While we were out
Thurssday, June 4, 2009
By Andrew Martinez
Ask and you shall receive. The Texas House of Representatives has approved legislation limiting the state’s “top 10 percent” public university admission policy, and Gov. Perry is expected to sign it. According to Senate Bill 175, only 75 percent of each incoming freshman class at the University of Texas at Austin will be composed of students admitted solely based on their class rank. Last fall, 81 percent of the freshman class was admitted under the rule.
While the push to amend the top 10 percent rule started out as a statewide crusade led by President William Powers, the current legislation will only apply to UT-Austin.
Since the University is the only institution in the state that is greatly effected by the rule, it makes sense that this legislation pertains specifically to the University.
The original rule — implemented 12 years ago in an effort to increase “diversity” (read: minority enrollment) — has crippled the University’s ability to admit students that do not qualify under the rule but still possess talents and attributes not accurately represented by their GPAs. The rule also hurts the University’s ability to admit and award scholarships to some student athletes, since not all prospects qualify under the rule.
But legislators who just want to see increased minority enrollment are skeptical. In fact, the change will only last until 2015, when the old top 10 percent rule will again take affect. If the University wants to keep its new admittance privilege, it needs to find a way to appease both legislators and the countless students hoping to attend UT based on a merit other than their competitive ranking.
Broadening the top tier
Apparently, both money and prestige grow on trees. The Texas Legislature passed House Bill 51, granting tier-one status to seven public state universities, including Texas Tech University, four schools in the University of Texas System, UNT and the University of Houston. Gov. Perry is expected to sign the bill, which would take effect September 1. But a shiny new title is not enough to make a university suddenly more desirable. According to the House Research Organization bill analysis, there is no specific definition for “tier-one” status (also known as a flagship or research institution), but some defining qualities include recieving over $100 million in federal research grants annually, quality faculty and a high number of doctorates awarded.
Proponents of the bill argue that it is necessary in order to stay ahead in the higher education competition; California has nine public tier-one universities, while Texas currently has only two. Opponents argue that, while the effort to better higher education in the state is commendable, it is not feasible to instantly grant every “emerging research” institution the money it needs to jump to tier-one status. The bill will cost nearly $500 million in 2010-11, and nearly $250 million every year thereafter.
With state funding of UT-Austin already insufficient, don’t expect increased funding for the school any time soon. While the legislature acknowledges that a significant portion of funding for the new flagships must come from the surrounding communities, the bill will likely allocate more state money away from UT-Austin. Rather than creating new tier-one universities, the Legislature’s actions are more likely to eliminate the ones it has. Expect seven more underfunded research institutions in the near future.
A voice but not a vote
Last week Governor Rick Perry appointed Karim Meijer to serve as the student regent this year. Meijer is a fourth-year medical student at The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas and an alumnus of the McCombs School of Business.
It would be hard to find a more qualified student for the position. Meijer has been a student in the UT system for eight years — five as an undergraduate and three in medical school. In his time as an undergraduate at UT-Austin, Meijer majored in the Business Honors Program, finance and pre-med, and completed a Spanish minor, in addition to playing varsity football.
We applaud Perry on his selection. Unfortunately, Meijer’s experience and education will make little difference as he serves on the Board of Regents. Two bills that would have made the student regent a voting member of the board died in the legislature last week, as did every one of more than a dozen bills that would have stripped the power to set tuition from the Board of Regents. By leaving the regents free to set our tuition high enough to cover the bill for whatever they deem necessary, the Legislature proved itself incapable of halting the exponential increases in tuition that have occurred since they handed the reins to the board in 2003.
Once again, there will be no check on the board’s power, either through a student’s vote or legislative regulation. Do your best, Karim. Your only power is access to an elusive and unapproachable board, but we expect you to take advantage of it. Do not let them forget the 200,000 students that you alone represent.
McLeroy’s education
Texas public education received nationwide attention earlier this year when the State Board of Education narrowly voted to overturn a long-standing requirement forcing Texas public school teachers to teach the “strengths and weaknesses” of the theory of evolution, replacing it with the requirement that students evaluate “all sides of scientific evidence.”
Board Chairman Don McLeroy, a Republican from Bryan who voted to sustain the strengths-and-weaknesses provision, was at the center of the debate. In a rare move, Senate Democrats in May voted to block McLeroy’s re-nomination as chairman. He will, however, remain a member on the board.
Some of McLeroy’s Democratic critics were careful not to make his ousting seem like retribution for his political or religious beliefs. Instead, most Senate Democrats cited McLeroy’s inability to bridge divides between social conservatives and more moderate members of the board on a number of issues, including sex education and his rejection of education experts’ professional advice.
Republican senators unanimously came to McLeroy’s support during the hourlong debate, alleging that Democratic objections were masking a modern-day “inquisition” of religious conservatives.
It is difficult to believe McLeroy’s religious fundamentalism did not influence his decision-making as the board’s leader. On a board that creates policy for 4.7 million Texas schoolchildren, ideological battles are sure to flare up from time to time.
During these times, it is important for those with open minds and clear judgment to make decisions about the future of Texas public education. As the evolution debate continues in public school boards across the nation, we are confident that Texas schools, teachers and students will benefit from new leadership on the board.
Perry must now nominate a new chairman for the Senate’s consideration. Keeping in mind that there is enough Democratic support to reject a McLeroy clone, we eagerly await his decision.
A sobering landmark
Texas has long been the nation’s punch line when it comes to the death penalty. The state has had the highest number of executions in the country for decades, but there is no humor in what took place this week.
On Tuesday, Gov. Perry oversaw the 200th execution of his more-than-eight-year tenure, sparking protests around the world.
This sobering reality highlights the amount of work that must be done to correct the state’s criminal justice system – an issue that should take center stage in the 2010 gubernatorial race.
We must find a system that champions truth and the rule of law – not rushed convictions that have often resulted in many last-minute commutations and about 35 DNA exonerations under Perry.
Harris County, which includes Houston, has long been considered the death penalty capital of the world and remains a glaring example of the changes needed.
In 2004, 280 boxes full of unprocessed evidence from approximately 8,000 county cases, most of them for murder, surfaced in the Houston Crime Lab. Despite the discovery, executions did not stop to allow the materials to be identified.
Similar incidents of shoddy handling of evidence and processing have undoubtedly had a large impact on Texas reaching 200 executions under Perry. Only time will tell how many citizens will be proven innocent after their executions.
Many who support capital punishment see the 200 mark as an illustration of the state’s commitment to lawful order, but they confuse lawful order with justice. Our society must be committed to balancing order and justice to sustain a healthy criminal justice system.
This debate is not about the legality of capital punishment but whether Texans want a system of justice that rewards rash convictions – often based on tainted, mismanaged evidence – to stand as their state’s legacy.