Hopwood Overruled: Texas to Rewrite College Admissions Policies

Laredo, TX, Morning Times ^ | 06-24-03 | Vertuno, Jim, AP

[Theodore R.]

Texas to rewrite admissions policies

BY JIM VERTUNO Associated Press Writer

AUSTIN - The University of Texas will draft new affirmative action admissions policies that include race as a factor as allowed by Monday's ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, school President Larry Faulkner said Monday.

Any new policy for undergraduate admissions would have to work within the confines of the state law that entitles Texas high school students who graduate in the top 10 percent of their class enrollment in a state university.

Monday's ruling ends the rule of the so-called "Hopwood" decisions by federal courts and former state Attorney General Dan Morales that prohibited race being used as a factor in admissions as well as scholarship and financial aid, Faulkner said.

"It gets to the heart of what we try to accomplish as an institution," Faulkner said. "All university leaders in the United States feel keenly their responsibility to educate the leadership of the nation. That leadership will come from all population sectors. It's important for us to have strong representation here of students from all sectors of society."

The earliest any changes could effect enrollment would be the 2004 fall freshman class. The top 10 percent rule will dominate about 70 percent of that class, leaving only about 30 percent to fall under any new race-included admissions policy.

In two separate rulings Monday, the court approved a program used at the University of Michigan law school that gives race a role in the admissions decision-making process. It struck down a separate point system used by the university to give minority preference in undergraduate admissions, but that ruling did not go as far as opponents of affirmative action had wanted.

UT had previously tried to get the Supreme Court to overturn the "Hopwood" rulings and was interested in how it ruled on the Michigan cases.

Minority state lawmakers and advocacy groups hailed the rulings.

"Today's decision is great news for students of color," said Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston. "It affirms that the doors of higher education should be open to diversity and opportunity should exist for all."

Nina Perales, an attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, called on all Texas universities to renew affirmative action programs.

"They create a stronger, more excellent student body," Perales said. "Affirmative action is the key to Latino educational advancement."

The Hopwood decisions stemmed from a lawsuit filed against the University of Texas law school admissions policies that considered race. The top 10 percent rule was created in 1997 to boost minority enrollment without specific race-based policies.

Faulkner said the 10 percent law has been successful in some areas, bad for universities in others.

Students who might never have considered going to college now think about it because they know they can get it in, he said. But schools also want to be able to choose some of their students with varying criteria.

"It's simply unhealthy for a whole class to be admitted on one criteria," Faulkner said.

Some state lawmakers considered tweaking the 10 percent rule to place a cap on the percentage of a freshman class it would enroll. That idea was defeated but could resurface under the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Legislature is scheduled to convene June 30 for a special session on congressional redistricting. Gov. Rick Perry could add the 10 percent rule to the session.

Brian Haley, president of the UT-Austin student government, wrote Perry on Monday urging him to add the 10 percent rule to the call of the session.

Perry spokesman Gene Acuna said the governor's office was studying the ruling's impact on Texas with Attorney General Greg Abbott. Any decision on expanding the session's issues will come after it starts, he said.

A more immediate program would likely come in graduate programs which do not fall under the 10 percent rule, Faulkner said.

Faulkner and Douglas Laycock, associate dean of the UT law school, noted the court's decision does not allow quotas and does not speak specifically to financial aid and scholarship programs.

Both said the university can consider race without a quota system and that they believe the ruling would apply to financial aid programs.

06/24/03

[Theodore R.]

This Supreme Court decision is disastrous: it brings back race as A factor (or will it be THE) factor of college admissions in TX.

What hath Souter (and GHWB) wrought!

[Bikers4Bush]

Anyone else hear the floodgates opening?

[The Iceman Cometh]

Better print up the 'Whites Need Not Apply' signs. Better yet, 'Grades Don't Matter'.

[Skywalk]

LOL But I thought this was a defeat. What was obvious to anyone with half a brain is that there is little in the ways of concrete techinques by which one can determine that race was not used as a main or sole criterion in admitting a student. How could anyone tell that a black or Mexican student with 250 pts lower on the SAT and a .5 differential in GPA didn't get in as a result of race alone? The officials will just say "oh, they volunteered one time, that was a big factor. Race was A factor, but not the main one." They could say this while barely restraining themselves from guffawing at your questions.


BTW, How the hell does this ruling take precedence over Texas laws? It says that Michigan CAN engage in this, but surely even Michigan must abide by Michigan's laws? So how can the Uni of Texas simply overturn Hopwood???!?!!?

[Skywalk]

Yeah, how does the ruling invalidate Hopwood? If Texas forbids it by their own laws, doesn't that still apply? This is not a matter of constitutional rights, like a first amendment case with universal applications.

[kesg]

The University of Texas will draft new affirmative action admissions policies that include race as a factor as allowed by Monday's ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, school President Larry Faulkner said Monday.

Can anyone imagine a clearer indictment of yesterday's decisions than this one?

[drlevy88]

"Affirmative action is the key to Latino educational advancement."

I wonder if some Latinos will feel highly insulted by this.

[Theodore R.]

Wouldn't you think that the University of TX has been awaiting for a long time to get rid of Hopwood any way that it can. Therefore, the university administration was working overtime Monday to implement the MI decision in TX.

What hath Souter wrought! We need to pick our Supreme Court nominees more carefully. I hope the President is listening.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Institutional racism cast in stone.

[deport]

What hath Souter (and GHWB) wrought!

---

Or President Reagan and O'Connor

[Theodore R.]

Another unintendend consequence of affirmative action: the program can get the students admitted, but it can't compel them to study or even to attend class! And many once admitted do virtually nothing and eventually "drop out."

[Black Agnes]

Latinos will be the majority in TX within 10 years. Will the policies change then?

[Theodore R.]

Yes, indeed, and Reagan and (Anthony) Kennedy as well.

[lonestar]

What hath Souter wrought! We need to pick our Supreme Court nominees more carefully. I hope the President is listening.

Tell it to Clarence Thomas!

[dufekin]

"Affirmative action is the key to Latino educational advancement."

I wonder if some Latinos will feel highly insulted by this.


Fear not; like everything a Democrat utters, interpretation is subject to the "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is" standard; "is" can be construed to mean "is not," as it would have to be to make the aformentioned statement valid.

[Skywalk]

I can't think of any.

Though the ruling DOES NOT stand Hopwood on its head, schools and other government institutions all over the country will now see this as their opportunity to reinstate the entire thing.

Despite protestations to the contrary, it is nearly impossible to tell if race was a sole or primary factor vs. just another factor. As long as the race is listed, we know what the choices will be. And the entire "critical mass" argument is just another word for ad hoc quotas in a given year. The SCOTUS basically gave carte blanche to use race as a factor in admissions. It may be more narrow than the old quotas, but it is now less-scientific, less quantifiable and therefore WORSE than the old system.

What PO's me off is that private schools can do what they want. If diversity is so all-fired important why don't private schools take on the students that would be barred from entry into state schools?

[Theodore R.]

How did Clarence Thomas come down on the affirmative action decision? Did he switch sides? If so, I missed that.

[Skywalk]

He was opposed to it completely. Combined with some of his other decisions, I think he is the only one that is truly constitutionalist on the entire court.

Scalia is too pro-State for my liking.

If I became Steward of America, I'd kick all of them off the bench except Thomas.

[rogerthedodger]

No, the policy won't change. I think a large portion of it is motivated by racial animus against whites--"Here Whitey, you were on top for a long time, but you're gonna get what's coming to you."

Never forget that.

[Theodore R.]

I agree, Thomas is the best of the justices. Rehnquist has been moving to the left. Remember too how unimpresive (and bored) Rehnquist seemed at the impeachment trial of 1999.

I have little hope of getting another Thomas on the bench.