Abstract
Do universities modify their
admission policies following high-profile litigation? This policy analysis
reviews written admission policies prior to and immediately following four
landmark education cases. The cases of Bakke, Hopwood, and Grutter are
considered because of their direct connection to university admissions; Brown v.
Board of Education is included because of its all-encompassing reach over
education access in the United States. When considering policy implementation at
a state university, funded by tax dollars and governed by regents and
legislation, the line between policy and law tends to blur. The University of
Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (UTMB) operates within the context of school,
local, state, and federal regulations. Racial, ethnic, linguistic, religious,
and socioeconomic diversity are important contextual considerations affecting
the complexity of this university’s admissions policies. Francis Fowler (2003)
notes that all policies are mediated through the context in which they are
implemented, and that they always change in the process. The UTMB admissions
policies are no exception. While the primary focus of this analysis is on
admission policies immediately prior to and following the abovementioned cases,
sections of the first UTMB catalogue and of subsequent catalogues are of
historical value and included by the researcher in hopes of adding to the
richness of this qualitative analysis. Currently, a quantitative study is
underway to determine if any statistical significance can be found in admissions
outcomes within the School of Medicine comparing the enrollment data before and
after the four cases to determine any correlation between written policy and
administrative practice.
