oToHEPAPlgR,'Status,Mobility,andAnomie:AStudyinReadineSs | for Desegregation'> by SIelvin 1VI. Tumin and Ray C. Collins, Jr. v (B.J.S. X, 3, September I959, pp. 253-267) presents some highly interesting data.l It does not, however, present data which would support the conclusions at which the authors claim to have arrived on the basis of their data. What the paper does is to raise some extremely signiScant questions, which the authors fail to pursue. Messrs. Tumin and Collins divide their respondents into four mobility categories based on a two-way occupational status classification. The two statuses are high (professional, technical, axld kindred; managers, proprietors, and officials, except farm; clerical and kindred; sales workers; craftsmen, foremen, and kindred) and low (farmers and farm managers; protective service workers; operatives and kindred; farm labourers and farm foremen; service workers, except protective and household; labourers, except farm and mine). The four mobility categories are high stationaries (high-status sons of high-status fathers), upward mobiles (high-status sons of low-status fathers), downward mobiles (low-status sons of high-status fathers), and low stationaries (low-status sons of low-status fathers). The authors then present findings relating scores on five scales of'readiness for desegregation' to these four mobility categories. Finally, they relate the desegregation scores to scores on the Srole anomia scale. Their findings, briefly summarized, are: ( I ) The two mobile groups combined do not diffier significantly from the two stationary groups combined in readiness for desegregation. (2) The two high-status groups show considerably more readiness for desegregation than the two low-status groups. (3) The rank order of decreasing readiness for desegregation is, first, high stationaries; second, upward mobiles; third, downward mobiles; fourth, low stationaries. (4) The rank order of increasing anomia is the same as the rank order of decreasing readiness, i.e. the greater the anomia, the less the readiness for desegregation. From these findings, Messrs. Tumin and Collins conclude that there exists ' . . . a close relationship between normative integration pi.e., low anomia] and readiness for desegregation, and by implication, . . . a close relationship between mobility-type and readiness for desegregation, on the supposition that anomie is an intervening variable. By further extension, moreover, status position is also related to desegregation, through the intermediation of