North Carolina and University of North Carolina Board of Governors (Respondents) Notice of Opportunity for Hearing

    s

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING 
IN THE

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE 
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION 
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINSTRATION 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 
THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION 
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 
DEPARTMENT OF LA30R 

ACTION

In The Matter of the STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA **
(hereinafter called the "State") *

★

and *★
THE 30ARD OF GOVERNORS OF *
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA *

*

(hereinafter called the "Board of Governors") *★
and *★

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY *
OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL *★
THE BOARD GF TRUSTEES OF NORTH CAROLINA *
STATE UNIVERSITY **
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY *
OF NORTH CAROLINA AT GREENSBORO *

★

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF APPALACHIAN *
STATE UNIVERSITY *★
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF EAST CAROLINA *
UNIVERSITY *

■k

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY *
OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHARLOTTE *

*

*

DOCKET NO. 79-VI-l

NOTICE OF OPPORTUNIT 
FOR HEARING



2

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF WESTERN 
CAROLINA UNIVERSITY
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF NORTH CAROLINA 
AGRICULTURAL AND TECHNICAL STATE UNIVERSITY
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF NORTH CAROLINA 
CENTRAL UNIVERSITY
THE 30ARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY 
OF NORTH CAROLINA AT ASHEVILLE
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY 
OF NORTH CAROLINA AT WILMINGTON
THE 30ARD OF TRUSTEES OF PEMBROKE 
STATE UNIVERSITY
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF ELIZABETH CITY 
STATE UNIVERSITY
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF FAYETTEVILLE 
STATE UNIVERSITY
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE NORTH 
CAROLINA SCHOOL OF THE ARTS
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF WINSTON-SALEM 
STATE UNIVERSITY
(hereinafter called "constituent 
institutions")

*

★
★
★

•k

k

k

k

k

k

k
k

k

k

Respondents *
k

Consolidated Compliance Proceedings 
Pursuant to Section 602 of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 and HEW 
Regulations 45 CFR Parts 30 and 81.



3

Pursuant to the provisions of Title VI of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 and the implementing regulation of the 
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (45 CFR Part 80, 
as amended), NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that each Respondent named 
in the caption will be given an opportunity to be heard on 
the allegations set forth below. A copy of the Title VI regu­
lation of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 
(HEW) and a copy of the relevant Rules of Practice and Procedures 
(45 CFR Part 81, as amended) are attached as Appendix A. Also 
attached, as Appendix 3, are HEW's Amended Criteria Specifving 
the Ingredients’ of Acceptable Plans to Desegregate state Systems 
of Public Higher Education.

Each Respondent is notified and required to file an 
original and two copies of an answer to the allegations herein 
within 20 days from the service of this document, unless such 
time is extended by order of the administrative law judge if 
appointed, or by the Reviewing Authority. The answers must be 
filed with the Hearing Clerk (Civil Rights), Department of 
Health, Education, and Welfare, Room 4605, HEW North Building, 
330 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20201. An 
additional copy must be mailed or delivered to the attorney 
in the Office of the General Counsel whose address is indicated 
at the end of this Notice.



4

Answers shall admit or deny specifically and in detail 
each allegation of the Notice unless Respondent is without 
sufficient knowledge to admit or deny, in which case the 
answer should so state and the statement will be deemed a 
denial. Allegations of fact in this Notice not denied or 
controverted by answer will be deemed admitted. Failure of 
Respondent to file an answer within the 20-day period follow­
ing service of the Notice may be deemed an admission of all 
matters of fact received in the Notice (45 CFR 81.52).

Within 20 days after service of this Notice, each 
Respondent may request, either in its answer or in a separate 
document, a hearing. Failure of a Respondent to request a 
hearing within this period waives a hearing and constitutes 
its consent to submission of this case for a decision upon 
the written record. The failure of a Respondent both to file 
an answer and to request a hearing will be deemed a waiver 
of all rights to participate in the proceeding and will 
constitute its consent to the making of a decision on the 
basis of such information as is available (45 CFR 81.54).

ALLEGATIONS
The General Counsel, Department of Health, Education, 

and Welfare, acting on behalf of the Department, its Office



5

for Civil Rights (OCR), 
in the caption, alleges 

1. This action is 
Civil Rights Act of 1964

and the other federal 
as follows:
brought pursuant to Ti 
, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, et.

agenc ies

tie VI of 
seq. and

named

the

HEW's regulation promulgated thereunder, 45 CFR Part 80 as 
amended.

2. Respondent State of North Carolina supports, operates, 
maintains, and promotes the sixteen public constituent insti­
tutions of the University of North Carolina named in the 
caption (hereinafter constituent institutions).

3. Each Respondent constituent institution provides 
programs of four or more years of post-secondary academic 
education.

4. Respondent Board of Governors, by statutory authority 
of the Respondent State of North Carolina, has, inter alia, 
the following powers, duties, and responsibilities:

a. to plan and develop a coordinated system of 
higher education in North Carolina.

b. to govern the sixteen constituent institutions, 
subject to the powers delegated to the 3oards 
of Trustees of the institutions by the State 
Leg islatur e.

c. to administer federal programs of aid to 
institutions or students pursuant to any 
requirement of federal statute.

d. to be responsible 
control, supervis 
of all affairs of

for the general 
ion, management, 
the constituent

determination, 
and governance 
institutions.



e. to determine the functions, educational activities 
and academic programs of the constituent institutions, 
including the power to withdraw approval of an 
existing program that is found to be unproductive, 
excessively costly, or unnecessarily duplicative.

f. to set tuition rates.
g. to set enrollment levels.
h. to develop, prepare, and present a unified budget 

for the sixteen constituent institutions and
the University as a whole.

i. to delegate any part of its authority over the 
affairs of any institution to the Board of 
Trustees or the chancellor of the institution.

j. to prepare and revise long-range plans for a 
coordinated system of higher education.

5. Each Respondent constituent institution is permitted 
by law to accept applicants for enrollment without restriction 
as to geographic region of the State of North Carolina.

6. The State of North Carolina has delegated the State's 
responsibility for coordinating and monitoring the effective
implementation of The Revised North Carolina State Plan__o_r—
the Further Elimination of Racial Duality in the Public Post- 
Secondary Education Systems (1974) to Respondent Board of 
Governors insofar as said plan affects The University of 
North Carolina, subject to limitations prescribed by the 
constitution or general statutes of the State of North Carolina.

7. The Board of Governors is a body corporate and politic, 
and is able and capable in law to sue and be sued in all courts 
whatsoever, and in general may do such things as are usually



7

done by bodies corporate and politic, or such as may be necessary 
for the promotion of learning and virtue.

8. The powers and duties of each constituent institu­
tion's Board of Trustees is, consistent with State statute, 
defined and delegated by Respondent Board o f. Gover no r s .

9. Through its agents, state officials and employees, 
Respondent State of North Carolina receives funds from the 
federal government for educational purposes under certain Acts 
of Congress that are administered by HEW, and the other federal
agencies named in the caption.

10. Respondent Board of Governors and Respondent consti­
tuent institutions have applied for and may be eligible for 
federal financial assistance from one or more state education 
agencies under one or more acts of Congress that are adminis­
tered by HEW and the other federal agencies named in the 
caption.

11. Respondent Board of Governors and Respondent con­
stituent institutions have applied for, and may be eligible 
for, federal financial assistance directly from HEW and other 
named federal agencies.

12. Respondent Board of Governors and Respondent 
constituent institutions have each submitted to HEW an 
Assurance of Compliance with Title VI of the uivil Rights Act
of 1964 and all requirements pursuant to the applicable regulation
(Form 441).



a
13. Prior to 1954, Respondent State of North Carolina and 

its agents, acting under State law and practice, maintained 
racially segregated public institutions of higher education.

14. Prior to 1954, each institution of public 
higher education admitted and enrolled students of one race 
only, as follows:

a. The University of North Carolina at Chapel 
Hill was authorized in 1776, chartered in 1789
and commenced operations in 1795 for members of the 
white race. It was maintained in 1954 as part of 
the consolidated University of North Carolina for 
members of the white race.
b. The University of North Carolina at Greensboro 
was founded in 1891 for women of the white race.
It was maintained in 1954 as part of the consolidated 
University of North Carolina for women of the white 
race.
c. North Carolina State University was founded in
1387 and maintained in 1954 as a land grant institution 
for members of the white race, as part of the consoli­
dated University of North Carolina.
d. The University of North Carolina at Asheville was 
founded as a community college, was known in 1954
as Asheville-Biltmore College (a separately chartered 
public institution), and was maintained for members



9

of the white race. UNC-Asheville became a four year 
institution as part of the State higher education 
system in 1963, and part of The University of North 
Carolina in 1969.
e. The University of North Carolina at Wilmington 
was founded as a community college, was known in 
1954 as Wilmington College (a separately chartered 
public institution), and was maintained for members 
of the white race. UNC-Wilmington became a four year 
institution as a part of the State higher education 
system in 1963 and became part of The University of 
North Carolina in 1969.
f. Appalachian State University was known in 1954 as 
Appalachian State Teachers College (a separately 
chartered public institution), and was maintained 
for members of the white race. ASU became part
of The University of North Carolina in 1972.
g. East Carolina University was founded in 1909, 
was known in 1954 as East Carolina College (a 
separately chartered public institution), and was 
maintained for members of the white race. ECU 
became part of the University of North Carolina 
in 1972.
h. Elizabeth City State University was founded
in 1891 as the State Colored School, was known in



10

1954 as Elizabeth City State Teachers College (a 
seoarately chartered public institution), and was 
maintained for members of the black race. ECSJ 
became part of the University of North Carolina in
1972.
i. Fayetteville State University was founded in 1877 
as a training school for black public school teachers, 
was known in 1954 as Fayetteville State College (a 
separately chartered public institution), and was 
maintained for members of the black race. FSU became 
a part of The University of North Carolina in 1972.
j. North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State 
University was founded in 1891 as a land grant agri­
cultural and mechanical college for blacks, was known 
in 1954 as the Agricultural and Technical College of 
North Carolina (a separately chartered public institu­
tion), and was maintained for members of the black 
race. NCA&T became part of The University of North 
Carolina in 1972.
k. North Carolina Central University was acquired by 
the State in 1923 to train black teachers and black 
principals for the State's black secondary schools, 
was known successively as Durham State Normal School 
and North Carolina College for Negroes (a separately 
chartered public institution), and was maintained



11

for members of the black race. NCCU became part 
of The University of North Caolina in 1972.
l. Pembroke State University founded in 1887 as a 
State Normal and Elementary school for American 
Indians, was known in 1954 as Peraoroke State College 
(a separately chartered public institution), and 
was maintained for members of the wnite race and 
American Indians. PSU became part of The University 
of North Carolina in 1972.
m. Western Carolina University was founded in 1893, 
was known in 1954 as Western Carolina College (a 
separately chartered public institution), and was 
maintained for members of the white race. WCU 
oecame part of The University of North Carolina
in 1972.
n. Winston-Salem State University was acquired in 
1897, was known in 1954 as Winston-Salem State 
College (a separately chartered public institution) 
and was maintained for members of the black race. 
WSSU became part of The University of North Carolina 
in 1972.
o. University of North Carolina at Charlotte was a 
public community college in 1954 and was maintained 
for members of the white race. UNC-Charlotte became 
a four year institution as part of the State higher 
education system in 1963 and part of The University 
of North Carolina in 1969.



12

p. The North Carolina School of Arts had no prede­
cessor institution in 1954, was founded in 1963 for 
memoers of all races, and became part of The University 
of North Carolina in 1972.

15. At no time have Respondents taken sufficient action 
as required by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States or oy Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964 to eliminate the effects of the de j ure racially dual 
system in the State’s public institutions of higher education. 
Even after racial segregation ceased to be required by state 
law or rules, Respondents, by their policies and practices, and 
failures to act, continued to operate, maintain and perpetuate 
the vestiges of the racially dual system of public higher 
education.

16. The charts appended to the Notice as Appendix C 
represent the enrollment and location of students, trustees, 
faculty and administrators at Respondent constituent institu­
tions for the most recent academic year for which information 
has been provided to the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), HEW, 
by the State of North Carolina. These charts indicate, inter 
l̂i_a, that, as to students, trustees, faculty, and admini­
strators, the racial composition of each such group at each 
constituent institution, and the distribution of each such 
group among the constituent institutions, reflects tne racial 
segregation of the de jure era.

17. The distribution of trustees, faculty, and adminis­
trators of each race, as reflected in these charts, identifies



13

each Respondent constituent institution as a school for stu­
dents of a particular race.

18. Respondents use the following classifications in 
categorizing and descrioing tne constituent institutions.

Mai or Research Universities 
UNC- Chapel Hill 
Nor tn Carolina State University

Otner Doctoral-Granting Universities 
UNC-Greensooro

Comprehensive Universities
(Master's level institutions)
Appalachian State University 
East Carolina University 
UNC-Charlotte
Western Carolina University 
N.C. A&T State University (TBI)
N.C. Central University (TSI)

General Baccalaureate Universities
~ UNC-Asheville “
UNC-Wilmington
Pembroke State University
Elizabeth City State University (TBI)

. Fayetteville State University (TBI) 
Winston-Salem State University (TBI)

Specialized Institutions 
N.C. School of tne Arts

(Any use of the terms "category" or "rank", infra., is intended 
to refer to these five classifications.)

19. Respondent State and its agents have provided the 
traditionally black constituent institutions and those 
institutions' predominantly black student bodies with benefits 
and services which are different from and inferior to those 
provided to the traditionally white constituent institutions 
and those institutions' predominantly white student bodies. For
example:



14

a. The State and its agents have provided to 
students at the traditionally white institutions 
(TWIs) a greater number and variety of degree 
programs at the baccalaureate level and at the 
master's and intermediate level than provided to 
students at the traditionally black institutions 
(TSIs) of similar rank.
b. The State and its agents have permitted the employ­
ment of faculty members at TBIs with lesser academic 
credentials compared with faculty members at TWIs
of similar rank.
c. The State and its agents have denied sufficient 
funds so that library facilities and acquisitions
at TBIs are inferior to library facilities and acqui­
sitions at TWIs of similar rank.
d. The State and its agents, through the failure to 
provide adequate state funding and other assistance, 
have caused the TBIs to operate with older and less 
satisfactory buildings and other physical plant 
facilities, in comparison with TWIs of similar rank.
e. The State and its agents, through failure to 
provide adequate state funding and other assistance, 
have caused the TBIs to operate with quantitatively 
and qualitatively less adequate teaching equipment 
and instructional supplies, in comparison with TWIs
of similar rank.



15

-• The State and its agents have paid salaries to 
faculty and administrative personnel at the TBIs 
which are less than the salaries paid to faculty 
and administrative personnel at the TWls of 
similar rank.

20. Respondents have failed to take action sufficient 
to eliminate the present effects of prior de jure segregation 
and other discrimination within the State system of public 
higher education. Instead, Respondents' actions have maintained 
and perpetuated the dual system. Respondents' develooment of 
the constituent institutions and other public institutions 
of post-secondary education has created attractive alternatives 
for white students who might otherwise have chosen to attend 
the historically black institutions, and has thereby peroetuated 
racial dualism in public higher eduction in North Carolina. 
Actions and inactions contributing to this result include the 
following:

a. Respondent State and its agents have developed 
traditionally white institutions to a greater 
extent than traditionally black institutions of 
comparable age, original mission, or level of degrees 
conferred. For example:

i. Respondent State and its agents have 
developed white institutions which were 
founded at or about the same time as black 
institutions in such a way that the tradi­
tionally black institutions are academically



- 16 -

inferior, having less extensive course 
offerings than the counterpart white 
institutions.

ii. Respondent State and its agents have 
planned and implemented programs of post­
baccalaureate study in fields including 
nursing, teacher education, and veterinary 
medicine to a greater extent at traditionally 
white insitutions than at formerly comparable 
traditionally black institutions. For example,
TBIs have not been given authority to offer 
any doctoral programs and offer only one pro­
fessional program, in contrast with 119 doctoral
and 4 professional degree programs (including recent 
authorizations) at the TWIs.

iii. Respondent State and its agents have 
developed and distributed land grant programs 
among traditionally white North Carolina State 
University and traditionally black NCA&T to the 
comparative detriment of the traditionally 
black institution.

iv. Respondent State and its agents have 
developed formerly two year traditionally white 
institutions into four year institutions at a 
faster rate and to a greater extent than they 
have developed pre-existing four year traditionally 
black institutions.

b. Respondent State and its agents have, since 
1954, developed new four year institutions including, 
for example, UNC-Charlotte, UNC-Wilmington, and UNC- 
Asheville, with the same racial characteristics as the 
earlier traditionally white institutions.
c. Respondent State and its agents have permitted 
the racial composition of faculties, staffs, and, 
through Respondents' powers of appointment, boards of 
trustees of the constituent institutions, to reflect 
the racial identity of those institutions1 former de 
jure dual status.



17

d. Respondent State and its agents have failed to 
define the roles of the various constituent institu­
tions so as to provide distinctive non-racial roles
for various institutions and thereby promote desegregation.
e. Respondents have made decisions concerning the 
placement of new degree programs at TEIs and TWIs 
which had the foreseeable effect of perpetuating 
a racially dual system. For example, the Board
of Governors in 1978 authorized for planning a Master's 
level program in special education at UNC-Greensboro, 
although the same type of program was previously 
authorized for planning at neighboring N.C.A&T.
f. Respondent State and its agents have failed to 
eliminate and have expanded a pattern of unnecessary 
program duplication between traditionally black and 
white institutions with similar service areas.
g. Respondent State and its agents have failed to 
unify, specialize, or otherwise arrange curricular 
offerings so as to promote desegregation.
h. Respondent State and its agents have failed to 
conduct adequate racial impact studies of planned 
educational actions which take into account the effect 
the planned action would have on eliminating the dual
system.



18

21. From February 1970 to April 1, 1977, through exten­
sive correspondence and meetings, HEW and its Office for 
Civil Fights (OCF) have attempted to resolve the State of North 
Carolina's failure to comply with Title VI of the Civil Fights 
Act of 1964 by informal means as required by HEW regulation 45 
CFF 80.7(a)(1). The principal communications include:

a. A letter dated February 16, 1970, from Leon E. 
Panetta, Director, OCF, HEW, to Fobert W. Scott, 
Governor of North Carolina, and Dallas Herring, 
Chairman of the State Board of Education, concerning 
North Carolina's compliance with Title VI of the 
Civil Fights Act of 1964 relative to the operation 
of the public system of higher education.
b. A letter dated June 10, 1970, from Fobert W. Scott, 
Governor of North Carolina, to Dr. Eloise Severinson, 
Fegional Civil Fights Director, HEW.
c. A letter dated June 20, 1970, from J. Stanley 
Pottinger, Director, CCF, HEW, to Governor 
Fobert W. Scott.
d. A letter dated May 21, 1973, from Peter E. Holmes, 
Director, OCF, HEW, to William Friday, President of 
the University of North Carolina.
e. The document entitled A State Program to Enlarge 
Educational Opportunity in North Carolina, which was
submitted on June 8, 1973, as the official response



19

of the University of North Carolina to the request 
of OCR, HEW, dated May 21, 1973.
f. A letter from Peter Holmes, Director, OCP, HEW, 
to Governor Holshouser dated November 10, 1973, in 
response to the June 8, 1973, submission.
g. The document entitled The North Carolina State Plan 
for the Further Elimination of Racial Duality in the 
Public Post-Secondary Education Systems, which was 
submitted on February 8, 1974, to OCR, HEW, in 
response to the request of November 10, 1973.
h. A document dated March 8, 1974 from the University 
of North Carolina to OCR, which served to supplement 
the document of February 8, 1974.
i. A letter from Peter Holmes, Director, OCR, HEW, 
to Governor Holshouser, dated April 24, 1974, in 
response to the submission of February 8, 1974.
j. A document entitled The Revised North Carolina 
State Plan for the Further Elimination of Racial 
Duality in the Public Post-Secondary Education 
Systems, which was submitted on May 31, 1974, to OCR, 
HEW, in response to the request of April 24, 1974.
k. A letter dated June 4, 1974, from University 
Vice-President John L. Sanders to OCR Director 'Peter 
E. Holmes, which served to supplement item (j) supra.



20

l. A letter dated June 18, 1974, from William Friday, 
President of the University, to Peter E. Holmes, Director, 
OCR, HEW, which served to supplement item (j) supra.

m. A letter dated June 10, 1974, from Ben E. Fountain, 
Jr., President of the North Carolina State Board of 
Education, to Governor James E. Holshouser, Jr., of 
North Carolina, which served to supplement item (j) 
supra.

n. A letter dated June 14, 1974, from Peter E. Holmes, 
Director, OCR, HEW, to Governor Holshouser.

o. A letter dated June 18, 1974 from Governor Holshouser 
tc Peter Holmes, Director, OCR, HEW.

p. A letter dated July 19, 1974 from Peter Holmes, 
Director, OCR, HEW, to Governor Holshouser, accepting 
The Revised North Carolina State Plan for the Further 
Elimination of Racial Duality in the Public Post- 
Secondary Education Systems.

g. A letter dated July 31, 1975 from OCR to State 
officials containing OCR's comments on the State's 
implementing of the latter's desegregation plan.



- 21 -

22. On April 1, 1977, the United States District 
Court for the District of Columbia issued a Second
Supplemental Order in the case of Adams v. Califano, _____
F. Supp.______ (D.D.C. April 1, 1977), finding that
the higher education desegregation plan submitted by North 
Carolina and accepted by HEW in June 1974, "failed to meet 
the requirements earlier specified oy derenaants" ana failed 
to achieve desegregation progress. The Court then ordered HEW 
to develop "final guidelines or criteria specifying the ingre­
dients of an acceptable higher education desegregation plan," 
to require the State of North Carolina to summit a revised 
desegregation plan, and to accept or reject such plan within 
120 days after its submission. The latter requirement was 
subsequently extended by the court for thirty days.

23. From April 22, 1977 to March 21, 1978, through 
extensive correspondence and meetings, OCR, HEW has attempted 
to resolve the State of North Carolina's continued failure to 
comply witn Title VI of tne Civil Rights Act of 1964 oy informal 
means as required by the regulation, 45 CFR 30.7(d)(1). A 
summary of these principal communication is as follows:

a. By letter dated April 22, 1977, Albert Hamlin, Acting 
Director, OCR, HEW, in accordance with tne District 
Court's Second Supplementary Order of April 1, 1977, 
notified the State of North Carolina through its agents 
that its Revised State Plan of 1974 was not adequate to



- 2 2 -

comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1974, 
and that a new higher education desegregation plan must 
be submitted to HEW.
b. On July 5, 1977, HEW promulgated Amended Criteria 
Specifying Ingredients of Acceptable Plans to Desegre­
gate State Systems of Public Higher Education (amended 
and published, 42 Fed Reg 40730, August 11, 1977).
c. On July 20, 1977, David Tatel, Director, OCR, and 
members of his staff met with North Carolina officials 
in Washington, D.C.
d. On August 17, 1977, Mr. Tatel and staff met with 
Governor James B. Hunt, Jr. and with State higher 
education officials in North Carolina.
e. By letter dated September 2, 1977, the State 
submitted its desegregation plan entitled The Revised 
North Carolina State Plan for the Further Elimination 
of Racial Duality in Public Higher Education Systems, 
Phase II, 1973-83. (hereinafter referred to as 
State Plan, Phase II.)
f. On October 28, 1977, OCR staff met with State 
officials in Washington, D.C.
g. By letter dated November 7, 1977, OCR presented 
its initial comments on State Plan, Phase II.
h. On Novemoer 16, 1977, OCR Director and staff met 
with State officials in Washington, D.C.



23

i. In a document dated December 1, 1977, community 
college system officials submitted to OCR revisions 
to its section of State Plan, Phase II.
j. In a document dated December 5, 1977, the Uni­
versity of North Carolina sent to OCR its response 
to OCR's letter of November 7, 1977.
k. On December 15, 1977, OCR Director and staff 
met with State officials in Washington, D.C.
l. In a letter dated December 23, 1977, OCR pro­
vided an evaluation of the community college 
system's December 1, 1977, revisions.
m. In a supplemental statement dated December 30,
1977, the University of North Carolina further 
explained and enlarged upon State Plan, Phase II.
n. On January 6, 1978, OCR Director and staff
met with community college officials in Washington.
o. On January 13 , 1978 , community-college officials 
presented to OCR certain revisions of State Plan,
Phase II.
p. On January 18, 1978, in a meeting in Atlanta, Georgia, 
OCR provided" community college officials with a
written response to the community college system's 
revisions of January 13, 1978.
q. On January 19, 1978, OCR Director and staff 
met with University officials in Atlanta, and 
provided them with written comments on Respondent



- 24 -

Board of Governor's December 30th supplementary 
statement.
r. In a letter dated January 23, 1978, University President 
William Friday commented to OCR on the results of the 
meeting of January 19, 1978.
s. In a letter dated January 27, 1978, the OCR Director 
forwarded to University officials OCR's comments on the 
University's December 30, 1977, supplementary statement.
t. In a letter to Governor Hunt dated February 3, 1978, the 
OCR Director notified the State that the Department had accepted 
the community college component of State Plan, Phase II, but 
that the University component did not comply with the 
"Amended Criteria" and therefore did not promise to eliminate 
the State's formerly dual system of public higher education
as required by Title VI. The letter also stated that the 
Department would initiate administrative enforcement action 
if further discussion did not result in voluntary compliance 
within forty-five days of the date of the letter. Pursuant 
to the terms of this letter, the Director of the Office for 
Civil Rights determined that compliance could not be secured 
by voluntary means.
u. On February 15, 1978, HEW published, in the Federal 
Register (43 Fed Reg 6653), the Department's Revised



- 2 5 -

Criteria Specifying the Ingredients of Acceptable Plans 
to Desegregate State Systems of Public Higher Education.
v. On February 21, 1978, OCR staff met with University 
officials in North Carolina.
w. On March 1, 1978, Secretary Califano, General 
Counsel F. Peter Libassi, Mr. Libassi's staff, and OCR 
staff met with University officials in Washington, D.C.
x. On March 7, 1978, Secretary Califano, General 
Counsel F. Peter Libassi, Mr. Libassi's staff, OCR 
Director David S. Tatel, and Mr. Tatel's staff met with 
University officials and UNC Board Chairman Johnson in 
Washington, D.C.
y. On March 9, 1978, HEW officials met with 
University officials in North Carolina.
z. On March 14, 1978, HEW officials met with University 
officials in North Carolina.

24. On March 22, 1978, the General Counsel of the Department 
of Health, Education, and Welfare, on behalf of twelve named 
federal agencies, issued a Notice of Oppportunity for Hearing 
in the Matter of the State of North Carolina, the Board 
of Governors, the Constituent Institutions, and the North 
Carolina State Board of Education. This Notice, given docket 
number 78-VI-3, initiated consolidated compliance proceedings 
under Title VI of the Civil Rights of 1964.



- 2 5 -

25. On May 1, 1978, Respondents in docket number 
78-VI-3 filed Respondents' Consolidated Answer to the 
Notice of Opportunity for Hearing and Respondents'
Consolidated Request for Hearing.

26. On June 16, 1978, counsel for the Department 
of Health, Education, and Welfare, on behalf of twelve 
named federal agencies, moved to dismiss the action in 
docket number 78-VI-3.

27. From March 22, 1978 to the present, through 
extensive correspondence and meetings, OCR (HEW) has 
attempted to resolve the State of North Carolina's continued 
failure to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964 by informal means as required by the regulation,
45 CFR 80.7(d)(1). A summary of the principal communications 
is as follows:

a. Between March 22, 1978 and May 11, 1978, HEW 
officials spoke and/or met with State officials on 
several occasions concerning a second supplement to 
become part of State Plan, Phase II.
b. With a cover letter dated May 12, 1978, Governor 
Hunt sent to Secretary Califano "Supplement Statement 
II" to State Plan-Phase II.
c. On May 12, 1978, Secretary Califano announced 
HEW's provisional acceptance of the UNC component 
of State Plan, Phase II.



27

d. In a letter dateu June 12, 1978, David Intel, 
Director, OCR, confirmed the provisional acceptance 
of the UNC component of State Plan, Phase II, 
which consisted of tne following lour documents: 
the initial submission dated August 22, 1977,
Comments on the plan dated December 5, 1977, a 
Supplemental Statement dateu December 30, 1977,
anu Supplemental Statement-!! uateu May 12, 1978.
(These four documents are the same as those referred
to in paragraphs 23e, 23j, 23m, and 27o of tnis Notice.;
The letter also uescrioeu seven documents whicn unC
would provide subsequently to OCR as amendments to
UWC1s State Plan, Phase II. (A copy of tnis letter is
attached as Appendix D.)

«

e. In a letter uateu May 31, 1978, UNC Vice- 
Presiuent Dawson wrote to Daviu Tatel regaruin* new 
programs, informing Mr. Tatel tnat tne information 
would be updated in August 1978.
f. with a cover letter aated August 15, 1978,
UNC President Friuay transmitted to Daviu Tatel an 
annual report on activities pursuant to State Plan,
ill.ase 11 and its predecessor plan. Attached to the annual 
report were copies of stuuies of tne physical plant 
at the five Inis and a letter from UNC vice—trosident 
Joyner to UNC Presiuent FriJay concerning those studies.



- 28 -

g. With cover letters dated August 11, 1978 and 
September 25, 1978, UNC officials transmitted to 
David Tatel revised affirmative action plans concerning 
employment at the constituent institutions and the 
General Administration of UNC.
h. By letter dated October 12, 1973, President Friday 
wrote David Tatel concerning enrollment statistics at 
UNC-Chapel Hill.
i. By letter dated November 15, 1978, President Friday 
wrote David Tatel concerning enrollment statistics
in the constituent institutions.
j. With a cover letter dated November 11, 1978,
Governor Hunt formally transmitted to David Tatel a 
document titled Comparative Study of Baccalaureate and 
Master's Program Offerings, together with a UNC study 
titled Degree Programs in Engineering in The University of 
North Carolina. These studies conclude that there is no * l.
unnecessary duplication among any degree programs offered
at traditionally white institutions which are geographically 
proximate to TBls, or which have similar service areas.
k. By letter dated December 20, 1978, President Friday 
wrote David Tatel concerning student desegregation goals.
l. With a cover letter dated January 18, 1979, OCR 
Director Tatel transmitted to UNC President Friday an



- 29 -

OCR document entitled "Evaluation of North Carolina's 
Amendments to the University Component of its Statewide 
Higher Education Desegregation Plan.” The Evaluation 
commented on and found deficiencies in each submission 
from UNC identified in subparagraphs 27f, 27g, 27j, and 27k 
of this Notice. As stated in the cover letter, the 
Evaluation was intended as a basis for further discussion.
m. By letter dated January 25, 1979, UNC President 
Friday returned to OCR Director Tatel the Evaluation 
described in subparagraph 27 1, of this Notice, stating 
that "The tentative evaluation...does not offer a basis 
for discussion...."
n. With a cover letter dated February 16, 1979, OCR 
Director Tatel, resubmitted to UNC President Friday OCR's 
Evaluation described in subparagraph 27 1 and again 
expressed HEW's interest in continuing the negotiations.
o. On February 6, 1979 OCR Director Tatel met with 
Chancellors of several constituent institutions in 
Washington, D.C.
p. On February 21, 1979, OCR Director Tatel, HEW 
Assistant Secretary Berry and others met with UNC 
President Friday and other UNC officials, in North
Carolina.



- 3 0 -

q. On March 8, 1979, HEW officials met with UNC 
Vice Presidents Dawson, Thompson, and Joyner in 
Washington, D.C.
r. On March 13, 1979, OCR Director Tatel and HEW 
Assistant General Counsel Albert Hamlin met with UNC 
President Friday and other UNC officials in
North Carolina.
s. On March 15, 1979, HEW Secretary Califano met 
with UNC President Friday in Washington, D.C.
t. By letter dated March 26, 1979, OCR Director Tatel 
informed North Carolina Governor Hunt, that HEW had 
rejected the North Carolina plan, and that OCR was 
referring the matter to the Department's Office of the 
General Counsel for the initiation of administrative 
proceedings.

28. Respondents have failed to take action as required 
by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and Title VI 
of the Civil Rights Act, to eliminate the existing vestiges 
of de j ure desegregation in the State institutions of higher 
education.

29. The State has failed to commit itself to take 
sufficient steps outlined in the "Amended Criteria" 
which will bring the University component of the State's 
higher education system into compliance with Title VI.



- 31 -

30. There are further steps which the State of North 
Carolina and its agents could take, in addition to the 
commitments contained in State Plan, Phase II as it was 
provisionally accepted by HEW on May 12, 1978, that would 
disestablish the dual system of higher education, 
consistent with Title VI and HEW's "Amended Criteria."

31. The steps referred to in paragraph 30, which 
were proposed to University officials during negotiations, 
include:

a. Enhancement of the traditionally black 
institutions by strengthening their role within 
the State's system through the following means:

i. Awarding the TBIs new and unduplicated 
programs; and giving them priority consideration 
in the placement of other new programs to make 
them more competitive with the traditionally 
white institutions and more attractive to all students- without regard to race;
ii. Allocating sufficient funds for renovation, 
new facilities, equipment and other resources
to correct inferior conditions at the TBIs;
iii. Withholding approval of any changes in 
the operation of the state system which may 
have the effect of thwarting the achievement of 
its desegregation goals, including withdrawing 
planning authorization for those new programs 
at TWIs that compete with planned or existing 
programs at TBIs;



- 32 -

iv• Identifying and eliminating educationally 
unnecessary duplicative programs, or parts 
thereof, at TBIs and TWIs with similar or 
overlapping service areas, in the last year of 
the State's desegregation plan, if the 
University system cannot demonstrate that the 
actions described in subparagraphs i through 
iii above have resulted in significant desegregation.

b. Providing measures to achieve goals for 
increasing black student enrollment in all 
institutions in general and in the traditionally 
white institutions in particular.
c. Providing measures to achieve goals for 
reducing the disparity between the rates
at which black and white high school graduates 
enroll in undergraduate studies, successfully 
complete undergraduate studies, and matriculate to 
post-baccalaureate studies.
d. Setting interim benchmarks and providing 
measures to achieve goals for reducing
the disparity, relative to labor market availability 
of persons with appropriate credentials, between 
the rates at which black and white persons are 
employed by institutions of the State's higher 
education system.



- 33 -

e. Setting goals, and providing interim benchmarks 
and measures to achieve goals, for attaining 
proportionality between black and white North 
Carolina undergraduate students who complete their 
baccalaureate studies in Respondent constituent 
institutions and then enter graduate or post­
baccalaureate programs in Respondent constituent 
institutions, for each major field of study.
f. Inter institutional cooperation and systemwide 
action to help ensure that the above goals are 
attained.

32. Respondents are pursuing policies and practices 
in the operation of the public institutions of higher 
education in the State of North Carolina which violate 
the requirements of Title VI, and its implementing 
regulation.

33. OCR Director Tatel has determined that 
Respondents' compliance with Title VI cannot be achieved 
by voluntary means, in accordance with 45 CFR §80.7(d).

34. As long as the Respondents continue to operate
the public institutions of higher education in North Carolina 
in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 
federal financial assistance received by the Respondents 
for use in providing education activities in the affected



- 34 -

institutions of higher education is being administered in a 
manner that discriminates against the students on the basis 
of race, color, or national origin and is used to support 
education programs affected by discriminatory practices 
in such education activities.

Moreover, federal financial assistance that the 
Respondents might be eligible to apply for and receive to 
provide education activities for students in the State's 
institutions of higher education would be adminstered in a 
manner which discriminates on the basis of race, color, or 
national origin and would support education programs which 
are affected by discriminatory practices. Wherefore, the 
General Counsel prays that an Order be entered, pursuant to 
45 CFR §80.5:

1. Finding Respondents in noncompliance with 
the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
°f 1964 and regulations promulgated thereunder in their 
operation of the systems and institutions of public 
post-secondary education in North Carolina.

2. Terminating, or refusing to grant or to continue, 
federal financial assistance to the Respondents which is 
administered, directly or indirectly, by HEW and which 
supports education activities in the State's institutions 
of higher education.



- 3 5 -

3. Terminating, or refusing to grant or to continue, 
federal financial assistance to the Respondents which is 
administered, directly or indirectly, by the Department
of Interior and which supports education activities in 
the State's institutions of higher education.

4. Terminating, or refusing to grant or to continue, 
federal financial assistance to the Respondents which is 
administered, directly or indirectly, by the Department
of State and which supports education activities in 
the State's institutions of higher education.

5. Terminating, or refusing to grant or to continue, 
federal financial assistance to the Respondents which is 
administered, directly or indirectly, by the General 
Services Administration and which supports education 
activities in the State's institutions of higher education.

6. Terminating, or refusing to grant or to continue, 
federal financial assistance to the Respondents which is 
administered, directly or indirectly, by the National 
Science Foundation and which supports education activities 
in the State's institutions of higher education.

7. Terminating, or refusing to grant or to continue, 
federal financial assistance to the Respondents which is 
administered, directly or indirectly, by the Veterans 
Administration and which supports education activities
ln the State's institutions of higher education.



- 36 -

3. Terminating, or refusing to grant or to continue, 
federal financial assistance to the Respondents which is 
administered, directly or indirectly, by the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration and which supports 
education activities in the State's institutions of higher 
education.

9. Terminating, or refusing to grant or to continue, 
federal financial assistance to the Respondents which is 
administered, directly or indirectly, by the Law Enforcement 
Assistance Administration and which supports education 
activities in the State's institutions of higher education, 
with the exception of benefits made available under the Law 
Enforcement Education Program, 42 U.S.C. §3746.

10. Terminating, or refusing to grant or to continue, 
federal financial assistance to the Respondents which is 
administered, directly or indirectly, by Action and which 
supports education activities in State's institutions of 
higher education.

11. Terminating, or refusing to grant or to continue, 
federal financial assistance to the Respondents which is 
administered, directly or indirectly, by the Department
of Commerce and which supports education activities in 
the State's institutions of higher education.



- 3 7 -

12. Terminating, or refusing to grant or to continue, 
federal financial assistance to the Respondents which is 
administered, directly or indirectly, by the Department
of Agriculture and which supports education activities 
in the State's institutions of higher education.

13. Terminating, or refusing to grant or to continue, 
federal financial assistance to the Respondents which is 
administered, directly or indirectly, by the Department
of Labor and which supports education activities in the 
State's institutions of higher education.

14. Finding that these terminations, and refusals to 
grant or to continue, federal financial assistance shall 
remain in force until Respondents satisfy the Director,
OCR, HEW, that (a) they have complied with the requirements 
of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and (b)
they will fully comply in the future with all applicable 
requirements of Title VI and its implementing regulation,
45 CFR Part 80.

Respectfully submitted,
FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL 
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION 
AND WELFARE

Albert T. Hamlin 
Assistant General Counsel



- 38 -

Arline Pacht, Attorney

Jeffrey. F. Champagne, Attorney 
Office of the General Counsel 
Civil Rights Division - Rm. 530G-N 
330 Independence Avenue, S.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20201

Date: March 29, 1979