In the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 1:06-cv-02773-CCB Document 355 Filed 06/07/12 Page 1 of 489 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND ) THE COALITION FOR EQUITY AND ) EXCELLENCE IN MARYLAND HIGHER ) EDUCATION, INC., et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Civil No. 06-2773-CCB ) v. ) ) MARYLAND HIGHER EDUCATION ) COMMISSION, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Case 1:06-cv-02773-CCB Document 355 Filed 06/07/12 Page 2 of 489 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ............ 1 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT ............................................................................................. 73 I. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 73 A. Parties .................................................................................................................... 73 B. Structure of Maryland’s Higher Education System .............................................. 78 C. Summary of School Histories ............................................................................... 90 II. CHRONOLOGY............................................................................................................. 100 A. Maryland Acknowledges It Operated A De Jure Segregated System Of Higher Education Until 1969 .............................................................................. 100 B. The Maryland System Prior To 1935: Maryland Largely Ignores HBIs As TWIs Develop As Part Of Public System ........................................................... 102 C. Maryland First Begins to Pay Some Attention to HBIs During Era of Legal Challenges to Racial Inequality to Higher Education ............................... 106 D. The Post-Brown De jure Years: HBIs Continue to be Ignored as the System Grows ..................................................................................................... 134 E. OCR Enforcement in Maryland Begins, Ending the De jure Era ....................... 144 F. Maryland’s College Age Population Declines and the HBIs are Not Capable of Competing with the TWIs ................................................................ 156 G. The HBIs Suffer as OCR Withdraws and the State Restructures its Higher Education System................................................................................................ 163 H. After Five Years Of Silence From OCR, Maryland And OCR Enter A Five-Year Partnership Agreement In 2000 ......................................................... 170 I. The Years Since The 2000 Partnership Agreement Confirm Maryland Has Not Yet Eliminated The Vestiges Of Discrimination From Its System Of Higher Education ................................................................................................ 180 J. The Current Infrastructure Of The Hbis Reveals The Cumulative Effect Of The State’s Policies And Practices ..................................................................... 202 i Case 1:06-cv-02773-CCB Document 355 Filed 06/07/12 Page 3 of 489 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d) Page K. HBIs Today Continue To Serve Students With Lower Entering SAT Scores, Higher Remedial Needs, And Higher Financial Needs Which All Contribute To Lower Retention And Graduation Rates ..................................... 218 III. MARYLAND’S REPORTS ESTABLISH THAT HBIS NEED TO BE ENHANCED SO THAT THEY CAN BE COMPARABLE AND COMPETITIVE TO TWIS AND PROVIDE A CHOICE TO STUDENTS OF ALL RACES ................................................................................................................... 221 IV. MISSION ........................................................................................................................ 228 V. PROGRAM DUPLICATION & PROGRAM UNIQUENESS ...................................... 272 A. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 272 B. De jure Era Academic Programming Policies & Practices ................................ 275 C. Post-Brown Academic Programming Policies & Practices ................................ 281 D. Current Unnecessary Duplication, Unequal Program Development & Program Inequality .............................................................................................. 298 E. Unequal Program Development .......................................................................... 321 VI. SEGREGATIVE EFFECTS ........................................................................................... 334 A. Increased Racial Segregation at the HBIs ........................................................... 334 B. Impact of Maryland’s Policies & Practices on Student Choice .......................... 337 C. Demographics Do Not Explain White Student Declines at HBIs ....................... 338 D. Racial Tensions Do Not Support White Declines at HBIs ................................. 341 VII. MARYLAND’S CURRENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES REGARDING OPERATING FUNDING ARE TRACEABLE TO THE DE JURE ERA AND RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL RESOURCE DEFICIENCIES AT THE HISTORICALLY BLACK INSTITUTIONS. ................................................................ 342 A. Institutions Use Operating Funding To Carry Out Their Missions. ................... 345 B. Institutions Receive Revenues From A Variety Of Sources, Including State Appropriations, Tuition and Fees, and Grants and Contracts. ................... 346 C. Maryland Acknowledges That The HBIs Do Not Receive The Enhanced Level Of Resources Necessary To Fulfill Their Dual Mission. .......................... 348 ii Case 1:06-cv-02773-CCB Document 355 Filed 06/07/12 Page 4 of 489 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d) Page D. Maryland’s De jure Era Policies And Practices Provided Separate Institutions For African-Americans But Funded Them Unequally. ................... 358 E. Maryland Has Documented The HBIs’ Need For Enhanced Funding To Overcome Historical Discrimination And Support The Dual Mission. .............. 365 F. The Different Iterations Of The Funding Guidelines All Contained A Mission-Based Component. ................................................................................ 368 G. HBIs Have Experienced Substantial Cumulative Funding Deficiencies Since 1984 ........................................................................................................... 382 H. Dr. Lichtman’s Analysis Presents A Misleading Picture Of The Finances Of Maryland’s HBIs. .......................................................................................... 387 I. Dr. Toutkoushian’s Cumulative Deficiency Calculations Do Not Account For Several Factors That Adversely Impact The Finances Of Maryland’s HBIs. ................................................................................................................... 392 J. Resource Limitations Have A Detrimental Effect On The Operations Of Maryland’s HBIs And Deprive Their Students Of Equal Educational Opportunity. ........................................................................................................ 403 K. Maryland Does Not Adequately Support UMES’s Land Grant Mission. .......... 404 L. Funding Disparities Experienced By Maryland’s HBIs Lack Sound Educational Justification And Can Be Practicably Eliminated. .......................... 405 VIII. SEGREGATIVE EFFECT.............................................................................................. 409 PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ................................................................................... 413 I. MARYLAND’S AFFIRMATIVE OBLIGATION TO DISMANTLE VESTIGES OF DISCRIMINATION ................................................................................................. 413 II. BURDEN OF PROOF UNDER FORDICE ................................................................... 420 III. MARYLAND’S HISTORY OF POLICIES AND PRACTICES TRACEABLE TO THE DE JURE ERA................................................................................................. 424 A. Maryland Maintains Traceable Policies and Practices of Assigning Limited Institutional Roles and Missions to its HBIs. ........................................ 429 iii Case 1:06-cv-02773-CCB Document 355 Filed 06/07/12 Page 5 of 489 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d) Page B. Maryland Maintains Traceable Policies and Practices Related to Duplication of Programs and Failure to Place Unique, High Demand Programs at the HBIs. ......................................................................................... 437 C. Maryland’s Funding Policies and Practices are Traceable and Maintain Structural Inequities. ........................................................................................... 443 IV. MARYLAND HAS NOT DISPROVEN THAT ITS TRACEABLE POLICIES AND PRACTICES HAVE ONGOING SEGREGATIVE EFFECTS. .......................... 452 V. EDUCATIONALLY SOUND AND PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVES WITH LESS SEGREGATIVE EFFECTS ................................................................................. 455 VI. THERE IS NO SOUND EDUCATIONAL JUSTIFICATION FOR MARYLAND’S TRACEABLE POLICIES AND PRACTICES .................................. 457 A. Proximate Universities with Duplicative Programs Lacks Justification ............. 457 B. The Partnership Agreement Outlines Measures Necessary to Desegregate ....... 458 C. HBI Panel Confirmed No Sound Justification for Segregative Policies ............. 460 D. 2009 State Plan Similarly Requires Removing Vestiges of Segregation ........... 464