moynihan and coleman

INTRODUCTION
The 1960s were years of turmoil and transition. The struggle for civil rights at
home and a war in Asia dominated events during this decade. Associated events like the
debates over proper women’s roles in American society and the need for sexual liberation
also vied for attention. In the midst of these pivotal changes the social sciences
contributed to our understanding of our society and ourselves. Two social science reports
stand out; they had a profound effect on the national debate and subsequent public
policies. Much of our understanding of public education today, especially the education
of African-American students, must include knowledge of these two reports and how
they were interpreted and implemented in the past four decades.
These two reports are “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action”
(hereafter called the Moynihan Report) and the “Equality of Educational Opportunity”
(hereafter called the Coleman Report). The shorthand titles are in reference to the primary
authors of these reports- Daniel Patrick Moynihan and James S. Coleman, respectively.
Both men were fairly unknown scholars until the publications of the reports bearing their
names. Both are remembered today, albeit in different ways.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, although born in Tulsa, Oklahoma, was raised in the
Hell’s Kitchen section of New York City by his mother in a single-parent household. A
graduate of Harvard, he was an assistant secretary of labor under President Lyndon
Johnson when the report was issued in 1965. Later Moynihan was a highly vocal U.S.
ambassador to the United Nations and U.S. Senator from New York where he focused on
social security and related issues.
1

Originally trained as a chemical engineer at Purdue and once an employee of
Eastman Kodak, James Coleman became a sociologist and was teaching at Johns
Hopkins University when the report was published in 1966. He was among the first
academics to examine education within its social context. In a later study Coleman
concluded that private and Catholic schools do better in educating students than do public
schools.
The purpose of this paper is to revisit these reports in their historic perspectives
and demonstrate how they were related in the implementation of educational policy. They
will also be examined in light of current public policy. I chose to highlight African-
American students because I agree with Taylor Branch (1988, p. xi) who wrote, “Almost
as color defines vision itself, race shapes the cultural eye- what we do and do not notice,
the reach of empathy and the alignment of response.” I empathize with the struggle of
African-Americans for full equality of opportunity in our nation and work daily that
public education at least in my classroom is aligned to enable them to have maximum
opportunity to succeed.
There is also a very personal side in my writing this paper. I have struggled with
many of the family issues raised by the two reports. While my brother and I were both
preschool children, our parents divorced. For the next 15 or so years we lived in many
places in various family arrangements. Our mother was an alcoholic who married eight
times before she finally died from lung cancer due to her addiction to cigarettes. Our
father, who is hearing impaired, is now married for the fourth time. I was fortunate. I
married my college girlfriend and we have been together for 31 years. We have reared
two now-adult children who are effectively functioning. I owe my good fortune to our
2

paternal grandparents and to some caring teachers who intervened at the right times. My
brother, however, still suffers from our childhood trauma. Life at its best is a struggle to
adapt and overcome from situations beyond our control.
3

MOYNIHAN: CHECKING THE FACTS
Once upon a time President Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty in the
United States. Realizing there was more to poverty than just lack of money, Moynihan
began checking government statistics- particularly census data- to study how culture and
poverty relate. He had some background in doing this sort of analysis. Earlier, a cabinet-
level President’s Task Force on Manpower Conservation, which included Moynihan,
conducted a study of the health and mental aptitude of Selective Service inductees. In the
report released on January 1, 1964, the task force maintained that one third of American
men turning 18 would be found unqualified if they were to be examined for induction in
the armed forces. A major proportion of these men were products of poverty- an inherited
situation from their parents and unless the cycle of poverty was broken they would pass
the situation on to their own children. (Moynihan, 1986, p. 18-19)
What he discovered was that when unemployment went up, more people went on
welfare; the reverse also occurs. But beginning in 1963 the statistics told a different story.
The unemployment rate was dropping, but in contrast to earlier years, the welfare rate for
blacks was increasing. After examining the data and reaching conclusions, Moynihan
wrote his report. (Wattenberg, 2001)
According to Moynihan, the heart of this unemployment/welfare paradox was that
dysfunction of the Negro family was deteriorating the social fabric of Negro society.
While many Negro Americans were middle class and independent, the slums were filling
up with the unemployed, the ill educated, and the ill housed. In addition, two-thirds of
Negro children lived in single-parent families- mostly headed by mothers. The absence of
fathers hinders the healthy development of families. (Wattenberg, 2001)
4

Regarding the large percentage of families being headed by females, Moynihan
discovered that in urban areas, nearly a quarter of African-American women who ever
married were either divorced, separated, or living apart from their husbands. The end
results of this family breakdown were a great increase in welfare dependency and the
creation of a distinct female-dominated subculture within American society that rewards
male leadership.
Characteristics of matriarchy in Negro families include the reversed roles of
husband and wife in nearly half the families, women with higher levels of education, and
relatively more women in white collar and professional employment. Effects of these
characteristics include:
• Male bitterness, aggression, self-hatred, delinquency, and crime.
• Increases in the illegitimacy rate.
• Lack of fathers to guide their children as role models.
• Consistently poor performance on mental tests by the children.
Moynihan explains that Negro families have been historically denied strong father
figures because of slavery and Jim Crow segregation. Exaggerated boastfulness particular
to males was denied to black men; to do so was to risk a white lynching. Tied in to this is
the contemporary situation in which Negro women having more children than white
women and at a younger age.
Moynihan reports that this phenomenon is little understood by white Americans
because the perceived problems are discrimination and poverty. Yet unless the Negro
family fulfills its role in shaping the character of children and socializing them into
5

functional adults, the political and economic gains by blacks will not amount to much.
The weakness of the Negro family structure is described by Moynihan as pathology.
President Johnson used Moynihan’s findings as a foundation for proposing Great
Society programs to eliminate poverty by creating economic and educational
opportunities. In a major commencement address at Howard University on June 4, 1965
Johnson announced that freedom was not enough if persons are trapped in poverty and
racism. The president promised the full resources of the federal government to secure the
rights of all citizens in education, health care, housing, and employment. (Goodwin, 345-
347) In retirement Johnson reflected that this was the greatest civil rights speech he had
ever given. (Moynihan, 1986, p. 30)
But the Moynihan Report also provoked strong negative reactions. He was
accused then of blaming the victims, not the perpetrators, for their problems and even
today of offering only husbands, not jobs, for black women. (Weston, 2001) An example
of the contempt many held was the response of James Farmer, head of the Congress of
Racial Equality, a leading civil rights organization. Farmer claimed the report fueled a
new racism (Issues and Views, 2001) and called the report a “massive academic cop out
for the white conscience.” (Patterson, 1996, p. 586)
The backlash stunned Moynihan. After all, W.E.B. DuBois had addressed the
same problems in 1908 with the publication of The Negro American Family. In 1939 E.
Franklin Frazier of Howard University used many of DuBois’s themes in his The Negro
Family in the United States. In 1950, Frazier wrote, “As a result of family disorganization
a large proportion of Negro children and youth have not undergone the socialization
which only the family can provide.” (Moynihan, 1986, p. 25) Dark Ghetto by Kenneth
6

Clark, published just prior to Moynihan’s study, spoke of the institutionalized, chronic,
and self-perpetuating pathology of social disorganization in the ghetto. (Moynihan, 1986,
p. 23-24) What Moynihan had merely done was to provide statistical evidence for the
arguments.
The resulting political controversy over the Moynihan Report divided black
activists and white liberals. African-Americans demanded the right to be the sole
interpreters of black behavior. (Issues and Views, 2001) Despite the Howard University
speech, the Johnson Administration lost a golden opportunity to act constructively to
reduce significant levels of poverty for blacks. The issues raised by Moynihan continued
fundamentally unaddressed. Lemann (1999, p. 238) writes of the situation of two
African-American sisters in Pasadena, California in the 1980s:
Being Black meant that there was no plausible link between your
world and any social destination you’d enthusiastically want to
reach. It meant that in your social milieu, the basic male-female
bond for some reason wasn’t working. Most fathers were gone;
most mothers were depressed, struggling, preoccupied, and
emotionally unavailable…most boys seemed to be setting off
down a road that would end with their being disappeared fathers
one day, too, and most girls were having babies in high school.
They wanted to! The appeal of it was the possibility of getting
the kind of unconditional love you desperately wanted but didn’t
have in your own life- a love that was under your control rather
than always tormenting you by moving out of reach.
As Moynihan declared in a later book, “In the war on poverty, poverty won.” (Moynihan,
1986, p. 61)
COLEMAN: MANDATED BY CONGRESS
The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 contained Section 402 of Title IV. This
section instructed the United States Commissioner of Education “to conduct a survey and
make a report to the President and Congress, within two years of the enactment of this
7

title, concerning the lack of availability of equal educational opportunities for individuals
by the reason of race, color, religion, or national origin in public educational institutions
at all levels in the United States…” (Bidwell, 2001) Thus the mandate for the first, and
perhaps most famous, large scale study of school effectiveness. (Shouse, 2001)
The Educational Testing Service was chosen as the creator and distributor of the
survey that was given to 569,000 students at 4,000 schools nationwide. Although
Coleman was designated the principal researcher and ultimately the primary author of the
report, he was actually on sabbatical in Germany during the actual survey. When he
returned to the United States, he began his work shifting through the data with his
associates.
What they expected to find was that differences in school quality explained racial
inequalities. However, according to Shouse (2001), they reached four conclusions at odds
with their original premise:
1. Factors related to student home environment were stronger predictors of achievement
across all racial groups.
2. Student composition variables at school were the next strongest predictors of
achievement among minority students.
3. Teacher characteristics had some impact on achievement, but only among southern
black children.
4. After accounting for the above effects, variables related to school resources appeared
to have little or no effect on student achievement.
8

Shouse (2001) reports that Coleman some years later remarked, “…the small society of
school owes much of its power to shape young people to forces beyond its immediate
control.”
The implication of the Coleman Report was not that spending levels for schools
are irrelevant, but that money can only go so far in being effective for student
achievement. Beyond a certain point there is no strong correlation between per pupil
spending and student achievement. In addition, the report implied that school
desegregation might help with student achievement. (Patterson, 1996, p. 572)
The response to the Coleman Report was more complex than the response to the
Moynihan Report. Since Coleman circumvented conventional wisdom and his own
presupposition that money would help African-American students in dire situations,
white liberals either adopted a fatalistic attitude toward the problem or looked for another
solution. No one cared to get into another quarrel with black activists over family values.
Ironically, that other solution came out of seminars on the policy implications of
the Coleman Report led by none other than Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then a Harvard
professor. Moynihan’s seminars focused on the fact that black students scored better
when they attended integrated, rather than segregated, schools. So instead of putting
money into failing ghetto schools, the emphasis became the integration of large school
systems. Thus the “other solution” became not a desire to strengthen African-American
families, as both the Moynihan and Coleman Reports would seem to be obviously
indicating, but busing. Busing was the chief, but unintended, effect of the Coleman
Report. (Lemann, 1999, p. 155-161)
9

DAN QUAYLE WAS RIGHT
However, the debate over family resurfaced. On May 19, 1992, shortly after the
Rodney King-related riots in Los Angeles, Vice President Dan Quayle spoke to the
Commonwealth Club of California. (Quayle, 1994) He told his audience marriage and
family are vital to the general welfare of African-Americans. In his speech he cited the
following statistics:
• In 1967, married couples headed 68 percent of black families. In 1991, 48 percent.
• In 1965, the illegitimacy rate among black families was 28 percent. In 1989, 65
percent.
• In 1951, 9.2 percent of black youth between 16-19 years of age were unemployed. In
1965, 23 percent. In 1980, 35 percent. In 1989, 32 percent.
• The leading cause of death among young black males is homicide (in 1992).
To neutralize these negative trends Quayle stressed the importance of both
mothers and fathers as stabilizing influences for African-American children. He
emphasized his point by referring to the television character Murphy Brown who chose to
have a baby without marrying the father. The subsequent public furor over the Murphy
Brown comment unfortunately overshadowed Quayle’s main point that among families in
1992 headed by married couples the poverty rate is 5.7 percent and families headed by a
single mother have a poverty rate of 33.4 percent. Quayle stressed that financial poverty
is usually preceded by a poverty of family values.
Political ideologues were quick to either praise or condemn Quayle’s speech in
knee-jerk reactions. But pragmatists looked beyond the spin and found a link to the
10

messages of both the Moynihan and Coleman Reports- that families matter. Most
supportive of Quayle’s thesis was the research of Barbara Dafoe Whitehead.
A self-professed Democrat who had never voted Republican, Whitehead startled
the public with her article “Dan Quayle Was Right” in April 1993. Perhaps even more
startling was that her article was published in the mainstream establishment’s The
Atlantic Monthly. Whitehead’s point was clear. Citing statistical evidence, she declared
that while divorce may benefit the adults involved, the process is harmful to children.
Furthermore, increased numbers of single-parent and blended families weaken and
undermine American society. Among the evidence Whitehead cites are:
• Children in single-parent families are six times as likely to be poor.
• Twenty-two percent of children in one-parent families will experience poverty in
childhood for seven years or more as compared with two percent of children in two-
parent families.
• Children in single-parent families are two to three times as likely to have emotional
and behavioral problems; more likely to drop out of high school, to get pregnant as
teenagers, to abuse drugs, and to be trouble with the law; and are at a higher risk for
physical or sexual abuse.
• Many children from disrupted families have more difficulty in achieving intimacy in
a relationship, forming a stable marriage, and holding a steady job.
Reflecting upon Alexis de Tocqueville’s observations of American life,
Whitehead concludes:
The family is responsible for teaching lessons of independence, self-
restraint, responsibility, and right conduct, which are essential to a
free, democratic society. If the family fails in these tasks, then the
entire experiment in democratic self-rule is jeopardized.
11

Whitehead acknowledges in her article she may be provoking angry protest for
her position. In a later interview (Nally, 1997) she said the national controversy over
family structure dates back to the Moynihan Report so she expected protest. But she did
not expect the charges that she shared Quayle’s political views. Interestingly, Whitehead
was vindicated not only by her research but also by the comments of the politically
liberal columnist William Raspberry, an African-American. Raspberry, speaking on
NBC’s “Meet the Press,” reflected that we Americans have experimented with the notion
that we can rear healthy children without two parents and we have failed. Whitehead and
Raspberry thus correctly place family structure within the proper context of debating the
evidence on its merits and not on partisan political spin.
Family issues continue to have widespread influences. For example, in athletics,
Duke University basketball star Jason Williams examined a number of college basketball
players as part of his research for a sociology class called the Changing American
Family. As a result of his study, he concluded that college basketball players from single-
parent families are more likely to leave college early to play professionally than those
from families with both parents present. Williams personally to had to make a decision in
this regard. Because of the influences of his mother and father, Williams has decided to
leave Duke early but only after he earns a degree in three years. (Wolff, 2001)
FAMILY, CULTURE, AND SCHOOLS:
EDUCATING AFRICAN-AMERICAN STUDENTS
The issues over family organization and values raised by Moynihan, Coleman,
Quayle, Whitehead, and Raspberry are questions inherently involved with culture. Does
culture matter? Yes, says Patterson (2000, p. 202-218). Culture has casual relationship
with how persons within that culture behave. But it is not a simplistic relationship.
12

Because of this, cultural interpretations of human behavior have been resisted for various
reasons. Overall, a rigid orthodoxy prevails in the humanities and liberal circles in which
culture is understood as a symbolic system without explaining the people who produced
that particular culture. Particular for African-Americans include:
• Cultural interpretations up through the 1960s often used crude deterministic means to
explain African-American problems.
• Cultural explanations are often used in reactionary ways by others to deny
responsibility to assist African-Americans.
• Many claim cultural interpretations amount to blaming the victim.
• Black pride and nationalism deny historic social problems interpreted through cultural
analysis.
• A feeling by many that nothing can be done about culture.
Certainly culture can be used to stereotype an entire people and not understand
them as individuals. Yet cultural interpretations can give insights into broad behavior
patterns. Consider one specific example- out-of-wedlock births among African-
Americans. In 1960, 22 percent of black births were to unwed mothers, in 1970 35
percent, and in 1991 68 percent. (Samuelson, 1997, p. 59) Several theories have been
advanced to explain this phenomenon; almost all of them are cultural interpretations in
one way or another.
Consider also the problems among African-Americans raised by McWhorter
(2000). He maintains that blacks are “losing the race” (in more ways than one) because of
three fundamental problems he calls “cults”- the cult of victimization, the cult of
separation, and the cult of anti-intellectualism. These manifestations of black problems,
13

according to McWhorter, are self-sabotage preventing the full integration of African-
Americans into the broader American society. These problems are cultural in nature.
If the problems are cultural, then the solutions are to be cultural. More
specifically, as both the Moynihan and Coleman Reports testify, the primary problem
among blacks is family. Therefore, the primary solutions must focus on the African-
American family structure and values. That is why policies sprouting from both reports
failed. They did not address the root issue, especially in the case of the Coleman Report
with the prescription of busing to solve the problem. What began as a well-intended
policy was a social engineering disaster eventually despised by both blacks and whites. It
failed to address the importance of family (and neighborhood) in shaping the values of
black students. (Even today the government is failing to address the fundamental issue of
family; the state and national governments are pushing standardized tests as the way to
effectively measure student achievement and holding teachers and schools, not parents
and students, accountable for the results.) Samuelson (1997, p. 60) is on target with what
is needed: “The only solution is reconstruct, somehow, families that provide the love,
sense of self-worth, and discipline that children require to develop into responsible, self-
sufficient adults.” But Samuelson also adds that no one knows how to do this.
Certainly I possess no more wisdom than Samuelson or the legion of others who
have attempted to wrestle with this issue. But I do have the experience of teaching in
schools with student bodies composed primarily of African-Americans and have seen
first-hand the difficult situations many of their families are in. Recently I was surprised
and saddened by a former student in our school who was captain of the girls soccer team
I coached. She enrolled at the University of Missouri to major in fashion design. She
14

returned to visit several weeks ago showing off her infant baby. No marriage. No more
attending MU. She is now, so she says, enrolled in a local community college. I wonder
what will be her future and her baby’s future.
With that in mind, I am offering some recommendations for educating African-
Americans in the midst of this enduring family pathology. First, we must come to a
deeper understanding and appreciation of multiculturalism. For many years most
Americans understood multiculturalism as the “melting pot.” Everyone was expected to
essentially speak the same, dress the same, and act the same in order to be seen as “real”
Americans. Some deviation from the cultural norms was allowed but one was urged not
to the cross the line to be too different from others. At least that is the way the melting
pot was supposed to work. Moynihan himself co-authored a book (Glazer and Moynihan,
1963) that exposed the melting pot ideal as not fitting the reality of many ethnic groups in
the United States. Yet many Americans held up the melting pot as the ultimate objective
of what being an American should be.
Ironically, Lyndon Johnson was one such American. Few realize that Johnson’s
first career was that of schoolteacher. While a student at what is now Southwest Texas
State University in San Marcos, he took a year’s leave of absence to teach elementary
students in Cotulla, sixty miles north of the border with Mexico. The superintendent was
so delighted with Johnson’s arrival that he immediately named Johnson the school
principal.
At Cotulla, Johnson was no multiculturalist. Students speaking Spanish were
spanked or scolded. Johnson did not bother to learn Spanish himself. Teaching Texas
history, he focused entirely on the standard American view of the Alamo and other
15

incidents with Mexico. But he also emphasized the seriousness of learning for the
students and insisted that his teachers (all Anglos) actually fulfill their teaching
responsibilities. Johnson secured playground equipment and organized athletic events for
the students. He insisted on regular attendance in school. (Caro, 1982, p. 166-169)
Thus, the political mastermind of the civil rights legislation and who had used
both the Moynihan and Coleman Reports for shaping public policy during his
administration had a mixed background in promoting equal opportunities with minority
students. But Johnson was no different from the vast majority of white Americans who
expected “other” Americans to learn their cultural norms in order to be truly accepted.
Later, Americans began to experiment with the concepts of “stew pot” and “salad
bowl” to help explain our multicultural situation. However, both stew with meat and
salad with lettuce presupposes an essential ingredient that dominates the other ingredients
that are in fact optional. Those concepts explaining American multiculturalism give the
obvious impression that mainstream white culture predominates. Demographic trends
show otherwise. By the year 2050 Anglo whites in this country who are currently three-
fourths of Americans will drop to one half of the population with rapidly growing
Hispanic-American and Asian-American populations and a steady percentage of African-
Americans.
The multicultural concept I propose is that of “mosaic.” By its very nature a
mosaic is an art form composed of small-individualized pieces fitting together to form a
larger piece of work. The small pieces maintain their unique characteristics while at the
same time contribute to a larger purpose. There is a balance of chaos and order. These
characteristics can be applied to a multicultural society. In the musical “South Pacific,”
16

two of the actors sing of racial prejudice that sadly must be “carefully taught.” In the
same way a mosaic must be painstakingly fitted together in order to be attractive.
(Gentili, 1957) A harmonious and functioning multicultural society is indeed attractive.
In addition, not only can mosaics can be composed of regularly shaped pieces
with predictable colors as used by the Romans, irregular surfaces with brilliant hues of
color used by Christians within Roman society can also be used for an entirely different,
glittering effect. (Janson , 1991, p. 832) The latter mosaic design is congruent to my
vision for a multicultural society in the United States.
Therefore it must not be our objective in educating African-American students to
be assimilated into the mainstream white culture. In contrast, our objective should be
educating them to be literate in three cultures: their own parochial culture, our traditional
Western culture, and the increasingly important global culture. By being literate I mean
that students must be able not only to read and write, but also to critically engage the
culture in which they function. In fact, students of all races must be able to function in all
three cultures and if necessary, act as change agents in those cultures.
Patterson (2000 p. 218) reminds us that cultures can and do change. African-
Americans should take pride in their positive contributions to American society. But they
should also be equipped through education with critical insights to change the pathology
of widespread dysfunctional families.
Second, I propose that the national, state, and local governments must deal with
families. Public policy is whatever government decides to do. Healthy families must be a
priority public policy in the United States.
17

My home state of Oklahoma, for example, has taken positive action in this regard.
Governor Frank Keating and his staff discovered in 1998 that Oklahoma ranked second
among the states (by state of residence) for the highest divorce rate in the nation; 34 of
the 77 counties in Oklahoma reported that divorce petitions exceeded the number of
marriage licenses. In response, the governor set a goal of reducing the state’s divorce rate
by one third by the year 2010. A summit conference of state leaders was held in 1999 to
examine the problem and address the causes of divorce; this was the first conference of
its kind in the nation. Issues addressed during the conference included:
• Heard current research and data on the societal importance of marriage
• Learned how societal problems become more prevalent when marriages are broken
• Were challenged to consider policy ideas and strategies
• Discussed and brainstormed strategic plans
The resulting Oklahoma Marriage Initiative seeks assistance through seven major
sectors of state life- business, religion, government, education, legal, media, and service
providers. Because strong marriages provide the best chance for children to strive and
succeed, among other benefits, care is taken that the initiative does not become a partisan
issue. (Regier, 2001)
Third, we must view schools, particularly urban schools with high minority
student bodies, as “full-service” schools. By full-service I mean that schools must not
only be academic, but also attempt to meet the broad needs of students and their families.
In effect, they become community centers to serve the populations in their attendance
areas. Many schools have begun this orientation but efforts are often fragmentary and
uncoordinated. Therefore I recommend the following actions:
18

• Maintain high academic standards. No more social promotions. No more parental
sign-offs for failing students to go to the next grade. No diplomas, just certificates of
attendance, for students failing to master state-mandated standardized tests. If
students cannot read and write at grade level, they cannot promote.
• Release counselors to actually counsel. Let secretaries do coordination of schedules.
Put enough counselors in elementary schools to actually make a positive difference.
• Place social workers in every school with their caseloads being only the designated
students in that school.
• Place deputy juvenile officers in every school with their caseloads being only
designated students in that school.
• Place nurses in every school.
• Release teachers to actually teach. Too much is demanded of their time and classroom
academics suffer.
• Eliminate zero tolerance policies except in cases with potential deadly violence or
with drugs. Permit administrators to use their discretionary judgment in other cases.
• Establish strong parent/school partnerships as a high priority for every school.
• Require parental participation in planned parent/teacher conferences. Schedule such
conferences each semester so parents can attend.
• Establish effective business partnerships in the community.
• Offer infant day care on site for unwed mothers with mandatory counseling.
• Establish mandatory tutoring and counseling for students not achieving at grade level.
19

The bottom line to these recommendations is money. Governments and citizens
must be willing to pay for necessary services in a full-service school. Some critics will
protest that money does not solve problems. I agree to a point. But without adequate
finances there are no adequate resources with deal with the family pathology. If money
does not indeed make a difference tell that to parents in highly affluent suburban districts!
(See Kozol, 1991 for one perspective on school financing.)
Public officials and educational leaders must be courageous in putting their
professional careers on the line in order to help break the cycle inflicting African-
American students and their families. We know the problem; the Moynihan and Coleman
Reports, as well as others, has shown us. Now we need solutions other than busing and
testing. We have the resources. Do we have the will?
20

REFERENCES CITED
Bidwell, L. “Do Race and SES Matter in Student Achievement.” 14 November 2001
<http://www.lwc.edu/staff/L.Bidwell>.
Branch, Taylor. (1988). Parting the Waters: America in the King Years 1954-63. New
York: Simon and Schuster.
Caplow, Theodore, Louis Hicks, and Ben J. Wattenberg. (2001). The First Measured
Century. Washington, DC: The AEI Press.
Caro, Robert A. (1982). The Years of Lyndon Johnson: The Path to Power. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf.
Coleman, James S., et al. (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, DC:
US Government Printing Office.
Gentili, Gino Vinicio. “Roman Life in 1,600-Year-Old Color Pictures.” National
Geographic. February 1957
Glazer, Nathan and Daniel P. Moynihan. (1972). Beyond the Melting Pot, second edition.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Originally published in 1963.)
Goodwin, Richard N. (1988). Remembering America: A Voice from the Sixties. New
York: Harper & Row.
Janson, H.W. (1991). The History of Art. New York: Harry N. Abrams.
Kozol, Jonathan. (1991). Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools. New
York: Harper Collins.
Lemann, Nicholas. (1999). The Big Test. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
McWhorter, John H. (2000). Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America. New
York: The Free Press.
21

Moynihan, Daniel P. (1986). Family and Nation. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
---. (1965) The Negro Family: The Case for National Action. Washington, DC: US
Government Printing Office.
Nally, Ryan. “What We Owe.” The Atlantic Monthly February 1997.
News and Views. “The Moynihan Report: 30 Years Later and Counting.” 14 November
2001 <http://www.issues-views.com>.
Patterson, James T. (1996). Grand Expectations: The United States, 1945-1974. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Patterson, Orlando. “Taking Culture Seriously: A Framework and an Afro-American
Illustration” in Lawrence E. Harrison and Samuel P. Huntington, ed. (2000)
Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress. New York: Basic Books.
Quayle, Dan. (1994). Standing Firm. New York: Harper Collins.
Regier, Jerry. “Oklahoma Marriage Initiative: A Strategic Plan to Honor Marriage and
Reduce Divorce.” 26 November 2001 <http://www.governor.state.ok.us/
Marriageconf.htm>.
Samuelson, Robert J. (1997) The Good Life and Its Discontents. New York: Random
House.
Shouse, Roger C. “School Effects.” 14 November 2001 <http://www.ed.psu/edadm/
shouse>.
Wattenberg, Ben. “The First Measured Century: The Moynihan Report, When Politics
And Sociology Collide.” 14 November 2001 <http://www.pbs.org>.
Weston, Tom. “Culture of Poverty and Related Racist Ideology.” 14 November 2001
<http://tomweston.net>.
22

Whitehead, Barbara Dafoe. “Dan Quayle Was Right.” The Atlantic Monthly. April 1993.
Wolff, Alexander. “The Road Not Taken.” Sports Illustrated. November 19, 2001.
23

ADDENDUM
Following is a series of graphs and charts illustrating some of the statistics
reported in this paper. They are not intended to be definitive of the family issues raised.
Rather, they are descriptive of the problems. The graphs and charts are as follows:
• Incidence of Poverty is taken from Caplow, Hicks, and Wattenberg (2001) and is not
previously cited. This chart provides some interesting information. Although poverty
among blacks is higher than whites or the total population, the rate of poverty has
been declining since 1959. This trend correlates with McWhorter (2000) who
maintains that most African-Americans are socio-economically middle class. Despite
this positive condition, many black students still exhibited the cults of victimization,
separatism, and anti-intellectualism detailed by McWhorter.
• Poverty Rate of Families Headed by Married Couples- 1992 is from page 10 and was
cited by Vice President Quayle in his Commonwealth Club speech. Inclusive of all
families, not just black.
• Poverty Rate of Families Headed by Single Mothers- 1992 also is from page 10 and
was also cited by Quayle in his address. Inclusive of all families, not just black.
• Married Couples Heading African-American Families also is from Quayle’s speech.
See page 10.
• Unemployment Rates among African-Americans 16-19 Years of Age is also from
Quayle’s speech. See page 10.
• Out-of-Wedlock Births among African-Americans is from page 13 and was cited by
Samuelson (1997).
24

moynihan and coleman

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to moynihan and coleman

More from Joe Marlow

moynihan and coleman