Author: mopress

[Quote:] Despite the small percentage gains over the twenty-year period,

the number of minority
students and faculty, when viewed as a percentage of the total, remains

small. This is
particularly true of African Americans and Hispanics students. TAMU is basically an

enclave
for the education of white students by white faculty. In addition, although our

undergraduate
students are primarily white U.S. citizens, over half of our graduate students are

from foreign
countries or hold nonresident status. Overall, this is an indication of TAMU’s growing

inability
at both the undergraduate and graduate levels to effectively attract, retain, and educate

diverse
Texan and American citizens despite the need to do so as reflected in the increasing

diversity of
Texas’ college age population. In fact, over the last twenty years there has been a

12.9 percent
growth in our state’s minority population but TAMU still serves the same population

that it did
in 1981. We do note, however, that the sizeable increase in the proportion of women

students
and the increase in the percent of women faculty at TAMU is a major achievement over the

past
two decades.[end quote, Student and Faculty Minority Conditions at Texas A&M University: A

Longitudinal Comparison of the Years 1981, 1991, and 2001. June, August 2002. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, pdf

p. 4, see links for complete pdf.]

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.

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]

[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.]