ED 391 234

AUTHORTITLEINSTITUTION

PUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

EA 027 299

Johnson, DonaldThe Prolise of Brown: Has It Been Fulfilled?New York Univ., NY. Metropolitan Center for UrbanEducation.9548p.

Metro Center, New York University, 32 Washington,Place, Suite 72, New York, NY 10003 ($10; $8.95 eachper 100).Books (010) Viewpoints (Opinion/Position Papers,Essays, etc.) (120)

MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.Blacks; Civil Rights Legislation; Court Litigation;Cultural Pluralism; *Educational Equity (Finance);Educational Opportunities; *Educational Quality;Elementary Secondary Education; *Equal Education;Racial Discrimination; *Racial Integration; *RacialSegregation; Track System (Education)

IDENTIFIERS *Brown v Board of Education

ABSTRACTOn April 10, 1994, The Metropolitan Center for Urban

Education at New York University's School of Education sponsored itsthird conference on the impact of the famous "Brown v. Board ofEducation of Topeka" decision. Fourteen discussion groups analyzedthe following questions: What was the promise of "Brown," and hasthat promise been fulfilled? Discussion groups explored the mostefficacious strategies for achieving the promise of "Brown" in thepresent context. They also examined the more fundamental question ofwhether the "Brown" decision had been the giant step forward thatmost civil rights leaders a generation earlier had assumed it wouldbe. This document summarizes the major points raised by thediscussion groups, including those that pertained to other factors ofracism: continued segregation, voluntary segregation on the part ofblacks, integration versus quality education, the multiculturalmovement, tracking as the most recent form of segregation, localschool financing, and the movement away from commitment to socialprograms of the 1960s. The issues provoked heated disagreements amongparticipants as well as consensus in some areas. (LMI)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

from the original document. *

***********************************************************************

cls

14 BEST COPY AV ABLE2

.011

U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOft1c. of Educational Research and Improvement

ED CATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating itMinor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

6:%7

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)"

Professor LaMar P. Miller(Executive Director and Conference Planner,

Metropolitan Center for Urban Education (Metro Center),School of Education, New York University)

3

THE PROMISEOF

BROWN:

HAS IT BEEN FULFILLED?

Donald Johnson

The Metropolitan Center for Urban EducationSchool of Education

New York University410i

4

Donald Johnson is Director of the International EducationProgram in the School of Education at New York University(NYL) and teaches Asian Studies in NYU's College of Arts andSciences. He regularly teaches courses on cross-culturalanalysis, Asian Studies, and Global Education. Since 1972,Professor Johnson has conducted summer study tours in Indiaand East Asia. A former Fulbright student in India, he servedas Resident Consultant at the Educational Resources Center inIndia. He is co-author of Through Indian Eyes God ard Godsin Hinduism, Multicultural Education in the Disciplines.Curriculum and the Society, and several book chapters andarticles on teaching about other cultures.

This publication is funded in part through a grant award to theEquity Assistance Center of the Metro Center under Title IV of theCivil Rights Act. The findings and opinions expressed in thismonograph do not reflect the position or policies of the Title IVOffice of the United States Department of Education.

This and all Metro Center publications are produced under thesupervision of Dr. La Ruth Gray, Associate Director.

Design and Layout: Juliana Sacoder FolkPhotos by: New York University Photo Bureau

Copyright ©1995 byThe Metropolitan Center for Urban EducationSchool of EducationNew York University32 Washington Place, Suite 72New York, NY 10003LaMar P. Miller, Executive Director

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored ina retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without prior permissionof The Metropolitan Center for Urban Education.

5

ContentsForeword 3

Introduction 5

What was the Promise of Brown?

Has that Promise been Fulfilled? 7

Continued Segregation, Voluntary

Segregation, and Quality Education 12

The New Contexi of Racial Equality 17

Racism in the Contest of theNew Multiculturalism 20

Changing Committment of Governmentand Society 24

Changed Attitude Toward the Role of Law 27

The Debate over National Standards,Tracking, and Special Education:The New Forms of Segregation

The Need for Essential Improvement ofSchooling in General

29

32

What Should be Done Now? 34

An Open Discussion at the Brown + Forty Conference(from 1 to r.: Andrew Billingsley, Professor and Chair, Department ofFamily Studies, University of Maryland; HaywoodBurns, Dean, CUNYLaw School; and Honorable Andrew Young, Current Co-Chairman of

the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games, former United StatesAmbassador to the United Nations.)

r--

2

Foreword

We often attend conferences that are intellectually stimulat-ing, thought-provoking, exciting, and energizing. We listen tospeakers considered experts in their fields. While we learn a lot,we don't always agree and we don't always have the opportunityto ask questions or relate our own experiences. We go home andreflect without the chance to work with and incorporate what wehave learned.

To commemorate the fortieth anniversary of the Brown vsBoard of Education of Topeka decision, Dr. LaMar P. Miller,Executive Director of the Metropolitan Center for Urban Educa-hon and Conference Planner, envisioned a "working conference"which afforded its participants the opportunity to think, reflect,probe, and discuss their views with others who share theirconcern and passion for the subject matter

The result, "Brown + Forty: The Promise," was a great success.Conversations were thoughtful, probing, and enlightening.Participants reported that they left with a sense that the agenda ofBrown could be advanced.

Dr. Donald Johnson, Director of the International EducationProgram of the School of Education at New York University tookthe conference one step further. Hc reviewed, dissected, analyzed,and explored the implications of the notes from the conference'sworking discussions to compose this monograph.

The work seeks to document the contributions made byconference participants while providing new points of departurefor continued disucssions on "The Promise of Brown."

La Ruth H. GrayConference Coordinatorand Associate DirectorMetro Center

15-

(from I. to r.: Andrew Billingsley, Professor and Chair, Department ofFamily Studies, University of Maryland; Conference Facilitators

Roxanna Anderson-Scott, Director of Support Services, School ofLducation and Lindsay Wright, Assistant Dean, School of Education:

and Patricia Carey, Associate Dean, School of Education,New York University.)

4 9

Introduction

On Arril 10th, 1994, The Metropolitan Center for UrbanEducation (Metro Center) at New York University's Schoolof Education sponsored its third conference on the impactof the famous Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka decision.The Metro Center has commemorated the Supreme Court'slandmark decision at its twentieth, thirtieth, and fortiethanniversaries with conferences that look back on the lega-cies of Brown, assess the present state of integration, and tryto discern important trends in race relations in Americansociety. The 1994 conference, like its predecessor, waspacked with stimulating talks, panel discussions, andrecollections of those who played seminal roles in bringingabout the landmark decision. The 1994 conference includedcivil rights leaders, lawyers, educators, grassroots organiz-ers, and major leaders of the movement in the 1950s.

At the fortieth anniversary conference, the more than160 in attendance divided into fourteen smaller groups toanalyze the proceedings. Over a two day period thesegroups were asked to discuss several common questionsincluding: What is your sense of what the promise of Brownwas, and has that promise been fulfilled? Is Brown still thebest perspective from which to examine the issue of racialintegration or are there other lenses? Where do we go nowto achieve the promise? There was an extensive range ofdiscussion, not only on the most efficacious strategies forachieving the promise of Brown in the present context, butover the more fundamental question of whether the Browndecision had, in fact, been the giant step forward that mostcivil rights leaders a generation earlier had assumed itwould be.

5

1 0

As the various groups began their exchanges of ideas,the discussants mentioned the new social and politicalrealities of the 1990s, and it became immediately apparentthat new social factors had to be taken seriously in anycontemporary discussion of the problem of racism. Issues inthe changed context the discussion groups frt.quently citedincluded such factors as continued segregation, voluntarysegregation on the part of Blacks, integration versus qualityeducation, the multicultural movement, tracking as themost recent form of segregation, the vexing problem of localschool financing, and the movement away from commit-ment to social programs of the 1960s by the Reagan and

administrations. These issues produced heatedd. agreements among the members of each group andamong the fourteen groups in general. However, there wereareas of remarkable consensus among the participants aswell. What follows is a summary discussion of the majorpoints raised by the fourteen discussion groups.

6 1

What was the Promise of Brown?Has that Promise been Fulfilled?

Most discussants seemed to agree that there had been aeuphoric feeling in the 1960s and a romantic sense thatperhaps Brown had achieved everything rather than viewingthe landmark decision as the beginning of a long processt1-3t would expand from the issue of school integration toembrace the entire nexus of racism. The mood of the presentgathering was quite sober.

Most participants concurred with the findings of onegroup that, "The promise of Brown was the elimination of alegally enforced dual system of education; in this sense, thepromise had been fulfilled. The decision did end the legalbasis for a twofold educational system, but the promise, asit was popularly understood at the time, was that thehistoric decision would dismantle the whole system ofsegregation and second-class status for Blacks. Theseexpectations have not been met." The great gap in statusbetween Blacks and whites indicates the enduring short-comings of the promise of Brown.

Even in instances where schools have been structurallyintegrated in accordance with Brown, the equal treatment ofeach rson in the classroom has not been achieved nor hasthe pervasive presence of racism in the schools, as well as inthe larger society, been replaced by the prevailing sense ofracial equality that many people assumed Brown wouldbring about. One participant reminded his discussion groupthat when analyzing Brown we must distinguish betweenthe issue of legal segregation, which was indeed ended byBrown, and the ongoing implementation of the precedents

7i)

established by the Brown case, which are being fought dailyin the struggle to achieve genuine racial equality. It is thelatter to which the nation has failed to respond adequately.

One insightful participant in the small group discus-sions explained that, "The framers of Brown, and otherpartisans, perhaps mistakenly thought that equal opportu-nity would come automatically with desegregation. Sadlyhowever, American schools, especially in the largest north-ern cities, are more segregated now than they were in theimmediate aftermath of the Brown decision. Moreover,within many desegregated schools, black students oftensuffer a form of internal segregation through the practice oftracking." Some felt that educationally many African-American children were perhaps worse off now than in1965. These developments were decidedly not what thearchitects of Brown could possibly have imagined wouldhappen four decades after their great legal victory.

Perhaps a majority of the discussants felt that the visionprovided by Brown is still a necessary moral force even inthe context of contemporary society when there seems to belittle national consensus on how to address dozens of majorsocial problems. As one discussion group concluded on thequestion of the promise of Brown, "We must get a consensuson the vision of Brown and what it meant and keep to thatvision and communicate that vision whenever possible. Weshould use it as a criterion and the underlying principle forfederal, state, and local policy and setting social priorities."

There was, among most discussion groups, an over-whelming feeling that most Americans are in a state ofdenial on the continuing and pervasive racism that infusesour society and that many Americans feel the problem hadbeen finally solved with Brown when, in reality, it was onlythe beginning. One participant argued that, "To achieve the

8

13

promise of Brown as a vehicle for the genuine racial equalitywould require nothing less than a revolution in racialattitudes by teachers and the public at large. As a harbingerof a national consensus on racial equality, Brown has notfulfilled its promise."

Almost all participants thought that Brown, as precedentmaking as it was in 1954, is now one of many perspectiveson race, integration, and social equality. Brown was de-signed to provide equal access to educational opportunity;the debate on how to achieve the results of racial equalityremains as evasive as ever. Beyond the absence of societalattitudes of racial equality, there remains a decidedlyunequal access to the resources that would provide qualityeducation even in racially segregated schools, with theeconomically poorer students of the inner cities mostpenalized. In addition, several discussion groups con-cluded, the Brown decision never defined what equaleducational opportunity really meant, leaving the legalprofession, educators, and civil rights activists, since 1954,to explore a variety of avenues that might lead to greaterracial equality.

There was also a general consensus among a majority ofdiscussion groups that litigation had gone about as far as itcould to promote equality of education and that educatorsand civil rights activists must now develop radicallydifferent programs and approaches for inner city schoolswhere so-called minority students are the overwhelmingmajority. Those who represented the legal professiontended to agree with this assessment, reporting that casesopposed to systematic tracking now constitute their majorlegal approach to bring about quality education for blackstudents.

A majority of the groups agreed that the issues of racial

9

14

justice are more complex now, and accordingly otherperspectives must be joined with the overriding issue ofintegration as a final objective in the society. At presentabout 40%.of the nation's black Americans are in the middleclass, and many law schools, business schools, and eliteprivate schools are enrolling more minorities than e

before. Multiculturalism and multilingualism are increas-ingly powerful motivations of many American communi-ties, and race is no longer the sole focus in building amulticultural society. Many groups working for issues suchas bilingual education, gay and lesbian rights, women'srights and the more limited goals of various ethnic groupsare contending for public attention and financial support.Moreover, most of these interest groups maintain stronglobbies, all of which are competing for increasingly scarcepublic resources.

One problem several of the discussion groups pointedout was that Brown focused entirely on access to education.However, in American society the context for racial segre-gation is far more complex and widespread. Education istied to local financing of schools which in turn is tiedinextricably to housing patterns which are in turn based onincome which depends on access to jobs. The net result ofthis vicious circle is that Blacks, having been barred fromthe economic and social mainstream, bear a disproportion-ate burden of poverty. If schools are to be a cure for pov-erty, they must be properly and equally funded; this cannotbe done within the existing system of school financing,because predominantly black schools are often located inthe poorest parts of cities that have the smallest tax basedue to white flight to the suburbs. The growing underclassis increasingly dependent on outside help in order even tobegin to prepare for a productive life. In this situationpublic money s2ems to be the key element in all programsgeared to support inner city students. Furthermore, social

10 15

services must now provide the support which was oncegiven by stronger families, churches and other voluntaryassociations.

As one participant noted, "Brown was necessary to forcewhat would not have been done voluntarily, but now theissue of school effectiveness must be dealt with, and in thatsense the promise remains unfulfilled." Many believed thatthe Brown decision in 1954 may also have been somewhat infront of American popular opinion. Even though it laid thefoundation for the 1965 Civil Rights and Voting Rights actsand the 1968 Equal Housing act, many Americans, in theirhearts not free of the accumulated values socialized bycenturies of racism, continue to resist the implementation ofthese and other legislative decisions and court rulings. Asone group recorded in its final report, "Despite the promiseof Brown, the nation remains, in many ways, as segregatedas it was in 1954; to bring justice in a broad sense, it hasfailed." Every one of the fourteen small discussion groupsagreed that "American society remains anchored in racism."One participant observed that, "Even though we havechanged our more blatant public rhetoric about race, thereare so many code terms for racism. Free choice, free market,local control, voluntarism, neighborhood schools, qualityschools, etc."

Even with the great criticism and frequent expression ofdisillusionment with the state of American race relations,most participants in the fourteen discussion groups stillregarded Brown as a genuinely path-breaking decision. Mostgroups agreed, however, that the lack of political will and asocial commitment to integration arc the reasons for theglacial pace of the implementation of the promise of Brown.

Continued Segregation, VoluntarySegregation, and Quality Education

Achieving the goal of genuinely integrated schools hasproven illusive. The discussion groups seemed to agree thatmost civil rights leaders of the Brown era probably over-estimated the good will of the society and the people'swillingness to tear down all the barriers of segregation. Thenation's history since Brown suggests that a large number ofAmericans tend to support racial equality more in theabstract than in their daily lives. In the subsequent decades,as Blacks moved to the cities, whites moved out to thesuburbs or sent their children to private and parochialschools. White flight was a mortal blow to the prospect ofschool integration in the nation's largest cities. Whiteresistance to major integration efforts was made manifest inthe rage over busing during the 1970s and in the aftermathof court mandated orders to integrate urban systems suchas in Boston in the 1970s. The large urban schools of thenorth are more segregated now than they were in 1954. It isa cruel irony that schools are more segregated in New Yorkand New Jersey than in Alabama and Mississippi. Through-out the nation 66 percent of all black children are enrolled insegregated schools, and in cities like New York the percent-age is well over 70 percent.

According to several group reports, increasingly, manyAmericans believe schools are failing, especially inner cityschools. Certainly violence and disorder in these schools aremajor concerns of teachers, administrators, and students.Unfortunately for the cause of integration, many peopleassociate the image of pathological and dysfunctional innercity schools with the issue of race.

12

17

Growing out of the recognition that many urban schoolsare de facto segregated, several of the discussion groupshotly debated the efficacy of integration as the majorimmediate goal. Some of the participants argued that inview of the structural racial segregation of the schools, theoverriding issue is not integration but providing qualityeducation for black students. One panelist noted, "Inte-grated education may not have been the key factor thatwould insure the equality of education." Unlike discussionsat the previous Brown conference, at this fortieth anniver-sary meeting there was an apparent split between thenotables in attendance who had worked so hard to achievethe Brown decision and some of the younger civil rightsactivists who face complex and often overwhelming prob-lems in the large cities of the nation where they dailywitness the destructive effects of poor housing, inadequatehealth support and inferior education. A large number ofthe younger participants felt that quality education was afar more important immediate goal than integrated school-ing for its own sake.

One discussion group concluded that the issue ofquality education "was not substantially addressed byBrown." Many of the other groups addressed the same issue,and one group's summary asked, "Is it possible that aquality education in the segregated inner city schools of thenation is a more compelling goal than integration whichwas thought to bring with it quality education?" Althoughthis issue, more than any other, tended to spark the mostdisagreement in many of the small groups, many partici-pants thought seeking quality education should come beforespending energy and resources on integration.

A few very vocal participants insisted that integrationhad actually set back quality education for African-Ameri-cans because the process of integration was so fraught with

13

18

hostility and the noble experiment, "required black young-sters to bea- too much of the social burden implicit inintegrating a dual school system." As one remedy for theinjuries to black youngsters that accompanied the strugglefor integration, two school board members from Columbus,Ohio vehemently argued for the development of experimen-tal all-black schools because, as they perceived the process,the African-American students had been asked, as a resultof the Brown decision, to carry the entire burden of integra-tion. According to this view, the young black studentsusually have to endure the prejudice they encounter inmuch the same way that Jackie Robinson was called upon torespond to white racism in his first year as professionalbaseball's first black player. Only recently have educatorsbecome aware of the enormous burdens that young African-Americans who have integrated previously all-whiteschools have had to endure. This daunting task, theysuggested, has undermined the very possibility of blackstudents obtaining a quality education.

Many of the groups discussed the issue of self-selectedracial segregation. In colleges from Oberlin to Cornell,African-Americans, among other cultural groups, often optfor racially homogenous dormitories, while in many highschools minority students voluntarily organize and socializelargely within their own communities. Although Dr.Kenneth Clark, one of the architects of the Brown argumentsassailing the effects of racial segregation, is now one of thegroup bringing suit against the Cornell practice of voluntaryethnically and racially separate housing, many participantsargued that voluntary segregation is not really segregation.However, on the question of all-black, Afrocentric schools,there was much disagreement. Among those who champi-oned quality education over integration, some proposedthat all-black schools, especially all-black schools for youngmales, would actually improve self image and foster greater

14

achievement than integrated schools could offer in thepresent climate of racism. As part of the rationale for all-black public schools, especially for young males, oneparticipant stated that, "We continue to blame the victims ofracial segregation, the kids. Teachers and administratorscall them undisciplined, unmotivated and uninterested."

Many strongly felt voluntary racially segregated schoolswere consistent with our free and open system of education.After all, one participant argued, "Catholic schools havedone this for years, and they carry no stigma." Anotherdiscussant suggested, "The need for these schools is ampleevidence for the failure of the public schools to bring aboutintegration. Schools may be causing the problem of racialsegregation by the way they treat black students." Otherswere saddened at the loss of some excellent programs insome of the formerly all-black schools. One participantremembered that, "Even in the earlier days of integration inplaces like Nashville, Tennessee, black children had to giveup some valuable services and an enriched curriculum inorder to bear the major weight of integrating the schoolsthere."

While a modified return to the ideal of "separate butequal" formed one end of a very long spectrum of opinion,the zeal with which this position was put forward, and theoften accompanying bitterness that punctuated the analysisof many inner city schools and their failure to teach blackstudents successfully, suggested a major change in the goalsand strategies for the contemporary civil rights movement.Participants like Judge Robert Carter and lawyers who hadargued some of the original integration cases (featuredspeakers at the conference) were adamantly against anyreturn to segregation and still saw integration as tlie bestmoral, political, and social goal for the nation. However, asparticipants such as Ms. Sharlene Morgan, a school board

15

2 o

member from Columbus, Ohio, explained their feelings onhow all-black schools for young males were a vital neces-sity, it was evident that many saw all-black high schools asone worthy experiment in how to promote the self confi-dence among young black males that might equip them forsuccess in their future.

(from 1. to r.: Honorable Andrew Young; unidentified; Sharisa E.Dulberg, Administrator, Intercultural Re lations1Multicultural Educa-tion, New York State Education Department ; Conference Facilitator

Joshua Smith, Professor, Department of Administration, Leadership,and Technology, School of Education, New York University; and

Frank Owens, Supervisor of Special Education, San Francisco UmfiedSchool District.)

The New Context for Racial Equality

Many features of the social context that informed theBrown era of the 1960s have changed greatly in the 1990s.Despite the reality of the continuing presence of racism inAmerican society, few could deny that one major success ofthe reform movement ushered in by the Brown decision hasbeen the rapid expansion of the African-American middleclass. By 1990 some 40% of the black adult population hadentered the middle class. In no small measure this dramaticchange was due to the opening of doors throughout thesociety in the 1960s, particularly during the years of theGreat Society under Lyndon Johnson. From 1964 throughthe early 1970s colleges and professional schools, especiallyin law and business, actively recruited black students, andthese graduates, by the 1980s, were taking their place inelite law firms, corporations, and the other professions.

On the surface it would seem that one of the greatsuccesses of the past years of integration is the rise of theblack middle class and its positive precedent for youngAfrican-American students. However, the new leaders areno longer the charismatic icons of mass marches andpowerful oratory. The new black leaders are, in many ways,not so different from their white counterparts and havefound their niche in national politics, where forty African-American members serve in the House of Representatives,in local politics, in filmmaking, in business, and otherpursuits of average Americans. Often members of the blackmiddle class are concerned with the same daily issues asmost middle class Americans: What private school wouldbe best for their children, where to spend a vacation andwhat kind of car to buy. The new generation of leaders arevery different from leaders in the days of Martin Luther

0

King and Malcom X. In the present culture, black leadersare, outwardly at least, far more mainstream than everbefore, and because of this historic change, many of theirfellow African-Americans find them dull in comparison tothe older generation of charismatic civil rights pioneers.

In the days of Martin Luther King and a movementunited by a common opposition to segregation, few activistspredicted or fully appreciated the role that class divisionswould play in the civil rights effort of the 1990s. One of theunforeseen consequences of the rise of the black middleclass has been a major split between the black bourgeoisieand the inner city underclass left in the wake of the newmobility. Many in the successful black middle class physi-cally have left the inner cities, as their white counterpartshave historically done, often leaving large communities ofurban African-Americans far less rich in leadership thanduring the height of segregation. In addition, the expandingmiddle class has tended, for a variety of reasons, to distanceitself from a growing underclass whose members some-times see themselves as abandoned by those whom they feelshould be providing the most help and leadership.

Not only have the class divisions heightened the plightof the inner city African-Americans who have not benefitedvery much from the civil rights movement, those who havegained the most advantage from programs such as affirma-tive action, higher education fellowships and more positivechanges in hiring practices, have often found themselvesdisillusioned in the midst of the very outward trappings ofAmerican success that they have earned. W.E.B. DuBoistalked earlier in this century about the "talented tenth,"black people who should be ready to enter the mainstreamof society when the wall, If segregation finally came down.But now, years after those legal walls have come down, themiddle class Blacks who were indeed not only "ready" but

18

2 3

who actually took their place in all sectors of Americanpublic life, still suffer discrimination in housing, at thehands of police, and in hiring practices. Many Blacks whohave gained admission to the middle class remain pro-foundly disillusioned. As the scholar Henry Louis Gates hasobserved, "The promise [of Brown] has turned into a night-mare for many who are now in the black middle class." Thephilosopher Cornell West recalled in Race Matters that onesemester, while he was teaching at Yale and commuting toDartmouth once a week for a lecture series, he was rou-tinely stopped by the state police and searched because theybelieved he was trafficking in drugs. Hardly an African-American professional has escaped encounters with apoliceman, security guard, or pedestrian who nervouslycrosses the street as he approaches, all responses basedsolely on race. Consequently, Blacks may want to live inpredominantly black suburban or predominantly middleclass neighborhoods where they feel more at home and canavoid the persistent hassle of daily confrontations with theconsequences of racism.

SeN eral groups discussed the agony of the black middleclass, !aany of whom have been disillusioned by their ownlife experiences with integration, and are now furtheranguished over the proper response to the inner cityunderclass of Blacks, seemingly caught in a hopelessexistence of poverty, deteriorating neighborhoods andinferior education. Many in the black middle class, caughtin the nexus of continued racism On one hand and trying todetermine a socially viable response to the overwhelmingproblems of the inner city, live in a paradoxical world filledwith contradictions and tension.

19

Racism in the Context of theNew Multiculturalism

Given the rising multicultural consciousness of the lastdecade, many discussants agreed that the cultural assump-tions of the 1950s that informed the Brown case now seemremarkably naive. When the court handed down thelandmark decision, many Americans believed America wasa culture-free society in which individual effort and mobil-ity were the maior determinants of achieving the Americandream. Both the arguments leading up to the 1954 decisionand the final ruling assumed individualism was the basisfor both American law and culture. What African-Ameri-cans were guaranteed by the Brown decision was legalaccess to public schools, and the implication of that philoso-phy was that if permitted to do so, Blacks would gladlyenter mainstream society and willingly accept the existingrules of the dominant culture. The black students who firstintegrated previously all-white schools, even though theyrepresented a larger group, moved through the doors asindividuals who were supposed to be given the samepersonal opportunities as other students. Increasingly,Americans are realizing that the historic ideology of indi-vidualism was not always practiced and that group loyaltyhas been and remains an important ingredient of what itmeans to be an "American." More significantly, if forcenturies the dominant culture has treated Blacks as agroup and not as separate individuals, how could a singlecourt decision suddenly transform the historic legacy ofracism based on group membership into a new conscious-ness of Blacks as individuals? Paradoxically, in an agewhere many scholars and social commentator:, see Ameri-can culture moving increasingly toward individualism, the

20

historic categorization of Blacks as a race continues. Thecontradiction between the culture of individualism and theclassification of Blacks as a race did not escape several ofthe discussion groups.

Several participants suggested that one consequence ofthe emphasis on individualism, at least for the civil rightsmovement, is the great difficulty that activists are havingdrawing upon an organic sense of community. It is hard toorganize people not directly involved in a pressure groupfor larger issues of common social justice. We all seem towant individual rights and special privileges for our ownsmall groups. The nature of political lobbying has becomeso parochial and focuses on special interests such as seniorcitizens, specific ethnic groups and economic interests thatwe have few broad based coalitions working for socialchange. Daily we grow more isolated by identifying with"primordial groups" and by allowing our political discourseincreasingly to appeal to ethnic, religious, and racial grouployalties. The federal policy of categorical grants, one groupargued, exacerbates this tendency by pitting racial, ethnicand linguistic groups against one another in pursuit of evermore scarce public resources.

Most groups agreed that coalition building is muchmore difficult now than it was when the Brown decision washanded down. One discussion group observed that peoplesuch as retirees, teachers, gays and lesbians, and numerousethnic communities, now tend to organize around veryspecific goals seeking advantages for their own members.The multicultural movement now ir :ludes, besides African-Americans, Chinese, Vietnamese, !: ian, Mexican, Domini-can, Native and countless other "Americans." These smallgroups are focusing "more and more on their own parochialconcerns without much regard for the larger issues of socialjustice."

21

2 6

Many group participants expressed a growing feelingamong various groups that the general ethnic and racialclassifications commonly used by government are no longerfunctional. Moreover, these generalized cultural and racialterms mask a growing class division among all culturalgroups in the country, and the large spectrum of politicaland religious differences among members of these sup-posed monolithic group designations. Latino does not reallydescribe a common culture that includes Dominicans,Mexicans, Cubans and Peruvians. Neither perhaps is blackan all-inclusive term for Haitians, Jamaicans, Nigerians andAfrican-Americans born and raised in the United States. Yetthe persistent force of racism seems to disallow the concep-tualizing of "black" into smaller ethnic components. Histori-cally we have been taught to think of Europeans who cameto the United States as Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, German,Italian, Portuguese, Greek, etc. As the philosopher CornellWest has pointed out, if Blacks could ever become acollection of ethnic groups similar to Europeans, it would"take us a long way away from simplistic racial categories ofblack and white."

Besides pointing out the need for more adequate,smaller, categorizations, participants noted that a largenumber of ethnic groups were placing new emphasis onasserting their cultural roots, earning recognition for theircontributions to the general culture, and fighting for a placefor themselves in the school curriculum, political appoint-

ents and employment. African-Americans now findthemselves, even though they constitute the largest ethnicgroup and have suffered the harshest consequences ofracism, only one of the many groups seeking advantage inthe larger system. The plight of Blacks may have beenfurther damaged by the new phenomena because most ofthe immigrant groups identify themselves as "ethnic" whileat the same time internalizing the traditional pattern of

22

27

racial prejudice against Blacks. It is a tragic irony that manynew immigrant groups seek acceptance in the social systemby following the precedent of so many others in attemptingto distance themselves from Blacks.

Honorable Constance Baker Motley (right) withTwo of Her Law Clerks

e

232 b

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Changing Commitment of Governmentand Society

Most of the groups concurred that not only havedivisions among various ethnic groups changed the waystrategies for racial equality are being forged, but the natureof the national consciousness reflected in the politicalprocess has dramatically altered since the historic Browndecision. Many of the discussion groups, sensing this majorchange in the political mood, discussed various componentsof the new context. There was a pervasive opinion amongthe fourteen discussion groups that the pendulum of "GreatSociety" reform has now swung back to a more conservativemood throughout the country. Most groups agreed that thepolitical will to sustain integration has waned since theJohnson presidency and the days of Brown. Presidents fromNixon through Carter, Reagan, Bush, and even Clinton,have increasingly moved issues of social justice to thebottom of the public agenda. Some like Bush in 1988 evenopenly used race fear as an important element in his presi-dential election, and many candidates in the 1994 fallcongressional elections also used negative racial symbols intheir campaign ads and literature.

Several groups' summaries suggested that politicalleaders and more conservative scholars who play on thenational fears associated with the move towardmulticulturalism, contribute, however unintentionally, tothe deterioration of already over-extended social services inthe inner city schools. Scholars such as Arthur Schlesinger,and political leaders such as William Bennett, attackmulticulturalism as divisive and undermining the tradi-tional American consensus on individual responsibility. The

24

29

dust jacket on Schlesinger's Disuniting America graphicallysuggests that the stripes falling from the American flag,intended to represent the disintegration of a commonAmerican culture, is largely the work of brown and blackpeoples. Many of the opponents of multicultural educationforcefully argue that all student... ..o matter their cultural orracial affiliation, must be socialized into a perceived com-mon American culture rooted in the founding documents ofthe political system. Such an approach often underminessincere efforts by curriculum reformers to include thehistory and culture of all the groups who helped build thenation. One recent example of the deep antagonism to thisinclusive approach is the continuing attack on the newStandards for U.S. History, which critics such as LynneCheney claim give too much attention to Blacks, women,and Native Americans at the expense of white males. Byalleging that many inner city schools are hotbeds of Afro-centrism and multiculturalism, these critics contibute to thesense that these schools are beyond salvation and are notserving the purposes of socializing patriotism and a com-mon national identity.

Participants in the small groups also tended to agreethat the social support systems that were taken for grantedin the 1950s and 60s are no longer as viable now. In an agethe budget constraints at all levels of government coupledwith an eroding cultural support system, those who nowmost need help are often the last to receive it. According toone group's findings, young urban students in earlierdecades could count on local organizations like the YM-YWCA; the church was a more significant force in younglives, and the family was a much stronger institution than itis in the 1990s when more than a quarter of all children andhalf of all young black children are being raised in singleparent families. Unfortunately, at the very time in historywhen young people need the most support from govern-

25

3

ment and voluntary services, the present political mood ofthe national government, particularly in Congress, seeksfurther to diminish federal support for programs aimed atimproving the-opportunities for inner city young people.

Honorable Andrew Young Talks withConference Facilitator Charles I. Rankin (Director, Midwest

Desegregation Center, Kansas State University)

Changed Attitude Toward the Role of Law

At this conference, more than at the previous com-memorative gatherings on the Brown case, there was a greatdeal of tension between the lawyers and many of theeducators and local activists. As one participant explained,"Law simply has taken too long, and things have not reallyimproved since Brown." There was a general feeling amongthe many non-lawyers in the various groups that legalremedies are by nature slow and time consuming and thatother areas within the society are now more appropriatefoci for both racial integration and improving school qualityfor minority students. As one participant noted, "The legalroute has its limitations, and we have to find other ways toachieve equality."

Many of the lawyers present attested to the fact that themake-up of the Supreme Court in the 1980s did not encour-age path-breaking civil rights cases, so perhaps it is notsurprising that the emphasis on legal remedies that was thecornerstone of the civil rights movement leading up toBrown and which shaped racial integration strategies in the1960s, faded drastically in the 1980s. The major arena fordesegregation cases is now the various state court systemsand, of course, states vary greatly in their commitment tocivil rights.

Several lawyers admitted that they could now drawupon very few innovative approaches in-their legal arsenalsthat could lead to new and dramatic types of cases. The onenew area of cases are those against academic tracking. Thesystem of tracking became a regular feature of the compre-hensive high school created during the Progressive Era.

4..

7,.

According to the philosophy that informed those new highschools, each student would be evaluated for native intelli-gence and achievement to determine if he or she was bestsuited for the world of manual labor, for service in theoffices of rising industry, or should be encouraged to go onto liberal arts colleges. As recent histories of the tracking ofthe comprehensive high schools (..::emonstrate, students fromthe new immigrant groups from southern and ei:sternEurope, from rural farming communities and the urbanpoor were routinely tracked into industrial arts and busi-ness curricula. Until recent decades few black youngsters

as far as high school, and in the south all were educatedin segregated schools. The few black students who attendednorthern urban high schools during the first half of thiscentury were also "segregated" by being tracked intoprograms that prepared them for menial service jobs.

Many of the members of various discussion groupsagreed that this historic practice of tracking, as well as theracial presuppositions underlying the original basis fortracking, persist within seemingly integrated schools, oftenresulting in a continued pattern of segregation. A largenumber of discussants cited tracking, and "dumping" blackchildren into special education classes, as the major newform of racial segregation in the schools. Many discussantscited tracking and special education programs as a way ofplacing minority students in dead-end classes. At this point,according to one NAACP lawyer, the largest category ofschool civil rights cases involves litigation against tracking.

3328

The Debate over National Standards,Tracking, and Special Education:The New Forms of Segregation.

As an outgrowth of the discussion on tracking, manydiscussants in the small groups were very concerned overhow the major push toward national and state standardsand the growing concern with student achievement all overthe nation would affect African-American students. TheClinton administration's plan for "Goals 2000," an over-allplan to improve American education, continues the Bushadministration's commitment to a more comprehensivesystem of national standards aimed to make Americanstudents "world class." In the summer and fall of 1994 theDepartment of Education announced the publication ofseveral subject area standards including geography, civicsand U.S. and world history. These standards, while notlegally binding on the states, are expected to serve as a formof moral persuasion and encourage state and local educa-tion departments to upgrade their educational systems on avoluntary basis. Since the original plan to create a system ofnational assessment has been abandoned and there will beno system of national testing, local and state systems mustjudge for themselves the success of their students.

Many participants in the fourteen discussion groupswere genuinely ambivalent about the move to national andstate standards. With all the public discussion of nationalstandards, many discussants argued that there is a "need todisaggregate kids and recognize differential needs." Thesecritics considered "the idea of 'standards' Iasi potentiallydangerous, given the fact that so many students are pre-

29

34

vented from competing on an equal basis." On the otherhand many discussants favored uniform standards as longas there was equal support for all students to achieve them.

Some members of the various discussion groups felt wemust not fall into the trap of thinking higher educationalstandards are necessarily bad for African-Americans. Theyargued standards are good for all students, and that whatwe need is support so that all students have a chance toachieve those standards. Many welcomed the move toexcellence provided some guarantees of equal funding andsupport for all students was forthcoming. However, othersbelieved many inner city students would be condemned tofailure by the proposed standards.

As they reviewed the debate over national standards,the participants called for accountability for administratorsand teachers as well as for students. As one group sug-gested, "Administrators must be held accountable forstudent outcomes and quality teachers even if it takes timeand risks not being popular. Most administrators know whotheir weak and marginal teachers are, but they don't takeresponsibility for weeding them out." Another concretesuggestion from one small group was for more in-serviceeducation for local school boards. Often school boards insmall towns are most concerned with budget cutting whilelarge city school boards arc frequently highly politicizedand interested in patronage for various groups they repre-sent. "How can school boards, composed of lay people," oneparticipant asked, "learn to grasp the complexities ofmodem teaching and learning and work with professionalsto improve the schools?"

Many discussants, in accepting the legitimacy of higheracademic standards, called for national standards forteachers as well as students and insisted that the standards

30

35

movement be enlarged to include a major revamping ofteaching, teacher training and student support. There was avery strong consensus among the groups that teacherquality and preparation was now the major issue if thepromise of a quality education for all students is to be met.One group concluded, "In addition to learning the newknowledge that is available, teachers need more profes-sional development in multicultural education, and teacherpreparation should insist that all future teachers haveexperience in diverse environments." Other groups calledfor more field based teacher education, "including longerinternships prior to permanent certification."

The expansion of standards is already one of the mostexplosive debates in education. If the move toward uniformpxcellence continues, schools must find viable alternativesto the common practice of tracking minority students intolower academic groupings and into special educationclasses. Certainly tracking and the movement to nationalstandards are linked, and some resolution of the apparentconflict between the two must be addressed at all levels ofeducational policy.

31 3 6

The Need for Essential Improvement ofSchooling in General

Many discussion groups expanded the debate overschool standards to the larger issue of quality education ingeneral. As one participant sagely noted, "We must notconfuse school desegregation with school improvement.This may be the great myth of this meeting." During theextended discussion on how to achieve quality education,there was extended and often impassioned criticism ofalmost all aspects of American education as a system.During the discussions about the current state of Americanpublic schooling, a general sense of frustration was fre-quently expressed in statements such as, "Schools areemployment opportunities for adults," "Teachers just wantto hold on to their jobs," "Teachers have given up on blackkids," and "Big city school systems are mostly designs forfailure for black kids."

Many discussants expressed the opinion that qualityeducation for African-American students was inevitablytied to raising the expectations and increasing the supportfor all students. As one focus group explained, "We mustadd to the issue of integration school improvements in planand curriculum. We need to focus on a more equitabledistnbution of resources between rich and poor districtsand schools. School districts need to do much more toattract qualified minority applicants for high level adminis-trative positions. A richer array of special programs must beavailable in inner city schools." There was also near unanim-ity among the fourteen groups that we must now think ofeducation in a much broader sense than in the past, andsome discussants felt the whole 'infrastructure of education

32

has to be deconstructed and analyzed to find more sophisti-cated ways to achieve racial integration on terms of equal-ity. With the withering away of the social commitments ofthe Great Society programs, many Americans see themarket place and privatization as the best panacea forproblems from health care to education. For example, theWhittle schools offer to solve educational problems via themarket place and free enterprise, Boston University hassubcontracted to run the public schools in Charlestown andlarge corporations in many cities, such as in Baltimore,Milwaukee and Hartford, have contracted with privateagencies to run schools that elected officials seem unable toreform. Several groups recommended that public educationmust respond to this new faith in private business to savethe schools by also offering innovative ideas for improvingeducation. One suggestion was that schools should cooper-

_ ate and form networks with other educational institutionssuch as religious institutions, community based organiza-tions, social agencies, businesses, parents and peer groups.

33

What Should be Done Now?

Each of the fourteen small discussion groups was askedto end their deliberations by making a list of concretesuggestions that focused on providing quality education forBlacks and would lead to a more racially equal society. Inorder to offer a maximum number of suggestions, theconference made no attempt to evaluate these recommenda-tions. Although participants had only two days of intensivediscussions and limited time in which to synthesize andorganize these ideas, each discussion group submitted aremarkably rich compilation of exiting proposals. Thediscussion groups generally acknowledged the changedcontext for school reform and tried to offer concrete sugges-tions best suited for the contemporary realities. As oneparticipant stated, 'We must acknowledge other factors atplay as we seek to both integrate schools and foster qualityeducation."

Facing the contemporary lack of a genuine natioi alcommitment to school integration an i to improvi:ig thequality of education for minority students, most partici-pants felt that local grassroots style political mobilizationheld the most promise and hoped that local examples ofexcellence would be replicated elsewhere. While fewpeople doubted the extreme politicization of local schooling,they still regarded local participation as preferable to theslow legll appeals that had characterized the approach ofthe Brown era. As one group suggested, "Build smallconsensus from local levels upward. We now live in adecentralized political system."

Perhaps the most ubiquitous statement expressed by alldiscussion groups was, "We must empower parents." This

34

39

aft.

phrase seemed to echo throughout the fourteen discussiongroups. Mr. James Turner described an experiment incommunity control presently going on in Benton Harbor,Michigan that is one of the most positive examples of ,

empowering parents. In Benton Harbor the superintendent,Sherwin Alan, has spent a great deal of time holdingmeetings among parents, teachers, administrators andcreative leaders from all walks of life, including the military,to discuss how to make schools answerable to those whosechildren are most affected. Mr. Turner reported that Super-intendent Alan is empowering parents, and that is making asignificant difference in the quality of education for allstudents.

Extending on the many suggestions for improvinggrassroots efforts at school reform, many participantscalled for a significant increase in collaboration amongschools and other institutions. As one participant observed,"Schools can't do it all." Community based schools such asDr. Robert Cromer's experiments in New Haven, Connecti-cut, and those in East Harlem in the 1940s launched byLeonard Covello, were cited as promising examples of whatcan be done to bring various groups interested in youngpeople together in a concerted effort at reform. In thepresent context of generally deteriorating family andcommunity support systems, it is more imperative thanever that health, education and other social services becoordinated. Students do not live in the isolated worlds ofschool, family, neighborhood and health. Somehow theinstitutions that most directly serve young people mustlearn how to work together in the general interests of theyoung people they are supposed to serve.

There are many excellent grassroots efforts going on allover the nation, but often few people beyond the immediatelocality know about these projects. One concrete suggestion

35

4 0

was for a systematic computer network that would linkthose concerned with school reform for inner city students.Perhaps a bulletin board on "Internet" might lead people toattempt to replicate exiting projects. A community of like-minded educators, parents and students could readily shareideas and innovations leading to integration and qualityeducation.

One of the sobering realities the discussion groupsrecognized was that, "Reform has to take place in the globaleconomy where the gap between skilled and non-skilled iscreating two social classes. The gap between the income ofhigh school graduates versus college grads is the greatest inhistory. No matter what the situation on integration blackkids have got to have the sophisticated skills to compete inthe Global economy that is bashing labor all over theworld."

A popular recommendation was the concept ofredrawing school districts to bring large cities and suburbanareas into a common district. Many cited the Detroitexperiments in redistricting. Because of white flight to thesuburbs, segregated housing patterns, and the deep hostilityto busing, redrawing historic school districts is one of thefew available ways that might integrate some of the nowtotally segregated inner city schools. A series of pie-shapeddistricts with the point of the triangle starting at the heartofthe city and expanding outward to the surrounding suburbsis clearly one way of integrating schools without necessarilyincreasing the distance students traveled.

There was a general feeling that teachers expect littlefrom all black student populations. It is all too common inmany predominantly black and Latino schools for teachersto let generalized discussions of topics of passing interestsubstitute for real intellectual learning. There is too much

36

4 1

solicitation of personal opinions and psychological interestin relevance and not enough attention to achievement andknowledge for its own sake. Black students at Choate andExeter are expected to achieve the same standards aswhites, but this is decidedly not the case in most inner cityschools. The consensus among the discussion groups wasthat black students shuuld indeed be held to high standardsand expectations of excellence. At the same time the schoolsmust be funded at the same level as the elite suburbanschools, and students must have the individualized instruc-tion necessary to meet the high academic expectations.

If inner city schools are to be excellent, a thorough-going restructuring of teacher recruitment and training isimperative. As one group wrote in its summary, "Teacherscome largely from the working class. They don't have thecultural background to foster integration or race sensitivity."

Because of the dominant culture of schools, severalgroups believed that there was usually an uneven responsi-bility for school integration and many argued that if theintegration effort is to continue, "We must shift some of theburden of integration to the wh:te population. The blackkids have carried an impossible burden."

In this context, several participants called for a highlyvisible "national dialogue on race," a concerted effort tomove the issue of race back onto the public agenda. As onegroup member suggested, "We've changed smoking habitsand driving while drinking patterns, but we won't attackracism in the samc way." Another group suggested that, "Ifwe could only treat racial equality as important as the spacerace after Sputnik or the Gulf War or the trillions spentthe Cold War, we might actually accomplish something inthis area."

37

Some suggested that we work within the new popular-ity of the market principle that seems to be sweeping theworld. "Since it dictates the present discourse," one partici-pant suggested, "why not in this new context insist thateveryone must be accountable, from students to teachersand parents." This recommendation seemed to fit well withearlier observations that educators want students to meetnational standards, but resisted making teachers andadministrators accountable to the community and to thestudents. However, many of the groups wanted to struc-ture accountability into all levels of education. As oneparticipant stated, "If students have standards and aretested to see if they are met, teachers must also." All agreedthat the teaching profession has got to take more responsi-bility for developing and maintaining its own standards andmust develop ways to monitor those who are not meetingthese standards. All professions are responsible for theirown work; teachers have got to accept this reality.

Those who still champion school integration as aneffective instrument for improving educational opportuni-ties often pointed to several major issues in school reformsuch as school finance. As Jonathan Kozol so eloquentlyexplained in Savage Inequalities, if Scarsdale is spendingmore than $15,000 per student per year and the average inMississippi is less than $5,000 per student per year, how canchildren from poor states and inner city districts expect toobtain an equal education? All groups recommended newapproaches to equalize school financing.

Although magnet schools, an idea intended to bringabout voluntary integration because of the attractiveprograms that inner city schools might develop, have notbeen very successful in attracting white students to largelyblack areas of the city, many participants still thought theconcept is a good idea and should not be abandoned. Many

38

4 I

I

cited the success'of Park East High School in East Harlem asan example of what might happen if the so-called magneischools really did develop excellent programs.

Various groups offered many other concrete sugges-tions: "Tear down the existing welfare system and createone that fosters mobility, individual responsibility andhuman growth," and 'We must think class instead of race.Make programs class based to help all that are poor. Thiswould help African-Americans but would help buildcoalitions with poor whites and Latinos and othermarginalized groups." A very popular idea on reorganizingschools was: "Rethink the school as a community basedinstitution. It should be open all day and evening and allyear. Integrate the old settlement house idea into the schoolsystem where education could go on evenings and week-ends."

Among other recommendations worth noting werethose that addressed the total concept of American school-ing created during the first years of American industrialism.One participant argued that, "We must break the old schoolparadigm of a mass-producing factory. We must make cityschools smaller and offer a sense of community, stabilityand opportunity for individual attention. Remove the walls,use the whole community as a school (such as the city as aschool). Use many languages. Cooperate more with busi-ness. Build holistic schools which will deal with health,social problems, diet." The promise of Brown is still a validdream, but the "...methods of achieving its goal must beadapted to present realities. We need imagination andcollective will more than anything."

Infusing the tone of the discussion groups and underly-ing the specific recommendations for improving the schoolswas the sense that even now, forty years after Brown, we

39

4 4

still live in an age where racism pervades the culture. It isan inescapable fact that if students are to try hard in school,they must have the promise of a real future in an increas-ingly skill-oriented economic system. If we continue to thinkof those who do not excel in school as a form of humanwaste, or fail to hold out genuine possibilities of success inall levels of the society for young black students, they willcontinue to see no real future for themselves. The socialsystem has got to change along with any successful effortsat school reform.

In summary the fourteen groups seemed to coalescearound several conclusions.

The deep-seated racism that has characterized Ameri-can society from its inception is still very much a part of ourcollective culture. The racial attitudes of the Americanpeople remain the single greatest obstacle to full integrationand equality of all peoples.

The political leadership has retreated from the commit-ment to racial justice that emerged in the 1960s. A series ofconservative presidencies has appointed new federal judgeswho are much less likely to challenge legal barriers andpromote legal remedies for school integration.

o The present culture of rampant individualism and faithin consumerism as the best avenue to human happiness hasfragmented earlier coalitions for a more generalized com-mitment to human justice in fay. of more special interestpolitics for smaller and smaller Dups. Without a morewidespread support for racial integration, minorities as justanother "special interest group" cannot do much by them-selves to achieve it.

The spirit of individualism embedded in the Reagan-

40

45

Bush socialization that government is a dangerous force inpeoples' lives, means that racial integration now reliesalmost exclusively on the good will of average people and apolicy of strict voluntarism. Government - both legislativeand judicial - is no longer even a catalyst for racial integra-tion.

Reliance on legal remedies could not and has notbrought about the goals of Brown. The means must now bemore sophisticated and diffused into other institutionalavenues.

Striving for racial integration must not be separatedfrom the more immediate goal of quality education for allstudents. As the glacial rate of integration continues, wemust all work to ensure quality education in the segregatedschools that are now the norm, especially in northern cities.This effort requires rethinking school funding, teachingmethods, curricula and the traditional culture of schooling.

There is widespread disillusionment among many whohave dedicated a si, .ificant part of their lives to achieveracial integration. However, this sobering mood is noreason to retreat from the morally valid goals of socialjustice, even if the task is more daunting than people duringthe euphoric days of Brown expected.

Much of the frustration so readily apparent throughoutthe fourteen discussion groups rose out of a prevailingsense that while Brown offered a great dream of racialequality, and progress since Brown has been real, advance-ment toward a race-free society has been far too slow, andin many ways the plight of young black students, especiallyin the inner cities, is worse now than thirty years ago. Thetension between the dream of racial equality and thepresent reality brings to mind the theologian Reinhold

41

4 6

MN,

Niebuhr's insight into democratic societies, when he onceexplained, "Hypocrisy is dishonor's complement to honor."He meant that it is better publicly to enunciate a sharedcommitment to justice, even if society does not live up tothat promise, than to articulate unjust values which are easyto keep.

The title of this 40th anniversary commemoration ofBrown vs. the Board of Education was the "Promise of Brown."That term encapsulates Niebuhr's sentiments exactly. Thefamous case held out a promise based on a changed under-standing of our racial past. It by itself could not accomplishthis gigantic task of integrating a historically segregated andracist society. It did, however, hold out a glorious promisestated publicly by the highest court in the land. That prom-ise to end racial segregation is still a noble dream. Thehuman beings who have come to maturity since 1954 havemade the history since that time. The generations nowcoming to maturity, both black and white, face the samechallenge to carry out the goals of the thus far unkeptpromise. Racial segregation is, finally, a human problemeffecting everyone, and it is not for the courts or schoolsalone to solve. As Pogo once taught us, "We have met theenemy and he is us."

42 4 7

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

48