Letter to the Editor

I am writing to correct three mistakes in Ronald Cohen's review of my book, Politics, Race and Schools that appeared in the History of Education Quarterly, 38:1 (Spring 1998). First, Professor Cohen writes that in compiling the materials, I con­ centrated on the public record and ignored interviews, letters, and manuscript materials. This is not true. I tape recorded over 100 interviews with par­ ticipants. These people lent me personal letters, scrapbooks, and policy documents. In addition, from local archives, I photocopied reams of manuscripts, grant applications, and program evaluations. They appear in the citations marking the places where I used the information. Second, Professor Cohen complains that my book lacks human inter­ est. While the personal stories of the participants would not fit the theme of my book, their many and conflicting perspectives appear in the descrip­ tions of the struggles. To check the accuracy of my interpretations, I asked several participants to read the chapters in which I described their efforts. A portrayal of people's motives and efforts is an aspect of human interest. Third, Cohen asks the following question after briefly oudining the book: "So, what's new?" Let me explain what my book offers that is new. Investigations of important but overlooked details mark innovation. Curricular specialists assured me that few historians have studied the ways that curriculum served racial integration. At their suggestions, I examined the models that curriculum planners followed to construct classroom lessons that might relieve the problems of school desegregation. Other signs of newness are unique interpretations of commonplace events. In the introduction, I point out that other cities went through sim­ ilar problems. Unlike Chicago or New York, Dayton, Ohio is small enough to enable a researcher to assemble information about many parts of the city. Thus, I compared the racial desegregation of public, Catholic, and private schools, and I reviewed low-income housing dispersal programs and landuse policies. As a result, my book offers a comprehensive overview of events in a city that reflect the national experience. My discovery was that there were many techniques that could bring about racial integration. However, there was no widely held and popular value that would lead people to use them. Inasmuch as the debates about racial desegregation centered on human rights without recognizing the value of community, those political discussions weakened peoples's will­ ingness to accept techniques that limited human freedom but enhanced racial integration.