Ayers v. Allain: Is Brown Dead? Is There an Affirmative Duty to Eliminate Prior De Jure Segregation and Its Vestiges in Higher Education?

Recent Development by Pamela J. Smith

Until 1954, the State of Mississippi maintained a dual system of education; it had black schools and white schools. An African-American was admitted into a wholly white university for the first time in 1962. In 1961, prior to the student's admission into the University of Mississippi, Mississippi's Board of Trustees instituted an American College Testing test (ACT) requirement. Until 1977, only white schools required a minimum ACT score. In 1977, the Board of Trustees placed a minimum ACT score of nine on admissions to all institutions of higher learning. Each institution, whether black or white, was allowed certain exemptions from the minimum score. The exemptions to the black schools were more liberal thereby admitting more students who had not achieved the minimum required score. The white schools had higher ACT requirements for admission and limited the number of exceptions that could be made if the minimum score was not achieved. Because students who took required core courses during high school received higher ACT scores and the State was more liberal in exempting African-American students from taking the core courses, the test scores for African-American students were consistently lower than fifteen. Historically white schools did not admit students with ACT scores lower than fifteen. Consequently, the schools maintained racial identifiability. African-Americans were appointed to the Board of Trustees for the first time in 1972. In 1981, the Board of Trustees assigned each institute of higher learning a mission designation: comprehensive, regional, or urban. Comprehensive institutions confer more degrees and offer more degree-granting opportunities; urban institutions are directed to serving the communities where the institutions reside; and regional institutions offer only undergraduate courses. Mission designations determine the level of funding an institute of higher learning will receive. Based on the mission designations, none of the black schools are comprehensive; two are regional; and one is urban. Three white schools are comprehensive; two are regional; and none are urban. In response to these aspects of the state's system of higher education, African-American citizens in Mississippi filed a class action against various state officials in 1975 alleging that Mississippi maintained and perpetuated racially-identifiable schools of higher education and that the State had failed to remove the vestiges of its prior system of de jure segregation. The plaintiffs attacked the school system on several grounds: (1) admissions policies; (2) mission designations; (3) funding; (4) teaching staff; and (5) composition of the Board of Trustees and its staff. After ten years of court supervision by a three-judge panel, the case was transferred to the Northern District of Mississippi. The issue before the court was whether Mississippi had fulfilled its constitutional duty to dismantle its segregated school system and institute race-neutral admissions policies, thereby effectively ending its discriminatory practices. The district court held that Mississippi had fulfilled its affirmative duty to “disestablish the former de jure segregated system of higher education.” On appeal to a three-judge panel, the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the continued racial identifiability of Mississippi's institutes of higher learning violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed the panel decision and affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Mississippi had fulfilled its affirmative duty to dismantle its prior de jure system of segregation by implementing race-neutral admissions policies and ending its discriminatory practices and policies. Ayers v. Allain, 914 F.2d 676 (5th Cir. 1990) (en banc), cert. granted sub nom. United States v. Mabus, 111 S.Ct. 1579 (1991).


About the Author

Pamela J. Smith.

Citation

66 Tul. L. Rev. 231 (1991)