Spurlock v. Fox Day 3 Wrap-Up Part 1
Sorry this is a bit late, folks. It’s been a busy 24 hours for me.
Day 3 of the rezoning trial (hearing) featured four more Plaintiffs’ witnesses: Dr. Leslie Zorwick, Mr. Walter Searcy, Mr. Erick Huth, and Mr. Jerry Maynard.
Dr. Zorwick
Dr. Zorwick is an assistant professor of psychology at Hendrix College in Arkansas. She has a rather short CV and publishing history, but was confident on the stand. Dr. Zorwick’s testimony focused on three main topics: 1) Stereotyping, 2) Neighborhood schools, 3) Code words, and 4) Aversive racism.
Much of Dr. Zorwick’s academic focus has been on stereotyping and class-level grouping. Dr. Zorwick opined that singling out a single group for focus at a broad, general level (“at-risk” or “minority students” perhaps?) creates a “fertile ground for the use of stereotypes.”
Note: In what will be sure to be a major bone of contention, Dr. Zorwick was asked about the Task Force’s use of peer-reviewed materials like the studies done on the Nashville school district by Claire Smrekar and Ellen Goldring. As far as she could tell, she answered, the Task Force did not utilize such academic literature (which counseled strongly against neighborhood schools) in their decision.
On the subject of neighborhood schools, Dr. Zorwick said that the literature “overwhelmingly suggests that shifting towards neighborhood schools disproportionately hurts minority students” and that “more segregated schools tend to be associated with lower educational outcomes.” As well, she talked about the general literature covering the motivations behind the push towards neighborhood schools, saying
“[The] push for neighborhood schools if often driven by a belief that white flight will be reversed.”
However, she said,
“Empirically, it appears that white flight is not reversed” after neighborhood school plans are implemented.
Note: Clearly the Plaintiffs have a game plan with a few key themes they wish to bring out of all the witnesses. Among these themes would be “code words,” “not a choice,” and “white flight.” Dr. Zorwick did admirably in echoing these Plaintiff themes, commenting at one point about the school reassignment plan giving choices between two failing schools, that this “choice” was “not really a choice.”
One of the most crucial aspects of Dr. Zorwick’s testimony was on code words. It will be crucial for the Plaintiffs to establish that such terms as “at-risk,” free and reduced lunch,” and “neighborhood schools” are all really code to mask decisions made on the basis of race. Clearly, the Plaintiffs are going to have a hard, if not impossible, time finding direct admissions that the student assignment plan was based on race. Instead, they used Dr. Zorwick, a psychologist, to explain that certain terminology can be code for racially-motivated thoughts, intents, and desires.
Dr. Zorwick:
“Neighborhood schools as a code word for segregated schooling.”
“At-risk as a phrase that has a racial connotation.”
“Some of my best friends are black.” (which figures in the testimony regarding Mike Turner. This phrase, explained Dr. Zorwick, is often a “defensive response to questions that hte person might be doing something racist.”
Overall, she said,
“Using code words means there’s no paper trail for doing something that was based on race.”
Asked who were the “worst offenders” of those who use code words, she replied:
“Politicians.”
Finally, Dr. Zorwick educated the court about a concept called “aversive racism.” Essentially, she said, this is where it is
“[P]ossible to come up with race-neutral reasons to do something that’s based on race.”
This concept is often seen in people who might have subconscious beliefs or judgments about race, but who do not want to appear racist. The example she gave was where an employer had to choose between two job candidates, black and white, and chooses the white candidate based on some reason, legitimate or otherwise, simply so as to provide cover for not choosing the black candidate (which is what the person’s subconscious or conscious mind was urging).
On cross examination, the Defense hit many well-worn themes, among them the fact that Dr. Zorwick was not familiar with Nashville, its schools, school district, people, School Board, Task force, etc. and that her conclusions were of a general nature (i.e. based on academic literature) and not on some in-depth study of actual Nashville data and circumstances, which she conceded. On several points, the Defense was able to get Dr. Zorwick to concede some nuance to her opinions (e.g. “There are legitimate definitions of “at-risk” that do not include race.” “Correct.” and “For some students it may be advantageous for students to go to school closer to home.” “Yes, absolutely.”)
On redirect, Dr. Zorwick and Plaintiffs’ counsel went into some detail on the academic studies by Smrekar and Goldring, including quoting from the abstract of “Schooling Closer to Home.” This was one of the closing remarks between Attorney Woods and Dr. Zorwick:
“Minority students are not going to benefit from neighborhood schools.”
“Correct.”
Note: One of the defense attorneys got taken to school at this point. Though Dr. Zorwick had not studied Nashville school data in depth, she had read depositions and had looked at some demographics. The Defense strenuously objected against her testifying as to anything to do with Nashville schools, but Plaintiffs’ attorney woods was able to slip in some references about segregative impact regardless. It helped that Dr. Zorwick was eager to opine on the effects on Nashville, regardless of how much she had studied them.
It should be noted that Judge Nixon asked Dr. Zorwick directly two questions, which might be a window into what he was thinking. Early in her testimony he asked her what she knew about “paternalism,” and towards the end, he asked her about students in South Central L.A. and the necessity of “escaping” their neighborhoods in order to gain educational opportunity.
Trackbacks