<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">
 <record>
  <leader>     caa a22        4500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="001">378872435</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="003">CHVBK</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="005">20180305123412.0</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="007">cr unu---uuuuu</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="008">161128e20030529xx      s     000 0 eng  </controlfield>
  <datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="a">10.2202/1539-8323.1038</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">doi</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">(NATIONALLICENCE)gruyter-10.2202/1539-8323.1038</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Abrams</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">Kathryn</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">1Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley, krabrams@law.berkeley.edu</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="a">&quot;Groups&quot; and the Advent of Critical Race Scholarship</subfield>
   <subfield code="h">[Elektronische Daten]</subfield>
   <subfield code="c">[Kathryn Abrams]</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1="3" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Some scholarly commentators have described Owen Fiss's landmark article &quot;Groups and the Equal Protection Clause&quot; as having helped to produce the intellectual framework that has distinguished Critical Race Theory. This essay finds the issue to be more complex, and the critical thrust of Fiss's article more ambivalent. Fiss's approach boldly foresakes the jurisprudential comforts of neutrality, individualism and means/ends analysis for an explicit focuson the material and dignitary circumstances of African-Americans. Yet its account of racial disadvantage is surprisingly de-contextualized: it reflects neither the contemporaneous perspectives of its African-American subjects, nor more than a fleeting sense of the agonistic political dynamics that produced it. This reified rendering yields an account of Black disadvantage that is decoupled from a corresponding account of white supremacy. This essay explores this critical ambivalence and reflects upon its causes. It also considers the implications of Fiss's ambivalence for the Court's increasingly firm embrace of one &quot;mediating principle&quot; in the area of equal protection.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="540" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">©2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH &amp; Co. KG, Berlin/Boston</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="690" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">The Origins and Fate of Antisubordination Theory</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="t">Issues in Legal Scholarship</subfield>
   <subfield code="d">De Gruyter</subfield>
   <subfield code="g">2/1(2003-05-29)</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">2:1</subfield>
   <subfield code="1">2003</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">2</subfield>
   <subfield code="o">ils</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.2202/1539-8323.1038</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">text/html</subfield>
   <subfield code="z">Onlinezugriff via DOI</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="908" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="D">1</subfield>
   <subfield code="a">research article</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">jats</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">856</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">40</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.2202/1539-8323.1038</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">text/html</subfield>
   <subfield code="z">Onlinezugriff via DOI</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">100</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">1-</subfield>
   <subfield code="a">Abrams</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">Kathryn</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">1Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley, krabrams@law.berkeley.edu</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">773</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">0-</subfield>
   <subfield code="t">Issues in Legal Scholarship</subfield>
   <subfield code="d">De Gruyter</subfield>
   <subfield code="g">2/1(2003-05-29)</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">2:1</subfield>
   <subfield code="1">2003</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">2</subfield>
   <subfield code="o">ils</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="900" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="b">CC0</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="898" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">BK010053</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">XK010053</subfield>
   <subfield code="c">XK010000</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="949" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="F">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">NL-gruyter</subfield>
  </datafield>
 </record>
</collection>
