Speaking Truth to Power - Anita Hill [32]
The obvious response to such a claim was to dismantle the system and merge it into a unitary one. Many blacks objected to this remedy because it would result in the discontinuation of the black colleges, whose place in black communities was respected and appreciated. The challenge to the continued existence of the historically black colleges, the primary avenue of higher education for African Americans prior to the desegregation of white colleges, met political opposition.
Another approach to resolving the suit was to ensure equality of treatment by bringing the schools to parity fiscally, programmatically, and with regard to physical facilities. The Carter administration had pursued a response that attempted to achieve parity in the funding of the historically black colleges, which had suffered from years of neglect at the hands of state government. The Reagan administration continued that policy. Thus, the goals of those involved in the Adams litigation—the colleges themselves represented by students and college presidents, the state governments and the federal government—ranged from full integration of the entire system into a unitary system to maintaining but enhancing the programs at historically black colleges. The results were as diverse as the range of goals. Some of the black colleges became more integrated, as did their white counterparts; others remained the same. Some historically black colleges gained programs and funding improvements; others did not.
Oklahoma was one of the Adams states. Elreatha and Carlene, two of my sisters, had attended Langston University, the historically black school in Oklahoma. In June 1977, the summer after I graduated from Oklahoma State University, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare had held a conference on Adams. I was invited to attend, along with students from other Adams states, to comment on the role and future of the historically black colleges in the event that the dual system was abolished and a unitary system established. I had advocated the position that the colleges ought to be enhanced. I knew that tradition and programs were such that Langston had very little chance of attracting a large number of white students in Oklahoma, in particular because it was located in a sparsely populated rural area. To allow its demise based on market demand would be the equivalent of punishing the very people, the students and administrators, who had borne the burden of discrimination. Thus in 1981, when the Adams cases came up in the Office for Civil Rights, I was particularly interested.
Despite the fact that our office worked closely with the presidents of the traditionally black colleges, there was tension. For the first time I had to confront the antagonism between the administration and members of the black community. The mistrust was perfectly understandable given the administration’s antagonism toward some of the civil rights decisions which the black community supported. Yet, in the Adams case, though understandable, it was not altogether warranted. The office was attempting to take what I thought was the right position. In my project we did our best to maintain a good working relationship with the college presidents. We knew and understood the mistrust and hired a consultant, Linda Lambert, to act as a liaison. She later became a friend who helped me to understand the dynamics of the relationship between the plaintiffs, the black college presidents.
My chief concern with administrative policy of both the Carter and Reagan administrations was that there was too little willingness to move programs located in the traditionally white colleges to the black colleges. The office also pushed for the continued fiscal and academic viability of those institutions. What the project ultimately achieved