From Publishers Weekly
The Harvard-based authors observe that recent judicial decisions on desegregation have given up on the reformist aspects of the landmark Brown desegregation case: now integration is seen not as a goal but as merely "a temporary punishment for historic violations." This, they add, mainly affects the South, where city-suburban desegregation efforts have progressed; in Northern cities, by contrast, a 1974 decision barred such regional desegregation, effectively blocking Brown. While a significant number of blacks are now seeking parity more than integration?an updated form of "separate but equal"?the authors argue that segregation today means profound educational inequality linked to poverty and lack of political power. A good chunk of the book, aimed mainly at experts, consists of detailed case studies of desegregation efforts in places such as Norfolk, Va. (where undoing integration did not improve education), Charlotte, N.C. (where forces for and against integration still seem balanced), and Kansas City (where new spending has brought modest gains). The authors conclude with some possibly good, if not yet politically feasible, advice: desegregation plans, to be effective, must bridge cities and suburbs, and, because school segregation is based on residential segregation, a long-term plan to integrate communities could work better than busing students.
Copyright 1996 Reed Business Information, Inc.
--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
What ever happened to
Brown v.
Board of Education? The director and assistant director of the Harvard Project on School Desegregation demonstrate that although
Brown is widely praised, courts, politicians, and school districts are racing back to "separate but equal" education based on dubious assumptions and evidence. Orfield and Eaton outline desegregation's legal history, paying particular attention to recent Supreme Court decisions (
Dowell 1991,
Pitts 1992, and
Jenkins 1995) central to the current "dismantling desegregation" campaign, and compare this campaign's logic and rhetoric with the arguments used to justify Jim Crow. After examining the realities and results of increasing school (and housing) segregation in the 1990s, the authors use research by Harvard seminar participants to examine how desegregation, compensatory education, and resegregation decisions have worked in Norfolk, Charlotte, Kansas City, Detroit, Austin, Little Rock, and Maryland's Montgomery and Prince Georges counties.
Brown's constitutional target, Orfield and Eaton note, was a "structure of opportunity" from which minorities were excluded; although
better desegregation plans could be drawn, giving up on desegregation now would restore the peculiar American brand of apartheid and reimpose its profoundly inequitable distribution of opportunities.
Mary Carroll
--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.