Geier v. Sundquist

128 F. Supp. 2d 519, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1706, 2001 WL 135409
CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee
DecidedJanuary 4, 2001
DocketCiv.A. 5077
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 128 F. Supp. 2d 519 (Geier v. Sundquist) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Geier v. Sundquist, 128 F. Supp. 2d 519, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1706, 2001 WL 135409 (M.D. Tenn. 2001).

Opinion

CONSENT DECREE

WISEMAN, Senior District Judge.

*520 TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. INTRODUCTION .521

B. MIDDLE TENNESSEE .522

I. Tennessee State university. Cn CO CO

A. Establishment of the TSU Coordinating Committee. Üi DO CO

B. Administrative Enhancements. Oí CO CO

C. Recruitment of Other-Race and Nontraditional Students üi DO ^

D. Institutional Public Relations. Üi DO ^

E. Establishment of a College of Public Service and Urban Affairs and Program Exclusivity. Ü1 CO Ü1

F. Endowment for Educational Excellence. Ol CO OI

G. Facilities Review. Oi CO <1

H. Community Service and Outreach. Ol CO <1

I. Minimum Firsh-Time Freshman Admission Standards and Retention . Cn CO 00

J. Revitalization of the Doumtoivn Williams Campus and Outreach to Nontraditional Students. Ü1 CO O

K. Establishment of a Public Law School at TSU. Ol CO M

II. The Proposed Davidson County Community College. Ol CO CO

A. Establishment of the Proposed Community College or Technical Community College in Davidson Country. CO CO

B. Relationship Between the Proposed Community College or Technical Community College and Tennessee State University. Cn CO CO

III. Middle Tennessee State University. Cn 00 CO

IV. Relationship Between Middle Tennessee Institutions. Cn CO ^

V. New Program Development, Program Termination and Program Exclusivity in Middle Tennessee. CO to

C. STATEWIDE ISSUES. Ü1 CO Ul

I. Faculty and Administrative Hiring and Retention. Oí CO Ü1

A. UT and TBR Committees on Faculty and Administrative Hiring Ü1 CO Ol

B. Specific Actions in Addition to the Recommendations of the Committees . CD eo lO

C. Employment Search Practices Within the TBR and UT Systems Cr-CO to

II. Other-Race Undergraduate Student Recruitment and Retention Within the UT System .538

A. UT System Study of Minority Recruitment .538

B. Specific Actions in Addition to the Committee’s Recommendations.539

III.Other-Race Undergraduate Student Recruitment and Retention Within the TBR System. Ol o

A. TBR Study of Minority Recruitment. Ol >£*• o

B. Specific Actions in Addition to the Committee’s Recommendations Ol ^ CO

IV. Institutional Commitment to the Recruitment of Other-Race Students.543
V. Graduate Recruitment and Enrollment at Tennessee Technological University.543
VI. Student Retention and Persistence. 544

VII. Expanding Cooperative Extension and Agricultural Research Collaboration Between TSU and UTIA.545

A. Extension.545

B. Agricultural Research.545

*521 D.OVERSIGHT.545

I.Right to Petition the Court to Review Acts of Alleged Non-Compliance .545

II. Court-Appointed Monitor.546
III. Collection of Data and the Elimination of the DMC.546
E. MISCELLANEOUS . I.Court Jurisdiction and Term of Agreement. Or Or <1-3

II.Reaffirmation of Nondiscriminatory Identity, Practices and Procedures . üi -o

III. Existing Geier Initiatives and Scholarship Program. cr -a

IV. Adoption of Provisions from the 1984 Stipulation of Settlement __ Oí oo

V.Access to Consultants Prior to Studies Being Conducted and Oppor tunity to Comment on Any Desegregation Impact Analyses . VI. Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses . VII. Other Provisions . cr Oí Oí oooo

IT IS HEREBY AGREED TO by and among the undersigned, and subject to this Court’s approval, that the State of Tennessee Defendants (the “State”) shall implement in good faith the provisions of this Consent Decree:

A.INTRODUCTION

A. Through extended negotiations spanning almost a year and with the help of a mediator, the parties have reached accord on and have memorialized a process that wall lead to the elimination of the vestiges of Tennessee’s prior de jure system of public higher education (hereinafter the “Agreement”). This Agreement requires that the Defendants take specific steps. It also sets forth procedures for further planning, assessment, and additional actions by the Defendants. This Agreement when fully implemented will create a system of public higher education that preserves and enhances access and educational opportunity for black and white students in Tennessee’s public colleges and universities.
B. In dismantling the vestiges of the former dual system, it is the parties’ intention to create an educational system that enhances the increased enrollment of African American students at the predominantly white institutions and that likewise enhances the enrollment of white students at the State’s predominantly black institution. To achieve this goal, the parties are committed to maintaining educational institutions that are committed to desegregation and to reaching out to all residents of this State regardless of race. It is also the intention of the parties that employment and promotion decisions within the State’s system of higher education be made in an environment unfettered by the discriminatory practices of the old dual system. The goal is to increase the presence of other-race faculty, staff, and administrators on the campuses of the State’s colleges and universities.
C.The objective of this Agreement is to “eradicate policies and practices traceable to [the State’s] prior de jure system [of public higher education] that continue to foster Segregation.” United States v. Fordice, 505 U.S. 717, 728, 112 S.Ct. 2727, 120 L.Ed.2d 575 (1992). The parties are committed to reaching this objective in a timely and nondiscriminatory manner and agree that with the implementation of all the provisions of this Agreement, the desegregation of all public institutions of higher education in Tennessee will be attained, and the vestiges of segregation eliminated.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Callier v. State of Tennessee
M.D. Tennessee, 2025
Equity v. Md. Higher Educ. Comm'n
295 F. Supp. 3d 540 (D. Maryland, 2017)
Geier v. Bredesen
453 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (M.D. Tennessee, 2006)
(2005)
90 Op. Att'y Gen. 153 (Maryland Attorney General Reports, 2005)
Geier v. Sundquist
372 F.3d 784 (Sixth Circuit, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
128 F. Supp. 2d 519, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1706, 2001 WL 135409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/geier-v-sundquist-tnmd-2001.