chapter 15 of
Blacks on white Campuses,
Whites on Black Campuses
Edited by Andrew Billingsley, Ph.D.
Ada M. Elam, Ed.D.
The National Association for
Equal Opportunity in Higher Education
15 Affirmative Action in Higher Education
Ron Simmons, Ph.D.
Cornell University
In 1978 the U.S Supreme Court's Bakke decision did little to settle America's race problems in higher education. Indeed, it exacerbated problems for special admissions programs by changing the rules in interpreting legislation meant to protect minorities and by questioning the efficacy and viability of affirmative action programs. The Court reviewed quotas and race in admissions, the concept of ethnic diversity in enrollment, and reverse discrimination. Although the conclusions drawn by the Court called for Bakke's admission to Davis Medical School and allowed special admissions programs to use race as one factor, the decision did not fully support the spirit of affirmative action programs or the legitimate reasons for jnitiating them. By raising questions about special admissions but leaving them unanswered by offering vague solutions, the Court opened the door for further attacks on affirmative action programs in higher education. Fundamentally, the issues before the Supreme Court had been discussed thor-oughly by the California courts: quotas, race, preferential admissions, diversity in enrollment merit, and discrimina-tion. The climate, during the months before the decision was handed down, was one of chaotic debate, political maneuvering, and universal frustration.
The Supreme Court Decision
Essentially, the Court handed down a split decision when the nine judges need a simple majority to prevail in the vote. The three major issues decided were the actual admission of Bakke, the invalidation of the racial quota system at the Davis Medical School, and the appropriateness of race as a factor in admissions. These decisions were somewhat complicated and obviously arrived at after painstaking debate and compromise, resulting in six separate opinions. The basic question was whether Bakke should be admitted to the Davis Medical School. Justices Burger, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens, and Stewart voted to admit Bakke, while Justices Blackmun, Brennan, Mar-shall, and White voted not to admit him. Another issue, the use of racial quotas in admissions, was not condoned by the Court. Justices Brennan, White, Marshall, and Blackmun voted that quotas should be maintained. But t other side prevailed because Justices Powell, Burger, Ste-vens, Rehnquist, and Stewart voted to abolish quotas. Or the use of race in admissions, Justices Powell, Brennan, White, Marshall, and Blackmun voted to uphold the use race, but Justices Burger, Stevens, Rehnquist, and Stewa argued that this issue was not relevant to the Bakke case.
There were three distinct factions among the judges These factions were the Stevens, Brennan, and Powell factions. The Stevens group supported Bakke's admission and opposed quotas and special admissions. This group used the Civil Rights Act in its literal sense, interpreting narrowly by saying the act outlawed discrimination of any kind. The Stevens faction did not distinguish between overt or covert acts of discrimination, past discrimination or future acts of discrimination against any group, deny blacks any special claim to discrimination. For example, institutional racism is covert, inconsistent acts of in-dividuals to restrict the rights of others. Teachers in a system who track black remedial reading, writing, and mathematics courses are not necessarily racists, but the results are overwhelmingly similar. Many blacks are un-able to gain access to vocational and postsecondary institutions because of tracking. The important concern is re-sults. If minorities are not hired or enrolled, educators should raise questions. Look at the bottom line, not good intentions. The Stevens faction used the Title VI Civil Rights Act because it prohibited using race to exclude individuals from participation in federally funded programs. In effect, Stevens turned Title VI around to protect whites, rather than blacks. Since many medical schools received federal funds, the implication was that funds could be threatened if institutions discriminated. Stevens used the Civil Rights Act but avoided the constitutional issue by pointing out that Congress prescribed provisions in the Civil Rights Act that were not prescribed in the Constitution. About the act he said, "The only suggestion that [section] 601 would allow exclusion of nonminority applicants came from opponents of the legislation and then only by way of a discussion of the meaning of the word "discrimination". Furthermore, Stevens opposed the University of California's assertion that there was no stigma attached to its exclusion of whites based on race; therefore, these acts did not violate Title IV. Specifically, Title VI, Non-Discrimination in Federally Assisted Programs states:
No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or na-tional origin, be excluded from partici-pation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Fed-eral financial assistance.
Stevens took issue with the U.C.-Davis argument that Bakke could not use Title VI as an individual, citing the amicus curiae presented to the Court by the United States Department of justice, which concluded that individual relief was justifiable. Thus on all counts Title VI, section 601, of the Civil Rights Act was interpreted narrowly in favor of Bakke.
The Stevens faction also argued that any discussion of race was inappropriate because Davis failed to prove that Bakke would not have been admitted in the absence of the special admissions program. Thus Stevens believed that the legitimacy of the special admissions program could be decided on statutory, rather than constitutional, grounds. Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court avoided the matter of Title VI, stating that the California court had not considered Title VI and that the U.S. Supreme Court could only consider what had been referred to it. Davis argued in a brief requested by the U.S. Supreme Court on Title VI that Bakke had no right to private action. Bakke argued that he did have that private right to question funding a program that discriminated. This issue remains unresolved, but private right to action, according to Bowden, should not be allowable since individual rights are clearly given in Title IX but omitted from Title VI. Clearly Stevens felt that Bakke had a legal right to admis-sion under statutory law. Bakke was admitted because of the Court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment that his rights were denied based on equal protection before the law. Equal protection, Powell believed, should be color-blind.
The Brennan camp, in a minority opinion, believed that Bakke had no legal right to admission at Davis. On affirmative action programs, Brennan argued that race could be considered in admissions as long as it did not -demean any group or individual and its primary purpose was to remedy disadvantaged status brought about through past discrimination. (This position reversed the lower court ruling that using race in admissions was illegal.) Justices Brennan, White, Marshall, and Blackmun sup-ported the viewpoint that no color-blind procedures could rectify past discrimination. The editors of the National Review addressed this position, saying that the Brennan faction supported the notion of affirmative action by stating that government may take race into account as long as it does not intentionally injure other ethnic groups. The minority faction of the B a k k e Supreme Court opin-ion spoke to the issue of equal opportunity but, in a rare move, also attempted to explain what the majority opinion had attempted to say and why they were misguided. As a constitutional issue, affirmative action and equal opportu-nity were at center stage in a major legal confrontation that produced unprecedented opinions. Powell said that race can be considered when the school is seeking a diverse population, whereas the others reasoned that race could be used to alleviate the effects of past discrimination.
The Brennan faction argued that Title VI was an extension of the Constitution, with the purpose of elimi-nating discrimination against blacks in the spirit of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Title VI provides a vehicle for enforcing equal treatment. Since the Four-teenth Amendment had not been insuring the rights of blacks, Title Vi was established. indeed, public funds were used to support racial discrimination. history makes that clear. Congress documented discrimination when it dis-cussed Title VI federally funded programs discriminated against minorities. Brennan noted that Title Vi was also established to alleviate discriminatory financial aid poli-cies in higher education, discriminatory admissions poli-cies in hospitals, and vocational training courses, all sup-ported by federal funds. According to Brennan, Davis was justified in setting up a special admissions program to eliminate under representation of minorities.
To the question of stigmatization, Brennan retorted that the Davis program served to bring the races together, not separate them. it did not establish a program to exclude or separate based on race. indeed, whites were excluded from the program, but only to allow admittance of underrepresented groups.
Perhaps the most controversial opinion was offered by Justice Powell. He voted to admit Bakke, to strike down racial quotas, and to support the use of race in admissions. lie believed that racial and ethnic distinctions of any sort are inherently suspect and thus call for the most exacting judicial examination. The operative word is exacting. It was wrong to associate affirmative action with strict quotas and to ignore the spirit in which affirmative action was formed- to protect certain groups.
On admissions, Justice Powell disapproved of the Davis admissions plan as discriminatory. If a university truly sought to foster diversity in its student population, it would develop an affirmative action admissions program that does not discriminate. Justice Powell cited Harvard's admission plan as an exemplary program. The plan, simi-lar to many others, especially among the selective institu-tions, but not as good as some plans, allowed admissions reviewers to consider ethnicity along with other factors. But race was only one consideration to be measured against standardized test scores, grade point average, per-sonal motivational factors, and rank in class. The Court suggested other predictive measures that could be used, such as (1) exceptional personal traits, (2) unique work or service experience, (3) leadership potential, (4) maturity, (5) demonstrated compassion, (6) a history of overcoming disadvantages, and (7) the ability to communicate with the poor. These additional factors were designed to consider past discrimination as well as ability, but some groups, who had not had a history of past discrimination, were reaping the benefits:
... The Court also argued that the criteria for membership in the "preferred" minorities are based on the shifting sands of political compromise and delineation of the threshold deserving such preferential judicial treat-ment is the role of the judiciary.
Other groups have benefited more from civil rights and affirmative action, such as Asians, Jews, white women, and recent immigrants from South and Central America and the Caribbean. Some affirmative action programs considered residents of Spain Hispanic, but most Spaniards consider themselves European. Some educators took the easy way by admitting students clearly not under-represented or victims of past discrimination. Certainly this is no reason to scrap special admissions but rather to make the programs work for the reasons intended.
The History of Affirmative Action programs
Affirmative action began as a series of executive orders to implement equal opportunity for blacks. Since racism and indifference had restricted rights for blacks, executive orders issued by presidents in the 1950s and 1960s estab-lished the concept of anti-discrimination measures to guar-antee fair treatment of blacks by government contractors. James McGinnis observed that although these early execu-tive orders had little clout, executive orders issued by Kennedy in the 1960s instructed contractors to include minorities and women in employment and offered strict penalties for noncompliance. The Office of Federal Con-tract Compliance was formed under Executive Order 11246 with full authority to monitor compliance. in 1964 the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act increased the authority of affirmative action agents to institute quotas and pref-erential hiring to increase representation of minorities and to ameliorate discrimination. Evidence of past discrimina-tion had to be proven. McGinnis noted that in higher education, administrators used the notion of voluntary preferential treatment for minorities and women to fight discrimination. Unlike private industry, this version did not require proving past discrimination in the courts.
Executive orders issued by Presidents Roosevelt. Ken-nedy and Johnson were designed to protect minorities from further discrimination and, more importantly to ameliorate the effects of past discrimination. These orders had to be strengthened when they met with resistance and with noncompliance. Since the early affirmative action programs were largely voluntary, few companies took the initiative to rectify job discrimination. Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act provided specific procedures such as quotas and preferential hiring where there was evident deuce of past discrimination. These procedures were at Issue and evoked charges of reverse discrimination. Also, new affir-mative action orders were necessary when it was evident that the Brown decision paved the way for change but gave policy makers and practitioners alike few tools to implement equal opportunity. Breaking down the barriers required more than Brown.
Affirmative action was designed to serve a larger purpose than merely breaking down the barriers and forcing compliance. Affirmative action, if effective, was designed to go out of business by making such actions unnecessary once blacks achieved their rightful places in society. William Boyd II described the broader mission of affirmative action as follows:
... Many colleges are engaged in special efforts to recruit, retain, and ad-vance black staff members. Few of them, however, appear to understand that these efforts are necessary for educational as well as legal, moral, and symbolic reasons. As such, affirmative action should be a mainstream activity of colleges rather than merely a back-water ritual designed to appease rather than satisfy blacks, government agen-cies, and other constituencies.
Ideally, it should not have been necessary to force people to comply- to hire qualified blacks. But without affir-mative action, it was difficult to predict how many quali-fied blacks would still be outside of the system. However, affirmative action has been evaluated by the results, not by the complexities of its procedures. In turn, these procedures provided alternatives not previously utilized. But debate over semantic differences between reverse discrimi-nation and equalization caused problems for affirmative action. Equalization was a more representative term describing the plight of minorities. There was something wrong with a system that used standardized test results to place blacks in Educable Mentally Retarded classes representing 50 percent of the classes and only 22 percent of the public school population in Florida. Are most blacks men-tally retarded? Of course not. At firrnative action, in this sense, provided mechanisms to equalize standards.
Several factors influenced affirmative action. One concern was thats groups other than blacks and Ilispanics benefited from affirmative action. Women profited more because they were in a better position to take advantage of affirmative action, especially in higher education. Blacks and Hispanics were not even on the campuses. S. Mac-Pherson Pemberson noted that women excelled, represent-ing 25 percent of all hired at Stanford University and the University of Wisconsin, while minorities who represented an increase from 2.2 to 2.9 nationally tended to be repre-sented in the lowest lob categories. This situation is true at most campuses. There were several reasons for the failure to hire minorities: (I) there was a limited pool of minor-ities who had been trained to assume positions; (2) there was little lob turnover so that the competition for jobs had been keen; and (3) budgetary constraints caused hiring freezes. The nagging legacy of affirmative action was the charge that unqualified minorities leaped ahead of qualified whites. In most instances, institutions can main-tain their own practices within the law. But institutions will need to change some practices in order to recruit more blacks, Puerto Ricans, Mexican Americans and American Indians, including students and faculty and staff. The problem will persist as Jones describes it:
White males are considered ipso facto, more meritorious than any other group. Yet the social policy of affir-mative action is under attack by white males, who cry "reverse discrimination" when people other than them-selves are selected in larger numbers than token members for jobs from which they have been excluded in the past. People who have power never relinquish it willingly; so to the extent that white males have power to get and hold the best jobs, they fights efforts to share that power.
There was little in Bakke that portends massive changes in this situation.
In the survey of administrators of special programs, the writer sought to prove that administrators familiar with affirmative action goals and procedures would feel that Bakke would have an impact on higher education. Statistically, there was some agreement among administra-tors who were complying with affirmative action guidelines on the progress of minorities. A majority of the educators who felt that Ba kke would not impede progress met EEO guidelines before and after B a k k e. No doubt these educators represent stronger programs and a level of sophistication and understanding essential in maintaining special programs. However, there was some disagreement among special program managers on the impact of Bakke on future enrollments. Nearly half of the educators who indicated enrollments would increase had programs that met EFO guidelines. The remaining educators felt that enrollment would decrease or remain constant.
Forty percent of the respondents who felt that their programs met affirmative action guidelines also believed that the Bakke decision was inevitable. Anyone who understood EEO regulations knew that the Davis Medical School was in trouble. Similarly, nearly 40 percent of the educators whose programs met EEO guidelines before and after Bakke thought that the decision was bound to happen. Among managers aware of EEO requirements, 37 percent felt Bakke was bound to happen. Although not statistically significant, the fact remains that some educa-tors who dealt with special programs were neither aware of nor concerned with EEO requirements. Certainly, that will change after Bakke.
Undoubtedly, one way these educators felt Bakke would have an impact is in its challenging the right of special programs to exist. Admission procedures and poli-cies will be questioned. At some schools enrollment will decline, staff will be cut, financial aid and budgets will be reduced. At other schools, programs will be strengthened. That any programs will be terminated at a time when general enrollment is a problem is tragic. In most cases the impact of B a k k e, negative or positive, will depend on the knowledge of managers about EEO regulations, the strength of their programs, and the commitment of the educational communities they serve.
The danger is that educators less familiar with the legal issues although presumably they have access to legal counsel -may use the confusion and moral defeat experienced by affirmative action supporters to dismantle or neutralize such programs. Nonsupport for affirmative action could be very subtle. Few politically astute admin-istrators would advocate dismantling affirmative action programs where blacks and Hispanics are represented and politically active.
New Racism
But there was little evidence that America was on the brink of solving its racial problems. Indeed, there was a changing mood in this country that began at the grass-roots level and affected the federal government under Reagan. Some call it conservatism; however, it would be more accurate to label it racism masquerading as conser-vatism.
Not uncharacteristic of this changing mood among liberals was the changing attitude of social scientists and educators. Faustine C. Jones, a senior research fellow at Howard University, observed that James Coleman, noted social Scientist of Harvard University, advocated integra-tion of black and white public school children in the 19605 and early 1970s but retreated from that position recently, arguing that busing caused white flight and served little educative purpose. Most American school children had ridden buses to school for years, but adding the element of race connoted forced busing to many parents. Joel Dreyfuss in "Black Enterprise' thought that whites no longer supported the goals and aspirations of blacks:
What became clear.. was that the national sentiment had turned against black aspirations. The polls disclosed strong negative feelings about black goals, little change in stereotyped at-titudes and a growing willingness of whites to publicly downgrade the abilities of blacks.
Popular writer Chuck Stone characterized the declining liberalism in this way:
And even among those white Ameri-cans who, on a conscious level, were in favor of racial equality, there was a wearing down of resolve and energy. Many came to regard the racial situation in America in the same way that slave-owning equalitarian Thomas Jef-ferson had depicted it-as a congenital fault.
The struggle for equality was a hopeless tug of war in which those who had the most to lose had the least to say. And those who were least affected altered the critical balance of power affecting social programs.
In essence, attempts to remedy past discrimination in housing, employment, and education have met with stiff resistance. Many felt that they had carried the burden of social welfare, through taxes, long enough. If the great social programs would not help the poor, why waste the tax dollar? Social programs were intended to help the poor, critics argued, but did not eliminate poverty. Since govern-ment programs make little difference, the argument goes, why not eliminate them? On the contrary, these programs have kept many blacks off welfare.
Many blacks argued that these government programs were not designed to relieve the poor of poverty. New job training programs produced few jobs in substantial numbers to affect the high unemployment of minorities. Few educational programs to help the disadvantaged produced students with functional diplomas. Blacks were rarely trained properly to manage such programs. The power to effect change rested with the white middle class who resented advantages or special treatment not extended to their own. Wide program abuses and mismanagement were common, leading critics to cite the self-fulfi1ling prophecy. But many whites, trained in the social sciences, were able to manage and study social programs. When a substantial portion of the funds for such programs were withdrawn, once again liberal supporters became vocifer-ously opposed to social programs. Nonsupport for affir-mative action in higher education became most evident in a survey of its readership conducted by the Phi Del t a Kappan in 1977.
Future of Affirmative Action
The problems of colleges and universities today contribute to the instability of special programs. Many special programs were organized to address concerns for equal opportunity for minorities. These programs were developed when resources were relatively plentiful as compared to the availability of resources in the 19805. Now many colleges and universities are reacting to declining enroll-ments, rising expenditures, and rising inflation. These factors have caused many university administrators to reexamine mission, financial policies, and administrative structures.
Are the goals of institutions compatible with the goals of special programs? Although goals and mission statements have been overemphasized, they provide philosophi-cal justification for the policies of institutions. Many administrators have reexamined mission statements to be sure that the external pressures of inflation and declining enrollment have not caused changes in institutional poli-cy. An institution that has 50 percent decline in its enrollment may be tempted to admit more foreign students or unqualified students. How will this change alter the curriculum? Will services be available to support academi-cally unprepared students? Educators will have to grapple with age old questions. Should universities educate youth for general knowledge or equip them with functional skills? Should education be available to anyone who wants it? The goals of special programs and the institutions in which they are housed should be to provide equal opportu-nity in financial and academic services, leading to graduation. If the services do not help students to graduate, they are meaningless.
Equal opportunity to higher education has not benefited significant numbers of blacks. One, the real income of blacks did not increase significantly in the 1980s. Two, some blacks, mostly enrolled in liberal arts programs, have difficulty, like many others, in finding employment upon graduation. Three, institutions have not been successful in graduating blacks. For example, engineering schools made the most gains-from 891 in 1978 to 1,041 in 1979-despite a vigorous national campaign to increase enroll-ment. The decline in black graduates is more disturbing. At the graduate level, the number of blacks receiving doctoral degrees declined 4.7 percent-from 1,186 in 1976-77 to 1,100 in 1977-78. Conversely, 8,313 of the 30,850-nearly one-third, of the doctoral degrees conferred-were awarded to women. The group benefiting most from affirmative action are women. Four, institu-tions that have unclear missions have been accused of creating a revolving door, enrolling unqualified students without providing adequate academic support. Predomi-nantly white institutions are competing with historically black institutions for black students. The black colleges have experience in educating the underprepared students, but many white institutions do not. Five, the style of many program staffs, which encourages family atmosphere, con-flicts with traditional practices of universities. For exam-ple, it is not unusual to hear accusations of unprofes-sionalism when minority staff fraternize with students. For many of these students, this new family away from home is their only salvation. Minority counselors also have a more informal style than faculty advisors who tend to be more rigid. Six, many institutions are victims of band-wagonism. Every new idea must be tried, if it can make money. Generally, blacks suffer when there are not priorit-ies that include blacks. Let us say that you are the dean at XYZ College. Each department competes to have con-ferences on adult education, humanism, and general edu-cation. In some cases, there may be faculty with only a passing interest in a particular subject and little or no expertise. This practice is similar to Andy Hardy movies in which having an amateur concert to raise money would solve everything. This approach will not improve the quality of instruction for the student body. Education encourages us to move on to new fields of interest. But what has happened to all of the people who should have been helped by the humanistic conferences using blind walks, milling, and sensitivity groups? Educators have moved on to supposedly more profitable, perhaps more interesting endeavors, leaving a few dedicated people to carry on. Erosion of equal opportunities for blacks has had a similar effect on higher education. Interest in blacks and other minorities has waned. Although the "mission" rhe-toric includes a statement on equal opportunity for blacks, results do not show progress.
Program Management
Proper program management is another factor in the survival of special programs and in determining equal opportunity for minorities. There are several ways that managers of special programs can help survivability: through better program management, efficient admissions practices, development of academic programs, fostering campus relations, and building student relations. Atten-tion to these factors will improve the management of special programs.
Management of special programs is a serious matter, complicated by the status assigned to administrators and the position of programs within the organization. Many black administrators now believe that they were hired merely to appease the black community after the 1968 riots and to attract federal dollars. Their positions may carry responsibility but little or no authority. This situ-ation causes frustration and ineffectiveness. To illustrate, an assistant dean at a major university does not have power over his own budget. When he needs supplies, someone orders them. He has no signatory authority over his budget; therefore, he authorizes nothing. But his title commands respect. Students expect him to be able to get things done, such as providing emergency travel funds for a stranded student, financing a senior party at the last minute, or battling an academic dean over student dismis-sals. If other administrators, such as admissions directors, had no power to admit students, they would be ineffective. Many black administrators are outside the organizational structure; therefore, they are unable to accomplish much. These two types of positions, generally academic and nonacademic, are called line and staff, respectively, by Peter Blau and W. Richard Scott. Line officers have responsibility for budgets, personnel, and planning with the institution. Staff officers derive their power from knowledge about issues and their ability to influence line officers. Usually staff officers are subordinate to line officers. Most minorities are staff officers. Unfortunately, the superior knowledge of some black administrators has been ineffective in influencing line officers. For example, retention would not be a problem if line officers knew what staff officers know; namely, that minority students can survive with proper academic support programs, com-mitted staff, and sensitive line officers. Calvin Smith intimated that these programs were never intended to be successful, and therefore the influence and knowledge of staff administrators has gone unheeded:
It cannot be transferred from one per-son to another by decree. In like man-ner, the application of knowledge is also an individual act. That being the case, those persons to be influenced must be willing to accept the knowl-edge offered and be desirous of apply-ing it in the resolution of given prob-lems. Because black administrators were hired to pacify the black commu-nity and/or to demonstrate that the hiring institution is an "equal opportu-nity employer, the leadership which they could provide based on their knowledge and understanding of given issues is neither accepted nor respected by those who must be influenced. Hence, the superior knowledge of the black administrator goes unrecognized, unutilized, and unrewarded by the in-stitution.
High staff turnover, uncertainty about budgets, and few opportunities to advance make the effectiveness of staff administrators difficult.
Two factors discourage effectiveness of black admin-istrators: (1) administrative decisions must be in line with institutional policy and (2) administrative decisions must be approved by line officers. Administrative decisions can always be challenged as not in line with administrative policy, since staff administrators are not always privy to policy decisions and certain institutional information. For example, if a black administrator is concerned about the lack of tutorial services for black students, he might be told that budgetary limitations prevent additional services, although the administrator may have had no access to or lend no influence in developing budgetary information. It becomes difficult for black administrators to label the resistance of whites as skepticism about the policy or resistance to advancement of blacks:
Such questioning may be legitimate but, in most instances, it flows from the resistance of white personnel in the institution to accept recommendations offered by a Black person regardless of his credentials, qualifications, and demonstrated capabilities as an admin-istrator.
Such treatment makes respect, trust, and cooperation dif-ficult. Black administrators are paraded around when window dressing is required and ignored when crucial decisions are made.
Black administrators must define their roles within the organization. In a typical situation of a new admin-istrator, little information about procedures, rules, and policies were provided. Other black administrators were reluctant to discuss sensitive political issues that might be misunderstood as character assassinations. Office staff were generally helpful but condescending and paternalistic to new personnel who were unfamiliar with certain rules, equipment, and procedures. Students expected the admin-istrator to know all academic procedures, rules and regula-tions, and their individual names on the first day. Every-one wanted to know what made you tick and whether you were friendly or grumpy, trustworthy or a tattler, or political or apolitical. Generally, there were no orders or directions from the boss. You attended meetings, inquired about past administrators, and read old records that ap-peared somewhat episodic.
In general, we found that most black [administrators on white college cam-puses had to define their roles, with little help from the central administrators, with some hindrance from the faculty, and oftentimes with indiffer-ence on the part of students.
Some black administrators claim that their roles were lonely, insecure, and powerless. In this context, black administrators were figureheads and counselors with fan-cy titles. Under these circumstances, the black community, including black students, found it difficult to respect black administrators or expected entirely too much from them. If a minority administrator cannot help the university to admit more blacks or Hispanics and cannot influence academic action decisions, he is considered powerless.
What action should be taken to improve this situ-ation? First, black administrators must be appointed to key line positions where they can help effect change. In scores of examples around the nation, black administrators have proved to be competent administrators, sensitive to the needs of minorities. Second, university administrators should offer training programs for middle managers to foster career ladders.
Training
Because those in middle management are in sensitive positions, training is important. Middle managers usually have no line authority, but they have considerable exper-tise in certain areas. Peter Drucker pointed out that their "decisions and actions are intended to have direct and major impact on the institutions...." Middle managers can link college and central units, help students become oriented to campus life, implement policy, serve as liaison between external and internal structures, and coordinate campus activities. Their roles have become more demand-ing and complicated. Training is now a necessity.
A fundamental problem with special programs is the inability to train and retain good administrators. Counselors, faculty members, and well-meaning students do not necessarily make good administrators. Counselors may be familiar with a particular programs, but have no penchant for detail, politics, and arduous administrative work. Faculty members may not un-derstand the systematic procedures necessary to educate all levels of spe-cial students by providing comprehen-sive services.
The following checklist shows the characteristics that special program administrators should have. If an admin-istrator does not know a little about these areas or does not have staff with expertise in these areas, training is recom-mended.
Characteristics of Special Program Administrators
Obviously, program managers should take precau-tions by strengthening services. Some managers will have to rid programs of the vestiges of quotas. Other managers will have to strengthen training programs for tutors and counselors. These efforts will improve services for minor-ities and increase the graduation rate. Managers will have to beware of practices that offer only lip service and actually inhibit admissions and retention. For example, once minority students are recommended, their applications can be delayed for such a long period of time that students become frustrated and accept other universities. Admissions applications can be lost prior to any decision, or parts of an application can be "lost," delaying a decision indefinitely. No one, however, would argue that the bulk of college personnel are not honest industrious, and loyal. But it takes only a few individuals to set up road blocks for minorities, even though institutional policy supports affirmative action. Managers must identify these road blocks, work with line officers, and develop stronger programs.
177