The Houston Chronicle reports today that “Texas A&M defies trend, won’t use race as admissions factor.” (Link via Howard Bashman)
COLLEGE STATION — Citing his belief that individuals should be judged only by their merit, Texas A&M University President Robert Gates bucked the nation’s higher education establishment Wednesday by announcing the school would not use race as a factor in admissions or scholarships.
….
“My recommendations … involve two objectives about which I feel quite strongly,” Gates told the scores of students and faculty members who attended an open forum Wednesday evening. “The first objective, as I have stated before, is for Texas A&M to better serve all of the citizens of the state of Texas, and that includes a better record in attracting and enrolling minorities. The second objective is that students at Texas A&M should be admitted as individuals, on personal merit — and no other basis.”
“We will establish no numerical quotas or targets as we seek to increase the diversity of students who enroll,” Gates added. “We only know that where we are is unacceptable, and that the future of Texas A&M depends on being more successful in attracting more minority students to join the Aggie family.”
Not everyone was pleased by this unexpected decision, and as usual I find some of their arguments amusing. For example:
Ify Ukpong, a black junior from Tyler, said she was disappointed.
“In a perfect world, race should not be a factor,” she said while waiting in line to see a movie on campus. “But this is not a perfect world. Even if black students get in on their merits, people will think they got in because of race. I think it’s kind of sad.”
Indeed. Arguments like this are quite sad.
I’m deeply confused. They say they won’t use race as a factor, and a student complains about the decision, saying that people will think they’re using race as a factor.
Huh?
I don’t think anyone in Texas ever assumed that minorities who get into A&M are admitted due to their race, and especially not now. That student needs to rethink his logic.
I think the logic is that it’s assumed that if minorities get in anywhere it’s because of race, therefore they might as well get in because of race.
You are right Laura, and considering the students convoluted logic it almost makes sense!
I’m not sure this announcement is a major victory for advocates of color blind admission policies. Texas A&M has a reputation, even amongst the state’s Asian American population, as a conservative, tradition-bound white university with little to offer minority students. The percentage of Asian American students at the school (3%) is almost equal to the number of African Americans (2%). It is the only major, publicly supported Tier I University in the country where the two populations are even close:
UT Austin (AsAm 16%,AfrAm 3%)
Even at lesser regarded universities in the State, the ratios are more in line with national trends:
UT-Dallas (AsAm 15%, AfrAm 2%)
UT-Arlington(AsAm 10.8%, AfrAm 5%)
UHouston (AsAm 15%, AfrAm 10%)
This disparity can’t be dismissed as a function of the school’s loction outside of an urban area with a significant Asian American population. The vast majority of Asian students at UT-Austin are from Houston or Dallas. Furthermore, Austin’s native college age Asian American population is still quite low, although this will change somewhat in the next 10 years as a number of young Asians who have moved here for the hi-tech boom begin sending their kids to college.
for supporting statistics see table and discussion at the bottom of this page: http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/html/0016/g.htm
I think advocates of color blind policies can begin celebrating when the President of a Michigan, Texas, Illinois, or Wisconsin makes this kind of bold step. Until then, …..
As a Texan who lives near A&M, works with many A&M grads, and considered A&M before choosing to attend UT instead, I can give you some clues as to why A&M has the racial makeup it does.
Historically, A&M was a military school for males only. There was a big brouhaha when they finally had to admit females. It’s also in the heart of Eastern Texas, which has a significantly different culture from other regions of Texas. It has historically been mostly white male with a very, very strong (overdone, in my opinion) tradition of rules, honor code, and lots of military-style rhetoric. It’s not a place where most women or minorities feel comfortable, so therefore, they just go somewhere else.
For those who see A&M as THE school, there is a tendency to go overboard, way beyound the usual license plate holders and window stickers. They buy only maroon cars. They give their kids names with the initials A. M. Many treat their school alma mater more as if it is a religion, and it is almost that to some of them. It’s certainly an elitist clique to some degree, as it is common in the state for alumni to show blatant favoritism for fellow alums in the job market, sort of like a commoner’s version of Harvard or Yale.
For those unfortunate enough to never have experienced Texas’ wonders (*cough*), there are some very distinct regional differences within Texas, from Houston to the piney woods of East Texas to the cosmopolitan Dallas/Ft. Worth to Austin’s sheik mix of high tech/university/country music to San Antonio’s crossroads with Mexico to the Valley’s migrant worker farming communities to West Texas’ wide open spaces/ranching to the Panhandle’s… well, I’m not sure what the Panhandle’s got except flat land and snow (Pantex, maybe?).
Confusing color-blindness with racism
Texas A&M will no longer use race when determining an applicant’s eligibility for admission. This color-blind policy has, of course, resulted in lawsuits by those claiming that A&M is determined to become an “all-white institution”: On December 3, Texa…
In 1980 the Texas A&M University Regents adopted affirmative action as a “good faith” commitment to civil rights. In 2000, Governor George W. Bush agreed that affirmative action would be pursued according to “controlling law.” With “controlling law” now back on the side of affirmative action in 2003, what gives the Regents the right to reverse their own “good faith” policy?
More at:
http://texascivilrightsreview.org/phpnuke
I’ve done a lot of digging on this issue at Texas A&M. What they just did is a scandal.
What the Regents give the Regents can take away. “Controlling law” (Grutter) does not require colleges to engage in racial discrimination, it allows them to do so (to promote “diversity”). To its credit Texas A&M has chosen to cease using race as a basis for burdens or benefits. Those who believe in civil rights should be applauding, not complaining.
But what if the Regents “gaveth” with the understanding that their adoption of affirmative action would be taken as a sign of their good faith to see this process through on their own commitments, and what if they knew very well that this “good faith” gesture would secure them an otherwise less stringent arrangement with OCR? In that case, taking away affirmative action would also take away their sign of good faith.
http://texascivilrightsreview.org/phpnuke
Also, it is important to place Texas A&M in the context of a state that has been found officially to harbor vestiges of segregation. In such cases, affirmative action is expected. Neither Texas nor Texas A&M are like any other state or school. Their special situation places them under special obligations with respect to civil rights law. The Michigan cases rehabilitate affirmative action procedures, but Fordice indicates that affirmative action should not be withdrawn under conditions where vestiges of segregation persist…
how many southeastern asian population are there at college station a&m? does anyone know/