Full opinion text
The Legal Standard of Fordice and Knight. 281 DEFINITIONS. 282 Student Choice Generally. 282 Specifies of Student Choice . 282 Segregative Effects. 284 Educational Soundness. 284 Practicability. 285 The Court-appointed Neutral Experts. 285 Liability and the court-appointed Neutral Experts . 286 Mission — What the Court must evaluate. 287 Mission, Role and Scope in Higher Education. 290 Programs. 290 ACHE and the HBIs in the Past. 290 Role. 291 Programs. 291 The Predicates. 292 The University of Alabama Huntsville. 292 Additional Findings. 292 UAH’s Financial Situation. 292 Business Program Accreditation Generally. 292 UAH’s Business Program. 293 UAH’s Education Program. 293 Findings Regarding Nursing at UAH. 294 Impracticability and Educational Unsoundness of Diminishing UAH’s Programs .:. 294 Business. 294 Education. 295 Nursing. 295 Alabama A & M University. 296 Enrollment Generally. 296 Teacher Education. 296 Instability in Leadership at AAMU. 296 Of Business, Bonds, and Buildings at AAMU. 296 Calhoun State Community College. 297 Enrollment. 297 The Aeustar Facility. 298 The Montgomery Situation. 298 Previous Findings. 298 Joint and Cooperative Programs. 299 ASU and TSUM. 299 ASU and AUM. 299 Troy State University in Montgomery. 300 Courses Relinquished by TSUM in Consent Decree. Distance Learning at Troy State. Degrees Awarded at TSUM and ASU. Alabama State University. Enrollment. AAUP Censure . Negative Media Coverage. State Employee Training. Accounting at Auburn University in Montgomery and Alabama State University . Allied Health Programs in Montgomery. Policies and Practices With Continuing Segregative Effects. Proximate Institutions . Funding. Catching up. ASU’s and AAMU’s Outspoken Commitment to Their Heritage. Leadership at ASU and AAMU. REMEDIAL CONSIDERATIONS. Program Transfer Generally. Engineering at AAMU. AAMU and CSCC-H.. Other-Race Scholarships. Generally. AAMU and ASU. A Critical Mass. Advertising. Closing or Merging TSUM. Endowments. LAND GRANT . Current Posture. Possible Segregative Effects. Extension. Black Involvement in Extension Policy-Making. Generally. ACES Specialists. From the Bottom. From the Top . From the Middle. Black Involvement in Research Policy Making. Delivery of Extension Services and Black Farmers. Effect of Land Grant Funding on Student Choice . Urban Rural Split. Remedial Findings. The Extension Director. Other States. Tuskegee University. CURRICULUM. Generally. Standard of Deficiency — or the Lack Thereof. Sufficiency of Incorporation of Black Thought, History and Culture in the PWIs’ General and Core Currículums. t-CO CO Traceability. CO CO If “Traceable,” Then Only to General Societal Factors. QO CO CO Current Segregative Effects. CS CO CO The Absenee-of-a-Black-Studies-Program Standard for Deficiency. o ^ CO Plaintiffs’ Proposed Remedy Constitutes Attempt to Circumvent the Burden they bear under Fordice. rtf CO Intentional Discrimination — Legal Principles. Intentional Discrimination Across the Higher Education System. Intentional Discrimination at UAB. rtf CO Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Argument. rtf CO Plaintiffs’ Proposed Remedy Constitutes Attempt to Circumvent Burden they would bear in First Amendment case. 348 REMEDIAL DECREE. 348 APPENDIX . 375 ABBREVIATIONS The following abbreviations are used by the Court. AAMU —Alabama A & M University ACHE —Alabama Commission on Higher Education ASU —Alabama State University AU —Auburn University AUM —Auburn University at Montgomery CSCC —Calhoun State Community College CSCC-H —Calhoun State Community College at Huntsville CT —The Court HBI —Historically Black Institution JSU —Jacksonville State University KN —Knight Plaintiffs LU —Livingston University PWI —Predominantly White Institution SBE —State Board of Education ST —State Alabama TSUM —Troy State University at Montgomery TSUS —Troy State University System UA —University of Alabama UAB —University of Alabama at Birmingham UAH —University of Alabama at Huntsville UAS —University of Alabama System UNA —University of Northern Alabama US —United States of America Record citations are abbreviated as follows Trial Transcripts — [witness] (date) [page]; e.g. Blow (3/1/95) 6. Exhibits — [Year] [Party] X, p._; e.g. 95 CTX 1 p. 12. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND REMEDIAL DECREE HAROLD L. MURPHY, District Judge. This ease is before the Court, after remand, for further consideration. A more complete history of the case is set forth in the Court’s previous order. Knight v. Alabama, 787 F.Supp. 1030 (N.D.Ala.1991), rev’d in part and remanded, 14 F.3d 1534 (11th Cir.1994). The remanded issues, with one narrow exception in the curriculum area, require the Court to analyze questions of fact or mixed questions of law and fact. The Court, therefore, sets out briefly at the beginning the relevant legal standards from United States v. Fordice as interpreted by Knight v. Alabama, but all findings and conclusions supporting the Court’s remedy are set forth together in the body of the Court’s order. The Court hereby incorporates its 1991 Order and Decree, except as reversed by the Eleventh Circuit or as inconsistent with the findings made below. After a six month trial in 1990-91 and a six week trial in 1995, the compilation of a massive record, and the publication of two lengthy orders, the Court has found all the relevant facts that there are to be found about higher education in Alabama. In light of those multitudinous findings, the Court has imposed what it believes to be the most desegregative remedy that is educationally sound and practicable. If the Court has erred, it is not the result of bad lawyering by attorneys or lack of consideration by the Court. If this case should again be appealed, and the higher courts again return the case to this Court, the Court earnestly seeks guid-anee. This Court will enforce whatever remedy the higher courts think appropriate. This Court has done all it can do. The Legal Standard of Fordiee and Knight The Eleventh Circuit established the following standard for higher education desegregation eases. The Supreme Court prescribed a three-step analysis for determining whether a state has fully met its remedial obligation. The first step requires a simple assessment of whether any particular policy that has been challenged as segregative is “traceable” to decisions that were made or practices that were instituted in the past for segregative reasons, thus rendering it a vestige of segregation. United States v. Fordice, 505 U.S. 717, 727-28, 112 S.Ct. 2727, 2735, 2786, [120 L.Ed.2d 575] (1992). Where plaintiffs in a lawsuit contend that a state or other public actor has not discharged its duty to dismantle its former system of de jure segregated higher education, the burden of proof lies with the charging party to show that a challenged contemporary policy is traceable to past segregation. Upon such a showing, “the burden of proof [then] falls upon the State, and not the aggrieved plaintiffs, to establish that it has dismantled its prior de jure segregated system.” Id. at 740-41, 112 S.Ct. at 2741 (emphasis in original). The state may carry this burden in one of two ways. It may show that the challenged contemporary policy, though traceable to segregation, is not constitutionally objectionable because it does not today have segregative effects. Id. at 727, 728, 112 S.Ct. at 2736, 2737. When gauging whether a policy traceable to segregation has such current effects, courts must consider the effect of the policy as it operates in combination with any other challenged policies. Id. at 738-39, 740-41, 112 S.Ct. at 2741, 2742. Fordiee recognized as having segregative effects policies that “influ-encie] student enrollment decisions.” Id. at 728, 742, 112 S.Ct. at 2737, 2743. In its discussion ... the Court offered examples of two broad categories of practices that can inhibit “free choice” by students as to university attendance. The first category comprises policies that have the effect of discouraging or preventing blacks from attending HWIs, examples of which include the maintenance of more stringent admissions requirements for HWIs than for HBIs. Id. at 733-39, 112 S.Ct. at 2738-40. The second category consists of policies that discourage whites from seeking to attend HBIs, examples of which include: duplication of programs at HBIs and HWIs in the same geographic area; the assignment to HBIs of institutional missions that restrict them to programs of instruction that cannot effectively attract whites; and the failure to fund HBIs comparably to HWIs or to locate high-prestige programs at HBIs. Id. at 736-40, 112 S.Ct. at 2740-42. As a result of such policies, disproportionate numbers of whites can satisfy their curricular desires at HWIs, and cannot satisfy them at HBIs, thereby discouraging them from choosing to attend HBIs. Where the state proves that a challenged policy, shown by plaintiffs to be traceable to segregation, has no segre-gative effects, it is relieved of its duty to eliminate or modify the policy. Id. at 738-39, 112 S.Ct. at 2741. This inquiry constitutes the second step in the Fordiee analysis. The other circumstance in which a state may be relieved of its obligation to abolish or modify policies traceable to segregation obtains where, in effect, it simply is not possible to do so. Where “policies traceable to the de jure system are still in force and have discriminatory effects, those policies ... must be reformed to the extent practicable and consistent with sound educational practices.” Id. at 727, 112 S.Ct. at 2736. Thus, where the state can show that there are no less segregative alternatives which are practicable and educationally sound, then it may permissibly maintain the vestigial practice or policy in place. Id. at 733-42, 112 S.Ct. at 2738-43; id. at 743-44, 112 S.Ct. at 2744 (O’Connor, J., concurring). However, the state’s burden of proving that such alternatives are impracticable or educationally unsound is a heavy one and “the circumstances in which a State may maintain a policy or practice traceable to de jure segregation that has segregative effects are narrow.” Id. at 743, 112 S.Ct. at 2743 (O’Connor, J., concurring). The state is obligated to adopt, from among the full range of practicable and educationally sound alternatives to the challenged policy, the one that would achieve the greatest possible reduction in the identified segregative effects. Id. at 743-4, 112 S.Ct. at 2744 (O’Connor, J., concurring). Moreover, because the obligation to remedy the segregative effects of vestiges of segregation is an affirmative duty borne by the state, the onus is not on the plaintiffs to propose the remedy options to be considered. Rather, a court should consider the full range of all possible alternative remedies, including closure, when determining which would achieve the greatest possible reduction in the identified segregative effects. Id. at 742, 112 S.Ct. at 2743: This examination of the practicability and educational soundness of possible alternatives or modifications to a challenged policy constitutes the third step in the Fordice analysis. Where plaintiffs show that a current policy is traceable to past segregation, and defendants fail to demonstrate either (1) that the policy, in combination with other policies, has no current segregative effects, or (2) that none of the full range of less segregative alternative remedies are practicable and educationally sound, defendants must adopt the practicable and educationally sound alternatives that will bring about the greatest possible reduction in the segregative effects. “If the State has not discharged [this remedial] duty, it remains in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. at 717, 112 S.Ct. at 2735. Knight v. Alabama, 14 F.3d 1534, 1540-42 (11th Cir.1994). DEFINITIONS Student Choice Generally 1.In order to evaluate the likely consequences of various remedies, the Court finds facts regarding the underlying processes by which a student decides to attend, and persist at, a post-secondary school. Usually, the decision begins with the choice of a career goal, and includes initial choices about college majors, perhaps a change in those choices, and the decision to persist in the post-secondary education process and at a particular institution. The Court must evaluate the likely consequence of various remedies in the context of the complete student choice process. St. John (3/16/95) 10, 12. 2. There is a difference between college choice and student choice. Student choice involves broader considerations, from the formation of post-secondary and career aspirations, to issues of institutional access. St. John (3/16/95) 10, 12; 95 UASX 243, pp. 3-6. 3. College choice involves a student’s predisposition or aspiration to attend college, the search process, and the ultimate choice of an institution. The study of college choice involves examining how each phase develops and functions. Hossler (2/14/95) 11. 4. Student choice does not operate in a vacuum, but instead within the context of a larger set of decisions made by the university and individuals within the university, including admissions, financial aid, and other decisions affecting students. Student choice and student access are conceptually linked in that the decisions made by a student are not independent of the particular practices at an institution under consideration. That is, institutions make themselves more or less available and attractive to students through admissions criteria, recruitment efforts, financial aid and post-enrollment support activities. Allen (3/9/95) 19-21. 5. The broadest definition of student choice includes opportunity (and the minimization of the influence of academic and social constraints on access) as well as college choice and desegregation. 95 UASX 243, p. 31. Specifics of Student Choice 6. Students must initially decide whether to attend a post-secondary educational institution. Many students make this decision by the eighth or ninth grade, and are influenced in their decision by factors such as parental experience with post-secondary education and parental encouragement to go on to post-secondary education, sler (2/14/95) 11-15. 95 UASX 243; Hos- 7. To the extent that particular racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups have lower college attendance rates, aspirations of students in those groups to attend post-secondary institutions may be influenced more heavily by non-family factors such as school officials, peers, and other non-familial efforts — such as providing information and encouragement to middle school students regarding post-secondary opportunities, and student financial aid. Hossler (2/14/95) 13; 95 UASX 243, pp. 10-12. 8. Of all of the factors influencing the decision of whether to attend post-secondary institutions, parental encouragement is the single best predictor of an interest in continuing with education. Hossler (2/14/95) 14; 95 UASX 243, pp. 10-12. 9. With some exceptions, most students begin the primary part of the college choice process in the junior year of high school. By this point, students understand from parents the economic parameters of the choices available. Hossler (2/14/95) 18-19. 10. When students are defining a college “choice set,” parents establish an explicit cost range they will consider, and indicate the distance from home they think the student should travel for school. Hossler (2/14/95) 19. 11. The two most direct ways, external to the family, to influence the process by which students choose colleges are (1) post-secondary encouragement during the middle school years and (2) efforts to lower the price and other costs of a college education. 95 UASX 243, p. 15. 12. After developing an aspiration to higher education, students establish a set of institutions in which they may possibly enroll. A student establishes the “choice set” based upon a range of factors important to the individual student. Eesearch literature on student choice, however, demonstrates that the following factors exert the greatest influence on students’ choice: tuition, costs, financial aid, academic reputation, location, size, social atmosphere, and, occasionally, special academic programs. 95 UASX 243, p. 36. 13. Particular academic programs are relatively un important in the early stages, because students are not far enough along in their decision making to rule institutions in or out based on programs. Hossler (2/Í4/95) 19. One important exception to this general rule, however, is engineering. Hossler (2/14/95) 19. 14. After establishing a “choice set,” the next stage involves selecting from among the institutions in the set. The students narrow their choices to a group of schools they are considering seriously enough to submit an application. Hossler (2/14/95) 20-21. 15. The schools in a student’s final choice set are normally quite similar. More subtle factors, such as the quality of campus social life, become more important to the choice. 95 UASX 243, p. 38. 16. At this point in the choice process, the net cost of attending college (after considering financial aid) becomes a crucial factor in the selection of a college. 95 UASX 243, p. 38. 17. By this stage in the choice process^ students have decided whether they are only considering attending local institutions; whether they are considering living away from home and if so how far; and whether they are considering elite private high-cost institutions. At this stage, students begin to relate career aspirations to the availability of academic majors. Hossler (2/14/95) 22. 18. Also at this stage, the efforts by the institutions to entice prospective students become particularly important, because a decision among the final group of institutions is heavily influenced by factors such as how an institution treats a prospective student on campus visits, the personal nature of correspondence to the student and other similar, personal, factors. Hossler (2/14/95) 23. 19. Analyses of student choice must account for institutional access because institutional decisions affect student choice. Policies and practices in admissions criteria, recruitment activities, where recruitment activities occur, financial incentives and post-enrollment academic support will make that institution more or less accessible to particular students. Allen (3/9/95) 19-21; 95 UASX 243, p. 11. 20. Other factors that affect student choice and, especially, the decision of white students to attend HBIs, include safety (an important factor) and physical attractiveness (a less important factor, an “ ‘add-on’ incentive”). 95 USX 8, pp. 43-44; Conrad (2/28/95) 16. 21. Institutional communication to a student considering only local institutions is somewhat different. It is more important that the local institution demonstrate that it is “user friendly,” offers programs for part-time students, offers weekend and evening courses, offers programs with immediate employment potential, and possibly provides financial aid for students not eligible under traditional aid programs. Hossler (2/14/95) 23-24. 22. Little research has been done on the choice process for nontraditional and commuting students. For these students the principal determinates of where they will enroll seem to be cost, distance and convenience. Hossler (2/14/95) 25-26; see infra ¶¶ 191-205 (discussing adult and non-traditional students). 23. Locally situated, part time, traditional age students have the similar course patterns as adults; that is, they require at least some evening and weekend' courses. Hossler (2/15/95) 74-75. 24. Student choice is a complex process, but the Court has considered the issues in this case in light of the process explained above. 25. Student choice, in this case, is not just about making AAMU and ASU more desirable places to go, but also about expanding student choice in the system as a whole. Becton (2/23/95) 68. Any remedial action should increase educational opportunity for all Alabamians. 95 CTX 4, p. 7 (Joint Prefatory Statement of Court’s experts). Segregative Effects 26. A “segregative effect” occurs when a policy or practice continues to foster segregation, or influences student enrollment decisions by substantially restricting, in a discriminatory manner, a person’s choice of which institution to enter. United States v. Fordice, 505 U.S. 717, 730, 112 S.Ct. 2727, 2737, 120 L.Ed.2d 575 (1992). Educational Soundness 27. An educationally sound remedy furthers typical state higher education goals regarding college participation rates and access to opportunity. 95 AUX 790, p. 4. 28. An educationally sound remedy furthers typical state higher education goals regarding the development and maintenance of quality academic programs. 95 AUX 790, p. 4. 29. An educationally sound remedy must aid in the creation of stronger institutions and a stronger state system of higher education. 95 AUX 790, p. 4. 30. An educationally sound remedy must provide incentives to “do right” with minimal intrusive Court oversight. Trendler (2/9/95) 25; Gross (2/9/95) 28-29. 31. An educationally sound remedy should, as far as possible, take into account, and work within the normal political, educational, and administrative processes. Trendler (2/9/95) 25-27; Wharton (3/14/95) 10; Caruthers (3/15/95) 25; Nance (2/26/95) 27. 32. An educationally sound remedy must minimize, as far as possible, the collateral and unintended effects on the state’s system of higher education. Fincher (2/9/95) 9-13; Caruthers (3/15/95) 14-15; Ellis (2/14/95) 46. 33. An educationally sound remedy must acknowledge that achieving and maintaining accreditation is crucial to institutions of higher education. Jordan (3/8/95) 53-54. 34. An educationally sound remedy must maintain the levels of integration achieved by the PWIs. Caruthers (03/15/95) 31; 95 AUX 790, pp. 17, 19; 95 CTX 1, p. 19; Conrad (02/28/95) 56, 89, 110. 35. The remedy must bring the state and the system of higher education into compliance with the Constitution, Title VI and the Fordice decision. Practicability 36. Webster defines “practicable” as capable of being effected, done or executed; feasible; or capable of being used for a specific purpose. “Capable” is defined as “having capacity or ability; competent; efficient; able.” 37. In grasping the meaning of “practicable” it is useful to look at the meanings of related words: (a) “possible” is something realizable as an end, capable of existing or happening without contradicting proven facts, laws or circumstances. (b) “practical” emphasizes the prudence, efficiency, or economy of an act, solution or agent. (c) “workable” is used of proposed ideas or plans, the success of which is likely if properly managed. (d) “practicable” means fitted for actual use or application, and often is used to describe projects where an initial forecast is important. (e) “feasible” means clearly possible and applicable, and connotes closer scrutiny and more guarded approval than workable or practicable. (f) “viable” refers to likelihood of continued success. 38. Practicability requires the Court to look not only at costs and benefits, but risks and returns as well. Hossler (2/15/95) 102; see also Missouri v. Jenkins, - U.S. -, -, 115 S.Ct. 2038, 2071-72, 132 L.Ed.2d 63 (1995) (Thomas, J., concurring). Justice Thomas noted that local authorities are entitled to rather specific direction regarding their obligations, disapproved of a district court using a hit or miss, constant-deeree-reshaping method, and encouraged district courts to attempt to implement a unified remedy in a single decree. Based upon this advice and the meanings of words, a practicable remedy is one that would appear, at the current time, to be most likely to achieve the remedial purpose into the future. 39. The Court wishes to avoid enormous expenditures of money which have no practical effect on institutions or students. See, Wharton (3/14/95) 16-17, whereat he discusses Louisiana’s dismal experience with large scale enhancement of HBIs. The Court-appointed Neutral Experts 40. Several months prior to the start of the remand proceedings the Court took the extraordinary step of appointing five neutral expert witnesses. These appointments were made in an effort to assist the Court and the parties in analyzing the issues remanded from the Circuit. The Court felt it important to secure the assistance of educational experts not associated with any of the parties to this case. 41. After an extensive search, the Court selected five individuals with national reputations as educators and university administrators to serve as appointed experts. The Court-appointed experts were: 42. Dr. Robert M. Anderson, Jr., who at the time of his appointment was Vice Provost for Extension and Director of Cooperative Extension at Iowa State University. Prior to his appointment as Vice Provost, Dr. Anderson was employed by the General Electric Company where he served as a manager. Dr. Anderson has also been a full professor of electrical engineering at Purdue University. 43. Lt. Gen. Julius W. Becton, Jr., is the former President of Prairie View A & M University. General Becton has served on a number of national committees involved in university and college accreditation. He has also served as a board member for various organizations committed to equal access to higher education. General Becton has served in various presidential administrations including the Director of FEMA under President Bush. 44. Dr. Harold L. Enarson is President Emeritus of The Ohio State University. Dr. Enarson also served as the first president of Cleveland State University, and was the Executive Director of the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, an interstate compact of 13 western states. Dr. Enarson has held several administrative position at the University of New Mexico, and served in the President Truman’s White House in a variety of positions. 45. Dr. Robben Fleming is the President Emeritus of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, past Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin, and the former President of the Corporation of Public Broadcasting. Dr. Fleming has served as Chairman of the Carnegie Fund for the Advancement of Teaching, Chairman of the American Association of Universities, Chairman of the American Counsel on Education, and is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. 46. Dr. Bryce Jordan is President Emeritus of the Pennsylvania State University and former Executive Vice Chancellor of the Administrative Office of the University of Texas System. Dr. Jordan also served as the founding president of the University of Texas at Dallas. Dr. Jordan, as with all of the Court-appointed neutral experts continues to serve on a variety of committees and organizations concerned with higher education across the country. 47. The Court charged the neutral experts to conduct a detailed review of the issues presented on remand and to separately recommend to the Court, what in their individual judgments, were the most educationally sound remedies to address the issues remanded by the Circuit. 48. In discharging their responsibilities, the Court-appointed experts met with the parties to this case, toured a number of institutions and spoke to plaintiff class members and officials of several of the schools. Separate reports were prepared by the Court-appointed experts, and they each gave a deposition and testified at trial. Copies of the reports were entered into evidence at the trial. 49. Without exception, these men provided valuable assistance in reviewing the matters submitted to them. Their reports were thoughtful, complete and of great assistance to the Court and the parties. Liability and the Court-wppointed Neutral Experts 50. At the outset, it is important to note that while some of the court-appointed experts commented on issues that are relevant to mission area liability, all of them indicated to the Court that they were uncomfortable with developing evidence on the issue of liability, so they assumed liability. See Enar-son (2/21/95) 97-98. Drs. Anderson, Jordan, Enarson and Fleming and General Becton all admitted that they “assumed” liability on the part of the defendants in the mission area. Jordan (3/8/95) 7; Becton (2/22/94) 54; Enar-son (2/21/95) 90-91, 96-97; Fleming (2/22/95) 71-72. It was evident from their testimony that they viewed the Eleventh Circuit’s remand to require a finding of liability on the mission area and that the one option not open to the judge was to do nothing. Enar-son (2/21/95) 96. Dr. Fleming explained that he did not attempt to answer questions related to liability; but assumed liability, believing that it was the court-appointed experts’ jobs to improve the status of the HBIs. Fleming (2/22/95) 72. 51. During a hearing held on August 12, 1994 the Court told the parties The [Court-appointed] experts have indicated to [the Court’s Monitor] that they’re not — they do not feel comfortable with doing a lot of work on issues of liability. And I’m telling that to all of you so that you will understand when these experts testify that while they may know facts and be able to testify as to facts that go to liability issues, that most of what they’re going to be doing is looking at [the] present situation, whether or not the remedy is appropriate, and if so, what it might be. Transcript of Hearing held August 12, 1994, p. 34. 52. On November 1, 1994 the Court received a memorandum from these experts which stated in part We interpret our charge to require of us first and foremost our individual opinions on the range of practicable and educationally sound remedies to the issues remanded by the Eleventh Circuit. As the Court said in the August hearing, none of us are particularly comfortable in doing comprehensive work on issues of liability. For example, on the mission and land grant issues, we have not extensively focused on whether a current practice or policy has continuing segregative effects on student choice. We understand that such issues will be decided by the Court based on the evidence presented at trial. While we may on occasion express opinions regarding liability issues, we have in all instances proposed a range of remedies regardless of our individual views on the liability questions. In short, we have assumed liability and offered our opinions on remedial issues. Memorandum from the court-appointed Neutral Experts to Judge Harold L. Murphy (Nov. 1, 1994) (emphasis supplied). 53. During the cross-examination of Dr. Enarson, the Court reminded the parties “I ought to point out. Let me interrupt a minute. I should point out that the [court-appointed] experts in this case indicated they were quite uncomfortable with developing evidence on the issue of liability, so they have assumed liability.” Enarson (2/21/95) 97-98 (Court’s comments). 54. Consistent with the Court obviating any duty on their part to study and make recommendations regarding liability, these experts’ reports contained no in-depth discussion on liability, but only passing references consistent with their admitted assumptions on the issue. 95 CTX 1, p. 5-7; 95 CTX 2, p. 29; 95 CTX 3, p. 1-2; 95 CTX 4, p. 9; 95 CTX 5, p. 10-13. 55. Dr. Enarson stated his belief that “student choice is influenced by race and institutional reputation.” He then speaks in broadly^ historical terms of the image of the HBIs and the fact of proximate institutions. 95 CTX 1, p. 5-7. While Dr. Enarson’s beliefs regarding history may be accurate, it was a matter he neither chose, nor the Court ultimately charged him, to investigate under the particular facts of this case. 56. Dr. Fleming, too expressed his belief that the limited missions have current segre-gative effects, but reserved the determination of that question for the Court. 95 CTX 3, p. 1-2. 57. General Becton expressly stated “I am, therefore, assuming that this limitation continues its segregative effects on student choice.” 95 CTX 4, p. 9. 58. Dr. Jordan, before making his various recommendations, spoke of the duplication in Huntsville and Montgomery, and the attendant inefficiencies. 95 CTX 5, p. 10-13. Dr. Jordan simply states, “there seems little doubt that this situation has come about through a continuation of segregative effect originating in the de jure segregation of ASU, and is still effecting the choices that students have as to the institution they wish to attend.” 95 CTX 5, p. 11. Again, while Dr. Jordan’s beliefs regarding history may be accurate, it was a matter he neither chose, nor the Court ultimately charged him, to investigate under the particular facts of this case. Mission — What the Court must evaluate 59. The phrases “current mission assignment” and “limited mission” of AAMU and ASU, as used in this litigation are imprecise terms. Neither the Eleventh Circuit nor this Court’s 1991 Opinion eliminated the imprecision. The Court concludes, however, that the meaning pláced on those terms is evident from the Court of Appeals’ holding and its citation of this Court’s previous Order. 60. The Eleventh Circuit quoted a portion of a statement in the Court’s introductory remarks in Knight. The portion quoted by the Eleventh Circuit is in italics. The issue is not whether the state universities to which African Americans have traditionally turned for college education in Alabama have limited missions, because of prior state-sponsored discrimination, undoubtedly they do; rather, the issue is how does the limitation affect students who choose to attend the state’s predominantly black institutions. Knight, 787 F.Supp. at 1046 (emphasized portion quoted at Knight, 14 F.3d at 1544 as this Court’s finding). The Eleventh Circuit then went on to discuss AAMU’s and ASU’s classification in Planning Document Number One and the Instructional Role Matrices. Knight v. Alabama, 14 F.3d 1534, 1544-45 (11th Cir.1994). The Court of Appeals then holds that this Court “did not address the entirely separate question of whether the limited mission assignments of ASU and A & M, which were preserved under both Planning Document Number One and the current Instructional Role Matrices” have current segregative effects. Id. at 1545. The Eleventh Circuit instructs this Court, on remand, to examine ASU’s and AAMU’s “current mission assignment.” Id. at 1546. The Eleventh Circuit’s holding and mandate are consistent with the actual findings underlying the Court’s statement in the introductory remarks. Cf. 9 Chaeles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Prooedure § 2580, p. 719 (1971) (“When a district court issues an order and specific findings, the specific findings control over any statement in the order”). 61. This Court’s statement in the introductory remarks was motivated by the numerous factual findings on the history of higher education in Alabama. See Knight, 787 F.Supp. at 1065-1147. Very briefly: 62. ASU and AAMU were founded as normal schools or teacher colleges to serve for black citizens the identical purpose served for white citizens by institutions such as the UNA, LU, JSU, and TSU. See Knight, 787 F.Supp. at 1074-75, ¶¶97, 98 (ASU founded as normal school for blacks); id. at 1084, ¶ 154 (AAMU founded as teacher training school, under name Huntsville Normal School, for blacks), id. at 1062, ¶ 5 (UNA founded as normal school for whites); id. ¶ 6 (LU founded as normal school for white females); id. ¶7 (JSU founded as normal school for white males and females); id. at ¶ 8 (TSU founded as teachers’ college for white males and females). 63. In the 1960’s, the state played virtually no role in higher education growth and expansion, which took place without coordination or planning. Prior to 1969, if an institution wanted to move, expand, or create new programs, they could do so if they could get the funds. Porter (2/1/95) 7, 9. 64. The Alabama legislature created the Alabama Commission on Higher Education (ACHE) in 1969, and in 1974 ACHE released Planning Document Number One which recommended certain institutional classifications. Id. at 1136, ¶ 516, 1139, ¶526, 1309, ¶ 1592. 65. The Court previously found Planning Document Number One recommended that institutions of higher education be classified according to the following system: I.Doctoral Universities (Public) A. Comprehensive Universities B. Urban Universities with a Comprehensive Role in Selected Graduate and Professional Fields. C. Urban Universities with Specialized Graduate and Professional Roles II.Master’s-Level State Universities (Public) III. Two-Year Institutions (Public) IV. Private Institutions V. Propriety Institutions USX 2, p. 39. The public four-year institutions in Alabama were classified by ACHE as follows: Category I-A: UA, AU Category I-B: UAB Category I-C: UAH, USoALA Category II: ASU, JSU, LU, TSU, UNA, AAMU, AUM, UM USX 2, pp. 42-51. Knight, 787 F.Supp. at 1309-10, ¶¶1592, 1593. 66. An institution’s placement within a category in Planning Document Number One depended on the institution’s characteristics as they existed in 1975, when Planning Document Number One was published. 95 STX 1028, pp. 41-58; Blow (5/6/91) at 70-71. As testified to by the then Executive Director of ACHE, the categories “simply described what the institutions were doing at that time.” Porter (2/1/95) at 16. 67. The classification system used in Planning Document Number One prevented institutions from having programs approved by ACHE at a level higher than their classification would allow. Knight, 787 F.Supp. at 1310, ¶ 1597. However, until 1979 an institution could use state funds to implement a new program even if ACHE withheld approval. Porter (2/1/95) 21-22; Knight, 787 F.Supp. at 1312, ¶ 1607. 68. In addition, Planning Document Number One demonstrates a sensitivity to the issues present in this litigation. The document states, in language quite prescient of some opinions in United States v. Fordice The role and scope of historically black institutions is of crucial importance in this State. The duty to create a truly nondiscriminatory system of higher education clearly rests upon the State. Institutional efforts to create not “white colleges” and not “black colleges” but just “colleges” should continue. By the same token, the unique contribution and perspective of the historically black institutions should not be lost in an effort to achieve numerical quotas for majority and minority students. The burden of further desegregation should not fall unduly upon the historically black institutions. Since enrollment in higher education, unlike that in elementary and secondary schools, remains a voluntary action, the right of students to choose the institution which they believe best meets their needs and desires should be respected. The State has an affirmative duty to insure that its policies and practices and those of its institutions do not in and of themselves create or perpetuate institutions which, by their faculty or administration or admissions policies, are clearly “white” or “black.” But we do not believe that the historie principle of free choice in higher education should be abridged and lost. 95 STX 1028, pp. 69-70. 69. In 1985 ACHE ceased operating under Planning Document Number One and began using the Instructional Role Matrices. Knight, 787 F.Supp. at 1310, ¶ 1594. The Instructional Role Matrices, when adopted, described the respective role of the particular institutions as such role stood. The Court previously described the Instructional Role Matrix thusly: The Instructional Role Matrix document contains grids, with rows showing academic subdivision groupings and columns showing degree levels. A separate grid applies to each public four-year institution. If an institution has an existing degree program in a particular academic field at a particular degree level, an “X” appears in the appropriate spot. If an institution has no existing program in a particular field and at a particular degree level, but both the institution and ACHE agree it should be able to expand in that area, an “0” appears in the appropriate spot. [91] STX 144. Knight, 787 F.Supp. at 1311, ¶ 1602. 70. The original Instructional Role Matrix for each institution was agreed to by that institution, and the system allows for changes in role. Blow (2/8/95) at 5-6. The Instructional Role Matrix is overwhelmingly descriptive rather than prescriptive, and the document, itself, does not represent state-imposed mission assignments. See 95 STX 1009. 71. Importantly, however, whatever role an institution had when Planning Document Number One was in force, was described in, and carried through to, its respective grid in the Instructional Role Matrices. Capíes (3/1/95) 82-83. 72. The Court concludes, therefore, that the “limited missions because of prior state-sponsored discrimination” discussed in the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion must refer to the mission, or more precisely, the role ASU and AAMU occupy in the Instructional Role Matrices. Mission, Role and Scope in Higher Education 73. Mission, role and scope are terms of art in Alabama higher education. To more narrowly focus this litigation, the Court provides the following explanations. 74. “A mission is what an institution sees itself to be in a broad philosophical sense, including its major goals, the way it sees its major responsibilities. It has certain aspirational and futuristic aspects to it.” Blow (2/8/95) 4; Enarson (2/21/95) 12. Under this technical definition, the State of Alabama has nothing to do with institutional mission. Blow (2/8/95) 4. 75. “Role essentially is what an institution does, and generally, with respect to three major functions, instruction, research and public service. Also involved with role would be the clientele that an institution serves.” Blow (2/8/95) 4. 76. “Scope [is] the extent to which the institution carries out its role or does what it does. In a practical sense, ACHE uses this word referring to the academic program inventory for the instructional scope of an institution.” Blow (2/8/95) 4-5;- 95 STX 1007; 95 STX 1008. 77. Instructional role is expressed, in part, in degree programs offered by an institution. Because of the high degree of institutional autonomy in Alabama higher education, program proposals usually originate with the institutions, see generally 95 STX 1010, and the existence vel non of a particular program at a particular institution cannot be attributed solely to a centralized state policy or practice. 78. The current limited mission assignments of AAMU and ASU that are the present focus of this litigation are the role and scope of the institutions. Programs ACHE and the HBIs in the Past 79. During the approximately 20-year period from 1971 through the time of the last trial, the ACHE considered only two program proposals from ASU and approved both of them. Knight, 787 F.Supp. at 1313, ¶ 1617. AAMU, in contrast, submitted many program proposals during that period, and only four of those programs were ultimately disapproved by thé Commission. Id. at ¶ 1619. 80. In 1994 ACHE recommended that ASU (and AAMU) receive additional onetime funding for development of program proposals, and such funds were appropriated. Blow (2/8/95) 20; 95 STX 1067, pp. B-l, B-2. 81. Since the last trial, ACHE staff and ASU have been working together on several degree program proposals: doctoral programs in three education fields; baccalaureate programs in allied health fields, including respiratory therapy, occupational therapy, health information management, and athletic training; a baccalaureate program in environmental science; and a masters’ program in accountancy. Blow (2/8/95) 13-19; 95 STXs 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1021, 1022. The doctoral programs have been withdrawn from ACHE consideration, by agreement of ACHE and ASU, pending further development of the proposals. Blow (2/8/95) 13-15. 82. The allied health programs are being considered “off the calendar;” that is, instead of ACHE being required to act on the program proposals within ten months, ACHE and ASU have agreed that the ACHE staff and ASU will continue negotiations concerning the proposals until the ACHE staff is ready to recommend them for approval. Blow (2/8/95) 17-18. The State appears poised to place these programs at ASU. Although the environmental science and masters of accountancy proposals are in more advanced stages, ACHE action was postponed, at the Court’s request, pending the Court’s remand order. Blow (2/8/95) 16, 18. 83. In fact, ACHE imposed a moratorium on all new programs pending the outcome of this action. Blow (2/8/95) 18. 84. Since the last trial AAMU has submitted five program proposals. Blow (2/8/95) 10-11. A bachelor of science program in technical studies has been approved, as has a masters’ program in social work. Blow (2/8/95) 11. Proposals for baccalaureate degrees in logistics, mechanical engineering, and electrical engineering are pending. Id. The logistics proposal had to be revised in response to questions ACHE raised. Id. As to the engineering proposals, the ACHE staff and AAMU disagreed about whether additional engineering programs should be approved for Huntsville. ACHE suggested exploring ways in which UAH and AAMU could share the core curricula for the two programs, and revised proposals were submitted to ACHE shortly before trial began. Blow (2/8/95) 12-13. See, infra, ¶¶ 318-337 for further discussion of Engineering at AAMU. Role 85. As noted above, “role” is what an institution does with regard to instruction, research and public service. 86. Alabama designates twenty-eight (28) fields. In Alabama if an institution can offer courses in a certain field, that institution has a “role” in that field. See 95 STX 1009. Fields are broad areas of knowledge, such as Agriculture and Renewable Resources, Architecture and Environmental Design, Business, Communication and Related Technologies, Education, Engineering, Humanities, Life Science, Physical Scienee/Mathematics, among others. See 95 STX 1009. 87. If one ranks Alabama’s public senior institutions in terms of most to least overall fields for which a role is recognized, number of fields in which a doctoral role is recognized, and number of fields in which a graduate (including doctoral) or first professional role is recognized, the institutions are ranked as follows: Number of Roles All Graduate & Overall Doctoral First Prof. AU-21 AU-15 UAB-20 UAB-20 UA-13 AU-18 UA-19 UAB-13 UA-16 A&M-16 UAH- 3 USA-15 USA-16 USA- 3 A&M-12 ASU-14 A & M- 2 TSU-10 JSU-14 ASU- 1 UAH-10 TSU-14 AUM- 1 UNA-10 LU-13 ASC- 0 JSU- 9 AUM-12 JSU- 0 ASU- 8 UNA-12 LU- 0 UM- 7 UAH-11 TSU- 0 AUM- 5 UM-11 TSUD- 0 TSUM- 6 TSUM-10 TSUM- 0 TSUD- 3 ASC- 9 UM- 0 LU- 1 TSUD- 9 UNA- 0 ASC- 0 95 STX 1009. Programs 88.Programs are what are normally referred to as majors or concentrations: for example, English, Accounting, and Business Administration, among others. 95 STX 1007; 95 STX 1008; 95 AUX 799, p. 19. 89.If one ranks Alabama’s public senior institutions in terms of most to least overall programs, doctoral programs, and graduate and first professional programs (including doctoral and educational specialist), the institutions are ranked as follows: Number of Programs All Graduate & Overall Doctoral First Prof. AU - 319 UA-65 UA-214 UA-318 AU-51 AU -196 UAB-148 UAB-30 UAB- 80 TSU-124 UAH-10 A & M- 53 A&M-109 USA- 4 USA- 35 TSUM -102 A & M- 3 TSUM- 33 UNA- 99 AUM- 1 JSU- 29 USA- 97 ASC- 0 ASU- 28 UM- 84 ASU- 0 UAH- 26 JSU- 82 JSU- 0 TSU- 25 ASU- 81 LU- 0 UM- 24 UAH- 73 TSU- 0 UNA- 20 LU- 65 TSUD- 0 LU- 19 TSUD- 56 TSUM- 0 AUM- 17 AUM- 44 UM- 0 TSUD- 16 ASC- 33 UNA- 0 ASC- 0 95 STX 1049. 90.If one ranks Alabama’s public senior institutions in terms of most to least overall programs in active status, doctoral programs in active status, and graduate and first professional programs (including doctoral and educational specialist) in active status, the institutions are ranked as follows: Number of Programs in Active Status M Graduate & Overall Doctoral First Prof. AU - 310 UA-58 AU -190 UA - 260 AU-49 UA-164 UAB -148 UAB-30 UAB- 80 A&M-109 UAH-10 A&M- 53 TSU- 97 USA- 4 USA- 35 USA- 95 A&M- 3 JSU- 26 UNA- 86 AUM- 1 UAH- 26 JSU- 79 ASC- 0 ASU- 25 UM- 76 ASU- 0 UM- 21 ASU- 72 JSU- 0 TSU- 20 UAH- 72 LU- 0 AUM- 17 LU- 54 TSU- 0 TSUM- 15 TSUM- 47 TSUD- 0 UNA- 12 AUM- 42 TSUM- 0 LU- 11 TSUD- 41 UM- 0 TSUD- 11 ASC- 33 UNA- 0 ASC- 0 95 STX 1049. 91.Having laid this theoretical, definitional, and limited historical foundation, the Court will discuss the various institutions. The Predicates The University of Alabama Huntsville 92. The Court’s previous findings regarding the institutional comparison between UAH and AAMU are found at Knight v. Alabama, 787 F.Supp. 1030, 1321-22, ¶¶ 1660-74 (N.D.Ala.1991). 93. The Court’s previous findings comparing the education and business programs at the UAH and AAMU are found at Knight, 787 F.Supp. at 1322-28, ¶¶ 1675-1736. 94. The Court previously found that UAH and AAMU were substantially different from both an institutional and a programmatic perspective. Knight, 787 F.Supp. at 1321-1376, ¶¶ 1660-1736. 95. These findings remain correct in light of the evidence presented during the rehearing. Siskin (2/13/95) 43, 75-78; Billings (2/13/95) 39; Ellis (2/14/95); Henson (3/6/95) 14-15; 95 UASX 237, tbl. ACT 3; 95 UASX 237, tbl. ACT 14-19; 95 UASX 237, tbl. ACT 30; 95 UASX 237, tbl. ACT 31. Additional Findings UAH’s Financial Situation 96. UAH, because of its science and engineering focus, has a high cost educational mission. Wharton (4/2/91) 30. 97. The state appropriations are significantly less than what UAH requires to carry out its mission; UAH, therefore, must depend on tuition and fees. Franz (3/13/95) 21-23; 95 UASX 1164. UAH’s tuition and fees are currently the highest of any Alabama public institution. 95 STX 1006, p. 84. 98. UAH attracts substantial sponsored research money; however, such funds are restricted by the sponsoring agency. Wharton (4/2/91) pp. 91-92. 99. UAH, itself, has supplied over half its capital funds, through institutional funds and institutional borrowing; the state and the federal government each provided roughly a quarter. Quick (3/20/91) 31; 90 UASX 1511; Franz (3/13/95) 27. 100. UAH’s debt service requirements went from $848,108 prior to 1990, to $2,400,-000 in 1991, to $5,707,451 in 1994. 95 UASX 1155; Quick (3/20/91) 21; 90 UASX 947, pp. 16-17. By many measures UAH is a very highly leveraged institution. Franz (3/13/95) 28-31; 95 UASX 1119; 95 UASX 1164, pp. 2-3; Quick (3/20/91) 21. 101. UAH services its debt through tuition and fees, and contract payments by facility users. State appropriations, by law, may neither be pledged nor expended for bond debt service. Franz (3/13/95) 31-32, 34-35; 95 UASX 1155. 102. UAH’s ability to meet its heavy debt service requirements is significantly tied to enrollment. The institution is therefore financially vulnerable to instability or shifts in enrollment. UAH made long-term financial commitments for the purpose of developing facilities needed for its instructional and research programs, premised upon maintaining reasonable stability in student enrollment over time. Franz (3/13/95) 36-37; Quick (3/20/91) 22. Business Program Accreditation Generally 103. The American Association of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) is a not-for-profit organization devoted to the promotion and improvement of higher education programs in business administration. AACSB is the premier accreditation agency for business programs, at all levels, in American higher education. Begun in 1916, AACSB has historically been associated with institutions having business programs with a strong research orientation, often at doctoral institutions. AACSB accreditation is very prescriptive, and both difficult and time consuming to achieve. Less than 25% of institutions offering such programs in the United States have qualified for accreditation. Nance (2/6/95) 38-39; 95 AUX 713; Billings (2/13/95) 5-6. 104. There are only seven AACSB accredited business programs in Alabama. Only about 300 of some 1,400 business programs nationally are AACSB accredited. Nance (2/6/95) 37-38; 95 AUX 713. 105. AACSB accreditation pays important dividends to the institution and its students. Accreditation helps assure students and their parents of the program’s high quality; gives the graduate an edge in the job market; helps the institution attract and retain high quality faculty; helps the faculty achieve more recognition nationally; gives the faculty greater credibility in seeking private support and federal contracts and grants; and generally brings more prestige and respect to the institution. Billings (2/13/95) 80-81, 84. 106. Once a faculty with the appropriate credentials for national accreditation has been achieved, it must be maintained, because the program must be periodically re-accredited by AACSB. Billings (2/13/95) 9-10. 107. The other accrediting agency for business programs is the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP). ACBSP, which was founded about 1988, primarily emphasizes excellence in teaching, and focuses less on research than AACSB. ACBSP is normally found in baccalaureate and associate degree programs. Nance (2/6/95) 38-39. 108. The two business program accrediting agencies are complementary. The ACBSP accreditation emphasizes teaching, while AACSB orients toward larger programs or those that emphasize research and publications as well as teaching. Steptoe (3/7/95) 107. UAH’s Business Program 109. UAH’s baccalaureate and masters programs in the College of Administrative Science were accredited by the AACSB in 1994. Billings (2/13/95) 5; 95 UASX 1108, p. 1. 110. UAH achieved AACSB accreditation after at least thirteen years of concerted effort. Programs in business had been offered at UAH for over thirty years prior to UAH officials deciding that the University was in a position to seek such accreditation. Billings (2/13/95) 4-5, 57, 82; 95 UASX 1108 pp. 1-3. 111. UAH faced significant challenges in qualifying its business and management programs for AACSB accreditation, such as reshaping its faculty and academic culture, primarily by developing a stronger research orientation and moving from a “time in grade” system of evaluation to a meritocracy. Billings (2/13/95) 6-10,11. Meeting the challenge required painful personnel decisions regarding reappointment, promotion, and tenure, and required political support from the administration. Billings (2/13/95) 6-10, 11; see also Nance (2/6/95) 39-40. 112. UAH’s College of Administrative Science received no special funding from the University for the purpose of enhancing its programs to meet AACSB accreditation standards. A building to house Administrative Science programs, completed in 1990, was financed by means of a bond issue; the debt is serviced from student tuition revenues. Billings (2/13/95) 11; Quick (3/20/91) 8-9; 90 UASX 950. UAH’s Education Program 113. The Court’s previous findings regarding UAH’s teacher education program are found at Knight, 787 F.Supp. at 1322-24, ¶¶ 1675-93. 114. The teacher education and certification program at UAH remains a strong, but narrowly focused and very small, one. Ellis (2/14/95), in passim. 115. The UAH education program participates in various institutes, consortiums and other programs, combining teacher education with UAH’s strength in science, and make an important contribution to teacher training in Alabama. Ellis (2/14/95) 16-24. Findings Regarding Nursing at UAH 116. UAH offers nursing programs at the baccalaureate and masters levels. The undergraduate program is approved by the Alabama Board of Nursing, a state regulatory body which must approve programs leading to initial licensure. Both the baccalaureate and the master’s programs are accredited by the National League for Nursing. Raines (2/13/95) 3, 6; 95 UASX 742, p. 224; 95 UASX 1135; 95 UASX 1137; 95 UASX 1136. 117. The curriculum at the master’s degree level specializes in the role of the family nurse practitioner in primary health care settings. The family nurse practitioner option has been expanded to include adult acute care. Raines, (2/13/95) 4-5; 95 UASX 1133, pp. 150-152. 118. UAH has been training students in nursing for over 20 years. 95 UASX 1113, p. 3. When the UAH Nursing program began, AAMU’s then President wrote a letter expressing the support of his institution for such a program at UAH. 95 UASX 1116. Impracticability and Educational Unsoundness of Diminishing UAH’s Programs 119. As the Court noted above, UAH is in a tight financial situation. Business 120. Business/management disciplines account for nearly one out of every four undergraduate and graduate degrees awarded by institutions of higher education in the country. Billings (2/13/95) 31-32; Owens (7/30/85) pp. 6656-57; Owens (3/26/91) p. 48. 121. At UAH, business and management degrees on the undergraduate level have constituted 23-29% of all undergraduate degrees awarded since 1990. On the graduate level, the masters of science in management (MSM) has contributed about 14% of all masters degrees awarded since 1990. On both levels, these percentages have declined a bit in recent years. Billings (2/13/95) 32. 122. Students in the undergraduate business programs at UAH provide enrollment for, and generate credit hours in, courses outside the College of Administrative Science. Students take forty-one percent of required courses outside the College; almost all of such courses are prescribed and are in the Colleges of Liberal Arts and Science. An additional 5% of course work may be taken in the latter colleges as free electives. Bhlings (2/13/95) 33; 95 UASX 742, pp. 83-86. 123. Enrollments in the College of Administrative Science provide UAH with over $1.53 million in tuition and fees each year, about 11% of all tuition and fee revenue. 95 UASX 1158. 124. Approximately 13% of the enrollment in the College of Administrative Science are black students. At the undergraduate level, black students make up 14% of the enrollment. This compares with an black enrollment of about 8% overaU for UAH. Nineteen percent of all black students at UAH. are in the Cohege of Administrative Science. The College is a major contributor to the presence of black students at UAH. Billings (2/13/95) 35. 125. The largest undergraduate major in the College of Administrative Science is accounting, which has more than twice as many students as the next largest major, management information systems. On the undergraduate level, over one out of every three students enrolled in the College and over one out of every three degrees awarded is in accounting. Billings (2/13/95) 27-28; 95 UASX 1131, pp. 1-2. 126. The Court finds that it is not educationally sound or practicable to transfer business programs from UAH to AAMU. See, infra, ¶¶ 311-316. 127. The Court finds that it is not educationally sound to prevent UAH, which currently offers undergraduate accounting programs, from offering a master’s, because such a preclusion would decimate the undergraduate program. Blow (2/8/95) 39; Billings (2/13/95) 47. 128. The Court finds, in light of the investment made by UAH for accreditation, and the importance of UAH’s business and accounting programs, it is neither educationally sound nor practicable to prevent UAH from offering a Master’s in Accountancy. The Court also finds that decimation of UAH’s business programs would significantly diminish UAH’s black enrollment. 129. UAH and AAMU are currently working toward a cooperative master’s in business wherein students are required to take a quarter of the required courses at the other institution. Billings (2/13/95) 45-49. 130. As noted below, AAMU intends to seek AACSB accreditation. UAH and AAMU should implement the cooperative program, and, in order to minimize the financial burden, seek approval from AACSB for such