Author: mopress

  • Speaker Loudder: ''Affirmative Action at Its Best''

    Speaker of the Texas A&M Faculty Senate Martha Loudder responds via

    email to questions from the Texas Civil Rights Review. The questions try to fill in the details of a

    timeline. Near the end of the email, Loudder looks forward to good news from this year’s recruiting

    efforts and argues that the Gates plan is best for the University. See Loudder’s complete reply

    below.

    TCRR:
    A Report from the Committee on Minority Conditions recommends, “that

    each year the Speaker of the Faculty Senate discuss the results/recommendations of this report with the

    President, Vice Presidents and with the Board
    of

    Regents.”

    http://www.tamu.edu/faculty_senate/MC02Report.PDF

    Q: Will you

    be able to follow the recommendation this year? Would you please share details of dates, persons, and

    materials?

    LOUDDER:
    A: The following recommendations were made:
    June 2002

    RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FACULTY SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON MINORITY
    CONDITIONS AT TEXAS A&M

    UNIVERSITY
    Summary of Recommendations
    * Increase financial assistance to undergraduate and

    graduate students to fulfill the University’s mission in the state of Texas.
    * Provide

    additional funding for increasing the total faculty.
    * Create the office of Vice President for

    Diversity with sufficient funding to make a difference in the recruiting, hiring, and retention of

    minority faculty.
    * Recognize and reward Colleges for aggressively recruiting, hiring, and

    retaining minority scholars. This recognition and the rewards would include but not
    necessarily be

    limited to above average merit raises for Deans, Department Heads and other
    administrators who

    increase diversity in units under their supervision.

    These recommendation had been made

    every year since I have been involved in the Faculty Senate. It was only when Dr. Gates came to Texas

    A&M in
    September 2002 that any of them were seriously considered by the administration. Every single

    one of them has been implemented. Dr. Frank Ashley (Director of Admissions) can provide more on the

    first and third. Dean Jane Conoley can tell you more about the other

    two.

    TCRR:
    According to the minutes of the Faculty Senate on Sept. 8, 2003, there

    were four members listed for the Undergraduate Admissions Advisory

    Committee.

    http://www.tamu.edu/faculty_senate/minutes/sep2003.html

    Q:

    I’m not clear on the context for the four names.
    Are they new to the committee? What was the

    process the produced those names?

    LOUDDER:
    A: They are a number of standing

    committees in the university. The faculty senate appoints one or more to them when there are vacancies.

    The “Committee
    on Committees” is charged with this duty. It consists of senators from each college

    who are elected by their college senate caucuses.

    TCRR:
    The admissions committee

    list was updated on Oct. 8.

    http://www.tamu.edu/faculty_senate/DIR-

    UnivAdm.PDF

    Q: Would it be fair to report that the list was “finalized” on Oct. 8?

    LOUDDER:
    A: I believe that this is the composition of the current committee.

    TCRR:
    According to minutes of the Nov. 10 meeting of the Faculty Senate, a

    report was approved and accepted from the Undergraduate Admissions Advisory Committee

    [FS.21.56],

    http://www.tamu.edu/faculty_senate/1208-A.PDF

    Q: When this

    proposal was approved by the Faculty Senate, was there any discussion about the significance of the

    report in terms of affirmative
    action?

    LOUDDER:
    A: Yes, there was a rather

    spirited discussion about it. Dr. Mark Weichold and Dr. Frank Ashley were present to explain the

    proposal and answer questions. Some of our faculty members were very dissappointed that the admissions

    changes did not include race as an admissions factor. However, a large majority was satisfied that the

    plan would have the desired
    effect of increasing diversity.

    As you know, we decided

    to focus on our two major impediments to diversity: (1) only about 40% of the African Americans

    admitted actually enroll, and (2)our inability to compete with substantial scholarships. There seems to

    be a general, but certainly not unanimous, agreement that waiting until Fall 2005 (the earliest date

    that admissions criteria changes can be adopted) is not the best strategy.

    We

    implemented a plan in December to recruit minority applicants in much the same fashion as we recruit

    athletes…one at a time, aggressively. It
    involves current and former students, faculty and

    administrators. My own Dean (Business) made phone calls to over 90 prospects during the

    holidays.
    The President has worked to insure an additional 2,200 full scholarships, with over half

    of them going to minority students. It’s too early to start bragging but early reports look like we

    are making progress.

    In my opinion, Greg, this is affirmative action at its best —

    providing both active outreach and the financial means for minority students to come
    to Texas A&M.

    IT HAS NOT OCCURRED IN PREVIOUS YEARS (caps intentional)!

    I have worked in the civil

    rights movement since the Sixties, and was even an Affirmative Action Officer in an earlier life.

    Accordingly, I was an advocate of considering race in admissions when we started this process last

    summer. However I have become convinced of two things: first, we have a president who is personally and

    deeply committed to improving diversity at TAMU, and second, he has the courage to do what he believes

    is right for this university, even if he has to take a lot of heat over it.

    I can see

    that you care a great deal about this school, and I hope that you will tell your readers about our

    efforts and our successes.

    TCRR:
    The report of the admissions committee was

    approved by the President within four days.

    http://www.tamu.edu/faculty_senate/Pending-

    President.PDF

    Q: In what form does the FS receive notice that a report has been approved

    by the President?

    LOUDDER:
    A: Usually a letter comes from him to me.

  • Ibrahim Family Release Imminent

    A source close to the family says that pregnant mother Hanan and four children of the Ibrahim family will be released from the T. Don Hutto prison Saturday morning.

    There had been some discussion about keeping the release news private, but the source says media have been notified. According to standard prison procedures, says the source, it is very likely that the mother and four children are spending this night together in prison for the first time in three months.

    May the Ibrahims be granted a graceful and safe return to a life of freedom in their new home state, Texas.–gm

  • Ibrahim Asylum Miracle Makes World News, But Don't Forget the Others

    Our chronicle of efforts to bring attention to the abduction of the Ibrahim family comes to a dramatic conclusion this evening with the release of a dispatch by Associated Press reporter Anabelle Garay that is already posted at the International Herald Tribune and Haaretz.

    The AP reports that the Ibrahim family has been granted a welcome change of fortunes in its dealings with the USA Bureau of Immigration Affairs, but the story does not convey a sense of how unusual and historical this reversal is for a family of Palestinian heritage.

    With the Ibrahims’ appeal for asylum reopened, they are no longer subject to the paperwork that was used to arrest them in the first place, and we guarantee that the family will be free sooner than anyone can guess.

    Now the time comes to ask about the other two families of Palestinian heritage who were arrested the same day as the Ibrahims–the Suleimans and Hazahzas. But beyond that, we encourage readers and reporters alike to stay tuned for the end game of this struggle, which is to shut down the T. Don Hutto prison for children, along with every jail like it.–gm

  • Document: USA Board of Immigration Reopens Ibrahim Appeal for Asylum

    Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

    Department of Justice

    Executive Office for Immigration Appeal

    Falls Church, Virginia 22041

    Date: FEB 2, 2007

    In Re: SALAHEDDIN MAHD IBRAHIM
    FATEN SALAHEDDIN IBRAHIM
    MARYAM SALAHEDDIN IBRAHIM
    RODAINA SALAHEDDIN IBRAHIM
    HAMZEH SALAHEDDIN IBRAHIM
    HANAN SALAHEDDIN IBRAHIM

    IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

    MOTION

    ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: John Wheat Gibson, Esq.

    ORDER:

    PER CURIAM. The respondents are a family of Palestinians who entered the United States on September 25, 2001, and were ultimately placed in removal proceedings as overstays. On January 15, 2003, the immigration judge denied the respondents’ request for release from removal. Thereafter, the Immigration Judge denied the respondents’ motion to reopen, and on August 24, 2004, we summarily affirmed. In 2005 we denied a motion to reopen. On November 13, 2006 the respondents filed another motion to reopen, and a request for a stay, alleging that they have a well-founded fear of future persecution and a fear of torture based on changed country conditions in the occupied territories of Israel.
    The time and number limitations do not apply to a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions. [Citation not transcribed here.]

    It is clear that conditions have changed in the occupied territories of Israel since the Immigration Judge’s hearing. The respondents have presented sufficient evidence that Hamas now controls the occupied territories and that the Hamas are considered a terrorist organization by the United States. Further, the respondents have presented a number of affidavits of individuals who were threatened, extorted, or harmed while visiting the occupied territories, because these individuals had connections with the United States, and Hamas believes that these individuals should support Hamas financially because they are Palestinians with connections to funds in the United States.

    [page two]

    The respondents have submitted sufficient evidence of changed country conditions that are material to their claim of torture and request for protection under the Conventions Against Torture. Further the respondents have shown changed country conditions that may be material to their claim for asylum. Given the clear change in country conditions, as well as material evidence regarding the respondents’ claims for protection under the Convention Against Torture and asylum, the motion to reopen will be granted and the record remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this decision.1

    Signature FOR THE BOARD

    1 Since we are granting the motion to reopen and remanding for further proceedings, our November 21, 2006, decision denying the request for stay is moot.

    Letter from the Board of Immigration Appeals

    Letter from the Board of Immigration Appeals