國立虎尾科技大學 |

Marginalized Significance : = Race and Scientific Evidence in the United States Supreme Court.

Record Type:	Language materials, manuscript : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Marginalized Significance :/
Reminder of title:	Race and Scientific Evidence in the United States Supreme Court.
Author:	Chin, Jeremiah Augustus.
Description:	1 online resource (292 pages)
Notes:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 78-09(E), Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International78-09A(E).
Subject:	Law. -
Online resource:	click for full text (PQDT)
ISBN:	9781369738797

Marginalized Significance : = Race and Scientific Evidence in the United States Supreme Court.
Chin, Jeremiah Augustus.

Marginalized Significance :Race and Scientific Evidence in the United States Supreme Court. - 1 online resource (292 pages)

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 78-09(E), Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Arizona State University, 2017.

Includes bibliographical references

Law and science are fundamental to the operation of racism in the United States. Law provides structure to maintain and enforce social hierarchies, while science ensures that these hierarchies are given the guise of truth. Biologists and geneticists have used race in physical sciences to justify social differences, while criminologists, sociologists, and other social scientists use race, and Blackness in particular, as an explain-all for criminality, poverty, or other conditions affecting racialized peoples. Social and physical sciences profoundly impact conceptualizations and constructions of race in society, while juridical bodies give racial science the force of law---placing legal benefits and criminal punishments into play. Yet, no formal rules govern the use of empirical data in opinions of the Supreme Court. My dissertation therefore studies the Court's use of social scientific evidence in two key cases involving race and discrimination to identify what, if any, social scientific standards the Court has developed for its own analysis of scientific evidence. In so doing, I draw on Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Institutional Ethnography (IE) to develop a methodological framework for the study and use of social sciences in the law. Critical Race scholars generally argue that race is a social and legal construct and racism is endemic, and permanent, while Institutional Ethnography provides a social scientific method for rigorous study of the law by mapping and illuminating relationships of power manifested in social institutions that construct consciousness and place for marginalized groups in society. Combining methods of IE with epistemologies of CRT, I propose Critical Race Methodologies in the study of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin and Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. These two cases from recent terms of the Supreme Court involve heavy use of social sciences in briefing and at oral argument, and both cases set standards for racial inclusiveness in Texas. Throughout this dissertation, I look at how law and social sciences co-construct racial meanings and racial power, and how law and social science understand and misunderstand one another in attempting to scientifically understand the role of race in the United States.

Electronic reproduction.
Ann Arbor, Mich. :
ProQuest,
2018

Mode of access: World Wide Web

ISBN: 9781369738797Subjects--Topical Terms:

671705
Law.
Index Terms--Genre/Form:

554714
Electronic books.

Marginalized Significance : = Race and Scientific Evidence in the United States Supreme Court.
LDR:03600ntm a2200349Ki 4500 001 916064
005 20180917084243.5
006 m o u
007 cr mn||||a|a||
008 190606s2017 xx obm 000 0 eng d
020 $a 9781369738797
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI10272562
035 $a (MiAaPQ)asu:16819
035 $a AAI10272562
040 $a MiAaPQ $b eng $c MiAaPQ $d NTU
100 1 $a Chin, Jeremiah Augustus. $3 1189646
245 1 0 $a Marginalized Significance : $b Race and Scientific Evidence in the United States Supreme Court.
264 0 $c 2017
300 $a 1 online resource (292 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 78-09(E), Section: A.
500 $a Adviser: Bryan Brayboy.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Arizona State University, 2017.
504 $a Includes bibliographical references
520 $a Law and science are fundamental to the operation of racism in the United States. Law provides structure to maintain and enforce social hierarchies, while science ensures that these hierarchies are given the guise of truth. Biologists and geneticists have used race in physical sciences to justify social differences, while criminologists, sociologists, and other social scientists use race, and Blackness in particular, as an explain-all for criminality, poverty, or other conditions affecting racialized peoples. Social and physical sciences profoundly impact conceptualizations and constructions of race in society, while juridical bodies give racial science the force of law---placing legal benefits and criminal punishments into play. Yet, no formal rules govern the use of empirical data in opinions of the Supreme Court. My dissertation therefore studies the Court's use of social scientific evidence in two key cases involving race and discrimination to identify what, if any, social scientific standards the Court has developed for its own analysis of scientific evidence. In so doing, I draw on Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Institutional Ethnography (IE) to develop a methodological framework for the study and use of social sciences in the law. Critical Race scholars generally argue that race is a social and legal construct and racism is endemic, and permanent, while Institutional Ethnography provides a social scientific method for rigorous study of the law by mapping and illuminating relationships of power manifested in social institutions that construct consciousness and place for marginalized groups in society. Combining methods of IE with epistemologies of CRT, I propose Critical Race Methodologies in the study of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin and Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. These two cases from recent terms of the Supreme Court involve heavy use of social sciences in briefing and at oral argument, and both cases set standards for racial inclusiveness in Texas. Throughout this dissertation, I look at how law and social sciences co-construct racial meanings and racial power, and how law and social science understand and misunderstand one another in attempting to scientifically understand the role of race in the United States.
533 $a Electronic reproduction. $b Ann Arbor, Mich. : $c ProQuest, $d 2018
538 $a Mode of access: World Wide Web
650 4 $a Law. $3 671705
650 4 $a Sociology. $3 551705
650 4 $a Ethnic studies. $2 bicssc $3 809601
655 7 $a Electronic books. $2 local $3 554714
690 $a 0398
690 $a 0626
690 $a 0631
710 2 $a ProQuest Information and Learning Co. $3 1178819
710 2 $a Arizona State University. $b Justice Studies. $3 1189647
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 78-09A(E).
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10272562 $z click for full text (PQDT)