Executive Summary

There is substantial evidence that the University of Minnesota campuses at Twin Cities and Duluth discriminate against white applicants and in favor of minority applicants in their admissions policies. At the four public universities in Minnesota covered by this study, white admittees on average have higher ACT composite test scores than blacks admitted to the same schools. The gap in ACTs ranges from one point at the University of Minnesota at Crookston (UMC) to seven points at the University of Minnesota at Morris (UMM). The University of Minnesota at Duluth (UMD) has a gap of four points, and the University of Minnesota at Twin Cities (UMTC) has a five-point gap. White-black differences in high-school percentile rank vary. At three of the four campuses, whites have a higher class percentile rank than do their black counterparts. At UMM, however, blacks have a higher class percentile rank than do whites.

The relative odds of admission at UMTC and at UMD show a strong degree of preference given to blacks over whites (3.04 to 1 at UMTC and 4.09 to 1 at UMD). At UMM, however, the relative odds of admission show no evidence of preference given for either whites or blacks. UMC admitted all applicants. At three of the Minnesota public universities, white admittees have higher average ACTs than do their Hispanic counterparts. The differences are two points at UMD and UMTC and three points at UMM. At UMC, Hispanics have a somewhat higher average score than do their white counterparts. At all universities, white admittees have a higher average high-school percentile rank than do their Hispanic counterparts. The differences range from 1 point at UMM to 17.5 points at UMC. The difference at UMTC is 4.5 points.

Relative odds ratios show preference for Hispanics over whites at UMTC (4.96 to 1). At three of the campuses, white students have higher ACTs than do their Asian counterparts. The differences range from three points at UMTC to one point at UMM. At UMC, there is no ACT difference between white and Asian enrollees. At two campuses, UMC and UMTC, whites average higher than do Asians in class rank (25.00 and 1.00, respectively). At UMM there is no difference and, at UMD, Asians have a higher rank than do their white counterparts. Relative odds ratios show that, at UMD and UMTC, Asians receive preferences in admissions relative to whites (4.52 to 1 and 6.56 to 1, respectively).

Frequently white applicants are rejected even though they have higher ACT scores, high-school class rank, or both than the average minority accepted, especially at UMTC and UMD. The white six-year graduation rate is higher than the black average at all universities studied. The Hispanic six-year graduation rate is higher than the white rate at UMM, but lower otherwise. The Asian rate is equal to the white rate at UMM and UMTC, but lower at UMD and UMC.

Except at UMC, black enrollees are more likely to be required to take remedial courses than their white counterparts. Three times as many blacks as whites are required to take remedial courses at UMTC while six times as many blacks as whites are required to take remedial courses at UMM. Except at UMC, a larger proportion of Hispanics than of whites is required to take remedial courses. A smaller proportion of Asians than whites is required to take remedial courses at UMM, UMC, and UMD. More Asians are required to take such courses at UMTC. Minnesota schools would not become segregated in the absence of preferences. All universities, if they used a colorblind process, would have many nonwhite admittees.

Introduction

For nearly 30 years, racial and ethnic preferences have played a key role in how admissions officers at the nation's public and private colleges and universities have chosen their schools' undergraduate classes. This system operates by establishing different standards of admission for individuals based on their racial or ethnic background, with some students held to a higher standard and others admitted based on a lower standard. Earlier in this century, some colleges and universities denied admissions to Jews, blacks, women, and members of other groups even when their grades, test scores, and other measures of academic achievement surpassed those of white males who were offered an opportunity to enroll. The passage of new civil rights legislation in the 1960s made this kind of discrimination illegal.

Since then, however, many colleges and universities created programs meant to boost the enrollment of students whose backgrounds previously had excluded them from pursuing a higher education-especially blacks and, to a lesser extent, Hispanics-by granting them preferences during the admissions process. These policies, when their existence was made public, became immediately controversial, and they remain so today. Defenders of racial and ethnic preferences claim that these policies are not discriminatory and help administrators choose between equally or almost equally qualified students, giving a slight edge to applicants who likely have faced discrimination or have come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Critics of preferences say that these policies are no better than the discriminatory ones they replaced and that the advantages they confer upon certain applicants are much greater than supporters are willing to admit.

Public colleges and universities have seen their ability to use racial and ethnic preferences increasingly restricted in the last several years. Court decisions have generally been hostile to such preferences. California's Proposition 209 (also known as the California Civil Rights Initiative) forbids discrimination against or granting special treatment to any applicant on the bases of race, ethnicity, or sex in the public programs of the country's most populous state. A similar ballot initiative in Washington State was approved by a large majority of the voters in 1998. Grassroots activists elsewhere are trying to place similar proposals on their own state ballots, and lawmakers-both in Congress and in state capitals-have drafted legislation modeled on the new California and Washington laws.

This study examines the extent to which racial and ethnic preferences are used in the admissions policies of a cross-section of Minnesota's public universities. It submits admissions data supplied by these universities to a rigorous statistical analysis.

This report is the latest in a series published by the Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO), a Washington, D.C.- based, public policy research organization. Earlier CEO studies have focused on the public colleges and universities of Colorado, Michigan, North Carolina, Virginia, Washington, the U.S. Military Academy and the U.S. Naval Academy, as well as the branches of the University of California at Berkeley, Irvine, and San Diego. Previous reports have shown that blacks and Hispanics receive a substantial degree of preference in the undergraduate admissions process at many schools studied.