The Badger Herald: Opinion: We need a second opinion

Opinion

We need a second opinion

Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.

Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:

The Invisible Man Award: Wyndham Manning (May 7, 2009)
The People's Choice Award: Jacqueline Hitchon et. al (May 7, 2009)
The Lifetime Achievement Award: ASM (May 7, 2009)
Honest representation (May 5, 2009)
Junger for ASM Chair (May 5, 2009)

By Badger Herald Editorial Board
Tuesday, February 13, 2007 12:00 a.m.

5 Vote 0 Votes

The University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents unanimously voted Friday to extend the "holistic" admissions policy already in place at the UW-Madison to other system schools.

However, state Rep. Stephen Nass, R-Whitewater, chair of the Assembly Committee on Colleges and Universities, claims the new admissions policy — which includes race as an explicit factor — violates two Wisconsin statutes.

The statutes in question are the following:

36.11 (3)(a): "No sectarian or partisan tests or any tests based upon race, religion, national origin of U.S. citizens or sex shall ever be allowed in the admission of students thereto."

36.12 (1): "No student may be denied admission to, participation in or the benefits of, or be discriminated against in any service, program, course or facility of the system or its institutions because of the student's race, color, creed, religion, sex, national origin, disability, ancestry, age, sexual orientation, pregnancy, marital status or parental status."

We believe Rep. Nass' objections have merit. It seems only a Clintonian interpretation of the meaning of "tests" and "discriminated against" would exempt an admissions policy that specifically asks an applicant to indicate his or her race.

Even Regent President David Walsh conceded the board "may be wrong in the long run" when commenting on the legality of the new policy.

Proponents of holistic admissions claim it is in line with U.S. Supreme Court precedent. In 2003, the court ruled in Grutter v. Bollinger that the narrowly tailored use of race in admissions does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

However, while the policy is consistent with the court's ruling in Grutter, other factors are at play here — namely, Wisconsin Statutes. Simply because the court ruled that race-based admissions are not unconstitutional does not prevent Wisconsin law from placing further restrictions on the use of race as a factor.

In past editorials, we have detailed our objections to admissions policies that consider race. However, those concerns aside, we look forward to legal review of the board's decision. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the regents, who decided to vote first and ask questions later.

5 Comments | Leave a comment

Anonymous | February 13, 2007 10:40 AM | Reply

Your editorial was informative and demonstrated an understanding of the legal issues at play.

Look at your sister paper the Daily Cardinal today for the exact opposite. My favorite part is: “This case trumps all state law.” Apparently the editoiral board there lacks an understanding of how our legal system works.

-Mr. Pirate

Anonymous | February 13, 2007 1:56 PM | Reply

Bassey, you make me sad.

Anonymous | February 17, 2007 2:39 PM | Reply

The Wisconsin statutes are clear and precise on this. The UW Board of Regents has broken the law with its policy shift and should be held accountable for its corruption.

Anonymous | February 22, 2007 11:28 PM | Reply

Yes. Let’s hope our new AG (JB Van Hollen) has some backbone.

Anonymous | February 26, 2007 11:53 PM | Reply

The U.S. Supreme Court will probably ban race preferences in education later this year. So, the UW regents should have waited until then before making any changes in admissions policies.