Opinion
J.B. Van Holistic
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)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
The University of Wisconsin System announced the implementation of a "holistic" admissions policy at all of its schools earlier this year. The approach, long in practice at UW-Madison, takes into account multiple factors, including socioeconomic status, community involvement and race, when making admissions decisions.
In the past, we have consistently objected to UW's inclusion of race and ethnicity in the admissions process. Besides being discriminatory, we have noted that the policy serves as little more than a bandage for the deep problems of K-12 education in the state, particularly those that plague the Milwaukee Public Schools system.
Many Republicans in the state Legislature share our sentiments on this issue. Earlier this year, a number of them requested newly elected GOP Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen review the policy to see if it abides by state statues, in particular statute 36.12 (1), which states: "No student may by denied admission to, participation in or the benefits of, or be discriminated against in any service, program, course or facility of the (UW) 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."
In supporting Mr. Van Hollen's review, we noted at the time that only a "Clintonian interpretation" of the statute would find UW's policy legal under state law. Having recently issued his opinion on the matter, Mr. Van Hollen, it seems, was in a 42nd president kind of mood. The attorney general's informal opinion said UW's policy does not run afoul of the state statutes in question.
We are, naturally, disappointed, given our stance opposing race-based admissions. UW's policy will result in a small number of qualified students being denied admission simply because they do not fit the university's preferred racial or ethnic profile.
However, we respect Mr. Van Hollen's finding. While it is an informal, nonbinding opinion — the Legislature could still change the state law, or a student could mount a court challenge — Mr. Van Hollen clearly arrived at the decision after much consideration. As attorney general, he is clearly qualified to make fair and accurate interpretations of state law.
And in that, we are heartened by Mr. Van Hollen's approach. His apparent ability to cast ideology aside in issuing his opinion reflects an admirable quality in an attorney general, or any state elected official for that matter. Mr. Van Hollen's performance in office thus far has been highly encouraging.
At the same time, we hope to remind UW that the use of race must be but a small part of any holistic admissions approach. For it to be otherwise would be illegal, as Mr. Van Hollen pointed out prominently in his opinion.
2 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Brother Ali makes an ‘Exclusive’ stop
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
"Clintonian interpretation?" That makes absolutely no sense. When exactly did William Jefferson Clinton sit on the Supreme Court or any other court where he interpreted the law?
My opinion of the speed limit laws are quite liberal, but I would never call my interpretation as "Clintonian."
Context, editorial board, context. Try to bitch-slap Clinton only when it makes sense.
I think the A. G. also did a good job in reviewing this matter but what I don't get from the article is that the author seems surprised that he didn't tow the Republican line that they thought he would. As we have learned from the Bush-Gonzales fiasco on the federal level, when it comes to interpreting the law, party politics does not belong. Your editorial would seem to suggest that it should. Obviously leaning Republican.