Memo from Winner to Chambers, et. al; Sophisticated Gerrymandering Draft Paper; CV of Paul Liebke

    TO:

FROM:

DATE :

M E M O R A N D U M

 

Julius Chambers; Napoleon Williams; Steve Suitts; and
Dr. Raymond Wheeler '

Leslie Winner ‘5L*)
Reapportionment
October 21, 1981

Pat Feeny and Paul Luebke testified about the contafix;oft1m

attachedpaperefi:thepublichearingbeforethelegislature on October

20, and also sent it to the Department of Justice. They are inter-

ested in testifying at any hearing we have in the reapportionment

case.

They would charge merely the normal witness fee. Read the

paper and let me know what you think.

ddb

(\

SOPHISTICATED GERRYNANDERING?:
AT—LARGE LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTING AND
BLACK POLITICAL REPRESENTATION IN FIVE
NOR H CAROLINA METROPOLITAN AREAS

Pat Feeney and Paul Luebke
Department of Sociology
University of North Carolina at Greensboro

April 1981

(Pre—publication draft. Please do not copy
without authors' permission)

Legislative Districting and Black Political Representation in Selected

 

Southern Netropolitan Areas

 

Fat Feeney and Paul Luebke, Departnent of Sociology,

University of North Carolina-Greensboro

Two basic issues underlie the existence of a political democracy: who
can vote, and how representatives are chosen by the electorate.. In the
West European and North American societies, political conflict over the past
two centuries has led to universal suffrage. Neither property qualifications,
gender, race, or religion currently is used in these societies to deny a
person the right to vote (Lipset and Rokkan 1967: Dahl 1966).

Electoral systems, on the other hand, are anything but miiform in the
Western democracies, and electoral districting appears to influence who
wins political representation. For example, proportional representation
systems used currently in Italv and Sweden ensure minor party victories,
while winner-take—all laws in Britain and the United States encourage emphasis
uron those political parties most legitimated in the culture, e.g., tour
and Conservative; Democrat and Republican (Lipset and Rokkan 1967). Within
the United S 'tes, urban constituencies ended decades of rural domination in
1962 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state legislatures must allocate
seats in both lower and upper houses according to population concentrations (Prcwitt an

Verba 1977: 349-9). Still unresolved by the Supreme Court, however, is whether

nultiple—member, at-large districts for the state legislature are constitutional.
At issue is whether such districts make it difficult for blacks and other
racial minorities to win election, and thus constitute a denial of political
rights.

This paper typothesizes that black representation is minimized as a

result of multiple—renter, at-large districts. The case examined is five

-2-
O O

metropolitan areas of North Carolina in the November, 1980 general election.

Literature Review

The question of the impact at-large elections may have on minority
representation has been one of some debate among legal scholars as well as
social scientists. In terms of the legal implications of at—large, multiple~
member districts and minority representation, the Supreme Court has not always
been consistent. Though not denying that multiple—member districts can have
a detrimental effect on minority represertation, the Court has wavered over
the question of whether a detrimental effect was intentional. An intentional
barrier would, of course, be unconstitutional and Violate the 1965 Voting
Rights Act.

In a 1973 decision, White vs. Regester, the Court held that an "invidious
discriminatory purpose could be inferred from the totality of facts in
the case”(Sunreme Court Reporter 1980: 1514). In that decision, the Ccurt
ruled as unconstitutional the "at-large systems for thc election of state
legislators in two corrties in Texas" (New York Times_l980a). The position
of the Court that an intentional effort to minimize minority representation
could be inferred frcm the totality of facts in the case was a key point in

the White decision, for it prcvided the legal basis for a movement across

 

the South to challenge "at—large voting for city, county, school board and
_state legislative offices" (New York Times 1980b).

By 1980, however, the Court had modified its position. In Egbile vs.
Bolden, it ruled that in addition to {roving that sore voters had been
"excluded, it was necessary to prove that the exclusion had been intentional"
(New York Times 1980c). The emphasis on proving, rather than inferring,

intent marked an important shift in the Court's appFOaCh. The Mobile

decision overturned decisions by two lunar courts that at—large elections

in Mobile, "where blacks make up on~third of the electorate, were an
unconstitutional barrier to black political participation" (Neg_gorg Tynes 1980b).
Indeed, Mobile had never had a black city council member despite its large

black populatirn. Among those in dissent in the Mobile decision was Justice

White, who argued that the lower courts had "faithfully applied the principles“

of White vs. Repeater (New York Tunes 1980a). He went on to conclude that

 

the Mobile decision "is flatly inconsistent with KEEEE,XE;-B§§§§£E£' . . .
Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals properly found that an
invidious discriminatory purpose could be inferred frat the totality of
facts in the case" gupre£e_ggurt_§eporter 1980: 1514).

Also in dissent were justices Marshall and Brennan, who claimed that
"proof of discriminatory impact should be sufficient to invalidate an
atelarge system," regardless of intent (New'lgrg Times 1980a). Nevertheless,

the majority concluded that it was necessary to prove discriminatory intent,

and that "disproportionate effects alone are insufficient to establish a

 

claim of unconstitutiOnal racial vote dilution" (Supremehgourt Beporter 1980: 1514).
Thus the Supreme Court at this time does not consider at—large voting

per s2, nor its possible discriminatory impact to be unconstitutional; and

by placing the burden of proof of intentional discrimination upon the

plaintiffs, it has retreated from its earlier stance in fihiti that intent

could be inferred frat the totality of facts in the case.
The impact of the Court's position is of particular importance to

minorities at this time since the 1965 Voting Rights Act, upon which suits

such as Ehite were based, cones up for renewal in 1982. ihe new chairman

of the Senate Judiciary Cormittee, Strap Thurnond, has already suggested he

is in favor of changes in the act, including a shift of more authority to

-4-

individual states. The make—up of the Supreme Court itself may also change
significaitly in the future should President Reagan appoint conservative
judges to fill any vacancies that might occur. Such possibilities could
provide even more obstacles to challengers of at—large, multiple-member
districts.

The Supreme Court is not alone in its lack of certainty on the effects
and constitutionality of multiple—member electoral districts. lhere is
currently some debate among social scientists, most of what divide into
two camps, as to whether at-large systems do in fact dilute the votes of
minority groups, or whether other factors play a more significant role in
the election of minority candidates.

Results of studies thus far have been squewhat conflicting. One group
of investigations has found socioeconomic factors to be the rest important
determinants of black political success. Nacmanus, for example, conclrdes
from her research on 243 city council elections across the United States
that "median school years completed, median family income, ethnicity, age
of city," and regional location are "much more highly correlated with equity
of minority representation” than election method (Macmanus 1978: 159).

She concludes that election method is an intervening variable between the
”socioeconomic condition of cities and the equity of minority representation,"
rather than a "cause" of inequity (Nacmanus 1978: 159).

She further suggests that examining the "distribution of a city's services
and wealth to the areas of greatest need," rather than counting the number
of elected minority candidates, may he a more accurate measure of minority
representation (Macmanus 1978: 161). This last point is open to some debate,
however. Bullock has argued that it is necessary to have minority office-
holders in order that a community's minority population have their needs

adequately addressed and heard, "for even well—meaning white politicians may

o a
be unable to fully canprehcnd" minority needs (1975: 727).

Earlier works, such as Cole's study of elections in New Jersey have
reached conclusions similar to Nacmanus' on the limited impact of multiple—
member, as opposed to single—member, electoral districts. He, too, found
that socioeconomic variables were the best predictors of black electoral
success, and election procedure and govtrnment form were often unrelated
to the success of minority candidates (Cole 1974: 36-37).

The most recent study by Karnig has reached similar conclusions. In
examining city council elections of 126 cities nationwide, he found that_
the single best predictor of black representation was the income gap between
blacks and whites (1979: 143). The narrower the gap, the more likely it
was to find a more equitable number of black city council members. Thus
socioeconomic factors were found to be more important in Karnig's findings
than election system. He did find, however, that black representation was

negatively related to at—large voting, but the relationship was not as strong

‘-as that provided by socioeconomic factors (1979: 135).

A second group of studies, by contrast, has reached very different
conclusions regarding the effects of multiple—member districts on minority
representation. Jones (1976), Robinson and Dye (1978), Latimer (1979), and
Davidson (1980) all found at—large, multiple—member districts to be the
most important barrier to black political representation.

Jones concludes that in the South, "the size of city councils in at-
large systems is an important form of institutional rariSm simply by
severely limiting the electoral chances of a minority" (1976: 352). The
smaller the city council size, the less likely it is that minorities will
be elected in at-large districts. Jones concludes that "at-large systems
work in conjunction with and supplement other factors that serve to restrict

Black membership on city councils," and he notes several documented cases

-5...

where some "cities have changed to at-large systems as tactics to dilute
Black political influence" (1976: 46—50). 1

Robinson and Dye, in examining the same 243 city council elections as
MaCmanus, did note the importance of socioeconomic factors in black political
success, but found that at—large elections were the "single most influential
independent variable" in explaining black representation (1978: 139).

Similarly, in a study of city council elections in the South, Latimer
discovered that "socioeconomic variables are currently less important to
equitable black representation . . . than . . . election method and size
of governing body" (1979: 70). She also found that most "at—large elections
in the South reflect racial polarization whereby majority white voters
completely block out black candidates" (1979: 71). Additionally, it is also
possible that election method affects the turnout of minority voters, with
single—member districts increasing, and multiple—member districts depressing,
minority turnout at the polls (Latimer 1979: 80-81).

In another analysis, Davidson contends that studies which have played
down the importance of at~large voting in determining minority political
representation suffer from "serious methodological flaws" (1980: A). He
eroloyed a longitudinal approach by examining "all known political entities
in TExas that changed from at—large elections to mixed or pure singleqnember
district systems between 1970 and 1979" (1980: 19). The results support
the hypothesis that at—large elections dilute the votes of minority groups:
indeed, a significant number of ninority candidates were elected in those
areas that changed electoral system (Davidson 1980: 22). He cautions,
however, against merely assuming that the presence of minority representatives
ensures that minority concerns are taken seriously; He notes that blacks,

and non—black allies, may lack a majority or strong minority on governing

.7-
O O

bodies, and that black elected officials may be "coorted" (1980: 27).

Findings

 

The present study examines the 1980 state house and state senate elections
in five metropolitan areas of North Carolina — Durham, Forsyth, Guilford,
wake, and Necklenburg counties. Ihese counties contain the cities of
Durham, Winston—Salem, Greensboro, Raleigh, and Charlotte, respectively.

Data were collected for each area on the percent of black population, the
number of state representatives and senators, the number of black
representatives and senators, the extent of residential segregation,

as well as the extent of voting by race. In each area, candidates are
elected from multiple—member districts. If black representation were
equitable, we would expect to find the percent of house and senate seats
occupied by blacks to be roughly equivalent to the black percentage of the
population in each legislative district.

In none of these areas is this the case, however. A total of 29 house
seats are apportioned to the five areas, yet blacks hold only two (or 7%)
of those seats. A similar situation exists in regard to state senate seats.
A total of 14 are apportioned, with blacks holding only 1 (or 7%) of the
positions. Both percentages are in stark contrast to the percent of black
population in the five districts, which averages 26%, and ranges from 23%
to 38% (State Cffice of Management and Budget 1980). lhus the black population
receives only about one—quarter of the representation it would if seats
occupied by blacks were proportional to the black population.

This disparity could be changed dramatically if the state hoase and
senate seats were elected from simple—member districts, however. The effects

of sineleanember districts on black political representation are dependent

o

O
on a certain amount of residential segregation (so that majority-black districts
could be drawn) and voting by race, of course. Table I presents evidence on
the extent of residential segregation, labeled the Black Concentration Index
(801). The index reflects the percent of black population in each county who
live in virtually all-black census tracts (90% or more black residents). These
tracts, it turns out, are all located within the major cities of the five
counties; and in each city ahnost all the tracts border on one another. Thus
each county reveals a fairly high concentration of black population in its
major city. Therefore, it would be possible to draw a minimum of one majority—
black district for each county (and two in Mecklenburg) if elections were

from single-member—districts (SiD's).
(Table 1 About Here)

Table 2 shows the prevalence of racial voting in North Carolina metropolitan
counties. Low racial voting in the Guilford county senate race means that
the black candidate appeared to lose few white votes because of his race. In
the three other cases, however, grouped as "high and medium racial voting"
in Table 2, black candidates did appear to lose votes because of their race.
White business precincts uniformly were least likely to back the black
candidates. Academic—oriented white precincts were post likely among white
voters to surrcrt the black candidates, while results from working—class

white precincts were inconsistent for the three cities.
(Table 2 About Here)

It appears, in light of the extent of residential segregation and

racial voting, that single-member districts would provide more equitable

-9-

black representation than the multiple-member districts currently used in the
five counties. Tables 3 and 4 compare the present number of black officeholders
for state house and senate seats, the "ideal" number if black representation
were proportional to black population, and a projected number if candidates

were elected from single—member districts.
(Tables 3 and 4 About Here)

As can be seen fron the tables, the projected number of black officeholders
under single—member districts is very close to the "ideal" number in each
county. Thus single—member districts would produce a minimum of six state
house seats (and perhaps seven) in contrast to the two seats won by black
candidates in the 1980 election. In the state senate, singleananber districts
would produce at least the same number of black state senators, one, and perhaps

as many as four.

Discussion

The residential concentration of blacks in North Carolina's largest
metropolitan areas ensures that black legislative candidates would benefit
by a switch from multiple—member, at—large districts to the single—member
district system (Tab185314),lhe data unquestionably support the analyses
of Jones, Robinson and Dye, Iatdmer, and Davidson (see citations above), all
of whon have focused on the centrality of electoral districting in influencing
black candidates' success in city council races.

Examination of the'fifie 1980 elections in North Carolina's five urban

counties does offer insight into why only three of the six black candidates

-10-

who had won Democratic primary elections in May 1980 were successful in
November. Significantly, the hypothesis of Maomanus (1978) and Karnig (1979)
which associated black success to relatively high black socio-economic status
was not supported. In fact, black median income and the black/white median
incdte ratio were similar for all five counties (U.S. Department of Commerce
1973: 410—416). Rather than SES variables, three political variables appear
to explain the election results: the strength of the local Republican Party;
the appeal of the black candidate to white voters; and the level of "single-
shootinp," i.e., how much blacks ignored all non—black candidates (see Luebke,
1979: 242).

Black candidates in Durham and Wake counties, both of when were
elected, benefited from GOP weakness. Although the Wake representative,
Daniel Blue, came in sixth in a six—seat district, his 53,000 votes were far
ahead of the 35,000 votes attained by the best Republican candidate. Durham
victor Kenneth Spauldine had no GOP opposition in either the 1978 or 1980
elections. By contrast, black Democrats in the other counties faced strong
Republican opposition, which meant that many whites voted straight—Republican,
while others split their tickets between the two parties. Republicans elected
three of seven representatives add one of three senators from Guilford county,
and one of eight representatives from Mecklenburg county.

White ticket—splitting Worked against black candidates in same, but not all,
of the three counties with an active two—party system. The crucial issue
seemed to be the reputation of the black candidate, whether the candidates
were well-known and perceived by whites as "moderate." Successful state
senator Henry Frye from Cuilford county had been (in 1968) the first North
Carolina black candidate elected to the state legislature since Reconstruction,

and he benefited from his moderate re;utation. It is a rare black candidate

-1lv

who is either first or second on an at-lurge ticket in black and white precincts
of widely differing economic settinps, as Frye did across his hone town of
Greensboro. By contrast, the two black candidates who each won a Democratic
primary in Guilford and Forsyth counties had personalities and political
programs which were unknown to the white electorate. Each ran last in his
county, behind all other Democrats and the Republican candidates.

Dr. Bertha Maxwell, Afro-American studies professor at predoninantly—white
UNC—Charlotte, was known to much of the white electorate, but may have been
hurt by the assertion of edge Opponents that she was "top activist" on both
women's and black issues. In canpariscn to Frye, Maxwell was not as well-known
to whites, and her ”moderate" credentials were not fully in order from their
perspective. Maxwell ran ninth in a race for eight seats, and her success
varied considerably in the county's precincts. For example, she ran dead—last
in a high—income white neighborhood, first in a black precinct, seventh in
a middle-class white area dominated by non—business professionals, and ninth
in a white working—class precinct. Because she lost eighth place to a white
Democrat by only 1700 votes (56,500 to§8,200), it seems that her victory could
have been ensured by more "single—shooting" among black voters. In a black
precinct where Maxwell received 1260 votes, her nearest opponent received
642, which was typical for the seven white Democrats running. This willingness
of black Charlotte (Necklenburg county) voters to support white Democrats
aprees with Arrinpton's earlier analysis of black voting in partisan elections
during the 19705 in that city'(Arrington 1978: 260). "Single—shooting‘ in
partisan elections is more strongly institutionalized among black voters
in Durham, however, so it seems risky to generalize from Arrington's single
city. Candidate Maxwell refused to sanction "single—shooting," in contrast

to the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People's call for a

-12_

"double—shot" in a county commission at-large race in November 1980. The Durham
tactic produced at least a 25:1 margin for the black candidates, in contrast
to Maxwell's 2:1 lead in Mecklenburg county black precincts.

The apparent need for black "single-shooting" as a defense against white
voters who exclude all black candidates challenges Arrington's conclusion
(1978: 260) that there is "little racial voting" in partisan elections.
There was enough "racial voting" by whites in Necklcnburg county to deny
Maxwell a seat. Racial voting was also evident in the state house races in
Wake and Guilford counties. The 1980 data suggest the need for a revision

of Arrington's conclusion, which had been based on partisan elections in

one county (Mecklenburg) between 1972 and 1976.‘

Conclusion

The maintenance of at—large multiple-member districts instead of a change
to SMDs is little more than soohisticated gerrymandering by the North
Carolina legislature to minimize black membership. As outlined above,
there are circumstances under which blacks can win seats in the state house
and senate from the five metropolitan counties. Even under the best of
circumstances, however, two issues become salient: at-large elections are
far more costly than a SMD race; and black candidates may be forced to
moderate their political program because of the more varied composition
of the at-largc electorate.

lb win an at-large seat, especially the first time, is expensive. In
Wake county, Blue spent $22,000 (News and Observer 1980) to win his seat,
while a successful white nonincumbent spent $16,000 (News and Observer 1980).

In Necklenburg county a successful white runnin? for the first time had
. .V ,

-13-

costs of $36,000 (Charlotte Obseryer 1990). One effect of the at—large
: stem is to maintain a financial barrier which many potential black
candidates could not cross.

Also as a result of at-large districts, black candidates often feel
compelled to accomrodate themselves to the political ideas of the white
majority. Naxwell's reputation as a civil rights and women's activist may
have prevented her election from Mecklenburg county, because too many white
[voters were offended by her alleged "activism." Yet such political stances
could never have prevented her election from a majorityeblack SMD in Necklenburg
county. Indeed, Luebke (l979) and Davidson (1972) have suggested the importance
of black candidates having the freedon to articulate the policy program

which will benefit the bhek conrunity.

Table 1

BLACK CONChNiRAlICN INDLA FUK NOth UthLINA thnN COUNEIES

% black population living
in "all-black" census tracts of county

county (city of highest

concentration)
Durham (Durham) 54
Forsyth (Winston—Salem) - 72
Guilford (Greensboro) 47
Vecklenhurg (Charlotte) 50
Wake (Raleigh) 39

source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, April, 1972.

, .
' I .

Table 2

Rank Order of Black Candidates by Precincts in North Carolina
Urban County Elections, November lCVO

 

 

Racial Voting Type ‘ Precinct Type
White White White
Black High—Status High—Status Working
Academic Business Class
HIGH:
Guilford State House
('7 seats: 14 candidates) lst 11th 14th 14th
Mhbiuw:
Necklenburg State House
(8 seats: 16 candidates) lst 7th 16th 9th
Wake State House
(6 seats: 12 candidates) lst 4th 6th 3rd
IJO‘I'J:

Guilford State Senate
(3 seats: 6 candidates) lst lst 2nd 2nd

State House Seats for North Carolina Urban Counties:

Table 3

Actual, Proportional, and Projected

 

County Total
Seats
Durham 3
Pbrsyth 5
Guilford 7
Hecklenburg 8
Wake 6

Seats For Black Officeholders

 

Seats won by Blacks
in 1980 Election

ID

Table A

.

"ideal" Seats,
if Proportional
to Black population
1.11
1.20
1.75
2.08

1.38

Projected Seats
with Single—
Member Districts

State Senate Seats for North Carolina Urban Counties: Actual, Proportional, and Projected

 

 

County Total
Seats
Durham 2
Forsyth 2
Guilford 3
Mecklenburg A

Wake 3

Seats for Black Officeholders

 

Seats won by Blacks
in 1980 Election

'3

"ideal” Seats,
if Proportional
to Black POpulation

.76

.48

1.04

.69

Projected Seats
with Single—
Member Districts

REFERENCES

Arrington, Theodore S. 1978. "Partisan Campaigns, Ballots, and Voting Patterns:

the Case of Charlotte." Urban Affairs Quarterly 14 (Dec.): 253—el.

 

Bullock, Charles S. 1975. "Election of Blacks in the Jouth: Preconditions

and Consequences." American Journal of Political Science 19 (Vov.): 727—39.

 

Charlotte Observer. 1980. "Nonincumbent Wins Legislative Seat.” November 5: 1.
Cole, Leonard A. 1974. "Electing Blacks to Municipal Office: Structural and

Social Determinants." Urban Affairs Quarterly 10 (Sept.): 17-39.

 

 

Dahl, Robert A. 1966. Political Cppositions in Western Democracies. New
Haven: Yale University Press. I

Davidson, Chandler. 1980. "At-Large Elections and Ninority—Group Representation:
a Re—anminition of Historical and Contemporary Evidence." Department of
Sociology. Rice University.

. 1972. Bi—Racial Politics. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University

Press.

Jones, Clinton B. 1976. "The Impact of Local Election Systems on Black

Political Representation.” Urban Affairs Quarterly 11 (March): 345-56.

 

Karnig, Albert K. 1979. "Black Resources and City Council Representation."
Journal of Politics 41 (Feb.): 134-49.

Latimer, Margaret Y. 1979. “Black Political Representation in Southern
Cities: Election Systems and Other Causal Variables." Erhan Affairs
Quarterly 15 (Sept.): 65-86.

Lipset, Seymour, and Stein Roktan. 1967. Party System: and Voter Alignments.

 

New York: Free Press.
Luebke, Paul. 1979. "Social and Political Bases of a Black Candidate's
Coalition: Race, Class, and ideology in the 1976 North Carolina

Primary Election.” Politics and Society 9 (Fall): 239-61.

 

yacmanus, Susan A. 1978. "City Council Election Procedures and Minority

Representation: are They Related?" Social Science Quarterly 59 (June):

 

153—161. 9 ‘
‘furray, Richard, and Arthur Vedlitz. 1978. “Racial Voting Patterns in the
South: An Analysis of Major Elections in Five Cities.“ The Annals of

the American Academy of Political and Social Science 439 (Sect.): 29-39.

 

News and Observer. 1980. “Black Wins Seat in State House Race." November
5: cl.
New York Times. 1980a. "High Court Voids Victory of Blacks Over At—Large
Voting in Mobile." April 23: a22.
R§E_Ygrk limes. 1980b. "Ruling Na; Jilute Black Vote in South." May 12: a1.
£11 York Times. 19800. ”U.S. Suspends Court Suit on \oting in South Carolina.”
April 26: L 16.
North Carolina Departnent of Panagement and Budget. 1980. "Projected Population,
April 1, 1980, by Age, Race, and Sex."

Prewitt, Kenneth, and Sidney Verbu. 1977. An Introduction to American

 

Government, 2nd revised edition. New York: Harper and Row.

Robinson, Theodore P., and Thomas R. Dye. 1978. "Reformi.m and Black

Renresentation on City Councils." Social Science Quarterly 59 June :
I .

 

133-41.

Supreme Court Reoorter. 1960. 100 (May): 1348-1600.

 

U.S. Department of Cormerce, Bureau of the Census. April, 1972.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. March, 1973.

7 I . .aul Luebke

October 1981
CURRICULUM VITAE

Place and Date of Birth:

Chicago, Illinois; January 18, 1946

Home and Employment Addresses:

701 N. Greene St., Apt. 4 Department of Sociology
Greensboro, North Carolina 27401 The University of North Carolina
(919) 275—5133 at Greensboro

' ."v'0?‘*’ Greensboro, North Carolina 27412

(919) 379-5256

Marital Status:

Married

Current Position:

Assistant Professor of Sociology

The University of North Carolina
at Greensboro

Greensboro, North Carolina 27412

 

 

Education:

1967—71 Columbia'University. Ph.D. awarded 1975
Dissertation title: Political Attitudes in a West German
Factory: A Political-Sociological Analysis of Chemical
Workers. Dissertation was based on primary research among
production and clerical workers at a major chemical corpo-
ration in wast Germany.

1969-70 University of Frankfurt. Resident, while engaged in
dissertation research.

1968 University of Michigan. Participant in the summer institute
in research methodology, Institute for Social Research.

1966—67 Johns Hopkins University. Graduate student at School of
Adancedlnternational Studies.

1963—66 Valparaiso University (Valparaiso, Indiana). B. A. awarded
1966._

1962-63 Robert College (Istanbul, Turkey). Undergraduate student.

1959—62 High school student at Privatschule der deutschen Botschaft

 

(German Embassy School, Ankara). All instruction in German.

Employment History:

1976-present Assistant Professor of Sociology, The University
of North Carolina at Greensboro.

1979-80 ‘Visiting Scholar, Department of Sociology, The
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
1975—76 Visiting Assistant Professor of Sociology, The
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
1971-75 Instructor of Sociology, Tougaloo College.
1969—70 Research Assistant to Frederick Engelmann

(University of Alberta) and Lewis Edinger
(Columbia University) in Dortmund and Cologne,
west Germany.

Articles: Published and Forthcoming:

"Political Parties and Political Participation: A Reexamination of the
Standard Socioeconomic Model" (with R. Landerman and J. Zipp). Forth-
coming in Social Forces, June 1982.

"SymboliC'Victory and Political Reality in the Southern Textile Industry:
The Meaning of the J. P.-Stevens Union Contract" (with T. Mullins).
Forthcoming in Journal of-Labor Research, Winter 1982.

 

"The ACTWU Corporate Campaign against J. P. Stevens & Co.: Trade Union
Innovation in Contemporary Industrial Conflict" (with T. Mullins).
Forthcoming in Proceedings, 1981 Southern Industrial Relations Research
Association( Blacksburg, Va., 1982).

 

"Anti-Unionism in Labor-Intensive Industry in the U. 8. South: The Defeat
of the North Carolina Labor Education Center Proposal." Forthcoming

in Proceedings, 1981 Southern Industrial Relations Research Association
(Blacksburg, Va., 1982).

 

"Neighborhood Self-determination or White Business Control?: Value
Dilemmas in a White Working Class Community." Forthcoming in Social
Policy, November/December 1981.

"Activists and Asphalt: A Successful Anti-expressway Movement in a'New
South' City.“ Human Organization, vol. 40, no. 3 (Fall 1981).

"Neighborhood Groups versus Business Developers in Durham: Expressway
Politics in the Scarce-Energy Age." Carolina Planning, vol. 7, no. 2
(Spring 1981).

"Corporate Conservatism and Government Moderation in North Carolina."

In Merle Black and John Shelton Reed, eds., Perspectives on the American
South: An Annual Review of Society, Politics and Culture (New York:
Gordon and Breach, Science Publishers, 1981).

Articles: Published and Forthcoming: (cont'd)

"The Social and Political Bases of a Black Candidate's Coalition: Race,
Class and Ideology in the 1976 North Carolina Democratic Primary."
Politics and Society, vol. 9, no. 2 (Fall 1979): 239-61.

"Selective Industrial Recruitment in North Carolina"(with R. McMahan
and J. Risberg), Working PaperS'for a New Society, vol. 6, no. 6
(March-April 1979): 17—20. '

"Technology, Income, and Political Attitudes: The Case of the West
German Chemical fibrker." The Human Factor, vol. 13, no. 1 (Fall 1975):
32-49.

"Grass-roots Politics in the German Federal Republic: Five Constitu-
encies in the 1969 Federal Election" (with L. Edinger).
Comparative Politics, vol. 3, no. 4 (July 1971): 463-498.

Participation in Professional Meetings:

March 1982 Eastern Sociological Society annual meeting, Philadelphia.
Discussant in special session, "The Role of the White
Sociologist at Black Colleges in the Socialization of
Future Black Sociologists."

August 1981 American Sociological Association annual meeting,
Toronto. Convener of luncheon roundtable discussion,
"Is Corporate Liberalism Obsolete in the United States
in the 19805?"

April 1981 Southern Sociological Society annual meeting, Iouisville.
Delivery of paper, "Mass Attitudes Toward Big Business
and Big Government in the United States: A Secondary
Analysis and Sociology-of-Knowledge Critique" (with R.
Landerman and J. zipp) .

April 1981 Southern Sociological Society annual meeting, Louisville.
Delivery of paper, "Sophisticated Gerrymandering? At-
Large Districting and Black Political Representation in
the North Carolina State Legislature" (with P. Feeney).

August 1980 American Sociological Association annual meeting, New
York. Delivery of paper, "Activists and Asphalt:
Successful Resource Mobilization in an Anti—Expressway
Movement."

March 1980 Southern Sociological Society annual meeting, Knoxville.
Delivery of paper, "Noblesse Oblige or Class Conflict?:
The Rise and Fall of the North Carolina Labor Education
and Research Center."

I"

Participation'in:Professional=Meetings:'(cont'd)

 

March 1980

April 1979

September
1978

April 1978

February
1978

September
1977

April 1976

Southern Soaiological Society annual meeting, Knoxville.
Delivery of paper, "Political Parties and Political
Participation: Some Reflections on Lipset's 'Democratic
Translation of the Class Struggle'" (with R. Landerman
and J. Zipp) .

Southern Sociological Society annual meeting, Atlanta.

‘Organizer and convener of session on “Comparative Social

Institutions."

American Sociological Association annual meeting, San
Francisco. Delivery of paper, "Corporate Conservation
and Government Moderation in North Carolina: Ideological
Conflict between Elites in the former 'Progressive
Plutocracy.'"

Southern Sociological Society annual meeting, New
Orleans. Discussant of papers by Floyd Hunter and
William Domhoff in Special SSS session on "Community
Power Revisited."

North Carolina Sociological Association annual meeting,
Raleigh. Session organizer and panel member of "Teach-
ing Sociology Effectively: The Humanistic Perspective."

American Sociological Association annual meeting, Chicago.
Delivery of paper, "The Social—Political Bases of a Black
Candidate!s Coalition: An Ecological Analysis of a 1976

’North Carolina Primary Election."

Southern Sociological Society annual meeting, Miami.
Delivery of paper, ”The Political Impact of Fathers and
Schools: An Examination of Political Attitudes Among
west German Chemical WOrkers."

Courses Taught at UNC-Greensboro,-UNC+Chape1 Hill, and/or Tougaloo College:

 

Graduate Seminars:
Social Conflict
Social Movements
The State and Society (Political Sociology)

Undergraduate Seminars:
Social Change
Race and Ethnic Relations

- 5 _
COurses Taught at UNC-Greensboro,'UNCéChapel Hill, and/or Tougaloo College (cont'd)

Undergraduate Lecture Courses:
Sociological Theory
Research Methods
Introduction to Sociology
American Society
Social Problems
Collective BehaVior

Thesis Direction:

M. A. Thesis of Jeffrey Risberg, Department of Sociology, The University
of North Carolina at Greensboro, 1981. Title: "Social Class, Race,
Education and Liberalism-Conservatism: An Analysis of North Carolina
Survey Data."

M. A. Thesis in progress, Patrick Feeney, Department of Sociology, The

University of North Carolina at Greensboro: "At—large Elections, Black
Political Representation, and Social Change: A North Carolina Case Study."

Grants Received:

1981 Research Council Grant, UNC-Greensboro. To study race,
class, and ideology in North Carolina large-city politics.
($455).
1979-80 Research Assignment,‘UNC—Greensboro (half-salary).
1979-80 National Science Foundation Post-doctoral Fellowship.
'($17,0001.
1979r80 National Science Foundation Post-doctoral Fellowship (declined).
1977 Excellence Fund Summer Faculty Fellowship, UNC—Greensboro.

To study social-political attitudes of North Carolina's
business and political elite ($1500).

1977 Research Council Grant, UNC—Greensboro. To supplement
Excellence Fund Fellowship ($230).

1975-77 North Carolina Humanities Committee (Greensboro) Grant.
To develop and coordinate an interdisciplinary program,
"Labor History in North Carolina: Five Perspectives on the
Lives of working People in the Last Century." During
1976-77 a film, "The Millrace," was completed as a sequel
to the first year grant ($39,100, for both grants).

-6—

Service to the Profession:
Editorial Boards

Member, Board of Editors, Perspectives on the American South: An Annual
Review of Society, Politics and Culture.

Manuscript Review

Journals: Social Forces

Publishers: University of North Carolina Press
Little Brown

Book Reviews:

Review of Howard Newby et a1, Property, Paternalism and Power: Class
and Control in Rural England (Madison, Wisconsin: 1978).

Contemporary Sociology, vol. 9 (May 1980): 450.

Review of Reed Wolcott, Rose Hill (New York, 1976). Social Forces,
vol. 57 (June 1979): 1408.

Review of William Domhoff, Who Really Rules: New Haven and Community
Power Reexamined (Santa Monica, 1978). Social Forces, vol. 57
(December 1978): 738—739.

Review of Johan Goudsbloom, Society in the Balance: A Critical Essay
(New York, 1977). Social Forces, vol. 56 (June 1978).

Service to the Campus and the Community:
Chairman, Harriet Elliott Lecture Committee, 1980—81.
Member, Harriet Elliott Lecture Committee, 1978-present.
Member, International Studies Committee, 1977-present.
Member, Student Financial Aid Committee, 1978-79.

Departmental representative, Competitive Awards Dinner, Financial Aid
Committee, 1981.

Consultant to Residential College Committee on Race Relations, 1980—81.

Departmental representative, High School Student Recruitment Programs,
1977—81.

Guest speaker, Seminar on Historical Conceptualization (History 630),
1981. Topic:"Peter Berger and the Social Construction of Reality.“

_ 7 _

Service to the Campus and the Community: (cont'd)
Full member, UNC-G Graduate Faculty, 1980-present.
Associate member, Graduate Faculty, 1976—80.

Guest speaker, UNCfG Social Science Colloquium 1981.
Topic: "Justifying PoliticalDecisionsvdth Technical Reports:
A Critique of N. C. Department of Transportation Highway-Planning,"

Consultant to Residential College Committee on Race Relations, 1980-81.
Service to the Department of Sociology:
Member of Undergraduate Committee, 1976-present.

Acting Chair., Undergraduate Committee, Spring 1982,

Member, Subcommittee on Sociology Internships, 1980—present.
Member, Colloquium Program Committee, 1978-79.

Member, Human Subjects Review Committee, 1978—79.

Adviser, Sociology Club, 1977-present.

Secretary, Department of Sociology Faculty Meetings, 1977-79.

Service to the Community:

"Academic Humanist" designation by North Carolina Humanities Committee,
1976-present.

Guest speaker, Cape Fear River Research Institute, Fayetteville, N. C.
(NCHC-funded), 1979. Topic: "People, Profit, and American Business."

Guest speaker, Gaston College, Dallas, N. C. (NCHC—funded), 1981.

Topic: "Ethical Implications of Technological Innovation: The Case
of Eli Whitney."

Guest Speaker, Charlotte Observer Forums, Charlotte, N. C., 1980.
Topic: "Sociological Reflections on Business and Society."

Discussant, North Carolina State Legislature, 1976.
Topic: "Human Values and Public Policy: A Conference for Legislators
and Academicians."

Invited Participant, National Planning Conference, Duke University Center
for the Study of Civil Rights and Race Relations, 1977.

Manuscript reviewer, Department of Sociology, North Carolina A & T State
University, Arthur F. Jackson Undergraduate Paper Competition,l981.

Consultant, UNC General Administration, Title I Funding Programs, 1978—79.

Work Experience:

Summer 1967

Journalism and Editing:-

Staff Editor, U. S. Bureau of the Budget Program Evaluation
Staff (Washington, D. C.).

Summer 1966 Assistant to the Editor, Front Lines, fortnightly house

Summer 1965

1963—66

organ of the U. 3. Agency for International Development
Gmashington, D. C.).

Assistant to the News Desk Editor, NBC News — Washington
Bureau.

Editor-in-Chief and Current Affairs Editor of the Valparaiso
Torch, twice—weekly student newspaper at Valparaiso
University.

Travel and Residence Abroad:

Summer 1974

1969 and
1970

1958—63

Summer 1963

1958-61

Languages:

German

Turkish

French

Travel to El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala.

Residence in Bonn, Essen, and Frankfort, West Germany.
Travel through western and Eastern Europe.

Residence in Ankara and Istanbul, Turkey. (Father worked
with U. S. foreign aid program during these years.)

Travel to South and East Asia en route to U.S.A.

Travel with family and friends through most of Western
Europe, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East.

Speaking: 'Fluent; ability of a native
Reading: Fluent; ability of a native
Writing: Fluent; ability of a native

Speaking: Fair—to-good
Reading: Fair-to-good

Speaking: Fair
Reading: Good