Med School, pressured by conservatives, changes minority program descriptions

Conservative groups are claiming victory after Tufts has made changes to the description of two of its Medical School programs that were accused of race-based admissions processes and Title VI violations.

No details have been provided by Tufts whether the actual policy of the programs has been changed, or if the University simply changed their descriptions.

Regardless, the conservative groups who challenged the programs' legality have declared victory with the University's decision. "I'm thrilled and gratified," said Edward Blum, a representative and lawyer with the Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO). "You guys gave in."

The response from Tufts comes at a time when affirmative action admissions and minority-only programs are being challenged.

In late April, University General Counsel Mary Lee Jacobs responded to CEO with a letter, which acknowledged that the Web site descriptions of the programs could be in violation of Title VI.

"The University has carefully reviewed the Web sites referenced in you letter," Jacobs wrote in a CEO-provided e-mail. "The websites have been revised and a number of changes have been made, including the deletion of language that could be considered to be in conflict with the requirements of Title VI."

Jacobs could not be reached for comment, but it appears the Web site's language has changed. The Post Baccalaureate Research Program's (PREP) admission requirements formerly stated that "this non-degree program is open to minority candidates." The program is now inclusive of "underrepresented minorities." The site lists what groups that phrase could include, but now also clarifies that it is not limited to that list.

Especially important is the explicit mention of "members of economically disadvantaged families," which means that the programs could no longer be considered based on race.

In a Mar. 27 cease and desist order, conservative groups CEO and the American Civil Rights Institute challenged the legitimacy of the Medical School's PREP and Minority Externship program. Though Tufts earlier indicated it was not planning any changes before the Apr. 21 deadline it was given in the order, it appears that action has been taken to change the programs.

The lobbying groups contend that the language that details admission eligibility is in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which states that no person be discriminated against "on the ground of race, color, or national origin" by any program which receives federal funding. Both programs at the Med School are funded in part through the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

This new stance comes in sharp contrast to the initial reaction to the cease and desist order. "They're not a court," Med School spokeswoman Peggy Hayes told the Daily on Apr. 9. "If the University believes they are in compliance, I don't think a response is necessary."

Even though numerous faculty members in the Med School - as well as the Dean of the Sackler School of Biomedical Sciences - deferred comment to Hayes, as of May 12 she had not yet been informed of the University's decision to change the Web sites.

It also appears that even the directors of programs that would potentially be affected were left out of the decision. Dr. Andrew Camilli, director of the Sackler School's summer research program for undergraduate minorities, says he has attended no meetings and heard nothing "other than rumors" about the programs' formats. Although that particular program was not challenged, its official admissions requirements are almost identical to those of the challenged PREP program.

"There are no changes in what we're doing this summer," Camilli said, adding that the "discussion and changes that are going to happen" will be after this summer. Discussion will be about "changing our stance to what are the underrepresented groups in the sciences."

In addition to the Med School's offerings, CEO has lobbied against 30 minority-only programs at such schools as Harvard, MIT, Princeton, St. Louis University, and Texas A&M. As of March, six other schools had changed the admissions eligibility of their programs.

Earlier this year, the University was involved in other court action in favor of affirmative action. Tufts was a part of an amicus curiae brief filed by almost 30 other schools similar in size and selectivity to Tufts, which supported the University of Michigan in its ongoing battle in the Supreme Court to continue considering race and other non-academic factors in its admissions process.

"Private, highly selective colleges have a compelling educational interest in enrolling highly diverse - including racially diverse - classes, and cannot do so without taking the diversity they strive for into account," the brief said. "35 years [after its implementation], the colleges' experience demonstrates that affirmative action has had educational benefits - and benefits for American society."

The case, which could determine the future of affirmative action admissions, centers on a 1997 lawsuit filed by Barbara Grutter, after her rejection to Michigan's law school. Grutter felt that her application was not properly considered because she was Caucasian. A district court ruled in favor of Grutter, but the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit overturned the first ruling.

Another suit was filed by two people who were rejected from Michigan State's undergraduate program.

The case could possibly be the most important to college admissions since the 1978 California v. Bakke case, which ruled that quota systems could not be used, but race could still be considered as a factor in admission.

UMich currently uses a now widely publicized 150 point system for admission, which adds up to 20 points for student athletes or minorities, but only up to 5 points for recognition for leadership and service. Tufts does not use such a system, but does use race as a factor in admissions decisions, including "the responsibility for making every effort to identify and alleviate underutilization of minorities," reviewing each applicant on a case-by-case basis.

The Supreme Court is currently hearing oral arguments in the case, and a decision is not expected until June.