Vestiges of Hopwood: In Texas It's De-Segregation for Blacks Only

A Follow-Up Analysis

By Greg

Moses

Posted at Alternet 1/28/2004
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?

StoryID=17683

In Texas, de-segregation is for blacks only. This is the plain and

peculiar principle that is guiding policy at the state level today. It is the principle that prevents

state regulators from publicly objecting to Texas A&M University’s decision to reject affirmative

action. A remedy to this situation only requires that the Texas Governor plainly say, “de-

segregation in Texas is not for blacks only.”

But how did this peculiar principle

come to have such force in Texas, and why is it considered tenable on its face in a post-Grutter legal

environment? (Not to mention post-Brown.) The answer has lots to do with the peculiar legal bubble

known as the Hopwood ruling. And although that bubble has been burst, its effects have not yet been

set aside.

Let’s begin our inquiry by turning to the Summer of 2000, when then-

Governor George W. Bush formally declared a “Texas Commitment” to de-segregation. The commitment was

addressed to the Office for Civil Rights at the US Department of Education.

Beginning

with a 1978 investigation of Texas higher education, OCR had been closely monitoring de-segregation of

the state’s colleges and universities. Governor Bush’s commitments from the Summer of 2000 signaled

the fourth round of “Texas Plans,” developed under federal supervision.

The strategy

of “Texas Plans” allowed Texas to propose and implement its own de-segregation, thereby forestalling

any official rulings that Texas was not in compliance with civil rights standards. This process calls

upon Texas to act in “good faith.”

As attorney Ronald Vera once reported, “By

instigating these voluntary measures, Texas would still be eligible to receive federal funds for higher

education and would not run the risk of losing its federal funding in a court hearing.”

[Vera “Texas Responds to the Office of Civil Rights: Tomas Rivera Center, 1989, pp. 1

-2. See:
http://www.trpi.org/mid_publications.html%5D

In fact, it was the context of

federal civil rights enforcement that prompted the Texas A&M University System Board of Regents to

“voluntarily” adopt affirmative action on Dec. 5, 1980 as a “good faith” signal to OCR that the

state could be trusted to undertake its own plan of desegregation. Until the process of de-segregation

is completed, shouldn’t Texas A&M continue to show its “good faith”?

[http://pages.prodigy.net/gmoses/tcrr/edudocs.htm#vera88a]

In 1997, as Texas was

implementing de-segregation plan number three, the OCR sent a team of investigators who found that the

state had not yet eliminated its vestiges of segregation. It was time to think about Plan Four. And

that’s why Governor Bush was writing up a “Texas Commitment” in the Summer of

2000.

The Bush commitment began with a general promise that, “the State has taken the

initiative to address
other related issues affecting access to higher education in Texas in order to

ensure a comprehensive and integrated plan for Texas higher education.” We shall return to the

meaning of this commitment.

But the Bush commitment also made five specific and numbered

promises. The first four items focused attention on the state’s need to redress the relative neglect

suffered by the historical black campuses. For this reason, the Fourth Texas Plan was entitled,

“Priority Plan to Strengthen Education at
Prairie View A&M University and at Texas Southern

University.”

We will want to revisit the meaning of the term “priority” a little

later. Does a Texas “priority” plan for black colleges translate into a de-segregation plan that

pertains to black campuses “only”?

The fifth Texas commitment made by Gov. Bush in

Summer 2000, says that the state will: “Improve the recruitment, retention, and participation rates of

African-American and Hispanic students at the State’s historically white institutions.” It is not

listed among the top four priorities, to be sure, but the plain language of the Bush document promises

that the state will not neglect its responsibilities to de-segregate the white campuses,

too.

Furthermore, in italic type, the Bush commitment promises that, “The State and its

institutions are committed to the continuing support, implementation, and, where possible, the

augmentation of these efforts to improve recruitment, retention, and success of other race students,

faculty, and staff.”

Note the clearly stated legal commitment to “augmentation” of

de-segregation efforts “where possible,” both for the state, “and its institutions,” including

historically white institutions such as Texas A&M University at College Station and

Galveston.

However, the document was submitted under the bubble of Hopwood and it was at

the time “legally impossible” to promise or pursue affirmative action in Texas. So when it came time

to formulate concrete steps under the plan, it is true that regulators and state officials focused

their “priorities” on getting some badly needed support for Prairie View and Texas Southern

Universities.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s Grutter ruling of the Summer of 2003,

however, Texas officials have made absolutely no adjustment in the interpretation of their specific

responsibilities under the Fourth Texas Plan.

What began as a “priority plan” to

strengthen the black colleges has therefore since become a de-facto “exclusive plan,” as if the

lifting of the Hopwood bubble should have no effect on the meaning of the state’s promise to augment

where possible the tools of inclusion available to the administrations of historically white

institutions such as Texas A&M University at College Station and Galveston.

State

regulators have all the plain language they need to insist that, in a post-Hopwood legal climate the

state’s own promises should be enough to compel adoption of affirmative action “where possible.”

And yet, they seem to be saying in unison: if OCR can’t make us do it, then we’d rather not get

involved in affirmative action at Texas A&M.

In fact, the top lawyer for higher

education in Texas has been showing a powerpoint summary of Grutter that clearly demonstrates

affirmative action as an “augmentation” that is possible for Texas universities to adopt.

[See Downloads at the Texas Civil Rights

Review
https://texascivilrightsreview.org/phpnuke%5D

As early as November 2000, the

prestigious journal, “Black Issues in Higher Education,” raised its eyebrows at the structure of the

Fourth Texas Plan. “Ironically, supporters of the Texas idea aren’t sure if it’s even legal,”

reported the journal. How can a plan that is supposed to lift vestiges of segregation claim to apply

only on black campuses? How can de-segregation apply to blacks only?

[http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0DXK/20_17/68206759/p1/article.jhtml]

Even in the

absence of pressure from a Bush-run OCR, Texas officials still have an opportunity to include white

campuses within the scope of their own good faith promises.

Even if desegregation of

white campuses was priority five of five, it is a priority nevertheless, according to the Governor’s

own promise.

And even if Hopwood prevented more affirmative action in the year 2000, the

Grutter decision of 2003 now makes it possible to augment, as promised, the effort to de-segregate the

state’s white campuses, including Texas A&M University at College Station and

Galveston.

“Desegregation for blacks only,” is therefore a principle that deserves

early retirement in Texas. And the Governor could do it tomorrow if he wanted to. All he has to do is

announce to the people of Texas that he is pleased to keep the promises made by Gov. Bush to augment

de-segregation wherever and whenever it is possi
ble, whether on black campuses or

white.

The Governor’s power in this regard is augmented by the fact that the Texas A&M

University Board of Regents, at their meeting of Dec. 5, 2003, made absolutely no reference to race or

affirmative action in their published agenda.

Either the Regents are witholding crucial

documents or they in fact made no written policy with respect to race or affirmative action. Surely it

is easy to change a decision that was never made in writing.

———-

For more information on the documentary evidence, just click the picture of former

President George Bush and his former Assistant to the President Robert Gates that we have posted at the

Texas Civil Rights Review website. (Gates was Dean of the George Bush school at College Station before

he was promoted to President of the University.)

https://texascivilrightsreview.org/phpnuke

———-

Note: The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Meets tomorrow, Jan. 29, in Austin.

See you there?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s