The Chronicle: Colloquy Live Transcript

May 31, 2000

Using Class Rank as a Substitute for Affirmative Action

Should colleges use class rank to provide top students with automatic admission to public colleges -- regardless of the rigor of high schools? Are plans to use class rank in California, Florida, and Texas reasonable alternatives to affirmative action or just an end run around bans on racial preferences?

Read a related story on this topic.

A transcript of the chat follows.

Jeff Selingo (Moderator):
Hello, and welcome to Colloquy Live, The Chronicle's real-time discussion forum. I'm Jeff Selingo, a reporter here covering higher-education policy in the states, and I'll be moderating the discussion. Today, we're talking about the rising popularity of using high-school class rank to provide top students with automatic admission to public colleges. California, Florida, and Texas are trying to ensure the diversity of their universities' student bodies by pledging to admit all students who graduate in the top 4, 20, and 10 percent, respectively, of their high-school classes. We have with us Ward Connerly, a regent of the University of California and a national leader of the movement to eliminate the use of racial and ethnic preferences in college admissions. Thanks for joining us Mr. Connerly.

Ward Connerly:
Jeff, let me thank you and The Chronicle for inviting me to participate in this forum. I look forward to a productive exchange.

Jeff Selingo (Moderator):
Let's get started by taking a question from the audience.

Question from Althea at private graduate school:
What in your understanding are the issues that class ranking satisfies and what safeguards would you implement to protect its efficacy?

Ward Connerly:
For some, systems of class ranking are tools for ensuring that the university student body mirrors the racial/ethnic "diversity" of the statewide high school graduating class. It is a means of counteracting or reconciling the profound academic gap between "underrepresented minorities," on the one hand, and Asian as well as white students, on the other, without waiting for that gap to be closed by more difficult means. That is the circumstance in Florida and Texas. For others, such as California, systems of class ranking should be viewed in the overall context of reforming K-12. When viewed in this context, class ranking systems hold out the potential of introducing a culture of academic achievement at under-performing high schools. Such systems establish the presence of the University in high schools that rarely send students to the university. They provide a demonstrable goal for students to pursue, because the competition is identifiable and manageable, as opposed to some statewide pool of students. The goal is, therefore, attainable.

Question from Jeff Selingo:
As Althea asks, what problems are created by these systems and what safeguards, if any, could states put in place to prevent those problems?

Ward Connerly:
Class ranking systems run the risk of eroding the educational quality of the university; they lend themselves to manipulation by high school administrations who seek to benefit their students; they have the potential of taking the pressure off underperforming schools to improve their performance; and they can be just as unfair and discriminatory as the current regime of explicit preferences based on "race," ethnicity and, occasionally, gender. The safeguards that might be used to protect the integrity and efficacy of class ranking systems are: First, forget about using this tool as a surrogate or proxy for race and make a commitment to genuine reform and aggressive non-race-based "outreach" (true preparation). Second, keep the percentage reasonably low, as California has done. Third, the class rankings system should be supplementary to other eligibility paths. It should not the sole path, as is the case in Texas. Fourth, require those admitted via class rankings to be functionally competitive with those admitted through other admissions paths. Require students becoming eligible by class ranking systems to take the same requisite courses as those admitted through other approaches. Finally, retain the ranking function at the university instead of allowing each high school to perform that function.

Question from David Rogers, Texas Tech University Law School:
The top ten percent plan in Texas was created by minority lawmakers in an explicit attempt to undermine the "Hopwood" decision. You have said that the top twenty percent program in Florida goes to far and is not different from explicit preferences. Do you view the Texas program differently, and if so, how?

Ward Connerly:
I view the Texas 10% plan in the same fashion as I do the Florida plan. Both are designed to be surrogates for explicit race- and ethnicity-based preferences. The distinction between them and explicit preferences is a distinction without a difference.

Question from Marth Oburn, Austin Community College:
I am concerned about attrition of students who are selected only based of class rank. Are there studies from others states that analyze what happens to retention rates when rank is the basis of admissions? Are we re-creating a "right to fail" system?

Ward Connerly:
I, too, am concerned about this. Very concerned. I serve as chair of the Educational Policy Committee of the UC Board of Regents and was involved in steering the four-percent plan through the board. Prior to voting on the four-percent plan, we took a very thorough look at the effect that the four-percent plan would have on academic quality, and we found that there was a direct correlation between the quality of students in these class-ranking systems and graduation rates. The higher the percentage admitted under a class-ranking system, the lower the academic index, and the greater effect (negative) that results upon graduation. In other words, the more students we admit under these X-percent plans, the lower the academic index and the lower the graduation rate. So it is critical that the percentage selected be a small one and that quality not be compromised in the interest of diversity.

Question from Chris Rasmussen, University of Michigan:
If school administrators know that a certain percentage of their students will be guaranteed admission into a state university, might they devote less time and resources toward improvement of teaching and learning?

Ward Connerly:
I believe there are some administrators who might be inclined to do that. On the other hand, I believe that most teachers and administrators are genuinely committed to educating their students and they will not take the easy way out simply by the creation of such a system. They are professionals.

Question from Belia Gonzalez, Univ. of IL at Chicago:
What is your suggestion for plans similar to your "top 4%", for states and areas not as diverse as California, Florida and Texas, who would therefore not have a diverse pool?

Ward Connerly:
If I say one time I will probably say 50 times in the course of this interview, these X-percent plans should not be designed to "achieve diversity." To the extent that they are an effective surrogate for race and ethnicity, then to that extent will they inevitably harm the academic quality of the institution primarily because of the profound academic gap between "underrepresented minorities" on the one hand and Asian and white students on the other. So we should abandon the idea that these plans are the silver bullet for achieving diversity.

Now having said that, in those instances where the states are not naturally "diverse," there is no other means, in my opinion, for institutions of higher education to achieve this diversity other than through explicit race-based preferences, and that I oppose. So, in the final analysis, as an educational community, we will have to provide the leadership to reform K-12 as well as black and hispanic communities so that the academic gap is eliminated and "diversity" is achieved on the natural.

Question from Mark James, University of Hawai'i:
These questions seem to me to assume that the demographics of the high schools would remain the same well after the plans were implemented. One possible scenario I envision is the movement of students from more competitive schools and school systems to those where getting into the top ranks will be easier- thereby squeezing out the "native" student population. What are the long-range visions of these plans? What ensures that the interests of diversity will continue to be served?

Ward Connerly:
First of all, I, too, was concerned that we might create a system that resulted in families shopping around for easier schools so that their children could be big fish in a small pond. But I don't see any real evidence of that occurring, and so I'm not really afraid of that possibility becoming real. The long-range interests of these plans should be to reform the K-12 system and not to serve the interests of diversity. If the plans are designed for the latter purpose, I predict that they are doomed to academic failure as well as not achieving "diversity."

Question from Jan from a state university:
What is the impact of this policy on schools like Palos Verdes Peninsula in California, where 80% of the class is UC qualified and on similar high schools with a very high percentage of high performing students?

Ward Connerly:
In California, the 4% plan will have little, if any, effect on schools such as Palos Verdes Peninsula (a very competitive school) and on other high-performing schools. At least, such will be the case in the foreseeable future. The reason is that the University of California has an agreement with the Legislature and the governor to admit the top 12.5% of all graduating high school seniors. Currently, we are admitting about 11.3%. So, there is some elasticity in our ability to grow. With the development of a 10th campus, we expect to retain this ability to grow and to accommodate students through the 4% plan without displacing students from more academically rigorous campuses. It should be said, however, that those students admitted through the 4% plan are, indeed, high-achieving students, albeit in a local as opposed to statewide context. The higher the percentage used in class ranking systems, the less likely we would be to implement such a system without actual displacement of higher achieving students.

Question from Bill Ponder, Eastern Washington University:
What alternate(s) does Mr. Connerly propose to use that would eliminate race/ethnic preferences if class rank is not used?

Ward Connerly:
I think that the best model for this is what we're doing at the University of California. When we eliminated preferences in 1995, the not-so-well-publicized fact is that we made a massive commitment to non-race-based outreach. A better word is "preparation." We recognized that we, the university, were being held accountable for the defects of the K-12 system and that preferences had put a mask over those defects for decades. So we decided to do what I call the heavy lifting and to try to improve K-12 through what we call outreach. We have expanded our outreach budget in four years from $38-million to $250-million, and it will be $300-million in 2001-2002. We will have the faculty and students involved in mentoring and tutoring. We've developed teacher-training programs (about 80-million dollars worth) to improve the quality of teachers in subject-matter fields, and we have entered into collaborative agreements with 150 underperforming schools that rarely sent students to UC, so that those students can become eligible for admission to UC. The four-percent plan has to be viewed in the context of this K-12 reform, and what our plan is designed to accomplish is as follows: 1) To change the culture in these underperforming schools to one of academic achievement. 2) To establish a University of California presence at each of these schools. 3) To give these students something to shoot for. And in the context of all of our outreach efforts we believe the four-percent plan is the prize. It is also important to note that the four-percent plan is a supplementary path to our other eligibility paths. In Texas the 10 percent plan is the only path. In California it is one of three.

Question from Paulette from Loyola University in New Orleans:
Although I like the idea of ranking in general if it means that SAT/ACT scores will not be so important in the process, what about small schools? Some senior classes could be as small as 50 students, and 10th in that class would not seem as meaningful as 10th in a class of 300.

Ward Connerly:
Paulette, I think you're right, but I think that the effect would still be significant. For example, in California we have found that rural schools will be the largest beneficiaries of our top-four-percent plan, and these schools clearly fit in the category that you have described. Many of them have graduating classes of 50 or less and yet being in the top four percent is quite an honor, and having the opportunity of going to the University of California is a prize worth shooting for. We believe that introducing the UC presence in these schools builds a tradition of excellence that will accrue to UC's benefit as well as the state's for decades to come

Jeff Selingo (Moderator):
We're almost halfway through our discussion with Ward Connerly. These are good questions. Keep them coming.

Question from Will Miller, Miami-Dade Public Schools:
What opportunities will regular students at a magnet school have to be admitted to a state university? The magnet students receive extra quality points for grades which will always result in a higher "gpa" than the students not in the magnet program.

Ward Connerly:
Will, this is one of the problems that we have uncovered as we have undertaken our outreach activities; namely that many of the regular schools do not offer advanced-placement courses and therefore their students cannot become competitively admissible. In recognition of this problem the Governor and the Legislature, on a bipartisan basis, have agreed to fund advanced-placement courses for our underperforming schools. Again, it is crucial as we examine these X-percent plans that we recognize the need for overall reform, rather than simply trying to find another shortcut. If we see the X-percent plans as a surrogate for race we are simply substituting one defective plan with another.

Question from Jeff Selingo, The Chronicle:
Ward, I would like to break in here with a question. Some elite public universities -- like the University of Virginia and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill -- have long felt strong legislative pressure to admit students from small rural schools that typically don't offer the level of preparation provided by the best high schools in the state. The students who benefit from such policies are many times white. Do you favor these policies, which put geographic diversity ahead of academic preparedness? Do places like U.Va. and Chapel Hill have a need to admit students from all parts of their states, and if so, how does that differ from the kind of racial preferences you oppose? Do you think these policies are the same as X-percent plans?

Ward Connerly:
Jeff, to answer the last parts first, these systems involve implicit race preferences rather than explicit race preferences, and any system that does not view each student on the basis of his or her merit -- however we define merit -- in relation to established standards of academic measurement, I oppose. Geographic diversity is not high on my list of priorities. I do not favor race preferences. Rather, I believe that the university should seek out those students that have demonstrated by their performance or by some reasonable and tested means of assessing potential. This means that any technique that seeks to admit people on the basis of where they live or what "group" they belong to runs the risk of violating what I believe to be the university's primary mission. Over the years higher education has allowed itself to be driven by political pressure and political correctness into embracing the notion that our mission is to serve the racial, ethnic, and geographic interests of our society. I believe that is wrong. Our mission, it seems to me, is first and foremost academic quality and to insure that racial, ethnic, and geographic interests are fairly treated as we seek to serve our overall mission. Once we start trying to provide racial, ethnic, and geographic diversity, I believe we inevitably compromise the overriding mission.

Question from Phyllis Powell, Central Michigan Univ.:
You keep repeating that we must reform K-12 education. What are your three or four best ideas for beginning that process?

Ward Connerly:
1) We need better teachers. We need teachers who are more than one week ahead of their students in reading the textbooks. We need teachers who are motivated, who feel safe in the classroom, and who are capable of inspiring their students. This issue is so important that our Governor has even proposed a tax exemption for teachers. I could embrace this if he made it for regents as well. While I don't like the Governor's idea, it does demonstrate how important good teachers are in this equation.

2) We can't teach students who don't want to learn. And this is an enormous problem that is very difficult to solve. Is it peer pressure from students who devalue education by demeaning those who do (suggesting that they are "acting white")? Are parents taking enough interest in their children? All of these components outside the classroom are critical to our reformation of K-12. I recognize how enormously difficult they are, but we have to be candid in acknowledging their existence.

3) We have neglected many of these underperforming schools for so long that the time has come for us to make them a priority. I visited one of these schools the other day and I was shocked by the conditions that I saw. On a 95 degree day, there was no air-conditioning in the classroom, many of the teachers were uncredentialed, the facilities were old and musty, the students were rowdy and inattentive, and the overall environment was simply depressing. How can anyone learn in this situation?

And so these are the three things that I think need to be addressed. I don't have all the solutions, but the first part of solving a problem is to acknowledge its existence and its dimensions.

Question from John Ryan, American Bar Assn/Public Education:
Doesn't the very existence of these class-rank programs suggest that -- 45 years after Brown v. Board -- we have pretty much given up on racial integration in our nation's public schools? Is this necessary? desirable?

Ward Connerly:
John, I think that we have, to a large extent, given up on racial integration. I think that the very concept of "diversity" has unwittingly distracted us from the aspiration of a truly integrated society. The class-ranking systems, especially in Florida, seek to capitalize on largely segregated schools and that is unfortunate. I am hopeful, however, that as we eliminate the preferences we build a national consensus once again about true racial integration. In my opinion, we have gotten off track and we want to celebrate our differences so much that we have lost the will and the ability to integrate those differences into a common identity and family.

Question from Dr. Jonathan Farley, Math Dept., Vanderbilt Univ.:
Why do you not as vigorously oppose legacies, scholarships for descendants of Confederate soldiers and the like, or attempts to create geographic diversity, which collectively affect more students than race-based affirmative action?

Ward Connerly:
Aha, Dr. Farley! I do oppose those things. And as my colleagues at the University of California will tell you, if they are participating in this forum, I led the effort at UC to eliminate legacy admits and what I call fat-cat preferences, because they are a form of implicit race preferences and they are contrary to the spirit of individual merit. I am just as vigilant in going after these as I am in going after explicit race preferences, but the media doesn't seem to be as interested in the former as they are in the latter.

Question from Barry Garron, San Diego Community College District:
You said that introducing the UC presence in rural schools with the 4% plan builds a tradition of excellence that will accrue to UC's benefit as well as the state's for decades to come. If that is the case even though some of the 4% might not otherwise have been eligible for UC, then why wouldn't it be just as beneficial to reach out to minorities and bring more into the UC now while continuing to improve the high schools?

Ward Connerly:
We are reaching out to everyone, including minorities. We simply do not treat them any differently than we would treat others in our admissions criteria. However, we are more aggressive now than ever in trying to go into venues where low-income students, students who have never had a parent go to college, and others are to ensure that they have access to this great university. The elimination of race and ethnic preferences does not mean that we diminish our interest in trying to provide maximum access to everyone in our state. It simply means that no one gets treated differently in terms of our requirements.

Question from Curtis at the University of Michigan:
As a follow up to your earlier answer on improving public schools, could you be more specific about what can be done to attract better teachers?

Ward Connerly:
Well, first of all, I think that the pay is lousy. I think that we need to do something about increasing that salary, and the Governor is working on a number of things, but pay is important. We do not value that profession the way we should, and by increasing the pay then I think that we provide an attraction that currently is not there. The second thing is that it's not just a matter of attracting more people and better-qualified people to the teaching profession, it is also a matter of giving them an incentive to want to teach in the most challenging circumstances. If I were a teacher I wouldn't want to teach either at the school that I visited several days ago. So I think that the environmental conditions -- the facilities the equipment, the element of safety, competent administrators -- all of those things have to be addressed if we want to attract good teachers to bad schools, and thereby make the bad schools good schools.

Question from Marcia Jones, Georgia Southern University:
I have heard no discussion yet on how spaces will be allocated to accomplish diversity if the number of students accepted to colleges on the X percent rule is larger than available spaces or if the number who accept offers for admission is smaller than available spaces. What rules have been used by those institutions already using the X percent rule? Also, what is your recommendation for the frequency with which the X percent is changed to accommodate changing demographics without running the risk of being accused of manipulating the numbers to accomplish goals?

Ward Connerly:
First, Marcia, I believe the inherent defect in the 10 percent of Texas and the 20 percent of Florida is that they are designed as a surrogate for race. These systems and explicit race-preference systems are a distinction without a difference and because their genesis is, in fact, the seed of "diversity," they inevitably will have to be tinkered with in order to maintain the diversity mix that the political establishment deems appropriate.

That is why we in California rejected the idea of designing an X-percent plan as a means of achieving diversity. I want to say to you very forthrightly that California's four-percent plan will not contribute to "racial and ethnic diversity" for the most part. Rural diversity? Perhaps. But racial and ethnic, only in a very minimal sense.

In California, we do not have the problem of displacing students because of fewer spaces being available to accommodate the additional four percent. Our commitment to the Legislature and the Governor is to admit the top 12.5 percent of all graduating seniors. Until now, we have been admitting 11.1 percent, so we have room for growth. And we're building a 10th campus. If our growth is such that we cannot accommodate all of those who are eligible, then the top four percent will be no different from those who are admitted by the other two paths, because they're all part of the same pool.

Ward Connerly:
I want to thank The Chronicle for exposing this issue to the national university family. I've enjoyed the forum and I would urge those institutions who are looking at this concept to do so with great caution. We should not be seeking surrogates for race, as many of these plans are designed to do. Instead, we need to make a MAJOR commitment to educational reform, so that our colleges and universities do not inherit the problems that give rise to the need for preferences.

Jeff Selingo (Moderator):
That's all we have time for today. I want to thank eveyone who sent in questions. Sorry we didn't have time to get to all of them. And thanks to Ward Connerly for joining us.

A transcript of the live discussion will be available on The Chronicle's web site in a few minutes.