cupy the standpoint both of the socialrnscientist and of the poHtical historian, asrnthe Thernstroms explore topics as diversernas the racial component in crime andrncriminal justice, the racial politics of thern1960’s, the role of conspiracy theories inrnconstructing the modern black politicalrnmythology, racial differentials in SATrnscores and educational qualifications,rnand the O.J. Simpson case. Their legalrnanalysis, focusing on the key question ofrnracially based redistricting as well as affirmativernaction policies in employment, isrnparticularly good; undoubtedly, it providesrnan essential foundation for understandingrncases which should be comingrnbefore the Supreme Court over the nextrnho or three years.rnStill, the Thernstroms make theirrnmost significant contribution to policyrelatedrnissues in the area of affirmativernaction, the histor’ of which they describernin terms that make painful reading today.rnWere the early defenders of equal opportunityrnlegislation honest in denying thatrnthe law would lead to race-based hiring,rnor were they being utterly cynical? ThernThernstroms ultimately ask the fundamentalrnquestions which we can reasonablyrnbet will not be posed to PresidentrnClinton’s National Monologue on RacernCommittee: Can stressing racial selfconsciousnessrnas the precondition for socialrnprogress result in a diminution ofrnracial consciousness and separatism?rnCan the U.S. Constitution coexist with arnsystem in which rights are derived fromrnone’s membership in a Volksgemeinschaftrnrather than from one’s status as arnfree indiyidual? And can a true nationrnbe built or maintained from such separaternand mutually hostile constituencies,rneach with its distinctive culture and ideology?rnThe answer to each question isrnobviousK’ in the negative, and until governmentrnabandons its attempts at nationalrndeconstruction, we should delete fromrnthe Pledge of Allegiance the reference torn”one nation under God” and its indivisibility,rnsince we obviously mean to promoternno such thing. “It is on the groundsrnof indiyiduality that blacks and whitesrncan come together,” the Thernstromsrnwrite. “Large and important race-relatedrnproblems still remain. Together, blacksrnand whites can address them; as separaternnations within our nation, they cannot—rnand will not.”rnPhilip Jenkins is Distinguished Professorrnof History and ReUgious Studies at PennsylvaniarnState University.rnMaking AgendarnMeetrnby Nicholas StixrnMaking Ends Meet:rnHow Single Mothers SurvivernWelfare and Low-Wage Workrnby Kathryn Edin and Laura LeinrnNew York: Russell Sage Foundation;rn320 pp., $42.50rnDuring the early 1980’s, social scientistsrnnoticed that welfare mothersrnwere spending three to six times theirrnofficial income. According to Harvardrnsociologist Christopher Jencks in hisrnforeword to Making Ends Meet, conservativesrnand liberals have been loath to admitrnthis: conservatives because theyrnrefuse to admit that mothers cannot survivernon welfare alone, and liberals becausernthey refuse to concede that thosernon welfare often have unreported income.rnExtending research begun in thernmid-1980’s, Making Ends Meet tries tornpinpoint the sources of this income.rnI T ‘ S C O M I N G !rnThe Rockford Institute’s First Annual Summer Schoolrn(Open to students of all ages!)rn”Redefining the American Right: From Aristotle to Pat Buchanan”rn27 JuLY-1 AUGUST (TENTATIVE)rnDON’T MAKE YOUR VACATION PLANS YET..rnFEBRUARY 1998/27rnrnrn