When Race Disappears

Procedures

Legislative testimony was retrieved from the Texas Committee on Higher Education at the Texas Senate website. We transcribed this 9 hours of testimony verbatim. After transcribing the testimony, we conducted research on each of the Senators or stakeholders (e.g., the President or Chancellor of UT-Austin, students attending Texas universities, members of lobbying groups, etc.) to identify their position or the group that they represented, political affiliation (if applicable), stance toward the proposed changed to the Plan in SB 175, gender, and racial/ethnic group (Table 1). We also particularly examined statements made by these stakeholders for implicit and explicit references to race. The witnesses or policy stakeholders in the hearing regarding changes to Senate Bill 175, the Plan, are listed in Table 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Participants.

Name	Affiliation	Race	Gender	Political party	Position
Senator West	Texas Senate	African American	Male	Democrat	Anti SB175; final vote no
Senator Duncan	Texas Senate	White	Male	Republican	ProSB175; final vote yes
Senator Shapiro	Texas Senate	White	Female	Republican	Pro SB175; final vote yes
Senator Patrick	Texas Senate	White	Male	Republican	Pro SB175; final vote yes
Chancellor Cigarroa	Chancellor, UT System	Mexican American	Male	Not applicable	Pro SB175
Bill Powers	President, UT-Austin	White	Male	Not applicable	Pro SB175
John Adkins	UT Alum, former president of Texas exes	White	Male	Not applicable	Pro SB175
Jesus Guerrera	UT Student; rep of UT Latino Leadership Council	Latino	Male	Not applicable	Anti SB175
Ian Sire	High school student	White	Male	Not applicable	Pro SB175
Keshav Rajagopalan	Student, student body president UT –Austin	Student of color	Male	Not applicable	Pro SB175

Note: These participants were a general representation of the Senate Hearing on SB 175.

Source: Adapted from information in Texas legislative website http://www.legis.state.tx.us/billlookup/BillStages.aspx?LegSess=81R&Bill=SB175

We connected our analysis of the debate about SB 175 with critical discourse analysis. Fairclough (1995/2010) maintains that critical discourse analysis is distinct from discourse analysis that is not critically oriented in that it: (a) analyzes relationships between discourse and other elements of the social process, (b) includes systematic analysis of texts/policy debate, and (c) is not only descriptive but also normative (having to do with addressing social wrongs). In what follows, we describe in more detail our analysis process, connected to each of these three points.

We each analyzed the data separately before comparing our codes within the research team. This was in an effort to create a peer-debriefing or peer-reviewing process (Carspecken, 1996) whereby we could help to validate the findings that emerged from the data. Drawing from the general analysis practices of critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1995/2010) and critical ethnography (Carspecken, 1996), ⁴ we proceeded to code the transcript using three stages of analysis in order to provide a systematic analysis of the text (Point 2, systematic analysis). First, we coded statements with a low-level code (Carspecken, 1996; Patton, 2001), a 2- to 3-word statement used to capture what was said in a sentence or paragraph. Typically these codes were selected based on the words used by the policy stakeholder so that these low-level codes closely aligned to the transcript.

After this more explicit form of analysis, we identified an analytic question from the transcript (Neumann, 2009): How does this policy stakeholder implicitly or explicitly describe the issue of race as it relates to college access in Texas? This question emerged from our initial analysis of the low-level codes; many of these codes related to race in some way. This also allowed us to grapple with the way that the debate connected with the ideology of race, the implications for points in the discourse where race was avoided, or the normative aspects of the debate (Points 1, discourse and the social process, and 3, normative issues). Finally, our third stage of analysis took into account both the low-level codes and the codes related to our analytic question. Then we analyzed the transcript, placing a high-level code (Carspecken, 1996) next to the other two stages of codes. This high-level code was very high inference, meaning that it was something within the statement that was very implicit or subtle as a way to capture larger social issues and also normative issues in the debate (Points 1 and 3). We only used a high-level code if we could directly link it to low-level codes or the race (analytic question) codes. These high-level codes allowed us to analyze the implicit and explicit references to race. We transferred all manual codes into Atlas TI, a code-based theory-building software program so that we could compare our codes and identify any discrepancies in our findings. Then, we clustered our codes to formulate themes (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

We employed CRT as a theoretical guide in the following ways in our analysis and interpretation of the data, also connecting with the tenants of critical discourse analysis that have to do with normative analysis and a connection with larger social issues (Points 1 and 3): (a) When conducting our analysis, we examined the discourse for any discussion that was explicitly about race and analyzed these references (e.g., mentioning particular racial/ethnic groups, use of the words “race,” “racism,” or “discrimination”), (b) when race was not explicitly mentioned, we analyzed the discourse for implicit references to race (e.g., words like “diversity,” “diversifying,” or “multicultural”), and (c) if race was completely absent from the conversation, we analyzed these silences and examined the data for potential reasons for this absence (e.g., references to socioeconomic status or geographic location of students, discussion about holistic admissions processes that did not deal directly with race).

After the full analysis was complete, we returned to the combined critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1995/2010) and CRT (Delgado & Stefanic, 2001) theoretical perspectives and examined our interpretation and findings alongside these theoretical ideas. For example, we considered both the stated and implicitly assumed connections to race. To get at some of the implicit ways that race was evoked, we analyzed the silences or absences in the discourse about SB 175. Analysis of silences or absences within texts or discourses connects well with CRT where silence about race may imply that race/racism is being referenced (Delgado & Stefanice, 2001), and critical discourse analysis where comparisons between absence and presence of concepts in discourse may reveal ideologies or generally implicit assumptions (Fairclough, 1995/2010). In this case, we were concerned with the ideology of race or the norms that were implied about racial classifications related to college admissions. In addition, in our conversations about the analysis, we asked ourselves questions about why we opted to highlight or exclude racial issues within our interpretation as a way to offer validation to our analysis and to reflect on our own silence/absence of race.

To ensure the credibility of the findings through multiple validation techniques, we (a) checked for representativeness within the data through ongoing examination of narratives and emerging themes, (b) triangulated the analysis through multiple stages of data analysis (low-level coding, analytic question codes dealing with merit, and high-level coding), (c) conducted peer review of findings by first analyzing data separately and then comparing our analysis for similarities and differences, and (d) searched for negative evidence or data that opposed emergent findings and reanalyzed this data (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Patton, 2001).

Performance-Based Policy Promotes Race-Inclusive Access (or Competition) to College

Race was a contentious issue in the inception of the Plan. Reflecting on the reason that the Plan was framed as a race-neutral policy, Senator Duncan, a White male Republican in support of SB 175 recalled: “I remember this bill was a response to Hopwood and general interpretation of Hopwood as being very strict, prohibiting any race-based criteria in everything. So, I remember we responded to that with this law.” Duncan recalled the Hopwood court decision that banned race from the admissions process underscoring the perceived need to craft a college admissions policy that did not consider race. Senator Shapiro, a White female Republican and the primary author of SB 175 that would change the Plan added, “And I thought it was a good response quite frankly. Then shortly after we based this law on that [Hopwood] decision, at least the principle underlying that decision, was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.” Shapiro suggested that the 2003 affirmative action decision in the Supreme Court case, Grutter v. Bollinger (related to college admissions in Michigan) made the initial impetus for the Plan less relevant since race could now be considered in college admissions.

Senator West, an African American male Democrat who was opposed to SB 175, emphasized that the Plan was optimal because the focus was on student performance among peers, “. . . the reality is that the top 10% law that we put into effect is race-neutral, and it judges a child based on the circumstances that a student finds themselves in when they graduate from high school.” Thus, student performance within a particular school context, rather than demographic characteristics, became the dominant narrative used to discuss whether students are worthy of college admission. Rather than race, West maintained, the Plan judges a student on the “circumstances” he or she is in during high school, referring to grade point average (GPA) and class rank upon which the Plan was focused. The use of the word “circumstances” could also allude to race-based public school inequalities, although West does not make that explicit at this point in the debate.

Propelling away from the word “circumstances,” which might evoke thoughts of inequalities in the schools, Senator Shapiro became more explicit about what is emphasized in this college admissions policy, “Performance. So if that student performs, what this Top Ten Percent law enables that student to do if they have the knowledge and the understanding and the resources available, is to determine what state supported institution to go to.” The use of the word “performance,” measured by GPA and class rank, emphasizes students’ individual responsibility to do well in high school in order to merit admission to college. As Shapiro turns the discourse away from the word “circumstances” toward the word “performance,” one interpretation is that she was making a bid for race neutrality in the dialogue. Shapiro implicitly assumes an equal playing field in her statement; that is, all students will have the ability and opportunity to perform regardless of their background of their secondary school. Performance could be in place of consideration of other factors (e.g., race, gender, inequalities). The word “circumstances” used by Senator West, on the other hand, could invoke primary and secondary school inequality, which is difficult to divorce from racial inequality. But Shapiro’s switch to the word “performance” focuses on individual responsibility instead, moving the conversation in a more race-neutral direction.

Senators West and Shapiro debated the utility of SAT scores and class rank as ways for students to compete for college admissions. Senator West offered his insight into his view on standardized testing:

This is not an issue concerning the ability of top ten percent students to matriculate through the university in a timely fashion and to do the work because overall the grade point average of top ten percent students regardless of SAT scores, standardized test scores, continue to be higher. . . . Even though the non-top ten percent students in many instances over the years have a higher SAT score, the grade point average of the top ten percent students is higher than the non-top ten percent students. So that kind of tells us a little bit about those standardized scores.

This statement appears to call into question the utility of standardized test scores in predicting college achievement. Instead, Senator West is favoring student performance among high school peers (class rank) as a better tool to promote diversity in college admissions.

Senator Shapiro agreed, “That’s correct but those students are not in the top ten percent, their [SAT] scores are higher than those in the top ten percent. But they are not using those SAT scores.” Shapiro paraphrased West’s sentiment that the use of SAT scores and class ranks in college admissions decisions may not result in admission of the same students to college. If West’s assumption was that the Plan fostered the admission of more students of color, Shapiro appears to be questioning if those students are the most deserving of admission.

There was some disagreement in the testimonies from the Texas Senate hearing on the role that the Plan has played in increasing or maintaining racial diversity efforts in Texas colleges and universities. Reflecting on the outcome of the Plan, Senator Shapiro noted, “. . . . I don’t believe the Top Percent has caused the most diversity ever. I think the days have changed. I think the world has changed. I think the issues have changed. I think there are more students that are prepared to go to the University of Texas today than there were decades ago.” Senator Shapiro implied that The Plan and other diversity initiatives like affirmative action are less necessary because all students have more opportunities to compete for college admissions. However, the word “prepared” is significant in that it implies that in the past students may not have been prepared. Given that race-based admissions policies were used in the past, this also becomes a claim that race-neutral, performance-based policies lead to more prepared students. This line of argument places the responsibility for college admissions on the individual student to be “prepared” while also assuming that all students have equal opportunities to prepare.

Senator West considered his own conclusions relative to the racial outcomes of the Plan, “. . . based on the statistics that most of the ethnic minority students that are getting in, a significant number are getting in as a result of the Top Ten Percent.” West’s rebuttal to Shapiro’s statement about diversity suggested that the Plan had increased racial diversity in Texas postsecondary institutions. West is arguing that Top Ten Percent might be crucial to the inclusion of students of color in college, that the race-neutral policy has fostered diversity on campuses.

University of Texas alum, John Adkins, a White male and national president of Texas Exes in 2005 and 2006, contemplated the idea of competition for the “best and the brightest” in his testimony supporting changes to the Plan:

I’m in favor of Senate Bill 175. I began volunteering for the UT Alumni in 1977. . . . I think it’s important to note that UT Alumni can really be involved in this process of diversifying our student body and bringing the best and brightest students from all across the world by giving them money for scholarships which we do and by recruiting those kids, especially minority kids. The one’s that I went to look for were the kids that were in the top quarter of their class but had very strong SAT scores and were eligible for free money through the national achievement scholarship, very similar to the national merit scholarship program.

Adkins defined the “best and the brightest” students in the “top quarter of their class” with “strong SAT scores,” deemphasizing race as a factor in admissions decisions. He still maintained the importance of racial diversity, asserting that diversification efforts could be achieved without race being a pivotal part of the admissions policy. Adkins’ testimony reinforces the race neutrality of the Plan, focusing instead on measurable factors for admissions such as test scores and class rank. This is also a claim that students of color are some of the “best and the brightest” students.

Looking to the future, some of the discussion centered on whether to change the Plan, allowing a cap of 50% of students admitted based on class rank, particularly at UT-Austin (rather than the entire freshman class). ⁶ For instance, Senator Patrick, a White male Republican who was in favor of SB 175, noted, “The fact that we would reduce the cap to 50% . . . does not mean that University of Texas would not still select those Hispanic or African American students who are already there under the top ten percent. Those students are still going to be eligible.” By “eligible,” Senator Patrick implied that students of color could compete for admissions through class rank. Patrick’s statement indicates that changes to SB 175 do not explicitly exclude students based on race, underscoring the notion of race neutrality in the Plan. Also, Patrick may have been alluding to the way that institutions did have the option to use race-based admissions at this time based on the 2003 Grutter ruling. Ultimately, this is a reference to equal opportunity or the idea that all students have the opportunity to compete for college admissions, regardless of their racial background.

Senator Shapiro contemplated geographic diversity relative to changes to the Plan, considering students from rural geographic areas, “. . . I don’t think a kid that goes to a rural school is at a disadvantage necessarily from being able to compete to get in on his own merit not just the top ten percent.” She advocated for changes to the Plan because, in her estimation, rural students are able to successfully compete for college admission with or without the Plan. The notion of all students being able to compete for college admission regardless of their social position is a claim to equal opportunity (i.e., everyone has the opportunity to compete). This claim also underscores a race-neutral argument, that race is not as important as individual opportunity to compete on an equal playing field. Shapiro’s statement connected to another aspect of the discourse in the Senate hearing, the relationship between K-12 educational contexts and college access.

Senator Shapiro maintained, “Top 10% in one part of the state is very different than the top 10% in another part. The top 10% in the Dallas Independent School District should not even begin to be compared to the top 10% in Brazoria.” In an effort to make her case for why using class rank as the only admissions criteria might be ineffective, supporting her SB 175 legislation to change the Plan, she suggested that high schools are not equal in terms of their competitiveness. That is, some students may have to fight harder for their rank than others. Since, Shapiro was in favor of a performance-based (race-neutral) admissions policy, this aspect of her discourse was likely an attempt to explain why college admissions criteria should include more than class rank rather than an intentional appeal to focus on K-12 school inequality. Senator West responded:

I’ve heard this debate about whether one school is better than another. I’m not saying that you are saying that, but that’s part of the debate. But the reality is that a student has really no choice of what school district they find themselves in and they have no choice in terms of what school they find themselves in. They can only perform. They have a choice in terms of performance.

West’s statement suggests that students may not have a choice of the quality of their high schools, but they can choose to compete, to perform well academically regardless of their social location (race, class, gender, geographic location). This effectively makes primary and secondary school inequality seem less important than a students’ ability to compete. West, who was against SB 175, may also be trying to convince other Senators that changes to the Plan may actually be detrimental to students in lower-quality schools who would have gained admissions as students in the top 10% of their classes but who would not gain admissions using other measurements (e.g., test scores, etc.).

Adding nuance to the differences in primary or secondary education, Senator Duncan reflected:

If I’m in a school, say, in Plano or Lubbock, or wherever it is, and I want to go to the University of Texas, well, I’m going to take the path of least resistance. Because if you’re in an IB [International Baccalaureate] program, or if you have the opportunity to take very advanced courses that actually prepare you to be in college, and to succeed in a university like the University of Texas, you put yourself at a disadvantage in getting admitted, because you’re in a more highly competitive environment. I think of the magnet programs we have around the state that I think have been successful in helping with desegregation and other things. The magnet programs, if you were to go into a highly competitive program, you’re actually hurting yourself in your ability to get into the University of Texas, or A&M, even.

Senator Duncan, in favor of changes to SB 175, underscored the potential for an unintended consequence from the initial Plan. In this case, students in highly competitive high schools might actually opt not to take more advanced courses or programs so that they could preserve their ability to stay in the top 10% of their class. The inference is that the Plan hurts high-achieving students. But this also raises the issue of differences in opportunities at the primary and secondary school levels. Shapiro concurred:

To be honest with you Senator Duncan, I have heard this time and time again. Parents telling their children that if you really want to go to the University of Texas or others. You shouldn’t be in that AP [Advanced Placement] program. You shouldn’t be in that IB program because that’s not going to help you with that Top Ten Percent and they are doing that. And some are even leaving school districts so they can stay in the top 10% in other school districts. It happens all the time.

Building on Senator Duncan’s point, Senator Shapiro suggested that parents might take measures such as moving to a less competitive school district to ensure their child’s access to a preferred college. Shapiro argued that moving away from a strict focus on class rank will resolve concerns about variances in school competiveness. Within her statement is an example of social privilege where some students might have the resources to move to another school district. ⁷

Senator Patrick, who was in favor of SB 175, continued, “And I heard Senator West say that some students, when you compare school districts, have no choice of where they go . . .” Patrick is reiterating that some students, those with financial resources to do so, actually are choosing their schools in order to facilitate their rise to the top 10% of their high school graduating classes. Other students, likely those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, do not have this choice. Hence, by changing the Plan so that more factors than class rank can be considered may help to alleviate some inequalities, per this line of argumentation.

A University of Texas student and representative of the University of Texas Latino Leadership Council, Jesus Guerrera, summarized his view of secondary school inequalities:

I am from the Rio Grande Valley. My school cannot compare to anything maybe upstate, or even upper Austin, Round Rock. We have a computer lab that consists of three computers for the whole campus. That cannot be compared to anybody that has maybe five computer labs. So, Texas education is not equal. And Top 10% does allow for everyone to be taken into consideration, where it is an equal playing field for everybody.

Unlike Shapiro and Patrick’s points, Guerrera’s argument is that the Plan equals the playing field, making the college admissions process fairer. His awareness of unequal access to educational opportunities in Texas is further demonstrated by his opposition to the changes in the Plan:

If you get rid of the top 10%, you’re getting rid of the students from border cities, like Laredo, Rio Grande Valley, and El Paso, and also other low-income areas. You’re also getting rid of students from high schools that couldn’t afford that updated textbook, or students that couldn’t go on that field trip to the university to check it out and see what it’s really like, what a real university is like. Or the students who didn’t have qualified counselors. Getting rid of top ten percent is getting rid of future leaders or those where top ten percent is the only option they really have of getting into a university like Texas and getting a top notch education.

Guerrera’s testimony suggested that although the initial Plan was not perfect, it still might allow more access to college for students in low-income or border city areas in the state because at least those students in the top decile of their high school class would be guaranteed admissions into a Texas college or university. Although Guerrera did not refer explicitly to race in his statement, there are likely many students of color in border city areas who he referenced. Thus, these arguments largely suggest that race-inclusive access can be attained through performance, regardless of primary and secondary education inequalities. It is these arguments that lead to our next theme, which emphasize the next claim that true inclusion means expanding performance indicators beyond race and rank.

Broadening Performance Indicators Beyond Race and Rank Promotes Real Inclusion

Although class rank was the initial performance indicator for the Plan, some of the policy stakeholders contemplated other ways that performance could be measured in college admissions policies. Most of the stakeholders discussing other indicators were educators and college alumni making a claim for increased diversity on college campuses. The diversity would stem from a more “holistic” admissions process that included special skills and abilities such as musical talent, athletic ability, or an interest in a particular academic discipline.

The 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case, Grutter v. Bollinger, upheld that among many other factors, race and ethnicity could be considered in the college admissions process. This decision, in turn, has been interpreted by college admissions to allow for a more holistic admissions process and ensure a more diverse campus. In light of the Grutter case, which was the primary legal ruling relative to race-based college admissions at the time, Chancellor Cigarroa, a Mexican American male, expressed in his testimony that the unintended consequence of the uniform GPA criterion in the Plan continues to be problematic:

UT-Austin will soon face the prospect of having every single one its incoming Texas freshman being selected based on a single criterion, their standing in the top 10% of their graduating high school class. For each of those students attaining that academic success is a remarkable achievement. But to rely on a single criterion for every Texas freshman will deprive UT-Austin of the opportunity it needs to build a class that fully represents the diversity of Texas. At all levels including diversity attributes, diversity seen in the award winning debater or the accomplished guitarist or an aspiring architect or the young woman or man who has overcome significant struggles.

Chancellor Cigarroa argued that the single criterion for admissions disallowed the diversification of UT-Austin. Race is not centrally included in Cigarroa’s definition of “diversity.” The word “adversity” could be a code word for students of color or low-income students, but this was not made explicit. Instead, diversity is linked to performance indicators such as skills and special abilities (i.e., diversity of abilities is meritorious). Thus, diversity becomes performance based, that is, level of diversity measured based on student’s demonstrating diverse skills or abilities, rather than rooted in racial and social backgrounds.

Continuing to emphasize his point to move beyond a single admission criterion, Chancellor Cigarroa used his personal experience as an incoming medical student:

This law might well have deprived me of being admitted into medical school, if medical school admissions processes had top 10%. You see, when I left Laredo public schools, and went to Yale, I challenged myself to a degree that I never thought I’d be challenged at. I thought I was well-prepared, but those first two years at Yale were very difficult for me. I did not get straight A’s. But I saw continual improvement. In my third year I started getting B+’s, in my senior year I got straight A’s. But luckily, the admissions committee at Southwestern Medical School saw continual improvement, saw that I overcame challenges, saw that I was a guitarist, and admitted me. If it wasn’t for that decision, all of the wonderful opportunities the great state of Texas has given me would not have been possible.

By using his experience, Cigarroa argues that the Plan is limiting because it overlooks non–Top Ten Percent students who manifest their talents in multiple ways. For instance, Cigarroa mentioned his talent for guitar as part of the criteria that were considered for his admission to medical school, suggesting that special skills or abilities should be included in a holistic notion of merit. Here, overcoming adversity seems to be linked to improving academic standing over time.

Building upon Chancellor Cigarroa’s testament to reconsider changes to the Plan, Bill Powers, a White male and president of UT-Austin, stated in his testimony that keeping with the Plan would have also grave effects on particular academic departments:

Top 10% students don’t enroll in sufficient numbers in some very critical areas of our campus, including electrical engineering, geosciences, architecture, and music. We’ve had to use virtually all of our non-top 10% admits to fill those programs on our campus. We’re simply out of space. And it does not enable us then to admit the 12% student, who won the state math contest, who is likely the PhD, maybe future Nobel Prize winner in mathematics. Or the oboe student, who is in the top 12%, top 15%, who may be the virtuoso oboe player. We simply have totally run out of room to admit those students.

President Powers implied that diversity should focus on particular academic abilities or talents. Rather than only class rank or test scores that might predict potential, Powers highlighted students’ demonstrated abilities or skills (e.g., musical ability, talent in math, etc.). He voiced a concern that particular academic disciplines are not popular among many of the Top Ten Percent students. As a result, UT has had to admit non–Top Ten Percent students to admit into those programs. Powers also shared that the problem is a capacity issue that there is not enough space to admit many students who were not in the top 10% of their high school classes despite the fact that they may have exceptional potential. Underlying his argument to change the Plan is a bid to define diversity as connected to interests, skills, and abilities.

Bill Powers advocated for SB 175, which would change the Plan to allow UT-Austin in particular to admit up to 50% (although the policy ultimately landed on a 75% rule) of the entering class from the top 10% of their high schools and the other half of the freshman class could be admitted with other criteria. He asserted the change would allow for students with a larger “indicia of success” and have a more ethnically diverse incoming class:

And I firmly believe, having a top 10% rule that is limited to half of our class will help our diversity. That will give us a lot of flexibility to take the ethnicity into account. If our entire class comes in under the top 10%, it will inhibit our ability to identify that 12% Hispanic or African-American student who have other tremendous indicia of success, and go out and recruit. It will hinder our efforts at increasing diversity.

Here Powers includes ethnicity in his consideration of “diversity,” claiming that a change to the Plan would allow more discretion to conduct race-based admissions under the legal precedence set by the 2003 Grutter case, which was law at the time. Powers continued:

We have discussions about how they ought to live their life, we tell them, first, do well in school. It is terribly important. Do your homework. We also tell them to get involved. Get involved in the band . . . get involved in your religious organization, get involved in the community. We tell them that those are the important things to do in life. And they get to 17 years old, and we make chumps of them. There’s one thing they want, to come to the University of Texas at Austin. And we tell them, not only weren’t those good choices to make, they don’t count at all. That is a terrible message to send to the young people in the state, whether they are coming to the University of Texas at Austin or not.

Powers maintained that students in the state are given conflicting messages. They are initially told that to do well in school and that they should get involved. Yet when they are ready for the college application process, only their class rank is important. Powers’ argument is that continuing to use the Plan, which uses a single criterion of class rank, is doing an injustice to the students who should be encouraged to develop skills, talents, or abilities.

This point that students received contradictory messages about how to be successful was further reinforced by the concerns from students’ testimonies. High school students such as Ian Sire and Keshav Rajagopalan argued that the Plan is sending a wrong message by only using a single criterion for admission. Keshav Rajagopalan asked in his testimony, “If they are taught their entire life to be well rounded—join clubs, play sports, be on the debate team, write for the newspaper and they get to their senior year and they find out all that matters was one criterion?” Ian Sire, in agreement, shared in his testimony:

It takes away from my motivation to do things that aren’t simply school work. So it really shifts focus away from having extracurriculars, having well-rounded students who, simply, getting that homework done, and spending all your time studying for that test, and so that I think that capping it, not eliminating the 10% rule, but capping it at 50%, allows a greater amount of students to be holistically reviewed.

Both students voiced frustration about the devaluing of extracurricular activities within the Plan. These students claimed that the Plan gives conflicting messages about what it means to be well rounded, potentially leading them to be less motivated to do well in school. Sire’s argument for the need to be measured holistically implies that diversity on campus could be fostered through including criteria for extracurricular activities, special talents, or abilities. Race was not part of his notion of a “holistic” college admissions process.

Senator Patrick continued to tease out the way that changes to the Plan might influence diversity on campus, “So at the end of the day, ethnicity would be a factor . . . it sounds to me that if all things are equal between a couple of students, a minority student may actually have a slight edge.” According to Patrick, not only would ethnicity be one of many factors considered in admissions, but it would actually offer a “slight edge” to students of color. Patrick implied with his statement that changing the Plan (through passing SB 175) could be a return to race-based admissions processes even though race was not explicit in the policy revisions. Bill Powers replied, “Well, the oboe player will have an edge, the student body president will have an edge, the person with high grades will have an edge, and a student that is reflecting the diversity of the state will have an edge. . . .” Powers argued in his statement that race could be considered as one of many factors, including leadership abilities, academic achievement, and special talents. In this exchange, both parties are moving toward attempting to understand what it might mean to think more holistically about the admissions process. Race is ultimately downplayed as a factor in the admissions decision-making process. In addition, it is worth noting that the only reason this exchange occurred is because Senator Patrick initiated it by interrupting during Powers’ testimony; Powers did not have the power to initiate this debate or exchange.