In the wake of Brown v. Board of Education, racial equality in American public education appeared to have a bright future. But, for many, that brightness dimmed considerably following the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Milliken v. Bradley (1974). While the literature on Brown is voluminous, Joyce Baugh's measured and insightful study offers the only available book-length analysis of Milliken, the first major desegregation case to originate outside the South. As Baugh chronicles, when the city of Detroit sought to address school segregation by busing white students to black schools, a Michigan statute signed by Gov. William Milliken overruled the plan. In response, the NAACP sued the state on behalf of Ronald Bradley and other affected parents. The federal district court sided with the plaintiffs and ordered the city and state to devise a "metropolitan" plan that crossed city lines into the suburbs and encompassed a total of fifty-four school districts. The state, however, appealed that decision all the way to the Supreme Court. In its controversial 5-4 decision, the Court's new conservative majority ruled that, since there was no evidence that the suburban school districts had deliberately engaged in a policy of segregation, the lower court's remedy was "wholly impermissible" and not justified by Brown—which the Court said could only address de jure, not de facto segregation. While the Court's majority expressed concern that the district court's remedy threatened the sanctity of local control over schools, the minority contended that the decision would allow residential segregation to be used as a valid excuse for school segregation. To reconstruct the proceedings and give all claims a fair hearing, Baugh interviewed lawyers representing both sides in the case, as well as the federal district judge who eventually closed the litigation; plumbed the papers of Justices Blackmun, Brennan, Douglas, and Marshall; talked with the main reporter who covered the case; and researched the NAACP files on Milliken. What emerges is a detailed account of how and why Milliken came about, as well as its impact on the Court's school-desegregation jurisprudence and on public education in American cities.

Reading the philosophy of Immanuel Levinas against postcolonial theories of difference, particularly those of Gayatri Spivak, Homi Bhabha, Édouard Glissant, and Subcommandante Marcos, John E. Drabinski reconceives notions of difference, language, subjectivity, ethics, and politics and provides new perspectives on these important postcolonial theorists. He also underscores Levinas's relevance to related disciplines concerned with postcolonialism and ethics.

A compelling insider's account of the fight for educational desegregation, from one of its most dedicated and outspoken heroes. A new afterword explains the author's controversial belief that the moment for litigating educational equality has passed, clear-sightedly critiquing his own courtroom strategies and the courts' responses, before closing with an assessment of the economic and social changes that he feels have already moved us "beyond busing." "An extraordinarily informative and thoughtful book describing the process of bringing Brown [v. Board of Education] North and the impact this process had upon national attitudes toward desegregation." --Drew S. Days III, Yale Law Journal "An original analysis of a tough subject. A must-read for all who care about opportunity for all our children." --Donna E. Shalala, President, University of Miami "Paul Dimond remains a passionate and caring voice for inner-city students, whether in his advocacy of school desegregation, school choice plans, or school finance reform. He illuminates these issues as one who participated in the major education cases and as a perceptive scholar." --Mark Yudof, Chancellor, The University of Texas System "A must-read for anyone who wants to understand America's continued failure to give inner-city children a quality education or to do something about it!" --Sheryll Cashin, Author of The Failures of Integration: How Race and Class Are Undermining the American Dream "Dimond is particularly good at relating his slice of legal history to the broader developments of the 1970s, and his occasional remarks about trial tactics are amusing and instructive. Dimond's honesty about both his successes and failures makes his book required reading for civil rights lawyers." --Lawrence T. Gresser, Michigan Law Review "A fascinating first-hand account of 1970s northern school desegregation decisions." --Neal E. Devins, American Bar Foundation Research Journal "Dimond reminds the liberal reader of the promise that lies in the empowerment of ordinary families to choose their own schools." --John E. Coons, Professor of Law, Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley Paul R. Dimond is counsel to Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, Michigan's largest law firm; chairman of McKinley, a national commercial real estate investment and management firm; and chairman or member of the board of trustees of numerous education, community, and civic organizations. He spent four years as President Clinton's Special Assistant for Economic Policy.

Many urban centres are shaken to their core with mistrust between communities and law enforcement. Erosion was exacerbated in the Obama-era, intensified during the 2016 campaign, and is violently manifested in Trump’s presidency. The promise of uniting communities articulated by leaders lays broken. The text suggests that promise of prosperous and engaged urban citizenry will remain broken until we can honestly address the following unanswered questions: What factors contribute to the creation of divided communities? What happened to erode trust between community and law enforcement? What concerns and challenges do law enforcement officials have relating to policing within urban centres? What are the experiences of residents and police? And, finally, whose lives really matter, and how do we move forward? Contributors are: Lawrence Baines, Amber C. Bryant, Erica L. Bumpers, Issac Carter, Justin A. Cole, Erin Dreeszen, Jaquial Durham, Antonio Ellis, Idara Essien, Jeffrey M. Frank, Beatriz Gonzalez, Aaron J. Griffen, Jennie L. Hanna, Diane M. Harnek Hall, Cleveland Hayes, Deanna Hayes-Wilson, Stacey Hill, Jim L. Hollar, Taharee A. Jackson, Melinda Jackson-Jefferson, Sharon D. Jones-Eversley, Stephen M. Lentz, Patricia Maloney, Isiah Marshall, Jr., Derrick McKisick, Rebecca Neal, Ariel Quinio, Jacqueline M. Rhoden-Trader, Derrick Robinson, Ebony B. Rose, Randa Suleiman, Clarice Thomas, Kerri J. Tobin, Eddie Vanderhorst, Rolanda L. Ward, Deondra Warner, John Williams, Deleon M. Wilson, Geoffrey L. Wood, Jemimah L. Young, and Jie Yu.

In 1987 Judge Russell Clark mandated tax increases to help pay for improvements to the Kansas City, Missouri, School District in an effort to lure white students and quality teachers back to the inner-city district. Yet even after increasing employee salaries and constructing elaborate facilities at a cost of more than $2 billion, the district remained overwhelmingly segregated and student achievement remained far below national averages. Just eight years later the U.S. Supreme Court began reversing these initiatives, signifying a major retreat from Brown v. Board of Education. In Kansas City, African American families opposed to the district court's efforts organized a takeover of the school board and requested that the court case be closed. Joshua Dunn argues that Judge Clark's ruling was not the result of tyrannical "judicial activism" but was rather the logical outcome of previous contradictory Supreme Court doctrines. High Court decisions, Dunn explains, necessarily limit the policy choices available to lower court judges, introducing complications the Supreme Court would not anticipate. He demonstrates that the Kansas City case is a model lesson for the types of problems that develop for lower courts in any area in which the Supreme Court attempts to create significant change. Dunn's exploration of this landmark case deepens our understanding of when courts can and cannot successfully create and manage public policy.