United States v. Louisiana Opinion and Order

    tc.-.rr.
UNIinED STATES DISTRICT COUR3T 
EASTEHM DISTRICT OF LOUISIAlOt. _\L 1 =:3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
VERSUS
STATE OF LOUISIANA

CIVIL ACTION 
NO. 80-3300 
SECTION "A"

OPINION AND ORDER
Before JOHN M. WISDOM, Circuit Judge, and CHARLES SCHWARTZ, JR. 
District Judge and VERCaocA D. WICKER, District Judge

This matter came tsefore the Court for hearijng on the 
parties' objections to tbe Special Master’s Final Report and 
Proposed Order of May 26, 1989. In addition to reviewing those 
aspects of the Rep>ort and Order challenged by t-i>̂  parties' 
objections, the Panel reviewed the entire Report and Order 
independently. To the ecKtent any matters set forth in the Report 
and Order were based on findings of fact, those findings were 
reviewed under the clearly erroneous rule. To tbe extent any

contained therein were based on conclusions of law, those 
conclusions were revieMed de novo.

In light of the Panel's review and the parties* objections, 
the Panel rules as follows: The Panel hereby adopts the Final 
Report and Proposed Ord«^ as its own, except to the extent they 
are modified as stated below. Thus, the whole of the Master's 
Rep>ort forms the basis of the Court's Order, except where the
Panel expressly departs from the Master's finding and recommen­
dations.

Without limiting those of the Master's findtings generaJJ.^
adopted by the Panel, the Court directs specific

date Of BmJUL15J38S
.IWD 
J_Ofa>ER.

DOCUMENT N



following extractions the Master’s Report, xx ntodlfled where
riecessary:

Louisiana currently lias seventeen general st^te institutions 
r»f higher learning, orgami zed under four separatsi gpoverning 
3x>ards.^ The Board of Cements has general respoDsil>ility for 
planning, coordinating «3id reviewing the budgets arrwl academic 
progrcun offerings of eacfn state university. Eac±\ of the three 
xeinaining boards has sep^xate direct management authority for a 
number of the universities. The Louisiana State University Board 
of Supervisors ("LSU Supervisors”) oversees Louisiana State Uni­
versity and Agricultural and Mechanical College “i_n Baton Rouge 
C’'LSU A&M"), the University of New Orleans ("UNO"), Louisiana 
State University at Shreveport ("LSU-S"), Louisiana State Univer­
sity at Alexandria ("LSU-A") and Louisiana State University at 
Evinice ("LSU-E”). The Sonithern University Board of Supervisors 
I”Southern Supervisors") oversees Southern University at Baton 
Souge ("SUBR”), Southern University at New Orleans ("SUNO") and 
Southern University at Stireveport/Bossier City ("SUSBO"). The 
Soard of Trustees for Siztje Colleges and Universities 
I "Trustees") oversees Lodsiana Tech University in Ruston 
I "Louisiana Tech"), GrambXing State University (""Grambling"), 
University of Southwestern Louisiana in Lafayette C"USL"), North-

1 The findings appearing herein on pages 2-12 are taken from 
P5>. 8-21 of the Special Raster’s Final Report t"E«5X5rt"]. 
Yluroughout this Order, tlae Master's citations to statements 
and depositions of particsolar witnesses have been cnitted, as 
reference to such sources cam l>e obtained directly from the 
Kamter's Report.

- 2-

m m



^ 2iKt Louisiana UniversitT in Monroe ("Northeast"liorthwestern 
St^te University in Natdaitoches ("Northwestern"), Southeastern 
:L£niisiana University in Baramond ("Southeastern"), ScNeese State 
ISniversity in Lake Charles ("McNeese"), Nichblls State University 
f-n Thibodaux ("Nicholls") and Delgado Conrounity CoULege in New 
Orleans ("Delgado").

Of these institutions, LSU-A, LSU-E, SUSBO Delgado have
only two-year programs. Additionally, SUNO maintains a number of 
îsi»o-year programs as well as four-year programs. Two other pub­
lic community colleges— Bossier Parish Community College and 
St. Bernard Parish Community College— are separately managed by 
tbe State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education and are no 
longer defendants in this case, having been granted summary judg- 
i*^nt in the Court’s August 2, 1988, ruling. See ted States 
y. Louisiana, 692 F. Supp. 642, 658-59 (E.D. La. 1988). There is 
not, however, any statewide system of community colleges and a

of regions in the state— most notably the state capital of 
Baton Rouge— have no two-year ccMiimunity college.

The remaining schools listed above have four—year under­
graduate programs and varying programs for graduate studies.
Tliree state professional schools are also organized under the 
same three management boards. The Louisiana State University 
Itedical Center, located In New Orleans and Shreveport, and the 
Paul M. Hebert Law Center, located in Baton Rouge, are overseen 
b y  the LSU Supervisors. The Southern University I.aw Center, also 
in Baton Rouge, is overseen by the Southern Supervisors. Flnal- 

® separate A^icultural Center in Baton Rouge, over- 
en by the LSU Supervisors- < y-

-3-



The current governing structure for state univMsities was 
cr&ated as part of a revision of the Louisiana Constitution in

Prior to 1974, statevlde coordination was iwrosided by the 
Louisiana Coordinating Coomsel for Higher Education, itself cre­
ated in 1968, which had limited powers than current
Boajrci of Regents. Most of the state universities were governed 
by the State Board of Education at that time, althou^ the Loui­
siana State University Boaird of Supervisors separately governed 
tbe LSU schools. The 1974 cx>nstitutional revisions divided the 
direct governance for state universities into the three current 
governance boards and gave the Regents enhanced, though not com­
plete, control over budgetary and program matters.

As the Court's August 2, 1988, opinion discusses, four state 
'i^riversities SUBR, SUNO, SUSBO and Greunbling— were originally 
established as institutions for blacks only. 692 F- Supp. at 
647. The remaining four-year state universities were established 
for 'whites only. It was not until scxne time after the enactment 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that the State of Louisiana dis­
continued official recognition of state universities as single 
race institutions. However, with respect to most schools, de 
facto racial ident if lability has continued to the present. The 
chart below (updating the chart provided in the Court’s August 2, 
1988, opinion, 692 F. Supp. at 645) notes the enrollment at each 
institution, by race, conqparlng 1981, the year the consent decree 
was implemented, with 1988.'

-4-

■ ■ •'h ■' i.Sc



EnronJBent at Louisiana Pifellc Unlversltie« Bv Rac«^ isgi and iQftB

Black
1981
mita

ver«lt?y

•elgado 
raablljag 
ouialaaaa Tech 
cNe«s«
Ichol1«o rU ^ e ia d
srtfaMesternsu th ieas^ tern
3L

SupgjrlBors
!U-A
iU-ACll
lU-E
U Law Sclxml
U-S
O

i , % • %
3,371 40.1 4,348 51.73,777 98.5 44 1.11,194 11.6 8,4S9 82.51,062 15.3 5,706 82.21,068 15.0 5,9S4 83.62,431 22.0 8,544 77.21,296 19.4 4,448 66.61,112 12.6 7,633 86.22,380 17.4 10,931 79.8

151
1,688
237
16

315
2,491

9.9 
6.3
15.5
1.9 
7.6
16.1.

1,357
22,832
1,283
830

3,803
11,519

88.8
84.7
84.0
96.1
91.5
74.6

hern S q p T v ls o r a

Total

8,404
3,834
10,288
6,943
7,119
11,071
6,682
8,854
13,702

1.528 
26,964
1.528 
864

4,155
15,432

Black

2.257 
5,626 
1,236 
1,004
819

1,539
1.258 
577

2,478

214
1,906
242
30
381

2,439

9.7
7.5 
13.9
3.8
8.5 
15.5

1988
Khlta

31.5 
95.8
12.7
13.8
11.5 
15.1
19.5 
6.7
17.5

4,268
225

7,186
6,156
6,180
8,461
4,768
7,868

11,200

1,949
22,259
1,483
746

3,991
12,053

59.6 
3.8
73.7 
84.3 
8b.6
83.0
74.1
91.7
79.2

88 .6
88.0
85.1
94.9
88.9 
76.5

BR
W
5B0

Total

7,161
5,870
9,751
7,300
7,139
10,193
6,438
8,582
14,143

2,201
25,296
1,743
786

4,490
15,752

7,655
1,994
661

86.4
82.4 
99.8

288
11
1

2.6
0.5
0.2

8,’855 
2,420 
662

8,267
3,130
1,118

92.7 
83.9
89.7 ■

398
436
122

4.5
11.7
9.8

8,921
3,731
1,246

32,899 23.6 97,961 70.3 139,305 34,521 24.5 99,749 70.9 140,743

As the chart illustrates^ the racial identifiabULity of Lou- 
isiaiia's state universities is especially evident in the coexist­
ence of predominantly black Institutions (PBIs) and p«:edominantly



white institutions (PWIs) in close geographic proximltjr in four 
areas of the state. In New Orleans^ SUNO currently bas 83.9 per­
cent black and 11.7 percent wblte enrollment, while UK> has 15.5 
percent black and 76.5 percent white enrollment. In Baton Rouge, 
SUBR has 92.7 percent black and 4.5 percent white enrollment, 
while LSU A&M has 7.5 percent black and 88.0 x>ercent lAite 
enrollment. In the Shreveport/Bossier City area, SUSBO has 89.7 
percent black and 9.8 percent white enrollment, while bSU-S has 
8.5 percent black and 88.9 percent white enrollment. Finally, in 
Lincoln Parish, Grambling has 95.8 percent black and 3.8 percent 
white enrollment, while Louisiana Tech, in nearby Ruston, has 
12.7 p>ercent black and 73.7 percent white enrollment-

The governing boards of these universities are also racially 
identifiable. The Board of Regents currently has sixteen mem­
bers, thirteen (81 percent) of whom are white and three (19 per­
cent) of whom are black. Of the eighteen LSU Supervisors, four­
teen (78 per®ent) are white and four (22 percent) are black. The 
Southern Board of Supervisors has four white (22 percent) and 
fouxrteen black (78 percent) members. The Trustees aLre the most 
integrated of the four boards, with thirteen of eighteen members 
(72 percent) white and five mesnbers (28 percent) black- Accord­
ing to the most recent data availeible, the total population of 
the State of Louisiana is 4.5 million, 69 percent white and 29 
percent black.

Given the racially identifiable membership of the Boards, 
none, including the Southern board which vigorously seeks to pre­
serve its separate identity, is an exponent of racial Integra-



I* r

ticm- Retaining such vestiges of segregation is not aa appropri­
ate solution to the problems before this Court, and it can never 
be forgotten that this case is about the integration of all of 
Loafsfana's institutions of hlgd:ier education.^

A  truism thus emerges: Tbe present scheme for governing 
education in Louisiana— three operating boards and one coordinat­
ing board--has perpetuated illegal segregation in Louisiana's 
higher education, even though the system's creation postdates the 
f i l m g  of this case. The system of multiple boards is therefore 
a defect in the state’s system of higher education that violates 
the federal constitution.- In addition, the scheme almost guaran­
tees a standoff between two "systems" (LSU and Southeml and the 
rest of higher education. The strongest argument of those favor­
ing the present multi-board system is that the structure of 
higher education in Louisiana is irrelevant to the goals of 
desegregation and therefore it ought not be changed.^ As stated 
above, the Panel rejects this argument outright.

Statistics regarding student performance, discussed below, 
demonstrate additional particular constitutional defects inherent 
in and perpetuated by Louisiana's present system of higher 
education.

According to the statewide student profile ccmipiled by the 
Board of Regents (SSPS), in tbe fall of 1988 only 27,146 freshmen 
enrolled in state universities, but given past patterns, roost of

2
3

See Report, p. 53. 
See Report, p, 48.

-7- \ - r i  t .  s r : •



thea will not gradiiate. Dr. Treanblay, Coordinator of ]^tesearch 
and Oaia Analysis, Board of Regents, sutroitted a chart wbich ana­
lyzed tlie status of students after six years who entered as 
fresboen in fall 1982.- It shows the graduation rates for each of 
Louisiana’s seventeen universities over the six-year period:

Graduation Rates at Louisiana Public Universities -
1982 to 1988

Institution
Trustees

Nujnber Enrolled 
Fall 1982 Graduated by Spring 1988 

Number_____Percentage

Delgado 705 106 15.0Grajribling _ 674 287 42.6Louisiana Tech 1,644 761 46.3McKeese 1,285 330 25.7Nicholls 1,398 477 34.1Northeast 1,580 534 33.8Nortibwestern 745 258 34.6Southeastern 1,695 546 32.2USL 2,310 788 34.1
LSU Supervisors

LSU A&M 4,486 2,103 44.9LSU-A 421 88 20.9LSU-E 270 89 33.0LSU-S 464 110 23.7UNO 1,931 364 18.9
Southern Supervisors

SUBR 1,294 328 25.3SUHO 352 30 8.5SUSBO 216 24 11.1
TOTAI. 21,470 7,133 33.2

As the chart shows, no state university in Louisiana gr^wiuated 
half of its enrollees within six years, and six institutions 
failed to graduate even one quarter of their enrollees. Overall,

■St- ‘ -
-r-

'i
-8-



of the 21,470 students who enrolled as first-time fresboen in the 
fall of 1982, only 7,133 or 33.2 percent had graduated 'try the 
spring of 1988, six years later. The national average for pub­
lic universities is 44.9 percent graduated over six years. See 
American Council on Education, Digest of Education Statistics 249 
(1988) (percentage of students entering in 1980 who grarduated 
within the following six years).

The overwhelming majority of students enrolled in state uni­
versities in Louisiana are state residents. According to Board 
of Regents SSPS data, of first-time freshmen in the fall of 1988, 
90.3 percent were Louisiana residents and 9.7 percent were non­
residents. Moreover, 58.5 percent of the first-time freshmen in 
this sample entered a university in their home parish or in a 
parish adjacent to their home parish, while 41.5 percent ventured 
further from contiguous parishes to attend college within the 
state.

In addi(^ion, black students and PBIs account for a siuch 
greater percentage of non-resident students and students from 
non-contiguous parishes than do white students and PWIs. For 
instance, of the 2,627 non-resident students enrolling as first­
time freshmen in fall 1988, 1,539 (58.5 p>ercent) were black and 
1,401 (53.5 percent) went to PBIs. By comparison, blacks made up 
only 28.0 percent of the total entered students. PBIs clearly 
attract more non-resident students and students from distant par­
ishes within the state than do PWIs. In the fall of 1988, 33.7 
percent of students at PBIs were non-residents and 63.4 percent 
came from non-contiguous parishes, while only 5.3 percent of stu-

-9-



dents at PWIs were non-residents and 37.6 percent came froa non 
contiguous parishes. Non-resident black students are also far 
more likely to go to PBIs them 2u:e resident blacks. Overall, 
52.7 percent of black students entering in the fall of 1988 went 
to PBIs, but the rate was 88.2 percent for non-resident blacks 
attending PBIs as compared to 43-6 percent of resident blacks.

In fact, in 1988 only one state university, Grambling, a 
PBI, attracted more than half (55.4 percent) of its student body

out of state. Thus, Grambling is a "national" university in 
terras of the residences of its students, with California supply­
ing the largest number of students after Louisiana. By compari­
son, at LSU A&M, Louisiana's "flagship" University, only 8.4 per­
cent of its student body came from outside the state.

The relative college preparation level and college-^ing 
rates for black and white high school students in Louisiana fur­
ther define the segregation problem confronting Louisiana edu­
cation. According to date compiled by the Louisiana State 
Department of Education, there were 46,222 high school graduates 
in 1988, 15,018 (32.5 percent) of whom were black and 30,126 
(65.2 percent) of whom were white. Of these 1988 graduates, 
38,844 (3 4 . 0 percent) came from public high schools and 7,378 
(16.0 percent) came from private high schools. Public high 
school graduates were disproportionately black (36.7 percent 
black/60.9 percent white) while private high school graduates 
were disproportionately white (10.4 percent black/87.5 per cent 
white). Viewed another way, 5.1 percent of black students gradu­
ated from private high schools, %«hereas 21.4 percent of vhite

■■ . ..  ̂ . ..

- 10-

-- - -;
• ■ - i f  <■

__ . __  _________  ^  '  '

.-'j
. 4 r* ^  '  -

'• ■ i-- ...



students graduated from private schools. This disparity is espe­
cially pronounced in certain areas, like Orleans Parish, where 
83.9 percent of blacks go to public high schools but 90.0 percent 
of white students go to private high schools.

College-going rates in Louisiana are also much higher for 
white students than for black students. In 1988, 17,816 of the 
total 46,222 graduating high school students in Louisiana (38.5 
percent) went to college but blac)cs accounted for only 4,263 of 
these college-going high school graduates, yielding a college­
going rate for blacks of 28.4 percent. By contrast, whites 
accounted for 12,647 college_entrants, yielding a 42.0 percent 
college-going rate for whites. This disparity in college-going 
rates has remained relatively constant in recent years. Five 
years ago, for instance, in 1983, the college-going rate for 
blacks was 29.2 percent and the college-going rate for whites was 
42.5 percent.

Of thos« students who attend state universities in Louisi­
ana, whites are much better prej>ared than blacks. According to 
1987-88 data from the American College Testing Program (ACT), the 
mean high school grade point average (GPA) for all public college 
attendees was 2.75. The mean GPA for blacks, however, was 2.54 
while the mean GPA for whites was 2.80. Likewise, the mean ACT 
score for blacks was 12.74 compared to an 18.67 mean ACT score 
for whites. This disparity in preparation is also reflected in 
the percentage of first-time freshnen in state universities who 
are enrolled in "developmental” (i.e,, remedial) education 
courses. According to Board of Regents data, in the fall of

- 11 -
. -'o'



1988, 12,897 (48.0 percent) of all first-tiroe freshmen were 
enrolled in remedial courses, but the rate for black students 
(71.7 percent) was much higher than the rate for white students 
(38.5 percent).

The Louisiana system of public higher education is faced 
therefore with a lower college-going rate than the national aver­
age and a lower preparation level on average, with black students 
in each case being behind white. In what was formerly a dual 
system of higher education, the PBIs still educate over 50% of 
the black students who enter higher education. The Court’s con­
cern which led to_the appointment of a Special Master was pre­
cisely that during the period of the consent decree from 1981 to 
1987, while more black students entered higher education, the 
percentage of black students educated at PBIs versus PWIs 
increased. Thus, racial separation in higher education in Loui­
siana remains unresolved.

Given the disparate racial compositions of the student popu­
lation at schools in close proximity, such as LSU A&M-SUBR in 
Baton Rouge, Grambling-Louisiana Tech in Ruston, UMO-SUNO in New 
Orleans, and LSUS-SUSBO in Shreveport, the merger of institutions 
has been considered. However, merger presents many problems 
without any sure benefits of desegregation.* Among the problems 
are merging student bodies of highly disparate academic back­
grounds, potential loss of qualified faculty and administrators 
who were attracted to a school because of its academic character-

Report, p. 37 & n.4.

- 12-



Istics and goals, and underrrining black institutions such L̂8 
Grambling and Southern with substantial alumni following.* Thus, 
under the circumstances, an opportunity must be given for 
Grambling and Southern to make every effort to integrate before 
extreme solutions are considered. Therefore, as the Special Hats-* 
ter reconinends, the merger remedy is generally reserved at 
stage®, with the exception of desegregation of legal education, 
which as discussed below, presents unique considerations in the 
Panel's view.

Notwithstanding this Court's recognition of the historical 
imp>ortance of PBIs and its attendant refusal to order a merger 
remedy at this juncture, the focus of this litigation is not 
institutions but students.'' Gee State of Louisiana Post-Trial 
Memorandum, at 35-37; United States v. Alabama. 791 F.2d 1450, 
1455-56 (11th Cir. 1986), cert, denied. 479 U.S. 1085 (1987)
(state universities cannot assert fourteenth amendment rights 
against the state). In 1988, 53 percent of Louisiana black 
entering freshmen were enrolled in PBIs and 47 percent in PWIs. 
This percentage of black students attending PBIs slightly 
exceeds that of 1981 when the consent decree began and indicates 
the failure of the consent decree approach. Nevertheless, the 
opportunities for blacks in Louisiana higher education are

5 Id. at pp; 36-37,
6 Id. at p. 35.

7 The matters appearing on pp. 13-14 herein are taken from Report, pp. 40-41.

-13-

ga 'j QiM i kmmiuii m w i i— ■Ba t i w i



9 X

clearly tiel to t:-je entire state higher education system. Any 
desegregaticm plan should seek to Increase the number of Louisi­
ana blacks %#ho attend college, which is below the national aver­
age, as well as to integrate the existing institutions, espe­
cially PBIs, whose percentage of other race students is below 
that of the PWIs. Over time, the challenge is to render the very 
terms PBI and PWI anachronistic.

The PBIs have developed attractive prograims for black stu­
dents, as reflected in the number of out-of-state black students. 
But education of out-of-state students (white or black) should 
not be a priority of institutions in a state where the college­
going and graduation rates of whites and blacks are so low, espe­
cially if tuition levels are set so that in-state students siibsi- 
dize out-of-state students. On the other hand, high out-of-state 
ratios indicate the popularity and reputation the PBIs have 
earned.

The more troubling implication is that the PBIs, while 
requesting additional money for enhancement, may be more intent 
on preserving their mission of serving black students than on 
expanding opportunities for white students. The experience of 
the consent decree confirms that enhctncement of PBIs without more 
simply makes PBIs more attractive to black students, without 
attracting %diite students. The focus of the Court's remedial 
plan, however, must be on improving the ability of PBIs to edu­
cate both black and white students. Preserving Southern and 
Grambling for their educational importance means preserving then 
as institutions for all Louisiana citizens, not just for black
students.

-14--',
' V . i.T'* •

•' * iS * r*  V . .

-- --i- Tf- .. m '---

- ‘V-'i • ̂ i .•'TSk- -



The evidence also suggests Louisiana's multi-board arrange­
ment has led to unnecessary and costly program duplication.® The 
import of this finding is that the single board solution pos- its 
a relationship between efficiency and desegregation, particu­
larly to the extent program duplication results from the multi­
board structure in Louisiana. It is critical to the success of 
integrating the historically black institutions that they be 
upgraded and given desirable programs in order to attract a sig-

8 See at p. 49, citing Witness Statement of Roy
McTarnaghan, Vice President for Academic Affairs for the 
University of Florida System, pp. 17-18, which charts program 
duplication in Louisiana as compared to Florida;
Comparison of Selected Bachelor's Degree Programs Offered and 
Degree Productivity; Florida and Louisiama Recent Five-Year 
Analysis

Florida Florida Louisiana Louisiana
Florida Average Degrees/ Louisiana Average Degrees/
Programs Degrees Programs Programs Degrees Prograuns
Offered • Per Yr. Per Yr. Offered Per Yr. Per Yr.

Horti­
culture 2
Animal 
Science 2
Archi­
tecture 2
Jour­
nalism 3
Speech 
Correc­
tion 4
Business 
Educa­
tion 6

■•I"

29

57

116

178

84

67
Jr '*, :V'4'

14.6

28.5

58

59

21

11

6

10

4

9

11

13

12

84

139

91

72

72

2

8.4

35

10

6.5

5.5

-15-



n If leant number of white students. Only by creating an organiza­
tional structure with the power to make program decisions state­
wide can these efforts be achieved. Inefficiencies also suggest 
the dissipation of scarce resources for higher education which, 

the difficult fiscal times Louisiama is facing, can only 
further impair the state's ability to enhance its historically 
black institutions.* Thus, program duplication is highly rele­
vant to desegregation.

The size of a single board is also a matter of interest.^® 
Size bears on effectiveness and effectiveness obviously relates 
to the leverage the single board must assert to achieve desegre­
gation. If a board is too large, its mefobers will lack the nec­
essary involvement. On the other hand, if the board is too 
small, it can be dominated by a few strong views. See Kerr and

The Guardians; Boards of Trustees of American Colleges and 
Universities (forthcoming 1989) (where these factors are dis­
cussed and aMninimura size board of nine to eleven is 
recommended).

As previously indicated, the three operating boards in 
Louisiana each have eighteen members, broken down by race as fol­
lows: LSU Board of Supervisors (fourteen whiLe/four black); 
Southern University Board of Supervisors (four white/fourteen

9 See Report, pp. 51-52.

from Sport'^'^p^%4^^^^^"^ 16-17 of this Order are taken

11 See p. 6, supra.

-16-



I

black); Board of Trustees (thirteen white/five black). The Board 
of Regents has sixteen members (including one student), three of 
whom are black. Under the circumstances, the size of the single 
board proposed by the Task Force of seventeen members (including 
one student) seems reasoned^le from the point of view of 
effectiveness.

However, the Panel specifically rejects the Special Master*s 
finding that desegregation necessitates a conscious effort to 
place a quota of blacks on the new board in excess of the per­
centage of blacks in the population. The new board members must 
be chosen on the basis of their qualifications, with emphasis 
upon each board member's own educational background; his or her 
experience in teaching or education administration; and his or 
her commitment to the implementation of this Order. However, 
emphasizing qualifications does not diminish the impropriety of 
purposefully excluding black representation on the new board, and 
although no ̂ uota is ordered, the new board's racial composition 
must be consistent with the findings and directives of this 
Order.

With regard to the structure of a proposed remedial system 
and the roles of the particular institutions wirhin the system, 
there is no obvious and necessary connection between organization 
and desegregation.*^* However, a strong correlation between 
classifying and tiering public institutions and desegregation may 
surely be inferred from structuring higher education to enhance

12 See Report, p. 65.

-17-

I
' v ' ' .



quality while ensuring minority students participate at all lev­
els. A system producing better educated students benefits all 
concerned.

In formulating that aspect of a remedy bearing upon classi­
fication of institutions, no party contests establishing LSU as a 
flagship university with selective admissions standards.^’ The 
plans also suggest a second tier of institutions, labelled 
doctoral" institutions according to generally accepted national 

classification schemes.^*

The remaining four-year institutions may be labelled 
"comprehensive.—  As a rule, these institutions should not 
offer doctoral programs.^* They are: Grambling, LSU-S, McNeese, 
Northeast, Northwestern, Nicholls, Southeastern and SUNO. While 
the Southern Plan proposes further tiering among

This terra is adopted from the

13 at p. 64.
14 Id. at up. 66-67.
15 See at p. 69 & n. 12 
State/Task Force pleui.

69-70. Several institutions that would be 
comprehensive universities currently offer discrete 

doctoral degree programs. For Instance, Grambling offers a 
doctoral degree in developmental education, Northeast offers a
m 'd * in offers a Ph.D. and} J^^^^tion. Grambling and Northeast have been
notwithstanding any «?iasIiScIiioroJ^L^ff?ci?ioi''^ their
gmiSiai

educationally sound and consistent with the desegregation goals of this plan, discrete d^to?al

' “ * <‘. .*■ !* : a If A,



these institutions, there seems to be general agreement by the 
parties with their missions as they now stand. The board and 
President should explore the necessity for further tiering among 
these schools in due course, having in mind resource constraints 
as well as racial balance. The very purpose of tiering is to 
reduce duplication, not to encourage it.̂ "̂ >

Tied to the tiering of institutions is the imposition of 
selective admissions standards. Central to the Special Master's 
analysis of selectivity and tiering is LSU’s recent experience 
with the imposition of a modest selectivity program.^* The tes­
timony before the Special Master shows that relatively modest 
admissions standards (course work requirements but no rank in 
class or ACT minimum) served to produce better prepared appli­
cants for admission, in effect forcing high schools to respond to 
the preparation challenge. And more imp>ortantly, the number of 
black students entering LSU was not lessened; Board of Regents 
data show th^t 8.2 percent of the 1988 entering class was black, 
which actually marks a small increase over the historical per­
centage of black students at LSU.

The current practice of open admissions to all four-year 
institutions is counter-productive, both in terms of educational 
objectives and racial integration. The objective is not simply 
to admit students into college, but to educate and graduate them.

17 Report at p. 70, citing Chart set forth herein on p. 15, n. 8 supra.
18 See Report, pp. 71-73.

-19-



In terms of undergraduate degree productivity, the Louisiana open 
admissions system is a f a i l u r e . A s  previously discussed,^® 
system-wide only 33.2 percent of the students who entered higher 
education in Louisiana in 1982 had received bachelors and associ­
ates degrees after six years of attendance, far below the nation­
al average of 44.9 p>ercent for public universities.

Thus, with an open admissions system, students enter higher 
education (both four and two years) easily, but do not readily 
leave with degrees. Moreover, the problem is particularly acute 
at institutions with a large black population, notably SUNO.

The Special Master's recoiiimendations regarding the tiering ^ 
of institutions included the creation of a community college sys- 
tem.^^ Louisiana has never embraced community colleges as an 
integral part of its higher education system and as a result, its 
community colleges are relatively undeveloped as an educational

19 See at p. 72. Given that almost 50 percent of the 
entering students need remedial (develoimiental) education, degree 
productivity will not be high. See id. at p. 75 & n. 17, citing 
Tremblay Hearing Exhibit 2, which shows that 48 percent of fall 
1988 four-year college students needed developmental education. 
The figure was 77 percent for black students. Interestingly the 
percentage of those needing developmental education was also 48 
percent for students at two-year colleges, suggesting that four- 
year schools provide as much if not more remedial education than 
two-year schools. This also points to a hidden cost of the open 
admissions system which fails to organize students by academic 
ability. It creates program inefficiencies since all of higher 
education must devote resources to developmental education.
20 See pp. 7-9, supra and Tremblay Chart.
21 Four community colleges are defendants in this case;
Delgado (New Orleans); LSU-Eunice; LSU-Alexandria; and Southern- 
Shreveport. Their total enrollment is about 12,000 students of 
whom about 3,800 or 32 percent are black.

■Jiif

- 20-



resource. Louisiana ranks 48th among states in the number of 
higher education institutions in relation to college age popula­
tion largely because of the paucity of community colleges. More­
over, community colleges serve a non-traditional age population 
largely unserved in Louisiana, even though Louisiana has a very 
low high school cc«npletion rate which accentuates the need for 
lifelong learning. Community colleges are also necessary to 
insure remedial education of those who might be excluded from the 
less accessible four-year college system, thereby helping to 
ensure a racially balanced s y s t e m . A  system created from eunong 
the existing independent community colleges would have had 12,351 
students in 1988, of whom 31 percent werfe black.***

The Special Master expressed trepidation in reclassifying 
SUNO, with its extraordinarily low productivity as a four-year 
liberal arts university.*® Nevertheless, SUNO’s two-year role 
has been no more successful than its four-year mission. More­
over, SUNO's»two-year offerings overlap with Delgado's, whereas 
SUNO will be the only open admissions four-year university in New 
Orleans, once UNO adopts selective admissions. If the re-orien­
tation is conscientiously pursued by the board and the SUNO 
administration, creating this new niche for SUNO may lead to 
improved degree productivity. The new board should, therefore.

\ 22 See Report, pp. 82-83.
i 23 See id. at p. 84.

1 24 Id.
25 See id. at pp. 89-90.

- 21-



review SUNO’s two-year degree offerings and either terminate them 
or transfer them to Delgado.

Against this background, the new system of higher education 
proposed by the Special Master and adopted by the Panel may be 
diagrcimmed as follows:^*

26 See id., pp.^91-92.

— 22-^iy.
- i'-. -Vut.'-i'l'-i1,1’:/ ■ ■

. 5̂r-’ .v-v”



Organization of Propos«d Unlvarslty of Louisiana Systm 
I

Univarsity of Louisiana Board

V.P. for Dasagragation Cooplianca
Prasidant of Syscaa

Staff

V.P. for Coonunity 
Collagas

LSU l&H LSU-S SUBR SUNO UTacb Um USL Graobling HcNaesa Nicholls No-East No-Vast So-Eastam 
(LSU-Law) (So-Lav)
(LSU-Had)
CLSU-Ag)

Louis ian 
Southern 
CC Syste
(LSCC-f
(LSCC-E)
(LSCC-S)

(LSCC-Dalga



The minimization of program duplication is an essential 
aspect of the Special Master’s proposed reorganization of the 
school system. The evidence demonstrates there is more program 
duplication in Louisiana than is desirable fr«ii the point of view 
of educational efficiency.*^ Dr. McTarnaghan shows how Louisi­
ana has more degree programs in many areas than does Florida^ 
even though Florida is a much larger system and state.*®

McTarnaghan attributes much of this program duplication to 
the lack of a single board with adequate authority to initiate or 
terminate programs. He notes excessive duplication costs money 
and renders the programs less viable from a qualitative perspec­
tive. Moreover, McTarnaghan also suggests duplication permits 
schools to cater to students of one race, thereby hindering 
desegregation goals. Other witnesses, notably Clifton Conrad,** 
confirm program duplication is excessive in Louisicina and that it 
fosters racially identifiable schools.*®

There is accordingly no doubt in the Court's mind that 
duplication of programs can have a stultifying effect on desegre­
gation. Therefore, the board must take as one of its first mis­
sions the reduction of duplicated programs, especially where they 
involve proximate institutions.**

27 See id. at, p. 93.
28 See chart in note 8, p, 15, supra■
29 Conrad testified on behalf of the United States. He is a 
Professor of higher education at the University of Wisconsin.
30 See Report, p. 94 & n. 25.

31 See Report, p. 95. To some extent, this assignment is tied

-24-

.• ?J l 1 * V .



Sv

K*.

I '

In the cataloguing the problems associated with unwarranted 
duplication of programs, legal education in Louisiana looms 
large. There are two state supported law schools in Louisiana, 
Southern Law Center and the LSU Paul Hebert Law Center, both 
located in Baton Rouge. In terms of racial identiflability and 
academic achievement, they present remarkably different pictures. 
Southern Law Center is desegregated, with a student body 58 per­
cent black and 42 percent white and a faculty (including part- 
time) which is virtually 50/50. LSU Law Center on the other hand 
has a minuscule percentage of black students. During the period 
of the consent decree, it ranged from 1.9 percent to 0.8 percent. 
In 1988, it was only three percent.^* Moreover, the Louisiana 
bar passage rate at LSU Law Center has averaged about 90 percent 
over the last five years, whereas at Southern Law Center it is 
under 50 percent. LSU Law School is a more successful law school 
from that perspective, but Louisiana blacks are largely edu­
cated at the inferior school. Yet, competitive, quality legal 
education for blacks is particularly important because the ratio 
of black lawyers to the black population is very low, and law

to the tiering proposal the board roust also implement. However,
primarily graduate level programs and much of 

the duplication currently exists at the undergraduate level.
( S ^  McTarnaghan table in note 8 supra.) in terms of the 
desegrega^on data in this case, undergraduates are a critical 
aspect. The n u ^ r  of students Involved is far larger and the 

enrollment choice is likely to be more pronounced.
See Report, p. 96.

33 See id. at p. 97.

-25- iW :. i : lit':

<T̂ ■



degrees are often recognized as an access point to political and 
economic power. ̂ ■*

Thus, the Panel perceives the focal issue concerning legal 
education to be different from the issue identified by the Spe­
cial Master.** The issue is how to desegregate legal education 
overall, not just LSU. Unlike the other Louisiana institutions, 
the two law schools have identical programs and exist virtually 
side by side. Moreover, the programmatic difficulties of insti­
tutional merger in the university context generally are greatly 
lessened in this instance since both institutions award only a 
single degree (J.D.). _

LSU Law Center’s low percentage of blacks seems to be a 
function of an admissions policy that makes no effort to attract 
black applicants, since it is significantly below the percentage 
of black undergraduates at LSU-A&M and the number of blacks at 
the state’s two private law schools.** Moreover, those few 
blacks who dy graduate from LSU Law School succeed in passing the 
bar (of the eighteen black students at LSU since 1982-83, none 
has failed the bar). Affirmative action programs setting goals 
like the new admissions standards at LSU-A&M are an appropriate 
place to begin the desegregation of legal education. A ten per­
cent category of admissions exceptions whose puri>ose is to 
increase the diversity of LSU Law School and the number of black

34 See id. at p. 96.
35 See W .  at p. 96.
36 See id. at pp. 97-98.

-26-



graduates is appropriate and should be immediately implemented 
for the 1990-91 school year. LSU should also offer substantial 
scholarships to black students and undertake vigorous recruitment 
efforts aimed at black students.

However, as long as the two institutions of disparate qual­
ity exist, the State will continue to produce a secondary class 
of lawyers unable to compete fully in the professional context. 
Given the racial composxtxon of the two schools, the negative 
impact of this disparity will fall largely upon the black law 
student population, and given the consent decree experience, a 
simple provision of funds will not resolve this problem, even 
assuming such funding is a realistic possibility.

Thus, over the next five years, the Board must develop a 
plan for merger of the two schools; a gradual merger over a five 
year period of time will minimize the necessary adjustment by the 
students, administration, and faculty and the impact of curricu­
lum change. .Duplication of programs should be gradually elimi­
nated and new admissions standards for the single Law Center 
evaluated, with continuing provision for a special category of 
admissions at no lower than ten percent. New admissions stan­
dards should also be prepared with a view towards ensuring that 
the merger of the two institutions does not disproportionately 
burden the black law student population, even though the Panel 
envisions the imposition of more stringent admissions standards 
at the new merged law school than are presently imposed at 
Southern.

- 21 -



The Court also declines to adopt as a remedy any order that 
specific dollar amounts of operating expenses or capital to be 
spent on enhancement of existing institutions.*^ Nonetheless, 
the new board must make provision for such funding as is neces­
sary to implement the program transfers ordered herein and any 
other new programs the single board orders, whether such funding 
be referred to as "enhancement," as the Special Master stated, or 
otherwise. Determination of specific dollar amounts requires 
carefully drawn budgets not made a part of the record in these 
proceedings. The president of the system and his or her staff
must calculate the funds needed for operating purposes and expend 
them properly.

Since the necessity for higher education budget cuts has yet 
to be determined, the most that need be said now is that all cuts 
as well as increases must be made consistent with the desegrega­
tion goals of this plan. At a minimum, funding reductions should 
not dispropostionately affect black students or the PBIs and 
existing funding for those PBI enhancement programs successful in 

substantial other race students should be protected 
from budgetary ax.*“

A final remedial measure recommended by the Master and 
adopted by the Court is monitoring of the actions taken by the 
state to implement this Order. The need for a monitoring func­
tion is premised largely upon the Court's continuing jurisdiction

37 See id., pp. 104-05.
38 See i^, p. 107.

-28-



over this case, and some form of monitoring is necessary to aid 
the Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The remedies dis­
cussed herein place most of the responsibility for compliance 
upon the state and its institutions, where responsibility should 
lie if desegregation is to become a reality for Louisiana. The 
single board and its chief executive are given extensive powers 
to end the racial identiflability of Louisiana higher education. 
At the same time, of necessity much of the impact of this remedy 
is to be felt in the future. Thus, it is difficult to argue that 
the system should be released from oversight by the Court at this 
stage. A period of review, over five years, is the only prudent 
way to assure the implementation of the remedies proposed.^®

Thus, pursuant to the Special Master’s Final Report as 
modified above and consistent with the Court's prior orders, it 
is specifically ORDERED as follows;

Single Governing Board
1. Within 30 days of the entry of this Order, the four 

boards currently governing public higher education in Louisiana 
shall be disbanded and their powers consolidated into a single 
state governing board. The new board ("board") shall be given 
ultimate authority over academic, budgetary, personnel and admin­
istrative affairs of each of the public institutions currently 
overseen by the Board of Trustees, the Southern Supervisors and 
the LSU Supervisors. Additionally, the board shall be given the 
special mission of monitoring and implementing the remedial Order

39 see id., p. 112.

-29-



of the Court and of insuring that progre^ss toward eliminating 
Louisiana's racially dual education system is achieved. The 
board shall determine an appropriate name for the new coordinated 
system of higher education, such as the "University of Louisiana 
System.

2. The board shall have seventeen voting members and one 
student member. The board shall elect a chair from among its 
members on an annual basis. The voting members shall be 
appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Louisiana Senate.

Board members shall have staggered terms of five years and 
reappointment for one additional term shall be permitted. The 
initial terms shall be for three, four or five years in order to 
permit the staggered system to begin. These terms shall apply to 
six, six and five members, respectively.

The board members appointed pursuant to this Order shall 
include three persons chosen from the present Board of Regents, 
with one person to hold a three year appointment, one a four year 
appointment and one a five year appointment; two persons chosen 
from the present LSU Board of Supervisors, with one person to 
hold a four year appointment and one person to hold a five year 
appointment; two persons chosen from the present Southern Board 

Supervisors, with one person to hold a four year appointment 
and one person to hold a five year appointment; and two persons

40 The names and titles used in this order are only 
suggestions; the board is free to craft different names or titles 
so long as they are otherwise consistent with the remedial goals of this plan.

-30-



chosen from the present Board of Trustees, with one person to
hold a four year appointment and one person to hold a five year 
appointment. “*•

In making appointments to the board, the Governor shall not 
only select persons with established skills and experience in 
higher education, but shall also select persons firmly committed 
to the desegregation goals of the Court’s Order and the Court’s 
methods for implementing the Order. Additionally, board members 
shall be selected to broadly represent the racial, ethnic, gender 
and geographic diversity of the state.

3. For the first five years, while the remedial provisions 
of the Court’s Order are being implemented, the Court shall 
reserve the right to veto the composition of the board, if the 
board’s composition does not adequately take into consideration 
the goals of this Order or does not work to ensure participation 
by Louisiana’s black citizens. In addition, the board shall 
appoint one student member on an annual basis, pursuant to a pro­
cedure established by the board. A black student frequently 
should be appointed.

4. The board shall be charged with appointing a full-time 
president. This person shall have an established and extensive 
background in higher education governance, and a sensitivity to 
the educational needs of racial minorities. The president shall

-31-



serve at the pleasure of the boir<| and be delegated operational 
authority over the university system.

5. There shall be a substantial administrative staff to 
support the new president, which will utilize the personnel and 
resources of the Board of Regents and the three operating boards, 
as appropriate. The president shall have the responsibility to 
recommend to the board appointment and, if necessary, removal of 
chancellors of each of the system campuses. Additionally, a spe­
cial vice-president for desegregation compliance, whose mission 
is to oversee implementation of the Court's plan, shall be 
a p p o i n t e d t h e  board upon the recommendation of the president. 
This special vice-president shall be responsible for developing 
and implementing other desegregation proposals approved by the 
board; for compiling data on all aspects of desegregation in Lou­
isiana public higher education; and for reporting to the monitor­
ing committee as hereinafter required.

6. Within 90 days after the entry of this Order, the board 
shall develop and implement procedures for the use of advisory 
committees at each state university and community college. Among 
their duties, these committees shall provide advice and assis­
tance to the president and the vice-president for desegregation 
compliance, as requested. The size of these advisory committees 
shall be set by the board but shall not exceed 17 members. All 
state universities shall be encouraged to form such committees 
which will provide non-binding advice and information about cam­
pus life to the board. Like the board, these advisory commit­
tees shall be appropriately composed to further the goals of this 
Order.

-32-



I Classification of State Universities
7. Within 120 days, the board shall implement a scheme for 

classifying each state university according to its mission and 
taking into account its undergraduate, graduate and research pro­
grams and the degree of selectivity in admissions. Such classi­
fications shall be consistent with the tiers set forth below and 
shall be designed to reduce the number of programs statewide.
The board shall be especially careful to differentiate the mis­
sions and academic programs of proximate PWIs and PBIs.

8. LSU A&M shall be designated by the board as the 
research university in the state university system and recognized 
as Louisiana’s flagship state institution. It shall continue to 
have the greatest number of graduate and research programs and 
shall implement the most selective criteria for admission. LSU 
A&M’s undergraduate admissions shall be limited to the top eche­
lon of graduating high school seniors in light of standards 
estedslished 4>y the board, with selectivity based on criteria dis­
cussed below. These selective admissions standards shall be 
established within 120 days and implemented for the 1990-1991 
school year. All remedial education courses shall be eliminated 
by the 1990-1991 school year.

9. The board shall also designate an intermediate level of 
state institutions offering significant doctoral and other gradu­
ate programs in addition to four-year undergraduate programs. 
These universities shall be somewhat less selective than LSU A&M, 
based on criteria discussed below. The selectivity standards 
shall be developed within 120 days and implemented for the 1990

I -33-
i-I



1991 school year. Liice LSU A&M, this group of universities shall 
have little need for, and thus by the 1993-1994 school year, no 
remedial education courses. The group of intermediate doctoral 
institutions shall initially be Louisiana Tech, SUBR, UNO and 
USL. The board shall be responsible for developing a realistic 
timetable for SUBR, with the imposition of selective admissions 
and the development of its doctoral level programs taking no more 

than three years.
10. The board shall designate the remaining four-year pub­

lic institutions —  Grambling, Nicholls, SUNO, LSU-Shreveport, 
'McNeese, Northeast, Northwestern and Southeastern as compre­
hensive universities which will have very limited graduate/ 
research missions and less selective or open admissions. The new 
board shall within 120 days set the admissions standards for all 
of these institutions with the exception of Grambling, which 
standards shall be implemented for the 1990-1991 school year.
Care shall £̂ e taken to insure that at least some of these insti­
tutions move away from open admissions toward some degree of 
selectivity (which might be the requirement of completing a col­
lege preparatory curriculum).

11. With respect to admissions standards for Grambling and 
Louisiana Tech, the Court hereby adopts as part of its Order the 
stipulation of the parties appearing as Appendix B to the Special 
Master’s Final Report, but only to the extent such stipulation 
and its implementation are consistent with this Opinion and 

Order.

-34-



12. Within 180 days, existing graduate programs at compre­
hensive universities should be evaluated for continuance. So 
long as they are educationally sound and foster the desegregation 
goals of this Order, some discrete, non-duplicative graduate pro­
grams may be maintained.** Comprehensive universities may retain 
remedial education programs, especially if they remain open 
admissions institutions. However, the primary focus for remedial 
education shall be shifted in the future to the community 
colleges, which will be solely open admissions institutions.

Selective Admissions Standards
13. The state shall end the traditional system of o{>en 

admissions to all state universities. Consistent with the clas­
sification scheme laid out above, selective admissions require­
ments shall be developed by the board within 120 days and imple­
mented at selected Louisiana public universities by the 1990-1991 
school year. Only five institutions are made selective directly 
under this Order {and one of them, SUBR, only after three years). 
The board has discretion to make further selectivity distinc­
tions with the remaining institutions, so long as the admissions 
standards of the five selective schools designated herein clearly 
distinguish them from the remaining institutions.

14. State universities shall base admission decisions on 
some combination of high school grades, high school class rank, 
high school courses taken, personal recommendations, extracurric-

42 See, e.g., n. 16, supra p. 18.

-35-



t ■

ular activities, essays or personal statements, interviews and 
standardized test scores. The precise formulation of the crite­
ria for each institution shall be approved by the new board.
ACT and other standardized test scores provide valuable data. 
However, they should be used as admissions tools only in conjunc­
tion with other high school performance data. Primary emphasis 
shall be placed on high school grades, class rank and breadth of 
course work undertaken.

15. Within 120 days, the board shall develop appropriate 
programs of high school course work that will be required for 
admission at each institution. In developing these requirements, 
the board must consult and work with the Board of Elementary and 
Secondary Education and the state's high schools to insure that 
resources are put in place to meet demand. New course work 
requirements must be phased in commencing with the 1990-1991 
school year to allow hxgh schools and students a period to adjust 
and shall be.fully implemented by the 1993-1994 school year.

16. Each state institution shall have fifteen percent of 
its entering class set aside for admissions exceptions. Ini­
tially, ten percent shall be used for admitting other race stu­
dents (that is, black students at PWIs and white students at 
PBIs), with the remainder available for other institutional 
interest students such as athletes, students with other talents 
and alumni children. The precise mechanism for administering the 
admissions exceptions shall be developed by the president and the 
campus chancellors but the emphasis shall be fostering integra­
tion at each campus. Like selective admissions standards thp»m-

-36-



selves, the admissions exceptions shall be developed within 
120 days and implemented for the 1990-1991 school year. The use 
of a ten percent other race set-aside does not mean that overall 
ten percent other race enrollment is acceptable. The goal is 
that each campus substantially increase its proportion of other 
race students and thus eliminate its racial identifiability; this 
goal demands more than ten percent other race enrollment.

Comprehensive Community College System
17. The two-year community colleges subject to the Court's 

Order (LSU-Eunice, LSU-Alexandria, SU-Shreveport/Bossier City and 
Delgado) shall be reorganized as part of a single comprehensive 
community college system for Louisiana. The plan for this reor­
ganization shall be completed within 180 days so that the ccxnmu- 
nity college system shall be in place by the 1990-1991 school 
year. All two-year community colleges and vocational schools 
(including, for example. Bossier Parish Community College and
St. Bernard Parish Community College) should be incorporated into 
this system. The board shall also develop an appropriate naune 
for the new system, such as "Louisiana Southern Comrounity College 
System."

18. . Upon recommendation of the president, the board shall 
appoint a special vice-president for the community college system 
who will report to the board through the president. This 
appointment shall be made within 90 days. The special vice pres­
ident shall oversee and coordinate the affairs of all community 
colleges, including the appointment of chancellors at each 
campus.

-37-



19. The community college system vice-president and the 
president shall insure that, within 180 days, articulation agree­
ments are executed between each of the community colleges and the 
four-year institutions for the 1990-1991 school year. Such 
agreements shall be widely advertised and shall provide for 
transfer of students successfully completing two-year academic 
degrees, although four-year institutions with selective admis­
sions may adopt selectivity standards in admitting transfer stu­
dents. The community college system shall also provide voca­
tional and technical education and adult education, but its 
transfer mission, especially as it relates to minority opportuni­
ties, shall be the focus of its efforts at the outset.

20. Community colleges shall retain open admissions stan­
dards and shall emphasize remedial education courses. By the 
1993-1994 school year, the board shall concentrate remedial edu­
cation courses in the community colleges, with no remedial 
courses remaining at four-year universities, with the exception 
of those comprehensive universities that retain open 
admissions, '•*

21. By the 1990-1991 school year, the remaining two-year 
programs at SUNO shall be transferred to Delgado leaving SUNO as 
the comprehensive four-year institution in New Orleans, with less 
selective or open admissions. The board shall study whether 
Delgado's offerings currently meet the demand for community col­
lege education in New Orleans and increase Delgado's offerings as

43 See, para. 12 of Order, p. 35, supra.

-38-



needed. Within 180 days the board shall review two-year course 
offerings at other four-year institutions to determine whether 
they should be continued or transferred.

22. The board shall study the need for and feasibility of 
starting new community colleges in the areas of the state where 
none currently exist. Special attention must be given to Baton 
Rouge, where a community college will be needed to service local 
students not able to be admitted at LSU A&M and SUBR, once both 
have selective admissions. The board shall therefore begin plan­
ning for a new college campus in Baton Rouge within the first 
year.

Program Transfer and Enrollment Management
23. With the exception of LSU Law Center and Southern Law 

Center, merger and/or closing of existing state universities need 
not be undertaken at this time. Instead, the board shall imple­
ment a system of enrollment management, program review and pro­
gram transfer to address the problem of prograim duplication and 
accompanying waste of resources and segregation. The board shall 
assign to the president the mission of reviewing all current 
course offerings. Within 180 days, the president shall recommend 
appropriate enrollment levels for each academic program and also 
identify progreuns not meeting minimal quality standards and rec­
ommend that they be eliminated or consolidated with similar pro­
grams at other state universities.

24. The board shall then take appropriate action with 
respect to eliminating, consolidating and setting enrollment lev­
els for academic programs, which shall be implemented by the

-39-



1990-1991 school year. The board shall ensure that such action 
is sensitive to the desegregation goals of this plan. Thus 
enrollment limits shall be set with an eye toward preventing 
"flight" of students to same race schools. As an example, 
enrollment limits at Southeastern shall be used to prevent South­
eastern from becoming a "flight" school for white students not 
gaining admission to LSU A&M or UNO, but who are reluctant to go 
to SUBR or SUNO.

25. The program transfers agreed upon by Louisiana Tech and 
Grambling shall be implemented by the 1990-1991 school year.
Like other programs, howeverthese programs are subject to fur­
ther evaluation by the board and the monitoring committee, and 
since the Special Master no longer has jurisdiction over this 
case, any changes in the stipulation’s proposals shall be submit­
ted to the board. The details of the Louisiana Tech/Grambling 
transfers are contained in the stipulation attached as Appendix B 
to the Special Master's Final Report, which provisions the Court 
adopts as part of its Order, to the extent such provisions and 
their implementation are consistent with this Order.

26. By the 1990-1991 school year, the board shall begin 
implementing the merger of Southern Law Center into the LSU Law 
Center. To the extent consistent with the reg[uired core curricu­
lum at each law school, the board shall immediately insure that 
certain high demand course offerings are not duplicated between 
the State’s two public law schools. LSU Law School shall under­
take as soon as practicable, but no later than the 1990-1991 
school year, vigorous efforts for recruiting blacks. Including

-40-



.#  -
♦-en percent admissions exceptions for black students, offering 
scholarships to prospective black students and appointing a spe­
cial admissions officer for black students, as described above in 
this Order.**

In implementing this merger, the board shall appoint a chan­
cellor for the new unified Law Center by the 1990-1991 school 
year who shall work with the board to effectuate merger of fac­
ulty and curriculum and re-evaluation of existing admissions 
standards. In so doing, it is not the intent of this Order to 
damage the quality of legal education at the LSU Law Center; to 
require significant lowering of admissions standards; or to 
require any lowering of academic requirements for those students 
who do gain admission.

Funding for Implementation of this Order
27. Taken into consideration funds freed by the elimination 

of duplicative programs, the board, in conjunction with the pres­
ident and staff, shall develop budgets for the newly reclassified 
institutions, including non-formula expenditures for improving 
the quality of PBIs whenever fiscally possible. Capital needs 
shall be evaluated on a similar basis and priority given to those 
facilities that will support programs to attract other race stu­
dents. The board shall complete this task within 180 days in 
conjunction with the 1990-1991 higher education budget 
submissions.

44 See text, pp. 26-27, supra.

-41-



other Race Rec::ultment and Retention
28. The board shall develop a coordinated program for 

recruitment and retention of other race students, faculty, admin­
istrators and staff at all state universities and professional 
schools within 120 days, which shall include:

(a) Scholarships for other race students. A program 
of scholarships designed to attract other race students to both 
PWIs and PBIs shall be developed by the board. A fixed percent­
age of each institution's overall operating budget shall be set 
aside for this purpose by the board upon recommendation of the 
president. Moreover, the board shall establish a state-wide 
other race scholarship program.

(b) Other race admissions officers. Each PWI and PBI 
shall have at least one admissions officer whose sole function is 
to recruit other race students. Such person shall be charged 
with developing, coordinating and executing all of the institu­
tion's other-race student recruitment programs.

(c) Equal opportunity statements. Each institution 
shall develop a strong, written equal opportunity policy, both as 
to students and employees. This policy shall be reviewed by the 
special vice-president for desegregation ccmnpliance and approved 
by the board.

(d) Public information efforts. Under the direction 
of the board, each affected institution shall develop and imple­
ment significant campaigns for disseminating to prospective stu­
dents and employees information about each state university, its 
programs and its equal opportunity policy. Among other things,

-42-



\

public information efforts shall include the use of biracial 
recruiting teams from each PBI and PWI which shall visit high 
schools in their region and throughout the state, as appropriate.

(e) Developing relationships between high schools and 
colleges. The board shall identify state institutions particu- 
l^rly situated to benefit from special outreach progreuns to high 
schools in predominantly other race areas. Such programs shall 
be designed to reduce the strangeness and alienation students 
often associate with other race institutions. Programs shall 
include summer sessions in which high school students live on 
campus and are familiarized with a university's programs and 
facilities. A pilot project shall be commenced at Southeastern 
for the summer of 1990.

(f) Incentives. The board shall set annual integra­
tion progress goals for each institution which are demanding yet

and which require roughly equivalent progress at each 
institution.* The board shall develop financial incentives for 
institutions that meet or exceed their annual goals. Financial 
rewards might include additional funds for scholarships or 
approval for new program offerings. Incentives shall increase by 
the degree to which the goal is exceeded. The board shall also 
consider employing "reverse Incentives" or taxes for institutions 
which consistently fail to meet their goals.

Monitoring Committee
29. A three-member committee shall monitor progress toward 

desegregation. The committee shall consist of (1) Paul W, Mur- 
rill; (2) Frank E. Vandiver; and (3) Franklyn G. Jenifer. Cora-

-43-



mittee members shall be paid a reasonable per diem and expenses, 
with Dr. Murrill and Dr. Vandiver's per diem and expenses to be 
taxed as costs against the State of Louisiana to be allocated to 
the budgets of the various institutions as the new board deems 
appropriate. Dr. Jenifer's per diem and expenses will be paid by 
the United States.

30. The monitoring committee is hereby charged with inde­
pendently evaluating the progress of the new board and each 
institution towards specific compliance with this Order and with 
the overriding desegregation goals set by this Order. Copies of 
the minutes of all meetings of the new board shall be sent to the 
members of the monitoring committee within one week of each board 
meeting. The committee shall meet with the new board at least 
four times per year, and within one week after each meeting of 
the board and the committee, the committee shall file a Report to 
the Panel. The first meeting of the new board and the committee 
shall take place within 90 days of the appointment of the new 
board.

The committee's reports shall specifically advise the Panel 
of the progress or lack of progress towards achieving desegrega­
tion. Each member shall have access to the Court at all times, 
provided such person communicate to the Court in writing, file a 
copy of any such communication in the record of these proceed­
ings, and send a copy of any such communication to the other com­
mittee members.

-44-



•  < ' ' f  '

At least in the early stages of implementation, the monitor­
ing committee shall be available to review and respond to deci­
sions of the new board on an as-needed basis.

31. The monitoring committee shall give the new boArd a 
period of five years to achieve substantial progress toward elim­
inating the racial identiflability of Louisiana’s universities.
If at the end of five years substantial progress is not shown, 
the committee shall recommend to the Court more direct solutions, 
including Court appointment of board members or direct control by 
the committee of the system of higher education and merger of 
institutions. However, nothing stated herein shall be construed 
as a divestiture of this Court's continuing jurisdiction to take 
appropriate action to enforce this Order.

Interim Procedures
32. As previously indicated, the board shall be appointed 

and confirmed within 30 days of the entry of this Order. As each 
board member is appointed, the Panel shall be advised of such 
appointment by letter and shall be provided with a copy of such 
person's curricul\ma vitae.

If after 20 days from the entry of this Order the Governor 
foresees that all board members will not be appointed and con­
firmed within 30 days, the Governor shall submit to the Court a 
proposed timetable for completing the board selection process 
under the guidance of the monitoring committee. If the ccmimittee 
deems it necessary, it may recommend to the Court names of mem­
bers to serve on the board. The Court reserves the right to make 
any appointments necessary to complete the composition of the

-45-



board in a timely fashion or to veto the appointment of any board 
member.

33. The board shall assume responsibility for managing the 
state university system and implementing this remedial Order as 
soon as it is formed. While its first responsibility is to 
search for and appoint a system president, the board should imme­
diately appoint an interim president. The interim president 
shall serve until the president is selected, in order to insure 
that centralization of control occurs forthwith and that the 
steps to be taken during the first year of the Order are not 
delayed. The board should have the full authority of the state, 
through the Governor and other state officials, to carry out its 
mandate. Any questions that arise during the interim period 
regarding implementation of this plan may be directed to the

-46-



monitoring comm'.ttee and by the committee to the Court, if 
necessary.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this day of 1989,

v̂ orv. \u J  CjcLcnvi
JUDGE JOHN M. WISDOM

- M -

m}h