NEWS
Debating policy’s legality
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Cassie Kornblau:
- Incumbent Kind knocks down Barrett challenge (November 5, 2008)
- Supporting McCain amid Obamamania (October 27, 2008)
- Social media conquer politics (October 23, 2008)
- UW fundraising shaken (October 22, 2008)
- The graying of UW faculty (October 9, 2008)
Related Stories:
- Time to decide for UW leaders (February 8, 2007)
- Walsh: 'We may be wrong' in the long run (February 9, 2007)
- Legislators ask: Is UW admissions policy legal? (February 22, 2007)
- Nass to Board: Leave race out (February 6, 2007)
- Dems: Holistic policy legal (March 13, 2007)
Share This:
by Cassie Kornblau
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
After the University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents passed a revised admissions policy last Friday, UW professors and state lawmakers have begun to discuss the legality of using race as a factor in admissions decisions.
In addition to race, the new policy allows admissions officers to consider student experiences, leadership qualities, community service, veteran and socio-economic status in addition to the traditional criteria of GPA, class rank and ACT scores.
The statues in contention include statue 36.11 (3)(a), which says no test based upon "race, religion, national origin of U.S. citizens or sex shall ever be allowed in the admission of students."
And statue 36.12 (1) says students cannot be denied admission or discriminated against because of a student's "race, color, creed, religion, sex, national origin, disability, ancestry, age, sexual orientation, pregnancy, marital status or parental status."
However, the UW System argued that the revised freshman admissions policy is indeed valid under the U.S. Supreme Court case Grutter v. Bollinger, which gave the University of Michigan the ability to allow race to be a factor in admissions.
In a letter to the Board of Regents obtained by The Badger Herald, state Sen. Kathleen Vinehout, D-Alma, said she supports the policy, adding "the value in considering a student's larger record" without any question as to its legality.
In terms of the policy, UW political science professor Howard Schweber said he does not believe it violates any law because it is impossible to say a student did not get into a particular college because of one specific factor such as race.
"The general issue here is there is an attitude that is pervasive that getting into college is a reward," Schweber said. "The student who does the right thing by getting good grades and scoring high ACT scores deserves to get in."
Schweber said colleges do not admit students for their rewards, but rather, colleges admit students as an "investment" in their schools. Schweber added the "investment" could be any quality that adds to the university and it is impossible to specifically pinpoint what that quality might be.
However, state Rep. Scott Suder, R-Abbotsford, said he believes this is a violation of the State Statutes referring to the admissions policy as an example of how the Board of Regents engages in "social engineering" rather than "reform."
Suder responded to Board of Regents President David Walsh's comment that the admission policy is a reaction to the Supreme Court and said, "the regents are clearly using any case … that is race-based" to their advantage.
"From my standpoint, that is problematic," Suder added.
UW professor emeritus Lee Hansen said the language of the statues makes it clear there should be no discrimination, and allowing race to be the deciding factor in the admissions policy is a form of discrimination.
Hansen added he hopes that representatives like state Rep. Stephen Nass, R-Whitewater, ask state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen to determine whether race in the admissions policy is legal.
Anonymous (February 14, 2007 @ 10:47am):
The Grutter v. Bollinger case means dick cause we are talking about STATE LAW. That case was in regards to a Constitutional right being violated. The State Supreme Court is the highest court in the land when it comes to interpreting state statutes. The question on if the new holistic policy is legal is really up in the air.
Anonymous (February 14, 2007 @ 11:32am):
The commentor from 10:47am either needs to go to law school or drop out of law school because he or she does not know what they are talking about.
Anonymous (February 14, 2007 @ 2:34pm):
We are taking about State Law.
For the purposes of an illustration, lets assume that the Wisconsin law said:
"You absolutely cannot take into consideration the race of an applicant" (the actual law clearly does not say this)
The Grutter case has no bearing on the question of if a University regulation violated this law. The Grutter case was regarding the 14th Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Supreme Court had jurisdiction over such a case but would not have jurisdiction over a case involving a question of a violation of exclusively state law.
Anonymous (February 15, 2007 @ 2:24pm):
There is a new affirmative action case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court with
regard to education. The court may reverse the Grutter decision this year, so this whole discussion may be unnecessary and the entire new admission policy illegal.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
