MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1522709373

Actuating equity?: Historical and contemporary analyses of African American access to selective higher education from Sweatt to the Top 10% law

2011· article· en· W1522709373 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julian Vasquez Heilig, Richard J. Reddick, Choquette Hamilton, Laurel Dietz, Cristóbal Rodríguez

Bibliographic record

VenueHarvard journal of African American public policy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDesegregationLawPolitical scienceContext (archaeology)ConstitutionState (computer science)SociologyEquity (law)History
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY RESEARCHAccess, Opportunity, and Adjudication: 1952-1969The literature review begins in the 1950s and details the role of legal enactments in the context of the desegregation era and the impact of those enactments on Texas's K- 12 public schools and the UT-Austin. Specifically, we consider how pervasive and hostile attitudes toward desegregation influenced the with which students of color had access to levels of education in Texas. We then transition to the impact of the civil rights movement on access and opportunity.In 1946, Heman Marion Sweatt, a Black veteran, applied for, and was denied admission to, the UT-Austin School of Law. Sweatt filed suit against UT-Austin in Texas's 126th District Court alleging that this denial was an infringement of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. At the time, there were no Black law schools in Texas (Lavergne 2010). After six months, Iudge Roy C. Archer of the 126th District Court decided that if the UT-Austin Board of Regents created a first-class university law school then the UT-Austin School of Law would not be required to accept Blacks (Duren and Iscoe 1979, 3). Sweatt appealed to the U.S. 3rd Court of Appeals, which sent the case back to retrial.The Sweatt case is dissimilar from the Missouri ex rei. Gaines v. Canada (1938), University v. Murray (1936), Sipuel v. Board of Regents ( 1948), and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents (1950) Southern higher education desegregation cases as the state of Texas sought to create a separate but law school to head off integration at UT-Austin. During the appeal, the Texas Legislature approved the establishment of the Texas State University for Negroes (TSUN, later called Texas Southern University or TSU) in Houston. This new university was created to offer general and professional programs equivalent to those offered at UT-Austin for Blacks. On March 10, 1947, the school opened, but Sweatt did not attend due to TSUN's inferior quality and the NAACP's desire to integrate White institutions (Lavergne 2010). After the Texas Supreme Court refused Sweatt's motion for a rehearing of his case, the NAACP filed the case at the U.S. Supreme Court. The nation's highest court ruled on lune 5, 1950, that the educational opportunity for Black and White law students was not substantially equal to meet the equal protection clause under the Fourteenth Amendment, thus, the UT-Austin School of Law was required to admit Sweatt.Despite Sweatt, the official end of the Iim Crow era arrived after the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which held that the Plessyv. Ferguson doctrine of separate but was unconstitutional. Following Brown v. Board of Education (1955), the second Brown decision, the U.S. Supreme Court gave the responsibility for integrating public schools to local officials under the scrutiny of the federal courts; in addition, these courts needed to ensure that local officials were making a prompt and reasonable start with all deliberate speed (Ogletree 2004).However, this notion of all deliberate speed became all deliberate in its implementation in Texas. Then Governor Allan Shivers saw the Brown decision as a federal invasion into states' rights on the doctrine of separate but and, as such, did not believe that the schools in Texas needed to change to reflect the Brown decision (Lavergne 2010).Then Attorney General lohn Ben Shepperd, reacting to a Texas high court decision to permit the use of state funds for integrated schools, stated that though the case settled the law for the state, the time frame for integration would be a community-by-community decision (Wilson and Segali 2001). This slowness permeated into postsecondary institutions in Texas as well; although there was to be eventual integration at levels of the schooling system in Texas, the of integration was to be determined by educational institutions and not the federal government (i. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.570
Threshold uncertainty score0.899

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.179
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHarvard journal of African American public policySame topicHigher Education Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207