integration

During the colonial and antebellum periods, the southern slave codes were draconian and the slave regimen was harsh, yet chattel slavery was basically incompatible with racial segregation. Although the civil and social status of blacks was rigidly subordinate, blacks and whites often worked side by side, and racial mingling and miscegenation in the South were widespread. Racial segregation, known as Jim Crow in the South, first emerged in the antebellum North, where rights gained by free blacks through the thrust of the Revolution, especially the franchise and rights in court, were subsequently whittled away.

The Reconstruction period (1865–1877) witnessed the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868), which recognized African Americans as citizens, accorded them equal protection under the laws, and secured their civic privileges and immunities from state violation. Also at this time, the Fifteenth Amendment (1870), which barred disfranchisement on grounds of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, was passed. But by 1877 white America had wearied of the strains of Reconstruction, abandoning the freedmen and freedwomen to conservative Democratic home rule in the southern states. In the absence of slavery and the strict enforcement of Reconstruction legislation intended to guarantee blacks' civil rights, southern whites reasserted racial dominance through segregation, disfranchisement, and lynching. The federal government sanctioned segregation in the states and practiced it in its agencies; indeed, Jim Crow prevailed in Washington, D.C. The conservative Supreme Court so narrowly interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment (the 1883 Civil Rights Cases) and the Fifteenth Amendment (United States v. Reese, 1876) that African Americans were for the most part denied the intended benefits of emancipation. In 1894, Congress repealed all but seven of the forty-nine sections of the Reconstruction's enforcement provisions in civil rights. In 1896, the Supreme Court endorsed the segregationist principle in Plessy v. Ferguson, proclaiming the constitutionality of a Louisiana law compelling "equal but separate" railroad facilities "for the white and colored races."

Into the 1960s, rigid Jim Crow laws separated blacks and whites virtually everywhere in the South. Despite the Supreme Court's "separate but equal" provision, facilities for blacks were far inferior to those for whites. Whites contended that the Bible justified racial discrimination, and that blacks preferred segregation. Whites in the Northeast, Midwest, and West practiced segregation through social pressure, antimiscegenation ordinances, and racial covenants preventing blacks (and in some areas, other people of color and Jews) from purchasing homes in certain neighborhoods. In 1941 and 1942, white immigrants in Buffalo and Detroit agitated against blacks moving into federally funded housing projects. Asian Americans and Mexican Americans in some western and southwestern communities were subjected to segregated educational facilities, confined to slum housing, and refused service in white-only businesses.

Civil rights activists endeavored to eliminate segregation through the courts and appeals to presidents. In the 1930s and 1940s, the Supreme Court dealt blows to segregation by ruling against the segregation of blacks at universities in Missouri, Texas, and Oklahoma, all-white primaries (Smith v. Allwright, 1944), and segregation on interstate transportation (Morgan v. Virginia, 1946).In 1941, civil rights leader A. Philip Randolph demanded that President Franklin D. Roosevelt desegregate the federal government and defense industries. In response, Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8802, although the Fair Employment Practices Committee, charged with investigating allegations of racial discrimination, proved ineffectual in carrying out its mission.

In 1946, President Harry Truman created a committee to report on violations of civil rights and propose solutions. World War II (1939–1945) had furnished occasions for racial integration in employment, public venues, and housing, but segregationists tried to restore racial hierarchy, viciously attacking black veterans upon their return to the United States. In 1947, the President's Committee on Civil Rights released a report recommending federal legislation and action to outlaw racial assaults, overcome obstacles to enfranchisement, desegregate housing, and address other breaches of civil rights. In 1948, President Truman signed executive orders prohibiting racial discrimination in the civil service (EO 9980) and the armed forces (EO 9981).Although the Korean War (1950–1953) is hailed as the first war fought by an integrated armed forces since the American Revolution, white supremacists attempted to sustain segregation at military bases in the United States and abroad.

The momentum gained by civil rights activists during the 1940s carried into the next decade. The Supreme Court's unanimous 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka found the "equal but separate" provision of Plessy v. Ferguson unconstitutional, thus hastening the decline of segregation. Although the Court determined in 1955 that local school boards were to oversee desegregation in their districts, it set no deadline and thus gave whites little incentive to carry out the order. Al-though many schools in the Midwest, southern border states, and Washington, D.C., desegregated peaceably, southern states allowed schools to circumvent the Supreme Court's Brown rulings by closing down, and repealed compulsory attendance laws so that parents could withdraw children from desegregating schools. During the 1957–1958 school year, nine African American teenagers, backed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (est.1909), integrated into Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. White hostility, and Governor Orval Faubus's refusal to ensure state protection of the "Little Rock Nine," compelled President Dwight Eisenhower to deploy federal troops to keep order and safeguard the students.

As civil rights activists grew bolder, they developed strategies of "direct action" to bring about integration, and to that end organized mass sit-ins, boycotts, and marches. Members of the interracial Congress of Racial Equality engaged in sit-ins at segregated eating establishments and "Freedom Rides" on interstate buses in the 1940s, and joined forces with other integrationist groups in the 1960s. In Montgomery, Alabama, the NAACP launched a yearlong boycott (1955–1956) that accomplished the desegregation of the city's bus system. College students who mobilized sit-ins at southern lunch counters and recreational facilities formed the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) in 1960, which subsequently organized projects to register black voters in the rural Deep South.

Cold War politics also entered into the issue of segregation. Foreign foes as well as allies of the United States called attention to the contradiction between Americans' claims to advocate freedom, democracy, and equality while subjecting citizens and foreign visitors to racial discrimination. "White-only" hotels, apartments, and restaurants that denied entry to foreign officials of color insulted the visitors and, some critics argued, threatened to harm U.S. foreign relations.

The wide-ranging Civil Rights Act of 1964, which created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 represented the fruits of decades of activism. Yet by the time Congress passed this legislation, some activists doubted that integration was the ultimate solution for achieving racial equality. Black separatists advocated building communities apart from whites, whom they believed would never accept African Americans as equals. In this view, black-only communities would most effectively foster the social and economic progress of their members, and also would allow African Americans to define themselves according to their own values, rather than futilely striving to conform to white society. Critics also contended that integration was a goal of members of the black middle class, who would benefit the most from incorporation into white-dominated capitalist society, and that integration would not solve the economic problems of poorer African Americans. Such ideas influenced SNCC members, whose 1966 election of Stokely Carmichael as chairman over the more moderate John Lewis marked SNCC's shift away from integration as a primary goal and toward radicalism and separatism.

Since the 1960s, integration in the South proved most successful in public schools. The proportion of African American children in the South attending all-black schools dropped from two out of three in 1960 to one out of ten in 1972.In contrast, de facto segregation characterized schools and housing in the North and West during the 1970s and beyond as whites moved out of neighborhoods increasingly populated by people of color. In 1971, the Supreme Court's controversial decision (Swann v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Board of Education) on busing to integrate public schools riled parents who considered it an extreme means to achieve racial equality. Into the twenty-first century, colleges and universities, the government, public transportation, professional sports, and other venues experienced varying degrees of integration, although concerns persisted about social and economic inequalities that perpetuated racial separation.

Bibliography

Banner-Haley, Charles T. The Fruits of Integration: Black Middle-Class Ideology and Culture, 1960–1990. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1994.

Beals, Melba Pattillo. Warriors Don't Cry: A Searing Memoir of the Battle to Integrate Little Rock's Central High. New York: Pocket Books, 1994.

Brooks, Roy L. Integration or Separation? A Strategy for Racial Equality. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1996.

Fairclough, Adam. Better Day Coming: Blacks and Equality, 1890–2000. New York: Viking, 2001.

King, Desmond. Separate and Unequal: Black Americans and the U.S. Federal Government. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Romano, Renee. "No Diplomatic Immunity: African Diplomats, the State Department, and Civil Rights, 1961–1964." Journal of American History 87, no.2 (Sept.2000): 546–579.

Sitkoff, Harvard. The Struggle for Black Equality, 1954–1992. Rev. ed. New York: Hill and Wang, 1993.

The bringing together of separate elements to create a whole unit. The bringing together of people from the different demographic and racial groups that make up U.S. society.

In most cases, the term integration is used to describe the process of bringing together people of different races, especially blacks and whites, in schools and other settings. But it is also used to describe the process of bringing together people of different backgrounds. A primary purpose of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 et seq.), for example, was to more fully integrate disabled individuals into U.S. society. The House Judiciary Committee's report on the ADA described it as "a comprehensive piece of civil rights legislation which promises a new future: a future of inclusion and integration, and the end of exclusion and segregation" (H.R. Rep. No. 485, 101st Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 3, at 26 [1990], reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 445, 449.7).

The term integration is most commonly used in association with the efforts of African Americans in the United States to eliminate racial segregation and achieve equal opportunity and inclusion in U.S. society. Often, it has been used synonymously with desegregation to mean the elimination of discriminatory practices based on race. However, though similar, the terms have been used in significantly different ways by the courts, by legal theorists, and in the context of the civil rights movement. In general, desegregation refers to the elimination of policies and practices that segregate people of different races into separate institutions and facilities. Integration refers not just to the elimination of such policies but also to the active incorporation of different races into institutions for the purpose of achieving racial balance, which many believe will lead to equal rights, protections, and opportunities.

Throughout the civil rights movement in the United States, black leaders have held different opinions about the meaning and value of integration, with some advocating integration as the ultimate goal for black citizens, and others resisting integration out of concern that it would lead to the assimilation of black citizens into white culture and society. In 1934, a disagreement over the value of integration versus segregation led W. E. B. Du Bois — a cofounder of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and a leading scholar, writer, and civil rights activist — to resign from the NAACP. Du Bois rejected the NAACP's heavy emphasis on integration, calling instead for black citizens to maintain their own churches, schools, and social organizations, and especially to develop their own economic base separate from the mainstream white economy.

After Du Bois's resignation, the NAACP adopted a full-fledged campaign to eliminate segregation and promote integration. In 1940, NAACP leaders sent to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the secretary of the Navy, and the assistant secretary of war a memorandum outlining provisions for the "integration of the Negro into military aspects of the national defense program." This was the first instance where the NAACP had specifically used the term integration in a civil rights policy pronouncement. After World War II, the term racial integration became commonly used to describe civil rights issues pertaining to race.

On the legal front, the NAACP focused its efforts on eliminating segregation in the public schools. This campaign was led by Thurgood Marshall, the first director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and later a Supreme Court justice. In 1954, Marshall successfully argued the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873, before the Supreme Court, which declared that racially segregated schools are inherently unequal and thus unconstitutional. Like other NAACP leaders, Marshall was strongly committed to the principle of racial integration. His arguments in Brown were heavily based on the work of Kenneth B. Clark, a black social psychologist whose research suggested that black children were stigmatized by being educated in racially segregated schools, causing them to suffer psychological and intellectual harm. Marshall used this theory of "stigmatic injury" to persuade the Supreme Court that racially segregated schools were inherently unequal. Although the Brown decision called for an end to formal segregation, it did not explicitly call for positive steps to ensure the integration of public schools.

The desegregation momentum begun by Brown was enacted into law by the 1964 Civil Rights Act (Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 246), which denied federal funds to any program that discriminated illegally on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, or national origin, outlawing such discrimination not only in public schools but also in areas of public accommodation and employment. To ensure the support necessary for passage of the act, its writers worded the act specifically to emphasize that its purpose was to desegregate, not to integrate. "Desegregation," the act said, was "the assignment of students to public schools … without regard to their race," but "not … the assignment of students to public schools in order to overcome racial imbalance."

Nevertheless, after the Civil Rights Act was passed, judges and other federal officials enforcing it required schools to go beyond racially neutral desegregation policies to try to remedy past segregation by enforcing a greater degree of racial integration. This policy was established by the Supreme Court in 1968 in Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430, 88 S. Ct. 1689, 20 L. Ed. 2d 716, in which the Court ruled that a school district's desegregation plan was unacceptable under the Brown ruling. The Green case involved a school district that had two high schools that had previously been segregated by race. When the district changed its rules to allow students to attend the school of their choice, few black students chose to attend the traditionally white school, and no whites chose the black school, thus leaving the schools segregated. In its ruling on Green, the Court called the "freedom-of-choice" plan a "deliberate perpetuation of the unconstitutional dual system" and said that school boards had an "affirmative duty to take whatever steps might be necessary to convert to a unitary system in which racial discrimination would be eliminated root and branch." Although a freedom-of-choice plan could theoretically be a viable method for converting to a "unitary, nonracial school system," the Court said, it would have to "prove itself in operation," adding that such methods as rezoning might prove speedier, and thus more acceptable. Although the Court did not explicitly require active integration, it suggested that the validity of desegregation plans would be measured by the amount of integration they actually produced.

This emphasis on achieving specific levels of integration as proof of desegregation was reinforced by the 1971 Supreme Court ruling in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 91 S. Ct. 1267, 28 L. Ed. 2d 554. In Swann, the Court ruled that schools could use methods such as involuntary busing and the altering of attendance zones to achieve specific ratios of racial mixing, as long as those ratios were established as "starting point[s] in the process of shaping a remedy" for past discrimination.

In a 1974 case, Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 94 S. Ct. 3112, 41 L. Ed. 2d 1069, the Supreme Court made it more difficult for city school districts to achieve racial integration. In Milliken, the Court ruled that a federally ordered desegregation remedy could not include suburban schools when a city's school district was officially segregated for reasons other than past illegal discrimination, such as the simple demographics of its residents. In other words, if the surrounding suburban districts had not contributed to past illegal segregation, they could not be held responsible for remedying it. A cross-district remedy, the Court ruled, would be permissible only to correct a cross-district wrong. The effect of Milliken has been to allow an increasing amount of resegregation in public schools as housing patterns divide black and white residents between cities and their surrounding suburbs. More recent cases, such as Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 115 S. Ct. 2038, 132 L. Ed. 2d 63, 63 U.S.L.W. 4486 (1995), have continued to impose strict judicial limits on the power of the courts to impose and enforce desegregation plans in the public schools.

Despite significant legal victories mandating greater integration, therefore, the actual amount of racial integration in the United States — in the schools and elsewhere — remains limited. This has led many black leaders to question whether integration is indeed possible in the United States and whether it would actually benefit African Americans. Those in favor of integration follow in the tradition of Marshall and Martin Luther King, Jr., who insisted that integration would lead to increased freedom, power, and opportunities for African Americans. "In our society," King insisted, "liberation cannot come without integration and integration cannot come without liberation." More recently, Andrew Young, civil rights activist, former U.N. ambassador, and former mayor of Atlanta, has emphasized that integration does not lead to assimilation. "Those who reject integration," he said, "do so because they see the black community as one way assimilation." In contrast, he said, "integration is a two way street, each side contributing their own values, virtues, and traditions."

Other black scholars and political leaders have followed the lead of Du Bois, questioning the value of integration for African Americans and recommending instead separate black schools, churches, and economic networks. In the 1960s, members of the black power and black nationalist movements, including Malcolm X, argued that integration was an inappropriate strategy for blacks, who they believed could free themselves from racism and repression only by separating themselves from the mainstream white culture. Integration, they asserted, would result in African Americans being assimilated into the white community. In 1967, for example, Stokely Carmichael, a leader of the black power movement, said, "The fact is that integration, as traditionally articulated, would abolish the black community." More recently, some legal theorists of race relations have criticized the theory of stigmatic injury that Marshall presented in Brown, contending that it rests on a notion of African American inferiority by asserting that black children can receive an adequate education only in the presence of white children. Derrick A. Bell, Jr., a leading legal theorist on race relations, has been a particularly vocal critic of integrated schools, insisting that they do not meet the needs of African American children, who, he says, would be better served by increased funding for schools in black neighborhoods, more black teachers and administrators, increased parental involvement, and higher expectations for academic achievement. Many educational experts concur, suggesting that many young black males would receive a higher-quality education by attending black male academies where the approach and curriculum were specifically designed to counter the social and cultural challenges faced by those young men in today's world.

Many of the black leaders who today advocate integration have refined the notion, insisting that it means more than simply mixing black and white students in the same school. Legal scholar john a. powell (who spells his name with only lowercase letters) said that true integration "transforms racial hierarchy" by "creat[ing] a more inclusive society where individuals and groups have opportunities to participate equally in their communities." Similarly, Ellis Cashmore, a leading scholar of race relations, said integration "describes a condition in which different ethnic groups are able to maintain group boundaries and uniqueness, while participating equally in the essential processes of production, distribution and government." Cashmore conceded, however, that in the United States, this type of integration "remains more of an ideal than a reality."

Cashmore and other current race relations scholars suggest that integration no longer means simply desegregation but rather now includes pluralism. Pluralism, in this context, refers to a condition in which no ethnic hierarchies exist, so there are no ethnic minorities per se; instead, the various groups in society participate equally in the social system, therefore experiencing balance and cohesion rather than contention and resentment. In this sense, said scholar Harold Cruse, "the separate-but-equal doctrine that Brown ruled unconstitutional should have been supplanted by the truly democratic doctrine of ‘plural but equal.'"

See: disabled persons; Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas; School Desegregation; Separate but Equal.

The free association of people from different racial and ethnic backgrounds (see ethnicity); a goal of the civil rights movement to overcome policies of segregation that have been practiced in the United States.

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page.

Children at a parade in North College Hill, Ohio

Part of a series of articles on Discrimination
General forms
Ageism · Classism · Racism Religious intolerance Reverse discrimination Sexism · Homophobia Speciesism  · Xenophobia
Specific forms
Social Ableism · Adultism · Biphobia Anti-homelessness · Elitism Ephebiphobia · Eugenics Gerontophobia · Heightism Heterophobia · Heterosexism Homophobia · Lesbophobia Lookism · Mentalism Misandry · Misogyny Monosexism · Pediaphobia Sizeism · Transphobia Ethnic American · Arab · Armenian Blacks · Canadian · Catalan Chinese · English · European · French German · Igbo · Indian · Iranian · Irish Italian · Japanese · Jewish · Korean Malay · Mexican · Native Americans Polish · Portuguese · Quebec · Roma Romanian · Russian · Scottish Serbian · Spanish · Turkish · Ukrainian · Whites Religious Atheism · Bahá'í · Catholicism Christianity · Hinduism · Judaism Mormonism · Islam · Neopaganism Protestantism New religious movements Shi'a Islam
Manifestations
Blood libel · Ethnic cleansing Ethnocide · Gendercide Genocide (examples) Hate crime · Hate speech Lynching · Pogrom Police brutality · Racial profiling Race war · Religious persecution Slavery
Movements
Discriminatory Aryanism · Hate groups · Ku Klux Klan Neo-Nazism · American Nazi Party South African National Party Supremacism · Black supremacy  · White supremacy Anti-discriminatory Autistic rights · Abolitionism Children's rights · Civil rights · Consumer/Survivor/Ex-Patient Movement · Disability rights (Inclusion) Father's rights · Feminism · LGBT rights Masculism · Men's rights · Mother's rights Women's rights · Women's / Universal suffrage · Youth rights
Policies
Discriminatory Racial/Religious/Sex segregation Apartheid · Group rights · Redlining Internment · Ethnocracy Numerus clausus · Ghetto benches Affirmative action Anti-discriminatory Emancipation · Civil rights Desegregation · Integration Equal opportunity · Gender equality Counter-discriminatory Affirmative action · Group rights Racial quota · Reservation (India) Reparation · Forced busing (US) Employment equity (Canada) Black Economic Empowerment (BEE)
Other forms
Adultcentrism · Androcentrism · Anthropocentrism · Colorism · Cronyism · Ethnocentrism · Economic · Genism · Gynocentrism Linguicism · Nepotism · Triumphalism
Related topics
Bigotry · Diversity · Eugenics · Eurocentrism Multiculturalism · Oppression Political correctness · Prejudice Stereotype · Tolerance
Discrimination portal This box: view • talk • edit

Racial integration, or simply integration includes desegregation (the process of ending systematic racial segregation). In addition to desegregation, integration includes goals such as leveling barriers to association, creating equal opportunity regardless of race, and the development of a culture that draws on diverse traditions, rather than merely bringing a racial minority into the majority culture. Desegregation is largely a legal matter, integration largely a social one.

Contents 1 Distinguishing integration from desegregation 1.1 Distinction not universally accepted 2 See also 2.1 Lawsuits 3 Notes 4 References 5 External links

Distinguishing integration from desegregation

Morris J. MacGregor, Jr. in his paper "Integration of the Armed Forces 1940-1965" writes concerning the words integration and desegregation:

... In recent years many historians have come to distinguish between these like-sounding words.. The movement toward desegregation, breaking down the nation's Jim Crow system, became increasingly popular in the decade after World War II. Integration, on the other hand, Professor Oscar Handlin maintains, implies several things not yet necessarily accepted in all areas of American society. In one sense it refers to the "leveling of all barriers to association other than those based on ability, taste, and personal preference";^[1] in other words, providing equal opportunity. But in another sense integration calls for the random distribution of a minority throughout society. Here, according to Handlin, the emphasis is on racial balance in areas of occupation, education, residency, and the like.

From the beginning the military establishment rightly understood that the breakup of the all-black unit would in a closed society necessarily mean more than mere desegregation. It constantly used the terms integration and equal treatment and opportunity to describe its racial goals. Rarely, if ever, does one find the word desegregation in military files that include much correspondence.^[1]

Similarly, Keith M. Woods writing on the need for precision in journalistic language writes, "Integration happens when a monolith is changed, like when a black family moves into an all-white neighborhood. Integration happens even without a mandate from the law. Desegregation," on the other hand, "was the legal remedy to segregation."^[2] Making almost the same point, Henry Organ, identifying himself as " a participant in the Civil Rights Movement on the Peninsula [i.e. the San Francisco Peninsula - ed.] in the '60s... and ... an African American," wrote in 1997, " The term 'desegregation' is normally reserved to the legal/legislative domain, and it was the legalization of discrimination in public institutions based on race that many fought against in the '60s. The term 'integration,' on the other hand, pertains to a social domain; it does and should refer to individuals of different background who opt to interact."^[3]

In their book By the Color of Our Skin Leonard Steinhorn and Barbara Diggs-Brown - who also make a similar distinction between desegregation and integration - write "... television has... give[n] white Americans the sensation of having meaningful, repeated contact with blacks without actually having it. We call this phenomenon virtual integration, and it is the primary reason why the integration illusion - the belief that we are moving toward a colorblind nation - has such a powerful influence on race relations in America today." Reviewing this book in the libertarian magazine Reason, Michael W. Lynch sums up some of their conclusions as, "Blacks and whites live, learn, work, pray, play, and entertain separately." He cites Stephan and Abigail Themstrom's America in Black and White as making the case to the contrary, gives anecdotal evidence on both sides of the question, and writes:

The problem, as I see it, is that access to the public spheres, specifically the commercial sphere, often depends on being comfortable with the norms of white society. If a significant number of black children aren't comfortable with them, it isn't by choice: It's because they were isolated from those norms. It's one thing for members of the black elite and upper middle class to choose to retire to predominantly black neighborhoods after a lucrative day's work in white America. It's quite another for people to be unable to enter that commercial sphere because they spent their formative years in a community that didn't, or couldn't, prepare them for it. Writes [Harvard University sociologist Orlando] Patterson, "The greatest problem now facing African-Americans is their isolation from the tacit norms of the dominant culture, and this is true of all classes."^[4]

Distinction not universally accepted

Although widespread, this distinction between integration and desegregation is not universally accepted. For example, it is possible to find references to "court-ordered integration"^[5] from sources such as the Detroit News,^[6] PBS,^[7] or even Encarta.^[8] These same sources also use the phrase "court-ordered desegregation", apparently with the exact same meaning;^[9][10] the Detroit News uses both expressions interchangeably in the same article.^[6]

When the two terms are confused, it is almost always to use integration in the narrower, more legalistic sense of desegregation; one rarely, if ever, sees desegregation used in the broader cultural sense.

See also

• Auto-segregation
• Cultural assimilation
• Intercultural competence
• Multiculturalism
• Silk Road discusses an instance of racial integration in Southern Asia in the Middle Ages.
• Intercultural Garden

Lawsuits

• United States v. Fordice

Notes

1. ^ ^{a b} Morris J. MacGregor, Jr. Integration of the Armed Forces 1940-1965, Center of Military History, United States Army, Washington D.C. (1985). The linked copy is on the Army's official site. The Handlin quote is footnoted within the MacGregor piece as Oscar Handlin, "The Goals of Integration", Daedalus 95 (Winter 1966): 270.
2. ^ Keith M. Woods, Disentangling Desegregation Discourse, Poynter Online, February 3, 2004. Accessed March 26, 2006.
3. ^ Henry Organ, The true definition of integration, Palo Alto Weekly, August 13, 1997. Accessed March 26, 2006.
4. ^ Michael W. Lynch By the Color of Our Skin: The Illusion of Integration and the Reality of Race (book review), Reason, December 1999. Accessed March 26, 2006.
5. ^ [1] Google search for "court-ordered integration".
6. ^ ^{a b} Ron French, Brad Heath, and Christine MacDonald, Metro classrooms remain separate, often unequal, Detroit News, May 16, 2004. Accessed March 26, 2006.
7. ^ Timeline of George Wallace's Life, PBS. Accessed March 26, 2006.
8. ^ Eisenhower (part 4), MSN Encarta. 0_0Accessed March 26, 2006.
9. ^ The Evolution of Brown v. Board of Education, part of Beyond Brown, PBS. Accessed March 26, 2006.
10. ^ President Kennedy Expresses Outrage at Alabama Deaths (sidebar), MSN Encarta. (Premium content.) Accessed March 26, 2006.

References

• Steinhorn, Leonard and Diggs-Brown, Barbara, By the Color of Our Skin: The Illusion of Integration and the Reality of Race. New York: Dutton, 1999. ISBN 0-525-94359-5
• Themstrom, Stephan and Abigail, America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible New York, NY: Touchstone, 1997. ISBN 0-684-84497-4.
• Adel Iskandar and Hakem Rustom, From Paris to Cairo: Resistance of the Unacculturated The Ambassadors online magazine.
• Hong, Dorothy "Tales from a Korean Maiden in America" (iUniverse, 2003) ISBN 059528390X

External links

• Memphis Civil Rights Digital Archive
• Interview with Justin Massa, Founder of MoveSmart
• Stories of Race and Identity Issues in Global Cultures Compiled by the Glimpse Foundation

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)