The Fate Of AA At Private Colleges

TheChronicle of Higher Education discusses the fate of affirmative action at private colleges and universities if the Supremes bar or curtail Michigan’s preference policies.

The consensus seems to be that some privates will follow the example of Rice, which dropped racial preferences in admissions and in financial aid in the aftermath of the Hopwood decision in 1996 even though only public institutions were covered by that decision. Rice came under intense criticism for doing do, especially when the next year the number of blacks in its freshman class dropped 46% and the number of Hispanics dropped 22%.

Fearing “resegregation” and the criticism that Rice received, many private institutions seem to be intent on continuing their preference programs until and unless they are required to stop.

Rice reports that last fall its enrollment of blacks and Hispanics had rebounded to the levels of 1996, the last year it used preferences.

Say What? (7)

  1. Dom January 28, 2003 at 3:43 pm | | Reply

    “Rice reports that last fall its enrollment of blacks and Hispanics had rebounded to the levels of 1996, the last year it used preferences.”

    Can you give us a link for this? Did Rice report this is a press release? It seems like important information, perhaps pointing to the fact that affirmative action has been hindering integration. Think about how much easier it was to integrate, say, sports teams.

  2. John Rosenberg January 28, 2003 at 4:44 pm | | Reply

    Dom – I don’t have any independent source for this. It was mentioned in the Chronicle of Higher Education article I was discussing. That article did mention a person’s name at Rice; if you don’t have access to the Chronicle I could go back and get it for you and you could email her directly.

  3. Xrlq January 28, 2003 at 7:09 pm | | Reply

    “The consensus seems to be that some privates will follow the example of Rice, which dropped racial preferences in admissions and in financial aid in the aftermath of the Hopwood decision in 1996 even though only public institutions were covered by that decision.”

    Are you sure about that? It’s not consistent with this story from the Houston Chronicle. Also, according to a discussion I read on Sub Judice, (permalinks not working, so scroll down to Thursday, January 09, 2003 entry) Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits recipients of federal funds from discriminating by race or national origin to any extent that would not be allowed of a state actor under the 14th Amendment. If this is correct, then just about all universities in the Fifth Circuit (Texas and Louisiana) are effectively bound by Hopwood.

  4. John Rosenberg January 28, 2003 at 8:00 pm | | Reply

    Xrlq – No, I’m not sure. I was simply quoting and/or accepting what was in the Chronicle article. I’ve now checked both the links you include, for which I am and I’m sure other readers will be thankful. They were quite interesting.

    Having read them, here’s what I think (though I should hastily add that I’m still not sure). The Hopwood ruling itself did not apply, directly, to private schools in the 5th Circuit. But the requirements of Title VI are generally held to follow the interpretation of the 14th Amend. (though there was interesting debate about that in Bakke), so private schools in the 5th Circuit with race preferences reasonably saw what could be the writing on the wall speaking to them. Some, like Rice, moved immediately to abandon their preferences; others didn’t. Don’t, by the way, underestimate the possibilities of liberal massive resistance on this front. Recall, in that connection, that Clinton’s ideological commisar in the Dept. of Education, Norma Cantu, wrote a post-Hopwood letter to Texas officials claiming that Hopwood applied only to the practices under review and only at the UT Austin Law School, and she threatened to hold up funds for any other 5th Circuit public institutions that abandoned affirmative action. That didn’t hold up, but it is deliciously revealing of a mindset that I suspect we’d see a great deal of in private institutions if Michigan loses.

    Still, I think your comment is substantially correct.

  5. Dom January 29, 2003 at 5:43 pm | | Reply

    “if you don’t have access to the Chronicle I could go back and get it for you and you could email her directly.”

    Very nice of you! Yes, could you please send me her email address.

    Dom

  6. John Rosenberg January 29, 2003 at 8:20 pm | | Reply

    Dom – Send me your email address:

    to email hidden; JavaScript is required

Say What?