As an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education reports today, colleges that are designated as “historically black” are eligible to, and do, receive federal funds; colleges that are “predominantly black,” even if they enroll more black students, are not.
Black students account for 80 percent of Chicago State University’s enrollment, and many of them are financially needy and the first in their families to go to college. But as great as Chicago State’s needs are, the university remains ineligible — to the frustration of its leaders — for federal money set aside for the nation’s 105 historically black colleges.
“We share the same issues educating minorities as historically black colleges do,” says Elnora D. Daniel, Chicago State’s president, so the institution and those like it should be eligible for the same funds. Some historically black institutions enroll smaller proportions of black students than Chicago State.
Ms. Daniel and the leaders of nine other colleges with predominantly black student bodies would benefit from a proposed change in the Higher Education Act that would allow them to compete for grants now available exclusively to historically black colleges for such endeavors as developing curricula, renovating facilities, and building endowments.
Leave it to Congress to come up with a solution to this glaring problem.
The predominantly black colleges have found a champion in Rep. Major R. Owens, a Democrat from New York. He has introduced legislation to make institutions with at least 1,000 students, at least 51 percent of whom are black, eligible for that federal money. City University of New York’s Medgar Evers College, in Mr. Owens’s district, is one of the 10 colleges that would benefit from that change
“Historically” black colleges are not amused.
eaders of those colleges —
John writes:
>>>”Critics of racial preferences have been arguing for decades that the practice inexorably leads to conflict among groups for governmental favoritism.”
Are “critics of racial preferences” prepared to concede that there was conflict among group BEFORE Affirmative Action?
Are “critics of racial preferences” prepared to concede that there will STILL be conflicts among groups if Affirmative Action is eliminated, especially in light of Washington state, and California?
If goal of eliminating “racial preferences” is to prevent conflicts among groups, doesn’t the solution amount to a zero sum gain?
–Cobra
Cobra, I had been hoping you would weigh in here, because this is a terribly complicated case. On which side do you fall? Ought a school that is right-now, in-this-minute large-majority Black to be on the same footing as one with a smaller actual percentage of Black students that is “historically Black”? What happens when a historically-Black college actually dips under 50% Black enrollment? (I think it will happen, and it might not even be long.) What’s the point of treating the HBC’s preferentially in this way? Is it a tribute to the role they filled when Black students had no alternative, or is it to do with the needs of current Black students? (Just in case it’s unclear, I’m well aware of the distinguished record of HBC’s — but if anything, that should mean that the urban “predominantly-Black” schools might need more help.)
Cobra, there was conflict among groups before AA, and no doubt there will be conflict among groups after AA. There’s conflict among groups now. Why expect things ever to be different?
I’m wondering what will happen when the black population of the USA reaches and passes 50%. Will historically or predominantly black colleges still get extra money?
Laura, since it’s highly unlikely that the black population will ever reach or pass 50% probably nobody will ever know.
Doesn’t the very concept of “historically black” colleges fly in the face of the premise of the Univ. of Michigan “diversity” case? Didn’t UM make a huge issue of the educational “benefits” of a diverse student body? So, why aren’t these “benefits” applicable to HBCs?
Hube writes:
>>>”Doesn’t the very concept of “historically black” colleges fly in the face of the premise of the Univ. of Michigan “diversity” case?”
Not if you define the Unviersity of Michigan as an “historically white” college. (HWC) (which is factually accurrate, by the way)
Michelle,
You are absolutely correct. This IS a difficult issue, pitting the social significance of HBC’s versus sheer demographics. Truth be told, if I had my druthers, I would make sure that both predominantly black schools and historically black schools receive all the funding they need not only to exist, but to thrive.
The more cynnical of the anti-affirmative action movement should be WITH ME on this position. Think about the backhanded promotional campaign, dripping with irony, when opponents of Affirmative Action for admittance to HWC’s hail the funding of HBC’s and predominantly black schools! Especially in light of the main greivance I read on this blog, which is the bemoaning of a minute percentage of allegedly better qualified white students being denied admission to elite schools based upon racial preferences.
If Anti-Affirmative Action types went into cocked-diesel promotion seeking more federal funding for HBC’s and PBC’s, and ran a grass-roots campaign to divert more African American students to these schools, those “precious slots” at HWC’s may have increased white student availability.
Before you go off and claim that I’m just accusatory, delusional and paranoid, it pains me to admit that this Machevelian scheme was not my idea. In fact…
>>>President Bush Proposes Increased Funding for Historically Black Colleges
Also seeks to benefit Hispanic-serving Institutions
President George W. Bush will propose an increase in funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) to ensure educational freedom, opportunity and access for every American.
The President’s Fiscal Year 2004 budget will increase funding by 5% for the following programs: $224 million for HBCUs, $53 million for Historically Black Graduate Institutions and $94 million for HSIs, totaling $371 million.
The Administration is committed to enhancing equal opportunity and strengthening the capacity of these institutions to provide excellence in education. The President has proposed funding increases for these programs for the past two fiscal years.”
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/blackhis/pr012203.htm
One thing I’ll never do, is accuse Karl Rove of missing opportunities.
–Cobra
John, the good news if the legislation passes and in the wake of a post-Roberts, post-O’Connor replacement court is that it might present a good test case to see whether the Court will narrow Grutter. Its a good test because the HBCs are already getting the $ so the damage of a few more is minimal if the replacements turn out to squish. The potential downside is that Grutter probably provides enough reason to overturn the law without overturning Grutter. Grutter itself does have constraints – despite the claims of the University lobby that it was a tremendous victory for diversity.
Not if you define the Unviersity of Michigan as an “historically white” college. (HWC) (which is factually accurrate, by the way)
So? The decision by the SCOTUS makes UM a defacto “white” college. And you still do not answer my question, Cobra!