© This work is the property of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. It may be used freely by individuals for research, teaching and personal use as long as this statement of availability is included in the text.
MP3 file derived from WAV preservation master, which was derived from original analog cassettes.
The electronic edition is a part of the UNC-Chapel Hill digital library, Documenting the American South.
An audio file with the interview complements this electronic edition.
The text has been entered using double-keying and verified against the original.
The text has been encoded using the recommendations for Level 4 of the TEI in Libraries Guidelines.
Original grammar and spelling have been preserved.
All quotation marks, em dashes and ampersand have been transcribed as entity references.
All double right and left quotation marks are encoded as "
All em dashes are encoded as —
Transcript on deposit at The Southern Historical Collection, The Louis Round Wilson Library
Citation of this interview should be as follows:
“Interview L-0127, in
the Southern Oral History Program Collection #4007,
Southern Historical
Collection, The Wilson Library,
University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill”
Julius Chambers discusses his involvement with the University of North Carolina's Board of Governors from 1972 to 1977 as a representative of his alma mater, North Carolina Central University. He explains that smaller North Carolina colleges and universities and traditionally underrepresented groups found a voice in post-secondary school decisions during this period. During this period, the Department of Health, Welfare, and Education (HEW) established a set of criteria for the desegregation of higher education institutions. While he felt the North Carolina college system had not complied with the court order to eliminate the inequalities of segregated schools, other Board officials believed UNC had done enough and wanted the federal government to disengage itself from North Carolina affairs. Although university president William Friday also argued that the state's higher education system complied with the desegregation orders, Chambers favorably assesses Friday's leadership as UNC President and Board of Governors member. He contends that Friday built a consensus among Board members on a middle-of-the road political position. Nonetheless, because North Carolina delayed making meaningful changes in the desegregation of its post-secondary schools, HEW filed a desegregation lawsuit against UNC. The later reluctance of the Nixon and Ford administrations to support school desegregation and the endorsement of the Carter administration furthered the Office of Civil Rights' resolve to enforce the desegregation of North Carolina post-secondary schools. Chambers blames the retreat from desegregation initiatives on a conservative resurgence and on North Carolina's desire to end the ongoing debate on race in higher education.
Julius Chambers served on the UNC Board of Governors from 1972 to 1977. He recalls the tensions between the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare's federal objectives and the University of North Carolina Board officials' control over the desegregation process at post-secondary educational institutions.
[START OF TAPE 1, SIDE A]
I guess I'd like to start just by asking you to tell me any general perceptions you have about Bill Friday? How he operates? What his mode of operation is?
Well, I thought Bill Friday was one of the most impressive educational leaders we've had in a long time. And I think that's national, as well as in the state. He was a genius in terms of bringing people together to build a type of consensus for programs or objectives that he was trying to achieve. He believed in notices and communication, and I think he had an interest in education. But I really looked at him more as a type of political leader for the state who was able to work for the University in bringing in the resources that were needed to promote an educational program. And he relied on educators to develop the type of education that was needed for the state. To me, he was extremely impressive. He was able to cross racial, gender, lines. And while he left some enemies in the wake, he was able to build enough of a consensus to advance objectives that I think he believed were important.
He doesn't seemed to have left too many enemies? It's kind of hard to find somebody who—
Well, I think that they're some. And I don't think anybody should expect to be able to live in this country and to make some contributions and not produce some enemies in the way. There are some people who I know who thought he was overly assertive. Who thought that—who would say that they thought he was devious, in some sense. But, on the whole, when one steps back and looks at what he was doing and what he had to do, to me, he was extremely impressive. And he's certainly not one of—not someone that I consider to be an enemy. And I'm not one of his enemies; I'm one of his admirers.
You were on the Board of Governors? Is that right?
Yes.
In the 1970s?
Yeah, in the seventies. I think from around '72, or something like that, through around '76.
So it would have been the Board of Governors, as it was in existence, following the reorganization of the early 1970s?
Right.
Were there rough edges to that reorganization, from the point of view of the Board of Governors, being on the Board of Governors? Did you see much in the way of changes that had to be effected in order to make the system work?
Yeah. There were a lot of changes that had to take place. I think the
Board of Governors replaced the State Board of higher ed. And the Board
of Governors came in with authority to direct a lot of things that the
State Board only had authority to do—to try to influence the proposed
policies and then programs. The Board of Governors came in as the
governing agency for higher ed across the state. And this meant bringing
together, not only the then three major entities of the University
system, Chapel Hill, Greensboro, and Raleigh, but also the five-year
colleges, and the four-year colleges, and the traditionally black
institutions. This was a major undertaking. Additionally, the Board
ended up with authority over some private schools in terms of the types
of degrees, etcetera, that they could grant. And there was, during that
period, some monies that were being appropriated by the state, to
support some of the programs at private institutions. So it was a rather
all-encompassing board that required some major changes
The old Board of Trustees that used to govern the three—three-member Consolidated University of North Carolina, then the six-member Consolidated University that included Charlotte, and Asheville, and Wilmington. From my point of view, that old Board of Trustees seemed to have been a smaller group of people that seemed to represent—the Executive Committee seemed to run things. And the same people seemed to be on the Executive Committee. I'm wondering, the Board of Governors—is it correct to say that the Board of Governors opened things up a little bit? Was there greater representation? Greater —
Well, it opened things up a little bit in the sense that it brought onto
the board a number of people who were previously on some of these local
boards. It brought—or it opened opportunities for folk to get on the
Board of Governors who never would have gotten on some of these local
institutional boards. Because the major educations in the state were
really almost seats that you passed down, with some heritage or
something. And you inherited a seat. You know, you had to be the
governor, or head of Wachovia, or NCNB, or whatever, to get on. And they
had no
Tell me about the origins of the desegregation case against the University of North Carolina. There's a lot of history behind all of it, as there is any form of desegregation or segregation.
Well, I guess one has to think back to the 1950s, or even earlier, if
you want to, when efforts were made by individual blacks to gain
admission to the University. And they were initially rejected and later
ordered to —the University was later ordered to admit these candidates.
And we had a few blacks admitted to Chapel Hill and all over the state,
in Greensboro, but the numbers were extremely smaller. And we had six
traditionally black institutions that were about 100 percent black.
Maybe ninety-nine point nine percent. We had real problems in terms of
the financial support from the state for these institutions. And we had
really the clear remnants of the past segregation by the state and
higher ed, despite the admission of a few blacks to Chapel Hill, or
Greensboro, or Raleigh. And that was
Was there—I gather there was a spectrum of opinion on the Board of Governors about this issue. Some people who wanted to do nothing. Some people who wanted to do a little. Some people who wanted to do more. Some people who wanted to do a lot. Is that a —
Yeah.
. . .and coalition building. And I guess then Friday had to build a—or Friday did build a consensus which was somewhere along the middle, or somewhere right in the middle, perhaps?
Uh. Where would you put it? Maybe right in the middle. Or somewhere
between the middle and right on the middle. It wasn't the extreme
position that some people advocated, telling the government to go to
hell. It was more, "Here, look, we are proposing to do A, B, C, or D."
"We got like an
So that was built in the structure, in a sense, and went back, as you suggested earlier, to the—do you think there was a line of continuity between the rather open resistance to desegregation in the 1950s, even to token desegregation, from that point, to, among some people, continued resistance in the seventies?
Oh yeah, yeah. In fact I don't even think that North Carolina would have
moved any further in terms of bringing more minorities into the
university system but for the pressure, you see, from the Federal
government. One sees that even now, in terms of what the University has
done under this
The various HEW plans that emerged in the mid and late 1970s, from the
point of view of UNC administrators, were criticized because they
threatened—or this was the argument that was made—that they threatened
the academic integrity of the University of North Carolina. That is,
actual program changes—program decisions should be left to the
University. I guess the classic case, one of the classic cases, would be
some of the proposals that emerged with regard to Central and Chapel
Hill, shifting departments, and so on. What was the Legal Defense Fund's
position toward that? Was this something that was done on the part of
the HEW,
I think that one of the concerns that the Fund had was the duplication
of programs, which perpetuated desegregation. The lack of enhancement of
the traditionally black institutions and then the lack of a definition
of a program for the traditionally black institutions that would promote
integration and help with the elimination of the segregation of the
past. The administration argued, that is, the state, that the types of
criteria or programs being advanced would improperly invade the province
of the University to decide on higher education issues. And I think the
administration continues to argue that. But if one is breaking up a
system, like that we were addressing, we felt that it was important and,
in fact, insist on programs that would lead to that type of
"integration" of higher ed. And one could argue that this invaded,
somewhat, the authority of the institution. But, hell, if you're
ordering desegregation of the schools, that is going to invade province
of some people that make some decisions anyway. You have to. There's no
way to really achieve a truly integrated system of higher ed without
directing that state, and other states, to make modifications in the
existing programs. But the University administration did argue that this
invaded
How did your communications with Bill Friday go during this period of rather sharp disagreement about the future of the University? Did you find communication open? Was it —
Oh sure, we could talk. We met. We talked in board meetings, and outside
of board meetings. And, again, I never considered Friday to be operating
with any lack of integrity. I thought he had a position. I thought he
felt it was necessary for the University, politically, and otherwise, to
advance a more limited position than what we ever gave. We felt, on the
other hand, that it was, for blacks in North Carolina, that was
extremely important for us to advance a much more active role on the
part of the University, than what the University administration was
suggesting. I had gone to a traditionally black institution in the
state, and I knew what resources that institution had, and what the
limited resources it still has. I knew about the faculty at
traditionally black institutions, and I can make comparisons. I had gone
on to Chapel Hill, as well, for law school. And then from the vantage
point of the board, I talked with a number of administrators at the
other institutions in
What was the position of the traditionally black institutions toward the question of desegregation? Did you get—in a certain sense, strong programmatic changes could be interpreted as threatening the integrity of traditionally black institutions, or so the argument has gone. I've heard that before. I'm wondering what your perspective is on that?
Well, I think there was sort of a problem in the leadership of
traditionally black institutions. One was: With the restructuring, they
were under Bill Friday, and the Board of Governors, and one does only so
much when one's job is at risk. I think that most of the chancellors of
the traditionally black institutions really wanted better programs. And
really wanted more funding. And they really wanted the development of
library resources, among other things.
[END OF TAPE 1, SIDE A]
[START OF TAPE 1, SIDE B]
That would be consistent with the whole position of the NAACP, the Legal Defense Fund, that true desegregation needed to redefine the role of traditionally black institutions in such a way as to redefine their mission.
Well—I guess one might say that in general sense— I think when we
thought—and still do—that the existing institutions in the state should
be given a definite role in the higher education system that would allow
them to attract students of all races, faculty members of all races. And
that those institutions become significant parts of the higher education
system. That would obviously require some redefining of the role that
these institutions had played. And it would affect the racial
composition of student bodies and faculties, but that is moving those
institutions toward a type of integrated system that would allow them to
be effective and would open up
As you mentioned, I guess, the chancellors at the traditionally black institutions were in a somewhat difficult position—they had several constituencies they had to satisfy, existed in a fairly centralized system in which they were directly accountable to General Administration. At the same time, I know—I live in Greensboro—I know how central A&T is in the black community in Greensboro. And how strong a sense that institution has of what it is and what it has been in its history. So maybe the messages coming out from the chancellors might have been mixed sometimes? Is that what you're suggesting? Would they say things, perhaps, privately that they wouldn't say publicly?
I'm sure that happened. I think—you said the messages were mixed—I think
one has to figure out what forum one is talking about. If one is talking
about a message to the Board of Governors, obviously whatever the
chancellor proposed would have to go through central administration. And
nothing came there without the approval of central administration. What
went to the public, the broader public, would depend on what central
administration would approve.
I guess the reason I keep asking and that I keep harping, not really harping, but talking about this question, is that when I talk to people, either on the Board of Governors, or with the administration, one of the things that they say is that the black institutions weren't enthusiastic about desegregation in the form that it was proposed in the mid-and late 1970s. And I suppose your answer is that they were being told what they wanted to hear?
Well, that's one thing. But then there are some blacks who do argue
about integration isn't the best thing we could do. I hear that, and I
believe there are a lot of blacks who advocate are as sincere as whites
who advocate that there ought not be integration. On the other hand, I
think there are a number of blacks who look at what happens long range.
The type of funding that you will have. The resources to provide the
kind of education or programs that minorities are going to need. A whole
look at what happens, long range, with an institution when it's deprived
of equal funding, of the funding necessary to make it a viable
institution. And who believe that the integration offers the preferable
means for ensuring that minorities are a significant part of higher
education. So that that difference is there, just like it is in the
white community or any other community.
Why was it that North Carolina became sort of a lead case in higher education desegregation—that attracted the most attention? Did the Adams case apply to the whole North Carolina
Yeah. But I don't think North Carolina became "The lead Case." I think
there were several, for example—we had a separate law suit in Tennessee.
Tennessee was taken out of the higher ed. And there was separate law
suits in Alabama, Louisiana, and eventually Mississippi. I think
Virginia received as much prominence, nationally, as North Carolina.
South Carolina proceeded to work out some resolution of the problem, to
give South Carolina State some kind of role that satisfied South
Carolina State. In short, North Carolina was prominent, but I don't
think it was the most prominent, nor that it was singled out as the
state to focus attention on. In fact, I think most people assumed that
North Carolina, with its liberal image, would be more inclined to try to
resolve this
I guess that Joseph Califano is attributed to have said that if HEW could win in North Carolina, or I don't know if break North Carolina is the term, but win in North Carolina, he could win the whole region. And whether that's apocryphal or not—it probably is. But there was a perception in North Carolina, I think, in the University, that it was being made —
Singled out as the example. I'd never —
That wasn't the case, in fact.
I'd never heard that, I'd never heard that. And knowing the way the issues were approached, generally, I mean, with the Adams case—I never saw that. I'm trying to think about the Department of Education proceeding with hearings. And who was first, or whatever. I know North Carolina was involved in some administrative gearings. I'm thinking, though, that some other states were also. And whether or not Califano said what's been suggested, I don't know, but looking at what actually happened, I don't see that example as true.
How do you think North Carolina compared with other states, with what happened in North Carolina? In terms of the objective of desegregation, do you think it proceeded—well, did the process of desegregation proceed more contentiously there, or —
Contentiously in North Carolina?
Yeah. Was there more conflict or less conflict?
Nope. I think that people in higher ed have been as contentious, as much
opposed to moves that would improve minority participation as North
Carolina. I'm just thinking that Tennessee was very contentious and has
remained so. Florida was very contentious. And a lot of problems are
still there. Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Missouri —just to name a
few—and even Pennsylvania has remained—and Maryland. Maryland was able
to move towards some kind of resolution of some of these, in the early
stages, but it still has its problem. Tennessee—well, I mentioned
Tennessee. Georgia still has problems going on. The one thing in Georgia
that eased some of that was that Georgia brought a black in as chair of
the Regency Board. That helped in some sense. Florida did
How did you find the attitude of HEW? Particularly during, let's say, the Nixon and Carter administrations? The Office for Civil Rights, I suppose, would have been the most important agencies that would have been under HEW. Is there a group of people more sympathetic during the Carter years in those agencies? Were they —
I think one could argue that. Let's see, we had under Nixon—first of
all, we started the law suit because Nixon said they weren't going to
enforce Title VI. And I think that attitude prevailed throughout that
term. And then we had Carter. He brought in some people who showed more
sympathy for claims by minorities, that they were entitled to better
opportunities in higher ed. We had the—Mary Frances Berry initially was
the Commissioner of Education. And then we had some people in OCR who
were trying to do
What is your perception of the consent decree that happened in North Carolina in 1981? It became very quickly, six months after the inauguration of Ronald Reagan.
It was the complete abandonment of any meaningful effort to eliminate
the vestiges of the past
The consent decree was part of the Reagan administration's attempt to close down all the structure of Federal involvement in desegregation?
I think they want to put it that way. I think it was more of a political
payoff, at least the immediate
So you think there were political elements to it, too?
No doubt about it. No doubt about it. And there's no doubt about i—went
from our Senator to the Administration, to the Department of Justice,
French Smith, to the-then Assistant Attorney General in
Did the state get special treatment with regard to this case?
Special treatment as compared with other states, yes, more special. I don't really recall a special treatment. I think the Federal government moved more quickly to deal with the issue of North Carolina than they did with others. But what's happened since is about the same thing that happened with North Carolina. The government just proceeded to dismiss the claims about every state that way.
In a similar way. Just a little faster for North Carolina. How would you sum up how you think Bill Friday operated in all of this? That he perceived what the consensus of the board was, perhaps, and acted on that, that he was a general admirable person who was on the wrong side of this issue, from your point of view?
Well, I think from his long experience with the state that he felt that
the state would accept so much, and I don't know if one would say that
what finally came out was actually personal commitment on his part.
Maybe so. Maybe he felt that way. I don't know. And—but again, maybe he
believed that, as some people did back in 1955, that the state wasn't
ready to really integrate higher ed. Whether he would take a different
position today, I don't know. Did he proceed admirably? I think he
proceeded astutely. I think that he saw a way, even in 1981, of
resolving an issue that kept the debate going in education in North
Carolina and was able to carry a board along with him and to carry the
state along with him. Whose benefited? It's something that's going to
have to be answered in the long run. What I see what happening now is a
decreasing participation of minorities in higher ed. I see an increasing
need for people trained—all people trained, to do what's going to be
needed in the state. And I see us failing in that effort. It bothers me
when I see so few blacks continuing in higher ed—so few blacks
graduating with degrees. So few black professionals coming out now. And
so few blacks there for possible teaching positions, not only in the
university, but in the elementary group. And secondary schools, too. And
I fear that that's going
END OF INTERVIEW