THE FAILURE OF SOCIOLOGY:
THE ADOPTION OF MULTICULTURAL SEPARATISM
Patrick Louis Cooney, Ph. D.
Sociology Has No Decent Political Theory
"Alvin Gouldner showed that the critique of sociology's predominant paradigm, functionalism, had reached its zenith, spawned alternative but ineffective rival approaches, and left sociology in a fractured and confused state." (Lyman 1993:395) Ted R. Vaughan (1993:10& 11) has written that the discipline of sociology is "disoriented and not making the progress anticipated just a few decades ago" and that there is the sense that "clearly something is wrong with sociology."
Sociology has no effective political theory precisely because it does not see race as integral to the American political system and overall culture. "Race relations has been conceived of as a social problem within the domain of sociology ever since that discipline gained prominence in the United States. . . . Indeed, tracing the history of the race problem in sociology is tantamount to tracing the history and the central problem of the discipline itself -- namely, its avoidance of the issue of the significance of civil rights for a democratic society." (Lyman 1993:370-371)
In 1963 Everett Hughes (cited in Smith & Killian 1990:112) asked, ‘Why did social scientists -- and sociologists in particular -- not foresee the explosion of collective action of Negro Americans toward immediate full integration into American society?" And he cites the lack of sociological foresight of and involvement in social action. I think, however, that the lack of foresight is the result of the absence of a theory that sees racism as integral to American society.
"In 1963 Everett C. Hughes castigated the students of race and ethnic relations for their failure to develop a sociological imagination equal to the events that had taken and were continuing to take place in the United States since 1954. One year later, Frank R. Westie observed that, while in terms of the volume of research material race relations was one of the most advanced areas in sociology, in ‘terms of theoretical development, . . . the field must be ranked among the least developed areas.'"
Sociology is lost precisely because it is lying about the role of racism in America. Paraphrasing my work, Larry Reynolds remarked that "If they'll lie to you about race, they'll lie to you about anything. And I'm here to tell you they are lying about race." My wife and I came up with a theory that takes racism seriously and, frankly, it is the best explanation of what has always baffled American sociologists: American society itself. But because sociologists are multiculturalists these days, nothing that is not written within this paradigm gets serious consideration.
Along with the lack of decent theory, sociology has little ability to predict America's political future. I can remember arguing with the New Left graduate student radicals back in 1969 that their actions were leading only to backlash and more misery. And I distinctly remember how they laughed. Well, it would seem today that the laugh is on them, except they are unable to admit any lack of insight on their part. Nor are they willing to take responsibility for the role they played in encouraging that backlash. Rather they are still flirting with backlash with their current radical separatist versions of multiculturalism.
Sociology Has No Theory, But It Does Have Multiculturalism Separatism: Neo-Segregationism Worked Out as A Compromise Between Competing Racial/Ethnic Groups and the Dominant Society
The period of the second civil war (Martin Luther King, Jr and the civil rights movement) 1956-1964 saw a great deal of conflict. There were many riots and deaths and the assassination of three prominent political figures: John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy, along with the attempted assassination of Governor George Wallace of Alabama.
The consequent period of reconstruction (still going on today even if somewhat weakly) was still full of conflict with various racial/ethnic groups competing with each other and with the dominant society for scarce resources. This high level of conflict was very unpleasant for all concerned with constant conflict spilling over into all walks of life. The end result was a compromise that came to be called multiculturalism. This was a way, not of being tolerant or one of social justice, but one of living with continuing segregation and inequality. All conflicting groups were a party to this compromise.
In Mississippi the system in the schools has become institutionalized to a ridiculous extent. They have white and blacks school officials and student positions divided up between white and black. There are two principals, white and black, and two sets of "most popular," black male and black female and white male and white female. The schools are reflecting the high degree of segregation along color lines in Mississippi and this example of "multiculturalism" is just one way of living with that high level of segregation.
Multiculturalism is a conflict created compromise between competing groups. It is an equilibrium in the sense that the competing groups work to make sure that the equilibrium of multiculturalism is maintained. They enforce this with censorship of alternative ideas, firings of persons with dissenting ideas, and even dirty looks.
This equilibrium is a conservative equilibrium, but those in the compromise deny this. The conservatives says it is a liberal compromise because the government has actually sponsored multiculturalism. To them, multiculturalism doles out the economic goodies on the basis of race and ethnicity. The liberals like the compromise and defend it, but it is really a conservative compromise in the sense that it accepts segregation.
The structures of the new equilibrium are the various offices of the civil rights establishment. These all perform important functions in maintaining the existing conservative equilibrium. Multiculturalism is a way of living with segregation in reality with a pretend system of supposed equality on the ideal level.
Multiculturalism is a compromise created out of the conflict between competing groups. It is an equilibrium in the sense that the competing groups work to make sure that the equilibrium of multiculturalism is maintained. They enforce this with censorship of alternative ideas, firings of persons with dissenting ideas, and even dirty looks.
Multiculturalism as Racial Separatism
Our modern-day sociologists are primarily multiculturalists. The meaning of multiculturalism is so nebulous, that anyone to the left of the paleo-liberals can consider themselves multiculturalists, including socialists. America has always been a country of limited pluralism, wherein ethnic groups have kept their "ethnicity" in primary relations (those related to preserving the family and close friends), but acculturation in secondary relations. This is the model that the Jewish people in America have traditionally followed. The more radical multiculturalists, however, have an entirely different conception of the role of ethnic groups. Their model says that America's ethnic groups "should be" totally distinct in ethnic terms, both in primary and secondary relations. This, of course, brings the unlimited pluralism of the multiculturalists in direct conflict with the Jewish and traditional "American" views of limited pluralism. This helps explain the black-Jewish conflict and the respective charges of racism and anti-Semitism.
Actually, multiculturalism is not a theory at all, but rather a distributive strategy designed to get the best bargain for racial/ethnic minorities within a largely segregated system. In this sense, it is very similar to the approach of Booker T. Washington, who also worked within a segregated system. (He was actually more decent than our present multiculturalists, because he worked behind the scenes to weaken the segregationist system.) Booker T. Washington influenced Marcus Garvey, who in turn affected Malcolm X, who greatly influenced multiculturalism.
None other than the father of multiculturalism himself, Harold Cruse (1968:201), supported Bayard Rustin's assessment that "Black Power is nothing but the economic and political philosophy of Booker T. Washington given a 1960's militant shot in the arm and brought up to date. The curious fact about it is that the very last people to admit that Black Power is militant Booker T-ism are the Black Power theorists themselves." Cruse (1968:202) further added that ". . . the black American as part of an ethnic group has no definitive social theory relative to his status, presence, or impact on American society" and that it is for this reason that "a revolutionary anarchist tendency" took over the Black Power movement of the sixties. "In this regard," Cruse stated (p. 203) ". . . The abject forty-five-year-old failure of the American Marxist movement to comprehend the meaning of the Negro presence in America amounts to an historical disaster of the first magnitude."
The so-called radical sociologists are not radical at all in the sense of a leftist radicalism. They are right-wing separatists fully compatible with the Booker T. Washington approach. At least Cruse (1968:210) is honest enough to admit he is in the tradition of the great black nationalist separatists and asks a question about Marxist intellectuals: "What is wrong with these so-called radicals? Can't they think at all?" Cruse opposes affirmative action as just another short-sighted attempt on the part of blacks to integrate into white society. At least he is consistent in his black separatism. This is not the case for the multiculturalists, who can have their cake and eat it too. For instance, the NAACP is both integrationist and multiculturalist, both King and Malcolm X, using whichever approach best answers the concerns of different audiences. This may make good temporary politics, but it makes terrible social theory.
Multiculturalism's Politically Correct Censorship
Booker T. Washington consistently worked to discourage rival approaches to his empire, even employing spies. Similarly, present day advocates of separate but equal cultures censor papers not considered to be properly within the multicultural framework. Most multiculturalists defend this practice by saying that criticism of political correctness is only made by right wing organizations and their sympathizers. But, using a black political scale, multiculturalism is actually on the political right. Its intellectual heritage is Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, the Black Panthers, radical chic, Harold Cruse, the later S.D.S groups like the Weathermen, and Afrocentrism.
It's actually very easy for sociologists to censor work and it is done quite frequently, especially in these days of political correctness. The vast majority of sociologists are on the political left, as we are ourselves. And most of these sociologists, even the multiculturalists, believe in various versions of American liberalism. American liberalism has always held that racism is only a social problem, even though a big one, and that eventually racism will be overcome by gradual liberal reforms. According to this perspective, the opponents of liberalism are primarily the rich businessmen who spend money on political advertising to corrupt the allies of liberalism (such as the working class) by encouraging racism. There are various interpretations of this theme, but they are all pretty much alike. Liberal sociologists do not allow much dissent from this scenario, except in the case of Marxists who are allowed to co-exist within the discipline.
Given this basic liberal approach, when a sociologist reads an unorthodox paper that dissents from the basic theme of liberal sociology, in some form or other they simply say to themselves: "Well, this isn't right. We all know who are the real villains in American society. This article doesn't acknowledge this fact. It's just wrong. The article's no good. And, since it's wrong, but not Marxist either, it will have to go in the rejection box." It's as simple as that.
When analyzing racial, sexual, and age discrimination, sociologists are very sophisticated in their being able to see past the excuses and rationalizations of those who are doing the discrimination. But when sociology itself is accused of engaging in political lies and discrimination, suddenly the sociologists become intellectually obtuse.
What sociological decision-makers don't expect is that their judgment will be challenged and that they be accused of bias. Such a challenger would risk being ostracized from all the important opportunities in sociology, and therefore such actions are not expected. If the decision-makers are accused of bias, they immediately start acting like employers in an anti-racial discrimination suit. They deny they had any but the purest of motives, that they are absolutely fair and unbiased to everyone, and that it is just the economic or other limitations of the situation that caused them to make their employment choices. In sociology, the economic or other limitations cited are that the poor chairpersons are overworked because they have to look at 100 or so articles. But most sociologists actually have to read, correct and grade more papers than this from students at the end of every semester. The task of looking over 100 papers is not really a difficult one, and actually should be considered fun and an honor rather than as some onerous task. But the sociologists want to "cool out" the dissatisfied complainant, and so they repeat this rather patronizing refrain to the dissenter.
The stress on politically-correct separatism makes it difficult for new voices to be heard and almost guarantees that no new Vernon Johns (predecessor of Martin Luther King, Jr.) will appear.
Multi-Culturalism Pits One Ethnic Group Against Another
Multi-culturalism is a self-defeating philosophy that must be opposed if we are to make progress on racial matters. How can scholars seriously maintain that America is at the same time a racist nation and a multi-cultural nation? If the scholar emphasizes racism as America's number one problem, this obviously forces the ethnic dimension into the background. But liberals wanting their cake but also wanting to eat it too maintain both positions dually, and fail to see the contradictions. The reality is that it is politics that is important here, not sociology.
Multi-culturalism is ultimately a separatist philosophy and approach that will weaken the goal of full integration and permanently weaken attempts to activate blacks and white liberals to fight against the racist system. Although Schlesinger in his The Disuniting of America waxes too eloquently about the wonders of America, he is exactly right about the self-defeating aspects of multi-culturalism. The segregation of black scholars into African- American studies has led to some pretty silly black scholarship and to their intellectual isolation from white scholars.
A special note to Hispanics: Multicultural theory underestimates the importance of the black/white split in America, and this underestimation misleads the political leaders of non-black minorities. Like all liberal/leftist reform efforts on race in America, it is a story of too little/too late. Among industrialized countries, the racist system in America, primarily designed against blacks, is the major explanation for America's unmatched levels of prejudice and racism against groups such as women, ethnic groups, and homosexuals. They should realize that no real progress towards a decent society can be made in America without overcoming racism. Hispanics may have more success than blacks in integrating into American society, but they will integrate into a second-rate, ineffective, and racist society. Prejudice and discrimination against all groups will not be lessened significantly until the black/white split is overcome. Cooperating with black separatism in the name of multicultural separatism will only hasten and intensify the backlash that will overwhelm minority progress in the United States. Instead, Hispanics have to help start another civil rights movement designed primarily to end the black/white division.
Sociology Contributes to Sociological Racism and Helps Keep Blacks in Poverty
In her study of the Reverend Jerry Falwell's congregation in Lynchburg, Virginia, Frances Fitzgerald (1986) describes the unique function of the civil rights movement of the 1960s for whites. She argues that if whites ever felt any guilt about their treatment of blacks and a need to make recompense, the civil rights revolution relieved them of it. Changes in the law seemingly removed all barriers to equal opportunities for blacks, thereby giving whites moral absolution and a certainty that discrimination, if it ever were directed against blacks, was a practice of the distant past. (Farley 1993:228)
Since sociologists are so politicized, it is necessary for the authors to stress that they do not oppose affirmative action. But the emphasis on the extreme importance of affirmative action is misplaced and misguided. The authors will never be happy stressing a policy that can only help a small percentage of those in the minority groups. The emphasis should be on destroying the type of society that makes affirmative action necessary, not on making affirmative action an end in and of itself.
Because of affirmative action, whites have been able to see themselves as the victims of the civil rights movement. They increasingly see themselves as a minority and one that does not receive the help that the non-white minorities receive. The over-emphasis on affirmative action further marginalizes the whites. Multi-culturalism also contributes to the justification of racism among whites: How many times have we all heard whites say "But the blacks want to be separate from us too."
In its intellectual heritage, racism today is not primarily biological, but rather sociological. Sophisticated racists speak the language of sociology. And it takes a pretty sophisticated answer to fight sociological racism. This sophistication is totally lacking from the multicultural approach that insists on talking only about "white" racism, while denying the existence of "black" racism and refusing to acknowledge sociological racism. (The black conservative writers, after all, are sociological racists, not "white" racists .) It is perhaps best to see black racism as connected with separatism. And in this sense, multicultural sociologists contribute to black racism.
Using this approach, the multiculturalist sociologists find almost every white person in America a committed racist. And if this were really so, we certainly would be facing race war. If sociologists were not paranoid before, they certainly would be after listening to the multiculturalists.
Multiculturalists support heavy governmental assistance for minorities, but there is no adequate substitute for insisting that blacks be integrated into the economic networks of American society. The damage done to blacks by discrimination and ghettoization can never be overcome by remedial governmental programs. There are simply not enough resources to make up for the damages done.
The Results of Multi-culturalism: Intellectual and Policy Civil War between Left and Right Lead the Nation to Semi-Anarchy
What is really happening in America is a type of civil war between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives dominate the nation's non-intellectual institutions, but liberals are powerful enough in the more intellectual institutions to be able to have enough power to sabotage the goals of the conservatives. The result is that none of the nations' institutions run well. Many of them are paralyzed as a result of the conflicting and incompatible goals and means of the warring conservative and liberal factions. For instance, multiculturalism has not been able to take over the nation's schools in behavioral terms, and yet the liberals have so interfered with the schools' systems of punishment that about the only thing that reigns in the nation's average schools is a considerable degree of chaos.
The efforts of the liberals against the conservatives and the conservatives response has led to near anarchy in the United States. The liberals have so over-used the courts to challenge institutional authorities that the authorities are scared of being in authority. The end result is that the inmates are more in charge of the asylum than the staff. But with the inmates in charge, overall, there is less justice for everyone, including the inmates.
The conservatives have responded to liberal policies by leading a tax revolt that has limited any real chances for change on behalf of the minorities. As a result, all our institutions have been weakened financially. Indeed, American government has been so weakened by both sides that it is virtually inept at performing a competent governing role.
In America's culture wars, produced by the fight between the new "ethnic" liberals plus those to their left and the old liberals plus those to their right, most writers are forced to take up one side or another of the debate over multiculturalism; one is forced to choose sides. Writers critical of multiculturalism, but on the political left, will not be published by either side of the divide. For instance, we could publish our article comparing multiculturalism to Booker T-ism as a conservative book, but we would have to refrain from expressing my radical belief in America's racism and my desire to push for another civil rights movement. We really do not want to engage in such intellectual dishonesty, so we will probably be forced to self-publish an expanded version of my current book on racism.
Multiculturalism Has Only Brought Further Polarization, Backlash, and Talk of Race War
The multiculturalists like to say they tried integration and it didn't work. This period of time, however, was no more than about eight years (from 1956 when the Montgomery boycott really got started to about 1964 when the New Left groups started asking Malcolm X to speak to them). Even though we have a King holiday, Malcolm X actually won the intellectual competition. He and his multicultural successors have dominated from 1964 to the present day, a period of at least thirty-three years. King brought about the destruction of the Southern apartheid system, while Malcolm X and the multiculturalists have only brought us to the brink of what the multiculturalists refer to as "racial war." See Rowan (1996) and Delgado (1996) along with Hacker's miserable introduction.
Proof of the Failure of Multiculturalism: The O.J. Trial
To stress the new equilibrium of multiculturalism is not to deny the continuing conflicts. The conflicts are very much still there. But the conflicts are covered up to a great extent by the cooperation of both liberals and conservatives. This pretend game goes on fairly successfully because the participants are pretending that it is, but events like the O.J. trial painfully remind us that America is not a true multicultural society (except in the bureaucratic world of government), but rather a racist society. Liberals are trying to pretend that the conflicts are being made better by multicultural ideas and goals, but reality smacks them in the face when a virtually all black jury acquits O.J. of murdering two people, one of them the mother of two of his children. Many liberals pretend that the O.J. trial did not mean much for the larger equilibrium, pretending that the prosecuting just did not perform correctly. They deny there is a racial problem and that America is still very much a racist society by doing this, but that is their intent. Now this is not done self-consciously, but as natural as any self-deception always is.
Most of the discussions of the O.J. trial are completely short-sighted. It is probably the trial of the century because all the major power groups in the society lined up on different sides to fight it out to see who's version of reality would prevail. It reminds me of the Dreyfus case in France where all the different groups in the society took sides. It revealed all the lines of division and contention in the society.
With the O.J. trial, whites saw how bitter, and indeed, hateful, blacks were towards whites -- bitter and hateful enough to allow a murderer to go free. This black attitude is a long way from the philosophy of Martin Luther King, Jr.
The O.J. trial was multiculturalism gone crazy -- pushed to its logical extreme. The trial makes one wonder if there ever can be justice again in matters involving black and white interaction. If whites are going to let off influential whites who harm blacks and the blacks are going to let off influential blacks who harm whites, then we have reached a real impasse. A lot more racially-motivated murderers and other offenders will be roaming America's streets.
Sociology Has Bet on the Wrong Horse
Political activist Robert Newby entitled his 1997 A.S.A. section session "Combating the Restoration of White Supremacy as We Reach Century 21: Sociology in the Fray." This implied that white supremacy is nearing restoration in this country. History would seem to agree that the multiculturalism of today's sociology will fail under the onslaught of backlash legislation, just as Booker T-ism failed because of the continuing onslaught of restrictive Jim Crow legislation -- punishment for blacks flirting with a populist coalition with working class whites. If the political dreams inspired by the separatism of Malcolm X and the pseudo-Marxist talk of inner colonies failed, and if the separatism of multiculturalism is on the verge of failing, why do sociologists keep backing New Left ideas?
"To the extent that the ideas of the New Left of the sixties have been discredited in world events in the last two decades, why are they now reemerging in the academic world? The answer seems to be structural. At present New Left veterans are tenured professors within the system and now have the means of expounding their ideas to a captive college audience. The New Left is an idea whose time has passed and whose power has come" (Diggins 1992:298; see Oppenheimer, Murray and Levine 1991). The problem with this phenomenon is that the New Left multiculturalists are not thinking towards the future, to the next civil rights movement, but rather fighting a rearguard action.
What we need is a new W. E. B. Du Bois to break the intellectual stranglehold of the multicultural separatists on the nation's intellectual and civil rights establishments and then a new Vernon Johns to call for a new, non-separatist civil rights movement.
Reviewing Hanes Walton, Jr.'s book (1988:xv) on the civil rights enforcement agencies in the federal government, Mary Frances Berry writes that "once a movement gains legislation and a bureaucracy to enforce it, a perceptible decline in commitment results. . . . Therefore, another non-violent, direct action movement using different strategies and tactics may be necessary in order to stimulate greater attention to providing an equal opportunity for health, education employment, and other concomitants of a satisfactory livelihood in our society." A call for a new civil rights movement does not mean that minorities have to give up the advantages accrued from the federal government's civil rights establishment. They can trade these later for changes in the government that will assist economic integration into American society.
And what is a radical sociology without a civil rights movement? For "In the absence of social and political movements, radical sociology cannot hope to occupy more than an exotic niche within the profession" (Oppenheimer, Murray, and Levine 1991:11)
Despite all the above, despite the lack of a decent theory, the promotion of right-wing separatism under the guise of "fighting" racism, and bringing the nation to racial polarization, sociological chairpersons still choose intellectually to discriminate in the name of politically correct multiculturalism. We assert that sociology is not only misguided by multiculturalism but engaged in intellectual censorship in its name.
John Egerton (1994) has shown that sociologists and other liberals in the South failed to call radically for an abandonment of the separate-but-equal system of Jim Crow apartheid. The one dissenter overlooked by Egerton was the Rev. Vernon Johns, predecessor of Martin Luther King, Jr. at the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama. Since the liberals worked to silence him, it is no wonder few people know about Johns. Johns's story is similar to the situation faced by those who want to fight against the racism of today's multicultural compromise with racism. The plural but equal separatists are busily engaged in a defense of their separatist system and apply social control techniques to make sure that the system is not challenged.
Just as almost any group to the left of the neo-conservatives can be multiculturalist because multiculturalism is not a theory at all, so can any one to the left of the neo-conservatives also oppose multiculturalism. My theory of American society is to the left of the multiculturalists, but they have consistently censored my work. I am actually a neo-integrationist, that is, a person who, in the spirit of Vernon Johns and Martin Luther King, Jr., believes that white society has to be purged of its racist aspects before blacks can be effectively integrated into the nation.
Dr. King demanded full acceptance of blacks into American society. We should demand no less. We should not settle for a new "separate but equal" set of black institutions in the name of a so-called progressive multi-cultural philosophy.
The problem with black separatism is that it has no higher goals. It does not think in the long run. It does not think in larger terms. Dr. King was a man beyond black and white. He had larger goals than those limited to present-day American racist politics.
An old criticism of Dr. King that still circulates today is that he was, in a sense, too white, that he wanted blacks to assimilate completely into white culture. Nothing could be further from the truth. Dr. King never wanted to assimilate into white southern racist culture. (He may have been guilty of naivete about the non- racist nature of the North, but that is a minor fault compared to his many virtues.)
Similarly, a renewed demand for full acceptance of blacks into America does not call for assimilation into white culture. Seeing the United States as the South means that the present United States culture is too racist for any decent person to accept. Present US culture has to change.
Along with the endorsement of multi-culturalism is the failure of many liberals to stand up against the extremists in our culture. Some blacks have been guilty of a great deal of anti-Semitism and certainly the radical feminists have engaged in frenzies of "male- bashing." But most liberals condone these extremist statements for fear of angering the extremists and being thought not to be on the correct side in the war against conservatism. (Referring to p. 146 -- some white male indignation is rightfully justified! I myself am saddened and maddened by the irresponsibility and sheer ignorance of many of the extremists.)
1967 The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual. New York: William Morrow.
1968 Rebellion or Revolution? New York: William Morrow.
1996 The Coming Race War? And Other Apocalyptic Tales of America after Affirmative Action and Welfare. New York: New York University Press.
Diggins, John Patrick
1992 The Rise and Fall of the American Left. New York: W. W. Norton.
1994 Speak Now Against the Day: The Generation Before the Civil Rights Movement in the South. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Lyman, Stanford M.
1993 "Race relations as social process: sociology's resistance to a civil rights orientation." Pp. 370-401 in Herbert Hill and James E. Jones, Jr. (eds.), Race in America: The Struggle for Equality. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Oppenheimer, Martin, Martin J. Murray, and Rhonda F. Levine
1991 Radical Sociologists and the Movement: Experiences, Lessons, and Legacies. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Rowan, Carl T.
1996 The Coming Race War in America: A Wake-up Call. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr.
1992 The Disuniting of America. New York: W. W. Norton.
Smith, Charles U. and Lewis M. Killian
1990 "Sociological foundations of the civil rights movement." Pp. 105-116 in Herbert J. Gans (ed.), Sociology in America. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Vaughan, Ted R.
1993 "The crisis in contemporary American sociology: A critique of the discipline's dominant paradigm." Pp. 10-53 in Ted R. Vaughan, Gideon Sjoberg, and Larry T. Reynolds (eds.), A Critique of Contemporary American Sociology. Dix Hills, NY: General Hall, Inc.
Walton, Hanes Jr.
1988 When the Marching Stopped: The Politics of Civil Rights Regulatory Agencies. New York: State University of New York Press.
Return to Main Page Table of Contents
Return to Home Page