This article presents and analyzes lawyers' and scientists' views of the advisability of using alternatives to the party witness format (e.g., scientific panels) in school desegregation cases. Scientists' and attorneys' desires to control the presentation of evidence and courtroom interaction is one factor explaining their preference for panels or party witness formats. In addition, control is seen as a means of influencing several other issues: selection of an appropriate form of dispute settlement in this litigation; management of potential bias in social science scholarship and testimony; and determination of the proper role of expert witnesses. These issues are investigated with a sample of lawyers and scholars who tried and testified in 17 school desegregation cases across the nation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BELL, D.
(1980) “Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-convergence dilemma.”Harvard Law Rev.93: 518.
2.
BELL, D.
(1976) “Serving two masters: integration ideals and client interests in school desegregation litigation.”Yale Law J.85: 470.
3.
BRODSKY, S.
and A. ROBEY (1973) “On becoming an expert witness: issues of orientation and effectiveness.”Professional Psychology3: 173-176.
4.
CAHN, E.
(1956) “Jurisprudence.”New York University Law Rev.31: 182.
5.
CAHN, E.
(1955) “A dangerous myth in the school desegregation cases.”New York University Law Rev.30: 150.
6.
CLARK, K.
(1959-1960) “The segregation cases: criticism of the social scientists' role.”Villanova Law Rev.5: 224.
7.
CLARK, K.
(1953) “The social scientist as an expert witness in civil rights litigation.”Social Problems3: 211-214.
8.
CROWFOOT, J.
and M. CHESLER (1981) “Implementing `attractive ideas': problems and prospects,” in W. Hawley (ed.) Effective School Desegregation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
9.
EDMONDS, R.
(1974) “Advocating inequality: a critique of the civil rights attorney in class action desegregation suits.”Black Law J.3: 176-183.
10.
GALANTER, M.
(1974) “Why the haves come out ahead: speculations on the limits of legal change.”Law and Society Rev.9: 95.
11.
GOULDNER, A.
(1964) “Engineering and clinical approaches to consulting,” in W. Benniset al. (eds.), Planning of Change. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
12.
JANOWITZ, M.
(1972) “Professionalization of sociologists.”Amer. J. of Sociology71: 105-135.
13.
KALMUSS, D.
(1981) “Scholars in the courtroom: two models of applied social science.”Amer. Sociologist16, 4: 212-223.
14.
KALMUSS, D.M. CHESLER
and J. SANDERS (1982) “Political conflicts in applied scholarship: expert witnesses in school desegregation litigation.”Social Problems30, 2: 168-178.
15.
KANTROWITZ, A.
(1977) “The science court experiment.”Trial13: 48-54.
16.
LADD, E.
and S. LIPSET (1975) The Divided Academy: Professions and Politics. New York: Norton.
17.
LOEWEN, J.
(1982) Social Science in the Courtroom. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
18.
LONGSHORE, D.“Social psychological research on school desegregation: toward a new agenda,” in D. Monti (ed.) Impact of Desegregation: New Directions in Testing and Measurement 14: 39-52.
19.
McCONAHAY, J.
(1978) “The effects of school desegregation upon students' racial attitudes and behavior: a critical review of the literature and a prolegomenon to future research.”Law and Contemporary Problems42, 3: 77-107.
20.
MILLER, N.
(1980) “Making school desegregation work,” in W. Stephan and J. Feagin (eds.) School Desegregation: Past, Present and Future. New York: Plenum.
21.
NAKAMURA, R.
and F. SMALLWOOD (1980) The Politics of Policy Implementation. New York: St. Martin's Press.
22.
NYHART, J.
(1981) Science, Technology and Judicial Decision-Making. Cambridge: Sloan School of Management, MIT.
23.
ORFIELD, G.
(1978) “Research, politics and the anti-busing debate.”Law and Contemporary Problems42, 4: 141-173.
24.
PETTIGREW, T.
(1979) “Tension between the law and social science: an expert witness' view,” p. 23 in Schools and the Courts, vol. 1. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Education Management.
25.
SANDERS, J.
, B. RANKIN-WIDGEON, D. KALMUSS, and M. CHESLER (1981-1982) “The relevance of irrelevant testimony: why lawyers use social science experts in school desegregation cases.”Law and Society Rev.16: 408-428.
26.
SPERLICH, P.
(1980) “Social science evidence and the courts: reaching beyond the adversary process.”Judicature63: 280-289.
27.
STREET, D.
and E. WEINSTEIN (1975) “Problems and prospects of applied sociology.”Amer. Sociologist10: 65-72.
28.
Van den HAAG, E.
(1960) “Social science testimony in the desegregation cases: a reply to Professor Kenneth Clark.”Villanova Law Rev.6: 69-79.
29.
Von EULER, M.
(1977) “Meeting the court's new research needs.”Education and Urban Society9, 3: 277-302.
30.
WEBER, M.
(1946) “Science as a vocation,” in H. H. Gerth and C. W. Mills (eds. and trans.) Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
31.
WEINBERG, P.
(1978) “Science court controversy: are our courts and agencies adequate to resolve new and complex scientific issues?”Record33: 8.
32.
WILLIAMS, P.
(1957) “The practitioner speaks: witness performance as viewed by the U.S. Attorney General.”J. of Social Issues13, 2: 24-26.
33.
WOLF, E.
(1977) “Courtrooms and classrooms,” in R. Rist and R. Anson (eds.) Education, Social Science and the Judicial Process. New York: Teachers College Press.
34.
WOLF, E.
(1976) “Social science and the courts: the Detroit schools case.”Public Interest43: 102-120.
35.
YUDOF, M.
(1981) “Implementing desegregation decrees,” in W. Hawley (ed.) Effective School Desegregation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
