The report that follows, prepared by a subcommittee of the Association’s Commitee on Historically Black Institutions and Scholars of Color, was approved in November 2006 by the committee for publication.
The nation’s historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) are diverse. Although we discuss them as a category based on their historical racial makeup, these institutions are in fact quite different from one another. According to the government’s definition, black colleges are bound together by the fact that they were established prior to 1964 (the year of the Civil Rights Act) with the express purpose of educating African Americans. These institutions, of which there are 103, are public, private, large, small, religious, nonsectarian, selective, and openenrolling. They educate 300,000 students and employ over 14,000 faculty members.1 Some black colleges are thriving, others are barely making ends meet, and many fall in between. Regardless, most of them are providing a much needed education to African American students (and many others).
In January 1995, the AAUP’s Committee L on Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Faculty of Color (since renamed the Committee on Historically Black Institutions and Scholars of Color) published a report about the state of HBCUs in Academe entitled “A Future in the Balance.” Our 2006 report highlights developments at HBCUs since 1995. We have included an overview of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in the Fordice case, an analysis of shared governance and academic freedom issues, and a review of accreditation concerns. We conclude by examining the recent influx of white students on black college campuses— an influx that may result from the desegregation provisions of Fordice, the low tuition at these schools, their well regarded academic programs, or the convenient locations of many of them.
Fordice: A Final Decision
In 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision in the long litigated case United States v. Kirk Fordice, first filed in 1975 by African American James Ayers on behalf of his son, a student at Jackson State University in Mississippi. Its ruling required states to eliminate policies that perpetuated segregation among their public colleges. As part of that decision, the court returned the case to the federal district court (whose earlier decision, declaring that Mississippi had fulfilled its obligations of desegregation, was overturned by the Supreme Court) to determine specific remedies for the ongoing inequities in that state.
In 1995, the federal district court issued a ruling intended to remove overt racial classifications from the state’s eight public universities. Steps to be taken included standardizing the admissions requirements across all eight schools (prior to this, the five historically white institutions had stricter standards than the three historically black universities) and enacting policies to ensure a certain minimum racial diversity at each of the universities. The plaintiffs and the U.S. Department of Justice appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In 1997, the Fifth Circuit ordered the federal court judge to reconsider parts of his 1995 ruling but upheld the new admissions standards. This decision was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 1998 refused without comment to hear the case. In 2001, after months of negotiations, all parties agreed to a $503 million settlement. The federal court approved the settlement in 2002. Later that year, some of the plaintiffs appealed the settlement in federal court, arguing that it did not go far enough to remedy the effects of segregation. When this appeal was denied, the plaintiffs appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which in late January 2004 issued its rejection of all counts of the appeal. In May 2004, the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in October refused, without comment, to hear the case, thus ending the thirtyyear legal battle and rendering the 2002 settlement legally binding.
The $503 million settlement is to be distributed over a seventeen year period and is earmarked for Mississippi’s three public historically black institutions Alcorn State, Jackson State, and Mississippi Valley State. The largest amount is to be used to enhance programs and facilities at these universities. A smaller portion will provide funds to allow a greater number of financially strapped students to enroll in summer and remedial programs. Just under onefifth of the total settlement is to be used by the three universities in efforts to recruit nonblack students. The court set a goal for each of them to achieve a nonblack enrollment of at least 10 percent, a requirement they must meet for three consecutive years before gaining direct control of the funds earmarked for nonblack recruitment. The terms of this agreement apply only to the three historically black universities in Mississippi, since the five historically white universities have surpassed the minimum of 10 percent for nonwhite enrollment.
The plaintiffs who appealed the settlement argue that it focuses unfairly on black institutions, forcing them to integrate when they have more urgent financial needs. They also argue that the settlement, while seemingly generous, in reality provides little money to correct a decades’ long injustice. They further object that the standardized admissions practices involved effectively bar thousands of black students from enrolling in college. The plaintiffs wanted the mission and programs of the black universities to be significantly expanded as part of the settlement, but the federal court refused to consider that issue as central to the settlement. The Fifth Circuit rejected every aspect of the plaintiffs’ appeal, noting that “this litigation concerns eliminating the effects of prior legal segregation, not mandating equality among Mississippi’s publicly funded educational institutions.2
Reaction to the final settlement has been mixed. Leaders of Alcorn State, Jackson State, and Mississippi Valley State universities have all expressed eagerness to have the case closed and to move forward with planned improvements to their campuses with the money earmarked for that purpose in the settlements. Politicians, state leaders, and members of Mississippi’s state board of education have also expressed their satisfaction with the result of the case. Others, however, including the attorney and plaintiffs who carried the appeal to the Supreme Court as well as professors and other leaders in Mississippi education, have expressed dismay over the outcome. They note the irony of the federal government’s prohibiting admissions based on quantifiable “affirmative action” (designed to increase black participation at historically white schools), yet requiring public black universities to spend public money to recruit a preset number of nonblack students. They also object to the terms of the settlement that put the onus of integration on the three black universities, noting that the historically white schools’ achievement of greater racial diversity is due primarily to their long histories of relative wealth and prestige. Furthermore, it is arguable whether the current level of desegregation at these traditionally white schools arises mainly from their own efforts or from those of students who insisted on their right to attend; the black colleges have certainly not tried to prevent nonblack students from attending their schools. Those who object to the final ruling in the case also point to the large population of black students in the state who are not served by any of the eight public universities, arguing that the three historically black colleges are uniquely situated to serve this population but that the current admissions standards prevent this. Overall, these plaintiffs—and supporters outside the state who have commented on the issue—believe that the settlement is a mere bandage over a deep wound and that the development of highquality institutions to serve black students is further out of reach now than before the case was settled.
What implication does Fordice have for HBCUs and higher education overall? The decades’ long court case could result in additional resources being given to black colleges to improve facilities if states follow the spirit of the court’s decision. However, critics contend that this type of remedy for historical discrimination by the state could, in fact, “slide back to the ‘separate but equal’ arrangement as defined by Plessy a century ago.3Still, according to Fordice experts David Weerts and Clifton Conrad, “most observers concede that enhancement of the HBCUs is essential to level the playing field and to encourage students of all races to attend historically black institutions.4 Other outcomes of the Fordice decision might include increases in black college faculty salaries (making them comparable to those of their peers at predominantly white institutions) and the addition of new “highquality master’s and doctoral programs..5 Unfortunately, some state legislatures have suggested closure or the merging of black colleges with nearby predominantly white institutions (an action taken by the government in South Africa, a country that also has historically black institutions). According to Weerts and Conrad, “most members of the black community continue to call this option an inappropriate remedy, pointing out the irony of closing the very institutions that sustained blacks during segregation as a way to combat the vestiges of segregation.6 Even after years of legal struggle, the question remains, will education for blacks be improved?
With regard to inequities in higher education, especially those addressed by Fordice, new research geared toward policy makers points to the continued inequality felt by African American students in the South. Of particular interest is a study led by Laura W. Perna that examined the status of equity for blacks in enrollment and bachelor’s degree attainment at public institutions of higher education in the South. Perna and her colleagues found that despite some progress, public colleges and universities in the South remain greatly unequal for African Americans, with race being the strongest determinant of access and opportunity within higher education.7 The researchers also found that public fouryear black colleges are the only sector of higher education in the South that consistently achieves equity in enrollment and degree completion across the nineteen southern and border states, whereas the greatest inequality occurs at public flagship institutions.
Shared Governance and Academic Freedom
The Association considers faculty involvement in institutional governance crucial to the vitality of academic freedom. The Association’s Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities allocates primary responsibilities to the faculty on matters relating to “curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, research, faculty status, and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process.8 And yet it is in the area of academic freedom and shared governance that historically black colleges and universities have been most criticized by those concerned with the state of the profession.
HBCUs have received negative media attention regarding their financial stability, academic quality, and accreditation processes.9 These problems likely strain the relationship between faculty and administrators, leading the latter to impose their prerogatives on the former. Indeed, the negative perceptions of HBCUs stem largely from a belief that their administrators and especially their presidents are autocrats. Lincoln University professor Robert Millette called this phenomenon the “big man/big woman syndrome.”10 In support of this view, one can point to the disproportionate number of HBCUs that are on the AAUP’s list of censured administrations. Indeed, in 2004 and 2005, the Association censured the administrations of three HBCUs (Meharry Medical College, Philander Smith College, and Virginia State University) and condemned another that was already on the list (Benedict College). The investigations of all these institutions found administrations that disregarded principles of shared governance and treated faculty as subject to their unilateral decisions. One important area for critical study, therefore, is how one becomes a president or senior administrator at an HBCU. What kind of mentoring do presidents receive prior to taking office? Do senior administrators rise up through the faculty ranks, come from corporate America, or get their experience elsewhere? We hope that higher education scholars will begin to more fully explore these issues. To date, few researchers have studied the HBCU presidency.11
While concerns about autocratic leadership should not be downplayed, in accounting for it, one must understand the historical and current contexts in which HBCUs operate. For obvious reasons, the history of HBCUs cannot be dissociated from the history of racism and state sanctioned discrimination in the United States. The overwhelming majority of HBCUs were established immediately after the emancipation of slaves. The philosophy that drove their curricula and public service was primarily that of industrial education. Their primary purpose, it was thought, was to help the newly freed slaves gain employment, rather than to disseminate knowledge for its own sake, which arguably was a primary purpose of the traditionally white institution.12Often, faculty members at HBCUs have concentrated more on racial uplift than professional concerns and thus may not have carved out a place for themselves in institutional governance as a matter of right.13 Although their focus may have shifted over the years, HBCU faculty members still maintain a firm commitment to racial uplift through teaching and mentoring. Yet, ultimately, academic freedom and shared governance are critical to achieving the larger educational goals of HBCUs.
One of the essential tasks for the Association, therefore, is to help faculty at HBCUs learn how to value and protect academic freedom and shared governance. We suggest that the Association hold workshops throughout the year and at its annual meeting to provide practical strategies to HBCU faculty members. In addition, members of the AAUP staff and committee chairs should visit HBCUs to bring information on shared governance to the black college campuses. We also suggest that the Association offer a reduced membership fee to black college faculty members, making it more feasible for them to be involved on the average HBCU salary (associate professors at black colleges make an average of $53,070, whereas the average associate professor salary at institutions of higher education overall is $60,073).14
The unique burden of historical discrimination that HBCUs have faced, and the distinctive mission they have taken on as a result, have often put them at a disadvantage with respect to their white counterparts, not just in terms of the values the Association deems most worthy, but also in economic terms. Except in a few private HBCUs, finances have always been inadequate, and this in turn exacerbates the HBCUs’ problems with academic freedom and shared governance. Moreover, at a time when all institutions face decreased public funding and financial constraints are already large, tension develops between administrators who want to be decisive about budget priorities and faculty who want to have input into the process of shared governance and maintain academic freedom. Thus, while it may seem to some in the academy that there are greater violations of Association principles at HBCUs than at predominantly white institutions, this may be because the former tend to be in a constant state of financial crisis and not because there is an inherent (or cultural) antagonism to such principles.15 shared governance at HBCUs must be understood within this economic context.
Confirming that there is nothing inherently antagonistic to Association principles at HBCUs, higher education scholar James T. Minor, writing in the May–June 2005 issue of Academe, finds strong commitment to shared governance at these institutions.16 IIn the survey he describes in his article, there was only slightly less support for shared governance at HBCUs than at predominantly white institutions—a difference that is easily attributable to the difficult historical and economic circumstances mentioned above. These circumstances have already been addressed in this report, but there are also structural conditions that merit consideration.
First, shared governance at HBCUs may not take place in traditional venues such as faculty senates. According to Minor, faculty input occurs mostly through committees and academic departments—a point often missed by outside observers. Nevertheless, a faculty senate is one of the most important means by which faculty express themselves as a collective. And given that many HBCU faculty members are not in collective bargaining units, the Association should work with these institutions to build their senates.17
Another condition affecting shared governance at HBCUs is the fact that faculty at these institutions may be more diverse (and thus less cohesive) than those at predominantly white institutions, where many faculty (most of whom are white) come from similar racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups.18Such homogeneity allows for easier communication in group settings and hence more effective participation.19 At HBCUs, the picture is different: racial makeup is sometimes split between blacks and whites, and these groups are occasionally in conflict.20 such conflict thwarts the effectiveness of senates or other representative bodies. Of course, ample benefits result from increased diversity, including the fostering of new ideas that can often lead to disagreement.21The Association must work with all faculty members at HBCUs in order to identify their common concerns. We suggest an annual meeting session emphasizing shared governance across racial divisions, or the inclusion of experts on shared governance at HBCUs, such as James Minor, on the annual meeting program.
There is one final condition affecting participation in institutional government, especially through faculty senates. Such representative bodies conduct their business publicly and require faculty to speak their minds openly. As journalist Kendra Hamilton points out, however, taboos may exist among black faculty against speaking out publicly in opposition to the college’s president and other administrators.22 This is attributable to the “hyper-visibility” of race: some African Americans feel that airing their grievances publicly may lend credibility to stereotypes, putting weaknesses on display, rather than contributing to a robust critical discourse, as should occur in academia.
Accreditation has long been a difficult process for HBCUs. It is hard to imagine how a college would flourish without being accredited. Both reputation and benefits are tied to successfully navigating the accreditation process. Accreditation has been tied to federal financial aid since the passage in 1952 of the Readjustment Assistance Act. Unaccredited institutions are not eligible to award federal and state student aid, including veterans’ benefits, loans, and grants.
The accreditation process is governed by six regional associations. Since black colleges are found almost exclusively in the South and in border states, most HBCUs are beholden to the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) for official endorsement. SACS has recently been the most active of the regional associations in its public sanctioning of institutions.23 It has been criticized for its disproportionate attention to HBCUs. According to faculty members Saran Donahoo and Wynetta Lee, between 1996 and 2005, 25 percent of SACS’s sanctions pertained to black colleges, while these institutions make up only 13 percent of the SACS institutional membership.24 In addition, since 1989, nearly half of the twenty institutions that lost their accreditation from SACS were historically black.25
Most reprimands and revocations of accreditation are due to financial deficits; however, faculty quality (degrees), campus infrastructure, student enrollments, and even library holdings play a role in the certification process. The loss of accreditation can have a snowball effect, making it impossible for an institution to distribute financial aid, leading to a loss of students. As a result, the institutions cannot recover financially, which dooms their chance at re-accreditation. Since unaccredited private black colleges cannot be members of the United Negro College Fund, these institutions lose access to an additional source of funding needed to sustain their operating budgets.
The following institutions have recently experienced accreditation problems.
Barber Scotia College (Concord, N.C.; four-year Presbyterian institution). Accreditation was rescinded in 2004 because of academic and financial problems. Chief among the academic problems was the granting of degrees to twenty eight students who had not met graduation requirements.
Bennett College (Greensboro, N.C.; four-year Methodist women’s college). The college was placed on probation in 2002 for financial issues and later removed from that status in 2004. The turnaround occurred after Johnnetta B. Cole, the institution’s new president, began a successful campaign for support with former Sen. Robert Dole acting as the chair of the campaign.
Edward Waters College (Jacksonville, Fla.; four-year institution affiliated with the African Methodist Episcopal Church). Accreditation was originally rescinded in 2004 because the administration plagiarized large portions of a quality-enhancement plan from Alabama A & M University and submitted it to SACS for its reaccreditation. In 2005, SACS reinstated accreditation as a result of the settlement of a lawsuit brought by the college against SACS. The institution recently obtained SACS reaffirmation.
Grambling State University (Grambling, La.; four-year public institution). The university was originally placed on probation by SACS in 2001 because the institution’s financial records were disorganized to the extent that the Louisiana state auditor has been unable to audit the university since 1997. The state approved Grambling’s records in 2002; however, SACS required a longer probation before reinstating accreditation, as it wanted the institution to demonstrate a longer track record of success.
Knoxville College (Knoxville, Tenn.; four-year, church-related institution). The college lost accreditation from SACS in 1996 because its debt reached $3.2 million and enrollment dropped by two thirds, from 1,200 to 400 students. As a result of losing its accreditation, the college reorganized itself as the first black college to join the six member Work College Consortium—a group that includes Alice Lloyd College, Berea College, Blackburn College, the College of the Ozarks, Sterling College, and Warren Wilson College. In addition, the college laid off half of its 125 faculty members to bring the budget into line.
LeMoyne-Owen College (Memphis, Tenn.; four-year Church of Christ institution). The college was placed on a twelvemonth probation in December 2005 after SACS determined that it needed to reduce its $6 million debt and further improve the qualifications of the business school’s faculty. Enrollment has dropped from 1,200 to 800 in recent years.
Lewis College of Business (Detroit, Mich.; two-year private institution). The college was placed on “show cause” status, the final step prior to loss of accreditation. The North Central Association of Colleges and Schools concluded in early 2006 that the college was not complying with requests to provide information on its financial position and administrative procedures. Prior to this judgment, the accreditor determined that the board of directors was not involved in the college’s affairs and the institution did not show a clear administrative structure.
Mary Holmes College (West Point, Miss.; two-year institution affiliated with the Presbyterian Church). The college lost accreditation in 2002 because of financial concerns and declining enrollments. Shortly afterward, the institution’s president resigned. In addition, Mary Holmes suffered much damage as a result of Hurricane Katrina, making it even more difficult for the small institution to get back on its feet.
Morris Brown College (Atlanta, Ga.; a four-year institution affiliated with the African Methodist Episcopal Church). The college lost its accreditation in 2002 after accumulating $23 million in debt and being accused of using federal allocations for student financial aid to pay overdue bills.
Selma University (Selma, Ala.; four-year institution affiliated with the Alabama State Missionary Baptist Convention). After losing accreditation from SACS in 1996 for having a $10 million debt, the institution switched its accreditation to the Association for Biblical Higher Education.
Talladega College (Talladega, Ala.; four-year Church of Christ institution). The college was placed on a twelvemonth probation in December 2005 for the second time in recent years and will be reviewed in the upcoming months. At the time of the most recent probation, enrollment had fallen to 303 students, health insurance for the staff was suspended, and the campus had millions of dollars in deferred maintenance.
Solutions to Accreditation Problems
In response to the many accreditation revocations and probations, the Southern Education Fund established a threeyear HBCU leadership program in 2004. The initiative, supported by the Charles Stewart Mott and Andrew Mellon foundations, provides grants ranging from $10,000 to $20,000 for special projects to help institutions secure their accreditation status. The Southern Education Fund also supplies money to institutional leaders to attend SACS conferences and educational programs. The hope is that by attending such events, black college administrators will be able to establish working relationships with the accreditors, enabling them to comfortably ask questions if an issue arises in the future. Ideally, attention to these matters on a regular basis will alleviate the need for official sanctions.
In addition, SACS’s Commission on Colleges installed its first black president, Belle S. Wheelan, in 2005. The previous president was at the helm of the commission for twenty years. Wheelan has acknowledged the past tension between HBCUs and her organization and wants to increase communication with and provide educational programs to all institutions, including HBCUs. Wheelan has also committed to hiring more African American employees to help the image of SACS and improve relations with its HBCU members. Since Wheelan took office a year ago, SACS has not removed any HBCU accreditations and has placed fewer black colleges on probation.
Although black colleges have always accepted students of different racial and ethnic backgrounds, their institutional missions have focused mainly on the education and uplift of African Americans. For many years, white students have attended black colleges in small numbers. Recently, though, black colleges have seen increased numbers of white students enrolling on their campuses. And, in some cases, HBCUs are recruiting white students as a legal requirement to diversify the student body or to make ends meet with additional tuition dollars. Between 1980 and 1990, white enrollment at black colleges increased by more than 10,000 students. In 1995, the enrollment peaked, with 35,963 white students at the HBCUs throughout the country (and over 250,000 African American students).26 According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, which last analyzed data in 2001, white enrollment at HBCUs hovers around 35,000 students. Although most of the increase in enrollment has been at public black colleges and results from court orders such as Fordice mandating increased diversity at HBCUs, white students have realized the economic bargain that many black colleges offer—a sound education with low tuition. The table accompanying this report shows the black colleges with the highest white enrollments.
Although some administrators at black colleges consider increased white enrollment a testament to the fact that their institutions have transcended race and are now viewed as suitable for any students regardless of color, others worry that this influx is costing African American students precious scholarships and slots at betterknown black colleges. In addition, some fear that the influx of white students could lead to a shift in the overall mission and culture of black colleges. Will the increased enrollment of whites lead to a decrease in institutional commitment to racial uplift for African Americans? Will pressure from the courts, at public institutions in particular, make it difficult for black colleges to maintain this commitment? With a change in institutional culture, it may become difficult to maintain some of the traditions at black colleges. For example, at Bluefield State College in West Virginia, where the local community includes only 3 percent African Americans (down from 53 percent fifty years ago), both the community surrounding the campus and the campus itself have changed greatly. Although the institution has an African American president, it has only three black faculty members and one black Greek letter organization (with a mere four members).27
Other black colleges believe that they can maintain their institution’s core mission and also recruit white students. For example, both Mississippi Valley State University and Cheney University of Pennsylvania have spent money on recruitment materials directed at whites. These institutions’ presidents have also spoken with the media about their interest in and efforts to diversify their campuses.28 Although the alumni of some black colleges think the time has come to diversify, others are deeply concerned about the future of their alma maters.
The Future of Black Colleges
Currently, black colleges make up 3 percent of all institutions of higher education and enroll 14 percent of African American undergraduate students. However, they graduate 28 percent of all African American undergraduate students who earn a degree.29 As noted in the 1995 AAUP report on HBCUs, these institutions play a significant part in placing African Americans in graduate and professional school as well. According to the United Negro College Fund, of the top ten colleges that graduate African Americans who go on to earn PhDs or MDs, nine are HBCUs, as are eight out of the ten top producers of African American graduates in mathematics and statistics.30 And the twelve top producers of African American graduates in the physical sciences are all black institutions, including Xavier University of Louisiana, which is ranked first.31 In fact, Xavier is responsible for placing more African American students in medical school than any other institution in America. And, even more important, 92 percent of these students complete medical school and pass board exams.32 However, in the aftermath of the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina, will Xavier continue to serve the American public by turning out top black MD candidates as it has in the past? Unlike their predominantly white counterparts in the same city, black colleges such as Xavier do not have the same endowment and operating funds to cope with a disaster of this magnitude. Yet they, and their counterparts around the country, continue to overcome historical disadvantages and make remarkable contributions to public life in the United States.
Black colleges do remarkable work for the U.S. educational system, but they have been stretched thin. Their heavy reliance on outside funding sources, coupled with an often weak infrastructure for soliciting alumni contributions, has made for difficult times. In order to secure the future of these institutions, it is essential that they have stronger endowments. Black colleges must continue to secure funding from foundations and corporations, and, more important, they must gain support from their alumni. In recent years, several foundations have committed substantial sums to building the fundraising capacity at black colleges—among them the Lilly Foundation, the Kresge Foundation, the Archibald Bush Foundation, and the Pew Charitable Trusts. These foundations have realized that establishing an infrastructure for fund raising will accomplish more than merely giving money to patch holes.33 At first glance, fund raising may seem to have no connection to the goals of the AAUP. However, as noted earlier, threats to academic freedom and a lack of shared governance are only exacerbated at financially unstable institutions.
In the current conservative climate, the federal government has abandoned race-conscious efforts to rectify past injustices, focusing instead on the so called race-blind society. This may cause a change in the role and nature of black colleges. As a result of the Michigan higher education cases (Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger), both public and private colleges and universities are hypersensitive about their use of race in admissions, scholarship decisions, programs, and hiring, despite the fact that the Supreme Court allowed for the use of race as one of many factors in decision making. This hypersensitivity will inevitably result in fewer opportunities for African American students and faculty, making black colleges and the role that they play even more important. The strength and viability of these historical institutions thus become even more important to the future success of African American students and faculty. We must find ways to assist black colleges in their pursuit of academic freedom, quality, and resources. The AAUP can play a role by committing time and resources to understanding the problems plaguing these institutions as well as the ample opportunities that lie ahead. The Association should push—even against the tide of indifference to racial injustice—for diversity within predominantly white institutions, while simultaneously supporting quality, fair representation, and academic freedom within black colleges.
MARYBETH GASMAN, University of Pennsylvania, chair
BENJAMIN BAEZ, Florida International University
NOAH D. DREZNER, research assistant
KATHERINE V. SEDGWICK, research assistant
CHRISTOPHER TUDICO, research assistant
JULIE M. SCHMID, staff
1. Steven Provasnik and Linda Shafer, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 1976–2001 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 69 National Center for Educational Statistics, 2004). Back to text
2. Fifth Circuit Court decision, last paragraph before section three, http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/ 02/0260493CV0.wpd.pdf (accessed May 20, 2005). Back to text
3. David J. Weerts and Clifton Conrad, “Desegregation in Higher Education,” in Higher Education in the United States: An Encyclopedia, ed. by James J. F. Forest and Kevin Kinsey, 1:165 (Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABCCLIO, 2002). Back to text
4. Ibid. Back to text
5. Ibid. Back to text
6. Ibid. Back to text
7. Laura W. Perna, Jeff F. Milem, Danette Gerald, Evan Baum, Heather Rowan, and Neal Hutchens, “The Status of Equity for Black Undergraduates in Public Higher Education in the South,” Research in Higher Education 47 (2006): 197–228. Back to text
8. AAUP, “Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities,” Policy Documents and Reports, 10th ed. (Washington, D.C., 2006), 135–140. Back to text
9. Marybeth Gasman, “Truth, Generalizations, and Stigmas: An Analysis of the Media’s Coverage of Morris Brown College and Black Colleges Overall,” Review of Black Political Economy (forthcoming).Back to text
10. Robert E. Millette, “Leadership and Shared Governance at Historically Black Colleges and Universities: Observations and Recommendations,” www.lincoln.edu/ history/journal/millette1.htm (accessed May 27, 2005). Back to text
11. A riveting panel was held at the 2003 Association for the Study of Higher Education annual meeting on the HBCU presidency entitled “Voices of Resilience and Stewardship: Evolutionary Trends in HBCU Leadership.” The participants were Brian Bridges (George Washington University), Shederick McClendon (University of Massachusetts– Amherst), and Shaun Harper (Pennsylvania State University). Back to text
12. James D. Anderson, The Education of Blacks in the South (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988); Henry Drewry and Humphrey Doerman, Stand and Prosper: Private Black Colleges and Their Students (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2003). Back to text
13. Daniel Thompson, Private Black Colleges at the Crossroads (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1973); Charles Willie and Ronald Edmonds, eds., Black Colleges in America: Challenge, Development, and Survival (New York: Teachers College Press, 1978). Back to text
14. According to the 2005–06 AAUP faculty compensation survey, at baccalaureate institutions (most HBCUs are of this type), assistant professors earn on average $46,162 as compared to assistant professors in general who earn $49,446. The greatest disparities in earnings can be found at the full professor rank. Full professors at HBCUs earn $61,935, while full professors overall earn $77,127. The annual faculty compensation survey is published in the March–April issue of Academe. Back to text
15. An examination of the twenty institutions that have been censured by the AAUP since 1995 (the year that the last HBCU report was published) reveals that 20 percent of the institutions on the censure list are HBCUs. This is out of proportion with their representation among higher education institutions, as they make up only 3 percent of the nation’s colleges and universities. Back to text
16. James T. Minor, “Faculty Governance at Historically Black Colleges and Universities,” Academe 91 (May–June 2005): 34–37. Back to text
17.The following black colleges have AAUP collective bargaining chapters: Delaware State University, Central State University, Lincoln University, Wilberforce University, and Edward Waters College. Back to text
18. For more information on the homogeneity of predominantly white institutions see, Adolph Reed, The (Un)Changing Face of the Ivy League (New Haven, Conn.: Yale Unions, 2005), http://www.yaleunions.org/ geso/reports/Ivy.pdf. Back to text
19. Of course, there is diversity at predominantly white institutions. For example, conflict within faculty senates occurs across gender lines as well as across disciplinary lines. However, for this report, we are concentrating on race and the divisions that manifest themselves because of it. Back to text
20. Lenoar Foster, Janet A. Guyden, and Andrea L. Miller, eds., Affirmed Action: Essays on the Academic and Social Lives of White Faculty Members at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 1999). Back to text
21. Patricia Gurin, Eric Dey, Sylvia Hurtado, and Gerald Gurin, “Diversity and Higher Education: Theory and Impact on Educational Outcomes,” Harvard Educational Review 72, no. 3 (2002): 332–66. Back to text
22. Kendra Hamilton, “Of Shared Governance and Trust,” Black Issues in Higher Education 20, no.23 (January 1, 2004): 29–33. Back to text
23. Saran Donahoo and Wynetta Lee, “The Adversity of Diversity: Regional Associations and the Accreditation of MinorityServing Institutions,” in Understanding Minority Institutions, ed. by Marybeth Gasman, Benjamin Baez, and Caroline Sotello Turner. (New York: State University of New York Press, forthcoming). Back to text
24. Ibid. Back to text
25. Burton Bollag, “Trying Prevention Before Punishment,” Chronicle of Higher Education, June 2, 2006, A21. Back to text
26. National Center for Educational Statistics, www.nces.ed.gov (accessed June 5, 2006). Back to text
27.From 1978 through 2002, Bluefield State College had white presidents. President Albert Walker is the first African American leader in almost twentyfive years. Back to text
28. Ben Lowe, “Cheney University Recruits White Students,” Pennsylvania Daily Inquirer, February 18,2005, 12. Back to text
29. United Negro College Fund, Fact Sheet, www,ubcf,org (accessed June 5, 2006). Back to text
30.Ibid. Back to text
31. Ibid. Back to text
32. American Medical Association, www.ama-assn.org (Accessed June 5, 2006). Back to text
33. For a more extensive discussion of fundraising issues at black colleges, see Marybeth Gasman, “Black Colleges Must Tap Alumni,” Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, June 22, 2006: 110. Back to text