Carla Shedd - Unequal City Chapter 2

CHAPTER 2 “And We Are Not Saved”: Safe Passage Through a Changing Educational Landscape Law is more than logic: it is experience. —Derrick Bell, And We Are Not Saved: The Elusive Quest for Racial Justice (1987) The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience. —Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Common Law (1881) E very day young people are given the task of navigating the spaces be- tween home and school (and sometimes work and play). They do so un- der the watchful, and sometimes not so watchful, eyes of authorities, families, and peers. These journeys, whether safe or dangerous, are a central force in the lives of America’s urban adolescents. If we examine the protections his- torically deemed necessary to provide safe passage to school—from the inte- gration struggles of the 1950s through the turbulent 1960s and the White flight of the 1980s, and into the present—we find that only the race and age of those making these passages unsafe have changed. During the most pitched battles for school desegregation, National Guardsmen protected Black stu- dents from segregationist mobs; now city policymakers protect Black stu- dents from one another. This transformation masks a more important change: police officers and other mechanisms of social control have become a central feature of urban schools since the early 1990s, in tandem with the peak in violent crime in large urban cities in this nation. 1 Moreover, police are simply one flavor of the variety of authority figures encountered by these students in their journeys. Besides the police, students encounter parents, teachers, coun- selors, and social workers each day. Once seen as a group in need of societal protection, urban students are now more commonly seen as the problem. And yet, they still are not safe and we are not saved. 2 One of the most egregious cases of the failure of safe passage is that of Der-

20 Unequal City rion Albert, a sixteen-year-old Fenger Academy student whose murder in 2009 precipitated a police presence outside that school that continues to this day (see photo 2.1). Albert’s death serves as a vivid reminder of the dangers of crossing neighborhood boundaries for educational purposes. Although Al- bert’s murder is an extreme case, it heightened the safety concerns of Chicago students and parents, even prompting the mayor at the time, Richard M. Daley, to initiate a “Safe Passage” program that positioned adults along the paths that kids took to and from school. 3 It also put the plight of Chicago youth on the national news radar. 4 Albert was fatally beaten in September 2009 with a wooden plank from a railroad tie in the shadow of the Agape Community Center at 342 West 111th Street in the Roseland neighborhood on the South Side of Chicago (see photo 2.2). 5 Albert and his killers were all students at Christian Fenger Academy, a high school located in a section of the neighborhood known as “the Ville.” Fenger had recently taken in students who lived in a rival com- munity, Altgeld Gardens, whose neighborhood school had been converted into a military academy under the direction of Arne Duncan, then the CEO of Chicago Public Schools (CPS). 6 Albert was an Altgeld resident and, ac- cording to prosecutors, an innocent bystander: Albert unknowingly walked into the path of an escalating fight between rival factions from each neigh- borhood who, earlier in the day, had been shooting at one another outside Fenger. 7 The irony of the beating next to the community center was brutal: that Photo 2.1 Police Outside Fenger Academy High School, Chicago, in 2009 Source: Photo by Scott Olson, courtesy Getty Images. http://www.gettyimages.com/detail /news-photo/police-patrol-at-a-gathering-outside-fenger-high-school-to-news-photo/91223992.

22 Unequal City In Chicago—and indeed, throughout urban America—young people’s af- filiation and identification with a place can wholly change the trajectory of their lives. This fight just beyond the schoolhouse grounds not only extin- guished Albert’s life but also diminished the life chances of the five young men convicted of his murder. 12 And it is likely that these young men would have never crossed paths had they not been assigned to the same school across fractious neighborhood borders. The policing of boundaries, both formal and informal, internal and external, has shifted since the modern civil rights era; today intraracial boundaries can be just as fraught as the long-standing inter- racial boundaries seen prior to the 1960s. These boundaries both create and sustain attachment to group membership. 13 Crossing Boundaries: Race, Place, and History Chicago’s already stratified residential geography becomes even more compli- cated when overlaid with its educational landscape. The intersection of race and place in Chicago schools has profoundly disadvantaged African Ameri- can students in recent history. 14 Before court-mandated desegregation in the 1950s, Chicago schools were intensely segregated, and the Chicago public Photo 2.3 Looking from the East Toward Agape Community Center, Across the Unofficial “Safe” Zone for Students Traveling Home to Altgeld Gardens from Fenger Academy High School Source: Photo taken by Carla Shedd, August 26, 2010.

“And We Are Not Saved” 23 school system’s policies during the first half of the twentieth century rein- forced racial and ethnic inequality in myriad ways. African American public school students confronted educational institutions vastly different from those of their White immigrant counterparts. The racial and ethnic composition of schools had a significant impact on school policies and resource allocation. Compared to schools that educated White students, even immigrant White students, schools with a majority of students of color had less-experienced teachers, the facilities were poorer, and they lacked textbooks and libraries—let alone laboratories and specialized curricula. 15 From 1900 to at least 1960, African Americans and White im- migrants living in Chicago faced distinct educational trajectories fueled by racial discrimination and entrenched poverty—a group plight only worsened by the demographic pressures of Black migration to the city known as the “promised land.” 16 The boundary crossing at the heart of this book is a product of several re- cent attempts to desegregate Chicago’s public schools. The costs of transgress- ing borders are borne by all members of our society, but they especially weigh on the children who are tasked with crossing racial, class, and geographical boundaries. Moving to a different school, outside of the familiar neighbor- hood and social group, requires substantial adjustments. Young people mak- ing these longer journeys to school may become more aware of their disad- vantage; in addition, sending students from “bad” neighborhood schools to “good” schools elsewhere inadvertently exposes them to new kinds of dangers besides threats to their physical safety, including the danger of possibly nega- tive encounters with the police. School desegregation has been a crucial battle in the ongoing quest for racial equality. Although rife with problems in both concept and execution, desegregation in our schools has moved faster in important geographic ways than in the rest of our society. Neighborhoods, in other words, are often still more segregated than the schools located in them. Whether we are talking about African American students who were bused to predominantly White schools after the landmark 1954 school desegregation case Brown v. Board of Education or students of all racial and ethnic minority backgrounds whose parents today enroll them in the “best” schools possible (schools that are of- ten in White or wealthy neighborhoods), all of these students might be cross- ing more boundaries to get an education than the rest of us do in any other pursuit. The tensions around this adjustment from Jim Crow–era residential and educational segregation to the more muddled situation of post–civil rights era stratification remain palpable. Supreme Court chief justice Earl Warren, in his majority opinion for Brown v. Board of Education , proclaimed that education is “perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. . . . It is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his envi-

“And We Are Not Saved” 25 and VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” 21 The investigation found that school attendance zones had been gerrymandered to perpetuate segregation. They also charged the Chicago school board with underutilizing White schools while using mobile classrooms to ease overcrowding in Black schools. Ac- cording to a Washington Post report, “Federal officials found that the school board had bused 300 children out of a severely overcrowded Black South Side school to another all-Black school four miles away. A largely White school sat less than two miles away with six empty classrooms.” 22 In addition, the lawsuit accused the Board of tracking students to create or maintain segregation; maintaining racially segregated branches of schools; race-matching teachers and staff to students; allowing White students to avoid assigned schools when their race was in the minority in favor of atten- dance at other schools where Whites were the majority; and lastly, associating segregated schools with segregated housing projects. 23 This was said to have happened over a “substantial period of time and in a substantial portion of Chicago public schools”; continuance of these policies would result in the Board operating in violation of the U.S. Constitution, thereby causing “im- mediate, severe and irreparable harm.” 24 After extensive negotiations, a consent decree was entered requiring the Board to desegregate as many schools as possible, “considering all the circum- stances in Chicago,” and to provide supplemental resources for any majority- Black or -Hispanic schools that remained segregated. 25 Like the Brown v. Board of Education II decision, this legal remedy provided no specific goal- posts or enforcement provisions. The predictable result was lackluster and Table 2.1 Racial Demographic Data on Pre-K Through Twelfth-Grade Students in the Largest U.S. Public School Districts, 1987–2009 New York a Los Angeles Houston Philadelphia 1990– 1991 2008– 2009 1987– 1988 2008– 2009 1987– 1988 2008– 2009 1987– 1988 2008– 2009 White 19% n.a. 17% 9% 16% 8% 24% 13% Black 38 n.a. 18 11 42 28 63 61 Hispanic 35 n.a. 57 73 39 61 9 17 Asian 8 n.a. 8 6 3 3 3 6 Total 943,969 589,311 625,073 191,708 200,225 194,698 159,867 Source: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Ele- mentary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 1987–1988, 1990–91 (version 1a), and 2008–2009 (ver- sion 1b) for New York, Los Angeles, Houston, and Philadelphia. a New York data was unavailable for 1987–1988 and 2009–2009. Data for 1990–1991 was available as an early comparison to the other largest U.S. public school districts.

26 Unequal City halfhearted actions. 26 The Board’s minimal efforts in the 1960s, the 1980s, and the early 2000s did little to redress the unequal racial and spatial order of Chicagoans’ residential and educational lives. As detailed in table 2.2, segre- gation has exponentially increased in Chicago in the last thirty years. Since 2009, when a federal judge lifted the thirty-year-old consent decree ordering desegregation in Chicago public schools, the Board has not faced any legal requirement to improve the situation. This means that the school system is no longer required to try to achieve greater racial balance in the schools by busing or allocating school slots by racial demographics. The deci- sion to lift the consent decree has exacerbated segregation by further restrict- ing equal access to the city’s selective enrollment and magnet schools. Cur- rently, fewer than 10 percent of school-age White students in Chicago attend public high schools, and the majority of those attending public schools are enrolled in the city’s better-resourced magnet schools. 27 The remaining popu- lation of White students attend private and parochial schools inside and out- side the city limits. This is the context in which then-CEO of Chicago Public Schools Arne Duncan (now the U.S. secretary of education) proposed a plan to restructure the spatial organization of public schooling in Chicago. The stated goal of this plan, launched in 2004, was to replace “underperforming” schools with 100 new high-quality elementary and high schools with innovative learning approaches by the year 2010. 28 Chicago’s “Renaissance 2010” program— which was designed to increase the “portfolio” of options (curricular, loca- tional, and so on) that parents and students could choose to enhance their educational experience and further their educational trajectory—has drasti- cally reshaped the city’s educational landscape. 29 But the new availability of “school choice” also shut students and parents out of options; familiar neigh- borhood schools were closed, combined, and put on notice. The Renaissance 2010 plan, like court-ordered desegregation before it, led to some children having to journey farther from their home neighborhoods to attend school. The impact of this overhaul in education on young people’s school lives was intensified by a simultaneous change in their residential lives, especially those youth who resided in public housing. In 1999 the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development approved the “Plan for Transformation” developed by the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA). This effort, costing over $1 billion, called for the demolition and replacement of eleven high-rise housing developments and the rehabilitation of 10,000 units in low-rise and senior housing facilities. In addition, nearly 38,000 families were given Hous- ing Choice Vouchers to seek residences in the private rental market with the assistance of a government subsidy. 30 The youth who were directly affected by the CHA Plan for Transformation were tasked with moving from extremely distressed environments to settle in neighborhoods that were still impover- ished, still hypersegregated, and still perceived to be unsafe. 31 In fact, families

28 Unequal City who moved from housing developments to Black communities like Engle- wood, where Harper High is located, reported greater fear and greater vio- lence in comparison to those families who lived in traditional CHA develop- ments. For most families required to move, the relocations were rushed, proceeded without any substantive mobility counseling, and were often out of sync with public school schedules. 32 Not surprisingly, this housing instability led to greater school instability. The young people who had to move were sometimes able to continue in the same school, but many were forced to move far from both their residential and educational communities. Also perhaps unsurprisingly, these moves cor- related with school disengagement. One study of CHA youth conducted at the same time as this research found that one in three teens were academically off-track—that is, not in the appropriate grade for their age. 33 Although these extensive changes in school and housing policies were instituted to increase educational opportunity and enhance quality of life, they often dramatically upended the lives of youth in ways that policymakers did not anticipate. These transformations have changed both the physical and mental land- scapes for hundreds of thousands of youth in Chicago. Attending high school is one of the primary reasons—sometimes the only reason—that young peo- ple leave their racially and socioeconomically cloistered home environments; paradoxically, for other students who attend the school as local residents it is the reason they remain ensconced in their environment. So school, as an in- stitution that structures life experiences and interactions, becomes even more important than the neighborhood. 34 Many of the students whose stories are told in this book leave the land of the “have-nots” to be educated with the “haves.” Some “haves” and “have-nots,” meanwhile, get their education in their respective advantaged or disadvantaged quarters. Finally, there are oth- ers who leave nice neighborhoods where they attended private or parochial schools to join the “haves” and the “have-nots,” who hail from their respec- tive residential neighborhoods, to learn in selective public schools with no attendance boundaries, like Payton Prep, or neighborhood schools with a rigorous curriculum accessible via application, like Lincoln Park. Thus, these young people daily navigate a racially ordered “geography of opportunity” wherein the resources for improving school and life chances are meted out by race, class, and zip code. 35 Understanding the danger and conflicts they in- evitably encounter along the way requires a closer look at the spatial politics of the city they call home. The Segregated City Chicago is a racially stratified city, a place where employment trends, housing policies, and school conditions have long revealed and perpetuated the divide

“And We Are Not Saved” 29 between Whites and African Americans. The stark chasm between what used to be the towering Cabrini-Green housing projects and the glittering wealth of the “Gold Coast” on Michigan Avenue, just one mile east, is one of the better-publicized examples of the separate and unequal worlds that African Americans and Whites generally inhabit in “the Second City.” 36 According to recent evidence, this ethnic divide is only becoming more pronounced as the city’s diversity increases, with growing populations of Hispanics and Asians and increasing gentrification of the city center. Class also divides the city of Chicago. Well-marked physical and social boundaries shape the perceptions and experiences of the people who live within them. From the early work of Robert E. Park, St. Clair Drake, Horace Cayton, and Gerald Suttles, through the groundbreaking efforts of William Julius Wilson, researchers studying Chicago’s social ecology have shown that concentrated poverty marks many neighborhoods, sealing their status and determining their access to resources. The maps reproduced here and the large-scale survey results I discuss are all drawn from Chicago neighborhood and public high school data collected by the Consortium on Chicago School Research (CCSR). 37 The CCSR data, which are mapped to depict the levels of concentrated poverty as measured by the percentage of adult male unem- ployment and the percentage of families living below the poverty line across the city, underlie a later discussion of the distribution of perceptions of injus- tice. Even without intimate knowledge of Chicago neighborhoods, anyone looking at map 2.1 can clearly see the stratification of poverty by neighbor- hood and the great overlap between ethnicity, poverty, and place. Neighbor- hoods that are predominantly African American, such as Englewood and Greater Grand Crossing on the South Side (community areas 68 and 69, re- spectively) and West Garfield Park and East Garfield Park on the West Side (community areas 26 and 27, respectively), have many more inhabitants who are unemployed and living below the poverty line, as denoted by the darker shades of those areas on the map. The inhabitants of the neighborhoods on the North Side and Southwest Side, which have the lightest shading, have lower levels of poverty and unemployment. The flags on the concentrated poverty map depict the four public high schools in this study—Lincoln Park (7), Payton (8), Tilden (61), and Harper (67). Several outlier communities make the larger neighborhood patterns even more striking. On the North Side of Chicago, the Uptown and Logan Square community areas have moderate to high levels of poverty, but their popula- tions differ from their surrounding communities by ethnicity (more African American and Hispanic), by housing stock, and by resources for the mentally ill and the formerly incarcerated. 38 Neighborhood isolation or contiguity also matters. Logan Square (community area 22) is adjacent on the north to the

“And We Are Not Saved” 31 above 40 percent”; conversely, “ten others have poverty rates below 10 per- cent.” 40 The racial stratification across neighborhoods is inextricably linked with the geographical class divisions in the city. The same report notes that in thirty-two community areas fewer than 10 percent of residents are African American (and twenty-seven of those are fewer than 5 percent African Amer- ican). Moreover, 52 percent of the city’s Black population “lives in only 20 of Chicago’s 77 community areas—neighborhoods that are each more than 90 percent Black.” 41 A stark geography of inequality operates as a social force and a social product—that is, as both cause and consequence. This visual representation of social inequality reveals the bounded nature of residents’ lives and hints at the degree of socialization involved in navigating Chicago’s spatial divide. 42 The city’s geography also includes sharp social-psychological divisions. Map 2.2 shows the CCSR school survey respondents’ perceptions of safety across these same areas of Chicago. The neighborhoods with the lightest shading are those considered the safest; the majority of the neighborhood areas that are considered the least safe (darkest shading) overlap with the communities that have higher levels of concentrated poverty. The flags de- note public high schools (excluding charter, contract, and special education schools) to demonstrate the various locations and densities of educational institutions across the various neighborhoods. Two of the four items in the perception of safety scale concern students’ assessments of their safety while in their school’s classrooms and hallways. The other two ask about their perceptions of insecurity outside of school and while traveling to and from school. The data can be interpreted in several dif- ferent ways. On the one hand, crime levels are in fact higher in many of the neighborhoods that students perceive as very unsafe. 43 On the other hand, these same neighborhoods also usually include a high police presence that does not always translate into its residents feeling safer. 44 In fact, greater numbers of police in a neighborhood can lead to a stronger feeling of insecu- rity. Safety means different things to different people, particularly to young people of color who disproportionately feel harassed by the police. In Chicago, neighborhoods that are mere miles away can be worlds apart with regard to their residents’ perceptions and experiences. Chicago residents’ “divergent social worlds” rest heavily on their starkly contrasting resources and opportunities, which particularly shape their experiences with crime and policing. 45 Thus, the time and energy accorded to achieving safe passage is also stratified by race, place, and circumstance. Students’ perceptions of safety and their actual exposure to violence and crime are heightened when they cross social and symbolic boundaries. Those who live in a city learn certain things about how to “stay safe” in their neigh- borhood. There, they may know the problem areas and even the problem

32 Unequal City n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m o 76 51 25 2 28 7 55 6 70 61 49 30 8 24 10 4 56 15 19 3 71 17 23 22 53 69 54 66 5 46 75 16 29 12 72 67 68 1 52 44 65 43 31 73 58 74 64 13 11 63 50 60 42 57 21 27 14 9 33 48 38 77 32 35 41 40 59 26 45 62 20 39 34 18 47 36 37 Lake Michigan K Map scale: 1:250,000 0 4 Miles Legend Student percepg415on of personal safety inside and outside of school and traveling to and from school by quang415le classificag415on feels very unsafe n m Community Area Boundaries Public High Schools 5.27 to 5.59 5.06 to 5.26 4.38 to 5.05 5.60 to 7.04 Map 2.2 Perceptions of Safety Among Surveyed Chicago Youth Source: CCSR data, 2001. people, but that knowledge is missing when they pass through less familiar places. Over time students on their way to and from school may acquire some knowledge about those passages, but the sheer amount of instability and mobility inevitably exposes them to places whose rules they do not know and where they may not resemble the residents.

34 Unequal City tion,” notes the sociologist Prudence Carter. “They are also key sites of social- ization and cultural reproduction.” 51 The “powerful cultural dynamics” that Carter sees as permeating our schools—such as teachers’ evaluations of stu- dents’ language, style, and tastes in relation to the dominant culture—act in concert with the social dynamics inherent not only in the curriculum but also in students’ interactions with authority figures in the school as well as with one another. Young people understand a great deal about their value, both the value they assign to themselves and the value they believe others see in them, by examining the state of their surroundings. A school is generally assumed to be a safe haven, but depending on its lo- cation, security and quality can vary enormously. Our nation’s most com- petitive high schools, though not without their problems, are models of what public education can achieve: they offer an astounding array of challenging courses, training in music and art, and guidance that shepherds students into the nation’s top colleges, all the while nurturing the social, psychological, and emotional development of the future leaders of our country. The other end of the spectrum seems like an entirely different universe: failing urban schools are overused facilities stuffed with too many students, who are not stimulated by the often meager intellectual offerings but are amply punished for acting out. Nor do young people feel safe once they enter the highly securitized space of an urban school. Schools, in other words, are ambiguous places because of their multiple meanings and purposes. Contemporary urban public high schools are simul- taneously sites of both danger and refuge, places where adolescents negotiate their identities, learn how to represent themselves to society, and manage multiple external forces of social control. In effect, the societal microcosm that schools represent can also be interpreted as a distortion of our society, rather than as a true reflection of it. Schools, with their bell schedules, class- room routines, and standard lunch and recreation times, are designed to re- move the unpredictability at the heart of young people’s daily lives, to replace uncertainty with consistency. We believe that such procedures will better teach and socialize our children, but school—which should be an equalizing force in American society—may also reproduce existing social stratification by race, gender, class, and neighborhood. 52 Perceptions of Safety Among Chicago Youth A central premise of this book is that schools and neighborhoods—and the passages between them—are integral to shaping youth attitudes and experi- ences. In addition, race, gender, and neighborhood also affect students’ views of their own safety. When students evaluate their sense of safety in the various places they visit throughout their days, striking differences emerge among racial and ethnic

“And We Are Not Saved” 35 groups in Chicago schools, with African Americans reporting the most per- vasive sense of danger (see figure 2.1). A clear majority of African American, Hispanic, and Asian American students feel the least safe outside their school environments. Nearly half of Blacks and Hispanics feel insecure while travel- ing between home and school. Strikingly, a sizable number of students in all racial groups, from 28 to 40 percent, feel unsafe in their schools’ hallways and bathrooms. Finally, approximately 25 percent of African American youth feel unsafe in their classrooms. And school is supposed to be a safe place? Later chapters will address the distinctions in young people’s assessments of school safety; here we examine the same survey measures with students’ school racial composition as the component of classification (in contrast to the use of students’ race as the classifier in figure 2.1). The lines in figure 2.2 represent the responses of all students who attended a given type of school, regardless of their individual race-ethnicity. Once again, it is quite clear that a strong majority of students attending Figure 2.1 Chicago High School Students’ Perceptions of Insecurity, by Race, 2001 Source: CCSR data, 2001. 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Outside School Home-School Travel Hall-Bathroom In Classes Black Hispanic Asian White

“And We Are Not Saved” 37 important question: what are the mechanisms and processes that shape stu- dents’ perceptions? Adolescent Geographies Once young people begin high school, whether in Chicago or any other city, they enter a stage when they are venturing farther and farther away from home. This is the case not only because of the logistics of getting to school, but also because adolescents are in the developmental phase in which they seek exposure to more people and to varied experiences. Young people cross all types of boundaries to attend school—racial and ethnic boundaries, gang lines, and class barriers, to name only a few. What is more, the physical ter- rain they are asked to cross is governed by various social norms concerning where people should and should not go, how they should present themselves, Figure 2.3 Chicago High School Students’ Perceptions of Gang Population, by School Type, 2001 Source: CCSR data, 2001. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% African American Minority Hispanic Mixed Integrated

38 Unequal City and how they should behave. These journeys have consequences. The very act of crossing boundaries—or just as important, not crossing boundaries—de- termines for my study participants the people with whom they interact, their experiences, and their perceptions of themselves and the world. A snapshot of their journeys to four very different educational settings introduces us to these consequences (see table 2.3). F OUR J OURNEYS TO S CHOOL A shrill alarm wakes Michelle every weekday morning. Grudgingly, she pre- pares for her trek to Lincoln Park High School. If she does not get a ride from Table 2.3 Distance Traveled by Chicago High School Students Between Home and School, by School Racial Composition Segregated (Harper) Predominantly Minority (Tilden) Mixed (Lincoln Park) Integrated (Payton Prep) Short (less than two miles) Keisha Michael TB David Rina Dewayne Hunter Joaquin Louie Andre Gabrielle Medium (two to five miles) Pink Chris Jackson Max Juan Mike Dre Jasmine Terry Billy Pilgrim Angelique Jane Tasha Brianna Carmen Long (five miles or more) Jackson Shay Andrea Boomer Michelle Janet Angela John Amber Freddy Vanessa Darrell Alex Source: Author’s interviews and surveys, 2005. Note: The names of the students whose journeys to school are highlighted in this chapter are in bold.