We shall overcome: look beyond the 'creative' diversity measures of some publics, to the now less accessible IHEs - Editor's Note

University Business, Jan, 2003 by Kathy Grayson

THE NEW YORK TIMES, The Washington Post, and The Christian Science Monitor recently came out with stories highlighting the flip side of the affirmative--action suppression that may be set in stone when the Supreme Court rules on the issue this year. That flip side has everything to do with the "creative" recruiting, marketing, and admissions procedures that have quietly worked their way into the public higher education systems of Texas, Georgia, California, and Florida, and probably other systems as well.

The actions are commendable. Faced with recent anti-affirmative action rulings (and the ensuing loss of aid should the schools defy those rulings), the states have dropped formal affirmative action programs, but have instituted such measures as more focused recruiting from heavily minority-populated schools; earlier involvement with and development of minority students at the high school (and even middle school) level; and guaranteed enrollment to top performers in high school graduating classes (depending upon the state, the top 4 to 20 percent of high school graduating classes are guaranteed enrollment). As one college admissions committee member explained it, they now look hard for the talent and determination in a minority candidate that represents what they call an "overcome" of, for instance, SAT scores lower than the institution's median scores for admittance.

These are things every institution of higher education should have been doing all along, and many of us know it. What's more, in my opinion, the entire situation is the best darn argument for the re-institution of the personal interview wherein those intangibles that defy point-based formulas hit interviewers right between the eyes, and shout, "This one, this one! Here is the applicant who will give back to the school and society; here is the applicant who will make a difference to the world, and to whom this education will make all the difference"--no matter what race, color, or creed he or she represents.

And yes, the creative measures the Texas, Georgia, California, and Florida schools instituted have generally prevented the minority enrollment figures from sliding, and, in some cases, have even given those numbers a boost.

But here's the thing: According to recent trend analysis by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, we're not seeing minority enrollment numbers supported or expanded in most top-tier schools, premier (flagship and elite) state institutions, and most especially in graduate and professional schools. Black, Hispanic, and Native American enrollment declined at the two premier UC campuses, after the state banned affirmative action. In Texas, the state's flagship campus is seeing black and Hispanic enrollment slump, after the fourth year of that state's top-performer plan. And black and Hispanic enrollment in Texas and California medical and law schools has generally dropped. The bet is that if the Supreme Court decrees the University of Michigan's race-conscious admissions policy unconstitutional, we'll see minority enrollment figures at premier institutions sink even lower.

Now, my prediction here has less to do with finger-wagging at elite institutions and any lack of moral or social conscience, than it has to do with the problems inherent in the conflict between universal accessibility and the sustained quality of a higher education across all types of IHEs. That is, in a society where everyone has access to higher education, and yet the system continues to discount, push incentive programs, and rank (or "exclusify") itself, doesn't higher ed end up segmenting itself into markets targeted at various "customers"?

In his discussion with me about the issues around the conflict between accessibility and quality ("Liberal Ed in Crisis," page 14), Trinity College President Dick Hersh points to an educational system "spiraling upward." He says: "Everybody's going to want the same thing that we're giving to the elite now. People are not going to be satisfied with anything less for their kids and so this country will become increasingly dissatisfied with the outcome of our education system."

I contend that minority dissatisfaction with the American system of higher education is not solely the product of our painful history of race bias and school segregation, but now, the product of an equally large machine spun out of control--the actual structure of our system of higher education, which is still trying to "marry" universal accessibility to a structure that was not designed for it, and is now feeling the weight of its patches and stopgap measures.

What's the solution? We don't know yet, but the forum is open. Your feedback and insights will help light the spark of that solution.

You can reach Kathy Grayson at kgrayson@universitybusiness.com.