Category: Uncategorized

  • Bowen tells LeBas: Legacy Program Helped

    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.”

  • The Duke Model Defended

    [Quote:]

    Duke’s own commitment to a racially and ethnically diverse student body was unequivocally affirmed in

    the spring of 1988, when the board of trustees approved a statement of Policy and Criteria for

    Undergraduate Admissions. The statement embraced the concept of “a student body that is diverse not

    only in academic and personal interests and achievement but also in more general ways: racial, ethnic,

    cultural, economic, and geographical.” It went on to say, “Special consideration may be given to

    minority candidates. There is a strong commitment to provide educational opportunities for black

    students and to increase further the diversity of the student body by having substantial representation

    of Hispanic, Asian, and Native-American students.” Other categories of special interest were

    mentioned–including children of alumni, North Carolina residents, and athletes. That remains the

    university’s guiding policy. [Robert J. Bliuise, Re-Affirming Affirmative Action, Duke Magazine,

    Sept.-Oct. 2003.]

  • San Antonio Express News: Budget Cut Threatened

    State funding for Texas A&M University, and possibly confirmation of its regents,

    might be on the line unless the university enrolls more minority students beginning next fall, a state

    senator said Monday.

    Sen. Royce West, D-Dallas, made the comment after African American

    and Hispanic lawmakers met with A&M President Robert Gates.

    Source:

    mysanantonio.com

    http://news.mysanantonio.com
    /story.cfm?

    xla=saen&xlb=320&xlc=1096308&xld=320

  • Website Claims Bush-led OCR will Fight Affirmative Action

    A Thursday guest column at a Conservative website, written by an anti-

    affirmative-action activist, predicts that the Office for Civil Rights at the US Department of

    Education will fight affirmative action in Texas colleges and universities.

    The

    report is remarkable for its well-embedded Republican-party sources. It was posted at USAGOP.Com and

    written by a senior fellow from the Center for Equal Opportunity, Edward Blum.

    The

    report suggests a chilling answer to one of the mysteries in Texas higher education these days: Where

    is the OCR and why are they saying nothing about Texas A&M’s announcement last month that it would

    reject affirmative action in admissions at two of its predominately white campuses?

    The

    Blum column is shocking for its suggestion that OCR will speak out in opposition to affirmative action

    plans at the University of Texas at Austin.

    As Blum argues, “President Bush personally

    –as governor and as president–and the rest of his administration have strongly supported the use of

    race-neutral means to achieve diversity. Indeed, they have pointed to the system UT was using–and now

    wants to reject–as a model approach.”

    Blum’s report fails to mention that Bush made

    written promises to OCR while he was Governor, that Texas higher education would augment where possible

    its efforts to de-segregate predominantly white campuses, such as the University of Texas at Austin and

    the Texas A&M University campuses at College Station and Galveston.

    And Blum does not

    address what OCR’s relationship might be to upholding the current context of constitutional

    law.

    When Bush was Governor, Texas was living under the influence of the Hopwood

    decision, which was widely enforced as a prohibition against affirmative action in college admissions

    for the state of Texas.

    But Governor Bush was also party to an ongoing de-segregation

    plan, and he made written promises, called the “Texas Commitment,” during the Summer of

    2000.

    Partly because of the Hopwood ruling, the implementation plan of the “Texas

    Commitment” focused on rectifying long-standing neglect of historical black campuses in Texas, at

    Prairie View and Texas Southern Universities.

    Yet, the “Texas Commitment” by Gov. Bush

    promised that Texas would operate within the complex context of constitutional case law and would

    augment its efforts wherever possible to integrate predominantly white

    campuses.

    Meanwhile, the state’s top lawyer for Texas higher education has been

    advising admissions officers about constitutional criteria for affirmative action that were created by

    the Supreme Court in the Grutter ruling of Summer 2003.

    Blum’s column raises questions

    about the kind of civil rights logic that would be used to wield the power of OCR in opposition to

    adoption of a constitutional affirmative-action program, especially in the context of a “Texas

    Commitment” that was solicited by OCR in the first place.

    But Blum’s column also

    suggests that a larger political agenda might help explain Texas A&M’s announcement that it would not

    take up the Grutter ruling as its guide.

    I choose the term “announcement” rather than

    “decision” because nothing about race or affirmative action was ratified in writing at the widely-

    reported meeting of the Board of Regents last December. It came as a complete surprise to state

    regulators, legislators, and civil rights organizations. And it is not yet clear how the policy was

    percolated up through the decision-making structures at the College Station

    campus.

    Furthermore, Blum’s political analysis fails to note that the top ten percent

    plan may have turned out to be even more contentious among Texas voters than affirmative

    action.

    In a recent comment to El Paso reporter Darren Meritz, Texas state Senator Jeff

    Wentworth, a San Antonio REPUBLICAN, said, “There are a lot of problems with the Top 10 Percent rule,

    and it needs to be repealed.” Sen. Wentworth, suggested that the restoration of affirmative action

    would eliminate the need to impose the widely-studied race-neutral attempt to achieve racial diversity,

    that was invented as an antidote to Hopwood.

    Sen. Wentworth’s suggestion during an

    election year may offer Democrats a chance to argue that affirmative action is actually less divisive

    and more precise than the so-called race-neutral percentage plan.

    Meanwhile today at the

    University of Texas campus, a new report calls for some legislative relief from the percentage

    plan.

    And UT President Larry Faulkner surrounded himself today with diversity allies

    from across the nation for a two-day diversity symposium. Please stay tuned to Texas, where the future

    of civil rights is on the line.

  • Colin Allen: Adding It Up

    Narrow

    application
    Letter to the Editor
    theeagle.com
    Jan. 13, 2004

    The

    editorial on Texas A&M’s admissions policy (Eagle, Jan 11) claims that legacy points are race-neutral.

    But the numbers don’t add up to that conclusion. The editorial states that in 2003, legacy points went

    to 312 white students, 6 black students and 27 Hispanic students. Of 345 students receiving legacy

    points, only 9.5 percent were minorities — a rate that is lower than the 18 percent of minorities

    attending the university, and much lower than the proportion of minorities in the state as a

    whole.

    By favoring white students disproportionately, the policy may have been

    technically race-neutral in that it didn’t explicitly mention race, but it was not effectively race-

    neutral in that it used a criterion that happens to be strongly correlated with race.

    At

    issue here are two definitions of race-neutral: one which narrowly looks at the description of the

    policy, the other which looks at its outcomes.

    Legacy points were applied in a narrowly

    race-neutral way to relatives of former students.

    But that population is not as racially

    diverse as the state, or even of the current student body. Consequently, the outcome of the policy

    statistically favored white students at a disproportionate rate.

    Even though more

    minority legacy students accepted the spots they were offered, the overall rate of minority admissions

    under the legacy program was less than of the university as whole. This was not a race-neutral policy

    as measured by outcomes.

    One of the keys to increasing minority enrollment would be to

    gain the confidence of the young minority scholars of Texas, who must overcome what they have heard

    about the environment and culture of A&M being stacked against them.

    The end of the

    legacy policy at A&M is a small step in the right direction towards helping to change

    that.

    COLIN ALLEN
    College Station