Category: Higher Education

John Stuart Mill in his classic tract on Utilitarianism sets forth the
classic liberal perspective on the relationship between social
institutions and social health.

A society that fails to build excellent social institutions will always
be chasing an endless train of social crisis, because a peoples’
capacity to develop and sustain social health depends very much on the
provision of an environment that is nurturing and sustaining.

When viewing the difficulty that Texas has in providing an excellent
and enriching environment of social institutions (how many special
sessions for school reform have ended in failure? how many excuses have
been made for why we cannot tax properly our incomes for this
purpose?)–is it any wonder that crisis prevention becomes the
conventional morality of public life?

How many of our most powerful and influential citizens spend their
public time on crisis prevention rather than confronting the work of
coaxing support for provision of broad institutional enrichment in
education, health care, art, etc.?

The public drift away from classic liberalism over the past generation
has one glaring consequence: it serves to keep a safe distance between
those who already have the means to fund institutions and those who
don’t.

Anti-liberalism in this sense trends against the
democratic spirit. The next round of legislative action in education
appears poised to bring us more of the same: enhancing the ability of
the “haves” while paying little attention to the institutional needs of
the “have nots”.

Meanwhile, the folks who play this game from the top can continue to
chalk up morality points by putting their charity resources to use in
crisis intervention. And this is the lose-win formula of Texas politics
today. The more the people lose from public policy neglect, the more the public
moralists win from attending to the crises of the people.

Here’s how Mill put it:
It may be objected, that many who are capable of the higher pleasures,
occasionally, under the influence of temptation, postpone them to the
lower. But this is quite compatible with a full appreciation of the
intrinsic superiority of the higher. Men often, from infirmity of
character, make their election for the nearer good, though they know it
to be the less valuable; and this no less when the choice is between
two bodily pleasures, than when it is between bodily and mental. They
pursue sensual indulgences to the injury of health, though perfectly
aware that health is the greater good. It may be further objected, that
many who begin with youthful enthusiasm for everything noble, as they
advance in years sink into indolence and selfishness. But I do not
believe that those who undergo this very common change, voluntarily
choose the lower description of pleasures in preference to the higher.
I believe that before they devote themselves exclusively to the one,
they have already become incapable of the other. Capacity for the
nobler feelings is in most natures a very tender plant, easily killed,
not only by hostile influences, but by mere want of sustenance; and in
the majority of young persons it speedily dies away if the occupations
to which their position in life has devoted them, and the society into
which it has thrown them, are not favourable to keeping that higher
capacity in exercise. Men lose their high aspirations as they lose
their intellectual tastes, because they have not time or opportunity
for indulging them; and they addict themselves to inferior pleasures,
not because they deliberately prefer them, but because they are either
the only ones to which they have access, or the only ones which they
are any longer capable of enjoying. It may be questioned whether any
one who has remained equally susceptible to both classes of pleasures,
ever knowingly and calmly preferred the lower; though many, in all
ages, have broken down in an ineffectual attempt to combine both.

In

reply to my long complaint of Jan. 11, one of our nation’s most wonderful philosophers sent me an

advance copy of his forthcoming article on affirmative action. He argues that Justice Thomas presented

the better argument in the Supreme Court’s Grutter case, although the argument by Justice O’Connor

was adopted as the majority opinion. My most delightful colleague, it seems, would favor a reversal of

the affirmative action trend in constitutional law.

[Read the rest below or at “Forums”/

“Philosophy of Affirmative Action”/”racial preferences?”] [Citation: forthcoming: The University

of Cincinnati Law Review v. 27 no. 3 (2004). 21 November 20003
Equality and the Mantra of Diversity*

Laurence Thomas SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY]

The argument against affirmative action deserves

serious consideration, if only because the Supreme Court votes have been so divided in the key cases.

In the case of Grutter, the vote was 5/4, and my esteemed colleague is helpful when he challenges us to

take a closer look at what Thomas would say.

Before I continue the philosophical

argument below, I would like to not forget that the O’Connor opinion is definitive as constitutional

law of the land. This places the burden of proof on the shoulders of makers of public policy to account

for any decisions that would seem to run patently counter to what is in fact existing law. Even if you

agree strongly with Thomas philosophically, the law of the land at this point compels attention to the

arguments stated by O’Connor.

Having said that, I find that consideration of anti-

affirmative action arguments are often quite helpful in uncovering the role that racism may play in the

promulgation of affirmative action policy. In fact it remains one of the deep flaws of affirmative

action that it is condemned to be an anti-racist policy that is only required in racist

environments.

Hence the logics and languages of affirmative action tend to participate

in the wider patterns of logic and language that are to be found in a racist environment. This is a

feature of affirmative action not often reflected upon during polarized policy

conflicts.

Affirmative action, like every other crucial liberation in civil rights,

uncovers our miredness. So we have to take care that our arguments for affirmative action do not rely

on racist assumptions and attitudes. The “DIversity Mantra” as Laurence Thomas points out, is

fraught with racist pitfalls.

The very term “preferences” for instance has become

sordid for its racist connotations. To oppose “racial preferences” therefore is very likely to oppose

racist justifications for affirmative action. Or to put it another way, defining one’s objection to

affirmative action as being opposed to “racial preferences” is already to load the logic of the

argument in a way that will make a racists out of the opposition.

So please don’t

accuse me of favoring “racial preferences.” To me that term implicates a racist defense of

affirmative action, and I would rather not be your straw man today.

Why do I refuse to

define affirmative action as a system of “racial preferences”? Let me begin with the ordinary usage

of the term preferences. Preferences go very nicely with the subjunctive mood; they are things we would

rather like to have, and we feel ourselves most free when our preferences present few

difficulties.

To have a “racial preference” therefore, is to put oneself in a wishful

mood about what would be possible to choose. And there are problems when we start out this way in our

thinking about affirmative action.

Indeed affirmative action is a preference, but it is

a “policy preference” and the policy it prefers does not need a sordid concept of “racial

preference”.

I sometimes wonder if journalists reflect on the loaded nature of the term

“racial preferences” when they take it up as their own “objective” term for the issue at stake. Do

they realize that they are abetting a logic most likely to make racists out of the pro-affirmative

action camp?

Affirmative action was born as a civil rights policy, not as a “racial

preference.” Or if it was a preference, it was a preference for a particular form of

policy.

I know this sounds a little loopy right now, but please bear with me. I so hope

that you sometimes think of my loopy sentences as Hegelian.

The policy of affirmative

action as I understand and defend it, is a policy that assesses broad patterns of institutional

behavior in order to set goals for institutional reform. It is a policy born of a need to enforce civil

rights. State authorities are trying to enforce civil rights at various institutions. How do they do

it?

The policy of affirmative action would have never arisen as we know it had it not

been born as an organic mechanism for the promulgation and enforcement of civil rights. That is why I

speak about affirmative action in terms of civil rights, and why I think other forms of defense tend to

lose sight of the issues at the heart of the policy.

If one wants to use the language of

“racial preferences” in defense of affirmative action, one ought to try to formulate how a “racial

preference” comes to have positive moral value from the point of view of a civil rights struggle. If

the concept of “preferences” is not thoroughly contextualized within a situation of “struggle” then

surely a racist model will be forthcoming. While it may be possible to work your way into a morally

laudable concept of “racil preference” when considered from a civil rights point of view, that would

be a truly loopy path.

But what if we only take up the question of affirmative action in

environments where civil rights struggles are alive and useful?

A philosopher is always

entitled to prefer an opening question. In the discussion of affirmative action, then, let this be my

opening question to you. In your opinion are civil rights struggles today live and useful?

Which civil rights struggles count for you? And why?

The case of

affirmative action in Texas for instance is a case where causality is pretty well documented. Because

there was civil rights ENFORCEMENT there was affirmative action. Without affirmative action, it is

difficult to see what form that ENFORCEMENT of civil rights would take.

So, to be a

little loopy again, affirmative action is a preference that arises out of needs that are developed in

the practical realities of civil rights enforcement. How is institutional change to be ENFORCED?

Answer this last question without pointing to affirmative action, and we will then have

an alternative policy available to our prefence. But I don’t see how the problem of civil rights

ENFORCEMENT has produced a better preference than affirmative action.

And this is why

the Texas A&M case is so crucial. If Texas A&M refuses to employ the constitutional policy of

affirmative action, how can civil rights in admissions be ENFORCED.

Well, I look forward

to my colleague’s article in print. I recommend reading it, because it does help us understand how it

is possible to defend affirmative action in racist ways. Nevertheless, I think that any serious call to

abolish affirmative action has to present some clue as to how the question of civil rights ENFORCEMENT

is to be handled. This, of course, is rarely done.

I have a colleague for instance who

would rather not work in the South today. How do I assure such a colleague that civil rights are

ENFORCED here?

Also rare is the pro-affirmative action position that is vigilant to the

racist vectors that intertwine all our lives and

languages.

Jan. 11, 2004

One Month Later,

We are Still Surprised and

Confused:
It is Time for the Public to be Shown
Why and How the Recommendation

Was Formulated to Abolish Affirmative Action
At College Station and

Galveston

By Greg

Moses
https://texascivilrightsreview.org/phpnuke

In light of the Dec.5, 2003

announcement by officials of the Texas A&M University System that affirmative action would be suspended

in the admissions process, questions might be asked. At what point did Texas A&M formulate its

strategic decision to abandon affirmative action, and what sorts of considerations were given what

measures of weight? The surprising nature of the Texas A&M announcement is itself already an

indictment of sorts, because it counts as evidence that neither state lawmakers, civil rights groups,

nor citizens were given fair warning that such an important policy reversal was in the works.

An examination of the most prominent documents relating to diversity and admissions

offers no warnings that Texas A&M would be considering such an important reversal of policy. In fact,

the documents pledge with exuberant language that all available legal and constitutional means would be

employed by policy makers in Texas to improve admissions performance.

Affirmative action

in admissions was voluntarily adopted by the Texas A&M Board of Regents on Dec. 5, 1980, as a way to

show that Texas A&M would conduct itself in “good faith” during the coming years of de-segregation.

And when Texas A&M was forced to suspend affirmative action during the Hopwood challenge, internal

memos indicated that the change was not a welcome one for university administrators.

Wrote Provost Ronald G. Douglas on Aug. 7, 1996: “reluctantly, we must change a system

which was working.” In language that expressed disappointment with the Hopwood context, Douglas

explained that Texas A&M had, “developed an admissions process which we believed was fair and promoted

all our goals.” In light of recent statements by Pres. Gates that consideration of race tends to

prevent individualized evaluation of applicants, Douglas reported that “Texas A&M University has

considered a spectrum of individual characteristics beyond simply examining academic credentials”

(http://www.tamu.edu/univrel/aggiedaily/news/stories/archive/080796-2.html).

In a series

of crucial documents, expectations have been raised that Texas A&M would pursue vigorous exercise of

diversity policies. These expectations were outlined in a key report, “Vision 2020,” prepared

internally at the College Station campus and endorsed in 1999 by the Texas A&M Board of Regents. In

addition, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, the Office of Governor, and the Office for

Civil Rights at the US Dept. of Education also have left the clear impression that everything would be

done to enhance diversity that was legally and constitutionally possible.

Furthermore,

an agreement between OCR and the Governor in the summer of 2000 explicitly promises that the state

would consult with OCR on a continuing basis for several more years as Texas seeks to conclude its

period of federal supervision for the de-segregation of higher education.

And finally,

during the Summer of 2003, in response to the Supreme Court’s approval of affirmative action in college

admissions, Texas A&M President Robert Gates promised that, “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” (http://www.tamu.edu/univrel/aggiedaily/news/stories/03/062703-

5.html).

At no time do we find any document or announcement that would prepare us for

the likelihood that widely-promulgated expectations would be abandoned.

Any review of

crucial documents would have to include the “Texas Commitments” that were made by Gov. George W. Bush

to the OCR in the Summer of 2000. The very first sentence of this commitment states that, “The State

of Texas is committed to ensuring equal access to high quality education for all of the State’s

citizens regardless of race, color, or national origin, and is aware of its affirmative duties

under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” (italics added, pdf page 40, Fourth Texas Plan,

Appendix, http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/pdf/0313.pdf).

The “Texas Commitments”

then quickly refer to the Constitutional context established by the Fordice ruling, whereby, “race

neutral policies alone are not sufficient to determine that a state has effectively discharged its

affirmative obligation to dismantle a formerly de jure
segregated system of higher education” (pdf

page 40, Fourth Texas Plan).

The early language of the “Texas Commitments” raises

expectations that “affirmative duties” will be seriously exercised by policy makers across the state of

Texas, and that something more than “race neutral policies” will be considered obligatory for states,

like Texas, who are working to “dismantle a formerly de jure segregated system of higher education.”

Nothing in this language so far hints that Texas will allow any of its campuses to

unilaterally withdraw affirmative action so long as it can be pursued to the fullest extent of the

law.

In fact, the “Texas Commitments” go on to promise that (take a deep breath), “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” (pdf page 42, Fourth Texas

Plan).

This sounds like a mouthful, but the paragraph conveys an expectation

nevertheless, that Texas will operate with a sensitivity to the total context of Constitutional case

law. Thus, when Hopwood was superseded by Grutter, and when the new legal environment was acknowledged

by Pres. Gates in a public release on June 27, 2003, citizens of Texas had a right to expect that the

use of affirmative action in admissions would be part of the state’s, the system’s, and the

university’s “affirmative duties” to do something more than pursue “race neutral policies.”

In Grutter v Bollinger, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote a succinct and clear

vindication of affirmative action. Briefs in favor of affirmative action were filed by prestigious

corporations and institutions, including the United States Military. So when the Supreme Court did

what the US Military asked it to do, and vindicated affirmative action; once again, citizens of Texas

had every reason to expect that an institution with deep and lasting military ties, such as Texas A&M,

would show leadership in the field.

On June 27, 2003, Pres. Gates issued an official

statement that recognized the importance of the Grutter ruling, made reference to Texas A&M’s “Vision

2020” plan, and said, “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”

(http://www.tamu.edu/univrel/aggiedaily/news/stories/03/062703-5.html).

When Pres. Gates

publicly announced that he was seeking “additional opportunities”
in the wake of a Constitutional

vindication of affirmative action, what sort of expectations was he raising in the minds of the

citizens of
Texas? The plain language of his message was clear. Texas A&M University will be doing

more, not less. There was no hint in his public statement that his quest for “additional

opportunities” would culminate five months later in his recommendation to abolish affirmative action in

the admissions process.

On Dec. 9, 2003, The Texas Civil Rights Review filed an open

records request seeking “complete minute-item supporting materials” that were provided to the Regents

when they were asked to adopt the Gates recommendation. The reply from the Texas A&M University System

on Jan. 7 indicates that no supporting rationale whatsoever was provided to the Regents. Only a few

sheets of paper were returned in reply to the Open Records request, and they only convey the bare-bones

outlines of “recommended changes.” A one-page summary of the “recommended changes,” marked “Item 16,

Exhibit D” simply states the bare features of certain academic requirements, and makes no mention of

the fact that the proposal will affect affirmative action. I don’t yet know what to make of the

meaning of “Exhibit D,” but I do know that I asked for the “complete minute-item supporting materials.”

If Exhibits A-C or E-Z also belong to Item 16, I am entitled to them by Texas law, no further

questions asked.

Between June 27 and Dec. 5, Texas A&M University translated “additional

opportunities” afforded by a recent Supreme Court decision into a historical rejection of affirmative

action. In light of the documents that raise our expectations toward more vigorous pursuit of the

state’s “affirmative duties”, the citizens of Texas have not yet been provided with the substantial

documents they have a right to expect, because such an important and counterintuitive transformation in

policy must surely be carefully documented somewhere in a form that is accessible to public review and

comment.

The “Vision 2020” plan that Pres. Gates references in his Jun. 27

announcement was developed by the Texas A&M community and adopted by the Regents on May 28, 1999

(http://www.tamu.edu/vision2020/culture/84.php). Imperative Number Six of this plan calls upon Texas

A&M to become “a leader in promoting diversity in its student body.” Two reasons are given that,

“require diversity”: first there is the intellectual demand that comes with the meaning of a

university; second there is a practical demand of material economy. Both of these demands were

underscored in O’Connor’s vindication of affirmative action. It would seem that O’Connor’s decision

matched perfectly with Texas A&M’s own self-adopted goals

(http://www.tamu.edu/vision2020/culture/43.php).

At crucial points in the documentary

record we find self-adopted promises and plans that seemed ready and waiting for the Supreme Court’s

vindication of affirmative action. Consider again the Governor’s “Texas Commitments” that were pledged

to OCR. In this case the italics were provided by Gov. Bush: “The State and its institutions are

committed to the continuing support, implementation, and,where possible, the augmentation of these

efforts to improve recruitment,retention, and success of other race students, faculty, and staff.”

The Governor’s language of the summer of 2000 sounds very much like the language used

by Pres. Gates in the summer of 2003. Where possible, efforts will be “augmented” with “additional

opportunities.” These are the expectations that were raised by Texas A&M’s own internal plan, the

Governor’s “Texas Commitments”, the O’Connor opinion, and the summer announcement by Pres.

Gates.

But these are not yet all the expectations that have been raised. In the “Texas

Commitments” of Gov. George W. Bush, the state promised to remain in close consultation with OCR during

the period of the Fourth Texas Plan, which runs at least through the 2006-2007 biennial budget:

“Because the State and OCR recognize that the affected universities’ governing boards will play an

important role in implementation, the universities’ governing boards, which will continue to be

composed of outstanding members, will fulfill their constitutional and statutory duties in this regard

and the State will assist, as necessary, the governing boards in effectively carrying out the

agreement. The State and OCR will continue to collaborate during the monitoring and implementation

period of the final State plan until implementation is complete” (pdf page 48, Fourth Texas

Plan).

Again, the language is plain. The Governor promises that Regents will work in

collaboration with the Governor and the OCR as they implement the final stages of de-segregation in

Texas. Surely this means that if the Texas A&M University System Board of Regents is considering a

surprising policy that would eliminate affirmative action so shortly after the Supreme Court affirms

it, then consultation is called for.

The citizens of Texas have not been provided with

any evidence that the “Texas Commitments” have been kept. Where is the documentary evidence of the

Regents’ consultation with the Governor? Where is the correspondence with OCR?

In the

end, citizens of the state of Texas have two reasons to be surprised and two legitimate demands for

public accountability. One the one hand, Texas citizens have a right to be surprised that a University

President’s pledge to seek “additional opportunities” in the wake of the O’Connor opinion turned out to

be a recommendation to abolish affirmative action in admissions. Along with this surprise, the

citizens of Texas also have a right to view and discuss any intervening documentation that would

support such a surprising result.

Finally, the citizens of Texas have a right to be

surprised that the Regents would adopt such a policy in close collaboration with the Governor and OCR.

But if the Regents did NOT collaborate with the Governor and OCR, then the citizens of Texas have a

right to be surprised that the Regents acted unilaterally, in violation of the “Texas Commitments” made

by Gov. George W. Bush. Along with this surprise comes a right. The citizens of Texas have a right to

view and discuss any correspondence that would help us to understand how the Regents, the Governor, and

the OCR collaborated on this particular “implementation” of de-segregation in Texas. If there is no

such documentation, the citizens of Texas have a right to see the Regent’s policy rescinded

immediately, along with the resignation of the Chairman of the Board of Regents.

As an

afterthought, I think about the list of Fortune 500 companies who rushed into court in support of

affirmative action in Michigan. They argued that practical realities of the business world made

affirmative action a wise policy for higher education. So we have another question on our hands.

What’s up with the Chairman and CEO of Clear Channel? Why is Lowry Mays, who is chair of Clear Channel

and the Texas A&M University System, using his significant political clout to implement a reversal that

other corporate leaders would ill advise? I think we need to hear from him, too.

Here’s a clip from Mark Levin’s argument posted at the Texaminer.

“Thus,

Gates’ new policy is entirely consistent with the Supreme Court’s rulings. In the University of

Michigan Law School case, the Law School defined “critical mass” in lower court proceedings as at

least ten percent combined black and Hispanic students. Texas A&M currently exceeds this threshold,

with 11 percent of its students being either black or Hispanic. While many wish this number were

higher, it is unclear whether A&M can resort to racial preferences under the Michigan decisions because

it has already achieved a “critical mass” using colorblind policies.” [Mark Levin texaminer.com

1/7/2004]

But Levin is wrong in fact and in principle. (see more below) Levin seems

to have overlooked the following sentence from Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s majority opinion in

Grutter vs. Bollinger [p. 3 (c)]:

“Enrolling a “critical mass” of minority students

simply to assure some specified percentage of a particular group merely because of its race or ethnic

origin would be patently unconstitutional.”

Justice O’Connor goes on to

aruge:

“But the Law School defines its critical mass concept by reference to the

substantial, important, and laudable educational benefits that diversity
is designed to produce,

including cross-racial understanding and the breaking down of racial stereotypes. The Law School’s

claim is further bolstered by numerous expert studies and reports showing that such diversity promotes

learning outcomes and better prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce, for society, and

for the legal profession. Major American businesses have made clear that the skills needed in today’s

increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people,

cultures, ideas, and viewpoints. High-ranking retired officers and civilian military leaders assert

that a highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps is essential to national security. Moreover,

because universities, and in particular, law schools, represent the training ground for a large number

of the Nation’s leaders, Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629, 634, the path to leadership must be visibly

open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity. Thus, the Law School has a

compelling interest in attaining a diverse student body. 15–21.

Note: Fortune 500

Companies filed briefs in defense of affirmative action before the Supreme Court.

So we

are pleased that Mr. Levin has pointed us in the direction of “critical mass” because, if the term is

to be used according to contemporary constitutional standards, it requires an intelligent discussion of

the educational value of diversity at the College Station campus. This discussion is so far not in

evidence.

But furthermore, Levin ignores also the historical situation of Texas higher

education, which is now pursuing desegregation under federal supervision.

Levin is wrong

about “critical mass” and he fails to consider “de-segregation”. But he’s popular with the

conservative crowd, which I am tempted to call reactionary and

racist.

January 10, 2004
Gates: This is just step in review
By JOHN

LeBAS
Bryan-College Station Eagle Staff Writer

Under fire from minority lawmakers

and civil rights groups, Texas A&M University on Friday abruptly ended a controversial legacy program

that for 14 years gave an edge to some applicants whose relatives had attended the

school.
[Graphic Caption: Eagle photo/Butch Ireland
Frank B. Ashley, Texas A&M University

acting assistant provost for enrollment, talks about the legacy program which university president

Robert Gates discontinued Friday Gates said A&M will no longer award points for legacy in the

admissions review process.]

President Robert Gates’ announcement Friday immediately

ended the only formalized legacy program among the state’s public universities. But he said his

decision was already in motion before critics stepped up pressure this week for A&M to end the

practice.

Several of those critics applauded the elimination of legacy, which they said

disadvantaged minorities applying to the once all-white university. But they continued pressing Gates

to allow consideration of race in admissions decisions to correct A&M’s poor record of minority

enrollment.

Gates said further use of legacy — which last fall helped 353 students who

didn’t qualify for automatic admission get into A&M — was inconsistent with the university’s new policy

to accept students only on merit.

While eliminating legacy removed that inconsistency

and will make the admissions process appear more equitable, the move probably won’t drastically affect

the ethnic makeup of incoming classes, he said.

“I’m an outsider, and I don’t believe

legacy has kept A&M from attracting a diverse class,” Gates told The Eagle on Friday. “The problem is

we’ve not been aggressive enough in recruiting minorities and convincing them to come.”

Several critics balked at the president’s contention that legacy admissions haven’t

pushed out more qualified minorities from the 45,000-student campus.

“We know that A&M

is a school that is built on traditions and talks about the A&M family and traditions as one of its

attributes. So, yes, it’s clear they wanted to keep [new students] in the bloodline,” said state Rep.

Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, who had called for legacy’s elimination. “The other outreach programs were

akin to looking for stepchildren.”

Added state Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston:

“Unfortunately, abolishing the legacy program at Texas A&M doesn’t change the fact that the school is

82 percent Anglo, while the state is less than 50 percent white. This is just the first step in many

that are needed to correct the existing minority gap.”

Although A&M is known for

admitting multiple generations of Aggies from families, giving applicants points for legacy is a

relatively new practice.

Until the late 1980s, A&M essentially was an open-enrollment

campus and had enough room to admit all applicants who met academic guidelines, university officials

said.

When the incoming class ballooned to about 7,400 in 1987, many hopefuls were

turned away. That led to enrollment management and the beginning of a review process for applicants who

didn’t qualify for automatic entry.

A variety of criteria were added to evaluate the

review pool — among them such categories as extracurricular involvement, leadership and, starting in

1989, legacy. In recent years, review-pool applicants could earn up to four of a possible 100 points if

they had siblings, parents or other relatives who had attended A&M.

University officials

say most students who earn legacy points don’t need them to win admission because they have enough from

other categories.

In fact, Gates said Friday, 536 applicants last fall who did earn

legacy points ultimately didn’t make the cut. The vast majority of them were white, as were the 353 who

wouldn’t have gotten in without a legacy score.

None of the 10,000 applicants admitted

last fall got in solely because of legacy, Gates said. He and other university officials said students

always have had to meet minimum academic standards to be considered.

Still, the legacy

practice has given white students an unfair advantage, many minority critics contend, primarily because

blacks were not allowed into A&M until 1963.

“The legacy program has exacerbated a

discriminatory situation,” Texas NAACP President Gary Bledsoe said. “The legacy program does not

benefit [blacks] in the same way it’s benefited many others.”

Approaches

debated

Lawmakers and activists, white and nonwhite, have stepped up pressure in recent

years on Texas’ public universities to enroll more minorities. The change is needed, they say, to

ensure a high level of education for the state’s increasingly diverse population and to correct past

racial discrimination.

Last year, the University of Texas and numerous other public

schools said they would reinstitute affirmative action after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 1996

Hopwood ruling that banned it. A&M, however, would not reintroduce race as one of many admissions

criteria, Gates said in December.

Rather, the president said, the university will revamp

its admissions to a totally “merit-based” system and more aggressively recruit minorities. Among the

changes will be tougher standards for automatic acceptance and a requirement that applicants submit

essays on their backgrounds.

The new approach should help A&M find more qualified

students who can bring diversity to the campus, Gates said.

But the changes ramped up

pressure from affirmative action advocates that reached a crescendo this week with the legacy

debate.

“I would hope they would see we’re serious abut a merit-based process that takes

into account the whole person,” Gates said Friday of those critics.

Still, he said he is

concerned about more backlash because concrete results aren’t expected before the Fall 2005 incoming

class. A&M already is well into the admissions process for next fall, so the most recent round of

reforms — except for the legacy change — won’t affect this year’s applicants.

“There are

a number of things we’re doing to reverse the seven-year decline in the number of minorities,” he said,

referring to greater financial aid for low-income students and giving first-generation college

applicants more weight in the admissions process. “[But] everyone wants us to change it overnight.”

NAACP and Texas LULAC, both of which had threatened legal action to stop the legacy

program, still may consider lawsuits to try and force race back into the admissions process, officials

said.

Gates would not say whether threat of litigation will influence any future

decision on race in admissions, but he said A&M will reintroduce affirmative action should the state

Legislature insist. Several lawmakers, including Coleman and state Sen. Gonzalo Barrientos, D-Austin,

said they saw no need to legislate the matter but hoped A&M would do that on its

own.

Barrientos, who also had slammed the legacy program in recent days, was more

receptive than many of his colleagues of the legacy elimination as a step toward a more diverse

campus.

“I applaud Dr. Gates’ decision to remove the legacy program at this time,” said

Barrientos, whose daughter is an Aggie. “Now, as the father of an A&M graduate, we might be a bit

saddened that the program is scrapped; however, I think it’s the right move.”

But he

agreed with Gates that dropping lega
cy likely will have little affect on the ethnicity of the student

body.

State Rep. Fred Brown, meanwhile, had come out before in favor of legacy but on

Friday changed his tune. The College Station Republ
ican said he now thinks it was unfair to continue

the legacy practice but not consider race in admissions.

Texas A&M’s other local

representative in Austin, state Sen. Steve Ogden, could not be reached Friday.

Aggie

reaction mixed

It was difficult to immediately gauge the reaction of current students,

as Gates’ announcement came on a sleepy Friday before the start of spring classes. Several former

students contacted after the announcement reacted with surprise but were supportive, saying legacy

shouldn’t be used to score applicants if race isn’t.

Chatter on Aggie-related Internet

message boards — which often gives a rough measure of such opinions — showed a mix of support and

disappointment.

Gates said he was prepared for a flood of e-mails on the subject and

that he hopes most Aggies see this as the “next logical step” in a new approach to picking the A&M

student body.

“My guess is that a lot of former students don’t really appreciate how

little impact legacy has had on the process in the real world,” he said. “If the reality is that legacy

helped 300 get in, the perception of some Aggies is probably that it’s 3,000.”

He added

that A&M officials will continue to encourage students from Aggie families to apply for

admission.

Gates said he discussed the legacy decision with the A&M System Board of

Regents and members were supportive. Several regents — including Chairman Lowry Mays and Vice Chairman

Erle Nye, both A&M graduates — could not be reached for comment Friday afternoon.

The

president said he took responsibility for “negative publicity” suffered by A&M since he unveiled the

admissions changes in December. He said removal of legacy should have been done then.

“Today’s announcement brings greater consistency and equity to our admissions decision-making process,”

a statement he released Friday read. “We will continue our review.”

© 2000 – 2004 The

Bryan – College Station Eagle