Legal Standards for Compliance
Legal writing presumes a methodology that is highly stylized, precedential, and based on deductive reasoning. Most scholarship in law is rather like the "old math": static, stable, formal--rationalism walled against chaos. My writing is an intentional departure from that. I use a model of inductive empiricism, borrowed from--and parodying--systems analysis, in order to enliven thought about complex social problems. . . . For example stare decisis (the judicial practice of deciding cases in a manner limited by prior court decisions in factually analogous situations), rather than remaining a silent, unquestioned "given," may be analyzed as a filter to certain types of systemic input.
P. J. Williams, 1991, p. 7
Currently, higher education is without consensus or lucidity on the definition of collegiate desegregation and/or the criteria for Title VI compliance. The incertitude over the prevailing legal standard for compliance results in a lack of logical, consistent, or legally sound criteria for dismantling dual educational structures. This ambiguity prevents many states from establishing and attaining achievable compliance goals. Even now, the "lower courts in Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and Tennessee are currently wrestling with the