FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                                             

September 10, 2013  

Contact:  Civil Rights Project 310-267-5562, crp@ucla.edu
                                                                                            

Experts Hold Research Roundtable on College Admission Policies 

and Role of Race-Neutral Methods for Producing Campus Diversity

Los Angeles–The Educational Testing Service (ETS) and the Civil Rights Project at UCLA, gathered higher education officials, admissions officers, educators and legal experts yesterday for a roundtable discussion on new research that shed light on permissible diversity policies as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin.

The recent Fisher decision recognized that universities have a compelling interest in promoting racial diversity in higher education, but required them to consider race-neutral options before employing race-based policies. The roundtable allowed leading scholars to explore some of those race-neutral alternatives, such as income, socioeconomic status, percent plans, outreach and support programs.

“This research is the first of its kind since the Supreme Court’s ruling and is important to institutions that are developing, implementing and defending diversity plans,” says Michael Nettles, ETS Senior Vice President. “The finalized research papers discussed during today’s roundtable will be published in the near future to provide guidance to universities and colleges seeking to adhere to best practices for assuring diverse student populations on their campuses.”

“The Supreme Court’s decision in the Fisher case reaffirmed the educational value of diverse campuses but left the judgment about the necessity of race-conscious policies to achieve diversity with the federal courts if a campus is challenged.  I am convinced that colleges can successfully defend their plans if they are aware of research on the limited value of alternatives and can document why they would not work locally. This research is a step in that process.” says Gary Orfield, Distinguished Professor and Co-Director, the Civil Rights Project at UCLA.

Scholars who presented new research at the roundtable included:

• Professor Sean Reardon, of Stanford University, reviewed research on the effects of using poverty or socio-economic status in place of race in diversity policies.
• Professor Catherine Horn, of the University of Houston, and Professor Stella Flores, of Vanderbilt University, who have conducted extensive research in the past on diversity, provided a new synthesis of research on percent plans, the issue that was considered in the Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin case.
• William Kidder, Assistant Executive Vice Chancellor, University of California, Riverside and Patricia Gándara, Research Professor and co-Director, the Civil Rights Project at UCLA, assessed the ability of the UC outreach and support programs initiated in the aftermath of the 1996 affirmative action ban to address the issue.
• Professor Mark Long, of the University of Washington, examined a variety of data that universities could collect from students and explored the degree to which the data could be used to foster diversity, as well as the relative practicality of such methods compared to affirmative action.

Both opponents and proponents of affirmative action claimed victory following the Supreme Court’s 7-1 ruling that Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin be sent back to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for reconsideration. Defenders of the practice claimed that since the Supreme Court did not reverse current policies, any future court ruling will be in their favor. Abigail Fisher, the 23-year-old woman at the heart of the lawsuit, and her lawyer also viewed the ruling as a positive outcome because it sets the stage for the lower court to reject its original ruling. Fisher originally filed a complaint against the University of Texas at Austin in 2008 claiming that she was denied admission to the university because she was White.

“Regardless of how the lower court rules, colleges and universities may still end up in court defending their admissions practices,” adds Nettles. “Hopefully, the research discussed today will offer alternatives allowing admissions officers to say, `Yes, race is a part of the process, but here are other factors we consider as well.’”

####