logo
Outgoing LSU president calls for more investment in Southern University

Outgoing LSU president calls for more investment in Southern University

Yahoo6 hours ago

A. O. Williams Hall on the campus of the Southern University Agricultural Research and Extension Center in Baton Rouge. (Photo courtesy Southern University)
Outgoing LSU President William Tate, the first Black president of any SEC school, is calling for more investment in Southern University in a new paper analyzing the financial disparities between Louisiana's two land-grant universities.
The analysis was written by Tate and Keena Arbuthnot, dean of LSU's Graduate School, who is also Black, and published in the William & Mary Law Review.
'Our financial risk analysis suggests that Southern University's financial situation warrants monitoring and more importantly, investment,' the authors write.
Tate and Arbuthnot's article builds on a 2023 letter from former President Joe Biden's administration to 16 states with both predominantly white and historically Black land-grant universities, informing the states they have not lived up to their federal funding requirements and asking them to find ways to ease the disparity.
The letter to then Gov. John Bel Edwards alleged Louisiana had shortchanged Southern University $1.2 billion over 30 years.
Land grant universities were established in the 19th century by states that received federal property to create schools with a focus on teaching agriculture, science, engineering and military science. The first round of land grant universities, including LSU, were created in 1862.
States that would not admit Black students to their land grant universities were required in 1890 to set up separate schools, which in theory should have been funded at an equal level. Louisiana did not want to integrate LSU, so Southern University was designated as a land grant institution. The schools receive additional federal benefits, but states must match certain funds with state dollars — a requirement that has not always been met.
LSU's endowment at the end of the 2020-21 school year was over $700 million, while Southern's was around $12 million, a difference of more than $20,000 per student. LSU's total research expenditures in 2020-21 were around $230 million, while Southern's were just over $7 million.
Between 2018-21, six of the 19 historically Black land-grant universities have received state matching money for federal dollars, as required by federal law. One of these schools was Southern. No predominantly white land-grant university had a problem getting the matching state funds they were owed.
Tate and Arbuthnot's analysis take into account not just the requirements put to the states under the Morrill Acts, which created the land grant university system, but also the defunding of higher education during former Gov. Bobby Jindal's administration. From 2008-18, Louisiana's per student spending for higher education dropped 38%, with only Arizona having a more extreme funding reduction during that period.
'The disinvestment in higher education impacted LSU's financial health over the time horizon of our analysis, and the university experienced increased financial risk,' the two wrote. 'The financial risk status of both universities is inconsistent with the expansive opportunity agenda associated with the Morrill Acts and the hopes aligned with Brown-related litigation,' referencing the landmark Brown v. Board of Education U.S. Supreme Court decision, which desegregated public schools.
The analysis commends legislation from U.S. Rep. Cleo Fields, D-Baton Rouge, who as a state senator sponsored legislation to create an economic development district for Southern University. The authors also praised state Rep. Chris Turner, R-Ruston, who created a dedicated fund for deferred maintenance that is allowing Southern and other Louisiana schools to address their infrastructure needs.
'It is the current generation of leaders' moment to commit to a robust opportunity compact in support of 1890 institutions,' Tate and Arbuthnot conclude.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

CHUCK DEVORE: Trump moves fast to save LA from a 1992 repeat
CHUCK DEVORE: Trump moves fast to save LA from a 1992 repeat

Fox News

time33 minutes ago

  • Fox News

CHUCK DEVORE: Trump moves fast to save LA from a 1992 repeat

Los Angeles is rioting again. Mobs, amped up by professional agitators and implicit support from Democratic elected officials, have attacked federal law enforcement officers with deadly intent. This violence, which includes hurling rocks, torching cars, launching fireworks, and assaulting federal law enforcement officers, aims to prevent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) from carrying out lawful deportation efforts. Missing the irony, the rioters enthusiastically waved the flags of nations to which they are fighting against being returned. In response, federal and some local law enforcement deployed tear gas and flash bangs to disperse the crowd in the LA suburb of Paramount. But with law enforcement lives clearly threatened and the local law enforcement response less than robust, President Donald Trump ordered up 2,000 members of the National Guard to restore order. Additional active duty troops are said to be on standby. Predictably, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and LA Mayor Karen Bass clutch their pearls, whining about "cruel" immigration enforcement while the city spirals into anarchy. Newsom labeled Trump's federalization of the National Guard "purposefully inflammatory." He said it would escalate tensions—one supposes the future presidential candidate sees the ruckus as "mostly peaceful." The pro-immigration without limits group, the League of United Latin American Citizens, predictably condemned Trump's order, claiming it "marks a deeply troubling escalation in the administration's approach to immigration and civilian reaction to the use of military-style tactics." Trump isn't moved by the criticism. He doesn't want to see federal law enforcement officers killed or injured by anarchists and would-be revolutionaries for simply doing their jobs. I saw this movie before. In 1992, as a California Army National Guard captain, I patrolled LA's scorched Crenshaw District during the Rodney King riots. Looters ran wild, businesses burned, and chaos reigned until Gov. Pete Wilson called up the National Guard and President George H.W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act, sending 3,500 federal troops—active duty Army and Marines—to back 10,000 federalized Guardsmen. Order swiftly returned. It worked. There's a big difference—so far—between today's unrest and that of 1992. The Rodney King riot was initially sparked by resentment over what was seen as excessive police force. Due to LA's chronically under-staffed police department and a tactical error—pulling back law enforcement from an intersection that had been taken over by a violent mob—the riot quickly spiraled out of control. By the end, some 63 people were dead, 2,383 injured, 12,111 arrested, and more than $2.3 billion in inflation-adjusted property damage was inflicted. In comparison, the 1992 LA riot equaled all the death, injuries, arrests, and damage of the 2020 George Floyd-Antifa-BLM riots of 2020 combined. In 1992, once law and order broke down, opportunistic looting and arson quickly followed. Today's riots are fueled by open-borders radicals and their enablers, not anger over police using excessive force. ICE is enforcing federal law, rounding up illegal immigrant criminals and those with final deportation orders. And the danger, so far, is more focused on federal law enforcement officers, not private property per se. Thus, there's a subtle difference in the call-up of troops, both in the size of the deployment—13,500 in 1992 vs. 2,000 today—and in their purpose. Normally, National Guard personnel, when operating on a state mission for a governor, can enforce civilian law. The post-Civil War Posse Comitatus Act which generally prohibits the use of the military to enforce civilian laws doesn't apply. But when the Guard is federalized—that is, called up to federal service—the Posse Comitatus Act's restrictions apply to the Guard, just as they do to active-duty service members. But there's a big exception: The Insurrection Act. Through 1992, presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act 31 times. Essentially, when local law and order break down, the president is authorized to use the military to enforce civilian law. But Trump has not yet invoked the Insurrection Act. What he did instead was to call up the California National Guard and potentially some Marines to protect federal law enforcement officers. Thus, these military personnel will not be allowed to arrest agitators and rioters or conduct immigration enforcement operations, but they will be allowed to perform force protection missions and provide logistical support. Of course, if that's not enough. Trump can always invoke the Insurrection Act, federalize more National Guard soldiers—even from other states—and send in additional active-duty forces, just as Eisenhower and Kennedy did to smash segregationist resistance in the 1950s and 60s. Newsom and Bass are at fault here. Their failure is glaring. Californians have been voting with their feet for years, fleeing Newsom's wrong-headed policies. Now, his mismanagement of LA's violence will torch what is left of his presidential ambitions. These rioters aren't protesters—they're insurgents. Like Antifa in 2020, they're attacking federal authority, targeting ICE agents enforcing laws Congress passed. Newsom and Bass coddle them. Since they won't act, Trump must. The left will scream "tyranny," and some retired generals will fret about "politicizing" the military. But anarchy is a brutal tyranny of its own kind.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store