"Finding a balance between loyalty to a national and an ethnic or religious category is a central issue in modern democracies. Just Schools addresses this problem with evidence, insight, and wisdom."
-JEROME KAGAN, Daniel and Amy Starch Research Professor of Psychology, Harvard University

"Everyone supports equality, freedom and fairness, in schools and out. As Martha Minow, Richard A. Shweder, and Hazel Rose Markus show, however, there are important tensions embedded in these concepts. Is it fair for schools to encourage all students to develop common values as citizens of one nation, or is it more fair for schools to allow students from diverse groups to pursue their sometimes divergent values? Is it fair for schools to devote substantially more resources to disadvantaged students in an attempt to overcome social hierarchies, or is it more fair for schools to sort students hierarchically according to ability and hard work? The book moves beyond slogans to explore the sometimes conflicting values embedded in our commitments to equality, freedom, and fairness. The distinguished contributors provide both clear conceptual accounts and illuminating empirical descriptions of communities struggling with these conflicts. Contemporary discussions of education policy and practice too often assume that we all agree on the aims of education, such that we can simply figure out which methods work and then allocate resources accordingly. Just Schools reminds us that deeper reflection and debate about aims is also required, especially in a society as diverse as ours."
-STANTON WORTHAM, Judy and Howard Berkowitz Professor, Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania

Educators and policymakers who share the goal of equal opportunity in schools often hold differing notions of what entails a just school in multicultural America. Some emphasize the importance of integration and uniform treatment for all, while others point to the benefits of honoring cultural diversity in ways that make minority students feel at home. In Just Schools, noted legal scholars, educators, and social scientists examine schools with widely divergent methods of fostering equality in order to explore the possibilities and limits of equal education today.

The contributors to Just Schools combine empirical research with rich ethnographic accounts to paint a vivid picture of the quest for justice in classrooms around the nation. Legal scholar Martha Minow considers the impact of school choice reforms on equal educational opportunities. Psychologist Hazel Rose Markus examines culturally sensitive programs where students exhibit superior performance on standardized tests and feel safer and more interested in school than those in color-blind programs. Anthropologist Heather Lindkvist reports on how Somali Muslims in Lewiston, Maine, invoked the American ideal of inclusiveness in winning dress-code exemptions and accommodations for Islamic rituals in the local public school.  Political scientist Austin Sarat looks at a school system in which everyone endorses multiculturalism but holds conflicting views on the extent to which culturally sensitive practices should enter into the academic curriculum. Anthropologist Barnaby Riedel investigates how a private Muslim school in Chicago aspires to universalist ideals, and education scholar James Banks argues that schools have a responsibility to prepare students for citizenship in a multicultural society. Anthropologist John Bowen offers a nuanced interpretation of educational commitments in France and the headscarf controversy in French schools. Anthropologist Richard Shweder concludes the volume by connecting debates about diversity in schools with a broader conflict between national assimilation and cultural autonomy.

As America’s schools strive to accommodate new students from around the world, Just Schools provides a provocative and insightful look at the different ways we define and promote justice in schools and in society at large.

MARTHA MINOW is Jeremiah Smith Jr. Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.

RICHARD A. SHWEDER is William Claude Reavis Distinguished Service Professor in the Department of Comparative Human Development at the University of Chicago.

HAZEL ROSE MARKUS is Davis-Brack Professor in the Behavioral Sciences in the Department of Psychology and director of the Research Institute of the Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity at Stanford University.

CONTRIBUTORS: James A. Banks, John R. Bowen, Heather L. Lindkvist, Barnaby Riedel, Austin Sarat. 

"The welfare reform law of 1996 required mothers to work in exchange for their welfare benefits. At least a million mothers, previously dependent on welfare, went to work. But the story does not end there. By requiring work of some citizens, the new law revived timeless questions about whether poor citizens are entitled to welfare, whether government has the right to require work, and whether government should make invidious distinctions directed at those who don't work or don't live in accord with widely-held values such as marriage before parenthood. Welfare Reform and Political Theory is by far the most complete treatment of these and related value issues, with all points of view well-sometimes brilliantly-represented."
-RON HASKINS, senior fellow, Brookings Institution

"Christopher Beem, Lawrence M. Mead, and their contributors prove that it is possible for people on both sides of the debate about welfare reform to talk civilly to one another. Each of these essays presents a powerful and multifaceted argument, illuminating an array of connected issues about need, citizenship, virtue, responsibility, and exploitation. Each of them engages in detail with arguments on the other side. Welfare Reform and Political Theory is a fine collection, and it should be required reading for anyone who wants to deepen their thought about these issues."
-JEREMY WALDRON, University Professor and director, Center for Law and Philosophy, Columbia Law School

During the 1990s, both the United States and Britain shifted from entitlement to work-based systems for supporting their poor citizens. Much research has examined the implications of welfare reform for the economic well-being of the poor, but the new legislation also affects our view of democracy—and how it ought to function. By eliminating entitlement and setting behavioral conditions on aid, welfare reform challenges our understanding of citizenship, political equality, and the role of the state. In Welfare Reform and Political Theory, editors Lawrence Mead and Christopher Beem have assembled an accomplished list of political theorists, social policy experts, and legal scholars to address how welfare reform has affected core concepts of political theory and our understanding of democracy itself.

Welfare Reform and Political Theory is unified by a common set of questions. The contributors come from across the political spectrum, each bringing different perspectives to bear. Carole Pateman argues that welfare reform has compromised the very tenets of democracy by tying the idea of citizenship to participation in the marketplace. But William Galston writes that American citizenship has in some respects always been conditioned on good behavior; work requirements continue that tradition by promoting individual responsibility and self-reliance—values essential to a well-functioning democracy. Desmond King suggests that work requirements draw invidious distinctions among citizens and therefore destroy political equality. Amy Wax, on the other hand, contends that ending entitlement does not harm notions of equality, but promotes them, by ensuring that no one is rewarded for idleness. Christopher Beem argues that entitlement welfare served a social function—acknowledging the social value of care—that has been lost in the movement towards conditional benefits. Stuart White writes that work requirements can be accepted only subject to certain conditions, while Lawrence Mead argues that concerns about justice must be addressed only after recipients are working. Alan Deacon is well to the left of Joel Schartz, but both say government may actively promote virtue through social policy—a stance some other contributors reject.

The move to work-centered welfare in the 1990s represented not just a change in government policy, but a philosophical change in the way people perceived government, its functions, and its relationship with citizens. Welfare Reform and Political Theory offers a long overdue theoretical reexamination of democracy and citizenship in a workfare society.

LAWRENCE M. MEAD is professor of politics at New York University.

CHRISTOPHER BEEM is a program officer at The Johnson Foundation.

CONTRIBUTORS:  Alan Deacon, William A. Galston,  Desmond King,  Carole Pateman, Joel Schwartz, Amy L. Wax,  Stuart White.  

"Bill Maurer has a unique talent for communicating the most sophisticated theoretical con cepts in ways that can be brought to bear upon pressing social issues. Pious Property engages with matters of immediate political concern in a way that is both remarkably sensitive to the complexities of the issues and yet always accessible to a broad readership. Along the way, it provides a powerful demonstration of the unique contributions ethnography can make to our understanding of cutting edge policy problems."
-ANNELISE RILES, professor of anthropology and law, Cornell University

"How do Muslims in the United States finance their homes? And by what means, given the religious injunction against interest, do Islamic bankers make mortgages available to their cli ents? In this fascinating, highly accessible new book, Bill Maurer, one of the most imaginative anthropologists of his generation, shows us how the ordinary practice of house-buying illumi nates contemporary Islamic law and, yet more significantly, the cultural citizenship of Muslim Americans in the delicate years since 9/11. Breaking with received social science concepts, Pious Property offers an intriguing analysis of the way in which home finance, filtered through Islam, has acquired a 'charisma of form' at the point of intersection between the religious and secular. In so doing, it succeeds splendidly-and importantly-in unsettling Euro-American stereotypes of Islam and Muslims."
-JOHN COMAROFF, Harold H. Swift Distinguished Service Professor, University of Chicago, and senior research fellow, American Bar Foundation

"Pious Property is a magnificent contribution to the growing literature on Muslims in the United States. Accessible, cogent, and original, by a leading anthropologist of law and society, this book provides valuable insight into the marriage of pragmatism and idealism evident in the expansion of Islamic financial instruments. By touching on the historical debates about the sinfulness of interest-bearing debt in Christian terms, Bill Maurer draws significant parallels and makes sense of how the contemporary context of opportunity (the American dream) conditions the evolution of Muslim practices in the United States. This book will bring the study of American Islam to the fore of mainstream scholarship about the relationship between law, religion, and economics."
-KATHLEEN M. MOORE, associate professor and chair, Law and Society Program, University of California, Santa Barbara

Owning a home has always been central to the American dream. For the more than one million Muslims in the United States, this is no exception. However, the Qur'an forbids the payment of interest, which places conventional home financing out of reach for observant Muslims. To meet the growing Muslim demand for home purchases, a market for home financing that would be halal, or permissible under Islamic law, has emerged. In Pious Property, anthropologist William Maurer profiles the emergence of this new religiously based financial service and explores the ways it reflects the influence of Muslim practices on American economic life and vice versa.

Pious Property charts the development of Islamic mortgages in America, starting with Islamic interpretations of the prohibition against riba—literally translated as "increase" but interpreted as "usury" or "interest." Maurer then explores the different practices that have emerged as permissible options for Islamic homebuyers—such as lease-to-own arrangements, profit-loss sharing, and cost-plus contracts—and explains how they have gained acceptance in the Islamic community by relying on payment schemes that avoid standard interest rate payments. Using interviews with Muslim homebuyers and financiers, and in-depth analysis of two companies that provide mortgage alternatives to Muslims, Maurer discovers an interesting paradox: progressive Muslims tend to use financial contracts that seemingly comply better with the prohibition against interest, while traditional Muslims seem more inclined to take on financing very similar to interest-based mortgages. Maurer finds that Muslims make their decisions about using Islamic mortgage alternatives based not only on the views of religious scholars, but also on their conceptions of how business is supposed to be conducted in America. While one form of Islamic financing is seemingly more congruent with the prohibition against riba, the other exhibits more of the qualities of American mortgages—anonymity and standardized forms. The appearance that an Islamic financing instrument is legal and professional leaves many Muslim homebuyers with the impression that it is halal, revealing the influence of American capitalism on Muslim Americans’ understanding of their religious rules.

The market for halal financial products exists at the intersection of American and Islamic culture and is emblematic of the way that, for centuries, America's newcomers have adapted to and changed the fabric of American life. In Pious Property, William Maurer explores this rapidly growing economic phenomenon with historical perspective and scholarly insight.

BILL MAURER is associate professor of anthropology at the University of California, Irvine.
 

Stewart Macaulay teaches contracts at the University of Wisconsin Law School and is interested in the part the legal system plays in implementing, regulating, and hindering economic relationships, and how it does these things. This book is a descriptive analysis of organizational change that has resulted from automobile dealers' attempts to find a legal remedy for what they consider unfair practices of the manufacturers. It advances our understanding of the limitations and the positive functions of formal rules in the regulation of human conduct, and shows how informal procedures can develop as a result of pressure for changes in the formal rules.

STEWART MACAULAY teaches contracts at the University of Wisconsin Law School.

"How to inform the judicial mind," Justice Frankfurter remarked during the school desegregation cases, "is one of the most complicated problems." Social research is a potential source of such information. Indeed, in the 1960s and 1970s, with activist courts at the forefront of social reform, the field of law and social science came of age. But for all the recent activity and scholarship in this area, few books have attempted to create an intellectual framework, a systematic introduction to applied social-legal research.

Social Research in the Judicial Process addresses this need for a broader picture. Designed for use by both law students and social science students, it constructs a conceptual bridge between social research (the realm of social facts) and judicial decision making (the realm of social values). Its unique casebook format weaves together judicial opinions, empirical studies, and original text. It is a process-oriented book that teaches skills and perspectives, cultivating an informed sensitivity to the use and misuse of psychology, social psychology, and sociology in apellate and trial adjudication. Among the social-legal topics explored are school desegregation, capital punishment, jury impartiality, and eyewitness identification.

This casebook is remarkable for its scope, its accessibility, and the intelligence of its conceptual integration. It provides the kind of interdisciplinary teaching framework that should eventually help lawyers to make knowledgeable use of social research, and social scientists to conduct useful research within a legally sophisticated context.

WALLACE D. LOH is professor of law and adjunct professor of psychology at the University of Washington.

A penetrating analysis of the Selective Service System: its recruiting services, the makeup and attitude of those who serve on local draft boards, the criteria for deferment or rejection from service, and the application of the principle of universality in the present draft laws. Using data from several sources, the study also explores the position of blacks with respect to military service. Comprehensive recommendations are set forth.

ROGER W. LITTLE is associate professor of sociology at the University of Illinois at Chicago Circle.

CONTRIBUTORS:  Harry A. Marimon, James W. Davis Jr., Gary Wamsley, Merrill Roff,  Charles C. Moskos Jr., Irvin G. Katenbrink Jr. 

Winner of the 2008 Thomas and Znaniecki Award from the International Migration Section of the American Sociological Association

"Ivan Light's Deflecting Immigration makes a valuable contribution, one that illuminates various trends either overlooked or left unaddressed in the standard scholarship about immigration in the United States."
-SCIENCE MAGAZINE

"Ivan Light offers a bold thesis of how local policies shape immigrant incorporation in middle-class America ... Deflecting Immigration argues immigration policy in America is implemented at the municipal, not federal level."
-DOWELL MYERS, professor of urban planning and demography, University of Southern California

"Ivan Light's Deflecting Immigration is a book of multiple and long overdue contributions to immigration research at a time when existing paradigms are reaching exhaustion ... [T]his book has filled a gap in the emerging literature on new immigrant destinations, showing that in order to explain what is happening in uncharted areas of settlement, we need to understand what is unfolding in America's premier immigrant gateway."
-RUBÉN HERNÁNDEZ-LEÓN, assistant professor of sociology, University of California, Los Angeles

"Deflecting Immigration provides a new and insightful interpretation of the reason for the growing immigrant diaspora from the coastal gateway cites of the United States ... The book is an important contribution to the debate about immigration, its intersection with local communities, and the long-term implications for the spatial redistribution of immigrants."
-WILLIAM A. V. CLARK, professor of geography, University of California, Los Angeles

As international travel became cheaper and national economies grew more connected over the past thirty years, millions of people from the Third World emigrated to richer countries. A tenth of the population of Mexico relocated to the United States between 1980 and 2000. Globalization theorists claimed that reception cities could do nothing about this trend, since nations make immigration policy, not cities. In Deflecting Immigration, sociologist Ivan Light shows how Los Angeles reduced the sustained, high-volume influx of poor Latinos who settled there by deflecting a portion of the migration to other cities in the United States. In this manner, Los Angeles tamed globalization’s local impact, and helped to nationalize what had been a regional immigration issue.

Los Angeles deflected immigration elsewhere in two ways. First, the protracted network-driven settlement of Mexicans naturally drove up rents in Mexican neighborhoods while reducing immigrants’ wages, rendering Los Angeles a less attractive place to settle. Second, as migration outstripped the city’s capacity to absorb newcomers, Los Angeles gradually became poverty-intolerant. By enforcing existing industrial, occupational, and housing ordinances, Los Angeles shut down some unwanted sweatshops and reduced slums. Their loss reduced the metropolitan region’s accessibility to poor immigrants without reducing its attractiveness to wealthier immigrants. Additionally, ordinances mandating that homes be built on minimum-sized plots of land with attached garages made home ownership in L.A.’s suburbs unaffordable for poor immigrants and prevented low-cost rental housing from being built. Local rules concerning home occupancy and yard maintenance also prevented poor immigrants from crowding together to share housing costs. Unable to find affordable housing or low-wage jobs, approximately one million Latinos were deflected from Los Angeles between 1980 and 2000.

The realities of a new global economy are still unfolding, with uncertain consequences for the future of advanced societies, but mass migration from the Third World is unlikely to stop in the next generation. Deflecting Immigration offers a shrewd analysis of how America’s largest immigrant destination independently managed the challenges posed by millions of poor immigrants and, in the process, helped focus attention on immigration as an issue of national importance.

IVAN LIGHT is professor of sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles.

People do not choose to suffer from catastrophic illnesses, but considerable human choice is involved in the ways in which the participants in the process treat and conduct research on these diseases.

Catastrophic Diseases draws a powerful and humane portrait of the patients who suffer from these illnesses as well as of the physician-investigators who treat them, and describes the major pressures, conflicts, and decisions which confront all of them. By integrating a discussion of "facts" and "values," the authors highlight the forces which affect new developments in medicine—such as kidney and heart transplants—and the controversial issues they generate.

Katz and Capron explore these issues through the use of dual conceptual perspectives. Their study first examines and evaluates the authority which should be vested in each of the chief participants in the catastrophic disease process—the physician-investigator, the patient-subject and his relatives, the professionals, and the state. Challenging questions are raised concerning medical education, informed consent, and professional responsibility. The authors next explore how the roles and capacities of the participants vary not only according to the basic issues they face but also according to the point in decision-making at which these issues arise. The process of investigating and treating catastrophic diseases, the authors believe, can thus usefully be divided into three decision-making stages—the formulation of policy, the administration of research and therapy, and the review of the decisions and their consequences.

In conclusion, Katz and Capron demonstrate the need for a variety of individuals and groups with diverse values to be involved in decision-making in a manner which will not unnecessarily impede the scientific investigation of these diseases.

JAY KATZ is professor (adjunct) of law and psychiatry at Yale Law School.

ALEXANDER MORGAN CAPRON is associate professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

One of the most challenging goals for welfare reformers has been improving the collection of child support payments from noncustodial parents, usually fathers. Often vilified as deadbeats who have dropped out of their children's lives, these fathers have been the target of largely punitive enforcement policies that give little consideration to the complex circumstances of these men's lives.

Fathers' Fair Share presents an alternative to these measures with an in-depth study of the Parents Fair Share Program. A multi-state intervention run by the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, the program was designed to better the life skills of nonpaying fathers with children on public assistance, in the belief that this would encourage them to improve their level of child support. The men chosen for the program frequently lived on the margins of society. Chronically unemployed or underemployed, undereducated, and often earning their money on the streets, they bore the scars of drug or alcohol abuse, troubled family lives, and arrest records. Among those of African American and Hispanic descent, many felt a deep-rooted distrust of the mainstream economy. The Parents Fair Share Program offered these men the chance not only to learn the social skills needed for stable employment but to participate in discussions about personal difficulties, racism, and problems in their relationships with their children and families.

Fathers' Fair Share details the program's mix of employment training services, peer support groups, and formal mediation of disputes between custodial and noncustodial parents. Equally important, the authors explore the effect of the participating fathers' expectations and doubts about the program, which were colored by their often negative views about the child support and family law system. The voices heard in Fathers' Fair Share provides a rare look into the lives of low-income fathers and how they think about their struggles and prospects, their experiences in the workplace, and their responsibilities toward their families. Parents Fair Share demonstrated that, in spite of their limited resources, these men are more likely to make stronger efforts to improve support payments and to become greater participants in their children's lives if they encounter a less adversarial and arbitrary enforcement system.

Fathers' Fair Share offers a valuable resource to the design of social welfare programs seeking to reach out to this little-understood population, and addresses issues of tremendous importance for those concerned about welfare reform, child support enforcement, family law, and employment policy.

EARL S. JOHNSON is research associate at the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, New York and San Francisco.

ANN LEVINE is a freelance writer and editor.

FRED C. DOOLITTLE is vice president and associate director of research at the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, New York and San Francisco.

Justice and Reform is the first study of the origins, philosophy, creation, management, and impact of the Office of Economic Opportunity Legal Services Program. As such, it clearly and concisely describes the Program’s role both as an instrument of equal justice and as a strategy for overcoming poverty. Timely, important, and unique, it tells the story behind the OEO Legal Services Program—an endeavor that has been called both the most successful element of the war on poverty and the most stimulating development to occur in the American legal profession during the Twentieth Century.

The early chapters in the book reveal the nature and motivations of the two groups which joined to create the Program: the conservative, American Bar Association sponsored 89-year-old legal aid movement and the Ford Foundation-financed neighborhood lawyer experiments that started in 1962 under the direction of young activist lawyers. Why they merged and how they merged forms the background for a description of how the partners persuaded the OEO bureaucracy to start a legal services program and convinced over 200 communities (including most large cities) to set up a federally funded legal assistance agency.

Legal Services Program established policy, how it settled upon “law reform” as the priority function of the Program, how it preserved the integrity of its policies within OEO, and how it caused its grantees to engage in law reform. Chapter 8 evaluates, for the first time, the economic, political, and social impact of the Program as of 1972. The final chapter speculates on the future of government-subsidized legal assistance in the United States from the perspective of the OEO program’s twin goals of equal justice and social reform.

EARL JOHNSON, JR. is professor of law at the University of Southern California Law Center and senior research associate at the Social Science Institute, University of Southern California.