Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T08:30:45.391Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Counts As Knowledge? A Reflection on Race, Social Science, and the Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Rachel F. Moran
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the years since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down Brown v. Board of Education (1954), most discussions of the case have focused on whether it was effective in promoting lasting equality of opportunity in the public schools. Although this profoundly important question dominates retrospectives on Brown, another unresolved controversy relates to whether the ruling has altered in any fundamental way the role of social science evidence in constitutional litigation. More than 50 years later, substantial disagreement persists about whether this kind of research has played or should play any important role in the jurisprudence of race. Today, social scientists face increasing doubts about their neutrality and objectivity, struggle to be heard in a marketplace of ideas increasingly flooded with information of questionable quality, and encounter growing resistance to the notion that expertise provides a proper foundation for legal decisionmaking. For those who still believe that social science has a role to play in advancing racial justice, the strategy used in Brown can no longer be taken for granted. The time is ripe to reassess what counts as knowledge so that social science is not increasingly marginalized in courts of law.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 44 , Issue 3-4 , December 2010 , pp. 515 - 552
Copyright
© 2010 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

I am grateful to Carroll Seron and Susan Coutin for inviting me to speak at the conference on “The Paradoxes of Race, Law, and Inequality in the United States” as well as to participants who provided feedback on my presentation. I also would like to thank Professor Thom Main and the faculty who shared their insights with me at a workshop at the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law. In addition, I appreciate the lively discussion and helpful comments that I received at a workshop at the University of California, Irvine School of Law. I was greatly aided by the careful and thoughtful peer review that I received. Finally, I am indebted to Chia-Chi Li and Jonathan Tam, who provided me with able and timely research assistance.

References

References

Ackerman, Bruce A. (1984) Reconstructing American Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Alger, Jonathan, & Krislov, Marvin (2004) “You've Got to Have Friends: Lessons Learned from the Role of Amici in the University of Michigan Cases,” 30 J. of College and University Law 503–29.Google Scholar
Ambrose, Stephen E. (1981) “The Ike Age,” New Republic 26–34 (May 9).Google Scholar
Ancheta, Angelo N. (2008) “Science and Constitutional Fact Finding in Equal Protection Analysis,” 69 Ohio State Law J. 1115–72.Google Scholar
Baldus, David C., et al. (1983) “Comparative Review of Death Sentences: An Empirical Study of the Georgia Experience,” 74 J. of Criminal Law & Criminology 661–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beggs, Gordon J. (1995) “Novel Expert Evidence in Federal Civil Rights Litigation,” 45 American Univ. Law Rev. 2–75.Google Scholar
Bersoff, Donald N., & Glass, David J. (1995) “The Not-So Weisman: The Supreme Court's Continuing Misuse of Social Science Research,” 2 Univ. of Chicago Law School Roundtable 279–503.Google Scholar
Bielby, William T., & Coukos, Pamela (2007) “‘Statistical Dueling’ With Unconventional Weapons: What Courts Should Know About Experts in Employment Discrimination Class Actions,” 56 Emory Law J. 1563–612.Google Scholar
Brodin, Mark S. (2005) “Behavioral Science Evidence in the Age of Daubert: Reflections of a Skeptic,” 73 Univ. of Cincinnati Law Rev. 867–943.Google Scholar
Cahn, Edmond (1955) “Jurisprudence,” 30 New York Univ. Law Rev. 150–69.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., & Wright, John R. (1988) “Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court,” 82 American Political Science Rev. 1109–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carbado, Devon, et al. (2008) “After Inclusion,” 4 Annual Rev. of Law and Social Science 83–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, Stephen L. (2009) “Let the Nominee Stay Home,” New York Times, 10 May, sec. WK, p. 9.Google Scholar
Chambliss, Elizabeth (2008) “When Do Facts Persuade? Some Thoughts on the Market for ‘Empirical Legal Studies,’ 71 Law and Contemporary Problems 17–39.Google Scholar
Chayes, Abram (1976) “The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation,” 89 Harvard Law Rev. 1281–1316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chesebro, Kenneth J. (1993) “Galileo's Retort: Peter Huber's Junk Scholarship,” 42 American Univ. Law Rev. 1637–726.Google Scholar
Chesler, Mark A., et al. (1988) Social Science in Court: Mobilizing Experts in the School Desegregation Cases. Madison, WI: Univ. of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Coleman, James, et al. (1966) Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Colker, Ruth (2007) “Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's Friends,” 68 Ohio State Law J. 517–45.Google Scholar
Erlanger, Howard, et al. (2005) “Foreword: Is It Time for a New Legal Realism? 2005 Wisconsin Law Rev. 335–63.Google Scholar
Eisgruber, Christopher L. (2007) The Next Justice: Repairing the Supreme Court Appointments Process. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, & Segal, Jeffrey A. (2005) Advice and Consent: The Politics of Judicial Appointments. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Fradella, Henry F. (2003) “A Content Analysis of Federal Judicial Views of the Social Science ‘Researcher's Black Arts,” 35 Rutgers Law J. 103–70.Google Scholar
Frankenberg, Erica, & Garces, Liliana M. (2008) “The Use of Social Science Evidence in Parents Involved and Meredith: Implications for Researchers and Schools,” 46 Univ. of Louisville Law Rev. 703–51.Google Scholar
Garcia, Ruben J. (2008) “A Democratic Theory of Amicus Advocacy,” 35 Florida State Univ. Law Rev. 315–58.Google Scholar
Garth, Bryant, & Sterling, Joyce (1998) “From Legal Realism to Law and Society: Reshaping Law for the Last Stages of the Social Activist State,” 32 Law & Society Rev. 409–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilmore, Grant (1977) The Ages of American Law. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Jack (1956) “Social Scientists Take the Stand: A Review and Appraisal of Their Testimony in Litigation,” 54 Michigan Law Rev. 953–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guinier, Lani (1991) “The Triumph of Tokenism: The Voting Rights Act and the Theory of Black Electoral Success,” 89 Michigan Law Rev. 1077–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haack, Susan (2003) “Trials & Tribulations: Science in the Courts,” 132 Daedalus 54–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haney López, Ian F. (2007) “‘A Nation of Minorities’: Race, Ethnicity, and Reactionary Colorblindness,” 59 Stanford Law Rev. 985–1063.Google Scholar
Harrington, John (2005) “Amicus Curiae in the Federal Courts of Appeals: How Friendly Are They? 55 Case Western Law Rev. 667–700.Google Scholar
Hashimoto, Dean M. (1997) “Science as Mythology in Constitutional Law,” 76 Oregon Law Rev. 111–53.Google Scholar
Hastie, Reid, et al. (1999) “Juror Judgments in Civil Cases: Effects of Plaintiff's Requests and Plaintiff's Identity on Punitive Damage Awards,” 23 Law and Human Behavior 445–70.Google Scholar
Heise, Michael (2002) “Institutional Role of the Federal Courts: Equal Educational Opportunity by the Numbers: The Warren Court's Empirical Legacy,” 59 Washington & Lee Law Rev. 1309–42.Google Scholar
Heise, Michael (2005) “Revisiting Brown v. Board of Education: 50 Years of Legal and Social Debate,” 90 Cornell Law Rev. 279–320.Google Scholar
Heise, Michael (2008) “Judicial Decision-Making, Social Science Evidence, and Equal Educational Opportunity: Uneasy Relations and Uncertain Future,” 31 Seattle Univ. Law Rev. 863–90.Google Scholar
Hovenkamp, Herbert (1985) “Social Science and Segregation before Brown,” 1985 Duke Law J. 624–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, Peter (1991) Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Jeffries, John C. (1994) Justice Lewis F. Powell: A Biography. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.Google Scholar
Kearney, Joseph D., & Merrill, Thomas W. (2000) “The Influence of Amicus Briefs on the Supreme Court,” 148 Univ. of Pennsylvania Law Rev. 743–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, Alfred H. (1965) “Clio and the Court: An Illicit Love Affair,” 1965 Supreme Court Rev. 119–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klarman, Michael J. (1998) “The Plessy Era,” 1998 Supreme Court Rev. 303–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klarman, Michael J. (2004) From Jim Crow to Civil Rights: The Supreme Court and the Struggle for Racial Equality. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Kluger, Richard (1977) Simple Justice. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Krieger, Linda Hamilton, & Fiske, Susan T. (2006) “Behavioral Realism in Employment Discrimination Law: Implicit Bias and Disparate Treatment,” 94 California Law Rev. 997–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarus, Richard J. (2008) “Advocacy Matters Before and Within the Supreme Court: Transforming the Court by Transforming the Bar,” 96 Georgetown Law J. 1487–564.Google Scholar
Liptak, Adam (2008) “From One Footnote, a Debate Over the Tangles of Law, Science and Money,” New York Times, 25 Nov., sec. A, p. 16.Google Scholar
Liptak, Adam (2009) “Desegregation as Test in Constitutional Debate,” New York Times, 10 Nov., sec. A, p. 14.Google Scholar
Lynch, Kelly J. (2004) “Best Friends? Supreme Court Law Clerks on Effective Amicus Curiae Briefs,” 20 J. of Law & Politics 33–75.Google Scholar
Macaulay, Stewart (2005) “The New Versus the Old Legal Realism: ‘Things Ain't What They Used to Be,’ 2005 Wisconsin Law Rev. 365–402.Google Scholar
Mauro, Tony (2005) “Bench Pressed: A Pair of High Court Justices Offer Advocates Advice About the Proliferation of Amicus Briefs,” American Lawyer, 85 (March).Google Scholar
McLauchlan, Judithanne Scourfield (2005) Congressional Participation as Amicus Curiae Before the U.S. Supreme Court. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing.Google Scholar
Menkel-Meadow, Carrie (1990) “Durkheimian Epiphanies: The Importance of Engaged Social Science in Legal Studies,” 18 Florida State Univ. Law Rev. 91–119.Google Scholar
Mickelson, Roslyn Arlin (2008) “Twenty-First Century Social Science on School Racial Diversity and Educational Outcomes,” 69 Ohio State Law J. 1173–227.Google Scholar
Miller, Loren (1966) The Petitioners: The Story of the Supreme Court and the Negro. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Gregory (2004) “Empirical Legal Scholarship as Scientific Dialogue,” 83 North Carolina Law Rev. 167–204.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Thomas, & Mertz, Elizabeth (2006) “The Empirical Turn in the Legal Academy: A New Legal Realist Perspective,” Law & Society Newsletter 4–5 (November).Google Scholar
Mitchell, Gregory, & Tetlock, Philip E. (2006) “Antidiscrimination Law and the Perils of Mindreading,” 67 Ohio State Law J. 1023–121.Google Scholar
Mnookin, Jennifer (2008) “What's the Law to Do? Expert Evidence, Partisanship, and Epistemic Competence,” 73 Brooklyn Law Rev. 1009–33.Google Scholar
Mody, Sanjay (2002) “Brown Footnote Eleven in Historical Context: Social Science and the Supreme Court's Quest for Legitimacy,” 54 Stanford Law Rev. 793–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, Rachel F. (2008) “The Heirs of Brown: The Story of Grutter v. Bollinger,” in Moran, R. & Carbado, D., eds., Race Law Stories. New York: Thomson Reuters/Foundation Press.Google Scholar
Nonet, Philippe, & Selznick, Philip (2001) Law and Society in Transition: Toward Responsive Law. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Oakes, Anne Richardson (2008) “From Pedagogical Sociology to Constitutional Adjudication: The Meaning of Desegregation in Social Science Research and Law,” 14 Michigan J. of Race & Law 61–108.Google Scholar
O'Connor, Alice (2007) Social Science for What? New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
O'Connor, Karen, & Epstein, Lee (1982) “Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation: An Appraisal of Hakman's ‘Folklore’,” 16 Law & Society Rev. 311–20.Google Scholar
O'Connor, Karen (1983) “Court Rules and Workload: A Case Study of Rules Governing Amicus Curiae Participation,” 8 Justice System J. 35–45.Google Scholar
Parks, Gregory Scott (2008) “Toward a Critical Race Realism,” 17 Cornell J. of Law and Public Policy 683–745.Google Scholar
Parloff, Roger (2007) “The War Over Unconscious Bias,” Fortune 90 (October 15).Google Scholar
Pildes, Richard (2002) “Is Voting-Rights Law Now at War With Itself? Social Science and Voting Rights in the 2000s,” 80 North Carolina Law Rev. 1517–74.Google Scholar
Renaker, Teresa S. (1996) “Evidentiary Legerdemain: Deciding When Daubert Should Apply to Social Science Evidence,” 84 California Law Rev. 1657–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, Neil M. (1997) “Clio and the Court: A Reassessment of the Supreme Court's Uses of History,” 13 J. of Law & Politics 809–91.Google Scholar
Roesch, Ronald, et al. (1991) “Social Science and the Courts: The Role of Amicus Briefs,” 14 Law and Human Behavior 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossum, Ralph A. (2006) Antonin Scalia's Jurisprudence. Lawrence, KS: Univ. Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Ryan, James E. (2003) “The Limited Influence of Social Science Evidence in Modern Desegregation Cases,” 81 North Carolina Law Rev. 1659–702.Google Scholar
Scalia, Antonin (1997) A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Scalia, Antonin (1989) “The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules,” 56 Univ. of Chicago Law Rev. 1175–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schkade, David A., et al. (2000) “Deliberating About Dollars: The Severity Shift,” 100 Columbia Law Rev. 1139–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, Bernard (1997) “Chief Justice Earl Warren: Super Chief in Action,” 33 Tulsa Law J. 477–503.Google Scholar
Simard, Linda Sandstrom (2008) “An Empirical Study of Amici Curiae in Federal Court: A Fine Balance of Access, Efficiency, and Adversarialism,” 27 Rev. of Litigation 669–711.Google Scholar
Stohr, Greg (2004) A Black and White Case: How Affirmative Action Survived Its Greatest Legal Challenge. New York: Bloomberg Press.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. (1996) “Foreword: Leaving Things Undecided,” 110 Harvard Law Rev. 4–101.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. (1999) One Case at a Time: Judicial Minimalism on the Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R., et al. (1998) “Assessing Punitive Damages (with Notes on Cognition and Valuation in Law),” 107 Yale Law J. 2071–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanford, J. Alexander (1990) “The Limits of a Scientific Jurisprudence: The Supreme Court and Psychology,” 66 Indiana Law J. 137–73.Google Scholar
Tomkins, Alan J., & Oursland, Kevin (1991) “Social and Social Scientific Perspectives in Judicial Interpretations of the Constitution: A Historical View and an Overview,” 15 Law and Human Behavior 101–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomlins, Christopher (2000) “Framing the Field of Law's Disciplinary Encounters: A Historical Narrative,” 34 Law & Society Rev. 911–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trubek, David M. (1990) “Back to the Future: The Short, Happy Life of the Law and Society Movement,” 18 Florida State Univ. Law Rev. 4–55.Google Scholar
Warren, Elizabeth (2002) “The Market for Data: The Changing Role of Social Sciences in Shaping the Law,” 2002 Wisconsin Law Rev. 1–43.Google Scholar
Weinstein, Jack B. (1994) “Limits on Judges Learning: Speaking and Acting—Part I—Tentative First Thoughts: How May Judges Learn? 36 Arizona Law Rev. 539–65.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 134–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yudof, Mark (1978) “School Desegregation: Legal Realism, Reasoned Elaboration, and Social Science Research in the Supreme Court,” 42 Law and Contemporary Problems 57–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zick, Timothy (2003) “Constitutional Empiricism: Quasi-Neutral Principles and Constitutional Truths,” 82 North Carolina Law Rev. 115–221.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Bartlett v. Strickland, 129 S. Ct. 1231 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Board of Education v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).Google Scholar
Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1955) (Brown II).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).Google Scholar
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605 (2008).Google Scholar
Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467 (1992).Google Scholar
Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).Google Scholar
Grutter v. Bollinger, 137 F. Supp. 2d 821 (E.D. Mich. 2001).Google Scholar
Grutter v. Bollinger, 288 F.3d 732 (6th Cir. 2002).Google Scholar
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).Google Scholar
Hobson v. Hansen, 327 F. Supp. 844 (D.D.C. 1971).Google Scholar
McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987).Google Scholar
McCleskey v. Zant, 580 F. Supp. 338 (N.D. Ga. 1984).Google Scholar
Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974).Google Scholar
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District, 551 U.S. 701 (2007).Google Scholar
Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979).Google Scholar
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).Google Scholar
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).Google Scholar
Ricci v. DeStefano, 129 S. Ct. 2658 (2009).Google Scholar
Stell v. Savannah-Chatham County Board of Education, 318 F.2d 425 (5th Cir. 1963).Google Scholar
Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950).Google Scholar
Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977 (1988).Google Scholar
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989).Google Scholar

Statutes Cited

Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-166, 105 Stat. 1071 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 2 U.S.C., 29 U.S.C., and 42 U.S.C.).Google Scholar
Sup. Ct. R. 37 (6).Google Scholar
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000 et seq.Google Scholar
Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971 et seq.Google Scholar