The existence of historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) is often neglected in current discussions of segregation in higher education, despite a rich history and body of literature on their successes and failures which are capable of informing these debates. This paper explores the rationale for racial separation in educational institutions by defining HBCUs and their missions; outlining the historical development of HBCUs; defining their populations; and addressing the differences in black student experiences between HBCUs and traditionally white institutions (TWIs). This paper concludes by drawing connections between our knowledge of HBCUs in retaining and graduating Black students, and the debates surrounding "segregated" activities and organizations at TWIs.

The title of a popular book (Tatum, 1997), this question currently manifests itself in numerous ways on American college and university campuses: Why are separate orientation sessions held at some institutions specifically for students of color? Why do some residence hall systems provide theme living arrangements such as African American, Chicano/Latino, or Asian American houses? Why is there a Black Student Union if there is no White Student Union? And why on some campuses are there entirely separate Greek letter organizations for black students?

These questions, and others like them, are those typically asked on predominantly white campuses. The underlying motivations of the questions vary. Concerns over special treatment and privileges for students of color are echoed by some who may relate these organizations with the often purported "special privileges" of affirmative action. Perhaps the single greatest motivation for asking these questions, regardless of the questioner's race or politics, is the question of segregation. In a society that has struggled so hard to overcome a history of racism and segregation, do the above-mentioned organizations and institutions support segregation, instead of work to alleviate it? Why do all the black kids sit together in the cafeteria? And why should student affairs educators encourage it, if at all?

Historically black colleges and universities are generally defined as "black academic institutions established prior to 1964 whose principal mission was, and still is, the education of black Americans" (Roebuck & Murty, 1993, p. 3). Certain institutions established after 1964, the year in which the Civil Rights Act was passed, have also been designated as HBCUs by the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education (NAFEO) (Roebuck & Murty).

The total number of HBCUs varies in the literature. Garibaldi (1991) cites 1990 NAFEO statistics stating that there are 104 HBCUs; Roebuck and Murty (1993) state that there are 109; and Wenglinsky (1996) cites 1992 research indicating that there are 105 in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Because the sources cited by each author differ, the reasons for the discrepancies in total numbers are uncertain, though they may well be simply the result of campuses opening or closing over time. Regardless of the exact number of HBCUs currently, it is clear that HBCUs constitute less than 4% of American colleges and universities (McDonough, Antonio, & Trent, 1997).

The literature is careful to point out that HBCUs are not monolithic; they are diverse in size, mission, and control (Garibaldi, 1991). Approximately 60% of HBCUs are private institutions; approximately 40% are public. Wenglinsky (1996) indicates that of the private institutions, 14 are independent and 48 are religious. Eighty-nine of all HBCUs are four-year institutions while the remaining are two-year schools. Garibaldi also notes that 16 of the public institutions are land-grant schools.

Though the missions of HBCUs may differ in detail because of their institutional diversity, some common assumptions about their goals can be made based upon the literature reviewed for this paper. Overall their collective mission has been historically, and is still primarily, "to provide African American students with a good education consistent with African American values and in a nurturing social environment" (Wenglinsky, 1996, p. 92). Willie (1994) notes that traditionally HBCUs have taught students that the purpose of education is two-fold: individual enhancement and community advancement, not one or the other but both (p. 154). Roebuck and Murty (1993) further state that "these institutions have championed the cause of equal opportunity, have provided an opportunity for many who would not otherwise have graduated from college, and have served as custodians of the archives for black Americans and as centers for the study of black culture" (p. 4). These general objectives are directly tied to the historical reasons for the original development of historically black colleges and universities.

Roebuck and Murty (1993) divide the history of historically black colleges and universities into five categories: the period preceding the Civil War; the postbellum period (1865 to about 1895); the separate, but equal period (1896 to 1953); the desegregation period (1954 to 1975), and the modern period (1975 to the present).

In the antebellum period, every southern state but Tennessee prohibited the formal instruction of blacks, whether free or enslaved. This prohibition of education caused the creation of black schools in southern churches prior to the Civil War. Because blacks were not permitted to be formally educated in the south, and because blacks were not admitted into white schools once they were permitted education, black schools provided a critical service to black American citizens from the antebellum period in the north and the south through modern times. Two of the first black colleges were established prior to the Civil War in the north by Christian missionaries who recognized the lack of educational opportunity for blacks (Fleming, 1984; Roebuck & Murty, 1993). Only 28 black individuals received baccalaureate degrees on U.S. soil prior to the Civil War.

The American Missionary Association continued the development of a formal system of schooling for blacks in the postbellum period and founded seven black colleges between 1861 and 1870. In total, more than 200 black private institutions were founded in the south as a result of the work of northern missionary groups and churches between 1865 and 1890 (Roebuck & Murty, 1993). Many were intended to train black clergy, but became teachers colleges instead due to the high demand for blacks in this profession.

The Morrill Act of 1890 significantly affected the development of public black colleges. The federal legislation required that states either admit blacks to existing institutions of higher education, or that they must create separate institutions for blacks. Fleming (1994) says "the majority of black public colleges then evolved out of state desires to avoid admitting blacks to existing white institutions" (p. 5). Indeed, it is the Morrill Act that accounts for 16 of the current HBCUs that are public land grant institutions.

In the separate but equal period, the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896 legally sanctioned the de facto unequal facilities created for blacks following the Morrill Act of 1890. Increasingly, black public institutions of higher education were funded primarily for vocational purposes though W.E.B. DuBois publicly advocated for the necessity of a liberal arts education for black citizens. The institutional emphasis on technical over liberal arts education dramatically affected the perceived purpose and necessity of black higher education in America in the following decades.

While the time preceding the desegregation period solidified the necessity of black colleges in the education of black Americans because of a lack of access to white institutions, the period of desegregation provided one of the most serious threats to the existence of HBCUs. Black students earned the right to attend white colleges as a result of the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Ten years later, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited the spending of federal monies in segregated schools and colleges, which further opened access for black students into white institutions (Roebuck & Murty, 1993, p. 39). The large numbers of black students that then turned to white institutions for post-secondary education marked a turning point for historically black colleges.

The modern period has been marked by an increased persistence of the federal government to make colleges and universities desegregated--in fact, not simply in law--through affirmative action programs. These more recent developments have had a direct effect on HBCU enrollment.

Prior to 1945, HBCUs enrolled 90% of blacks pursuing post-secondary education; currently HBCUs serve only slightly more than 18% of the approximately 1.1 million blacks enrolled in higher education (Garibaldi, 1991). Though black colleges and universities suffered declining enrollments in the early 1980s, the majority of HBCUs have seen a steady increase in enrollment figures more recently, up to 10,000 per year between 1987 and 1991 (McDonough, et. al., 1997). The 41 institutions that comprise the United Negro College Fund (UNCF) saw a 25% increase in enrollments between 1988 and 1993 (Gray, 1993). 83% of HBCU students are black; however, three HBCUs are actually predominantly white now, and 10 are at least 20% non-Black (Wenglinsky, 1996, p. 92).

While enrollments at HBCUs are improving, enrollments of blacks in post-secondary education generally are not. McDonough, Antonio, and Trent (1997) indicate that blacks represent 12.1% of the total population, but only 9.6% of the higher education population, and 10.2% of college undergraduates (p. 10). Not only are blacks underrepresented in higher education, but black enrollment appears to be declining compared to enrollment generally. While total post-secondary education enrollment has increased by 24% for the total population since 1976, black enrollment has increased a mere 0.9% (McDonough, et al.). Clearly, given these numbers, as student affairs educators we must pay particularly close attention to access and retention issues for black students.

In their respective studies, Wenglinsky (1996) and McDonough, Antonio, and Trent (1997) trace the reasons why students are likely to attend historically black institutions over traditionally white ones. McDonough, et al., in their study of black students at HBCUs and TWIs, found that the predictors of black student attendance at HBCUs included geography, the student's religion (particularly if they were Baptist), the school's social reputation, and social networks, especially relatives' desires. The predictors of black students attending TWIs, on the other hand, included being recruited as athletes, the ability to live near home, the school's academic reputation, and high school personnel recommendations.

Wenglinsky (1996) studied both black and white students and found that students, regardless of race, were more likely to choose a historically black college because they received generous financial aid, a parent had attended, the cost of living in the area was low, or because they could live far from their parents. TWI attendees chose those institutions because their friends chose to attend there, they could work while in school, they could live at home, or because they could finish the program quickly. Wenglinsky found that the choice of HBCUs were primarily financial as they tend to be more affordable than traditionally white colleges.

Regardless of the reasons black or white students choose to attend an HBCU, generally black HBCU students tend to come from lower socio-economic backgrounds and more disadvantaged educational backgrounds than their black or white counterparts at TWIs (Allen, 1987). Black first-year students, and particularly HBCU students, have lower GPAs and SAT scores than all students nationally (McDonough et al., 1997, p. 18). This is perhaps why some HBCUs specialize in remediation--to give those who might not otherwise have the opportunity the chance at a college education (Lang, 1986, p. 31).

Despite the fact that segregation has been outlawed, it continues to occur in all levels of education as demonstrated through secondary school tracking systems in which black students are disproportionately categorized as mentally retarded or intellectually inferior (Roebuck & Murty, 1993) and in post-secondary education where blacks have lower access and retention rates (Darden et al., 1992; McDonough et al., 1997). In light of this information, which colleges are better for black students--historically black or traditionally white?

Individual backgrounds, of course, must be taken into account when considering which institution is best for any given student, regardless of race. Finances, family background, program of study, previous exposure to certain cultures, academic record and personality must all be considered prior to answering that question (Allen, 1987).

Setting these individual considerations in a greater context, Walter Allen (1987) and Jacqueline Fleming (1984) review both the advantages and disadvantages of historically black and traditionally white institutions for black students. Much of the literature is summarized by Allen:

On black campuses, black students purchase psychological well-being, cultural affinity, nurturing academic relations, and happiness at the cost of limited physical facilities, fewer resources, and more restricted academic programs. On white campuses, black students purchase impressive physical plants, rich resources, and more diverse program options at the cost of social alienation, intense academic competition, racial stress, and loss of peace of mind. (p. 30)

Faculty-student interactions, leadership opportunities, community involvement, retention, and attainment aspirations are all among the outcomes cited as different for black students who attend HBCUs versus their peers at TWIs. Compared to white students at TWIs, black students average higher attrition rates, less satisfactory relationships with faculty, lower GPAs, lower enrollment in post-grad programs, greater dissatisfaction and social alienation according to Allen. Lang (1986) states that black student attrition is generally affected by four factors at TWIs: 1) poor pre-college preparation, 2) few campus role models, 3) insensitive and ill-prepared instructors, and 4) student alienation and isolation (p. 51).

Black students at HBCUs, conversely, have higher GPAs, higher attainment aspirations, and more positive psychosocial adjustments (Allen, 1987; Fleming, 1984). Fleming writes at length about the advantages of blacks attending post-secondary institutions where they can learn without the constant strain of being in the minority and combatting racial mistrust. Indeed, the presence of a supportive community--which Fleming's study defined by friendship, involvement in campus life, and the opportunity to feel progress and success in academic pursuits--is critical for student psychosocial, as well as cognitive, development (p. 151).

Not all research indicates that black student experiences at HBCUs and TWIs are so dramatically different. Wenglinsky (1996) goes to great lengths to question the validity of some of the more commonly cited research for one or more of the three following reasons: the research focused on only one educational outcome so was limited in scope; the researchers had treated as statistically significant data that was not statistically significant and had therefore overreached their data; and/or the research analyzed only black students (p. 94). Wenglinsky contends that "to answer the question of whether HBCUs are good for African American students, as opposed to all students who attend them, regardless of ethnicity, it is necessary to include white students in the sample" (p. 94). He continues, "including white students in the sample is necessary to distinguish differences attributable to attending HBCUs from differences associated with being African American" (p. 94).

Taking all of these perceived flaws in previous research into account, Wenglinsky (1996) designed a study that would overcome them. In his study of black and white students attending both HBCUs and TWIs, Wenglinsky found, contrary to much previous research, that there were no significant differences in student-student or faculty-student interaction between black HBCU and TWI students; living on campus and being younger than average seemed to have a greater influence than race (p. 97). When controlled for other factors, Wenglinsky's study indicated that black student GPAs were no different between historically black and TWIs (p. 98). Furthermore, Wenglinsky found no differences, after controlling for other factors, between leadership aspirations among blacks at HBCUs and blacks at TWIs; in general, Wenglinsky's research found, black students tend to have higher leadership aspirations on campus than their white counterparts at each institution (p. 98).

What Wenglinsky (1996) did find dramatically different between the black HBCU and the black TWI experience--consistent with all other research reviewed for this paper--is that black students who attend HBCUs are more likely to aspire to finish college, pursue professional education, and pursue more ambitious careers than their peers at TWIs (p. 101). Indeed, HBCUs produced approximately 70% of all black college graduates up to 1991 (Roebuck & Murty, 1993). Currently, they confer a disproportionate 33% of black undergraduate degrees despite the fact that they serve only about 20% of this population (McDonough, et al., 1997). Furthermore, HBCUs award close to one-half of all baccalaureate degrees received by blacks in the states where HBCUs are located (Garibaldi, 1991). HBCUs graduate the majority of black teachers, physicians and pharmacists, and in 1987 they awarded 65% of the engineering degrees awarded to blacks that year (Garibaldi).

Given this substantial ability to retain and graduate black students that are not being retained and graduated in the same proportion at white colleges, we must give careful consideration to the benefits of predominantly black environments, particularly when we recall the disproportionately worsening enrollment overall of blacks in higher education. What factors might explain the success of predominantly black environments in student persistence?

Though the factors are many, some of the strengths of same-race environments in supporting student development and in turn academic success may be explained by examining racial identity development models. William Cross' black racial identity development model outlines five stages in racial identity development: pre-encounter, encounter, immersion/emersion, internalization, and internalization-commitment (Tatum, 1997). In the pre-encounter stage, blacks identify with white culture and tend to reject or deny membership in black culture. This stage has relatively little bearing on the impact of same-race environments. Stages two through four, however, do. The encounter stage (stage two) is marked by rejection of white culture and seeking identification with black culture; in the immersion/emersion stage (stage three), blacks completely identify with black culture and denigrate white culture; stage four, internalization, is marked by the internalization of black culture and the beginning of ability to transcend racism. Each of these stages is marked by black students' choices to be in predominantly or all-black environments, while the final stage, internalization-commitment, is marked by reintegration.

Given that Cross' model of a healthy black racial identity necessitates separation from whites at some points, it seems that educators would consider segregation on some level to be advantageous to the success of black students specifically, and perhaps students of color more generally.

The question still remains, however, how can we justify segregation in a society that has struggled so hard against it? Does it not encourage balkanization and therefore worsen racial relations at a time when we so desperately need to improve them?

Perhaps the most salient angle of the segregation discussion is that of double standards: "Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?" Tatum (1997) aptly points out that it is infrequent that the question "why are all the white kids sitting together?" is asked. Similarly, in the world of higher education, a popular argument against the existence of HBCUs is that it does not prepare black students for the "real" integrated world; however, "no one ever asks the question: 'If you take a white kid who goes to an all-white college, will he be crippled in a multiracial society?'" (Gray, 1993, p. 66). Catholic, Jewish, and Mormon institutions of higher education (many, if not most, of which are predominantly white) are not often asked whether their students will be prepared to live in a world of diverse religious orientations; if the question is not asked of these institutions by opponents of HBCUs, the question should not be asked of black colleges.

Even if the question is asked of HBCUs, Fleming (1984) argues that "black colleges appear to effectively impart the orientation and skills that allow black students to function well in the larger society: aspiration, confidence, motivation, and the ability to enjoy competition in the integrated world" (p. 153). These same skills, it would seem, would be gained through race-based organizations on predominantly white campuses as well. The assumption that HBCUs encourage balkanization, then, is questionable.

Herbert Kohl (1994) further sets the context of the discussion of the validity of HBCUs, and by extension race-based organizations on predominantly white campuses, by distinguishing segregation from separation: "To be separate is not to be segregated. Segregation implies forced separation in the context of inequality; separateness is a free and conscious choice in the context of equality" (p. 93). In other words, segregation when it is a choice is vastly different from segregation where no choice is provided.

Though the literature informing our knowledge of the experiences of black students in higher education is continually developing, the documented success of HBCUs in retaining and graduating black students should be carefully considered when approaching discussions of segregation on a national level (i.e. whether or not HBCUs should exist) as well as on a campus-specific level (i.e. whether or not there should be an African American theme house). The literature demonstrates some discrepancies regarding the number of different ways in which HBCUs improve the educational experiences of black students over their TWI black peers; however, there is no question of the benefits in retention and post-secondary educational attainment for black students attending HBCUs.

Given the frequently cited socially alienating environment of predominantly white institutions for students of color, and the accompanying threat of attrition, any approaches that provide opportunities to more closely tie students of color together, and in turn further connect them to the institution, should be considered educationally responsible in TWIs. Student affairs educators should be encouraging options where "all the black kids can sit together in the cafeteria"--through such avenues as racially themed support groups and living environments--just as frequently as they encourage all students to move beyond the safety of their same racial-ethnic group. We must take the positive steps necessary to retain and graduate students of color from all kinds of institutions--historically black and traditionally white--if we are ever to achieve racial parity in this country.

Allen, W. (1987). Black colleges vs. white colleges: The fork in the road for black students. Change, 19, 28-34.

Darden, J., Bagakás, J., and Marajh, O. (1992). Historically black colleges and the dilemma of desegregation: A reassessment. Equity and Excellence, 25, 106-112.

Fleming, J. (1984). Blacks in college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Garibaldi, A. (1991). The role of historically black colleges in facilitating resilience among African-American students. Education and Urban Society, 24, 103-112.

Gray, W. H. III (1993). On the superiority of black colleges. Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 1, 60-66.

Kohl, H. (1994). On forcing the integration of black colleges. Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 5, 92-93.

Lang, M. (1986). Black student retention at black colleges and universities: Problems, issues, and alternatives. The Western Journal of Black Studies, 10, 48-54.

McDonough, P., Antonio, A.L., and Trent, J.W. (1997). Black students, black colleges: An African American college choice model. Journal for a Just and Caring Society, 3, 9-36.

Roebuck, J. and Murty, K. (1993). Historically black colleges and universities: Their place in American higher education. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Tatum, B.D. (1997). "Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?" And other conversations about race. New York: Basic Books.

Wenglinsky, H. (1996). The educational justification of historically black colleges and universities: A policy response to the U.S. Supreme Court. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18, 91-103.

Willie, C. (1994). Black colleges are not just for blacks anymore. Journal of Negro Education, 63, 153-163.

Kim Howard graduated from U.C. Berkeley in 1993 with a bachelor’s degree in Ethnic Studies. A second year HESA student, she also works full-time in the UVM Admissions Office. Her first book, Out and About Campus: Personal Accounts by Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered College Students, co-edited with Annie Stevens (‘86) will be released this spring.