The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Desegregation as a Cold War Imperative
Abstract
At the height of the McCarthy era, when Congressional committees were exposing communist infiltration in many areas of American life, the Supreme Court was upholding loyalty oath requirements, and the executive branch was ferreting out alleged communists in government, the U.S. Attorney General filed a pro-civil rights brief in what would become one of the most celebrated civil rights cases in American history: Brown v. Board of Education. Although seemingly at odds with the restrictive approach to individual rights in other contexts, the U.S. government's participation in the desegregation cases during the McCarthy era was no anomaly. Rather, by the early 1950s, American leaders had come to believe that civil rights reform was crucial to the more central U.S. mission of fighting communism. Based in part on diplomatic research in State Department archives, this article demonstrates that Cold War motives influenced the U.S. government's involvement in Brown and other cases. Originally published in 1988 in the Stanford Law Review, this article was the first publication to use State Department records to examine the relationship between Cold War foreign relations and civil rights in the United States. Diplomatic records illustrate the growing concern among American diplomats and political leaders after World War II about the impact of race discrimination on the U.S. image around the world, and the global critique that the United States could not be an effective leader of the free world as long as the nation blatantly denied rights to its own peoples. This research confirmed the suspicions of Derrick Bell and others who argued before these records were opened that foreign affairs affected U.S. government civil rights policies, and it helped illuminate the world-wide impact of the civil rights movement. This research was expanded upon in Mary L. Dudziak, Cold War Civil Rights: Race and the Image of American Democracy (Princeton University Press, 2000), and in books and articles by other scholars. The larger body of work on race and foreign relations is an important aspect of efforts by historians to internationalize the study of American history. Thanks to the Stanford Law Review, the article is now available on SSRN so that it will be easily accessible on-line.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Critical Race Theory, Racial Microaggressions, and Campus Racial Climate for Latina/o Undergraduates
Yosso, T., Smith, W., Ceja, M., & Solórzano, D. (2009) · Harvard Educational Review · doi:10.17763/haer.79.4.m6867014157m707l · Cited by 1,221
Esses, V. M., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (1998) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1998.tb01244.x · Cited by 833
The Routledge international handbook of the sociology of education
(2009) · doi:10.4324/9780203863701 · Cited by 600
McAdam, D., & Scott, W. R. (2005) · Social Movements and Organization Theory · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511791000.003 · Cited by 516
PERSISTENCE AND CHANGE AMONG NATIONALLY FEDERATED SOCIAL MOVEMENTS
McCarthy, J. D. (2005) · Social Movements and Organization Theory · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511791000.011 · Cited by 37
Metadata
- Authors
- Dudziak, M. L.
- Venue
- Stanford Law Review
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1988-11
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 61
- ISSN
- 0038-9765 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1499863055
- Cited by
- 289
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.