Statistic expert testifies for CIR

University will open its case with President Lee Bollinger taking the stand today

By Jen Fish

Daily Staff Reporter

DETROIT - In day two of admissions lawsuits, lawyers from the University and the Center for Individual Rights clashed over whether the extent to which the University uses race as a factor in Law School admissions can be quantified into a number.

Kinley Larntz, a retired University of Minnesota statistics professor, was the sole witness yesterday. Larntz, who was entered as CIR's statistical expert, spent about six hours on the stand, including more than three hours of heavy cross-examination by University lawyers who criticized both the methodology and results of his analysis.

Using applicant data from the Law School's database for the years 1995 through 2000, Larntz constructed statistical models using this data to study how much of a role race plays in admissions decisions.

Larntz concluded that not only is race a factor but that "an incredibly large allowance" has been granted to certain minorities in Law School admissions.

"Given the same credentials, there is a tremendous advantage given to Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans compared to Caucasian Americans, Asian/Pacific Americans, other Hispanic Americans and foreign applicants," he said.

Specifically, Larntz sought to quantify the role that race plays in the admissions process by comparing applicants with similar undergraduate grade point averages and Law School Admissions Test scores. It was agreed that these two measures are among the most important criteria in evaluating applicants.

Dividing the applicants into three grade "zones" of high scores, mid-range and low scores, Larntz said the use of race does not vary for the high and middle ranges. The University has said race is most likely to be a factor for students in the middle zone; students with high scores are usually admitted regardless of race and students with low scores are usually rejected.

University lawyers contend there are a number of flaws in Larntz's study.

"He did the wrong analysis and he did the wrong analysis wrong," University Deputy General Counsel Liz Barry said.

Barry said the numerical value of how much race is a factor is irrelevant for applicants of similar credentials. "Race can tip the balance" for similar applicants but it results in either acceptance or non-acceptance, she said, thus making any numerical value meaningless.

Barry also criticized Larntz's findings because the University has maintained that race, LSAT scores and GPAs are only three of many factors. Factors such as essays, letters of recommendation and work experience are subjective measures that cannot be put in this kind of model.

This coincides with the testimony on Tuesday from Dean of Admissions Erica Munzel, who said admissions decisions are made on a highly individualized, case-by-case basis without using race as the main consideration.

CIR Chief Executive Officer Terry Pell defended Larntz's findings, saying the analysis shows that "race plays an extraordinary role" in admissions decisions. "We made clear today in a number of ways how large of a role race plays in admissions," Pell said.

The intervening defendants did not have the chance to conduct their cross examination of Larntz yesterday, but lead counsel Miranda Massie said they too have problems with Larntz's findings. "The results he came up with should have made him realize that something was very wrong with his data, with his approach to it or with both," Massie said. "To claim that it is some 500 times easier for a black applicant than for a white applicant to get into the Law School is utterly disconnected from reality."

After the intervenors complete their cross examination of Larntz this morning, University President Lee Bollinger will testify today as the first defense witness. Bollinger was dean of the Law School the year the disputed admissions policy was drafted.