Valpo Strategic Plan

[usc4valpo]

Regarding high revenue sport athletes, it won't mater. When Brian Kelly was head football coach at Notre Dame, he commented that no  scholarship players would have been accepted based on academic admissions standards. Same with Michigan, USC, Cal, Stanford, etc. This will continue everywhere.

[DejaVU]

Sorry if this was mentioned already but, as an already senior faculty member, my experience tells me that, at the end of the day, the SCOTUS decision against Affirmative Action will have little impact. In fact it will have the opposite impact for those anti-AA as myself (more on this below).

Why? There is an endless list of proxies for race AND the hardline supporters of AA already prepared for this with changes in their application process that somehow obey the SCOTUS ruling while still using race as a factor in admission. Just as most faculty positions ads require now a "diversity statement" (a litmus test for the "correct" ideology) so will the applications packages for students will require a "special essay". Since John Roberts explicitly left this backdoor open, the only way to show that universities clandestinely use these essays as race proxies is to investigate and sue them. Good luck with this million dollars, decade long endeavor.
AA is going to be live and well at the end of the day (in practice but not in name) and the proponents of it now have the additional benefit of having another reason to label the other side as racist.

My personal take is multifold:

1. I am against considering attributes such as race (a poorly defined concept anyway), sex, gender, ethnicity etc...in any professional setting for which these attributes are irrelevant. In my own job I absolutely hate when I am "forced" one way or another to notice these attributes. It actually increases the likelihood of stereotyping and actually breeds racism in my opinion. I could go on but it's too long a story

2. NOBODY can stop an institution and/or a group of people from taking race into consideration even if illegal. There are too many proxies, you cannot read minds and you can only eliminate the blatant aspects of racism (such as legislated segregation in the Jim Crow era). But mark my word, if Harvard wants a certain number of people of a certain race, they will find a "legal" way. The only way this pestilential politics that poisons both the "unprotected" and "protected" classes will end is when people will simply treat race as other attributes such as the color of eyes. Which is to say we ignore them for 99% of the time and certainly we don't assign positive and negative points to it.

However, I will be long dead before that happens. Ideology is too deeply entrenched to see a change in this matter. Myself, the only  thing I can do is to just opt out when I can.

On a funny note, I can't wait to read the letters the Presidents will send to the campus communities decrying this decision and providing safe spaces for those emotionally damaged by those 6 evildoers in the SCOTUS

[vu72]

I am against considering attributes such as race (a poorly defined concept anyway), sex, gender, ethnicity etc...in any professional setting for which these attributes are irrelevant.

I'm confused by those who would write that "attributes" are irrelevant when obvious discrimination has/is occurring to this day in spite of new (relatively) laws protecting women and people of color etc. These "woke" laws have had a great and very positive effects even on old white guys like me.  Though it is, "government intervention", things the Jim Crow laws would no doubt still be in effect failing these laws/rulings.

Though not related to race, let me explain two situations that actually happened in my life.  The first happened shortly after graduating from Valpo at one of my first professional jobs.  I got a raise which I shared with a female employee who did THE EXACTLY same job with the same length of experience.  When she asked the boss about a raise if was explained to her that I needed to earn more money because eventually I would be supporting a wife and family.  This was out in the open, nothing subtle about it.

The next actually happened to me while applying for my first job at a major bank in Chicago.  I was given the job initially but then was asked if I had any systemic illnesses. When I explained that I was a diabetic, the job offer was withdrawn.  I even offered to race the staff doctor around the block but to no avail.

These results seem unimaginable in today's world but so in integration to some old souls in the deepest south.

[valpopal]

I think it is important to note we are approaching the 60th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits anyone from failing or refusing to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. This was expanded 55 years ago in the Civil Rights Act of 1968 to include housing. The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified 155 years ago, already enshrined equal protection guarantees. Also, Affirmative Action was originally instituted with the intention of encouraging expanded outreach and opportunity, not as a rationale for further discrimination, and with the vision of an end point when its measures would sunset at some future date, which is addressed in the Supreme Court decision and was even cited in the Grutter case in 2003 that upheld Affirmative Action in university admissions at that time.

Perhaps this is merely the logical beginning of a movement toward that end point, mentioned repeatedly in this week's Supreme Court document. I have taken the time to read the syllabus of the Supreme Court decision in this week's case and browse the 237-page document with concurring and dissenting opinions, and it makes complete sense to me: the universities' "use of race, employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points, those admission programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause." Indeed, in his concurring statement, Kavanaugh quotes a past opinion by Antonin Scalia that universities can "act to undo the effects of past discrimination in many permissable ways that do not involve classification by race."

Nevertheless, as others have suggested, I am sure universities will seek to exploit loopholes that enable racial identification and influence admission or financial assistance in additional ways. This will lead to more Affirmative Action cases in the future, but it also might get us closer to that end point. 

[DejaVU]

vu72: It is a very complex and long discussion impossible to confine in a thread. I know I seem to cowardly avoid the debate but this is one of those issues where (like many other topics) population is completely entrenched. The debate will never end and it will not move the opinion needle. I learned this the hard way in discussions with my leftist colleagues (which is to say the vast majority of faculty). I was worse off after. Life is simply too short for fighting unwinnable battles

I am going to answer your question about "attributes" in a vague way  (by necessity). If I told you in great details what it took for me personally to go from point A (my childhood) to point B (senior professor with respectable credentials) you would probably cry or not believe me. Or not even understand certain things. However, on this path from A to B I had zero "attributes" that AA or other policies care about. Not the right skin color, not the right genitalia, ethnicity etc..

Everybody knows injustices are countless and often personal. AA policies simply choose some winners in this horrible misery poker. Everybody else is invisible.
Whatever everyone thinks of the legitimacy of AA know this: it drives resentment (a destructive feeling that actually caused wars in the past), damages also the protected classes (how does it feel to be Black at Harvard and wonder if people look at you as if you did not deserve your spot) and ultimately perpetuates and even cause racism

But hey, as I said before, AA will be live and well under different name(s). So my rant does not matter

[vu72]

with my leftist colleagues (which is to say the vast majority of faculty). I was worse off after. Life is simply too short for fighting unwinnable battles

Perhaps you might open your opinions, just slightly, to hear a different approach to these difficult issues though I fully understand the bull headedness of intrenched thinking. GO BEACONS!!

[David81]

We already have a pretty good example of what happens when voluntary affirmative action plans are banned by law, due to the California law that did so in 1996:

The ban first took effect with the incoming class of '98. Subsequently, diversity plummeted at UC's most competitive campuses. That year, enrollment among Black and Latino students at UCLA and UC Berkeley fell by 40%, according to a 2020 study by Bleemer. As a result of the ban, Bleemer found that Black and Latino students who might have gotten into those two top schools enrolled at less competitive campuses.

"Black and Hispanic students saw substantially poorer long-run labor market prospects as a result of losing access to these very selective universities," Bleemer told NPR. "But there was no commensurate gain in long-run outcomes for the white and Asian students who took their place."

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/30/1185226895/heres-what-happened-when-affirmative-action-ended-at-california-public-colleges

This buttresses what I suggested earlier: That the AA ban will be more of a challenge for elite universities who rely heavily on top GPA and test scores. It may well mean that very solid schools like Valpo will receive serious applications from some very good, racially diverse young folks who otherwise might've been looking a rung higher up the rankings ladder. But make no mistake about it, the recruiting competition will be brutal for schools that are trying to build a racially diverse student body, while looking over their shoulders for potential legal challenges.

From a litigation standpoint, it may get ugly. But it could also prompt a closer look at how closely we make decisions based on standardized test scores, which at best are rough predictors of academic performance but hardly destiny. At my law school, we've seen consistent streams of outliers who score well on the LSAT and are not strong law students and those who score poorly on the LSAT and perform quite well. As Justice Warren Burger -- a white male, mainstream conservative Chief Justice -- wrote in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/424/), a 1971 SCOTUS opinion concerning employment discrimination:

The facts of this case demonstrate the inadequacy of broad and general testing devices, as well as the infirmity of using diplomas or degrees as fixed measures of capability. History is filled with examples of men and women who rendered highly effective performance without the conventional badges of accomplishment in terms of certificates, diplomas, or degrees. Diplomas and tests are useful servants, but Congress has mandated the common sense proposition that they are not to become masters of reality.

Burger likely was writing from experience. He is the only SCOTUS justice in the modern era to have graduated from a law school outside of the elite circle, having received his J.D. from William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, MN. No one will ever confuse him with your standard social justice warrior, but on this piece of lived experience, he knew that the evolving meritocracy based on test scores and fancy universities wasn't all it was hyped up to be.

[wh]

with my leftist colleagues (which is to say the vast majority of faculty). I was worse off after. Life is simply too short for fighting unwinnable battles

Perhaps you might open your opinions, just slightly, to hear a different approach to these difficult issues though I fully understand the bull headedness of intrenched thinking. GO BEACONS!!

Be careful what you reveal about yourself, DejaVU. You are a voice of Valpo Christmas past. Remember Ronald Reagan's "Trust, but verify" reference to the Soviets. Interpretation: "Trust no one."

[valpopal]

David81: I appreciate your reasoned response, which as usual is supported by correctly cited passages. Nevertheless, I do come to a differing conclusion when reading those examples. Yes, the removal of Affirmative Action quotas and subsequent loss of supplemental elevation for African American and Hispanic students did result in a lower enrollment by those groups in certain universities, namely UCLA and Berkeley. However, that California law passed in 1996. I would strongly suggest society, politics, academia, and admission tactics have evolved greatly in the nearly three decades that have intervened.

In fact, the NPR article acknowledges recent measures taken, including eliminating standardized test scores, and that lately "UC schools have begun to catch up to the racial diversity numbers lost in the wake of the affirmative action ban." The problem is not the university standard but the unreal expectations. The article laments that at its elite schools the UC "still enrolls far fewer Black and Latino students than their share of California high school graduates." There is the difficulty: the determining factor for enrollment should not be quotas based merely upon percentage of high school graduates. Further, the perspective in the quote you include that states "white and Asian students" took the place of "Black and Hispanic students," could easily have said some Black and Hispanic students had been taking the place of white and Asian students who had higher objective qualifications.

As for the quote by Justice Burger: it comes from a 1971 decision, over fifty years ago, even more outdated than the case above, and has been addressed by the elimination of standardized test scores that he suspects in his comment. Even in the 2003 Grutter case I quoted, which upheld Affirmative Action at that time, the majority opinions acknowledged an end point to Affirmative Action must be reached within the next "25 years" and a future court should "terminate its use of racial preferences as soon as possible." As I noted, I believe this court may be indicating the beginning of that end point. 

[DejaVU]

I am actually prepared to be de-anonymized at any time online in the sense that, while I prefer not to, I am OK, at the end of the day, to stand behind what I say.
I studied, on the side, the concept of correlation attacks online (i.e. taking bits of information that don't seem revealing yet they narrow down quite a lot the field of suspects)

For example, just the fact that I am a senior VU faculty with right leanings narrows it down quite a lot (I think). In any case, I read somewhere that if one chooses complete openness and honesty to the extreme, it has the effect of quickly eliminating the fake friends and gaining real ones. I am not ready to take that route yet since I have a hunch that some of those fake friends still have some power over me

[valpotx]

The "3-D" parking lot is listed for sale.
1201 LINCOLNWAY
VALPARAISO, IN 46383
$3,489,139

https://www.remax.com/in/valparaiso/home-details/1201-lincolnway-valparaiso-in-46383/12641218509165810594/M00000259/531821

Is this the lot that had a liquor store and furniture store, many years ago?

[wh]

The "3-D" parking lot is listed for sale.
1201 LINCOLNWAY
VALPARAISO, IN 46383
$3,489,139

https://www.remax.com/in/valparaiso/home-details/1201-lincolnway-valparaiso-in-46383/12641218509165810594/M00000259/531821

Is this the lot that had a liquor store and furniture store, many years ago?

Trail Inn Liquors is to the immediate east. I think it used to be another name. Valparaiso Furniture was on the south side, maybe a little farther east. Rough's Appliance Store was next door. Both buildings were there for many years before being demolished and replaced by Uptown East.

[David81]

David81: I appreciate your reasoned response, which as usual is supported by correctly cited passages. Nevertheless, I do come to a differing conclusion when reading those examples. Yes, the removal of Affirmative Action quotas and subsequent loss of supplemental elevation for African American and Hispanic students did result in a lower enrollment by those groups in certain universities, namely UCLA and Berkeley. However, that California law passed in 1996. I would strongly suggest society, politics, academia, and admission tactics have evolved greatly in the nearly three decades that have intervened.

In fact, the NPR article acknowledges recent measures taken, including eliminating standardized test scores, and that lately "UC schools have begun to catch up to the racial diversity numbers lost in the wake of the affirmative action ban." The problem is not the university standard but the unreal expectations. The article laments that at its elite schools the UC "still enrolls far fewer Black and Latino students than their share of California high school graduates." There is the difficulty: the determining factor for enrollment should not be quotas based merely upon percentage of high school graduates. Further, the perspective in the quote you include that states "white and Asian students" took the place of "Black and Hispanic students," could easily have said some Black and Hispanic students had been taking the place of white and Asian students who had higher objective qualifications.

As for the quote by Justice Burger: it comes from a 1971 decision, over fifty years ago, even more outdated than the case above, and has been addressed by the elimination of standardized test scores that he suspects in his comment. Even in the 2003 Grutter case I quoted, which upheld Affirmative Action at that time, the majority opinions acknowledged an end point to Affirmative Action must be reached within the next "25 years" and a future court should "terminate its use of racial preferences as soon as possible." As I noted, I believe this court may be indicating the beginning of that end point. 

valpopal, thanks for your responses. I wanted to clarify that I was not arguing a legal point in quoting that passage by Justice Burger, but rather endorsing his prescience in anticipating an educational and occupational world in which the results of standardized tests and certain degrees are too often regarded as destiny rather than indicators of promise.

On the legal side, I did want to point out that the legal theory grounded in the 1971 decision I quoted from, Griggs v. Duke Power Co., remains good law via its incorporation into the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The 2003 Grutter case you cited has been largely overturned by this most recent SCOTUS decision on affirmative action, though I think it was less about Justice O'Connor's much-discussed 25-year timeline in her Grutter opinion than it was about the present conservative majority's general dislike of affirmative action in the first place. Despite all the purportedly deep analysis in these opinions, these SCOTUS affirmative action decisions -- in favor or against -- have been largely policy choices dressed up as legal theorizing to justify the outcome.

[valpopal]

On the legal side, I did want to point out that the legal theory grounded in the 1971 decision I quoted from, Griggs v. Duke Power Co., remains good law via its incorporation into the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The 2003 Grutter case you cited has been largely overturned by this most recent SCOTUS decision on affirmative action, though I think it was less about Justice O'Connor's much-discussed 25-year timeline in her Grutter opinion than it was about the present conservative majority's general dislike of affirmative action in the first place. Despite all the purportedly deep analysis in these opinions, these SCOTUS affirmative action decisions -- in favor or against -- have been largely policy choices dressed up as legal theorizing to justify the outcome.

I think we are in agreement though I would quibble a bit with the language. Rather than "largely overturned," I would prefer to consider last week's Supreme Court decision as a furthering of the Grutter majority opinion by Justice O'Connor as she had hoped would occur. In her statement, O'Connor constantly references the Bakke plurality decision by Justice Powell, upholding but narrowing his conclusions, and she reiterates that race-based options should not be used to achieve quotas. Similarly, the Students for Fair Admissions decision upholds but narrows O'Connor's conclusions. O'Connor emphasizes that her opinion was based upon contemporary conditions at the time, just as Powell's decision was based upon conditions 25 years prior. For instance, she specifies the lack of representation in public office by African Americans and the increasing qualifications displayed by minority students.

Last week's decision considers the evolution of these conditions for minorities since 2003 and acknowledges times have changed as both of those concerns have improved. O'Connor also narrows her opinion by declaring it is intended for graduate education and should not be applied to undergraduate admission programs that have numerous alternative tactics that are not race-based. This seems in step with Justice Roberts' opinion. Indeed, the last four paragraphs of Section III in Justice O'Connor's opinion seem prescient and predictive. She offers "the requirement that all race-conscious admissions programs have a termination point." Finally, she recommends: "We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today." The Roberts majority opinion agrees with those comments and fulfills their intention. I agree with your last sentence about policy preferences and individual likes or dislikes, but I believe the Roberts decision is a sound one and advanced in the progression proposed by O'Connor.     

[valpopal]

President Padilla's message this morning to the university community about last week's Supreme Court decision reflects comments made in our thread discussing possible future directions for undergraduate admissions:



Dear Campus Community,

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ended the use of race as among the many factors to consider in the admissions process. Our University is duty bound to comply with all federal laws and, accordingly, will comply with this ruling. 

Martin Luther attempted to make education accessible to all, including and especially those who would not otherwise have the opportunity to pursue it. Just one example of our commitment is shown through our creation of our two-year Access College. The Access College offers alternative pathways to all low income, first generation students who deserve a first-rate associate's degree in an intimate, faith based setting.

We will look for other avenues through which we can legally promote diversity on campus.  We will continue to work hard to recruit diverse and talented prospective students, with the goal of having all our students live and study in an environment that reflects the richness of our society and remains faithful to our calling as a welcoming Lutheran university.

Thank you for everything you do for Valparaiso University.

May God love you,

José D. Padilla
President

[crusadermoe]

1)  My wife and I think income/assets should be the sole criteria for any aid. Hispanic-Asian-Black-White race is not a proxy.

2)  I greatly dislike the Ivies and wokeness.  But the constitution gives them freedom of speech and to assemble, I think private colleges should be allowed to use any admissions criteria they wish, even if deemed too woke and/or too privileged. The market will decide. Societal norms have evolved since the 60s. Private schools will stay wary of being stereotyped too easily. 

3)  But public universities should admit students on pure achievement in order to improve our world and to justify state taxation of all citizens. State university costs are attainable with financial aid driven by income. FAFSA and IRS (no matter their  race) can be verified.  For personal safety, I prefer my surgeon, airline pilot, or bridge builder to be hired on merit.

[78crusader]

I'm getting the idea that most people on this board and elsewhere just assume VU is not doing a good job of bringing in diverse freshman classes. But is that actually true? Honest question here.

Paul

[vu72]

I greatly dislike the Ivies and wokeness.

Well, there's a shock!   

[vu72]

I'm getting the idea that most people on this board and elsewhere just assume VU is not doing a good job of bringing in diverse freshman classes. But is that actually true? Honest question here.

Paul

Here's the demographic breakdown:

The enrolled student population at Valparaiso University, both undergraduate and graduate, is 70.6% White, 10.9% Hispanic or Latino, 5.61% Black or African American, 3.07% Two or More Races, 2.4% Asian, 0.128% American Indian or Alaska Native, and 0% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders.

The U.S. is 58% white, so nationally we are lagging some.  However, understanding that historically the enrollment was driven by Lutherans, until more recent years, from a diversity standpoint, Valpo started with one foot tied to the floor.

[wh]

In reality, only highly selective universities will be potentially impacted by the elimination of AA. Valpo is desperate for new students, as evidenced by a nearly 1:1 ratio between applicants and approved applicants. People are getting worked up over nothing.

Now, if the Supreme Court ever finds AA in the workplace to be unconstitutional, look out. That said, racial discrimination by employers is covered by a completely different Title of the Civil Rights Act, Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination for protected classes, including race.

[valpopal]

Here's the demographic breakdown:

The enrolled student population at Valparaiso University, both undergraduate and graduate, is 70.6% White, 10.9% Hispanic or Latino, 5.61% Black or African American, 3.07% Two or More Races, 2.4% Asian, 0.128% American Indian or Alaska Native, and 0% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders.

The U.S. is 58% white, so nationally we are lagging some.  However, understanding that historically the enrollment was driven by Lutherans, until more recent years, from a diversity standpoint, Valpo started with one foot tied to the floor.

I think we need to be careful when using such statistics. For instance, the most recent numbers for all students at VU show the percentage of whites at 63.4% (1880 out of 2964). if we look at the most recent new student enrollment class (Fall 2022) at VU, then we find that the breakdown is different and reflects progress. Undergraduate and graduate population is 56.8% white, actually less than the national number quoted above. However, this is influenced by a large number of international non-white graduate students (154). If we consider only undergraduate new students in Fall 2022, then the percentage of whites rises to 65.3%, 481 out of 737, still lower than the 70.6% cited above. Black and Hispanic/Latino portions are about 9% each, while nonwhite international students are 7% and Asian-American students are 4%. Those who report being multiracial equal 5%.
 
Valpo's enrollment difficulties are enhanced when we consider that the traditional pool of students for Valparaiso University would be drawn from Lutherans and residents of Indiana, both of which are predominantly white—the most recent census figure I have seen for Indiana is 84% white—and we add that Valpo might be described as an academically rigorous, expensive, non-urban university in a politically conservative state. Considering all these factors, the latest numbers of new students, which I expect at least to be matched in Fall 2023, seem respectable. 

[valpopal]

Now, if the Supreme Court ever finds AA in the workplace to be unconstitutional, look out. That said, racial discrimination by employers is covered by a completely different Title of the Civil Rights Act, Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination for protected classes, including race.

According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, this might be the next Affirmative Action case about universities as employers to keep an eye on: "Diversity Statements Violate First Amendment, Professor Says in Suing U. of California."

https://pacificlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/2023-05-18-JD-Haltigan-v-michael-drake-stamped-Complaint.pdf

The latest issue of The Atlantic has an article as well: "The Hypocrisy of Mandatory Diversity Statements"
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/07/hypocrisy-mandatory-diversity-statements/674611/

[usc4valpo]

22- what about below par compensation?

[valpopal]

I understand the diversity statements for applications get people riled up, but I think it doesn't matter much whether the university tries to give targetted attention to faculty demographics that helps minoritized faculty on the front end...

However, the diversity statements required by universities are not really to identify and assist minority applicants for jobs, who are already included for consideration by their status as minorities. The documents are intended to assure white applicants who move forward in the process all share the same politically correct DEI philosophy and prioritize them in the selection. Ironically, they are meant to guarantee a lack of diversity in thought.

As the article in The Atlantic mentions, diversity statements "violate the First Amendment by imposing an ideological litmus test on prospective hires." Years ago when I was on a hiring committee considering finalists for a job, and long before diversity statements, I remember a well-respected committee member warning others: "I think this candidate might be Republican." I could tell others were thinking the same and nodded or smiled along with the speaker. Today's diversity statements provide a similar warning in the hiring process.

[vu72]

So I just took a look at the faculty around campus and only counted Professor, Assistant or Associate Professors.

What I found is the College of Business is by far the most diverse with 10 of 15 qualifying as "diverse"

In the College of Engineering, just the opposite:  Only 4 of 23 in this category.

The College of nursing and Health Professions was even worse at 4 of 30.

In Christ College, all of the nine permanent faculty are white.

Arts and Sciences was too big a task but at least two of the four listed as Leaders were people of color.

So of the people I counted the total is 20 of 81 or 25%.  No doubt the total in Arts and Sciences would reduce this number back into single digits.