— BACK TO PREVIOUS LOCATION — Background  Case Calendar  More Options   — SIGN TULANELINK'S PETITION —

Tulane and Race Relations

". . .Tulane University would admit qualified students regardless of race or color if it were legally permissible to do so."   Tulane policy (1961) MORE ON ELLIS AND WRIGHT... __________________________ Ellis' Family History Ellis the Politician Ellis the Bureaucrat J. Skelly Wright Tulane and Desegregation Skelly Wright and New Orleans Just Another Southern Boy Links Related to Judges Ellis and Wright

Barbara Marie Guillory and Pearlie Hardin Elloie were young black women who sued Tulane in 1962 after being denied admission to the university.  They were represented by noted civil rights attorney John P. Nelson Jr.  The opinion below, written by Judge Skelly Wright, was sympathatic to the plaintiffs and mirrored the sentiments of progressive citizens of the day.  Nevertheless, Judge Wright's rulings were completely overturned as a result of Tulane's appeal, thus demonstrating the depth and durability of a Tulane tradition.  Not until a $6 million grant from the Ford Foundation was at stake would Tulane's board concede to desegregating, although on its own terms.

  [203 F.Supp. 855 (1962)]   Barbara Marie GUILLORY and Pearlie Hardin Elloie,
Plaintiffs,

v.

The ADMINISTRATORS OF the TULANE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA, and
Herbert E. Longenecker, President of Tulane University of Louisiana, and
The Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund,
Defendants   Civ. A. No. 11484-B   United States District Court E. D. Louisiana,
New Orleans Division.   March 28, 1962  

---

Action against the administrators of Tulane University of Louisiana and others wherein the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment.  The District Court, J. Skelly Wright, J., held, inter alia, that Tulane University cannot discriminate in admissions on basis of race on theory that it is a private institution and hence immune from command of Fourteenth Amendment where complete history of University indicates that it is now, as it always was, a public institution, but even if University had been transformed into a private institution as a matter of local law, the present involvement of state is sufficient to subject University to constitutional restraints on governmental action.

Motion granted.

 

J. SKELLY WRIGHT, District Judge. The Tulane University of Louisiana, which now [FN1] regards itself as a "private" institution, refused to admit qualified Negro applicants solely because of their race. A special Louisiana statute, Act 43 of 1884, LSA-R.S. Tit. 17, c. 6 note, enshrined in the state constitution, La.Const.1921, Art. 12, § 24, LSA, [FN2] apparently requires this discrimination. [FN3] But that law, and all such laws, must yield to the principle of equal treatment announced in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873. The state can no more dictate discrimination in private institutions than it can segregate its own facilities. Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 36 S.Ct. 7, 60 L.Ed. 131; Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60, 38 S.Ct. 16, 62 L.Ed. 149; Gayle v. Browder, 352 U.S. 903, 77 S.Ct. 145, 1 L.Ed.2d 114, aff'g M.D.Ala., 142 F.Supp. 707; State Athletic Commission v. Dorsey, 359 U.S. 533, 79 S.Ct. 1137, 3 L.Ed.2d 1028, aff'g E.D.La., 168 F.Supp. 149. This principle is too well settled to permit of further debate. It is foreclosed as a litigable issue. Cf. Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U.S. 31, 82 S.Ct. 549, 7 L.Ed.2d 512. [FN4] Nor do the white restrictions in some of the donations [FN5] to the University supply a constitutional basis for racial discrimination. Whatever effect they may have, [FN6] these conditions cannot affect the University's admissions policy. [FN7] Insofar as they would require exclusion of any racial group, they are judicially unenforceable. Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 68 S.Ct. 836, 92 L.Ed. 1161; Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U.S. 249, 73 S.Ct. 1031, 97 L.Ed. 1586. [FN8] Where, then, is the obstacle to the admission of these plaintiffs and others similarly situated? Having concluded that the only legal support for segregation has fallen, the court might summarily order desegregation of the institution. Cf. Gayle v. Browder, supra; Morrison v. Davis, 5 Cir., 252 F.2d 102. Especially so, in view of Tulane's official declaration that it would admit Negroes "if it were legally permissible" to do so. [FN9] But the argument is now advanced that the University, because of its private status, is immune from the command of the Fourteenth Amendment under the doctrine of the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 3 S.Ct. 18, 27 L.Ed. 835. The importance of this issue invites serious consideration. Tulane argues that, even if there is no valid state law requiring segregation, it remains free to discriminate in admissions as it chooses. That proposition, of course, supposes that the acts of the University cannot be imputed to the state, but are entirely private deeds, exempt from the Equal Protection Clause. At the outset, one may question whether any school or college can ever be so "private" as to escape the reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. In a country dedicated to the creed that education is the only "sure foundation * * * of freedom," [FN10] "without which no republic can maintain itself in strength," [FN11] institutions of learning are not things of purely private concern. The Supreme Court of the United States has noted that "in these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education." Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, supra, 347 U.S. 493, 74 S.Ct. 691, 98 L.Ed. 873. And, with less restraint, the Louisiana Supreme Court has said: "Education insures domestic tranquility, provides for the common defense, promotes the general welfare, and it secures the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Herold v. Parish Board of School Directors, 136 La. 1034, 68 So. 116, 119, L.R.A.1915D, 941. No one any longer doubts that education is a matter affected with the greatest public interest. And this is true whether it is offered by a public or private institution. Cochran v. La. State Board of Education, 281 U.S. 370, 50 S.Ct. 335, 74 L.Ed. 913; Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 7, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L.Ed. 711. Clearly, the administrators of a private college are performing a public function. They do the work of the state, often in the place of the state. [FN12] Does it not follow that they stand in the state's shoes? And, if so, are they not then agents of the state, subject to the constitutional restraints on governmental action, to the same extent as private persons who govern a company town, Marsh v. State of Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 66 S.Ct. 276, 90 L.Ed. 265, or control a political party, Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461, 73 S.Ct. 809, 97 L.Ed. 1152, or run a city street car and bus service, Public Utilities Comm. v. Pollak, 343 U.S. 451, 72 S.Ct. 813, 96 L.Ed. 1068; Boman v. Birmingham Transit Company, 5 Cir., 280 F.2d 531, or operate a train terminal, Baldwin v. Morgan, 5 Cir., 287 F.2d 750? [FN13] Reason and authority strongly suggest that the Constitution never sanctions racial discrimination in our schools and colleges, no matter how "private" they may claim to be. But the special circumstances of this case do not require us to go so far. Under the present facts, we need only apply the teaching of the cases [FN14] that private ownership or operation of a facility impressed with a public interest does not automatically insulate it from the reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. A review of its history and an analysis of its actual state connections will sufficiently disclose that Tulane University is answerable to the Constitution. Significantly, the history of Tulane begins with a wholly public college, the University of Louisiana. Organized in 1847, [FN15] that institution had developed into a respectable center of learning by 1880. [FN16] Established under constitutional mandate, [FN17] and protected by express provision in the new Louisiana Constitution, [FN18] it was a going concern, enjoying a substantial annual appropriation from the Legislature [FN19] and possessing real property of considerable value. [FN20] It was the only college or university in New Orleans when Paul Tulane established his educational foundation. In 1881, Mr. Tulane, a former resident of the city, announced his intention to donate about a million dollars for educational purposes. After much discussion and re-drafting, during which he was apparently persuaded to restrict the recipients of his bounty to "white young persons," [FN21] Paul Tulane formalized his purpose in May, 1882, in a letter to the prospective administrators of the "Fund" he was creating. Promptly, these seventeen gentlemen [FN22] formed a corporation "with a view of carrying out the wishes, intentions and suggestions of Paul Tulane, Esq." as set forth in his "letter of intent" to them, and the donations followed. [FN23] While much was left to their discretion, the administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund were directed to "establish or foster institutions of a higher grade of learning" "in the city of New Orleans." There were only two choices: start a brand new school or build up the existing University of Louisiana. The inadequacy of their funds to endow a substantial institution, the advantages of working with an operating facility, and reluctance to compete with an established university, already counselled the second course. But, whatever doubts remained, the decision to foster the state university was won when it became clear that there lay the only hope of securing full tax exemption for the Fund's property, [FN24] a matter of great importance to Mr. Tulane. It remained only to find a way to secure control of the University of Louisiana and allay Paul Tulane's fear of an institution subject to political control. A plan was devised which, in the words of the new president, offered "all the benefits of a State institution without any of the dangers." The Tulane Fund was to dedicate all its revenues to the support of the University, and the state would be relieved of its obligation to make annual appropriations. In return, the school would be re-christened "The Tulane University of Louisiana" in honor of its new benefactor, and the administrators of his Educational Fund were to obtain majority representation on the governing board of the institution, which, however, would still include three public officials, [FN25] the Governor, the State Superintendent of Education and the Mayor of New Orleans. [FN26] Finally, the Fund's property was to enjoy full exemption from taxation. This proposal was incorporated in Act 43 of 1884, and upon the Governor's approval of the measure, the new regime began. It is conceded that Act 43 did not, of itself, create a new institution, or convert the old state university into a private school. The University of Louisiana continued, operating in the same buildings, on state Iands, [FN27] enjoying the same rights and franchises. Neither the substantial private support it now received nor its new governing body changed the character of the institution as a public college. On the contrary, the property of the Tulane Fund, a private corporation, because it was dedicated to the support of a state institution, now enjoyed the tax immunity of "public property." Such was the unanimous opinion of the Louisiana Supreme Court in 1886, when it confirmed the unique exemption from taxation [FN28] and unequivocally declared Tulane University, as then existing, "a public institution." Administrators of Tulane Ed. Fund v. Board of Assessors, supra. But, if Tulane did not become private by the Act of 1884, when was the metamorphosis accomplished? We are told that adoption of the constitutional amendment of 1888, ratifying Act 43, worked the change. Certainly nothing in the wording of the amendment justifies the claim. It merely says that Act 43 is "hereby ratified and approved" and supersedes any prior inconsistent constitutional provision. La.Const.1879, Art. 269, as added in 1888. But it is argued that the Act of 1884 itself contemplates the birth of a wholly new institution by providing that the board, "besides the powers designated by this act," shall "upon the adoption of said Constitutional Amendment" have "full power * * * to create and develop a great University in the city of New Orleans * * *." La.Act 43 of 1884, § 4. See also, id., § 6. The contention is apparently that, upon the approval of the amendment in 1888, a new private school sprang into existence and all connections with the former state institution were severed. [FN29] This is patent nonsense. Tulane was no different after the electors had recorded their vote. Whatever additional powers the administrators now acquired, they did not exercise them, except by gradually adding new faculties to the three already established. And this is probably all that was intended. The explanation is given by the Tulane Board itself, speaking through its president, Charles E. Fenner, a former justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court. In 1906 he wrote: "The Constitution of 1879 contained the following provision, Article 230: "'The University of Louisiana, as at present established and located at New Orleans, is hereby recognized in its three departments, to-wit: the Law, the Medical and the Academical Departments, to be governed and controlled by appropriate faculties.' "It was in view of this restricted constitution of the University, as then organized under the statutes and recognized in the Constitution, that the Administrators were given authority and bound themselves, upon the adoption of the Act as a constitutional amendment, 'to perpetually use the powers conferred by this Act, and all power vested in them, for the purpose of creating and maintaining a great University in the City of New Orleans,' the obvious purpose being to emancipate them from all restrictions as to the existing organization of the University and the number and kinds of departments of which it should be composed, and to give them authority to transform and create the existing University into a great University having all such departments and faculties as the Administrators might see fit to establish. "This is the authority under which, since the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, the Administrators have added to then existing departments, the Woman's Department, thus utilizing the great gift of Mrs. Newcomb, and the University Department for post-graduates; but these, like all the others, are mere departments of the Tulane University of Louisiana, which is, and remains the University of Louisiana established by the State in 1847." Fenner, The Tulane University of Louisiana: An Account of a Stewardship, pp. 4, 5. No one suggests that the removal of the University from its old quarters to the uptown campus at the turn of the century effected a change. Nor can any such implication be read into Act 94 of 1890, LSA-R.S. Tit. 17, c. 6 note, which authorized the sale or lease of the old properties with a view to relocation. On the contrary, that statute, conditioning all transactions upon the Governor's approval and expressly requiring the revenues to be expended for the University, emphasizes the state's continuing interest in the institution. The fact is that as late as 1906, after the University had entirely vacated the old buildings, the Tulane Board, without dissent, so far as appears, considered their school a state institution. Judge Fenner stated the Board's position emphatically in his 1906 report: "No one can read the Constitution of the State, the Legislative Acts and the judicial decisions bearing on the subject without perceiving that the Tulane University of Louisiana is nothing more nor less than the University of Louisiana established by the State in 1847, continued under a slight change of name and under control of Administrators appointed in a different way from that formerly pursued, but deriving their authority directly from the State. "Upon what grounds it can be claimed that such an institution is not a public educational institution of the State is more than we can conceive." Fenner, op. cit. supra, pp. 1, 7. We are naturally curious to know what happened more recently to justify the claim that Tulane is no longer a state school. But nothing is pointed out. The Legislature has not acted to transform the University into a private institution. Quite the opposite. As recently as 1944, it instructed Tulane to grant its scholarships to designees of legislators "without making any distinction as to sex," [FN30] thereby, in effect, compelling the University to open its doors to female students, a directive more appropriately addressed to a public institution than one wholly independent of the state. Nor have the Louisiana courts retreated from their opinion of 1886. [FN31] The complete history of Tulane University indicates that it is now, as it always was, a public institution. But even if, by some strange alchemy, time alone has so transformed the University that it can now be said to be, as a matter of local law, a private enterprise, that does not alter the result. For, history to one side, the present involvement of the state is sufficient to subject Tulane to the constitutional restraints on governmental action. Indeed, the University still operates under a special legislative franchise; it continues to enjoy a very substantial state subsidy in the form of a unique tax exemption for commercially leased property; [FN32] it still receives considerable revenues from lands which the state has not altogether relinquished; [FN33] and three public officials remain on its governing board. [FN34] Clearly, it falls within the rule of Cooper v. Aaron, supra, 358 U.S. 19, 78 S.Ct. 1410, that "state support of segregated schools through any arrangement, management, funds, or property cannot be squared with the [Fourteenth] Amendment's command * * *." [FN35] The consequence is that Tulane University cannot discriminate in admissions on the basis of race. This case has overtones of litigation designed to rescue the University from the unfavorable position in which it now finds itself, particularly with respect to large foundations created to dispense funds to institutions of higher learning. [FN36] The statement of the Board indicating that it "would admit qualified students regardless of race or color if it were legally permissible" supports this suggestion. On all the evidence, however, this court cannot say with assurance that this suit is, in fact, a "friendly" proceeding. [FN37] This court would be reluctant to so hold. The bitter fruit of the Board's segregation policy of the past should not be visited on the young men and women of the future, of all races, who seek admission to the University. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted.

FOOTNOTES FN1.  As later noted, the administrators of Tulane did not always so maintain. See page 862, infra. FN2.  Act 43 of 1884 was expressly "ratified and approved" by a constitutional amendment approved April 17, 1888. See La.Const.1879, Art. 269, as added in 1888, LSA. Act 43 was also recognized in the intervening Louisiana Constitutions, La.Const.1898, Art. 255, LSA; La.Const.1913, Art. 256, LSA. FN3.  Act 43 does not openly restrict admission to white students. But it requires the new administrators of the University "to perpetually use the powers conferred by this act, and all power vested in them, for the purpose of creating and maintaining in the city of New Orleans a great University, devoted to the intellectual, moral and industrial education and advancement of the youth of this State, under the terms of the donation of Paul Tulane, and the previous provisions of this act." La.Act 43 of 1884, § 6 (emphasis added). And Tulane's gift was expressly limited to "white young persons." Thus, the restriction appears to have been brought in through the back door. This circumspect approach is not surprising when we remember that the Louisiana Constitution of 1868 expressly prohibited racial discrimination in education, Art. 135, and the Constitution of 1879, in effect in 1884, merely avoided the issue. FN4.  Bailey holds that no statutory court of three judges need be convened "when, as here, prior decisions make frivolous any claim that a state statute on its face is not unconstitutional." Id., at 33, 82 S.Ct. 551. The same decision also confirms this court's refusal to abstain under the circumstances. FN5.  It appears that the only gifts so restricted are those of Paul Tulane and one by Mrs. Newcomb, totalling less than $1,000,000. FN6.  Whether non-compliance with the condition would support an action for recission of the donations is a state law question which this court need not decide. FN7.  Neither the regulations of the University nor the charter of the Tulane Educational Fund seem to require exclusion of Negroes. But, whether or not the state courts ultimately determine that Tulane is bound by the restrictions in the donations it has accepted, the University cannot constitutionally be compelled to honor racially discriminatory conditions. FN8.  The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment inhibits state judicial action only. But the same restraint operates on the federal courts under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 74 S.Ct. 693, 98 L.Ed. 884. FN9.  On March 8, 1961, the president of the Board "called attention to the denials by the Foundations of [Tulane's] applications for help and stated that, in his judgment, these denials were prompted solely by [its] admissions policy." After discussion, the Board determined to "recognize that it is incumbent upon it, to the extent that it legally can, to change the admissions policy, which on a controlled basis, would permit the admission of any qualified student to attend any college of the University." At the next meeting, April 12, 1961, it was formally announced that: "The Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund met Wednesday and voted that Tulane University would admit qualified students regardless of race or color if it were legally permissible." Needless to say, the instant decision offers no justification for a policy of admitting qualified Negro applicants "on a controlled basis." The considerations justifying delay in the full implementation of desegregation orders in primary and secondary education do not apply to collegiate education, graduate, Hawkins, State of Fla. ex rel. v. Board of Control, 350 U.S. 413, 76 S.Ct. 464, 100 L.Ed. 486, or undergraduate, Lucy v. Adams, 350 U.S. 1, 76 S.Ct. 33, 100 L.Ed. 3; Board of Supervisors of La. State U., etc. v. Tureaud, 5 Cir., 225 F.2d 434, opinion reinstated, 228 F.2d 895; Ludley v. Board of Supervisors of L.S.U., E.D.La., 150 F.Supp. 900, aff"d, 5 Cir., 252 F.2d 372. FN10.  Jefferson, letter to Whythe, August 13, 1786, in I Writings (Bergh ed., 1907), p. 396. FN11.  Jefferson, letter to Governor John Tyler, May 26, 1810, in XII Writings, p. 393. The State of Louisiana was, from the first, dedicated to the same view. Her first American governor, Claiborne, was a strong advocate of education and repeatedly attempted to establish a comprehensive system of public schools. See I Official Letter Books of W.C.C. Claiborne (Rowland ed., 1917), pp. 100, 238, 327, 346; III id., pp. 111, 277-278; V id., pp. 125-126, 259; VI id., pp. 143-144; Riley, The Development of Education in Louisiana Prior to Statehood, in 19 La.Hist.Quarterly 595, 642 ff. FN12.  Mr. Justice Frankfurter has noted that "[t]he need for higher education and the duty of the state to provide it as part of a public educational system, are part of the democratic faith of most of our states." West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 656, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 1194, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (dissenting opinion). FN13.  Insofar as the majority opinion in the Civil Rights Cases, supra, indicates a different doctrine, it appears to have given way to the dissenting view of the first Mr. Justice Harlan, id., 109 U.S. at 57 ff., 3 S.Ct. at 54 much as his opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S.Ct. 1138, 41 L.Ed. 256, has ultimately prevailed. FN14.  In addition to the pre-cited cases in the text, see Nixon v. Condon, 286 U.S. 73, 52 S.Ct. 484, 76 L.Ed. 984; Muir v. Louisville Park Theatrical Association, 347 U.S. 971, 74 S.Ct. 783, 98 L.Ed. 1112, reversing and remanding, 6 Cir., 202 F.2d 275; Com. of Pennsylvania v. Board of Directors of City Trusts, 353 U.S. 230, 77 S.Ct. 806, 1 L.Ed.2d 792; Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 17, 19, 78 S.Ct. 1401, 3 L.Ed.2d 5; Burton v. Wilmington Parking Auth., 365 U.S. 715, 81 S.Ct. 856, 6 L.Ed.2d 45; Kerr v. Enoch Pratt Free Library of Baltimore City, 4 Cir., 149 F.2d 212; Department af Conservation & Development, Division of Parks, Com. of Va. v. Tate, 4 Cir., 231 F.2d 615; City of St. Petersburg v. Alsup, 5 Cir., 238 F.2d 830; Derrington v. Plummer, 5 Cir., 240 F.2d 922; City of Greensboro v. Simkins, 4 Cir., 246 F.2d 425; Lawrence v. Hancock, S.D.W.Va., 76 F.Supp. 1004; Jones v. Marva Theatres, Inc., D.Md., 180 F.Supp. 49; Coke v. City of Atlanta, Ga., N.D.Ga., 184 F.Supp. 579. See also Valle v. Stengel, 3 Cir., 176 F.2d 697. FNI5.  Actually, Tulane traces its pedigree back to 1834 when 'seven young physicians banded together" to form the Medical College of Louisiana. The Louisiana Constitution of 1845, arts. 137-139, provided for the establishment of the University, assimilating the Medical College, and the Legislature executed its mandate in 1847. La.Act 49 of 1847. FN16.  Edward Douglas White, one of Tulane's original administrators (and later Chief Justice of the United States), described the University of Louisiana in 1883 as "established for many years with an able and successful medical faculty, with a law faculty already in being and with an academical department in infant life, which seems to present a fair hope of success." FN17.  La.Const.1845, Arts. 137-139. FN18.  La.Const.1879, Art. 230. See also, La.Const.1852, Arts. 139, 140. FN19.  For some years, the University had received an annual subsidy of $10,000, the maximum permitted under the constitutional provision. See La.Const.1879, Art. 230. , FN20.  The inventory executed in compliance with Act 43 of 1884 appraises the real estate then owned by the University of Louisiana at $152,436.48. A year earlier, however, Edward Douglas White thought the value of that property "might be safely said to exceed $300,000." FN21.  Senator Gibson, who was later to become president of the Board of Administrators of the University, claims credit for convincing Mr. Tulane to abandon his earlier inclination to be less discriminating. It is also interesting to note that the Tulane Board apparently interprets "white young persons" to include persons of any age and of any color except black. Students of all ages and races, except Negro, have long been admitted by the University. FN22.  The orginal administrators, all but one of whom later served as members of the governing body of Tulane University, were: Randall L. Gibson, Charles E. Fenner, James McConnell, T.G. Richardson, M.D., Edward White, E.H. Farrar, P.N. Strong, B.M. Palmer, D.D., Hugh Miller Thompson, D.D., Charles A. Whitney, Samuel H. Kennedy, Walter Stauffer, Cartwright Eustis, Henry Ginder, John T. Hardie, R. M. Walmsley, and William O. Rogers. FN23.  While Paul Tulane gave handsomely, it was apparently anticipated that he would effect still further donations. The Louisiana Supreme Court so indicates in the following ornate passage from its opinion of 1886: "We felicitate ourselves that the way to this consummation has been timely cut by the Legislature so that the stream of Paul Tulane's bounty shall flow on undiminished, while the children of our State through successive generations shall "rise and call him blessed."" Administrators of Tulane Ed. Fund v. Board of Assessors, 38 La.Ann. 292, 298. See also the third recital in the preamble of La.Act 43 of 1884. Hence, perhaps, the concern for satisfying Mr. Tulane even after the initial donations had been completed. FN24.  In 1883 the state Supreme Court had refused to exempt the Tulane Fund's property, even though its revenues were dedicated to the cause of education. State ex rel. Board of Administrators Tulane Ed. Fund v. Board of Assessors, 35 La.Ann. 668. Accordingly, the only remaining hope for the exemption was in dedication of the revenues not to "education" generally, but to a particular state institution, on the theory that the property would thereby acquire the special immunity accorded "public property." See La.Const.1879, Art. 207. Such, indeed, was the subsequent ruling of the Louisiana Supreme Court in Administrators of Tulane Ed. Fund v. Board of Assessors, supra. FN25.  The governing board of the University of Louisiana, before 1884, likewise included three ex- officio members. Now the State Superintendent of Education was substituted for the Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court. See La.R.S.1870, § 1351, LSA-R.S. Tit. 17, c. 6 note. FN26.  A dispute rages as to whether the three public officials are members of the Board of Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund, which, as such, is the governing body of the University, or whether there is a separate board, composed of the same twenty persons, styled The Board of Administrators of the Tulane University of Louisiana. But, whatever the importance of that knotty question in a different context, it does not affect the result here. Without resolving the issue, the court will deny the motion to quash and dismiss filed on behalf of the latter Board on the theory that there is no harm done by retaining a body which says it does not exist. Since both boards are made defendants, and one of them admittedly governs the University, it is sufficiently clear that the injunction operates against whatever body actually controls the admissions policy of Tulane. FN27.  Defendants maintain that the Tulane Educational Fund actually obtained title to the state property used by the University of Louisiana, subject to reversion in the event the revenues thereof ceased to be devoted to University purposes. Plaintiffs say "control" only was transferred, title being retained by the state. But, since the power to alienate the particular property in question was expressly made subject to legislative sanction, and considering that, even if owned by the Fund, it acquired the character of "public property" (like all other real estate of the Fund which the University enjoys directly or indirectly), the practical difference is not appreciable. In the constitutional view, at least, the distinction is unimportant. Constitutional rights "are not inevitably measurable in terms of ancient niceties of * * * real property law." Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511, 81 S.Ct. 679, 682, 5 L.Ed.2d 734. See also, Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 266-267, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697; Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 617, 81 S.Ct. 776, 5 L.Ed.2d 828. FN28.  Then, as now, property actually used for educational purposes enjoyed exemption from ad valorem taxes, but the immunity did not extend to property commercially leased, though all revenues were contributed to education. See State ex rel. Board of Administrators Tulane Ed. Fund v. Board of Assessors, supra; La.Const.1921, Art. 10, § 4(2). FN29.  The ambiguous language of subsequent constitutional provisions dealing with Tulane is invoked in support of this view. See La.Const.1898, Art. 255; La.Const.1913, Art. 256; La.Const.1921, Art. 12, § 24. But, at most, those provisions merely say that Tulane University was "created" by the Act of 1884, which, in a sense, is true. Nothing there intimates that the University changed character in 1888, or that it ceased to be a public institution. On the contrary, the provision, in each instance, is included under the rubric "Public Education." FN30.  La.Act 308 of 1944, LSA-R.S. Tit. 17, c. 6 note. FN31.  Neither the decision nor the opinion in State v. Board of Adm"rs, 125 La. 432, 51 So. 483, is to the contrary. It is there said that the Tulane Educational Fund is a private corporation, but the court does not so characterize the University itself. FN32.  Defendants themselves estimate the value of this exemption at $196,122.50 annually. FN33.  As already indicated, even if title to the former University of Louisiana property is now in the Tulane Board, the state retains reversion rights. Moreover, even under the 1942 amendment to Act 94 of 1890, supra, no sale of that property can be effected without the Governor's approval. Act 76 of 1942, LSA-R.S. Tit. 17, c. 6 note. FN34.  It is argued that the public officials have practically abandoned their right to participate in the governance of the University. But the state cannot so easily divorce itself from its connection. "No state may effectively abdicate its responsibilities by either ignoring them or by merely failing to discharge them whatever the motive may be." Burton v. Wilmington Parking Auth., supra, 365 U.S. 725, 81 S.Ct. 682, 6 L.Ed.2d 45. See also Terry v. Adams, supra, 345 U.S. 469, 73 S.Ct. 809, 97 L.Ed. 1152 (opinion of Mr. Justice Black). FN35.  See also Kerr v. Enoch Pratt Free Library of Baltimore City, supra. Insofar as Eaton v. Board of Managers of James Walker Mem. Hosp., 4 Cir., 261 F.2d 521, indicates a different rule, it must, of course, give way, at least in the area of education. FN36.  See note 9, supra. FN37.  Since so-called "friendly suits" offend the adversary principle of the judicial process, they must be dismissed on the court's own motion. United States v. Johnson, 319 U.S. 302, 304-305, 63 S.Ct. 1075, 87 L.Ed. 1413.

---

Final Outcome

The scorn and ostracism faced by Judge Skelly Wright and his family from members of the uptown community who took exception to his rulings on desegregation had made his family's life unbearable [1].  On February 2, 1962, President John F. Kennedy nominated Wright to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and simultaneously nominated attorney Frank Burton Ellis, then a Cabinet member of his administration, to the seat occupied by Wright on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.  The newly-appointed Judge Ellis received his commission on April 12, 1962, and Judge Skelly Wright's service in his native New Orleans ended on April 15, 1962 [2].

Ellis came from a renowned family that included governors, judges and other public office holders with strong ties to the Confederacy.  They were deeply steeped in Southern traditions of segregation, racial discrimination and slavery, and it was only natural that Judge Ellis would welcome the opportunity to benefit an institution with which family members were associated and whose segregationist policies were in harmony with their own.

The speed and consequences of Skelly Wright's replacement by Frank Burton Ellis raises the question of whether there had been lobbying for a judicial forum that could reach an opposite conclusion on the basis of the same facts.  The process has the hallmarks of judicial inside trading, an ultimate form of "judge-shopping," and merits further scholarly investigation of President Kennedy's papers that may still be available on the Ellis nomination.  Confirmation of such political interference was provided in 2010 by Ellis' eldest son, Stephen Grima Ellis, who disclosed in correspondence that his father's nomination for the federal judgeship was dependent upon the condition dictated by Kennedy's brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, that Ellis would overturn Judge Wright's decisions that abruptly ended segregation in New Orleans schools and ultimately led to race riots [3].  The apparent objective was to slow down the process of desegregation to a rate more acceptable to the white citizenry and business community.

Directly upon Wright's departure, on April 19, 1962, Tulane filed a motion requesting that Judge Ellis vacate Judge Wright's judgment and retry the case [4].  This was an extraordinary tactic that bypassed the normal procedure of appealing to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The ambitious new judge not only granted Tulane's request, but by that December had ruled in Tulane's favor, overturning Wright's decision on every major issue.  An excerpt of Judge Ellis's opinion follows.

 

December 5, 1962 Defendant's position is that the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to Tulane University because it is a "private individual" under the doctrine of the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 3 S.Ct. 18, 27 L.Ed. 835, enunciating the proposition that the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to private individuals. The source of Tulane's present policy is the act of donation of one Paul Tulane, a philanthropist and early benefactor of the University.  That act, which prompted the incorporation of the Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund on May 29, 1882, restricted the use of the funds to "white young persons."  A later gift by one Sophie Newcomb included a similar restriction.  The necessity of the Administrators' compliance with the terms of Paul Tulane's donation is embraced in its corporate charter as well as the statutory law of the State of Louisiana by Act 43 of 1884, LSA-R.S. Tit. 17, c. 6 note included in the Louisiana Constitution by Art. 269 of 1888.  Thus, although the Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund are on official record as desiring otherwise, the Administrators stand on the position that they are legally bound to restrict admissions to Tulane University to white persons and, moreover, that this restriction is constitutionally permissible because Tulane University of Louisiana is a "private school." -      -      -      -      -      -   JUDGMENT IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECLARED that: (a)  The Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund is a private eleemosonary corporation engaged in higher education. (b)  The Tulane University of Louisiana is a private activity of the Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund. (c)  There is insufficient state involvement in the operation of the Tulane University of Louisiana to bring it within the privileges and proscriptions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that judgment be entered in favor of defendants and against plaintiffs. From: Guillory v. Administrators of Tulane University of LA., 212 F.Supp. 674, 676, 687 (1962).

---

Postscripts

In 1964-65, Barbara M. Guillory was admitted into Tulane's Department of Sociology and Pearlie Hardin Elloie into the School of Social Work [5].  Their admission appears to have been facilitated by a $6 million grant from the Ford Foundation in 1964 that was contingent on Tulane's certification that it was a desegregated university [6].  Board members of that New York based foundation had earlier expressed skepticism about Tulane's intentions and were prepared to deny the grant [7].  Furthermore, according to Judge Ellis' eldest son, Stephen Grima Ellis, Tulane agreed to admit the two African-American female applicants in exchange for the judge's ruling that Tulane would be declared a "private institution" by him.  This occurred at a meeting held behind closed doors just prior to Ellis's ruling in Guillory [3].

Demographics

In 2001, Tulane University, which is located in a city with a reported African-American population of 67% [8], had an African-American student population of 5% [9], many of whom were recruited for its sports programs.  In 2003, Tulane disclosed that football players alone "account for about 40 percent of the school's African-American male students" [10].  Post-Katrina, in 2006, Tulane reported an African-American student population of 2.4% in its largest school, the School of Liberal Arts [11].  Nine out of 10 Tulane faculty are Caucasian [12].

State Nondiscrimination Law

One consequence of Ellis' ruling in Guillory is that, starting August 15, 1999, Tulane became exempt from state claims for damages under a newly designed Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law.

"Reparations"

In a largely symbolic gesture, Tulane presented a special award in 2008 to Ruby Bridges, "in recognition of her courage and contributions to racial understanding and reconciliation." [13]  Bridges, as a six-year-old New Orleanean in 1960, was one of the first black students to desegregate a school in the U.S.  The public event was part of Tulane's Transatlantic Slave Trade Education Project [13].

In 2003, Tulane invited former plaintiffs Barbara Guillory Thompson and Pearlie Hardin Ellioe to talk about their post-1960s life at its 50th annual Tulane Educational Conference [14].  Theirs was among the 15 discussion topics planned for the event [14].

Katrina

The demographics of New Orleans underwent a dramatic upheaval in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, which struck the city on August 29, 2005 and forced a major evacuation of its citizens, most of whom had homes that were destroyed or made uninhabitable by the ensuing floods.  The majority of the city's poor and mostly black residents found themselves permanently displaced to other areas of the country and without the resources to buy or rebuild.  Their absence has created an opportunity for the ruling elite to undertake regional reconstruction in a manner designed, in part, to prevent their return [15].  New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin's Bring New Orleans Back (BNOB) commission has predicted that, by 2008 the population of New Orleans will have rebounded to only about half its pre-Katrina level [16].  Commission member James J. Reiss remarked, "Those who want to see this city rebuilt want to see it done in a completely different way: demographically, geographically and politically" [17].  David Epstein has examined the post-Katrina fate of New Orleans' historically black educational institutions [18].

Nagin's BNOB commission is heavily represented by individuals associated with the administration of Tulane University.  Scott S. Cowen, president of Tulane University, heads the Committee on Education.  Joseph Canizaro, a banker and real-estate developer, heads the Committee on Urban Development and Housing.  Canizaro, a leading Bush fund-raiser with access to the White House [16], is a member of Tulane's President's Council and has served on the board of Tulane's Health Sciences Center.  James J. ("Jimmy") Reiss, Jr., head of the New Orleans Business Council and chairman of the city's Regional Transit Authority heads the Committee on Infrastructure.  Reiss is also vice chairman of Tulane's Board of Trustees and is chairman of Tulane's Business School Council.  Maurice L. "Mel" Lagarde, III, a board member of Tulane Medical Center and CEO of a Hospital Corporation of America division, co-chairs the mayor's commission.  Alden J. McDonald, Jr., a commission member, is president and CEO of Liberty Bank & Trust Co., chairman of the New Orleans Chamber of Commerce, the Convention Center and the Port Authority, and also serves on the board of Tulane Medical Center [19].  Ron Forman, President and CEO of Audubon Nature Institute, is a member of Tulane's President's Council [19].  Reed Kroloff, a newcomer to New Orleans (October, 2004) and dean of Tulane's School of Architecture, is co-chair of the Urban Design Subcommittee of Canizaro's Urban Development Committee [20].

The reelection of Mayor Ray Nagin on May 20, 2006 [21] insured the continuity of existing relationships.  Plans formulated by Nagin's BNOB commission through its various committees will be presented to the state's Louisiana Recovery Authority (LRA), which will determine how billions of dollars in federal aid will be disbursed as it flows to the state [16].  In late 2005, Congress awarded Louisiana $6.2 billion for emergency housing assistance, and on June 15, 2006 it approved an additional $4.2 billion in Community Development Block Grants [22].  Walter S. Isaacson, a member of Tulane University's Board of Administrators, is Vice Chairman of the LRA [23]. Other LRA members include David R. Voelker, who is on the Board of Governers of Tulane's Health Sciences Center, Mary Ella Sanders, who serves on Tulane University's President's Council [24], and Roderick K. "Rod" West, President and CEO of Entergy New Orleans [25].  West received his JD and MBA degrees from Tulane, was an adjunct professor at Tulane University School of Law from 1993 to 2001 [25], and was cofounder, with Tulane University President Scott Cowen and others, of the Fleur-De-Lis Ambassadors Program [26].  These appointments exemplify Tulane's success in the strategic placement of its executives and associates.  Tulane predicted a complete financial recovery for itself [27].  Another measure of Tulane's political influence is the 2008 appointment of Scott Cowen as chairman of the Southeast Regional Airport Authority, whose apparent mandate is privatization of New Orleans' Louis Armstrong International Airport, an important center of economic activity for the city [28].

As a vehicle for directing how Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and other anticipated grant funds will be used, Mayor Nagin resurrected the New Orleans Redevelopment Authority (NORA), which additionally will have the authority to seize property for redevelopment [29]. The NORA board is also heavily represented by individuals associated with Tulane University and includes Scott Cowen, Mel Lagarde, and Herschel L. Abbott Jr., a BellSouth executive and former member of Tulane's President's Council [29].  In June, 2007 the American Federation of Teachers reported that, of the $52 million in FEMA money intended for use by all schools in New Orleans, $16 million was utilized to renovate the former Alcee Fortier High School building for use by the upper grades of the Tulane-affiliated Lusher Charter School [30].  Another $1.7 million from FEMA was designated to upgrade student housing at Tulane. [31].  Insider influence appears to have played a role in the disproportionate allocation of federal grant funds.

In contrast, two years post-Katrina, state-supported Southern University at New Orleans (SUNO) was still operating in 45 modular trailers and was without a definitive timetable for rebuilding and returning to its original campus [32].  Other area colleges were equally desperate for state funds [33].  Eventually, the four historically black colleges affected by Hurricane Katrina opted to take government loans to aid in their reconstruction, thus mortgaging their futures to the federal government for the next 30 years [34].

CIA Grant

In 1977, the New York Times reported that secret mind-control experiments had been conducted on black patients and prisoners by Tulane psychiatrist Dr. Robert G. Heath [35].  The CIA also maintains an intelligence officer at Tulane and actively recruits agents on campus.

DOE Grant

In 2001, Tulane received a $50,000 grant from a federal program designated for "Historically Black Colleges and Universities."  The grant funded a study of ways that U.S. technology could be introduced into China to assist in the development of China's natural gas industry [36].  The U.S. Department of Energy ignored a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for further information.

NSF Grant

In 2002, Tulane received $2.5 million from the National Science Foundation for a program to encourage minority students to pursue careers in science, mathematics and engineering [37].  Former Tulane president and founder of Tulane's Payson Center for International Development and Technology, Eamon Kelly, heads the National Science Board, which oversees National Science Foundation funding [38].

References

1. Adam Fairclough, Race and Democracy: The Civil Rights Struggle in Louisiana, 1915 – 1972, University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA, 1995, p. 263 and reference to Albert Dent's interview, p. 526.

2. "Judges of the United States Courts," http://air.fjc.gov/, accessed Sept. 10, 2004.

3. Personal communications [PDF] of July 16 & 19, 2010 from Stephen Grima Ellis to Carl Bernofsky.

4. Clarence L. Mohr and Joseph E. Gordon, Tulane: The Emergence of a Modern University, 1945 – 1980, Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, 2001, p. 215.

5. "History of Tulane Sociology," Tulane University Department of Sociology, http://www.tulane.edu/~sociol/centenary.html, accessed 6/11/03.  However, see historical note for alternative dates of admission.  Note also: Barbara M. Guillory Thompson and Pearlie Hardin Elloie were invited by Tulane's Payson Center to speak on March 15, 2003 at "The 50th Educational Conference," http://www.payson.tulane.edu/Seminars/ (accessed from the Google cache 6/11/03).

6. Cheryl V. Cunningham, The Desegregation of Tulane University, M.A. thesis, University of New Orleans, 1982, p. 9 and FN 20 & 21 to Chap. 1.

7. Clarence L. Mohr and Joseph E. Gordon, Tulane: The Emergence of a Modern University, 1945 – 1980, Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, 2001, p. 216.

8. U.S. Census Bureau, State and County QuickFacts, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, http://quickfacts.census.gov.

9. "2001 College Information," U.S. News Online, www.usnews.com/usnews/, accessed 8/31/01.

10. Josh Peter, "TU alumni seeking support; Campaign urges school to remain in Division I," The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, June 6, 2003, p. D-1.

11. Tulane University, Office of the University Registrar, "2006 Profile: Tulane School of Liberal Arts," http://www.tulane.edu/%7Eregistra/figs/ensu/063/prfla063.shtml, accessed 10/26/06.

12. Mateo Rodriguez, "Tulane faces past racial issues," Tulane Hullabaloo, Vol. 93, Issue 11, November 8, 2002.

13. Mary Ann Travis, "Slavery's History Lessons, Tulane University NewWave, June 30, 2008, http://tulane.edu/news/newwave/063008_slavery.cfm, accessed 06/30/08.

14. Amber Bethel, "50th annual Tulane Educational Conference covers variety of topics," New Orleans CityBusiness, March 10, 2003.

15. Mark Folse, "Knights of the Invisible Hand," Wet Bank Guide [blog] September 26, 2005 (http://wetbankguide.blogspot.com/2005/09/knights-of-invisible-hand.html), accessed 01/10/06.  See also: Jeremy Scahill, "Blackwater Down," The Nation, October 10, 2005.

16. Frank Donze and Gordon Russell, "4 Months to Decide; Nagin panel says hardest hit areas must prove viability, city's footprint may shrink; Full buyouts proposed for those forced to move; New housing to be developed in vast swaths of New Orleans' higher ground," The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, January 11, 2006 (source: http://www.nola.com/news/...).  See also: Gordon Russell and Frank Donze, "Rebuilding proposal gets mixed reception; Critics vocal, but many prefer to watch and wait," The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, January 12, 2006 (source: http://www.nola.com/news/...).

17. Christopher Cooper, "Old-Line Families Escape Worst of Flood and Plot the Future," The Wall Street Journal, September 8, 2005.

18. David Epstein, "Uphill Climb," Inside Higher Ed, December 15, 2006, http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/12/15/hbcu, accessed 01/13/06.

19. Bring New Orleans Back Fund (http://www.bringneworleansback.org/...), accessed 01/12/06. See also: Beatrice M. Field and Amanda R. Rittenhouse, POTPOURRI, pp. 35, 58, and 64, 2002 (http://alumni.tulane.edu/potpourri/) accessed 1/18/05.

20. Mary Ann Travis, "Rubble Rouser," Tulane University Magazine - News, Summer, 2006, http://www2.tulane.edu/article_news_details.cfm?ArticleID=6749, accessed 10/07/06.

21. Gordon Russell, Frank Donze and Michelle Krupa, "IT'S NAGIN; 'It's time for us to be one New Orleans'," The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, May 21, 2006, p. A-1.  See also: Michelle Krupa, "Broad appeal aided Nagin in the runoff; Higher turnout, white support gave mayor the edge Saturday," The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, May 22, 2006, p. A-1.  See also: Mary Judice and Rebecca Mowbray, "Business leaders angry over Nagin's 'postcard'; They want to see commitment to reviving the N.O. economy," The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, May 23, 2006, p. A-1.

22. Bruce Alpert, "Senate, president approve funds for recovery; State to ramp up Road Home effort, " The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, June 16, 2006, p. A-1.

23. Brian Williams (Walter Isaacson interview), The CBS Evening News, May 31, 2006.

24. Colman Warner, "Various recovery planners might coalesce; LRA awaits assent from Nagin, Council," The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, June 16, 2006, p. B-1.  See also: "Board of Directors," Louisiana Recovery Authority, http://www.lra.louisiana.gov/board.html, accessed 06/18/06, and POTPOURRI, supra.

25. Entergy New Orleans, "Rod West, President & CEO, Entergy New Orleans," http://www.entergy-neworleans.com/about_entergy/CEO.aspx, accessed 06/05/07.  See also: Bill Barrow, "Local governments' money for rebuilding safe for now; $317 million was promised to Orleans," The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, June 5, 2007, National, p. 3.

26. Bruce Eggler, "Local leaders tout N.O. nationwide; They aim to counter negative perceptions," The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, March 24, 2007, p. A-1.  See also: The New Wave Staff, "Waving the Fleur-De-Lis Flag," Tulane University Magazine - News, March 28, 2007, http://www2.tulane.edu/article_news_details.cfm?ArticleID=7225, accessed 03/28/07.  See also: Bruce Eggler, "N.O. ambassadors plan trip to Boston; Travels intended to polish city image," The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, April 12, 2007, p. B-1.  See also: The New Wave Staff, "Fleur-De-Lis Ambassadors Debut," Tulane University Magazine - News, April 17, 2007, http://www2.tulane.edu/article_news_details.cfm?ArticleID=7292, accessed 04/17/07.  See also: Kimberly Quillen, "Fleur-de-lis Ambassadors to visit Washington, D.C. this week," The Times-Picayune [Blog], New Orleans, June 25, 2007, http://blog.nola.com/tpmoney/2007/06/fleurdelis_ambassadors_to_visi_1.html, accessed 06/27/07.

27. Travis Brannen, "Tulane financially on track," Tulane Hullabaloo [News], April 28, 2006, http://www.thehullabaloo.com/..., accessed 05/31/06.

28. Richard Rainey, "Airport panel names officers; Privatization is on new group's radar," The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, November 4, 2008, Metro, p. 1.  See also: Nick Marinello, "President Scott Cowen Chairs Airport Authority," Tulane University NewWave, December 12, 2008, http://tulane.edu/news/newwave/121208_airport_authority.cfm, accessed 12/12/08.

29. Frank Donze, "Low-profile agency gains blight-bust powers; Unlikely agency key to rebirth; New powers retool NORA to fight blight," The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, October 11, 2006, p. A-1.  Note: Student volunteers from Golden Gate University School of Law reported that displaced Ninth Ward residents whose homes were tagged for razing were being denied compensation and that a shortage of lawyers left them without representation.  See: Petra Pasternak, "Students Still Take Breaks in New Orleans," New York Lawyer, November 20, 2006, http://www.nylawyer.com/display.php/file=/news/06/11/112006h, accessed 11/20/2006.

30. American Federation of Teachers, "NO EXPERIENCE NECESSARY: How the New Orleans School Takeover Experiment Devalues Experienced Teachers," (PDF) Washington, DC, June 2007, ref. 38, p. 34, http://www.aft.org/presscenter/releases/downloads/NoExperReport_07.pdf, accessed 06/22/07.

31. Coleman Warner, "Creative use of grant money possible, FEMA says; Projects can be done bigger or better," The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, July 15, 2007, National, p. 12.

32. Darran Simon, "Group votes to censure four local universities; Administrators dispute rights-abuse claim," The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, June 12, 2007, Metro, p. 3.  See also: "Colleges," The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, July 5, 2007, New Orleans Picayune, p. 9.

33. Stephen Maloney, "N.O. colleges lobby state for more aid," New Orleans CityBusiness, June 7, 2007.

34. John Pope, "4 colleges get federal loans; Schools to rebuild ruined campuses," The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, July 12, 2007, Metro, p. 1.

35. Clarence L. Mohr and Joseph E. Gordon, Tulane: The Emergence of a Modern University, 1945 – 1980, Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, 2001, p. 124.

36. Office of Fossil Energy, United States Department of Energy, Grant No. 75-02SW52061.

37. "Tulane University," Gambit Weekly, New Orleans, Nov. 28, 2002, p. 10.

38. Leslie Williams, "Kelly set for new term on science board," The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, May 21, 2000, p. B-1.

39. Cheryl V. Cunningham, op.cit., pp. 80-83.

---

Correction

An earlier edition of this page erroneously stated that Tulane had appealed Judge Wright's judgment to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Instead, Tulane appealed directly to the lower court for vacature of Wright's judgment, which was granted by Judge Ellis [3].  Tulanelink regrets the error.  The appeal to the Fifth Circuit was actually made on behalf of the plaintiffs who asked the appellate court to review and overturn Judge Ellis' ruling.  The appellate court upheld Ellis' decision to vacate Wright's judgment and sent the case back to Ellis' court for an expedited trial on the merits [39].

---

 

Help Balance the Scales of Justice!

 

Top 

---

Web site created November, 1998     This section last modified July, 2010
  |  Home  |  Site Map  |  About Bernofsky  |  Curriculum Vitae  |  Lawsuits  |  Case Calendar  |

|  Judicial Misconduct  |  Judicial Reform  |  Contact  |  Interviews  |  Disclaimer  |  

---

This Web site is not associated with Tulane University or its affiliates

© 1998-2019 Carl Bernofsky - All rights reserved