[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AMERICA'S BLACK COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES: MODELS OF EXCELLENCE
AND CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 13, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-83
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html
-----
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
41-042 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman California,
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Senior Republican Member
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Lynn C. Woolsey, California Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Carolyn McCarthy, New York Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Judy Biggert, Illinois
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
David Wu, Oregon Ric Keller, Florida
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Susan A. Davis, California John Kline, Minnesota
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Kenny Marchant, Texas
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Tom Price, Georgia
Linda T. Sanchez, California Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Charles W. Boustany, Jr.,
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Louisiana
David Loebsack, Iowa Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania York
John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky Rob Bishop, Utah
Phil Hare, Illinois David Davis, Tennessee
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Timothy Walberg, Michigan
Joe Courtney, Connecticut [Vacancy]
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director
Vic Klatt, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 13, 2008................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Altmire, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Pennsylvania, prepared statement of............... 52
McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck,'' Senior Republican Member,
Committee on Education and Labor........................... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Miller, Hon. George, Chairman, Committee on Education and
Labor...................................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Statement of Witnesses:
O'Leary, Hazel, president, Fisk University................... 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Pierce, Raymond C., dean and professor of law, North Carolina
Central University School of Law........................... 31
Prepared statement of.................................... 33
Additional submissions:
Report prepared for the National Associational for
Equal Opportunity in Higher Education.............. 36
Citation: The NAFEO 33rd Annual National Conference
on Blacks in Higher Education report............... 39
Richardson, Dr. Earl S., president, Morgan State University.. 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 27
Questions and responses submitted for the record......... 52
Sias, Mary Evans, Ph.D., president, Kentucky State University 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
Yancy, Dr. Dorothy Cowser, president, Johnson C. Smith
University................................................. 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Questions and responses submitted for the record......... 55
AMERICA'S BLACK COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES: MODELS OF EXCELLENCE
AND CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE
----------
Thursday, March 13, 2008
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Education and Labor
Washington, DC
----------
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in room
2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George Miller
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Miller, Kildee, Payne, Andrews,
Scott, Hinojosa, McCarthy, Kucinich, Wu, Davis of California,
Davis of Illinois, Bishop of New York, Sarbanes, Yarmuth, Hare,
Clarke, McKeon, Petri, Ehlers, Keller, and Walberg.
Staff present: Tylease Alli, Hearing Clerk; Fran-Victoria
Cox, Staff Attorney; Denise Forte, Director of Education
Policy; Gabriella Gomez, Senior Education Policy Advisor
(Higher Education); David Hartzler, Systems Administrator;
Lloyd Horwich, Policy Advisor for Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education; Lamont Ivey,
Staff Assistant, Education; Ann-Frances Lambert, Administrative
Assistant to Director of Education Policy; Danielle Lee, Press/
Outreach Assistant; Ricardo Martinez, Policy Advisor for
Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and
Competitiveness; Stephanie Moore, General Counsel; Alex Nock,
Deputy Staff Director; Joe Novotny, Chief Clerk; Rachel
Racusen, Deputy Communications Director; Julie Radocchia,
Education Policy Advisor; Dray Thorne, Senior Systems
Administrator; Margaret Young, Staff Assistant, Education; Mark
Zuckerman, Staff Director; Stephanie Arras, Minority
Legislative Assistant; James Bergeron, Minority Deputy Director
of Education and Human Services Policy; Robert Borden, Minority
General Counsel; Amy Raaf Jones, Minority Professional Staff
Member; Alexa Marrero, Minority Communications Director; Susan
Ross, Minority Director of Education and Human Resources
Policy; and Linda Stevens, Minority Chief Clerk/Assistant to
the General Counsel.
Chairman Miller [presiding]. Good morning and welcome. The
Committee on Education and Labor will come together for the
purpose of conducting a hearing on America's Black Colleges and
Universities: Models of Excellence and Challenges for the
Future.
Just one second. I am trying to learn what our schedule is.
We have a vote?
We have had a ceremony in the Rotunda, a moment of
remembrance, for the fifth anniversary of the hostilities in
Iraq and Afghanistan, and so more members will be coming. I
think it is best that we get started because we also have had
some fairly contentious days on the floor of the House of
Representatives over the last couple of days. So we will try to
weave all of this in with our schedule.
But thank you so much in advance for being here today and
for the testimony that we will receive.
One of the primary focuses of this committee has been to
make college more affordable and accessible so that every
qualified student has the opportunity to go to college. We
began last year by enacting a $20 billion increase in
additional federal college aid over the next 5 years.
In addition to providing low-and middle-income students
with much-needed financial relief to help pay for college, this
new law also makes historic investments of more than a half-
billion dollars in historically black colleges and universities
and Hispanic-serving institutions and other minority-serving
schools.
HBCUs provide critical higher education opportunities for
African-American, low-income, and educationally disadvantaged
Americans. Historically, historically black colleges and
universities have played an especially significant role in
opening the doors of college to African-American students.
During times of slavery and segregation, the HBCUs were the
only institutions that would admit African-American students.
Today, these colleges and universities are playing an
increasing role in helping students succeed in college and
strengthening our workforce and our economy. The National
Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education released
a new report just today showing the significant strides that
black colleges are making to increase access to higher
education and to boost our nation's global competitiveness.
In 1994, slightly fewer than one million African-American
students were enrolled in either 2-year or 4-year undergraduate
institutions, making up just over 9 percent of all college
students. By 2004, the number of African-American students
enrolled had more than doubled, so that they comprised about 13
percent of all college students. Over the past decade,
enrollment rates at historically black colleges and
universities have grown at a much faster rate than enrollment
rates of all college students.
Although historically black colleges and universities
represent only 3 percent of all colleges and universities, they
enroll close to a third of all African-American students. They
serve a disproportionate number of all African-American
students pursuing careers that are critical to the
competitiveness of this nation. Forty percent of their students
pursue a 4-year degree in science, technology, engineering, or
math, and about half of all African-Americans students in
teaching fields have attended HBCUs.
But despite this progress, these institutions continue to
face a unique set of challenges, including limited resources
and budgets. The historically black colleges and universities
tend to have smaller endowments than other comparable
institutions. Another recent study by the National Association
for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education found that during the
2004-2005 school year not a single historically black college
and university ranked among the top 120 endowments in the
country.
Sadly, President Bush's recently released fiscal year 2009
budget proposes harmful cuts to the funding for historically
black colleges and universities and other minority-serving
schools, which would only worsen the financial challenges that
these schools face.
In addition, many historically black colleges and
universities are in significant need of repair and renovation,
especially those that are still feeling the devastating effects
of Hurricane Katrina. And some disparities still persist
between students attending historically black colleges and
universities and students at other comparable schools--part of
the reason the Office of Civil Rights in the Department of
Education has pursued a compact agreement with several states
to root out the discrimination that minority students face.
Clearly, there remains a great deal of work ahead to ensure
that students at historically black colleges and universities
and other minority-serving schools have the same opportunity as
students at other colleges. I am pleased to say that this
Congress and this committee have taken some important steps to
address these changes.
In addition to our newly passed student aid law, the House
also recently passed the College Opportunity and Affordability
Act, H.R. 4137, which increases the amount of funding
historically black colleges and universities would receive for
capital projects and repairs. It also expands funding
eligibility for graduate student programs at HBCUs and other
minority-serving institutions and addresses the challenges of
starting and growing endowments at these schools.
Today, we will examine the tremendous accomplishments of
private and public historically black colleges and universities
and learn more about the obstacles they continue to face. We
will also hear more about the purpose of the compact agreements
and whether or not the Office of Civil Rights is doing enough
to protect the interests of students attending historically
black colleges and universities.
I want to thank our witnesses for joining us today, many of
whom are in town for the National Association for Equal
Opportunity in Higher Education's annual conference. Providing
all Americans with equal educational opportunities is at the
center of our nation's civil rights history and its shared
values. It is a core part of our efforts to give everyone a
chance to pursue the American dream.
At this time, I would like to recognize the senior
Republican on the Education and Labor Committee, Congressman
McKeon, my colleague from California who has been working for
many years, while he was in the majority and now in the
minority, to push this committee to report and the Congress to
reauthorize the Higher Education Act, and we are now in
conference, through a great deal of his work and all the
members of this committee, and I want to recognize him for his
opening remarks.
[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Chairman, Committee on
Education and Labor
Good morning. Welcome to our hearing on ``America's Black Colleges
and Universities: Models of Excellence and Challenges for the Future.''
One of the primary focuses of this Committee has been to make
college more affordable and accessible, so that every qualified student
has the opportunity to go to college.
We began last year by enacting a $20 billion increase in additional
federal college aid over the next five years.
In addition to providing low-and middle-income students with some
much-needed financial relief when paying for college, this new law also
makes an historic investment of more than a half billion dollars in
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving
Institutions, and other minority-serving schools.
HBCUs provide critical higher education opportunities for African-
American, low-income, and educationally disadvantaged Americans.
Historically, HBCUs have played an especially significant role in
opening the doors of college to African-American students. During times
of slavery and segregation, HBCUs were the only institutions that would
admit African-American students.
Today, these colleges and universities are playing an increasing
role in helping students succeed in college and in strengthening our
workforce. The National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher
Education released a new report just today showing the significant
strides that black colleges are making to increase access to higher
education and to boost our nation's global competitiveness.
In 1994, slightly fewer than one million African-American students
were enrolled at either two-year or four-year undergraduate
institutions--making up just over nine percent of all college students.
By 2004, African-American student enrollment had more than doubled--
comprising about 13 percent of all college students.
Over the past decade, enrollment rates at HBCUs have grown at a
much faster rate than enrollment rates among all college students.
Although HBCUs represent only three percent of all colleges and
universities, they enroll close to a third of all African-American
students. They serve a disproportionate number of all African-American
students pursuing careers that are critical to our competitiveness:
Forty percent of their students pursue four-year degrees in science,
technology, engineering and math, and about half of all African-
Americans students in teaching fields attend HBCUs.
But despite this progress, these institutions continue to face a
unique set of challenges, including limited resources and budgets.
HBCUs tend to have smaller endowments than other comparable
institutions. Another recent study by the National Association for
Equal Opportunity in Higher Education found that, during the 2004-2005
school year, not a single HBCU ranked among the top 120 endowments in
the country.
Sadly, President Bush's recently released fiscal year 2009 budget
proposes harmful cuts in funding for HBCUs and other minority serving
schools, which would only worsen the financial challenges these schools
face.
In addition, many HBCUs are in significant need of repair and
renovation, especially those that are still feeling the devastating
effects of Hurricane Katrina.
And some disparities still persist between students attending HBCUs
and students at other comparable schools--part of the reason the Office
of Civil Rights in the Department of Education has pursued compact
agreements with several states to root out discrimination that minority
students may face.
Clearly, there remains a great deal of work ahead to ensure that
students at HBCUs and other minority serving schools have the same
opportunities as students at other colleges.
I am pleased to say that this Congress and this Committee have
taken some important steps to address these challenges. In addition to
our newly passed student aid law, the House also recently passed the
College Opportunity and Affordability Act, H.R. 4137, which increases
the amount of funding HBCUs could receive for capital projects, such as
repairs.
It also expands funding eligibility for graduate student programs
at HBCUs and other minority serving institutions and addresses the
challenges of starting and growing endowments at these schools.
Today, we will examine the tremendous accomplishments of private
and public HBCUs and learn more about the obstacles they continue to
face. We will also hear more about the purpose of compact agreements--
and whether or not the Office of Civil Rights is doing enough to
protect the interests of students attending HBCUs.
I want to thank our witnesses for joining us today, many of whom
are in town for the National Association for Equal Opportunity in
Higher Education's annual conference.
Providing all Americans with equal educational opportunities is at
the center of our nation's civil rights history and shared values. It's
a core part of our efforts to give everyone the chance to pursue the
American Dream.
Thank you.
______
Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Chairman Miller, and thank you for
those kind words, and it is good to be working with you again
this morning here.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the great
value of historically black colleges and universities and what
an important role they play in the post-secondary education
environment. As with any institutional policy, HBCUs certainly
face challenges, but that must not sidetrack us from
recognizing the incredible void that was filled when
historically black colleges were included and defined in the
Higher Education Act.
Traditionally, HBCUs have provided diverse and
distinguished institutions of post-secondary learning for
African-Americans, with as many as 14 percent of all African-
American students currently enrolled in such institutions
nationwide. Today, we also find HBCUs have expanded in scope
and depth and include young people from all races at over 100
different 2-and 4-year public-private institutions across the
nation.
Historically black colleges and universities serve some of
our most disadvantaged students, who in some cases would not
have had the opportunity to earn a degree and benefit from the
enriching experiences of higher education. Therefore, the
contributions made by HBCUs deserve our recognition.
In many cases, HBCUs do not have access to the resources or
endowment income of other colleges and universities; and yet,
they continue to provide a quality education to some of the
neediest students in the country. Over the years, Congress has
worked to improve the nation's support for historically black
colleges and universities. Many of these institutions and their
students rely on federal grant and loan programs.
Under the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, Congress
made significant improvements to programs designed to aid HBCUs
in strengthening their institutions and graduate and
professional programs. Changes allowed institutions to use
federal money to build their endowments and to provide
scholarships and fellowships for disadvantaged graduate and
professional students. Title III of the Higher Education Act,
which Congress is in the midst of reauthorizing, provides HBCUs
with additional funds.
Between 1995 and 2008, congressional funding for the
Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities
Program rose from $109 million to $238 million, a 118 percent
increase over the last 13 years. Additionally, funding for the
HBCU graduate program increased from $19.6 million to $56.9
million this year, an increase of 190 percent.
HBCUs--and all traditional colleges and universities, for
that matter--continue to face the challenge of the skyrocketing
cost of a college education. Some colleges and universities
have taken steps to hold down costs by exercising greater
administrative efficiency and embracing innovative approaches,
such as giving students the option of renting textbooks, a
small step that can save students hundreds of dollars each
year. This is a subject I have addressed aggressively over the
last decade because I believe all post-secondary institutions
should provide greater transparency of how and where student
tuition dollars are being spent.
It is my understanding that today's hearing is also
intended to examine the implementation of desegregation
agreements, which were put into place to erase remaining
vestiges of discrimination in our nation's past. Given the
importance of this topic, I am surprised that we will not hear
directly from one of the states that have worked to wipe out
discrimination in their higher education system. After all, it
is the states that entered into these agreements and the states
that bear responsibility for fairly and fully promoting
equality in their post-secondary systems.
I am pleased to have this distinguished panel of witnesses
here before us, and I am interested to hear how some of the
nation's HBCUs are addressing the college cost issue, issues of
college access, and other challenges in a competitive 21st
century economy.
Thanks to each of you for being here today. The work you
are doing for our more disadvantaged students is to be
commended. HBCUs provide a remarkable avenue for African-
American young people--and all young people--to gain a quality
education and are a source of pride for their communities and
our nation.
Chairman Miller, we share the same desire of seeing our
nation's students gain greater access to a college education,
so I thank you for dedicating this time to examining the
historically black colleges and universities.
And I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. McKeon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Senior Republican
Member, Committee on Education and Labor
Thank you Chairman Miller. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to
discuss the great value of Historically Black Colleges and Universities
and what an important role they play in the postsecondary education
environment. As with any institution or policy, HBCUs certainly face
challenges, but that must not sidetrack us from recognizing the
incredible void that was filled when historically black colleges were
included and defined in the Higher Education Act.
Traditionally, HBCUs have provided diverse and distinguished
institutions of postsecondary learning for African-Americans, with as
many as 14 percent of all African-American students currently enrolled
in such institutions nationwide. Today, we also find HBCUs have
expanded in scope and depth to include young people from all races at
over 100 different two- and four-year, public and private institutions
across the nation.
Historically Black Colleges and Universities serve some of our most
disadvantaged students, who in some cases would not have had the
opportunity to earn a degree and benefit from the enriching experiences
of higher education. Therefore, the contributions made by HBCUs deserve
our recognition.
In many cases, HBCUs do not have access to the resources or
endowment income of other colleges and universities; and yet, they
continue to provide a quality education to an underserved demographic.
Over the years, Congress has worked to improve the nation's support
for Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Many of these
institutions and their students rely on federal grant and loan
programs.
Under the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, Congress made
significant improvements to programs designed to aid HBCUs in
strengthening their institutions and graduate and professional
programs. Changes allowed institutions to use federal money to build
their endowments, and to provide scholarships and fellowships for
disadvantaged graduate and professional students. Title III of the
Higher Education Act, which Congress is in the midst of reauthorizing,
provides HBCUs with additional funds.
Between 1995 and 2008 Congressional funding for the Strengthening
Historically Black Colleges and Universities Program rose from $109
million to $238 million--a 118 percent increase over the last 13 years.
Additionally, funding for the HBCU Graduate program increased from
$19.6 million to $56.9 million this year--an increase of 190 percent.
HBCUs--and all traditional colleges and universities for that
matter--continue to face the challenge of the skyrocketing cost of a
college education. Some colleges and universities have taken steps to
hold down costs by exercising greater administrative efficiency and
embracing innovative approaches such as giving students the option to
rent textbooks, a small step that can save students hundreds of dollars
each year.
This is a subject I have addressed aggressively over the last
decade, because I believe all postsecondary institutions should provide
greater transparency of how and where student tuition dollars are being
spent.
It is my understanding that today's hearing is also intended to
examine the implementation of desegregation agreements, which were put
into place to erase remaining vestiges of discrimination in our
nation's past. Given the importance of this topic, I am surprised that
we will not hear directly from one of the states that have worked to
wipe out discrimination in their higher education system. After all, it
is the states that entered into these agreements, and the states that
bear responsibility for fairly and fully promoting equality in their
postsecondary systems.
I'm pleased to have this distinguished panel of witnesses here
before us, and I'm interested to hear how some of the nation's HBCUs
are addressing the college cost issue, issues of college access, and
other challenges in a competitive 21st century economy.
Thank each of you for being here today. The work you are doing for
our more disadvantaged students is to be commended. HBCUs provide a
remarkable avenue for African-American young people, and all young
people, to gain a quality education and are a source of pride for their
communities and our nation.
Chairman Miller, we share the same desire of seeing our nation's
students gain greater access to a college education, so I thank you for
dedicating this time to examining Historically Black Colleges and
Universities. I yield back.
______
Chairman Miller. I thank the gentleman for his remarks.
And all members will have the opportunity to enter opening
remarks into the record of this hearing.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Miller. This will not be the----
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Miller. Just one second, Bobby.
This will not be the last that we hear about the compacts,
but we had the opportunity today to have these magnificent
leaders in town all at one time, and we thought we would take
advantage of it. So I want to just respond to what was said.
Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, this is an extremely important hearing, but I
want to express the reason why I will have to leave in a few
minutes. The Congressional Black Caucus budget is on the floor
in 15 minutes, and I think the panelists would rather me be on
the floor trying to get some more money than being at the
hearing. So I thank you for allowing me to make that comment.
Chairman Miller. So you think they are that pragmatic just
about budgets? [Laughter.]
Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. I, too, will have to leave at 10:30. I chair the
Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, and we are having a
hearing today on child survival, reducing child mortality
around the world. So, unfortunately, I, too, will have to leave
at 10:30. But----
Mr. Andrews. Where are your priorities?
Mr. Payne. I am telling you. But I really look forward to
reading the testimony, and we will do all we can to assist you.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
We have a magnificent panel, and we are going to begin with
the Honorable Hazel O'Leary who is president of Fisk
University. President O'Leary has been the head of Fisk
University since 2004.
President O'Leary has most recently served as president of
the international energy consulting firm O'Leary & Associates
that she founded in 1997 to focus on issues of corporate
change, leadership, and arms control. She also served as
president and chief operating officer of Blaylock & Partners, a
top-ranked African-American investment banking firm in New
York.
During the first administration of President Bill Clinton,
President O'Leary served as the U.S. Secretary of Energy where
she did some great groundbreaking work.
And thank you, Madam Secretary and President, all these
things. My gosh.
Dr. Dorothy Yancy is president of Johnson C. Smith
University in Charlotte, North Carolina. Dr. Dorothy Yancy is
president of the Johnson C. Smith University and first came to
the university as a student and then returned in 1994 to serve
as the first woman appointed to that position. Previously, Dr.
Yancy served as professor at the Georgia Institute of
Technology for 22 years.
She holds a bachelor of arts degree in history and social
science from Johnson C. Smith University, a master of arts
degree in history from the University of Massachusetts-Amherst,
and a Ph.D. in political science from Atlanta University.
Raymond Pierce is the dean of North Carolina Central Law
School in Durham, North Carolina. Dean Pierce became dean of
North Carolina Central Law School in 2005, and prior to serving
dean of the law school, Mr. Pierce was a partner in the
national firm of Baker & Hostetler from 1993 to 2000. Mr.
Pierce served as President Bill Clinton's Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education
where he managed the enforcement of civil rights laws in
education and the development of federal civil rights education
policy.
I think Mr. Sarbanes is going to----
Mr. Sarbanes?
Mr. Yarmuth. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Miller. Or Mr. Yarmuth. Excuse me. Mr. Yarmuth is
going to do the next introduction.
Mr. Yarmuth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have the great honor of introducing a fellow Kentuckian
and a very distinguished one who has dedicated her life to
higher education. She is in her fifth year of a very successful
term of service as president of Kentucky State University in
Frankfurt, coming to us after an 8-year tenure at the
University of Texas at Dallas.
She has more initials after her name than in it, with a
bachelor's degree from Tougaloo College and master's and Ph.D.
from University of Wisconsin-Madison, all in sociology, and an
MBA from Abilene Christian College in Dallas.
To accompany all those degrees is an equally impressive
list of honors, including the Women of Excellence Award, Texas
Women of Distinction Award, the Outstanding Texan Award
presented by the Texas Legislative Black Caucus. She was also
awarded the Ford Foundation's Doctoral Fellowship for Black
Americans and the National Institute of Mental Health
Fellowship in Societal Change and Human Development.
But nothing on her resume can truly reflect the passion and
the commitment and the character of someone whom I consider a
friend and who has done an incredible job at Kentucky State,
Dr. Mary Sias.
Welcome.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Sarbanes will make the next
introduction.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for
holding this hearing on historically black colleges and
universities.
I am pleased to introduce Dr. Earl Stanford Richardson who
is the 11th present of Morgan State University in Baltimore. A
native of Maryland, Dr. Richardson earned the bachelor of arts
degree in social science from the University of Maryland-
Eastern Shore and the master's of science and doctor of
education degrees from the University of Pennsylvania. He has
been a fellow of the Ford Foundation and the Kellogg Foundation
and has conducted extensive research on critical problems in
higher education relevant to racial autonomy, desegregation,
and integration.
Since becoming president of Morgan State University, Dr.
Richardson has fashioned an all-encompassing strategy for
strengthening academic programs and stabilizing student
enrollment, and Morgan now leads Maryland colleges and
universities in the overall production of African-American
baccalaureates and in the number of undergraduates in
mathematics, science, and engineering.
The lodestar of Dr. Richardson's leadership at Morgan State
University and in higher education is his commitment to
establishing a strong foundation of excellence and achievement
in the African-American community.
I just want to say I have had the opportunity to talk at
some length with Dr. Richardson about the challenges that face
historically black colleges and universities. He is a creative
thinker and, I think, brings an important perspective to the
discussion today.
Welcome.
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
And, again, welcome to all of you.
Secretary O'Leary, we are going to begin with you. You will
have 5 minutes to make your case, and the green light will go
on when you begin to speak, a yellow light when you have about
a minute to wrap up, but we expect you to complete your
thoughts in good, clear sentences, and then a red light will
come on. [Laughter.]
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman?
Ms. O'Leary. Such a challenge, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Miller. Excuse me.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, before she starts----
Chairman Miller. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott [continuing]. You did not call on me in time to
introduce her, but Secretary O'Leary is from Newport News,
Virginia, and we would like to especially welcome her.
Chairman Miller. And we all know Mr. Scott is from Newport
News, Virginia.
Ms. O'Leary. Surely we do.
Chairman Miller. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF HAZEL O'LEARY, PRESIDENT, FISK UNIVERSITY
Ms. O'Leary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee.
The chairman has touched upon it. That is I have so little
time and so much to say.
I brought a picture, but only you can see it. This is my
favorite picture of Fisk University. It is a graduation with
the young people wearing the cloth traditional of Ghana, and
that is a good place to begin with Fisk University.
We are proud to report that our retention rate is at 86
percent, meaning our freshman getting to the sophomore year,
and there we can hold them, except for financial crises. Our
graduation rate is at 65 percent, ranking us 10 percent ahead
of the graduation rate of all majority schools in the United
States of America.
We have been recognized by the Chronicle of Higher
Education for doing the best job of graduating low-income,
first-generation students, but perhaps more importantly, as my
students would want me to tell you, we hook them up, and by
hooking them up, I mean, they go on to graduate schools or they
go right into the world of work. Some 70 percent of the
students at Fisk University enter a graduate program.
We like to talk about some of our peoples in academia. Fisk
University holds the distinction of producing the largest
number of African-Americans who go on to earn a Ph.D. in the
natural sciences. That is stunning because normally our
population of students is at about 900. We are on track in the
next year to take that title with respect to physics graduates
with Ph.Ds. I can point out to you that this year 15 African-
Americans entered a Ph.D. program in physics. Nine of them were
graduates of Fisk University.
That is the good work we are doing.
We are very proud of our academic excellence. For 16 years
in a row, the Princeton Review has rated Fisk University in the
85th percentile of quality in education among colleges and
universities in America. Recently, the U.S. News & World Report
did a survey of historically black colleges and universities,
86 of them. Fisk ranked number five. Now, maybe 10 years ago or
20 years ago, we would have ranked number one, but it is
important to tell you that we have managed to do this with an
endowment of $7 million.
Now, if that were the good face of Fisk, there is a face of
Fisk that needs to be getting a little more makeup, as it were.
We are very blessed this year to have caught the attention of
the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, recognizing that Fisk needs
very quickly to build their endowment. They have given us $1
million outright and set a challenge to give us another $2
million if Fisk can raise $4 million by the 30th of June. I am
happy and proud to tell you that we are approaching the $2
million mark, and my suitcase is packed all the time so I know
we are going to get there.
I want to go now to the heart of our problems, recognizing
I have a minute and 10 seconds, and say to you that it is all
about capital at a place like Fisk. One hundred and forty-two
years old in October, we are the first university in Nashville,
and we are blessed to have a campus that is listed on the
register of historic sites, but with that comes an overwhelming
requirement to take care of these beautiful buildings. When I
arrived, deferred maintenance--the last study done in 1995--was
at $19 million. Fast forward and re-up that analysis, we are
over $30 million in deferred maintenance.
A few of the things that really work for us--if anybody has
looked at Fisk's history and background, we would not have
these stellar programs in science without congressional
support. We have five centers of excellence that are supported
by agencies of government, not the Department of Energy, but I
think we can work on that one.
The other thing that is valuable to us are all of the
grants coming to Fisk University out of Title III, it goes for
operations and enhancement of our programs, and most
importantly to use to lever endowment. So, as that Title III
gets whittled away, opportunities for more capital to invest in
a great university cease to exist. But we are going to do our
job, at any rate.
I am a proud graduate of Fisk University. I say to my kids
I came out in the last century, and the difference between
today's Fisk and yesterday is that we are meeting the needs of
brilliant and excellent low-income and first-generation college
students, and I believe that that is our correct mission.
I thank you for the opportunity to sum up.
All right. I am going to get it done in a hurry. Every
university represented here has a great story to tell, and I
know that I am talking to the choir in this particular church
to say that I understand that you understand our needs. The
difficulty we will all have is with capital for the near term
and the long term.
I just want to cite you an example. At Fisk, I looked it up
before I left, of course, our debt service is approximately 10
percent of our budget. It could be a lot less if Fisk could
simply refinance those loans. We will always carry debt. We
cannot carry much more because everything at Fisk is already
collateralized, and I would point out to all of you another
thing that you know is that we are collateralized at too high a
level.
We will do our job. We look very much forward to working
with the committee, and I have had some great jobs in my life,
but none as great as being the president of Fisk University.
I thank you for this opportunity.
[The statement of Ms. O'Leary follows:]
Prepared Statement of Secretary Hazel O'Leary, President, Fisk
University
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the importance of Historically Black Colleges
and Universities to the nation. It is my intention that this
conversation yields a better understanding not only of their historical
significance but also of their current contribution to this nation's
process of social mobility.
I believe that Fisk is an excellent example of the triumphs and
opportunities that these institutions experience. Further, I believe
that it will become apparent that the challenges that many HBCUs cannot
always be separated from America's higher educational crisis.
I would like to begin by giving a brief historical perspective of
the storied history of Fisk University.
Fisk's Storied History of Academic Excellence
Founded mere months after the Civil War, Fisk was Nashville's first
university.
Fisk was established by John Ogden, Reverend Erastus Milo Cravath
and Reverend Edward P. Smith and named in honor of General Clinton B.
Fisk of the Tennessee Freedmen's Bureau. Fisk opened to classes on
January 9, 1866 with the stated mission of providing a quality liberal
arts education without regard to race. In fact, the children of many of
the northern white instructors who came to teach at Fisk actually
studied alongside African American students at a time when segregation
was not just a social rule, but in many circles, a biblically
sanctioned practice.
Many know about the world-famous Fisk Jubilee Singers. They started
as a group of students who traveled to earn enough money to provide
food and other critical support for the financially challenged school.
The Singers rasied enough money over the course of six years to build
the first permanent structure in the country built for the education of
newly freed slaves. They succeeded and funded construction of the
renowned Jubilee Hall; the first permanent structure in America built
specifically for educating African Americans.
During their performance for Queen Victoria in 1873, it was she who
remarked that these fine young people surely must have come from a
musical city. Hence, Nashville, Tennessee has prided itself in being
promoted as Music City, U.S.A.
Our 42 acre campus is a National Historic Landmark and is on the
National Registry of Historic Places and has been a living and learning
environment of countless thousands of students, faculty, and
administrators, some of whom are in the U.S. Senate and legislative
bodies throughout the nation today.
W.E.B. DuBois, sociologist, scholar, first African-
American to earn a Ph.D. from Harvard; Founder of NAACP
Dr. Bradley Sheares--CEO of Reliant Pharmaceuticals,
formerly president of the U.S. Human Health division of Merck & Co.,
Inc., where he had commercial responsibility for the company's
portfolio of prescription medicines for the treatment of chronic and
acute diseases in the United States.
St. Elmo Brady, first African-American to earn a doctorate
in chemistry.
Elmer Imes, 1st African American to receive PhD in physics
Joyce Bolden, first African-American woman to serve on the
Commission for Accreditation of the National Association of Schools of
Music
John Lewis, politician, civil rights activist, former
President of SNCC
Percy Lavon Julian, first African-American chemist and
second African-American from any field to become a member of the
National Academy of Sciences.
Cora Brown, first African-American woman to be elected to
a state senate
Johnnetta Cole, anthropologist, former President of
Spelman College and Bennett College
John Hope Franklin, historian, professor, scholar, author
of landmark text, From Slavery to Freedom, graduate of the class of
1935
Nikki Giovanni, poet, author, professor, scholar
Alcee Hastings, U.S. Congressman and former U.S. district
court judge
James Weldon Johnson, author, poet and civil rights
activist, author of the ``Negro National Anthem'' ``Lift Ev'ry Voice
and Sing''
Alma Powell, wife of Gen. Colin Powell
Kay George Roberts, orchestral conductor
Martha Lynn Sherrod, Presiding District Court Judge, first
African American to win an at-large election in North Alabama since
Reconstruction
Matthew Knowles, President and CEO of Music World
Entertainment and manager of Beyonce Knowles, his daughter
It was at Fisk that these, and many others who remain lesser-known
contributors to American life and culture and beneficiaries of the
social mobility earned, and continue to earn, by receiving a Fisk
education.
While Fisk is known for producing some of the most thoughtful and
globally engaged persons in the 19th and 20th Centuries, its 21st
Century legacy has been and will be the matriculation and education of
students who, at least statistically, are not expected to earn a
college degree. The image of Fisk as a bastion of black middle class
elitism has certainly given way to a talented and academically
accomplished student body of which 91% must receive some form of
financial aid in order to afford college.
In 1951, Fisk became the first HBCU to induct members into the
prestigious Phi Beta Kappa Honor Society. We continue that legacy each
year by adding to the membership ranks of that very prestigious liberal
arts society.
It was a young civil rights organizer named Diane Nash who on May
10, 1960, having led a group of students from Fisk's campus to the
Nashville mayor's office to confront him about a segregated downtown
who employed the Socratic method learned in her courses at Fisk to get
him to admit that segregation was not only harmful but morally wrong.
It was John Lewis who, while a student at Fisk and American Baptist
College in Nashville, protested the segregated conditions of Nashville.
John participated in the Freedom Rides to desegregate the South, and
was a national leader in the struggle for civil rights. He became
nationally known after his prominent role on the Selma to Montgomery
marches, when police beat the nonviolently marching Lewis mercilessly
in public, leaving wounds that are still visible today.
As well as being the incubator for many world changers with name
recognition, equally important are the many unnamed teachers, business
professionals, lawyers, scientists, and community leaders who claim
proudly their participation in the Fisk experience. Among many other
notable firsts, in 1952 Fisk University was the first historically
black college or university to induct students into a chapter of Phi
Beta Kappa Honor Society.
II. The Turning Point--Impact and Opportunity
In spite of having roots in northern philanthropy, Fisk's fortunes
have paralleled the health of the overall economy as well as the
funding environment experienced by many small liberal arts colleges and
universities.
In addition to those economic variables, the social and demographic
changes of the last half-century have also had an impact on our mission
and have caused some public policy practitioners and potential donors
to question the necessity of the HBCU.
In spite of increased competition from better-capitalized majority
institutions, the fact remains that historically black colleges and
universities account for 3 percent of the numbers of schools in this
country but produce twenty-four percent of the African American college
graduates in the United States.
Thomas Friedman's book The World is Flat presents the thesis that
an increasingly developed world with rising standards of living across
the globe means increased competition for limited resources on an
unprecedented scale. It is for that very reason that our schools must
get it right. This country needs all hands on deck if we are to prosper
in the coming decades. The challenges are so great and the need for
ethical leadership so intense that to leave any individual without
opportunity is to threaten the security and progress of us all.
III. Reinventing a Historical Educational Institution with a Racial
Designation
The designation of ``historically black'' frequently prompts some
to question the social necessity of our schools. The key for Fisk's
success is the assembly of two-way partnerships with public and private
sector organizations. Fisk has employed this strategy in educating
tomorrow's scientists.
According to a study conducted by the National Science Foundation,
Fisk University, with a student population of under a thousand,
graduates more African Americans who go on to earn the PhD in the
natural sciences than any school in the nation, in spite of having a
student body of fewer than 1,000 students. Our committed faculty, which
includes a two-time R&D 100 Award winning physicist and winner of the
Room Temperature Semiconductor Award has the flexibility to focus on
the needs of individual students.
An important tool in our excellence in the sciences is the Center
of Excellence in Physics and Chemistry of Materials (CPCoM) supported
by the National Science Foundation and a second center of excellence is
supported by the Department of Defense called the Center for Optical
Logic Devices (COLD). It is through those centers that our masters to
doctorate bridge programs in physics, biology and nursing find support
and have continued and productive connections to graduate programs and
research resources across the nation.
What is critical to our success in this effort are the ongoing
relationships between government agencies and partner universities.
Those relationships provide Fisk with financial and programmatic
support that ensures robust and relevant academic programs in the areas
of law, medicine, and other disciplines. Those universities span the
country and include Howard University, Meharry Medical College,
Vanderbilt University, Case Western Reserve University, Belmont
University, and others.
In December of 2007, Fisk received a challenge grant from the
Andrew W. Mellon Foundation that could bring a total of $7 million to
the University by June 30, 2008. As we continue to raise the funds to
meet that challenge, the University is also involved in what we have
termed a re-alignment. That effort has as its goal the rebalancing of
Fisk's core operations with its resources, in short, to build a Fisk
with a smaller footprint with a taller steeple.
We started a ground-up analysis of all academic and administrative
programs in the late fall. At the end of that process what will result
is a business model that enhances Fisk's strengths, eliminates poorly
performing areas and consolidates increased resources into programs
that are viable but in need of increased investment.
IV. Financial Challenges
As I mentioned earlier, 91% of Fisk students receive some sort of
financial aid. With competition from well-funded majority institutions
Fisk has had to work harder to provide institutional scholarships and
aid for top students.
This is where one of the key differences in a school like Fisk and
a majority institution is most visible. We have demonstrated time and
again that if we can admit and support a student in his or her first
year there is a 86% chance that we will retain them for further study
and graduation.
Conversely, many majority institutions, while they have less
difficulty financing minority students, with few exceptions, they
consistently have difficulty in retaining them from their first year to
second and an even more difficulty graduating them.
A key initiative in which Fisk is currently engaged is the
development of an endowed scholarship fund of which the corpus will
generate funds to be used to attract academically talented students to
Fisk.
This year, Fisk's entering class had an average GPA of 3.32 and an
ACT score of 22.5.
V. The Pathway Forward
As one of the nation's flagship historically black universities
Fisk has tremendous outcomes relative to its resources. The scientific,
social, and cultural impact that a university should have through the
creation of new knowledge is a critical part of what we work hard to
improve everyday.
Funds from all sources, especially Title III and IV funds are
sometimes the difference between possibility and impossibility for a
number of Fisk University student oriented initiatives as well as
research projects.
Title IV funds for Pell Grants are critical portions of Fisk's
student's financial aid packages.
The use of Title III to encourage endowment growth is a key
strategy to increase the endowment size and thus self-sufficiency of
our schools.
Fisk receives grants from the following agencies:
HUD provides community-based initiatives on campus.
Interior Park Service funds help us to restore our
historic buildings.
Justice Department grants to enhance campus security.
Department of Energy provides Fisk with research funding
for the development of radiation detection equipment.
National Science Foundation grants supports both
undergraduate and graduate students engaged in material science
research
Space science related research is supported by NASA,
including collaborations with NASA centers.
Department of Defense supporting cutting edge research in
optical sciences in collaboration with Idaho State University.
______
Chairman Miller. Dr. Yancy?
STATEMENT OF DOROTHY COWSER YANCY, PRESIDENT, JOHNSON C. SMITH
UNIVERSITY
Ms. Yancy. Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon, I appear
before you today to thank you all for passing the College
Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007 and reauthorizing and
strengthening the Higher Education Act of 1965.
I come from the 12th District in North Carolina, Johnson C.
Smith University, the home of Congressman Mel Watts. I appear
before you to share some of the many ways in which the
provisions in this act have helped Johnson C. Smith become a
leader among private liberal arts colleges. As I always say, at
Johnson C. Smith, we have always been able to wash clothes
without washing powder.
We have been recognized----
[Laughter.]
Ms. Yancy. That is right. We have had so little for so long
that we have learned to live with it, but we could always use
more.
We have a small endowment of $53 million, and we are the
beneficiary of the Duke Indenture. Over the years, we have been
recognized by U.S. News & World Report as one of the best
comprehensive colleges in the South since 2001. We are
recognized as the first and only HBCU laptop university where
all students are given laptops. And in 2007, we were also
ranked in the top 10 of HBCUs in America by U.S. News & World
Report.
But we are most proud of what happened in 2000 when Yahoo
ranked JCSU as one of the top 50 most wired small colleges. I,
therefore, encourage you to settle all of your differences on
H.R. 694, the Minority Serving Institution Act, regarding
digital and wirelessness because we all need that. Most of our
students, so many of our schools, are only 88 percent in terms
of their connectivity, in terms of just the basic connectivity,
and 45 percent of the students at our schools, HBCUs, do not
have a laptop.
I would also like to remind you as to why we exist. We
exist because we serve a particular population. We were created
at a particular time when special purpose institutions were
created, as you have already mentioned, but we must remind you
constantly that we are not obsolete, that we must continue to
exist. If we did not exist, we would have to create us.
The most powerful reason for our existence has to do with
economics. Educational preparation results in higher income
levels, strengthens America's society. Everyone knows that a
college graduate will always earn more than a non-college
graduate, even though we know that the average African-American
with a bachelor's degree will earn $1.7 million in a lifetime
whereas a white college graduate will earn about $2.1 million.
We play a critical role in fulfilling the higher education gap,
and we plug what we call the economic gap which was first
identified by the Kerner Commission.
You have already stated that there are so few of us, 4
percent, yet we graduate so many, 30 percent, of African-
American students. But there is another problem here. According
to the data from the NSF, six of the top 20 predominantly white
institutions receive more federal funds for research than 79
HBCUs combined. If we are to have adequate research facilities
and if we are to be competitive, we must receive more federal
funds for research. I would argue that that a continued
investment in HBCUs is a good investment for this country and
for this nation.
Johnson C. Smith was created in 1867 by the Presbyterian
Church. Now somewhere along the way--you know, Presbyterians
can be quite feisty--we seceded from the church in 1868, and so
we have been an independent institution ever since.
But there is something I really would like to thank you
for, and that has to be the Title III funding. Since 1997,
Johnson C. Smith has received more than $17.5 million. We have
used these funds, and we have pinched the pennies. We have
developed technology infrastructures. We have dealt with aging
facilities, maintenance, upgrades, and renovations. We have
dealt with personal resources. We have dealt with data
management infrastructures, institutional planning, and
effectiveness in assessment of student success, and persistence
to graduation, and we have also look at alternative funding.
But we have also institutionalized many of the programs
that we have started. We, for example, have built an
information center and office of mobile computing. We have an
institution of planning, assessment and effectiveness program,
sponsored programs, research, academic retention, and support
services, faculty development, facilities management, tutorial
services, and discipline-based computer technology.
What I am trying to tell you is if you give us some
dollars, we have taken these dollars and we have
institutionalized, and we have not simply thrown them to the
wind.
One concern that I have here is Title IV. Title IV is a
great program. Eighty-three percent of my students are
receiving financial aid. But, as I look at my students, they
are being impacted disproportionately by the economy. For
example, this year, 1,000 students applied for the family--I
call them parent loans. Only 500 of them qualified because of
bad debt. That meant that many of those students had to go to
alternative loans which have high interest rates. Of those
students, I had 15 percent of my students acquiring alternative
loans.
So you need to understand that the economy has impacted us.
I read an article that came out yesterday that said less than
10 percent of the students in this country were getting
alternative loans and they were all at for-profit institutions.
That simply is not true. They are also attending our schools,
and they are being impacted in a disproportionate way.
I would argue that Pell has to be increased, which you have
already agreed to. I would argue that the Title II's, Teacher
Quality Enhancement Provisions have to be strengthened. I would
argue that in terms of challenges, endowments have to be dealt
with. We probably have one institution with an endowment of
more than $500 million. That is a crisis. You have to have to
money in order to continue to strengthen your programs, pay
your bills, and just do the things that you have to do to have
a successful institution.
The other thing that we need to look at is sustaining
leadership within our institutions. I am retiring. I am looking
forward to it. [Laughter.]
But I also know that the pipeline of presidents, CFOs,
provosts, et cetera, is fairly thin, and there also needs to be
something done about the training of trustees and people who
sit on these boards from the state levels who determine what
happens to our institutions. Sometimes they know little or
nothing about education, but they become experts once they are
appointed.
But that is about all I have to say. I will take questions
afterwards. [Laughter.]
Thank you very much for your time.
[The statement of Ms. Yancy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Dorothy Cowser Yancy, President, Johnson C.
Smith University
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon and Members of the
Committee, thank you for affording me the opportunity to appear before
you today on behalf of Johnson C. Smith University, located in North
Carolina's 12th Congressional District, where I have served as
President for fourteen years this month. Thank you for hosting this
very important hearing on ``America's Black Colleges and Universities:
Models of Excellence and Challenges for the Future.'' I thank the
National Associational for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education
(NAFEO) for requesting this hearing and for all that the Association
did to provide information to Committee Members and staff as you shaped
this hearing.
Johnson C. Smith University is a UNCF member institution along with
thirty-nine (39) other private Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCUs). Johnson C. Smith is also a member of the National
Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education (NAFEO), the
membership association of the presidents and chancellors of private and
public HBCUs and the newly recognized Predominantly Black Institutions
(PBIs), some one hundred twenty (120) institutions, representing
roughly 400,000 students, more than 25,000 faculty and more than 4
million alumni. NAFEO's more than 120 member institutions are located
in twenty-five states, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands.
I appear before you today to thank you Mr. Chairman and to thank
Ranking Member McKeon, Congressman Ruben E. Hinojosa, Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and
Competitiveness, and all of the Members of this Committee for passing
``The College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007'' reauthorizing
and strengthening the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended through
the years. I appear also to share with you a few of the many ways in
which provisions in the Higher Education Act have helped to make
Johnson C. Smith University a leader among private liberal arts
colleges in the nation. JCSU has been recognized by U.S. News and World
Report as one of the best comprehensive colleges in the South since
2001, it is recognized as the first and only HBCU laptop University
where all students are given laptops, it is ranked in 2007 by U.S. News
and Reports as one of the top 10 HBCU's in America, and it was ranked
by Yahoo in 2000 as one of the top 50 most wired small colleges. Today
I offer a few suggestions for strengthening the Act during
reconciliation of the House College Opportunity and Affordability Act
(H.R. 4137) and the Senate Higher Education Amendments (S. 1642).and
Senate bills. Given the time constraints this morning, I have prepared
a written statement that I will submit for the record. I will share
just a few observations with you this morning.
Before I share my observations, I want to recognize Congresswoman
Virginia Foxx, a member of this Committee and North Carolina's
congressional delegation, representing the 5th Congressional District
that includes Clemmons and Boone. I want to extend my special
appreciation and that of the HBCU community to Congressman Bobby Scott,
the Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus' Braintrust on
Education, who is a steadfast champion of education excellence, access,
equity and for the strengthening and enhancement of the phalanx of
HBCUs. We appreciate Congressman Scott's leadership and that of
Subcommittee Chair Hinojosa that resulted in many of the provisions for
strengthening HBCUs contained in ``The College Opportunity and
Affordability Act of 2007.'' The leadership of Congressman Scott,
Chairman Hinojosa and others on the Subcommittee also resulted in the
inclusion in the Budget Reconciliation Act of new dollars for HBCUs,
HACU institutions and other MSIs, for which we are also grateful.
For more than 100 years, the Nation's Historically Black Colleges
and Universities (HBCUs) have struggled to overcome their institutional
legacy of segregation and differential treatment at the hands of the
states and the Federal Government that was exacerbated by the lack of
primary and secondary education provided to the slaves, and later
complicated by segregated K-12 schools. HBCUs exist in 21st Century
America in a virtual higher education vacuum--viewed by some, including
some African Americans, as a relic of America's segregated past and
having no real place or role in America's presumably diverse higher
education community. The HBCUs are questioned by others who questioned
their effectiveness at overcoming the educational deficits of many
students enroll at these institutions, and challenged by others because
they benefit from special funding like Title IIIB of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended.
Historically black colleges and universities, which represent a
unique source of hope and advancement, have consistently performed the
important function of helping African Americans hone their talents in
order to contribute to American society. Much of the diversity among
institutions in the higher education community was birthed in an
earlier time when so-called ``special purpose'' institutions were
created due to the exclusion of women, Catholics and Jews, the
disabled, and others from ``traditionally white institutions.'' Just as
institutions serving these segments of the American population have not
become obsolete, institutions founded to meet the educational needs of
African Americans have not become obsolete. While it remains
commonplace to question the function and presence of the HBCUs--most
recently by U.S. Civil Rights Commissioner Abigail Thernstrom in a
November 30, 2007 Wall Street Journal column--Charles V. Willie
answered the ``Why Black Colleges?'' question in a 1979 Change Magazine
article:
A self-centered attempt to save Black institutions for Blacks would
be as damaging as an other-directed effort to remake them in the image
of whites. Both actions ultimately would end in defeat. Black colleges
and universities must be prepared for their value to society as a
whole. A higher education system with a Harvard but not a Hampton is
incomplete. Black colleges and universities have a future in our
society because of their function.
The most powerful reason for encouraging and supporting the 103
historically black colleges and universities is economic. Educational
preparation resulting in higher income levels strengthens American
society by creating productive citizens and the financial and human
costs associated with uneducated, unproductive and non-participating
citizens in the American enterprise. It is estimated, over a lifetime,
that the average U.S. citizen with a baccalaureate degree will earn
$2.1 million, while a person with a high school diploma will earn only
$1.2 million. This `earnings gap' is much wider for African Americans.
The average African American with a bachelor's degree will earn $1.7
million, while the average African American with a high school diploma
will earn about $1 million.
The HBCUs play a crucial role in filling the higher education gap,
and hence they also plug the economic ``gap'' that was first identified
by the 1968 Kerner Commission Report, whose twentieth anniversary was
just celebrated. Title IIIB of the Higher Education Act defines ``a
part B institution'' as ``* * * any historically black college or
university that was established prior to 1964, whose principal purpose
was, and is, the education of Black Americans. Yet, it is important to
note that many of our public and private HBCUs have diverse student
bodies including many white students, Latinos, and international
students from all around the globe.
HBCU's today represent only 4% of all higher education
institutions, but they graduate approximately 30% of all African-
American students, 40% of African American students receiving a four-
year degree in STEM, and 50% of African American teachers. These
successes are attributable in part to resources made available through
the Higher Education Act. The successes were achieved despite the fact
that in recent year's federal support for HBCUs has only increased in
very modest amounts; and in spite of the fact that HBCUs continue to
receive significantly less funding for research, facilities, and
programs than their historically white counterparts. According to data
from the National Science Foundation, for example, 6 of the top 20
predominantly white universities received more federal funds for
research than 79 HBCUs combined.\1\ The NSF report shows that despite a
quantifiable record of success at educating African American scientists
and engineers, HBCUs continue receiving disproportionately fewer
federal dollars. This pattern if left unabated will pose a barrier to
black colleges remaining comparable and competitive with historically
white institutions. The pattern must be reserved. With the amendments
you made to the Higher Education Act, with my proposed actions by the
conference committee, and suggestions advanced by others on this panel
with me this morning, the pattern will be reversed. Continued
investment in HBCUs is good for the HBCU community, good for the nation
and good for the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Richard J. Bennof, ``FY 2005 Federal S&E Obligations Reach Over
2,400 Academic and Nonprofit Institutions; Data Presented on Minority-
Serving Institutions'' Info Brief National Science Foundation NSF 07-
326 (revised), Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic
Sciences, October 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To provide a clear understanding of the extent to which support
under Titles IIIB, IV, of the Higher Education Act has assisted Johnson
C. Smith to evolve into the world class liberal arts university that it
is today, I will briefly share with you something about the history and
growth of Johnson C. Smith in recent years.
Johnson C. Smith was founded in 1867 under the auspices of the
Committee on Freedmen of the Presbyterian Church; U.S.A. Johnson C.
Smith is an independent, private, coeducational institution of higher
learning. JCSU has received over $17.5 million dollars since 1997 in
federal support under the federal formula. These institutional dollars
have enabled Johnson C Smith to institutionalize strategic practices
and improvements
The following target areas of the Comprehensive Development Plan
(CDP) describe recurrent institutional challenges and strategic
purposes that have persisted over the past few years and reflect both
national as well as local themes we must continue to address:
Maintain an effective and developmental technology
infrastructure (hardware, software, people, training) to support the
administrative and academic mission of the university
Aging facilities require on-going maintenance, upgrades,
and renovations to support new development in curriculum and
instruction.
Academic innovations require additional personnel
resources as well a recurrent training to improve quality.
Data management infrastructure to support institutional
planning, effectiveness, and assessment to support effective decision-
making
The institutional enrollment profile and mission requires
us to provide special programs to insure student success and
persistence to graduation.
Increasing cost in utilizing technology and shrinking
institutional budgets requires us to develop our institutional capacity
to generate alternative sources of funding.
What we have come to realize is that these CDP target areas reoccur
in some shape or form whenever we begin to engage issues of planning,
development and resource allocation. They are, and will continue to be
for some time, a strategic challenge for the institution as it evolves
its future. Title III supports the development of project activities to
reduce the effect of these recurrent themes on the programs of the
University. Title III has supported us in capacity-building to solve
our recurring strategic challenges.
Institutionalization of Title III activities will continue to occur
as we integrate Title III activities. This is evidenced historically by
the fact that the following offices were developed by Title III funding
and continue to play a role in Title III program development:
Information Center
Office of Mobile Computing
Institutional Planning, Assessment, Effectiveness and
Research
Sponsored Programs and Research
Academic Retention and Support Services
Faculty Development
Facilities Management
Tutorial Services
Discipline Based Computer Technology
A portion of the work of these well established offices still
coordinate in the development of new and critical Title III activities.
We have achieved a kind of transparency with Title III and
institutional development. This integration of Title III and these
critical areas of concern have been progressively interwoven into the
fabric of the institution as new administrative and academic services
primarily supported by institutional funds. New activities of these
offices will extend the evolution and work on these recurring and
persistent problem areas and our Title III partnership will result in
new institutionalized capacity in the form of new offices, programs,
and personnel.
The ``Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities''
program has been, and continues to be, not only the principle source of
institutional assistance for Johnson C. Smith, but for the vast
majority of HBCUs. Since its inception, the Title IIIB program has been
very successful in supporting strategic planning initiatives, academic
program enhancements, administrative and fiscal management, student
services, physical plant improvements, and general institutional
development.
The Title IIIB dollars are transforming HBCUs to meet the
challenges of a new century with cutting cutting-edge projects in
agriculture, science, technology, and international education. Title
IIIB dollars are also enabling HBCUs to provide vital education, health
care, human needs, economic and community development, and recreation
services for the communities in which they are located.
Finally, the Title IV Student Assistance programs have enabled
Johnson C. Smith University to maintain its student enrollment with 83%
of its students receiving financial aid.
Recommendations
Pell Grant Program--I strongly support improvements in the Pell
Grant program; especially the proposed increases in the Pell Grant
maximum award to more clearly reflect the cost of tuition and fees at
four-year public colleges and universities. Of course, the cost of
tuition and fees as private institutions, like Johnson C. Smith
University, is generally higher than that of public institutions, but
at this point in our nation's history in which a college education is
vitally important, we should make a national commitment, at a minimum,
to afford funding for those of least advantage who are desirous and
prepared for college to be able to afford the cost of a public 4-year
institution. Congress should retain the current $4000 minimum and
establish a maximum award linked to the tuition and fees of the cost of
a public 4-year college according to the annual College Board Cost of
College report. Students at Johnson C. Smith University commonly work
two and three jobs to make ends meet.
I appreciate and applaud the inclusion in both the House and Senate
Higher Education Act reauthorization bills, on a bipartisan basis, of
provisions that establish student eligibility for a Year-Round or
``third semester'' Pell Grant.
Teacher Quality Enhancement--There is a great deal more to do. The
Title II Teacher Quality Enhancement programs contained in both the
House and Senate reauthorization bill will strengthen our teacher
education programs in a significant way. The changes incorporated in
Title II of both the House and Senate bills targeting funds on
partnerships composed of institutions of higher education, local
education agencies (LEAs), especially ``high need'' LEAs, non-profit
organizations, and others, and the removal of states as partner
grantees will focus limited resources on entities located closest to
those involved directly in preparing teachers and in providing
professional development for existing teachers. The HBCU community is
especially pleased with the language in he House bill, H.R. 4137, that
provides for Development Leadership Programs for partnerships that
would focus on the preparation of superintendents, principals and other
school administrators, and gives priority in the award of partnership
grants to teacher preparation programs that have a rigorous selection
process, i.e. NCATE accredited institutions with PRAXIS-related
graduation requirements. Johnson C. Smith is such an institution, and
we will encourage your Senate counterparts, especially those in the
North Carolina delegation to accept this House-passed, important
provision.
I strongly support the Augustus F. Hawkins Centers of Excellence
provisions in H.R. 4137 that are designed to provide funds for HBCUs
and MSIs, or consortia of such institutions, to strengthen their
teacher preparation programs. The Augustus F. Hawkins Centers of
Excellence in Teacher Education would enable ten HBCUs, like Johnson C.
Smith, with exceptional Departments of Education, to establish or
enhance collaborative centers of excellence in which to prepare highly
qualified teachers to close the achievement gap that plagues minority
students, who in turn, will disproportionately opt to teach in the most
underserved communities. The funding to create state of the art teacher
training facilities contained in the legislation for the institutions
that house these centers, to create s, will be immeasurably helpful to
those of us who are meeting not only the needs of our states for
exceptional, diverse teachers, but for the nation, with sparse
resources.
Other issues and challenges
The historically black colleges and universities are not without
their challenges as they continue to mature as institutions and compete
in the larger arena for private and Federal funding support, as they
seek out African American and other students in a highly competitive
admissions climate, and as they strive to keep their infrastructure and
instrumentation competitive with their peers in the higher education
community. Let me mention several issues that are at the core or my
concerns as I leave the presidency of Johnson C. Smith University at
the end of the academic year.
Endowment Building and Institutional Development--Fewer than five
HBCUs have endowments that exceed $500,000 and only one that exceeds $1
million. Institutional endowments represent necessary shelter against
the winds of change in higher education, especially for small, private
colleges like Johnson C. Smith. Most of the HBCU institutions have low
or no endowment to speak of, and too many struggle just simply to pay
their bills on time, provide scholarship funds for needy, highly
qualified students, and to pay faculty and staff a quality salary.
Competition for private sector and foundation support and for Federal
grant and contract dollars, including congressional ``earmarks'' has
intensified--as public and private colleges compete for declining
resources and donors insist upon a quid pro quo or recognition for
large gifts or grants.
Institutional Accreditation--At least three two-year and five four-
year HBCUs have had their accreditation withdrawn by the Commission on
Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) or
Commission on Higher Learning of the North Central Association of
Colleges and Schools during the past two decades. Many other public and
private HBCUs have been sanctioned by SACS and other regional
accrediting agencies, and continue to operate in a fiscally ``at-risk''
posture that threatens their continued existence and viability.
Two-Year Colleges: Morristown College; Clinton Jr. College; Shorter
College; Mary Holmes College.
Four-Year Colleges: Barber Scotia College; Edward Waters College;
Knoxville College; Morris Brown College; Texas College.
Clinton Jr. College regained its accreditation with another
accrediting association. Texas College successfully restored its
accreditation with SACS within two years. Edward Waters successfully
pursued litigation against SACS and secured a settlement that provided
a path for the restoration of its accreditation. Knoxville College and
Morris Brown College remain open without regional accreditation.
Sustaining Institutional Leadership--One of the most pressing
challenges facing the HBCU community is the identification and
preparation of quality institutional leadership for the presidency and
the first-tier of institutional leadership, especially Vice Presidents
for Fiscal Affairs/Chief Financial Officers (CFOs), Chief Information
Officers (CIOs), Provost/Vice Presidents for Academic Affairs, Vice
President for Institutional Development, and Graduate Deans (where
appropriate), etc. Our needs in these areas are strained by limitations
in the available pool of applicants, salary limitations, etc. Rapid
turnover in the presidency or chancellors, in the public sector, also
impacts the tenure of the first-tier administrative staff and
executives. A related and challenging question has to do with the
skills and abilities of HBCU trustees or boards of directors. Training
and skill development--including developing an understanding of the
roles and duties of trustees is critical, especially as it relates to
search and selection of the president or chancellor. This issue is
complicated among the private colleges by self-perpetuating boards and
in the public sector by the gubernatorial power of appointment or
election of public institutional trustees.
The above are just a few of my observations regarding the many
improvements to the Higher Education Act contained in ``The College
Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007.'' I again express my deep
appreciation for the determination of this Committee to move this bill
forward, but not at the expense of denying the public, and especially
the broad and diverse stakeholders, an opportunity to participate in
the deliberative process.
Conclusion
The Higher Education Act is one of the most important pieces of
legislation to the institutions that are among the constellation of
colleges and universities we call HBCUs. These institutions were
founded before 1964 to educate black Americans who were, at the time of
their founding, denied access to most historically white colleges and
universities (HWCUs). HBCUs were defined in the 1986 Amendments to the
Higher Education Act by their mission and purpose, not by the racial or
ethnic make-up of their student enrollment. Many HBCUs have
increasingly diverse student bodies, including my own institution,
Johnson C. Smith, which has as its mission providing outstanding
education for a diverse group of talented and highly motivated students
from various ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographic backgrounds. We
enroll 1470 students from many backgrounds, although the majority of my
students are African American. Many have few financial means. They
overwhelmingly share a thirst for knowledge and the belief that the
familial atmosphere at Johnson C. Smith is aligned with their
preparation and their aspirations.
Title IIIB of the Higher education Act, the provision on
Strengthening the Historically Black Colleges and Universities, has
been especially important in assisting Johnson C. Smith University to
become a model of excellence, and in enhancing the 96 other HBCUS that
are receiving funding under this provision. Title III, Part D of the
Act, the HBCU Capital Financing Program has enabled many of the HBCUs
to build and maintain facilities and an infrastructure to attract to
and retain competitive students at our institutions. Title IV, Student
Assistance has exponentially expanded access to higher education for
low-income, first generation and traditionally underserved students--
those who are the majority of students attending Johnson C. Smith.
I thank you for affording me the opportunity to share these
observations with you this morning.
______
Ms. O'Leary. Well done, Dorothy.
Chairman Miller. Dr. Sias?
STATEMENT OF MARY EVANS SIAS, PRESIDENT, KENTUCKY STATE
UNIVERSITY
Ms. Sias. Good morning, Chairman Miller and members of the
House Committee on Education and Labor. I appreciate you
affording me the opportunity to speak to you this morning, and
my remarks will really center on two things: the continued
viability of historically black colleges and universities and
the expansion of Section 326(e)(1) Eligibility of Historically
Black Graduate Institutions program contained in H.R. 4137,
Section 306.
When I read the newspapers daily and I listen to the news,
I see that we have challenges and we will continue to have
those challenges confront us for a very long time in our
complex world. Solutions are not going to come from simply the
privileged few who have had the opportunity for a quality
education, but rather from those whose ACT and SAT scores may
be modest, but they have had a chance to receive a quality
education at historically black colleges.
Our strength as a nation must come from how we structure
and afford our students quality educational opportunities. For
more than 100 years, more than 105 HBCUs and universities
provided access and opportunity not only to black students, but
to underserved students who wanted a chance. HBCUs have stood
in the gap and served as a bridge for those students.
Now, as an HBCU president, I am often asked, ``Are HBCUs
viable? Do they continue to be relevant?'' And my answer is
always a resounding, ``Yes.'' But there are some in this
country, people like George Mason Professor Walter Williams,
and other syndicated columnists, who have mistakenly
represented what life at HBCUs is really like.
Dr. McNealy, a colleague who is sitting behind me, said
that what they have said is akin to ``yelling fire in a theater
when there is none. That is not acceptable as legitimate free
speech because of the harm that is does.''
What is even worse is when you have someone who is not
there, who has not seen anything, who took what someone else
said, and on secondary information yells that there is a fire.
That is even worse because it perpetrates an untruth and does
great harm.
HBCUs did not create the problem and the challenges they
face. Rather, they have stood at the forefront of the fray
ready to help find solutions.
Let me tell you I know you know the numbers. I know you
know how many students we enroll. I know you know how many
people we graduate. I am not telling you everything is great.
It is not. Like our counterparts, we should be graduating more
students, and if we have more resources and we can build our
capacity, we will graduate more students.
We want to graduate students who can critically think, who
can integrate knowledge, who can speak concisely and
coherently, and who can use technology. These are the students
who stand in the forefront. These are the students that we are
going to count on to lead us and become the next generation of
leaders.
For K State and other HBCUs, we take the terror of poverty,
hunger, fear, and hopelessness, and we turn it into hope, and
with a little bit more money and capacity, we can do even more.
That leads me to my second point. I would like to talk a
little bit about how we need more graduate programs. The
reauthorizing legislation proposed amendments to Section 326
that would among other things allow a limited number of
master's degree programs to receive grants in much the same
manner that the HBBI program by admitting a small number of
qualified institutions. The Senate bill would allow
Fayetteville State, Grambling, West Virginia, and Kentucky
State to receive grants for our eligible graduate and
professional programs. I know you know this, Representative
Yarmuth.
The Senate has made this conclusion based on its
interpretation of the language. I am not going to read all of
it to you, but I want you to know that I know and I know you
know that the language says qualified graduate program, meaning
graduate or professional programs that provide programs of
instructions in physical and natural science. It does not say
terminal programs or anything else of the sort.
Kentucky State University has a national reputation for our
program in aquaculture. We believe that we meet every element
of that program language, and we want to be included in the
non-competitive language. The program appears to the Senate and
appears to K State to meet all those qualifications. I know
this committee disagrees and has taken the position that the
language appears to apply to graduate and professional programs
without limitations to terminal degrees.
I want to ask you to reconsider that in your conference
hearing. Please do so. And I want you to know that I hope the
Senate will continue to keep this in that language.
And I want to thank the committee, however, for committing
and creating H.R. 4137 as an alternative to HBCU masters degree
programs in Title VII of the Act. Kentucky State would be
eligible, but that is not enough. We want to be eligible on the
non-competitive side.
In closing, I want to thank you for your commitment to
historically black colleges and universities. By your actions
every day, you tell us that you want to support the next
generation of students. Our journey begins today, and I know we
can count on you.
My grandmother is from the country, and she told me when I
stood out watching her feed the chickens and churn butter that,
``Honey, why are you standing up there not doing anything?''
And I said, ``Grandma, nobody told me to be involved.'' And she
said, ``Don't ask or be told what to do. Just simply assign
yourself.''
Thank you. HBCUs have been assigning themselves every day,
and we want you to join us in that challenge. Thank you for
this opportunity.
[The statement of Ms. Sias follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mary Evans Sias, Ph.D., President, Kentucky State
University
Good morning Chairman Miller and other members of the House
Committee on Education and Labor. I appreciate the Committee affording
me the opportunity this morning to express my views on two issues: 1)
the continued viability of historically black colleges and universities
and 2) the expansion of Section 326 (e) (1) Eligibility of Historically
Black Graduate Institutions program contained in H.R. 4137, Section
306.
As I read the newspaper daily and listen to the news, I see that as
a country we have challenges that will continue to confront us for a
very long time in this complex and troubled world in which we live. The
solutions will come not only from the privileged few who have often had
quality education reserved for them, but also from those whose ACT and
SAT scores may have been very modest but still received a quality
education.
Our strength as a nation must come from how we structure and afford
our students educational opportunities.
For more than 100 years most of the 105 historically black colleges
and universities have provided access and opportunity not only to Black
students but to any underserved students who entered our doors.
At a time when the demand for a college education is climbing
toward a universal expectation * * * that is a college degree will very
soon be like a high school diploma * * * HBCUs have responded and
stepped up to the mark. They stand and have have stood ready to admit
and enhance the skills of countless students who would have been ``left
waiting at the door''. HBCUs have stood in the gap and served as a
bridge for tens of thousands of such students.
Recently, there has been some discussion about whether HBCUs
continue to be viable. In fact, I am often asked that question as a
president of an HBCU. The answer I give is a resounding ``Yes''; HBCUs
are and continue to be needed and are as vital now to the educational
system in America as they have ever been.
One of the great strengths of America is that it made a decision
and a commitment to try to afford all Americans a chance to receive a
quality education. Current demographic changes in America show that
blacks and browns will be more than half of the students we educate in
the next five to six years. Educating all of American's people is an
urgent priority. No one can do it better than HBCUs.
Scholars like George Mason, Professor Walter Williams and other
syndicated columnists have mistakenly represented to a large degree
what life is like at HBCUs. One of my colleagues, Dr. Ernest McNealy at
Stillman College says what they have said is akin to ``yelling fire in
a theater when there is none. That is not acceptable as legitimate free
speech because of the harm that is causes. Standing in a theater and
yelling that someone else said that there is a fire is dangerous
because the perpetrated untruth further exacerbates the original
harm''.
While they were nodding, HBCUs which account for only 3% of the
nations more than 4,000 colleges and universities, found themselves
enrolling 16% of African Americans at the undergraduate level. HBCUs
also continue to account for nearly 30% of all baccalaureate degrees
and 40% of all first professional degrees to African Americans.
The numbers do not mean HBCUs are perfect and we certainly have
many areas to improve. Dr. J.T. Minor recently in a recently published
piece called, ``Contemporary HBCUs: Considering Institutional
Capacity'' reports that HBCUs like their white counterparts are losing
far too many students. According to a survey by The Education Trust,
only 60% of all college students complete undergraduate study in six
years. Seventy percent of all students who attend HBCUs are classified
as low-income which contributes to even lower graduation rates at many
HBCUs.
The encouraging news from this report noted by Lezli
Baskerkerville, president of NAFEO, the National Association for Equal
Opportunity is that increasing the capacity at HBCUs and investing in
their missions, which include remediation of students ill-served by the
PK-12 system, can reverse the trend.
Institutions like Kentucky State University and other HBCUs you
will hear about this morning are highly effective in providing access
to higher education to students that we will rely on tomorrow. In
Kentucky 52% of all high schools student graduating need at least one
course in remediation. For African American that number is 77%. KSU and
other HBCUs take the terror of poverty, hunger, fear and hopelessness
and turn it into hope.
On more than 100 small and mid size campuses across this nations,
our historically black colleges and universities have responded to the
call to produce students who can think critically, integrate knowledge
and then communicate that knowledge clearly to others. They have taught
students to care about the problems facing our communities and to use
technology and innovation to help solve those problems. HBCUs have
always stood willingly to be a part of the solution. That has been our
legacy and continues to be our mission. We stand as ready today as we
ever have been to make a difference.
While money may not cure all the ills of our educational system and
of HBCUs in particular, having adequate resources will go a long way in
helping to provide a quality education for all those who need it.
I want to thank the Committee for creating in H.R. 4137 an
alternative HBCU Masters Degree program in Title VII of the Act, for
which Kentucky State is unquestionably eligible. This provision is
sorely needed to create a pipeline to terminal degree programs at our
institutions.
The new program, an alternative HBCU Masters Degree program in
Title VII of the Act created in H.R. 4137, fashioned and advanced by
NAFEO and TMCF, is designed to provide institutional awards to HBCUs
and minority-serving institutions that are not eligible to participate
in the Title IIIB HBGI program in section 326 of the Act. I believe
that Masters Degree programs that do not lead to doctorates are
deserving of federal financial support, and that this competitive grant
program can be of immense assistance to building the capacity of our
institutions. Indeed, the Senate bill that includes Kentucky State in
Section 326 includes a program that authorizes competitive grants to
nursing programs to expand faculty and facilities. The non-competitive
funding to designated qualified institutions under Section 326 is what
makes that provision and our inclusion in the Senate bill under that
Section so attractive.
Both Section 326 an the new Masters Degree program you incorporate
in the House bill are about building capacity. You have heard about the
number of African Americas and minority students who graduate with
their masters from HBCUs in the fields articulated. These provisions
will certainly better position the HBCU community to expand
opportunities and do a better job of meeting the workforce needs for
highly qualified, compassionate, diverse professionals in high need,
hared to fill scientific disciplines.
In closing, I want to thank you for your commitment to Historically
Black Colleges and Universities. By your actions and commitment you
show each of us daily that there is hope for the next generation of
African Americans and minority students.
We continue to need your help and support. Our future and the
futures of the next generation of students depend greatly on each of
you and the actions you take.
Our journey begins today. My grandmother, a true Renaissance woman,
once told me when I was standing around and looking at her work * * *
feeding the chickens, churning butter and washing heavy quilts, ``Don't
wait to be told what to do; assign yourself.''
HBCUs have always ``assigned'' themselves. We ask that you join us
in this effort.
Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
Dr. Richardson.
STATEMENT OF EARL S. RICHARDSON, PRESIDENT, MORGAN STATE
UNIVERSITY
Mr. Richardson. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair. Thank you, Mr. McKeon, for your support, Congressman
McKeon, over the years and now to Chairman Miller.
Let me just say that I appreciate the introduction by my
congressman, John Sarbanes, and he and I have talked over and
often about the value of our black colleges.
I appear today to join my colleagues and guests talking
about the great value and contribution of our historically
black colleges, but, more important, to emphasize the great
potential and the great promise that these institutions have
for addressing some of the more vexing problems related to the
social, economic, and political welfare of our society.
I am passionate about this because I believe that the
realization of that promise is fleeting, and with every
fleeting moment, I believe the impact on our society is
devastating.
At this point in time, I think that it has been now about
five decades, a little better than five decades, since Brown.
It has been over four decades since Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act. It has been more than 16 years since Fordice. And,
yes, much has been done to improve our historically black
colleges, but nowhere near the amount that needs to be done to
make us comparable to our white counterparts, nowhere near
enough to make us as competitive in attracting students
regardless of race and regardless of their academic achievement
level.
And so I think that there is now an urgency. There is an
urgency about moving us toward that standard of comparability
that we have been striving for for now over a half-century.
In the State of Maryland, the demographics are moving so
quickly that now you are seeing, as you saw in The Washington
Post just a few days ago, about what the changing demographics
are in our country, and just a few months before then, there
appeared in the Sun paper of Baltimore a similar article. And
we oftentimes talk about the relevance of that for our
institutions of higher education.
Well, those demographics are briefly saying to us that the
minorities that we have so often spoken about are now very
shortly going to be the majority, and those are the persons
that are experiencing the greatest difficulty in terms of
educational achievement and in terms of how they are able to
move from the elementary, secondary level to the post-secondary
level.
Yet this is the pool, this is the pipeline from which this
country will have to draw the workforce, and so we believe that
it is imperative that we move to now ensure that these
institutions that have served that minority population very,
very well, that they now be made equal to and comparable to the
majority institutions in our state and in our country.
As I look at what is happening in our own State of
Maryland--by the way, I am a native of Maryland. I went to
elementary school there. I went to high school there. I got my
undergraduate degree there before going on to the University of
Pennsylvania. And so I have a long history with it.
I was there in the 1960s when we were marching in the
streets, marching to remove the separate but equal and for us
separate and unequal, and it pains me now that even 50, almost
60 years later that we still have not achieved that higher mark
that we were striving for in the 1960s.
But I want to emphasize here that I think that that promise
is still before us. I think that that promise can be realized
if, indeed, we can move within our states on some of the
compact agreements.
In the State of Maryland, we had a compact agreement--
several--but the last one lasting from 2000 to 2005, and after
that, of course, the State of Maryland did, indeed, send a
report in saying that we had, indeed, complied with all of the
requirements of that. Later on, a group that represented the
interests of our historically black colleges, the Maryland
Coalition for Equity and Excellence in Higher Education,
submitted a rejoinder questioning many of the positions in that
document. We still are waiting to find out what the disposition
is of: one, the agreement; two, the response of our state; and,
three, the rejoinder that was submitted by the third party on
behalf of our historically black colleges.
You have heard from Congressman Sarbanes of Morgan's
productivity within the State of Maryland, the largest producer
of African-Americans, and we have heard the term over and over
again ``African-American'' or we have the term ``historically
black colleges''. Let me simply say you should not be
uncomfortable with the term.
Historically black colleges are designations, represents a
fact of history and not a statement of exclusion. We are open
to students regardless of race and, yes, the difference between
our institutions and the other institutions is that, yes, we
want some of the most talented students. We want as many as we
can get. But within our community, according to the standards
that are now used on SAT scores, that represents only 12
percent to 15 percent of our students.
And we happen to believe that you cannot just discard the
other 85 percent, that we have to provide some way to move that
other 85 percent to a level that they can be productive
citizens, that they can, too, move through our elementary and
secondary schools and then to our post-secondary schools and
become the productive citizens that you want. We can make them
the scientists and the engineers and the teachers and the
professors, all of those things, but, indeed, it has to be
under the circumstances that we provide to our students at our
other institutions.
So let me just sum up by saying, Mr. Chair, I think that
our historically black colleges have done an excellent job over
the years, and I think they hold great promise for these
changing demographics if, in fact, we can have our institutions
develop to a level of comparability and parity so that we are
as competitive as other institutions in attracting students
regardless of their race and regardless of their background and
regardless of their academic achievement.
Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity
to speak.
[The statement of Mr. Richardson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Earl S. Richardson, President, Morgan State
University
Chairman Miller and distinguished members of the Committee, I am
deeply honored to be a part of this panel and I thank you for the
opportunity given me to share my thoughts and perspectives on the
continuing efficacy of Historically Black Colleges and Universities as
well as the continuing need for the federal government to oversee and
enforce the effective compliance of the several states with applicable
civil rights laws as pertaining to students especially served by these
institutions. At this point and time in our nation's long, bloody
journey towards equal justice under law and civil rights for all
regardless of race and color--particularly with respect to equal
educational opportunity--I can think of no more urgent matter for which
this Committee should convene a hearing.
As pertaining to public education, we are now 54 years into the
implementation and enforcement of the mandate of Brown v. Board of
Education, which implementation and enforcement, I might add, was to be
done ``with all deliberate speed.'' While we would be disingenuous if
we failed to acknowledge that significant progress has been made, we
would also be irresponsible if we were to conclude that the promise of
Brown has been fully realized--or even partially realized--for a vast
number of low-income, minority students in this country, particularly
in the South where segregation and discrimination on the basis of race
was institutionalized by law. That unrealized promise is this: public
education, ``where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right
which must be made available to all on equal terms.''
With respect to public higher education in particular, we are also
now 35 years past the seminal Adams v. Richardson cases seeking some
sense of accountability from what is now the United States Department
of Education, Office for Civil Rights, to enforce compliance of the
states with Brown and other governing law, including Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, at the college and university levels.
Moreover, we are 16 years past the landmark decision in United States
v. Fordice imposing affirmative obligations on former de jure
segregated states to dismantle their dual systems of higher education
and eliminate the vestiges of segregation to the extent practicable. Of
great significance here is the obligation of states, such as Maryland
where I live and serve, to affirmatively act to remedy all policies and
practices traceable to its prior system of segregated education and to
eliminate any such present or continuing policies and practices that
foster discrimination or perpetuate conditions indicative of the prior
dual system.
Again, I believe that most states can fairly report significant
progress in some facets of dismantling their prior segregated systems.
In other facets, however, progress has been painfully slow. And
regrettably, in key areas there has been nothing short of recalcitrance
on the part of states with respect to their affirmative obligations.
Instead of progress in recent years, in some instances there has been a
trending backwards. These areas include academic program development,
operating budgets and facility upgrades where Historically Black
Institutions remain less-developed, chronically underfunded and
disadvantaged in the struggle to level the playing field in the
competitiveness of all public colleges and universities in attracting
students of varying academic achievement levels, backgrounds, race and
ethnicity.
Let me emphasize first, however, that in the face of continuing
challenges, the value of Historically Black Institutions continues to
rise in astounding ways, maximizing both the choice of students of all
races who seek higher learning in their communities and the efficiency
of public institutions that offer opportunities for higher learning on
their behalf.
In a public statement issued earlier this year, the presidents of
Maryland's four Historically Black Institutions of Higher Education, of
which Morgan State University is one, documented this value and the
continuing relevance of these institutions in meeting the critical
educational needs of the citizens of the State. For example, these
institutions account for 64% of African American undergraduates
enrolled in the State's public four-year institutions. That enrollment
includes many high-achieving high school graduates as well as a
significant number of students not eligible for admission to more
selective institutions. The best prepared students enrolled at the
Historically Black Institutions graduate at the same rates or better
than similar students at other public institutions.
The Historically Black Institutions also do remarkably well in
graduating other students, though many are forced to drop out or stop
out for a period of time because of unmet financial needs or other
academic difficulties often related to their economic circumstances and
the need to work full-time jobs. Reports of the Maryland Higher
Education Commission clearly establish a direct correlation between
unmet financial need and low retention rates.
Moreover, the Historically Black Institutions have been productive
beyond their enrollment percentages. In 2006, they accounted for 56% of
the bachelor's degrees awarded to African Americans by traditional
public four-year campuses, 49% of the master's degrees awarded to
African Americans, and 55% of the doctorate degrees awarded to African
Americans. In the critical fields of the sciences, engineering and
education, the Historically Black Institutions awarded 52% of the
bachelor's degrees in computer science awarded to African Americans by
traditional public four-year campuses, 50% of the degrees in education,
and 64% of the degrees in health fields.
At the master's level, the Historically Black Institutions
accounted for 35% of the degrees in computer science awarded to African
Americans, 55% of the degrees in education, 60% of the degrees in
health, and 44% of the degrees in engineering (with only one HBI
awarding degrees in the discipline).
The significance of the Historically Black Institutions in degrees
awarded to African Americans is even more pronounced at the doctoral
level where, in 2006, they produced 75% of the degrees in education
awarded to African Americans by traditional four-year public
institutions, 60% of the degrees in engineering, and 100% of the
degrees awarded in the health fields.
These outcomes in Maryland clearly demonstrate that the
Historically Black Institutions serve a valuable mission and provide a
unique contribution to educating the citizens of the State and nation
in a manner that is not possible by relying alone upon the
Traditionally White Institutions. The HBIs have great potential for
educating students across the spectrum of academic achievement;
however, their value is especially evident with respect to those low-
income, minority students who have been sorely underserved by public
schools in their communities and who do not meet the criteria of the
more selective public universities. To those isolated from educational
and economic opportunity because of poverty and other socioeconomic
circumstances, the Historically Black Institutions remain critical to
the hope of finding opportunities to break through what otherwise might
seem to be insurmountable barriers on the way to higher learning and
enhanced opportunities to participate in the economies of their state,
nation and world. Many of these students receive their opportunities at
the Historically Black Institutions and thrive when the doors are
opened to them.
All of this substantiates the promise of developing a unitary
system of education in our states, free of the stain of discrimination
and segregation that officially beset us in the past and that will
surely, if not fully remedied, thwart our progress into the future--a
system where an excellent and equitable public education ``is made
available to all on equal terms.''
Despite their effectiveness, efforts to enhance Maryland's
Historically Black Institutions have been slow and exceedingly limited.
Each campus continues to grapple with operating budgets that, though
increasing over the years, fail to close the historic funding gap
between these institutions and the Traditionally White Institutions in
the State. Each campus continues to have very serious capital needs for
renovation and replacement of existing buildings, as well as new
facilities and equipment. Each campus faces disadvantages in the
development of high demand academic programs that are not unnecessarily
duplicated at geographically proximate Traditionally White
Institutions. All of which hinders their ability to attract new
students and otherwise accomplish their significant roles and missions.
Of great importance to addressing and resolving these remaining
gaps and disparities is the fact that African Americans, Hispanics and
other minorities now constitute the majority enrollment in Maryland's
public elementary and secondary schools. These students represent, in
large part, the pipeline from which the future workforce for the
State's knowledge-based economy will be drawn. Sadly, this new majority
also represents the greatest deficits in high school achievement as
well as in bachelor's, master's and doctoral degree production.
Addressing this condition must be among the highest priorities of the
State and, because of their proven effectiveness--even in the face of
great disparities and neglect--the Historically Black Institutions will
continue to be invaluable assets and resources in meeting these
challenges. It is absolutely counter to the State's best interests to
limit or otherwise fail to enhance or develop these institutions. In
doing so, the State would only limit choices, opportunity and access to
higher education for African American, Hispanic and other minority
students. It is long past time to maximize the human capital potential
of all the citizens of our State through the enhancement of the
Historically Black Institutions in a unitary system of higher
education.
We have confronted these challenges and fought these battles on
many fronts over a period of several decades now. We have long pursued
a course leading toward the legal and moral standard of comparability
and competitiveness of the Historically Black Institutions and their
Traditionally White counterparts through litigation, administrative
oversight and enforcement, legislation and other means of advocacy and
public policy. While State efforts to enhance the Historically Black
campuses have made these institutions much better than they were
decades ago, the institutions still are far short of achieving parity
with the majority campuses, a major principle of federal desegregation
law. In some states, including Maryland, federal oversight has failed
to apply the enforcement necessary to bring the states into compliance
with the applicable federal law. As a result, often in the face of
recalcitrance by the states, disparities and problems remain. And
comparability and competitiveness remain an elusive mandate which
states are all too willing to ignore. Worse, the mere passage of time
has become the justification for doing nothing more to achieve this
parity. This simply cannot be acceptable.
In 2008, the State of Maryland remains under the jurisdiction and
oversight of the United States Department of Education, Office for
Civil Rights, with respect to its equal educational opportunity
obligations under federal law. This formal oversight began as early as
1969 when what is now called ``OCR'' notified Maryland that it was one
of ten states operating a racially segregated system of higher
education in violation of Title VI and applicable federal desegregation
law. Over a period of several years, Maryland worked toward the
development of a plan for dismantling its discriminatory dual system
and eliminating the vestiges of segregation. In 1976, however, after
OCR advised Maryland of its concerns with the State's implementation of
its plan, Maryland was granted an injunction prohibiting OCR from
instituting enforcement action to terminate Maryland's federal
financial assistance unless certain conditions were met. Negotiations
between OCR and the State resumed over the development and
implementation of a new desegregation plan, and a consent decree ending
the litigation was entered in 1982.
In all, formal plans or ``Agreements'' between OCR and Maryland
were executed in 1980, 1985 and 2000. The 1985 plan was accepted by OCR
as meeting the requirements of Title VI so long as the State
implemented the plan in good faith. Its principle objectives were (1)
the continued integration of Maryland's Traditionally White
Institutions through a portfolio of enrollment goals, recruitment
measures, retention efforts, and affirmative action plans, and (2) the
enhancement of Maryland's Historically Black Institutions to ensure
that they were comparable to and competitive with the Traditionally
White Institutions with respect to operating budgets, capital
facilities and new academic programs. The plan explicitly incorporated
many of the provisions of the 1980 plan, including goals, commitments
and measures in undergraduate accessibility, graduate and first-
professional accessibility, enrollment in specific disciplines in which
African American students were underrepresented, student financial aid,
employment, and representation on governing boards.
While the State submitted annual reports to OCR through May 1991
asserting compliance with the plan, OCR never conducted a compliance
review or issued a ruling or notification as to whether Maryland had
achieved good faith satisfaction of the plan and complete compliance
with Title VI.
In 1992, the Supreme Court issued its landmark United States v.
Fordice decision setting forth the legal standards imposed on former de
jure segregated systems of higher education. Subsequently, in 1994, OCR
issued its Notice of Application of Supreme Court Decision applying the
Fordice standards to all pending Title VI evaluations of statewide
higher education systems with OCR-accepted desegregation plans that had
expired, including Maryland. Included in the Notice was OCR's position
that states may not place an unfair burden upon African American
students and faculty in the desegregation process and that state
systems of higher education may be required to strengthen and enhance
their Historically Black Institutions. No evaluation, however, was
conducted and it wasn't until 1999 that OCR initiated efforts with the
State to establish a partnership for the purpose of improving the
educational opportunities of African Americans in Maryland's public
institutions of higher education and ensuring compliance with the
State's obligations under Fordice and other applicable federal law,
including Title VI and the progeny of Brown v. Board of Education.
That Partnership Agreement, executed in 2000 for a stated period of
five years, remains in place to date with little or no enforcement
measures imposed upon the State by OCR. Also in place are the legal
standards articulated in the Agreement and which form the basis for the
Agreement, imposing affirmative obligations on the State to dismantle
its prior dual system of higher education and eliminate the vestiges of
segregation to the extent practicable, including present policies or
practices traceable to the prior dual system that continue to foster
discrimination or perpetuate segregated conditions indicative of the
prior dual system.
Of the several obligations and commitments of the State of Maryland
set forth in the Partnership Agreement, of most significance are these:
(1) developing high-demand academic programs at the Historically Black
Institutions and ensuring that they are not unnecessarily duplicated at
nearby institutions--thereby expanding mission and program uniqueness
and institutional identity at the Historically Black Institutions; and
(2) designing and implementing measures which ensure that the
Historically Black Institutions are comparable to and competitive with
the Traditionally White Institutions in all facets of their operations
and programs.
Each commitment is firmly grounded in governing federal law and set
forth in detail sufficient to accomplish the stated task and ensure
compliance with such law. Each commitment is set forth to ensure that
the Historically Black Institutions are enhanced and empowered to
provide equal opportunity for a quality education to all students who
choose to attend them and to enable them to compete for and be
attractive to students regardless of race. As may be necessary, these
commitments include enhancing: the distinctiveness of the Historically
Black Institutions' programmatic missions; the uniqueness and mix of
quality academic programs that are not unnecessarily duplicated at
proximate Traditionally White Institutions; operational funding
consistent with the mix and degree level of academic programs, support
for the development of research infrastructure, and support consistent
with the academic profile of students; lower student-faculty ratios
appropriate to support their missions; the expanse, functionality and
architectural quality of physical facilities; the appearance,
attractiveness and ambiance of campus and surrounding public
infrastructure, including roads, lighting and public transportation;
and funding to support students' quality of campus life.
In no instance, however, has the State been held to demonstrate
implementation of either or any of these commitments, nor has the State
been reviewed as to its compliance with its obligations under the
Agreement and governing federal law. It is my position, based upon a
substantial record, that in large measure the State has yet to meet its
obligations under the Agreement and, in fact, that it has affirmatively
acted, in some instances, in violation of its obligations under the
Agreement and applicable law. Documented instances of unnecessary
duplication of academic programs are noted, in particular.
In light of these circumstances and due, at least in part, to the
lack of enforcement activities on the part of OCR, the Historically
Black Institutions and other interested or affected parties are, in
essence, forced to pursue relief in other venues, including courts and
legislatures. An institution's options to pursue a judicial remedy,
however, are extremely limited and, in some instances, are non-existent
without the enactment of legislation authorizing the pursuit of
judicial review. This has prompted the repeated proposal of legislation
in the Maryland General Assembly over the past three years that would
allow a Historically Black Institution to seek judicial review of
decisions of the State, through the Maryland Higher Education
Commission, approving the unnecessary duplication of existing programs
at the institution by a geographically proximate Traditionally White
Institution. In each instance to date, the legislation has failed to be
enacted. This leaves the State's decision making process for the
approval of academic programs without a judicial check, even though
such decisions are to be made within the context of governing State and
federal civil rights laws.
At least one private coalition has filed a law suit in federal
district court to challenge the State's decisions, actions or non-
actions with respect to the unnecessary duplication of academic
programs and other obligations under the OCR Partnership Agreement and
applicable State and federal law. But the Historically Black
Institutions themselves are left without a remedy to pursue. This only
serves to underscore the significant and detrimental impact of OCR's
non-enforcement activities upon Historically Black Institutions and the
students who choose to attend them. It is a profoundly disturbing
problem that needs to be addressed.
OCR's failure to act also opens the door for the State to attempt
to address related issues through other political measures that may or
may not give deference to the existing obligations set forth in the
Partnership Agreement. For example, the Maryland General Assembly has
recently created the Commission to Develop the Maryland Model for
Funding Higher Education. The Commission has determined that it will
attempt to define what it means for a Historically Black Institution to
be comparable to and competitive with a Traditionally White Institution
and what it might take to achieve that status from a budgetary point of
view. While there is potential for progress from such an endeavor, the
Historically Black Institutions remain concerned that the Commission's
analysis of the issue is going forth without a clear commitment to
define the task under the Partnership Agreement and within the
parameters of the specific obligations of the State of Maryland under
federal civil rights law. At the very least, it is an attempt by the
State to fill the void caused by OCR's failure to enforce the terms and
conditions of the Agreement or to conduct a meaningful review of the
State's compliance with federal law.
These are just some of the issues I wish to bring to your attention
today. I am hopeful that my thoughts and perspectives are of some help
to the important work of this Committee. In summary, I emphasize the
remarkable and, at times, immeasurable value of the Historically Black
Institutions and their continuing validity in this nation's long
struggle for equal educational opportunity and excellence in education
for all of its citizens. I also emphasize the significant need for
active and continued oversight from the federal government, enforcing
upon the states compliance with their obligations under federal law. In
the end, OCR can and must be a much more effective means by which any
continuing policy or practice that fosters discrimination or
perpetuates conditions indicative of the prior dual systems of higher
education are eliminated root and branch and by which the Historically
Black Institutions are, at long last, made comparable to and
competitive with their Traditionally White counterparts.
Thank you for your consideration. I am happy to respond to any
questions or otherwise provide you with further information.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Pierce?
STATEMENT OF RAYMOND C. PIERCE, DEAN, NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL
LAW SCHOOL
Mr. Pierce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you mentioned in your introduction, I am currently the
dean of the School of Law at North Carolina Central University
School, one of only four historically black law schools
accredited by the American Bar Association and created during
the days of apartheid and segregation.
Prior to becoming dean of the law school, I served as the
politically appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education
in the Office of Civil Rights from 1993 to 2000.
Clearly, one of the first pressing matters that faced the
Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education at that
time was the recent decision by the United States Supreme Court
some 4 or 5 months earlier in the Ayers v. Fordice case that
was mentioned by Dr. Richardson. In that case, the United
States Supreme Court set a new standard with respect to state
compliance with the equal protection clause of the United
States Constitution as it relates to the education of African-
Americans attending historically black colleges and
universities, not just in the State of Mississippi but
throughout the country.
The concern expressed by presidents of historically black
colleges, universities, and civil rights organizations was what
would be the Clinton administration's and the Department of
Education's response to that Supreme Court decision. In light
of the fact that the country had been within a higher education
desegregation docket, an effort of higher education
desegregation docket, going back to the 1970s, it involved all
19 states of the United States of America that have publicly
supported historically black colleges and universities.
We took that Supreme Court decision and basically upgraded
the federal policy on higher education desegregation as to
reflect what the United States Supreme Court said, which was
basically that states have an affirmative duty to remove all
vestiges of the past practice of segregation to the greatest
extent practical that have a present-day effect.
Up to that time, we were operating under the old 1978
higher education desegregation policy, which basically was a
two-part policy designed to remedy the past practice of
segregation by enhancing and strengthening historically black
institutions to provide them with educational opportunities
that heretofore had been constricted because of days of
apartment and segregation.
With the new policy, the Office of Civil Rights then went
forward to enforce that policy by addressing those states that
still had outstanding Title VI violations. Understand, Mr.
Chairman, you have seven states right now in this country that
are continuing to receive federal dollars for educational
purposes, higher education, that are operating with outstanding
Title VI violations, Title VI meaning that law that prohibits
discrimination on the basis of race, color, or gender, and
entities receiving federal funds.
I would question whether if there was a state in this
country receiving federal funds for environmental purposes and
yet that state was in violation of federal environment
protection laws if that state would still be able to receive
federal funds for its environmental purposes, but that is what
you have going on here in our country.
By the time we left the Department of Education in 2000, we
had successfully negotiated a settlement agreement with all the
remaining states, consistent with the new policy, settlement
agreements that included some hundreds of millions of dollars
of increased funding, educational programs, partnership
agreements, quite a number of items that had been, for the most
part, cooperatively entered into with the states and the
federal government.
Unfortunately, at the conclusion of our administration, it
did not take long at least for me to begin to hear calls and
cries that states were retreating from those commitments, so
much to the point where you probably have a clear case of
breach of contract between the federal government and states
that had committed to do certain things to bring their states
in compliance with Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and
address all concerns as enunciated by the Supreme Court with
respect to the equal protection clause of the United States
Constitution.
The NAFEO group that has its summit here today asked our
law school, the North Carolina Central University School of
Law--by the way, one of your members is a proud graduate of our
law school. That is Congressman G.K. Butterfield.
NAFEO asked our law school if we would examine the current
state of the law to determine whether or not litigation could
be brought against the federal government Office of Civil
Rights to make the Office of Civil Rights enforce its own
compliance agreements, understanding that that was what was
done back in 1977 to cause at that time the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare to get its Office of Civil
Rights to actually enforce higher education desegregation
policy. Our thought was that that would have to be done again.
Unfortunately, unfavorable decisions going back to 1989 and
going forward have now made that difficult, almost impossible.
I believe that the Office of Civil Rights at the Department
of Education has some outstanding career employees. I worked
with them. I supervised them. I hired many of them. But it is
clear to me that the last enforcement of federal civil rights
policy at the Department of Education is an agenda. It is
because it is not high on the list, the action is not one
appreciated, and therefore states are beginning to retreat from
not only their commitments, but also engage in educational
policies that are, quite frankly, adverse to the health and
wellbeing of historically black colleges and universities.
And, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that not only my testimony
here, but the statements of this panel which reference many
documents that are contained in these appendices, be admitted
to the record.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Pierce follows:]
Prepared Statement of Raymond C. Pierce, Dean and Professor of Law,
North Carolina Central University School of Law
Good morning. My name is Raymond C. Pierce and I currently serve as
Dean and Professor of Law at North Carolina Central University School
of Law. Our law school is one of four remaining Historically Black Law
Schools accredited by the American Bar Association that were created
during the era of segregation. Our Law School received a grant from
NAFEO to examine certain issues affecting Black Colleges within the
context of the law and Federal education policy.
Prior to becoming Dean of the law school I had earlier served in a
political appointment as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at
the United States Department of Education from April 1993 through
August 2000. My primary role was in policy development and enforcement
of federal civil rights laws in education.
Clearly the first and most pressing issue that was presented to the
Office for Civil Rights (OCR) upon my arrival to Washington was the
question of what would be the federal government Department of
Education's reaction to the then recent 1992 U.S. Supreme Court
decision in Ayers v Fordice. The Ayers case had been decided seven
months earlier on a Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection issue on the
state of Mississippi's obligation to remedy remaining vestiges from the
past practice of segregation in higher education as they presently
impacted African Americans attending the state's Historically Black
Colleges.
Some initial reactions to the Supreme Court decision that I recall
attributed to the state of Mississippi included suggestions that the
state could close all of the Historically Black Colleges as a method of
resolving any continuing vestiges of the practice of segregation. Black
College leadership nationwide was understandably concerned that state
systems of higher education would retreat further from obligations and
commitments to Black Colleges and advance more state policies adverse
to these institutions. During the 1970's all 19 states with publicly
supported Black Colleges created during segregation were involved in
investigations and/or litigation involving federal higher education
desegregation efforts. In many of these instances litigation had been
initiated by private citizens seeking equal educational opportunities
for African Americans.
The result was fifteen states entering into settlement agreements
with OCR involving plans designed to remedy vestiges of segregation and
bring compliance with Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as it
applied to states with federally funded programs in higher education.
Five other states were unable to reach agreement and proceeded to
litigation with Mississippi going all the way to the United States
Supreme Court. In 1989 the U.S. Department of Education concluded that
eight of the fifteen states that had earlier entered into settlement
agreements had now reached compliance with federal civil rights laws.
Against protests from many Black College Presidents, these eight states
were released from federal higher education desegregation oversight.
These states were: Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Georgia, South
Carolina, North Carolina, West Virginia and Delaware. Six states
remained under federal oversight and were held responsible for
continuing adherence to the settlement agreements and the compliance
plans designed to remedy the vestiges of segregation. These states
were: Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Florida and Texas.
In early 1993 and in response to the concerns expressed by Black
College Presidents and civil rights and other civic organizations, OCR
began a development process that ultimately produced new federal civil
rights policy on higher education desegregation and Title VI which
prohibits discrimination in federally funded education programs. This
new policy was published in early 1994 as a Notice in the Federal
Register. The basic foundation of the policy was that states have an
affirmative duty, to the greatest extent practicable, to remove all
vestiges of the past practice of segregation that have a present day
effect.
The foundation of the policy was drawn from the majority opinion of
the Supreme Court in the 1992 Ayers case. In addition the new policy
built upon earlier federal education higher desegregation policy
published in 1978 which was titled: Revised Criteria for the
Desegregation of State Systems of Higher Education. That policy was
composed primarily of two elements. One: the strengthening of Black
Colleges through increased resources for upgraded and additional
educational programming. Two: affirmative action programs in
recruitment of African American students to attend Traditionally White
Institutions and recruitment of White students to attend Black
Colleges. The first part was designed to address the constricted
educational opportunities of African Americans attending Black Colleges
due to years of discriminatory treatment by state systems of higher
education in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection
Clause. In addition the policy of strengthening Black Colleges was also
designed to remove distinctions of quality of educational opportunity
between Black colleges and White Colleges and allow for attracting
students more on the basis of programming and less on the basis of
race.
It is important to note that the earlier 1978 policy was developed
as a result of litigation brought against OCR and the U.S. Department
of Health, Education and Welfare for failing to enforce federal civil
rights laws. That litigation resulted in the 1977 U.S. Court of Appeals
decision in Adams v Caliafano.
The new policy following the 1992 Ayers case added a ``vestiges
analysis'' to the standard by which states would be measured for
compliance with Title VI. This meant that states efforts towards
compliance through increased resources and other actions on behalf of
Black Colleges would be examined to determine whether following such
efforts there are any remaining vestiges from the past practice of
segregation that have a present day effect on the educational
opportunities of African Americans that could be practicably
eliminated.
In 1994, and immediately after the new policy was published the six
states that remained under federal oversight were notified that they
would be reviewed for compliance pursuant to the new policy and that
they may be required to take action in addition to that articulated in
the earlier settlement agreements.
Ohio had not been one of the states entering into one of the
earlier settlement agreements during the 1970s and early 1980s and had
been amongst those states headed for litigation in the federal courts.
After the 1994 publication of the Ayers v Fordice Notice in the Federal
Register, OCR and the U.S. Department of Justice agreed to remove Ohio
from the litigation list allowing OCR to pursue efforts for a
settlement agreement with the state.
From 1995 to 2000 following extensive reviews, discussions and
negotiations all seven states (including Ohio) entered into new and
mostly five year compliance agreements designed to resolve the federal
government's docket of higher education desegregation cases. These new
compliance plans addressed many new and enhanced educational programs
for Black Colleges and commitments of additional recourses. Each state
was notified that OCR would conduct compliance reviews following the
expiration of the term for implementation of the plans. Again, most of
these plans were designed to be implemented over a five year period.
At this date all of the settlement plans have expired and to my
knowledge OCR has not concluded any review to determine whether the
efforts of these states have resulted in compliance with Title VI.
Since leaving OCR I have repeatedly been made aware of grave
concerns expressed by Black College Presidents and alumni regarding
actions by states in recent years that are adverse to the letter and
spirit of federal desegregation policy and the various settlement
agreements. I hear of these concerns mostly in Ohio and Maryland
centering around issues of unnecessary program duplication and
inadequate funding for institutional mission. Actions in these two
states and others are largely regarded by those concerned as posing
significant threats to the ability of Black Colleges to be competitive
in higher education. Further, there has never ceased to be concerns of
unequal treatment of Black Colleges expressed by Black College
leadership in some of the eight states that were found in compliance in
1988 prior to the development of the new policy in 1994.
The National Association for Equal Educational Opportunity (NAFEO)
awarded a grant to North Carolina Central University School of Law to
examine these issues and the law with regard to possible new litigation
similar to that in the Adams v Caliafano case that could result in
moving OCR to perform its Congressionally mandated duty of enforcing
federal civil rights laws in education in particular as they relate to
the seven states with remaining outstanding Title VI violations.
Initially I held a position that their remained a basis for
litigation against OCR for failure to enforce federal civil rights laws
similar to the charge brought against OCR in the Adams v Caliafano
case. Research at NCCU School of Law concluded that federal court
decisions subsequent to Adams will no longer allow legal action against
a federal agency as it was done in the 1970's that resulted in moving
OCR to take action to enforce federal civil rights laws that would
benefit Black Colleges.
The reality of federal court decisions having left no avenue for
pursuing litigation against OCR presents these hearings as ever more
critical in halting state actions that would negatively impact public
Black Colleges unnecessarily. It is also before this Committee as to
what is the reaction by Congress towards a Department of Education that
continues to appropriate federal funds to state systems of higher
education that are operating in violation of federal education civil
rights laws as determined by OCR. OCR must be called upon to conduct
the long overdue reviews and analysis and make the determinations as to
compliance for the remaining seven states. Whether such analysis will
result in additional resources for the effected Black Colleges or a
determination of compliance, some movement by the federal government is
required to bring closure to its docket of higher education
desegregation cases that stretches back over thirty plus years.
A point with respect to the leadership made available to Black
Colleges through the involvement of state systems of higher education.
Outstanding men and women have served and continue to serve our
Nation's Black Colleges. Many in this leadership have produced near
miraculous results in their mission of educating students. However, it
is my belief that the numbers of talented education leaders currently
on these campuses is too low for the demand. It has been my observation
during and after my seven years of directing federal higher education
desegregation efforts that Black Colleges suffered greatly from a loss
of talent as a result of affirmative action that attracted many Blacks
in higher education away from Black Colleges and into positions at
Traditionally White Colleges. This loss of talent in addition to
continued policies adverse to Black Colleges in my opinion have caused
harm to these institutions leaving many of them in weakened conditions
lacking the ability to effectively compete in higher education.
State higher education commissions must review their relationships
and policies towards Black Colleges with a view of improved
expectations and improved treatment in the selection of leadership at
both the college and on the board. There can be no room for disparity
in the quality of appointments by states made at Historically Black
Colleges in comparison to White Colleges. Indeed, given the continuing
harm from years of differential treatment of Black Colleges it is
imperative that states apply the highest of standards in making
appointments to the leadership and management of Black Colleges no less
than those appointed to the leadership of Traditionally White Colleges.
OCR should be able to conclude its higher education desegregation
docket. It should result in further enhancement and strengthening of
Black Colleges. State higher education commissions must reach a level
of full and comparable inclusion for Black Colleges. I believe this
will be a major step towards concluding the federal government's
oversight of these cases.
______
[The report prepared for NAFEO follows:]
Report Prepared for NAFEO, by the North Carolina Central University
School of Law
An analysis of the current state of federal policy and case law
relative to potential legal actions on behalf of Historically Black
Colleges in the era after the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ayers v.
Fordice.
I. Procedural Background
In 1969 and the early 1970s, the Department of Health, Education
and Welfare (HEW) found that 19 southern and border states had violated
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) based upon their
failure to dismantle their previously segregated systems of public
higher education. During the 1970s, based, in part, upon HEW's failure
to ensure that these states corrected their Title VI violations, the
Federal District Court oversaw the Federal government's efforts. (See
more detailed discussion re Adams litigation, supra, section II.)
As a result of the oversight by the Federal courts and a number of
district court orders, HEW (and later the Department of Education's
(ED) Office for Civil Rights (OCR)) entered into a number of statewide
desegregation plans. The states' obligations under these plans were to
take affirmative steps to eliminate de jure and de facto segregation. A
particularly important aspect of each plan was to recognize the
historical importance of traditionally and historically black
institutions (HBCUs) in meeting the educational needs of black students
in those states. The court instructed HEW (and later ED) to ensure that
the transition from a dual system to a unitary one would not be
accomplished by placing a burden upon black students, faculty or
institutions. Consistent with this requirement, HEW/ED required that
all statewide desegregation plans have specific commitments to enhance
their HBCUs.
Enhancement of state HBCUs included increasing institutional
resources--facilities, course offerings, faculty, etc. * * *
Particularly important was the requirement that the states take
specific steps to eliminate educationally unnecessary program
duplication between HBCUs and traditionally white institutions in the
same service area. The objective of eliminating program duplication and
increasing institutional resources was to enhance desegregation by
ensuring that the HBCUs were on par with the traditionally white
institutions so that all students would be drawn to institutions on the
basis of their program offerings, faculty, etc. and not on the basis of
race. The states were required to desegregate while ensuring that they
did not do so at the expense of the HBCUs. (See ``Revised Criteria
Specifying Ingredients of Acceptable Plans to Desegregate State Systems
of Higher Education'' 1978, attached.)
Throughout the late 1970s and 1980s, HEW and later ED monitored the
implementation of statewide desegregation plans received from a number
of states. HEW/ED referred those states that refused to enter into
agreements that remedied the Title VI violations to the Department of
Justice (DOJ) for enforcement [One of the states that was referred to
DOJ was Mississippi, the litigation that followed that referral
eventually reached the Supreme Court. United States v. Fordice, 505
U.S. 717 (1992.)]
By the late 1980s, OCR determined that a number of the states had
fulfilled their statewide desegregation plans and released them from
further monitoring. OCR, however, determined that some states, even
though their agreements had expired, had continuing obligations to
address the Title VI violations found.
In 1994, based upon the Supreme Court's decision in Fordice, ED OCR
informed the states that had not been previously released from
monitoring (Florida, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Texas, and
Virginia) that it would be reexamining their state higher education
systems consistent with the standards enunciated in the Fordice
decision to ensure that the vestiges of their previously segregated
systems had been eliminated. [See Notice of Application of Supreme
Court Decision, 1994 (Fordice Notice) attached.] Consistent with the
Supreme Court's decision in Fordice, OCR informed those states that
they could not place unfair burdens upon black students and faculty
when initiating desegregation efforts. Additionally, OCR stated that
the results of its reexamination might well require enhancement of the
HBCUs. Between1996 and 2001 OCR entered into new agreements with each
of those pending states and the State of Ohio (ED had referred Ohio's
Title VI violation to the Department of Justice in the 1980s but a
lawsuit was never filed.) A major component of each agreement was the
enhancement of the HBCUs. While some of the pending agreements have
expired, none of these states has been released from OCR's monitoring.
II. Legal Background
Section 601 of Title VI provides that ``No person * * * shall, on
the basis of race * * * be excluded from participation in, be denied
the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or
activity receiving federal financial assistance.'' HEW/ED's regulation
enforcing Title VI, at 34 CFR 100.3(b)(6)(i), requires that ``In
administering a program regarding which the recipient has previously
discriminated against persons on the basis of race. * * * the recipient
must take affirmative action to overcome the effects of prior
discrimination.''
Under complaint procedures established by HEW and later adopted by
ED, once OCR investigates and determines that there is a violation, the
agency must take compliance efforts to ensure that Federal monies do
not support discrimination. The ultimate sanction by the agency, if a
voluntary resolution to remedy the violation is not achieved, is
termination of federal assistance.
It is beyond dispute that these southern and border states violated
Title VI. All had previously de jure or de facto segregated systems of
public higher education. All have been found, by the agency charged
with enforcing Title VI, to have violated both the statute and the
regulations, by intentionally creating, maintaining, and failing to
eliminate the effects (vestiges) of their prior systems. All were
required to take affirmative obligations to overcome their prior
intentional discrimination and had not done so.
In 1970, a private complaint was filed in Federal district court
against HEW and the Attorney General for adopting a policy of non-
enforcement of Title VI. Without addressing directly the issue of a
private right of action against the Federal government under Title VI,
the court granted plaintiffs' prayer for declaratory and injunctive
relief. Adams v. Richardson, 356 F.Supp. 92 (D.D.C. 1973). The court's
oversight to ensure that the agency remedy its failure to enforce Title
VI was later expanded to include Title IX of the Education Amendments
and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The court orders and
supervision that followed became known as the Adams Orders. In effect,
those Orders placed the agency's investigative and enforcement
activities and policies under federal court supervision for almost 20
years. One aspect of the court's broad oversight concerned ED/OCR's
failure to ensure that the states remedy the discrimination that the
agency had found in the states' public higher education systems.
In 1979, the Supreme Court in Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441
U.S. 677 (1979), held that there was an implied private right of action
under the civil rights statutes against federal fund recipients who
engaged in prohibited discrimination. Cannon, without deciding an issue
not squarely before it--a private right of action against a federal
agency--did caution against extending this private right of action to
suits against federal agencies, absent specific legislative intent.
Almost 11 years after the decision in Cannon, the US Court of
Appeals for the DC Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of
the Adams litigation based, in part, on the Cannon decision. In Women's
Equity League v. Cavazos et al., 906 F.2d 742 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (one of
the string of cases referred to as the Adams cases) the appellate court
stated that while Cannon confirmed an implied private right of action
against recipients of federal financial assistance it ``pointed the
lower courts away from the implication of discrete, broad-gauged rights
of action against federal enforcement agencies.'' at 746. The court
found that its oversight of ED/OCR's program, under the original Adams
Orders and their progeny, was in fact a continuing across the board
supervision of a federal agency. It, therefore, dismissed the cases and
released ED/OCR from oversight. However, the court left open the door
to a private right of action against a federal agency if the case was
``situation specific,'' i.e., based upon a particularized finding of a
violation against a recipient and the agency's failure to ensure
compliance and continued funding of such recipient. at 748-49. See
also, Young v. Pierce, 628 F.Supp. 1037 (cite) in which the district
court stated that a private action under Title VI could be sustained
against the Department of Housing and Urban Development when there was
a showing that the agency had actual knowledge of segregation and
continuing providing financial assistance to the discriminating entity.
In 2001, the Supreme Court again addressed the issue of a private
right of action against a recipient of federal financial assistance. In
Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) the Supreme Court affirmed
its holding in Cannon that there is a private right of action under the
civil rights statutes. However, it clarified the standard for
sustaining such action and held that the discrimination must have been
found to be intentional and actionable under the statute.
III. Next steps
As discussed above, seven statewide systems of higher education
entered into statewide agreements with OCR since the Supreme Court's
decision in Fordice. While some of these states' agreements have
expired, none of these states have been released from OCR's oversight
nor have they been informed that they have remedied their long-standing
Title VI violations.
The first issue to be addressed is whether a private right of
action may be maintained consistent with the Supreme Court's decisions
in Cannon and Sandoval. As discussed above, the Supreme Court in those
two cases found that a private right of action was available against a
federal fund recipient that had intentionally discriminated. It is
without dispute that the statewide higher education systems that have
been found in violation of Title VI intentionally maintained those de
jure or de facto systems of higher education. They have not been
released from monitoring and have a continuing obligation under the
Fordice decision, Title VI, and the Revised Criteria to eliminate the
vestiges of their previously segregated systems. Therefore, it is
breaking no new ground to assert a private right of action against one
or all of these states. A more difficult issue is sustaining a private
action against ED/OCR. In order to survive a motion to dismiss under
the appellate decision in Women's Equity League, supra, any action
would need to be considered situation specific rather than a broad
based attempt to oversee the agency's actions.
1. Private legal action against state recipients
As discussed above, ED/OCR continues to monitor agreements with the
states of Virginia, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Texas,
and Ohio. While all of these agreements were premised upon the
uncorrected Title VI violations, no state received a new violation
finding. The states' present compliance was evaluated consistent with
Fordice as discussed in the Fordice Notice.
Many of the agreements are identified as ``Partnership
Agreements.'' The agreements vary in nature, one includes issues that
were not raised by the earlier Title VI finding (Florida), one
agreement is based upon an exchange of letters rather than a signed
agreement (Ohio), some are quite general in nature (Maryland, Kentucky,
Pennsylvania), and two are specific as to the commitments required
(Virginia and Texas.) The one issue addressed in all of the agreements
was the enhancement of the HBCUs consistent with the standards
established in Fordice and the Revised Criteria.
To proceed against any or all of these states, the premise of the
action would be the unresolved and unremedied Title VI intentional
discrimination finding. Because of the nature of the agreement and the
areas addressed, an action against Florida would be the least
sustainable. Actions against the other six states would most likely
survive motions to dismiss. However, a number of these states have
already or are actively addressing the commitments made to ED/OCR.
Based upon recent actions and reports, Maryland appears to be one state
that has not done so. Therefore, a private action taken against
Maryland would appear to have the best potential for success.
A caveat to any action is that any of the states could argue that
the Title VI violation was found more than 30 years ago and that the
passage of time breaks the nexus upon which a continuing vestiges
violation is based. None of the pending agreements have either a
finding of a present violation or an admission by the state(s) of a
continuing legal obligation based upon previous discrimination.
2. Private legal action against ED/OCR
In order to pursue a private action against ED/OCR, the court's
guidance in Women's Equity Action League should be followed. The action
should be situation specific and should evidence a clear showing of
non-enforcement by ED/OCR. It is arguable as to whether a decision to
assert an action against OCR for its failure to enforce all seven of
the pending statewide higher agreements would meet the standards of
specificity. Therefore, prudence would dictate selecting one or two of
the state agreements upon which to base this ``situation specific''
claim against ED/OCR.
The premise of the Title VI claim would be the same as that taken
against a state entity. OCR would be found to have intentionally
violated Title VI by failing to take enforcement action against a
recipient of federal financial assistance that has not remedied its
Title VI violation, while allowing federal funds to continue to flow
and support such discrimination.
All of the caveats that apply to the state actors would also apply
to any action taken against OCR. In all likelihood, the appropriate
``situation specific'' recipients for a private right of action against
OCR would be one or more of the states identified above as a candidate
for private legal action directly. * * * Additionally, in the case of
Maryland, OCR is apparently ``on notice''--from the very experts relied
upon by the Fordice court and chosen by OCR to evaluate Maryland's
compliance with its present agreement--that there has been a failure to
implement the agreement and, therefore, to remedy the underlying civil
rights violation.
3. Congressional oversight
It is important to recognize another avenue for ensuring that both
ED/OCR and the states continue to meet their obligations--the bully
pulpit. At any oversight hearing, a very sympathetic case can be made
that there is unfinished civil rights business, the dismantling of
previously segregated higher education systems and the commitment to
recognize the importance of and enhance HBCUs. In this effort, the
White House Initiative on HBCUs would be an important partner. As
discussed above, mounting a successful legal action is a challenge.
There is no similar challenge to the reality of HBCUs roles in
educating a large number of black students--not only historically, but
today. The states and ED/OCR obligations to ensure that students who
attend HBCUs receive a quality education, free of the vestiges of
discrimination, would be difficult to challenge in this arena.
______
[The NAFEO 33rd Annual National Conference on Blacks in
Higher Education report, submitted by Mr. Pierce, may be
publicly viewed in its entirety at the Committee's office, 2181
Rayburn House Office Building.]
------
Chairman Miller. Without objection, we will make them part
of the record of this hearing.
Thank you very much. Thank you all for your testimony.
One of the items that I mentioned in my opening statement
was the incredible contribution of historically black colleges
to our teacher corps in this country, and it is near and dear
to my heart.
As we struggle with the reauthorization of No Child Left
Behind, I think it is very clear to those of us on both sides
of the aisle that we are in desperate need for this next
generation of teachers to have great capacity to teach students
at a depth and at a breadth that we are not doing today so that
they will have the ability, those students.
We just met with several dozen CEOs from the high-tech
industry yesterday with the Speaker talking about their
educational needs, and they made it clear again, as best I can
put it, that they are going to need graduates of college and of
high school who can work across their company, across the
country, and across the continent with the most diverse
workforce in the history of the world serving the most diverse
customer base in the history of the world, and this takes a lot
of skill and a lot of talent and a lot of depth of
understanding.
And as much as we recognize that technology is changing the
world, it also can change the classroom, and to now have
teachers that are skilled in the use of technology as we look
at different kinds of assessments, of informative assessments,
of the ability to have the classroom experience the Internet,
broadband, we now need this generation to really be skilled in
that field.
And, Dr. Yancy, you mentioned that you are a laptop
university. So I assume students are learning some of that, but
I just wonder how you see teachers now coming to the classroom
prepared for really the maximum utilization of technology in
that education.
Ms. Yancy. So teachers have to have access to technology.
They do not have any choice. The students who are coming in to
the public school system or private schools, wherever they are
coming from, come knowing how to deal with all kinds of
gadgets.
We have had the laptops since 2000, and we have been fully
wired. The problem here is the cost of the infrastructure. I
mean, we have had to pay to upgrade infrastructure twice at
Johnson C. Smith. We have students who do not have money, and
so we lease our computers.
You were talking about leasing textbooks, Congressman
McKeon, and we have leased laptops, and we have made it
available to everyone.
But there is a problem within the teacher education that is
not always talked about. The NCATE accreditation process is
very explicit. Nobody wants to talk about that. When they come,
they come in large teams. You have the state. You have the
national group coming all together. And we have all these
students that we have to prepare for the library, et cetera.
But then the problem that we have is encouraging the best
and the brightest to go into teacher education because the
salaries are so low for them to go out and teach. You know, you
come out of school owing lots of money, having alternative
loans, you already work two and three jobs just to get through
college, and then someone wants you to work for $25,000,
$28,000 a year.
So what you have is the best and the brightest going to the
best bidders sometimes, even when they have majored in teacher
education. So it is not that we are not providing what they
need to become great teachers and be diverse and being able to
deal with all kinds of folks, think critically, and go in and
just hit the ground running as teachers. You are going to lose
them to corporate America who have no problem stealing the best
and the brightest.
Chairman Miller. I have no problem losing them. I love
having that marketplace out there for that talent, and school
districts are going to have to understand that it is no
longer----
Ms. Yancy. They have to get competitive.
Chairman Miller [continuing]. A closed market, and I think
all of that will be helpful.
My concern is that they are exposed to a curriculum and to
experiences that make them ready in that classroom so that they
can utilize all of the benefits of technology, the ability of
students to work across state lines, across districts, across
the country--to give their students a depth of education and a
different kind of education to make them ready for that
workplace in 2020, 2024.
That is my concern, and that is why I am excited to see
that your students from day 1 are exposed to that and start to
understand what that means, because you can still graduate from
the School of Education and not have any experience in
technology. It is unbelievable that that is the case in this
country, but that is. You can still graduate and not have any
understanding of IDEA, you know, in this country, when people
are dealing with special education.
Ms. Yancy. Representative Miller, I come from the old
school----
Chairman Miller. I am not putting this burden on you. I am
just saying I am excited----
Ms. Yancy. No, I come from the old school called truth in
lending.
Chairman Miller [continuing]. Because of the contribution--
--
Ms. Yancy. Truth in lending. If you say you are going to
promise the students a quality, competitive education, then you
have a requirement to do it. What we have here is a shortage of
funds and many of our----
Chairman Miller. I understand that. I understand that very
well. And let me just say this: I was meeting with a group of
Upward Bound students yesterday, and I think it is very
important that we establish--and your institutions establish--a
working understanding of the new arrangements in financing of
their education. There are now opportunities available to them
that were not before.
You mentioned starting at a low salary. Under the income
contingent loan repayment program, they do not have to pay more
than 15 percent of their discretionary income in any one year.
For those high-performing math and science teachers, they can
get $4,000 assistance while they are in school if they will
teach afterwards. If they enter public service, if they enter
the non-profit world, if they want to become a prosecutor or
public health doctor or public defender or fireman, after 10
years, their loans go away. And we are also trying to
coordinate within that loan to make sure that they understand
all of the access that they have to the federal loan program
before they take on a private loan.
Too often, private lending is directly marketed to the
student. The student takes advantage of it and then realizes
that they have a headache on this one when they still had
capacity within the federal program. So we have really tried to
redesign this, but it is different from what a lot of people
assume, which leads them to the conclusion they cannot continue
their education, and it is not the case in many instances.
Ms. Yancy. Yes, I am not disagreeing with you,
Representative Miller. I guess what I am really saying is many
of our students are first-generation students. It is not that
they have been told, it is not that they have been tutored and
exposed to the possibilities of loans and what happens to their
loans and how they go away. When you are first generation and
you graduate from college--I was in graduate school, I was
first generation in my family. My sisters had gone to college.
My father's position was, ``Why are you staying to get a Ph.D.
You need to get out and get a job.''
When these kids reach the point of graduation and there is
someone waving $60,000, $70,000 in their face versus the other,
it sort of hurts your heart to see them decide they are not
going to be teachers at that point, and that is all I am really
trying to say.
And the same thing is true about them going on to get
Ph.Ds. There is someone waving something in their face,
particularly those in computer science. We are number one in
the Carolinas in the production of African-Americans in
computer science and computer engineering. I have to just pull
hen's teeth to get them to go on to graduate school, and that
is all I am really trying to say.
Chairman Miller. All right.
Mr. McKeon?
Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I love these hearings on education. They always bring up
more problems than solutions, but it really makes you think
about how far we have come, but how far we need to go.
I hear discussions about competition between the schools
where we really need to pull together and understand that the
competitions should not be between the schools or the classes
of schools or the kinds of schools we have--proprietary
schools, black colleges, traditional schools--our competition
is China, India, other places around the world, and if we do
not prepare, as the chairman said, our diverse workforce to
handle all the diverse needs, I do not think our children and
grandchildren are going to have the kind of lives that we have
had. So we have tremendous challenges before us.
Talking about teacher pay, I served on a local school board
for 9 years, and we lost--we had a couple of our best math-
science teachers in the district, and they left to go to work
for industry. They tried to stay as long as they could.
Finally, it got too much and they could not afford to stay.
That is a problem. However, we also have teachers that are
overpaid.
The way this system works, all teachers are paid the same
when they are hired, and after a couple of years, some of them
have shown that they are much better teachers than others, but
they are still paid the same because steps and columns--the way
it works--I know that the chairman in the reauthorization of
higher education has tried to work on differential pay and some
other things like all other industries have, but in teaching,
everybody is the same, and I think that causes real problems.
Dr. Yancy, you talked about the problems with loans and
getting loans, and I am really concerned that we are heading
for a major problem, that the things that have hit the housing
industry are coming also to the student loan industry, whether
it be the government program, the private financing. The
problem with getting capital is going to cause some real
problems.
I do not know--I would like you to all address that--if you
are hearing from lending companies the problem of getting loans
for the students for this coming summer and fall and what you
are seeing in that area.
And, Mr. Pierce, the point that you brought out on the fact
that we are not enforcing laws, I think that is a national
problem, not just in civil rights, but in other areas,
selectively enforcing laws. My constituents are very concerned
about illegal immigration. You know, it looks like some laws we
enforce, some we do not. You run a stoplight, you get a ticket.
If you are here in the country illegally, we look the other
way, you know, and that really concerns me.
I would like you to address, if you could, the problems
that you faced with your time in the department in trying to
get civil rights laws enforced, and you talked about how you
have seen that fall off since you left the office.
Mr. Pierce. Congressman, at the time, we actually, for the
most part, in totality realized a great deal of cooperation
from the states. Now there were some states at that time that
were very recalcitrant. Ohio was definitely one of them. But,
for the most part, the remaining states worked with us.
It was Secretary Richard Riley was Secretary of Education
at that time. It was his desire that we work in partnership
with the states to pull together compliance plans that were
bringing these states in compliance with federal law, and we
did just that.
However, it did not take long when we left for states to
begin to retreat from not only those agreements, but stated
federal higher education desegregation policy that states
clearly that certain initiatives and policies by states in the
world of higher education would have an adverse impact on the
desegregation process in higher education, one of which was
the--seems to be--it is federal policy and that is the
unnecessary duplication of educational programs.
Now we know that in the days of apartheid and segregation,
to have a school of journalism at Florida State University, a
traditionally white institution, right across the street from
Florida A&M, a traditionally black institution, was the way
life was to keep the races apart. If you were black and you
wanted to get a degree in journalism, you have to go to Florida
A&M. If you are white, you go to Florida State. That is just
the way it was.
Part of the federal policy was to remove those policies--it
is like racial steering in real estate--and say, ``Look at what
your state needs in terms of higher education, whether it is
more law enforcement officers, environmentalists, scientists,
and biotechnologists, whatever, and then use that to craft
educational offerings in the state system of public higher
education commensurate with those demands.'' So you would not
duplicate programs unnecessarily that would only continue
segregation.
So to place a school of pharmacy, so to say, at Texas
Southern University which would attract a more diverse student
population or the school of physical therapy at Langston
University in Oklahoma--I gave the commencement speech there. I
would say 30 percent of the graduates of that class in physical
therapy were white students. Why? Because of the quality of the
program there was attracting students.
But now you have a retreat from that. I think Dr.
Richardson can attest to this. Part of the deseg plan was to
place, I believe, a doctoral degree in education at Morgan
State University. Now you clearly see after, you know, the
sheriff left town, as you see other colleges in the state
system of higher education in Maryland, encroaching upon that
degree right down the road from his university. And that goes
on and on and on. Land grabs. Money that was committed to
historically black colleges and universities has been removed.
So, yes, yes, I mean, it is a clear difference, but it was
the same thing during the Reagan-Bush years that preceded us.
There had been a lull in the enforcement of the higher
education desegregation--not as much because, interestingly,
Clarence Thomas, when he ran the Office of Civil Rights, he was
the person that found three of those states in violation of
federal civil rights laws, and one of them sued the Department
of Justice in litigation.
I believe if Clarence Thomas can see that, you know,
anybody should be able to see that. So, you know, no disrespect
to the Justice, but, clearly, there has been a difference in
how federal civil rights law has been enforced from the years
1993 to 2000 and 2000 to now.
Mr. Richardson. Congressman, if I might add just for the
record, a correction on the record, we actually have the
doctoral in education program. The doctoral programs that came
as a result of the efforts under Dean Pierce here were doctoral
programs in history, engineering, math, and science education.
The program, of course, that we most recently have been
talking about is the MBA program that was just duplicated about
a year and a half ago, and that was a continuation of the
duplication that we think is very harmful not only in terms of
efficiency, but also in terms of the diversity issue, which it
was intended to address from the beginning.
Mr. Kildee [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. McKeon.
Secretary O'Leary, in your testimony, you mentioned that if
you can admit and support a student in his or her first year,
then there is an 86 percent chance you will be able to retain
them the second year, and your graduation rate is about----
Ms. O'Leary. Sixty-five percent.
Mr. Kildee. Which is higher than the national----
Ms. O'Leary. Well, it is 10 percent higher than the average
in the United States of America. That is correct.
Mr. Kildee. What strategies do you use to achieve that
success?
Ms. O'Leary. Well, there are actually three that I am going
to talk about them and two-pronged.
The first one is the finances. You have really got to work
with these students, 91 percent of whom at Fisk are on
financial aid. And earlier Chairman Miller asked the question
with respect to third-party loans. Well, at Fisk, we are
working with one of our major banks in Tennessee to ensure that
there is a backup available for our kids if other financing
runs out.
The other piece of it, to move to the advisement side, has
to do with the size of Fisk University. Our student-to-faculty
ratio is 12:1. So, like it or not, you cannot get into too much
trouble academically or socially. I would say I know easily 30
percent of our kids by name, by degree program.
The other thing that occurs in such an intimate surrounding
is that the advisement of these students is unique and
personal, and it moves beyond the adviser for the degree
program. We also have a series of advisers whose responsibility
it is to look after our students and intervene at least by mid-
semester if there is a problem with academics.
So we pretty much have them locked on our 42-acre campus,
and we give them that kind of attention.
Mr. Kildee. That is a remarkable record.
Ms. O'Leary. Thank you.
Mr. Kildee. It is not cheap to do that, but it certainly
has produced a high degree of success.
Ms. O'Leary. Indeed, it is not cheap, as our endowment will
attest. Well, before I arrived, others saw these needs for our
students and unwisely dipped into endowment to support these
initiatives, and now we are working to find money outside of
those needs to put that endowment back.
But we are very proud of our record. Thank you.
Mr. Kildee. Mr. Pierce, what is the purpose of the
partnership agreements between the states and the OCR? Is it a
settlement in lieu of a lawsuit?
Mr. Pierce. Exactly. Congressman, of the original 19 states
that were involved in federal litigation or investigation, all
of them except for five were able to present plans to resolve
their violations. Five of them had to go to court, again one of
them all the way to the Supreme Court--that was Mississippi--
and our Department of Justice prosecuted those cases.
All the remaining states said, ``Okay, Department of
Education, Office of Civil Rights, we will sign a document
saying we will commit to do the following over a certain period
of time, which, hopefully, at the end of that implementation
period, you will find us in compliance.'' That was what those
plans were designed to do, to bring the states in compliance
with federal education policy by removing the vestiges of that
practice of segregation that continued having effects to today.
Mr. Kildee. After the partnership agreement expires, is
there expiration data----
Mr. Pierce. Yes, sir. Most of those plans are maybe 4 or
some 5 years.
Mr. Kildee. And what do you do then? Does the state's
obligation end at that point and you renegotiate it or----
Mr. Pierce. No, the obligation does not end. The obligation
is on the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights to
then conduct an analysis to determine whether or not what the
states committed to do actually had the effect of addressing
the violations to the point that they could be removed. In many
cases, those plans expired and the states were informed by the
Department of Education, ``Continue doing what you are doing,
and we will get to you and ultimately make an analysis as to
whether or not you are in compliance.''
Unfortunately, that has not happened. All the plans that I
negotiated, Congressman, have expired, and those states are
still under continuing obligations to implement those plans to
the letter and to the spirit.
Mr. Kildee. All right. Thank you very much for that
information.
And I appreciate the work you did during your time there
with the department. I recall those years, and we talked a few
times at that time.
Mr. Pierce. Yes, sir. I remember being in your office.
Mr. Kildee. I remember that very much.
We have a vote on in the House, but I think we have time to
get Mr. Keller from Florida in to ask a question. Then I think
I will all run over to the House and cast my vote and get back
here as soon as I can.
Mr. Keller?
Mr. Keller. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank all our witnesses for being here today.
I am looking at your book here, and the very first topic
says, ``Expanding Access to College,'' and that is the topic I
want to touch upon. I am chairman of the Pell Grant Caucus here
in Congress and a big fan of Pell grants. I myself would not
have been able to go to college without Pell grants.
When you look at the demographics, about 80 percent of Pell
grants go to minority students. Now here is the challenge.
Ninety percent of the students getting Pell grants come from
families making $40,000 or less, and the biggest problem that
has raised for me is that parents will come to me and say,
``Well, I am a firefighter. My wife is a teacher. Together, we
make about $70,000. We are too rich for Pell grants, but not
rich enough to pay for our kids to school, and we have two
little girls in high school,'' and there is a very limited
amount of tax incentive that will help them, HOPE tax credit, a
small deduction if you are under a certain amount.
What would you give us as advice to remedy that situation
for the people who need the help to help access college, but
they are just over the Pell grant limits to open the doors for
your universities?
Dr. Richardson, have you guys talked about that?
Mr. Richardson. Okay. Congressman, I think that the
financial aid issue is perhaps the most vexing issue for our
historically black colleges and is very much associated with
the retention and graduation rates. If you were to look at most
of our institutions, you are going to find just that statistic
that you just mentioned, about 90 percent on student financial
aid, and what we have tried to urge is, yes, increasing the
Pell grants because that is the first line of defense for most
of our students.
But the second is to provide additional dollars through
other kinds of assistanceships and research assistants and all
kinds of ways when we get the grant monies and all of those
things through the federal structure. We have also tried to
give back more money from our own institutions. You are going
to find in most instances that our institutions heavily
subsidize our students.
Mr. Keller. Including the students who are not eligible for
Pell grants because their parents make a little bit too much,
yet they still do not have enough money to go?
Mr. Richardson. Yes, absolutely. We understand that
dynamic.
Sometimes when you are talking to those who are the
policymakers, they do not always understand that. They think
that because the parents make $75,000, then there should be
enough money. But, yes, there is that threshold there that will
make the difference between whether or not a student
matriculates or does not matriculate, and oftentimes, the
institution has to try to find money.
Now, when the institution provides those dollars, you are
taking from the same pool of students from which you must hire
your faculty, build your technology infrastructure, and all of
those kinds of things. You will also note that our institutions
on average charge far less. If you were to look at my
institution and compare it to its Carnegie counterparts in the
state, our majority institutions who offer doctoral research, I
am about $2,000 less on tuition. That means I automatically
forfeit every year $8.5 million. Then I come back and I
subsidize those students further with institutional aid.
Mr. Keller. And it depends on what your endowment is, too.
I know like Harvard has a $36 billion endowment, so it is easy
for them to----
Mr. Richardson. No, we do not have those kinds of
endowments.
Mr. Keller. You do not have that. [Laughter.]
I was telling the Harvard people--I was this close to going
to Harvard, that was how thick my rejection letter was, and----
[Laughter.]
But, Dr. Yancy----
Ms. Yancy. Congressman Keller?
Mr. Keller. Yes.
Ms. Yancy. When you make a certain amount of money, which
is not enough money to send your kid to college, you are sort
of caught in a never never land----
Mr. Keller. Right.
Ms. Yancy [continuing]. And that is when we get down to the
loans that parents and students engage in, which means that
they have a tremendous burden when they leave college.
At my institution, we spend a lot of time trying to raise
money for scholarships, and we have a few, but if you fall
under a 3.0, you are in a never land again. So, from 2.0 to
3.0, there is--no one wants to give you money for a kid who is
``not on the honor roll.'' So that becomes another problem.
So you have to provide jobs. You have to help them find
jobs, or you have to get grants from MARC, NBRS, all kinds of
research grants where you can aid students in those kinds of
things, but there is just very little money for that group that
is in between. They are sort of the betwixt and between group,
sort of like the preteen that you cannot find clothes for.
Mr. Keller. Right. Well, thank you.
Mr. Kildee. At this point, we will take a brief recess. We
are tight on the time for the votes now, but Mr. Andrews is on
his way back, and he will take the chair, and I will be on my
way back. It is one of those days we are trying to finish the
session up. We apologize for these interruptions.
Your testimony has been great. Stick right there. We will
be right back.
[Recess.]
Mr. Yarmuth [presiding]. We will call the hearing back to
order. I guess it is my turn for questioning.
Dr. Sias, once again, welcome. It is a great privilege to
have you here representing the Commonwealth of Kentucky and
Kentucky State University.
You mentioned that while HBCUs account for only 3 percent
of the nation's colleges and universities that you account for
30 percent of the baccalaureate degrees and 40 percent of all
first professional degrees awarded African-Americans. What
strategies are HBCUs using and maybe Kentucky State
specifically to account for this disproportionate degree of
success?
Ms. Sias. I think when you heard Dr. Yancy talk earlier and
actually Dr. O'Leary as well, they talked about the personal
knowledge you have of your students, knowing who they are. I,
too, know most of the students on my campus. If not by name, I
know their faces wherever I see them. If I see people who
should be in class and they are not, I am going to say
something about it.
We have improved our advising department, and it is not
just about faculty members' advice--that is their job--but we
have hired professional advisers as well. We put in technology
that the chairman had talked about earlier so students
themselves can go online and put in their degree program and
see where they should be. We have gone in and looked at our
curriculum structure over that nine-semester period to see what
our students should be taking, how are they taking it, are
those courses being offered.
And we have also done a few other things. We have a degree
completer award at Kentucky State University. We recognized
that a large number of our students were getting up to that
last year and a half and they were not getting done because
they were out of money. So we took some of our needs-based
assistance and said, ``If you are out of money and you are
within that 24 hours, we are going to help you get there,''
because, to be perfectly candid, it does a lot for us in terms
of our funding formula, and we need to get those people out and
in jobs.
But I think a large part of it really relates to the
personal care, understanding who the students are, paying
attention to what they are doing, and monitoring those mid-term
grades. If you see students have a problem, get them in. And we
are even going to stop waiting until mid-term and really go to
an electronic version of class attendance so we know when they
are not going to class so we can get on them about not going to
class as well.
Mr. Yarmuth. There are also I know--oh, I am sorry, Dr.
Yancy. Yes?
Ms. Yancy. I was going to add at Johnson C. Smith, we
initiated something called the freshman academy which is a
learning community. We have placed all of our freshmen in
learning communities when they arrive, and each of the learning
communities have themes. We also have a sophomore initiative.
But in order to do this, we had to expand our faculty from
80-odd to 103. So our teacher-student ratio is 13:1, and we
also have mentors who are staff who are assigned to each of the
learning communities, and that has helped.
Our retention has not changed significantly, but there is a
difference in the performance of students. They are doing
better in classes, and I think that this supportive and
nurturing community that we say we provide, we are actually
doing it.
Ms. O'Leary. I would just like to add one thing, and that
is that our historically black colleges and universities have a
legacy of receiving kids whose parents or whose teachers
understand that to change their lives they must be educated,
and I do not think we have lost that in the student that shows
up. They hunger for that degree, for an opportunity to really
play in the game, both in the social, the economic, and even
the political because we find our students so politically
active. They come with that desire. We just have to heat it up
a little bit.
Mr. Yarmuth. Thank you.
And, Dr. Sias, when we have talked, you have talked about
the fact that we spend about 50 or 55 times more to provide
access to our young people in colleges than we do to keep them
in the college, and the program that you have initiated at
Kentucky State, which actually helps kids who come up with
maybe not the foundational skills, the study habits, the time
management and so forth, which also is an important part of
getting kids who are--I call them kids. I should not--but
getting young people who are fully capable of doing the work,
but need a little bit of that structure that they may have been
missing.
If you can elaborate a little bit on that because one of
the pieces of legislation that we have in the Higher Education
Act has actually evolved from the discussions that you and I
had.
Ms. Sias. Absolutely. We are talking about students with
developmental education needs, and we have an academic bridge
program. In Kentucky, 52 percent of all students who graduate,
regardless of their color, graduate needing at least one course
in remediation. For African-Americans, that number is 77
percent.
What we have done is establish an academic bridge program
where we take those students with those developmental needs and
we bring them in in the summer. Initially, we used their
financial aid. The last 2 years, we have paid for it. It has
increased the enrollment. It increases our retention.
Out of the students we had last summer, 93 percent of those
students were retained by the time we finished the end of that
freshman year. You knock out the remediation, which means they
start earning course credit immediately because not earning
course credits really is a problem for them and they get
depressed about what is happening to them. Having student
mentors, peer mentors, getting the reading, the public
speaking, all of those things out of the way----
We are getting ready to move to the next stage, which is
also really looking at using technology to help with that
remediation, like you thinking about the learning communities,
but what says that you have to wait for a student to get to
your campus before you start remediating? Nothing really. I
mean, I think it is that important that we get it out of the
way early, and because we are up for reaffirmation, our QEC
will look at that whole first-year experience, and ours is
really focusing on a topic that is called Academics with
Attitude that deals with this whole first-year experience and
what we can do on every front to help those students.
And you are right. It makes a tremendous difference having
peer mentors and what I have seen is even more important. When
students step up and they can relate to other students and they
see them not doing what they should be doing, that makes a
tremendous difference in our retention rate with those
students.
Thank you for asking the question. I appreciate it.
Mr. Yarmuth. Thank you very much.
Mr. Andrews?
Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your testimony this
morning. Thank you for the contribution your students and
institutions are making to our country. It is terrific. We are
glad that you are here.
I am assuming that at institutions which have very high
quality and very small endowments, which I think characterizes
everybody here, a lot of the students need to have gap loans.
They need to borrow money between what their financial aid
package gives them and what they need to go to school. Is that
a correct assumption?
Ms. O'Leary. Oh, yes.
Ms. Yancy. Yes.
Ms. Sias. Yes.
Mr. Andrews. Okay. I am following up on something the
chairman asked about, Mr. McKeon asked about. Have you yet
experienced any problems with lack of liquidity in getting
loans for gap loans? Has that been a problem for any of the
institutions here?
Ms. O'Leary. With respect to Fisk, as I earlier said, it
has not been, but we are aware that this tidal wave is coming.
Mr. Andrews. Yes.
Ms. O'Leary. And so we have already begun to work with one
of our major local banks to secure an alternative approach.
Mr. Andrews. How about the other institutions? Did you see
a problem on the horizon, and if so, is there a way to deal
with the needs of these students?
Mr. Richardson. Mr. Chairman--or Congressman----
Mr. Andrews. You can call me that, if you want to.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Richardson. I love promoting.
Mr. Andrews. Mr. President, go ahead.
Mr. Richardson. Let me simply say that it just compounds a
problem that has existed for many, many years. Many of these
students are not creditworthy--their parents.
Mr. Andrews. Very few of them are.
Mr. Richardson. Yes. Their parents are not creditworthy. So
they do not have the option of borrowing in the same way that
our more affluent students would have. So that is just the way
it is.
Mr. Andrews. Yes.
Mr. Richardson. Now when you add on to that the way that
the economy now is going and the impact of the mortgage lending
and all of these other things with that, then that simply just
compounds it. But I am not sure that we see the dramatic effect
because ours is already at such a low ebb.
Mr. Andrews. I just hope it does not get any worse because
I know it would--if the rest of the academic community catches
a cold, your students get pneumonia as far as I can tell.
Now what I wanted to ask was: Does anybody here have
experience with the Lender of Last Resort program? Have any of
you used it for your students?
Ms. Sias. We have a couple of students who----
Mr. Andrews. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Sias [continuing]. Have actually used a program like
that. Yes, sir.
Mr. Andrews. Has it worked? Has it been easy to access? Is
it something that works?
Ms. Sias. First of all, the students really have to get the
information about the program, and there is not enough
information out there. They are also skeptical about what that
means. And I would say probably 50-percent higher interest
rates, and 50 percent of the people who go after it come back
saying that they could not get----
Mr. Andrews. Could not do it.
Ahead of the facts, my prejudice here is I think the tidal
wave is coming, and my own view is that without some kind of
guarantee behind attracting the capital, we are going to
attract the capital for these gap loans for your students, and
although the Lender of Last Resort program works in theory, I
do not know that it works in reality.
Does anybody else have any experience with that?
Ms. Yancy. Yes.
Mr. Andrews. Yes, ma'am?
Ms. Yancy. Another comment to make. I grew up in a union
household, and you know you are the last hired and the first to
be fired. In 2001, when everybody talked about the depression
that came in the fall, it hit my campus in the spring. My
students left owing over $1 million in tuition.
Mr. Andrews. Right.
Ms. Yancy. All right. Now this fall that we just had, 2007,
we had large numbers of students who had to go back home
because they could not get loans, they did not qualify for
loans, et cetera, et cetera. So I do not know about the other
people in this room, but we already know about the depression
or whatever you want to call it----
Mr. Andrews. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Yancy [continuing]. And I know it is going to get
worse.
Mr. Andrews. I see that my time is about to expire. We want
to move on.
I want to just ask you all one time. The committee is going
to start to consider this issue very intensely in the next few
days, and I know we are going to want to draw upon you and your
associations for your expertise as we approach this. I hope
that we are overreacting to a problem that does not come, but I
think the problem is coming. It is already here for a lot of
students. We want to help those who already have the problem
and avoid it for those who do not.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Richardson. Mr. Chairman, if I could make this one
other comment in this regard----
Mr. Yarmuth. Yes.
Mr. Richardson [continuing]. To simply say to you--to use
this opportunity to say--that we really prefer not having the
loans, but to have increases in Pell grants and other kinds of
assistance----
Mr. Andrews. You bet. As do we.
Mr. Richardson [continuing]. Because if we continue to go
this way, then when students graduate, they are so burdened
with----
Mr. Andrews. Just to quickly editorialize, the Congress is
going to make a decision in 2010 about what to do with the
expiration of the Bush tax cut. Personally, not speaking for
the committee, here is what I would do. The top 5 percent,
which is people making over $300,000 a year, I would let them
expire, and I would take the $1.5 trillion that would put back
in the Treasury and make the Pell grant program really mean
something in addition to other things. So that is what I would
do, and I think that is the direction----
[Applause.]
Mr. Yarmuth. Thank you, Mr. Andrews.
At this time, I would like to recognize Dr. Julianne
Malveaux, president of Bennett College and noted syndicated
columnist, and like Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon
of California, we welcome her in the audience as well.
At this point, I want to thank all the witnesses for their
testimony. This has been a very interesting hearing, and as
Congressman Andrews mentioned, we will be pursuing these
subjects with great intensity.
Without objection, members will have 14 days to submit
additional materials or questions for the hearing record.
Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
[The statement of Mr. Altmire follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jason Altmire, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Pennsylvania
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing on
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).
Throughout their history, HBCUs have played a critical role in
providing high-quality post-secondary education to African Americans in
the United States. For many years after the abolition of slavery HBCUs
were the only institutions of higher education where African American
students could receive an education. Today, HBCUs still play a critical
role in educating African Americans. While they represent just 3
percent of all colleges and universities, HBCUs enroll 30 percent of
African American students in the United States. In addition, HBCUs
educate 50 percent of all African Americans that become teachers.
HBCUs' role in educating our nation's African American teachers is
of particular importance to me. While 17 percent of public school
students are African Americans, only 6 percent of public school
teachers are African Americans. To address this disparity I introduced
the Improving Teacher Diversity Act (HR 4045). This legislation will
provide grants to schools of education at minority serving
institutions, such as HBCUs, to help recruit and prepare teachers.
Specifically, the grants could be used to award scholarships to
students in teacher preparation programs, develop initiatives to retain
highly qualified teachers and principals, provide faculty with
professional development, and provide mentoring programs for
prospective teachers.
I would like to thank Chairman Miller for including the Improving
Teacher Diversity Act in the College Opportunity and Affordability Act
(HR 4137), which was passed by the House on February 7. I am hopeful
that it will be maintained in conference with the Senate's Higher
Education Act reauthorization bill.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and for
your leadership on issues affecting HBCUs.
______
[Questions submitted to witnesses and their responses
follow:]
Committee on Education and Labor,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, March 13, 2008.
[VIA FACIMILE TRANSMISSION]
Dr. Earl S. Richardson,
Morgan State University, Cold Spring Lane and Hillen Road, Baltimore,
MD.
Dear Dr. Richardson: Thank you for testifying at the March 13, 2008
hearing of the Committee on Education and Labor on ``America's Black
Colleges and Universities: Models of Excellence and Challenges for the
Future.''
Representative Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), chairman of the Subcommittee
on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness and member
of the Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education
Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in writing to the following
question:
States have been fighting the limited maintenance of effort
requirement that we have included on our reauthorization bill. In your
testimony, you highlight that states have yet to meet their obligation
to provide equity. In Texas, it took a lawsuit to get more equitable
funding for our colleges and universities in the border region--all of
which are Hispanic-Serving Institutions. In response to the lawsuit, we
saw some improvements. But, now, it seems we are back to the days of
growing inequity in funding. What should the federal government do to
ensure that states maintain their investment in higher education and
provide equity for institutions that serve low-income, first
generation, and minority students?
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
questions to the Committee staff by close of business on Wednesday,
March 26, 2008--the date on which the hearing record will close. If you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Committee.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
______
Responses to Questions for the Record Supplied by Dr. Richardson
Representative Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), chairman of the Subcommittee
on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness and member
of the Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education
Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in writing to the following
question:
Question: States have been fighting the limited maintenance of
effort requirement that we have included on our reauthorization bill.
In your testimony, you highlight that states have yet to meet their
obligation to provide equity. In Texas, it took a lawsuit to get more
equitable funding for our colleges and universities in the border
region--all of which are Hispanic-Serving Institutions. In response to
the lawsuit, we saw some improvements. But, now, it seems we are back
to the days of growing inequity in funding. What should the federal
government do to ensure that states maintain their investment in higher
education and provide equity for institutions that serve low-income,
first generation, and minority students?
The access imperative
Despite the nation's imperative to provide educational access to
all its citizens, in many states there remains great disparities in the
completion of degrees between minority person and whites. In order to
close the access gap, the federal and state governments need to develop
effective strategies to increase the number of minority graduates.
Since minority-serving institutions have done the lion's share of the
work in providing access and reducing the access disparities, the
answer to closing the gap lies in enhancing the investment in the
institutions that know access best.
If national and state leaders do not urgently seize the opportunity
to close the educational access gap, the demographics suggest that an
already daunting problem will worsen. The nation's demographics, at
least over the next decade, will increasingly favor the traditional
clientele of minority-serving colleges--minority students, economically
disadvantaged students and those students who may not be as
academically well-prepared. For example, Maryland's general population
is now 29% African-American, the fourth highest of any state. The
Hispanic population, while smaller than the black population, is
younger and growing more rapidly. The white population is at best
stable and probably declining. Additionally, Maryland's public schools
statewide are now nearly half minority, with African Americans
accounting for about 40% of public school enrollments. Within five
years, the number of black and Hispanic public high school graduates
combined will be about equal to the number of white graduates. For more
than a century, Maryland's historically black institutions have
successfully served this clientele.
Capitalizing on the expertise of minority-serving institutions in
providing access
Decades of practice in providing access to students not eligible
for admission to other State institutions has made historically
minority-serving institutions experts on access. Investing in the
institutions that know how to provide access will promote the
achievement of important goals in higher education: quality, access,
diversity of quality educational opportunities, adequate funding,
efficient and effective management, and capable and creative
leadership. Indeed, efficient and effective management of our systems
of higher education demands that adequate funding be targeted to
institutions with a history of success in addressing what should be the
nation's priority of providing increased access to minority and
disadvantaged students.
Strategies for providing equitable resources to predominantly minority-
serving institutions
As Representative Hinojosa points out, historical funding
inequities between minority-serving institutions and majority serving
institutions remain present today. Any efforts by the federal
government to eliminate those funding inequities will contribute to
closing the educational access gap. The following strategies are
suggested:
Enforce federal civil rights laws vigorously
During the hearings on March 13, 2008, hearing of the Committee on
Education and Labor, Dean Raymond Pearce discussed his concerns
regarding the enforcement efforts of the U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Civil Rights in this area. If the federal government would
enforce the laws which provide for equal opportunity to quality
educations for all, we could see prompt improvement on the quality of
higher education and narrowing of the access gap.
The failure to effectively enforce federal civil rights legislation
has seriously eroded state compliance with federal civil rights laws.
For example, contrary to federal law, states have failed to enhance
historically black institutions to make them comparable and competitive
with traditionally white institutions. Were states to comply with the
law, differences in schools based on the racial composition of their
student populations would stop. This would cause students of all races
to select state schools based on their program offerings, facilities
and other non-race based qualities. As long as minority-serving
institutions are resourced inequitably and prevented from effectively
competing with their white counterparts, students of all races are
likely to be more attracted to institutions with greater resources, the
racial segregation of state institutions will continue and minority-
serving institutions (which provide access to students who would not
otherwise have educational opportunities) will not be able to serve
increasingly higher numbers of minorities and low income students.
In the 2008 legislative session, the Maryland legislative black
caucus introduced legislation to provide supplemental funding
assistance to historically black institutions to support efforts to
achieve comparability between minority-serving institutions and other
public four-year postsecondary institutions in all respects. They
recognized the needs for this supplemental funding because they were
mindful of: the unfortunate need of historically black institutions to
divert limited and precious operating resources to capital purposes
(such as leasing space) necessitated by the state's failure to fund
capital needs of HBIs to make them competitive with TWIs and the States
misplaced emphasis on institutional ambitions (of TWIs to expand their
program inventories, for example) versus state needs and priorities
(desegregation and enhancement of HBIs). The supplemental funding was
targeted for the: (1) establishment of honors colleges or the expansion
and enrichment of other honors program configurations; (2) the
development or enhancement of student scholars financial assistance;
(3) the development of a faculty scholars program ; (4) the improvement
of academic program quality initiatives, and (5) the expediting of
capital improvements at minority -serving campuses over the next
decade.
Develop Federal Government Incentives to Promote State
funding formulas that control for the nuances of funding minority-
serving institutional missions
Provide incentives to states that develop funding formulas that
control for the nuances of funding minority-serving institutional
missions and that consider the high cost components of minority-serving
institutional missions that are critical to providing access to the
student populations they serve. First and foremost, 85% or more of the
students at minority-serving institution need financial aid. While at
majority institutions, student enrollment and tuition is a revenue
source, at minority-serving institutions, student enrollment must be
combined with financial assistance or the students cannot attend
because they cannot pay, resulting in a cost center for the
institution, not a revenue source. The vast majority of students at
minority-serving institutions simply cannot afford the full cost of
tuition and their access to higher education is possible only when they
receive financial assistance. Minority-serving institutions provide
that assistance in two ways. Their tuition ranges from 17-53% less per
student than at the predominantly majority-serving institutions. This
equates to an annual forfeiture of millions of dollars in revenue
depending on the institution, for which there is no subsidy. Second,
even with these lower tuition rates, minority-serving institutions must
still subsidize students through financial aid at much higher rates
than majority-serving institutions. Third, since minority-serving
institution facilities have not been developed consistent with the
program and research needs of the campuses, large sums of operating
dollars that would ordinarily support additional faculty, information
technology, equipment, etc., is used to address temporary capital needs
(facilities and other infrastructure projects) which often require
enormous funds for utilities.
The failure of most state funding formulas to consider these
nuances in funding minority-serving institutional missions causes
enormous disadvantages in their ability to compete with majority-
serving institutions since majority-serving institutions are able to
use their tuition revenues and operating funds in furtherance of their
missions. The inadequacies of state funding models are known to those
expert in the field. For example, the Commission to Develop the
Maryland Model for Funding Higher Education recently heard from a panel
of expert consultants, who provided their insight into challenges
facing Maryland's higher education funding. They asserted the
following: (1) current funding models in many states are driven by
institutional aspirations and ambitions rather than State needs and
priorities, and (2) current funding models are oftentimes skewed to
favor larger universities over smaller universities which provide
greater access for minorities and low income students.
Increase Federal Support for undergraduate and graduate
programs and research at Historically Black and predominantly minority-
serving institutions
Increased funding in these areas will improve the ability of
minority-serving institutions to compete with predominantly majority
serving institutions.
Increase PELL grants
This concern was discussed a great length during the hearing.
Conclusion
The economic growth and vitality for the nation is dependent upon
providing educational opportunities to its citizens. Minority-serving
institutions have developed an expertise in providing access to the
precise cohort of students that represent the largest growing
demographic segment of students in the nation, a number that is
expected to continue to rise through the next decade and beyond. The
nation's economic vitality, educational access to these students, and
the expertise of minority-serving institutions in providing them access
are inextricably linked. By necessity, the minority-serving
institutions ought to be developed to a level of comparability and
competitiveness with the other public institutions so they can take
their rightful place in fulfilling the nations' needs. The benefits of
funding minority-serving institutions at a level of comparability and
competitiveness to their peers is enormous. Consider the successes that
are certain: a more highly educated population able to earn higher
salaries, increased tax revenues derived from a population having a
higher earning capacity, increased talent and creativity in the
workplace that contributes to the economic growth and vitality of our
states and the nation which translates into a better quality of life
for all.
Consider the consequences of our failure to provide higher levels
of access to minority student in the State of Maryland. It costs
Maryland $9,600 per year to educate a student at an historically black
college. It costs the State a lifetime of forgone income for an
individual who has not developed their talents through education. Based
on data from the Center for Labor Market Studies of Northeastern
University, it costs Maryland about $26,000 per year to incarcerate a
young person; this figure does not include costs associated with parole
and probation nor does it include social service costs to support
families of the incarcerated or the costs of social services to support
families that are economically disadvantaged. And * * * what is the
price of crime to our community, to our economy and to the often
devastated victims and their families?
The nation's minority-serving institutions have the unique ability
to remedy the ills of our society. Higher education must develop a
unitary system of complementary, and comparable colleges and
universities which are equally attractive to students regardless of
race or socioeconomic background; and for ultimately closing the
college education attainment gap for African Americans, other
minorities and low income high school graduates.
______
Committee on Education and Labor,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, March 13, 2008.
[VIA FACIMILE TRANSMISSION]
Dr. Dorothy Cowser Yancy,
Johnson C. Smith University, 100 Beatties Ford Road, Charlotte, NC.
Dear Dr. Yancy: Thank you for testifying at the March 13, 2008
hearing of the Committee on Education and Labor on ``America's Black
Colleges and Universities: Models of Excellence and Challenges for the
Future.''
Representative Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), chairman of the Subcommittee
on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness and member
of the Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education
Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in writing to the following
question:
There is a tremendous need for financial literacy for low-income
and first-generation college students and their families. Many of our
college students lack a basic understanding of consumer economics and
personal finance. They do not understand the ins and outs of financial
aid. In our College Opportunity and Affordability Act, we have placed
an emphasis across programs on financial literacy. We have also called
upon all stakeholders in the student loan programs to step up their
efforts on this issue. What are the financial literacy needs on your
campus? How are you addressing them? What are the challenges?
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
questions to Margaret Young of the Committee staff by close of business
on Wednesday, March 26, 2008--the date on which the hearing record will
close. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the
Committee.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
______
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]