LAUSR

and methodological merits of intersectionality, Lindsay points out that ABMS advocates adhere closely to the precepts of intersectional analysis, articulating the mutual constitution of racial and gender oppression in the experiences of Black boys and men. But in contrast to Black feminist theorizations of intersectionality, which conceive the approach to be inherently progressive and operating as a mechanism of liberation, Lindsay emphasizes that, in the hands of ABMS supporters, intersectionality is used for non-emancipatory ends. Combining assumptions about Black masculinity that are sexist, heterosexist, and cisgendered, ABMS proponents advocate policies that are misogynist, homophobic, and transphobic and that operate to the detriment of Black girls, as well as gender-fluid and nonbinary students. Lindsay reframes intersectionality as a heuristic that is compatible with diverse political arguments and policy proposals. “While intersectional analysis highlights how racial, gendered and other spheres of difference are co-constitutive, intersectionality’s underlying logic does not prescribe which spheres are mutually constructing, who experiences oppression in the process, or how to relieve their oppression. Instead these are context-specific political decisions that are made by people” (p. 53). As a consequence, “intersectionality can illuminate, at the same time that it obscures, inequalities among black women, black men, and other social groups.... While intersectionality is always political, its potential to foster more rather than less policing of social groups’ real and imagined boundaries means that its politics are not always emancipatory” (p. 78). Abandoning faith in the transparency of experience and acknowledging that experiential claims can both challenge and reinscribe hierarchies of power can prepare both activists and analysts to wrestle with the “messiness” of such claims in the context of public policy (p. 14). Lindsay analyzes a sustained debate about African American Immersion Schools that brought together leading ABMS advocates, feminist activists, government officials, educators, and parents in the early 1990s to show how an intensive exchange of opposing views pressed participants to interrogate contentious assumptions and political demands. Some ABMS supporters came to see that “despite the merits of their critique of racism in the classroom, they erroneously assumed that racially oppressed black males are incapable of perpetuating oppression, including gender-based oppression against black girls and women” (p. 116). Envisioning public schools as a site in which to negotiate the requirements for emancipatory education, Lindsay endorses a procedural mechanism to identify innovative approaches to mitigate social, political, and material harm to students. She makes a compelling case for reinvestment in public schools both to foster Black students’ capacity for self-determination and to secure the future of democracy. Addressing the “complex politics that scholars, policy makers, educators, and parents face...as they try to determine what equitable schooling looks like in the nation’s classrooms” (p. 4), Lindsay models a different kind of social science—theoretically sophisticated and attuned to the politics of perception, the socially mediated ground of empirical observation, and the resulting complexities for knowledge production and policy prescription. This thought-provoking approach raises timely challenges for a discipline in the throes of “transparency” standards.