what Discourse on the Texas Top Ten Percent Plan Says about Accountability for Diversity
At the heart of the longstanding debate of addressing racial inequities in higher educa-tion is an argument about whether race should be a factor in admissions decisions. One argument is that institutions should be held accountable for diversity through external policies like affirmative action. Alternatively, there is the position that institutions will act in good faith to implement diversity goals. Through a critical discourse analysis of policy discourse from the Texas legislature regarding 2009 changes to the Texas Top Ten Percent Plan, findings suggest that there may be less emphasis on accountability for in-stitutional diversification through external policy like affirmative action. Instead, policy focuses on individual institutional diversity efforts. Using Critical Race Theory (CRT) as a theoretical framework, our findings maintain that as interest convergence changes (as the power elite no longer see current admissions policy benefiting them), there may be stronger arguments for internal accountability for diversity, leaving diversity efforts up to the people within individual institutions. Implications for institutional accountability are further discussed.
structural diversity in higher education is not by happenstance. institu-tions must be intentional in their efforts to create an environment that
Dina C. Maramba, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Student Affairs Administration at the State University of New York at Binghamton; [email protected]. V. Thandi Sulè, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of Organizational Leadership at Oakland University; [email protected]. Rachelle Winkle-Wagner, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Educa-tional Leadership and Policy Analysis at the University of Wisconsin-Madison; [email protected].
Dina C. MarambaV. Thandi Sulèrachelle Winkle-Wagner
is inclusive of all populations or historical disparities between race and gender groups will continue (Brown, 2004; chang, 2007; dowd, 2003; garces & jayakumar, 2014). At the heart of the longstanding debate is an argument about whether race should be a factor in admissions de-cisions. one argument is that institutions should be held accountable for diversity efforts through external policies like affirmative action. Alternatively, there is a position that institutions will act in good faith to implement diversity goals. where might policies that were fashioned to be “race-neutral” such at the texas top ten percent plan (ttp, the Plan) fit into this debate? We used public discourse from the debate about changes to the plan in order to shed light on the issue of how in-stitutions should be held accountable for diversity efforts amidst race-neutral admissions policies. texas provides an important case to un-derstand tensions between affirmative action and race-neutral college admissions policies. in what has now been increasingly characterized as “a post-affirmative action era,” some scholars argue that there must be an even more deliberate focus placed on ways to hold postsecondary institutions accountable for continuing diversity efforts (chang, 2007; dowd, 2003). our article responds to this charge, asking: what hap-pens to accountability for diversity within discourse about a race-neu-tral college admissions policy?
the impetus for these issues began nearly twenty years ago. in 1996, with the Hopwood v. Texas Fifth circuit U.s. court of Appeals deci-sion, the consideration of race in admissions for University of texas Law Schools was deemed unconstitutional and subsequently, affirma-tive action was diminished in texas college admissions (Forbath & torres, 1998). with diversity concerns still lingering for higher educa-tion constituents, the texas legislature passed the texas top ten per-cent plan (house Bill 588, 1998) guaranteeing admission into any pub-lic university in texas for students who graduated in the top 10% of their high school class, rewarding only high school rank and not exam scores (Forbath & torres, 1998; tienda & sullivan, 2010).1 the aim was to increase the numerical diversity of high schools in texas that sent their graduates to the University of texas (montejano, 2001). the assumption was students from each high school would be representa-tive of the state’s population (because high schools are racially segre-gated) (montejano, 2001; olivas, 2004; tienda & niu, 2006a, 2006b). About a decade after implementing The Plan, those within the flagship institution (UT–Austin) were advocating for more institutional flexibil-ity with the plan.
to help address this inquiry, we focused on the policy decision-mak-ing process of the 2009 revisions to the texas top ten percent plan; the
Texas Top Ten Percent Plan and Accountability for Diversity 753
initial purpose of which was to serve as an alternative to affirmative ac-tion (winkle-wagner, sulé, & maramba, 2012). it is important to note that we were not attempting to conduct a legal analysis of the plan where we would explore legal aspects of the policy, how it came into being, and what political ramifications of the policy have been. Rather, we examined discourse among policy stakeholders (legislators, college administrators, students, and community members), to understand how discourses about diversity revealed trends about what happens to ac-countability for diversity as policies shift away from external policies like affirmative action. Through our analysis of public legislative tes-timony in texas, we found that the argument for internal, institution-ally regulated accountability to institutional diversity efforts is gaining ground; diversity efforts are increasingly framed as the responsibility of individual institutions. we argue that the discourse presented here demonstrates a shift in interest convergence: as those who have his-torically been in positions of power (white, male, high socioeconomic status) no longer see policies as meeting their constituents’ needs, they may change their position. in this case, a few Ut–Austin stakeholders may represent this shift in interest convergence as they argued for in-stitutional control over diversity amidst the cautions raised by African American and latino state legislators that diversity may be lost without external policy oversight.
The Policy Landscape for Race-Based College Admissions
there are a few important court cases that remain relevant to our analysis of the plan because they epitomize tensions about whether race should be used on college admissions decisions. in Grutter v. Bol-linger (2003), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of affirmative ac-tion policy for the University of michigan law school maintaining that increasing diversity was a compelling state interest.2 to further com-plicate the matter of race as a factor in college admissions decisions, in Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), the U.s. supreme court ruled that the University of michigan undergraduate admissions’ practice of allocat-ing race-based points was unconstitutional. in june 2013, the supreme court ruled on the Fisher v. University of Texas, no. 11–345 case, where a white woman, Abigail Fisher, claimed she was denied admis-sion to the University of texas because of her race. the supreme court ordered an appeals court to reconsider the case claiming that courts must take a skeptical look at affirmative action programs that consider race in college admission decisions. the ruling means colleges and uni-versities must first demonstrate that race neutral alternatives were not
754 The Journal of Higher Education
effective at increasing diversity (liptak, 2013). one could argue that the pressure on institutions to craft ideas to combat threats to affirmative action and diversity efforts is even more relevant after the Fisher ruling. together these supreme court decisions pose a dilemma for state and local policymakers, creating a confusing environment relative to racial diversity in higher education (Brown, 2004; hurtado, milem, & clay-ton-pedersen, 1999; liptak, 2013).
despite these supreme court cases, several scholarly studies assert that a diverse population of students is beneficial for all students (e.g. hurtado, 1999; hurtado et al., 1999; smith & schonfeld, 2000). the charge of how higher education institutions ensure efforts to diversify continues to be met with challenges by individuals and organizations, many of whom believe affirmative action unfairly penalizes Whites and Asians (Bensimon, 2004; dowd, 2003; taylor, 2000). yet the task to diversify campuses must be a deliberate, continual effort given a history of racial inclusion (Brown, 2004). Although the supreme court recog-nized institutional diversification as a valid institutional objective (e.g. Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003), the means to ensure that this process takes place effectively remains a conundrum.
one form of institutional accountability is accountability for diver-sity within the student body (Bensimon, 2004). the question as to how institutions should be held accountable for diversity is left unanswered. while much research has concentrated on the explanation of the ben-efits of increasing the diversity of students in universities (hurtado, et al, 1999; smith & schonfeld, 2000) very little has focused on the discursive policy development process such as an examination of how stakeholders (students, administrators, policymakers, etc.) discuss ways to ensure that higher education institutions effectively continue diver-sification efforts (Harris & Bensimon, 2007). Policy alternatives to af-firmative action offer a way to understand these complexities.
The Texas Top Ten Percent Plan
the texas top ten percent plan (house Bill 588, 1998) which guar-anteed admission into any public university in texas for students who graduated in the top 10% of their high school class (Forbath & torres, 1998),3 aimed at increasing the number of texas high schools that sent their graduates to the University of texas (montejano, 2001). As an af-firmative action alternative, the implicit goal of The Plan was to con-tinue diversity efforts; assuming students from each high school would be representative of the state’s population (montejano, 2001; olivas, 2004; tienda & niu, 2006a, 2006b). however, as a result of the 2003 Grutter decision, the University of texas adopted a resolution to con-
Texas Top Ten Percent Plan and Accountability for Diversity 755
sider race and ethnicity in addition to the plan to facilitate campus di-versity (the University of texas at Austin, 2004).
in 2009, the texas 81st legislature began to debate the logistics of the plan. the texas senate passed changes in senate Bill 175 (sB 175), on march 25, 2009, limiting admissions of texas high school students who graduated in the top 10% of their classes to no more than 75% of an incoming college class. the house of representatives companion bill (house Bill 52, hB 52) passed on may 26, 2009 (texas A & m Univer-sity system, 2011). changes to the plan were primarily linked to an ar-gument that Ut–Austin had reached enrollment capacity with top 10% students (Falick, 2009). with the changes, 75% of the entering freshman class would gain admission through class rank and the remaining 25% could now be divided between out-of-state applicants (10%) and 15% would be for applicants admitted based on sAt/Act scores, extracur-ricular and community activities and other criteria such as special tal-ents and abilities in the arts or athletics (Falick).
torres (2003) contends that the plan was a bold option intro-duced by Black and latino legislatures to mitigate the effects of the hopwood decision. research on outcomes of the plan indicates that while it was a stopgap toward institutional diversity, this policy has not offered a functional replacement for affirmative action in promot-ing diverse campuses (A. l. harris & tienda, 2010; long, 2007). the plan has also been condemned in other ways. due to its dependence on school segregation (e.g., tienda & niu, 2006a, 2006b), the plan may actually work to perpetuate primary/secondary educational inequalities (thompson & tobias, 2000).
this analysis of the discussion that led to changes to the plan re-veals a larger debate about race-based admissions. examining this dis-course could uncover broad social understandings of race and racial inequality (winkle-wagner et al., 2012). while existing studies exam-ine whether the plan has affected the enrollment of students of color in texas postsecondary institutions (e.g., long & tienda, 2008), the question remains: who should hold these institutions accountable for their diversity efforts, and what mechanisms should be in place for that accountability?
Theoretical Framework
in their review of critical discourse analysis, rogers et al. (2005) called for educational researchers to consider blending critical discourse analysis (cdA) and critical race theory (crt) as a way to illuminate power, domination, and marginalization in educational contexts. meet-ing this call, we combined some of the practice oriented crt tenets,
which we used as a conceptual framework, and theoretical foundations of cdA.
crt was originally established in legal studies and was later applied to education and other fields (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Solorz-ano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000). CRT is composed of five tenets: (1) racism is real and part of everyday experiences for people of color; (2) rac-ism converges with material interests of the white working class and elites (e.g., interest convergence); therefore, there is little interest in eradicating it; (3) race and racism are social constructs designed to de-termine access to wealth and power; (4) identities intersect such that individuals have several identities that influence alliances and access to power; (5) the everyday or experiential knowledge of racialized groups is an invaluable resource to naming and challenging social inequities (delgado & stefanic, 2001; solorzano, et al. 2000). the interest con-vergence tenet most decisively explains why systemic discrimination persists. interest convergence holds that social policy changes that ben-efit marginalized racial groups occur only when there is a perceived alignment with the interests of white people (Bell, 2004; delgado & stefanic, 2001). crt guided us to consider how aspects of the plan may appear to be race neutral but may have unintended outcomes rela-tive to institutional diversification efforts. It also allowed consideration of how The Plan might benefit powerful constituencies associated with Ut–Austin.
Alongside crt, we used cdA as both a social theory and analytic technique or method (see also marshall, 1999; ortloff, 2006; reisigl & wodak, 2001). cdA explains relationships between social inequalities and “discourse” (Fairclough, 2010/1995), which provided a way to dis-cover connections between policy discourse and larger social inequali-ties such as racial inequality.
Methodology
we analyzed legislative testimony of the texas senate committee on higher education that occurred on march 4, 2009 and legislative testi-mony of the texas house of representatives committee on higher edu-cation on march 11, 2009. consistent with discourse analysis (see also marshall, 1999; ortloff, 2006; reisigl & wodak, 2001; winkle-wagner et al., 2012), we focused deeply on the texas house of representatives and the texas senate, exploring smaller pieces of texts, rather than ana-lyzing texts broadly. these policy debates led to the passing of senate Bill (sB 175) in the texas senate and house Bill (hB 53) limiting ad-missions of texas high school students who graduate in the top 10% of
Texas Top Ten Percent Plan and Accountability for Diversity 757
their classes to no more than 75% of an incoming college class. policy changes were effective for the fall 2009 class.
we used a thematic application of critical discourse analysis (cdA) because we aimed to explore how people make meaning of everyday phenomena (Fairclough, 2010/1995, patton, 2001; rogers et al., 2005). we acquired legislative testimony from the texas committee on higher education at the texas house of representatives and the texas senate websites; we transcribed the entire testimony.
critical discourse analysis (cdA) has been applied in multiple ways in educational research (rogers et al., 2005). commonly, cdA requires sociolinguistic analysis of the words and phrases within a document (rogers et al., 2005). however, numerous educational researchers have adapted cdA in thematic ways (e.g., Bergvall & remlinger, 1996; nichols, 2002; winkle-wagner et al., 2012). many of these scholars used qualitative coding techniques to create a thematic analysis of dis-course (e.g., nichols, 2002; winkle-wagner et al., 2012). we followed the tradition of connecting a thematic cdA analysis to larger social the-ories and social issues (Billig, 1999; collins, 2001).
we used cdA as both theory and method for a few reasons. First, many theories of language are rooted in european languages and may be less applicable to historically marginalized groups, many of which may have developed alternate ways of developing language (rogers et al., 2005). consistent with crt, which is critical of whiteness and domination, we part ways with eurocentric approaches that hold up par-ticular discourses as the norm or standard. A thematic approach to cdA allowed us a broader idea of how discourse fits within the larger college admissions policy of the plan.
relating to the social theory of cdA, we linked larger social trends within phrases, paragraphs, and larger units of text. this thematic ap-proach is consistent with the habermasian critical theoretical tradi-tion of cdA; a concern with the entire speech act; how one’s speech relates to power and larger social contexts. (Fairclough, 2010/1995, 2003/1992; habermas, 1984). Using cdA in this way allowed us to examine discourse for deeper meanings related to power, domination, and larger implications for considering race in college admissions decisions.
cdA (Fairclough, 2010/1995; see also winkle-wagner et al., 2012): (1) analyzes relationships between discourse and other elements of the social process; (2) includes systematic analysis of texts/policy debate; and (3) is descriptive and normative (i.e., addressing social wrongs). we analyzed the transcript in three ways, connecting this analysis to Fair-clough’s characterization of cdA:
1. we coded statements with a low-level code (2–3 word phrase), often in the stakeholder’s own words (carspecken, 1996; patton, 2001), a form of systematic analysis.
2. We identified an analytic question which emerged from our initial anal-ysis of low-level codes (neumann, 2009), another systematic way to code: how does this policy stakeholder discuss ways institutions should be held accountable for diversity? we combined low-level codes and codes related to our analytic question to create high-level codes that were very high inference or implicit within a stakeholder’s statement (carspecken, 1996). high-level coding offered a way for us to connect the discourse to larger social processes.
3. we transferred all codes from our three levels of analysis into Atlas ti, a qualitative software program, and clustered our codes to formulate themes or categories (patton, 2001).
4. we examined data using tenets of crt. we asked the following ques-tions of the data: how is racism playing out in this particular narrative? how is historical or lack of historical context being considered here? how does interest convergence play out in this narrative?
we employed validation techniques to ensure trustworthiness of our interpretations. First, to aid in the peer reviewing (carspecken, 1996) we each analyzed the data separately and then compared our analysis until we reached consensus. We continually examined our findings to ensure they were representative of larger statements/findings from the transcripts (patton, 2001). we triangulated the analysis through multiple forms of data analysis and multiple researchers analyzing the data (pat-ton, 2001). Finally, we searched for data that opposed emergent findings and reanalyzed this data (patton, 2001).
Findings
debate about revisions to the plan focused on the idea of institu-tional accountability for the legacy of race discrimination. Accountabil-ity emerged as either external pressure or internal pressure. Accordingly, external pressure pertains to discourse that supports the plan because it mandates practices that promote racial inclusion and this argument was primarily advocated by legislators, most of whom are people of color. Alternatively, some stakeholders support the revision of the plan to give the University of texas more latitude to recruit non-top ten per-cent students. consequently, internal pressure, our second theme, pri-marily supported by white university administrators, suggested univer-sity leaders should have autonomy in holding the campus accountable for diversity. Accountability was framed as accountability-for-diversity,
Texas Top Ten Percent Plan and Accountability for Diversity 759
the question of legal and ethical authority over the implementation of racial diversity at the University of texas (table 1). while sources of accountability are dichotomized, we recognize the boundaries are pen-etrable and interdependent. Furthermore, elements (e.g. accreditation bodies and community advocacy groups) within each form of pressure are assigned based on context and interpretation.
External Pressure
An exchange between senator Florence shapiro, a white female re-publican and the primary author of sB 175 and senator royce west, an African American male democrat who opposed changes to the plan, exemplified fundamental assumptions of external pressure:
tABle 1concepts on Accountability for diversity and critical race theory tenets
rationale Assumptions
external Accountability for diversity
laws hold institutions accountable for diversity (interest convergence)
diversity is the responsibility of the larger society to repair past wrong and disparities (interest convergence)
inequitable practices resume without external pressure (permanence of racism)
Accountability for diversity should be mandated by social policy (permanence of racism)
institutions will not encourage diversity on their own (race and racism determine access to wealth and power)
only social pressure and social mandates foster policy changes that benefit, even minimally, socially marginalized groups (permanence of racism)
Amending the plan would result in a rollback in diversity efforts (permanence of racism)
internal Accountability for diversity
diversity is best achieved when universities have autonomy to construct their incoming class (interest convergence)
there are many kinds of diversity, not just racial diversity (intersecting identities)
Accountability for diversity should be left up to the institutions (interest convergence)
institutional leadership, including well-intentioned white people, are vital to diversity efforts (interest convergence)
Institutions should decide on the definition and need for diversity locally (interest convergence)
internal monitoring boards will hold institutions accountable for diversity (interest convergence)
institutions will conduct outreach relative to diversity (interest convergence)
760 The Journal of Higher Education
senator west: if we turn around and change this law—and obviously it’s the legislature’s prerogative to do so—what ends up happening if for some reason these numbers start to decline again? then the reality is that we have to come back to the legislative process and try to strengthen the law again.
senator shapiro: that is correct.
senator west: well, let me ask you this. why not keep pressure on the sys-tem, and make sure that it continues to perform? we need to hold them ac-countable. the reality is that we have historical evidence over the past few decades in terms of efforts to increase diversity. And what we have now, and i hope that you would agree with this, based on the numbers, is Ut is the most diverse that it has ever been in the history of that university.
By referencing the historical precedent of discrimination, senator west explained the importance of exercising caution in amending the plan. he implied that without external pressure, through policy, there is a strong possibility the legislature will have to revisit the issue of racial inclusion at Ut–Austin. west maintained that Ut was very diverse after the implementation of the plan.4 he used the word “accountable” and connected it to diversity, suggesting accountability in this case is about holding institutions accountable for diversity through the state government.
similar to west, representative helen giddings, an African American female democrat, in opposition to changes in the plan, voiced her con-cern about Ut Austin’s poor history of inclusion:
we’re just not talking about ethnic diversity here. we’re talking about geo-graphic diversity. where a few years ago, you had half of Ut’s entering class coming from about 64 schools, mostly upper class, mostly suburban . . . But since ’93, i’ve had the opportunity to work with a number of presi-dents from Ut . . . And before representative irma rangel and i passed this legislation a few years back, it was wide open. they could have gone out and recruited . . . i think the best indication for me of how someone is going to do is how well they have already done. so i guess i’m a little bit concerned because there is no demonstrated history of achievement there in terms of diversity. had that been the case, there would have been no need for this particular piece of legislation.
giddings argued that Ut–Austin does not have a tradition of imple-menting racial diversity without being held accountable through exter-nal pressure mechanisms like the plan. due to the historical lack of
Texas Top Ten Percent Plan and Accountability for Diversity 761
“achievement” on diversification she asserted external pressure, through legislation, must be maintained. Both west and giddings’ comments re-flect a sociohistorical understanding of how race and racism operate in the United states. their statements infer that race matters; as crt sug-gests, racism is not a deviation from normative practice because norma-tive practice is inherently racist (ladson-Billings & tate, 1995).
correspondingly, representative harold dutton, an African Ameri-can male democrat, is uncomfortable with amending the plan because it deflects attention from institutional practices. He reminded Texas house of representatives that the plan is not a law requiring change among students but designed to alter how universities operate, saying, “if we change the top 10% rule, what then are we left with to cause the university to be far more sensitive than it was?” dutton referenced a need for external pressure through policy, to hold institutions account-able to diversity efforts. he also inferred if the university does not view diversity as an important interest, then diversification efforts will sub-side. this is an implicit reference to interest convergence where social policies are only upheld when they benefit historically powerful groups (e.g. white, male, upper class) (delgado & stefanic, 2001).
in response to arguments that external pressure was not needed be-cause Grutter v. Bollinger allowed for consideration of race in admis-sions decisions, proponents of external pressure asserted that revising the plan could diminish accountability for diversity because consider-ation of race is not a legal requirement. representative garnet coleman, an African American male democrat, contended:
you know when texas A & m said that they were going to get rid of any type of affirmative action . . . would there be any type of affirmative action program that looks at the needs of students if it were eliminated? this is the reason why some of us are reluctant because we know the slippery slope. you know there are 54 different or however how many campuses . . . and if you can take away the one standard that is equal for every school in our state, then we’ll go to no standard.
coleman’s testimony indicated he is concerned that a lack of formal policy on race-based admissions may encourage no external way of mandating college diversity efforts. it also reinforces other points made by west and giddings that without interest convergence (lawrence, 2001), it is likely institutions will go back to admitting mostly white, upper-income students.
representative harold dutton, focused on the role of the admissions committee in terms of internal accountability for diversity efforts:
why is it when i look at the number of students who are not admitted on the top 10%, that same admissions committee didn’t do anything to improve that lot? if 85% of the students are admitted on the basis of the top 10%, the admissions committee could have taken a look at that and said, we still think we are lacking in the number of African American male students at this campus, and so we’re going to go out and, as a result of the michigan deci-sion, we’re going to go out and do something that helps to improve the entry into this university. But nothing happened. But that’s the same admissions committee now you say if you take the top 10% away, they’re somehow or another going to have . . . an epiphany that says, okay, now you can do it, because we don’t have the top 10% rule.
dutton voiced his skepticism that university leadership is enough to foster accountability-for-diversity. he based his skepticism on decision-making processes that did not change in his view after race was legal to use as one factor in admissions processes (after Grutter vs. Bollinger case). dutton drove home the point about interest convergence (delgado & stefanic, 2001) here: even when the policy landscape changed and af-firmative action was legal, the institution did not admit more students of color because it was not in the best interest of the historically dominant (i.e., white, upper class) group.
he continued, raising concern about how welcoming the campuses are to diversity:
i guess if the problem is students then we ought to change the top 10% rule . . . i don’t think students changed, i think we still have the same students we . . . 25, 30 years ago. what we didn’t have though are universities sen-sitive enough, at least some universities, to attract those kinds of students or welcome those kinds of students. i can tell you my son is at the U of oklahoma. quite frankly he said he didn’t feel welcome at the University of texas . . . if we change the top 10% rule, what then are we left with to cause the university to be far more sensitive than it was, which is why we had the Top 10% rule in the first place?
dutton voiced concern that changing the plan would further alienate students of color. he used the example of his son who attended another institution because he did not “feel welcome” as an African American student at the University of texas. he also made the argument that stu-dents have not changed and so universities need to adapt. essentially, dutton argued that institutions would not hold themselves account-able for diversity and so external policy was a necessary accountability mechanism.
luis Figueroa, a mexican American male from the mexican Ameri-can Legal Defense and Educational Fund, testified in the Senate Hear-
Texas Top Ten Percent Plan and Accountability for Diversity 763
ing stating that even when race is considered, it comprises a very small component of admissions factors. therefore, amending the plan and relying on affirmative action, “would result in a rollback of where we were after the hopwood decision.” Figueroa maintained that after race was banned from admissions decisions, institutional diversity suffered and postsecondary institutional accountability for diversity efforts di-minished. he further asserted that the university cannot be trusted to employ self-monitoring practices because their diversity record when left to their own devices is questionable:
when Ut exercises discretion in admitting non-top 10 percenters, it opens the door to white students at far greater rates than any other race or eth-nicity. 33% of all white students admitted are admitted outside of the top 10% plan, compared to 24% of Asian Americans, 20% of African Ameri-cans, and 15% of hispanics.
According to Figueroa, allowing Ut institutions to admit up to 25% of the entering freshman class based on any criteria would reduce the rep-resentation of students of color. this implies a “wholesale retreat” of the ideas that guide the plan. thus, he stated, any plans to alter the plan must be “mitigated with clear protection to ensure geographic and eth-nic diversity are not sacrificed for artificial promises.” In other words, there should be clear provisions for higher education diversity. Figueroa explained what the legislators implied: without a formal policy in place, institutions would primarily admit white students.
the ideas represented in the external pressure argument are reminis-cent of political liberalism in that the belief is government interven-tion via social policy can rectify social marginalization. external pres-sure is premised upon historical evidence and forecasting that texas’ flagship university, a nongovernment entity, implements practices that create and sustain equitable access resulting from its lackluster record of racial diversity among students. From an interest convergence per-spective (lawrence, 2001), advocates of external pressure may under-stand that any substantial access to social resources like college access among racially marginalized groups was the result of formal social mandates rather than the goodwill of a few individuals and institutions.
Internal Pressure
internal pressure entails expectations and monitoring activi-ties from within the higher education community, primarily fo-cused on higher education institutions, alumni, and accrediting bod-ies that put pressure on the institutions. the notion of internal ac-countability for diversity efforts primarily focused on the diversity
commitments of then Ut–Austin president, Bill powers, a white male in favor of proposed changes to the plan. in response to con-cerns about Ut–Austin’s history of racial exclusion, powers em-phasized his commitment to racial diversity, “we are absolutely committed to diversity on our campus . . . it is very important that we train a diverse group of leaders in the state.” powers focused pri-marily on the institution’s role guided by his leadership in particu-lar, in instituting diversity efforts. when encouraged by representa-tive patrick rose, a white male, democrat, to discuss his diversity track record based on his tenure as dean of the law school at Ut– Austin, powers elaborated on his diversity accomplishments:
in the 5 years that i was dean, and i came in after hopwood, so it was an era of challenge for us, and we did not have a top 10% rule, we quadrupled the number of African Americans in the entering class and doubled the number of hispanics in the entering class. we did it through recruiting and going out and finding good students without a formula but had indicators for success and we were successful in diversifying the law school.
powers reinforced his track record on recruiting students of color to Ut–Austin without the oversight of a formal policy. he conveyed he was prepared to formalize a student recruitment program committed to diversity because he understands that in the past “there’s talk and there is no structure.” this seemed to be an admission of the history of racial exclusion at Ut–Austin and other institutions where diversity rhetoric is not supported by institutional practices.
powers’ declared the history of racism in college admissions has been addressed through university-based outreach:
well there’s no doubt that the university discriminated by law back in the 50s. But in the last, certainly 20 years, there has been a commitment on the campus and in the administration to be aggressive to make sure that we’re educating a diverse student body. we have room to go on that. in terms of the history of having a race-neutral system. that’s what our longhorn op-portunity scholarship program was designed to do. that’s what the top ten percent was designed to do in an era when the courts would not permit any direct reference to ethnicity. that condition is gone with the Grutter case. now it does permit us to take ethnicity into account. we do take it into ac-count. our regents have adopted resolutions.
entwined within the reference to outreach is the Grutter v. Bollinger decision making legal the use of race as one of many factors in col-
Texas Top Ten Percent Plan and Accountability for Diversity 765
lege admissions processes. Because implementation of Grutter re-lies on discretion of college leadership, powers contended that Grut-ter is supported by Ut–Austin’s Board of regents5 implying univer-sity leadership is accountable to the regents, an internal governing board. citing the track record of diversity efforts that occurred at Ut–Austin under his leadership, powers suggested Ut–Austin admis-sions processes did use race as one of many factors but it was con-tingent upon internal institutional pressure to make this happen. re-lating this to the notion of interest convergence, powers appeared to be making a claim that he should be trusted, even though there was a history of abandoning diversity policies and practices without ex-ternal oversight. his own track record suggested he should be trusted to continue diversity efforts. interest convergence scholars (ladson- Billings & tate, 1995; rousseau & dixon, 2006) would likely claim that without external policies in place, even well-intentioned white people like powers will eventually fall back on prior practices of exclusion.
Senator Judith Zaffirini, a Latina woman and Chair of the hearing, regarding changes to the plan asked president powers, “if there were no top ten percent rule, how much pressure would you be under or a future administrator be under . . . from academia in general nationally to ensure diversity in the student body?” Aligned with the notion of in-terest convergence where practices often revert back to what is advanta-geous to those who were historically in power (ladson-Billings & tate, 1995), Zaffirini appeared to be struggling to fully trust that Powers and his successors would really continue diversity efforts without formal policies in place.
powers responded to the challenge, “tremendous pressure. i wouldn’t say pressure. it’s internal pressure. to succeed as a national and inter-nationally renowned public academic university, and not have a diverse class, we simply could not do it.” noting internally located pressure, powers inferred that to maintain respect within the international aca-demic community, student body diversity is expected.
Accordingly, powers professed to be under internal pressure from their accreditation body, the southern Association of colleges and schools:
when sAcs comes to accredit us, if we were not admitting, and matriculat-ing, and having succeeded, a highly diverse class, that would be a serious problem in our accreditation. so there are tremendous forces that work in favor of diversity just on the campus, in the academic community around the country.
766 The Journal of Higher Education
An external accreditation agency facilitates the internal pressure for di-versity within the institution. while accreditation agencies are physi-cally external to the institution, these agencies are comprised of peer leaders, reflecting a form of peer-oversight. Powers seemed to be claim-ing that he and others in power at his institution could be trusted to con-tinue diversity efforts.
Alumni are another element of internal pressure. mark walker, an Af-rican American man, president of the houston chapter of texas exes, and member of the Black Alumni network of the University of texas alumni association, responded to the concern about accountability and Ut–Austin’s fallible record on racial inclusion by naming his organiza-tion as a source of pressure:
i do believe that i will be able to provide some of that internal pressure to the university and to president powers and to the Alumni Association to make sure that we have the University of Texas reflect the state of Texas population and that everybody gets a fair shake.
walker maintained that capping the plan would allow texas exes and the university to better engineer a diverse class, particularly because they would have more room for students who are not in the top 10% of their classes. he appeared to take personal responsibility for providing a source of pressure to the institution.
Another witness in the texas house of representative hearing, judge harriett murphy, an African American woman, emphasized outreach ef-forts for African American students:
i am here in support of hB 52 and representing myself. i am a Ut law school graduate and was the only African American in my graduating class and it was that way until another student and i went out and recruited mi-nority students. in 1968 we were able to bring in 12–13 African American students to Ut law school. so it has been my mission to increase black students at Ut. the reason blacks are not coming to Ut is because they are going to hBcUs. the high achievers coming out of our high schools are going to spelman college, morehouse, hampton, tuskegee, and howard. these students are being recruited by ivy league schools and here in the state by Baylor and by the school in houston . . . A niece of mine said to me that she wanted to go to medical school. i told her that her father went to Ut medical and she responded saying she wanted to go to a Black medical school so she is on the waiting list at morehouse. this is what is happening with them not coming to Ut. there is an image issue here, there is a great need to improve that image. we go back to Sweatt v. Painter6 where they
Texas Top Ten Percent Plan and Accountability for Diversity 767
had to go to court to be admitted and their parents and grandparents have not forgotten it, so we have to show that we have a new environment.
murphy shared dutton’s concern that Ut was perceived as unwelcom-ing to students of color. she maintained that many high-achieving Afri-can American students are attending historically Black colleges instead of Ut institutions, suggesting there is a need for institutions to inter-nally focus on ways to “improve that image.” judge murphy continued, focusing on the leadership at Ut–Austin:
i think president powers is doing a great job of reaching out to the hispanic community and the African American community. the university has to be committed and i think that this is what powers wants to do. we have Black alumni associations that are also encouraging Black students to the Univer-sity of texas.
referencing the Black Alumni network, murphy praised powers for his leadership on fostering internal diversification efforts. Another Alum, john Atkins, provided testimony similar to murphy and powers:
i’m in favor of senate Bill 175. i served as the national president of texas exes in 2005 and 2006. i began volunteering for the Ut Alumni in 1977 when i traveled the state to recruit minority students with. . . . a Ut admin-istrator . . . i’ve been involved ever since and i think it’s important to note that Ut Alumni can really be involved in this process of diversifying our student body and bringing the best and brightest students from all across the world by giving them money for scholarships which we do and by recruiting those kids, especially minority kids . . . i continue my involvement in Ut through serving on an advisory council of the Ut division of diversity and community engagement.
Atkins underscored the potential for the alumni organization to play an advisory role in helping to continue internally driven diversity efforts at Ut–Austin.
Accountability through internal pressure is predicated upon the belief that institutions have the capacity to put interests of the racially mar-ginalized at the forefront of their inclusion agenda. much of the hope in this discourse is put on the leadership of the Ut–Austin president, Bill Powers. It is more difficult to ascertain what might happen to diversity efforts when powers leaves his position effective june 2015. Addition-ally, internal accountability assumes that when an institution has more freedom to recruit, diversification may be more successful. From an
768 The Journal of Higher Education
interest convergence perspective, it would be difficult to know whether the individual institution or leaders within that institution could be trusted not to fall back on the historical status quo of excluding (or not actively including) students of color. internal accountability arguments depend on trusting those in power to act differently than what may have been done in the past.
A CRT Analysis of Discourse on Changes to the Plan
the external accountability argument (table 1), that diversity is the responsibility of the larger society to repair, requiring policies for di-versity efforts, is rooted in the idea of shared interests between those in power and those who have been marginalized (interest convergence). due to the permanence of racism and ways race/racism determines ac-cess to wealth and power, changes to the plan would likely betray prior diversity efforts because institutions would not likely continue these efforts.
the internal accountability argument (table 1) maintains that because of shared interests (interest convergence), higher education institutions should be allowed to pursue diversity efforts autonomously. For the in-ternal accountability argument to be compelling, one must assume inter-est convergence, that those within institutions have a shared interest in diversity with those outside of institutions.
Both internal and external forms of pressure reflected varying de-grees of interest convergence where converged interest is in diversify-ing institutions of higher education. But approaches differ on how this converged interest should be enacted. those advocating for external ac-countability, primarily African American and latino legislators, repre-sented the argument for keeping the plan the same, which would put external policy pressure on institutions. those arguing for internal ac-countability, who were primarily white Ut–Austin administrators, may exhibit a shift in their interests. they might push away from having ex-ternal policy shape admissions because it was no longer advantageous to Ut–Austin as an institution.
Both forms of pressure relate to a race-based power hierarchy; al-though some members of historically excluded underrepresented groups may receive some benefits from The Plan, collectively they re-main structurally disadvantaged. Policies that benefit racially marginal-ized people will be rescinded if they threaten white privileges (Bell, 2004). one could speculate several reasons why the power-elite, which we define here as legislators, university administrators at UT–Austin, and the dominant group interests they represent, have debated about changes to the plan. those arguing for keeping the plan the same (ex-
Texas Top Ten Percent Plan and Accountability for Diversity 769
ternal accountability, African American and latino legislators) likely believe it is a way to increase diversity in Ut institutions by drawing applicants from all texas high schools. those advancing the argument to change the plan (internal accountability, primarily white adminis-trators at Ut–Austin) likely notice the changes will grant more access for traditional constituents at Texas’ flagship institution: White, wealthy students from select texas schools. But having some aspect of the plan in place still allows a few deserving others to partake of an elite edu-cation (top 10% graduates of high schools in texas), demonstrating a shared interest in diversification. Second, the ability to demonstrate in-stitutional diversity can be a valuable resource for universities needing to meet accreditation standards and promote an image of racial inclu-sion. Another possibility could be that dominant group members may view representational diversity as a necessary ingredient for developing intercultural competencies needed for the job market.
Moreover, a possible basis of convergence is that The Plan deflects attention from race-based neighborhood disparities that make such a policy necessary in the first place. Similar propositions can be made for reasons behind altering the plan to provide more institutional control. meanwhile, like internal and external pressure, we suggest race-power implications of the debate are fluid, meaning they can shift as demo-graphics and those who are making particular arguments shift. with a crt framework in mind, social policies inevitably support the social status of the dominant groups.
Discussion
race, gender, and class inclusion have been heralded within and out-side of academe as a necessary feature of a thriving institution (chang, 2007; hurtado, 1999). in our analysis, two arguments emerged which we identified as either internal or external accountability for diversity. we argue the discourse offers evidence of the primary crt tenets: per-manence of racism; interest convergence; race and racism upholding wealth and power; intersectional identities; and the importance of ev-eryday knowledge of racialized groups (delgado & stefanic, 2001; sol-orzano, et al. 2000).
our analysis suggests those arguing for internal accountability-for-diversity are gaining recognition (e.g., Bensimon, 2004; F. harris & Bensimon, 2007) as evidenced in the way the plan changed to give more admissions autonomy to Ut–Austin. the implication of this shift toward institutional autonomy is that diversity may eventually be left up to postsecondary leaders. we contend the debate is fundamentally about
race and power. the push for internal accountability maps onto interest convergence ideas: in the absence of a continued shared interest, those who have historically been in power (white, male, upper-class) will often go back to the status quo leading to racial exclusion.
it is important to highlight that those making the external account-ability argument were not only more numerous, but, they were primarily Black and latino people. Furthermore, the impetus to revise the plan unveils a contingent of stakeholders who maintained that institutional accountability for diversity rests with internal actors like university ad-ministrators, admissions committees, and alumni associations. those in favor of internal accountability-for-diversity were primarily white or in a leadership role (e.g. chancellor, president, leaders of the alumni orga-nization) at Ut–Austin.
From a CRT perspective, policies benefitting racially marginalized people will be rescinded if they threaten white privileges (Bell, 2004). there are several reasons why Ut–Austin university administrators might have advocated for the 2009 changes to the plan, which gives UT–Austin more flexibility in admissions processes. The internal pres-sure argument, that Ut–Austin should be allowed more discretion to internally monitor diversity efforts, was likely successful because it benefits those that represent the power elites and the deep-seated racial order; white administrators primarily asserted this argument. if one were to apply the idea of the permanence of racism (marable, 2003), the internal accountability argument that Ut–Austin should have more authority in making itself accountable for diversity, could work to per-petuate privilege toward white students as up to 25% of the admitted first-year class is left up to the discretion of institutions. While this may initially appear a way to offer more autonomy to the Texas flagship uni-versity, it also could be a way to “. . . preserve white privilege and power” (marable, 2003, p. 29). the argument for internal accountabil-ity was completely dependent on particular leaders (e.g., Bill powers) being at the helm. if that changed at some point, there is no guarantee that racial diversity would be considered at Ut–Austin. the discussion about changes to the plan is in itself an example of a shift in interest convergence: it was no longer beneficial to UT–Austin to use The Plan.
to buttress their argument for increased administrative decision-making powers, advocates of the internal accountability reminded their peers that the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger case allowed for the consid-eration of race in college admissions. this would allow Ut–Austin to institute in-house diversity practices that use race as one of many fac-tors in admissions decisions. while they recognize the history of exclu-sion, their position, unlike the external pressure argument, emphasized
Texas Top Ten Percent Plan and Accountability for Diversity 771
present-day institutional practices that demonstrate a commitment to a diverse student body and to institutional autonomy. the argument that affirmative action can still be used might be less relevant after the Fisher supreme court decision because institutions now must demon-strate that race-based admissions were only used after race neutral mea-sures were tried. Again, these findings connect with the notion of inter-est convergence in crt, or the idea that social policies are successful only when there is a perceived benefit to the majority or historically dominant group, the white elite in the case of the United states (del-gado & stefanic, 2001; lawrence, 2001).
however, does the status-quo function of internal pressure mean that external pressure discourse serves a race-equity agenda? the external pressure argument serves two functions both mirroring and opposing the latent meanings within internal pressure discourse. First, it is driven by cultural remembrances of institutional misdeeds against racially margin-alized groups. thus, it implies that those within institutions will operate in their own self-interest; in the absence of a deep commitment toward diversity, the state (or external agencies) must step in on behalf of soci-ety to hold institutions accountable.
The external accountability argument reflected a commitment to repa-rations for historical misdeeds through equitable distribution of social resources, reminiscent of the stance taken by critical race theorists on the issue of Black American civil rights and school integration policies (Bell, 2004; lawrence, 2001; taylor, 2000). those arguing for external accountability were mostly democrats and people of color. this also connects with an interest convergence interpretation, that those advo-cating for a policy that works toward parity for people of color might not be people from majority groups. consequently, when social pressure is removed (or the interests of the dominant group are perceived to be unmet per the notion of interest convergence), U.s. institutions often resume practices that disadvantage historically marginalized groups (ladson-Billings & tate, 1995; rousseau & dixon, 2006). particularly since the white administrators’ argument “won” in the sense that the plan was changed, this is important to consider. From an interest con-vergence perspective (lawrence, 2001), this could be a sign that the white administrators no longer saw the plan as advantageous to their powerful constituents (white, upper-class students and their families). this could also be a sign of the permanence of racism or that race and racism are constructed to determine access to wealth and power (del-gado & stefanic, 2001; solorzano et al., 2000).
the plan was primarily designed to remedy a faulty educational structure and racially aligned class structure in which most of the privi-
leged kids are white. For example, the plan was initially predicated on segregated neighborhoods and schools (tienda & niu, 2006a) rather than pointing to these inequities as problematic. thus, while the exter-nal accountability advocates are attempting to call out the history of ex-clusion within Ut–Austin and other institutions, they are still not really grappling with the forces that maintain these inequities (e.g., segrega-tion, inequitable resources for college preparation in k–12).
An important effort toward accountability for diversity is to put pres-sure on institutions to commit to being responsible for addressing ineq-uity (Bensimon, 2004; dowd & tong, 2007). the equity scorecard is one example of an intervention that involves engaging practitioners in a collaborative effort to address racial disparities with regard to student outcomes on their campus (F. harris & Bensimon, 2007). this process emphasizes internal accountability of the institution (e.g., practitioners, faculty, counselors, presidents, deans, etc.) by developing “evidence-based awareness of race-based inequities” on their campus (F. harris & Bensimon, p. 79).
Conclusion
Regardless of what happens with affirmative action policy, it is clear that higher education must consider the inclusiveness of college cam-puses. with changes to the plan in texas, the long-term diversity out-comes remains to be seen, particularly since the Fisher case may make it more difficult for institutions to find ways to implement diversity pro-grams and policies. this examination of the discourse that led to these policy changes reveals the power of interest convergence, which influ-ences and unveils persistent racial tensions.
Changes to The Plan most reflect desires of internal accountability advocates. Our findings suggest that we need to be more cognizant of whose interests are ultimately being addressed (interest convergence) and whether these interests serve all stakeholders equitably. this analy-sis maintains that without a formally mandated admissions policy, there will be no enforceable system of accountability for diversification ef-forts, leaving diversity up to institutional leaders who may or may not share an interest with those historically marginalized and excluded from our higher education institutions.
Afterword
since the initial writing of this manuscript, the president of Ut– Austin, Bill powers, was asked to resign. he submitted his resignation
Texas Top Ten Percent Plan and Accountability for Diversity 773
effective june 2015 (koppel, 2014). this news demonstrates the precar-iousness of the internal accountability argument. it is no longer viable to claim that those in leadership will necessarily strive toward diversifying the campus. meanwhile, in july 2014, the Federal court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit with Texas jurisdiction upheld the use of affirmative action in University of texas institutions (jaschik, 2014). the quest for accountability for institutional diversity in higher education continues.
Notes
special thanks: dr. nate daun-Barnett, dr. debora hinderliter ortloff and the anony-mous reviewers for their valuable feedback on initial drafts of this manuscript.
1 california’s proposition 209 (1996) was similar: top 4% of high school graduating seniors admission into a University of california system institution (http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=12857).
2 march 2013, U.s. supreme court agreed to review michigan’s current ban on af-firmative action that became effective after Michigan voters approved Proposal 2 or the michigan civil rights initiative in 2006.
3 california’s proposition 209 (1996) was similar: the top 4% of high school gradu-ating seniors admission into a University of california system institution (http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=12857).
4 west’s argument does not correspond to empirical literature on outcomes of the Plan that indicates it supplanted affirmative action.
5 The Texas Board of Regents is appointed by the governor and confirmed by the texas senate.
6 sweatt V. painter, 339 U.s. 629 (1950) U.s. supreme court case ruled that the Uni-versity of texas law school was required to admit Black students. Until then, there ex-isted a separate Black law school in texas that did not have equitable resources. http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/brown-v-board/timeline.html
References
Bell, d. (2004). Silent covenants. new york: oxford University press.Bensimon, e. m. (2004). the diversity scorecard. Change, 26(1), 44–52.Bergvall, V., & remlinger, k. (1996). reproduction, resistance, and gender in educational
discourse: the role of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 7(4), 453–479.Billig, m. (1999). conversation analysis and the claims of naivety. Discourse & Society,
10(4), 572–576.Brown, l. i. (2004). diversity: the challenge for higher education. Race Ethnicity and
Education, 7(1), 21–34.carspecken, p. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research; A theoretical and
practical guide. new york and london: routledge.Chang, M. (2007). Beyond artificial integration: Reimagining cross-racial interactions
among undergraduates. New Directions for Student Services, 120, 25–37.collins, j. (2001). selling the market: educational standards, discourse and social inequal-
ity. Critique of Anthropology, 21(2), 143–163.
774 The Journal of Higher Education
delgado, r., & stefanic, j. (2001). Critical race theory. new york: new york University press.
dowd, A. c. (2003). From access to outcome equity: revitalizing the democratic mission of the community college. Annals of the American Academy, 585, 1–28.
dowd, A. c., & tong, V. p. (2007). Accountability, assessment, and the scholarship of “best practice.” in j. c. smart (ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and re-search, vol. xxii (pp. 57–119). norwell, mA: springer publishing.
Fairclough, n. (2003/1992). Discourse and social change. malden, mA: Blackwell pub-lishing.
Fairclough, n. (2010/1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. london: longman.
Falick, m. (2009, may 25). senate bill 175 gets watered down in the house: minimal re-form yields top 10% light [web log message]. retrieved from http://mikefalick.blogs.com/my_blog/2009/05/senate-bill-175-gets-watered-down-in-the-house-minimal- reform-yields-top-10-light.html
Fisher v. University of texas at Austin (2013), U.s. supreme court, case number 570 U.s. (2013).
Forbath, w. e., & torres, g. (1998). merit and diversity after hopwood. Stanford Law and Policy Review, 10, 185.
garces, l. m., & jayakumar, U. m. (2014). dynamic diversity: toward a contextual un-derstanding of critical mass. Educational Researcher 43(3), 115−124.
gratz v. Bollinger (2003), U.s. supreme court, case number 539 U.s. 244, (2003).
habermas, j. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1. Reason and the rational-ization of society (t. mccarthy, trans.). Boston: Beacon.
harris, A. l., & tienda, m. (2010). minority higher education pipeline: consequences of changes in college admissions policy in texas. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 627, 60–81.
harris, F., & Bensimon, e. m. (2007). the equity scorecard: A collaborative approach to assess and respond to racial/ethnic disparities in student outcomes. New Directions for Student Services, 120, 77–84. doi: 10.1002/ss
hurtado, s. (1999). How diversity affects teaching and learning: Climate of inclusion has a positive effect on learning outcomes. retrieved from www.diversityweb.org/ leadersguide/drei/shurtado.html
hurtado, s., milem, j. F., & clayton-pedersen, A. (1999). Enacting diverse learning envi-ronments: improving the climate for racial/ethnic diversity in higher education, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports, 26(8), 1–116.
Jaschik, S. (2014, July 15). Win for affirmative action. Inside Higher Ed. retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/07/15/appeals-court-upholds-u-texas- affirmative-action-policy#sthash.07bPSTIH.dpbs
koppel, n. (2014). University of texas at Austin president Bill powers resigns: move fol-lows long-running dispute with school’s board. Wall Street Journal. retrieved july 16, 2014 from http://online.wsj.com/articles/university-of-texas-at-austin-president-bill-powers-resigns-1404938444
Texas Top Ten Percent Plan and Accountability for Diversity 775
ladson-Billings, g., & tate, w. F. (1995). toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97(1), 47–68.
Lawrence, C. R. (2001). Two views of the river: A critique of the liberal defense of affir-mative action. Columbia Law Review, 101(4), 928–976.
liptak, A. (2013, june 24). justices step up scrutiny of race in college entry. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/us/affirmative-action-decision.html?hp&_r=1&
Long, M. C. (2007). Affirmative action and its alternatives in public universities: What do we know? Public Administration Review, 67(2), 315–330.
long, m. c., & tienda, m. (2008). winners and losers: changes in texas University ad-missions post-hopwood. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 255–280.
marable, m. (2003). The great wells of democracy: The meaning of race in American life. new york: Basic civitas Books.
marshall, c. (1999). researching the margins: Feminist critical policy analysis. Educa-tional Policy, 13(1), 59–76.
montejano, d. (2001). Access to the University of Texas at Austin and the Ten Percent Plan: A three-year assessment. Austin, tx: University of texas.
neumann, A. (2009). Professing to learn: Creating tenured lives and careers in the Ameri-can research university. Baltimore: johns hopkins University press.
nichols, s. (2002). parents’ construction of their children as gendered, literature subjects: A critical discourse analysis. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 2(2), 123–144.
olivas, m. A. (2004). Brown and the desegregative ideal: location, race, and college at-tendance policies. Cornell L. Rev., 90, 391.
ortloff, d. h. (2006). Becoming european: A framing analysis of three countries’ civics education curricula. European Education, 37(4), 35–49.
patton, m. q. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. thousand oaks, cA: sage.
reisigl, m., & wodak, r. (2001). Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and anti-Semitism. new york: routledge.
rogers, r., malancharuvil-Berkes, e., mosley, m., hui, d., & joseph, g. o. g. (2005). critical discourse analysis in education: A review of the literature. Review of Educa-tional Research, 75(3), 365–416.
Rousseau, C., & Dixon, A. (2006). The first day of school: A CRT Story. In A. Dixson & c. rousseau (eds.), Critical race theory in education (pp. 57–66). new york: rout-ledge.
Smith, D. G., & Schonfeld, N. B. (November/December 2000). The benefits of diversity: what the research tells us. About Campus, 5(5), 16–23.
solorzano, d., ceja, m., & yosso, t. (2000). critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and campus racial climate: the experiences of African American college students. Jour-nal of Negro Education, 60–73.
taylor, e. (2000). critical race theory and interest convergence in the backlash against af-firmative action: Washington State and initiative 200. Teachers College Record, 102(3), 539–560.
776 The Journal of Higher Education
texas A&m University system (2011). Overview of the 81st Regular Session. retrieved from http://www.tamus.edu/offices/relations/staterelations/81st/
thompson, j. p., & tobias, s. (2000). the texas ten percent plan. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(7), 1121–1138.
tienda, m., & niu, s. (2006a). capitalizing on segregation, pretending neutrality: col-lege admissions and the texas top 10% law. American Law and Economics Review, 8, 312–346.
tienda, m., & niu, s. x. (2006b). Flagships, feeders, and the texas top 10% law: A test of the” brain drain” hypothesis. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(4), 712–739.
tienda, m., & sullivan, t. A. (2010). the promise and peril of the texas uniform admis-sion law. in d. l. Featherman, m. hall, and m. krislov (eds.), The next twenty-five years: Affirmative action and higher education in the United States and South Africa (pp. 155–174). Ann Arbor: University of michigan press.
torres, g. (2003). grutter v. Bollinger/gratz v. Bollinger: A view from a limestone ledge. Columbia Law Review, 103(6), 1596–1609.
the University of texas at Austin. (2004). Proposal to Consider Race and Ethnicity in Ad-missions. retrieved from http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/about/notices.html
winkle-wagner, r., sulé, V. t., & maramba, d. c. (2012). when race disappears: merit in the college admissions policy decision-making process in the state of texas. Educa-tional Policy, 1–30. doi: 10.1177/0895904812465114
