Author: mopress

(To

begin Week Two of the legitimation crisis in civil rights that was precipitated by the Texas A&M Board

of Regents, The Texas Civil Rights Review returns to the question of affirmative action as a civil

right.)

Summary: In 1980 the Texas A&M University Regents adopted affirmative action as

a “good faith” commitment to civil rights. In 2000, Governor George W. Bush agreed that affirmative

action would be pursued according to “controlling law.” With “controlling law” now back on the

side of affirmative action in 2003, what gives the Regents the right to reverse their own “good

faith” policy?

I have read with interest some of the weekend news reports that still

fail to acknowledge certain basic facts, chief among them being that Texas is one of a few states that

enjoys special status because the US Dept. of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has determined that

the state exhibits vestiges of segregation…..

This dimension of the question I am

dismayed to see buried under language about “diversity” and “preferences.” In fact, crucial civil

rights issues are being affected, and the people of Texas so far have not been given any explanation of

the likely civil rights implications of the Texas A&M policy, from either the president, Board of

Regents, Governor, or media reports.

To document the question more closely, here is a

quote (copied and pasted) from the “Texas Commitment” to the Office of Civil Rights signed by

Governor George W. Bush on May 11, 2000 and cited in the Fourth Texas Plan, p. 42 [a pdf version of the

Fourth Texas Plan may be found at the following

URL:

http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/pdf/0313.pdf%5D

Here is what

Governor George W. Bush promised:

“It is understood that 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.”

That is the verbatim

clip.

After the overthrow of Hopwood, doesn’t “controlling law” indicate that

affirmative action is a constitutional civil right, especially necessary under the textbook conditions

presented by Texas A&M University?

In 1980, the Texas A&M Board of Regents voluntarily

adopted a policy that included a “Commitment to Numerical Objectives.” Here’s what Texas A&M

University System Chancellor said at the time:

“The adoption of this resolution by the

Board will be the first official step taken by any governing board in Texas toward voluntary

compliance; and, in my view, will go a long way toward excluding Texas from the list of states who are

scheduled to receive letters of compliance from the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of

Education. If we can adopt this resolution and begin its good faith implementation, in the company of

other major colleges and universities in Texas, this action may well enable us to manage our own

affairs in the carrying out of various desegregation activities”

Affirmative action,

in other words, is the price that Texas A&M agreed to pay in order to maintain other freedoms in its

so-called desegregation strategy. From where, suddenly, did the Texas A&M Board of Regents derive the

freedom to de-segregate without affirmative action?

[For reference to the above document

from Chancellor Frank Hubert please visit the html collection of the Texas Civil Rights review

at:
http://pages.prodigy.net/gmoses/tcrr/edudocs.htm#hubert80a%5D

It has not yet been

made clear how the Texas A&M Board of Regents considered the special obligations that the school should

respect as a party to commitments that it made in 1980 and that were recently renewed by the Governor

in 2000.

So I restate the dilemma we face if we consider the decision by the Texas A&M

Regents as a “civil rights” decision.

Either the Board of Regents did not consider the

question of their civil rights obligations, and thereby disregarded their “good faith” civil rights

commitment altogether, or the board acted with respect to some specific judgment, advice, or consent

that has not been fully explained to the people of Texas.

Certainly, the statement

issued by the Texas A&M President addresses many things, but it does not address the question of

affirmative action as a commitment to “civil rights.”

In the absence of any discussion

whatsoever about this crucial matter, it would seem that the Texas A&M Board of Regents, which once led

the state into “Numerical Commitments” is now opening the gate the other way.

Who

would have given their support to the Texas A&M initiative if they had known the likely implications

for civil rights?

Under the Fordice ruling, which still stands as controlling law (even

as Hopwood has fallen) it would be presumed that states finding themselves in predicaments such as

Texas would be “expected” to administer a constitutional plan of affirmative

action.

Is the Texas A&M decision changing the shape of “controlling law” in civil

rights? Until the questions are fully addressed, I remain worried. It looks like the Texas A&M

decision has civil rights implications larger than the College Station campus. Furthermore, it looks

like the Board of Regents has not exemplified “excellence in leadership” when it comes to civil

rights.

What it looks like is that the Texas A&M Board of Regents promised to undertake

affirmative in “good faith” only so long as it could find no reason to break the promise. First

chance it had to wiggle out, there it went, without any “civil rights” discussion. That’s what the

evidence suggests so far.

Citizens of Texas deserve a full accounting from the Texas A&M

Board of Regents as to how their decision provides “leadership excellence” in the struggle for civil

rights in Texas.

“Welcome. This portal responds to the immediate Civil Rights challenge posed by Texas

A&M’s decision to suspend affirmative action in admissions.”

For complete text of Dec.

2003 page header, see “Read More” below: Dec. 2003

“Interposition and

Nullification” at A&M

Welcome. This portal responds to the immediate Civil Rights

challenge posed by Texas A&M’s decision to suspend affirmative action in

admissions.

Please feel free to add your comments to the stories below. No registration

required for that. Registration to post other forms of content, including “Forum” messages, is free,

quick, and secure.

Come back to browse updates, or register your email address for

occasional bulletins.

Note: The Texas Civil Rights Review began collecting links and

resources about institutionalized racism during a 1997 federal review of civil rights in state higher

education programs.

The team determined that vestiges of segregation still existed. This

places Texas in a special category of civil rights responsibility.

See essential

materials on the history of civil rights in Texas higher education at “Sections” (from the menu to

your upper left).

Thanks for your interest.
Greg Moses
Site

Editor
gmosesx@prodigy.net

Jan. 8, 2004
End `legacy’ program, A&M urged
Minorities say policy

favors white applicants
By Todd Ackerman
Copyright 2004 Houston

Chronicle

Minority politicians and activists around the state Wednesday urged Texas A&M

University to bring consistency to an admissions policy that doesn’t consider race or ethnicity but

includes a “legacy” program that favors whites. The legacy program, which gives points to

applicants whose parents, siblings or grandparents went to A&M, is the deciding factor in the admission

of more than 300 white freshmen annually. Only a handful of blacks and about 25 Hispanics are admitted

each year because of the program.

“This legacy program thing is nothing more than

conservative affirmative action,” said state Rep. Paul Moreno, D-El Paso. “It’s admission by

invitation only.”

Jim Harrington, a veteran civil rights lawyer who heads the Texas

Civil Rights Project, said A&M needs to change its policy or “it’s going to be Brown vs. the board of

regents of Texas A&M,” an allusion to the landmark desegregation case of the

1950s.

Moreno, Harrington and Bledsoe were among a number of officials who attacked

A&M’s admissions policy at a news conference at the state Capitol. News conferences were also

conducted on the front steps of City Hall in Houston and in San Antonio.

A&M’s legacy

program is drawing particular fire because the university recently announced it will not consider race

in admissions. The announcement followed a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that universities can give

minorities a boost in admissions, in effect overturning the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ Hopwood

decision, which had banned racial preferences in higher education in Texas since

1996.

Spurning the new opportunity, A&M President Robert Gates said attracting

minorities is a top priority but stressed that “students should be admitted on merit — and no other

basis.”

He had no response to the criticism of the legacy program Wednesday, releasing

a statement that said A&M’s admissions process has been “under review and will continue to be

evaluated to ensure it achieves one of the university’s primary objectives — that of having a student

body that is more representative of the state of Texas.”

A&M’s undergraduate

population is 82 percent white, 9 percent Hispanic, 2 percent black and 3 percent Asian-

American.

Typically, anywhere from 1,650 to more than 2,000 A&M applicants a year

receive legacy credit, four points on a 100-point scale that also takes into account such factors as

class rank and test scores.

While most applicants don’t need legacy points to get in,

in 2003, 312 whites were admitted because of them. In 2002, that figure was 321.

The

program was the difference for six blacks and 27 Hispanics in 2003, and three blacks and 25 Hispanics

in 2002.

State Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, who has twice filed bills in the

Legislature to end A&M’s legacy program, said last week he plans to sponsor such legislation again, as

early as spring if a special session is called.

But state Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-

Houston, who said at the Houston news conference that he will support any such bill, added that he’d

prefer A&M acquiesce on its own and change its policy, either to end legacies or consider race. He said

he plans to ask Gov. Rick Perry to have his appointees on the A&M board of regents vote to make the

school’s admissions policy “consistent.”

Sens. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, and Gonzalo

Barrientos, D-Austin, added that they plan to take a closer look before voting to confirm future

gubernatorial appointees to university governing boards.

Other officials at the three

news conferences included U.S. Congress members Chris Bell and Sheila Jackson Lee; state

representatives Mike Villarreal, Joaquin Castro, Jose Menendez, Dawnna Dukes, Jessica Farrar and Dora

Olivo; and representatives from the Urban League, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational

Fund, and the League of United Latin American Citizens.

A&M’s legacy program was even

criticized by an official of an anti-affirmative action group that Tuesday praised A&M’s decision not

to consider race while announcing that a loose coalition of conservative leaders recently wrote to

Perry, other elected state officials and the University of Texas System board of regents, calling on

them to stop UT from reintroducing racial preferences in admissions.

The official,

Center for Equal Opportunity senior fellow Edward Blum, said he thinks legacy admissions are “a stupid

idea.” He said A&M should revisit them.

The letter about UT was signed by former U.S.

Attorney General Edwin Meese, California anti-affirmative action leader Ward Connerly, and eight other

political or legal activists.

“We are all, frankly, baffled why (UT President Larry)

Faulkner would insist on treating students differently because of their skin color and their

ancestors’ national origin when there is demonstrably no reason to engage in such unfair and divisive

activity,” said the letter, sent in mid-December.

Wednesday, there seemed to be no

confusion among officials at the news conferences.

Villarreal, D-San Antonio, noted the

inconsistency of A&M passing up an opportunity to increase minority enrollment because that would

“amount to special treatment of a specific set of the student population, then in the next breath

continuing a program that does exactly that for a segment of the student population already

disproportionately represented.”

“A public university can’t have it both ways and

maintain any semblance of fairness, consistency and equity,” he said.

Clay Robison

contributed to this story from Austin.

Civil Rights does not mean equal opportunity, it means
equal results. We do not

even have equal opportunity in many situations
(education, job income, etc.) and even if we did, IT

WOULD NOT BE
ENOUGH. It is time to take back from the white man what he has taken from us
for

so long. Affirmative action is a first step, but we must go
further. We MUST require quotas for

corporate America and educational
institutions to ensure we get what we deserve and are entitled

to. Texas A&M
should be stripped of all state funds until it establishes an
affirmative action

policy, and if black students don’t exceed the percentage of
the general populace within 4 years,

funds should be revoked
PERMANENTLY. First steps to freedom! [tsmith5001@yahoo.com 1/9/2004]