Translate

Showing posts with label top ten percent plan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label top ten percent plan. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 25, 2025

Silence Is Not Neutral: UT, the Compact, and the Fight for Fair Admissions in Texas Higher Education by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

 Silence Is Not Neutral: UT, the Compact, and the Fight for Fair Admissions in Texas Higher Education

by

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

November 25, 2025

The University of Texas at Austin’s apparent refusal—or strategic silence—regarding the federal “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” marks an interesting, if not troubling, moment for public higher education in Texas. To be sure, UT has been navigating mounting political pressure from students, alumni, faculty, and community members. Even the editors of the Austin American-Statesman recently weighed in.

Faculty groups across the country have condemned the Compact as an effort to reshape universities into instruments of political ideology rather than centers of inquiry (Spitalniak, 2025). While universities across the country have rejected the Compact outright, UT has neither affirmed it nor denounced it, and that silence suggests more than institutional deliberation. It suggests political constraint indicating a modicum of success by opponents, but silence nevertheless.

Consider the KXAN segment below which questions why UT should be compelled to openly reject the Compact if it is already moving toward Compact-like outcomes as a result of recent state-imposed policy changes?

The Compact, proposed by the federal administration, would condition access to federal research funding on compliance with a slate of politically charged requirements: restrictions on faculty governance, limits on hiring autonomy, reinterpretations of free-speech policy, constraints on international student enrollment, and a prohibition on what it calls “proxies” for race or sex in admissions. 

All told, this moment exposes a parallel misunderstanding that urgently needs correction: the widespread claim that Texas’ Top Ten Percent Plan is a “race-based” or affirmative-action-style policy (e.g., Mukherjee, 2023). This mischaracterization has resurfaced because the Compact prohibits admissions criteria that correlate with race; some commentators have leapt to the false conclusion that the Top Ten Percent Plan is therefore racially motivated. But historically and legally, the policy is race-neutral.

The Top Ten Percent law, created under House Bill 588 in 1997, guarantees automatic admission to Texas public universities for students who graduate in the top ten percent of their high school class (Flores & Horn, 2020). It does not ask for racial identification, does not classify students by race, and does not treat students differently based on race. Its origin lies in Hopwood v. Texas, which barred the use of race in admissions in the mid-1990s. Legislators—seeking to broaden opportunity without violating the ruling—created a system that relied on class rank, not racial preference, to expand access across the state (Flores & Horn, 2020).

A key detail is that UT–Austin operates under a unique statutory modification to this law. In 2009, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 175, which allows UT–Austin to cap automatic admissions at 75 percent of its entering Texas freshman class beginning in 2011. This adjustment was made at UT’s request, as the flagship campus argued that full application of the Top Ten Percent rule would consume the entire entering class. Even with this cap, however, the Top Ten Percent Plan remains the policy mechanism through which the majority of UT’s freshman seats are filled—and it remains fully race-neutral.

While the Top Ten Percent Plan does increase racial and socioeconomic diversity, that outcome reflects the deeply segregated landscape of Texas high schools rather than any use of race within the statute itself. Legal scholars are unequivocal on this point: the percentage plan “is race-neutral…and its operation ensures broad diversity in every dimension” without invoking racial classification (Dorf, 2024, p. 112). 

At the same time, as Flores and Horn (2016) demonstrate, the plan’s current iteration—though it expands opportunity—still falls short of eliminating racial and ethnic disparities in access to Texas’ most selective universities. Miscasting the law as race-based is therefore not only factually incorrect but politically perilous, particularly at a moment when genuinely race-neutral mechanisms remain among the few available tools to advance equitable access in higher education.

The confusion is especially harmful now, as UT contemplates whether the Compact’s ban on “proxies” could be interpreted to target class-rank admissions. Class rank measures academic performance within schools; it is not a racial proxy under federal law (Dorf, 2024). Yet if political actors succeed in recasting it as race-based, they could undermine a foundational element of Texas admissions policy—one that is already modified at UT–Austin through SB 175 and thus particularly vulnerable to political reinterpretation.

If UT ultimately rejects the Compact—as it appears to have done—we as a public must nevertheless remain vigilant in defending the truth about the Top Ten Percent Plan as a race-neutral. Misrepresenting it only deepens confusion and fuels the political manipulation already surrounding higher education.

At a time when academic freedom, democracy, and access to higher education are under assault, clarity is essential.

References

Flores, S. M., & Horn, C. L. (2016). The Texas Top Ten Percent Plan: How it works, what we know, and what we should learn from it. UCLA, E-Scholarship.org. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4hm2n74b

Dorf, M. C. (2024). Race-neutrality, baselines, and ideological jujitsu After Students for Fair Admissions. Texas Law Review, 103, 269.

Mukherjee, R. (2023). 'Percent plans' undermine meritocracy in higher education: They function as a form of indirect affirmative action. City Journal.

Priest, J. (2025, November 17). UT-Austin still silent on Trump compact after deadline to sign passes: Most other invited universities have rejected the administration’s offer tying priority federal funding to campus policy changes. The Texas Tribune.

Spitalniak, L. (2025, October 8). Trump’s higher-ed compact draws condemnation from faculty and college unions. Higher Ed Dive.


Saturday, May 24, 2025

"A Trojan Horse for the Affluent: House Bill 3041 and the Resegregation of College Admissions in Texas," by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

Friends,

I will always remember that today is the anniversary of the horrific killings in Uvalde, Texas, because it is also mine and my husband's wedding anniversary.

As I contemplate violence against children in our schools, I urge us to also think about the symbolic, institutional violence that H.B. 3041 represents.

I often wonder what bills are getting passed while the advocacy community is focused on other critical fronts—like fighting SB 37, SB 12, and the ongoing battle against vouchers. H.B. 3041 is one of these, and it is VERY consequential to the future of children and youth in Texas.

What concerns me even more is the noticeable absence of critical perspectives or in-depth analysis of this bill in major news outlets or academic circles. Outside of endorsements by pro-homeschooling groups and the Texas Public Policy Foundation, there has been virtually no public scrutiny of its impact on equity, public education, or financial aid. That silence is itself telling—and dangerous.

Thank you for reading,


–Angela


A Trojan Horse for the Affluent: House Bill 3041 and the Resegregation of College Admissions in Texas

by

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

May 24, 2025




The University of Texas at Austin tower on July 16, 2020. Credit: Allie Goulding/

Well on its way to becoming state law, H.B. 3041 —authored by Reps. Dennis Paul and Terry Wilson—masquerades as a measure to expand college access. In truth, it codifies a deeply inequitable double standard in admissions and financial aid. The bill creates a separate pathway for students from “nontraditional secondary education” backgrounds—such as homeschoolers and those from unaccredited private schools—allowing them to bypass class-rank requirements and qualify for automatic admission based on standardized test scores set by each institution. 

It goes further by amending the Texas Education Code, meaning statute, to make these students eligible for state-funded financial aid programs like the TEXAS Grant—resources already stretched thin. This carveout, cloaked in the language of fairness, opens a back door for students who are disproportionately white, affluent, and well-resourced, while further narrowing the front door for historically underserved students in Texas public schools (Knox, 2024).

This isn’t just unfair—it’s a form of institutional violence. At a time when children of color in Texas schools are already being targeted by book bans, curriculum restrictions, racial surveillance, and chronic underfunding, H.B. 3041 inflicts yet another wound. The violence may not be physical, but its effects are just as real. When the state systematically redirects opportunity away from the vulnerable and toward the already privileged, it signals that some lives—and futures—matter more than others. That, too, is a kind of assault: quiet, calculated, and devastating.

The bill attempts to simulate class-rank-based admissions for students without one by substituting standardized test scores. Although the benchmarks must be recalibrated annually using institutional data, this approach is fundamentally flawed. Standardized tests are not neutral indicators of merit—they mirror access to wealth, tutoring, and stable learning environments. Consequently, H.B. 3041 disproportionately benefits students from nontraditional, affluent backgrounds—many of whom also stand to gain from newly passed school voucher legislation. Together, these measures constitute a systematic redirection of public support toward those already advantaged.

Meanwhile, students in public schools must compete through class rank in an increasingly narrow funnel (Dey, 2024). At UT Austin, for example, automatic admission once applied to students in the top 10 percent of their graduating class; by Fall 2026, only those in the top 5 percent will qualify—due to legislative provisions that cap automatic admissions at 75 percent of the freshman class. The rest are admitted through holistic review. In this context, H.B. 3041 is not just inequitable—it’s egregious. While public school students, disproportionately Black, Latino, and low-income, face rising barriers, nontraditional students gain a separate route designed around their strengths.

As McNeil (2005) and Valencia, Valenzuela, Sloan, & Foley (2001) have shown, so-called “color-blind” policies often obscure structural racism, reinforcing systems that reward those already equipped with social and economic capital. Berliner and Glass (2014) add that standardized test scores track family income more reliably than academic ability. H.B. 3041 reflects what Valenzuela (1999) calls subtractive schooling—policies that devalue the knowledge and experiences of marginalized students while privileging dominant norms. It rewards those in individualized, resource-rich settings while burdening public school students with mounting obstacles. This is not equity; it is privilege masquerading as reform.

The bill’s provision for “equal access” to dual credit courses is equally deceptive. While it requires institutions to treat all students the same in admissions to dual credit, it ignores the reality that many public schools—especially in rural and low-income areas—lack the infrastructure, staffing, and partnerships to offer these courses in the first place. Texas is a deeply rural state, yet rural schools remain underrecognized in policy. This formal equality masks material inequality. As Berliner and Glass (2014) warn, when laws ignore structural disparities, they don’t close gaps—they widen them.

Finally, by expanding financial aid eligibility without increasing funding, H.B. 3041 threatens to dilute resources for those who need them most. This is not an expansion of access—it’s a redistribution of opportunity upward: from public to private, from the underserved to the already advantaged.

In sum, H.B. 3041 is not a policy of inclusion—it is a Trojan horse. It offers the appearance of equity while reinforcing race, class, and geographic privilege. With UT Austin and other public institutions narrowing their admissions thresholds, this bill ensures that the gate remains open to the few and closed to the many. Texans must see H.B. 3041 for what it is: a backdoor policy that elevates the already elevated—at the cost of justice, access, and the democratic promise of public education.

References

Berliner, D. C., & Glass, G. V. (2014). 50 Myths and Lies That Threaten America's Public Schools. Teachers College Press

Dey, S. (2024, Sept. 16). UT-Austin tightens automatic admission threshold to 5% of Texas’ top high schoolers: The current threshold is 6%, Texas Tribunehttps://www.texastribune.org/2024/09/16/ut-austin-top-five-percent-threshold/

Knox, L. (2024, Dec. 16), The longhorn long shot, Inside Higher Education

McNeil, L. (2005). Faking equity: High-stakes testing and the education of Latino youth. In A. Valenzuela (Ed.), Leaving children behind: How “Texas style” accountability fails Latino youth (pp. 57–111). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Valencia, R., Valenzuela, A., Sloan, K., & Foley, D. (2001). Let’s treat the cause, not the symptoms: Equity and accountability in Texas revisited. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(4), 318–321, 326. 

Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive Schooling: U.S.-Mexican Youth and the Politics of Caring. State University of New York Press.


© Angela Valenzuela, May 24, 2024

Thursday, July 06, 2023

With race-based admissions no longer an option, states may imitate Texas Top 10% Plan

Friends, 

Check out this excellent recap of many years of history on higher education admissions in Texas by Kate McGee with the Texas Tribune. We must fully advocate for this plan that despite its race neutrality, could get eliminated. 

It therefore behooves Black and Brown community advocates, leaders, and legislators in Texas to form coalitions with their respective rural counterparts on what should be a shared policy agenda in this arena. The reason is not because as Dr. Stella Flores says, it is a "silver bullet" for a diverse entering class, but rather because it has been relatively successful as a remedy, especially in combination with other recruitment tools and strategies.

 In principle, Texas' Top Ten Percent Plan is truly about giving all students in the state of Texas a stab at getting admitted into Texas' flagship institutions, most especially the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A & M University.

-Angela Valenzuela

With race-based admissions no longer an option, states may imitate Texas Top 10% Plan

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the practice unconstitutional, admissions experts say other states could look to Texas’ Top 10% Plan as a way to diversify their student bodies.


The Texas flag flies on the south lawn of the University of Texas at Austin campus. After the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the consideration of race in college admissions, some experts say Texas’ Top 10% Plan could become a new model for other states. Credit: Eddie Gaspar/The Texas Tribune

A plan is born

Results so far

Tuesday, July 04, 2023

Wondering What Will Likely Happen to Higher Ed in the wake of the SCOTUS Anti-Affirmative action Ruling?

 Friends:

Are you wondering what will likely happen to higher education in the wake of the SCOTUS anti-affirmative action decision?

As closely examined in this 2022 piece by Los Angeles Times writer, Teresa Watanabe, we can already gain important insights from what happened in California following the passage in November, 1996, of Proposition 209 that ended affirmative action based on race, sex, national origin, and ethnicity. Watanabe takes a close look at enrollment numbers in California universities, particularly within the prestigious University of California system. The short of it is that the enrollment of Black and Brown students plummeted by close to 50 percent with the eventual attainment of pre-1996 levels of student enrollment occurring 25 years later! 

When we think of the cost to the otherwise qualified potential Black and Brown students who were discouraged and either applied to the Cal State University System (with lower graduation rates compared to the UC system) or opted out of a higher education degree altogether, the negative impact of earnings denied to these groups have been not solely been substantial, but permanent. Based on Bleemer's (2020) longitudinal research in California on the earnings consequences of Prop. 209, it is a story of lost earning power that limited these individuals' prospects for economic mobility.

With California's response in the rearview window, a comeback in light of the SCOTUS ruling need not take that long for other states. Similarly, worthy of note, is Texas' comeback response—of instituting Texas' Top Ten Percent Plan—to the elimination of affirmative action by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1996 (that you can read and learn about here), yielded positive results.

What I think is getting largely overlooked from all that I'm reading right now on the impact of the SCOTUS decision and how to respond to it, is the vital role that our community, advocacy, and civil rights organizations can play in demanding universities to be aggressive in their responses to what will clearly be an immediate negative impact of the court ruling. After all, we all pay taxes that go toward higher education. Despite challenges, they are still public institutions and should therefore serve the public.

In addition to partnerships, aggressive recruitment strategies, and greater student financial education supports, another might be to demand that our flagship institutions save seats for in-state, as opposed to international and out-of-state, students (Watanabe, 2022). This may be an uphill climb considering that universities rely, in particular, on out-of-state tuitions to keep afloat. It's encouraging to read that in California, this very type of advocacy has made a difference (Watanabe, 2022).

In Texas, we must therefore further advocate for increased higher education funding while also holding fast to what remains of Texas' Top Ten Percent Plan that originated with House Bill 588 passed in 1997 and that was reduced to, roughly, six percent with Senate Bill 175 in 2009 that exclusively pertained to higher education admissions at the University of Texas at Austin beginning in 2011.

Our research, truth-telling, and advocacy continue.

-Angela Valenzuela

Reference

Bleemer, Z. (2020). Affirmative action, mismatch, and economic mobility after California's Proposition 209. Research & Occasional Paper Series, Center for the Study of Higher Education, UC Berkeley Retrieved from https://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/affirmative-action-mismatch-and-economic-mobility-after-california%E2%80%99s-proposition-209

Watanabe, T. (2022, Aug. 10) UC admits record number of Californians and far fewer out-of-state students, Los Angeles Times. Retrieved: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-08-10/uc-admits-record-number-of-california-first-year-students-narrows-entry-to-nonresidents

California banned affirmative action in 1996. Inside the UC struggle for diversity


As the U.S. Supreme Court opens oral arguments Monday on whether to strike down affirmative action, UC’s long struggle to bring diversity to its 10 campuses offers lessons on race-neutral admission practices.


 TERESA WATANABESTAFF WRITER | Los Angeles Times 

 
(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

For nearly half a century, the University of California has been at the center of national debates over affirmative action and who is entitled to coveted seats in the premier public higher education system.

In 1974, after Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was rejected from the UC Davis medical school, he alleged reverse discrimination and sued, becoming the namesake of a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case curbing racial quotas. In 1995, UC regents voted to eliminate affirmative action and one of them, Ward Connerly, championed a successful campaign a year later to pass Proposition 209, the nation’s first ballot initiative to ban consideration of race and gender in public education, hiring and contracting. Over the last decade, California legislators have launched at least three attempts to restore affirmative action in college admissions — all have failed.

As the U.S. Supreme Court opens oral arguments Monday on whether to strike down affirmative action in cases involving Harvard and the University of North Carolina, UC’s long struggle to bring diversity to its 10 campuses offers lessons on the promise and limitations of race-neutral admission practices.

The California takeaway: Nothing can fully substitute for affirmative action practices that allow universities to admit a diverse student body, including using income and parent educational levels as proxies for race. But after passage of Proposition 209 touched off UC’s 25-year slog of trial and error — plus a massive investment of more than a half-billion dollars on diversity measures — a meaningful difference can be made.

As the U.S. Supreme Court opens oral arguments Monday on whether to strike down affirmative action in cases involving Harvard and the University of North Carolina, UC’s long struggle to bring diversity to its 10 campuses offers lessons on the promise and limitations of race-neutral admission practices.

The California takeaway: Nothing can fully substitute for affirmative action practices that allow universities to admit a diverse student body, including using income and parent educational levels as proxies for race. But after passage of Proposition 209 touched off UC’s 25-year slog of trial and error — plus a massive investment of more than a half-billion dollars on diversity measures — a meaningful difference can be made.

“While California has not identified a really effective policy to promote diversity other than affirmative action, it has shown experimentation is beneficial for targeted students,” said Zachary Bleemer, a Yale University assistant professor of economics and research associate at the Center for Studies in Higher Education at UC Berkeley. “And so it’s worth it.”

UC President Michael V. Drake and all 10 chancellors have submitted an amicus brief in support of Harvard and UNC’s affirmative action policies. Calling UC a “laboratory for experimentation” on using race-neutral measures to promote diversity, the university leaders said that decades of outreach programs to low-income students and re-crafted admissions policies have fallen short.

“Those programs have enabled UC to make significant gains in its system-wide diversity,” the brief said. “Yet despite its extensive efforts, UC struggles to enroll a student body that is sufficiently racially diverse to attain the educational benefits of diversity.”For some private universities, which are allowed to use affirmative action, the looming high court decision is causing consternation. Many experts predict the court’s conservative majority will strike down race-based preferences in a case that could affect not only higher education, but potentially the workplace as well.

“You are talking about the devastation of the American admissions process for students of color, full stop,” said Pomona College President G. Gabrielle Starr. “Affirmation action is hands down the best tool we have for maintaining racial and ethnic diversity in colleges in the United States.”

Initially, Proposition 209 drastically reduced diversity at UC’s most competitive campuses. In 1998, the first admissions year affected by the ban, the number of California Black and Latino first-year students plunged by nearly half at UCLA and UC Berkeley. William Kidder, a UC Riverside civil rights investigator, recalled his shock when he entered UC Berkeley law school in 1998 and found that his first-year class of 270 included only six or seven Black students, compared with four times that many in the class two years ahead of him enrolled before Proposition 209.

“The lack of diversity in the classroom had a negative impact on my learning as a student,” said Kidder, who is white. “The range of viewpoints and quality of discussion about ideas were inhibited.”

California State University’s 23 campuses did not lose nearly as many Black and Latino students as UC did, and the system’s enrollment today nearly fully reflects the state’s diversity. Among its 422,391 undergraduates in fall 2021, 47% are Latino, 21% white, 16% Asian and 4% Black.

That closely mirrors the demographics of the state’s 217,910 California high school students who met UC and CSU eligibility standards in 2020-21: 45% are Latino, 26% white, 16% Asian and 4% Black. CSU’s wider access, more affordable price tag and greater ease of commuting from home may be some reasons behind the greater diversity.

But diversity varies, with proportions of Latino and Black students lower at several of the more selective CSU campuses. At Cal Poly San Luis Obispo — with a 31% admission rate in fall 2021 — 53% of undergraduates are white, 19% Latino, 14% Asian and 1% Black. At Cal State Los Angeles — with an 80% admission rate — 72% of students are Latino, 11% Asian, 4% Black and 4% white.

“While Proposition 209 promoted race neutrality in university student recruitment, admissions, financial aid, student academic support and employee hiring, the policy has made it more challenging to erase equity and opportunity gaps that exist in the CSU,” the university said in a statement. “Despite the challenges that have resulted, the CSU has continued to serve significant numbers of students from underrepresented communities over the years and we continue outreach efforts to provide access to students who are Black, indigenous or people of color and provide support once they are enrolled in the university.”

UC enrollment still does not fully reflect the state’s racial and ethnic makeup — falling particularly short with Latinos, who made up just 30% of the system’s 189,173 California undergraduates in fall 2021. Students of Mexican heritage are by far the largest undergraduate ethnic group, however.

But campuses are making notable strides. Black and Latino students increased to 43% of the admitted first-year class of Californians for fall 2022 compared with about 20% before Proposition 209. For the third straight year, Latinos were the largest ethnic group of admitted students at 37%, followed by Asian Americans at 35%, white students at 19% and Black students at 6%.

The enrolled first-year class of fall 2021 was also the most diverse ever, with Black and Latino students making up 38% compared with about 20% in 1995 before Proposition 209.

Progress has been striking at UCLA, where the affirmative action ban hit particularly hard and swift. By 1998, the number of Black and Latino students in the campus’ first-year class of Californians had plummeted by nearly half.

But by 2021, UCLA’s California first-year class included more Black students — 346, or 7.6 % — than their 1995 numbers of 259, or 7.3%. The same is true for Latino students, whose numbers grew to 1,185, or 26%, from 790, or 22.4%, during that same period.

UCLA devotes up to $2 million annually to aggressively recruit diverse students and then convince them to accept their admission offers. In the early 2000s, the UC system launched two major reforms to boost diversity: an admission guarantee to top-performing students statewide and at most California high schools, and a comprehensive review process that uses several factors — including special talents and location of home and high school — in addition to grades and coursework to evaluate applicants.

In 2020, UC regents voted to eliminate standardized test scores as an admission requirement in another landmark step to widen access to underserved students.

“We’re very proud of the progress we’ve made,” UCLA Chancellor Gene Block said in an interview. “We also recognize how far there is to go.”

UC Berkeley also has gained ground, especially since 2019, when the campuses increased fall enrollment of first-year Black and Latino Californians by more than 30%.

But Femi Ogundele, UC Berkeley’s associate vice chancellor of enrollment management, remains frustrated by the affirmative action ban, saying it prevents his team from fully understanding their applicants whose identities are often deeply connected to their race and gender. Hearing how applicants navigated experiences of being the only students of color in their high schools, for instance, or plowing through male-dominated science or technology classes as a girl could provide valuable insight into their character, he said. Proposition 209 barred discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.

Some researchers have found that the Proposition 209 ban has had lasting negative consequences.

In a 2020 study, Bleemer found that the ban caused Black and Latino students who might otherwise have gotten into UCLA and UC Berkeley to cascade down into less competitive campuses; others chose not to apply for UC admission altogether. Such UC applicants ended up earning fewer undergraduate and graduate degrees and, for Latinos, lower wages. By the mid-2010s, the effects of Proposition 209 had reduced the number of early-career Black and Latino Californians earning more than $100,000 by about 3%, or as many as 1,000 earners, according to the study.

“This was a sort of a permanent shock to young Black and Hispanic workers,” Bleemer said. “And it didn’t lead to a symmetric boost for white and Asian students who gained access to these universities.”

Others, however, say the takeaway from UC’s experience is positive. Richard Sander, a UCLA law professor, argues that the affirmative action ban led to greater diversity at campuses throughout the system and better grades and higher graduation rates for Black and Latino students.

Starr, the Pomona College president, said affirmative action has helped the institution create a diverse class with Black students making up 9% — nearly twice the rate at UC. Latinos are at 16%, Asians 17% and whites 34%. She said that Pomona, one of the nation’s top-rated liberal arts colleges, is looking at ways to even opportunities for applicants if race can no longer be considered. They include possibly rethinking the use of standardized tests, which are now optional, and letters of recommendation — both measures found to favor more privileged students.

At USC, officials are thinking about revving up more aggressive recruiting practices and more generous financial aid packages to maintain diversity. In USC’s 2021-22 undergraduate class, Black students made up 6%, Latinos 17%, Asians 24% and whites 30%.

Campus officials plan to decide by next spring or early summer whether to continue optional testing policies for fall 2024 applicants, said Kedra Ishop, USC vice president for enrollment management.

Ishop said one lesson she learned from her administrative experience at the University of Texas at Austin during multiple conflicts over affirmative action is to be ready to send out clear messages to potential applicants about the value of diversity. “We want a diverse student body on our campus, and we’ll pursue that through whatever the legal means we have after this decision,” she said.

At UC Berkeley, Ogundele said affected universities should “double down” on comprehensive review systems to evaluate a student beyond academic metrics and use data aggressively. Admission officials will need to understand the environment not only in various ZIP Codes but also individual high schools to place a student’s academic experiences in full context, he said.

“I recognize that’s a big ask,” Ogundele said, noting there are hundreds of high schools across California. “But that’s what’s going to be necessary if your process is going to be equitable.”

Block said UCLA is also ready to share its experiences. A precipitous drop in California Black first-year students in 2006 — down to 95, lower even than immediately after Proposition 209 — prompted the campus to refine its comprehensive review system to pay greater attention to an applicant’s learning environment. Then, in 2012, Block hired Youlonda Copeland-Morgan, who reshaped the university’s outreach, recruitment and enrollment strategies. Copeland-Morgan, who retired last month as vice provost for enrollment management, called her approach “intrusive recruiting” to pursue applicants as college coaches do highly prized athletes.

She and her team launched collaboratives with more than two dozen Los Angeles Unified high schools and several African American churches in the Inland Empire to scout promising students and keep them on track, for instance. They look for diverse talent not only at college fairs, but also community events such as the Taste of Soul street festival in the Crenshaw neighborhood. They meet families at Starbucks in Compton, South L.A., Ladera Heights, South Gate. A few years ago, the team started a texting program to students as young as eighth grade to prepare them for college and possible UCLA admission.

Over the last decade, the number of Black students from California who apply, are admitted and enroll at UCLA has swelled. Black first-year student enrollment, for instance, grew by more than 100%, from 169 students, or 4.2%, of the 2012 first-year class to 346, or 7.6%, in 2021. Latino enrollment, however, grew only by 19% during that period.

Both UCLA and UC Berkeley admit enough Black and Latino applicants to fill their classes with representative shares, but need more to accept their admission offers. Those rates have grown more quickly for Black students than Latinos.

The campuses say they are reaping big payoffs — 75% commitment rates — by holding in-person activities that connect admitted students with faculty, staff and other students of similar backgrounds.

Block said UCLA is also hiring more Latino faculty and working to become a so-called Hispanic-serving institution, which will open the door to federal grants to enrich Latino educational opportunities. To address family financial concerns, the campus launched a pilot program this year offering low-income students up to $2,000 annually or $10,000 during an undergraduate career to reduce their financial burdens.

How much such measures will help institutions make the transition to higher education without affirmative action is, however, unclear.

Ogundele experienced both worlds as an admissions professional at Stanford University, where he used affirmative action, and UC Berkeley, where it is banned.

“What I’m learning in this environment is that there is no alternative,” Ogundele said. “There is no race-neutral alternative to being able to consider race.”

Teresa Watanabe covers education for the Los Angeles Times. Since joining the Times in 1989, she has covered immigration, ethnic communities, religion, Pacific Rim business and served as Tokyo correspondent and bureau chief. She also covered Asia, national affairs and state government for the San Jose Mercury News and wrote editorials for the Los Angeles Herald Examiner. A Seattle native, she graduated from USC in journalism and in East Asian languages and culture.

Saturday, June 26, 2021

Testimony for the Texas Top Ten Percent Plan & Against SB 1091 by Dr. Altheria Caldera & Luis Figueroa

Listen to these gems of testimonies delivered before the Texas Senate Higher Education Committee on April 28, 202 this past legislative session. The session is always such a rush that I'm finally posting this.

These are two public testimonies against Senate Bill 1091 that sought to drastically limit the Top Ten Percent Admissions of graduating high school students into our state's higher education system, a policy that in its present form, is critical to rural students, as well as students of color to gain college access. 

In the first video, you can listen to a passionate and resolute Dr. Altheria Caldera, a Policy Fellow at the Intercultural Development Institute (IDRA) and mentee of mine who provides clear reasons and data that point to a need to maintain Texas' Top Ten Percent Plan in higher education admission.  Next, treat yourself to historically accurate and incisive testimony by Luis Figueroa, J.D., Legislative and Policy Director at Every Texan. These were among the more powerful testimonies that contributed to the bill's demise. 

Hats off to Dr. Caldera, as well, for recently securing a tenure-track position at Howard University in Washington, D.C. We'll miss you here in Texas, but know that there's good and important work to get done there, as well. 

I post this as it's important for us to maintain this historical memory on the ongoing struggle over higher education admissions in the state of Texas. I myself and many others were involved in this at an earlier time. It's cool to see how the baton gets passed from one generation to the next over time.

Altheria and Luis, thanks for advancing the cause for equity in college admission in the state of Texas.
 
Y'all make us proud! 

-Angela Valenzuela