Category: Higher Education

Top Story of Jan. 1999:

Alleged Discriminators Serve on All White Top Staff at TAEX Headquarters

TCRR NEWS (Jan. 18, 1999) AUSTIN, TX–Civil Rights investigators have spent nearly one year looking into complaints of racist employment practices at the Texas Agricultural Extension Service.

The probe by the Office of Civil Rights for the USDA is the second federal civil rights investigation now underway in Texas. In the summer of 1997, the Department of Education also launched a civil rights inquiry into vestiges of segregation in Texas higher education.

(more…)

The First Investigation and the First Texas Plan

By Greg Moses

The first civil rights review of Texas higher education began on April 4, 1978, exactly one decade after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Region VI Director of the Office for Civil Rights Dorothy Stuck, accompanied by two associates, arrived at 2:30 p.m. at the Austin office of Texas Higher Education Commissioner Kenneth Ashworth to discuss plans for the upcoming review (Stuck 1978, p.1).

According to Stuck, the Texas review had been initiated by U.S. Secretary of Education Joseph Califano on Feb. 2, 1978, when he announced plans, “to conduct reviews in several states, including Texas, which once practiced de jure segregation in higher education, but are not under court order” (Stuck 1978, pp. 1-2).

Stuck announced plans to visit 18 Texas campuses, and she provided Ashworth with “Revised Criteria Specifying the Ingredients of Acceptable Plans to Desegregate State Systems of Public Higher Education” (see Vera 1988, pp. 3-4).

In the end, OCR found that Texas had not eliminated vestiges of de jure segregation. Federal officials then prepared to issue a formal order for compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI of that Act required “that recipients of Federal financial assistance operate their programs in a nondiscriminatory manner, and also requires them to take affirmative remedial steps to overcome any remaining effects of prior discrimination” (Stuck 1978, p. 1).

Texas Adopts Voluntary Plan In order to “forestall” a direct federal order to desegregate Texas colleges and universities in 1981, Texas Attorney General Mark White encouraged state leaders to adopt a voluntary plan of action (Hubert 1980, p.1).

“The reason for this response was apparent,” wrote attorney Ronald T. Vera in a later report. “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 1988, pp. 1-2).

Although OCR accepted the concept of a voluntary plan in early 1981, “the final plan reflected thirty months of negotiations, several court orders, and discussions with two state administrations” (Vera 1988, preface).

State officials have since submitted several updates to the “Texas Plan” of 1983. The OCR review, “will make determinations regarding whether the state fulfilled the commitments contained in the 1983 plan,” according to OCR Director of the Dallas Office, Taylor D. August (August 1997, p. 2).

State Admits Static Results According to Texas officials who issued a 1991 report on the results of the first Texas Plan, minority enrollments had “remained static” (Ashworth 1991, p.2). National trends and the Texas economy had posed insurmountable obstacles. “Although traditionally white institutions have made gains in the numbers of minority undergraduate enrollments, only a few have met their five-year goals, and some have lost ground since the base year of 1978,” said the report.

“The state did, however, meet several of its goals regarding enhancements at the two traditionally black institutions,” reported state officials in 1991. “New academic programs in high-demand, unduplicated areas have been added to both schools, and physical facilities have been greatly improved.”

At Prairie View University and Texas Southern University, faculty salaries were increased. By 1988 PVU faculties were paid better average salaries than comparable colleagues at white campuses. TSU faculty were still making less than their peers on white campuses, but the average deficit had been cut to $1,000 per year (Ashworth 1991, pp. 13 & 29).

Perhaps the most dramatic difference was reported by the historically black Thurgood Marshall School of Law at TSU. As a result of desegregation efforts, black enrollment had been cut by one third from 295 students per year to 187 (Ashworth 1991, p. 22). A campus that had been 73 per cent black was swiftly transformed into a campus 50 per cent black.

---

TEXAS PLANS REVIEWED

See official version of the history of the Texas Plans from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Nov. 1997.

Plan One: 1981-1988 See Texas Educational Opportunity Plan for Public Higher Education as approved by the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education on June 14, 1983 (THECB).
http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/HTML/0022/toc.htm

Plan Two: 1989-1993 See Texas Educational Opportunity Plan for Public Higher Education (THECB).
http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/HTML/0023/body.htm

Plan Three: 1994-2000 See the Access and Equity 2000 Plan (THECB).
http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/HTML/0018/body.htm

Plan Four Priority Plan

Priority Plan to Strengthen Education at Prairie View A&M University and at Texas Southern University in PDF format. See also the schedule of funding in PDF format for three legislative budget cycles ending in 2003, 2005, & 2007).

Producing Plan Four

See Nov. 1999 THECB committee minutes containing the following text:

(Quote:)Ms. Lynn Rodriguez then made a presentation describing the relationship between the Office for Civil Rights and Texas since the 1970s and the three voluntary plans for integration that Texas adopted since 1983: The original Texas Plan (1983-1988), a second Texas Plan (1989-1993), and Access and Equity 2000 (1994-2000). Ms. Rodriguez then gave some basic statistics about both Prairie View A&M University and Texas Southern University, and related how the Office for Civil Rights had just completed another investigation of Texas public higher education and identified six key issues with respect to Prairie View A&M University and Texas Southern University.

Ms. Sandra Stephens and Ms. Angela Hights from the Office for Civil Rights then presented a summary of the issues on which the committee is focused. Ms. Stephens provided a background history of how OCR was involved in investigating Texas and other states and the criteria used in evaluating the higher education system. She specifically cited three factors provided by the Fordice case: 1) the policy or practice is traceable to a de jure segregated system, 2) the policy or practice has a current segregative effect, and 3) the policy can be eliminated without harming the educational process. Ms. Stephens expressed her pleasure that Texas was working collaboratively and openly on the issues raised by the OCR.

Ms. Hights provided a description of the six issues relating to Prairie View A&M University and Texas Southern University identified by OCR. She provided statistics that suggest current segregation due to past discrimination in the areas of mission, land grant status, program duplication, facilities and other resources, funding, and racial identifiability. Ms. Hights then responded to several questions from the committee members

See June 14, 2000, statement by Texas legislators expressing optimism and scepticism:

(Quote:) Remember, this is the fourth plan drafted in the past twenty years to address vestiges of discrimination in Texas higher education and little progress has been made to date. In fact, it has been nearly three decades since the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights first found that vestiges of discrimination continued to haunt Texas’ colleges and universities. We have not seen much progress over the years, so it is hard to get too excited about yet another plan.

See Aug. 25, 2000, report on disparities in faculty salaries prepared by the Prairie View University Faculty Senate containing the following claim:

(Quote:) Faculty at Prairie View have not received an “Across the Board” pay increase in seven years. Within this same time period some faculty members have also received promotions in rank without the requisite and appropriate increase in salary. Our administration responds to this question of pay raises by stating that Faculty members have received “merit” raises within this period. However, there is no policy defining what is a “merit” raise, nor is there any information published listing the number of “merit” raises granted and the amounts of these raises. In many cases a “merit” raise was that awarded to those faculty receiving a promotion in rank, which we believe is a perversion of the idea of a “merit” raise and a disservice to those who deserve a significant raise due to their earned promotion in academic rank.

[From archives of Texas Civil Rights Review at Tripod pages @ 1997]

Top Story of 1997:

By Greg Moses

(August 20, 1997) Officials from the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education are undertaking a major review of higher education in Texas, to determine if the state is in compliance with its legal obligation “to eliminate all vestiges” of segregation.

The review is the first major study of Texas higher education undertaken by OCR since 1978-79. At that time, OCR concluded, “that the State of Texas has failed to eliminate the vestiges of its former de jure racially dual system of public higher education, a system that segregated blacks and whites” (Brown 1981, p.3).

(more…)

Reverse Chronology

By Greg Moses

1997: OCR and the National Black Law Students Association

Cantu 1997: Letter from Norma V. Cantu, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights; to Joseph Gourrier, Attorney General of the National Black Law Students Association; June 28, 1997. Two pages. Although the letterhead and typed salutation are from the Assistant Secretary, the actual signature is by “Raymond C. Pierce for NVC.”

Cantu explains that OCR is investigating Texas higher education as a result of the 1992 Fordice ruling to determine, “the State’s compliance with its OCR approved desegregation plan and its efforts to eliminate all vestiges of the de jure system” (p.1).

“Our activity in Texas began on Feb. 4, 1997 when we advised Governor George Bush that we would begin our review of the State’s higher education system” (p.1.).

“During our higher education system review, the Title VI allegations of your complaint will be addressed” (p.2.) [Note: As Attorney General of the National Black Law Students Association, Gourrier filed a complaint in 1996 on behalf of black citizens in Texas, alleging that vestiges of segregation had not yet been overcome in Texas higher education.]

(more…)

Presented at the National Association for African American Studies (Houston: Feb. 16, 1996)

By Greg Moses

In December of 1993, Dr. Garland McIlveen, Jr.–who is here with us today–filed a race discrimination suit in Houston federal court against the Texas A&M University System, alleging several counts of racial discrimination that have overshadowed the past decade of his career. Today, more than two years later, the lawsuit remains unreported by media in and out of Texas.

The lack of public attention to McIlveen’s case is one of the peculiar factors which perpetuate a disturbing pattern of neglect and exclusion, not only for Dr. McIlveen, but for other black professionals in the extension services. Thus, I believe the case serves as an interesting paradigm for the tenacity of racism in our alleged age of affirmative action.

Just this month (February, 1996), Dr. McIlveen learned that his pending lawsuit has been factored against him in his effort to win promotion as director of the Cooperative Extension Service at Prairie View University. Such news serves warning that black talent cannot win on white terms. Prompted to sue for his rights in the first place, Dr. McIlveen is now told, in so many words, that white power will decide when and where his rights shall be conferred. And so far, the time has not yet come.

Dr. McIlveen’s experience as the great invisible man, curiously sacrosanct from media attention, raises serious issues of institutionalized racism which reach far beyond the borders of Texas or the timeframe of this decade. After 30 years of employment within the Texas A&M University System, Dr. McIlveen finds himself scrunched up against an impenetrable ceiling of opportunity. And with each passing year, the number of black professionals employed by the extension service dwindles.

For as long as the Texas Agricultural Extension Service has existed, there has never been a black male promoted to district director, and Dr. McIlveen’s lawsuit revolves around the pointy question of why he was not interviewed for two such promotions doled out to less qualified white men.

Dr. McIlveen’s lawsuit revolves around two documents obtained from the Texas A&M University System after a protracted open records search. They are called consent decree reports because they are records that the extension service has been ordered by federal courts to keep. These documents record important data about hirings and promotions.

According to one of these documents, Dr. McIlveen was disqualified for the job of district director in 1990 because of his, “Lack of recent experience as a County Extension Agent, lack of broad understanding of the total Extension program and no supervisory experience.” Instead, the extension service promoted a white man with sixteen years less experience.

True enough, McIlveen’s days as a county agent, from 1963 to 1971, were not “recent.” After earning his master’s degree from the University of Florida, Dr. McIlveen returned to Texas in the summer of 1972 and never again worked as a county agent. He went on to become a specialist in entomology, serving for a time in the very district that he would later be judged unqualified to direct.

Another consent decree report explains that Dr. McIlveen was disqualified for a district director position in 1993 because of, “Lack of experience in Extension programming at the county level.” Once again the extension service promoted a white man with sixteen years less experience.

“Mr. McIlveen has devoted the past 29 years of his life to developing a reputation and expertise in the field of entomology,” says his petition to the court. “During this time Mr. McIlveen has coordinated numerous programs and studies; secured grants or been a party to contracts totaling over $654,000; and authored many state and national publications, papers, news articles, studies and reports, including the development of international programs.”

The lawsuit charges that Dr. McIlveen’s career has been hampered in various ways as promotions and pay raises failed to keep pace with his white, male colleagues. The suit alleges negligence, racial discrimination, and retaliation. Not only is Dr. McIlveen being held back for the color of his skin, says the lawsuit, but he is also being punished for filing an earlier lawsuit in federal court that he had the misfortune to lose in 1990.

The previous lawsuit alleged a fact that was difficult to prove–was it race discrimination that caused him to fail a four-hour oral examination in 1986 while he was attempting to earn his Ph.D.? Certainly, he was the first African American to attempt the doctorate program in entomology at Texas A&M University, and records reflect that he was also the first student in the history of the program to be flunked for an oral exam. Did the fact that he was the first black in such a position contribute to his singular failure? The judge in this case ordered the jury to find Texas A&M not guilty. And the attorney who handled Texas A&M’s side of the case has since been appointed statewide director of affirmative action.

To this day, Dr. McIlveen is convinced that he was flunked for the color of his skin, not the content of his intellect, or lack thereof. His major professor, however, at one time publicly insisted that Dr. McIlveen was not even up to the level of many undergraduates. Dr. McIlveen says he clearly remembers the professor laughing and poking fun during the oral exam, saying, “How about an uneducated guess, Garland?” But I have heard the professor say his own memory on the subject is hazy, and he doesn’t recall whether he laughed or not.

But to bring this episode to a close, Dr. McIlveen persisted, won his way back into the Ph.D. program, passed the oral exam, completed his dissertation, and was awarded his Ph.D. at Texas A&M in the Spring of 1995. As the last lawsuit was dismissed by various establishments, the present case draws remarkable silence. Dr. McIlveen says he has been offered $20,000 to drop the current case and retire. “Can you believe it?,” he asks. (After 30 years of service, you get a glass ceiling and a check to cover your attorney’s fees?) “It’s insulting, really, when you think about it.”

Getting to Know Garland

It was shortly after the 1990 debacle in court that a friend of mine, Professor Bill Plapp, from the Entomology Department visited my office at Texas A&M University and sat very still until I agreed to look into the peculiar case of Garland McIlveen, Jr. Until Professor Plapp’s visit, I had a tidy theory, shared by many white Americans, which held that modern-day racism was largely born of ignorance and cultural inertia. White folks, I reasoned, were largely sincere about equal opportunity–they just didn’t know enough about their own residual prejudices. Professor Plapp’s visit changed all that.

Go to “Apartheid in Texas Agriculture” Part 2