Jeff Millman: A convenient time to come clean

Last Thursday, University Board of Trustees Chairman James Riepe and University President Judith Rodin proved that even an Ivy League university can go stupid.

The two highest school officials wrote a Daily Pennsylvanian guest column which for the first time publicly disclosed that "affirmative action has been an important component of our strategy to bring exceptional students from all backgrounds, interests and talents into Penn's community of scholars, and these students have played an important part in our success."

This statement announced a dramatic shift in Penn's affirmative action strategy. In recent years, Penn never explicitly revealed that it considers race in admissions decisions, although the practice had been a fixture at many private universities even before the Supreme Court declared it to be constitutional in the 1978 decision of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.

The denials were very smart. By refusing to acknowledge its affirmative action policy, Penn avoided becoming a flamboyant target of lawsuits by people like Jennifer Gratz, who in 1997 filed a class action lawsuit against the University of Michigan to challenge its affirmative action policy. And the denials reassured minority students that they were accepted for demonstrating academic achievement or potential and thus, were qualified to be here.

In light of increased scrutiny surrounding the Michigan lawsuits, Dean of Admissions Lee Stetson said in a May 1998 Philadelphia Inquirer article, "I think we're all now adopting a more aggressive attitude in defending our admissions strategy." Instead, Penn's path from silence to full disclosure has been intentionally fuzzy.

For example, Stetson defined affirmative action as "being conscious of the background the student comes from." But does that refer to admissions decisions or recruiting or financial aid?

The University's General Counsel Wendy White said she was "not going to give a clear answer" as to whether Penn takes race into account in admissions decisions.

But Penn made a clear decision to distance itself from the Michigan undergraduate affirmative action program -- which may be tantamount to an unconstitutional quota system -- even though Penn officials helped draft an amicus curiae brief to defend Michigan's program. Interestingly enough, of all the schools that signed the brief to defend Michigan, only Penn did not announce it in a press release.

And according to White, the brief did not stipulate that Penn in fact takes race into account for admissions decisions; rather, she said the brief defends race consideration "as a matter of principle" and that the methods for achieving diversity "needs to be left to the institutions."

On the other hand, Penn has repeatedly embraced "diversity," a word that is often inferred as code for considering race in admissions decisions.

In a January interview, Canh Oxelson, director of the minority recruitment program in the Office of Admissions, stressed that Penn went to great lengths to cast "a wide net" in its multicultural recruitment efforts. He also said that Penn was aggressive in trying to get accepted minorities to matriculate. But he specifically denied that race was a factor in admissions decisions, claiming that there is "no need" for this affirmative action due to the extensive outreach and retention efforts.

Rodin disagreed with Oxelson, saying in a Feb. 19 Inquirer article, "We already do a terrific job of outreach. We're fooling ourselves if we think that alone will solve the problem."

What has Penn done to ensure diversity? According to Sociology Department Chairman Doug Massey, an expert on affirmative action, "nobody knows" whether Penn takes race into account in undergraduate admissions decisions. His many inquiries and requests to look at admissions data have all been denied.

Of course, University spokeswoman Phyllis Holtzman disagreed, saying Penn's "affirmative action policy hasn't been a secret." She called Penn's effort to achieve diversity a "founding principle."

Then what's the reason for last Thursday's statement? "Just seemed like a good time to do it."

By finally telling the truth last Thursday, Penn is throwing away the benefits of ingenuity. And that's pretty stupid.

Fortunately, in being stupid, Penn has reaffirmed its commitment to our education. Penn is teaching us to speak up for our convictions, no matter how unpopular, no matter the risk from lawsuits or increased racial tensions. It's a lesson far more valuable than anything we can learn in class.

Perhaps it's a good time to come clean because early indications suggest that affirmative action will be upheld by the Supreme Court. Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, herself a product of affirmative action and the court's key swing vote, said in last Tuesday's oral arguments that there are some precedents that affirmative action opponents "had to come to grips with" that support consideration of race in admissions. White said that Michigan has profound implications on Penn because the court has tied affirmative action to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which Penn must follow in order to receive federal funds.

The University of Michigan took a bullet for a principle that is vitally important to Penn. Whether or not it's prudent for Penn to show its solidarity for Michigan, it's good to see Penn finally throw caution aside and, as White said, "let people know our commitment to affirmative action."

Jeff Millman is a senior Philosophy, Politics, and Economics major from Los Angeles, Calif.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.