Decline of post-secondary desegregation due to conservative backlash
The trajectory of higher education desegregation depended upon each president's administration throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Chambers contends that federal courts had often overridden political pressures to avoid desegregation and civil rights gains. However, Ronald Regan's administration, in particular, represented a sharp retreat from higher education desegregation. Chambers argues that Reagan's endorsement of North Carolina's consent decree, which set enrollment goals for minority applicants, reaped fewer benefits for minorities than did the previously used quota system.
Citing this Excerpt
Oral History Interview with Julius L. Chambers, June 18, 1990. Interview L-0127. Southern Oral History Program Collection (#4007) in the Southern Oral History Program Collection, Southern Historical Collection, Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Full Text of the Excerpt
- WILLIAM LINK:
-
How did you find the attitude of HEW? Particularly during,
let's say, the Nixon and Carter administrations? The Office
for Civil Rights, I suppose, would have been the most important agencies
that would have been under HEW. Is there a group of people more
sympathetic during the Carter years in those agencies? Were they
ߞ
- JULIUS L. CHAMBERS:
-
I think one could argue that. Let's see, we had under
Nixonߞfirst of all, we started the law suit because Nixon said
they weren't going to enforce Title VI. And I think that
attitude prevailed throughout that term. And then we had Carter. He
brought in some people who showed more sympathy for claims by
minorities, that they were entitled to better opportunities in higher
ed. We had theߞMary Frances Berry initially was the
Commissioner of Education. And then we had some people in OCR who were
trying to do more. There were, throughout the
thing, political pressures that limited what anybody in OCR to do.
That's why it was necessary to keep going back to court.
[inaudible] And we had also, under
Carter, a Justice Department that was much more sympathetic to the
plight that minorities were raising. And then we had the Reagan era. One
of the major political contentions being that government ought not to be
that involved in all that higher ed. So there were ups and downs. We had
to get a set of criteria in higher ed, because OCR wasn't
doing anything. It wasn't about to come up with anything. And
when they were directed to come up with some, we spent a lot of time
trying to get those criteria improved, so they would be more effective.
And then we've gone from lack of enthusiasm for the c riteria
to almost complete abandonment for those riteria. And now the Adams
case, being argued on the issue, whether the case should remain open and
in court.
- WILLIAM LINK:
-
What is your perception of the consent decree that happened in North
Carolina in 1981? It became very quickly, six months after the
inauguration of Ronald Reagan.
- JULIUS L. CHAMBERS:
-
It was the complete abandonment of any meaningful effort to eliminate
the vestiges of the past discrimination. If one
just looked at, say, three, or four, or five issuesߞin a
student assignment, the plan, the consent decree, say, is very low, in
terms of the types of goalsߞthose are worse than they were
when OCR was involved. In theߞthough that's true,
both in terms of recruitment and actual enrollment, and retention and
graduation. If one looks at the hiring of faculty
membersߞreduced goals. The situation is really worse than it
was inߞlet's see, in 1976 or before. And the same
is true in administration. If one looks at the enhancement of the
traditionally black institutions. We're basically abandoned
what we accomplished. They talk very much now about enhancing
A&T or enhancing North Carolina Central. That's just
not in vogue, and we're back to the same thing we were doing
before. If we talk about the governanceߞas I recall, when the
Board of Governors first started off, they had a requirement for six
members, minority members of the Board of Governors. What are we down
toߞthree, four members, whatever? So if we look at that
consent decree in terms of specifics, we see a worse situation than I
think we had beforehand. And the effect of that decree on commitment and
interest of people has also been disappointing. Nobody believes there is
any incentive anymore in what you're doing. And we do have
individual chancellors who talk about an interest in doing A, B, C, or
D. But now there's no push from up high,
I mean, from Washington or from Chapel Hill.
[inaudible]
- WILLIAM LINK:
-
The consent decree was part of the Reagan administration's
attempt to close down all the structure of Federal involvement in
desegregation?
- JULIUS L. CHAMBERS:
-
I think they want to put it that way. I think it was more of a political
payoff, at least the immediate [pause] move
for that consent decree to the state for supporting the administration
during that election of 1980. But the administration did come in office
with a type of program of eliminatingߞor challenging the
remedies in practically every area that were trying to provide some
relief for minorities and women, and that continued. And it wanted to
take a broader perspective, I guess, one could say that happened in
North Carolina was part of the overall plan to eliminate desegregation.
- WILLIAM LINK:
-
So you think there were political elements to it, too?
- JULIUS L. CHAMBERS:
-
No doubt about it. No doubt about it. And there's no doubt
about iߞwent from our Senator to the Administration, to the
Department of Justice, French Smith, to the-then Assistant Attorney
General in charge of civil rights to the-then
Secretary of Education. And it has been continued, so. I think what
happened with North Carolina was so close to the election and preceded
real plans for the major assault the Reagan Administration tried to make
on civil rights. That's why I'm saying it was
something initially outside of what the administration wanted.