Political Science ETDs

Publication Date

10-23-1974

Abstract

The problem with which this study is concerned is the federal administrative role in public school desegregation from January 1969 to June 1972, encompassing the first three and one-half years of the Richard M. Nixon administration. Public school desegregation has been examined here from the standpoint of its symbolic political significance and its relation to substantive progress in the field. To do this I have referred to several premises put forth by Murray Edelman in The Symbolic Uses of Politics, particularly those dealing with symbolism as a means of resolving tension and with symbolic versus tangible action in government administration. The questions raised here pertain to whether Richard Nixon's actions in the field of school desegregation were symbolic or substantive in nature. What did his administration symbolize, and what role did it actually play in closing or widening the gap in integrated education?

The method used in this study was a year-by-year investigation of all phases of federal involvement in the desegregation issue. The emphasis was on the President, his public statements and actions, and on the rest of the executive branch of government, especially the Justice Department and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Other forces which interacted with the executive in determining desegregation policy were also examined, including the courts, Congress, and public opinion. This study is limited to public school integration at the elementary and secondary levels. It also is concerned primarily with Negro and white integration and focuses on activity in the south, although it is not strictly confined to those areas.

With this year-by-year analysis I found a fluctuating policy in public school desegregation. Nixon and his administration never denied the advisability of integrated education itself, but there were often statements made which were critical of the means by which integration was carried out and of the court decisions ordering integration. Generally his statements did appeal to those opposed to public school desegregation and busing and angered civil rights forces. However, desegregation did continue under his administration, at times vigorously, at other times in a more relaxed manner. Southern school desegregation was greatly increased, and an effort was made to begin enforcing northern integration. But it does appear that the administration took a generally softer approach to desegregation enforcement than had been done under the previous administration, because it relied primarily on court proceedings rather than the more direct means of fund terminations.

I have concluded that the Nixon administration did symbolize a slowdown in public school desegregation with its reassurances to one large segment of the population and several highly visible actions aimed at that end. He did, in fact, succeed in slowing down the process somewhat, and in that sense did substantiate his symbolic actions.

But the actual programs did not altogether coincide with the rhetoric emanating from the administration because there was progress made in the field of public school desegregation, much of it carried out away from the public limelight. In this case, it does appear that to the American public the importance of the symbolic actions outweighed the substantive progress, and in this way the political nature of the handling of the entire problem becomes obvious.

Degree Name

Political Science

Level of Degree

Masters

Department Name

Political Science

First Committee Member (Chair)

Robert J. Sickels

Second Committee Member

Paul Lynn Hain

Third Committee Member

Illegible

Document Type

Thesis

Comments

The UNMUL recognizes that due to its historical nature, this item may include racially and/or ethnically based language and content that may be biased, harmful, and oppressive.

Download

Share

COinS