Uzzell v. Friday Supplemental Appendix on Remand for Additional Defendants-Appellees

    IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 
No. 75-2276

LAWRENCE A. UZZELL and ROBERT LANE ARRINGTON, 
Individually, and upon behalf of all others 
similarly situated.

Plaint iffs-Appellants,
v .

WILLIAM C. FRIDAY, Individually, and as President 
of the University of North Carolina, et al,

Defendants-Appellants,
and

ALGENON L. MARBLEY, Chairman of the Black Student 
Movement and ROBERT L. WYNN, II, Vice-Chairman of 
Black Student Movement,

Additional Defendants-Appellees.

On Appeal From the United States District Court For 
The Middle District of North Carolina

Durham D i v i s i o n ____________

SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX ON REMAND FOR ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES

JULIUS CHAMBERS 
CHARLES BECTON 
JAMES C. FULLER, JR.
CHAMBERS, STEIN, FERGUSON & BECTON, ? .A. 

* 951 South Independence Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

KAREN GALLOWAY
* *  Post Office Box 720

Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
JACK GREENEERG 
JAMES M. NABRIT, III 
NAPOLEON B. WILL LAMS, JR.
JUDITH REED
10 Columbus Circle, Suite 2030 
New York, New York 10019

ATTORNEYS FOR ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS - APPELLEES



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Letter, dated February 16, 1970, from HEW to the 
Governor of North Carolina

Letter, dated May 21, 1973, from HEW to the
President of the University of North Carolina

Letter, and Report, dated July 31, 1975, from HEW 
to the Governor of North Carolina

Letter and Report, dated November 7, 1977, from HEW 
to the President of the University of North 
Carolina



Honorable Robert W. Scott 
Governor of North Carolina and 
Chairman of the Board of Higher 
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

and

Education

r e c e i v e d

Mr. Dallas Herring 
Chairman, State Board of Education 
State Department of Public Instruction 
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

FEB 1 9 1970

OFFICE Ob CiyiL rights  
REGION HI

Gentlemen:

The Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health, Education, 
and Welfare has required that all institutions of higher education 
receiving Federal financial assistance submit a compliance report 
indicating the racial enrollment at these institutions. Based on*’ 
these reports, particular colleges are visited to determine their 
compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 196A. These 
visits, together with the reports received from the four-year State 
colleges and universities in North Carolina, indicate that the State 
of North Carolina is operating a system of higher education in which 
certain institutions are clearly identifiable as serving students on 
the basis of race.

Specifically, the predominantly white State institutions providing 
four or more years of higher education have an enrollment which is 
approximately 98 percent white. The traditionally black institu­
tions have an enrollment which is almost exclusively black. In 
addition to this situation which prevails in individual institutions 
throughout the State, the two land-grant colleges, North Carolina 
Agricultural and Technical State University and North Carolina State 
University, originally devised as separate agricultural and technical 
colleges, one for blacks and one for whites, remain structurally sepa­
rate and predominantly of one race.

Other manifestations of the State's racially dual system of higher 
education are evident in the close proximity of the University of 
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 96 percent white, and North Carolina

Lmvixv,

jjiEii*

f "
II
rf
St-'. .•»*.

{ # :

£

;



T ”

P ^ T 2 '  - Honorable Robert W. Scott and Mr. Dallas Herring

Central University at Durham, almost totally black; and in the City 
of Greensboro, where are located the University of North Carolina at 
Greensboro, 98 percent white, and North Carolina Agricultural and 
Technical State University, almost totally black. Similarly, 
Elizabeth City State University, almost totally black, and the 
College of the Albemarle, predominantly white, offer a duplication 
of programs to students residing in the same service area of the 
State.

I
S

f

r : '

Educational institutions which have previously been legally segregated 
have an affirmative duty to adopt measures to overcome the effect of 
the past segregation. To fulfill the purposes and intent of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964, it is not sufficient that an institution maintain 
a nondiscriminatory admissions policy if the student population con­
tinues to reflect the formerly d_e jure racial identification of that 
institution. A

!

This appears to be the situation at nearly all of the State institu­
tions in North Carolina; therefore, these institutions must discharge 
their affirmative duty by adopting measures that will result in de­
segregation as soon as administratively possible.

<•
We are*aware that the scope of authority of each individual institu­
tion is not broad enough to effect the necessary changes and achieve 
the desired objective. However, this legal disability does not re­
lieve responsible State officials of the duty to make whatever coopera­
tive arrangements are needed to continue the eligibility of the insti­
tutions for Federal financial assistance. Accordingly, I am directing 
to you the request that a desegregation plan for the public institutions 
of higher education in North Carolina which are under State control be • 
submitted for comment to this office in outline form 120 days from re­
ceipt of this letter, and that a final desegregation plan be submitted 
for our approval no later than 90 days after you have received comments 
on the outline of the plan.

$

*

While I do not wish to stipulate the form which a desegregation plan 
should take, I would suggest that a system-wide plan of cooperation be­
tween institutions involving consolidation of degree offerings, faculty 
exchange, student exchange, and general institutional sharing of re­
sources would seem to offer a constructive approach. The Southern 
Regional Education Board, established by the Governors of the Southern 
and Border States, has available the programs and the results of inter- 
institutional cooperation and no doubt the Board would be willing to 
work with you, members of your staff, the State college presidents, 
and other North Carolina State education officials in order to formulate

i""'



. «»-'
fy> Page 3 - Honorable Robert W. Scott and Mr. Dallas Herring

an appropriate plan. In addition, officials of the Bureau of Higher 
Education in the Washington and Regional Office of Education have 
had considerable experience in this area, and these officials would 
be available to assist appropriate State education officials.

Needless to say, my staff will be available to offer whatever services 
may be appropriate. Dr. Eloise Severinson, Regional Civil Rights 
Director, Office for Civil Rights, Department of Health, Education, 
and Welfare, 220 Seventh Street, N.E., Charlottesville, Virginia 22901, 
would be the person to contact for any information and assistance.

We look forward to working with you to bring about a desegregated system 
of State higher education in North Carolina.

cc:
Dr. William Turner 
Director of Administration 
Office of the Governor 
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

Dr. Cameron West
Director, Board of Higher Education 
P.O. Box 10887
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 

Dr. I. E. Ready
Director, Department of Community Colleges 
State Department of Public Instruction 
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602



‘ department o r  HEALTH, education , and  welfare
OFPICIi OF TUP. nirr.RCTARY •

.  W A S H IN C ilO N . n . c .  ? '"01

r;> ..
■ . May 21, 1973

Dr. William C. Friday 
President
•University of North Car-oiina 
General Administration 
Post Office Box 309 
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514

Dear Dr. Friday: . .

I appreciate your reply in your letter of Ha y -2 * 1973, including materials 
and information, to my letter of March 27, 1973, concerning the Department 
implementation of the order of the United States District Court of the Dis 
of Columbia in the case of Adams v. P-i.chardscn. Although your response 
not include some of the information requested in my letter, the informat 
you have submitted has been useful in the Department's evaluation of the 
compliance of the University of North Carolina system with Title VI of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1954.

As we had advised you in our letter, District Court Judge John Prat-t in hi 
order of February 16, 1973, directed HEW, within 120 days from the1date of 
the order (i.e., by June 16, 1973), to commence enforcement proceedings by 
administrative notice of hearing, or to utilize any other means authorized 
by law, to obtain compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
We have reviewed the information submitted by your State and are now in a 
position to provide you our views concerning your responsibilities under 
that statute with respect to the operation of your State's system of highe 
education.

The premise for our-'concern, and that which underlies the order of the 
District Court in the Adams case, is that North Carolina formerly operated 
a system'of public higher education that was raciaily segregated by State 
law, both as to students and faculty. In our review of the information 
you submitted, ve have looked first to the question of whether vestiges of 
the racial dualism still persist. Next, we have considered the effects 
and likel>’| effects of the structure and curricula of the sixteen .Universal 
of North Carolina constituent institutions upon those aspects of the dual 
system that ^persist. Last, we have considered what further steps are need 
to fulfill* completely your obligation under Title VI to assure equal educa 
tional opportunity in your system of higher education.

Tn- appraising whether 
in North C a r e ] n a , wa

vestiges of the dual higher education pyst-r rcr ir 
i:avc considered first the statistics which >c: h.’.c

h
- 
ru



supplied concerning both’faculty and students. As to faculty, we find 
that there are presently 619 faculty who arc black, among the total cf 
6,448 faculty employed-' jy the University of North Carolina system. Of 
the 619 black faculty members, 556 (90 percent) are employed at the- five 
institutions in your system which were black institutions during the period 
of legally enforced racial segregation (Elizabeth!City State University, 
North Carolina Agricultural and Technical'State University (N.C.A. and T.), 
Fayetteville State University, Uinston-rSalem Statl University, and North 
Carolina Central University). •

The balance of your State’.s black faculty is distributed among the other 
eleven institutions in the system. In the Fall of 1972, blacks comprised 
1.1. percent of the total faculty at' these eleven historially white insti­
tutions. The number and percentage ot black faculty members and the total 
number of faculty at-each of these institutions is as follows:

rage 2 - Dr; William C. Friday

1. 1 4 
Institution7~r---- •------

Black
Faculty

Total
Faculty

Percent
Black

Appalachian State University
»*f *

4 397 1.0

•,lEast Carolina University 2 614 1.0

North Carolina School of the Arts 1 - 96 1.0

.‘North Carolina State University 22 1,482 1.5

\ I, ‘t .
Pembroke State University 0 109 0
/«• ;
University of North Carolina
, l!' at Asheville 
jl.‘. -

0 61 0

»
University of North Carolina 
_!jit at Chapel Hill 14 1,674 1.0

'-University of North Carolina 
ij'j at Charlotte 10 266 j- 4.0 .

^University of North Carolina . 
ji'i ‘at Greensboro 7 . 456 1.5

!University of North Carolina 
j ’ at Wilmington ■ 3 136 '2.2

i: 1
‘‘.Western Carolina University 0 345 0



Pace 3'- Dr. William C. Friday

• t

In the fall of 1972, whites comprised 20.6 percent of the total faculty 
of the five historically black institutions'. The number of white faculty 
members, the total number of faculty, and the percentage of white faculty

1i is distributed at each of these institutions as follows:

tt White
f. • 

Total Percent White
a Institution Faculty Faculty Facultv
! • I

Elizabeth City •'•17
V  •
89 19% '

:
Fayetteville* • 21 99 21%

,i
N. C. A. and T. • 26 232 11%

i/
!

N;. C, Central 75 280 27%

i ijinston-Salem•. :

ooCM 112 . 25%
i * * *

VtThe form in wliich vour information was submitted does not permit deter-
mination of whether these figures include tile Fort Bragg Center. •

: I

/'From the statistics available, it appears that the numbers and percentages 
of white faculty in predominantly black institutions has declined signifi­
cantly from the 1970 levels (a decrease of 50 whites from 217 in Spring 1970 

'!to 167 in Fall 1972). While it appears that the number of black faculty in 
.!predominantly white institutions lias increased slightly from 1970 to 1972, 
;ve are not able to determine whether there has been a percentage increase 
*Lf black faculty at those institutions because we do not have complete 1970 
/.faculty statisrics. Since the employment data form as requested in my 
•previous letter was not completed, we are unable to evaluate your employment 
^by level of instructional staff. • •

Because the student enrollment data you provided us aggregated full-time, 
;part-time, undergraduate, and graduate students, we unfortunately could 
} .pot identify full-time undergraduate enrollment. Our findings are based 
| upon such enrollment as provided in 1972 Compliance Deports of Institutions 
of Higher Education under Title VI.•■•There are 12,902 blacks (18.8 percent) 

•(■"enrolled among a total of 68,780. full-time undergraduates in the University 
! of-North Carolina system. Of the total number of black students, 11,109. 
j,'(86'.percent) are enrolled at predominantly black institutions where they 
(‘•constitute 96.3 percent of the total number of students enrolled. • The.
1' distribution of black students in predominantly black institution^ is1* as v
follows:



■ Page 4 - Dr. "William C. Friday

Black Total Percent
Insti tution

r,
Students •Students Black Si

Elizabeth City 981 1,048 *93.6

Fayetteville* ' ' 1,549
f,
j ■ 1,597 96.9

if North Carolina A & T** . 3,969 i • . 4,119 .96.3

, North Carolina Central 3,086 3,210 96.1
• * • Winston-Salem *"* * . 1,524 1,558 • 97.8

The balance .of the black students is distributed among the other 11
institutions as follows: • .
& 
if i Appalachian State University ■ 6,228 69 1.1.

A ' •.* • East Carolina University 8,853 * 143 1.6

North Carolina State
University:at Raleigh 10,099 . 169' 1.6

L. i
g : Pembroke State University 1,849 53 2.8
; / i
j r ‘ University of North Carolina - -

; m"'
at Asheville 968 27 2.7

.tl
j.V* University of North Carolina
*'■ i at Chapel Hill . 12,486 591 " 4.7
,.ir
tfi'. . University of North Carolina

t at Charlotte 3,948 124 ' • 3.1

• IV i University of North Carolina
• f . at Greensboro 5,071 227 4.4

University of North Carolina
(■ t ' 1.

at Wilmington 1,830 / .
•58 . 3.1 ,

1 :*  ,»,, •
!■.

Western Carolina University- 4*821 103 2.1

North Carolina School of the Arts 335 29 ’ 8.7

l*Excluding the Fort Bragg-Pope Air Force Base Center.
: i
.j**The form in which A & T's information was submitted did not permit 
'■ oilfcrentiation between full-time and part-time students.



Po'ge 5 - Dr. William C. Friday

i i

: i

While sons small progress apparently has been made in desegregating 
the student population, the five historically black institutions remain 
overwhelmingly black in student composition, and the remaining 11 insti­
tutions in the University of North Carolina system remain overwhelmingly 
white in student composition. Although there appear to be some ongoing 
programs involving exchanges of white students fpom predominantly white 
^-institutions with black students from predominant-ly black institutions,
•you have not indicated the number of students involved in such programs. 
Further, to the extent these .programs consist of part-time cross-regis- 
'traticn of students, they are unlikely to have a significant impact on 

.•the elimination of racial dualism in the state system. Based on the 

.'•information available, the present racial composition of the faculty-and' 
student bodies of the 11 traditionally white institutions, as compared to 
‘the racial'composition of the five traditionally black institutions,

■;appears clearly attributable to the existence of the prior dual system
■ phased on race. Accordingly,.we must conclude that the dual system has
i: not yet been fully disestablished. •

T  ; ' ‘
•W'We have considered the information which you submitted regarding the 
..-1971-74 capital improvements authorized for the University of North 
^Carolina system. This information docs not reflect whether such funds 
were actually appropriated for expansion and, if so, whether new structures 
i.or building additions are actually under construction or completed.
!-Additional information is needed which will enable us to determine whether 

y*°r not recent and planned building programs have tended or will tend toward 
j.’ desegregation of the system by upgrading in quality and quantity of services 
.-'! those institutions which currently are predominantly black, and b’y m.in- 
•' j/'inizing duplication in program offerings that may tend to reinforce duality.

';We have also considered the impact of the reorganization and growth of the 
J'.North Carolina system on the question of the State's compliance-with Title VI 
ji’.;of the Civil Rights Act. The- system is growing and continues to grow, and 
‘.major reorganizations have occurred recently. The Community College system, 
^.established in 19S3, while ambitious in expanding college opportunities in 
, .the State, appears to have reinforced the duality in your University system. 
■j.l'Far example,- the College of the Albemarle was founded in ]961 in the same
■ community as the traditionally biack Elizabeth City State University and 
.-has provided an attractive alternative for white students seeking a curri—
1•culum similar to that at Elizabeth City State. The conversion of the sixteen 
j;.senior institutions into a single University of North Carolina system in 
J!l972 has much potential for planning and 'coordinating 'a transfer Vo. a unitary 
j'; higher education system, but specific steps must be taken to utilize 'phis
■ ■ potential. • • ' " •

- I 
•4I(



. * Page 6 - Dri'William C. Friday

r i
J - 
! i

i ■ 
i i • i . i

f

The predominantly black.institutions arc differentiated, as a practical 
matter, by the limited curricula they offer, as compared to the breadth 
and variety of offerings at the predominantly white institutions, 
particularly as each predominantly black institution is located in close 
.proximity to one or mere predominantly white institutions. From the 
information you have submitted it appears that th| /programs at the histori­
cally black colleges will remain insufficient to attract significant numbers 
of. white students. There remains extensive progr.y.:( duplication between 

■ neighboring predominantly blacl; and white institutions,' Additionally, the 
predominantly white institutions offer programs unique to their geographic 
regions far more frequently than dp the predominantly black institutions.
Fpr example, the University of North Carolina in Greensboro and North 
Carolina A. and T. duplicate numerous programs, and U.N.C.-Greensboro also 
offers many attractive programs which A. and T. does not, including Bachelors 
Degrees in Music and Fine Arts, an honors program, and an international 
studies program. North Carolina State University in Raleigh is also close 

. to; A. and T. Although they are both land-grant institutions, State’s 
programs are far more extensive than those of A and T. in almost every 
atea of study, -but particularly in agriculture-and engineering. Similarly, 
while the catalogue of North Carolina State praises the advantages of that 
institution's participation with Duke University in Durham, a private 
institution, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Kill in the 
Research Triangle University program, neighboring North Carolina Central 
does not appear to be a member of the Triangle program, although it offers 
many similar programs. * .
; ki \ > • . . * '
■ i ̂ 1 •
•‘Additionally, new schools have been established, and programs expanded, in 
(areas of the State where historically black institutions are located-, with 
the effect that attractive alternatives have been created for white students 
/who might otherwise have chosen to attend those institutions. For instance, 
the student body at Pembroke State University, a school for American Indians 
phtil it opened its doors to whites in 1953, new is over 80 percent white and 
jiess than 3 percent black, while neighboring Fayetteville State remains 96.9 
percent black. Pembroke has initiated a complete teacher certification 
program paralleling those at Fayetteville. By way. of further example, in 
.'19.63, the North Carolina School of Arts was established in the same 
■community as historically black Winston-Salem State.

(North Carolina has yet to submit a plan for desegregation of its University 
'.system. We are again requesting a plan that will be effective in increasing 
(significantly the presence of white students and faculty at the predominantly 
(black institutions, and in increasing significantly the presence of black 
fsjtudents arid faculty at the campuses at Raleigh and Chapel Hill, and at

H~. ’• . ■ .
:; t i • • .•



the other predominantly white institutions. I n ' addition, this plan must: 
provide, where necessary, for supportive seiviees to minority students 
dosipned to afford O h  can a reasonable opportunity to complete their 
education success/u.lly. Althougn the community colleges were joc est..n— 
liehed as segregated institutions ns part of the State's system of hirhe 
education, because of their impact on the formerly dc jure institutions, 
plan should describe, the role which these community colleges will .play
in desegregating the, system. •

* •  . ' . * * *  , • , /
*» +  *

We recognize that the-.-time constraints imposed on the United States Diet 
Court in the Adams case may pcse difficult practical problems.for your S 
We are not unaware of those problems, and thus we want to take tnis croo 
to assure you of our full, cooperation. However, in order uO comply with 
District Court Order, it will be necessary for this Office to receive an 
acceptable plan for specific action and have an opportunity to evaluate 
plan, in advance of the J.une: 16 deadline set by the Court. We, therefor 
must request the submission of a. plan by Jun§ 11. ■ _ • • • \ •

Page 7 - Dr'. William C. Friday

Each step of the plan you propose to c. i racial duality in your system 
should include-a description of its predicted contribution to deseg­
regation at each institution and a timetable for its implementation. Vo 
should also-indicate, by institution, the degree of student and faculty 
desegregation which you project for each 'school year during' the period
of the plan's o.oration. Wc suggest in the development and implementatl 
of your plan that you seek the full participation of all concernac 
segments of tlie white and black communities. The time constraints .-will 
also require us to evaluate your plan solely upon the basis of the 
•explanation and information you furnished with it and- the information 
we already have in hand. Thus, since this evaluation will result m  
our determination, as required by the Court Order, of whether legal • 
action should be initiated against your system, I urge yota.tc make your 
p],a,n as comprehensive and detailed as possible. ' •'

I appreciate very much the cooperation you and ' other. State officials her. 
given this Office in this natter to date, and I look forward to hearing 
■from you in the near future.

Director '
Office for Civil Rights : •' '■ -

. cc: Honorable James llolshouser
President.'-, Worth Carolina Institutions 

of High-, r Ik'u-cnti on 
HEW Regie: a". Director 
Regional Civil Rights Director
Dr. Ben E,"Fountain, Jr.



DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION. AND WELFARE
i

O F F IC E  O F T H E  S E C R E TA R Y  
W A S H IN G T O N . D .C . 20201

JUL 3 1 1275

I Honorable James E. Holshouser
: Governor
\ State of North Carolina

Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
* •

: Dear Governor Holshouser:

| As you know, in February, 1970 The Office for Civil Rights
of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (OCR) determined 

l that the State of North Carolina was "operating a system of higher
] education in which certain institutions [were] clearly identifiable
•; as to race," and, thus, that the North Carolina higher education

system was not operating in compliance with Title VI of the Civil 
i Rights Act of 1964. In order to comply with Title VI requirements,
• _ recipients of federal financial assistance found to have previously
1 discriminated in the provision of services on the basis of race
| must both eliminate any current discriminatory practices and take
‘‘ positive action to overcome the effect of prior discrimination.
] In the context of desegregating formerly dual higher education
.< systems action beyond the adoption of a non-discriminatory admissions
j policy is required to eliminate the vestiges of the de jure system.

In February 1970, and on two occasions in the spring of 1971, 
OCR requested that the State of North Carolina develop and submit 
for review a desegregation plan detailing the steps by which it 
would eliminate all vestiges of de'jure segregation still existing 
within the post-secondary education system of the State. No 
desegregation plan was submitted by North Carolina in response to 
any of these requests.

Pursuant 
Adams v.

to the court order in Adams v. Richardson (now 
the Sta 

or
_____  Weinberger), OCR requested in March, 1973 that
post-secondary education system submit certain information f 
evaluation. After reviewing the material submitted by North 
Carolina in response to. this request, this Office concluded th 
the vestiges of de jure segregation continued to exist in th
__ i t 'lj-I . T7T._______ t l i____ ___ ’~ ___

State
and that little progress had been made since the initial investigation 
in 1970 lo eliminate the effects of prior discrimination.

hi w'5*?-
I ~-:.

r-'uvw .

; ..

m 
# !  

' P f v :



-2-
i '

' In a letter dated May 21, 1973 the Director of OCR again 
determined that the State was operating its post-secondary 
education system in violation of. Title VI because the racial 
composition of the faculty and student bodies of the eleven 
traditionally white institutions, as compared to the racial 
comoosition of the five traditionally black institutions,_ 
appeared] clearly attributable to the existence oi the prior 
d S a l  system based on race'1. This letter further reflected a 
determination by this Office that the State had tailed to take 
effective action to remedy this situation during the time which 
had elated since the 1970 findings, and that the State had in 
fact! made many decisions and taken several actions during that 
period which tended to reinforce the existing racial duality.
The May *1 letter concluded with another request (the rourth) 
that North Carolina submit to the Director or OCR a plan ior 
complying with Title VI requirements.

In response to the May 21 , 1973 letter, OCR received and 
reviewed several "plans" and "programs" submitted by North Carolina 
On June 21 , 1974 OCR accepted The Revised riortn Carolina State , 1c,n_ 
for the Further Elimination of Racial Duality in the Pu dIic Post- 
Secondary hducation Systems i hereinafter rererred to.as^tne ^!anJ 
in the belief that it set forth a memod by whicn significant 
desegregation" could be achieved by North. Carolina over a period 
of years The Plan committed the State to take certain actions 
which! when fully implemented, were designed to bring the sixteen 
senior institutions and the fifty-seven community colleges, in .he 
North Carolina system of post-secondary education into compliance 
with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act ot 1964.

^CR) flon* UCpt v'nw.ttv or Hs—1 "th a
evaluation of the implementation

1975.

■ The Office for Civil Rights 
Education, and Welfare has completed its 
of this Plan for the period July 1, 1974 through January 31 
Th-ia pvnluation was based upon: (1) our revie-w of (a) the S.a.e s
flret semi-annual report dated March 11. 1975; (b) William friday s 
letter of December 18, 1974, responding to OCR's letter of December . 
1°74* (c) William Friday's letter of April 29, 19/5, responding to 
OCR's letter of, March 25, 1975; (2) our meeting with representatives 
of the General Administration of the University ofj.lorth $ar°linf, - 
(UNC) and the Department of Community Colleges of the State Board of 
Education (DCC) on October 25, 1974; (3) our meeting with repre­
sentatives of the UNC and the DCC on April 14, 1975; and (4) our 
on-site visits to (a) Wake Technical Institute on April 15, 1975,
(b) the University of North Carolina at i-.ilmington on April 16, 97
and (c) the University of North Carolina at Greensboro on April 17,
1975.

T.

* • M • V . * *

t
- r •

. _ -Zai**, t -yg?

f., -». _•

2 ■ .j#cy - 
-Vy~‘

m
mtr - vr •

. t a p



4

I
jt
I

1Iii

I
1

!

i

-3-

As a result of this evaluation, we have concluded that, while the 
Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina, the Department 
g-f Community Colleces of the State Board o> Education and the seventy— 
three sta-te-operated institutions of post-secondary education in 
North Carolina have carried out some of the less significant commitments 
made in the Plan, they have failed to fulfill the most critical 
commitments contained in the document. The attached report sets forth 
the bases for our conclusion with respect to each area^of commitment.
The Board of Governors' decision to place the School of Veterinary 
Medicine at North Carolina State is one example of this failure to 
comply with the Plan.

The decision by the Board of Governors, to place the School of 
Veterinary Medicine at North Carolina State, is a direct violation 
of the State's important commitment to encourage desegregation of 
the State's racially identifiable institutions in every way 
feasible. The Board refused to consider, as a factor in its 
assessment of the racial impact of placing the veterinary school 
at N.C. State or at N.C. A&T, the positive effect_on the desegregation 
of predominantly black North Carolina A&T and on its concomitant 
ability to attract white students which would have occurred from such 
a significant improvement in the program offerings of that institution. 
The Board considered in its decision factors relating to the current 
strength of the institution which did nothing more than continue the 
existence of the present effects of past discrimination. Finally, 
the Board refused to undertake other action to enhance the academic 
program strength of predominantly black North Carolina A&T^and, thus, 
its decision to place the veterinary school at North Carolina State 
not only had the effect of perpetuating the existing dual system 
but also of further increasing existing inequities.

A second example of the failure of the State's agencies to 
fulfill the critical commitments made in the Plan is the Board 
of Governors' failure to complete the Long Range Plan (1975-80) 
of the University of North Carolina by the date specified in 
the Plan. The Board's delay in completing the Long Range Plan 
is of crucial importance because of the interrelation of this 
activity with the State's obligations -to define the roles of the 
institutions in The University system, to study and eliminate 
any existing disparities in resources between the predominantly 
black and the predominantly white state-operated institutions, and 
to eliminate unnecessary duplication of curricula. The delay in 
completing the Long Range Plan has effectively postponed the



-4-

implementation of these other commitments for more than a year. 
Thus, the State will not be able to achieve within the first two 
years of the life of the Plan the substantial progress in these 
areas which OCR expected when the Plan was accepted.

The actions taken during the period July V, 1974 - January 31 , 
1975'by the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina, 
the Department of Community Colleges of the State Board of 
Education and the seventy-three state-operated institutions of post­
secondary education in North Carolina to implement the accepted 
Plan or otherwise eliminate the vestiges of the dual post-secondary 
education system have clearly fallen short of the commitments 
made by the State to remedy the violations of Title VI, identified 
by our iiay 21 , 1973 letter.

Accordingly, if this Office does'not receive within ten days 
from the date of this letter evidence that the State of North 
Carolina has acted to fulfill its affirmative obligation to
eliminate the dual system of post-secondary education in the State,
I will have no alternative but to refer tins matter to 
Office of General Counsel for the initiation 
enforcement proceedings against the State.

of
the Department’ 

ormal administrative

My staff continues to be willing to provide assistance in bringing 
your State into compliance with Title VI. If you have any questions 
relative to our findings or if you require assistance, please do 
not hesitate to contact the Regional Director of the Office for Civil 
Rights, William H. Thomas, at 404-526-3312.

Sincerely yours,

/
Martin Gerry e 
Acting' Director 
Office for Civil

0
Rights

Attachment

M m

p H

- vrW  £• V
r

mm
! '• ■

w m

‘vÔ v.;

'. 'Ttr 

r - v'»*-

K 4

■
v vss* •

H  >
f M '

m



#

OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS' EVALUATION 
OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REVISED NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLAN

FOR THE FURTHER ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DUALITY IN THE PUBLIC POST-SECONDARY 
EDUCATION SYSTEMS— FROM JUNE 21, 1974 TO JANUARY 31, 1975

i. student Recruitment and admissions

» .
Admissions Standards Study

Commitment--UNC

In an effort to evaluate the validity and fairness of the admissions 
standards'e^-Joyed at the North Carolina senior institutions of higher 
education,\the State desegregation Plan contained the following 
commitment (pages 108 and 109).

[I]t will be the responsibility of the President of 
The University of North Carolina to create, by July 1,
1974, a special committee to undertake a thorough 
investigation of current evaluation techniques within 
the senior institutions, drawing on experience to date 

• as well as the accumulated knowledge of acknowledged 
experts in the nation, and to report its findings 

. initially to the President by December 31, 1974.

£
V

Sv.3&fcvr

«

mm

caajgs*

A W

t m

Finding

There was no action taken to this end during the period of evaluation, 
according to the Semi-Annual Report (page 14). The only reason given in 
the report for The University not having fulfilled this commitment v/as the 
absence of a Vice-President for Student Services and Special Programs. i

Educational Opportunity Information Center 

Commitment--UNC F :

It v/as explained on page 121 of the Plan that the 1971 North Carolina 
General Assembly authorized the Board of Governors of The University to

m i x

.... .



• l

•establish an Educational Opportunity Information Center (EOIC). The 
original objective for establishing the EOIC was to provide assistance 
to applicants who were "experiencing difficulties in gaining admission 
to colleges because of crowded enrollments." This objective was revised 
in the Plan to reflect the recent leveling-off in enrollment. The 
current objective of the EOIC is to'assist those applicants needing 
"information regarding the variety of higher educational opportunities 
in the State." The Plan listed as examples of the types of information: 
kinds of institutions available; nature and location of programs;
•admissions process and standards; costs; financial aid; housing; etc.
In addition, the Plan included the commitment that the information "must 
be available in a form suitable to students who are enrolled in junior 
high school" and "special attention will be given to reducing the number 
of minority students who become high school dropouts by the tenth grade."

Finding

• According tc the Semi-Annual Report, the funding request for this commitment 
has been recommended to the General Assembly. There exist, however, 
several basic, unknowns related to this commitment by the UNC:

1. The process by which students needing information may 
contact or be contacted by the EOIC;

2. How the material (information) is going to be made 
available to future applicants such as junior high 
students; and

3. The type of special attention to be given in order to 
. reduce the number of minority students who become

high school drop-outs by the tenth grade.

?2-I

Common Application Form

mm

rTV - *r s v .'

imp*.

M t f

pMmr>-> "TV.

I s ?

® §

4 \

Commitment— UNC

The Plan (pages 122 and 123) included a commitment on the part .of The 
University to adopt a common application form to be used by all 16 
constituent institutions of The University system. The cbjective^of this 
commitment, according to the explanation in the Plan, was to provide all 
applicants with a more convenient and equal opportunity to consider all 
16 institutions. The University system was to monitor the progress to 
determine "whether there results an increase in the rate of applications 
by potential students who represent minority presence on each campus." 
Testing of the common form was to have begun in the fall of 1975 (page 
122 of the Plan). As outlined in the Plan:

L-

f’-Wt.

s *.». t >. uij;«



Each of the 16 campuses will be identified on the 
application form. In this manner, the applicant will 
find it easier to apply simultaneously to one or more 
of the institutions.

F inding

Although the absence of a Vice President for Student Services and Special 
Programs has slowed the work toward meeting the overall commitment of 
designing and testing a common application form (page 13 of the Semi-_ 
Annual Report), The University expects to be able to fulfill its commitmen 
to test the common application form at 3 to 5 of the institutions by the 
fall of 1975.

A matter of concern to this Office is that in our review of the imple­
mentation of this commitment, we found an inconsistency between the 
language in che Plan and a statement made at the July 14 meeting by 
Hr. John Sanders, Vice President for Planning of tiie University's General 
Administration. Hr. Sanders stated that the common application form will 
be one which the applicant can fill out once; xerox; and send to various 
institutions. This does not appear to be consistent with the concept and 
rationale given in the Plan (page 122) for designing a common application 
form. "Multiplicity of forms" and "contacting and filing multiple 
applications with several institutions" can pose a barrier to prospective 
students, according to the Plan. The Plan stressed the convenience and 
equality presented to a prospective student by a common application form 
that identifies each of the 16 institutions to which that prospective 
student may apply.- The language from the Plan is quite specific with 
respect to the rationale and design of the common application form. He, 
therefore, can only conclude that The University is not implemenuing this 
commitment as set forth in the Plan.

University-wide Publications 

Commitment--UNC

It was stated on page 124 of the Plan: , ,

... two new publications will be issued under the _ 
auspices of The University of North Carolina with 
the cooperation of the constituent institutions.

A publication is in the initial stages of development 
which will be aimed primarily at prospective students. 
This publication will contain information about each of 
the 16 public senior institutions. (The private insti­
tutions issue their own publication.) The format is



t
-4- . '

:
i
1
i

i

expected to be attractive and to have special appeal to 
students. The second publication will be similar to the • 
first one, except that the target population will be 
■prospective graduate and professional students. Each 
of these two publications will have the widest possible 
distribution among the respectively appropriate 
populations.

The two publications are expected to be available in time 
for the recruiting period for students entering in the 
fall of 1975.

Finding

Work has not yet begun on the production of these publications; therefore, 
they were not ready for use during the recruiting period of students 
entering in the fall of 1975 as was expected at the time the Plan was 
approved. The Semi-Annual Report indicated that $12,000 had been requested 
for 1975-1977 for each year of the biennium to finance the printing and 
distribution of the publications (page 19). In our April 14 meeting 
with University officials, Mr. John Sanders explained that work on the 
publications was being held in abeyance pending legislative appropriation 
of the requested funds.

. \

Dissemination of Policy on Non-Discrimination 

Commitment— UNC

iff
u g mc.
i-apSfv.mm

(' -.siTK

m m

The following commitment on the 
16 constituent institutions was 
begin immediately:

part of the Chancellors of The University's 
contained on page 125 of the Plan. To

All pertinent publications of the constituent insti­
tutions of The University will clearly state the 
policy that students will be admitted to the insti­
tution without respect to race, and when pictures are 
used to illustrate such publications, this policy 
will be illustrated where feasible by pictures of * r 
integrated groups.

. •«

Finding

According to the Semi-Annual Report (page 20) and to Mr. John Sanders 
of The University's General Administration, this policy has been

I

t

t;-vv'

thTw.r .

It
m

tm-f.

^ -* si,’-
rj-x-z

■wqy y r i

- - - --



1
communicated to the Chancellors'. However, when asked how the imple­
mentation of this policy was being monitored by the General Administration 
of The University (page 272 of the Plan committed the administrative 
structure of The University to performing this oversight function),
Mr. Sanders stated that the General Administration is not mom toring 
the implementation of this policy. Therefore, The University was unable 
•to provide this Office with evidence that this policy is being followed.

Commitment— DCC

The Community College System also made the commitment in the Plan (page 12) 
that all recruitment materials produced within its system after July l, 
1974, either at the State or local level, with aid from Federal or State 
funds, would contain a statement of nondiscriminatory policy. The Plan  ̂
indicated that failure to include this nondiscriminatory policy statement 
would require a refund by the responsible person or institution or all_ 
State or Federal funds used in the production of the recruitment material.

Finding

While it was stated in the Semi-Annual Report that this policy had been 
communicated to the institutions, it was explained to us at the April 14 
meeting by DCC officials, that, as was the case with The University, the 
DCC also did not have a system established to monitor implementation or 
this commitment. Therefore, the DCC could not assure the OCR that tins 
commitment is being met. . .

Minority Presence on Recruiting Staffs 

Commitment— UNC

The UNC committed itself, on page 129 of the Plan, to having at least 
one person on each of its campuses' recruiting staffs who is a member 
of the "principal 'minority presence.'"

-5-

> -s@5.v-

C--

U t l
-$&siI
■utr-)■■*£ ■ -

l
t-v'i

t

• r.tz ••wvg&sSniT;,

ir~

L-;Jfc. :.f v<- •- 
^ >•*.'- •

ib’r .tr-

i
1 ■

v >£ | .1 • •r-*' *iJK' v** 'Sr*'
KvtT'

Finding

At our April on-site meeting with University officials, Mr. John Sanders 
explained that one institution still had not implemented this commitment

High School Counselors Training Programs 

Commitment— UNC

It is stated on page 130 of the Plan. that_"[t]he University as an 
educational '"‘nstitution will do all that it appropriately can to educate,



I -6- ■
inform, and advise the counselors to advise students, white or black,
•to select institutions in accordance with their best academic interests."

To this end, the UNC made the following two commitments:

To the extent that such emphasis is now lacking, the 
academic and training programs for future counselors 
should-emphasize the development of techniques to 
ensure 'objectivity with respect to racial considerations 
in advising students regarding post-secondary educational 
careers. The expected benefit of this emphasis within 
the professional development programs of counselors is 
to minimize or eliminate improper influences that may 
flow from.the counselors' biases. The constituent 
institutions of The University which conduct curricular 
programs in counseling will be encouraged to introduce 
this emphasis where lacking and to reinforce it wherever 
possible. .

In addition, the Plan also included the commitment that The University 
"can and should assist annually the counselors to know and understand 
the offerings of the constituent institutions and the Community College 
System institutions." This was to be accomplished "by means of publications, 
workshops, regional meetings of’the professional organizations, visits to 
the campuses, and other appropriate means."

Implementation of these commitments was to have begun in 1974.

Finding

None of these activities were initiated 
according to Mr. Sanders of The Uni vers 
Mr. Sanders noted only that The Univers 
concerning The University as a whole, a 
was anticipated that a similar presents 
the constituent institutions in the sy? 
for why there had been no attempt on th 
initiate any of the activities discusse 
achieving the objective of this comrnitm

during the reporting period, 
ity General Administration, 
ity has begun work on a slide show 
nd, with sufficient funding, it 
tion would be developed for each of 
tern. No explanation was provided 
a part of The University system to 
d in the Plan with respect to 
ent. *• • '

sw®t m

| | f c

tIt?

rasas

mag
f.jSMayfj 
f W??*

m m ;

High School Counselors1 Articulation Workshops 

Commitment— DCC

It is stated on page 132 of the Plan that the DCC staff conducts articu­
lation workshops oriented primarily toward providing in-service training



* /

i

4

and experience for high school counselors. Vlith respect to the content 
of these workshops, the Plan included the following commitment:

Beginning July 1, 1974, these articulation workshops 
will include substantial emphasis upon the need’ to 
identify and eliminate possible discriminations based 
on race or sex in all areas of institution responsibility.

■ The authorization of State funds to support articulation 
workshops will include a commitment on the part of the 
institution to implement this additional emphasis. Each 
articulation workshop will be required to include one 
seminar on procedures for identifying and eliminating racial 
discrimination in areas of institution responsibility 
affecting students.

Finding

It was explained on page 7 of the Semi-Annual Report that "these workshops 
normally occur in the summer months and plans are being made to emphasize 
this commitment at this time.IL It is reasonable to expect that preparing 
and/or revising workshop materials to reflect a new emphasis takes a 
period of time to complete-.-perhaps more than remained in the summer Of 
1974 following the June 21 implementation date of the State Plan. However, 
it also is not reasonable to expect the DCC to allow a full academic year 
to pass before initiating any of the workshop activities identified in the 
Plan.

Recruiting Visits to High Schools 

Commitment— UNC

It was stated in the Plan on pages 133 and 134 that it is the policy of 
The University that no constituent institution in the system shall 
participate in recruiting visits to high schools which invite or exclude 
recruiters o.i a racially selective basis. Further, the Plan contained 
the commitment that high school students,.regardless of race, will be 
encouraged to attend appropriate university functions at all of the 
constituent institutions, and each institution will continue to bring 
minority and racially integrated groups to campus functions.

Finding

The Semi-Annual'Report included the statement that The University of 
North Carolina continues to observe the policy of not making recruiting 
visits to high schools which invite or exclude recruiters on a racially



selective basis. The General Administration of the UNC, however, does not 
monitor the constituent institutions' application of this policy, we were 
advised by fir. Sanders in April. The Semi-Annual Report provided no 
information concerning how and when the Chancellors plan to fulfill their 
commitment to encourage high school students to attend appropriate 
university functions.

Recruitment Visitations 

Commitment— DCC

Page 135 of the Plan included a commitment that, in order to facilitate 
more effective recruitment of members of minority races, "staff members 
who visit high schools shall always include representatives of the 
respective racial elements comprising the community served." The Plan 
also centair.-d the commitment that "[tjours of the campus and any briefings 
given [coordinated between guidance personnel from high schools and 
community college student services personnel] are presented to the 
[prospective] students in a bi-racial context."

Finding .

: i

r- •

The Semi-Annual Report contained the assurance on page 6 that the commitment 
that community college recruitment teams visiting high schools will always 
include representation of the respective elements of the community served 
is being emphasized; however, no mention was.included in the report that 
the briefings and campus tours are being presented in a "bi-racial context,."

Admissions Standards

Commi tment— DCC

At page 118 of the Plan the Community College System provided an assurance 
that it would continue its open-door policy regarding admissions to its 
constituent institutions. The Plan stated that admission to specific 
programs within the various institutions is "based upon the usê  of a 
system of testing, interviews by counselors, and high school transcripts," 
but provided an assurance that admission to these programs is made "without 
regard to race, creed, color, or national origin." According to the 
Plan, when an applicant does not meet minimum program entrance requirements, 
guided studies and remedial programs are used to prepare the student for 
entrance into the program of his, choice. Also, the Plan further explained 
that there is a procedure for reviewing these standards.



! Admission restrictions applied by local institutional
authorities to applicants for admission to a particular 
curriculum or program are subject to review and 
modification by the'State Board of Education on its 
own motion, or on recommendation of the' State President, 
or by petition of an aggrieved party. (Emphasis added)

Findings— DCC

Data contained in the Semi-Annual Report and inforaation revealed during 
our on-site visit at Wake Technical Institute indicated that blacks may 
be overrepresented in some programs offered at the community colleges 
and underrepresented in others. For example, the statistics on 1974 
graduates indicate that while about 12% of the white students graduated 
from college transfer programs, less than 5% of the black students did.
In addition, these statistics show that about 25" of the white students 
graduated fr^m vocational programs while about 45" of the black students 
graduated from these programs. The same pattern appears to exist at 
Wake Technical Institute where somewhat over 40% of the white students 
are enrolled in curricular programs while a little over 20% of the black 
students are enrolled in those programs.

The Plan contained an assurance on the part of the community colleges 
that selection for the specific programs offered at individual community 
colleges would be made without regard to race. The figures cited above 
raise the question whether the community colleges are aware of and 
committed to fulfilling this assurance.

Commitment--DCC

At page 127 of the Plan a commitment v/as made that the Community College 
System would make special efforts "to utilize the mass media in the 
recruitment of more minority students." In addition, the Plan stated 
that

[c]ontacts v/ith community organizations for the purpose 
of advertising the institutions shall include more contacts 
and emphasis in relation to minority organizations and 
leaders. ' r

Finding--DCC

The Semi-Annual Report noted at page 6 that the commitment with respect to - 
the use of mass media has always been in effect but that efforts were being 
intensified. At pane 50, the following additional information was included:

S i p

i M fsfti
s f p
W m

* ;

**>>vS*
rfe-V-v.V.
fSSp
’CAAAA-C, 

jCi' A

PS
S'—s’”- >•• • J V- -mr -

m ANSfes
$ & & &

P W b 1

i- ?s£t- ■ms-At

m
m m

f - . i  -mm.
fcn'wv.[-iSrr 'J r

tara



-kick

: (7) The institutions are using spot announcements on
radio and television to call to the attention of the 
public tiie various programs of study available at the 
local institution. Many of these announcements are used 
on stations which are popular with young people and the

■; black population.

■ flo information was included in the report with respect to the commitment
• to contact community organizations.

• At our A d H I  meeting, Dr. Marsellette Morgan indicated that the Department 
of Community Colleges had done little to monitor the implementation of

• this commitment. She said that she knew personally of several insti-
i tutions which had used radio advertisements, but that she did not know if

community organizations had been contacted. Dr. Morgan agreed to submit
! ' to the Regional Office some examples of radio ads used by community
j colleges; however, none v/ere forwarded. OCR is, therefore, unable to

conclude that either of these two commitments has been implemented. The 
Department of Community Colleges has established no system for monitoring 

. the implementation of these promises, and it cannot provide OCR with 
sufficient evidence to show that these obligations have been fulfilled.

]
j II. TREATMENT OF STUDENTS

Transfer Policies and Guidelines 

Commi tment— UNC

: The Board of Governors promised in the Plan to continue its activities in
| the following areas in order that "access to the constituent institutions
| of The University may be enhanced" (Plan, page 114):

(1) co-sponsor and provide staff services for the 
Joint Committee on College Transfer Services,- f

• the Joint Committee on Nursing Education, and 
the Allied Health Articulation Project,

(2) publish and distribute two biennial manuals: (1)
Guidelines for Transfer, and (2) Policies of Senior 
Colleges and Universities Concerning Transfer 
Students from Two-Year Colleges in North Carolina,



• 1

- 1 H  . . .

(3) participate in periodic articulation workshops
' in the major disciplines, and

(4) - collect and disseminate data annually on transfer
students indication not only the extent of incoming 
•and outgoing transfers but the degree of their 
academic achievement as well.

Finding— Uf!C

The information provided by the Board of Governors about the action which 
The University has taken to fulfill these commitments is insufficient to 
allow OCR to conclude that The University is properly implementing the 
Plan in the area of transfer policies and guidelines.

At page 16 of the Semi-Annual Report, The University reported only that 
its commitment to work with the Joint Committee on College irans sr 
Students is being carried out. The report did not provide any details 
about The briversity1 s involvement i’n this area. In addition, the report 
did not include any information at all about whether the University is 
acting to fulfill its commitments to participate in workshops, to work 
with the other specified committees, to publish the two manuals or to 
collect and disseminate data.

When questioned about The University's activities in this area during 
the April 14, 1975, meeting between OCR and UNC officials, fir. John Senders 
replied only that The University had begun to collect data on transfer 
patterns on an annual basis.

Financial Aid 

Commitment— UMC

At page 141 of the Plan, The University committed^itself to routinely 
collecting data on "the distribution of student aid dollars from all 
sources." Un until that time data was only available regarding the 
distribution of student financial aid from Federal sources. JThe Plan^ 
stated that this information was "essential to_a more complete understanding 
of the impact of financial aid on enrollments in The University.

Finding--UNC '•

The Semi-Annual Report stated at page 28 that The University is assembling 
' data on student aid recipients by race and that it will provide this 
information in its next Semi-Annual Report. It is not clear from the 
Plan or the report how this information will be used once it is assembled.

M m

m m

E

B p s
ggpti

rA-A

|||p,

f

P h i* .hp
LiViV:

m
tv**8-’PvP;-

f ~r’ •

f
r* -
& & &V:-
f.-jv -

i f e

t-

life

&
r-:-“

e  h ■



Commitment— UNC

»

M

l •
I1

1
*i
r;j
*

i
i«
!1
!
1i
i
4

\t
1

1

a^inanJai , L th Plan\ The University promised to undertake to establish 
ramn!wc program designed to increase "minority presence" on the 
campuses of its constituent institutions: 8

1
■nL°nĈ r to.ass'1*st the process of desegregation within
,ne University and to increase assurance that lack of '
money is not an impediment to the process, the Board 1
of Governors will request that an appropriation be . i
made to The University General Administration for the !
purpose of providing financial aid funds to encourage !
white students to attend predominantly black insti- \
tutions and, conversely, black students to attend <
predominantly white institutions. For the period l
1975_'5> the sum of $300,000 will be requested for this 
purpose. .

Findinq

The University reported at page 26 of its Semi-Annual Repor* that Sinn nrn 
. was requested for each year of the 1975-77 biennium that the r o l l  ? ’000

m a S ewasedo^dinhS Advisory Budget M i s s i o n  and Sa t matter was pending berore the General Assembly. A report of the action

ASSrably ,S t0 -  ThJ |

It should be noted here that The University has never clearly described
» r d w l S ? ™ trnen̂  be implemented. The Plan stated that.the “ ?

i
!

i
i
!i
i
!
i

. icuipiem. ana aie amount o. the award will be . i 
normal financial aid processes of an individual campus." 

j 1 B Though the Plan did set out minimum criteria which each * \ 
student must meet to be eligible (pages 141-142), it did not delineate i
the nrn S300’003 w°uld be divided among the various institutions, how 
558H^ J gr.ayhn’/ni,ld 5® P^ 1  seized, and whether the program would focus on | 
students who plan to attend aninstitution for four years or on students 1 

o plan to attend an institution for only a semester or a year. *

Commitment— UNC f
i

The following commitment was set out at page 143 of the Plan: [ 

The Board of Governors does commit itself to a review
end study of all financial aid resources that are ' 1 
available to the constituent institutions of The ' £ 
University. The purpose of this review and analysis i 
is to determine the effectiveness with which financial
aid emanating from-private sources is helping to meet the \ £ 
needs of minority presence' students f



The Semi-Annual Report contained no information regarding this commitment.
Our on-site visit during April, 1975 revealed nothing which indicated that 
this commitment is being carried out. Though no start or finish dates 
were given in the Plan for the implementation of this study, OCR assumes 
that in keeping with its expectation of substantial progress in the first 
two years, the study should have been initiated by this time. Since no 
information nrovided by The University indicated that the study has been 
undertaken, OCR must conclude that The University has failed to implement 
this promised study in a manner calculated to achieve results in the first 
two years of the Plan.

Commitment--UNC

At pages 143-144 of the Plan, the State made a commitment to "take steps 
to reduce fu: cher the financial barriers to post-secondary education faced 
by many students." The responsibility for carrying out this commitment 
was vested in the Board of Governors of The University and the North 
Carolina State Education Assistance Authority.

One of the approaches to fulfilling this commitment which was outlined 
in the Plan was an expansion of the state-funded grants program.

According to the Plan, the Governor had requested that the Board submit a 
request to the legislature for support of a State Student Incentive 
Grants Program based on the Federally funded program. The second 
approach outlined in the Plan was the "continuation of providing adeauate 
reserve capacity for the program of North Carolina Insured Loans."

Findir.gs--UNC

The Semi-Annual Report noted at page 27 several actions taken by the Board 
of Governors in fulfillment of this commitment. As requested by the 
Governor, the Board asked for an appropriation of $500,000 for 1975-75 
and $650,000 for 1976-77 to fund the State Incentive Grants Program.
However, the Governor and the Advisory Budget Commission failed to 
recommend this request to the General Assembly. The Semi-Annual Report 
did not explain why the Governor refused to recommend funding for a 
program specifically outlined in the Plan. The failure to follcwthrough 
on funding this program is particularly difficult to understand since it 
was at the Governor's request that this appropriation proposal was submitted.

According to the Semi-Annual Report, two other budget requests were recom­
mended to the General Assembly by the Governor and the Budget Commission. 
Funds were requested for a special non-service scholarship program and

i'V .

E
%'
fe'i
ft

1Vv
fv‘

("■rr;rf
%

Ih'
fr
&

I
£- ' r. 
fc.

6
i-

• f.
Lv
f
i

K
i.



/

1 -T.4- ' •I

for additional College Work Study funds. A fourth appropriation request, 
to increase the non-service scholarship funds, was not recommended by 
the Governor.

The Semi-Annual Report did not contain any information about how the 
State plans to provide for the continuation of adequate reserve capacity 
for the program of North Carolina Insured Loans. Also, the report did 
not explain what effect the Governor's and Budget Commission's failure to 
recommend funds for two of the financial aid programs proposed would 
have on the State's ability to fulfill its commitment to reduce 
financial barriers nor did it propose alternatives to the rejected 
programs.

Commitment--DCC

The Plan, at page 145, included the following statement and commitment:

resent, there is no State-level program of student 
aid in the Community College System other than the 
[North Carolina Insured Student Loan Program] previously 
noted. State appropriations will continue to be re­
quested to provide matching funds required to qualify 
all institutions for full participation in federal grant 
programs made available in support of student aid. At 
present an institution's participation is dependent upon 
the availability of local funds to match federal funds.
State funds, if appropriated, would become available on 
and after July 1, 1975.

Finding "

The Semi-Annual Report did not state whether funds were requested from 
the General Assembly for the 1975-77 biennium. If they were not, that 
would mean that the DCC could not act to fulfill this commitment until 
more than two years after the Plan's approval.

f|p£

g p stag#

i g pm
ip|gg
p i twm
mm
M 0 .*'v 1&2

HI
mw
teii

s' -um.

Student Access to Services and Facilities ----------------------------------------- - . r

Commitment— UNC

At pages 148 and 149 of the Plan, the nondiscrimination policies of The 
University in the areas of housing, student teaching, job placement, and 
contract conditions were set forth. In addition, the following two specific 
'commitments were included:



***

(6) Discrimination Detection

Each chancellor of a constituent institution of 
The University will be asked to designate a 
responsible officer of the institution whose duty 
it will be to be alert-to, receive reports on, 
investigate, and recommend that appropriate 
remedial action be taken by the proper insti­
tutional officers with respect to instances of 
racial discrimination within the institution or 
by persons or organizations of the kinds referred 
to in the foregoing paragraphs.

(7) Semi-annual Reports

The semi-annual reports of The University to HEW 
will summarize experience with respect to racial 
discrimination as to student access to services and 
'facilities during 'the preceding six months.

The letter dated June 18, 1974, which is a part of the accepted Plan 
stated further that:

... the Board .of Governors has given various as­
surances that it will not tolerate instances of 
discrimination on the basis of race within its insti­
tutions or by those whose activities are under its 
control and has established a mechanism for 
identifying and dealing with such instances should 
they occur. It is anticipated that all sued instances 
of racially-based discrimination occurring on the 

• campuses will be dealt with effectively by the 
chancellors and their subordinates. It will be the 
obligation of the President, however, to maintain 
oversight of this matter through the regular 
reporting processes of The University as well as - r 
through complaints that may reach him of unremedied 
discrimination occurring on the campuses and to take 
(or where appropriate to recommend to the Board of 
Governors that it take) remedial action where 
necessary. (Pages 6-7)

Findings

The Semi-Annual Report did not contain the promised summary of The 
University’s experience with regard‘to racial discrimination in the area

fpSi

mm
mm
SWsis*

|®Sm
b& m
Kyk

i
r-

I  I I



.1
I
1

of student access to facilities and services. When queried during the 
April 14, 1975, meeting about this failure on the part of The University 
to comply with a.commitment in the Plan, John Sanders offered no 
explanation for the omission. Instead, he summarized the experience 
by explaining that The University was relying on complaints to identify 
problems in this area and that there had been no complain Li during the 
reporting period.

The University has not provided OCR v/ith any information about whether 
the chancellors have, in fact, designated the institutional officers 
called for in the Plan.

The Plan committed the President of The University to monitoring the 
implementation of this commitment through the "regular reporting^ 
processes" of The University in addition to investigating speciiic compla 
For this reason Mr. Sanders' explanation was not sufficient to indicate 
that The University acted during the reporting period to fulfill the 
promise meet' in the Plan. So far as OCR could determine during the on-si 
visits conducted in April, 1975, the President of The University nas not 
maintained oversight of the chancellors' activities in this area.

\

Commitment— DCC

At pages 150-151 of the Plan the nondiscrimination policies of the 
Community College System in the areas of student housing, job placement, 
community services, contract conditions are set out. The following two 
specific commitments are included within the policy statements.

***

(2) Off-campus Housing

All institutions which maintain referral services 
for student housing will publish statements of non- 
discrimination that have been adopted by their local 
boards of trustees. Each institution offering 

' referral services- will need to determine whether 
landlords whose facilities are listed with the insti­
tution rent to students on a ncn-discriminatory basis.

'k'k’fc

(5) Other Services Performed by Contractors for 
Institutions - -

... Any Community College System institution 
contracting with any agency, company, or other 
'institution to have the contractor provide direct

ints.

te

feu VYit-r.km

53cf
> - •'•-c' .

p & g

fes®®

C:'J- q-i V't

B m
w s m
r-j. u:.. 
fi5;r

-

r . - . . * • r • . -

• --:



-17-

services to students must require that such 
services be delivered without discrimination 
based on race, sex, creed, color, or national 
origin.

Findings— DCC

The Semi-Annual Report filed by the DCC noted at page 6 that those 
component institutions maintaining housing referral services were re­
sponsible for implementing the commitment to publish nondiscrimination 
statements, and that these institutions would be audited. OCR has 
concluded from this notation that no monitoring of the implementation of 
this commitment by the DCC had been undertaken by the end of the last 
reporting period. At the April, 1975 meeting, Dr. M. horgan stated that, 
as of that date, there had been no change in the status of implementation 
from that reported in the Semi-Annual Report. From this, we conclude 
that no action has been taken by the DCC thus far to ensure that the 
individual institutions in the system have either published the 
nondiscrimination policies as promised or determined as required that 
landlords are renting on a nondiscriminatory basis. This means that a_ 
full year may have passed in which no substantial implementation of this 
commitment took place.

In regard to the contract conditions commitment, the Semi-Annual Report 
at page 6 said that desegregation impact statements on educational 
services rendered had been required. However, no such statements were 
included with the report. Also, no mechanism by which the DCC can assure 
itself that each institution is requiring contractors to provide services 
without regard to race has been established.

I

M m

tM:
ir*-

Student Organizations

Commi tment— PNC

Under the Plan, the chancellors of the individual institutions which make 
up The University have a duty to require that every institutionally 
sanctioned student organization files a nondiscrimination statement with 
the institution and a duty to take appropriate remedial act.ionr Wnere such 
■organizations are found to be discriminatory. (Page 152)

Findings— UNC - -

At page 29 of the Semi-Annual Report it was reported that the policy of 
The University that all student organizations have open membership had 
been communicated to the chancellors, that the chancellors had been 
reminded of their duties under the Plan, and that, insofar as the Board

£53$

aI



•of Governors was aware, the student organizations on the various 
were observing the nondiscrimination P5licy Ko-ever when ps^ L  ^  S 
the April, 1975 meeting how the Board of Governors makes^its-lftwirl'"9- 
the activities of student organizations on the individual clauses o~!
The Urn versny , Mr. Sanders said that the Board of Governors had no°‘ 
monitored u.e actions or the chancellors or the organizations in this 
area. According to him, the Board of Governors had not required the 
chancellors to report their activities and it had not tried to assume
4 ?l L l \ n nL T , l  statsnen.ts were actually on file.
°n^ ^ Wky —  whlcfl a Prob1e!T1 in this area would be identified by 
would be i t  a complaint was filed with it. . J

Commitment— DCC

The 
the Board

The Plan stated at page 153 that:

EacVstudent organization before being approved by an 
institution within the Community College System shall 
be required to file a statement declaring that membership 
will be open to all students without regard to race 
creed, color, or national origin. Only organizations 
that are approved by an institution shall be permitted 
to utilize its facilities on a regular basis.

Findings— DCC

^ th<f Senior College System, there has been no monitorino of the 
implementation of this commitment by the Department of Community Collies 
The Semi-Annual Report, at page 7, stated that this commitment 4 s  b^rn 
emphasized in contacts with institutions" and that conformant by 
individual institutions with the stated policy would be audited. 
mechanism.has, as^yet, been identified for ensuring that this commitment 
has been implemented by the constituent institutions.

Student Retention

that the 
did commit

Commitment--jjRC

Although the Plan-did not commit The University to "ensuring1 
ThP^ni P o n t a g e  of black graduates would be maintained, it did comm
Ihwhnil r S U h-t0 taklng a11 reasonable steps to enable The University as 
a whole to achieve that goal. (Page 154) As a necessary orereauis In 
the implementation of this commitment, The University also promised

co” ;cr on 0f StUdent experience data S Srace? andthe collection of data on degrees conferred by race.



According to the Semi-Annual Report, forms and procedures have been 
devised by the General Administration for the systematic gatherinn and 
reporting of data by race on student retention and data on degrees 
con.erred At the April, 1975 meeting, University officials indicated 
tnat bench-mark data had been established in the fall of 1974. and that

be fol1ov''ed “P in the fall of 1975. These officials 
said that the January, 1976, report would include information about'the 
numbarof drop-outs and new entrants in this first year of the study.
In addition, they reported that The University planned to follow up on 
a random' number of students who left The University for other than

rer,Sons in an effort ^  identify the specific reasons for their 
wwcnarawal.

The Plan committed The University to doing more than collecting data 
however, an-., so rar as OCR can determine no other acticn was taken 
toward the goal of maintaining the current percentage of black graduates 
during the reporting period.

Compensatory and Remedial Education Programs 

Commitment--UNC

Several pages in the Plan were devoted to a discussion of existing special 
? Programs and the attendant need for special remedial efforts,
^ages 110-il3). According to the Plan, the total objective in this 
area was not only to expand the opportunities for admission into the 
post-secondary education system for students with minimum qualifications 
but also to assure "the availability and proper use of resources designed 
to acknowledge and address the special needs of such stud3n^s " In 
order to help the component institutions of The University meet this

the followin9 specific task was undertaken by the General
ttamimstration:

Within The University of North Carolina, a study will 
be undertaken of the experience of the constituent 
institutions of ihe University and of other insti- r 
tutions with respect to remedial and compensatory 
education -programs for those whose academic quali­
fications are less than those normally required for 
admission. The purpose of this study will be to 
develop a body of information on the most effective 
forms and contents of such programs, their organization 
and administration, their cost, and other aspects. This



information would-be made available to the constituent 
> institutions in the development or expansion of

remedial and compensatory education programs. The 
•projected study should be completed by July 1, 1975, 
and the effects of the data it develops should beoin to 

. be observed by the fall of 1975.

Findings--Uric

The study promised by The University has been delayed. Althouqh the
inmfo5caU»1MreP<inhnScat1d at-p^ e ]5 that_the study commitment "continued 
" • rcr’ ,r- John Sanders indicated during the April meetina between

begi"byS0uly!U!l975! ^  StUdy WaS "0t yet u'“!e' W  but should

The Plan committed The University to completing this study b'> July 197=1
data which U  revea1ed night have observable 

effects by\vall of 1975. It was important that The University adhore 
to this time schedule because only then would The University be likely 
to achieve the substantial results which OCR expected to occur during 
the first two years of the Plan. It appears now that The University
the studybS ^  6 t0 achl.eve timely results due to the delay in beginning

.

*
Commitment--DCC

According to the Plan, admission to many of the specific programs offered 
by community colleges is based on a variety of factors including tests 
interviews and high school performance. The Plan stated that rac® is 
not a factor in this admissions process. In addition, the Plan stated 
that where an applicant does not meet minimum program entrance re­
quirements , guided studies and remedial programs are used £by the
of^his1'choice1 t0 prepare the student fcr entrance into the program

Among the programs mentioned by the Plan as aiding disadvantaaed persons 
aj'T Pr°gCafls conducted under the Manpower Development Training Act,
Adult Basic Education, Adult High School Education, and the General 
Educational Development Preparatory Program. The Plan reported that 
the institutions have been experiencing difficulty in enrolling and 
retaining students in these programs. A commitment was made, however, 
o expend^additional erforts "in an attempt to enroll and retain more 
students in this category without regard to race." (Page 119)

Findings— DCC

The Semi-Annual Report filed by the DCC noted at page 7 only that "such 
e orts have been continuing since 1953 and emphasis has been increased "

was°providedimatl°n releVant *° the of this c o g e n t



’OCR has interpreted this commitment to mean that the community collenes 
v/ould begin with the implementation of the Plan to take actions over 
and above what they had been doing previously. The notation in the 
Semi-Annual Report appears to indicate that such "additional" efforts 
have not been undertaken. If so, tne actions of the community colleaes 
have not been consistent with OCR's interpretation of the Plan.

in. desegregation of faculty and staff

General Administration Support of Institutional AAP's--UNC

The nature and purpose of the centralized support of institutional AAP's 
to be provided by the General Administration under the Plan was explained 
at pages 165-166- ' v

We do not purport here to establish a different or 
separate or supplemental program which independently 
is designed to do more than the separate institutional 
affirmative action plans envision with respect to 
permanent, full-time employment. ...

It is acknowledged, however, that the successful 
realization of the^separately stated institutional 
goals for changes in the racial composition of 
permanent, full-time faculties can be enhanced 
through various state-level supplemental programs of 
assistance, encouragement, and inducement which are 
consistent with and supportive of the separate 
institutional efforts. One of the purposes of this 
section of the state plan, therefore, is to describe 
with particularity and to make definite commitments 
concerning those system-wide supplemental efforts.
A second purpose of this section'of the state plan 
is to describe with particularity and to make definite 
commitments with respect to other initiatives which, 
while not involving traditional employment relation- r 
ships, will have the effect of enhancing multi-racial 
taculty exposures.

»' -21-

gitisWS!?
f- Vijgjvisi}rt-7JTv.

riBp

M

Three commitments concerning system-wide supplemental 
forth at pages 168 to 170 of the Plan.

efforts v/ere set

rz

r ' ryvy-..

if.'. -

t ■■■ ~-
m

wy-sv-

t'W-'t. •

l i
I p '



I

-22- •
Commitment--UNC

Twice annually (in July and January) during the life 
of.the affirmative action plans, the Office of General 
Administration will-sponsor a general meeting of chief 
academic officers and other appropriate campus officials 
for the purpose of reviewing institutional problems and 
achievements in attaining increased multi-raciality of 
faculties. Such meetings will be devoted to the exchange 
of information, the discussion of common problems, and 
the assessment of prospects for increasing achievements.

Finding— UNC'

In the Semi-Annual Report at page.36 it was reported that one such 
meeting had been held during the reporting period. No information about 
any problems identified or achievements noted durinn this meeting was 
included f<i the University's submission to OCR.

\
Commitment— UNC

A central faculty position listing service for faculty 
positions will be established. Cn or before July 1,
1974, the Vice President for Academic Affairs will 
notify the chancellor of each constituent insti­
tution of the availability of this service. A campus 
which wishes to participate will file with the Vice 
President pertinent data (including job description, 
eligibility criteria, and proposed employment date) 
concerning any faculty position available to be filled 
andabout which the filing campus wishes to have 
notice given to the faculties of other constituent 
institutions. Such filings will be furnished to the 
chancellor of each constituent institution with 

. instructions to disseminate the summary at the campus 
level in a manner designed to afford information to 
interested faculty employees who may wish to make 
direct inquiry about the employment opportunity.
Agencies and institutions other than those which . f 
comprise The University of North Carolina will be 
included j,n the monthly mailing list on request.

Finding— UNC

The Semi-Annual Report noted at page 36 that this service was instituted, 
n appendix to the report included an explanation of the procedures

followed in compiling the listings and copies of the first two listinos.
These first two listings were distributed in November, 1974, and January,

m

esaaa-l
£-/SsSS«
i i f m

mm
I f c
E.'swKjfesj&fea
kip?
i p j

,'TV<vcl_-

f y-m

r/ci'-X-.y & Z *

i f
V: -rtf'

pteS
|

f'-J i-5.-t- v*W-;
V v v'
m -
y m

i. -y ‘i *-r»At - - j- ;

e
t -jH-6." H-



i

-23-

The Plan committed The University to compiling and issuing this listinq 
on a monthly basis. By only compiling and distributing the list twice 
during the reporting period, The University has failed to implement this 
commitment as promised in the Plan.

Commitment— UNC

A central faculty applicant listing service will be 
established by the Vice President for Academic Affairs 
on or before July 1, 1974. The service will receive 
and pool applications from [a number of] sources.

Finding

The Semi-Annual Report stated at page 36 that the central aDDlicant 
listing service had "not proved feasible" in the form described in the 
Plan. The report indicated that the General Administration was instead 
following a procedure whereby "in those few instances in which faculty 
members have made'known ... their availability for employment, they have 
been sent a copy of the report of the central faculty position listinq 
service with the suggestion that they pursue any interesting leads 
found therein." The Semi-Annual Report did not provide an explanation 
of why the original design did not prove feasible, though it did state 
that the substituted procedure seemed to be meeting current needs.
Mr. John Sanders stated during our April meeting that the reason for 
abandoning the original design was that there were too few applicants 
interested in being.listed to bother setting up the system.

OCR is unable to conclude from the information provided thus far by The 
University that it was justified in making a unilateral revision of one 
of the specific commitments made in the Plan. If, as Mr. Sanders 
indicated, the original design for the system was abandoned before it 
was set up, it is hard for OCR to understand how The University 
determined that there would be too few applicants interested to make 
the serviceworthwhile. This is particularly true since it is apparent 
that The University never implemented the commitment to include on all 
employment forms used on the campus level written notice of the riaht 
of the applicant to have his application forwarded to the. central applicant 
pool. OCR must assume that The University's action in this regard 
amounts to_a_faiJure to implement a promise made in the Plan rather than 
a mere revision in the form of a commitment.

Even ifthis were determined to be a justified revision of the Plan, The 
University's action reflects a failure to abide by its commitment to file 
promptly with OCR any proposed revisions of the Plan. (Plan, page 273)



In addition to these three commitments related to enhancing the diversity 
of the faculty applicant pool, the Plan also contained commitments 
relating to less traditional ways of encouraging multi-raciality among 
the faculties of The University's constituent institutions.

Commitment— UNC

The Plan (pages 170-173) committed The University to establishing a proar^m 
o f ’faculty exchanges and visitations, the purpose of which would be to 
provide "short-term 'minority presence' experience at the faculty level."
An initial planning conference for these programs was to be held by~
October 1 , 1974. At that conference basic guidelines for -implementing 
these programs were to be developed.

Beyond the initial meeting, the Plan (page 171) described the further 
responsibilities of The University General Administration as follows:

The function of the Office of General Administration 
will be to provide various media through which the 
effectuation of such multi-campus arrangements will 
be encouraged and-to assist in the underwriting of 
any special expenses that may be entailed. Because 
any such arrangements would constitute, basically, a 
new departure in staffing commitments, a number of 
currently unresolved practical questions must be 
addressed before any specific agreements can be 
entered. Thus, a reasonable planning period is 
necessary, looking toward effectuation of the first 
such new staffing commitments for the 1975-1376 
academic year. This is not to say that opportunities 
for earlier implementation of realistic possibilities 
will be foregone; however, the major initial impact 
of this effort is expected to occur during the 1975-1976 
academic year, in view of the fact that virtually all 
hiring for 1974-1975 has been done.

The basic medium for continuous planning would consist f 
of an annual conference sponsored by the Office of 
General Administration, which would involve admin­
istrative representatives from pairs or larger groupings 
of predominantly white and predominantly black insti­
tutions which are reasonably proximate geographically.
Such conferences would be held in the winter or early 
spring of each year, coincident with the approximate 
'faculty recruitment season,' in anticipation of staffing 
need? and opportunities for the next succeeding academic 
year.



’ The cost of these programs was estimated at about $100,000 for the 
1975-76 school year.

Finding— UNO

The Semi-Annual Report stated only that $100,000 a year had been re­
quested from the General Assembly for the 1975-77 biennium. The report 
included no information about the implementation status of other 
promised activities. No information was submitted from which OCR could 
conclude that the October meeting was held, that the guidelines were 
developed, and that the annual conference was convened in winter or 
early spring. Therefore, OCR must assume that The University has for 
the most .part failed to follow through on this commitment. If planning 
has not gone on according to schedule it seems likely that The University 
will not be able to comply with its commitment to initiate some of these 
programs this fall.

\
Commitment— UNC * •

On page 177 of the. Plan, the following commitment designed to increase 
the number of qualified minority candidates for faculty employment by 
increasing minority representation in graduate programs was set forth:

In order to bring into focus the efforts that are now 
underway and to develop others that might be productive 
in increasing black enrollments in graduate and 
professional schools in the nine constituent insti­
tutions of The University having such schools, each 
of those institutions will be asked to.submit to the 
Office of General Administration by no later than 
October 1, 1974, a report on the efforts it has made 
and plans to make to increase black enrollment in its 
degree programs, with related cost estimates. The

• target date for implementation of such plans is the 
student recruitment and admission season anticipating 
enrollment for the 1975-1975 academic year. Such plans 
are to be specific as to methodologies and corresponding 
costs.- The basic conceptual guidelines for developmentr 
of such plans shall be the same as those operative with 
respect to the more general iced undertakings of this 
state plan with the objective of producing changes in 
the racial composition of student bodies. Thus, this 
effort presupposes a fundamental respect for and 
deference to the concept of racial nondiscrimination 
in all recruitment and admissions practices and 
decisions.



\ -26-

i\

Findings

The Semi-Annual Report contained at page 38 the notation that the Vice 
President for Academic Affairs has "discussed with the deans cf the 
nine graduate schools of the constituent institutions of The University 
the need for and means cf attracting more black students into their 
graduate programs." No information about whether the plans were submitted 
by the nine institutions on schedule or about whether those plans were 
implemented in time for this past student recruitment season was contained 
in The University's January submission.

The only action reported other than the discussions held was The 
University's request for an appropriation to fund a scholarship program 
fordisadvantaged students. However, this action was also cited as 
satisfying another unrelated commitment. From the information now at 
hand, OCR must conclude that The University and the nine constituent 
institution:.- offering graduate programs have failed to take the actions 
related to this commitment which were specified in the Plan.

Centralized Support of Institutional AAP's--DCC'

According to the Plan (page 17S), administrative matters relating to 
faculty and staff are, for the most part, left to the "sound discretion 
of the institution administration and board of trustees." However, 
oversight of institutional activities is maintained at the state level 
and there is a procedure whereby state funds to an institution may be 
withdrawn or withheld if an institution refuses to comply with provisions 
of law or regulations issued by higher authority or if it persistently 
abuses its discretion. (Plan, pages 180-181) Within this context, 
the Department of Community Colleges made several commitments in the Plan 
related to support of institutional affirmative action efforts.

Commitment--DCC

The Department recognized in the Plan that a significant problem of 
underrepresentation of minorities existed among the faculties and 
staffs of the institutions in the community college system. (Plan, page 
197) For this reason the following commitment was made:

The factofs which contribute to minority under­
representation will receive close and conscientious 
attention, in order that appropriate corrective 
measures can be developed and implemented by insti­
tutional and State level administrative procedures 
and actions— including, to the extent found necessary, 
such State-level procedures and actions as those

...  previously inserted and exemplified on pages 180-81.
(Plan, page 197)

H i

* -\rrvvP
§13

r.t -jfrr?

m
m i

iM'.

I- V • ’ 
iv.

l *
E I

m .

I f

m
i m -
CrSC:'Ur
li



The Semi-Annual Report (page 5) stated that at least 1/4 of the cc"muni*v 
colleges were engaged in utilization studies to uncover factors which 
contribute to minority underrepresentation. According to the report 
"Conformation derived from continuing studies will be used to develop 
and implement corrective measures.'^ Dr. M. Morgan said during the April 
meeting thau this commitment was being implemented throuqh the devp- 
lopmeni. of the individual institution affirmative action plans. Neither 
she nor the report indicated that the DCC was in the process of develooina 
effortsPr°Pn c0rrectlve measures- independent of the institutional

The Plan committed the DCC, as well as the institutions, to giving clos- 
and conscientious attention to the factors contributing to minority 
underrepresentation and to developing and implementinn appropriate 
corrective -asu-es through State level administrate procedures Sire- 

^ C C hh ' J nd^cate?.t5at is re]y"‘ng on the development of insti­
tutional s to satisfy this commitment, OCR must conclude that the nrr 
has tailed lo meet, its obligations in this area.

Finding

Commitment— DCC

Periodic reviews will be made of the efforts, pro­
cedures , and̂  practices used by the individual insti­
tutions in the recruitment of personnel to fill staff 
positions at all levels, fhe respective institutions 
win^be expected to retain a file of all applications 
showing the race and sex of the applicants thereon 
together with ocher doc u rn e n t s - - s u c h ss advertisements 
letters of recommendation, etc.--having relevance to 
the consideration and selection of an individual to 
fill each position, Where letters or circulars have 
been sent to training institutions for display on 
ulletin boards or to solicit nominees from officials 

copies of these documents will also be included in 
the nle. (Plan, page 193)

Findings , ,

tl̂ atafhf5”? n i Sem1 TAnniJ51.Report; submitted by the DCC, it was noted 
In Jr5«ss 5 A? °.V'"stitut^a recruitment practices is already
rnnc<cf!3 ? 9° 23’ the rePort indicated that this "review"

a telephone survey of 11 of the 57 institutions in the
institMtinne uU5JectS addressed in the telephone review were whether the 
institutions had prescribed recruitment procedures, whether they had



maintained the application files required by the Plan, and whether they 
. nad issued statements regardinq equal employment opportunity The
notaddressld^6 institutl"onal activities in these areas was'apparently

Tnis cursory check of a limited number of institutions is not sufficient
thP Srr'In the.ob^ 9̂ o n  of the DCC in this area. The Plan committed 
the DCC to reviewing the practices, efforts and procedures of the 
individual institutions. Conducting a survey designed to determine' 
whether a small sample of.institutions have instituted specified actions 
without concurrently examining the substance or validity of those actions 
does not satisfy this commitment. actons

Although the Semi-Annual Report (pages 5-6) did state that the institutions 
had been lmormed of their obligation to keep files of applications and 
recruitment materials and that they would be audited for conformance 

requirements, no time frame or procedure for conductino 
these audits was specified. .Therefore, OCR is unable to conclude tbit 
DCC will take ohese actions in a manner which is calculated to ensure ' " 
implementation of these commitments by the institutions within the first 
two years of the life of the Plan.

Commitment--DCC -•

-28- '
I

Institutions will be encouraged to develop affirmative 
action plans based on a model which is being developed 
by a committee of the institution Presidents’ Association 
with assistance from staff members of the Department 
of Community Colleges. (Plan, page 198)

rindi nqs

The Semi-Annual Report indicated that 2/4 of the community colleges i
Carn1 ‘nM SuStem WSre devel°P1'n9 cr had developed affirmative ac„.„„ 

plans. Dr. M. Morgan stated during our April meeting that the DCC was 
working.closely with the individual schools, providing technical assistance 
and advice and generally coordinating the development of the AAP's.

Neither the report nor Dr. Morgan indicated whether the model AAP which 
to be developed t o t  use by the individual institutions in completing the 
plans was ever completed. It appears that the DCC has failed to follow 
througn in this regard.

’as
ir

Commitment--DCC

As of July 1, 1974, the State President will establish 
in the Department of Community Colleges an applicant



1 -29-

pool in which will be maintained a register of persons 
who file with the Department directly or through an 
institution an application or letter of information 
stating an.interest in being considered as an applicant 
for employment inthe Department of Community Colleces 
or in an institution or institutions of the Community 
College System. At the applicant's request or subject 
to the applicant's written authorization, information 
filed with the Department by the applicant will be 
referred to institutions of the Community College 
System that are designated by the applicant. (Plan, 
page 198)

Finding

According to the Semi-Annual Report filed by the DCC, the applicant pool 
was established by July 1, 1974, as promised in the Plan. Th=> Staff 
Development Division was designated to establish and maintain the pool.

In addition, the Semi-Annual Report indicated that a recruiting prccram 
has been undertaken by the DCC and the institutions as a means of 
generating minority applicants for the pool.

Commitment— DCC

The Department of Community Colleges will maintain a 
register and descriptive information of full-time 
employment opportunities in the Department and also 
of institutional employment opportunities voluntarily 
registered with the Department by the respective 
institutions and will give applicants free access 
to the register and descriptive information of such 
employment opportunities. (Plan, page 198-99)

Finding

Page 22 of the DCC's Semi-Annual Report noted that the job register was 
established as promised and that the register was being maintained by the 
Staff Development Division. According to the report, the-community 
colleges were notified of the register’s existence and information about 
job openings has-been submitted to the DCC for use in the- recister. The 
report also stated that the Staff Development Division has made the 
register available to prospective applicants and that it has used the 
register to refer persons from the applicant pool for jobs.



» -30-
ommitment— DCC

he Department of Community Colleges made one further commitment related 
p centralized support of institutional affirmative action efforts.

theState-level coordination and responsibility for 
successful implementation of affirmative action 
plans and other commitments will be responsibly 
pursued by employing familiar persuasive, monitory, 
regulatory, and.administrative procedures including 
such as the administiative actions described above 
and those heretofore exemplified cn paces 180-81 
(Plan, page 199)

nding

rel5tn ^ tu this con"r711'tmsnt been communicated 
.OCR by DCC. However, OCR has concluded that the DCC has abdicated 
, promTse to "responsibly pursue" the successful implementation of

nn ?r 'h fntS lr\ at le!sJuon? re!P2ct. The Semi-Annual Report indicated 
it only thiee-quarters or the institutions in the community collere
.tem have developed or are in the process of developing affirmative 
non plans. .It appears that the DCC has taken no action to S s u ^ t h - t  
. remaining institutions develop and implement affirmative action plans.

elopmsnt of Current Faculty--UNC

Plan contained two commitments related to developing the talent and 
reasing^the employability of persons already on the faculties of the 
stitueiu institutions. First, the State promised that faculty
r nnTJn JUn<̂  TOr the predotrn’nantly black institutions would 
tinue to.be incorporated in the institutions' salary budoets. Second 
Univers^y committed the President to conducting a study of the

a Pr99rarp of development grants for which faculty at all 
-he constituent institutions would be eligible.

The President will, in the course of the 1974-75 
fiscal year, make a study of the feasibility, need', ' 
costs and potential benefits of a Droaram of faculty 
development grants in which faculty members of all-- 
the constituent institutions would be eligible to 
participate, to enable them to complete requirements 
tor the terminal degree in their fields of study, or 
o pursue short periods of advanced study for the purpose 

of increasing their competence as teachers and scholars.

f--
S- ■ v

m ®

*>. '*-1. ■..s ...

v .  .v?- ...

[r. ,j-.T

f.iV
£
r ; ,

- ' i - S

r;";
l-r1:m
r ■y’i’L
(vv^V-
♦C =



I
»

The program of faculty up-grading here projected will 
not be limited in its availability to faculty members 
in predominantly black institutions, or to persons 
of a particular race. On the other hand, we do not 
envision a program that would enable every faculty 

.member who lacks a doctorate to earn one at the State's 
exper.se. A careful selection should be made by the 
chancellors of those members of the faculties of their 

. institutions who offer the greatest promise of
substantially improved service to the institution, as ■ 
the basis for the distribution of the benefits of such 
a program. (Plan, pages .154-95)

Finding

The University's March submission reported that the study of faculty de- 
velop.i.c..̂  .nt.s nod been discussed wi ..h che chancellors and chief academic 
officers of the constituent institutions. At our April meeting, Mr. John 
Sanders indicated that further discussions were scheduled for an April 21 
1974, meeting with the.chief academic officers. The Plan said that the ’ 
study would be concluded during the 1974-75 fiscal year. The Semi-Annual 
Report stated and Mr. Sanders confirmed that a further report of the study 
and its findings would be included in the July Semi-Annual Report to bQ 
filed by The University.

The Semi-Annual Report did not mention whether the budeets recommended 
by the Governor for the five predominantly black schools included'funds 
for faculty development programs at those institutions.

Development of Current Faculty— DCC

After setting forth the nondiscrimination policies of the State Board of 
Education with respect’to educational leave policies, special trainina 
programs and administrative internships, the Plan set out the following 
specific commitment made on the part of the State Board of Education and 
the institutions in the Community College System (pages 195-97):

Documentation of in-service training opportunities f 
offered institution employees will be maintained by 
race and'sex showing acceptance or rejection of 
each^ opportunity by the employee and the disposition 
of the requests made by employees for in-service 
training or for educational leave. (Plan, page 198)

-3T-

i l l
W ih
llpf

Pwj-ri m- 

b- - ff'r vf-.-

b.xsa*1- V

p p

■S£r.

,

rf V
f  i%*v

wm
t .r *.c

mi- w,
r . L-~' ■r - .

r



I

I 5 M emi1"i!,!!Ua1 ReEort 1ndl‘cated_only that the institutions in the 
systm had been made aware of this commitment and that th= DCC wnuiH 
audit uhem for conformance with it in the future. (p50* 5) m0‘ ld
infomation was included which explained when or how these audits
Z  For thdt reason CCR 1s unable to conclude thatthe DCC will act to ensure implementation of this commitment in a 
manner calculated to achieve results in the first two years of the '

-32-
Finding

IV. INSTITUTIONAL ROLES 

Commitment--UNC

i ^  V * Pl5n> ThG University promised that ”[t]he future 
ro!es oi a!. institutions, and especially of the black institutions 
[would] be a central concern of the long ranee plan,1* and that “th«*

I S  f e,i,ant o f  tha  ^  can3-;d ,“ d .«(Plan, page 226) The long-range planning process was tc b°=n 
completed by the end of calendar year 1974, and .the plan was to have 
been adoptee by the Board of Governors in early 1975. (Plan, page 227)

i^s°tn1h^'t°hthe State P1an’ 2 part 0f the lon9-^flge olanning pro-ess was to have been an assessment of "the racial implications of the
present and ruture functional assignments of the' 16 ccns
tutions of the University." This analysis ias to fnclSde‘the Jo sibU '
racial impact of the inherited functional roles of the four cat^ccri-s
of senior institutions. The June IS, 1974, letter, which was alarl

and U s 'Implications: y °C?'’ e“P,air'sd f° ^  t h is  study

One branch of the [long range] planning process will 
be a reexamination of the roles of all 16 of tha 
constituent institutions and where necessary a 
redeiinition of those roles. The Board stated in 
the revised plan, 'we hope to make all 16 constituent 
notations attractive to students of all races.'- 

LPage 28] This will include a revision in the roles 
of the.predominantly black institutions calculated to 
make them more attractive to students of both races. 
Ine Board of Governors recognizes ... that the 
historical roles of those five institutions as 
essentially teacher-training institutions are too 
narrow, and therefore authorization has been given



for the modification of their programs to include a 
broader range of liberal arts and other programs.
This process is expected to continue and to produce

stutots °n(Pagea5)ttraCt1VC t0 b°th "'h1te and b,ack 

. The Plan included a promise that "corrective action" would bp , u

keep,ns v;ith the . 5

Finding

This is an area where delay in completing the long-range plan has

t r i r ^ n .  s  5 5 3 - 3

the first two years of the Plan. " y e d a system during

h i ^ U heirrleS+°f ttie institutions are evaluated and modified the

» *  i r U z z i r ^ w Bû so ? ^ n“ r

f s F t u & s r zroles which they have inherited from the previous ^  j ^ l y s t e l ’

tutinnsl^rnl*S fail.u[e to act Promptly to complete the study of insti- 
lu‘!°?a’ ,™If ?a""ot excused. The University recoonized in its

U  M  o duty to complete this study

n o f t ' i S  ?haJ obligaiio!|Se P’“ n,RS Pr°CeSS if "ecessa^  »  haa 

v- institutional resourcf.s

- r
Commitment— UNO „

was ThriXiveC“ i5”senotron?seitn„tl,e reSardl'"9 institutional resources 
qualitative disn,H5i«c^T , sf[ to,90nduct a study designed to identify
the system AcfSrHinn%n\hheDt1Ve p[edcrnlnantiy black institutions in system. According to the Plan, the specific question to be addressed



Ih S£udy l : . Are there identifiable deficiencies in the qua!itv 
the.black institutions that are attributable to past influences’!)?—  
racial prejudice in the distribution of State funds to thos° institufinne 
and are now remediable by money?" (Plan, page 205) ~ stnutl°ns

Further details of this study were described in the Plan at pages 209-212'

In Older to find answers to the basic question posed
= r  3n? 5° related questions, we have determined 

7 ^  study Wl11 be undertaken under the direction 
of the President for the purpose of (1) identifying 
tne qualitative strengths and deficiencies of the 

.five predominantly black institutions, (2) determining 
. the factors contributing materially to each of the' 

deficiencies found, (3) determining the cost of 
remedying each of the deficiencies found that can be 
" ^ ' ? d wn° n y  01" substantially by money, (4) de­
termining the most effective arrangements for the 
expenditure of the money found to be required, and
(5) determining what other actions than the 
expenditure or money are necessary to remedy the 
deficiencies not found to be wholly remediable by 
money. Upon identification of any such deficiencies 
prompt and appropriate remedial action will be 
undertaken.

2 :  Pla!?.;uri-b2r indicated that the study would focus on such matters as 
the qua1ity of .programs, services, ana staff and the number and quality 

degree Oi.erings available, and that the study would be comolete by the

, W - Acc0rdins i0 :ha p,“ > onmatter bj t„e Board o, Governors were to be made not later than June 30,

J p L dabs and the Board's commitment to undertake to 
remedy identified deficiencies were reaffirmed in the June 18, 1Q74 letter 
from William Friday to Peter Holmes whi /v> eLter

Finding
ch is a part of the accepted Plan.

PeP°rt ipa2e 42) indicated that action on the initiation 
of this study had been delayed and cited the vacancy in the Office of
fSr thpedPi'eSlde?h rcudsn^.Servi'ces and Special Programs as the reason 
tf?r S ? T delay; TJ7ie.lf?CL °f this vacancy is not a satisfactory reason for 

i Tm  Univarsiby to act in a timely manner to pursue actions 
promised in the Plan. In this area, The University's failure to act in 
a timely manner seriously jeopardizes The University's ability to upgrade



of

,'S

M2:

5 S

:o
•'.tor

in

jscn
for
jns
i

the quality of the black schools in accordance with the timetable se'- 
out in the Plan. Since the timetable set out in the Plan was already

T ' ld th| S ° ’y6er Period which substantial resu L  were 
to be achieved, any failure by The University to proceed in accord with 
the accepted schedule raises a serious compliance problem.

The Semi-.Annual Report stated that th° delayed nmiArtort
for the study would be the due date o? Jhe next'semf-anlue? report"
our April meeting, Mr. John Sanders introduced Cleon Thompson? a Jew s L * f
member, who nr. Sanders said would have the promised study complet'd i n f
time to meet the delayed projected due date of July 31, 1975

Commitment--UNC

The study described above was not designed to identify nr a. .
? span-ties in resource allocation in thfaSas of plr ?an?tl 
lit,rar̂ p,a-: and '**<” ««*: T M *  w k  because
fiasfSw?00' ^ “ seYeral specific assurances on the part of The Universi Lv 

be perm?tCS ’?n ?Se" Sure'?' d’'d "0t CUrre"t,y exist ^d'would'not

Urf?’ Jhe University analyzed the budgeted funds available to each inst-i- 
fwilo0!11* f°Ur fu,}ctlonal categories and concluded that "no discrimination
H s I l f S e " K  *>l«de institutions in'the"illocation of State operating funds." 
Jiscrimination, the Plan said that the 
loard of governors would bear in mind. 
:hat racial considerations were not to 
irea. (Plan, page 203)

With regard to possible future 
President and his staff and the 
in making future fiscal judgments, 
affect decision-making in this

Jle eXte2 3nd qualU^ of l^rary holdings, The University 
nalyzed die resources of the constituent institutions by dividinc the 
973 1 J-»ary. holdings (bound volumes) of each school by the nu-*er of 
un-tim*. equivalent students at the school and concluded that'"there is
nstitut n n f ll°+ deinqxPrac1:iced adverse to the predominantly black 
nstitutions that is rejected in their. 1 ibrary holdings." (Plan, page

!ai' ™ esf.of allocation of resources related to the quality and 
lstiJ-utinr-StThCtn°^a S?ace available at each of the constituent 
>tnnninr> tul ^  • dn' varV ty conducted several studies desioned to 
• S s  Dialed nn ]JblIhty-°r ln?truct’:°nal space in relation to the

EnnSfl- theJ ntensity of use actually made of that space,
tolroSidl JSp'fnnC°- P9 t0 the Plan> the Board's E l y s e s  enabled ? provide the following assurances:



I
-36-

, During the time the Board of Governors has exercised
legal responsibility for University finances (i.e. 
since July 1, 1972), no differentials in the cost of 
state-financed construction or in the quality of physical 
facilities constructed at predominantly black and 

. predominantly white campuses respectively have been
planned, acquiesced in, or approved by the Board which 
reflect racial considerations or cne predominantly 
racial character of any campus. Furthermore, decisions 
by the Board and its administrative officers will not 
reflect such improper racial considerations in the 
future. (Plan, page 205)

Finding

OCR has not completed, as of this date, an in-depth evaluation cf the data 
contained in the north Carolina Plan regarding the allocation of resources 
•+ ar?*s* Howevers the justifications given by the Stat° in
its etter of April 29, 1975, for placing the new veterinary school at 
North Carolina State rather than North Carolina A & T raise serious questions

S  Trial y ^  S U t S 'S COnclusions that disparities exist i'rl 

Commitment— DCC 1

The Plan included a general assurance at page 220 regarding the fairness 
o. resource allocation among the fifty-seven institutions in the community' 
college system: u" lj

The allocation formulas under which State funds and 
State controllable funds are allotted to the insti­
tutions are believed to be fair, equitable, and 
certainly to involve no racial discrimination or 
bias. These formulas are regarded as living documents 
and are adjusted from time to time. ... Assurance 
can be given, however, that any changes in the future 
will be made applicable to each institution in the 
same manner and without reference to the racial 
composition of the student body or the staff. ' f

Findings

As in the case of the three resource areas identified above, OCR has not, 
as yet, completed a thorough analysis of the information contained in the 
Plan about resource allocation formulas in the Community College System.

i-Mhi-

Z-



’ VI. PROGRAM DUPLICATION AND SPECIALIZATTON
dUAlT ty

AS THEY RELATED TO RACIAL

Commitment--UNC

In the June 18, 1974, letter to the Director of the Office for Civil 
Rights from the President of The University of North Carolina, it was 
stated that the UNC would transmit to the OCR definitions for basic and 
specialized curricula offerings by October 1, 1974. '

Finding

No definitions or reasons for not providing the definitions were given in 
the Semi-Annual Report. Without an understanding of the meaninq of the 
terms oeing ,sed by The University as it studies and makes decisions 
concerning program duplication at its constituent institutions (also 
program duplication with community colleges in proximity with UNC 
campuses), this Office cannot evaluate properly The University's pro^res^ 
with respect to any commitment in the Plan that concerns program offerings

Commitment--UNC

Page 230 of the State Plan contained the following commitment:

... [T]he President has directed the chancellors of 
the two institutions in Greensboro and the institutions 
in Chapel Hill and Durham to confer and to file a 
report with thePresident not later than September 1,
1974, (1) identifying instances of apparent program 
duplication between the institutions constituting each 
Pa’’r> (2) justifying program duplications where they 
can^do so, (3) making recommendations for mutual 
modifications in programs and their staffing (includino 
the possibility of program merger, joint staffing, and' 
differentiated course offerings) that would enhance the 
minority presence on both campuses, and (4) establishing 
mechanisms for the continuing promotion and oversight 
of cooperative activities between the two institutions 
constitutTng each pair.

Findings

It was reported on page 51 of the UNC Semi-Annual Report that, at the 
request of toe President, the Chancellors of the University of North 
Carolina at Greensboro and North Carolina Agricultural and Technical



•State University have established joint mechanisms for program review and 
for the development of cooperative arrangements between those two 
institutions, to the end that potential competition in current programs 
may be minimized and joint-and cooperative endeavors may be promoted.

The Chancellor of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and 
the Chancellor of North Carolina Central University and their subordinates 
have also examined graduate and professional programs with similar titles 
v/hich are currently offered by both institutions and have compiled 
justifications for the continuation of current programs on both campuses.

In the April 14 meeting with officials of the UNC General Administration, 
Mr. John Sanders explained that the reports from the Chancellors of the 
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and North Carolina Central 
University concerning their examination of graduate and professional 
programs of similar titles included no recommendations for program chances 
as a result of the examination. The Semi-Annual Report did'not include^ 
the universities’ justifications for continuation of current programs on 
both campuses.

On-site interviews at The University of North Carolina, Greensboro and 
North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University substantiated 
that some progress has been made in avoiding program duplication at the 
two universities; however, no apparent effort has been made on the part 
of The University System's General Administration to establish a monitoring 
system for this commitment.

No information has been provided about when the two institutions in 
Chapel Hill and Durham will examine the undergraduate programs.

Commi tinent--UMC

The University of North Carolina addressed the need for regional or state­
wide evaluation of program duplication on page 231 of the Plan where it 
was stated that:

[t]he offerings of the institutions must be looked at 
on a regional or more often a statewide basis. Such 
a study will be a part of the long-range planning 
activity which is now getting underway.

Finding

There was no mention of this commitment in the Semi-Annual Report, 
is another commitment tied to the long-range plan which was not 
implemented,_as scheduled, during the reporting period.

This



Commi tment— UNC and DCC •

It v/as stated on page 231 of the Plan that: '

[i]n the instances where one of the constituent insti­
tutions is located in the same community as a Community 
College System institution (and especially in Elizabeth 
City) the President will direct the chancellor of the 
constituent institution of The University to confer 
with the president of the community college or technical 
institute (provided the latter official is similarly 
instructed by the State President of the Community 
College System) and file with the two Presidents a 
report, not later than September 1, 1974, along the 
same lines as that required in Greensboro. On the basis 
of the facts found and the recommendations of the 
President, appropriate remedial action will be taken.

It was further stated on pages 241 and 242 that:

[t]he State President [of the Community .College 
System] will immediately and on a continuing basis 
encourage thepresident and appropriate staff members 
of each technical institute and community college to 
initiate and maintain institutional liaison and 
articulation conferences with their counterparts in 
all senior public institutions and all private insti­
tutions within the administrative area and within a 
25-mile radius geographically of the Community College 
System institution. In .the event that there is no 
public senior institution within the administrative 
area or within 25 miles, the nearest campus of the 
University of North Carolina system will be regarded 
as a proper party in interest.

findings

The UNC part of the Semi-Annual Report provided no information reoardino 
this commitment. The Community College System Semi-Annual Report’did " 
identify this as a commitment (page 7) that has received emphasis in 
professional conferences. The stated deadline for confering and reporting 
to the two presidents was not met.

There was no evidence that there has been any implementation of this 
cooperative commitment involving both systems of public higher education.



I
40-

Commitment--UNC and DCC

At page 232 of the Plan the following commitments are set forth:

... new programs will be awarded to constituent 
institutions in a manner which will not have the 
purpose of perpetuating or creating competition based 
upon duplication of specialized curricular offerings 
as between one or more predominantly black insti­
tutions and one or more predominantly white 
institutions.

To prevent the establishment of programs within the 
constituent institutions of The University that 
improperly duplicate offerings of the community 
college institutions and vice versa, procedures are 
being developed by The University and the Community 
College System to inform the appropriate people in' 
the other system of potentially duplicative curriculum 
proposals so that possible problems may be resolved 
at an early stage.

Responsibility for implementing these commitments was vested in th=> 
President of the University. The Plan stated that the commitments were 
already in force and would be continuing.

Findings

The Semi-Annua! Report did not directly address either of these commitments 
Although the report indicated that assessments were done of the racial 
impact of proposed new curricula, it did not indicate that determinations 
had been made that the new programs approved were not duplicative. In 
addicicn, the report included no mention of any procedures developed to 
inform the two systems of possible duplication between them. OCR must 
conclude, therefore, that The University and the Community College System 
nave iailed to follow through on these commitments.

INTER-INSTITUTIONAL PROGRAM COOPERATION - t

Commitment— UNO

The North Carolina Plan included the following commitment to action on 
page 233:

5%

M t

I 0
t o
m



I -41-

... In a supplemental report to be filed by July 1,
1974, we will provide the Department of Health,

• Education and Welfare with the requested additional 
information on the. racial impacts on both students 
and faculty deriving from these inter-institutional 
programs.

Finding

There was no discussion of this commitment in the Semi-Annual Report 
There was no evidence during our on-site reviews that the supplemental 
[ ^ ° n L WrS f-'GTng prepared. In the April 14 meeting with officials from 
The_UNC System, Mr. John Sanders explained that the July 31, 1975 
Semi-Annual Report will provide information concerning this’commitment.

Co."mi tment— UNC

IIP

?i
lfl§3
w §

It was stated on page 233 of the Plan that:

... the constituent institutions of The University 
of North Carolina already have an extensive record of 
inter-institutional cooperative activities* both 
among themselves and with private institutions and 
members of the Community College System. Such 
cooperative activities are to be encouraged as means 
of^broadening the programs of the cooperating units 
ana in many instances, increasing inter-racial contact 
as well.

Findings

*r-

M S ;

feSgsjs

o p

V 1

[' y.jV-'.

•There was no report that this commitment was implemented. Further, The 
university has not explained how it will encourage these cooperative 
activities.

VIII. IMPACT STATEMENTS

Co.Tmitment--UNC

+n sev^ra].P,ac^s in the State Plan the Board of Governors committed itseli 
to evaluating the impact of its educational policy decisions on the

^hS dual system* As a general assurance, the Plan stated 
tnat the Board intended to "ensure that no vestige of the formerly de jure

r . ,/̂s -* 
r.vw*ir

r ,

r.:

r v
rV'yh

1 1 1

h -f'..L7

i- -y v



discriminatory 'policies' and practices that is within its control is 
allowed to persist within the [state-operated] institutions [of post 
secondary education] (Plan, page 28) A more specific commitment 
regarding educational decision-making was set out at paq^s 2S2-2R? n-= 
the Plan: a 00 u‘

All administrative officials of The University and of 
the constituent institutions are sensitive to and will 
remain sensitive to the need to attempt to assess the 
racial impact implications of educational actions, such 
as the addition, deletion, expansion, or contraction of 
academic programs, the construction, expansion, or 

.closing of facilities, the establishment or discontinu­
ation or significant modification of the mission of a 
constituent institution, and the modification of 
admissions st2nd2rds5 degree? rc-cjuiroments, and sdu- 
cai\i~nal expectations. A basic commitment is herein 
made-.by the Board of Governors to ensure that such 
assessments are made, in recognition of the fact that 
one ciitical consideration (but not the.only proper 
consideration) in resolving basic questions about the 
role, scope, and mission of The University is the need 
to encourage at all times, in every way feasible, the 
further elimination of identifiable racial duality. In 
any case where the strong possibility of a negative 
impact attributable to a particular course of action 
is perceived* the action will not be taken unless there 
are countervailing legitimate and compelling inducements, 
of a sound educational character, which militate in 
favor of the proposed action.

Regarding the establishment of new programs, 
additional commitment: the Board made the following

An established part of the evaluation process apolicable 
to each new curriculum proposed for approval by the 
Boaro^of Governors is the projection of the racial 
impact of the adoption of the program on the student t 
body of the institution that would sponsor it.
Consistent with necessary considerations of edu­
cational quality, institutional mission, and statewide 
needs, the Board of Governors normally will not 
approve the establishment of any new academic program 
unless in its opinion such action would not impede the 
elimination of the dual system of higher education 
in North Carolina. .



-43-
l j* q*F

■ ^ t t c a w w *  *  s f t 5 4 ' 5 ' ‘ “
(pacje 2):

Governors authorize an action ^  sy$ and
would impede the el^i'-atia _o ^  ^  ^  the Board 
in those instances in ■■ nr0nf that the ultimate, 
would assume the burcen P oup 0f related actions, 
result of the action, or of a group o ^ ^  the 
would be to further tne or would have
effects of the racially of such compelling
some other educational^ b : ^  Q,,t,;2igh any ^ cipa' 
validity thcit its i . •>«,?ction on uhc
negative effect .of the particu.^ actv ^  the insti-
r-rir” composition ot t..<- _ , proposed action
S t S c n “ > either c a s e / ^ r t ^ n t  o/health.Education

°f - dal treatae
justification.

teasiuic , ‘■..w omDiy v;itn cne - +,.0 piimination ot u.=and i t  has faileo to comply co.,ld impede the e m i r  ^  w1th ona
identify edhcettonel procedural standpoint, .he W j B  r e U t i„9 to any
dual system, from a p tQ 0CR any. m/puCt. ass. Be,ns, at a
exception f«]^eQ tions specified in t.ie Pi*-* ,, Semi-Annualof the educational actions sp ^  contention n h -
nf„iEum, that OCR cannot e v „ n Qf ^  programs l.ste- ,

institutions in conduc.ing^..^ res~n .
that sufficient analyse . ^  ^

In’the one case in ^ " d l p i r U o f  ih
for review (the case of^t ^ onsistent with the '^ te the coraii tsent made 
University s actions one thing, desp programs on
T "  to^assess^ tluT impact of the approval of



the desegregation effort, the impact assessment related to th* 
school was not undertaken until specifically requested by OCR nary
addition the substance of the impact assessment indicated that The 
University s decision to place the veterinary school at North Carolina 
State University was made wholly without regard for The University's 
commitment to encourage desegregation in every feasible wav The 
impact stucy did not evaluate the enhancement effect which olacinq -th= 
veterinary school at North Carolina Agricultural and TechnicaT State 
University might have on that institution. icate

When The University was informed that the impact study which it had 
submitted was deficient because it failed to account for poss ble 
enhancement, because it failed to provide the basis for the numerical 
projections which it contained, and because its conclusion was based in
thoto°f»afl.:‘'SfeSa”jin!;-0f educational variables which continued
the e.fects of past discrimination, it refused to reevaluate its assessment.

actions which the Board ofGovernors is considering which should be 
evaluated in terms of the impact which their implementation cc’-ld ha1'̂  
on the elimination of the dual system. First, two possiblJ du^ icativ- 
law enforcement degree programs are being considered by the Roard fni

-°n Ihe University of North Carolina at ChaDsl_Hi 11 and at 
North Carolina Central University. Also, major changes in educational *
l°nl'CZ S 3t !he !aW sc500l-at Korth Carolina Central9! ^  Snd^ MMlSration

rhfa C?Eft/:U-t,0n-!f [,eW faci1itl£s at the school has been proposed 
indir^P,^Tne Urn vers U y  has provided OCR with no information which 
d cutes ti.at,. m  accordance with the commitment made in the Plan innar-*- 

stucies related to these decisions are underway. P C"

Commitment--DCC

The following commitment was set out at page 242 of the Plan:

... [0]n and after July 1, 1974, every request for 
a new curriculum program will Le required to bear a 
certification from the institution's board of 
trustees relative to the anticipated impact of the- 
proposed program upon the desegregation of public 
post-secondary institutions m  that area of the 
State, including assurance that the net effect of 
such program will not impede the further dises- 
tablishment of segregation in any public institution.

ta3u Preslc!ent and his representatives will also 
review_the_requests and approve the request and the 
certification before recommending approval to the 
State Board of Education.



-45-
A similar certification procedure will be instituted 
and required at the same time regarding all requests 
for facilities construction projects and requests for 
new institutions.

Finding

The Semi-Annual Report submitted by the Community College System *xpiain*d 
the procedures developed for reviewing the impact statements submitted 
provided a ^ampie. of the form on which -.he institutional assessments ’

actions for whichare submitted to the DCC and listed the educational os, 
impact statements were submitted during the past year.

However, the Semi-Annual Report did not explain what criteria the DCC 
used to determine that none of the listed items would have a negative imoacf 
on the elimination Oi the dual system ncr did it in''lud° an” of th? 
submits tenants so that OCR could evaluate their sufficiency. For
these reasq CuR is unable to conclude at this time that the DCC has 
completely rulfilled its obligations in this area.

k m t
m M
so .p

bfe
m m

|f|g

IX. BOARDS OF GOVERNANCE

f -
m

i
s

Commitment--UNO

The Plan at page 44 stated that:

[i]n 1975, the Governor will appoint 32 members of 
[boards of trustees of individual institutions] to 
fill vacancies arising due to tee expiration of terms 
It is anticipated that increased concern for racial 
representativeness within the boards of trustees 
will guide the actions of the Beard of Governors and 
the Governor of the State in making future selections 
of trustees.

Findino

p i t

p l ®
r. vC b '

p i

■r\ -v^*- 1
i.-.ihiy:
cm.'
•< xff'

The Semi-Annua^ Report submitted by the State confirmed that the terms of 
naif of the members of the boards of trustees will expire this year. 
According to the report, seme of the replacements are to be aopointed 
by the Governor and some elected by the Board of Governors. The Semi-Annual 
Report promised that "[d]ue consideration will be given in all these 
elections and appointments to the need to maintain appropriate racial 
balance in the membership of those boards." The results of these actions 
are to be recorded in the July Semi-Annual Report.

e *$?
I r.m--

f-. *>-;

im.

l:
P 'A



I
-45-

Comnii tment— UNC

In the Plan at page 44 the State promised that the:

[r]acial representativeness within the various committees 
and boards whose members are chosen by the Board of 
Governors or the President of The University of North 
Carolina will be increased.

Finding

Despite this premise, the listing of committee members included at pacos 7-10 
of the Semi-Annual Report shows that no change in the racial composition of 
these committees has taken place since the Plan was implemented. This is 
true even though at least fourteen new people have been selected as replace­
ments for members of various committees since the date of the Plan.

The Plan itself contained no information about how this commitment would 
be carried out. The Semi-Annual Report did not tell whether the Bo^r^ of 
Governors or the President acted to implement this commitment in making 
their most recent committee choices. In light of the fact that there was 
no increase in racial representativeness as promised during this year, OCR 
must assume that the State has not as yet acted to fulfill its commitment 
in this area.

Commitment— DCC

as re 
seri 
For 
incl

It was recognized in the Plan that for the most part minority rac 
in the administrative areas of the various community colleges are 
underrepresented on the boards of trustees of those institutions, 
reason the (Man committed the Department of Community Colleges to 
among the rating factors published in the Evaluative Standards and 
Criteria Manual, and applied by system task forces in evaluating insti 
tutions for accreditation purposes, the representativeness of each 
institution’s board of trustees as compared to the racial composit 
the adult population of the school's administrative area. (Plan, 
According to the Plan, this commitment was to be effected by July 
A copy of the revised manual was to be submitted to OCR after that

- r
Findi nqs

siding 
ously 
1 this 
ude

i on 
pace 
1," 
cat

of 
5-si

274.
e.

Information available to OCR indicates that this commitment was not 
effected by July 1, 1974, as promised.

The Semi-Annual Report submitted by the DCC in March, 1975, contained 
the following statement:



[I]t is planned to include as a rating factor for 
state accreditation the representative character of 
the institution's board of trustees in relationship 
to the racial composition of the administrative area.

At a meeting held between officials from cur offices on April 14, Dr. M. 
Morgan, Assistant Vice President for Policy Development, DCC, stated* 
that the DCC did expect "quite a bit of change" in the comcosition of 
the local boards of trustees in the next year and that the' DCC had ' 
informed all of the institutions of the need to appoint qualified minority 
persons to these boards. In addition, she said that the DCC was in the 
process of revising the standards for state accreditation of the community 
colleges and that racial composition was going to' be utilized in the 
future as an evaluative criterion.

Since revision of standards has not yet bean completed, there is no t/a” for 
OCR to know ..'hen a revised manual will be published and state evaluation' 
teams wi.ll begin using the revised criteria. It appears that this activity 
has been delayed for at least one year, if not longer. This means that 
the State will probably not be able to achieve substantial results in 
this area during the first two years of the Plan as expected by OCR.

X. MONITORING AND REPORTING OH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STATE PLAN

Commitment--UNC and DCC

The North Carolina Plan stated that while the total public post-secondary 
educational program within the State has a "dual legal character," 
nevertheless, the desegregation Plan is composed and speaks in unified 
terms and a comprehensive state-wide emphasis characterizes the review 
and monitoring process. To serve this purpose, the Plan contained the 
commitment on pages 276 and 277 that:

... a state committee for racially nondiscriminatory 
public post-secondary education will be established' 
by July 1, 1974. The committee will consist of four 
representatives appointed by the President of The '
University of North Carolina from The University 
staffs; Tour representatives appointed by the State 
President of the Community College System from the 
System staffs; one representative appointed by the 
Governor from his staff; and eight members at-large, 
who shall be lay citizens with no affiliation with 
either The University of North Carolina, the Community



f -48-
College System, the Department of Public Instruction, 
or any other public agency, institution, or office, 
and who shall be appointed by the Governor. The 
membership of the committee will reflect in both the 
representation from The University and the Community 
College System and in the at-large members the 
principal racial elements in the general population 
of the State.

It will be the responsibility of the committee to 
meet at the call of its elected chairman or of the 
Governor for the purpose of assessing progress in the 
implementation of the State Plan, identifying problems 
encountered in the course of the administration of 
the State Plan, receiving and evaluating complaints 
as to the efficacy of the State Plan, and rendering 
advic-.. to the Governor, the President of The University 
of North Carolina, and the State President of the 
Community College System concerning the State Plan 
and its administration.

| P

Finding .__

The January 31, 1975, Semi-Annual Report explained that this committee was 
in the final stages of formulation and the members who will represent 
the Community College System^ The UNC System, and the Governor's staff, 
were listed in the Report. The delay in establishing this committee was 
attributed to^'finding appropriately qualified people to fill the remaining 
'outside' positions." (Page 5 of the Semi-Annual Report.)

(These are the lay members referred to in the first paragraph cited above 
from the Plan.)

At tf]r„Apri1 14 meeting with officials of the General Administration of 
The UNC System, Mr. John Sanders, Vice President for Planning, stated 
that the committee membership was complete and activity would begin 
shortly.

By not meeting the target date in the Plan for the establishment of the 
monitoring committee, there was no input from a state-wide multi-racial 
monitoring committee^in the January 31, 1975, Semi-Annual‘Report. Further, 
by April 14, the monitoring committee still had not become operational 
thereby allowing very little time for the committee to assess implementation 
of the Plan for the next Semi-Annual Report, due on July 31. » 'iXS- '•



, Consul tment— UNC and DCC

It was explained on page 272 of the Plan that immediate responsibility 
for general oversight^ The Univesity's efforts relative to the State 
Plan will be lodged within the administrative structure of The University

This oversight responsibility for the community college system was lodqed 
in the administrative structure of the Department of Community Colleges.'

Findings

During the April 14 meeting with officials of The- University's General 
Administration and officials of the Department of Community Colleges of 
the State Board of Education, several questions were raised by the OCR 
officials related to retaining an oversight of those activities concernina 
commitment the State Plan which were initiated by the institution* 
Officials 07 the Department of Community Colleges indicated that in seme 
instances, such as monitoring the recruitment publications used by the'"'" 
institutions, monitoring had not been adequate. During this meeting 
with respect to ihe University's commitment to.oversee activities, there 
were several key areas^of commitments from the Plan, such as the constituent 
institutions publications, high school counseling conferences, and hioh 
school visitations, where the General Administration officials admitted 
to performing no monitoring of the progress.

Commitment--UNC and DCC

Pago 230 of the State Plan contained the following reporting commitment:

It will be the responsibility of the President of The 
University_of North Carolina and the State President of 
The Community College System to furnish information and 
reports referable to their respective areas of 
responsibility to the Department of Health, Education, 
and Welfare concerning implementation of and accomplish­
ment under the State Plan. These reports will be 
submitted twice annually, on or about February 1 
(designed to reflect activities and accomplishments • 
during the fall term) and August 1 (designed to 
reflect activities and accomplishments during the 
spring term).

Finding

In meetings held subsequent to acceptance of the Plan it was agreed that
,, Semi-Annual Reports would be submitted on January 31 and July 31 for
m e  tirst year.



\

This Office did not receive the North Carolina Semi-Annual Report until 
"March 14--six weeks after the agreed upon date.

Officials in this Office placed four telephone calls to the officials 
responsible for the Community College System and The University System 
regarding the status of the Semi-Annual Report. According to 
Mr. Charles 1. Holloman, Vice President for Policy and Planning of the 
Community College System, the half of the Semi-Annual Report dealing 
with the community colleges was forwarded to the Governor's office by 
February 15. On March 4, officials in the Governor's office reported to 
OCR officials in response to a telephone inquiry, that the Governor was 
awaiting The University System's half of the Semi-Annual Report and that, 
following his evaluation of the two parts of the report together, the 
complete Semi-Annual Report would be forthcoming.

Commitment--UNC

On page 272 of the Plan the following commitment was included:

... [I]t is anticipated that there will be lodged 
at the vice presidential level within the admin­
istrative structure of The University immediate 
responsibility for general oversight of The 
University's efforts to comply with Title VI, the 
preparation of semi-annual and special reports re­
quired in pursuance of The University's obligations 
under Title VI, the investigation of complaints of 
Title VI violations made directly to The University 
or referred to The University by the Office for 
Civil Rights, and such other activities as may be 
conducive to the achievement of the general 
objectives of the State Plan. The amount of work 
to be done in pursuance of this obligation will 
exceed the capacities of one individual who also 
has other duties and therefore staff assistance 
will be necessary. Accordingly, budget provision 
will be made for the employment of such additional 
help as the vice president with responsibility for 
this matter may need in carrying out his >
responsibilities.

m m

f

fern?.
r>: V*- - •fet*.

'Bl&’h'mm
K p v
Fv.._

C‘-i s.: r

Findi nq

It is explained on the first page oi 
Semi-Annual Report that:

the University's January 31, 1975,

[t]he chief reason [for less satisfactory progress 
toward some of the objectives to which commitments

■



I
-51-

* » V  . in the Plan were made] is that the President’s
principal staff person who was expected to oversee 
several aspects of the implementation program 
(Dr. Harold Delaney) resigned in mid-1974 to accept 
.the presidency of an institution in New York, and 
despite diligent efforts (including the making of 
several offers), that position remains vacant.

The
for

Report included no information indicating whether the budget provision 
the employment of the anticipated additional help had be-n mad- Cn°

Scr 2  • ’-’S  aJ 2 fu!1“tiB!e ^hedule, was introduced to thlOCR officials at the April 14 meeting.

There is a causal relationship between the circumstances of not me-tina 
this commitment and Tne University's difficulty in meetino the previously
nnpCnfSfh V  rn-tr:snt reg*r? ™ 9 th'c- preparation of Semi-Annual Reports.
2"® t5?>;;s‘lc responsibilities discussed in the Plan as a justification
for identilying a vice president at The University’s administrative level 
ana for requesting the funds for the additional staff is the performance
Reports01 corr,ml UTlsnts in the Plan> such as preparation of Semi-Annual

ggjast
PA

s!Mr-

ip
M m

p

r'.'K'A
f.

i'jt /
rsife-
Tiksf

SPSS’S *

| j

£ . m



DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION. AND WELFARE
O F F IC E  O F  T H E  S E C R E TA R Y  

W A S H IN G T O N . D .C . 20301

November 7, 1977

Mr. William Friday, President 
The University of North Carolina 
Chapel Hill,'North Carolina 27514
Dear President Friday:
We have completed our initial review of The Revised 
North Carolina State Plan For The Fur the": Elimination Of 
Racial'Duality ~n Public Higher Education Systems,
Phase II, 1978—1 983, which the Governor submitted by 
letter dated September 2, 1977. Clearly, the documents 
which comprise this Plan are the result of a thought­
ful effort*.
As we promised, I am enclosing our written evaluation 
which is intended to highlight, in summary fashion, our 
review of the North Carolina plan and to provide a 
basis for discussion about its revision. You will note 
that certain items in the initial evaluation are marked 
by asterisks, which are intended to identify those 
comments that wo believe to be of particular importance. 
We hope to give these items priority attention at our 
meeting.
The meeting, which Dr. Raymond Dawson and Mr. Burton 
Taylor scheduled for November 9, will begin at 9:00 
A.M. in room 425-A of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 
200 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.
Important changes have occurred since segregation v/as 
mandated by State law in North Carolina’s colleges and 
universities. Under the State Plan currently in effect, 
progress has been made. This progress in eliminating 
the vestiges of the previously d_e jure segregated system 
is commendable and does not^ go unnoticed. ..
It is my sincere hope that the needed improvements will 
be made in the North Carolina plan prior to the date



Page 2 - Mr. William Friday^

upon which the court has required HEW to make a final decision 
on its acceptability. I look forward to a productive 
meeting. V

Sincerely £ours,

David S. Tatel 
Director
Office for Civil Rights

cc: The Honorable James B. Hunt, Jr.
Dr. Benjamin Fountain

V-

M  *

*



INITIAL COMMENTS ON THE REVISED NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLAN FOR 
THE FURTHER ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DUALITY IN PUBLIC HIGHER ' 
EDUCATION, PHASE.TWO 1978-1983 (STATE PLAN, PHASE II)

This memorandum analyzes the State Plan, Phase II submitted 
by Governor James B. Hunt^ Jr. in a letter dated September 
7 - t 1977. Our comments are intended to. aid North Carolina 
officials in an effort to improve the plan so that all 
aspects of the Amended Criteria Specifying the Ingredi­
ents of Acceptable Plans to Desegregate State Systems of 
Public Richer Education (Criteria) are appropriately 
addressed. The comments follow the organization of the 
Criteria. *
We note that the State Plan, Phase II consists of two
separate documents, The University of North Carolina
(UNC) document and the Community Colleges and Technical

v-
Institutes (C.C.) document. While the Criteria require 
a single statewide plan, the submission of two separate 
documents is not necessarily % n conflict with this re­
quirement. At this juncture, however, there appears 
to be little coordination between the University and 
Community College components of the plan. Accordingly 
we request that this deficiency be remedied to meet 
those portions of the Criteria where cooperation may 
be necessary e. g ., items IC, ID, IE, IIA, H E .  While



both documents,the comments contained herein encompass 
they primarily pertain to the UNC document.

I. The general goals on page six of the UNC document 
are appropriate. It is HEW's understanding that 
■racial duality" is a vestige of past discrim­
ination, and that there is a duty to- eliminate 

that vestigial duality.
I.A. (1) The projections for both staff and student 

enrollments required by I.A,3. are omitted from 
the UNC'document. The C.C. --document does not 
co’ntaiiTspecific information regarding- the 
service area and projected student_enrollment 
of each community college- Please provide 
this information so that it may^be considered

ji"

as part of the Plan.
(2) We understand that the UNC system encour­
ages each institution to seek and admit students 
from all parts ot cue State. Nevertheless, 
several constituent institutions in fact draw 
heavily from nearby communities. This relates, 
in part, to the educational!” unnecessary 
academic program duplication which may impede 
the-continued desegregation effort. Accordingly



a statement of the geographic area served hy 
institution is required by the Criteria.
(3) Although the mission statements are racially 
neutral on their face, the 5 tier categorization

•a ~~
provided in the UNC document does not permit the
five traditionally black schools to be compared
to any of the State's lead i ng _j n<̂ t i ± ^ - * - r m < z .
This categorization which may, in part, reflect
past discrimination, is particularly troubling
in light of DNC's decision that future graduate *
programs will be placed only at those institu­
tions which already offer gradual.e degrees.

.  *

General Comment: y..
Although the State has already taken some positive
steps leading to further enhancement of the TBIs,

Athe UNC document includes few specific new steps
which the State will take to strengthen the roles
of the traditionally black institutions. The
express commitments which are required by I.B.1-3
of the Criteria were intended to relate to the

 ̂ \specific steps which the State proposes to take 
pursuant to I.B. Although the UNC document 
describes some progress in certain areas (e.g.



1

equalization of current expenditures for fac­
ulties) the State has not provided any additional 
steps and commitments^tfl__fulfifll these s_teps
as required by the Criteria. The statement that,

*
"Any new program needs for the immediate future 
must, therefore, likely be met by the re-allocation 
of resources within the institution concerned," 
presents an obstacle to complying with this portion 
of the Criteria.

*
Specific Comments:
(1) Paid leaves of absence to faculty to enable 
them to pursue doctoral studies are admirable, but

t

it is unclear whether they are currently funded 
and in operation.
(2) With respect to I.B.2, the words "within the

%
framework of public policy priority" require 
clarification.
(3) It is unclear whether raising admission and 
retention standards are the only means contemplated 
for assuring that the nursing and teacher education 
programs at the traditionally black institutions 
will fulfill their defined missions. Might not 
the described course of action Tesult in the



-5-

— ▼

.elimination of some or all of these programs at 
the TBIs, thereby diminishing rather than 
strengthening them? • '

(4) The existing Comparative Study indicates that 
there may be disparities in the physical plants of 
the TBIs and TWIs. For the time being, the Compar­
ative Scudy will be regarded as the State's 
response to criterion.I.B.4- However, we will need 
to have more precise information on the completion 
date of-the Addendum, as well as a commitment fn 
rectify doficiencj.es identified by that stud].
an< —̂ interim benchmarks for any ari-innc t̂ g be 
taken. It should be noted that the commitments 
in I.B.1-3, should address d isparities between 
TBIs anl TWIs which are revealed a s a ctuisegimnce 
of the physical plant assessment called for in

0.

I.B.4,. as well as other quantitative and quali­
tative disparities.

(5) Once the State has provided the specific steps
it will take to strengthen the TBIs in accordance
w ith it will be necessary to describe the

— --- -
resources j.n terms of dollars and personnel to



-6-

implement those steps for each year of the Plan, 
as required by I.B.5.

*I.C. The UNC document indicates that each constituent
institution has a statewide mission, and apparently 
concludes that there is no educationally unnecessary 
program explication. A more careful analysis which 

^Encompasses the community colleges is required by 
the Criteria. If each constituent institution has 
a statewide service area, then duplication must be 
examined among all institutions^ -if the area 
served by a given institution is in fact more 
circumscribed, then it-will be necessary for the

V'
State to examine non—core programs offered by 
schools whose service areas overlap or are similar 
to the TBIs' service a£eas and determine which 
programs are duplicative. Geographically proxi— 
mate institutions may well have unnecessary 
program duplication even though the service area
for each institution is the State as a whole.

/
Where educationally unnecessary proqlram dupli­
cation is found, steps should be included in the 
Plan to eliminate it in a manner which strengthens 
the TBIs. Considerations of program quality and



gy.-nrwlfflL.

-7-
* T

program productivity alone, do not meet this 
criterion.

*I.D. (1) The Criteria require a commitment to give
priority consideration to placing new programs at 
the TBIs. Neither the UNC or the C.C. documents 
ijake this commitment. . The rations] e for placing 
the graduate nursing program at UNC-Greensboro, 
mentioned in the UNC document suggests that 
prospects for placing significant new programs 
at the TBIs are remote. This commitment should 
also extend to the community colleges, as there 
may be competition for programs between these 
institutions and the TBIs. ... •

(2) As you knew, HEW and UNC engaged in extensive
M  . .discussions with regard to placing the new School

of Veterinary Medicine (SVM) at NCS-Raleigh. It
is our understanding that, in conjunction with the
SVM project, new preparatory programs related to

. veterinary medical studies would be placed at
/ \NCA&T. We would appreciate it if you would 

advise us on the status of the SVM project and 
■provide specific information with regard to UNC's 
plans to develop related programs at NCA&T.



:»f '• fT-

-8-

*I.E . The statements in the first and last sentences
of the indented paragraphs on page 67 of the UNC 

‘ document require further clarification. Although 
the State indicates it will take into account 
possible adverse effects on desegregation goals, 
the UNC document fails to indicate how these deter­
minations will be made or what is meant by »„cQuntexr 
vailing legitimate and compelling induoemerits.

• in responding'the State may wish to furnish HEW 
with the standards or guidelines that will be used 
in conducting evaluations of a .proposal-impact 
on achieving or thwarting the achievement of 
desegregation goals. This may allow HEW to under­
stand how the State will act on future issues, while 
reserving to the Stat£ decision making authority.

I.F. The intent of I.F. is to obtain a commitment from 
the State to advise HEW-of major changes prior to 
the time that formal action is taken. The UNC 
document does not'indicate that this notification 
will be provided in the timely fashion required by

the Criteria.



-9-

I.G. Neither document contains specific timetables or 
interim benchmarks or^goals. There is also no 
indication that the State intends to make substan­
tial progress in the next two years.

» .#

*I.H. • Although the UNC document briefly outlines some
measures that will be taken, we understand that the 
State does not propose to submit a supplementary 
statement. We urge the State to reconsider and to 
provide OCR with a more concrete description of 
actions it will take in furtherance of the goals 
of the Criteria for both ONC and the community 
colleges.. This description should include the 
resources to be devoted to each action expressed

A
in both person years and monetary terms.

II. The State has compliedAwith the required commitment. *

*11.A Although substantial' progress has been made in this 
area in recent years and a commitment is made to 
continued progress, the State has fallen short of

/ V
making the appropriate commitment fpr the UNC. 
Further, we believe that the UNC based its calcu­
lations on the proportion of black high school



• - 10 -

graduates in 1976. ’The commitment required by 
the Criteria, however, is based on a comparison 
between the proportions of white and black students 
who graduate from high school in 1982 and who enter

*
college the following fall.

*II.B.l The UNC document, on page 134 et. seq., articulates 
§teps which are encouraging and appears to agree 
with the required commitment at page 96. However, 
it does...not state goals for .annual increases in

t
the appropriate manner. Rather, it speaks in terms
of the followng: ■■ •

number of black students in all TWIs______________
number of black students in UNC's 15 universities

y-
However, criterion II.B.l. calls for an increase in
the following two ratios in each", year:'

number of black stu’d-ents in each TWI 
number of all students in each TWI

and
number of black students in .all TWIs. 
number of all students in all TWIs

The formula used, in the UNC document speaks mainly
to the redistribution of black students within the
State system. Thus, it will be necessary for the
State not only to make the requisite commitment,



- 1 1 -

but also to recompute”its goals in accordance 
with the appropriate formulae stated above.

HEW expects that the disparity in the rates be-
*

tween black and white high school graduates 
enrolling in UNC's TWTs will eventually be 
eliminated. In order to achieve a realistic 
2nd acceptable reduction in that disparity 
within the five-year period, the Criteria require 
a reduction of 50% in the disparity but limit 
that requirement to a maximum increase of 150% 
in the number of black first-time freshman and 
first-time transfers above the 1976-77 figure.
We calculate this td mean an increase from 950 
to 2375 black students in the UNC.>

JH
As we understand the UNC document, UNC is projec­
ting an increase in the proportion of the 
University's black students who are enrolled in 
the ten traditionally white institutions from 25%
to approximately 33% by 1982. If enrollments were 

• *  • *to remain the same as they were-in 1976, this would 
result in an increase in total black enrollment at



*11. c

10 of the 11 TWIs of 1638. However, since enroll­
ments will not remain the same as they were in 1976 

-- snd the State has not as yet provided .its enrollment
projections to us, we are unable to evaluate the *
goal you have projected in relation to this criter­
ion. Accordingly, please provide us with enrollment 
projections and express your projections in the 
^erms requested in this criterion as part of your 
Plan. If the goal, as you expressed'it, does not 

H'^oeet the Criteria, we will request'that it be re­
vised to. do so. •; p

With regard to the School of the Arts, it is
HEW’s viev that it and each of the other insti- 

• . *
tutions within the total state system of higher
education has a role to play in eliminating

M
system-wide racial duality.

UNC is to be commended for meeting the aggregate 
goal set forth in II.C. The Criteria require a

V
commitment to maintain this important achievement. 
Further, we ask that UNC address that part of the

- 1 2 -



-13-

T ^ 3* ^  Y  - •  - : f

criterion which calls for goals to be stated 
separately for each*major field of graduate and 
professional study in relationship to the propor­
tions of black college students completing the 
prerequisite undergraduate programs- The criterion 
calls for figures on entry into graduate and pro- 
fessiona_ schools, rather than on completion rates. 
We also request that the data be stated in terms 
of "white" and "black" students, rather than "white" 
and "non-white" students.

Medical Scholarships for the economically disad­
vantaged is an admirable program.' Please indicate 
what additional measures the State proposes in order 
to meet this commitment.

*H.D* For the present, the Criteria focus on steps to 
strengthen the traditionally black institutions 
rather than on specifying goals for white atten­
dance at the TBIs. Accordingly, because these 
goals are inappropriate as well as insufficient, 
we request that they be withdrawn from the Plan 
at this time. r



II.E. Remedial programs a r e ’a valid method of reducing 
disparities in graduation rates. However, it 
appears that such programs are offered only at 
the TBIs. A specific commitment from the State 
to take all reasonable steps to meet this criterion 
is needed. Accompanying the commitment should be 
interim goals for the reduction of any disparity 
between the proportions of blacl: and white stu­
dents graduating from two year, four year, and 
graduate schools.

*11.F. The Plan's description of the Joint Committee on
College Transfer, indicates that it is playing

»

an important role if) bringing about increased
student mobility. However, a commitment to expand
mobility is required. ,, Thus, a description of the

&
Committee's past work alone does not suffice.

II.G. The Plan does not provide the timetables and bench­
marks requested in II.G.

V.
✓ l

The commitment is only partially made and only a 
few measures are presented. Please see I.H.

*11.H



15-

♦III. The UNC has made the general commitment called for
in the introductory part of this section of the 
Criteria. However the State Board of Education 
indicates that it does not have adequate authority 
to make the appropriate commitments for the 
community colleges. This deficiency should be 
cured by obtaining these commitments from the 
officials who do possess the-requisite authority.

*III.A The Criteria require a state—wide commitment to the 
thru specific goals for each of the individual institu-

III.D tions, in addition to the general commitment which 
was provided for t£e UNC.

While existing or revised affirmative action plans
0. _

(AAPs) will greatly aid the State in responding 
to the requirements of the Criteria, the affirmative 
action plans themselves are not adequate substitutes 
for the system-wide commitments and goals which are 

required by the Criteria. ;

Please note that several of the criteria call for 
an irstitution-by-institution rather than an aggre­

gate analysis.



• 1 6 -

III.

III.F

III .G

Timetables for sequential implementation of 
necessary actions were not included in the Plan.
It is expected that further articulation of goals 
and actions to be taken will enable the State to 
provide the requisite timetables, it is not clear
to us wher AAPs for the community colleges will be 
completed.

Steps such as the State's self-monitoring, voluntary 
central listing oppositions, and funding requests 
for faculty graduate study are positive steps. 
Additional measures to be utilized co implement 
these commitments should be delineated. Please 
see I.H. . . -

The State has made the requisite ..commitment as 
to the GNC but not for the community colleges. The 
State Beard of Education’s Statement is appreciated 
but it does not include a commitment from the officials 
with appointing authority..

The State has not made a commitment to substantial 
progress toward any of the goals in the first two

IV.A.1



-17-

IV.A.2

IV. A. 3 

IV. C 

IV.D&F

-years of the Plan. The Criteria require that 
-progress be measured annually. Postponing the 
Implementation of the revised plan until July 1, 
_1978 presents an obstacle to fulfilling the 
intent of this criterion.

Governor Hunt's letter of September 2, 1977 is an
^adequate response.
# \

The State has made the requisite-commitment.
T

* . ; ; ' .

The-State has met this criterion.

Although the Plan commits the State to forward
to HEW revisions of the Long Range'Plan, the State

\

^does not oppear to have made the commitments re—
a.:

quired by these sections.

/ \x.

\