Texas Review of Law & Politics, Volume 20, Number 2, Spring 2016 Page: 205
169-420 p.View a full description of this periodical.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Affirmative Action in Law School Admissions
Buchanan wrote, "[i] t is my understanding that nine full-time
African-American students were admitted in 2005, of whom six are
female and three are male. Only two of those [six] females
advanced to the second year 2L status. Three were readmitted
[through the Readmissions Committee process], but, [were]
required to repeat the entire first year. One was flatly denied
readmission."'76 So aware, Peltz-Steele made a request for data
relating to race-correlated admissions standards; however, his
request was denied.177 UALR specifically referenced his lack of
membership on the Admissions Committee as a basis for the
denial.178
Steinbuch, in contrast, was a member of both the Admissions
Committee and Readmissions Committee at the time. Steinbuch
inquired more about how UALR admissions were decided after the
school's administration notified the Readmissions Committee that
it had compiled a chart of academic information on students whose
first-semester GPAs fell short of the 2.0 good-standing mark during
their first year of law school for the years 2003 through 2007 ("At-
Risk List").179 Steinbuch requested the name-redacted Law School
Data Assembly Service (LSDAS) forms for each of these students-a
seemingly modest request in his view.'80
LSDAS forms provide normalized GPAs as well as LSAT scores.181
This allows law school Admissions Committees to compare "apples
to apples" notwithstanding that different undergraduate
institutions use different GPA scales. The UALR administration
denied Steinbuch's request for de-identified records of students
who had struggled academically, claiming that the information was
protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
(FERPA).182 The administration was incorrect.183
FERPA places a contingency on federal funding: only schools
with privacy policies for the release of students' academic records
that maintain student privacy can receive federal funding.184
Spencer Buchanan, President, W. Harold Flowers Law Society, to Charles Godner, Dean,
University of Arkansas at Little Rock (Oct. 18, 2006).
176. Id.
177. Peltz, supra note 171, at n.35.
178. Id.
179. Steinbuch, Looking Through the Class, supra note 5, at 63.
180. Id.
181. Id.at63,n.8.
182. Id. at 64-65.
183. Id. at 65-68.
184. Steinbuch, FourEasy Pieces, supra note 5, at 171 (citing 20 U.S.C. 1232(g) (2006)).No. 2
205
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
University of Texas at Austin. School of Law. Texas Review of Law & Politics, Volume 20, Number 2, Spring 2016, periodical, March 2016; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth838701/m1/51/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.