Author: mopress

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.

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.

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]

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.