IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/uhejxx/v86y2015i5p751-776.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Discourse on the Texas Top Ten Percent Plan Says about Accountability for Diversity

Author

Listed:
  • Dina C. Maramba
  • V. Thandi Sulè
  • Rachelle Winkle-Wagner

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Dina C. Maramba & V. Thandi Sulè & Rachelle Winkle-Wagner, 2015. "What Discourse on the Texas Top Ten Percent Plan Says about Accountability for Diversity," The Journal of Higher Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 86(5), pages 751-776, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:uhejxx:v:86:y:2015:i:5:p:751-776
    DOI: 10.1080/00221546.2015.11777382
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00221546.2015.11777382
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00221546.2015.11777382?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:uhejxx:v:86:y:2015:i:5:p:751-776. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/uhej .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.