Read Online NurtureShock by Po Bronson, Ashley Merryman - Free Book Online Page B
Authors: Po Bronson, Ashley Merryman
Ads: Link
tank that was long based at Harvard but has moved to
UCLA. In the summer of 2007, Orfield and a dozen top scholars wrote an amicus brief to the United States Supreme Court supporting
school desegregation in Louisville, Kentucky, and Seattle, Washington. After completing the 86-page document, Orfield e-mailed
it to all the social scientists on his mailing list, and he received 553 signatures of support. No fancy law firms put their
stamp on it. Orfield was very proud that the brief was the work of scientists, not lawyers, thereby preserving its integrity
and impartiality. “It was the authentic voice of social science,” he recalled.
Privately, though, Orfield felt some frustration—even anger. He admitted the science available to make their case “wasn’t
what we really wanted.” Despite having at their disposal at least a thousand research studies on desegregation’s effects,
“I was surprised none were longitudinal. It really has a substantial effect, but it has to be done the right way.” Just throwing
kids of different races into a school together isn’t the right way, because they can self-segregate within the school. Orfield
lamented the lack of funding to train teachers. Looking at the science available to make their case, Orfield recalled, “It
depressed me that we’ve invested so little in finding the benefits of integration.”
This ambiguity is visible in the text of the amicus brief. Scientists don’t like to overstate their case. So the benefits
of desegregation are qualified with words like “may lead” and “can improve.” “Mere school integration is not a panacea,” the
brief warns.
UT’s Bigler was one of the scholars who contributed to the brief, and she was heavily involved in the process of its creation.
Her estimation of what they found is more candid than Orfield’s. “In the end, I was disappointed with the amount of evidence
social psychology could muster,” she said. “Going to integrated schools gives you just as many chances to learn stereotypes
as to unlearn them.”
Calling attention to this can feel taboo. Bigler is an adamant proponent of desegregation in schools, on moral grounds. “It’s
an enormous step backward to increase social segregation,” she commented. But it’s important for parents to know that merely
sending your child to a diverse school is no guarantee they’ll have better racial attitudes than children at homogenous schools.
Race appears to be especially complex, compared to other objects of bias and discrimination. Dr. Thomas Pettigrew of the University
of California at Santa Cruz analyzed over 500 research studies, all of which were examples of how exposure to others can potentially
reduce bias. The studies that were most successful weren’t about racial bias—rather, they were about bias toward the disabled,
the elderly, and gays. Studies in other countries show success—such as a reduction in bias among Jews and Palestinians, or
whites and blacks in South Africa. When it comes to race in America, the studies show only consistent, modest benefit among
college-aged students. In high schools and elementary schools, it’s a different story.
Recently, the Civil Rights Project studied high school juniors in six school districts around the country. One of those was
Louisville, which appears to be a place where desegregation has had the intended benefits. Surveys of high school juniors
there show that over 80% of students (of all races) feel their school experience has helped them work with and get along with
members of other races and ethnic groups. Over 85% feel their school’s diversity has prepared them to work in a diverse job
setting.
But other districts didn’t look so great. Lynn, Massachusetts, which is ten miles northeast of Boston, is generally regarded
as another model of diversity and successful school desegregation. When its students were polled if they’d like to live in
UCLA. In the summer of 2007, Orfield and a dozen top scholars wrote an amicus brief to the United States Supreme Court supporting
school desegregation in Louisville, Kentucky, and Seattle, Washington. After completing the 86-page document, Orfield e-mailed
it to all the social scientists on his mailing list, and he received 553 signatures of support. No fancy law firms put their
stamp on it. Orfield was very proud that the brief was the work of scientists, not lawyers, thereby preserving its integrity
and impartiality. “It was the authentic voice of social science,” he recalled.
Privately, though, Orfield felt some frustration—even anger. He admitted the science available to make their case “wasn’t
what we really wanted.” Despite having at their disposal at least a thousand research studies on desegregation’s effects,
“I was surprised none were longitudinal. It really has a substantial effect, but it has to be done the right way.” Just throwing
kids of different races into a school together isn’t the right way, because they can self-segregate within the school. Orfield
lamented the lack of funding to train teachers. Looking at the science available to make their case, Orfield recalled, “It
depressed me that we’ve invested so little in finding the benefits of integration.”
This ambiguity is visible in the text of the amicus brief. Scientists don’t like to overstate their case. So the benefits
of desegregation are qualified with words like “may lead” and “can improve.” “Mere school integration is not a panacea,” the
brief warns.
UT’s Bigler was one of the scholars who contributed to the brief, and she was heavily involved in the process of its creation.
Her estimation of what they found is more candid than Orfield’s. “In the end, I was disappointed with the amount of evidence
social psychology could muster,” she said. “Going to integrated schools gives you just as many chances to learn stereotypes
as to unlearn them.”
Calling attention to this can feel taboo. Bigler is an adamant proponent of desegregation in schools, on moral grounds. “It’s
an enormous step backward to increase social segregation,” she commented. But it’s important for parents to know that merely
sending your child to a diverse school is no guarantee they’ll have better racial attitudes than children at homogenous schools.
Race appears to be especially complex, compared to other objects of bias and discrimination. Dr. Thomas Pettigrew of the University
of California at Santa Cruz analyzed over 500 research studies, all of which were examples of how exposure to others can potentially
reduce bias. The studies that were most successful weren’t about racial bias—rather, they were about bias toward the disabled,
the elderly, and gays. Studies in other countries show success—such as a reduction in bias among Jews and Palestinians, or
whites and blacks in South Africa. When it comes to race in America, the studies show only consistent, modest benefit among
college-aged students. In high schools and elementary schools, it’s a different story.
Recently, the Civil Rights Project studied high school juniors in six school districts around the country. One of those was
Louisville, which appears to be a place where desegregation has had the intended benefits. Surveys of high school juniors
there show that over 80% of students (of all races) feel their school experience has helped them work with and get along with
members of other races and ethnic groups. Over 85% feel their school’s diversity has prepared them to work in a diverse job
setting.
But other districts didn’t look so great. Lynn, Massachusetts, which is ten miles northeast of Boston, is generally regarded
as another model of diversity and successful school desegregation. When its students were polled if they’d like to live in
Similar Books
