Opinion ID: 11931
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Undergraduate Admissions Standards

Text: The district court concluded that “[u]ndergraduate admissions policies and practices are vestiges of de jure segregation that continue to have segregative effects.” Ayers II, 879 F. Supp. at 1477. More specifically, the court found that the admissions standards in place at the time of the 1987 trial were traceable to the prior de jure system and continued to have segregative effects in a system where racially identifiable institutions offer numerous duplicative academic programs. Id. at 1434. The court held that defendants had a duty to eradicate use of the ACT cutoff score “as a sole criterion for admission to the system when the ACT is used in conjunction with differing admissions standards between the HBIs and HWIs.” Id.14 13 Plaintiffs also challenged policies and practices pertaining to admissions exceptions. The district court’s finding that no such policies or practices are traceable to the de jure system is not contested on appeal. 14 The court did not rule that use of an ACT cutoff is per se unlawful. “Rather, its particular use in any circumstance must be examined to consider whether as a component of the policy challenged, the same is traceable to prior de jure segregation.” Ayers II, 879 F. Supp. at 1434. Significantly, despite plaintiffs’ claims that the addition of ACT scores to high school grades as a predictor of freshman grades improves the prediction only marginally, the district court concluded that the ACT was “a sound component of the admissions decision for the reason that the ACT, in combination with high school grades, remains a better predictor of academic 15 Although admissions standards had been modified somewhat by the time of the trial on remand, the district court found that they “basically utilized a version of the 1987 standards with various exceptions.” Id. at 1431. In 1989, the ACT was replaced by the Enhanced ACT. Id. at 1430. Scores on the two tests are not equivalent; the American College Testing Program accordingly publishes concordance tables that correlate scores on the old ACT and Enhanced ACT according to percentile rank.15 The introduction of the Enhanced ACT prompted the Board to solicit recommendations from the eight universities for revised admissions standards based on the new test. Each HWI recommended use of an Enhanced ACT score of 18 for regular admission, which approximated the previous standard of an ACT score of 15. Each HBI recommended use of an Enhanced ACT score of 15 for regular admission, the concordant value of which was 11 on the old ACT. Because the HBIs had previously required an ACT score of at least 13 for regular admission, this recommendation represented an effective lowering of admissions standards at these institutions.16 Throughout the system, students not qualifying performance than either criterion alone.” Id. at 1482. This conclusion is supported by the record. 15 An ACT score of 15, for instance, has a concordant value of 18 on the Enhanced ACT, meaning that a score of 15 on the ACT would be in the same percentile ranking as a score of 18 on the Enhanced ACT. 16 Private plaintiffs quarrel with the district court’s characterization of the change in the admissions standard at the HBIs as a “lowering,” arguing that, viewed in historical context, this change merely restored some of the access that had been foreclosed by an earlier increase in minimum ACT requirements. 16 for regular admission could be admitted as “high risk” exceptions. The recommended Enhanced ACT scores for high risk applicants ranged from 14 to 17 at the HWIs, and from 12 to 14 at the HBIs. The Board approved all recommendations.17 Differential admissions standards thus persisted in the system through the 1994 trial and, as found by the district court, “resulted in the ‘channeling effect’ described in Fordice.” Id. at 1434. The district court’s remedial order responded to the standards in place in 1994.18 Defendants proposed, and the district court ordered implementation of, new admissions criteria that standardize requirements at all eight universities beginning with applications for admission in the fall of 1996. The new criteria We review the district court’s ruling against this backdrop and in light of evidence concerning educational soundness. 17 The district court noted that although the lower ACT requirements at the HBIs were originally proposed by the HBI presidents, “it is the Board’s responsibility to manage the higher education system in accordance with constitutional principles.” Ayers II, 879 F. Supp. at 1434. 18 While it found that admissions policies continued to have segregative effects, the district court also found that “there is no per se policy or practice of minimizing the participation of African-Americans in the [higher education] system.” Ayers II, 879 F. Supp. at 1435. The court found credible evidence indicating that defendants had made substantial progress toward increasing minority access to higher education. See id. at 1433, 1435. In Mississippi, the ratio of the State’s share of the nation’s black enrollment in public four-year institutions to its share of the nation’s black population is more favorable than the national mean and that of many non de jure states. See id. at 1435. Private plaintiffs appear to contend that the district court’s finding of no current per se policy of limiting access to the higher education system is clearly erroneous. We conclude that any such contention is without merit. 17 grant “regular admission”19 to applicants who have (1) a GPA of at least 3.20 in a designated core curriculum, (2) a GPA of at least 2.50 in the core curriculum or class rank in the top 50% and an Enhanced ACT score of at least 16, or (3) a GPA of at least 2.0 in the core curriculum and an Enhanced ACT score of at least 18. Id. at 1477-78. The admissions policy ordered by the district court provides an important alternative to regular admission through a spring screening and summer remedial program for applicants who do not meet the requirements for regular admission. Students participating in the spring screening process will take the Mississippi College Placement Examination (the “accuplacer”) during the spring of their senior year in high school. Based upon these scores, Enhanced ACT subtest scores, and counselor interviews, students will either be admitted for the fall semester or invited to participate in the summer remedial program.20 The summer program is designed to provide ten to eleven weeks of remedial instruction in reading, writing, and mathematics, taught both in traditional classroom settings and 19 “Regular admission” is the term used throughout the district court opinion, and will be used herein, to denote automatic admission based on the criteria listed in the text, as distinguished from admission via the spring screening and summer remedial program, discussed infra. See Ayers II, 879 F. Supp. at 1477-78 & n.297. 20 It appears, based on the language of the Board’s proposal and testimony during trial, that some applicants who participate in spring screening may not be admitted to the summer remedial program and will be advised to pursue other educational options. 18 through computer-assisted individual components. Id. at 1478. In addition, the program plan incorporates cultural and recreational activities to “climatize” students to the college campus. Id.21 Those students who successfully complete the summer program, by passing at minimum the remedial English and mathematics courses, will be admitted in the fall. The district court found that “the new admissions standards through their uniformity will eliminate the prior segregative effects of the previous differential admissions standards between the HBIs and HWIs, noted by the Supreme Court in Fordice.” Id. at 1481. The district court found that as compared with the standards litigated in the 1987 trial, the new standards would result in an overall increase in the number of black students eligible for regular admission to the university system.22 As 21 Although the district court made no specific findings in this regard, the undisputed evidence indicates that the summer remedial program is a departure from past remedial practices within the university system. Prior to the district court’s order, full semester remedial courses were offered at each university. Although students who are granted admission via the summer program must participate in a year-long academic support program designed to provide individualized support for marginally prepared students enrolled in regular academic credit courses, apparently many of the remedial courses previously offered during the academic year are to be eliminated under the new plan. See Part III.B.2.c.iii infra. 22 The new standards were predicted to have the following impact: (a) the pool of black students eligible for regular admission to a public HWI will increase from approximately 32.4% to 52.5%; (b) the pool of black students eligible for regular admission at the HBIs in 1995 will be increased from approximately 45.3% to 52.5%; (c) the pool of black students eligible for admission to the system as a whole will also increase 19 compared with the standards in place at the time of the 1994 trial, which were less stringent than in 1987 as a result of the 1989 changes in requirements at the HBIs, the new standards would result in an overall decline in the percentage of black students eligible for regular admission to the system.23 The district court noted, however, that the summer program offers a distinct opportunity for applicants to gain admission. Id. at 1479.24 The court found the summer program to be “credible and educationally advanced. In its proposed form, it is considered by its developers as an educationally sound developmental system.” Id. at 1481. The district court concluded that [w]hile the new admissions standards may reduce the number of black students eligible to be admitted to the system without remedial courses required, it is not evident that the new standards will actually reduce the number of black students ultimately admitted to the system as either regular or remediated admittees. Id. Finally, although the State’s community college system is under the proposed 1995 standards as compared with the 1987 standards. Ayers II, 879 F. Supp. at 1479. 23 While 68.2% of black high school graduates who took the ACT were eligible for regular admission to some university in the system at the time of the 1994 trial, the new standards were projected to reduce this figure to 52.5% or 50.7%. Ayers II, 879 F. Supp. at 1479. 24 The district court stated this finding in terms of the “summer program” only. We note that, as described by the district court and in the record, the spring screening program can lead to admission for the fall semester without participation in the summer remedial program. See Ayers II, 879 F. Supp. at 1478. 20 the subject of a separate lawsuit, the district court made findings and ordered relief in this regard because the community college system is relevant to the issue of access to higher education. The court found evidence that the community college system “can have an impact on the admissions policies of the universities and their ability to further diversify institutions of higher learning.” Id. at 1475. The court also found, however, that the community college system in Mississippi is not providing remediation for students unprepared for four-year institutions “to any great degree.” Id. The district court apparently linked this to at least two factors. First, in contrast to the open admissions policy that prevailed at all community colleges when this case was tried in 1987, some community colleges now require minimum ACT scores for admission to certain programs. Id. at 1474-75.25 Second, the “overwhelming majority” of students who start at the community college level do not transfer to four-year universities. Id. at 1475. The University of Southern Mississippi has the highest proportion of transfer students in its student body, largely attributable to its recruiting efforts and articulation agreements with several community colleges in surrounding regions. Id. Black students transfer at a significantly lower 25 The use of ACT cutoffs for admission to community colleges is not an issue in this case, and the district court did not make findings or conclusions with respect to the constitutionality of this practice. Accordingly, we do not address this aspect of the community college system in our opinion. 21 rate than whites, possibly because a high percentage of black students in community colleges are enrolled in two-year vocational programs. The district court concluded that the State “is losing a valuable resource in not coordinating the admissions requirements and remedial programs between the community colleges and the universities.” Id. The remedial decree contains a provision ordering the Board “to study the feasibility of establishing system-wide coordination of the community colleges in the State in the areas of admissions standards and articulation procedures,” and to report its findings to the Monitoring Committee. Id. at 1496.
The district court’s finding that undergraduate admissions policies and practices are vestiges of de jure segregation that continue to have segregative effects is not contested on appeal. Plaintiffs do contest the remedy thereupon ordered. Plaintiffs’ challenge to the admissions remedy has two parts. First, plaintiffs argue that the district court’s adoption of the Board’s proposed standards was improper because these standards will significantly reduce the number of black students eligible for regular admission to the university system, and thereby disproportionately burden black students with a loss of educational opportunity. Plaintiffs assert that the district court was obligated by Fordice to consider the educational soundness of alternative proposals that would have excluded fewer 22 black students, but failed to do so. Second, plaintiffs argue that the district court’s reliance on the spring screening and summer remedial program to compensate for the projected decline in regular admission of black students was inappropriate because the program was untested and incompletely defined at the time of trial. Plaintiffs contend that although the district court found the summer program to be “credible and educationally advanced,” it did not specifically find that the program would be an effective means of identifying students capable of succeeding in college or that it could achieve the same results as “existing remedial programs.”26 In addition, plaintiffs argue that the summer program is not a viable option for the many black students who must work during the summer in order to afford to go to college in the fall, and that the community college system currently does not provide an adequate alternative. Plaintiffs therefore argue that the Board should be required to maintain existing remedial courses and to adopt standards that minimize any reduction in the number of black students eligible for admission, at least during the period that the summer program is being tested and the community college 26 We understand “existing remedial programs” to mean the various combinations of remedial, or basic skills, courses and other forms of educational assistance, such as tutoring and counseling, that have been offered by the eight universities. In this record, “remedial education” and “remediation” are to some degree used interchangeably with “developmental education” and “developmental studies.” We use the term “remedial programs” to refer to the entire range of such educational assistance, and the term “remedial courses” to refer to courses that teach basic, pre-college skills. 23 system undergoing change. Although their criticisms of the new admissions standards coincide, private plaintiffs and the United States advocate different admissions policies as alternatives. Private plaintiffs proposed below and re-urge here adoption of a tiered admissions policy, in which admissions requirements vary along with the mission of each university,27 with the most accessible tier having “open admissions.” By “open admissions,” private plaintiffs mean a policy of granting admission to students with a high school diploma and ACT score of 10. Id. at 1480. Under private plaintiffs’ proposal, the three comprehensive universities would use the admissions standards proposed by the Board, and Jackson State University would have open admissions for eight years with the option thereafter of gradually raising admissions standards to the level prevailing at the comprehensive universities. Id. Existing remedial programs would be strengthened in this scheme. The United States proposed below and re-urges here an admissions policy, which was presented to the Board in 1992 but 27 The eight universities are grouped into three classes according to their programmatic mission. University of Mississippi, University of Southern Mississippi, and Mississippi State University are “comprehensive” universities, which offer the greatest range and highest level of degree programs. Jackson State University has an “urban” mission to serve the urban community of Jackson, Mississippi, in which it is located. Alcorn State University, Delta State University, Mississippi University for Women, and Mississippi Valley State University are “regional” universities that focus primarily on undergraduate education. In private plaintiffs’ framework, the regional universities would constitute the most accessible tier. 24 never adopted, in which regular admission would be granted to students achieving (1) a 2.0 GPA in the core curriculum and a minimum of 16 on the Enhanced ACT or (2) a 2.50 GPA in the core, a ranking in the top 50% of the class, and a minimum of 13 on the Enhanced ACT.28 The United States contends that under this standard, an estimated 73.6% of black students who took the ACT would qualify for admission, as compared to 52.5% or 50.7% under the proposal adopted by the district court. The United States states that “ACT predictive data indicate that, at the [HBIs], where remedial instruction was given, freshmen with these qualifications could be expected to achieve at least a C average.” U.S. Br. at 12. Defendants argue that the new admissions criteria wholly eliminate prior policies traceable to de jure segregation. Defendants contend that the new admissions standards sufficiently address the concerns articulated in Fordice because they do not differentiate between universities according to historical racial designation and do not rely on the ACT as the sole criterion for admission. Defendants argue that under Fordice, the traceable admissions policy was the Board’s particular use of differential ACT cutoff scores, which effectively channeled black students to the HBIs, and not use of the ACT per se. Accordingly, defendants contend that the new policy is not traceable to the prior de jure 28 The district court noted that the United States “has also suggested adoption of a 2.5 overall GPA for admission to all universities.” Ayers II, 879 F. Supp. at 1480. The United States does not urge this standard on appeal. 25 system and may be implemented because the record discloses that it is educationally sound and was not adopted for a discriminatory purpose. While defendants maintain that Fordice does not require the district court to select the educationally sound alternative with the least discriminatory effect, they argue that even if the district court did have such an obligation, its findings regarding the segregative effect and educational soundness of the new admissions standards effectively discharged it.
The district court’s findings that the new criteria for admission are educationally sound and will not perpetuate segregation within the system are not challenged on appeal. Plaintiffs contend, rather, that the district court erred by failing to consider the educational soundness of proposals that would have resulted in a smaller reduction in the number of black students excluded from regular admission. We agree with plaintiffs that it would be inappropriate to remedy the traceable, segregative effects of an admissions policy in a system originally designed to limit educational opportunity for black citizens by adopting a policy that itself caused a reduction in meaningful educational opportunity for black citizens. We do not, however, understand the district court to have done so. The district court considered and rejected alternative proposals as educationally unsound, and expressly contemplated that the remedial route to admission could alleviate 26 any potential disproportionate impact on those black students who are capable, with reasonable remediation,29 of doing college level work. We understand the district court to have determined, in the specific context of formulating an appropriate remedial decree in this case under Fordice, that access to higher education must be provided only to those applicants who can demonstrate, based on educationally sound and constitutionally permissible indicators, an ability (with reasonable remediation) to do college level work and who therefore have a real prospect of earning a degree.30 The court found that admission of students unprepared to do college level work may result in significant attrition accompanied by unprofitable debt accumulation. Ayers II, 879 F. Supp. at 1435.31 Fordice does not require that all students who 29 The record reflects that each of the universities at issue here has for many years recognized that remediation is appropriate to enable certain students successfully to complete a college education. The amount of remediation that has been provided has varied among the universities. We recognize that how much remediation is appropriate or “reasonable” is informed by concepts of practicability and educational soundness. 30 All Mississippi universities at issue here require students to achieve at least a C average in order to graduate. Indeed, as indicated in our discussion below, all parties key their arguments regarding the educational soundness of alternative admissions proposals to this standard. 31 The court found that Louisiana institutions, which maintain open admissions, “suffer from a very high attrition rate resulting in students owing one, two or three years of college expenses and having little or nothing to show for it.” Ayers II, 879 F. Supp. at 1435. Defendants’ expert, Dr. James Wharton, testified that access to four-year institutions in Louisiana is “not meaningful access because we also have tremendous attrition and students get hurt in that attrition.” Likewise, Dr. Hunter Boylan testified that “[a]ccess without an opportunity to succeed 27 would have been admitted under the prior, unconstitutional admissions standards be admitted under the reformed admissions standards without regard to the educational soundness of the reformed standards. Instead, the district court’s mandate under Fordice was limited to reforming traceable, segregative policies “to the extent practicable and consistent with sound educational practices.” 505 U.S. at 729.32 Having found admissions policies and practices to be traceable to the de jure system and to have present segregative effects, the district court properly focused its consideration of alternative admissions policies on their educational soundness and potential to eliminate existing segregative effects; its focus, in turn, on ability to do college level work is consistent with both the evidence as presented by plaintiffs and Fordice.
isn’t really access. If you have an open door it quickly becomes a revolving door.” 32 The Court in Fordice declined to adopt a standard that would require the State to eliminate insofar as practicable all present discriminatory effects of the prior system: To the extent we understand private petitioners to urge us to focus on present discriminatory effects without addressing whether such consequences flow from policies rooted in the prior system, we reject this position. . . . Though they seem to disavow as radical a remedy as student reassignment in the university setting, their focus on “student enrollment, faculty and staff employment patterns, [and] black citizens’ collegegoing and degree-granting rates” would seemingly compel remedies akin to those upheld in Green v. School Bd. of New Kent County were we to adopt their legal standard. 505 U.S. at 730 n.4 (citations omitted) (second alteration in original); see also id. at 732 n.6. 28 The district court set forth in detail the respective admissions standards proposed by private plaintiffs and the United States. See Ayers II, 879 F. Supp. at 1479-80. Although the district court credited expert testimony indicating that differential or tiered admissions standards are both sound and routinely used, id. at 1482, it did not adopt private plaintiffs’ proposal in light of its finding that the open admissions component of this proposal was educationally unsound. Id. at 1481-82. The district court found that universities across the nation generally are moving toward higher admissions requirements, not lower ones. According to the testimony, students in working toward goals will usually do that which is expected of them. If they believe they need not prepare themselves for college by taking the core curriculum in high school, they will not do so. Such unpreparedness may bring them to college campuses unable to execute the rigors of college work and result in low retention rates, college debt accumulations and years expended with no degrees. . . . It has also been shown that institutions of higher learning which open their doors to unprepared students via open admissions not only do a disservice to many of the admittees, but can lower the quality and, concurrently, the prestige of the institutions generally. Id. at 1482-83. These findings are not clearly erroneous, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting private plaintiffs’ proposal. Even assuming that tiered admissions could be implemented without open admissions as a component thereof, it was not an abuse of discretion in this context for the district court to opt instead for a policy based on uniform standards. In the Mississippi system of higher education, differential admissions criteria were rooted in the de jure past and fostered both 29 segregation of the races and the public perception that the institutions with lower standards -- the HBIs -- were of inferior quality. Id. at 1477, 1486. A tiered system would continue to differentiate among institutions based on their respective missions. See id. at 1482. In light of the history of differential admissions in Mississippi higher education, and in light of its finding that policies and practices governing the missions of the universities are traceable to de jure segregation and continue to have segregative effects, the district court was within its discretion to unify standards across institutions. The standards proposed by the United States met this interest in uniformity, but were fixed at a level that the district court found to be educationally unsound. Under the United States’s proposal, students with a 2.5 GPA and a class rank in the top 50% would qualify for regular admission with an Enhanced ACT score of 13. While this formula adds high school grades and class rank into the eligibility determination, it nevertheless represents a lowering of the ACT score requirement from even post-1989 levels at the HBIs. In contrast, students with identical qualifications would need an Enhanced ACT score of 16 to qualify for regular admission under the Board’s proposal. The district court concluded that the requirements for regular admission under the Board’s proposal were “quite moderate,” and stated that it “does not find persuasive or educationally sound the adoption of open admissions or continually lowering admissions standards, as was done at the HBIs after the 1987 30 trial.” Id. We understand this finding to encompass the standards endorsed by the United States. Both plaintiffs and defendants cite ACT predictive data in support of their respective proposals. The United States points out that such data indicates that students with the minimum qualifications they propose would be expected to achieve at least a C average by the end of their freshman year at each of the HBIs. We note that such students are predicted to complete their freshman year with grades significantly below a C average, the minimum required for graduation, at any of the HWIs. See PP 39-R. Defendants highlight a different aspect of the same predictive data, which the district court apparently found persuasive: students with the minimum qualifications proposed by the Board would be expected to complete their freshman year with a C average or slightly below at each of the HWIs. The district court’s finding that the Board’s proposed standards are “quite moderate” is indeed supported by the evidence. On this record, the district court could fairly conclude that it would be educationally unsound to adopt an admissions policy under which students could do college level work at only three institutions in the system.33 We realize that no set of standards is without its flaws. Significantly, as we discuss below, the standards that the district court did adopt provide an alternative route to 33 Under the United States’s proposal, the three institutions at which students could do college level work are the HBIs. The standards proposed by the United States therefore could have the perverse, albeit unintended, effect of perpetuating the channeling effect described in Fordice. 31 admission that does not rely on ACT scores whatsoever. The district court’s decision to order implementation of this system, rather than dilute standards for regular admission, was a proper exercise of its discretion.
remedial program The district court recognized the likelihood that the Board’s standards would reduce the number of black students eligible for regular admission as compared to then-prevailing standards,34 and chose to adopt them only in conjunction with the additional opportunity to gain admission through the spring screening and summer remedial program. The district court was unable to conclude that the new standards, which provide an alternative route to admission that does not rely on ACT scores whatsoever,35 would actually reduce the total number of black students eligible for admission either as regular or remediated admittees. In light of the district court finding that lowering admissions standards “as was done at the HBIs after the 1987 trial” is educationally unsound, the court apparently determined that to the extent any reduction in the number of black students eligible for admission relative to post-1989 standards does take 34 On the other hand, the district court found that under the Board’s standards, the number of black students eligible for regular admission would increase relative to standards in existence at the time of trial in 1987. See Ayers II, 879 F. Supp. at 1479. 35 According to the Board, any high school graduate, regardless of academic performance, may participate in spring screening. There is no requirement that participants in spring screening take the ACT. Bd. R-202. 32 place, it may reflect the educational unsoundness of prior policies. As contemplated, the new standards should result in the identification and admission of those applicants who, with reasonable remediation, can do college level work. This is consistent with Fordice’s mandate of a reformed admissions policy that is practicable and educationally sound. The district court also recognized that the spring screening and summer remedial program was untested and its standards not fully established at the time of trial. See id. at 1478-79, 1481. We think that the program was sufficiently defined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering its implementation. If, however, as plaintiffs suggest may be the case,36 the spring and summer program is unable to any significant degree to achieve its intended objectives of identifying and admitting otherwise eligible applicants -- i.e., applicants who could, with reasonable remediation, successfully complete a regular academic program -- for whatever reason, then the program must be reevaluated.37 The district court’s proper 36 In its Motion to Expedite the Appeal, the United States presents recently discovered evidence concerning the first year’s implementation of the new standards and the spring and summer program, which may demonstrate that the new standards exclude a significant percentage of black students who would have been eligible for regular admission at the time of the 1994 trial, and that the spring and summer program offers limited ameliorative potential. Such evidence, however, is not part of the record before us and we do not consider it in any substantive way for purposes of this appeal. 37 The district court’s conclusion that the Board’s obligation to graduating high school students does not encompass “students ineligible for regular admission under its proposal, who do not choose to participate in a screening process for 33 retention of jurisdiction over this action indicates its intent to examine this important component of the admissions system once the relevant data becomes available.38 If the district court ultimately concludes that the spring screening and summer remedial program (as it may be modified) is unable to any significant degree to achieve its objectives, then the court should, if possible, identify and implement another practicable and educationally sound method for achieving those objectives.
We have thus far addressed the spring and summer program as a component of the reformed admissions policy. We turn now to the argument made by the plaintiffs that the district court erred in relying upon the summer remedial program to replace the existing remedial courses in the absence of a finding that the summer program could achieve the same results as the universities’ existing remedial courses in enabling students to succeed in and graduate from college. We note in this connection that the plan proposed by the Board provides that “[d]evelopmental studies are only offered academic placement analysis,” Ayers II, 879 F. Supp. at 1481, is too sweeping insofar as it may include students who, with reasonable remediation, are capable of doing college level work but who self-select out of the spring or summer program because of the unique burdens imposed by the program or flaws in its design or operation. 38 Cf. Green v. County Sch. Bd., 391 U.S. 430, 439 (1968) (“Moreover, whatever plan is adopted will require evaluation in practice, and the court should retain jurisdiction until it is clear that state-imposed segregation has been completely removed.”). 34 during the summer session.” In ordering implementation of this plan, the district court tacitly approved the elimination of most, perhaps even all, of the remedial courses that had been offered by all the universities at issue here, most notably by the HBIs. This is a troubling decision, implicating the reformed policies for regular admission as well as the spring screening and summer remedial program. On the one hand, there was evidence to indicate that an intensive, structured program of remedial instruction during the summer months prior to a student’s immersion in the college experience may actually be more effective at preparing students for college than a more diffused program of remedial instruction throughout the academic year. On the other hand, the district court appeared to base its decision not to consolidate Mississippi Valley State University with Delta State University, at least in part, on the significant percentage of students enrolled in remedial, or developmental, education at Mississippi Valley and on Mississippi Valley’s role as “a significant nurturer of underprepared blacks,” id. at 1492, a role that the district court apparently did not want to see eliminated.39 Further, it is not clear to what extent the operative predictive data assumes the existence of remedial programs insofar as it is based on historical achievement. It is clear that the predictive data relied upon by the State in 39 We find it significant that the presidents of Mississippi’s HBIs testified that the existing remedial programs at the HBIs are essential to meet the needs of the students they serve and at least one questioned whether the summer remedial program would adequately replace them. 35 support of its argument that its proposed admissions standards were “quite moderate” indicate that students who are admitted with the minimum qualifications required under the new standards are not predicted to achieve a C average during their first year at at least three of the HWIs. This suggests, as defendants note in their brief and indicated at oral argument before this court, that many students who are admitted under the reformed standards will need “substantial educational assistance,” possibly including remedial courses.40 Remedial courses may be an important part of the admissions policy at any school in which a significant number of students are not predicted to achieve a C average during their first year. Plaintiffs did not challenge the State’s existing remediation policies as traceable to the de jure era. There was therefore no requirement, under Fordice, for reformation of those policies as such. However, the Board’s proposed admissions standards (Bd. R-202) treated the adoption of the summer program and the elimination of the existing remedial courses as components of its admissions standards, and the district court, in ordering the implementation of the Board’s proposal, effectively did the same. The principle that apparently underlies the Board’s admissions policy (and, therefore, the 40 There may be a distinction between students who qualify for regular admission but who are also in need of remedial education and students who do not so qualify. The total immersion aspect of the summer program may be important for the latter group but unnecessarily burdensome for the former group. In suggesting these considerations, we intimate no view as to their ultimate merit. 36 district court’s decision) is that, in the case of any applicant, what can and cannot be accomplished with reasonable remediation is a key element of the admissions decision. Clearly, this principle is educationally sound. But the court’s action in eliminating the existing remedial courses can legitimately be challenged by plaintiffs as an inappropriate feature of the court’s admissions remedy. We have recognized that there are some tensions in the district court’s findings in this regard. In the light of these tensions and the absence of specific consideration of the justification for, or reasonableness of, eliminating these unchallenged courses, we are sufficiently concerned about the district court’s exercise of its discretion in this regard to direct the court on remand to reconsider its decision to eliminate these courses. On remand, the district court should determine if remedial courses are needed to help ensure that students admitted under the new admissions criteria have a realistic chance of achieving academic success.41
The United States argues that it may take several years for the summer program to be thoroughly implemented, tested, and evaluated and argues that during the interim, an admissions policy that minimizes any reduction in the number of black 41 The decision whether to take more evidence on the advisability of reinstating any or all of these courses, either as previously offered or as modified to operate in conjunction with the summer remedial program, is left to the district court. 37 students eligible for regular admission should be installed.42 We reject this argument. The summer program has sufficient promise, on the present state of the record, to allow it “to prove itself in operation,” Green v. County Sch. Bd., 391 U.S. 430, 440-41 (1968), should the district court decide to continue on that path. There is no reason why, however, reconsideration of the district court’s decision to eliminate the existing remedial courses cannot be done promptly. We intimate no view on the outcome of that reconsideration. d. Conclusions regarding undergraduate admissions standards Except as set forth below, we affirm paragraph 2 of the remedial decree, which reads in relevant part as follows: “The 1995 admissions standards as proposed by the Board for first-time freshmen, effective for the academic year [1996-97], shall be implemented at all universities.” Ayers II, 879 F. Supp. at 1494. We do not affirm paragraph 2 insofar as it eliminates the remedial courses previously offered at each of the eight universities. We remand this latter issue for reconsideration in the light of this opinion. We understand the district court’s continuing jurisdiction to encompass the evaluation of the effectiveness of the spring screening and summer remedial 42 The United States makes a similar argument with respect to the time that it will take to implement changes at the community colleges. We think that the remedial decree adopted by the district court adequately addresses the community colleges to the extent they can be addressed in this case. The fact that implementation of this aspect of the remedial decree will take time does not require installation of an interim admissions policy. 38 program, as a component of the admissions system, in achieving its intended objectives of identifying and admitting those students who are capable, with reasonable remediation, of doing college level work but who fail to qualify for regular admission. Should the district court ultimately conclude that this program (as it may be modified) is unable to any significant degree to achieve its objectives, then the court will need to identify and implement another method for achieving those objectives.