Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: School Desegregation and Resegregation in Charlotte
Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: School Desegregation and Resegregation in Charlotte
复制标题
昨天、今天和明天：夏洛特的学校废除种族隔离和重新种族隔离
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Jeremy E. Fiel
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jeremy E. Fiel
学校取消种族隔离的缩减并不是什么新鲜事。我有一书架的书敲响了警钟，记录了废除种族隔离的成功，并哀叹最近重新实行种族隔离的趋势。昨天、今天和明天(YTT)为这部文学提供了一个新鲜的、有洞察力的视角。罗斯琳·阿林·米克尔森、斯蒂芬·塞缪尔·史密斯和艾米·霍恩·纳尔逊合著了一本书，使夏洛特-梅克伦堡学校系统(CMS)的重新种族隔离成为限制、挑战和未来希望的典范，就像它是过去废除种族隔离的承诺和可能性的典范一样。没有人比他更有资格做这件事。编辑和许多特约作者对CMS学校系统有密切的经验：他们花了他们的职业生涯研究这些问题，他们一生中的大部分时间都在为夏洛特的学生和教师倡导。看到YTT超越了专注于指责法院和保守派的典型倾向，这尤其令人耳目一新。当然，这其中有一些，也不是没有根据的。但YTT的独特之处在于其对取消种族隔离和重新种族隔离的原因、后果和影响的分析的细微差别、复杂性和不偏不倚。我们了解到，在斯旺的裁决中，废除种族隔离不仅仅是仁慈的法官强加给夏洛特的。这是动员起来的黑人社区的要求，并被与黑人领导层结成联盟的企业阶层用作经济发展的工具。在法律上，种族隔离是一种国家和国际尴尬，必须根除，夏洛特才能在全球经济中蓬勃发展。由地方领导人制定和实施的废除种族隔离制度帮助实现了这一点。夏洛特-梅克伦堡的废除种族隔离成为黑人和白人公民的骄傲之源，以至于里根总统在1984年的一次竞选活动中称废除种族隔离是一次失败的实验，遭到了当地一家报纸的沉默和斥责。顺便说一句，那年秋天，里根在梅克伦堡县赢得了超过60%的选票，并任命了最终结束CMS废除种族隔离的法官。但在那之前，CMS一直是全国废除种族隔离倡导者的骄傲，也是其他人效仿的榜样。如此细致入微地描述取消种族隔离的情况很少见，但对重新种族隔离的处理更是罕见。作者详细描述了取消种族隔离的削弱、统一地位的宣布(斯旺的结束)，以及随之而来的CMS的重新种族隔离。这些变化不仅仅是保守派政策制定者和丑闻法官心血来潮造成的，尽管它们起到了一定作用。具有讽刺意味的是，重新种族隔离的出现在一定程度上是因为取消种族隔离刺激了经济发展。夏洛特的经济发展变得自给自足，而不需要给这座城市打上“废除种族隔离制度奏效的地方”的标签，而当代事实上的种族隔离往往是“私人选择”的结果。此外，发展带来了缺乏自豪感的新来者，他们并不认为夏洛特是一体化教育的典范，而这些新来者中的许多人已经习惯了东北部和中西部支离破碎和隔离的学校体系。在这起导致斯旺死亡的案件中，六个家庭中有五个是新来的。经济发展还刺激了以白人和中产阶级为主的边远地区的住宅增长，给取消学校种族隔离带来了进一步的挑战。夏洛特不愿处理居住隔离和学校隔离的问题，因此，随着CMS重返社区学校，事实证明，这是重新实行种族隔离的决定性因素。我们了解了这种避免住宅取消种族隔离的可耻细节，包括不愿考虑低息贷款，以使不同家庭更负担得起边远地区的住房。评论485条
Alarm at the retrenchment of school desegregation is not new. I have a shelf of books sounding this alarm, chronicling the successes of desegregation and lamenting recent trends toward resegregation. Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow (YTT) offers a fresh, insightful perspective to this literature. Roslyn Arlin Mickelson, Stephen Samuel Smith, and Amy Hawn Nelson assemble a volume that makes the resegregation of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system (CMS) an exemplar of the limits, challenges, and hopes for the future, just as it was a model of the promises and possibilities of desegregation in the past. No one is more qualified to do this. The editors and many of the contributing authors have intimate experience with the CMS school system: they have spent their careers studying these issues, and they have spent much of their lives advocating for students and teachers in Charlotte. It was especially refreshing to see YTT move beyond the typical tendency to focus on blaming courts and conservatives. There is certainly some of that, and it is not unwarranted. But YTT is unique in the nuance, complexity, and even-handedness of its analysis of the causes, consequences, and implications of desegregation and resegregation. We learn that desegregation was not simply forced on Charlotte by benevolent judges in the Swann decision. It was demanded by a mobilized black community and harnessed as a tool of economic development by a corporate class that forged alliances with black leadership. De jure segregation was a national and international embarrassment that had to be eradicated for Charlotte to thrive in the global economy. Desegregation, developed and implemented by local leaders, helped this happen. Charlotte-Mecklenburg’s desegregation became a source of pride among black and white citizens, so much so that President Reagan was greeted with silence and reprimanded by a local newspaper when he called desegregation a ‘‘failed experiment’’ on a 1984 campaign stop. As an aside, Reagan won over 60 percent of the votes in Mecklenburg County that fall and appointed the judge who eventually ended desegregation in CMS. But until then, CMS was the pride of desegregation advocates nationally and an example for others to follow. Such a nuanced account of desegregation is rare, but even rarer is the treatment of resegregation. The authors provide a detailed description of the weakening of desegregation, the declaration of unitary status (the end of Swann), and the ensuing resegregation of CMS. These changes were not simply due to the whims of conservative policymakers and scandalous judges, although they played a role. Ironically, resegregation emerged in part because of the economic development spurred by desegregation. Charlotte’s economic progress became self-sustaining without needing to brand the city as ‘‘the place where desegregation worked,’’ and contemporary de facto segregation is often justified as a result of ‘‘private choices.’’ Moreover, development brought newcomers who lacked the pride in Charlotte being the model of integrated education, and many of these newcomers were accustomed to the fragmented and segregated school systems of the Northeast and Midwest. Five of the six families who instigated the case that ended Swann were newcomers. Economic development also spurred residential growth in outlying areas that became predominantly white and middle-class, presenting further challenges to school desegregation. Charlotte’s unwillingness to deal with residential segregation alongside school segregation thus proved a deciding factor in resegregation as CMS returned to neighborhood schooling. We learn some of the shameful details of this avoidance of residential desegregation, including the unwillingness to consider low-interest loans to make housing in outlying areas more affordable to diverse families. Reviews 485