Abstract
Despite its title, Fein's article provides us with little analysis of race relations. Fein's discussion of various models of intervention implies that they are generally impotent. His criticism of the President's Initiative on Race appears to reflect a limited reading of the Advisory Committee report. From these observations I conclude that Fein's article reflects a neoconservative, noninterventionist ideology that “blames the victim” for the persistence of racial stratification in the United States. I close by suggesting that a movement for reparations would be an appropriate response to this ideology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Advisory Board to the President's Initiative on Race. 1999. One America in the 21st Century: Forging a New Future. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Fein, Melvyn L. 2000. “Race Relations: A Survey of Potential Intervention Strategies.” Sociological Practice 2:147–162.
Lindblom, Charles E. 1990. Inquiry and Change: The Troubled Attempt to Understand and Shape Society. New Haven, CT. Yale University Press.
Lipsitz, George. 1998. The Possessive Investment in Whiteness: How White People Profit from Identity Politics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Murray, Charles, and Richard J. Herrnstein. 1994. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. New York: Free Press.
Robinson, Randall. 2000. The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks. New York: Dutton.
Wilson, William Julius. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dotzler, R.J. Getting to Reparations: A Response to Fein. Sociological Practice 2, 177–182 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010110717335
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010110717335