The Legacy of Desegregation

The Struggle for Equality in Higher Education

R. Maples

• Publisher: Palgrave Pivot
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781137437990
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education Theory & Practice

The book analyzes the struggle of African Americans to gain access and equity in higher education in the United States. It chronicles some of the history prior to court ordered segregation and traces the mandate to desegregate by following the Adams v. Richardson (1973) case, which ordered the dismantling of dual systems of higher education.

1

A Historical View of Desegregation in Higher Education

Abstract: The history of African Americans in higher education (i.e., Black enrollment) provides the background for understanding how “dual education systems” developed for “Whites” and “Blacks.” Legalized separation by race was endorsed with the “separate-but-equal” ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and upheld the development of separate education systems. It was not until Brown v. Board of Education (1954) that public education was mandated to dismantle its “separate-but-equal” facilities. Prior to this, five court cases pointed the way for efforts to promote access to higher education: University of Maryland v. Murray (1935), Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada (1938), Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma (1948), Sweatt v. Painter (Texas, 1950), and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education (1950).

Maples, Rebeka L. The Legacy of Desegregation: The Struggle for Equality in Higher Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. DOI: 10.1057/9781137437990.0008.

The history of American education is a history in which claims to citizenship and education rights intersect. In his classic study, James Anderson succinctly argues that, in order to understand American education, one must understand history and “recognize that within American democracy there have been classes of oppressed people and that there have been essential relationships between popular [public] education and the politics of oppression” (1988, p. 1). Thus, what developed in American history were the basic tenets of apartheid or a separation of “races” (as defined by color). Anderson calls this a history of “opposing traditions,” whereby “both schooling for democratic citizenship and schooling for second-class citizenship” developed simultaneously (ibid.). In this context, racialized lenses limit the vision of pluralism and narrow the boundaries of inclusivity. Anderson’s claim, that understanding American education requires understanding a democracy based on classes of oppressed people (ibid.), remains a marginal discussion in American politics and in American education. This study seeks to broaden that discussion by dismantling the prism of race and dualistic thinking about democracy.

The history of Black enrollment in higher education contains numerous stories of legal and political controversies. The chronology of these events provides the background for understanding how “dual education systems” developed in public higher education in the United States, with one system for “Whites” and another for “Blacks” (Commission on Civil Rights, 1981). After the Civil War, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution legally brought emancipated slaves into mainstream America; in reality it would take continual political/legal pressure to enforce this legalized status.

The subsequent era of Reconstruction (1865–1877) included efforts by the federal government to incorporate freed slaves into political, economic, and social arenas with the (Anglo/White) majority in mainstream America. During this time, some African Americans did vote and others were elected to public office (Bennett, 1984, pp. 233–234). The Reconstruction era ended, though, in 1896 when legalized separation by race was endorsed with the “separate-but-equal” ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). This case was used to uphold the separate development of Black and White education systems. It was not until the decision of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) that public education was mandated to dismantle its “separate-but-equal” facilities.

The legacy of de jure (by law) and de facto (in practice) segregation practices in public education often resulted in conflicting policies for the enrollment of African American students. The formation and elimination of dual education systems reflect major policy shifts by the federal government in two different eras (segregation and desegregation) toward state-supported higher education systems. As several Supreme Court decisions in higher education indicated, these changes often put states in opposition to federal rulings, as occurred in Sipuel v. Board of Regents University of Oklahoma (1948), Sweatt v. Painter (1950) in Texas, and U.S. v. Kirk Fordice (1991) in Mississippi. These historical cases highlight an area where political and educational realities come together and influence policy-making.

Education before 1896

Studies on desegregation assert that separate educational systems came about as an extension of racial norms and laws established during slavery (Blackwell, 1991; Fleming, 1976; Myers, 1989). Legal restrictions or “compulsory ignorance laws” required the illiteracy of slaves (Weinberg, 1977). For instance, “An Act Prohibiting the Teaching of Slaves to Read” in 1830 was used to “protect” slaves from ideas that had “a tendency to excite dissatisfaction in their minds and to produce insurrection and rebellion” (Rothenberg, 1988, p. 191). Even though legal restrictions against education contributed later to the formation of separate education systems, slaves found “hidden passages” for learning (before legal avenues were available), through “clandestine” or “secret schools,” religious instruction, or with the help of abolitionist teachers (Fleming, 1976, p. 18). Thus, the argument can be made that the education of African Americans began by default as a political act since it was a violation of the law.

As many historical accounts indicate, at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation (1863), legal barriers were in place to prevent African Americans from enrolling in most American education systems (Fleming, 1976, p. 41). During Reconstruction (1865–1877), freed slaves participated in politics, were elected to Congress, and in some states attended integrated schools (Fleming, 1976, pp. 40–51). However, state and federal political actions slowly usurped that level of social and political participation (Rothenberg, 1988, pp. 210–217). After 1865, the restrictions on education paralleled those that appeared elsewhere in the political arena (Du Bois, 1972). Educational and social gains were only as secure as the political influence that African Americans could obtain (Fleming, 1976, p. 68). After the removal of federal troops from the South (with the Compromise of 1876), states began to rewrite their constitutions to exclude African Americans from voting; literacy tests and poll taxes were added along with other registration requirements. These tactics eliminated thousands of voters from the polls. In Louisiana, Black voter registration dropped from 130,335 in 1896 to 1,324 in 1904 (Smith, Rice, & Jones, 1991, p. 29). This devastating decline crippled the future of African Americans for decades in terms of full citizenship rights.

The Freedmen’s Bureau, established in 1865, aided freed African Americans in access to public education. It was set up after the Civil War to integrate freed slaves and “displaced Whites” into mainstream society (Blackwell, 1991, p. 164), but many factors undermined those efforts. Jim Crow laws or Black Codes appeared as revisions of prior Slave Codes, rewritten with the word “Slave” replaced by “Negro” (Rothenberg, 1988, pp. 210–217). The political participation that some African Americans had experienced during Reconstruction was gradually denied (ibid., p. 210). Thus, by the 1890s, “separate modes” of public higher education and electoral participation (voting and holding office) were legally sanctioned by most states (Fleming, 1976, pp. 50–51), effectively banning public education and political participation for most African Americans. The Bureau had provided more help than any other federal program to “displaced” Americans during Reconstruction (Blackwell, 1987, p. 4; Davis, 1933, p. 312). In terms of higher education, the origin of “Black colleges” was initiated with financial assistance from the Freedmen’s Bureau. In its short history (1865–1872), the Bureau established 654 elementary schools, 74 high schools (or “normal” schools), and 61 industrial schools for the education of freed slaves (Davis, 1933, p. 315).

While the Freedmen’s Bureau aided African Americans (and poor Anglo Americans) in the South more than any other agency after the Civil War, constitutional amendments were essential. The 13th Amendment expanded the role of the Emancipation Proclamation to include the Border States, and thus ending slavery. The 1866 Civil Rights Act banned discrimination on the basis of race; in 1868, the 14th Amendment gave citizenship rights to all African Americans; and the 15th Amendment gave African American men the right to vote. Women of all races/nationalities were still excluded from full citizenship rights, which would require further political pressure for attempts at power sharing to be realized. Even with women’s suffrage, the dynamics of race could not be avoided (Cooper, 1988). Some southern states refused to comply with constitutional changes and clung to former Confederate standards and Black Codes, which made the presence of Union troops necessary to implement the changes introduced for Reconstruction (Olson, 1994, p. 98).

The “normal school” was the first version of a public higher education system for African Americans after the Civil War (Commission on Civil Rights, 1981, p. 3). These schools were originally established to prepare African Americans as teachers in “Negro” schools in the South. According to Mayhew (1977, p. 173), the normal school was not a college, but a place where graduates of elementary school were trained as elementary school teachers. Later, students were trained to become high school teachers as the public high school system expanded to include Negro high schools. These early types of schools and colleges were the foundation for what developed into dual education systems.

The case for dual education

In 1896, segregation laws were endorsed with the “separate-but-equal” ruling of the Supreme Court case, Plessy v. Ferguson (Blackwell, 1987, pp. 12–14). This decision legalized separation of people by race/color (Black/White) in public transportation, and it became the legal mandate for separation in other contexts as well. The overriding intention was to limit the participation of African Americans in public education (Fleming, 1976, p. 68; Rothenberg, 1988, p. 224). An underlying fear of the “Black American” was well established in “White American” culture at this point, and legal endorsement further fueled a belief system created to maintain an ideology of White superiority/Black inferiority. Legalized barriers to education would reinforce racial myths over actual realities. This phenomenon is found in current literature, as scholars continue to decipher this racial paradox (Wacquant, 2005). The fear of “Blackness” runs deep in the American psyche, causing a disruption in the rules of logic when applying “equality” to the races (Cooper, 1988, p. 109). The Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) decision virtually helped to create a “racial caste” system for separate-and-unequal development on all levels of participation; and, “The establishment of racial castes also set off a protracted racial-political struggle over legal status and civil and economic rights” (Upton & Maples, 2002, p. 125). In fact, this established what came to be known as the “Jim Crow” era, a regime (of sorts) that “reworked the racialised boundary between slave and free into a rigid caste separation between ‘whites’ and ‘Negroes’ ” (Wacquant, 2005, p. 127). This historic “caste” ranking would most likely deflect the avoidance of “class” analysis of American social hierarchy.

At any rate, historians concur that “separate-but-equal” actually meant “separate-but-unequal” (Blackwell, 1987, p. 20; Fleming, 1976, p. 66). The separate or dual systems of education that developed from the Plessy case often relegated Black schools to the use of inadequate facilities and resources (Commission on Civil Rights, 1981, p. 4). For instance, Black/African American schoolteachers received half the salary (or less) of White/Anglo American teachers (Fleming., 1976, p. 64). The disparate allocation of resources ensured that Black schools and teachers would be kept in a less-than-equal status for the next 100 years.

There were numerous ways in which separate-but-equal goals were never realized. One paradoxical situation arose in the early 1900s. African American citizens were forced, by law, to pay taxes to support public schools in districts in which they lived, and they were prevented, by law, from attending those same tax-supported schools (ibid., pp. 48–49). Thus, African American citizens paid taxes for schools that they could not attend and sought other funding for schools that they could attend. Even when federal funds were allocated to Black schools, they were often redirected at the state level to other “special” accounts, and Black schools never received the funds allocated to them (ibid., pp. 70–72).

The participation of African Americans in public higher education is traced further to the provisions of the 1862 and 1890 Morrill Acts. The first Morrill Act brought the federal government into higher education with its establishment of “land-grant” universities (ibid., p. 50). The actual participation of freed slaves in higher education was established in 1890, when the second Morrill Act guaranteed financial support for the formation of Black colleges (ibid., p. 70). Preer (1982) contends that the irony of this support is that it was not seen as the endorsement of separate-but-equal, but as the “advancement of educational access” (p. 127). While it prohibited funds to colleges that discriminated against applicants by race or color, it also funded the establishment of separate (Black) colleges, thereby supporting separation of the races and providing opportunities for the parallel advancement of higher education for both races.

Black colleges, however, were founded both prior to and after the Morrill Acts. The terms “historically,” “traditionally,” and “predominantly” are used interchangeably to refer to Black colleges in much of the higher education literature, and the term “traditionally White colleges” refers to those institutions that were founded for Americans based on color preference. “Traditionally” and “predominantly Black colleges” usually refer to colleges located in large urban areas with majority Black populations, although the White population was not prohibited from attending most Black colleges. In these cases, the tradition of a large Black enrollment is due to the location of the school (Institute for the Study of Educational Policy, 1978, p. 68). Those schools that were founded specifically to train and educate African American students are usually referred to as “HBCUs” or Historically Black Colleges and Universities (National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education [NAFEO], 1990, p. 1). The distinction between types of institutions is deemed as unnecessary for this study. References to Black (and White) colleges encompass all the historical and traditional contexts under which the colleges were established.

The first traditionally Black institution, Cheyney State College, was started in 1837 through a Quaker affiliation in Pennsylvania (Pifer, 1973, p. 6). Some other historically Black colleges were established for predominately Black enrollment but were also open to other nationalities—Wilberforce University (1856) in Ohio, Lincoln University (1854) in Pennsylvania, and Berea College (1855) in Kentucky (Blackwell, 1991, p. 248; Fleming, 1976, p. 38; Turner, 1985). Between 1854 and 1954, 123 colleges were established for African Americans (Blackwell, 1987, p. 3); since then, 105 historically, traditionally, and/or predominately Black colleges and universities have been recognized by the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education, with about 16 percent of all African American students in higher education enrolled at HBCUs (U.S. Department of Interior, 2005; National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education, 2010).

Seventeen “negro land-grant colleges” came into existence as a result of the second Morrill Act (Davis, 1933, p. 315). This led to an increased interest in the education of African Americans in the late 1800s due to several factors: the emancipation of slaves, the financial and organizational efforts of the Freedmen’s Bureau, numerous religious and philanthropic agencies, the budget investment of southern states ($110 million between 1870 and 1900), and support from individual donors (Davis, 1933, pp. 315–316). Reality did not support the myth of Black inferiority, as more and more colleges were needed to meet the demand for African Americans seeking higher education. Yet, disparities continued to divide American society into two separate-and-unequal nations.

By necessity, most of the early Black colleges operated as elementary and secondary schools (ibid., p. 326). In fact, none of the publicly supported Black colleges offered college work until 1916 or later (Bowles, & DeCosta, 1971, p. 33; Weinberg, 1977, p. 281). A 1930 study of land-grant colleges revealed that only 12 students were enrolled in college-level work at the 17 Black land-grant colleges in 1916 (Klein, 1930, pp. 859–863). Although a much higher number of students were enrolled at these institutions, most were not involved in college curricula comparable to that of White colleges. The problem was that Black colleges still had to provide secondary educational training—not because their students were inferior or incapable of learning, but because it was not available elsewhere. Data from 1920–1930 highlight these conditions and reveal different types of student enrollment in land-grant (public) colleges at that time.

Total Black enrollment figures for the 17 Black land-grant colleges from 1920 to 1930 indicate that major changes had occurred, in terms of the response by Black colleges to the education of African American students (Davis, 1933). In 1920 only 1,224 students were enrolled in Black col...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Introduction
• 1  A Historical View of Desegregation in Higher Education
• 2  Arguments for Desegregation in Higher Education
• 3  Reframing the Study of Desegregation
• 4  A Sociopolitical Analysis of Black Enrollment
• 5  Politics Matter for Black College Enrollment
• Appendices
• References
• Index