Federal District Judge Catherine Blake ruled Oct. 7 that Maryland, by allowing traditionally White institutions to duplicate programs already offered by historically Black colleges and universities, had created de facto segregation in its higher education system.

Maryland "offered no evidence that it has made any serious effort to address continuing historic duplication. Second, and even more troubling, the State has failed to prevent additional duplication, to the detriment of the HBIs," Blake wrote in her opinion.

Clifton Conrad, a professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and an expert in the area of segregation in higher education, said program duplication is a major indicator of the dualism that still exists in higher education despite the passage of landmark cases such as the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education and the 1992 U.S. v. Fordice, which attempted to mitigate the problem.

“Brown didn’t work in higher education, did it? No,” said the professor, who worked on Fordice and was called as an expert witness in the Maryland case.
In her opinion, Blake noted that statewide, 60 percent of the noncore programs at Maryland’s HBCUs are unnecessarily duplicated, compared with only 18 percent of its TWIs’ noncore programs. And, of the unique high-demand programs that fuel enrollment, there was an average of 17 per TWI and only three per HBCU.

The lack of unique programs at HBCUs has a segregating effect since it decreases the school’s attractiveness to students of all races, said Lezli Baskerville, president and CEO of the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education (NAFEO), mirroring Blake’s conclusions.

“When you undercut and duplicate those courses offered by HBCUs, you are not just segregating the schools and perpetuating a dual system of education, you are undermining our (Black) institutions in terms of growth,” she said.

Conrad concurred, saying, the presence of unique programs leads to increased funding.

“When you have unique, quality noncore programs the money will come,” he said.

Both Conrad and Baskerville said Judge Blake’s ruling could serve as a “wake-up” call to other jurisdictions, since Maryland is not the only state that has lingering policies traceable to the de jure or legal era of segregation.

“This (decision) is significant not only for Maryland,” Baskerville said. “We were waiting with bated breath for the ruling, hoping that this would set good precedent for at least four other states.”

NAFEO has complaints pending in at least four other states including Florida, Oklahoma and Texas. And there have been other red flags in states like Louisiana, Georgia and Ohio, she said.

For example, Baskerville said, Georgia’s Savannah State University, an HBCU, launched an acclaimed homeland security program that promised to draw students from all over. Within a matter of months, however, the state allowed a TWI in close proximity to launch a replica of that program and enrollment in the HBCU’s program petered out.

“[The Maryland ruling] gives us the leverage to go to other state legislatures, higher education systems, etc. and see if states have willingly or unknowingly perpetuated a dual system of higher education and to address the problem,” she said, later adding, “The judge went to great lengths to establish a good record for what states should look at in making good decisions about whether there are lingering effects of de jure segregation.”

In her opinion, Blake offered guidelines Maryland should consider as they developed an approach to dealing with the segregative program duplication.

Those included "expansion of mission and program uniqueness and institutional identity at the HBIs," and even "the transfer or merger of select high demand programs from TWIs to HBIs.”

Any solution will pose a difficult challenge to the state, Conrad said. Resources will have to be appropriated for faculty training, facility rehabbing and the like, which may be less tasking that trying to divvy up the programs among the institutions.

“It’s tricky because you have a lot of institutions involved. So it’s going to invite some creativity in finding the remedy to give HBCUs a useful programmatic identity,” Conrad said. “It’s challenging; it’s not going to be easy. Institutions like things to stay as they are [so] change and innovation can be painful.”

But the pain is worth it, he added.

“It is 2013. We need to get rid of the vestiges of segregation and move on,” he said.

(TriceEdneywire.com) - In a historic, 60-page decision Oct. 7, a federal court judge ruled that Maryland violated its constitutional commitment to dissolving vestiges of segregation in higher education by allowing traditionally White institutions to duplicate programs already offered by historically Black colleges and universities.

In the suit, filed in 2006 and argued in 2012, current and former students of Maryland’s public HBCUs—Bowie State University, Coppin State University, Morgan State University, and the University of Maryland Eastern Shore—argued they were subjected to ongoing segregative policies traceable to the de jure or legal era of segregation.

Federal District Judge Catherine Blake ruled partly in their favor, agreeing that Maryland had undermined HBCUs through unnecessary program duplication, such as the replication of Morgan State’s MBA program by Towson State and University of Baltimore, jointly. The resulting lack of unique programs at the state’s HBCUs, she wrote, had a segregative effect, by making those schools less attractive to students of all races. For example, according to the ruling, in 1976, HBCUs reported 18.2 percent White undergraduate and graduate enrollment. But, by 2008—seemingly as a result of the increase in duplicative programs at proximate TWIs-the enrollment of White undergraduates at HBIs was 3.35 percent.

Judge Blake found that Maryland’s penchant for harmful program duplication was “comparable to, and in some cases more pronounced than, the duplication found in Mississippi" in the Supreme Court case from two decades ago that sought to mitigate the vestiges of segregation in that state’s education system.

The court found that while the state’s TWIs have 296 unique noncore programs, its HBCUs have only 44. More significantly, among the high-demand programs, Maryland’s HBCUs offer only 11 non-duplicated programs, compared with 122 such programs at TWIs.

The court further concluded that Maryland "offered no evidence that it has made any serious effort to address continuing historic duplication. Second, and even more troubling, the State has failed to prevent additional duplication, to the detriment of the HBIs."

David Burton, president of the lead plaintiff, the Coalition for Excellence and Equity in Higher Education, said they were “elated” by the ruling.

"The very reason the Coalition was created was after the state undermined and duplicated Morgan's MBA program. We sought to prevent the marginalization of the HBIs and wanted them to have academic programs that are attractive to students and properly supported by faculty, facilities and other resources," he said in a statement.

Judge Blake did not order a specific remedy but provided guidelines for consideration including "expansion of mission and program uniqueness and institutional identity at the HBIs." She also suggested that "the transfer or merger of select high demand programs from TWIs to HBIs will be necessary.”

Michael D. Jones, lead counsel for the plaintiffs and a partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP in Washington, D.C., said that those suggested solutions would require an infusion of resources—to train faculty and possibly enhance facilities—to ensure success..

"We look forward to the remedies phase of the trial,” he said. “We will present evidence of the costs of developing programs and identifying those programs at the Traditionally White Institutions that need to be transferred to the Historically Black Institutions. We will also outline the additional resources that are necessary for those programs to be successful.

“We expect that at the end of the process Maryland's HBIs will be shining examples of the possibilities at HBIs."

Though Judge Blake’s ruling provided some vindication to the plaintiffs, it was only a partial victory. The court did not agree with the Coalition’s assertion that the state’s funding formula was unconstitutional, although it did recognize "an abundance of evidence demonstrating that Maryland's HBIs face challenges that stem from direct and indirect discrimination, economic stratification and pre-K-12th grade educational inequity."

HBCU supporters say they hope that the outcome of this case will prompt the state to do right by its traditionally Black institutions.

"Now that the Court has found Maryland in violation of the constitution,” said Jon Greenbaum, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs and chief counsel of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, “we hope that Maryland will finally do the right thing and get serious about providing an adequate remedy that will enable HBIs to prosper."