The Double Double Standard: a Reply

Thomas Pettigrew and his associates have missed the essential point of my study. The essential requirement for sound reasoning on this matter is observance of the distinction among the findings of science, the results of policy, and the dictates of law or morality. I studied the results of existing policies of induced school integration (all of which used, out of necessity, varying amounts of busing). I was not studying the scientific issue of what might happen under various conditions (other than those in effect in the programs studied), nor the legal question of whether it should have happened according to various constitutional interpretations. My task was far simpler. I asked only the question: What has happened? My critics have confused the "has" with the "might" and the "should." This confusion is further compounded by their application of two double standards for the evaluation and use of the evidence on busing. I am accused of having too severe standards and unrealistic expectations about the benefits of induced school integration. But I did not formulate these standards and expectations. They come from the programs themselves, buttressed by several noteworthy studies. I would like to see more voluntary busing on a controlled, experimental basis accompanied by a careful research and evaluation effort. This is the only responsible way to resolve the busing controversy and to establish sound guidelines for policy makers. [For the article by Thomas Pettigrew, see UD 013 498.] (Author/JM) PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS COPY RIGHTED MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY National_Affaine.Laa,, New York, N. Y. TO ERIC AND QFP,ANIZAW,NS OPERATING UNDER AGREEMENTS WITH THE U S OFFICE OF EDUCATION FURTHER REPRODUCTION OUTSIDE THE ERIC SYSTEM REQUIRES PER MISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER The Double Double Standard: a Reply