Colleges Regroup
After Voters Ban
Race Preferences
By TAMAR LEWIN,
NYTimes on the Web, January 26, 2007
With Michigan’s new ban on
affirmative action going into effect, and similar ballot initiatives looming in
other states, many public universities are scrambling to find race-blind ways to
attract more blacks and Hispanics.
At Wayne State University Law School in Detroit, a new admissions policy,
without mentioning race, allows officials to consider factors like living on an
Indian reservation or in mostly black Detroit, or overcoming discrimination or
prejudice.
Others are using many different approaches, like working with mostly minority
high schools, using minority students as recruiters, and offering summer prep
programs for promising students from struggling high schools. Ohio State
University, for example, has started a magnet high school with a focus on math
and science, to help prepare potential applicants, and sends educators into poor
and low-performing middle and elementary schools to encourage children, and
their parents, to start planning for college.
Officials across the country have a sense of urgency about the issue in part
because Ward Connerly, the black California businessman behind such initiatives
in California and Michigan, is planning a kind of Super Tuesday next fall, with
ballot initiatives against racial preferences in several states. He is
researching possible campaigns in Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada,
Oregon, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming, and expects to announce next month which
states he has chosen.
Ann Korschgen, vice provost at the University of Missouri, said in a recent
interview, “Just this morning, we had a conversation along the line of how we
would continue to ensure diversity at our campus if we could not consider race.”
The issue is already heating up in Colorado. This month, two Republican
representatives in Colorado asked the state to examine the University of
Colorado’s spending on diversity, after a libertarian group questioned the
expenditures.
Mr. Connerly said that a decade ago, when California passed its ban, Proposition
209, he thought the state was ahead of its time, but that now, he believes “the
country is poised to make a decision about race, about what its place in
American life is going to be — and I really believe the popular vote may be the
way to achieve that.”
Both defenders and opponents of affirmative action say the lesson of last fall’s
campaign in Michigan — where Proposition 2, banning race and gender preferences
in public education, employment and contracting, passed by 58 percent to 42
percent despite strong opposition from government, business, labor, education
and religious leaders — is that such initiatives can succeed almost anywhere.
“Certain things become popular as state initiatives, like the ban on gay
marriages, and restrictions on affirmative action could become one of those
things,” said Terry Hartle, senior vice president for government and public
affairs at the American Council on Education.
If so, he said, private universities, with their wide discretion in admissions
and financial aid, could have a competitive advantage regarding diversity,
reshaping the landscape of higher education.
“Private universities can do whatever they want, consistent with federal law and
the Supreme Court,” Mr. Hartle said. “Where minority students have a
choice between selective public universities that cannot use affirmative action,
and selective private universities with strong affirmative action programs, the
private universities may seem like the more hospitable places, which would give
them an advantage in drawing a diverse student body.”
To many educators, that would be a troubling turnabout.
“You’d think public universities are charged with special responsibility for
ensuring access, but it could come to be exactly the opposite, if there are a
lot of these state initiatives,” said Evan Caminker, the dean of the University
of Michigan Law School, adding, “in terms of public values, it’s a big step
backward.”
Mr. Connerly is unbothered: If black and Hispanic students are rare at
selective universities, the solution is better academic preparation, not special
treatment in admissions. “Every individual should have the same
opportunity to compete,” he said. “I don’t worry about the outcomes.”
Legally, affirmative action has been a moving target. In 2003, the Supreme
Court ruled in cases involving the University of Michigan that race could be one
of many factors in admissions, although admissions offices could not give extra
points to minority candidates. Many colleges nationwide then moved to
“holistic” review, considering applicants’ ethnicity, but not awarding a set
number of points. In states that could face a ballot initiative campaign,
though, that standard could fall.
Nationwide, after 30 years of debate, and litigation, over affirmative action,
universities have made strikingly little progress toward racially representative
student bodies. And recently, with growing awareness that affluent
students are vastly overrepresented at selective colleges, the longstanding
focus on racial diversity has been joined by a growing concern about economic
diversity.
Currently, four states with highly ranked public universities — California,
Florida, Michigan and Washington — forbid racial preferences, either because of
ballot propositions or decisions by elected officials.
Texas banned affirmative action for seven years. The University of Texas
resumed consideration of race after the 2003 United States Supreme Court ruling.
“We need every tool we can get,” concluded Dr. Bruce Walker, the university’s
director of admissions.
In California and Texas, the first two states to ban racial preferences,
underrepresented minorities at the flagship universities declined — even though
both states, and Florida, adopted plans giving a percentage of top high school
graduates guaranteed admission to state universities.
In Texas, students admitted through the Top 10 percent plan swamped the flagship
Austin campus. But the plan, now being rethought by the Legislature, never
brought in many minority students. Last fall, with both race-conscious
admissions and the Top 10 plan, blacks made up an all-time high of 5 percent of
the freshman class, and Hispanics 19 percent.
A decade after the California ban, only 2 percent of this year’s freshmen at the
University of California, Los Angeles, are black: a 30-year low.
Hispanic representation at U.C.L.A. has dropped, too. At Berkeley, the
number of blacks in the freshman class plunged by half the year after the ban,
and the number of Hispanics nearly as much.
Systemwide, blacks make up only 3 percent of U.C. freshmen, although about 7
percent of the state’s high school graduates are black. Most top black
students choose private institutions over state campuses. Over all, of the
top third of all students offered admission to the University of California
class of 2005, most enrolled and only 19 percent went instead to selective
private colleges. But among blacks in that group, 51 percent chose
selective private colleges. Meanwhile, up the coast, Stanford University
is enrolling more underrepresented minority students. Among this year’s
freshmen, 11 percent are African-American, up from 8 percent in 1995; Hispanic
enrollment has risen, too.
“Folks look for a place that’s comfortable,” said Richard Shaw, Stanford’s
admissions dean. “They want a sense that there’s kids like them at the
institution.”
The University of Michigan, with other state institutions, tried to win a delay
of the ban so it would not hit in the middle of this year’s admissions cycle.
But the courts rejected this effort, so officials have stopped considering race
and gender as factors in admissions, and worry that next year’s entering class
will be less diverse. Many officials worry that they will lose top
minority candidates to selective private universities.
“We know from colleagues in Texas and California that if we can’t take race into
account, we’re at a competitive disadvantage,” said Julie Peterson, a
spokeswoman for the University of Michigan, where two-thirds of the applicants
are from out of state.
Since most of Michigan is overwhelmingly white, said Mary Sue Coleman, the
university’s president, a plan guaranteeing admission to a percentage of top
high school graduates would have little impact, and nothing short of affirmative
action will maintain the university’s racial diversity.
“Of course, you want to look at family income, and being the first in the family
to attend college and those kinds of factors, of course we do that, but it
doesn’t get us to a racially diverse student body,” Dr. Coleman said.
At the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, a program guaranteeing that
low-income students can graduate debt-free helped to increase the percentage of
blacks in the freshman class to 12 percent, and to increase both economic
diversity and the enrollment of underrepresented minority students. Other
states have started similar programs.
In Detroit, Wayne State University Law School recently adopted a new admissions
policy. Jonathan Weinberg, the professor assigned last year to draft a
contingency policy, looked at other states with race-blind admissions and found
that instead of race, they look to “a set of broader diversity concerns that go
to socioeconomic status.”
Last month, the faculty adopted his policy, eliminating any mention of race, but
broadening the factors the admissions office may consider. Those include
being the first in the family to go to college or graduate school; having
overcome substantial obstacles, including prejudice and discrimination; being
multilingual; and residence abroad, in Detroit or on an Indian reservation.
Frank Wu, the law school’s dean, said Wayne State’s effort to comply with the
law could bring a legal challenge.
“There’s a new fight building,” Mr. Wu said, “and that’s going to be whether the
mere fact that you’re striving for diversity means you’re somehow trying to get
around the ban and find proxies, or pretexts, for race, and that that’s
impermissible. It’s ironic, but in some quarters our effort to adopt a new
policy to comply with Prop 2 has been interpreted as an effort to circumvent
it.”
Roger Clegg, president of the Council for Equal Opportunity, which opposes
racial preferences, said policies like Wayne State’s do raise questions.
“I have a real problem when schools adopt what on their face are race-neutral
criteria, if they are doing so to reach a predetermined racial and ethnic goal,”
Mr. Clegg said. “Both in law and in common sense, the motivation matters.”
At Ohio State University, where admissions are increasingly selective, officials
are looking for a long-term answer. “When we saw what was coming down the
road, we started looking to other models, but no other model results in as much
diversity,” said Mabel Freeman, assistant vice president at Ohio State.
“The only long-term solution is to do better in the pipeline and make sure all
kids get the best education possible, K-12.”
|
