|
Goldstone, Dwonna (2006). Integrating the 40 Acres: The
Fifty-Year Struggle for Racial Equality at the University of
Texas. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press
Pp. x + 213 ISBN 978-0-8203-2828-7 Reviewed by Casey E. George-Jackson December 18, 2008 Integrating the 40 Acres: The Fifty-Year Struggle for Racial Equality at the University of Texas offers a historical account of the desegregation of the University of Texas, beginning with the United States Supreme Court decision of Sweatt v. Painter (1950). The book spans fifty years of legal, legislative, political, and social struggles surrounding the issue of access to the State’s flagship university for African Americans. The book centers on the fact African Americans were systematically barred from participating in many aspects of campus life despite a Supreme Court order to desegregate the University of Texas. Goldstone portrays desegregation of the University as piecemeal and slow to progress, with the remnants of segregation remaining for decades following formal desegregation. The author uses archival information obtained from official state and university records, newspaper articles, and letters that reflect the sentiments of members of the public, legislators, students, faculty, and University officials. Her approach incorporates a number of perspectives, including African Americans, Whites, pro-segregationists, and anti-segregationists. Goldstone’s interpretation of the historical documents included in her research demonstrates how deeply ingrained racism was for many white Texans, including politicians, administrators, faculty, and students at the University. Through the use of these documents, the author creates a compelling narrative by inserting specific examples of racism and overt discrimination into the retelling of the history of the University over the last half-century. In African Americans at the School of Law (Chapter 1), Goldstone provides the background of the history of the University of Texas leading to Sweatt, the development and progress of the case, and the eventual Supreme Court decision. In 1946, an African American named Heman Sweatt and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) filed a lawsuit against the University of Texas’s School of Law following denial of admission based on his race. The University and the State of Texas attempted to circumvent and counteract the lawsuit by establishing a law school specifically for African Americans, the Texas State University for Negroes (TSUN). TSUN, although inferior in every way to University of Texas’ School of Law, became a symbol of the extreme measures the University and the State were willing to undertake in order to uphold segregation. According to the archives, Goldstone found a wide variety of reactions to the case and the overarching issue of segregation, both from across the State and within the University community. In 1950, the Supreme Court ruled that African Americans be admitted to the University’s law school and other graduate-level programs. Although Sweatt finally attended the University, he eventually left without completing his law degree citing health reasons and the amount of time spent waiting for the Supreme Court’s decision. Yet his case and the subsequent ruling allowed for other African Americans to gain entrance into the University. Goldstone uses the remaining chapters of the book to inform readers that their admission was confined to the classroom, resulting in the continuation of a segregated college experience for African Americans. In the second chapter, Desegregation of Educational Facilities, the author connects Sweatt to the larger context of national desegregation efforts, particularly Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954). As Sweatt granted African Americans access to the law and graduate programs at the University, Brown granted access to the undergraduate programs. Although the University officially stated that it was ready to integrate, Goldstone notes that its actions and policies as dictated by politicians, the Board of Regents, and University administrators stated otherwise. Admissions policies were purposefully altered to restrict the number of African Americans admitted to the University, and the goal of maintain segregation through legal means was largely achieved. The few African Americans who were able to gain admission had mixed experiences as college students, from support to hostility and even isolation. Additional policies limited African Americans’ participation in social organizations and activities, and the maintenance of separate facilities such as testing centers and restrooms perpetuated Jim Crow practices, despite the University’s insistence that it was desegregating. Throughout this chapter, Goldstone offers examples of the reactions of pro-segregationists who threatened legal action to prevent the desegregation of the undergraduate programs, and anti-segregationists who called for further integration of African Americans into the University. The next three chapters focus on three aspects of campus life which remained segregated years after Sweatt: Desegregation On and Off Campus (Chapter 3), Dormitory Integration (Chapter 4), and Black Integration of the Athletic Program (Chapter 5). Throughout these chapters, Goldstone provides examples of how the University used race-based policies to limit interracial interactions on campus, and to perpetuate racism toward African American students. A narrow notion of what constituted a desegregated University was applied by those in power, particularly as the “regents generally emphasized total integration in the academic process while disavowing any major responsibility for African American’s students’ social and extracurricular integration, which the board claimed did not constitute part of the academic process” (p. 11). Off campus, many Austin businesses that served students remained segregated, denying African Americans a similar college experience as their white peers. In 1963, following years of protest, an ordinance was passed that prevented Austin businesses from discriminating on the basis of race. In assessing its larger impact, Goldstone notes that Sweatt not only contributed to the desegregation of the University of Texas, but also to the desegregation of Austin. Desegregating the dormitories was another necessary step towards fully desegregating the University, particularly as “many civil rights activists saw integration of the classroom as only half the fight” (p. 91). The University’s policies separated on-campus housing by race, while privately managed dorms on- and off-campus allowed whites and Blacks to live together. Goldstone notes that the University permitted white students to request to and live with Black students, which created a loophole for the University to claim that their dorms were not formally segregated. However, Blacks could not request to live with white students, and strict visitation policies were enacted to prevent African Americans from even entering white dorms, particularly across gender groups. Compared to white dorms, Black dormitories were physically inferior, remotely located, and often lacked basic amenities. Goldstone attributes the eventual desegregation of the dormitories in 1965 to efforts led by progressive faculty and students including protests, complaints filed by students, and articles featured in the student-led newspaper that drew attention to the inequities in housing. However, the author notes that while the University changed its formal housing policies, housing assignments considered the race of applicants until 1972 and the dorms remained segregated along racial lines. Integration of the Athletic Program highlights another aspect of the University that remained segregated for years following the Sweatt ruling. Until 1956, the Board of Regents mandated that University teams were only allowed to compete against all-white teams, even though many believed that desegregating athletics would help ease racial tensions across the South. Many other Southern universities prohibited African Americans from participating in intercollegiate sports, which helped legitimize the University’s own policies regarding their ineligibility for athletic participation. Following a national track and field meet hosted by the University in the late 1950s in which Blacks competed, Texas officials and coaches began to realize that the University was losing Black athletes to many of their competitors. Similar to the actions and calls for other aspects of campus to be desegregated, progressive student and faculty contributed to the 1963 decision to desegregate the University’s athletic program and other student activities. African Americans were allowed to compete in the University’s intercollegiate sports the following year, yet few Blacks were actively recruited and no athletic scholarships were awarded to African Americans until 1967. In the final chapter, Desegregation from 1964 to the Present, Goldstone provides an overview of the remaining aspects and residual effects of segregation at the University of Texas, as well as the slow progress from desegregation to integration. This chapter focuses on the desegregation of the Forty Acres Club (1962) and the Longhorn Band (1964), the hiring of the first African American faculty member (1964), and the establishment of ethnic studies programs (1969) and minority recruitment and retention programs (1968). Although Sweatt and subsequent desegregation efforts focused on African Americans, other racial and ethnic groups such as Mexican American also benefitted from the desegregation of the University of Texas. Access to the University and other high-profile institutions continue to be highly contested in the courts. Over forty years after Sweatt, The University of Texas School of Law was again the subject of interest in Hopwood v. Texas (1996), in which an white applicant who was denied admission accused the University of admitting a less-qualified minority into the law program. The Hopwood ruling prevented the University from considering race when admitting students to the law program. Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), which focused on the University of Michigan’s law school, upheld the use of race in admissions if reasons of compelling interest are demonstrated. Despite the Grutter decision, and the development of programs that aim to increase minority students’ access to and success at the University of Texas and other high-profile universities, problems of access and racism still exist and impact campus climates. Goldstone concludes by reminding readers that the evidence presented in this book demonstrates the degree to which whites, particularly those in power, “went to great lengths to maintain white privilege even as the rest of the nation, including other parts of the South, were looking for ways to remedy the injustices inflicted on the region’s blacks” (p. 155). Integrating the 40 Acres demonstrates the effects of decisions, actions, and strategies of exclusion on the educational opportunities and experiences of African Americans at the University of Texas during a contentious period. The evidence presented by Goldstone alerts readers to the fact that desegregation occurred gradually and against great resistance at the University, in Austin, and in the State of Texas. The tension between racial groups and those for and against desegregation is apparent throughout the book, and informs readers of the intense racism during this time period at the University of Texas and across the nation. In many ways, this tension continues today, although it appears in more covert ways. For younger individuals who were not proxy to the changes that occurred as a result of Sweatt and other legal cases that worked to dismantle segregation, this book fulfills an important role in retelling the stories of these struggles, the blatant racism, and resistance to racism which shaped the University and the nation. This book will be particularly useful for faculty and students interested in and studying educational equity, law and education, desegregation, higher education, and the experiences of minorities in higher education. However, because of the eloquent and compelling narrative Goldstone offers, the book is also highly accessible to and may be of interest to members of the general public. Although the author briefly mentions the desegregation of other educational entities in the South, the focus of the book—understandably—remains primarily on Texas. A potential weakness of the book is that it does not discuss the carefully coordinated and strategic efforts of the NAACP and civil rights leaders to challenge segregation through legal means at the K-12 and higher education levels as a way to desegregate society. This is particularly important given the number of court cases that made their way through the legal system during the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. While other cases are mentioned in relation to the events at the University of Texas, it is also important for readers to understand that Sweatt was just one of the many cases brought forth to systematically change the legal structure of education, and by extension, society. These cases were also a result of racial relations in the U.S. and pressure from the international community questioning the treatment of Blacks in American following World War II, which aided in the opportunity for these cases to be heard and for their success in the courts. From a sociological perspective, Goldstone draws attention to the distinction between desegregation and integration. Desegregation—the mere combination of previously segregated individuals in a particular setting—is a prerequisite for integration, yet integration works to fully incorporate individuals into the particular setting. Goldstone’s analysis demonstrates that while the Sweatt decision formally desegregated the University, other changes had to occur for integration to occur. However, some may argue that the University still may not be integrated today with the lingering effects of racism impacting the campus climate. Understanding the desegregation and integration of the University of Texas is critical as current legislators, policy makers, and administrators continue to try to improve educational equity for racial and ethnic minorities in the U.S., particularly in light of current challenges of affirmative action programs and policies. Given the duration of desegregation efforts at the University of Texas and the lasting impact of de jure and de facto segregation, this book challenges the notion that affirmative action policies will not be needed in 25 years, as was stated in 2003 by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in the Grutter ruling. In this sense, Goldstone offers important evidence that affirmative action programs and policies are still needed to recruit and retain minorities in higher education to overcome to long-term effects of segregation. References Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954). 347 U.S. 483. Grutter v. Bollinger (2003). 539 U.S. 306. Hopwood v. Texas (5th Cir. 1996), 78 F.3d932. Sweatt v. Painter (1950). 339 U.S. 629.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
|
No comments:
Post a Comment