Author: mopress

I would like to post a contrary view that is likely to be unpopular on this site. My

intent is not to be a troll, but to generate a serious discussion and exchange some different points of

view, even at the risk of getting flamed.

[This message was originally posted as a

“comment” to one of the items below. It deserves to be lifted out for fuller consideration. I am

replying to jblanton at the “Forums” section. See “reply to legacy” under “Texas A&M Today” and

“reply to affirmative action under “Philosophy of Affirmative Action”–gm] First of all, as an

alum of Texas A&M, I have two different perspectives on the legacy issue. As a father, I certainly like

the idea of my daughters getting an extra 4 points on a 100 point admissions scale. A&M is a great

school and is much more competitive now than it was when I attended, and it wasn’t that easy to get in

back then. And as a parent, you always want what is best for your kids. However, in the context of the

recent admissions changes which are supposed to make admissions based soley on merit, I understand the

need to eliminate the legacy benefit. President Gates has as well, and I support his decision to remove

it. My point is that people who like the idea of legacies getting a little extra help aren’t

necessarily doing it because they hope to keep a minority student from being admitted, just as a

supporter of affirmative action in admissions isn’t doing it with the main purpose of depriving a

white guy of getting admitted. From the soundbites I’ve seen on the news, some protesters seem to

think that the legacy policy was designed with a secret racist agenda to screw over minorities, and I

really don’t think that’s the case.

With regard to affirmative action, I think we need

to step back and look at the bigger picture. It is a fact that the student population of Texas A&M is

weighted towards whites relative to the ethnic makeup of the population of the state it serves. It is

also true that historically, minorities were not admitted, so there is a history of discrimination.

Finally, regardless of your point of view, I think most reasonable people would agree that diversity is

a good thing, especially at an institution of higher learning. In fact, it is a necessity IMHO for A&M

to continue to be a top-notch, world-class university, and Gates has acknowledged as

much.

I see two questions from this. The first is: when have you reached the goal? The

second is: what is the best way to achieve it?

Gates didn’t come right out and state

what the racial breakdown should be for the student population, he just said that it’s not what it

should be and that A&M needs to increase the minority enrollment. I agree with that position. Take

Prarie View A&M for example. Prarie View A&M has traditionally been a mostly black college. I think it

would probably benefit them as well to diversify their student populace for the same reasons as I think

the College Station campus should. Diversity is a good thing. Does that mean Prarie View A&M needs to

establish an affirmative action program for non-blacks? I don’t think so. Should the student body

relect the overall state population’s ethnic makeup exactly? Again, I don’t think so. I still think

A&M (College Station) needs to continue to strive to increase minority enrollment, but like everything

else, it should be put in perspective.

So, let me address the second question: what is

the best way to increase minority enrollment? Affirmative action is one way of doing it, but is it the

best way? Although the U.S. Supreme Court decided that it is constitutional, race cannot be the primary

factor in admissions, nor are any kind of quotas allowed. Secondly, if you do use it, it is a very

controversial method, even if the intent is good. If you’re a white guy that doesn’t get admitted

while someone else with a slightly lower score does because they happened to get extra points due to

their race, it’s hard to view it as anything but reverse discrimination. It makes some people

resentful and others get unfairly labeled. I’m not a minority, but I imagine it would make me angry if

someone accused me of obtaining something not because of my hard work but the color of my

skin.

Gates has suggested special minority recruitment programs, which certainly is

certainly a good idea. But why do A&M (and other universities) have to recruit top minority students?

i.e., why aren’t there enough “good” minority students to go around so that you don’t have to make

such a special effort to recruit them?

I think the biggest civil rights issue isn’t

with A&M’s office of admissions, but rather the secondary education system. Secondary eduction in

Texas has traditionally been funded with local property taxes, and local property taxes vary widely

depending on the socioeconomic condition of the local populace. Minorities that were historically

discriminated against tend to be concentrated in poorer property districts, which in a lot of cases

means their kids go to crappy schools and get a crappy education, and then have trouble competing to

get in to A&M or UT or get a decent job. Seems like a vicious cycle to me. By ensuring that every Texas

kid gets an opportunity for a decent secondary education, we don’t have to fix the problem with a

controversial affirmative action program when that kid gets older and wants to compete for a slot at a

prestigious university or a decent job. The state legislature is supposedly supposed to take this issue

up in the near future. Maybe they can get it right this time.

Well, that’s it. I don’t

mean to be insensitive or rude, so if I’ve come across that way, I apologize. I am just trying to

start an open and honest discussion, and I’m open to listening to other points of view. Flame on. And

Gig’em Aggies.

Texas A&M Ban on ‘Legacies’

Fuels Debate on Admissions
By GREG

WINTER
New York Times
Published: January 13, 2004

Last week, Texas A&M

abolished its preferential admission policy for legacies, the relatives of alumni, calling it an

“obvious inconsistency” in a system that is supposedly based on merit alone. Yet the move has hardly

ended the furor swirling around the university’s admissions policies.
Local politicians had

been outraged that the university continued to give special treatment to legacies, the vast majority of

whom are white, while refusing to give the same consideration to minority

applicants.

But ending preferences for legacies was not their goal. In fact, the same

politicians said yesterday that scrapping the policy was a poor substitute for reinstating affirmative

action as a way to achieve diversity on campus.

“This discussion is far from over,”

said State Representative Garnet Coleman, Democrat of Houston. “They act like they’ve done something

for students of color by eliminating the legacy program. They have not. The new policy takes away the

advantage of some students, but it does not remedy the obstacles faced by students of color and

women.”

Texas A&M’s decision underscores the volatile relationship between affirmative

action and legacy preferences. While one has been the center of intense legal struggles, the other has

often been cited as no less discriminatory but scarcely challenged in courts.

Other

public universities, like the University of Georgia, have eliminated their legacy programs in recent

years, in part to ensure that if affirmative action is not being applied, then neither are other

nonacademic criteria.

Senator John Edwards of North Carolina has made the issue part of

his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, saying legacy programs give an “unfair

advantage” to those who do not need it.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of

Massachusetts, has also introduced legislation to require universities to put out detailed statistics

on the race and income of the students who benefit from the practice.

Even ardent

opponents of affirmative action often condemn legacy programs, arguing that they perpetuate the same

kind of advantages as considerations of race.

Edward Blum, a senior fellow at the Center

for Equal Opportunity, which opposes affirmative action, described the legacy programs as “bad

educational policy,” saying, “It smacks of elitism.”

Robert M. Gates, the president

of Texas A&M, acted last week after local lawmakers, members of Congress and community groups held news

conferences across the state to denounce the university’s preferential treatment of

legacies.

The outcry came because the university decided last month against using

affirmative action in admissions. That left it in the unusual position of rejecting race as a factor

while still allowing family ties to influence the admissions process.

“To be so adamant

about race not being a factor and then to have such a large legacy program is hypocrisy,” said State

Senator Rodney Ellis, Democrat of Houston. “It’s just so blatantly inconsistent that it defies common

sense.”

At highly selective universities, several nonacademic factors are usually

considered simultaneously, including race, geography, legacy and sometimes even how generous a family

may later be to the university.

At Texas A&M, most students are accepted on the strength

of their academics, Dr. Gates said. He also said that while some alumni were frustrated by the

elimination of the legacy program, most understood the reasons for doing away with

it.

In each of the last two years, more than 300 white students were ultimately admitted

to the university because their family members had gone there, The Houston Chronicle reported this

month. That is nearly as many as the total number of black students admitted to the university in those

years.

Because of a 1996 appeals court ruling known as Hopwood, universities in Texas

were barred from considering race in admissions until a Supreme Court ruling in June allowed the

practice. Since then, several of Texas A&M’s competitors have begun to look at race once

again.

But Dr. Gates contends that his recent revamping of the university’s admissions

policies were intended to increase diversity on campus. More students will be evaluated on the basis of

their hardships, experiences and leadership potential than before, he said, and outreach in

predominantly minority areas will be particularly

aggressive.

A Poor Legacy:

A&M admissions policy

smacks of

unfairness
EDITORIAL-Dallas Morning News
12:04 AM CST on Wednesday, January 7, 2004

Texas A&M last year admitted 312 white freshmen from families of A&M graduates –

freshmen who wouldn’t have gotten in otherwise. It’s a nod to a long-standing program that gives

additional consideration to the children, grandchildren or siblings of former A&M students.
But

this is the same public university that announced last month it wouldn’t consider the race of

applicants in its admission process, even though many schools, public and private, take race into

account among other academic and non-academic factors.

As state Rep. Garnet Coleman of

Houston put it, “If you want to go to A&M, it pays to be a legacy applicant rather than

black.”

While that isn’t the message A&M officials intend, it certainly is the message

they have delivered.

In abolishing race as an admissions consideration, A&M vowed to

increase minority outreach and to focus on attracting low-income and first-generation college students.

But to our mind, it is wildly inconsistent for the university to reject race as an admissions factor

and then to consider family DNA to be perfectly acceptable.

A&M officials say minority

applicants with ties to the A&M family are admitted at about the same rate as white applicants with

family ties to the school. But while that seems fair on paper, there is a disparate impact. Last year,

six blacks and 27 Hispanics – students who wouldn’t have been admitted if family members hadn’t

preceded them at A&M – got in under the legacy program. In contrast, family ties provided enough points

on the school’s admissions scale for nine times as many white candidates to be admitted who otherwise

wouldn’t have been accepted.

Universities that regard an applicant’s race as one of

many factors for admission would be justified to include family ties as well in their basket of

considerations. But now that A&M has removed race from its selection process, the school also should

jettison its legacy program, as other Texas public universities have done. If, as A&M officials

contend, most applicants don’t need legacy consideration to be admitted, then that’s yet another

reason to ditch the program.

Perception matters, and the legacy program at A&M leaves

the impression that the university isn’t serious about increasing its minority enrollment. It’s time

for the antiquated system to become history.

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.”