The findings, in summary:
The odds ratio favoring African Americans and Hispanics over whites was 576-to-1 and 504-to-1, respectively, using the SAT and class rank while controlling for other factors. Thus, the median composite SAT score for black admittees was 150 points lower than for whites and Asians, and the Latino median SAT score was 100 points lower. Using the ACT, the odds ratios climbed to 1330-to-1 and 1494-to-1, respectively, for African Americans and Hispanics over whites.
For law school admissions, the racial discrimination found was also severe, with the weight given to ethnicity much greater than given to, for example, Wisconsin residency. Thus, an out-of-state black applicant with grades and LSAT scores at the median for that group would have had a 7 out 10 chance of admission and an out-of-state Hispanic a 1 out of 3 chance—but an in-state Asian with those grades and scores had a 1 out of 6 chance and an in-state white only a 1 out of 10 chance.
-- Read the 24-page study on undergraduate admissions HERE
-- Read the 22-page study on law school admissions HERE
The university wasted no time in attempting to rebut the studies. Interim Chancellor David Ward explained the university uses a "holistic" admissions process, taking into account a range of factors, including grades, test scores, activities, leadership and more. "No one is admitted solely because of race or ethnicity," said Ward. Read the university's complete press release HERE.
But therein lies the rub; the use of the word "solely". This means at some point, they do take race or ethnicity into consideration. And if the CEO study is correct, they give extra brownie points for being Black, Brown, or Asian. That constitutes racial discrimination against Whites.
The data itself is in dispute. While the CEO, using university-supplied data, says that UW-Madison admitted 72 percent of black applicants, 86 percent of Hispanic applicants and 60 percent of white applicants in 2008, the university now claims they admitted 41 percent of black applicants, 62 percent of Hispanic applicants and 55 percent of white applicants in 2008. Only 14 percent of the Wisconsin population consists of non-Whites.
One affirmative action beneficiary also defended the university. Mia McKinney, a UW-Madison senior from Racine and a member of a radical insurgent group called PEOPLE, a program to encourage minorities to apply to the school, said "I took it as a slap in the face and an insult, almost presuming that none of us worked hard and just got here because of the color of our skin...I think that's a huge presumption and assumption". Of course, it probably doesn't occur to her that a White applicant who was rejected because of race might also take it as a slap in the face and an insult.
Other students favoring the university's current programs employed typical mob tactics to disrupt and intimidate. About 45 minutes after Roger Clegg, the president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, convened a press conference to explain the study, more than 100 students and others, mostly non-White, stormed into the room, chanting Communist-style slogans like "power to the people" and "more than our scores" to a steady drumbeat. Clegg packed up his briefcase and left, after which students took over the microphone and began to spout propaganda about the value of diversity.
Dr. Sara Goldrick-Rab, a UW-Madison associate professor of education policy studies and sociology who chairs the committee on undergraduate recruitment, admissions and financial aid, attempts to completely duck the issue by saying on her personal blog that whether or not preferences are being exercised is beside the point, and that the real issue is how they help all students succeed. She then attempts to set up a straw man by complaining about CEO's silence over a disproportionately high black prison population in Wisconsin.
Hat tip to American Renaissance for alerting me to the story. Also discussed on Stormfront.