Adding insult to injury to the nearly uniform addiction to racial preferences in higher education, Texas A&M is standing firm with its refusal to re-instate preferences and, unlike many preference-giving institutions (Michigan, Ohio State, among others) that have seen their minority enrollments decline, has substantially increased the number of minorities in its entering class.
[Texas A&M President Robert] Gates came under intense criticism for his decision, but by last fall his university had set itself apart in another respect: While many other colleges, including some staunch advocates of race-conscious admissions, were suffering declines in their minority enrollment, Texas A&M’s numbers were way up. In one year, the number of black freshmen had jumped by 35 percent, from 158 to 213 in a class of 7,068, while the number of Hispanic freshmen had climbed by nearly 26 percent, from 692 to 865.
Not surprisingly, A&M’s commitment to colorblind racial equality has infuriated those who no longer believe in that principle.
Several minority lawmakers expressed outrage. State Sen. Rodney Ellis and U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, both black Democrats from Houston, threatened to call for a federal civil-rights investigation if the campus failed to become more racially diverse.
President Gates declared that
“students at Texas A&M should be admitted as individuals, on personal merit — and not other basis.”
….
One of his goals in retaining race-blind admissions was ensuring “that every student here knew that every other student was here on the same basis,” Mr. Gates says.
Listening to “civil rights” activists, you’d think Gates was the second coming of George Wallace.
I am no longer surprised but I remain saddened by the spectacle of liberal Democrats shouting “civil rights violation!” every time someone proposes treating — or worse, actually does treat — blacks and whites the same.
Of course, every thinking person knows that A&M recruited the hell out of minorities and may even have opened the gates wide to get this increase. I guess we will know when the graduation percentages are calculated (and we know they will be
Of course, every thinking person knows that A&M recruited the hell out of minorities and may even have opened the gates wide to get this increase. I guess we will know when the graduation percentages are calculated (and we know they will be
Sorry. Rule: Be careful not to hit the “Post” button more than once.
If they were admitted with no preferences as to qualifications (i.e. they were every bit as qualified to be there as anyone of any other race and victimology group) – who cares whether they were recruited? Every school recruits minorities, at least this one is going after fully qualified ones.
Does anyone know if part of the recruiting pitch was ‘without preferences, everyone will have to look at you as having merited being here on your own’?
What I find interesting is that, with the “Top 10%” admissions rule, the numbers are not higher. After all, if you graduate in the top 10% of your class, you have an anutomatic seat at any university in the state.
Could it be that minority students are preferring UT, which has a different ethos than the Corps of Cadets influenced A&M? Or that they would prefer one of the historically black schools (Prairie View) or “hometown” schools (University of Houston) that they can commute to?
And don’t worry about “Queen Sheila” ranting on. No one takes her all that seriously — she is a low-rent version of Maxine Waters, married to an administrator from that community college masquerading as a four year school — Texas Southern University. If she really wanted to improve the educational opportunities of black students, she would work on dealing with the flaws and failings of her hubby’s institution.
Precinct Chair
As I indicated in a post on this blog a year ago
“Texas A&M has a reputation, even amongst the state’s Asian American population, as a conservative, tradition-bound white university with little to offer minority students. The percentage of Asian American students at the school (3%) is almost equal to the number of African Americans (2%). It is the only major, publicly supported Tier I University in the country where the two populations are even close:
UT Austin (AsAm 16%,AfrAm 3%)
Even at lesser regarded universities in the State, the ratios are more in line with national trends:
UT-Dallas (AsAm 15%, AfrAm 2%)
UT-Arlington(AsAm 10.8%, AfrAm 5%)
UHouston (AsAm 15%, AfrAm 10%)
This disparity can’t be dismissed as a function of the school’s loction outside of an urban area with a significant Asian American population. The vast majority of Asian students at UT-Austin are from Houston or Dallas. Furthermore, Austin’s native college age Asian American population is still quite low, although this will change somewhat in the next 10 years as a number of young Asians who have moved here for the hi-tech boom begin sending their kids to college.
for supporting statistics see table and discussion at the bottom of this page: http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/html/0016/g.htm
I think advocates of color blind policies can begin celebrating when the President of a Michigan, Texas, Illinois, or Wisconsin makes this kind of bold step. Until then, …..”
Wait a minute. Is this part of the top 10% guaranteed admission? Isn’t it kind of misleading to call this race neutral? Its certainlly facially neutral, but not as applied.
Its certainly misleading to call this individual determination.
My how everyone has fallen into the minority=black trap. Has it occurred to anyone that maybe Texas A&M has succeeded in recruiting Hispanic students (a much larger portion of the potential student body) than blacks. Also, maybe Texas A&M finally figured out the real way to increase minority enrollment is to just have more kids x the box as a minority instead of x the box for white.
Yes, good point. How do these schools decide a student’s race?
James,
This disparity can’t be dismissed as a function of the school’s loction outside of an urban area with a significant Asian American population. The vast majority of Asian students at UT-Austin are from Houston or Dallas. Furthermore, Austin’s native college age Asian American population is still quite low, although this will change somewhat in the next 10 years as a number of young Asians who have moved here for the hi-tech boom begin sending their kids to college. ”
James,
MY understanding about the Texas situation is this. At the U of Houston, Asians make up about 27% or more of the freshman class. In fact, whites are a minority in the freshman class of the U of Houston. Over there at the U of TExas Dallas branch , Asians make up about 23 % of last year’s freshman class. Whites are soon gonna be a minority over there at the UT_ DAllas freshman class. One might ask as to why is it that the percentage of Asians higher at UT – Austin and U of Houston freshman classes compared to Texas A & M ? That is like asking why Asians make up 29 % of the freshman class of the University of Illinois in Chicago compared to the percentage of Asians at the UI-Urbana Champaign freshman class, which is about 14%. Of course no private university in this country can match those numbers or shall I say staggering achievement ,for the simple reason that the decline of whites at schools like Harvard and STanford is prevented thru the extensive use of preferences of all kinds. We know that Asians are concentrated in Texas in big cities like Houston and Dallas rather than College Statio,n Brazos Country ( where Texas A & M is located). That is probably one reason as to why they would rather attend U of TExas – Dallas over Texas A & M. Another question might arise, but why would Asians want to attend U of TExas Austin over TExas A & M? It is obvious that UT – Austin is more competetive than Texas A & M and farther from Houston and DAllas. The fact that all 4 schools I mentioned are technical schools ,in other words having engineering programs. I think you understand what that means. Well , I am willing to grant you the rationale that the Corps of Cadet Military tradition might have given Texas A & M a reputation of being conservative ( to some that is a codeword for being hostile to non – whites ), or it may be simply because ASians don’t want to undergo ROTC training. Are we to believe then that the University of Illionois Urbana Chmapaign is more conservative than the University of Illinois Chicago campus? UIC sits right smack in a big city, while UIUC is in the middle of the prairie. So take your pick James.
Notherbob2,
Don’t worry about Sheila Lee Jackson, she is a professional black victimization pimp.
She believes that she is no different from wealthy white folks who live in Westchester County or the Upper East Side of Manhattan. During a flight to Washington DC, she yelled and screamed at the airplane crew demanding to be treated royally. AFter all, she is a Congresswoman of the United States.
Everyone,
BAck again to the TExas A & M issue,
it is interesting to note that school is claiming that it was able to increase the number of blacks and Hispanics in its freshman class without resorting to race preferences. In fact the school enumerated its tactics and techniques in increasing the number of blacks and Hispanics in its freshman class. The school claimed that the problem has more to do with getting blacks and Hispanics to come rather than with the academic qualifications of Mexicans and blacks. In other words, a higher percentage of Mexicans and blacks admitted to UT – Austin accepted the offer compared to the percentage of blacks and Mexicans who accepted TExas A & M’s offer of admission. To remedy the situation, the school proclaimed the increase of its outreach efforts, meaning it went to predominantly black and mexican Texas high schools to persuade accepted Mexicans and blacks to attend Texas A & M. Funny there was no outreach done for ASians and whites and Native Americans. Another tactic was to give extra points for admission for applicants who are the first in their family to go to college. OH really?
Sounds like what is happening here in California. Let us say that you are an illegal Mexican with undocumented work papers working in the construction industry. Whether you are unionized or not, construction workers at least those who are carpenters and masonry workers are well paid ( think about a Detroit auto worker ). As an illegal Mexican construction worker you might not have a college education, but your daughter would be eligible to attend a public university here in Calfornia ( being born in US soil will make anyone an automatic citizen)
As a constuction worker , you probably make more money than a storefront minister ( who could be black or Korean). Not all poor people who live in poor or non -white neigborhoods are poor. You might a drug lord with no college education who owns a mansion in the wealthy Los Angeles suburb of SAn Marino . Of your kids might be the first one to go to college, but do they deserve to be given extra points for admission to TExas A & M ? Texas A & M futher said it used financial incentives to persuade accepted blacks and Mexicans to attend TExas A & M ( meaning scholarships and grants, scholarships are nothing but bribes anyway just like the alumni donations that you make in private schools like Harvard and Stanford) . As I said in previous posts alumni donations in private schools are nothing but bribes by parents to enable their mediocre children to attend those schools. Now I am wondering as to whether, poor whites, Asians and Native Americans were offered grants , scholarhships and other financial incentives offered to those poor or middle class Mexicans and blacks?
Why don’t the newspapers talk about these things instead of leaving it to us guys?
The previous post that I made was a response to James last post.
‘Not all poor people who live in poor or non -white neigborhoods are poor. You might a drug lord with no college education who owns a mansion in the wealthy Los Angeles suburb of SAn Marino’
Not all poor people are poor. I mean, some of them are rich drug dealers.
Pretty hard to argue against that.
Shock-A-Roo
Treating people equitably works.
‘Not all poor people who live in poor or non -white neigborhoods are poor.’ != (is not equal to) ‘Not all poor people are poor.’
“‘Not all poor people who live in poor or non -white neigborhoods are poor.’ != (is not equal to) ‘Not all poor people are poor.'”
Not All Poor people…. are poor. If they’re not poor, they’re not “poor people.”
Perhaps you mean to say “not all people who live in poor or non-white neighborhoods” are poor. No they’re not. They can be rich drug dealers, for example. What a fucking brilliant example.
that is right Actus, not all people who live in a poor area are poor. You could be a Mexican owning a tortilla factory here in South – Central Area and still be richer than a storefront minister ( who could be of any race ). Then why should your daughter be given preferences or points for admission at public universities in CAlfiornia or private universities for that matter? Not all blacks who live in harlem and the bronx are poor, try living in Sugar Hill.
Actus,
I mean’t “then why should the daughter of the Mexican tortilla owner be given preferences or points in admission?”
I’d be fine switching to a system of preference for the poor.