More Grutter Clutter

Grutter, as everyone here knows by now, told universities that under certain circumstances they may, not that they must, consider race in admissions. Now, however, 12 of the 13 branches of the University of Wisconsin system have been told by the state board of education that, because of Grutter, they must “consider” the race of all applicants for admission in a “holistic” review if they want to “consider” the race of any. (Madison, the flagship campus, has already been considering race and so was not included in the new order.)

The UW System Admissions Advisory Group discovered that on most campuses race, income and other attributes are considered only when admitting a small segment of students who fall short of academic requirements. That will have to change.

Until now, all campuses with the exception of UW-Madison have used set academic requirements such as grade point averages and test scores to make the majority of admissions decisions. The change means no student will be guaranteed admission to the system no matter how good his or her grade point average, test scores or class rank – although these measures will continue to carry the most weight. “There will be no automatic admission, even for top students,” said Larry Rubin, the system’s assistant vice president for academic and student services.

….

“If you are interested in diversity and want to factor race and ethnicity into your decision, you have to do a holistic review of all applicants, not just students of color,” said Barmak Nassirian, associate executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers in Washington, D.C.

And the “holistic review” now demanded in Wisconsin, like all such “holistic” reviews I’ve seen, is a real douzy. It includes, among other things, in addition to the newly important “personal statement,” a requirement placed on writers of letters of recommendation.

Starting in 2007, freshman applicants will be required to submit two letters of reference describing how they would achieve one of five core values. The values include a commitment to the pursuit of knowledge and understanding, and a commitment to develop a sense of community, respect for diversity and global perspectives.

“Favorable consideration” will be given to students who have “community involvement, volunteerism, foreign language study or study abroad, social involvement, diversity in its broadest sense, special talents and abilities, disability status and unique or individual circumstances.”

As far as I know, the board has not specified what the difference is between “community involvement” and “social involvement” (I assume it doesn’t mean dating) or exactly how applicants can demonstrate that they “have” “diversity in the broadest sense.” By the way, exactly what is the “broadest sense” of “diversity,” and how does it differ from the narrowest sense? I wonder if it means black on the inside (whatever that may mean), not just on the outside.

The article does, however, note some “reservations” about the new “holistic” review process, beginning with the fact that the state has appropriated no more funds to carry it out. But that’s not all.

Another concern is that the changes may backfire. Students will be expected do more under the new admissions system — from submitting references to filling out a personal statement that has been optional in the past. There is a fear these new demands may discourage some students from applying, having the unintended effect of making campuses less diverse.

But wait. Doesn’t that “fear” that the new “holistic” requirements may actually reduce diversity suggest a racist assumption that minority students are less able or less willing to write and submit personal statements and gather the required two letters demonstrating how they “have” deep diversity?