Author: mopress

…were these four lousy sheets of paper. Go to

our Open Records pages to see what complete supporting materials look like when you’re about to make

civil rights history in Texas.

And yes, we double-

checked…

“The need for change is the expansion of the faculty; more minority

recruitment in terms of our obligation to the state of Texas; expanding our research effort and taking

it to a new, national level; having A&M play on a national stage in important arenas; and more national

recognition for the achievements of our faculty.”

Texas A&M President Robert Gates

interview with Houston Chronicle reporter Todd Ackerman, Jan. 24, 2003. I read this (Jan. 26) within

an hour after talking to a state regulator who says there’s really not much the state is empowered to

do when it comes to directing A&M’s “obligations” to diversity. Placing “minority recruitment” in

the category of “obligations to the state of Texas” is an interesting construction. There were no

follow up questions published in the interview.

It looks like that’s what Texas State Senator Jeff Wentworth is saying

to El Paso Times Reporter Darren Meritz in a Jan. 23 report on the “Princeton

Study.”

Could it be, that Texas politicians would prefer affirmative action over the

ten percent plan?…
[Quote:] One problem that state Sen. Jeff Wentworth sees in the Top 10

Percent Plan is a lack of consideration of which of three high-school curricula — minimum, recommended

for college, or advanced — a student completes upon graduation.

Wentworth also said

that the 10 percent plan might not be necessary because it was created to help increase minority

enrollment at Texas universities before the Supreme Court ruled this year that race can be considered a

factor in university admissions.

“There are a lot of problems with the Top 10 Percent

rule, and it needs to be repealed,” said Wentworth, R-San Antonio. The rule “has energized and

infuriated both students and parents alike.” [end quote El Paso Times Jan.

23].

Wentworth says the ten percent plan is no longer needed, now that affirmative

action has been restored, and the legislature will repeal the 10 percent plan if it gets a chance in

April.

But does that mean the state will also ask its universities to practice

affirmative action in admissions?

This is interesting news, since the ten percent plan

is sometimes viewed as a politically more popular measure than affirmative action. Stay

tuned.

[For more on the Princeton Study, see News Archives and links, BTW the El Paso

Time headline, “Top 10% plan has improved diversity at top Texas colleges” should be taken with

caution.]

But whatever the outcome of Texas A&M’s decision, Duke administrators say the children of

Blue Devils will continue to receive special consideration during the admissions process. [Chronicle of

Higher Education Onlline, by Cindy Yee, Jan. 22, 2004.]

A few more paragraphs clipped

below…
“As a broader educational or public policy issue, this is a fairly new subject,” [Duke

director of undergrad admissions Christoph] Guttentag said. “In the Texas A&M case, a tie was made

between legacy admissions and affirmative action. I’m not sure that they should be so closely tied,

but I think that the reason some people are paying greater attention to legacy admissions now is that

it has to do with a renewed interest in issues of affirmative action.”…

In fact,

[Provost Peter] Lange said, by establishing alumni loyalty through policies like the legacy admissions

policy, the University is able to fund other programs that actually increase diversity. “Among private

universities, the loyalty of alums is very important to a whole range of things we can offer, including

the kind of funding that makes Duke a great university and offers substantial amounts of money for

financial aid,” Lange said. “You can’t pull out one thread and ignore other ways of promoting

diversity. Need-blind financial aid is one of the biggest ways to achieve this

goal.”…

Even after Texas A&M announced its decision to abolish legacy admissions

preferences, some complained that taking this step to diversify the student body was like treating a

broken bone with a Band-Aid–the concept, they said, was admirable, but the decision will ultimately

have a negligible effect.