By Frederic E. Mohs*
Reprint from the Wisconsin State Journal, Jan. 17, 2001
*permission to reprint here has been granted by the author
Recently, an appeals court found that public colleges may take race into account as a way to promote diversity, although other U.S. courts remain divided on the issue. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court will probably take up this matter. Assuming, for argument, that race preferences in admissions are legal, it does not follow that we should continue to pursue the practice any more than we should establish the death penalty because it too has been declared legal.
The UW Board of Regents should address this matter independently. Two main issues should be explored. First, does the practice treat students equally and fairly as people in this state understand it? Secondly, regardless of what a judge says, does the practice, which treats applicants differently on the basis of race, significantly further the goal of advancing minority educational success?
I have suggested to the Board of Regents that the use of racial preferences in admissions should be abandoned. As part of my remarks to the Regents, I revealed the results of a statewide survey conducted by chamberlain research Consultants that asked, “In addition to class rank and test scores, do you favor or oppose the use of race and ethnic preferences in determining who should be admitted to the University of Wisconsin?” The results: 10.3 percent favored, 84.2 percent opposed, and 5.5 percent did not know.
There was strong opposition across all categories, with 76.9 percent of minorities opposing and 76.2 percent of Democrats opposing. In the weeks following my remarks, I received more than 150 contacts by telephone or mail. Only two were negative. Although I do not draw any conclusion from the number of people who contacted me, I did not receive any communication that overtly bigoted and on the contrary, most people exhibited a desire for improvement in minority education and an impatience with failure in that area.
A consistent theme that I took away from the conversations was that people wanted to tell me how they and their families had succeeded. They wanted to me about their struggles or those of their ancestors. They wanted me to know that anything worth having is worth working hard for, and that all anyone should ask is to have the rules applied fairly and equally. Most importantly, most of the people who contacted me were just as offended by what they considered to be a counterproductive approach to minority scholastic achievement as they were by institutional unfairness to majority applicants.
Conventional support for preferences is base on the assumption that they are important to creating diversity, which helps education generally, reduces social tensions, makes amends to African-Americans and serves the needs of corporate America in creating a workforce that can compete in a racially diverse world. These are laudable goals, but the question remains as to whether or not race preferences in admissions are the way to achieve them. Certainly, if it was believed that learning was enhanced, social tensions reduced and corporate America served by producing a homogeneous student body, it would be wrong to tinker with a merit-based admissions policy so as to increase the number of white students admitted.
My purpose in raising this issue with the Regents is not to pull an important leg out from under the hopes of minority students. I will urge them not to make race preferences in admissions a symbol of their aspirations. It will be important to convince minority students and their families that abandoning race preferences will not mean a cascading loss of all of the advances that have been made to date. My intention is to refocus our programs away from merely counting color and ethnic background in our student body to one which focuses on educational attainment.
In states where preferences have been abandoned, innovative, well-funded, pre-college guidance, recruiting and financial aid programs have been established. This is not easy. Frankly, it is hard, but without the convenient mask of race preferences in admissions, students, their families, their schools and communities and the University of Wisconsin will have to work and innovate to get the job done. The University of Wisconsin’s Plan 2008 has as its fundamental goal enlarging the pool of qualified applicants. It enumerates strategies aimed at increasing minority enrollment and achievement, but make no mention of the use of race preferences in admissions. The Regents should bring the policies and practices of the UW into conformity with Plan 2008 and to work hard to that its goals are realized.
Focus on Educational Attainment, Not Race Preferences
By Frederic E. Mohs*
Reprint from the Wisconsin State Journal, Jan. 17, 2001
Recently, an appeals court found that public colleges may take race into account as a way to promote diversity, although other U.S. courts remain divided on the issue. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court will probably take up this matter. Assuming, for argument, that race preferences in admissions are legal, it does not follow that we should continue to pursue the practice any more than we should establish the death penalty because it too has been declared legal.
The UW Board of Regents should address this matter independently. Two main issues should be explored. First, does the practice treat students equally and fairly as people in this state understand it? Secondly, regardless of what a judge says, does the practice, which treats applicants differently on the basis of race, significantly further the goal of advancing minority educational success?
I have suggested to the Board of Regents that the use of racial preferences in admissions should be abandoned. As part of my remarks to the Regents, I revealed the results of a statewide survey conducted by chamberlain research Consultants that asked, “In addition to class rank and test scores, do you favor or oppose the use of race and ethnic preferences in determining who should be admitted to the University of Wisconsin?” The results: 10.3 percent favored, 84.2 percent opposed, and 5.5 percent did not know.
There was strong opposition across all categories, with 76.9 percent of minorities opposing and 76.2 percent of Democrats opposing. In the weeks following my remarks, I received more than 150 contacts by telephone or mail. Only two were negative. Although I do not draw any conclusion from the number of people who contacted me, I did not receive any communication that overtly bigoted and on the contrary, most people exhibited a desire for improvement in minority education and an impatience with failure in that area.
A consistent theme that I took away from the conversations was that people wanted to tell me how they and their families had succeeded. They wanted to me about their struggles or those of their ancestors. They wanted me to know that anything worth having is worth working hard for, and that all anyone should ask is to have the rules applied fairly and equally. Most importantly, most of the people who contacted me were just as offended by what they considered to be a counterproductive approach to minority scholastic achievement as they were by institutional unfairness to majority applicants.
Conventional support for preferences is base on the assumption that they are important to creating diversity, which helps education generally, reduces social tensions, makes amends to African-Americans and serves the needs of corporate America in creating a workforce that can compete in a racially diverse world. These are laudable goals, but the question remains as to whether or not race preferences in admissions are the way to achieve them. Certainly, if it was believed that learning was enhanced, social tensions reduced and corporate America served by producing a homogeneous student body, it would be wrong to tinker with a merit-based admissions policy so as to increase the number of white students admitted.
My purpose in raising this issue with the Regents is not to pull an important leg out from under the hopes of minority students. I will urge them not to make race preferences in admissions a symbol of their aspirations. It will be important to convince minority students and their families that abandoning race preferences will not mean a cascading loss of all of the advances that have been made to date. My intention is to refocus our programs away from merely counting color and ethnic background in our student body to one which focuses on educational attainment.
In states where preferences have been abandoned, innovative, well-funded, pre-college guidance, recruiting and financial aid programs have been established. This is not easy. Frankly, it is hard, but without the convenient mask of race preferences in admissions, students, their families, their schools and communities and the University of Wisconsin will have to work and innovate to get the job done. The University of Wisconsin’s Plan 2008 has as its fundamental goal enlarging the pool of qualified applicants. It enumerates strategies aimed at increasing minority enrollment and achievement, but make no mention of the use of race preferences in admissions. The Regents should bring the policies and practices of the UW into conformity with Plan 2008 and to work hard to that its goals are realized.