Log-In Email:    Password:    
  Remember me
Register  |  Forgot Password?  |  Change Password  |  Update Email
The Next Racial Preference
Determined to get around state laws barring racial preferences, administrators at Texas A&M have rigged a new scheme.
by Beth Henary
12/21/2001 12:01:00 AM

Increase Font Size

 | 

Printer-Friendly

 | 

Email a Friend

 | 

Respond to this article



Beth Henary, editorial assistant

A PROPOSED admissions policy change at Texas A&M University is rapidly devolving into a squabble over what constitutes racial preferences. Student leaders and anti-preference activists charge that the A&M regents' plan to admit the top 20 percent of high school seniors from some of Texas's poorly performing schools is both impractical and illegal.

On December 7, the A&M Board of Regents unanimously gave the nod for Texas A&M-College Station to pursue a new admissions policy, the gist of which would be automatic admission for the top 20 percent of graduating seniors from about 250 high schools classified by the state as "underperforming." These schools are minority-heavy.

Regent Wendy Gramm told the Houston Chronicle that the board seeks to ensure that "our flagship institutions are more representative of our population."

But Jack Long, speaker of the student senate, believes the university is trying to skirt the state's affirmative action ban, and says the students he's spoken with disapprove of the measure.

"It's going to increase enrollment so much that it'll be impossible to get into A&M unless you're in the top 10 or 20 percent of your class," he said. "And the administration has been complaining that there aren't enough faculty to teach the students we already have."

The 1996 Hopwood decision made using affirmative action in college admissions illegal in Texas. Since then, university officials and lawmakers have scrambled to bolster minority enrollment, particularly at the University of Texas and A&M, the two state flagships. In 1997, the legislature passed a top 10 percent rule, which

grants top graduates automatic admission to the state school of their choice. The idea was to increase socioeconomic diversity, and hence, racial diversity.

David Rushing, chairman of the A&M chapter of the Young Conservatives of Texas, said his group would be interested in legally contesting any policy switch. "We are already talking with national organizations who regularly lodge legal challenges against racial preferences," he said in a statement.

The organizations Rushing alludes to include those that have already demanded that A&M cease its admissions gerrymandering. A coalition of affirmative action opponents claimed in a December 18 letter to Texas attorney general John Cornyn--whom the regents have asked to review the measure's legality-- that the A&M policy change would violate Hopwood. The group, which includes Ward Connerly, Linda Chavez, and U.S. Commission on Civil Rights member Abigail Thernstrom, urged the attorney general to "deny the regents the ability to discriminate against individuals because of their race or ethnicity."

"It is our opinion that this is an effort to circumvent Hopwood v. Texas," the letter states. "That is, the high schools are being chosen because of their racial and ethnic make-up, in an effort to favor some groups and disfavor others."

The letter concluded by bluntly promising legal action were Cornyn to approve the policy.

In another letter, this one from Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity and Edward Blum of Ward Connerly's American Civil Rights Institute to an official at the Education department's Office for Civil Rights, anti-preference advocates implored the government to investigate this "looming civil rights violation." The proposed policy would violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, wrote Clegg and Blum.


CONTINUED
1 2  Next >
Print This Article

  House Passes Democratic Health Care Bill 220 to 215
Today, 1:30 AM
 
  Update: Stupak Passes 240 to 193; Gingrey Will Vote Yes, But Some Pro-Life Republicans May Oppose Stupak Amendment
Yesterday, 8:51 PM
 
  Democrats to Allow Up-or-Down Vote on Stupak Amendment
Yesterday, 12:12 PM
 
  Does the House Bill Fulfill Obama's Pledge to Bar Abortion Funding? Gibbs Won't Say
Nov 6, 09 07:01 PM
 
   


Search   Subscribe   Subscribers Only   FAQ   Advertise   Store   Newsletter
Contact   About Us   Site Map   Privacy Policy