Affirmative Action Harms     Black Colleges

by Emmett Hogan

In recent years, a debate has arisen over the role played by historically black colleges in higher education. Created during the days of segregation in the South, these institutions served a valuable purpose: they gave black youths an opportunity to advance in society at a time when the channels available to whites were not open to them. Although historically black colleges can be found in 19 states, it should come as no surprise that most of them were established in the South. The state of Mississippi, which is 36% black, supports three such schools, along with five predominantly white schools.

With the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in 1954, the notion of a ‘separate but equal’ education was deemed inherently unconstitutional. As such, the initial justification for these schools ceased to exist. Yet no state closed a single historically black college. Indeed, many of them – such as Morehouse and Spelman in Georgia, and Howard in Washington, D.C. – have become reputable schools in their own right. Today, more than a quarter of black students earning a bachelor’s degree do so from one of 118 historically black institutions. They have opened up many doors for blacks, and are rightly seen as useful tools for ensuring growing prosperity for blacks in this country. Just as importantly, however, in the minds of many blacks, these schools are much-needed bastions where black heritage can be preserved and celebrated.

Last week, following in the paths of Louisiana, Alabama, and Tennessee, the state of Mississippi reached a settlement with plaintiffs in a long-standing case over desegregation and that state’s historically black colleges. The suit was originally brought against the state in 1975 by Mr. Jake Ayers, a resident of Mississippi and the father of a student at Jackson State, one of Mississippi’s historically black colleges. Mr. Ayers charged that the poor funding for the historically black colleges, relative to the five other public colleges in Mississippi, was inherently discriminatory. In time, the suit became a class-action measure; many other Mississippi residents, and even the Justice Department, jumped on board with the plaintiff. Only this past week was a settlement proposed: the state of Mississippi would funnel $503 million dollars into its historically black colleges (all of which are public institutions). Such is as it should be; an outright ruling in the case would have been controversial, and this agreement pledges Mississippi to do what it should have been doing anyway. The plaintiffs and the schools themselves are very pleased with the outcome. Attorney General John Ashcroft stated that the agreement "will increase access to quality educational opportunities and benefit all of Mississippi’s students and citizens."

But there’s a catch: in order to have access to the interest on the settlement money, the colleges have to launch an aggressive recruitment drive, aiming at increasing non-black enrollment to 10% within the next few years. This, of course, is an effort to diversify the historically black colleges.

As public institutions, the state’s historically black colleges should receive reasonable funding from the state. The settlement clearly provides that. But at the same time, this measure will undermine the very raison d’être for such schools. One settlement proposal put forward earlier in negotiations suggested that the historically black schools be merged with the other public colleges of Mississippi. The plaintiffs rejected this offer. Their justification, of course, was that it was not right to throw out the baby with the bathwater. It is counterintuitive to suggest that the best way to save the historically black colleges is to end their continued existence as such. It seems odd, then, that the plaintiffs would accept a provision that strongly encourages them to travel down this very road, albeit at a much more gradual pace.

Historically black colleges are not allowed to use differential standards or quotas for admission. Any white student, if qualified, can attend. But there can be no doubt that these institutions are geared to promoting and preserving black heritage, culture, and history, as well as providing opportunities for advancement for black students. The settlement is an implicit argument that historically black schools should abandon their heritage and become, essentially, ordinary state schools.

How may they accomplish this? Some schools, like Alcorn State, have had outreach programs for years, with little success. In order to have access to the interest on the endowment, these schools may be forced to take a drastic step: they may be compelled to lower their standards for admission. Such a move would mean that whites who were not accepted at the predominantly white state schools would give greater consideration to attending one of the historically black schools. This would be a dire change indeed. Weakening academic standards for the sake of higher white enrollment – all just to increase funds – does not strike the average person as a change for the better.

And the change will involve more than percentages. Mississippi’s historically black schools will not be able to promote their heritage as before. In essence, their missions will be compromised. Indeed, Jackson State’s charter announces as its mission "the moral, religious and intellectual improvement of Christian leaders of the colored people of Mississippi and the neighboring states". How long, one must ask, before a movement grows to have these words struck or changed? In sum, the threat is that these historically black colleges may end up having to compromise their heritage and their identity, in the name of desegregation. The irony is rich.

Indeed, these provisions should give pause to those most ardent supporters of affirmative action. The logic of affirmative action, applied to these historically black schools, would mean their end as historically black schools. If diversity, as they argue, is vital to a true learning experience, then there’s no reason why such should not be the case at historically black schools. The decision, then, shortchanges those blacks who choose to go to these institutions. Are supporters of affirmative action ready to accept this?

Conversely, opponents of affirmative action cannot deride the existence of historically black schools. By and large, however, this is not a problem. The ultimate benefit provided by these schools is choice: students should be allowed to choose whatever environment they like in which to pursue an education, without a mandate from on high dictating the circumstances under which they will be educated. Most opponents of affirmative action believe very strongly in this principle of choice, in elementary schools as well as in colleges. For this reason, then, most opponents of affirmative action tend not to oppose historically black colleges.

(It should be noted, furthermore, that Christian students seeking an education in an overtly Christian environment should have the right to attend schools like Bob Jones University. Our federal government pursues a hypocritical policy in this regard, because it refuses funding to Bob Jones University, while – as with this settlement – being quite willing to fund historically black colleges.)

What is the best course of action for historically black schools to take? The infusion of funds to the Mississippi schools because of this settlement will provide much-needed capital with which these schools can increase the quality of the education they provide as well as, consequently, their prestige. But historically black colleges throughout the country are plagued by weak alumni giving rates. And, although the United Negro College Fund serves as a valuable revenue source, most historically black colleges rely heavily on state funds. Wise investments may allow these schools, over the long term, to attract intelligent students who will acquire a good education, who will develop strong ties with their alma maters, and who may begin investing heavily in them.

This could provide the basis for what would be the wisest move for historically black colleges: going private. Most historically black colleges are owned by their respective states, a situation that provides them with cash but that could hamper the fostering of a consciously black identity. Assuming that Mississippi and other states would be willing to privatize their historically black institutions, this plan could prove very promising. But it will not be possible if alumni giving rates do not improve dramatically. Don’t expect any school even to begin toying with the idea for another twenty years at least.

Does allowing historically black institutions to persist constitute a violation of Brown v. Board? Not at all. As long as admissions policies do not mandate that blacks must go to a separate school system, there is no problem in this regard. Nor does the existence of state-sponsored historically black colleges violate the Civil Rights Act. As long as no such school has a policy that explicitly discriminates against white students, and as long as no predominantly white school explicitly discriminates against minority students, then the stipulations of the act are satisfied.

But these schools should not be expected to abandon their identity and their heritage. Any historically black school that pursues a goal of increasing white enrollment will be abandoning both their identity and their heritage in the process. It is entirely their right to do so, of course; if Jackson State wants to become just another state college, that’s the school’s decision to make.

But so long as the black communities of Mississippi and America desire schools that offer an environment strongly associated with black heritage, they should at least have that choice.