To: Dr. Linda Darling-Hammond
Director, Transition Work Group on Public Education &
Dr. Robert Shireman, Dr. John Jackson, Judith Winston, and other members of the Education Policy Transition Work Group, Agency Review Work Group and Economic Stimulus Work Group From: Dr. Lezli Baskerville, President & CEO, NAFEO
RE: HBCU and PBI Policy Recommendations for Obama Economic Stimulus Package and First 100 Days
On behalf of the presidents and chancellors of the nation’s Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Predominantly Black Institutions (PBIs)- public, private and land-grant, two-year, four-year, graduate and professional institutions in 35 states, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands--who are the members of the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education (NAFEO), and the 500,000 students, 53,000 faculty and 5 million alumni represented by our member institutions, I thank you for soliciting our input as you prepare recommendations for President-elect Obama’s economic stimulus package, his first 100 days in office and beyond. It is our privilege to offer below some initial recommendations with the understanding that we will revise, extend, and resubmit our recommendations as the policy-shaping process progresses.
Notably, as the membership association for America’s black colleges and universities, the membership or its designated work group must approve positions offered by the association. Our membership met in informal session this past weekend at the annual meeting of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). Forty-three of our executives attended, representing private and public HBCUs and PBIs, 2-and 4-year institutions. They discussed the recommendations contained herein and agreed that they should be advanced on behalf of the HBCUs and PBI communities for inclusion in President-elect Obama’s economic stimulus package and his First 100-days.
The HBCU and PBI Community and its allies will meet in Atlanta, Georgia April 1-4, 2009, with a broad and diverse group of stakeholders reflecting the entire education and workforce continuum, and reach consensus on a National Agenda on Blacks in Higher Education for the next eight years. It is our hope that policymakers and opinion leaders from the White House and the Administration will join us in this undertaking that is being co-hosted by NAFEO-UNCF-TMCF, other partners, with support from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, other foundations, and corporate partners.
We are also looking forward to working closely with the executives in the Obama Administration to flesh out ideas and to shape a national education policy that will promote excellence, equity, access and success for all students, especially those who have been traditionally underserved.
I am respectfully requesting a meeting at the earliest mutually convenient time between the Education Policy Transition Work Group and Economic Policy Transition Work Group and the presidents and chancellors who serve on the NAFEO-UNCF-TMCF-AMPHS (American Minority Public Health Schools) Joint Legislative Committee. This is a team of presidents and chancellors reflecting the breadth and scope of our membership (public, private, land-grant, small, large, mid-sized, urban, rural, metropolitan, 2- and 4-year, graduate and professional institutions).
Thank you again, for affording NAFEO the opportunity to submit the following recommendations.
If I may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at (202) 552-3333 (directly in the office); (202) 552-3300 (main number); (202) 439-4704 (Blackberry).
Economic Stimulus Package Recommendations (1) INCREASE OR AT A MINIMUM, LEVEL FUND TITLE IIIB. INCREASED IIIB FUNDING WITH GUARANTEED ADJUSTMENTS FOR INFLATION WILL STIMULATE THE ECONOMY, STRENGTHEN THE ECONOMIC STIMULUS PIPELINE, GUARANTY A DIVERSE, WELL TRAINED WORKFORCE TO RESTORE THE NATION TO GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS.
Title III Funding is the Lifeblood of HBCUs. The Bush Administration proposes to cut Title IIIB funding from $238.1M to $153.1M. This would represent roughly a $1M per HBCU cut in funding. Such a reduction will destabilize the HBCU community. We urge the Obama Administration to propose funding Title IIIB at a rate sufficient to reflect the 2008 HEA Amendments with Inflation Indexed Adjustments Title IIIB of the Higher Education Act of 1965 was first enacted by Congress as part of the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1986 (P.L. 99-498), as the Historically Black College and University Act. Title IIIB programs, Strengthening the Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Title IIIB funds are the lifeblood of HBCUs. Title III funding keeps open the doors to the nation’s 103 Historically Black Colleges and Universities by providing us a stable financial platform of minimal funding for the nation’s quintessential equal educational opportunity institutions. The creation of Title III was legislation reflective of the core Civil Rights movement and essentially a recognition of this nation’s history of invidious discrimination against the progeny of slaves in higher education; of the lingering impact of years of non-support; and to this day, unequal support by states, funders, corporations and others for the nation’s original and premiere mission-based equal educational opportunity higher education institutions that we call HBCUs. By allowing us to keep our doors open, Title IIIB has instead enabled us to provide access to higher education, currently for as many as 500,000 students, many of whom would never have had the opportunity were we not here. Title IIIB currently provides funding for 97 historically black college and university (HBCU) undergraduate programs that meet the definition in section 322(2) of the Higher Education Act, as amended by the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, as well as for 24 historically black graduate institutions (HBGIs) specifically named in section 326. These 24 institutions provide graduate and professional education in the physical and natural sciences, medicine, veterinary medicine, dentistry, law, pharmacy and related fields in which African Americans are underrepresented. A three-pronged formula determines the amount of each institution's award under section 323 (undergraduate), while five factors are used to determine the allocation of funds to the HBG Is under section 326. (In addition to increasing from 18 to 24 the number of HBGIs, the 2008 HEA amendments included a new provision, Section 706, which establishes a new historically black colleges and predominately black institutions masters degree grant program to enable designated institutions to grow their masters programs in the Section 326 high need and growth areas. A total of 24 institutions are eligible for grants under this program. Despite a clear record of quantifiable, affirmative outcomes flowing from the investment of Title IIIB dollars, in its last proposed budget, the Bush Administration recommended a substantial cut in Title III funding such that current Title IIIB recipients would experience roughly a $1 million cut in funding. Not one HBCU can continue to thrive with level of funding loss. This would destabilize the HBCU community. We respectfully request that the Obama Administration propose funding the Title III program minimally at a level that reflects the current funding level with an inflation index adjustment.
Title IIIB dollars are transforming HBCUs to meet the challenges of a new century with cutting cutting-edge projects in agriculture, science, technology, and international education. They are enabling HBCUs to provide vital education, health care, human needs, economic and community development, and recreation services for the communities in which they are located.
HBCUs are offering a good return on the investment. According to data from The College Board’s Trends in College Pricing, and the 2008 NAFEO Enrollment Survey of HBCUs, private HBCUs on average cost $10,000 per year less than their white counterparts, when tuition, fees, room and board are factored in. Public HBCUs on average cost $1,000 less than their white counterparts. Using Title IIIB programs, over the course of the past 29 years, HBCUs have made remarkable strides. Consider these facts:
- HBCUs represent only three percent (3%) of all colleges and universities, yet they enroll sixteen percent (16%) of all African Americans in 4-year degree granting institutions;
- They graduate thirty percent (30%) of African Americans receiving 4-year degrees, and forty percent (40%) of African Americans receiving 4-year degrees in STEM areas;
- Twenty-four percent (24%) of all PhDs earned each year by African Americans are conferred by twenty four (24) HBCUs;
- Eighteen (18) of the top twenty-three (23) producers of African Americans who go on to receive science related PhDs are HBCUs;
- Four (4) of the top ten (10) producers of successful African American medical school applicants are HBCUs. These HBCUs produce twenty percent (20%) more African American applicants than the other six (6) institutions combined;
- Eight (8) of the top ten (10) producers of African American engineers are HBCUs.
It is expected that Title III programs will be more sorely needed than ever so that HBCUs can continue to evolve to meet the changing characteristics of today’s students, today’s civic, social, political, ecumenical and laborforce needs. As you are aware, in the forty plus years since the Higher Education Act was passed, the more than 30 years since Title IIIB was enacted, the nation has become more colored, more culturally diverse, more global, more technological, and more virtual. The cost of higher education has escalated to keep pace with the growing scientific, security, and technological demands of the day: demands for information now, information on-the-go, and to expand the reach of the information we have and information we need beyond the boarders of campuses, counties, states, regions, and nations. Title III programs are enabling HBCUs to keep pace.
It is projected that an even greater burden will be placed on HBCUs in the coming decade as the national demographics change. It is projected that by the year 2050, one-half of the United States will be "minorities". Because HBCUs educate a disproportionate number of racial and ethnic minorities, it can be expected that a greater proportion of those seeking a higher education in and around 2050 will choose to attend an HBCU. Add to the demographics the financial stagnation that is projected for American workers well into the next century, and the retrenchment in student grant-aid programs, and it becomes clear that the demands on HBCUs-- which cost significantly less than many of their white counterparts--will be even greater than they are today. Well into the next century, HBCUs will not only be required to "remain at the creative forefront of American education, offering tools and skills necessary to prepare students for today's competitive and technological society, but they will also be required to increase the role that they play as providers of social services.
Title III programs are needed for one additional reason according to a 2004 report by Thomas G Mortenson, the Senior Scholar at The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education. Title IIIB programs are needed so that HBCUs can keep educating diverse students at a time when the nation’s flagship institutions are not doing a good job. The Mortenson Report found that at this time when state public higher education institutions should be doing more to enroll and graduate traditionally underrepresented populations, because of their growing numbers in the population, most of our flagship universities are doing a grossly inadequate job of enrolling African Americans, Hispanics, and American Indians.
Despite some recent progress, among the universities that Dr. Mortenson found to be least engaged in enrolling underrepresented minorities present in higher education in their states and most segregated are: the University of Georgia, University of Mississippi at Oxford, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, University of Delaware, University of Texas, Austin, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville--all states with HBCUs. The Mortenson report goes further to conclude,
“As these state flagship universities disengage from the demographic changes occurring in their states, they diminish their justification for further state financial support for their operations. As flagships increasingly focus on the affluent shrinking majority populations in their states, then state political leaders should reallocate state higher education investment resources toward those institutions and programs that are serving these growing populations on which the state futures depend.
“To maximize social welfare and diminish the many divisions that fracture our nation, federal resources devoted to broadening higher education should also be reallocated. Institutions that are disengaged from serving the rowing demographic groups on which country’s future depends should be suspended from further Title IV student financial aid program eligibility. Institutions that are disengaged should be placed on probation and challenged to engage or face suspension. And those institutions that are reaching out to these growing demographic groups should be strongly supported for the important work they are doing.
“Moreover, many of these same state flagship universities that are turning away from addressing demographic opportunities have accumulated significant endowments (profits) that remain tax free: UT system ($8.7B), Univ of VA ($1.8B), Ohio State U ($1.2B) UNC CH ($1.1B) Penn State U ($.900M), University of Illinois ($900M), University of Delaware ($900M)
“These public universities have accumulated huge profits but most appear unable or unwilling to enroll their state shares of underrepresented minority populations. They do not lack resources-they lack will.”
The Mortenson Report has public policy implications worthy of our consideration. As we seek to invest more equitably and efficiently in higher education, to prod higher education access and success, and to focus on outcomes-based education, consideration should be given to investing proportionately more in those institutions, like HBCUs, HSIs, and AIHEC institutions that continue to enroll and graduate disproportionate numbers of traditionally underserved students. This approach would foster at least three important higher education goals: (1) promoting access to postsecondary education; (2) containing college costs and prices; and (3) fostering standards and accountability.
(2) INCLUDE $7 MILLION “BAILOUT” FOR HBCUS IN DIRE FINANCIAL SITUATIONS
As we prepare for the inauguration of the 44th President of the United states of America - the first African American head of the Free World - and the convening of the 111th Congress, and as we continue focusing on the important and delicate process of attempting to bailout Wall Street and “Main Street,” shore up the Nation’s financial systems and institutions, and stimulate the economy, NAFEO respectfully requests that you consider including in President-elect Obama’s stimulus package, $7M to the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education (NAFEO)-- the nation’s only national membership association of public and private 2-and 4-year Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Predominantly Black Institutions (PBIs)-- for the purpose of establishing an HBCUs Development Fund to shore up HBCUs that are in dire financial situations owing to no failings of the institutions themselves. As you are aware, since the period just after the Civil War, HBCUs have been the cornerstones of economic development, stimulus of growth and wealth in the black community. Today, HBCUs continue to graduate 60% of African Americans with four-year degrees in engineering; 40% with four-year degrees in the sciences, technology, and mathematics; 50% of African American teachers; and 40% of African American health professionals. They are continuing to account for disproportionate numbers of diverse entrants into the labor force; and HBCUs are well situated to continue preparing the increasing student populations (African Americans and Latinos) for responsibilities of adulthood. All of this was documented in a House Committee on Education & Labor congressional hearing, which was grounded in a NAFEO publication, The State of America’s Black Colleges. Financial stabilization is needed for HBCUs. Unfortunately, much like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers and others of the financial giants, there are a number of stellar HBCUs that today are facing closure, or whose future hangs in the balance because of inadequate funding, not owing to mismanagement or any other dereliction of financial stewardship responsibilities. A modest grant to NAFEO in the amount of $7M from the Secretary of the Treasury could enable the membership association of the presidents and chancellors of America’s HBCUs and PBIs to assist to stabilize and revitalize the affected institutions. The $7M would be one of the best investments the nation could make toward stimulating the economy.
NAFEO proposes to receive the funds into an economic relief trust fund (HBCUs Development Fund), then using the below definition and formula that was widely vetted among institutions in immediate need, members of Congress, and other stakeholders, make grants available to “affected institutions.” The grant recipients would be provided technical assistance and monitoring to ensure the effective and efficient use of the dollars, and the desired results. NAFEO would establish a trust fund and an 11-memebr Board of Governors to ensure the efficient, effective, and transparent management of the funds. The Board would report to the Secretary of the Treasury.
While the request for the above funding as part of the Economic Stimulus Package is a one-time request for funding, it is expected that during the funding year, FY 2009, the administrator of the HBCU Development and the Board of Governors will identify funds and put in place a structure and granting criteria for a sustained HBCUs Development Fund. “Affected institution” means an institution of higher education that – (A) is an HBCU as defined in the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, Title III, Part B;
(B) has limited financial capacity to effectively modernize its campus and compete for students; and
(C) is able to demonstrate based on data from the academic year ending in 2007 that – (i) the student body declined at some point during the ten (10) -year periods from 1997 through 2007
(ii) the institution has long term debt under $10 million;
(iii) the institution has a marketable invested endowment under $15 million;
(iv) the institution has total net assets under $35 million exclusive of art held for investment.
The HBCU Development Fund will be governed by an 11-Member Board of Governors that- (A) is comprised of the presidents of NAFEO, UNCF, and TMCF; 2 private college or university presidents (or their CFO designees); 2 public college or university presidents (or their CFO designees); one 2-year institution; three (3) finance professionals selected by the NAFEO Board of Directors. The NAFEO Board of Directors shall establish the terms of service for the board members and mode of operation;
(B) The NAFEO Board of Directors shall establish the mode and means for continuing the operations of the HBCU Development Fund. While NAFEO will have to work with the entire community of HBCUs to determine precisely how many HBCUs are “affected institutions” within the definition of the Fund, it is known that at least the following institutions are in dire financial circumstances and in need of an immediate infusion of capital to remain viable: Bennett College, NC; Clinton Jr. College, SC; Fisk University, TN; Huston Tillotston, TX; LeMoyne Owen College, TN; Talladega College, AL; Tougaloo College, MS; and Voorhees College, SC. Please give this request your every favorable consideration. The nation’s ability to realize its educational excellence and diversity goals, as well as its ability to regain eminence internationally will be profoundly and adversely affected if these institutions and other similarly situated institutions are permitted to falter or fail. At this time in which an educated and diverse citizenry is essential to stimulating the national economy; at this time in which the numbers of black and brown students graduating from high school are increasing, and when HBCUs are continuing to graduate disproportionate percentages of black and brown students in growth and high needs disciplines, the nation has a direct and immediate interest in stimulating the survival and progress of HBCUs and PBIs. For these and other reasons, I respectfully request that the members of the Education Policy Transition Work Group accept this recommendation.
Alternative to the Above Grant Program - Should the members of the Education Policy Transition Work Group and the new Administration not be amenable to establishing the above one-time federal grant program to “bailout” a limited number of HBCUs that are in dire financial situations, it is proposed that appropriate adjustments be made to the HBCU Capital Finance Program to permit the referenced institutions and other “affected institutions” as above defined, to access loan capital. NAFEO, UNCF and TMCF jointly advanced the idea of an adjustment to the HBCU Capital Finance Program, using the above definition or some variation thereof, of “affected institution.” One potential funding stream for the continuation of the HBCU Development Fund beyond the initial federal “bailout” is through the Community Links Foundation with which NAFEO is currently engaged in discussion. A minor adjustment to Section 529 of the United State Tax Code would be required to enable the Community Links Foundation to realize its potential as a stream of private funding for HBCUs.
CommunityLink Foundation (CLF), a 501c3 private foundation, uses the mature electronic banking interchange of credit and debit card purchasing to provide new funding sources for higher education (college, vocational school or job training); charitable nonprofit services; and rapid, targeted support for disaster relief. The companion Ferdinand Fund, provides a vehicle for youth engagement in giving, saving, and assuming personal financial responsibility. Background About CLF Using proven electronic financial technologies, re-distributing marketing dollars, and providing incentives for donor contributions.
While created for credit and debit card purchases, through CLF, the highly efficient electronic banking interchange is harnessed to re-direct 3-6% of the charges embedded in a consumer or business purchasing transaction. Fees that normally go to the banks, merchants, and manufacturer or supplier are diverted to four options selected online by the cardholder. The options can be easily changed as desired. All or a portion of each transaction can go to: a) 529 higher education account(s) set up by the cardholder; b) contributions to tax exempt charities; c) time sensitive local, state, national or international disaster relief funds; d) or as reimbursement to the cardholder. CLF has an IRS private letter ruling determining that these gift options qualify as charitable deductions. Financial institutions, merchants, and manufacturers/suppliers will provide these considerations in return for the marketing power, consumer loyalty, and tax deductions built into the exchange. Consumers may also voluntarily contribute additional funds at each purchase. Rather than incur new expenses, the bank, manufacturer, supplier, and merchants simply redistribute marketing expenditures to the CLF card purchase program. They may also choose to use the system for a portion or all of their corporate giving, or education benefits for their employees. Consumers, with no additional expense, will be empowered to contribute to the higher education for children they care about, causes they embrace, or to aid in times of crisis that may emerge. All participants can view their tax-deductible contributions to any of the four options, online at any time. At the end of each tax year a receipt statement can be printed as part of tax deduction reporting. This makes the CLF system ideal of those who currently cannot deduct their contributions because they use the “short-form” tax report. Everyone who purchases products or services can be a contributor. Financing Higher Education through Partnership Funding Every family can set up a 529 higher education savings account. Depending on the choices of the family, 3-6% or more of every purchase made by the family, and extended family, using the CLF card will result in a contribution to the higher education account. Over the course of 18 years, the vast majority of families will be able to save enough to make significant contributions to their children’s higher education. Students, with penalty free purchase limit debit cards, can also contribute to their own account, vesting them in the prospect of higher education. All of these contributions, while tax deductible, come from the interchange and not as an additional expense to families. Businesses that use the CLF card for their own purchases, also receive the 3-6% consideration. Many businesses may choose to redirect this savings into a benefit for employees. They could match the savings made by the family. Acknowledging the critical importance of a highly educated workforce to the future well being of the United States, local, state, and the national government would match each dollar contributed by a family up to a total maximum for each child. The total would assure each child could attend any community college, or public university in his/her State without working outside of school or amassing huge college debt. They would, thus, be able to afford greater commitment to national service. This match would serve as an incentive to families to establish the 529 accounts. A smaller number of families, perhaps 20%, will not have the purchasing power to accumulate enough in their 529 accounts for their children. Through the new Obama/Biden sponsored Legacy Fund senior citizens, those who currently qualify for social security but who do not need the funds because they have enough individual wealth, would be encouraged to redirect their checks to needy students as scholarships and an additional match above and beyond the local, state, and federal program. These tax-deductible contributions would provide an additional incentive to lower income families to set-up 529 accounts. Providing Nonprofits the Flexible Ongoing Operating Support They Need Individual cardholders can also decide that a portion of the 3-6% will go automatically to charitable organizations in the United States. The cardholder can view gifts online, make changes, and receive a receipt for all contributions at the end of the tax year. The CLF card keeps the power of selecting the causes that are most important to citizens in their hands, encourages more individuals to become contributors to the charitable sector, and provides nonprofits with their most difficult to obtain funding: unrestricted, ongoing, operating support. Nonprofit organizations will help and have powerful incentives to market the CLF card to their members and supporters and CLF will assist them with online, downloadable, marketing materials and strategies. Providing Immediate, Targeted, Disaster Relief When disasters hit, Americans want to help. Too often, they don’t know how to do so. CLF has built in an option for a card holder to go immediately online and change the giving of their 3-6% on purchases to disaster relief efforts at local, state, national, or international levels. These can be one-time gifts, or ongoing giving for a time period set by the cardholder. Relief organizations can help to market the card, and build a cadre of donors who respond quickly and efficiently, with transparency and accountability built into the system. The Ferdinand Fund A companion organization to CLF is The Ferdinand Fund. The Fund is focused on youth, and named after the worldwide classic children’s book, Ferdinand the Bull. The Fund will focus on educating K-12 children about financial management, saving, and giving. A debit card with a pre-determined limit can be provided and monitored by parents to young people. Through their considerable purchasing power, they can contribute toward their own 529 higher education fund, support charities of their choice, and participate financially in disaster relief. As CLF is successful, additional dollars will flow to the Fund to assist with scholarships that might be required to assure every child in the United States has financial access to higher education. What Is Needed A financial system is in place that is efficient, secure, immediate, and worldwide – the electronic Interchange of the credit and debit card. It has the capacity to be accountable, and transparent, and fair. There is an opportunity to use this effective system to re-task purchasing dollars from marketing credit to funding higher education, nonprofit voluntary organizations, and disaster relief. With contributions from stakeholders--parents, government, business, students-- this system can be harnessed quickly to assist the new administration in achieving transformational goals more readily.
CommunityLink Foundation needs to initiate its programs: - Final capitalization of $ 100 million to beta-test the system, complete the marketing materials and launch.
- Endorsement and support from the President with one or more key banks and manufacturers, and with the American public.
(3) INCLUDE IN THE ECONOMIC STIMULUS PLAN FUNDING TO BUILD INFRASTRUCTURE (HUMAN, FISCAL, AND PHYSICAL) ON HBCU CAMPUSES. THESE INVESTMENTS IN HBCU CAMPUSES WILL STIMULATE ECONOMIC GROWTH IN OUR STATES AND COMMUNITIES AND HELP ACHIEVE NEW EFFICIENCIES.
Many states acknowledge the continuing disparities between their HBIs and TWIs, but attribute the inequities to their unfavorable financial conditions. As an incentive to the states and a strategy for achieving parity, the President-Elect should include in the economic stimulus plan funding to build the infrastructure (human, fiscal and physical) of HBI campuses. The parity funding concept might be best achieved by requiring the relevant states to incorporate into their economic stimulus package requests of approximately 30 percent in funding support for their HBCUs; and that such funding must be used to supplement rather than to supplant state funding that might be available to a particular campus. The HBCU parity incentive funding is critical to HBCUs having the capacity to compete with other institutions in attracting an academically, racially and culturally diverse student body to meet the human resource needs of our knowledge-based and technology-oriented economy.
On a related note, but not as a substitute for the above, as the very courageous and important Obama economic stimulus package progresses, please make certain that the regulations clearly stipulate that the “school modernization program” includes the modernization of the nation’s HBCUs, some of which are in dire need of modernization that they cannot afford at this time due to an increase in their operation costs and their inability to pass these costs onto the students, disproportionate numbers of whom are low-income. The OBAMA plan can assist HBCUs to achieve advancement and modernization.
(4) INCLUDE IN THE ECONOMIC STIMULUS PACKAGE FUNDING FOR TWO-YEAR HBCUs AND PBIs TO LEAD IN WORKFORCE TRAINING AND RETRAINING EFFORTS IN DIVERSE FIELDS, ESPECIALLY IN HEALTH PROFESSIONS, TECHNOLOGY AND MANUFACTURING PROFESSIONS, ALTERNATIVE ENERGY, AND OTHER HIGH NEED AND GROWTH AREAS.
The Obama Administration’s economic stimulus, work-force and economic competitiveness agenda can be strengthened with real, short term deliverables by focusing on 2-year HBCUs and PBIs. With an increasing number of persons in the labor force and those who have lost their jobs in this economic recession; and with large numbers of military personnel expected to begin returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, no group of higher educational institutions is better positioned to address the current economic crisis with retraining, than 2- year HBCUs and PBIs. These institutions enroll more than 50% of African Americans in college and disproportionate numbers of low-income, first generation students. They are by and large located in and serving low-income, high needs communities. The nation’s 2-year HBCUs and PBIs have the right curricula focus and years of successful outcomes preparing students and adults currently in the workforce for health fields, technology and manufacturing jobs; alternative energy, and even offer alternative teacher certification. Given the new timetable for returning American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, HBCU and PBI 2-year institutions can also play a lead in retraining the troops. We share the nation’s deep sense of obligation to these honorable men and women who bravely served our nation, and our institutions will offer them a warm and welcoming, culturally sensitive environment in which to retool, prepare for success in the civilian work forcece, and assist to stimulate the economic growth of the nation. (5) THE ADMINISTRATION AND FEDERAL GOEVRNMENT HAVE A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY TO LEAD IN ENDING ONCE AND FOR ALL THE DUAL AND UNEQUAL HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEMS IN THE STATES AND THE DISCRIMINATION THAT REMAINS MANIFEST
The failure of the 18 states that have maintained dual and unequal higher education systems (Adams States) to realize the mandates of the Adams v. Califano consent decree, the U.S. v. Fordice and Ayers decisions, other judicial and administrative fiats; and OCR’s non-enforcement of its oversight responsibilities for the Adams States, is having a direct and damaging impact on the economy of the states and preventing the nation from restoring its educational and economic eminence. The United States of America will not realize President Obama’s vision of becoming One Nation, Indivisible” until public HBCUs and public HWCUs are comparable and competitive.
As part of its economic stimulus package, we urge the Obama Administration to require each of the 18 Adams States to immediately (within the Administration’s first 90 days), submit to the Secretary of Education a report containing objective, quantifiable data, that it is in compliance with the “comparable and competitiveness” requirements of Adams and its progeny, to demonstrate that the investment in Historically Black Colleges and Universities is comparable to the investments made in public traditionally white institutions; and that there are no state actions ongoing or lingering effects from state actions that would have an adverse impact on the ability of public HBCUs to thrive, grow, realize their state-approved missions, and to meet the state’s needs for a diverse, strong, competitive labor force, an educated and engaged citizenry. Armed with the reports, we urge the Administration to partner with NAFEO, the nation’s only private, not-for-profit, membership association of the presidents and chancellors of public and private HBCUs and PBIs, 2-and 4-year institutions, to conduct an independent investigation to verify the information contained in the state reports and provide recommendations to the Administration as to what affirmative steps are needed to remove the vestiges of discrimination from the nation’s public higher education system.
Background A half-century ago, on September 25, 1957, amid violent and racial taunts, through angry crowds, and under the unprecedented protection of federal military forces, nine black youth risked their young lives to attend high school. Three years earlier, Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court’s landmark 1954 decision, officially struck down racial segregation in public schools. However, many schools throughout the nation remained segregated, and as a result, the Little Rock Nine bore the weight of testing the strength of Brown by integrating a then segregated public school system. Five decades after the Little Rock events, schools in the United States remain nearly as segregated as they were in 1957. In an effort to reverse the above trend, in 2007, school systems in Seattle, Washington, and Louisville, Kentucky attempted to implement voluntary school desegregation plans. NAFEO along with a strong coalition of advocacy groups, joined as amici curiae the brief filed by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund in support of respondents in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. et al., firmly asserting that racial diversity is a compelling interest that can justify the use of race in selecting students for admission to public high schools. Unfortunately, while the court indicated that diversity is important in schools, it nonetheless overturned cases rejecting the voluntary desegregation plans. While the above and other cases challenged the separate and unequal public PK-12 systems, for more than 30 years NAFEO has lead the effort to end discrimination in the nation’s public higher education systems. On behalf of the nation’s HBCUs and with the National Medical Association, the National Bar Association, and later the National Black Caucus of State Legislators as partners; and under the leadership of NAFEO’s then legal counsel, Herbert O. Reid, the Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law at Howard University School of Law, NAFEO has assumed a leadership role in advancing the survival, progress, comparability, and competitiveness of America’s black colleges and universities nationwide, and reducing race-, ethnicity- and socio-economic status-based educational disparities since the early 1970s. Its work along with that of civil rights associations, civil rights law groups and alumni associations, led in the mid-1977 to the demand in Adams v. Richardson cum Califano that the then United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW), enforce Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which prohibits discrimination based upon race among covered categories for any recipient of federal funds. Enforcement of the Adams decree began aggressively in the 1970’s aimed at increasing financial and other support for HBCUs and making comparable and competitive HBCU laboratories, facilities, executive/ administrator/ faculty salaries, course offerings, physical plants, endowments, student/faculty/staff ratios among other things. The momentum ebbed and flowed and eventually stalled as did enforcement by the United States Department of Education and its Office of Civil Rights (OCR). Initially ten (10) states were found to be maintaining a dual and unequal system of higher
education by race. Later, eight (8) additional states were found to also be maintaining dual and unequal higher education systems.
Notwithstanding the efforts to end racial discrimination in higher education and disparate treatment of HBCUs; and despite efforts to implement a mandated federal desegregation plan intended to eliminate the impacts and effects of the prior dual and unequal system of higher education, NAFEO membership surveys, other private and public data indicate clearly that the vast majority of Adams’ states, if not all of them, are continuing to operate dual and unequal higher education systems. The public HBCUs are confronting new state supported challenges that will require federal leadership if they are to be satisfactorily overcome. An example of the current inequalities in public higher education in the Adams’ states are that the states are (1) investing disproportionately fewer dollars in public HBCUs than in flagship institutions or other TWIs; (2) opening predominantly white institutions in the service areas of public HBCUs; (3) permitting TWIs in the service areas of public HBCUs to offer the same courses that have been and are offered at the HBCUs; and most recently (4) state legislators are again considering merging public HBCUs with public HWCUs in a manner that will surely destabilize the HBCUs. See, e.g., recent news reports about a plan of a Georgia state legislator. The net result of these actions is to threaten the strength or survival of the HBCUs. NAFEO remains steadfast in its resolve to advocate for equity in education and lead the nation to freeing itself from the scourge of discrimination and other impediments to realizing its economic, workforce, social, and civic potential. First 100-Days a. Pell Funding. The Obama Administration’s budget request for Pell Funding should be such that the Pell Grant should be maintained at least at the average cost of public four-year institutions, nationwide, as reported in The College Board’s Trends in College Costs and Trends in College Pricing.
b. Shift the HE Paradigm. The Obama Administration should promote a shift in the public investment in higher education at the federal and state level and by the private sector such that more financial resources are invested in those institutions that educate disproportionate numbers of high needs students, including historically and predominately black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, community colleges, and institutions serving rural and remote areas.
Thank you again for permitting NAFEO to submit the above initial recommendations. We look forward to modifying and extending the above recommendations and submitting the NAFEO longer-term policy recommendations.
1Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and Oklahoma.
2The eighteen included the original ten Adams states plus Alabama, Delaware, Texas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia, and South Carolina. |
