Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Edu Law

What are the goals to be achieved in disestablishing the Dual System of Higher Education?

Disestablishing the Dual System of Higher Education is intended to fulfill the original requirements of Brown v. Board of Education, which mandated that state-funded institutions adopt non-discriminatory practices. However, Brown never applied directly to institutes of higher learning and subsequent legislation has been ambiguous about the role and constitutionality of historically black colleges and universities. Because historically black institutions have become a viable part of the public university system, and because historically black institutions serve a distinct and irreplaceable educational function, disestablishing the Dual System would not in fact serve the purpose of eliminating discrimination. If the goal of disestablishing the dual system of higher education is to level the playing field for all schools once and for all, then doing so must require a "moderate diversification" program for historically black institutions (Moore 2000, p. 561). A moderate diversification program at historically black institutions fulfils the goal of desegregation while acknowledging the special role that historically black institutions play in the education and advancement of African-Americans.

Ultimately the dual system of higher education can be merged into a unitary one, but only organically as Moore (2000) suggests. The organic disestablishment of the dual system of higher education does not require that historically black institutions either close or merge with their traditionally white counterparts. Rather, the organic disestablishment of the dual system of higher education would increase access to higher education for all prospective students and expand the range of choices available to all. As Williams (1981) puts it, historically black institutions are ironically "critical to achieving a unitary system and to providing equal educational opportunity," (p. 11). Historically black public institutions should become "fully viable institutions within the mainstream of American higher education," (Williams 1981, p. 11).

B. Are historically black institutions unconstitutional?

Historically black colleges and universities are ambiguously constitutional. A series of Supreme Court decisions has yet to clearly and definitively define historically black institutions as either constitutional or not. However, Moore (2000) proposes that the latest related decision in 1992 should uphold the constitutionality of historically black institutions even though the "new standards" set forth in United States v. Fordice mandate merging of historically black institutions (Moore 2000, p. 553). In fact, the United States Department of Education challenged United States v. Fordice by boldly asserting the right of historically black institutions to exist. The United States Department of Education suggested that historically black institutions exist for the express purpose of erasing the effects of systematic discrimination; closing or merging black schools would place an undue "burden" on black students and faculty that would undermine the intent of eliminating racial discrimination (Moore 2000, p. 555). In their interpretation of United States v. Fordice, the Department of Education refers to the "sound educational practices" clause in Fordice by mentioning the "distinctive histories and traditions" represented by historically black institutions (Moore 2000, p. 556). Such histories, traditions, and techniques of cultural preservation are inherently valuable and educationally sound. Historically black institutions are constitutional also in the sense that they actively encourage choice among African-American applicants who have the option of attending traditionally white or traditionally black institutions but also without discriminating against white applicants.

C. What conclusions can be drawn about federal policy on compliance with the Title VI after reading the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Federal action after Brown v. Board of Education was initially paltry, allowing many Southern states to perpetuate discriminatory education practices including restrictions on admissions procedures and other methods of barring blacks from attending traditionally white institutions. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 remedied the lackadaisical federal response to Brown v. Board of Education. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act expressly applied to education and admissions practices. Enforcing the Act meant targeting the dual system of higher education in which historically black institutions persisted and thrived.

However, targeting the dual system at the level of the historically black institution defeated the purpose of the Civil Rights Act. The problem was not that historically black institutions existed but that historically white institutions had necessitated their existence in the first place. By the 1960s, the evolution of historically black public institutions ensured that African-Americans had equal access to higher education, and had the choice of whether or not to attend a historically black university or college. Federal policy wavered from ignoring the conundrum these voluntarily segregated institutions created, to mandating their being merged or shut down.