National Policies and News

May 22, 2015

College for All: Say You Support Making Tuition Free at Public Schools and Reduce Current Student Loan Rates

Bernie SandersWe need the best-educated workforce in the world if we’re going to compete effectively in the global economy. To do that, we must make certain that every person in this country who has the ability and desire can get all the education they need — regardless of the income of their family.

That is why I’m introducing a revolutionary bill in the Senate which will end tuition at all public colleges and universities in the United States. This legislation will also significantly reduce the interest rate on student loans.

Add your name to say you support my bill to make tuition free at public colleges and universities.

– Senator Bernie Sanders


(not the billionaires)


Posted February 18, 2o15

2015 National Urban League Conference: “Save Our Cities: Education, Jobs & Justice”



Breaking News! Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg Confirmed to Speak at 2015 National Urban League Conference

Join us in South Florida for the hottest conference of the year, Save Our Cities: Education, Jobs & Justice!

Don’t miss this unique opportunity to see Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook, C.O.O. and author of the New York Times bestseller, “Lean In” in a live one-on-one interview at the annualNational Urban League Business Luncheon. Sandberg will be one of the many business, entertainment, and political leaders at the 2015 National Urban League Conference. Announced presidential candidates are also expected to attend.

For four power packed days, July 29th – August 1st the conference will feature informative and inspiring sessions and workshops, the Women of Power Awards Luncheon, The N.U.L. Experience Expo Hall and Career Fair, The Young Professionals Summit, The National Council of Urban League Guilds Leadership Awards Luncheon,receptions, The Whitney M. Young, Jr. Awards Gala, Small Business Matters Entrepreneurship Summit, entertainment, andmuch more!

Don’t delay, register today to receive the Early Decision registration rates. Prices go up onFebruary 24th, so register now and receive special discounted pricing.

Hotels are booking fast so be sure to reserve your room and receive special Conference rates! You can book here!

See you in South Florida! Hello Sunny!


Text CONF15 to
69866 for updates.


©2014 National Urban League. All rights reserved.
120 Wall Street, New York, NY 10005


September 25, 2014

Special Thanks to S.E. Anderson, Author of The Black Holocaust for Beginners

  • All 192 UN Member States of the United Nations are required to report every four years on human
    rights issues through a mandatory review process established by UN General Assembly Resolution
    60/251 in 2006.The process provides an opportunity for NGOs and others to submit alternative reports to that
    produced by government, affording the opportunity for the review process to deepen the
    understanding and broaden the exposure of human rights violations within states with a view to their
    correction.IN APRIL/MAY 2015, THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL OF THE UNITED NATIONS WILL BE REVIEWING THE UNITED STATES REPORT.  The International Human Rights Association of American Minorites (IHRAAM) and Cosponsors submitted an Alternative Report to the US Report to the UN Human Rights
    Council on September 15, 2014.

    If you wish to support this Report, please sign on to BECOME A COSPONSOR


2011-April, May 2015Submitted to the
UN Human Rights CouncilSeptember 15, 2014

International Human Rights Association of American Minorities (IHRAAM)


Gullah-Geechee Sea Island Coalition

Indigenous Peoples’ and Nations’ Coalition, Geneva

International Human Rights Council, London

Iota Phi Theta Fraternity, Baltimore

National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America (N’COBRA), Washington, DC

National Conference of Black Lawyers, Chicago Chapter

This Report is prepared by IHRAAM [1]  in collaboration with cosponsoring organizations.
[2]  It addresses violations of African Americans’ right to education, and in particular the
threat to Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) in the United States,
resulting from United States federal and state policies and Supreme Court decisions,
despite their international legal protection under numerous instruments.
Discrimination Against African Americans in Education
1.        Longitudinal data covering the last 50 years suggest that African Americans still suffer from
disproportionately lower standing in social indicators measuring well being. [3]  This is no less the
case with indicators related to education.[4]  They are also disproportionately impacted by
closings of schools and firings of teachers in their communities.[5]   Article 13:1[6]  and 13:2:c [7]
of the International Covenant on Educational, Social and Cultural Rights (IESCR) and Article 5 (d)
(v) [8] of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racism (CERD) underscore the right of
all to education. CERD Article 4.1 [9]  implicitly calls upon states to enact Special Measures
(Affirmative Action) in order to address these violations and explicitly specifies that until such time
as equal standing of racial/ethnic groups has been achieved, “such measures are not to be
regarded as a form of reverse discrimination”.
_____________________1.  IHRAAM is an international NGO in Consultative Status with ECOSOC since 1993 (see
Preparatory to and as documentary sources cited in this report, it sponsored the original research presented at the
following events with the published proceedings available in pdf format: From Civil Rights to Human Rights & Self-
Determination? Published Proceedings of the IHRAAM Chicago Conference 2012 and International Human Rights &
Empowering HBCUs. Published Proceedings of the IHRAAM Atlanta Seminar 2014.  It also sponsored the research surveys
referenced below.
2. The following organizations are cosponsors of this report:
Gullah-Geechee Sea Island Coalition

    • Indigenous Peoples’ and Nations’ Coalition
      International Human Rights Council
      Iota  Phi Theta Fraternity, Baltimore
      National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America (N’COBRA)
      National Conference of Black Lawyers, Chicago Chapter

3.  Brad Plumer, “These ten charts show the black-white economic gap hasn’t budged in 50 years,” Washington Post,
August 28, 2013.  <
white-economic-gap-hasnt-budged-in-50-years/> The charts were prepared by the Economic Policy Institute in its report of
June 18, 2013 titled “The Unfinished March” <>  The Report noted:
Still in segregated and unequal schools. Marchers demanded adequate and integrated education, but that has not been
achieved. In 1963, Roy Wilkins, executive secretary of the NAACP, noted that in the nine years since the 1954 Brown v.
Board of Education decision, “our parents and their children have been met with either a flat refusal or a token action in
school desegregation.” In the late 1960s, 76.6 percent of black children attended majority black schools. In 2010, 74.1
percent of black children attended majority nonwhite schools. These segregated schools do not have the same resources
as schools serving white children, violating the core American belief in equality of opportunity.

4.  1) “Achievement Gaps:  How Black and White Students in Public Schools Perform in Mathematics and Reading on the
National Assessment of Education Progress:  Statistical Analysis Report”, National Center for Education and Statistics,http:
//;  “At the state level, gaps in grade 4 reading existed
in 2007 in the 44 states” (p…)  “The fourth-grade mathematics gap in 2007 was statistically significant in all 46 states for
which data could be reported” (p. 25). 2) “Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups”, US Department
of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, July 2010, “Of the
students  who entered high school in the 2003–04 school year, 74 percent graduated within 4 years, including 91 percent
of Asians, 80 percent of Whites, 62 percent of Hispanics, 61 percent of American Indians/Alaska Natives, and 60 percent of
Blacks. (Indicator 18.2)“ (p. 7) “In 2008, some 44 percent of White 18- to 24-year-olds were enrolled in colleges and
universities, while in 1980 some 28 percent were enrolled. In addition, approximately 32 percent of Black 18- to 24-year-
olds were enrolled in colleges or universities” (p.8).  Statistics cited here represent only a few of the many areas of
comparison available in the cited government documents.

5.   Lindsay Layton, “Are School Closings ‘the New Jim Crow’?  Activists File Civil Rights Complaints,”  Washington Post,
May 18, 2014. MSNBC, “School closures disproportionately impact African American and Latino students,” 01/02/14 <http:
//> 6See chart, Shrinking
Public School Districts, <

6.  IESCR 13:1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to education. They agree that
education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and the sense of its dignity, and shall
strengthen the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. They further agree that education shall enable all
persons to participate effectively in a free society, promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations and
all racial, ethnic or religious groups, and further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace

7.  IESCR 13:2:(c) Higher education shall be made equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity, by every appropriate
means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education;

8.  CERD 5(d)(v): The right to education and training.

9.  CERD 1:4. “Special measures taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic
groups or individuals requiring such protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups or individuals equal
enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall not be deemed racial discrimination, provided,
however, that such measures do not, as a consequence, lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial
groups and that they shall not be continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved.”

2.        However, as it relates to K-12, the US has decreased affirmative action programs such as
No Child Left Behind [10] Pell Grants [11],  and Head Start [12]  related to public schooling.

3.        In higher education, US Supreme Court decisions from Regents of the University of
California v. Bakke
(1978), which found that racial quotas violated the Equal Protection Clause of
the 14th Amendment, on through to Fisher vs. Texas (2013) which required the university’s
program to pass a test of “strict scrutiny” to prove that there are no other alternatives for
diversifying the student body without specifically addressing the issue of race [13]—a requirement
which might well be viewed as elusive of proof [14]—judicial rulings have sought to brake African
American efforts to seek redress through this affirmative action, in violation of US obligations
under CERD.


4.        Restore/expand federal funding for No Child Left Behind, Pell Grants, Head Start, TRIO,
Title III and cognate programs

5.        Establish by democratic process a White House Initiative for African American Public
Education [15]

10    As at December 2011, 156 civil rights, religious, children’s, disability, and civic organizations (see Joint Organizational
Statement on No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act at
called for the following funding changes:

    • •        Raise authorized levels of NCLB funding to cover a substantial percentage of the costs that states and districts
      will incur to carry out these recommendations, and fully fund the law at those levels without reducing expenditures for
      other education programs.
      •        Fully fund Title I to ensure that 100 percent of eligible children are served.
11.  See Table, Highlights of Obama’s Fiscal-2014 Budget for Higher Education and Science, Chronicle of Higher
Education, April 10, 2013, reporting on release of Obama’s 2014 budget:
Would/138473/ The article is misleadingly entitled “Obama’s Plan Would Increase Pell Grants…” referring to the 2%
increase in individual grants, ignoring the more significant 15% reduction in Pell Grants overall, as indicated in the Table.
12.  Adrienne Liu, “Head Start hit with worst cuts in its History” USA Today, August 20, 2013 http://www.usatoday.
com/story/news/nation/2013/08/19/stateline-head-start/2671309/13.  See The Court-animated ambiguities
and complexities applied to the issue and the resultant lack of clarity in the applicability of affirmative action (special
measures) in US law is well expounded in John C. Brittain, “Affirmative Action Survives Again in the Supreme Court on a
Legal Technicality:  An Analysis of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin”, Howard Law Journal, Vol. 57, No. 3, 2014.14  The difficulties of proving a negative are self-evident, deriving from an inability to exhaust the possibilities, to say
nothing of the costs and logistics required to do so..

15.  This White House Initiative for African American Public Education might parallel the White House Initiative of HBCUs, but
avoiding the present shortcomings in the latter, as addressed below.


6.        The threat to Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) is viewed in the context
of Articles 1 [16] and/or Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), as the international legal framework most applicable to African Americans, who are a
national minority or a people,[17]  not a racial minority.

7.        The customary law of states and the general comment and writings of experts on Article 27
all attest to the fact that the right to cultural identity requires special rights for its enforcement,
rights for which the group concerned is to be the specific beneficiary, rights which are not
temporary, but ongoing. The rights of such groups have been summarized as the special right to
institutions[18]:  systemic rights which enable them to have policy and rule-making powers to
address their unique needs for cultural protection and socio-economic development, with the
latter seen as needed to ensure the former.[19]
16. The right of African Americans to exercise the self-determination rights of peoples as protected in common article 1 of
the International Bill of Rights as elaborated by international legal expert and IHRAAM Director, Professor Francis A. Boyle,
derives from the United States’ historic systemic violations of their rights via slavery and apartheid, and ongoing deleterious
standing in social well being indicators.  This international legal perspective was delivered at the 2012 IHRAAM-sponsored 2-
day Conference, FROM CIVIL RIGHTS TO HUMAN RIGHTS & SELF-DETERMINATION? The Conference Proceedings were
co-published by IHRAAM and Clarity Press, Inc., see<>.   The
text is available online at <>

17.  It was not until 1954 via Brown v. Board of Education that the United States began to officially establish de jure equality
between African Americans and the rest of the American population.  Over the 165-year period between the official
founding of the United States in 1789 and Brown in 1954, African Americans’ systemic legal relationship with the United
States was as a separate people via the institutions of slavery and segregation.  For a little over a century prior to that,
captured Africans had been involuntarily imported to North America where they were collectivized by the institutions of
slavery, leading to the appearance of a new ethnicity endemic to America:  African Americans.  When the United States
officially came into existence as a state in 1776, the African American people, albeit enslaved, comprised one of the
founding peoples, along with the similarly emerging new ethnic group endemic to the United States forged from the Anglo-
Saxonization of the European settler population:  white Americans. While this Report views African Americans as a national
minority, IHRAAM recognizes that African Americans may in future self-define as a people, based on research and surveys
which indicate that this is their preferred direction. Whether African Americans are a people or not is primarily dependent,
per international legal norms, on whether they so identify.  No process was instituted to officially seek the approval of the
African American people as a whole concerning the mode of their new incorporation into America upon the dissolution of
segregation, or to indicate that there was a choice among various means by which same might be accomplished (an
assimilationist civil rights model, or a collective / minority rights model which might have facilitated their constitutional-legal
recognition as a founding people, with retention and control over their existing institutions).

      In 1975 the Ph.D. thesis of IHRAAM Founder, Dr.Y. N. Kly, titled International Law and the Black Minority in the US
(subsequently published and well-reviewed in the American Journal of International Law) surveyed African American
organizations, finding that the majority of them did not support the notion of being assimilated into Euro-American culture.
While it might be argued that in the Civil Rights era support for that view has eroded, an IHRAAM-conducted scholarly
survey related to assessing African American support for internal self-determination and collective empowerment conducted
by Dr. Farid I. Muhammad in 1999 provided findings that indicated: (a) 81% of African-Americans would opt for some form
of independent control of their own communities, (b) 69% felt they had the right to have their unique issues addressed in a
“collective” manner, and (c) 67% approved of the independent creation of a National Assembly to represent their own
collective interests.  A follow-up survey conducted in 2013 indicated that the percentage demonstrating attitudinal support
relative to these 3 areas had increased to:  (a) 92%, (b) 74% and (c) 76% respectively. See <http://www.ihraam.
(This link will soon include results of a similar community survey being conducted among 130,886 residents of Atlanta,
Georgia (85.3 % of whom are African-American) and who live in U.S. census tract areas that are geographically contiguous
to three (3) major HBCUs. This study, which will be completed by December, 2014, is designed to assess the levels of socio-
political, economic and cultural synergy that exist between these premier and exemplary HBCUs and the largely blighted
ethnic communities in which these institutions exist.)
18. This succinct encapsulation of minority rights was personally conveyed by then UN Special Rapporteur on Minorities,
Asbjorn Eide, to current IHRAAM Chair, Diana Kly, at a conference on self-determination held in Saskatoon, Canada on
March 4, 1992. It is well summarized here:
    • “Special protection of minorities derives legitimacy from the internationally recognized vulnerability of identity-based
      groups caused by their non-dominance in terms of number and power, which makes it difficult for them to achieve
      equality in the common national domain, while preserving their distinct identity.  The idea of their guaranteed special
      rights is as old as the idea of the nation state.  It got fully reflected in the charter of the League of Nations and the
      treaties on minorities signed under it.  Under the multilateral treaties in the UN system, these rights have found more
      comprehensive and definitive expression in the now-binding Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and
      Political Rights (ICCPR) of 1966 and subsequently in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to
      National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (1992) along with the official explanations by the UN Human
      Rights Committee in 1994 and by Asbjorne Eide in 2001, which put an obligation on states parties (India included) to
      not only give minorities cultural freedom, but to create conditions favourable for the preservation and development of
      their identity. One important principle of the jurisprudence on minorities was propounded by the Permanent Court of
      International Justice in the Albania school case in 1935, under which different treatment of minorities for their
      effective enjoyment of substantive equality with the majority has not only been permitted but considered necessary.”
      Iqbal A. Ansari, “Minority Education Rights: Supreme Court Judgment,” Economic and Political Weekly, May 10,

19.   The Declaration on Minorities Rights, supra note 9, states in Article 1:

  • 1. States shall protect the existence and the national or ethnic, cultural, religious and
    linguistic identity of minorities within their respective territories and shall encourage conditions for the promotion of
    that identity.
    2. States shall adopt appropriate legislative and other measures to achieve those ends.

8.        HBCUs represent the historic United States institutionalization of African American higher
education upheld in 1896 (Plessy v. Ferguson) prior to the ending of the American apartheid
policies commencing in 1954.  As a result of the federally recognized and supported Civil Rights
movement of the 1960s, the systemic relation of the African American people to the United States
was changed from “separate but equal” to the civil rights paradigm of “same rights for all”.  The
impact upon black businesses and community empowerment was profound and negative.[20]
This changed institutionalization has not relieved the ongoing disproportionately negative
standing of African Americans in social well being indicators.[21]

9.        While the United States did remove de jure segregation and proceed to replace it with
equality before the law, it nonetheless continued to recognize HBCUs as an African American
entitlement, reflecting not simply the logistical requirements of systemic transition, but also the fact
that over the ensuing decades, a range of the most powerful civil rights organizations such as the
NAACP and private fundraisers such as the Thurgood Marshall College Fund all had as a primary
plank of their fundraising campaigns the fact that they were raising money to sustain HBCUs.
This demonstrates the high degree of HBCUs’ support not only by African American organizations
but also by the African American people as a whole from whom the money was raised—
irrespective of the historical blemish of HBCUs having been, in their inception, involuntarily
separate, unequally resourced, and instituted with a clear intent to deny equality between the
founding African-descent and European-descent peoples of the United States.

10.        Today, HBCUs are a major institutionalization serving the higher educational needs of the
African American people.[22]  They are crucial to the economic sustainability of African American
towns and cities in the African American heartlands.[23]  This double function (providing
education and economic sustainability) means HBCUs play a vital role in counteracting the overall
negative standing of African Americans in all other sectors measuring social well being. [24] They
are therefore key to proactive remedy for African Americans’ human rights deprivation in these
other sectors.

20.   See Jahi Issa, “The Ethnic Cleansing of Historically Black Colleges & Universities in the Age of Obama” http:
//  Also see
Robert Weems, “The Decline of Black Business in Contemporary America: An Economic Consequence of the Civil Rights
Movement,” in Leonard L. Bethel, ed. Introduction to Africana Studies Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 1999.

21. See footnote 1.

22. While HBCUs currently represent about 3% of colleges in the U.S. they enroll 12% of all students who identify as black
or African American. They produce 23% of all African American college graduates. Remarkably, this small group of colleges
confers 40% of STEM and 60% of engineering degrees earned by African American students. They also educate half of the
country’s African American teachers and 40% of all African American health professionals. They are a major force in
producing an African American professional sector.  This success rate should be viewed in the context of ongoing efforts to
address African American higher education needs by funding efforts related to enrolling them in historically white institutions.
Dr. Abdulalim Shabazz, a highly respected scholar and endowed professor at Grambling State University, an historically
Black university, who also served at Lincoln University, Cheney State, Tuskegee Institute, and Clark Atlanta University
during his distinguished career and in 2000, who was honored with a National Mentor award by President Bill Clinton, made
the following assessment of how the affirmative action process works in reality:

    • “Often, African American students are bought into majority institutions for reasons other than educating them. In
      many cases, majority institutions receive money from various governmental and private sources to recruit African
      American students. These students are bought in the front door but leave through the side or back door. Interest
      centers on getting the money rather than on developing scholars. Those of us who are actually educating Black
      students in the HBCUs do not get the resources. Foundations prefer to support Whites and White institutions to
      develop African American students, despite their continuing incapacity to do so.”

23.  According to a 2006 report by the National Center for Education Statistics, the short-term economic impact of HBCUs is
$10 billion. Updated data indicate that today’s short-term economic impact of HBCUs is $13B. HBCUs create roughly
188,000 full and part-time jobs. The rolled-up employment impact of the nation’s HBCUs exceeds the 177,000 jobs at the
Bank of America, which is the nation’s 23rd largest employer,  indicative of the key role that HBCUs play in the protection of
African American cultural identity and sustainability of their communities.

24. The disproportionately negative standing of African Americans as it relates to incarceration, healthcare, poverty,
homelessness, unemployment, see footnote 1.


11.        Recent government changes to lending criteria of the federal Parent PLUS student loan
program have disproportionately impacted African American students, leading to a precipitous
decline in African American enrollment in HBCUs and imperiling the survival of many.[25]   There
was no official consultation with the African American national minority [26]  prior to the passing of
legislation which has directly and disproportionately impacted them, and the government has
proved resistant to their protest after the fact.  While the White House Initiative for HBCUs has
monitoring powers, it failed to alert HBCUs to their diminishing prospects.  Its Chair is appointed
by the White House, and it has no policy-making powers.

12.        While heretofore HBCUs received funding from Title III grants, these one-time allocations
must be repeatedly applied for, and are not an entrenched funding source.  For the year 2014,
due to sequestration, HBCUs received no funding from this source.[27]

25  See Nick Anderson, “Tighter Federal Lending Standards Yield Turmoil for Historically Black Colleges,” Washington Post,
June 22, 2013. <

26.  As required by the Declaration on the Rights of Minorities, Article 2:3: “Persons belonging to minorities have the right to
participate effectively in decisions on the national and, where appropriate, regional level concerning the minority to which
they be long or the regions in which they live, in a manner not incompatible with national legislation.”

27.  As noted in the education journal Diverse (Afi-Odelia Scruggs, “Sequestration: HBCUs Cast a Worried Eye at Title III
and Student Aid Funding” March 12, 2013)

13.        The Department of Education has allocated accreditation authority to private institutions
whose rulings can have pernicious impact on HBCUs, allowing them to close an institution without
the direct review and approval of the USDOE.[28]

14.        Furthermore, state funding programs are not providing parity between state land-grant
institutions and land-grant HBCUs as required by the 1890 Morrill Act:  clear discrimination
against HBCUs in favor of Traditional White Institutions (TWIs). [29]

28.  “Most historically black colleges in the country are located in the region SACS [The Southern Association of Colleges
and Schools] accredits, and many times that SACS announces actions involving colleges, black colleges figure
prominently.” Scott Jaschchik, “Saint Paul’s loses accreditation,” INSIDE Higher Ed., June 22, 2012.  See <https://www.>

29.  “According to a recent analysis by the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities of state funding for historically
black land-grant institutions established by the 1890 Morrill Act, HBCUs received far less of the 1-to-1 state matching funds
— nearly $57 million from 2010 to 2012 — than they are entitled to under a federal mandate.” Dexter Mullins, “Historically
Black Colleges in Financial Fight for their Future,” Aljazeera America, October 22, 2013.  http://america.aljazeera.
com/articles/2013/10/22/historically-blackcollegesfightfortheirfuture.html>  The link to the APLU study is no longer
functional. APLU has not responded to IHRAAM requests for access to this study.  An additional study attesting to
inequitable funding of HBCUs at state level finds: “Public Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) continue to
receive inequitable funding at state-levels “.  See Donald Mitchell, Jr., “Funding U.S. Historically Black Colleges and
Universities:  A Policy Recommendation,” Journal of Education Policy, Fall 2013 <http://nau.
edu/COE/eJournal/_Forms/Fall2013/Mitchell/> While this study recommended Partnership Programs, it noted:  “When
comparing the three policy alternatives, all three are similar in that they are regulatory policies. The “penny-for-education”
tax appears to be the least affordable option, while the partnership program alternative isthe most affordable. In addition,
the “penny-for-education” tax appears to promote the most institutional autonomy. The “penny-for-education” tax would also
appear to be the most administratively operable because of the subtle changes it requires in existing policies however, it is
notas politically feasible as partnership programs or HBCUs mergers.
See Armenta Hinton, “HBCUs and Their Struggle for Equity Post Fordice “ in International Human Rights & Empowering
HBCUs, copublication by IHRAAM (Canada) and Clarity Press, Inc.,(Atlanta, USA)  2014, being the proceedings of the
IHRAAM-initiated Seminar held at historic Clark Atlanta University on July 11, 2014, co-sponsored by 100 Black Men, Inc. of
Atlanta and the Iota Phi Theta Fraternity of Baltimore.  There are many possible options for improving the financing of
HBCUs, not just by direct federal support, but through policy changes or new initiatives. This Report includes
recommendations in this regard.
Such a questioning of this historic entitlement has already begun. The recent MSNBC series on HBCUs questioned the
ongoing validity of the present federal $250 million support, while understating the significance of HBCUs’ role in African
American higher education, focusing on the fact that 11 percent of African Americans enroll in HBCUs, rather than the fact
that the latter account for 23% of actual college graduates.  See <

15.        The Supreme Court United States v. Fordice decision, which notably upheld the right to
equality between HBCUs and historically white institutions (HWIs), sought subsidizing white
students to attend HBCUs as a financial remedy, [30]  thereby not only discriminating by financial
favoring of white students, but also possibly impacting the identity, direction and goals of HBCUs
in guise of helping them.  This SCOTUS ruling reflects a range of purported solutions to HBCU
funding which entail a dilution of their identity as African American institutions, inter alia by
creating conditions to promote non-African American enrollment but not African American
enrollment, and by re-terming them “minority-serving” institutions. Such solutions set the stage for
future removal of existing HBCUs federal funding on the grounds that these institutions are now
no longer “black”.[31]

16.        Achieving equality between HBCUs and HWIs would address both discrimination issues
and African Americans’ minority right to educational institutions. Here we favorably cite a case [32]
directed at the University of Maryland addressing the duplication of programs in HBCUs and
HWIs (another factor negatively impacting HBCUs), resulting in a favorable ruling that such
duplication should cease, with equity to be established by creation of exciting new programs for
HBCUs to increase their student draw.[33]

30.  See Armenta Hinton, “HBCUs and Their Struggle for Equity Post Fordice “ in International Human Rights & Empowering
HBCUs, copublication by IHRAAM (Canada) and Clarity Press, Inc.,(Atlanta, USA)  2014, being the proceedings of the
IHRAAM-initiated Seminar held at historic Clark Atlanta University on July 11, 2014, co-sponsored by 100 Black Men, Inc. of
Atlanta and the Iota Phi Theta Fraternity of Baltimore.  There are many possible options for improving the financing of
HBCUs, not just by direct federal support, but through policy changes or new initiatives. This Report includes
recommendations in this regard.

31.  Such a questioning of this historic entitlement has already begun. The recent MSNBC series on HBCUs questioned the
ongoing validity of the present federal $250 million support, while understating the significance of HBCUs’ role in African
American higher education, focusing on the fact that 11 percent of African Americans enroll in HBCUs, rather than the fact
that the latter account for 23% of actual college graduates.  See <


33. On October 7, 2013, Federal District Judge Catherine Blake ruled that Maryland has violated the constitutional rights of
students at Maryland’s four Historically Black Institutions (HBIs) by unnecessarily duplicating their programs at nearby white
institutions.  Judge Blake did not order a specific remedy but provided direction for the parties to consider in developing a
remedy.  The court stated that a likely remedy will include “expansion of mission and program uniqueness and institutional
identity at the HBIs.”  Judge Blake further concluded that as a remedy for Maryland’s constitutional violations “it is also likely
that the transfer or merger of select high demand programs from [traditionally white institutions] to HBIs will be necessary.”


17.     Funding:

    • 17.1.        Restore the Parents PLUS program lending criteria
      17.2.        Legally entrench federal support to HBCUs and index to cost of living [34]
      17.3.        Create a new fund which will at least match the dollars raised by minorities
      specifically giving to HBCUs
      17.4.        Apply the current IRS tax structure that is applied to other nonprofit groups to

18.     Institutional change:

    • 18.1.        Create a new accreditation organization approved by the DOE, empowered to
      review accreditation denials of HBCUs and defer them pending further investigation into
      possible resolution.[35]
      18.2.        Re-establish the White House Initiative for HBCUs requiring African American
      selection of Chair and Members, and accord this body the right to advance policy
      consultation and approval as it concerns policies impacting HBCUs.

19.        Judicial review

  • 19.1.        Enforce existing state-based legal requirements for parity support to HBCUs/HWIs.


34. See table, Highlights of Obama’s Fiscal-2014 Budget for Higher Education and Science, Chronicle of Higher Education,
April 10, 2013, which indicates a 0% increase for HBCUs.
35. This new organization might be headed by an eminent HBCU president.

s. e. anderson
author of The Black Holocaust for Beginners
If WORK was good for you, the rich would leave none for the poor. (Haiti)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s