Diversity, Equity and the Courts: Measuring Success

with Moving Metrics

Marta Tienda May 2012

Outline ! Policy Context—Affirmative Action

Under Fire

! Demographic Context: Moving Metrics & College Squeeze

! Claims and Evidence—

– Broadened Access –  Increased Diversity – Performance

! Lessons & Conclusions

From “Desired” Ends to Acceptable Means

! Necessity of Integration-- – 1954: Brown vs. Board of Education

! Acceptable Methods for Integration— – 1978: Bakke v. Regents of the U of California – 1996: Proposition 209 (California) – 1996: Hopwood v. U of Texas Law School – 1997: Texas Top 10% Law – 1998: Initiative 200 (Washington State)

! Diversity Rationale -- – 2003: Gratz/Grutter v. Bollinger (U of Michigan)

2012 Lawsuit ! Project on Fair Representation filed suit on

behalf of Abigail Fisher – Top 12% of class at Stephen Austin H.S. – 3.59 GPA and SAT of 1180 (out of 1600) – Denied admission in violation of equal

protection ! Rationale: Race preferences

unnecessary because have “successful” race neutral alternative—Top 10% admission guarantee

Rationale for H.B.588

“…to build a student body that [is] more truly diverse—not just more racially and ethnically representative, but also more geographically and socioeconomically representative of the state.”

Evaluating “Success” of the “Race Neutral” Alternative

! Demand for College: Pool of high school graduates

! Supply of College Opportunities: Expansion of post-secondary system

! Outcomes: Three Regimes – Affirmative Action (pre 1996) – No preferences (1997) – Top 10% Admission guarantee (1998-2004)

Top 10% + Affirmative Action, 2004 - Fisher

Demography of Texas Higher Education

Moving Metrics & The College Squeeze

Texas College Pipeline: High School Graduates

1994 2004 % Δ

Hispanic 29 35 78

White 56 48 29

African-American 12 13 65

Asian and Other 3 4 81

Total Graduates (‘000)

163 244 50%

Source: Texas Education Agency, Texas Public School Statistics, Pocket Edition, 1994-1995 & 2004-2005

Texas Higher Education Enrollment Trends and Projections

Private Colleges & Universities

Public Community & Technical Colleges

Public Universities

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2015

Tho

usan

ds o

f St

uden

ts

Source: Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board

13,663 13,694 15,809 15,531

19,562 20,025 22,747

9,319 9,472 10,079 10,777 11,413 11,024

9,967

5,157 5,547 5,529 6,000 6,664 6,340

5,686

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2001 2003

Applicant, Admission, & Fall Enrollment Undergraduate Trends: UT Austin, 1992-2003

Source: The University of Texas at Austin, Office of Institutional Studies

Applied

Admitted

Enrolled

14,899

13,258

14,453 16,776 16,685 17,284

17,250

11,023 11,559 11,467 10,748 11,098

11,531 11,777

11,639

6,387 6,233 7,354

6,695 6,685 6,760 6,949 6,726

0

3,000

6,000

9,000

12,000

15,000

18,000

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Applicant, Admission, & Fall Enrollment Undergraduate Trends: Texas A&M, 1996-2003

Source: Texas A&M University, Office of Institutional Studies & Planning

Applied

Admitted

Enrolled

Claims and Evidence: Old Questions, New Myths

Proponents of 10% Plan ! Diversified flagship campuses ! Broadened access to poor students Detractors of 10% Plan ! Gives preference to weak students

who underperform academically

Did the top 10% Law Restore Race/Ethnic Diversity at the

Public Flagships?

First Principles ! Policy “success”: who enrolled ! College Student Body: 3 Contingent

Decisions – Application decision individual – Admission decision à Institutional – Enrollment decision individual

! Composition vs. Rates: – Population “at risk” for each decision important

under conditions of rapid growth

Hispanic and Black Shares of Total Enrollment across Policy Regimes

4 2.8 3.6 4.1 2.8 2.7

15

12.7 14.4 12.5

9.8 9.4

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

AA No Prefs

Top 10%

Affirm Action

No Prefs

Top 10%

Hispanics Blacks

UT TAMU TAMU UT

Enrollment Composition of Public Flagships: AA & Top 10 Regimes (%)

Texas A & M UT-Austin AA Top 10% AA Top 10%

Black 4.1 2.8* 4.2 3.9

Hispanic 12.8 9.7* 15.6 15.2

Asian 3.5 3.6 15.1 18.8*

White 78.8 82.5* 64.5 61.1*

N (‘000) 25.8 30.4 26.1 31.9

Tienda, Alon & Niu, 2008, Table 2

Average Application Rates to UT &TAMU: Texas Public High School Students

Policy Regimes White Hispanic Black AA (‘93-’96) 7.19 3.61 2.72

No Policy (1997) 6.56 2.77 2.09

Top 10% (‘98-’03) 7.13 3.26 2.48

AA (‘93-’96) 9.48 3.23 2.95

No Policy (1997) 9.30 2.74 2.50

Top 10% (‘98-’03) 9.06 2.22 1.88

UT

TAMU

18

H.S.-Specific Black, Hispanic, & White Application Rates to UT-Austin by Policy

Regimes

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Affirm Act.

No Prefs.

Top 10% Rule

2.72 2.09 2.48

3.61

2.77 3.26

7.19 6.55

7.12

‘94- ‘96 1997 ‘98-’03

Harris & Tienda, 2010

H.S.–Specific Black, Hispanic, & White Application Rates to TAMU by Policy

Regime

2.95 2.5 1.88 3.23 2.74 2.22

9.48 9.3 9.06

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

AA '94-'96 No Pref. 1997

Top 10% Rule

'98-'02

Blacks Hisp. Whites

Harris & Tienda, 2010

Estimated Additional Black & Hispanic Applicants if Own Group

Rates Remained at AA Levels

Policy Regime UT TAMU Hispanics Blacks Hispanics Blacks

No Policy (1997) 380 117 221 85

Top 10% (‘98-’03) 243 64 691 303

Harris & Tienda, 2010

Estimated Additional Black and Hispanic Applicants Assuming White

Application Rates

Policy Regime

UT TAMU

Hispanic Black Hispanic Black AA (‘93-’96) 1525 768 2668 1121 No Policy (1997) 1702 841 2948 1281 Top 10% (’98-’03) 2604 1274 4683 2023

Did the Top 10% Regime Broaden Access by Economic

Status?

More on Application Behavior

TYPOLOGY of Texas High Schools ! Affluent –lowest quartile % poor

– Feeder: Subset of affluent schools with strong sending traditions to public flagships

! Average –middle quartiles

! Poor –highest quartile – Longhorn/Century: Subset of poor schools

targeted for recruitment with scholarship promises

Affluent HS

Average HS

Poor HS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

%

1994 1997 2000 2003

UT-AUSTIN

Affluent HS

Average HS

Poor HS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

%

1994 1997 2000 2003

Texas A&M

Top 10% Application Rates by High School Type

1-2%

3-5%6-10%

1-2%

3-5%

6-10%

1-2%

3-5%

6-10%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

94-96 00-02 94-96 00-02 94-96 00-02

Affluent Average Poor

%

UT-Austin

1-2%

6-10%1-2%3-5%6-10%

1-2%3-5%

6-10%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

94-96 00-02 94-96 00-02 94-96 00-02

Affluent Average Poor

%

Texas A&M

Application Rates By High School Type and Class Rank Percent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

%

Austin TAMU Rice SMU

Composition of Applicant Pool by High School TypeFour Institutions, 2002

Affluent HS Average HS Poor HS

Do Top 10% Admittees from Poor Schools Underperform?

Insights from of replacement and displaced groups

Class Rank Distribution of UT Enrollees, 1990-2003

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Top Decile 2nd Decile 3rd Decile or Below

Top Decile Hispanic vs. 3rd Decile or Below White Enrollees

Test Scores

800

850

900

950

1000

1050

1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Hispanic Top 10%

White 3rd or Below

Top Decile Hispanic vs. 3rd Decile or Below White Enrollees

Test Scores

800

850

900

950

1000

1050

1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Freshmen Year Cumulative GPA

2

2.5

3

3.5

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Hispanic top 10%

White 3rd decile or Below

Top Decile Hispanic vs. 3rd Decile or Below White Enrollees

Test Scores

800

850

900

950

1000

1050

1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

4th Year Cumulative GPA

2

2.5

3

3.5

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Hispanic top 10%

White 3rd & below

Top 10% Regime: Claims and Evidence

! Diversified flagship campuses? – Race/ethnic: false – Economic: false

! Broadens access: –  Economically: some (UT) – Geographically: little (UT)

! Top 10% students underperform academically: false

Lessons ! Application behavior missed opportunity

to diversify campuses – Target & recruit top-ranked students

! Class inequality remains a major barrier for college access in Texas (and US) – Guarantee financial aid to low-income, top

ranked students ! Class rank better predicts college success

than test scores – Greater weight on grades or discard SAT!

The Court ! Race neutral alternative?

– Not really, but % plan is not on trial ! Diversity rationale (Bakke & Grutter)

– Never had unanimous support; less likely under Roberts Court; unclear if compelling interest

! Remedy for past discrimination – Not compelling state interest; denied by Bakke – Proportionality ≠ social justice

! Equal protection – Probable basis for striking down

Thank You

http://theop.princeton.edu