Actuating equity?: Historical and contemporary analyses of African American access to selective higher education from Sweatt to the Top 10% law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY RESEARCHAccess, Opportunity, and Adjudication: 1952-1969The literature review begins in the 1950s and details the role of legal enactments in the context of the desegregation era and the impact of those enactments on Texas's K- 12 public schools and the UT-Austin. Specifically, we consider how pervasive and hostile attitudes toward desegregation influenced the with which students of color had access to levels of education in Texas. We then transition to the impact of the civil rights movement on access and opportunity.In 1946, Heman Marion Sweatt, a Black veteran, applied for, and was denied admission to, the UT-Austin School of Law. Sweatt filed suit against UT-Austin in Texas's 126th District Court alleging that this denial was an infringement of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. At the time, there were no Black law schools in Texas (Lavergne 2010). After six months, Iudge Roy C. Archer of the 126th District Court decided that if the UT-Austin Board of Regents created a first-class university law school then the UT-Austin School of Law would not be required to accept Blacks (Duren and Iscoe 1979, 3). Sweatt appealed to the U.S. 3rd Court of Appeals, which sent the case back to retrial.The Sweatt case is dissimilar from the Missouri ex rei. Gaines v. Canada (1938), University v. Murray (1936), Sipuel v. Board of Regents ( 1948), and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents (1950) Southern higher education desegregation cases as the state of Texas sought to create a separate but law school to head off integration at UT-Austin. During the appeal, the Texas Legislature approved the establishment of the Texas State University for Negroes (TSUN, later called Texas Southern University or TSU) in Houston. This new university was created to offer general and professional programs equivalent to those offered at UT-Austin for Blacks. On March 10, 1947, the school opened, but Sweatt did not attend due to TSUN's inferior quality and the NAACP's desire to integrate White institutions (Lavergne 2010). After the Texas Supreme Court refused Sweatt's motion for a rehearing of his case, the NAACP filed the case at the U.S. Supreme Court. The nation's highest court ruled on lune 5, 1950, that the educational opportunity for Black and White law students was not substantially equal to meet the equal protection clause under the Fourteenth Amendment, thus, the UT-Austin School of Law was required to admit Sweatt.Despite Sweatt, the official end of the Iim Crow era arrived after the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which held that the Plessyv. Ferguson doctrine of separate but was unconstitutional. Following Brown v. Board of Education (1955), the second Brown decision, the U.S. Supreme Court gave the responsibility for integrating public schools to local officials under the scrutiny of the federal courts; in addition, these courts needed to ensure that local officials were making a prompt and reasonable start with all deliberate speed (Ogletree 2004).However, this notion of all deliberate speed became all deliberate in its implementation in Texas. Then Governor Allan Shivers saw the Brown decision as a federal invasion into states' rights on the doctrine of separate but and, as such, did not believe that the schools in Texas needed to change to reflect the Brown decision (Lavergne 2010).Then Attorney General lohn Ben Shepperd, reacting to a Texas high court decision to permit the use of state funds for integrated schools, stated that though the case settled the law for the state, the time frame for integration would be a community-by-community decision (Wilson and Segali 2001). This slowness permeated into postsecondary institutions in Texas as well; although there was to be eventual integration at levels of the schooling system in Texas, the of integration was to be determined by educational institutions and not the federal government (i. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".