Is Higher Education Desegregation a Remedy for Segregation but not Educational Inequality?: A Study of the Ayers v. Mabus Desegregation Case

Abstract

The Supreme Court has recently been asked to rule if the state of Mississippi has met the freedom of choice standard used to determine whether or not to end a state's obligation to enact affirmative measures to undo the effects and vestiges of racial inequality brought about by segregation in public systems of higher education. In previous court rulings (Ayers I, 1987; Ayers III, 1990) the state has prevailed in arguing that it has ceased discriminatory enrollment practices at its public institutions of higher education and that Blacks are no longer restricted to racially defined schools. Blacks and Whites currently attend and are employed in all eight schools in Mississippi's public institutions of higher learning (IHL) system, which includes its three formerly all-Black colleges (Alcorn State University, Jackson State University, and Mississippi Valley State University) and its five formerly all-White colleges (University of Mississippi, University of Southern Mississippi, Mississippi State University, Delta State University, and Mississippi University for Women). The state further contends that because it has adopted race-neutral policies and procedures that give all college-bound students, Black and White, unfettered freedom of choice, its public system of higher education is now desegregated. The overriding argument is that freedom of choice constitutes equal opportunity. In higher education students do choose their schools, and enrollment in a specific college (or any college at all) is not required by the state. However, the presence of freedom of choice has long been denied as evidence of satisfactorily remedying segregation in public schools. In 1976 the state of Mississippi was sued by Ayers, the Black plaintiff, for operating a separate and unequal system of higher education. The case was tried in the northern district court of Mississippi in 1987. At that time, the judge ruled that the state had fulfilled its duty to create a free-choice, race-neutral system. The decision was reversed by a three-