NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
ERIC Number: EJ1072012
Record Type: Journal
Publication Date: 2015
Pages: 26
Abstractor: As Provided
Reference Count: 52
ISBN: N/A
ISSN: ISSN-0022-1546
What Discourse on the Texas Top Ten Percent Plan Says about Accountability for Diversity
Maramba, Dina C.; Sulè, V. Thandi; Winkle-Wagner, Rachelle
Journal of Higher Education, v86 n5 p751-776 Sep-Oct 2015
At the heart of the longstanding debate of addressing racial inequities in higher education is an argument about whether race should be a factor in admissions decisions. One argument is that institutions should be held accountable for diversity through external policies like affirmative action. Alternatively, there is the position that institutions will act in good faith to implement diversity goals. Through a critical discourse analysis of policy discourse from the Texas legislature regarding 2009 changes to the Texas Top Ten Percent Plan, findings suggest that there may be less emphasis on accountability for institutional diversification through external policy like affirmative action. Instead, policy focuses on individual institutional diversity efforts. Using Critical Race Theory (CRT) as a theoretical framework, our findings maintain that as interest convergence changes (as the power elite no longer see current admissions policy benefiting them), there may be stronger arguments for internal accountability for diversity, leaving diversity efforts up to the people within individual institutions. Implications for institutional accountability are further discussed.
Ohio State University Press. 180 Pressey Hall, 1070 Carmack Road, Columbus, OH 43210-1002. Tel: 614-292-1407; Fax: 614-292-2065; Web site: http://www.ohiostatepress.org
Publication Type: Journal Articles; Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education; Postsecondary Education
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A
Identifiers - Location: Texas
Identifiers - Laws, Policies, & Programs: Grutter et al v Bollinger et al; Hopwood v Texas