Observations on the Report “Undergraduate Admissions Process”: A Document Prepared for the Board of Regents by UW-Madison Admissions Director Rob Seltzer, dated July 6, 2001 Memo dated August 28, 2001Will campus administrators succeed in defending UW-Madison’s undergraduate admissions process at the Board of Regents next meeting? Can they continue to justify using race/ethnicity as a basis for accepting and rejecting applicants?
The Board’s response may hinge on a recent report (July 6, 2001) describing the admissions process at UW-Madison. That report, prepared at Regent request by Admissions Director Rob Seltzer, is disappointing. Its 1 ½ pages provide little more information than is already found in the campus admissions brochure (of doctored photo fame). Moreover, Seltzer’s description differs importantly from that offered by Chancellor Wiley at a mid-March meeting when admissions policy was discussed by three Regents, Seltzer, Wiley, and other UW officials. (For details, see the March, April, and May memos to the Board referred to in my cover letter.)
The report’s vagueness is hardly surprising. At that same March meeting, the Regents asked for all available documents describing the admissions process. In replying, Seltzer made the startling claim that no written information is available because his office relies on an “oral tradition.”
Asked to elaborate, Seltzer said newly hired staff members learn how to perform their duties by working directly with current staff members. Hence, his office has no need for any written material. But, one wonders, if the admissions process is so important and complex, how can the large Admissions Office staff operate effectively and fairly without written guidance?
The Seltzer report offers the usual defense for using race/ethnicity in admissions decisions. That defense relies heavily on two assertions. First, diversity produces important educational benefits for students. Second, greater diversity is needed to ensure that employers hire our graduates. Yet, the report provides no evidence to support the validity of either assertion.
Though it seems reasonable to believe that greater diversity may produce educational benefits, the difficulties of documenting those benefits and their magnitudes are formidable. Those difficulties are revealed by the Center for Equal Opportunity’s devastating critique of the University of Michigan’s extensive effort to provide such documentation in its brief by U of M Professor Gurin. To the best of my knowledge, we know little or nothing about the positive educational benefits of diversity at UW-Madison.
The other assertion is also problematic. Employers may say they value diversity and hence will not recruit non-targeted graduates because our graduates have not been sufficiently exposed to minorities during their collegiate years. That was the burden of the comments by several large employers presented at a Regent meeting several years ago. But, the key question is whether these employers are acting on what they say. Have they ceased their recruitment at UW-Madison? Or have they reduced it for the reasons they stated? A check with campus career office officials in several of our colleges is instructive. They report that recruiters say they wish there were more minority graduates to interview and hire. Yet, apparently none of the recruiters have said they will stop or have stopped recruiting here because there are not enough minority graduates to make their visits worthwhile. Nor have they said they will stop or have stopped recruiting our non-minority graduates because of their lack of extensive interaction with targeted minority students. In short, the argument that lack of diversity is seriously narrowing the employment prospects of our graduates does not hold up to empirical scrutiny.
What seems so obviously lacking in the defense of diversity is any mention of the benefits diversity brings to minority students who have been admitted because of their race/ethnicity. Surely, the most important consideration in admitting students is how they as individuals can benefit from their educational experience here, not how their presence on campus serves institutional purposes, such as increasing minority enrollment so the campus leaders can congratulate themselves on having achieved a race/ethnically diverse student body.
The sad fact is that a sizeable proportion of targeted minorities are admitted and recruited based on their race/ethnicity, without careful attention to their prospects for success at this campus and eventual graduation. If this lack of attention had just recently been discovered, it might be excused. In fact, campus officials have known for decades, but failed to acknowledge. that the prospects for success among minorities admitted on the basis of their race/ethnicity are embarrassingly low relative to minorities admitted competitively (without regard to their race/ethnicity). While many factors contribute to this difference, disparities in prior academic achievement are a major contributing factor.
The Seltzer report’s less explicit defense of diversity rests on the belief that using race/ethnicity is “okay.” The reason given is that that race/ethnicity is only one among many factors used in admitting under-represented minorities (blacks, hispanics, American Indians, and SE Asians). This is the so-called “Bakke defense” whose many weakness have been pointed out, by among others Dershowitz and Hanft in their law review article included in the packet of materials mailed to Regents by Regent Mohs. The question remains: Is using race/ethnicity ever appropriate in making admissions decisions?
The Seltzer report is also inadequate because it glosses over three crucial considerations.
One is faculty legislation on admissions policy. Both the Seltzer report and the admission brochure fail to mention an important faculty-established criterion for evaluating applicants. This criterion is expressed in phrases such as “reasonable probability of success”, “maximizing the success of students”, “likelihood of graduation”, and “likelihood of academic success”. The only reason for admitting students is the informed prediction they are equipped to succeed and graduate.
Yet, the evidence shows that minority students admitted based on their race/ethnicity are much less likely to succeed than are other minority students, those who are admitted on the same basis as non-minority applicants. Both the High School Rank Percentile and the Composite ACT Score are good predictors of academic success. Yet, much less weight seems to be given to these predictors in evaluating targeted minority applicants than is the case for non-targeted applicants. Is the Admissions Office ignoring a critical faculty-established criterion for admission merely to boost minority enrollment?
Second is the concept of fairness. In a democratic society everybody should be treated equally, including young people applying to UW-Madison. This means that applicants should be evaluated for their likelihood of success, not because of skin color or ethnicity.
Yet, a close reading of the Seltzer report reveals that race/ethnicity is a decisive factor. Minority applicants who are not admitted competitively receive “additional consideration in the review process.” By contrast, non-minority applicants (whites and Asian Americans) who are not admitted competitively do not qualify for this “additional consideration.” Is this not clear evidence that race/ethnicity is central to the admissions process?
Finally, state law governing the UW System states: “No student may be denied admission to, participation in or the benefit of, or be discriminated against in any service, program, course or facility of the system or its institutions or centers because of the student’s race, color, creed, religion, sex, national origin, disability, ancestry, age, sexual orientation, pregnancy, marital status or parental status.” (Wis. Stats. 36.12).
Seltzer’s report ignores the legal issue posed by state law. And, strangely, the UW-Madison’s admissions brochure, while mentioning prohibitions against race/ethnic-based discrimination, fails to make clear the context for prohibiting such discrimination. The point is that discrimination based on race/ethnicity is explicitly prohibited in admissions, as it is in campus services, programs, courses, and facilities. Why is there no mention of the prohibition of discrimination in admissions? Is this an oversight? What hasn’t the legal services office spotted this omission? Does the goal of diversity justify flouting state law? Does the goal of diversity require flouting state law?
These powerful arguments for eliminating race/ethnicity-based admission preferences are not new. They have been made in the past. They have been ignored. Now, finally, the Board of Regents is going to examine them.
What are the Board’s options? The Board can decide to accept the inadequate Seltzer report as a full and accurate description of the admission process, and that will end the discussion, at least for now. Or, it can request a more detailed report and reschedule its discussion for a later meeting. Whether more detail will make a more persuasive case for accepting the report is not obvious. Indeed, the vagueness of the Seltzer report may indicate that saying anything more would weaken rather than strengthen the case for continuing to give preferential treatment in admissions to targeted minority applicants.
Or, the Board can reject the Seltzer report, for some or all of the reasons presented here and elsewhere. If the Board rejects the Seltzer report, and I hope it does, it must take decisive action to end using race/ethnicity in admissions decisions not only at UW-Madison but also elsewhere in the UW System. Such action means eliminating all references to race/ethnicity in the Board’s policy statements dealing with admissions policy and practices. It means instructing UW System campuses to revise their admissions policies and procedures so the race/ethnicity of applicants can have no bearing on admissions decisions. More difficult but ultimately more important, it means establishing a new “culture” throughout the UW System that treats all applicants equally and fairly.
Taking a principled stand against continued use of race/ethnicity in admissions decisions will not be easy. Doing so will require the Board of Regents as a group to exercise its moral and legal authority to lead and govern the University. Doing so will also require individual Regents to screw up their courage and do what is right rather than what is expedient.
Are the Regents up to the challenge? I hope so. Indeed, we should all hope so.
Memo to Board of Regents
Observations on the Report “Undergraduate Admissions Process”: A Document Prepared for the Board of Regents by UW-Madison Admissions Director Rob Seltzer, dated July 6, 2001 Memo dated August 28, 2001Will campus administrators succeed in defending UW-Madison’s undergraduate admissions process at the Board of Regents next meeting? Can they continue to justify using race/ethnicity as a basis for accepting and rejecting applicants?
The Board’s response may hinge on a recent report (July 6, 2001) describing the admissions process at UW-Madison. That report, prepared at Regent request by Admissions Director Rob Seltzer, is disappointing. Its 1 ½ pages provide little more information than is already found in the campus admissions brochure (of doctored photo fame). Moreover, Seltzer’s description differs importantly from that offered by Chancellor Wiley at a mid-March meeting when admissions policy was discussed by three Regents, Seltzer, Wiley, and other UW officials. (For details, see the March, April, and May memos to the Board referred to in my cover letter.)
The report’s vagueness is hardly surprising. At that same March meeting, the Regents asked for all available documents describing the admissions process. In replying, Seltzer made the startling claim that no written information is available because his office relies on an “oral tradition.”
Asked to elaborate, Seltzer said newly hired staff members learn how to perform their duties by working directly with current staff members. Hence, his office has no need for any written material. But, one wonders, if the admissions process is so important and complex, how can the large Admissions Office staff operate effectively and fairly without written guidance?
The Seltzer report offers the usual defense for using race/ethnicity in admissions decisions. That defense relies heavily on two assertions. First, diversity produces important educational benefits for students. Second, greater diversity is needed to ensure that employers hire our graduates. Yet, the report provides no evidence to support the validity of either assertion.
Though it seems reasonable to believe that greater diversity may produce educational benefits, the difficulties of documenting those benefits and their magnitudes are formidable. Those difficulties are revealed by the Center for Equal Opportunity’s devastating critique of the University of Michigan’s extensive effort to provide such documentation in its brief by U of M Professor Gurin. To the best of my knowledge, we know little or nothing about the positive educational benefits of diversity at UW-Madison.
The other assertion is also problematic. Employers may say they value diversity and hence will not recruit non-targeted graduates because our graduates have not been sufficiently exposed to minorities during their collegiate years. That was the burden of the comments by several large employers presented at a Regent meeting several years ago. But, the key question is whether these employers are acting on what they say. Have they ceased their recruitment at UW-Madison? Or have they reduced it for the reasons they stated? A check with campus career office officials in several of our colleges is instructive. They report that recruiters say they wish there were more minority graduates to interview and hire. Yet, apparently none of the recruiters have said they will stop or have stopped recruiting here because there are not enough minority graduates to make their visits worthwhile. Nor have they said they will stop or have stopped recruiting our non-minority graduates because of their lack of extensive interaction with targeted minority students. In short, the argument that lack of diversity is seriously narrowing the employment prospects of our graduates does not hold up to empirical scrutiny.
What seems so obviously lacking in the defense of diversity is any mention of the benefits diversity brings to minority students who have been admitted because of their race/ethnicity. Surely, the most important consideration in admitting students is how they as individuals can benefit from their educational experience here, not how their presence on campus serves institutional purposes, such as increasing minority enrollment so the campus leaders can congratulate themselves on having achieved a race/ethnically diverse student body.
The sad fact is that a sizeable proportion of targeted minorities are admitted and recruited based on their race/ethnicity, without careful attention to their prospects for success at this campus and eventual graduation. If this lack of attention had just recently been discovered, it might be excused. In fact, campus officials have known for decades, but failed to acknowledge. that the prospects for success among minorities admitted on the basis of their race/ethnicity are embarrassingly low relative to minorities admitted competitively (without regard to their race/ethnicity). While many factors contribute to this difference, disparities in prior academic achievement are a major contributing factor.
The Seltzer report’s less explicit defense of diversity rests on the belief that using race/ethnicity is “okay.” The reason given is that that race/ethnicity is only one among many factors used in admitting under-represented minorities (blacks, hispanics, American Indians, and SE Asians). This is the so-called “Bakke defense” whose many weakness have been pointed out, by among others Dershowitz and Hanft in their law review article included in the packet of materials mailed to Regents by Regent Mohs. The question remains: Is using race/ethnicity ever appropriate in making admissions decisions?
The Seltzer report is also inadequate because it glosses over three crucial considerations.
One is faculty legislation on admissions policy. Both the Seltzer report and the admission brochure fail to mention an important faculty-established criterion for evaluating applicants. This criterion is expressed in phrases such as “reasonable probability of success”, “maximizing the success of students”, “likelihood of graduation”, and “likelihood of academic success”. The only reason for admitting students is the informed prediction they are equipped to succeed and graduate.
Yet, the evidence shows that minority students admitted based on their race/ethnicity are much less likely to succeed than are other minority students, those who are admitted on the same basis as non-minority applicants. Both the High School Rank Percentile and the Composite ACT Score are good predictors of academic success. Yet, much less weight seems to be given to these predictors in evaluating targeted minority applicants than is the case for non-targeted applicants. Is the Admissions Office ignoring a critical faculty-established criterion for admission merely to boost minority enrollment?
Second is the concept of fairness. In a democratic society everybody should be treated equally, including young people applying to UW-Madison. This means that applicants should be evaluated for their likelihood of success, not because of skin color or ethnicity.
Yet, a close reading of the Seltzer report reveals that race/ethnicity is a decisive factor. Minority applicants who are not admitted competitively receive “additional consideration in the review process.” By contrast, non-minority applicants (whites and Asian Americans) who are not admitted competitively do not qualify for this “additional consideration.” Is this not clear evidence that race/ethnicity is central to the admissions process?
Finally, state law governing the UW System states: “No student may be denied admission to, participation in or the benefit of, or be discriminated against in any service, program, course or facility of the system or its institutions or centers because of the student’s race, color, creed, religion, sex, national origin, disability, ancestry, age, sexual orientation, pregnancy, marital status or parental status.” (Wis. Stats. 36.12).
Seltzer’s report ignores the legal issue posed by state law. And, strangely, the UW-Madison’s admissions brochure, while mentioning prohibitions against race/ethnic-based discrimination, fails to make clear the context for prohibiting such discrimination. The point is that discrimination based on race/ethnicity is explicitly prohibited in admissions, as it is in campus services, programs, courses, and facilities. Why is there no mention of the prohibition of discrimination in admissions? Is this an oversight? What hasn’t the legal services office spotted this omission? Does the goal of diversity justify flouting state law? Does the goal of diversity require flouting state law?
These powerful arguments for eliminating race/ethnicity-based admission preferences are not new. They have been made in the past. They have been ignored. Now, finally, the Board of Regents is going to examine them.
What are the Board’s options? The Board can decide to accept the inadequate Seltzer report as a full and accurate description of the admission process, and that will end the discussion, at least for now. Or, it can request a more detailed report and reschedule its discussion for a later meeting. Whether more detail will make a more persuasive case for accepting the report is not obvious. Indeed, the vagueness of the Seltzer report may indicate that saying anything more would weaken rather than strengthen the case for continuing to give preferential treatment in admissions to targeted minority applicants.
Or, the Board can reject the Seltzer report, for some or all of the reasons presented here and elsewhere. If the Board rejects the Seltzer report, and I hope it does, it must take decisive action to end using race/ethnicity in admissions decisions not only at UW-Madison but also elsewhere in the UW System. Such action means eliminating all references to race/ethnicity in the Board’s policy statements dealing with admissions policy and practices. It means instructing UW System campuses to revise their admissions policies and procedures so the race/ethnicity of applicants can have no bearing on admissions decisions. More difficult but ultimately more important, it means establishing a new “culture” throughout the UW System that treats all applicants equally and fairly.
Taking a principled stand against continued use of race/ethnicity in admissions decisions will not be easy. Doing so will require the Board of Regents as a group to exercise its moral and legal authority to lead and govern the University. Doing so will also require individual Regents to screw up their courage and do what is right rather than what is expedient.
Are the Regents up to the challenge? I hope so. Indeed, we should all hope so.