Prejudice and Other Social Factors in School Segregation

Harris, Edward E.

doi:10.2307/2293997

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…and court (Pettigrew and Cramer, 1959;Pettigrew, 1957;Harris, 1968;Vanfossen, 1968;Dye, 1968). Robey, for example, in a study of segregation in 872 Southern county school districts in 1968 determined &dquo;the single strongest explanatory variable [to be] the percent of the population Negro in 1960&dquo; (Robey, 1970: 81).…”

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

H.E.W. Versus the Federal Courts

Giles¹

1975

American Politics Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

H.E.W. Versus the Federal Courts

Giles¹

1975

American Politics Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Black enrollment share did not impede "token" desegregation, but was an important predictor of both resistance to more intensive desegregation and being supervised by a court in later 4 Giles (1975aGiles ( , 1975b examines heterogeneity in desegregation patterns, but limits his analysis to 1968 and 1970 and uses fewer explanatory variables than considered here. Several other papers attempt do the same for earlier years, but these are either limited to districts (or counties) in only a few states (Pettigrew, 1957;Pettigrew and Cramer, 1959) or use state-level aggregate data (Harris, 1968;Vanfossen, 1968). Each of these papers covers fewer years than the present study, and none measure "explanatory" district characteristics before they may have been affected by the desegregation process.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Brown to busing

Cascio

Gordon

Lewis

et al. 2008

Journal of Urban Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Civil Rights Movement and the Logic of Social Change

Luders

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social movements have wrought dramatic changes upon American society. This raises the question: Why do some movements succeed in their endeavors while others fail? Luders answers this question by introducing an analytical framework that begins with a shift in emphasis away from the characteristics of movements toward the targets of protests and affected bystanders and why they respond as they do. This shift brings into focus how targets and other interests assess both their exposure to movement disruptions as well as the costs of conceding to movement demands. From this point, diverse outcomes stem not only from a movement's capabilities for protest but also from differences among targets and others in their vulnerability to disruption and the substance of movement goals. Applied to the civil rights movement, this approach recasts conventional accounts of the movement's outcome in local struggles and national politics and clarifies the broader logic of social change.

show abstract

Prejudice and Other Social Factors in School Segregation

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

H.E.W. Versus the Federal Courts

H.E.W. Versus the Federal Courts

From Brown to busing

The Civil Rights Movement and the Logic of Social Change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About