Front Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Brown and Adams: Impact of higher...
 Desegregation in higher education...
 A statistical review of state plans...
 The question of commitment to equality...
 Organizational activities and equality...
 Appendix A
 Appendix B

Title: Equality of opportunity in higher education : myth or reality
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AM00000180/00001
 Material Information
Title: Equality of opportunity in higher education : myth or reality
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Mohr, Paul
Publisher: Chicago-Southern Network Study Commission on Undergraduate Education and the Education of Teachers
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: AM00000180
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Florida A&M University (FAMU)
Holding Location: Florida A&M University (FAMU)
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: notis - AAB7860

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page i
        Page ii
    Title Page
        Page iii
        Page iv
    Table of Contents
        Page v
        Page vi
        Page vii
        Page viii
        Page ix
    Brown and Adams: Impact of higher education
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
    Desegregation in higher education - 1975 dateline
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
    A statistical review of state plans submitted in response to the pratt decision
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
    The question of commitment to equality of opportunity in higher education responses from the black college presidency
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
    Organizational activities and equality of educational opportunity: Convergence and divergence
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
    Appendix A
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
    Appendix B
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
Full Text



A Continuing Dialogue on the Issue of

Desegregation in Higher Education

By Paul Mohr



r 1 --? 7 e

This book was prepared by the Chicago-Southern Network of the
Study Commission on Undergraduate Education and the Education of
Teachers. It is one of a series of Study Commission publications and does
not represent an official position of the Study Commission. This book is a
study document for distribution to those associated with the work of the
Commission. Requests for this book and other Study Commission publica-
tions should be addressed to the Nebraska Curriculum Development Center,
Andrews Hall, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68508, or to the
College of Education, Florida A & M University, Tallahassee, Florida 32307.

Publication of this document at the University of Nebraska Printing
and Duplicating Service was funded with a grant from the U.S. Office of
Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare. However, the
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the position or policy
of the U.S. Office of Education and no official endorsement by the U.S.
Office of Education should be inferred.



A Continuing Dialogue on the Issue of
Desegregation in Higher Education

Paul Mohr

With Essays By:
Mary Lepper
Sam Wiggins
Terry Wildman

Chicago-Southern Network
Study Commission on Undergraduate Education
and the Education of Teachers
(Paul A. Olson, Director)

Lincoln, Nebraska

of the
Chicago-Southern Network
of the
Study Commission on Undergraduate Education
and The Education of Teachers


Paul Mohr and Adelbert Jones (Eds.) Problems, Issues and Priorities of
Black Colleges and Universities. Lincoln, Nebraska: The Nebraska
Curriculum Development Center, University of Nebraska, 1974.

Paul Mohr and Adelbert Jones (Eds.) The Law and the Unitary System of
Higher Education. Lincoln, Nebraska: The Nebraska Curriculum
Development Center, University of Nebraska, 1975.

Paul Mohr, Editor. Black Colleges and Equal Opportunity in Higher Educa-
tion. Lincoln, Nebraska: The Nebraska Curriculum Development
Center, University of Nebraska, 1975.



Acknowledgements ...............

. .. ... .. .... .. .. .. .. vi

Introduction .......................................... vii

"Brown and Adams: Impact
on Higher Education
Mary M. Lepper ..........

"Desegregation in Higher Education-
1975 Dateline"
Samuel P. Wiggins ..........

"A Statistical Review of State Plans
Submitted in Response to the
Pratt Decision"
Terry Wildman ............

"The Question of Commitment to
Equality of Opportunity in Higher
Education Responses from the
Black College Presidency"
Terry Wildman ............

"Organizational Activities and Equality
of Educational Opportunity:
Convergence and Divergence"
PaulMohr ...............


........................ 11




Appendix A ................................... ........ 93

Appendix B ..........................................99


The editor is indeed grateful to the many persons who contributed to
this book. The writers of the chapter were unusually perceptive in recog-
nizing the goals of the Chicago-Southern Network and reinforcing them by
providing information that will do much to clarify the issue of equality of
opportunity in higher education.

Appreciation is also accorded my wife Becky, who assisted in proof-
reading and editing the manuscript for this book. For typing and typesetting,
I acknowledge the contributions of: Ruby Davis and Cynthia Scales of
Florida A and M University, and James Bowman and Jan Pieper of the
University of Nebraska Curriculum Development Center.

Finally, the editor acknowledges the assistance of Dr. Gilbert Porter
for organizing the information for this book.



This book is the fourth one of a series designed to provide additional
information on equal educational opportunities. It attempts to magnify the
theme that the nation's educational deficit cannot be ameliorated by en-
larging the burden of responsibility of those persons and institutions who
have historically stultified the progress of discernible segments of the nation's
population. This book also attempts to be very blatant in echoing the muf-
fled voices that cry out for an expansion of educational opportunities by a
greater utilization of a network of institutions, the black colleges and uni-
versities. These institutions are known for their capability to transform raw
and latent talent into fully functioning citizens who sustain the success of
this great nation as a world power. Further, they have been recognized,
historically as being responsive to the needs of a pluralistic society.

The black colleges and universities do not see themselves as isolated
from the mainstream of society and insulated from the traumas created by
racism, and unyielding political structure, and the hypocrisy that emanates
from the misuse and abuse of the multi-varied religious faiths. On the con-
trary, these institutions are populated by leaders of today and tomorrow
who stand on the threshold of being more effective in correcting the ills of
our society. This can be achieved merely by an acquiescence to request of
the black college constituency for survival. The more clairvoyant educa-
tional prognosticators realize that the promise and potential of these institu-
tions, if nurtured, can push them beyond a level of mere effectiveness to one
of great success. Perhaps the best analogy one can use is that of the discovery
of "Watergate." If a highly scrupulous but obscure black man can pursue
with vigilance his duties as a security guard and discover a break-in that
ultimately saved this nation from disaster, then one can survey the chaotic
social conditions of today and conclude that out of the hundreds of colleges
and universities, none can be counted on to do as much with so little for so
many as the back colleges and universities.

This book continues a pattern of presenting information from a variety
of vantage points in the hopes that objectivity is increased and the credibility
of our efforts is not challenged. Dr. Mary Lepper, special assistant to the
Director, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Department of Health, Education
and Welfare, graciously consented to provide a legal context to the discussion

of equal educational opportunities. Dr. Sam Wiggins gives us an updated
version of The Desegregation Era in Higher Education, a book he wrote a
decade ago.

We sought to move from a rhetorical discussion to a statistical one by
presenting an in-depth analysis of plans for enhancing higher educational
opportunities that several states submitted to OCR in 1974. As the report
indicates, more needs to be done than simply waiting patiently for evidence
that states are fulfilling vague promises contained in the voluminous reports.

Another chapter of this book highlights the responses of the black
college presidency to the question of commitment to strategies for equality
of opportunity in higher education. Finally, the sensitive issue of organiza-
tional strategies and philosophies has been raised based upon the fact that
so many groups attempt to speak to the issue of equal educational oppor-
tunity in behalf of the same clientele. Unfortunately, the credibility of
some organizations is being challenged because of their counter-productive
activities. Consequently, brief descriptions of several organizations are
provided in order that the reader may become more familiar with the
endeavors of these organizations,



Mary M. Lepper
Special Assistant to the Director
Office for Civil Rights
Department of Health, Education and Welfare



Mary M. Lepper

"There are few things more beautiful than a University," wrote John
Masefield in his tribute to the English universities. Yet, a young colleague
of mine recently asked me, "Why must there still be a question as to the
legitimacy and the inevitability of equal opportunity for all Americans?"
This emanating from our day-to-day compliance problems and obstacles to
providing equal opportunity to access and treatment in higher education
twenty years after Brown v. Topeka Board of Education-ten years after
the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, almost ten years of experience
with the Executive Order in employment to which protection on the basis of
sex was added seven years ago and two years ago Congress still found the
need to provide more protection in Title IX of the Higher Education Amend-
ments. Perhaps Masefield was wrong. As one who has spent much of her
life In the classroom either in front of or behind the lectern-I find myself
frustrated and baffled by this seeming lack of cognizance of both responsi-
bility and opportunities by the higher education community to come to grips
with one of the most fundamental issues of our society. For, while the
mandate of the courts, as well as the Congress, is patently clear, nearly
every civil rights decision of any significance during the past two decades
has emerged only after a ferocious tug-of-war. And, left in the wake, often
battered and bruised, have been a variety of vested interests-those who
have clung tenaciously to their traditional turf in the mainstream of educa-
tion, employment, housing and the like, and those who have just won, by
court order or administrative flat, a new right to vie for a piece of that turf.
Each battle makes it abundantly clear that, though legitimate, the objectives
of equality is by no means inevitable. The strides we make will continue to
be laced with political considerations for a variety of reasons. For one thing,
equality of opportunity is no longer just a matter of equal access to public
accommodations and the elimination of segregated education at the public
school level, though, in varying degrees, problems such as these are still
with us. Today, more than ever, civil rights questions involve complex
economic, political and social considerations. Whereas whites and blacks
once found common cause in desegregating lunch counters, public recreation

facilities and public schools, they are now deeply divided over the best means
of delivering the basic goods: jobs, professional education, and houses.
These are the things that equal opportunity is all about. These are the
matters that keep the civil rights cauldron boiling. The promises of Brown v.
Topeka, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other civil rights legislation, court
decisions and regulations are still underfunded, underimplemented and

Before focusing on some of the key issues before us today, let me
put in perspective the role of the Office for Civil Rights in the area of higher
education and civil rights compliance. The focus of Brown v. Topeka was
elementary and secondary education. Though there was a number of lawsuits
prior and subsequent to Brown relating to desegregation of higher education,
there was little movement in this area until the late 1960's. Brown's impor-
tance, to higher education, however, cannot be underestimated. That land-
mark decision created the legal framework, as well as the psychological and
moral climate that have made later efforts in higher education desegregation

The Office for Civil Rights grew out of the enforcement responsibil-
ities given to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare under Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and four years later in 1968 we began
to conduct Title VI compliance reviews at colleges and universities. Despite
legal statutes to the contrary, it was readily apparent that racially dual sys-
tems of higher education continued to exist in a number of states and that
OCR was obligated both under the Brown ruling and the mandate of Title VI
to dismantle all remaining vestiges of the racial dualism. Pursuant to that
end, letters were dispatched to ten states operating systems with various
elements of duality requesting that they propose plans for the desegrega-
tion of higher education. Those requests were, for the most part, met with
recalcitrance and, in some instances, defiance. Much to its discredit, OCR
did not persist. Four years later, as the result of a federal court order in the
District of Columbia (in the case of Adams v. Richardson), OCR obtained
proposed desegregation plans from eight of those ten states-Arkansas,
Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsyl-
vania, and Virginia. The tenth, Louisiana, declined to make a submission,
and that case has been referred to the Department of Justice, which has
filed suit in federal court for a desegregation order.

This is a new and somewhat complex chapter in the history of civil
rights enforcement. Unlike the issue of elementary and secondary school
desegregation, there has been very little case law developed by the courts to
give us legal guidance in the area of higher education desegregation. We
have been confronted with numerous questions with few readily accessible
answers. While keeping the mission of higher education in mind, we spent
several months attempting to establish criteria for the development of
acceptable desegregation plans and then trying to get that message across
to state higher education officials.

Many citizens with a vested interest in higher education programs have
undoubtedly been left with a sense of foreboding awaiting the plans that
would result from the somewhat tedious negotiations we have engaged in
during the past year. Many have been aware of the controversy over the best
approach to take in achieving desegregated higher education, but they have
had few facts at their disposal in making judgments. The verdict is in.
Eight plans have been accepted. Because of its failure to include its junior
college system in its plan, OCR has referred Mississippi to the Justice Depart-
ment. The eight acceptable plans vary according to differing local circum-
stances, but, in short, the states were required to consider certain basic
principles and they have attempted to address these in their submissions.
Mindful that we were developing, in many instances, new approaches to
integrated higher education, we have attempted to be open to innovative
ideas. Our concern has been that these various approaches have a reasonable
chance of success, and, as noted, that they do not bring about a repetition
of the unfortunate consequence of earlier efforts in the area of elementary
and secondary education, where, at times, integrated education meant white
education and where poor administration and transition gave rise to un-
manageable discipline problems and a dilution of educational quality.

Several underlying principles guided our negotiations. We underscored
the need for careful statewide planning and state-level coordinated ap-
proaches to accomplish desegregation of the former dual higher education
systems. We noted, for example, that the allocation of financial resources
between institutions and the placement of new or specialized course offerings
may have a significant impact on desegregation. Clearly, individual institu-
tions, acting alone, cannot make the necessary decisions and carry them out.
In addition, a coordinated statewide approach to student recruitment could
have a significant impact on efforts to emphasize the positive attributes of

the predominantly black institutions for white students, and vice versa. Thus,
each of the Adams plans reflects what, for many of the states, is the first
major effort at statewide higher education planning.

The principle of free choice is well established in higher education.
The government has neither proposed nor favored actions that would infringe
on the exercise of individual choices of institutions. Such devices as quotas
or forced reassignment systems have not been contemplated and will not
be proposed. We recognize that a student's choice of institution is often
affected by such things as the quality of a college's facilities, the breadth
of its academic offerings, the reputation and quality of the faculty, and
by the role or mission established by the state for its institutions. We have
asked the states to focus in a positive, non-discriminatory way on such fac-
tors that invariably influence student choices of institutions. We think that
those plans which have been accepted show significant promise toward
achieving that end.

Finally, and not least important, desegregation does not contemplate
the downgrading or dissolution of the predominantly black institutions. In
fact, we are striving for just the opposite. We expect that one result of this
desegregation effort will be the upgrading of the predominantly black insti-
tutions, which hopefully will become full, viable partners in the state higher
education systems, able to compete for and attract students regardless of
race. On the other side of the coin, desegregation anticipates that the pre-
dominantly white institutions, through greater efforts in the area of sup-
portive and counseling services, will be able to compete for, attract and
retain greater numbers of black students.

As the U.S. Court of Appeals said in its Adams order: "A predicate
for minority access to quality post-graduate programs is a viable, coordinated
statewide higher education policy that takes into account the special prob-
lems of minority students and of black colleges." Two weeks of intensive
on-site visits by OCR staff to both predominantly white and predominantly
black campuses in January, 1974, greatly heightened our awareness of this
judicial observation. We came away with a profound appreciation of the
vital role that black colleges have played in American education and with a
determination that they be strengthened and preserved during the desegre-
gation process. We believe that the plans create a framework wherein that
can become a reality. Further, the increasing role of minorities in the state-
wide planning process for higher education increases the potential for success.

We view this new area of civil rights enforcement-the elimination of
the dual structure of higher education-as both a challenge and an opportun-
ity. A challenge because we are sailing in generally uncharted waters. An
opportunity because the ultimate impact of ours and the states' actions will
be a substantial broadening of higher education opportunities for minority

Undoubtedly, there are differing points of view on how best to ap-
proach this challenge. The methods for achieving the desegregation of
higher education systems are not at all clear. We have consulted with a wide
variety of educators, special interest groups and other educational experts in
an effort to construct a methodology. The states plans represented different
levels of detail which the states must flush out in the implementation of
their plans. Both OCR and the states expect positive results, and, it will
take, however, some time to measure significant changes and advances. We
expect to monitor implementation of the plans very closely and, in fact,
view this monitoring process as a major program priority. If, after a reason-
able period of time, the plans do not yield results as expected, we will
require the states to undertake further action in the form of additional or
different commitments and programs in order to achieve the desired results.

We believe that these recent initiatives carrying out the Adams order
have been given great impetus by the legal and, if you will, philosophical
atmosphere left by the landmark Brown decision and the enactment of
Title VI.

In addition, Brown opened the way for other civil rights initiatives,
some of which have had a major impact upon higher education. One of
which was Executive Order 11246, as amended by 11375, which was issued
by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965. The order addressed the equal em-
ployment responsibilities of federally-funded contractors and subcontractors.
It requires nondiscrimination in the employment practices based on race,
color, national origin, religion and sex (added in 1968) and in addition,
requires that affirmative action programs be developed to overcome the
effect of past discriminatory practices whether intentional or not. This
Order, as well as Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, administered by the
Equal Employment Commission, has had a major impact on the nationwide
effort to expand employment opportunities for minorities and women.
Affirmative action plans are now required by all colleges and universities

holding federal contract monies of more than $50,000, and OCR is devoting
a substantial part of our resources to providing assistance to institutions in
the developing of plans.

Many of you have undoubtedly heard of Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972, that increasingly controversial law which prohibits
sex discrimination in admissions, services and employment in the whole
educational spectrum, from kindergarten to graduate school. OCR has pub-
lished for comment the regulation proposed for implementation of Title IX,
and interested parties will be able to provide us with their comments until
October 15. Title IX has far-reaching implications for American education,
particularly, at the post-secondary levels, and we hope that you will all have
an opportunity to examine the proposed regulation. Title IX is, in many
ways, a logical legislative outgrowth of the civil rights laws of the 1960's.
As a matter of fact, the women's rights movement is taking a number of its
cues from the civil rights efforts on behalf of minorities which emerged in
the 1960's. And, it is not stretching a point to suggest that it was Brown
v. Board of Education that help set into motion the entire human rights
momentum that we have witnessed in this second half of the 20th century.
The civil rights laws of the past decade have reflected both executive and
legislative notice of that historic ruling, and, taken together, they have all
had a significant impact on our national life.

No institution has been impacted more dramatically during this period
than American education, because education is, of course, the traditional key
to the doors of opportunity in the American system. And, in this all-
important area of national concern, the various statutes and laws to which I
have alluded have joined to produce a special-if not always amicable-rela-
tionship between the Office for Civil Rights and the academic world. We
have locked horns over various issues involved in and the effects of non-
discrimination in higher education and affirmative action. We have been
involved in prolonged negotiations with numerous colleges and universities
concerning complaints and the development of acceptable affirmative action
programs. And, there probably will be an element of tension to contend
with for some time to come.

Primarily because many institutions of higher education are awakening
too slowly to their responsibility in civil rights and to the need for change,
too many institutions seem to lack the will to deal decisively and swiftly

with the discriminatory conditions that exist in their midst. It seems to me
in retrospect that many colleges and universities have failed to take the
initiative to fully grasp the legal obligation which has been theirs from the
start and to which, one should expect, some of the best minds in the country
could have responded in a timely and responsible fashion. Some appear
to prefer to invest the time and often the considerable resources needed to
withstand court action or federal investigative efforts than attempt ameliora-
tion of complaints through internal remedies of practices which discriminate.

Surely, OCR is learning from experience, for it is clear that very few,
at the early stages, completely understood the complexity and the nature
of the responsibility we confronted. We are striving to attain a greater
sensitivity to and awareness of the particular problems and considerations
that set the academy apart from the industrial sector. For one thing, we are
looking to acquire staff with legal and analytical skills in various aspects of
education and employment, as well as staff who, through personal and pro-
fessional experience, are acquainted with the working of our colleges and
universities. We see this as an essential element in our whole effort to find
better ways to bring about corrective action on a broad basis.

The quest for equality of opportunity in higher education must con-
tinue, for the foreseeable future, to be a partnership between the higher
education community and the government, but I look forward to the day
when the government can fade into the background, confident that higher
education has effectively assumed the mantle of leadership in the drive to-
ward equality of opportunity that is rightfully its own.

I recall that in 1964 a leading political figure justified his vote against
the then pending Civil Rights Acts stating, "It's not possible to legislate
people's consciences." Without debating the merits of that statement, I
think we can all agree that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 changed the condi-
tions of life for a large portion of our population and reflected a profound
commitment to human rights for the nation. Historically dedicated to the
proposition of equality, it took a court ruling twenty years ago to remind us
that we were not living up to that proposition. The two decades which have
followed have witnessed a rededication to that purpose, but there is need for
continued diligence for to accept superficial racial and sexual stereotypes
in denying not only our country's full potential for progress, but also those
principles of human rights and decency to which this nation is living testi-

It is not enough for some of us to be well educated. It is not even
enough that there be equality of educational opportunity. There must be
efforts to guarantee our students and our society equity beyond education.
It is an opportunity we must not miss lest we lose our credibility as enlight-
ened leaders of our country.



Sam P. Wiggins
Author of
Desegregation Era in Higher Education



Sam P. Wiggins

I am pleased to have the opportunity to present some remarks on a
topic of crucial significance which is of far more importance across the land
than is commonly recognized. In 1963, I began a three year study of
southern higher education which gave special attention to the inseparable
issues of desegregation, of economic distress and of educational disadvan-
tages in the higher education sector. It was incongruous to me then, and
even more so now, that we should have moved so slowly to effect desegre-
gation in the colleges and universities of America, which should have been
setting inspiring examples all along for the schools of this nation rather than
lagging behind them. Universities are often liberal enough in precepts for
schools to follow, but strangely conservative in the demonstration of an
action stance in their own affairs. But I must not jump ahead of the sequence
of my remarks.

I want to begin my comments by treating briefly the extremely com-
plex issue relating to the public schools of America because of the very
inconsistent position taken by the Department of Health, Education and
Welfare with regard to higher education complexities. While on the one hand
the Department has pressed the public schools, excessively and irrationally
at times, on the other hand it has been an obstacle itself in furthering desegre-
gation in higher education. To sharpen the focus of this observation, I cite
a reference to the Adams v. Richardson case, involving ten southern states,
in the decision of Judge John Pratt on November 16, 1972. (Federal Sup-
plement Vol. 351, p. 638):

HEW has attempted to justify the failure to take administrative
action on the grounds that negotiations with these ten states
are still pending, that there are problems of great complexity in
the segregation of statewide systems, and that the supreme court
standard of desegregation "at once" does not apply to higher

This statement was made three full years after five southern states had
failed to make even a routine positive response to the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare's directive to develop and present a statewide plan for
desegregation in public higher education, and the Department had officially
ignored this delay with this specious argument of "complexity." Moreover,
this statement was made 41 years after the first court case, in North Carolina,
in which the constitutionality of segregation in public institutions of higher
learning was contested, and long before the Brown v. Board of Education in
1954. Complex indeed! Compared with the horrendous issues facing such
cities as Chicago, Detroit, Boston and Cleveland, the state issues in higher
education are child's play.

There are at least four basic desegregation complexities facing metro-
politan schools which are of no concern, or at most negligible concern to
institutions of higher learning. The first and fundamental barrier to school
desegregation now stems from segregated housing patterns. Each school
district has its own legally restricted "turf" while colleges are in no way
restricted by municipal barriers. Thus, desegregation within such cities as
Washington or Detroit, for example, would be a mockery of problem solving
even it if could be done on a ratio basis. Second is the related phenomenon
of population mobility with piecemeal solutions. When court-ordered de-
segregation programs are placed in any sector of the metropolis, desegregation
occurs shortly thereafter.

Third, school desegregation almost invariably becomes an add-on cost
factor, competing against and depreciating the education dollar, while de-
segregation at the collegiate level need not involve such extra costs. Fourth,
the age of elementary and at least junior high school pupils is the period
prior to adolescent "emancipation" from the indoctrinating force of parents.
College age youth are more anxious to prove their openness, their liberation,
to new social developments, among them, new multi-cultural life styles.

The Schools and Their "Exemplars"-
Colleges and Universities

I recall sitting in the office of the superintendent in Pine Bluff, Arkan-
sas, nearly 20 years ago while the superintendent was being reamed out via
telephone by the untouchable authorities in Washington for not moving fast
enough in desegregating the Pine Bluff schools. I remember vividly his

weary response as he said, "Well, hurry up and finish chewing me out for
not moving fast enough in desegregating our schools, because I have an
angry mob of citizens outside waiting to chew me out for pressing too fast
as soon as I get off the phone."

By and large, administrators in higher education have been spared the
volatile impact of these pressures. Currently, as I attempt to keep abreast
of developments relating to panaceas for desegregation in urban America, I
observe with a heavy heart, the strange admixture of individuals and groups
making pawns of children and youth as a result of questionable motives on
the one hand and of unbelievable naivete and simplemindedness on the other.

Our recent history regrettably, as you know, has been that the NAACP
has pressed much harder for desegregation in the schools than in higher edu-
cation, and I think it may be unfortunate both for the schools and the col-
leges that htis has been so. For example, we have learned how exceedingly
important it is in the schools for a desegregation of pupils to be preceded or
at least occur concurrently with desegregation among professional personnel
in the schools. We scuttle all our chances of achieving a mentally healthy
climate for desegregation when we bus black children into schools of all
white faculty. We should have known this long ago but many of us have
not yet discovered it. This presses us back then for the need for prospective
teachers to be educated in desegregated institutions of higher learning as a
means of accommodating themselves personally and professionally to a devel-
oping multi-cultural society.

To assert that state desegregation plans are difficult to develop and
implement is surely a fair and accurate assessment. To declare them, in
contrast to those of public schools, as being more complex or more difficult
is to overstate the case for delays on top of delays in getting to the heart of
the matter. The fact that is abundantly evident to date is that the factors
that are at the root of desegregation complexities in colleges and universities
are not factors that reflect credit upon educational or political leadership in
recent years, including the manifestly apparent effect of Watergate factors
or even desegregation in higher education. (Egerton, p. 34)

A Flashback to the Desegregation
"Era" in Higher Education, 1933-65

You will understand that I am tempted to dwell in detail upon the

desegregation development in higher education during the period up to 1965
because of the few years of my career devoted exclusively to a study of
those developments and the issues surrounding them. I will try to make short
shift of that era, however, only citing three items to give a link of perspective
to the issues and problems now at hand. (As I think of Mother's Day, I am
reminded of the Mother's Day greeting cartoon that recounts the fine things
the mother did for the child when he was young but concluded with the
question, "But what have you done, Mother, for me lately?") The question
we are interested in relates to what is now being done for, to and with
American students in the name of achieving desegregation in higher educa-

I remind you that the courts entered the controversial field of desegre-
gation in public education in 1933. The NAACP campaign began with the
Hocutt case in North Carolina concerning an application for admission to
the law school there. The suit was lost on technical grounds since the presi-
dent of the Negro college attended by the student refused to certify the
plaintiffs scholastic record (the cause for this refusal was never proven, as
to whether it resulted from social threat, physical intimidation or of negli-
gence). Immediately on the heels of this suit, however, was a successful
suit at the University of Maryland when Donald Murray was admitted to
the law school there. Further south, however, in both Virginia and Tennes-
see, similar efforts were unsuccessful.

Then came the first test case to reach the United States Supreme
Court, that of Gaines v. Canada with the setting being that of the University
of Missouri. The plaintiffs application for admission was granted on the
grounds that no equal law school for Negroes was then available within the
state of Missouri. The state, in traditional fashion, had offered financial
aid to the student to attend a Negro law school in a neighboring state, but
that offer was declined.

One of the greatest and least publicized tragedies in American history
followed this supreme court decision. Mr. Gaines, who had established an
excellent undergraduate scholastic record, and seemed to be an outstanding
law school candidate, suddenly and mysteriously disappeared. The nature
of the disappearance and the cause for it have never been established. I
must point out that the efforts to locate Mr. Gaines were far less vigorous
than those of recent days to discover the whereabouts of Miss Patricia Hearst.

The tragedy was a double one. Besides being an evidently fatal tragedy for
Mr. Gaines himself, we note that no Negro student attended a predominantly
white institution of higher learning in Missouri for another 15 years. We
can be certain that his disappearance served as a strong deterrent to desegre-
gation, and my personal conclusion is that this correlation of events was
not accidental.

Just prior to the Brown v. Board of Education decision on May 17,
1954, desegregation developments in higher education were at a standstill,
waiting for a crucial turning point. Based on the string of decisions from
1933 to 1954 the fact was clear that either segregation would no longer be
permitted or that if it were then measurable inequality would no longer be
countenanced. In the latter case each state would face extreme financial
stress in bringing Negro education up to that for Caucasians in a dual educa-
tional system, thereby, bringing progress in education for the majority, many
believed, to a deplorable standstill. Within a week after the Brown decision
the supreme court further ruled, in a suit against the University of Florida,
that its decision would apply to higher education as well, which explains
why, during the 12 months immediately after the May decision, the number
of public desegregated colleges doubled.

Private institutions, while not legally affected by those decisions, al-
most equalled that rate of growth. During the next 10 years, you know the
story. It was one of increased desegregation of the predominantly white
institutions, but of negligible desegregation among predominantly Negro
institutions. There were occasional notable exceptions, such as West Vir-
ginia State College, and Lincoln University in Missouri, with which I expect
you are familiar. (Even at West Virginia State, however, the desegregation
was largely that of commuting students, not of those in residence.) In 1964,
72% of public southern institutions had become desegregated in varying
degrees. Yet only a slight majority of church connected colleges had become
desegregated by that time, and only 42% of the private colleges had then
entered that classification. Where were the liberal views of the Christian
ethic? Trailing the force of law.

There were some strange ironies. I recall having been granted reluctant
permission to offer a desegregated workshop for high school principals in
Tennessee in the summer of 1954. At that time, we could hold our classes
on the campus of Peabody College, but our Negro students were not

permitted to eat in the College's dining room. We had to walk off campus
about a block to the Methodist Board of Education Building in order to have
lunch together. (The headquarter's staff were liberal but not the church
related institutions in their care.) Another irony, more sweeping in scope,
was being deplored in the state of Texas in the early 1960's. You will recall
that the law school at Texas Southern University was established more than
a generation ago as an overt effort to avoid desegregating the law school at
the University of Texas in Austin. This was to be "an equal" facility for
Negroes in the state of Texas. As a result of a great deal of initiative and
"hustling" within Texas Southern University, one of the best law libraries
in America was developed there and a strong law school faculty was recruited
as well.

As I sat with some of the educational authorities in Austin, I heard
them lamenting the fact that after all of the efforts to establish the law school
at Texas Southern to meet the separate but equal requirement now they
were having to discover what to do with it, since the University of Houston
had subsequently been converted from private to public status, and was
located only a few blocks away from Texas Southern University. Surely,
they could not have two separate law schools only blocks apart. I was to
get my first example of the new meaning of "merger" as it applied to public
institutions of higher learning in close proximity to each other. It meant
to dismantle one and to strengthen the other. Unless the predominantly
Negro institutions proved both aggressive and smart, "merger" would mean
"submerger" with the predominantly Negro institutions having their pro-
grams "picked over" in the noble name of desegregation. The same thing
was understandably happening, of course, with regard to student recruit-
ment as attempts were being made to drain off the top academic and athletic
talent among students from predominantly Negro institutions, again under
the honorable banner of desegregation. But enough of the distant past.
What of the decade now ending since 1965?

In keeping authentically to the history of our living and changing
language, I will henceforth use the term black rather than Negro, because
that change signifies a deeper change in our multi-cultural society. At any
rate, Negro seems to be the word of the past, and black that of the present.
The word of the future we cannot yet know.

The Past Decade in the
South and "Non-South"

It would be highly presumptuous for me to relate to you what has
happened in operational terms regarding desegregation in southern higher
education since 1967. As some of you know, I left the South that year to
move into a new region of America called the Midwest. My impressions, from
the occasional personal reports I get, from one federal court case in which
I had an active part as a witness for the plaintiffs against the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare, and from a review of published materials,
are that 1975 is not greatly different from 1967. Outside the South, and of
course my initial reference point would have to be the Midwest, although my
travels and other direct contacts have broadened that scale of observation a
bit, desegregation has leveled off, and has a very low priority except in the
area of Affirmative Action.

The cake of custom, as you know, is not likely to crack from internal
forces but from external pressures impinging upon it. My own present insti-
tution is a case in point. I cite it because I believe it illustrates the throes
that many institutions have gone through in one form or another north of
the Mason-Dixon Line. This University, like a number of others, was estab-
lished to supplant an earlier private college which enjoyed a creditable aca-
demic reputation as well as a fine tradition of helping first generation college
students achieve the goal of a college education. (As an aside, I was surprised
to learn recently that of the twelve College of Education deans in Ohio's
state universities, at least eight of us were first generation college students.)
One of the finest characteristics of the Fenn College program was its insis-
tence upon participation in the "cooperative work-study program" in much
the same fashion that Berea College in Kentucky and Martha Berry College
in Georgia have historically been noted for providing and requiring, giving
dignity to all useful work. The doors of Fenn College were open without a
policy of racial discrimination, to men and women on even terms.

The College was virtually a de facto segregated institution, however,
as a result of its high tuition and its high academic admission standards. No
program existed to assist educationally disadvantaged students, and the work-
study opportunities for black students in those days, especially in such fields
as business administration and engineering, were practically non-existent in
the Cleveland community. Wilberforce College, more than 200 miles away,

provided a sheltered opportunity for Ohio's black students until supplanted
by a state-assisted university-Central State.

In 1975, with Central State University and Wright State University
(predominantly black and white respectively) both state-assisted, we too need
a state plan for desegregation in Ohio. Meanwhile, of the twelve state-assisted
universities, eleven are authorized by the Board of Regents to offer graduate
programs. Need I tell you which one is not? The South is not alone in
grappling with or neglecting the educational, economic and political issues
relating to desegregation in American higher education.

The first president of Cleveland State University, coming from New
Mexico, set about immediately to rectify that traditional discrimination. On
the one hand he had the strong force of law to bolster his strong moral
convictions in administering a public university. On the other hand he in-
herited a faculty and tradition which would add indirectly to the ordeal of
change. Suffice it to say the University did not make dramatic initial head-
way in its recruitment drive for black students. Rather than become immedi-
ately an open admissions university, as mandated by state law, it adopted a
"modified" open admissions policy on the grounds that a public community
college was nearby which students could attend if their high school records
were not adequate or if they had not elected the "proper" college prepara-
tory courses.

If students were admitted with inadequate educational background, the
University did not provide appropriate compensatory education programs
to help talented students with educational disadvantage to overcome their
prior handicaps within the spirit of "upward bound" education. Only with
the intervention of special state funding for this expressed purpose was a
special studies program eventually created and subsequently expanded with
federal funding which more recently, I am pleased to report, has moved over
into the "hard money" budgeting of the University with the solid support,
I believe, of our current president.

Concurrently the superintendent of the Cleveland Public Schools,
assuming that office in 1965, placed a strong emphasis upon raising the
aspiration of all high school students to carve out a college-bound or voca-
tion-bound program and stick to it so that graduates could move easily into
a vocation for which they were prepared or into the college of their choice,

at least within the state of Ohio. The effect of these efforts over the years
has been considerable from the standpoint of our unviersity recruitment
among black or other minority students. I cite the Cleveland State Univer-
sity example simply to underscore the fact that when I left the South I did
not leave the problems of racial bigotry, or conditions of prejudice, and of
the attending economic and educational disadvantage that follows from treat-
ing any human group as something less than human.

A Review of Two Crucial Cases-
of "Deliberate Stall"

As we move to cases in point I wish to review with you two federal
court cases, one very briefly and one in some detail, which have a direct
bearing on Florida A & M University in 1975. The first case is that of
Sanders et al. v. Ellington et al. being civil action No. 5077 in the U.S.
District Court of the Nashville, Tennessee division. The plaintiffs, princi-
pally consisting of two Tennessee State (A & I) University former faculty
members and three black Nashville residents were attempting to prevent an
expansion of the University of Tennessee, Nashville Extension Center, into
a four year degree granting institution. The suit argued that UTN expansion
would simply perpetuate segregation since TSU was already available to
serve the total Nashville community from the standpoint of public higher
education. The immediate instance of the suit had to do with the authorized
federal funding of capital construction for the expansion of the Nashville
Center of the University of Tennessee. Defendants in the case included
Rita Sanders, Patrick J. Gilpin (white), Ernest Terrell, Harold and Phillip
Sweatt, Governor Buford Ellington, the president of the University of
Tennessee at Knoxville, and the president of Tennessee State University.

I was called in 1968 (summer) to serve as a witness for the plaintiffs
as a result of my recently concluded study of desegregation in higher educa-
tion. I attempted to show that good intentions and good faith were not
enough in bringing desegregation about, that unless and until a firm regional
plan could be developed in middle Tennessee which would serve to strengthen
the desegregation potential of Tennessee State University, that whatever the
motives, the problem of segregation would be further compounded by the
extension of the Nashville Center of the University of Tennessee (UT-N).
Judge Frank Gray, who still presides over that United States District Court,
after reviewing the argument, permitted the University of Tennessee to pro-

ceed with its construction, but required that concurrently a state plan for
desegregating higher education in Tennessee must be developed. This was
a requirement, therefore, of the governor of the state, which thereby not
only affected the University of Tennessee but all other universities and col-
leges in Tennessee receiving state funds.

At about that same time a State Commission on Higher Education
was being formed and that Commission was charged with the responsibility
of taking the initiative in developing such a plan. Dr. John Folger, then
with the Southern Regional Education Board in Atlanta, became executive
director of the Commission of Higher Education and set about to develop
such a plan. In recent conversation with him I learned that after seven
long years the case is still in the courts and the only definitive decision
which has been reached is that the rapidly growing University of Tennessee
in Nashville is enjoined against offering graduate programs in education and
the classroom attendance in the UTN School of Social Work has been trans-
ferred to TSU. Tennessee State University now has a new president who is
negotiating the prospect of a merger with the University of Tennessee in
Nashville which would then make it a part of the TSU system according to
a plan submitted by TSU. The Department of Justice has recommended the
merger of TSU into the UTN system. Tennessee State University properly
wishes to keep its separate identity under the State Board of Regents, and
the United States Justice Department is dealing with this question. The
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, incidentally, in those days
under President Lyndon Johnson, decided to shift from the side of the
defendant to that of the plaintiffs. Watergate was not the first political
form of contamination of educational and judicial considerations in dealing
with the issues before us, nor will it be the last.

In the subsequent case of Adams v. Richardson, the district judge be-
ing John H. Pratt, the suit was based upon the facts that (1) between January
1969 and February 1970 HEW concluded that 10 southern states were oper-
ating segregated systems of higher education in violation of Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. (2) HEW then requested each state to submit a
desegregation plan within 120 days or less. (3) Five states, including Florida,
totally ignored the request and had not yet made submissions of plans at
the time of the filing of the suit. (4) The other states submitted desegrega-
tion plans which were unacceptable to HEW. (5) At the time of the suit HEW
had not commenced an administrative enforcement action against any of the

ten states nor referred them to the Justice Department for the filing of

Meanwhile back at the "Washington ranch," HEW continued to advance
federal funds in substantial amounts for the benefit of institutions which
were not in compliance with the Civil Rights Act. The judge recognized
that HEW had not properly fulfilled this obligation and that HEW had a
duty to commence enforcement proceedings. In the February 16, 1973
ruling the judge held judgment for the plaintiffs and issued an injunction
to the defendants enjoining them within 120 days from the date of that
order to commence enforcement proceedings by administrative notice of
hearings or through other authorized legal means to effect compliance with
Title VI in all ten states in question. The states are Louisiana, Mississippi,
Oklahoma, North Carolina, Florida, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Mary-
land and Virginia.

Finally, in the Court of Appeals, on June 12, HEW was required to
call upon all ten states to submit plans within 120 days with a maximum
extension of an additional 180 days after which HEW must initiate compli-
ance procedures.

According to my calendar the Department of Health, Education and
Welfare was called upon in June, 1973 to require the ten states under ques-
tion to submit state plans for desegregation in higher education. That dead-
line would extend until October, 1973. An additional 180 days were pro-
vided as a kind of "grace" period which would extend the final deadline
until April, 1974. Thus, for any of the ten states not having drawn up an
acceptable plan for state desegregation HEW must have now initiated com-
pliance procedures against each such state.

In its final statement in 1973 the Court of Appeals indicated that the
Department of HEW had an affirmative enforcement duty, and that the
"staleness of the record" should be kept in mind.

Florida was one of the five states developing a state plan acceptable
to the Office of Civil Rights (i.e., OCR Director Peter Holmes, and presum-
ably HEW Secretary Casper Weinberger). But this acceptance must be viewed
in the national political context of 1974. As John Egerton pointed out-

Expecting aggressive civil rights enforcement from HEW in the
summer of 1974 would have been like expecting the Potomac
to freeze over. Nixon was fighting for his political life, and his
only hope of escaping an impeachment conviction in the Senate
rested with a few southern senators from some of the very states
involved in the college desegregation negotiations. "It should
have been clear to everybody," one member of the OCR com-
pliance team said later, "that whatever the states submitted on
June 1 would be approved by the June 21 deadline, unless it
was in open and flagrant defiance of the law." (See reference:
Adams v. Richardson, p. 34.)

Round Three 1975 Forward

As I reflect upon the past, I see the period of 1935-65 as round one
of the context over desegregation in higher education. Round two, from
1965 to the present day, has been marked by sparring, jabbing and stalling.
Round three ushers in a range of issues not significantly contemplated in
earlier years, issues of the uncertain future of predominantly black colleges,
the alternatives opening and closing to faculty and students, black and white,
the net outcome of Affirmative Action policies, the provision for appropriate
educational opportunities for all post-secondary education for youth and
adults, and the multi-cultural dimension of higher education itself. Without
predominantly black institutions of higher learning, the effect of desegrega-
tion would be to force all blacks into minority group roles, and deny all
whites the enriching multi-cultural opportunity to learn and live in a setting
where they could be members of a minority group in a college subculture.
The Adams v. Richardson case could prove to be the catalyst for creative,
constructive developments, but that prospect is far from being a foregone

As I view it, the only way in which an honest desegregation plan
could work would be to provide financial support for predominantly black
institutions with reference to financial resources, recruitment incentives, and
attractive faculty benefits so that the talents of students and professional
personnel alike will not continue to be siphoned off from the predominantly
black institutions. Otherwise, a merger of organizations, whether in Texas,
Tennessee, Ohio, or Tallahassee, Florida, might ostensibly be used to
strengthen the prospect of predominantly black institutions, but with a quite

different effect-an effect of disguised extinction. Worse still, one univer-
sity, predominantly black, might become a "specialized" desegregated insti-
tution for the educationally disadvantaged student with a nearby university,
predominantly white, desegregated for more advanced college students, thus
simply substituting a desegregated caste system for a racially segregated one.

Financial resources must be provided, on a preferential basis to pre-
dominantly black colleges and universities and colleges.

Resources are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for achieving
a creative response to the challenge of desegregation. They only make pos-
sible the introduction of solutions, and must not be taken as the solutions
themselves. As I look to round three, I would like to cite three specific
developments beyond the resource factor-though related to it in a depen-
dent and supporting way-that I believe could make a monumental differ-
ence if a vigorous sustained effort were exerted, in any state or institution,
to implement such plans.

1. A state plan for desegregation should be coupled with a
comprehensive plan for delineation of institutional role and
changing clientele, so that the nature of the enterprise is truly
forward looking, not simply clinging to a survival of the traditions
of yesteryear. You don't need to tell me how hard this is to
realize in fact. I have learned of the forces to conform, internal
and external, even in a young rapidly growing university-but
the societal reality remains. Colleges and universities have to
carve out, collectively and separately, their own unique role, and
for each institution there must be a mix of the service and status
factor, because human nature is just so perverse-so intractable
that a college for the educationally disadvantaged, for example,
must also have an "honors" program to offset the irrational but
real stigma attached to being victims of exploitation. Just as
the illegitimate child carries the stigma while his highly respected
unnamed father carries the status of being a debonair ladies' man
-at home and abroad-so does the victim of neglect bear this
additional sting-and if black-a third one.

An institution without its own "futures" plan is destined
to a slim future indeed. I commend to your attention in this

regard the current release of the Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching, More Than Survival (Jossey-Bass,
Publishers, San Francisco, 1975).

2. My second point is a strategic one in which predominantly
white institutions are going to have to take the lead, and it won't
be easy. Desegregation among faculties and administrative per-
sonnel has generally proceeded along lines of maintaining key
(mid-career) appointments intact on a segregated basis. How
many black presidents and deans are serving in predominantly
white universities? How many white presidents, vice presidents
and deans are employed in mainly black universities? Pitifully
few. Yet this is one of the best ways to establish leadership
images of a multi-racial model. Understandably, if the predomi-
nantly black institutions were to take the lead they could be
presiding over the further dissolution of black leadership service
and development.

3. One of the ways in which I believe predominantly black
institutions could take a creative lead in the desegregation move-
ment would be to design a "cross-cultural" sophomore year for
residential non-black students. If Florida A & M University,
for example, were to design a program for 300 sophomores each
year, in cooperation with in-state and out-of-state predominantly
white institutions, this could provide a cultural and educational
experience which no white institution could successfully emulate,
and this should not be fiercely competitive. While some provi-
sion for student exchanges might also be made, this is not my
central point-the point being to provide various non-black stu-
dents with a unique social and educational experience. It would
surely beat the "junior year abroad" in many ways and would
be far more affordable (as well as simple for monolingual stu-

I am sure one can improve on these ideas, and will, but perhaps they
will trigger some directions for planning and action that will have value for
you. With all of the obstacles along the way, I am still convinced that much
more can be and will be done to strengthen the inter-dultural fabric of higher
education without any racial or cultural sector being asked to sacrifice for
the "total good." The idea itself is self-contradictory.

References and Acknowledgments

"Affirmative Action: Success or Failure," Dialog. Change, The Magazine
for Higher Learning, 7:4, May 1975, p. 48ff.

Board of Trustees, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching,
More Than Survival: Prospects for Higher Education in a Period of
Uncertainty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1975.

Egerton, John, "Adams v. Richardson. Can Separate Be Equal?" Change,
The Magazine of Higher Learning. 6:10, December-January, 1974,
p. 29ff.

Folger, John K., "College Desegregation: Progress." Letter to Editor of
COMPACT Magazine, February 1975.

Assistance in gathering and verifying data in addition to thoughtful analyses
and viewpoints was obtained for Dean Ralph Pruitt and Associate Dean
Charles Case, of Cleveland State University, Superintendent Paul Briggs of
the Cleveland Public Schools and Dr. John Folger, Executive Director of the
Tennessee Higher Education Commission. None of them, of course, is re-
sponsible for the final form of this presentation. I must assume, alone, the
brunt of whatever faults are found in it, the penalty attending the privilege
of having the "last word," as it were.



Terry Wildman



Terry Wildman


As late as January, 1969, the U.S. Department of Health, Education
and Welfare officially recognized that at least ten southern states continued
to violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by practicing desegregation
and racial discrimination in their systems of higher education. Subsequent
requests by HEW for each of the ten states to submit outlines of desegrega-
tion plans were largely ignored. At that time HEW took no further official
action. However, in November of 1972, HEW was ordered, as a result of
the Adams v. Richardson court decision, to continue its investigation of
the ten states and to begin compliance proceedings against those states whose
desegregation plans were unsatisfactory. Of the ten states, Arkansas, Florida,
Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Penn-
sylvania and Virginia, only one state (Louisiana) failed to submit a plan.
Of the remaining nine states which did submit desegregation plans, only
Mississippi's plan was finally rejected.

This report will examine (collectively and individually) the nine state
plans for evidence of actual commitment to desegregation of higher educa-
tion. Although HEW is apparently satisfied that certain arbitrary and am-
biguous legal requirements have been met, a preliminary (even cursory)
examination of selected state plans shows that discrimination still exists-
and will probably continue to exist for years to come. While substantial
progress has been made, this report will show that more needs to be done
than to simply wait patiently for evidence that southern states are fulfilling
vague promises contained in their voluminous reports to HEW. One immedi-
ate problem in evaluating these plans is that HEW did not provide a set of
uniform guidelines for each of the ten states to follow in the preparation of
their response. Their intention to deal individually with each state is dra-
matically evident in the decision to reject Mississippi's plan for excluding a
junior college desegregation proposal, while Pennsylvania's plan was accepted
even though junior colleges were similarly excluded.

Regardless of the lack of specific direction for the preparation of state
plans, HEW did outline certain minimal objectives. First, each state plan
should be directed toward a complete dismantling of a dual education sys-
tem; that is, race should have nothing whatever to do with a student's choice
of college or university. Second, both the enrollment of students and em-
ployment of faculty and staff at colleges and universities should ensure equal
opportunity for minorities. Third, each plan should demonstrate that minori-
ties. Third, each plan should demonstrate that minorities would not be
forced to assume a disproportional burden for desegregation of higher educa-
tional facilities in that state. Thus, for example, HEW would not accept
the closing of predominantly black colleges and universities as a positive
step in the desegregation process. Similarly, plans which focused solely on
moving more white students and faculty into black schools without a similar
movement of black students and faculty into predominantly white schools
would also be inappropriate. Fourth, state officials were asked to specify
numerically the steps by which each institution would achieve desegregation.
Further, each state was required to outline exactly how each element of
their plan would be achieved-for example, planning elements which involved
additional funding should be accompanied by a description of the source of
those funds. Finally, HEW wanted to know who would monitor and direct
each state plan, and also, how these functions would be accompanied.

The Dual Delivery System

The nine state plans (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Mississippi,
North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Virginia) were first examined
for evidence that a dual system of higher education had been eliminated,
or that procedures were being employed to expediously achieve this goal.
For those states which did provide sufficient enrollment data to allow at
least approximate comparisons among institutions, it is clear that predomi-
nantly black schools continue to be the major source of higher education
for blacks. An examination of Table 1.0 indicates that as late as 1973, the
predominantly black colleges and universities were the primary delivery
systems through which black students received 4-year degrees. Obviously,
then, the complete desegregation of southern institutions will involve dis-
semination of thousands of black and white students among the predomi-
nantly black and predominantly white schools. Even a casual reading of
the nine state plans, however, will show widespread disregard of the HEW
directive against one-way desegregation; that is, states apparently find it

Table 1.0

Total Black Undergraduate Enrollment as a
Function of Black Institutional Enrollment*

No. Schools Total Black No. Predom. Black % of
State Year in System Enroll. Blk. Sch. Enroll. Total

Arkansas 1970 13 5,727 1 4,166 73

Florida 1973 9 8,060 1 4,200 52

Georgia 1970 15 14,175 4 12,448 88

N. Carolina 1973 16 15,446 5 12,614 82

Maryland 1972 12 9,936 4 7,621 77

Mississippi 1973 9 13,094 3 10,350 79

Virginia 1970 15 11,155 2 10,013 90

*Junior colleges were excluded from this presentation.

easier to move white students and faculty into black schools instead of
undertaking the more careful planning and financial aid commitments
necessary to move black students and faculty into white schools. This
unacceptable solution is especially noticeable where direct local competi-
tion exists between predominantly black and predominantly white colleges
and universities. The most flagrant examples are the cases where schools
for blacks and whites exist side by side, and within the nine states
examined in this report seven such pairs are found. They are as follows:


Florida Florida State University Tallahassee
Florida A & M University

Georgia Albany State College Albany
Albany Junior College

Armstrong State College Savannah
Savannah State College

Maryland Towson State College Baltimore
University of Maryland
University of Baltimore

Morgan State College
Coppin State College

North Carolina UNC at Greensboro Greensboro
North Carolina A & T

Virginia Virginia State College Petersburg
Richard Bland Community College

Examination of the individual state plans will reveal very little, or, in some
cases, no positive action to dismantle or enhance these dual arrangements.
Finally, one of the most dangerous (for blacks) aspects of dual systems,
such as those above, is the denial of graduate (especially doctoral) studies
to promising black students. With regard to undergraduate work, the black
schools continue to compensate relatively well for black exclusion from
white schools; however, many black schools do not have extensive graduate
programs, thus, putting black students in a position of dependency on

Disparity in Enrollment

In the United States, blacks comprise 11.1% of the population. For
many eastern and southern states the proportion is two or three times that
figure, and for selected locations (D.C., for example, with 71%) blacks



occupy a majority status. The obvious expectation, then, assuming equal
educational opportunity, is that black enrollment in educational institutions
(of various levels) will equal their proportional representation in that particu-
lar geographical region. In fact, it would not be unreasonable to expect
minority over-representation in selected areas of higher education until such
time as the black intellectual structure had recovered from historical deficits.

Black representation in higher education (nationally) is currently in
the area of 7%, which means that in spite of recent national efforts, the
level of under-representation exceeds 40%. That this situation may even
be worse is evidenced by estimates that blacks in younger age groups (15-19)
constitute a large proportion of the population (12-18%) than for all age
groups combined (11.1%).

Several factors combine to completely negate prospects for a swift
turn-around for blacks in higher education. Firstly, and not immediately
affected by systems of higher education, is the higher drop-out rate for
blacks in secondary schools-a condition which effectively reduces the pool
of available black college prospects. Secondly, for all state plans examined
(9), the total enrollment of black students was significantly less than the
proportion of blacks in the college age population-and the disproportionality
was even worse for graduate school enrollment. And thirdly, for most
southern states, the traditionally black schools continue as the major source
of a college education for blacks. Note the following examples:

1. Maryland reports 14% participation by blacks in the total public
system for 1972. However, of these students, 92% were enrolled in
three traditionally black colleges-Bowie, Coppin and Morgan.

The University of Maryland-Baltimore County aims for a 20% enroll-
ment of blacks by 1980-which ". seems to be a realistic aspiration
considering that 23% of the Baltimore area is black .. ."

The largest school in the Maryland system, the University of Maryland-
College Park, aims for a graduate enrollment equal to the national
average for black graduate enrollment-well less than 5%.

2. The Virginia plan, as well as I can determine, does not reveal
present nor projected enrollment status with regard to blacks. However,

from a separate report (The Virginia Report, 1974) it was revealed
that one school, Virginia Commonwealth University, accounts for 55%
of blacks enrolled in white colleges. At this school, blacks comprise
10% of the enrollment-yet the population in that area (Richmond)
is 50% black.

Black enrollment in Virginia is largely composed of the enrollment
in the two traditionally black colleges-only one of which offers grad-
uate programs.

Virginia's stand is that it has already removed the last vestiges of
discrimination-yet no evidence is available to support this position.

3. In North Carolina, of 15,446 black students enrolled in public
colleges in 1973, 12,614 were enrolled in traditionally black colleges.

Of 1,512 black graduate students enrolled during this time, about
half (714-5.3%) were located in white institutions.

North Carolina's effort in 1973 of 17.6% enrollment of blacks was
attained from a population of blacks which included 16.8% at the
12th grade level.

North Carolina's discussion of plans to ensure desegregation of schools
primarily dealt with the shifting of present enrollment levels, rather
than dealing with the problem of how to enroll a larger total number
of blacks within the state system. Their plan apparently calls for a 1%
increase in black representation across the next 4 years-thus, generat-
ing approximately 200 additional black students per year for the entire

4. Plans submitted by Georgia, Florida, Arkansas and Oklahoma
typically call for increases in black enrollment. Yet, the now familiar
trend is clear-none of the states which submitted plans will achieve
enrollment which is proportional ot the population totals for black
college age citizens by 1980. This present and future disparity is and
will be dramatically noticeable in each state's large and prestigious

A factor which serves to further inflate the above discrepancies is the
fact that blacks are disproportionately located in lower level (years 1 and 2)
educational programs. Table 1.1 clearly shows this disproportionality, and
Table 1.2 provides further evidence that fewer blacks than whites actually
progress through four years of college. Obviously, for whatever reason, there
is a lower attrition rate across years for whites than for blacks.

Table 1.1

Student Representation by Division

Lower Upper

White 61.9% 38.1%

Black 68.7% 31.3%

Table 1.2

Student Representation by Year

Year Black White

1 48.2% 39.2%

2 25.7% 26.1%

3 13.6% 17.7%

4 12.5% 17.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Another important consideration involves the type of institution for
which enrollment statistics are computed. Obviously, some institutions
(universities, for example) provide services of a higher level than others.
An analysis of black enrollment by type of institution (Table 1.3) provides
yet another discouraging element of inequality in higher education. Of all
blacks in higher education, only 14.6% are enrolled in university programs,
whereas the percentage for whites is 19.9%. The implications, of course,
are that fewer blacks (proportionately) benefit from graduate level programs
typically found in universities. And, in fact, blacks are severely under-

Table 1.3

Black Public Institutional Enrollment








represented (Table 1.4) in graduate programs. One of the most critical
situations regarding black leadership in higher education is the fact that
of all Ph.D.'s in this country, blacks own only about 1% of them.

Table 1.4

Graduate Representation





One final consideration concerns earned degrees-a further imbalance
between blacks and whites is the source of terminal degrees. Thus, if blacks
are receiving a disproportionate number (compared to whites) of their degrees
from schools with less comprehensive programs, a further inequity exists.
Table 1.5 examines this problem, strengthening the probability that blacks
(in many cases) are receiving less "powerful" degrees than whites.

Table 1.5

Earned Degrees-1970

Black White

University 26.7% 46.4%

4-Year 73.3% 53.6%

Although the "percent" increase of black enrollment has dramatically
increased in some areas over the past few years, it is obvious from a closer
look at higher education that only slight improvement has been made in
closing the black-white gap.

Numerous examples of instances where desegregation efforts have
fallen short of modest goals can be found. Reading the various state plans
left the distinct impression that state leaders were primarily interested in
achieving the minimum legal requirements. Several comments from selected
plans referred to the fact that HEW had not set "quotas" by which compli-
ance could be measured. A further indication that the above states are not
committed to an adjustment of past inequities is the fact that no plan
suggested an immediate (even temporary) over representation of black enroll-
ment. It is worth noting again that black colleges continue to be the most
productive delivery system for black graduates in the south. On the other
hand, it is also apparent that blacks are extremely dependent on white
institutions as a source for graduate degrees. Thus, the unwillingness of
southern states to develop programs for channeling blacks into its university
systems remains perhaps the most critical (and discouraging) short-coming
revealed by this report.

Black Faculty Employment and Development

All state plans report a common problem with regard to increasing
the participation of black faculty in their systems-the shortage of qualified
applicants. While this is a legitimate problem, it is strange that most southern
states, with higher proportions of blacks in their general population than
the national average, typically refer to their recruiting goals in terms of
national averages for black faculties. As with black student enrollment, it
is also typical to find the majority of black faculty within a given state to be
employed in predominantly black schools. Of Virginia's 432 black faculty
members (7.7% of total) in 1973, the majority (84%) were teaching in
black colleges. Only 1.1% of the total black faculty in North Carolina
during 1973 were employed in white schools. In Florida, three white insti-
tutions (Florida Technological University, University of West Florida and
Florida Atlantic University) project black faculty employment for 1978 at
3.4% or less. Similar situations exist in all other states mentioned in this
report. In Maryland, the University of Maryland-Baltimore County reported
growth in black faculty participation from 1969 to 1973 at 267%-they
were honest enough, however, to further reveal the actual growth, from 9
to 22 blacks. As near as one can determine, no state systems currently
employ black faculty in white institutions at a rate in excess of 5%. And
black faculty projections for 1980 do not approach black student projections
for any of the reporting states.

The fact that southern white colleges project difficulties in employing
black faculty members is, as stated above, not extremely surprising in terms
of availability data. What is surprising, and also indicative of a lack of
commitment to desegregation of higher education is that no state proposed
a crash program for identifying promising black students, getting them into
graduate programs, and preparing them for subsequent academic positions.
Nor did any state propose specific programs for systematically upgrading
black non-Ph.D. faculty to doctorate status on a large scale.

Funding Proposals

The fact that in most plans no specific funding commitments were
made to cover proposed improvements casts further suspicion on southern
states' real intention to remove all aspects of racial discrimination. Most
states already report spending proportionately more on student aid for black

students. None, however, seem willing to appropriate the large sums
needed to support a significant input of financially dependent black students.
Nor have any states reported plans to fund traditionally black institutions
at levels necessary to overcome past inequitable funding. Thus, blacks are
functionally tied to institutions which were designed (by whites) to be
inferior, and which are now expected to suddenly compete with traditionally
heavily funded white institutions.

Individual State Analyses

In an effort to further isolate the problems facing desegregation efforts,
each of the nine state plans will be examined separately. Because each state
used a different presentation format, it was difficult to follow a standard
examination procedure for each state. Several of the analyses are obviously
superficial-this is primarily because of the superficiality of that state's pre-
sentation. All critiques are limited to those desegregation proposals for
which supporting evidence (such as enrollment data) was provided.


The desegregation plan submitted by Arkansas does little to assure
a complete change in the dual educational system in that state. As with
other state plans, some general promises are made regarding enrollment
changes, equal employment opportunities and desegregation of governing
boards. With regard to enrollment and classified employment, Table 2.0
shows some anticipated improvement. However, a comparison of projected
black enrollment with the percent of blacks in the service region of each
institution indicates continued minority under-representation in Arkansas.
The projections for black classified (faculty & Staff) employment indicate,
further, the lack of Arkansas's commitment to compete for an appropriate
faculty racial balance. These data fit very well with the apparent lack of
specific funding commitments for any of the proposed chances mentioned
in the plan.

It should be noted that significant enrollment and employment changes
are projected for the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, the only black
institution in the state. When these changes are compared to smaller antici-
pated changes for the dozen or so white institutions (Table 2.0), it is obvious
that Arkansas has not attacked their dual system of higher education on a

Table 2.0

Arkansas Black Population, Black Enrollment
and Black Institutional Employment
(Actual & Projected)

% Black % Black
% Black in Enrollment Employment
Institution Ser. Region Actual Projected Actual Projected
1973-74 1979-80 1973-74 1979-80

Arkansas Polytechnic College 12.4 3.0 6.5 0 5.5
Arkansas State University 23.0 5.7 8.5 1.1 2.5
Arkansas State University-Beebe 16.1 3.0 7.0 0 4.0
Garland County Community College 9.5 8.8 9.5 10.0 17.0
Henderson State College 22.3 15.0 19.0 2.8 7.0
Phillips County Community College 55.2 36.0 42.0 7.0 12.0
Southern State College 23.0 15.7 17.0 1.4 3.0
State College of Arkansas 19.9 8.1 17.0 1.5 5.0
University of Arkansas 19.3 3.5 9.0 1.5 3.5
University of Arkansas at Little Rock 20.0 10.1 13.0 8.2 13.0
University of Arkansas at Monticello 27.9 13.0 14.5 1.7 1.5
University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff 31.5 93.9 75.0 83.6 77.0

Westark Community College


state-wide level. There is also very little evidence of state-level planning
for curriculum and program changes across the Arkansas system. Creation
of a unitary system obviously requires more than simply promising enroll-
ment realignments-programs must be offered which will entice students of
all races, and once enrolled, plans should be implemented for retaining
students to degree completion. The Arkansas plan largely ignores these

Finally, the progress which Arkansas has promised will be directed by
the governing boards of unknown racial composition.


On February 8, 1974, the state of Florida submitted a massive two-
volumn plan for the desegregation of institutions of higher education.
Despite the fact that the plan is twice the bulk of other state submissions,
there is an obvious lack of specificity regarding procedures to be used in
finally converting from a dual to a unitary system. Much of the plan deals
with what to do with Florida A & M University, the only black public
institution in Florida. Although the plan does call for appropriations
to fund incentive programs to attract white students and faculty to FAMU,
nothing specific was promised for black students who wish to attend pre-
dominantly white institutions.

One currently important problem is that the academic roles of Florida
State University (FSU) and FAMU are not clearly designed to promote a
unitary system. Since both multi-purpose institutions are located within
the same city (Tallahassee), there clearly is a tendency for race, instead of
curricular offering, to influence enrollment. Although the plan contained
several proposals for strengthening FAMU, it is not clear whether they will
contribute to a unitary system. In short, it is not yet apparent that Florida
has intentions of following the HEW directive that predominantly black
institutions be given a reasonable chance to survive-that is, that institutions
such as FAMU do not bear a disproportional burden in desegregation.

The Florida plan says very little about systematic changes in predomi-
nantly white institutions, such as Florida State University. Apparently, HEW
is willing to allow continued disproportional enrollment between minorities
and whites in its eight predominantly white universities and in its junior

colleges. In fact, a 1973 letter from HEW to the Florida Board of Regents
specified that a reasonable indicator of elimination of vestiges of discrim-
ination in student assignments was that the percentage of blacks enrolled
in predominantly white institutions equal 90% of the percentage of all blacks
enrolled in the Florida system. Obviously, such a liberal requirement will.
not end discrimination. Indeed, since it allows continued under-enrollment
of blacks, such a policy will only contribute further to historical deficits in
the black intellectual infrastructure.

An examination of Table 3.0 shows the considerable under-enrollment
(undergraduate & graduate) of blacks in Florida Institutions for the year
1973. Although the proportion of black college age citizens in the state of
Florida is well in excess of 16%, it is clear that none of the predominantly
white institutions approach this percentage in enrollment of black students.
Indeed, of the roughly eight thousand blacks enrolled in undergraduate
programs in 1973, slightly over half of these were found at FAMU, the
single black institution. Similar figures are found for graduate enrollment.

With regard to enrollment projections, the considerable variability
among institutions indicates a general lack of state-wide direction and plan-
ning for desegregation. For example, the University of North Florida projects
14% minority enrollment by 1980, whereas, the University of South Florida
projects only 8% minority enrollment. Florida State University stated its
intention to achieve 11.6% black enrollment by 1978. Across the board,
however, the Florida plan did not indicate an end to disproportional enroll-
ment by 1980. Further, the Florida plan did not indicate exactly how to
achieve the improvements it did predict.

Community college enrollment is one potential avenue for improved
black participation in post-secondary education. In Florida, however,
the community college system is not especially productive for blacks.
According to a study of 10 community colleges in Florida (included in
state plan) there is a tremendous disproportionality between the percen-
tage of blacks in each community college's service region and the respective
enrollment of blacks in that college. The actual figures are shown in
Table 3.1.

Table 3.0

Enrollment: Florida State System

No. Black No. White % Black % White
U* G* U G U G U G

Florida International University 465 39 7,281 718 6.0 5.2 94.0 94.8
Florida State University 966 201 15,895 3,172 5.7 6.0 94.3 94.0
University of West Florida 171 32 3,359 710 4.8 4.3 95.2 95.7
Florida A & M University 4,200 576 286 132 93.6 81.4 6.4 18.6
Florida Atlantic University 303 39 4,571 719 6.2 5.1 93.8 94.9
University of South Florida 694 55 17,008 1,939 3.9 2.8 96.1 97.2
Florida Technological University 200 5 6,382 544 3.0 .9 97.0 99.1
University of North Florida 271 13 2,576 316 9.5 4.0 90.5 96.0
University of Florida 790 188 19,395 3,832 3.9 4.7 96.1 95.3

TOTALS 8,060 1,148 76,753 12,082 9.5 8.7 90.5 91.3

*U Undergraduate Enrollment
*G Graduate Enrollment

Table 3.1

Proportion of Black Enrollment in Florida
Community Colleges as Compared to Percentage
of Secondary School Age Blacks in the
Respective Community College District

Community College % Blacks (Grades 7-12) % Blacks Enrolled in
in C. C. District C. C.













The Florida plan is extremely vague with regard to what it intends to do to
make community college programs more attractive and accessible to blacks.

The distribution of black faculty among Florida institutions is another
source of concern. Although some progress was promised for the Florida
system, it is obvious from Table 3.2 that at least four institutions (Florida
Technological University, University of West Florida, Florida Atlantic Univer-

sity and University of Florida) expected negligible increases between 1973
and 1978. The Florida plan did not offer to explain these differences, nor
did it indicate how other institutions (Florida State University, University
of West Florida and Florida International University) would achieve the
more substantial increases.

Table 3.2

Percentage of Black Faculty Observed (1973)
and Expected (1978) in the Florida System

1973 1978

Florida Technological University 2.5 2.9

University of West Florida 1.2 1.6

Florida Atlantic University 1.7 3.4

University of Florida 1.5 3.7

Florida State University 3.0 9.0

University of South Florida 3.6 9.4

University of North Florida 11.0 19.0

Florida International University 9.0 16.0

Florida A & M University 77.0 68.0

Finally, the Florida plan did not detail how the State Board of Regents
would implement and enforce the necessary changes in the Florida system.


On February 13, 1974, the Regents of the University System of
Georgia submitted to HEW its desegregation plan for that state's four uni-
versities, 12 senior colleges and 14 junior colleges. Since the State Board of

Regents have considerable centralized control over the entire higher educa-
tion system, it will be interesting to determine whether Georgia has
approached desegregation on a state-wide level. Unfortunately, only one
member of the 15 member Board of Regents is black. In a state where
25% of the college age population is black, there is obvious need of better
representation at the highest levels within the educational system.

An examination of Table 4.0 gives an indication of progress from
recent enrollment of black students to plans for future enrollment of blacks.
As is found across all state plans, blacks simply do not have access to
university level instruction. For example, the 6% university enrollment for
1973 is less than one-fourth the proportion of college age blacks (25%) in
Georgia. Projections for 1980, moreover, continue to under-represent black
university enrollment by more than 50%.

College enrollment data (Table 4.0) ostensibly gives a more favorable
picture regarding desegregation. For example, proportional enrollment of
blacks was 20.7% in 1973, and is projected at 27% for 1980. However, a
closer examination reveals that although blacks are closer to proportional
enrollment in colleges than in universities, much of the gain is due to the
fact that three predominantly black colleges are available to serve blacks
who, otherwise, would not have been allowed a post-secondary education.
Thus, enrollments of 1,670, 1,790 and 1,976 for Albany, Fort Valley and
Savannah State Colleges (all predominantly black colleges) constituted 66.7%
of the total 1973 black enrollment for the 12 Georgia colleges. The projec-
tions for 1980 show a much improved distribution; yet, the same three
black institutions still are programmed to enroll 46% of the entire black
college population. Furthermore, the projections show considerable vari-
ability from one college to another regarding black enrollment. Five of the
colleges (Augusta, Georgia Southern, North Georgia, Valdosta and West
Georgia), for example, project continued under-representation of blacks
ranging from around 50% to 75%. It would have been helpful if the Georgia
plan had reported the percent of college age blacks in the service region
of each of the colleges and universities. This would be particularly valuable
for the junior colleges which are examined next.

The Georgia Junior College System shows relatively little promise
for balancing the deficits found in university and college enrollment figures.

Table 4.0

Black Enrollment in Georgia Colleges* & Universities
1973 (Actual) 1980 (Projected)

1973 1973 % 1980 1980 %
Institution Total Black Black Total Black Black

Georgia Inst. of Tech.

Georgia St. Uni.

Med. Col. of Georgia

Uni. of Georgia


Albany St. College [B]

Armstrong St. Col. [W]

Augusta College

Columbus College

Ft. Valley St. Col.

Georgia College

Georgia Southern

Georgia Southwestern

North Georgia

Savannah State [B]

Valdosta State

West Georgia






















































8,151 20.7




















































52,616 14,224 27.0

*Junior Colleges Excluded

The proportion of blacks in junior colleges during 1973 was only 8.4%
(Table 4.1), and the projection for 1980 is for only 13.5% enrollment. Again,
there is tremendous variability from college to college. Of the fourteen
schools shown in Table 4.1, five project 1980 black enrollment at 10% or
less, whereas, another five schools project enrollment at almost 20% or more.

Enrollment for the entire Georgia system, then, is well below the
"equal proportion" mark of 25-26%. In 1973, only 11.8% of the entire
Georgia student enrollment was black. In 1980, the projections figure to
17.7% black representation across Georgia schools.

Table 4.1

Black Enrollment in Georgia Junior Colleges
1973 (Actual) 1980 (Projected)

1973 1973 % 1980 1980 %
Institution Total Black Black Total Black Black

Abraham Baldwin
Albany [W]
Emanuel County
Middle Georgia
South Georgia

2,074 124 5.9 2,900 580 20.9
1,509 211 13.9 2,232 592 26.5

217 41 18.8

570 125 22.0

1,067 189 17.7 1,400 273 19.5
2,604 115 4.4 5,400 512 9.5
1,141 44 3.8 1,500 75 5.0

167 34 20.4

700 170 24.3

1,040 111 10.7 1,370 137 10.0
1,036 48 4.6 1,150 70 6.1
750 92 12.3 1,200 180 15.0
2,031 134 6.6 3,480 104 2.9
1,914 144 7.5 3,700 483 13.1
1,725 61 3.5 1,925 322 16.7
1,212 200 16.5 1,500 300 20.0

TOTAL- 78.47 1.4 8429)7 .231.


18.4R7 1.548


29.027 3.923


One interesting problem which confronts Georgia's desegregation ef-
forts (and also selected other states) is the competing presence of predomi-
nately white schools in the same geographical area. Obviously, the HEW
guidelines do not allow (at least on paper) continued enrollment choice by
race; nor do they allow white schools to push historically black schools out
of existence. One natural solution is to articulate programs such that they
compliment rather than compete with each other. The Georgia plan devotes
a nontrivial amount of discussion to the possibilities for restructuring and
coordinating selected programs for Armstrong State College (white) and
Savannah State College (black) in Savannah, and for Albany State College
(black) and Albany Junior College (white) in Albany. From the enrollment
projections, each of these institutions will be involved in increasing minority
participation. However, it is unclear whether viable exchange programs and
other cooperative ventures among these schools will result from the general
promises made in the plan. It is also unclear how the expense of additional
programs will be met without specific appropriation commitments.

The racial composition of faculties across the Georgia system are
shown in Table 4.2. University faculty employment procedures unreasonably
discriminate against blacks as indicated by the figures for 1973 and the pro-
jections for 1980. Again, the picture for state colleges is apparently im-
proved; but, of the 310 black faculty members employed in 1973 and the
458 projected for 1980, 279 (90%) and 292 (64%), respectively, are located
in the three predominately black colleges. Black faculty representation in
the junior colleges was very similar to representation in universities for 1973,
but improves considerably to a 12.1% projection for 1980. For the total
system, the amount of black faculty increase, as a percent of total 1980
employment, systematically improves across universities, state colleges and
junior colleges. For each of these areas, however, the participation in 1980
will be unacceptably low.


The Board of Trustees (11 whites, 1 black) governing Mississippi's
Institutions of Higher Learning submitted to HEW on February 8, 1974, its
plan to desegregate that state's nine degree-granting institutions of higher
learning. This review of the Mississippi plan seeks to determine the extent
to which the Board of Trustees has been able, or willing, to allocate state
resources toward an appropriate reorganization of schools.

Table 4.2

University System of Georgia
Racial Composition of Faculty
1973 -1980

1973 1980
Actual % Projected %
Black Total Black Black Total Black

Georgia Institute of Tech. 5 529 .9 21 590 3.5
Southern Tech. Institute 1 78 1.3 3 83 3.6
Georgia State 11 670 1.6 43 763 5.6
Medical College-Georgia 5 466 1.1 35 793 4.4
University of Georgia 81 3,009 2.7 121 3,179 3.8
Subtotal 103 4,752 2.2 223 5,408 4.1


Albany State
Armstrong State
Fort Valley State
Georgia Southern
Georgia Southwestern
North Georgia
Savannah State
Valdosta State
West Georgia

84 125 67.2 75 130 57.7
5 119 4.2 24 160 15.0
3 126 2.4 17 172 9.8
4 177 2.3 43 432 9.6
104 143 72.7 116 173 67.1
2 119 1.7 18 163 11.0
6 313 1.9 21 338 6.2
2 129 1.6 6 157 3.8
1 77 1.3 5 86 5.8
91 137 66.4 101 152 66.4
3 221 1.4 18 277 6.5
5 281 1.8 14 288 4.8
310 1,967 15.8 458 2,528 18.1

Abraham Baldwin Agric. 3 117 2.6
Albany 6 80 7.5
Bainbridge 0 24 0

23 149 15.4
22 118 18.6
4 30 13.3

1973 1980
Actual % Projected %
Black Total Black Black Total Black

Brunswick 3 55 5.6 12 69 17.4
Clayton 3 83 3.6 17 149 11.4
Dalton 1 50 2.0 3 66 4.5
Emanuel County 1 14 7.1 3 30 10.0
Floyd 1 42 2.4 5 56 8.9
Gainesville 0 48 0 4 52 7.7
Gordon 2 30 6.7 5 46 10.8
Kennesaw 1 68 1.5 4 113 3.5
Macon 3 53 5.7 17 106 16.0
Middle Georgia 1 80 1.3 10 87 11.5
South Georgia 2 64 3.1 7 55 12.7
Subtotal 27 808 3.3 136 1,126 12.1
SYSTEM TOTALS 440 7,527 5.8 817 9,062 9.0

The first 20 pages of the Mississippi document are prototypic of the
general promissory dialogue which unfortunately monopolizes each of the
nine state plans presently under review. Unfortunately, what could have
been a clear concise introduction to qualified goals and objects was little
more than a forecast of later ambiguities. For example, instead of aggres-
sively asserting Mississippi's intention to improve present black under-repre-
sentation in higher education, a statement on page two further weakens
later enrollment projections by describing them as only reasonable estimates,
rather than absolutely necessary (and minimum) goals. Similarly, the extent
of commitment to desegregation is revealed on page five where the student
enrollment objective is simply described as an attempt to enroll "a greater
number" of "other race" students at each number. Certainly, such a weak
and nebulous statement can only detract from subsequent numerical prom-

Other vague promises include increased employment of "other race"

faculty, and program and curricular changes to attract more "other race"
faculty and students to each institution. Funding for new multi-ethnic pro-
grams, however, will depend on vigorous recommendations from the pre-
dominately white (11 to 1) Board of Trustees. With regard to cooperative
efforts among predominately black and predominately white institutions, a
couple of token efforts (e.g., sharing of two part-time faculty members, and a
cooperative reading program) were mentioned. Further, it was mentioned on
page 16 that any financial arrangements related to individual institutional
plans are subject to change by the Board of Trustees. While that statement
could have meant that funding increases were possible, the overall tone indi-
cated a negative intention.

Junior colleges were advised of the overall state plan of compliance;
however, because the State Board of Trustees have no administrative control
over two-year institutions, they were excluded from the plan altogether.
Thus, we have absolutely no information regarding this potentially valuable
avenue of higher education for minorities.

Finally, the Mississippi plan included roughly two sentences about
monitoring activities. Supposedly, the Board of Trustees will coordinate and
supervise the desegregation process. Yet, their only self-assigned responsi-
bility is to submit semi-annual progress reports.

The proportion of blacks in the general Mississippi college age popula-
tion is very close to 40%. Yet, Table 5.0 indicates that in 1973-74 the per-
centage of minority students (e.g., blacks in predominately white schools
and whites in predominately black schools) enrolled state-wide was only
between 6 and 7%. While these data clearly show the failure of desegregation
for that year, the proportional enrollment of blacks is not clearly seen.
First, regarding university enrollment, where all schools are predominately
white, Table 5.0 shows only 6.3% minority enrollment-meaning that blacks
were under-represented by at least 34% (probably more assuming enrollment
of other racial groups). However, for senior college enrollment, the Mississippi
data had to be recast in a format (Table 5.1) which allows the appropriate
analysis. Table 5.1, thus, shows black and white enrollment for predomi-
nately white schools separately. In predominately black state colleges for
1973-74, the enrollment of 114 whites constitutes only 1.0% of the total
enrollment of 10,350 (10,236 black). Conversely, the enrollment of only
924 blacks (16%) in the two predominately white schools (total enrollment

Table 5.0

Racial Composition of Enrollment in Mississippi
State Supported Institutions of Higher Education
1973 (Actual) 1980 (Projected)

1973-74 (Actual) 1980-81 (Projected)
All Minority % All Minority %
Institution Races Races Minority Races Races Minority

Mississippi State 10,008 663 6.6 10,000 3,323 33.2
University of Mississippi 7,804 448 5.7 9,222 1,036 11.2
UM Medical Center
Dentistry 24 5 20.8 173 40 23.1
Health 123 13 10.5 250 50 20.0
Medicine 443 26 6.0 495 76 15.4
Nursing 200 17 8.5 225 37 16.5
Graduate School 86 10 11.7 100 16 16.0
U. Southern Mississippi 9,041 641 7.1 10,000 2,000 20.0
TOTALS 27,719 1,752 6.3 30,465 6,578 22.0

Alcorn A & M [B] 2,568 8 0.3 3,300 363 11.0
Delta State 3,187 647 20.3 3,569 899 25.2
Jackson State [B] 5,205 88 1.7 7,533 1,507 20.0
Miss. St. College for Women 2,752 345 12.5 2,850 536 18.8
Mississippi Valley [B] 2,577 18 .7 3,000 270 9.0
TOTALS 16,289 1,106 6.8 20,252 3,575 17.7

[B] Traditionally Black Colleges

was 5,871) clearly shows under-representation of blacks. Obviously, the
primary (almost only) source of college education for blacks in Mississippi
is the black college, which in 1973-74 enrolled 92% of all blacks enrolled in
state colleges. Even by adding the number of blacks enrolled in the pre-
dominately white universities, black colleges still enrolled 79% of all blacks
in Mississippi schools for that year.

Projections for 1980 offer some hope of relief from the dual, segregated
climate presently found in Mississippi. For example, Table 5.0 projects 22%
and 17,7% minority representation, respectively, for universities and state

Table 5.1

Racial Enrollment Composition of Mississippi State Colleges
Proportion of Total Black Enrollment
Found in Predominately Black Colleges
1973 (Actual) 1980 (Projected)

1973 (Actual) 1980 (Projected)
State Colleges White Black All White Black All

Predominately Black
Alcorn A &M 8 2,560 2,568 363 2,937 3,300
Jackson 88 5,117 5,205 1,507 6,025 7,533
Mississippi Valley 18 2,559 2,577 270 2,730 3,000
TOTAL 114 10,236 10,350 2,140 11,692 13,833

Predominately White
Delta State 2,540 647 3,187 2,670 899 3,569
Mississippi State
College for Women 2,407 277 2,684 2,085 465 2,850
TOTAL 4,947 924 5,871 4,755 1,364 6,119
GRAND TOTAL 5,061 11,160 16,221 6,895 13,056 19,952

colleges. Yet, the projected increase from 6.3% to 22% enrollment of blacks
(may include other minorities) in university level institutions still does not
approach proportional enrollment. The projected change from 6.8% minor-
ity enrollment to 17.7% enrollment in state colleges is even less encouraging.
An examination of Table 5.1 shows, moreover, that black schools will con-
tinue (in 1980) to educate 89% of all blacks (11,692 out of 13,056) enrolled
in state colleges and 60% (11,692 of 19,634) of all blacks enrolled state-wide.

The picture which emerges in Mississippi is that college educations are
provided for blacks and university educations are provided for whites. Table
5.1 shows that 69% and 65%, respectively, of students enrolled in state col-
leges for 1973 and 1980 are (or will be) black. White enrollments for
universities (from Table 5.0) are 93.7% for 1973-74 and 78% for 1980.

Perhaps the most discouraging element of the Mississippi plan is lack of
specificity regarding procedures for achieving the limited improvements noted
above. The plan does not, for example, detail the program and curriculum
and funding requirements necessary to achieve any change. There simply is
not enough specific information in the areas of curricula offerings, recruit-
ment, admissions policy, counseling, retention, financial aid, housing and
staff development to ensure survival of a unitary concept.

Faculty employment is another weak area in the Mississippi desegrega-
tion plan. Table 5.2 reveals only 3.7% minority faculty involvement for
universities in 1973, with a slight increase to 9.9% projected for 1980. The
state college data appears, from a surface analysis, to offer more flexibility;
that is, 18.7% of faculties were minority in 1973-74 and 25% minority
involvement is projected for 1980. However, a closer analysis reveals that in
1973-74 the black colleges assumed almost the entire burden for whatever
desegregation was achieved at that time. For example, Alcorn, Jackson, and
Mississippi Valley (all black colleges) employed, respectively, 41%, 27%, and
23% white faculty, whereas, Delta State and Mississippi State College for
Women (both white) employed only 23% and 3.0% black faculty, respec-
tively. The situation projected for 1980 is only slightly better, since Alcorn,
Jackson and Mississippi State expect to continue high levels of white employ-
ment (42%, 30%, 29%, respectively), with Delta and MSCW showing only a
slight increase in black faculty employment (9.5% and 12.9%, respectively).
Thus, one serious shortcoming of Mississippi's future employment objective
is the failure to assign equal responsibility to black and white schools for

Table 5.2

Racial Composition of Faculty in Mississippi
State Supported Institutions of Higher Education
1973 (Actual) 1980 (Projected)

1973-74 (Actual) 1980-81 (Projected)
All Minority % All Minority %
Institution Races Races Minority Races Races Minority


Mississippi State 509 31 6.1 509 46 9.0
University of Mississippi 439 12 2.7 481 47 9.8
UM Medical Center
Dentistry 14 1 7.0 75 10 13.3
Health 8 3 38.0 44 8 18.2
Medicine 204 14 6.9 277 26 9.4
Nursing 34 1 0.3 52 4 7.7
U. Southern Mississippi 436 15 3.4 500 50 10.0
TOTALS 1,642 77 4.7 1,938 191 9.9

Alcorn A & M [B] 126 52 42.0 186 78 42.0
Delta State 214 5 2.3 221 21 9.5
Jackson State [B] 330 88 26.7 392 118 30.0
Miss. St. College for Women 167 5 3.0 178 23 12.9
Mississippi Valley 141 33 23.4 152 44 29.0
TOTALS 978 183 18.7 1,129 284 25.0

[B] Predominately Black

implementing desegregation policies. Additionally, it should be noted that
the plan does not specify the rank or full-time status of blacks employed in
white schools. Obviously, more blacks should be employed, but a complete
analysis should also examine the validity of already inadequate figures. For
example, the finding that a significant number of blacks occupied instructor
or simply part-time positions would further challenge the viability of Missis-
sippi's plan.

Assuming that complete desegregation requires strengthening and real-
location of existing programs, and the design of new and cooperative pro-
grams, the Mississippi plan faces still other problems. There simply is too
little information (or perhaps the available information is too vague) in the
plan to determine what changes are feasible (conceptually and financially),
and if implemented, what they will achieve toward desegregation. Accord-
ingly, these and other problems noted above make it abundantly clear that
HEW needs to initiate a considerably stronger dialogue with Mississippi.


On February 5, 1974, the Maryland Council for Higher Education sub-
mitted to HEW its plan to accomplish the desegregation of Maryland's four
major campuses of the University of Maryland, seven state colleges, and 16
community colleges. Although the plan does call for a state-wide approach
to desegregation, apparently most of the specific planning and implementa-
tion are left to individual institutions.

The plan begins with the positive note that its actions are not devices
to destroy the historically black institutions, but instead they should enhance
the black colleges by developing quality programs which students will select
on bases other than race. Further, it was stated that the historically black
college would not bear an undue burden in the implementation of desegrega-
tion. After reading the entire plan, it is not clear whether the authors were
merely restating a firm directive from HEW (for the sake of public consump-
tion), or whether the vague intentions within the plan actually followed the
initial promise. With regard to the black colleges (particularly in the Balti-
more area), the plan does promise to avoid duplicate programming in adjacent
(one black, one white) institutions, and to provide a better balance between
specialized courses at historically black and white colleges. Unfortunately,
there is little direct evidence that a strictly enforced ban on duplicate

programming will exist in the near future. Some faculty exchanges (full and
part-time) are evident in the Baltimore area between Bowie, Towson, Coppin
and the University of Maryland-Baltimore County. These schools should be
closely monitored in the future, since they constitute four prime examples of
the remaining dual system of higher education. The large population of
blacks (above 25%) in the Baltimore area must be served by these four
schools-the geographical proximity of the schools and availability of urban
transportation systems offer a unique opportunity to establish a model uni-
tary system. However, the state leadership must obviously maintain a vigor-
ously assertive dialogue with the Baltimore area.

The Maryland plan approaches the area of faculty development with a
positive verbal approach, but less promise of action. There is also a positive
climate regarding increasing black graduate study opportunities, but again,
little hint of massive action. These are two areas of unparalleled importance
to the ending of a dual system. Many states are apparently comfortable with
the assertion that black Ph.D.'s just are not available, because such a belief
mitigates their failure to increase black faculty participation in white schools.
Obviously, each state and each institution should initiate a crash program to
identify bright black students (regardless of financial posture) and place them
in appropriate graduate programs. An examination of Maryland's graduate
enrollment will follow shortly.

Full-time undergraduate enrollment data is one essential source of com-
pliance (with HEW directive) information. Table 6.0 gives these data for
universities and state colleges in Maryland. As usual, the university enroll-
ment of blacks is well below levels that are proportional to the numbers of
college-age blacks in the general population (approximately 20% for Mary-
land). Enrollment for the state colleges are much more encouraging, and in
fact, seem to indicate (superficially) that desegregation has been accom-
plished. Yet, of the 7,687 blacks enrolled in the seven state colleges, the
three black schools (Bowie, Coppin, Morgan) account for 7,076 (92%) of that
number. Even the projections for 1980 reveal that 7,542 (81%) students of
the 9,287 total student enrollment come from the same three schools. Thus,
although appropriate levels of blacks may be enrolled (which we are not
indicating here), there is very little progress toward desegregation.

Community college enrollments are shown in Table 6.1. There was
considerable under-representation of blacks as late as 1972, and this will

continue for some time according to projections. In 1972, 11 of the 16
schools were under 10% black enrollment, and 9 of these schools will con-
tinue to remain under 10% black enrollment through 1980. Again, desegre-
gation has not been achieved. In 1972, of all blacks enrolled in Maryland
Community Colleges, 57% were located at the Community College at Balti-
more. Thirty-eight percent of all blacks in the two-year institutions will

Table 6.0

Percentage and Number of Racial Composition of Full-Time
Undergraduate Students in Maryland's Universities
and State Colleges, by Institutions
1972 (Actual) 1980 (Projected)

1972 1980
Institution All Black % Black All Black % Black

UM-College Park 24,874 1,249 5.0 25,000 3,625 14.5
County [W] 4,281 402 9.4 7,700 1,463 19.0
UM at Baltimore 1,225 53 4.3 1,300 208 16.0
UM-Eastern Shore 728 545 74.9 1,500 825 55.0
TOTAL 31,108 2,249 7.2 35,500 6,121 17.2

Bowie 1,596 1,078 67.5 4,100 2,112 51.5
Coppin 1,960 1,842 94.0 2,300 1,760 76.5
Frostburg 2,484 114 4.6 3,100 217 7.0
Morgan 4,340 4,156 95.8 4,900 3,670 75.0
Salisbury 1,655 71 4.3 2,500 290 11.6
Towson 6,694 392 5.9 7,400 1,094 14.7
St. Mary's 909 34 3.7 1,100 144 13.1
TOTAL 19,638 7,687 39.1 27,400 9,287 33.9

Table 6.1

Percentage and Number of Racial Composition of Full-Time
Students in Maryland's Community College
1972 (Actual) 1980 (Projected)

1972 1980
Community College All Black % Black All Black % Black

Allegany 805 12 1.5 853 17 2.0
Anne Arundel 1,620 77 4.8 2,218 288 13.0
Catonsville 2,651 66 2.5 3,071 154 5.0
Cecil 189 14 7.4 320 22 7.0
Charles 389 42 10.8 810 275 34.0
Chesapeake 327 32 9.8 384 115 30.0
C.C. at Baltimore 2,698 1,513 56.1 2,986 2,120 71.0
Dundalk 138 13 9.4 618 31 5.0
Essex 2,612 62 2.4 2,986 149 5.0
Frederick 462 30 6.5 682 68 10.0
Garrett 107 ---- ---- 149 --
Hagerstown 793 47 5.9 1,066 53 5.0
Harford 943 87 9.2 1,280 115 9.0
Howard 317 63 19.9 1,258 151 12.0
Montgomery 5,799 202 3.5 7,677 537 7.0
Prince George's 3,451 400 11.6 5,642 1,467 26.0
TOTAL 23,301 2,660 11.4 32,000 5,562 17.4

enroll at the Community College at Baltimore in 1980. Obviously, then,
black colleges in Maryland must survive or total black enrollment will suffer

As mentioned earlier, increasing attention must be paid to black parti-
cipation in graduate level programs. Table 6.2 shows actual and projected
under-representation for blacks in both undergraduate and graduate programs
-but the situation is clearly more serious with low black graduate status. A
more detailed breakdown of graduate enrollment (Table 6.3) further indicates
the sources of under-representation.

Table 6.2

Racial Composition of Full-Time Students Enrolled
in Maryland Public Higher Education Institutions

1970 1980
Public Total Black % Total Black %
Institutions Students Students Black Students Students Black

Undergraduate 67,444 9,436 14.0 94,900 21,300 22.4




455 7.7

9,000 1,260 14.0

73,360 9,891 13.5 103,900 22,560 21.7

Table 6.3

Racial Composition of Full-Time Graduate Students
in Maryland Public Institutions of Higher Education

1970 (Actual)
Institution Total Black % Black

1980 (Projected)
Total Black % Black

University 3,639 176 4.8 4,500 495 11.0

State Colleges 344 146 42.4 1,800 333 18.5

Schools 1,933 133 6.9 2,700 432 16.0

TOTAL 5,916 455 7.7 9,000 1,260 14.0

North Carolina

The University of North Carolina Board of Governors and the State
Board of Education submitted on February 14, 1974, the North Carolina
plan for desegregation of public institutions of higher learning. The plan
covers the 16 constituent institutions of the University of North Carolina and
the 17 community colleges throughout the state of North Carolina.

Somewhat defensively, the North Carolina plan expresses some concern
over what is considered a legally sufficient response to the HEW directive.
This defensive posture implies a lack of concern for what the morally appro-
priate course of action is for the next few years. Yet, on page 19 of the plan,
the assertion is made that "we undertake this effort to set aright any inequi-
ties that are found, and to ensure equality of educational opportunity for all
citizens." Available data and examination of promises indicate that if every
step of the plan was carried forth to completion, past and present inequities
would not be "set aright." Overwhelming segregation within the North
Carolina has close or immediate competition from a similarly comprehensive
white institution. Exchange programs and other cooperative ventures among
the black and white schools are simply not directed and supported on a
state-level basis. Generally, there is a lack of state-wide planning for desegre-
gation-although the central governance of the University of North Carolina
institutions offers a unique opportunity for such. Finally, there is almost no
commitment to support financially the new programs required to move North
Carolina in the direction of a unitary system.

An examination of recent (1973) enrollment patterns (Table 7.0) within
the University of North Carolina system is uniquely disturbing. Firstly, the
overall percentage of black enrollment (17.1%) is considerably below the
percentage (26.8) of black 12th grade students in North Carolina during
1972. Secondly, of the total number of 15,446 blacks enrolled in 1973,
12,614 (81.7%) were enrolled in the five black institutions (Elizabeth City,
Fayetteville, North Carolina A & T, North Carolina Central and Winston-
Salem College). Thus, North Carolina not only under-enrolls black students,
but segregates them in schools which, for whatever reason, are not acceptable
to whites. Further, the state plan does not specify what procedures will be
used to ensure retention of black students located in white (also black)
schools. In fact, there seems to be little systematic attention to what the
attrition rate is for blacks and whites. Within the next four years, the North

Carolina public system expects to enroll an average of 17,300 freshmen per
year, of which 81% will be white and 19% will be black. On page 225, the
stated intention is to increase black enrollment by 1.0% per year-thus,
generating some 200 additional black students per year for the entire system.
Obviously, the plan does little more than to maintain its present racial

Table 7.0

Racial Composition of Total Enrollment in the
University of North Carolina System
Fall, 1973

Institution All Races Black % Black

Appalachian 7,545 131 1.8
East Carolina 10,068 340 3.4
Elizabeth City 1,146 1,058 [92.3]
Fayetteville 1,790 1,727 [96.5]
North Carolina A & T 4,751 4,497 [94.6]
North Carolina Central 4,062 3,738 [92.0]
North Carolina School of Arts 378 30 7.9
North Carolina State University 14,257 349 2.4
Pembroke 1,918 64 3.3
Univ. of North Carolina-Asheville 1,125 33 2.9
Univ. of North Carolina-Chapel Hill 19,396 985 5.1
Univ. of North Carolina-Charlotte 6,123 319 5.2
Univ. of North Carolina-Greensboro 7,856 380 4.8
Univ. of North Carolina-Wilmington 2,542 79 3.1
Western Carolina 5,844 122 2.1
Winston Salem 1,653 1,594 [96.4]

TOTAL 90,454 15,446 17.1

Table 7.1

Racial Composition of Total Graduate Enrollment
in the University of North Carolina System
Fall, 1973

Institfition All Races Black % Black

Appalachian 941 19 2.0
East Carolina 1,199 148 12.4
North Carolina A & T 600 424 [70.7]
North Carolina Central 405 374 [92.4]
North Carolina State University 2,375 74 3.1
Univ. of North Carolina-Chapel Hill 4,465 223 5.0
Univ. of North Carolina-Charlotte 853 108 12.7
Univ. of North Carolina-Greensboro 2,071 131 6.3
Western Carolina 688 11 1.6

TOTAL 13,597 1,512 11.1

During this 1973-74 period, the total faculty for the 16 institutions
numbered 5,039 positions. White faculty held 4,278 of the positions, with
538 going to blacks and 223 held by "other" races. At the 11 predominately
white institutions, however, the faculty racial composition was 95% white,
1.2% black, and 3.8% "other" race faculty. None of the white institutions
expect to increase black faculty participation significantly. For 9 of the 11
white institutions, the average projections call for less than 5% black employ-
ment by 1976-77. The plan does call for shifting black faculty members from
black institutions to white institutions, and conversely, some whites will fill
black vacancies in black institutions. Unfortunately, no amount of "shifting"
will increase the total numbers of black faculty system-wide.

Graduate enrollment for 1973 is shown in Table 7.1. As expected, the
total involvement for blacks is well less than half what equitable enrollment

would be. Again, the contribution (798) of the two predominately black
graduate schools (North Carolina A&T and North Carolina Central) accounts
for a disproportional (53%) percentage of the total (1,512) black enrollment.
In comparison to undergraduate enrollment, however, blacks are significantly
more dependent on white schools for graduate studies. Thus, one significant
failure of the North Carolina plan is to provide means for moving large
numbers of bright black students into the almost totally white graduate

Again, each of the predominately black institutions must be made a
part of the progress enjoyed by neighboring white institutions. As with the
Baltimore area in Maryland, close attention should be paid the Greensboro
and Winston-Salem areas in North Carolina.


The Oklahoma State Regents adopted that state's desegregation plan on
February 25, 1974-approximately one month after the first black member
was appointed to that governing body.

An incredible amount of useless information is found in the Oklahoma
document. The first 24 pages, for example, contained not one bit of informa-
tion which specifies direct action. Additionally, pages 127-230 read as if
they were college catalogue descriptions of individual institutions. It is very
difficult to see how such dialogue contributes to the solution of ending dual
educational programs.

Oklahoma's 26 state-supported institutions apparently do not provide
adequate service to blacks which comprise approximately 7% of the total
college age population. An examination of Table 8.0 reveals that eight of the
Oklahoma institutions failed to provide projected enrollment percentages for
1982. Nine other schools indicated enrollment percentages for 1982, but
only three of these were equal to the 7% college age proportion of blacks
(one of the three was Langston, which expects to be 80% black by 1982).
Finally, nine schools indicated decreasing black enrollment percentages
(schools indicated) across the next seven years.

Table 8.0

A Comparison of Various Indicated Proportions of Black Students
by Institutions in the Oklahoma State System of Higher Education

Proportion of Blacks Projected Proportion
Current Proportion of Designating Institution of Black Enrollment
Institution Black Enrollment as First Choice (ACT)1 by 19822

El Reno









*Decreasing Enrollment Projections

Table 9.0

First-time Black Freshmen Enrollment (1973-74)
and Projected (1976) Black Enrollments for
Pennsylvania State Colleges

% Freshmen % Projected
Institution 1973-74 Black Enrollment (1976)

Bloomsbury 1.5 4.0
California 7.5 12.0
Cheney ----- 78.0
Clarion 8.6 9.0
East Stroudsburg 7.4 12.0
Edinboro 3.8 6.0
Indiana U. of Penn. 5.0 7.0
Kutztown 7.1 5.0
Lock Haven 2.2 4.0
Mansfield ----- 4.0
Millersville 11.6 13.0
Shippensburg 9.3 10.0
Slippery Rock .8 6.0
West Chester 9.9 10.0


Pennsylvania's desegregation plan was accepted by HEW in an essen-
tially incomplete state. Neither the major state university nor the community
college system were included in the plan.

The 14 state colleges of Pennsylvania will apparently attempt to enroll
close to the 9.0% of blacks which would equal black representation in the
state of Pennsylvania. Table 9.0 gives the percentage of freshmen enrolled
in 1974 and projections of total enrollment percentages for 1976. Compared
to the other eight state plans, Pennsylvania does seem to offer realistic
promise of achieving appropriate black student participation in state colleges.

Unfortunately, poor performance in the senior university and in the
community colleges could place Pennsylvania in a less favorable position. We
simply do not have information for these schools. Additionally, the Pennsyl-
vania plan does not offer projections for increasing black faculty.


On February 7, 1974, the Virginia desegregation plan, developed by
individual institutions and adopted by the Virginia State Council of Higher
Education was submitted to HEW. Without a doubt, the Virginia plan is the
least informative and most evasive document of any reviewed herein. Basi-
cally, the Virginia position is that it already has taken sufficient steps toward
establishing a unitary system of higher education, and thus, is in full com-
pliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The only data given in support of the Virginia position was contained
in Governor Holton's cover letter to the plan. His statement to Peter Holmes
of HEW was that minorities (blacks) were given equal educational oppor-
tunity, and that in senior colleges and universities the percent of minority
enrollment had been 10.8%, 13.3%, and 14.8% for the years 1969, 1972, and
1973, respectively. Similarly, the minority enrollment for the community
colleges in Virginia was 6.2%, 9.1%, and 11.1%, respectively, for 1969, 1972,
and 1973. Obviously, however, these encouraging advances do not approach
the roughly 17% that is the percentage of college age blacks in the total
Virginia population. Moreover, even if this 17% level of black enrollment
was reached in the near future, it would not begin to compensate for tremen-
dous disparities historically found in Virginia.

Virginia currently supports 39 state institutions. Fifteen of the schools
are senior colleges and universities, and 23 others are community colleges.
These institutions are governed by separate and independent boards of visi-
tors. As expected, these governing boards are almost totally white. For the
senior colleges and universities, the total number of board members are 193,
of which 172 are white and 21 are black. It should be noted that 13 of the
21 black board members are from the predominately black Norfolk State and
Virginia State Colleges. The State Board for Community Colleges is also
racially unbalanced, with a composition of 13 whites and two blacks. Finally,
the State Council on Higher Education contains only two blacks, but nine
white members. These three governing bodies exercise almost total control

over Virginia's institutions of higher learning. There is no wonder, from the
composition of these groups, that educational opportunities for blacks have
been limited in Virginia.

The plan for implementation and monitoring of desegregation activities
in Virginia leaves much to be desired. Although state level influences were
utilized in developing the plan, individual institutions will assume responsi-
bility for implementation. Monitoring activities will involve a joint effort
between institutional boards and the State Council.

The Virginia plan stated (page 65) that one essential component (osten-
sibly of its desegregation plan) was the individual planning statement of each
of the state supported institutions. In fact, the individual statements were to
collectively provide a comprehensive plan for higher education in Virginia.
One would expect, therefore, to find comprehensively prepared summaries
and projections of black enrollment and faculty participation. Additionally,
these statements could be expected to contain new program proposals and
discussion of actions necessary to carry them out. Instead, all that was
offered were useless descriptions of geographical settings, major institutional
functions and overall (across race) student information. There is absolutely
no information in the Virginia plan to indicate present or future status regard-
ing overall black representation in higher education and for desegregation

We do know from other sources, such as the Virginia Report (Stuart,
1974), that blacks are presently discriminated against in Virginia. For
example, in 1973, Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond alone
accounted for 55% of blacks enrolled in white schools. Yet, although approx-
imately 50% of the population inthe city of Richmond is black, only 10%
of the students enrolled at Virginia Commonwealth are black. Even more
discouragingly, many of the blacks enrolled at Virginia Commonwealth were
in non-degree granting programs.

As in other states, the majority of blacks enrolled in state-supported
institutions are found in predominately black schools. Norfolk State and
Virginia State provide much the same service for blacks in Virginia. Yet, in
spite of the HEW directive that black schools be given a chance to survive, it
recently took a court decision in Virginia to avoid upgrading Virginia State's
close white competitive neighbor (Richard Bland Community College) to

four-year status. Clearly, many Virginians are not yet committed to equal
educational opportunity for blacks.

With regard to total faculty in Virginia, only 7.7% are black, and 84%
of these are teaching at the predominately black colleges. In 1973, only
1.4% of faculties at white institutions were black.

This investigation can only agree with other observations that HEW
received very little from Virginia.


Three immediate comments should conclude this analysis. First, even a
generous appraisal of plans by southern states to desegregate their higher
educational systems must conclude that by 1980 not a single state will have
removed "all vestiges of a dual system of education." This is true first
because these states will not be enrolling students proportionally by race at
all levels, and secondly, because to remove past inequalities would require a
quantum jump in education of blacks-something not proposed in any plan.
Secondly, no one plan was specific or detailed enough to enable HEW to
determine whether proposals were actually attainable. And thirdly, even if
proposals were manageable in terms of planning specificity, funding require-
ments are not assured.




Terry Wildman


Terry Wildman


A complete and continuing analysis of efforts to equalize educa-
tional opportunity for minorities requires information from many sources.
As well as can be determined, there has been no recent systematic effort
to assess the perceptions of those at the very cutting edge of the movement
toward equal educational opportunity-the presidents of black colleges and
universities. The present study, therefore, fills this void in the available
literature by analyzing the current opinions of black college presidents on
a comprehensive array of issues related to desegregation in higher education.



The presidents of twenty-two public black colleges and universities
returned a completed questionnaire. These twenty-two respondents repre-
sent a sixty-five percent return rate on the thirty-four questionnaires
originally mailed. While a higher return rate would have been desired, the
twenty-two respondents comprise a very representative sample from twelve
eastern and southern states.

The Questionnaire

A twenty-item questionnaire required respondents to indicate (on a
scale of one to seven) their disagreement/agreement with statements repre-
senting a broad array of currently important issues related to desegregation
in higher education (see Appendix A for the questionnaire). The array of
statements was constructed to coincide as near as possible with the issues
of major importance in the previously discussed state planning documents.
Respondents were further encouraged to list on the final page of the ques-
tionnaire the two or three major concerns they had regarding the future of
their institution.


A preliminary version of the questionnaire was submitted for review to
a selected group of individuals having distinguished records of service and
achievement in areas related to higher education. The revised and final
version was mailed on July 1, 1975, with a cover letter explaining the pur-
pose of the survey (see Appendix B for the cover letter).

The analysis and discussion which follows is organized around the
several major issues rather than an item-by-item presentation. An attempt
is made to connect those issues which illicited consistently positive, negative
or neutral responses. Finally, the unstructured responses submitted by most
respondents allows elaboration of the several issues.


While the general purpose of the larger document is to study the
overall impact of the Pratt Decision on provision of equal opportunity in
higher education, a major focus of the present study involves the future
status of traditionally black colleges and universities. Consequently, a large
number of questions deal directly with concerns of black institutions. Re-
sults are presented in seven major categories.

Forecast- 1980

Three items in the questionnaire (3, 8, and 12) specifically request
judgments as to conditions which might exist by the year 1980. These
items follow with results which indicate the number of college presidents
responding in each of the seven categories on the disagree/agree continuum
(the weighted mean for each item is given categories):

3. By 1980, your state will have achieved a completely unitary system
of higher education.

Completely X = 2.5 Completely
Disagree 8 6 2 3 1 2 Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. By 1980, black graduate enrollment will have reached proportional
(or above) levels of representation in your state.

Completely X = 3.0 Completely
Disagree 3 7 5 2 5 Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12. Your institution will either immediately or by 1980, occupy a position
solidly in the mainstream of higher education in your state.

Completely X = 4.3 Completely
Disagree 1 4 3 3 4 14 3 Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Each of the three statements imply major predicted changes (generally
mandated by HEW) by 1980, and in each case there is either substantial
disagreement with the statements (items 3 and 8) or obvious differences
of opinion regarding a final outcome (item 12). Clearly, the presidents of
black institutions across twelve states are not confident of achieving either
a unitary educational system or proportional black enrollment by 1980.
The tremendous response variability for item twelve indicates, essentially,
widely differing levels of confidence regarding the ability of black institu-
tions to survive. However, it is significant to note (from item 12) that
half of the respondents chose the middle categories (three, four, and five),
indicating uncertainty as to what the states of their institutions is likely
to be by 1980. In general, the response to all three items is unsurprising
considering the general lack of positive state level action noted in previous

Black College and University Roles

The development of unitary state systems of higher education gener-
ally implies at least some change in institutional roles for black colleges
and universities. In each case where mandatory state plans for desegrega-
tion were approved by HEW, there was a state commitment to support
roles for black institutions which were comparable (although obviously not
identical) to all other institutions in the state system. Items 1, 2, 13 and 18
allow examination of perceived roles (present and future) of black institu-
tions of higher learning.

1. The contemporary role of black institutions of higher education is
to attract and provide a quality education for students of all races
and ethnic backgrounds.

Completely X = 5.8
Disagree 1 1 3 2 4 11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7


2. Traditionally black institutions in your state are currently asked to
assume a disproportionately large (compared to predominantly white
institutions) role in desegregation of higher education.

Disagree [

X = 5.7 Comp
S3 31 81 7 Agree

1 1


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13. The future strength of black institutions will depend primarily on
their ability to serve academically and economically disadvantaged
minority students.

Disagree 12 4 3

X = 4.2 Completely
4 2 2 5 Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18 Black colleges and universities will continue to exist (during the next
10 years) as the major source of higher education for blacks.

Disagree 1 2
1 2 3

X= 5
4 5

5 12 Agree
6 7

Responses to item 1 show strong agreement with the widespread
legal mandate that all public institutions of higher education be made avail-
able to the general population. Realistically, however, an overwhelming
majority of respondents agree (item 18) that blacks will continue to depend
heavily on predominantly black institutions for a higher education. Con-
sistent with this response is the strong related belief (item 2) that desegre-


gation demands fall more heavily on black institutions than white institu-
tions; that is, the influx of white students into black schools will be propor-
tionately greater than blacks gaining access to white schools. Very few of
the presidents which responded to this survey, however, will take a direction-
al stand on the issue (item 13) of whether black institutions will continue
to specialize in educating disadvantaged students. Obviously, most presi-
dents would like to develop for their institutions a role which is consistent
with unitary concepts, but one which still allows continued service to the
significant numbers of students who would otherwise be denied access
(primarily because of racially related reasons) to continued education.

Financial Commitment

The continued health of any institution depends, of course, on the
availability of adequate financial support. Financial support is even more
critical in the case of black institutions which have faced inequitable
funding situations throughout most of their history. Items 14, 15, 16 and
17 provide indications of the extent to which positive changes are being
made throughout the South and East.

14. Equitable general funding is provided for black institutions in your

Completely X = 3.0 Completely
Disagree 6 3 3 6 2 2 Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15. Special funding is provided to black institutions in your state as
compensation for historical funding inequities.

Completely X = 2.5 Completely
Disagree 1ll 3 2 1 2 3 Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16. The most critical variable in increasing black participation in higher
education is the availability of student financial support.

17. Adequate financial support is available to black students (in your state)
who have the desire and capability for college study.

Completely X = 3.7 Completely
Disagree 5 3 3 4 4 31 Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The message from this sample of college presidents is not encouraging.
There is strong indication (item 14) that black institutions are still unable
to attain equitable standard funding and almost unanimous agreement (item
15) that compensatory funding is unavailable. Student financial aid is a
particularly serious problem. While the respondents almost unanimously
agree (item 16) that student aid is perhaps the most critical variable in in-
creasing black enrollment levels, there is a discouraging number of respon-
dents that indicates considerable dissatisfaction with the availability of
student aid funds. It would be interesting to compare these responses to
various official state-level interim reports on desegregation progress as they
become available.

Political Support

Financial support (and institutional progress in general) is of course
closely related to political support. Items 19 and 20 allow presidential
minority representation in general:

19. In your state there is realistic legislative commitment for the continued
survival of black institutions of higher education.

Completely X = 3.7 Completely
Disagree 4 3 6 4 2 2 Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
20. Governing boards of higher education in your state do effectively
represent minority interests.
Completely X = 3.3 Completely
Disagree 4 5 3 3 5 2 Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Clearly, there is a wide range of opinion as to whether legislators
and governing boards are solidly behind efforts to attain unitary systems of
higher education. There is a sufficiently unfavorable tendency in the above
response patterns to provide support for previous suggestions that many
states do not show adequate commitment to reaching acceptable desegrega-
tion deadlines.

The "Sweetheart" Situation

The question of how to handle direct local competition between adja-
cent black and white institutions is perhaps the thorniest problem facing
many states. Obviously, entire studies could be devoted to this single prob-
lem. For the purposes of this study we were interested in simply determining
how the top administrative officers in black institutions thought their insti-
tutional peers would fare in attempts to alleviate the dual situations.

4. The dismantling of dual situations involving "sweetheart" institutions
will ultimately weaken the present status of the black institutional

Completely X = 5.0 Completely
Disagree 1 2 6 2 5 6 Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Obviously, few presidents were confident that the outcomes would have a
positive impact on the black institution. Yet, many state plans for desegre-
gation in higher education clearly promised a viable role for black institu-
tions in these situations. The discrepancy between state promises and
perceived (by these knowledgeable individuals) action certainly deserves
further investigation.

Student Admissions and Retention

Students are the primary focus of any educational system, and complex
desegregation policies are ultimately reduced to the problem of admitting
and retaining more minority students. Items 5, 6, and 7 required assess-
ment of progress in this critical area.

5. College and university admission requirements in your state systemat-
ically discriminate against black applicants.

Completely X = 3.4 Completely
Disagree 6 5 1 1 5 1 3 Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. Black institutions have a competitive disadvantage in competing with
predominantly white institutions for academically well prepared black

Completely X = 6.0 Completely
Disagree 1 1 I 1 1 6 12 Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. Your state level commitments currently ensure adequate programs
for retention of minority students in higher education.

Completely X = 3.4 Completely
Disagree 4 4 6 3 3 2 Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Apparently some progress has been made in the area of admission
requirements as indicated by the responses to item 5. Approximately, the
same number, however, did not believe (item 7) that adequate retention
measures had been implemented to ensure appropriate levels of minority
success in higher education. As far as their own institutional problems were
concerned, respondents were overwhelmingly convinced that black institu-
tions cannot presently compete for the better students. This observation
may partially account for the previously discussed uncertainty concerning
the role of black institutions serving primarily academically disadvantaged
students. In sum, these responses do not provide assurances that states will
achieve minority enrollment/degree awarding goals set for the next five years.

Staff Development

Faculty quality is generally considered the prime indicator of institu-
tional excellence. Desegregation progress, thus depends, in part, on a more

or less equitable spread of talent throughout a system. This, in turn, depends
somewhat on the availability of quality minority faculty. Items 9, 10, and
11 treat these issues in a general way

9. Affirmative action programs in your state do currently ensure equal
employment of minorities in higher education.


X= 2.7
7 6 4 2 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7


10. Your institution is able to compete for and retain
black faculty.

Completely X = 4, l
Disagree 14 12 3 12 14 14 3

quality Ph.D. level


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11. Affirmative action policies have had a detrimental effect on the quality
of your faculty.

Completely. X= 2.7 Completely
Disagree 6 3 6 6 1 Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Responses to items 9 and 11 may be related in the sense that if affirma-
tive action policies are actually ineffective (as indicated in response to item
9), then the actual threat to black faculties is minimized (which is what
response to item 11 indicates). Unfortunately, the totally non-directional
response to item 10 provides little information as to broad trends. Apparent-
ly, there are no global trends in the ability of black institutions to attract and
maintain quality faculty.

Miscellaneous Comments

Seventeen of the twenty-two respondents provided additional com-
ments related to major concerns at their institutions. A detailed analysis,
however, failed to reveal significant problems and concerns not already

covered in the body of the questionnaire. In general, the overall response
of the black college presidency toward desegregation progress and its im-
pact on predominantly black institutions is one of caution (wait and see)
or considerable concern (promised actions are simply not occurring at rea-
sonable rates). Periodic surveys of this sort are needed to place in "real
world" perspective the information we receive through "official" channels.


I '[





Paul Mohr


The proliferation of organizations and activities related directly or
indirectly to the edict of the Pratt Decision in the Adams v. Richardson
court case dramatizes the magnitude and complexity of efforts to assure
minority-access to higher education. The purpose here is to briefly
describe the structure and major activities of organizations which have been
most visible during recent years. Eight organizations have been particularly

NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF)
National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education
Office for the Advancement of Public Negro Colleges (OAPNC)
The Southern Regional Educational Board(SREB)
The American Council on Education(ACE)
The Southern Education Foundation(SEF)
The Institute for Services to Education(ISE)
The Chicago-Southern Network of the Study Commission on
Undergraduate Education and the Education of Teachers

With so much involvement, one would assume that it is easy to
articulate the need for retaining black colleges and universities and to make
them more viable. Unfortunately, the philosophies and activities of these
organizations are not necessarily compatible with the concerns of the
constituents and patrons of these institutions. Further, many of the
organizations seem to operate independently of each other without the
appropriate interface and coordination that would strengthen their efforts.
For example, one gathers from the brief filed in Adams v. Richardson
that attorneys for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund appeared to have had a
priority of minority access to "majority" institutions, thus minimizing any
concern for continued minority access to minority institutions and majority-
access to minority institutions. Fortunately, NAFEOHE filed an amicuss
curiae" that brought into substantial focus the value of the minority
institutions and their prospects for making a greater contribution to higher

NAFEOHE is an organization composed of 110 presidents of pre-
dominantly black colleges and universities. The organization did not agree
with Judge Pratt's initial ruling in the Adams case and argued that "equal
educational opportunity is not the goal, but the equality of educational
attainment is the goal and command of the Federal Constitution." In
their brief, NAFEOHE emphasized:

The black institutions of higher education have served and
continue to serve as the bridge between a crippling and debil-
itating elementary and secondary educational system to which
Brown itself was directed because of the experience with the
equal education cases from Murray to Sweatt in the field of
higher education. This experience demonstrated that equality
of educational attainment could not be achieved until the
feeder system of the secondary and elementary levels has been
improved for black students.1

Lawyers for NAFEOHE argued that it is impertinent to charge black
colleges with violating the law, with promoting racism, and categorizing
them ". in the same class as other institutions with ignominious histories
of selective exclusions of black and other minorities." The premise for
their argument is:

The doors of black institutions without exception have,
from the very beginning of their existence, been open to all
races, sex, colors, creeds, and they have always collectively
offered employment and other incidental privileges to all who
passed through their doors, except where state law prohibited
the same. They have been menders, healers for wounded minds
and restless souls. They have produced sterling talent which
has benefited this Republic beyond measure of calculation-
not only in material contribution, but intellectual, cultural,
moral and spiritual offerings. In a number of instances, black
institutions have been more profoundly representative of the
American Ethic than the larger, more affluent, schools of Higher
Education in this country. Indeed, they have been and remain
today a domestic "Marshall Plan" committed to a public
offering of education attainment.2

As a result, Judge Pratt included in his decision this statement:

the most serious problem in this area is the lack of
statewide planning to provide more and better trained minority
group doctors, lawyers, engineers and other professionals. A
predicate for minority access to quality post-graduate programs
is a viable coordinated statewide higher education policy that
takes into account the special problems of minority students
and of black colleges. As amicus points out, the black institu-
tions currently fulfill a crucial need and will continue to play
an important role in black higher education.3

Algia Cooper, a recent law school graduate and recipient of a bacca-
laureate degree from a black institution, termed the Judge's statement as
"probably the most significant language from the aspect of retention of
black colleges "4 What is essential about Cooper's assertion is that he
represents a clientele (black students) that has been minimally involved in
any plans for the enhancement fo educational opportunities. The irony
of it all comes to light when one recalls that an LDF lawyer was fired for
acknowledging: the conspicuous absence of black input in strategies for
public school desegregation; the narrow base within the black community
on which the legal strategy for the Brown decisions were based; and, the
absence of educational practitioners in planning for school desegregation.

Privately, many people speak of their disenchantment with LDF
for the very reasons mentioned above. Many contend that LDF representa-
tives refuse to look at the catastrophe they perpetrated under the guise of
public elementary-secondary school desegregation and many contend that
they are intent on replicating the same disastrous results in the post-
secondary arena. A black physician has referred to the matter of dismantling
black colleges as the "ultimate in educational castration" which began with
the so-called desegregation of public schools.

While LDF deserves harsh criticisms for much of its misguided zeal,
one should recognize that its officials are now seeking to place equal educa-
tional opportunity in a much better perspective by addressing themselves to
the retention of black institutions. The officials may not be the great
drum beaters that NAFEOHE happens to be, and they may not respond to
criticisms that they are somewhat out of step with the total concept of

black self-actualization, but they do pretend a modicum of support for
black colleges as an outgrowth of a great deal of pressure, especially from
black college presidents.

LDF officials have tried to convey to the Office for Civil Rights
(OCR) the significance of black involvement in the decision-making process,
a factor that OCR and HEW seem to overlook. LDF has also attempted to
have OCR officials assist in the articulation of new roles for black colleges.

LDF has also assisted in the establishment of a network of organiza-
tions called Project Adams. The organizations represent a coalition of black
persons in states affected by the Pratt Decision. The coalitions were estab-
lished to provide input for state plans and to establish dialogue with HEW,
Mississippi's coalition seems to be the most effective, judging by the activ-
ities they are engaged in and the sophistication of their strategies which
are designed by legal experts and other knowledgeable persons.

Office for the Advancement of Public Negro Colleges

Another strategic organization in this critical period for black colleges
is the Office for the Advancement of Public Negro Colleges (OAPNC) which
is supported by the National Association of State Universities and Land-
Grant Colleges, in cooperation with the American Association of State
Colleges and Universities. The primary focus of OAPNC, located in Atlanta,
Georgia, is one of assisting the nation's traditionally black public colleges
and universities in increasing their visibility in a positive, wholesome context.

Southern Regional Education Board

While the strategy of LDF is more of a legal one, the Southern
Regional Education Board (SREB) operates somewhat differently. Its
officials serve as consultants to states mandated by the Pratt Decision to
dismantle a dual system of higher education. In a document, Suggestions
for Achieving Unitary State Systems of Higher Education, the Board de-
scribes a unitary system in a manner that gives equal significance to pre-
dominantly white institutions. Dr. James Godard, author of the document

Traditionally Negro Public Colleges and Universities have
provided access to higher education for many black students in
the past and can do so in the years ahead as their strengths are
adapted to contemporary needs. As traditionally non-discrim-
inatory colleges and universities, they constitute significant
resources for the future, in which their identity is based on
pride in the past and on dignity in the future.5

The Board, representing a 14 state educational compact, is more than
25 years old and has focused upon educational opportunities for minorities
for a long time. What distinguishes this group from others is its strong
interface with state governmental officials and private foundations.

American Council on Education

The American Council on Education (ACE) presents another dimension
to the problem of minorities and equal opportunity in higher education.
In a recent position paper, ACE acknowledges that "institutional commit-
ment of programs of importance to minorities is waning perhaps on a large
scale."6 The Council cites financial stringency, changed needs of today's
minority enrollment as factors that have caused much concern in the area
of equal educational opportunity.

It is interesting to note that the ACE recognizes programs of remedia-
tion can be within the province of universities. Authors of the ACE position
paper acknowledge that "large numbers of middle class white students are
now entering universities with reading, language and mathematics skills
difficulties."7 "A beneficial effect on this occurrence is that more attention
and funding may be drawn to programs of importance to minorities."8
The ACE recommends that programs of remediation at black colleges be
studies "for keys to greater use."9

Such statements seem to be in conflict with the HEW guidelines for
establishing unitary systems of higher education. HEW is exerting great
effort to have black colleges disengage themselves from educating the dis-
advantaged and the "late bloomer." HEW rather naively assumes that white
institutions will take up what black colleges are supposed to discontinue.
As the ACE report indicates, most of the remediation programs at white
institutions are operated on soft money. As financial support is diminished
so are the programs.

Southern Education Foundation

SEF is an Atlanta, Georgia-based foundation which has had a long
standing interest in the education of blacks. "Ending Desegregation in
Higher Education," a report issued by SEF, highlights the fact that the
Foundation will concentrate on a major portion of their resources to
activities relative to the Adams case.

The Foundation emphasizes that the issue of the future of black
colleges must be completely and satisfactorily resolved:

In the past, they were segregated by law, not by choice;
to close them or downgrade them or downgrade their status
now would be to punish the victims for the crime of segregation.
Equity demands that they not be required to bear the burden of
change alone. In the development of unitary systems of higher
education, the states must make a concerted effort to insure that
their formerly all-black colleges and universities become fully
equal partners in the system. Each state is different, and each
institution is different; nor formula for the future can be uni-
formly applied to all. But in the process of creating new pro-
grams, realigning curricula, and assigning personnel, it is incum-
bent upon the states to make certain that the traditionally black
institutions-and black citizens generally-have an expanded role
to play in the development of unitary higher education sys-

The Foundation was established in 1937 to bring together four family
philanthropies that go back as far as 1867. As indicated earlier, it has a
principal focus upon the education of black children.

Institute for Services to Education

ISE is a Washington, D.C.-based organization which is involved in
programs of support for black colleges. Its latest activity includes the
establishment of a Center for Research, Information and Technical Assis-
tance (CRITA). It is designed to serve as a resource and information
center for use in desegregation procedures in higher education. CRITA
officials have as their technical assistance strategies:

Publication of a Source Book which is designed to synthesize
current information on legal and educational desegregation

Circulation of a Newsletter that would provide up-dated infor-
mation on desegregation matters.

Establishment of a data bank on desegregation issues.

Sponsorship of seminars designed to facilitate good decision-

As one reviews the purposes of these organizations, one recognizes
that most operate on the premise that a feeder system is operative with the
degree of sufficiency that will provide a talent pool from which post-second-
ary institutions can draw sufficient minority enrollment. Only NAFEOHE
and CRITA appear to recognize the limited gains that elementary-secondary
school desegregation has accomplished. The retrogression and the resegrega-
tion of the public schools have resulted in a dissipation of a large minority
talent pool and a mistreatment of equal educational opportunity in the
higher education arena will only serve to perpetuate the racism and ethno-
centrism that so many people are fighting to ameliorate.

The Chicago-Southern Network of the Study Commission
on Undergraduate Education and the Education of Teachers

CSN-SCUEET is one of four Study Commission Networks. It began by
focusing primarily upon an improvement of the educational delivery system
in Chicago. Later, the network expanded its activities to include a review
of how black colleges in the South are training teachers, inasmuch as more
than 90 percent of the black teachers have been produced by black colleges.

A concomitant activity was an expression of the concern for the
retention and expansion of the black colleges in order that they may enhance
their services to all students. The result has been a series of publications
emanating from the sponsorship of conferences and research activities. The
network has utilized personnel at Florida A and M University and other
black institutions to assist it in activities relative to black colleges and teacher

What is presently needed is a grand strategy calling for a coordination
of the various organizational activities in order that their activities can be
felt on a far greater scale. Recognizing that independence accords more
autonomy and aggrandizement than interdependence, it might be just as
appropriate to have an informal coalition of organizational representatives
which could assist in replicating some activities with various constituencies
and patrons. Concomitantly, there should be a reconciliation of organiza-
tional philosophies that enhance diversified, non-contradictory strategies.

Finally, NAFEOHE should assume the great challenge of making sure
that organizational activities are in consonance with the needs of not only
minorities but society as a whole because organizations are run by human
beings who may not necessarily have the commitment to equal educational
opportunity in a manner consistent with a multi-cultural society.

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs