2014 World Policy Council Report

2014 THE OBAMA PRESIDENCY REVISITED STATUS OF HBCUs UNITED NATIONS UKRAINE

DEDICATION

BROTHER VINTON R. ANDERSON XI, ‘50 (1927-2014)

BROTHER HUEL D. PERKINS BETA SIGMA, ‘41 (1924-2013)

THIS WORLD POLICY COUNCIL REPORT IS DEDICATED WITH GRATITUDE, AND FOND REMEMBRANCE TO TWO ALPHA MEN OF DISTINCTION WHO, HAVING SERVED HUMANITY, THE FRATERNITY, AND THE COUNCIL WITH DEDICATION, EFFECTIVENESS, AND LOVE, TRANSITIONED INTO OMEGA CHAPTER SINCE THE PUBLICATION OF OUR LAST REPORT. MAY THEY ENJOY SWEET REST.

2014 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL

P.1

ALPHA PHI ALPHA FRATERNITY DEVELOPS LEADERS, PROMOTES BROTHERHOOD AND ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE, WHILE PROVIDING SERVICE AND ADVOCACY FOR OUR COMMUNITIES. The mission of the Alpha Phi Alpha World Policy Council (WPC) is to address issues of concern to our brotherhood, our communities, our nation and the world. The council has been charged with applying sustained and profound intellectual energy to understanding an alternative means of bringing about the resolution of problems at the community, national and international levels; expanding fraternal and public knowledge of such problems and engaging public discussion about them.

The council, in fulfilling its mission, is non-partisan, gives consideration to domestic and international issues, seeks the counsel of experts in relevant fields, provides perspectives on specific problems and, where practicable, recommends possible solutions that may have a favorable impact on African Americans, the community, the nation and the world.

CONTENTS (4)

PRESIDENT’S GREETINGS

(6)

MEMBERS OF THE WORLD POLICY COUNCIL

(7)

THE CHAIRMAN’S INTRODUCTION

(8)

SUMMARY OF ARTICLES

(10) ARTICLES

(12)

The Obama Presidency Revisited

(22) Status of Historically Black Colleges and Universities

(36)

The United Nations, Past, Present, Future

(44)

Ukraine: Now in the Forefront

(50) RESOURCES

2014 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL

P.3

FROM THE GENERAL PRESIDENT

It’s with great pleasure that we present the latest edition of the World Policy Council (WPC) Report.

ESTABLISHED DURING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE 29TH GENERAL PRESIDENT OF ALPHA PHI ALPHA FRATERNITY, BROTHER MILTON CARVER DAVIS, THE WPC CONTINUES TO PROVIDE SOUND INTELLECTUAL DISCOURSE ON VARIOUS ISSUES OF NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE. The level of insight, thought and research that has gone into preparing these papers is second-to-none. The recommendations within this document are brought forward for use in the ongoing—and future— development of public policies by members of the United States Congress, White House staff, diplomats and other stakeholders who share in the fraternity’s commitment to creating global dialogue on the great policy issues of our time.

Alpha Phi Alpha is committed to expanding the fraternity’s global reach.

Realizing that citizens of the United States of America must extend beyond boundaries in our thoughts, perspectives and outreach, Alpha Phi Alpha aims to lead by example. We have gathered with our brothers overseas to understand and provide awareness and support to similar issues we face in the United States.

The fraternity offers its highest thanks and commendations to members of the World Policy Council (WPC) and its chairman, Brother Horace Dawson, for all of their hard work and for their commitment to ensure that Alpha Phi Alpha continues to play a role on the world stage. The founders of Alpha would expect nothing less.

Mark S. Tillman General President

2014 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL

P.5

WORLD POLICY COUNCIL MEMBERS

EDWARD W. BROOKE III, Chairman Emeritus [Beta, ‘37] United States Senator, 1967-1979; Attorney General, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1963-1967; Presidential Medal of Freedom, 2004; Congressional Gold Medal, 2009

HUEL D. PERKINS, Member Emeritus [Beta Sigma, ‘41] Professor Emeritus, Humanities, Louisiana State University; Former Deputy Director, National Endowment for the Humanities

HORACE G. DAWSON, JR., Chairman [Nu, ‘46] Distinguished Scholar in Residence, E. Franklin Frazier Center for Social Work Research; Founding Director, Ralph J. Bunche International Affairs Center, Howard University; Former U.S. Ambassador to Botswana; Lincoln University Hall of Fame; Distinguished Alumni Award, University of Iowa, 2009; Alpha Award of Merit, 2005 HENRY PONDER, Vice Chairman [Beta Kappa, ‘48] Former President and Chief Executive Officer, National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education; Former President, Benedict College, Fisk University, Talladega College; Interim President, Langston University; Past General President, Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity BOBBY W. AUSTIN [Tau Lambda, ‘68] President, Neighborhood Associates, Inc.; Director of the Education Portal of CRP, Inc.; Mahatma Gandhi Fellow, American Academy of Social and Political Science; Founding President of the Village Foundation; Executive Director of the National Task Force on African American Men and Boys, convened by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation; Former Assistant Director, Kellogg National Fellowship Program

M.CHRISTOPHER BROWN II [Mu Lambda, ‘04] Senior Fellow, American Association of State Colleges and Universities; Former President, Alcorn State University; Former Provost, Fisk University; Former Dean, College of Education, University of Nevada-Las Vegas; Former Vice President, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education; Former Executive Director, Frederick D. Patterson Research Institute, United Negro College Fund.

RONALD DELLUMS [Delta Omicron, ‘57] Former Mayor, Oakland, CA; President and Chief Executive Officer, HealthCare International; Former Member, U.S. House of Representatives (D-California)

KENTON W. KEITH [Upsilon, ‘58] Senior Inspector, Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of State; Former Foreign Service Officer, United States Information Agency in the Middle East, France, and Brazil; Former Senior Vice President, Meridian International Center, Washington, D.C.; Former U.S. Ambassador to the State of Qatar

CHARLES B. RANGEL [Alpha Gamma Lambda, ‘64] Member, United State House of Representatives (D-NY); Former Chairman, U.S. House Ways and Means Committee; Dean, New York State Congressional Delegation; Founding Member, Congressional Black Caucus

IVORY TOLDSON [Nu Psi, ‘92] Associate Professor, Counseling Psychology Program, and Editor-in-Chief, The Journal of Negro Education, Howard University; Senior Research Analyst, Congressional Black Caucus Foundation

CORNEL WEST [Zeta Beta Lambda, ‘96] University Professor, Princeton University; Former Professor, Harvard University; Instructor, Union Theological Seminary, Yale University, University of Paris

RAPPORTEUR Hartford T. Jennings, Sr., United States Foreign Service Officer (retired) 2014 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL

P.7

FROM THE CHAIR

In the previous World Policy Council publication (October 2012), we asked the question, “How well has Barack Obama done as President?”

With extensive documentation and analysis, we sought to answer that question.

For the current report, the council decided on a follow-up to that Q&A, looking critically, as was done previously, at overall performance to include the first two years of a second term and looking ahead to the two remaining years of the Obama presidency.

THE WPC’S RESPONSE IS CONTAINED IN THE FEATURED ESSAY IN THIS PUBLICATION, UTILIZING THE SAME CRITERIA OF CONSIDERATION AND MEASUREMENT. In addition, the council has addressed three other subjects: the status of historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs); the United Nations, now approaching its 70th anniversary; and Ukraine, a country very much in the headlines these days and very much the focus of U.S. foreign policy concerns.

While the council recognizes the volatile nature of the Ukraine situation—both in real and current events terms—the council considered that providing factual and background data on a suddenly important but not especially well-known subject is important.

Finally, we note with sadness and regret the passing of two outstanding members of the World Policy Council: the Right Reverend Vincent R. Anderson and Dr. Huel D. Perkins. The council asks that you join us in honoring their service as we dedicate this publication in their memory.

Horace G. Dawson, Jr. Chairman The World Policy Council

2014 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL

P.9

SUMMARY OF ARTICLES

This publication contains four articles of national and/or international import that the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity World Policy Council, wishes to bring to the attention of selected audiences. They are summarized as follows:

THE OBAMA PRESIDENCY REVISITED The council takes another look at the Barack Obama Administration in the light of its assessment in the 2012 report. The present evaluation represents an update, utilizing the same factors considered earlier, analyzing the performance of the President and his administration and suggesting what lies ahead in the two years remaining of the Obama term.

STATUS OF HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES The council presents and discusses official data related to the condition of HBCUs, analyzes strengths and weaknesses, and focuses on the importance of these institutions in American higher education and in society generally. Across-the-board increases in resources are required and recommended.

THE UNITED NATIONS: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE The council discusses the United Nations in terms of the organization’s objectives and history, assessing in particular its role in peace keeping and civil and human rights.

UKRAINE: NOW IN THE FOREFRONT The council provides background information on a country long overlooked but of late in the forefront of geo-political interest. The east–west challenge this issue represents is analyzed.

2014 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL

P.11

THE OBAMA PRESIDENCY

IN 2012, THE WORLD POLICY COUNCIL APPLAUDED PRESIDENT OBAMA’S PERFORMANCE IN STEERING THE COUNTRY THROUGH WORLDWIDE ECONOMIC CRISIS, DEEP DOMESTIC POLITICAL DIVISION, AND PROLIFERATING INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT.

REVISITED WE SAID HE DESERVED THE OPPORTUNITY TO PURSUE HIS “UNFINISHED AGENDA” IN A SECOND TERM. THE COUNCIL REVIEWS HEREWITH MR. OBAMA’S HANDLING OF THE CRITICAL ISSUES FACING HIS PRESIDENCY, THOSE HELD OVER FROM HIS FIRST TERM AND THOSE UNFORESEEN.

2014 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL

P.13

Keeping to the categories from the earlier study we will look at Leadership in a Polarized America and Leadership in an Uncertain World. Once again, we will express the council’s hope for the future.

LEADERSHIP IN A POLARIZED AMERICA Of course, most importantly, Barack Obama soundly defeated Mitt Romney to keep his job and continue to pursue his policy agenda.

Democrats retained control of the Senate, and Republicans kept firm control of the House. Thus the legislative balance that hamstrung the President for much of his first term was reinstalled. If anything, in the summer of 2014 the possibility of executive and legislative cooperation seemed even more remote with the ascendency of Tea Party activists in the Republican power structure.

RESTORING ECONOMIC HEALTH The number one priority for President Obama’s second term was to restore economic health and jobs to a country still reeling from deep recession. The actions taken by the President, with the cooperation of the 111th Congress and the Federal Reserve (Fed), are now generally regarded as having saved the financial and manufacturing sectors from utter disaster. In the summer of 2014 unemployment has dropped to about 6% in the general population. Even in the African-American population, unemployment is hovering around 10%. Importantly, the country’s pessimism has been replaced by a cautious return to prerecession economic impulses. The housing sector is slowly returning to health. The Dow Jones is in record territory. The Fed is preparing investors for modest rises in interest rates. In this critical challenge, the WPC believes President Obama should get high marks.

AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE Despite an inexcusably awkward launch, this landmark program now seems to be gaining the support it will need to succeed over the long term. Without question, Mr. Obama deserves exceptionally high marks for succeeding against very high odds. It seems clear that his vision for bringing health care to all Americans has gone far towards fruition.

Critically, the sign-up rate for younger, healthier citizens exceeded the administration’s expectation. This youthful support suggests that this vital age cohort has seen through the vigorous and well-financed opposition campaign. We can expect continuing opposition from conservative activists, but during President Obama’s last two years in office a tipping point will be reached, after which the basic goal will be in sight. Mr. Obama has fought well for this landmark act, which should

take its place beside Medicare, Medicaid and other fundamental parts of the safety net.

NATIONAL UNITY : COMBATTING IDEOLOGICAL STRIFE In July 2013 a Florida jury acquitted George Michael Zimmerman for the shooting death of unarmed African-American teenager Treyvon Martin.

The circumstances in the case, including the apparent police hesitancy in bringing charges against Zimmerman, brought to the surface vivid images of systematic police brutality against black people. African Americans, including President Obama, expressed outrage. Later in the summer, the shooting death of an African-American youth in Ferguson, Missouri, by a white police officer unleashed another round of protests.

These incidents served as a reminder that racial tension remains a fundamental reality in the United States. Moreover, the Republican opposition has worked tirelessly throughout the President’s tenure to wreck every initiative he has put forward. Republican leaders have tried to paint Barack Obama as a dangerous leftist working with his liberal base to unravel the fabric of basic American values. The legislative opposition to President Obama has been forthright and clear. Beyond that, the judicial challenges are unremitting.

The WPC believes that a real erosion of the civil rights gains of the past 50 years is underway. In 2013, in a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court effectively gutted the Voting Rights Act. As the President said in a New York speech, “The stark and simple truth is this—the right to vote is threatened today—in a way that it has not been since the Voting Rights Act became law nearly five decades ago.” The Obama administration’s reaction, announced by Eric Holder in a speech to the NAACP, has been to shift resources to the enforcement of civil rights provisions that were not affected by the Supreme Court ruling, including Section 2, which prohibits voting discrimination based on race, color or language.

The Roberts Supreme Court is moving inexorably toward declaring race-based Affirmative Action unconstitutional. The court has rolled back bipartisan election reform, ushering in a new era of big money influence at every level of politics.

In sum, President Obama is locked in important ideological combat with the right as we look forward to mid-term elections in November 2014. It is unlikely that in this environment he could find opportunities for bipartisan efforts in any field. Even if the house speaker was inclined to discuss these issues with the President, the Republican Tea Party watchdogs would object.

2014 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL

P.15

In his second term, President Obama has come out in support of samesex marriage. This stand reflected an evolution of American public opinion and legal judgments. It also placed him in the embrace of his liberal base.

IMMIGRATION As this update is being prepared, thousands of children from Central America have begun to flood unaccompanied across the Mexican border into California, Texas and Arizona, creating emotionally charged debate within the U.S. This disagreement is just the latest evolution in an immigration debate that is a clear example of the failure of successive administrations and congresses to make progress on the issue. An immigration reform bill passed the Senate with presidential support, but House leadership has announced it will not allow action to be taken on the Senate bill. In our 2012 document, the WPC stated that vigorous action by President Obama would be required to advance immigration reform. President Obama announced in early July 2014, that he would use his executive authority to initiate immigration reforms, but ultimately decided to defer action until after the mid-term elections.

CLIMATE CHANGE The Kyoto Protocol has not produced the international cooperation envisioned when it was adopted in 1997. The inaction tends to substantiate one expert’s observation that the only realistic approach would be for the big emitters to get together and decide to reduce emissions by a significant fraction.

President Obama is committing a $4 billion fund to stimulate the development of new technologies that would feature an “all of the above” approach to the reduction of carbon-burning energy production.

The WPC considers that his action is a small step in the right direction.

However, many scientists believe it is too little, and perhaps too late.

For three consecutive months in spring 2014 the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was the highest in recorded history.

President Obama’s leadership on energy policy and environmental protection has been controversial. Reliance on foreign oil has significantly decreased, although the U.S. and its allies will continue to import oil and gas far into the future. Debate on the Keystone XL pipeline, as well as the larger question on fracking, has revealed a President genuinely working to “get it right” as he steers the country between two major imperatives: protecting the environment and keeping clean energy supplies flowing. Legal challenges in Nebraska have given Mr. Obama breathing space until after the mid-terms.

Nevertheless, the country needs his leadership on this critical issue in the final years of his presidency.

LEADERSHIP IN AN UNCERTAIN WORLD In fewer than two years a campaign to choose Barack Obama’s successor will be underway. His party will claim that they deserve credit for bringing American troops home. Viewed from abroad President Obama has been too reluctant to provide his vision for the U.S. role in today’s turbulent world. This summer, he sat down for nearly an hour with a New York Times journalist and displayed a sophisticated command of international political, economic and environmental issues and articulated a well-developed framework for U.S. action.

In its 2012 report, the World Policy Council characterized the challenges facing President Obama as daunting. The outlook in the summer of 2014 is anything but reassuring. Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan are all in danger of either becoming failed states or falling under the control of Islamic extremists. Coordinated attacks by Sunni forces who have appropriated the title “Islamic State” have succeeded in taking control of large and strategically important swaths of Iraq and Syria. Their grisly execution of American and British captives has galvanized Western public opinion in support of a military response, which, in the form of air strikes and drone attacks, has been undertaken by the Obama Administration and European and Arab allies.

Optimism inspired by the “Arab Spring” uprisings has largely turned to disappointment across the Arab world, replaced by rising sectarian tensions in Iraq, Bahrain and Egypt, and a full-scale civil war in Syria. On the positive side, President Obama has carried through on his intention to negotiate with Iran on nuclear issues. The exercise is proving to be arduous, but it has been worthwhile. It offers a glimmer of hope for a better relationship with Iran that could positively influence events throughout the Middle East. Moreover, the Obama Administration’s success in involving Arab states in air strikes on the extremists in Syria should help to blunt the tendency of some in the U.S. to portray the struggle as one against Muslims and underscore that a successful effort will enlist moderates across religious and regional lines.

Support for a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine, long a fundamental part of American policy goals, is fading fast. Israel’s settlement policy is, in fact, making policy on the ground. The Kerry 2014 mission was perhaps too ambitious. At all events, it failed utterly with no next steps agreed. Meanwhile, rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza led to a major Israeli military incursion into Gaza with the

2014 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL

P.17

announced aim of de-militarizing it. Israel’s right to self-defense is regularly supported in public statements by U.S. officials. However, the scale of the destruction resulting from Israel’s efforts to defend itself is regarded throughout the Arab world and in European editorial opinion as disproportionate.

Meanwhile, as this update is being prepared a shooting war is taking place in eastern Ukraine. Following Russia’s outright annexation of Crimea, Russian-speaking militias have been occupying eastern Ukraine determined to wrest independence from a central government they regard as illegal. With U.S. leadership, sanctions are being applied to Russia. However, a diplomatic solution to the crisis has proven elusive.

Indeed Vladimir Putin’s popularity seems to be increasing in Russia, suggesting that his hand may be strengthened in this contest with the West. [See accompanying article on Ukraine.]

The administration’s much advertised “pivot” to Asia has shown little substance to date. Some regional specialists consider that the policy lacks coherence. The President’s visit to Asia produced little. The trade deal with Japan, which was to be the centerpiece, fell through.

Meanwhile, tensions continue between Japan and China, between the two Koreas, and among other countries of the region.

There can be little argument with the perception that President Obama largely neglected Africa in his first term. His focus on the substance of a policy towards Africa came late but shows promise. The President’s summer has included a largely successful summit with African leaders which he convened despite concerns that some leaders would be distracted by a serious outbreak of the Ebola virus in West Africa and an eruption of Islamic militant action in Nigeria and the Sahel. Mr. Obama has announced significant assistance in the fight to contain the Ebola outbreak, including the dispatch of 3,000 U.S. marines to assist medical teams.

The WPC applauds the President’s recent focus on Africa. His summit took place against the backdrop of remarkable penetration of Africa by Asian countries, particularly China. In Africa, the U.S. lags behind China, Japan and India in investment, development and exchanges. Security cooperation with African partners remains very important, whether it is to combat piracy off East Africa, to assist in the search for the Ugandan rebel Joseph Kony, or to help Nigeria and Mali resist the depredations of Islamic extremists. The WPC is pleased that the Obama Administration agrees with its view that the establishment of a major U.S. military command in Africa is unwise at this point in history.

The security architecture of which the United States is the indispensible part is only effective if the use of U.S. military power is a believable option. The U.S. has demonstrated commitment to its Gulf partners. In that region, energy security is a vital component of U.S. force deployment. But Russian action in Crimea and Ukraine has demonstrated how quickly military confrontations can develop where U.S. interests are not so easy to demonstrate. American resolve in the Middle East and South Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Europe, and elsewhere will inevitably face major challenges in coming years.

America’s most important strategic partner, the European Union (EU), is under powerful internal strain. Euro-skeptics are in the ascendancy in key countries, and the Scottish independence referendum drew 45% of the votes needed to secede from the United Kingdom. It may be questioned whether important collective action with the EU remains as secure an option as in past years. The other side of that coin is concern in Europe that the U.S. is so war-weary and politically fractious that it is a less reliable security partner. In fact, American credibility has never been more vital. It is important that President Obama’s natural prudence not be construed as lack of resolve.

2014 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL

P.19

OUR HOPE FOR THE FINAL TWO OBAMA YEARS DOMESTIC LEADERSHIP As we move closer to the election of Barack Obama’s successor, the WPC believes it highly unlikely that significant bipartisan actions will occur. To the contrary, every election—local or national—will provide vivid images of an America struggling with demons we may have thought were slain. In our 2012 evaluation of the President’s performance, the WPC expressed the hope that he could “find ways to make creative bipartisan problem-solving possible in a polarized political environment.” It is now apparent that he should channel his energies more toward stemming the erosion of civil rights gains. If, as some have said, he has been reluctant to be seen by the general population as putting too much emphasis on African-American interests, we believe he should be making the case to the general population that what is happening now is dangerous to the nation as a whole.

In this connection, budget battles will become annual exercises in anxiety for many institutions that rely on support from the government.

We hope the President will continue to give strong support to the rebuilding of the nation’s educational infrastructure, especially HBCUs.

WORLD LEADERSHIP The WPC recognizes and applauds the Obama Administration’s new focus on America’s relations with Africa. We urge President Obama to be forthright in support of the Bush era programs in Africa, especially in the health area. We also urge him to use occasions such as the August 2014 summit to commit the U.S. to significant cooperation with African nations in building better governance, especially through creative exchange programs.

The WPC believes that many of the security issues that plague Africa should ideally be approached by the U.S. in tandem with her European allies. President Obama will need to breathe new life into our alliances and work to reassure them that we will remain reliable defense partners.

Mr. Obama should reaffirm his early expressions of willingness to speak to our adversaries with no preconceived positions. It is conceivable that a better relationship with Iran is possible, which could dramatically change the security situation for the better throughout the Middle East.

The World Policy Council believes President Obama has performed very well in a particularly difficult environment. Bringing the country out of deep recession has been a monumental task. His longest-lasting legacy may well be affordable health care for all Americans. However, the voters who elected him twice were persuaded by his vision of a just society, his decency and his smarts. It is certainly not too late for the President to re-energize both those who have supported him from the beginning and those who increasingly see the opposition’s goals and tactics for the threat they represent. The WPC continues to support Barack Obama in his herculean tasks. He is doing very well in the toughest job in America.

2014 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL

P.21

HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY FACTS AND FIGURES

NEARLY TWO HUNDRED YEARS INTO THEIR EXISTENCE, HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES ARE REGULARLY REFERRED TO BY PRINT MEDIA AS BEING “AT A CROSSROAD” OR “NEAR EXTINCTION.” THE LITANY OF QUESTIONS OFTEN CENTERS ON ANECDOTAL OR SINGLE-CASE ANALYSES OF CAMPUS EVENTS, LEADERSHIP TRANSITIONS, ENROLLMENT PATTERNS, OR FISCAL ASSESSMENTS. THIS CASUAL AND SUBJECTIVE TREATMENT OF HBCUS IS OFTEN ABSENT DEMOGRAPHIC STATISTICS OR EMPIRICAL DATA ON WHO SPECIFICALLY WAS IMPACTED, WHAT AMOUNT OF MONEY, WHERE THE CAMPUS IS GEOGRAPHICALLY (URBAN OR RURAL), WHEN IS THE FINAL EVALUATION, OR HOW MUCH GROWTH IS REQUIRED? IN SHORT, THE CLAIMS OFTEN LACK BASIC FOUNDATION AND ARE, THEREFORE, WITHOUT VALIDITY.

2014 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL

P.23

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, although historically black colleges represent just three percent of our country’s institutions of higher learning, they collectively graduate nearly 20 percent of African Americans who earn undergraduate degrees. A close review of the data reveals that historically black colleges also produce more than one-third of all African-American baccalaureate degrees in mathematics, more than two-fifths of African-American degrees in the natural sciences, more than 50% of all African-American public educators, 70% of the nation’s African-American dentists and nearly 50% of all African Americans who pursue graduate or professional education.

The new millennium has brought accountability to all institutions of higher education. HBCUs, like all other colleges and universities, are faced with the social, economic, political and technological issues that make the changing of the student fabric particularly complex. This report uses the most up-to-date statistical data to present a portrait of the demographic trends in the nation’s historically black colleges and universities. More specifically, it will assess HBCU institutional strengths and challenges relative to population, finances, and quality.

THE HISTORIC CONTEXT FOR HBCUS The amended Higher Education Act of 1965 defines a historically black college or university as any accredited institution of higher education founded prior to 1964 whose primary mission was, and continues to be, the education of black Americans. The year 1964 is significant because it marked the passage of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin regarding federally assisted programs and activities. HBCUs cluster primarily in 19 southern and border states (Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia), with few exceptions (Michigan, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories). Like other American postsecondary institutions, HBCUs vary in size, curriculum specializations and other characteristics. HBCUs are public and private, as well as two-year and four-year. The one commonality across HBCUs is their historic responsibility as the primary providers of postsecondary education for black Americans in a social environment of legal racial discrimination.

Historically black universities have been the primary educators of African Americans. HBCUs have created pools of qualified individuals who have traditionally been underutilized in academia and corporate America. In parallel, the historically white higher education community has attempted to establish benchmarks for African-American and

minority access to higher education. These benchmarks include affirmative action programs, governmental grants and incentives, offices of minority affairs, university directorships for equity and gender, ethnic and cultural centers. Because these retention policies fall short of bringing about parity in educational attainment, historically black colleges continue to produce a significant percentage of all AfricanAmerican baccalaureate-degree recipients.

Historically black colleges and universities literally reversed the tradition of social-class and academic exclusiveness that had always been characteristic of higher education. They invented the practice, if not the concept, of open enrollment. Their flexible admission practices and academic standards have been without precedent in higher education.

As a result, HBCUs are an indispensable part of the national higher education landscape. Despite all of the positive evidence relating to their successes and achievements, negative misconceptions and erroneous information continue to impact the image of historically black colleges and universities. The best response to conjecture is fact.

There is sufficient national data regarding the institutional health and emergent concerns for HBCUs.

RELIABLE SOURCES FOR HBCU DATA On the federal level, an important agency that is responsible for collecting and analyzing educational data that are related to the United States and other nations is the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Part of the Institute for Education Sciences within the United States Department of Education, NCES fulfills a congressional mandate to collect, analyze, and report complete statistics on the condition of American education; conduct and publish reports; and review and report on education activities internationally. Because of the primary role of NCES in collecting and providing data, various constituencies, including the Congress, federal agencies, state and local officials, educational organizations, news media, business organizations, and the general public use its statistics for numerous purposes.

Each year NCES issues over 100 publications and several datasets to interested parties. Both traditional paper publications as well as data available on the Internet are provided. Examples of the types of documents that NCES publishes include bulletins, statistical reports, directories, and handbooks of standard terminology. Among educators and policy makers, the three publications arguably used most that report the findings of specific surveys, are Digest of Education Statistics, Projections of Education Statistics, and The Condition of

2014 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL

P.25

Education. These publications cover the field of education statistics from a broad perspective.

The cornerstone of NCES is the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System consists of nine interrelated survey instruments that are gathered over three collection periods (fall, winter, and spring) annually. The submission of IPEDS data is mandatory for all colleges and universities participating in the federal student financial aid program.

Hence, IPEDS has the most complete, consistent, and comprehensive data on the nation’s institutions of higher education. This report uses IPEDS data to report trends and issues incident to historically black colleges and universities.

HBCU ENROLLMENT AND MARKET SHARE Sixty-five of the 99 HBCUs that qualify for Federal Student Financial Aid have selective admissions, while the remaining 34 campuses have open admissions. Only 4 of the 34 open admissions HBCUs are public. Over the last 10 years many state governments have passed laws that have restricted admissions into traditional four,-year colleges based on the idea that students who are less academically prepared should begin at community colleges. These laws include setting a minimum ACT or SAT requirement for public universities or making it against state regulations for public four-year colleges to offer remedial classes.

There are several factors that generally contribute to a historically black college or university being described as having “good” enrollment.

Typically, such institutions have: (1) more than 1,000 students; (2) remained stable or gradually increased their student enrollment over time; (3) maintained a balanced ratio of male and female students; and (4) have campus infrastructure that can comfortably accommodate the student population. The latter is a critical component. While a high student enrollment is generally regarded as a positive indicator for a school, inadequate infrastructure and fluctuating enrollment are important considerations.

It is important to note that the ideal size for a university varies.

Therefore, enrollment gains or losses over time are a more reliable indicator of an institution’s health. In 2012, three HBCUs had enrollments of more than 10,000 students: Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University, North Carolina A & T State University, and Howard University.

There were 31 HBCUs with enrollments of fewer than 1,000 students.

Media references to a pattern of “declining enrollment” at HBCUs are common. However, the total enrollment of HBCUs has continued to make steady gains over the last two decades. According to the most recent data from IPEDS, the total enrollment of HBCUs collectively is 303,006, compared to 260,749 in 1990. Currently, 39 percent of HBCU students are male and 61 percent are female. In fact, 79 of the 105 HBCUs surveyed have a larger enrollment today than they did in 1990.

Only 26 HBCUs have experienced enrollment declines since 1990, with percentage drops ranging from 1 percent to 55 percent.

It is important to note that the loss of enrollment in many public HBCUs may be a result of state legislation. Over the last five years, many state governments have passed laws that have restricted admissions at traditional four-year colleges based on the contention that students who are less academically prepared should begin their postsecondary matriculation in community colleges. Concomitantly, some private HBCUs have lost enrollment because of public governance issues and the difficulty of selling the relatively high cost of tuition against the perceived value of attending their institutions. The following are the HBCUs that have lost more than 20 percent of their enrollment since 19901: University of the District of Columbia Dillard University Talladega College Le Moyne-Owen College Paul Quinn College Southern University at New Orleans West Virginia State University Bluefield State College Saint Augustine’s University Central State University Norfolk State University Grambling State University

-6619 -1042 -317 -474 -430 -1416 -1616 -898 -616 -864 -1853 -1324

(-55%) (-52%) (-48%) (-44%) (-43%) (-35%) (-33%) (-33%) (-32%) (-30%) (-23%) (-20%)

The majority of HBCUs have grown in enrollment since 1990. The data also reveal, however, that the total gain in HBCU attendance has not outpaced the gains made in black students attending institutions of higher education generally. In 1990, approximately 19 percent of all black college students attended an HBCU. In 2012, only 8 percent of black college students attended an HBCU. Four-year HBCUs, such as Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University, North Carolina A & T State University, Winston-Salem State University, and Prairie View A & M University, have had major increases in their student populations over the last 20 years. HBCU community and technical colleges, such as Denmark Technical College, Lawson State Community CollegeInstitution Name : Gains (#) : Gains (%)

1

2014 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL

P.27

Birmingham Campus, and Trenholm State Technical College, have also significantly increased their enrollments over the last 20 years.

HBCU STUDENT RETENTION AND FINANCIAL AID Retention and graduation rates are key indicators of institutional strength among colleges and universities, especially HBCUs. It is often the case that strong historically black colleges and universities are able to provide the necessary academic and campus support for students to be able to manage the rigors of collegiate studies. The standard assessment is the first-year retention rate. The first-year retention rate measures the percentage of students who enter a college as freshman and return to the university for their second year. The average first-year retention rate for all HBCUs is 60 percent. Five HBCUs have a first-year retention rate that is greater than 80 percent: Spelman College (90%) Fisk University (85%) Morehouse College (82%) Howard University (81%) Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (80%) Conversely, some HBCUs struggle with recapturing first-time freshmen year after year. The four-year HBCUs with the lowest retention rate (45 percent or lower) are: Lincoln University of Missouri (36%) Selma University (38%) Shaw University (39%) Talladega College (39%) Morris College (40%) Arkansas Baptist College (41%) Central State University (43%) Texas College (44%) Harris-Stowe State University (44%) Paul Quinn College (44%) Kentucky State University (45%) The average graduation rate for African-American students at all institutions of higher education is 34 percent. For students at HBCUs, the graduation rate is 30 percent. Graduation rates vary considerably among HBCUs. Of the 22 HBCUs that have a graduation rate that is less than 20 percent, 8 are community or technical colleges. The eight HBCUs with the lowest graduation rates are all private four-year colleges with enrollments of less than 1,000 students:

Paul Quinn College (1%) St. Philip’s College (4%) Arkansas Baptist College (7%) Harris-Stowe State University (8%) Le Moyne-Owen College (8%) Concordia College Alabama (9%) Jarvis Christian College (13%) Miles College (15%) Texas College (17%) Likewise, the six public HBCUs that have the lowest graduation rates all have rates less than 20 percent: Harris-Stowe State University Texas Southern University Kentucky State University Langston University Southern University at New Orleans Coppin State University

(8%) (12%) (14%) (16%) (17%) (17%)

Media discussions of graduation rates in higher education are often coupled with treatments of college cost and student debt. The dominant public logic suggests that students who enroll in institutions of higher education are best served when they persist through their curriculum, complete college on time, leave college with minimal debt, and find opportunities for gainful employment and/or postbaccalaureate studies. There is consensus that the cost of attending college has increased significantly over the last two decades. The annual cost of attending an HBCU averages $9,701. This average varies considerably between public schools (which average $5,768) and private institutions (which average $13,801). There are seven HBCUs that cost more than $20,000 per year: Morehouse College ($25,468) Spelman College ($24,634) Howard University ($22,683) Clark Atlanta University ($21,100) Hampton University ($20,724) Xavier University of Louisiana ($20,560) Fisk University ($20,449) In tandem, the cohort default rate (CDR) has been established as an indicator for evaluating the ability of an institution’s students to manage debt. The U.S. Department of Education, under regulations enacted by the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2009, calculates CDR as the percentage of student borrowers in the cohort who default on their 2014 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL

P.29

federal student loans following the year in which the borrowers entered repayment. CDR also has implications for the survival of a school.

Section 435(a) (2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 provides that institutions lose eligibility to participate in the Federal Direct Loan and Federal Pell Grant programs when the institution’s federal student loan CDR exceeds 30 percent for three consecutive years. In 2009, 14 HBCUs had a CDR of more than 30 percent, including: Clinton Junior College (45.9%) Southwestern Christian College (43.1%) Concordia College Alabama (41.6%) Texas College (38.2%) Jarvis Christian College (37.5%) Denmark Technical College (33.6%) Langston University (32.9%) Central State University (32.8%) Edward Waters College (32.6%) Saint Paul’s College (32.6%) Arkansas Baptist College (32.4%) Rust College (31.6%) Huston-Tillotson University (30.3%) Shaw University (30.2%) It is important to note that historically black colleges and universities enroll a higher percentage of students who qualify for the Federal Pell Grant, which suggests that HBCUs are more likely to educate students who have been raised in low-income households. Across all HBCUs, 72.8 percent of their students qualify for the Federal Pell Grant. Several private HBCUs, including Hampton University (40%), Howard University (45%), and Spelman (50%), enroll the least Pell-eligible students.

However, private HBCUs in general enroll more Pell-eligible students than public HBCUs. Among HBCUs in which more than 80 percent of their students qualify for the Federal Pell Grant, 8 are public universities and 19 are private. By contrast, among HBCUs in which fewer than 70 percent of their students qualify for the Federal Pell Grant, 23 are public and 11 are private.

HBCU FISCAL RESOURCES AND ASSETS Fiscal stability is central to the viability of any institution of higher education. Like all institutions, historically black colleges and universities have various ways to bring revenue to the institution, including competitive grants and contracts from public agencies, state allocations, tuition, and donations. Additionally, a strong endowment is important for the ongoing support of an institution. The long-term

survival of any HBCU depends on the institution’s ability to access multiple sources of revenue.

On average, an HBCU earns $13,816,503 from competitive and noncompetitive grants and contracts from federal, state, and local governments—$11.9 million from the federal government, $1.3 million from state governments, and $561 thousand from local governments.

Morehouse School of Medicine ($92,743,723) and Meharry Medical College ($71,824,102) have generated more revenue through competitive grants and contracts than any other HBCU. The top 10 four-year HBCUs for generating revenue through grants and contracts are: Howard University ($59,766,000) Jackson State University ($59,228,729) Xavier University of Louisiana ($51,528,088) Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University ($48,063,305) Tuskegee University ($41,553,739) Tennessee State University ($36,145,597) Morgan State University ($35,498,514) Hampton University ($32,911,946) South Carolina State University ($32,301,531) Southern University and A & M College ($31,013,561) Conversely, Paul Quinn College, Alabama A & M University, Virginia University of Lynchburg, Lincoln University of Missouri, and Fayetteville State University all reported revenues through grants and contracts that were less than $2 million, or less than 15 percent of the HBCU average.

Forty-seven HBCUs are supported by public funds with allocations from state governments. Both Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University and North Carolina A & T State University have annual allocations from their state that exceed $90 million, which is more funding from state allocations than any other state HBCU. There are also 14 HBCUs receiving less revenue now than they received more than 10 years ago.

The 10 HBCUs that experienced the greatest loss of state revenues are: South Carolina State University (SC) Southern University and A & M College (LA) Southern University at New Orleans (LA) Grambling State University (LA) Bluefield State College (WV) Albany State University (GA) Savannah State University (GA) West Virginia State University (WV) Fort Valley State University (GA) Tennessee State University (TN)

-$12,979,170 -$15,171,103 -$4,009,163 -$6,089,011 -$1,477,278 -$3,446,828 -$3,108,823 -$1,868,963 -$2,554,231 -$2,254,956

2014 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL

(-89%) (-43%) (-41%) (-33%) (-22%) (-20%) (-19%) (-15%) (-13%) (-6%) P.31

The average endowment across HBCUs that participate in Title IV is $27.7 million. Seven HBCUs have endowments that exceed $100 million: Howard University, Spelman College, Hampton University, Xavier University of Louisiana, Morehouse College, Meharry Medical College, and Tuskegee University. Fourteen four-year HBCUs have endowments that are less than $2 million, or less than 1 percent of the average endowment for all HBCUs. They are: Arkansas Baptist College ($97,497) Allen University ($312,884) Virginia University of Lynchburg

($387,292) South Carolina State University ($766,537) Coppin State University ($815,839) Harris-Stowe State University ($872,242) Cheyney University of Pennsylvania ($1,260,216) Livingstone College ($1,534,413) Albany State University ($1,540,661) Texas College ($1,593,210) Edward Waters College ($1,660,594) University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff ($1,679,845) Bluefield State College ($1,364,035) Mississippi Valley State University ($1,687,329)

HBCU FACULTY AND PRODUCTIVITY In order for an institution to function at an adequate level, it has to have a stable workforce with qualified faculty and staff, and an infrastructure that can accommodate a first-class learning environment. Good human capital and strong infrastructure and capacity at historically black colleges and universities are typically evidenced by long tenures in upper level administration, fewer administrative vacancies, qualified faculty members with competitive salaries, robust degree offerings, recognition by an accreditation organization that is recognized by the United States Department of Education, and having new buildings and major facility upgrades.

A good measure of an HBCU’s human capital is the percent of faculty members who have achieved an academic rank of full professor or associate professor. On average, 43 percent of HBCU faculty members are full professors or associate professors. HBCUs with a high percentage of students who are being taught by low ranking faculty members and non-tenure track instructors may have some difficulties meeting the needs of twenty-first century learners. The HBCUs with the lowest percentage students being taught by senior faculty members are:

Allen University (0%) Selma University (0%) Paine College (0%) Arkansas Baptist College (7%) Tougaloo College (14%) Harris-Stowe State University (19%) Miles College (19%) Saint Augustine’s University (20%) Lane College (22%) Edward Waters College (22%) St Philip’s College (23%) Texas College (23%) Bethune-Cookman University (25%) Philander Smith College (25%) Further, salary and compensation affect all universities’ ability to attract and retain highly qualified and academically achieving faculty. Economic security is as indispensable to faculty quality and stability as shared governance and academic freedom. Faculty salaries are a key metric of institutional competitiveness within a peer group. Compensation is used

by HBCUs for benchmarking, internal equity, merit recognition, and disciplinary-based market growth. The average annual salary for faculty across all HBCUs is $53,925.54. The top 10 HBCUs for competitive salaries are: University of the District of Columbia ($83,182) Cheyney University of Pennsylvania ($79,989) Howard University ($78,845) Texas Southern University ($72,539) North Carolina A & T State University ($71,583) Lincoln University of Pennsylvania ($71,184) Winston-Salem State University ($69,863) Fayetteville State University ($68,684) Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University ($68,373) North Carolina Central University ($68,098) Conversely, the four-year HBCUs that offer the lowest salaries to their faculty members on average are: Southwestern Christian College ($33,308) Texas College ($34,650) Miles College ($36,476) Arkansas Baptist College

($37,436) Le Moyne-Owen College ($37,833) Tougaloo College ($38,582) Jarvis Christian College ($39,640) 2014 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL

P.33

Voorhees College Paul Quinn College Wilberforce University

($40,618) ($41,070) ($42,039)

Howard University and Jackson State University are the only HBCUs that have a Carnegie Classification of 16 (RU/H: Research Universities high research activity). Eight HBCUs have a Carnegie Classification of 17 (DRU: Doctoral/Research Universities): Texas Southern University, North Carolina A & T State University, Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University, Bowie State University, Morgan State University, South Carolina State University, Tennessee State University, and Clark Atlanta University.

The top 10 HBCUs for the total number of degrees awarded are: Howard University (2,392) Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (2,062) North Carolina A & T State University (1,782) Prairie View A & M University (1,599) Tennessee State University (1,549) Texas Southern University (1,450) North Carolina Central University (1,373) Jackson State University (1,350) Southern University and A & M College (1,228) Winston-Salem State University (1,139)

CONCLUSION Historically black colleges and universities have made great strides in providing educational opportunities for African Americans. From their humble beginning in the early 1800s, these institutions have grown to make significant contributions to American society and to provide educational opportunities for low-income and academically disadvantaged students who would have otherwise been denied higher education. HBCUs have achieved this success despite discrimination from state and federal governments, severely inadequate funding, economic and enrollment downturns, and lack of support from most political leaders and the general public. They remain beacons of light on the postsecondary landscape. This report presented statistical data covering four major areas of HBCU activity: enrollment, retention, finances, and faculty.

The data presented in this report paint an important picture of the contribution that has been made and continues to be made by historically black colleges and universities. Important also, of course, is promise for the future. The continued enhancement and development

of these campuses strengthen the ability of our nation to improve the production of college-educated citizens, economically empower the communities in which these institutions are situated, and expand the nation’s competitiveness. The demand for an educated citizenry and work force has never been greater. As society acknowledges the role and place of everyone in the global economy, the challenge of defining the college student will be critical in developing and ongoing efforts aimed at educational access, opportunity, and attainment. Historically black colleges and universities play and must continue to play a vital role in these developments.

As has been demonstrated by the data presented, these institutions are multi-missioned and multi-faceted. They educate, employ, and empower a diverse population of citizens and contribute in immeasurable ways to the nation and the world. Although created primarily for the education of African Americans, they continue to make collegiate participation more accessible to all. Without doubt, they are, without exception, in need of greater financial and moral support. The council hopes that increased support will be forthcoming in the years ahead, thereby enhancing the ability of these institutions to contribute uniquely, as they always have done, to American education and society.

2014 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL

P.35

THE UNITED NATIONS: PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE

FROM JUNE 26, 1945, THE DATE OF ITS CHARTER, THE UNITED NATIONS (U.N.) HAS BEEN COMMITTED TO MAINTAINING GLOBAL PEACE AND SECURITY, PROMOTING SOCIAL PROGRESS AND IMPROVED LIVING STANDARDS, AND ENSURING RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMAN DIGNITY. AS AN INSTITUTION AND AS A COLLECTIVE OF IDEAS AND PRINCIPLES, THE U.N. REMAINS A DIRECT RESPONSE TO THE ATROCITIES OF WORLD WAR II BUT ENDURES AS A CONSTANT REMINDER THAT, LEFT UNCHECKED, ATROCITIES—E.G., WAR, TERRORISM, TORTURE, ABUSE OF AUTHORITY, FAMINE, DROUGHT, DISEASE, AND OTHER HEALTH DISPARITIES, HATE CRIMES, REFUGEE ABUSE, ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION— REMAIN A THREAT TO EVERY HUMAN BEING ON THE PLANET.

2014 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL

P.37

Recognizing that no single state could or should “police” these kinds of issues among fellow countries, the U.N. is a concerted effort of 193 member states, which express views through the General Assembly and work for solutions through various bodies, such as the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, and the International Court of Justice.

CREATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS Franklin Delano Roosevelt was first to use the term United Nations when, on January 1, 1942, 26 governments committed to continue to fight together against the Axis Powers of World War II by signing The Declaration of the United Nations. This historic event along with two preceding it (i.e., The Declaration of St. James’s Palace and The Atlantic Charter) and several that followed (i.e., the Moscow and Teheran conferences, Dumbarton Oaks and Yalta, and the San Francisco conference) solidified, through artful negotiations, the purposeful bonds among future U.N. member states and paved the way for drafting the charter in San Francisco in June 1945. The San Francisco conference was attended by 850 delegates from 50 countries, which, at the time, represented more than 80 percent of the world’s population. In addition, staffers, advisors, press, and observers brought total attendance to more than 6,000 people, an unprecedented international gathering for the era. Once drafted, the U.N. charter was ratified by unanimous vote, then signed by each of the 50 delegations (Poland would sign after the fact to make 51 charter member states). But it would not take effect until several members could get formal governmental approval at home.

The charter specified that once a majority of governments—mandatorily including those of the “Big Five” (still, in their modern forms, the five permanent members of the Security Council): China, France, Great Britain, the Soviet Union and the United States (U.S.)—secured domestic approvals, the U.N. would be established officially, which occurred on October 24, 1945, four months after the signing.

The charter’s preamble expresses the U.N.’s aims: We the people of the United Nations, determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and the nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, and for these ends to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors,

and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims.1 At the signing, President Harry S. Truman addressed the delegations: The Charter of the United Nations which you have just signed is a solid structure upon which we can build a better world. History will honor you for it. Between the victory in Europe and the final victory, in this most destructive of all wars, you have won a victory against war itself . . . With this Charter the world can begin to look forward to the time when all worthy human beings may be permitted to live decently as free people. . . . If we fail to use it we shall betray all those who have died so that we might meet here in freedom and safety to create it. If we seek to use it selfishly—for the advantage of any one nation, or any small group of nations— we shall be equally guilty of that betrayal.2 In the intervening years, even as the U.N.’s role has expanded, the organization’s commitment to peace, international (sustainable) development, and human rights has not wavered. Nonetheless, from time to time, commitment to the organization by some member states arguably has. As many explore whether continued support for the U.N. is warranted, the World Policy Council asserts that, in 2014, we live in a world arguably every bit as volatile as—if not more so than—the postWWII era in which the U.N. was created; therefore, the U.N.’s collective international governance—although flawed—is absolutely essential to establishing, restoring, and maintaining peace and social justice not only in other countries but in the U.S. as well.

FUNDING THE UNITED NATIONS Member states fund the U.N. under three categories:

• Obligatory dues for the regular budget • Obligatory dues for peace missions and for International Criminal Tribunals • Voluntary contributions to funds and programs The U.N. General Assembly approves the regular operating budget, which was $5.5 billion for the two-year period from 2013 to 2014,3 and determines the percentage amount to be assessed to each member state. These assessments are scaled according to a member’s perceived 2014 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL

P.39

ability to pay as measured by Gross National Income (while factoring in external debt, per capital income, and so forth). Ceiling and floor rates exist to foster fair participation. These rates were revised in 2000, by demand of the U.S. Congress, to a ceiling of 22% (down from 25%) and a floor of 0.001%. In addition, there is a separate peacekeeping budget, which was $7.8 billion in 2013–2014, to support the nearly 100,000 troops currently deployed on 16 missions across the globe.4 Member assessments for these operations are also scaled but with a heavier weighting for the five permanent members of the Security Council, the body that must approve any such mission. In 2013, the U.S. was responsible for 22% (approximately $1.2 billion) of the regular budget as well as 28% (approximately $2.2 billion) of the peacekeeping budget.

Enforcing assessments has been a challenge from the U.N.’s beginnings.

However, the post-Soviet Union unipolar world has presented new hurdles. The U.S. stands as the world’s single most influential country and has used withholding of payments as a means of encouraging— some would argue forcing—reform and/or policy changes in line with its priorities. Other countries have, of course, done the same (e.g., the USSR over peace missions to the Congo in the early 1960s). However, since 1991, the U.S. has been in a singular position to do so to significant effect.

The expense associated with membership in the U.N. is substantial, and the annual appropriation must have congressional approval in the U.S., which has often presented a forum for debate about the effectiveness, efficiency, and general relevance of the U.N.’s programs, agencies, and missions.

SUCCESSES AND FAILURES OF THE UNITED NATIONS Former U.N. Secretary-General and Nobel Laureate Dag Hammarskjold once remarked: The U.N. reflects both aspiration and falling short of aspiration, but the constant struggle to close the gap between aspiration and performance now, as always, makes the difference between civilization and chaos.5 The U.N. has been faulted for issues from bloated bureaucracy and attendant inefficiencies to unspeakable atrocities committed by U.N. security forces while on missions throughout the world. And the organization certainly must be held accountable. Strong accusations have included:

• Failure to combat/contain climate change.6 • Failure to maintain objectivity/neutrality in the face of the organization’s economic dependence on certain countries as

well as the inequity of the privilege of the Security Council veto.7 • Failure to prevent massacre/genocide, e.g., in Somalia, Rwanda, Darfur, Bosnia, Gaza/the West Bank/Israel, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo among other countries.8 • Failure to prevent alleged physical and sexual abuses perpetrated by peacekeepers on civilians (particularly children) in host countries.9 Without doubt, the U.N. must engage in substantive management and oversight reforms as well as transparency enhancements, peacekeeping reforms, policy reforms, and greater impartiality.

Nonetheless, despite the U.N.’s faults, it can be argued convincingly that the organization has contributed significantly to the absence of a third world war; the containment of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons; as well as peace settlements for numerous regional conflicts over the last seven decades. Furthermore, the U.N. has arguably unparalleled programs:

• • • •

• • • •

to guard against world hunger and build food security to aid/protect refugees to guard the rights and welfare of children to provide education and services to women for reproductive health, children’s health, family planning, and the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases to provide education and services for prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS and other pandemics to prosecute war criminals to ensure free and fair elections to focus attention on human rights abuses

For its work, the U.N. and its delegates/affiliates have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize ten times:

• • • • • • • • •

1950: Ralph J. Bunche, U.N. Mediator 1954: The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees 1961: Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold (posthumously) 1965: UNICEF, the United Nations Children’s Fund 1969: The International Labor Organization (ILO) 1981: U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees 1988: U.N. Peacekeeping Forces 2001: United Nations and Secretary-General Kofi Annan 2007: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Gore, Jr. • 2013: The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) 2014 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL

P.41

THE UNITED NATIONS’ WORK IN THE UNITED STATES Although many in the U.S. recognize the U.N. for missions and programs throughout the world, the WPC suspects that few Americans consider the benefits of U.N. programs within U.S. borders. The U.N. played a role in the U.S. Civil Rights Movement, dating back to the San Francisco conference in 1945. At the time, the recent death of President Roosevelt was a blow to many African Americans, who believed he (and likely even more so his wife Eleanor Roosevelt) might support redress of the discrimination, segregation, and oppression imposed by U.S. law.10 Four prominent African-American civil rights leaders were accredited by the State Department to attend the conference: Mary McLeod Bethune, founder of the National Council of Negro Women; Mordecai W. Johnson, president of Howard University; and W.E.B. DuBois and Walter White, founder and president (respectively) of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Furthermore, Ralph J. Bunche, acting chief of the Division of Dependent Territories for the Department of State, attended as a member of the official staff.

African-American newspapers sent reporters to cover the conference, and African Americans appeared to have maintained particular interest in the delegates from the African and Asian countries as well as those from India, Liberia, Ethiopia, and Haiti,11 seeming to believe that when these delegates spoke, they represented and therefore brought consideration to oppressed peoples everywhere.12 The U.N.’s—and, thus, seemingly the world’s—commitment to “[u]niversal respect by, and observance of human rights and fundamental freedom for all without distinction to race, language or religion”13 was encouraging to subjugated people across the planet. This encouragement intensified as the U.N. began to play a role in decolonization throughout Asia and Africa. And, of course, it resonated with great significance among African Americans who were in the midst of their struggle for civil rights. But the role of the U.N. in setting standards for social justice is not entirely in the past for people living in the United States. The World Policy Council suggests that even in this country, in the era of heated debate over immigration, same-sex unions, police brutality, racial profiling, voting rights, unequal sentencing, gun control, Guantanamo Bay detainees, government surveillance, food deserts, environmental disparities, and the minimum wage, among other issues, the perspective and voice of the U.N. in these debates are absolutely warranted and should be welcomed.

In August 2014, the United Nations’ Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) released a report on the United States, which outlined serious failings in the progress of social justice within the 50 states.14 The World Policy Council believes that many in the U.S. have mistakenly viewed the U.N. as an organization established to help “less fortunate” countries. We should disabuse ourselves of that notion.

The U.N. is an institution dedicated to worldwide democratic and social-justice ideals. As such, it should serve as a watchdog for failure to achieve these standards in any country, no matter how great its wealth, power, authority, or influence. The U.N. should be supported, by the U.S. and others, as a check and balance for all member states. The coercive use of payment withholding and/or the Security Council veto stand counter to President Truman’s words at the final session in San Francisco: If we seek to use it selfishly—for the advantage of any one nation, or any small group of nations—we shall be equally guilty of that betrayal.15 The World Policy Council believes that global powers, led by the United States, should work to reform and strengthen the United Nations. By living up to their responsibility to abide by the U.N.’s rules and governance, the global powers will foster progress towards true peace and security and enhance the prospect of sustainable development and economic, political, and social justice for all people—in the United States and around the world.

2014 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL

P.43

UKRAINE: NOW IN THE FOREFRONT

MUCH IN THE NEWS DURING THIS SUMMER OF 2014, “UKRAINE” IS A SUBJECT THAT WOULD HAVE ATTRACTED LITTLE ATTENTION A FEW MONTHS AGO. IT CERTAINLY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN THE FOREFRONT OF WHITE HOUSE FOREIGN POLICY CONCERNS NOR BEEN VIEWED AS ONE OF THE GREATEST CAUSES OF TENSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE WEST SINCE THE COLD WAR. INDEED, MOST AMERICANS WOULD PROBABLY HAVE HAD TO CONSULT THE INTERNET OR OTHER SOURCES TO IDENTIFY THIS DISTANT EASTERN EUROPEAN STATE PROPERLY. THIS LACK OF AWARENESS DOES NOT, AS IN THE CASE OF BOSNIA A FEW YEARS AGO, MAKE THE SITUATION ANY LESS COMPELLING OR THE DANGERS LESS REAL.

2014 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL

P.45

In his most recent appearance on “60 Minutes” (September 28, 2014), President Barack Obama asserted that the “dangers” are caused by Russian President Vladimir Putin putting his own popularity at home ahead of sound and sensible policy abroad. Obama implied that Putin had violated Ukraine’s sovereignty and was continuing to fan the flames of insurrection in that country by providing support to ethnic Russian rebels. He said that the U.S. and its allies in NATO would continue to resist these tactics.

Russia has charged that Ukraine was mistreating its Russian minority and warned that it would oppose such abuse. The Russian government went on to observe that President Putin was prepared to protect Russian “victims” not only in Ukraine but also in other countries of the region with minority Russian populations. This threat did not lessen tension but rather increased it.

In this essay, the World Policy Council examines the causes of this conflict; reflects on its origin and background; and suggests what may lie ahead for this issue now looming large on the foreign policy horizon.

In doing so, the council has been aided by presentations from expert consultants on Ukraine, notably Dr. William Gleason, chair of Advanced Polish and Ukrainian Area Studies Programs at the Foreign Service Institute, U.S. Department of State, and other special resources.

GEOGRAPHY It has been said that Ukraine could not be better positioned strategically. It is clearly of importance to Russia, its eastern neighbor with which it shares a lengthy border. Ukraine is the second largest country in Europe after Russia. It borders four countries—Belarus, Poland, Austria, and Romania—on the north and west. The Black Sea runs between Ukraine and Turkey to the south, providing Ukraine with prime locations for tourists. A rich grain-farming area, the country has been known at various times in the past as the breadbasket of Europe, particularly of the Soviet Union. It includes Chernobyl, site of an early nuclear power plant meltdown. Both the Black Sea port Sevastopol, which the USSR used and Russia continues to use as an important nuclear base, and Yalta are in its southern region, which is known as the Crimea. Ukraine covers 233,088 square miles and has a population of 45.5 million.

HISTORY Notwithstanding its rich geographic, cultural, and economic advantages over time, Ukraine was not formally recognized as an independent country until 1991 with the breakup of the Soviet Union. For centuries,

the Ukrainian region had been part of some other country, i.e., Russia, Poland, the USSR, etc. The one brief exception to this domination occurred in the 15th century when the region’s ethnic groups were unified by Ukrainian Cossacks, but this country was broken up after only 20 years and divided between Russia and Poland.

In the tenth century, Kiev (now the capital of Ukraine) was the leading capital of Europe. It was well ahead of London and Paris in amenities and influence. In 1240, the Mongols, led by Genghis Khan’s grandson, overran Kiev. Some of the Eastern Slavs who inhabited the Ukrainian region at the time fled north. They became Russians. Others fled west or remained in place. They became Ukrainians.

Over the centuries, Western Ukraine was often ruled by Poland or another Central European power. Eastern Ukraine was more often dominated by Russia and was a part of the Russian Empire before the Soviet Revolution of 1917. All of Ukraine was incorporated into the USSR in 1922. In 1932, some 7 million Ukrainians died when Stalin moved the region’s entire harvest into Russia and forced the inhabitants to remain behind.

The people of Western Ukraine identified with Central Europe and chafed under Soviet rule. Those in the east identified more closely with the Russians, who often referred to them as “little Russians.” Many of them were, in fact, ethnic Russians and spoke the Russian language whereas those in the east were largely ethnic Ukrainians who spoke the Ukrainian language.

Of the country’s 45.5 million inhabitants today, the vast majority, 77%, are ethnically Ukrainian; 17% are ethnically Russian. Other minorities make up the remaining 6% of the population. The numbers alone, of course, do not tell the whole story. Throughout its long history, Ukraine has been hampered by ethnic, political, and other internal divisions obstructing solidarity and national unity. In varying degrees, many of these problems prevail today.

THE CURRENT SITUATION Despite vast political differences, factions within Ukraine, notably the eastern and western divisions, came together in 1991 demanding withdrawal from the Soviet Union. This significant development reflected both nationalistic trends and anti-Soviet sentiments, particularly the latter, experts say. Distrust of Russia and the desire for freedom from outside dominance no doubt go hand in hand. However, such episodes as the Chernobyl incident in which the Soviet regime only

2014 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL

P.47

belatedly and under duress acknowledged the worst nuclear accident to that date led even Russian-leaning Ukrainians to rethink their attitudes.

Even so, Ukraine has struggled to incorporate its varying traditions and experiences into a national identity. There has been continuing debate over whether to identify with Western Europe in the form of the European Union or with Russia. The majority view, as well as political, economic, and social trends, has almost always favored departure from the Russian orbit.

Of course, such sentiments and actions have not occurred in isolation.

Since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, the majority of formerly Soviet states have opted for democracy over communism and/or Russian socialism. Free to make their own choices, they have become a “pro-democracy” movement, adopting, in varying degrees, western traditions and values. Among the independent but Soviet-dominated countries and the former members of the USSR who have taken such steps are Albania, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia. All are members of the European Union (EU) and some have also been accepted into NATO where membership carries a military obligation.

In these and other instances, the United States and other western countries have encouraged the western orientation in various ways.

In the case of the U.S., trade plus educational and cultural programs, including exchange of persons, are featured. Private voluntary organizations from the U.S. play a leading role in promoting democratic concepts. Although the “new” Russia itself has, in a limited way, allowed and to some extent participated in some of these programs, that country clearly does not entirely welcome such developments among its neighbors and former clients.

The example of Ukraine, with its strong western leanings and which also (as Russia sees it) is a primary target of U.S. and other western interests, perhaps best illustrates the point. Whether Ukraine is to be oriented toward the West or toward Russia constitutes, in fact, the crux of the current east–west conflict.

In November 2013, Ukraine President Victor Yanukovych’s government rejected a far-reaching accord with the EU in favor of stronger ties with Russia. Demonstrators took to the streets, ultimately forcing Yanukovych to flee to Russia, where he remains.

In March 2014, Russia helped dissidents to seize control of Crimea and then annexed the region. The U.S. and some European countries imposed sanctions on Russia in response.

In April 2014, pro-Russian separatists declared an independent republic in the Eastern Ukraine city of Donetsk. Masked, unidentified forces, probably Russian irregulars, have been fighting the Ukrainian military in the eastern part of the country since.

In May 2014, Petro Poroshenko was elected president of Ukraine. He has since signed an agreement with the EU. In July 2014, a Malaysian civil airliner came down in rebel-held territory in eastern Ukraine. It is suspected that rebel forces shot it down.

In September 2014, to avoid the defeat of separatist forces by the Ukrainian military, Russia sent regular troops into eastern Ukraine.

Russia denies that it has done so.

WHAT LIES AHEAD? President Obama has stated that the U.S. will not engage in military conflict over Ukraine. He has continued to assert this position while applying increasingly stringent economic sanctions against Russia and encouraging European allies to do the same. And he has continued this strategy even in the face of a recent (September) visit to this country

by President Poroshenko, who, in a meeting with President Obama and also in a speech before a joint session of Congress, called for stronger action. Poroshenko’s request for more lethal and sophisticated weaponry may well go unanswered.

Ukraine is a potential powder keg that conceivably could set off a third world war. Russia has a legitimate interest in what goes on in Ukraine, a country with which it shares a long border. The EU also has interests there. Several of its members border on Ukraine and Ukraine’s resources are important to it. Events in Ukraine also affect U.S. national interests. As President Obama seems to recognize, the challenge is to find, through diplomacy, not force of arms, a solution for the Ukraine problem that will be acceptable to all the parties involved. This is no small order.

2014 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL

P.49

RESOURCES THE UNITED NATIONS: PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE 1.

Peter I. Hajnal, Guide to United Nations Organization, Documentation, and Publishing: For Students, Researchers, Librarians (Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Publications, 1978), p. 331.

2. History of the United Nations, http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/history/sanfrancisco_conference.shtml.

3. 68th General Assembly Press Release, http://www.un.org/News/ Press/docs/2013/ga11479.doc.htm (December 27, 2013).

4. Peacekeeping Fact Sheet, http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/resources/statistics/factsheet.shtml (June 30, 2014).

5. Jean E. Krasno, ed., The United Nations: Confronting the Challenges of a Global Society (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2004), p. 231.

6. Michael Bastasch, “Epic Fail: UN climate talks fall apart as 132 countries storm out,” The Daily Caller, November 20, 2013 (http:// dailycaller.com/2013/11/20/epic-fail-un-climate-talks-fall-apart-as132-countries-storm-out/).

7. Dilip Chandra, “Successes and Failures of the United Nations,” HubPages: Politics and Social Issues, March 17, 2014 (http://dilipchandra12.hubpages.com/hub/Successes-and-Failures-of-the-UnitedNations).

8. David Ignatius, “U.N. Peacekeeping and the failure of a noble idea,” The Washington Post, August 31, 2012 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-un-peacekeeping-and-the-failure-of-a-nobleidea/2012/08/31/86a023d6f2e0-11e1-892d-bc92fee603a7_story.html).

9. Thomas W. Jacobson,“ U.N. Peacekeeping: Few Successes, Many Failures, Inherent Flaws,” The Center for Sovereignty & Security, March–April 2012 (http://www.idppcenter.com/UN_Peacekeeping_ Failures.pdf).

10. John Hope Franklin and Alfred A. Moss, Jr., From Slavery to Freedom: A History of African Americans, Eighth Edition (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006), p. 499.

11. Ibid., p. 500.

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid., p. 501.

14. Joanna Rothkopf, “A UN watchdog released a report on racism in the U.S. and we are not doing well,” Salon, August 29, 2014 (http:// www.salon.com/2014/08/29/a_un_watchdog_released_a_report_on_racism_the_u_s_and_we_are_not_doing_well/?utm_ source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow).

15. History of the United Nations, http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/history/sanfrancisco_conference.shtml.

2014 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL

P.51

RESOURCES UKRAINE: NOW IN THE FOREFRONT BBC, “Why is Ukraine in Turmoil?” February 22, 2014. http://www.bbc. com/news/world-europe-25182823 BBC, “Ukraine Profile: A Chronology of Key Events,” September 3, 2014. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-18010123 Gleason, William, “Conversation with the World Policy Council.”

September 11, 2014 Mearsheimer, John J. “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault: The Liberal Delusions that Provoked Putin,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 93, No. 5, September 2014. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-jmearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault Milikh, Arthur. “Putin Attacks the West’s Soft Underbelly.” World Affairs Journal. http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/putinattacks-wests-soft-underbelly?utm_source=World+Affairs+Newsle tter&utm_campaign=d931dd2945-September_12_2014_Blogs_Milikh_Motyl_Totten&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f83b38c5c7d931dd2945-231282705 Russian Embassy, Washington, DC. “The ‘Putin Plan’ for Settling the Conflict in Ukraine.” September 16, 2014. http://www.russianembassy. org/article/the-putin-plan-for-settling-the-conflict-in-ukraine Russian Embassy, Washington, DC. “An Interview of the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to the ITAR-TASS Agency.” September 16, 2014. http://www.russianembassy.org/article/an-interview-of-the-russian-foreign-minister-sergey-lavrov-to-the-itar-tass-agency “Ukraine, Russia and the West: The Long Game.” September 6, 2014. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21615582-sad-reality-vladimirputin-winning-ukraine-west-must-steel-itself?zid=307&ah=5e80419d1bc9821ebe173f4f0f060a07

U.S. Department of State, Office of the Spokesperson. “Russia’s Continuing Support for Armed Separatists in Ukraine and Ukraine’s Efforts Toward Peace, Unity, and Stability.” Fact Sheet. July 14, 2014. http://www. state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/07/229270.htm

2014 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL

P.53

THE OBJECTIVES OF THIS FRATERNITY SHALL BE: TO STIMULATE THE AMBITION OF ITS MEMBERS; TO PREPARE THEM FOR THE GREATEST USEFULNESS IN THE CAUSES OF HUMANITY, FREEDOM, AND DIGNITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL; TO ENCOURAGE THE HIGHEST AND NOBLEST FORM OF MANHOOD; AND TO AID DOWN-TRODDEN HUMANITY IN ITS EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE HIGHER SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND INTELLECTUAL STATUS.

SINCE ITS FOUNDING ON DECEMBER 4, 1906, ALPHA PHI ALPHA FRATERNITY HAS SUPPLIED VOICE AND VISION TO THE STRUGGLE OF AFRICAN AMERICANS AND PEOPLE OF COLOR AROUND THE WORLD. Alpha Phi Alpha, the first intercollegiate Greek-letter fraternity established for African Americans, was founded at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York by seven college men who recognized the need for a strong bond of brotherhood among African descendants in this country. The visionary founders, known as the “Jewels” of the fraternity, are Henry Arthur Callis, Charles Henry Chapman, Eugene Kinckle Jones, George Biddle Kelley, Nathaniel Allison Murray, Robert Harold Ogle, and Vertner Woodson Tandy.

The fraternity initially served as a study and support group for minority students who faced racial prejudice, both educationally and socially, at Cornell. The Jewel founders and early leaders of the fraternity succeeded in laying a firm foundation for Alpha Phi Alpha’s principles of scholarship, fellowship, good character, and the uplifting of humanity.

Alpha Phi Alpha chapters were established at other colleges and universities, many of them historically black institutions, soon after the founding at Cornell. The first alumni chapter was established in 1911.

While continuing to stress academic excellence among its members, Alpha also recognized the need to help correct the educational, economic, political, and social injustices faced by African Americans.

Alpha Phi Alpha has long stood at the forefront of the African-American community’s fight for civil rights through leaders such as W.E.B. DuBois, Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., Edward Brooke, Martin Luther King, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Andrew Young, William Gray, Paul Robeson, and many others. True to its form as the “first of firsts,” Alpha Phi Alpha has been interracial since 1945.

2014 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL

P.55

Henry Arthur Callis became a practicing physician, Howard University professor of medicine and prolific contributor to medical journals. Often regarded as the “philosopher of the founders,” and a moving force in the fraternity’s development, he was the only one of the “Cornell Seven” to become general president. Prior to moving to Washington, D.C., he was a medical consultant to the Veterans Hospital in Tuskegee, Alabama. Upon his death in 1974, at age 87, the fraternity entered a time without any living Jewels. His papers were donated to Howard’s MoorlandSpingarn Research Center.

Charles Henry Chapman entered higher education and eventually became professor of agriculture at what is now Florida A&M University. A university funeral was held with considerable fraternity participation when he became the first Jewel to enter Omega Chapter in 1934. Described as “a Brother beloved in the bonds,” Chapman was a founder of FAMU’s Beta Nu Chapter. During the organization stages of Alpha Chapter, he was the first chairman of the Committees on Initiation and Organization.

Eugene Kinckle Jones became the first executive secretary of the National Urban League. His 20-year tenure with the Urban League thus far has exceeded those of all his successors in office. A versatile leader, he organized the first three fraternity chapters that branched out from Cornell—Beta at Howard, Gamma at Virginia Union and the original Delta at the University of Toronto in Canada. In addition to becoming Alpha Chapter’s second president and joining with Callis in creating the fraternity name, Jones was a member of the first Committees on Constitution and Organization and helped write the fraternity ritual. He died in 1954.

George Biddle Kelley became the first African-American engineer registered in the state of New York. Not only was he the strongest proponent of the fraternity idea among the organization’s founders, the civil engineering student also became Alpha Chapter’s first president. In addition, he served on committees that worked out the handshake and ritual. Kelley was popular with the brotherhood. He resided in Troy, New York and was active with Beta Pi Lambda Chapter in Albany. He died in 1963.

Nathaniel Allison Murray pursued graduate work after completing his undergraduate studies at Howard. He later returned home to Washington, D.C., where he taught in public schools. Much of his career was spent at Armstrong Vocational High School in the District of Columbia. He was a member of Alpha Chapter’s first committee on organization of the new fraternal group, as well as the Committee on the Grip. The charter member of Washington’s Mu Lambda Chapter was a frequent attendee of General Conventions. He died in 1959.

Robert Harold Ogle entered the career secretarial field and had the unique privilege of serving as a professional staff member to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations. He was an African-American pioneer in his Capitol Hill position.

He proposed the fraternity’s colors and was Alpha Chapter’s first secretary. Ogle joined Kelley in working out the first ritual and later became a charter member of Washington’s Mu Lambda Chapter. He died in 1936.

Vertner Woodson Tandy became the state of New York’s first registered black architect, with offices on Broadway in New York City. The designer of the fraternity pin holds the distinction of being the first African-American to pass the military commissioning examination and was commissioned first lieutenant in the 15th Infantry of the New York State National Guard. He was Alpha Chapter’s first treasurer and took the initiative to incorporate the fraternity. Among the buildings designed by the highly talented architect is Saint Phillips Episcopal Church in New York City. He died in 1949, at age 64.

2014 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL

P.57

NOTES

2014 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL

P.59

NOTES

2014 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL

P.61

NOTES

2014 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL

P.63

2014 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL

P.III

ADDRESS Alpha

Phi Alpha Fraternity

2313 St. Paul Street Baltimore, MD 21218 PHONE

(410) 554-0040

WEB www.apa1906.net