United States v. Mabus Brief Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner

    •-••>'■  V» '

In The r e c f i v e d
Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 1990 P8;04

UNITED STATES OF ^

Petitioner,
■RAL

V.

RAY MABUS, et a l .

Respondents.

MRS. JAKE B. AYERS, SR. et al..

Petitioners,
V.

RAY MABUS, et al..

Respondents.

On Writ O f Certiorari To The United States 
Court Of Appeals For The Fifth Circuit

AM ICUS BRIEF OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 
IN SUPPORT OF UNITED STATES

C harles W. Burson*
Attorney General and Reporter 
State of Tennessee

John Knox Walkup 
Solicitor General

^Counsel of Record

C hristine Modisher 
Assistant Attorney General 
450 James Robertson Parkway 
Nashville, Tennessee 37243-0485 
(615) 741-4710

COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO., (800) 225.6964 
OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831

V-
<
i'
iEbj



1

QUESTION PRESENTED

What is the scope of the duty under the Fourteenth 
Amendment to the United States Constitution of a state 
which formerly operated a de jure segregated system of 
higher education?



11

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

INTEREST OF AMICUS STA TE........................................  1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE..............................................  2

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT..............................................  2

ARGUMENT.............................................................................. 3

I. THE SCOPE OF THE DUTY UNDER THE FOUR­
TEENTH AM ENDM ENT TO THE UN ITED 
STATES CONSTITUTION OF A STATE WHICH 
OPERATED A DE JURE SEGREGATED SYSTEM 
OF HIGHER EDUCATION INCLUDES ELIM­
INATING THE PRESENT EFFECTS OF PAST 
SEGREGATION.................................................................  3

II. THE SCOPE OF A STATE'S REMEDIAL DUTY IS 
DETERMINED BY THE SCOPE OF THE STATE'S 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION.............................  7

CONCLUSION.........................................................................  13

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page

Cases C ited

Alabama State Teacher Association v. Alabama Public 
School and College Authority, 289 F.Supp. 784 
(M.D. Ala. 1968), aff'd per curiam, 393 U.S. 400 
(1969)............................................................. ...............................8

Ayers v. Allain, 914 F.2d 676 (5th Cir. 1990).....................6

Bazemore v. Friday, 751 F.2cl 662 (4th Cir. 1984).............7

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1 9 8 6 )...................  3, 6, 7

Board of Education o f Oklahoma City Public Schools v.
Dowell, 111 S.Ct. 630 (1991)...................................  12

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) 5, 6, 10

Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1955 )___4, 5

Geier v. Alexander, 801 F.2d 799 (6th Cir. 1986).. 2, 6, 9, 11

Geier v. Blanton, 427 F.Supp. 644 (M.D. Tenn. 1977)___10

Geier v. University of Tennessee, 597 F.2d 1056 (6th 
Cir. 1 9 7 9 ) ...........................................................2, 8, 9, 10, 11

Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430 (1968) ..  .3, 4

Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara
County, CA, 480 U.S. 616 (1987)......................................  12

Louisiana v. United States, 380 U.S. 145 (1 9 6 5 ).... 3, 4, 6

Pasadena City Board of Education v. Spangler, 427
U.S. 424 (1976)............................................  ...................g, 12

Plessy V. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).........................5, 10



iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES -  Continued
Page

Sanders v. Ellington, 288 F.Supp. 937 (M.D. Tenn.
1968)........................................................................................ 9, 10

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education,
402 U.S. 1 (1971 )...............................................................8, 12

Sweatt V. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950)................................. 5

U.S. V. Paradise, 480 U.S. 149 (1987)............................... 4, 5

United Steelworkers, etc. v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193 
(1979)..........................................................................................  12

No. 90-1205 and No. 90-6588

In The

Supreme Court of the United States
October Term, 1990

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner,
V.

RAY MABUS, et a I.,

Respondents.

MRS. JAKE B. AYERS, SR. et al..

Petitioners,

RAY MABUS, et al.

Respondents.

On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States 
Court Of Appeals For The Fifth Circuit

---------------- 4-----------------

AMICUS BRIEF OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 
IN SUPPORT OF UNITED STATES

INTEREST OF AMICUS STATE

The State of Tennessee, its Governor, the Tennessee 
Board of Regents, the University of Tennessee, and the 
Tennessee Higher Education Commission, as defendants 
in the higher education desegregation case now styled



Geier v. McWherter, have definite and substantial interest 
in the outcome of this case. One basis of the petitions for 
certiorari by the United States and by petitioners Ayers, 
et al., is that the Fifth Circuit's ruling in this case is in 
conflict with the law of the Sixth Circuit as set forth in 
Geier v. University of Tennessee, 597 F.2d 1056 (6th Cir. 
1979) and Geier v. Alexander, 801 F.2d 799 (6th Cir. 1986). 
The decision in this case will have direct effect on the 
Tennessee desegregation litigation in Geier.

Tennessee can provide assistance to this Court in this 
case because of Tennessee's experience in Geier over the 
last twenty-three years.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The amicus state adopts the statement of the case as 
presented by the United States in its petition for cer­
tiorari.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The duty of a state which formerly operated a segre­
gated system of higher education in violation of the Four­
teenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is to 
cease the discrimination and to eliminate the present 
effects of that past discrimination. The scope of a state's 
remedial duty in this context is determined by the scope 
of the state's constitutional violation.

No set rules are applicable to every situation. How­
ever, a system of higher education has fulfilled its consti­
tutional duty when:

-  all facilities are equal,

-  program duplication has been eliminated at 
formerly white and black institutions in the 
same geographical area,

-  admission requirements do not perpetuate 
substandard academic quality at formerly 
black institutions,

-  governing boards are integrated,

-  affirmative action in hiring and promotion 
decisions have produced results and promise 
to continue to do so.

ARGUMENT

I. THE SCOPE OF THE DUTY UNDER THE FOUR­
TEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES 
CONSTITUTION OF A STATE WHICH OPERATED 
A DE JURE SEGREGATED SYSTEM OF HIGHER 
EDUCATION INCLUDES ELIMINATING THE PRE­
SENT EFFECTS OF PAST SEGREGATION.

It is the position of the amicus state that the duty of a 
state which formerly operated a de jure segregated sys­
tem of higher education is not solely controlled by either 
Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430 (1968) or 
Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986). Rather, the duty of 
a state which operated a segregated system of higher 
education in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment is 
controlled by Louisiana v. United States, 380 U.S. 145 
(1965).



The duty of a court to fashion remedies in race dis­
crim ination  cases brought u nder the Fou rteenth  
Amendment was stated in Louisiana v. United Stales, 380 
U.S. at 154. In this voting rights case, this Court stated 
that "the [district] court has not merely the power but the 
duty to render a decree which will so far as possible 
eliminate the discriminatory effects of the past as well as 
bar like discrimination in the future." This aspect of the 
decision has been applied in a variety of other Fourteenth 
Amendment race discrimination cases.

In the context of desegregation of public elementary 
and secondary education, this Court relied upon Louisi­
ana in Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. at 438. In 
Green, the Court noted Louisiana and held that Brown v. 
Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1955) {Brown II), com­
m an d ed  th a t " s ta t e - c o m p e l le d  d u a l s y s te m s  
were . . . clearly charged with the affirmative duty to take 
whatever steps might be necessary to convert to a unitary 
system in which racial discrimination would be elimi­
nated root and branch." Green, 391 U.S. at 438. Green held 
that a "freedom of choice" plan for students was not an 
end in itself but rather a means to a constitutionally 
required end of segregation and its effects. Where a "free­
dom of choice" plan did not produce the desired effects, 
something more was required. Id., 391 U.S. at 439.

This Court also relied upon Louisiana in U.S. v. Para­
dise, 480 U.S. 149, 183 (1987) for the proposition that a 
district court has the duty to render a decree which will 
eliminate the discriminatory effects of the past. Paradise 
was a race discrimination in employment case brought 
under the Fourteenth Amendment. In Paradise, this Court 
upheld a court-ordered race-conscious affirmative action

plan designed to redress past race discrimination in 
hiring and promotion by the Alabama Department of 
Public Safety. In fact, this Court stated: "The government 
unquestionably has a compelling interest in remedying 
past and present discrimination by a state actor." Id at 
167.

In the landmark case of Brown v. Board o f Education, 
347 U.S. 483, 495 (1954) {Brown I) this Court concluded 
that "in the field of public education the doctrine of 
separate but equal has no place. Separate educational 

facilities are inherently unequal." This Court concluded 
that segregated education deprived black students of 
equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Four­
teenth Amendment. This Court in Brown I referred gener­
ally to public education" and no one can seriously 
dispute that this doctrine applies with equal force to 
public post-secondary education.’

In Brown II, 349 U.S. at 301, this Court noted that 
school systems must "effectuate a transition to a racially 
nondiscriminatory school system." In this context, the 
Court mentioned the physical condition of school plants, 
the school transportation system, personnel, and a system 
of determining admission to public schools on a non- 
racial basis. Id.

In Brown I this Court discussed several prior cases deal­
ing with segregation in higher education. Specifically it was 
noted that in Sweait v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950), the question 
Whether Plessy v. Fcrpison, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) should be held 
inapp icablc to public education was expressly reserved.



It would be illogical and contrary to all precedent to 
say that this same duty does not apply to race discrimina­
tion in public higher education. A state which in the past 
operated a de jure system of higher education has a duty 
under the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate the pre­
sent effects of that past discrimination.

In Geier v. Alexander, 801 F.2d 799 (6th Cir. 1986) the 
Sixth Circuit upheld a pre-professional program for black 
undergraduate stu d ents. The Court d istingu ished  
Bazemore based on the greater value of advanced educa­
tion as compared with high school clubs. This reasoning 
of the Sixth Circuit was criticized by the Fifth Circuit in 
Ayers v. Allain, 914 F.2d 676 (5th Cir. 1990).

It is true that states have great interest in the educa­
tion of their citizens. See Brown I. However, the source of 
the duty to remedy present effects of past de jure segrega­
tion does not rest on the relative merits of elementary and 
secondary education compared with post-secondary edu­
cation. The source of the duty is the Fourteenth Amend­
ment as interpreted in Louisiana and the compelling 
interest of the state in remedying past and present dis­
crimination by a state actor.

This Court's decision in Bazemore is not inconsistent 
with this line of cases. In Bazemore, this Court held in a 
Title VII claim that the state was required to remedy 
present racially discriminatory salaries resulting from 
past race discrimination. Bazemore, 478 U.S. at 397. With 
regard to 4-H and Extension Homemaker Clubs for high 
school students, the Fourth Circuit had found that there 
was no evidence that anyone was denied membership or 
services or provided inferior services because of their

race. Bazemore v. Friday, 751 F.2d 662 (4th Cir. 1984). This 
ourt noted that there was no current violation of the 

Fourteenth Amendment since prior discriminatory prac-

doiTcv d a neutral admissions
policy adopted. Bazemore, 478 U.S. at 408. In essence all
discrimination and its effects caused by the state had been 
remedied. There was no proof of racially-biased services 
or admission requirements.

Bazemore is factually distinguishable from formerly 
e jure segregated state systems of higher education. In 

higher education, the "disease" of de jure segregation can 
be much more widespread and include inferior facilities 
segregated faculties, program duplication, and differing 
student admission requirements. None of these factors 
were present in Bazemore. For these reasons, it is the 
suggestion of the amicus state that it is the duty of a state 
which operated a de jure system of higher education in 
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to cease the dis­
crimination and to remedy the present effects of the past 
discriminatory actions, ^

” ■ ™ ,!  SCOPE OF A STATE'S REMEDIAL DUTY rs
d e t e r m in e d  b y  t h e  s c o p e  o f  t h e  I
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION ®

r. a amicus state that the duty to
s i r f t ;d  discrimination is
alisfied when the state has placed in compliance with

u n d e rT h ? ? ','’ - - P - ' s  of the system
Phan e ■ ?  * determination of com-
Phance „,i| depend on the facts of each case, general

ines can and should be drawn by this Court.



The state or other body which originally imposed de 
jure segregation has the affirmative obligation to remedy 
the effects of that discrimination. Judicial authority enters 
only when the state or local authority defaults. It is well- 
established with equity cases that the nature of the viola- 
Uon determines the scope of the judicial remedy. Swann v 
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U S 1 16 
(1971). This principle is tied in part "to the necessity of 
establishing that school authorities have in some manner 
caused unconstitutional segregation, for 'absent a consti­
tutional violation there would be no basis for judicially 
ordering [a remedy].' " Pasadena City Board o f Education v.

er, 427 U.S. 424, 434 (1976) citing Swann, 402 U.S. at 
8. Thus the scope of the remedy must be determined by

looking at the nature of the original constitutional viola­
tion by the state.

Various courts have noted the differences between 
e ementary and secondary education on the one hand and 
higher education on the other. See Geier v. University of

I Z T t . T  ’ 979), cert. d e L d ,
At h 886 (1979); Alabama State Teachers Association v.
v Z  r Z Z  Authority, 289 F.Supp.

• D. Ala. 1968), aff'd per curiam, 393 U.S. 400 (1969).

a^ssfi^ n t/T  ^""’ .^°"^P^Jsory and pupils are 
assigned to particular schools. The other is
pure y elective, requires the payment of tuition 
and fees, and permits students to choose a par- 
dcular school for a variety of reasons. Most ele­
mentary and secondary schools are roughly 
equal ,n curriculum and facilities whereas indi-
thf (5° universities vary greatly in
their offerings and emphasis. ^

Ceier v. University o f Tennessee, 597 F 2d at 106-1 r  

higher ecfucation

unif„:.r, are'^no,

These differences, however, do not result in .  i 

R a T r° T s f  d ?  d iscrim ln ato "

responsible for public higher educaflon do g a,lv have 

offered by e lh 'T n s m u 'ro n .'^ u S rn f  ̂ r a ^ e

and in student recruitment. ^ ^

example of the effectiveness 
hio6 Z ‘̂ ^segregation remedies in the context of 
higher educa,ion can be found in Tennessee. , 7 ^ 1

hee'n elim^il^e^ lo T ta rg e  ^ t n , '

slales'''o aod secondary educalion in many

aippi and d i e l T ' * " ’' Tennessee, Missis-
In Tennessee th er"l racially segregated by law.
nfod by e s e fo learning oper-

Sfate u 7 i?er;i,y  7
"00 Agricultural and Industrial St
“■ EHmgfen, 288 F.Supp 9 ^  940 7Fp. y j / ,  y40 (M.D. Tenn. 1968). The



10

state statute creating T.S.U. stated that its purpose was 
" . . .  to train negro students in agriculture, home eco­
nomics, trades and industry, and to prepare teachers for 
the elementary and high schools for negroes in the state." 
Geier v. Blanton, 427 F.Supp. 644, 645 n. 2 (M.D. Tenn. 
1977) citing Tenn. Code Ann. §49-3206. Compulsory racial 
segregation in all Tennessee institutions of higher learn­
ing was first mandated by Article II, §12 of the Tennessee 
Constitution of 1870. In 1901 Tennessee became the first 
state to enact criminal statutes requiring racial segrega­
tion in all public and private colleges. Geier v. University 
of Tennessee, 597 F.2d at 1058 n. 1. As the district court 
noted in 1968;

Prior to the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. 
Board o f Education in 1954 the public educational 
system in Tennessee operated under one-half of 
the decision of the Supreme court in Plessy v. 
Ferguson of 1896 . . . The races were certainly 
kept separate in the schools; but I would assume 
that no one would argue in good faith that the 
schools were equal.

Sanders v. Ellington, 288 F.Supp. at 939.

Desegregation of Tennessee higher education has 
been under the Court's jurisdiction since 1968 -  twenty- 
three years. This litigation resulted in an order to merge 
Tennessee State University, the formerly black school in 
Nashville, with University of Tennessee Nashville -  a 
predominantly white school about five miles from T.S.U. 
Geier v. Blanton, 427 F.Supp. 644 (M.D. Tenn. 1977), a ff’d 
Geier v. University o f Tennessee. This was permissible, 
according to the Sixth Circuit, because the defendants 
had failed to dismantle the state-wide dual system, the

11

"heart" of which was an all black T.S.U. Geier v. University 
of Tennessee, 597 F.2d at 1067.

In 1984 all the parties to the litigation with the excep­
tion of the United States entered a "Stipulation of Settle­
ment" which was approved by the Court. The Stipulation 
is reported in Geier v. Alexander, 593 F.Supp. 1263, 1267 
(M.D. Tenn. 1984), aff'd 801 F.2d 799 (6th Cir. 1986). This 
Stipulation addresses student recruitment and retention, 
open admissions to two-year institutions, changes in 
admission and retention requirements for four-year 
schools and racially identifiable institutional image. In 
the area of employment, the Stipulation requires that 
other race employment goals be set for each institution 
and that a variety of programs be implemented to train, 
recruit, and employ other race faculty and administra­
tors. The Stipulation also addresses Tennessee State Uni­
versity and the two other four-year institutions in Middle 
Tennessee. It provides for improvement in the facilities at 
T.S.U., elimination of program duplication, and enhance­
ment of program offerings at T.S.U.

Significant effort has been made by the State of Ten­
nessee under this stipulation and the results have been 
dramatic. By fall, 1990 nearly $39,000,000 had been appro­
priated to fund an ambitious master plan to improve the 
acihties at T.S.U. An additional $9,000,000 was recom­

mended for fiscal year 1991 to fund other desegregation 
activities under the Stipulation. (1991 Desegregation 

rogress Report, Table 17, Reproduced as Appendix A).
formerly white colleges and universities 

P oye black faculty and administrators roughly in 
oportion to their availability. More than half of the



12

formerly white schools had met their goals in black stu­
dent enrollment. (1990 Desegregation Progress Report, 
Table 1, Reproduced as Appendix B). The entire 1990 
Desegregation Progress Report has been filed with this 
Court for its consideration.

In hearing this case, this Court should consider not 
only defining the duty of public higher education to 
desegregate but also when that duty has been satisfied. 
Under this Court's recent decision in Board of Education of 
Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell, 111 S.Ct. 630, 638 
(1991), a court's jurisdiction over a desegregation case 
can be ended when there has been good faith compliance 
with the desegregation decree and when the vestiges of 
past discrimination have been eliminated to the extent 
practicable. Judicial tutelage for the indefinite future is 
not required.

Although no set rules applicable to every situation 
can be made, the amicus state urges that the parameters 
of the legal duty to desegregate be defined.

1. The state need only remedy the present effects of 
past state imposed segregation.

2. There is no constitutional right to a particular 
degree of racial balancing or mixing. Pasadena, 427 U.S. at 
434; Swann, 402 U.S. at 24.

3. Affirmative action and race-conscious remedies 
cannot be used to maintain any particular racial balance. 
United Steelworkers, etc. v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193, 208 (1979); 
Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, CA, 
480 U.S. 616, 630 (1987).

13

4. A system of higher education may be declared 
unitary and a desegregation case dismissed when:

-  all facilities are equal,

-  program duplication has been eliminated at 
formerly white and black institutions in the 
same geographical area,

-  admission requirements do not perpetuate 
substandard academic quality at formerly 
black institutions,

-  governing boards are integrated,

-  affirmative action in hiring and promotion 
decisions have produced results and promise 
to continue to do so.

The position of the amicus state is that a state's duty 
to desegregate higher education should be determined by 
the scope of the state's violation. The parameters of that 
duty under the Fourteenth Amendment and when that 
duty has been met would help guide state higher educa­
tion systems and the court.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing authorities and analysis, the 
amicus state urges this Court to reverse the decision of 
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 
and hold that a state has a duty under the Fourteenth 
 ̂ mendment to remedy the present effects of past seg- 

■ •egation in higher education. The amicus state also urges



14

this Court to give general guidelines for states and courts 
as to how this duty might be satisfied.

Respectfully submitted,

C harles W. B urson 
Attorney General and Reporter

J. Knox Walkup 
Solicitor General
C hristine Modisher 
Assistant Attorney General 
450 James Robertson Parkway 
Nashville, TN 37243-0485 
615-741-4710

APPENDIX A



lA

1990

DESEGREGATION PROGRESS REPORT

Prepared by

THE TENNESSEE HIGHER EDUCATION 
COM M ISSION

THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE 

THE TENNESSEE BOARD OF REGENTS

for the

DESEGREGATION MONITORING COMMITTEE

MAY 3, 1991



2A

[43A]
TABLE 17

COMPARISON OF COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESEGREGATION 
ACTIVITIES BY INSTITUTION, FY 88 THROUGH FY 92

APSU
ETSU
MSU
MTSU
TSU
TTU
SUBTOTAL TBR 
UNIVERSITIES
CSTCC
CLSCC
COSCC
DSCC
JSCC
MSCC
RSCC
SSCC
VSCC
WSCC
SUBTOTAL
COMM. COLLEGES
NSTCC
NSTI
PSTCC
STIM

SUBTOTAL TECH INST 
& COMM. COLLEGES 
TN BOARD OF
r e g e n t s  ADMN. 
SUBTOTAL 
TN BOARD 
OF REGENTS 
R̂ BVV:gm

FY 88 
$110,000

196.000
572.000
353.000
605.000
160.000

FY 89 
$113,000

249.000
666.000
368.000
617.000
149.000

FY 90 
$116,000

453.000
687.000
383.000 

1,207,000
153.000

FY 91 
$119,000

457.000
709.000
399.000 

1,261,000
158.000

FY 92 
$125,000
510.000
848.000
420.000 

1,469,000
164.000

$1,996,000
$71,000

15.000
39.000
25.000
52.000
17.000
15.000
42.000
21.000 
17,000

$2,162,000
$74,000

15.000
36.000
24.000
54.000
17.000
15.000
43.000
21.000 
17,000

$2,999,000
$77,000

15.000
37.000
27.000
56.000
18.000
15.000
44.000
21.000 
17,000

$3,103,000
$80,000

26,000
38.000
26.000
58.000
30.000
15.000
46.000
21.000 
28,000

$3,536,000
$84,000

28,000
39.000
27.000
60.000
32.000
25.000
47.000
25.000
30.000

$314,000 $316,000 $325,000 $368,000 $397,000
$25,000

25.000
25.000
25.000 

$100,000

$497,000

$230,000 $230,000 $230,000 $230,000 $230,000

$2,540,000 $2,708,000 $3,554,000 $3,701,000 $4,263,000



3A

[44A]

TABLE 17

COMPARISON OF COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESECRATION 
ACTIVITIES BY INSTITUTION, FY 88 THROUGH FY 92

FY88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92
UTC $237,000 $244,000 $252,000 $263,000 $274,000
UTK 676,000 685,000 713,000 743,000 807,000
UTM 184,000 190,000 195,000 202,000 209,000
SUBTOTAL $1,097,000 $1,119,000 $1,160,000 $1,208,000 $1,290,000
UTMphs $438,000 $472,000 $834,000 $837,000 $793,000
UTSl 79,000 68,000 69,000 69,000 70,000
UT Agriculture 44,000 44,000 44,000 37,000 37,000
UT Vet. Med. 45,000 46,000 68,000 70,000 91,000
UT IPS, CTAS, MTAS 0 0 0 9,000 9,000
SUBTOTAL $606,000 $630,000 $1,015,000 $1,022,000 $1,000,000
UT ADMIN $ $ $ $ $SUBTOTAL UT $1,703,000 $1,749,000 $2,175,000 $2,230,000 $2,290,000
med/ d e n / p h a r m  COND
grant PROGRAM $746,000 $871,000 $ $ $
TOTAL $4,989,000 $5,328,000 $5,729,000 $5,931,000 $6,553,000

addition to the amounts shown above; (1) For FY87, $5,225,000 was recommended for capital projects at TSU. For FY88, $746,000 was 
recommended for Campus Outside Improvements at TSU, $137,000 was recommended for Outside Lighting Installation at TSU. For FY89, 

• million was recommended for TSU capital outlay projects. For FY 90, $22.0 million was recommended for TSU capital outlay projects, 
an or FY 91, an additional $24.5 million is recommended. For FY 92, the Commission has recommended funding for TSU capital outlay 
projects totaling $24.2 million. (2) For FY86, an increase of $2 million was recommended for TSAC funding and that amount addresses 
orne of the concerns raised in Geier provision IIG.

The program was expanded to include pharmacy in FY 88. In FY 90, at ETSU and UTMphs, the Black Conditional Grant Program 
ecame a Black Tennessean Scholarship Program. The original program will remain in effect at Meharry, $310,000, and Vanderbilt, 

$20,000, for FY 91 and 92. 6 f  6 y,

The Regional Minority Teacher Education Program is recommended for third-year funding elsewhere for $250,000.



APPENDIX B



IB

[lA]
TABLE I

FALL 1988 THROUGH FALL 1990 HEADCOUNT ENROLLMENT AND EMPLOYMENT IN TENNESSEE 
PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS AND ENROLLMENT AND EMPLOYMENT OBJECTIVES

FALL 1988

in stitu tio n s & EMPLOYEES TOTAL ENROLL. BLACK WHITE OTHER
%

BLACK

t b r  u n iv e r sit ie s

APSU Undergraduates 4,775 770 3,774 231 16.13%
Graduates 393 31 351 11 7.89%

Total 5,168 801 4,125 242 15.50%
Administrators 28 3 25 0 10.71%

Faculty 200 13 178 9 6.50%
Professionals 78 6 72 0 7.69%

ETSU Undergraduates 9,218 228 8,554 436 2.47%
Graduates 1,536 44 1,363 129 2.86%

Total 10,754 272 9,917 565 2.53%
Administrators 59 4 55 0 6.78%

Faculty 429 12 404 13 2.80%
Professionals 105 4 101 0 3.81%

ETSU MED. Medicine 229 24 188 17 10.48%
Administrators 10 1 8 1 10.00%

Faculty 135 2 121 12 1.48%

MSU
Professionals 65 1 63 1 1.54%

Undergraduates 16,179 3,004 12,841 334 18.57%
Graduates 3,682 423 3,045 214 11.49%

Law 409 31 372 6 7.58%
Total 20,270 3,458 16,258 554 17.06%

Administrators 125 13 111 1 10.40%
Faculty 752 42 667 43 5.59%

mtsu
Professionals 317 38 272 7 11.99%

Undergraduates 11,850 1,042 10,568 240 8.79%
Graduates 1,315 69 1,202 44 5.25%

Total 13,165 1,111 11,770 284 8.44%
Administrators 52 3 48 1 5.77%

Faculty 489 34 437 18 6.95%
Professionals 79 8 71 0 10.13%



2B

FALL 1989

ŝtitutions

]br universities

APSU

ETSU

ETSU MED.

MSU

MTSU

)ENT LEVELS 
EMPLOYEES TOTAL ENROLL. BLACK WHITE OTHER

%
BLACK

Undergraduates 5,891 1,066 4,462 363 18.10%
Graduates 401 29 361 11 7.21 %

Total 6,292 1,095 4,823 374 17.40%

Administrators 29 4 25 0 13.79%
Faculty 210 17 185 8 8.10%

Professionals 86 7 79 0 8.14%

Undergraduates 9,643 276 8,916 451 2.86%
Graduates 1,542 32 1,374 136 2.08%

Total 11,185 308 10,290 587 2.75%

Administrators 63 5 58 0 7.94%
Faculty 436 14 410 12 3.21 %

Professionals n o 9 101 0 8.18%

Medicine 226 24 186 16 10.62%

Administrators 10 2 8 0 20.00%
Faculty 125 2 113 10 1.60%

Professionals 58 1 57 0 1.72%

Undergraduates 16,312 3,064 12,932 316 18.78%
Graduates 3,862 397 3,204 261 10.28%

Law 439 30 405 4 6.83%
Total 20,613 3,491 16,541 581 16.94%

Administrators 125 18 106 1 14.40%
Faculty 770 43 673 54 5.58%

Professionals 351 47 295 9 13.39%

Undergraduates 12,744 1,170 11,301 273 9.18%
Graduates 1,392 81 1,257 54 5.82%

Total 14,136 1,251 12,558 327 8.85%

Administrators 49 5 43 1 10.20%
Faculty 515 34 459 22 6.60%

Professionals 107 10 97 0 9.35%



Is^STlTUTlONS

STUDENT
LEVELS

&c
EMPLOYEES

TOTAL
ENROLL.

3B

FALL 1990

BLACK WHITE OTHER
%

BLACK

OBJECT.
1990-91

%OTHER
RACE

LONG-RNGE 
OBJECT. 
%OTHER 

RACE 
(SEE ****)

IliK UNIVERSITIES

APSU

ETSU

ETSU MED.

MSU

MTSU

Undergraduates 5,971 1,077 4,616 278 18.04% 17.00 17.00
Graduates 376 26 345 5 6.91% 6.03 8.42

Total 6,347 1,103 4,961 283 17.38%
Administrators 27 3 24 0 11.11% 9.70

Faculty 222 17 195 10 7.66% 5.30
Professionals 85 12 73 0 14.12% 11.60

Undergraduates 9,761 307 8,993 461 3.15% 3.35 4.00
Graduates 1,597 37 1,409 151 2.32% 3.10 3.10

Total 11,358 344 10,402 612 3.03%
Administrators 58 3 55 0 5.17% 4.80

Faculty 441 13 416 12 2.95% 3.00
Professionals 119 10 109 0 8.40% 6.30

Medicine 236 29 194 13 12.29% 8.10 8.10
Administrators 8 2 6 0 25.00% 15.00

Faculty 90 3 80 7 3.,33% 2.90
Professionals 60 1 58 1 1.67% 6.30

Undergraduates 16,209 3,263 12,627 319 20.13% 30.15 40.40
Graduates 4,049 475 3,297 277 11.73% 20.60 26.56

Law 430 28 400 2 6.51% 9.00 9.60
Total 20,688 3,766 16,324 598 18.20%

Administrators 118 16 100 2 13.56% 15.90
Faculty 775 45 678 52 5.81% 5.00

Professionals 360 47 304 9 13.06% 12.70
Undergraduates 13,428 1,250 11,866 312 9.31% 9.61 11.50

Graduates 1,437 70 1,299 68 4.87% 7.50 9.00
Total 14,865 1,320 13,165 380 8.88%

Administrators 51 8 42 1 15.69% 11.10
Faculty 556 40 488 28 7.19% 6.90

Professionals 119 14 105 0 11.76% 7.10



4B

[2A]
TABLE I

PAI L 1988 THROUGH FALL 1990 HEADCOUNT ENROLLMENT AND EMPLOYMENT IN TENNESSEE 
PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS AND ENROLLMENT AND EMPLOYMENT OBJECTIVES

FALL 1988

ssTiTL'TlONS
STUDENT LEVELS 

& EMPLOYEES TOTAL ENROLL. BLACK WHITE OTHER
%

BLACK

ISL'— Undergraduates 6,440 4,354 1,851 235 67.61%
Graduates 913 262 607 44 28.70%

Total 7,353 4,616 2,458 279 62.78%

Administrators 34 25 8 1 73.53%
Faculty 328 158 136 34 48.17%

Professionals 123 98 24 1 79.67%

n u Undergraduates 7,001 223 6,629 149 3.19%
Graduates 900 34 761 105 3.78%

Total 7,901 257 7,390 254 3.25%

Administrators 70 4 63 3 5.71%
Faculty 330 15 282 33 4.55%

Professionals 124 13 108 3 10.48%
K)TAL tbr Undergraduates 55,463 9,621 44,217 1,625 17.35%

LNIV. Graduates 8,739 863 7,329 547 9.88%
WITH TSU) Law 409 31 372 6 7.58%

Medicine 229 24 188 17 10.48%
Total 64,840 10,539 52,106 2,195 16.25%

Administrators 378 53 318 7 14.02%
Faculty 2,663 276 2,225 162 10.36%

^OTAL tbr 
L'NIV. 

TSU)

Professionals 891 168 711 12 18.86%

Undergraduates 49,023 5,267 42,366 1,390 10.74%
Graduates 7,826 601 6,722 503 7.68%

Law 409 31 372 6 7.58%
Medicine 229 24 188 17 10.48%

Total 57,487 5,923 49,648 1,916 10.30%

Administrators 344 28 310 6 8.14%
Faculty 2,335 118 2,089 128 5.05%

Professionals 768 70 687 11 9.11%



5B

FALL 1989
STUDENT LEVELS %

i,vjstitutions & EMPLOYEES TOTAL ENROLL. BLACK WHITE OTHER BLACK

TSU*** Undergraduates 6,442 4,427 1,802 213 68.72%
Graduates 920 258 606 56 28.04%

Total 7,362 4,685 2,408 269 63.64%
Administrators 36 23 13 0 63.89%

Faculty 333 168 139 26 50.45%
Professionals 119 94 24 1 78.99%

ttu Undergraduates 6,859 216 6,479 164 3.15%
Graduates 1,204 37 1,065 102 3.07%

Total 8,063 253 7,544 266 3.14%

Administrators 73 5 66 2 6.85%
Faculty 344 16 305 23 4.65%

Professionals 119 13 104 2 10.92%
TOTAL TBR Undergraduates 57,891 10,219 45,892 1,780 17.65%

UNIV. Graduates 9,321 834 7,867 620 8.95%
(WITH TSU) Law 439 30 405 4 6.83%

Medicine 226 24 186 16 10.62%
Total 67,877 11,107 54,350 2,420 16.36%

Administrators 385 62 319 4 16.10%
Faculty 2,733 294 2,284 155 10.76%

Professionals 950 181 757 12 19.05%
total TBR Undergraduates 51,449 5,792 44,090 1,567 11.26%

UNIV. Graduates 8,401 576 7,261 564 6.86%
(W/0 TSU) Law 439 30 405 4 6.83%

Medicine 226 24 186 16 10.62%
Total 60,515 6,422 51,942 2,151 10.61%

Administrators 349 39 306 4 11.17%
Faculty 2,400 126 2,145 129 5.25%

Professionals 831 87 733 11 10.47%



6B

institution s

STUDENT
LEVELS

EMPLOYEES
TOTAL

ENROLL.

FALL 1990 

BLACK WHITE OTHER
%

BLACK

OBJECT
1990-91

%OTHE
RACE

TSU*** Undergraduates 6,347 4,277 1,880 190 67.39% 45.00
Graduates 1,046 311 669 66 29.73% 71.44

Total 7,393 4,588 2,549 256 62.06%

Administrators 35 22 13 0 62.86% 50.80
Faculty 337 167 146 24 49.55% 51.00

Professionals 111 90 21 0 81.08% 39.00

TTU Undergraduates 7,150 246 6,734 170 3.44% 6.00
Graduates 984 32 841 111 3.25% 2.55

Total 8,134 278 7,575 281 3.42%

Administrators 66 6 58 2 9.09% 7.80
Faculty 342 16 303 23 4.68% 3.70

Professionals 123 13 107 3 10.57% 13.20

TOTAL TBR Undergraduates 58,866 10,420 46,716 1,730 17.70%
UNIV. Graduates 9,489 951 7,860 678 10.02%

(WITH TSU) Law 430 28 400 2 6.51%
Medicine 236 29 194 13 12.29%

Total 69,021 11,428 55,170 2,423 16.56%

Administrators 363 60 298 5 16.53%
Faculty 2,763 301 2,306 156 10.89%

Professionals 977 187 777 13 19.14%

TOTAL TBR Undergraduates 52,519 6,143 44,836 1,540 11.70%
UNIV. Graduates 8,443 640 7,191 612 7.58%

(W /0 TSU) Law 430 28 400 2 6.51%
Medicine 236 29 194 13 12.29%

Total 61,628 6,840 52,621 2,167 11.10%

Administrators 328 38 285 5 11.59%
Faculty 2,426 134 2,160 132 5.52%

Professionals 866 97 756 13 11.20%

LONG-RNGE 
OBJECT. 
%OTHER 

RACE 
(SEE ****)

61.30*
76.79

6.80*
3.00



7B

[3A]
TABLE I

FALL 1988 THROUGH FALL 1990 HEADCOUNT ENROLLMENT AND EMPLOYMENT IN TENNESSEE 
PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS AND ENROLLMENT AND EMPLOYMENT OBJECTIVES

FALL 1988
STUDENT LEVELS %

INSTITUTIONS & EMPLOYEES TOTAL ENROLL. BLACK WHITE OTHER BLACK

t b r  c o m m u n it y  c o l l e g e s

CSTCC Undergraduates 6,391 699 5,606 86 10.94%
Administrators 8 1 7 0 12.50%

Faculty 151 21 129 1 13.91%
Professionals 50 5 45 0 10.00%

CLSCC Undergraduates 2,977 150 2,780 47 5.04%
Administrators 15 2 13 0 13.33%

Faculty 67 4 61 2 5.97%
Professionals 18 4 13 1 22.22%

COSCC Undergraduates 2,667 218 2,421 28 8.17%
Administrators 11 2 9 0 18.18%

Faculty 66 7 58 1 10.61%
Professionals 21 1 18 2 4.76%

DSCC Undergraduates 1,742 209 1,519 14 12.00%
Administrators 9 1 8 0 11.11%

Faculty 43 7 36 0 16.28%
Professionals 16 1 15 0 6.25%

jSCC Undergraduates 2,774 355 2,410 9 12.80%

Administrators 11 1 10 0 9.09%
Faculty 74 7 67 0 9.46%

Professionals 10 2 8 0 20.00%

M s e c Undergraduates 2,392 129 2,241 22 5.39%

Administrators 19 2 17 0 10.53%
Faculty 50 3 47 0 6.00%

Professionals 5 2 3 0 40.00%

RSCC Undergraduates 3,853 108 3,706 39 2.80%
Administrators 6 1 5 0 16.67%

Faculty 88 2 86 0 2.27%
Professionals 34 5 29 0 14.71%



»d

FALL 1989

in stitu tio n s
STUDENT LEVELS 

& EMPLOYEES TOTAL ENROLL. BLACK WHITE OTHER
%

BLACK

tbr c o m m u n ity  c o l l e g e s

CSTCC Undergraduates 7,412 829 6,470 113 11.18%
Administrators 7 1 6 0 14.29%

Faculty 136 22 113 1 16.18%
Professionals 55 6 49 0 10.91%

CLSCC Undergraduates 3,098 169 2,894 35 5.46%
Administrators 23 2 21 0 8.70%

Faculty 65 5 57 3 7.69%
Professionals 21 4 16 1 19.05%

c o s c c Undergraduates 3,053 219 2,794 40 7.17%
Administrators 12 3 9 0 25.00%

Faculty 71 9 60 2 12.68%
Professionals 24 2 21 1 8.33%

DSCC Undergraduates 1,851 220 1,607 24 11.89%
Administrators 11 2 9 0 18.18%

Faculty 44 6 38 0 13.64%
Professionals 16 3 13 0 18.75%

JSCC Undergraduates 3,010 400 2,592 18 13.29%
Administrators 12 3 9 0 25.00%

Faculty 74 7 67 0 9.46%
Professionals 10 1 9 0 10.00%

M sec Undergraduates 2,544 147 2,363 34 5.78%
Administrators 19 2 17 0 10.53%

Faculty 54 3 51 0 5.56%
Professionals 12 2 10 0 16.67%

RSCC Undergraduates 4,319 127 4,156 36 2.94%
Administrators 6 1 5 0 16.67%

Faculty 107 7 99 1 6.54%
Professionals 39 5 34 0 12.82%I



STUDENT
LEVELS

&
EMPLOYEESin st it u t io n s  

TBR c o m m u n it y  c o l l e g e s

TOTAL
ENROLL.

9B

FALL 1990 

BLACK WHITE OTHER

OBJECT. LONG-RNGE 
1990-91 OBJECT.

% %OTHER %OTHER
BLACK RACE RACE

(SEE ****)

CSTCC Undergraduates 7,793 843 6,832 118 10.82% 14.00 15.30»

Administrators 7 1 6 0 14.29% 11.10
Faculty 139 21 117 1 15.11% 16.00

Professionals 56 6 50 0 10.71% 8.00

CLSCC Undergraduates 3,315 148 3,128 39 4.46% 4.40 5.50*

Administrators 22 2 20 0 9.09% 6.70
Faculty 72 6 64 2 8.33% 5.00

Professionals 20 4 15 1 20.00% 16.70

COSCC Undergraduates 3,402 222 3,133 47 6.53% 5.60 5.60*

Administrators 11 3 8 0 27.27% 20.00
Faculty 79 10 66 3 12.66% 16.90

Professionals 22 2 19 1 9.09% 13.50

DSCC Undergraduates 1,993 239 1,733 21 11.99% 14.90 14.90*

Administrators 11 2 9 0 18.18% 20.00
Faculty 45 4 41 0 8.89% 15.60

Professionals 19 5 14 0 26.32% 20.00

JSCC Undergraduates 3,252 443 2,784 25 13.62% 16.75 21.00*

Administrators 14 2 12 0 14.29% 14.30
Faculty 77 8 69 0 10.39% 10.30

Professionals 13 3 10 0 23.08% 23.80

MSCC Undergraduates 2,767 153 2,580 34 5.53% 5.40 5.40*

Administrators 18 2 16 0 11.11% 8.70
Faculty 50 4 54 0 6.90% 5.50

Professionals 11 1 10 0 9.09% 15.40

RSCC Undergraduates 4,928 141 4,734 53 2.86% 3.80 4.20*

Administrators 5 1 4 0 20.00% 11.70
Faculty 120 8 111 1 6.67% 6.50

Professionals 44 5 39 0 11.36% 10.30



lOB

[4A]
TABLE I

FALL 1988 THROUGH FALL 1990 HEADCOUNT ENROLLMENT AND EMPLOYMENT IN TENNESSEE 
PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS AND ENROLLMENT AND EMPLOYMENT OBJECTIVES

FALL 1988

in st it u t io n s
STUDENT LEVELS 

& EMPLOYEES TOTAL ENROLL.

s s c c Undergraduates 3,822

Administrators 25
Faculty 112

Professionals 21

v s c c Undergraduates 3,474

Administrators 9
Faculty 82

Professionals 19

w s c c Undergraduates 3,513

Administrators 9
Faculty 83

Professionals 35

to ta l  t b r Undergraduates 33,605
COMMUNITY

COLLEGES Administrators 122
(WITH SSCC) Faculty 816

Professionals 229

TOTAL TBR Undergraduates 29,783
COMMUNITY

COLLEGES Administrators 97
(W /0  SSCC) Faculty 704

Professionals 208

TBR SYSTEM Administrators 19
STAFF Professionals 19

BLACK WHITE

2,161
15
38

8
169

2
13
3

95
1
7
5

4,293

28
109
36

2,132

13
71
28

3
6

1,615
10
70
13

3,236
7 

69 
16

3,373
8

73
28

28,907

94
696
188

27,292

84
626
175

16
12

OTHER

46
0
4 
0

69
0
0
0

45
0
3
2

405

0
11
5

359

0
7
5
0
1

%
BLACK

56.54%
60.00%
33.93%
38.10%

4.86%
22.22%
15.85%
15.79%

2.70%
11. 11%

8.43%
14.29%
12.77%

22.95%
13.36%
15.72%
7.16%

13.40%
10.09%
13.46%
15.79%
31.58%



IIB

FALL 1989

INSTITUTIONS
STUDENT LEVELS 

& EMPLOYEES TOTAL ENROLL. BLACK WHITE OTHER
%

BLACK

s s c c Undergraduates 4,216 2,399 1,713 104 56.90%
Administrators 27 15 12 0 55.56%

Faculty 112 34 74 4 30.36%
Professionals 28 14 13 1 50.00%

v s c c Undergraduates 3,670 194 3,412 64 5.29%
Administrators 8 2 6 0 25.00%

Faculty 87 13 74 0 14.94%
Professionals 20 4 16 0 20.00%

w s c c Undergraduates 4,220 150 4,026 44 3.55%
Administrators 9 1 8 0 11.11%

Faculty 88 8 78 2 9.09%
Professionals 35 4 30 1 11.43%

TOTAL TBR Undergraduates 37,393 4,854 32,027 512 12.98%
COMMUNITY

COLLEGES Administrators 134 32 102 0 23.88%
(WITH SSCC) Faculty 838 114 711 13 13.60%

Professionals 260 45 211 4 17.31%

TOTAL TBR Undergraduates 33,177 2,455 30,314 408 7.40%
COMMUNITY

COLLEGES Administrators 107 17 90 0 1

(W /0  SSCC) Faculty 726 80 637 9 11.02%
Professionals 232 31 198 3 13.36%

TBR SYSTEM Administrators 21 3 18 0 14.29%
STAFF Professionals 21 5 15 1 23.81%



STUDENT
LEVELS

12B

FALL 1990 OBJECT.
1990-91

in stitu tio n s
&

EMPLOYEES
TOTAL

ENROLL. BLACK WHITE OTHER
%

BLACK
%OTHER

RACE

s s c c Undergraduates 4 , 7 6 3 2 , 5 9 9 2 , 0 5 3 111 5 4 . 5 7 % 4 9 . 5 0
Administrators 2 7 1 3 1 4 0 4 8 . 1 5 % 5 6 . 4 0

Faculty 1 0 4 31 6 8 5 2 9 . 8 1 % 6 5 .1 0
Professionals 2 8 18 9 1 6 4 . 2 9 % 5 8 . 5 0

v s c c Undergraduates 4 , 1 6 0 2 3 6 3 8 6 9 55 5 .6 7 % 6 .4 0
Administrators 8 2 6 0 2 5 . 0 0 % 1 8 .2 0

Faculty 91 1 4 77 0 1 5 .3 8 % 1 5 .8 0
Professionals 2 3 5 1 8 0 2 1 . 7 4 % 2 5 .0 0

w s c c Undergraduates 4 , 5 6 7 1 3 8 4 , 3 8 2 4 7 3 .0 2 % 2 .8 0
Administrators 8 1 7 0 1 2 .5 0 % 9 .0 0

Faculty 9 6 1 0 8 4 2 1 0 .4 2 % 9 .2 0
Professionals 3 6 4 31 1 1 1 .1 1 % 1 0 .8 0

TOTAL TBR Undergraduates 40,940 5 , 1 6 2 3 5 , 2 2 8 5 5 0 1 2 . 6 1 %
COMMUNITY

COLLEGES Administrators 131 2 9 1 0 2 0 2 2 . 1 4 %
(WITH SSCC) Faculty 881 1 1 6 7 51 1 4 1 3 . 1 7 %

Professionals 2 7 2 5 3 2 1 5 4 1 9 .4 9 %
TOTAL TBR Undergraduates 3 6 , 1 7 7 2,563 33,175 439 7.08%

COMMUNITY
COLLEGES Administrators 104 1 6 8 8 0 15.38%

(W /0 SSCC) Faculty 777 85 683 9 10.94%
Professionals 244 35 206 3 14.34%

TBR SYSTEM Administrators 2 0 4 16 0 2 0 . 0 0 % 13.30
STAFF Professionals 21 6 1 3 2 28.57% 28.50

(SEE

LONG-RNGE
OBJECT.
%OTHER

RACE

59.30*

9.10*

2.90*



13B

[5A]
TABLE I

FALL 1988 THROUGH FALL 1990 HEADCOUNT ENROLLMENT AND EMPLOYMENT IN TENNESSEE 
PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS AND ENROLLMENT AND EMPLOYMENT OBJECTIVES

FALL 1988

INSTITUTIONS
)ENT LEVELS 
EMPLOYEES TOTAL ENROLL. BLACK WHITE OTHER

%
BLACK

Undergraduates 6,199 689 5,295 215 11.11%
Graduates 1,327 81 1,192 54 6.10%

Total 7,526 770 6,487 269 10.23%
Administrators 114 11 101 2 9.65%

Faculty 284 18 256 10 6.34%
Professionals 101 16 82 3 15.84%

Undergraduates 18,770 863 17,479 428 4.60%
Graduates 5,158 268 4,460 430 5.20%

Law 462 36 420 6 7.79%
Vet. Medicine 178 2 176 0 1.12%

Total 24,568 1,169 22,535 864 4.76%
Administrators 324 25 297 2 7.72%

Faculty 1,482 50 1,345 87 3.37%
Professionals 788 41 688 59 5.20%

Undergraduates 4,367 598 3,645 124 13.69%
Graduates 286 11 269 6 3.85%

Total 4,653 609 3,914 130 13.09%
Administrators 64 3 61 0 4.69%

Faculty 234 4 216 14 1.71%
Professionals 58 7 50 1 12.07%

Undergraduates 326 34 286 6 10.43%
Graduates 244 25 180 39 10.25%

Dentistry 318 15 285 18 4.72%
Medicine 608 28 539 41 4.61 %

Pharmacy 276 12 255 9 4.35%
Total 1,772 114 1,545 113 6.43%

Administrators 142 7 131 4 4.93%
Faculty 756 36 670 50 4.76%

Professionals 1,343 118 1,139 86 8.79%

UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE 

UTC

UTK”

UTM

UTMHSC



14B

FALL 1989

in s t it u t io n s
)ENT LEVELS 
EMPLOYEES TOTAL ENROLL. BLACK WHITE OTHER

%
BLACK

Undergraduates 6,595 672 5,688 235 10.19%
Graduates 969 53 875 41 5.47%

Total 7,564 725 6,563 276 9.58%

Administrators 114 10 102 2 8.77%
Faculty 282 17 254 11 6.03%

Professionals 98 15 82 1 15.31%

Undergraduates 19,068 900 17,709 459 4.72%
Graduates 5,794 313 4,984 497 5.40%

Law 479 39 438 2 8.14%
Vet. Medicine 171 4 165 2 2.14%

Total 25,512 1,256 23,296 960 4.92%

Administrators 335 27 306 2 8.06%
Faculty 1,411 56 1,271 84 3.97%

Professionals 797 46 682 69 5.77%

Undergraduates 4,716 630 3,951 135 13.36%
Graduates 392 26 358 8 6.63%

Total 5,108 656 4,309 143 12.84%

Administrators 60 3 57 0 5.00%
Faculty 238 6 221 11 2.52%

Professionals 59 10 48 1 16.95%

Undergraduates 315 43 263 9 13.65%
Graduates 245 19 179 47 7.76%
Dentistry 307 12 276 19 3.91%
Medicine 599 44 508 47 7.35%

Pharmacy 281 16 255 10 5.69%
Total 1,747 134 1,481 132 7.67%

Administrators 132 5 123 4 3.79%
Faculty 772 41 687 44 5.31 %

Professionals 1,376 127 1,146 103 9.23%

UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE 

UTC

UTK*

UTM

UTMHSC

i



in stitu tio n s

STUDENT
LEVELS

&
EMPLOYEES

TOTAL
ENROLL.

15B

FALL 1990 

BLACK WHITE OTHER
%

BLACK

OBJECT.
1990-91

%OTHER
RACE

LONG-RNGE 
OBJECT. 
%OTHER 

RACE 
(SEE ****)

university o f  TENNESSEE

UTC

UTK-

UTM

UTMHSC

Undergraduates 6,698 677 5,774 247 10.11% 15.00 16.80
Graduates 1,027 65 909 53 6.33% 10.80 15.80

Total 7,725 742 6,683 300 9.61%

Administrators 112 9 102 1 8.04% 9.30
Faculty 285 18 255 12 6.32% 7.30

Professionals 71 15 55 1 21.13% 15.20

Undergraduates 19,537 997 18,035 505 5.10% 7.50 10.50
Graduates 5,882 302 5,038 542 5.13% 5.10 6.00

Law 471 36 431 4 7.64% 7.40 7.40
Vet. Medicine 165 6 155 4 3.64% 4.30 8.70

Total 26,055 1,341 23,659 1,055 5.15%

Administrators 312 27 285 0 8.65% 6.70
Faculty 1,166 49 1,053 64 4.20% 4.20

Professionals 480 35 431 14 7.29% 6.50

Undergraduates 5,050 747 4,173 130 14.79% 17.00 18.40
Graduates 313 23 285 5 7.35% 9.50 14.70

Total 5,363 770 4,458 135 14.36%

Administrators 61 4 57 0 6.56% 5.10
Faculty 238 9 216 13 3.78% 1.60

Professionals 55 8 46 1 14.55% 9.50

Undergraduates 341 45 288 8 13.20% 11.20 14.20
Graduates 264 26 177 61 9.85% 8.10 10.80
Dentistry 301 17 260 24 5.65% 5.90 8.80
Medicine 591 52 496 43 8.80% 5.30 8.90

Pharmacy 288 25 255 8 8.68% 7.00 8.40
Total 1,785 165 1,476 144 9.24%

Administrators 131 6 121 4 4.58% 7.00
Faculty 591 26 520 45 4.40% 3.50

Professionals 534 81 404 49 15.17% 11.90



16B

[6A]
TABLE 1

FALL 1988 THROUGH FALL 1990 HEADCOUNT ENROLLMENT AND EMPLOYMENT IN TENNESSEE 
PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS AND ENROLLMENT AND EMPLOYMENT OBJECTIVES

INSTITUTIONS
STUDENT LEVELS 

& EMPLOYEES TOTAL ENROLL. BLACK

FALL 1988

WHITE OTHER
%

BLACK

UTMCK Administrators 102 2 100 0 1.96%
Faculty 111 1 99 11 0.90%

Professionals 1,276 18 1,235 23 1.41%
INSTIT. OF Administrators 47 2 45 0 4.26%

AGRIC. Faculty 269 3 263 3 1.12%
Professionals 553 24 519 10 4.34%

UT-WIDE Administrators 95 3 92 0 3.16%
ADMIN. Professionals 174 10 164 0 5.75%
TOTAL Undergraduates 29,662 2,184 26,705 773 7.36%

UT Graduates 7,015 385 6,101 529 5.49%
Law 462 36 420 6 7.79%

Dentistry 318 15 285 18 4.72%
Medicine 608 28 539 41 4.61%

Pharmacy 276 12 255 9 4.35%
Vet. Medicine 178 2 176 0 1.12%

Total 38,519 2,662 34,481 1,376 6.91 %
Administrators 888 53 827 8 5.97%

Faculty 3,136 112 2,849 175 3.57%
Professionals 4,293 234 3,877 182 5.45%

THEC Administrators 12 2 10 0 16.67%
STAFF Professionals 5 0 5 0 0.00%

GRAND Undergraduates 118,730 16,098 99,829 2,803 13.56%
TOTAL Graduates 15,754 1,248 13,430 1,076 7.92%

(WITH TSU Law 871 67 792 12 7.69%
& SSCC) Dentistry 318 15 285 18 4.72%

Medicine 837 52 727 58 6.21%
Pharmacy 276 12 255 9 4.35%

Vet. Medicine 178 2 176 0 1.12%
Total 136,964 17,494 115,494 3,976 12.77%

Administrators 1,419 139 1,265 15 9.80%
Faculty 6,615 497 5,770 348 7.51%

Professionals 5,437 444 4,793 200 8.17%

i



17B

FALL 1989

JSTITUTIONS
STUDENT LEVELS 

& EMPLOYEES TOTAL ENROLL. BLACK

UTMCK Administrators 109 2
Faculty 115 1

Professionals 1,359 27

INSTIT. OF Administrators 47 2
AGRIC. Faculty 263 4

Professionals 565 26

UT-WIDE Administrators 98 4
ADMIN. Professionals 160 10

TOTAL Undergraduates 30,694 2,245
UT Graduates 7,400 411

Law 479 39
Dentistry 307 12
Medicine 599 44

Pharmacy 281 16
Vet. Medicine 171 4

Total 39,931 2,771

Administrators 895 53
Faculty 3,081 125

Professionals 4,414 261

THEC Administrators 12 2
STAFF Professionals 8 2

GRAND Undergraduates 125,978 17,318
TOTAL Graduates 16,721 1,245

(WITH TSU Law 918 69
& SSCC) Dentistry 307 12

Medicine 825 68
Pharmacy 281 16

Vet. Medicine 171 4
Total 145,201 18,732

Administrators 1,447 152
Faculty 6,652 533

Professionals 5,653 494

%
WHITE OTHER BLACK

107 0 1.83%
104 10 0.87%

1,306 26 1.99%

45 0 4.26%
256 3 1.52%
528 11 4.60%

94 0 4.08%
150 0 6.25%

27,611 838 7.31%
6,396 593 5.55%

438 2 8.14%
276 19 3.91%
508 47 7.35%
255 10 5.69%
165 2 2.34%

35,649 1,511 6.94%

834 8 5.92%
2,793 163 4.06%
3,942 211 5.91%

10 0 16.67%
6 0 25.00%

105,530 3,130 13.75%
14,263 1,213 7.45%

843 6 7.52%
276 19 3.91%
694 63 8.24%
255 10 5.69%
165 2 2.34%

122,026 4,443 12.90%

1,283 12 10.50%
5,788 331 8.01%
4,931 228 8.74%



STUDENT
LEVELS

18B

FALL 1990

in st it u t io n s
&

EMPLOYEES
TOTAL

ENROLL. BLACK WHITE OTHER
%

BLACK
%OTHE

RACE

UTMCK Administrators 114 2 112 0 1.75% 2.50
Faculty 87 1 76 10 1.15% 4.30

Professionals 1,204 25 1,153 26 2.08% 6.60

INSTIT. OF Administrators 44 1 43 0 2.27% 5.00
AGRIC. Faculty 268 3 263 2 1.12% 3.40

Professionals 541 24 509 8 4.44% 7.40

UT-WIDE Administrators 94 5 89 0 5.32% 6.40
ADMIN. Professionals 157 11 146 0 7.01% 5.30

TOTAL Undergraduates 31,626 2,466 28,270 890 7.80%
UT Graduates 7,486 416 6,409 661 5.56%

Law 471 36 431 4 7.64%
Dentistry 301 17 260 24 5.65%
Medicine 591 52 496 43 8.80%

Pharmacy 288 25 255 8 8.68%
Vet. Medicine 165 6 155 4 3.64%

Total 40,928 3,018 36,276 1,634 7.37%

Administrators 868 54 809 5 6.22%
Faculty 2,635 106 2,383 146 4.02%

Professionals 3,042 199 2,744 99 6.54%

THEC Administrators 11 2 9 0 18.18% 15.80
STAFF Professionals 8 2 6 0 25.00% 15.80

GRAND Undergraduates 131,432 18,048 110,214 3,170 13.73%
TOTAL Graduates 16,975 1,367 14,269 1,339 8.05%

(WITH TSU Law 901 64 831 6 7.10%
& SSCC) Dentistry 301 17 260 24 5.65%

Medicine 827 81 690 56 9.79%
Pharmacy 288 25 255 8 8.68%

Vet. Medicine 165 6 155 4 3.64%
Total 150,889 19,608 126,674 4,607 12.99%

Administrators 1,393 149 1,234 10 10.70%
Faculty 6,279 523 5,440 316 8.33%

Professionals 4,320 447 3,755 118 10.35%

OBJECT. LONG-RNGE
1990-91 OBJECT.

%OTHER 
RACE 

(SEE ****)

1



19B

[7A]
TABLE I

FALL 1988 THROUGH FALL 1990 HEADCOUNT ENROLLMENT AND EMPLOYMENT IN TENNFSSFF 
PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS AND ENROLLMENT AND EMPLOYMENT OBJECTIVES

INSTITUTIONS

GRAND 
TOTAL 

(W /0  TSU 
& SSCC)

STUDENT LEVELS 
& EMPLOYEES

Undergraduates 
Graduates 

Law 
Dentistry 
Medicine 

Pharmacy 
Vet. Medicine 

Total

Administrators
Faculty

Professionals

TOTAL ENROLL.

108,468
14,841

871
318
837
276
178

125,789

1,360
6,175
5,293

FALL 1988

BLACK WHITE OTHER

9,583
986

67
15
52
12
2

10,717

99
301
338

96,363
12,823

792
285
727
255
176

111,421

1,247
5,564
4,756

2,522
1,032

12
18
58

9
0

3,651

14
310
199

%
BLACK

8.83%
6.64%
7.69%
4.72%
6.21%

4.35%
1.12%
8.52%

7.28%
4.87%
6.39%



FALL 1989
STUDENT LEVELS %

INSTITUTIONS & EMPLOYEES TOTAL ENROLL. BLACK WHITE OTHER BLACK

GRAND Undergraduates 115,320 10,492 102,015 2,813 9.10%
TOTAL Graduates 15,801 987 13,657 1,157 6.25%

(W /O  TSU Law 918 69 843 6 7.52%
& SSCC) Dentistry 307 12 276 19 3.91%

Medicine 825 68 694 63 8.24%
Pharmacy 281 16 255 10 5.69%

Vet. Medicine 171 4 165 2 2.34%
Total 133,623 11,648 117,905 4,070 8.72%

Administrators 1,384 114 1,258 12 8.24%
Faculty 6,207 331 5,575 301 5.33%

Professionals 5,506 386 4,894 226 7.01 %



STUDENT
LEVELS

21B

FALL 1990

INSTITUTIONS
&

EMPLOYEES
TOTAL

ENROLL. BLACK WHITE OTHER
%

BLACK

GRAND Undergraduates 120,322 11,172 106,281 2,869 9.29%
TOTAL Graduates 15,929 1,056 13,600 1,273 6.63%

(W /0  TSU Law 901 64 831 6 7.10%
& SSCC) Dentistry 301 17 260 24 5.65%

Medicine 827 81 690 56 9.79%
Pharmacy 288 25 255 8 8.68%

Vet. Medicine 165 6 155 4 3.64%
Total 138,733 12,421 122,072 4,240 8.95%

Administrators 1,331 114 1,207 10 8.56%
Faculty 5,838 325 5,226 287 5.57%

Professionals 4,181 339 3,725 117 8.11%
NOTE: Employment date for Tennessee Board of Regents institutions are based upon October revised budgets. UT data as of October 1, 

1990. Unrestricted full-time employment data have been included for 1990. For UT fall 1988 and 1989 data included all employees. 
* Refinement based upon 1986 projections. If met, college-going desparity will have been addressed.

Includes UTSI.
Beginning fall 1987 at TSU, reclassification of some positions was made from administrators to professional.
Other race here means black for all institutions except TSU and SSCC. For TSU and SSCC it means white.