Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T15:18:53.171Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Relevance of “Irrelevant” Testimony: Why Lawyers Use Social Science Experts in School Desegregation Cases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Joseph Sanders ,
Betty Rankin-Widgeon ,
Debra Kalmuss  and
Mark Chesler
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Why do attorneys utilize social science experts in school desegregation cases? Although experts often testify for both parties in these cases, plaintiff lawyers are more likely than defense lawyers to call upon them. Plaintiff lawyers appear to have easier access to a network of scholars willing to testify. Moreover, plaintiff lawyers have a set of social theories and legal strategies that often requires the use of social science expertise. Although the testimony offered by social scientists is often not directly relevant to the legal issues in a trial, it is part of the attorney's attempt to educate or persuade the judge to a particular view of race relations and education.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , 1982 , pp. 403 - 428
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 The Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This paper is a revised version of a presentation made to the annual meetings of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, 1980.

References

References

CAHN, Edmond (1955) “Jurisprudence,” 30 New York University Law Review 150.Google Scholar
CAVANAGH, Ralph and Austin, SARAT (1980) “Thinking About Courts: Toward and Beyond a Jurisprudence of Judicial Competence,” 14 Law & Society Review 371.Google Scholar
CHAYES, Abram (1976) “The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation,” 89 Harvard Law Review 1281.Google Scholar
CHESLER, Mark, Joseph, SANDERS, and Debra, KALMUSS (1981) Interactions Among Scientists, Attorneys and Judges in School Desegregation Litigation. Ann Arbor: Center for Research on Social Organization.Google Scholar
CLARK, Kenneth B. (1959-60) “The Desegregation Case: Criticism of the Social Scientist's Role,” 5 Villanova Law Review 224.Google Scholar
DOYLE, William E. (1977) “Social Science Evidence in Court Cases,” 41 The Educational Forum 263.Google Scholar
DWORKIN, Ronald (1977) Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
EISENBERG, Melvin Aron (1978) “Participation, Responsiveness, and the Consultative Process: An Essay for Lon Fuller,” 92 Harvard Law Review 410.Google Scholar
EISENBERG, Theodore and Stephan C., YEAZELL (1980) “The Ordinary and the Extraordinary in Institutional Litigation,” 93 Harvard Law Review 465.Google Scholar
FISS, Owen M. (1971) “The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Case—Its Significance for Northern School Desegregation,” 38 University of Chicago Law Review 697.Google Scholar
FISS, Owen M. (1979) “The Supreme Court 1978 Term; Forward: The Forms of Justice,” 93 Harvard Law Review 1.Google Scholar
GALANTER, Marc (1974) “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change,” 9 Law & Society Review 95.Google Scholar
GLAZER, Nathan (1975) “Towards an Imperial Judiciary?” 41 The Public Interest 104.Google Scholar
GREGOR, A. James (1963) “The Law, Social Science and School Segregation: An Assessment,” 14 Western Reserve Law Review 621.Google Scholar
HARVARD LAW REVIEW (1977) “Note: Implementation Problems in Institutional Reform Litigation,” 91 Harvard Law Review 428.Google Scholar
HOROWITZ, Donald L. (1977) The Courts and Social Policy. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
KALMUSS, Debra (1980) “Scholars in the Courtroom: Normative Discrepancies and Role Conflict.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
KELLY, Alfred H. (1965) “Clio and the Court: An Illicit Love Affair.” The Supreme Court Review 119.Google Scholar
KLUGER, Richard (1976) Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education and Black America's Struggle for Equality. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMILLAN, James B. (1975) “Social Science and the District Court: The Observations of a Journeyman Trial Judge,” 39 Law and Contemporary Problems 157.Google Scholar
NEWBY, Idus A. (1967) Challenge to the Court: Social Scientists and the Defense of Segregation, 1954-1966. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
PETTIGREW, Thomas (1979) “Tension Between the Law and Social Science: An Expert Witness' View.” In Schools and the Courts; Vol. 1: Desegregation. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.Google Scholar
RIST, Ray C. (1978) “On the Making of Educational/Social Policy in the Judicial Area: The Limits of Social Science Evidence.” Presented at the American Sociological Association meetings, San Francisco, California.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ROSEN, Paul L. (1972) The Supreme Court and Social Science. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ROSSELL, Christine H. (1980) “Social Science Research in Educational Equity Cases: A Critical Review,” 8 Review of Research in Education 237.Google Scholar
SANDERS, Joseph (1980) “Two Models of the School Desegregation Cases.” Working Paper #216. Ann Arbor: Center for Research on Social Organization.Google Scholar
SCHUBERT, Glendon A. (ed.) (1964) Judicial Behavior: A Reader in Theory and Research. Chicago: Rand-McNally.Google Scholar
SCHWARTZ, Audrey J. (1978) “Social Science Potential for Judicial Formulation of Educational Policy,” 3(2) Educational Research Quarterly 3.Google Scholar
SORAUF, Francis J. (1976) The Wall of Separation: The Constitutional Politics of Church and State. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
STINCHCOMBE, Arthur L. and D. Garth, TAYLOR (1980) “On Democracy and School Integration,” in Stephan, W. and Feagin, J. (eds.), School Desegregation: Past, Present, and Future. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
VAN DEN HAAG, Ernest (1960) “Social Science Testimony in the Desegregation Cases: A Reply to Professor Kenneth Clark,” 6 Villanova Law Review 69.Google Scholar
WECHSLER, Herbert (1959) “Toward Neutral Principles of Constitutional Law,” 73 Harvard Law Review 1.Google Scholar
WISDOM, John M. (1975) “Random Remarks on the Role of Social Sciences in the Judicial Decision-Making Process in School Desegregation Cases,” 39 Law and Contemporary Problems 134.Google Scholar
WISE, Michael B. (1977) Desegregation in Education: A Directory of Reported Federal Decisions. South Bend, IN: Center for Civil Rights, Notre Dame University.Google Scholar
WOLF, Eleanor P. (1976a) “Social Science and Courts: The Detroit School Case,” 42 The Public Interest 102.Google Scholar
WOLF, Eleanor P. (1976b) “Courtrooms and Classrooms,” in Rist, R. and Anson, R. (eds.), Education, Social Science and the Judicial Process. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
YUDOF, Mark G. (1978) “School Desegregation: Legal Realism, Reasoned Elaboration, and Social Science Research in the Supreme Court,” 42(3) Law and Contemporary Problems 57.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Armour v. Nix, Civil Number 16708, N.D. Georgia, 1979.Google Scholar
Bell v. School City of Gary, 324 F2d 209 (7th Cir.), 1963.Google Scholar
Brinkman v. Gilligan, 583 F2d 243 (6th Cir.), 1978.Google Scholar
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 1954.Google Scholar
Columbus Board of Education v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449, 1979.Google Scholar
Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman, 433 U.S. 406, 1977.Google Scholar
Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman, 443 U.S. 526, 1979.Google Scholar
Evans v. Buchanan, 393 F. Supp. 428, 1975.Google Scholar
Evers v. Jackson Municipal School Districts, 328 F2d 408 (5th Cir.), 1964.Google Scholar
Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colo., 413 U.S. 189, 1973.Google Scholar
Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 1974.Google Scholar
Oliver v. Michigan State Board of Education, 508 F2d 178 (6th Cir.), 1974.Google Scholar
Springfield School Committee v. Barksdale, 348 F2d 261 (1st Cir.), 1965.Google Scholar
Stell v. Savannah-Chatham County Board of Education, 318 F2d 425 (5th Cir.), 1963.Google Scholar
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg, 402 U.S. 1, 1971.Google Scholar
United States v. Texas Education Agency, 467 F2d 848 (5th Cir.), 1972.Google Scholar
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 1977.Google Scholar
Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar