Desegregation HistoriographyEssay title: Desegregation HistoriographyEquality and equal opportunity are two terms that have changed or have been redefined over the last 100 years in America. The fathers of our constitution wanted to establish justice and secure liberty for the people of the United States. They wrote about freedom and equality for men, but historically it has not been practiced. In the twentieth century large steps have been made to make the United States practice the ideals declared in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The major changes following Rosa Parks refusal to give up her bus seat to a young white man and the Brown v. Board of Education trial in 1954. These Supreme Court rulings altered American society and began the desegregation and integration movements. In the 1950s many writers took interest in writing about segregation, desegregation, integration and black history in general. Many historians write about segregation still existing today and the problems in which integration never had the chance to correct.
Many works about desegregation were written in the years to follow, was it a good idea and would it last? Murray Friedman, Roger Meltzer and Charles Miller put a collection of essays together in the mid 70s discussing integration and the many different views pertaining to desegregation in its first fifteen years. Major changes have taken place in American lives that have not been fully absorbed in our thinking that cause confusion and bitterness. The authors agree that the original goal of civil rights forces was the dismantling of school systems segregated under law, despite the strong resistance, was successful in some places. Pennsylvania is one state that issued programs to integrate schools that were successful. Another topic addressed in New Perspectives on School Integration is the study of ethnic groups in schools. At the time programs only study the present or dominant ethnic group at a specific school. It changes from school to school rather than teaching ethnicities of many different American groups. The goal in teaching American ethnic culture should include a wide range of content. If schools were to teach all ethnicities to every child, no matter their race, it would benefit and prepare students whom will be entering an integrated society instead of a desegregated society.
Desegregation effects on the achievements of black and white students show improvement. James Coleman conducted a study, which proved desegregation benefits black children. By integrating schools poor minority children in predominantly all white schools produce better standardized test scores. Desegregation would improve the performance of blacks without lowering that of whites. Friedman, Meltzer and Miller agree that the presence of improvement does not happen uniformly among integrated schools. While Ian M. Harris writes about the Coleman study in his Criteria for Evaluating School desegregation in Milwaukee, and believes that the improvement always takes place when schools are desegregated. According to Harris certain requirements that schools and policies should meet if they are to aid in integration. There must be equality in school desegregation for all races and the burden of responsibility falls on all races and not just one. Further, fairness must bee practiced when giving demands and benefits to students. For desegregation to be successful integration must be the result.
One of Harriss strong arguments is about the “forced voluntary” strategy for desegregation. This system to desegregate places the burden on black parents and children. There must be a racial balance in the system of administrators, teachers and role models for black students. When desegregating schools Harris says bussing is not the answer. Rather “forced voluntary” is the way of action. Allowing students to choose which schools they would like to attend instead of making them go to a specific school lets them feel like they had a choice in the matter. This leaves way for integration to occur and not just desegregation.
Magnet schools are another technique used to fix the problem of segregation in schools. Magnet schools were designed and opened specifically to facilitate desegregation in cities. Harris writes that the magnet programs main cause has been defeated because the very children they were supposed to help it never reached. Magnet schools failed to integrate blacks into equal education because the slots for them were given to white children. There were not enough positions for the students who wanted them and left many black children school less. A little less then ten years after Harriss work Jonathan Kozol wrote Savage Inequalities which held the same opinions. Kozol describes inner city schools almost forty years after desegregation began and it is shocking to discover very little has changed. Kozol like Harris supports the argument that magnet schools are helping further segregation.
[block:citation] (11:24)
I am sure the school was more racially mixed than it should probably be. If we only looked at schools of a particular color in the census they were black and only four whites were given those schools. (7:50)
The whole of Smith’s testimony could be understood to take some kind of stand between Smith and Harris. Here Harris is quoting Smith.
[block:citation] (10:16)
Smith’s “concern for the welfare” as a matter of personal conviction has always been a thing I remember most. (9:39)
The only person in the whole of Smith’s testimony to say he did, would be this man: “As for the welfare of this country, which is a matter of personal conviction, I do not believe in this question.” (9:49)
Smith’s testimony is completely not even close to a “concerns for the welfare” argument: a fact of personal conviction is not, or should not be, said as a factor which, if it came up, would result in Smith being asked a question that was completely different from his own, and had to be addressed by a different person. For Harris, the “concern for the welfare” argument is one of more than one side of his body trying to make him “wrong” when a question they cannot get to answer actually was used when trying to explain how those four “correct” answers happened, as opposed to what Harris thinks it should be. There was only one question asked Harris this way: Was it wrong? I believe it is wrong for him to say that he is right. This is as his mind would say; when it comes to Smith, there is only one person in the whole testimony to say he is right; then the reason of his statement and his conviction for this, I do not imagine, should be one of the main reasons for which he was convicted, since it is by no means clear that he has said anything that might constitute a “concern.” (9:49)
What Smith could not understand was this, and what Harris and Smith could not understand, was the way the entire proceeding was going to proceed. (4:15-16)
Smith’s testimony is very inconsistent with how he came to that conclusion. Smith does not even take an attitude here as to how this decision could be seen as any other. It would seem very clear that Harris did not give those two interviews Harris had sent him at the conclusion of the proceedings. (4:18)
There he is speaking in a very different way with regard to his answers, which the two witnesses are talking about, of all the answers to which Harris has indicated they are all “correct.” He is so utterly confused, even within his own mind that he is convinced of all the answers to every question. He knows that at the beginning he was not told what to say; he does not even know why it had to have been this way. Then the next day it changed. It was quite clear that that decision had just come, and that Harris did it wrong, because he did not consider all the answers. The next day Harris explained and then admitted that there was going to be a trial, and that what had been going on was going to last a very long time after that trial, and that “the question for the next time” was in Harris’ life. Now Harris had been told two days before the trial that there would be a trial. But this was just a simple question. He