Category: Uncategorized

  • USA Today Editorial: Beware A&M's Logic of Admissions

    Conclusion: “Critics say admissions should be based solely on

    merit. But that argument assumes an objective standard can assess merit across the nation’s wide range

    of college-bound students. In the subjective world of admissions, pure merit does not exist. Nor should

    it.

    “Choosing a diverse student body that contributes to a stimulating campus

    environment is a freedom worth preserving.”[USA Today Editorial, web posted Jan. 25, 2004, see more

    excerpts below.]
    [Quote:] By pressuring colleges to drop legacy admissions, the federal

    government would interfere with the right of universities to manage their own affairs as long as they

    aren’t violating anti-discrimination laws.

    Some universities are ending legacy

    admissions on their own. Texas A&M stopped the practice last month in the face of criticism that it

    kept legacy preferences even after dropping affirmative action.

    Pressuring all

    universities to follow Texas A&M’s example, however, sends the federal government down a slippery

    slope…..[end quote]

  • Battalion: Bake Sale Irritates Administration

    The A&M chapter of the Young Conservatives of Texas’ recent affirmative action bake

    sale has created a mass of heated correspondence between the organization and school officials about

    diversity.

    Source:
    thebatt.com
    http://www.thebatt.com
    /news/575093.html

  • They Let Hopwood Do their Talking

    Texas A&M Regents Say Nothing in Writing
    About Race or Affirmative

    Action

    Texas A&M Regents were widely reported as rejecting affirmative action in

    admissions. However, an examination of the four sheets of paper considered by the Regents shows that

    they said nothing in writing about affirmative action policy. By making no mention of affirmative

    action, the Regents simply extended the Hopwood prohibition. But the Hopwood prohibition had once upon

    a time interrupted their own ‘good faith’ policy of affirmative action.

    If the Regents

    adopted affirmative action as a sign of ‘good faith’ in 1980, and if it was revoked by outside forces

    in the meanwhile, shouldn’t they resume the practice at their first opportunity, or offer a quite

    serious explanation why not?

    The Grutter decision of the Summer of 2003 had restored

    affirmative action to the Regents, yet they met and voted unanimously to take no notice. This is not

    ‘good faith.’

    By doing nothing to restore affirmative action in 2003, by simply

    extending the Hopwood revocation, and by offering no written explanation, the Regents have effected a

    kind of ‘pocket veto’ of the Supreme Court.

    When a peculiar ‘civil rights’ path has

    been chosen by administrative elites, deep in the heart of Texas, without any documentation whatsoever,

    and having the effect of sustaining a dead law, one feels a shudder of recognition, that this is what

    ‘bad faith’ looks like up close.

    Philosopher Lewis Gordon could not have been more

    correct when he called racism ‘Bad Faith.’

    By Greg Moses
    Jan. 30, 2004

  • Happy Birthday Dr. King

    Published by Counterpunch, Jan. 14,

    2004
    http://www.counterpunch.com/moses01142004.html
    also distributed via

    Portside

    To Write Off the South
    is to Surrender to Bigots

    By Greg

    Moses

    It is the day before Martin Luther King’s birthday, 2004, and I am reading with

    great sadness reports of a recent political analysis that says to Democratic candidates for president,

    “forget the South, white voters will not be coming back to you.” From my home base in Texas, I

    cannot disagree with the report. I have watched the new racism and the new Repulbicanism rise together

    in close collaboration for the past twenty years. I have seen it up close.

    I was there

    in a small Texas town 20 years ago when a rising political star told a frail and elderly black woman to

    get herself a new husband. And I was in that room when the room burst into laughter. The paradigm of

    racist Republicanism was born that day, and it has been winning votes ever since.

    For

    me, the culmination of the process was exemplified by December’s announcement that Texas A&M

    University would drop its 23-year-old commitment to affirmative action. The major players in the

    decision have solid credentials in the Republican establishment, including the corporate leader of

    Clear Channel who acts as chairman of the board of regents, the former director of the CIA who serves

    as president of the university, and a Republican Governor who quietly sits and watches this experiment

    in backlash, without saying anything at all.

    Not to mention a president, whose

    influence over federal civil rights policy can be palpably felt by the absolute silence from the Office

    for Civil Rights. According to promises that George W. Bush himself made in writing, when he was

    Governor of Texas in the Summer of 2000, the OCR is supposed to be an active partner in the civil

    rights policies of Texas higher education, but OCR looks more like a silent partner these

    days.

    All this is sad enough for the South that produced the great Civil Rights

    revolution of the 1950s and 1960s, but it is doubly sad during these days of national tribute to

    King.

    There are white voters who have not gone over to Republican racism. For this

    reason, we do find some relatively progressive representatives such as Lloyd Doggett or Martin Frost.

    But these progressive white voices have been deliberately targeted for removal by a redistricting

    battle that proved the Republican Governor could speak quite a lot when he wanted to.

    Where white, anti-racist voters are supposed to find a future in this mess is a

    question as nasty as the recent political analysis indicates.

    Yet, during this

    commemoration of King’s birthday, we can review what he said in his chapter about “Racism and the

    White Backlash” when he wrote his final book in 1967.

    In Where Do We Go from Here:

    Chaos or Community? King argued that, “we must turn to the white man’s problem.” That problem,

    argued King, could be diagnosed in a contradictory personality that always takes something back for

    everything it gives.

    The Texas A&M decision would be a classic illustration of this

    “strange indecisiveness and ambivalence”. The university president promises to add new resources for

    marketing and recruitment. But since something has been given, something else must be taken away.

    Gone now is affirmative action in admissions.

    Backlash in America, King reminds us, is

    the norm rather than the exception. The Civil Rights Movement was the exception in American history,

    so far as white America is concerned.

    Not all white America, of course. But white

    America as a whole has a predictable pattern of behaving as if white America as a whole were the most

    important people in history.

    King’s frankness about white racism is eloquent. “Racism

    is a philosophy based on a contempt for life…. Racism is total estrangement…. Inevitably it

    descends to inflicting spiritual or physical homicide upon the out-group.”

    Today, you

    can hear the pain of Texas leaders who stand bewildered before the Texas A&M decision. Leaders who

    were never consulted, advised, or warned about the surprising turn of policy, because why? Because

    they were not enough respected. And in the aftermath of their well-organized and collective complaint,

    they are greeted with an implacable silence. The voices that THEY represent need not be heard by the

    rulers who now run Texas A&M.

    In light of President Bush’s recent declarations that we

    must return to outer space with gusto, we may note what King wrote in 1967, that the nation’s

    enthusiasm for solving great problems was curiously selective. No problem is too great for NASA to

    solve. Yet, “No such fervor or exhilaration attends the war on poverty.”

    Or in light

    of the billions that have been budgeted for global war, we might again attend to King’s observations,

    “In the wasteland of war, the expenditure of resources knows no restraints; here our abundance is

    fully recognized and enthusiastically squandered.” King was talking about war budget that amounted to

    a mere $10 billion per year.

    As we drift in the direction of Republican racism, outer

    space enthusiasm, and big bucks for war, it would serve us well to consider what our great national

    philosopher counseled us in 1967. American progress has always been in the hands of dedicated

    minorities who resisted that drift.

    “That creative minority of whites absolutely

    committed to civil rights can make it clear to the larger society that vacillation and procrastination

    on the question of racial justice can no longer be tolerated.” What we can do is never give up,

    especially if we’re white and Southern.

  • Oct. 2003 PowerPoint from Texas Top Higher Ed Lawyer

    At an October 2003 meeting of Texas admissions officers, General Counsel

    of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Jan Greenberg explained the legalities of Affirmative

    Action. See the slide show yourself at our Download

    section.