Topics

Much of education law scholarship on school segregation has focused on majority-minority schools. Yet school segregation does not occur only in majority-minority schools, but also in so-called integrated schools: majority-white and Latine schools in which Black children are in the minority. What we know about segregation in these schools focuses on tracking, the practice of segregating Black students in classrooms according to ability, which has deleterious effects on Black children in schools where they are the minority. Outside of tracking, we have few firsthand accounts of integrated schools’ effects on these students.

In this Article, I present data obtained from in-depth interviews with ninety-five Black students and fifty Black parents. These students and parents moved from majority-Black schools to schools in which they were in the minority seeking the perceived academic benefits of an integrated school. Yet, integration and achieving better educational outcomes concern more than simple racial demographics of schools. In these interviews, students identify another avenue of in-school segregation: school policing. Black students in these integrated schools experience pervasive surveillance and punishment by school police in collaboration with other school officials. Rather than feeling truly integrated, these students feel both marginalized and unsafe in ways that undermine the academic benefits that integration is supposed to produce.

This Article does not merely contend that Black students are policed irrespective of the racial demographics of their schools. It also argues that scholars, policymakers, and lawyers need to be more attentive to student experiences in order to explicate how formally integrated institutions can nonetheless serve as domains of racial segregation. Policing affects schools’ institutional culture, reducing the benefits that were supposed to accompany racial integration. This reality suggests that the project of racial integration for Black students, a project that Brown v. Board of Education launched more than seventy years ago, may be even more illusory than we generally understand.

This Article develops a new framework for thinking about the place of race in Contracts. It argues that culture and context work in tandem in the form of “cultural scripts” to weave racial associations into texts where race is not explicitly identified. This suggests that the impact and influence of race in Contracts might have as much to do with the racialized stories that we tell about our consumer and commercial lives as it does with the racial identity of litigants.

To make this argument, this Article reconstructs the afterlives of one of Contracts’ most well-known cases, Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. (1965). The case, now the foundation of unconscionability doctrine, pits Ora Lee Williams, a mother of seven living on welfare, against an exploitative furniture company. Although Williams’s race was not confirmed until 1997, students and teachers long before (and since) assumed that she was Black. This assumption stemmed from the ways in which casebooks talked about and framed Williams.

The Race Case in Contracts undertakes the first systematic analysis of Contracts casebooks—129 in total—to show how “cultural scripts” about urban poverty and welfare mothers tethered Williams to ideas about race generally, and Blackness specifically. In other words, stories told about and around Ora Lee Williams mattered as much as, if not more than, the fact of her racial identity. Williams illustrates that if we do not speak directly on the role of race in Contracts, these stories might speak for us.

President Donald Trump issued an executive order in September of 2020 seeking to exclude diversity and inclusion training from federal contracts if those trainings contained so-called “divisive concepts” like stereotyping and scapegoating based on race and sex. In the wake of the executive order, attacks on Critical Race Theory (CRT) skyrocketed.  However, many of these discussions have mischaracterized CRT. In this Essay, one of the participants of the original CRT workshop held in Madison, Wisconsin in the summer of 1989 provides a historical account of what CRT is and what it sought to accomplish. 

More than anything, those early CRT meetings were driven by a concern about the racial disparities in the existing socioeconomic conditions of society, despite the legal victories of the civil rights era of the 1960s. This concern was heightened by the Supreme Court. The Court’s Equal Protection jurisprudence had frozen the racial disparities in place because it increasingly adopted an approach for resolving racial discrimination along the dictates of colorblindness. Thus, not only were we critiquing racial jurisprudence based on colorblindness, but also arguing that the Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence should recognize a distinction between policies and programs directed towards attenuating racial disparities and those aimed at strengthening them. Such an approach played on the dual applications of race consciousness. The racial consciousness of slavery and segregation and articulated by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education was based on the belief that there was something wrong with Black people. We embraced a different form of race consciousness—one that was consciously aware that the racial disparities of our time were not the result of deficiencies in Black people, but the continuing manifestations of our history of racial oppression and subordination. As a result, American society and American jurisprudence needed a race consciousness dedicated to dismantling the policies, programs, and institutional practices that were recreating racial disparities.