MannyIsGod
02-22-2005, 03:45 PM
This article is great.
Whenever I argue that hispanics have a harder time of it in here, I get the usual "I all bullshit" responses. But as little as 10 years ago here in the state, the areas that are primarly hispanic are the ones that were at the short end of the stick.
I've been to UT Pan Am since then. It's still not up to standards like UTSA, but it's a hell of a lot better, and more money is going there.
It's not individual racism/classism we need to be on the lookout for. It's the institutionilzed version that is the large problem
Carlos Guerra: Time to review what has changed in border area's higher ed
Web Posted: 02/22/2005 12:00 AM CST
San Antonio Express-News
In 1987, LULAC, nine other groups and 21 individuals sued the state of Texas, charging that it was not providing affordable and accessible higher education to the residents of the border region, the state's 41 southernmost counties that were home to more than half of Texas' Latinos and were also Texas' poorest and least educated area.
The state's attorneys used every dilatory tactic available, so it wasn't until 1991 that the case finally was tried.
The plaintiffs marched out an impressive array of demographic, educational, economic and other experts whose data showed that were these 41 counties a separate state, it would be much worse off than a state composed of Texas' 213 other counties. And in virtually every category, such a border state would rank behind every other state in the Union.
The plaintiffs also argued, compellingly, that the border's underdevelopment and its many maladies were not coincidental, but the direct result of Texas' long and purposeful neglect of the area.
Students in the border counties had to travel farther to get to a state university than did other Texans, not because the zone was so sparsely populated but because it had so few state campuses. And Texas' border schools were funded at levels substantially lower than Texas' other universities.
All state universities were funded equally through region-blind formulas, the state countered. And those formulas, plaintiffs retorted, were the problem.
Because the formulas fund certain study programs at levels higher than others, and because more money is provided for doctoral and professional studies than for undergraduate studies, border schools get much less state money, per student, than do Texas' other universities. And border-area residents see substantially less state higher ed money, per capita, than do other Texans, they argued.
Of Texas' hundreds of doctoral programs — more than 150 in the Dallas area alone — only three, one in mining engineering and two in bilingual education, were offered in border universities. And the region had only one medical and one dental school, with no pharmacy or law schools.
After the plaintiffs prevailed at the district court, the state appealed. But after the plaintiffs also prevailed in the appeal and the case headed to the Texas Supreme Court, state leaders began to fear that a court-mandated "equalization" of Texas' universities might result in the Legislature losing control of them.
To head off that possibility, state leaders agreed to provide the border region a massive infusion of resources to bolster higher education offerings.
This investment, the South Texas/Border initiative, resulted in significant physical and program upgrades of the University of Texas' El Paso, Pan American and San Antonio campuses, Texas A&M's Corpus Christi and Kingsville campuses, and Sul Ross State University. And it led to the creation of UTSA-Downtown, Texas A&M International University in Laredo and Texas A&M-Brownsville.
Now, one decade later, the border zone's population is exploding with unanticipated rapidity as businesses and individuals move into the region to cash in on the boom.
But how are the region's universities faring? And are the state's funding formulas giving the border universities — and the region's residents — the needed resources?
Stay tuned for a detailed look at the border zone's universities.
Whenever I argue that hispanics have a harder time of it in here, I get the usual "I all bullshit" responses. But as little as 10 years ago here in the state, the areas that are primarly hispanic are the ones that were at the short end of the stick.
I've been to UT Pan Am since then. It's still not up to standards like UTSA, but it's a hell of a lot better, and more money is going there.
It's not individual racism/classism we need to be on the lookout for. It's the institutionilzed version that is the large problem
Carlos Guerra: Time to review what has changed in border area's higher ed
Web Posted: 02/22/2005 12:00 AM CST
San Antonio Express-News
In 1987, LULAC, nine other groups and 21 individuals sued the state of Texas, charging that it was not providing affordable and accessible higher education to the residents of the border region, the state's 41 southernmost counties that were home to more than half of Texas' Latinos and were also Texas' poorest and least educated area.
The state's attorneys used every dilatory tactic available, so it wasn't until 1991 that the case finally was tried.
The plaintiffs marched out an impressive array of demographic, educational, economic and other experts whose data showed that were these 41 counties a separate state, it would be much worse off than a state composed of Texas' 213 other counties. And in virtually every category, such a border state would rank behind every other state in the Union.
The plaintiffs also argued, compellingly, that the border's underdevelopment and its many maladies were not coincidental, but the direct result of Texas' long and purposeful neglect of the area.
Students in the border counties had to travel farther to get to a state university than did other Texans, not because the zone was so sparsely populated but because it had so few state campuses. And Texas' border schools were funded at levels substantially lower than Texas' other universities.
All state universities were funded equally through region-blind formulas, the state countered. And those formulas, plaintiffs retorted, were the problem.
Because the formulas fund certain study programs at levels higher than others, and because more money is provided for doctoral and professional studies than for undergraduate studies, border schools get much less state money, per student, than do Texas' other universities. And border-area residents see substantially less state higher ed money, per capita, than do other Texans, they argued.
Of Texas' hundreds of doctoral programs — more than 150 in the Dallas area alone — only three, one in mining engineering and two in bilingual education, were offered in border universities. And the region had only one medical and one dental school, with no pharmacy or law schools.
After the plaintiffs prevailed at the district court, the state appealed. But after the plaintiffs also prevailed in the appeal and the case headed to the Texas Supreme Court, state leaders began to fear that a court-mandated "equalization" of Texas' universities might result in the Legislature losing control of them.
To head off that possibility, state leaders agreed to provide the border region a massive infusion of resources to bolster higher education offerings.
This investment, the South Texas/Border initiative, resulted in significant physical and program upgrades of the University of Texas' El Paso, Pan American and San Antonio campuses, Texas A&M's Corpus Christi and Kingsville campuses, and Sul Ross State University. And it led to the creation of UTSA-Downtown, Texas A&M International University in Laredo and Texas A&M-Brownsville.
Now, one decade later, the border zone's population is exploding with unanticipated rapidity as businesses and individuals move into the region to cash in on the boom.
But how are the region's universities faring? And are the state's funding formulas giving the border universities — and the region's residents — the needed resources?
Stay tuned for a detailed look at the border zone's universities.