Consequences of a Decade of Resegregation
By Gary Orfield
Almost half a century after the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Southern
school segregation was unconstitutional and "inherently unequal,"
new statistics from the 1998-99 school year show that segregation continued
to intensify throughout the 1990s.
During the decade, there were three major Supreme Court decisions authorizing
a return to segregated neighborhood schools and limiting the reach and
duration of desegregation orders.
For African-American students, this trend is particularly apparent
in the South, where most Blacks live and where the 2000 Census shows
a continuing return from the North. From 1988 to 1998, most of the progress
of the previous two decades in increasing integration in the region
was lost. The South is still much more integrated than it was before
the civil rights revolution, but it is moving backward at an accelerating
rate.
Until the late 1980's, segregation had actually been decreasing nationally
for Black students, reaching its low point in U.S. history in the late
1980s. Substantial desegregation was most common in the 17 states which
had legal apartheid 'segregation mandated by law' in their schools before
the 1954 Brown decision. Enforcement action was concentrated on those
states.
The most far-reaching forms of desegregation, often encompassing entire
metropolitan areas, tended to be the most stable and long lasting but
were largely limited to Southern countywide school systems.
Most Americans live in metropolitan areas, housing remains seriously
segregated, and most current segregation is between school districts
of differing racial composition, not within individual districts. As
Justice Thurgood Marshall predicted a quarter century ago when the Supreme
Court rejected desegregation across city-suburban boundary lines in
Milliken v. Bradley, the central cities, many of them largely minority
before desegregation, became overwhelmingly nonwhite, overwhelmingly
poor, and showed the highest levels of segregation at century's end.
These trends of increasing resegregation are often dismissed because
people believe that nothing can be done. Many Americans believe that
desegregation is impossible because of white flight, that it led to
a massive transfer to private schools, that public opinion has turned
against it, that Blacks no longer support it, and that it is more beneficial
for students to use desegregation funding for compensatory education.
None of these things is true.
There have, of course, been unsuccessful and poorly implemented desegregation
plans and Black opinion has always been far from unanimous, but a large
majority prefers integrated education.
The 2000 Census tells us that Latinos have become the largest minority
group in the United States. Unfortunately, Latino school enrollment
exploded during the post-civil rights era and very little has been done
to provide desegregated education for Latino students. They have been
more segregated than Blacks now for a number of years, not only by race
and ethnicity but also by poverty. There is also serious segregation
developing by language.
Most Latinos are concentrated in high poverty, low-achieving schools
and face by far the highest dropout rate. Also, since most are concentrated
in the large states where affirmative action for college is now illegal
and with high stakes high school graduation tests (California, Texas,
and Florida), the concentration of these students in schools with a
poor record of graduating students and sending them onto college raises
important national issues.
BACKGROUND
A battle that began early in the 20th century to try to bring equality
to the segregated Black schools of the South became, by the 1960s, an
all-out attack on the entire structure of racially separate schools
in the 17 states which mandated segregation by law. The 1954 Brown decision
outlawing de jure segregation was both a key cause of the civil rights
movement, announcing that Southern apartheid was unconstitutional and
illegitimate, and a principal goal of the movement, beginning a long
process of bringing the power of government to bear on the social arrangements
of the South. Martin Luther King led demonstrations for integrated education
in the North as well as in the South. There were hundreds of protests
against unequal conditions and opportunities in segregated schools,
and there was almost a decade of struggle in the U.S. Congress about
whether or not to cut off federal funds to the thousands of districts
that defied the Supreme Court's directive.
The struggle was never just for desegregated schools, nor was it motivated
by a desire on the part of Black students to simply sit next to white
students. It was an integral part of a much broader movement for racial
and economic justice supported by a unique alliance of major civil rights
organizations, churches, students, and leaders of both national political
parties. From l954 until 1964, the enforcement effort faced almost uniform
local and state resistance in the South. A handful of civil rights lawyers,
most of them from the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, sued local school boards
trying to force the initiation of desegregation in courts presided over
by conservative federal judges. When President Kennedy asked Congress
in 1964 to prohibit discrimination in all programs receiving federal
aid, 98% of Southern Blacks were still in totally segregated schools.
The peak of the effort to desegregate the schools came in the late
1960's and early 1970s. The only period in which there was active, positive
support by both the courts and the executive branch of the government
was the four years following the enactment of the l964 Civil Rights
Act. During this period federal education officials, the Department
of Justice, and the high courts all maintained strong and reasonably
consistent pressure for achieving actual desegregation. During this
period desegregation policy was transformed from a very gradual anti-discrimination
policy to one of rapid and full integration.
It was in this period that the South moved from almost total racial
separation to become the nation's most integrated region. 1
The l968 election that brought Richard Nixon to the White House was
a turning point, leading first to a shutdown of the enforcement machinery
of the education office, and then to a change of position in which the
Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to slow down or reverse desegregation
requirements. Nixon's appointment of four justices to the U.S. Supreme
Court set the stage for key 5-4 decisions against desegregation across
city-suburban lines and against equalizing finances among school districts.
By l974 it was clear that there was no feasible way to provide desegregated
education for millions of Black and Latino children attending heavily
minority central city school districts within those rapidly changing
city districts.
When education officials moved to revive school desegregation enforcement
under the Carter Administration, Congress took the authority away from
them, although the Carter Justice Department did initiate a number of
important lawsuits, seeking to find ways to win city-suburban desegregation
in special circumstances and to coordinate the desegregation of housing
with school integration policy.
The Reagan Administration brought a rapid repeal of the federal desegregation
assistance program and a shift in the Justice Department to a position
of strong opposition to desegregation litigation, opposing even the
continuation of existing desegregation plans. The Administration developed
theories that desegregation had failed and that existing desegregation
orders should be canceled after a few years. The Justice Department
began to advocate such a policy in the federal courts in the mid-1980's
The long battle to change the Supreme Court by the Nixon, Reagan, and
Bush administrations succeeded in creating a court with a fundamentally
different approach to civil rights by the late 1980s. The Rehnquist
Court, led by a consistent dissenter against school desegregation law,
adopted the assumptions that the history of discrimination had been
cured, enough had been done so the orders should be ended, and that
there was a serious danger of discrimination against whites if civil
rights requirements were to continue. In three decisions in the 1990's,
the Court defined desegregation as a temporary remedy and found that
school boards released from their orders (found to be 'unitary') could
reinstate segregated schools.
The Rehnquist Court concluded that positive policies taking race into
account for the purpose of creating integration were suspect and had
to demonstrate both a compelling reason and prove that the goal could
not be realized without considering race. These policies led some lower
courts to forbid even voluntary action for desegregation, such as magnet
schools with desegregation policies for admissions. Such orders have
been handed down, for example, in Virginia, Maryland, and Boston.
There is considerable confusion about the status of desegregation law
but the basic trend is toward dissolution of desegregation orders and
return to patterns of more serious segregation.
There has been no major push to integrate schools since the early 1970s.
The courts, Congress, and the executive branch all reduced enforcement
a generation ago. Significant federal aid aimed at helping interracial
schools succeed ended in l981. Many states have quietly abandoned the
offices, agencies, and policies they set up to produce and support interracial
education.
DIFFERENT HISTORY FOR LATINOS
The Latino right to desegregation was recognized by the Supreme Court
in 1973 as an afterthought, almost two decades after the Brown decision
and during the Nixon Administration when the executive branch ended
serious enforcement of desegregation rights.
There was a conscious decision by executive branch officials to offer
Latinos enforcement of bilingual education rather than desegregation.
The Supreme Court recognized the right of federal civil rights enforcement
officials to devise policies to deal with discrimination on the basis
of language in the 1974 Lau decision. The only state where there was
substantial desegregation of Latino students was Colorado, the site
of the 1973 Supreme Court decision recognizing Latino desegregation
rights. There never was any significant enforcement of desegregation
rights for Latinos.
The Nixon Administration decided to enforce bilingual education rights,
not desegregation, but those rights would be attacked by the Reagan
Administration in the 1980s, foreshadowing major efforts to outlaw bilingual
education at the turn of the 21st century.
BENEFITS OF DESEGREGATION / COSTS OF SEGREGATION
Desegregation was not ordered as an educational treatment but to end
deeply rooted patterns of illegal separation of students. Nevertheless,
there is evidence that desegregation both improves test scores and changes
the lives of students. More importantly, there is also evidence that
students from desegregated educational experiences benefit in terms
of college-going, employment, and living in integrated settings as adults.
There are also well documented and relatively simple instructional techniques
that increase both the academic and human relations benefits of interracial
schooling.
A recent study of elite law schools shows, for example, that almost
all of the Black and Latino students who made it into those schools
came from integrated educational backgrounds. Minority students with
the same test scores tend to be much more successful in college if they
attended interracial high schools.
In addition, recent surveys show that both white and minority students
in integrated school districts tend to report by large majorities that
they have learned to study and work together and that they are highly
confident about their ability to work in such settings as adults. Students
report that they have learned a lot about the other group's background
and feel confident about the ability to discuss even controversial racial
issues across racial lines.
In other words, students report great confidence about skills many adults
are far from confident about. Longitudinal research at the college level
shows long term gains in understanding complexity from integrated educational
experiences. Studies exploring the life experiences of Black students
attending suburban white high schools show that such students experience
far higher graduation and college-going rates than those left in central
city schools, frequently attain an ability to be fluently bicultural,
and, as adults, are often able to work with and offer guidance on issues
that require these skills.
Interestingly, the period of growing desegregation coincided with the
period of the most dramatic narrowing of the test score gap ever recorded
for Blacks and whites. This cannot be attributed simply to desegregation
but may well be a product of the broad reforms that were associated
with the civil rights era according to a 1998 study by Rand researcher
David Grissmer and an earlier study by Daniel Koretz. In the 1990s,
on the other hand, racial gaps in achievement have been growing and
the high school graduation rate of Black students is decreasing. The
integration period was a time of major gains and gap closing for Black
students and the resegregation era is showing signs of retrogression.
When the Supreme Court said that separate schools were 'inherently
unequal' it was discussing the impact of discrimination, not the talent
of minority students. Although there is a great deal of debate about
the scale of the benefits produced by desegregation, there is no doubt
that segregated schools are unequal in easily measurable ways. To a
considerable degree this is because the segregated minority schools
are overwhelmingly likely to have to contend with the educational impacts
of concentrated poverty (defined as having 50% or more of the student
population eligible for free or reduced lunch), while segregated white
schools are almost always middle class. This study shows that highly
segregated Black and/or Latino schools are many times more likely than
segregated white schools to experience concentration of poverty. This
is the legacy of unequal education, income, and the continuing patterns
of housing discrimination.
Anyone who wants to explore the continuing inequalities need only examine
the test scores, dropout rates, and other statistics for various schools
in a metropolitan community and relate them to statistics for school
poverty (free lunch) and race (percent Black and/or Latino) to see a
distressingly clear pattern. The state testing programs, which now publish
school level test data in almost all states, identify schools as low
performing, many of which are segregated minority schools with concentrated
poverty.
There is a very strong correlation between the percent poor in a school
and its average test score. Therefore, minority students in segregated
schools, no matter how able they may be as individuals, usually face
a much lower level of competition and average preparation by other students.
Such schools tend to have teachers who are themselves much more likely
to be teaching a subject they did not study and with which they have
had little experience. There are not enough students ready for advanced
and AP courses and that those opportunities are eliminated even for
students who are ready because there are not sufficient students to
fill a teacher's advanced classes. Many colleges give special consideration
to students who have taken AP classes, ignoring the fact that such classes
are far less available in segregated minority high schools.
These problems are most serious when racial segregation is reinforced
by class segregation, but they are also serious for the Black middle
class schools. The College Board is supporting a study examining the
achievement gap for Black middle class students, since students in middle
class Black schools perform at a much lower average level than would
be predicted on the basis of their economic level. Part of this difference
is due to the fact that Black middle class families tend to live in
communities with far more poor people than white middle class families
and often live near and share schools with lower class Black neighborhoods.
The basic message is that segregation, as normally seen in American
schools almost a half-century after Brown, produces schools that are,
on average, deeply unequal in ways that go far beyond unequal budgets.
Integrated schools, on average, clearly have better opportunities. There
are, of course, exceptions. Even if integrated schools have better opportunities,
this does not assure that minority children enrolled in those schools
will receive fair access to those opportunities. That depends on the
policies and practices under which the school operates.
Desegregation at the school level is a necessary, but far from sufficient,
condition for assuring equal opportunity in practice.
CAN SEPARATE EDUCATION BE EQUAL?
Critics of desegregation often argue that it would be better to spend
the money on improving schools where they are. The suggestion is that
while a great deal of money is being spent on desegregation, we are
ignoring alternative solutions that have been shown to produce academic
gains in segregated neighborhood schools.
In reality, such solutions do not exist.
Before the Supreme Court ordered desegregation in 1954, the nation
had been operating for 58 years under a constitutional mandate to equalize
the segregated schools, which had been a massive failure. School boards
consistently provided segregated and strikingly unequal schools, minority
communities' efforts were regularly defeated because they did not have
enough political power to force changes in local politics, and neither
the courts nor Congress nor any state government showed any interest
in strongly enforcing the equality requirement.
There was a similar pattern of neglect and blatant inequality for Mexican-
American students. Even after the Supreme Court acted, dramatic inequalities
continued to exist between minority and white schools in many districts
and were often part of the proof presented to courts as a basis for
desegregation orders. Civil rights groups engaged in decades of unsuccessful
battles to equalize segregated schools before desegregation was ordered.
This long history in thousands of communities produced great skepticism
about the willingness of the majority to make minority schools equal.
Since the 1980's, the basic educational goal of both national parties
has been to improve schools by imposing tough standards, and there has
been no priority given by education officials of any administration
in the past twenty years to desegregation. In l989, President George
H. Bush and the nation's governors, led by then Arkansas Governor Bill
Clinton, embraced the goal of racial equity in education by 2000, which
Congress embodied in the Goals 2000 legislation. Almost all the states
adopted sweeping state reforms based on more course requirements and
mandatory testing. Those reforms ignored the issue of race and class
segregation. The idea was to equalize outcomes within the existing structure
of segregated schools. During this period there was a substantial increase
in compensatory resources directed at improving impoverished schools
and bringing strong pressure to bear on their teachers and administrators
to raise achievement.
In fact, however, racial differences in achievement and graduation
began to expand in the 1990s, after having closed substantially from
the 1960s into the mid-1980's There is no evidence that we have learned
how to make segregated high poverty schools equal on a systemic scale.
Educational disadvantage is closely linked to poverty, both poverty
of the individual student and of the school he or she attends. Latinos
attend the schools with the highest levels of students poor or near
poor (those who qualify for free and reduced lunch) followed by African
Americans and Native Americans. Asians are in schools where nearly three
fourths of the students are not poor, and whites are in schools with
less than one-fifth poor children.
THE BASIC FINDINGS
Following are some of the basic findings of our report.
SURGE IN DIVERSITY
The nation's schools have changed in amazing ways since the civil rights
era. The number of Black and Latino students in the nation's public
schools is up 5.8 million, while the number of white students has declined
by 5.6 million. The schools reflect the transformation of the U.S. population
in an era of low birth rates and massive immigration. Latino students,
a group that was just 2 million in 1968 has grown to 6.9 million, an
extraordinary growth of 245% in just thirty years. In l968 there were
more than three times as many Blacks as Latinos in our schools, but
in 1998 there were seven Latino students for every eight Blacks, and
soon there will be more Latino than Black students. This is an extraordinary
switch.
Our schools will be the first major institutions to experience nonwhite
majorities.
Maps showing minority enrollment across the U.S. indicate that the
South and West have far higher concentrations of nonwhite students than
the rest of the nation, where minority enrollment tends to be heavily
concentrated in big cities and some of their older suburbs.
Although no major region had a majority-minority student enrollment
by the 1998-99 school year, the West, a vast region that includes the
Pacific coast states and the Rocky Mountain states as well as the desert
Southwest, had only 52% white students; the South, the states from Virginia
to Texas that made up the old Confederacy, had only 55% whites. Both
of these regions are likely to have white minorities within the next
few years.
It is in these regions that the growth of the United States population
and of the economy are concentrated. They have produced all the U.S.
presidents elected since l960 and are certain to profoundly impact our
national future.
The other major regions of the country, stretching from Maine to Maryland,
and from Oklahoma to the Dakotas to the East Coast, have from two-thirds
to three-fourths white students and are experiencing less change, in
part because they are growing more slowly and drawing in fewer of the
new minority immigrants.
Although white residents of many central cities have experienced living
in predominantly nonwhite communities for years, we will increasingly
see entire metropolitan areas and states where there will be no majority
group or the majority group will be Latino or African American. This
will be a new experience in American educational history.
We will be facing either pluralism in schools on an unprecedented level,
with millions of whites needing to adjust to minority status, or the
possibility of very serious racial and ethnic polarization, reinforced
by educational inequalities, with the possible exclusion of the majority
of students from access to educational mobility. We will, in the process,
be affecting the kind of relationships and experiences that prepare
people to function in highly multiracial civic life and workplaces.
The U.S. is now in the midst of its largest immigration ever in terms
of numbers (not percentages) of newcomers, and the people coming since
the 1965 immigration reform have been overwhelmingly Hispanic and Asian.
The Asian growth is even more rapid than the Latino expansion but started
from a much lower base. Asian students are concentrated in the West,
where they make up 8% of the students, and in Hawaii, where they account
for 72% of total enrollment. American-Indian students are also concentrated
in the West and in Alaska, where they account for 2.5% of all students.
The West presents a picture of extraordinary diversity and most dramatically
illustrates the need for new ways of thinking about race relations.
It is the only region where Blacks are now the third largest of the
minority populations, with just 7% of total enrollment. In the West,
there are four Latino students for every African American. The Asian
population is larger and growing much faster. Obviously statistics showing
only levels of Black segregation from whites would seriously oversimplify
the complexities of the West's multiracial population. We are well into
a period in which we need new ways of describing and understanding the
population.
Until recently Hawaii was the only U.S. state with a clear majority
of nonwhite students. The data for 1998-99 show that there are six states
and the District of Columbia in which whites are the minority. They
include the nation's two largest states, California and Texas, which
serve nearly 10 million students. (The influence of these two states
is evident in the fact that they have produced the victors in seven
of the last ten presidential elections.)
Only one state, Mississippi, enrolled a majority of African-American
students, and one other, Hawaii, has a large Asian majority. California,
Texas, and New Mexico are moving rapidly toward majorities of Latino
students if the existing trends continue.
TRANSFORMATION OF STUDENT POPULATION
Looking back at this period, it is likely that historians will see
the incredible expansion of Latino enrollment as a dominant characteristic
of this era in U.S. education. It has received surprisingly little serious
attention because of the decline of the Civil Rights Movement and the
strong central emphasis on raising achievement through standards-based
reform, which tends to ignore student background. Another reason is
that the enrollment is so concentrated in a few states.
They are very important states, however, and the changes are staggering.
Latino enrollment was up more than 200% from 1970 to l998 in five of
the eight states with the highest concentrations of students. In California
and Texas, the two largest states, and where a majority of all Latinos
are enrolled, there was an increase of 1.7 million (241%) in the Golden
State and nearly 1 million in Texas (169%). Enrollments exploded 508%
in Florida, as South Florida emerged as one of the nation's centers
of Latino culture and business.
The states most affected include the nation's four largest (California,
Texas, New York and Florida), all of which play a very large role in
the U.S. economy and culture. The numbers were amazingly large, the
students experienced very severe educational problems, and they became
far more segregated in many areas as their numbers grew.
BLACK SEGREGATION
The central story of the desegregation battle was the transformation
of the South, which is home to most U.S. Blacks. The region went from
virtually total apartheid to the most integrated region in the U.S.
between 1964 and 1970. During this time, the South had the highest level
of integration and the most substantial contact between Black and white
students. It remains the only region in which whites typically attend
schools with significant numbers of Blacks.
Though the South led the nation in resisting the Civil Rights revolution
and in voting for candidates who promised to roll it back, the integration
of the South continued to rise into the 1980's Only in the 1990's do
we see a clear and continuing reversal.
This certainly does not mean that the South is back where it started,
however. A Southern Black student is 32,700 times more likely to be
in a white majority school than a Black student in 1954 and fourteen
times more likely than his counterpart in 1964 when the Civil Rights
Act was passed.
The broad national trends parallel results for African Americans from
the South. More than 70% of the nation's Black students are now in predominantly
minority schools, up significantly from the low point in 1980. The gradual
rise that took place during the 1990s is continuing. In terms of intense
segregation, the busing orders of the 1970s clearly brought a rapid
and dramatic decline in the proportion of Blacks in 90-100% nonwhite
schools, dropping from 64% in 1968 to 32.5% in l986. The proportion
of Black students in such schools has been rising consistently but slowly
on a national level through the 1990's, but it is far below the pre-busing
level in the 1998-99 statistics.
The most segregated states for Black students include the leaders for
the last quarter century: Illinois, Michigan, New York, and New Jersey.
California, which has a small percentage of Black students, and Maryland
have moved rapidly up this list.
Outside the South we find the two states with the most dramatic declines
in Black student contact with white students since l980: Rhode Island
and Wisconsin.
LATINO SEGREGATION
The more dramatic and largely ignored trends are those affecting Latino
students. While intense segregation for Blacks is still 28 points below
its 1969 level, it has actually grown 13.5 points for Latinos. Little
more than a fifth of Latino students were in intensely segregated schools
in 1968, but now it is more than a third. There has been no significant
policy effort to blunt this trend in any period.
In 1968, more than half (54.8%) of Latinos were in predominantly nonwhite
schools, but almost half attended majority white schools. By 1998, more
than three-fourths (75.6%) of Latinos were in predominantly minority
schools, and less than a fourth in majority-white schools. By this measure
Latinos have been substantially more segregated than Black students
since 1980, although Black resegregation gradually narrowed the gap
in the 1990s.
A third basic measure of national desegregation trends is the exposure
index, which looks at desegregation from the standpoint of the average
student of a given racial group. It combines all the schools in the
U.S. and gives us the average racial composition of schools attended
by Blacks and Latinos. This measure shows that Blacks were in schools
with the highest average percentage of white students, 36.2%, in 1980
and that it has fallen to 31.7% in 1998, gradually declining throughout
the 1990s. Latinos were in much more integrated schools than Blacks
in 1970, schools that averaged 44% white, but have become steadily more
isolated throughout the 28 year period, with less contact with whites
than African Americans for the past 18 years.
Since l980 all states with significant Latino populations have seen
increased segregation.
WHITE SEGREGATION
The data show that white students are by far the most segregated in
schools dominated by their own group. Whites on average attend schools
where less than a fifth of the students are from all of the other groups
combined.
In spite of the rapid increase in minority enrollment, white students
in most states had relatively few minority classmates. Even in the District
of Columbia, where less than one student in twenty was white, the typical
white student was in a class with a slight majority of whites. Even
as the white proportion of students was dropping nationally, they managed
to remain segregated from growing minority populations.
This white segregation is a result of continuing residential segregation,
the Supreme Court's decision to exclude suburbs from a role in urban
desegregation remedies, and the historic fact that northern metropolitan
areas were typically organized into many more small districts than those
in the South. New suburbs continue to be marketed overwhelmingly to
whites, even in metropolitan communities with large middle class nonwhite
populations.
SUMMARY
The United States has the most diverse group of students in its history,
and all the basic trends indicate the diversity will become even greater.
Among our school-age population we have only a generation before the
entire country becomes majority nonwhite or non-European in origin.
Diversity is growing rapidly in the nation's suburban rings, which have
become the center of American life and politics.
Yet our schools remain largely segregated and are becoming more so.
Segregated schools are still highly unequal. Segregation by race relates
to segregation by poverty and to many forms of educational inequality
for African American and Latino students; few whites experience impoverished
schools. Efforts to overcome the effects of segregation through special
programs have had some success, but there is no evidence that they have
equalized systems of segregated schools.
Segregation has not been a successful educational or social policy.
Yet we are experiencing a continuing expansion of segregation for both
Blacks and Latinos and serious backward movement in the South.
Gary Orfield is Professor of Education and Social
Policy at Harvard University. He is also director of the Harvard Project
on School Desegregation. Orfield's most recent books are Religion, Race
and Justice in a Changing America (New York: The Century Foundation,
1999), with Holly Lebowitz; and Chilling Admissions: The Affirmative
Action Crisis and the Search for Alternatives (Cambridge: The Civil
Rights Project, 1998), edited with Edward Miller.
1DEFINITION OF REGIONS
SOUTH: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.
BORDER: Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Oklahoma, and
West Virginia.
NORTHEAST: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
MIDWEST: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota,
Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.
WEST: Arizona, California, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico,
Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
Note: Alaska and Hawaii are excluded from most
parts of this study because of their unique ethnic compositions and
isolation from the regions studied here.
Fall 2001
|
