W. Lee Hansen

Prepared for the Meeting of the Education Committee, University of Wisconsin Board of Regents, Thursday,  June  10,  1999 The report below raises questions about UW System campus submissions for implementing Plan 2008, and touches on three closely related matters. It documents the intractability of minority student academic achievement in the pre-college years. It assesses the success of the recently completed 1988 Design for Diversity initiative in laying the groundwork for Plan 2008. It presents a fact-based vision of a proposed UW System diversity initiative, one that offers the possibility of faster progress toward the goal of greater race and ethnic diversity in the undergraduate student body. Finally, based on these analyses, it presents recommendations for strengthening diversity efforts throughout the UW System.

I. Why is the Diversity Problem So Intractable?

It is not because of lack of good will and good intentions that targeted minority student success falters. It is not because of lack of commitment on the part of administrators, faculty, staff, and students.

Rather, it is because Wisconsin schools produce an altogether inadequate number of targeted-minority students who are academically well-qualified to do university work. This is a matter of public record. The few statistics offered here are readily available. They are not secret, but if they have been discussed and debated — as they ought to be — I have missed it. My first source is the Wisconsin Student Assessment System tests of all tenth-graders, 1997-98.

• Wisconsin’s public high schools enrolled 69,660 tenth graders. Among them were 5,011 Wisconsin African-American tenth graders.
• Of all tenth-grade students, 17,588 scored “Advanced” in Reading. But only 192 African-American tenth graders scored “Advanced” in Reading. 17,588 represents a substantial pool of good prospects for higher education. 192 does not.
• Of all tenth-grade students, 5,811 scored “Advanced” in Math. But only 26 African-American tenth graders scored “Advanced” in Math.
• The results are similar for African-Americans in Science and Social Studies.
• This same situation prevails for the other targeted-minority groups. Or consider Wisconsin high school graduates. My second source is the ACT High School Profile Report for Wisconsin 1997 on Wisconsin high school students taking the ACT during the 1996-97 academic year.
• Wisconsin’s public high schools graduated 55,189 students in the class of 1996-97, including 2,264 African-Americans (based on Department of Public Instruction data).
• Of all Wisconsin high school graduates, 22,622 took the ACT test, completed the core academic curriculum, or graduated in the top half of their class. But only 552 African Americans took the ACT test, completed the core academic curriculum, or graduated in the top half of their class. 22,622 represents a substantial pool of good prospects for admission to UW System campuses. 552 does not. By contrast, the 1998 enrollment goal for the 1988 Design for Diversity initiative called for the UW System to double its enrollment of new African American freshmen. Applied to Wisconsin resident freshman, African American enrollment in Fall 1998 was to reach 914; actual enrollment in Fall 1998 reached only 600.
• Again, the situation is similar for the other minority groups.

The inescapable conclusion is that the high schools of Wisconsin produce too few — in actual numbers, very few — targeted minority students and graduates who are academically well-prepared to undertake university work.

A key goal of Plan 2008 should be to enlarge the number of K-12 students who are qualified to attend and can benefit from college. This is in addition to the goals of increasing targeted minority enrollment, retention, and graduation rates, and creating a less hostile climate for targeted minority students.

Plan 2008 does recognize the supply-side problem, namely, the need to improve the number of high school graduates attending college. Specifically, it calls for establishing more pre-college programs to prepare targeted minorities to succeed in college, and for encouraging more partnerships with K-12 schools to increase the college-going aspirations and academic preparation of targeted minorities.

But, are these steps enough? Are they anywhere near enough? Will these pre-college programs enroll minority students who already plan to attend college anyway, or will they actually increase the number of minority students who are interested in and capable of undertaking college-level work?

Based on the UW System’s long experience with diversity programs, Plan 2008, as it is presently constituted, will continue the record of the past decade rather than dramatically improve it. If the UW System’s diversity policy is to succeed, its success will be determined by the academic preparation that Wisconsin communities provide for and encourage among their young people, particularly those from targeted minority groups. Until Plan 2008 gives more attention to this matter, it holds little promise for success.

Would it not be appropriate for the UW System and the Board of Regents to assume a strong leadership role in the movement to reinvigorate and improve pre-university education? This could be done as part of an effort to renew and extend the Wisconsin Idea in a new and creative direction. After all, what is more important to the UW System, to the state’s employers, and to Wisconsin’s citizens than a first-rate K-12 school system? What is more important than a K-12 school system that emphasizes student learning and academic accomplishment and that prepares students for postsecondary opportunities, whether these experiences involve education, training, or immediate employment?

Recommendation:

Commission a study to explore and make recommendations about how the University of Wisconsin System can work aggressively with State of Wisconsin officials, public school people, community leaders, and private sector representatives to help strengthen K-12 schooling and improve student learning as part of its efforts to reinvigorate the Wisconsin Idea.

Presented to the Meeting of the Education Committee, University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents, on Thursday,  June  10,  1999
In addressing these comments to you today, I am privileged to take part in a great University of Wisconsin tradition, “…that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found.” You, members of the Board of Regents, must today deal with another great University of Wisconsin tradition, shaping and molding for generations to come-the tradition of equal educational opportunity.

When I was a UW-Madison undergraduate in the late 1940’s, student government attacked discrimination by religion and race in private housing accommodations. The faculty and, in time, the Board of Regents, supported this position. For taking action on housing discrimination, the University of Wisconsin received national recognition. Principles instilled in me by my parents, teachers, and religion-that everyone must be treated equally before the law and with decency and respect-were reinforced by what my university did.

Soon, the restrictive clauses in fraternity and sorority charters were eliminated here and then nationally. UW students, faculty, and Regents led rather than followed.

Not long afterwards, I supported efforts by my students — black and white — in the civil rights movement of the 1960s. The ultimate outcome was the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That legislation, banning discrimination by race, represented a great moral triumph for our country.

But, a the very moment that victory was won, colleges and universities began discriminating on the basis of race and ethnicity in admissions, financial aid, and special minority programs. These discriminatory practices-so-called “reverse discrimination”-are now deeply embedded in higher education institutions everywhere, including the University of Wisconsin. Deeply embedded, and concealed.

This discrimination is justified by employers’ desires for diversity in personnel and educational experiences; it is defended as promoting multicultural learning. Whatever the rationale, we have come full circle: discrimination-which people of my generation worked so hard to eliminate- is now regarded by many as part of the American way. But, this is wrong. Discrimination compromises the intellectual integrity of the university and undermines its moral standing.

You, members of the Board of Regents, will decide today whether the University of Wisconsin System continues to practice discrimination in admissions and programs. So far, you are saying “yes” to discrimination; the new policy unanimously approved a year ago, “Plan 2008-Educational Quality Through Race and Ethnic Diversity,” endorses discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity.

A close reading indicates that the practice of discrimination in admissions and programs is nowhere acknowledged in Plan 2008, or in the UW System campus Institutional Plans 2008, which you are reviewing today. Does implementing Plan 2008 require race and ethnic preferences? If it does, please say so.

But, if it does not, the current Board of Regents can take the lead, as your predecessors did almost a half-century ago, by banning discrimination based on race and ethnic background in admissions and programs.

The Board can take such action by simply amending the Education Committee resolution (6/11/99) to read:

“That upon recommendation of the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Board authorizes implementation of Institutional Plans 2008, effective July 1, 1999. as soon as evidence is provided that Plan 2008 and the Institutional Plans 2008 are in full compliance with Wisconsin Statutes Ch. 36.12.”

I urge the Board to seize this opportunity to return the University of Wisconsin System to its historic role as an exemplar of equal educational opportunity.

Wisconsin Statutes Ch. 36.12 reads in part:
“No student may be denied admission to, participation in or the benefits of, or be discriminated against in any service, program, course or facility of the system or its institutions or centers because of a student’s race, color, creed, religion, sex, national origin, disability, ancestry, age, sexual orientation, pregnancy, marital status or parental status.”

Reprint from Isthmus
It’s tough making progress toward race and ethnic diversity at large public universities like the University of Wisconsin-Madison. For several decades, preferential admission for minority applicants, remedial and academic support for these students, exclusive financial-aid awards, and programs aimed at creating a less “hostile” campus environment have been in place.

The sad but unacknowledged truth is that these diversity programs have fallen far short of their goals, particularly for blacks. Now, a new ten-year diversity plan, “Madison Plan 2008: Educational Quality Through Racial and Ethnic Diversity,” is being developed at UW-Madison. The chief shortcoming is that, like earlier plans, it fails to identify, much less attack, the root cause of low minority enrollment in college. That is, the inadequate academic preparation of so many of Wisconsin’s minority high school graduates.To be effective, any plan must recognize that diversity in higher education cannot be achieved unless educational quality prevails in the K-12 grades. Until the pool of high-achieving minority high school graduates is greatly expanded, even modest campus minority recruitment goals will be difficult to achieve.

Consider the American College Testing data for 1996-97 high school graduates in Wisconsin. No more than 160 of the state’s approximate 2,200 black high school graduates could have been admitted to UW-Madison under a color-blind admission standard. By contrast, 13,000 of the state’s more than 50,000 white high school graduates met this standard.

Newer evidence from the 1997-98 Wisconsin Student Assessment System further illustrates the performance gap. In grades 4, 8, and 10, black students lagged far behind whites in every subject area: reading, math, science, and social studies. For example, of Wisconsin’s almost 58,000 white 10th graders, 30% received “advanced” scores (the highest category) in reading and social studies, while 9% were judged “advanced” in math and 10% in science.

In contrast, of Wisconsin 5,011 black 10th graders, only 4% received “advanced” scores in reading and social studies, and less than 1% did so in math and science. The situation was no different in the lower grades.

Eliminating these gaps in academic achievement requires finding workable remedies for minority kids in their very first years of school. In fact, action must be taken even earlier.

What seems to be required is some combination of better parenting, better communities, better schools, better teaching, and above all higher scholastic standards at all grade levels.

Moreover, students of all race and ethnic groups must take more responsibility for their own learning. After all, nobody can learn for anyone else. Learning must be done by individual students, by themselves when they can do it, and with additional help when that is required. Local programs, such as Schools of Hope, are already providing such help.

UW-Madison has tried through a succession of much-heralded diversity programs to increase targeted minority enrollment (blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and southeast Asians) and reduce their “underrepresentation” relative to non-targeted students (whites and Asian Americans).

Yet, the gaps between the two groups remain stubbornly unchanged, in freshman enrollment rates, second-year retention rates, and six-year graduation rates. All because the UW refuses to acknowledge the origins of the problem in the K-12 years.

Unfortunately, UW-Madison’s new 10-year diversity plan is a recycled version of past plans: numerous goals, many recommendations, and lots of different programs. Nowhere does it address head-on the huge gap in academic achievement.

Reality is that neither UW-Madison nor the broader UW System by themselves can do much directly to improve the academic performance of K-12 minority students. Yet, they can publicize the serious gaps in academic achievement and thereby shape public opinion and influence public policy.

For example, they can join in a statewide push to improve student learning throughout the K-12 grades. They can press for higher performance standards in the schools. They can urge expanded Head Start-type programs so that young minority children are better prepared when they begin kindergarten.

But, they must also state clearly that UW-Madison’s diversity efforts will continue to fail until minority academic achievement rises.

Faculty and administrators can contribute more directly by upgrading teacher training and by encouraging their students to provide academic help to minority students in nearby schools. They can also contribute by changing campus admission policies, as the University of Massachusetts at Amherst just did, so that all applicants are judged by a common standard, namely, academic achievement rather than skin color.

Until faculty and administrators confront the facts on black achievement in the K-12 years, they will continue their exercise in self deception, concocting elaborate new diversity programs that are unlikely to be any more successful than previous plans.

Even more important, they will fail to serve the young blacks they wish so desperately to help and who so desperately need their help.

Reprint from The Daily Cardinal, April  8,  1999

Why are more targeted minorities, particularly African-Americans, not enrolled at UW-Madison?

Students, faculty and campus administrators regularly lament the absence of large numbers of minority students on campus. They argue that increased presence of minorities would enrich the education offered at UW-Madison, that the campus lags behind other Big Ten campuses in its minority enrollment and more resources, and that greater effort must be devoted to minority recruitment and retention.

What diversity proponents fail to recognize is how few of Wisconsin’s targeted minority high-school graduates qualify for admission to UW-Madison. The focus is on African-Americans, but the story is much the same for Native Americans, Hispanics and, to a lesser degree, Southeast Asians.

The arithmetic is as compelling as it is discouraging. Consider the 2,286 African-Americans who graduated from the state’s public high schools in 1996-97.

How many met UW-Madison’s minimum requirements for admission, which include graduating in the upper half of the high-school class, completing the appropriate number of college preparatory courses and supplying ACT scores? The 2,264 figure quickly dwindles to 552, which is a 75 percent decline. Why? Less than half the African-American high-school graduates took the ACT, less than 75 percent of those who took the ACT test ranked in the top half of their high-school class, and only three-quarters of them completed the necessary core academic courses in high school.

To be admitted to UW-Madison as a nontargeted applicant (i.e., a white or an Asian-American), meeting the minimum requirements is not enough. Ranking in the upper quarter of one’s high-school class is almost essential to gain admission. Applying this standard reduces the number of African-Americans by another 40 percent, to 321 for the entire state.

With the intense competition for admission to UW-Madison and the use of both academic performance in high school and ACT scores to predict likely success of applicants as college freshmen, the effective standard requires applicants to place in the upper quarter of their high-school class and receive an ACT score of 21 or higher. This leaves a mere 160, or only 7 percent, of Wisconsin’s African-American high-school graduates who would qualify for admission to UW-Madison using the criteria applied to nontargeted applicants.

If every one of these academically talented African-Americans enrolled here, the African-American presence on campus would greatly increase. However, they do not. Meanwhile, the number who would qualify under our policy of preferential admission for African-Americans is probably nearer the 552 figure. So why are more of these students not applying and enrolling here?

Many reasons can be advanced. Most important, there is intense competition among colleges to enroll African-Americans. The most academically talented are wooed by elite private colleges that can offer them generous financial aid and substantial academic support. Others elect to attend institutions near their homes. Some prefer to attend one of the state’s private institutions such as Marquette or Lawrence universities. Some want to attend historically black colleges because of their more nurturing atmosphere, and so on.

Many, no doubt, prefer not to attend UW-Madison — often for particular reasons: its demanding academic standards, its inadequate financial aid, its large and impersonal atmosphere, its small enrollment of African-Americans and its “hostile campus climate.”

Unfortunately, the importance of these considerations in explaining why more of Wisconsin’s African-American high-school graduates do not enroll here simply cannot be answered.

What are the prospects for increasing African-American freshman-enrollment levels? Not very good.

Competition among colleges to enroll African-Americans continues to be intense and shows no signs of lessening. African-American students, like other students, will choose their colleges on the basis of factors over which institutions have little or no control. Finally, this institution is already doing well in enrolling those African-American applicants who are admitted. For example, the percentages of those African-American, white and targeted minority applicants who are both admitted and enrolled at UW-Madison are virtually identical. How much more can be done is not apparent.

Three sobering lessons can be drawn from this analysis. First, the number of African-Americans graduating from Wisconsin’s public high schools who qualify for admission to UW-Madison is limited and will remain so until the kindergarten through high school academic performance of African-Americans improves substantially.

Second, admitting African-Americans who are not academically competitive may push up the number of African-Americans enrolled here but is certain to lower both retention and graduation rates.

Third, because of the state’s relatively small African-American population, proponents of diversity must recognize that the minority presence on this campus cannot, within the foreseeable future, be as large as they might like it to be.