Desegregation In Higher Education Research Articles

The impact of guidance counselling on gender segregation: Major choice and persistence in higher education. An experimental study.

Gender segregation in higher education is considered one of the main drivers of persistent economic gender inequality. Yet, though there has been considerable research identifying and describing the underlying mechanisms that cause gendered educational choices in higher education, little is known about how gender segregation in higher education could be changed. Accordingly, this article aims to determine the potential of educational interventions during high school to foster gender desegregation in higher education. We focused on two different processes that contribute to gender segregation in majors among higher education graduates: first, the selection into specific majors and, second, the selection out of specific majors. We investigated whether an intensive counselling programme leads to more gender-atypical choices among high-school graduates and examined whether intensive counselling supports several indicators of students' persistence in gender-atypical majors. Based on data from an experimental study of a counselling programme for German high-school students (N = 625), we estimated the programme's effect with linear probability models and intention-to-treat analysis. Our results show that high-school graduates are more likely to choose a gender-atypical major if they have received intensive counselling. This applies more to men than to women. In addition, the programme improved some persistence indicators for students in gender-atypical majors. Although we found a significant programme effect only for perceived person-major fit and student satisfaction, the coefficients of all aspects of students' persistence show a trend indicating that the programme was beneficial for students in gender-atypical majors. As experimental studies can also be affected by various types of bias, we performed several robustness checks. All analyses indicated stable results. In conclusion, we suggest that intensive counselling programmes have the potential to reduce gender segregation in higher education. More students were motivated to choose a gender-atypical major, and different aspects of student persistence were supported by the programme for students in gender-atypical majors.

<em>Utility of V. O. Key’s Black Population Density Theory in the Desegregation of Southern U.S. Public Universities 1948–1963</em>

Southern state colleges and universities' responses to African American applicants varied considerably from 1940 through 1963. Faced with qualified Black applicants backed by the NAACP, social movements, and federal authorities-some state and university officials admitted Black students with fairly little resistance, whereas others stonewalled, created new barriers, but eventually conceded. Arkansas was the first southern state to admit a Black student to a publicly funded state college, and South Carolina was last. What accounts for the sequence by which the eleven southern states admitted the first African Americans to state universities? This article provides an overview of the first Black entrants to southern state public colleges, analyzes the effects of United States Supreme Court rulings on higher education desegregation, and offers a provisional explanation for how state-level defenses to desegregation fell. The aim is to explain social and political factors that contributed to higher education desegregation in the 50s and 60s, thereby enabling individuals and organizations to formulate strategies to address present day inequities and injustices.To that end, this essay investigates the utility of V. O. Key's (1984) analytical framework in Southern Politics in State and Nation. Key posited that varying rates of Black population density within and across eleven Southern states affected local and regional political development in the mid-twentieth century. In Black Belt counties where African Americans lived and worked in higher numbers, White supremacist elites controlled political institutions to protect their economic and social interests at the state and national level (Key, 1984).Key's analysis showed that while race was part of the political debate, more importantly, the need to control labor in rural agricultural regions drove White elites to devise political strategies to resist federal intervention in southern state and local race-related policies. Elite Whites influenced national elections to ensure a unified bloc would veto Black civil rights legislation in the U.S. Congress. Key also noted that race was not a salient political factor in some areas of the southern states, particularly in cities, the highlands, and coastal areas, where the economy was not dependent on large-scale agriculture. Key noted that demographic and economic changes would eventually transform southern political culture.If Key is correct that the percentage of Black population determined the nature of political control in southern states, then one can estimate that states with the highest percentage of Blacks should offer massive resistance to desegregation because White political elites will influence education policy decisions. Questions raised in this essay are: In the realm of higher education desegregation, does Key's demographic theory explain state level variation in resistance to federal desegregation rulings? Did other social, political, and economic factors affect the timing and circumstances of desegregation in different states?The article begins with a brief history of southern Black education, a table outlining the first undergraduate or graduate Black applicant accepted into a southern public university in each southern state, a comparative analysis of state public universities' level of resistance to desegregation prior to and following the Brown v. Board Education (1954, 1955) rulings, and an examination of four case studies that represent all levels of state university resistance to desegregation. Not all of the first entrants remained at or graduated from these universities. In at least one case, the university accepted students on a segregated basis. This examination does not claim that higher education desegregation ended with the admittance of Black students as many institutions continued to find ways to exclude Black graduate and undergraduate students. The intent is to understand some of the social and political factors that impacted the initial puncture in southern public university desegregation. …

Rawlsian Justice and the Ayers Settlement

In 2004 a near 30-year legal battle over higher education desegregation in Mississippi was settled with the state’s historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) to receive US$503 million over the course of 17 years. Nearly 65% of this funding is directed toward the recruitment and support of White students, with a significant share of endowment funding tied to the attainment and maintenance of 10% non-Black enrollments. To analyze the fairness of this settlement, I use the theoretical framework of justice as fairness and apply the tenets of Rawlsian theory. I find a mismatch between settlement terms and justice as fairness. Thus, as Rawls predicts, while the settlement is final, it fails to bring closure.

Mississippi higher education desegregation and the interest convergence principle: a CRT analysis of the ‘Ayers settlement’

The goal of the present paper is to recount a legal history of the Ayers case from its inception through the Fifth Circuit’s 2004 approval and the Supreme Court’s decline to review the 2001 settlement agreement, ending 30 years of litigation. Then from the critical race theoretical frame of interest convergence, I argue that while the ‘Ayers settlement’ ostensibly remedies the historic discrimination in the allocation of higher education funding in Mississippi, the primary beneficiaries of the settlement are white students. This final outcome of Ayers violates both the law of remedies and equal protection doctrine and stems from weariness in pursuit of the law suit, the costs of further delay of any remedy, and the lack of public attention to higher education desegregation. From a policy perspective, there is a concern for black students in Mississippi, the original persons represented in the Ayers suit. If it is the case that Mississippi’s HBCUs fail to meet and maintain white enrollment targets, then ultimately black students at those institutions will continue suffer. Endowments will not be granted by the state and the improvements to each of the institutions fiscally, physically and programmatically will be stymied. Yet, the work of desegregation in Mississippi will be said to have been completed.

Litigation Trends in the Desegregation of Higher Education

The desegregation of higher education institutions was achieved in large part by the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund's litigation strategies. This paper outlines the major cases litigated before and after Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Legal Defense Fund's motivations for choosing the plaintiffs, jurisdictions, and legal theories behind the litigation. Generally, Legal Defense Fund litigation strategy in its first cases alleged violations of equal protection and sought admission for individuals, rather than groups, to graduate programs. After Brown and the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, LDF's strategy shifted toward a role of enforcement and compliance. The paper includes a case study of Knight v. Alabama, an ongoing desegregation case at the University of Alabama, which was filed in 1980 and litigated in federal district and circuit courts. Knight represents the remaining litigation and judicial oversight of higher education desegregation plans, including admissions policies, which are still ongoing, especially in the South. This paper and others like it are available at the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse through the website of Washington University in St. Louis.

Derailing Desegregation: Legal Efforts to End Racial Segregation in Higher Education Before and After Brown

Preceded by recent affirmative action rulings, the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education(1954) came during a time of legal retreat away from addressing racial issues. Rather than resolve America's race problems, the history and modern structure of Brown and other higher education desegregation cases indicates that the courts are no more prepared to adequately confront social inequalities, which are propagated and manipulated by race than during the years of de jure segregation. Focusing on the years leading up to and after the Brown decision, this study looks at the impact this case had on attempts to adjudicate changes to segregation policies affecting higher education. Essentially, this article seeks to demonstrate that contemporary judicial opinions affecting collegiate desegregation both result from and have made little progress since the initial publication of Brown.

Legal and Policy Issues: Removing the Residue of past Segregation in Higher Education

This article examines the impact of the Knight v. Alabama ruling by looking at undergraduate student demographic data for historically Black Alabama A& M University and Alabama State University and traditionally White Auburn University and the University of Alabama. It also evaluates developments in higher education in Alabama after the Knight decision. Moreover, the article endeavors to determine if the state has been slow in implementing the court's ruling. The decision in the case ultimately held that vestiges of de jure segregation were still extant in Alabama universities and colleges. The federal district court ruled that the state of Alabama needed to take steps to rectify the situation. The court also mandated that Alabama engage in affirmative efforts to eradicate the remaining residue of discrimination and segregation. INTRODUCTION The history of segregation and desegregation in higher education has been well documented in annals of legal history. Segregation and desegregation remain an issue in America, and some wonder if the principles enunciated in Brown will ever truly take hold (Stefkovich & Leas, 1994). With Brown v. Board of Education (1954) serving as the anchor case, desegregation history can be divided into two eras-the old and new. The old-era cases primarily dealt with overturning statesanctioned segregation. Seminal cases from the old era consist of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), Berea College v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (1908), Missouri ex r el. Gaines v. Canada (1938), Pearson v. Murry (1936), Sipuel v. Oklahoma (1948), McLaurin v. Oklahoma (1950), and Sweatt v. Painter (1950). The new-era cases deal with equity in higher education for historically Black colleges and universities. Some seminal cases of the new era are Adams v. Richardson (1973), Ayers v. Fordice (1997), United States v. Fordice (1992), Geier v. Alexander (1984), United States v. Alabama (1987), Knight v. Alabama (1991), and United States v. Louisiana (1993). REMAINING RESIDUE OF SEGREGATION The federal court ruling in Knight v. Alabama represents the problems of truly integrating educational institutions in the southern states in the modern era. The decision in the case ultimately held that vestiges of de jure segregation still existed in institutions of higher learning in Alabama and that the State of Alabama needed to take steps to rectify the situation. The federal district court ruling in the case mandated that Alabama engage in affirmative efforts to break down the remaining residue of discrimination and segregation, including such affirmative actions as actively recruiting more African American students and faculty to the historically White state schools, ensuring that the historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) within the state receive appropriate resources and funding, and ensuring that White students are recruited for HBCUs and that diversity is promoted at the state's HBCUs. The case of Knight v. Alabama originated from a Title VI compliance investigation of Alabama's public higher education by the U.S. Office of Civil Rights and U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. In 1981, Governor Fob James and the presidents of the state's public higher education institutions received letters from the U.S. Department of Education alleging that vestiges of the former de jure segregated system remained in the state's universities and colleges, which, if true, was a violation of Title VI. Alabama was directed to submit a plan that would ensure that all remaining residue of segregation would be removed. Nineteen other southern and border states were ordered to prepare plans as well (Brown, 1999; Freer, 1982). After months of unsuccessful negotiations between the Governor's office and the Office of Civil Rights, the Assistant secretary for the Office of Civil Rights sent a letter to Governor James stating that within 10 days of receipt of the letter Alabama must submit a plan or the matter would be referred to the United States justice Department for litigation. …

From Brown to Ayers v. Fordice: the changing shape of racial desegregation in US higher education

Racial desegregation in higher education is taking on a new direction as the twenty‐first century approaches. The Brown v. Board of Education decision brought down legal racial barriers to segregated education, and this landmark US Supreme Court ruling was implicitly intended to apply to higher education as well. The positive changes for African Americans in removing racial barriers contributed significantly to the civil rights movement and opening avenues of opportunity. Yet, there has always been a fundamental tension between the removal of the vestiges of racial segregation to create equal educational opportunity, and the activist stance of addressing historical and current discriminatory educational policies. This is evident in the recent higher education desegregation and affirmative cases as the Federal Courts advocate the colour‐blind interpretation of higher education desegregation law and educational policy, while African Americans argue in favour of the enhancement of the public Historically Black Colleges and Universities and the explicit use of race as a form of diversity. This article examines the salient positions and racial identity politics surrounding this tension. I also argue that broader issues of racial control and power need to be addressed by educational institutions, the courts and the larger society in the debate about race, social justice and the removal of the vestiges of segregation.

A Legal History of Desegregation in Higher Education

The white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country. And so it is, in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth and in power. So, I doubt not, it will continue to be for all time, if it remains true to its great heritage and holds fast to the principles of constitutional liberty. But in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. (Justice John Marshall Harlan, dissenting opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896, p. 559)For almost a century now, the American judiciary has struggled with issues of segregation and desegregation in higher education. Justice Harlan's simplistic characterization of a color-blind Constitution fails to address adequately our contemporary racially stratified, culturally diverse, and economically divided nation (Gotanda, 1991). The United States Supreme Court's 1992 decision in United States v. Fordice is only the most recent of many unsuccessful attempts to solve this thorny problem. With litigation still under way in several states, the Court's ruling in Fordice does not promise to be the final word on this topic. The issue of desegregation in higher education remains unresolved for many reasons--some of which are examined in this article.Focusing on United States Supreme Court rulings, this article highlights legal, educational, and social issues surrounding the court-ordered desegregation of higher education. It also offers insights about the general effectiveness of the Court's rulings in this vital area. To accomplish this task, the article is divided into three parts. Part one provides a chronological, historical perspective of important court cases as well as relevant federal legislation on this topic.(1) Part two introduces and discusses concepts of academic freedom at the postsecondary level and their influence on higher education desegregation efforts. Part three concludes the article and offers a partial explanation why the judiciary has been unable to desegregate higher education.THE LEGAL HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVEThe legal history of higher education desegregation is appropriately divided into three distinct segments. The first period, starting in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, focuses on early law that emphasized equal protection as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Stressing the importance of institutions and facilities, these decisions maintained that a separate education may be an equal education and, in essence, supported laws that mandated separate facilities for the races.During the second period, which began in the late 1930s and reached its apex with such important rulings as Sweatt v. Painter (1950) and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents (1950), the focus shifted from the institution to the individual, as individual plaintiffs, mostly African Americans, sued to attend the institution of their choice. In some of these cases, no separate facility was available while in others, such as Sweatt, a facility was available but the Supreme Court deemed that it was not equal. These cases began to question the separate but equal doctrine as it applied to higher education, and they laid the groundwork for the Court's 1954 Brown v. Board of Education declaration that, when it comes to education, separate is inherently unequal.The third period shifted emphasis back to the institution. Encompassing litigation that occurred after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, this analysis focused on cases that called for dismantling dual systems of education for Whites and Blacks and that reconsidered the role of choice in this process. Desegregation litigation in higher education during this period is best characterized by the most recent applicable Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Fordice (1992). …

Media Inertia in Reporting on Southern Higher Education Desegregation Cases

Media Inertia in Reporting on Southern Higher Education Desegregation Cases

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

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-

Desegregation in Higher Education: An Examination of Traditionally Black and White Institutions*

Using the data collection techniques of historical analysis, secondary analysis of EEO‐6 records, mailed questionnaires, and personal interviews, race relations among trustees, administrators, and faculty in the southeastern United States were examined during the late 1970s and early 1980s. The conclusion that blacks at traditionally white institutions (TWI) (1) had more tenuous job status, (2) experienced less job satisfaction, (3) experienced greater degrees of institutional alienation, and (4) more often stated a need for affirmative action programs than did their white colleagues at the same institution will surprise no one. Similar patterns and perceptions were found for whites at traditionally black institutions (TBI) where whites were in the “minority.” Although whites at TBIs remained members of the societal majority group as traditionally defined in the sociology of intergroup relations, their position and perceptions within specific TBIs were remarkably similar to the experience of black professionals at TWIs. Some implications for policy are drawn.

The Role of Gubernatorial Leadership in Desegregation in Public Higher Education

What is the role of the governor in achieving desegregation in public higher education in the states of the Old Confederacy? What can or will a state governor do with regard to such desegregation, considering the political nature of his office? How much maneuverability does he have on this issue? What opportunity does he have for leadership here? Some students of Southern society maintain that the answers to all these questions are essentially in the negative, that the Southern governor has a minimal role regarding desegregation in higher education. It is argued that the climate of opinion that is established in a Southern state as a result of the interplay of factors like the heritage of the state, the racial composition of its population, the percentage of Negroes in its total active electorate, urbanization, industrialization, level of income, education, and the coherence of its political system is so rigid that no individual not even the elected leader of the state has any room for maneuver on such an emotional issue as school desegregation. According to this line of reasoning, the governor must act as prevailing opinion directs.

Dilemmas in Desegregation in Higher Education

Dilemmas in Desegregation in Higher Education

Desegregation in Higher Education

Desegregation in Higher Education

Progress in the Desegregation of Higher Education

Progress in the Desegregation of Higher Education

Desegregation in Higher Education: A Critical Summary

The current pattern of desegregation of higher education in the District of Columbia and the seventeen Southern and Border states* in which racial segregation in education was formerly required by law presents a varied and complex picture which makes an overall generalization difficult. However, three broad observations seem pertinent: (1) in the District of Columbia and in twelve of these seventeen states, desegregation of tax-supported institutions of higher education has been established in some degree ranging from token and partial compliance to complete acceptance; (2) in five of these states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina, described elsewhere in this volume as hard-core states) there has been no desegregation in tax-supported colleges up to the present time; and (3) there is no state among the seventeen in which there is not at least one desegregated college either by policy or in actual practice. It may be useful at this point to discuss briefly some of the changes which have taken place in the philosophy underlying the education of Negroes, especially as these changes have relevance for the progress of desegregation in higher education in these states. In broad perspective, four successive types of thinking have conditioned the education of the Negro in the United States, and especially in the South. First, there was from the beginning of slavery a strong belief in the uneducability of Negroes. After slavery, there developed the acceptance of the principle of the necessity of educating Negroes to improve their ability or to increase their capacity to render more efficient service in the economy, a principle to which Booker T. Washington lent the immense weight of his great personality and influence. This was followed by gradual acceptance of the principle of equality in public education, a type of thinking which found legal support from the courts under the doctrine of separate but equal. Finally, there was the gradual development of the principle of racially desegregated education, which, after approximately twenty years of development reached its climax in the United States Supreme Court decision of 1954. Thus, the education of the Negro in the United States has been a social process typified by a discernible continuity which has been affected by the changing relations between peoples in our own society at different periods of our history. A brief recounting of these changes may lend added perspective to the discussion.

Desegregation of Higher Education in Virginia

Desegregation of Higher Education in Virginia

Desegregation in Higher Education in Maryland

By law, by custom, by recent declaration, and/or by practice the institutions of higher learning in Maryland are committed to a policy whereby Negro Americans are not refused admission because of their In reply to the question, What is the present policy of your institution, twentyfour of twenty-five responding institutions checked affirmatively the following: To admit all qualified applicants, regardless of race. The additional respondent wrote that it admits the 'best qualified' rather than 'all qualified'.... No one is excluded solely on the basis of race.' The College Blue Book lists seventytwo institutions of higher learning in Maryland. This directory includes every type of institution and also gives separate listings to the constituent schools and of the larger institutions. Without the latter double entries the total number of institutions would be nearer to thirty-six, to which should be added seven community junior colleges recently established by school districts, on a more or less emergency basis. For this study information was requested from thirty-four institutions. Completed questionnaires were returned by twenty-four. The institutions identifying themselves as religious are sponsored by the

Desegregation in Higher Education in Delaware

Desegregation in Higher Education in Delaware