Author: mopress

GSC supports FCIC March for Diversity
By James Twine
Published:

Wednesday, February 18, 2004

The Texas A&M Graduate Student Council (GSC) said at its

meeting Tuesday that it would support Wednesday’s diversity

march.

via email, Feb. 18, 2004

Texas A&M’s December 2003 Admissions Policy

Decision

For the sake of Texas A&M’s reputation among Latinos and blacks of Texas and

the nation, we hope that “Gains in minority enrollment will come through enhanced outreach, not

[through] changes in admissions policies, requirements and standards,” as the administration contended

in December, 2003.

But if more minorities do not enroll at Texas A&M in the next 2

years, we will have no choice but to consider race as a criterion, as the Supreme Court allowed on June

23, 2003 in Grutter. When Hopwood outlawed race as a factor in March 1996, Texas A&M was even then

enrolling a lamentably low number of freshmen minority students: 230 blacks out of 528 acceptances, 713

Latinos out of 1,432 acceptances, and 177 Asian Americans out of 510 acceptances. Since then we have

consistently failed to recoup even these numbers.

During the 7 years that Hopwood shaped

admissions policy, Aggie campus administrations repeatedly said that Texas A&M was “hamstrung” and

“hampered” from considering race. If only they could consider race, they would say by way of

deflecting criticism, we would have more minorities on campus.

But, since June 2003 the

Supreme Court’s Grutter decision at the University of Michigan has allowed colleges to consider race as

one of several factors. Texans and the nation had all been waiting to see if Texas A&M would consider

race as Rice and the University of Texas are doing.

This is not to say that we are

urging “race-based admissions,” as the media constantly claim and as many people believe. What we are

saying is that race ought to be taken into account–along with all of the other regularly considered

college merit admissions factors.

After all, Latinos and blacks who have earned high

grades, already have the test scores and can demonstrate a good number of the other merits that Texas

A&M looks for, thereby having proven themselves. In minority students, as in white students, such

merits are recognizable accomplishments that speak for themselves. Such applicants can rightfully

claim being special, to being exceptional applicants. That is why we say that race should be an added

diversity factor, one, among others, of the actual manifestations of what is variously known as

diversity.

In the wake of campus events caused by different attitudes toward race, no

one can be persuaded any longer that people are “color-blind” or “race neutral,” as some people want to

believe; and, apparently, neither is the Supreme Court convinced.

The $40,000 family

income cut-off qualifying a student for the new $5,000 a year Regents scholarships, we also need to

point out, is too low. We understand money is tight. And, yes, a student, of any race and background,

with a monthly family gross income of $3,333 who maintains high grades, takes the right courses and has

the needed test scores is a walking miracle and deserves financial support. But even a student with

two custodial parents at Texas A&M are likely earn more than the minimum $40,000 that is required for a

son or a daughter to earn such a scholarship.

During the question and answer session of

the December 3, 2003 meeting with President Gates, one student asked for financially more competitive

presidential and honors scholarships while another brought out that even families earning $100,000 a

year are now “struggling” to meet tuition, rent and other college expenses. If this is so, will

students with the Regents scholarships be able to put together financial packages that will allow them

to stay in school for 4 or 5 years until they graduate? Again, that would require another miracle.

For these reasons, it is difficult to believe that minority enrollment can be achieved

only by enhancing outreach efforts. We have unsuccessfully tried that approach since the early 1980s,

as former Professor Ruth Schaffer brought out month after month, year after year during the meetings of

the Minority Conditions Committee of the Faculty Senate.

Convincing accepted minority

students now to attend Texas A&M in the face of events that we continue to see and that have

traditionally kept minorities from enrolling here appears insurmountable. We are, nevertheless,

willing to be proven wrong. Hopwood has already hurt another wave of minority students and faculty

recruitment as well as campus diversity efforts for more than 7 long years. After 128 years, the next

2 years should tell us whether Texas A&M is capable of attracting more minority students without

including race as an admissions factor.

By Carrie Pierce, “Faculty Senate Addresses Master Plan, Enrollment, Feb. 10, 2004

“We are not racially diverse,” he [Frank Ashley, acting assistant provost for

enrollment] said. “Our numbers were negative for African American enrollment last

year.”

Of the 6,500 freshmen enrolled in fall 2003, only 161 were black, Ashley

said.

“We have something we have to work on here at Texas A&M,” he

said.

Ashley said the recruitment committee is sending people out to all regions of

Texas to attract students, blanketing the whole state.

The recruitment committee and

financial aid department are also coming together for the first time to discuss options, Ashley

said.

English Professor Marco Portales, who was active in the Faculty Senate

debates, read the following statement to Texas A&M University Presdient Robert Gates on Dec. 18, 2003

during an audience with “minority faculty”. Portales was not aware that the president’s own

taskforce on admissions had recommended affirmative action on Aug. 29, 2003. December 18, 2003

Why Texas A&M Should Accept the Grutter Supreme Court Decision

On June

23, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the use of race in college admissions policies in a Michigan

case precisely to help universities like Texas A&M recruit more minority students. Like the University

of Michigan and other top-ranked campuses, Texas A&M has been struggling for more than 20 years to

attract more qualified minority students. Today minorities comprise nearly 50% of the population of

Texas (33% Latinos, 12.8% African Americans, and 3.5% Asian American) and demographers predict

continued growth. Despite this phenomenal growth among minorities, Texas A&M only has an 8% Latino and

a 3% African American student population.

The Grutter verdict surprised many

people who continue to believe in a color-blind, race neutral society. The legal decision surprised

people because instead of embracing the color-blind Hopwood 5th Circuit Court of Appeals 1996 opinion,

the Supreme Court reasserted the 1978 Bakke decision. Bakke had allowed the use of race in college

admissions in that University of California/Davis case.

For this reason, Texas A&M’s

recent decision not to take advantage of the Grutter allowance is contrary to the Court’s intention.

That intention effectively nullified Hopwood, which legally prevented college admissions officials from

admitting more minority students. What universities have discovered over the years is that when race

cannot be weighed as a plus factor, it is nearly impossible to admit qualified minorities. Select

college admissions policies are designed to admit students with the best K- 12 educations and since

most minorities do not have access to the best schools or long-term financial support and parental

guidance, securing a first-rate K-12 education is extremely difficult for most minority

youngsters.

Hopwood (1996-2003) required color-blind, race neutral college admissions

criteria that Grutter now supersedes. This statement means that public universities such as Texas A&M

are expected to take advantage of Grutter, just as Rice and the University of Texas have done. As the

state’s public land-grant institution, Texas A&M cannot and ought not to be out of step with the legal

parameters that Grutter now affords.

Texas A&M’s new admissions policy, however,

embraces Hopwood’s color-blind criteria because our administration believes that including race in

admissions stigmatizes minority students. But the Faculty Committed to an Inclusive Campus believe that

qualified minority students admitted to Texas A&M would not be stigmatized if the university were to

undertake a campaign to explain to the general public the stringent criteria that each student admitted

has to meet.

Since the criteria that determine whether an applicant is admitted have not

been sufficiently promulgated to dispel “race-based” language and thinking, I call upon the campus

administration:

(1) to embrace race in its admissions policy, as the Supreme Court

provides in Grutter; and,

(2) to spell out admissions criteria so that the general

public can learn just how competitive students must be to enter Texas A&M. No one is admitted only

because of race, as some people may think.

Finally, I respectfully request that race be

included in admissions so that we can facilitate inviting, accepting and enrolling more minority

students at Texas A&M. Otherwise, it will be difficult.

Marco Portales
Professor

of English
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas 77843-4227
(979) 845-

8305
mportales@tamu.edu