Department of Health, Education and Welfare Required to Revoke Deficient Desegregation Plans for 8 States
Press Release
August 1, 1975

Cite this item
-
Press Releases, Volume 6. Department of Health, Education and Welfare Required to Revoke Deficient Desegregation Plans for 8 States, 1975. 85af1920-bb92-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/c9b4bb33-f930-4e4f-8521-3f177b0fe437/department-of-health-education-and-welfare-required-to-revoke-deficient-desegregation-plans-for-8-states. Accessed April 29, 2025.
Copied!
Ast From: 10 Columbus Circle New York, New york 10019 Contact: Jack Greenberg (212) 586-8397 Jean, Fairfax (602) 944-7757 dJoseph L. Rauh, Jr. Elliott C. Lichtman (202) 331-1795 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FOR IMMEDAS eS WASHINGTON, D-C-+ Aug. 1 - The NAACP Educational Fund asked the Federal District require the Department of Health, Education court here today to NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. Legal Defense and and Welfare to revoke its approval of eight state plans purportedly formulated to dismantle segregated systems of higher education. The state plans, approved a year ago last obtained in compliance with a court mandate of 1973 (Adams v June by HEW, were Richardson), oo which set a series of deadlines for the initiation of Federal fund termination proceedings when and if segregated failed to submit acceptable desegregation plans- contending that the approved plans fail to meet minimum standards enunciated Fund requested the court to direct the agency by state college systems are totally deficient and by HEW, the Legal Defense November 1, 1975 to revoke its earlier approvals of the 8 plans and to require by February 1, desegregation plans- (More ) 1976 the submission of new and constitutionally acceptable a a Pigg The motion for relief parallels an earlier motion concerned solely with elementary and secondary education, which was granted by Judge John H. Pratt in March, 1975. The present action requests the Court to instruct HEW by March 1, 1976 to suspend action on all new higher education funding applications and to commence enforcement proceedings against any of the states failing to file adequate new plans. The suit additionally seeks an injunction barring HEW,as of July 1, 1976, from providing any financial assistance to any of the eight systems not submitting a plan in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Act forbids Federal aid wherever segregation is practiced. The states affected are Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Asserting that HEW's approval of the eight plans was an act of "blatant regression" from its own desegregation criteria, Legal Defense Fund lawyers alleged that HEW accepted state plans in June, 1974 which lacked measures to eliminate racial duality and failed to promise actual desegregation results. They contend that the state plans consistently declined to: 1. Abandon or alter admission, retention, scholarship, and program elements at white institutions, so as to achieve proportionate or even significantly increased black enrollments. (More) = Gee Jette 2. Reassign staff or otherwise alter faculty distribution to achieve proportionate or even significantly increased black faculty representation at traditionally white campuses. 3. Abolish duality and promote desegregation by eliminating duplication of programs and degree offerings, particularly where there are neighboring black and white institutions. 4. Upgrade predominantely black institutions to redress decades of discrimination and help facilitate their desegregation. 5. Desegregate institutional governance structures which tend to confine blacks to administrative roles on black campuses. 6. Project specific desegregation goals or the dates on which the dual structure of institutions will be eliminated. Apart from lack of commitment in salient areas, Legal Defense Fund lawyers assert, the plans also lack comprehensiveness, 4s stated in the brief: "The plans consistently renounce state-wide changes, state responsibility, and commitments by state officers on the purported ground that local statutory schemes leave such matters as student admission, teacher hiring, scholarship aid, and the educational program in the hands of individual institutions and their boards.” The lawyers assert thatHEW unlawfully accepted these 8 plans in June 1974. Further, they contend, the 8 states have largely failed to implement even their meager promises during the year following the HEW approvals. In continuing defiance of the court orders, no desegregation has occurred. The original complaint, filed five years ago, focused on HEW's refusal to enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against state colleges and universities as well as public school systems and other institutions. HEW in 1969-70 had identified the continued dual and segregated patterns of the higher education systems, but, as the Court of Appeals found, the agency failed thereafter to formulate "guidelines for desegregating state-wide systems of higher learning", or even to comment upon five state desegregation plans which it had received at that time. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's 1973 order that HEW commence formal Title VI enforcement actions against any state which would not undertake an adequate and comprehensive “higher education desegregation program, EE NOTE TO EDITOR: The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund is a completely separate organization, even though originally established by the NAACP in 1939. The correct designation is NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., frequently shortened to Legal Defense Fund. The organization has a national staff and headquarters in New York City and works with 400 cooperating attorneys throughout the country.