At a panel discussion this morning about the pending Supreme Court case on school integration, Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the conservative movement’s “Center for Equal Opportunity,” (sic) began straight from page one of the right’s playbook. Referring to research on what happens when low-income minority children attend schools with middle-class whites, Clegg said, “You can find social scientists on both sides of most issues.” Even when the vast preponderance of social science evidence points in one direction, as in the case of the clear-cut benefits to poor African-American and Hispanic kids enrolled in middle-class white schools, Clegg is right. There are indeed academics who dispute what the research clearly shows. And for that, as on so many other issues, he and his movement can thank the Olin, Bradley, Scaife, and Koch Foundations.

Olin, Bradley, and Scaife have been the main funders of Clegg’s Center for Equal Opportunity. Those three leading financing sources of the conservative movement (among others) have also been instrumental in supporting the National Association of Scholars, another Orwellian enterprise, which has put out some of the reports Clegg refers to. The three authors of an amicus brief on behalf of the petitioners in the current Seattle and Jefferson County cases are associated with the Manhattan Institute and the school of public policy at George Mason University, both of which also received abundant support from the same set of foundations.

Do you suppose the folks running the Olin, Bradley, and Scaife Foundations really care what the actual research shows – of following the evidence wherever it might lead -- on this or any other issue? If they did, they might be embarrassed that the amicus brief submitted by their team of David J. Armor, Abigail Thernstrom, and Stephan Thernstrom relies so heavily on outdated studies from the 1970s and 1980s, ignores abundant contradictory evidence, and questions the validity of well-established methodologies. For example, there is a vast body of research showing that ongoing interactions between different racial and economic groups reduce prejudice. But the right’s team relies heavily on a small number of decades-old studies. The research on gains in academic achievement is comparably abundant and persuasive, and the right’s rebuttals even weaker. If you want to plunge into this stuff, read this amicus brief signed by 553 social scientists and another also submitted for the plaintiffs by the American Educational Research Association (which includes rebuttals to Armor and the Thernstroms, and this other amicus brief on behalf of the petitioners).

But it should be well established by now that if the analysis is funded by the Olin, Scaife, Bradley, and Koch Foundations, the goal of the product is not seeking the truth. Rather, it’s to muddy and confuse the issue so someone speaking at a public forum or to journalists can say: well, the research is inconclusive, there’s another side to the story. Those diversionary tactics help to clear the path toward advancing the agenda of the wealthy men who created the foundations – most especially rolling back the civil rights movement and government more generally.

Whatever the outcome of the case, and it probably won’t be good, the main point is to recognize the right’s modus operandi, whether with respect to schools, Social Security, global warming, health care, regulations, or whatever. Sound well meaning, with the same ultimate goals as progressives – things like promoting equal opportunity and strengthening Social Security – in order to pass the political laugh test. Put together lousy research that invariably concludes, directly or indirectly, that government interventions have failed and need to be rolled back. Spread advocates far and wide to talk about how there’s research on both sides, emphasizing the conclusions of the lousy movement-sponsored work. Watch as reporters and the public scratch their heads. And, all too often, win.