be used, among many other factors, in a narrowly tailored fashion during the admission process. When

committee recommendations have been completed and submitted to the HSC President for review and action

changes to HSC admission requirements will be presented to the A&M System Office and the A&M Board of

Regents. If approved at that leve
l, State law requires they be published one year prior to use in the

admission process.”

What could be better than that? Right there in river city.

A brief examination of the Health Science Center web page helps to clear up the

mystery. The President’s name is Nancy W. Dickey, MD. Prior to her appointment as president on Jan.

1, 2002, she had served as the first woman physician president of the American Medical Association.

She is editor-in-chief of a widely-lauded internet company, Medem, which provides secure email

communication for doctor-patient correspondence and a fine library of medical

information.

We worry a little that we are so profoundly impressed by Dr. Dickey’s

leadership. We intend to do her career no harm.

For further reading, we recommend her

paper on “Regional Disparities in Health Spending,” where she argues for a methodology called “evidence

based medicine.” Notice her crucial argument, that traditions of hierarchical knowledge must give way

to independent inquiry and accessible sources.

Again, we’re sorry to put you on the

spot, Dr. Dickey, but we’d like to see you invited across campus some day.

Speaker of the Texas A&M Faculty Senate Martha Loudder responds via

email to questions from the Texas Civil Rights Review. The questions try to fill in the details of a

timeline. Near the end of the email, Loudder looks forward to good news from this year’s recruiting

efforts and argues that the Gates plan is best for the University. See Loudder’s complete reply

below.

TCRR:
A Report from the Committee on Minority Conditions recommends, “that

each year the Speaker of the Faculty Senate discuss the results/recommendations of this report with the

President, Vice Presidents and with the Board
of

Regents.”

http://www.tamu.edu/faculty_senate/MC02Report.PDF

Q: Will you

be able to follow the recommendation this year? Would you please share details of dates, persons, and

materials?

LOUDDER:
A: The following recommendations were made:
June 2002

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FACULTY SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON MINORITY
CONDITIONS AT TEXAS A&M

UNIVERSITY
Summary of Recommendations
* Increase financial assistance to undergraduate and

graduate students to fulfill the University’s mission in the state of Texas.
* Provide

additional funding for increasing the total faculty.
* Create the office of Vice President for

Diversity with sufficient funding to make a difference in the recruiting, hiring, and retention of

minority faculty.
* Recognize and reward Colleges for aggressively recruiting, hiring, and

retaining minority scholars. This recognition and the rewards would include but not
necessarily be

limited to above average merit raises for Deans, Department Heads and other
administrators who

increase diversity in units under their supervision.

These recommendation had been made

every year since I have been involved in the Faculty Senate. It was only when Dr. Gates came to Texas

A&M in
September 2002 that any of them were seriously considered by the administration. Every single

one of them has been implemented. Dr. Frank Ashley (Director of Admissions) can provide more on the

first and third. Dean Jane Conoley can tell you more about the other

two.

TCRR:
According to the minutes of the Faculty Senate on Sept. 8, 2003, there

were four members listed for the Undergraduate Admissions Advisory

Committee.

http://www.tamu.edu/faculty_senate/minutes/sep2003.html

Q:

I’m not clear on the context for the four names.
Are they new to the committee? What was the

process the produced those names?

LOUDDER:
A: They are a number of standing

committees in the university. The faculty senate appoints one or more to them when there are vacancies.

The “Committee
on Committees” is charged with this duty. It consists of senators from each college

who are elected by their college senate caucuses.

TCRR:
The admissions committee

list was updated on Oct. 8.

http://www.tamu.edu/faculty_senate/DIR-

UnivAdm.PDF

Q: Would it be fair to report that the list was “finalized” on Oct. 8?

LOUDDER:
A: I believe that this is the composition of the current committee.

TCRR:
According to minutes of the Nov. 10 meeting of the Faculty Senate, a

report was approved and accepted from the Undergraduate Admissions Advisory Committee

[FS.21.56],

http://www.tamu.edu/faculty_senate/1208-A.PDF

Q: When this

proposal was approved by the Faculty Senate, was there any discussion about the significance of the

report in terms of affirmative
action?

LOUDDER:
A: Yes, there was a rather

spirited discussion about it. Dr. Mark Weichold and Dr. Frank Ashley were present to explain the

proposal and answer questions. Some of our faculty members were very dissappointed that the admissions

changes did not include race as an admissions factor. However, a large majority was satisfied that the

plan would have the desired
effect of increasing diversity.

As you know, we decided

to focus on our two major impediments to diversity: (1) only about 40% of the African Americans

admitted actually enroll, and (2)our inability to compete with substantial scholarships. There seems to

be a general, but certainly not unanimous, agreement that waiting until Fall 2005 (the earliest date

that admissions criteria changes can be adopted) is not the best strategy.

We

implemented a plan in December to recruit minority applicants in much the same fashion as we recruit

athletes…one at a time, aggressively. It
involves current and former students, faculty and

administrators. My own Dean (Business) made phone calls to over 90 prospects during the

holidays.
The President has worked to insure an additional 2,200 full scholarships, with over half

of them going to minority students. It’s too early to start bragging but early reports look like we

are making progress.

In my opinion, Greg, this is affirmative action at its best —

providing both active outreach and the financial means for minority students to come
to Texas A&M.

IT HAS NOT OCCURRED IN PREVIOUS YEARS (caps intentional)!

I have worked in the civil

rights movement since the Sixties, and was even an Affirmative Action Officer in an earlier life.

Accordingly, I was an advocate of considering race in admissions when we started this process last

summer. However I have become convinced of two things: first, we have a president who is personally and

deeply committed to improving diversity at TAMU, and second, he has the courage to do what he believes

is right for this university, even if he has to take a lot of heat over it.

I can see

that you care a great deal about this school, and I hope that you will tell your readers about our

efforts and our successes.

TCRR:
The report of the admissions committee was

approved by the President within four days.

http://www.tamu.edu/faculty_senate/Pending-

President.PDF

Q: In what form does the FS receive notice that a report has been approved

by the President?

LOUDDER:
A: Usually a letter comes from him to me.

We received via email from the Office of General Counsel at the

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board the results of a statewide survey of proposed admissions

policies. We’re not sure what it means yet, but you can help us decide.

Go to

Downloads to get the documents for yourself.

Following is the text of an advertisement placed in the Texas A&M student newspaper in early

December, 2003, following press reports that affirmative action would not be used in admissions. Text

sent via email by Professor Marco Portales of Texas A&M University. He notes that the media did not

publish any reports about this ad: Faculty Committed to an Inclusive Campus

<br?
To

publicly respond to recent incidents and messages of discrimination prepared and widely promulgated by

various campus groups, we, the undersigned faculty, confirm and publicly reaffirm the University's

Mission Statement and its commitment to an inclusive campus environment.

Texas A&M

University is dedicated to the discovery, development, communication, and application of
knowledge

in a wide range of academic and professional fields. Its mission of providing the highest quality

undergraduate and graduate programs is inseparable from its mission of developing

new
understandings through research and creativity. It prepares students to assume roles of

leadership,
responsibility, and service to society. Texas A&M assumes as its historic trust the

maintenance of freedom of inquiry and an intellectual environment nurturing the human mind and

spirit.

It welcomes and seeks to serve persons of all racial, ethnic, and geographic

groups, women and men
alike, as it addresses the needs of an increasingly diverse population and a

global economy. In the twenty-first century, Texas A&M University seeks to assume a place of

preeminence among public
universities while respecting its history and traditions.

(Texas A&M Home Page,
http://www.tamu.edu/00/data/about.html, emphasis added.)

Robin

Fran Abrams
Jeff Ackerman
Marcelo Aguiar
Patricia L. Alford
Colin

Allen
Paul Almeida
Michael Alvard
Nancy Amato
Victor Arizpe
Mike

Ash
Sheela Athreya
Riad Attar
Scott W. Austin
Judith A.

Baer
Terrence M. Barnhart
Tammy D. Barry
Maura A. Belliveau
Ludy T.

Benjamin, Jr.
Harris M. Berger
Mindy Bergman
Dennis Berthold
Brenda L.

Bethman
Angela Bies
Carlos Kevin Blanton
Jon Bond
Eduardo Bonilla-

Silva
Heather Bortfeld
Douglas Brooks
Kimberly N. Brown
Vaughn M.

Bryant
Mary Bryk
Walter Buenger
James Burk
Karen L. Butler-

Purry
Gaile S. Cannella
David L. Carlson
Rollyn B. Carlson
Linda

Castillo
Filipe Castro
Antonio Cepeda-Benito
Feinian Chen
Federica

Ciccolella
Lauren Cifuentes
Adrienne Colella
Michael Collins
Jonathan

Coopersmith
Leon W. Couch III
Kevin J. Crisman
Ben M. Crouch
Jeff

Cunningham
Vesna Danilovic
Sumana Datta
Donna S. Davenport
Emily S.

Davidson
Stephen E. Davis
Darryl de Ruiter
Giovanna P . Del Negro
Angelo

DeNisi
Cynthia E. Devers
Katherine M. Dietrich
Donnalee Dox
Lorraine

Eden
George C. Edwards III
Maria Escobar-Lemmon
John Fenn
Barbara

Findlay
Lee A. Fitzgerald
Mark Fossett
Sarah N. Gatson
Fran

Gelwick
Heather Gert
Lisa Gilman
Kay Goldman
Carlos F. Gonzalez
Tom

Green
Gale Hannigan
Elizabeth A. Hastings
Cecelia E. Hawkins
Kathryn

Henderson
Alan Houtchens
Mary Hovsepian
Becky Hubley
Patricia A.

Hurley
William Hyman
Marian Hyman
Brian Imhoff
Andrea Imhoff
Tazim

Jamal
Ute Jamrozy
Hank C. Jenkins-Smith
Joseph O. Jewell
R. Malatesha

Joshi
Gregor Kalas
Hilaire Kallendorf
Diane S. Kaplan
Howard B.

Kaplan
Eileen Kearney
Wendy L. Keeney
Kennicutt
Michelle Hall

Kells
Katherine Kelly
Bill Kibler
Jimmie Killingsworth
Laura

Koehly
Daniel Koetting
Gerald Kulm
Antonio C. La Pastina
Rafael Lara-

Alecio
Ruth Larson
Shang H. Lee
Jan Leighley
Peter Lieuwen
Shaun

Longstreet
Roel R. Lopez
Marty Loudder
Laurence E. Lynn, Jr.
Arvind

Mahajan
Joan E. Manley
Howard Marchitello
Laurine Elkins Marlow
Manuel

Martín-Rodríguez
Pamela R. Matthews
Marlynn May
John J. McDermott
David

McWhirter
Mary W. Meagher
Kenneth J. Meier
Chris Menzel
Katherine

Miller
Anthony Mora
Jack Nation
Cary J. Nederman
William H.

Neill
Nancy E. Northup
Donna E. Norton
Mary Ann O’Farrell
Joseph T.

O’Leary
Larry Oliver
Alexander Pacek
Richard Parker
Paul A.

Parrish
Linda Parrish
Kevin Patton
Stephanie C. Payne
David

Peterson
Scott Poole
Marco Portales
Dudley S. Poston
Larson

Powell
Harland Prechel
Cemal Pulak
Christopher M. Quick
Linda

Radzik
Lawrence Rauchwerger
Steve Rholes
Mitchell F. Rice
George

Rogers
Werner Rose
James Rosenheim
Victoria Rosner
Rogelio

Saenz
Stephen Safe
James E. Samuel
Charles D. Samuelson
Roger

Sansom
J. Martin Scholtz
Roger Schultz
Susan G. Scott
David

Scott
John M. Scroggs
Jane Sell
Barbara F. Sharf
Carol L.

Silva
Nancy Simpson
Jeff Simpson
Ercan Sirakaya
N. Sivakumar
R.

Douglas Slack
R.C. Slocum
Jane A. Smith
Laura M. Stough
Richard

Street
John K. Thomas
Patricia E. Tolciu
Gary Varner
Cynthia

Werner
Virginia West
Guy D. Whitten
Patricia P. Wiese
Charles W.

Wiggins
David Wilborn
Teresa Wilcox
Joe Williams
Kirk O.

Winemiller
Peter A. Witt
Jennifer Wollock
B. Dan Wood
Wendy

Wood
Richard Woodward
Lori E. Wright
Takashi Yamauchi
Danny L.

Yeager
To learn more about Faculty Committed to an Inclusive Campus, contact Harris M. Berger at

.