What is the dollar value of the resources devoted to promoting racial and ethnic diversity at UW-Madison?

Though campus administrators regularly extol the educational benefits of diversity, they say little about the costs of achieving those benefits.

How substantial are these costs? The quick answer is they are large and exceed the official published figures.

What little information has been released on these costs is quite incomplete. The annual UW System Minority and Disadvantaged Student Report admits it “reflects only a portion of the expenditures for programs and activities designed to support academic success for historically under-served students.”

The challenge here is to produce a full account of the resources costs devoted to Minority and Disadvantaged programs at UW-Madison. These 60 programs provide direct services and financial aid to help recruit, retain, and graduate targeted minority students. They do not include academic diversity programs such as the ethnic studies requirement, ethnic studies programs, or affirmative action in admissions and employment.

My analysis of the costs for resources of the UW-Madison Minority and Disadvantaged programs reveals how much they are underestimated. It is based on public documents as well as data obtained, often through open records requests, from UW-Madison and UW System.

The “officially reported” Minority and Disadvantaged expenditure in 2008-09 totaled $25 million. By contrast, my estimate of the resource costs of these programs is $40 million. One perspective on the $40 million figure comes from expressing it on a per-student basis.

If all 42,000 UW-Madison students are assumed to share equally in the benefits of these programs, the annual resource cost of producing these benefits is almost $1,000 per student.

If by contrast all benefits from these programs accrue to the 2,100 undergraduate targeted minority students (African-Americans, American Indians and Hispanics), the annual resource cost is roughly $20,000 per targeted minority student. Even if these benefits go to all 5,100 targeted minority students (including graduate and professional students) the resource cost approximates $8,000 per minority student.

Another perspective emerges when annual Minority and Disadvantaged resource costs are cumulated over the ten-year life of Plan 2008. The total resource cost of the Minority and Disadvantaged program component of Plan 2008, expressed in constant 2009 dollars, is estimated at $270 million, slightly more than a quarter billion dollars.

Adding the resource costs from 2008-09 and 2009-2010 would push this total to approximately $360 million, more than a third of a billion dollars.

These two perspectives raise questions about the benefits of UW-Madison’s Minority and disadvantaged programs. First, what benefits did these programs produce and how were these benefits distributed among targeted minority students and the rest of the student body?

Second, how do the benefits from these programs contrast with the resource costs devoted to them? Are the benefits sufficiently large to warrant the current allocation of resources to these programs?

The larger question is this. Why are campus officials, faculty, students and the general public in such a poor position to decide whether to devote more or fewer resources to Minority and Disadvantaged programs? The answer is simple. Little or nothing is known about the effectiveness of these programs because few if any of them have been rigorously evaluated.

Such information, if available, could be of great value to UW-Madison officials in the coming months. That is when they must decide how to absorb the substantial budget cuts imposed for the 2011-2013 biennium. Without this information, they will have to rely on “seat of the pants” judgments about the effectiveness of continued spending on Minority and Disadvantaged programs.

My guess is that their commitment to “diversity” is so strong these programs will escape the budget ax. Any reduction would trigger much feared charges of “racism.”

In September, the Center for Equal Opportunity’s reports documenting “severe discrimination” favoring blacks and Hispanics in UW-Madison undergraduate and law school admissions came as no surprise. This discrimination has been well known to a few of us and long suspected by many students and the general public.

How did the UW-Madison react to the CEO reports? Rather than ignoring them, two senior campus officials portrayed these reports as threats to diversity. They apparently encouraged a group of students to protest at the Sept. 13 press conference scheduled to announce the results of these reports. There the protesters occupied the Doubletree Hotel’s lobby, disrupted its business, and ultimately closed down the press conference.

More recently, the legislature’s College and Universities Committee held a hearing that featured testimony from the Center for Equal Opportunity. It also gave Provost Paul DeLuca and Admissions Director Adele Brumfield an opportunity to explain how the admissions process works. There they defended the use of race and ethnicity to promote a more diverse student body.

Let me demonstrate how UW-Madison does give targeted minority applicants preferential treatment in admissions decisions. The data used here came from former Chancellor John Wiley. At the request of a legislative committee in January 2006, he provided data I was then able to access on freshmen admissions by race and ethnicity for 2005-06 applicants who were identified by high school class rank and ACT scores. In summer 2008 he provided me with similarly classified data on enrollees who graduated within six-years.

Two important findings emerge. First, approximately two-thirds to three-fourths of targeted minority applicants would have been admitted under the “competitive” standard, meaning they were as well prepared academically as virtually all non-minority applicants who were admitted. In other words, these students gained admission based on their academic records and had no need for any preferential treatment.

Yet, by being designated as “targeted minorities,” these students carry the stigma associated with the “selective” admission standard whose sole purpose is to increase diversity.

Second, the preferential admission policy inherent in the “selective” standard used to promote diversity depresses the overall six-year graduation rate for targeted minority students. It does so by enrolling considerable numbers of less academically prepared targeted minority applicants whose likelihood of graduating is lower than that for many rejected non-minority applicants.

If the “competitive” standard was applied to all applicants, the six-year graduation rate for the somewhat reduced population of targeted minority students would rise, thus narrowing the longstanding gap in graduation rates. Even now, the average time it takes to graduate for those who do graduate does not differ by much between targeted minorities and non-minorities, and that would not change.

What can be done? The most obvious solution is to admit targeted minority applicants based on the “competitive” standard. Doing so would not destroy diversity or affirmative action. Rather it would help ensure that targeted minorities who are enrolled will be more likely to succeed and graduate.

Eliminating preferential treatment for targeted minorities, though controversial, would produce other benefits. It would conform to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by no longer discriminating in favor of applicants based on their race, ethnicity, or national origin. It would no longer allow the campus to hide behind the vagueness of its “selective” admission policy for targeted minority students and the “holistic” process used in deciding whether to admit them. Finally, it would bring greater transparency to the admissions process and how it works.

This shift to a single “competitive” standard could be phased in over several years. Doing so would emphasize the importance of improving the academic preparation of targeted minority students well before they reach college age. It would remind targeted minority high school students, their parents and their schools that minority students must meet the same “competitive’ standard as all other applicants.

Finally, it would reduce if not eliminate the stigmatization felt by many targeted minority students who were admitted without the help of affirmative action. The rest of the student body would know that these students are as academically qualified as they are, and there would be no reason to assume they were admitted based on their race, ethnicity or national origin. What a refreshing development this would be at an academic institution that emphasizes academic achievement.

What about the fear this change would eliminate diversity? It would not. Instead, it would herald a new form of diversity that emphasizes the academic achievement of minority students. It would consign the racist term “targeted minority student” to the trash bin. Doing so would help improve the climate for learning, which is the real purpose of a university education.

Four decades of campus diversity have failed to achieve their lofty goals. Hasn’t the time come to try a new approach, one that treats all applicants in the same way? Yes, but do campus administrators, faculty and staff, students, and the general public have the courage to discuss and debate such a change, to engage in that “continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found”? I certainly hope so.

“Whatever may be the limitations which trammel inquiry elsewhere, we believe that the great state University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found.” (Taken from a report of the Board of Regents in 1894)
Memorial, Class of 1910.

Summary

This is an account of the September 13, 2011 visit to Madison Wisconsin by Roger Clegg, President and General Counsel of the Washington DC based Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO). Clegg came to Madison to unveil at an 11 a.m. press conference in the off-campus DoubleTree Hotel the results of two new CEO studies that document “severe discrimination” in undergraduate and law school admissions at UW-Madison. A group of more than 100 protesting students who objected to the findings of these studies mobilized outside the hotel, burst into the hotel lobby, invaded the meeting room, interrupted the press conference as it was winding down.

At 7 p.m. that evening Clegg took part in a Federalist Society-sponsored on-campus debate on “Affirmative Action” with UW-Madison Law Professor Larry Church. University officials after learning about the morning protest at the DoubleTree Hotel moved the debate from the Law School to a much larger room in Union South to accommodate the crowd of more than 850 students who attended the debate. The campus administration provided massive police security for this event. Though Clegg’s presentation was often greeted with hisses and boos, the debate proceeded without incident.

This first part of this essay provides a detailed account of the events of Tuesday, September 13, 2011. The second offers my assessment of the DoubleTree Hotel protest, an assessment that differs markedly from those of two faculty members who attended the press conference and later observed what happened from the hotel lobby. The final section raises a series of questions about the day’s events, with particular attention to the roles played by UW-Madison officials in stimulating the protest and later justifying the actions of the protesters at the DoubleTree Hotel.

Part 1: The Events of September 13, 2011

Background

The Washington D.C. based Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO), believing that everyone should be treated equally without regard to race, ethnicity, or national origin, has a long record of documenting the use of affirmative action in college and university admissions. It has done this by obtaining admission data from the institutions and analyzing the data to assess the extent of discrimination against and in favor of particular minority groups. These studies, conducted at several dozen major public universities, have revealed strong evidence of admission preferences that favor Blacks and Hispanics and disadvantage Asians and Whites.

Efforts to obtain the admissions data for UW-Madison began in 1998 when the Wisconsin Association of Scholars (WAS) along with CEO initiated an Open Records Request for such data. Because the data were not forthcoming, the WAS filed a lawsuit seeking the data. The lawsuit went all the way to the Wisconsin State Supreme Court which ruled that the university had to honor the request and provide the requested data. The data finally obtained by CEO covered two entering cohorts of students in Fall 2007 and Fall 2008.

The analysis in these two studies in quite similar. Following presentation of descriptive data showing differences in the average values of key variables such as test scores and high school class rank, the study expresses its results in terms of odds ratios. These ratios indicate, after controlling for academic preparation (e.g., SAT/ACT scores and high school class rank) and other variables, the odds of a minority applicant–Black, Hispanic, or Asian—being admitted relative to a white applicant. The odds ratios using SAT scores are more than 500 to 1 for both Blacks and Hispanics; using ACT scores, the odds ratios are more than 1,300 to 1 for both Blacks and Hispanics.

The CEO concludes that its results reveal “severe discrimination based on race and ethnicity in undergraduate and law school admissions at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, with African Americans and Latinos given preference over whites and Asians.”

Doubletree Hotel Protest

The night before the CEO press conference I received several disturbing email messages. The first asked what I knew about the CEO and a report being releasing at midnight. It also mentioned that Damon Williams, Vice Provost for Diversity and Climate, had called an emergency meeting at 8 p.m. in the Red Gym’s Multicultural Center. A follow up email message described the CEO as a “right-wing think tank.” It appeared that the emergency meeting’s goal was to develop a response to the CEO report. About 11 p.m. a friend forwarded me a Facebook message from the “Facebook Team” announcing a “Double Protest to Defend Diversity.” The first protest was scheduled for the 11 a.m. CEO press conference the following morning at the nearby off-campus DoubleTree Hotel; the second was scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. that evening in front of Bascom Hall near the site of the 7 p.m. evening debate. Before retiring that night, I knew trouble was brewing.

When I met Clegg for breakfast that morning, he said he became aware of possible protests when he arrived at the hotel the night before. The morning paper, the Wisconsin State Journal, confirmed that information with its two front page articles, one announcing the schedule of protests against the CEO and its study and the other summarizing the key findings of the CEO study . Before departing from the DoubleTree Hotel, I asked the desk clerk for something identifying me as a guest of the hotel; in case of any trouble, I wanted to be sure I could reenter the hotel for the press conference.

On the way home I picked up copies of the two student newspapers, the Badger Herald and the Daily Cardinal, hoping to learn more about what might be scheduled to happen that day. The Herald reported on the emergency meeting held Monday evening at the Red Gym. At that meeting Williams criticized the CEO study and reaffirmed the campus commitment to its holistic admissions process. He also, as quoted in the Herald, “stressed the need for students to mobilize.” As the Herald report went on to point out, “the students present did not seem to need any convincing.” A further Herald quote said even more about Williams role. “ ‘Don’t wait for us to show the way,’ Williams said to students who were already assembling poster board to make signs against the CEO president’s report and visit.”

The Disrupted Press Conference

I drove back to the campus, arriving about 10:30 a.m. and parked in the nearby Francis Street Ramp before walking the three blocks to the DoubleTree Hotel. On the way I noticed a number of students heading for the hotel. Many carried placards. Some wore bright yellow t-shirts with the word “scholar” printed down the sleeves while others wore traditional Badger Red t-shirts. Approaching the hotel I spotted a group of perhaps 40 students on the sidewalk outside the hotel entrance. I ignored them, entered the hotel, and was waved in by hotel staff members who recognized me from my earlier visit that morning.

Clegg was already in the press conference room; so were at least a half dozen TV cameras and their operators, plus 25 to 30 people including several reporters, at least two faculty members I knew, several academic staff members (including at least one person I recognized from the Diversity and Climate office), and some students. More people entered the room as the press conference began, including former UW System Board of Regents member, Fred Mohs.

Shortly after the press conference began, I noticed standing just inside the press conference room Vice Provost Williams and two other colleagues, one of them I subsequently learned is the newly appointed assistant to Damon Williams, a man by the name of Eric Williams; I did not know the identity of the third person. The three of them stood together throughout the press conference though at one point, after the volume of protester chanting from the hotel lobby increased dramatically, I remember seeing Vice-Provost Williams briefly stick his head out the door. Why he did this was not apparent from my vantage point.

Promptly at 11:00 a.m. Clegg opened the press conference. He described the work of his organization and the rationale for what the organization does. He then summarized the two studies on racial and ethnic preferences at UW-Madison, one on undergraduate admissions and the other on law school admissions. At about 11:20 a.m. he opened up the session for questions, asking that reporters and media people be given the first chance to ask questions. Others soon joined in, including Emeritus Professor Michael Olneck and Associate Professor Sara Goldrick-Rab.

Several questions were asked by academic staff members, followed by questions from several students. A number of those who spoke questioned the CEO’s political motives, the timing of the release of these reports, the divisiveness of the findings, and so on. Then a young woman spoke up emphasizing the harm a report like this inflicts on minority students, many of whom worked hard in high school and deserve to be here at UW-Madison. Clegg’s answer was respectful but unapologetic. In trying to reply the young woman apparently began to break up in tears and quickly left the room.

A few minutes before this happened, we had become aware of the chanting of the protesters now occupying the adjacent hotel lobby. We found out later the protesters had broken into the hotel and were now protesting loudly. Like most of us, Clegg looked toward the door when he heard the yelling and chanting but turned back quickly and continued answering questions. In a short while some people began to leave the room, and as they went out the door the noise level rose. Other people wanting to leave were directed by staff members to a service door exit at the opposite end of the room. Soon it became apparent the staff people were unable to fully close the door which intensified the noise level. By this time, Clegg had stepped away from the podium so that he could more easily hear the questions. He soon had to give up because he could neither hear nor be heard.

Events took a dramatic turn as Clegg continued trying to talk to two students. I heard a loud chorus of shouting voices. Looking up, I saw that the room’s doors had been pushed open, and the mob of protesters was surging into the room. They quickly filled the room, chanting and yelling and in some cases sticking their placards near our faces. Realizing what was happening but having no knowledge about the protesters’ intentions, I moved quickly to the podium to gather up Clegg’s papers and notes as well as the extra copies of his reports. I also grabbed his briefcase before it could be hauled off by one of the protesters. I told Clegg we should get out of there before we became trapped by the protesters. After we loaded everything into his briefcase, I told him to follow me.

We headed along the front wall where there were fewer protesters—by this time there may have been a hundred protesters in the room. We then snaked along the side wall of the room toward the exit door in the back corner of the room. As we approached the door to the lobby protesters were still streaming in. Suddenly, a protester coming into the room shoved against me. I shoved back. The protester said, “Don’t touch me.” I replied, “Don’t you touch me, we’re just trying to get out of here.” As I tried to move around that protester, another protester who was also in the doorway said, “Don’t touch me.” I replied “I have no intention of touching you.” I tried to move around this second protester. During this brief episode Clegg was right behind me. Suddenly, thanks to the hotel staff and several protesters, the way was cleared so we could move through the doorway and out into the lobby.

Afterwards I realized that I had reacted instinctively to the student invasion of the press conference room, being concerned about what might happen next. Recalling my own experiences and those of other faculty members during the student protests of the late 1960s and early 1970s, my first concern was to protect Clegg and get him out into the lobby rather than being hemmed in the room and compelled to listen to the protesters. It is worth noting that the protesters gave no indication of wanting to sit down with Clegg and talk about the CEO report and their reactions to it; indeed, nobody approached him with such a request. Fortunately, we were able to leave the press conference room before the protesters had a chance to organize so as to more directly attempt to intimidate or isolate us.

Several hotel staffers immediately called us to follow them to the elevator which was about 50 feet away around the corner in the hotel’s central hallway. We hurried along to the elevator, followed by chanting protesters. More protesters crowded around us. After what seemed like a long time, the elevator doors opened and we got in quickly. Some protesters tried to follow us into the elevator but two staffers prevented them from doing so. I pressed the button to close the elevator doors but had to pry a hand or two off the rubber safety bumper along the elevator door before the doors could close. The two hotel staffers, a man and a woman, then pushed the protesters back and away from the elevator. The doors closed and we ascended to Clegg’s room on the third floor. At this point, we wondered what could have been the motive of the protesters to board the elevator except to intimidate us.

It was now 12:15 pm, the scheduled time for a small the lunch to begin at the on-campus University Club several blocks away. The question was how to get there without encountering the protesters downstairs. I called the front desk and a young male staffer came to our room to guide us out of the hotel. He took us down a back stairway that ended near the ground level pool on the first floor. The stairway was the kind that allows people to exit from it but prevents anyone from entering from the outside. The hotel staffer paged the hotel’s van driver, telling him to come around and pick us up. In short order, he arrived, we hopped aboard, and he drove us out onto Dayton Street thereby avoiding any protesters who might have been stationed outside the hotel’s front entrance. After a short ride, we got off the van on the Park Street side of the Humanities Building and walked to the nearby University Club. After an uneventful lunch, Clegg went off for several interviews.

I returned home and checked my email. There I found a 9:52 a.m. UW-Madison press release, “UW-Madison responds to attacks on diversity efforts.” The press release reaffirmed the UW-Madison’s “commitment to enrolling a highly diverse student body.” It went on to say that the CEO “attacked the University of Wisconsin-Madison for its diversity efforts.” This struck me as a complete misreading of the CEO press release which simply reported its findings of “severe discrimination” in undergraduate and law school admissions decisions at UW-Madison.

In that press release Interim Chancellor David Ward repeated UW-Madison’s standard defense: “Any student who is accepted at UW-Madison is here because he or she has the potential and capacity to succeed. No matter what a student’s class rank or test scores were, students who are accepted qualify for a spot at this university. No one is admitted solely because of race or ethnicity.”

Interim Chancellor Ward’s statement was followed by supporting comments from Admissions Director Adele Brumfield, Vice-Provost Damon Williams, and Allie Gardner, chair of the Associated Students of Madison. Williams in effect admitted discrimination in admissions but justified it in the interests of creating a diverse campus, adding that the “commentary offered by CEO fails to recognize this point and that the presence of social diversity enhances the excellence of our institutions in so many ways.”

What surprised me was the failure of the Interim Chancellor who must have been informed about the protest of the CEO scheduled for 11 a.m. to caution students about appropriate behavior in any protest and particularly in a protest taking place at an off-campus site.

The Evening Debate on Affirmative Action

I told Clegg I would pick him up at 6 p.m. and drive to the parking lot behind the Law School Building where the debate was to be held; the organizers wanted Clegg there before 6:30 p.m. to go over the plans for the evening. When I arrived in Clegg’s hotel room, he said the venue had been changed to Union South. A call came from one of the sponsors explaining where to go once we arrived. We were told to park in the underground public parking lot and then take the elevator to the second floor where we would be met. We did and were met by a Union South official as well as two plainclothesmen. I noticed that arrangements had already been made to handle the crowd and keep it moving forward with the help of airline queue management barriers. I also recall seeing a table with a sign on it saying that backpacks would be inspected; numerous campus police officers were present. All of this security surprised me.

We then walked through the large room called Varsity Hall where the debate was scheduled to take place. We were told the room contained 1,000 seats. I remarked that the room seemed more than ample for the crowd of perhaps 100 who might attend; little did I realize how big the crowd would be. We were then taken into a service hallway that ran along the back Varsity Hall. From there we were escorted to a small meeting room and told to stay there until the program began. That seemed rather strange until we spotted several uniformed police officers spaced strategically along that service hallway.

This led me to ask the Union South official and the plainclothesman who seemed to be in charge why so much security was in evidence. They explained that a meeting had been convened in Bascom Hall early that afternoon, bringing together the Law School Dean, campus police, Union South officials, and other unnamed individuals. There a decision was made to shift the 7 p.m. debate to Union South, both to accommodate a much larger crowd and to provide better security for those involved in the evening debate. Although these two officials did not offer any further explanation, I couldn’t help but assume that Bascom Hall officials wanted to avoid any repeat of what happened at the DoubleTree Hotel that morning.

As Clegg remarked to me, after what happened in the morning, some colleges and universities would probably have cancelled the evening debate. Clegg said it is to the UW-Madison’s credit that it did not cancel the debate. Rather, it took measures to accommodate a larger crowd, an expected result of the well publicized call for a 6 p.m. protest rally in front of Bascom Hall. It also decided to beef up security to maintain order before, during, and after the debate.

While waiting in our “safe” room, I said I needed to go to the men’s room. I was escorted out of this secure area to the men’s room and back. En route, I noticed further activity in the open area outside Varsity Hall; a thin line of students was already lining up and even more uniformed officers were in place. In returning to our secure room, I also noticed an increased police presence in the service hallway separating our room from the exit doors of Varsity Hall.

While waiting, I strolled over to the window overlooking West Johnson Street. Initially, I wondered why traffic was backed up as far as Randall Street. Looking down Johnson Street toward the Capitol, I noticed several blocks away two police cars with their lights flashing, blocking east-bound traffic on West Johnson Street. Looking more closely, I saw a long line of people crossing Johnson Street, probably at Mills Street, moving from the campus side of West Johnson toward Dayton Street. I realized they were students, some wearing yellow t-shirts and others Badger-Red t-shirts similar to what I had seen at the DoubleTree Hotel that morning. Many of the marchers appeared to be carrying placards similar to those I had seen earlier. It was at this point I realized what led to the change in venue, and I concluded that the debate might well attract a full house. At the same time, the reason for the massive security deployed in Union South became clear. It was a large crowd that no doubt included many of the morning protesters.

Soon two law students from the sponsoring Federalist Society joined us, Jennifer Johnson and Randy Melchert. Clegg and I had an interesting time chatting with them. Meanwhile, the noise from the auditorium gradually increased as the audience assembled. A look into the service hallway showed a further increase in the number of security personnel. As 7 p.m. approached, we were briefed by the student organizers. When the time came to begin the program, Johnson, acting as the debate moderator, would exit from the service hallway into Varsity Hall, walk onto the stage, and explain the ground rules for the debate and how it would be organized. Each speaker would have 10 minutes to speak, followed by 10 minutes for the other speaker, and then each speaker would have another 10 minutes to respond to the other speaker. Not being a part of the program, I entered the hall and sat in the front row. As I entered I could see that the room was filled with students, many of them minority students. Johnson then announced Professor Church who came on stage; then she announced Clegg who also came onto the stage. As they stood at their respective podiums, Johnson introduced them, described their backgrounds and accomplishments, and indicated the positions they would take in the debate.

Clegg, in leading off the debate, set out a framework for thinking about affirmative action. It called for defining what the term means, assessing the benefits of affirmative action, determining the costs of affirmative action, and then comparing the costs and benefits. Church emphasized the importance of affirmative action as the United States becomes an increasingly multi-racial society. Clegg and then Church responded to each other’s comments. Clegg handled himself well despite the crowd’s hostility toward what he had to say. There were occasional boos and other outbursts, but all in all the behavior of the crowd, though often loud and impolite, was not disruptive; at times members of the audience tried to shush those who were more vocal in their responses. Church’s views were favorably received. After the two rounds of comments were completed, the question period began under the direction of the other Federalist Society member, Melchert. The questions ranged widely, touching on the right-wing characterization of the CEO, the timing of the release of the CEO reports, the need for affirmative action to rectify past discrimination, and so on. Most of the questions were directed to Clegg.

Johnson, the moderator, explained at the beginning of the debate that it would end promptly at 8:30 p.m. When that time arrived, she announced that the event was over. At that moment, Clegg walked across the stage and shook hands with Church to indicate the debate had indeed ended. A number of students indicated they were not entirely happy about this, but Johnson was firm and soon members of the audience began standing up to leave. I did not know what happened in Varsity Hall after that because the plainclothesman told us earlier to return to our “safe” room immediately after the event ended, which we did; throughout the debate the head plainclothes man stood next to an exit door we had entered through and just to the right of the stage. Once back in our “safe” room, the plainclothesman as a precaution instructed us to remain in the room until it became clear we could leave. That was fine with us. Church left immediately because he was not the subject of possible concern by the protesters.

After some time, probably 15 minutes, the plainclothesman said we could leave. He asked Clegg where he wanted to go. Clegg said he wanted to return to the DoubleTree Hotel. He was then told that the security people had a black SUV parked at the Union South’s underground loading dock that exits onto Randall Street. He would be taken down a back stairway to the SUV and driven to the hotel. Clegg and I spoke briefly, shook hands, and off he went with the security people. I was asked where I wanted to go. I explained that my car was parked in the underground garage. Another one of the plainclothesmen said he would escort me to my car, and off we went. As we exited from our “safe” area, students were still leaving Varsity Hall even though some apparently remained to talk about the debate.

Outside I ran into a long-time friend, Political Science Professor Don Downs. He had been unable to attend the press conference or lunch because of a meeting in Milwaukee. We talked briefly about the DoubleTree protest and whether it involved any First Amendment issues. I replied that were some issues we should discuss. We agreed to continue the conversation the next day. I was taken to my car.

As I drove home, I was struck by the irony of our being put in a “safe” and well-guarded room before and after the evening debate. The room happened to be named the “Sifting and Winnowing Room.” Painted on the wall in easily read letters is the text of the “sifting and winnowing” statement that appears on the plaque at the front of Bascom Hall; that statement is reproduced at the beginning of this essay. It seemed so odd that we had to be protected when the debate conducted by the two speakers represented the best in the tradition of “sifting and winnowing.”

But, as the DoubleTree Hotel incident forcefully demonstrated, and as the debate demonstrated to a lesser degree, many students came with their minds already made up. They seemed to be unwilling to listen carefully to the exchange of ideas and to engage in the search for truth embodied in the “sifting and winnowing” statement. Unfortunately, the example set for them by university leaders—the Vice Provost for Diversity and Climate and the Dean of Students at their Monday evening “emergency” meeting, and the UW-Madison’s Tuesday morning press release—assumes the truth is known and that any questioning of the benefits of the “holistic” admissions process is out of bounds. How sad.

End of the Day

So, that was the day, Tuesday, September 13, 2011. After arriving home I read more carefully the Wisconsin State Journal articles mentioned earlier. I also reread the copies of the Daily Cardinal and Badger Herald I had picked up in the morning. I found email messages from various friends and colleagues, several of which included photographs from the 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. local TV news programs. One showed me with Clegg loading up his briefcase as the protesters surrounded us. Another showed me running interference for Clegg as we headed for the lobby after the protesters invaded the press conference room. Still another showed the two of us in the elevator, and the protesters crowded in front of the elevator.

Several friends who saw the photos remarked about the expression on my face, described by one of them as “anxious” and by another as “concerned.” That may have been the way I looked. I accounted for it by my focus on getting Clegg safely out of a difficult and potentially dangerous situation. At no time, however, did I fear for our immediate safety. My principal concern was making certain we did not become trapped in the press conference room and be forced to endure more of the protesters’ chanting.

Part 2: Some Reflections

The next two sections offer my reflections on two topics. One concerns the appropriateness of the DoubleTree Hotel General Manager’s characterization of the protesters as a “mob.” Two faculty members I know objected to this characterization based on their observations of the protest from the lobby. As one who was still inside the press conference room, my view of what happened differed, and the characterization of the protesters as a “mob” seemed to be appropriate.

The other focuses on the attention given by the campus administration, notably the Vice-Provost and the Dean of Students, to the CEO report and what followed from their actions. This section asks the “What If . . .?” question, namely what would have happened if UW-Madison officials had ignored the CEO report?

A “Mob” or “Not a Mob”

What is the appropriate characterization of the protesters’ actions at the height of the protest in the DoubleTree Hotel that morning? Accounts differ dramatically depending on the vantage point of those who described these actions. These differences are revealed by the four documents that follow: (1) the DoubleTree Hotel press release from the Hotel’s General Manager, Tom Ziarnik, issued on Tuesday afternoon shortly after the protest ended, (2) the Education Optimist blog statement “Boycott the Madison Doubletree Hotel” posted by Associate Professor Sara Goldrick-Rab on September 14, 2011, (3) Emeritus Professor Michael Olneck’s Letter to the Editor, “Student protesters wrongly called a ‘mob,’” published by the Wisconsin State Journal on September 19, 2011, based on his draft letter posted on Goldrick-Rab’s web page on September 14, 2011, and (4) my Letter to the Editor published by the Wisconsin State Journal on September 16, 2011 based on my account of what happened as described in this essay.

The different vantage points can be summarized as follows. The DoubleTree General Manager Ziarnik and his staff witnessed from the lobby the gathering of the protesters outside the hotel, their bursting into the hotel lobby, their invasion of the press conference room, and their attempt to enter the elevator taking Clegg and me to Clegg’s room. Goldrick-Rab and Olneck attended the press conference but left before the protesters invaded the press conference room. It appears that initially they observed the protesters from the vantage point of the hotel lobby before the protesters stood up and then surged into the press conference room. What Goldrick-Rab and Olneck could see as the protesters made their way into the press conference is unclear; the pileup of protesters trying to enter the press conference room seems likely to have obscured details of what happened inside. Meanwhile, I was with Clegg in the press conference room, witnessed the surge of protesters into the press conference room, escorted Clegg out of that room, and remained with Clegg as the two of us proceeded to and then entered the elevator followed by a group of chanting protesters several of whom tried to board the elevator.

In summary, Goldrick-Rab and Olneck view the behavior of the protesters as benign and above reproach perhaps because they were observing the protesters, many of whom sat on the lobby floor, before the protesters pushed their way into the press conference room. In contrast, Ziarnik and his staff observed the disruptive behavior of the protesters in the hotel lobby, in the press conference room in the hallway leading to the elevator, and at the entrance to the elevator. I witnessed the same events except for the protests in the hotel lobby.

I. TEXT OF THE DOUBLETREE HOTEL PRESS RELEASE, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2011

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MEDIA CONTACT:
Tuesday, September 13, 2011 Tom Ziarnik, General Manager
(608) 251-5511

DoubleTree by Hilton Response about Protesters at Press Conference
Statement from Tom Ziarnik, General Manager of DoubleTree by Hilton Madison:

First and foremost, it is our job to protect the guests of our hotel.

When threats were made by the protesters to rush the hotel, we secured all entrances to the property. Many protesters were telling us to “call the police” and “we want to be arrested.” Unfortunately, when escorting meeting attendees out of the hotel through a private entrance, staff were then rushed by a mob of protesters, throwing employees to the ground.

The mob became increasingly physically violent when forcing themselves into the meeting room where the press conference had already ended, filling it over fire code capacity. Madison police arrived on the scene after the protesters had stormed the hotel.

These protesters were not guests of the hotel and were repeatedly informed that they were trespassing on private property and needed to leave, per Madison General Ordinance Sec 23.07.

We are extremely grateful that no one was seriously injured and no property was damaged.

II. TEXT OF SARA GOLDRICK-RAB’S ENTRY ON HER EDUCATION OPTIMIST BLOG, “BOYCOTT THE MADISON DOUBLETREE HOTEL,” WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2011

Yesterday’s student activism in response to the Center for Equal Opportunity’s “study” on affirmative action practices at UW-Madison was awe-inspiring. Students were articulate, passionate, and poised. They made their voices heard in powerful ways. They brought me to tears.

On the other hand, some observers of their actions were downright racist. Most notable among them was the DoubleTree Hotel, site of the morning’s press conference. By evening, Madison newspapers were reporting that a DoubleTree press release called the students a “mob.” Yes, a group of UW-Madison students, mostly students of color, was labeled by hotel management with a word meaning “disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. I was standing in the hotel lobby when the action began. The students were organized-not disorderly–and most definitely not intent on causing trouble or violence. They came to speak with Roger Clegg, who organized a public press conference, and let him hear the faces and voices students whom he claimed were admitted to Madison without proper qualifications.

There was no “mob” at the DoubleTree Hotel yesterday. This local hotel, so often patronized by those associated with UW-Madison, should be ashamed of its employees who used such slander in describing Madison students. They witnessed vocal, spirited students of color and were afraid. That is appalling.

UW-Madison can choose to whom it gives University business. Until this issue is resolved to the satisfaction of the campus community, in my opinion it should boycott the Doubletree.

III. TEXT OF MICHAEL OLNECK’S LETTER TO THE EDITOR, WISCONSIN STATE JOURNAL, “STUDENT PROTESTERS WRONGLY CALLED A ‘MOB’ “ MONDAY SEPTEMBER 19, 2011. FIRST POSTED ON EDUCATION OPTIMIST BLOG SEPTEMBER 14, 2011

The press release from the Doubletree’s General Manager Tom Ziarnik describes the large group of students protesting the Center for Equal Opportunity’s report attacking the UW-Madison’s admission practices as a “mob” that “became increasingly physically violent when forcing themselves into the meeting room where the press conference had already ended.” And, it alleges that “staff were then rushed by a mob of protesters, throwing employees to the ground.”

I attended the press conference, and was in the main lobby afterward. There was no “mob” that was “physically violent.” There was an organized group whose loud chanting forced an end to the press conference, and which attempted to enter the conference room after the doors were open.

Two hotel employees attempted to physically prevent the group from entering the room, and the group pushed through them. Members of the group attempted to confront Mr. Clegg and made his exit difficult. Some followed him.

While this experience was clearly unfamiliar and unnerving to Doubletree staff, for the manager to depict what occurred as the actions of a “mob” is egregious. While the protest may have broken decorum, its well-motivated participants do not deserve to be characterized as a “mob.” The Doubletree management should apologize for the wording of its press release.

IV. TEXT OF W. LEE HANSEN LETTER TO THE EDITOR, WISCONSIN STATE JOURNAL, “FROM THE INSIDE, PROTESTERS WERE ‘MOB’” SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 (A response to the Olneck Letter to the Editor published on September 19, 2011)

A different picture of the escalating Doubletree Hotel student protest last week emerged from my vantage point inside the press conference room compared to Michael Olneck’s view from the lobby.

The loud chanting and yelling coming from the lobby made it impossible for Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity to continue responding to questions, effectively shutting down the press conference. After protesters overcame hotel staff trying to prevent their entry into the press conference room, they surged in chanting and yelling and quickly surrounded me and Roger Clegg. We headed for the exit only to find protesters blocking the exit. After hotel staff cleared the way, we exited into the lobby. Instructed to go to the elevator, we were followed by chanting protesters. Several tried to enter the elevator after us but were blocked by two hotel staff members. When that failed the protesters tried to prevent the doors from closing. Finally, with a superhuman effort the hotel staff members pushed the protesters back so the elevator doors could close.

To describe the protesters as having “broken decorum” is a gross and misleading understatement. To describe their actions as “well-intentioned” is at odds with what should have been obvious to anyone in the lobby. The best single-word description of the protesters is that they were a “mob” and acted like a “mob.”

What If?

Insights about the Doubletree Hotel protest can be gained by asking the simple question: “What if . . .?” What if UW-Madison officials, notably Vice Provost for Diversity and Climate Damon Williams and Dean of Students Lori Berquam had decided to ignore the Center for Equal Opportunity study and its conclusion that racial and ethnic preferences play a strong role in undergraduate admissions at UW-Madison?

Two arguments might justify doing so. Why direct extra attention to the CEO study—that is exactly what the CEO wanted? Why respond to a report issued by a “right wing think tank” whose studies are viewed as biased?

The CEO study results summarized in its Monday press release apparently spurred Vice Provost Williams and Dean of Students Berquam into action. Williams called on students to attend a Monday night emergency meeting at the Red Gym. There the CEO study was condemned. Students were told that CEO was preparing to launch an attack on campus diversity efforts. The Badger Herald (9/13/11) reported that, “Williams stressed the need for students to mobilize.” He reportedly said, “Don’t wait for us to show the way.”

Three days later the Badger Herald editorial “In defense of diversity” (Thursday September 15 2011) characterized the Monday evening behavior of these two administration officials as follows: “The roles of organizer and agitator assumed by officials early on was inappropriate.” and “University officials should continue to defend policy and practice without assuming the greater role of agitator and spurring students to action.”

We all know what this led to. The next morning more than one hundred students staged a protest at the Doubletree Hotel, broke into the lobby, interfered with the press conference by their loud chanting and yelling, and then surged into the room closing down the press conference.

What if Williams and Berquam had decided to ignore the CEO report? Most students would not have known about the report and its findings, the emergency meeting would not have been needed, the CEO press conference would have been less well attended, the protest at the DoubleTree would not have occurred, attendance at the evening debate would have been smaller than the 850 students who attended, and the massive and costly security on display at the Union South debate would not have been required.

What was gained by the protest? No doubt many protesters and their supporters felt good about what they did. Whether other students who were not among the protesters felt the same way is not yet clear but seems unlikely. If anything, the protests may have heightened suspicion among many students that racial and ethnic preferences do play an important role in admissions decisions.

Did the UW-Madison press release defending its admissions policies, issued shortly before the 11 a.m. protest, try to do anything to dampen that protest? It did not. Did the undocumented assertions by Interim Chancellor David Ward and supporting statements from Admissions Director Adele Brumfield and Vice-Provost Williams allay concerns about the extent to which race and ethnicity play into admissions decisions? Probably not.

What UW-Madison administrative officials Williams and Berquam did through their actions was to promote a protest. In doing so, they neglected their obligation to encourage discussion rather than protest and to create a climate that reinforces UW-Madison’s historic commitment to “encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found.”

Part 3: Unanswered Questions

The events of September 13, 2011 raise important issues not touched on in this narrative. As I learned more about what happened Monday night and Tuesday morning, the following questions took shape.

On Responsibility

1. What if any obligation does the UW-Madison have to make amends to the DoubleTree Hotel and its staff for their efforts to maintain order, permit the press conference to continue, keep the mob of student protesters at bay, and ensure Clegg’s safety?

2. What obligation does the UW-Madison have to explain to the public what happened at the Monday night “emergency meeting” at the Red Gym and the Tuesday morning press conference at the DoubleTree Hotel?

3. What caused the campus leadership in Bascom Hall early Tuesday afternoon to make the responsible decision to change the venue of that evening’s debate on Affirmative Action from the Law School to Union South and to commit massive security resources to monitor this event? Were these changes made in response to threats of some kind received by UW-Madison officials? What were the costs of providing the additional security for the debate?

4. Why was there no visible protest at the Tuesday evening debate? Were the protesters who gathered in front of Bascom Hall an hour before the debate told by UW-Madison officials to “cool it,” meaning they should not duplicate their morning protest against the CEO report and its spokesman? If this is what they were told, who communicated this message?

On Behavior

An even more important set of questions concern the behavior of UW-Madison officials in allegedly encouraging the protest that occurred at the DoubleTree Hotel.

1. What is the perception of the role played by Damon Williams, Vice-Provost for Diversity and Climate, and Lori Berquam, Dean of Students, in promoting the student protest? Two editorials appearing in the Badger Herald on Thursday September 15, 2011 attest to what occurred. The first editorial “In defense of diversity” says that the CEO report “encountered resistence from a well-organized student body backed by a supportive administration.” The editorial goes on to say, “The roles of organizer and agitator assumed by officials early on was inappropriate. Defense of policy and practice ought to be the purview of UW officials, and they’ve shown themselves to be more than capable of doing so.” We need to know more about the meaning of “The roles of organizer and agitator assumed by officials” which appears to be a reference to Williams and Berquam.

The editorial continues: “And while Monday’s meeting in the Red Gym was crucial in making the report known to the student body, we take issue with the conduct of the administration. University officials should continue to defend policy and practice without assuming the greater role of agitator and spurring students to action. This should remain a student-driven movement, as it is students with the most vested interest in seeing diversity flourish at this university.” Again, we need to know more about the “conduct of the administration” and the “greater role of agitator and spurring students to action.”

The second editorial, “Dissent,” written by the Badger Herald Editorial Board Chair, Alexandra Brousseau, reiterates the first editorial’s concern about the role of the administration, saying, “I agree with the editorial board that the University of Wisconsin administration’s reaction to the Center for Equal Opportunity’s report was inappropriate.” Again, we need to know exactly what actions were taken and which of those actions was the subject of this criticism.

This evidence coming from the entire Badger Herald Board and separately the Editorial Board Chair cannot be ignored. Indeed, the statements in these two editorials are damning evidence of the role played by key UW-Madison officials.

2. What happened at the “emergency” meeting Monday night in anticipation of the CEO press conference scheduled for the following morning? Why did Vice Provost Williams call the “emergency” meeting Monday evening at the Red Gym? How many people were invited? Who was invited? How were those invited informed about the meeting? What did Williams say to the assembled students? What did Dean of Students Berquam say to the students? Why were students attending that meeting given copies of a Handout, “Guidelines & Expectations for Protest Attendance and Participation” issued by the Dean of Students Office? In short, to what extent did UW-Madison officials promote the student protest at the DoubleTree Hotel?

This is the Handout distributed to students attending the Monday evening “emergency” meeting at the Red Gym. The content of the Handout which was printed on both sides of a roughly 4 x 5 inch sheet of paper, is reproduced below. Note: The statements in the second panel have been numbered for easy reference.

3. Why did the Dean of Students distribute the “Guidelines and Expectations . . .” handout that clearly applies to on-campus protest behavior when the site of the Tuesday morning protest was the off-campus DoubleTree Hotel located on private property? Shouldn’t the UW-Madison officials at that Monday evening meeting have shown more awareness of the illegality of conducting on private property the kind of protest they might have expected to occur? It should be noted that the protesters violated the first guideline (substitute “hotel guests” for “recruiters”), the fourth guideline, and the sixth guideline (substitute “business” for “University”).

4. Did the actions of the Vice Provost and the Dean of Students go beyond what might be considered the performance of their duties? In the case of the Vice Provost, his duties might be described as those of fostering and encouraging diversity on the UW-Madison campus. Did the threats he expressed about the impact of the CEO report and the motivations for producing the report warrant his “assum[ing] the greater role of agitator and spurring students to action?” If the Vice Provost and the Dean of Students were instrumental in organizing the protest, might they not be charged with aiding and abetting disorderly conduct under Sec. 947.01 Wis. Stats. which reads:

“Disorderly Conduct. Whoever, in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud, or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to caused or provoke disturbance is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.”

5. Was Vice Provost Williams, the highest ranking UW-Madison administrator present, under any obligation while at the DoubleTree Hotel to attempt to dissuade the student protesters from entering the press conference room, not to mention disrupting the Hotel’s operations by occupying the lobby and carrying on with their loud chanting? What happened when Williams late in the press conference stuck his head out the door and into the lobby? Was he trying to communicate with the protesters already in the lobby and if so, to what end? Did his later action upon emerging from the press conference room–his broad smile of greeting to the protesters followed by the rapid pumping of his fist up and down—send a message of encouragement to the student protesters? Was Williams in effect endorsing the presence of the protesters in the hotel lobby, their loud yelling and chanting, their mobilization in front of the press conference door, and, what must have been apparent, their intention to push into the press conference room to confront Clegg?

6. Was it not disingenuous of the Vice Provost to excuse what happened at the DoubleTree Hotel in an oral interview he gave following the protest? He spoke of students wanting to have their voices heard. He spoke of the university administration wanting students to have a sense of what was about to happen in the community. He said that many students would see the CEO report as a personal attack, this would lead to pain and tears, and the administration did not want to see students in pain. He concluded by saying, “Students today were very civil, very reserved. They wanted to have their voices heard. Students have comported themselves well.”

7. Were the protesters informed either at the Monday night emergency meeting or by Vice Provost Williams at the DoubleTree Hotel Tuesday morning that their occupation of the hotel lobby and later the press conference room would constitute “unlawful assembly” as defined under Sec. 947.06(2) (2) Wis.Stats. which reads:

“An “unlawful assembly” includes an assembly of persons who assemble for the purpose of blocking or obstructing the lawful use by any other person, or persons of any private or public thoroughfares, property or of any positions of access or exit to or from any private or public building, or dwelling place, or any portion thereof and which assembly does in fact so block or obstruct the lawful use by any other person, or persons of any such private or public thoroughfares, property or any position of access or exit to or from any private or public building, or dwelling place, or any portion thereof.”

8. What are the implications of the actions of these two officials and the protesters for the exercise of free speech rights? First, is there any basis for claiming that Clegg’s free speech rights were infringed upon by the student protesters? One the one hand, the press conference was deliberately disrupted. On the other hand, by the time the protesters invaded the press conference room, the press conference was winding down.” Second, were the actions of the Vice Provost and Dean of Students appropriate in the context of free speech at a public institution? In his September 20, 2011 response to Robert Weissberg’s essay “What the Madison confrontation reveals” in “Minding the Campus,” Clegg poses the free speech question in this way:

“Isn’t it problematic for a state agency to call in private individuals and urge them to take sides in a particular controversy? For example, suppose that the local police department, fearing salary cuts by the town council, started calling up individuals with the police department’s jurisdiction and telling them, “You really ought to go down to the city hall and join in a protest against these cuts.” Is that kind of pressure appropriate—and how does it differ from what the diversicrats at UW did?”

9. Were the actions of the Vice Provost and the Dean of Students consistent with the guiding purpose of a university, and this one in particular, which is to use reason and argument rather than physical protest in addressing controversial issues? Did these two officials violate the spirit of the famous “sifting and winnowing” statement?

“Whatever May Be the Limitations Which Trammel Inquiry Elsewhere, We Believe That the Great State University of Wisconsin Should Ever Encourage That Continual and Fearless Sifting and Winnowing by Which Alone the Truth Can Be Found.”

10. Would it not be appropriate to appoint an outside panel to investigate the actions of the Vice Provost for Diversity and Climate and also the Dean of Students in leading up to and in connection with the student protest at the DoubleTree Hotel?

Selected References

See the news stories and op-eds that appeared in the Daily Cardinal and the Badger Herald on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, September 13-15, 2011

See WKOW report on the Monday evening meeting in the Red Gym on “UW-Madison meeting on ‘threat to diversity efforts” September 12, 2011.

See UW-Madison Press Release, 9:52 a.m. Tuesday, September 13, 2011 on “UW-Madison Responds to Attacks on Diversity Efforts”

See the account of the DoubleTree Hotel protest: Capital Times Campus Connection: “Protesters storm hotel, shout down head of conservative think tank” Tuesday September 13, 2011.

See http://badgerherald.com/news/2011/09/13/student_turnout_high.php

See pre-debate photos of the Tuesday evening rally and march to Union South; “UW Madison Rally for Diversity” #UWTogether, September 13, 2011.

See an outsider’s account of the DoubleTree Hotel protest, in Linda Chavez interview on the O’Reilly program Friday night, September 16, 2011.

See Peter Wood, “Mobbing for Preferences.” September 29, 2011.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=X675TIa4N1o

W. Lee Hansen is Professor Emeritus of Economics at UW-Madison.  He can be reached at wlhansen@wisc.edu.

Exactly how are minority applicant admissions decisions made at the University of Wisconsin? At Monday’s Legislative Assembly committee hearing, Provost Paul DeLuca and Admissions Director Adele Brumfield described the process. They also dismissed the Center for Equal Opportunity study of UW undergraduate admissions that reported “severe discrimination” favoring African Americans and Hispanics.

DeLuca began by stating, “No student is admitted simply because of race or any other factor alone. Academics are the most important factor in our admission process. We also have a desire to create a diverse academic community.”

But nobody contends that targeted minority students are admitted solely because of their race or any other single factor. What most people don’t know is a great many targeted minority applicants are academically competitive and would be admitted without regard to their race, ethnicity or national origin.

UW’s preferential admissions policy is criticized because some targeted minority applicants receive special consideration not afforded by other applicants. This is evident from admissions office documents obtained in response to an open records request.

As UW students know, applicant files include a wealth of information that goes beyond high school class rank and ACT/SAT scores. They also include details on courses taken in high school, extracurricular activities, letters of recommendation and personal statements. The comprehensive review of this information conducted by admissions counselors provides the basis for deciding whether or not to admit applicants.

Applicants with strong credentials, particularly those with high ACT/SAT scores and the requisite course preparation, are admitted without question. Applicants with less strong credentials are put into a “postpone” category for later reconsideration. Applicants with weak credentials are rejected.

But files of rejected applicants who are members of “targeted” groups, most notably minorities, but also athletes, veterans, returning adults and music or dance majors, receive additional consideration. It is at this stage that “other factors” come into play, and they include “student experiences, work experience, leadership qualities, motivation, community service, special talents … and [being] socio-economically disadvantaged.”

How these “other factors” affect admissions decisions has never been described. How much evidence of, for example, “leadership qualities” or “community service” is required to overcome the weaker academic preparation (e.g., high school rank, ACT scores, difficulty of high school course work) that led to an applicant’s initial rejection? Or “motivation,” “special talents” and “socio-economically disadvantaged”?

The CEO study is criticized for failing to consider these “other factors.” But UW can be criticized for being unable to produce any evidence that taking into account these “other factors” improves the ability of the admissions office to determine which of these less academically-competitive (initially rejected) targeted minority students have “the potential and the capacity to succeed.” Shouldn’t “a world-class research university” like UW have long ago undertaken research to answer this simple question?

UW officials continue to maintain their “holistic approach” to admissions is consistent with the University of Michigan Supreme Court decisions. To regularly assert their compliance is not enough: We need to see the evidence.

W. Lee Hansen (wlhansen@wisc.edu) is a professor emeritus of economics.

UW-Madison campus leaders and minority students responded as expected to the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Equal Opportunity report that revealed “severe discrimination” based on race and ethnicity in UW-Madison undergraduate admissions.

Campus leaders claimed their “holistic” admissions process is consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 decision on the University of Michigan affirmative action cases. Protesting students said they were offended by CEO’s report and on Sept. 13 disrupted CEO President Roger Clegg’s press conference at the DoubleTree Hotel.

How does UW-Madison justify its approach to minority admissions decisions? Its freshman application handbook says the admissions office employs two standards. A “competitive” standard is used to admit the best academically prepared applicants. A “selective” standard is used to admit targeted minority applicants to increase racial/ethnic diversity.

How does the admission process work? On their application forms, applicants identify their race/ethnicity. As applicant files are reviewed, applications from the best academically prepared applicants are accepted. Applications from rejected minorities get an additional review not given to rejected nonminorities. How the admissions office decides who among these initially rejected minority applicants are to be admitted remains shrouded in mystery.

UW-Madison admissions data reveal that admission rates rise with the level of academic achievement, which is no great surprise. For both targeted minority and nonminority applicants who can be described as “highly competitive,” based on exceptionally strong ACT scores and high school class rank, their admission rates are close to 100 percent.

What about applicants most people would describe as “not competitive?” These applicants are generally in the bottom 70 percent of their high school class and ACT scores of less than 24.The data show that 43 percent of these targeted minority applicants are admitted compared to only 13 percent of nonminority applicants.

For those applicants I would describe as “marginally competitive,” those with somewhat stronger combinations of high school class rank and ACT scores, 84 percent of targeted minority applicants are admitted compared to only 25 percent of nonminority applicants.

What difference does this make? It makes a big difference. It creates a cruel outcome for many targeted minorities who are supposed to be helped, those who were admitted and viewed as having, in the words of Interim Chancellor David Ward, the “potential and capacity to succeed.”

But among these “not competitive” admittees, more than 50 percent of targeted minority students fail to graduate within six years, as contrasted to 30 percent for nonminority students. Graduation rates for “marginally competitive” and “competitive” targeted minority students are 20 percentage points below those for nonminority students. This evidence raises several key questions.

• Does it make educational sense to admit under the “selective” standard targeted minority applicants whose likely six-year graduation rate is less than 50 percent?

• Does it make economic sense to spend $25 million in 2008-09 on minority/disadvantaged programs in the unrealized hope of remedying the weaker academic achievement of these targeted minority students?

• Is it wise to award up to another $6 million in racially-exclusive scholarships and grants to these targeted minority students whose graduation prospects are less than that indicated by the flip of a coin?

• Can’t more effective ways of spending these large sums of money be found?

Campus administrators should consider these questions as they face the challenge of reducing expenditures to meet state-imposed reductions in UW-Madison’s 2011-12 budget.

A different picture of last week’s student protest over UW admissions discrimination emerged from my vantage point inside the Doubletree Hotel press conference room compared to that of the author of Monday’s letter “Student protesters wrongly called a ‘mob’.”

The chanting and yelling coming from the lobby made it impossible for Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity to continue responding to questions, effectively shutting down the press conference. After protesters overcame hotel staff trying to prevent their entry to the press conference room, they surged in and surrounded me and Clegg. We headed for the exit only to find protesters blocking it.

After hotel staff cleared the way, we came into the lobby. Instructed to go to the elevator, we were followed by chanting protesters. Several tried to enter the elevator after us but were blocked by hotel staff. The protesters tried to prevent the doors from closing, but finally the hotel staff members pushed the protesters back so the elevator doors could close.

To describe the protesters as having “broken decorum” is a gross and misleading understatement. To describe their actions as “well-intentioned” is at odds with what should have been obvious to anyone in the lobby. The best single-word description of the protesters is they were a “mob” and acted like a “mob.”

– W. Lee Hansen, UW-Madison professor emeritus of economic

This column is an introduction to the “Hansen Diversity Plan”, in which I propose a new approach to enhance the effectiveness of campus diversity efforts. In the past, I have been critical of the University of Wisconsin’s diversity policies and programs. My abiding concern has been their failure to deal with the underlying problem, namely the continued weak academic performance of so many targeted minority students, beginning in the elementary grades, continuing through middle school, and often worsening in high school. Until that problem is fixed, UW will never be able to achieve substantial increases in the number of targeted minority students it admits and later successfully graduates.

The current, now two-year old diversity plan, “Inclusive Excellence,” instituted by the Board of Regents attempts to redirect campus diversity policies and programs. But, like its predecessor Plan 2008, and before that the Madison Plan, Inclusive Excellence is campus-centered. This means it gives relatively little attention to pre-college learning. As a consequence, the plan has only a limited capacity to expand the “pipeline” of better prepared targeted minority students who have the potential to succeed and graduate from UW.

The “Hansen Diversity Plan” takes as its starting point “Inclusive Excellence.” But it rebalances its focus. Rather than giving what appears to be equal weight to “inclusive” and “excellence”, in the “Hansen Diversity Plan” the emphasis on “excellence” is increased and that on “inclusive” decreased.

How might this be accomplished? It would begin by recasting the goal of proportionality that underlies the “Inclusive Excellence” approach. That goal calls for the percentage of targeted minority students enrolled at UW to equal the percentage of recent targeted minority high school graduates.

My plan would instead shift the goal to call for the percentage of targeted minority students enrolled at UW to equal the percentage of targeted minority high school graduates whose high school academic records indicate their strong likelihood of graduating from college. This might be indicated by some measure of their “college readiness” or the extent to which they are “well prepared” to succeed in college. As a practical matter, it might be indicated by a combination of high school class rank and ACT/SAT scores. Rather than abruptly instituting this plan, it would be phased in over a four-year period.

What would this plan accomplish? First, it would send out an immediately clear message to students of all ages, parents, and schools that in UW-Madison admission decisions, targeted minority applicants will be held to a gradually rising academic standard over the next four years. This signal would help stimulate greater efforts by minority students to intensify their preparation for college, and would reinforce the work of the schools and the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction to raise the academic achievement of those students throughout their school years.

What would be the immediate and short-run effects on enrollments, and on retention and graduation rates? The percentage of targeted minority freshmen admitted to UW would diminish over this four-year period and then stabilize, with targeted minority enrollment among the entering freshman class declining by as much as 25 percent. Within a year or two the first-year retention rate for these freshman would begin to rise. A few years later, increases would be observed in their 4-year, and later their 6-year graduation rates. As a result, the long-standing “gaps” in retention and graduation rates would finally begin to narrow at a more rapid pace.

Improvements in these two key measures of success would help blunt a longstanding criticism of diversity programs. It contends that the special treatment accorded targeted minority applicants means that some percentage of those admitted and subsequently enrolled do not measure up in their readiness for college. This contributes to the continuing wide gaps in retention and graduation rates.

With the reduced number of targeted minority students moving through their college years, some of the financial and human resources currently devoted to UW’s diversity programs, approximately $25 million in 2008-09, could be redeployed. Some of these redeployed resources should be concentrated on reducing the academic achievement gap for those targeted minority students who are enrolled.

This shift in the focus of diversity efforts would produce a double-barreled effect both for targeted minorities and UW—- a direct effect in reducing existing gaps in retention and graduation rates, and a beneficial side effect in reducing and perhaps even eliminating the achievement gap.

The “Hansen Diversity Plan” can be implemented without great difficulty or fanfare. The chancellor and provost can join with the Faculty Senate in proposing this shift in emphasis. The proposal would call for altering the criteria used to admit students to UW-Madison. It would establish a monitoring system to ensure these criteria are responsibly applied. Finally, it would specify how to evaluate the impact of this shift and whether its projected effects are materializing.

That is what the “Hansen Diversity Plan” is all about. Nothing complicated. No additional expenditures or personnel are required. In fact, some resources now committed to diversity programs might be freed up for other purposes. One might be to help finance the Board of Regents $83.6 million high-priority budget request to increase the number of Wisconsin college graduates and thereby stimulate the growth of Wisconsin’s economy.

“Why do you keep stigmatizing our ‘targeted minority’ students? What you write and say makes them feel bad and interferes with their academic achievement.”

That is what campus administrators often tell me after something I write appears in print (e.g., “UW and dead-end diversity, Badger Herald Nov. 13, 2009; “Diversity initiative more words than actions, Badger Herald Feb. 2, 2010). Why do they say this? I suspect it is because of their annoyance with my long-standing criticisms of UW-Madison’s misguided diversity policy. What remains unclear to me is whether “targeted minority” students actually make such comments or whether administrators are describing what they imagine these students are saying.

So, what is stigmatization? It reflects, as sociologist Erving Goffman in his classic 1963 book “Stigma” tells us, the labeling by the majority of a group it regards as lacking some attribute that would make its members similar and equal to the majority group.

Here at UW-Madison, the process of stigmatization begins by designating certain groups of students — African Americans, American Indians, Hispanics and South East Asians — as “targeted minorities.”

Targeted for what, you ask? For special consideration as determined by the enlightened, well-meaning leaders from the majority group. This means giving “targeted minority” students preferences in admission, offering them extra tutoring and academic help, and providing them with their own space where they can associate together, e.g., the Multicultural Student Center, and so on.

Who is doing this stigmatizing? It is campus administrators who apply the “targeted minority” label to them. It is campus administrators who treat “targeted minority” students as if all of them need special academic help to become more like majority students.

What these administrators fail to realize is that this process of stigmatization tarnishes all “targeted minority” students. It is most damaging to those minority students who do not require any special assistance. They can already compete academically with non-minority students.

This latter group suffers in still another way. Its members know they don’t need special help. Yet, because it is offered they are reluctant to refuse it. This act could accentuate the stigmatization they already feel and also undermine the academic performance of these students who in the absence of stigma could perform academically at a higher level.

This stigmatization hardens as non-minority students observe the special treatment afforded “targeted minority” students. Non-minority students come to realize that some of them also need an extra push and could benefit from the special treatment accorded “targeted minority” students.

This evolving process creates awkwardness in interactions between non-minority and “targeted minority” students. Non-minority students are not certain how to interact with these “targeted minority” students who are so “different” from themselves and thus viewed as less than equal to themselves. Likewise, “targeted minority” students feel uncomfortable in their interactions with non-minority students not knowing whether they will be received as “normal” persons or treated with condescension if not disdain. In short, to use the words of Goffman, “targeted minority” students are seen by other students as “incomplete persons.” Unfortunately, many “targeted minority” students come to regard themselves in the same way.

What is the solution to this long-standing mistreatment of minority students and the identity politics that flows from it? What will not help is the inventive new banner of “inclusive excellence.” This term is the latest effort to camouflage what goes on at this university. It will do nothing to eliminate the stigmatization of minority students.

The solution is obvious. Eliminate the labeling of African American, American Indian, Hispanic/Latino, and South East Asian students as “targeted minorities.” Admit all applicants on a competitive basis, paying attention to their academic preparation and potential rather than their race/ethnicity, or other characteristics that give an excuse to “privilege” a “targeted minority.” Do away with unevaluated academic support and related programs that operated earlier under the name of “diversity” and now under the name of “inclusive excellence.”

In short, treat all students as equal human beings; which is what the 1964 civil rights movement sought to achieve.

“Inclusive excellence” has quietly replaced “diversity” and “Plan 2008” as the guiding star in UW-Madison’s four-decade long effort to increase minority representation and success.

Why adopt a new name for its diversity program? The reason is clear. Something had to be done to divert attention from the failed Plan 2008 which the UW System Board of Regents promised back in 1998 would make the UW System a national leader in achieving diversity.

The big question now is this: Can “inclusive excellence” succeed in accomplishing its ambitious goals? Answering this question first requires understanding what “inclusive excellence” means.

The most concise description appears in a Board of Regents document [go to UW System, “Inclusive Excellence FAQ: Short Version”]. It characterizes “inclusive excellence” as a new approach that will foster “greater diversity, equity, inclusion and accountability.” It says this approach rests on the premise that UW System institutions, including UW-Madison, “need to intentionally integrate their diversity efforts into the core aspects of their institutions — such as academic priorities, leadership, quality improvement initiatives, decision-making, day-to-day operations and organizational cultures — in order to maximize their success.”

It is further described as a “change-oriented planning process that encourages us to continue our diversification efforts albeit with a greater intentionality and attentiveness to how they serve the needs of our students.”

What do we make of this salad of words called “inclusive excellence?” The concept remains baffling because of its vague abstractness. Even UW-Madison Chancellor Biddy Martin in addressing the Diversity Forum last fall experienced difficulty explaining what “inclusive excellence” means. If she can’t explain it to a large Union Theater audience, how can UWstudents, faculty and staff, as well as the general public, grasp its meaning?

How will the success of the “inclusive excellence” approach be assessed? The UW System document mentions nine criteria. The most tangible of these criteria include proportional representation of underrepresented faculty, students and staff, improved retention and graduation rates, a more welcoming campus climate, and greater multicultural competence in graduating seniors. Sound familiar? They are right out of Plan 2008.

Among the several other criteria is this one. Success will be achieved in UW institutions by way of a “thorough institutionalization of equity and diversity where they are embraced as core values and used to inform campus decision-making, educational practices and policy-making.” How will anyone determine whether this goal is achieved?

Why should anyone expect that “inclusive excellence” will be any more successful than prior plans in realizing the goals of diversity? Just because the regents and UW System supported and then adopted this new program does not guarantee its success. Nor did the official enthusiastic support for Plan 2008 guarantee its success when adopted more than a decade ago.

What about implementing this nebulous concept? The UW System document says this new approach can work if “institutions work diligently and steadily to incorporate their diversity work into the larger instructional culture” so they “become integrated into the larger fabric of the institution.” Wasn’t this the intent of Plan 2008?

Is there any knowledge whether this approach has proven itself at other institutions? Where else has it been implemented? How successful has it been in achieving the nine criteria that would mark its success? Until more information is available about whether it ” works,” we should remain skeptical about its ability to “fix” diversity problems here.

Even more startling is the document’s assurance “implementation should not require any additional resources of either the financial or human kind?” How likely is it that “excellence and diversity … will simply become integrated into the larger fabric of the institution” without incurring any additional costs?

“Inclusive excellence” is yet another articulation of a flawed approach. It ignores the core issue — a failure to overcome at an early age the cognitive and motivational limitations that plague so many minority students well before they reach college age.

Couched in florid language, “inclusive excellence” represents one more effort to gloss over past failures. It is time for actions to speak louder than words.