Daniel J. Flynn

     The photo-graph was tampered with because administrators sought to show that the school was a racially diverse place, but couldn’t produce a suitable picture conveying that point.

     "This was not an attempt—ever—to mislead, but to show the diversity that exists on campus," maintained Admissions Director Robert Seltzer, who acknowledged an "error in judgement" to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

     University spokesman Patrick Strickler disagreed with Seltzer’s characterization of the photo as not misleading. "While the intent was not to deceive, the act was deceptive," he told Campus Report.

     Others disagreed as well, contending that doctoring a photo is an attempt to mislead and the fact that the school resorted to such tactics is an admission that the campus is not as racially mixed and diverse as the administrators purport.

     "There are a few white people and people of color interacting but it’s just not on a large scale," Black Student Union President Jana Thompson observed of her campus. "I think there’s probably limited interaction only because there are so few of us and we kind of just stick together and I know it’s not necessarily a good thing but it happens that way," she told Campus Report about her fellow black students. Does the school do enough to facilitate integration of people of all backgrounds? "Probably not," Thompson opined.

     "I was extremely upset," Thompson divulged of her reaction to learning of the forgery, "my friends were upset." Thompson, a senior studying journalism, noted that the admissions office is just one floor above the Multicultural Student Center and if they needed photos of racially-mixed groups socializing, the admissions officers simply "could have asked us for pictures."

     Those responsible for the brochure have contended that they used the altered picture because they couldn’t find any usable photographs of a group of racially mixed students. "The people that made the decision," maintained University spokesman Patrick Strickler, "know they made a mistake, and when they said there weren’t any other photographs available or they couldn’t find any... The fact of the matter is there are other photographs available and they just didn’t look hard enough."

     University officials report that they originally wanted to use the picture of the students cheering on the booklet but because it seemed to feature only white students they rejected the idea. To placate the concerns of Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Paul Barrows, an African-American, a black student was placed in the picture.

     Barrows was unavailable for comment, but told the Journal Sentinel that "Robert Seltzer came to me, initially, with the photo—the undoctored one—and said he was going to use it for the cover." He continued, "I said it was unacceptable—get another picture." What was "unacceptable" about the picture was that the students featured in it—like the vast majority of undergraduates who attend the flagship campus of the state’s university system—were white. Unable to come up with a new picture, Seltzer and his boss Paul Barrows directed the use of a cropped head-shot of black student Diallo Shabazz, reversed the picture, and digitally placed it in a crowd of cheering football fans.

     Anna Gould, a reporter at The Daily Cardinal noticed something amiss with the photograph when her brother, who is considering attending the school, received the brochure in the mail. Two signs pointing to forgery were that the sunlight reflected off of Shabazz’s face in contrast with the lack of reflection off of the other faces, and also the unnatural positioning of his head atop of where other spectator’s bodies obviously were located. The paper then blew the whistle on the school.

     Those scratching their head over why the admissions officers went to so much trouble over something as seemingly benign as a picture of students cheering have been directed to the school’s 1998 "Madison Plan," which makes racial diversity the prime goal of the institution. The plan seeks to dramatically increase the presence of minorities on campus by proposing more than $8 million in additional scholarships for minority students, the continuance of "diversity-related strategic hiring of faculty," and a boost in the "amount of contracts with and purchasing from minority and women vendors." Although the plan steers clear of using such language as "quotas," it does speak of "benchmarks." "Every unit, including department, will develop by May of 2000 a plan for how it will contribute to achieving the goals of Plan 2008, with both benchmarks and incentives for progress," the document states.

     Spokesman Strickler affirmed that the Madison Plan and its goal of increasing minority participation probably factored in to the decision to include the deceptive photograph. "I think it’s on everybody’s mind," he noted.

     The University of Wisconsin printed more than 100,000 of the 44-page brochures. Between 50,000 and 55,000 have been mailed to high school students and others who have expressed interest in attending the Madison campus. School officials have announced plans to reprint the booklet and inform recipients of the falsified cover.

     "Reprinting the booklet is the right thing to do," Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Paul Barrows announced in the wake of the scandal. "We regret the error, have apologized to the student, and are taking the necessary steps to maintain our credibility within the University and broader community." The taxpayer funded institution will dole out $64,000 for the new brochures.