Page 55 - Šolsko polje, XXVIII, 2017, no. 3-4: Education and the American Dream, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 55
c. ghosh ■ livin’ the meritocratic dream!
cisions. This prohibition was temporary, though, because, as indicated
above, the ruling was abrogated in the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in
Grutter v. Bollinger. During the years between Hopwood and Grutter, the
University of Texas adopted and implemented two plans. The first consti-
tuted a socioeconomic affirmative action plan that took “special circum-
stances” into account. The circumstances could range from single parent
home, to family responsibilities, to the average SAT or ACT score or so-
cioeconomic status of the school attended, and so on and so forth (Kahl-
enberg & Potter, 2010: p. 8). The second plan was a race-neutral Top Ten
Percent Plan developed by an unusual coalition of civil rights advocates
and rural white legislators in Texas. Under this program, students gradu-
ating in the top 10 percent in every high school class throughout the state
is granted automatic admission into the University of Texas. Given the
vast disparities in resources and the socioeconomic conditions of students
and high schools throughout the state of Texas, this neutral and egalitari-
an plan works both as a meritocratic strategy to recruit the most academ-
ically promising students (as opposed to academically prepared students)
and as a way of recruiting students from across the spectrum of socioec-
onomic statuses and racial/ethnic groups. As Kahlenberg of the Century
Foundation describes it:
The Top 10 Percent plan effectively enables students from disadvantaged
schools and lower test scores to be admitted who might otherwise not
be. These two programs resulted, in 2004, in a freshman class that was
4.5 percent African American and 16.9 percent Hispanic. In other words,
the combined black and Hispanic percentage actually rose from 18.6
percent under the old race-based plan [in 1996] to 21.4 percent under the
race-neutral programs. These rates of diversity were also comparable to
those found at the University of Michigan Law School [involved in the
Grutter decision], where underrepresented minorities constituted 14.5
percent of the class in 2000, which was deemed to have achieved a “criti-
cal mass” of such students. (Kahlenberg & Potter, 2010: p. 8)
In the years since Texas adopted their Percent Plan, California has
banned affirmative action through Proposition 209, and it has imple-
mented a Percent Plan of its own. As a result, there has actually been an in-
crease in the UC system, after an initial setback, in the rates of admission
for black and Latino students (except in the elite UC schools like Berkeley
and UCLA) (Kahlenberg & Potter, 2010: p. 13). Several other state schools
where Percent Plans have been adopted have seen similar trajectories of ra-
cial inclusion even though the policies adopted were themselves race-neu-
tral and no racial or ethnic group is given preferential treatment. These
53
cisions. This prohibition was temporary, though, because, as indicated
above, the ruling was abrogated in the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in
Grutter v. Bollinger. During the years between Hopwood and Grutter, the
University of Texas adopted and implemented two plans. The first consti-
tuted a socioeconomic affirmative action plan that took “special circum-
stances” into account. The circumstances could range from single parent
home, to family responsibilities, to the average SAT or ACT score or so-
cioeconomic status of the school attended, and so on and so forth (Kahl-
enberg & Potter, 2010: p. 8). The second plan was a race-neutral Top Ten
Percent Plan developed by an unusual coalition of civil rights advocates
and rural white legislators in Texas. Under this program, students gradu-
ating in the top 10 percent in every high school class throughout the state
is granted automatic admission into the University of Texas. Given the
vast disparities in resources and the socioeconomic conditions of students
and high schools throughout the state of Texas, this neutral and egalitari-
an plan works both as a meritocratic strategy to recruit the most academ-
ically promising students (as opposed to academically prepared students)
and as a way of recruiting students from across the spectrum of socioec-
onomic statuses and racial/ethnic groups. As Kahlenberg of the Century
Foundation describes it:
The Top 10 Percent plan effectively enables students from disadvantaged
schools and lower test scores to be admitted who might otherwise not
be. These two programs resulted, in 2004, in a freshman class that was
4.5 percent African American and 16.9 percent Hispanic. In other words,
the combined black and Hispanic percentage actually rose from 18.6
percent under the old race-based plan [in 1996] to 21.4 percent under the
race-neutral programs. These rates of diversity were also comparable to
those found at the University of Michigan Law School [involved in the
Grutter decision], where underrepresented minorities constituted 14.5
percent of the class in 2000, which was deemed to have achieved a “criti-
cal mass” of such students. (Kahlenberg & Potter, 2010: p. 8)
In the years since Texas adopted their Percent Plan, California has
banned affirmative action through Proposition 209, and it has imple-
mented a Percent Plan of its own. As a result, there has actually been an in-
crease in the UC system, after an initial setback, in the rates of admission
for black and Latino students (except in the elite UC schools like Berkeley
and UCLA) (Kahlenberg & Potter, 2010: p. 13). Several other state schools
where Percent Plans have been adopted have seen similar trajectories of ra-
cial inclusion even though the policies adopted were themselves race-neu-
tral and no racial or ethnic group is given preferential treatment. These
53
