Other articles by Howard Fischer:

Failed legislative bill leaves public-financed campaigns in doubtBurns: Brewer bungling her job House approves boost in funding for those seeking office next year 3 recommended to Brewer to fill seat on high court AZ can enact own greenhouse gas regsRecession reins in sprawl Pet bills aplenty pouring forth from Legislature Brewer wants budget right away, but not those other, lesser bills Flat-tax plan could hit walletsRepeal of ban on sparklers nears final OK

Administrative & Professional
Jorgensen Brooks Group
Counselor Sales and Marketing
Everready Glass
Sales Reps Mechanical
Komatsu Equipment Co
Resident Field Mechanic Trades/Construction
RANCHO RESORT
MAINTANANCE POSITION Finance and Accounting
Charles E. Gillman Company
Accounting Specialist Administrative & Professional
Tucson Urban League
CEO/President

PHOENIX — A new study today by an organization opposed to affirmative action concludes minorities are more likely to be admitted to the state's two public law schools than similarly qualified Anglos.

The report by the Center for Economic Opportunity shows the number of Anglos, Asians, Hispanics and blacks admitted to the law colleges at Arizona State University and the University of Arizona is pretty much in proportion to the number that apply.

But it also finds both schools admit minorities with lower grade-point averages and scores on the Law School Aptitude Test than Anglos.

According to the report, at UA the median LSAT score for black students admitted in 2007 was 15 percent below whites; for Hispanics, the difference was 10 percent. At ASU, median scores for blacks were 8.3 percent below whites; there was a 6.7 percent difference between Hispanics and Anglos.

The report says incoming Anglo and Asian students had a 3.6 grade-point average in 2007, compared with 3.5 for Hispanics and 3.4 for blacks. At ASU the average white GPA was 3.7, compared with 3.4 for black and Hispanic students.

The result, according to Roger Clegg, the organization's president, is black and Hispanic applicants with equal GPA and LSAT scores are significantly more likely to be admitted to the UA law school than white students. He said the imbalance is far greater at ASU.

Neither school has denied using race or ethnicity as a factor in determining who gets the limited number of slots available each year. In fact, top officials of both schools acknowledged they consider such factors necessary to promote diversity.

And Clegg conceded that, while the U.S. Supreme Court has outlawed quotas in choosing students, the high court said achieving diversity goals by looking at factors like race and ethnicity is permitted.

That, however, could change — at least in Arizona.

Clegg's organization originally started the study in support of a ballot proposition being pushed by millionaire California entrepreneur Ward Connerly to outlaw affirmative-action programs not only in public education but also in employment and contracting.

Proposition 104 failed to make the ballot due to lack of sufficient valid signatures. But Connerly has promised to try again in 2010.

Clegg said the numbers are significant because he believes law schools should be admitting the most qualified students.

And that, he said, is best based on quantifiable factors like GPA and LSAT.

"It's fair to assume that if law schools are looking at your LSAT score and your undergrad grade-point average, it must be for a reason, and specifically because they must think that is a good predictor of how well a student is going to do in law school," he said. Conversely, he said, a lower GPA or LSAT must be an indicator for the law schools that these students are less likely to succeed.

Shelli Soto, assistant dean of admissions and financial aid at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at ASU, said both factors mean something.

"There are going to be some people who are more impressive because they have scored in the top 2 percent or 3 percent . . . nationally on the LSAT," she said. "That may impress one committee member more than another."

But she said those who screen candidates realize there are many other indicators of qualification and success. And she said these can't be reduced to a simple mathematical formula.

More to the point, she said using the approach of just grades and test scores ignores a key goal of putting together a class.

Soto said there are other factors "that give that person the ability to contribute in a unique way to our learning environment."

"We are attempting to bring together a group of people who, because of their experiences, background, talents, natural abilities and intellect and their perspective, passions and involvement can better educate each other as to opposing viewpoints, differences in looking at different policy matters or other areas of the law," Soto said.

Toni Massaro, dean of the UA's James E. Rogers College of Law, declined comment on the report without seeing the entire report and having time to study its methodology.

Nancy Stanley, assistant dean for external affairs, said, "The numbers and purely the numbers are something we don't want to respond to. This is a real debate and I understand that. There is a real debate and people are legitimately concerned. But there's got to be more than something to merely influence voters. It has to be to inform them.

"Here are numbers and statistics used in a way that supports a ballot initiative."

Speaking more generally on admissions, Massaro said there are plenty of examples of students whose whole history elevates them beyond their test scores.

For example, she said, teaching constitutional law to a class that includes an Indian student from a reservation with different cultural and legal traditions is "a positive value that informs the class discussion."

And Massaro said LSAT scores, at best, "have modest predictive value of performance in the first year."

"But we over and over again see applications from people who have had life experiences where, if you look at the whole record, you say, 'You know what? I think this person is going to outperform just the numerical indicators,'" she said.

Soto said she understands that an Anglo student who was 182nd on this year's ranking of applicants for the incoming ASU class of 181, but had higher LSAT or GPA scores, might be frustrated. But she said that doesn't make that student more "qualified" than the others who did get in.

"There is a broader definition of 'best students,'" she said. "I would argue that we are offering admission to the best applicants, those who through the combination of everything they present are truly the best."

She said that might include work experience, public service, military service or the ability to speak a foreign language.

Clegg said simply using race or ethnicity as a factor amounts to discrimination.

The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed law schools in particular to consider race in admissions, most recently in a 5-4 opinion written in 2003 by then Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, upholding the admission practices of the University of Michigan to gain diversity.

"The benefits are not theoretical but real," O'Connor wrote. "American businesses have made clear that the skills needed in today's increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas and viewpoints."