Court: Supreme Court of the United States; June 26, 1992; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court
Despite prior Supreme Court rulings in Brown v. Board of Education, Mississippi maintained a dual system of de jure segregation in its public universities, characterized by five predominantly white and three predominantly black institutions. A lawsuit initiated by private petitioners in 1975, later joined by the United States, claimed that state officials violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by failing to dismantle this system. In 1981, the State Board of Trustees attempted to address the situation by designating white universities as "comprehensive" institutions and reclassifying one black college as "urban" with limited programs, while the remaining black colleges were labeled as "regional."
By the mid-1980s, racial disparities in student enrollment persisted, prompting a trial where extensive evidence addressed various educational issues. The District Court found that Mississippi's policies did not restrict student choice or aim for racial balance, but it also ruled that state practices must be racially neutral and not contribute to racial identifiability. The court concluded that Mississippi was fulfilling its duty to disestablish segregation, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeals.
However, the Supreme Court held that the lower courts did not apply the correct legal standard in determining compliance with the Equal Protection Clause. The Court emphasized that if the state continues policies traceable to its segregated past that perpetuate segregation without sound educational justification, such policies violate the Clause. The inquiry should focus on whether current racial identifiability is attributable to the state, assessing multiple factors to determine the ongoing effects of past segregation. The District Court's failure to ask these critical questions led to an erroneous affirmation by the Court of Appeals.
The District Court's findings reveal several constitutionally suspect aspects of Mississippi's dual education system, despite policies appearing race-neutral. The state must either justify or eliminate these policies, particularly concerning admissions standards that impose higher ACT scores for historically white institutions compared to historically black universities. This disparity, rooted in discriminatory policies from 1963, disproportionately affects black students, as evidenced by lower average ACT scores among them. Additionally, the court criticized the state's refusal to consider high school grades alongside ACT scores, highlighting that this approach lacks justification and exacerbates racial disparities.
The court also identified issues with program duplication between historically black and white universities, indicating a continuation of "separate but equal" treatment. The burden of proof seemed improperly shifted to petitioners, contrary to established legal precedents. Furthermore, the court's isolated analysis of duplication neglected its cumulative impact alongside other discriminatory policies.
Lastly, Mississippi's 1981 mission assignments, which trace back to discriminatory practices, potentially hinder student choice and contribute to the system's segregation. On remand, the court is urged to explore the feasibility of eliminating these discriminatory effects while maintaining sound educational practices.
On remand, the court must evaluate if the State’s retention and operation of eight higher educational institutions affects student choice and sustains the de jure segregated system. It should assess whether each university's maintenance is educationally justifiable and explore the feasibility of closing or merging institutions, as such actions could reduce discriminatory effects. However, the existing record does not sufficiently support a constitutional mandate for closure. Additionally, the State's broader higher educational practices, including funding for three historically black colleges, require examination to ensure effective dismantling of its previous segregationist system.
The court references significant historical context, noting the 1954 and 1955 Supreme Court decisions in Brown v. Board of Education, which declared the unconstitutionality of "separate but equal" in public education and mandated the end of segregated schooling. Mississippi's public university system, established in 1848, was initially exclusive to white students, with the first black institution opening in 1871. Subsequent decades saw the establishment of additional segregated facilities. Despite the Brown decisions, Mississippi continued its policy of de jure segregation, with the University of Mississippi only admitting its first black student in 1962, following a court order. The system remained predominantly white for many years thereafter.
Jackson State and Mississippi Valley State were exclusively black institutions during this period, while Alcorn State had admitted five white students by 1968. In 1969, the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) began enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, urging the State to create a plan to dismantle the de jure segregated university system. In June 1973, the Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning submitted a Plan of Compliance aimed at improving educational opportunities by setting enrollment goals for other-race students, hiring diverse faculty, and implementing remedial programs. HEW rejected the plan for insufficient efforts in recruitment, faculty hiring, and funding practices to eliminate racial criteria in institutional choice. The Board expressed its belief that the Mississippi higher education system complied with Title VI but adopted the amended plan nonetheless. By this time, the racial composition of the universities had changed only slightly from 1968. The state legislature limited the funding of the plan, withholding adequate support until Fiscal Year 1978. Private petitioners filed a lawsuit in 1975, alleging that Mississippi maintained racially segregative effects in higher education, violating several amendments and Title VI. The U.S. later intervened, asserting that state officials failed to meet their obligations under the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI. Over the next 12 years, the parties sought a consensual resolution, during which the Board reviewed existing curricula and issued "Mission Statements" categorizing universities as comprehensive, urban, or regional. The comprehensive universities were primarily white, while Jackson State, designated as urban, remained exclusively black. The "regional" designation included both formerly white and black institutions.
By the mid-1980s, over 99% of white students in Mississippi were enrolled at predominantly white universities, while 71% of black students attended historically black institutions. In 1987, the parties in a legal case could not agree on whether the State had taken adequate affirmative steps to dismantle its previously segregated educational system, leading to a trial. Extensive evidence was presented regarding admissions, faculty recruitment, program duplication, discrimination, funding disparities, and satellite campuses. Petitioners contended that the State perpetuated race-based distinctions, while respondents claimed they had enacted good-faith, race-neutral policies and had attracted qualified black students to predominantly white universities, arguing that the existence of racially identifiable institutions was lawful due to student choice.
At the trial's conclusion, the District Court reviewed the historical context of Mississippi’s higher education system and specific developments post-1975. It made detailed findings on various aspects of the system under scrutiny, followed by legal conclusions outlining the State's affirmative duty to reform racially segregative policies. The court noted a consensus that this duty extends from K-12 to higher education, although there was debate regarding the necessity of racial mixture in previously segregated institutions. Ultimately, the court concluded that the affirmative duty to desegregate in higher education does not require restricting student choice or achieving racial balance.
The court emphasized the need to focus on current state higher education policies and practices to ensure they are racially neutral, developed in good faith, and do not perpetuate racial identifiability of institutions. Upon review, the court found no violations of federal law and determined that the defendants were meeting their affirmative duty to dismantle the previous de jure segregated higher education system. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision, recognizing Mississippi's constitutional obligation to eliminate racial distinctions and dismantle its dual system, asserting that Mississippi had implemented race-neutral policies allowing students genuine freedom of choice in their education. The primary issue was whether the state had effectively dismantled its prior dual university system. The court noted that a state’s constitutional obligations are not fulfilled until it eradicates policies fostering segregation, highlighting that the Court of Appeals concluded Mississippi had met this obligation through its adoption of race-neutral policies.
Neutral policies and free choice alone do not suffice to dismantle a dual system of primary or secondary schools, as established in Green v. New Kent County School Board. The Court of Appeals noted that universities differ fundamentally from lower-level schools, which supports the conclusion that the State has effectively dismantled its former dual system. Unlike primary and secondary education, university attendance is a matter of choice, with the State historically not assigning students to specific institutions. Mississippi’s public universities serve distinct missions, allowing students to choose from multiple options upon qualification for admission.
However, the adoption of race-neutral policies does not fully address the constitutional violations of a dual system. Even in a choice-based system, factors influencing student attendance extend beyond admissions policies, including those that can be linked to the State's previous segregation practices. The Equal Protection Clause is violated by both overt and subtle forms of discrimination. Consequently, if remnants of the prior de jure system remain and perpetuate segregation, those must be reformed as practical and consistent with sound educational principles.
The disagreement extends to the reliance of the Court of Appeals and District Court on Bazemore v. Friday, which dealt with the provision of state support to voluntary clubs and found that no lingering discrimination existed. The context of Bazemore, where the state was not implicated in perpetuating segregation, differs from the educational settings addressed in earlier cases. Thus, the conclusions reached by the lower courts regarding the sufficient dismantling of a dual system are not supported by Bazemore.
Mississippi's higher education system may still include remnants of its prior racially segregated dual system, which could violate the Equal Protection Clause. The state must demonstrate that any policies with segregative effects, whether related to student enrollment or other aspects of the university system, are justified by sound educational rationale and can be effectively eliminated. The Court of Appeals erred in affirming that Mississippi complied with the Equal Protection Clause, as the District Court did not adequately assess the existence of these problematic policies.
Several aspects of Mississippi's higher education system remain constitutionally questionable, despite appearing race-neutral. Notably, the admissions policies of historically white universities, which set a minimum ACT score of 15, have a discriminatory history and effect, as the average scores for white and black students were significantly different at the time of the policy's inception. This historical context, along with the present admissions standards that continue to perpetuate disparities, necessitates a review of their constitutional validity. The court emphasizes that it is not providing an exhaustive list of unconstitutional remnants but will examine specific policies—such as admissions standards, program duplication, institutional mission assignments, and the operation of public universities—while mandating a thorough reevaluation of all challenged policies under the appropriate legal standard.
Students scoring between 13 and 14 on the ACT are automatically admitted to Jackson State University, Alcorn State University, and Mississippi Valley State University, but are excluded from five historically white universities, limiting their options primarily to historically black institutions or junior colleges. In 1985, a significant racial disparity existed, with 72% of white seniors scoring 15 or higher compared to less than 30% of black seniors. This disparity contributes to a racially identifiable composition within Mississippi's universities. The minimum ACT score for automatic admission varies significantly among institutions, with Mississippi University for Women requiring a score of 18, while historically black universities accept scores of 13. The courts did not adequately justify these discrepancies in admission standards or assess the feasibility of eliminating them. The differing admission standards are remnants of a dual system, reflecting historical racial assignments and lacking educational justification. The District Court's rationale for the 15 score requirement, based on student preparedness, was insufficient, particularly when compared to the lower requirement for historically black institutions. Furthermore, the policy of denying automatic admission solely based on ACT scores, without considering high school grades, raises constitutional concerns, as evidence indicates that relying solely on ACT scores provides an incomplete assessment of a student's potential for college success.
An ACTP report presented evidence indicating that relying solely on a 3- or 4-hour standardized test, like the ACT, to predict college performance is imprudent, particularly given that the gap between high school grades of black and white students is narrower than the disparity in their ACT scores. Consequently, an admissions formula incorporating high school grades could enhance the number of black students qualifying for automatic admission to Mississippi’s public universities. The United States contends that the State's disregard for additional predictive information, such as high school grades, is irrational, especially since many states utilize a combination of grades and standardized test scores.
The District Court noted concerns from the Board of Trustees regarding grade inflation and inconsistencies in grading and course offerings among diverse high schools. While both the District Court and the Court of Appeals found these concerns justified the exclusion of high school grades from admissions criteria, this rationale is viewed as insufficient. It is argued that the original adoption of the ACT requirement was discriminatory, and its continued application perpetuates segregation without demonstrating that an "ACT-only" admission standard serves sound educational policy.
Additionally, the District Court identified significant unnecessary duplication of academic programs between historically black and white institutions, with 34.6% of undergraduate programs and 90% of graduate programs at historically black colleges duplicated at historically white institutions. However, the court concluded that there was no evidence linking this duplication to the racial identities of the institutions and claimed that eliminating it would not substantially affect educational choices. Critically, the treatment of this issue raises concerns, as the court seemed to place the burden of proof on the plaintiffs instead of the State, despite precedents establishing that the State must demonstrate the dismantling of its prior segregated education system. Thus, the court's assertion regarding the plaintiffs' inability to prove a constitutional violation related to program duplication improperly shifted the burden from the State.
The District Court's finding of "unnecessary" duplication in educational programs lacks an educational justification and suggests that such duplication could be largely eliminated. The court noted that this duplication is not economically justified or conducive to quality education. However, the court did not clarify whether it instructed the parties to gather evidence regarding the potential effects of eliminating this duplication on institutional racial identifiability, student choice, or educational policies. Furthermore, the court's isolated treatment of this issue overlooked the cumulative impact of unnecessary duplication alongside other policies, such as differing admissions standards, in assessing the State's obligation to dismantle its prior de jure segregated system.
The classification of institutional missions in Mississippi was reviewed, revealing that the University of Mississippi, Mississippi State University, and the University of Southern Mississippi served as flagship institutions during the era of de jure segregation, receiving the most funding and offering advanced programs, initially restricted to white students. In contrast, Mississippi University for Women and Delta State University had more limited missions focused on undergraduate education for white students in specific fields. The three historically black universities had even more restricted missions, with Alcorn State designated solely as an agricultural college for black students, while Jackson State and Mississippi Valley State were established to train black teachers. The court's findings imply that state funding and curriculum decisions during segregation were influenced by the original purposes of these institutions.
In 1981, the State redefined the missions of public universities, classifying the flagship institutions as "comprehensive" with diverse programs, while Delta State and Mississippi University for Women, along with Alcorn State and Mississippi Valley State, were labeled as "regional" with limited programs primarily for undergraduate education. Jackson State was classified as an "urban" university. These classifications trace back to policies that upheld racial separation during the period of de jure segregation.
The Court of Appeals disagreed with the District Court's conclusions about the mission designations of universities, which were found to reflect historical racial assignments. Despite acknowledging that these designations limit student choices and perpetuate a segregated system, the Court upheld them as constitutionally acceptable due to the presence of good-faith, racially neutral policies. Both lower courts agreed that the mission assignments were not made with discriminatory intent, but the Court of Appeals noted that these assignments effectively maintained a limited scope of programs at historically black universities. The Court emphasized the need to evaluate whether the current mission assignments could be modified to eliminate discrimination and promote student choice.
Furthermore, the State's decision to operate eight higher educational institutions was scrutinized, with the District Court deeming it wasteful and irrational, particularly given the proximity of some campuses. Although the District Court recognized this as a legislative policy choice rather than an issue of constitutional scrutiny, it highlighted that having more institutions creates varied choices. The Court noted that closing some institutions could reduce discriminatory effects, but whether such closures are constitutionally required remains unclear. It suggested that resolving issues of program duplication and revising admissions criteria might negate the need for institutional closures.
Retention of all eight Mississippi public universities must be critically assessed to determine its impact on student choice and the continuation of a segregated higher education system. The educational justification for maintaining each institution should be explored, including the potential for closing or merging some universities. The dismantling of the previously segregated system requires that student choice is genuinely free, and all related policies and practices must be scrutinized. While racial predominance alone does not constitute a constitutional violation, the state cannot sustain policies from its prior segregated system that maintain racial identifiers if they can be eliminated without harming educational integrity. The request for funding upgrades to certain historically black universities solely to create racially exclusive institutions is rejected. The state must affirmatively act to dismantle its dual system to avoid constitutional violations. The prior rulings of the District Court and Court of Appeals did not properly consider the state's obligations regarding segregation, necessitating a remand for further proceedings. Justice O'Connor concurs, emphasizing that Mississippi bears the burden to demonstrate it has addressed its past segregation and that maintaining any segregationist policies must be justified under strict scrutiny given the state's history of discrimination.
Mississippi's justifications for retaining aspects of de jure segregation must be scrutinized to ensure they do not disguise ongoing discriminatory practices. The State carries a heavy burden to justify its preference for methods that may be less effective in achieving legitimate educational goals. If the State claims that maintaining certain remnants of a prior system is essential for its objectives, it must demonstrate efforts to mitigate the segregative effects of those policies. To fulfill its constitutional duty to dismantle the discriminatory system, the State must eliminate or reduce the impact of remnants that unnecessarily contribute to segregation.
The Court asserts that adopting race-neutral policies does not suffice to dismantle a dual system of higher education if residual policies from the de jure era still have discriminatory effects; such policies must be reformed where feasible and aligned with sound educational practices. This standard differs from those applied in previous cases regarding grade schools, such as Green v. New Kent County School Board, which required the elimination of racial imbalances. Although current racial imbalances do not inherently violate the Constitution, there is a presumption that they stem from past intentional actions during the de jure period, leading to court authorization for student reassignments to address these imbalances despite neutral assignment policies.
The document articulates a legal standard for evaluating policies that may result in racial imbalance in higher education, distinct from the approach used in grade schools as seen in cases like Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Ed. The court rejects drastic remedies such as student reassignment, focusing instead on specific policies that lead to racial disparities. A plaintiff cannot claim relief based solely on the presence of racial imbalance; instead, they must identify specific policies linked to past discriminatory practices that continue to have adverse effects without adequate educational justification.
Key elements of the standard include:
1. A policy originating during the de jure era that results in segregation must be examined for justification.
2. If such policies persist without sound educational rationale, they are presumed to reflect discriminatory intent, negating the need for current proof of intent.
3. Factors considered include the historical context of the policy, its adverse impacts, and the credibility of justifications provided.
The document emphasizes that states are responsible for demonstrating the absence of discriminatory intent concerning policies with a history of segregation. Adequate justification for a policy must align with recognized legitimate educational goals, echoing principles established in past rulings. The court highlights the importance of sound educational practices as a basis for evaluating these policies.
Desegregation remedies must prioritize practical flexibility and accommodate both public and private needs, as established in *Brown v. Board of Education*. The educational needs of current and future students in the Mississippi university system are paramount in shaping these remedies. There is potential for a "sound educational justification" to maintain historically black colleges, which have thrived despite a history of segregation, with enrollment increasing significantly from 1954 to 1980. These institutions serve as a source of pride and hope for black families and have played a vital role in enhancing educational opportunities for African Americans. While a state cannot restrict access to institutions based on race, it can operate a diverse range of colleges, including historically black ones, in a race-neutral manner. Such institutional diversity is justified educationally and is distinct from mere program duplication aimed at racial separation. Although a state is not constitutionally obligated to preserve historically black colleges, it is not prohibited from doing so. Destroying these institutions while attempting to eliminate segregation's remnants would be counterproductive. Justice Scalia concurs in part and dissents in part with the Court's position.
The Constitution mandates Mississippi to eliminate discriminatory barriers at state-funded universities but does not require the state to address funding disparities between historically black institutions (HBIs) and historically white institutions (HWIs). While the need for further review of Mississippi's ACT requirements is acknowledged, the burden placed on the state to demonstrate compliance with Brown v. Board of Education (Brown I) is deemed unsustainable. This requirement, similar to mandates from Green v. New Kent County School Board, is argued to be inapplicable to higher education, lacking clear guidance for states and lower courts, and potentially hindering the interests of affected citizens.
The Court proposes two tests for compliance with Brown I, which ultimately converge. Initially, it outlines a test requiring the elimination of policies traceable to Mississippi's prior segregation system that continue to have segregative effects, to the extent practicable and aligned with sound educational practices. However, in its application, the Court elevates the influence on student enrollment decisions to a critical requirement, alongside policies that contribute to the racial identifiability of the universities.
The meaning of "substantially restricts a person's choice of institution" remains ambiguous, with the Court's discussion shifting from strong coercion to slight inducement. This evolution suggests that the requirement is weak, potentially allowing practically any action to satisfy it. Consequently, even an open-admissions policy might not sufficiently ensure that state actions do not affect student choice. The Court's conclusions imply that Mississippi's operational structures, such as mission designations and program duplication across its eight formerly segregated colleges, are seen as enhancing rather than limiting student choice.
The Court's interpretation of certain legal standards has rendered them confusing and unhelpful, creating a potential for increased litigation. The requirement that state practices must perpetuate de facto segregation is complicated by the Court's acknowledgment that Mississippi's designation of three Historically White Institutions (HWIs) as the sole comprehensive schools could actually promote integration. Conversely, suggesting the elevation of a Historically Black Institution (HBI) to comprehensive status might encourage ongoing segregation. Approximately 30% of Black college students in Mississippi attend comprehensive universities. The Court argues that even if individual practices do not foster segregation, they can be aggregated with others to show a composite effect that perpetuates segregation, particularly when considering unnecessary program duplication and differential admissions standards. This raises uncertainty about how university administrators and district judges will navigate the aggregation and disaggregation of practices. The Court has asserted that eliminating program duplication and revising admissions criteria might negate the need for institutional closures. However, it remains ambiguous whether retaining all eight institutions is justified or if they can be merged or closed without perpetuating segregation. Overall, the Court’s criteria for “sound educational justification” and “impracticable elimination” lack clarity, leaving doubt about their practical application.
The Court's current application of the standard from Green v. New Kent County School Board extends the burden of proof onto state universities to demonstrate that racial disparities in enrollment are not a result of discriminatory practices. This mirrors the requirements placed on school boards in prior cases, such as Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg, where they must show that racially identifiable schools do not result from past discriminatory actions. The decision risks jeopardizing university practices and programs that face challenges as long as racial imbalances persist. To counter claims of racial identifiability, states may need to eliminate segregation or provide valid justifications for existing practices, akin to the defenses permitted under Green. The excerpt argues that this new standard lacks precedent and contradicts prior rulings, particularly Bazemore v. Friday, which did not establish grounds for applying Green's principles to higher education. The Court's reliance on cases addressing primary and secondary education is deemed inappropriate, as the context of higher education differs significantly; only discriminatory limitations on access in higher education carry the potential for harm identified in Brown v. Board of Education. Thus, the focus should remain on access rather than broader racial separation issues.
Legacies of allowing free choice of racially identifiable schools do not lead to the necessary outcomes mandated by prior court rulings. Following Brown v. Board of Education, states previously under de jure segregation have a duty to eliminate barriers to non-discriminatory school admissions. The cases of Hawkins and Gilmore do not support a broader interpretation of these duties; Hawkins emphasizes the need for neutral admissions criteria rather than complete eradication of past discriminatory policies, and Gilmore simply upheld an injunction against exclusive access for segregated private schools.
In Bazemore v. Friday, the Court rejected the notion of requiring affirmative action to integrate state institutions that had previously operated under racially discriminatory practices, confining such requirements to primary and secondary education where school boards have authority over attendance. The Court concluded that the mere existence of single-race clubs within a neutral admissions framework does not constitute a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, as the discriminatory practices had been eliminated.
The Court clarifies that its decision in Bazemore was contingent upon the determination that the State had not contributed to segregation by influencing individuals' choices of clubs. Unlike the Court's current insistence, the analysis in Bazemore did not require verification that state practices from the past influenced club selection. The ruling emphasized that the club members' choices were entirely voluntary and independent of state action, contradicting the idea that historical characteristics of segregated clubs did not affect these choices. The standard set forth in Bazemore for dismantling a dual system requires the end of discriminatory practices and the establishment of a neutral admissions policy. The Court notes that modern racial imbalances in Mississippi's universities are remnants of past segregation, influencing student enrollment decisions—much like the impact observed in club selections in Bazemore. The Court previously rejected the notion that the State was obligated to rectify the racial segregation stemming from its past practices. It argues that if this reasoning was valid in Bazemore, it should apply similarly here. Furthermore, the Court asserts that attending college is a voluntary choice, distinguishing it from enforced school attendance, and posits that only discriminatory admissions criteria, not compulsory integration, should be addressed in higher education.
The formerly de jure system must demonstrate that it has eliminated discriminatory barriers to comply with equal protection requirements. Once this is established, it is illogical to argue that former de jure States still deny equal protection if no such barriers remain. Compliance with Brown I necessitates dismantling discriminatory practices, allowing States to manage their public universities without further obligation unless new discrimination arises, which requires proof of intent and causation. The Court of Appeals' judgment is partially reversed, as Mississippi has not proven that its admissions standards, particularly the ACT requirements, are free from racially discriminatory intent and effects. Historical evidence indicates that these standards were initially adopted to exclude black students.
Additionally, the Court rejects claims that the Constitution mandates Mississippi to rectify funding disparities between Historically Black Institutions (HBIs) and Historically White Institutions (HWIs), affirming that equal protection rights belong to students rather than institutions. However, the decision implies that while the Constitution does not prevent equal funding, it discourages policies that might promote equality, as such measures could inadvertently sustain segregation. The Court highlights that equal funding policies could perpetuate existing racial separations in education, challenging the underlying principle of integrated schooling.
The Court suggests that an Afrocentric curriculum might be necessary, referencing recent experimental implementations in schools. It acknowledges the existence of eight separate universities in Mississippi, which significantly contribute to segregation. Additionally, it notes the funding provisions for Historically Black Institutions (HBIs) under federal law, highlighting that merely tolerating HBIs does not align with the Court's objective of eliminating predominantly black institutions. The Court insists that a new plan must be formulated to transition to a system free of racially defined schools. The commentary raises concerns about the Court's stance on unintegrated schooling, arguing that it undermines diversity and individual choice in education. It asserts that there is no constitutional issue with schools having a majority black enrollment due to private choices in residence or school selection. The critique suggests that the Court's approach may inadvertently reinforce racial inferiority, contrary to the intentions of Brown v. Board of Education. Furthermore, it points out the disconnect between the Court's position and Congress's support for historically black colleges. The case at hand revolves around whether a state fulfills its obligations under Brown I by merely removing discriminatory admission barriers, with the Court's decision favoring the standards set in Green, although doubts remain about achieving similar outcomes.
The document critiques the Court's approach to achieving racial balance in schools, highlighting several flaws in its reasoning. It argues that the Court's decision limits district judges by removing the effective remedy of mandatory student assignments and introduces contradictory elements that hinder clear application of the law. The opinion grants excessive discretion to district judges, potentially leading to confusion and instability in university systems, particularly in states with a history of de jure segregation. This judicial turmoil is predicted to be counterproductive for both black and white students, as well as predominantly black or white institutions.
The excerpt also references historical enrollment statistics for black students in Mississippi universities during the 1974-1975 school year, indicating low representation in predominantly white institutions. It notes that by the mid-1970s, the state had taken steps to comply with legal requirements to dismantle its previous segregationist policies. The document rejects arguments from private petitioners demanding that the state not only cease discrimination but also eliminate its ongoing effects, asserting that remedies similar to those in the Green case would not be appropriate in a university context. It emphasizes that while the racial composition of institutions remains relevant to assessing whether Mississippi has adequately addressed its past segregation, the Court's prior affirmance in a related case regarding the construction of a university campus does not support the petitioners' claims.
The court determined that the State had valid educational reasons for establishing a new campus and acted in good faith regarding admissions, faculty, and staffing. It concluded that the new institution would not serve exclusively white or Black students, but would be a general school. Respondents mistakenly believed that ASTA legitimizes policies linked to the de jure segregation system, regardless of their educational validity or potential to reduce segregation. If policies are not derived from the former dual system, the question arises whether racial separation constitutes a new violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court of Appeals misinterpreted the Title VI claim, stating that it could not confirm the defendants' compliance with regulations and did not need to assess Mississippi’s responsibilities under those regulations, as the Supreme Court's ruling in Bazemore was deemed controlling. However, the relevant authorities had found no violation in Bazemore, leading to an erroneous reliance by the Court of Appeals, which failed to conduct a necessary factual inquiry.
Private petitioners claimed that the state system violates Title VI, referencing a regulation mandating affirmative action to counteract past discrimination. The courts agree that Title VI's protections align with those of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case is treated within a constitutional context, affirming the lower courts' findings of no discriminatory intent in certain instances. Nevertheless, the petitioners and the United States do not need to prove discriminatory intent to demonstrate a constitutional violation stemming from the continuation of policies from the prior segregative regime. For contemporary policies lacking historical ties to the dual system, a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment requires evidence of discriminatory intent. The District Court found that very few Black students are denied admission to Mississippi universities due to not meeting the minimum ACT score.
The document highlights the impact of automatic admissions standards on black students' decisions to apply to historically white universities, noting a self-selection bias. In 1985, 72% of white students in Mississippi scored 15 or better on the ACT, compared to only 30% of black students, indicating a significant performance gap. However, the disparity in grade averages was less pronounced, with 43.8% of white students and 30.5% of black students averaging at least a 3.0 GPA, and 62.2% of whites versus 49.2% of blacks achieving a GPA of 2.5 or higher. Although the District Court did not make specific findings on this issue, it acknowledged that black students generally score lower than their white counterparts. Additionally, a 1973 correspondence from an HEW official stated that the objective of the Plan was to ensure that students' choices regarding institutions would not be based on racial criteria, and that the closure of a historically black institution could imply an increased burden on black students and faculty in Mississippi.
