ustxtxb_obs_1981_07_10_50_00006-00000_000.pdf

expected to be worth between $3.25 and $4.8 billion. From 1981 through 1990 the AUF will yield from $1.6 to $1.9 billion. Still, it has been politically unkosher to even whisper PUF-busting. UT and A&M graduates fill the Texas legislature like their alumni fill the stadiums at football games, loyally remembering where they went to school and loudly letting everyone else around know about it. In the private sector UT and A&M exes remain among the most powerful and influential Texans. However, this spring a few legislators, in voce sotto, seriously discussed the total split of PUF. Carrying his white poster boards loaded with Coordinating Board statistics, Peveto advocated it. Sen. Ray Farabee of Wichita Falls, chairperson of the Senate finance committee, suggested, “With the deregulation of the price of oil and gas, there is enough money to insure adequate funding for UT and Texas A&M and the various branches and also address the construction needs of Texas Tech, of Midwestern, of North Texas State . … and the other non-PUF schools.” And Comptroller Bob Bullock argued in the JuneJuly Texas Techsan, “It’s time the PUF is split up. I know that [the UT] people don’t like to hear that.” UT and A&M officials have shrewdly agreed to disburse PUF to all their system schools. A system-wide expansion would provide that Arlington, Dallas, El Paso, Odessa, Tyler, Galveston, Houston, and other cities with a UT or A&M branch would become part of a statewide, legislative protectorate for PUF. A total PUF split would be politically difficult if not impossible. And Prairie View? When PUF was endowed, it was to be used by three universitites, UT, A&M, and a “College or Branch University for Colored Youth.” Established in 1876, Prairie View A&M is the second oldest public university in the state and the first university for “colored youth.” Until 1882, when the Comptroller ceased allocating AUF funds to Prairie View, the university received a set sum from PUF proceeds. Because of this precedent Prairie View officials argue their university is actually the school for “colored youth” provided for in the constitution and should receive PUF monies. “The reason Prairie View is small is because it was robbed of its birthright. It was born in inequity,” Rep. Craig Washington of Houston, a Prairie View graduate, argued in House floor debate, “Prairie View ought not to have to come to the legislature on bended knees every two years to get what it was endowed in 1876.” 6 July 10, 1981 With the support of Texas Southern officials, Delco authored HB 141, which made Prairie View a primary recipient of PUF. Her bill breezed through the House but, as Hobby explained, never got as far as counting votes on the Senate floor. Delco complained that senators never had to publicly disregard \(or hon5,000 people who converged on the Capitol on “Support Black College Day.” “Wilhelmina is convinced that Prairie View is the branch designated as the one for ‘colored youth.’ Our research indicates that that is not true,” explains Sen. Kent Caperton of Bryan, who has both Texas A&M and Prairie View in his district. Caperton and A&M officials argue that since the constitution says a vote of the people will be taken to locate the “colored” university and since the site of Prairie View was not chosen by vote, Prairie View is not the constitutionallydesignated PUF university. Admitting a history of discrimination, Caperton points to recent increases in expenditures for Prairie View and suggests that Texas A&M regents now treat the traditionally black university as part of its system, rather than as an unwanted stepchild. But Caperton disagrees that Prairie View should be guaranteed one-sixth of PUF, which is what Delco and Washington are demanding. Unwilling to rely on a good-faith agreement from A&M regents, Delco threatens, “If we can’t get it [Prairie View A&M] addressed, then we won’t get funding [for other universities].” Only 50 votes are needed to stop a construction fund proposal in the House. What is the extent of the valid need for new college construction? Established in 1965 to manage the burgeoning college and university systems in Texas, the Coordinating Board \(18 tial job, yet little actual power. In April, 1980, the board advocated “better use of existing campus facilities. Adding to the public burden by constructing more buildings should be the last rather than the first option. . . .” Again, in its 1980 annual report, after predicting a 7% enrollment increase, the board reemphasized its misgivings about major new expenditures for construction. Citing a pace usage rate of only 23 hours a week, 15 below the suggested level, the board urged more efficient use of existing facilities. Through 1990 the Coordinating Board estimates new construction as well as repair and rehabilitation at state universitites will cost $1.63 billion. \(Using Coordinating Board calculations, this bill needed through 1990: $1.63 billion. AUF funds through 1990: $1.6 billion. Eyes shift toward that pot of black gold, looking lustfully and longingly: PUF-busting seems a solution. Yet, PUF exists not just for construction; using it for statewide construction would leave none for “academic excellence.” Black and White In the fall of 1980, blacks were less than 1% of the 33,370 students at Texas A&M, 2.41% of the 46,148 at UT-Austin, 9.23% of the 26,676 at the University of Houston, and 1.85% of the 23,034 at Texas Tech. At the same time, 4.57% of the 5,511 students at Prairie View were white, and less than 1% of the 8,015 students at Texas Southern were white. In April, 1981, of the 135 members of the governing boards of public senior colleges and universities, ten were black From 1958 through 1978, Prairie View A&M received $8.2 million from PUF compared to $54.8 million for Texas A&M. From 1947 through 1978, the legislature appropriated $1.3 million to Texas Southern, yet from 1963 through 1978, the University of Houston received $141.5 million. Thus, the Department of Education investigated the Texas higher education system for civil rights violations. On Jan. 14, 1981, Atty. Gen. White, after hiring a law firm for Texas and wheeling and dealing with federal officials, wrote to Asst. Sec. Brown, “although vestiges of Texas’ former de jure segregation remain, higher education institutions are making progress toward full compliance,” White explained that the LRB had recommended a $20 million Education Excellence Fund for Prairie View and Texas Southern and spoke of goals to increase the percentage of blacks and Hispanics who enter traditionally white institutions, and vice versa. He concluded: “Texans are patriots who believe not only in obeying the law, but also in dealing with one another on a fair and equitable basis. It is in that spirit as Texans that we approach the problem of eliminating vestiges of our former racially dual system of public higher education.” But Brown had been in contact with other Texans who brought conflicting information. In December Delco went to Washington “to let them know there was another point of view in Texas.” Texas got special treatment a grace period of five months, until June 15, 1981 to complete its plan, but Brown wrote on Jan. 15, 1981, “we conclude that the