|
|
|
Book Review
| Joshua M. Dunn, Complex Justice: The Case of Missouri v. Jenkins, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2008. Pp. 240. $37.50 (ISBN 978-0-8078-3139-7).
|
| This book provides a comprehensive and nuanced account of Missouri v. Jenkins, one of the last major school desegregation cases of the twentieth century to make its way to the Supreme Court (in 1990 and again in 1995). Unlike many other works commenting on the Supreme Court decisions in that case, this book focuses on the dynamics of the case in the lower courts and the effectiveness (or, more precisely, lack thereof) of the district judge's broad remedial decrees in advancing the goals of racial integration and educational achievement in the Kansas City public schools. Spanning over twenty-five years (1977–2003), the case involved the most expansive and expensive—though largely unsuccessful—desegregation remedy of its kind. The book delves into the complex and colorful legal and political interplay between Supreme Court precedent, the district court's exercise of its remedial powers, and the conflicting goals of the plaintiffs, the school board, the State, and the local black community—ostensibly, the ultimate beneficiary of the district court decree that it grew to oppose vigorously. |
1
|
|
The author attempts to draw broader lessons for judicial policymaking and educational reform from this landmark desegregation case. His principal thesis is that, in addition to two well-recognized institutional constraints on district courts—namely, inadequate access to information and dependence on the political branches—there is a third constraint: Supreme Court precedents that hinder district judges' ability to frame effective policies and secure their implementation. Rather than blame the failure of desegregation decrees solely on reckless judicial activism or sheer incompetence, the author thus attributes at least part of the problem to the unwitting effects of the Supreme Court's incremental jurisprudence. Specifically, the author argues that the Supreme Court's preclusion of interdistrict remedies (i.e., combining unlawfully segregated city districts with predominantly white suburban districts for remedial purposes) in Milliken v. Bradley (1974), and its denial of a constitutional right to education (or equal educational funding) in San Antonio v. Rodriguez (1973), tied the district court's hands in addressing illegal segregation and its effects in Kansas City. The inability to compel racial integration or educational improvements more directly due to the aforementioned Supreme Court precedents, the author argues, explains in large part the judicial remedial plan's singular focus in this case on the attraction of white students through massive capital expenditures for new magnet schools—a spectacular failure. |
2
|
|
Given the book's emphasis on the remedial constraints facing the district court, however, it is surprising that the Supreme Court's second decision in Milliken v. Bradley (1977) (Milliken II) receives only passing mention. In Milliken II, the Court sanctioned a district court decree targeted at compensatory educational improvements—ordering, at the State's expense, reading skills programs, special in-service teacher training, changes in student testing, and counseling—even though those remedies did not necessarily promote racial integration. Because Milliken II was decided before Missouri v. Jenkins, the former case should have alleviated one of the central constraints hypothesized to have limited the district judge in the latter: the inability to fashion a remedy aimed more directly at addressing the educational needs of existing black students rather than attracting new white students. To that extent, the author might have let off the hook too easily those responsible for the expansive yet ineffectual remedial plan. |
3
|
|
That said, one of the most compelling themes and keen observations of the book is the mismatch between Supreme Court doctrine (which, it argues, largely shaped the nature of the district court's remedy) and the priorities of the local black community, which the litigation was designed to benefit. Although beyond the book's scope, it provokes thought as to the impact of the Supreme Court's desegregation precedents on the permissibility of other race-based educational initiatives—whether ordered by a judge or implemented by the political branches. The Court has recently revisited this subject in Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), and Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007). Plans that may have best served the interests of black students of Kansas City then (more focused compensatory measures), and of students from minority backgrounds now (the option to attend better schools), are no doubt more difficult to fashion given the Court's unwillingness to embrace what at least some observers would agree is the primary concern of the intended beneficiaries of education reforms: not racial integration per se or the classroom benefits of diverse viewpoints, but rather greater educational opportunities for underrepresented minorities. |
4
|
|
In conclusion, this book provides a rich and well-researched recounting of one of the most significant judicial efforts at school desegregation—conveying the legal, political, and human dimensions of that saga. By looking behind, the book offers fresh insight into the important questions lying ahead for judicial policymaking, racial equality, and educational reform. |
5
|
| Pratik Shah
|
| Washington, D.C. |
|
Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.
|