upper-class predecessors ( Baltzell 1991; Holland 1991). The democratization
of higher education made it possible for Americans of ordinary means to as-
pire to high position ( Synnott 1979; Fallows 1988; Christopher 1989;
Halberstam 1994). A decline of discrimination based on race, religion, class,
and gender in the post-war years combined with changes in the structure of
education and the economy signal movement away from an older Protestant
Establishment toward a more diverse leadership core ( Christopher 1989).

However, some analysts argue that events in the post-war era do not indi-
cate a dramatic transformation of the American elite ( Sturdivant and Adler
1976; Burch 1983; Domhoff 1983; Dye 1983; Marger 1987; Kerbo 1991).
They suggest that changes in the structure of education and the economy af-
ter World War II have done little to promote the realization of a meritocracy
in America ( Bottomore 1966; Bourdieu and Passeron 1977; Collins 1979;
Ryan 1981; Marcus 1983; Persell and Cookson 1985; Rossides 1990). The
persistence of racial, religious, and gender discrimination at the highest insti-
tutional levels serves to promote the interests of dominant groups at the ex-
pense of outsiders banging on the gates ( Epstein 1988; Korman 1988;
Saltzman 1991; Feagin and Feagin 1993; Davidson 1994).

While granting that Ivy-schooled Protestant males are a declining percent-
age of the American leadership, and while acknowledging some greater
movement by women, non-Protestants, and graduates of public colleges into
decision-making positions, many observers emphasize that those at the top of
the institutional structure bear more than a modest resemblance to their pre-
decessors who directed affairs in an earlier era ( Sturdivant and Adler 1976;
Burch 1980; "The Corporate Elite" 1991; Segal and Zellner 1992). These
analysts contend that formal and informal policies of promotion, appoint-
ment, and selection, along with advantages of inheritance, favor the interests
of dominant groups; moreover, they describe a slowly evolving leadership
structure, not one which has dramatically changed in the last generation or
two ( Burch 1983; Domhoff 1983; Dye 1983).

Thus, there are sharp differences of opinion about whether we have experi-
enced the reproduction or transformation of an American Establishment. Voices
on both sides ardently insist that their claims are well supported, but no re-
cent studies have employed the necessary methodologies for determining the
extent to which the social characteristics of American leaders have changed
during the period in question. There is truly a need for research which employs a
time-comparative analysis of American leaders during the post--World War II
era to determine the extent to which an older Establishment has reproduced
itself or given way to a more heterogeneous assemblage of leaders.

A discussion of persistence and change in the Establishment is best placed
in the context of an analysis of societal trends in the post-war period. In order

-2-