Elise’s Reflective Essay

Posted on

Prior to coming to Trinity, I had never really thought about my relationship with race and social class. I grew up in Newburyport, Massachusetts, which is an almost entirely homogenous town on the North Shore. Nearly everyone is white, and there is minimal class diversity. As a result, I felt comfortably average, but I was also blind to the bigger picture of racial and social class relations. Trinity can be similar to Newburyport in many ways: despite it’s 20% diversity rate, the population is still largely white, and many students are quite affluent. I think taking the Color and Money seminar has been one of the best things to happen to me at Trinity thus far. It has opened my eyes to the way the world really is, rather than simply allowing me to view the school through a metaphorical pair of rose-tinted glasses.

If I were to self-analyze based on Beverly Tatum’s Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?, I think I entered Trinity at the contact stage. I fit her description of living in a homogenous neighborhood, and I had never deeply thought about my race, beyond the ever-present joke in my hometown about how white our town is. I think I fit perfectly into Tatum’s contact stage, because I never saw racism around me and felt I was free of prejudice (Tatum 95). Coming to Trinity was one of the first times I was exposed to a lot of diversity. One of my roommates is Dominican and an active part of Posse and LVL on campus, so getting to know her and listening to her stories have really opened my eyes. I learned that this is the benefit of having more diversity: if you’re willing to look and listen, there are a lot of interesting stories to hear.

The interesting and, as far as I can tell, unique thing about our seminar is how relevant it is. I have frequently spoken to my friends who are not in Color and Money about our class, and I can almost hear the envy in their voices. No other seminar (as far as I know) has sparked as much discussion and debate as ours. None of my friends even discuss their seminars outside of class, let alone take what they learn in their seminar and apply it to their lives. For our seminar, however, this discussion is crucial.

At the end of the semester, we read Adolfo Abreu’s open letter to the Trinity community that gave his thoughts on race relations at Trinity as well as with the surrounding Hartford neighborhood. This letter sparked one of our most heated in-class debates yet. Over the course of the semester each student in Color and Money came further out of their shell, so it was no surprise that people starting vocalizing their real thoughts in this final debate. I spent most of class just listening, and one point really stuck out to me. Part of Abreu’s letter was titled “The Objectification of Women of Color”, which discussed how objectified and judged the female population can be (Abreu). One white girl in our class spoke up and said that she felt the experiences Abreu cited were common to all women, and I agreed with her, but it soon became clear that this was not the case. The two African-American girls in our class, Jasmine and Briana, then spoke up and gave a very powerful testimony about how women of color “lose every time” and that “white women are untouchable”. The class only talked about it for a short time, but what they said stuck with me for the rest of the week.

In our final seminar class, I brought up how moved I was by this point, and I am so glad I did. After class, Jasmine and Briana came up to me and told me how grateful they were that I had spoken up. This launched a very intelligent and intense discussion for the next few hours outside of class about race and social class and our own opinions. We got lunch, we talked, we laughed, and we were open-minded and excited to hear each other’s stories. I can honestly say this was the first real-world discussion about race I have ever had.

In retrospect, I think this discussion was unimaginably important simply because we kept the conversation going outside the classroom. People can talk until they are hoarse in class, but as influential as Color and Money was, it was still a class. We were put in a room and told to discuss these issues, but bridging the gap between class and life is harder. It’s hard to force these kinds of intellectual discussions, and prior to taking Color and Money I wouldn’t have been as enthusiastic to talk about my views on race. I never even had an opportunity to talk openly with people from different backgrounds. I now have the confidence, knowledge, and desire to keep having conversations like the one I had with Jasmine and Briana.

This kind of dialogue is the only way to break down race barriers and move into a less race-conscious world. If the white kids continue to sit with the white kids and the black kids do the same, people will only ever get one side of the story and the gap will continue to widen. While I alone cannot change the world, and one meaningful conversation will not reform race-relations at Trinity, I am still a piece of the puzzle. If I can have a perspective-altering experience, anyone can, and the more people who are educated and aware, the more likely we are to create meaningful change.

Works Cited

Provost, Kerri. “Trinity Student Offers Suggestions for Bridging Town-Gown Chasm,” Real Hartford, November 26, 2013,

Tatum, Beverly Daniel. Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? and Other Conversations about Race. New York: Basic, 1997. Print.



Interview Analysis Essay

Posted on

Trinity College, a small liberal arts college in Hartford, Connecticut, is home to roughly 2,300 students from all different backgrounds. Regarded as an elite institution, for many local Hartford children “Trinity is like the epitome of…where the kids want to be… everyone always talks about you know wanting to get to Trinity” (Abby page 40). On campus, Trinity proudly boasts a 20% diversity rate, higher than most comparable schools, and 40% of students receive some form of need-based financial aid. Within the school itself, these statistics can seem somewhat distorted; the student body is largely a group of affluent, white young people and the gap in race and social class on campus can have a big influence on the experiences people have here. To study this, our seminar interviewed a group of seventeen Trinity sophomores from all different walks of life. Our results showed that while some students felt Trinity is a liberal and welcoming community for everyone, these students had a tendency to belong to the racial majority (white), the social class majority (non-financial aid), or both. Meanwhile, students of either minority generally felt and more saw segregation on the campus. Trinity College is a small enough school to have a social hierarchy, and this paper argues that students feel the pressure to fit in with the majority but ultimately befriend those they perceive as social and/or racial equals.

To investigate this topic, our seminar conducted an interview-based study of students’ perceptions of race and social class at Trinity. Our interview guide posed ten open-ended questions and three demographic questions that explored topics, such as personal awareness, social interactions, and other students’ assumptions regarding racial and social class differences at Trinity. The Office of Institutional Research and Planning provided our professor with a stratified random sample of 55 sophomores from the Class of 2016, categorized by race (white or non-white) and first-year financial aid status (receiving or not receiving). Our professor sent personalized email invitations to this group, and assigned each of us to conduct an interview with all who responded and agreed to participate. The typical interview lasted about ten minutes, and was transcribed by the interviewer. The final sample consisted of 18 interviews: 10 students who received financial aid (4 white and 6 non-white), and 8 students who did not receive financial aid (4 white and 4 non-white). All names are pseudonyms and personally identifiable details have been masked, in accordance with our research ethics confidentiality agreement approved by the Trinity College Institutional Review Board.

One’s appearance and how he or she dresses is one of the most socially uniting, or dividing, factors at Trinity College. For those with the fiscal means, concern with one’s appearance results in the phenomenon of “everyone looking the same”. According to Andres, a sophomore, “the joke at Trinity College is that… if you see a blonde girl, you’re referring to almost half of the student population” (Andres, page 11). Owning the same coat or pair of boots can foster relationships between students, while potentially excluding those who do not own the same things, whether for personal or financial reasons. This obsession with appearance is evidenced by the fact that, out of seventeen conducted interviews, twelve students alluded to appearance, with seven of these explicitly mentioning it. Of those seven interviews, six students were on financial aid and only one of them was white. On a campus where only 40% of students pay financial aid and there is only 20% diversity, it is unsurprising that the combination of these two minorities would lead to an increased awareness of what it (apparently) takes to fit in at Trinity. Yvonne, a self-proclaimed middle/lower-middle class African American student, states that her appearance directly impacts how people treat her. She says “the way that I dress and the…things that I have…people might assume that I am higher class… if my hair is not done or if I’m wearing…something that does not look name brand…people are less likely to acknowledge me” (Yvonne, page 20). This theme of “dressing to impress” is seen in several students including Abe (white/financial aid), who, like Yvonne, intentionally dresses nicely and as a result feels that people believe he is wealthier than he actually is (Abe, page 45). This practice has helped both students feel more accepted. Juan, meanwhile, feels that looks, whether biological or material, dictate one’s position on the social ladder: “You could be the poorest person but if you look good… you’re immune to that” (Juan, page 5). Based on the experiences of Yvonne, Abe, and Juan, social pressures at Trinity mean that having an “acceptable” and impressive appearance is important for fitting in. It would seem that, whether they have the fiscal means or not, Trinity College students see the social value of acting as though they do.

This concept, that one’s looks correlate directly with one’s social strata and can thus lead to acceptance on a college campus, is discussed at length in Armstrong and Hamilton’s book Paying for the Party. To write Paying for the Party, Armstrong and Hamilton, along with a team of researchers, conducted a longitudinal ethnography that followed a group of women from their freshman year in a party dorm at the unidentified “Midwest University” through a year after graduation. They focused on the effects of social class on the lives of women during and after college. Armstrong and Hamilton suggest that the more willing a woman is to party, and the more money she has to spend, the stronger her college social experience will be. For example, in the sorority rush system at Midwestern University, the sororities claimed to “select girls on the basis of ‘personality’ rather than parental income” (Armstrong & Hamilton 79). Unfortunately for those of lesser income, oftentimes this personality comes across when the girls can relate to each other on a class level- through their clothes, where they vacation, where they like to shop, etc. (Armstrong & Hamilton 81). Girls from wealthier backgrounds were advantaged in the sense that they had the means to make their image acceptable. At Trinity, Luisa, a non-white, non-financial aid student, considered joining a sorority but was ultimately deterred by the fees and expenses that went along with membership, saying that “I don’t know if I’d… socially or economically fit in with them” (Luisa, page 9). In this statement, Luisa subconsciously grouped social success with economic status, suggesting that one must be wealthy in order to fit in with Greek Life, which arguably dominates the social scene at Trinity. Armstrong and Hamilton also discussed at length the concept of “cuteness”: the idea that it is “possible for everyone to be well dressed and well groomed” (Armstrong & Hamilton 82). “Cuteness” also had financial and racial implications. It requires “the sustained investment of money, time, and cultural know-how” and in terms of race, “cuteness” is tied to “blondness”: “blue eyes, white but tanned skin, and straight hair”, which favors white women (Armstrong & Hamilton 82).  Juan, a non-white, financial aid student at Trinity, feels that looks, whether biological or material, dictate one’s position on the social ladder: “You could be the poorest person but if you look good… you’re immune to that” (Juan, page 5). Armstrong and Hamilton’s study focuses mostly on social life and having the funds to participate, and based on our interviews, this focus on partying at MU is comparable to Trinity’s focus on clothes and appearance. How a person looks and what they can afford to wear has a direct impact on their social experience at Trinity.

In accordance with the social structure imposed on Trinity students as a result of their appearance and social class, the interviews made it apparent that Trinity students tend to be friends with people to whom they are similar. In the interviews, ten of the seventeen sophomores either explicitly or implicitly stated that students tend to self-segregate in terms of race, social class, or both. Luisa says that “that’s how the groups at Trinity form…you kind of become friends with people who you perceive [as] equal” (Luisa, page 8). Juan, Andres, and Serafino express similar thoughts: that it’s a “naturally occurring thing, that people tend to gravitate towards people of their own background or ethnicity” (Serafino 34). One clear example of these group divisions is in Mather Dining Hall, as Michael, Luisa, and Kirsten stated. Kirsten says “there is a sports side and…a minority side” (Kirsten page 18). Each of these three students speak of Mather’s segregation as a given- in Ali’s interview with Michael, Michael refused to say what exactly happened in Mather, instead saying “I mean you know how it works…”, suggesting that Ali should understand the system in its obviousness (Michael page 3). Many students at Trinity seem to simply accept this segregation as the reality. Luisa and Andres, who are both Hispanic, also mentioned the stratifying power of societies like LVL (La Voz Latina, the Latin American cultural society on campus). Luisa wanted to join LVL, but ultimately didn’t because she didn’t speak Spanish and she felt that “the people were kind of secluded in their own…I feel like they were really cliquey” (Luisa, page 10). Andres said something similar; he never felt the need to join LVL, and felt that “they’re harboring kids a little more than they need to… there are also people who are a little bit (pauses to think of wording) negative towards the social division” (Andres, page 13). Essentially, there are well-established systems at Trinity (like Mather or LVL) that facilitate segregation based on race.

On the other side of the spectrum, some students felt that there was no social segregation at Trinity in terms of race or social class. These students tend to be upper class and/or white, like Steve who says  he is “friends with wide range of students, come from all backgrounds… and countries” and claims that no one judges people based on race or social class (Steve, page 44). Overall, there appears to be the general pattern that while social can partially dictate what activities people can participate in, race seems to be more influential in terms of who people spend time with. People will always be more comfortable with those they perceive as equals.

Beverly Tatum’s racial identity development theory may help explain the racial divisions at Trinity. Tatum argues that all people go through stages of racial identity development, with these stages being unique to African Americans or Whites, respectively. For African Americans, she argues that there are five stages of racial development: pre-encounter, encounter, immersion/emersion, internalization, and internalization commitment. She then argues that white students go through six stages: contact, disintegration, reintegration, pseudo-independent, immersion/emersion, and autonomy. Based on Mather and LVL, she would likely suggest that the minority students on campus show evidence of being in either the encounter or immersion/emersion stage. The encounter phase is characterized by “an event or series of events that force the young person to acknowledge the personal impact of racism” (Tatum 55). This causes black students to lead a “more active search” for their identity (Tatum 56). For some students at Trinity, coming to such an affluent and predominantly white school could cause the kind of “event” that brings students into this stage. As a result, this might lead minority students to join organizations like LVL or MOCA (Men of Color Alliance) to help them find a community. The transition to the immersion/emersion stage causes minority kids to self-segregate, and “the developing Black [or minority] person sees White people as simply irrelevant” (Tatum 76). If a large number of minority students at Trinity are in the immersion/emersion stage of racial identity development, this could help explain on-campus segregation, such as in Mather.

By taking a stratified sample of the sophomore class, we interviewed as even a distribution or white, non-white, financial aid, and non-financial aid students as possible. This statistical diversity helped us get a fuller picture of the experiences Trinity students have. In the interviews our seminar conducted, one of the clearest differences between interviews was how included or excluded by the Trinity community students felt. A student’s feeling of inclusion or exclusion is generally tied to how others perceive their race and/or their social class, and how easily they can access certain aspects of campus life. Our data shows that, for the most part, students who reported more insightful observations of the racial and social structure at Trinity had a tendency to be either a minority, on financial aid, or both. The social structure of Trinity makes it easier for students to stay close to those they consider equals, which perpetuates campus-wide segregation.

Works Cited

Armstrong, Elizabeth A., and Laura T. Hamilton. Paying for the Party: How College Maintains Inequality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2013. Print.

Tatum, Beverly Daniel., PhD. Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? And Other Conversations About Race. New York: Basic, 1997. Print.




Skin Deep- Tammy

Posted on

Elise Ogden

FYSM Exercise E


In the film Skin Deep, Tammy, the white student at Texas A&M, shows key signs of the pseudo-independent stage of white racial development. According to Beverly Tatum, author of “Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together In the Cafeteria?”, in the pseudo-independent stage “the pseudo-independent individual has an intellectual understanding of racism as a system of advantage, but doesn’t quite know what to do about it. Self-conscious and guilty about one’s own Whiteness, the individual often desires to escape it by associating with people of color” (Tatum 106). In Skin Deep, Tammy discusses how she tries to reach out to the African American community at Texas A&M: “I wanted to have more contact with the African American students on our campus… so I joined black awareness committee for the social thing because right now my group of friends isn’t very diverse and I felt like maybe I would take the first step and maybe they would join some of ours [organizations]” (20:38-21:00). Like Tatum’s pseudo-independent individual, she wanted to be able to understand the African American community at her school. After the conference, Tammy acknowledges the advantages she receives because she is white: “I’ve come to realize that if I work hard for something I’m assured most of the time that I’m gonna get it… I’ve come to realize that for some other cultures in our society that’s not true a lot of the time and they have to work twice as hard and there’s people there telling them that they can’t do that” (32:02-32:25). Later, when she talks to Dane, she tells him that although creating a dialogue about race is difficult, it’s necessary because “if you’re not trying to make the change then you’re just accepting it and letting it go on.”

 Screen Shot 2013-10-20 at 3.18.20 PM

Tammy wants to change the system, and she is trying to convince others of that fact. Based on the film, Tammy is in the pseudo-independent stage of her racial development.


Works Cited

Reid, Frances, Sharon Wood, Sarah Cahill, Michael Chin, Stephen McCarthy, Deborah Hoffmann, and Mary Watkins. Skin Deep. Berkeley, CA: Iris Films, 1995.

Tatum, Beverly D. “Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?”: And Other Conversations About Race. New York: BasicBooks, 1999. Print.

The Importance of Race in the College Admissions Process

Posted on


Elise Ogden


Persuasive Essay



This essay was assigned to be written from the perspective of a Race advocate, and does not necessarily represent the views of the author.


For most high school students, the college admissions process is a long and strenuous one. High school seniors spend weeks slaving away to craft the perfect personal essay, deliver the perfect answers during interviews, and submit the perfect application. Despite all this hard work, once a student presses “Submit” their future is at the mercy of nameless, faceless admissions officers who, many students feel, are in the business of crushing dreams. This, however, is not the case. The admissions process is immensely complicated, and decisions are made based on everything from SAT scores to the personal feelings an officer has about a student. One of these factors has proven particularly contentious: race. Colleges and universities grapple with the moral and legal question of how extensively to factor race into the admissions decision. When our seminar was charged with accepting three out of fifteen applicants to “The College”, we chose to factor in race. When considered legally, race can provide equal educational opportunities to the whole student body, not just the minority applicants who reap the immediate benefits of race-conscious admissions.

In order to have a race-conscious admissions policy, we had to develop a formula for evaluating our applicants. Considering race is a slippery slope, however; it is easy to accidentally use illegal means to help establish diversity. Therefore, we did not give applicants a numerical boost based on race and we did not establish a quota for minority students because both of these actions have been determined unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, in Gratz v. Bollinger and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, respectively. In Gratz, minority applicants to the undergraduate program at the University of Michigan were automatically given a 20 point boost in a system where applicants were evaluated on a scale of 1-100. This was ruled unconstitutional because the admissions process did not give individual consideration to applicants, instead giving a categorical advantage to minority applicants (Gratz v. Bollinger). Nor did we set aside spots for minority applicants, as was ruled unconstitutional in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (University of California Regents v. Bakke).

In our simulation, the diversity value of an applicant was considered holistically and individually, which the case Grutter v. Bollinger ruled constitutional (Grutter v. Bollinger). On a scale of 0-22, we rated each student based on academics (scale of 1-9), extracurricular activities (1-9), family legacy (0-1), and diversity (0-3). The diversity category was not race-specific; we determined that it can be anything that sets an individual apart, from race to sexual orientation to musical skills. We then admitted three applicants who scored high numbers: Caitlin Quinn (18.7), Jazmine Hope-Martin (17.2), and Angelica Parker (18.2). Caitlin was white (resulting in an average of 1.3 out of 3 in the diversity category), Jazmine was Mexican American (a 2.7 out of 3), and Angelica identified as multiracial (2.3 out of 3) (4th Round). Based on legal precedents, our evaluation of race in the admissions process was legal.

Expanding the diversity of a campus is in the best interests of minority applicants and adds to the environment of the campus in general, so admissions officers try to create the best possible entering class. Our simulation was no different- we attempted to balance academic and extracurricular achievement, while picking applicants who also offered something special. Each of the three applicants we initially admitted (Caitlin, Jazmine, and Angelica) was unique. Caitlin was white, Jewish, attended private school in San Francisco, and was a two-sport varsity captain (Caitlin). Jazmine attended private school in Massachusetts, volunteered with Amnesty International, and was a National Merit semi-finalist (Jazmine). Angelica attended private school in Florida, was recruited for the swim team at The College, and identified as multiracial (Angelica). Despite these differences, the simulation did not result in the best possible entering class. The three original admits were all girls who attended private school. Additionally, as a result of the random number generator, the three students who actually enrolled in the College were Caitlin Quinn, Jazmine Hope-Martin, and Daniel Juberi. Daniel was a much weaker applicant, scoring a 16.7 out of 22, he was African American, and attended private school in Massachusetts (4th Round). The resulting class was 1/3 white, 1/3 African American, and 1/3 undeclared. All three attended private school, and two were from Massachusetts. Ideally we would have had better regional, educational, and racial mix of students.

Although the class we enrolled was not the best possible one, we did provide equal educational opportunity. For minority students, many of whom come from less privileged backgrounds than their white counterparts, a race-conscious admissions policy helps to give them a more competitive application. By factoring race into the decision, we were given a more compelling reason to accept Daniel Juberi since his academics were less than stellar. A multi-racial college environment is also advantageous to the whole student body. According to Aaron Thomson, professor of sociology at Eastern Kentucky University, diversity provides eight benefits: it “expands worldliness… enhances social development… prepares students for future career success…prepares for work in a global society…increases our knowledge base…promotes creative thinking…enhances self-awareness” (Jacobs). Thomson suggests that racial and ethnic diversity gives students valuable life skills that will help them succeed in college and beyond. Using a race-conscious admissions policy helped to ensure that the campus at The College provided equal and valuable education opportunities to students from all different backgrounds.

In completing the simulation, each member of our seminar developed an individual opinion about how the College should make decisions. I believe that a race-conscious admissions policy is the best way to create a consistently good class. If an admissions team were to consider only merit in their decisions, they would most likely end up with a class of white, upper-class, private school students who were able to afford tutors, SAT prep classes, and expensive club sports teams as well as full tuition to a college. Although these students would be numerically ideal applicants, they would be a homogenous class with little to offer culturally. If an admissions team were to use a class-conscious model, the typical student would likely come from lower-income or urban communities and have less impressive qualifications than their merit-based counterparts. While this would provide heretofore impossible opportunities for many students, it would also put a burden on elite institutions who remain competitive through statistics like the average SAT score and GPA of their students. Colleges and universities would also need to increase their financial aid budget to accommodate for their high numbers of expensive students. In a race-conscious system, however, a college would be more likely to strike a balance between cultural diversity and academic prestige. By factoring in race, the college would provide opportunities to many lower-class applicants, because minority applicants are statistically more likely to come from low-income families. At the same time, having an impressive minority presence in a student population is a competitive and necessary statistic for elite schools. So says Mitchell Stevens in his book Creating a Class, “a racially heterogeneous student body is a marker of a school’s national reach and caliber today” (Stevens 143). Students see diversity as a sign of prestige, so from a marketing standpoint it is critical that a student body be diverse. By factoring in race, admissions officers simultaneously create opportunities for minority students while increasing the prestige and marketability of their school: it’s a win-win.

There are several undeniable benefits to a race-conscious admissions policy. This policy strives to provide benefits to deserving, and generally more economically challenged, applicants. It also promotes equality by attempting to make up for years of excluding minority applicants. It benefits the school because having a large percentage of minority students is a competitive statistic that increases the school’s prestige, and it gives students an opportunity to gain a more global perspective. In our simulation of The College, we chose to factor race into our decision because we felt that including race is a fundamentally important part of the process. In doing so, we took care to make sure our process was legal; we did not employ a quota or point system, because those have been declared unconstitutional. Although the class we admitted was not the absolute best possible, because it is difficult to balance academics, extracurriculars, and diversity, we did the best we could. By not discriminating against anyone and looking at each applicant holistically, we promoted equal educational opportunities. In the future, “The College” should continue to use a race-conscious admissions policy because it allows the admissions to consider applicants from several perspectives and create a diverse and interesting class.


Works Cited

Angelica Parker, Simulation Applicant Files, Color & Money seminar at Trinity      College, Fall 2013, http://commons.trincoll.edu/colorandmoney.

Caitlin Quinn, Simulation Applicant Files, Color & Money seminar at Trinity College, Fall  2013, http://commons.trincoll.edu/colorandmoney.

Daniel Juberi, Simulation Applicant Files, Color & Money seminar at Trinity College, Fall  2013, http://commons.trincoll.edu/colorandmoney.

Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 123 S. Ct. 2411, 156 L. Ed. 2d 257 (2003).

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 123 S. Ct. 2325, 156 L. Ed. 2d 304 (2003).

Jacobs, Jeremy S. Hyman; Lynn F. “Why Does Diversity Matter at College Anyway?”US  News.

U.S.News & World Report, 12 Aug. 2009. Web. 01 Oct. 2013.

Jazmine Hope-Martin, Simulation Applicant Files, Color & Money seminar at Trinity  College, Fall 2013, http://commons.trincoll.edu/colorandmoney.

Stevens, Mitchell L. “Race.” Creating a Class: College Admissions and the Education of  Elites. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2007. N. pag. Print.

University of California Regents v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 98 S. Ct. 2733, 57 L. Ed. 2d  750 (1978).

4th Round Review, Color and Money Admissions Simulation Data, Trinity College, Fall  2013, http://commons.trincoll.edu/colorandmoney.