win better education as a practical matter. However, proof of the power of claiming taxpayer status is elusive. People have used language referencing taxpaying status, but they may have done so possibly more as a rhetorical move or as a claim for access to a court of equity than as their basis for a claim for equal education. More, and very difficult, research would be necessary to prove that taxpaying status performed the work of justifying unequal levels of education. Based on Walsh’s reported evidence, courts made only fleeting reference to taxpaying status. Nevertheless, Racial Taxation adds much to current literature. This is a story of law as a tool of race relations, building on the work of Risa L. Goluboff and Kenneth W. Mack. It is also a story of the role of taxation in social policies, as discussed by Robin L. Einhorn and Alice Kessler-Harris. At the same time, Racial Taxation is a book on consumerism and the purchase of citizenship rights, an extension of work by Lizabeth Cohen and Meg Jacobs. ButRacial Taxation is foremost a fascinating story of Americans’ perception of education and entitlement to education. The function of education has changed from promoting civic society to driving economic development. However, the changing perceptions have continued to be argued in terms of taxation. Perhaps itself bound by a taxpayer ethos, the U.S. Supreme Court has not supported the alternate claim that education is a fundamental right. Therefore, taxpaying as buying rights to education, a consumer model, has yet to be tested. In a sense, through segregated schools, property taxation, and a hostility to busing, people buy a level of education for their children. One could envision an alternative world in which being a taxpayer entitled a child to a quality education, even if the child’s family could not afford it. Sadly, that view has failed to gain purchase.

中文翻译：

---

新奥尔良的种族与教育：创建隔离城市，1764-1960 年，沃尔特·C·斯特恩着

作为一个实际问题赢得更好的教育。然而，声称纳税人身份的权力的证据是难以捉摸的。人们使用过提及纳税身份的语言，但他们这样做可能更多是作为一种修辞举动或作为诉诸公平法庭的诉求，而不是作为他们诉诸平等教育的基础。需要更多且非常困难的研究来证明纳税身份证明了教育水平不平等的合理性。根据沃尔什报告的证据，法院只是短暂提及了纳税状况。尽管如此，种族税为当前的文献增添了很多。这是一个关于法律作为种族关系工具的故事，以 Risa L. Goluboff 和 Kenneth W. Mack 的作品为基础。这也是一个关于税收在社会政策中的作用的故事，正如 Robin L. 艾因霍恩和爱丽丝凯斯勒-哈里斯。同时，《种族税收》是一本关于消费主义和购买公民权利的书，是 Lizabeth Cohen 和 Meg Jacobs 工作的延伸。但种族税收首先是一个关于美国人对教育和受教育权利的看法的引人入胜的故事。教育的功能已经从促进公民社会转变为推动经济发展。然而，在税收方面，人们继续争论不断变化的观念。也许本身受纳税人精神的约束，美国最高法院并不支持教育是一项基本权利的替代主张。因此，将纳税作为购买教育权的消费模式尚待检验。从某种意义上说，通过隔离学校、财产税和对公交车的敌意，人们为他们的孩子购买一定程度的教育。人们可以设想另一种世界，在这个世界中，纳税人有权让孩子接受优质教育，即使孩子的家庭负担不起。可悲的是，这种观点未能获得认可。