USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
Hello, I will upload the Exam 2 and you need to do this exam according to the files that i will upload the professor doesn’t accept outside sources.
History 385 – Exam 2 – !1
History 385
Modern Boston
Exam 2 – Week 4
Due on January 20th, 11:59 pm
Instructions:
• Write your exam as a Word document.
• Save your exam as Family Name_Exam 2 Save it frequently!!!
• Write your name at the top left of the page.
• Insert page number in the header on the right side.
• Submit your final document in , x, or only by January 20th, 11:59 pm.
• You can use the material that we have seen in class (slides, readings, etc) to do your exam.
Identify each section of your exam
The exam will be divided into two sections. 1) Identifications & 2) Essay
1. Identifications
For this part of the exam, you must identify 2 of the following terms (25 points each), based
on all the information presented in lectures, reading, and multimedia material presented in
class. For each identification question, you will be asked to write at least a full paragraph
which will answer the following:
• Who?/What? Identify the person, the event, or concept
• When? this person lived, event occurred, or concept emerged
• Where? this person lived, event occurred, or concept emerged if relevant
• Why? Explain the historical significance of this person, event, or concept
• You must include the historical significance in the long term, emphasizing its importance
Urban Renewal Busing Crisis
Suburbanization Mothers for Adequate Welfare (MAW)
Big Dig Eisenstadt v. Baird
History 385 – Exam 2 – !2
2. Essay question
For this part of the exam, you will choose 1 of the questions. (50 points) Your essay will contain
7 paragraphs. It will be a detailed answer to the question, including concepts, events, and a
logical argument. You should cover every point of the question in your answer. Your essay will
be graded on the links you make between events, the logic of your argument, and the details of
your answers.
1. Future Challenges: Today, you work at Boston City Hall as a policy analyst. You are tasked
with writing a report for the mayor, explaining a pressing issue that the city needs to resolve.
Using historical data (from this class), make a case for a specific challenge that Boston needs
to address in the next five years. Your essay will be structured around the following model
(each paragraph should be substantial):
• First paragraph: introduction announcing what will be in the report (situating the
problem, the argument, different sections)
• Second paragraph: the problem itself with current data
• Third and fourth paragraph: historical context
• Fifth paragraph: proposed solutions
• Sixth paragraph: possible problems and pitfalls
• Seventh paragraph: conclusion (summary of the situation and of the proposed solutions,
path to open for more questions).
2. Conservative vs radical: Boston is a contradictory city. In many cases, it appears to be a
liberal city where people are welcoming and accepting of differences. In others though, it is a
conservative city that is prone to intolerance. Compare and contrast these two facets of
Boston’s character over time. You can use examples that we specifically covered in class, but
feel free to include examples that may have only briefly touched upon. Your essay should be
seven paragraphs long. Your first paragraph should be your introduction, announcing the
topic of your essay, the argument that you will make, and a description of the structure of
your essay. The last paragraph should be your conclusion, summarizing your argument and
opening your essay to unexplored questions. The remaining paragraphs should be the body of
your text. Make sure to cover a long period of Boston’s history, showing how views may
have changed over time.
Week 3.1 !1
Week 3.1 World War I and the 1920s
History 385
Julie de Chantal
This lecture might feel a little disconnected. There are a lot of pieces moving simultaneously
which I will try to discuss along the way. There is a lot to cover, and I will try to streamline the
materials.
Dramatic transformation of the state’s population
From 1900 to 1919, the state’s economy was bustling and vigorous. The industrial productivity
lured newcomers seeking work. Massachusetts was 3rd in manufacturing employment in the
nation, and jobs were plentiful.
Between 1890 and 1914, 1 million immigrants arrived in the state. As a result, Yankees were now
the minority both in the state and in Boston. By the end of 1920, less than ⅓ of the laboring men
were native born children of native-born parents. Immigrants and children of immigrants
accounted for 66.8% of the Bay State’s population.
Boston’s population
In addition to the transformation of the demographic make up of the city, Boston’s population
increased tremendously in the last half of the nineteenth century. Boston’s population grew from
136,000 people in 1850 to more than 500,000 in 1900. By 1900, Boston is considered a
metropolis (i.e. a large city which is a significant political, economic, and cultural role for a
region). At the time, more than a million people live in the 31 towns and cities within a 10 mile
radius of the Boston Common.
Because of the demand for land, Bostonians filled the waters of the harbor and adjacent rivers to
create more land. Around that period, they finished filling the South End, and the Back Bay as
we know them today. The city extended older neighborhoods of South Boston, Charlestown, East
Boston, and the Fenway. (see 1916 map).
By the end of the 19th century, the city completed the annexation of other towns as
neighborhoods
• Roxbury in 1868
• Dorchester in 1870
• West Roxbury in 1874
• Brighton in 1874
From 5 square miles in 1850, the city at the turn of the century expanded to thirty-nine square
miles.
Week 3.1 !2
Typical city
By 1900, Boston was a typical metropolis of the twentieth century. Its commercial central
business district was surrounded by adjoining factory and warehouse areas and an inner city of
small business and low income residences, which in turn abutted more affluent neighborhoods.
All of these areas were ringed by middle and upper-income suburbs.
The vast majority of poor people in the city were newcomers. The 1920 census showed that 73%
of the total population in the city were immigrants or native-born children of immigrants.
At the turn of the century, as I mentioned last week, there was a deep change in the migration.
Whereas most of the immigration in the 19th century was the “old immigration” coming from
Ireland, England, Scotland, Germany, and Canada, immigrants coming at the end of the 19th
century and beginning of the 20th century came from other locations.
The New immigration:
• Southern Europe (Italy, Portugal, Greece)
• Eastern Europe (Russian and Ukrainian Jews as well as Catholic and Jews from
Poland).
In 1920 the city population of Boston was as follows:
• 32% Irish
• 16% Jews
• 14% Italians
• 2% Black
• 36% Yankee and other immigrants
As we discussed last week, it was still difficult for migrants to achieve prosperity, and it usually
took 2 to 3 generations for immigrants to become part of the middle-class.
Theory of the Last Immigrants
Historians and sociologists name this pattern the “Theory of the Last Immigrants.” The theory
goes like this: when the immigrants arrived in a new country, they took a place at the bottom of
the socioeconomic ladder. They usually lived in the inner city and had blue collar jobs. Within 2
or 3 generations, they became more prosperous and moved to better neighborhoods, usually
further from the center of the city. Their children benefited from this prosperity, usually gained
access to college, found white collar or prestigious jobs (doctor, lawyer, etc), and became
middle-class. These children moved again toward better neighborhoods, usually toward the
suburbs. As the first and second generation moved out of their neighborhood, new migrants took
over their apartment, starting a new cycle of their own.
In Boston, this theory works to a certain extent. Despite the fact that Jews were the last
immigrants, a large number of them did remarkably well in the city from their arrival on. This
was often linked to their status in their country of origin, their profession, and the fact that the
Week 3.1 !3
community was self-sustaining once established in the city. Italians and Irish, the two Catholic
groups in the city at that time, lagged behind. When they finally climbed the ladder, they usually
got into what we can consider menial white-collar employment (low ranking office jobs for
example). By 1900, new comers still faced some job shortage and discrimination, they lived in
congested neighborhoods, and experienced poor living conditions.
Immigrants enter the public sphere
In 1902 and again in 1912, poor Jewish immigrants rioted in the streets. Although I mentioned
that Jews did better than other immigrant groups, recent immigrants struggled. They lived in a
densely packed area in the West End (we can call it a ghetto considering how densely packed the
area was and how poor the residents were). In 1902 and in the same way, in 1912, the price of
Kosher meat rose tremendously. Both times, Yiddish speaking mothers took to the streets to
protest the high prices. These protests were on par with the European food riots where the
peasants or village people rose up against the decisions of merchants.
At the time, Solomont and Sons had the monopoly of kosher meat in the city, so they could rise
the prices as much as they wanted. On May 21, 1902, thousands of women gathered in the streets
around the stores. They had no leaders but came together at the same time. At one location, one
man purchased meat. One of the women saw him, snatched his package, and slapped him in the
face with it. She then threw the meant into the street and stomped on it. Crowds of thousands
which included men and boys joined them. They harassed the customers, and refused to let them
leave the stores. The police arrived, tried to calm the situation, but became the target of the
crowds. The confrontation escalated. The officers arrested 13 for loitering, two for breaking
glass, and one for assault. The following day was a Friday, and the beginning of Sabbath. Rioters
dispersed. Some continued informal picketing but there was no further violence.
Unfortunately, the prices did not go down and the issues continued in the community. In 1912,
higher price for kosher beef led to more picketing and boycotts in the West End. Violence broke
out on June 24, when many small riots occurred. Women surrounded butcher shops, broke
windows, and attacked customers. A newspaper reported that “it was not infrequent to see
chickens hurtling through the air or to see women and boys derisively waving a chicken leg or a
piece or torn meat in the faces of persons not in favor of the boycott.” Rioters then invaded shops
that remained opened, pulled meat products off the shelves, and threw them into the street where
others danced upon them. Again the police intervened, tried to scatter the crowds, but they kept
on reforming.
One aspect that is really important from this is that instead of stealing the food, as they could
have done, they destroyed it. Anyone who was carrying a “suspicious package” was targeted by
the rioters. More than a thousand women stormed the Rosenberg Store, beating the owners.
Ultimately, the riot was successful in closing all of the kosher meat stores of the West End. Once
that happened, the rioters moved to attack kosher meat shops in the North End. Police eventually
made 8 arrests and the boycott faded within a few days. However, a number of women kept the
Week 3.1 !4
heat up for the butchers. They organized a committee of women to continue lobbying for lower
prices. Over all, they had very little success. So by 1914, there was a lot of discontent in the city.
Context of the War
In this section, I will give you an overview of the conflict. I will then show you the problems
experienced in the city. The war began in Europe after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, the
heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary.
The war began because of a number of issues:
• secret alliances between countries (this is why so many countries became involved in
the war)
• Rise of militarism
• Rise of Nationalisms
• Imperialism and the desire to keep colonies
Neutrality
United States remained neutral at the beginning of the war. They did so because of the division
among the American people vis à vis the war. Germans opposed fighting against their own
country. The Irish opposed the war since they did not want to side with Great Britain. Ireland was
still fighting for its independence at the time. Socialists and Progressive reformers saw the war as
an imperialist war and one driven by capitalism hence also opposed it. Some Socialists and
reformers were also anti-war or peace activists, hence they opposed the entry into any military
conflict. African Americans were ambivalent. Some opposed the war due to the hypocrisy of
fighting tyranny abroad while Jim Crow was still omnipresent in the country. Others felt that the
war could be a good way to prove their loyalty and their worth as human beings.
Neutrality, in this sense, made sense as it helped preserve a relative harmony in the country. As a
neutral power, the United States could continue commercial alliances with both sides, but slowly
reoriented their commercial ventures toward the Allies (Britain, France, and Russia) since Britain
created a blockade to the Central Powers (German, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire).
Furthermore, German’s unrestricted submarine warfare made it impossible for the United States
to continue their commercial dealings with the Central Powers.
Unrestricted Submarine Warfare
During the war, Germany used the U-Boats to conduct unrestricted warfare. For a city like
Boston which has access to the ocean and which depends on its port for its survival, this is a
difficult moment. Bostonians lived their daily life in the uncertainty of an attack.
Week 3.1 !5
Declaration of War
After the sinking of the Lusitania and the Zimmerman telegram, Wilson did not have a choice
but to declare war against Germany. Following the declaration of war, in April 1917, there were
several clashes in Boston. On July 1st, pacifists and socialists were victims of attacks in the city
as they held a peace parade on the Boston Common. Angry mobs, led by servicemen, assaulted
the paraders. The police who was supposed to support the protesters ended up beating them
instead. The riot, which assembled some 20,000 people, and lasted for more than 4 hours. Rioters
were motivated by patriotism. They ignored the minority’s legal rights to protest and to free
speech under the First Amendment. The activists had invoked their First Amendment right to
protest, had received their parade permit, and had gathered outside of the Common. As soon as
they saw the parade, the servicemen attacked the participants.
Migration to the city + Great migration
Between 1915 and 1930, 1 million African Americans migrated North to find better job
opportunities. The migration started in 1915 for several reasons:
• It was the nadir of race relations in the South (look up the word if you are not sure
what nadir means!)
• There was a decrease of immigration due to the war in Europe. As a result, there
were less immigrants to fill up positions in the industries.
• Industrialization in the North and Midwest, and the shift toward the war industry
required more workers than expected.
In addition to the drop in immigration, the fact that men enrolled in the military after 1917 left
many jobs open. Since all of the white able men were either employed or going to the war, Black
workers were hired as a last resort. (Don’t forget that the North is still racist and that employers
only hired Black workers when they did not have another choice).
The migration led to difficulties in race relations. Violence against African Americans increased
across the North and the Midwest. Lynching and attempted lynchings, which had been common
in the South, became more common in the North.
Birth of a Nation Movie
The rise of anti-Black sentiment increased with the release of the movie The Birth of a Nation in
1915. In order to really understand why, you have to remember that the 1910s were really the
beginning of the cinema industry and that people were obsessed with the new productions. At the
time, David W. Griffith’s movie was a masterpiece in terms of the story (longest ever produced
the film was 3 hours long, presented in 2 parts with an intermission. It required 12 reels for its
presentation.), its special effects (engineers from West Point provided technical advice on the
battles and provided Griffith with the weapons to use during the movie.), and the music during
the film was as revolutionary (it was works of classical composers, new arrangements of well-
known melodies, and original compositions). (The films technical merits do not compensate for
the problems of the story!)
Week 3.1 !6
The movie was based on the novel The Clansman by Thomas Dixon, and chronicles the history
of two families (the pro-union Northerners Stonemans, and the pro-Confederacy Southerners
Camerons) during the Civil War and the Reconstruction.
Because of its endorsement from President Wilson (a historian), the movie presented the story as
if it were historical reality. It even showed a small clip with a quote by Wilson saying that it was
the true history of the period. It is important to remember that Wilson was from Virginia. His
family identified with the South and supported the Confederacy during the war.
Controversy around the movie
As soon as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) heard
that the movie was coming out, they began protesting. They asked for the censorship of the
production nationwide. The protest in Boston was particularly vicious.
The elite, via the NAACP and William Monroe Trotter’s National Equal Rights League,
launched a campaign to ban Griffith’s production. At first, the Board of Aldermen did not
support their plea. They turned toward the Irish Mayor, James Michael Curley, to declare a city-
wide ban to avoid a worsening of the already difficult race relations in Boston
James Michael Curley (1874-1958)
Curley was born in Roxbury. His father was from Ireland. He met Curley’s mother in Boston
(she was from the same area in Ireland). Curley’s father worked as a day laborer and foot soldier
for ward boss P. James “Pea Jacket” Maguire. (A ward boss is the leader of a local political
machine). Curley’s father died when James was 10. James and his brother John started working
to supplement the meager family income. Curley left school as soon as he was able to at age 15,
and worked in factories (if you remember I told you about his experience as a piano factory
worker).
He tried to take the civil service exam to become a firefighter but he was too young to take the
job. During his youth, his mother tried to pull him away from his father’s unsavory associates.
As an adult, Curley became more involved in the Catholic Church and in the Ancient Order of
Hibernians. He acquired a reputation as a hustler who was willing to help others get ahead. His
entrance into politics included the traditional practice of ward politics such as knocking on doors,
drumming up votes, and taking complaints for the Democratic party. He first ran for the city
common council in 1897 and 1898, failing to make the cutoff for a Democratic nomination in
ward caucuses each year. He claimed that, because he was working outside of political machines,
he was denied victory by corrupt counting of the votes. He proved his point by winning in 1899
after joining the machine of Charles I. Quirk. He won to the state legislature in 1901. He
established the Tammanny Club ( as a wink to the Tammany hall in New York) as a platform for
his personal political activities.
In his first two years on the common council, Curley placed roughly 700 people into what were
essentially patronage positions, despite the law preventing patronage at the city level. He was
Week 3.1 !7
elected as part of the Board of Aldermen in 1904, while in prison on a fraud conviction. He and a
friend had taken the civil service exam for two people of their neighborhood but got caught. That
helped his reputation as someone who takes all measures to help friends. In 1910, while an
alderman, he ran for U.S. Congress, but what he really wanted was to become mayor. He was
elected mayor in 1914-1918. It will be the first of 4, 4 year terms (1914-1918, 1922-1926,
1930-1934, 1946-1950).
Back to the Birth of a Nation
In February 1915, the NAACP leadership (at the national level) requested a private viewing in
front of the National Board of Censorship to make a case against the movie. In doing so, they
hoped to voice their opinion and to secure a ban at the national level. Following the viewing,
only a few members were invited to the General Committee meeting. The NAACP had hoped
that the Central Committee would support its efforts and requests. However, the Board of
Censorship offered a disappointing compromise. It only requested that Griffith cut some scenes,
deemed obscene, from the final production.
In March 1915, upon learning that the movie was scheduled to show at the Tremont Theater,
Boston’s activists doubled their efforts to ensure that Griffith’s film would not be allowed in the
city. The movie was scheduled to première on the fiftieth anniversary of the surrender in
Appomattox, on April 9, 1915. The local chapter of the NAACP and Trotter’s National Equal
Rights League, lobbied and planned legal actions to force the mayor to censor the movie. On
April 7th, several hundreds members of the Black community attended a public hearing at the
mayor’s office. On the 9th, the mayor James Michael Curley allowed the movie to screen, upon
Griffith’s promise to cut any scenes “which the Mayor deemed objectionable.” After
deliberations with the City Censor and the Police Commissioner, Curley concluded that the film
was neither “obscene or immoral” and that it did not “injure the morals of the community.” The
first public showing in Boston was presented in front of a full house, with Griffith in attendance.
Contrary to the hostile reaction that he expected, the producer received a warm ovation. “As a
work of art,” a reporter from the Globe argued, “it is so wonderful and so beautiful, and so full of
life that it robs one of the power of criticism.”
That was exactly why Boston civil rights organizations wanted to have the movie banned. The
theater had hired actors to create an immersive experience. From the attendant retrieving the
tickets to the people handing the programs, from the ushers to the Union and Confederate
soldiers entertaining the patrons, all of the theater’s employees were dressed in 1860s fashion,
and behaved following the norms of the time. The Black leadership did not fear that the movie
was a historical fallacy or that it was an unfair rendition. Instead it resided in the fact that the
movie could “incite race hatred,” if not censored. First African American appointed as United
States Assistant Attorney General, William H. Lewis, a long time Boston resident, felt that the
movie was Hollywood’s way of “justify[ing] the Southern program for future lynching,” and of
gaining “the approval of the white people of the North. He warned Bostonians that, if they “let
them go on” by presenting the movie without any censorship, the community should “not be
Week 3.1 !8
surprised to see lynching of colored men on Boston Common,” a prophecy which almost
materialized in 1920.
On Saturday, April 17th, at 6 pm, a receptionist at the Boston Globe received a strange call. A
Black woman called the office to request that a reporter be sent to the Tremont Theater. The
woman allegedly told the receptionist that, “there might be something interesting happen[sic]” at
the theater. Given the volatile atmosphere and the lengthy protests that the city had seen in the
previous days, the theater had taken the precaution to request the help of police officers to
maintain order. Two hundred and sixty officers were dispatched, 200 stayed on the street, while
60 officers, in plain clothes, entered the premises. Commissioner Stephen O’Meara had requested
an additional hundred officers to work at the Lagrane Street station, where protesters would be
sent, following their arrest, to support their colleagues.
At 7 o’clock, a group of African American and white protesters gathered on Tremont street.
According to the Globe, the management had heard that, the previous night, the group had
planned to fill the theater with their supporters, then to “seize and destroy the films, which [were]
kept in the operating box at the back of the orchestra.” As soon as the employees heard of the
crowd’s arrival, they closed the box office. Only those who had pre-ordered or had already
bought their tickets were admitted to the showing. The theater asked the protesters to leave but
they refused. William Monroe Trotter recalled seeing a man purchasing three tickets, waving
them in the air, and addressing the crowd, confirming that the protesters were facing
discrimination. “I’ve got three” said the man, “and if you want me to get more, I’ll do it.”
As soon as Trotter accused the management of racial discrimination, the situation became
explosive. Trotter was struck to the jaw by a police officers in plain clothes. Accusations started
flowing. The crowd felt very “uneasy.” The officers attempted to disperse the protesters in vain.
“From 7:30, when the trouble began, until after 11:30,” reports the Globe, “they stood about
there by the thousands, defying the efforts of the officers to make them ‘move on.’” Police
officers arrested a total of eleven people. Among the detainees were two women and nine men,
including Reverend Aaron W. Puller, of the People’s Baptist Church, and William Monroe
Trotter. The next day, 1000 men and women crowded in Faneuil Hall, and 500 more gathered
outside.
From that point on, there was not much progress. Following the meeting, leaders decided that
anyone who could should show up at the Governor’s office the next day to present a petition.
Several hundred did. (It was both a Black and white crowd). Despite the fact that the governor
promised action, only a few scenes were cut. In the following day, 800 women protested the
movie, nothing happened.
It was basically a “hot potato” game where every single official who could possibly do
something tossed the ball to someone else. Butler Wilson who was a NAACP activist, sadly
concluded that, “when we go to the Mayor of Boston, we are chloroformed by promises.” He
then added that when they appealed to the Police Commissioner, they were also told that “he
Week 3.1 !9
[too] was lacking in authority.” Despite all of their efforts, the film was never censored. What is
most important though, is that, as predicted, the movie led to the rise in violence against African
Americans and to the rise of the second Ku Klux Klan.
Rise of the Second KKK
Not long after the release of the production, a second KKK rose in strength. As we discussed the
first Ku Klux Klan emerged after the Civil War, during the Reconstruction. It was a Southern
entity attempting to restore white supremacy after the emancipation. The second KKK was a
national phenomenon, and was especially popular in the North and in the Midwest. It had its
largest number of followers in Indiana, due to the Great Migration in industrial areas.
In Massachusetts, the Athol Klan chapter was the largest. Smith College had its own lady
auxiliary chapter.
The Klan is also in Boston. The second Klan expand the reach of its hatred. Instead of being only
anti-Black, it was an all-around nativist organization. It was anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant,
and supported prohibition. As you can see, it made sense for the city to have its own chapter.
However, here is the interesting thing about the movement in Boston. The Boston chapter of the
Klan did not attract the populace like in other locations (remember that most of the working-
class is immigrant and Catholic in the city). Instead, the Boston Klan was one of the few
“hidden” chapters because most of its members were part of the intelligentsia of the city. In this
case, we are talking about the upper-middle class Yankee for the most part.
Because people know that it was a despicable organization, they did not want to be associated
with the movement. However, they still wanted to find a safe space to talk about their hatred of
the immigrant.
Nativism rise after 1915
As you can imagine, the movement was a factor in the rise of a nativist feeling once again after
1915. We will discuss this in a few minutes.
Boston in the War
Let’s go back to the war. As soon as it declared the war, the federal government instituted a draft.
The Selective Service Act of 1917 drafted men in three waves
• The first, on June 5, 1917, was for all men between the ages of 21 and 31.
• The second, on June 5, 1918, registered those who attained age 21 after June 5, 1917.
A supplemental registration, included in the second registration, was held on August
24, 1918, for those becoming 21 years old after June 5, 1918.
• The third registration was held on September 12, 1918, for men age 18 through 45.
Week 3.1 !10
It classified men into 5 different classes which determined if they were apt and available for
service or not.
• Eligible and liable for military service: Unmarried registrants with no dependents,
married registrants with independent spouse and/or one or more dependent children
over 16 with sufficient family income if drafted.
• Temporarily deferred, but available for military service: Married registrants with
dependent spouse and/or dependent children under 16 with sufficient family income
if drafted.
• Temporarily exempted, but available for military service: Local officials, registrants
who provide sole family income for dependent parents and / or dependent siblings
under 16, registrants employed in agricultural labor or industrial enterprises essential
to the war effort.
• Exempted due to extreme hardship: Married registrants with dependent spouse and /
or dependent children with insufficient family income if drafted, registrants with
deceased spouse who provide sole family income for dependent children under 16,
registrants with deceased parents who provide sole family income for dependent
siblings under 16.
• Exempted or ineligible for induction into military service: State or Federal officials,
officers and enlisted men in the military or naval service of the United States
(technically, they are already in the military), Licensed pilots employed in the pursuit
of their vocation, Members of the clergy, Students who on or before May 18, 1917
had been preparing for the ministry in a recognized theological or divinity school,
Registrants who were deemed either medically disabled (permanently physically
and / or mentally unfit) or “morally unfit” for military service, registrants shown to
have been convicted of any crime designated as treason or felony, or an “infamous”
crime, enemy aliens and resident aliens.
There was a lot of talk as to why a number of men did not receive exemptions. The draft was also
racialized. They clipped the corners of the draft cards when Black men enlisted, and many Black
men did not receive exemptions despite the fact that a large number were eligible.
Recruitment
As with the Civil War, Massachusetts participated actively in the war. In particular, the state sent
the 26th Infantry Division also nicknamed the Yankee Division to the war. The division activated
in Boston on August 22, 1917, and commanded two brigades comprising National Guard units
from Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine. The
division spent 201 days in combat as part of the American Expeditionary Forces. They were
particularly involved in combat in France where they landed on September 21, 1917. It was the
second division to arrive on the Western Front, with the first division only arriving in June. As
soon as they arrived in France, they were sent to Neufchâteau where they trained. (Most of the
men recruited for the division were new to the service). Once their training completed, the
division participated in several assaults (remember that the First World War is a trench war so
there is little action going on at the time).
Week 3.1 !11
Black men recruited
One of the difficulties of the First World War is the fact that the military is still segregated. At the
time, Black men were recruited in large numbers but could not join the ranks of regular divisions
(just like in the Civil War). As a result, Black men were trained at Camp Devens in
Massachusetts. They brought in soldiers from the South to train in Massachusetts. (1918 was a
particularly bad winter and several newspaper articles in the Boston Globe about how much of a
struggle the soldiers from Atlanta went through at the time of a large blizzard that paralyzed the
state. They could not deal with the cold)
Most of Massachusetts Black soldiers were part of the 372nd Infantry Regiment, which was
under the 93rd division (segregated). Most stayed stateside, offering administrative services to
the forces possibly due to their literacy levels. If the soldiers were deployed, they were deployed
with the colonial forces, under the pretext that only colonial officers could maintain control over
Black soldiers (same racism that we saw in the Civil War). They had to fight like Robert Gould
Shaw had to fight to legitimize their regiment.
The history of the Regiment is fascinating. Those who served abroad fought against the
Moroccan Division, had a small number of casualties at first, but suffered more later. They also
fought in France
Question of Morality during the war
There was a true concern about the morality of the soldiers, stateside and abroad during the war.
The Department of War and the Department of the Navy (The Department of Defense is only
created in 1947) rallied organizations such as the YWCA, YMCA, the Knights of Columbus, the
Salvation Army, or even the Red Cross to provide wholesome entertainment to the soldiers. The
idea was to pull men away from the temptation to find prostitutes by providing them with
activities (remember that most men in the military are young men). Morality work during the war
is segregated. In Boston, different organizations in the Black community worked for morality
along socio-economic lines. The elite had an organization for their soldiers, while the working-
class offered the same services to their soldiers. They both provided the exact same services
provided by the white organizations in the city.
Food shortages and riots in Boston
Stateside, 1917 and 1918 were particularly difficult. Winters were particularly bad, cutting the
city off from other areas in the nation. Since Boston depended on food sources located outside of
the city, the threat of imminent food shortages worried to Roxbury’s and South End’s families. In
1917, a typical family living in Boston spent approximately 45% of its annual income on food,
nearly 7% above than the national average. In early 1917, the prices kept rising. Staples such as
onions, carrots, potatoes, or beans, let alone meat, already strained working-class families’
budget. Families not only grew hungry but also impatient. In 1917, food riots erupted in New
York City, Philadelphia, and Chicago. Protests also became a common occurrence in Boston as
mothers from all backgrounds came together to voice their concerns about food shortages.
Week 3.1 !12
Unsurprisingly, newly-established Eastern European Jews and working-class African Americans,
whose incomes were lower, took the lead in protesting against food shortages and price
increases. In 1917, as a response to the situation, the Boston NAACP, through the Industrial
Opportunity Committee, created a food cooperative in an attempt to alleviate the problem. They
used the purchasing power of small merchants, bought in bulk, and allowed the community to
get a share of the discount. Not long after the creation of the food coop, they began using the
cooperative model for all types of institutions (credit unions, child care services, insurance
companies, etc).
Spanish Flu
The 1918 flu pandemic complicated the already difficult climate. The flu infected over 500
million people worldwide, even in remote places such as the arctic or in some really remote
Pacific Islands. It was one of the deadliest natural disasters in human history, killing 3 to 5% of
the total earth population (50-100 million dying of the disease). (If you have ever caught the flu,
not just a cold, the real flu, you know the “I am dying” feeling that comes with the disease!)
Although we cannot pinpoint the origin of the epidemic (i.e. patient 0), the first reports came
from Germany, Britain, France, Spain, and the United States. It is highly possible that the spread
came from the demobilization of the soldiers.
In the United States, the first confirmed outbreak was reported on March 11, 1918 as taking
place at Camp Funston in Kansas, where troops were training for the war. Dr. C. Hannoun,
leading expert of the 1918 flu for the Institut Pasteur, asserted the former virus was likely to have
come from China, mutating in the United States near Boston and spreading to Brest, France,
Europe’s battlefields, Europe, and the world using Allied soldiers and sailors as main spreaders.
In August 1918, a more virulent strain appeared simultaneously in Brest, France; in Freetown,
Sierra Leone; and in the U.S. in Boston, Massachusetts.The Spanish Flu also spread through
Ireland, carried there by returning Irish soldiers.
The reason why we call it the Spanish flu possibly comes from he fact that it received great
attention in Spain in 1918. Spain was not involved in the war, so it had no censorship on its press
at the time. It would have been admitting to a weakness to speak about the epidemic in the
newspapers.
Starting in October and November 1918, we can see a lot of articles in the Boston Globe on how
difficult it was to find qualified nurses to take care of the patients in Lynn, MA for example.
Two hospitals in Boston faced an overflow of patients.
On October 1st, an article states that the “grippe” (French word for flu) had killed 171 people
between Sunday at 10 pm and Monday at 10 pm (24 hours). The State emergency Public Health
Committee asked that all churches be closed in Boston the following Sunday in order to stop
spreading the disease around. They also proposed that all saloons, theaters, and other locations
where large number of people congregated be closed in the same way. The governor appropriated
nearly ½ million of dollars to fight the epidemic. Within 24 hours, 5000 new cases were
Week 3.1 !13
diagnosed. The committee called in more doctors and nurses from all over the state to come take
care of the patients in the city
City official soon realized that they had no idea how they should handle burials in the city due to
the number of people dying all at once, especially if the churches were closed. On the same day,
the Globe published an article stating that the flu hit Harvard. (For those of you who have lived
in the dorms at some point in your life, and considering how quickly germs spread in such
environment, you can imagine the reaction of university officials when it hit the institution). The
same reaction of panic hit when the state prison in Charlestown reported that they had 156
confirmed cases. The disease spread really quickly at the merchant marine base in Boston, and at
Camp Devens.
Scientists at Tufts Medical College produced a vaccine, and injected the “people in charge” (for
example the mayor) to try to prevent the spread and avoid chaos if the leadership fell. With that
in mind, think about how difficult the return to normalcy was with all of this going on.
Return to Normalcy difficult
As soldiers returned home, things had changed. Some of the soldiers returned home shell-
shocked or injured. Some lost a family member to the flu. Some could find jobs or did not know
how to go about finding a job (remember that a number of soldiers were young when they left for
the war).
The return to normalcy was really difficult in the city. The demobilization took time. The
armistice was signed on November 11, 1918 but the first soldiers coming back only reached
Boston in January 1919. They had to go through a number of steps before being discharged from
the military:
• They had to return from Europe by ship.
• They were then sent to camps to be examined to make sure that they could return to
their civilian lives.
• They had to fill out all of the necessary paperwork for discharge (pay, statements,
travel money, benefits, etc) which had to be processed.
Boston was one of the ports that welcomed the soldiers back from Europe. Every week, two
transport ships brought soldiers back to the port. If they arrived after 2 pm, they would have to
wait until the next day to get off the ship. The ships still had to go through quarantine, and then
soldiers were taken from Boston to Camp Devens for discharge. (The 2pm rule was made so that
the soldiers would not miss dinner once at Camp Devens).
Once they were discharged, the soldiers could reintegrate into the job market. During the war, the
government controlled the economy through price fixing and defense contracts. As the economy
returned to an economy of peace, unemployment increased, prices went up, and inflation reduced
the population’s purchasing power across the nation.
Week 3.1 !14
Red Scare in Boston
With this difficult situation, a fear of communism spread across the nation. To give you more
context, the Red Scare began after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 in Russia. A first revolution
took place in February 1917 (March in the Gregorian Calendar, Russia still used the Julian
calendar). At the time, the Duma took control of the country and the Tsar abdicated. In October, a
second revolution (this time armed) led to the overthrow system and to the establishment of a
soviet democracy.
Simultaneously, there was a wave of anarchism and socialism in the United States (unrelated to
the revolution). Between 1916 and 1917, a number of violent labor strikes took place in the
country, and a number of unions were seen as wanting to overthrow capitalism. If you combine
these elements (Russian Revolution + socialism and anarchism in the US) to the arrival of
millions of immigrants coming from Russia, you find yourself with an explosive mix.
In January 1919, more than 35,000 shipyard workers in Seattle went on strike seeking wage
increases. In February, hundreds of other union workers followed their call, and over 60,000
workers paralyzed the city. In February 1919, following the strike, U.S. Senate Committee on the
Judiciary formed the Overman Committee which was tasked to investigate subversion and
uncover communist elements infiltrating the United States. The committee painted a bleak
picture of the situation, and argued that the Bolsheviks were indeed an eminent threat to the U.S.
Government and American values. (They basically promoted nativism).
The April and May 1919 bombings pushed this discomfort to the level of fear. In April 1919,
authorities discovered that 36 bombs had been mailed by anarchists to prominent capitalists,
politicians, and judges. They targeted, among others, J. D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Attorney
General A. Mitchell Palmer, and other political figures of the time. Bostonian Oliver Wendell
Holmes, who was a Supreme Court Justice, was targeted but the bomb never made it to his
home. It was intercepted before it reached its destination due to the insufficient postage affixed
to the package. They had also targeted William Wood who was a Lawrence Textile mill owner.
If violence did not affect the city directly, people were terrified when they saw pictures in the
newspapers of the destruction that some of these devices caused. In September 1919, the
violence finally struck at home.
Police strike
In 1919, the Boston Police strike was the straw that broke the camel’s back. The police strike had
been long in the making. For many years, Boston police officers had requested to join unions.
Their work conditions were intolerable; they worked long hours (sometimes up to 80 hours a
week), paid for their own uniforms, and their stations were in bad conditions (sometimes even
infested with vermin and pests).The Police Commissioner, Edwin Upton Curtis, was part of the
issue.
Week 3.1 !15
Edwin Upton Curtis
He was born in 1861 and passed away in 1922. He attended the Roxbury Latin School, then
Bowdoin College. He was a Yankee (7th generation Bostonian), but as you can see from his not
attending Boston Latin and Harvard, he was not a Brahmin. He apprenticed with former
Massachusetts Governor William Gaston with whom he studied law. Curtis served as Boston
City Clerk in 1889 and1890. He was elected mayor in 1895 to be defeated the same year (mayor
terms lasted 1 year). He was appointed police commissioner in 1918 by the Governor.
Back to the Police strike
Curtis used the same strategies that the city itself used during the fight against the Birth of a
Nation. He claimed that the officers’ grievances should be voiced to the mayor and the city
council instead of him, while the mayor and the city council told the officers that Curtis should
be the one receiving their grievances.
The two past administrations, Fitzgerald and Curley’s administrations, had kept the police budget
down to minimal levels. They had refused to raise the police officer salaries or to provide money
for the improvement of the stations. With the inflation of 1919, the officers’ conditions
deteriorated even further, and they sought help from the American Federation of Labor (AFofL).
When the police officers voted to affiliate with the AFofL Curtis issued Order #10, rule 19 which
stated that “no member of the Force shall join or belong to any organization, club, or body…
which is affiliated with or a part of any organization, club, or body outside of the department.”
Curtis argued that Police officers were not considered employees but state officers, and that they
could not perform their sworn duties if they were in a union. Curtis then tried 19 men, who
signed to affiliate with the union, for violating the order, suspended them, but did not discharge
them. This meant that the men were still officers and had to remain available to be called upon.
Seeing that the situation was at a stand still, Mayor Andrew Peters (the last Republican mayor of
Boston) appointed a committee to try to find a compromise. He asked Curtis to delay the
suspension of the 19 officers. The committee came up with a solution which said that police
officers could form a union, but that the union could not be affiliated or connected to any labor
organization. It also proposed that the city appoint a permanent committee to mediate police
disputes. The mayor endorsed the report, and sent it to Curtis. Curtis rejected the proposal as
infringing on his legal authority as Police Commissioner. Newspapers attacked Curtis, arguing
that he was acting in bad faith.
To reaffirm his authority, he suspended the officers on September 8th, 1919. On the 9th, in the
late afternoon, Boston police officers voted 1134 to 2 to go on strike. Upon hearing of the result,
Curtis defiantly said: “I am prepared for all eventualities. I am ready for anything. (Spoilers alert,
he was not!). The mayor panicked. He asked Curtis to call the national guard. Curtis placated
him, saying that only a few officers would strike. Peters and Curtis met with Governor Coolidge
who also acted to reassure them. At 5:45 that day 1117 out of the 1544 police officers left their
jobs.
Week 3.1 !16
There was some violence as the officers left their station. Some people in the crowd waited for
officers to get out of their station to beat them up, saying that they were no longer officers. (Most
of those people were criminals who held a grudge against the officers). More violence occurred
in immigrant working-class neighborhoods (South Boston, Charlestown, North End, West End).
Officers received cheers and support in other neighborhoods. Some Bostonians took advantage
of the situation to cause chaos in the city by looting, breaking windows, and committing petty
crimes. The violence lasted until 1:30 am that night
“Scabs” (strikebreakers), mostly students from Harvard University who had been sworn in, were
due to report to replace the officers the next morning.
Calling in the guard
Due to the violence and the lack of knowledge as to when the strike would end, Curtis
capitulated quickly, and begged the the mayor to call the National Guard the next morning
(September 10). Peters suspended Curtis as Commissioner, and took on the responsibility
Crowds gathered around Scollay Square throughout the day, and by 6 pm, about 15000 people
had assembled. At 6, the National Guard cavalry arrived, rode into the crowd with drawn sabers,
and attempted to rescue volunteers (scabs) who were trying to direct traffic. The crowds keep
reforming, and people threw stones at the troops. By the late evening, the infantry had also
arrived, and other guard units had poured into the city. Working with the cavalry, the infantry
pushed rioters out of the square, and set up roadblocks to prevent their re-forming. By the early
morning, barricades prevented traffic through Scollay Square.
By 8 pm, the heavy rain sent everyone home. Three hours later, the rioters had come back, and
attacked an officer. Shots were fired, three killed, nine wounded. By Thursday (September 11),
the guard had taken control of the city. At the peaceful juncture, where there were no open riots
anymore, Coolidge finally intervened. He had remained silent all along. He called in the rest of
the guard in case more unions decided to go on strike, and restored the Commissioner’s powers.
Aftermath of the Police Strike
The Police Strike was condemned by most newspapers. Due to the chaos that ensued, the
newspapers compared the strike to the Bolshevik Revolution, leading to an increase of the Red
Scare. Since Curtis considered that the police officers had deserted, he recruited almost an entire
new force. These new officers got raises, a pension, and improved work conditions (all that the
original police officers had asked for). The Guard, who acted as a temporary police force for the
city, was discharged after 102 days of work.
Week 3.1 !17
Prohibition
While this was happening, more took place at a political level. In 1918, the federal government
passes a rather controversial amendment to the Constitution. Due to the demands of the war in
terms of grains, the government tried to find ways to restrict its use state side. They encouraged
people to lower their consumption through propaganda, but had very little success.
In order to reduce the use of grains, the government passes the Volstead Act. The long title: An
Act to prohibit intoxicating beverages, and to regulate the manufacture, production, use, and sale
of high-proof spirits for other than beverage purposes, and to ensure an ample supply of alcohol
and promote its use in scientific research and in the development of fuel, dye, and other lawful
industries.
Goal of the Act
The goal of the act was to reduce the amount grains used in the production of alcohol by
prohibiting the manufacturing, sale, or transport of intoxicating liquor (but not its consumption),
and to ensure an ample supply of alcohol, and promote its use in scientific research, for example
in the the development of fuel, dye and other lawful industries and practices, such as religious
rituals.
Since medical and religious purposes were considered legal, patients went to their doctor with all
sorts of “diseases.” Their doctors promptly obliged by prescribing alcohol to their patients.
The act, which was effective from October 28, 1919 to January 16, 1920, limited the alcoholic
content to 0.5%. (Today’s regular beers contain between 5 and 9%, wine contains between 9 and
16%, and hard liquor contain about 40%).
The federal government called the Volstead Act the wartime prohibition, hence needed to do
something to maintain the prohibition after the war since it had garnered the support of most
reformers in favor of temperance.
The 18th Amendment
With the Volstead Act in place, the 18th Amendment made prohibition a part of the United States
Constitution. Again, the Amendment prohibited the manufacturing, sale, and transport of the
liquor but not its consumption.
Text of the Amendment: After one year from the ratification of this article the
manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation
thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject
to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
The Amendment was enacted on January 16, 1920 and was repealed during the Great
Depression.
Week 3.1 !18
Boston
As you can imagine, the reaction in the city was fairly divided
• on one side, white Anglo-Saxon Reformers, especially those who had advocated
temperance, support the prohibition (They were the Dries)
• Irish Catholics, and the clergy, are less enthusiastic about it. (They were the Wet)
Alcohol was part of the traditions and religious life of the Irish community.
Effects of the law in the city
It was also a large part of the economic life of the community who worked in the city port. For
example, when 14 casks and 165 cases of wine arrived from Lisbon, Portugal in January 1920
after a transatlantic trip, no one knew what to do. Seal them and them send back? If they did so,
who would pay for the shipping?
The law led to an increase in demand for law enforcement. Boston had a Police Commissioner,
but with the prohibition, the city adds a prohibition commissioner who supervises the prohibition
enforcement with his own force. As a result a number of police officers are specifically hired to
do prohibition work (a little bit like the ATF today).
Some of the “liquor men,” distillers and manufacturers, sought jobs as prohibition enforcement
officers since they wanted to make sure that the prohibition would be applied impartially, and not
favor certain groups against their own interests. Unfortunately, their applications was turned
down since the department considered them “disreputable.”
The prohibition led to an increase in moonshine production, especially of whiskey.
The prohibition came with a health cost as well. One thing that we rarely consider is that
following the prohibition, there was a surge of visits to the doctor. I know that I mentioned that
doctors could prescribe alcohol, but it was only in a small quantity per patient over a certain
period of time. The surge came from alcoholic patients who experienced legitimate withdrawal
symptoms. Furthermore, moonshine, because of its contraband nature, sometimes caused severe
health issues, even leading to the death of some drinkers. Side notes: In some cities in Canada
(Canada had prohibition at roughly the same time) for example, officials lifted the ban because
doctors offices were too crowded and the system hand it.
Another cost came from shipping on tight schedules. A large number of vessels attempted to
make last minute trips to stockpile gin from Cuba and beer from Europe before the amendment
became law. Some had only a few days to make the trip. They faced bad storms where ships had
to turn back for repairs, delaying their trips. Some even attempted to send their liquor and wine
abroad to make sales from their supply before the amendment restricted the transport of alcohol
out of the United States. There was an article published in the London Times at the time that
said: “London doesn’t want whiskey which Americans are sadly shipping abroad!” (A lot of that
whiskey came from Boston). The logic of people living in London, was that the liquor that
Week 3.1 !19
Americans sent to the UK was the same liquor that brought prohibition in the United States in
the first place. For that reason, they feared that the liquor would bring prohibition to the UK.
They also feared that people would mix Scotch or Irish liquors with American liquors (a cheaper
product of lesser quality), hence tricking patrons into drinking something that they did not order.
An additional cost came from the restrictions on shipping. Boston lost a large portion of the
economy that stemmed from foreign sailors spending money in local shops, hotels, and bars.
Following prohibition, foreign sailors were allowed to drink only on their ship in the port, and
could not get off their ships while drunk. For that reason, most stayed on their ship, foregoing
their visit to the city and their money spending.
According to the Boston Globe, the only advantage that Bostonians saw from the prohibition was
an improvement in the entertainment offered in the city. Apparently, plays and music had to be
better since everyone went to the theater sober.
Prohibition Eve Parties
In Boston, several hotels organized large parties for Friday evening January 16, the day before
Prohibition became law. They called it “Prohibition Eve.” The Globe described it as “the last
opportunity for a public farewell to John Barleycorn.”
The name John Barleycorn came from a British folksong and was the personification of the
alcohol that barley and corn made.
Hotels organized what they described as “special suppers, with favors, confetti, noise-makers,
and other paraphernalia proverbially associated with New Year’s eve.” They planned to give
away their leftover liquor since there was no law against giving it away for free. The Globe
mentioned that “the custom would probably be followed by those hostelries which find
themselves heavily stocked with wines and liquors which they are unable to sell.” “Incidentally,
higher prices even than on New Years’s eve are likely to be asked on “Prohibition Eve,” the
suppers in some hotels running as high as $10 a cover.” ($120-125 in today’s dollars)
Some even organized wakes to celebrate the life and demise of John Barleycorn (You have to
admit that Bostonians had a sense of humor and were quite dramatic about the whole thing!)
Referendum
Due to the opposition to prohibition, several lawyers in Boston and in New England attempt to
prove that prohibition is unconstitutional. As you can imagine, they do not succeed. Prior to the
18th Amendment becoming law, beer makers lobbied to keep 2.75% beer legal, saying that
2.75% is definitely not intoxicating, as proven by experience. The Supreme Court rejected their
argument, saying that Congress had the right to fix the % of alcohol allowed in beverages.
Already in January 1920, a number of leagues in Massachusetts pressed for a referendum to
increase the percentage of alcohol from 0.5% to 4%. They wanted to do so before Massachusetts
Week 3.1 !20
ratified its own prohibition Amendment. At the time, a number of town elections were taking
place, and the wets gained ground in the State.
Article about testing the alcohol
The article that you see in the slide was published in the Boston Globe on March 13, 1920. At the
time, Massachusetts intended to do a referendum on allowing production of alcohol with more
than the % allowed by the prohibition law. Look at the article. Why do you think that the article
proposes to test alcohol on Marines?
The referendum finally took the form as a ballot measure during the November 2nd 1920
election (the first election during which women voted). The question asked people in
Massachusetts if they believed that cider, beer, wine and other similar drinks with low alcohol
content, should be defined as non-intoxicating liquors. The result were quite close. 442,215
voters (50.53%) voted in favor of the motion of not defining low alcohol beverages as
intoxicating liquors, while 432,951 people voted against the proposal (49.47%).
In 1922, Baby Volstead Act
As you can imagine, the dries were definitely unhappy with the result, and they continued to
lobby the state legislature to prohibit the sale of alcohol. In 1922, the state attempted a last
measure which would bring prohibition enforcement at the state level. The ballot question was
rejected by voters, and the law project was abandoned.
Gangsterism
Like in other cities, prohibition brought gangsterism to Boston. If Chicago had a mystical figure
such as Al Capone, Boston’s criminals remain relatively unknown.
Charles Solomon
Solomon was part of the Jewish Russian Mob, which many nicknamed the Kosher Nostra (the
Italian mafia was referred to as Cosa Nostra).
Solomon was born in 1884 in Russia and immigrated to city as a young boy. His family settled in
the West End where his father was a local theater owner. Solomon worked as a teen as a
counterman in his uncle’s restaurant. In the 1920s, he got involved in prostitution as a “pimp,”
fencing, and bail bonding. By the end of the 1920s, he controlled the majority of gambling and
narcotics trafficking in the city. He especially focused on cocaine and morphine which had
become restricted under the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914. During the prohibition, he
expanded his markets to bootlegging to bring booze to speakeasies in the city. In 1922, he was
tried on narcotic charges, but was acquitted of these charges. He was however, found guilty of
intimidating a witness into perjury and was sentenced to a five year prison sentence. He became
one of the leaders of the Big seven Group, which was a crime syndicate including the top leaders
of the mafia around the country, once the violence between the different factions died in 1927.
(the original members included Enoch “Nucky” Johnson, Abner “Longy” Zwillman of New
Jersey, Moe Dalitz of Cleveland, Waxey Gordon and Harry “Nig” Rosen of Philadelphia and
Week 3.1 !21
Danny Walsh of Providence. It also included Arnold Rothstein, Johnny Torrio, Lucky Luciano,
and Meyer Lansky as supporters of the syndicate). Al Capone, Solomon, and Dutch Schultz of
Manhattan requested membership at the same time.
Solomon and three others were indicted in Brooklyn in early January 1933 on charges of
operating a liquor smuggling ring. He was killed by a gunman in a Boston night club on January
24, 1933. Two months after Solomon was killed, his partner Alexander Lillien, was murdered at
his house in New Jersey.
Gustin Gang
Formed by Brothers Frank and Steve Wallace in the mid 1910s. They had started small, mostly
looting and hijacking trucks at intersections, but quickly controlled most of Southie. They
increased their activities, including armed robberies in the early 1920s. During the prohibition,
they used prohibition enforcement badges to “confiscate” alcohol shipments from rival gangs,
and then sold them themselves. In 1931, after hijacking an number of Italian American gangster
trucks, they agreed to a sit down with the Italian mafia and were killed in an ambush.
From that point on, the Italian mafia pretty much controlled all criminal activities in the city. In
1916, Gaspare Messina formed the Boston Crime Family. Born in Sicily, 1879-1957, moved to
Brooklyn in 1905, then to Boston in 1915. He was a “rapprestentante,” a member of the Sicilian
Underground. During the Prohibition, he partnered with a number of Italian immigrants in the
North End and began opening legitimate stores as a front to launder money. He opened the G.
Messina & Co. wholesale grocery business of Prince Street, then became the president of the
Neptune Oil Corporation. He also served as a boss of bosses over the American Mafia in the
1930-1931 Castellammarese War. The New England mafia will become more prominent in the
1950s, and the Irish mafia in the 1960s.
Nativism
All of these phenomenon (the Red Scare, the Police Strike, and gangsterism) led again to a rise
of a nativist sentiment in the city. In 1921 and in 1924, Yankee Bostonians push for a restriction
of immigration. They especially opposed the new immigration coming out of Southern and
Eastern Europe.
After intense lobbying from the nativist movement the United States Congress passed the
Emergency Quota Act in 1921 (The National Origins Act). The Act restricted the number of
immigrants admitted from any country annually to 3% of the number of residents from that same
country living in the United States as of the U.S. Census of 1910. However, many, including a
large number of Bostonians, felt that the restriction was not strict enough, and in 1924, the
federal government passed the Immigration Act of 1924. This act limited the annual number of
immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that
country who were already living in the United States in 1890 (years before the new immigration
began, hence restricting the number of immigrants much further).
Week 3.1 !22
Sacco-Vanzetti
The nativist sentiment, however, reaches much greater proportions in the State during the trial of
Nicholas Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, two Italian-born Anarchists. These two anarchists were
accused, then convicted, of first degree murder of a guard and a paymaster of the Slater and
Morrill Shoe Company in Braintree, Massachusetts. Despite the fact that witnesses recanted their
testimony, that there was conflicting evidence, that the jury was prejudicial against the accused,
and that an alleged participant confessed to the crime, their appeals did not succeed. Their case
became popular. Protests in the United States and around the world (as far as in Japan and South
Africa) demanded that the two be found innocent. There was a state investigation, launched by
Massachusetts Governor Alvan T. Fuller, but nothing changed. The two were executed in the
electric chair on August 23, 1927.
Historians who have since studied the case all conclude that the authorities and the jurors were
influenced by an anti-immigrant, and especially anti-Italian prejudice. Although they were part of
an anarchist group, they had not been part of a group which had financed their activities through
robberies. Some even argued that they had been tried for the robbery murder to stop their
activities as anarchists.
Eugenics
Eugenics, the theory and practice which aimed at improving the genetic quality of groups of
individuals became extremely popular in the late 1910s and 1920, following the rise in nativism
in the country.
Eugenics stemmed from translation of the principles of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species to the
human realm. This translations, popularized by Francis Galton, promoted selective breeding in
order to improve on humanity’s genetic making.
Eugenics was seen from two angles:
• Positive Eugenics: which promoted the breeding of the good stock (usually White
Anglo Saxon Protestant middle class) in order to improve civilization. Positive
eugenics policies can also be seen in genetic screening for in vitro fertilization for
example, arranged marriages could also lead to positive eugenics, etc.
• Negative Eugenics: which promoted the removal of the bad stock (undesirable traits
such as mental illness, birth defects, low IQ, criminal behavior, deviance, or even
racial make up) through prohibition of marriage, forced sterilization, or even death
through genocide. The extreme version of eugenics can be seen in Hitler’s genocide
of Jews and other instances of racial cleansing seen in history. Forced sterilization
took place in the United States, especially on African American women. Doctors who
wanted to alleviate poverty in Black communities removed women’s uteruses without
their consent during unrelated surgeries. This practice was nicknamed the
“Mississippi appendectomy.” People with mental disabilities were also often
sterilized to reduce the risk of transmission of their “defect” to potential offspring.
Anti-miscegenation laws were common in the United States, including in
Week 3.1 !23
Massachusetts, until 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia. (Ruth Negga plays in a recent
movie called Loving about the case). Massachusetts abolished its anti-miscegenation
law in 1843. However, the legislature enacted a law in 1913, preventing out-of-state
couples from marrying in Massachusetts. In more recent years, this law served to
prevent same-sex couples from other states from marrying in Massachusetts, where
same-sex marriage was legalized in 2004. The law was repealed in 2008.
In 1912, Charles William Eliot, president emeritus of Harvard, promoted positive eugenics for
racial purposes. He opposed intermixing of races, saying that “each nation should keep its stock
pure.” When Eliot spoke of races, he did not only consider Black and white, he considered
Catholics marrying Protestants, Jews marrying Gentiles, and other people from different origins
marrying outside of their community.
After the publishing Madison Grant’s The Passage of the Great Race in 1916 (an alarming book
about the possible extinction of the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant race), classification of races
became even more sophisticated. Harvard professor Louis Agassiz, the father of suffragist
Pauline Agassiz Shaw, divided humankind into different races using the bible to trace the origins
of each (He used the Table of Nations in the Bible to identify each race and their descendants).
He noted that a number of races, including Asians and Africans, had not been named in the Bible,
and claimed that the books’ authors were simply limited by their geographical location.
Their thought influenced Bostonians who listened to these professors and lecturers. As we have
seen, the fact that educated white Anglo-Saxon Protestant women delayed pregnancies or
refrained from having children further caused concern and fear of “race suicide,” i.e. that they
would cause the demise of the white race. Every state formed its own Eugenics society and
organized “fittest baby” contests where mothers proudly displayed their offspring who were then
examined by the medical community. Ultimately, eugenics policies reinforced nativism,
especially against communities who promoted high birth rates (especially of Catholic descent
due to the Catholic church’s reproductive policies).
Jazz age in Boston
If Boston follows the national pattern in terms of red scare, and somewhat gangsterism, does it
follow the same pattern on a cultural level? Was there a Jazz age or a New Negro Renaissance in
the city? If you remember, we mentioned before that Boston is a conservative city. You might
also remember that the Black population in the city was relatively small (approximately 2% of
the total population). As a result, Jazz took a long time to come to the city. The interesting piece
is that Jazz was introduced in Boston at first as part of classical music concerts in order to ease
the music into Bostonians’ repertoire. It took a while before the city has its very first Jazz club.
Bostonians had to wait until the early 1940s to have a dedicated jazz club.
Prior to the 1940s, a number of jazz bands came from NYC, for example, but played at
Symphony Hall or other mainstream venues. They also played other styles of music instead of
focussing only on jazz. For example, in one of the articles that I found in the Boston Globe, the
Week 3.1 !24
reporter mentioned that the “Highbrow musicians were interested in the genuine negro folks
songs.” That means that they were stuffy high class musicians who were interested in the
traditional music
New Negro Renaissance
Across the nation the Great Migration is often credited for triggering a renaissance of Black
literature. The expression “New Negro Renaissance” comes from the publication of Alain
Locke’s book the New Negro in 1925. Most of the Renaissance took place in Harlem and
Chicago. However, Boston has its own little Renaissance.
Saturday Evening Quill
The Saturday Evening Quill was formed in 1928 in Boston. The group positioned itself as an
amateur African American writing group. In a statement to the reader in their first publication,
the authors stated that they intended to publish for its members only and not for the general
public. What is even more interesting is that several of the members were successful playwrights
and novelists at the time. However, they never presented themselves as such. They always said
that they were lawyers, editors, publishers, etc. One could deduce that this came from the
conservative roots of the city and what Bostonians considered as “appropriate.”
Roaring 20s
For the rest of Bostonians, how do the 1920s shape up? After the economic depression of 1921
(the recession following the demobilization), the economy began to pick up and Bostonians
ended up with a much greater spending power than they had before. Due to this economic power,
they saw the emergence of a new consumer culture.
Most Bostonians had saved a little money during the war (either through bonds or through
savings). Once the war was over and their situation stabilized, they began to spend it. Women
were now entering the work force in larger numbers (at least until they married). With the
invention of the car, companies considered lending money to people for them to afford goods
that they could not afford otherwise. The development of credit allowed people to purchase
without having to pay all at once. Companies then charged interest on the purchase to make up
for the time it took for them to pay.
At the same time, there was a shift in the way that people shopped on a daily basis. Companies
innovated by opening larger and larger department stores. These department stores offered a
variety of merchandize that customers could touch, try on, or even compare. This new type of
purchasing completely changed the ways in which people shopped. Bostonians still go to
different historical markets to purchase their food but they go to Washington Street, for example
at Jordan Marsh, to purchase other goods.
The convenience of household items (such as toasters or washing machines) made the life of
women much easier. The arrival of electricity transformed one’s household routine (think about
the washing machine, the oven where you can set your temperature to a fixed number instead of
Week 3.1 !25
having to set gas or a fire). Products that were once luxuries became necessities in the modern
home.
Access to cars
With the invention credit in the 20s, more people had access to cars. In Boston, in particular, this
creates 2 new phenomena: traffic jams and a push for suburbanization. The idea of traffic jams in
Boston is self-explanatory. In the 1920s, the infrastructure was not yet ready to accommodate the
increase in vehicles in the city. The fact that the city still had hybrid traffic (horses and cars)
created difficult situations as you can see from the slide. (I added an article entitled “Congestion
as a Cultural Construct: The ‘Congestion Evil’ in Boston in the 1890s and 1920s.” Take a peak if
you are interested in traffic issues!)
Suburbanization
As Bostonians made more money and climbed up the socio-economic ladder, they slowly moved
to the suburbs. (Think about the theory of the last immigrants) The car facilitated this process
and helped Bostonians move further and further from the city center. In the 1920s, a large
number of Jews were able to reach the middle class. They decided to settle in towns like
Brookline and Newton, outside of Boston. They left the center of town, especially the
neighborhoods of Dorchester and Roxbury to settle in the suburb
This is a really small but consistent pattern of suburbanization which continues throughout the
1920s, 1930s, and 1940s. However, it is not like the large push for suburbanization which took
place in the 1950s after World War II.
Political system
One of the last pieces of the 1920s, is the fact that women get the vote. As you can remember, the
vote was long in coming in the city. Since the 1840s, suffrage activists had been trying to get the
vote for women. Women received partial suffrage in 1879, allowing women to vote at the school
level.
When they got the vote in 1920, they began to register for the primary election. As soon as they
learned of their ability to register, women flooded the registration booths that opened in several
locations in the city. Despite being open from 9 am to 10 pm daily, the booths could not meet the
demand. During the first day of the extended period, 3042 women registered. Women were
exempt from the annual poll tax which had been abolished in the 1890s. The number of
registered women voters rose to 31,809 by the 21st of August. On the election day, anti-
suffragists (women), who had claimed that they did not believe in the vote, cast their ballots all
over the city.
There were a lot of questions as whom the women would favor. Would they vote for their
husband’s party or not? Would they make their choice on their own?
Week 3.1 !26
During the election, some people tried to manipulate the women’s vote. In the South End, a
woman was directed to “vote for twenty” at the top of the list of candidates. Upon reading the
whole ballot, she noticed that only 19 names were listed. Requesting the help of the warden of
the election, she commented that, while directed to “vote for twenty,” she was not going to have
her “ballot invalidated by any such political trick as that.” In Roxbury, a group of women went to
the poll from the Home for Aged Men and Women. At 102 years old, Annie Stone, the oldest
woman voter in Roxbury, could not get to the polls. Although she had intended to cast her ballot,
a “bronchial affection” kept her home. However, she told the reporter of the Globe that she
“hope[d] to vote in November. (No further mention of her makes me believe that she sadly
passed away before the election in November). One woman took nearly “26 minutes by the
watch to mark her ballot,” making her choice quite deliberately. Finally, in Dorchester, public
and private spheres met as women “wheeled baby carriages to the Codman-sq[uare] voting
booth, and lined them up,” in the street, prior to casting their ballots.
The November election became more heated and the women’s vote played in the tensions
already present in the political system. The city had been redistricted in 1914. This redistricting
directly affected the African American community. Ward 13 in South Boston was almost equally
divided between African Americans and Irish. That ward was especially important in terms of the
balance of power between Republicans and Democrats. African Americans had voted Republican
since the Civil War and Irish had voted Democrats. In that context, if the women voted in a
block, they were to be the swing vote in the city.
So, during the election, two Black Republicans (a doctor and a lawyer) ran for the Republicans
and two white Irish Catholics ran for the Democrats. Since the election was so uncertain, the
Democrats took the matter in their own hands. They ran a dirty campaign, disparaging the
Republicans. They especially focused on the race hatred of the Democrats at the time,
emphasizing that the Republicans were suspicious and could not be trusted.
The most interesting piece in this case is that on the eve of the election in November, the
Democrats specifically attacked Black women to suppress their vote. They sent them
personalized letters from a fake commission, using a fake law, stating that they were illegally
registered and that if they voted, they could be fined $500 or be sentenced to a year in prison. As
a result, a large number of women were scared from the poll and the Democrats won the election.
This case shows us that voter discrimination and suppression was widespread, even in Boston,
where progressive activists had fought for Black equality for centuries. It also shows us that
Boston’s Black women yielded a large amount of power, enough to scare the Democrats who
feared that they would not be re-elected.
Where does that lead us?
The 1920s were difficult at first, especially with the Red Scare, the difficult demobilization, and
the economic depression. There is a rise of nativism and difficulties in terms of race relations.
From 1921-1922 on, there was a period of prosperity, of cultural development with the
Week 3.1 !27
Renaissance, and of greater freedom for a number of Bostonians (women in particular).
However, this prosperity came with strings attached. The over-production of the 1920s led to the
crash of 1929 and to the Great Depression, which we will see in the second module this week.
Lecture 4.3 !1
Lecture 4.3 From the 1970s to the Present
History 385
Julie de Chantal
Bicentennial
At the height of the busing crisis, Boston was preparing for the bicentennial of the nation
(1776-1976). The federal government started to think about the celebrations in 1966. They felt
that the Expo 76, the name of the celebration, should either be staged in Boston or in
Philadelphia. However, after 6 ½ years of work, the Bicentennial Commission recommended to
host several local initiatives instead of one single event to make the 200th anniversary of the
United States. You have to remember that while the preparations for the celebrations were taking
place the country was still actively engaged in the Vietnam War. In 1969, there was a large peace
rally in the Boston Common. (You can see a collection of pictures in the Boston Globe here:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/specials/insiders/2012/10/17/bgcom-archive-peace/
bH6RFGVYJ7Dg8u1fHAOFBN/story.html) Due to the compressed nature of the class, I will not
touch upon the protests against the war. However, Bostonians were particularly active in the
protests.
In 1975, as the country withdrew from Vietnam, President Ford stressed the idea of renewal and
rebirth based on the restoration of traditional values. For that reason, the bicentennial was
somewhat nostalgic and gave a very narrow reading of the founding of the nation. On April 18,
1975, President Gerald Ford traveled to Boston where he lit a third lantern at the historic Old
North Church. The lantern was to symbolize the third century of the nation. Tall ships visited
New York City then Boston a week later.
Queen Elizabeth
Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh, visited to the United States to attend
the festivities. Since the Queen was to celebrate her Silver Jubilee (25 years of reign) the
following year, the visit was an important to her as a monarch. They traveled on the HMY
Britannia (Her Majesty’s Yacht). She received a 21 gun salute upon her arrival in the Boston
Harbor. (On docking, the Britannia scraped her side, a mishap hurriedly remedied as the Queen
went on to services at Old North Church). She attended ceremonies at the State House, had lunch
at City Hall, and went on “walkabouts” through the crowds.
When the Queen was in Boston, security was heavier than at any other stop on the Queen’s six-
day tour. The Boston police, state police, Secret Service, and the Massachusetts National Guard
ensured her safety in the city. Military helicopters buzzed overhead. All police leaves were
canceled for the day. The security, however, did not seem to deter the crowds who came to see
her. In Boston, she invited a number community people to visit a reception on the yacht. (You
can see an invitation that Melnea Cass, a Black activist, received. We talked about her in the
Human Renewal projects section of the class). The Queen’s invitation to Black activists stressed
the importance of race relations in the city where things were still difficult.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/specials/insiders/2012/10/17/bgcom-archive-peace/bH6RFGVYJ7Dg8u1fHAOFBN/story.html
https://www.bostonglobe.com/specials/insiders/2012/10/17/bgcom-archive-peace/bH6RFGVYJ7Dg8u1fHAOFBN/story.html
Lecture 4.3 !2
You can see the Queen, escorted by Mayor Kevin White, through Washington Mall in Boston on
the way to City Hall ceremonies with 10th regiment of Foot Chelmsford Guard on July 11, 1976.
The British officials had to organize an etiquette briefing for city officials involved with the
Queen’s visit. The briefing reportedly included a plea to Mayor Kevin White to restrain his
impulses — not to put his arm around the Queen’s shoulders or pat her on the back (which he
often did to dignitaries visiting the city!) for example.
Protests against the Queen’s visit in Boston
While some were thrilled to see the Queen, a large number of people protested her visit of the
city. Most were Irish Americans, condemning the role of Britain in Ireland at the time. Great
Britain, a Protestant nation, controlled the predominantly Catholic country. Since the late 1960s
Northern Ireland had seen a rise in violence between the state and Catholic nationalists. The
violence led to the death of nearly 3,500 people and 50,000 casualties over the span of three
decades, a period nicknamed “the Troubles.” The IRA (a paramilitary organization) conducted
several bombings in public buildings. The state’s response to these acts led to the death of several
civilian, the Bloody Sunday massacre (on January 30th 1972) being one of the most famous
events. (U2 wrote a song about it). As you can see from the slides, a large number of Bostonians
came together in the protest.
Enthusiasm
With that being said, the celebrations showed the enthusiasm of Bostonians. Jim Beam created a
special edition of its famous Bourbon with the image of Crispus Attucks (one of the victims of
the Boston Massacre) on the label for the occasion. The US Postal Services launched a series of
stamps to commemorate the 200th anniversary.
The Bicentennial Celebrations and the Busing Crisis
Contrary to what the video might imply, the busing crisis did not end within the 1974-1975
academic year (right after the order to desegregate). In fact, the crisis continued well into the
1980s, with the official dates of the crisis lasting from 1974 to 1988. The movie did not mention
that white parents also resented the idea that the busing only took place between poor white
neighborhoods and poor Black neighborhoods. You have to remember that the busing crisis is a
city issue, but that the suburbs were as much part of the problem. Since each city was responsible
for their own education, the suburbs remained intact (i.e. white and rich) in the whole
desegregation process. As a result, more parents moved out of Boston and established their
families in the suburbs.The documentary mentioned that ⅓ of the parents removed their children
from the public school system. These parents either moved out of the city or enrolled their
children in parochial schools (private catholic schools). Violence continued throughout that
academic year.
In January 1975, the Governor’s Commission on the Status of Women convened at the city hall.
Governor Dukakis was supposed to make an appearance to sign a proclamation declaring
Massachusetts International Women’s Year but never arrived. Instead, an angry mob of about 150
white anti-busing mothers showed up, so the governor cancelled his appearance. By early 1975,
Lecture 4.3 !3
the anti-busing organization known as ROAR (Restore Our Alienated Rights) sought to expand
its base of protest from strictly opposing, at times quite violently, the court-ordered
desegregation of the Boston public school system. Arguing that, in their words, “the issue of
forced busing is a women’s issue,” the predominately female ROAR specifically targeted the
women’s liberation movement in Boston. At the same time, in anticipation of the nation’s 200th
birthday in 1976, ROAR also shifted its attention to the Bicentennial during the spring of 1975.
It turned the celebratory rhetoric on its head by claiming the right to fight those who, in the
minds of many white Bostonians, would deny them their most basic rights as parents. For
example, ROAR marched as in a funeral procession, some carrying a coffin in which a young
woman lay, representing, according to the attached placard, “Miss Liberty, b. 1776 – d.
1974” (the year of the court decision). Others carried signs that read: “Have You Ever Seen the
Words Forced Busing in the Constitution?,” “Boston Mourns Its Lost Freedom,” and the more
ominous, “If You Think This Is a Massacre, Just Wait!” They then chanted “Garrity Killed
Liberty” until reenactment sponsors asked them to stop so that the evening’s true “entertainment”
could begin. Louise Day Hicks used her position as a council woman to protest forced busing.
She had been elected to the position in 1976, but only remained for one term in office. Many
white working-class Bostonians viewed busing as a liberal, white middle-class attack on the
sanctity of their turf and their rights as parents. They claimed that they were victims and their
children mere pawns.
I would like to talk for a few seconds about the photo Soiling the Old Glory which was taken in
front of City Hall in 1976. You can see here a white teenager, Joseph Rakes, assaulting a black
man, lawyer and civil rights activist Ted Landsmark, with a flagpole bearing the American flag
(also known as Old Glory). The teen narrowly missed Landsmark as he swung the flag to empale
him. I have included two angles of the photo, the angle of the photo that we know, and the
original angle. Think about what the framing of the picture means in terms of the impact of
photo. The photo came to represent the violence experienced in Boston during the busing crisis.
It won the 1977 Pulitzer Prize for Spot photography.
Anti-Apartheid Movement in the city
In the 1970s, the British treatment of Ireland and the busing crisis were not the only issues that
Bostonians were fighting against. They also opposed South African Apartheid. Prior to 1931,
South Africa had been a British Colony. The country gained its independence with the Statute of
Westminster in 1931 (so did Canada, Australia, and other Dominions of the crown). In 1948, the
National party was elected to power. The party strengthened racial segregation that already
existed under the Dutch and British colonial rule. Under the Apartheid regime, the government
classified people into three races, and gave rights according to the classification.
• white: all privileges
• Coloured: (multiracial groups including Indian and Asian ancestry) Some privileges,
some political representation at the beginning of the regime (taken away in the
1950s).
• Blacks: no political power, restriction of marriage, relations, vote, segregate public
spaces, education, etc.
Lecture 4.3 !4
There was a lot of opposition within the country itself. For example people like Steve Biko and
Nelson Mandela opposed the system. Mandela was arrested and jailed from 1962 to 1990, Steve
Biko was killed while imprisoned in 1977.
So how does that come to Boston
In early 1970, African Americans Carolina Hunter and Ken Williams, employees at Polaroid in
Cambridge, learned that their employer had been supporting the Apartheid system in South
Africa. Hunter worked as a research bench chemist, and Williams worked in the photographic
department, making the marketing products for the company. According to them, the company
had supported the system by helping create the passbooks that Black South Africans were forced
to carry with them at all times. Those passbooks could be asked by anyone, even regular people
off the street, to identify their bearers. When Hunter and Williams confronted their employer,
Polaroid officials claimed that the company did not sell the ID system to the South African
government. They did not have a plant in South Africa, but their distributor sold their product to
government agencies. As a response, Hunter and Williams formed the Polaroid Revolutionary
Workers’ Movement with some of their colleagues. They distributed flyers and held rallies,
accusing Polaroid of supporting the regime. Williams resigned in protest from the company, but
the Workers’ Movement, along with allies in the Boston area, continued to draw attention to
Polaroid’s connections with South Africa, including financial ties involving some of the
company’s funders and owners.
Polaroid, known as a progressive company for its hiring of African Americans and women in the
United States, and for its strong benefits packages, faced growing hostility in Cambridge and
Boston as the message of the Workers’ Movement spread. Polaroid finally acknowledged that the
South African government was indeed using their product to print the passbooks. The company
decided that it would stop its distributors from selling their products for that purpose (they did
not cut their entire market though).
In 1971, after a fact-finding mission by black and white employees, Polaroid announced an
“experiment.” It would force its South African distributor to improve salaries and benefits for
non-white employees and to provide financial support for Black education in the country. The
idea was met with disapproval from the Workers’ Movement, as well as the African National
Congress and other South African anti-apartheid groups. They argued that any attempts at just
corporate policies would be undermined by the nation’s racist laws and that the only appropriate
corporate response was a complete withdrawal. The experiment still continued for 6 years.
The Boston Globe published an article about the problem in 1977. After the publication, the
company finally decided to completely withdraw from South Africa, becoming the first big
American company to do so. Hunter was fired and became a teacher, then a principal at
Cambridge Ridge and Latin. Polaroid’s withdrawal from South Africa led to the divestment
movement in the United States, and many other companies followed their withdrawal from South
Africa.
Lecture 4.3 !5
1978 blizzard
Watch the little video on the Blizzard of 1978 at the bottom of the page of the weekly content.
LGBTQ Movement
In the early 1980s, the city faced yet another crisis: the AIDS crisis. Recently, I realized that for
most of my students (born in the 1990s), AIDS has always been there. It is a reality that has been
present for most of your life and little is mentioned about the discovery of the disease, in the
same way that historians do not talk about the discovery of polio or of cancer. The AIDS crisis is
crucial to our understanding of the LGBTQ community (specifically gay male community),
especially in the large urban centers in the 1980s. For that reason, I would like to take this space
to talk about the gay community in the second half of the 20th century. (Here I chose the term
gay because it is the most visible community of the LGBTQ+ umbrella. Other members will be
mentioned as they join the movement in the city).
Homosexuality as a mental disorder.
In the 1950s, gays were persecuted on a large scale. As I mentioned in lecture 5.1, during the
McCarthy era, government officials tested employees for their “loyalty” and their
“subversiveness.” Making sure that employees were not gay was one of the priorities. In 1952,
homosexuality was added to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel of Mental Disorders (DSM)
as a disorder, pathologizing the sexual orientation. (The DSM is the manual that codifies mental
disorders and allows for diagnosis in psychiatry). It was only at the time of the sixth printing of
the second edition of the DSM in 1974 that it was removed. It took more than twenty years and a
lot of pressure from gay activists to finally recognize homosexuality as a normal sexual
orientation seen across the animal realm.
Stonewall Riots
In the 1950s, organizations such as the Daughters of Bilitis (lesbian) or the Mattachine Society
(gay male) fought for the rights of gay people. In 1969, however, the movement became more
coherent and less underground after the Stonewall Riot. The Stonewall Inn was a gay bar in
Greenwich Village (New York City). It had been since the Genovese crime family had turned the
inn into a restaurant for gays and a bar in 1966. The place had no liquor license, no running water
behind the bar (they just dipped the glasses in a tub of water and reused them right away), toilets
overran constantly, and there were also no fire exists. However, people could not complain due to
the underground nature of the inn and the persecution of the gay community. The institution
served as one of the very few spaces where gays could safely meet without too much trouble. Yet
police raids were frequent, and the institution developed its own code to warn patrons of an
impending visit from officers. However, on June 28, 1969, 4 policemen in plainclothes, 2 patrol
officers, and a few detectives arrived. Usually, the bar knew in advance that raids were going to
take place, and a bribe was enough to make the officers go away. The June 1969 raid did not go
as planned, and the officers arrested a large number of patrons. In response, a crowd, not all of
whom had been in the bar, started to gather around the establishment in support of the gay
community. This escalated into riots in the following days.
Lecture 4.3 !6
After Stonewall, homosexuality did not suddenly become more acceptable. It was definitely
more visible, but discrimination continued. Most of the gay scene remained underground, but the
movement progressively became more radicalized. In the early 1980s, intolerance increased as
the AIDS crisis begun.
AIDS crisis
Scientists don’t know where or when the virus first appeared. There were hypotheses that the
virus might have emerged in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo in 1908. The first theories
on the origins of the virus were somewhat ludicrous. Scientists believed that people could have
eaten contaminated bushmeat and acquired that virus in that way. They also hypothesized that
some people could have had sexual relationships with monkeys, since the virus resembles simian
immunodeficiency viruses (SIV). All of these theories have since been disproven. A possible first
case could have been that of Sadayo Fujisawa, a 60 year old Japanese Canadian midwife who
died in 1945, of pneumonia, diarrhea, and wasting (some of the markers of the disease). Another
possible first case was found in 1952 in Memphis, Tennessee, in Richard Edwin Graves Jr., a
WWII veteran who had been stationed in the Solomon Islands. He died, exhibiting similar
symptoms. Another case was found in St. Louis, Missouri when a teenager Robert Rayford (16
y-o), admitted himself at the City Hospital, covered in warts and sores. Doctors discovered other
STDs, but since he refused a rectal exam, doctors assumed that he was gay. He stabilized, but
returned to the hospital in March 1969. His white blood cell count plummeted and he died in
May 1969.
You have to remember that doctors have no clue as to what was happening to those people. They
tried to figure it out, but the cases are rare and appear to be unrelated. In the 1980s, more cases
appeared in the United States. Most of the patients developed Kaposi sarcoma (a form of skin
cancer) or pneumonia which are now associated with the disease. Most cases were concentrated
in New York City and San Francisco. Health care providers in these cities began to observe a
pattern of cancer-like symptoms among gay men. The National Center for Disease Control
names the syndrome Gay Related Immune Deficiency (GRID).
Because of the name GRID, there was a sharp rise in homophobia. The CDC coined the idea of
the 4H Disease, since it affected mostly hemophiliacs, heroin users, homosexuals, and Haitian
immigrants. In 1982, the disease was renamed the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
(AIDS), and the virus itself was recognized in 1986 as the Human Immunodeficiency Virus.
Difference between AIDS and HIV: HIV is the virus causing the infection. It is what
people “catch.” AIDS is the condition derived from the virus. While some people can
carry the virus for years, they might not develop the condition. The condition presents
only when one’s immune system is heavily compromised and can no longer fight
opportunistic infections (pneumonia, cancers, etc). This usually happens when one’s
CD4 cell count (a type of white blood cells) plummets under 200.
Lecture 4.3 !7
In 1987, the first retroviral medicine AZT was produced, however it did not help to reduce the
number of people who died from the disease at first. In 1988, the first World AIDS Day took
place. In 1995 a second drug Saquinavir, was invented, and from there on, deaths from the
disease plummeted in the developed world. As of 2000, 15 to 20% of the new cases in the world
were related to blood transfusions. How does this all apply to Boston?
Gay Boston
The history of gay Boston was never not really hidden from view. Historians went far back and
found traces of homosexuality fairly easily. The History Project (http://www.historyproject.org)
which collected the history of gay Boston claimed that John Winthrop, the first governor of
Massachusetts, was gay. However, it difficult to claim this with entire certainty. The meaning of
friendship, both masculine or feminine, changed over time, and so did the language used to talk
about relationships between the different sexes, sexual or not. In the 17th century, men were able
love one another openly or share a bed without being accused of being
“sodomites” (homosexuals practicing sodomy). No one questioned these relationships unless
they challenged social order and hierarchies.
The History Project based its assumption on a letter sent to William Springe on February 8th,
1630. The letter said “I loved you truly before I could think that you took any notice of me: but
now I embrace you and rest in your love: and delight to solace my first thoughts in these sweet
affections of so dear a friend. The apprehension of your love and worth together hath overcome
my heart, and removed the veil of modesty, that I must needs tell you, my soul is knit to you, as
the soul of Jonathan to David: were I now with you, I should bedew that sweet bosom with the
tears of affection…” As you can see, you can read it as a romantic or a friendship letter.
Going back to our lecture on the Progressive era, we discussed Boston marriages, where women
lived together. These relationships were acceptable and accepted again, if the social order was
maintained (i.e. from the same class and the same race). As we get closer to our time, we find
documentation that drag queen shows already took place in the city in the 1940s. During the War,
a number of men had relationships with service men. In the slide you can see the photo of
Veronica the Sailor. A resident of Boston, Preston Claridge remembered that a number of parties
were organized between gay men and service men. He especially remembered a “tea party” held
in Wellesley in the mid-1940s. He explained that “One Sunday, Freddie took me along to a “new
faces” party given by Bernard…. Since the beginning of the war, several years before, Bernard
had been giving “tea dances” for his gay friends and servicemen. Tea was never served, but the
scotch flowed and dancing did follow. It was there I danced with a beautiful blonde sailor
nicknamed Veronica because of his Veronica Lake style hair falling over one eye. I thought his
hair terribly long and feminine at the time but it couldn’t have been because he was in the
service.” Provincetown, early on, was a gay town where gay men could go have fun without
being persecuted. Established residents and visitors applauded newcomers on the beach to
welcome them.
http://www.historyproject.org
Lecture 4.3 !8
During the Urban renewal though, gay institutions were particularly targeted for destruction.
Scollay Square, especially, was a gay hub in the city. The Crawford House was demolished in
1962 as part of the urban renewal. City officials were not quiet about their endorsement of the
destruction of the city’s gay establishment. City Councillor Frederick “Freddy” Langone even
said at a city council meeting on July 7, 1965, “either we lick it, we will stop it, or let them
continue to exist. We are now concerned about the South Cove area. I count at least four or five
places where [gay bars] exist now, and one outside the area on Carver Street…. I am wondering
now if we eliminate a half dozen of those places within the South Cove area, perhaps the youth
of America in this area would be served better….” “We will be better off without these
incubators of homo-sexuality and indecency and a Bohemian way of life. I tell you right now, we
will be better off without it and if we accomplish nothing else, at least we will uproot this cancer
in one area of the city.”
First Gay Pride Parade took place in 1971 (see slide for the photo). You can see how big it had
become already in 1984. In 1995, it took a nationalist turn.
Elaine Noble
Elaine Noble was the first openly gay person elected in the nation, when she was elected to the
Massachusetts House of Representatives. She was born in January 22, 1944, in New Kensington,
PA. She completed her BFA at Boston University, then studied at Boston University, Emerson
College, and Harvard. She explained that her campaign to run for the House was “very ugly.”
She faced violence against her home, her car was destroyed, and her headquarters were
vandalized. She persisted and was in office from January 1975 to January 1979 as a
representative for Fenway-Kenmore and the Back Bay. She later ran for Senator and city council
but was unsuccessful at either.
Despite the fact that there is tolerance for the community (or at least that the community can be
out in the open), there is still violence against the gay community. For example, you can see the
cover of the Gay Community News in the slides. We can see that the newspaper’s own offices
were burnt down by people in the city.
Combahee River Collective
Another aspect of the LGBTQ movement in Boston that we rarely consider is that it was a space
where radical thought could flourish. In particular, the Combahee River Collective was one of
the pillars of the radical fringe of the lesbian movement. The organization was formed in 1973 in
South Hadley, Massachusetts. It was a Black radical lesbian feminist collective. Most of its
members lived in Boston, with a few from elsewhere Massachusetts and from out-of-state. The
Combahee River Collective is especially important because of its manifesto which coined the
idea of “identity politics.”
Identity politics is the idea that one’s identity (gender, race, sexual orientation, economic
status, etc) are all part of a same system of privilege and oppression. In that sense, a
Lecture 4.3 !9
poor, Black, lesbian, women lives with 4 forms of oppression (economic status, race,
sexual, and gender orientation).
Barbara Smith
Barbara Smith was one of the founders of the Collective. Born in Cleveland in 1946. Her family
had moved to the city through the Great Migration. Her mother died when she was 9, and she
was raised by her aunt and grandmother. She joined the Civil Rights movement, working with
CORE, in high school. She enrolled at Mount Holyoke in 1965, but transferred to the New
School in New York City during her junior year. She returned to Mount Holyoke during her
senior year, and graduated in 1969.
She settled in Boston after receiving her Masters in Literature from the University of Pittsburgh.
She taught English at Emerson College. In addition to founding the Combahee River Collective,
she was a founding member of the Kitchen Table: Women of Color Press, which will later be
known for publishing fundamental texts in feminist theory written by women of color. She was
instrumental in publishing This Bridge Called my Back which is a milestone in feminist
literature.
Place of Boston in the AIDS crisis
What I want to point out in this lecture are two parallel trends in Boston in the 1970s and 1980s.
On one side, the city experienced extreme violence in terms of race. On the other side,
Bostonians were extremely tolerant to the LGBTQ community even during the AIDS crisis.
(Again, that radical vs conservative tension that we have seen throughout the history of the city).
Very few clinics treated HIV positive patients in the United States at the beginning of the AIDS
crisis. Yet, the Fenway Community Health Center was one of them. The clinic was funded in
1971 by Northeastern University students who thought that health care should not be a privilege
but a right. Already in 1973, the Health Care center housed three separate collectives: the
Women’s Collective, Gay Men’s Collective, and the Elder’s collective. In 1976, the Health Care
center was conducting anonymous STD testing at gay bathhouses in Boston as part of a city wide
effort with the Department of Public Health to stop the spread of STDs and hepatitis.
In 1980, after the CDC name the AIDS virus the Gay Related Immune Deficiency, the health
care center opened a lab on site. Dr. Ken Mayer began a research program on infectious diseases
at the clinic. In 1981, the center made the first diagnoses of AIDS in New England. As a response
to the diagnosis, the center created a committee charged with developing a series of AIDS
forums to address the medical and psychosocial implications of AIDS. That committee became
the Boston AIDS Action Committee.
The Committee aimed to create a network of care for their patients across the city. In 1983, they
opened the first AIDS hotline, and launched the first outreach campaign during the City Gay
pride celebration. In 1984, they offered the first anonymous HIV testing program, and
Lecture 4.3 !10
collaborated with Harvard Medical school to culture blood and semen samples to figure how the
disease worked and spread.
In 1985, the Massachusetts legislature banned gays and lesbians from becoming foster parents,
but legal teams in the city fought the decision. In 1986, the Boston AIDS Action Committee,
organized the first AIDS Walk Boston in the Common. They use the song “That’s What Friends
Are For” as a signature anthem. In 1988, the Walk collected over 1 million dollars for research,
with more than 12,000 walkers.
By 1991, the clinic performed more than 40% of all testing taking place in the city, and treated
more than 500 people with AIDS, second to Boston City Hospital. In 1996, the clinic created the
wall where it inscribed the names of those lost to the disease in Boston. (It is still there today)
Same-Sex marriage
In 2001, the Massachusetts legislature denied several same sex couples marriage licenses. GLAD
(the Gay and Lesbian Legal Advocates and Defenders) sued the Department of Public Health
arguing that the state was denying citizens the privileges under the state constitution. In the
decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the State Supreme Court stated that the
state effectively discriminated against same-sex couples by restricting marriage to opposite sex
couples (the argument behind the denial of the licenses was that marriage was for procreation
only). The Supreme Court gave the state legislature 180 days to take action, after which time the
Supreme Court would strike down the unconstitutional law. During this period, the legislature
could have chosen to enact civil unions, as Vermont did, but instead chose inaction, thereby
allowing the law to be removed. Massachusetts became the first state to allow same-sex marriage
on May 17, 2004. However, this only applied to Massachusetts residents because of the Law of
1913 which prevented out-of-state residents from getting married legally in the state. In 2008,
this law was removed in order to extend privileges to same-sex couples from all around the
nation.
2002 Sexual abuse scandal through Spotlight
On a completely different note, I would like to discuss the Spotlight scandal. This piece should
be later in this lecture considering the timeline of the events, but I did not want to finish the
lecture with this disturbing scandal.
In 2002, the Boston Globe team covered a series of criminal prosecutions of five Roman Catholic
priests. This coverage thrust the issue of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests into the
spotlight. (If you are interested in the topic, the movie Spotlight does justice to the work of these
journalists). The coverage of these few cases encouraged other victims to come forward with
their allegations of abuse, resulting in more lawsuits and criminal cases. As more cases came to
light, it became clear that priests and lay members of religious orders in Boston’s Catholic
Church had sexually abused minors on a scale such that the accusations reached the thousands
over several decades.
Lecture 4.3 !11
Prior to the coverage in the Globe, some Catholic bishops had been made aware of accusations
of sexual misconduct. They chose to maintain secrecy, and reassigned the accused priests to
other parishes. However, these priests continued to be in positions where they had unsupervised
contact with youth. If another accusation was heard, the priest was again reassigned to yet
another parish. The Globe articles brought to light this practice, and opened the scandal to the
public.
Settlements in the suits were estimated to be up to $100 million. In some cases insurance
companies refused to meet the cost of large settlements, claiming the actions were deliberate and
not covered by insurance. There was additional financial damage to the Archdiocese, which
already faced the need to consolidate and close parishes due to changing attendance and tithing
patterns. In June 2004, much of the land around the Archdiocese of Boston headquarters was
sold to Boston College, in part to raise money for legal costs associated with scandal in Boston.
In 2003, the series of articles in the Boston Globe received a Pulitzer Prize for Public Service.
The newspaper was honored, according to the Pulitzer website, “for its courageous,
comprehensive coverage … an effort that pierced secrecy, stirred local, national and international
reaction and produced changes in the Roman Catholic Church.”
Big Dig
We will finish this lecture by talking about the Big Dig, one of the most ambitious projects in the
city’s renewal. The idea emerges in 1982, but the project itself began in the 1991, and was
completed in 2007. If you ask Bostonians, they might tell you that they have the impression that
the Big Dig lasted “forever” or that it is still not done!
The Big Dig aimed to reroute the central artery of Interstate 93 into a tunnel, and included the
construction of the Ted William Tunnel to the Airport, the memorial bridge over Charles River,
and the Rose Kennedy Greenway where the I-93 previously was. It was the most expensive
highway project ever launched in the United States. The budget increased due to delays, cost
overruns, design flaws, poor execution, criminal arrests, and the death of one person. From the
$2.8 billion budget (in 1982, $7.5 billion today) planned originally, it cost over 14.6 billion
dollars (2007 money, 8.08 billion in 1982 money).
The project experienced several environmental and design obstacles. If you remember, most of
Boston had been constructed on filled land. From the Shawmut peninsula, the city had expended
as the population increased. Engineers long-pondered how they would handle the type of
materials that they were digging through and how it would support the projected construction.
Engineers used a ground freezing technique to stabilize the structures as they worked. They faced
several delays due to weird discoveries. They found sunken ships, buried houses, rats (millions
of them!), possible contaminants, etc. The dig became one of the largest archeological sites in the
city. (On the rat issue, see this article https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2002/05/20/
focus1.html)
https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2002/05/20/focus1.html
https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2002/05/20/focus1.html
Lecture 4.3 !12
Archeological site
When we began the class, I mentioned the different archeological sites that the city had
uncovered during the Big Dig. (see map) The digging allowed archeologists to recover more than
1000 boxes of materials, which allowed historians to piece the history of the city with more
precision.
Through the excavation, they (re)discovered:
• A large glassmaking industry: The Big Dig passed through a portion of South Boston
which was a center of glass production throughout the 19th century.
• A prolific metal industry: In their research, they found a lot of colonial blacksmith
materials in the North End, and objects belonging to Puritans.
• A number of Native American residential sites: Archeologists were able to learn the
ways in which Native Americans ate, how their community was settled in the area,
and how they lived prior to the arrival of the Puritans.
Despite these advances, the Big Dig was somewhat of a disaster. In addition to the troubles that it
caused in terms of traffic (even worse jams than before) and the deaths caused by shady
construction, Massachusetts residents will continue to pay for the construction until 2038. You
can read more about the Big Dig in the optional readings for this week.
The Greenway
The Greenway, however, “sort of” redeems the construction. It is a linear park that is divided into
different sections each with a flavor of its surroundings.
The Chinatown Park is located at the southern end of the Greenway. It is a one-acre linear park
which features elements drawn from Asian traditions and art work. On the pictures in the slides,
you can see the serpentine walkway with its bright red sculptural elements containing bamboo
plants, and a fountain that suggests a waterfall and shallow riverbed.
The Dewey Square Park section is located around South Station and the Financial District. The
park features gardens, lawn areas, and the adjacent plaza. Due to the nature of the people
working in the area, it was designed to draw in commuters and residents. There are tables, chairs,
and food trucks to provide an easy access to food for the area’s workers. In the summer, twice a
week, the plaza becomes the Boston Public Market Association’s farmers’ market.
The Fort Point Channel Parks are located between Oliver and Congress Street, along Atlantic
Avenue. They are referred to as the “New American Gardens” due to the care put into using trees
and flowers typical to New England. The parks encourage “passive recreation and enjoyment,”
similar to the ways in which Bostonians thought of the Boston Common in the Progressive Era
(post-City Beautiful Movement). It now hosts arts and cultural programs that Bostonians can
enjoy.
Lecture 4.3 !13
The Wharf District Parks connect Faneuil Hall to the Financial District with Boston Harbor. The
parks feature paved area and a gathering space called the Great Room. It offers three open lawn
areas where it features paintings and plantings. In the summer, the Wharf District Parks host the
Greenway Open Market, food vendors, concerts and fitness classes. It also hosts the Boston
Local Food Fest and the FIGMENT participatory art festival.
The Armenian Heritage Park is a park dedicated to the Armenian Genocide victims. It highlights
the role of Boston as a home to immigrants. The park features two key areas surrounded by
seating. According to the park’s site, “The Abstract Sculpture, a split dodecahedron, is mounted
on a Reflecting Pool, represents the immigrant experience.” “The Abstract Sculpture sits atop a
Reflecting Pool; its waters wash over its sides and re-emerge as a single jet of water at the
Labyrinth’s center.” “The Labyrinth a circular winding path paved in granite and set in lawn,
celebrates life’s journey.” The jet of water represents “hope and rebirth.”
Finally the North End Parks feature lawns surrounded by planted beds, reminding the patrons of
the past European style gardens. The eastern edge features a pergola which covers a long “front
porch” where patrons can sit and look at the historical sites beyond the parks. A canal runs the
length of the park, reminding patrons of the history of the canal industry.
Challenges in the future
With that all being said, we have looked at Boston’s social, economic, racial, and physical
history. We have covered almost 400 years of history in 4 weeks! Now it is time to turn the
tables. What do you think that Boston’s challenges will be in the future? What do you think
needs to be addressed in order for Boston to become a better city?
Thank you all for your participation in the class. It was a pleasure to teach you this material.
Have a great end of summer!
Lecture 3.2 !1
Lecture 3.2 The Great Depression
History 385
Julie de Chantal
The Great Depression
In module 1 this week, we discussed briefly the invention of credit during the 1920s. Credit
helped to extend the people’s ability to purchase goods and services up to a pre-determined limit.
This caused an increase in the manufacturing of goods. As they run out of available credit,
Bostonians spent less. Overproduction started to show in 1928, and by the summer of 1929, the
economy was already in recession. Some commentators began to notice, and talked about the
issues that could emerge, but few people seemed to listen.
Between 1928 and 1929, stock market price rose by 40%. Investors reinvested their profits, and
soon got caught in a speculative frenzy. On Black Thursday October 24, then again on Black
Tuesday October 29th, the bubble burst. Million of shares changed hand in panic trading, and
stock value fell from a peak $87 billion to $55 billion.
Quickly, regular people who had no ties to the financial system started to feel the effect of the
market crash.
• Farmers were already in bad shape. They earned as little as $273 per year compared
to most other occupations which earned as much as $750 a year. Because they
accounted for about ¼ of the population of the nation, their buying power dragged
the economy lower.
• Railroad and Coal industries: With the rise of automobile and truck transportation,
the railroad industry was already in decline. The need for railroads diminished,
pushing companies which did not adapt into bankruptcy. The same kind of
difficulties happened to the coal industry as their share of the market slowly taken
over by the hydroelectric, oil, and natural gas markets.
Unequal distribution of wealth
During this time, the top 5% of the population received approximately 30% of the national
income while the bottom 50% received less than 20% (which they spent mostly on basic
necessities). This made the recovery even more difficult.
Banks
The crash wiped out the savings of thousands of individual investors giving a huge blow to the
banks. Those banks were the ones which had invested heavily into corporate stock or lended
money to speculators. Hundreds of banks failed because bank deposits were uninsured.
When regular people started to see banks failing, they withdrew all of their money, forcing even
more banks to close. Within months, consumption dropped by 18%, construction dropped by
Lecture 3.2 !2
78%, 9,000 banks closed, 100,000 businesses failed, and the consumer price index declined by
25%. Corporate profit fell from $10 billion to $1 billion. Unemployment rose from 3.2% to
24.9%.
President Hoover
At the time, Hoover attempted to rectify the situation as best as he could. He encouraged US
banks and companies to reduce their foreign investments, which disrupted the European financial
System and cut the demand for American products. He signed the Hawley-Smoot Tariff in 1930,
restricting the borders even more. The tariffs encouraged European countries to impose similar
restrictions on their own markets. The crisis soon became an international crisis.
In 1929, the USA produced 40% of the world’s manufactured products, and imported a large
portion of raw materials. The cut on the importation of international products affected
Argentinian cattle, Brazilian coffee, Chinese silk, Mexican oil, Indonesian rubber, and African
minerals, and other raw materials.
New England and the Great Depression
In 1929, Boston was important to the health of the country and the region. Boston depended on
New England for pretty much everything (food, industries, investments, etc). In the 1920s, New
England was in decline, compared to other regions in the United States (for example the Midwest
and the Mid-Atlantic regions are gaining traction). New Englander’s income declined
substantially compared to other regions, yet, people residing in New England were still relatively
wealthy.
The region ranked 8th in population in the country in 1929. The Northeast was 3rd in pretty
much everything financial: payments to the IRS, production turned out by the mills, wages, and
bank deposits.
Massachusetts
Massachusetts had a head start in terms of manufacturing, banking, and commerce. The
Commonwealth contained more manufacturing establishments, provided jobs to a greater
number of workers, produced more goods than the other five states of New England combined,
and paid out the most wages. But the standing of the state eroded during the 1920s. Rhode Island
and Connecticut increased the number of wage earners in manufacturing, while the number of
Massachusetts manufacture workers dropped from 695,000 to 557,000 between 1920 and 1929.
It further dropped to 481,000 in 1930. It was the largest decline in any of the 48 states. During
the same decade that Connecticut doubled its output, Massachusetts lots $1 billion -> shrinking
25%.
Between 1928 and 1929, the number of boot and shoe establishments fell from 948 to 817.
Textile lost similar ground to the point where the President of the United Textile Workers’ Union
said that “there is perhaps more destruction and misery in the mill towns of New England today
Lecture 3.2 !3
than any where else in the United States.” Overall, Massachusetts had begun to hurt before the
Great Depression started.
Boston
By the end of the 1920s, the population of the city reached approximately 781,000 people. The
city relied a lot on the economy of Massachusetts and of New England. Compared to the state,
where the industrial productivity decreased by 16%, Boston’s industrial productivity only
decreased by 9%.
Historians believe that the diversification of the city’s economy explains the difference. Not one
of the city’s most important manufacturing occupations employed more than 4% of the total
labor force of 335,000 people. Not one sector engaged more than 15% of the 76,000 workers
who, in 1929, earned their living from manufacturing enterprises. Small clothing shops, many of
them in downtown lofts off Washington Street, turned out endless racks of dresses and suits.
Boston was a large publishing center, with the publishing of the Atlantic Monthly magazine, and
of book publishing. Most Boston industries ranked among the leading industries of the nation,
especially in food processing, tailoring, and shoemaking.
Yet, Boston’s greatest economic activity was concentrated in the trade, hence why the city
acquired the nickname of the Hub. Boston-based companies handled 53,8% of New England’s
trade, with some 3,700 firms employing 49,000 workers, and paid $104,000,000 in income a
year. Net sales reached approximately $2.4 billion dollars. With that amount, Boston, which was
the 9th largest city, ranked 3rd in retail sales behind New York City and Chicago. (Chicago was
the home of Sears Roebuck and sold large amounts of materials nationwide through catalogues).
Retail
With luxury shops on Newbury Street and exotica at Haymarket Square, retail was vital to the
city’s economic health. More than 10,000 merchants with 66,000 employees paid $94M in wages
and netted $672M in sales. Only 5 cities in the United States surpassed Boston in total retail
volume.
Fishing industry
In 1929, the city still was 1st among all fishing ports in the Western hemisphere. Nearly 500
vessels annually brought in cod, flounder, mackerel as well as mollusks and sea food. Boston had
the largest fish freezing plant in the world. Yet prices dropped in the 1920s, and by the end of the
decade, ship captains threatened to dump their cargos instead of getting the prices that they were
offered in the port.
Port
During the 1920s, the port of Boston slowly began to lose its importance compared to New York
City and Philadelphia. Boston did not have a competitive railroad line that connected the port to
the rest of the nation. The port also faced what the industry called the unfavorable load factor.
Lecture 3.2 !4
This meant that the ships were coming into the port full but leaving with their cargos half empty.
As a result, the value of the cargo coming to Boston diminished through the years. The passenger
fares did not compensate for the loss of cargo value.
White collar sectors
Overall Boston employed a large number of white collar professionals in financial, service,
educational, and medical organizations (doctors, profs, traders, dentists, etc). These professionals
also provided jobs to a large number of subprofessional white collar jobs (secretaries, telephone
operators, etc).
Banking Industry
The First National Bank of Boston and the National Shawmut bank handled more resources (i.e.
money and personnel) than any other city, except for NYC, Philadelphia and Chicago. Banks in
Boston handled more loans by 1929 than any other cities save for New York and San Francisco.
Their total equaled the loans extended in Detroit, Baltimore, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Cleveland
and Buffalo combined. Investment houses in the city tapped on one of the richest securities
market in the world. Insurance companies had their headquarters in the city (For example the
John Hancock Insurance Company)
Hospitals
Patients made special trips to come to the Massachusetts General and the Boston Lying-In
Hospital. With all of the medical schools located in the city, patients flocked to get the latest
medical treatments.
Wealthy Boston
Throughout the 19th Boston, wealthy families had opted for low risk investments. Most of their
investments were in trusts, protected from fluctuations. Most of them had really conservative
commercial practices, and did not want to jeopardize their fortunes. Estates were bound with
legal safeguards, protecting their trustees. While a lot of people laughed at them because they felt
that they were stuck in an old world, their fortunes remained relatively protected when the crash
took place.
Stock Crash
On October 23, 1929, traders relentlessly liquidated their stock in the Boston and New York
Stock Exchanges. The Boston Globe said that “the public was in a blue funk.” On the 23rd, it
took an 2 hours extra to close the day because of the number of transactions that needed to be
compiled (12,9 million shares). Bankers rushed to the offices of J.P. Morgan to try to shore up
the market. At the end of the day, half a dozen brokers collapsed due to the emotional and
physical shock of the trades, and were taken to the hospital. Ruined speculators broke down in
tears.
Lecture 3.2 !5
Tuesday the 29th was an even bigger day with 16,4 million shares liquidated. People assembled
at the Brokerage houses in Boston. Even women, who usually could not stand the heavy cloud of
cigar smoke, went to see the tickers flash reports of the disaster. The market reopened the next
day, picked up a little, then closed again. It reopened on November 4 for a series of three-hour
sessions, there were more loses. The market finally reached rock bottom on November 13. Some
folks did not feel the crash in Boston. The diversity of the economy made it such that entire
sectors of the economy could collapse and leave others unaffected. The impact was still felt
across the city but not all at once.
Federal Level
Most policies which attempted to resolve the situation took place at the federal level. Elected in
1928, Hoover had campaigned by saying that his presidency would be the final triumph over
poverty. After the crash, when it becomes apparent that things would not get any better, he
argued that the downturn was temporary. In 1930, he announced that Depression was over at a
delegation of business executives. (It was far from over!) Instead of resolving the situation, his
strategies to restore the economic health of the country had the opposite effect.
Initiatives
Hoover turned to corporate leaders, asking them to keep the wages and production pre-crash
level in order to rebuild American’s confidence in the capitalist system. At the federal level, he
cut federal taxes to boost private spending and corporate investments (similar to Regan era
policies). He asked local & state governments to provide jobs by investing in public works.
He then passed the Revenue Act of 1932 which raised tax rates across the board. The income tax
went from 25% to 63%. The estate tax doubled and corporate taxes went up by 15%. He
completely choked the economy.
Furthermore, Hoover refused to consider direct federal relief for unemployed. (There were no
unemployment programs at the time). Instead, he asked cities to provide relief with the
collaboration of private charities. However, unemployment was too massive for private
initiatives.
In the city
James Michael Curley was sworn in for his 3rd term in office in January 1930. He promised
Boston its own prosperity program with progressive undertones. He upped the number of
salaried municipal employees. He asked the state legislature to give Boston the right to take on
50% more debt, to increase its tax limit, and to control its own finances. He advocated for the
creation of a Boston Metropolitan area to get the suburbs to share the responsibility of the inner
city services and to increase his influence. (roads, electricity, sewer, etc). A Cambridge official at
the time said that “Metropolitan Boston is Curley gone Napoleon.”
His ideas made sense if you look at them from an economic stand point. Public works for the
unemployed, home rule, and a metropolitan government made sense in times of recession. So did
Lecture 3.2 !6
his decision to invest and spend money in the city’s development. He promoted the idea that
federal state, and city government should work together to resolve the situation. In his plan,
Businesses and philanthropists would complement the efforts of the city.
He devised $7.5 million worth of programs, to fund city projects, and asked the state to support
nearly $17.5 million dollars in other projects. Because he knew that projects could be delayed
and that several Bostonians need work immediately, he did everything that he could to make
programs work.
For example, he announced that the jobless would clean up the city for the tercentenary
celebrations. He set up crews to sandblast highways and to wash them with acid. He approved
the use of day labor instead of contract labor on all city projects and eliminated overtime, even if
it increased the cost of labor by 12%. During a snow storm, he invited people to shovel in
exchange for $5 a day. When some thirteen hundred men crammed into every available inch of
space at the Municipal Employment Bureau, breaking doors and windows, the city hired a
thousand workers, seven hundred more than planned. Curley encouraged businesses to keep
employees on, and not to cut wages. Yet unemployment worsened as the country got deeper into
the depression
Unemployment
No one has official statistics about unemployment for the first years of the depression. Modern
data collection methods used in this kind of situation were invented at a later date. However, it is
estimated that unemployment ranged between 11.5% to 28.5% of the active working population
in the city. Statistics however, do not represent how people live on the ground.
In January 1930 (you have to remember that the deepest point of the depression is in 1933), a
man collapsed in downtown Boston, and died of hunger. At Faneuil Hall, Navy Yard workers
rallied to protest the layoffs. Harvard solved its problem with the state minimum wage
commission by dismissing 20 charwomen (cleaning ladies) instead of raising their salaries from
35 to 37 cents a hour. When strike breakers were arrested, members of the other unions who were
jobless stood in line to replace them. The Musician Union opened a soup kitchen, and the
Typographers Union set up a fund to help their own unemployed members.
The first full scale Depression disturbance came on March 6, 1930. At the time 4000 men and
women gathered at the Parkman Bandstand on the Common. One of the spokespersons said, “We
are determined not to starve.” Obviously, the police denounced the march, alleging that that
protesters were communists. (On a side note, the Great Depression is the time during which the
Communist party saw the largest number of members in history in the United States). During the
Spring, more employment “riots” took place in the city and Curley branded all demonstrations as
communist inspired.
Since he knew that everyone wanted a show of strength in the circumstances, he took an even
more aggressive stance against communism. May Day, and the anniversary of the execution of
Lecture 3.2 !7
Sacco and Vanzetti, proved to be difficult as many protesters got into altercations with the police.
In October, the city used proto-“SWAT teams” (police with machine guns, bulletproof vests, and
tear gas bombs), to handle a meeting of the American Federation of Labor.
Structure of help in the city
Throughout the first part of the 1930s, Bostonians frowned upon direct aid to the unemployed
(unemployment benefits for example). Until 1935, there was no unemployment insurance at the
federal, state, or city level. Curley turned toward the federal government to advocate for
assistance. He claimed that the country maintained “people on the borderland of starvation,”
pushing the idea that the wealthy did not contribute enough to relief.
Like Roosevelt did a bit later when he implemented the New Deal, Curley assembled his “Brain
trust” to think over solutions. He assembled people from MIT, labor organizations, reformers,
and university professors to think about ways to resolve the crisis. Their deliberations led to the
push for the 5-day week and for the increased expenditure for public works. Curley eventually
claimed that Roosevelt took the credit for programs that he invented himself.
Early relief in Boston brought some questions to the forefront:
• Should the city accrue debt to provide relief? Is so, how much was too much?
• Should the city stop paying its employees to avoid debt?
• Should the private sector take over relief at some point?
• Should the city maintain control over relief?
Direct relief
The first initiatives were mostly private initiatives. Soup kitchens all over the city provided a
number of meals to people in need. (There was a debate in the newspapers saying that Boston
never had the need for soup kitchens, however, there were a number of them all over the city).
There is a certain gender component to unemployment in the city. More men than women were
unemployed. Given, more men usually supported their families than women due to the model of
the male breadwinner with the wife staying at home to take care of the children. However, there
is more to this equation. During the Great Depression, women could more easily find work as
domestics in homes across the city. Their work was seen as a necessity that wealthier families
still could afford. For that reason, women often became the primary breadwinner in the family
during this period.
There was also a gender component in the relief to workers. Government officials perceived
women as being able to make do with less. Women knew how to cook, how to sew, how to do
laundry, etc. They could do things that men could not do on their own and had to pay for in order
to receive. As a result, women received lower benefits, if any, compared to their male
counterparts.
Lecture 3.2 !8
Boston and the New Deal
By 1933, the situation was untenable in the city. Unemployment was out of control.
Unemployment reached 30% across the nation. It was even worse for Black workers who faced
more than 50% in some places, and in the higher 60% in others. In Boston, the unemployment
rates hovered around 20-25% for white workers and 30-35% for Black workers.
Banks were still closing rapidly due to bankruptcy. The governor of Massachusetts had planned
on closing the banks to try to reduce the hemorrhage at that point. Hunger was widespread. Kids
were even caught hunting pigeons in the Common to feed their families.
In 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected president, and launched the New Deal program.
The New Deal is often thought of two distinct forms of policies: One form stopped the recession
from progressing, the other helped with the recovery through direct help with the country. I
selected a few examples which particularly affected Boston.
Emergency Banking Act of 1933
The Emergency Banking Act of 1933 declared March 5th a national bank holiday where all
banks were to close “permanently.” Only Federal Reserve-approved banks were allowed to
reopen following an inspection, and allowed to operate. The Treasury Department inspection
would show that the bank had sufficient reserves of cash to do business without collapsing. This
measure was to rebuild the public’s confidence in the banking system. All of Boston banks
received permission from the Federal to reopen on March 13, rekindling Bostonians’ optimism in
the system and leading to more deposits than withdrawals in the city
Beer Bill
In 1933, the Massachusetts legislature realized that it could allow the brewing industry to restart,
and create hundreds of jobs. As a result, the state legislature expedited the passage of the Beer
Bill, and the state governor signed a measure legalizing beverages with alcohol contents of 3.2%.
In the same way that prohibition had been passed as a war measure, the repeal of prohibition was
pushed through as a New Deal measure. The idea was that relaunching the industry would create
jobs for farmers who grew the grains, artisans (for example distillers, barrel makers, etc), blue
collar worker jobs for the transportation of the goods, white collar jobs in sales, accounting, etc,
etc. It would create jobs that were none before. In 1933, the federal government finally repealed
the prohibition.
Civilian Conservation Corps
The Corps was created to do reforestation and conservation work. It mobilized 250,000 young
men to do the work. Some were recruited in Boston, and trained at Camp Devens. (See the
pictures of the men peeling potatoes!)
Lecture 3.2 !9
National Industrial Recovery Act
The National Industrial Recovery Act was based on the principles of economic corporatism put
forth by Benito Mussolini.
IMPORTANT NOTE: This was before the genocide and war in Europe. People LOVED
Mussolini and his way of controlling the economy at the time. (+ people were still
nativists).
Fascism’s theory of economic corporatism involved management of sectors of the economy by
government or privately controlled organizations (corporations). Each trade union or employer
corporation would, theoretically, represent its professional concerns, especially by negotiation of
labor contracts and the like. This method, it was theorized, could result in harmony amongst
social classes. Authors have noted, however, that de facto economic corporatism was also used to
reduce opposition and reward political loyalty.
The National Industrial Recovery Act created self-governing association in 600 industries (Some
small, some huge). Through these organization, the industries regulated themselves by setting
codes which fixed prices, ends child labor, and set minimum wages and maximum number of
hours for adult workers. The NIRA guaranteed the right of workers to form unions and banned
yellow-dog contracts (contract between employer and employee where the employee revoked
his/her right to join a union).
Businesses which abided by the provisions of the associations were sent posters to display in
their windows. (See the image of James Farley exhorting Bostonians to adhere to he codes of the
National Industrial Recovery Act).
Federal Emergency Relief Administration
Finally, the Federal Emergency Relief Administration provided funds to the states for their relief
programs. Over its two years of existence, the agency spent $1 billion on state relief. The states
could then spend the money as welfare payments to support its residents. People, however, still
had reservation over direct payment -> idea that no one can go on receiving relief without having
their character affected.
Instead of giving to people directly, and to support the idea of individualism, states used the
money to put people to work. Following the disbursement of the funds, Massachusetts created
the Emergency Relief Administration. It was popular among the unemployed but controversial as
a whole. The Massachusetts Emergency Relief Administration had the crucial task of approving
projects which were to be funded on a matching grant basis by the federal Emergency Relief
Administration. In addition, the ERA’S Emergency Finance Committee cleared all Public Work
Administration projects submitted by the Mayor of Boston. The reason why it was controversial
was because of the fact that Massachusetts relied on the federal government to fund its programs
instead of being independent. (You can see projects by state and city here: https://
livingnewdeal.org/us/ The Goodell building at UMass was one of the WPA projects!)
https://livingnewdeal.org/us/
https://livingnewdeal.org/us/
Lecture 3.2 !10
Obviously, I had to be selective in showing you some measures put in place during the New
Deal. These measures were not the only ones. Bostonians received benefits through:
• the Social Security Act of 1935
• the Aid for Dependent Children
• the Federal Writer’s Programs and other agencies
Discrimination under the New Deal
Due to the ideology of the Male breadwinner, women only received a portion of the benefits that
men received. Furthermore, women received benefits through their connections to a man: as a
wife or as a widow, as a daughter, as a mother, all of those notwithstanding their own wage
record. Mothers were considered unavailable to work, a widowed mother would only receive 3/4
of her husband’s pension. Benefits were eliminated if a woman remarried or if she earned a
salary. Furthermore, most programs only allowed people to have 1 program job per family, hence
favored hiring men over women.
Racial discrimination also plagued the New Deal and City programs. Specific workers, such as
farmers and domestic servants (two predominantly Black professions at the time), were excluded
from the programs, hence could not receive any benefits. Racial stereotypes guided the kind of
work that Black people could do; African Americans were seen as unskilled workers,
notwithstanding their training, hence pushed toward unskilled jobs. Black people also received
lower benefits if they lived in “low-cost” areas (i.e. segregated neighborhoods).
Results
Although it takes a long time, the different measures put forth during the New Deal helped
Bostonians. You can see the number of people employed through the programs through the years
in the slides.
Few more things to highlight for Boston
Tuberculosis
In the 1930s, tuberculosis was omnipresent in the city especially in the poor neighborhood. As
you can imagine, it is difficult to address the situation at a time as antibiotics to treat tuberculosis
were not available until 1947. The Great Depression only complicated the equation as more and
more people became impoverished. As a result, an increasingly large number of people suffered
and died from the disease.
The only recourse that the city had was to open more sanatoriums to treat patients. The state
allocated millions of dollars to build state of the art sanatoriums (It was a blessing in disguise
considering that the state created jobs to build those building).
Abortion
During the Great Depression, women attempted to reduce the number of mouths that they had to
feed. Although some infanticide took place, women took advantage of birth control (condoms,
Lecture 3.2 !11
diaphragms, sponges, not yet the pill) to prevent pregnancies. When these methods did not work,
they turned to abortions in greater number, even if abortions were still illegal everywhere in the
United States. During the Great Depression, understanding the burden of more children on the
family, law enforcement was more lax. Abortions were legalized in 1973 with the Roe v. Wade
Supreme Court decision.
Shanghai Printing Company
To finish on a happy note, some companies managed to pull through the Great Depression
without too much difficulty. In 1931, Henry Wong opened the Shanghai Printing Company on
Oxford Street. For many years, the Shanghai Printing Company was the leading source for
Chinese language printing in New England. The press produced civic documents and social
announcements, laundry tickets, brochures for Chinese and Chinese-American students at local
universities, and menus for Chinese restaurants across New England. Shanghai Printing’s ability
to produce both Chinese and English texts was sought after by local universities to create
documents for their Chinese and Chinese-American students and departments. In addition to his
activities as a printer and publisher, Henry Wong worked for fair housing and improved labor
practices in Chinatown. He also advised many residents through the immigration process at a
time where the immigration of Chinese nationals was restricted at the federal level.
Where does that lead us?
Great Depression affected the city in a different pattern from other cities. Yet, unemployment
was still problematic, and triggered a debate as to what option the city could use to help its
residents (direct relief or programs employing people). Curley opted for city spending and
employment programs, and the federal government provided direct relief through the New Deal.
Even if the programs worked, Boston faced a difficult recovery. Despite the fact that the
governments pushed for the male breadwinner model, women are often took the responsibility as
head of the family when men were unemployed. By the beginning of the Second World War, the
recovery was still in progress.
Lecture 4.1 !1
Lecture 4.1 The 1960s
History 385
Julie de Chantal
Blaming the victim
In this lecture will talk about the conflicts and activism that emerge in the city in the late 1950s
and early 1960s. This period was especially important as it set the tone for the 1970s and the
busing crisis. As we start, I would like you to read this piece called “Blaming the Victim.” I think
that it will set the stage for what we will talk about today especially concerning the Black
community living in Boston
“What is the culturally deprived child doing in school? What is wrong with the victim?
In pushing this logic, no one remembers to ask questions about the collapsing building
and the torn textbooks, the frightened, insensitive teachers, the six additional desks in the
room, the blustering, frightened principals, the relentless segregation, the callous
administrator, the irrelevant curriculum, the bigoted or cowardly members of the school
board, the fairy tale leaders or the self-serving faculty of the local teacher’s college. We
encourage to confine our attention to the child to dwell on all his alleged defects.
Cultural deprivation becomes an omnibus explanation for the educational disaster area
known as the inner-city school. This is blaming the victim.”
As in everything, one of the first steps to stop victim blaming is to create programs to address the
issues present in the city.
Addressing issues in the neighborhood
Violence
Across the city, violence rose following the war. A sociologist at Harvard University, Walter
Miller, studied the violence in the streets, and noticed that gangs were slowly marking their
territories. You can read his unpublished manuscript about the topic here: https://live-
crim.ws.asu.edu/sites/default/files/%5Bterm%3Aname%5D/
%5Bnode%3Acreate%3Acustom%3AYm%5D/city-gangs-book
Miller noticed that gang territories in Boston were rather fluid, and that this fluidity allowed
violence to be less explosive than it was in other cities. Already in the 1950s, gangs developed a
dress code to show their affiliations. If the zoot suit marked some teenagers and young adults as
rebellious in the 1940s, color-coded outfits, letter jackets, and “dungarees,” identified gang
members in the 1950s and 1960s. Even non-criminal groups, like Ellen Jackson’s group of
friends (we will see who she is later), who named themselves the “Emanon” (a play on “No
Name” reversed), wore jackets to display their belonging to their “gang.” Some teens, who had
joined criminal gangs, carried weapons such as knives, belts, clubs, chains, or even rubber hoses
https://live-crim.ws.asu.edu/sites/default/files/%5Bterm%3Aname%5D/%5Bnode%3Acreate%3Acustom%3AYm%5D/city-gangs-book
https://live-crim.ws.asu.edu/sites/default/files/%5Bterm%3Aname%5D/%5Bnode%3Acreate%3Acustom%3AYm%5D/city-gangs-book
https://live-crim.ws.asu.edu/sites/default/files/%5Bterm%3Aname%5D/%5Bnode%3Acreate%3Acustom%3AYm%5D/city-gangs-book
Lecture 4.1 !2
filled with rocks. Following the murder of Rabbi Jacob I. Zuber on December 31, 1952, Greater
Boston cities pondered the use of curfews to regain control over the streets.
Some teenage gang members committed petty crimes, vandalized property, drank while under
age, and fought each other. Random attacks against non-gang residents took places on the street,
in public transportation, or in public spaces. Some gangs were even blamed for the derailment of
a freight train. In 1955 alone, the city saw 13 murders and 105 aggravated assaults, a large
number for the time.
Racial lines
Interestingly, though, violence in the streets of Boston did not seem to cross racial lines. In the
1950s, gangs were mostly segregated along neighborhood lines. Within these gangs, people of
different descent rubbed elbows. White gangs, for example, often included youth of Irish
Catholics, French Canadians, Italians, and youth of British origin. Most of the members of the
Royals, one of the Black gangs established in Roxbury, had Southern origins and were not
Boston natives. Overall, the criminal activities of the Royals resembled that of the white gangs in
the city. They committed petty theft, burglaries, hold ups, threatened residents of the
neighborhoods, and fought among each others. Yet, historians, sociologists, and reporters alike
failed to record any interracial incidents in the period immediately following World War II. This
finding is not to imply that tensions did not exist between members of Black and white rival
gangs. It is simply that violence between gangs did not seem to be based predominantly on racial
hatred.
Freedom House
Muriel and Otto Snowden, who fought to democratize the Boston school system, attempted to
address the issue of gang violence in Roxbury in their own way. In 1949, Muriel and Otto
Snowden founded Freedom House, a grassroots organization meant to help “different races,
different faiths, playing together and building together for a better tomorrow.” At Freedom
House, they organized activities for children of all ages, thinking that if a child was resourceful
enough at a young age, and belonged to groups who encouraged them to be self-sufficient and
self-reliant, in addition to having racial pride, then, they would be less tempted to join criminal
organization once in their teens.
Freedom House slowly became a political center in the Black community, creating projects to
address all types of issues. In reaction to the Urban Renewal fiasco, they focused on what they
nicknamed Human Renewal Projects.
Human Renewal projects
In the late 1950s, Boston razed “slums,” districts where a number of residents of African
American, Hispanic, or foreign descent lived, in order to build what promised to be accessible
housing, new highways, government offices, and commercial buildings. In the early 1960s,
considering the situation, the US Commission on Civil Rights asked the Massachusetts Advisory
Committee to report on housing conditions in the state. The Committee was especially interested
Lecture 4.1 !3
in the residential segregation plaguing Boston. Following the study, it confirmed that Bostonians
experienced de facto segregation in their city.
• de facto: in fact. In this case, Boston did not have laws on the books like many states
in the South, prohibiting African Americans from living anywhere in the city.
However, socioeconomic factors prevented Black residents from establishing
themselves in certain neighborhoods.
• de jure: by law. Prior to the decision in Brown v. Board of Education, Southern
legislatures passed laws sanctioning segregation (separate but equal… which was
ultimately never really equal by fact). Segregation, in these case was de jure, by law.
As a consequence of the housing segregation, most of the city services, (schools, welfare, buses,
etc) were effectively segregated, if they were based on neighborhood lines. With the report in
hand, a number of activists then decided to take the matters into their own hands. They used
organizations that were already in place in the city to create their own anti-poverty initiatives and
to help people in their neighborhood.
Women’s Service Club In Migrant Program
For example, in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the Women’s Service Club developed programs
to help young single Black women living in the city. Founded in 1919, the organization had
opened its doors to young college women who studied in the city. Most colleges in the Boston
area allowed Black students to enroll, however, they did not allow them to reside in the
dormitories with the rest of the students. Through the program, young women could establish
their residence at the headquarters of the association on Massachusetts Avenue, for the length of
their enrollment in a higher education establishment. For ten dollars a week or less depending on
their means, the young women received room and board in a dormitory arranged to fulfill their
needs. The association provided them with furnished rooms, a housemother, and recreational
activities.
Once Boston-area colleges opened their dormitories to Black women in the early-1960s, the
organization decided to launch the In-Migrant project, which sought to help young Southern
migrant women who came to the city seeking to improve their conditions. The In-Migrant
program aimed to reduce the skills gap between rural and urban Southern women and their
Northern counterparts. While the program targeted migrants coming from the South, it also
helped Black immigrants coming from the Caribbean who lacked proper skills to take on
domestic work in the United States. The In-Migrant program helped bring these women up to
speed on modern appliances and Boston’s employers’ expectations. Program leaders also helped
them find jobs with decent employers.
The program leaders assumed that most of the Black women who came to the city came to
become domestic workers (there were few other options really for women with little education).
There were ads in the newspapers that offered to pay for their trip to Boston, offered women a
room once on site, and led them to believe that they could easily “make thirty-five, forty dollars
Lecture 4.1 !4
a week,” purchase their own television, and live a comfortable life. They mostly did not make
good on their promises, and left the women stranded in the city.
The Women’s Service Club played a political card in training these young women properly. Once
trained, they could organize to get better conditions for all domestic workers in the city, just like
domestic workers had done in the South. They could finally secure a salary on which they could
support their family, and not just survive. Seeing that the project had consistent results, the
ABCD seized the opportunity to include it in the city’s urban Renewal efforts.
ABCD
The Action for Boston Community Development was an anti-poverty and community
development organization founded in 1961. In 1961, Ed Logue, the director of the BRA argued
that the city needed “a social service agency or humanitarian organization for those people
whose houses they’re tearing down and taking away.” Almost a decade after the Urban renewal
projects begun, the city acknowledged that it needed to do something else “besides just walking
in and telling them you’re taking their house.” The mayor, convinced of the importance of such
agency, called together some of the city’s activists. In 1962, upon its incorporation, the ABCD
received a grant from the Ford Foundation, giving the agency its first million dollars.
The composition of the Board of Directors, however, showed the city’s priorities. With one
exception, the first board was an all-men group, representing corporate interests. Melnea Cass,
the exception, was neither a business person or a man. She was a Black women and a community
activist.
Melnea Cass
Cass was born in Richmond in 1896. Her family moved to the city in 1901. She had been a civil
rights activists for most of her life, beginning with voter registration in 1920, creating a
cooperative child care resource at the Robert Gould Shaw House in the 1920s, and participating
in a large number of organizations in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. She was the founder of the In-
Migrant Program, and attempted to keep the ABCD in line with its mission.
Within a few months of the creation of the ABCD, Melnea Cass launched the the Homemaker
Training Program, again at the Women’s Service Club. The program was an “offshoot of the In-
Migrant” program which trained seventeen “disadvantaged” young women for a period of twelve
weeks.The program, like the New England Kitchen, helped women run their homes more
efficiently, taught them how to cook and sew, and how to take care of children properly. Within
weeks, the Department of Labor heard of the program, and asked the Women’s Service Club
leaders to pilot a similar program at the national level. The Department provided the Club with
the funds to renovate their facilities, to hire instructors, and to get new appliances, both gas and
electric. The program also served as a reinsertion program for poor women whose skills might
not fit the current job market. It is important to note that all of these programs launched in
Boston, started well before President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty.
Lecture 4.1 !5
War on Poverty
During most of the 1950s and 1960s, governments (federal, state, or city) handled poverty issues
by pushing the issues out of sight (for example with the urban renewal). However, in the 1960s,
poverty was omnipresent and could not be handled it in the same way. In 1964, a few months
after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson launched his domestic programs
under the Great Society. The Great Society aimed to eliminate poverty and racial injustice in the
United States. The War on Poverty was the most ambitious and the most controversial of the
Great Society programs, with the goal of eliminating hunger, illiteracy, and unemployment from
American life.
Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (under the supervision of the Office of Economic
Opportunity) was the central piece of the War on Poverty. The OEO was to oversee community
based programs:
• the Job Corps to help disadvantaged youth develop marketable skills
• The Neighborhood Corps established to give poor urban youths work experience and
to encourage them to stay in school
• Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) a domestic version of the Peace Corps
which placed concerned citizens with community-based agencies to work towards
empowerment of the poor
• Upward Bound which assisted poor high school students entering college
• Food Stamps Act of 1964 Expanded the federal food stamps program
• Other Great Society programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare programs
addressed specific needs of the populations.
These programs were available to all poor Americans notwithstanding their racial backgrounds.
Head Start
The most successful Great Society program in Boston was Head Start, an 8 week summer crash
program to help underprivileged children of age 5 and 6 to get ready for school in September.
The idea was that these children did not already have access to the resources necessary for them
to be successful in their early years. Around the United States, the program was offered to
100,000 children in 300 communities. In the Summer of 1965, it targeted 3,000 children in
Boston.
The program gave children educational opportunities, with cognitive and affective goals (self-
esteem, feeling of competency, emotional needs) in addition to “a full preventive health program
for the children.” the health program included:
• a Full examination, preventive screening, and immunization shots including
“diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, measles, smallpox and polio” if needed.
(Massachusetts was the first state to enact mandatory school vaccination in the
Lecture 4.1 !6
1850s, to prevent transmission of smallpox. Some children in poor neighborhoods
could not get their vaccination since it was too expensive for their families).
• “hearing and speech evaluations, vision testing, and the laboratory tests necessary to
spot anemia, tuberculosis, and kidney disease.”
• they even fit children with “corrective devices such as eyeglasses and hearing aids,
available whenever needed.”
• and Dental care.
On a side note, Head Start funded, through the Carnegie Institute, a TV program targeting
children who did not have access to the Head Start program in person. Can you tell what it is?
(The answer is a the end of this lecture)
Results of the investigation
Through Head Start, the Massachusetts Public Health department realized that a large number of
children had severe dental problems. Approximately 80% of all children in the Head Start
program had cavities (don’t forget that we are talking about pre-schoolers, some of whom still
had their baby teeth). More than 25% of them needed urgent attention from a dental professional
(dentist, dental surgeon). On average, those who had dental issues had 6 decaying/decayed teeth.
Some of the reports stated that most of the children had never been to a dentist or seen a
toothbrush prior to their entry into the program (I am not sure that the toothbrush part was true.
This statement could be due to the bias toward poor families). The Board of Public Health also
noted that children who had poor dental health also usually had poor mental health. (Again,
potentially a bias within the report).
In this light, Alan P. Danovitch, the executive secretary of the Massachusetts Citizens Committee
for Dental Health, urged dentists to undertake another “complete study of dental health in
Massachusetts,” the last large scale study having taken place in 1945, twenty years earlier. Dr.
Kastelic who was on the Board of Health also started to push for fluoridation of the city’s water
to try to help with the children’s teeth. He based his argument on the fact that Cleveland had
already added fluoride to their water, and that children everywhere in the city had good teeth.
The state had mandated a referendum on fluoridation in 1958. Between 1958 and 1967, only 37
communities across the state had a referendum on the issue, and 19 enacted the law. In 1968, the
state mandated all communities across the Commonwealth to add fluoride to their water within a
certain time period. Boston finally added it to its water in 1978, 8 years after passing the law. The
Greater Boston area did the same around the same period of time.
Most comprehensive health program in the nation.
At the time where Medicaid was still in its infancy, the state of Massachusetts and the federal
government disbursed approximately $55 per child for the health component of Head Start. The
national average was $10 to $20. Yet, the health component posed a number of issues.
Lecture 4.1 !7
Follow up treatment was difficult. Boston City Hospital and its affiliated clinics provided care
free of charge, but parents could not always follow up. Some working class parents had very
little time off to bring their children to appointments. The program assigned nurses to the
different cases to follow up, but this did not change anything.
Job Corps
The Head Start program also provided jobs to teens and young adults age 16 to 21, who
participated in the Neighborhood and Job Corps. As a way to extend the reach of the program to
the community, the program recruited young adults and teens in the Job Corps in an “attempt to
make up for society’s failure” toward those who had dropped out of school. The Job Corps
teamed up with local industries and businesses to secure training for those in the community who
did not have access to those opportunities. More than 3000 youth benefited from the program in
Boston.
These young people, like the Head Start children, received medical screening, and treatment. If
doctors found anything dire that required immediate attention, they sent the youth to the City
Hospital for treatment. Compared to the folks who participated in the Head Start program, the
young adults were in relatively good physical and mental health. The picture of their dental
health, though, was the same as those of the children. The program allocated less money
(approximately $30 per person) but still surpassed the national average.
Reaction of the Public
Bostonians were divided about Head Start. Some feared that the Head Start program would give
the poor Black or Hispanic children an unfair advantage compared to their white peers. A mother
found it unfair that her “husband’s middle-income [would] pay for another child’s education
when they couldn’t afford to give their own children the same opportunities.” Similarly, another
woman did not like how “her” taxes were being used to train the poor whom, she claimed, would
start to depend on public assistance for their daily needs. These comments show that people
misunderstood how poverty and privilege work, and predate the concept of the “Welfare Queen”
popularized under Reagan’s administration.
Unintended consequence
One of the intended consequences came not long after the program began. Mothers, who had
seen the result of the program on their own children, wondered what would happen when their
children left the Head Start program and entered public school in September.
Ellen Jackson was one of these mothers.
She was born in Boston 1935 but her parents were from the South. They had come to the city
during the first wave of the Great Migration. As a young girl, she attended the Girls’ Latin
School in Roxbury. She belonged the to Youth Council of the NAACP, but during that time, the
NAACP found the teens too radical and pushed them out by threatening their charter. She
graduated from Boston State College in 1958, (the college was merged with what became the
Lecture 4.1 !8
University of Massachusetts Boston in 1982). She married Hugo Jackson in 1954 and had 5
children by the age of 30. Between 1962 and 1964, she served as the parents coordinator for the
Northern Student Movement which advocated for students rights. She worked at a bank in 1962
and was fired for going to see Martin Luther King Jr. speak in Boston. She was involved in voter
registration and picketed the ABCD for better representation. By all means, she was already an
activist. However, in 1965, she became the leading parent in another organization.
Summer of 1965
The Head Start program had provided parents with more control over the direction of their
children’s education. As the end of summer neared, they became concerned with what would
happened when their children entered public school. They knew the poor conditions of the
schools in their neighborhoods. Classes were over crowded, with 35 to 40 students in each class.
Teachers had very little resources in their classrooms (think about the torn books mentioned at
the beginning of this lecture). Teachers rotated in and back out of the schools quickly. It was not
uncommon for students to see 1 or 2 new teacher in a month! Some classes did not have a
permanent classroom, so they met in the auditorium with other activities like the glee club, or the
drama class (if there was any). Corporal punishment was widespread and accepted/acceptable in
all of the city’s public schools.
Ellen rented a space in what she called Agency Row, Blue Hill Avenue in Roxbury. The parents
of Head Start students met every single night of the week for the month of August brainstorming
a solution to their school problem.
The fight in the city
Since the early 1960s, parents had attempted to meet with the Boston School Committee to talk
about school desegregation. In 1954, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that
segregated education was not equal education. As a result, the Brown v. Board of Education
decision abolished segregation in all public schools in the nation. As you can imagine, things did
not go as planned, and several cities in the nation refused to desegregated. Despite all of the
evidence that the NAACP and other organizations had gathered throughout the years, Louise Day
Hicks, the chairwoman of the Boston School Committee refused to even admit that the Boston
public school system was still segregated.
Louise Day Hicks
She was born in Boston 1916. Her father was the child of poor Irish immigrants who became one
of the wealthiest men in South Boston. He was a successful lawyer, a real estate investor, a
director in the banking industry, and later became a judge. Louise Day Hicks went to Simmons
College to study economics, and earned a teaching certificate at Wheelock College. She worked
as a teacher for 2 years then went on to study law at Boston College Law School (1949
enrollment but left after two years without earning her degree). She then attended Boston
University Law School. She graduated in 1955 and opened a law office with her brother. She ran
as a reform candidate for the school committee in 1961. To some extent, her move was political
Lecture 4.1 !9
and hypocritical. Her own children were in parochial schools (private catholic school) but her
campaign slogan was “the only mother on the ballot.”
She became the chairperson of the committee in 1963. In June that year, the NAACP demanded
that the School Committee publicly acknowledged the de facto segregation in the city. She
refused to acknowledge the problem, explaining that “De facto segregation was defined to me by
the N.A.A.C.P.,” as “the discrimination and exploitation of Negro children and granting inferior
education.” She continued to explain that she did not believe that Boston schools gave Black
children an inferior education. (In the 1950s and 1960s, the term Negro was used commonly by
both Black and white people to describe Black people).
Logic behind her thinking
Hicks refused to acknowledge that there was segregation because school assignment followed
neighborhood lines. In her mind Black Bostonians “choose their own housing, no one forces
them to take it.” What was the flaw in her thinking? A number of academics tried to explain to
Hicks and the Committee that systemic poverty and racism caused housing segregation which in
turn caused school segregation, but to no avail. Activists in the city used all of the methods that
they could think of to challenge the system.
In January, a group of Black students reached out to Hicks to talk about the situation. Brenda
Butler, a seventeen year-old student who attended The Jeremiah Burke High School in Roxbury,
asked difficult questions. “Why can’t the colored students qualify for [Boston] Latin School and
college?” “If the school curriculum is so good in Boston, why are the Negro children so far
behind?” “Is it going to take another 100 years before things change?” (Butler used the “100
years” to link the end of slavery and the current situation in the city). The student then “stared
tensely“ at Hicks and said, “your process is so slow, I’m just disgusted.” Despite the students’
probing, the committee stood its ground. Hicks responded that, “in time things will work out,” as
if the situation would simply change on its own in the near future. “You don’t have to come
demonstrating and banging on the door,” she continued, “the door is open.”
In February 1964, the NAACP threatened to sue to the Board, “if the Boston School Committee
continues to stand on the issue of de facto segregation.” Attorney Robert Carter, chief counsel for
the NAACP, stated that the case had been prepared since January, but that he had held it since the
Boston Branch had “sought other means to settle the dispute.”
Freedom Schools
In the weeks that followed, the NAACP planned a one-day boycott during which the children
could attend Freedom Schools. Freedom School offered a curriculum based on academic
teachings and activism. The makeshift schools were located in churches, community centers, and
other locations around the neighborhood, and operated by volunteers. (Nearly 600 people
volunteered to hold Freedom Schools.)
Lecture 4.1 !10
However, the idea of a boycott raised issues. Considering that the state mandated children to be
in school, could the city take legal actions against those who “induce children to skip school”?
Could the truant officers remove the children from the Freedom Schools during the boycott?
Edward Brooke
Edward Brooke, the first African American Attorney General in the nation, chimed in. Brooke
was born in Washington D.C., in 1919. He was born to a middle-class family, attended Dunbar
High School (prestigious Black public school in D.C.), and enrolled at Howard University to
study social studies and political science. He graduated in 1941, and enlisted in the military after
Pearl Harbor. Upon his discharge, he enrolled at Boston University School of Law (graduated in
1948). In 1950, he ran for a seat at the Massachusetts House of Representatives as both
Democrat and Republican in the primaries. He won the Republican nomination, but lost general
election. He tried for other seats but lost his races. When John Volpe was elected governor in
1961, he recruited him as a chairman of the Finance Commission in Boston. Brooke was elected
Attorney General of Massachusetts in 1962, and the first African American Attorney General in
any state.
His response to the boycott was that yes, people could be arrested for skipping school. Parents
could also be fined for keeping their children home ($50), and children themselves could be
fined ($20) for participating in the boycott. Needless to say that Black parents were especially
disappointed to hear this from the first Black Attorney General, whom they assumed would be
sympathetic to their cause. However, Brooke gave them an even better tool to be win their legal
challenge.
He told the parents that the state’s Commissioner of Education could order a racial census of any
school, in any town of the Commonwealth. The data gathered in the census could then be used
by the state and the NAACP to sue to School Committee, should it be found to have maintained
segregation in the city. (I will come back to that in a second). The parents defied the governor,
and still organized the boycott.
On the day of the boycott (February 29, 1964), the school committee still refused to
acknowledge the problem. First, they claimed that, “there [was] no segregation in the Boston
schools.” Second, they argued that, “the negro children [were] given the same opportunity to
learn as white children.” Third, they stated that Black children benefitted from “a series of
experimental programs,” meant to help them succeed in school. (They were considering
programs akin to Head Start which had already started in the city) For this reason, “the Negro
leadership [was] misguided in calling the boycott.” Finally, the committee members argued, once
again, that, “protests [and] demonstrations will in no way aid the Negro’s cause.”
The School Committee claimed that the boycott was not successful, despite the fact that 20,571
of the 92,844 enrolled students were absent on that day. They also claimed that the Black parents
did not have the support of the community, despite the fact that several churches, higher
Lecture 4.1 !11
education divisions, religious groups, welfare and housing activists, and medical groups had
supported the boycott.
Racial Imbalance law
Despite all of the opposition of the school committee, Massachusetts Advisory Committee to the
United States Commission on Civil Rights launched the study in 1964. The result were damning,
but blamed more than the School Committee. According to the report, the Boston Housing
Authority shared part of the responsibility as it perpetuated patterns of segregation in housing
which subsequently led to school segregation. As a consequence, Richard Banks, the executive
secretary of the Governor’s Committee on Civil Rights, argued that the actions of the Housing
Authority “could be construed as support of de jure rather than de facto segregation.”
The conclusions of the report rejoiced Hicks. (Remember how she made the argument that
parents chose their living situation). In response to the study, Hicks stated that, while Black
children attended predominantly Black schools, “this reflect[ed] the geographical area rather than
any design by school authorities.” To add insult to the injury, she accused the NAACP of having
“drawn a color line in Boston” as if the issues of segregation did not exist before the organization
pointed out the obvious. In 1964, Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which
prohibited segregation in all public location, including schools.
In 1965, The Department of Education released its report on Racial Imbalance. (Racial
imbalance here simply means segregation). During its study, the Department of Education found
that 45 schools were “imbalanced.” The researchers also determined that overall, white students
were more likely to attend predominantly white schools or schools which enrolled fewer than
five students of color. On the opposite, most Black students attended predominantly Black
schools. In this sense, the committee concluded that Boston’s schools were indeed segregated.
The report recommended two ways to resolve the issue.
• desegregation through open enrollment policies (parents would take their children to
a white school, on their own)
• City busing through an exchange program (exchange of Black and white students) in
addition to other strategies.
However, the committee was clear that the burden should be on the city, not on the parents (i.e.
the city could not force the parents to use open enrollment to desegregate Boston’s public
Schools. Instead, the city had to take action by using any strategies at its disposal in order to
comply with the federal desegregation order.) Obviously, the school committee was enraged.
They found the recommendations to be “insulting, thoughtless, irresponsible and vicious.” They
were appalled, and Hicks said that if put on a city-wide referendum, that she “shall never vote to
allow such an unfair and undemocratic action to take place.” The irony of calling a city-wide
referendum unfair and undemocratic was not lost on anyone but her. One historian even said that
Hicks “talk[ed] about the referendum like Adolf Hitler did and just like Gov. Wallace would—by
playing to fear and prejudice.” (Governor Wallace was the governor of Alabama who approved
Lecture 4.1 !12
the use of water canons and dogs on African American Civil Rights protesters. He was pro-
segregation and physically stopped African Americans students from entering the University of
Alabama after its desegregation in 1963).
By the summer of 1965, nothing had happened. The parents were in the same position with the
same questions, and no solution. One day, one of the parents attending the meetings organized by
Ellen Jackson (the Head Start mothers) received an anonymous package.
Race Survey
The package contained the raw data of the race survey conducted in Boston which had yet to be
released publicly. Someone from the Department of Education had put their job on the line to
help the parents’ organization. As the Head Start mothers started to compile the number of
available seats in classrooms city-wide, they realized that the situation was much more
troublesome than they had previously thought. At the same time that classes in Roxbury and
Dorchester enrolled between thirty-five and forty-five students, most of the predominantly white
schools listed more than five available seats in each class. Some schools, listed as having
twenty-seven seats in a class, only enrolled sixteen students. As parents compiled the census
data, the number of empty seats that they discovered grew as steadily as their anger. Three seats
here, four there, ten in another classroom, the numbers were appalling.
After tallying approximately thirty thousand elementary school and sixteen thousand junior and
high school seats, Ellen came to a simple conclusion; overcrowding only affected the schools
located in the neighborhoods of Roxbury, Dorchester, and the South End where Black
Bostonians lived. The parents continued to meet day in and day out but could not come up with a
solution. One day, one of the mothers had an epiphany. She said, “Let’s take the damn kids to
their schools!” If the city did not want to act, they could simply use the open enrollment policy to
shake things up.
Not desegregation
I want to pause here for a second, and emphasize that these parents, contrary to the NAACP,
were NOT interested in desegregating the schools in Boston. Instead, they were interested in
gaining access to resources, which were mismatched across the city. The Head Start mothers did
NOT want to see their students bused around the city for hours before going to school and before
coming back home. They wanted their students to stay in their neighborhood. However, the city
did not allocate resources properly, and as a result, Black schools did not receive a fair share of
what the city had to offer (textbooks, desks, materials, qualified teachers, etc). The idea of taking
the kids to the white schools was based on the desegregation model, however, it was the only
way that the students could get access to what they needed.
Operation Exodus
It only took a few days for the mothers to come up with a plan of action. They deliberately kept
the details of “Operation Exodus” secret so that no information could leak to the School
Committee. They reached out to parents throughout the neighborhoods, and collected names of
Lecture 4.1 !13
the students who would participate in the project. Reporters heard rumors about the operation,
but everything was kept a secret to make sure that it would be a surprise. They booked buses at
3:30 am, only hours before the school day started. Otto Snowden had worked his connections
with the Boston Police Department so that they were aware of the plan, and ensured everyone’s
safety but still maintained secrecy. That morning, Operation Exodus bused hundreds of children
to white schools. It was at this point that the corruption of the system and its desire to maintain
segregation became more apparent to everyone.
Corruption
Some school principals used creative ways to prevent the enrollment of Black children in their
schools. For example one of them had “unbolt[ed] the seats and the desks” in the classrooms,
physically lowering the number of seats available for open enrollment. Classes of twenty
students could suddenly only take sixteen pupils, with all of the seats already being assigned to
current enrollees. Other rooms had been designated as “storerooms” where all types of “boxes of
materials and supplies,” audiovisual material, and other items were stacked as to render the room
unusable for teaching. Others, although empty and with their seats properly attached to the floor,
had been left vacant under the pretext of not having enough children or teachers to use them.
In addition to the manipulation of the physical environment, principals used the system itself to
maintain their schools segregated. Black parents realized that a large number of elementary
students (white students) of Hyde Park, West Roxbury, Roslindale, and South Boston did not
attend the schools in which they were enrolled. Instead, these children attended parochial or
private schools at their parents’ expense. By keeping them enrolled “on the books” in the public
school system, corrupt administrators secured money and peace of mind in the process. When
asked about the empty rooms, reserved for these students, the administrators always had the
perfect answers. One claimed that it was “the special education room, and [that] those
assignments [had not] been made.” Another answered that “the teacher hadn’t come back and
they hadn’t gotten a permanent assignment for the teacher yet.”
Segregation in the new schools
Teachers who were unhappy with the new situation segregated Black children within their own
classrooms. They sat them at the back of the class, or humiliated them in front of their peers.
Black Parents persisted. On the first day of Operation Exodus, 85 students enrolled in new
schools. On the second day, more than 100 joined white classrooms. All of the parents who had
committed to help and to send their kids were there when called. Operation Exodus ended up
transporting nearly 1000 students each day by the end of the program in 1969.
In 1966, the Metropolitan Council for Educational Opportunity (METCO) was founded to help
continue the mission of Operation Exodus. Contrary to Operation Exodus which was 100%
parent and community funded, METCO was state-funded grant program run by the
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. It was a voluntary program
which allowed parents to make a choice. This was the idea that parents wanted, to have choices
for their children.
Lecture 4.1 !14
Where does that lead us?
Obviously, this is only part of the unfinished desegregation story. We will see next week how this
climate led to the Busing Crisis in 1974.
The TV show that I mentioned at the beginning of this lecture was Sesame Street. (If you have a
chance to find the first episode, you will see that the concept of “stranger danger” did not exist in
the 1960s!)
Lecture 4.2 !1
Lecture 4.2 The 1970s
History 385
Julie de Chantal
Last module
When we left in last module, we saw that tensions were rising in Boston, especially in terms of
race relations. Prior to the 1960s, Boston was almost undistinguishable from any other large city
in the United States. Like other metropolitan centers, the city and its inhabitants went through the
Depression, then the war, and the suburbanization of the 1950s. It also went through the second
Red Scare, like all of the other cities. As it hit the 1960s, things started to get more complicated.
The Second Wave of the Great Migration changed the composition of the population. The
migration of Latino and Asian populations also changed the city’s political landscape. The Black
community organized against segregation in the city’s public school system.
We saw that there were three sides in the fight against segregation:
• the NAACP wanted the desegregation of the public school system
• Black mothers and Operation Exodus were not interested in desegregation per se.
They wanted access to the same resources available to white schools but unavailable
in Black schools.
• the school committee was opposed to even admitting that there was a problem.
The fight against these inequalities, however, are just the tip of the iceberg.
Ghetto Riots of 1967-1968
In the mid- to late-1960s, African Americans rioted across the nation. Most of these riots
stemmed from the frustration of African Americans who lived in some of the poorest areas in the
cities and faced racial discrimination. They lacked jobs, decent schools, or opportunities for
advancement. In these riots, they protested the conditions of ghetto life, attempted to redress
grievances, expressed the need for respectful treatment, and signaled those in power that they
would no longer accept their exclusion from American prosperity. Riots took place in:
• Rochester on July 24-26, 1964
• Harlem on July 16-22, 1964
• Philadelphia on August 28-30,
1964
• Watts Riots on August 11, 1965
(Los Angeles)
• Cleveland on July 18, 1966
• Omaha, Nebraska on July 5, 1966
• Newark on July 12, 1967
• Detroit on July 23, 1967 (a
movie/documentary came out on
the anniversary of the riot)
• Minneapolis in the Fall of 1967
• Chicago on April 4, 1968 (After
assassination of Martin Luther
King, jr.)
• Washington D.C on April 4, 1968
• Baltimore on April 4, 1968
Lecture 4.2 !2
Boston’s ghetto riot of 1967
African Americans living in Boston faced a similar situation. They competed for unskilled jobs
with other ethnic groups who were favored by employers and Boston’s political intelligentsia.
They lacked sufficient numbers to yield political power through voting. They were ignored and
discriminated against by businesses and the educational system. Ultimately, they found
themselves powerless in the city.
Context of 1967
The administration of Mayor John Collins had focused on the revival of the downtown business
district, increasing business investment, and rehabilitating neighborhoods to “woo” the middle
and upper class (who had moved to the suburbs) back to the city. When they moved to the
outskirts of the city, these people took their resources with them, leaving the city increasingly
segregated and impoverished. Like many other mayors at the time, Collins ignored the plight of
African Americans arriving in Boston through the second wave of the Great Migration and the
issues that they faced as they settled in the city. At the time, Boston was one of the most racist
cities in the Northern United States. In early 1965, sociologists who studied the ghetto warned
communities that “when grievances are not resolved, or cannot be resolved under the existing
arrangements,” riots occurred. This warning, however, fell into deaf ears. In the 1960s, Boston
had several elections, but no Black politicians elected on ether the city council or the school
committee. African Americans held few positions in the police department or in any major city
agencies (that did not change in the 1970s either). The ghetto riot, however, did not only come
from the frustration of African American Bostonians.
A poor people’s riot
The riot of 1967 started with poor mothers trying to express their grievances with the city’s
administrative and legal systems. At the time, both Black and white mothers had attempted to
make the city’s welfare system listen to what they perceived were legitimate demands. City
administrators handled all welfare applications, processes, and payments. Welfare recipients had
difficulties navigating the system. They faced discrimination, ridicule, and arbitrary decisions
from the administration. After trying to have the mayor and the welfare office respond to their
demands, welfare mothers formed an organization called Mothers for Adequate Welfare (MAW).
In April 1965, MAW organized a sit-in at the Hawkins street Department of Welfare Office to
denounced what they considered to be the failure of the city to distribute surplus food.
Department officials listened to their demands and promised to address the situation promptly. In
the following weeks, the city opened 6 distribution centers (food banks), leading MAW to feel
that confrontation, through sit-ins, was a viable strategy. In July 1966, they marched to the State
House and confronted Governor Volpe, asking for larger rent subsidies, the possibility to earn
more money without affecting their welfare benefits, better management of the welfare
department (less red tape), and a say in policy making regarding welfare regulations.
Unfortunately, the governor ignored them, because this was a city issue, not a state issue. In May
1967, they organized a sit-in at the Roxbury Welfare office.
Lecture 4.2 !3
MAW members arrived at the Blue Hill/Grove Hall Department of Welfare Office in Roxbury
around 3:10 pm. Upon their arrival, they requested an audience with City Welfare Director
Daniel J. Cronin. Mothers, who used the services of the office, often had to wait for hours prior
to meeting anyone to discuss their case. The center was understaffed, inefficient, and rarely
showed compassion to families in need. One of the social workers affiliated with the center
mentioned to a reporter that “conditions here [were] terrible for us and worse for the clients.
We’re overcrowded, understaffed, case loads are high, budgets inadequate, and social workers
are bogged down with paperwork, releases, and forms to fill out. I can really understand the
gripes of the Mothers.” (You can read a great rendering of the issues in the optional Tager
reading for this week.)
A few minutes after their arrival, college students, supporting the Mothers’ cause, joined the
protesters outside of the office. More than an hour later, MAW leaders had yet to hear back from
Cronin. To pressure the administration into action, some members of the delegation entered the
building and used bicycle chains to lock the doors from the inside. Other members locked the
doors with bicycle chains from the outside, thus preventing anyone from entering or exiting the
premises. Police officers already on-site attempted to cut the chains to no avail, and called for
reinforcement as the situation escalated. Around 4:30pm, Cronin was finally made aware of the
situation when one of the welfare office employees, Katherine McNeill, suffered a heart attack.
At 4:55 pm, nearly thirty police officers arrived at the Welfare office. As they attempted to break
the chains locking the doors, the officers claimed that they were “set upon by demonstrators and
interfered with,” later even adding that they had been “assaulted.” Five minutes later, the MAW
delegates asked to speak to Cronin who had just arrived at the scene. He agreed, but only if they
allowed him to come inside the building. The mothers, however, insisted on keeping their
advantage inside the building. The situation reached a breaking point. Instead of allowing Cronin
to discuss the concerns of MAW delegates, police officers broke into the rear windows of the
building to evacuate the employees who were locked inside. By six o’clock, firefighters had set
up ladders on the side of the building to allow workers to escape. Less than a half-hour later, “a
score or so of policemen; armed with billy clubs and riots helmets moved into the reception
hall,” charging the front doors. “The police” according to the Harvard Crimson, were “‘wielding
billy clubs and shouting ‘kill’em’” as they tried to disperse the “group of demonstrators who had
gathered in front of the doors.” Another unit, which had stood by, waiting, “clashed with another
group [of protesters] who attempted to join those in front of the doors.” The third group of
officers “broke through the crowd outside to reach the entrance.” “In the shuffle,” the Crimson
ended, “police crashed through the glass doors.”
Although the standoff ended shortly after the police intervened, the situation was far from over.
After they cleared the building, police officers proceeded to arrest the demonstrators. Many were
beaten and thrown into police wagons. One of the mothers, who was already outside, yelled,
“they’re beating our people in there.” In the following hours, the situation deteriorated, and a riot
began. Vandals and arsonists destroyed private property, broke store windows, and set buildings
on fire. Violence continued late into the night. At 2:30 am, almost twelve hours after the sit-in
Lecture 4.2 !4
began, police fired “60 to 100 rounds of gunfire over heads of crowd of 200” in the Intervale
Street and Blue Hill Avenue area.
Roxbury, which had been a relatively quiet neighborhood until the confrontation, had broken the
myth of Boston being “almost unique among Northern city” as it “had experienced no riots or
other racial outbreaks” until then. Due to the outburst of violence during the confrontation, the
MAW’s demands were a second thought to most newspaper reporters, who had been more
interested in the violence than in its cause.
Their demands
• Welfare benefits will not be lost as a result of rumor or heresy; there should be a
chance to defend oneself from charges.
• Police will be removed from welfare centers as they are a “threatening presence.”
• Welfare workers should be available to talk to mothers every day and not just once a
week.
• Welfare workers will treat clients with respect as “human beings”
• Every welfare office will designate a board of clients to aid in dealing with
emergency situations.
• “Welfare mothers must be appointed on all policy-making boards of welfare.” To
help children get off the dole, welfare mothers can save money from small jobs to
pay for children’s education.
• Mothers should be able to earn $85 a month without penalty, and also be able to keep
70 percent of what they earn over that sum.
• The city should initiate a public relations campaign to change the negative image of
welfare recipients.
• Boston Welfare commissioner Daniel I. Cronin should be dismissed
• MAW should have input in the selection of a replacement.
Changes in the welfare system.
Since the mid-1970s, the idea of the “welfare queen,” a lazy woman who collects welfare
benefits fraudulently while driving a large SUV and making money on the side, has tinted the
ways in which we see welfare recipients. I would like to give you more details on what women
received, what was considered a necessity, and what type of issues recipients faced at the time.
City officials considered that the following were sufficient for a grown woman with a family
(from the 1970s):
• 1 hat, 1 dressy dress, 1 girdle, 2 cotton dresses, 3 pairs of panties, 2 pairs of stockings
(all items had a certain price attached to them. One could not get a more expensive
dress for example)
• Living room: Couch “springs on legs with new cotton linter mattress,” table “drop
leaf or extension (wood)”
Lecture 4.2 !5
• Kitchen: “Dinette set table and 4 chairs,” Linoleum (new) [floor covering, ancestor
of tiles that we have today, ask your parents or grandparents to talk to you about
linoleum if you do not know what it is!]
• Food allocations were determined based on the number of people in the family
(today, food stamps recipients receive $4 a day for food. Think about it, what do you
buy for $4 to create 3 fulfilling meals? A student at New York University recently
wrote a cookbook for Food Stamps recipients. You can see it here https://
cookbooks.leannebrown.com/good-and-cheap ).
• The welfare department also had a list of “special needs” that could be fulfilled:
medical materials for diabetic patients, transportation for a doctor’s visit, baby-sitter
for an “overburdened mother” if “certified by a case supervisor.”
As you can see, welfare payments did not cover extravagant purchases and barely covered the
families’ expenses.
Back to the riot
After three days of violence and destruction in the neighborhood, authorities finally conceded
that, “public assistance recipients should have a choice in making decisions affecting them.” On
the same day, the Mayor acquiesced to another demand of the Mothers for Adequate Welfare and
removed all uniformed police officers from the welfare office. However, he asked plainclothes
officers to remain in post, concerned that the violence might continue. The Board modified
welfare regulations so that women could be allowed to work part-time jobs and to keep up to $65
a month ($473 in today’s money), while still receiving full benefits from the Aid to Families with
Dependent Children. Children and teenagers were also able to keep part of their earnings—
children could keep up to $50 a month ($365 today) with a maximum of $150 per month ($1093)
per family including the parents’ income, while teenagers could keep all of their income from
Neighborhood Youth Corps jobs where they earned $1.25 an hour ($9.11/hour).
In addition to the improvement to benefits and the removal of officers, the riot transformed the
ways in which recipients interacted with the welfare office. Instead waiting for two or three
hours, one recipient reported that her “social worker saw [her] in 20 minutes today.” The office,
in fact, was extremely quiet, perhaps because of the events of the weekend.
Consequences
Of course, the Mothers for Adequate Welfare did not intend to trigger a riot, however, the
intervention of the police triggered it. A large number of community leaders claimed that the
police started the violence and that the community only attempted to defend itself. The
community did not explode because of the difficulties that they were facing, but because of the
pervasive feeling of helplessness, especially among the younger residents of the neighborhood.
One young man, who was old enough to sport a goatee, explained his point of view. “Yeah,
we’re angry,” he said. He had just taken a shiny gold watch from a store that he had looted.
“Why don’t I live out in Brookline or Newton?” he asked, pointing out the injustice. “Why don’t
https://cookbooks.leannebrown.com/good-and-cheap
https://cookbooks.leannebrown.com/good-and-cheap
Lecture 4.2 !6
I live in a great big house?” “Why don’t I win any contests.” “I’m going to throw bricks until
winter,” he finished, “and when winter comes, I’m going to throw snowballs.”
The violence did not surprise the elders nor other residents of the neighborhood. A young woman
argued that while she could not “condone the violence,” she also could not “condone the
exploitation that goes on in this community.” “People are paying $85 and $90 a month for their
rent for unheated apartments,” she explained adding that, “food costs more in Roxbury,”
“telephone and fast deposits here are higher.” “How often are our streets cleared,” she asked,
“when is our trash picked up?” “Instead of going on their vacations,” she suggested, “those
suburbanites ought to come down to Roxbury for a Summer to see how we live.”
Others perceived the riot as the only solution to the neighborhood’s issues. Maryanne Weathers,
a 23-year old resident, claimed that she “prayed for something like this riot.” She continued, “I
really hoped for it because, you see, this way we have to get along.” Weathers felt that the riot
had brought “unity” within the community. William Hart, a young man of 25, shared her
impression. Similar to Tager’s analysis of riots, he argued that, “people were finally getting to
express their personal opinions, their feelings.” “Other times,” he continued, “nobody listens.”
That is pretty much what continued to happen even after the riot. Before we get to the busing
crisis, I would like to talk about a few more things.
Birth Control
If you remember well, we talked about how Massachusetts was ahead of the curve in terms of
birth control during the Progressive Era. The Massachusetts Birth Control league was founded in
1916. In the 1960s, Bostonians finally saw the emergence of a non-mechanical form of birth
control. The pill, the first formula was called Enovid in the United States, was developed by Dr.
Gregory Goodwin Pincus.
Pincus was a zoologist who was interested in the reproductive functions of the mammals,
especially in how hormones regulated ovulation. He was a bit “out there” since he was involved
in parthenogenesis, the ability to produce offspring through asexual reproduction. He produced a
baby rabbit in vitro which was a revolutionary concept in 1937. In 1944, he founded the
Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology in Shrewsbury, Massachusetts. He wanted to
continue his research on the relationship between hormones and diseases such as, but not limited
to, cancer, heart disease, and schizophrenia. By the end of the 1960s, more than 300 international
researchers came to participate in the Worcester Foundation of Experimental Biology.
In 1951, he met Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, who provided a small
grant for his research. The same year, Pincus along with Min Chueh Chang, who worked at the
Worcester Foundation, confirmed that progesterone inhibits ovulation in mammals. However, at
the time, the research for a contraceptive pill did not really appeal to the medical community, and
Pincus was unable to secure more funding. In 1952, Sanger contacted her good friend Katharine
Lecture 4.2 !7
McCormick (the heir to the McCormick farming supplies). McCormick gave Pincus a substantial
amount of money to expand his research.
In 1953, the pill was ready for human trials.
Dr. John Rock in Brookline, who was a staunch Catholic, started the trials with progesterone on
patients in his parish (mostly Irish Catholics). Although his trials went against the Catholic
Church’s position on contraception (i.e. people should not use contraception, no matter what),
Rock encouraged his patients who already had large families to limit the number of subsequent
pregnancies. (Similar to the philosophy about family limitation in the Great Depression) In 1954,
he continued the trials with three different types of pills in Boston to help more women. In 1955,
Dr. Edris Rice-Wray conducted additional human trials in Puerto Rico. (The tests outside of the
United States were rather controversial at the time). She expanded the trials to Haiti, Mexico, and
Los Angeles, targeting poor communities where large families were often the norm.
There was a high rate of people dropping out of the trials due to the side effects (women gained a
lot of weight, had nausea, vomiting, acne, tender breasts, etc), You have to remember that the pill
tricks the body into thinking that it is pregnant. Despite the drop rate, the combined contraceptive
pill (estrogen + progesterone) was finally approved by the FDA in 1960.
Consequences
Despite its incredible side effects, the pill was revolutionary. Its use meant that women were no
longer slaves to their biology. They could now have sex for pleasure instead of for reproductive
purposes. The ability to avoid pregnancy allowed women to get ahead in their careers and to
postpone having children. They now had a choice as to what they could do with their own lives
and could plan ahead. However, the pill was only prescribed to married women. Until 1972,
single women could not be prescribed contraceptives. Again, this battle for access to
contraceptives took place in Boston.
Eisenstadt v. Baird
William Baird, an birth control activist living in the city, led the battle. In 1967, he was charged
with a felony for distributing contraceptives to a non-married woman after he gave a lecture on
birth control and population control at Boston University. He had actually prearranged the
violation, knowing that police officers were watching him from off stage. Under the
Massachusetts law on “Crimes and Chastity,” contraceptives could only be distributed by
registered doctors or pharmacists to married people. He gave packages that he said contained
birth control devices (condoms and contraceptive foam) to many young women who studied at
the University.
As a result, after his conviction, Baird appealed the decision until it reached the United States
Supreme Court. He used the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution to argue his case. He
argued that the conversation between a woman and her doctor was confidential and that women
were entitled to privacy under the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment to the Constitution.
The Supreme Court ruled in his favor and from that point on, unmarried couples could get access
Lecture 4.2 !8
to contraception. The decision on privacy also challenged laws in states where couples were
prohibited to have sex outside of marriage (considering them private).
Bellotti v. Baird
In 1976, Baird took on another fight, again leading to the Supreme Court, against restrictions on
abortion in patients under the age of 18. At the time, the law required that parents give consent
for a procedure on a patient under age. Again, he used the privacy clause of the Constitution to
fight the law. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor, explaining that the law “permits a minor
capable of giving informed consent to obtain a court order allowing abortion without parental
consultation, and further permits even a minor incapable of giving informed consent to obtain an
abortion order without parental consultation where it is shown that abortion would be in her best
interests.” In 1979, he continued the fight, asking the court to frame the context in which a
teenager could ask a court order instead of asking for parental consent.
Oil Embargo effect on the city (1973)
The oil embargo was another important aspect of the period. In 1973, the Organization of the
Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) used oil as a leverage against the United State’s
involvement in the Israeli-Arab conflict. The OPEC decided to quadruple the price of oil barrel
and to decrease the shipment of oil to the United States by 5% per year. The oil pricing for the
United States went from 3 dollars a barrel to 12 dollars a barrel, spurring gas rationing. U.S. gas
stations put a limit both on the amount of gas that could be dispensed, and limited the days it
could be purchased based on license plate numbers. For example if the last digit on a car’s
license plate was even, then gas could only be purchased on even days. Gas stations were closed
on Sunday. Prices continued to rise after the Embargo ended.
The Oil Embargo of 1973 had a lasting effect on the United States. Americans began to purchase
smaller cars that were more fuel efficient. It also led to a lot of questions on how Americans used
energy. The Federal government got involved first with President Nixon recommending citizens
reduce their speed for the sake of conservation. Congress issued a 55mph highway speed limit at
the end of 1973. This change decreased consumption as well as crash fatalities. Massachusetts
followed the national trend in terms of speed limit. Unfortunately, the oil embargo might have
reduced the size of cars that people used but it did not do anything for the parking and traffic
situation in the city. (See the pictures of the issues in the slides).
Eyes on the Prize
Let’s get to the busing crisis. The best way to understand the busing crisis is to watch the episode
on Boston of the series Eyes on the Prize. You have access to this episode through the
Blackboard portal. You will need your NetID to access the resource. The documentary is 30
minutes long. (Only watch the part on Boston. A second part tells the story of Atlanta’s first
Black mayor.) If you watch it in a public location, make sure to have earphones. This
documentary will show violence and people will scream racial slurs to African American
children.
Lecture 4.2 !9
Rafael Hernández School
When discussing desegregation, historians rarely talk about the difficulties experienced by the
hispanic-speaking communities who also went through desegregation. In Boston, the Rafael
Hernández School got caught up in the 1974 federal decision to force desegregation. The school
opened in the early 1970s to educate young Spanish-speaking students, especially of Puerto
Rican descent in Boston. The school offered a bilingual program to help students integrate into
the regular Public School system. However, when the 1974 decision came through, the Rafael
Hernández School was deemed an imbalanced school, notwithstanding its special mission. As a
result, it was forced to desegregate. In order to integrate white students, the school came up with
a creative solution. It developed a two-way language program, offering English immersion to
Spanish-speaking students and Spanish immersion to English-speaking students. The school still
operates today using the same model that it developed to comply with the federal desegregation
law.
The busing crisis lasted into the 1980s, and segregation still continues to this day, despite the law
preventing it. Read the article on the “do-over” for Boston.
Week 3.3 !1
Week 3.3 World War II and the 1950s
History 385
Julie de Chantal
Context of the War
The Great Depression gives rise of trouble in Europe. As I mentioned last week, the stock market
crash led to an international crisis. Some countries in Europe and Asia were affected more deeply
than others. The economic crisis ultimately created the circumstances necessary for the rise of
right-wing movements.
Italy
After World War I, Italy was denied claims on any German or Ottoman colonies in Africa and in
the Middle East. Mussolini was elected to the Chamber of Deputies for the first time in 1921. In
1922, he planned a coup and took over the government, becoming the country’s Prime Ministry,
and ultimately created a one-party dictatorship with the National Fascist Party. During his time
as Prime Minister, he developed the fascist ideology which guided Italy during the war.
Japan
On December 25, 1926, Hirohito assumed the throne upon the death of his father Yoshihito. The
first part of Hirohito’s reign as sovereign took place against a background of financial crisis and
increasing military power within the government. Prior to World War II, Japan invaded
Manchuria (Northeastern China) in 1931, and the rest of China in 1937 (the Second Sino-
Japanese War). Hirohito’s main concern seems to have been the possibility of an attack by the
Soviet Union in the north.
Germany
Germany faced really harsh terms in the Treaty of Versailles. At the time, Germany had to pay
reparation to France, was demilitarized, and forced to make territorial concessions. Hitler was a
corporal in the German Army during WWI, joined the German Workers’ Party in 1919, and
became party leader in 1921. In the 1920s, he was inspired by Mussolini’s March on Rome and
take over of the government. In 1923, he attempted a coup in Munich, was arrested, and
sentenced to 5 years in prison. During his sentence, he wrote Mein Kampf (the blueprint for Nazi
Germany). He was released in 1924, after a single year in prison, for good behavior.
After his release, he formed the National Socialist German Workers Party (the NSDAP),
promoted anti-semitism, nativism, and anti-communism. When the stock market in the United
States crashed on 24 October 1929, the impact in Germany was dire: millions lost their jobs, and
several major banks collapsed. Hitler and the NSDAP (the Nazi Party) took advantage of the
emergency to gain support for their party. They promised to repudiate the Treaty of Versailles,
strengthen the economy, and provide jobs to German citizens. The party gained more and more
popularity (don’t forget that no matter what, it was a legitimate party at the time). In 1933, Hitler
was appointed Chancellor, and in 1934, after President von Hindenburg’s death, he took on the
Week 3.3 !2
powers of both President and Chancellor. Hitler thus became head of state as well as head of
government, and was formally named as Führer und Reichskanzler (leader and chancellor).
Neutrality Act of 1935
By 1935, Congress and Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) somewhat knew that the war was
eminent. They decided to take a stand and proclaim the United States’ neutrality toward foreign
conflicts. The first Neutrality Act of 1935 placed an embargo on selling arms to warring counties.
American travelers who traveled on ships registered in belligerent nations were warned that they
would do so at their own risk.
Neutrality Act of 1936
In 1936, the Neutrality Act was renewed for another 14 months. It forbade all loans to belligerent
nations. This act did not apply to Spain as a warring country nor to civil wars (in 1936, Spain
entered a civil war under the dictatorship of General Franco). It also did not apply to oil and
trucks. Companies like Texaco, Standard Oil, General Motors, Ford, and Studebaker exploited
this loophole and sold products to General Franco in Spain.
Neutrality Act of 1937
In 1937, the United states extended the Neutrality Act to Spain, and added the civil war clause.
This time, the act did not have an expiration date. U.S. ships were further prohibited from
transporting any passengers or articles to belligerent nations, and U.S. citizens were forbidden
from traveling on ships of belligerent nations.
Cash And Carry
In 1939, upon declaration of war from England and France on Germany, Congress made a
concession. If a warring country wanted to purchase nonmilitary goods from the United States,
the President could allow it, only if the country paid in cash and carried the materials purchased
with their own ships at their own risk. Later in the year, the Cash and Carry policy was expanded
to military goods, ending the arms embargo of the Neutrality acts.
Invasion of Czechoslovakia, then Poland
When Germany invaded Czechoslovakia then Poland, the United States still maintained its
neutrality. FDR, however, knew that Europe was on the road to war and persuaded Congress to
increase aid to Britain.
Lend-Lease Act
In 1940, France surrendered to Germany. Britain stood alone facing Germany. Two months later,
Britain was no longer able to pay for arms bought from USA, and as a result, Roosevelt
convinced Congress to pass the Lend-Lease Act. The act authorized the President “to lend, lease
or otherwise dispose of arms and other equipment” to Britain or any country whose defense was
considered vital to the security of the United States. When Hitler decided to invade the Soviet
Union in 1941, the USA extended the lend-lease act to the Soviets. It was the unofficial entrance
Week 3.3 !3
of the United States into the War. (Don’t forget that the USSR was allied with the United States,
Britain, and France in World War II.)
Pearl Harbor
Japan’s actions and not Germany’s triggered the participation of the United States in the war. In
the 1930s, Japan invaded China, which FDR denounced as “a reign of terror.” FDR refused to
intervene when Japanese troops sacked the city of Nankin, massacred 300,000 residents, raped
thousands of women, and sank an American gunboat. October 1941, General Tojo became prime
minister, and accelerated the militarization of the country. By November, American military
intelligence knew that Japan was planning an attack on American soil. However, they didn’t
know when or where it would occur.
Early on Sunday morning, December 7th, 1941, Japanese bombers attacked Pearl Harbor, killing
more than 2,400 civilians and servicemen, and destroyed 8 battleship, 3 cruisers, 3 destroyers,
and 200 planes. The attack rallied the United States behind formal entry into the war. Three days
later, Germany and Italy declared war on the USA, and the USA declared war on those nations.
Draft
In the summer of 1940, once France fell to Germany, the United States reestablished the draft. At
the time, 71% of Americans supported the draft. The United States government used the
Selective Service Act of 1917 as a model for the draft in 1940, and required all men age 21 to 35
to register with the board. Men were then selected for a one-year service through a national
lottery. The term was extended to two years in August 1941. After the entry into the war, the term
of service was extended to the duration of the war + six months, and the age extended from 18 to
64 years of age. A total of 49 million men registered and 36 million were classified. 10 million of
them were inducted into the military
World War II in Boston
In Boston, the interest in the draft was high because Bostonians saw military participation as a
patriotic duty. You can see registration cards in the slides. In addition to the men who were
mustered into federal service, the Massachusetts National Guard was also called into service.
Again, the Yankee Division (the World War I division) was activated in Boston. Soon after, the
242nd Coast Artillery was activated as well. In order to provide a more flexible approach to the
war, divisions were dismantled and re-formed into smaller more specialized regiments.
Throughout the war, the Yankee Division suffered casualties to this extent:
• Total battle casualties: 10,701
• Killed in action: 1,850
• Wounded in action: 7,886
• Missing in action: 159
• Prisoners of war: 806
Week 3.3 !4
The Yankee Division was recognized as having liberated the Gusen Concentration camp in upper
Austria. Members of the division received 2 Medals of Honor, 38 Distinguished Service Crosses,
7 Legions of Merit, 927 Silver Stars, 42 Soldier’s Medals, 5,331 Bronze Star Medals, and 98 Air
Medals.
Black soldiers
Black soldiers were sent to the 93rd Division, in the same way that they were sent during World
War I (the military was still segregated). They fought abroad starting in 1944. You can see a
picture of the DE-529, The USS Mason, one of two warships manned almost exclusively by
African-American crews. It was commissioned at Boston Navy Yard on March 20, 1944.
Conscientious objectors
During the Second World War, a large number of conscientious objectors (COs) refused to enlist
in the military. We have discussed the refusal of Quakers to participate in armed conflicts.
During World War II, a number of Seventh Day Adventists also refused to enlist on religious
grounds. Others, who did not necessary belong to these churches, refused to enlist on moral
grounds. A large number of them were students, mostly between 18 and 21 years old. However,
some records indicate that those who came from the Greater Boston area were a little older than
the majority of COs. All of the COs came from a range of occupation and religious
denominations, and did not seem to have much in common except for their refusal to participate
in the war.
COs were sent to camps where they performed civilian work of national importance. These tasks
could be to work as farmers, participate in the war industry, or even be subjects in
experimentations. They did not necessarily stay in Massachusetts for their service. A large
number of COs from Boston were sent to New Hampshire.
Experiments in the Boston area
Boston scientists helped with different experiments “of national importance.”
For example Camp 115 in Boston, located at the Massachusetts General Hospital, was involved
in research on malaria. Scientists at the camp especially focused on the effect of dietary changes
in protein intake for the treatment of the disease. (Remember that several soldiers were sent to
malaria-prone areas during the war. Finding a cure was of national importance).
The same lab conducted another experiment on the effect of drinking sea water. Since there was
a genuine concern about navy servicemen being stranded in life boats, scientists tested the
toxicity of the sea water on volunteer conscientious objectors. Five volunteers spent two weeks
in a life raft in Cotuit Bay (Cape). They discovered that men could prevent dehydration “by
soaking their clothes and hanging over the side of the raft for five minutes every half hour,”
hence reducing their need to drink.
Week 3.3 !5
Another experiment was conducted at the Psycho-Acoustic Laboratory at Harvard University
between November 1943 through February 1946. Up to thirteen men were subjected to
extremely adverse conditions simulating communication while under high noise levels
encountered in military aircrafts.
Prisoners of War (POW)
In early 1944, Italian POWs arrived in Boston to serve in the Italian Service Units (ISUs),
wearing simplified American military uniforms, and doing essential wartime work locally in
exchange for increased liberty. Their presence, and more specifically, their level of freedom, led
to a local (and eventually national) outcry, accusing the U.S. Army of “coddling” the enemy.
Italians POWs in America were, overall, sympathetic to the Allied cause. Almost 90% of the
Italian POWs agreed to support the U.S. war effort by joining the Italian Service Units. The
almost 45,000 Italian POWs who eventually agreed to join Italian Service Units were relocated,
almost immediately, to coastal and industrial sites across the United States (like Boston). They
worked with American civilians and military personnel in combat related work for the remainder
of the war. By contrast, non-collaborating Italian POWs were kept in highly isolated camps in
places like Texas, Arizona, Wyoming and Hawaii. In Boston, prisoners of war were put to work
for example in the navy yard. On the slide, we can see Italian POW’S unload supplies received at
the Boston Port of Embarkation by rail.
Transformation of the city
Following the declaration of war, Boston became a war city.
For example, Logan Airport, which had been constructed in 1923 and was used mainly by the
Massachusetts Air Guard and the Army Corps (it was called Jeffery Field at the time), served as a
military airfield during the war. It was used as the Air Technical Service Command, through a
Joint use as a USAAF/Navy/Civil Airport.
The Boston Navy Yard, which already constructed ships for the Navy, increased its production
capacity. As you can see from this map, a large number of annexes were constructed in order to
make a larger number of ships. For example the South Boston Annex began operating in March
1940. In the Spring of 1941, a new power plant project provided more machinery to increase the
capacity of the yard. The Navy Yard even constructed barracks for the working crews, and had 3
shifts running in order to work around the clock.
The Chelsea Naval Hospital served as a military hospital (one of the first to accommodate naval
personnel).
The Watertown Arsenal, which had been established in 1816, expanded its size in order to supply
the demand in armament.
Week 3.3 !6
Blackouts
Military planes and submarines were used extensively during the Second World War. Due to its
proximity to the ocean, Boston instituted blackouts in case the German army would attack at
night like it did in England.
The state house’s dome, which was a gold color at that time, was painted black to avoid
reflection in the event of a bombing. One woman who lived in Cambridge said that, as a child,
she feared planes bombing, but learned later that blackouts were also needed so that city lights
would not silhouette ships in the harbor for the prowling U-boats. At the time, “No lights were
allowed, not even the tiny radio dial light. Blackout curtains were in every window. Air raid
wardens patrolled the streets with their white helmets and arm bands. When the Air Raid sirens
screeched warnings, the wardens would tell everyone to get off the streets and go into their
homes. A cheer would go up when the “all clear” sounded.”
Detention center
As a result, Boston serves as a detention center early in the war (before the United States
declared war on Japan and Germany). The East Boston Immigration and Naturalization detention
facility had served several purposes since its opening in 1920. The East Boston Immigration
Station could accommodate a maximum of 582 immigrants, and processed nearly 23,000
immigrants between 1920 and 1954 when it closed. Most immigrants were inspected at the piers
or on board ships. Those suspected of carrying diseases were sent to the detention facility (called
the Station) for secondary inspection. Approximately 10% of all immigrants ended up at the
Station. Immigration officials also sent those who required additional investigation to the station
(“the illiterate, the insane, criminals, polygamists, anarchists, prostitutes” as well as “young
children traveling alone” and “young, unmarried women traveling without guardians.”). Chinese
immigrants who were suspected of not carrying the right paperwork were sent to the station.
Chinese immigrants were segregated from the rest of the immigrants due to the special nature of
the limitation on their immigration. In 1875, the federal government enacted the Page Act which
limited Chinese immigration, especially for women who might become prostitutes (i.e. any
woman traveling alone), forced laborers, or possible convicts. In 1882, the Chinese Exclusion
Act further restricted the immigration of Chinese nationals, only allowing diplomats or
businessmen (and their household) in the country. Skilled and unskilled workers were prohibited
from entering the country (i.e. all workers!). If anyone left the country, they needed a special
permit to reenter. The two policies broke up families and led to a skewed gender ratio in Chinese
communities all over the country (large number of men to very small number of women) which
ultimately led to the increase in prostitution, the very problem that the government wanted to
curb.
In the 1930s, the station was used to detain immigrants who were considered communist
agitators. During the war, the East Boston Detention facility served as a temporary detention
center for those who were considered enemy aliens. For example on March 30, 1941, two ship
Week 3.3 !7
crews, one from Italy and one from Germany, bound to Boston were detained at the East Boston
station under an “anti-sabotage” order.
The Alien Registration Act of 1940
The United States had passed the Alien Registration Act of 1940 (Smith Act) which made it a
criminal offense to advocate for the violent overthrow of the government or to organize or be a
member of any group or society devoted to such advocacy. Immigration officials used the law or
minor offense laws to detain anyone who was seen as possibly against the United States. It was
the first peace-time sedition act.
In addition to the fact that it limited the freedoms of anyone in the United States, the Alien
Registration Act required all non-citizen adults to register with the government (even those who
were permanent residents). Alien residents had to gain certification either at the Federal Building
in Boston, or at their post office (specific ones were designated as processing centers).
Approximately 31,000 resident aliens registered in 1940 as a preemptive measure. An additional
26,500 registered through their postal districts by March 1st 1942 (the deadline to register).
Those who failed to register, nearly 4,500 of them in Boston, faced internment. This was
especially true for those of German, Italian, and Japanese decent.
“Enemy” Round up?
Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the entry of the United States in the war, more “enemy
aliens” were arrested by the FBI and detained at the East Boston facility. On January 19, 1942,
the New York Times reported that Harvard University instructor Dr. Karl Otto Heinrich Lange, a
German immigrant, and 29 other “enemy aliens,” had been held at the East Boston station since
the United States declared war on December 8, 1941. By July 14, 1942, the “enemy alien”
population at the Station was comparatively smaller and included only 4 Japanese, 3 Germans,
no Italians, and 1 individual of “miscellaneous” nationality. Like other temporary detention
centers, East Boston held its “enemy aliens” for 1 to 4 months, and detainees were then released
or transferred to other detention facilities or internment camps.
Most of what is known about the Japanese detainees at the East Boston detention center is
derived from the recollections of Max Ebel, a German immigrant who was arrested by the FBI in
September 1942 and held in the East Boston facility for four months. Though Ebel never
discovered why he had been picked up, he stated that one Japanese detainee had been arrested by
the FBI because he had his shoes shined across the street from General Electric, while another
Japanese man was arrested because his rosary crucifix, which contained a small opening,
arousing suspicion of the agents on site.
Ebel also recalled the day that he and another German detainee helped save the life of an
incarcerated Japanese man who, they discovered, had slit his own throat in a suicide attempt.
Most of the detainees were shipped to Maryland, Tennessee or North Dakota for long-term
detention.
Week 3.3 !8
The facility finally served as a detention center for European refugees seeking refuge during and
after World War II as their cases were reviewed.
Rationing
During the war, the Government needed to ensure that the military had all that it needed. Food
and supplies were particularly important. Only a few days after the declaration of war, the federal
government rationed the sale of tires. Propaganda encouraged drivers to drive slower in order to
make their tires last longer. Only a few days after the order to ration tires, there was a rise in tire
theft in Boston. Some resorted to returning to horses as their main mode of transportation in the
city. They even shoed horses at some Cambridge gas stations. The rationing of home deliveries
of milk and groceries were considered (remember that most women stay at home, so milk was
delivered directly to their homes).
Congress reduced the national speed on the highways to 40 mph and later to 35 mph.
Massachusetts’s speed limit was lower than the national speed limit so the law had little effect on
BOsotn. Massachusetts had a limit of 20 miles per hour in city areas, and of 30 mph in rural
areas.
Tires were only the first step in rationing. Food control was already on the table in early 1942
(pun intended!). At first, the government restricted sugar to 1 pound per person per week. It also
suggested that homemakers forced their families to eat fresh fruit instead of baking with sugar,
and to stir beverages carefully in order to sweeten them properly. City officials began to teach
nutrition in schools, and to publish more nutritional advice in the newspapers.
If one wanted to buy a toothpaste tube, they needed to turn in the old one. (They were made of
recyclable metal). When butter was low, people used margarine, which was squeezed to turn
yellow (see slide). Soon, the government rationed gasoline, and encouraged car pooling
(remember that because of the suburbanization of the 1920s, people had to commute to work).
In 1943, the government launched another wave of rationing with meat, canned goods, coffee,
and grains. That year, the Office of Price Administration created a booklet to help manage a fair
rationing system. When families purchased a rationed item, they had to present a coupon from
the book in addition to their money. This ensured that people did not go over quota for the week
or the month.
People were encouraged to plant Victory gardens to supplement their rations. This task was
especially important to women who were seen as the planners for their families. Families were
asked to recycle their bottles, tin cans, and paper. The rationing continued through the end of the
war.
Week 3.3 !9
Women in the military
During World War II, women’s work changed substantially. Unlike World War I, where they
have a minor role to play in the war (often times in predominantly female positions), women
played a large role in World War II, especially in the military. They could join the WACS
(Women’s Army Corps), the WAVES (Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service), or
the WASPS (even join as jet fighters). Women even joined the Marines (see the picture in the
slides). Six months after Pearl Harbor, there were nearly 12,000 female nurses on duty in the
Army Nurse Corps. An additional 28,000 joined by the end of the war. The Nurse Corps also
accepted a small number of Black nurses (479) who took care of the Black servicemen and of
German Prisoners of war (you can imagine how difficult it was for them to treat people whose
racial agenda was fairly clear). Most of the Black nurses were sent to follow the troops overseas
(for example in Liberia where they had to deal with problems like malaria that other nurses did
not have to face).
Civilian women also contributed to the war.
During the Second World War, women replaced men in all types of jobs. This time, instead of
insisting that women were weak and that they should remain in the home or doing tasks that fit
their sensitivities, propaganda (through the newspapers, government etc) depict women as strong
enough to complete any task. In the Boston area, worked worked at the Watertown Armory. At
the Armory, which provided around the clock child care for their employees.
For the first time in history, women had the opportunity to wear steel-toed shoes (no one had
made steel-toed shoes in women’s style and size before). Women were trained for technical
professions (Here at Rindge Technical School in Boston). Many were trained as machinists to
manufacture large guns at the Watertown Arsenal. A number of them were part of the Manhattan
project that we will discuss in a few minutes. You can see a press release announcing that former
Watertown Arsenal civilian employee Judith Marie Gallagher, currently a Private First Class in
the US Marines, is now stationed at Washington, DC, ca. 1944.
Manhattan Project
When we think about the war, we often think about the Manhattan project. Vannevar Bush was at
the center of the project. He was born in Everett Mass on March 11, 1890 and passed away in
Belmont, MA, on June 28, 1974. He earned his undergraduate and masters degrees from Tufts
College (Tufts allowed students to finish with a MA if they did a master’s thesis while they
completed their undergrad degree, so he did so). After graduating, he worked for General Electric
which was located in Schenectady, NY. He was later transferred to the plant in Pittsfield MA
where he worked on high voltage transformers. He returned to Tufts in October 1914 to teach
Math and worked at the Brooklyn Navy Yard during the summer as an electrical inspector. He
was awarded a scholarship to study acoustics at Clark University but quit since he did not like
the topic. He then enrolled at MIT and completed PhD in Engineering (joint degree from MIT
and Harvard University).
Week 3.3 !10
During World War I, Bush worked for the National Research Council, trying to find a way to
detect submarines by measuring the disturbance of the Earth’s magnetic field. (It only worked on
wooden ships, not on metal one, hence the device was not useful at all). He took a position at
MIT in 1919, and was appointed to the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics in 1938
(the ancestor of NASA). In 1940, reflecting upon the poor cooperation between civilian scientists
and the military in World War I, he proposed the creation of the National Defense Research
Committee. He managed to get an appointment with FDR, and presented his proposal on a single
page of paper. Within 15 minutes, FDR simply signed “OK FDR” on the sheet, creating the
agency.
Bush was critical in getting the United States to undertake the Manhattan project. When the
NDRC was formed, the Committee on Uranium was placed under it, reporting directly to Bush.
Throughout the project, Bush was always in charge. He even chose the army, instead of the navy,
to provide support to the project. He briefed Roosevelt on the progress of the project. Knowing
that MIT & Harvard trained incredible scientists, Bush recruited from among their ranks.
A large portion of wartime research was still conducted at the universities, hence why Bush was
aware of upcoming top scientists at the time. For example, scientists at MIT worked on
microwave research for defense purposes, and the Radiation Laboratory helped accelerate radar
developments. He also launched projects across the nation, with the camp at Los Alamos leading
nuclear weapon development.
Malcolm in Boston
Malcolm X, then called Malcolm Little, was living in Boston during the early years of the war.
He was born in Omaha, Nebraska on May 19, 1925. His father was from Georgia, and had
followed the Great Migration to Nebraska. His mother was born in Grenada. His father had some
run ins with the KKK, and was killed when Malcolm was 6. His mother was in and out of
hospitals (due to mental breakdowns), and the children were separated between foster homes.
Malcolm was a school drop-out (a teacher told him that his aspirations to become a lawyer were
not realistic for a Black person). He moved from Michigan to Boston in 1941, and lived with his
half-sister Ella who lived in Roxbury. She enrolled him at an all-boys academy in downtown
Boston without his consent. Ella was unfortunately not a stable mother figure for Malcolm in
Boston.
During this time, the South End and Roxbury were less segregated than today. It was home to a
large number of Lithuanians, Greeks, Armenians, and Syrians. Malcolm felt that the Black
Bostonians who lived around him were high class and well educated compared to members of
the Black community that he had known previously. He could already see the division between
Black people living in Boston (immigrants/migrants vs native Bostonians).
Second Great Migration
At the time of Malcolm’s arrival in the city, the Second Wave of the Great Migration had just
begun. This wave lasted from the 1940s (due to the war contracts) to the 1960s (leading to the
Week 3.3 !11
formation of highly segregated Black communities in large urban centers). Looking at the map,
you can see that this wave is not solely concentrated on the East coast. Instead, it also included a
push toward the West.
Unlike their First wave counterparts, who were mostly rural people living in the South, most of
the migrants in the second wave of the Great Migration were urban migrants and were skilled
workers. They sought jobs in the War industry especially after the federal government ordered
the desegregation of all companies receiving war contracts.
Back to Malcolm
There are many more details as to what Malcolm did in Boston and what was around him in the
optional reading for this week. What is important is that Malcolm had encounters with the law
during his time in Boston. At the time, he was a bit of a hooligan. He wore a zoot suit,
straightened his hair with chemicals, and was obsessed with Jazz music. He dated a white
woman named Bea Caragulian while in Boston. He worked as a soda jerk at the Townsend
Pharmacy in Roxbury (look it up if you do not know what a soda jerk is!). He opposed the draft,
and got himself disqualified by saying that he planned on killing white people once outfitted with
a weapon. Due to the fact that a large number of white men left for the front, Malcolm found a
job as a cook on a train between Boston and Washington DC. He was then transferred to the
Yankee Clipper, which ran the New York – Boston route. He stopped in Harlem every time that
he could.
In late 1945, he returned to Boston, where he and four accomplices committed a series of
burglaries targeting wealthy white families. In 1946, he was arrested while picking up a stolen
watch he had left at a shop for repairs, and in February began serving an eight-to-ten-year
sentence at Charlestown State Prison for larceny and breaking and entering. In prison, he
converted to the Nation of Islam, and changed his name to Malcolm X then to el-Hajj Malik el-
Shabazz. He was paroled in 1952. He became a leader of the mosque until he broke away in
1964 (due to divergent views with the leaders of the mosque).
Return to normalcy
The war ended in 1945. The return to normalcy was difficult, but certainly not as difficult as
what we saw for World War I. This was due to good planning on the part of the government to
avoid a post-war recession.
GI Bill of 1944
In 1944, the federal government passed the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944. The act
consisted of a range of benefits for veterans who came back from the war.
• tuition and living expenses when attending high school, college, or vo-tech school.
• low cost mortgages
• low interest loans to start a business
• unemployment compensation for one year at the return to civilian life.
Week 3.3 !12
The program was available to veterans who had been on active duty for at least 90 days and had
not been dishonorably discharged. The Bill was a political and economic success. It helped
create a solid educated middle-class in the United States through the tuition and living expenses
offered to returning soldiers, and allowed them to move to better neighborhoods.
Return to domesticity
The creation of the middle-class was possible through the return of society toward the male
breadwinner/stay-at-home-mom model. Women had taken on men’s jobs during the war. After
the end of the war, society put a lot of pressure on women to return home. Society, through ads,
tv & radio shows, etc, reemphasize the model of the male breadwinner as the standard American
model. To be a good middle class family, American families needed to abide by the model
(similar to the separation of the spheres in the 19th century).
With the benefits that men received from the war, and the attention paid to the nation’s economic
health, employers emphasized the fact that men should be able to take care of their family alone
(i.e. more than living wage). There was a pressure on employers to provide salaries high enough
so that women did not need to work to help make ends meet. As a result, women were no longer
needed in the workforce, and they could embrace the domesticity characteristic of the middle-
class family.
Baby Boom
As a result, men did not need a long period of time to establish themselves. With the mortgage
benefits for example, they could buy a house at really good price at an early age. The age at first
marriage dropped, and the number of children per family increases drastically. This was the
beginning of the baby boom (babies born between 1945 and 1965). There was a slight problem
though. The question was no longer how you would raise your family but where did you want to
raise your family?
Large Suburbanization push
In the 1950s, across the nation, there was a large push for suburbanization. In areas like New
York State, for example, developers begin projects like Levittown. Levittowns were planned
communities built between 1947 and 1951. The communities were planned ahead of time, in
terms of road, model of houses, accessibility, or who could live there. Levittowns were
exclusively white.
The sale contracts were written in a way that prevented African Americans from moving into the
neighborhoods. Levittowns were planned segregated neighborhoods. Developers constructed
small homes, all built in the same model with very little variation, built on similar size lands,
with a white picket fence. They were inexpensive places to live (for example, a house could be
built for $6,000-$8,000 which is the equivalent of $65-85,000 in today’s money). This led to the
creation of “suburbia.”
Week 3.3 !13
Change in the city
The Greater Boston area also developed during that period of time as the region also went
through its own push toward suburbanization. Between 1920 and 1950, the population of the city
increases only by 7%, compared to 67% in the decades that preceded it.
• 1920 -> 748,060 -> increase of 11.6%
• 1930 -> 781,188 -> increase of 4.4%
• 1940 -> 770,816 -> decrease of 1.3%
• 1950 -> 801,444 -> increase of 4.0%
• 1960 -> 697,197 -> decrease of 13.0%
• 1970 -> 641,071 -> decrease of 8.1%
For the most part the population make up remained the same for the first decade after the war.
(Numbers from and racial categories defined by the U.S. Census Department)
With the suburbanization, a large portion of white Bostonians left the city. As they left, the
housing market lost in value (see maps of the city). This triggered an internal migration where
African Americans left the South End, where they used to live in the first half of the century, and
moved to the Roxbury and Dorchester neighborhoods. It is important to note that most residents
of Roxbury and Dorchester at the time of the migration were Jewish people. (We will be back to
this in a minute)
Boston’s population became more diverse from the 1950s on, especially with the migration of
people coming from Puerto Rico, Dominical Republic, Columbia, Mexico, El Salvador,
Guatemala, and Ecuador. Upon their arrival, they faced challenges similar to other immigrants:
language barrier, poverty, lived in the same neighborhoods where other immigrants had lived
before them. A large portion lived in Black neighborhoods because of segregation.
After 1943, when the Chinese Exclusion Act and its successor acts were abolished, the Chinese
immigration to Boston started again. Chinatown expanded and developed. As you can see from
the pictures in the slides, the first point of contact between white Bostonians and Chinese
immigrants were often through restaurants. Chinese merchant associations became more
prominent in the city, and served as pillars in community organizing.
Year White Black Asian Native
Americans
Hispanic or
Latino
2015 52.9 % 25.3 % 9.4 % 0.4 % 19.5 %
1990 62.8 % 25.6 % 5.3 % 0.3 % 10.8 %
1970 81.8 % 16.3 % 1.3 % 0.2 % 2.8 %
1940 96.7 % 3.1 % 0.2 % — 0.1 %
Week 3.3 !14
Jewish and African American relations
The migration of African Americans in Roxbury and Dorchester posed very little problem to the
existing Jewish community. Everywhere in the nation, as a general rule, when African Americans
moved to white Catholic neighborhoods, they faced an increase in racial violence toward them.
When they moved to Jewish neighborhoods across the nation, there was rarely a problem of
violence. In Roxbury and Dorchester, Black residents shopped at Jewish-owned businesses, Jews
shopped at Black-owned businesses.
Especially after the Second World War, and especially due to the context of the Holocaust, both
groups worked together through bi-racial organizations to address racial discrimination and anti-
semitism. In the 1950s, Jews left Roxbury and Dorchester as they could afford better houses in
prettier neighborhoods. They moved to Brookline (where members of the community had moved
during the first push for suburbanization), Newton, and Deadham. Some move further out of the
Greater Boston area for example to Sharon, Medford, Lexington, Arlington, Belmont,
Watertown, Framingham, Natick, Randolph, Hull, Milton, Swampscott, and Marblehead. The
low cost of housing in those areas is especially important in attracting Jewish families.
Great Migration
The suburbanization was amplified by the arrival of large number of African Americans through
the Great Migration. If you remember, well throughout the first half of the 20th century, African
Americans only represented 2% of the total city population. During the Great Migration, nearly 5
million Black Southerners moved to the North, Midwest, and the West. As I mentioned earlier,
the majority of these migrants were urban folks and a large part were skilled workers. Since the
defense industry was desegregated through Roosevelt’s Executive Order 8802 in 1941, they
found jobs in the defense industry. A large number of them come to Boston because of the
educational and work opportunities that the city offered.
During the Great Migration, the Black population increases substantially
• 1940 -> 23,679 for a total of 3.1% of the city’s population
• 1950 -> 40,057 for a total of 5 % of the city’s population
• 1960 -> 63,165 for a total of 9.1% of the city’s population
• 1970 -> 104,707 for a total of 16.3 % of the city’s population
Urban Renewal
As Americans readjust to normalcy, the federal government launched what we called the “Urban
Renewal.” Truman, during the deployment of his Fair Deal, noticed that “Five million families
[were] still living in slums and firetraps. Three million families share[d] their homes with
others.” Remember that there was a push for the standard American family with the mother
staying at home, the family having a certain lifestyle, the home, the picket fence, etc. According
to the research conducted in the United States at the time, there was an acute housing shortage
across the nation. Developments built by private developers like Levitt were completed without
Week 3.3 !15
public subsidies. Although they were cheap houses, they remained inaccessible to the working-
class.
As a result, The Truman Administration passed the Housing Act of 1949 which contained the
following provisions:
• providing federal financing for slum clearance programs associated with urban
renewal projects in American cities (Title I)
• increasing authorization for the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage
insurance (Title II)
• extending federal money to build more than 800,000 public housing units (Title III)
• fund research into housing and housing techniques, and
• permitting the FHA to provide financing for rural homeowners.
Boston received a share of the money allocated under the Housing Act of 1949. However, things
got really complicated.
Boston in 1950
In 1949, John Hynes runs against James Michael Curley for Mayor of Boston. Hynes was born in
Boston in 1897. His parents were from Ireland, and came to the city in 1890. Hynes graduated
from Suffolk University Law School in 1927. He was city clerk under James Michael Curley
during Curley’s 1946-1950 term. Hynes took over as acting mayor when Curly served a 5-month
sentence in prison in 1947 for official misconduct. He challenged Curley in the 1949 election.
His campaign slogan was a “New Boston.” The city population had dropped by approximately
100,000 people in 1950. The city had never recovered from the downturn of the economy
experienced in the 1930s, and was still losing in vitality. The textile industry was losing steam. In
1947, the industry hired 280,000 workers. That number dropped to 170,000 in 1954, and then to
99,000 in 1960. Because a large portion of Boston’s money financed the failing mills, the city’s
financial health was endangered.
Boston slowly lost its financial market status, and the fishing industry was declining. The city
continued its slow transformation from a manufacturing-based to a service-based city. With the
advent of air conditioning in the 1940s and 1950s, a lot of people move from the East Coast to
the West Coast, thus draining the city of a number of its industries. So by 1950, Boston is in dire
need of renewal and revitalization.
Urban Renewal in Boston
When the Housing Act of 1949 passed, Boston was one of the cities that took advantage of the
money. Boston Housing Authority was designated as the local public authority meant to
administer the funds. Planning officials prepared the “General Plan for Boston” which proposed
to redevelop 20% of the city’s land in 25 years. The plan, despite all the research that went into
it, did not take into consideration the residents of the city.
Week 3.3 !16
The project proposed to demolish the West End, an old immigrant neighborhood, and to replace
it with an upper-income enclave of apartment buildings that many considered ugly. It was in line
with the urban renewal trend: cities demolished what they consider to be a blight, and replaced it
with high scale apartments meant to attract upper income people (and their money).
The Boston Housing Authority applied for federal funding in 1950 for the clearance project. The
study began the next year, and in April 1953, the city announced the plan to “redevelop” the West
End (i.e. destroy and rebuild). The federal and state governments approved the final plan in 1956,
and by July 1957 the city council and the mayor approved the project. Shortly after the approval
was given, the Boston Housing Authority surrendered its authority to the Boston Redevelopment
Authority (BRA) which started to hold informal hearings in October 1957.
Despite tremendous opposition to the West End plan, the BRA felt that the project had gone too
far to stop it at this point. The city and the government signed contracts to start the project in
January 1958. The city provided ⅓ of the money and the federal government provided ⅔ of it.
The city gave West End residents notice of demolition plans in April 1958. By November 1,200
out of the 2,700 households had evacuated. More residents moved in 1959 and early 1960, the
last ones leaving over the summer of 1960. From there on, the neighborhood was completely
razed (see pictures in the slides). Walter Muir Whitehill, a historian who worked at Harvard from
1951 to 1972, pointed out that the BRA did not make a lot of friends out of the Renewal project
because “it brutally displaced people, disrupted neighborhoods, and destroyed pleasing
buildings.”
They demolished over 900 buildings. The only building that still stands from the period is the
building located at 42 Lomasney Way. The building looks like it defied the city by standing
there! The BRA only paid a total $320,000 for moving expenses and personal property loss of
ALL those evicted (2,700 households).
Once the people were out, the city put the land out for bid so that contractors could propose
different use options. Rappaport, one of Hynes organizers, won the bid. He was a student at
Harvard when he put together the New Boston project. Despite his connections, Rappapport had
difficult getting the funding for the project. After being turned down by several banks, the John
Hancock Life Insurance Company finally agreed to back his proposed Charles River Park
Development.
Charles River Park Development
Rappaport commissioned Victor Green to design the Charles River Park. The idea behind the
project was to create “an urban village.” He wanted to counteract the dominance of the
automobile and still attract suburbanites to the area. The first residents moved in 1962. Low
income residents who had previously lived in the neighborhood could not even dream of living
in the development. The apartments were high-end luxury housing and out of their reach.
Week 3.3 !17
City Hall
City Hall was another eyesore. The new building was designed by a Columbia University
professor and his students. They won a two stage competition in 1962. The building is an
example of Brutalism or Brutalist Architecture (other buildings like the Fine Arts Center or the
Campus center at UMass are also examples of this type of architecture). In the 1960s, then-
Mayor John F. Collins reportedly gasped as the design was first unveiled, and someone in the
room blurted out, “What the hell is that?” You can imagine how popular it was. (There was an
article on Brutalism on WBUR recently. Here is the link http://www.wbur.org/artery/2017/07/31/
brutalist-boston-map)
John F. Fitzgerald Expressway
The last eyesore that I want to discuss is the construction of the Central Artery, the John F.
Kennedy Expressway. Like City Hall, the finished Expressway was highly unpopular. It did not
take long for it to receive several nicknames:
“The Distressway,” “the largest parking lot in the world,” and “the other Green Monster”
The plan for an elevated highway had been in the works since the 1920s. The above-ground
Artery was built in two sections. The first section was from High Street and Broad Street to the
Tobin Bridge. The second section was the Dewey Square Tunnel.
The John F. Fitzgerald Expressway was part of the Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway System
(Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways) which was a Cold
War construction project. It was meant to allow for the easier transport of troops and military
vehicles from one side of the country to the other.
The construction of the Expressway was authorized under the Federal High Way Act of 1956.
However, the highway cut off the North End and the City’s waterfront from the rest of Boston,
and only a decade after its construction, planners began to dream of tearing it down and
replacing it with a tunnel between North and South Station. This particular tunnel idea was never
implemented.
What were the consequences of the urban redevelopment?
The West End was razed because of the neighborhood was seen as a blight. Overall, it was a
typical neighborhood for a city like Boston, but the city had stopped collecting garbage and
cleaning the streets. So, of course the neighborhood looked like a mess, but there were also
structural issues keeping it that way.
People were impoverished in the process. Many building owners were not adequately
compensated for their property. Due to city law, as soon as tenement buildings were condemned
by the BRA, the city became the legal owner. This meant that building owners had no income as
rent was paid directly to the city. Soon owners became desperate to sell their property at severely
reduced prices.
http://www.wbur.org/artery/2017/07/31/brutalist-boston-map
http://www.wbur.org/artery/2017/07/31/brutalist-boston-map
Week 3.3 !18
Instead of creating more housing, the city reduced the number of apartments available in the
neighborhood. For example, 2700 households had been displaced, and only 477 apartments
constructed. Overall, the city lost more apartments than it gained.
Between one quarter and one half of the former residents were relocated to substandard housing
with higher rents than they were previously paying. Forty percent of the people who were
relocated suffered from long-term trauma because of the move. Later on, scientists created
studies based on the long-term traumatic effects of this project.
The new neighborhood remained predominantly white, pushing any minorities to other areas of
the city. One third of the city center had been destroyed. The Renewal affected 3,223 acres and
more than 50 percent of the population. If you couple this with the suburbanization, the city
became more and more segregated.
Formation of the “Ghetto”
The Urban removal was nicknamed “black removal” because it pushed Black Bostonians out of
sight. Discrimination in the newly constructed developments prevented Black residents from
living in their old neighborhood, like the West End (notwithstanding their income level). Urban
renewal of other neighborhoods, like the South End, for example, dislodged Black families from
their historical neighborhood. New white middle-class families moved to the neighborhood
where Black Bostonians had been established since before the Civil War (gentrification). The
loss of cheap housing pushed Black residents more intently toward Roxbury and Dorchester,
where the community had already been moving.
City authorities started to illegally redline the city. As a result, only Black people could get
mortgages in Mattapan. Bankers forced Jews out of the neighborhood through this unscrupulous
method. Black residents bought homes in Mattapan at higher mortgage costs, which were too
high for them to pay, and foreclosures became more and more common. The neighborhood
decayed and became a ghetto.
Conditions
By 1960, only 47% of all non-white occupied housing in Boston was considered “sound,”
compared to 78% of all-white occupied housing. Thirty-seven percent of non-white occupied
dwellings were considered in a “deteriorating state,” and ten percent in a “dilapidated” state,
compared to thirteen and two percent of white-occupied housing respectively. In addition, nearly
thirty-two percent of the remaining apartments were considered “substandard” units since they
lacked indoor plumbing.
To add insult to the injury, Black Bostonians who rented these units usually paid more for them.
Sixty-two percent of Black renters paid over sixty dollars a month for their lease, compared to
forty-four percent of their white counterparts.
Week 3.3 !19
Black workers slowly made occupational gains into semi-skilled and skilled manual labor jobs
and then into clerical jobs. However, while they made progress, their income level in comparison
to whites dropped. Most also had absent landlords who did not take care of the buildings, hence
contributing to the decrepitude of the neighborhood.
This led to the creation of what Civil Rights activists called the Black Boomerang. We will
discuss more of this housing discrimination soon.
Beginning of the School situation
Because of the migration, both within and coming to the city, issues emerged with the school
system. In 1950, Muriel Snowden, a civil rights activist started to pick up on the problem. One
day, she called the school to talk to the principal, and recognized her daughter’s voice on the
phone. What happened was that Gail (who was 6 or 7 at the time) had finished her class work.
Since the teacher did not have extra books or supplemental material for her to work on, she sent
Gail to the principal’s office to answer phones instead.
Muriel decided that she was not going to let that kind of situation become the norm at the school.
She tried to get involved in the Home and School Association (parents association) but could not.
At the time, the Principal, Miss Cloney, was trying to keep Black parents out of the organization.
(You have to remember that that being part of the Home and School Association would give
parents a say in the school system). In order to keep the power in her own hands, she tried to
rally the Jewish parents to her cause by telling them that the Black students would lower the
school standards. Muriel continued to push. Miss Cloney decided that she had had enough.
Instead of letting parents elect the head of the Home And School Association as per tradition, she
appointed herself as the chair. Frictions continued between her and the Snowdens to the point
where Cloney accused Otto and Muriel Snowden of being communists.
The Second Red Scare
Accusing someone of being a communist was not a joke in the early 1950s. A Second Red Scare
took place between 1947 and 1956. The second Red Scare originated with President Truman’s
Executive Order 9835 of March 21, 1947. The Executive Order required that all federal civil
service employees be screened for “loyalty.” It specified that one criterion to be used in
determining that “reasonable grounds exist for belief that the person involved is disloyal” would
be a finding of “membership in, affiliation with or sympathetic association” with any
organization determined by the attorney general to be “totalitarian, Fascist, Communist or
subversive” or advocating or approving the forceful denial of constitutional rights to other
persons or seeking “to alter the form of Government of the United States by unconstitutional
means.”
On a side note, this type of “subversive” behavior also applied to homosexuality.
Employers could dismiss anyone suspected to be homosexual at the time. Homosexuality
became a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
in 1952. It was removed as a disorder in 1973.
Week 3.3 !20
In 1947, Joseph McCarthy became a senator in Wisconsin and capitalized on that fear. Beginning
in 1950, he became more and more vocal about communist subversion. He began to attack a lot
of public figures. The term McCarthyism was coined that year to talk about all types of anti-
communist activities. During the same years 1947 on, Congress held hearings under the HUAC
(House Un-American Activities Committee) asking people if they had communist ties.
So if we come back to the Snowdens, it was particularly frightening to be accused of being
Communists, especially at a time where African Americans faced increased racial discrimination
in the city. However, while the Snowdens were NOT communists, the principal was onto
something. Another parent who was friends with the Snowdens had been a member of the
Communist party for years.
Anne Burlak Timpson
Anne Burlak Timpspn was born on May 1911, in Slatington Pennsylvania. She was the oldest of
six children of Ukrainian immigrants. She wanted to become a teacher but had to drop out of
school at age 14 to help her family. She had to lie about her age to be able to work at the local
textile mill (the legal age to work as 16 the time). She became a member of the Young
Communist League in 1927 when working at the mill. The organizing gave her a whole new
vision and purpose in life. In 1928, she became a delegate in the founding convention of the
National Textile Workers Union. She tried to organize the mill in her hometown but was fired.
Every time that she tried to organize her fellow mill workers, she lost her job. She was arrested
in 1929 and charged for spreading Communist Propaganda under the state sedition law. Burlak
decided that if she was going to be charged “for Communist ideas under the Sedition law, [she]
might as well join the Communist Party and learn more about it.”
In the 1930s, she was sent to Georgia by the NTWU to organize workers. On 21 May 1930, she
and five others were arrested for insurrection against the state of Georgia because they addressed
an interracial audience of unemployed workers. A conviction could have carried the death
penalty. Burlak and the other five members of the “Atlanta Six” were held incommunicado for
six weeks before their lawyers won them the right to bail. Burlak was the first one freed, and she
traveled around the country raising money for the others’ bail and for their defense under
auspices of International Labor Defense. Anne Burlak returned to the North and organized
workers in the mills of Rhode Island and New Bedford, Fall River and Lawrence, Massachusetts.
It was during the 1931-32 Lawrence textile strike that she acquired the nickname, “The Red
Flame.”
In 1932, her parents and brothers returned to the Ukraine. She went to Moscow to attend the
Lenin Institute in 1936. It was the last time she saw her entire family. Her father died of
starvation during the Nazi occupation of Ukraine in 1943, and she did not see her mother or
brothers again until 1961. In the following years, she ran for mayor of Pawtucket RI on the
Communist Party ticket, she raised money for the Scottsboro boys defense (they had been
wrongly accused of raping two white women on a train in Alabama), and ran for other offices.
Week 3.3 !21
By Second World War, she was living in Boston, and had become an activist in the city. She
fought against the closure of the federally funded wartime day care centers in 1945-1946. In
1946, she edited the Roxbury Voice, a newsletter issued by the Communist party. Many
Communist Party leaders were arrested under the Smith Act during the summer of 1951, right
after the altercation with Miss Cloney. With her movements being followed by the FBI, Anne
Burlak Timpson stayed away from her home for eight months hoping to avoid arrest, leaving her
daughter with good friends, first in Kansas City, Missouri and then Roxbury; once school started
again, she left her son with friends in Boston.
Although she managed to avoid arrest during the early part of the decade, Anne Burlak Timpson
was indicted under the Massachusetts Anti-Anarchy Law and in March 1956 she was arrested
with six others for violating the Smith Act. After the Supreme Court ruled in the Steve Nelson
case that only the United States government could prosecute such cases, the charges stemming
from the state anarchy law were dropped. The Smith Act trial was delayed until the Supreme
Court made a decision in a California Smith Act case. When the California defendants were
acquitted, the case against the seven in Massachusetts was dropped as well. (We will continue the
Snowden’s battles with the education system in the next module!)
Conclusion
The 1950s was a period of conformity. After the demobilization, men took advantage of the GI
bill as a means to rise into the middle-class. People married younger, women were pushed back
toward domesticity, and families had more children. With their families growing, Bostonians
decide to move toward the suburb.
The city experienced both internal and external migrations. The Great Migration, the
suburbanization, and later the Urban Renewal, created the perfect conditions for the formation of
a ghetto. The ghettoization of the Black community subsequently led to segregation of the city
schools. While some parents wanted to democratize the school system, the old guard, white
principals and school committee members, did not want to share the power.
Boston like all other cites experienced a Red Scare in the post-war period.
Historical Journal of Massachusetts • Fall 201052
South Boston, September 12, 19
75
Police wearing their riot helmets line the street in south Boston as women, led by
anti-busing advocate
Louise Day Hicks
(black coat), march to protest the busing
of students. Source: PBS, “Eyes on the Prize: America’s Civil Rights Movement,
1954-85,” Teacher’s Resources at www.pbs.org.
53
“Militant Mothers”:
Boston, Busing, and the Bicentennial of 1976
KATHLEEN BANKS NUTTER
Abstract: By early 1975, the anti-busing organization known
as ROAR (Restore Our Alienated Rights) expanded its base of
protest from opposing, at times quite violently, the court-ordered
desegregation of the Boston public school system. Arguing that
“the issue of forced busing is a women’s issue,” ROAR — whose
membership was predominantly female — expanded its focus and
began to specifically target the flourishing women’s liberation
movement in Boston. The group disrupted various public forums,
including Bicentennial events. Throughout, ROAR militants were
politicized, as were countless other women in the 1970s. Historian
Kathleen Banks Nutter was a teenager living in Boston at the time
and personally effected by the events she analyzes in this article.
* * * * *
Historical Journal of Massachusetts, Vol. 38 (2), Fall 2010
© Institute for Massachusetts Studies, Westfield State University
On Saturday, January 11, 1975, the Governor’s Commission on the
Status of Women convened at Boston’s City Hall, awaiting the arrival of
Governor Michael Dukakis who was to sign the proclamation declaring
“Massachusetts International Women’s Year.” But Dukakis never arrived.
Instead, according to the Boston Globe, “an angry mob of about 150 anti-
Historical Journal of Massachusetts • Fall 201054
busing mothers converged at City Hall,” and the governor hastily canceled
his appearance. There was a lengthy and raucous exchange between those
associated with the Commission on the Status of Women and the so-
called anti-busing mothers. Trying to restore order, Commission Chair
Ann Blackman told the Globe, “Frankly, I do not want any embarrassing
things going on when the governor arrives. Please, you’re our guests here
and you’re disrupting this meeting.” To this, Elvira (aka Pixie) Palladino
of East Boston replied, “No, you’re our guests. This City Hall belongs to
us and we are here because we want freedom for our children.”1
By early 1975 the anti-busing organization known as ROAR (Restore
Our Alienated Rights) sought to expand its base of protest from strictly
opposing, at times quite violently, the court-ordered desegregation of the
Boston public school system. Arguing that, in their words, “the issue
of forced busing is a women’s issue,” the predominately female ROAR
specifically targeted the flourishing women’s liberation movement in
Boston. It ultimately disrupted public forums such as one organized by the
governor’s office to kick off the International Women’s Year as well as the
Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) rallies held in Boston later that spring.1
At the same time, in anticipation of the nation’s 200th birthday in 1976,
ROAR also shifted its attention to the Bicentennial during the spring of
1975, turning the celebratory rhetoric on its head by claiming the right to
fight those who, in the minds of many white Bostonians, would deny them
their most basic rights as parents.
ROAR women were politicized, as were countless other women in the
1970s. But, the women of ROAR used confrontational tactics honed by
anti-war and women’s liberation activists in the 1960s, much of which had
been first inspired by the black Civil Rights movement, to make their case
for segregation in a most virulently racist and class-specific way. Self-
proclaimed “conservatives,” the ROAR women used radical strategies
to maintain what they saw as “traditional” maternal values. It is this
potentially disruptive nexus of politics and strategy, shaped by the race,
class, and gender concerns of the time that suggests the need for a deeper
reexamination of this period.
Much has been written about the tumultuous — and ultimately failed
— effort to desegregate the Boston public schools.2 Most accounts
emphasize the vital role that social class played in what amounted to a
violent racial confrontation between poor blacks and poor whites. As the
historian Ronald Formisano has argued, “Antibusing in Boston, especially
its organized active expressions, can be seen as a case of reactionary
55
populism, a type of grassroots social movement that has flared frequently
in American history.”3
Such an argument certainly helps us understand the anti-busing
movement’s frequent use of Bicentennial rhetoric, but it does not address
the important part that white women played in this movement. Although
the concerted efforts of African American women to improve their
children’s education through desegregation and the ways in which they
then organized to assist in the implementation of busing as the court-
ordered remedy have been documented, the activism of white women
opposed to desegregation has not yet been fully explored.4 Nor has the
impact of gender ideology within this “reactionary populism” been
adequately examined. Gender was very much entwined with ideologies
of race, ethnicity, and class — all of which came together in the Boston
anti-busing movement in the mid-1970s.
“Conservative” women have been, until fairly recently, more neglected
by historians than their more “progressive” sisters.5 The historian Kim E.
Nielsen has recently suggested that we need to be even more nuanced
in our consideration of conservative women. Nielsen persuasively argues
that:
In the context of right-wing women’s history, we must rethink
right-wing women’s movements in all of their political aspects
. . . It means recognizing that gender is present in right-wing
movements not only in the bodies of its members. Gender is at
the core of right-wing ideologies, formations, and negotiations
of power — even when women are physically absent.6
In other words, the roles of both men and women in conservative
movements, such as the Boston anti-busing movement, were shaped by
traditionally restrictive notions of “appropriate” gender-specific concerns.
Furthermore, as the sociologist Abby L. Ferber has pointed out, “Movement
tactics, behaviors, displays, and activities can all take gendered forms.”7
Certainly, when white working-class ethnic women took to the streets to
protest school desegregation they did so, they themselves proclaimed, as
mothers. Such a focus adds an additional dimension to the examination
of “forced busing” in Boston, but one that I believe helps to enrich our
understanding of race, class, and gender in post-industrial America.
When Judge W. Arthur Garrity handed down the Morgan v. Hennigan
decision on June 21, 1974, racial tension had been building in the city
of Boston for over a decade. After the Brown v. Board of Education of
“MILITANT MOTHERS”: BOSTON, BUSING, AND THE BICENTENNIAL OF 1976
Historical Journal of Massachusetts • Fall 201056
Topeka, Kansas decision in 1954, which deemed “separate but equal”
unconstitutional in the nation’s schools, all eyes turned South . . . but in
Northern cities such as Boston, black parents also recognized the damage
done to their children through segregated, inferior schooling. By the
early 1960s, local black community activists began pushing the all-white
Boston School Committee to address the situation. They encountered stiff
opposition. Led by Louise Day Hicks, the Committee refused to admit
that the Boston school system was either segregated or inferior, citing
instead the “voluntary” residential patterns
that shaped the racial composition of the city’s
schools. Black parents responded by staging
one-day school boycotts as local NAACP
leaders repeatedly sought a hearing before the
School Committee.
In 1965, after a white Unitarian minister
from Boston, James Reeb, was beaten to
death by white Southern segregationists
during the historic March to Selma, a stunned
Massachusetts state legislature passed the
Racial Imbalance Act (RIA), which sought
to impose sanctions, including the loss of
state funding, on schools with a student body
more than 50 percent nonwhite.8 But, like any
law, the newly enacted RIA had to be enforced. In Boston, this was not
the case and over the next few years, the city’s schools grew even more
racially imbalanced. According to the political scientist D. Garth Taylor,
in Boston “black enrollment in predominantly minority schools was 77
percent in 1968 and 82 percent in 1972, making it more segregated than
any major city south of Washington DC.”9 Nonetheless, the Boston School
Committee steadfastly refused to enforce this law, despite the loss of
millions of dollars in much-needed state education aid. This remained the
situation until Boston was ordered to desegregate its schools by a federal
district court judge.
In his June 1974 decision, Judge Garrity ordered the schools to achieve
racial balance by busing students, pairing schools that had a majority of
white students with those schools nearby that had a majority of black
students. Thus, the predominately African American neighborhood of
Roxbury and the primarily white Irish American enclave of South Boston
came to be paired. Furthermore, Phase I of the process was to start with the
Louise Day Hicks
57
upcoming school year, scheduled to commence in less than three months,
while Phase II would complete the process the following year.
Two recent Supreme Court decisions validated Garrity’s ruling. In 1971,
the Court ruled in the case of Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg Board
of Education that when faced with pre-existing residential segregation
patterns, busing was the only recourse in desegregating city schools. In
the 1973 case of Keyes v. Denver, Colorado School District No. 1, the
Supreme Court “ruled for the first time that the Brown decision applied
to Northern cities as well.”10 As school and city officials scrambled to,
literally, set the wheels in motion, and the black community organized to
facilitate the transition, many in Boston’s white community, especially the
economically depressed neighborhood of South Boston, also organized.
Many white working-class Bostonians viewed busing as a liberal,
white middle-class attack on the sanctity of their turf and their rights
“MILITANT MOTHERS”: BOSTON, BUSING, AND THE BICENTENNIAL OF 1976
Paired Districts in Boston’s Desegregation Plan
Source: Morgan v. Kerrigan, 401 F. Supp. 216 (1975), p. 253, as
reprinted in Taylor, Desegregation in Boston and Buffalo, p. 71.
Historical Journal of Massachusetts • Fall 201058
as parents, and they claimed that they were victims and their children
mere pawns. But in doing so, they “racialized” their discontent and their
growing alienation from government, much as those identifying with
President Richard Nixon’s “Silent Majority” had been doing since the late
1960s.11 By the 1970s, that Silent Majority found its voice. Critics of right-
wing movements have argued that white racism was a touchstone within
a budding conservative movement that would give rise to the Reagan
Revolution of the 1980s and come into full bloom with the Contract with
America in 1994.
According to political scientist Jeanne F. Theoharis, however, excusing
the virulent racism of many whites in Boston during the first two years
of court-ordered busing as “reactionary populism” is overly simplistic
and flawed. Theoharis argues that those scholars who “elide white ethnic
working-class alienation and political powerlessness with opposition to
desegregation, [thus are] naturalizing racism as a response for politically
alienated working-class whites.”12
Indeed, ROAR frequently claimed it was the media, especially the
Boston Globe, which portrayed all whites from South Boston as racists.13
ROAR consistently claimed its agenda was based upon parental and
community control. It also apppears that much of its racism was heightened
by the generalized discontent with liberalism. In actuality, ROAR was
formed several months before Garrity’s June 1974 order under the name of
“The Save Boston Committee.”
The Committee, organized by Hicks, then a Boston city councilor,
first met in February of 1974 to organize efforts to repeal the RIA. The
previous fall, the state legislature had passed a law that required the
consent of a child’s parents before that student could be bused away
from the closest school. Such a law would have made enforcement of the
RIA even more difficult, and Governor Francis Sargent vetoed it. Busing
opponents did not give up; they continued to advocate, in Hicks’s words,
for “the custodial rights of parents over their children.”14 Several state
legislators from Boston opposed busing, including Raymond Flynn, the
state representative from South Boston, and that neighborhood’s state
senator, William Bulger.
To facilitate their much-needed attendance, Hicks scheduled the
Committee’s weekly meetings at City Hall on Fridays, when both houses
of the Massachusetts General Court were in recess. Into mid-March,
“attendance was by invitation only, and was limited to the longtime anti-
busing activists . . . along with people who were effectively organizing
neighborhood anti-busing organizations.”15 Those people were primarily
59
women such as Rita Graul, also Hicks’s administrative assistant, Virginia
Sheehy, and Pat Ranese, all from South Boston. Representing East Boston
was Pixie Palladino, and from Hyde Park came Fran Johnnene.
By mid-March, the Save Boston Committee went public, announcing
as its chair Thomas O’Connell, a Hyde Park father of seven. O’Connell
informed the press that while the assorted neighborhood groups would
come together for one mass march on April 3, 1974, marchers from each
neighborhood represented would be identifiable by colored armbands.
According to the Boston Globe, the colors were “drawn by lot . . . South
Boston, to no one’s disappointment, drew green. Orange went to East
Boston, blue to West Roxbury and Roslindale, purple to Hyde Park, red
to Dorchester.”16
The urban educational specialist J. Brian Sheehan has argued that
“the stress on neighborhoods grew out of the feeling many white
homeowners had that they were being pushed from the city.” The
solidarity of ethnically distinct enclaves that political scientist Emmett H.
Buell, Jr., labels “defended neighborhoods” was also deeply rooted in the
recognition that “even a common cause could not overcome traditional
neighborhood parochialism.”17 Although grassroots concerns would
eventually undermine unity and challenge leadership, solidarity was the
order of the day on April 3. Armbands in place, the estimated 20,000-plus
marchers proceeded from City Hall Plaza to the State House to make clear
their opposition to the RIA. School Committee Chair John J. Kerrigan
“had ribbons tied all over his left arm,” while Louise Day Hicks made
clear her desire to transcend her South Boston powerbase by wearing, as a
New York Times reporter noted, “an arm band of many colors.”18 Despite
the impressive turnout of busing foes on the eve of the sixth anniversary
of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., the Massachusetts state
legislature did not repeal the RIA. Thus, there appeared no way to stop
what many on both sides of the issue assumed would be some form of
court-ordered busing in Boston. School desegregation in the city that
often touted itself as “the cradle of liberty” seemed inevitable. Shortly
after Judge Garrity’s order came down on June 21, 1974, the Save Boston
Committee chose a new name, one more befitting perhaps its increasingly
aggressive stance against busing.
A month before the Garrity ruling, an old friend drove Hicks to visit
yet another friend, Marjorie Walsh, the principal of Roxbury’s Maurice
J. Tobin School. While in the car, Hicks and her friend, also a teacher,
discussed a new “more dynamic name” for the Save Boston Committee.
The Boston Globe reported that:
“MILITANT MOTHERS”: BOSTON, BUSING, AND THE BICENTENNIAL OF 1976
Historical Journal of Massachusetts • Fall 201060
We said we had to be strong, to show courage, that our voice
had not been heard,” Mrs. Hicks later would recall. “In the
back seat of the car I noticed a stuffed lion, a child’s toy, and
I said, ‘Maybe we could roar.’” Roar! They thought about it
a moment. It sounded right. It could be an acronym. They
tried words to form the acronym, eventually coming up with
“Restore Our Alienated Rights,” a name the committee adopted
several weeks later.19
Initially led by Hicks, ROAR was at first a rather loose, semi-secret
organization of both men and women opposed to “forced” busing.20 They
were inspired in part by the actions of those who brought revolutionary
May 2, 19
73
Louise Day Hicks (lower right) at a large gathering of demonstrators outside the
State House in Boston to protest busing of school children and to repeal the state’s
racial imbalance law. Source: PBS, “Eyes on the Prize: America’s Civil Rights
Movement, 1954-85,” Teacher’s Resources at www.pbs.org.
61
politics to the streets of Boston in the 1770s. Now, two centuries later,
they were willing to take to the streets to make their grievances heard.
Throughout, women — as well as a rather traditional gender ideology —
played an active role. Thus, while women held a majority of the leadership
positions, both within the neighborhood chapters of ROAR and the city-
wide executive board, and in the rank-and-file, they did so explicitly as
mothers.
On the eve of the first day of school, Boston Mayor Kevin H. White
also acknowledged his female constituents’ maternal role. In a televised
address on the night of Monday, September 11, White said, “I have
listened to mothers and I have heard the anguish in their voices — voices
explaining inconvenience and hardship that parents and children both will
be forced to endure.”21 That anguish would be voiced even more loudly by
the women with the start of the school year the next morning.
When the buses rolled on September 12, 1974, all involved knew this
would be no ordinary school year in Boston. Many white parents opted to
send their children elsewhere, to parochial schools if they could afford it,
or out of town if they could arrange such.22 Some just kept their children
at home, out of concern for their safety or in support of the boycott called
by ROAR. Absenteeism was especially acute in the middle- and high-
school grades, averaging 50 percent of those enrolled for the first six
months of the school year. Of the 1,300 students enrolled at South Boston
High School, only 124 attended the first day, 56 of whom were African
American students bused from Roxbury.
An even smaller fraction — less than a tenth of those assigned —
of white South Boston students got on the bus to start the school year
at Roxbury High. There, the 44 white students were welcomed by
neighborhood parents and volunteers from Freedom House, an African
American community-organizing center.23 It was a very different scene
across town at South Boston High, where violence was a constant
throughout the fall. Local and national media outlets covered the frequent
stoning of the buses that brought black students from Roxbury to South
Boston High; the angry white crowds, men and women who stood outside,
yelling racist epithets; the gauntlet that black students had to pass through
each day; and the graffiti-scrawled walls reading “Never!” and “Niggers
Go Home!”24
The violence reached a crescendo on December 11, when a black
student stabbed a white student at South Boston High. The day before,
as South Boston High English teacher Ione Malloy noted in her journal,
“There was a milk-and-food fight in the cafeteria at lunchtime. Two black
“MILITANT MOTHERS”: BOSTON, BUSING, AND THE BICENTENNIAL OF 1976
Historical Journal of Massachusetts • Fall 201062
students and one white student were suspended.”25 That day, there was also
a riot at Walpole State Prison, hence the usual contingent of state troopers
was not on duty at the high school the following day when seventeen-year-
old senior Michael Faith of South Boston stepped in to try to break up a
fight and was stabbed by James White, an African American student from
Roxbury. Tension had been mounting at the school for weeks and now
pandemonium ensued as “a voice on the loudspeaker ordered the white
students to leave the building.”
Many of the white students joined the ever-present mob outside that
swelled to a thousand or more as the news of the incident spread. White
South Boston mothers who the day before might have been taking part in
the frequent “mothers’ prayer vigils” were this day, according to the New
York Times, yelling “a stream of racial invective and jibes at the police.”26
As school officials scrambled to get the black students out of the building
safely and onto the buses, police cruisers and other cars were overturned
in the street in front of the high school, and windows were shattered. As
the mood became increasingly angrier, Louise Day Hicks stood atop the
high school steps and tried to calm the crowd. Looking “distraught,” as
the Boston Globe would later remark, she took the bullhorn offered her by
State Senator William Bulger who stood at her side.
Her chestnut-brown hair, usually so meticulously coiffed, was
dull and windblown . . . Her face . . . was ashen without makeup
and deeply lined with worry. In more than a decade of leading
the antibusing movement, she was without peer in speaking
to angry crowds; no one could equal her remarkable ability to
focus the seething anger and frustration of these people, her
people. But Louise Day Hicks had never faced a challenge like
this before.27
Hicks assured the crowd that “Mikey,” the injured student, was stable,
but she was booed when she announced that the high school would be
closed for the rest of the week. Hicks implored the crowd to step aside
so the 125 black students, who had been herded into three classrooms in
the rear of the building, could board the buses and “go back to Roxbury.”
The crowd roared back, “Bus ‘em back to Africa.” Hicks then pleaded,
“Do it for me. I’m asking you because I’ve been with you all the way. We
have nothing to gain by keeping them here. Please help me!” According
to the Globe, a “burly man” yelled back, “Shut up, Louise.” Ione Malloy
remarked in her journal that Hicks “looked scared.” 28 More than thirty
63
years later, Barbara Faith, sister of the stabbing victim and then a twenty-
year-old “transitional aide” at South Boston High recalled that:
the day that Michael got stabbed, I think it shocked [Hicks],
how much hate was engendered, and a lot of it had to do with
this building up of all the ‘never, never, never’ thing. He got
stabbed, and there was a riot, and she stood up on those front
stairs asking people to go home. It’s like, “Hello! Barn doors
open, baby; you started this! People are not going to go home
quietly.” And there were riots. It was horrible.29
Indeed, the alleged remarks of Pixie Palladino as reported by the Globe
seem to fit the tenor of the scene on the steps of South Boston High — and
reflect the beginnings of a brief and eventually divisive power shift within
ROAR. Alerted by phone of the situation, Palladino left her East Boston
home and joined the South Boston melee, yelling at police, according to
the Globe, “the worst Italian curse you can make.” She went on to say,
“I’ve had it. How much more can people take? This has been happening
too long and it’s not going to stop until they stop sending those kids over
here.”30
Finally, four very tense hours after the stabbing, decoy buses left the
front of the building as the 125 black students were rushed onto other
buses out the back. With the high school now closed until the new year,
hardly anyone in this troubled city expected the situation to improve.
ROAR was a visible presence that December day as it had been
throughout the fall. But as 1975 began, the organization shifted its focus
from the streets to public venues seemingly unrelated to the “busing crisis.”
Such was the case when 150 ROAR members decided to attend what was
supposed to be the ceremonial signing of a state proclamation declaring
1975 as “International Women’s Year.” The women told the Boston Globe
that they were there for this meeting of the Massachusetts Commission
on the Status of Women because “We’re women too.” Wearing what had
become ROAR’s trademark blue and gold tam o’shanter and sporting
buttons reading “STOP FORCED BUSING,” many of the women also
carried small American flags.
According to the Globe, “For the next hour and a half, there was a
noisy and hostile confrontation between the mothers of South Boston,
Charlestown, and Hyde Park and the generally affluent and suburban
women who sit on the commission.”31 Interestingly, although the liberal
Boston paper referred to the white working-class Boston women as
“MILITANT MOTHERS”: BOSTON, BUSING, AND THE BICENTENNIAL OF 1976
Historical Journal of Massachusetts • Fall 201064
The Soiling of Old Glory
Stanley Forman
Boston Herald American
The photograph depicts a white teenager, Joseph Rakes, about to assault black
lawyer and civil-rights activist Ted Landsmark with a flagpole. It was taken in
Boston on April 5, 1976, during a protest against court-ordered desegregation
busing. It appeared in newspapers across the country and won the 1977 Pulitzer
Prize for Spot Photography. Source: PBS, “Eyes on the Prize: America’s Civil
Rights Movement, 1954-85,” Teacher’s Resources at www.pbs.org.
65
September 16, 1974
African American students are bused back to the Roxbury section from South
Boston under a heavy police escort. Source: PBS, “Eyes on the Prize: America’s
Civil Rights Movement, 1954-85,” Teacher’s Resources at www.pbs.org.
“MILITANT MOTHERS”: BOSTON, BUSING, AND THE BICENTENNIAL OF 1976
Historical Journal of Massachusetts • Fall 201066
“mothers,” it did not so designate the “suburban women,” — many of
whom were most likely mothers as well. While some of the ROAR women
appeared to harbor hostility, others simply asked for a forum. The Globe
quotes one woman as saying, “We want someone to listen to us.”
Perhaps the Globe declined to emphasize the motherhood of suburban
women because it was clear that political and class differences were in
play. After pleading to be heard, one ROAR woman asked, “Why can’t
poor white kids be bused to your suburban schools?” Yet another woman,
who according to the Globe, “burst into tears, pointed her finger at the 40
or so commission members sitting on the other side of the room,” said,
“Until the very end, we’ll fight.”32
Three months later, the women of ROAR were still willing to fight, this
time at a state ERA rally held in Boston’s historic Faneuil Hall. When the
ROAR women descended upon the April 9 rally, they did so, according
to Pixie Palladino, because the pro-ERA forces had “failed to recognize
the busing controversy as a ‘women’s issue.’”33 Co-opting the language of
the modern women’s movement was potentially a shrewd way to mask the
otherwise overt racism that was at the core of ROAR’s ideology. At the
same time, it also allowed conservative ROAR women to make a public
statement against feminism as they sought to maintain traditional gender
roles they viewed as under assault.
This new, more confrontational approach as represented by Palladino
was part of the shift in ROAR leadership that had begun after the stabbing
at South Boston High in December 1974. The shouting down of Louise
Day Hicks was a sign of things to come. Revered by many and recognized
as the “Mother Superior” of anti-busing in Boston, Hicks was solidly
middle class, the daughter of a respected judge who still lived in the South
Boston manse in which she had grown up, and was herself an attorney.34
A tall woman, Hicks was known for her flowery hats and her soft voice, in
which she often expressed concern for all “the boys and girls” in Boston’s
school system. As School Committee Chair, Hicks had steadfastly refused
to implement the Racial Imbalance Act throughout the 1960s. Now, as a
city council member, the fifty-eight-year-old grandmother maintained her
polite-but-determined stance against desegregation and, as already noted,
had been a co-founder of ROAR in the spring of 1974. Dismissed by many,
then and since, as a political opportunist who was merely pandering to
the white racism of her South Boston constituency, Hicks was more
complicated than that.35
Hicks’s style of quiet-but-dogged resistance to desegregation through
busing, however, was in the process of being eclipsed in the spring of
67
1975. The shift is best represented by the increased public profile of Pixie
Palladino. In his examination of the fight over busing in Boston, Common
Ground, J. Anthony Lukas describes Palladino as “a tough-talking, street
savvy daughter of an Italian shoemaker from East Boston, accused of
punching Ted Kennedy in the stomach at a rally and cursing a Catholic
monsignor, who even after her election to the School Committee [in the fall
of 1975] was heard muttering about ‘jungle bunnies’ and ‘pickaninnies.’”36
The forty-two-year-old mother of two was hardly “muttering” as she led
the 50 or so ROAR women into the April 9 ERA rally.
According to the Boston Globe, the “catcalls, chanting and singing”
[“Southie is My Home Town”] of the ROAR women “forced Kitty
Dukakis, wife of Governor Michael Dukakis, to leave the building.”37
Carrying signs that read “Feminists Do Not Represent [the] American
Majority” and “Busing Stinks,” the ROAR women loudly chanted “STOP
ERA” when anyone attempted to speak.
Yet another sign some ROAR women held read, “Retire Women
Legislators Who Support the Equal Rights Amendment” — somewhat
ironic given that during her one term in Congress (1971-1973), Louise Day
Hicks had supported passage of the ERA.38 But now, in the spring of 1975,
these militant mothers were better represented by the vocal Palladino who
led the “catcalls.” Even the venerable Florence Luscomb, who had fought
for women’s suffrage in the 1910s and many another progressive causes
in the decades since, was “shouted down” when she tried to remind the
ROAR women that they were in “Faneuil Hall, the Cradle of Liberty.”39
Evoking Bicentennial rhetoric, especially in Boston, was quite common
in 1975; ROAR was hardly alone in using the occasion to advance its
agenda. By then, however, ROAR goals were expanding beyond fighting
desegregation and crystallizing into a deepening discontent with liberal
politics in general. The elite members of the Boston 200 organizing
committee must have been gnashing their teeth that the “busing crisis”
coincided with what was to be a lengthy and multi-faceted celebration
of 1776 in the “Cradle of Liberty.”40 How many tourist dollars were lost
remains unclear but surely many out-of-towners opted to forego a trip to
the racially charged, frequently violent Boston of the mid-1970s. Those
tourists who dared to attend the 205th anniversary of the Boston Massacre
would have seen ROAR out in full force.
On March 5, 1975, an estimated 400 ROAR members gathered at City
Hall, in the city council chamber that Louise Day Hicks allowed them to
use for their weekly Wednesday night meetings. The ROAR contingent
then marched a few blocks to the Old State House where a reviewing stand
“MILITANT MOTHERS”: BOSTON, BUSING, AND THE BICENTENNIAL OF 1976
Historical Journal of Massachusetts • Fall 201068
was in place for the annual re-enactment of the Colonial confrontation in
which British troops fired on a crowd of demonstrators, killing five. Now,
205 years later, ROAR marched as in a funeral procession, some carrying a
coffin in which a young woman lay, representing, according to the attached
placard, “Miss Liberty, b. 1776 – d. 1974.” Others carried signs that read:
“Have You Ever Seen the Words Forced Busing in the Constitution?,”
“Boston Mourns Its Lost Freedom,” and the more ominous, “If You Think
This Is a Massacre, Just Wait!”41 Upon reaching the reviewing stand, the
assembled ROAR men and women sang “The Star Spangled Banner,”
“America,” and “Southie is My Home Town,” the self-proclaimed ROAR
anthem (set to the tune of the “Colonel Bogey March”). They then chanted
“Garrity Killed Liberty” until reenactment sponsors asked them to stop so
that the evening’s true “entertainment” could begin.42
A month later, ROAR was also a presence at City Hall Plaza for
Boston’s Patriots’ Day celebration, marking that day in April 1775 when
the American Revolutionary War officially began in nearby Concord and
Lexington. The 15,000 spectators in attendance were treated to a concert
from multiple marching bands and orchestras from around the country, all
2,000 musicians led by Boston Pops Orchestra conductor Arthur Fiedler.
But if anyone cared to look up from the Plaza they would have seen,
according to the Boston Globe, ROAR’s “initials . . . prominently displayed
in the windows of City Hall’s fifth floor offices. And on the balcony
of the office of City Councilwoman Louise Day Hicks . . . a man held
ROAR’s red, green and, white flag throughout the celebration.”43 ROAR
was not present to celebrate America’s Bicentennial. As one South Boston
woman asked the journalist J. Anthony Lukas, “How can we celebrate our
country’s history when we are being denied the very rights we fought for
in the Revolution?” But when Lukas asked if they were revolutionaries,
several ROAR women responded, “No, no . . . we’re conservatives . . . We
want to go back to the old way.”44
There would be no going back. The city of Boston was forever
changed, even scarred by the violent and ultimately unsuccessful battle to
desegregate its schools.45 Certainly, for many women — ethnic American
and working-class, formerly involved in little more than their churches
and their families, their participation in ROAR changed them even as they
claimed to be seeking a return to the past. As one woman commented at
the time, “I know it’s changed me for good. In the beginning, we’d never
have been in politics, we were very shy. Now courtrooms don’t bother
us.”46
69
Writing in the fall of 1976 for one of Boston’s alternative news
weeklies, The Real Paper, author Kathleen Kilgore referred to the anti-
busing women she interviewed as “militant mothers” who were motivated
by maternal concerns regarding the safety of their children. Kilgore, like
the women of ROAR, downplayed the racism that was the heart and soul
of the organization. Although these “militant mothers” often too glibly
denied the racist implications of their struggle, it was true that other
issues concerned them as well. ROAR leader Virginia Sheehy claimed
emphatically that ROAR’s struggle was class-based. Kilgore quotes
Sheehy as saying, “if busing went away tomorrow, I know we’d go on to
something else. The whole thing about class — and busing is really a class
issue — about who gets what in this country, that would still be there.”47
Like many of the ROAR women, Sheehy had long been involved in the
Home and School Association, Boston’s equivalent of the PTA. Unlike
many of them, Sheehy had been a community activist even before busing,
working with the Sierra Club in its attempt to halt the expansion of Logan
Airport. In that effort, Sheehy told The Real Paper that she had worked
alongside black women from the Columbia Point section who were equally
concerned about the effects of airport expansion on their neighborhood.
But, said Sheehy, such “links” were a thing of the past. “Busing has torn
the fabric that linked us.” On the more positive side, she felt that busing
had generated a much-needed skepticism among working-class white
Bostonians regarding two long-standing pillars of their community,
the Catholic church and the Democratic party. “It has brought us out of
ourselves. It woke us up to where the real power lies.”48
Yet another “militant mother” profiled by Kilgore was Agnes Smith,
a former public school teacher and mother of two. Smith resigned from
ROAR’s executive board to serve as the unpaid principal of Liberty
Academy in her Dorchester neighborhood, one of the several alternative
private schools opened by white parents opposed to busing. Kilgore
reported that Smith felt the more confrontational tactics employed by
ROAR had been “overdone,” but that what she was now doing, “giving
children a decent education when they wouldn’t be getting one otherwise
is a lot more important, even if it never makes the six o’clock news.”49 So,
too had Roslindale mothers Terry Libby and Joan Philips moved from
ROAR demonstrations to reviewing textbooks for questionable content
and speaking on such matters to interested parents’ groups in the Boston
suburbs. But Kathleen Kilgore did not see the women she interviewed as
feminists — far from it. She concludes her Real Paper piece by noting
that:
“MILITANT MOTHERS”: BOSTON, BUSING, AND THE BICENTENNIAL OF 1976
Historical Journal of Massachusetts • Fall 201070
The ROAR women I talked to seem to spend little time worrying
about their own personal motivations, or whether they are
doing the right thing — as women in the women’s liberation
movement do. The women in the anti-busing movement are
not rejecting their own values — instead, they believe they are
reaffirming them, fighting for what their parents, their schools
and their church have taught them.50
Indeed, countless white women, from South Boston to Hyde Park, from
East Boston to Charlestown, took to the streets — as mothers who saw
themselves protecting the interests of their families. They learned how to
write letters to political officials, draft petitions, set up their own schools,
engage in confrontational demonstrations, make court appearances with
relative ease, and swear at police and elected officials with even greater
confidence. Using tactics honed by progressive movements for social
change, these conservative women made their stand.
After its founding in 1974, ROAR established a more formal
organizational structure and even attempted to build a national movement.
By 1976, though, many of the parochial concerns Buell notes beset defended
neighborhoods had reared their heads. ROAR was riven with factional in-
fighting and began to fade away the following year.51 Nonetheless, ROAR
left its mark on those who participated in it. The militant mothers of ROAR
found their voice, an outlet for their conservatism, and a frequently racist
channel for their anger, fears, and frustrations.
It can be argued that by 1977 — when Louise Day Hicks lost her
seat on the Boston City Council and Pixie Palladino lost her School
Committee post to its first African American member, John O’Bryant
— the crisis had passed. That was hardly the case. Over the next several
decades, other issues emerged that energized a growing conservative
movement, including abortion, sex education in schools, immigration,
and homosexuality. Each was viewed as a threat to a perceived traditional
way of American life. Under the mantle of “motherhood,” conservative
women have often led such cultural battles. That they do so employing
the tactics of the feminists they so criticize is deeply ironic. The emerging
American conservative movement was transformed during the 1970s
and gained momentum because of the actions and apparent “success” of
groups such as ROAR. The “Silent Majority” found its voice, contributing
to the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, the election of a Republican
majority in Congress, and slowing the pace of liberal reform.
71“MILITANT MOTHERS”: BOSTON, BUSING, AND THE BICENTENNIAL OF 1976
The historian Ronald Formisano has summed up the struggle to
desegregate the Boston schools as “a war nobody won.”52 The Boston
public school system experienced an ever-shrinking white-student
population — 60 percent of all students enrolled in Boston schools were
white in 1974; by 1999 just 15 percent were. It also faced threats of lawsuits
brought by white parents claiming their children were victims of reverse
discrimination. Thus, in July of 1999, the Boston School Committee voted
to end race-based school assignments. Two months later, Judge W. Arthur
Garrity, the man who put the wheels in motion twenty-five years earlier,
died of cancer in his Wellesley home.53
Many of the “militant mothers” have since died as well, Louise Day
Hicks in 2003, Elvira “Pixie” Palladino in 2006, and scores of the rank-
and-file, dedicated to stopping “forced busing” in Boston. Each had
used tactics borrowed from feminism, but in the defense of traditional
conservative values. Many of these women were transformed into skilled
activists. In turn, these “militant mothers” energized modern American
conservatism in a profound way.
HJM
Notes
1 Maria Karagianis, “Women protest busing, Gov. Dukakis stays away,” Boston
Sunday Globe, Jan. 12, 1975, pp. 1, 8.
2 The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the U.S.
Constitution that was intended to guarantee that equal rights under any federal,
state, or local law would not be denied on account of sex. The ERA was originally
written by Alice Paul and first introduced into the U.S. Congress in 1923. In 1972,
it passed both houses of Congress but failed to gain ratification by more than 35
states before its June 30, 1982, deadline. On July 21, 2009 Representative Carolyn
B. Maloney, Democrat from New York, reintroduced the ERA in the U.S. House
of Representatives.
3 The classic scholarly examination remains Ronald P. Formisano, Boston
Against Busing: Race, Class, and Ethnicity in the 1960s and 1970s (Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolina, 1991); see also: Thomas M. Begley, “The
Organization of Anti-Busing Protest in Boston, 1973-1976” (Ph.D. diss,
Cornell University, 1981); Emmett H. Buell, Jr., with Richard A. Brisbin, Jr.,
School Desegregation and Defended Neighborhoods: The Boston Controversy
(Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 1982); J. Michael Ross and William
Historical Journal of Massachusetts • Fall 201072
M. Berg, “I Respectfully Disagree with the Judge’s Order”: The Boston School
Desegregation Controversy (Washington, DC: University Press of America,
1981); J. Brian Sheehan, The Boston School Integration Dispute: Social Change
and Legal Maneuvers (New York: Columbia University Press, 1984); Jack
Tager, Boston Riots: Three Centuries of Social Violence (Boston: Northeastern
University Press, 2001), Chapters 9 and 10; D. Garth Taylor, Public Opinion &
Collective Action: The Boston Desegregation Conflict (Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press, 1986); and Steven J. L. Taylor, Desegregation in Boston and
Buffalo: The Influence of Local Leaders (Albany: State University of New York
Press, 1998). Journalistic accounts abound as well; here, the standard-bearer is
J. Anthony Lukas, Common Ground: A Turbulent Decade in the Lives of Three
American Families (New York: Vintage Books, 1986); see also: Jon Hillson,
The Battle of Boston: Busing and the Struggle for School Desegregation (New
York: Pathfinder Press, 1977); Alan Lupo, Liberty’s Chosen Home: The Politics
of Violence in Boston (Boston: Beacon Press, 1988, first published 1977). Two
memoirs have also enriched my understanding of this time and place: Michael
Patrick MacDonald’s haunting account of growing up in South Boston, All Souls:
A Family Story from Southie (Boston: Beacon Press, 1999) and Ione Malloy,
Southie Won’t Go: A Teacher’s Diary of the Desegregation of South Boston High
School (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1986).
4 Formisano, Boston Against Busing, p. 3.
5 Polly Welts Kaufman, “Building a Constituency for School Desegregation:
African-American Women in Boston, 1962-1972,” Teachers College Record, Vol.
92, 4 (Summer 1991): pp. 619-631; Jeanne F. Theoharis, “‘We Saved the City’:
Black Struggles for Educational Equality in Boston, 1960-1976,” Radical History
Review Vol. 81 (2001): pp. 61-93.
6 See, for example: Kathleen Blee, Women of the Klan: Racism and Gender in the
1920s (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991) and her more recent work,
Inside Organized Racism: Women in the Hate Movement (Berkeley: University
of California Press, 2002); Donald T. Critchlow, Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots
Conservatism: A Woman’s Crusade (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
2005); Rebecca E. Klatch, Women of the New Right (Philadelphia: Temple
University Press, 1987) and, more recently, A Generation Divided: The New Left,
the New Right, and the 1960s (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999);
Kim E. Nielsen, Un-American Womanhood: Antiradicalism, Anti-feminism, and
the First Red Scare (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2001).
7 Kim E. Nielsen, “Doing the ‘Right” Right,” Journal of Women’s History Vol.
16, 3 (2004): p. 171.
8 Abby L. Ferber, “Introduction,” in Home-Grown Hate: Gender and Organized
Racism, Abby L. Ferber, ed. (New York: Routledge, 2004), p. 11.
9 Formisano, Boston Against Busing, pp. 35-36.
10 Taylor, Public Opinion & Collective Action, p. 41.
11 Taylor, Public Opinion & Collective Action, p. 41.
73
12 There is a growing body of scholarship regarding the rise of modern
conservatism; see, for example: Rick Perlman, Nixonland: The Rise of a President
and the Fracturing of America (New York: Scribners, 2008); Bruce J. Schulman
and Julian E. Zelizer, eds., Rightward Bound: Making America Conservative in
the 1970s (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008).
13 Theoharis, “’We Saved the City,’” p. 63.
14 See, for example, the Oral History Interview of Joanne Sweeney, OH-049.
John Joseph Moakley Archive Oral History Project, John Joseph Moakely Archive
and Institute, Suffolk University.
15 Taylor, Public Opinion & Collective Action, p. 77.
16 Richard Knox, Thomas Oliphant, and Ray Richard, “The First Year,” Boston
Sunday Globe, May 25, 1975, sec. A, p. 7; see also: Sheehan, The Boston School
Integration Dispute, pp. 185-186.
17 Knox, Oliphant, and Richard, “The First Year,” sec. A, p. 7.
18 Sheehan, The Boston School Integration Dispute, p. 186; Buell, School
Desegregation and Defended Neighborhoods, p. 135.
19 John Kifner, “Busing Opponents Protest in Boston,” New York Times, April
4, 1974, p. 37.
20 Knox, Oliphant, and Richard, “The First Year,” sec. A, p. 8.
21 Hillson, The Battle of Boston, p. 29.
22 John Kifner, “Boston Is Tense on Eve of Busing,” New York Times, Sept. 12,
1974, p. 41.
23 In his testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights hearings held
in Boston in June 1975, Father John Boles, Director of Education, Archdiocese
of Boston, said that overall enrollment in the city’s Catholic schools actually
declined in 1974-75 as compared to 1973-74. Boles also made reference to the
proclamation of his superior, Humberto Cardinal Medeiros, in February 1974, that
he would not allow increased enrollment in Boston’s Catholic schools as a way
to escape busing. See: United States Commission on Civil Rights, Hearing Held
in Boston, Massachusetts, June 16-20, 1975, p. 210. While the official policy of
the Catholic church was in support of desegregation, D. Garth Taylor argues that,
“early attempts at moral leadership by Cardinal Medeiros and the Catholic church
hierarchy did not prevail. Anti-busing leaders found a receptive home for their
rhetoric in the Catholic doctrine of ‘parent’s control over children’s education’ —
at least as this doctrine was interpreted by the average parishioner.” See: Taylor,
Public Opinion & Collective Action, p. 103. Also worth noting, as does Taylor
(p. 100), in this predominately Catholic city (70 percent in 1980), “At the time of
Judge Garrity’s ruling, for instance, the mayor and all members of the city council
were Catholic.” So, too, the judge.
24 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, School Desegregation in Boston: A Staff
Report prepared for the hearing of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in Boston,
Massachusetts, June 1975 (Washington, DC, 1975), p. 18; Sheehan, The Boston
School Integration Dispute, p. 189; Buell, School Desegregation and Defended
“MILITANT MOTHERS”: BOSTON, BUSING, AND THE BICENTENNIAL OF 1976
Historical Journal of Massachusetts • Fall 201074
Neighborhoods, p. 108; Freedom House Institute on Schools and Education,
Boston Desegregation: The First Term, 1974-75 School Year (Roxbury, MA,
1975), John Joseph Moakley Papers, John Joseph Moakley Archives and Institute,
Suffolk University, Boston, MA.
25 Formisano, Boston Against Busing, p. 141; in an interesting comparison of
methods of protest in Northern Ireland and South Boston, the scholar Jack Santino
refers to South Boston anti-busing demonstrations as “street theater,” also arguing
that there is a continuum from graffiti to mural.” See Santino, “Public protest and
Popular Style: Resistance from the Right in Northern Ireland and South Boston,”
American Anthropologist Vol. 101, 3 (Sept., 1999): pp. 515-528, quotes, p. 524,
p. 522. Perhaps the explosion of racist graffiti explains, in part, why in 1975 the
Boston Mayor’s Office of Culture Affairs coordinated a murals project in South
Boston with the theme “pride of Southie,” stressing “notable historical events and
landmarks of the district.” See: Mark Favermann, “Community Mural projects of
1975 and 1977 at Boston, Mass., USA,” Leonardo Vol. 11, 4 (Autumn 1978): p.
298.
26 Malloy, Southie Won’t Go, pp. 50-51. See also: Formisano, Boston Against
Busing, pp. 81-82; Sheehan, The Boston School Integration Dispute, pp. 194-
196;
27 John Kifner, “South Boston Schools Shut in Clashes Over Stabbing,” New
York Times, Dec. 11, 1974, p. 28.
28 Knox, Oliphant, and Richard, “The First Year,” sec. A, p. 19.
29 Knox, Oliphant, and Richard, “The First Year,” sec. A, p. 19; Malloy, Southie
Won’t Go, p. 53.
30 Oral History Interview of Barbara Faith, OH-063. John Joseph Moakley Oral
History Project, John Joseph Moakley Archive and Institute, Suffolk University,
Boston, MA.
31 Gary MacMillan, “Crowd got blood it was looking for, but it was its own,”
Boston Globe, Dec. 12, 1974, p. 28.
32 Karagianis, “Women protest busing, Gov. Dukakis stays away,” p. 1.
33 Ibid., p. 8.
34 Jean Dietz and Robert J. Anglin, “Equal rights rally disrupted by busing foes,”
Boston Globe, April 10, 1975, p. 1.
35 Formisano, Boston Against Busing, p. 2.
36 For Hicks as “political opportunist,” in addition to Formisano, Lukas, and
Lupo, see also: George V. Higgins, Style Versus Substance: Boston, Kevin White,
and the Politics of Illusion (New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., 1984).
37 Lukas, Common Ground, p. 137.
38 Dietz and Anglin, “Equal rights rally disrupted by busing foes,” p. 1.
39 Joan Kuriansky, Louise Day Hicks, Democratic Representative from
Massachusetts (Ralph Nadar Congress Project, 1972), p. 18.
40 Dietz and Anglin, “Equal rights rally disrupted by busing foes,” p. 1.
41 “The Bicentennial Begins in Boston,” advertisement in the New York Times,
75
Mar. 23, 1975, p. 364; see also: Christopher Capozzola, “’It Makes You Want
to Believe in the Country’: Celebrating the American Bicentennial in an Age
of Limits.” In Beth Bailey and David Farber, eds., America in the Seventies
(Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2004), pp 29-49.
42 James Ayers, “Busing foes take their protest to reply of Boston Massacre,”
Boston Globe, Mar. 6, 1975, p. 6.
43 J. Anthony Lukas, “Who Owns 1776?” The New York Times Sunday Magazine,
May 18, 1975, p. 39.
44 Ron Hutson and Viola Osgood, “Crowds jam Plaza for Boston’s celebration,”
Boston Sunday Globe, April 20, 1975, p. 50.
45 Lukas, “Who Owns 1776?” p. 40.
46 According to Ronald Formisano, “In 1973 roughly 60 percent of the students
in the public schools had been white. By 1980 the percentage had dropped to
35, by 1987 [two years after Judge Garrity ended his direct supervision of the
Boston school system] it was 26 percent.” See Formisano, Boston Against Busing,
pp. 210-211. Since then, the percentage of white students enrolled in the Boston
public schools has declined even further; in 2005 it stood at 14 percent according
to the Boston Globe online accessed June 1, 2010. NB: According to the U.S.
Census Bureau, in 2006 the percentage of Bostonians who were white was 56
percent of the city’s total population.
47 Kathleen Kilgore, “Militant Mothers: The Politicization of ROAR Women,”
The Real Paper, Nov. 13, 1976, sec. 4, p. 6.
48 Kilgore, “Militant Mothers,” sec. 4, p. 5.
49 Kilgore, “Militant Mothers,” sec. 4, p. 5.
50 Kilgore, “Militant Mothers,” sec. 4, p. 6.
51 Kilgore, “Militant Mothers,” sec. 4, p. 6; see also: Formisano, Boston Against
Busing, pp. 146-150.
52 Tager, Boston Riots, p. 219. ROAR would hold its first “national” convention
— in Boston, of course — in May of 1975. See convention pamphlet, Fran
Johnnene Papers, City of Boston Archives and Records Management, West
Roxbury, MA.
53 Formisano, Boston Against Busing, p. 203.
54 “A Change of Course in Boston,” New York Times, July 17, 1999, p. A12;
Carey Goldberg, “Judge W. Arthur Garrity Is Dead at 79,” New York Times, Sept.
18, 1999, p. A15.
“MILITANT MOTHERS”: BOSTON, BUSING, AND THE BICENTENNIAL OF 1976
Copyright of Historical Journal of Massachusetts is the property of Historical Journal of Massachusetts and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
REPORT
ON
RACIAL IMBALANCE
IN THE
BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
BY THE
MASSACHUSETTS STATE ADVISORY
COMM
IT
TEE
TO THE
ED STATES COMMISSION
ON CIVIL RIGHTSGOV DOCS
SUDOC/CR
1
.
2
:SCH
6
/
10
B
JANUARY 1
9
6
5
BPL1GD
3
99990
59
0
36
4
16
United States Commissi
on
Report on racial
imbalance in the Boston p
REPORT ON
RACIAL IMBALANCE
IN THE
BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
. wj long sr property 01 tern
lontRomery Co. EuBIGs ElBrass
By the
Massachusetts State Ad
v
isory Committee
to the
UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
JANUARY
19
65
MASSACHUSETTS STATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
TO THE
UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
Dean Robert F. Drinan, S.J., Chairman
Brighton
Robert E. Segal, Vice Chairman
Boston
Julius Bernstein, Secretary
Boston
Mrs. Bruce B. Benson
Amherst
The Right Reverend John M. Burgess
Boston
Professor Clark Byse
Cambridge
Noel A. Day
Roxbury
Mrs. James E. Fenn
Newton
Henry J. Mascarell
o
Lexington
E. T
ho
mas Murphy
Hyannis
Paul Parks
Boston
Roger L. Putnam
East Longmeadow
Professor Victoria Schuc
k
South Hadley
John E. Teger
Waylan
d
iii
Subcommittee on Racial Imbalance in Public Schools
Paul Parks , Chairman
Noel A. Day
Staff Consultant
Elizabeth R. Cole
Regional Consultant
Frank Logue
iv
Acknowledgments
The Massachusetts State Advisory Committee is deeply indebted to
the thirty-s
ix
witnesses who testified at the open meeting on
March
20
and March
21
, 1964, and particularly to Dr. Charles A
.
Pinderhughes, Chief of Psychiatric Service at the Veterans
Administration Hospital in Boston, and the other expert witnesses;
to Paul Parks, chairman of the subcommittee on racial imbalance
in public education, for organizing the Open Meeting; to Joan Fenn
who performed much of the indispensable detail work.
v
Preface
THE UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
The United States Commission on Civil Rights is an independent
agency of the Federal Government created by the Civil Rights Act
of 195
7
• By the terms of that Act, as amended by the Civil Rights
Acts of i9
60
and 1964, the Commission is charged with the following
duties: investigation of individual denials of the right to vote;
study of legal developments with respect to denials of the equal
protection of the law; appraisal of the laws and policies of the
United States with respect to the equal protection of the law;
maintenance of a national clearinghouse for information respecting
denials of the equal protection of the law; and investigation of
patterns or practices of fraud or discrimination in the conduct of
Federal elections. The Commission is also required to submit
reports to the President and to the Congress at such times as the
Commission, the Congress, or the President shall deem desirable.
THE STATE ADVISORY COMMITTEES
An Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil
Rights has been established in each of the
50
States and the
District of Columbia pursuant to section 105(c) of the Civil Rights
Act of 19
57
* The memberships of these Committees are made up of
responsible persons who serve without compensation. The functions
of the Committees under their mandate from the Commission are to
:
advise the Commission of all information concerning legal develop
–
ments constituting a denial of equal protection of the laws under
the Constitution; advise the Commission as to the effect of the
laws and policies of the Federal Government with respect to equal
protection of the laws under the Constitution; advise the Com-
mission upon matters of mutual concern in the preparation of reports
of the Commission to the President and the Congress; and initiate
and forward advice and recommendations to the Commission upon
matters which the State Committee has studied.
vii
Contents
Page
Preface vl
i
Acknowledgments v
Introduction
1
Chapter
1. Organization and Racial Composition
of Public Schools
3
Chapter 2. Effect of Discrimination in
Public Housing
8
Chapter 3- Purposes of Public Education in
the United States
12
Chapter k. Consideration of Policy of the
Boston School Committee
2k
Chapter 5» Comparison of Predominantly White
,
Nonwhite,and “Integrated” Schools. .
31
Chapter 6. Compensatory Programs
37
Chapter 7» Power and Duty of School Committee
to Relieve Racial Imbalance in
Schools k-3
Chapter 8. Conclusions and Recommendations … 48
Appendices
55
ix
Introduction
The present study of racial imbalance in Boston public schools is
in part the outgrowth of an earlier study of housing. In March
19
63
, the Massachusetts State Advisory Committee held an Open
Meeting on discrimination in housing in Boston and surrounding
areas. Since educational qualifications are a prerequisite to
employment above the level of unskilled labor, and a good job that
pays well is a necessary condition to obtaining desirable housing,
it seemed logical to examine educational opportunities for Negroes
in the Boston public schools.
In Boston, as in other urban areas, public school children
ordinarily attend schools in the neighborhoods in which they live,
particularly in the elementary grades. A consequence of this fact,
which has produced controversy in Boston, as in other urban areas,
is that a great many Negro children attend schools with a predom-
inantly Negro enrollment.
The Advisory Committee decided to investigate the elements of
this controversy by:
1. obtaining public school enrollment figures for
white and Negro children;
2. seeking from the Boston School Committee and
the Superintendent’s office information relating
to educational opportunities and racial imbalance;
3. hearing expert opinions as to the effects on
children of attendance at predominantly Negro
schools;
h. hearing parents and children relate experiences
at predominantly Negro schools;
5. comparing data relating to school districts of
different racial composition;
1. Discrimination in Housing in the Boston Metropolitan Area .
Report of the Massachusetts Advisory Committee to the United
States Commission on Civil Rights, December 1963.
1
6. obtaining information concerning compensatory
educational programs;
7. hearing opinions as to the power and/or the duty
of the school committee to relieve racial
imbalance in schools.
The Advisory Committee invited persons known to be informed in
these areas to an Open Meeting which was held in the United States
Court House in Boston on March 20 and 21, 1964. Thirty-six wit-
nesses appeared before the Committee and three other persons
submitted written statements. After the Open Meeting, the Boston
School Committee made available the figures disclosed in the racial
census taken by the Advisory Committee on Racial Imbalance and
Education, appointed in March 1964 by the State Board of Education
and Commissioner of Education, Owen B. Kiernan.
The appointment of the “Kiernan Committee”, as it came to be
called, is a measure of the concern of educators in Massachusetts
regarding racial imbalance in the public schools. The figures
supplied in its racial census provide the first dependable infor-
mation on the racial composition of public schools in Boston. The
interim findings of the Kiernan Committee, mainly based on the field
work of educators, are entirely consistent with the findings of this
Committee.
^
2. The findings of the Kiernan Committee appear in the Interim
Report of the Advisory Committee on Racial Imbalance and
Education, July 1, 1964, pp. 9-12. Its conclusions are set
forth in Appendix B.
2
1. Organization and Racial Composition
of Public Schools
Boston public schools are classified as elementary schools, junior
high schools, high schools and special schools (for handicapped
children) . The total enrollment of all schools was 91, 800 as of
March
26
, 19
6k
, composed as follows:
3
Grades Total White3 Negro3
Schools dumber Included Pupils Number Percent Number Percent
High 16 7-12* 20, 2kk ll,kk6 86.2 2,798
13
.8
Junior
High 17 7-9* 13,
25
8 10, 3
62
78.2 2,896 21.8
Elementary
15
3 K-8*
58
,
11
7 ^2,763 73.6 15,
35
^ 26.
k
Special 2
18
1 1
32
73.0 k9
27
.O
91, 800 70,703 21,097
*The overlapping grade
levels indicate that
the transition to the
junior high program
adopted some years ago
is far from complete.
3. Distribution of white and nonwhite pupils in the Public Schools
of Massachusetts. Hereafter, the Kiernan Census. The census
uses the term nonwhite, and states that the “vast prepon-
derance” are Negro. This report will use nonwhite and Negro
interchangeably, relying upon the i960 United States Census
data that 92.2 percent of the nonwhite population of Boston is
Negro. The “Kiernan Census” for Boston is set forth in
Appendix E.
3
There are 16 public high schools, of which 7 are city wide
and 9 serve large geographical areas. Five of the latter, the
East Boston and South Boston High Schools have no Negro pupils.
The Negro percentage in the remaining area-based high schools
ranges from 0.8l percent (Roslindale) to 35*
28
percent (Jamaica
Plain). In the “city wide” schools, Girls High School is 70.47
percent Negro and the Negro percentage in the remaining schools
ranges from 5*36 percent (Boys Latin) to 21.49 percent (Trade
High for Girls).
The junior high districts are smaller than those of the high
schools and contain a number of predominantly Negro schools. A
comparison of secondary schools with the highest concentration of
Negro pupils follows:
Percent
School Negro
High
Girls 70.
^7
English (3 branches)
38
.5
6
Jamaica Plain 35*28
J. E. Burke 28.
43
Junior
Lewis (including annex) 99*
46
Patrick T. Campbell 92.87
James P. Timilty 86.95
0. W. Holmes Jl.Oh
At the elementary school level there are greater concen-
trations of Negro pupils. The 15 elementary schools containing
more than 95 percent Negro pupils are:^-
Hyde 99.
I
Everett 98.8
Asa Gray 98.6
Wm. L. P. Boardman 98.5
David A. Ellis 98.4
Phillips Brooks 98.4
Henry L. Higginson 9Q0I
Ira Allen 98.
1
Julia Ward Howe 98.
0
4. Kiernan Census, p. A-4.
David A. Ellis annex 97.6
Quincy Dickerman 97 • 5
Williams 97.5
Garrison 96.8
William Bacon 96.7
Sarah J. B. Baker 95.7
The 153 elementary schools are allocated among 57 districts,
each containing 2, 3> h or 5 schools. Pupils are assigned to the
school nearest their home which has the appropriate grade. Since
the degree of imbalance in individual schools is substantially re-
flected in the school district figures, this report will hereafter
refer to elementary school districts.
A graph showing the nonwhite percentage in each of the 57
elementary school districts (Appendix A) indicates 35 districts in
the 0-10 percent range (0 to 8.7 percent), 15 districts in the
10-90 percent range (13 to 79*6 percent), and 7 districts in the
90-100 percent range (89. h to 98.8 percent). These, ranges were
employed in a recent study5 of the Chicago public schools, which
uses the following definitions:
White school – 90 percent or more white
Integrated school – at least 10 percent white
and 10 percent Negro
Negro school – 90 percent or more Negro
Since the 0-10 percent, 10-90 percent, 90-100 percent grouping has
a precedent in the Chicago report and represents a logical grouping
of the Boston elementary school districts when their nonwhite
enrollment percentages were examined, it will be employed in this
report. The use of this grouping does not constitute an endorse-
ment by this Committee of schools throughout the 10-90 percent
range as integrated schools. The chart on page 6 gives enrollment
information for the “White”, “Integrated” and “Negro” districts.
5. Report of the Board of Education, City of Chicago, by the
Advisory Panel on the Integration of the Public Schools,
March 31, 196^, p. Ik.
5
Enrollment Information for White, Integrated
,
and Negro Districts
All Pupils
Percentage of Number of Percentage of All
Districts Number ATT T\*
1 • 1 “T—v • -l
All Districts Pupils Elementary Pupils
White 35
61
.4 35,057 60.32
Integrated K> do. j r J- r 27. 04
Negro J_ 12.3 7,
34
3 12.64
57 100.0 58,117 100.00
White Pupils
Percentage of Pupils Percentage of
T)i cstT*i etc; XV QUI Ik/ v— X i n THmp of TH c?tT*i f*”fcss All Vhi+.p Pirni 1
White 34,340 97.95 80.
30
Integrated 8,1
29
51
.00 19.00
Negro 294 k.ok .70
42
,763 100.00
Negro Pupils
Percentage of Pupils Percentage of
Districts Number in Type of Districts All Negro Pupils
White 717 2.05 4.o4
Integrated 7,588 ^9.00 49.30
Negro 7,049 95.96 46.
66
15,354 100.00
In the definitions used here, slightly more than 25 percent of
the elementary school districts in Boston can be termed integrated.
(This compares favorably with the Chicago study in which only 9 per-
cent of the schools could be classified as integrated) . Racial
imbalance in the Boston public schools is a problem that, at least
in terms of numbers, is capable of practical solution.
6
The heart of Boston’s problem is found in the 7 elementary-
districts which have an average of 95 »96 percent Negro pupils.
Forty- six percent of the Negro children in the public elementary
schools –nearly one -half-
–
are enrolled in districts where 19 out
of 20 pupils are Negroes . In the next chapter, this report
–
will
summarize some expert views on the educational consequences of this
ethnic environment.
While a number of cities have found that white children are a
minority of the population in the elementary schools, this is by
no means the case in Boston, where three out of four of the children
in elementary schools are white. Sixty percent of the children
attend schools in districts whose enrollment is 97*95 percent white.
Five schools, containing 6 percent of the total elementary enroll-
ment are all-white and k out of 5 white children attend schools
that are more than 90 percent white.
While the total nonwhite population of Boston is not large
(
68
,^-3), in the decade 1950-60 the city experienced a sharp
increase in the nonwhite percentage of its population. In 1950
about 1 Boston resident out of 20 was nonwhite; in i960, the ratio
was about 1 to 11. This shift is the product of a substantial
decrease in the white population (130,000) and an increase in the
nonwhite population (26,000). Thus the main contribution of
suburban communities to the problem of racial imbalance is to
siphon off white families, often those most concerned with the
education of their children. The city tends increasingly to house
those families, white and Negro, having the greatest educational
needs and the least ability to pay for them in taxes.
SUMMARY
Racial concentrations in Boston’s public schools vary widely ac-
cording to the grade level of the pupil. The four schools having
the highest percentages of Negro enrollment range from
29.8 to 70.5 percent – at the high school level
71.0 to 99 »0 percent – at the junior high school
level, and
98.5 to 99*1 percent – at the elementary school level
The vast majority of public school pupils at all levels attend
schools that are more than 90 percent white in enrollment. The
size of the Negro population in Boston and the overall enrollment
pattern in the public schools offer possibilities for ending racial
imbalance that do not exist in some large cities.
7
2. Effect of Discrimination in Public Housing
In March. 1963> the Committee held an Open Meeting on discrimination
in housing in the Boston Metropolitan Area. In its report on the
Open Meeting, the Committee made the following statment regarding
public housing :° These patterns of limited diffusion of Negroes in
the City of Boston and in the suburbs do not occur only in private
housing. As of September 1, 1963, the Boston Housing Authority
administered 32 public housing projects consisting of 10, 556 units
in 21 Federal aided projects and 3,76l units in 11 State aided
projects,
James Bishop, Vice Chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality,
testified at the Open Meeting of the Advisory Committee that there
was
clear and substantial evidence of segregation
existing in the Boston public housing projects.
… Of the 25 public housing projects operated
by the Boston Housing Authority, seventeen have
less than 5 percent Negro families, and in six
projects totaling 2,888 family units, there are
no Negro families. Four projects. . . . are
more than 90 percent Negro and are rapidly
approaching the 100 percent mark. … In all
of the State-supported projects (3,681 units),
there are only 128 (3. 5 percent) Negro families. . .
Mr. Bishop’s opinion that “the existing segregation in Boston
public housing is the direct result of deliberate discriminatory
assignment of applicants by the Boston Housing Authority”? was
6. Discrimination in Housing in the Boston Metropolitan Area .
Report of the Massachusetts Advisory Committee to the United
States Commission on Civil Rights, Dec. 19^3, P* 10.
7« Segregation in Boston Public Housing Projects , statement of
James Bishop, Vice Chairman of Boston Core, open Meeting,
Mar. 5, 1963, p. 8.
8
based in part on official reports on racial occupancy of the various
projects and in part on a survey of 169 BHA tenants chosen at
random from four projects with the following nonwhite occupancy at
that time: Mission Hill (0 percent), Mission Hill Extension (87
percent), Orchard Park (2k percent) and Lenox Street (98 percent).
The study examined possible explanations for the clear pattern of
segregation in Boston public housing. While the survey did not and
could not establish BHA discrimination with affirmative evidence, it
appeared to rule out explanations other than discrimination.
A preference for segregated projects on the part of public
housing applicants is one explanation which the survey tended to
refute. Asked their current preferences, k-S percent of the white
tenants and 3 percent of the Negro tenants favored segregated
housing. Sixty-six percent of those interviewed said that at the
time of application, they had not expressed a preference for any
project.
A preference for a particular neighborhood or section of
Boston is also thought to explain racial concentrations in public
housing. This point of view can not account for the nonwhite
occupancy in Mission Hill (0.1 percent) and Mission Hill Extension
(86.6 percent) which are in the same neighborhood across the street
from one another.
A third possible explanation is that present patterns are a
residue of a former discriminatory policy. However, the newly
constructed housing for the elderly is reproducing the familiar
racial occupancy patterns. It is noteworthy that in the 10 State-
supported projects exclusive of Camden Street (99 percent nonwhite,
)
the average nonwhite occupancy was 5 percent in 1958 and 3«2 percent
in 1962.
The survey stated that the odds against producing the present
occupancy ratios by sheer chance are 1 quintillion to 1, and con-
cluded that deliberate discriminatory assignment is the sole
possible explanation of racial occupancy patterns in Boston public
housing projects.
°
8. The methods used in the survey, and all of the foregoing
figures, are set forth in Mr. Bishop’s report entitled
Segregation in Boston Public Housing Projects , Mar. 5, 1963.
9
For the purposes of this study, reports on occupancy as of
September 30, 19&3 were secured from the Boston Housing Authority
regarding the State-aided projects, and as of December 31* 19^3 >
from the United States Public Housing Administration for Federal.-
aided projects. These data are compiled in Appendix F, tables 1
and 2, respectively. Each project was then located on a map showing
school district boundaries so that the racial composition of the
project could be compared with that of the elementary school at-
tended by children in the project. This information also is given
in the tables mentioned above.
In the Boston Housing Authority’s State-aided projects>as in
its Federal-aided projects, there appears to be a deliberate
racial assignment policy, since $3.6 percent of the families in
one project, Camden Street, are Negroes and the percentage of
Negro families in the remaining 9 projects ranges from 0.1 to
5.8 percent.
The Camden Street project is located in the Dwight elementary
district and the children attend the Joseph J. Hurley School. The
Hurley School is 82.2 percent nonwhite, having 108 white and 500
Negro pupils. It would seem clear that 9Q.6 percent Negro oc-
cupancy of the Camden project substantially contributes to the
racial imbalance in the Hurley School.
Similarly, the large proportion of white families in all other
State-aided projects (96-IOO percent) helps to maintain the pre-
dominantly white character of the nearest schools. The school
districts in which these projects are located are 94 to 99 • 9 percent
white. If Negro families were distributed relatively evenly in
the State-aided pro jects, there would be less imbalance in school
populations.
The Federal-aided public housing has a higher proportion of
Negro families than the State-aided—
23
.2 percent compared with
3.7 percent. However, the distribution of Negro families in various
projects varies widely and those containing a high percentage of
Negro residents are found to be in school districts showing a
similar racial composition. Lenox Street and Whittier Street have,
respectively, 99*7 and 96.9 percent nonwhite families. Both
projects are located in the Hyde-Everett district. Everett School
is 98*8 percent nonwhite. Hyde School is 99 •! percent nonwhite.
The Charlestown project has 1,1^*0 units, 5 occupied by Asian
families and none by Negroes. The new Warren-Prescott School and
the older Kent School, which children from this project attend,
have no Negro pupils. East Boston, McCormack Houses and Old
Colony have no nonwhite families. East Boston is in the Iyman
district which is 0.1 percent nonwhite in enrollment. McCormack
10
Houses and Old Colony are in the Andrew district which is 0.3 per-
cent nonwhite. Similarly Washington and Beech Street development
with 1.1 percent nonwhite families is in Longfellow, 0.6 percent
nonwhite.
The Federal housing developments that contain both white and
nonwhite families in substantial proportions are found in school
districts with similar racial ratios, Orchard Park, Dearborn
district; South End, Rice-Fran
kl
in district; Franklin Hill Avenue,
Paine district; Bromley Park, Lowell-Kennedy district, and Columbia
Point, Dever district.
A serious question as to the existence of de jure segregation
is raised by the foregoing parallels between predominantly nonwhite
occupancy of public housing and predominantly nonwhite elementary
schools and school districts. Were it to be determined that pre-
dominantly Negro schools resulted from the assignment of public
housing tenants on a racially homogeneous basis, a case might well
be made that official governmental action produced segregated
schools in violation of the Constitution.
11
3. Purposes of Public Education in the United States
During the two-day Open Meeting of the Committee, six nationally
known educators and other social scientists, in addition to the
Superintendent of Boston Public Schools and members of his staff,
and the Deputy Commissioner of Education of Massachusetts, dis-
cussed the purposes of education in our Nation and the effects of
racial isolation upon the achievement of those purposes. As stated
by Superintendent William H. Ohrenberger, the three primary pur-
poses of education are: mastery of basic knowledge and skills;
strengthening of character; and the inculcation of those
disciplines and ideals fundamental to life in our democracy. 9 The
statements of others as to the purposes of education differed some-
what in words and in detail but were similar in essence.
Dr. Vincent C. Conroy of the Harvard Graduate School of
Education declared that “public schools are established to enlarge
the freedom and expand the opportunities open to individuals”.^
Although he recognized that other aims of education might be added,
Dr. Gerald S. Lesser of Harvard University said that “our schools
function to teach academic skills, realistic self-concepts, and the
motivation to learn”.H Dr. Gertrude S. Noar, National Director
of Education of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, stated
“each ^child7is entitled to full and equal opportunity to develop
his potentialities for himself as well as his country. … It is
clear that public education is the means which our democratic
society provides to accomplish that purpose. . .”12
9. A Statement of Administrative Policy by William H. Ohrenberger,
Superintendent of Public Schools, Open Meeting, Mar. 20, 1964,
p. 2.
10. Statement of Dr. Vincent Conroy, Executive Director for the
Center for Field Studies, Graduate School of Education, Harvard
University, Open Meeting, Mar. 21, 1964, p. 6.
11. The Effects of Segregation and Desegregation in the Schools ,
Dr. Gerald S. Lesser, Director, Laboratory of Human Development,
Harvard University, Open Meeting, Mar. 21, 1964.
12. Desegregation of Education-The Time is Now, Dr. Gertrude Noar,
National Director of Education, Anti-Defamation League of B’nai
B’rith, Open Meeting, Mar. 21, 1964, p. 1.
12
The Hidden Curriculum
Dr. Charles Pinderhughes, Chief of Psychiatric Service at the
Veterans Administration Hospital in Boston, employed the term
“hidden curriculum” to describe some of the things that a child
learns in school outside of the formal teaching process:
There.is increasing acknowledgment of the hidden
curriculum being taught in all schools in addition
to reading, writing, arithmetic and other planned
courses. Schools in fact teach much more, including
how to get along with one’s fellow man, and how to
think about and evaluate oneself and others. Indi-
viduals within a school serve as models for
imitation and identification and each student is
pressed to conform to the kinds of attitudes,
beliefs, morals, and behavior which surround him.
The areas and styles of conforming, competing,
rebelling, and cooperating are part of the hidden
curriculum in each school. Intangibles such as
the reputation and influence of a school, of its
teachers, its pupils and the nature of the
neighborhood. . . contribute to the tone and
character of the educational program . . . informal
education, the classroom ‘atmosphere’ and ‘climate’
and the psychology and cultural traits of students
. . . may show considerable variation from school
to school even when curriculum and teacher activity
may be relatively standardized. As much attention
should be directed to the educational process
between pupils as is currently given to the
educational process between teachers and pupils.
In a community composed predominantly of a single
ethnic group, the educational process between
pupils in the neighborhood school serves as a
vehicle for conveying and perpetuating cultural
characteristics. As such, a racially imbalanced
school can either enrich or impoverish a child,
depending upon what is imparted • • .^3
13. The Adverse Effects Upon Mental Health and Educational
Process of De Facto Segregation of Negroes , by Charles A.
Pinderhughes, M.D. , Chief of Psychiatric Service, Veterans
Administration Hospital, Boston, Open Meeting, Mar. 21, 196^.
The full text of Dr. Pinderhughes* statement appears as Ap-
pendix C of this report.
13
The American Negro is the only minority group in
the United States without a culture of its
own.
All other groups have a religion, an internal
source of authority and group cohesion, a special
language, traditions, institutions or other roots
which are traceable to a lengthy group existence,
usually in another country. American Negroes
have none of these.
The numerous languages, family and group ties,
and all prior cultural institutions of the millions
of slaves brought to America were destroyed. An
establishment for training was developed. Laws
guaranteed the master absolute power over his
slaves and permitted unlimited physical and psy-
chological discipline to break and train slaves
to unquestioning obedience. The machinery of
the police and the courts were not available to
slaves. Laws decreed that fathers of slaves
were legally unknown. Marriage was denied any
standing in law. Children could be sold without
their mothers except in Louisiana which kept the
mother-child relationship preserved until the
child reached ten years of age. There was a
general belief that education would make slaves
dissatisfied and rebellious. Distribution of
books, including the Bible, or teaching of slaves
were prohibited by law in some States.
Thus, by means of one of the most coercive social
systems on record, the character of American
Negroes and the nature of their families and of
their groups were clearly and rigidly defined in
a closed system which supplied the training and
sanctions needed to produce recognizable per-
sonality types. Such stereotyped characteristics
were produced by this environmental pressure that
some persons, viewing the products of this system,
have gained the erroneous impression that the
characteristics were inherent in the people rather
than induced.
Ih. Ibid.
14
Dr. Pinderhughes stated that eight generations of slavery-
formed child-rearing practices which were the slave’s most
important training school, and produced obedient, docile slaves
whose aggressions were directed against themselves. A slave’s
education, he said, was a life and death struggle to reverse or
inhibit all assertiveness or aggression, especially in male
children. Dr. Pinderhughes noted that this learning process con-
tinued after emancipation and even after migration to the North.
Negroes forced into a low caste group in the South
have* upon migrating? unconsciously induced in Boston
relationships similar to those in the South. With
‘segregation de jure 1 stamped into and thoroughly
interwoven in the culture and into the personalities
of Southern Negroes, it was inevitable that it should
be carried northward to precipitate out as ‘de facto
segregation 1 . They formed their compounds in the
northern cities, and in these de facto segregated
communities they reproduced and passed on the only
culture they had to pass on, with the only child
rearing practices they knew, in the matrix of the
only family structure and group organization they
Dr. Pinderhughes stated that this heritage accounted for the
fact that the Northern Negro may fail to take advantage of the
opportunities open to him, such as the stated right of any child
to transfer to any school in Boston under the School Committee’s
“Open Enrollment” Plan:
Although the gate to the compound in the Northern
city is open, few find it. Many have been so
trained not to reach out or to defeat themselves
that they must persistently fail at just those
points where constructive changes are possible.
Most of them do not believe the gate is open
even when they are told and offered encouragement.
Some who believe have so renounced any capacity for
initiative or constructive assertion as to be
immobilized and apathetic.
It is for these reasons, as well as for economic
ones, that the open enrollment plan in its present
form will not work for those who need it most. It
is also unrealistic to leave the burden for change
upon Negro parents when basically the American
had known.
15. Ibid.
15
Negro family has been disrupted and made impotent
as a source of initiative and purposeful action. ^6
Dr. Pinderhughes indicated that the evils he believes to result
from predominantly Negro schools are educational evils and can only
be remedied by “breaking up the compound”
:
Neither words nor pictures nor large amounts of
intellectualized information will substantially
modify the compound without the corrective
emotional experiences of increased integration.
Unless the compound is broken up it will go on
reproducing its own kind, even as communities
of other ethnic groups keep reproducing their
own.
Education is central in all of this, certainly
slavery was an educational matter as well as a
political, economic, and moral matter, and
modification of a caste finds education at the
very heart of the process.
Racially imbalanced schools in Negro neighbor-
hoods function as a mold which produces and
perpetuates an unfavorable stamp. Schools in
communities heavily populated by other ethnic
groups also serve as vehicles for transmitting
group characteristics to individuals, but the
stamp imparted in such schools is more adaptive
and more often of positive value. VI
Dr. Pinderhughes forcefully stated his conclusions as to the
effects of predominantly Negro schools on Negro children as
follows
:
In this context, the, Negro ghetto and its
accompanying predominantly Negro schools can
more easily be seen as agents which have adverse
effects upon self esteem, value systems, moti-
vations, aspirations, and behavior of pupils.
Such adverse effects prevailing in many students
can seriously impair the educational processes in
a school despite the presence of excellent teachers
and adequate facilities. 1″
16. Ibid .
17. Ibid .
18. Ibid.
16
Dr. Pinderhughes stated in closing that the history of race
relations in our country has also damaged white Americans:
That most white persons flee as if from a plague
when Negroes move near them is a product of their
life experience and education. Increased inte-
gration in education starting at early ages will
do much to prevent the emergence of another
generation of hurt, frustrated, disillusioned,
and angry coloreds and guilty, panic-stricken,
perplexed, and angry whites. The adverse effects
of the present system upon the mental health of
Americans have too long been swept under the rug. 1^
Dr. Pinderhughes, by reason of his psychiatric training and
experience, favored racially balanced schools on grounds of mental
health; educators addressing the Committee supported racially
balanced schools on educational grounds.
In response to a question as to whether compensatory programs
in predominantly Negro schools can solve the learning problem of
the Negro child, Dr. Gertrude Noar said:
Improvement of the education of the Negro child
cannot take place sufficiently- -there cannot be
sufficient improvement unless it is accompanied
by integrated education. The child is harmed in
mind and soul by the very fact of separation,
segregation. There can be no superior separated
school or even equal separated school. There has
to be an integrated school. 20
Citing the growing concern among Negro parents, Dr. Noar
stated:
Negroes have become aware of the effect of aspiration
and expectation on learning. Negro children have not
aspired to become anything important because their
parents have not been permitted employment commensu-
rate with their individual abilities and training.
Parents do not expect their children to succeed. The
children soon become convinced that they cannot achieve
educational or vocational goals.
19. Ibid .
20. Record, Mar.
21. Id. at 29.
21, 1964, p. 23.
IT
Dr. Dan W. Dodson, Director of the Center for Human Relations
at New York University, who has served as a consultant on problems
of racial imbalance in public school systems in Washington, D. C,
New Rochelle, N.Y., Englewood, N.J., East Orange, N.J., and Mt.
Vernon, N.Y., and who currently serves as a consultant to the New
York City Board of Education, made the following observations:
Equal education cannot be provided in an all-
Negro school. In my entire experience I have
yet to find an all-Negro or nearly all-Negro
school which measures up to the standards the
community has a right to expect of schools for
its children. We are forced to admit that
either the differences are biological- -which
only the bigots would contend- -or else admit
that they are the differences which have
accrued from social rituals through which we
have come. If they are cultural they are
capable of change and alteration. For the
white community to live with such knowledge
of these traumas without making massive
efforts to correct them can only provide
moral corruptness.
When a school is all-Negro in our culture
the entire society looks upon it as inferior.
If the whole culture conceives it as inferior,
I contend that, indeed, makes it so. Teachers
who are assigned to it consider themselves as
less fortunate than those who teach elsewhere,
morale is harder to maintain, the schools are
harder to staff. Teachers expect less of the
students, the students expect less of them-
selves, they are traumatized by the sense of
rejection which stems from the segregation,
hence academic performance cannot be achieved.
Jim Crow symbolizing what it does in our
culture, to require a Negro child to attend
such a school would be comparable to requiring
a Jewish child to attend a school with a
swastika over the door.
22
22. Statement of Dr. Dan Dodson, Director of the Center for Human
Relations and Community Studies, New York University, Open
Meeting, Mar. 21, 1964, p. 5.
18
Dr. Dodson said that in large cities the neighborhood school
had lost its relevance as an educational concept:
The neighborhood school has lost its relevance as
an educational concept in modern urban life—if,
indeed, it ever had any. The idea of the neighbor-
hood school was borrowed from the concept of the
community school. This idea was that it brought
all the children of the community to a common
experience. It was thought of as a device for
bringing in differences rather than shutting
them out. The neighborhood school has the op-
posite connotation. It is impossible to have
two schools in a community which are exactly
equal in status. One is thought of as better
than the other. Those who attend it are thought
to be more fortunate. Parents consider them-
selves proprietors of such an institution, and
fight to defend it from encroachment in a way
that smacks of tribalism. ^3
Dr. Dodson stated his belief that school boards have an af-
firmative duty to promote racial balance:
It is the responsibility of the board of
education to arrange the encounters between
children whose backgrounds are different, to
the end that they learn the skills of citizen-
ship commensurate with the era of which they
are a part. The most basic curriculum
decision a board of education makes is ‘Who is
going to school with whom? ‘ In other words
these are not simply civil rights matters, they
are educational matters.
Another expert who appeared before the Committee was Dr# John
H. Niemeyer, President of the Bank Street College of Education,
New York City. The college, a center for research and pilot edu-
cational projects, has carried on studies in elementary schools for
more than fifteen years. That experience has led, Dr. Niemeyer
said, to these conclusions:
23. Id. at 20.
2k. Id. at 6.
19
All that we know about children and learning
and school organization confirms our belief
that school segregation- -whether stemming
from community policy or from unplanned
residential concentrations—is an important
cause of educational deprivation affecting
majority group children as well as minority
group children. Such deprivation is morally
wrong, and in terms of society’s need for a
well-educated citizenry, inexcusably wasteful
and dangerous.
Integration, therefore, has become, in our
view, an essential task for our schools.
Further, the integration of our schools is
an obligation on society. Without it the
school fails to provide for our children
and youth a living model of a world made up
of people who are different in many ways but
who are, at the same time, equal.
^
Dr. Niemeyer said that the image of the neighborhood school
as the place of friendly, easy association between children,
parents and school officials has little relation to reality.
For many, perhaps for most, of the families
living in the deprived areas in our cities,
and even for large numbers of families and
children who live in more middle-class areas
which would not be labelled ghettos or slums,
the concept of the neighborhood school is a
fantasy. … Of all the arguments for the
neighborhood school none is more important
to us educators than that which states that
communication between the home and the school
depends upon the proximity of the school
building to the family residence—which all
too often is a crowded tenement. I say this
because we believe that cooperation between
home and school to support children in their
learning is of great value. The truth is,
however, that such dependence does not exist.
. . . Schools in general, state the belief
25. Statement of Dr. John H. Niemeyer, President, Bank Street
College of Education, Open Meeting, Mar. 21, 1964, pp. 2-3.
20
that there should be better communication between
themselves and the parents but they rarely organize
themselves or have the resources for carrying out
an effective communications system. This is
particularly true for the large urban school where
the need for integration is pressing. We know that
many private and parochial school children attend
school in areas fairly distant from their homes,
yet these schools often maintain better communication
with the parents than the public schools do. Good
communications depend not on proximity, but upon
the development of a reliable communication plan
and the ability and resources to bring it about.
We cannot justify the myth of the neighborhood
school’s parent-communication as an argument
There was clear agreement among the experts who appeared be-
fore the Committee that racial imbalance adversely affects the
purposes of education in our society.
Policy of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as to Racial
Imbalance and Public Education
Dr. Thomas J. Curtin, Deputy Commissioner of Education for the
Commonwealth, appeared at the Open Mseting on March 20 as the
official representative of the Massachusetts Department of Edu-
cation. Dr. Curtin reported to the Committee the policy of the
State Board of Education with regard to racially imbalanced schools
and the underprivileged child and the actions of the State Depart-
ment of Education in implementation of the Board’s policy.
On August 19, 1963> the State Board of Education adopted a
resolution declaring its deep concern over “the numbers of American
children who are under privileged, partly because of neighborhood
imbalance as reflected in some public schools. “^7 The Board in its
resolution urged each school committee in the Commonwealth to
intensify its efforts to identify and to meet the educational needs
of any such underprivileged children and advocated:
26. Id. at pp. h-6.
27. Statement of Dr. Thomas J. Curtin, Deputy Commissioner of
Education, Re Racial Imbalance in the Public Schools of the
Commonwealth, Open Meeting, Mar. 20, 1964, p. 1.
against integration.
21
That action, consistent with sound educational
practice, be taken immediately to eliminate
racial imbalance when and where it is ascertained
to exist in any school system. 2^
The State Department of Education has been energetic in
furthering the policy enunciated by the Board on August 19, 1963*
It has: 2?
Conducted a 15-week teacher training course at
Boston College entitled ‘Education and Race
Relations’, which included lectures by some
of the most distinguished authorities in the
Nation and was attended by 115 teachers from
Boston and surrounding communities; distributed
a ‘Human Relations Kit’ to every public school
system in the Commonwealth which included a
bibliography on ‘Education and Race Relations’;
one on ‘The Negro in American Life’, and a
teacher’s unit of study called ‘Discrimination-
Danger of Democracy’.
On February 27, 1964, the State Board of Education reaffirmed
its previous policy statement and voted to launch a comprehensive
study seeking practical solutions to the educational problems
created by racially imbalanced schools. It also authorized the
Commissioner of Education to initiate a racial census in the
39
0
school districts of the Commonwealth, after a ruling from the
Attorney General of Massachusetts that such a census was legally
permissible. Census forms were distributed pursuant to this
authorization on March 2, 1964. 3°
On March 5, 1964, the Board of Education announced the member-
ship of an Advisory Committee charged with carrying out the study
authorized on February 27. Two “Task Forces” of experienced
educators were appointed to assist the Advisory Committee. 31 As
noted above, 32 the Advisory Committee published its interim report
on July 1, 1964.
28. Ibid .
29. Id. at 2.
30. Id. at 2-3.
31. Id. at 3.
32. Introduction, note 2, supra.
22
The value of the racial census in any discussion of the
problems of racial imbalance or their solution can hardly be
exaggerated. Estimates of nonwhite enrollment made at the Open
Meeting by an NAACP official
33
arLa a member of the School Com-
mittee-^ were found to be far short of the mark. As noted above
(Chapter 1, infra ) the Superintendent’s office apparently had no
conception of the nature and extent of nonwhite enrollment prior to
the census.
33. In The Negro and the Boston Public Schools report prepared
for the Boston NAACP by Tom Atkins, Part III, 6th page, the
Negro pupil population is estimated at 14,000. The census
disclosed 21,097 “to be the Negro pupil population.
3^. Mr. Arthur Gartland estimated (R.83) the Negro pupil popu-
lation to be approximately 15 percent. The census disclosed
23 percent to be the Negro pupil population.
23
4. Consideration of Policy of fhe
Boston School Committee
Two members of the School Committee spoke at the Open Meeting on
March 2, 1964.
Mrs. Louise Day Hicks, a former chairman of the School Com-
mittee, strongly supported the neighborhood school policy and
compensatory programs for the “culturally deprived child”, whether
white or Negro in those schools. Mrs. Hicks declared: 35
We have heard it said that many of our schools
are predominantly Negro, but this merely reflects
the ethnic grouping of the neighborhood. We all
believe in the Boston Public School system, in
the neighborhood school; that the children go to
school in the neighborhood where they live and
with the children with whom they play. We do
not at any time have any type of discrimination
in the Boston Public School system.
Mrs. Hicks said “I heartily do not believe in segregated
schools. … I am for civil rights. … I would hope that some
day all our schools across the whole nation would be well
acquainted with every nation and every race and color and creed. “36
“But”, she added, “we are dealing with very little children. We
believe in the neighborhood school. We believe at this age children
should go to school in the neighborhood where they live, and they
shouldn’t have to go miles and miles to another school. “37 With
great consistency, Mrs. Hicks maintained her belief in the neighbor-
hood school and her view that altering boundary lines was not an
educational matter:
I honestly and firmly believe in the neighborhood
school, and that the answer to the problem of the
culturally deprived child will be through education,
not through transportation, not through changing of
boundary lines because of race, color or creed, but
rather let us give to these children what they need
most, and that need will be served through education.
35. Record p. 87.
36. Id. at 96.
37. Ibid .
38. Record pp. 87-88.
2k
Mrs. Hicks was asked “If you feel, as you have stated in this
eloquent way, that we ought to have all people live together, do
you feel that the School Committee has no responsibility in drawing
district lines. . . not bussing. . . to try to help a little bit in
this way. . . ?”39 Her reply was unequivocal:^0
I believe that the lines should never be drawn
with regard to race, color or creed.
Mr. Arthur Gartland, also a member of the Boston School Com-
mittee, seemed to differ from Mrs. Hicks, at least as to the
immutability of the present method of assignment of pupils to public
schools. He said:^l
I hope that the School Committee will authorize
and instruct the school administration to restudy
the distribution of pupils. You will hear more
detailed information later in the day from Herbert
Gleason, you will hear more figures, which indicate
the possibility of redistribution of the pupils of
our system in such a way as to bring about a class-
room population close to the city average. At the
present time, we do have unbalanced classes, and
this is obviously a heavy load on the teachers
and correspondingly a deprivation of pupils. But
this and many other things, I think, will be con-
ceived and will be carried out for the benefit of
the minorities of our City.
Mr. Gartland’ s remarks were directed to class size rather than ethnic
distribution. On the latter matter he said he could not predict
School Committee action beyond cooperation in the ethnic count re-
quested by the Commission of Education. ^ He expressed hope that the
Advisory Committee to the State Board of Education would make re-
commendations for the reduction of ethnic imbalance. ~> An
integrated school would be beneficial in his opinion, he said,
“since the American democracy is composed of many, many diverse
elements, that the early lessons in democracy can be greatly aided
by the schools representing, so far as feasible, a microcosm of the
community, of our city.”^-
39* Id« at 97. Question asked by Professor Byse.
kO. Ibid .
111. Id. at 79.
k2. Id. at 76.
43. Id. at 82.
kk. Id. at 85-86
25
New Schools
Although the Boston School Committee, with the exception of Mr.
Gartland, seems to be committed to the neighborhood school policy
so far as existing schools are concerned, both Mr. Gartland and
Superintendent Ohrenberger explained that sites for new schools
were being selected to avoid racially unbalanced schools. Mr.
Gartland stated: ^
Now, significant to you who are concerned with
investigating civil rights, I think, is the fact
that the school administration, present and
erstwhile, does understand that there is an
advantage in the location of school sites in
such a way as to avoid gross imbalance. The
greatest care is being taken in the location
of both the new high school facility and in the
Humboldt Avenue School- -and the same will be said
of all other such schools and additions; the
greatest care is being taken to avoid such schools
being exclusively or predominantly Negro.
Superintendent Ohrenberger cited the following example:^
We had a choice of establishing an elementary
school in the location of the Lewis School
and develop the Lewis School as a new junior
high school, and the decision was to relocate
the new junior high school on the periphery
of the area and establish the site of the
Lewis School as an elementary school- -to
establish the new junior high school in the
periphery of the area, which would allow
them to draw not only from the Washington
Park area, but also from Roxbury, Jamaica,
and so forth.
Commenting on this statement by Superintendent Ohrenberger,
Mr. Gartland said: ^7
This illustrates the point that the school
administration and the chief administrator
who finally puts the o.k. on a location is
45. Id. at 77.
46. Id. at 80.
47. Ibid.
26
aware of the advisability of avoiding unbalanced
schools; and to such an extent that he can- -and
I think that he is limited—I think this is his
prime motive in site location.
The policy of avoiding racial imbalance in choosing new school
sites does not carry over into the selection of schools to which
additions are built. On this point Mr. Gartland said:^°
Now, wherever we’re building additions to schools,
which are much needed, this will obviously have
no impact on this particular problem. Such an
example would be the addition to the Grover
Cleveland School on Charles Street in Dorchester,
or the Garfield School in Brighton; but where
new schools are built, this facial balance^ is
a primary motive in site selection.
Open Enrollment
The Open Enrollment policy recently adopted by the Boston School
Committee is one exception to its neighborhood school policy. In
speaking at the Fourth Annual Education Conference before the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights, Washington, D.C., May 3-^ 19^2, Mr.
Frederick. J. Gillis, then Superintendent of Boston Public Schools,
declared ‘.^
That act ^/Mass. Fair Education Practices Act
/
wasn’t necessary for Boston because since 1o35j
with the opening of the public Latin School,
we have had integration, and at the present
time any child may go to any school, in any
grade of any system, provided there is a
seat vacant for him, after the neighbors
have been accommodated, provided the course
fits his needs and provided, if transportation
is necessary, his parents will pay the carfare.
48. Id. at 81.
^•9. Record p. 135.
27
The Committee heard testimony as to the operation of the Open
Enrollment program from the school administration and from parents,
students, and interested citizens. One witness related her
experiences concerning the proposed transfer of a child in her home
in a statement at the Open Meeting held on March 21, 1964.50 ghe
stated that the assistant principal in her local junior high school
told her that the college preparatory course was filled. She
related that when she expressed a desire to transfer to another
district, the assistant principal promptly suggested that the child
wait for an opening which might occur if someone dropped out of the
college course. This witness gave a history of being resisted and
cross-examined at every step in her effort to obtain a transfer.
She said that there were no forms or printed instructions available
to those who wanted to transfer, either at the principal’s office
in the neighborhood school, or in the assistant superintendent’s
office. It was her impression that the day to day administration
of the Open Enrollment program managed to make it as difficult as
possible for a parent to have his child transferred out of the
school in his neighborhood.
A student told the Committee of the difficulties his mother
had had in trying to transfer his younger brother to a racially
more equally balanced school: 51
My brother wanted a transfer out of school in the
sixth grade to go to another school, more equally
balanced school, and the principal gave my mother
this big runaround for four months, until it was
too late for him to transfer, until he was not
able to transfer. He tried to get in the seventh,
and it was too late to transfer. So finally, in
the eighth grade, she told my brother and she took
him down to the Solomon Lewenberg and she asked
the principal, ‘How can I get my son into the
school? ‘ And the principal said, ‘Well, you have
to go back to your other school and get a transfer
paper from the other school, and a list of his
marks and everything. 1 When my mother told the
problem how the principal was giving the run-
around, she said, ‘I’ll take your son ‘–and she
gave him a room number; he wanted to go into the
college course, and she sent him down to the
room, and he was enrolled right there, and the
principal told my mother she’d take care of the
enrollment plan.
50. Id. at 119-124.
51. Id. at 133-134.
28
This is the way we were discouraged up to this
point. It was almost too late to get him into
a good school.
The school administration maintains, on the other hand, that
the Open Enrollment plan works well. The assistant superintendent
who is in charge of the program stated that it had been well pub-
licized and that administrative personnel were familiar with its
procedures. The School Committee submitted a memorandum circulated
by former Superintendent Frederick J. Gillis on March 29, 19^2,
setting forth the Open Enrollment policy in the following terms. ^2
It is the policy in Boston to have each pupil
attend the school serving his neighborhood
community unless the child’s physical, mental,
or educational needs require assignment to
specially organized classes or schools (e.g.
a Braille class, or the Horace Mann School
for the Deaf). However, it is also the
practice, at the request of the parent, to
permit a child to attend any school having
appropriate grades or courses, provided that
particular school, after enrolling the
children of its own locale, has adequate
accommodations for pupils from other districts.
Therefore, head masters and principals w£ll
accept all applicants for admission to their
schools provided space is available. Con-
tinuance of such permission is a privilege
and depends on attendance, punctuality, conduct,
and safe transportation.
Mr. Herbert P. Gleason, President of Citizens for Boston
Public Schools, testified at the Open Meeting on March 20. He
commented upon and made recommendations concerning open enrollment?’
52
. Superintendent’s Circular, No. 173, 1961-62.
53. Statement of Herbert P. Gleason submitted at the Open Meeting
Mar. 20, 1964. p. 6.
29
The present open enrollment policy can be made far
more effective. Negro parents have great difficulty
discovering where vacant seats exist , and nothing
is done to allay their fears that a child will
encounter a hostile attitude if he moves to a
white school. If the administration endorses
this policy, it should make it effective.
livery school principal should have in his office
a complete list of open seats, updated at
reasonable intervals, and every parent should be
shown this list cordially upon request. Parents
should be encouraged to talk with the principal
and teacher of the district they are considering,
and their own principal should help them make an
appointment for the purpose. As pointed out
before, the last official report mentioned 13,000
empty seats.
With firm commitments to the present “neighborhood school”
policy and “open enrollment” policy, the policy and practice of
the School Committee appear to be that if parents wish their child
to attend a school other than the school in his neighborhood, the
initiative lies entirely with them. In the preceding chapter,
Dr. Pinderhughes expressed the opinion that such a policy demands
entirely too much of the parents of a pupil attending a racially
imbalanced school. 5^
54. Chapter 3> supra, pp. 15-16.
30
5. Comparison of Predominantly White,
Nonwhite, and “Integrated” Schools
At the Open Meeting on March 20, 1964, the Superintendent’s office
presented and filed with the Committee statistical information
relating to the 57 elementary school districts. As noted above^5
the Committee, in this report, has adopted a broad classification
describing as white the 35 districts in which 90 percent or more of
the pupils are white; as Negro the 7 districts in which 90 percent
or more of the pupils are nonwhite, and as integrated the 15
districts in which at least 10 percent of the pupils are white and
at least 10 percent are nonwhite.
A. FACTORS TENDING TO BE DISRUPTIVE
1. Overcrowding
The Committee was unable to obtain definitive figures
on over and under utilization of classroom space.
Although some of the predominantly Negro districts
are in urban renewal areas in which substandard
housing has been demolished, there appears to be a
greater proportion of empty seats in the pre-
dominantly white than in the predominantly Negro
schools. The seven school districts with 90 or
more percent Negro enrollment (average Negro
enrollment 96.96 percent) had an average of 7*0
percent vacant seats. The seven most predom-
inantly white districts (average white enrollment
99*9 percent) had an average of 8.6 percent vacant
seats. 5°
2. Turnover
Figures were submitted as to the total number of
admissions and discharges in each elementary school
district for the period September 1963 to February
1964. The additions and discharges were added in
each district and the total as a percentage of the
number of pupils in the district is described as
the “Turnover Percentage” . 57
55* Chapter 1, supra , p. 5.
56. Seat occupancy as shown on Sept. 1963 school census.
57. Item 6A of material submitted by Superintendent’s office.
31
Total Admissions Pupils in Turnover
Districts or Discharges District *
Percentage
White 9,7^3 35,232 27.65
Integrated 6,935 15,807 ^3.87
Negro 4,376 7,^12 59-
03
* The total district figures do not
vary substantially from the figures
resulting from the census of
March 26, 196k.
3. Special Class Children in Regular Classes
The Superintendent’s office also submitted figures on
the number of children in each district attending
regular classes who should be attending special classes
Superintendent Ohrenberger said that this category-
refers to children mentally retarded to various degrees
The presence of such children is, of course, a dis-
turbing factor to the other children and tends to
lessen a teacher’s overall effectiveness. The figures
for the three categories of schools are as follows: 59
Districts Total Pupils *
White 35,232
Integrated 15, 807
Negro 7, 412
* As of September 30, 1963.
Special Class
Pupils Not in
Special Classe;
263
2
67
320
Percentage
•75
I.69
4.31
58. Letter to Father Drinan, May 7, 1964.
59. Item 6B of material submitted by Superintendent’s office.
32
B. WIDENING DIFFERENCES AT HIGHER GRADE LEVEI£
Figures submitted for intelligence quotients and reading
achievement levels tended to show that disparities existing in
earlier grades grew larger in higher grades. As to intelligence
ratio s, the figures showed:^
Districts Average Grade Four Average Grade Six
White 102.0 107.0
Integrated 96. 0 99-7
Negro 93.7 96.3
As to reading achievement , the tendency is more marked. The
white and Negro groups were approximately one-quarter of a year
apart in reading level in second grade and nearly one year apart in
sixth grade. The district averages are as follows
:
Average Reading Average Reading
Districts Level at Grade Two Level at Grade Six
White 2.55 5.93
Integrated 2.35 5-15
Negro 2.27 5.0
C. TEACHERS’ QUALIFICATIONS
Although length of teaching experience is not, in itself, a
clear indication of a teacher’s worth, the Committee analyzed the
teachers’ experience data submitted for each district. The figures
show that half of the teachers in the predominantly Negro districts
have 10 years or less experience while nearly half of those in the
predominantly white districts have 21 or more years experience. 2
60. Id. Item 6E.
61. Id. Item 6F.
62. Id. Item 6D.
33
Teacher Experience
Years
Total 0- 5 6-10 11-20 21
JJis uric us Teachers w t.t^_ rsl No
.
—w
2
White 1,069 198 18.5 137 12.8 253 23.6 511 47.8
Integrated 492 103 20.4 87 17.6 118 23.9 184 37.3
Negro 236 59 25.0 57 24.1 48 20.3 72 30.5
The educational preparation of teachers varied little from
group to group. Teachers taking Master’s courses or holding a
Master’s or Doctor’s degree represented 47*7 percent of those in the
predominantly white districts, 53 • 8 percent of those in the
“intergrated” schools, and 43. 3 percent of those in the predomi-
nantly Negro districts.
6^
Educational Preparation of Teachers – Percentages
Bachelor’s Master’s Doctor’s
Districts Equivalency Degree Courses Degree Courses Degree
White 14.6 28.1 9.3 31.7 15.3 0.7
Integrated 6.6 29.2 10.4 33-7 19-0 0.8
Negro 5.3 38.7 17.7 24.5 18.1 0.3
D. SUMMARY
In the assignment of teachers to school districts, there is no
substantial difference as to the educational qualifications of
teachers in the three categories of districts described in this
report. A difference in the experience of teachers in the three
groups is noted with the less experienced more often found to be
assigned to districts having the greater number of Negro pupils.
The available figures do not unequivocally support the view
that the predominantly Negro schools are more overcrowded than the
predominantly white schools. As to two other factors that tend to
disrupt the classroom atmosphere, the figures clearly show the
63. Id. Item 6C.
34
predominantly Negro schools to be at a disadvantage. First, those
districts contain a considerably higher proportion of pupils who,
in the words of the Superintendent’s office, should be attending
special classes and not regular classes, and, second, they exhibit
a much higher rate of pupil turnover.
Tests administered to Boston school pupils show that the margin
by which children in predominantly white districts score ahead of
children in predominantly Negro districts grows larger, both as to
intelligence ratios and reading achievement, as the children
progress through elementary school. This finding is consistent with
studies cited by Dr. G. S^ Lesser. In his statement at the Open
Meeting, Dr. Lesser said:
Many other studies (e.g. Ferral, 1959; Public
Education Association, 1955; Wolff, 1§62, 1963)
supply evidence that segregated schools function
on lower levels of academic achievement than do
other schools in the same educational systems.
This inferiority of academic performance in
racially imbalanced schools becomes greater and
greater as the children progress through the
school grades . Deutsch (i960), for example,
reports that it is at the first-grade level
that the smallest differences between racial groups
are observed, and that these differences in
academic functioning become more and more
marked in the later grades. By the time the
children in racially-imbalanced schools reach
the upper grades, they are no match whatever
for the children from less deprived backgrounds,
(emphasis added)
Dr. Lesser also cited studies from Washington, D.C. (Hansen,
i960) and Louisville (Stallings, i960) indicating that when pre-
viously segregated schools were integrated, the performance of
Negro and white children improved. 5 His conclusions based on
various studies were:””
1. Under segregated school conditions, Negro
children are uniformly and significantly
inferior in academic achievement to white
children.
6k. Supra note at 11.
65- P. 32 supra .
66. p. 35 supra.
35
The racial balancing of the schools con
tributes greatly to improving academic
achievement of Negro and usually, also
of white children.
36
6. Compensatory Programs
OPERATION COIMTERPOISE
Operation Counterpoise, a pilot program in the Henry L. Higginson
Elementary School District, was described to the Committee by
Deputy Superintendent Marguerite G. Sullivan. She summarized its
objectives as follows: “7
Operation Counterpoise is a preventive program
designed to catch undesirable situations in
their incipiency, to improve children’s
attitudes toward school, to inspire standards
of excellence which should be carried over
into secondary education for all and beyond
for many. It is our hope through this
program to raise the achievement of these
pupils closer to their potentials which
have for too long been submerged by
parental lack of values.
To carry out the program the school department assigned master
teachers, who are responsible for the program in their respective
schools, to each school in the Higginson district. Emphasis is
placed upon reading and arithmetic skills.
Action for Boston Community Development (ABCD), a nonprofit
agency sponsored by the Ford Foundation, has assisted with plans
and financial support for parts of the project, notably in the
assignment of two reading teachers and a school adjustment
counselor for the district. Mr. Joseph S. Slavet, executive
director of ABCD, told the Committee that the reading program has
been in operation only since March 3, 1964, and that the school
adjustment counselor program began field operations January 20.””
67. Operation Counterpoise , Henry L. Higginson Pilot Program,
statement of Deputy Superintendent Marguerite Sullivan, p. 6,
Open Meeting, Mar. 20, 1964.
68. Statement of Joseph S. Slavet, p. 6, Open Meeting, Mar. 21,1964.
37
A third ABCD-supported program, a pre-kindergarten program for 3i
to 4|- year olds, was due to begin in April 1964. The purpose of
this new program, which stresses parent-teacher contacts, is to
build home support and understanding for the child’s formal learning
experience at the earliest possible age.°9
Mr. Slavet stressed that all of these are experimental, pilot
projects that reach and will continue to reach only a small portion
of the residents of the areas and of the children in their
schools : 70
To be properly evaluated some individuals must
benefit only from one or two programs, some
must benefit from an array of them and others
must not be within their scope.
Within this context it is true that members
of minority groups will benefit. But it is
also true that those benefited will be
relatively few. . .
The Superintendent’s office supplied figures indicating that
the cost of a developmental reading program including two reading
teachers, books, and educational materials would be $13,324 per
district, or $253^156 for ^he “19 culturally deprived” districts
and $759^468 citywide. The cost of a school adjustment counselor
in the “nineteen elementary disadvantaged areas” was placed at
$179,000.7!
Mrs. Barbara Elam, speaking for Higginson District parents at
the Open Meeting on March 21, 1964, stated that it was her opinion
that “Operation Counterpoise” was established as a result of
complaints by Negro parents. Beginning as a small group of mothers
that met with the principal of the Higginson school on January 24,
1963 to express its concern over vandalism in the school, teachers
leaving, overcrowded classrooms, and lack of communication with
parents, the group rallied the support of many parents, and that of
the KAACP.72 The pressure thus generated, she believed, led to
Operation Counterpoise.
69] Id. at 4.
70. Id. at 2.
71* Figures from the Superintendent’s Office Sept. 12, 1963.
72. History of Operation Counterpoise , statement of Mrs. Barbara
Elam, pp. 3-4, Open Meeting, Mar. 21, 1964.
38
Deputy Superintendent Sullivan gave a different account of the
origin of the program. A former principal at the Hyde School in
Roxbury, Miss Sullivan testified that she was “appalled” with the
change in the community when she returned to it in September 1962
as assistant superintendent in charge of elementary education in
that section of the city. She said further: 73
I was appalled at the change in the community,
I was appalled at the number of in-migrants.
I was appalled at the need for motivation;
and I came into the office and sat down with
Dr. Ohrenberger, who was then Deputy Super-
intendent , and said ‘We have to do something,
and we pulled together the things which we
had been doing and wrote it as one package.
It was tried at the Higginson School because
I saw six teachers leaving the district, I
saw the principal transferred, and I knew
that it was mandatory that they have a well-
structured and well-directed program.
Mrs. Elam and her group have misgivings concerning Operation
Counterpoise, believing it to reflect a failure of the school
authorities to appreciate that Negro children, like other racial
groups, include all kinds of children –those of high ability, the
average, the late bloomers, and others who lag behind for many
reasons. 7^- Mrs. Elam stated that no provision had been made by the
School Committee for average or above-average students in the pre-
dominantly Negro districts. 75 Miss Sullivan contends that
Operation Counterpoise is designed to assist all students in the
district, whether of high, average or low ability.
Teacher Training In Human Relations
One of the requests put to the School Committee by the NAACP on
August 15, 1963j lwa- s f°r in-service training programs for principals
and teachers in the area of human relations. In its reply to the
School Committee on September 12, the Board of Superintendents
announced that plans for “an in-service program that will make a
valuable contribution to the solution of problems which face our
teachers in the instruction of the culturally disadvantaged” were
being made for approval of the School Committee and implementation
73. Record, p. 9k.
“jk. Statement of Mrs. Elam, p. 7.
75. Id. at 5.
39
with the beginning of the new year. A nine-lecture series entitled
“Education in Disadvantaged Urban Areas” was announced in the
Winter 1963-64 issue of the Boston Public Schools Review.
A more extensive source of human relations training for
teachers is the 15-lecture series offered by the Massachusetts
Department of Education called “Education and Race Relations”.
Private Tutoring Programs
Mr. Joseph Murray, Program Director of Norfolk House Center, a
member agency of the Roxbury Federation of Neighborhood Centers,
appeared before the Committee at the Open Meeting on March 20 to
explain the work the centers are doing with the Negro children of
Roxbury. He stated that although the basic purposes of the centers
are broad, they have been getting more and more into the field of
education in recent years. They now have more than 200 children
enrolled in tutoring programs which were set up in response to the
need expressed by parents and children alike. After the program
got underway, they also received many referrals from the local
public schools which could not provide individual tutoring. The
centers, Mr. Murray said, do not think education is the area of
their greatest competence; in his opinion, meeting the educational
needs of children is the job of the Boston School Department.
In addition to the tutoring program, the centers, through their
Youth Employment program, have arranged for the education of
illiterates in a volunteer program, and college guidance and
financial assistance to Roxbury youth. 77
76. The Massachusetts Department of Education makes tapes of these
lectures available upon receipt of the appropriate number of
blank reels. The Deputy Commissioner of Education informed
a representative of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that
the Departments of Education for the States of Pennsylvania
and New York had ordered the entire series.
77. Statement of Joseph Murray, OpenMeeting, Mar. 20, 1964.
The Boston School Department took a step in the right di-
rection in starting “Operation Counterpoise”, Mr. Murray said, but
more steps are needed, such as in the area of de facto segregation.
As to the latter, Mr. Murray stated
We feel that the School Department of Boston
is not responsible for creating a situation
in which de facto segregation exists, but
unless they admit that it exists and do
something about it, they will be guilty of
fostering the situation. Just because the
de facto segregated schools are not sustained
by direct action of the Boston School Com-
mittee, this is no excuse for the Committee
not to arrest and reverse de facto segregation
in this system. Almost any part of the
operation of a public school system is a form
of direct action of the School Committee and
of the City itself.
Mr. Murray was asked how the settlement houses had happened to
get into guidance. He responded that “the children themselves came
to us when they found they were flunking in school. . .”79 School
guidance counselors did not appear to be giving the individual
assistance needed: 80
So he settlement workerjtook it upon himself
to try to offer school guidance, to get tutors,
to try to get people to work very closely with
these children, and a lot of them were able to
graduate from high school with his support.
And this started him on the whole program of
trying to raise money for scholarships, and
there are about 12 boys going to a number of
colleges being financed in part or totally
by the money he raised in the Roxbury area.
A lot of people who have contributed are people
who have come up through the ranks themselves,
who were born and raised in Windsor Street and
Warren Street and other places. It is a kind
of an 1 Operation Bootstraps ‘
.
78. Id. at 3.
79. Record, Mar. 20, 196^, p. 105
.
80. Id. at 106.
kl
Dr. Prentis Moore, a minister at the Eliot Congregational
Church in Roxbury, reported on another volunteer program, the
Roxbury Basic Reading Program for children in elementary school.
This program began in January 1963 and has been in continuous
operation ever since. The volunteer tutors are undergraduate and
graduate students from nearby colleges.
The program, which has cost less than $5,000, has received
financial support from the Reading Reform Foundation, the Eliot
Church, the Roxbury Community Council, the Northern Students, and
several individuals. It is carried out in three centers, the
Harriet Tubman House, the Eliot Congregational Church, and the
St. John Mission Hill Center.”1
Two novel aspects of the Roxbury Basic Reading Program are the
inclusion of a training program for the tutors in methods of
teaching and of testing and retesting the children to measure
progress. Miss Nancy C. Curtis, a graduate student with a major
in Special Education at Harvard, directed the training and testing.
One hundred and twenty children took the pretest in February 1963*
The average child scored at the 37th percentile, definitely below
the national median of 50. Fifty-four percent scored below the 50th
percentile and only 32 percent above. By June the children who were
retested showed marked improvement; 84 percent scored over the 50th
percentile and only 17 percent below. The children who scored
highest on the California Test of Mental Maturity showed the greatest
gain in reading:
90 and below was 4.7 months; for IQ 91-109, 8
months and for IQ 110 up the gain was 10.4 months.
It should be emphasized that many reading clinics
will not accept children with IQ below 90* Yet
these children in the Basic Reading Program
gained 4.7 months in reading. ^
Dr. Moore looks upon the program as a means of revitalizing
interest in education in the Roxbury community where many residents,
by reason of poor education themselves, are ill-prepared to demand
improvements in the education of their children. The achievements
of the small scale voluntary programs described to the Committee
tend to bear out the experts ‘ views as to the critical effect of the
learning environment upon academic performance.
81. Progress Report, Roxbury Basic Reading Program, statement of
Dr. Prentis Moore at Open Meeting, Mar. 21, 1964, and booklet
on program submitted.
82. Id. at p. 5.
The average gain for children
42
7. Power and Duty of School Committee
to Relieve Racial Imbalance in Schools
The particular responsibility of this Committee as an advisory group
to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is to study and collect
information concerning developments in Massachusetts which may con-
stitute a denial of equal protection of the laws under the
Constitution. The Committee, therefore, sought guidance as to the
present state of the law from Father William J. Kenealy, former
dean of Boston College Law School, a member of the bar of the
District of Columbia and Massachusetts, and a lecturer and writer
in this area of constitutional law for many years.
Father Kenealy reminded the Committee that: ^3
The Supreme Court in the 195^ School Segregation
Cases and ever since has clearly and rigidly
held that any segregation created by a State
constitution, State statute, city ordinance,
rules, and regulations of school boards, or
any other official acts of government is
unconstitutional, and has ordered the de-
segregation of such segregated schools.
Before considering de facto segregation, which he defined as
a concentration of one ethnic group in the public schools not owing
to any official action of government, Father Kenealy spoke of
another kind of de jure segregation which would probably come under
the Supreme Court 1 s condemnation of segregation in the 195^
decision. The area of de jure segregation Father Kenealy referred
to is a major concentration of Negroes in public schools resulting
from the action of an arm of government other than the school
board.
Father Kenealy continued:
83. Record, Mar. 21, p. 76.
84. Id. pp. 77-78.
43
Suppose there was a zoning ordinance, the kind
that was outlawed in Buchanan v. Warley, that
created residential segregation by force of
State law which, in turn, created the racial
imbalance of the school. I think I would call
that a state of de jure segregation.
So, too, if you could prove, as a matter of
fact, that the same segregation of housing
occurred as a result of constant enforcement
of the restrictive covenants . . . outlawed
in Shelley v. Kraemer ; but as long as that
situation persisted, that would be de jure
segregation.
So, too … if any housing authority by
its official policy created the same
condition, it would seem to me that this
would be de jure segregation. ^
As to de facto segregation, Father Kenealy said: ^
To my mind there are two very important
legal questions involved:
One: Is there any constitutional require-
ment for the State or its school committee
to take positive action to desegregate the
schools which are simply de facto segregated?
Second question: Is it constitutionally
permissible for the school boards to take
positive action to desegregate schools
which are simply de facte segregated?
He stated two publicly voiced opinions of the Boston School
85. In ch. 2, supra, it was suggested that the tenant assignment
policies of the Boston Housing Authority raise the issue of
de ; ire segregation in Boston.
86. Record, p. 80.
87. Ibid.
One, we are a committee of education, not of
integration. We will talk to the NAACP or
other persons interested in any educational
matter. We will not talk to them on a question
of integration. The supposition that a major
concentration of Negroes is de facto segre-
gation is simply not an educational matter.
I think in some other State a similar board
said, ‘We are a Board of Education, not a
Board of Transportation. 1
Secondly, the opinion was expressed at least
by one member of the School Committee at a
public hearing at which I was present, that
the ikth Amendment, the equal protection
clause, forbids the State to take any official
action based upon race.
Going back to his own questions, Father Kenealy stated that his
study of decisions of lower State and Federal courts left him un-
certain as to whether the Supreme Court will eventually decide that
a school board must act–at least where de facto segregation is
extreme* As to its power to act, Father Kenealy expressed no
doubt: 58
I have the utmost confidence that when the
second question reaches the Supreme Court
of the United States, namely, is it
permissible for school boards, in the
exercise of their discretion, to obtain
better education, to use a racial action,
to take race into consideration, to
desegregate the de facto segregation group,
I personally have no doubt whatever that
the Supreme Court will say, ‘It is per-
missible, of course, for the same basic
sociological reason that we decided in
the school segregation cases in 195^. 1
Father Kenealy discussed a New York State Court decision to
support his view because New York State has a statute similar to a
provision in the Massachusetts laws which declares that no child
shall be excluded from a public school of any town on account of
race, color, or religion. 9
86\ Id. at 81.
89. Ann. Laws Mass. ch. 151C, sec. 2, (1956).
In the New York case, Balaban v. Rubin, white parents contended
they had been excluded from the school their children would other-
wise have attended because the school board, to achieve racial
balance in a new school, had included the area in which they lived
in the attendance zone for the new school. Although the trial court
upheld the contention of the white parents, the decision was re-
versed by the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court on
March 10, 1964, on the ground that the use of race as a factor to
achieve racial balance in a new school district did not violate
either the New York State education law or the Federal Constitution,
On May “J, 1964 this decision was affirmed by the New York Court of
Appeals. 90 On October 20, 1964, the United States Supreme Court
refused to review the decision of the highest court in New York
State. 91
Emphasizing that the New York statute in question is sub-
stantially identical with Massachusetts’ and for that reason should
allay the School Committee’s fears, Father Kenealy said:^^
I think the case indicates . . . that the evil
caused by extreme racial balance is an edu-
cational evil, and, therefore, the School Board,
in its responsibility and obligations to provide
the best education for all the children, both
Negro and white, can limit the educational evil,
which it cannot do, obviously, without taking
into consideration racial matters.
Father Kenealy thus concludes that a board of education has
the legal power to correct racial imbalance although it may not
have the legal duty to do so. When asked to comment upon the moral
duty to correct racial imbalance, Father Kenealy said: 93
90. Balaban v. Rubin . 242 N.Y.S. 2d 973 (1963), rev . N.Y. Supt.
Ct. App. Div., Mar. 10, 1964, aff ‘d. N.Y. Ct. of Appeals,
Civ. No. 129, May 7, 1964.
91. 33 U.S.L. Week 3l40, Oct. 20, 1964.
92. Record, Mar. 21, p. 86.
93. Id. at p. 87.
46
… as far as the moral obligation is concerned,
to my mind, the prime obligation of the School
Committee is to spend their energies in devising
reasonable means for constructing the best edu-
cation they have for both Negroes and whites.
I personally think that white children are hurt,
too, by this segregation of Negroes.
Negro children are hurt, humiliated, made less
fit to grow up with integrated society.
White children become hurt, too, by an absorption
of arrogance, superiority.
Schools teach by action as well as by precept;
by example, as well as by word.
And don’t tell me that little small school
children- -Negroes or white- -who recognize, say,
all around them separation, make fine distinctions
between de facto segregation and de jure segregation.
The psychological harm is there, anyway.
While Father Kenealy would not assert that the Boston School
Committee has a present legal duty to take action to correct racial
imbalance, he is of the firm opinion that the committee has the
legal power—and the moral duty—to do so.
^7
8. Conclusions and Recommendations
CONCLUSIONS
1. The percentage of Negroes in the population of Boston rose
from 5 percent in 1950 to 9 percent in i960. This increase is
due not only to a growth in the Negro population but to the
continuing movement of white families to the suburbs.
2. Within the city of Boston, the Negro population is
strongly concentrated in Roxbury, North Dorchester, and the South
End. In these contiguous neighborhoods live half of all the
Negroes in Massachusetts, and all but 1,500 of the more than
63,000 Negroes (i960) in Boston; in short, Boston’s Negro popu-
lation is residentially segregated within the city.
3. The concentration of Negroes within the city of Boston
is as marked in public housing as in private housing. For
example, at the end of 1963* 97*7 percent of the units in the
Mission Hill project were occupied by whites, while in the Mission
Hill Extension’ project directly across the street, 90.6 percent
of the units were occupied by nonwhites. This pattern has per-
sisted although discrimination in public housing has been unlawful
since 1950.
h. Due to the residential patterns in both public housing
and private housing Negro children in the Boston Public School
system are by and large concentrated in predominantly Negro
schools.
5. School district lines have remained substantially
unchanged since 1900 when Negroes constituted a very small part
of the population of Boston.
6. The extreme racial segregation in Boston’s public housing
projects tends to produce predominantly Negro public schools and
raises the possibility that some of the racial imbalance in the
public schools is the product of governmental activity and there-
fore unlawful as de jure segregation.
ho
7. To the extent that Negro children in Boston are concen-
trated in predominantly Negro schools as a result of private
residential patterns and not as a result of official policies, the
result may be described as “racial imbalance”, “segregation in the
schools”, or “de facto segregation”.
8. The experience of Negroes in the United States, from the
destruction of their familial and cultural ties in the days of
slavery to the demoralizing surroundings of the Negro ghetto and
the predominantly Negro school, tends to transmit to each generation
of Negro children a lack of self-esteem and a low level of
aspiration, which are perpetuated and reinforced by the segregated
environment of the public school and the practice of learning from
one’s peers instead of from one’s teacher.
9. Negro children attending predominantly Negro schools
constitute an increasing percentage of the public school population,
partly due to the movement of some white families to the suburbs
and partly due to the preference of other white families for private
schools. Negro pupils as a percentage of the total pupils at
different levels of public schools are allocated as follows:
School Total Pupils Negro Pupils Percentages
High 20,2kk 2,798 13.0
Junior High 13,258 2,896 21.8
Elementary 58,117 15, 35^ 26.4
10. The neighborhood school policy of the Boston School Com-
mittee has different application at different levels of the public
schools. It does not apply to 7 of the 16 Boston high schools; it
applies within large district lines to the junior high schools; and
it applies within smaller district lines to the elementary schools,
with the following results as to racial imbalance:
90$ or more 90$> or more Integrated
School Total White Negro Number Percent
High 16 7 0 9 56
Junior High 17 10 2 5 29
Elementary 153 9^ 17 k2 27
h9
11. In evaluating the neighborhood school policy we adopt
Superintendent Ohrenberger 1 s statement that primary purposes of
education are developing in every child:
a. a mastery of basic knowledge and skills
b. the strengthening of his character to choose
what is good, and
c. the inculcation of those disciplines and ideals
fundamental to life in our democracy.
12. Many of the goals of education, particularly those
relating to character formation and the acquisitjon of ideals, are
shaped by the physical, social, and ethnic environment of the
schoolroom as well as by formal instruction. The present neigh-
borhood school policy clearly has an adverse effect upon the
achievement of these goals.
13. The committee appointed by the State Board of Education
and the Commissioner of Education has concluded that racial
imbalance is harmful to Negro and white children, fails to prepare
them for the future and results in a gap in the quality of edu-
cational facilities. With the aid of that committee’s racial
census our Committee has determined that the following disad-
vantages occur in predominantly Negro districts
:
Nature of
District
Pupil turnover
as percent of
enrollment
Special Class (Retarded)
Children attending
regular class – Percent9/63-2M
Predominantly white
(90-100 percent white)
27.65 • 75
Integrated
(at least 10 percent
white and 10 percent
Negro
)
43.87 1.64
Predominantly Negro
(90-100 percent Negro)
59.03 4.31
50
Teacher Experience
Nature of Years
District 0 – 5 6 – 10 11 – 20 21 or more
White 18.5 12.8 23.6 47.8
Integrated 20. k 17.6 23.9 37.3
Negro 25.O 24.1 20.3 30.8
lh. The critical importance of the learning environment was
demonstrated in the testimony of representatives of voluntary
organizations in Boston and elsewhere which indicates that
“educationally deprived” Negro children can make rapid progress
when they are taught in a suitable environment.
15. An environment conducive to learning cannot be produced
merely by competent teaching, by new buildings, or by racial
balance; it requires an understanding of the Negro child, his
history and his current environment on the part of everyone
involved in the educational process.
16. The School Committee’s Open Enrollment program, used by
very few children during the past school year, appears to be
serving only the children of highly motivated, extremely
persistent parents.
17. The School Committee’s Operation Counterpoise program
seeks to meet the need for a mastery of basic knowledge and skills,
but substantially ignores the environmental factors that affect
character development and the inculcation of basic democratic
ideals.
18. The school authorities appear to take account of racial
balance in the selection of new school sites, although their
policy is generally understood to be that expressed by a former
chairman of the school committee who stated that “school district
lines should never be drawn with regard to race, color or creed.”
19. The policy of the Board of Education of the Commonwealth
on racial imbalance was set forth in a statement on August 19,
1963; which said in part:
The Board urges further that action consistent
with sound educational practice be taken imme-
diately to eliminate racial imbalance when or
where it is ascertained to exist in any school
system.
51
This has not been adopted as the policy of the Boston School
Committee.
20. The evidence of the witnesses at the Open Meeting
indicates that children attending racially imbalanced schools
are aware of their segregated environment and, from that
environment, draw conclusions about their place in American life
which are likely to be unaffected by distinctions such as those
between de jure and de facto segregation.
21. The three-fold purposes of education cited by Superin-
tendent Ohrenberger can be meaningfully pursued only by carrying
out a clear resolve on the part of the School Committee, its
superintendents, principals, teachers and staff- -and on the part
of Boston’s political and civic leaders and neighborhood
residents –to achieve both racial integration and a high level of
academic performance in Boston public schools.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the United States Commission on Civil Rights submit this
report to the President and the Congress, the United States Com-
missioner of Education and the Attorney General of the United
States.
2. That the Commission on Civil Rights invite the attention
of the United States Commissioner of Education to the facts herein
reported as evidence of a lack of equal educational opportunity by
reason of race within the meaning of Sec. h02 of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 for the many Negro public school children of Boston
confined to predominantly Negro schools.
3. That the Commission on Civil Rights advise appropriate
officials of the Federal Government that racial discrimination in
public housing contributes to segregation in Boston public schools.
52
k. That the Commission recommend to the President and the
Congress that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 be amended so as to
make available to school systems undertaking to correct racial
imbalance in public schools the same Federal aids available to
school systems seeking to abandon segregation previously required
by law, including technical assistance in coping with special
educational problems occasioned by the correction of racial im-
balance, and institute training and Federal grants to enable
teachers and guidance counselors to improve their understanding
of minority group children and the relation of their heritage
and environment to the learning process and the development of
their latent individual abilities.
52
Appendices
1 2 2 2 23 5 5 56 6 66 6 78 9 99 99 9
%of Non-Whites 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22 2 2 5 5 7 8 8 83 0 5 7 98 0 1 91 2 89 9 99 0 66 78 8
in District— .1.2333.4.45.55.5.6.8.0.0.1.45.8.8.0.12.8.1.8.2.1.2.7.0.7.8.6.0.1.4.2.8.6.3.0.1.5.6.4.4.5^.92.8
00 0 0 0 28 0 0 7 7 74 55 95 03 8 3 320 2 2 83 8 7 2 2 0 5 31 2 1 0 67 28 1 1 0 32 8 29 2 16 54 6
APPENDIX B – Interim Findings of the Advisory Committee on
Racial Imbalance and Education, Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, July 1, 1964
This Advisory Committee concludes that sound education is affected
adversely by racial imbalance in the following ways:
1. Racial imbalance damages the self-confidence and
motivation of Negro children.
2. Racial imbalance reinforces the prejudices of
children regardless of their color.
3. Racial imbalance does not prepare the child for
integrated life in a multi-racial community,
nation, and world.
4. Racial imbalance impairs the opportunities of
many Negro children to prepare for the vocational
requirements of our technological society.
5. Racial imbalance often results in a gap in the
quality of educational facilities among schools.
6. Racial imbalance in the public school represents
a serious conflict with the American creed of
equal opportunity.
57
APPENDIX C
The Adverse Effects Upon Mental Health and
Educational Process of “De Facto Segregation
”
of Negroes
By Charles A. Pinderhughes, M.D.
In the Annual Report of the Superintendent I96I-62, Dr.
Frederick J. Gillis^ states that Boston is classified as one
the lk great cities in America and that:
These ‘great cities’ have unique problems which
differentiate them from all other communities.
In these cities people are always on the move-
either moving in or out of the core city. As
his socioeconomic level is elevated, a person
is prompted to move to a suburb. When this
happens his place is taken by culturally deprived
immigrants, handicapped with a second-class
education, or worse still, by illiteracy. The
rural backgrounds of these people, and their hard
labor qualifications, make them unsuited for the
skilled labor market which urban industrialization
and automation demand. These people contribute
to the pool of unemployables and go on welfare.
In these slum areas (the sociologists, euphemisti-
cally, prefer to designate them as underprivileged,
gray, or depressed areas) there is a high incidence
of pupil dropout. In the school year of i960 there
were 3^000 children in the United States between
the ages of sixteen and twenty-four who, for
various reasons, left school. Of the 1,679*000
who were graduated in June of 1961 a very small
percentage-actually only 7 percent-were nonwhite.
9k. Dr. Frederick J. Gillis, Superintendent of the Boston
Public Schools, I96O-63.
58
The subcultural patterns of the people living
in these depressed areas serve only to encourage
a rot of moral fiber. The common birthright of
their children is squalor, disease, and crime.
These boys and girls are the potential nonreaders,
juvenile delinquents, unwed teenage mothers, and
the dropouts. They leave school and the street
claims them. ‘Social Dynamite’, Conant calls them,
and the terrifying implications germane to the
continuance and yearly growth of this social
problem are obvious to any thinking person.
If the pronouncement that we must educate the
whole child was ever wanting in validity, it has
full emphasis in the slum areas of the great
cities. Here we need dedicated teachers in the
strictest sense of the word, and here the require-
ment for Federal aid is already approaching the
critical point, because it costs so much more
per student to educate an underprivileged pupil
then it does to educate a boy or girl from a
middieclass home.
The slum per se stamps the individual who lives
in it as a second-class citizen- -an inadequate
person with zero for his aspirational goal. The
family group lives in too few rooms to permit
any sort of privacy, and this lack is one of the
most demoralizing forces in the lives of those
who are subjected to this type of living. Money
is always in short supply, the furniture is poor,
beds are inadequate, food very often takes second
place to the purchase of intoxicating liquors,
and clothing and the way of wearing one’s hair
is apt to be bizarre. In this home books are not
read; sometimes not even a newspaper is available.
Self-expression and comprehension are below average,
and inward stress and tensions of all kinds are
present. The environmental pattern here predicates
endless talk, fighting, child bearing, and moving
from place to place to escape payment of rent.
59
When the boy or girl comes to the public school
from this kind of home, where the culture is
several cuts below average, the school, more
than ever, must adjust to the needs of this
child. If anyone in the world needs love and
kindness, sympathetic understanding, and
personal guidance, it is the boy or girl who
lives in this type of neighborhood. His teacher
needs to be better than average and she must be
able to communicate with this child, and to
overlook many things which he may do- -which in
his culture may not be taboo. He requires much
individual help in order that he may establish
a reading ability commensurate with his chrono-
logical age. He needs ‘field trips’ to the
museums, to the library, to places of business,
to any and every place that will contribute to
giving him a sense of belonging and to raising
his aspirational goals. If the school fails
this boy, he will become a dropout and, more
often than not, a juvenile delinquent with a
strong likelihood that his delinquency will be
aggravated in adult life.
While some of the ills described can be cured or, at least,
have their symptoms reduced by vigorous urban renewal and com-
pensatory education programs, there remains a core of problems
which relate to a fact omitted from Dr. Gillis ‘ report . Many of
the persons referred to are Negroes, living in a relatively sharply
delineated area in high concentration. How this fact poses special
problems requiring special solutions can better be understood by
examining the general development and course of what has been
called de facto segregation.
With the emergence of Civil Rights for Negroes as the most
important current domestic issue, public school classrooms have
become a focal point for discussion in communities where con-
siderable racial imbalance exists. In areas which are heavily
populated by a single ethnic group, the enrollment of some schools
may be predominantly or completely of one group. To such a con-
dition the term’de facto segregation ‘ has been applied. There is
a growing realization that an education, which provides contact
with and understanding of but a single ethnic group is unrealistic
and maladaptive in a world where many diverse groups share the same
communities and are interdependent.
60
There is increasing acknowledgment of the hidden curriculum
being taught in all schools in addition to reading, writing,
arithmetic and other planned courses. Schools, in fact, teach
much more, including how to get along with one’s fellow man, and
how to think about and evaluate oneself and others. Individuals
within a school serve as models for imitation and identification
and each student is pressed to conform to the kinds of attitudes,
beliefs, mores, and behavior which surround him. The areas and
styles of comforming, competing, rebelling, and cooperating are
part of the hidden curriculum in each school. Such myths, legends,
and observations as support this curriculum are also included.
A part of the hidden curriculum includes an education and
training toward conformity not only to the mores within the school
but to those mores existing in the community at large. Nowhere is
this more clearly evident than in the guidance and counseling areas.
Since one of the goals of education is to provide opportunity for
the student to find a place for himself in the wider social family
into which he goes, counseling is of critical importance. The
counselor must realistically assist students toward the realization
of their potentials on one hand and toward such opportunities as
exist on the other. A Negro child and a white child of equivalent
equipment and potential, when realistically counseled toward
existing opportunities, have been counseled toward different
occupations in which there were differing rewards. The school
system thus functions as an intimate part of a larger social system
and often assists in perpetuating its ills. We might ask whether
counselors should have “unrealistically” encouraged Negro children
to prepare for areas in which there is aptitude, whether or not
there is opportunity. This might have constituted a disservice
to individual students. On the other hand, the absence of
“qualified” Negroes at present is in part relatable to our
educational system which prepares the students for the outside
world, including the values and mores which exist there.
The importance of intangibles such as the reputation and
influence of a school, of its teachers, of its pupils, and the
nature of its neighborhood have been recognized for somewhat
longer. (Supreme Court decisions on the quality of education have
been based upon such factors in 1950 and 195^« ) Such factors
provide a basic matrix which contributes to the tone and character
of the educational program as well as to comparative ratings and
to public opinions. Rumors, true or false, concerning inferiority
of schools, of teachers, or of pupils have devastating effects
and further demoralize teachers, pupils, and parents.
61
The spotlight upon schools has been directed less upon the
formal curricula and more upon the informal education, the class-
room “atmosphere” and “climate”, and upon the psychology and
cultural traits of students, all of which may show considerable
variation from school to school even when curriculum and teacher
activity may be relatively standardized. As much attention should
be directed to the educational process between pupils as is cur-
rently given to the educational process between teachers and pupils.
Peer-learning in school is never stressed and needs to be
examined in areas of racial imbalance. While there is always a
relationship between peer-learning and teacher-to-pupil learning,
the extent to which the relationship is complementary or supple-
mentary or frankly antagonistic is of prime importance. Given the
same teacher and curriculum, a larger group, emotionally disturbed
students, disrupting students, and lack of group cohesion cause a
shift in educational process from teacher-to-pupil learning toward
peer-learning. Similar factors may promote a peer-learning
situation which is frankly antagonistic to the teacher-to-pupil
learning. Dr. Gillis clearly describes such situations.
What do the pupils learn from one another in the unplanned
informal curriculum? Certainly teachers are not teaching students
to drop out and to misuse their educational opportunities. Pupils
learn such things from other pupils. Other students serve as models
to be imitated, as models with which to identify.
In a community composed predominantly of a single ethnic group
the education process between pupils in the neighborhood school
serves as a vehicle for conveying and perpetuating cultural char-
acteristics. As such, a racially imbalanced school can either
enrich or impoverish a child, depending upon what is imparted.
Of all the ethnic groups in Boston, only one group, the Negro,
has presented a strong complaint that it receives an inferior
education as a direct result of a heavy concentration of its own
group in the neighborhood schools. How can it be explained that a
harmful effect can result in one group which does not result in
the others?
The differences between communities of American Negroes and
communities of all other ethnic groups are extensive, but usually
overlooked. The American Negro is the only minority group in the
United otates without a culture of its own. All other groups have
a religion, an internal source of authority and group cohesion,
a special language, traditions, institutions or other roots which
are traceable to a lengthy group existence, usually in another
country. American Negroes have none of these.
62
The numerous languages, family and group ties, and all prior
cultural institutions of the millions of slaves brought to America
were destroyed. An establishment for training was developed. Laws
guaranteed the master absolute power over his slaves and permitted
unlimited physical and psychological discipline to break and train
slaves to unquestioning obedience. The machinery of the police and
the courts were not available to slaves. Owners tried and executed
sentences upon their slaves. Laws decreed that fathers of slaves
were legally unknown. Marriage was denied any standing in law.
Children could be sold without their mothers except in Louisiana
which kept the mother-child relationship preserved until the child
reached ten years of age. There was a general belief that edu-
cation would make slaves dissatisfied and rebellious. Distribution
of books, including the Bible, or teaching of slaves were pro-
hibited by law in some States.
Thus, by means of one of the most coercive social systems on
record, the character of American Negroes, and the nature of their
families and of their groups were clearly and rigidly defined in a
closed system which supplied the training and sanctions needed to
produce recognizable personality types. Such stereotyped char-
acteristics were produced by this environmental pressure that some
persons, viewing the products of this system, have gained the
erroneous impression that the characteristics were inherent in the
people rather than induced.
For eight generations of slaves in a closed family-like
system, every vital concern focused upon the master as an omni-
potent father whose establishment molded the character and behavior
of his slaves. The child rearing practices of the slave mothers
constituted his most important training school, and produced
obedient, docile, slaves whose aggressions were directed primarily
against themselves. In time, child rearing practices became
stereotyped into life and death struggles to inhibit and reverse
all assertiveness or aggression, especially in male children.
After emancipation from slavery, segregation practices kept
the Negro captive in his compound and continued his training to
his dependent and low caste servant role.
With the migration of large numbers to the North, no rigid,
formal segregation supported by law was needed. The Negroes from
the South were well trained to support and perpetuate the system.
They had been taught a way of relating to the world in which white
people were central, and they could not see that the Northern
white person differed inside from the ones known in the past.
63
Even as large immigrating groups of English, West Indian
Negroes, Irish, Jews, Puerto Ricans, French, Chinese, Italians,
Africans, Indians, or Germans carry with them many central and
residual elements of their prior cultures, so also large numbers
of American Negroes migrating from the South to Boston have carried
with them old patterns originated in the South. A person who feels
inferior, criticized, or discriminated against commonly behaves in
such a way as to induce from others criticism, discrimination, and
treatment as an inferior person. Negroes forced into a low caste
group in the South have, upon migrating, unconsciously induced in
Boston relationships similar to those in the South. With
“segregation de jure ” stamped into and thoroughly interwoven in
the culture and into the personalities of Southern Negroes, it was
inevitable that it should be carried northward to precipitate out
as “de facto segregation”. They formed their compounds in the
Northern cities, and in these de facto segregated communities they
reproduced and passed on the only culture they had to pass on, with
the only child rearing practices they knew, in the matrix of the
only family structure and group organization they had known. Over
many years a culture had been developed in the compound which kept
the people there functioning in the same old ways. The patterns
and codes reached every member and sank deeply into many person-
alities. Older ones cannot be persuaded to change- -they have been
trained too long and too well.
Although the gate to the compound in the Northern city is
open, few find it. Many have been so trained not to reach out,
or to so defeat themselves that they must persistently fail at
just those points where constructive changes are possible. Most
of them do not believe the gate is open even when they are told
and offered encouragement. Some who believe have so renounced
any capacity for initiative or constructive assertion as to be
immobilized and apathetic.
It is for these reasons, as well as for economic ones, that
the open enrollment plan in its present form will not work for
those who need it most. It is also unrealistic to leave the burden
for change upon Negro parents when basically the American Negro
family has been disrupted and made impotent as a source of
initiative and purposeful action.
The essence of the problem we face is not race and not color.
American people, by a coercive slavery system and by miscegenation,
grossly altered American Negroes into a group whose characteristics
were so shaped as to prevent participation in the American life as
defined by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. What used to
be a slave group containing stock from several races has been
perpetuated as a low caste servant and labor group, for the most
6k
part isolated in its compound. The color primarily helps us to
identify the low caste and to know whom we should not touch. When
a Caucasian and a Negro can together produce a child who is con-
sidered to be a Negro in race, we are dealing with sociological
rather than logical thinking. Such thinking is one of the many
residuals of slave culture days. It ensures that the low caste
elements remain clearly defined no matter how intermixed and un-
recognizable they become. It also contains the implicit censure
that whosoever touches one becomes one. To be born in the compound
is to feel inferior, to behave as if one is inferior, and, in some
instances, to be trained to be inferior.
Neither words nor pictures nor large amounts of intellec-
tual!zed information will substantially modify the compound without
the corrective emotional experiences of increased integration.
Unless the compound is broken up it will go on reproducing its own
kind, even as communities of other ethnic groups keep reproducing
their own.
Education is central in all of this. Certainly slavery was
an educational matter as well as a political, economic, and moral
matter. Perpetuation of a caste is also an educational matter,
and modification of a caste finds education at the very heart of
the process.
Racially imbalanced schools in Negro neighborhoods function
as a mold which produces and perpetuates an unfavorable stamp.
Schools in communities heavily populated by other ethnic groups
also serve as vehicles for transmitting group characteristics to
individuals, but the stamp imparted in such schools is more
adaptive and more often of positive value.
In this context, the Negio ghetto and its accompanying pre-
dominantly Negro schools can more easily be seen as agents which
have adverse effects upon self-esteem, value systems, motivations,
aspirations, and behavior of pupils. Such adverse effects pre-
vailing in many students can seriously impair the educational
processes in a school despite the presence of excellent teachers
and adequate facilities.
In our generation and those before, segregation of and
separation of Negroes were not only taught to us, but were even
practiced and encouraged by our Federal government until 20 years
ago.
That most white persons flee as if from a plague when Negroes
move near them is a product of their life experience and education.
Increased integration in education starting at early ages will do
65
much to prevent the emergence of another generation of hurt,
frustrated, disillusioned, and angry coloreds and guilty, panic-
stricken, perplexed, and angry whites. The adverse effects of
the present system upon the mental health of Americans have too
long been swept under the rug.
With the growing awareness of these circumstances, there has
developed an intense search for practical remedies. Such creative
innovations as develop under the stimulus of this problem will
undoubtedly enrich our educational programs and will promote the
welfare of all groups.
66
APPENDIX D – Resolution Adopted by the Board of Education of
the City of Chicago on August 28, 1963,
Establishing the Advisory Panel on Integration
of the Public Schools
WHEREAS, Without design on the part of the Board of Education
or the school administration, there are schools under the juris-
diction of the Board which are attended entirely or predominantly
by Negroes; and
WHEREAS, there exists public controversy as to the racial
composition of such schools, and the psychological, emotional and
social influences that may be brought to bear on the pupils in
such schools and any harmful effects thereof on educational
processes; and
WHEREAS, some experts in the fields of education and the
social sciences believe that certain educational, psychological,
and emotional problems arise out of attendance of children at
entirely or predominantly Negro schools; be it
RESOLVED, That this Board hereby reaffirms its policy to
provide the best possible educational opportunity for all of the
pupils in the school system so that every child may achieve his
maximum development, and to recognize and work toward the maximum
resolution of every problem or inequity that may exist in the
system, including the elimination of any inequities that may pre-
vail as a result of certain schools in the system being attended
entirely or predominantly by Negroes, and to attempt to solve any
educational, psychological, and emotional problems that might
prevail in the public school system to the maximum extent of its
financial, human, and other resources, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Board forthwith invite
Philip M. Hauser Lester W. Nelson
Sterling M. McMurrin James M. Nabrit, Jr.
William R. Ode11
as a panel to analyze and study the school system in particular
regard to schools attended entirely or predominantly by Negroes,
define any problems that result therefrom, and formulate and
report to this Board as soon as may be conveniently possible a
plan by which any educational, psychological, and emotional
problems or inequities in the school system that prevail may best
be eliminated; be it further
67
RESOLVED, That on the submission of such report, which shall
be no later than December 31, 1963, unless an extension is
requested by the panel, this Board shall promptly take such action
as it may determine is appropriate or required to work toward a
resolution of any problems and any inequities found to exist.
68
APPENDIX E
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Education
DISTRIBUTION OF WHITE AND NON-WHITE PUPILS
IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF MASSACHUSETTS
We recommend that the following procedures be used In taking this Censu?:
1. The Census will include Kindergarten through Grade 12.
2. Each school building of the district is to be reported on a separate line.
3. The grades Included in each school building shall be noted in the Grades column.
4. As few school personnel should be used in the census count as possible; however,
complete and accurate information Is essential.
5. No pupil and no parent of any pupil shall be asked his race or ancestry.
6. No record Is to be kept of this Information as It relates to an individual; totals only
for individual schools are to be reported.
Ci.y. Town ., Regional District
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
NAME OF SCHOOL GRADES WHITE NON-WHITE TOTAL
Hi jrh sr.hnol a 7-12 17.1ti,6 2,798 20, 2ii4
Junior High Schools 7-9 * 10,362 2,896 13,258
Elementary Schools. K-fi * 1+2,763 58,117
Special Schools 132 181
rrrnnd Tnt.nl a 70
f
7CH 21,097 91,8QO
/
* Special Class
To be returned on or before April 1, 1964
69
/y\
Signature of Superintendent
Date y
Co.-.irnonwcaUh of Messcshssetts Department of Education
DISTRIBUTION OF WHITE AND NON-WHITE PUPILS
ih THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF MASSACHUSETTS
V/e recommend that the following procedures be used in taking this Census?:
1. The Census will include Kindergarten through Grade 12.
2. Each school buildi-ng of the district is to be reported on a separate line.
3. The grades included in ecch school building shall be noted in the Grcdes column.
4. As few school personnel should be used in the census count as possible; however,
complete and accurate information is essential.
5. No pupil and no parent of any pupil shall be asked his race or ancestry.
6. No record is to be kept of this information as it relates to an individual; totals only
for individual schools are to be reported.
City. Town or Regional District BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS SPECIAL SCHOOLS
NA*£ Ui dwnUUC GRADES WHITE NON-WHITE TOTAL
a? 1 ? 9h
M. Gertrude Godvin School 50 37
Do
i
1
I
1
j Signature of Superintendent
To be returned on or before April I, 1984 /”‘/Uft^^’-2 G . / / v~ /'”
‘
U
Date y
Uinitroawc: Ccpartment of Education
DISTEtZLTSGN OF BHITE ANT N0N-WKIT2 PUPILS
riSE PS&LEG SCHOOLS OS >i.-*£5.-*o..t
We recommend that the following procedures be used In taking this Census:
1. The Census will include Kinderqcrten through Grade 12.
2. Each school building of the district is to be reported on a separate line.
3. The grades included in each school building shall be noted in the Graces column.
4. As few school personnel should be used in the census count as possible; however,
complete and accurate information is essential.
5. No pupil and no parent of any pupil shall be asked his race or ancestry.
6. No record is to be kept of this information as it relates to an individual; totals only
for individual schools are to be reported.
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS ELI3KEHTARY SCHOOLS
City, Town cr Regional i>:st:ic
MAttE 0? SCHOOL GRADES WHITE NON-V/HITE TOTAL
Washington Allston District
Andrew Jackson School
I
K-6 30U h 308
Win, H. Taft School -K-6 333 11 Vsk
Washington Allston School K-6 ??7 3 P30
C omnonwe al th Pro i e ct K 3 60
Vers dell Phillins-Wm. Blackstone E i strict
Peter Paneuil School K-8 110 /o 116
William E. Endicott District
Sarab frrftfiiTSr.rnofl Sr.hnol PT-A i.Ac: 1 ,033
William SI. End 1! nrvht: School TT-Jj 336
Ro^er Clan School K-6 !i67 1 ]i68
William E. Pus sell School K. 72:8 81 , 668
William Lloyd Garrison District
William Lloyd Garrison School K-6 36 1-096 1,132
Williams School K-2 135 11*2
JUL MXiA
Signature of Superintendent
To be returned on or before April 1, 1S64
71
/C'(- Commonwealth of Massachusetts Depurtmcnt of Education
DISTRIBUTION OF WHITE AND NQN-WKSTE PUPILS We recommend that the following procedures be used In taking this Census?:
1. The Census will include Kindergarten through Grade 12. 3. The grades included in each school building shall be noted in the Grcdes column.
4. As few school personnel should be used in the census count as possible; however, ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS NAME OF SCHOOL. GRADES WHITE NON-WHITE TOTAL
A /*> r\ “C* v* o v\ I/O tv> T}A O f ^ fn 1 C G — x FeUiJCX-Ln JJ1 3 1/TIOT/
O L 1 CJ.-± -L O O J_J • 1 1 CA -v ^ , / W v-> L iWW _1_ K-8 251 Kkflr i ‘ i w 729
67 i 32 199
John J. Williams School K-6 119 115
RQbfiT’t Robert Treat Paine School K-6 381. 115 Ll96
Audubon School K-5 235 Lj.6 251
. * H > _ :* V • l> vJ 1/ u y -‘_ O L’ A .’_ v»> L/
W^Hi ‘ °° .- , v 1 v. j J , iwl I’J’J, 1 , Tf-6 371. 3 377
William Bradford School K-3 3kS 38 383
Pauline A. Shaw School K-6 368 18 386
Roger Volcott School I. -6 338 29 367
Theodore Lyr.an District
Theodore Lyman School 286 0 236
James Otis School K-6 360 0 360
Dante Alighieri School 1-3 210 1 211
Thomas Gardner District
David L. Barrett School James J. Storrow School K-3 91 0 91
Thomas Gardner School K-6 U89 21 5ic
Warren District
Warren-Prescott School K-6 718 0 718
Oliver Holden School K-2 0
To be returned on or before April 1, 1954 72
0, Signature of Superintendent ^
<
D«te / Commonwoollb of Massachusetts Department of Education
DISTRIBUTION OF WHITE AND NON-WHITE PUPILS 3. The grades Included in each school building shall be noted in the Grcdes column.
4. As few school personnel should be used in the census count as possible; however, 6. No record is to be kept of this information as It relates to an individual; totals only City, Town or Regional District BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS SEE?-13MTARY SCHOOLS
NAME OF SCHOOL GRADES WHITE_ NON-WHITE TOTAL
Minot District
Thomas J» Kenny School K-6 263 0 263
I’inot School K-6 207 2 2C9
Ellen H. Richards School K-6 30^ 1 306
uiiocru oiuart o crioo± TC-AA-o 0~\ 7 csu Ol 7
Norcross School 2-6 366 7 373
G-eorge F« Hoar School Wx2 11
If-
6 LL LLLXj
Robert Gould. Shaw School K-6 218 1 219
Sonhia W. Ripley School K-6 h.06 0 Il06
Paul A. Dever District
K-h 776 Ii 79
Phillips Brooks District
Phillips Brooks School K-6 11 62? 636
Quincy Dickerman School K-6 12 klk 24-86
Prince District
Prince School K-8 237 126 363
Charles C. Perkins School K-6 * Uh 259 303 * Special Class To be returned on or before April 1. 1964 AU’^-dC /
%
(J Date Common Health of Massachusetts Department of Education
DfSTRlBLTION OF WHITE AND NON-WHITE PUPILS We recommend that the following procedures be used in taking this Censur-
1. The Census will include Kindergarten through Grade 12. 3. The grades included in each school building shall be noted in the Grades column.
4. As few school personnel should be used in the census count as possible; however, 5. No pupil and no parent of any pupil shall be asked his race or ancestry. City, Town or Regional District
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS’ ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
NAME OF SCHOOL GRADES WHITE NON-WHITE TOTAL Longfellow District
Longfellow School K-6 670 7 677
Phineas 3ates School K-6 1A8 2 kzo
Mozart School K-6 361 0 361
Theodore Parker School K-3 * 89 1 90
L^vsl 1 TV «! f.-p-i r>”fc
John F. Kennedy School K-6 h& 173 628 Martin District
Maurice J. Tobin School K-8 325 383 708
Farra^ut School K-6 13U 165 299
Ira Allen School K-2 k 195 199
Mary Hemenway District
Mary Hemenway School K-6 3k2 0 3te
Rochambeau School K-6 359 2 361
Patrick O’Kearn School K-6 kll 7 lp.8
Mather District
Benjamin Gushing School K-3 252 2 25It
Mather School 1-6 * 785 8 793
Edward Southworth School K-3 501 6 507
Michelan.n-elo-Eliot-Kancock Distri ct
Michelangelo School 5 21 0 21
Eliot School K-6 * ..323 . 323
» Special Class
To be returned on or before April 1, 1964
Signature of Superintendent Due /7k Common wealth of Massachusetts Department of Education
DISTRIBUTION OF WHITE AND NON-WHITE PUPILS We recommend thot the following procedures be used In taking this Censu?:
1. The Census will include Kindergarten through Grade 12. 3. The grades included in each school building shell be noted in the Grades column.
4. As few school personnel should be used in the census count as possible; however, 6. No record Is to be kept of this information as it relates to an individual; totals only City, Town or Regional District 3QST0N , MASSACHUSETTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
NAME OF SCHOOL GRADES WHITE NON-WHITE TOTAL James J. Chit ti ok District
James J. Chittick School K-6 621; 1 625
Lowell -Mason School K-3 102 3 105
Jefferson District
Jefferson School K-6 383 130 513
Charles Bulfinch School K-6 29k 128 1+22
John A. Andrew District
John A. Andrew School U–6 305 2 307
John 3. O’Reilly School K-3 337 0 337
Michael J. Perkins School bill 1 hiS
John Marshall District
John Marshall School K-6 773 0 773
Champlain School K-6 380 32 1*12
Lucy Stone School K-6 366 16 382
Florence Nightingale School K,2-6 183 102 285
John WinthroD District
John Winthrop School K-6 1U3 319 k&2
Benedict Fenwick School K-6 299 188 1+87
Nathaniel Hawthorne School K-6 166 133 299
Julia Ward Kowe District
Julia Ward Kowe School K-6 8 i;02 l+lO
Sarah J. Baker School K-6 31 686 717 0 —
-n, — To be returned on or before April 1, 1964 s?\ Signature of Superintendent
Date / Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Education DISTRIBUTION OF SHITE AND NON-WHITE PUPILS We recommend thct the following procedures be used in taking this Census:
1. The Census will include Kindergarten through Grade 12. 2. Each school building o( the district is to be reported on a separate line.
3. The grades Included in each school building shall be noted in the Grades column. 5. No pupil end no parent of any pupil shall be asked his race or ancestry.
6. No record is to be kept of this information as It relates to an individual; totals only ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS NAME OF SCHOOL GRADES WHITE NON-WHITE TOTAL Henry Grew District
Henry Grew School K-6 0
William S. Channing School K-6 385 2 387
Hemenway School K-6 182 1 183
Henry L. Hirrinson District
David A. Ellis School K-6 10 631 6i£L
David A. Ellis Annex h 152
Henry L. Higginson School K-6 6 314 320
Wm. L.P. Boardman School K-ii 3 19k 197
Hur-h O’Brien District
Ralnh-Ualdo—Siae r s on Scho o3 K-h nn Hyde-Everett District
Hyde School 3 32U 327
Everett School 3-6 3 256 259
Asa Gray School iH h 285 289 James A. Garfield School K-6 281 266
Mary Lyon School K-6 228 k 232
Oak Square School K-3 116 0 116
Thomas A. Edison Annex !i-6 156 3 159
Wins hip School K-6 257 k 261
To b* returned on or before April 1, 1964 . Signature ol Superintendent Commonwoahh of Massachusetts Department of Education
DISTRIBUTION OF WHITE AND NON-WHITE PUPILS 1. The Census will Include Kindergarten through Grade 12.
2. Each school building of the district is to be reported on a separate line. 6. No record Is to be kept of this information as It relates to an individual; totals only ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Enierson District
Patrick J. Kennedy School K-6 369 o 369
A.—z> o
K-6 ^0 John G. Whittier School K-6 292 18 310
— 1 07 o 1 07
pi a.nc 1 s rartcman ui s .r 1 ct.
Francis Parkinan School K-8 .> —’ ^ 11
Edwin P. Seaver School K-6 2^3 2 2^5
Henry Abrahams School K-3 179 leir
Hart-Gaston-Perry District
Thomas W- Fort School lt-6 2^ 97 Oliver Hazard Perry School K-6 307 3 310
Benjamin Dean School K-6 269 0 269
Joseph Tuckerman School K-5 313 7 320
Harvard School K-6 273 0 273
Kent School K-3 223 0 223
Bunker Hill School K-6 236- 0 236
£4
To be returned on or before April 1, 1964 Sy\ Signature’of Superintendent Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Education We recommend that the following procedures be used in taking this Census:
1. The Census will include Kindergarten through Grade 12. complete and accurate Information is essential.
5. No pupil and no parent of any pupil shall be asked his race or ancestry. City, Town or Regional District BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
NAME OF SCHOOL GRADES WHITE NON-WHITE TOTAL Dudley District
Dndl py School 1-6 eft 299 350
William Bacon School K-5 9 26? 276
Dwip$it District
.TocinTih .T TTi i t»”1 fiv ^r*hnol K-6 i oft ^on
iToshus Rstfts School K-j 121 1 7?
Edmund P. Tileston District
Edmund P. Tileston School K-6 336 5 3kl
Charles Lop;ue School K& 3-6 3k92i±Z 352
MflT’+’.Vifl A RnlrAr> SchrmT Edward Everett District
Edward Everett School K-6 569 7 576
John L. Motley School K-6 3k3 3 314-6
Elihu Greenwood District
Elihu Greenwood School K-6 608 ] 609
Faimount School K-6 3B1 U— Ellis Mendell District
Ellis Mendell School K-6 389
Margaret Fuller School K-6 309 10 31 Q
Theodore Roosevelt School 1-6 36 185
To be returned on or before April 1, 1964 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Education DISTRIBUTION OF WIITE AND NON-WHITE PUPILS We recommend that the following procedures be used In taking this Censu?: 3. The grades Included in each school building shall be noted In the Grades column.
4. As few school personnel should be used In the census count as possible; however,
complete and accurate information is essential. City, Town or Regional District BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS SL&^NTARY SCHOOLS
NAME OF SCHOOL GRADES WHITE NON-WHITE TOTAL Charymsn ^istri ct
Chapman School K-6 312 0 312
Hugh Roe O’Donnell School K-Il 3li2 o 3l±2
Charles Sumner District
Charles Sumner School K-6 o W18
George H. Conley School K-6 2
John D. Philbrick School K-6 ?23 o P23
“Washington Irving Annex K-S 229 6 235
Christopher Gibson School K-6 252 ll78 730
Atherton School K-3 68 203 271
Dearborn District
Dearborn School li.-8* 373 572 Aaron Davis School K-3 103 263 366
Albert Palmer School K-2 52 161 ?13
Dillav/ay District
Dill away School K-6* 38 300 338
Nathan Kale School 3^ 31l9 38; i
Abby V.r . May School K-3 22 160 182
Donald McKay-Samuel Adams Distric t
Donald McKay School K-8 ill? 2 iii 9 •^Special Class
To be returned on or before April 1, 1964 s\ signature 01 supeof Superintendent Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Education We recommend that the following procedures be used In taking this Censu.«=:
1. The Census will Include Kindergarten through Grade 12. 4. As few school personnel should be used In the census count as possible; however, 5. No pupil and no parent of any pupil shall be asked his race or ancestry. 6. No record is to be kept of this Information as it relates to an Individual; totals only ELEMENTARY SCHOOLSCity, Town or Regional District BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
NAME OF SCHOOL GRADES WHITE NON-WHITE TOTAL Abraham Lincoln-Quincy District
Abraham Lincoln School K-8 162 2^0 kl? Asassiz District
Agassiz School K and3-6 311 6 317
Old Agassiz School K-3 21 K 0 pi z
Bowditch School K-6 373 16 339
Mary 33. Curley Annex K-3 IkS 3 11×8
Joseph P. Manning School K-6 171 0 171
Beethoven District
Beethoven School K-6 1×23 6 li.29
Randall G. Morris School K-6 39k 0 39k
Joyce Kilmer School K-6 1+56 0 U-53
Bennett Dis trict
Alexander Hamilton School K-6 315 5 320 Bi.rrelow District
Bigelow School K-6 a 553 9 562
Choate Burnham School K-6 237 0 237
Blackinton-John Cheverus District Curtis Guild School K-8 376 0 376 * Special Class To be returned on or before April 1, 1964 3q
Signature of Superintendent^^ Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Education DISTRIBUTION OF WITE AND NON-WHITE PUPILS We recommend that the following procedures be used In taking this Census: 4. As few school personnel should be used in the census count os possible; however,
complete and accurate Information is essential. BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS JR. HIGH SCHOOLS NAME OF SCHOOL GRADES WHITE NON-WHITE Total
Clarence R. Edwards Jr. High. 7_QI ~7 562
Grover Cleveland Jr. High. 7_QI -7 noC.C. 1, 002
James. P. Timilty Jr. High. •7 Q 93
Joseoh H. Barnes Jr. High. 7-9 610 0 o.i.u
.Lewis Jr. Hi eft 7-9 Mary E. Curley Jr. High 7 O(-y OpU 1,079
>’ichelanp:elo Jr. High 7-9 19)| 0
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. High 7_Q ±7c Ji7TU./JL
rat/i i^K r • iTuvxii oi . nx^ii 7-Q J. > J- cSJ i nxu
Pflf,rir,]f T. Crnnptmn jr. High 7-9 ^6 nooero ltouxg. on.aw jr. rix^ti 7 _Q[ -9 7Cf O1 DC. _3 1 j j
Solomon Lewenberg Jr. High 7-9 1,019 132 1,151
Thomas A. Sdison Jr. Hifch 7-9 13
Washington Trvin<* ,Tr. Hifh 7-9 971 9
980
William Barton Rogers Jr. Hicch 7-9 9^6
William Howard Taft Jr. Hifft 7-9 503 556
V/oodrow Wilson Jr. Hifft 7-9 1.016 ^6 1,052
Totals 10,362 2>§96 ^ 13,258
4 Signature of Superintendent ff Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Education DISTRIBUTION OF RHITE AND SON-WRITE PUPILS V/e reco-jr.end that the following procedures be used In taking this Census:
1. Tr.e Census will Include Kindergarten through Grade 12.
2. Ecch school building of the district is to be reported on a separate line.
3. The grades included in ecch school building shall be noted in the Grades column.
4. As few school personnel should be used in the census count as possible; however, 5 No pupil and no parent of any pupil shall be aslced his race or cncestry.
6. No record is to be kept of this information as to relates to an individual; totals only City, Town or Regional District NAME OF SCHOOL GRADES WHITE NON-WHITE Xbtal
Rns*rtn 7,p.f,ir. Sr,’r,oo?. r -12 i Aon iu } 192:5
7_”! P 1 1 9 ^ loo ~o^~^~ T -• nhp”f ca1 Hi^h School 9-12 _ . _
i**»nflfi P^E*1 School O — 1 p 73*1 P07 Rftsl-.ftn T»T»nfJfl fftrh School Arm«x 9-1? 1 20 IS
Ri».fg>l t..nn wo-Vi School 1IWI p
Charles Town High School 1 U – 1
PQY*fh? AT :-7^ , ‘~’,o Pf-hf^oD 10-1 2 East. Bostr.r-Hi.gr School 9-1 P 1 1 PI Q „ ft«cn«>i Wg* (Avn T,nn1fl Paat.r.) 10-3.2 1 P8 2^2
aaag . a Lgm Biiiaiin Biflgj ; i nm 180 113″ 293 1 ,27 Hyde Park Hif?h School 10-12 156k 39
Tsn-o- 9-1? 106^ LTL 1516
‘”I 1 1 n^*0 * m ET^ School 10-12 lh.65 12 1–
South Boston High School 9-12 1393 0 1393
9-12? 168 214
Totals 171^6 2798 2021^
^7S K~fT\
To be returned on or before April 1, 1964 52
/7\ Siin»ture of Superintendent ST
D«te 7 O CD
-P P O •H 0- O O VD lt\ ir\ o\
o o
d d
O LT\ CO OJ 00 fOLAfO
MD CO i—I LT\ O & cd
-p CO o H -p o -P p CU
u d •H •H O •H d CU s o P> 0)
•H •H •H 1 <+H
O d u 0) >H H P CD o 1 X O o 1 | P4
cq H d – S3
o o o o i—I ON CU H pq
5 Xi CQ CQ
•H CQ 31 d S) H cd Ph H
-P P CQ . CU
Ph
cd d d OA ,3
CU -H • CQ
Ph cu
ITS
LT\ o -P H CU i—
1 P> d CQ b0,d •H CO -p CQ Jh p> ,d cu 63 H CO CO LfN CO C\J co o- H -d” VO OJ H H H rHt^-HCOH H CO VO H 1A ON H O OJ
-4- vo r- co
-3″ LfN CO -4″ VO CO CO ON ON CO O U O W 0 o cd
a3 H
CO CD
cd O •”3 CD
CD H cd XI CJ U £ CD o ^ o p
8 a o _ u O cd H -P +3 CD o t— vo
OJ LfN
ON -4″
LfN ON LfN co 0-
OJ vo OJ 9 On LfN
2S £ Is— o CO ao cd Cm
3 o O CD O O ON O CO O VO 0-00 O C— O CO 0-=f OO LT\ CM VO 0NO\0J OJ 0J CO
03 P CQ p t H cd Ph W a pq . . s 0 H o CQ H (D CD o -p -p u o o -3-
d d ON p •o P> cu 5 H Ch d CU H £ ° J=> O
d Bo
OJ Ch P cu cu
H CU EH
o o ON H OJ ON O CQ P> > £ p U CU X! cd d CU •H H •H OJ o ON VO
t o CO OJ «5
*U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1965 O – 752-506 (128 ) BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
3 9999 05903 GO.
IN Til F. PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF MASSACHUSETTS
2. Each school building of the district is to be reported on a separate line.
complete and accurate information is essential.
5. No pupil and no parent of any pupil shall be asked his race or ancestry.
6. No record is to be kept of this information as it relates to an individual; totals only
for individual schools are to be reported.
City, Town or Regional District BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
I_
‘”^f;rit; i up st t*t ct
Soecial
Class —^_ » 66
IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF MASSACHUSETTS
We recommend that the following procedures be used In taking this Censu?:
1. The Census will include Kindergarten through Grade 12.
2. Each school building of the district is to be reported on a separate line.
complete and accurate information is essential.
5. No pupil and no parent of any pupil shall be asked his race or ancestry.
for Individual schools are to be reported.
Martin Milmore School K-6 13k 37 171
Signature of Superintendent
IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF MASSACHUSETTS
2. Each school building of the district is to be reported on a separate line.
complete and accurate information is essential.
6. No record is to be kept of this information as it relates to an individual; totals only
for individual schools are to be reported.
Wyman School K-3 * 206 57 263
IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF MASSACHUSETTS
2. Each school building of the district is to be reported on a separate line.
complete and accurate information is essential.
5. No pupil and no parent of any pupil shall be asked his race or ancestry.
for individual schools are to be reported.
i^ewis Annex
Business Education Annex k,5
* 5-2
75
IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF MASSACHUSETTS
4. As few school personnel should be used in the census count as possible; however,
complete and accurate information is essential.
for individual schools are to be reported.
City. Town or Regional District BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
Samuel W. Mason School K-6 2^0 101 Kl
Ttt
James A. Garfield District
76
IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF MASSACHUSETTS
We recommend that the following procedures be used In taking this Censu?:
3. The grades included in each school building shall be noted in the Grades column.
4. As few school personnel should be used in the census count as possible; however,
complete and accurate information is essential.
5. No pupil and no parent of any pupil shall be asked his race or ancestry.
for Individual schools are to be reported.
City. Town or Regional District BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
NAME OF SCHOOL GRADES WHITE NON-WHITE TOTAL
Frank V. Thompson School K-6 310-L. \J 0 310
Gaston School 188 89 277
77
DISTRIBUTION OF WHITE AND NON-WHITE PUPILS
IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF MASSACHUSETTS
2. Each school building of the district is to be reported on a separate line.
3. The grades included in each school building shall be noted in the Grades column.
4. As few school personnel should be used in the census count as possible; however,
6. No record is to be kept of this information as it relates to an individual; totals only
for individual schools are to be reported.
JLoJL Li 1UJ2
Franklin D. Roosevelt School K-6 0 hh3
Amos Webster School K-3 96 i 22
Weld School K-2 68 0 68
IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF MASSACHUSETTS
1. The Census will include Kindergarten through Grade 12.
2. Each school building of the district is to be reported on a separate line.
5. No pupil and no parent of any pupil shall be asked his race or ancestry.
6. No record is to be kept of this information as it relates to an individual; totals only
for individual schools are to be reported.
Dearborn Annex 79 172 251
/ Samuel Adams School K-6 322 2 32k
Signature of Superintendent
79
DISTRIBUTION OF WHITE AND NON-WHITE PUPILS
IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF MASSACHUSETTS
2. Each school building of the district is to be reported on a separate line.
3. The grades Included in each school building shall be noted in the Grades column.
complete and accurate information Is essential.
for individual schools are to be reported.
Quincy School K-6 12 148 160
Harriet Baldwin School K-6 325 339
John Cheverus School K-8 282 0 232′
Manas sah E. Bradley School K-6 361 6 367
IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF MASSACHUSETTS
1. The Census will Include Kindergarten through Grade 12.
2. Each school building of the district is to be reported on a separate line.
3. The grades included in each school building shall be noted in the Grades column.
5. No pupil and no parent of any pupil shall be asked his race or ancestry.
6. No record is to be kept of this information as it relates to an individual; totals only
for individual schools are to be reported.
City, Town or Regional District
566
786
To be returned on or before April 1, 1S64 81
IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF MASSACHUSETTS
ccrr.plete and accurate information is essential.
for individual schools are to be reported.
– z ^ –
9^8- _ –
‘
‘
m 1.91ii 22J. _i±35
1121
_v ttj ~v ^oo<;p"p1 t: 131 rip - ) 9 359 68
——o-—>«»— o**
Girls Hish School 9-12 235 561 796
d •H CO
CD H
1
U
CD 1P^
O O OH
d d
H 0J
oj oj oj on
d H
£
pq CO
o
0 O
•CQ
Ph CD H
1
U i
•H PM £
CQ
0 CO
H H
1
s &
o 0)
-p
CQ
CQ
•H o
H S o
1
H IN +3
CU
o
£ H
CU -H
H cu
< o
d d
O VO
O CO
rd
cd
cd
-P cd
?h d
+3 cu
cd oj
cd
d -p
cu o
W o
•H CU
H U
I—I ?H
•H cd
5: ^
rH
d <+h
d H
cu 3
w pq
H 3 EjS O H OJ oo -4-
H H
CU H
d H 1 U •H CU
o •H § d -p w CUp w O O CQ ?H
CQ -P -p d -P
o CU d o rH
•H H •H CU ,d
CQ CQ cd -9 A cd cd
A o 1 Ph
CO H LT\ £— O
ro OJ cvi oi m
VO l>- t>-
LfN LfN ON LfN ON ON ON ON
ON ON
cj OJ
M -H H
•H cd
CO 2
CD frj
-p
3 ft
rCj Cd CO CO
Eh o
• cd
S H
•H «H <
^ rH Jj (U
-P
CD
O -4
oj co
LfN
ON
CVJ OJ
on
OJ
LfN
ro
O
co
LfN
LfN
LfN
o
co
O u
O PQ
•h -p
co x
co H
•H
O OH OO OH H H OOOJOJ O OJ H H CO O H C^0^ °J
d h
CU o
£ 2
0) ,d
H O
H CD
d
o ri !*
p EH ^ >sH ^ CU CU
•H & CO O d H
§ U Ch -H *h
s •d t3 cd d
•H
o 3
5 P •H aJ P .d
•H ?H CQ -H £h ft
cu CQ
C! •H H
c –
o S
fH d
o 1
P4
d d
vo
o
ON CO
o
cu (U CQ
o •H -H
Pm
bO O
d
•H
CQ CD
O d
o CQ Q,
•H p d
H •H O
1
O
-p
CQ
o o
XJ e o
cd cd !h
ON OO -3″ _=f LfN CO
H H OJ OO OJ OJ
(U H bfl
d +5 d W
El CD cd H
a ,3 -P •H
H 0)
cd O cd
Pq CD o o
LTN -4″
«d
cd
pq
O
64^ 6
