 

. [o .
'2‘. .
.

r V . ......V... . .... . 4 - Va“.
- ... .3......... “5‘. pm . ... . .‘Wu‘na .Av

. u... mutﬁl V . ... .7 ._ .. $1.
. Kw»? ., .... Vamnm
... \

 

 

         

‘2.'.
.

 

   

      
   

 

  

. .. . .
o o. ... n A ...
1.50%.: v
Huh... «.1 71 . .Rolup. ...-MI .43.. ‘
w... ...1...v..... . ......uL. 9;- . VV
n . uh I. .. .
h |-‘

         

 

     

              

 

   

   

 

 

V I . Vs . .
. t 11$ . (.../....w. . . l( v: ..
. V ...... V. ....k.‘ («Ct .rV... .. . . . v. a 5...}... ..V. ... _. .n. . ......
.;. VJ... nqﬁy‘xxnﬁhﬁ ..OO .a...\.1\.\k..v. aw. . . \va JAWI. u:HO..U.H.J-L V... ....I: .. u ..w .
. .V. . umhﬁﬂ ....» 3 ;r.— . 1r out-I. v ILRVONI 4|“. .4LNsV.Nv«v_er.\ {WVHINs
a . .... 111.4? .. ¢ 1%. v. vo; - . . 355......1163. ..l..\..a.n..n.V . . Viv? . ‘V a! V
$1... .5 A. 0‘ 7?... p................ inbfniiot _ 1.. 1 .. ......YLV V.
V 3...: L . 37.41343. .... V. $3.1 4.3%. .. --. .. kh. 4
~ . ..pt 1 . 1A,...4I . .v o o . ... V‘s .vr Aw. .0 .V
V r... . ....V, .....u... 3&7 . 9.4.qu oi...
.5 ....n AWN?” . Vuvrrmm . l... ............. {.mlwnr ....

a .....MLWP .- a... ..
n%¢$«ﬂ:mmm.uywvﬁ. . .
. . o I .. A v . _. .

K. s... .....1. 1.3 VP» ..V...nV.... ..-: W!
... ..ww ......ng ..wﬂ\.a...u;v..wrw.‘.ﬂnwuu& .. V.” .. ..... .vVI): ......w .

q .1... c . 1 . .
4T1?» H... ....T..§..~..k.....:.mno.

.. 5.904 ....“ $11..er Funnhﬁw
.. v. .. .Vmﬂawwwdnmh

 

      
   

 

I z ...ﬂr.l_..rl. ..
.w 0. (MP. «My. 2.02 .

.... ..Wr... o : ... n .. .. A. Mr:

 

  

        

   

. 4. .. . . .
...WJW 4.1 khanmumiv. . V .. . V . . V. V. . .V V V .V -V.
Wéxsxl..ﬁu~ﬂdhﬁm¢ﬂ V V . . . .V V .. .....V V. .u-l.

 

.f..l)..........f.n~.~ . ... .
.
V . \.

 

     

....» 72.3 V.
\ ... ..anpv “H... H“) Ilﬁﬁ. . u". . V
Mﬁuqmw V. ..Um..V..§..u . . ya.
. :5..- («nu-Ward : I J... . \
V ...w‘hamwv. .V wﬁﬁwﬂgﬂﬁt

. ....S... V.
. 1.31. ._
. .PI. .4

  
   

      

I .
..
...». 2i..!.;

0 A .1 . o o l
Lad», $.11. I....J....2
..

 

 

 

 

:25 ‘ ‘

I‘i “

I
l

m

 

. . . 7 .. V
L . - . .
.. :ﬁalrv. p . y u . .. A. . V . J V .
.l 19. In . v I... V o . V. V.. V .. . .. . I|II|. .
n!» ‘ lorﬁvﬁahmm s afolVobquIW- . . .. .. .. . . V. . . ... n. . u u . . 1.-
. «.0 . . . .. y
. . V V . . V . V ‘

y
M

 

 

 

             

        

     

 

 

 

 

. I . [1.1 N 3-. I.
1.. - a .. . ..I | I.
.. .f i- . . .. .I
an“. .1..w..u..\....... ...u.....r.u..~u.. -V f
l . . V .... uﬂ..d-.ﬂ...uuh s-
at: .b 7 9.1579 n)! k
.1.W.f I V
. . - A
V . n
5b.]: WNW: u .t, .. ..n
.16.“. x.‘ ..‘hk.¢‘um.ﬁ_~ I. . 1.. H
7:11.... i ...... . I
.1331Hll... -... .
..ls? . .
'l I -.«lvll». 1 o . u . I.
.mmvﬁﬂ. ..1 ......md. U7.4... .. : .
0 3‘? vii-.. - c v ( ’...l.o3
‘ﬁ 'f. -.l .8 . 11...»! . V .
. -ﬂ‘nurl iv... . (H... 10. V. n...dl....\....l. .V V
V. Oil-#1.??? Iglﬂnzlnhﬁl‘..uh? . I... 4 u I . - H
. (I I Q)-.I:’t\r\.oli~. VV. vDV Or I I
info“; ).I1IJL.VJ|Q:.I 1:- ...¥ - 1 . -
u .Ki‘l‘llo II’I. I'll: 1.7L Invl ‘ 4 It ‘V
i . tl«||‘lllo‘ls!l if? ‘R 1 l... I. O V I
III NH...‘ Glynn: In"- .Itov..o -92-...0154. . . V - -I r
w}... {hrmrzu .13).. “I'll {LIXJro'lszV r 4. -1 - l- -I
. ~ .1 o. 'y I I\ ..II;£CII .VO‘< ¢.~ll v Itvlur!\.. tl. : V ' ux
. 3.11%.}: ‘5‘): t. . - - fl~p|r).:l. I]..- ..V .- --.. - - -
1’ UV 1||7|v
.t .. 0. 1| D l
.V..-|..V ’1: «A I I
V. V . I
.u I‘ II 0,: r V!
. .... . v a: . M - w. I.)
..uuﬁ... -..x.- - l h
. .. Pv. - l ... ,1“
I. . - 1 l (...
alt». {yd .r‘ o .I;.'....
.... V . 0‘ . IAV..AVv. ..V‘1 O 1-H. ‘IHAII .a . . u “no.1
. u - u. - n. . kn . . I 4.» n.
1 . . ...s
. n: V livlvatu. . t n .
«III III I. 1“ (I l RI. . l
I V I . t ’R . Ii" I? , J
h I ’ | til 7 III ‘ir .I '[ lrlhlltl

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

PATTERNS OF RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION:
THE MEXICAN AMERICAN POPULATION IN
THE URBAN SOUTHWEST, 1970

presented by

Manuel Mariano LOpez

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Ph. D. degree in Sociology

 

 

 

 

0-7639

 

 

\/

111111111111

3 1293 10131 9287

1111111111|111111111

2'; ll! .. x: ,1
A199242001

 

 

 

 

 

PATTERNS OF RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION:
THE MEXICAN AMERICAN POPULATION
IN THE URBAN SOUTHWEST, 1970

By

Manuel Mariano LOpez

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Sociology

T977

ABSTRACT
PATTERNS OF RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION:
THE MEXICAN AMERICAN POPULATION
IN THE URBAN SOUTHWEST, 1970
By

Manuel Mariano L6pez

The degree of residential segregation of Mexican Americans from
Anglos and from Blacks, and the latter two from each other, is examined
through the comparison of indexes of dissimilarity for 56 Southwestern
(Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas) Cities. Three
alternative explanations for the emergence and/or maintenance of ethnic
and racial residential segregation are analyzed with particular empha-
sis on their applicability to Mexican Americans: (l) a market model;
(2) a cultural, or propinquity, model; and (3) an exclusionary practic-
es model based on majority group discrimination.

The overall pattern of residential segregation is one in which
the index of dissimilarity for the Anglo from Black populations exhib-
its the highest values (YE70.7), that of Mexican Americans from Blacks
a middle ground (7555.0), and that of Mexican Americans from Anglos the
lowest values (X542.9). Hhen measured by mean indexes of dissimilarity,
residential segregation in the Southwest diminished between 1960 and
l970.. The greatest decline in index values (Tor both the mean, -2l.2
percent and individual cities, 28) occurred in the Mexican American from

Anglo population index while the smallest decline in the mean was that

Manuel Mariano Lopez

for the Mexican American from Black (-4.0 percent).

The series of hypotheses formulated to test the three compet-
ing models on the macro level yielded equivocal results. The compar-
ison of each of the two principal minority groups with the majority,
and with each other, indicated that while "traditional" economic or
demographic variables could account for enough of the variance in res-
idential segregation to be of continued usefulness, other factors were
of greater import. A general pattern emerged, from the tests of hy-
potheses comparing segregation by ethnicity or race with segregation
by income, occupational status, rent level and value of owner occupied
housing. Segregation indexes containing an ethnicity factor were sig-
nificantly greater than those based solely on the above-mentioned so-
cio-economic characteristics. A simple model, which the Taeubers had
illustrated as paralleling an indirect standardization, was also em-
ployed. Segregation indexes based on observed ethnic residential pat-
terns were found to be higher than expected on the basis of differen-
tials in income, occupational status, value of housing or rent. The
macro level statistical analysis offered less direct contradiction of
the cultural and exclusionary models than of the purely economic model.
A subsequent review of the literature on survey and participant obser-
vation studies of single, or small numbers of, cities also supported
an exclusionary practices interpretation of continued minority resi-
dential segregation.

The statistical analyses and literature review indicated that
in the shaping of future housing policy social analysts must realize

that reduced segregation index values portend neither improved housing

Manuel Mariano Lopez

nor ameliorated social conditions for minority group members. The
existing residential patterns within cities are too firmly fixed, the
population shifts necessary for "equalization“ would be excessively
disruptive, and majority group Opposition to any such program would
exacerbate rather than mitigate prevailing antagonisms. The assimila-
tionist conception that integration indicates equalization appears to
be at the root of many minority group members' housing problems, in-
cluding those of poor whites.

An alternative approach to solving the housing problems of Mex-
ican Americans is suggested. Past housing policy is viewed as having
been successful in meeting the housing needs of only limited numbers
of upwardly mobile, middle-class minority group members and ignoring
the vast numbers of minority peoples who continue to be ill-housed. A
national housing policy focussing on the improvement of existing barrio
and ghetto housing, and the construction of adequate new low-cost
housing in the barrios/ghettoes, is suggested. Despite urban renew-
al's failures and excesses, its basic phiTOSOphy is viewed as sound
and representing an alternative avenue toward solving minority group

housing problems.

OFELIA

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to extend my sincerest appreciation to a number of
persons who have helped make this dissertation a reality. To my com-
mittee I owe a great deal for their insights and encouragement. Pro-
fessor James B. McKee has served on my committee from its inception
while Professors Marilyn Aronoff and Frederick Buttel readily agreed to
step into the void when problems of a leave-of—absence and a resigna-
tion from the faculty decimated my original committee. Their critical
and insightful input, whether over the course of the entire three years
or the.last eight months, has proven to be of great value. Gracias.

As is usually the case, a number of others have helped ease the
way. At Michigan State University I would like to specially thank Dr.
J. Allan Beegle who supported me on my return from teaching duties as
an hourly research assistant, easing any mental strain which may have
resulted from financial pressures. And at Pan American University in
Edinburg, Texas I wish to thank Dr. David Alvirez, Head of the Depart-
ment of Behavioral Sciences, for his cooperation in securing an ex-
tended leave-of—absence from the University. To David I also owe a
word of gratitude for his encouragement and his considerateness in
granting me a half-time teaching schedule in the Spring of 1976 when
an emergency situation and enrollment pressures dictated otherwise.

To my colleagues at Pan American who accepted teaching overloads as a
consequence, I also express my gratitude.

iii

iv

Gratitude is also extended to the National Science Foundation.
Funding through the FoUndation's Doctoral Dissertation Research (grant
number SOC75—l7604) program made attainable the data necessitated by
the approach utilized in this study.

I have reserved my final expressions of gratitude for the two
most influential people of the last few years. To my chairman, Dr.
James J. Zuiches, I owe a great deal more than can be reciprocated by
a mere "thanks." Over the long process from pilot study through grant
proposal to dissertation I managed to monopolize much of his time.
Throughout, he was always willing to listen to evolving ideas, to share
the benefit of his writing-research experience, and to provide both
encouragement and insight when data or methodological problems made
the research process discouraging. His interest, insight, criticisms
and suggestions have in many ways made this work both easier and bet-
ter. Any errors which remain reflect my inability to operationalize
many of his suggestions.

The person to whom my profoundest appreciation is extended is
my wife Ofelia, to whose capacity for love, understanding, and suste-
nance this work is dedicated. This dedication can in no way express
the profundity of my gratitude. During the frequently frustrating
course of a readjustment to academic discipline and the rapid progress
through a program intensified by an anticipated recall to teaching
duties, she provided the continual encouragement and inspiration need-

ed to persevere. Esta obra es tanta tuya como mia.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ......................... iii
CHAPTER I: THE RESEARCH PROBLEM
Introduction ....................... l
The Necessity of Research on Hispanic Residential
Segregation ...................... 6
Stratification and Housing: Explorations on
Their Interrelationships ............... 9

CHAPTER II: THE SPATIOTEMPORAL MILIEU 0F MEXICAN
AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION

Introduction ....................... 17
Some Shortcomings of Research on the Mexican
American People .................... l7
Necessary Additional Components ............. l9
Historical Overview:
Introduction ..................... 21
The Pre-Texas Revolution Era ............. 22
The Post-Texas Revolution Era ............. 25
The Post-Mexican Revolutionary Era: A
Socio-Cultural Profile ............... 28
‘Residential Segregation, l960 ............. 31
The Socio-Historical Milieu as an
Explanatory Aid .................. 33
Summary ........................ 38

CHAPTER III: THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ETHNIC
RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION

Introduction ....................... 39
The Purchasing Power Explanation: A Variation

on the Market Model .................. 40
The "Voluntarist" Perspective .............. 43
The Exclusionary Policies Explanation .......... 50
Evaluating the Perspectives ............... 66

CHAPTER IV: THE DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESES
Introduction ....................... 79
Multiple Indicators of Group Socioeconomic
Differentials: Variations on the Market

Model Social Class .................. 79
Status ....................... 81
Housing ...................... 82

vi

The Voluntarist Perspective

Demographic Reflections ................ 83
"Non-Community" .................... 84
Generational Proximity ................ 84
The Exclusionary Perspective
The Proportion Minority ................ 85
Intercensal Change: A Variant on the
Proportion Minority .................. 86
CHAPTER V: METHODS AND MATERIALS
Residential Segregation: Concept and Measurement
Introduction ..................... 87
Unit of Analysis ................... 88
The Dependent Variables ....... ' ......... 90
The Independent Variables ............... 94
The Data Set
Study Populations ................... 95
Data Restraints and Problematic Issues ........ 96
The Strategy of Analysis ............... 100
CHAPTER VI: FINDINGS
Descriptive Statistics .................. lOl
Tests of Hypotheses ................... llO
Segregation Change 1960-1970: An Exploration ...... I39
The Moore-Mittelbach "Best Equation": A
Replication ...................... l47
CHAPTER VII: CONCLUSIONS
Prospective Scholarship ................. T73
A Brief Summation .................... I74
APPENDICES ............................ I76
CHAPTER NOTES .......................... 186

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................... T92

LIST OF TABLES

Table l. The Urbanization of the Southwest's Mexican American
Population, l940-l97O (percentage Urban) ........ 18

Table 2. Indexes of Residential Dissimilarity for 35 South-
western Central Cities, l960 .............. 32

Table 3. Indexes of Residential Dissimilarity (D) for Se-
lected Southwestern Cities, 1960 and T970: Means
and Standard Deviations for all Cities ......... 101

Table 4. Hand Calculated Indexes of Dissimilarity for 58
Southwestern Central Cities, 1970, Using Other
"White" Designation .................. ‘03

Table 5. Mean Indexes of Dissimilarity, California and Texas,
l960 and 1970 ..................... 109

Table 6. Comparison of Sample Means for Various Combinations
of Income and Ethnic Segregation: T-Test Results . . .113

Table 7. Comparison of Racial and Ethnic Indexes of Dissim-
ilarity (D) with Class, Status, and "Affordability"
Indexes, By City Population Size Categories, I970 . . .116

Table 8. Comparison of Sample Means for Various Combinations
of Occupational and Ethnic or Racial Segregation:
T-Test Results ..................... 119

Table 9. Comparison of Sample Means for Various Combinations
of Rent Level and Ethnic-Racial Segregation: T-
Test Results ...................... 123

Table l0. Comparison of Sample Means for Various Combinations
of Segregation by Value of Owner Occupied Housing
and Ethnic-Racial Segregation: T-Test Results . . . .127

Table ll. Mean Indexes of Residential Segregation According
to Size of the Black or Mexican American
Population ...................... 130

Table l2. Comparison of Sample Means for Various Combinations
of Mexican American Intergenerational Segregation:
T-Test Results .................... I34

vii

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

l3.

l4.

l5.

l6.

Al.

A2.

A3.

A4.

A5.

A6.

A7.

viii

Mean Indexes of Residential Segregation According to
The Proportion of the City Population Mexican

American or Black ..................

Intercorrelations of Measures Used in the Analysis

of Segregation Change in 42 Cities, l960-1970 . . . .

Multiple Regression Analysis of Segregation Change
and Four Independent Variables, for 42 Cities,

1960-1970 ......................

Expected Indexes of Racial or Ethnic Residential
Segregation Based on Income, Status, Housing Value
and Rent Differentials, by City Population Size
Categories, T970

Comparison of Moore and Mittelbach "Best Equation"
for l960 Data with Replication for l970, Mexican

American-Anglo Index of Dissimilarity as Dependent
Variable

Comparison of Moore and Mittelbach "Best Equation"
for I960 Data with Replication for T970, Mexican

American-Black Index of Dissimilarity as Dependent
Variable

Comparison of Moore and Mittelbach “Best Equation"
for l960 Data with Replication for T970, Black-
Anglo Index of Dissimilarity as Dependent Variable

Intercorrelations of Independent Variables, Moore
and Mittelbach Study

Intercorrelations of Independent Variables and
Correlations of Independent Variables with

Dependent Variables, Replication of Moore and
Mittelbach "Best Equation" with T970 Data, 35
Cities

Intercorrelations of Independent Variables and
Correlations of Independent Variables with
Dependent Variables, Replication of Moore and
Mittelbach "Best Equation" with T970 Data, 58
Cities

Predictor Equations for Split Sample Regression
"Test"

. T37

. l4]

, 143

.158

. I76

, l78

, 180

................. 182

........................ 183

........................ 184

........................ 185

CHAPTER I
THE RESEARCH PROBLEM

Introduction

 

Hhere racial and ethnic minorities should live has been a con-
tinued issue in urban America (McEntire, T960: 2). Housing, as Myrdal
(I944: 375) has noted, is much more than mere shelter, it provides a
setting for one's entire social existence. In the case of minority
groups, housing involves issues which transcend the availability and
quality of housing units, despite the importance of these factors.

The foremost issue of minority group housing is segregation. In the
struggle to achieve full citizenship and the equal participation and
rights inherent in it, freedom to locate one's home without constraint
has become a major focus. As Glazer (T970: 63) put it, "residential
segregation is a far more serious threat to American democracy and the
health of American society than poor housing.“ And Moynihan (T970: 9)
echoes this sentiment in his interpretation that "the poverty and so-
cial isolation of minority groups in central cities is the single most
serious problem of the American city today."

In the course of his "classic" study depicting interracial
relations in the United States, Myrdal (l944: 620) casually remarked
that "Only Orientals and possibly Mexicans among all separate ethnic
groups have as much segregation as Negroes." Despite the issue-raising
remark contained in this oft-scrutinized work and the significance of

l

residential segregation for the life chances of diverse minority groups
the, perhaps unconsciously extended, challenge to Oriental and Mexican
American researchers has not been taken up and the majority of litera-
ture on American racial and ethnic relations concerns itself with
Blacks and European immigrants. Considerably less space is devoted to
Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans and Amerindians. While there exist
excellent works on the Black and European ethnic populations, there is
an alarming paucity of works referent to the problems encountered by
MeXican Americans in an urban environment. Nothing comparable to the
Taeubers' (T969) seminal contribution to an empirical understanding of
the extent and variation in residential segregation by race across

U. S. cities has appeared with reference to the residential segregation
of Hispanic groups. Only one study, by Joan Moore and Frank Mittelbach
(l966) has been reported. Although appearing in modified form in vari-
ous ”readers," it was primarily an advance report later incorporated
into a much larger general study and, unfortunately, appears not to
have stimulated widespread research interest. Yet, Mexican Americans
have been described as this nation's second largest minority (Grebler,
et. al., T970).

It has been implied that a person's position in the stratifi-
cation system is dependent upon either his competitive advantages or
disadvantages. If, as some point out (Hollingshead, T947: 202; Shi-
butani and Kwan, T965: T48), ethnicity is generally likely to be
either advantageous or disadvantageous, then ethnic segregation con-
tinues to merit study. Whereas the European case, generally speaking,

was typified by a pattern of temporary residential segregation followed

by upward mobility and residential desegregation, can the same be ex-
pected of the Mexican American experience? Is the residential segrega-
tion of Mexican Americans solely a function of economic differences or
is its principal determinant a persistent, but underlying, system of
general ethnic discrimination in modern America? Have Mexican Ameri-
cans always suffered such residential segregation unnoticed, or has
there been a recent increase, decrease or stabilization? Nhat explica-
tory socioeconomic and housing characteristics are statistically [i.e.
"objectively"] useful in studying and understanding the present pat-
tern(s) of such segregation? If the Mexican American population is to
be incorporated into the mainstream of American social, economic and,
perhaps, political life there are among the many questions that demand
responses.

More than ten years after the passage of major civil rights
legislation, few, if any, answers have been tendered to the above ques-
tions. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to provide an up-to-
date description and assessment of the patterns of Mexican American
residential segregation in the urban Southwest. This assessment and
description of the patterns in Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mex-
ico and Texas will be undertaken by means of (l) the calculation of
indexes of residential dissimilarity (D) for Mexican Americans from
non-Mexican whites and from Blacks, (2) the analysis of the relation-
ship of housing conditions and socioeconomic characteristics to such
indexes, and (3) the use of such "correlates" to "test" three theoret-
ical explanatory frameworks pertaining to residential segregation in

general.

My study is not aimed at the proposal of solutions to the com-
plex problem of minority group residential segregation, but rather
to a description and assessment of inter- and intra-city patterns of
this phenomenon. My aim is not so much a detailed knowledge of any
single city or subset of cities as it is a comparative assessment of
differential residential segregation through the identification and
evaluation of those patterns and processes which are common to all
communities and those which vary significantly. Overall, the intent
is to provide a better understanding of the characteristics which cor-
relate highly with residential segregation by undertaking a comprehen-
sive and comparative analysis of the three prominent ethnic-racial
groups of the Southwest and their socioeconomic positions. Nhat char-
acteristics most readily account for variation among cities and between
groups? Which account for similarities? Do the two minority groups
have significantly different characteristics or experiences which ac-
count for any observed variations in their relationships to the domi-
nant group?

It is anticipated that the study could indirectly prove useful
for regional and national policy- and decision-makers in their efforts
to shape future housing programs necessitated by a rapidly expanding
Hispanic population. Secondly, that it might help overcome some of the
ignorance and indifference imposed by the past burden of poor, ethno-
centric research by contributing to the understanding of the Mexican
American's past and, more importantly, present place within the frame-
work of our national, urban social structure. And finally, that it

might serve as a macro-level benchmark for delineating further macro»

and micro-level research possibilities on residence and Mexican Ameri-
can ethnicity as other studies have done for the Blacks or European
ethnics.

My discussion commences with a brief review of the importance
of residential segregation research as it regards Mexican Americans.
From there I establish that housing segregation reflects the larger
stratification system. Moving to a brief review of the shortcomings of
general research on Mexican Americans I suggest that the integration of
diverse materials and approaches provides for a more comprehensive un-
derstanding of the problems encountered by the group. Building on
this suggestion I turn to a brief historical overview of the evolution
of Anglo-Mexican relations in the Southwest. The literature review
component of the study concludes with a presentation of three theoret-
ical frameworks employed in the explanation of residential segregation.
After generating a series of hypotheses from these frameworks in Chap-
ter IV and presenting my strategy for their analysis in Chapter V, I
turn to a presentation of the indexes of dissimilarity for T970 and
the tests of the hypotheses derived from the theoretical frameworks.

I conclude the analysis component with a brief discussion of the trends
in Southwestern urban segregation from l960 to T970. The study is con-
cluded with a summation of the findings, their significance with regard
to the theories of residential segregation, and some suggestions for
further research into the issue of Mexican American urban residential

segregation.

The Necessity of Research on Hispanic Residential Segregation

 

The gravity of the issue of Hispanic residential needs was re-

cently underscored by an article in The New York Times (Holsendolph,

 

T976: T3). The article noted that this nation's Hispanic population
has increased sharply over the last two decades and continues to in-
crease at, perhaps, an accelerated rate. The population which will be
engaged in household formation processes in T990 is already among us.
It is rapidly becoming clear that this population will require more
dwellings, tranSportation facilities, offices and factories. Yet our
policy makers and planners have not begun assessing the broad and com-
plex implications raised by rapid Hispanic population growth.

Although the figures citing the presence of “illegal" aliens
are astronomical and most likely border on exaggeration, the previously
unobserved or immaterial national migrations of Hispanics now consti-
tutes "an evolving internal problem with both national and internation-
al consequences that gets little attention from ... enlightenS[sic]
leadership sectors of our society" (quoted in Holsendolph, T976: T3).
As Moynihan (T970: 21) had warned years earlier, ”most of the issues
that appear most critical just now do so in large measure because they
are so little understood."

An earlier report, by the U. 5. Commission on Civil Rights
(T974), supports the more recent contentions regarding the necessity
of researching important issues, for example residential segregation,
as they pertain to the Mexican American population. Although the Com-
mission's chief concern was with a problem area of only tangential in-

terest to us, the general need for research as a policy-formation aid

was repeatedly stressed (see also Parsons, T972: 7-8), as may be ob-
served in these passages from the text:

Data on Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, and other

persons of Spanish speaking background currently

are in demand by a large number of governmental and

private agencies and institutions (T974: l5).
and

State and local governments charged with distribut-

ing Federal assistance ... need social and demo-

graphic data to identify the needs of their disad-

vantaged communities and to evaluate the effective-

ness of existing Federal programs (T974: 26).
Yet two years later, the absence of relevant data for policy-making
determinations involving this same group is decried by an official of
an agency functioning under the auspices of the Justice Department.
while it appears paradoxical when one views the prevalence of the view
that public policy often abets imbalances in urban life (Moynihan,
T970: Tl), it is apparently consistent and common that the planners
and decision-makers who "endeavor to design our cities ... proceed
without an adequate understanding of the manner in which man relates

. to his environment" (Hillhelm, T962: l). The lack of public dis-

cussion regarding the influence of the federal government's role in
maintaining patterns of segregated housing has served as a barrier to
understanding the problems of the city (Heissbourd, T964: 2). Obvious-
ly, the recent inaction of governmental agencies has dangerously in-
creased the possibility of a similar obfuscation regarding the problems,
including segregated residential areas, of the nation's Hispanic popu-
lations.

The issue of where, and under what conditions, this expanding

minority population will live must be quickly confronted by planners

if they are to avoid haphazard dawnings of new or extensions of exist-
ing Hispanic slums in, or on the fringe of, a great number of U. S.
cities. Under normal circumstances, Michelson (T970: 22) has noted
that "cities are now created less by piecemeal accretion than they

once were." Even if the expanding Hispanic populations create more
atypical circumstances, it seems likely that one would agree that
Michelson's larger point, that public officials in concern with, or
independent of, private entrepreneurs have the capacity to shape the
urban environment is still valid and has not been negated. Crucial
social decisions are inherent in the planning, or as it appears at this
time, non-planning process. The eventual achievement of the proposed
ideal of national housing policy ["a decent home and a suitable envi-
ronment for every American family"] presupposes a special commitment to
the needs of minority groups. Blacks and HiSpanics now represent ap-
proximately one-sixth of our national population and have the added po-
tential for outstripping the growth rate of the dominant majority for
some time into the future. But, as Moynihan (T970: T2) notes, most fed-
eral urban programs are "typically ... based on 'common sense' rather
than research in an area where common sense can be notoriously mislead-
ing." The realization that the programs of nearly all federal depart-
ments and agencies directly or indirectly have important consequences
for life in the cities of our nation and those who must live in them,
and that these policies can have impacts on segregating or desegregat-
ing neighborhoods (Moynihan, T970: 8—9) underscores the severity of the
data shortcomings for our Hispanic populations. Again Moynihan's

(T970: 2T) comments speak to the issue: "The federal government must

provide more and better information concerning urban affairs, and
should sponsor extensive and sustained research into urban problems."
In the absence of such information, adequate planning for the housing
and related needs of an expanding population is at best severely ham-
pered, and at worst impossible. The sole existing study regarding the
segregated nature of Mexican American residential patterns is now ser-

iously outdated (see Moore and Mittelbach, T966).

Stratification and Housing: Explorations on their Interrelationship
The allocation and distribution of residential subgroups is a
central component of urban stratification systems. As the Commission
on Race and Housing (T958: 3), echoing Myrdal's earlier assertion, apt-
Ty noted "where a person lives bespeaks his social status ..." This
view is of great import in understanding the relationship of minority
group membership and housing. In our society, minority group member-
ship is equated with low status (Commission on Race and Housing, T958:
l8), a fact which has not escaped Robert E. Park, a pioneer human ecol-
ogist, who viewed the "race problem" as a struggle for status (Lind,
T955: 53). More recently, Leo Grebler has viewed urban residential seg-
regation as a good indicator of a minority's general status in our so-
ciety (Moore and Mittelbach, T966: vii). In most American cities, then,
residential segregation reflects the "realities of social distinctions"
(Moore and Mittelbach, T972: 80). Employing Neber's (T946: l80-l95)
"classic" multidimensional notion of stratification, it is reasonable
to state that stratification systems employ an areal dimension as one
way of segregating different groups while simultaneously "symbolizing

distance and prestige" (Etzioni, T959: 258). Thus, I view the

TO

differentiation of residential areas as being "to a very large extent a
Spatial manifestation of social stratification." This is, of course,
by no means a novel stance, as it has frequently appeared in the liter-
ature to support the contention that social distances have a tendancy
to manifest themselves as physical distances (Hirth, T928: 28, 38, 284;
Hawley, l97l: T87). Hhen, for instance, we separate the wheat of Rob-
ert E. Park's sound judgement from the chaff of his overstatement, we
note an early expression of this conception:
. social relations are ... frequently ... corre-

lated with Spatial relations; because physical

distances so frequently are, or seem to be, the

indexes of social distances, ... (quotes in Duncan

and Duncan, l955a: 493).

Shibutani and Kwan (T965: 33) content that in the contemporary
United States "one's social status depends upon his position in two
coexisting systems of social stratification: class and ethnic. ...
one's ethnic identity, ... places a ceiling upon the extent to which
he can rise." The majority of stratification theories, and research,
concern themselves chiefly with the economic dimension, focusing on
such issues as the inequality of rewards and privileges among occupa-
tional groups or between labor and capital. The idea that ethnic group-
ings are even a possible basis for stratification is rejected by some.
But, as has been pointed out (Shibutani and Kwan, T965: 29), while peo-
ple are classified or distinguished from each other on several criteria
simultaneously, those which determine status within the community are
of the utmost importance. Status, in turn, bestows or denied certain
privileges, prestige and, perhaps, immunities. Following Sorokin's

usage, stratification is defined as "the differentiation of a

ll

population into a hierarchy of layers, and if this means an unequal
distribution of rights and privileges, power and influence, then it is
clear that ethnic differentiation may be the basis of a stratification
system" (Lieberson, T970: T72).

Social distance in intergroup relations, expressed either phy-
sically or otherwise, is generally accompanied by social deprivation
(Moore and Mittelbach, T972: 80). Residential segregation is central
to the maintenance of the existing, discriminatory system because it
influences the extent and quality of social interaction and differen-
tially structures access to jobs, income, education, and public goods
(Hollingshead, T947: T97, 202). Housing has been viewed as the area
of greatest resistance to the concept of equality of opportunity (Hag-
er, T960: 80) and hence the processes operating in the context of the
housing market are among the most resistant to change (Freeman and
Sunshine, T970: vii). The significance of housing for creating and
maintaining urban stratification systems stems from its central role as

. the core mediator of access to a wide variety of

social values available in urban areas. Because so-

cial values are unevenly distributed across urban

space, the location of a housing unit determines as

much about the opportunities available to residents

as does the sheer physical quality of the unit itself.

Depending upon where it is located, a house or an

apartment may "carry" with it more or fewer public

services, better or worse schools, more or less ac-

cess to commercial activities (and employment oppor-

tunities), more or less interaction with people who

are prized, or people who are shunned (Anton and

Williams, l97l: T).

The social and economic costs of residential segregation to the
community as a whole, as well as the specific "pariah" population, is

enormous. John C. Houlihan, former Mayor of Oakland, California, has

12

stated that "the social stratification that the central city has
brought about represents a fatal hardening of the arteries if it is not
rectified" (Heissbourd, T964: T). whether residential segregation be
de facto or, as in the past, de jure it has been of crucial importance
in providing the basic structure for the creation and maintenance of
nearly all other forms of institutional segregation (Johnson, T943: 8;
Commission on Race and Housing, T966: 282; Gans, T968: 347-349). Among
the most frequently enumerated institutional areas severely affected by
residential patterns is education, where it appears that funding in-
equities due to the preeminence of property taxes as the bulk of local
revenues and educational segregation itself are insurmountable without
a substantial reduction in residential segregation (Carter, T970: 70;
U. 5. Commission on Civil Rights, T972: 8). Earlier references to the
negative impact of residential segregation on the target population in-
cluded those of diminution or abject neglect of public services, such
as the provision of water, sanitation, street and pavement maintenance,
police protection, and housing code enforcement (Myrdal, T944: 643;
McEntire, l960: 89).

The presence of minorities of Tower status in any given resi-
dential area is reflected in a diminished desirability of that area for
other elements of the population (Lieberson, T963: 4). The restraints
imposed by an emerging or existing pattern of residential segregation
exacerbate the housing problems of minority groups as they circumscribe
choice and lead to scarcity in times of rapid population growth, which
in turn leads to overcrowding, the subdivision of housing units and,

sometimes, doubling up of families (Commission on Race and Housing,

l3

T958: 42; Grodzins, T958: 9). On an individual level, it can lead to
the disruption of family life by creating unnecessary strains brought
about by the inability to acquire suitable housing consistent with the
family's life-cycle stage (Forman, T97T: 42). In either of the above
situations, the result is the same, members of an outcast minority
group are forced to make-do with that which has been made available.
The resultant concentration of members of such racial or ethnic groups
increases their conspicuousness, causing their distinctive character-
istics to stand out all the more (Hirth, T928: 38, 65; McEntire, T960:
94; Breton, T964: 204). Such spatially isolated groups, when visible,
more readily become the objects of discrimination, for as Park wrote

" . race prejudice is a function of visibility. The races of high
visibility, ... are ... inevitable objects of race prejudice" (quoted

in Nirth, T928: 283). When "invisible" these groups are allowed to

have their needs go unfulfilled and are readily neglected. Thus, seg-
regation on a residential basis facilitates the exploitation of minor-
ity groups in many ways often seemingly unrelated to housing (Commission
on Race and Housing, T958: 36: Grier and Grier, l97l: 444).

Segregation by residence has a tendency to outlive barriers in
the school and workplace and persists as a stimulant to prejudice.
Physical distance tends to be among the last barriers to topple (Com-
mission on Race and Housing, T966: 285; Berry, et. al., T976; 249-250).
As Deutsch and Collins (T95l: 5) noted, residential segregation "has a
dynamic which tends to be self-perpetuating and reinforcing of preju-

dice.“ The resultant social distance reinforces mutual categorization

as "we" and "they." Thus, existent misunderstandings are perpetuated

14

through the inability to evaluate each other's intentions and actions
in proper context (Helper, T969: Tl; Kramer, T970: 69). Of all the
factors leading to intergroup social isolation, the Commission on Race
and Housing (T966: 282) found residential segregation to be the most
important. The very existence of residential segregation reinforces
other forms of discriminatory behavior through the prevention of normal
contacts. The belief that such contacts would gradually lead to the
diminution of prejudice (e.g. Homans, T950: TTT-Tl3) is illustrated by
the following passage:
Under conditions which provide new knowledge

about the other race, cultural prejudice will ob-

viously no longer serve the knowledge function.

When more accurate information becomes available,

the prejudice will be seen as inadequate by the

open minded person and thus should change (McCTen-

don, T974: 60).
Following Shibutani and Kwan's (T965: 38) reasoning, the importance of
continued misunderstanding caused by spatial distance lies in the fact
that "human beings interact not so much in terms of what they actually
are but in terms of conceptions that they form of themselves and of one
another." Since social learning derives from many sources other than
schools, the intergroup isolation brought about and supported by resi-
dential segregation is seen as preventive of a free and easy contact
and experience on a relatively intimate and equal status basis with
other groups. Thus, any reduction of suSpicion and hostilities which
such contact might conceivably lead to is effectively circumscribed
(Shibutani and Kwan, T965: TO6; Hilner, et. al., T969: T47). If, as

Lieberson (T963: T8) notes, the process of assimilation is associated

with that of residential segregation, it has great consequences for

15

recent ethnic immigrants belonging to current outcast minority popula—
tions. Ecological groups are more likely to avoid contacts of an in-
timate nature-—and even informal communication-—with other groups than
are those which are spatially dispersed. Isolation of this nature fa-
cilitates the withholding of allegiance to the larger social entity
(Etzioni, T959: 259). Hawley contended that should such an ecological-
Ty based minority group be redistributed to reflect the territorial
pattern of the majority group, there would occur a mitigation of sub-
ordinate status and a consequent facilitation of the assimilation of
the group into the existing social structure (Lieberson, T963: 6).

A system of ethnic stratification also reflects other forms of
social stratification (Lieberson, T970: T72). As Eunice and George
Grier have stated, "freedom of opportunity is not divisible, there can
be no equal access to employment where there is unequal access to hous-
ing" (Mercer, T962: 47). Thus, we see that ecological patterns may be
viewed as being both a consequence and determinant of social structural
arrangements, as a fundamental ingredient of urban life as well as a
reflection of it.

The Duncans (T955a: 493, 503) view ecological analysis as a
promising approach to the study of urban social stratification. They
conclude that a primary focus of urban stratification studies should
be a systematic consideration of the spatial aspects of stratification
phenomena and suggest that ethnic categories other than race are in all
likelihood relevant, but that the paucity of data made for difficulty
in studying them.

In the interval since their thought-provoking article adequate

l6

empirical data on the Mexican American population has been made avail-
able through the decennial censuses. In conjunction with available

socio-historical accounts this data allows for a systematic considera-
tion of the spatial aspects of the stratification of Mexican Americans

in the contemporary American Southwest.

CHAPTER II

THE SPATIOTEMPORAL MILIEU 0F MEXICAN
AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATIDN

Introduction

 

Some Shortcomings of Research on the Mexican American People

The Taeubers (T969: l5) note that the body of literature con-
cerning itself with the plight of the Black in the United States is
extensive, but that its quality is not high, largely because it is
"polemic and for the most part proceeds from unanalyzed assumptions."
The situation of research on the Mexican American is better only in
that there is less dross, solely due to the fact that there has been
so much less written. Many of the images of the Mexican Americans
among both the general and academic populations have no ascertainable
basis in reality (Rios, T97l: 59-73; Romano-V., T97l: 26-39). There
has been, for instance, a problem in accurately reflecting the nature
of the population. Mexican Americans have been a primarily urban popu-
lation group for a rather long period of time [see Table l]. By T940,
the Mexican American population's urban component already constituted
5T percent of the group's Southwestern population. It rose steadily
from T940 through T970, when the Mexican American's percentage urban
reached 85 percent. Despite the "urbanness" of the Mexican American
population, much of the literature still concerns itself with their
“traditional"——"peasant" has been an oft-substituted term-—culture and

T7

l8

rural poverty (e.g. Heller, T966; Rubel, T966; Madsen, T973) or with
general socioeconomic issues not specifically applicable to the urban
setting (e.g. Schmidt, T970). Thus, the greatest gaps in information
continue to concern the Mexican American in the urban environment. De—
spite the newfound interest in this group during recent years, rela-
tively little work of high calibre has been produced. Too many hours

Table T. The Urbanization of the Southwest's Mexican American
Population, T940-T970 (Percentage Urban)

 

 

 

T940 T950 T960 T970
Arizona 42% 6T% 75% 82%
California 68 76 85 9T
Colorado 35 5O 69 79
New Mexico 25 4T 58 63
Texas 55 68 79 83
SOUTHWEST 5T 66 79 85

 

SOURCE: U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (T974: 24,
Chart B-a, 25, Table B-2).

of debate and pages of typescript have been wasted on the issue of the

"correct" name for the group. As Penalosa (l973: 55) has so persua-

sively argued, it is time to move beyond terminology and definitional

polemics and on to an examination of the dimensions which would most

fruitfully illuminate the present state of the Mexican American com-

munity.

19

Necessany Additional Components

 

Merton (T949) illustrated, long ago, the inadequacy of using
individual prejudice as a means of predicting discriminatory behavior
and in accounting for changes in practices. The typology Merton pre-
sents drives home the importance of factors other than individually
held attitudes for intergroup relations. The most important of these
factors is the operation of the basic social institutions. By defining
the problematic nature of, and an approved solution to, the "housing
problem" in a decided fashion, the institutional structure channels
human experiences in limited directions while either ignoring or pro-
hibiting other possibilities (Williams, T970: 38). As Suttles (T972:
7) has so insightfully and succinctly summarized, "residential groups
and locality groups are inevitably partial structures whose very exis-
tence and character depend on their relationship to a wider society."
The housing market in any community is a complex system of social con-
trol wherein financial institutions, real estate agents, property own-
ers, and zoning commissioners are crucial actors in the game of norma-
tive conformity (Tilly, T96l: 330). The allocation of ethnic and ra-
cial residential areas occurs within the context of this system. Simp-
Ty put, the metropolitan housing market is a basic institutional mech-
anism by which dominant class and status groups preserve their rewards
and privileges vis-a-vis subordinate class and status groups.

The essence of this introduction is simply summarized by ex-
mayor Houlihan, "All the problems are related and demand an under-
standing of the whole" (Weissbourd, 1964: T). Residential segregation,

like all other phenomena in society, is part of a larger social

20

structure. In order to better understand residential segregation it is
necessary to be aware of the operation of that structure; the changes
it has undergone over the course of time; and how these changes have
operated to maintain, aggravate, or ameliorate the residential segre-
gation of all, or just certain, minority groups. As suggested by Park
(T952: 20T-202), a better understanding of the "correlates" of Mexican
American residential segregation has been sought through the integra-
tion into the analysis of previously ignored or inadequately utilized
socio-historical materials.

While the Taeubers could adequately presuppose reader familiar-
ity with many aSpects of the history of racial separation, and could
therefore dispense with a historical presentation recapitulating Black-
white intergroup relations, the same is not true for either the Mexican
American-Anglo or Mexican American—Black cases. The historical rela-
tionships of the two minorities to the region and its Anglo population
differ substantially. Moreover, the prevalence of misinformation and
stereotypical images fail to provide an adequate frame of reference for
understanding Mexican American participation in urban American society.
This understanding necessitates the realization that (l) Mexican Amer-
icans have a long, complex history and (2) that the evolution of Anglo-
Mexican interaction has played a crucial role in the emergence of pres-
ent residential patterns. In an effort to provide a fuller comprehen-
sion of contemporary Mexican American residential patterns in the urban
Southwest, we turn now to a brief historical overview of Anglo-Mexican

relations.1

21

Historical Overview

 

Introduction

 

Articles VIII and IX of the Treaty of Guadalupe—Hidalgo read,
in part,

VIII. Mexicans now established in territories previous-

Ty belonging to Mexico, and which remain for the future

within the limits of the United States, as defined by

the present treaty, shall be free to continue where they

now reside, ..., retaining the property which they pos-

sess ...

Those who shall prefer to remain in said territor-

ies, may either retain the title and rights of Mexican

citizens, or acquire those of citizens of the United

States. ...

IX. Mexicans who, ... shall not preserve the character

of citizens of the Mexican Republic, ... shall ... be

admitted, at the proper time ... to the enjoyment of all

the rights of citizens of the United States according to

the principles of the Constitution; and in the mean time

shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment

of their liberty and property, and secured in the free

exercise of their religion without restriction.

With the signing of this historic document, in 1848, the Mexican Ameri-
can people were created as a peOpTe. They were, as Alvarez (T973: 924)
has noted, "Mexican by birth, language and culture; United States citi-
zens by the might of arms."

Heller (T966: 4), and others, have stated that both in their
rate and degree of acculturation and assimilation, that Mexican Ameri-
cans are among the least "Americanized" of all the ethnic groups in the
United States. Extant arguments of pathological deficiencies to the
contrary, the retention of their "Mexicanness" is primarily a result of
the combination of their historical experience and the contiguous,

practically barrierless, international border. Both psychologically

22

and culturally the Mexican immigrant's "country of origin" and "country
of destination" are one. Mexicans have always resided in the Southwest,
and only its ownership and name have changed (McWilTiams, T948: 58;
Estrada, Hernandez and Alvirez, T972: 7). Nonetheless, in the South-
west the immigrant and native both faced formidable handicaps in the
form of strong prejudices against "Mexicans“ which had evolved gradual-
Ty over time. And while, as one Mexican American noted, Anglo Ameri-
cans may have abandoned geographic imperialism they replaced it with an
extensive "mental imperialism" which has resulted in a questioning of
one's sense of worth among all classes of Mexican Americans. Their so-
ciety never lets them forget that "Mexican" blood flows in their veins

(Madsen, T973: 23, 30; Simmons, T973: 46).

The Pre-Texas Revolution Era

 

The arrival of the Spaniards in Mexico initiated the develop-
ment of a mestizo people which today comprises the largest aggregate
within Mexican society. The mestizo embodies an oft-overlooked, yet
extremely important, characteristic of the "HiSpanic Southwest"-—its
biological, cultural and social heterogeneity.

Generally speaking, as the early European settlements progres-
sively expanded outward, the Native American populations either acqui-
esced and c00peratively got out of the way, or were exterminated (AT-
varez, T973: 920-92T). The Spanish method of colonization and its at-
tendant policies were designed, however, to effect the incorporation
of the Indian element into the white social structure. Admittedly,
Indian social status was the lowest and the treatment of Amerindians

was always coercive and, frequently, brutal. Nonetheless, this

23

colonization policy contrasted sharply with that of the English. Al—
though initially directed toward the Christianization of the Indians,
the English policy reflected the conviction that the Indians were-—and
' would continue to be——savages to be expelled or annihilated. While
the Spanish were equally as ethnocentric with regard to their racial
superiority, their contacts with the Indians resulting from their col-
onization practices led to intermarriage, or enduring liaisons, and to
mestizo progeny. Consequently, the Spanish-speaking population that
was to meet Anglo-America's frontier settlers at the borders of Texas
and Florida was even more heterogeneous racially than that of the oft-
conquered mother country, Spain. This population was likely to be
viewed by the Anglo Americans as nonwhite and inferior to even the
hated Spaniards.

The Treaty of Paris (T783) freed the colonies from their Eng-
lish bondage, and the Louisiana Purchase (T803) gave the young republic
an enormously vast new territorial empire. Thus, Anglo Americans and
Spanish Americans became uneasy neighbors. Boundary problems on the
fringes of Florida and Texas had resulted in tense diplomatic situa-
tions which occasionally erupted into open conflict. Early relations
between the Spanish American and Anglo American peoples were influenced
by a mutual antipathy based on the Anglo American sentiment that Span-
ish culture was inferior to American culture. The Spanish and English
had been bitter rivals for centuries and had doubtless formed negative
views of each other. These stereotypes and ethnocentric views had sub-
sequently been transferred to the English colonies and into the minds

of Americans. On the other side, the Spanish held little admiration

24

for the young American republic. The U. S. was seen as a "territorial
purse snatcher" more dangerous in terms of its greed and aggressive
knavery than as a potential conquerer. A number of early "filibuster-
ing" expeditions into Texas and the commencement of Mexico's revolution
against Spanish control aggravated these hostilities. Thus, despite
the remarkably similar origins and forms of government, the mutual an-
tagonisms between the Anglo American people of the United States and
the Spanish-Indian populace of Mexico had escalated to such a degree,
by l82l, on the eve of the initial massive influx of Anglo American
immigrants into Texas, that they precluded the emergence of a framework
of common values (McLemore, T973: 659-664).

It should also be made clear that the Anglo American frontiers
were frequently "second frontiers." In our case, the Spanish-Mexicans
had invested more than two and one-half centuries of experimentation
in order to accumulate the necessary knowledge of the land to allow
them to adapt their methods of "civilization," irrigation and animal
husbandry; to initiate industries; to expand their knowledge of the na-
tive Indian populations and their ways of life; and to promote coloni—
zation. These adaptations had just begun to reap rewards for the Mex-
ican ranchers at about the time of the first large wave of Anglo Amer-
ican settlers into Texas. Within a very short time, however, the Anglo
American immigrant component and its slaves equalled, and then sur-
passed, that portion of the native Texan population which could be des-
ignated as either "Mexican" or "settled" (McLemore, T973: 659, 665).
Simultaneous with the massive Anglo American influx, a serious politi—

cal struggle was emerging within Mexico over the nature of the nation's

25

governmental structure. A centralist faction favored strong adminis-
trative control of all Mexican territory by a governing elite located
in Mexico City. A competing federalist faction was in favor of imple-
menting the principles of the rights of man as delineated by the U. 5.
Constitution and by the French political theorists of the Enlighten-
ment. The Province of Texas became a federalist stronghold, loyal to
the federalist constitution of T824 (Alvarez, T973: 923). It is within
this context that the Texan "revolution for freedom" actually took
place. And, even after Santa Ana's defeat, the lines of opposition
within Texas were not as clearly and distinctively drawn between Mexi-

cans and Anglo Americans as many would suspect (McLemore, T973: 667).

The Post-Texas Revolutionary Era

 

Although ostensibly at peace after 1836, a "guerilla war" was
carried on between Mexico and the Republic of Texas which repeatedly
swept back and forth across the Nueces-to-Rio Grande no-man's land
(Taylor, T934: 21). Such "unofficial warfare" did not cease until the
outbreak of the Mexican American War (1946-1848). This conflict con-
solidated a system within which "Mexicans" were subordinated to Anglos
in Texas (McLemore, T973: 667) and, subsequently, other segments of the
Southwest.

Antagonisms between the Anglo American and Mexican people prior
to the outbreak of the war deepened into a passionate hostility that
provides us with a crucial insight into the century that has followed.
The idea of "mission" was very strong during the war, as was an urge
to Spread democratic institutions to a less fortunate people. The im-

minent conquest of Mexico was to be a great blessing for the conquered:

26

"American expansion into Mexico meant lifting the poor Mexicans from
the abyss of despair and increasing their happiness" (Rappaport, 1967:
44-45). This "mission" was subsequently translated, in modern times,
into strenuous efforts to eradicate ethnic differences and remold the
Mexican American into "100 percent Americans" (Madsen, T973: 1).

The signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo enabled Mexicans
who resided in the United States to opt for American citizenship. But,
whatever their choice regarding citizenship, language and culture could
not be changed overnight merely because the lands occupied by Mexicans
were now part of the United States; they retained their "Mexicanness ”
The ascribed social status as an inferior minority conferred on these
persons of Spanish-Mexican ancestry at this stage in time was to have
prolonged and long-lasting repercussions. Thus, for instance, while
prohibited from taking occupied Mexican-owned lands by the provisions
of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, Texans took lands that had re-
mained in undisputed possession of Mexican families for as long as a
century. Murder and bluff were not uncommon in the process. The Mex-
icans were simply not looked upon as occupants (Rios, T971: 64). As
Frederick Law Olmstead observed, they were considered heathens not to
be acknowledged as "white folks" and therefore were inevitably subject-
ed to insolent and unjust treatment (Taylor, 1934: 39). Others had
been less kind and had viewed them as "reptiles" who must "either crawl
or be crushed."

From the close of the Mexican American War through our own Civ-
il War interethnic relations on the border did not improve appreciably

beyond those detailed above. The Mexican populace was involved, if not

27

through actual extension of aid, by the very fact that it was their
border which offered freedom to runaway slaves. Whatever the case, the
situation generated suspicion of and hostilities against the entire
Mexican ancestry population of the U. S. side of the border. As a re-
sult of their "sympathetic" status the "Mexican" p0pulation was con-
stantly harrassed. For example, in Colorado County, Texas, where after
the discovery of a reputed Black insurrectionary plot in 1856, "with-
out exception every Mexican in the county was implicated. They were
arrested and ordered to leave the county. ..." And, as Olmstead noted,
despite the guarantees of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, the whole
"native," i.e. Mexican American, population of county after Texas coun-
ty was driven from their homes and forbidden under pain of death from

returning to the vicinity of the plantations through the formal proceed-
ings undertaken by the larger planters (Taylor, 1934: 37-39).

After the Civil War, the relations between Mexicans and Anglos,
especially Texans, took on forms that were shaped by that conflict. At
the close of the war, and until 1880 at least, friction along the Texas
border was continual and intense, and "race hatred" flared up over both
political and economic issues (Taylor, 1934: 42-49). Early Texas fic-
tion fed on these animosities and subsequently diffused them more ex-
tensively through its characterization of Mexicans (Rios, 1971: 66-67).
As Agnes Pallen wrote, in 1925, "We always picture Mexico as cactus-
Covered desert populated exclusively by bloodthirsty natives whose chief
interest in life is cutting one another's throats ..." (Adler, 1970:
128). Diffusion of such stereotypical images has had enormous conse-

quences for future generations of Mexican Americans as they struggle

28

for survival in an Anglo-American-dominated, stereotype-laden world.

The Post Mexican Revolutionary Era: A Socio-Cultural Profile

 

Prior to 1900 the influx of Mexicans into the United States was
comparatively miniscule. This may actually reflect changing entry for-
malities, since between 1850 and 1900 the formalities were minimal and
statistical records rather unreliable. During more recent times the
increased rigidity of visa status formalities has helped to identify
two prominent waves of legal Mexican immigration. The first dates from
1915 to the Depression era and the other dates from World War II up
through the present (Estrada, Hernandez and Alvirez, 1972: 1-2).2
The Mexican immigrants came in search of new horizons, of prosperity
and of liberty. Instead they found an antagonistic atmosphere for
everything Mexican, they were treated badly and exploited for their
physical endurance-—the legacy of two wars and a stereotype-laden lit-
erature. The general consensus in the Southwest was that Mexican Amer-
icans were essentially inferior: "The Mexicans are like children.

They have an average mentality of a nine-year old child. If you tell
them to do two things, they will do one of them wrong or forget to do
it at all." And thus the Biblical notion of "hewers of wood and draw-
ers of water" was applied as it was generally believed that God had
created Mexicans to labor. But, then again, there were some Mexicans
who "are very bright, but you can't compare their brightest with the
average white children. They are an inferior race." The last phrase
is of key importance to an understanding of anti-Mexican sentiment, a
belief in the superiority of the white race over an ignorant and de-

graded "hybrid race of Spanish and Indian origin ..." (Taylor, 1934:

29

32, 127, 203, 300). Despite being technically classified as Caucasian,
the person of Mexican descent in the Southwest has generally been re-
garded as "non-white" in the eyes of the general majority group public,
primarily because of their mixed Spanish-Indian heritage which has fre-
quently resulted in a darker complexion and distinctive facial features.
Thus, if we recall Olmstead's early statement, they were "not acknowl-
edged as 'white folks'" (McWilTiams, T948: 114; Rios, T971: 65).
Associated with the assumption of Mexican inferiority is that
of group homogeneity-—that there is a marked lack of internal differ-
entiation, that all Mexicans are alike. Furthermore, over time, from
the 1920's through the 1970's, no distinction has been made between
Mexican Americans and Mexican Nationals (McWilTiams, T948: 75; Rios,
T971: 60; Simmons, T973: 41). Consequently, as Manuel Gamio noted, in
his classic Mexican Immigrants to the United States (1930), even if
"they are American citizens, they remain on economic, political and
social levels always inferior to those occupied by Americans of like
condition and capacity” (quoted in Heller, T966: 12). And as Jose

Vasconcelos so aptly summarized this reality in his Ulises criollo

 

(Mexico, 1937):

In speaking of Mexicans I include many who, though
they lived in Texas and though their parents were
naturalized citizens, would make common cause with
me for reasons of race. And even if they hadn't
wanted it that way, it would have been the same,
because the yankees so classify them (quoted in
Rios, T971: 71).

So prevalent had this conception become that as early as the 1930's
Taylor could quote a Mexican National as saying "Texas-Mexicans and

Old Mexico Mexicans are the same; the only difference is whether they

30

are born here or there." But, Mexican Americans (and Mexicans) in the
Southwest are not historically, genetically or culturally homogenous.
Each wave of immigrants differed, each area to which they travelled
differed. Mexico was different with regard to the extensiveness of
industrialization, urbanization and "modernization" (Penalosa, T973:
61). And, it seems obvious, the two nations have not made parallel
strides in growth/development over time.

The negative images which have evolved over time can be seen as
rationalizations of, and support for, the status quo. Since Mexican
Americans are so obviously inferior, their subordinate status is appro-
priate and is of their own doing (Simmons, T973: 41, 49). The hybrid
Mexicans get no social equality since they do not desire such and keep
"their place" (Taylor, 1934: 163-164, 254, 304). This conception fails
to reflect reality. The subordinate Mexican and Black populations are
not content with their lot, with most, regardless of class, being keen-
ly aware of Anglo American attitudes and practices toward their group.
Thus, the superior, intelligent and enlightened white population had
to take appropriate action. For instance, in Los Angeles, parks, swim-
ming pools and theatres were primarily restricted to "whites" with
"Tuesdays reserved for Negroes and Mexicans” (Scott, T970: 110). Other
intimations of minority group dissatisfaction and resulting white re-
sponse can be seen in advertisements, such as the one in San Antonio
(1927) which noted that it was the "Only pool in city that does not
allow Mexicans" (Taylor, 1934: 264). Some such images continue to
persist, albeit to a lesser degree, and are not limited to either mere

prejudicial statements or minor behavioral manifestations as illustrated

31

above with regard to recreational facilities. The ramifications of
these attitudes are widespread as they were translated into behavioral

patterns in, among others, the crucial area of housing.

Residential Segregation, l960

 

For 1960, Moore and Mittelbach (1966) found that sharp differ-
ences existed in the extent of segregation between various subpopula-
tions, with wide variations across the 35 cities they studied [see
table 2]. For example, we see that segregation of Mexican Americans3
from Anglos ranged from a low of 30 in Sacramento, California, to a
high of 76 in Odessa, Texas. Segregation of Blacks from Anglos ranges
from a low of 57 in Pueblo, Colorado, to a high of 94 in Lubbock, Tex-
as. The lack of uniformity is even more apparent when we examine the
segregation of the two minorities from each other, shown in the last
column of the table. The segregation of Blacks from Mexican Americans
ranges from a low of 29 in Odessa to a high of 89 in Lubbock. The pat-
tern of the segregation scores for the three types of segregation which
held for 26 of the 35 cities was as follows: the highest segregation
was that of Blacks from Anglos; the intermediate level of segregation
was that of Mexican Americans from Blacks; and the least segregation
was between Mexican Americans and Anglos.

In Moore and Mittelbach's (T966: C-7, C-8) stepwise regression
analysis, relatively few independent variables accounted for most of
the ascertained variance. The resulting "best" equations selected for
each dependent variable "explained" from 49 to 69 percent of the vari-
ance in the D's. And while the statistical measures to illustrate the

"taste for discrimination" failed to show any significant relationship

32

Table 2. Indexes of Residential Dissimilarity for
35 Southwestern Central Cities, 1960

 

 

 

Mexican Mexican
Americans Americans* Blacks
from from from
City Anglos Blacks Anglos
Abilene, Texas 57.6 55.7 85.1
Albuquerque, New Mexico 53.0 62.4 81.7
Austin, Texas 63.3 66.1 72.1
Bakersfield, California 53.7 61.4 87.7
Colorado Springs, Colorado 44.8 53.8 74.0
Corpus Christi, Texas 72.2 51.0 91.3
Dallas, Texas 66.8 76.1 90.2
Denver, Colorado 60.0 68.0 86.8
El Paso, Texas 52.9 59.5 79.2
Fort Worth, Texas 56.5 78.1 85.4
Fresno, California 49.0 55.2 92.0
Galveston, Texas 33.3. 52.1 73.8
Houston, Texas 65.2 70.9 81.2
Laredo, Texas 39.4 43.9 60.1
Los Angeles, California 57.4 75.7 87.6
Lubbock, Texas 66.0 89.0 94.4
Oakland, California 41.5 56.4 72.2
Odessa, Texas 75.8 29.2 90.5
Ontario, California 50.6 32.6 80.1
Phoenix, Arizona 57.3 60.7 90.0
Port Arthur, Texas 45.9 76.3 89.7
Pueblo, Colorado 40.2 44.1 57.0
Riverside, California 64.9 45.6 80.8
Sacramento, California 30.2 47.8 61.9
San Angelo, Texas 65.7 75.6 77.5
San Antonio, Texas 63.2 77.4 84.5
San Bernardino, California 67.9 35.2 83.5
San Diego, California 43.6 55.2 81.1
San Francisco, California 38.1 65.9 71.5
San Jose, California 43.0 44.4 64.7
Santa Barbara, California 46.5 37.6 76.7
Stockton, California 52.6 31.0 73.0
Tucson, Arizona 62.7 64.1 84.5
Waco, Texas 59.7 60.6 74.3
Wichita Falls, Texas 64.8 47.6 86.1
MEAN 54.5 57.3 80.1
STANDARD DEVIATION 11.4 15.1 9.5

 

SOURCE: Adapted from Moore and Mittelbach (1966: 17-18), Tables 2 and 3.

*Mexican American has been employed for the sake of clarity, it is list-

ed as White Persons of Spanish Surname in the original Moore and Hit-
telbach tables.

33

to both intercity and intergroup segregation, Moore and Mittelbach
(1966: 39-40) concluded that some of the influence of discrimination-—
for which they were unable to find a statistical proxy——was buried in

the variance left unaccounted for by the analysis.

The Socio-Historical Milieu as an Explanatony Aid

One of the most notable weaknesses of the earlier Moore and
Mittelbach study is its failure to provide either a sufficient concep-
tual framework or an adequate historical background for their analysis,
the bulk of which was summarized in the preceding section. Let us re-
turn briefly to the socio-historical approach and see how it may have
effectively enhanced Moore and Mittelbach's empirical analysis.

Mexican Americans have been classified as being prone to pro-
pinquity, of instinctively huddling together in certain districts be-
cause they like to live in a clannish manner among their own kind (Ful-
Ter, 1920: 2). Madsen (1973: 33) aptly summarizes the propinquity-
prone perspective when he notes that the Mexican American's "world is
a Latin [sic] world and he avoids all unnecessary contact with Anglos
whom he regards as threatening and incomprehensible." But, the exclu-
sionary practices of the Anglo American population are as relevant to
an understanding of enclave formation and maintenance as are any iso-
lationist practices of the Mexican ancestry group itself. As early as
the 1930's Taylor's (T934: 228) extensive interviewing revealed that
"The Mexicans do not prefer complete separation. ... They prefer to be
free to move where they please. The American people impose the separa-
tion. ..." The Mexican American impressions uncovered by Taylor reveal

that, contrary to the arguments of the voluntarist explanation of

34

ethnic ghettoization, it was the Anglo American population which pre-
ferred separation. Many persons of Mexican ancestry were found to de-
sire residences in better sections of town. Taylor's findings are cor-
roborated in a study by Bogardus (T930: 75), who quotes a Mexican as
saying that "that is where the Americans want the Mexicans to go-—to
places where the Americans will not go themselves.“ Case and Kirk's
(1959: T9) later study found that 46 percent of the Black and 38 per-
cent of the Mexican American families surveyed wanted to move. And as
early as the turn of the century, Fuller (T920: 3) had cryptically
noted a case wherein the head of the household wanted to move and was
willing to pay more in rent for better housing but was unable to do so.
Fuller's limited "analysis" offers no plausible explanations for this
failure. In their study, Case and Kirk (1959: 69) discovered that 18
percent of all minority and 15 percent of the Mexican American families
questioned had actually attempted to move into non-minority neighbor-
hoods but had been unsuccessful.

The most direct device for maintaining segregation has been the
simple refusal to sell to the ostracized Mexican. Pressures brought
against real estate brokers in order to assure conformity to the white
normative pattern were not unheard of as early as the late 1920's. As
early as 1923 and 1924 newspaper advertisements for new "additions"
proclaimed "No Mexicans Allowed" (Bogardus, 1930: 77-78; Taylor, 1934:
227-228). When simple refusal to sell or social pressure became inef-
fective, the restrictive covenant gained widespread popularity (Long
and Johnson, 1947: 91, 103; Perales, 1948: 139-149). As early as 1910,

such restrictions were included in deeds for the Bishop, Texas,

35

townsite:
. when said lots or any portion thereof are con-

veyed to either a Mexican or a Negro or both that

the title to the same shall thereupon revert to the

grantor herein, and this condition shall be binding

upon the grantee and his heirs and assigns, and

run with said lots ... (Taylor, 1934: 226).
In the mid-1940's, the Rev. John J. Birch remarked that ”in practical-
ly every city and town of California, Texas and Arizona, there are res-
idential districts where persons of Mexican extraction, regardless of
wealth and social position, are not permitted to reside on the ground

that they are not 'white'" (Perales, T948: 55).4

Rental units were
also covered by such restrictions throughout Texas (Perales, T948: 124,
186ff). In the 1940's, restrictive covenants on land sites in Phoenix
influenced the development of city housing projects. Because of re-
strictions contained in deeds throughout the city, it was necessary to
construct one housing project exclusively for "whites," another for
Mexican Americans, and yet another for Blacks (U. S. Commission on Civ-
il Rights, 1962: 34).

The influence of such legal restrictions in the past and the
existing cultural associations which emerged from them have caused, in
large part, the preference to gather in well-defined areas (Case and
Kirk, 1959: 73). The legacy of the period of legal machinations such
as restrictive covenants has frequently been noted in practices which
have continued well beyond their basis in legality. A staff report to
the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights in 1964 described remnants of
these prior practices:

The problem of housing discrimination includes gov-

ernmental support of residential segregation, the
inability to obtain loans for certain properties,

36

the refusal of some real estate brokers to show

certain properties to Spanish-speaking homeseek-

ers, the charging of higher rents to the Spanish-

speaking, and the outright refusal by landlords,

builders, and homeowners to rent or sell to them

(quotes in Schmidt, 1970: 51).

It seems reasonable, then, to view Mexican American propinquity
as having a basis in past restrictive practices coupled with past deci-
sions, by recent arrivals and long-term residents alike, to seek the
course of least resistance. As two Anglos, quoted by Taylor (1934:
134, 262), put it: "usually a Mexican won't stay 'where he has trou-
ble'" and "the Mexicans don't like it; they know they are not allowed,
and don't try."

Nam (T959: 328) notes that in many community studies, time of
arrival of different groups is a key status rank variable. But as 80-
gardus (T930: 74) pointed out a number of years ago, the "Mexican" com-
munity is often the original part of the American city: San Antonio
was founded in 1718 and Albuquerque, though not formally incorporated
as an "American" city until 1890, was founded in 1706. Many of the
Southwest's Cities were settled by the Spanish-Mexicans and represent
another of the many second frontiers for the Anglo American immigrants.
Originally, the pattern was to organize these early cities around mul-
ti-purpose plaza areas. With the completion of the railroads and the
consequent flood of new Anglo American immigrants, many such plazas
were circumvented by transportation nodes and terminals. Central plac-
es, therefore, arose at some distance from the original plazas and ex-

perienced much of the subsequent urban growth, leaving the old plazas

as "backwaters." The subsequent rapid urbanization of the Southwest

37

resulted in further absorption of scattered Mexican American barrios
having roots in the Southwest's agricultural pasc as agricultural lands
were rapidly converted to urban uses (Moore and Mittelbach, 1966: TO,
12). For instance, in the original settlement pattern of Los Angeles,
the Mexican population occupied what was then the periphery of the
city, living in compact little communities. The present city grew
around these scattered communities and absorbed them into the urban
patterns of activity. The enclaves retained their ethnic character but
the population was now "urban" and gradually abandoned their primarily
agricultural occupational orientations (Case and Kirk, 1959: 9; Jacobs,
1967: 138). Thus, we see a difference in the Mexican American's pat-
tern of "ghettoization" from that of the "traditional" process under-
gone by other urban ethnics: Mexican American urbanization has not
meant an almost exclusive concentration in the older central areas of
Southwestern cities. Although many of the enclaves are to be found in
areas adjacent to the present central business district, they are more
widely scattered throughout the cities as a result of the historical
evolution of the city itself. There are even a few places where Mexi-
can Americans are the numerical majority. While Moore and Mittelbach
(T966: 12) claim that in Laredo, for instance, Mexican Americans are
not found in subordinate enclaves and constitute a "social" majority
they offer no supportive evidence. There are all-to-many cases in Tex-
as wherein Mexican Americans constitute the numerical majority but the
legacy of the past continues to impose a subordinate status upon them

(McWilTiams, 1948; Rubel, 1966; Madsen, 1973).

38

Summar

A history of the Mexican Americans has not been my intent.
This brief socio-historical overview has been intended more as a con-
sciousness and issue-raising component. More than anything else, the
brief review should make the reader aware of the forces that have been
at work over time. Used in conjunction with the empirical component of
the study such a historical perspective should enable a more critical
evaluation of the applicability to the Mexican American of the three
theoretical frameworks frequently employed for explaining residential
segregation. We turn our attention to a presentation and brief cri-

tique of these frameworks in the following chapter.

CHAPTER III
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ETHNIC RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION

Introduction

 

Most stratification theories are "concerned primarily with eco-
nomic dimensions such as the unequal distribution of rewards and privi-
leges to labor and capital or to occupational groups" (Lieberson, T970:
172). American demographers have fixed on the issues and have joined
their non-demographer colleagues, especially with regard to occupation-
al mobility and labor force analyses (Schnore, 1965a: 59). Other de-
mographers and sociologists, relatively few by comparison, have seen in
the uneven residential distribution of occupational, ethnic and racial
groups the spatial manifestation of an urban stratification system
(Duncan and Duncan, T955a: 493; Etzioni, T959: 258; Taeuber, 1964: 42;
Lieberson, T970: 173). As a group, the questions whose answers they
most seek to understand are simply "who chooses which, what makes peo-
ple choose as they do, and what happens to people who have, for reasons
of income and race, no choice at all?" (Gans, T968: 3). Over the
years, there have emerged three alternative explanations for the emer-
gence and/or maintenance of ethnic and racial residential segregation
in U. 5. urban communities;

1. The unequal distribution of purchasing power among

families (a variant of the market model of "clas-
sic economics");

2. Cultural solidarity, or voluntary self-segregation;
and

39

4O

3. Exclusionary policies and practices, ideologies and
interests, of the dominant group(s) in the society.

The Purchasing Power Explanation: A Variation on the Market Model

 

One of the most frequently espoused theoretical positions re-
garding residential segregation is that "the spatial distribution of
people is seldom the product of deliberate design; after each migration
new patterns of settlement develop through competition and natural se-
lection" based on purchasing power (Shibutani and Kwan, 1965: 147, 159;
see also McKenzie, 1925: 64; Warner and Srole, T945: 34). Ethnic seg-
regation in industrial cities, especially those undergoing rapid
growth, was attributed to this selective process, a process which, evi-
dently, had been at work for ages

If we compare the medieval town with the modern urban

community we find that the two structures have some-

thing fundamental in common, namely, the segregation

of the population into distinct classes and vocation-

al groups. This process is essentially a process of

competition. ... (Wirth, 1928: 284).

Immigrants of low status are seen as settling in those areas of
the city where rents are low, while those who could afford better hous-
ing usually chose to live in mixed areas among the more "successful"
members of other minority groups. In Wirth's (1928: 4) terminology,
the former's settlement in the ghettos represented an area of first
settlement. The poor immigrant drifted to these slums primarily as a
result of the attraction of low rents and the added benefit, due to the
nature of industrial activity at the time, that they were within easy
walking distance of their employment (Bogardus, 1930: 79; Banfield,
T968: 68). The spatial distribution of ethnic groups in the United

States developed as members of each group settled in the best housing

41

they could find, given their poor ability to compete with others (Lieb-
erson, T963: 4; Shibutani and Kwan, 1965: 119-120). The consequences
of such disadvantageous competitive capacities was as Hollingshead suc-
cinctly summed it up, that "... competition in a market ... gives soci-
ety its more or less ecological base" (quotes in Firey, T947: 16).

Handlin (1951: 146) has noted that the immigrants found their
first homes "in quarters the old occupants no longer desire." Milton
Gordon (1964: 97) acknowledged the ecological-economic argument when
he pointed out that immigrants, arriving when they did, as the exis-
tence of the western frontier was drawing to a close, gathered in the
urban slums and took their places on the lowest economic rungs of the
industrial ladder. For McKenzie, this was the essence of the process,
all forms of urban segregation were based on the rent and income fac-
tors (Firey, 1947: 11). As the process continued and time passed, the
next new wave of immigration arrived and the earlier immigrants were
"pushed" up to the next rung on the economic ladder as the second and
subsequent generations acquired increasing measures of education and
the requisite industrial-technical and language skills to take advan-
tage of favorable opportunities (Wirth, 1928: 228-229; Edwards, 1966:
280).] As Edith Elmer Wood, writing in 1935, summarized it:

. Newcomers sought the cheapest and therefore the
worst housing, literally pushing out, and necessar-
ily into something better, the last previous immi-

grant wave. They were able to afford the move be-
cause rapidly expanding population meant rapidly

expanding jobs. ... Living in these slums was a
temporary discomfort, ... (quotes in Banfield,
1968: 30).

These patterns of temporary segregation, to be followed by upward mo-

bility, characterized "virtually all immigrant groups in the United

42

States" (Shibutani and Kwan, 1965: 120). Thus, the atmOSphere of the
"blighted area" surrounding the central business district was viewed as
temporary and to be bestowed minimal commitment (Michelson, T970: 9).

This same temporary process has frequently been viewed from a
slightly different perspective, one which emphasizes a "filtering down
process" rather than a "push" factor in changing residential location.
While both say basically the same thing, a brief look at the "filter-
ing" argument may be of subsequent usefulness in this study.

As the economic situation of each succeeding wave of immigrants
improved and as their existing housing aged and, consequently, "de-
clined" some groups found that the quantity of housing they needed had
increased and they sought newer housing-—at least that which was newer
for it. Gradually the group began to move from the original locus
(Wirth's area of first settlement) and into neighborhoods previously
inhabited by the prior wave of immigrants who had also begun their
search for new quarters as their existing housing began to decline and
their (status) needs and incomes increased. Thus, our alternative in-
terpretation of ecological succession of immigrant groups focuses on a
passing down of housing for occupancy by the more prosperous and thrif-
ty members of successively lower-income ethnic groups as adequate sup-
plies of better housing become available at the upper end of the chain
for those groups having progressed up the economic ladder and become,
at least relatively, well-off——thus the term "filtering" (Muth, T969:
98; Greeley, T975: 62). It is suggested that as members of the more
prosperous group moved, their housing because it was not likely to have

been within the financial reach of the next lowest group, probably went

43

qUite frequently to the less prosperous, but nonetheless slowly progres-
sing, members of their own group whose housing was subsequently passed
down the filtering chain. Bogardus (T930: 75) strongly implies this
when he refers to economic mobility and areas of second and third set-
tlement (see also Jonassen, 1949: 37). Handlin (1951: 164-165) notes
that, in some cases, "so many moved that these newer places began to
repeat the experience of the area of first settlement."

The "market model" implies that at any given time the level of
ethnic residential segregation is attributable to differences in a
group's socioeconomic position. Implied in such a conceptualization is
the argument that the various existing social classes are differential-
ly distributed over the residential areas of the city. Thus, one would
eXpect ethnic residential segregation to be accounted for by the socio-
economic differentials of the groups considered (Warner and Srole,
T945: 34; Shibutani and Kwan, 1965: 159, 163-164). Schnore (1965b:
126) has found that residential patterning is, in part, a class phenom-
enon. With respect to socioeconomic status, the Duncans (1957) found
a pattern of differentiation resembling that found in the white commun-
ity within the Black community of Chicago. In both communities, higher
status groups were found to be residentially segregated from the lower

status groups.

The "Voluntarist” Perspective
The pioneers of the "Chicago School," Park and Burgess had ar-
gued that among some recent immigrants propinquity was equally as im-
portant as "cost accounting" in the selection of residential location

(Suttles, 1972: 26). In another early ecological study, Christen

44

Jonassen (1949: 41) stated that "men tend to distribute themselves
within an area so as to achieve the greatest efficiency in realizing
the values they hold most dear." In the view of Robert Blauner (1972:
86) the ethnic ghettos that resulted from the massive immigration of
earlier days arose more through voluntary choice than coercion. The
immigrant inhabitants of these ghettos freely chose to set out for Amer-
ica and once here freely chose to reside among fellow ethnics. These
ghettos were basically temporary way stations along the roads of ac-
culturation and assimilation. Such ethnic ghettos were one- or two-
generation phenomena-—where they continued to persist they reflected
voluntary decisions to remain among fellow ethnics and to maintain
group institutions. As a consequence, Gordon (1964: 34, 37) can depict
the American social structure as consisting of a series of subsocieties
based on ethnic identity. He writes that within these ethnic groups
there develops a network of organizations and informal soCial relation-
ships which allows, or even conceivably encourages, ethnics to remain
within the confines of their group for all their primary, and some of
their secondary, relationships (see also Park and Miller, 1925: 120-
144; Breton, T964: 200; Kramer, 1970: 62). De facto ethnic societies
developed in the first generation as a result of numerous_natural fac-
tors (e.g. sparsely settled interior regions). Subsequently, the
search for an "oasis of familiarity in a strange land" led to the re-
creation of miniature ethnic societies as friends, relatives, and coun-
trymen joined the original settlers (Gordon, 1964: 133-134; Greeley,
T975: 39). Breton (1964: 193) argues that the direction of the immi-

grants' integration was dependent to a great degree on the positive

45

and negative forces of attraction and repulsion of the various commun-
ities. In larger cities, ethnic groups of the second, third, fourth
and even later generations have been known to continue to live in self-
imposed isolation (Banfield, T968: 81; Gans, T968: 37, 263; Kantro-
witz, 1969: 684). Ecological groups such as these have greatly in-
creased opportunities for the avoidance of intimate contacts, or even
informal communication, with outside groups than do the non-ecological
ethnic groups. Such opportunity more readily permits the circumscrip-
tion of loyalty to the larger society which engulfs them (Etzioni,
1959: 259; see also Park and Miller, 1925: 120-144).

Why? Robert Park answered that the continued existence of the'
ethnic ghetto was due to the fact that it met a need and performed a
function (Wirth, 1928: vi). Using the Jews as a historical illustra-
tion, Wirth notes that segregation into separate local areas within a
city did not originate from any formal edict or preconceived design.
Rather, the ghetto stabilized the needs and practices rooted in the re-
ligious and secular customs and heritages of the ethnics themselves.
This voluntary congregation was due to the need for communal organiza-
tion (Wirth, 1928: 18). These enclaves were a haven for their inhabi-
tants. Wirth went on to note that within his own community the ethnic
was at home. The ghetto allowed him to relax, to drop the etiquette
and formalism required of him in the outside world. Whereas the world
at large was cold and strange, in the ghetto it was warm and familiar
and he was, or felt, free to be himself. Once in the ghetto, the eth-
nic was among his own kind and he could converse in a familiar tongue.

Common troubles, ceremonies and sentiments were shared. Without this

46

security among his own kind life in the world "beyond the pale" would
have been insufferable (Wirth, 1928: 26-27). Wirth's rendition of the
'functions of the ghetto presents the view that, like Frederick Jackson
Turner's frontier, it served as a "safety valve." Invariably individ-
uals would attempt to move out of the ghetto and into the world that
lay beyond. Sometimes, broken and humiliated, the expatriate would re-
turn to the warmth and intimacy that could be found only among his own
people (Wirth, 1928: 36-37, 122-123).

For Wirth, the case of the modern ghetto, as typified by those
in the United States, was altogether different. This ghetto was infre-
quently anything more than a transitional area, an intervening stage
between the old and the new wisdoms:

... The actual immigrant from the East who settled in

a Western ghetto may, by reason of age, poverty, or

prejudice, remain there and die there. But his chil-

dren seldom, perhaps never, do so: their modern edu-

cation weakens the sentimental attachment to the ghet-

to, and they prefer to live farther afield and enjoy

a sense of actual equality with their non-Jewish

neighbours. ... (Wirth, 1928: 129).

As in the case of its European predecessor, the modern ghetto
serves a a function. An extremely important and powerful factor in the
distribution of population is tolerance. The tolerance of "strange"
ways of living or of cultural heterogeneity is such that one can obtain
freedom from hostility, from criticism, and the support of kindred
spirits only in such places as immigrant colonies. The arrangement
made with the dominant group(s), that of living apart in certain areas,
is primarily utilitarian. The accommodation between the two groups——a

"dissenting" minority and the dominant population-is a form of toler-

ance that leads to the development of a modus vivendi between them

 

47

(Wirth, 1928: 5, 20, 24). Wirth (1928: 288) would note that it is to

such a modus vivendi, which permitted physical and encouraged social

 

isolation, that the Jews owed their continued existence as a separate
and distinct group.

Lester Granger has noted that when people find themselves in
strange surroundings while simultaneously endeavoring to embark on a
fresh start they both desire—-and probably require-—to sojourn among
compatriots (Schorr, 1963: 86). Even the Taeubers have conceded that
for most Blacks, to live near family and friends, a purely voluntary
option, means to live near other Blacks and that if this were to be
carried out on a mass basis would produce a high degree of residential
segregation (Taeuber and Taeuber, T969: 22). Generally speaking, then,
settling down in areas which have much the same traditions and customs
as the newcomers is more uncomplicated than in those of mixed nativity
(or race). The environment is generally less hostile and the need for
neighboring and intensive group-centered living, like that of the Ital-
ians and Puerto Ricans, more easily met (Gans, 1968: 37, 263; Keller,
1968: 48-49, 66). For Shibutani and Kwan (1965: 38) such actions are
easily understood, the better we know someone, the greater the prOSpect
of our correctly understanding his objectives and, thus, the more ready
development of assurance among them. Kramer (T970: 81) goes as far as
saying that gll new ethnic arrivals sought the security and warmth of
the insular enclave due to its strategic utility for facilitating ad-
justment to their alien status. As Park and Miller (1925: 47) wrote:

. the most serious condition results from the loss
of status and the consequent diminished sense of per-

sonality when the immigrant encounters American con-
ditions.

48

Within such enclaves, this alien status had positive ramifications as
it provided for the realization of self-respect and social location on
the basis of a "consciousness of kind," thus mitigating its concomitant
negative connotation in the outside world (Park and Miller, 1925: 47-59;
Kramer, 1970: 70, 81-82). Although the enclave-community as a whole
may have itself been marginal to the host society, its insular nature
and perceived homogeneity minimized the pathos of social inferiority in
the new environment by providing a framework within which the recent
immigrants could experience themselves as persons and could concurrent-
ly avoid the pressures toward conformity of the external world (Keller,
1968: 66; Kramer, 1970: 68; Greeley, T975: 40, 187). Its internal in-
stitutional structure accorded the immigrant the pursuit of at least
limited ends, by providing him with means which afforded what were for
him both rational and realistic options (Park and Miller, 1925: 120-
144).

Gradually the immigrant community's culture evolved as members
developed linguistic proficiency and acquired new skills, to the point
where it provided a framework from which to issue forth into the larger
host society (Shibutani and Kwan, 1965; 535; Kramer, 1970: 62, 82).

The occurrence of such acculturation reflects Wirth's (T928: 74, 256)
contention that ghetto residents were destined to assimilate2 and to
consequently disappear as distinct groups. Actually, the foundation for
this perception was laid by Park and Burgess when they contrasted the
American esteem for cost accounting with the immigrants' preference for
propinquity. Their conclusion, too, was that immigrant neighborhoods

were provisionary and would dissipate with "Americanization" (Suttles,

49

1972: 26). Others have subsequently written that the transition from
one's own to the host culture was softened by the ghetto's neutralizing
the strangeness "beyond the pale" with the affinity of the familiar, by
serving as a refuge from which new cultural acquisitions might be
examined on approval, with no concomitant obligation toward accommoda-
tion (Kramer, 1970: 79; Simmons, 1973: 49). As such experimentation
was realized and the appropriate linguistic and technical proficiency
were also achieved, the immigrant groups were capable of discharging
formerly circumscribed activities, with the consequence that the imple-
mentation of the traditionally restrictive occupational patterns became
much more encumbered and were, generally after some ensuing conflict,
subsequently suppressed. As this was occurring at the workplace a sim-
ilar breakdown was occurring in the patterns of residential segregation
(Shibutani and Kwan, 1965: 535). For the most part, the generations
that succeeded the first immigrant wave did not bother to learn the lan-
gUage and plainly had no intent of perpetuating ties with the homeland.
For the younger generation, to have spoken with an accent would have
invited the abuse and mockery of his American peers. With the punish-
ment far outweighing all possible benefits of speaking one's parental
tongue, many a youngster plunged headlong into his socialization into
100 percent Americanism and by the third generation much of the culture
had been lost and the community dispersed (Park and Miller, 1925: 51-
52; Kahl, 1966: 247; Boe, T971: 74, 82). As Jack Agueros (T971: 94)

so aptly put it, "Dick and Jane were not dead; they were alive and well
in a better neighborhood." Lieberson (T963: 45) felt that it was clear

that the general trend has been toward a decline in the residential

50

segregation of ethnic immigrants from native whites. In an earlier
study, co-authored by Duncan, a decline in residential segregation of
ethnics had been reported between 1930 and 1950. The average segrega-
tion indexes for 4 "old" and 6 "new" countries of origin, correspond-
ing roughly to the two major contemporary waves of immigration, showed
that the "old" wave was rather significantly less segregated than the
"new," implying the operation of an assimilation process basically con-
sistent with that projected by Park and Burgess (Duncan and Lieberson,

1959: 364-374).

The Exclusionary Policies Explanation

 

The so-called "American Creed" espouses the essential dignity
of the individual and certain inalienable rights to freedom, justice,
and equal opportunity-—including that of free choice (Simmons, 1973:
40). But the choice open to many minority group members in reference
to housing location is all too frequently a Hobson's Choice-—the free-
dom to choose, but no real alternatives to choose from (Wurster, 1966:
44; Schmidt, 1970: 53). Thus, the third explanatory approach to be
considered focuses on discriminatory practices, both institutional and
individual.

A number of minority group members in the U. S. have had the
distinction of having financial capabilities which afforded them the
opportunity of better housing-but nonetheless being confined either to
a continued existence with the poverty-stricken of their group or the
"opportunity" of moving into a "better ghetto" (Jacobs, 1967: 134).

As one young Black soldier put it [ca. 1960]: "My one sister is

51

married to a school teacher and he makes pretty good money, but they
still have to live in the ghetto ..." (Jacobs, 1967: 149). It is peo-
ple such as this schoolteacher, the "advanced“ members of the minority
group, who feel the deprivation of housing opportunities most. This is
primarily due to the fact that middle-class groups seek, in addition to
an adequate dwelling unit, a neighborhood having such qualities as
"quiet, order, cleanliness, good facilities, and social prestige usual-
ly associated with a desirable neighborhood" (McEntire, T960: 99). Ow-
ing to exclusionary practices, middle-class Blacks and Mexican Ameri-
cans3 are not allowed to compete in an open housing market in their ef-
forts to obtain better dwellings (Helper, T969: 4). This is exempli-
fied by the experience of one Black couple, "we want to live out here
in the Westwood section. But it took us six months and three lawsuits
to finally get an apartment ..." (Jacobs, 1967: 148). In many places,
signs reading "No Renting to Colored or Spanish" were not uncommon
(Agueros, 1971: 97).

One might ask why this occurs. In Lieberson's (T963: 3) view,
the significance of racial or ethnic groups lies in their role as de-
Timiters of rivalry and competitive opportunities. Greeley (T975: 43)
notes that land, family and common cultural heritage are of great im-
portance, and those who are strange or different are suspect. Feelings
of proprietary claim are integral to the emergence and maintenance of
prejudices (Blumer, 1958: 4). In the customary fashion of the newly
arrived, Tow-status immigrant groups, the newcomers cluster together
and as they did so the older inhabitants simultaneously began drawing

apart from them (McEntire, 1960: 349). As the minority is pressed

52

outwards in search of newer housing opportunities, there is a stimula-
tion of antagonism between them and the majority (Commission on Race
and Housing, 1958: 42) as it is perceived as a threat to "all those
things a man has come to value in that particular area he thinks of as
his own" (Greeley, 1975: 62-63).4 Under such conditions, competition
among individuals is converted into conflict between groups and minor—
ity homeseekers venturing outside "their" areas are generally regarded
as invaders (McEntire, 1960: 96).

The Black ghetto was unlike that of the European ethnics be-
cause it seemed that it was not going to disappear. The ghetto came to
be seen not as the adaptive device for easing newcomers into the main-
stream of national life, but as a social mechanism TOCking certain ur-
ban newcomers-—Blacks, Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, Amerindians—-
into a subordinate status (Moore and Mittelbach, 1966: 2). Americans
did not want Blacks to assimilate to the point of social equality, in-
termarriage, and absorption into the mainstream as they had conceded
the Europeans (Kahl, 1966: 247). "Black" carries too many imputations
of status inferiority and integrated-—as well as minority—-neighbor-
hoods are viewed as low status (Berry, et. al., 1976: 247). Ecological
separation seemed adequate protection in this regard (Kahl, 1966: 247).
Thus, there were simultaneous, and divergent, movements of population
which have resulted in an expansion of minority residential areas in
the central cities and achromatic communities in the suburban periphery
(McEntire, 1960: 349). We see, then, another example in which social
distance converts itself into spatial distance in the face of the re-

fusal, in part forced by rapid growth, of the minority population's

53

recognition of the social distance symbolism of segregated, contained
areas (Berry, et. al., 1976: 249-250).

Because some white Americans either fear or look down upon non-
white peoples5 the Operations of the superindividual housing and real
estate markets often reflect and reinforce anti-minority prejudices all
the more (Jacobs, 1967: 136). The even larger housing industry-—by
which we also mean the banking and lending apparatus, developers, real
estate associations, contractors and builders, and the insurance and
mortgage firms—~is status quo oriented (Hager, T960: 81). When inter-
viewed, the majority of realtors stated they provided what people want-
ed, and most white pe0ple held unfavorable images of Blacks and there-
fore refused to live in integrated buildings or neighborhoods (Helper,
T969: 73).

Thus, we shall see that a combination of factors are involved
in producing and maintaining residential segregation:

1. Community, neighborhood and individual opposi-

tion to certain groups.

2. Restrictive covenants, zoning and other build-
ing ordinances.

The agreements, practices and codes of ethics
among real estate board and operatives.
Neglect of the minority housing market by pri-
vate builders and sources of finance.

5. Government acceptance and perpetuation of exist-
ing real estate practices (Weaver, 1948: 211).

900

Social segregation is not inherently produced by the construc-
tion of new housing or the passage of zoning laws but rather, as Myrdal
(1944: 622) viewed it, the chief force for maintaining Black residen-
tial segregation was informal social pressure from whites. This con-
ception is well-related by Jack Agueros' (T971: 94) experience when

growing up:

54

...when we went over Cooney's Hill, we risked dirty

looks, disapproving looks, and questions from the

police, like, "What are you doing in this neighbor-

hood?" and "Why don't you kids go back to where you

belong?"

Whereas the European immigrants met similar rebuffs, the newer arrivals
continue to experience them daily.

The minorities soon discovered that their ill-treatment went
beyond the individual, that city administrations at first sanctioned
such treatment and in a subsequent era became unwilling to enforce
their own anti-bias housing regulations. Initial municipal anti-minor-
ity action took the form of segregation ordinances, dating from as ear-
ly as 1912 (Franklin, 1967: 436-437, 641). But, as early as 1917, the
U. S. Supreme Court held racial residential zoning ordinances unconsti-
tutional (Vose, T959: 17). Agreements between private citizens, how-
ever, were viewed as valid and the ordinances gave way to the use of
racial restrictive coVenants. These covenants had as their only pur-
pose the conservation of all-white neighborhoods (Vose, 1959: 25).
Covenants were, in effect, what Keller (1968: 36) might say was a pro-
cess of institutionalization and formalization for protection against
"recurring exceptions." Apparently, the shortage of housing combined
with a wartime economy and the uprooting of farmers from southern agri-
culture had resulted in a loosening of the normative constraints as
Blacks began their greak trek cityward. Thus, between 1915 and 1945
the federal courts in Washington, D. C., were consistently called upon
to render decisions regarding these covenants. Invariably they upheld

the covenants, with the U. 5. Supreme Court ostensibly giving its tac-

it approval to the practice. When the first cases reached the Court,

55

it ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment was not applicable to the cove-
nants because it protected citizens only against discriminatory actions
by the state and the restrictions were placed in contracts by private
action (Vose, 1959: 28). Two factors eventually led to the termination
of racially restrictive covenants: the perennial shortage of good
housing for Blacks was worsened by an end—of—war scarcity (Vose, T959:
56), and a virtually irrefutable legal argument was developed in an ar-

ticle appearing in the California Law Review by a distinguished legal

 

scholar. Professor Dudley O. McGovney argued that while individuals
made the restrictive covenants, their enforcement brought the state
into the confrontation and thus constituted a violation of the Four-
teenth Amendment and the "equal protection" clause of the Fifth Amend-
ment (Vose, 1959: 68-69). With the decision in Spglly_v. Kraemer, 334
U. S. 1 (1948), the racially restrictive covenant was declared illegal.

But the battle had not ended, as Walter White of the NAACP was
quick to point out, "it took four Supreme Court decisions over a period
of more than twenty years to wipe out finally disfranchisement by white
primaries, so will the vast interests attempt to find some other means
of maintaining residential segregation“ (Vose, 1959: 214). As an ex-
leader of a federation of neighborhood associations stated in close
parallel, "I'm sure that there will be methods devised that will pro-
tect people who want to have neighbors who think along the same lines"
(Vose, 1959: 215).

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 prohibits discrimination in either
the same or rental of apartment complexes or housing developments. Ad-

ditionally, real estate brokers are prohibited from discriminating in

56

the same of single-family homes. Until the Jgng§_v. ngg§_decision,
however, there was no legal prohibition of discrimination on the part
of individuals selling their own property. Twenty years had elapsed,
yet there continued to exist loopholes in the Court's verdict of 1948.
As Suttles (1972: 267) aptly points out, the use of legal pro-
scriptions intent on the protection of the fights of certain groups
often leads to the conversion into law of previously informal practices.
The informal agreements and community conservation agreements which
arose to replace the racially restrictive covenants (Vose, T959: 229)

soon gave way to more sophisticated strategies.6

Zoning ordinances,
having their legal base in the police power of the stgtgg, have been
used in many localities against minority groups seeking improved hous-
ing (Commission on Race and Housing, 1966: 281; Miller and Davidson,
1972: 657-658). City administrators have resorted to manipulating or-
dinances with the intent of placing limitations on the selection of
sites for public housing and thereby containing Blacks, and others,
within "their" existing areas (Hager, 1960: 84). In 1969, voters in
Union City, California, rejected a zoning variance which would have al—
lowed the construction of a public housing project for persons of low-
and middle-incomes (Miller and Davidson, 1972: 660). As a result, the
Southern Alameda Spanish Speaking Organization (SASSO) filed suit
[§A§§Q_v. Union City, Ca., 424 F.2d 291(9th Cir. 1970)] declaring that
the original zoning ordinance's sole purpose was to bar integrated
housing. In the same vein, California's Constitution, Article 34, pro-

vided that "no Tow-rent housing project shall be developed, constructed

or acquired in any manner until the project is approved by a state

57

referendum." The constitutionality of this provision was challenged by
some Tow-income residents who would have qualified for such housing in
San Jose and San Mateo had the proposals not been defeated when submit-
ted to referendum. In ggmg§_v. Valtiera, 402 U. S. 137(1971), the U. S.
Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision and held that Article 34
was constitutional. The provision was viewed as economic in orienta-
tion and not as racially discriminatory. Thus, it appears, that laws
based on economic descriptions will serve to exclude large numbers of
non-whites by providing a camouflage for baser motives (Miller and Da-
vidson, 1972: 661-662).

Such strategies are partially responsible for eliciting the ob-
servation that "There is no free market for Negro housing" (Brown,
1965: 360). The result has been the emergence of a "dual market" where-
in Blacks and some other minorities have been prevented by realtors and
mortgagors from living in areas in the city other than "their own“
(Taeuber and Taeuber, T969: 25; Herbers, T971: 12). Over the course of
time, as whites departed from the inner city to the suburbs—-or perhaps
the more attractive sections lying within city boundaries-—Blacks found
housing opening up to them, not on their own terms but rather on those
arranged for them by owners, mortgage companies, and realtors (Frank-
lin, 1967; Herbers, 1971: T, 12).

In an excellent overview of the real estate industry's role in
structuring access to housing, William H. Brown, Jr. (1972: 66) notes
that the industry had long ago acquired the reputation as an institu-
tion whose policies and practices were consistently and vigorously ori-

ented toward the perpetuation of racial discrimination in housing.

58

Indicative of this discriminatory posture was a passage in the National
Real Estate Board of Chicago's 1924 code of ethics, which stated that

A realtor should never be instrumental in intro-

ducing into a neighborhood a character of prop-

erty or occupancy, members of any race of nation-

ality, or any individuals whose presence will

clearly be detrimental to property values in that

neighborhood (quotes in Brown, 1972: 68).
Along these same lines, both Abrams (1966: 524n) and Long and Johnson
(1947: 58) cite the National Association of Real Estate Board's
(NAREB) 1943 brochure "Fundamentals of Real Estate Practice" which
served as a supplement to the official code of ethics:

The prospective buyer might be ... a col-

ored man of means who was giving his children a

college education and thought they were entitled

to live among whites. ... No manner what the mo-

tive or character of the would-be purchaser, if

the deal would instigate a form of blight, then

certainly the well-meaning broker must work

against its consummation.
As McEntire (1960: 239) noted, and the above quotations appear to sus-
tain, racial discriminatiOn in real estate was not a practice limited
to individual brokers and salesmen, but rather represented one of the
norms of the industry to which the individual realtors conformed for
fear of sanctions by their peers. As he notes shortly afterwards, in
1955 a real estate board in Los Angeles County expelled a number of
members for just such a failure to conform-—they sold to Mexican Amer-
icans (McEntire, 1960: 241-242). And, as noted by Abrams (1966: 518),
when the Supreme Court had ruled against the racially restrictive cove-
nants, the Los Angeles Real Estate Board promptly broadcast eight ways
to evade the decision. In 1963, an attempt at introducing a local or-

dinance banning racial discrimination by property owners was defeated

59

in Berkeley, California. Shortly thereafter, the California Real Es-
tate Association announced plans to use the initiative for the purpose
of amending the state constitution to guarantee property owners the
right to dispose of their property to whomever they chose. NAREB's sup-
port was soon forthcoming. The intent of the amendment was, in fact,
prohibition of the application of anti-bias laws to the realm of hous-
ing, thereby serving as a bulwark against open occupancy in housing.
Although Proposition 14 passed by nearly a 2 to 1 margin, the Califor-
nia Supreme Court, recognizing its true intent, declared the amendment
unconstitutional in 1966 (Abrams, 1966: 518-519; Casstevens, 1967:2ff).
Mortgage-lending institutions have provided major support for
residential segregation. Their common policy of lending to nonwhites
only if the purchase of housing is limited to certain areas, and deny-
ing loans when potential purchases are in white neighborhoods has suc-
ceeded in maintaining patterns of racially segregated housing in many
cities (Commission on Race and Housing, 1966: 279). Contrary to Lau-
renti's (1966: 291) findings for San Francisco, where cash downpayments
by Blacks were 17 to 25 percent lower than those for whites and first
mortgages extended to them were as large or larger and involved the
same loan/price ratios and interest rates, the Commission on Race and
Housing (1966: 283) found that nonwhites received less housing value
for the dollar and less favorable mortgage credit terms than white buy-
ers. If the desired housing was in a "blighted" area the interest
rates were higher, down payments were required to be larger and the
repayment period on the Toand were shorter than if the housing was in

a "good quality" [i.e. white] district. The Commission (1966: 269)

60

further reported that many would-be nonwhite purchasers could not qual-
ity for mortgage loans under the commonly established prerequisites.
Jacobs (1967: T35) illustrates the predicament well, in Los Angeles
. we went to a bank to get an FHA loan, a govern-

ment loan, but when we told the bank where the house

was located, they refused to make us a loan. They

told us they wouldn't make loans to Negroes who were

trying to move into white neighborhoods.
And in the rental Sphere, we are informed that "the savings and loan
association discourages this sort of thing" (quoted in Jacobs, 1967:
148).

While the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the decis-on in Jones
v. Mayer may have given minority group members the right to leave their
ghetto enclaves, persons who would otherwise be able to move are con-
fronted with a shortage of available housing elsewhere (Miller and Da-
vidson, T972: 659). This, too, reflects on the financial institutions
involved in the housing industry. In addition to their refusal to make
loans to individual Blacks, they have concurrently refused loans to
contractors and/or organizations seeking to build new or rehabilitate
old housing for Black occupancy (Weaver, 1948: 224-229). As Edith El-
mer Wood (1966: T) has noted, the results are that

Slum districts stagnate with no new building under-

taken and few repairs, while new residential dis-

tricts are built up on the periphery, and ever-in-

creasing rings of blight spread outward from the

center.
And an extremely high proportion of the postwar new dwellings which
were actually built for minority occupancy have been financed by mort-

gages purchased by government agencies. With few exceptions these new

homes have been built in segregated areas (Commission on Race and

61

Housing, 1968: 31).

What we have noted here is that the basic mechanisms of the
private enterprise system have not been successful in meeting the na-
tion's overall housing needs, but rather tend to function to reinforce
the existing patterns of residential segregation. These patterns of
residential segregation in turn consign low-income families to the core
of the Cities, while simultaneously encouraging those who are better-
off to desert the central city and move outward toward the periphery
(Grier and Grier, 1971: 446-448). When, just shortly after World War
II, the migrations of rural people to the nation's urban centers con-
tinued, there developed a "housing problem." At that time, the private
sector, given the realities of land and construction costs, could not
meet the needs-—especially those of the poor segment-—of the p0pulation
unaided (Hartman, T969: 442). As a result, over the past quarter cen-
tury the federal government has assumed a greater role in the housing
market. Given the laissez faire ideology of our political-economic
system, their foremost strategy was not to supplant but rather serve as
a supportive arm for the private enterprise housing industry. Despite
such an approach, decisions on the amounts of housing produced, the
type and location of new dwellings, the terms regarding their sale and
rental, and the volume of consumer demand for housing reflect govern-
ment action (McEntire, 1960: 291).

Why did the construction of new housing after World War II oc-
cur primarily in the suburbs? The Griers (1971: 446-447) answer that
the previous growth of the cities had consumed the vast majority of

land within their boundaries that was suitable for development. The

62

pressures which had built up over the course of time [a depression and
a world war] made it imperative that action be taken quickly. In terms
of cost and time, the suburbs were the most practical choice. The re-
sultant urban decay and suburban sprawl are not solely the results of
individual free choices in a free enterprise market. The choices were
influenced by federal government actions, which while ostensibly neu-
tral, have resulted in the subsidization of low density, middle-income
living in the ring and high density, lower income, minority confinement
to the city (Weissbourd, T964: 2; Clawson, 1971: 41-44, 99). While the
rapid urbanization of our nation is a racially neutral fact, it has had
profound effects on American minority peoples. In answering the ques-
tion of how best to develop the suburbs, key public policy decisions
with unavoidably racial implications coupled with existing private sen-
timent in the housing industry has resulted in the financing of the
flight of middle-income whites to the suburbs and increased the separa-
tion between white and Black (McEntire, 1960: 291; Grier and Grier,
1971: 446-448).

More important than discrimination pg3_§g, however, was the ba-
sic structure and functioning of the federal housing programs, of which
three have dominated the field

1. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA)-Veterans

Administration (VA) mortgage guarantee programs;

2. Low-income public housing; and

3. Urban Renewal (Grier and Grier, 1971: 449-451).

The FHA has been accused of serving the private real estate
market and reflecting that market's interests (Williams, 1966: 99; Her-

bers, T971: 1, 12). The previously mentioned conventional understand-

ings which developed in the real estate business were affirmed by the

63

policies of federal agencies such as the FHA. For many years, the FHA
actually insisted upon racially restrictive covenants as prerequisite
to concessions of mortgage insurance (Williams, 1966: 100). Its 1938
underwriting manual stated: "If a neighborhood is to retain stability
it is necessary that properties shall continue to be occupied by the
same social and racial classes" (U. 5. Federal Housing Administration,
1938: Sec. 937).

On June 10, 1971 the United States Commission on Civil Rights
publicly charged the FHA with "abdicating its responsibility" by dele-
gating its legal responsibility to the private housing and home finance
industries, both of which ignored the intent of the law (Herbers, T971:
1). Howard A. Glickstein, the Commission's Staff Director, explained,
"We found, in fact, a dual marketing system so pervasive, so entrenched
and so commonplace that most real estate brokers described it openly to
the Commission staff without any sense of wrongdoing" (quoted in Her-
bers, T971: 12).

Another heavily subsidized federal housing program, public
housing, has also made its contribution to the maintenance of residen-
tial segregation in urban America. The location of public housing pro-
jects in the inner city has, in fact, contributed to strengthening pat-
terns of segregation (Weissbourd, 1964: 5). The public housing program
was originally designed to stimulate the hard-hit building industry.

In 1937, it acquired the social aim of alleviating substandard housing
for the poor of the large urban centers. Concurrently, it was trans-
ferred from exclusive federal control to local city government control

-—the intent being a more efficient and thorough operation of the

64

program. Combined with the massive migration of Blacks during the
post-World War II era, public housing evolved in such a fashion that it
perpetuated the existing patterns of residential segregation as housing
of this type tended to be constructed in existing Black slums. Thus,
as the only low-cost housing available to Blacks was concentrated in
the central cities, the pattern of racial segregation was maintained
(Weissbourd, 1964: 3; Dean, 1966: 259). AS Jacobs (1967: 152) has not-
ed, "The public housing projects of Los Angeles stand as racial and
ethnic islands ..."

The third major federal program—~urban renewal-—was established
by the Public Housing Act of 1949. The primary aim of the program was
to combat the physical decay of the central cities. Each project was
to be implemented by the existing private enterprise system on the pri-
vate market. The intent of the program was questionable from its in-
ception, as the very institutional structure responsible for many of
the nation's urban problems was being subsidized to revitalize those
same cities (Turner, 1972: 27-28). The Commission on Race and Housing
(1966: 284) for example, reported that shen the slums to be cleared
were populated by minorities, "their relocation becomes very difficult
because of the limited alternatives available to them." As Scott Greer
(1966: 60-61) noted, minority urban renewal refugees were usually relo-
cated near other Blacks, "Spanish-speaking" and skid roaders, in order
to avoid political repercussions. Thus, urban renewal frequently cre-
ated new slums by pushing the relocatees into areas and buildings which
became seriously overcrowded and subsequently deteriorated rapidly

(Gans, 1968: 262).

65

The FHA and VA mortgage insurance programs undoubtedly stimu-
lated the building industry and, in effect, subsidized the nation's
lending institutions through nearly $4 billion in acquired mortgages.
But, these programs did little for the improvement of housing condi-
tions among the nation's poor and minority populations. They were, in
‘ sum, beneficial only for private industry and the middle-income major-
ity population (Gans, 1968: 263; Turner, 1972: 43). And the four years
following the Housing Act of 1968 saw the production of more subsidized
units for moderate-income families than had four decades of public
housing for low-income families. When minority group members sought
home-ownership under Section 235 of the Act, they were given little
choice of houses or neighborhoods and were offered housing almost ex-
clusively on a segregated basis. Minority group members received the
cheapest, most inadequate housing and the lowest government subsidies.
Here, too, private industry was the primary beneficiary as realtors gar-
nered huge profits on poorly constructed or dilapidated housing (Her-
bers, T971: 12).

In a sense, urban renewal has worked at cross purposes with
FHA and VA programs. Urban renewal programs attempt to draw back the
more prosperous who left the city while the VA and FHA programs simul-
taneously continue inducements for others to make their trek "subur-
biaward“ (Grier and Grier, T971: 451). Turner (1972: 25) argues that
such dual programs intensify residential segregation by further con-
centrating impoverished minorities in the core city while continuing

to subsidize white out-migration to the single-family units of suburbia.

66

Evaluating the Perspectives

 

None of the approaches we have considered is "pure" and some
overlapping of the perspectives is to be expected in the presentations
of any individual writer's point of view. Much in each of these inter-
pretations has been accepted by their proponents too uncritically. All
display flaws, some to larger degrees than others, when attempts are
made to use them in explaining Black and Mexican American residential
segregation patterns.

In an examination of the planning process per se, Gans (T968:
5) essentially underlines the major weakness of both the "market" and
voluntarist explanations. He notes that

Between the physical environment and empirically

observable human behavior, there exist a social

system and a set of cultural norms which define

and evaluate portions of the physical environment

relevant to the lives of people involved and

structure the way pe0ple will use (and react to)

this environment in their daily lives.

The immigrant was confronted with an existent pattern of hous-
ing and commercial establishments in the city. He had to adapt to its
structure and order (Lieberson, T963: 5), and the question of "natural"
competition would appear irrelevant. But the early "Chicago School"
appears to have been caught in the grip of an ecological determinism
which gave them a singular conception of the society/Space relation-
ship. Firey (1947: 3) notes that for them, Space had a

. determinate and invariant influence upon the

distribution of human activities. The socially

relevant qualities of space are thought to reside

in the very nature of space itself, and the ter-

ritorial patterns assumed by social activities

are regarded as wholly determined by these qual-
ities.

67

The social structure and normative factor which Gans noted is relegat-
ed to obscurity. But, as Shibutani and Kwan (1965: 234) have pointed
out, periods of sustained contact often produced conventional under-
standings regarding who occupied what areas, which subsequently result-
ed in legal enforcement. And Kahl (1966: 222), closer to the American
scene, noted that the less obviously foreign a group was, the less in-
fluence ethnicity appeared to have on their general placement.

Poverty today is of a more permanent nature than when the Euro-
pean immigrant waves arrived on American shores. There have occurred
numerous changes in the opportunity structure—-something the "market
model" analysts seem oblivious tO-—that have led to this. On arrival,
the European immigrant found an expanding economy with factory jobs
readily available for the semi- or un-skilled. Successive waves of
these immigrants provided the cheap labor necessary for the nation's
expanding economy. The immigrants as a group were never marginal class-
es, except, perhaps, for very limited periods (see Handlin, T951: 66-
72). The American economy's need for labor enabled the European immi-
grants to achieve enough stability to raise themselves and their off-
spring up off the bottom rung of the ladder (Gans, T968: 236). During
and after World War II, Blacks and Mexican Americans from the "rural
backwaters of the South and Mexico" made the trek to the northern and
western cities in large numbers. But the emerging new labor market
had increasingly less need of semi- and un-skilled labor. They had
arrived too late, at a time when strong backs were being rendered in-
creasingly Obsolete by new technologies. When jobs were made available,

they were often in the least technologically advanced or most Tabor-

68

intensive sectors of the economy. The result was a decreased possibil-
ity of escaping the conditions of ghetto poverty or confinement (Tur-
ner, 1972: 22, 39).

Comparing a number of excellent studies (e.g. Duncan and Lie-
berson, 1959; Lieberson, T963; Taeuber and Taeuber, 1969) we note that
Blacks have been more segregated than the white ethnics were. This re-
flects the perpetuation of Black identity in combination with persist-
ing patterns of discrimination and segregation (see Clemence, 1967;
Herbers, 1971). Such a pattern served to clearly distinguish the Euro-
pean and Black experiences.

The economically-oriented theory insists, nonetheless, that in
the competition for a place to live, minority group disadvantages were
based on insufficient income. The effective demand for housing must
include, after all, consideration of the financial abilities of the re-
spective groups. Muth (T969: 99) notes that several studies show the
consumption of housing to be strongly related to income. But, income
alone is an insufficient criterion to account for observed patterns
of racial-ethnic residential segregation as Pascal, and others (McEn-
tire, 1960: 91; Lieberson, T963; 87; Freeman and Sunshine, 1970: 62),
have noted. Regardless of the relative economic status existing be-
tween majority and minority, residential segregation continues to pre-
vail (Taeuber and Taeuber, T969: 36). Fewer alternatives are available
to minority members than to their white counterparts at equal levels of
purchasing power (Commission on Race and Housing, 1958: l).

The housing market as it pertains to both the minority and

larger publics is itself regulated by factors other than "classic"

69

supply and demand economics (McEntire, 1960: 91; Wood, 1966: 1).7

Wurster (T966: 31) forthrightly stated that the concept of the "con-
sumer's dominant role in the housing process has always been largely
mythical, except for the fortunate few." The idea, for instance, that
people flee to the suburbs because they prefer suburban homes to city
homes is largely one of these mythical constructs. Since, perhaps, the
1920's when most of the land in the long-established cities was built
upon, there has really been little choice: either an apartment in the
city or a house in the suburbs (Weissbourd, 1964: 8).

Another of the market myths is that of the "trickle-down" or
"filtering-down" effect. At the time of the most recent Black and His-
panic migrations to the urban centers this was a non-functional mech-
anism. Lansing, et. a1. (1969: 67-68) found that Blacks did not bene-
fit from new construction nor did trickling down appear to benefit them
as much as it did whites. In a more general finding, Northwood and
Barth (T965: 83) simply note that the "trickle down" theory is gener-
ally faulty, as large quantities of housing for either middle or lower
income families have not been produced in this fashion.

Etzioni (T959: 255) points out that the fallacy of the “market"
perspective, as implied in Wirth's (1928) work, is its vacillation on
the issue of assimilation. Since it will occur "eventually," the hy-
pothesis is supported if a group is in the process of assimilating;
if not, it means that the assimilation stage has yet to be attained,
but it shall, "eventually." Additionally, ethnic analysts typically
deemphasize the importance of race or color as a determining factor.

The white immigrant ethnic could frequently flee identification with

70

the ethnic group; he was white. But the Black and many Mexican Ameri-
cans are at a much more serious disadvantage in acculturating to the
society and obtaining their full rights than any previous, or subse-
quent, European immigrant group. In general, they cannot flee their
skin pigmentation no matter how fluent in the language or well-versed
in the customs.

Some scholars have argued that the newcomers became nationals
in America. Their sense of "ethnicity" was acquired after their arriv-
al on our shores (Kramer, 1970: 58; Greeley, 1975: 27ff). The argument
is, I believe, irrelevant to the study of residential segregation un-
less it is employed as a reflection of the normative-institutional forc-
es in American society which pushed the "ethnics" into such conscious-
ness. As Wirth (1928: T9) himself has written, "The factors that Oper-
ated toward the founding of locally separated communities are to be
sought in the character ... habits and customs not only Of the Jews
themselves, but those of the medieval town-dweller in general." As
Wirth also noted, groups of people are singled out from others for un-
equal treatment by the societies in which they live (Helper, T969: 16-
17). Shibutani and Kwan (1965: 45) point out, real physical or cultur-
al differences are not nearly as crucial as the populace's thinking
they are different-—"Classifications of human beings are matters of so—
cial usage."

The immigrant to this country was asked to make what is perhaps
the ultimate sacrifice-—a denial of his origin and an acceptance of the
"American way of life." Gans (T968: 37, 263) has noted that certain

groups are "ethnic villagers," that they place great emphasis on

71

kinship and the primary group. They live intensely group-centered lives
among “extended families" comprising three generations. Other than the
workplace, these I'ethnic villagers" isolate themselves from the life

of the city. If it is as he depicted it, this is a true case of vol-
untary segregation. The question becomes then, to what degree does
such a pattern radiate outward? Are we speaking of whole tracts or
just facing or adjacent blocks? The really crucial point in evaluat-
ing the voluntaristic nature of group segregation, however, is the de-
termination of whether its "cause" is mutual preference for.associat-
ing within the group or whether it results from categorical exclusion.
Categorical exclusions occur when persons are assigned to general cat-
egories which actually cut across existing interaction networks, occu-
pational statuses and communities. Both Mexican Americans and Blacks
are viewed as having been subjected to categoric exclusion (Williams,
1970: 594-595).

Ethnic groups disadvantaged by coloration or cultural heritage
may be forced in upon themselves (Michelson, 1970: 63). And, unlike
Gans' "ethnic villagers," some group members remain within the social
and physical confines of the enclave only if they continue to experi-
ence discrimination, or sense prejudice, when they venture forth into
the larger community. Kramer (1970: 62) feels that the temptations
of the greater opportunities available to these ethnics in the dominant
community would otherwise draw them out. As concluded in a study of a
Mexican American-Puerto Rican "neighborhood"-—actually a specific cen-
sus tract—-in Detroit (Lebeaux and Salas, 1973: 96), "Latinos like

other groups in the city are primarily concerned with providing good

72

houses and safe neighborhoods for their families, and less with the
ethnicity of the neighborhood." Case and Kirk's (T959: 20) study of
housing in Los Angeles illustrated very similar results. They found
that 46 percent of all Black and 38 percent of all Mexican American
households wanted to move, and that the figures for the tenant subcom-
ponent rose to 55 and 45 percent, respectively. When asked if they
would buy or rent in a neighborhood where there were few minority fami-
lies, 85 percent of the minority families answered in the affirmative
and 83 percent of the families in the special 701 family Mexican Amer-
ican study answered affirmatively (Case and Kirk, 1959: 65, 68).

As exclusion extended itself over time, minority status may
have become self-perpetuating, and the viable minority community re-
sulted in being as much a trap as it was a stepping stone. Within it
the talented minority group member found a security and acceptance and
a more readily achieved prestige based on restricted competition. If
he ventured out into the larger community he had, like the amateur
athlete turned professional, stepped into the ”big time" to play the
game by the rules others set-—and the risks were great (Kramer, 1970:
4; see also Case and Kirk, 1959: 73). Thus, over the course of time,
there may have developed a tendency to choose the "line of least resis-
tance"-—there is less hostility experienced if one settles among one's
own, and there is less risk of losing face if one remains within the
enclave (Wirth, 1928: 283; Shibutani and Kwan, 1965: 163). As Agueros
(T971: 96) phrases it, "what do you say when you are powerless to get
what you want, and what do you say when the other side has all the

cards and writes all the rules?" It is not clear, then, that

73

preferences for residential segregation are of themselves a cause of
residential segregation. Residentially segregated patterns, including
those of Gans' "ethnic villagers," may have emerged as a result of
adaptive reactions to a larger socio-cultural environment over which
most minority families had little, or no, control. It may very well

be that, in the beginning, the kind of Spatial patterns that developed
in a given community were not so much a product of deliberate planning
but of competition and selection as the prevalent economic orientation
insists. Or, perhaps, as the "cultural" perspective insists, like 333
attracted to like on a purely voluntary basis. What these perspectives
overlook is that ethnic immigrants may also have been the targets of
hostility, and in the course of sustained contact over time convention-

al understandings [Wirth's modus vivendi] may have developed regarding

 

the occupancy of residential areas. Such normative contexts may subse-
quently have prevented ethnics, even those with adequate resources,
from living in more desirable areas (Shibutani and Kwan, 1965: 119-120).
Thus, members of the minority were unable to choose or control the con-
ditions under which they lived. Forced to adapt, they may have "chos-
en" the course of "least resistance," living where there was the least
opposition to their presence. Conscious wants are limited by experi-
ence and knowledge, and in cities with long traditions of segregation,
minority group members often resigned themselves to segregation (Wil-
liams, 1964: T32; Wurster, T966: 34). This meant the acceptance of
ghetto housing in the enclave as they sought psychological security
among their "own kind." Thus "commitment" to an area may have been an

amalgum of necessity and emotional consonance (Keller, T968: 110;

74

Kramer, 1970: 10; Schmidt, 1970: 53). Such courses of action probably
laid the foundation for such "academic" insights as "The Mexican ac-
cepts what he is given" (Fuller, 1920: 7). Is it acceptance?

Concentration of racial groups (or visible and distinguishable
ethnics, like the precominantly mestize Mexican American group) in-
creases their visibility and causes their distinctiveness to stand out
more prominently (McEntire, 1960: 94). Because some groups are viewed
as more menacing-—perhaps in addition to their very visibility due to
many perceived points of cultural difference by a public which has been
subtlely indoctrinated with an Anglo Conformity assimilationist per-
spective—-the emergence of separate residential areas "fosters the per-
sistence of private prejudices and mythologies" (Brown, 1972: 66-67).
Such prejudices create problems for those upwardly mobile, acculturated
minority group members wishing to move on to better housing in more ad-
vantageously situated neighborhoods. Eric Moore (1972: 12) has noted
an interesting pattern wherein nonwhites exhibit a "markedly higher in-
cidence of expressed desire to move" but subsequently fail to translate
these verbalizations into behavioral patterns. Minority status limits
the individual minority group pioneer's opportunities. Frequently, the
resultant hostility of resentful white neighbors is what tempers the
desire to "escape the ghetto“ (Morrill, 1970: 197).

Years ago Park and Miller (1925: 306) wrote that the questions
of prejudice and discrimination were not serious enough in this country
to affect the persistence of immigrant groups and, by implication, en-
claves. This reflects Robert Nisbet's comment that "for most citizens,

the image of society and its problems is that of an essentially healthy

75

organism invaded by alien substances" (Greer, 1966: 127). There is
seemingly a reluctance to engage in self-evaluation, even among some
social scientists involved with the issue of the persisting ethnic-ra-
cial enclave. There is a refusal to acknowledge the limitations the
society has placed on ethnic individuals or the hostility that has been
aimed at them. This nation cut off large-scale immigration specifical-
ly due to an unfavorable disposition toward having large numbers of
"strange" people in the country (Kahl, 1966: 247). Neither can we deny
the existence of racially, ethnically and religion-based restrictive
covenants which marked the supersedure of the "voluntary" enclave by
the compulsory enclave (Abrams, 1947: 10). The court records of pro-
longed struggle will not allow us to gently assuage our collective con-
science through "retrospective falsification." Nor can we accept claims
that recent years have seen major breakthroughs in the amount and qual-
ity of housing available to minority group members and a tendency to-
ward integration (Compare McEntire, 1960: 5, 350, and Clemence, 1967:
568) when voters approve thinly veiled attempts to prevent guarantees
of Open occupancy housing (Casstevens, 1967: fo.) or when an agency

of the federal government accuses another of collusion in the mainte-
nance of a dual housing market (Herbers, l97l: l, 12). New approaches
to public housing cannot undo the inequities which have persisted from
1935, the year the FHA was contrived, into the decade of the seventies
(Herbers, 1971: l, 12), a period which encompasses the Mexican Ameri-
cans', Blacks', Puerto Ricans' and Native Americans' rural-to-urban
migrations of greatest magnitude. As Israel Zangwill is quoted by

Wirth (1928: 118):

76

People who have been living in a ghetto for a

couple of centuries are not able to step out-

side merely because the gates are thrown down

... The isolation from without will have come

to seem the law of their being.

The ghetto became an institution and, as such, came to exist "in the
habits and attitudes of individuals and in the culture of groups"
(Wirth, 1928: 118). As attorney Loren Miller so aptly put it, it would .
be "folly to expect an overnight reversal of social attitudes imple-
mented by court decisions and rooted in custom" (quoted in Vose, 1959:
212).

A general review of the extent theoretical literature pertinent
to racial and ethnic residential patterns would seem to show that each
of the major approaches focussing on the problem is by itself inade-
quate. Each approach employs an almost exclusive emphasis on only one
of the relevant factors comprising a highly complex phenomenon. Yet a
similar review of the empirical studies shows the process of segrega-
tion to result from a combination of market factors, the size and prox-
imity of ethnic and racial groups, and discrimination (Freeman and Sun-
shine, 1970: 41). Glazer (1970: 62) notes that the ”cause" is not only
poverty ("market") or the desire ("voluntarist") to live together but
discrimination as well. Wurster (1966: 44) ponders whether factors
other than race prejudice per_§g_should not be given greater considera-
tion as they surely play some role in the process. The Griers (1972:
446) note that the situation of housing cannot be fully understood with-
out the recognition that such problems as are involved were produced in

part by "forces that are both broader than and different from racial

discrimination." And as McEntire (1960: 68) write, it appeared that

77

the immigrants' concentration in ethnic enclaves had been partly eco-
nomic, partly voluntary, and partly imposed upon them."

It appears that both the theoretically and empirically oriented
scholars entered their work with a priori assimilationist assumptions
that there was either no alternative explanation or only a limited hy-
brid explanation for what they were about to discuss. In his comments
on the Park-Nirth approach, Etzioni (1959: 259) noted that these gentle-
men overlook "the importance of partial segregation combined with par-
tial assimilation, not as a transitional stage but as a basic form of
social organization." This possibility should seemingly have been ap-
preciated by these two ecologists as they had noted that groups whose
numbers were frequently replenished by new arrivals-—such as the case
of the Mexican Americans in the Southwestern U. S.-—1eads to their con-
tinuation as a distinct group (Etzioni, 1959: 256). Like these two
early ecologists, this possibility has escaped the overwhelming major-
ity of contemporary researchers on the subject. Utilization of any of
the three basic explanatory frameworks, or even a hybrid combination of
them, to evaluate residential segregation leads to seriously distorted
conclusions. All the approaches treated to this juncture have been as-
similationist in orientation. Liberal social science research seems to
have been intent on equating integrated housing with equality and seg-
regated housing with inequality. The issue is not one of segregation
versus integrated housing, but decent housing itself. Segregated hous-
ing is negative only if it means inferior housing and inferior opportun-
ities. Present housing patterns leave the upwardly mobile minority

group member with few options. Ghetto and barrio housing and public

78

service facilities (hospitals, schools, etc.) are inferior. If one
wants better housing and public services, one frequently means hous-
ing in an integrated neighborhood. Thus, the responses in the Case

and Kirk (1959: 20, 65, 68) study may have been motivated as much by
the social connotations implied by integrated, non-minority neighbor-
hoods as any assimilationist orientation amongst these persons. Given
the option of decent housing and facilities among their fellow ethnics
and equally good housing among the dominant majority we have little
idea at present how minority group members will choose. Past research
can only tell us that given the choice between poor ghetto-barrio hous-
ing and good integrated housing the upwardly mobile minority group mem-
ber would prefer the integrated housing with all the social benefits
that are implied by it.

In sum, the foregoing review of the literature suggests three
competing assimilationist-oriented frameworks regarding the develOp-
ment and maintenance of residential segregation. Few studies have en-
deavored to empirically evaluate these competing explanations as they
apply to any single ethnic group. Despite recent research interest in
the Mexican American, scholars have overlooked the potential of census
data for providing the opportunity to examine these theoretical orien-
tations as they apply to the Mexican American population. In the chap-
ter that follows, I develop a series of hypotheses designed to test the
applicability of these assimilationist theoretical frameworks for ex-

plaining Mexican American residential segregation.

CHAPTER IV
DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESES

Introduction

 

A large number of issues need to be empirically investigated as
they regard the residential segregation of Mexican Americans. Because
of the paucity of past research on this topic, the magnitude of such
potentially researchable issues is enormous. By necessity I shall re-
strict myself to an examination of those issues which flow most promi—
nently from both the theoretical and empirical literature on radial,

ethnic and class segregation.

Multiple Indicators of Group Socioeconomic

 

Differentials: Variations on the Market Model

 

Social Class

 

Social class has been viewed as being of much greater impor-
tance with regard to housing than the ethnicity of individuals, as ex-
tensive residential integration by class infrequently materializes in
the United States (Warner and Lunt, 1941; 248; Michelson, 1970: 119).
Schnore (1965b: 126, 133) has noted that the residential segregation of
color groups was in part reflective of a class phenomenon and that
within such groups there existed internal segregation by class. If we
employ Weber's (1946: 180-195) tripartite classificatory scheme, class
is operationalized as an economic or income dimension. These observa-
tions would logically suggest an hypothesis that socioeconomic

79

80

differentiation is totally accountable for racial residential segrega-
tion if no significant residential segregation at equivalent levels of
income exist (Warner and Srole, 1945: 34; Shibutani and Kwan, 1965:
159, 163—164). This socioeconomic interpretation implies that at any
given time the level of residential segregation of ethnic groups is
attributable to (1) significant differences in the groups' economic po-
sition, and (2) that economic class groups are themselves unevenly dis-
tributed over the city's residential areas. If there is no significant
residential segregation of ethnic groups at equivalent levels of pur-
chasing power, then the residential segregation of ethnics is due to
socioeconomic differentiation (Darroch and Marston, 1971: 498).

Hypothesis la. Segregation by income level and segregation
by ethnicity or race are unrelated.

Hypothesis lb. There is no significant difference between
segregation by income and intergroup segre-
gation at equivalent levels of income.

Such hypotheses have not been supported in other studies. For
instance, Lieberson (1970: 173) reports that the stratification between
the dominant group and the subordinate group goes beyond that class seg-
regation which occurs within the ethnic group. And Farley (1976: 31,
36) reports that an analysis of Detroit showed that when whites and
Blacks were considered separately, very much the same pattern of mod-
erate socioeconomic segregation was found. But, high interracial resi—
dential segregation hardly varied by socioeconomic status-higher in-

come Blacks were as segregated from higher income whites as lower in-

come Blacks were from lower income whites.

81

§t_a__t_u_s_

Schwirian and Rico-Velasco (1971: 89) note that social status
groups have dissimilar residential patterns such that groups that are
most similar to each other are closest in the status hierarchy. Occu-
pational division of labor is a major factor in societal differentia-
tion processes and has generally been regarded as the most reliable
of the single-item measures of social status available. Although there
are reservations regarding the use of occupation as a gauge of segrega-
tion by social status, it is seen as preferable to the amount of for-
mal education, the available alternative, because of the relationship
of this factor and residential segregation itself to the stages of the
life cycle and age (Nam, 1959: 329; Fine, Glenn and Monts, 1971: 93).
The operational demarcation of social status employed is the division
between white-collar and blue-collar workers as defined by the U. S.
Bureau of the Census (1970: I, 105). Despite past objections to the
obscuring of levels of skill by employing such designations, various re-
search findings suggest its general validity. Residential association
of clerical with other white collar workers has been found to be more
greatly dependent upon status or prestige than on income or skill.
Clerical and sales workers, in their attempts to maintain status, spend
larger amounts of their incomes on housing than do blue-collar workers
of equivalent incomes. And at each different level of income, clerical
(workers have higher mean dwelling ratings than even skilled blue-collar
workers (Duncan and Duncan, l955a: 503; Tilly, 1961: 328).

Hypothesis 2a: Segregation by occupational category and seg-
regation by ethnicity or race are unrelated.

82

Hypothesis 2b: There is no significant difference between
segregation by occupational levels and in-
tergroup segregation at equivalent occupa-
tional levels.

Housing

The poverty of urban minorities is frequently seen as contrib-
utory to their residential segregation. Low-cost housing has a tenden-
cy to be "segregated” from high-cost housing (Taeuber and Taueber,
1969: 2). Under a market system of housing allocation, as is reputed
to exist in the U. S., where people live is largely dependent upon the
rental or sales price asked as contrasted with the income available for
such expenditures. Thus, a considerable degree of residential segrega-
tion is to be expected on the basis of purchasing power (Warner and
Lunt, 1941: 282; Muth, 1969: 61, 311; Taeuber and Taeuber, 1969: 24).
Although economic factors have been viewed as accounting for only a
small portion of the observed levels of residential segregation (McEn-
tire, 1960: 91; Lieberson, 1963: 87; Taeuber and Taeuber, 1969: 2), an
analysis of the effective demand for housing must include some consid-
eration of the financial abilities of families (Case and Kirk, 1959:
43). One of the flaws of the earlier Moore and Mittelbach (1966) study
was its failure to directly consider an "affordability" factor. Is the
available housing for sale within the financial means of the minority
group? I utilize a market-income measure-—the ratio of group median
income to the median value of housing available for sale-—as a general
answer to the question posed above. This income/price ratio is my mea-
sure of "affordability." If the "market model" perspective is to be
viewed as an accurate reflection of reality, the residential segrega-

tion of minority gru0ps from the majority group should be no greater

83

than that which would be expected on the basis of lower minority pur—
chasing power and the spatial distribution of low cost or rent housing.

Hypothesis 3a: Affordability and residential segrega-
tion by race or ethnicity are unrelated.

Hypothesis 3b: Segregation by rent level and segrega-
tion by race or ethnicity are unrelated.

Hypothesis 3c: There is no significant difference be-
tween segregation by rent levels and intergroup segre-
gation at equivalent levels of rent.

Hypothesis 3d: Segregation by value of owner occupied
housing and segregation by race or ethnicity are unre-
lated.

Hypothesis 3e: There is no significant difference be-
tween segregation by value of housing and intergroup
segregation at equivalent levels of owner occupied hous-
ing value (levels).

The Voluntarist Perspective

Demographic Reflections

 

Wirth (1938: 11) noted that large numbers of pe0ple generate
greater ranges of variation and that these variations "give rise to the
spatial segregation of individuals according to color, ethnic heritage,
economic and social status ..." It is later implied (Wirth, 1938: 15)
that the segmentalization produced by large numbers results in persons
of homogenous [ethnic?] status drifting together. Larger group size
permits the emergence of a separate opportunity structure situated al—
most exclusively within the confines of the ethnic community. Thus,
if we view the size of the minority population as increasing the oppor-
tunities for maintaining separatism through support for a semi-separate
economy serving the enclave (Lieberson, 1963: 37; Brown and Fugitt,

1972) we might logically infer

84

Hypothesis 4: Absolute size of a given minority
population and that minority's residential seg-
regation from the majority population are unre-
lated.

"Non-commuting"

 

Foley (1975: 158) notes that urban land use patterns and trans-
portation systems cater primarily to auto users, to the serious depri-
vation of those lacking access to an auto. It has been intimated else-
where (Suttles, 1975: 242) that transportation systems may be of conse-
quence as a mechanism of maintaining residentially segregated cities.
Various studies have shown that demand for housing in any given area is
predominantly from wage earners whose place of employment is located
within a reasonable time-distance from that area (Rapkin and Grisby,
1960: 39). If we employ Gans' (1968: 6) concept of the effective en-
vironment, it is logical to assume that because the enclave is a con-
sciously self-contained enclave community that auto ownership is not
necessary. All services are to be found within convenient walking dis-
tance.

Hypothesis 5: The percentage of minority households

owning no autos and residential segregation by race

or ethnicity are unrelated.

Generational Proximity

 

For white ethnics, the second and subsequent generations ac-
quired the increasingly greater educational and technical skills needed
to advantageously accept the opportunities to "escape" the enclave (Ed-
wards, 1966: 280). Wirth's (1928: 129) view was that the second gener-
ation's outside ties weaken their sentimental attachment to the ethnic
enclave, and they tend to drift farther afield residentially in order

to attain a sense of equality with their neighbors. Kramer (1970: 62)

85

intimates that even if external conditions of discrimination were to
combine with coherent internal institutions to maintain the ethnic
community over time, the community nevertheless undergoes changes which
bring about a closer approximation to the social patterns of the domi-
nant community. Overall, these arguments suggest that the foreign born
and native born groups of any given ethnic heritage differ markedly in
their housing patterns. If voluntary, or propinquity-based, segrega-
tion existed the reverse pattern would seem to hold true. Thus

Hypothesis 6a: Mexican American intergenerational

segregation and Mexican American-Anglo segregation

are unrelated.
As used here, generations refer to the foreign born (first), the native
born of foreign or mixed parentage (second), and the native born of na-
tive born parents (third and subsequent). At the simplest level, in-
tergenerational segregation refers to the residential segregation of
the foreign born from all native born of that ethnic heritage. The
data, however, permit a more detailed separation for Mexican Americans.
I shall, therefore, also evaluate the residential segregation of the
first from the second generation, the first from the third and subse-
quent generations, and the second generation from the third and subse-
quent generations.

Hypothesis 6b: There is no significant difference in

the segregation of Mexican American generations from

each other.

The Exclusionary Perspective

The Proportion Minority

 

Weber pointed out that large numbers of inhabitants mean that

personal mutual acquaintanceship is lacking (Wirth, 1938: 11). Schuman

86

and Gruenberg (1970: 217) report that systematic variations in atti-
tudes toward Blacks are associated with the proportion that is Black.
Allport (1958: 220-222) notes that a minority's relative density (pro-
portion) leads to an intensification of existing prejudices as visibil-
ity leads to a perceived threat to, as Greeley (1975: 62-63) put it,
"all those things a man has come to value in that particular area he
thinks of as his own." Robin Williams, Jr. (1967: 109), has noted that
segregation is higher in those cities having higher proportions of
Blacks in their populations. Therefore,

Hypothesis 7: A specific minority's proportion

of the city population is unrelated to its res-

idential segregation from the majority group.
Intercensal Change: A Variant on the Proportion Minority

Numerous investigations have emphasized that rapid increases
in the numbers of proportions of Blacks may lead to increased discrim-
inatory behavior as "visibility" increases perceived threats of minor-
ity group expansion (Taeuber and Taeuber, 1969: 25, 77). Therefore,

Hypothesis 8: Intercensal minority population growth
is unrelated to an intercensal change in segregation.

In the following chapter I will more fully comment upon the
unit of analysis, the methodology employed to measure residential seg-

regation, and the specific nature of the study populations.

CHAPTER V
METHODS AND MATERIALS

Residential Segregation: Concept and Measurement

 

Introduction

 

Analysis of census statistics is a first step toward transform-
ing legislative mandates into working social programs, an aid in defin-
ing universes of need, and for the delineation of special problem areas
(Parsons, 1972: 7). An analysis of Mexican American residential segre-
gation in an urban setting is one of the building blocks to understand-
ing the socioeconomic position of this group in the Southwestern con-
text. The analysis will be undertaken utilizing indexes of dissimilar-
ity (D) for the three possible combinations of major ethnic-racial pop-
ulation groups in the Southwest: Mexican American-Anglo, Mexican Amer-
ican-Black, and Anglo-Black. Employing D as the foundation, there fol-
lows an exploration of the relationship of each type of residential seg-
regation to housing and group socioeconomic characteristics derived
from quantitative census data.

An attempt has been made to adhere to the insightful recommen-
dations of Schnore and Pinkerton (1966: 492). Their proposal was quite
straightforward; distributional analyses of socioeconomic status should
be tripartite. They should be

1. comprehensive in scope;

2. comparative in design; and

3. explicitly longitudinal.

87

88

The analysis which subsequent follows is in basic compliance
with this proposed formula for analytic enrichment. A simultaneous in-
vestigation into a large number of cities representing a full range of
central cities by size, ethnic and racial composition, and economic
bases meets the first two criteria. Furthermore, the potential under-
standing of the persistence and/or level of residential segregation is
enhanced by the coexistence of two enduring ande-for the most part-
large urban minority populations throughout the Southwest-Mexican
Americans and Blacks.1 This coexistence provides an additional compar-
ative framework within which the analysis of socioeconomic differen-
tials may provide both greater depth and an understanding of how each
affects the other's chances for residential and nonresidential mobil-
ity. In addition, the presence of a statistically distinguishable for-
eign and native born Mexican American population in the Southwest al-
lows for some evaluation of intra-minority intergenerational dissimi-
larity.

While a longitudinal study is the most viable approach to un-
derstanding changing patterns of residential segregation, problems of
intercensal changes in extensiveness of coverage and definition pre-
clude an extensive longitudinal analysis. Although available for only
a limited number of cities, comparable data for 1960 and 1970 permits
the introduction of a dynamic quality into the present research which

was unavailable in the Moore and Mittelbach study.

Unit of Analysis

 

Ideally the unit of analysis for this type of investigation

would have been the urbanized area. Delimitations of zones of

89

influence made previously by Galpin, McKenzie, and others consistently
illustrate that the effective population is greater than that which is
contained within incorporated boundaries (Hawley, 1951: 100). The po-
litical border of the city

. is seldom a meaningful barrier to the processes

of growth and deterioration of urban neighborhoods

and accompanying population movements ... residen-

tial segregation within cities takes place within

the larger context of segregation between the com-

ponent parts of metropolitan areas (Taeuber and

Taeuber, 1969: 30).

The analytic importance of the urbanized area stemps from the fact that
in recent decades growth has not been concentrated in the central cit-
ies, but rather in the surrounding areas. Thus, the use of the urban-
ized area as the unit of analysis has been viewed as theoretically
preferable to the use of the central city in studying residential seg-
regation (Taeuber, 1964: 45).

However, there are a number of factors mitigating against us-
ing urbanized areas and favoring the use of central cities as the unit
. of analysis. The major difficulties involve the availability, accuracy
and cost of urbanized area data for the Mexican American and comparison
groups. Data for all groups are readily available for aggregates such
as central cities, satellite cities, counties, and SMSA's as well as
somewhat more limited tract data for Blacks and Mexican Americans in
various published reports. Few data are available for urbanized areas
as such. An alternative technique, which appears to have some prece-
dent (Fine, Glenn, and Monts, 1971: 92-93) was considered and felt to

be deficient. This "eye-balling" technique is both extremely time con-

suming and non-uniform, i.e. it exhibits great inter—city variance in

90

accuracy.2 Urbanized area data on custom-made work tapes from the Bu-
reau of the Census are prohibitive.

Central cities-—the alternative areal unit of analysis to ur-
banized areas-—will be used in this study. The central city has been
employed as the unit of analysis in residential segregation studies as
often, or more so, than urbanized areas, even by those who favor urban-
ized areas on theoretical grounds (Lieberson, 1963; Taeuber, 1964: 45).
The use of the central city as the unit of analysis has two useful fea-
tures: (1) the only other study of Mexican American residential segre-
gation (Moore and Mittelbach, 1966) employed the central city as the
unit of analysis and therefore allows for limited longitudinal compari-
sons, and (2) fiscal allocations by the federal government are made
primarily to political entities having political boundaries, such as
incorporated cities, and not to statistical constructs such as urban-
ized areas and therefore policy decisions are predicated on data pre—
sented in this format. Additionally, in the Southwestern case, much of
what are now the suburbs or urban fringe have components which histor-
ically have been rural-Hispanic. As the cities and suburbs of the
Southwest rapidly expanded outward the fringe areas became incorporated

and, subsequently, "urbanized."

The Dependent Variables

 

The principal dependent variable of the study if Mexican Ameri-
can residential segregation which is operationalized through the calcu-
lation of an index of dissimilarity between Mexican Americans and An-
glos using the distribution of persons across tracts. Two comparative-

ly lesser, but nonetheless important, dependent variables are indexes

91

for Mexican Americans from Blacks, and Blacks from Anglos which are cal-
culated for comparison purposes.

The history of the formulation of numerical indexes to measure
the degree of residential segregation need not concern us nor be re-
viewed here in detail; Taeuber and Taeuber's (1969: l95-245) Appendix
[A] serves as an excellent synthesis and point of dpearture. Methodo-
logically, the most serious fault of other possible indexes has been
that the city percentage of the minority group in question was incor-
porated into their computation. Such inclusion inevitably confounded
the city's level of residential segregation with the percentage minor-
ity and led to difficulties of interpretation, leaving the validity of
much of the empirical work already done with them in question (Duncan
and Duncan, 1955b: 210; Taeuber, 1964: 43). While no single index ade-
quately mirrors all the minute differences between two patterns of res-
idential distribution, it does reflect a basic aspect of a city's ra-
cial-ethnic residential pattern which allows for a range of compari-
sons. Furthermore, it lends objectivity to the pursuit of discovering
what socio-organizational characteristics and their populaces corre-
late with different degrees of residential segregation. The index is
a simple and relatively inexpensive to calculate summary device-—a
macro-measure reflecting imbalances in the distribution of ethnics and
not spatial configurations such as the degree or location of concentra-
tion (Taeuber, 1964: 45). It generally only describes residential pat-
terns in census geographic terms (tracts or blocks) rather than in so-
cial terms (neighborhoods). Residential segregation is seen as an

existing pattern which is observable at any point in time. Thus, we

92

must be cognizant of the fact that the numerical index is a reflection
of the actual residential pattern of the city, and not the severity or
character of discriminatory or other forces effecting these patterns
(Taeuber and Taeuber, 1969: 36). As in Taeuber (1964: 42) segregation
is viewed primarily "in terms of quantifiable results rather than in
terms of the social, psychological, and economic factors [initially]
producing the observable patterns." The conceptualization of residen-
tial segregation as the overall degree of unevenness in the spatial
distribution of Anglos and Mexican Americans throughout a given city
"leads directly to the use of the index of dissimilarity" (Taeuber and
Taeuber, 1969: 28-29).
The index is computed by using the formula

0 = (100)21 Xi-Yil /2

where X is the percentage of group one in area i

and Y is the percentage of group two in area i
If skin color or ethnicity are meaningless for the determination of
residential location, then any randomly chosen tract can be expected
to reflect the city's existing proportion of each group within its
boundaries. Should such occur over all tracts, the index would assume
a value of zero, indicating that there was no residential segregation.
Specific values of the index can range from zero, no segregation, to
100, perfect segregation wherein each tract is monoracial (or ethnic).
The numerical value reflects the minimum percentage of one group which
would have to move from tracts containing too high a percentage of that

3

group to others containing too low a percentage. The higher the nu-

merical value the greater the degree of residential segregation between

93

the groups while the lower the index value the greater the degree of
intermixture (Taeuber, 1964: 44-45; Taeuber and Teauber, 1969: 29-30).

While results obtained by the Taeubers (1969: 31, 229) and
Lieberson (1963: 35) suggest that a concern with the conceptual and
methodological implications of reliance on tracts or blocks is warrant-
ed-—and that the selection of areal unit has some effect on the result-
ing intercity analysis-the smallest areal unit for which data is avail-
able for Mexican Americans is the census tract.4 The use of tracts has
obviously been dictated by the nature of the available data but there
has been no loss in conceptual adequacy as the tract has some other ad-
vantages over blocks. Being larger than blocks, a wider and more de-
tailed range of tabulations of housing and population characteristics
are published for tracts. Additionally, census tracts exhibit smaller
sampling error than do block groups (Pohlmann, 1976: 6).

While the Taeubers (1969) and others (Sdrensen, Taeuber and
Hollingsworth, 1975) have used households as their basic component in
computing the indexes of residential dissimilarity, I have used per-
sons. It was felt that persons had distinct advantages over house-
holds for my purposes: (1) the previous study by Moore and Mittelbach
(1966) employed pe0ple as the unit and some degree of comparability was
desired for a limited longitudinal analysis; (2) such a procedure di-
minishes the probability of data suppression for tracts with few Mexi-
can Americans or Blacks; (3) some of the cities considered have ex-
tremely small Black populations and the use of persons allows for their
retention in the analysis of Anglo-Black and Mexican American-Black

residential segregation; and (4) it allows for the hand calculation of

94

0'5 from Table P-2 of the tract volumes (U. S. Bureau of the Census,
1972c) as a check on the method of tract inclusion/rejection required

by the nature of the magnetic summary tapes.

The Independent Variables

 

A general review of the theoretical and empirical literature
pertinent to racial and ethnic residential patterns has shown that the
segregation process is comprised of a combination of market factors,
ethnic spatio-demographic characteristics and exclusionary practices.
The question remains, to what extent has each of these factors influ-
enced the residential distribution of the Mexican American population
of the urban Southwest? What factors, and to what degree, account for
the differential segregation of Mexican Americans and Blacks from An-
glos, and which account for inter-minority segregation?

There are two sets of independent variables utilized by this
study in an attempt to answer the preceding questions. The first set,
used primarily in the replication stage of the analysis, consists of
attribute variables for housing and socioeconomic characteristics as
employed in the earlier study and implied in the literature review of
alternative explanatory frameworks. The second set is a series of in-
ter- and intra-group indexes of dissimilarity employing those housing
and socioeconomic characteristics which the literature labels as most
salient in the explanation of existent patterns of residential segrega-
tion. For example, an index of dissimilarity will be calculated for a
specific characteristic for the total population; between the dominant
group and each of the minority groups and between minority groups, at

the same level (viz. low or high); and within each of the groups. More

95

specifically we shall be dealing in these sets with variables associ-
ated with rent, quality of housing, socioeconomic status, and nativity
in an effort to verify the applicability of the previously outlined

theoretical frameworks.

The Data Set

 

Study Populations

 

It has become apparent in the prior discussions that we have
not one, but three, distinct study populations-Mexican Americans, "An-
glos," and Blacks. The latter group is the least problematic; it is
simply that p0pulation defined as "negro" in census tabulations. The
other two populations present some "problems" of definition more spe-
cific to this study and will be treated briefly here.

"Anglo" is defined statistically as white other than Mexican
American (Grebler, Moore and Guzman, 1970: Table 2-1, 16n). While
there may be some opposition to the aggregation of a multi-ethnic pop-
ulation into an implied monoethnic categorization, Glazer and Moynihan
have provided an underlying rationale in their perspective which holds
that the styles of the different white groups are becoming increasing-
ly similar and Gans adds support when he argues that the values he as-
certained among his Italian "urban villagers" were more "working class"
than specifically Italian (Greeley, 1964: 111).

The principal obstacle to the study of the dynamics of the
Mexican American population is the inconsistency of definition-identi-
fication over time. Mexican Americans have operationally been defined
in terms of race ("Mexican") in the 1930 Census, Spanish mother tongue

in the 1940 Census, Spanish surname in the 1950 and 1960 Censuses, and

96

by questions of a self-selection type on origin or descent in the Cur-
rent Population Survey. The 1970 Census employed four major identi-
fiers and two composite identifiers to provide statistical data on the
population of Hispanic ancestry. To a large degree, the populations
determined by the various identifiers overlap (U. 5. Bureau of the Cen-
sus, 1975: 2). Under present conditions the most practicable method of
identifying the Mexican American population is the Spanish heritage
designation, which for the Southwest refers to persons of Spanish lan-
guage and persons not of Spanish language but of Spanish surname (U. S.
Bureau of the Census, 1970: I, 97; U. S. Bureau of the Census, 1972c:
App-4).

Data Restraints and Problematic Issues

 

The Spanish heritage data available from census tabulations
fail to distinguish among the various ethnic subgroups and cannot be
uniformly understood as being equivalent to persons of Mexican origin
(Estrada, Hernandez, and Alvirez, 1972: 27).5 It can be argued, how-
ever, that the use of Mexican American is justifiable. For instance,
83.2 percent of the Southwest's total Spanish surnamed foreign stock
was Mexican or of Mexican descent (U. S. Bureau of the Census, 1973d:
3). The Spanish origin question provides further supporting evidence.
If we restrict ourselves to the population which designated itself as
being of "Mexican" origin we find that 78.6 percent of all Spanish her-
itage persons in the Southwest are of "Mexican" descent.6 The fact
that not all Spanish heritage persons in the Southwest are Mexican Amer-
icans [or of Mexican descent] may be inconsequential if the stereotyp-

ical lumping together of all Hispanics as "Mexicans," "Greasers," or

97

”Meskins" continues to hold even some of its old sway.7

As in the case of Blacks (Taeuber and Taeuber, 1969: 128), the
usual census problem of completeness of coverage appears especially
acute in the Mexican American case (U. S. Commission on Civil Rights,
1974). Little can, or is customarily, done to adjust for such under-
counts (Van Arsdol and Schuerman, 1971: 461-466). Those who have
worked with the data extensively feel that despite its deficiencies
they would not anticipate greatly altered analyses with improved data
(Poston and Alvirez, 1973: 699).

Restraints originating from the use of summary tape data re-
quired a slight modification of the previous "Anglo" usage. The usual
derivation of the Anglo population [Anglo = White persons - Mexican
Americans] was impossible to calculate. It was decided to substitute
a category called Other "White" calculated by subtracting the Black and
Mexican American populations from the Total population. The residual
is strictly speaking not white but rather a collection of whites, Na-
tive Americans and the various Asiatic groups. This practice, however,
is not uncommon, as others have defined "whites“ as that which is left
after "subtracting appropriate Negro data from the totals" (Kasarda,
1976: 128n).8 The variables employed in the study were calculated on
an Other "White" rather than "anglo" basis. However, the term "Anglo"
will be used throughout the text as synonymous with the Other "White"
category just described.

The Fourth Count summary tapes provide the advantage of addi-
tional data which would otherwise be unavailable from published reports.

Published socioeconomic data by tract are provided for the Black and

98

Mexican American populations only when a given tract contains more than
400 persons in that racial—ethnic category. Summary tapes essentially
have no such limitations and such data are not normally suppressed.
While summary tapes are known to present difficulties with regard to
discrepancies with printed tabulations, experienced researchers (Sdren-
sen, Taeuber, and Hollingsworth, 1975: 141) have stated their belief
that indexes computer calculated from tape files and indexes hand cal-
culated from printed data rarely differ by as much as 1 percent. My
indexes based on census tapes and those based on data in published re-
ports differ. The intercorrelations between each dependent variable
and its respective counterpart are high (.97 to .99). The differences
are due to the differences between sample and complete count data. The
Fourth Count tape data is based on sample data. Published data on the
Spanish surnamed is sample data while that for the total population and
race are 100 percent items. The population numbers reported for tracts
in the published reports and those on the tapes may differ.

Summary tapes do not provide information in distinct portions
for tracts Split by city boundaries, only complete tracts are reported.
In an attempt to overcome problems of including spacious tracts with
sparse numbers of persons distributed over a large area, each split
tract as indicated in the published tract volumes was examined. Those
split tracts having 60 percent or more of their population inside the
city limits were included in their totality; those with 60 percent or
more outside the limits were excluded in their totality. The few
tracts hovering at the 50-55 percent mark were further examined with

regard to their reflection of the population composition of the city

99

as a whole before either being incorporated or discarded in the desig-
nation of tracts for analysis.9

In the series of inter- and intragroup socioeconomic indexes
of dissimilarity I have employed a dichotomization scheme. The purpose
of dichotomizing variables into high and low categories was (1) to
pare down to a reasonable number the indexes to be computed; and (2) to
permit the utilization of a simple model that is a direct algebraic
equivalent to an indirect standardization technique (Taeuber and Taeu-
ber, 1969: 79-84). The dichotomization of income, rent and value of
housing was carried out uniformly across all cities using the national
median for each as the determinant for inclusion in the high (above
median) or low (below median) categories. The Taeubers' (1969) "model"
allows for the comparison of the actual indexes obtained with an expect-
ed index obtained through indirect standardization for income, rent or
value of housing. The formula for their simple model is

A = B x C + R
where

A

the index of dissimilarity between the dis-
tribution of Anglos and Blacks (or Mexican
Americans) over census tracts

B = the absolute value of the difference between
the percentage of socioeconomic factor 2 at-
tributable to Anglos and the same factor 2
percentage attributable to Blacks (or Mexican
Americans)

C = the index of dissimilarity between the distri-
bution of the specific socioeconomic factor
over census tracts

R = the residual (or A-BC)

The product BC is equivalent to the expected index of dissimilarity

100

from a calculation utilizing an indirect standardization technique (see
Taeuber and Taeuber, 1969: 79-84). Thus, we are able to make a compar-
ison of residential distribution according to economic resources irre-

gardless of skin color or heritage with the actual interethnic residen-
tial segregation by economic resources.

The Strategy of Analysis

 

The aim of the study is primarily the testing of the generality
of the reported theoretical perspectives with regard to the residential
segregation of racial or ethnic groups in the American Southwest. The
evaluation of these frameworks involves the utilization of two approach-
es. First, summary tape data which lends itself to the computation of
theoretically relevant indexes of dissimilarity are utilized in an
analySis involving both direct tests of the delineated hypotheses and
an approach equivalent to indirect standardization which allows for a
more detailed analysis. The second approach utilizes non-tape data
which do not readily lend themselves to index compilation in direct
tests of the hypotheses.

A final section of the analysis will deal with a replication
and evaluation of the Moore and Mittelbach (1966) "best equation" step-
wise regression approach and the Taeubers' (1969: 70-76) regression
analysis of segregation change.

In the next chapter we note the degree of residential segrega-
tion in the 58 city sample in 1970 and then proceed to an evaluation

of the hypotheses outlined in Chapter IV.

CHAPTER VI
FINDINGS

Descriptive Statistics

 

When measured by mean indexes of dissimilarity, residential
segregation in the Southwest had diminished between 1960 and 1970 as
can be seen in the following summary.

Table 3. Indexes of Residential Dissimilarity (D) for Selected

Southwestern Cities, 1960 and 1970: Means and
Standard Deviations for all Cities

 

 

 

1960 1970 Cities
Moore- Moore-

Index Mittelbach Mittelbach Lopez
Mexican American vs. Anglo

Mean 54.5 45.5 42.9

Standard Deviation 11.4 9.9 12.6
Mexican American vs. Black

Mean 57.3 59.8 55.0

Standard Deviation 15.1 14.2 16.5
Black vs. Anglo

Mean 80.1 74.2 70.7

Standard Deviation 9.5 13.9 15.9

N = 35 35 58

 

These summary data conceal dissimilar patterns and trends.
While the general trend had been one of diminishing residential segre-
gation, a number of cities had experienced increases in certain types

101

102

of intergroup segregation. A thorough comparison of the earlier Moore
and Mittelbach data (see Table 2) and the more recent 1970 data (see
Table 4) shows that only two cities, Sacramento and Stockton, had ex-
perienced increases in all three segregation indexes. 0n the other
hand, nine cities had witnessed decreases in all indexes: Albuquerque,
Colorado Springs, Lubbock, Oakland, Phoenix, Port Arthur, San Angelo,
Santa Barbara and Tucson.

The Mexican American vs. Anglo index values had experienced the
least number of total increases from 1960 to 1970-—7 (or 20 percent)
of the 35 parallel cities; 4 of the 13 (31 percent) in California; and
2 of the 16 (13 percent) in Texas. In addition to Sacramento and
Stockton, San Jose, San Francisco, Pueblo, Laredo, and El Paso wit-
nessed increases of varying degree in their indexes between 1960 and
1970. Conversely, the Mexican American-Anglo index also decreased in
more cases than either of the two other indexes: 28 cities had lower
indexes in 1970 than in 1960. For the 35 cities common to both stud-
ies, the Pearson r between the 1960 and 1970 Mexican American-Anglo in-
dexes is .80, reflecting a not unexpected continuity and vigor over
time (see Winsborough, et. al., 1975: 3).

When the 35 parallel cities of 1970 are utilized, the same city
has the "distinction" of having the Mexican American-Anglo D of great-
est magnitude. Odessa, Texas dropped from an index value of 75.8 in
1960 to one of 66.8 in 1970 but managed to prevail as the "most segre-
gated“ of the 35 Moore-Mittelbach cities. When all 58 cities of the
expanded study are examined for 1970, Odessa's neighbor, Midland, which

was not included in the 1960 study, slightly exceeds it with an index

103

Table 4: Hand Calculated Indexes of Dissimilarity for 58
Southwestern Central Cities, 1970, using Other
"White" Designation

 

 

 

Spanish Spanish Black

Heritage Heritage from

from from Other
Central City Other "White" Black "White"
Abilene, TX 44.4 58.6 63.0
Albuquerque, NM 45.3 47.1 60.4
Amarillo, TX 53.4 92.0 86.2
Anaheim, CA 27.1 47.7 46.6
Austin. TX1 2 55.0 64.0 82.0
Bakersfield, CA 43.7 69.7 88.8
Beaumont, TX 28.2 62.5 73.2
Brownsville, TX 53.8 40.7 61.5
Bryan, TX 63.7 48.1 88.3
Colorado Springs, CO 39.2 43.4 62.1
Corpus Christi, 1x3 60.5 58.3 86.6
Dallas, TX4 44.8 82.0 93.2
Denver, CO 52.8 77.4 87.4
- Edinburg, TX 38.6 35.3 65.9
El Paso, TX5 52.8 54.9 52.1
Fort worth Tx6 48.9 78.6 83.7
Fresno, CA7 35.8 68.7 82.4
Galveston, 1x8 27.2 61.9 71.8
Garden Grove, CA 17.8 43.2 42.1
Harlingen, TX9 48.6 33.2 70.5
Houston, TX 48.8 75.5 83.6
Laredo, TX 47.4 65.3 37.6
Long Beach, CA 1 24.0 65.0 79.4
Los Angeles CA1 51.0 82.1 89.7
Lubbock, 7x12 65.3 77.3 93.2
McAllen, TX 62.4 50.3 79.1
Midland, TX 68.0 54.0 91.9
Modesto, CA 26.4 62.8 78.0
Monterey, CA 36.9 27.9 36.0
Napa, CA 13 22.3 22.1 30.0
Oakland, CA 38.6 46.9 64.0
Odessa, 7x14 66.8 42.1 94.7
Ontario, CA 35.7 49.7 74.4
Oxnard, CA15 42.8 30.9 68.6
Pharr, Tx16 57.2 26.4 82.0
phoenix, A217 ,8 48.5 60.0 81.5
Port Arthur, TX 29.0 66.5 82.5
Pueblo. co 41.7 40.8 54.1

 

104

Table 4 continued

 

 

 

Spanish Spanish Black

Heritage Heritage from

from from Other
Central City Other "White" Black "White"
Riverside, CA 33.1 47.4 63.3
Sacramento, CA 30.7 51.4 62.0
Salinas, CA 31.4 22.8 45.6
San Angelo, TX 19 49.3 61.6 70.0
San Antonio, TX 60.3 77.4 86.9
San Benito, TX 20 50.4 74.5 49.1
San Bernardino CA 56.7 53.5 82.3
San Diego, CA21 22 37.3 60.1 78.2
San Francisco, CA 42.3 66.2 68.8
San Jose, CA 45.0 32.4 58.4
Santa Ana, CA 39.9 55.4 71.2
Santa Barbara, CA 36.1 29.2 52.6
Santa Rosa, CA 26.2 44.9 54.9
Stockton, CA 45.8 40.6 77.6
Texas City TX 28.5 66.7 74.7
Tuscon, A223 53.6 58.5 69.0
Vallejo, CA24 21.6 44.2 53.4
Ventura, CA 29.5 48.3 72.9
Waco, TX 45.7 71.0 80.1
Wichita Falls, TX 33.3 72.6 79.2
Mean 42.9 55.0 70.7
Standard Deviation 12.58 16.53 15.86
r25= .9953 9999 .9974

 

SOURCE: Calculated from Tables P-1 and P-2 of PHC(1) Series, CENSUS

TRACTS, Washington, D.C.:

1972, for each SMSA.

1

U. S. Government Printing Office,

Tract 0022 had fewer Other "White" than Spanish Heritage persons and
the figures used in calculating the index were adjusted by setting the
number of Spanish Heritage in the tract equal to the lower figure,
i.e. the number of persons obtained by subtracting Blacks from the

tract total.

2Ibid. tract 0022.

3Ibid. tract 0017.

105

Table 4 continued
Ibid. tracts 0028, 0036, 0038.02, 0102, 0163 and 0185.01.
Ibid. tract 0028.

 

Ibid. tracts 0032 and 0063.

 

Ibid. tracts 0008, 0018 and 0019.

 

Ibid. tract 1239.

 

Ibid. tract 0104.
Ibid. tracts 0201, 0205, 0208, 0305, 0330, 0339 and 0501.

Ibid. tracts 2224, 2265, 2284- 2286, 2288, 2293, 2319, 2328, 2395,
2407,2415, 2416, 2421, 2422.

12

 

Ibi

Q.

tract 0012.02.

13Ibid. tracts 4018 and 4032.

 

Ibi . tract 0018.

 

Ibid. tract 0032.
Ibid. tract 0213.

 

Ibid. tract 1152.
Ibid. tracts 0051 and 0059.

 

Ibid. tracts 1302 and 1308.
Ibid. tract 0048.
Ibid. tract 0142.

 

Ibid. tract 0609.

 

Ibid. tract OOlO.

 

H
do
0.

tract 2519.03.

25Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient between hand calculat-

ed indexes using OTHER "WHITE" designation and those using “ANGLO” des—
ignation.

106

value of 68. The lowest index for Mexican American~Anglo segregation
in 1960, 30.2, belonged to Sacramento. The lowest 1970 index for the
same 35 cities was Galveston's 27.2, but the overall low of 17.8 was
that of Garden Grove, California.

The era from 1960 to 1970 saw 12 cities (34 percent) increase
the "unevenness" of Black-Anglo residential patterns-—6 of 16 (38 per-
cent) in Texas and 5 of 13 (39 percent) in California. On the other
hand, the indexes in 23 cities (66 percent) had decreased in varying
degrees during the same period. Texas had a greater number (10) and
comparatively greater percentage (63) of decreases than did California
(with 8 and 62 percent, respectively). The association between the
Black-Anglo segregation indexes for 1960 with 1970 of the coincident
35 cities was, as expected, very strong (r = .78).

In Moore and Mittelbach's 1960 study, Lubbock, Texas, exhib-
ited the largest (94-4) Anglo-Black index value. For 1970, whether
one uses the Moore-Mittelbach or all 58 cities, the largest value is
Odessa, Texas' 94.7. Lubbock, the previous "leader," ranked second to
its lower Panhandle "neighbor" with a D of 93.2. The lowest Black
from Anglo index in 1960, 57.0, was that of Pueblo, Colorado. In 1970
the low for the 35 Moore-Mittelbach cities was Laredo's 37.6, while
Napa's 30.0 was the low for all 58 study cities.

Twenty-one, or 60 percent, of the Moore-Mittelbach cities ex-
hibited higher values in 1970 than 1960 for the Black from Mexican
American 0. Ten (63 percent) of the Texas cities and 10 (77 percent)
of the California cities exhibited such increases in Mexican American-

Black 0 values. The correlation for the Black-Mexican American indexes

107

of 1960 and 1970 was .72. While still a very strong association it was
comparatively the weakest of the three and signifies, perhaps, greater
instability in this type of segregation over the decade.

The distinction of having had the highest value for the Mexican
American-Black D in 1960 had been Lubbock, Texas' (D=89.0). By 1970
this distinction had been relinquished to Los Angeles, California and
Dallas, Texas, which were in a virtual tie with D's of 82.1 and 82.0,
respectively. In the expanded sample, the distinction of having had
the highest 0 (92.0) fell to yet another Texas Panhandle city, Amar-
illo. Whereas Stockton, California, had exhibited the low index of
30.0 in 1960, the 1970 low for the Moore-Mittelbach cities was the
29.2 for Santa Barbara. When all 58 of the 1970 cities are used,
Napa's 22.1 once again makes it the least segregated of cities.

Initial scrutiny of the 35 cities involved in the 1960 to 1970
comparisons has failed to uncover consistent patterns for increased or
decreased index values. Further analysis of segregation change is de-
ferred to the subsequent examination and discussion of Hypothesis 8 and
the parallel replication of a model presented by Taeuber and Taeuber
(1969: 70-77).

As in the case of 1960, the general pattern is one in which the
D values for Anglo from Black residence exhibit the greatest magnitude,
those of Mexican American from Black residence a middle ground, and
those of Mexican American from Anglo the lowest magnitude. There were,
however, inconsistencies in the pattern. Unlike 1960, the Mexican
American-Anglo D values exhibited the least variability about the mean.

And, whereas only 9 of 35 (26 percent) of the cities deviated from the

108

pattern in 1960, some 23 of the 58 cities (40 percent) exhibited varia-
tions in the pattern in 1970. Of all the cities in the 1970 analysis,
41 percent of the Texas cities (11) and 40 percent of the California
cities (10) strayed from the proposed general pattern. Moore and Mit-
telbach (Grebler, et. al., 1970: 278-79) fail to adequately explain
this occurrence. They argue that their 9 exceptions are primarily mid-
dle-sized or smaller communities. They contradict htemselves later in
the same paragraph by noting that the cities exhibiting the general
pattern present "much greater diversity" and include "not only all of
the very large communities but smaller cities as well." The use of
"middle-sized" in the earlier study is vague, to the point that com-
parison is limited. What is of interest, however, is that some cities
which formerly adhered to the general pattern (Albuquerque, Laredo and
San Jose) no longer exhibited that pattern, while others which had not
previously (Abilene, Ontario, Riverside, and Wichita Falls) now ad-
hered to it. Both Albuquerque (243,751) and San Jose (443,950) had
populations which were relatively large and both Abilene (89,491) and
Ontario (64,118) had relatively small populations. The Moore-Mittel-
bach logic does not appear to have great validity, especially in view
of the inconsistency of the pattern for a large number of cities (23).
I am much more inclined to accept their argument that minority group
members hold general images about cities, considering some to be par-
ticularly "bad" and others "good" on grounds other than residential
segregation (Grebler, et. al., 1970: 279). These subjective impres-
sions may be the basis for the divergence of some cities from an ob-

servable pattern. Unfortunately, such an impression is unquantifiable

using a demographic-census data base, as manifested by Moore-Mittel-

bach's inability to adequately explain the departure of some cities

from an observed general hierarchy of segregation.

Given that we are discussing patterns of segregation, it would

appear appropriate to comment here on another pattern illustrated by

the data.

For 1960 and 1970 California's mean D's were lower than

either the overall or Texas' mean indexes of dissimilarity, as can be

seen in Table 5.

Table 5.

Mean Indexes of Dissimilarity, California and
Texas, 1960 and 1970*

 

 

 

INDEXES
Mexican American Mexican American Black
from Anglo from Black from Anglo
Cities 1960 1970 1960 1970 1960 1970
California
Mean 49.2 35.1 49.5 48.5 77.9 64.9
Std. Dev. 10.1 9.4 13.1 15.3 8.7 16.1
(13) (25) (13) (25) (13) (25)
Texas
Mean 59.3 49.3 63.0 61.2 82.2 76.4
Std. Dev. 11.1 12.0 15.3 15.8 8.7 14.0
(16) (27) (16) (27) (16) (27)
All
Mean 54.5 42.9 57.3 55.0 80.1 70.7
Std. Dev. 11.4 12.6 15.1 16.5 9.5 15.9
(35) (58) (35) (58) (35) (58)

 

*Values enclosed in parentheses in all tables are the N's for each col-

umn. They may vary slightly because of missing data.

110

Generally speaking, we see that mean segregation levels had de-
clined from 1960 to 1970 with the greatest decline having occurred in
the mean Mexican American-Anglo D and the smallest decline in the Mexi-
can American-Black index. It is also worth noting that in all but one
case, the Mexican American-Anglo D for California cities, the degree of
variability about the mean has increased, indicating a greater disper-
sion of index scores than had occurred earlier. This pattern was es-
pecially pronounced for the Black-Anglo index.

Having provided a general glimpse of emerging patterns for the
reader I turn how to the testing and evaluation of the hypotheses de-

veloped in Chapter IV.

Tests of Hypotheses

 

Hypothesis la: Segregation by income level and segre-
gation by ethnicity or race are unrelated.

The hypothesis is not statistically substantiated for segrega-
tion of the majority from the minority. There is a positive relation-
ship between the index of residential dissimilarity for ethnicity and
a similar index based on the median family income of the total tract
population, without regard to a family's race or ethnicity. Family
income in each tract is dichotomized, with low incomes falling below,
and high incomes above, the national median family income.

The Mexican American-Anglo case exhibits a positive relation-
ship of substantial magnitude (r=.67, p=.OOl). This result indicates
_that there is a distinct positive correlation between segregation by
ethnicity and segregation by income level. While cognizant of Gor-

don't (1968: 595) cogent argument that there is "nothing more

111

fundamental about a partial, as compared to a zero-order association,
unless good theory makes it so," the great diversity in the cities'
population size and proportion ethnic may obscure, or mask a rela-
tionship. Such obscuration appears to be partially the case with the
above relationship. By controlling for the percentage of the total
population which is Mexican American the size of the partial is reduced
to .62 (p=.OOl). However, either case results in the rejection of the
null hypothesis for the Mexican American-Anglo segregation pattern as
both indicate a distinct relationship between segregation by ethnicity
and segregation by income level.

The association between Black-Anglo segregation and segregation
by income is positive and of moderate magnitude (r=.53, p=.OOl). Seg-
regation by income explains 28 percent of the variance in racial segre-
gation. As in the case of Mexican American-Anglo segregation the hy-
pothesis can be rejected as a positive correlation between segregation
by race and segregation by income level exists.

The relationship of Mexican American-Black segregation to resi-
dential segregation by income is less problematic, in a statistical
sense. As in the previous two cases, the relationship is positive, but
the magnitude is weak (r=.l8, p=.195). The result of controlling was
primarily the increment in explained variance from an initially negli-
gible 3 percent to an improved, but still negligible, 6 percent. The
null hypothesis of no relationship between racial and income segrega-
tion cannot be rejected for inter-minority segregation at this point.
It is possible that the high incidence of lower incomes among both Mex-

ican Americans and Blacks may be affecting the magnitude of the

112

relationship between segregation by race and segregation by income lev-
e1. Both groups exhibit a high pr0portion of low family incomes and
this may create a constant effect which reduces the correlation between
Mexican American-Black segregation and segregation by income level.

As will be noted shortly, the degree to which this occurred could not
be ascertained from the available data.

Hypothesis lb: There is no significant difference be-

tween segregation by income and intergroup segregation

at equivalent levels of income.

Utilizing t-tests for the difference between group means we see
that the difference between the low from high income 0's and the Mexi-
can American-Anglo low income level D's is significant (see Table 6).
The hypothesis would be rejected on the basis of Mexican American-An-
glo lower class segregation. However, the case of upper class segrega-

tion would lead us not to reject. The probability of falsely rejecting

the null hypothesis when it is true (type I error) is extremely high

(p .359). Thus, while the difference between segregation by income

and segregation by ethnicity at low income is significant there is no
significant difference between overall segregation by income and eth-
nic segregation at the high income level. The signs of the t-values

in both cases indicate that the index containing the ethnic factor can
be said to have a greater effect on segregation than that dealing with
economic standing in general. However, at the higher income levels
ethnicity appears to play a lesser role than it does at lower levels.
This is, perhaps, a function of the Mexican Americans' general cauca-
soid physionomy and of the higher income Mexican Americans' greater fa-

cility to acculturate himself. Thus, even in the sense of a greater

113

 

 

0.0 m.mm aeooeH :03: 20cc 304

£033 cappapaaoa

300. v mm em.“ 0.NP 0.~e o_m=< ease ecomcoe< eaowxoz

oeoucH 304 so»; now:

«.0 «.mm ccomsme< cmuwxmz —0csmu:H

£033 cowgmpaaom

400. v mm 40.8 0.NF 0.00 opmeq 50cc eaowcoe< eaopxoz

msoucm cow: 0pmc< Bose

m.o~ 0.0m meoucH gum: =00w405< ccuwxmz

;0_3 e034a_=aoa

_oo. v mm 00.0 w.mp 0.N0 0pmc< eosm ccowsme< ccupxmz

meoocm 304 0pmc< sogw

_.FP m.mm meoocm 304 cmuwsms< ccuwxmz

new: cowansaoa

~00. v mm 00.m w.- 0.N0 opacq 203% cmuwsme< cmowxmz

msoucm cow: 0_mc<

m.o~ 0.0m Eose wsoucH now: ccowsme< :00

0mm. mm mm. 1 0.0 m.mm 13x0: suv3 meoucH saw: 50sc 304

msoucH 304 0_mc<

_.FP o.mm 205» 020004 304 cmuwsms< :00

_oo. v mm mm.0- 0.0 m.mm lwxmz 4033 050004 now: 50s» 304

xuwpwnmnosa 4304 20000;; 00_0>-H comucw>0o :00: m0x00cH 00sw00

._0hl~ $0 momsmmo 0L00000m

 

 

mbpamam bade-p

"cowpcmmsmmm 0wczum 0:0 meoucH
00 mcowpccwneou mzows0> 003 00002 0.050m $0 comwscqsou .0 0,00e

114

acceptance by the "host" culture as a result of a people's lesser ad-
herence to their "foreign" heritage, ethnicity appears to be more sig-
nificant a factor than mere family income level.

When the ethnicity by income indexes are compared with simple
interethnic segregation indexes the results are similar. The mean of
the purely ethnic index is significantly larger than that of the inter-
ethnic by income indexes. The Mexican American-Anglo D is also sig-
nificantly greater than the D for internal Mexican American and overall
class segregation indexes.

There is evidently very little empirical literature on such in-
tergroup class phenomena and thus specific guidelines for evaluating
the present results are lacking. While the initial mixed results sug-
gest that intergroup class segregation is a complex phenomenon, the
tangential data suggest that there are definite grounds to reject the
hypothesis.

The present hypothesis cannot be tested utilizing either of the
Black segregation indexes-—Mexican American-Black and Black-Anglo. The
problem probably lies in the utilization of family income which may have
decreased already small numbers of Blacks in many Southwestern cities
to even smaller numbers of Black families. Such a decreased N enhanc-
es the probability of suppression of data for the purposes of protect-
ing citizen confidentiality. Extensive suppression seems to have oc-
curred as neither intragroup (Black high from low incomes) nor inter-
group (e.g. Black high from Anglo high income) indexes produced from
the census tapes are usable, being either uniformly zero or uniformly

50.0, neither of which seems logically possible upon perusal of

115

available census tract data.

The general pattern in the comparison of segregation by eth-
nicity or race with segregation by income is one in which segregation
by ethnicity is significantly greater than mean segregation by income
(see Table 6), even when size of city is taken into account (see Table
7). If we compare the Mexican American-Black index with the income
index for each case, 96 percent (54) of the cities exhibit higher ra-
cial than class segregation. In all cases, Black-Anglo segregation ex-
ceeds high-low income segregation.2 While this sheds light on the sit-
uation in the Southwest it cannot conclusively disprove the hypothesis.
Resolution of the question regarding the interrelationships of race
and inCome awaits future research utilizing more adequate data. Mean-
while, in our case the data suggests a rejection of the null hypothe-
sis for Mexican American-Anglo segregation.

Before proceeding to the next hypothesis I would like to com-
ment upon the relevance of the earlier findings of Lieberson (1970:
173) and Farley (1976: 31, 36) for the cities in this study. Farley
and Lieberson's observations are sustained by my data. In 40 of the 56
cities (71 percent) for which data are available, interethnic Mexican
American from Anglo segregation exceeds intraethnic class segregation.
A comparison of means for all cities, and by population size categories
(see Table 7, col. 5), also reflects this. Whether these observations
also hold in the case of Blacks and Mexican Americans or Blacks and
Anglos cannot, unfortunately, be determined from the available data.

Hypothesis 2a: Segregation by occupational cate-

gory and segregation by ethnicity or race are
unrelated.

.5000 000000 000 000 00000 0002500 000 000 00 A000 0000 00:00 00 000 00000 000000500 5000

 

 

0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 .>00 .000

0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 :00:
000000 _P<

5.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 .>00 .000

0.50 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 :00:
00000000 00000050

0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.00 0.00 0.00 .>00 .000

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 5.00 0.00 :00:
05000000 00005

”0 5.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.50 0.00 5.00 .>00 .000

.1 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 :00:
00000000 000000

0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.05 0.0 .>00 .000

5.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 0002
«05000000 0000004

08 E 0.: E E 5 av Cw
0 0:50> 0 0000 0 00000 0 050000 304 0 050000 0 0 40000 0 00 :0 0000000000
304 304 000002 5000 :00: 00304 000c< 5000 5000 0000
2000 5000 5000 000000E< 5000 5000 00000050 00000050 0000000000
000: 000: 00:00: 0000x0z 0000: 40000 0000x0z 0000x0z

 

 

0500 .0000000000 0000 0000000000
0000 00 .m0x0000 :000000000005<= 0:0 .000000 .00000
0003 Any 0000000500000 00 00x0000 000000 000 000000 00 0000000500

.5 00000

117

There is a positive relationship between the index for ethnic
or racial segregation and the citywide D for occupational status (white
from blue collar or manual from middle class) segregation.

The correlation of Mexican American from Anglo segregation with
overall occupational segregation is of very strong magnitude (r=.76,
p=.OOl). When city population size is held constant the strength of
the relationship is barely changed (r12.3=.75, p=.OOl).

The relationship between Black-Anglo residential segregation
and segregation by occupational status is positive and of substantial
magnitude (r=.59, p=.OOl). City population size is a factor, which
when controlled barely reduces the partial (r12.3=.56, p=.OOl). As
in the case of the first hypothesis, the present hypothesis has not
been statistically substantiated for minority-majority group segrega-
tion.

The association between Mexican American-Black segregation and
segregation by occupational Status is the least problematic. The prod-
uct moment correlation is low positive (r=.24, p=.O78). When city pop-
ulation size is also considered, the partial is reduced substantially
(r12.3=.15, p=.274). The hypothesis of no relation cannot be re-
jected.

In examining each of the 56 cities for which there was available
tape data, a general pattern emerges in which segregation by race or
ethnicity exceeds segregation by occupational status. All three racial
or ethnic segregation indexes exhibit higher mean values than white
collar from blue collar segregation (presented as middle Class from man-

ual in Table 7, col. 6), even when divided into city population size

118

categories. The D values for Mexican American-Anglo ethnic segregation
exceed those for occupational segregation in 54 cities (96 percent);
the Mexican American-Black index is higher in 55 cases (98 percent),
and the Black-Anglo D is higher in every case. Segregation by race or
ethnicity was found to significantly exceed segregation by occupation-
al status (see Table 8).

A brief reflection on intraminority segregation by occupational
status may provide further support for, or insight into, the earlier
Lieberson and Farley statements. As in the case of class, internal
segregation among Mexican Americans by occupational status is less pro-
nounced than interethnic segregation with Anglos in 44 cases (79 per-
cent). Interracial segregation from Blacks exceeds intragroup Mexican
American occupational segregation for 53 cities (95 percent). The oc-
cupational data have not been subject to suppression and permit us to
compare interracial and internal Black segregation for the first time.
Intra-Black residential segregation by occuupational status is less
pronounced than interracial segregation with Anglos in 42 of 48 cases
(88 percent) for which data is available. In 45 cities (94 percent)
intra-Black segregation is exceeded by Mexican American-Black segrega-
tion. In both cases of minority from majority residential segregation,
the Farley and Lieberson position that intragroup segregation is ex-
ceeded by intergroup segregation is substantiated. While the same is
true in the minority case, the result has less discernible meaning.
Much more research on interminority relations would appear to be neces-
sary before any conclusions can be attempted on the basis of the limit-

ed observations in this study.

.00000000000 005000 00003 .000000 00 00000 00
00000 00000: 05003 0000000000 005500 0050 .000000 000 00 000000 000 00 000000 00000000 50:00: 005-

 

119

 

500.v 00 55.50- 0.05 0.05 0000050000 05000 5000 00050

.00.v mm 00.0.- 0.0. 0.00 0000a_=000

. 00050 5000 00000050 0000x0z

500.V 00 00.05- 0.05 0.00 0000050000

0000< 5000 00000050 0000x0z

500. 00 00.00- 0.05 0.55 0000003 00050 00000:

00000 0000 00800 000000 00000

. 00.00- 0.05 0.55 0000003

500 v 00 50:00: 0500< 5005 50:00: 00050

000.v 00 05.00- 0.00 5.00 0000002 00050 05000: 00050 500$

00000 05000: 00000050 0000x0z

500.v 00 00.05- 0.05 0.00 . 0000003 50:00: 00000

5000 500002 00000050 0000x0z

000.v 00 00.0 - 0.00 0.00 0000003 00050 00000: 05000 5000

00050 05000: 00000050 0000x0z

000.v mm 00.00- 0.0. 0.00 0000003 003080 00000 0000

50:00: 00000050 0000x0z

0.0 0.00 H00.03 00000003 00050 05000: 5000 00:00:
00050000000 5000 5000000 00:50>-5 000000>00 0002 00x0000 000000

5005-0 00 0000000 00000000

 

 

0050000 0005-5 "00000000000 500000 00 000000 000
000000002000 00 000000000500 000000> 005 0000: 050500 00 0000000500 .0 05005

lZO

Hypothesis 2b: There is no significant difference between

segregation by occupational status and intergroup segrega-

tion at equivalent occupational levels.

In examining the results of t-tests employed to verify or re-
ject this proposition (see Table 8). we note that in all cases the dif-
ferences between segregation by occupation and racial or ethnic segre-
gation by occupational status are significant. The hypothesis is re-
jected. Because the differences are significant and the ethnicity by
occupational level index exceeds that for segregation by occupational
status, it appears improbable that the residential segregation of eth-

nics is due to differentiation in occupational status alone.

Hypothesis 3a: Affordability and residential segre-
gation by race or ethnicity are unrelated.

There is a direct relationship between Mexican American-Anglo
segregation and a Mexican American affordability ratio (Mexican Ameri-
can median income to the median value of all housing available for
sale), but the magnitude is extremely low (r=.l5) and the relation-
ship is nonsignificant (p=.265). Mexican American-Black segregation
and an affordability ratio based on their respective affordability ra-
tios exhibited a negligible inverse relationship (r=-.09) which was
statistically nonsignificant (p=.5ll). The relationship of Black-Mex-
ican American segregation to their separate affordability ratios was
only somewhat better. The association with the Mexican American af-
fordability ratio was moderately positive (r=.36, p=.007) while that
with the Black index was positive and of low magnitude (r=.26, p=.06).
For Black-Anglo segregation and a Black affordability ratio. there
emerged a negligible direct relationship (r=.07) which is statistical-
ly nonsignificant (p=.602).

lZl

Correlational analysis based on aggregate data from publically
available census reports illustrates that affordability has little val-
ue in explaining the segregation of an ethnic or racial minority from
the majority. Affordability explains from half of one percent to 2
percent of the variance in majority-minority group segregation. Ob-
viously, affordability is not a major factor in assessing majority-
minority residential segregation. While its role in explaining inter-
minority segregation appears more cimplex the Mexican American afforda-
bility ratio's explained variance figure of l3 percent of Mexican Amer-
»ican-Black segregation is not substantively important. Since the risk
of a type I error is also high, I cannot reject the hypothesis that
ethnic-racial segregation and affordability are unrelated.

Hypothesis 3b: Segregation by rent level and segre-
gation by race or ethnicity are unrelated.

There is a positive relationship between segregation by rent
level and segregation by race or ethnicity. The Pearson r for Mexican
American-Anglo with rent level segregation is substantial (r=-.58, p=
.001). When the potentially masking effect of city size is controlled
the partial does not diminish (r]2_3=.58, p=.OOl). Rent level segre-
gation explains one-third of the variance in Mexican American-Anglo
segregation with overall population size controlled.

The association between segregation by rent level and Black-
Anglo segregation is of a much smaller magnitude (r=.32, p=.016) than
that for Anglos and Mexican Americans. Rent level segregation accounts
for 10 percent of the variance in Anglo-Black racial segregation. When
the percentage Black is controlled for, explained variance increases to

13 percent (r12.3=.35, p=.007). Thus, we note that segregation of high

122

from low rental units accounts for more of the variance in Mexican Amer-
ican-Anglo than in Anglo-Black ethnic segregation.

The case of the relation of Mexican American from Black segre-
gation to rent level segregation is very different. The Pearson r be-
tween these two measures is essentially zero (r=.005, p=.973), as rent
level explains less than one-hundredth of one percent of the variance
in racial segregation.

In sum, the hypothesis can be rejected for minority-majority
segregation but cannot be rejected for interminority segregation. Rent
segregation thus fails to account for interminority racial segregation.

Hypothesis 3c: There is no significant difference

between segregation by rent level and intergroup

segregation at equivalent levels of rent.

The results of the tests of this hypothesis are mixed (see ta-
ble 9). For both secregation of Mexican Americans from Blacks and
Blacks from Anglos the hypothesis is rejected. The differences between
segregation by rent level and by rent level and race are significant.
In each case the sign of the t-value indicates that the index contain-
ing a racial factor can be said to exhibit greater segregation than
that which consists exclusively of an economic factor.

For Mexican American from Anglo segregation the results are re-
versed. Neither of the two cases of rent segregation is significantly
different from rent segregation by ethnicity. The t-values are of al-
most equivalent inverse magnitudes. What does such a result imply?

One possible interpretation revolves around early settlement patterns
and subsequently rapid urbanization engulfing these areas of long-

standing Mexican American occupancy. Still another revolves about

 

123

.00.v 00 05.0.- 0.0. 0.00 00.00.0000 0.000 0000 000.0

 

.00.v 00 00.0- 0.0. 0.00 00000.0000

000.0 5000 000.005< 0000x0z

.00. 00 50.0 0.0. 0.00 00.00.0000

0.00< 5000 0000005< 0000x0z

.00.V mm 00...- 0.5. 0.55 0000

00.0 0.000 0000 0000 00.0 000.0

.00.v mm 00.0- 0.0. 0..5 0000

300 0.00< 5000 0000 300 000.0

.00.v .0 05.0- 5.0. 0.00 0000 000: 000.0

5000 0000 000: 000.005< 0000x0z

.00.v 00 .0.0- 5.0. 0..0 0000 300 000.0

5000 0000.300 000.005< 0000x0z

005. 00 00. 0.00 0.00 0000 00.0 0.000

5000 0000 00.: 000.005< 0000x0z

000. 00 00. - 5.0. 0.00 0000 000 0.000

5000 0000 300 00000054 0000x0z

0.0 0.00 ”00.0 0000 0000 0000 0000 000
000.0000000 .000 5000000 00.0>-0 00.000>00 :00: 00x000. 000000

.000-0 00 0000000 00000000

 

 

00.0000 0005-5 ”00000000000 .00000-000000 000
.0>00 0000 00 000000000500 000.00> 000 00002 0.0500 00 0000000500 .0 0.005

124

methodological considerations-the level chosen as the demarcation be-
tween low and high rent is the national median which may have been in-
appropriate and has consequently led to a masking of the pattern. For
instance, there is no significant difference between Mexican American
high and low rent and the general high-low rent indexes (t=.57, SSdf,
p=.569). A final methodological consideration is that of the statise
tical concept of independence.‘ The zero order relationship between
Mexican American from Anglo high rent is a negligible .06 (p=.684)-—
not far from an indication of complete independence. The case for An-
glo-Mexican American low rent segregation and overall low-rent segre-
gation is different as the association is low rather than negligible
(r=.29, p=.03l). The final consideration is simply that there is no
significant difference and that the hypothesis cannot be rejected in
this specific case. Final determination of the previous allusion is
reversed for further consideration. In sum, we have rejected the hy-
pothesis for two of the three possible indexes and are reserving judg-
ment on the third.

Hypothesis 3d: Segregation by value of owner occu-

pied housing and segregation by race or ethnicity

are unrelated '

There is a direct relationship of moderate to substantial mag-
nitude between residential segregation by race or ethnicity and segre-
gation of unequally valued owner occupied housing (high from low).

For Mexican American from Anglo segregation the Pearson r fbr this
association is .54 (p=.OOl). In the case of Mexican American-Anglo

Segregation, therefore, the uneven distribution of housing by value

125.

accounts for 29 percent of the variance in ethnic segregation. Con-
trolling fbr city population size barely reduces the partial (r =
.52, p=.OOl). 12°3

For the segregation of Mexican Americans and Blacks, the rela—
tionship between racial segregation and segregation by housing value
is of a lesser magnitude than the Mexican American-Anglo case (r=.37,
p=.006). The distribution of housing by value explains approximately
half as much variance in the Mexican American-Black (14 percent) as it
had in the Mexican American-Anglo case. Controlling for size radical-
ly alters the relationship as the explained variance is halved to 7
percent (r12 3=.27, p=.05).

For the final racial-ethnic segregation combination, that be-
tween Blacks and Anglos, we find a positive relationship with distri-
bution by housing value of approximately the same magnitude as that
between Mexican Americans and Anglos (r=.53, p=.OOl). In the present
case, 28 percent of the variance in racial segregation is explainable
by the dispersion of housing by value. Size affects the original re-
lationship more than in the Mexican American-Anglo situation as the
partial is reduced (r12.3=.47, p=.OOl).

In sum, we can reject the hypothesis fbr minority-majority res-
idential segregation. The case of interminority segregation, however,
is different from that of the minority-majority cases and may warrant
use of different acceptance criteria. While the proportion of ex-
plained variance may be considered low under normal circumstances, it

may have a different meaning in trying to comprehend interminority

segregation. While I am inclined to also reject the hypothesis in

126

this case it seems prudent to reserve judgment in the light of unavail-
able guidelines from prior research.

Hypothesis Be: There is no significant difference

between segregation by value of housing and inter-

_group segregation at equivalent levels of owner-

occupied housing value.

‘ The results of tests, reported in Table l0, to determine the
validity of the hypothesis lead me to reject the hypothesis. However,
the results are somewhat inconclusive with respect to which character-
istic is of greatest importance. For both Mexican American-Black and
Black-Anglo observations, the t-values indicate that the combined eco-
nomic racial factor is greater than would be expected on the basis of
purely economic factors. In other words, race makes a meaningful dif-
ference in segregation by value of owner occupied housing. For the
Mexican American-Anglo comparisons, however, both indicate that the
combined economic-ethnic factor is less than would be expected on the
basis of economic factors alone. The comparison of ethnic or racial
indexes with the housing value index parallels that of the latter in-
dex and the value of housing by racial or ethnic ownership indexes..
Briefly, we have rejected the hypothesis but our results vary with re-
gard to what such significant differences mean. The zero-order corre-
lations, together with t-values and significance, void the argument of
independence. What may lie behind the results for Mexican American-
Anglo segregation are the historical settlement patterns alluded to
previously. Many of the cities in my study were founded before the
Anglo American incursion into the Southwest. The patterns which

emerged as the cities grew, especially as both positive and negative

(the Depression) features in the American economy attracted people to

 

127

poo.v mm vw.~Fu m.m~ o.~n :owumpanom opmc< Eogm gumpm

Foo. mm o—.~- o.mp m.om seven—anon
gum—m soc» :mupgme< cmuwxwz

—oo.v mm -.e w.- o.~¢ :o_pmp:aoa
opmc< sage cmu_gms< cmupxoz

Poo.v mm mo.o_- «.mp 0.0m accuse: a=_a> gm_= opm=<
sage mcwmao: mzpu> ;m_: xumpm

_oo.v mm mF.o~- o.m_ «.mu mcwmao: m:_a> 3o; opmc<
Eocw mcwmao: mapm> so; xumpm

_oo.v “a mm.o- N.N_ m.mo mcwmaoz m=_m> ;a_= xum_m
soc» mapm> saw: cmuwgms< cmuwxmz

_oo.v em Po.¢- o.m. m.mo mcwmzo: mspm> 3o; xumﬁm
Eogc mapm> go; smorgas< :mu_xmz

Foo.v mm mm.o N.oF N.mm mcwmao: m=_a> saw: opmc<
Eocm mapm> now: cmuwcms< snowxwz

Po. mm om.m _.e_ m.me acmmzoz mapm> so; o~m=<

soc» m:_m> 304 couwcms< cmuwxmz

m.m m.mm "new: mcwmaox ummqauuo cmczo
co mapm> xn cowummmcmwm cow xmucH

 

qupwnmnoga Aecv socmmcu mapm>up cowumP>mo :wwz mmxmucH umemwa
__mp-~ mo mmocmmo cgmucmum

 

 

mupammm “maple "copummmgmmm meummuuwcsum
vcm mcwmao: vmwasuuo cmczo mo mzpm> >5 cowummmcmmm
mo mcowumcwnsou mzowcw> com meow: mPaEmm mo cemwcmasou .OF m_nmk

128

the area, may have been such that my general value segregation index
represents a counter-balancing of ethnic housing value segregation.4
If this were so, why then are the patterns involving Blacks different?
If urban development were reviewed from an historical perspective I
suspect that Blacks are relative latecomers to the Southwestern milieu
(see Moore and Mittelbach, 1966: T7; Pinkney, l970: 74). While such
an interpretation somewhat simplistically overlooks the role of preju-
dice and discrimination against Blacks, I reserve discussion of these
two factors for the overall evaluation of my concluding chapter. But
before moving on to the next hypothesis, I must also note that there is
also a distinct possibility that the case of the Mexican American's
segregation from the Anglo majority is different from that of either
to the Black minority. Further probing into this possibility is at
present beyond the scope of this work but my future plans include an
extensive re-evaluation of the

Hypothesis 4: Absolute size of a given minority popu-

lation and that minority's residential segregation

from the majority population are unrelated.

There is a direct relationship between minority population size
and minority segregation from the majority population. For the rela-
tionship of Mexican American-Anglo segregation to the size of the Mex-
ican American population the Pearson r is .29 (p=.031). When the size
of the total city population is held constant the magnitude of the
initial relationship increases slightly (r12.3, 3=.3l, p=.021). The
proportion of the variance in ethnic segregation explained by Mexican

American population size is but 10 percent.

The relationship of Black-Anglo segregation to Black population

129

size reveals a moderate Pearson's r of .3l (=.0l8). Controlling for
city size drastically reduces the magnitude of the partial (r12 3=.09,
p=.515). City size explains a great degree of the relationship between
Black population size and Black-Anglo segregation. At best the size
of the Black minority explains l0 percent of the variance in Black-An-
glo racial segregation. The "explanatory power" of Black population
size is less than one percent when the vastly disparate city sizes in
the study are controlled for. Thus, we have a situation for which
there is an absence of both statistical significance and substantive
importance. On this basis, I cannot reject the null hypothesis of no
relationship.

Mexican American-Black segregation's association with minority
group size is interesting. The Pearson r's are both moderate, with
those for Mexican American population size (r=.33, p=.014) and with
Black population size (r=.38, p=.004) in basic agreement. Explained
variance in Black-Mexican American segregation is not very high, ll
percent when Mexican American size is utilized and a slightly higher
14 percent for that explained by Black population size. The hypothe-
sis cannot be rejected if the implication is that a minority size and
that group's residential segregation are causably related. However,
while minority population size may not explain as much of the variance
as previous researchers would have us believe, it does play at least
a small part in the schema of segregation. The size of the minority
appears to be a contributory characteristic which affects segregation

but cannot explain its persistence (see Table ll).

130

 

 

 

Aepv Aepv Amp: Acpv
“.mp m.m— m._p v.m— .>wo .num
~._m P.mm m.mm m.mm cum:
o_wugm=o ummPFmEm
3: 3: 3: 3:
m.¢~ m.¢P c.¢~ m.~p .>£H.cum
m.m¢ “.53 m.mo p.mm cam:
mFPHLmao ugmch
3: 3: 3: 3:
m.mp ~.¢_ ~.pp m.__ .>oo .npm
o.mm 5.0m «.mm o.m¢ cam:
m—wpgmzo ucoumm
3: 3: 3: 3:
m.- o.m_ m.m ~.o .>mo .uum
m.~o m.mm m.mm m.¢e cam:
upwucmao “women;
mNPm mNWm :muwgme< m~wm xumpm mem copumpaaoa gnaw mNWm cowgmpaqoa
xumpm an :muwxmz xa >5 o_m:< -cme< cmuwxmz an opm=<
xum_m soc: cmuwcms< cmuwxmz soc: xumpm seem cmuwgwe< cmuwxwz
mwxmccm

 

 

co_umpanom cmuwcms< :muwxmz Lo xuqu may we
mNPm op mcwucouu< cowummmcmmm meucmuwmmm mo mmxmucm com: .__ m_nm»

l3]

Hypothesis 5: The percentage of minority households

owning no autos and residential segregation by race

or ethnicity are unrelated.

There is a positive relationship between the absence of an auto
from a household and segregation by race or ethnicity. The relation-
ship of Mexican American-Anglo segregation to the degree of absence of
an auto in Mexican American households is of low magnitude (r=.29, ‘
p=.029). The partial correlation coefficient hardly differs when city
size is held constant (r12.3=.27). More importantly, Mexican American
poverty is moderately associated with both Mexican American-Anglo seg-
regation (r=.56) and the absence of an auto in Mexican American house-
holds (r=.44). When controlled fbr the percentage of Mexican American
households living in poverty the initial low positive association is
reduced to a negligible level (r12.3=.05) indicating that the relation-
ship between Mexican American nonownership and Mexican American-Anglo
.segregation is more adequately explainable by Mexican American poverty.
The relationship of Black-Anglo segregation to the absence of an auto
from Black households is moderate (r=.37, p=.004) and explains l4 per-
cent of the variance in racial segregation. Controlling for the per-
centage of the city's population which is Black reduces the partial to
a point where only 7 percent of the variance in racial segregation is
explained.

Interminority segregation and minority auto nonownership some-
what parallel the case of majority-minority segregation. Black auto
ownership, when correlates with Black-Mexican American segregation, il-
lustrates a moderate association (r=.30, p=.025) which explains 9 per-

cent of the variance in interminority racial segregation. Mexican

132

American auto nonownership's relationship is of a much smaller magni-
tude (r=.04, p=.742) and explains an infinitesimally small two-tenths
of one percent of the variance in Mexican American-Black racial segre-
gation.

A maximum of 9 percent in explained variance fOr residential
segregation is not substantively important. With such a consideration
in mind the hypothesis cannot be rejected.

Hypothesis 6a: Mexican American intergenerational

segregation and Mexican American-Anglo segregation

are unrelated.

There is an inverse relationship between Mexican American-An-
glo ethnic segregation and the intraethnic segregation of the first
generation. When the segregation of first (foreign born) from second
(native of foreign or mixed parentage) generation persons of Mexican
descent is correlated with overall Mexican American segregation from
Agnlos the result is a negative association of moderate magnitude
(r=-.28, p=.035). When the overall disparity in the distribution of
all foreign- from native-born is controlled the increment in the par-
tial is rather substantial (r12.3=-.5l, p=.OOl). Thus, the more first
and second generation Mexican Americans are segregated from each other,
the less the overall segregation of Mexican American from Anglos.
Conversely, the less segregated (more concentrated) the first and sec-
ond generations, the greater the overall segregation of Mexican Ameri-
cans from Anglos. Such a finding appears to underscore the importance
of the acculturation process in a minority's quest of acceptance. The
greater the acculturation of the group to "American" ways, the more

acceptable they become as neighbors. First from second generation

133

ethnic segregation explains some 26 percent of the variance in ethnic
minority-majority group segregation. In first from third (native of
native parentage) generational segregation, which is also inverse
(r=-.42, p=.OOl), the initial association accounts for l8 percent of
the variance in minority-majority segregation. Controlling for the
overall distribution of foreign- from native-born leads to a substan-
tial increment in the partial (r12 3=—.70). Although D is not a mea-
sure of concentration, the results imply that the less the segregation
of the Mexican American generations, the greater their segregation
from the dominant group. A full discussion of the relevance of this
observation in evaluating the propinquity argument will be reserved
for the final chapter.

The relationship between second and third generation ethnic
segregation and Anglo-Mexican American segregation is positive and of
low magnitude (r=.l6, p=.238). Controlling for the residential dis-
parity of foreign and native born seems illogical given that both of
the involved generations are native born. The proportion of variance
explained by second from third intragroup segregation is a very low 3
percent.

The hypothesis regarding the intergenerational segregation of
Mexican American and Mexican American-Anglo segregation is rejected
for two of the three possible cases. Only in the case of relationship
of second from third generational segregation and Mexican American-An-
glo segregation is the hypothesis not rejected. All three intergenera-
tional segregation combinations are significantly different from Anglo-

Mexican American segregation (see Table l2). Once more, a fuller

134

 

 

~.m m.mm cornmeocmw newzh seem vacuum
poo. mm eo.m new: co_ump=aoa
m.~p m.m¢ :muwcws< cmumxwz soc» opmc<
o.op m.- co_umcmcmw vacuum soc: pmewa
poo. mm mp.m saw: cowum_:aoa
w.~p o.me gnomgme< cmowxmz soc» opmc<
N.o— ~.om cowumgmcmw vgwgp soc: umewu
_oo. mm mo.w- cur;
o.o~ m.mm cowuwewcmw ucoumm soc: ”mew:
N.m m.m~ cowumgmcmw newch soc: ccoumm
_oo. mm m¢.m saw:
~.op ~.om cowpmgmcmw ve_:» soc: umcwu
N.m m.mm cowuoemcmo news» Eocw ucoumm
moo. mm mm.m- saw:
o.o~ m.- cowumcmcmo vacuum Eon: “new:
>u_Fwamnoem “we: soummca mzpm>-p corpow>mo com: mmxmucm umewoa
Fwohum mo mowemmo nemvcmum

 

 

mapsmam pump-»

”cowpmmmcmmm chowpmcmcmmcmch :muweme<
:muwxmz mo mcowpmc_nsou maowcm> Low mama: mPaEmm mo com_emqsou .mp epoch

135

interpretation of such findings are reserved for later discussion.

Hypothesis 6b: There is no significant difference

in the segregation of Mexican American generations

from each other.

The hypothesis that there is no significant difference in Mex-
ican American intergenerational segregation is rejected on the basis
of the test results (see Table 12). The signs fbr the t-values pro-
vide further information which will serve us well in the further anal-
ysis planned for the final chapter. For the first test pair the neg-
ative sign indicates that second from third generation segregation is
significantly higher than first from second generation segregation.
Similarly, for the second paired indexes, the sign indicates signifi-
cantly greater segregation of the first from the third generation than
the segregation of the second from the third. The final paif of in-
dexes manifest significantly greater segregation of the first from
third than first from second generation. The test results contradict
the solidarity argument suggested earlier in the literature review by
Wirth (1928: 129) and, perhaps, paralleling the pattern implied by
Edwards (1966: 280).

Hypothesis 7: A specific minority's proportion of the

city population is unrelated to its residential segre-

gation from the majority group.

There is a moderate positive association between a minority's
proportion of the city population and its residential segregation from
'the majority group. The Mexican American-Anglo segregation index and
the Mexican American percentage of the total city population are moder-

ately correlates (r=.38, p=.004). When the si2e disparity of city

populations is controlled, the relationship increases somewhat in

136

magnitude and explanatory power (r12.3=.4l, p=.002). The proportion
of variance in Mexican American-Anglo segregation explained by the
cities' proportion Mexican American increases from l4 to l6 percent
when overall city size is controlled.

The relationship of the city population's proportion Black with
the Black-Anglo segregation index is also of a moderate positive nature
(r=.42, p=.OOl). Controlling overall size reduces the magnitude of
this association slightly (r12.3=.37, p=.005) and the proportion of
explained variance diminishes accordingly from T7 to 14 percent.

The hypothesis could be rejected on statistical grounds but
this might confuse the issue. It is not meant to imply that the pro-
portion minority is not important but rather that it is contibutory
and not of key importance theoretically. The proportion minority
neither causally explains the existence of segregation-—a small pro-
portion does not insure the absence of segregation-—nor the continua-
tion over time of residential segregation. As can be seen in Table
13, however, the persistence of residential segregation in cities with
extremely small minority group representation illustrates that the
proportion minority affects the degree of segregation.5

Hypothesis 8: Intercensal minority population growth
is unrelated to an intercensal change in segregation.

There is no uniform pattern with respect to the interrelation-
ship of intercensal minority population growth and an intercensal
change in segregation.6 The Mexican American-Anglo segregation index
underwent an average decrease of 16 percent. The Anglo population ex-
perienced an average decrease of ll percent while the Mexican American

population experienced an average growth of 73 percent!7 Nonetheless,

137

 

Am_:
P.cp
N.om

Amp:
m.o_
m.ow

A3_:
N._P
m.me

.>a= .Upm
coo:
o_eaza=o amm__asm

.smo .uum
com:
mp_uea=c were»

.>ma swam
cow:
mﬁwucmao ucoumm

$8 .95
cum:
mpwucmzo gmmmgmg

 

xumpm cowpcoaoeq

ha

opmc< soc: gumpm

zoomems< coowxwz cowugoaogm
xa
oPmc< soc: cmuPeme< :mquwz

m~wm cowpmpaaoa.

 

 

xumpm co cmuwems< :mowxmz cowumpaaoa zuwu as» mo
:owpcogoca any on mcvveouu< cowpmmoemom meucmuwmmm co mmxmucH com:

.mp anmh

138

Anglo population change exhibits a moderate inverse association with
Anglo-Mexican American segregation change (r=-.45, p=.003) while Mex-
ican American population change exhibits a low negative association
(r=-.l6, p=.297). The change in Anglo population accounted for 20
percent of the variance in changed interethnic segregation whereas a
change in Mexican American population accounted for only 3 percent.

Between 1960 and 1970 the Black population grew by an average
29 percent. Black-Mexican American segregation increased by an aver-
age 3 percent. The change in Mexican American population exhibited a
low inverse association with the change in the Black-Mexican American
indexes (r=-.2l, =.l70) while the increase in Black population mani-
fested a low positive relationship (r=.l9, p=.2l9). Neither increment
evidenced an appreciable explanation of changed segregation, as the
growth in the Mexican American population accounted for but 5 percent
of the variance and the accretion of the Black population for an even
smaller 4 percent.

In the interim from l960 to 1970, Black-Anglo segregation in-
dex declined by an average 9 percent. Both the decrease in Anglo pop-
ulation and the increment of the Black population exhibit negligible
positive association with changed Black-Anglo segregation. The Pear-
son r for Black population growth and changed Black-Anglo segregation
is .06 (p=.7l4) while the assoCiation between the Anglo decrement and
segregation change was of only little better magnitude (r=.l0, p=.516).
As suspected the proportions of explained variance in changed Black-
Anglo segregation were infinitesimally small, four-tenths of a percen-

tage point for Black and one percent for Anglo population.

139

The data illustrate an inconsistent relationship between popu-
lation change and ethnic-racial segregation change. If, however, we
focus only on minority population growth and its relationship to ma-
jority-minority or minority-minority segregation we must reject the
null hypothesis. The relationship of minority growth to segregation
change explains too little of the variance in segregation. On the
other hand, if we were to focus on the effect of majority group growth
on majority-minority group residential segregation we note a signifi-
cant inverse relationship between Anglo population growth and Mexican
American-Anglo segregation. Obviously, factors other than population
growth are at work. In an attempt to ascertain what these character-
istics may be we turn to an approach closely paralleling Teauber and
Taeuber's (l969: 70-77) examination of intercity variation in segre-

gation changes.

Segregation Change l960-1970: An Exploration

Longitudinal data are available for 42 cities in the l960 and
1970 censuses and permit the evaluation of a few explanatory variables.
The Teaubers' analysis of long-term changes in Black-White segregation
in a number of Southern cities demonstrated the relevance of changes
in both minority and majority populations, and the production of new
housing in both city and suburban areas. It was feasible from the
data available on all three study populations to calculate measures of
population growth, the increment in housing units and suburbanization.8
The measures of suburbanization and new construction were utilized as
indexes of the availability to city residents of alternative housing

which was theoretically highly segregated. The Taeubers also used a

140

measure of Black occupational change representing the percentage-point
change in white collar or skilled jobs during the decade between cen-
suses (Taeuber and Taeuber, 1969: 70-7l). The last measure was una—
vailable by Mexican American ethnicity for many of the study cities
and was thus omitted.

An examination of the zero-order correlation coefficients (see
Table 14) provides a greater insight into the relationships among the
variables employed in the multiple regression analysis. The main cor-
relate of minority-majority segregation change is the change in major-
ity population. For interminority segregation, the main correlates
of segregation change are the changes in each minority's population
over the decade. Given the resultant data, if there occurred an in-
tercensal decrement in the Anglo populatiOn we would have predicted
increased segregation of Anglos and Mexican Americans for l970. Con-
versely, a decrement in Anglo population would have led us to predict
decreased Black-Anglo segregation in 1970. Further evaluation of
these results are possible in the next step of the analysis.

Interminority segregation change data (see Table 14) manifest
interesting contradictions. If Mexican American population increased
over the decade the expected result should have been a decline in
Black-Mexican American segregation from 1960 to I970. Both have oc-
curred simultaneously with a resultant moderate average increase in
segregation. The data suggest that Black population change has great-
er impact on changes in Black-Mexican American segregation. Further
evaluation of this statement is also possible in the next step of the

analysis.

141

 

o.o
—.m

P.-
m.o¢
pm.

I

~.mm

m.m~
mo.
o¢.

N.m¢
~.mm

no.
em.

m.m

m.opu
op.
¢~.
mp.u

¢m.

m.op

m.mu
op.
mo.u
mo.

mo.

op.

o.m~
o.m

P~.u

mo.u

mN.u

m.¢_

m.mpu
m~.u
no.
no.

op.n

m¢.u

mp.u

op.u

onh<H>mo om<oz<hm
z<mz
cowpm~pcmagaaam
.copuuacgmcoo 3oz

xumpm
”mmcmsu cowumpsaom

cauwcms< coupxm:
"mmcmgu :o_uu~=qoa

opmc<
"mmcmgu cowuo_=aom

mmcmzu
cowummmcmmm opmc<lxum~m

mmcozu coppmmogmmm
xumpmlcmquws< cmupxwz

mmcmcu cowummmemmm
opmc<ncmuwgoe<ucmuwxmz

 

 

 

Amzoc cw memgssc mm msmm on» men mcE:_ouv
onmpuoomp .mmwuwu Ne cw mmcmgu comummmeamm
mo mwm>ch< mg» cw wow: mmgammmz mo mcowpmpmecoocmucH

.cp mpnwh

142

A regression equation utilizing a linear combination of all
relevant independent variables can explain from 10 to 24 percent of
the change in segregation between groups (see Table l5). The predic-
tive power of the four variables utilized was greatest for the change
in Mexican American-Anglo segregation and least for Black-Anglo segre-
gation change. The standardized regression coefficients, Betas, indi-
cate the weight given to each variable, with the other variables con-
trolled, in predicting segregation change. For the changes in minor-
ity-majority segregation, Anglo p0pulation change clearly emerged as
the most powerful of the predictor variables (Beta=-.479 for Mexican
American-Anglo and .268 for Black-Anglo segregation change). As sus-
pected earlier, Black p0pulation change is of somewhat greater impor-
tance than a change in the MeXican American population for predicting
interminority segregation change.

The regression results provide some interesting insights into
segregation change. In each case, new construction emerges as the
coequal or second most powerful predictor variable. For Mexican Amer-
ican-Anglo segregation change, the Beta weights indicate that as new
construction increases, the segregation of the two groups increases.
But, Mexican American-Anglo segregation diminished from l960 to 1970.
We also know from the data that the Southwestern cities included in
the analysis were in the midst of a development boom as they averaged
an increase of 40 percent in the number of housing units built from
1960 to 1970. One possible interpretation is that annexation was not
controlled for by either the Taeubers or myself in calculating the

percentage growth in housing. The failure to control for growth

143

Table 15. Multiple Regression Analysis of Segregation

Change and Four Independent Variables,
for 42 Cities, l960-l97O

 

 

Variables Employed

Std. E

F-Value

Beta

Sig.

 

CHANGE IN MEXICAN AMERICAN
-ANGLO SEGREGATION INDEX

Population Change:
Anglo -1

Population Change:
Mexican American -

New Construction

Suburbanization -
Intercept -32.97
Multiple R2 .2424
Overall Sig. .032

CHANGE IN MEXICAN AMERICAN
-BLACK SEGREGATION INDEX

Population Change:

Mexican American -.

Population Change:
Black

New Construction -
Suburbanization
Intercept 25.98
Multiple R2 .1991
Overall Sig. .077

CHANGE IN BLACK-ANGLO
SEGREGATION INDEX

Population Change:
Anglo

.268

.300
.138
.279

155

.231
.433
.346

.589

.416

.497
.104
.435

.974.

.101
.183
.689

.377

0.277

.366
1.763
.410

3.804

5.213
5.616
.252

2.438

.479

.009
.199
.094

.307

.402
.402
.076

.268

.004

.952
.192
.526

.059

.028
.023
.618

.127

144

Table 15 continued

 

 

 

Variables Employed B Std. E . F-Value Beta Sig.
Population Change:

Black .276 .573 .232 .090 .633
New Construction -.123 .110 1.257 -.214 .269
Suburbanization .35l .394 .794 .143 .379

Intercept
Multiple R2
Overall Sig.

1.15
.0948
.436

 

145

through annexation may have obscured other developing patterns. If
"new" housing was made available in either annexed areas or older sec-
tors of the city, plausible explanations for decreased Mexican Ameri-
can segregation from the majority emerge. If formerly Anglo areas
were made available to Mexican Americans, or if suburbanization has
occurred primarily among Anglos, or if annexed areas were ethnically
abalanced, or if a homogeneous minority area had been annexed, divid-
ed and incorporated into a small number of formerly homogeneous ma-
jority tracts, population distributions would be altered and the in-
dex decreased. Another alternative occurs if much of the new housing
units were integrated.

Black-Anglo segregation diminished from l960 to l970. The
Beta weights would indicate that such a decrease would occur if the
Anglo population decreased, which it did. The Beta weights also in—
dicate that an increased construction of housing would lead to a dim-
inution of segregation, which it did. What appears to have occurred
was a redistribution of these two populations within the city-in-
creased suburbanization was a rather low 6 percent on the average-
as new areas of housing were opened up. The overall significance of
this particular equation would suggest, however, that we place little
faith in its predictive ability.

While Mexican American-Anglo and Black-Anglo segregation in-
dexes decreased, Mexican American-Black segregation increased. The
Beta weights would indicate that the intercensal increment of the Mex-
ican American population should have lead to reduced segregation be-

tween the two minorities-which it did not. But the Beta weights also

146

indicate that the 29 percent Black population increment should lead to
increased segregation-—which it did. The Beta weights and signifi-
cance levels would indicate that a change in the Black population was
the more influential of the two possible population changes. The in-
creased housing availability which occurred should also have led to
decreased Mexican American-Black segregation. Instead, there was a
very low average increment in Black-Mexican American segregation of
3 percent. The discrepancy between the equation results and the ac-
tual occurrences become explainable if newly available housing became
available in formerly Anglo areas. This event would explain the con-
current increment in Mexican American-Black segregation and decrement
in Black-Anglo segregation.

All of this is rather speculative as the model itself appears
to have little general explanatory power or consistency. However,
the issues raised by this analysis are food for future research endea-
vors. What patterns emerged in the Southwest from the rapid growth
of urban settlements? Are the decreases in Black-Anglo and Anglo-
Mexican American segregation temporary phenomenon brought on by a
readily available supply of housing? Would a potential "mass" exodus
to the "Sun Belt" over the next few years create a tighter housing
market resulting in a stabilizatibn or exacerbation of segregatory
housing patterns? Most importantly, extensive research on residential
succession involving three distinct racial-ethnic groups has as yet
not been undertaken. A research endeavor involving the analysis of
emerging patterns of residential succession involving interminority

relationships is intriguing. What types of competition for housing

147

' occur? What factors do minority group members look for in a neighbor-
hood? What types of preferences do minorities have for housing and
how are these shaped by the presence of other minorities? By their
perception of majority attitudes?

Having dealt with the findings relevant to the analysis of the
hypotheses and the Taeubers' longitudinal model, I now turn to a repli-
cation and evaluation of the Moore and Mittelbach (l966) "best equa-
tion" stepwise regression approach to segregation analysis. The eval-
uation of the "best equation" approach will conclude the present find-

ings chapter.

The Moore-Mittelbach "Best Equation": A Replication

In their pioneering study of Mexican American residential seg-
regation Moore and Mittelbach (1966: 38-39, C-6, C-7) noted that resi-
dential segregation was shaped by a great variety of factors in addi-
tion to discrimination in the housing market. A general model with
six categories of independent variables was constructed and tested uti-
lizing a stepwise multiple regression technique. The stepwise regres-
sion analysis was perfbrmed for each of the three types of residential
segregation used as the dependent variable.

Moore and Mittelbach used as independent variables those fac-
tors suggested by previous research as being of importance for ex-
plaining segregated housing patterns. They found that city population
size, minority household size, group income differentials, and the eth-
nic composition of the total minority population to be important fac-
tors in the explanation of residential segregation. Discrimination,

intuitively felt to be of importance, in its operationalization failed

148

to show statistical significance.10

The resultant "best equation" of the stepwise analysis (see
Appendix, Tables Al-A3) explained from 49 to 69 percent of the vari-
ance in the segregation indexes. Relatively few variables accounted
for most of the ascertained variance and were basically similar from
one equation to the next. In all three equations an income variable
and a population size variable were significant.

In an attempt to verify the importance of the factors desig-
nated as significant by the Moore-Mittelbach regression analysis I
replicated their final analysis utilizing the same variables they re-
ported in their correlation matrix for both my overall sample and the
35 cities identical to both studies. My results are reported along-
side those of Moore and Mittelbach's in the Appendix (Tables Al-A3).
In all the equations there is some disparity between the Moore-Mittel-
bach results for 1960 and my results for 1970. For the equation in-
volving Mexican American from Anglo segregation, the Moore-Mittelbach
equation showed the "cultural" variable, defined as the percentage of
Mexican American occupied housing units having 5 persons or more pres-
ent, to have the largest Beta weight. In my equations, the same re-
sult was obtained for the 58-city sample, but not for the 35-city re-
gression where the ratio of total median income to Mexican American
median income was of "greatest importance“ when measured by Beta
weights. Overall, the Moore-Mittelbach l960 equation explained more
of the variance than was the case in either my 58-city or 35-city
analyses.

For the second segregation index, that of Blacks from Mexican

149

Americans (Appendix, Table A2), the results were more disparate. In
the Moore-Mittelbach study, the number of Mexican Americans (X26)
emerged as the most important variable, while in my 35-city parallel
Blacks as a percentage of the minority (X34) held the distinction.

In the 58-city regression analysis, Mexican Americans as a percentage
of the city population (X29) had the largest Beta weight and thus con-
tributed the greatest explanatory power. The explained variance dif-
fered in each regression. The same general results, different "most
powerful“ variables and fluctuating degrees of explained variance were
evident for the regression of Anglo-Black segregation (Appendix, Table
A3).

From a methodological standpoint, Moore and Mittelbach exper-
ienced two major lapses: they failed to consider the serious con-
founding effects of multicollinearity and they atheoretically hunted
for a "best equation." Blalock (1963: 233-234) observed that when
multicollinearity occurs between independent variables, the sampling
error will be quite large, the estimates of slopes will vary consider-
ably from one sample to the next, and partial correlation coefficients
will be unstable and sensitive to sampling errors. Such is the case
with my 1970 regressions using 35 and 58 cities (Appendix, Tables Al-
A3). While there is no method of determining if such would occur from
Moore and Mittelbach's reported data we may examine this possibility
in another fashion. Scrutiny of Moore and Mittelbach's correlation
matrix (Appendix, Table A5) shows that six variables were correlated
with each other at 1.69 or better and another 6 at :.40 to .60. Alto-

gether, l2 variables were intercorrelated at $.40 or better. Such

150

intercorrelations increase the probability that their covariance with
a dependent variable will cause a stepwise regression procedure to re-
move one of the correlated independent variables while retaining the
other in the equation with one sample and reverse the selection in
another sample. It can also be seen that my intercorrelations for
l97O were high; for the 35-city sample there were 2 variables inter-
correlated at t.70 or better and another 10 at :.40 to .70, while in
the larger sample there were 2 at 1.70 or better and another 17 at
:.40 to .70. Obviously, the problem of multicollinearity is present
in all three regressions.

The second methodological problem lies in the methodology
used. Stepwise multiple regression is an optimalization procedure
which produces the "best" possible equation. Optimalization proced-
ures give researchers "no way of knowing what portion of the variation
among the variables is truly representative of the population and what
portion represents 'wild' behavior of the particular sanple. It uti-
lizes all variation in picking values for bl, b2, etc. ..." (Harris,
l975: 46).

Moore and Mittelbach appear to have violated generally accept-
ed guidelines for effective research. Robert Gordon (1968: 594) has
written that "the presentation of all possible highest-order partials
is a sure indication the researcher has not thought through the theo-
retical connections among his variables." rAnd, Draper and Smith (1966:
172) pointed out that sensible judgement is still required in the ini-
tial selection of variables to be input into regression analysis pro-

grams. While their variables were chosen on the basis of past

151

research, they were not subsequently fitted into specific competing
models, or explanations of residential segregation. The failure to

do so, along with multicollinearity and the use of an optimalization
technique transformed the Moore-Mittelbach "best" equation into little
more than a cross-sectional multivariate fishing expedition which adds
little to the evaluation of competing theoretical perspectives on the
persistence of residential segregation. Thus, unless regression anal-
ysis can be strongly grounded in theory and/or its results vigorously
tested for replicability, it seems to serve little purpose for the
fruitful furtherance of sociological knowledge. What, then, can we
derive from our regression analyses?

In an attempt to evaluate the validity of the equations ob-
tained in the replication, I performed a split sample "reliability
test." A 50 percent sample was chosen using a table of random numbers
and a prediction equation was derived from that sample. The predic-
tion equation was then tested for predictive ability on the secbnd
half of my study cities (Harris, 1970: 50). The calibre of the pre-
dictive ability of each equation was then measured by comparing the

2‘s of the first equation with the appropriate sample r3

multiple R
between predicted and observed indexes of the second sample. The re-
sults are reported in Table A6 of the Appendix.

What does all this mean? In the case of Mexican American from
Anglo segregation, the equation produced by the first half of the sam-
ple explained 78 percent of the variance. When fit into the second

half it explained 53 percent. The population's estimated explained

variance utilizing this same equation lies between 53 and 78 percent,

152

exceptionally good by social science standards. For the Mexican Amer-
ican from Black case the results are horrendous as the estimated ex-
plained variance lies between 10 and 75 percent. The data used for
predicting this equation exhibited extremely large variance producing
the observed differential in multiple R2 and simple r2. The last
equation, for Black-Anglo segregation, when applied to the total popu-
lation can be expected to explain from 70 to 85 percent of the vari-
ance, astounding by social science standards.

Assuming that the split half regression analysis is accurate,
as it produces high rz's when its equation is used as a predictor,
what we can safely say is that the variables in the Mexican American-
Anglo segregation analysis can explain a maximum variance in residen-
tial segregation of from 53 to 78 percent; that those variables in
the Black-Anglo analysis can explain a maximum of 70 to 85 percent of
the variance in residential segregation; and that the variables in the
Mexican American-Black analysis are virtually useless in predicting
or explaining the segregation of these two groups. From such an anal-
ysis one might conclude that conventional demographic, economic and
"cultural" variables account for a great degree of variance in minor-
ity-majority group residential segregation. The results for intermi-
nority segregation are poor. Obviously, the evidence suggests that
minority from minority and minority from majority segregation are two
distinct phenomenon. What holds true for one need not hold true for
the other. It might also be assumed, that discrimination as a cause
of minority-majority segregation is minimal and buried amongst the

unexplained variance. Thus, error and, perhaps, discrimination

153

account for from 22 to 47 percent of the variance (l-R2 or l-rz) in
Mexican American-Anglo segregatidn and 15 to 30 percent of the vari-
ance in Black-Anglo segregation. This interpretation is admittedly
simplistic but suffices, at this juncture, to make my point. We will
return to this issue at a later time.

Having reviewed the hypothesis tests and their results it is
now time to evaluate what they tell us about the three competing mod-
els. We proceed now to a brief discussion of how and why I reached

my conclusions.

CHAPTER VII
CONCLUSIONS

Although numerous theories of residential segregation have
been employed by sociologists and economists to describe observed
ethnic residential patterns, neither the perspectives nor their un-
derlying assumptions have been rigorously tested. A primary purpose
of this study has been to work toward a broader and more rigorous
examination of segregated residential patterns and existing theoreti-
cal arguments. While no work can conclusively prove or disprove a
given theoretical perspective it can probe the issue further and
raise unanswered questions and issues which may then be developed into
new hypotheses and/or perspectives.

Having defined the three principal assimilationist-oriented
models and operationalized them as well as available data permitted,
the models were tested with demographic data on 581 Southwestern cit-
ies of various sizes and ethnic constitutions. Regression analyses
of each of the two principal minority groups with the majority, and
with each other, indicates that minority-majority segregation can be
adequately accounted for by a combination of "traditional" socio-eco-
nomic and demographic variables. On the other hand, interminority
segregation involves other factors which could not be ascertained by
the present quantitative analysis of census data. Let us now move
from this generalized summary to a more detailed explanation of the

154

155

results of my analysis.

The market model contends that settlement in ghettos results
primarily from the attraction of cheap housing. As Hollingshead ob-
served “competition in a market ... gives society its more or less
ecological base" (quoted in Firey, 1947: 16). The market model im-
plies that at any given time the level of ethnic residential segrega-
tion is attributable to differences in a group's socioeconomic posi-
tion (SES). One would expect, therefore, ethnic residential segrega-
tion to be accounted for by the SES differentials of the groups being
compared. Given the improbability of constructing a realistic compos-
ite indiCator of SES from aggregate census data the market model was
approached in three steps: income as predictor, status (occupation)
as predictor and housing cost (value if owned, rent othenwise) as a
predictor. I

The test of hypothesis which held that income segregation was
unrelated to ethnic segregation showed that the relationship was gen-
erally of a magnitude that income could be designated as an important
factor in the explanation of residential segregation by race or eth-
nicity. However, segregation by ethnicity or race was found to be
significantly greater than segregation by income. But, while ethnic
segregation was significantly greater than overall segregation by in-
come among the low income levels (T=-4.89, 55 df, p=.OOl), ethnic
segregation among high income levels was not (T=-.93, 55 df, p=.359).
This is not inconsistent with previous findings that so-called "high
type" Mexican Americans have generally assimilated into the Anglo mid-

dle-class population (see Taylor, 1934: 263; Dworkin, 1970: 397). The

156

results imply a diminution of segregation due to ethnic segregation
per se and an increasing tendency toward segregation on a class basis.
This is substantiated by the significantly greater segregation of
Mexican Americans and Anglos at the lower income level than at the
higher level (T=3.72, 55 df, p=.OOl). This issue of Mexican American
-Anglo segregation by class and ethnicity might be further evaluated
through the utilization of a cross-level ethnic analysis. For in-
stance, the segregation of low income Anglos from high income Mexican
Americans might be contrasted with existing information on Mexican
American-Anglo high income segregation to provide a fuller understand-
ing of ethnic segregation.

Segregation by ethnicity or race was fbund to significantly
exceed segregation by occupational status for all three dependent var-
iables. Thus, it would appear that race or ethnicity is the more
crucial factor in the relationship. It would appear that it is race
or ethnicity which determines one's occupational status and race,
rather than occupation, which has the primary influence on where on
lives.

An ethnic or racial minority's ability to afford available
housing was found to be unrelated to its segregation from the major-
ity. And, segregation by ethnicity or race was found to be of great-
er significance than segregation by rent level or value of owner occu-
pied housing in all but the Mexican American-Anglo 0. Thus, whereas
Blackness continues to be a serious handicap, the implication is that
residence, or prejudice, against Mexican Americans, especially those

.of "high type," has diminished to the point where their segregation

157

from the majority parallels the overall class segregation for the
city. This is confirmed by the nonsignificant difference between
overall low from high rent segregation and Mexican American low from
high rent segregation.

At this point, by utilizing a simple model which the Teaubers
illustrated parallels an indirect standardization, we can confirm the
apparently greater influence exerted by racial and ethnic factors than
by socioeconomic factors in majority-minority residential segregation.
Table 16 illustrates that actual segregation indexes differ markedly
from those expected on the basis of differentials in income, status,
value of housing or rent. The data in the table casts serious doubt
upon a "market model" interpretation of residential segregation as
differentials in market, or economic, variables account for very lit-
tle of the observed segregation.

The "voluntarist" perspective on residential segregation holds
that new ethnic arrivals sought the security and warmth of an insular
enclave which provided opportunity for the realization of self-respect
on the basis of a "consciousness of kind." Banfield (1968: 81) and
others (Gans, 1968: 37, 263; Kantrowitz, 1969: 685) have noted that,
in larger cities, ethnic groups of the second, third and even later
generations have been known to live in self-imposed isolation. Wirth
(1938: 15) implied that large numbers of ethnics permit the emergence
of a separate opportunity structure located exclusively within the
confines of the ethnic community. In the testing of the relevant hy-
potheses neither minority population size nor auto nonownership2 was a

major factor in explaining residential segregation. Poverty levels

158

 

00m
#05
F

NO

\DF-
00115

LON
O‘N

h~<§

LDQ’

NKO
NI!)
[\m
[\m

«000
030‘)

f—f'"
03¢

our:
men
we
cm
VLD
«>63
oovx
osu;
crm
hd‘
moo
NM

NM
Q’Q’
ON
0"!“
F")
L00"
0—0
«3‘0
m'd'
\dtn
MN
cﬁs§

coo
LOQ’
OO
<r<r
v-‘LO
MN
ON
MN
mos
Idea
CON
[xv

00¢
KD'U‘
00
MN
com
NN
Qw-
nia:
l\l\
O0
ON
mm
QM
Km

Q'LO
#00
OLD
Ml—
Fiuz
Q’N
050')
000
KN

.>mo .cum
com:
mmwumu ~—<

$8 .2;

sum:
m_wpca=o
ummzog

.sma .upm
com:
m__pga=o

eewep

.>ma .uum
cam:
m_3pee=o
ucoumm

$8 .95

com:
mPPpcmso
pmmmcm4

 

ucmm

mspmpm .meoucm

pcmm mapm> magnum msoucH ucmm m=~m> magnum mEoucH

 

 

 

xmvcH o_mc<-xumpm

xmucH xumrmucmuwgme< cm83xmz xmuc: oﬁmc<1cmumgwe< chwxwz

A3Pu2:
mmpwpemzc

 

 

oump .mmweommumu m~wm cowuapzaoa xuwu an,
.mpmvucocmwmwa ucmm use msFm> mcwmzoz .mapmum .msoucH co

nmmmm cowpmmmcmmm mepcmv_mmm uwcgum Lo pmwumm mo mmxmucm umuumaxm .mp mpnm»

159

more readily explained the degree of auto nonownership.

For intergenerational segregation, both first from second and
first from third generation segregation were found to be related to
interethnic segregation. Combined with the earlier finding that Mex-
ican American-Anglo segregation had declined between 1960 and 1970
these results imply a corroboration of Wirth (1928: 74, 256) and Lieb-
erson's (1963: 45) assimilationist perspectives. The third generation
is moderately segregated from the second, which is moderately segre-
gated from the third. All such differences were significant. As the
Mexican American generations became more segregated (separated) from
each other, overall Mexican American segregation from Anglos decreased.
The more "Americanized," and therefore assimilated, generations were
more acceptable to the majority population and left the pale of the
barrio for the better neighborhoods of "Dick and Jane."

Qualitative and quantitative data generated from survey and
participant observation also support an assimilationist interpretation
of the propinquity issue. Dworkin (1970: 405) notes that foreign born
Mexican Americans "did not view the ghetto as a final place of resi-
dence, but rather, as a 'stopping off point on their way to a better
life'." Thus, Mexican Americans initially shared similar feelings
with European ethnics. Lebeaux and Salas' (1973: 96) Detroit study
illustrated that "Latinos" are no longer as concerned with the issue
of a neighborhood's ethnicity as the early "voluntarists" feared.

Case and Kirk's (1959: 20, 65, 68) study substantiates this. The type
of neighborhood characteristics which are of greatest importance to

Hispanics are good housing and safe neighborhoods, a response not

160

unlike that of other Americans. Watson and Samora (1970: 110) found
disunity within the Mexican American community they studied. The ab-
sence of "community" is a direct contradiction of the propinquity ar-
gument. How can such an argument be adjudged adequate in the face of
the findings in these four studies? I feel that it cannot, as all
four studies indicate a strong tendency toward acculturation-—the ac-
ceptance of the dominant group's housing-neighborhood values. An "An-
glo Conformity" orientation appears to have slowly triumphed over any
voluntaristic ethnic tendencies which may persist.

The exclusionary policies approach focuses on discriminatory
practices, both individual and institutional, as an explanation for
residential segregation. The middle-class Black or Mexican American
is not allowed to compete for better housing in an open market because
of exclusionary practices (Helper, 1969: 4). As in the Moore and Mit-
telbach study (1966) quantitatively operationalizing discrimination
proved difficult. From the literature, a hypothesis utilizing a tan-
gential measure was developed and tested. Both the proportion Black
and the pr0portion Mexican American were fbund to have moderate direct
relationships with minority-majority segregation. Neither was of ma-
jor importance in eXplaining the variance in residential segregation.
In an analysis of intercensal segregation change, minority population
changes were of little importance in explaining an increment or de-
crease in segregation over the decade l960-1970, whereas majority
population change was.

The question of whether any model is adequate may by this time

be raised. A specific conclusion that discriminatory behavior is

161

primarily responsible for the residential segregation of minority
groups (as implied in the exclusionary practices approach) is not war-
ranted on the basis of the data in this limited study. However, a
generalization may be made to the effect that I have provided suffi-
cient evidence to suggest that any of the assimilationist perspec-
tives are inadequate for assessing the impact of residential segrega-
tion. There are numerous inferences to be made from the present data
as well as other sources. By utilizing SES variables it was found
that the economic arguments generally used were inadequate as major
explanations of any residential segregation persists. Utilization of
minority size and intergenerational data also illustrate the incom-
pleteness of the voluntarist perspective. The additional data in Ta-
ble l6 and the research literature on Mexican American housing prefer-
ences substantiated these findings. In contrast, these same materials
cannot but buttress, by inference, an exclusionary argument. Addition-
ally, ethnic differences in housing patterns are not based solely on
income, occupational or educational characteristics devoid from the
influence of ethnic membership. It is doubtful that any economic,
cultural or demographic variable found to be influential in explaining
residential segregation could adequately withstand tests for the ab-
sence of ethnic contamination. Even those variables input into the
split half regression which had good replication show signs of con-
tamination. The percentage of overcrowded housing can be interpreted
as having three distinct causes: inability to afford better housing,
large extended families (pr0pinquity) or denial of access to more ade-

quate housing which consequently establishes/reinforces overcrowding.

162

Which is it? The ratio of Mexican American median income to overall
median income is a measure of differentiation which could have as its
cause educational-occupational differences or discriminatory exclu-
sion from, or practices within, specific areas of the labor market.
Recent studies have illustrated continued economic discrimination
against Mexican Americans, even at comparable levels of education and
occupational level (see Poston and Alvirez, 1973; Poston, Alvirez
and Tienda, 1976). Again, can we distinguish what constitutes dis-
criminatory and nondiscriminatory differentiation? The number of
Mexican Americans, ratio of Mexican Americans to Blacks, Blacks as a
percentage of the minority population and Mexican Americans as a per-
centage of the total population can all be viewed as more than mere
demographic variables. Anglo-Mexican American and Anglo-Black segre-
gation decreased over the decade, but then so did Anglo population.
An increased minority presence lead to a decreased majority presence
and decreased segregation from the majority. How so? One plausible
explanation is that Anglos way have left the inner cities with their
large minority populations for the more racially homogenous suburbs.
Suburbanization increased during the same period majority-minority
segregation and the proportion of majority p0pulation decreased.
While we can only speculate on this issue using the aggregate demo-
graphic data in this study there appears to be a good deal of truth
to Allport's (1958: 220-222), and others', observation that an incre-
ment in a minority's visibility within a city is perceived as a threat
to stability by the majority, one of whose available options is

"flight," and another of which is steadfast entrenchment

163

(segregationist neighborhood associations, etc.).

It cannot be forgotten that restrictive covenants against both
Blacks and Mexican Americans were in vogue prior to their being de-
clared unconstitutional in 1948. As Israel Zangwill (Wirth, 1928:
118) and Loren Miller (Vose, 1959: 212) both so aptly noted, the
ghetto (barrio) became an institution and came to pervade the actions
and attitudes of both individuals and groups. De jure segregation
may have been legally proscribed after 1948 but evidence, as late as
1970, of continued de facto segregation exists.

While there are difficulties in relying upon attitudes as pre-
dictors of behavior there are a number of survey studies which add
substantially to an understanding of the exclusionary practices per-
spective on residential segregation as discussed in the literature.
Mexican Americans view themselves, and are more frequently viewed by
Anglos, as "white" (Taylor, 1934: 268). An attitude survey of 319
non-Hispanic native whites revealed a greater tolerance toward Mexi-
can Americans than Blacks. Average Mexican American-Black discrepan-
cies on favorable responses ranged from a low of 22 percent in refer-
ence to their integration into white neighborhoods to a high of 28
percent for a question on service in restaurants (Pinkney, 1970: 75
and Table 1). Field observations substantiated the findings, Anglos
exhibited greater acceptance toward Mexican Americans than Blacks in
public places. Anglos were also more willing to accord Mexican Amer-
icans greater rights. Insofar as attitudes are concerned the study
found considerably less prejudice toward the Mexican American than

toward Blacks (Pinkney, 1970: 77, 79-80). Using a stratified sample

164

of Anglos, Blacks and Mexican Americans in Houston, Davidson and
Gaitz (1973: Table 1) obtained the same results-—Mexican Americans
were more acceptable to Anglos than were Blacks. Thirty percent more
of the Anglos found Mexican Americans more acceptable than Blacks as
neighbors. The results of such attitudinal studies are mirrored in
my residential segregation indexes. Blacks are more segregated from
Anglos than are Mexican Americans. It can be inferred from this that
prejudice is frequently translated into discriminatory behavior and
plays an important, if not crucial, role in the selection of housing
by minority group members (see Northwood and Barth, 1965).

The world of liking and disliking also creates interminority
divisions-—Black-Mexican American segregation is high. Moore and
Mittelbach (1966: 13) make reference to markedly different patterns
in each group's history of urbanization. Blacks are viewed as late-
comers attracted by an expanding opportunity structure made possible
by the Southwest's rapidly developing industrialization (1966: 32).
Incoming Blacks settled in areas removed from long-standing areas of
traditional Mexican American occupancy. While this appears plausible
it is also somewhat simplistic and superficial analysis.

Mexican American—Black relations have long been strained in
the Southwest, and elsewhere. As early as the early 1930's Mexican
Americans expressed their dislike of Blacks (Taylor, 1934: 158).
Again, subjective perceptions of reality played an important role.
Mexican Americans perceived, and continue to perceive, themselves as
"white" and "superior" to Blacks, a sentiment not much discouraged by

the Anglo majority (Taylor, 1934: 129, 254-55, 268). This perception,

165

along with some misperceptions, has continued over the decades. In
the 1960's Madsen (1973: 16) could quote a presumably enlightened
Mexican American college youth as saying "We're not like the Negroes.
They want to be white men because they have no history to be proud
of." In 1965-66, Grebler, et. a1. (1970: Table 16-4, 391) found from
43 to 54 percent of their Mexican American respondents in Bakersfield,
Los Angeles and San Antonio perceived finding most people at a party
Black to be distasteful. From 11 to 34 percent found it distasteful
to eat at the same table with Blacks. Davidson and Gaitz (1973: 745)
note that Mexican Americans in Los Angeles and San Antonio rejected
the idea of a political coalition with Blacks by a 3 to 1 margin.

They also fbund (1973: Table 3, 744) that 77 percent of their Mexican
American respondents felt that an owner should not have to sell to
Blacks if she or he did not want to. It is highly doubtful that the
respondents were nearly all civil libertarians, what is more likely

is that they were expressing their own subliminal feelings about be-
ing "forced" to live near Blacks at some subsequent date if open hous-
ing laws were stringently enforced. The authors noted with regard to
the rest of their analysis that the wording of the items tended to so-
licit positive responses. Subjects were not asked about admitting
sizable numbers of Blacks to their neighborhoods, churches or jobs but
rather a single Black, or Mexican American. Mexican American affirma-
tive response regarding the willingness to have Blacks as neighbors
was a low 76 percent, whereas Blacks responded at a much more positive

level of 94 percent (Davidson and Gaitz, 1973: Table l, 741).

Such prejudicial reactions on the part of Mexican Americans

166

are not part of a unidimensional pattern, interminority prejudice is a
two way street. Blumer's (1958: 5) contention that such antagonisms
were initially shaped by a sense of economic competition fbr the lim-
ited number of resources made available by the dominant Anglo popula-
tion was substantiated by Shankman's (1975) research on the Black
press. By 1935 the Black press was totally unsympathetic toward the
plight of the Mexican whom they categorized as a "poor people accus-
tomed to nothing more than an adobe shack, a blanket, and a tortilla"
(1975: 51, 55h). Antipathy was based on jealousy according to Shank-
man, if the fear of not being able to find a scarce job because of
cheap competition from Mexico can be characterized as "jealousy." As
a result of fear predicated on economic competition, Blacks internal-
'ized the negative images of Mexican Americans held by the dominant An-
glo population, including that group's failure to distinguish between
native born Americans of Mexican descent who shared the Blacks' plight
and the Mexican national who flodded across the Rio Grande in search
of a decent livelihood. As a result Blacks became as vehemently anti-
immigrationist as the most Darwinistic white nativists.

Moore and Mittelbach made a very insightful comment regarding
Mexican American-Black segregation which provides an assessment for
continued high segregation between these two groups. It should be re-
iterated at this juncture that Black-Mexican American segregation
rose an average 3 percent in the 42 city analysis of intercensal
change. Moore and Mittelbach (1966: 33) suggested that Mexican Amer-
ican family size was an important factor in accounting for inter-mi-

norith segregation. Their results suggested that the less Mexican

167

Americans are acculturated the more likely they are to share segregat-
ed residential areas with Blacks. This point is extremely important
I and we shall return toit shortly.

Myrdal (1944: 603), in speaking of European immigrants, noted
that while they are initially less prejudiced than native whites they
"will often develop a more intense prejudice than the natives after
they have lived in the United States for awhile.“ As early as the
1930's Taylor (1934: 268-69, 297) noted that the trend in Mexican
American attitudes was away from an association with Blacks and to-
ward an alignment with Anglos. Thus, a people who began their con-
tacts with Blacks along the Texas border by befriending them (see also
Shankman, 1975: 44) became "Americanized" in their values as they
sought to protect and enhance recently achieved social rewards. Faced
with Anglo attitudes towards Blacks and a desire to elevate their own
standing in the community, Mexican Americans adopted Anglo attitudes
as their own. These negative conceptions have continued partially be-
cause of the Texas-Mexican's proximity to the Southern ethos (Penalosa,
1973: 62). That such is the case is substantiated by Grebler, et.
al.'s (1970: 393) finding that San Antonio exhibited a greater expres-
sion of prejudice than their two California cities and that Texas-born
residents of the California cities were more prejudiced towards Blacks
than those born outside of Texas. Again we have indirect evidence
pointing toward increasing Mexican American acculturation: greater
segregation from a pariah Black populationzand less segregation from
the dominant group, especially among the third and later generations.

But there is still much more work needed in the area of interminority

168

relations if we are to achieve an accurate overview of both the main-
tenance and expansion of residential segregation and the acculturation
process of ethnic minorities. . I

One of the most serious drawbacks in segregation research has
been dominance by assimilationist interpretations-both in theoreti-
cal and empirical works. A number of sociologists writing from an
exclusionary practices perspective imply that the housing choices open
to many minority group members are severely restricted, that these
consist primarily of the opportunity of moving into a better ghetto.
These exclusionary-oriented sociologists imply that better housing
lies outside the ghetto and, therefore, that the solution to the hous-
ing problems of minority groups lies in integrating the better neigh-
borhoods. Herein lies the myopia of their perspective-—in order to
improve their condition ethnic or racial minorities must integrate
and, by implication, acculturate. The idealist emerges triumphant
over the pragmatist in their proposals, with the result that little
has been accomplished with regard to housing conditions among the mi-
nority group as a whole. The assimilationist bent of segregation re-
search is evident in the differentials of the indexes themselVes.
Relative to Black-Anglo segregation, Mexican American-Anglo segrega-
tion is much lower. Mexican Americans can assimilate because their
skin color (for the most part) permits them to evaporate into the
mainstream of American life if they have acculturated. On the other
hand, even acculturated Blacks face severe handicaps as cannot simply
leave their skin colors behind and meld unobserved into the main-

stream culture. This is reflected in the indexes, yet rarely is it

169

reflected upon in the literature. Even Mexican American attitudes to-
ward Blacks, and earlier Black attitudes toward Mexicans, are reflec-

tions of the successful operation of assimilationist forces. Mexican

Americans from Texas appeared to have internalized the dominant white

population's negative attitudes toward Blacks.

There is, presently, no other choice-—if you want better hous-
ing you mUst search outside the ghetto or barrio, even if you would
prefer to remain. The real problem is not segregation per se, but
equal housing. Too much emphasis has been placed in previous, and
ongoing, research on the segregation indexes and their numerical val-
ues. Are they increasing, decreasing, or have they stabilized? Where
are the questions regarding the quality of life, the quality of minor-
ity housing conditions? Social scientists have overlooked the issue
of housing conditions-—has minority housing improved, stabilized or
deteriorated in quality? This question is of much greater theoretical
and practical significance than that concerning the indexes. Social
science research's assimilationist conception that integration indi-
cates equalization appears to be at the root of many minority group
members' continued housing problems. We have been all-too-concerned
with equality through integration and failed to realize that quality
housing can be objectively measured against a standard unrelated to
integration. We have focussed so long on assimilationist perspectives
with obvious Anglo Conformity orientations that we have failed to
realize that segregation is of itself not evil. When segregation in—
volves socioeconomic inequalities and limited opportunities we are

justified in seeking to correct these conditions. But, these

170

conditions can be combatted independently of segregation. If segrega-
tion were to become primarily voluntary in nature, its interpretation
as an evil to be battled could only come from an assimilationist

value system and its cultural premises. We in the social sciences
need to open our eyes and broaden our perspectives, we have to loosen
the bonds of an assimilationist mind-—set in an attempt to accurately
evaluate and meet minority-group housing needs.

If social and economic planners are to derive new strategies
for reducing the negative impact of residential segregation, they must
realize that their assimilationist biases have affected their "suc-
cess." Strategies aimed at alleviating the housing problems of Blacks
and Mexican Americans must consider more than integration. Economic,
social, and legal realities need to be considered. There is a lack
of sincere public support for a massive attack on the problems of the
city. Suburban residents are comfortable with their experience of con-
tinuous improvement, have grown accustomed to it, and cannot be made
to readily sacrifice any of the amenities, as the recent energy crisis
has illustrated.

Weissbourd (1964: 6-11) argued for a "total" program recogniz-
ing the interdependence of city and suburbs but acknowledged that exis-
tent segregative practices were obstacles to such an approach. Be-
cause the ethnic and racial ghettos would not disappear of themselves
and the effects of nondiscrimination policies in sales and rentals
were expected to be minimal, Weissbourd called for a major plan to
"bring about a more uniform and just distribution of these people

among the population as a whole." The implications were, as others

171

have also noted, that any meaningful social change involved the dis-
ruption and dislodging of not only vested interests, but pe0ple
(groups) as well. An architect, Izumi, added a vitally important
note when he said

When we are dealing with human beings, we cannot afford

to group them for convenience and expedience and then

house them under one classification if we really want

to develop a self-adjusting and perpetual solution to

the problem (in Michelson, 1970: 35).

Brown's (1965: 76-77) comment that neither legislation nor
good will has been an effective approach to the reduction of segregat-
ed housing is well taken. Our experience has illustrated that laws
aimed at equalization have not brought a solution to the original
problems (Abrams, 1966: 518). Yet, few people question the appropri-
ateness of an integrative approach. If it has been given its chance
and has not succeeded, why do we insist on perpetuating failure? It
should be acknowledged that existing residential patterns within cit-
ies are too firmly fixed, that any population shifts and disruptions
necessary for equalization would be excessive, and that Anglo opposi-
tion to any such program would be staggering. As Hartman (1969: 435)
noted years ago, "It seems quite probable that we have passed the
point where massive integration of the races can be an element of a
housing program that will improve the lot of the vast majority of the
slum dwellers, ..., in a relatively short time span ..."

Brown's (1965: 76-77) implications were that the real estate
industry has always responded to economic rather than socio-legal

pressures. The Taeubers (1969: 20) implied that the agencies with the

power over the basic financial structure of the housing market and

172

those which extensively underwrote the market held the solutions in
their hands. Had these agencies been properly oriented toward a pol-
icy of overall national improvement in housing, they could have ex-
ploited the dire situation of the construction industry a few years
ago to initiate important changes-—they did not. Ixam not so naive
that I have overlooked the exclusionists' evaluations of the govern-
ment's past role in buttressing private sector discrimination or its
pseudo laissez faire economic philosophy. Past housing policy has
been successful in meeting the housing needs of only limited numbers
of upwardly mobile, middle class, acculturated minority group members.
Vast number of minority peoples continue to be ill-housed. If segre-
gation, in the sense of vastly unequal Opportunities and poor housing
conditions, is to be combatted effectively many changes need to be
made in the policies of the very federal bureaucracies that once gave
the "racists" sustenance. The operation at cross-purposes of federal
programs must be eliminated and housing policy consolidated into a
very limited number of sub-agencies, with specific duties, within
HUD. Despite the failure and excesses of urban renewal, its basic
philosophy of improving ghetto housing is sound and represents an al-
ternative avenue toward solving minority group housing problems. A
national housing policy focussing on the improvement of existing bar-
rio and ghetto housing, and the construction of adequate new low-cost
housing in the barrios and/or ghettos, is suggested. Individual, up-
wardly mobile, acculturated minority-group members could retain their
right to move away from the ethnically oriented barrio or ghetto and

into Anglo-oriented, non-ethnic areas if they so desired.

173

Prospective Scholarship

 

It is as important to generate new questions as it is to pro-
vide the "right" answers when doing research. The suggestion of theo-
retical and methodological considerations for future research on seg-
regated housing patterns is crucial and I feel the following observa—
tions are pertinent.

(1) Moore and Mittelbach noted that minority perceptions of
cities (images) were important. The issue of circulatory or mutual
reinforcement needs to be investigated. Does the greater recognition
of discrimination lead to a greater withdrawal by the minority popula-
tion? What housing and neighborhood preferences do minority group
members hold? Why?

(2) The feeling for community needs to be ascertained. Do
Barrio and ghetto residents in the Southwest view themselves as be-
longing to a "community"? Studies of this type have been badly ne-
glected and we must not fall prey to a priori assumptions that such
perceptions do, or do not, exist (Penalosa, 1973: 61).

(3) Both Lieberson (1963: 9) and Michelson (1970: 66) sug-
gest that it would be interesting to learn whether, and in what re-
spects, persons living in the barrios are less assimilated than those
residing outside the enclave, and I concur.

(4) There is a need for the study of residential succession
in mixed Black-Mexican American neighborhoods. This is a dimension
which appears not to have been explored and offers potential insight
into both the larger process of residential succession and interminor-

ity relations.

174

(5) From a methodological standpoint, the reworking of census
accounts is not enough-—careful original sample surveys are needed
(Penalosa, 1973: 60). Qualitative investigations, such as studies
of regional and city histOries, or the role of public housing within
them, offers fertile ground for causal research. The value of local
historical knowledge for determining factors peculiar to individual
cities has long been recognized (Taeuber and Taeuber, 1969: 19) but
little appears in the literature of the Southwest.

(6) Finally, the analysis within the work is incomplete.
Further work needs to be done in both interminority and majority-mi-
nority residential segregation by class, status and housing-condition
factors. Both types of research may be accomplished through the uti-
lization of the same technique: intergroup, cross category compari-

sons (e.g. majority high status from minority low status segregation).

A Brief Summation

There are always alternate explanations. However, the pres-
ent review shows that all the recognized alternative explanations have
had an assimilationist bent. Much more detailed quantitative and
qualitative research needs to be done. While race and ethnicity are
important known elements influencing the degree of residential segre-
gation over time, we know much less about more socially significant
changes in housing conditions. The past failure of assimilationist
social science research to accurately evaluate and integrationist pol-
icy to ameliorate minority housing problems must be Offset by new,

more open-minded investigative endeavors if further programs aimed at

175

changing minority housing conditions are to be successful for a wide

range of minority Americans.

1176

 

.. o- l- i- i- -- l- l- l- -- me. me.- mm.~- mo.- axon—m on “ecu
lvguae coupxu: :o o.uo¢ wax

woo. mm. mo.—— ~—. _¢. coo. mm. mv.o Np. mm. 1. l- -l -l mcau_cus< couuxot so guess: own
-i u: i- u- in ii in l- in ii mo. pv. —¢.~ —oooo. copuo—aaoa Au—u ~au0h mwx
u_:mocuaeoo

-- i- i- l- l- l- l- -- l- l- l- l- l- l- v «soon.
:o-uos gun—m o» esou
. -e. e._eee .asee co e_ea¢ h_x

.. l- .1 ll .1 l- l- l- l- i- u- l- l- .. nmcou_cma< cou_xu: ocean
co_uo.ucmeoue.u «sou:— oNx

.oo. mm. mo.~p n~.m mo.m~ m_o. co. .o.o mo.~_ mo.on mo. Km. __.~ om.m~ ~ «aouc_ cu_uas coo.
-Loe< cau_xa: cu «sous:
savage .ouou ea ovum: o_x

u_aocouu

. l- -- -- -- l- .. --. -- -- -- -- «tea Lo «canton m guﬁx
.=.:.o ape—m aeseeea ex

coo. Km. Pn.v_ m_. cm. mvo. mm. Ne.o on. me. .o. oo. om.~ as. — ages
50 «concaa m 5“.) .=.=.o
:mu_caa< :ou.xuz acoucua mx

 

pac:u_:u

 

.a_m «use os_as-a w .uum a .a_m «use es_a>-a u .eem a .o_m .eeea us_e>-h a mo_aaeca> aeoeeeeoee_

 

 

 

mo-upu mm :u—x cane asap mowu_u mm nu.) can: ONO— name ova—

 

 

o_ao_ca> acoucoaoo mo »u_co_.e_mm_c we xoe=_ o_o:<-cauvcme< cau_xax
.ONo. co» copuau._am¢ se,: one: com. so: sco_ua:eu “mum. suoapouu.x vac ocoox *6 com_eaaaao ._< o_aop

1717

.mo_a.u .acucuu opa.u_:a suﬁx mu.u=sou o_m:_m nee mo.u_u paeucou
nacaou o_a¢u—:e ou can cum—loom. so» aucaou uo cue—a c. xu3u mom: acct none; .xucsou :_ .ooa_-oma_ .mcau_cms< caupxu: :_ omooeuc. ucmucoeo
.co. nape Acoa— co: cam. .uuou ea acoucoa ma meou9eos< coupxu: mmo_ Ao~o_ co: coo. .auOu he acoueoa no mcou.cua< coo—xuxm

.meouc. x__5ae :o.ume goo—m an ume.>_u «509:3 »—.aau =~.uee co_uo_=aoa —auo~v

.xcoumuau «soon. cavuas cou_cue< :ou.xo: :o coo._» mac’s cc m:_a c_;u_z menu.cae< cau.xu: acoucmen
.oBOuc. x—.lcu :a.uua caupeaa< :ou.xo: x: vmu_>_u «souc_ Ap—aaw capuue co¢ua_:aoa pauopm

.u.c: can use: so mcomcoa o co women m“ «use as .cnm— a» ooa. so»: uuacagu moweooouau m=_ucoaee mamcou manque; :26 x: can o-noweu>
coon—auu_z uswocoo: osu cowzuoa aucoaocum_u asap—m a a. ocean .mu_:: m=_m:os no.a=uuo mucomoeqoc .:.:.o .opaou L_o:u c. Ammezv «seesaw
gm.=aam 5o «concoe ou_s: .ou.cguou ages on» new: goon—muu.z ace «coo: .xu.ea_o pea Au=o5m_m=ou we momentum so: ccu.ee=< coo—xv: vow: use: .—

.oﬁum «nu ma: nuco.u.~moou _-.ueoa we» «use L.o;a go mou:u_:oua ou o:_ucooua mo_na_co> «so :0 m:.xcoc on» cowuamuxo co=.a ace :8.)
was» .co>ozog .ouoc aozp .guaa—ouu.: use «coax :. ucowu_ueoou co_uo—ueeoo _o_ucaa on» ma coucoaoc m— new: uuucoaoc u:~.u.m»oau ouom ugh.

..N~m_: msmeou we» co septum .m .a aa_-u p.533 "mea_: seen—oee.z nee «tee: est. eueeee<. ”outsow

 

mo. mm. mm. Na upmmu—az

_~.m- mm.v- —m.mm “mooted:—

ooc. em.- co.¢_ mw. mm.- Kmo. n~.- ~_.n me. on.. -- l- l- .. cacao—gme< coo—xv:
manoeu:_ ucoueua max

.. l- -l l- l- l- -u l- l- l- .. mm.. mm..- -.- mmcau_eoe< =mo.xot
omaococv o>_uu_ua max

.. l- l- l- -1 l- -l u- .. _ou0u mo acoucoa
ma acauveue< =mu.xm: mwx

.. -- l- -- l- -- .. xupcoc.s
5o acoueoa mo axon—m vnx

 

3:528 3.. oc 8.8

 

.o_m ease os_.>-a u .e.m a .o.m cue» os_os-a u .eam a .m_m .ouaa «3.3,-» a me_e..ee> “conceaoee_

 

 

 

mu_uwu mm za_3 ouoo asap moﬁu.u mm gap: sumo camp mama oom—

 

 

uwacwucou ~< o—nup

1 753

 

 

 

 

Noo. we. .v._— om.m oo.m~ coo. no. mo.m~ oc.o mm.oc .o. Nm. ¢~.m em. xu_eoc_s
go “cause; no «sun—m «ax
vac. om.- .m.n mw. cm.- Kmo. —m. mo.n us. m_. l- l- -- -- «gun—m a» gene
-.eae< :ou.xoz uo o_uoz mmx
So. on. 8.: S... E. 8:. mm. and. 2. 2. 8. mm. and 280. 38:95:82uxuoeoceaz umx
-- -- l- -- l- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- l- -- :o_ua_=aoe Au.u .oao» aux
uvsmocmoemm
amp. m_. mo.~ -.~ ov.o_ wep. «N. m~.~ cm.a mm.m. -- -- l- l- o aeou=_
c~_uae sun—m on «aoucp
ee_eee peace co o.ue¢ ~_x
-- -- -- l- l- -- -- l- l- .. mo. mm. m..~ mm. Macao—eus< emu—xoz ocean
co_ua.ucmcmuu.u meouc~ oNx
-- -- -- l- -- -- -- -- -- l- l- l- -- -- w ueouc_ co_ume coo.
-cme< cau_xuz ou meouc'
ee_eee .eaea co o_ee¢ 0.x
U:Eccouu
«Kc. N~.- mm.m Ne. om.- -- -- -- l- -- l- -- -- -- egos co «canton m
es_x .=.=.o gee—m aeeeLoa ox
ego. em. Nm.o mm. em. «as. aw. o~.e on. me. -- l- l- l- _ one:
go meomcoa m cu.) .=.:.o
souveme< coupxo: accuse: mx
.ac=u_:u
.a_m «use a=_as-a u .eem a .m.m capo a:..>-a u .eum e .m_m .eusm p=_e>-e a mo_ee_ee> Seeueeaeee_

 

no.5.u mm ee.: .53: can.

 

mm—u—u mm gap: name Osm—

 

auuc oom—

 

 

opaowea> ucovcmaoa no xu.ca_.s.mm_o ea not:— xuo—mlcuu_coe< cuu_xaz
.o~s_ to. eo_u.u__ae¢ eu.z mama coo. Lee .ee.e.=au “use. gees—oau.x 9e. «Loo: .0 eem.taeeeu

.~< o_eee

 

1'79

.m03u—u panacea m_a_u_:e :u.: mo_u::ou o-oc_u use mo_u.u .ocucou
macaou o~apupas ou use osm—loca_ so: aucaou uo cue—a :— xa.u «on: case Nazca .xucaou :: .ooa_-omm_ .nceu_tma< :uu.xa: :— omeecoc. “amusemm
.oo. m:_a .oom_ co: omm— .auou no acoueoa mo u:~u_coa< :au.xaz mmop Ao~o_ to: com. .ouou eo ueooeoq no «cou_gme< cau,xotm
.uaouc. >_.amu ca.uos gun—m xa umu_>_u usage. x_waau :a_vus co.ua_:qoq .ouopv
.auoaouou queue. :-_uue =ou.cue< cau_xmz mo ooc._» maeme Lo “3.: :pga_: m:ou.cue< caupxo: ucmucoen
.uldoc. x__eae eoﬁvms coupcos< cou_xo: an umu.>.v usage. »__aau co.vme co.»o~=aoa .oquN
.uﬁc: can «can so «canton o co woman a. «one x! .cnm_ o» cco— Ice: vooeozu mo.goomuau me.ucoaoc mamcou omaooon :25 >3 was o_na.co>
goon—ouu_x can «coat 0:» cooxuoa xucoaoeumvu uzm._m a a. «cusp .mu_:a o=.m:o= vo_q:uoo mucomucaoc .=.:.o .upaau e_ocu :. Ammaxv ueeccam
gu.coam ea meomcua cave: .ou—czuou aces ecu vow: coon—ouu'x ecu ocoax .xu_go_u use xucmum_mcou be momoacaa to» coo—gue< =eu.xo: new: a>oz _.

.uEum on» me: muco_u.u~oou _u.ucoq ecu came Lyon“ 90 mou:»_cmoa o» mc_veouua mo_no.eo> as» he m=.xcec we» copuaouxu cos—t oco »_:c zu_r
ace» .cu>oxog .ouo: zone .guonpmuu_x use ocoo: :. u:o.u.uuoou cavuo—uceou _a.ucoa on» no uwueoqoc m. ecu: uuocoaoc uco.u_muoou «you use.

.Ammapv mam:ou as“ no :ooeam .m .= mA—iu u_aoh ”com—v :uoapouu_z new oeoo: ace: uoaaau< "ougzom

 

mm. .o. «m. Na w_m_u—::
mm.mm~- -._ mv.o~ ammueouc_
coo. on. me.m me. o_. l- -- -- l- .1 mo. cm.- no.~- wo.l cwceo_cua< =ou.xox

unacco:_ ueoucmm max

80. 3. mod :. 3d .. .. l- a- 1 l- u- l- .. 3:375: 2323:
omuocuc_ us-aopux max

m~o. on. ~v.© ~_. me. u. l- in l- u- l- m~.- am._- -.- _aa0u so acougoa
no 38383 5838: an

 

coacvucou u.:mocmoeuo

 

.o.m auom o:_u>-u u .vum a .m_m mama oa—a>-m m .vum a .o_m «seam o:_o>-h a m~.5a.co> acmecoqauc_

 

 

 

«0*upu mm gu_x can: oka— mopu.u mm saw) «an: aka. can: com.

 

 

uese_e=eu ~< o_aa_

1130

 

- - - 11 11 11 11 1- - 11 .0. mo.1 ~a.~1 o_.- muoo_m on «coo
1.5ua< :ou.xo: mo ovuoz me

-- -1 -- -1 1- .8. N3. 2.: 2. S. no. 2. So ...oooo. 38.33 5235335,. o~x
moo. on. ~o.o_ m”. ... -1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -1 -1 eo.o~_=aoa so.o ...e» nwx
mﬂmmmuumamm

ooo. An. .N... o~.m mo.o_ ooo. no. m~.mn 3o.o oo.mm .o. om. o~.n _~._~ e peeps.

co'oms xuo_m o» osouc.
ea_ooe .aoeo co o_o.¢ h_x

- 1- 11 1- 11 11 - 11 - - 11 - 11 1- mmooo_cos< coo.xuz acoSo
=o_uo_uooeouo_o oeouc_ owx

11 - 11 - 11 11 - 11 11 1- - 11 - 1- m «sous, envoys coop
1eoa< coo.xoz o» «sous,
:o_om= _ouou to o.uo¢ o_x

o_5oooow

-- -- -- -- -- mac. 3N. mo.3 .m. N... mo. mm. o_.~ .o. «tee to meshesa m ea.z
.=.z.o xee_m “cabana ox

coo. _v. oo.o~ ww. mm. 11 1- 11 11 11 , 11 11 11 1- — whoa
co mcomeoo m :u_3 .=.:.o

coovcoe< couwxo: acoucom mx

 

pound—so

 

.a.m coma o:_o>1m w .oum a .a.m some o:_o>1m m .oam a .m_m sauoa o:_o>-» a mo_oo.co> ucoooooooc_

 

 

 

nuvupu mm :u.3 cued asap m0.u.u mm :u—3 «an: asap coco oom—

 

 

o—aavco> ucoooooao no xo_co__n¢mm.o mo xoo=_ o_o:<-xuo.m
.cump so» =o_uou.—aox no.) «one coo. so» sco_u~:cu umoas goon—ouuo: to. «coo: so cou.caaaou .m< o_aah

1531

. .mo.».u .ogucou o.o.u.:e no.3 mo.u::ou o.o=.m use mo.u.u .oeocou

Auoaou o.a.o.:l oa use emu 1ooo. co. xooaou uo ous—o c. >u.u mom: coco ~ooo. .xucoou :. .ooo.1omm. .mcoo.eoe< cou.xo: :. omoococ. acoucoo
.oo. no. .ooo. so. cam. .ooou oo acoucoo no u:ou.eoa< =ou.xox moo. .osm. to: com. .oooo .o acoueoo mo m:oo.eoe< cou.xozw
.oaouc. x..aou co.oos xoo.m an ooo.>.o oeooc. a..5o. co.UoE co.uo.:ooo .ooohv

.xcooooou oeooo. :o.uon coo.goe< :ou.xox co coo... «no.3 co mo.a =.:o.3 acou.goe< :ou.xoz acoueoon

. .oaouc. a..aow co.ooa :oo.eoe< cou.xo: xo ooo.>.o osooc. x..so. :o.ooe :o.uo.=ooa .oooFN
.u.:= coo one: so «canton o co oomoo m. must .3 .omm. ou coo. soc. oomoogo mo.comoooo mo.ueoooe momcou omaoooo :xo as too o.oo.go>
:uoo.oou.x ooo ogoo: ogu coozuoo xucoooLOm.o u:o..« o a. oeogh .mu.:: ac.m:o; oo.o=ouo mocomocooc .=.=.o .o.ooo L.ozo c. .mmozv osocczm
gm.=oom mo «cameo; o~.g: .oo.::uoo ogoe ocu oom: soon—ouu.: use once: .xu.eo.u oco aucoum.mcoo .o momoocao coo coo.cos< coo.xoz com: oso: .—

.oeom oso mo) muoo.u...oou .o.ucoa oco ouou L.ozo go moosu.=moa ou ac.ueoooo mo.oo.co> oz“ .o mo.xcoc o2» co.ooooxo eo:.e oco so.)
oozo .co>ozog .ouoo zoo» .zuoo.ouu.x oco oeoo: c. uco.u...ooo co.uo.oecoo .o.ucoo oso no oooeoaoc m. oeog ooocoaoc uco.u.uuoou coon och.

..Nmm.. «swoon on» oo zoocam .m .3 ...-u o.oo. ”oom.. :uoo.oo..: ooo ocooz soc. oooaoo< "oucaom

 

mm. as. me. we o.m.u.::
o—.o. om.a1 m~.o~ amougouc.

11 11 11 1- 11 11 omcoo.cos< coo.xo:
omoogoc. acoueoo max

1- 11 11 -1 11 11 mucou.coe< cou.xox
omoogoc. o>.uo.o¢ mnx

1 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 1- 1- .ooou mo ocoocoo
no m:ou.eoe< cou.xo: amx

poo. om. mm.~— nv.c ~m.m~ moo. mm. mm... .c.m om.—~ 11 11 1- 11 au.go=.ﬁ
no nooocoo no axon—m omx

 

ooac.ucoo u.= o; osoa

 

.o.m .oom o=.es-a o .oom n .o.m eooo os_a>-a o .oom a .o.m .eooo os..>-. a mo_ea.ea> oeooeooooe_

 

 

 

mo.u.u mm a».3 can: cum— mo.u.u mm zu.3 can: eso— ouoo coo.

 

 

nose.oeeu m< o_ea.

1E32

 

 

 

 

..N «.mm n._~ .... 3.m_ onm.om ~om.~33 ... -.o ...o ... n.. ..oo .a.m
o._o. m..m ...N ..o m... ooa... omo._om o.o3 .m._ mm._ ..om .... z<ox
.- mmx
N3. 1- on.
.N. om. .- 3mx
om.- .N.. .N. -- me
om.- ~3.- me. _o. .- me
oo.- o..- -.1 oo. on. .- owe
oo. we. no. ...- mo.- o.. 1- MN.
~o.- ... oo. o... ow. o..- o~.- 1- ow.
3o. mo. .o. No.- m..- m~.- a..- co. 1- ..x
3m. mm. co. m..- no.1 .o.. o... oo. .3. -1 0.x
o..- m_. No. .o. No.1 o~.- ...- oo. co. m.. .- ox
...- om. o_. ... .N. .o.- om.1 ... om. oN. ow. -- ox
on. max on. om. oNx o~x n~x om. ... o_x ox m.
:53 53.32: .33 ocoot Jozef; ucoocooooc. h.o Soto—338.3... .3. oz:

1533

 

mo.ao< log. «goo—o so. mu.eo..s.mm.o no xooc. on» a no
nxuo.o soc. mono.eos< :oo.xoz so. A..co..e.mm.o .o xooc. on» 1 No
mo.a:< Soc. moou.coe< cou.xo: so. >o..o..s.mm.o .o xooo. oz. u .o

 

a... N.3. 3.3 3.3N 3.N o.NN 3.3N 3.3. oNN.No. 3NN.Nom ..N 3N.o N..o o.. N.m ..oo .o..
N.3. 3.33 3.33 N.oo o..o ..N. 3.3 N.oN 3.N.No N3...mm 3.3. 33.. mN.. o... ..NN 23.:
3N. 3.. «N.- -1 3..
mN. MN. m... ...- -- on.
33. 33. NN.- 3N. mo. - 3N.
33.- ooo.- oo. o3.- No.- om.- -- N..
33.. .o.1 .N. am.- 33.- 33.- 3.. -- 3N.
N.. on. ... oo.- o..- N..- No. on. - 3N.
on. .3. 3.. NN. N.. ... N..- 33.- on. -- MN.
.o.- N.. on. No.1 o.. oo.- NN. 3.. NN.- Nm.- -- oNx
33. NN. ... .N. .N. «N. .m.- m..- 3... oo.- mo.- 1- ...
3N. .ooo. mm. 3.. oo.- ...- a..- 3..- mo.- mo.- 33. 33. 1- 3..
N.. No.- ... 30.- ... mo.- 3.. no. 3N.- .N.- m.. o..- N.. -- o.
3.. N.. N.. o..- No.- .N.- oN. 3N. ...- N..- 33. MN. .m. 33. - 3x
No No .3 an. on. 3.. N.. 3N. 3N. NN. 0N. N.. 3.. ex 3.

 

 

no.3.o mm .33.: c.3. 33.: .ee..3:3o 3333. euee.o.3.x we. pace: .3 33.333..ao3 .mo.ee.ee.
ocoocoooo an.) mo.oo.so> ucoocoaooc. uo meo.oo.ogcou use mo.oo.go> ocoocooooc_ mo moo.uo.occoocou:. .m< o.oo..

1534

 

3o.o=< no.» mxuo.m to. .3.co..s.33.o .o xooc. og. n ma
«goo—o soc. acou.coe< oou.xo: so. xo.co..s.33.o 3o xooc. oz. - Na
mo.u:< soc. mono..o2¢ cou.xo: so. .u.eo..e.3m.o so xooo. on. a .n

 

3.3. 3.3. 3.N. 3.33 3.3 3.3N N.3.. 3.3N no..33 N3N.3.3 3.3 33.3 3..o 3.3 ..3 ..o..3.3
..3. 3.33 3.N3 3..3 3.33 3.3N N.33 N.3N 3.3..3 33N.33N 3.3. 33.. 3N.. 3.3. 3.3N :33:
33.- N.. N3.- - 33.
3.. .N. NN.1 N.. 11 3N.
33. 33. 3o.- ... 33. 11 3m.
3..- 33.1 3.. 3N.- .3.- N3.- 11 N..
3..- .N.- 33. 33.- N3.- .3.- 3.. -- 3N.
oN. 3N. 3N. ...- 3N.- N3.- 3... N.. - 3N.
3N. .3. 3.. 33. .3.- .N. 3..- N..- .3. 1- NN.
... .3. 33. .3.- 3N.- N..- .N. 33. 3..- 3N.1 .- 3N.
33. 33. 3.. 33. 3N. N3. 33.1 33.1 33.- .3. N3.- -- ...
3.. 33. 33. 33.- 33.- 33.- .N.- 3..- .3.- .3.- 3.. N3. - 3..
3o. .3. no. .33.- N.. N.. N3.- NN.- ...- 3..- ...- 3.. MN. - 3.
3N. 33. N3. .N.- 33.. 3..- .3. 33. 33.1 ”N.- .3. 33. N3. 3.. - 3.
.3 N3 .3 an. 3m. 33. N.. 3N. 3N. .N. 3N. N.. 3.3. 3. 3.

 

 

mu.u.u mm .aqu cum— cu.) sco.uo:cm «mom: goon—ouu.t tee «goo: .0 co.uau..ao¢ .mo.ao.ga>
acoocoooa so.) mo.oo.co> ucoocooooc. .o mco.uo.oeeou woo 3o.oo.oo> ucoocooooc. .o 3eo.uo.og.oocou=. .o< o.oo.

1235

.33.33.33> mo 30.333._3333333033 «:3 333 .u 0.33» mom.

 

 

 

 

 

. 3.. 33. 3.. 33 0.3333...
33.3.- 33.3. 33.3- 3m3930333
333
.3. 33.- 33.3 33. 3..- 333
333
33. 33. 33.3 3..3 33.3. .3. 33. 33.3 33.. 33... -- 3.. 33.3 3..3 33.3 333
333
-- 3..- 3... 33. 33. .3. 33. 33.3. .33.v .3.v 333
.3. 33. 33.3 .3.v .3.v .3. 33. 33.33 33. .3.v 333
3333333333m
33. 33. 33.3 33.3 33.3. .3. 33. 33.3 33.. 33.3. ..3
.3. 33. 33.3. 33. 33.. 333
33. 33.3 33.3. 33.3. 33.33 .3. 33.- 33.. 3..3. 33.33- .3. 33. 33.3 33... 33.33 3.3
u_aoammm
33
.3. 33. 33.3 .3. 33. .3. 33. 33.3 .3. 33. .3. 33. 33... 33. .... 33
33333.33
.333 3333 33.33-3 3 .333 3 .3.3 3333 33.33-3 3 .333 3 .3.3 3333 33.33-3 3 .333 3 333.33...»
353333333.
o_m:<-xuo_m xua.m-cou.3~§< :3u33az o_mc<-cauvgme< 333.30:

 

 

33333: no.33ugooa 0.3-33 33.33 333 333333333 3333.333;

.~< u—nnp

APPENDICES

CHAPTER NOTES

CHAPTER II

l. For a more detailed historical overview it is suggested that the
reader consult Taylor (l934), Mcwilliams (l948), Alvarez (1973)
or McLemore (1973).

2. The official immigration figures for Mexicans legally entering
the U. S. are:

1911-1920 219,004
1921-1930 459,287
1931-1940 22,319
1941-1950 60,589
1951-1960 299.811
1961-1970 413.937

As presented in Leonard Dinnerstein and David M. Reimers, Ethnic
Americans: A History of Immigration and Assimilation (New York:
Dodd, Mead & Company, l975), pp. 165, l67, 169.

3. I have employed the term "Mexican American" for the sake of clar-
ity, Moore and Mittelbach alternate between it and the more tech-
nical White Persons of Spanish Surname (NPSS).

4. The exclusion of Mexican Americans as "nonwhite" is also reflect-
ed in a deed recorded as the Edinburg, Texas, Courthouse on De-
cember 8, 1947:

... All the lots in the tract are intended
as a residential district exclusively for
people of the white race, and no sale,
lease, use or occupancy under any kind of
contract of any lot or building shall be
permitted to anyone not of Caucasoid race;
provided, however, that this restriction
shall not be construed to prevent occupan-
cy by domestic servants of a different
race or nationality employed by the owner
or tenant.

Chapter III
I. The Black sociologist, Charles Johnson noted in a similar view:

"Mexicans [were] taking the least desirable jobs, pushing up

186

187

Negroes in turn pushed up the foreign born, who in turn pushed up
the white natives" (Shankman, 1975: 50).

As I interpret it, Wirth's reference was to structural assimila-
tion, in which immigrant group members relate to members of other
groups at intimate, friendship, and family-formation levels with-
out any regard to ethnic differences. Whereas in the former case
(Shibutani and Kwan, l965: 535; Kramer, l970: 62, 82) the refer-
ence appears to be to cultural assimilation, i.e. acculturation,
involving the learning of the manners and style of the new soci-
ety by the immigrants.

Much of the argument that the experiences of Mexican Americans
parallel those of Blacks is predicated on observations, such as
that of Robin M. williams, Jr. (1964: 7), that "treatment of Mex-
ican-Americans was similar to that of Negroes."

Anthony Downs evaluated the general unwillingness of whites to
share social space with Blacks as due to their desire
. to be sure that the social, cultural
and economic milieu and values of their
own group dominant their own residential
environment and the educational environ-
ment of their children" (quotes in Rose,
1969: l2).

The label "nonwhite" has been applied to Mexican Americans as
well. Although technically Caucasian the label was probably re-
flective of the opprobrium directed against them by the "anglo"
majority. Scholars have frequently used the term also, e.g.
Moore (l972: 16).

Minimum building-size regulations have been upheld several times;
as in Thom son v. City of Carrollton, 2ll S. w. 2d970 (Tex. Civ.
App. l948) (Williams,l966: lOl). In Clemons v. City of Los An-
geles, 35 Cal. 2d95, 22 P.2d 439 (1950), it was held thatgbuild-
ing size, shape and placement could be legally regulaged although
such regulation could to some degree unexpectedly enjoin the con-
veyance of title. In Lionshead Lake, Inc. v. Wayne Township,

10 N. J. 165, 89A2d699 (l952), appeal'dismissed, 344 U. S. 919
(l953), minimum dwelling size was upheld (Smith, l965: l69).

 

 

 

For instance, it is interesting to note that Case and Kirk (l959:
43) cite the use of mortgages in purchasing homes to be 80 per-
cent. The corresponding figure as of l970 was 82.l percent

(U. S. Bureau of the Census, l973a: 67).

188
Chapter V

Amerindians are important in many places in the Southwest but
are, relatively Speaking, predominantly non-urban: only 41.9
percent of the Southwest's Amerindian population was urban in
1970. See U. 5. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population:

1970, Subject Reports, Final Report PC(2)-1F, American Indians
(Washington, D. C.: U. 5. Government Printing Office, 1973),

p. 1.

Based on personal experience in a pilot study for a graduate sem-
inar in human ecology and from personal correspondence with Pro-
fessor Norval D. Glenn of the University of Texas at Austin, dat-
ed December 22, 1974.

Taeuber and Taeuber (1969: 30n) note that a more efficient redis-
tribution of population for the purpose of desegregation would
entail an exchange of residences. Simply summarized, the re-
placement index 2qu [where p is the proportion of group A in the
population and q = l-p is the proportion of group B in the same
population] represents the percentage of those who would then
have to relocate in the total population.

For a more detailed discussion, see Taeuber and Taeuber (1969:
227-231) and Lieberson (1963: 30-38).

In each of the censuses since 1930 a small percentage of the
Mexican foreign stock or Spanish surname categories has been
classified as nonwhite. For instance, in 1970 it is conceivable
than some Native Americans were misclassified as persons of
Spanish-Mexican ancestry. In view of the relatively small num-
bers involved this limitation seems of minor import.

If we realistically take into consideration the New Mexican and
southern Coloradoan disdain for the use of the term "Mexican" and
preference for use of "Spanish," the percentage climbs to 84.5
(U. S. Bureau of the Census, 1973c: 1-2, 6). According to post-
census checks conducted by the Bureau of the Census (1974: 7),
both had the Spanish surname and Spanish origin data for the
Southwest had relatively low indexes of inconsistency.

See the earlier (Chapter II) discussion on the issue of failure
to distinguish. In addition, we should note that the equivalent
usage of the two terms is not inconsistent with past research
practices of taking "nonwhite" as synonymous with "Negro" (e.g.
Moore and Mittelbach, 1966: 30; Taeuber and Taeuber, 1969; Far-
ley, 1976: 15-21; Kasarda, 1976: 128n).

Citing restraints imposed by the data, Moore and Mittelbach (1966:
30) substituted nonwhite for Negro income in their tabulations.

189

Another researcher (Farley, 1976: 15-21) uses a white—nonwhite
comparison for 1960 then moves to a Negro vs. non-Negro compari-
son for 1970: non-Negro is equivalent to my Other "White" +
Mexican American categories. McWilliams (1948: 8) classes Japa-
nese and Chinese among the “Anglos." But perhaps the most im-
portant supportive evidence for judging the applicability of
such an action is the correlation between indexes using "Anglo"
and those employing Other "White:" in the case of Mexican Amer-
ican-Other "White" the Pearson product moment correlation is
.995, for Black-Other "White" it is .997. Kasarda's caveat was
that he limited his sample to cities where Negroes were 90 per-
cent or better of the total nonwhite population. For the present
data 5 (8.6 percent) of the cities "violate“ that rule-of-thumb
in the case of Other "Whitesz" Salinas (88.4), Oakland (88.4)
and Sacramento (89.8) are so close as to make the difference in-
consequential. Stockton's 86.0 percent is a bit more severe and
San Francisco's 79.1 percent is the most wayward. It was felt,
however, that these cities were too important to be dropped and
that, in socioeconomic terms, the Chinese and Japanese who com-
prise the bulk of these nonwhite Other "Whites" are much more
akin to the white Anglos than to either the Black or Mexican
American populations.

The correlations for city size, each minority group's size and
proportion of the city population of the split tract or published
and the complete tract or summary tape data were on the order of
.998 to .999 at the .001 level of significance.

CHAPTER VI

The problem here, as in the previous discussion, may also have
been in the choice of the national median as the dividing line
between high and low incomes. Had I chosen a slightly lower fam-
ily income level as the cut-off between high and low levels the
results may have been usable.

The difference between the means for Anglo-Black segregation and
income level segregation are significant (T=26.14, 55 df,
p =< .001.

See Chapter II, "The Socio-Historical Milieu as an Explanatory
Aid."

Another possible explanation lies in the choice of the national

median housing value as the delimiter between low and high val-

ues. A more realistic division (as yet unknown to me) may have

given us more consistent results. Consistency, however, was not
the pursuit of this research endeavor.

10.

190

The proportion of one minority has a negligible to low effect on
the segregation of the other minority from the majority. The
greater the proportion of Blacks in the city, the lower the An-
glo-Mexican American ethnic segregation (r=-.08). The greater
the preportion of the total city population that is Mexican Amer-
ican, the lower the segregation of Anglos from Blacks (r=-.18).

Intercensal change was measured by the difference between the in-
dex of dissimilarity for 1960 and the index for 1970. An increase
in the index was taken to represent a positive change while a de-
crease in the index over the decade was viewed as negative change.

The results obtained may reflect some of the definitional prob-
lems I alluded to earlier in the methods section of this work.
The definitions for data pertinent to Mexican Americans changed
between 1960 and 1970; and census coverage of the population prob-
ably improved. The latter cannot be ascertained because the Bu-
reau of the Census has not calculated the probable undercount for
respondents of Spanish surname (see Parsons, 1972; U. S. Commis-
sion on Civil Rights, 1974). We cannot, however, dismiss the
probability that some of the increment was due to (a) annexation
of areas with large numbers of Mexican Americans and (b) a rural
to urban migration pattern similar to that occurring elsewhere in
the U. S.

Suburbanization is as defined in Taeuber and Taeuber (1969: 71):

"the percentages of the netropolitan area population which resid-
ed outside the city at the beginning and end of each decade were

computed, after adjusting the terminal population for any popula-
tion in annexed areas. The percentage point change in this mea-

sure is an index of suburbanization, with positive figures indi-

cating increasing suburbanization."

The classes of variables were "taste" for discrimination, "taste"
for segregation, relative economic strength between subpopula-
tions, potentially available supply of housing for occupancy, the
demography of the community, and the demographic characteristics
of any subpopulation in relation to another subpopulation. In
the first step of a stepwise regression an independent variable
is selected which has the highest correlation coefficient with
the dependent variable. In each subsequent step each of the re-
maining variables not already in the equation is examined and
that variable with the highest F-value is added. New regression
coefficients, F-values, etc. are calculated for all variables in
the equation and should any variable fall below a specified mini-
mum F-value it is removed from the equation. The program pro-
ceeds until all variables meeting the stipulated minimal F-value
(.25) are in the equation.

One set of “taste" fOr discrimination variables were measures of
the extent to which each minority's income departed from the

191

estimate of that income based on the group's educational attain-
ment. The other was a simple dummy variable indicating whether
each city was in Texas or not. Neither of these is a logically
adequate operationalization of discrimination, a fact the re-
searchers noted themselves (Moore and Mittelbach, 1966: 39).

CHAPTER VII

The actual number of cities used ranged from 35 to 58. In com-
parisons with the Moore-Mittelbach study only those cities used by
them were utilized. In the intercensal change analysis data for

7 additional cities was available and 42 cities were used. In
comparisons between indexes 56 cities for which magnetic tape data
was available were utilized. In some tests of hypotheses data
from 58 cities, available from published reports, were used.

If an effective environment (Gans, 1968: 6) exists, then an auto

would not be a necessity in a conscious self-contained enclave
community.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abrams, Charles. 1947. Race Bias in Housing. [New York?]: Ameri-
can Civil Liberties Union, National Association for the Advance-
ment of Colored People and the American Council on Race Rela-
tions.

 

Abrams, Charles. 1966. "The Housing Problem of the Negro." Pp. 512-
524 in Talcott Parsons and Kenneth B. Clark (eds.), The Negro
American. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Adler, Patricia. 1970. "The 1943 Zoot-Suit Riots: Brief Episode in
a Long Conflict." Pp. 124-142 in Manual P. Servin (ed.), The
Mexican Americans: An Awakening Minority. Beverly Hills, Ca.:
Gﬂencoe Press.

Agueros, Jack. 1971. "Halfway to Dick and Jane." Pp. 85-105 in
Thomas C. Wheeler (ed.), The Immigrant Experience: The Anguish
of Becoming American. New York: The Dial Press.

Allport, Gordon. 1958. The Nature of Prejudice. Abridged. Anchor
Books. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday & Company, Inc.

Alvarez, Rodolfo. 1973. "The Psycho-HistOrical and Socioeconomic De-
velopment of the Chicano Community in the United States." Sg-
cial Science Quarterly, 53 (March): 92-942.

Anton, Thomas, and Oliver P. Williams. 1971. "On Comparing Politi-
cal Systems: Residential Allocations in London and Stockholm."
Paper prepared for the Annual Meeting of the American Political
Science Association, Chicago, Illinois.

Banfield, Edward C. 1968. The Unheavenly City: The Nature and Fu-
ture of Our Urban Crisis. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Berry,.Brian J. L., and others. 1976. "Attitudes toward Integra-
tion: The Role of Status in Community Response to Racial
Change." Pp. 221-264 in Barry Schwartz (ed.), The Changing
Face of the Suburbs. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

 

Beshers, James, Edward 0. Laumann, and Benjamin S. Bradshaw. 1964.
"Ethnic Congregation-Segre ation, Assimilation, and Stratifica-
tion." Social Forces, 42 (May): 482-489.

 

BlalOck, H[ubert] M., Jr. 1959. "Urbanization and Discrimination."
Social Problems, 7 (Fall): 146-152.

 

192

193

Blalock, Hubert M., Jr. 1961. Causal Inferences in Nonexperimental
Research. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

Blalock, H[ubert] M., Jr. 1963. "Correlated Independent Variables:
The Problem of Multicollinearity." Social Forces, 42 (#2): 233-
237.

 

Blauner, Robert A. 1972. Racia1_gppression in America. New York:
Harper and Row.

Blumer, Herbert. 1958. "Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Posi-
tion." Pacific Sociological Review, 1 (Spring): 3-7.

Boe, Eugene. 1971. "Pioneers to Eternity." Pp. 51-83 in Thomas C.
Wheeler (ed.), The Immigrant Experience: The Anguish of Becom-
ing American. New York: The Dial Press.

Bogardus, E[mory] S. 1930. "The Mexican Immigrant and Segregation."
American Journal of Sociology, 36 (July): 74-80.

Breton, Raymond. 1964. "Institutional Completeness of Ethnic Com-
munities and the Personal Relations of Immigrants.“ American
Journal of SocioloQY. 70 (September): 193-205.

Brown, David L., and Glenn V. Fuguitt. 1972. "Percent Nonwhite and
Racial Disparity in Nonmetropolitan Cities in the South." Sp-
cial Science Quarterly, 53 (December): 573-582.

Brown, Robert Kevin. 1965. Real Estate Economics: An Introduction
to Urban Land Use. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Brown, William H., Jr. 1972. "Access to Housing: The Role of the
Real Estate Industry." Economic Geography, 48 (January): 66-78.

Burgess, Ernest W. 1928. "Residential Segregation in American Cit-
ies." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 140: 105-115.

Carter, Thomas P. 1970. Mexican Americans in School: A History of
Neglect. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.

Case, Fred E., and James H. Kirk. 1959. The Housipg Status of Minor-
itpramilies, Los Angeles, 1956. Los Angeles: UCLA ReaT’Estate
Research Program in cooperation with the Los Angeles Urban
League.

Casstevens, Thomas W. 1967. Politics, Housing and Race Relations:
California's Rumford Act and Proposition 14. Berkeley: Insti-
tute of Government Studies, University of California.

Clawson, Marion. 1971. Suburban Land Conversion in the United States:
An Economic and Governmental Process. BaTtimore: Publishedifor
Resources for the Future, Inc., by The Johns Hopkins Press.

194

Clemence, Theodore G. 1967. ”Residential Segregation in the Mid-
Sixties." Dempgrgphy. 4 (No. 2): 562-568.

 

Commission on Race and Housing. 1958. Where Shall We Live? Report
of the Commission on Race and Housing. Berkeley: University of
California Press.

 

Comission on Race and Housing. 1966. "Where Shall We Live?" pp.
269-286 in William L. C. Wheaton, Grace Milgram and Margy Ellin
Meyerson (eds.), Urban Housing. New York: The Free Press.

 

Cortese, Charles F., R. Frank Falk, and Jack K. Cohen. 1976. "Fur—
ther Considerations on the Methodological Analysis of Segrega-

tion Indices." American Sociological Review, 41 (August): 630-
637.

 

Darroch, A. Gordon, and Wilfred G. Marston. 1971. "The Social Basis
of Ethnic Residential Segregation: The Canadian Case." Ameri-
can Journal of Sociology, 77 (November): 491-510.

Davidson, Chandler, and Charles M. Gaitz, 1973. "Ethnic Attitudes as
3 Basis for Minority Cooperation in a Southwestern Metropolis.”
Social Science Quarterly, 53 (March): 738-748.

Dean, John P. 1966. "The Myth of Housing Reform." Pp. 255-261 in
William L. C. Wheaton, Grace Milgram and Margy Ellin Meyerson
‘ (eds.), Urban Housing. New York: The Free Press.

 

Deutsch, Morton, and Mary Evans Collins. 1951. Inter-racial Hous-
ing;_ A Psychological Evaluation of a Social Experiment. Minne-
apolis: The University of Minnesota Press.

 

Draper, N. R. and H. Smith. 1966. Applied Regression Analysis. New
York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

 

Duncan, Otis Dudley, and Beverly Duncan. 1955a. "Residential Distri-
bution and Occupational Stratification." American Journal of So-
ciology, 60 (March): 493-503.

 

Duncan, Otis Dudley, and Beverly Duncan. 1955b. "A Methodological

Analysis of Segregation Indexes." American Sociological Review.
20 (April): 210-217.

 

Duncan, Otis Dudley, and Beverly Duncan. 1957. The Negro Population
of Chicago: A Study of Residential Succession. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.

 

Duncan, Otis Dudley, and Stanley Lieberson. 1959. "Ethnic Segrega-
tion and Assimilation." American Journal of Sociology, 64 (Jan-
uary): 364-374 .

195

Dworkin, Anthony Gary. 1970. "Stereotypes and Self-Images Held by
Native-Born and Foreign-Born Mexican Americans." Pp. 397«409
in John H. Burma (ed.), Mexican-Americans in the United States:
A Reader. Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc.

Edwards, G. Franklin. 1966. "Community and Class Realities: The Dr-
deal of Change." Pp. 28-302 in Talcott Parsons and Kenneth B.
Clark (eds.), The Negro American. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Com-

pany.

 

Estrada, Leobardo, Jose Hernandez, and David Alvirez. 1972. "Using
Census Data to Study the Spanish Heritage Population of the
United States.“ [np]: mimeograph c0py.

Etzioni, Amitai. 1959. "The Ghetto: A Re-evaluation." Social
Forces, 37 (March): 255-262.

Farley, Reynolds. 1976. "Components of Suburban Population Growth."
Pp. 5-38 in Barry Schwartz (ed.), The Changing Face of the Sub-
urbs. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

 

Fine, John, Norval D. Glenn, and J. Kenneth Monts. 1971. "The Res-
idential Segregation of Occupational Groups in Central Cities
and Suburbs." Demography. 8 (February): 91-101.

 

Firey, Walter. 1947. Land Use in Central Boston. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press.

 

Foley, Donald L. 1975. "Accessibility for Residents in the Metropol-
ican Environment." Pp. 157-198 in Amos H. Hawley and Vincent
P. Rock (eds.), Metropolitan America in Contemporagy Perspective.
Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage Publications, Inc., distributed by
Halstead Press, New York.

Form, William H. 1951. "Stratification in Low and Middle Income
Housing Areas." Journal of Social Issues, 7 (Nos. 1 & 2): 109-
131.

 

Fonn, William H. 1954. "The Place of Social Structure in the Deter-
nﬁnation of Land Use: Some Implications for a Theory of Urban
Ecology." Social Forces, 32 (May): 317-323.

 

Forman, Robert E. 1971. Black Ghettos, White Ghettos, and Slums.
Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.

Franklin, John Hope. 1967. From Slavery_to Freedom: A History of
Negro America. Third edition. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

 

 

Freeman, Linton C., and Morris H. Sunshine. 1970. Patterns of Resi-
dential Segreggtion. Cambridge, Mass.: Schenckman Publishing
Company.

 

 

196

Fuller, Elizabeth. 1920. The Mexican Housing Problem. Sociological
Monograph no. 17. Los Angeles: University of Southern Califor-
nia, Southern California Sociological Society [Reprinted, pp.
1-11, in Perspectives on Mexican American Life. New York: Arno
Press, Inc., 1974].

 

Gans, Herbert. 1968. People & Plans; Essays on Urban Problens and
Solutions. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

 

Glazer, Nathan. 1954. "Ethnic Groups in America: From National Cul-
ture to Ideology." Pp. 158-173 in Moran; Berger, Theodore Abel
and Charles H. Page (eds.), Freedom and Control in Modern Soci-
gty, New York: Van Nostrand.

 

Glazer, Nathan. 1970. "Dilemmas of Housing Policy." Pp. 50-65 in
Daniel Patrick Moynihan (ed.), Toward a National Urban Policy.
New York: Basic Books, Inc.

 

Gold, David. 1969. "Statistical Tests and Substantive Significance."
The American Sociologist, 4 (February): 42-46.

 

Gordon, Milton M. 1964. Assimilation in American Life: The Role of
Race, Religion, and National Origins. New York: Oxford Univer-
sity Press. -

 

 

Gordon, Robert A. 1968. "Issues in Multiple Regression." The Amer-
ican Journal of Sociolggy. 73 (March): 592-616.

 

Grebler, Leo, Joan W. Moore, and Ralph C. Guzman. 1970. The Mexi-
can-American People: The Nation's Second Largest MinorityT—_New
York: The Free Press.

 

Greeley, Andrew M. 1964. "American Sociology and the Study of Immi-
grant Ethnic Groups." International Migration Digest, 1 (Fall):
107-113.

 

Greeley, Andrew M. 1975. Why Can't They Be Like Us? New York: E.
P. Dutton & Co., Inc.

 

Greer, Scott. 1966. Urban Renewal and American Cities: The Dilemma
of Democratic Intervention. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

 

 

Grier, Eunice, and George Grier. 1971. "Equality and Beyond: Hous-
ing Segregation in the Great Society." Pp. 443-454 in Norman R.
Yetman and C. Hoy Steele (eds.), Majority and Minoritygg The Dy-
namic of Racial and Ethnic Relations. Boston: Ailyn and Bacon,
Inc.

 

 

Grodzins, Norton. [1958]. The Metrgpolitan Area as a Racial Prob-
lem. (Pittsburg): University of Pittsburg Press.

 

Hager, Don J. 1960. "Housing Discrimination, Social Conflict, and
the Law." Social Problems, 8 (Summer): 80—87.

 

197

Handlin, Oscar. 1951. The Uprooted: Thengic Story of the Great
‘ Migrations that Made the American People. Ar Atlantic Monthly
Press Book. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

 

 

Harris, Richard J. 1975. A Primer of Multivariate Statistics. New
York: Academic Press.

 

Hartman, Chester W. 1969. "The Politics of Housing." Pp. 433-447
in Alan Shank (ed.), Political Power and the Urban Crisis. Bos-
ton: Holbrook Press, Inc.

 

Hatt, Paul. 1945. "The Relation of Ecological Location to Status
Position and Housing of Ethnic Minorities." American Sociologi-
cal Review, 10 (August): 481-485.

 

 

Hawley, Amos H. 1951. "Metropolitan Population and Municipal Govern-
ment Expenditures in Central Cities.“ Journal of Social Issues,
7 (Nos. 1 & 2): 100-108.

 

Hawley, Amos H. 1971. Urban Societygy An Ecological Approach. New
York: The Ronald Press Company.

 

Heer, David M. 1959. "The Sentiment of White Supremacy: An Ecolog-
ical Study." American Journal of Sociology, 64 (May): 592-598.

Heller, Celia S. 1966. Mexican American Youth: Forgotten Youth at
the Crossroads. New York: Random House.

 

 

Helper, Rose. 1969. Racial Policies and Practices of Real Estate
Brokers. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press.

Herbers, John. 1971. "Rights Panel Says U. S. Housing Plan Aids
Segregation." The New York Times (June 11): 1, 12.

 

Hernandez, Jose, Leobardo Estrada, and David Alvirez. 1973. "Census
Data and the Problem of Conceptually Defining the Mexican Amer-
ican Population." Social Science Quarterly, 53 (March): 671-
687.

 

Hollingshead, A[ugust] B. 1947. "A Re-examination of Ecological
Theory." Sociology and Social Research, 2n (January-February):
194-204.

Holsendolph, Ernest. 1976. "Official Urges National Assessment as
Hispanic-American Population Rises Sharply." The New York
Times (April): 13.

 

Homans, George C. The Human Groug, New York: Harcourt, Brace.

 

Jacobs, Paul. 1967. Prelude to Riot: A View of Urban America from
the Bottom. Sponsored by the Center for the Study of Democratic
Institutions. New York: Random House.

 

198

Johnson, Charles S. 1943. Patterns of Negro Segregation. New York:
Harper & Brothers, Publishers.

 

Jonassen, Christen T. 1949. "Cultural Variables in the Ecology of an
Ethnic Group." American Sociolggical Review, 14 (February): 32-41.

 

Kahl, Joseph A. 1966. The American Class Structure. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.

 

Kantrowitz, Nathan. 1969. "Ethnic and Racial Segregation in the New
York Metropolis, 1960." American Journal of Sociology. 74 (May):
685-695.

 

Kasarda, John D. 1976. "The Changing Occupational Structure of the
American Metropolis: Apropos the Urban Problem." Pp. 113-136 in
Barry Schwartz (ed.), The Changing Face of the Suburbs. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.

Keller, Suzanne. 1968. The Urban Neighborhood: A Sociological Per-
spective. New York: Random House.

 

Kramer, Judith. 1970. The American Minority Community. New York:
Crowell.

 

Lansing, John 8., Charles Wade Clifton and James N. Morgan. 1969. New_
Homes and Poor Pegple: A Study of Chains of Moves. Ann Arbor,
MiEh.: Survey Research'Center, Institute ior Social Research, The
University of Michigan.

Laurenti, Luigi. 1966. "Property Values and Race." Pp. 286-292 in
William L. C. Wheaton, Grace Milgram and Margy Ellin Meyerson
(eds.), Urban Housing. New York: The Free Press.

 

Lebeaux, Charles H., and Gumecindo Salas. 1973. Latino Life and So-
cial Needs: A Detroit Survey. Detroit: The Latin American Secre-
tariat of the Archdiocese of Detroit and New Detroit, Inc.

 

Lieberson, Stanley. 1963. Ethnic Patterns in American Cities. New
York: The Free Press of Glencoe.

Lieberson, Stanley. 1970. "Stratification and Ethnic Groups." Socio-
logical Inquiry, 40 (Spring): 172-181.

Lind, Andrew W. 1955. “Occupation and Race on Certain Frontiers." Pp.
49-70 in Andrew W. Lind (ed.), Race Relations in World Perspective,
Honolulu: The University of Hawaii Press.

Long, Herman H., and Charles S. Johnson. 1947. People vs. Property:
Race Restrictive Covenants in Housigg, Nashville, Tenn.: Fisk
UniVersity Press.

 

McClendon, McKee J. 1974. "Interracial Contact and the Reduction of
Prejudice." Sociological Focus, 7 (Fall): 47-65.

 

199

McEntire, Davis. 1960. Residence and Race. Final and Comprehensive
Report to the Commission on Race and Housing. Los Angeles: The
University of California Press.

 

McKenzie, R[oderick] D. 1925. "The Ecological Approach to the Study
of the Human Community." Pp. 63-79 in Robert E. Park, Ernest W.
Burgess and Roderick D. McKenzie (eds.), The City. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.

McLemore, S. Dale. 1973. "The Origins of Mexican American Subordina-
tion in Texas." Social Science Quarterly, 53 (March): 656-670.

 

McWilliams, Carey. 1948. North From Mexico: The Spanish-Speakigg»
People of the United States. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co.
[Reprinted in 1968 by Greenwood Press, New York].

 

 

Madsen, William. 1973. Mexican Americans of South Texas. Second edi-
tion. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

 

Mercer, Norman A. 1962. "Discrimination in Rental Housing: A Study
of Resistance of Landlords to Non-White Tenants." Phylon, 23
(Spring): 47-54.

Merton, Robert K. 1949. "Discrimination and the American Creed." Pp.
99-126 in Robert M. MacIver (ed.), Discrimination and National
Welfare. New York: Harper & Row.

 

Michelson, William. 1970. Man and His Urban Environment: A Sociolgg-
ical Approach. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Com-

pany.

 

Miller, Arthur S., and John H. Davidson, Jr. 1972. "Observations on
Population Policy-Making and the Constitution." The George Wash-
ington Law Review, 40 (No. 4): 618-678.

 

Miller, Ira J. 1974. "Residential Segregation Patterns: Economic or
Racial?" The Review of Regional Studies, 4 (Supplement): 101-109.

 

Moore, Eric G. 1972. Residential Mobility in the City. Commission on
College Geography Resource Paper No. 13. Washington, D. C.: As-
sociation of American Geographers.

Moore, Joan W., and Frank G. Mittelbach. 1966. Residential Segrega—
tion in the Urban Southwest: A Comparative Stugy. ’Mexican Amer-
icaniStudyiProject, Advance Report 4. Los Angéles: University
of California Press.

 

Moore, Joan W., and Frank G. Mittelbach. 1972. "Measuring Residential
Segregation in 35 Cities." Pp. 80-89 in Rudolph Gomez (ed.), Ihg_
Changing Mexican-American: A Reader. Boulder, Co.: Pruett.

200

Morrill, Richard L. 1970. "The Negro Ghetto: Problems and Alterna-
tives.“ Pp. 193-212 in George J. Demko, Harold M. Rose and George
A. Schnell (eds.), Population Geography: A Reader. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Moynihan, Daniel P. 1970. "Toward a National Urban Policy." Pp. 3-25
in Daniel P. Moynihan (ed.), Toward a National Urban Poligy, New
York: Basic Books, Inc.

Muth, Richard F. 1969. Cities and Housing: The Spatial Pattern of
urban Residential Land Use. Chicago: The UniverSity of Chicago
Press.

 

 

Myrdal, Gunnar. 1944. An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and
Modern Democragy. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers.

 

 

Nam, Charles B. 1959. "Nationality Groups and Social Stratification
in America." Social Forces, 37: 328-333.

 

Northwood, L. K., and Ernest A. T. Barth. 1965. Urban Desegregation:
Negro Pioneers and Their White Neighbors. Seattle: The University
of Washington Press.

 

 

Park, Robert E. 1952. Human Communities. Glencoe, 111.: The Free
' Press.

 

Park, Robert E. and Herbert A. Miller. 1925. Old World Traits Trans-
lanted. Chicago: Society for Social ResearCh,iUniverSity of’
Chicago.

 

Parsons, Carole W., Ed. 1972. America's Uncounted Pegple. Report of
the Advisory Committee on Problems of'Census’Enumeration, Division
of Behavioral Sciences, National Research Council. Washington,

D. C.: National Academy of Sciences. '

 

Penalosa, Fernando. 1973. "Toward an Operational Definition of the
Mexican American." Pp. 54-55 in F. Chris Garcia (ed.), Chicano
Politics: Readings. New York: MSS Information Corporation.

 

Perales, Alonso S., comp. 1948. Are We Good Neighbors? San Antonio,
Texas: Artes Graficas.

 

Pinkney, Alphonso. 1970. "Prejudice Toward Mexican and Negro Ameri-
cans: A Comparison." Pp. 73-80 in John H. Burma (ed.), Mexican-
Americans in the United States: A Reader. Cambridge, Mass.:
Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc.

Pohlmann, Vernon C. 1976. "A Test of the Relative Validity of the
Fourth and Fifth Count Census Tapes." A paper read at the Meet-
ings of the Midwest Sociological Society in St. Louis, April 21-
24, 14 pp. mimeographed.

201

Poston, Dudley L. Jr., and David Alvirez. 1973. "On the Cost of Being
a Mexican American Worker.” Social Science Quarterly, 53 (March):
697-709.

 

Powers, Mary G. 1968. "Class, Ethnicity, and Residence in Metropoli-
tan America." Demography, 5 (No. 1): 443-448.

 

Rapkin, Chester, and William G. Grisby. 1960. The Demand for Housing
in Racially Mixed Areas. Berkeley: The University of California
Press.

 

 

Rapkin, Chester, and William G. Grisby. 1966. "Concerning Studies of
Price Trends in Mixed Areas." Pp. 292-294 in William L. C. Wheat-
on, Grace Milgram and Margy Ellin Meyerson (eds.), Urban Housing,
New York: The Free Press.

 

Rappaport, Armin, ed. 1967. The War with Mexico: Why Did It Happen?
The Berkeley Series in American History. 'Chicago: Rand McNally
& Company.

 

Reid, Margaret G. 1962. Housing and Income. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press.

 

Rios, Francisco Armando. 1971. "The Mexican in Fact, Fiction, and
Folklore." Pp. 59-73 in Octavio Ignacio Romano-V. (ed.), Voices:
Readiggs from E1 Grito, A Journal of Contemporary Mexican American
Thought, 1967-1971. Berkeley, Ca.: Quinto $01 Publications, Inc.

Romano,V., Octavio Ignacio. 1971. "The Anthropology and Sociology of
the Mexican Americans: The Distortion of Mexican-American His-
tory." Pp. 26-39 in Octavio Ignacio Romano-V. (ed.), Voices:
Readings from El Grito, A Journal of Contemporary MexiCan American
Thought, 1967-1971. Berkeley, Ca.: Quinto Sol Publicatibns, Inc.

Rose, Harold M. 1969. Social Processes in the City: Race and Urban
Residential Choice. Commission on College Geography, Resource
Paper No. 6. Washington, D. C.: Association of American Geog-
raphers.

Rose, Harold M. 1972. "The Spatial Development of Black Residential
Systems." Economic Geogrephy, 48 (January): 43-65.

 

Rubel, Arthur J. 1966. Across the Tracks: Mexican-Americans in a

Texas City. Austin: Published for the Hogg Foundation for Men-
ta ea t by the University of Texas Press.

Schmid, Calvin F. 1950. "Generalizations Concerning the Ecology of
the American City." American Sociological Review, 15 (April):
264-281.

Schmidt, Fred H. [1970]. Spanish Surnamed American Employment in the
Southwest. A Study Prepared for the Colorado Civil Rights

202

Commission. Washington, D C.: U. S. Government Printing Office
for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Schnore, Leo F. 1965a. The Urban Scene: Human Ecology and Demog-
raphy. New York: The Free Press.

Schnore, Leo F. 1965b. "Social Class Segregation Among Nonwhites in
Metropolitan Centers.“ Demography, 2: 126-133.

 

Schnore, Leo F. 1972. Class and Race in Cities and Suburbs. Chicago:
Markham.

 

Schnore, Leo F., and James R. Pinkerton. 1966. "Residential Redistri-
bution of Socioeconomic Strata in Metropolitan Areas." Demography,
3 (No. 2): 491-499.

 

Schoor, Alvin L. 1963. Slums and Social Insecurigy. U. S. Social Se-
curity Administration, Office of Research and’Statistics, Research
Report no. 1, Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Of-
fice.

 

Schuman, Howard, and Barry Gruenberg. 1970. "The Impact of City on
Racial Attitudes." American Journal of Sociology, 76 (September):
213-261. ~

 

Schwirian, Kent P., and Jesus Rico-Velasco. 1971. "The Residential
Distribution of Status Groups in Puerto Rico's Metropolitan
Areas." Demggraphy, 8 (February): 81-90.

 

Scott, Robin F. 1970. "The Sleepy Lagoon Case and the Grand Jury
Investigation." Pp. 105-115 in Manuel P. Servin (ed.), The Mex-
ican-Americans: An Awakening Minority. Beverly Hills, Ca.:
Glencoe‘Press.

Shankman, Arnold. 1975. "The Imact of Mexico and the Mexican-American
in the Black Press, 1890-1935." The Journal of Ethnic Studies, 3
(Summer): 43-56.

 

Shibutani, Tamotsu, and Kian M. Kwan. 1965. Ethnic Stratification:
A Comparative Approach. New York: The Macmillan Company.

 

Simmons, Ozzie G. 1973. "The Mutual Images and Expectations of Anglo-
Americans and Mexican Americans." Pp. 38-51 in F. Chris Garcia
(ed.), Chicano Politics: Readinge. New York: NSS Information
Corporation.

Smith, Herbert H. 1965. The Citizen's Guide to Zonigg. West Trenton,
N. J.: Chandler-Davis Publishing Company.

 

S¢rensen, Annemette, Karl E. Taeuber, and Leslie J. Hollingsworth, Jr.
1975. "Indexes of Racial Residential Segregation for 109 Cities
in the United States, 1940 to 1970." Sociological Focus, 8
(April): 125-142.

 

203

Spear, Allen H. 1967. Black Chicago: The Making of a Negro Ghetto,
1890-1920. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

 

Suttles, Gerald D. 1972. The Social Construction of Communities.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

 

Suttles, Gerald D. 1975. "Community Design: The Search for Partici-
pation in a Metropolitan Society." Pp. 235-297 in Amos H. Hawley
and Vincent P. Rock (eds.), Metrqpolitan America in Contemporary
Perspective. Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage Publications, Inc., dis-
tributed'by Halstead Press, New York.

 

 

Taeuber, Karl E. 1963. "On Assessing Segregation Indexes." American
Sociological Review, 28 (June): 453-454.

 

Taeuber, Karl E. 1964. "Negro Residential Segregation: Trends and
Measurement." Social Problems, 12 (Summer): 42-50.

 

Taeuber, Karl E., and Alma F. Taeuber. 1969. Negroes in Cities: Res-
idential Segregation and Neighborhood Change. New York: Atheneum.

 

 

Taylor, Paul Schuster. 1934. An American-Mexican Frontier: Nueces
County, Texas. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina
Press [Reprinted in 1971 by Russell & Russell, New York].

 

 

Tilly, Charles. 1961. "Occupational Rank and Grade of Residence in a
Metropolis.“ American Journal of Sociology, 67 (November): 323-
330.

 

Turner, JOnathan H. 1972. American Society: Problems of Structure.
New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.

U. S. Bureau of the Census. 1962. U. S. Census of Population and Hous-
ing: 1960. Census Tracts. Final Reports PHC(1) Series. Wash-
ington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.

 

 

U. S. Bureau of the Census. 1970. 1970 Users' Guide. Washington,
D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.
u. 5. Bureau of the Census. 1972a. Census of Housing: 1970. Vol.

1, Housing Characteristics for States, Cities and Counties. Wash-
ington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.

 

U. S. Bureau of the Census. 1972b. Census of Housing: 1970. Metro-
politan Housing Characteristics. Final Reports, HC(2) Series.
WaShington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.

U. 5. Bureau of the Census. 1972c. Census of Population and Housing:

1970. Census Tracts. Final Reports, PHC(1) Series. Washington,
D. C.: U. 5. Government Printing Office.

 

U)

204

. Bureau of the Census. l973a. Census of Housing: 1970. Vol. V,

Residential Finance. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Print-

 

ing Office.

. Bureau of the Census. 1973b. Census of Population: 1970. Vol

1, Characteristics of the Population. Washington, D. C.: U. S.
Government Printing Office.

 

. Bureau of the Census. 1973c. Census of Population: 1970. Sub-

ject Reports. Final Report PC(2)-1C, Persons of Spanish Origin.
Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.

 

. Bureau of the Census. 1973d. Census of Population: 1970. Sub-

ject Reports. Final Report PC(2)-1D, Persons of Spanish Surname.
Washington, D. C.: U. 5. Government Printing Office.

 

. Bureau of the Census. 1973e. County and City Data Book, 1972.

 

Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.

. Bureau of the Census. 1974. Census of Population and Housing:

1970. Evaluation and Research Program. PHC(E)-O, Accuracy for
Data for Selected Population Characteristics as Measured"by_Rein-

 

 

terviews. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.

. Bureau of the Census. 1975. Data Access Description No. 41.

Data on the Spanish Ancestry Population Available from the 1970
Census of Population and Housing. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Gov-
ernment Printing Office.

. Commission on Civil Rights. 1962. Hearings held in Phoenix,

 

Arizona, February 3, 1962. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government

 

Printing Office.

. Commission on Civil Rights. 1971. Ethnic Isolation of Mexican

 

Americans in the Public Schools of the Southwest. *Report I of the
Mexican American Education Study. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Gov-
ernment Printing Office.

. Commission on Civil Rights. 1972. Mexican American Education

 

in Texas: A Function of Wealth. Report IV of the—Mexican Amer-
ican Edhcation Study. Washington, D. C.: U. 5. Government
Printing Office.

. Commission on Civil Rights. 1974. Counting the Forgotten: 1970

 

Census Count of Persons of Spanish Speaking Badkground in thE'Unit-

ed States. lWashington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.

. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. 1974. A Study of

Selected Socio-Economic Characteristics of Ethnic Minorities Based
on the 1970 Census. Vol. 1, Americans of Spanish Ori in. HEW
Publication No. (OS) 75-120. Washington, D. C.: U. . Department
of Health, Education and Welfare.

205

U. 5. Federal Housing Administration. 1938. Underwriting Manual:
Underwriting and Valuation Procedure under Title II of the Na-
tional HousingpAct. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Print-
ing Office.

 

 

Van Arsdol, Maurice 0., Jr., and Leo A. Schuerman. 1971. "Redistri-
bution and Assimilation of Ethnic Populations: The Los Angeles
Case." Demography, 8 (November): 459-480.

 

Vose, Clement E. 1959. Caucasians Only:‘ The Supreme Court, the
NAACP, and the Restrictive Covenant Cases. Berkeley: The Uni-
versity of California Press.

 

 

Warner, W. Lloyd, and Paul Lunt. 1941. The Social Life of a Modern
Community. New Haven: Yale University Press.

 

Warner, W. Lloyd, and Leo Srole. 1945. The Social Systems of Ameri-
can Ethnic Groups. New Haven: Yale University Press.

 

 

Watson, James B. and Julian Samora. 1973. "Subordinate Leadership in
a Bicultural Community: An Analysis." Pp. 107-115 in F. Chris
Garcia (ed.), Chicano Politics: Readings. New York: MSS Infor-
mation Corporation.

 

Weaver, Robert C. 1948. The Negro Ghetto. New York: Russell &
Russell [Reprinted 1972].

 

Weaver, Robert C. 1966. "The Urbanization of the Negro." Pp. 298-305
in William L. C. Wheaton, Grace Milgram and Margy Ellin Meyerson
(eds.), Urban Housing. New York: The Free Press.

 

Weber, Max. 1946. "Class, Status, Party." Pp. 180-195 in H. H. Gerth
and C. Wright Mills (trans. and eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in
Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press [Reprinted 1973].

 

Weissbourd, Bernard. 1964. Segregation, Subsidies and Megalopolis.
Occasional Paper No. 1 on The City. The center fOr the Study of
Democratic Institutions. Santa Barbara, Ca.: The Fund for the
Republic.

 

Wilhelm, Sidney M. 1962. Urban Zoning and Land-Use Theory. New York:
The Free Press of Glencoe. '

 

Williams, Norman, Jr. 1966. The Structure of Urban Zoning:-And Its
Dynamics in Urban Planning and Development. New York: Buttenheim
Publishing Corporation.

 

Williams, Robin M., Jr. 1964. Strangers Next Door: Ethnic Relations
in American Communities. EnglewoOdlCliffs, N. J.: Prentice-
Hall, Inc.

 

 

Williams, Robin M., Jr. 1967. "Strangers Next Door: Ethnic Relations
in American Communities." Pp. 102-140 in Derek L. Phillips (ed.),

206

Studies in American Society: II. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell
Company.

 

Williams, Robin M., Jr. 1970. American Society. Third edition. New
York: Alfred A. Knopf.

 

Wilner, Daniel M., Rosabell Price Walkley, and Stuart W. Cook. 1969.
Human Relations in Interracial Housing: A Study of the Contact
Hypothesis. New York: Russell and Russell.

 

 

Winsborough, Hal H. 1962. "City Growth and City Structure." Journal
of Regional Science, 4 (Winter): 35-49.

 

Winsborough, Halliman H., Karl E. Taeuber, and Annamette Sdrensen.
1975. "Models of Change in Residential Segregation, 1940-1970."
CDE Working Paper 75-27. Madison: Center for Demography and
Ecology, University of Wisconsin.

Wirth, Louis. 1928. The Ghetto. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press. [Reprinted 1956 by Phoenix Books, Chicago].

 

Wirth, Louis. 1938. "Urbanism as a Way of Life."' American Journal of
Sociology, 44 (July): 1-24.

 

Wood, Edith Elmer. 1966. "A Century of the Housing Problem." Pp. 1-8
in William L. C. Wheaton, Grace Milgram and Margy Ellin Meyerson
(eds.), Urban Housing. New York: The Free Press.

 

Wurster, Cathering Bauer. 1966. "Social Questions in Housing and
Community Planning." Pp. 30-52 in William L. C. Wheaton, Grace
Milgram and Margy Ellin Meyerson (eds.), Urban Housing. New
York: The Free Press.