Proposal DefenseA Discourse Historical Analysis of

selected Supreme Court Decisions related to Race and Diversity

Committee MembersDr. Diane Hoff

Dr. Mary Alice VargaDr. Karen Brown

Dr. Markesha Henderson

Jean LeeUniversity of West Georgia

2014

Proposal Defense Agenda

O Personal ReflectionO Research QuestionsO Problem StatementO Justification of the StudyO Review of LiteratureO Theoretical FrameworkO Overview of Methodology

Personal Reflection

Lawyer

District Level Administrator

English

Teacher

Research QuestionsResearch Question 1:

What role did/do Supreme Court opinions play in the evolution of the discourse on race as it relates to public education in the United States?

Research Question 2:

Has the judicial discourse regarding race in public education shifted since 1954, and if so, how?

Research Question 3:

Does the judicial discourse regarding race in public education from 2000-the present intersect with other discourses regarding American public schools, and if so, how?

Statement of the ProblemO Public schools in the U.S. have experienced rapid racial

and ethnic changes in the last 30 years (Glenn, 2012; Orfield, 2001; Fiel, 2013)

O Many schools fail to reflect the rich diversity in the country (Glenn, 2012)

O Nearly 40% of Black and Hispanic students attend schools that are at least 90% Black and Hispanic while the average white student attends a school that is approximately 80% white (NAACP, 2005)

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey Data, 2011-12.

The Supreme Court’s Role

The Supreme Court has played an important role in public school development, particularly where it relates to race and access to public education.

O Brown v. Board of Education (1954) outlawed legal segregation in public schools.

O Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) held that the race may be used as a factor in college admissions.

O Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District (2010) held that school plans that use race alone as a qualifying criterion for school assignments is unconstitutional.

It is important to understand whether the Supreme Court’s use of language in its decisions related to race and education has influenced society’s values, policies,

and discourse since the 1950s.

When the Supreme Court’s decision results in monumental change, society’s values may be tested and may change as a result.

When addressing problems related to race and diversity, school districts must ensure that their actions, regardless of how compelling their rationale, must be in

compliance with the Supreme Court’s guidelines for constitutionality.

The Supreme Court of the United States is the ultimate authority on the constitutionality of any given judicial action or law.

Justification of the Study

Link to School Improvement

Society’s Values

Supreme Court

Precedent

Link to School Improvement

All must be considered when considering diversity in the context of School

Improvement

Public Opinion Media

Politicians Researchers

Supreme Court

Precedent Brown Bakke

Society’s Values:

Diversity Equity

Fairness

Review of Literature

Supreme Court

Jurisprudence:

Desegregation in K-12

Education

Supreme Court

Jurisprudence: Diversity in

Higher Education

Admissions

The Value of Diversity in Educational

Settings

Critical Discourse Analysis

Supreme Court JurisprudenceDesegregation

O Plessy v Ferguson (1896) established the “separate but equal” doctrine.

O Separate schools for blacks were almost uniformly unequal (Bell, 1973; Furlow, 2012; Levy, 1999; Wilson, 1947)

O During the 1940s 1940s, the NAACP targeted graduate schools as test cases because it was exceptionally difficult to prove inequality on its face in K-12 schools (Willis, 2004; Lavergne, 2012; Fisher, 1996; Furlow, 2012; Ware 2001, Finkleman, 2010).O Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337 (1938)O Sipuel v. Oklahoma, 332 U.S. 631 (1948). O McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, 339 U.S. 637 (1950)O Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950)

Supreme Court JurisprudenceDesegregation

1954 ---Brown v. Board of Education found separate but equal unconstitutional.

1954-1977 Series of cases seeking to remedy the effects of segregation (Caldas, 2007; Moran, 2013; Orfield, 2004)

O Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 (1968)O Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971)O Keyes v. Denver, 413 U.S. 189 (1973) O Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974) (Milliken I)O Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267 (1977) (Milliken II)

1977-Present---Gradual narrowing of remedies for past segregation (Caldas, 2007; Black, 2012; Fiel 2013; Holley, 2005; Kozol, 2010; Lee, 2004; Orfield, 2001)

O Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools, Independent School District No. 89 v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991)

O Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467 (1992)

O Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995) (Jenkins III)

O Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 127 S.Ct. 2738 (2007).

Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Diversity in Higher Education Admissions

O Despite three decades of diversity cases, the Supreme Court is still considering how colleges may use race as a factor in admissions (Tegeler, 2014; Caldas, 2007; Burns, 2014; Scott, 1980).O Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265

(1978)O Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003)O Fisher v. University of Texas,133 S.Ct. 2411 (2013)

The Value of DiversityO Racially isolated schools tend to suffer from a lack of

educational resources as compared to more diverse schools (Orfield, 2001; Black 2012).

O Democratic citizenship is enhanced when students have an opportunity to interact with those outside their racial and social backgrounds (Guarasci and Cornwell, 1997; Gurin, Nagda, and Lopez, 2004).

O Lack of diversity can lead to close-mindedness and ill preparation for the world at large (Rabin, 2013).

Critical Discourse AnalysisO Language, or discourse can be viewed in terms in three

defining features: what they are about, what the speaker does with them, and what effect they have on the hearer (Wood & Kroger, 2000).

O Critical Discourse Analysis is concerned with the ways that individuals think about discourse as well as ways that discourse can be used as data. Wood & Kroger (2000).

O Judicial opinions, editorials, statutes, political ads, signs, and speeches are all subject to critique using Critical Discourse Analysis (Jóhannesson, 2010; Reisgl & Wodak, 2009; Wodak & Meyer, 2001; Fairclough & Candlin, 1995).

Desegregation Discourse

Affirmative Action in Higher Education Discourse

Theoretical FrameworkO Critical Race Theory

O seeks to understand how systems of subordination in America have been maintained against persons of color (Crenshaw, 1995; Bell, ).

O began in the study of the intersection between race and the law, but since 1995 has been begun to find application in the field of education (Bernier, 2014; Closson, 2010; Delgado & Stefancic, 2012; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995)

O attempts to both “examine the terms by which race and racism have been negotiated in American consciousness…”(Crenshaw, 1995)

Discourse Historical Approach to Critical Discourse Analysis

O Interdisciplinary approachO Context dependent semiotic practices that are situated

within specific fields of social actionO Socially constituted and socially constitutiveO Related to a macro-topicO Has been used in the field of education (Jóhannesson,

2010) O Linked to the argumentation about validity claims such

as truth and normative validity involving several social actors who have different points of view (Jóhannesson, 2010; Reisgl & Wodak, 2009).

Methodological Process

Step 1: Determine the topic for research

Step 2: Develop preliminary guiding research questions

Step 3: Select relevant case law

Step 4: Consult historical documents to

root the research questions within historical context

Step 5: Analyze documents for tensions, struggles, themes, and

contradiction

Step 6: Develop the critique

Step 7: Write the results

Develop guiding

questions

Select relevant case

law

Consult historical

documents for context

Analyze for tensions,

struggles, and contradiction

s

Fluidity of Steps 2-5

RESEARCH QUESTIONSO Research Question 1: What role did/do Supreme

Court opinions play in the evolution of the discourse on race as it relates to public education in the United States?

O Research Question 2: How has the judicial discourse regarding race in public education shifted since 1954?

O Research Question 3: Does the judicial discourse regarding race in public education from 2000-the present intersect with other discourses regarding American public schools?

References 

Bell, D. A. (1973). Race, racism, and American law [by] Derrick A. Bell, Jr: Boston, Little, Brown, 1973.

Black, D. W. (2012). Education's elusive future, storied past, and the fundamental inequities between (Vol. 46, pp. 557-607): Georgia Law Review.

Caldas, S. J. (2007). A Re-Analysis of the Legal, Political, and Social Landscape of Desegregation from Plessy v. Ferguson to Parents Involved In Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1. Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, 2007, 217.

Connally, C. E. (2000). Justice Harlan's “Great Betrayal”? A Reconsideration of Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education. Journal of Supreme Court History, 25(1), 72.

Crenshaw, K. (1995). Critical race theory : the key writings that formed the movement / edited by Kimberlé Crenshaw ... [et al.]: New York : New Press : Distributed by W.W. Norton & Co., c1995.

Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2012). Critical race theory [electronic resource] : an introduction / Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic ; foreword by Angela Harris: New York : New York University Press, c2012.

2nd ed.

Fairclough, N., & Candlin, C. N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman.

Fiel, J. E. (2013). Decomposing School Resegregation: Social Closure, Racial Imbalance, and Racial Isolation. American Sociological Review, 78(5), 828-848. doi: 10.1177/0003122413496252

ReferencesFinkelman, P. (2010). Breaking the back of segregation: Why Sweatt matters. Thurgood Marshall Law Review, 36, 7.

Fisher, A. (1996). A Matter of Black and White: The Autobiography of Ada Lois Sipuel Fisher. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

Furlow, D. A. (2012). 'What starts here changes the world': The historical significance of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Sweatt v. Painter. Thurgood Marshall Law Review, 38, 25.

Gee, J. P. (1999). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis : Theory and Method. London: Routledge.

Glenn, W. J. (2012). School Resegregation: A Synthesis of the Evidence. Educational Forum, 76(3), 282-298.

Gurin, P., Nagda, B. A., & Lopez, G. E. (2004). The Benefits of Diversity in Education for Democratic Citizenship. Journal of Social Issues, 60(1), 17-34. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00097.x

ReferencesJóhannesson, I. Á. (2010). The politics of historical discourse analysis: a qualitative research method? Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 31(2), 251-264. doi: 10.1080/01596301003679768

Kozol, J., Tatum, B. D., Eaton, S., & Gandara, P. (2010). Resegregation: What's the Answer? Educational Leadership, 68(3), 28-31.

Lavergne, G. M. (2012). Sweatt v. Painter (1950) and why Sweatt won his case: a chronicle of judicial appointments. Southern Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the South, 19(1), 1.

Lee, C., & Harvard Civil Rights Project, C. M. A. (2004). Is Resegregation Real? : Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.

Levy, D. W. (1999). Before 'Brown:' the racial integration of American higher education. Journal of Supreme Court History, 24(3), 298-313.

Moran, R. F. (2013). UNTOWARD CONSEQUENCES: THE IRONIC LEGACY OF KEYES V. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1. Denver University Law Review, 90(5), 1209-1229.

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, T. C. R. P. (2008). Still Looking to the Future: Voluntary K-12 School Integration: eScholarship, University of California, 2008-01-15.

Orfield, G., & Harvard Civil Rights Project, C. M. A. (2001). Schools More Separate: Consequences of a Decade of Resegregation.

Orfield, G., Lee, C., & Harvard Civil Rights Project, C. M. A. (2004). "Brown" at 50: King's Dream or "Plessy's" Nightmare? : Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.

ReferencesRabin, K. S. (2013). Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin: The legacy of Grutter and the power of diversity in stem degree programs. Journal of Technology Law & Policy, 18(2), 289-312.

Reisgl, M., & Wodak, R. (2009). The Discourse-Historical Approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Tegeler, P. (2014). The compelling government interest in school diversity: Rebuilding the case for an affirmative government role. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 47(4), 1021-1049.

Wilson, C. H. (1947). Education or negroes in Mississippi since 1910. New York: Meador Publishing Company.

Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2001). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London, England: Sage Publications Inc.

Wood, L. A., & Kroger, R. O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis : methods for studying action in talk and text / Linda A. Wood, Rolf O. Kroger: Thousand Oaks, Calif. : Sage Publications, c2000.