Gentrifier
Gentrifier
复制标题
绅士化者
DOI：
10.1177/0094306118792220mm
复制
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Chase M. Billingham
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Chase M. Billingham
黑人学校在综合社区，因此，如果黑人家庭想让他们的孩子上学，他们必须搬到东区，在那里，城市打算隔离和集中非洲裔美国人。在另一个对某些读者来说可能是新论点的例子中，罗斯坦认为，美国国税局批准了教会和大学的种族隔离活动，这些活动通过保护其免税地位来促进种族限制性公约。在洛杉矶，该市威尔希尔区一所教堂的牧师起诉要求驱逐一个黑人家庭，该家庭“违反”了该社区的限制性盟约。这位牧师输掉了诉讼，并在法院的裁决中因种族主义而受到强烈谴责。“然而，”罗斯坦写道，“国税局没有注意到;赖特牧师的活动并没有威胁到他的教会的税收补贴”（第104页）。与第二个例子一样，罗斯坦的一些案例是不作为，而不是委员会：警察部门未能保护黑人公民在他们搬进白色社区时免受房屋爆炸的伤害;公平就业实践委员会未能起诉第二次世界大战期间与政府签约的歧视性雇主;银行监管机构未能根据早期证据采取行动，这些证据表明黑人不成比例地成为次级贷款的目标。这些都是政府机构“不履行宪法义务”的时刻（第113页），罗斯坦认为这同样有助于法律上的隔离。法律的色彩突出了种族隔离违反宪法核心原则的论点，主要是在第五，第十三和第十四修正案中表达的，这就是为什么它必须被拆除。但这本书缺少的是种族融合作为一种社会和政治策略的任何麻烦。种族隔离首先是一种策略，它允许资源在空间上的不均衡和不平等分配（例如，好的学校、公园、卫生保健设施、杂货店等），以及有害设施的不公平选址，罗斯坦给出了这两种结果的例子。然而，他并没有质疑将资源和机会均等作为一体化（或正义）之路的可能性，而不是将一体化作为资源均等之路。他也没有说明黑人社区内部关于种族融合作为一种政治战略的可取性或权宜之计的辩论。换句话说，由于这一领域的社会学家在很大程度上没有“忘记”罗斯坦记载的历史，而且由于我们继续研究当今国家歧视的例子，一些读者可能会寻找一个更批判性的审问：也许是关于使用法律来维持种族不平等的新的理论或经验证据，或者解释为什么法律经常被证明对纠正歧视无效，或者法律和政策可以积极用于平等资源的方式。然而，公平地说，当一本书所包含的内容是如此无可挑剔地严谨和有说服力时，批评一本书所没有包含的内容是唯一可以做的。罗斯坦也提出了一个令人信服的理由，在你的课堂上分配这本书。在阅读了几份最高法院的意见书之后，他有了写《法律的色彩》的动机，这些意见书忽视或否认了政府在产生种族隔离方面所起作用的事实，并采用了事实上的种族隔离和法律上的种族隔离之间的错误区分。我们不知道大法官们是“忘记"了这段历史，还是从来就不知道这段历史，但就我们都在教育未来的选民、律师和大法官而言，罗斯坦最后呼吁采取行动：”未来的最高法院是否受过更好的教育，完全取决于我们。“
black schools in integrated neighborhoods so that if black families wanted their children to go to school they had to move to the Eastside neighborhood, where the city intended to segregate and concentrate African Americans. In another example of what may be a new argument to some readers, Rothstein argues that the Internal Revenue Service sanctioned the segregationist activities of churches and universities that promoted racially restrictive covenants through the protection of their taxexempt status. In Los Angeles, a pastor of a church in the city’s Wilshire District sued to remove a black family who had moved to the neighborhood in ‘‘violation’’ of the neighborhood’s restrictive covenant. The pastor lost the lawsuit and was strongly reprimanded for his racism in the court’s ruling. ‘‘Yet,’’ Rothstein writes, ‘‘the IRS took no notice; Reverend Wright’s activities didn’t threaten his church’s tax subsidy’’ (p. 104). As in the second example, some of Rothstein’s cases are acts of omission rather than commission: the failure of police departments to protect black citizens from house bombings when they moved into white neighborhoods; the failure of the Fair Employment Practices Committee to prosecute discriminatory employers contracted by the government during the Second World War; the failure of bank regulators to act on early evidence that blacks were disproportionately being targeted for subprime loans. These are moments when government agencies ‘‘defaulted on their constitutional obligations’’ (p. 113), which Rothstein sees as equally contributing to de jure segregation. The Color of Law foregrounds the argument that racial segregation violates core constitutional principles expressed, primarily, in the Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and that is why it must be dismantled. But what is missing from the book is any troubling of racial integration as a social and political strategy. Racial segregation is foremost a tactic that allows for the uneven and unequal distribution of resources across space (e.g., good schools, parks, health care facilities, grocery stores, etc.), as well as the unfair siting of noxious facilities, and Rothstein gives examples of both of these outcomes. Yet he does not interrogate the possibility of equalizing resources and opportunities as a route to integration (or justice) as opposed to integration as a route to equalizing resources. Nor does he give accounts of debates within black communities about the desirability or expediency of racial integration as a political strategy. In other words, since sociologists in this field have, for the most part, not ‘‘forgotten’’ the history that Rothstein chronicles, and since we continue to study present-day examples of state discrimination, some readers may be looking for a more critical interrogation: perhaps new theorizing or empirical evidence about the use of law to maintain racial inequality, or explanations for why the law has often proven ineffectual for remedying discrimination, or ways that law and policy might proactively be used to equalize resources. To be fair, however, critiquing a book for what it does not include is all there is to do when what the book does include is so unimpeachably rigorous and persuasive. Rothstein also makes a compelling case for assigning this book in your classes. He was motivated to write The Color of Law after reading several Supreme Court opinions that overlooked or denied the facts of the government’s role in producing racial segregation and that employed the fallacious distinction between de facto and de jure segregation. We cannot know if the justices ‘‘forgot’’ the history or never knew it. But insofar as we are all teaching future voters, lawyers, and justices, Rothstein concludes with a call to action: ‘‘Whether a future Court is better educated is entirely up to us’’ (p. 239).