ON my desk are twelve books, published since 1948. The publisher of each hopes I will adopt it as a text for a course called Minority Groups. The titles, points of view, and contents vary widely. The most frequently-occurring word is minority, yet the authors use it with different denotative and connotative meanings. There are also relations and inter-group relations and inter-cultural relations and sometimes just relations '-although that seems a rather broad and ambitious topic for a single course. Some texts describe a long or short list of groups and may point out the contributions of each to our American way of life. The main subject of others is prejudice or discrimination and their effects, often reflecting a neo-Freudian psychology. There are also studies of the Negro in the United States like those of Frazier and Davie.2 The typical recent text, however, contains larger or smaller amounts from each of several approaches. The contents and approaches of texts are disturbing to one who believes that is concerned with the development of empirically-tested generalizations regarding human relationships. A course on Minority Groups should present, or attempt to develop, generalizations regarding minorities. 3 Yet, there is now no sociology of minorities in this sense. Nowhere in the literature can one find a systematic and comprehensive set of sociological generalizations. This lack is not so culpable, for such a set does not now exist. What surprises me is the fact that many authors do not seem to miss it. In the texts one finds many facts, most of them interesting and some of value. There are numerous hypotheses and frequent personal opinions, often stated as if they were conclusions. Preachments regarding what, or who, is bad and proposals for reform are quite common. The few tested generalizations present are often hard to recognize and separate from less useful statements. Anathema need not be pronounced on all, however. As early as 1932, Young sought for generalizations within a sociological frame of reference not used again until Part II of Simpson and Yinger.4 Among other recent authors who have sought with varying success for some conceptual system are Berry, Marden, McDonagh and Richards, and Walter.5 However, most of texts, too, contain a little something for everybody: chapters on what prejudice is and what race isn't, sketches of selected minority groups, advice or proposals on how to solve these problems. Berry and Marden, in very different ways, have been most successful perhaps in the search for sociological generalizations or uniformities of some kind. Despite recent improvement, however, the teacher still seeks in vain for an objective, systematic, comprehensive, sustained, sociological analysis. A truly sociological ap-