Abstract
It has been over 60 years since the Supreme Court ruled on Brown vs. Board of Education. In this landmark Supreme Court case, the court held that the separate but equal provision permitted by the Court’s previous decision in Plessy vs. Ferguson was inherently discriminatory. Thus, placing a formal end to the practice of race-based segregation. To be sure, Brown vs. Board of Education represents a major victory and key turning point in the fight for racial justice in the United States. In the years that immediately followed Brown, the Supreme Court upheld the decision, supported desegregation efforts, and struck down numerous attempts to resist integration. Over time, however, a shift in Supreme Court rulings emerged with respect to cases relating to school segregation. While Brown may have been intended to end race-based segregation, this is not a reality in the contemporary American school system: According to Frankenberg, Lee, and Orfield (2003), over 70% of Black students attend schools where greater than half of the student population are members of minority groups, and, on average, White students attend schools where 80% of students are White.
It is this discrepancy—Brown’s aim and the current segregation of the American school system—where Roger J. R. Levesque begins his book, Adolescence, Discrimination, and the Law: Addressing Dramatic Shifts in Equality Jurisprudence. In Adolescence, Discrimination, and the Law, Levesque examines equality jurisprudence by exploring the legal system’s potential to inculcate values that support equality. In doing so, it is argued that the legal system may instill these values in socializing institutions—such as schools. Leveseque argues that such an approach represents a necessary expansion of equality jurisprudence. Adolescence, Discrimination, and the Law is divided into seven chapters, including an Introduction and Conclusion. Throughout the book, Levesque makes his case by presenting readers with findings from the empirical literature, key Supreme Court cases, and policy initiatives which all relate to discrimination, prejudice, and inequality.
Together, the Introduction and Chapter 1 of Adolescence, Discrimination, and the Law both call for a change in current approaches to equality jurisprudence as well as illustrate changes in equality jurisprudence over time. In his Introduction, Levesque (2015) defines equality jurisprudence as “the manner by which the legal system addresses discrimination and seeks to ensure equality of treatment” (p. 8). Leveseque goes on to argue that the legal system holds the capacity to inculcate values in social institutions and that the legal system should take action to promote equality as such a value in the institutions it influences. Levesque justifies this position by arguing that the legal system cannot truly remain neutral (even if it claims to be in cases of discrimination), the legal system could be strengthened by taking into consideration findings from empirical research, and the legal system has the ability to support some values over others. The remainder of the Introduction provides readers with a brief overview of each chapter.
Chapter 1 argues that a tension exists in equality jurisprudence: On one hand, the Court is expected to treat everyone the same. However, on the other hand, it is argued that treating everyone the same may reproduce or exacerbate inequalities that exist between groups. Chapter 1 explores current approaches to equality jurisprudence by defining, comparing, contrasting, and critiquing the anticlassification approach and the antisubordination approach. Chapter 1 concludes by arguing that over the years, the court has increasingly adopted an anticlassification approach.
Chapters 2 and 3 review the empirical literature on discrimination and prejudice as well as the potential of the legal system to inculcate values of equality. Chapter 2 opens by providing readers with definitions and descriptions for the terms discrimination and prejudice. Levesque then moves to discuss forms of discrimination and prejudice and experiences of discrimination. Chapter 2 concludes with a discussion of interventions designed to confront discrimination and prejudice. This discussion segues into Chapter 3, which explores the potential of the legal system to inculcate equality and promote tolerance. Through a discussion of inculcation law, the government speech doctrine, and the Court’s handling of cases related to religion, Levesque makes the case that the Court has demonstrated an authority to support some messages over others.
After establishing that it is possible for the Court to inculcate values, Chapter 4 transitions into a discussion of sites where the Court could inculcate values of equality. In this chapter, Levesque identifies a number of social institutions or sites where the legal system is posed to instill values that support equality. These social institutions include the family, schools, the juvenile and criminal justice system, the health-care system, child welfare systems, the media, community organizations, and religious organizations. Chapter 4 walks readers through each of these institutions and explains how these institutions influence adolescents. Levesque also discusses court cases that exemplify how the legal system inculcates values at these sites.
Chapter 5 extends Chapter 4 by detailing how exactly the legal system can instill values of equality at the previously identified sites. In many ways, Chapter 5 brings together the approaches to equality jurisprudence, findings from the empirical literature, and knowledge of potential sites of inculcation to provide recommendations for how the Courts can promote equality. Levesque suggests broadening of equality jurisprudence by reinforcing broad policies and vague mandates, shaping institutional missions, clarifying decision makers’ roles, enhancing detection of biases, and easing implementation of programs. Chapter 5 also provides concrete examples of how these suggestions would encourage the legal system to inculcate values of equality. For example, regarding the shaping of institutional missions, Levesque suggests that child welfare systems include pursuing equality as a key component of their respective mission statements.
Adolescence, Discrimination, and the Law concludes by reiterating the book’s main thesis, arguing for a legal system that actively promotes values of equality in individuals and institutions. Overall, Adolescence, Discrimination, and the Law provides a detailed review of several major Supreme Court decisions that impact if, when, or how the government responds to discrimination. While Levesque is thorough in describing where and how the legal system impacts values, Adolescence, Discrimination, and the Law could have benefited from a more detailed discussion of the social, historical, political, and economic forces that influence the legal system (a few examples might include the history of institutionalized racism, the War on Drugs, and the prison industrial complex). This should also include an important discussion of how these forces shape the way the legal system defines and identifies discrimination. However, both researchers and practitioners in the field of juvenile justice are likely to find Adolescence, Discrimination, and the Law to be of interest. Adolescence, Discrimination, and the Law would also serve as a thought-provoking supplemental text in an upper level undergraduate or graduate-level course covering discrimination, law, and/or juvenile justice.