Category: Uncategorized

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rule, and it needs to be repealed,” said Wentworth, R-San Antonio.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.]

“We have a well-established program to encourage students of our graduates to apply to Penn

and have had this program in place for years,” [Admissions Dean Lee] Stetson said. “Basically we say

we will give a measure of preference to students with an alumni affiliation who apply during the early

decision program.”

“I would find it difficult to believe we would change the

admissions program drastically to eliminate a program that has worked so well for us over the years,”

Stetson said. [From the Daily Pennsylvanian, “Texas A&M Abandons Legacy Admissions,” Brooke Daley

Jan. 28, 2004.]

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.

[Quote: Wiley College Professor Oliver C.] Cox did not dismiss racism among working-

class whites. He argued that “the observed overt competitive antagonism is produced and carefully

maintained by the exploiters of both the poor whites and the Negroes.” He recognized that elite whites

defined the matrix within which non-elite whites crafted their political agency, and he emphasized the

ruling-class foundations of racism as part of his critique of the liberal scholars of race relations

who theorized race relations without regard to capitalist political economy and class dynamics.[end

quote, Adolph Reed’s Introduction to the Monthly Review edition of “Race”–part three of Cox’s

masterwork, “Caste, Class, and Race” see “Web Links” or additional quote below.] Cox’s

perspective goes right to the heart of how we should try to understand race by encouraging us to move

beyond categories for defining and sorting supposedly discrete human populations, beyond concepts of

racial hierarchies, and beyond racist ideologies—all components of a singular, indivisible unholy

trinity—and instead recognize that race is the product of social relations within history and political

economy.