Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 July 2024
The call for studies of the social impact of particular judicial, legislative, administrative and executive rules, decisions and practices is sounded sporadically and acted upon but rarely. To read the recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States overruling established precedents in many areas of our constitutional law is to catalogue a long list of missed opportunities for social scientists. As an example of the cause for this lament, I shall present Keyishian v. Board of Regents which for all practical purposes overruled Adler v. Board of Education.
1. Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967).
2. Adler v. Board of Education, 342 U.S. 485 (1952).
3. 342 U.S., at 497.
4. 342 U.S., at 508, 509.
5. 342 U.S., at 509.
6. Id.
7. Id.
8. Id.
9. 342 U.S., at 509, 510.
10. 342 U.S., at 501, 502.
11. 342 U.S., at 501.
12. 342 U.S., at 500.
13. 342 U.S., at 498.
14. 342 U.S., at 505.
15. 385 U.S., at 601.
16. 385 U.S., at 601, 603.
17. 385 U.S., at 607.
18. The studies cited are P. F. Lazarsfeld & W. Thielens, The Academic Mind 92-112, 192-217 (1958); F. B. Biddle, The Fear of Freedom 155 et seq. (1951) ; M. Jahoda & S. Cook, Security Measures and Freedom of Thought: An Expiatory Study of the Impact of Loyalty and Security Programs, 61 Yale L.J. 295 (1952); R. M. MacIver, Academic Freedom in Our Time (1955); M. R. Konvitz, Expanding Liberties 86-108 (1966); C. Morris, “Academic Freedom and Loyalty Oaths” 28 Law & Contemp. Prob. 487 (1963).