US v. State of La.

Decision Date02 August 1988
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 80-3300.
Citation692 F. Supp. 642
PartiesUNITED STATES of America v. STATE OF LOUISIANA, et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

Wm. Bradford Reynolds, Asst. Atty. Gen. for Civil Rights, Nathaniel Douglas, Franz R. Marshall, T.A., LeVern M. Younger, Zita Johnson-Betts, Educational Opportunities Section, Civil Rights Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.

Mack E. Barham, T.A., Margaret E. Woodward, Lynette F. Judge, Barham & Churchill, New Orleans, La., for Bd. of Regents.

Robert A. Kutcher, T.A., Jan Marie Hayden, Julia Mandala, Bronfin, Heller, Steinberg & Berins, New Orleans, La., for Bd. of Trustees.

W. Shelby McKenzie, T.A., Nancy C. Tyler, Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Phillips, Baton Rouge, La., for Bd. of Sup'rs of LSU.

Henry N. Brown Jr., Dist. Atty., Benton, La., for Bossier Parish School Bd.

William J. Guste Jr., Atty. Gen., Winston G. DeCuir, T.A., Chief, Civ. Div., Loretto M. Babst, Asst. Atty. Gen., Russell R. Hodges II, Staff Atty., John N. Kennedy, Sp. Counsel to the Governor, Baton Rouge, La., for State of La. and for Bd. of Elementary and Secondary Educ.

Thomas N. Todd, Chicago, Ill., for amicus curiae Grambling State Univ. Alumni Ass'n.

Before WISDOM, Circuit Judge, and SCHWARTZ and WICKER, District Judges.

ORDER AND REASONS

CHARLES SCHWARTZ, Jr., District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of liability. For the following reason, the Court now GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART plaintiff's motion, GRANTS motions of defendants Bossier Parish School Board and BESE, and DENIES all other defendants' motions.

This is a college discrimination suit. Alleging that Louisiana had been maintaining a dual system of public higher education on the basis of race in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the United States commenced this suit in March 1974 against the State of Louisiana and its various State boards that oversee the State's public institutions of higher learning. In September 1981, the Court approved a consent judgment, 527 F.Supp. 509. In December 1987, the United States moved pursuant to certain terms in the decree for hearing to determine whether defendants have fully implemented all provisions of the decree and are operating a unitary system of public higher education. The Court has set the trial (both for this issue of liability and, if liability is found, for the issue of remedy) for September 1988.

Each side asserting that no trial is needed on the issue of liability, both sides now cross-move for summary judgment on this issue. All agree that the State operated a de jure segregated system of public higher education prior to the enactment of Title VI and has not implemented all provisions of the 1981 decree and that most all of the State's public institutions of higher learning remain racially identifiable; beyond this, however, the parties disagree. On the one hand, the United States, along with the predominantly black institutions, argues that unlawful vestiges of State's former de jure segregated system will remain unless the State spends the additional money contemplated under the decree. On the other hand, the State argues that the full implementation of the decree provisions would actually promote segregation and that the State has implemented sufficient good faith efforts at ending the dual system so as to warrant a dismissal of the entire case.

For the instant motions, the parties have submitted hundreds of pages of briefs and exhibits. Unfortunately, the parties have concentrated the vast bulk of their efforts on the issue of remedy and on an improper standard of liability. As explained below, the Court finds, except as to the Bossier Parish Community College and the St. Bernard Parish Community College, that Louisiana is continuing to operate an unlawful, dual system of public higher education in violation of Title VI.

I.
A.

The material facts for the issue of liability are not in dispute. Up to at least 1954, Louisiana had a system of higher education segregated by race under state law. Not until some time after the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did Louisiana discontinue its official recognition of its institutions of higher education as being either for "whites" or for "blacks." The present admissions policies to all of Louisiana's public institutions of higher education no longer discriminate on the basis of race or otherwise; any Louisiana citizen who has graduated high school may attend the Louisiana public college of his choice, regardless of the person's academic qualifications. All parties agree that "publicly financed higher education in Louisiana is paid for primarily with state and federal funds" and that Louisiana's state-supported colleges and universities have and continue to receive federal funds.

Louisiana has twenty institutions1 of higher education each of which is under the supervision of the Board of Regents and one of the three other higher education boards. The four institutions that were originally established as "black" schools (Southern University-Baton Rouge, Southern University-New Orleans, Southern University-Shreveport/Bossier City, and Grambling State University)2 remain predominantly black. The eleven institutions that were originally established as "white" schools (LSU-Baton Rouge, LSU-Shreveport, UNO, LSU Law School, Louisiana Tech University, McNeese State University, Nicholls State University, Northeast Louisiana University, Northwestern State University, Southeastern Louisiana State, and the University of Southwestern Louisiana)3 remain predominantly, and disproportionately, white. Four of the other schools (LSU-Alexandria, LSU-Eunice, LSU Medical Center, and LSU Agricultural Center), whose full histories have not been provided to this Court, are all predominantly, and disproportionately, white. Only one institution, Delgado Community College, appears not to have a student body of predominantly one race.4 The enrollment statistics by race for 1981, when the consent decree was implemented, and 1987, the last year of the consent decree, are as follows:5

                                                    1981                                      1987
                                    BLACK             WHITE       TOTAL         BLACK           WHITE        TOTAL
                                   #      %         #      %                   #      %        #      %
                        DELGADO  3,371  40.1%     4,348  51.7%     8,404     2,270  32.0%    4,133  58.3%     7,094
                      GRAMBLING  3,777  98.5%        44   1.1%     3,834     5,435  96.7%      180   3.2%     5,623
                        LA TECH  1,194  11.6%     8,489  82.5%    10,288     1,132  11.4%    7,492  75.1%     9,970
                        McNEESE  1,062  15.3%     5,706  82.2%     6,943       970  13.2%    6,255  85.0%     7,359
                       NICHOLLS  1,068  15.0%     5,954  83.6%     7,119       857  12.1%    6,060  85.9%     7,057
                      NORTHEAST  2,431  22.0%     8,544  77.2%    11,071     1,543  15.6%    8,165  82.7%     9,877
                   NORTHWESTERN  1,296  19.4%     4,448  66.6%     6,682     1,263  20.7%    4,494  73.8%     6,090
                   SOUTHEASTERN  1,112  12.6%     7,633  86.2%     8,854       518   6.4%    7,423  91.8%     8,089
                   SOUTHWESTERN  2,380  17.4%    10,931  79.8%    13,702     2,523  17.8%   11,195  79.0%    14,172
                          LSU A    151   9.9%     1,357  88.8%     1,528       202  10.0%    1,762  88.2%     2,020
                         LSU BR  1,688   6.3%    22,832  84.7%    26,964     2,027   7.9%   22,714  88.0%    25,821
                          LSU E    237  15.5%     1,283  84.0%     1,528       198  11.5%    1,510  87.8%     1,720
                        LSU LAW     16   1.9%       830  96.1%       864         6   0.8%      689  96.0%       718
                          LSU S    315   7.6%     3,803  91.5%     4,155       359   8.2%    3,871  88.9%     4,353
                           UND   2,491  16.1%    11,519  74.6%    15,432     2,448  15.5%   12,121  76.5%    15,836
                          SU BR  7,655  86.4%       228   2.6%     8,855     8,654  92.7%      438   4.7%     9,338
                          SU NO  1,994  82.4%        11   0.5%     2,420     3,185  87.1%      400  10.9%     3,657
                           SU S    661  99.8%         1   0.2%       662       308  94.5%       41   4.8%       855
                          TOTAL 32,899  23.6%    97,961  70.3%   139,305    34,398  24.6%   98,963   70.9%  139,649
                

Despite the slight increase in black enrollment statewide, the racial polarization has increased as a whole during the term of the consent decree: the predominantly white institutions had about 2000 fewer black students in 1987 than in 1981, while the predominantly black institutions showed only a negligible increase in white enrollment from around 0.3% in 1981 to around 1.1% in 1987. In 1981, around 55% of the black students enrolled at institutions of public higher education in the state were enrolled at predominantly white institutions, while in 1987 the corresponding figure fell significantly to about 47%.

Further, a close look at the documents submitted to the Court pursuant to the consent decree suggest that even these abysmal statistics may inaccurately suggest a better racial balance than is reality. Under the consent decree, an exchange student who takes only nine credit hours at another school may be counted as being a full-time student enrolled at that other school,6 even though the regular state requirement for full-time credit is at least twelve hours of school work. Further, under the decree, an exchange program between UNO and SUNO, among other exchange programs between other proximate state schools, was established. As the program was implemented, certain courses required for graduation at UNO could only be taken at SUNO,7 although there was not a reciprocal requirement for SUNO students.8 The effect, then, was to have UNO (white) students being forced to take occasional classes at SUNO and being counted towards SUNO's voluntary student enrollment, thereby giving a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Ass'n of Mexican-American Educators v. State of Cal.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • 25 Agosto 1993
    ...(State of Michigan as Title VI defendant); Knight v. Alabama, 787 F.Supp. 1030, 1361-65 (N.D.Ala.1991); United States v. Louisiana, 692 F.Supp. 642, 650-53 (E.D.La.1988). The consistent understanding, as reflected by cases such as these, is that a state may be sued under Title VI, at least ......
  • Ayers v. Allain
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 6 Febrero 1990
    ...Virginia v. Norris, 404 U.S. 907, 92 S.Ct. 227, 30 L.Ed.2d 180 (1971); Geier v. Alexander, 801 F.2d 799 (6th Cir.1986); U.S. v. Louisiana, 692 F.Supp. 642 (E.D.La.1988); Sanders v. Elligton, 288 F.Supp. 937 (M.D.Tenn.1968). In the present case, however, the district court applied a differen......
  • United States v. State
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • 17 Septiembre 2019
    ...970 F.2d 94, 96 (5th Cir. 1992) ; United States v. Lovett , 416 F.2d 386, 390 n.4, 391 n.5 (8th Cir. 1969) ; United States v. Louisiana , 692 F. Supp. 642, 649–50 (E.D. La. 1988), vacated on other grounds by 751 F. Supp. 606 (E.D. La. 1990) ; United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ. , 518 F. S......
  • Johnson v. Martin, Case No. 2:00-CV-75.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • 26 Septiembre 2002
    ...funding to provide English language tutoring because of its interest in preventing racial discrimination); United States v. Louisiana, 692 F.Supp. 642, 652 (E.D.La.1988) (upholding prohibition on racial discrimination by state public higher education system receiving federal public educatio......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT