a
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 5B • Tuesday, January 20, 2004
Legacy admissions no longer,
legacy policy reflects the real world Legacy admissions aren’t merit-based
■Til a perfect world, college admissions
I would be based solely on an appli-
JLcant’s academic ability and his ability
o contribute to the university community.
\dmissions staffs would be oblivious to
jressure from outsiders seeking racial
liiotas and immune to the desire of
idministrators to recruit students exclu-
ively based on non-academic criteria.
In actuality, students aren’t recruited
r admitted based only on their abilities,
iut are often targeted based on how well their
lemographics will diversify statistics. Texas A&M
bncs a list of factors when considering applicants,
Bncluding extra-curricular activities, adversity
Overcome, uneducated parents and. until recently,
(•elattves who were alumni.
On Van. 9, in an attempt to reform these poli-
35 1«' es tUU ' ""cnse pressure front state legisla-
fWlBors, University President Robert M. Gates elimi-
* r ®ated a 15-year-old "legacy” jxtlicy that gave a
wBlight advantage to children, grandchildren and
llBiblings of alumni. This decision seems like a step
lllBoward equal opportunity, but in reality, it is a step
berjoward an increasingly skewed admissions policy.
The A&M admissions policy groups those not
dmitted immediately under the top 10 percent
le and scores them on a 100-point scale, with
ifferent categories for test scores, class rank and
ven one giving up to six points if the applicant’s
ents did not graduate high school, according to
he Houston Chronicle. Applicants received four
ints for legacies. The removal of the legacy pol-
y punishes alumni and their children as well as
pplicants w ho come from an educated home,
ntil all inequality is removed, the legacy policy
ould remain.
Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to
;move all bias from admissions procedures.
Students recruited for athletic scholarships and
liven preference based on prospective member-
si lip in the Corps of Cadets are just as much a
Iroduct of favoritism in the admissions process as
Klatives of alumni.
I A driving force behind legacy admissions is an
alum’s potential financial support if their children
ai given an edge in the admissions process. With
tl recent cut in state budgets, universities
si itew ide are leaning more on donations as a
n source for funding.
I Gates made it clear that no student was admit-
u J completely based on a legacy, but the four
loints awarded to the student for legacy made the
■(Terence for 353 students in 2003 and 349 stu-
lents in 2(X)2, according to The Chronicle.
Iliminating the potential advantage communicates
m alumni and current students alike that while
l&M wants their donations, it doesn't want their
liildren. regardless if that is the intent of the rul-
Ig or not.
I A&M offers about 10,(XX) acceptance letters
1'ery year, but many of the applicants decline their
ceptance. What admissions staffs must determine
hen deciding between two candidates is which
Otic is more likely to choose to attend A&M. Not
only does the declination of a qualified child of an
[umnus upset the parent and threaten their finan-
lal support, but also weakens the Aggie communi-
t\l and potentially crushes a child’s lifelong dreams.
hile there is no way to measure an applicant’s
ftnuine desire to attend A&M compared to the
other schools to which they
applied, the
legacy admis
sions policy is a
gtxxl indicator.
The almost obses
sive insistence that
A&M wants to diversify
its population is evident
in every recent press
release and speech made by
A&M administration. What admin
istrators and the A&M University
System Board of Regents may not
want to accept is that A&M’s his
tory, academic emphasis and
social setting draw all types of stu
dents, but not necessarily in the
same numbers.
There are numerous exam
ples of minority students who
feel welcome at A&M and
enjoy their experiences, but the
reason behind this is doubtfully
because they were singled out as a
minority as a desirable candidate
for admission. The recent deci
sion to exclude race as a factor
in the admissions process was a
sound one. but coupled with the
insistence to recruit minority stu
dents and offer nothing to stu
dents of alumni seems equally
discriminator)' because most
alums are w hite.
Similar legacy policies exist at
most private schools across the
country and several state-sup
ported schools, such as the
University of Massachusetts at
Amherst and the University of
Virginia. Other public schools may
not have a formal policy of legacy
admissions, but doubtlessly make
allowances for children of sub
stantial donors and those with ties
to the university. While it might
seem unjust to those who are not
children of alumni, it neverthe
less reflects the world of business
and politics, and any assumption
that connections don’t take people
places is naive and idealistic.
Gates said in his Jan. 9 state
ment that the removal of the lega
cy points adds “consistency and
equity" to the admissions
policies, but the continued
existence of other non
merit-based factors contra
dicts this. Collegiate admis
sions policies will never be
entirely impartial, and the
decision to remove
benefits for relatives
of alumni only make
the process more
unbalanced.
Sara Foley is a junior
journalism major.
V&ff
S f
U
t might
seem odd
that sup-
^ port for
Texas A&M
President
Robert M.
Gates’ decision
to end legacy
admissions
would come from a
conservative, considering
v the driving force behind
Gates’ quick end to the
program was the whining
of liberal legislators. The
truth is, there are three
sides to the debate over
legacy admissions pro
grams, but only two have
the best interests of A&M in
mind. Gates should be
applauded for taking a stand
for merit-based admissions,
but stopping now in the pur
suit of justice would be a
mistake. There is another
group in the debate that is
disingenuous and could
w in if Aggies are too short
sighted — those seeking to
do away with legacy
admissions to foster affir
mative action.
The supporters of the
legacy program have a good
point. What loyal Aggie does-
£ n’t want his children,
grandchildren or other fam
ily members to go to A&M
as well? There is something
special about knowing that
your son or daughter will
# walk the same halls, partici
pate in the same traditions,
cheer for the same team and
receive the same quality edu
cation that you did. To a lot
of Aggies, the best reason to
give to A&M is that it’s an
investment in their child’s
education. And for 15 years,
that was a reason for A&M
to give back — up to four
points toward admission —
to the children of former
students seeking entry into
I ! V IM F4\\ However, it is wrong
jto discriminate against
A' "'d' "i l " 1 '"inetlnng
that they have no
power over, such as
whether they were
born into an Aggie
family or not.
Now that the U.S.
Supreme Court has
ruled to allow race in admissions,
A&M must take the high road of meritocra
cy to avoid falling into the trap of affirmative
action.
Proponents of merit-based admis
sions have welcomed the end of the
legacy policy. Aggies should remember
that the deciding factor determining
why a legacy student is here may only
be because someone else in his family
tree was a first-generation Aggie.
Considering that prior to 1989, legacies
did not receive extra consideration,
numerous legacies were the result of
strong personal merit only.
“A&M’s decision is good news for those of
us who believe in merit-based university
admissions,” said Edward Blum, a senior fel
low with the Center for Equal Opportunity,
which opposes affirmative action. However,
those seeking the end of legacy admissions
were not the supporters of merit-based admis
sions, but quite the opposite.
Gates’ announcement followed quickly on
the heels of a barrage of attacks by affirmative
action proponents in the Texas Legislature, call
ing the legacy program racist. This assertion is
only a ploy for those upset that A&M has not
returned to race-conscious admissions. As for
mer A&M President Ray Bowen told The
Associated Press, his administration determined
that ending the legacy program would have low
ered the number of minorities gaining entrance
into A&M. The research just doesn’t support the
assertion that the legacy program significantly
changed the demographics for A&M. But for
those who make their living playing the race
card, it was easier to point a finger at the legacy
program and demand a return to affirmative
action than to address the failing K-through-
12th-grade education system that has ill-pre
pared generations of minorities. Don't expect
the proponents of affirmative action to be tout
ing school vouchers or reform of the Texas
Education Agency any time soon.
Now that legacy no longer plays a role in the
admissions process, there is an even greater
wrong that must be corrected. Currently, appli
cants can gain up to six points toward admis
sions if their parents did not attend college or
complete high school. According to Frank
Ashley, A&M’s acting assistant provost for
enrollment, the four points for legacy admis
sions helped offset the six for lack of parental
academic achievement. Now. however, the six-
point policy actually places legacy students at a
direct disadvantage compared to their peers, as
applicants who receive their legacy status from
their parents are not eligible for the program.
Just as points for parental success are not merit-
based. neither are points for the opposite.
Despite pressure from affirmative action pro
ponents, race-based admissions must never
return to A&M. Point systems that put the chil
dren of former students at a distinct advantage
must go. While Gates has taken a bold step in
the direction of merit-based admissions that
places A&M on the moral high ground, this has
to be only the beginning of changes to come.
Matthew Maddox is a senior
management major.
Graphic by Ruben DeLuna
P’Neill offers revealing look at Bush’s agenda
SOMMER
HAMILTON
Ihe stakes in the 2004 election just got higher.
For years, Republicans have downplayed
Democratic critics of President George W.
Ash as whiners whose complaints are grounded in
id' ological differences the neo-conservative genera-
tiln can easily overcome. But now, the Democrats
■ve the allegations of a cabinet member — ousted
■r his moral convictions — on their side.
I As the frenzied election orchestrators gear up
far the Iowa send-off, one book hitting the market
■ Is month has sent shockwaves through the tainted
I litical heart of America. Pulitzer Prize-winning author Ron Suskind
ejposes a deep vein of horse-in-blinders, one-track-mind thinking
inherent in the Republican presidency in his book “The Price of
Biyalty,” a left-leaning look at Bush and his administration told like
Brue D.C. drama: through the eyes of a fired party member.
I Fonner Treasury Secretary Paul H. O’Neill was removed in late
■02 from his role in Bush’s cabinet and on the pivotal National
■curity Council after he refused to publicly support Bush’s second
Bind of tax cuts, claiming the cuts would widen the deficit and endan-
gei social programs.
I In Suskind’s book, O'Neill says the president’s first security
council meeting centered on Saddam Hussein and how to affect a
Aime change in Iraq. O’Neill, citing hundreds of documents he
Kde available to Suskind, claims Bush’s leadership allowed for no
le flow of ideas.
■ The president was like “a blind man in a roomful of deaf people,”
0’ vleill says in the book. But even more telling for Democrats as the
Bmaries polarize their constituencies around ideals, O’Neill says
■ddam was topic “A” on the president’s conservative laundry list. The
game plan for ousting the leader with a peacekeeping force, tribunals
for war crimes and a plan for dividing Iraq’s oil, were items on the
|e by the second security council meeting in February 2001 —
en months before Sept. 11.
If this is true, the war in Iraq, which the public should realize by now
tVasn’t based on a search for weapons of mass destruction, is rendered
cm rely groundless. It wasn’t to find non-existent weapons and it had
■thing to do with hunting down terrorists that in early 2001 had yet to
fully manifest themselves. Following the president’s nominal win under
auspices of nine Supreme Court justices, many had it that Bush
would beat up on his father’s aggressor. The lack of a clearly-defined
reason for war hinders Bush's ability to be frank with his public.
The airwaves emanating from 24-hour news networks were
jammed last week with the voices of Democrats explaining their new
found vindication for their long-maligned opposition to the war and to
naive tax cuts in the face of a mounting national deficit. Republicans
sounded out just as often, but with the muted tones of people accus
tomed to defending their party’s leadership. The Crossfire-types and
their Fox News compatriots have adopted the ne'er-do-well, disgrun
tled fonner employee argument: of course O'Neill would back talk the
president who had him fired, the Republican refrain goes. But that’s as
far as the response makes sense.
O'Neill paints a picture of a
president gunning for aggression against
Saddam long before the
time-warp that has catapulted the country
to non-questioning acceptance of war."
O’Neill paints the picture of a president gunning for aggression
against Saddam long before the time waip that has catapulted the
country to blind acceptance of war and infringed civil liberties since
Sept. 11. The war in Iraq is a botched misuse of the U.S. military might
and an arrow through the heart of peace-loving Americans. Iraq is a
turning point that drew most Democrats and liberals out of the closet
and into the blinking reality that their president was leading them into
a misplaced war of revenge, though on who, for what and why remains
noticeably absent from pro-war arguments.
O’Neill tells about his and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan
Greenspan’s opposition to the tax cuts that most easily benefited
wealthy Americans, explaining that when he voiced his concerns about
another round of cuts, Vice President Dick Cheney quieted his com
plaints with an off-handed insult to the American voting public. “We
won the mid-term elections, this is our due,” Suskind reported Cheney
as saying. Shortly after the conversation, Cheney fired O’Neill.
It is this thinking, that the Republicans have taken from their elec
tion a mandate to lead the country at will, that forms the basis of
Democratic front-runner and fonner Vermont Governor Howard
Dean’s campaign. When Dean expressed doubts in December that the
capture of Saddam would make America a safer place, a conservative
outcry predicted doom for Dean’s presidential hopes. But as the secu
rity threat assessed by Homeland Security and the Pentagon was
upgraded to orange just in time for Christmas, Dean was sitting pretty.
Fellow Democratic contenders carry the ball further with the
O’Neill revelations. Retired Gen. Wesley Clark said Suskind’s book
“just confirms my worst suspicions,” The Washington Post reported.
Sen. John Kerry, D-MA, stubs his toe coming up against the hardest
fact of O'Neill’s claims: “It would mean they were dead set on going
to war alone since almost the day they took office and deliberately lied
to the American people. Congress and the world.”
Both sides have a point. But in the court of public opinion, apathy
reigns. As when Bush’s government finally admitted it could not find
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and liberals were cheered that
they had been right to question the country’s leadership, the loudest
voice in this equally important matter will be the suffocating refrain
heard then: who cares?
Americans have too long pushed the politics that guide them out of
sight and out of mind. The founding fathers questioned the legitimacy
of those in a position of authority over them and from that conflict
birthed an American spirit of debate and an unalterable concept of the
rights of the governed.
But in the 21st century, that spirit is flagging. Instead effacing the
gun down the barrel. Republicans are side-stepping their way to power
and using simple-minded arguments to keep their hegemonic hold on
the country.
“Who cares” is not the average American’s response to allegations
of abuse of power in the upper tiers of government, but rather the
answer ideological Republicans have provided. One may decide he
does not care, but in the battleground that is the United States in the
year of an election, one better be sure.
Sommer Hamilton is a senior
journalism major.