Ayers v. Fordice, 4:75CV009-B-O.

CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi
Writing for the CourtBIGGERS
CitationAyers v. Fordice, 879 F.Supp. 1419 (N.D. Miss. 1995)
Decision Date07 March 1995
Docket NumberNo. 4:75CV009-B-O.,4:75CV009-B-O.
PartiesJake AYERS, Jr.; Bennie G. Thompson; Virginia Hill; B. Leon Johnson; Pamela Gipson, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; et al., Plaintiffs, United States of America, Plaintiff/Intervenor, v. Kirk FORDICE, Governor, State of Mississippi, W. Ray Cleere, Commissioner of Higher Education; Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning, Diane Martin Miller, President, Nan McGahey Baker, Vice President, William S. Crawford, Frank Crosthwait, Ricki R. Garrett, Will A. Hickman, J. Marlin Ivey, James W. Luvene, J.P. "Jake" Mills, Carl Nicholson, Jr., Cass Pennington, Sidney L. Rushing, Members; Delta State University, Kent Wyatt, President; Mississippi State University, Donald W. Zacharias, President; Mississippi University For Women, Clyda S. Rent, President; University of Mississippi, R. Gerald Turner, Chancellor; University of Southern Mississippi, Aubrey K. Lucas, President; et al., Defendants.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Alvin O. Chambliss, Jr., North Miss. Rural Legal Services, Oxford, MS, Otis Berry, North Miss. Rural Legal Services, Lexington, MS, Callestyne Hall-Crawford, North Miss. Rural Legal Services, Greenwood, MS, Robert Pressman, Center for Law and Educ., Cambridge, MA, Armand Derfner, Charleston, SC, Solomon Osborne, Willie J. Perkins, Greenwood, MS, J. Clay Smith, Washington, DC, for private plaintiffs.

Laverne Younger, Judith Keith, John Moore, Craig Crenshaw, Jr., Franz Marshall, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, John R. Hailman, Felicia Adams, Asst. U.S. Attys., Oxford, MS, for government/intervening plaintiffs.

William F. Goodman, Jr., Paul Stephenson, III, William F. Ray, Watkins & Eager, Mike Moore, R. Lloyd Arnold, Allen Purdie, Office of Atty. Gen. State of Miss., Greg Hinkelbein, Atty. for Governor, Jackson, MS, for defendants IHL Bd. & State of Miss.

                                   TABLE OF CONTENTS
                STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................ 1427
                CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES ........................................... 1428
                  A. DEFENDANTS ...................................................... 1428
                
  B. UNITED STATES/PRIVATE PLAINTIFFS ................................ 1428
                                       FINDINGS OF FACT
                ADMISSIONS ........................................................... 1430
                  A. CONTENTIONS ..................................................... 1430
                  B. OVERVIEW ........................................................ 1430
                  C. POLICIES AND/OR PRACTICES GOVERNING UNDERGRADUATE
                      ADMISSIONS STANDARDS ........................................... 1431
                     1. ACT CUTOFFS .................................................. 1431
                     2. ACT CUTOFFS AND ALUMNI CONNECTION AS A BASIS FOR
                         THE AWARD OF SCHOLARSHIPS ................................... 1433
                     3. EXCEPTIONS ................................................... 1434
                CONCLUSION: UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSIONS ................................. 1434
                GRADUATE ADMISSIONS STANDARDS ........................................ 1435
                 A. OVERVIEW ......................................................... 1435
                 B. DISPARATE IMPACT ................................................. 1436
                CONCLUSION: GRADUATE SCHOOL ADMISSIONS ............................... 1436
                MISSIONS/ACADEMIC PROGRAMS ........................................... 1436
                 A. CONTENTIONS ...................................................... 1436
                 B. OVERVIEW ......................................................... 1437
                 C. UNDERDEVELOPED NON-UNIQUE INSTITUTIONS ........................... 1437
                    1. BACKGROUND .................................................... 1437
                       (a) MISSION DESIGNATIONS ...................................... 1438
                       (b) ALLOCATION OF PROGRAMS .................................... 1439
                       (c) ALCORN STATE UNIVERSITY (ASU) ............................. 1439
                       (d) JACKSON STATE UNIVERSITY (JSU) ............................ 1440
                       (e) MISSISSIPPI VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY (MVSU) ................ 1440
                   2. ACCREDITATION .................................................. 1441
                PROGRAM DUPLICATION .................................................. 1441
                 A. CONTENTIONS ...................................................... 1441
                 B. OVERVIEW ......................................................... 1441
                 C. UNNECESSARY DUPLICATION .......................................... 1441
                    1. BACKGROUND .................................................... 1441
                    2. HWIs VERSUS HBIs (Percentage of Duplication) .................. 1442
                    3. UNIQUENESS .................................................... 1442
                       (a) JSU versus HWIs (Unnecessary Duplication) ................. 1442
                       (b) ASU versus HWIs (Unnecessary Duplication) ................. 1442
                       (c) MVSU versus HWIs (Unnecessary Duplication) ................ 1443
                       (d) HWIs versus HBIs (Percentage Of Unnecessary Duplication) .. 1443
                 D. PROGRAM INITIATION AND ELIMINATION ............................... 1443
                 E. OFF-CAMPUS OFFERINGS/DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITION ..................... 1444
                CONCLUSION: PROGRAM DUPLICATION; ACCREDITATION; MISSIONS ............. 1444
                 A. DUPLICATION ...................................................... 1444
                 B. ACCREDITATION .................................................... 1445
                 C. MISSIONS ......................................................... 1445
                NUMBER OF UNIVERSITIES ............................................... 1445
                 A. CONTENTIONS ...................................................... 1445
                 B. OVERVIEW ......................................................... 1446
                FUNDING POLICIES AND PRACTICES ....................................... 1446
                 A. CONTENTIONS ...................................................... 1446
                 B. PREVIOUS FINDINGS: FUNDING ....................................... 1446
                 C. FUNDING FORMULA .................................................. 1447
                     1. INSTRUCTION .................................................. 1447
                     2. RESEARCH ..................................................... 1448
                     3. PUBLIC SERVICE ............................................... 1448
                     4. ACADEMIC SUPPORT ............................................. 1448
                     5. REMAINING FORMULA COMPONENTS ................................. 1448
                 D. FORMULA IMPACT ................................................... 1449
                 E. OUTSIDE THE FORMULA FUNDING ...................................... 1451
                     1. LINE ITEM FUNDING ............................................ 1451
                
    2. ENDOWMENTS ................................................... 1451
                 F. EQUITY .......................................................... 1451
                CONCLUSION: FUNDING ................................................. 1452
                FACILITIES .......................................................... 1453
                 A. CONTENTIONS ..................................................... 1453
                 B. OVERVIEW ........................................................ 1453
                 C. BACKGROUND ...................................................... 1453
                    1. FACILITIES/PROJECT FUNDING ................................... 1453
                    2. PREVIOUS FINDINGS — CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUNDING ............. 1454
                    3. PREVIOUS FINDINGS — REPAIR AND RENOVATION FUNDING ............ 1454
                    4. ALLOCATION OF FACILITIES RESOURCES TODAY ..................... 1454
                 D. QUALITY ......................................................... 1456
                    1. PREVIOUS FINDINGS ON "INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTER" ............... 1456
                    2. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS ON "INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTER" ............. 1456
                 E. LIBRARIES ....................................................... 1456
                 F. EQUIPMENT ....................................................... 1457
                 G. LAND ............................................................ 1457
                 H. FOOTBALL STADIUM ................................................ 1457
                 I. FACILITIES AND STUDENT CHOICE ................................... 1457
                CONCLUSION: FACILITIES .............................................. 1457
                EMPLOYMENT .......................................................... 1459
                 A. CONTENTIONS ..................................................... 1459
                 B. OVERVIEW ........................................................ 1459
                 C. RACIAL IDENTIFIABILITY .......................................... 1459
                 D. FACULTY SALARIES ................................................ 1459
                 E. RANK AND TENURE ................................................. 1460
                 F. RECRUITMENT ..................................................... 1460
                    1. PREVIOUS FINDINGS — RECRUITMENT AND HIRING ................... 1460
                    2. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS — RECRUITMENT AND HIRING ................. 1460
                    3. QUALIFIED POOL ............................................... 1461
                    4. DEFENDANTS' EFFORTS IN MINORITY EMPLOYMENT ................... 1462
                CONCLUSION: EMPLOYMENT .............................................. 1462
                LAND GRANT .......................................................... 1463
                 A. CONTENTIONS ..................................................... 1463
                 B. OVERVIEW ........................................................ 1463
                 C. BACKGROUND ...................................................... 1463
                    1. RESIDENT INSTRUCTION ......................................... 1464
                    2. RESEARCH ..................................................... 1465
                    3. EXTENSION .................................................... 1465
                CONCLUSION: LAND GRANT .............................................. 1466
                CLIMATE ............................................................. 1466
                 A. CONTENTIONS ..................................................... 1466
                 B. OVERVIEW ........................................................ 1466
                 C. RACIAL CLIMATE IN GENERAL
...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
  • Equity v. Md. Higher Educ. Comm'n
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • November 8, 2017
    ...updated its findings of fact in light of the legal standard articulated in Fordice and entered a remedial decree. Ayers v. Fordice , 879 F.Supp. 1419 (N.D. Miss. 1995), aff'd , 99 F.3d 1136 (5th Cir. 1996), and aff'd in part , rev'd in part , 111 F.3d 1183 (5th Cir. 1997) (hereinafter " Aye......
  • Ayers v. Thompson
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • January 27, 2004
    ...of segregation with continued segregative effects in several areas of Mississippi's higher-education system. See Ayers v. Fordice, 879 F.Supp. 1419, 1477 (N.D.Miss.1995). To reform these areas, consistent with the Supreme Court's emphasis on educational soundness and practicability, the dis......
  • Ayers v. Fordice, 95-60431
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • April 23, 1997
    ...availability and library allocations, program duplication, land grant programs, and number of universities. Ayers v. Fordice, 879 F.Supp. 1419, 1477 (N.D.Miss.1995) (Ayers II ). 6 The district court entered a remedial decree on March 7, 1995. The remedial decree enjoins defendants from main......
  • Ayers v. Fordice, 4:75CV009-B-0.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi
    • March 24, 1999
    ...As previously stated, the colleges and universities themselves have no constitutional right to be enhanced. Ayers v. Fordice, 879 F.Supp. 1419, 1429-30 (N.D.Miss.1995). THE FUNDING OF AYERS Since the Remedial Decree of this court was entered in 1995, the court has not ordered specific amoun......
  • Get Started for Free
2 provisions