Category: Higher Education

  • Fort Worth Star Telegram Summary

    Posted on Thu, Jan. 08, 2004

    DALLAS & STATE DIGEST
    Wire

    Reports
    AUSTIN

    Lawmakers press A&M to change legacy policy

    A

    group of angry state lawmakers implored Texas A&M University on Wednesday to change an admissions

    policy that gives preference to applicants whose parents or grandparents graduated from the

    school.
    Representatives of state civil rights groups indicated that they would sue the school if

    the policy doesn’t change.

    The school, which recently decided it would not consider

    race as a factor, last year admitted through its legacy program more than 300 students who would not

    have qualified otherwise.

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

    than the total number of African-Americans admitted,” Gary Bledsoe, president of the National

    Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said at a news conference.

    Bledsoe

    called the admissions program “inherently discriminatory” because blacks did not attend Texas A&M

    until 1963, negating the “legacy” of many minority applicants.

    “It clearly undermines

    the ability of minorities to be able to get the fruits of their labor,” Bledsoe

    said.

    Despite the school’s refusal to consider race in admissions, A&M President Robert

    Gates has promised lawmakers that he would lead a charge to increase minority

    enrollment.

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

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

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

    representative of the state of Texas,” Gates said in a statement released

    Wednesday.

    A&M is the state’s only public school with a legacy program to boost alumni

    support.

  • Legacy Admissions Questioned at Texas A&M

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

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

    Houston Chronicle

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

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

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

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

    are admitted because of legacy points.

    “That’s a lot of kids being advantaged because

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

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

    those grounds.”

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

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

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

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

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

    college legacy programs.

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

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

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

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

    a program they say perpetuates class distinction and white advantage.

    Gates, president

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

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

    future.

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

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

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

    Burnam said

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

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

    2001.

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

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

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

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

    Typically, anywhere from

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

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

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

    community service and others.

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

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

    ties. In 2002, that figure was 321.

    The legacy program was the difference for six blacks

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

    A&M officials noted

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

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

    “I wish I had the

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

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

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

    Although A&M announced in

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

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

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

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

    Legacy programs date

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

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

    enrollment of Jews and other minorities.

    Today, nearly all selective private

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

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

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

    The largest legacy

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

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

    Yale and Princeton.

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

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

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

    Because they

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

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

    linked.

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

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

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

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

    But “unlike race,

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

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

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

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

    Ashley counters

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

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

    said.

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

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

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

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

    threats.

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

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

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

    that change at the Legislature’s next regular session.

    But if Burnam, Coleman and

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

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

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

    Until

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

    “Universities with a

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

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

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

    that.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    conference.

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

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

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

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

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

    Wednesday’s move was the

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

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

    program.

    The lawmakers and civil rights activists called on the university to

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

    the school is struggling to diversify.

    Last year, Anglos accounted for 82 percent of

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

    and Asian Americans accounted for 3 percent.

    By comparison, Anglos accounted for 60

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

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

    Americans made up 17 percent.

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

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

    He was

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

    attendance and graduation rates.

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

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

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

    factors.

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

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

    Although

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

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

    Of those

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

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

    2003.

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

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

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

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

    nothing even resembling merit,” Bledsoe added.

    Texas A&M officials didn’t respond to

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

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

    the same rate as Anglo legacies.

    Late Wednesday, A&M President Robert Gates issued this

    statement:

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

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

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

    representative of the state of Texas.”

    And the university’s true problem in

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

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

    each year actually enroll.

    Instead of concentrating on an affirmative action admissions

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

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

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

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

    enrollment.

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

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

    across the stage.”

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

    Jan. 7, 2004
    Press Release
    From the

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

    Texas A&M to Correct Admissions Policies

    Austin, TX// Senators Rodney Ellis and Gonzalo

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

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

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

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

    Texas.

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

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

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

    Similar press

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

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

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

    enrollment.

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

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

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

    merit.”

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

    only six were African American and 27 Hispanic.

    Legacy admissions programs don’t just

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

    kids whose parents aren’t Aggies.”

    All three press conferences in Texas focused on a

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

    gap.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    enrollment.”

  • Our Thesis vs Ayn Rand Institute

    The Dec. 15 OpEdge of the Forth Worth Star Telegram, presents our first-week response to the

    Texas A&M announcement alongside a very different opinion from the Ayn Rand Institute.

    Like every other response to the Texas A&M opinion, the Ayn Rand Institute refuses to

    deal with the fact that Texas higher education is under federal supervision for de-

    segregation.

    Therefore the Ayn Rand Institute can present the following argument:

    (1) “integration” is a worthy goal (2) “diversity” is not (3) Texas A&M is correct to abandon

    affirmative action as a means to diversity. But what if (4) “de-segregation” was the original intent

    of affirmative action at A&M and (5) “de-segregation” has not yet been completed? Then are we not

    back to step one above: “integration”? The only thing standing between the Ayn Rand Institute and

    the proper conclusion is consideration of a crucial fact: Texas higher education is not yet integrated.

    Therefore, integration is the worthy reason why affirmative action should be continued.

    The Ayn Rand Institute, like all other eyes of Texas, is looking chiefly at the

    framework of “diversity” when the framework of “de-segregation” is more relevant. But the eyes of

    Texas have been deliberately led in the direction of “diversity” by the magicians who crafted the

    vanishing of affirmative action at Texas A&M.

    Curiously enough, the much-watched debate

    between campus president Gates and campus conservatives in the weeks leading up to the president’s

    announcement served to solifiy an impression that “diversity” was the relevant framework for civil

    rights policy at Texas A&M.

    Let history reflect that the state’s initial reaction to

    the Gates announcement was completely swept into the corner of diversity. No discussion of the

    state’s obligations to de-segregation has yet taken place.

    See the OpEdge page here.