A recent court decision barring the University of Texas from using race as a factor in admissions has prompted discussion across the country in the ongoing controversy surrounding the role of affirmative action in college admission policies.
Although students and administrators at Dartmouth say they are troubled by the ruling, the national fervor created by the ruling may be excessive and a result of a failure to understand the ruling, said Cary Clark, College counsel and director of External Relations.
The decision
In New Orleans, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, with jurisdiction over Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, unanimously decided public institutions cannot give special preference to minority students in the admission process.
The court found it inappropriate to "elevate some races over others, even for the wholesome practice of correcting perceived racial imbalance in the student body."
The original 1992 case, Hopwood v. Texas, was brought to court by four white students who had been denied admission to the law school of the University of Texas at Austin.
Minority students with lower test scores and grade averages had been accepted over the four white students.
In the 1978 case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, also known as the Bakke "reverse discrimination" case, the Supreme Court set a precedent for the national debate on affirmative action when it ruled that race could serve as one of many factors in the admission process.
Since the Hopwood decision calls for the exclusion of race as a factor, some experts suggest that it exceeded its powers by going against the Bakke decision.
The College's reaction
Although the decision by the Fifth Circuit Court has no direct effects beyond public institutions in Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana, it has doubtless fueled the fire of the affirmative action debate and prompted reactions by even those not directly affected.
Dartmouth's Dean of the College, Lee Pelton, admitted that his initial reaction was that the display of such absolutism in the decision of the Hopwood case is "very troubling."
He emphasized the importance of a diverse student body in creating the most ideal academic atmosphere.
Pelton said, "It is clear that the College wishes to admit a class that is diverse in many ways. In addition to race, consideration is given to factors such as geography and gender."
Pelton also suggested affirmative action should be "broadly conceived," and that people need to be aware of the inconsistencies in admission guidelines of some schools.
Pelton draws the parallel between special consideration given to race and that given to an applicant's athletic ability, since some schools create a separate pool under which they consider athletes.
Pelton stressed the fact that unlike some such institutions, "Dartmouth does not have a bifurcated admissions standard."
Former president of the Dartmouth Asian Organization Sarah Cho '97 also emphasized the role of affirmative action in the creation of a diverse student body.
"Even though I can understand some of the anger of the Anglos [in the Hopwood case], we must realize that race really does matter," she said.
Deborah Green '99 commented that in order "to create a better community, numbers [from test scores and grade averages] should not be the only factors in admissions."
"The numbers don't reflect the different backgrounds of the applicants," she said. "It's these different backgrounds that create the diversity."
Unwarranted fervor?
But Clark pointed out that the Hopwood decision was really comprised of two main points that some overlook in the heat of the general affirmative action controversy.
The unanimous decision was made with respect to only one of these points, namely that the admission policy of the University could not consider its applicants in separate pools according to race.
As Judge Jaques Wiener commented in his concurring opinion, each application was treated differently depending on the student's classification in one of three groups: black, Mexican-American or other nationality or race.
Clark said, "What's interesting is that the concurring opinion makes it clear that this part of the decision closely follows the Bakke case."
Dartmouth's director of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action, Mary Childers, agreed that the University of Texas's admissions process seemed flawed in its separation of applicants into different pools according to race.
Childers noted the fragility of the issue, saying, "A program designed to address discrimination needs to be narrowly tailored to minimize the negative effects on others."
According to Childers, the Fifth Circuit's decision "protects a race-neutral environment that does not exist. It is an example of magical thinking."
Clark pointed out that the second aspect of the case addressed the question of whether race should play any role in admissions policies, or if it should be considered as one factor among many.
On this point, two of the three judges took the case a step further, challenging the 1978 Bakke case in ruling that race cannot be a factor in the admissions process, even as a means to create diversity on the campus.
Wiener outlines this in his opinion, which remains consistent with the 1978 Bakke case, arguing race as one factor of many is a legitimate way to create a diverse student body, Clark said.
"Race in and of itself is not the diversity," Clark said. "The mistaken view of affirmative action is that it is there to benefit the minority student. We want to admit students on behalf of the class, so that along with the faculty, we can create an optimal academic environment."
Texas Attorney General Tom Morales recently announced the state's decision to ask for the Supreme Court's review of the case, Hopwood v. Texas.
The state chose this review over the option of having the case reviewed by the full panel of judges on the Fifth Circuit Court.
Clark said no one knows whether the Supreme Court will accept the case for review.
If the Supreme Court justices were to uphold the Fifth Circuit's case, it is possible that the decision could have an effect on private institutions, since most accept federal funding in some way.
Clark stressed, however, that the case has not yet reached a point where this is a possibility.
