The enforcer: an interview with Raymond C. Pierce - civil rights chief at US Dept of Education - Interview

Black Issues in Higher Education, July 24, 1997 by Ronald Roach

In a span of nearly four years, Raymond C. Pierce, Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education, has supervised some 600 civil rights compliance reviews of school districts across the nation. His portfolio in higher education has included managing policy development on issues ranging from gender fairness in intercollegiate athletics to race-targeted scholarships to higher education desegregation.

Currently, attorneys in the Office For Civil Rights are negotiating with Ohio officials to bring the state into civil rights compliance over its support of the ailing, historically-Black Central State University in Cleveland.

The Office for Civil Rights is also pursuing a high-profile inquiry of the higher education system in Texas as a result of the state's interpretation of the Hop wood decision in the Fifth Circuit Court, which has banned the use of race as a factor in admissions at Texas public colleges and universities.

Pierce, 38, a graduate of Case Western University School of Law, spoke recently to Black Issues In Higher Education's senior writer Ronald Roach.

Can you describe your duties and responsibilities as Deputy Assistant Secretary the Office of Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education? Enforcement. My job is to enforce civil rights. I have twelve offices around this country that enforce civil rights, and my, job is to direct and operate them.

What are primary enforcement mechanisms at your disposal?

We'll go to an administrative law judge or refer [the case] to the Department of Justice. But most times, we always get a resolution if we don't send it to the Department of Justice...Secretary Riley has really pushed hard to resolve these cases; to work with recipients of federal funds, school districts, counties, states to see if we can't find a way to resolve these matters in a way that's productive for the students who are involved here. And, I'm proud to say that with our leadership here. we've been able to accomplish that.

What do you consider to be the chief accomplishments of the Office for Civil Rights during your tenure?

The publication of the January 1994 notice in the Federal Register where the U.S. Department of Education reaffirmed our position on the Supreme Court's decision in Ayers v. Fordice to say that states have an affirmative duty to remove all vestiges of the past practices of segregation that have present day effects. And we will review All states who are currently not in compliance with Title VI in terms of higher education desegregation in light of the Ayers case. (See Black Issues, May 15, for an extensive review of Ayers v. Fordice.) We will view them in terms of their compliance and noncompliance in light of the Supreme Court's decision and we will strictly scrutinize any state efforts to merge or close any historically Black college [or] university or to place any undue burdens on faculty or students who have been traditionally serviced by such institutions. That is a major [accomplishment].

Have you cut federal funding in recent years to anyone for violating civil rights law?

No, none that I can think of. We've come pretty close on a couple of occasions, but at the final hour the school district will come to the table and come up with a resolution. Or, if they don't, we'll send it to the Department of Justice or we go before an administrative law judge. ... Normally, the school district or the institution will enter into some type of agreement to resolve this.

At what stage is the Education Department's inquiry into Texas's interpretation of Hopwood? [In Hopwood, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled that the University of Texas at Austin law school could not use race as a factor in admissions. The state attorney general has said that ruling applies to all public colleges and universities.]

Understand this first, the Texas higher education desegregation case was in existence long before the Hopwood decision. Texas was one of the original Adams cases that was found in violation of Title VI [which prohibits federal funds from going to any institution that discriminates on the basis of race]. Texas was a state that entered into a remedial plan in the early 1980s or late 1970s, under which the state was required to enhance the historically Black colleges and universities, and provide for affirmative action, scholarships and admissions practices to create greater access for Black students at the traditionally white institutions. That plan expired sometime ago. There are six states that had plans with the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights.

If you recall the history, there were originally nineteen states under the Adams order. Of those nineteen states, eighteen submitted plans to the Department of Education to bring themselves in compliance with Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Only Ohio did not submit a plan. Four of those states submitted plans that were rejected: Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Tennessee. Those states went on to court. The United States Department of Justice was active in four of those cases. One of them [Mississippi] went all the way to the Supreme Court.