Complaint Filed Against University of Texas With U.S. Department of Education Over Admissions Policy

The debate on the Top 10 Percent Plan is interesting so I'll also share this recent development. -Angela


Complaint Filed Against University of Texas With U.S. Department of Education Over Admissions Policy

WASHINGTON, July 23 /PRNewswire/ -- Today, the Project on Fair
Representation (POFR) announces the filing of a complaint against the
University of Texas at Austin with the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S.
Department of Education. POFR asserts UT-Austin violated the law when race
and ethnicity were reintroduced in the undergraduate admissions process.
(see attached letter)
Edward Blum, director of POFR, said "UT's recent reintroduction of
racial preferences in undergraduate admissions is illegal, to say nothing
of being unfair and polarizing. The U.S. Department of Education needs to
end this practice before the next round of freshman applications is
submitted."
In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a pair of cases from the Univ.
of Michigan that under certain circumstances, and for a period of only 25
years, colleges and universities could use racial and ethnic preferences in
their admissions process in order to create a more "diverse" student body.
However, the Court wrote that before resorting to preferences, a school
must make a good faith effort to use race-neutral means to accomplish this
goal.
Following the Hopwood v. State of Texas court decision in 1996, the
Texas Legislature passed the Top 10% Plan in 1998. The Top 10% Plan is
facially race-neutral because it grants automatic college admissions to any
student graduating in the top-10 percent of his or her class. Under the Top
10% Plan, racial diversity at UT is higher today than it was when UT
employed a race-based quota system. In spite of this, the University of
Texas reintroduced racial and ethnic preferences into the admissions
process of the UT system, unlike Texas A&M which correctly rejected
reintroducing preferences in their admissions considerations.
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court repeated its warning to schools like
UT-Austin in its decision in Parents Involved In Community Schools v.
Seattle School District No. 1. In this case, the Court invalidated overt
racial discrimination, holding that the schools there "failed to show that
they considered methods other than explicit racial classifications to
achieve their stated goals."
The mission of the Project on Fair Representation (POFR) is to
facilitate pro bono legal representation to political subdivisions and
individuals that wish to challenge government distinctions and preferences
made on the basis of race and ethnicity.
Office for Civil Rights
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20202-1100

VIA FACSIMILE (202) 245-6840


Dear Sir or Madam:
Please accept this letter as a formal complaint against the University
of Texas at Austin (the University).
Beginning in 2005, the University of Texas at Austin reintroduced race
and ethnicity as factors for admissions at the undergraduate and graduate
school levels. We believe that the law prohibits them from considering
these factors at the undergraduate level for the following reasons:
1. Beginning in 1996, the University was prohibited from using a student's
race or ethnicity in the undergraduate and graduate admissions process
as a result of Hopwood v. State of Texas, 78 F. 3d 932 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 2581 (1996).

2. In response this decision, the Texas legislature passed HB588 (1998),
widely known as the top-10 percent plan. This plan grants automatic
admission to the University (or any undergraduate program at any Texas
public institution) to any student graduating in the top-10 percent of
his or her graduating class.

3. Testimony during the debate on this legislation, and subsequent
speeches, writings, and testimony from University officials recognize
that HB588 is a race-neutral system designed to achieve greater racial
and ethnic diversity at the University without racial or ethnic
considerations.

4. UT's own records show that from 1996 to 2005, the top-10 percent plan
was just as effective as or even more effective in enrolling minority
students to the University than were race-based preferences. See
http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/HB588-Report9.pdf.

5. In 2003, in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), and Gratz v.
Bollinger 539 U.S. 244 (2003), the U.S. Supreme Court, while allowing
the narrow consideration of race and ethnicity in university
admissions, wrote that "Narrow tailoring does, however, require
serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives
that will achieve the diversity the university seeks." The Court
repeated its warning to schools like UT in its decision last week in
Parents Involved In Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1
551 U.S.___(June 28, 2007). There, the Court invalidated overt racial
discrimination, holding that the schools there "failed to show that
they considered methods other than explicit racial classifications to
achieve their stated goals." (Slip op. at 27) (Emphasis added.)

6. The University has not only considered race-neutral means to achieve
diversity, but they have been effective as well. The law prohibits them
from re-introducing race and ethnicity as a factor in undergraduate
admissions.

We look forward to your response to this complaint.

Sincerely yours,


Edward Blum, Director

David Bissinger, Counsel


SOURCE Project on Fair Representation


Copyright © 1996-2007 PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights Reserved.
A United Business Media company.