Maryland Failed To Desegregate Higher Education System, District Court Rules


A U.S. District Court judge ruled recently that the State of Maryland and the Maryland Higher Education Commission failed to desegregate the State’s system of higher education as required by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The lawsuit, filed by a coalition of current and former students of four Maryland historically black institutions (HBIs), claimed that the State did not meet its obligation to desegregate the higher education system by applying an inequitable funding formula, limiting HBIs’ missions, and unnecessarily duplicating unique, high-demand programs. The ruling may have implications for other states with similar obligations to desegregate their public higher education systems.

The court found that the State’s funding formula and its role in developing the HBIs’ missions were permissible as neither is traceable to de jure-era policies and practices. It held, however, that the State had permitted traditionally white institutions (TWIs) to duplicate unique, high-demand programs that historically have drawn white students to attend HBIs. In some instances, TWIs were allowed to create unique programs that duplicated programs at nearby HBIs.

The court relied upon data that showed enrollment in these programs at HBIs sometimes dropped following the establishment of similar programs at TWIs. The court also recognized that in some instances, unique programs at TWIs were duplicated at other TWIs; however, it found that such duplication more significantly affected HBIs.

The court applied the U.S. Supreme Court’s analysis in United States v. Fordice, a case that established the standards for determining whether states have dismantled racially segregated higher education systems and their vestiges. Citing Fordice, the court held that Maryland’s duplication of unique, high-demand programs was traceable to de jure-era policies and practices and further found that the state has not dismantled this practice or provided educational justification for its failure to do so.

Though the court makes clear that remedies will be required, it “strongly suggests” that the parties participate in mediation to resolve the issue. Some possible solutions recommended by the court include establishing unique, high-demand programs at HBIs such as Green Sustainability Studies and Healthcare Facilities Management, as well as transferring or merging select or high-demand programs from TWIs to HBIs.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Ballard Spahr LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Ballard Spahr LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.