Guest column reprinted from the Wisconsin State Journal, September 4, 2001[Note: What follows includes a paragraph the Wisconsin State Journal cut out to meet its space requirements; it is the third paragraph of the Guest Column as it appears below.]
Will 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 report describing the admissions process. That report, prepared by Admissions Director Rob Seltzer at Regent request, is disappointing. Its 1 ½ pages provide little more information than is already found in the campus admissions brochure (of doctored photo fame).
The report’s vagueness is hardly surprising. At a mid-March meeting, the Regents asked for all available documents describing the admissions process. In response, 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?
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.
The Seltzer report offers the usual defense for using race/ethnicity in admissions decisions. That defense relies heavily on two assertions: diversity produces important educational benefits for students, and greater diversity is needed to ensure that employers hire our graduates. Yet, the report provides no evidence to support the validity of either assertion.
The defense also rests on the belief that using race/ethnicity is “OK.” 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). The question remains: Is using race/ethnicity ever appropriate in making admissions decisions?
The Seltzer document glosses over three crucial considerations. One is faculty legislation on admissions policy. The Seltzer report and the admission brochure fail to mention an important faculty-established criterion for evaluating applicants; it is expressed in phrases such as “reasonable probability of success”, “maximizing the success of students”, “likelihood of graduation”, and “likelihood of academic success”.
Yet, the evidence shows that minority students admitted based on their race/ethnicity are much less likely to succeed than minority students who are admitted on the same basis as non-minority applicants. Is the Admissions Office ignoring this criterion 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 are not eligible 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 admissions brochure fails to mention that state law explicitly prohibits race/ethnic-based discrimination in admission. Are these omissions an oversight? 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 discuss the issue.
What are the Board’s options? It 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. It can request a more detailed report and reschedule its discussion for a later meeting. Or it can in effect reject the Seltzer report for the reasons presented here and elsewhere.
If the Board of Regents rejects the Seltzer report, and I hope it does, it must take decisive action to end using race/ethnicity in admissions decisions. Such action means eliminating all references to race/ethnicity in its policy statements dealing with admissions. It also 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.
Taking a principled stand against continued use of race/ethnicity in admissions will not be easy. It will require the Board of Regents as a group to exercise its moral and legal authority to lead and govern the University. It will 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.
UW Report on Admissions Fails to Deliver Race Justification
Guest column reprinted from the Wisconsin State Journal, September 4, 2001[Note: What follows includes a paragraph the Wisconsin State Journal cut out to meet its space requirements; it is the third paragraph of the Guest Column as it appears below.]
Will 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 report describing the admissions process. That report, prepared by Admissions Director Rob Seltzer at Regent request, is disappointing. Its 1 ½ pages provide little more information than is already found in the campus admissions brochure (of doctored photo fame).
The report’s vagueness is hardly surprising. At a mid-March meeting, the Regents asked for all available documents describing the admissions process. In response, 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?
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.
The Seltzer report offers the usual defense for using race/ethnicity in admissions decisions. That defense relies heavily on two assertions: diversity produces important educational benefits for students, and greater diversity is needed to ensure that employers hire our graduates. Yet, the report provides no evidence to support the validity of either assertion.
The defense also rests on the belief that using race/ethnicity is “OK.” 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). The question remains: Is using race/ethnicity ever appropriate in making admissions decisions?
The Seltzer document glosses over three crucial considerations. One is faculty legislation on admissions policy. The Seltzer report and the admission brochure fail to mention an important faculty-established criterion for evaluating applicants; it is expressed in phrases such as “reasonable probability of success”, “maximizing the success of students”, “likelihood of graduation”, and “likelihood of academic success”.
Yet, the evidence shows that minority students admitted based on their race/ethnicity are much less likely to succeed than minority students who are admitted on the same basis as non-minority applicants. Is the Admissions Office ignoring this criterion 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 are not eligible 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 admissions brochure fails to mention that state law explicitly prohibits race/ethnic-based discrimination in admission. Are these omissions an oversight? 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 discuss the issue.
What are the Board’s options? It 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. It can request a more detailed report and reschedule its discussion for a later meeting. Or it can in effect reject the Seltzer report for the reasons presented here and elsewhere.
If the Board of Regents rejects the Seltzer report, and I hope it does, it must take decisive action to end using race/ethnicity in admissions decisions. Such action means eliminating all references to race/ethnicity in its policy statements dealing with admissions. It also 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.
Taking a principled stand against continued use of race/ethnicity in admissions will not be easy. It will require the Board of Regents as a group to exercise its moral and legal authority to lead and govern the University. It will 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.