Category: Uncategorized

English Professor Marco Portales, who was active in the Faculty Senate

debates, read the following statement to Texas A&M University Presdient Robert Gates on Dec. 18, 2003

during an audience with “minority faculty”. Portales was not aware that the president’s own

taskforce on admissions had recommended affirmative action on Aug. 29, 2003. December 18, 2003

Why Texas A&M Should Accept the Grutter Supreme Court Decision

On June

23, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the use of race in college admissions policies in a Michigan

case precisely to help universities like Texas A&M recruit more minority students. Like the University

of Michigan and other top-ranked campuses, Texas A&M has been struggling for more than 20 years to

attract more qualified minority students. Today minorities comprise nearly 50% of the population of

Texas (33% Latinos, 12.8% African Americans, and 3.5% Asian American) and demographers predict

continued growth. Despite this phenomenal growth among minorities, Texas A&M only has an 8% Latino and

a 3% African American student population.

The Grutter verdict surprised many

people who continue to believe in a color-blind, race neutral society. The legal decision surprised

people because instead of embracing the color-blind Hopwood 5th Circuit Court of Appeals 1996 opinion,

the Supreme Court reasserted the 1978 Bakke decision. Bakke had allowed the use of race in college

admissions in that University of California/Davis case.

For this reason, Texas A&M’s

recent decision not to take advantage of the Grutter allowance is contrary to the Court’s intention.

That intention effectively nullified Hopwood, which legally prevented college admissions officials from

admitting more minority students. What universities have discovered over the years is that when race

cannot be weighed as a plus factor, it is nearly impossible to admit qualified minorities. Select

college admissions policies are designed to admit students with the best K- 12 educations and since

most minorities do not have access to the best schools or long-term financial support and parental

guidance, securing a first-rate K-12 education is extremely difficult for most minority

youngsters.

Hopwood (1996-2003) required color-blind, race neutral college admissions

criteria that Grutter now supersedes. This statement means that public universities such as Texas A&M

are expected to take advantage of Grutter, just as Rice and the University of Texas have done. As the

state’s public land-grant institution, Texas A&M cannot and ought not to be out of step with the legal

parameters that Grutter now affords.

Texas A&M’s new admissions policy, however,

embraces Hopwood’s color-blind criteria because our administration believes that including race in

admissions stigmatizes minority students. But the Faculty Committed to an Inclusive Campus believe that

qualified minority students admitted to Texas A&M would not be stigmatized if the university were to

undertake a campaign to explain to the general public the stringent criteria that each student admitted

has to meet.

Since the criteria that determine whether an applicant is admitted have not

been sufficiently promulgated to dispel “race-based” language and thinking, I call upon the campus

administration:

(1) to embrace race in its admissions policy, as the Supreme Court

provides in Grutter; and,

(2) to spell out admissions criteria so that the general

public can learn just how competitive students must be to enter Texas A&M. No one is admitted only

because of race, as some people may think.

Finally, I respectfully request that race be

included in admissions so that we can facilitate inviting, accepting and enrolling more minority

students at Texas A&M. Otherwise, it will be difficult.

Marco Portales
Professor

of English
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas 77843-4227
(979) 845-

8305
mportales@tamu.edu

A key question in the school funding trial revolved around the definition of an

adequate education, with state’s attorneys arguing that minimal funds could only be demanded for a

narrow range of instructional purposes. In the following Conclusion of Law, Texas District Judge John

Dietz says that education is a more expansive concept:

(COL 10) This Court rejects

the notion that the general diffusion of knowledge requires expenditures only in the instructional

program described in Section 39.023 of the Education Code and that other expenditures are merely

“extraneous.” A district cannot provide a constitutionally adequate education without a sufficient

support network, which may include, but is not limited to, (a) adequate and well-maintained facilities;

(b) remedial and literacy programs to help Limited English proficiency, economically disadvantaged, and

other special needs students, (c) sufficient numbers of qualified teachers; (d) small class sizes, (e)

preschool programs to give a “head start” to special needs students; (f) dropout prevention programs;

(g) extracurricular activities to keep students in school and assist them with getting into colleges;

(h) nurses to keep students healthy; (i) security guards in certain schools to keep students safe; and

(j) guidance counselors to help students with course selection and with planning for college or

careers.

More key excerpts at “Read More” below.

What

does it mean to have enough local money or “meaningful discretion” in a school budget? For Judge

Dietz, it means that local districts can dedicate ten percent of their available tax revenues toward

“enrichment.”

(COL 14) The Texas Supreme Court has held that a district must have

“meaningful discretion” in setting its property tax rates for a local ad valorem tax to remain

constitutional under Article VIII, section 1-e of the Texas Constitution. The Court concludes that a

district has meaningful discretion only when it can devote, at a minimum, 10% of its taxing capacity,

or approximately 15 cents of tax effort to raise additional revenues to enrich its programs beyond what

is required to provide a “general diffusion of knowledge” and comply with state and federal

mandates.

Adding together the broad definition of education and the ten percent

test for “enrichment” funding, Judge Dietz rules that schools cannot systematically raise enough

money under the tax limit imposed by the state of $1.50 per $100 of taxable

property.

(COL 17) Because the West Orange Cove Plaintiffs have also

established a systemic/statewide violation, this Court declares that the Texas school finance system is

presently in violation of Article VIII, section 1-e of the Texas Constitution

(COL 20)

Because the West Orange Cove Plaintiffs have established that the school finance system fails to

recognize or cover the costs of meeting the constitutional mandate of adequacy, or the Legislature’s

statutory definition of a comprehensive adequate program, this Court declares that the State’s school

finance system is financially inefficient, inadequate and unsuitable, in violation of Article VII,

section 1 of the Texas Constitution.

“Robin Hood”

lives.

(COL 22) The disparate property values among Texas public school

districts, coupled with the State’s continued reliance on local property taxes for the majority of

funding for the Texas school finance system, requires the State to maintain equalization provisions

similar to those at present, in order to ensure an efficient system among public free

schools.

In fact “Robin Hood” needs to do a better job equalizing funds,

especially to pay for facilities.

(COL 23) The prohibition on the use of Tier 2

funds for facilities, combined with the Legislature’s failure to make the IFA and/or EDA programs

statutorily permanent and the Legislature’s inadequate funding of the IFA program, means that property

-poor districts do not have substantially equal access to facilities funding in violation of the

efficiency and suitability provisions of article VII § 1 of the Texas

Constitution.

And the state needs to increase its financial support for districts

that serve bilingual, impoverished, and other special needs students.

(COL 24)

The current funding capacity of the Texas school finance system fails to provide Intervenor districts

with sufficient access to revenue to provide for a general diffusion of knowledge to their students, in

violation of the efficiency, suitability and adequacy provisions of Article VII § 1 of the Texas

Constitution, particularly when taking into account (1) the inadequacy of the weight adjustments for

bilingual, economically disadvantaged, and other special needs students and (2) the greater burden

borne by Intervenor districts of the inadequacy of those weights, given their student populations,

which are disproportionately LEP and economically disadvantaged.

The Legislature

has until Oct. 1, 2005 to fix the system.

1. In addition to the declaratory

relief described … above, this Court hereby enjoins the State Defendants from giving any force and

effect to the sections of the Education Code relating to the financing of public school education

(Chapters 41 and 42 of the Education Code) and from distributing any money under the current Texas

school financing system until the constitutional violations are remedied. The effect of this

injunction shall be stayed until October 1, 2005, in order to give the Legislature a reasonable

opportunity to cure the constitutional deficiencies in the finance system before the foregoing

prohibitions take effect.

Posted at IndyMedia Houston / Austin / North Texas
/ LA / NYC

Looking for a Coalition with Legs

By GREG MOSES
Published at

Counterpunch

Although pundits from right to left have been magnetized into horserace

election analysis, comparing man to man, there is something else, and something more difficult to

consider. How are the people moving beneath it all? And what are they trying to work out?

Last week they, the people, appeared crisp in the morning and crumpled by afternoon,

the smell of cologne giving way to diesel, as election-day wore on. It was a fair day for voting in

Texas, and from what I witnessed as a substitute election judge, Democrats were trying to get a

movement on. Although Democrats in Texas managed to top their turnout of four years ago, Republicans

let their numbers dip dramatically. And the regular staff of Republicans at one South Austin polling

place gave anecdotal evidence that the lopsided Democratic turnout last week was a reversal of recent

trends.

Signs of hope were produced. Liberal Congressman Lloyd Doggett easily won the

party vote in a new Hispanic district that was drawn by Republicans to defeat him.

And

liberal Congressman Ciro Rodriguez also prevailed in a 126-vote squeaker against more conservative

Henry Cuellar, who campaigned on his ability to get along with Republicans. We’ll return to the

Rodriguez example below.

As San Antonio columnist Carlos Guerra summarized the local

races, four Democratic incumbents of the Texas legislature were turned out by angry voters for sins of

financial scandal or Republican collaboration. Most famously, the iconoclastic Black Democrat Ron

Wilson of Houston was retired after three decades, because he had testified in favor of the Republican

redistricting plan.

Wilson’s argument, by the way, that the redistricting plan would

yield more Black representation in Congress, was actually verified by the election of Houston NAACP

activist Al Green, who beat a one-term white liberal incumbent, just as Doggett was supposed to be

defeated by Hispanics.

Finally, an exit poll by the Houston Voice showed that a majority

of Texans do not favor a Constitutional definition of marriage.

So if you put the pieces

of the puzzle together, it would look like the Democrats are restless in Texas and fighting mad. That

was also the impression I got from hundreds of Democrats who lined up to vote in South Austin. Some

joked loudly about being “Yellow Dog Democrats” who would rather vote for yellow dogs than

Republicans.

One Hispanic family and one Black family filed in with three generations of

voters each. Yes, they each said, you may stamp my card Democrat.

At the Republican

table, too, there were signs of fierce party loyalty. “You can stamp my forehead if you want to,” was

a line I heard more than once, from both partisan camps.

The experience left me with an

impression that the choice between John Kerry and George Bush does not represent what is really at

stake in November. People on the ground are tussling with each other over something else, not quite

embodied in either man.

Of course, the Bush machine has helped to make Texas a foregone

Republican state for the first time since Reconstruction, and despite the compelling evidence that I

wanted to take from the polling place, I wonder if that machine is not about to solidify the trend

worldwide. Of course, I hope not. But the Bush machine can’t do what the people won’t

allow.

Although a recent Gallup Poll shows that Kerry is a contender with the voters and

that Bush is below 50 percent approval, the same pollsters report that Bush holds an astounding 91

percent loyalty among Republicans (second only to Eisenhower in 1956). If Bush is to be defeated, this

loyalty has to be somehow cracked and made vulnerable to facts. But this will require taking our eyes

off Bush in order to understand where that loyalty is really based.

Furthermore, says

Gallup, the issue of terrorism still tops the list of “critical threats” among all voters, ranking

far above the much-vaunted issue of unemployment. This makes the chore of deflating Bush loyalty all

the more daunting, since it requires national therapy for the reactionary psychology so effectively

implanted on Sept. 11, and perpetuated last week in Spain. Don’t we fear what another horrific

massacre will do to the national mind?

Concerning the “jobs issue,” it is instructive

to witness up close how election-day voting is crammed around the work day. Lines form before work,

during lunch, after the early shift, and especially after five o’clock. Between these times come a few

retirees and mothers with babies. Campaigns that focus too much on unemployment might miss these actual

voters. By and large, it is working Americans who take time to vote, or not.

And

Americans who are caught up in the work day have precious little time. To how many voters did we

explain, that this was a party primary? But why did they have to pick a party, some asked? Or why

couldn’t they pull a straight ticket? Later in news reports, these primary-party voters would be

lumped together as “activists,” when it was clear that political literacy was sometimes quite

minimal.

Despite the passion that I saw on election day in Texas, and despite the signs

of hope, I worry about a Bush victory. Yes, many Democrats are angry. But who else is their anger

convincing? If the playing field is all about anger this year, then Bush wins. Republicans have long

mastered the anger card.

In the suburbs of Williamson, Collin, and Montgomery counties-

-north of Austin, Dallas and Houston respectively–new roads and subdivisions get built every day.

Homes in the 100’s with new streets and no trees. People moving into neighborhoods that chill you with

tidiness. Fresh-waxed cars that hustle to and from the office. In the midst of this progress, people

are angry and afraid. Bush’s relationship to this landscape is taproot to the Republican

nation.

As Kelly Shannon pointed out in an Associated Press analysis, these burgeoning

suburban counties are bread and butter to the Bush machine.

Lots of Democrats don’t

like it. There is something scary about what counts for normal development. Home building, Fox News,

and the Pentagon add up to a curious projection of national character that has made push-button

warriors of us all. Robocops are us. If the Kerry campaign can figure out how so many Democrats have

nevertheless managed to see through it all, the grassroots may help to teach him how to project another

kind of America.

From what I saw last week, a coalition is waiting to be made: Black and

Hispanic voters hanging tough with their legacies of opportunity and civil rights; Liberal white voters

refusing to give up their ideals of fair play and democratic participation; Independent voters looking

for somebody with a straight and sensible game.

And what about retirees, and mothers

with babies? Is it possible among such voters that issues of human care can overcome the national

psychology of fear and insecurity?

Returning to the example of Congressman Ciro

Rodriguez, instructive is the list of issues highlighted at his web page. Although the contest between

Rodriguez and Cuellar was largely a tug of war between Laredo and San Antonio, here are the issues that

helped Rodriguez squeak out his victory: strengthening national security, promoting better health,

honoring veterans, enhancing educational opportunities, developing economic growth, preserving natural

resources, and supporting working men and women. Are these the issues that can help transform red

states to blue?

I asked one voter which party he’d like to vote in, and he answered

sincerely, Independen
t or possibly Green. I think he was looking for Ralph Nader. I liked the guy. He

showed up during
one of the alternative hours, not so closely regulated by the work day, wearing black

t-shirt and jeans. It would have been good to give him the ballot he was looking for. But he cast his

vote on the Democrat side, perhaps joining me in the point nine percent of Texans who went for

Kucinich. If the national ballot comes down to a squeaker, he can be a crucial part of the coalition,

too.

I think Democrats would be foolish to cut Nader out. He’s been shaking up

Washington for more than forty years. He is organized, informed, and no fool. As people on the ground

are looking for a way to go, Nader can help with facts, strategies, and ideas. A day spent campaigning

against Nader is a day wasted by Democrats who should have better things to do.

So I was

pleased by news that the Kerry campaign is in a fighting mood, rolling out a counter-spot late last

week, only one day after the Bush campaign attacked him. That’s what the emerging coalition wants to

see–a fighting chance to go somewhere else but through the Bushes again.

And yet,

important questions remain widely unasked. Who are the American people this year? In the difference

between Bush loyalists and the would-be Kerry coalition, what aspirations are vying for leadership of

these United States? What is happening when all these feet hit the ground to vote, or not to vote, on

election day? These are the questions that may guide what we most need to know. It can’t be a

horserace if it takes millions of legs to win.

Judge finds school funding neither adequate, efficient, nor giving local districcts

“meaningful discretion.”

See full text of rulings under Daily Buzz at Harvey Kronberg’s Quorum Report

Again I repeat

it is the people of Texas who must set the standards, make the sacrifice and give direction to their

leaders. And the time to speak is now. These problems only get more difficult the longer we wait.–

Judge John Dietz.

See more at News8Austin