Undergraduate Admissions & Affirmative Action Maintaining Excellence In A Changing Environment Fall Executive Board Meeting August 19, 2003.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Lessons from the University of Michigan Decisions: Diversity Counts and Context Matters Prepared for The College Boards Regional Seminars on Diversity.
Advertisements

What is Affirmative Action? 1961 – President Kennedy implements affirmative action executive orders directing federal agencies to pursue a policy of minority.
Civil Rights Define Explain how it relates to the Civil Rights Story in America Choose a picture that relates to the meaning.
Fair: marked by impartiality and honesty; free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism; conforming with the established rules; consonant with merit.
Jessie Hauser. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke “ This landmark Supreme Court case imposed limitations on affirmative action to ensure.
Civil Rights in the Courts
Fisher v. Texas and the Future of Affirmative Action john a. powell, Director, Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society October 18, 2012.
Court Cases Michelle Nguyen February 23, 2012 Period 4 AP Government.
Affirmative Action. DISCLAIMER This presentation does not imply any racial agenda or discrimination. The views that are going to be presented in this.
SUPERB-IT Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences College of Engineering University of California, Berkeley
Affirmative Action in Higher Education A Case Study of the Effects the Courts Have Had on the Admissions Processes of Higher Education Institutions.
Gratz v. Bollinger A Supreme Court Case © 2003 Constitutional Rights Foundation, Los Angeles, CA All rights reserved.
Bakke, Bollinger and Beyond: How to Withstand The Emerging Imperfect Storm College Board Forum San Diego, November 2006 Arthur L. Coleman Holland & Knight.
TTUS Board of Regents Strategic Planning Retreat Academic and Student Affairs Report September 27, 2007 Don Coers Provost.
Asian Americans and Affirmative Action. What is Affirmative Action? Institutional efforts to increase the number of underrepresented minorities in U.S.
The University of Michigan Cases: Unraveling the Confusion Maya R. Kobersy Assistant General Counsel The University of Michigan (March 24, 2006)
Affirmative Action. Under Federal Affirmative Action laws and regulations, public universities receiving federal funds must: o Maintain minority admissions.
Webinar for the International Association of Medical Science Educators Webinar for the International Association of Medical Science Educators September.
2013 U.S. Supreme Court Preview Sarah Edson, Esq. Mullen High School
Affirmative Action Chapter 6, Theme C. Affirmative Action Solution  Define it!  What are the two views of the practice?  Compensatory action (helping.
Alumni Association LEAD Scholars Leadership. Excellence. Achievement. Diversity.
TJPTSA DIVERSITY COMMITTEE MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2010.
Do Families Play an Important Role in Explaining Racial Inequality? Positive Effects of Families –Colin Powell –Oprah Winfrey –Shorris: role of families.
and its effect on “ white ” students in the college admissions process.
Equality of Results vs Equality of Opportunity Andrew Adair x Michael Dotson.
Affirmative Action “Positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in area of employment, education, and business from which.
Affirmative Action Debate 2009 Topic: A pro and a con position on the question of affirmative action as a tool for making college admission decisions will.
Athletic Admissions Presented by Jim Cotter, Denise Wood & Andrea Terry Office of Admissions & Scholarships 250 Hannah Administration Building East Lansing,
[June 23, 2003] By Wayland Goode.   Historic injustices on minority groups promoted this state program.  It applies not only to college applications,
What is Equal Protection? 1. Derived from Declaration of Independence “We hold these truths … all men are created equal” “We hold these truths … all men.
Affirmative Action Has there been a move away from Affirmative Action in Recent Years?
Equal Protection Jody Blanke Professor of Computer Information Systems and Law.
Brown V. Board of Education (1954)
Block 2 Carl Turner. Regents of California vs. Bakke Argued on Wednesday, October 12, 1977 Decided on Monday, June 26, 1978.
Beth Gottman Kelly Lynch Jill Malie
THE UNFAIR TREATMENT OF MEMBERS OF MAJORITY GROUPS(WHITES) CAUSED FROM PREFERENTIAL POLICIES, AS IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS OR EMPLOYMENT, PROPOSED TO HELP.
SUPREME COURT CASES AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. WHAT IS IT?? Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, gender,
Point systems – Affirmative action Thomas R. Stewart, Ph.D. Center for Policy Research Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany.
Constitutional Standards of Review under the Equal Protection Clause.
Goal 5.06A “The Civil Rights Struggle” I: Struggle for Rights A: Discrimination= unfair treatment based on prejudice against a certain group. B: Civil.
L EGAL I SSUES IN H IGHER E DUCATION : T HE S TUDENTS LS 517 Admissions & Diversity.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke 1978.
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin Lorraine Jones Yu Sun.
Objective: Students will identify how the US government has attempted to alleviate discrimination in order to evaluate if certain groups need more assistance.
Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) Supreme Court Case Project Created by: Christina Dork.
Section Outline 1 of 7 Our Enduring Constitution Section 2: A Flexible Framework I.The Role of the Supreme Court II.Equality and Segregation III.Equality.
Chapter 7 Section 2 A Flexible Framework. The Role of the Supreme Court Overturning a Decision – Court decisions set important precedents, but can be.
What are civil rights? Protect certain groups against discrimination
The Public View Of Affirmative Action
Social Studies: Class, Cultural Capital & Upward Mobility
Sexual Harrassment & Affirmative Action
Gratz v. Bollinger A Supreme Court Case
How Affirmative Action Varies Across Law Schools in the U.S.
Supreme Court Activity: You Decide
Sexual Harrassment & Affirmative Action
ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN 2020
Group Six Will Mason Tracy Epton Maile Kobayashi Susan Redick
Korematsu V. United States
Affirmative Action.
Lecture 42 Discrimination VI
Fisher v. Univ. of Texas (2013)
OUR LIVING CONSTITUTION
Gratz v. Bollinger A Supreme Court Case
Affirmative Action.
What are civil rights? Protect certain groups against discrimination
Civil Rights Chap 5, Day 3 Aim:.
Essential Question: How did the decisions of the Supreme Court impact civil liberties in the 1960s & 1970s?
Ap u.s. government & politics
Affirmative Action S.A.D.
Essential Question: How did the decisions of the Supreme Court impact civil liberties in the 1960s & 1970s?
Presentation transcript:

Undergraduate Admissions & Affirmative Action Maintaining Excellence In A Changing Environment Fall Executive Board Meeting August 19, 2003

Recent History California: Proposition 209 (1996) California: Proposition 209 (1996)  Abolished all public-sector programs in education (incl. admissions, recruiting and outreach) Texas: Hopwood Decision (1996) Texas: Hopwood Decision (1996)  5 th Circuit ruled against UT University of Georgia (2000) University of Georgia (2000)  Ruling declares consideration of race/gender violates equal protection; University suspends use in admissions University of Michigan (1997) University of Michigan (1997)  Undergraduate Admissions & Law School lawsuits regarding use of race/ethnicity in admission decisions

The Decisions Gratz v. Bollinger Gratz v. Bollinger  Undergrad admissions admits to assigning points in process for minority students  150 total points: 20 for race, athletes and socioeconomic status  Point system is declared unconstitutional

The Decisions Grutter v. Bollinger Grutter v. Bollinger  Law School asserts that its policy is necessary because of a compelling state interest in diversity  Critical Mass  Individual Review  Supreme Court supports school’s use of narrow tailoring

Michigan Response Pleased with the outcome Pleased with the outcome Modifying applications for more info Modifying applications for more info  Family educational background  Family financial background Expensive endeavor Expensive endeavor  Hire additional readers  Longer processing time

Georgia Tech Admissions 10 Years Ago 10 Years Ago Current Policy Current Policy  4 Components  Holistic Review Targeted Recruitment Targeted Recruitment

Freshman Admission Criteria High School Academic Information High School Academic Information Standardized Test Scores Standardized Test Scores Activities and Leadership Activities and Leadership Personal Statement Personal Statement

Freshman Class 2003 PROSPECTS 88,650 APPLICANTS 8,479 ACCEPTED 5,322 EXPECTED ENROLLMENT 2,200

As Strong As Ever Admitted Class Admitted Class  3.79 GPA  1337 SAT

Special Recruitment Efforts Programming Programming  MRT  FUTURES  Targeted Contacts Alliances Alliances  CEISMC  Women In Engineering

The Results Women Women  1507 Admitted  1344 SAT  3.84 GPA Blacks Blacks  334 Admitted  1286 SAT  3.70 GPA Hispanics  237 Admitted  1349 SAT  3.75 GPA Fall 2003 Freshman Pool

The Results Women Women  608 Deposited  1311 SAT  3.81 GPA Blacks Blacks  126 Deposited  1262 SAT**  3.70 GPA Hispanics  71 Deposited  1298 SAT  3.70 GPA Fall 2003 Freshman Profile

The Current Framework Consideration of diversity under Powell’s concurring opinion in Bakke permits the use of race or ethnic background as a “plus” Consideration of diversity under Powell’s concurring opinion in Bakke permits the use of race or ethnic background as a “plus” The factor of race cannot be decisive The factor of race cannot be decisive Each applicant must be considered as an individual Each applicant must be considered as an individual No single characteristic defines what contribution a person can make to diversity No single characteristic defines what contribution a person can make to diversity Source: Dennis Dunn, Deputy Attorney General

How Colleges are Responding Legal Counsel Review of Policies/Practices Legal Counsel Review of Policies/Practices Preparation for Next Wave of Challenges Preparation for Next Wave of Challenges Study of Dissenting Opinions in Michigan Case Study of Dissenting Opinions in Michigan Case Seeking Creative Ways to Continue Commitment to Diversity Seeking Creative Ways to Continue Commitment to Diversity

Next Steps for Tech Determine What (if any) Changes Are Made Determine What (if any) Changes Are Made Continue to Expand Qualified Pool Continue to Expand Qualified Pool Continue to Strengthen Existing Programs Continue to Strengthen Existing Programs Everyone Must Articulate GT’s Diversity Interests Everyone Must Articulate GT’s Diversity Interests Remain Committed to Our Diversity Goals Remain Committed to Our Diversity Goals

Discussion...