Virginia Tech has the least representative African-American student population of any flagship state or land grant university in the former Confederacy (because of space constraints, I only included a representative sample).
According to Peter Wallenstein's "Higher Education and the Civil Rights Movement," this has been the case at least since the 1990s.
Virginia Tech's minority policy is only designed to diversify the pool of potential Hokies. The pool itself is then certified by the Office for Equal Opportunity. Tech's diversity efforts do not necessarily increase the diversity of the student body, nor are they required to.
A member of the Commission on Equal Opportunity and Diversity who wished to remain anonymous explained this distinction to me. "When you look at the admission numbers - students from underrepresented backgrounds are applying and getting admitted to Virginia Tech. The challenge is that they are not accepting the offer for a variety of reasons - one factor being money (i.e. access to financial aid)." In addition, according to the Office of Undergraduate Admissions, all other characteristics being equal, Tech does not favor racial minorities over racial majorities. As Wallenstein points out, "It's not a coin flip, because you have 19 on one side and one on the other," as evidenced by our historically extreme underrepresentation of blacks.
Virginia Tech's proportional desegregation ranking - dead last when sized up against comparable institutions - is shameful. Another example is that for the 15th consecutive year, among public universities, the University of Virginia graduated the highest percentage (86 percent) of its black students, according to the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education.
It gets worse. The most underrepresented minorities here are poor whites from Appalachia. The most underrepresented race is Latinos. "Some would argue that VT could have been more aggressive with its recruitment efforts but it has chosen not to be. It tends to be fairly conservative in its approach. Some schools are doing some innovative things that we could be doing," said the commission member. Nevertheless, a recent CT editorial "Faculty shouldn't be solely responsible for campus climate" (CT, March 25) correctly argues against a viewpoint of diversity based solely on race. Socioeconomic status is a much better gauge of hardship and accomplishment.
Professor Hayward "Woody" Farrar, former president of Tech's Black Caucus, suggested that Tech guarantee admission and full financial grants to the top 10 percent of the graduating class of all Virginia high schools serving poor communities, regardless of race. He asserts that this would counter any reverse discrimination complaints and meet the scrutiny of the Commonwealth Attorney General's office. "High-achieving students in poor-serving high schools can succeed at Tech because they have shown the courage, perseverance and expertise needed to overcome their dysfunctional environments," he said. He suggested this plan could even be extended to out-of-state high schools serving the poor; the top 10 percent would receive a deep discount on their out-of-state tuition. He said that his suggestions would go a long way to promoting the racial and socioeconomic diversity the school requires. Furthermore, he said that "poor white and minority students admitted under this program would not likely feel that one group had an unfair advantage over the other and would then bond together more easily. This would greatly improve race relations."
Remarkably, every faculty member to whom I spoke, whether supportive or critical of Tech's policies, said that they believed more socioeconomic scholarships needed to be made available. Tech needs to put its money where its mouth is. The upcoming effort to direct 50 Presidential Scholarships toward those with economic need will help alleviate these problems. But why doesn't President Steger call up principals at poor state high schools and ask them to send us their top 20 students for a visit? Why don't diversity efforts include football coach Frank Beamer's strategy of visiting students' homes and assuring parents their kids will succeed?
Vestiges of institutional racism should be consigned to history's dustbin. Modern revelations about Lee Hall demonstrate official reticence to address simple issues with straightforward reforms. In 1997, the New York Times reported that a Tech student discovered an 1896 yearbook depicting Claudius Lee as a member of the Ku Klux Klan club.
Lee is listed as the "Father of Terror" (e.g., the president). After earning this honor, he remained at Tech for more than 50 years as an engineering professor. Lee Hall received his name in 1968. Furthermore, O.M. Stull is listed as the "Right Hand of Terror." The Times reported that "Mr. Stull, as a student, coined the school yell, 'Hoki, Hoki, Hoki, Hi!/ Tech, Tech, VPI!' from which the nickname for Tech students, Hokies, is derived." The yearbook page contains a drawing of a lynching in the background.
In the 1990s, the University of Oklahoma faced a very similar situation with its own naming skeletons. OU rightly took steps to redress this problem where and when it belonged, in the 20th century. Similarly, the University of Mississippi's plantation owner mascot, Col. Reb, was retired permanently in 2003.
In response to this revelation, Tech convened a commission headed by Wallenstein, who is a professor of history here. The report recommended further diversity efforts in addition to changing the name of Lee Hall. Wallenstein told me he felt "our report was not taken seriously."
Tech's Web site notes that "After a thorough investigation in 1997, it was determined that there was the potential that the organization was a hoax and that the hall name would not be changed." Wallenstein contends, "I think people who write it off as a hoax find it comforting to do so. This is not the kind of joke you want to identify with your institution."
The University must address the despicable actions Lee took as a student leader with more than a plaque. Renaming Lee Hall will be largely symbolic, but it is a much better symbol than what stands now. "When?" is a question of how intolerable we find the notion that a residence hall is named for a self-described "Father of Terror." Similarly, increasing minority representation is a question of how disgusted we are with the state of Tech compared to our peer institutions.