NEWS
Legislators ask: Is UW admissions policy legal?
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Cassie Kornblau:
- Legislator looks out for taxpayers (December 11, 2007)
- Added cost of studying abroad (December 10, 2007)
- Representative brings 'traditionalist' view to college (December 7, 2007)
- When hate disrupts the classroom (December 6, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Nass wants ruling on race (February 16, 2007)
- Dems: Holistic policy legal (March 13, 2007)
- Attorney general responds to letter (February 23, 2007)
- Walsh: 'We may be wrong' in the long run (February 9, 2007)
- Top cop affirms race in policy (August 6, 2007)
by Cassie Kornblau
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Nineteen state legislators asked the state attorney general Wednesday for a formal opinion on the legality of using race and ethnicity as factors in University of Wisconsin admissions decisions.
Two Republicans, state Rep. Stephen Nass, R-Whitewater, and state Sen. Glenn Grothman, R-West Bend, spearheaded the effort of writing a letter to Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen seeking his judgment.
The UW System Board of Regents passed a revised admissions policy earlier this month allowing race to be one of several non-academic factors in admissions decisions.
The policy is set to go in effect this fall at all 26 UW campuses. A similar policy has been in place at UW-Madison for the past 12 years.
According to the letter, the admissions policy violates Wisconsin law, specifically state statue 36.11 (3)(a), which states, "No sectarian or partisan tests or any tests based upon race … shall ever be allowed in the admission of students."
Nass said the legislators who signed the letter clearly share his belief that the regents' admissions policy conflicts with state statue.
"It is troubling that the university is using racial profiling in admissions," said Nass, who chairs the Assembly Committee of Colleges and Universities. "The legislators recognize and share my concern that students will be rejected for other factors besides their GPA and ACT scores."
Nass said there is an additional problem with the policy, adding students no longer know what to put on their applications since the Board of Regents has yet to define for students what non-academic considerations such as "special talents" and "motivation" mean.
"Parents can no longer tell their children that working hard and getting good grades will enable them to attend college," Nass said.
State Rep. Gordon Hintz, D-Oshkosh, who serves on the Assembly Committee of Colleges and Universities with Nass, said he did not sign the letter because he does not believe the admissions policy violates the state statue. Hintz said he believes the policy does not discriminate based on race, and instead merely uses race as one admissions factor.
Hintz added the policy matches the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, which gave the University of Michigan the ability to allow race to be a factor in admissions.
"They're submitting a letter to the attorney general to get a more facialized headline," Hintz said. "This detracts us from improving the university system."
Hintz said every minute legislators spend on debating the policy is less time they have to devote to important educational issues such as financial aid and working toward making college more affordable.
"We are hopeful that we continue to have administrators at the university level who will make the right decisions rather than have legislators use policy to micro-manage the university," Hintz said.
Hintz added he understands legislators — including himself — want to ensure the state is making wise use of tax dollars given the tight budget restrictions.
However, Hintz added running a "tight ship" is one thing, but these types of headlines distract the legislators from what is important.
Nass said the attorney general would take up this issue at his earliest convenience, and he hopes for a response in the near future.
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 8:21am):
Heaven help us if the UW, or any serious university, ever starts to admit students using only a GPA and a GRE score. Nice to see our legislators aren't above race-baiting in their quest to "improve" higher education.
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 8:46am):
It is only illegal to discriminate against someone based on race, it is not illegal to give preferential treatment to someone based on race! When will you racist legislators understand that!
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 9:21am):
"Hintz added the policy matches the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, which gave the University of Michigan the ability to allow race to be a factor in admissions."
That is all well and good but it has nothing to do with the state statute. The highest authority on if holistic admissions violate state law is the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 11:01am):
Giving preferential treatment to a certain race is equal to discriminating against all other races. Looks like you got into UW based not on the merit of your reasoning skills.
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 11:02am):
I'm not a legal scholar, but isn't the US Supreme Court a higher authority than Wisconsin State Statute? I mean, Wisconsin State Statutes say it's illegal to have an abortion, but they are still legal in Wisconsin because of the US Supreme Court. Keep studying anonymous poster #3
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 11:09am):
"Heaven help us if the UW, or any serious university, ever starts to admit students using only a GPA and a GRE score."
This comment is fundamentally flawed because it assumes that race plays no role in determining one's GPA or GRE (or ACT or SAT) score. Problem is, if you go sit in an elementary school in the suburbs, you'll notice the sole black kid in the class raising his hand over and over again - he knows he knows the answer - but the white teacher, blinded by his blackness, fails to call on him again and again. Of course this doesn't happen at every school, but it happens at some. And until it happens at no school, we must continue to consider things like race and socioeconomic factors in our admissions process.
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 12:32pm):
I think ACT and SAT scores only serve to discriminate against dumb people. Nice going, UW, you've hurt the feelings of all Wisconsin idiots.
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 1:11pm):
11:09am, so by allowing the black student in your scenario entrance to college helps the white teacher stop discriminate how???
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 2:59pm):
assuming that every person of color is disadvantaged and that every white person has some super advantage is narrow minded. i say they should look beyond color and take in account the socioeconomic background of students. i didnt grow up on the streets, but i sure as heck grew up in a trailer park. not everyone who is white grew up in suburbia. admitting someone based strictly on the color of their skin IS discriminatory if the person had every advantage, while a white kid living in rural squalor didnt.
education is not black or white.
its grey. figure it out.
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 3:20pm):
Nonono, you do not understand, discrimination is when you raise the standards for one while keeping the others the same. Preferential treatment is when you keep everyone else the same, but lower the standards for the one.
For those who do not get it, I am being sarcastic. Someone has to say, in simple terms without flowery language and legalese., what the Regents were thinking when they made this rule.
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 3:48pm):
Using race to reward one person and punish another is discrimination- period.
Are we going to tell another whole new generation that it's alright to discriminate because it somehow evens a historcial score?
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 6:35pm):
Dear 11:02am,
I agree you are not a legal scholar. The Supreme Court has final say on federal law and Constitutional issues. The Michigan case, Grutter v. Bollinger, was a challenge of if the admissions policy was Constitutional. That law is settled; it does not violate the Constitution to use holistic admissions.
However, Wisconsin state law may bar the use of a racial factor in admissions. The federal courts, including the Supreme Court, will not have final authority as to what our state law says. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has final say on that matter.
Anonymous (February 23, 2007 @ 12:02pm):
There are very few blacks who attend the UW. Why is this? There is a simple answer to this. It is not a debate. It is a simple psychological reason. Think.
Anonymous (February 23, 2007 @ 6:48pm):
Applicants to the UW are admitted on the basis of qualifications and no one is admitted on the basis of race. There is no racial preference for students of color. If there is a racial preference, obviously it operates in favor of white students given that the campuses are overwhelmingly white.
The admissions policy allows UW campuses to consider the entire student, his/her academic record, social development, leadership skills, special talents, and other related factors. No one assumes every white or black person--or any other for that matter---is in one category or the other.
Whites have been and continue to be rewarded for white skin color, many gaining attribution of positive characteristics they did not earn or "merit". Whites do not have to worry about their interests and needs being met...they live in a sea of white world...day in and day out. Systems, individuals, and institutions supporting whites and their needs are on autopilot.
Apparently some people believe if there is a seat to be had, it should be granted to any white students. It's interesting that no critics are challenging the admission of white students who have lower test scores, grades and class rank that many of the students of color. Why is that? Perhaps racism, white entitlement, dominance and superiority complexes????
Anonymous (February 26, 2007 @ 8:21pm):
The U.S. Supreme Court may overturn Grutter later this year.
Anonymous (March 15, 2007 @ 12:00am):
Whites have already benefited from the social status (arbitrarily) attributed to their race. Helping out races that don't have this privilege doesn't hurt anyone, it just helps those who have been hurt by being born into a race with less advantage.
Anonymous (March 29, 2007 @ 10:07pm):
Instead of adopting racial quotas/preferences, UW should just treat everyone fairly. They should begin by fixing the Barrows case. This would be fair and would show that race is not a fac-tor in UW actions. All should be treated fairly, no preferences or discrimination will be used here. However, I believe a new chancellor will be needed first to clean up this whole situation.
Anonymous (April 9, 2007 @ 3:29pm):
Good point. You have to have leadership, and UW has none. Get a new UW-Madison Chancellor ASAP.
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.
