Below is a list of the archival collections that were contributed to the Boston Public Schools Desegregation Collection. If you are interested in becoming a collaborator with this project, please contact us here.
Northeastern University Archives and Special Collections
Northeastern University Archives and Special Collections records document desegregation efforts pre-Judge Garrity’s ruling, during the busing crisis and phase 2 desegregation, including Northeastern’s involvement. The collection includes records from organizations like the Freedom House Inc., Citywide Educational Coalition, and METCO as well as individuals like Frank Miranda, Carmen Pola, and Phyllis Ryan.
The records in the Freedom House Inc. collection, document Freedom House’s (FH) desegregation involvement prior to 1965 when the Racial Imbalance Law was passed and focus on FH’s response to the 1974 ruling by Judge Garrity to enforce desegregation of the Boston Public Schools.
The records in the Citywide Educational Coalition collection, document Citywide’s role in the desegregation of the Boston Public Schools from 1974 to the 1980s. Included in the collection is the response of the anti-busing organization, Restore Our Alienated Rights (ROAR), to Judge W. Arthur Garrity's orders and the Coalition's collaboration with three court appointed councils. Meetings of the Boston School Committee and its standing committees, as well as programs offered in the Boston Public Schools and interviews conducted by the Coalition with parents, teachers, principals, and headmasters are documented.
The Frank J. Miranda papers documents Miranda’s work with the Boston Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and his term as Director of the Cultural Enrichment and Tutorial Program for Operation Exodus from 1963-1973. Included in his papers are the Boston CORE newsletters, “Corespondent” dating from 1963 to 1967.
The Metropolitan Council for Educational Opportunity (METCO) collection records document METCO's efforts to provide the city of Boston and the Boston suburbs with a voluntary school desegregation program pre- and post- Judge Garrity’s ruling. METCO’s mission was to offer “quality integrated education opportunities for urban and suburban students in the greater Boston community.” METCO is the nation’s oldest voluntary school desegregation program. Materials in the collection document METCO’s administrative work, placement procedures.
The Phyllis M. Ryan papers document Ryan’s work as a media and PR coordinator for the Boston Congress of Racial Equality, School Stay Outs, and Freedom School days from 1963-1966. Ryan also helped plan Martin Luther King Jr.’s visit to Boston. Ryan was involved in many organizations throughout her life as an activist and her papers represent those connections.
The records in series 4 and 5 of the Carmen A. Pola papers, document Pola’s work to monitor desegregation efforts and bilingual education initiatives in the 1970s and 1980s. She served as coordinator of the Community District Advisory Council of the Boston Public Schools and director of the Project to Monitor the Code of Discipline. She was also one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit brought by the Parent's Committee for Defense of Bilingual Education (Comité de Padres pro Defensa del la Educación Bilingüe), Morgan v. Kerrigan, in response to desegregation policies that threatened the viability of bilingual education programs in the Boston Public Schools.
The James W. Fraser (collector) photograph collection consists of 114 photographs depicting students and community leaders protesting school conditions in the 1960s and anti–busing protests and marches, parents demonstrating around Boston in the 1970s.
University of Massachusetts Boston University Archives & Special Collections in the Joseph P. Healey Library
University Archives & Special Collections in the Joseph P. Healey Library at the University of Massachusetts Boston holds more than 200 linear feet of material related to Boston school desegregation, including the chambers papers of Judge W. Arthur Garrity, the Center for Law and Education's Morgan v. Hennigan case records, and the papers and records of individuals involved in or impacted by the case. University Archives & Special Collections has digitized materials from two collections related to school desegregation in Boston: the records of Mosaic, a program out of South Boston High School from 1980 to 1989, and the chambers papers of Judge Arthur Garrity, the federal district court judge who oversaw the Boston Schools case.
Mosaic publication: Founded by Michael Tierney and Dan Terris, Mosaic was launched at South Boston High School in 1980 in response to the effects of court-ordered desegregation on the high school. Led by professional writers and photographers, students produced stories and photographs about themselves and their communities. A yearly anthology was published from 1980 to 1988. University Archives & Special Collections digitized the full 11-issue run of Mosaic.
W. Arthur Garrity, Jr., chambers papers: The W. Arthur Garrity, Jr., chambers papers constitute a day-to day file documentation of Morgan v. Hennigan, commonly known as the Boston Schools Case, a class action suit against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Boston School Committee. The case went to trial before Federal District Court Judge Garrity, who on June 21, 1974, filed a 152-page opinion ruling that the School Committee of the City of Boston had "intentionally brought about and maintained racial segregation" in the Boston public schools. The opinion required the School Committee to use a temporary desegregation plan for the 1974-1975 school year and ordered the Committee to begin formulating a permanent plan. By January 1975, the School Committee had failed to present an adequate desegregation plan to the court and the court assumed an active role in the formulation of the desegregation remedy, overseeing implementation of court-ordered desegregation (through busing) in the Boston Public Schools for the next fifteen years. University Archives & Special Collections digitized a number of materials from the Garrity papers, including the Judge’s correspondence with public officials and a full year of observer reports prepared by the Citywide Coordinating Council.
Boston City Archives
The Boston City Archives holds municipal records documenting the responses and actions of city officials, city residents, and outside observers both prior to and during school integration in Boston. The Archives holds records created by city officials and departments; correspondence files that document thoughts and actions of both Bostonians and outside observers; and the records of anti-busing organizations.
The Mayor John Collins records document civil rights activities and desegregation efforts prior to Judge Garrity’s decision.
The Mayor Kevin White records document the actions of Mayor White and other city government officials during various phases of school integration. Correspondence files capture the reactions of both Bostonians and members of the national and international community to the busing crises. Additionally, a file of daily police logs document incidents related to busing from September to November of 1974.
The Morgan v. Hennigan et al and related cases records document the legal actions of Boston’s Law Department in cases related to school integration in the late 1960s and 1970s. These records show the perspective and actions of Boston’s Law Department as it dealt with various school integration cases.
The Louise Day Hicks collection documents the actions of anti-busing activist Louise Day Hicks and her anti-busing organization ROAR (Restore Our Alienated Rights). The collection includes administrative materials from ROAR and samples of Hicks’ correspondence.
The Francesca Johnene collection documents the activities of Boston’s anti-busing community. Johnene was an active member of ROAR and other anti-busing groups. This collection consists of mainly of publications from anti-busing organizations.
Suffolk University Moakley Archive and Institute
Suffolk University’s Moakley Archive and Institute digitized more than 150 digitized items related to Congressman Joe Moakley’s involvement in Boston’s school desegregation crisis from the following collections:
Congressman John Joseph Moakley Papers: At the time of the ruling, Congressman Moakley represented South Boston, one of the neighborhoods most directly impacted by the busing plan. His congressional files include proposals for a constitutional amendment to prohibit forced busing, correspondence with constituents and local officials, press files, reports and demographic information on Boston’s schools and voters, files about violence at South Boston High, and campaign files from his races against anti-busing crusader, Louise Day Hicks.
Oral History Interviews: The interviews (recordings and transcripts) were conducted in the 2000s with teachers, students, politicians, Congressman Moakley, members of Moakley’s staff, and others impacted by Boston’s busing era.
Boston College Libraries
The Boston College Libraries have digitized and posted online a small selection of documents from the Citywide Coordinating Council (CCC) records held at the Burns Library. The CCC records are the institutional files of the independent, autonomous body created by the courts to oversee desegregation in Boston Public Schools from 1975-1978. Both the activities of the Council and the process of desegregation of Boston's public schools are documented in this archival collection. The now-digitized documents are a sampling of questionnaires, or “monitoring reports,” completed by volunteer observers, school administrators, and students.
National Archives at Boston
The National Archives at Boston holds records related to the Boston Schools Desegregation case Morgan v. Hennigan (case # 72-0911). A large portion of the records include the original case as heard in the US District Court at Boston. These case files comprise approximately 54 cubic feet of records. Other records include related cases from the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, Morgan v Burke (1991) and Morgan v Nucci (1987), case #’s 85–1447, 85–1900, 85–1747, 85–2006, and 90-1614. These cases comprise approximately 7 cubic feet of records. Other records related to the Boston Schools include a series of documents related to the work of the US Marshals Service as part of the Desegregation program. The extent of this series is 2 cubic feet. For more information about the legal cases and availability of digitized items, visit the Legal History Resources page.
Digital Commonwealth, Internet Archive, and Digital Public Library of America
The archives listed above were supported by Digital Commonwealth, who provided the necessary connecting point. Digital Commonwealth has also made available digital material from a broad range of other libraries, historical societies, archives, and museums in Massachusetts. Items from those other collections will still show up in a search if they relate to school desegregation in Boston. Digital Commonwealth's partnership with the Digital Public Library of America allows these collections to co-mingle with collections from across the country. This enables constant growth of the desegregation collection simply by the addition of relevant material in either system.
Boston Library Consortium
The Boston Library Consortium (BLC) supports collaboration across academic and research libraries in New England. Member libraries benefit from a partnership that provides proactive, innovative, and cost-effective access to shared information resources, services, and expertise. The BLC is focused on ensuring its member libraries best serve the teaching, research, and scholarship needs of their parent institutions. With 17 Full Members from New Hampshire to Rhode Island, the BLC fosters collaboration and connection. and advocates for its members on issues of importance to the transformation of academic and research libraries in the 21st century. More information is available at www.blc.org.
2023-05-25T22:41:19Z
A
CoreFile
neu:rx914876c
{"datastreams":{"RELS-EXT":{"dsLabel":"Fedora Object-to-Object Relationship Metadata","dsVersionID":"RELS-EXT.2","dsCreateDate":"2016-08-10T13:33:33Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"application/rdf+xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"X","dsSize":425,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:rx914876c+RELS-EXT+RELS-EXT.2","dsLocationType":null,"dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"rightsMetadata":{"dsLabel":null,"dsVersionID":"rightsMetadata.2","dsCreateDate":"2015-05-04T17:21:30Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"M","dsSize":647,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:rx914876c+rightsMetadata+rightsMetadata.2","dsLocationType":"INTERNAL_ID","dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"DC":{"dsLabel":"Dublin Core Record for this object","dsVersionID":"DC.11","dsCreateDate":"2023-05-25T22:41:19Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":"http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/","dsControlGroup":"X","dsSize":2019,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:rx914876c+DC+DC.11","dsLocationType":null,"dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"properties":{"dsLabel":null,"dsVersionID":"properties.6","dsCreateDate":"2016-08-10T13:33:33Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"M","dsSize":736,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:rx914876c+properties+properties.6","dsLocationType":"INTERNAL_ID","dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"mods":{"dsLabel":null,"dsVersionID":"mods.10","dsCreateDate":"2023-05-25T22:41:08Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"M","dsSize":5929,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:rx914876c+mods+mods.10","dsLocationType":"INTERNAL_ID","dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"}},"objLabel":"m66b1f1_002.tif","objOwnerId":"fedoraAdmin","objModels":["info:fedora/fedora-system:FedoraObject-3.0","info:fedora/afmodel:CoreFile"],"objCreateDate":"2015-05-04T17:20:40Z","objLastModDate":"2023-05-25T22:41:19Z","objDissIndexViewURL":"http://localhost:8080/fedora/objects/neu%3Arx914876c/methods/fedora-system%3A3/viewMethodIndex","objItemIndexViewURL":"http://localhost:8080/fedora/objects/neu%3Arx914876c/methods/fedora-system%3A3/viewItemIndex","objState":"A"}
northeastern:drs:library:archives
northeastern:drs:repository:staff
public
000509625
neu:rx914f665
neu:rx914f665
000509625
000509625
/downloads/neu:rx914880z?datastream_id=thumbnail_1
/downloads/neu:rx914880z?datastream_id=thumbnail_2
/downloads/neu:rx914880z?datastream_id=thumbnail_3
/downloads/neu:rx914880z?datastream_id=thumbnail_4
/downloads/neu:rx914880z?datastream_id=thumbnail_5
/downloads/neu:rx914880z?datastream_id=thumbnail_1
/downloads/neu:rx914880z?datastream_id=thumbnail_2
/downloads/neu:rx914880z?datastream_id=thumbnail_3
/downloads/neu:rx914880z?datastream_id=thumbnail_4
/downloads/neu:rx914880z?datastream_id=thumbnail_5
ImageMasterFile
ImageMasterFile
neu:rx914f665
000509625
/downloads/neu:rx914880z?datastream_id=thumbnail_1
/downloads/neu:rx914880z?datastream_id=thumbnail_2
/downloads/neu:rx914880z?datastream_id=thumbnail_3
/downloads/neu:rx914880z?datastream_id=thumbnail_4
/downloads/neu:rx914880z?datastream_id=thumbnail_5
ImageMasterFile
School Committee Pickets.
School Committee Pickets.
School Committee Pickets.
School Committee Pickets.
This photo was taken at a School Committee picket in the summer of 1963 following the first Sit-In at the School Committee that June.
Globe Newspaper Co.
Globe Newspaper Co.
Publisher
Publisher
photographs
Boston Globe
Boston Globe
1963-08-06
1963-08-06
Donated by James W. Fraser.
African Americans
Education
Massachusetts
Boston
Demonstrations
Massachusetts
Boston
Discrimination in education
Massachusetts
Boston
Race relations
African Americans
Education
Massachusetts
Boston
Demonstrations
Massachusetts
Boston
Discrimination in education
Massachusetts
Boston
Race relations
Boston (Mass.). School Committee
Boston (Mass.). School Committee
Boston (Mass.).
School Committee
Boston (Mass.).
School Committee
http://hdl.handle.net/2047/D20128891
http://hdl.handle.net/2047/D20128891
m66b1f1_002
m66b1f1_002
African Americans
Education
Massachusetts
Boston
Demonstrations
Massachusetts
Boston
Discrimination in education
Massachusetts
Boston
Race relations
School Committee Pickets.
James W. Fraser (collector) photograph collection (M66)
School Committee Pickets.
school committee pickets
1963/08/06
School Committee Pickets.
1963-08-06
African Americans Education Massachusetts Boston
Demonstrations Massachusetts Boston
Discrimination in education Massachusetts Boston
Race relations
Boston (Mass.). School Committee
Globe Newspaper Co.
Globe Newspaper Co.
Boston, Massachusetts
info:fedora/afmodel:CoreFile
info:fedora/neu:rx914f665
2023-05-25T22:41:34.872Z
2023-05-25T22:40:23Z
A
CoreFile
neu:rx914675p
{"datastreams":{"RELS-EXT":{"dsLabel":"Fedora Object-to-Object Relationship Metadata","dsVersionID":"RELS-EXT.2","dsCreateDate":"2016-08-10T13:26:00Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"application/rdf+xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"X","dsSize":425,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:rx914675p+RELS-EXT+RELS-EXT.2","dsLocationType":null,"dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"rightsMetadata":{"dsLabel":null,"dsVersionID":"rightsMetadata.2","dsCreateDate":"2015-04-29T15:33:11Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"M","dsSize":647,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:rx914675p+rightsMetadata+rightsMetadata.2","dsLocationType":"INTERNAL_ID","dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"DC":{"dsLabel":"Dublin Core Record for this object","dsVersionID":"DC.11","dsCreateDate":"2023-05-25T22:40:23Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":"http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/","dsControlGroup":"X","dsSize":2066,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:rx914675p+DC+DC.11","dsLocationType":null,"dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"properties":{"dsLabel":null,"dsVersionID":"properties.6","dsCreateDate":"2016-08-10T13:26:00Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"M","dsSize":736,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:rx914675p+properties+properties.6","dsLocationType":"INTERNAL_ID","dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"mods":{"dsLabel":null,"dsVersionID":"mods.10","dsCreateDate":"2023-05-25T22:40:22Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"M","dsSize":6009,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:rx914675p+mods+mods.10","dsLocationType":"INTERNAL_ID","dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"}},"objLabel":"m66b1f1_006.tif","objOwnerId":"fedoraAdmin","objModels":["info:fedora/fedora-system:FedoraObject-3.0","info:fedora/afmodel:CoreFile"],"objCreateDate":"2015-04-29T15:32:03Z","objLastModDate":"2023-05-25T22:40:23Z","objDissIndexViewURL":"http://localhost:8080/fedora/objects/neu%3Arx914675p/methods/fedora-system%3A3/viewMethodIndex","objItemIndexViewURL":"http://localhost:8080/fedora/objects/neu%3Arx914675p/methods/fedora-system%3A3/viewItemIndex","objState":"A"}
northeastern:drs:library:archives
northeastern:drs:repository:staff
public
000509625
neu:rx914f665
neu:rx914f665
000509625
000509625
/downloads/neu:rx914681t?datastream_id=thumbnail_1
/downloads/neu:rx914681t?datastream_id=thumbnail_2
/downloads/neu:rx914681t?datastream_id=thumbnail_3
/downloads/neu:rx914681t?datastream_id=thumbnail_4
/downloads/neu:rx914681t?datastream_id=thumbnail_5
/downloads/neu:rx914681t?datastream_id=thumbnail_1
/downloads/neu:rx914681t?datastream_id=thumbnail_2
/downloads/neu:rx914681t?datastream_id=thumbnail_3
/downloads/neu:rx914681t?datastream_id=thumbnail_4
/downloads/neu:rx914681t?datastream_id=thumbnail_5
ImageMasterFile
ImageMasterFile
neu:rx914f665
000509625
/downloads/neu:rx914681t?datastream_id=thumbnail_1
/downloads/neu:rx914681t?datastream_id=thumbnail_2
/downloads/neu:rx914681t?datastream_id=thumbnail_3
/downloads/neu:rx914681t?datastream_id=thumbnail_4
/downloads/neu:rx914681t?datastream_id=thumbnail_5
ImageMasterFile
NAACP pickets School Committee.
NAACP pickets School Committee.
NAACP pickets School Committee.
NAACP pickets School Committee.
Multi-racial picket line outside the Boston School Committee headquarters in the summer of 1963.
Globe Newspaper Co.
Globe Newspaper Co.
Publisher
Publisher
photographs
Boston Globe
Boston Globe
1963-08-21
1963-08-21
Donated by James W. Fraser.
African Americans
Education
Massachusetts
Boston
Civil rights
Massachusetts
Boston
Demonstrations
Massachusetts
Boston
Discrimination in education
Massachusetts
Boston
Race relations
African Americans
Education
Massachusetts
Boston
Civil rights
Massachusetts
Boston
Demonstrations
Massachusetts
Boston
Discrimination in education
Massachusetts
Boston
Race relations
Boston (Mass.). School Committee
Boston (Mass.). School Committee
Boston (Mass.).
School Committee
Boston (Mass.).
School Committee
http://hdl.handle.net/2047/D20128843
http://hdl.handle.net/2047/D20128843
m66b1f1_006
m66b1f1_006
African Americans
Education
Massachusetts
Boston
Civil rights
Massachusetts
Boston
Demonstrations
Massachusetts
Boston
Discrimination in education
Massachusetts
Boston
Race relations
NAACP pickets School Committee.
James W. Fraser (collector) photograph collection (M66)
NAACP pickets School Committee.
naacp pickets school committee
NAACP pickets School Committee.
1963-08-21
African Americans Education Massachusetts Boston
Civil rights Massachusetts Boston
Demonstrations Massachusetts Boston
Discrimination in education Massachusetts Boston
Race relations
Boston (Mass.). School Committee
Globe Newspaper Co.
Globe Newspaper Co.
Boston, Massachusetts
info:fedora/afmodel:CoreFile
info:fedora/neu:rx914f665
2023-05-25T22:40:23.728Z
2023-05-26T02:25:30Z
A
CoreFile
neu:rx9146645
{"datastreams":{"RELS-EXT":{"dsLabel":"Fedora Object-to-Object Relationship Metadata","dsVersionID":"RELS-EXT.2","dsCreateDate":"2016-08-09T16:25:23Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"application/rdf+xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"X","dsSize":425,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:rx9146645+RELS-EXT+RELS-EXT.2","dsLocationType":null,"dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"rightsMetadata":{"dsLabel":null,"dsVersionID":"rightsMetadata.2","dsCreateDate":"2015-04-29T15:29:29Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"M","dsSize":647,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:rx9146645+rightsMetadata+rightsMetadata.2","dsLocationType":"INTERNAL_ID","dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"DC":{"dsLabel":"Dublin Core Record for this object","dsVersionID":"DC.11","dsCreateDate":"2023-05-26T02:25:30Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":"http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/","dsControlGroup":"X","dsSize":2189,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:rx9146645+DC+DC.11","dsLocationType":null,"dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"properties":{"dsLabel":null,"dsVersionID":"properties.6","dsCreateDate":"2016-08-09T16:25:23Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"M","dsSize":736,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:rx9146645+properties+properties.6","dsLocationType":"INTERNAL_ID","dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"mods":{"dsLabel":null,"dsVersionID":"mods.10","dsCreateDate":"2023-05-26T02:25:29Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"M","dsSize":6142,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:rx9146645+mods+mods.10","dsLocationType":"INTERNAL_ID","dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"}},"objLabel":"m66b1f1_005.tif","objOwnerId":"fedoraAdmin","objModels":["info:fedora/fedora-system:FedoraObject-3.0","info:fedora/afmodel:CoreFile"],"objCreateDate":"2015-04-29T15:28:22Z","objLastModDate":"2023-05-26T02:25:30Z","objDissIndexViewURL":"http://localhost:8080/fedora/objects/neu%3Arx9146645/methods/fedora-system%3A3/viewMethodIndex","objItemIndexViewURL":"http://localhost:8080/fedora/objects/neu%3Arx9146645/methods/fedora-system%3A3/viewItemIndex","objState":"A"}
northeastern:drs:library:archives
northeastern:drs:repository:staff
public
000509625
neu:rx914f665
neu:rx914f665
000509625
000509625
/downloads/neu:rx914674d?datastream_id=thumbnail_1
/downloads/neu:rx914674d?datastream_id=thumbnail_2
/downloads/neu:rx914674d?datastream_id=thumbnail_3
/downloads/neu:rx914674d?datastream_id=thumbnail_4
/downloads/neu:rx914674d?datastream_id=thumbnail_5
/downloads/neu:rx914674d?datastream_id=thumbnail_1
/downloads/neu:rx914674d?datastream_id=thumbnail_2
/downloads/neu:rx914674d?datastream_id=thumbnail_3
/downloads/neu:rx914674d?datastream_id=thumbnail_4
/downloads/neu:rx914674d?datastream_id=thumbnail_5
ImageMasterFile
ImageMasterFile
neu:rx914f665
000509625
/downloads/neu:rx914674d?datastream_id=thumbnail_1
/downloads/neu:rx914674d?datastream_id=thumbnail_2
/downloads/neu:rx914674d?datastream_id=thumbnail_3
/downloads/neu:rx914674d?datastream_id=thumbnail_4
/downloads/neu:rx914674d?datastream_id=thumbnail_5
ImageMasterFile
Freedom School- St. Marks Social Center- Roxbury.
Freedom School- St. Marks Social Center- Roxbury.
Freedom School- St. Marks Social Center- Roxbury.
Freedom School- St. Marks Social Center- Roxbury.
This photo is from outside the St. Marks Freedom School. The school was held for the February 26, 1964 Freedom Stay-Out boycott.
Globe Newspaper Co.
Globe Newspaper Co.
Publisher
Publisher
photographs
Boston Globe
Boston Globe
1964-02-26
1964-02-26
Donated by James W. Fraser.
African American students
Massachusetts
Boston
African Americans
Education
Massachusetts
Boston
Civil rights
Massachusetts
Boston
Demonstrations
Massachusetts
Boston
Discrimination in education
Massachusetts
Boston
Race relations
African American students
Massachusetts
Boston
African Americans
Education
Massachusetts
Boston
Civil rights
Massachusetts
Boston
Demonstrations
Massachusetts
Boston
Discrimination in education
Massachusetts
Boston
Race relations
Massachusetts Freedom Schools
Massachusetts Freedom Schools
Massachusetts Freedom Schools
Massachusetts Freedom Schools
http://hdl.handle.net/2047/D20128841
http://hdl.handle.net/2047/D20128841
m66b1f1_005
m66b1f1_005
African American students
Massachusetts
Boston
African Americans
Education
Massachusetts
Boston
Civil rights
Massachusetts
Boston
Demonstrations
Massachusetts
Boston
Discrimination in education
Massachusetts
Boston
Race relations
Freedom School- St. Marks Social Center- Roxbury.
James W. Fraser (collector) photograph collection (M66)
Freedom School- St. Marks Social Center- Roxbury.
freedom school st marks social center roxbury
Freedom School- St. Marks Social Center- Roxbury.
1964-02-26
African American students Massachusetts Boston
African Americans Education Massachusetts Boston
Civil rights Massachusetts Boston
Demonstrations Massachusetts Boston
Discrimination in education Massachusetts Boston
Race relations
Massachusetts Freedom Schools
Globe Newspaper Co.
Globe Newspaper Co.
Boston, Massachusetts
info:fedora/afmodel:CoreFile
info:fedora/neu:rx914f665
2023-05-26T03:49:51.324Z
2023-05-17T15:31:14Z
A
CoreFile
neu:cj82kx488
{"datastreams":{"RELS-EXT":{"dsLabel":"Fedora Object-to-Object Relationship Metadata","dsVersionID":"RELS-EXT.1","dsCreateDate":"2016-03-16T15:41:24Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"application/rdf+xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"X","dsSize":425,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:cj82kx488+RELS-EXT+RELS-EXT.1","dsLocationType":null,"dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"rightsMetadata":{"dsLabel":null,"dsVersionID":"rightsMetadata.2","dsCreateDate":"2016-03-16T15:42:25Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"M","dsSize":709,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:cj82kx488+rightsMetadata+rightsMetadata.2","dsLocationType":"INTERNAL_ID","dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"DC":{"dsLabel":"Dublin Core Record for this object","dsVersionID":"DC.11","dsCreateDate":"2023-05-17T15:31:24Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":"http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/","dsControlGroup":"X","dsSize":2516,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:cj82kx488+DC+DC.11","dsLocationType":null,"dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"properties":{"dsLabel":null,"dsVersionID":"properties.5","dsCreateDate":"2016-03-16T15:43:37Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"M","dsSize":703,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:cj82kx488+properties+properties.5","dsLocationType":"INTERNAL_ID","dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"mods":{"dsLabel":null,"dsVersionID":"mods.10","dsCreateDate":"2023-05-17T15:31:08Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"M","dsSize":7301,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:cj82kx488+mods+mods.10","dsLocationType":"INTERNAL_ID","dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"}},"objLabel":"M94.B004.F053.003.pdf","objOwnerId":"fedoraAdmin","objModels":["info:fedora/fedora-system:FedoraObject-3.0","info:fedora/afmodel:CoreFile"],"objCreateDate":"2016-03-16T15:41:20Z","objLastModDate":"2023-05-17T15:31:14Z","objDissIndexViewURL":"http://localhost:8080/fedora/objects/neu%3Acj82kx488/methods/fedora-system%3A3/viewMethodIndex","objItemIndexViewURL":"http://localhost:8080/fedora/objects/neu%3Acj82kx488/methods/fedora-system%3A3/viewItemIndex","objState":"A"}
northeastern:drs:library:archives
northeastern:drs:repository:staff
public
001674299
neu:rx914f665
neu:rx914f665
001674299
001674299
/downloads/neu:m039z353n?datastream_id=thumbnail_1
/downloads/neu:m039z353n?datastream_id=thumbnail_2
/downloads/neu:m039z353n?datastream_id=thumbnail_3
/downloads/neu:m039z353n?datastream_id=thumbnail_4
/downloads/neu:m039z353n?datastream_id=thumbnail_5
/downloads/neu:m039z353n?datastream_id=thumbnail_1
/downloads/neu:m039z353n?datastream_id=thumbnail_2
/downloads/neu:m039z353n?datastream_id=thumbnail_3
/downloads/neu:m039z353n?datastream_id=thumbnail_4
/downloads/neu:m039z353n?datastream_id=thumbnail_5
PdfFile
PdfFile
neu:rx914f665
001674299
/downloads/neu:m039z353n?datastream_id=thumbnail_1
/downloads/neu:m039z353n?datastream_id=thumbnail_2
/downloads/neu:m039z353n?datastream_id=thumbnail_3
/downloads/neu:m039z353n?datastream_id=thumbnail_4
/downloads/neu:m039z353n?datastream_id=thumbnail_5
PdfFile
bird's eye view from within - as we see it.
bird's eye view from within - as we see it.
bird's eye view from within - as we see it.
bird's eye view from within - as we see it.
A
A
Contains information regarding Operation Exodus.
Operation Exodus
Operation Exodus
Creator
Creator
printed ephemera
Operation Exodus
Operation Exodus
1966
1966
Donated by Phyllis M. Ryan
This project was partially funded by the Boston Library Consortium.
African Americans
Education
Massachusetts
Boston
Busing for school integration
Massachusetts
Boston
Civil rights
Massachusetts
Boston
Discrimination in education
Massachusetts
Boston
Public schools
Massachusetts
Boston
School integration
Massachusetts
Boston
Segregation in education
Massachusetts
Boston
African Americans
Education
Massachusetts
Boston
Busing for school integration
Massachusetts
Boston
Civil rights
Massachusetts
Boston
Discrimination in education
Massachusetts
Boston
Public schools
Massachusetts
Boston
School integration
Massachusetts
Boston
Segregation in education
Massachusetts
Boston
Boston Public Schools
Operation Exodus
Boston Public Schools
Boston Public Schools
Operation Exodus
Boston Public Schools
Operation Exodus
Operation Exodus
http://hdl.handle.net/2047/D20203636
http://hdl.handle.net/2047/D20203636
M94.B004.F053.003
M94.B004.F053.003
African Americans
Education
Massachusetts
Boston
Busing for school integration
Massachusetts
Boston
Civil rights
Massachusetts
Boston
Discrimination in education
Massachusetts
Boston
Public schools
Massachusetts
Boston
School integration
Massachusetts
Boston
Segregation in education
Massachusetts
Boston
A
bird's eye view from within - as we see it.
A bird's eye view from within - as we see it.
Phyllis M. Ryan papers (M94)
Social Justice and Political Activities, 1959 - 1988 (bulk 1961 - 1981)
A bird's eye view from within - as we see it.
birds eye view from within as we see it
A
1966/01/01
approximate
A bird's eye view from within - as we see it.
1966
African Americans Education Massachusetts Boston
Busing for school integration Massachusetts Boston
Civil rights Massachusetts Boston
Discrimination in education Massachusetts Boston
Public schools Massachusetts Boston
School integration Massachusetts Boston
Segregation in education Massachusetts Boston
Boston Public Schools
Operation Exodus
Operation Exodus
Operation Exodus
Boston, Massachusetts
info:fedora/afmodel:CoreFile
info:fedora/neu:rx914f665
A --\ ,) ,:. ~·- I \'1 <-~ . , 0' ) ...__ ' ) t--. ' • i ' i . I .I . . . • ' J. j{ ( q ' i \ .. i '"" ,... •/ t· . •· I '··· ' '' I ' ,.. . . '· '-· '. ' . ' I ..... I t •• , ... PREFACE For the past three ye~rs Exodus h2s been working with parents and students in the Roxbury-North Dorchester c ommunity t o assist in the deve l opment of par ent interest and effectiveness in improving the conditions in our c ommunity. It is not news tha t our eff orts have been severely hampered by a lack of funds. Our parent run organization has paid c ommunity pe ople pitiful salaries f or full-time and overtime l abor. It ha s been our experience over the years t o face the f act that unfortunately s ome of the progr ams tha t really signify c ommunity involvement, planning , and implementation are much t oo oft e n overlooke d a s be ing truly r epre sentative of the kinds of things tha t people t a lk about funding, but never do. Instead, t oo often much of the money that c ome s into the community goe s int o the administra tion of progr ams run by and gear e d from the mis c onceptions and i de as of people on the outside l ooking in, the re sults of these pro• grams is a lmost t ot al waste . In a community tha t is awar e of and capable of planning f or s olutions t o its needs, this a frustra ting wa ste, one , we h ope t o s ee s oon c ome t o an end. On the next f ew page s we will a ttempt t o share with y ou our r eflections fr om within---a s we s ee it • Our main emphasis is still, of course, busing~ The basic commitment that we made to the parents in our community is a binding one, one which we will keew a~ long as they feel it is necessary. Directly attached to the busing is our tutorial program, which involves over 350 Exodus and non-Exodus students that are being tutored on a one-to-one basis by college students from the grea~~r Boston area. Hand-holding with this are several ;things; Services in the line of: Referral for child guidance Legal Aid Health Welfare Etc. A testing group of psychologists, psychiatrists and students of same, that voluntarily avail themselves to testing students. Investigation DepaFtment, (school or community investigationsJ this Exodus team helps to bridge the gap and inadequacies of the Home and School Association, and communications in general between parents and the schools, particularly in instances where the child has a problem or trouble .. RESEARCH: The Exodus research project is funded by the Office of Education in Washington and run jointly by Exodus and Dr. James Teele at the Harvard School of Public Health. The purpose of this research is to document the impact of the Exodus busing program on the participating parents and children. THE EXODUS CULTURAL ENRICID'IENT PROGRAM: InvolveEJJ over 300 children taking them on a series of trips to plays, gospel concerts, museums etc. THE EXODUS YOUTH PROGRAM: run by Exodus fathers, focuses on recreation for bays and girls between the ages of 10 and 18. They are dealing with about 360 youngsters. This is a year-round program with basketball, softball, football, and volleyball leagues. They would enroll more children, but funds are a problem and they can't handle any more on their present budget •. THE EDUCATIONAL Cm1PLEX: We are currently in• volved in raising the necess ~ry funds to ronov~te tho two buildings we recently purcha~ed at 376 and 378 Blue Hill Avenue, 378 is the building which we are now housed. Our goal is to develop an educational complex that will provide a meeting ground for all kinds of community people, and profession~ls from outside the community. All of whom would have the corr~on goal of im~roving the quality of education in Roxbury. -2- THE GROVE a\LL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: founded by Exodus involves individuals and ngencies prim~rily from the Blue Hill Avenue area, but also from other parts of the Negro Community. The job of this group is to pull to• gether the various kinds of resources in the community and to channel some of our energy into economic ventures that will support the social service agencies currently active in the area. RESTRUCTURE: In keeping with the broadening horizons of the Exodus program we have recently undergone a complete restructuring of our governing body. We have added new life along with new programs through expansion of our board of directors and steering cownittee and our by• laws have already gone into effect. This means that we have even greater represen• tation, a really broad cross-section of professional and non-professional c ommunity people ~ctively participating on the policy-making l evel . These people will provide the leadership and ex• pertise for our par ent movement, lending their support toward the broad approach to educationa l and social change tha t is definitely coming into being. CO~~UNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ORGANIZATION GROUP: this will ~lso load Exodus into its program of c ommunity develow• ment and organization a l ong the lines of educationa l improve • ment and design the programs that will focus the attention -3- on problems in the schools within our community, since we know, now that busing does not provide r ealistic long-range solutions to our problems. COJVl}llUNITY PARTICIPf.:..TION PROGRAMS: This new emphasis focuses on a need for greater c ommunity participation along with these changes we've made , the l aunching of bi-annua] meetings and the initia tion of a group of c ommunity parti• cipation oriented pr ograms, r epre sents part of our plans for the future .. The recent turbulenc e in the Grove Hall-Blue Hill Ave nue section of our c ommunity and the up-risings in maj or citie s across the na tion points up the need for drastic and immediate change of the exis ting c onditions under which we ar e now liv ing. OUR POSITION a s a community run grass-r oots organiza tion a llowed us t o serve a particularly centra l r ole during the days of the upris ing in our c ommunity by acting as a centra l headquart er s , out of which patr ols of c ommunity people wer e dispa tched t o observe police t a ctics a nd t o locate areas of s eve r e c onflict t o de t er police brut a lity. We s erved as headquart ers for the pre ss, a s a part-time med ic a l cent er and a s a c ommunic a tions center f or community police dia l ogue . This put us and or ganiz ati ons such a s New Engl a nd Gra ss Roots Organiza tions (N.E.,G.R.O.) Bo3ton CORE, New, England Development Corp, Ame rican Friends Service C ommittee~ Blue Hill Christia n Centre , ~ost on N.A.A.C.P. and the Mass. -4- Council of Churche s in the position of assessing the events of July 2 through 5th. The police brutal~ty that we witne ssed was very well expre ssed by a Bay State Banner headline: "Police Riot in Grove Hall". \rJe di¢1 then and do now c ondemn the police action during those f our nights. Action which strongly pointed out deep-roote d r acist f eelings they showe d in dealing with the black c ommunity, However, the r oots of the problem lie much deeper than those nights of violence indica te. It lie s within the sickne ss of a predomina tely white s ocie ty which refuse s to recognize the basic humanit~ of non-white pers ons. We a t Exodus do not, however c ondemn or place the blame on the f act of a ll, or eve n most white in this system of r acial d iscrimination. iarge sums of our program funds and some of our technica l a~d prof essiona l expertise c ome fr om individuals and or ganizations in t he white c ommunity . The s e peopl e shar e with us a c oncern f or the plight of bla ck Americans which is only a portion of t he ir c oncern f or the entire American pol i tica l a nd ec onomic system. They a s do we , f ee l tha t unles s America 's Negr o community is assiste d in its indepe ndant deve lopment and is a lliowe d t o gr ow and prosper without endumbe r ence fr om without. Americans as a whol e wi ll c ontinue t o have difficulty in de a ling wit h non-white s in other par t s of t he wor l d . vJha t exactly a r e s[ome of the proble ms a s we s ee t hem?' -5- l • 1 1 r : Well you can start with things like: 1. Negro owned grocery stores unable to get bank loans, while mammbth supermarkets and chain store$ spring up in the c ommunity with lower pri~es and greater selectivity of products~ 2. The humiliatipn our pe ople ~re faeed with when job bunting, children humiliated by a schooll. system which does not know how to educate them and often make them feel like dirt. 3. Welfare workers who humiliate and degrade. 4. Dirty streets 5. Houses that are falling down due to the lack of city services 6. Lack of basic orientation and training for police, in order f'or them to work in urban ghet t o communities. At the t op of the list you will find the Urban Renewal Program, the Anti-Poverty Program, and the New Model Cities Program, all wpich seem t o contri»ute to the frustration and discontent which exploded in our c ommunity June 2-5. They, a long with l esser officials sueh as the Welfare Department and members of the school committee have , through their r efusals to allow the growth of e ommunity development through grass-roots c ommunity control set c on- ditions that made the uprising a predictable o~~urence . Their programs h~ve more oft en, worked to divide and split the c ommunity , than unite it; their ma nipulations, -6- .. ., ! controlled largely, we feel by city administrations, have inhibited and not promoted the growth of responsible and effective leadershipr THE TENSION THESE THINGS HAVE CAUSED WILL NOT BE EASED UNTIL PEOPLE FEEL THE COMMUNITY BELONGS TO US, THAT THE ECONOMIC POLITICAL AND $0CIAL POWER WE SEE AND LIVE WITH IS WITHIN OUR GRASP. Negro leadership is moving toward this and the people that took to the street were demanding that these things happen. History shows us ~hat the founders of our country demanded it, other ethnic groups demanded it and it is being put into a framework that is completely within the context of American political power. Was it &eparatism then? Why should it be now, when blac~ people are re:tching for the same thing? The day is coming, whon we will not be ostracized, demoralized, chastised and de-humanized for wanting the same freedoms that are here for others., We are helping td bring this day closer and hope to continue to be involved in the naces&ary planning that will bring it about. tho end
2023-05-17T15:31:35.468Z
2023-05-26T02:25:13Z
A
CoreFile
neu:rx9146271
{"datastreams":{"RELS-EXT":{"dsLabel":"Fedora Object-to-Object Relationship Metadata","dsVersionID":"RELS-EXT.2","dsCreateDate":"2016-08-09T16:06:25Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"application/rdf+xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"X","dsSize":425,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:rx9146271+RELS-EXT+RELS-EXT.2","dsLocationType":null,"dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"rightsMetadata":{"dsLabel":null,"dsVersionID":"rightsMetadata.2","dsCreateDate":"2015-04-28T20:28:06Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"M","dsSize":647,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:rx9146271+rightsMetadata+rightsMetadata.2","dsLocationType":"INTERNAL_ID","dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"DC":{"dsLabel":"Dublin Core Record for this object","dsVersionID":"DC.11","dsCreateDate":"2023-05-26T02:25:13Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":"http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/","dsControlGroup":"X","dsSize":2196,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:rx9146271+DC+DC.11","dsLocationType":null,"dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"properties":{"dsLabel":null,"dsVersionID":"properties.6","dsCreateDate":"2016-08-09T16:06:25Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"M","dsSize":736,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:rx9146271+properties+properties.6","dsLocationType":"INTERNAL_ID","dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"mods":{"dsLabel":null,"dsVersionID":"mods.10","dsCreateDate":"2023-05-26T02:25:12Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"M","dsSize":6404,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:rx9146271+mods+mods.10","dsLocationType":"INTERNAL_ID","dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"}},"objLabel":"m79b3f2_001.tif","objOwnerId":"fedoraAdmin","objModels":["info:fedora/fedora-system:FedoraObject-3.0","info:fedora/afmodel:CoreFile"],"objCreateDate":"2015-04-28T20:26:40Z","objLastModDate":"2023-05-26T02:25:13Z","objDissIndexViewURL":"http://localhost:8080/fedora/objects/neu%3Arx9146271/methods/fedora-system%3A3/viewMethodIndex","objItemIndexViewURL":"http://localhost:8080/fedora/objects/neu%3Arx9146271/methods/fedora-system%3A3/viewItemIndex","objState":"A"}
northeastern:drs:library:archives
northeastern:drs:repository:staff
public
000509625
neu:rx914f665
neu:rx914f665
000509625
000509625
/downloads/neu:rx914631m?datastream_id=thumbnail_1
/downloads/neu:rx914631m?datastream_id=thumbnail_2
/downloads/neu:rx914631m?datastream_id=thumbnail_3
/downloads/neu:rx914631m?datastream_id=thumbnail_4
/downloads/neu:rx914631m?datastream_id=thumbnail_5
/downloads/neu:rx914631m?datastream_id=thumbnail_1
/downloads/neu:rx914631m?datastream_id=thumbnail_2
/downloads/neu:rx914631m?datastream_id=thumbnail_3
/downloads/neu:rx914631m?datastream_id=thumbnail_4
/downloads/neu:rx914631m?datastream_id=thumbnail_5
ImageMasterFile
ImageMasterFile
neu:rx914f665
000509625
/downloads/neu:rx914631m?datastream_id=thumbnail_1
/downloads/neu:rx914631m?datastream_id=thumbnail_2
/downloads/neu:rx914631m?datastream_id=thumbnail_3
/downloads/neu:rx914631m?datastream_id=thumbnail_4
/downloads/neu:rx914631m?datastream_id=thumbnail_5
ImageMasterFile
"Sit In" Boston School Committee.
"Sit In" Boston School Committee.
"Sit In" Boston School Committee.
"Sit In" Boston School Committee.
This is a photograph of parents and community members who attended the Boston School Committee meeting on June 11, 1963, they ended up holding a sit-in at the meeting.
Christian Science Monitor
Christian Science Monitor
Publisher
Publisher
photographs
Christian Science Monitor
Christian Science Monitor
1963-06-11
1963-06-11
1963
1963
Donated by Melnea Cass.
African American parents
Massachusetts
Boston
African Americans
Education
Massachusetts
Boston
Discrimination in education
Massachusetts
Boston
Race relations
African American parents
Massachusetts
Boston
African Americans
Education
Massachusetts
Boston
Discrimination in education
Massachusetts
Boston
Race relations
Boston (Mass.). School Committee
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Boston Branch
Boston (Mass.). School Committee
Boston (Mass.).
School Committee
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
Boston Branch
Boston (Mass.).
School Committee
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Boston Branch
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
Boston Branch
http://hdl.handle.net/2047/D20128831
http://hdl.handle.net/2047/D20128831
m79b3f2_001
m79b3f2_001
African American parents
Massachusetts
Boston
African Americans
Education
Massachusetts
Boston
Discrimination in education
Massachusetts
Boston
Race relations
"Sit In" Boston School Committee.
Melnea A. Cass papers (M79)
"Sit In" Boston School Committee.
sit in boston school committee
1963/06/11
"Sit In" Boston School Committee.
1963-06-11
African American parents Massachusetts Boston
African Americans Education Massachusetts Boston
Discrimination in education Massachusetts Boston
Race relations
Boston (Mass.). School Committee
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Boston Branch
Christian Science Monitor
Christian Science Monitor
Boston, Massachusetts
info:fedora/afmodel:CoreFile
info:fedora/neu:rx914f665
2023-05-26T03:49:39.317Z
2023-05-25T18:19:24Z
A
CoreFile
neu:rx913r93r
{"datastreams":{"RELS-EXT":{"dsLabel":"Fedora Object-to-Object Relationship Metadata","dsVersionID":"RELS-EXT.2","dsCreateDate":"2016-08-09T16:11:06Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"application/rdf+xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"X","dsSize":425,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:rx913r93r+RELS-EXT+RELS-EXT.2","dsLocationType":null,"dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"rightsMetadata":{"dsLabel":null,"dsVersionID":"rightsMetadata.2","dsCreateDate":"2015-03-18T16:01:19Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"M","dsSize":647,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:rx913r93r+rightsMetadata+rightsMetadata.2","dsLocationType":"INTERNAL_ID","dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"DC":{"dsLabel":"Dublin Core Record for this object","dsVersionID":"DC.12","dsCreateDate":"2023-05-25T18:19:24Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":"http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/","dsControlGroup":"X","dsSize":2104,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:rx913r93r+DC+DC.12","dsLocationType":null,"dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"properties":{"dsLabel":null,"dsVersionID":"properties.4","dsCreateDate":"2016-08-09T16:11:07Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"M","dsSize":744,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:rx913r93r+properties+properties.4","dsLocationType":"INTERNAL_ID","dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"mods":{"dsLabel":null,"dsVersionID":"mods.11","dsCreateDate":"2023-05-25T18:19:23Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"M","dsSize":6269,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:rx913r93r+mods+mods.11","dsLocationType":"INTERNAL_ID","dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"}},"objLabel":"m112b2f2_002.pdf","objOwnerId":"fedoraAdmin","objModels":["info:fedora/fedora-system:FedoraObject-3.0","info:fedora/afmodel:CoreFile"],"objCreateDate":"2015-03-18T15:54:34Z","objLastModDate":"2023-05-25T18:19:24Z","objDissIndexViewURL":"http://localhost:8080/fedora/objects/neu%3Arx913r93r/methods/fedora-system%3A3/viewMethodIndex","objItemIndexViewURL":"http://localhost:8080/fedora/objects/neu%3Arx913r93r/methods/fedora-system%3A3/viewItemIndex","objState":"A"}
northeastern:drs:library:archives
northeastern:drs:repository:staff
public
000509625
neu:rx914f665
neu:rx914f665
000509625
000509625
/downloads/neu:rx913s00z?datastream_id=thumbnail_1
/downloads/neu:rx913s00z?datastream_id=thumbnail_2
/downloads/neu:rx913s00z?datastream_id=thumbnail_3
/downloads/neu:rx913s00z?datastream_id=thumbnail_4
/downloads/neu:rx913s00z?datastream_id=thumbnail_5
/downloads/neu:rx913s00z?datastream_id=thumbnail_1
/downloads/neu:rx913s00z?datastream_id=thumbnail_2
/downloads/neu:rx913s00z?datastream_id=thumbnail_3
/downloads/neu:rx913s00z?datastream_id=thumbnail_4
/downloads/neu:rx913s00z?datastream_id=thumbnail_5
PdfFile
PdfFile
neu:rx914f665
000509625
/downloads/neu:rx913s00z?datastream_id=thumbnail_1
/downloads/neu:rx913s00z?datastream_id=thumbnail_2
/downloads/neu:rx913s00z?datastream_id=thumbnail_3
/downloads/neu:rx913s00z?datastream_id=thumbnail_4
/downloads/neu:rx913s00z?datastream_id=thumbnail_5
PdfFile
Boston ballots can draw school bigotry in November.
Boston ballots can draw school bigotry in November.
Boston ballots can draw school bigotry in November.
Boston ballots can draw school bigotry in November.
An article from the September 18, 1965 edition of the Corespondent discussing the upcoming 1965 School Committee election and the necessity to vote in members of the Roxbury community as the Committee had been blocking many of the community's actions.
Corespondent
Corespondent
Publisher
Publisher
newspapers
Boston Congress of Racial Equality
Boston Congress of Racial Equality
1968-09-18
1968-09-18
1968-09-18
1968-09-18
Donated by Frank Miranda.
African Americans
Education
Massachusetts
Boston
Public schools
Massachusetts
Boston
Race relations
African Americans
Education
Massachusetts
Boston
Public schools
Massachusetts
Boston
Race relations
Boston (Mass.). School Committee
Congress of Racial Equality
Boston (Mass.). School Committee
Boston (Mass.).
School Committee
Congress of Racial Equality
Boston (Mass.).
School Committee
Congress of Racial Equality
Congress of Racial Equality
http://hdl.handle.net/2047/D20128444
http://hdl.handle.net/2047/D20128444
m112b2f2_002
m112b2f2_002
African Americans
Education
Massachusetts
Boston
Public schools
Massachusetts
Boston
Race relations
Boston ballots can draw school bigotry in November.
Frank J. Miranda papers (M112)
Boston ballots can draw school bigotry in November.
boston ballots can draw school bigotry in november
1968/09/18
Boston ballots can draw school bigotry in November.
1968-09-18
African Americans Education Massachusetts Boston
Public schools Massachusetts Boston
Race relations
Boston (Mass.). School Committee
Congress of Racial Equality
Corespondent
Corespondent
Roxbury, Massachusetts
info:fedora/afmodel:CoreFile
info:fedora/neu:rx914f665
I ..t FROM BOSTON CONGRESS OF RACIAL EQUALITY CORE~[p@~W~~lJ 373 Blue Hill Avenue, Roxbury, Massachusetts 02121 -@·- September 18, 1965 BOSTON BALLOTS CAN DOWN SCHOOL BIGOTRY IN NOVEMBER The big test is still to come on Nov. 2. We've had partial cures for the Boston public school situation• in the Racial Imbalance Bill, and the withholding of Federal aid by the Department of Health, Educa• tion, andWelfare. Buttherootcan• cer gnawing at the Boston schools is the present School Committee majority, the Hicks gang, that quartet of bigot-opportunists who have constantly spurned, neglec• ted, insulted, and irreparablyhar• med the Negroes of Boston, mean• while using their racism as a cloak for shameful neglect of the entire schx l system, betraying white and black alike. Only when they are gone and replaced by their op• posites will the Negro children of Boston enjoy fair opportunity. Anyone who reads the Kiernan Re• port, for example, must realize that racial balance in the class• room may well fail to accomplish its purpose, unless accompanied by a spirit offairness on the padt of teacher and administration. The strongest opposition to the present minority is the slate en• dorsed by the Citizens for the Bos• ton Public Schools, whose new headquarters is at 121 Tremont St., 542-4566. Headed by incumbent Arthur Gartland, the one friend of civil rights now on the Committee, the slate also includes Miss Velia DiCesare and Messrs. John F.X. Gaquin, Melvin King, and George H. Parker. There are up to 17 persons in the running for School Committe at this stage. Their number will be nar• rowed to 10 at the preliminary elec• tion, Sept. 21. These 10 will fight it out for the five seats at the Nov. 2 election. More and more, a decent educa• tion is becoming necessary to any• one who wants to hold his own in our society. Much is at stake in this election campaign. Money and work are needed to win. And this election, of course, al• so makes doubly important the Community Voter Registration Campaign, now under way. This campaign also needs workers. Committee's Irresponsible Actions Leave Many Awestricken Citizens for the Boston Schools, aware that they are dealing with a School Committe so (with the exception of Gartland) incredibly inept, so childishly irresponsible· and self-seeking that normally skeptical in• dividuals will not believe it--has issued on invitation to "Go see for yourself.'' One must, indeed, see for him• self to believe it. The childish, self-pitying petulance of Mrs. Hicks's demagogic pronounce- ments is difficult to believe; the bizarre pronouncements of jos• eph Lee are even more difficult (cont. pg. 2) C. A. B. TO SPONSOR HOME-BUILDERS SHOW The Contractors Associ• ation of Boston (CAB) and CORE will sponsor a Home and Build• ers Show Saturday and Sunday, Oct. 23 and 24, at the new YMCA on Warren Street in Roxbury. It will last from noon through 9:30p .m. each day. Admission will be one dollar. Lt. Gov. Elliot Richard• son will speak at 8:00 p.m. on Sunday. Other guests include Important Reading Inside: -Legislator's votes on Racial Imbalance Bill amendments - Springfield - Status of low-income hous- ing bills Mel King, a national CORE re• presentative, and an official of the U.S. Dept. of Labor. The show will feature films, presentations, displays, and exhibits. The work will be that done by CAB apprentices, often equal to that of journey• man workers . Participating contractors will be glad to discuss remodeling or building work, give estimates, and con• duct guests to the sites of their work. (One CAB member has builders licenses in seven towns.) Suppliers aiding in the show include Armstrong Cork of Needham, Dudley Door of (cont. pg. 4) Vol. 3, No. 5 Connecting People With Power The Community Voter Registration Project is now operating in Rox• bury for its second summer and is having considerable success in or• ganizing the Roxbury, North Dorchester, and South End communities for massive registration in August. The project, which has the support of all of the Boston-area Civil Rghts Groups is housed at 198 Humboldt Ave. The staff consists of Byron Rushing, Coordinator, and four full- time vo• lunteers , with the additional help of dozens of part-time workers from throughout the Boston area. Financed by contributions--so far this sum• mer, mostly from SCLC and the Northern Student Movement-- the project seeks to register, educate politically, and eventually mobilize the currently unregistered eligible voters of the Project area, which includes Ward 12 and parts of Wards 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14 (the NAACP is running its own program in Wards 4 and 9). The Project's work is simple, but demands an immense amount of effort and persistence for suc• cess. Volunteers canvass in par• ticular bloCks for residents will • ing to be Block Captains. Each Captain is given the name of ten or more eligible but unregistered voters in his block, and contacts them in an attempt to get them to register. So far about 75 Captains have volunteered, and the Project should have 150 by the end. The Project offers free transpor• tation to the Voting Registry (open 9 to 5), and in Roxbury will spon• sor local Registry trucks which will visit the neighborhoods in the evening, so that working peo• ple can also register. Last year the project had to pay the over• time wages of the people runnin the trucks; this year, the city will bear the expense. In addition to ths work, the Pro• ject will sponsor voter education Workshops in the homes of the block captains in which the struc• ture of the ballot will be explained, the importance of the State Rep• resentative's office to local voters emphasized, and various vot• ing procedures (such as balloting• voting for only one candidate when five votes can be cast) discussed. At these Workshops, the methods by which voters can exert prs• sure for reforms will be analyzed in detail, and eventually it is hoped that ths Project's communities can be orgallized for greater poli• tical strength. ANGUISH AND DESPERATION GIVE BIRTH TO 11EXODus•• Operation Exodus needs money and workers. The buses cot $50 per day. Make out chesk to Operation Exodus and send to CORE, 373 Blue Hill Ave., or NSM, 366 Blue Hill Ave. Workers are needed for all times. Call NSM, 445-4525. Operation Exodus is the fulfill• ment of a battle waged not by civil• rights groups such as CORE, but by groups of increasingly anguished parents who see time running out on their kids as four self- seeking mediocrities curry favor with Boston's bigots. These parents groups are self-organized, though several CORE members have been working with them for some months and CORE helped mount the Gibson Parents' protest over thefiringof Jon a than Kozol. That it is the parents who have, over the past two or three years, organized themselves around the schools issue into ten or so groups is evidence both of the special an• guish they feel and of the magnitude of the School Committee's irres• ponsibility. For the parents rea• lize very well that while Hicks worries about how to play her cards right for higher office, one of the worst big city school systems in the country is destroying its charges' most fundamental ticket to a decent life-- a good education. Currently, groups like the Rox• bury-North Dorchester Parents Committee for Better Schools are engaged in reducing overcrowding by busing pupils (at their con• siderable expense) from the mostly Negro Greenwood, Endicott, and Gibson schools (which last year dealt with 900 more pupils than they were designed for) to relatively uncrowded white schools in Dor• chester and Hyde Park. But overcrowding is only one of the faults of a school system that is overwhelmingsly, appallingly bad. And the parents' groups are quite aware of the other faults. In• deed, Negroes have organized themselves around the cheatingof their children with a singularity of purpose that surpasses thatbrou• ght to bear on any instance of the denials of rights in recent memory. This is easy enough to understand. It is one thing, after all, for a per• son to live a life made harder - by the burdens of being an American Negro - than human life shouldbe; it is quite a different thing when one realizes that the kids are appar• ently going to have to live the same way. CIAL IMBALANCE BILL T BOT It's like eac · g a. h1 h e ge on the way to the top of a moun tain. The Racial Imbalance Bil , finally signed afte tno ths of al• most c nstan effor and su pense, s a trem.endo s ac ·eve , en , yet the e i tnuch, m.uch to be acco111- plished sti Mountain-cliLilhing comparisons hold true in another way. For the story of S 1117 previous y H 096, M 4048, S 1037, and H 2647, is a rea clif hru1ger. Tinle and tim again it seemed that the bill would die or or be made coll1pletely in- effectual The low point cam.e jus before the bill was to be ~e por d out of the enate Ways an Means Colllmittee, on to the fl ~or. At that tate it bore the arrtendinent whi 11 required a 5 year waiting poriod - the atnend illent which am.ounted to killing the bill. There was general g ootn ove:r the pros ects for el minating the amendment. et '"twas elillli• nated and the bill was final y pas• sed, its uccess serving as a tri,- 1 bute to leadershi on both sides of the political fence Succ ss cannot ob cure remain• ing needs. The b "11 itself needs to be itnproved in the futu1·e. Most obvi usly, the Craven amend n1ent, supposedly d1rec ed against Colllmunism, is a disgrace - And there are bvious and cru• cial steps beyo11d any racial i111 balance 1 gjslatiu11 Many ills c n o 11y be cur d by pr per a l nlillistt· .. tio11 This bill l1as no excused Boston of the re onsi• bil.ty f giving ·tself a decent School Con1m.ittee ev. Ca:r er is canvassing f'or voters. CO E sponden is the bulletin of the Boston Chapter f the Con• gress o Racial Equality. Let• ters to the editor are we cotned To be put on the lilailing i t se d a con ibution of 1 00 fo one year) to CORE, 37 3 Blue Hill Ave , oxbury 0212 E ITOR Gordon Brumm MANA.GING EDITOR. Vi ~c Bloomberg EDITORlA.L STAFF· Jan Dyroff, Ann HeinetnannJ Ba bara Loose, artha Schaub ADVERTISING Judy Felton COMPOSITION Jan Dyroff Hilda Bloomberg PRINTING: Dave Crocker DISTR BUT ION· Mike Mor .. r1son Please note that ac eptance of advertising does not neces sarily imply CORE acceptance of the advertiser. We wish to thank the Crafts- Ine rin ers Co perati ·e o dham f r the.. a1d in ub li bing this bulletin Th s p 1· at· on i - o e t1u: ug the operat n of e Bast n-R ry c·cy Ne and radio st tion WILD.
2023-05-25T18:49:39.001Z
2023-05-18T15:27:56Z
A
CoreFile
neu:cj82n8154
{"datastreams":{"RELS-EXT":{"dsLabel":"Fedora Object-to-Object Relationship Metadata","dsVersionID":"RELS-EXT.1","dsCreateDate":"2016-06-28T20:17:44Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"application/rdf+xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"X","dsSize":425,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:cj82n8154+RELS-EXT+RELS-EXT.1","dsLocationType":null,"dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"rightsMetadata":{"dsLabel":null,"dsVersionID":"rightsMetadata.2","dsCreateDate":"2016-06-28T20:18:18Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"M","dsSize":709,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:cj82n8154+rightsMetadata+rightsMetadata.2","dsLocationType":"INTERNAL_ID","dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"DC":{"dsLabel":"Dublin Core Record for this object","dsVersionID":"DC.11","dsCreateDate":"2023-05-18T15:27:56Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":"http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/","dsControlGroup":"X","dsSize":2490,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:cj82n8154+DC+DC.11","dsLocationType":null,"dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"properties":{"dsLabel":null,"dsVersionID":"properties.5","dsCreateDate":"2016-06-28T20:18:49Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"M","dsSize":704,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:cj82n8154+properties+properties.5","dsLocationType":"INTERNAL_ID","dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"mods":{"dsLabel":null,"dsVersionID":"mods.10","dsCreateDate":"2023-05-18T15:27:49Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"M","dsSize":7351,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:cj82n8154+mods+mods.10","dsLocationType":"INTERNAL_ID","dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"}},"objLabel":"M101.B042.F023.011.pdf","objOwnerId":"fedoraAdmin","objModels":["info:fedora/fedora-system:FedoraObject-3.0","info:fedora/afmodel:CoreFile"],"objCreateDate":"2016-06-28T20:17:43Z","objLastModDate":"2023-05-18T15:27:56Z","objDissIndexViewURL":"http://localhost:8080/fedora/objects/neu%3Acj82n8154/methods/fedora-system%3A3/viewMethodIndex","objItemIndexViewURL":"http://localhost:8080/fedora/objects/neu%3Acj82n8154/methods/fedora-system%3A3/viewItemIndex","objState":"A"}
northeastern:drs:library:archives
northeastern:drs:repository:staff
public
001674299
neu:rx914f665
neu:rx914f665
001674299
001674299
/downloads/neu:m040b0410?datastream_id=thumbnail_1
/downloads/neu:m040b0410?datastream_id=thumbnail_2
/downloads/neu:m040b0410?datastream_id=thumbnail_3
/downloads/neu:m040b0410?datastream_id=thumbnail_4
/downloads/neu:m040b0410?datastream_id=thumbnail_5
/downloads/neu:m040b0410?datastream_id=thumbnail_1
/downloads/neu:m040b0410?datastream_id=thumbnail_2
/downloads/neu:m040b0410?datastream_id=thumbnail_3
/downloads/neu:m040b0410?datastream_id=thumbnail_4
/downloads/neu:m040b0410?datastream_id=thumbnail_5
PdfFile
PdfFile
neu:rx914f665
001674299
/downloads/neu:m040b0410?datastream_id=thumbnail_1
/downloads/neu:m040b0410?datastream_id=thumbnail_2
/downloads/neu:m040b0410?datastream_id=thumbnail_3
/downloads/neu:m040b0410?datastream_id=thumbnail_4
/downloads/neu:m040b0410?datastream_id=thumbnail_5
PdfFile
What the busing fuss is about: Getting black and white pupils on equal footing..
What the busing fuss is about: Getting black and white pupils on equal footing..
What the busing fuss is about
What the busing fuss is about
Getting black and white pupils on equal footing.
Getting black and white pupils on equal footing.
Photograph of black and white children in the classroom.
Photographer
Photographer
newspapers
Metropolitan Council for Educational Opportunity (METCO)
Metropolitan Council for Educational Opportunity (METCO)
1974
1974
Donated by Metropolitan Council of Educational Opportunity (METCO)
This project was partially funded by the Boston Library Consortium.
African American students
Massachusetts
Boston
African Americans
Education
Massachusetts
Boston
Busing for school integration
Massachusetts
Boston
Public schools
Massachusetts
Boston
School integration
Massachusetts
Boston
Segregation in education
Massachusetts
Boston
African American students
Massachusetts
Boston
African Americans
Education
Massachusetts
Boston
Busing for school integration
Massachusetts
Boston
Public schools
Massachusetts
Boston
School integration
Massachusetts
Boston
Segregation in education
Massachusetts
Boston
Boston Public Schools
Metropolitan Council for Educational Opportunity (Boston, Mass.)
Boston Public Schools
Boston Public Schools
Metropolitan Council for Educational Opportunity (Boston, Mass.)
Boston Public Schools
Metropolitan Council for Educational Opportunity (Boston, Mass.)
Metropolitan Council for Educational Opportunity (Boston, Mass.)
http://hdl.handle.net/2047/D20211695
http://hdl.handle.net/2047/D20211695
M101.B042.F023.011
M101.B042.F023.011
African American students
Massachusetts
Boston
African Americans
Education
Massachusetts
Boston
Busing for school integration
Massachusetts
Boston
Public schools
Massachusetts
Boston
School integration
Massachusetts
Boston
Segregation in education
Massachusetts
Boston
What the busing fuss is about
What the busing fuss is about: getting black and white pupils on equal footing.
Metropolitan Council for Educational Opportunity, Inc. records (M101)
Administration, 1960-2005 (bulk 1966-1990)
What the busing fuss is about: Getting black and white pupils on equal footing..
what the busing fuss is about getting black and white pupils on equal footing
1974/01/01
approximate
What the busing fuss is about
1974
African American students Massachusetts Boston
African Americans Education Massachusetts Boston
Busing for school integration Massachusetts Boston
Public schools Massachusetts Boston
School integration Massachusetts Boston
Segregation in education Massachusetts Boston
Boston Public Schools
Metropolitan Council for Educational Opportunity (Boston, Mass.)
Falkenberg, Barth J.
Falkenberg, Barth J.
Falkenberg, Barth J.
Boston, Massachusetts
info:fedora/afmodel:CoreFile
info:fedora/neu:rx914f665
HRISTIAN SCIENce ONITO (M) BOSTO , MAS. 0. 187,897 J N 1 5 1974 New England NeW'Sclip Suburbs cool to bUsing proposal LegiSlatorS say they doubt Kerrigan bill has votes to pass; plan would bus 19,0QO·black pupils to 85 cities and towns By Stephen Silha Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor Boston A proposal to desegregate Boston's public schools by busing 19,000 black · pupils out of the city to 85 suburban communities is not warmly welcomed in those towns. Natick School Committee Chair• man Paul Ambler's reaction echoed those of other suburban parents and school officials canvassed by th~ Monitor: "We just don't have that kind of space. Taking 224 more kids would require constructing more buildings. "I think it's a grandiose scheme to get the Boston School Committee off the hook." Proposal spelled out _ John J. Kerrigan, Boston School Committee chairman, filed a bill in the State Legislature to set up such a massive busing program - a "met• ropolitanized approach'' - upon re• turning from a trip to Detroit. School officials there are awaiting a U.S. Supreme Court decision on whether suburbs must help with court-ordered desegregation of city schools. At a Boston School Committee meeting Monday, Mr. Kerrigan pro• posed: • Expanding tenfold the Metco ,program, which now b~ses 1,9oo"b'iiCk' Boston students on a voluntary basis to suburban schools. • Filing an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in the Detroit case, supporting the Detroit public schools' contention that suburbs must help with integration. While state legislative leaders say they support the educational aims of the Kerrigan legislation, they gravely doubt it will pass. ''The votes are not there," commented Senate President Kevin B. Harrington (D) of Salem. "A variation of the same plan has been offered several times in the past and voted down overwhelmingly each .time." Decisions pending Like most other suburban school officials, Hingham Superintendent William Mahoney does not see busing as a solution to Boston's school prob• lems: ''The school is an institution that should be an outgrowth of the community," he observes. "It's un• fair to penalize Boston children by shipping them out of their commu• nities." What happens in Boston hinges to an extent on court decisions in De• troit, Denver, and Louisville. A Bos• ton suit by parents claiming their children were denied rights to an equal education will be decided - probably this spring - by Federal District Judge Arthur Garrity Jr. A U.S. Supreme Court deadlock on a similar case-which in effect ruled out a metropolitan plan in Richmond, Va., last May - has thrown the emotion-charged desegregation issue back into the national political arena. Law passed in '65 But locally, Boston has been under pressure to integrate since passage in 1965 of unique state law - the Massachusetts Racial Imbalance Act - forbidding schools .to have a non• white population over 50 percent. Boston schools imbalance expert, Associate Superintendent Charles W. Leftwich, has said the city would comply with a court order to submit proposed changes - that were due Monday- in a state plan to racially "balance" Boston schools by Septem• ber. State Supreme Court Justice Francis J. Quirico had continued the court's hearing until Tuesday to see if Boston and Springfield would comply with the order to submit specific plans. State lawyers said the two cities would not meet the deadline. 'Oldies make decisions' John Houston, superintendent of schools in Medford, says he thinks Boston "can integrate the schools within their area. Then they can talk about suburban exchanges.'' Mary Mears, who sits on the school committee in suburban Winchester, · quips, ·"I'd like to see the kids tell. these lawyers, judges, and well• meaning school-committee people that busing is the answer. Us oldies are always making those decisions.'' She adds: ''It may be the answer, but I'll have to see it.". Mr. Leftwich says he personally believes that the . Kerrigan proposal "does not go far enough. "It should not be limited to one-way busing," he counters. "People are not seeing this as an educational prob• lem. We're only seeing stopgap pro• posals.'' He says research shows educational quality increasing when socioeco• nomic barriers are removed and children of different backgrounds learn together.
2023-05-18T15:27:56.684Z
2023-05-26T02:27:13Z
A
CoreFile
neu:rx9148817
{"datastreams":{"RELS-EXT":{"dsLabel":"Fedora Object-to-Object Relationship Metadata","dsVersionID":"RELS-EXT.2","dsCreateDate":"2016-08-09T16:25:18Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"application/rdf+xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"X","dsSize":425,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:rx9148817+RELS-EXT+RELS-EXT.2","dsLocationType":null,"dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"rightsMetadata":{"dsLabel":null,"dsVersionID":"rightsMetadata.2","dsCreateDate":"2015-05-04T17:27:30Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"M","dsSize":647,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:rx9148817+rightsMetadata+rightsMetadata.2","dsLocationType":"INTERNAL_ID","dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"DC":{"dsLabel":"Dublin Core Record for this object","dsVersionID":"DC.10","dsCreateDate":"2023-05-26T02:27:13Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":"http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/","dsControlGroup":"X","dsSize":2154,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:rx9148817+DC+DC.10","dsLocationType":null,"dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"properties":{"dsLabel":null,"dsVersionID":"properties.6","dsCreateDate":"2016-08-09T16:25:18Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"M","dsSize":737,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:rx9148817+properties+properties.6","dsLocationType":"INTERNAL_ID","dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"mods":{"dsLabel":null,"dsVersionID":"mods.10","dsCreateDate":"2023-05-26T02:27:12Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"M","dsSize":5480,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:rx9148817+mods+mods.10","dsLocationType":"INTERNAL_ID","dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"}},"objLabel":"m94b3f17_004.tif","objOwnerId":"fedoraAdmin","objModels":["info:fedora/fedora-system:FedoraObject-3.0","info:fedora/afmodel:CoreFile"],"objCreateDate":"2015-05-04T17:25:58Z","objLastModDate":"2023-05-26T02:27:13Z","objDissIndexViewURL":"http://localhost:8080/fedora/objects/neu%3Arx9148817/methods/fedora-system%3A3/viewMethodIndex","objItemIndexViewURL":"http://localhost:8080/fedora/objects/neu%3Arx9148817/methods/fedora-system%3A3/viewItemIndex","objState":"A"}
northeastern:drs:library:archives
northeastern:drs:repository:staff
public
000509625
neu:rx914f665
neu:rx914f665
000509625
000509625
/downloads/neu:rx914885b?datastream_id=thumbnail_1
/downloads/neu:rx914885b?datastream_id=thumbnail_2
/downloads/neu:rx914885b?datastream_id=thumbnail_3
/downloads/neu:rx914885b?datastream_id=thumbnail_4
/downloads/neu:rx914885b?datastream_id=thumbnail_5
/downloads/neu:rx914885b?datastream_id=thumbnail_1
/downloads/neu:rx914885b?datastream_id=thumbnail_2
/downloads/neu:rx914885b?datastream_id=thumbnail_3
/downloads/neu:rx914885b?datastream_id=thumbnail_4
/downloads/neu:rx914885b?datastream_id=thumbnail_5
ImageMasterFile
ImageMasterFile
neu:rx914f665
000509625
/downloads/neu:rx914885b?datastream_id=thumbnail_1
/downloads/neu:rx914885b?datastream_id=thumbnail_2
/downloads/neu:rx914885b?datastream_id=thumbnail_3
/downloads/neu:rx914885b?datastream_id=thumbnail_4
/downloads/neu:rx914885b?datastream_id=thumbnail_5
ImageMasterFile
Freedom School check-in.
Freedom School check-in.
Freedom School check-in.
Freedom School check-in.
This photo shows a student checking into a Freedom School hosted for a Freedom Stay-Out Day boycott in 1964, probably for the February 26th boycott.
photographs
1964-02-26
1964-02-26
Donated by Phyllis M. Ryan
African American students
Massachusetts
Boston
African Americans
Education
Massachusetts
Boston
Demonstrations
Massachusetts
Boston
Discrimination in education
Massachusetts
Boston
African American students
Massachusetts
Boston
African Americans
Education
Massachusetts
Boston
Demonstrations
Massachusetts
Boston
Discrimination in education
Massachusetts
Boston
Massachusetts Freedom Schools
Massachusetts Freedom Schools
Massachusetts Freedom Schools
Massachusetts Freedom Schools
http://hdl.handle.net/2047/D20128892
http://hdl.handle.net/2047/D20128892
m94b3f17_004
m94b3f17_004
African American students
Massachusetts
Boston
African Americans
Education
Massachusetts
Boston
Demonstrations
Massachusetts
Boston
Discrimination in education
Massachusetts
Boston
Freedom School check-in.
Phyllis M. Ryan papers (M94)
Social Justice and Political Activities, 1959-1988
Freedom School check-in.
freedom school checkin
1964/02/26
inferred
Freedom School check-in.
1964-02-26
African American students Massachusetts Boston
African Americans Education Massachusetts Boston
Demonstrations Massachusetts Boston
Discrimination in education Massachusetts Boston
Massachusetts Freedom Schools
info:fedora/afmodel:CoreFile
info:fedora/neu:rx914f665
2023-05-26T03:50:53.115Z
2023-05-17T15:27:29Z
A
CoreFile
neu:cj82kf46t
{"datastreams":{"RELS-EXT":{"dsLabel":"Fedora Object-to-Object Relationship Metadata","dsVersionID":"RELS-EXT.1","dsCreateDate":"2016-02-02T19:05:39Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"application/rdf+xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"X","dsSize":425,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:cj82kf46t+RELS-EXT+RELS-EXT.1","dsLocationType":null,"dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"rightsMetadata":{"dsLabel":null,"dsVersionID":"rightsMetadata.2","dsCreateDate":"2016-02-02T19:06:53Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"M","dsSize":709,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:cj82kf46t+rightsMetadata+rightsMetadata.2","dsLocationType":"INTERNAL_ID","dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"DC":{"dsLabel":"Dublin Core Record for this object","dsVersionID":"DC.13","dsCreateDate":"2023-05-17T15:27:29Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":"http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/","dsControlGroup":"X","dsSize":2408,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:cj82kf46t+DC+DC.13","dsLocationType":null,"dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"properties":{"dsLabel":null,"dsVersionID":"properties.5","dsCreateDate":"2016-02-02T19:08:49Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"M","dsSize":704,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:cj82kf46t+properties+properties.5","dsLocationType":"INTERNAL_ID","dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"},"mods":{"dsLabel":null,"dsVersionID":"mods.12","dsCreateDate":"2023-05-17T15:27:28Z","dsState":"A","dsMIME":"text/xml","dsFormatURI":null,"dsControlGroup":"M","dsSize":8016,"dsVersionable":true,"dsInfoType":null,"dsLocation":"neu:cj82kf46t+mods+mods.12","dsLocationType":"INTERNAL_ID","dsChecksumType":"DISABLED","dsChecksum":"none"}},"objLabel":"Frieda Garcia_0001.pdf","objOwnerId":"fedoraAdmin","objModels":["info:fedora/fedora-system:FedoraObject-3.0","info:fedora/afmodel:CoreFile"],"objCreateDate":"2016-02-02T19:05:34Z","objLastModDate":"2023-05-17T15:27:29Z","objDissIndexViewURL":"http://localhost:8080/fedora/objects/neu%3Acj82kf46t/methods/fedora-system%3A3/viewMethodIndex","objItemIndexViewURL":"http://localhost:8080/fedora/objects/neu%3Acj82kf46t/methods/fedora-system%3A3/viewItemIndex","objState":"A"}
northeastern:drs:library:archives
northeastern:drs:repository:staff
public
001674299
neu:rx914f665
neu:rx914f665
001674299
001674299
/downloads/neu:m039vf49m?datastream_id=thumbnail_1
/downloads/neu:m039vf49m?datastream_id=thumbnail_2
/downloads/neu:m039vf49m?datastream_id=thumbnail_3
/downloads/neu:m039vf49m?datastream_id=thumbnail_4
/downloads/neu:m039vf49m?datastream_id=thumbnail_5
/downloads/neu:m039vf49m?datastream_id=thumbnail_1
/downloads/neu:m039vf49m?datastream_id=thumbnail_2
/downloads/neu:m039vf49m?datastream_id=thumbnail_3
/downloads/neu:m039vf49m?datastream_id=thumbnail_4
/downloads/neu:m039vf49m?datastream_id=thumbnail_5
PdfFile
PdfFile
neu:rx914f665
001674299
/downloads/neu:m039vf49m?datastream_id=thumbnail_1
/downloads/neu:m039vf49m?datastream_id=thumbnail_2
/downloads/neu:m039vf49m?datastream_id=thumbnail_3
/downloads/neu:m039vf49m?datastream_id=thumbnail_4
/downloads/neu:m039vf49m?datastream_id=thumbnail_5
PdfFile
Desegregation: The Boston orders and their origin..
Desegregation: The Boston orders and their origin..
Desegregation
Desegregation
The Boston orders and their origin.
The Boston orders and their origin.
Contains information regarding the desegregation orders from a legal perspective.
Author
Author
Author
Author
Author
Author
articles
Boston Bar Association
Boston Bar Association
1975-08
1975-08
This project was partially funded by the Boston Library Consortium.
African Americans
Education
Massachusetts
Boston
Civil rights
Massachusetts
Boston
Discrimination in education
Massachusetts
Boston
Public schools
Massachusetts
Boston
School integration
Massachusetts
Boston
Segregation in education
Massachusetts
Boston
African Americans
Education
Massachusetts
Boston
Civil rights
Massachusetts
Boston
Discrimination in education
Massachusetts
Boston
Public schools
Massachusetts
Boston
School integration
Massachusetts
Boston
Segregation in education
Massachusetts
Boston
Garrity W. Arthur (Wendell Arthur) 1920-1999
Boston Public Schools
Boston Bar Association
Garrity W. Arthur (Wendell Arthur) 1920-1999
Boston Public Schools
Boston Public Schools
Boston Bar Association
Boston Public Schools
Boston Bar Association
Boston Bar Association
http://hdl.handle.net/2047/D20201248
http://hdl.handle.net/2047/D20201248
Frieda Garcia_0001
Frieda Garcia_0001
African Americans
Education
Massachusetts
Boston
Civil rights
Massachusetts
Boston
Discrimination in education
Massachusetts
Boston
Public schools
Massachusetts
Boston
School integration
Massachusetts
Boston
Segregation in education
Massachusetts
Boston
Desegregation
Desegregation: The Boston orders and their origin.
Frieda Garcia papers (Z15-038)
Desegregation: The Boston orders and their origin..
desegregation the boston orders and their origin
1975/08/01
Desegregation
1975-08
African Americans Education Massachusetts Boston
Civil rights Massachusetts Boston
Discrimination in education Massachusetts Boston
Public schools Massachusetts Boston
School integration Massachusetts Boston
Segregation in education Massachusetts Boston
Garrity W. Arthur (Wendell Arthur) 1920-1999
Boston Public Schools
Boston Bar Association
Adkins, John F.
Adkins, John F.
Adkins, John F.
McHugh, James R.
Seay, Katherine
Adkins, John F.
McHugh, James R.
Seay, Katherine
Adkins, John F.
Boston, Massachusetts
info:fedora/afmodel:CoreFile
info:fedora/neu:rx914f665
DESEGREGATION: The Boston Orders and Their Origin Written by John F. Adkins James R. McHugh Katherine Seay Boston Bar Association Committee on Desegregation August 1975 Table of Contents I Introduction .............................................. . I II The Power of The United States District Courts 2 III The Equal Protection Clause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 IV The Decisions of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I6 A The Findings and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I6 B The Remedy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 I General Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 2 The Citywide School District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3 Community School Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 4 Administration and Supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5 School Closings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 6 Student Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 7 Suburbs and Continuing Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 C The Appeals 34 V Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 VI Appendix: Sources for Information and Assistance Relating to De• segregation, Busing, School Regulations, Student Rights and Crim- inal Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Committee on Desegregation Edward I. Masterman Chairman John F. Adkins Richard Bancroft Edward J. Barshak John E. Beard John G. Brooks Harvey M. Burg A. Franklin Burgess, Jr. C. Ronald Chester Philip M . Cronin Andrew C. Culbert Michael B. Elefante Valerie C. Epps Harrison A. Fitch Laurence S. Fordham Sumner B. Gillette Burton M. Harris Richard M. Harter Barbara L. Hassenfeld Herbert H. Hershfang Robert L. Holloway, Jr. William P. Homans, Jr. John C. Kane, Jr. Patrick J. King, Jr. Evan T. Lawson Crystal C. Lloyd William F. Looney Jon a than J. Margolis John H. Mason James F. McHugh Elizabeth Molodovsky Richard L. Neumeier Dean John C. O'Byrne Dennis M. O'Dea John A. Ritsher William 0. Rizzo Allan R. Rosenberg Francis J. Sally Carl M . Sapers Dean David J. Sargent Katherine W. Seay Jon E. Steffensen Laura Steinberg HowardS. Whiteside Mrs. Rya Zobel William A. Zucker Preface The Boston Bar Association Committee on Desegregation was organized with the intention that its members would act as a source of information for individuals and groups involved in and affected by the desegregation orders. Its members have familiarized themselves with all of the orders and the background law, and are available, upon request, to meet with anyone interested in an objective commentary on the law as well as our under• standing of the Phase II plan. As lawyers, we are committed to the Rule of Law as we are committed to this community which must live under the Rule of Law. We believe that this document carefully presents in layman's language what the orders and our constitution are all about. Our hope is that it will make a contribution to a better understanding of the background and of the orders, for we believe that with understanding will come greater support for the Rule of Law. This book was prepared by three members of our committee, John F. Adkins, James F. McHugh, and Katherine W. Seay, who devoted scores of hours to this important project. We are indebted to them for a highly in• structive and professional job. · .. ""-· Edward I. Masterman Chairman I Introduction On June 21, 1974, the United States District Court for the District of Massa• chusetts concluded that, over a number of years, the School Committee of the City of Boston intentionally and purposely had maintained a system of racial segregation in the Boston Public Schools. Because of that conclusion, the Court, on the same day, issued an order prohibiting the members of the Boston School Committee and the Superintendent of Schools for the City of Boston from discriminating on the basis of race in any aspect of the operation of the Boston Public Schools and requiring them "to begin forth• with" to put into effect plans which would eliminate every form of racial discrimination in those schools. June 21, 1974, of course, was not the first date on which a United States District Court had issued such an order. During the twenty-year period be• ginning in 1954, numerous other United States District Courts had reached similar conclusions about the operation of public schools in various cities throughout the United States and had issued similar orders. June 21, how• ever, was the first time a federal court had issued such an order concerning Boston Public Schools and the effect of that order was indeed significant. In its wake came much change, some violence and, above all, extensive public debate and questioning. Unfortunately, the reasons for the District Court's order and opinion of June 21, 1974 are not always understood. Equally often misunderstood are the nature of the power possessed by the District Court, the role played by that Court and similar courts in governmental affairs and the source of the law applied by the District Court in reaching the conclusions it reached both on June 21 and thereafter. Unfortunately, too, without at least some understanding of those matters, meaningful discussion, debate and criticism are virtually impossible. The purpose of this pamphlet is basically threefold. First is to outline both the power of the United States District Court for the District of Massa• chusetts and the source of the law it applied in its opinion of June 21 , 1974 as well as in those opinions and orders which followed. Second is to discuss briefly the contents of the opinions and orders of the Court concerning segregation in the Boston public schools. Third is to provide a list of various resources which are·· ;vailable to help in resolving specific problems which may arise with respect to implementation of the various court orders or for further explanation of those orders themselves. Obviously, in a pamphlet of this size it would be impossible to repeat all that has been written about school desegregation, the Constitution of the United States and the role of the federal courts in governmental affairs. The volumes of material written on those subjects fill many bookshelves and, 2 Desegregation: The Boston Orders and Their Origin indeed, many libraries. All that this pamphlet can hope to achieve is the presentation, basically in outline form, of various matters which may help to understand the recent orders of the District Court. The Boston Bar Association, as well as other groups within the City of Boston, are prepared to discuss additional aspects of the Court's order, and the reasons for them, upon request. II The Power of the United States District Courts The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts is one of 94 United States District Courts currently operating in the United States and its territories. Approximately 490 judges sit on- that is, are employed by- those 94 courts. Judge W. Arthur Garrity, Jr. is one of those 490. Sitting on the United States District Court for the District of Massachusets along with Judge Garrity are five other judges plus two "senior", or retired, judges who decide cases from time to time. Those five are Judges Caffrey, Murray, Freedman, Tauro (whose father is Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, the highest state court in the Commonwealth) and Skinner. The two Senior Judges are Judges Wyzanski and Julian. The power of all of the United States District Courts comes basically from the Constitution of the United States, a relatively short document, copies of which may be purchased for $.yo in the U. S. Government Book• store in the basement of the J. F. K. Federal Building on Cambridge Street in downtown Boston. The Constitution is an agreement- a kind of contract- among all of the people of the United States. It was written by representatives of r2 of the r3 original states, including 2 representatives from Massachusetts. Those representatives- called the "framers" of the Constitution- first gathered in Philadelphia on May 25, r787 in the Constitutional Convention. Four months later, on September ry, r787, they presented to the states a proposed Constitution to be put into effect as soon as 9 of the r3 states approved it. By June 2r, ry88, less than one year later, 9 states had approved the pro• posed Constitution. George Washington was inaugurated as the first Presi• dent on April 30, r789 to formally begin operation of the Constitution as the framework for government of the United States. Essentially, the Constitution contains two kinds of provisions or terms. One is what might be called the organizational terms- that is, those terms which organize and divide the Government of the United States into its three principal branches. The other is what might be called the operational terms- that is, those terms which state the fundamental rules which must be followed by state and federal governments in the course of their operations. 3 The Power of the United States District Courts The first three Articles, or chapters, contain the basic organizational terms of the Constitution. The first Article, and the longest in the entire Constitution, describes the powers of the Congress of the United States. The Congress, says the first Article, consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The first Article also provides that the House and Senate to• gether have all of the "legislative" powers of the Government of the United States. While the Constitution does not contain a specific definition of the term "legislative" power, it appears both from history and from the lan• guage of Article I as a whole that the "legislative" power essentially is the power to pass laws of broad and general application throughout the United States. The second Article of the Constitution describes the function of the Presi- dent of the United States as well as the method- since changed by amend• ment- by which he was to be elected and the method and reasons for his removal from office. The second Article also states that the "executive" power of the Government of the United States is placed in the President. Again, the term "executive" is not specifically defined in the Constitution but it appears nonetheless that that power essentially is the power to carry out the day-to-day operations of the Government of the United States and includes the power and duty to enforce all of the laws of the United States. Article III of the Constitution deals with the organization and power of the courts of the United States and is the shortest of the first three Articles. The courts described in Article III are federal courts only. It is important to understand that neither Article III, nor any other part of the Constitution, has anything to do with the organization of the state courts of Massachusetts such as the Supreme Judicial Court, the Suffolk Superior Court, the Boston Municipal Court, the South Boston District Court or the Roxbury District Court, nor does it have anything to do with the organization of any other court of any other state. Those state courts are organized, and operate, under rules contained in state constitutions and laws. Article III of the Constitution says only that there must be one Supreme Court. It says that all other federal courts shall be those that the Congress sees fit to establish from time to ti1ne. Thus, the United States Supreme Court exists because it is required to by the Constitution but all other federal courts, including the United States District Court for the District of Massa• chusetts, exist only because Congress has passed a law creating them. Congress has created a number of different kinds of courts under the power given to it by Article III, but 2 are of more general importance than the rest. First are the Federal Cot,uts of Appeals, sometimes called Cir• cuit Courts, and Congress has created I I of those. Second are the United States District Courts and Congress has created 94 of those. In every state, there is at least one Federal District Court and some of the larger states have as many as 4· Appeals from those District Courts go to one of the II Circuit Courts and then, if necessary, to the Supreme Court of the United States. 4 Desegregation: The Boston Orders and Their Origin Even though Article III of the Constitution says that Congress should decide whether to set up federal courts other than the Supreme Court, the Constitution itself contains a number of terms which apply to the judges who sit on those courts Congress does decide to establish. First of all, Article II of the Constitution, which deals with the powers of the President, says that the President has the power to nominate all federal judges and that his nominations are to be submitted to the Senate for its approval. Every judge on the Supreme Court of the United States, on a Federal Court of Appeals, or on a Federal District Court has been nominated by a President and has been approved by the Senate. Judge Garrity, for example, was nominated for his position by President Johnson. The Senate approved that nomination and he was sworn in as a judge on June 24, 1966. Second, Article III of the Constitution says that all federal judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." That means that all federal judges are appointed for life and may be removed from office only under a very limited set of circum• stances, generally involving commission of serious crimes or other impro• prieties. Removal of a federal judge from office can be ordered only after an impeachment proceeding similar to the one begun in the Summer of 1974 with respect to former President Nixon. Third, Article III of the Constitu• tion says that the salary paid to a federal judge may not be reduced while he remains in office. The provisions of Article III dealing with the lifetime terms of judges and their pay while in office were intended by the framers of the Constitution to insure that, insofar as was possible, judges would be wholly independent of the legislative and executive branches of the Government. The framers feared, for example, that, without a provision in the Constitution prohibit• ing reduction of the salary of a judge while he was in office, a Congress which became angry at the decisions of a particular judge could reduce his salary to the point where he would have to resign and find another job sim• ply to support himself. Similarly, they felt that if a judge was appointed to his office by the President only for a limited number of years, pressure could be brought to bear on him to decide cases in a certain way by those who had the power to prevent his reappointment when his term expired. In order to insure that the courts were a branch of Government equal to the other two, then, the Constitution gave all federal judges a large amount of freedom from external pressure. Just as Article I says that the "legislative" power is given to the Congress, and Article II says that the "executive" power is given to the President, Article III says that the "judicial" power of the United States is given to the federal courts. Basically, the judicial power is limited to the power to re• solve certain kinds of disputes which arise either between citizens of the United States or between citizens of the United States and the Government. The "judicial" power does not include, for example, the power to declare war or the power to pass a broad Civil Rights Act. The Constitution says that both of those powers are "legislative" and specifically give them to the Congress. Similarly, the "judicial" power does not include the power to 5 The Power of the United States District Courts direct operations of the Army or Navy or the power to arrest people sus• pected of committing crimes. Both of those powers are said by the Consti• tution to be "executive" in nature and are given to the President. In essence, the dispute-resolving power of the federal courts is the power to referee the conduct both of citizens of the United States and of govern• mental organizations and thus to decide when rules governing that conduct have been broken. Some of the most basic rules concerning governmental conduct are found in the Constitution itself. If the Congress passes a law which some citizen believes Congress has no power to pass because of the terms of the Constitution, it is the job of the federal courts to resolve the dispute between citizen and government thus created. The court will resolve that dispute by determining whether the rules contained in the Constitu• tion do or do not permit Congress to pass the law in question. Since many parts of the Constitution are written in very broad language, the court often must interpret that language in order to determine the appropriate constitu• tional rule for resolution of the dispute presented to it. Rules contained in the Constitution are not the only rules with which the federal courts ordinarily deal. Others are found in laws passed by Congress, in laws passed by state legislatures, and even in private contracts between various people. When it deals with rules found in laws passed by Congress, or even in private contracts, the job of the federal court is essentially the same as it is when it deals with rules found in the Constitution. Congress, for example, has passed a law which says simply that industrial "monopo• lies" are unlawful and forbidden. For another example, private contracts between two people for construction of a house often say that the house must be built of "first quality" materials. Both the prohibition against mo• nopolies and the requirement that the house be constructed of first quality materials are rules which must be followed by the persons to whom they apply. If disputes arise concerning whether an individual has followed those rules, it is often the job of the federal court to decide whether he has. The "judicial" power given to the federal courts by Article III of the Con• stitution, however, goes beyond the power simply to decide which of the disputing parties before it has followed the proper rules of conduct. That power also includes the power to decide what should be done if the court decides that one party or the other in fact broke an applicable rule. In other words, the judicial power to resolve disputes necessarily includes the power to order an appropriate remedy. If, for example, the federal court determines that a law passed by Congress violates the Constitution, its remedy often may be simply an order '"that that law may not be enforced by any agent or official of the Government. Similarly: if it finds that rules contained in a contract have been broken, it may order the person who broke the rule to pay damages to another person to compensate him for the harm he suf• fered as a result. Once the federal court has made a determination that a rule has been broken, has ordered the remedy which is to be applied for violation of that rule, and all appeals are over, no one can change that order. If, for example, 6 Desegregation: The Boston Orders and Their 0Iigin the court decides that a rule contained in a contract was broken and that the person who broke it should pay damages to another person, Congress cannot pass a law saying that the contract was not broken and no damages are owed. If the Congress could pass such a law, then the courts would not be truly an independent branch of Government for everything they did could be undone by Congress if it chose to do so. Under some circum• stances, it might be possible to alter a final decision and order of a federal court by passing a constitutional amendment. Since the Constitution says that an amendment requires approval of 38 of the so states, however, pas• sage would be extremely difficult to accmnplish. Indeed, in the r86 years that our Constitution has been in effect, it has been amended on only I? occasions. Moreover, only a carefully-drawn amendment could do anything 1nore than prohibit a federal court from reaching the same decision or promulgating the same kind of order after the amendment became effective. From the foregoing, it is clear that the Consitution gives to the federal courts a great deal of power. Moreover, by giving that power to the courts, the Constitution gives it to individuals who are not elected and who, once appointed, ordinarily stay in their position for the remainder of their lives. The Constitution also insulates those individuals from the pressure and in• fluence to which those in other branches of Government commonly are exposed. This does not mean, however, that the power of the federal courts, or of the judges who sit on them, is unlimited. Indeed, those powers are limited in at least six important ways. First of all, the Constitution li1nits the kinds of disputes which the federal courts may resolve to nine basic categories. For present purposes, the most important of those categories concern disputes which can be resolved only by interpreting and applying rules contained in either the Constitution of the United States itself or in laws passed by Congress. In addition, Con• gress has passed laws which limit in a variety of ways the kinds of disputes involving the Constitution or federal laws which may be heard and resolved by a federal court. The federal courts thus have a relatively narrow range of jurisdiction and a very large nurnber of disputes are simply beyond their power to resolve. Second, unlike the Congress or executive, the courts are passive agencies. They do not have the power to go out on their own, discover apparent violations of the Constitution or laws of the United States, bring the alleged violators into court and then devise appropriate remedies for the violations they have found. Instead, they 1nust wait until some citizen or agency of the Government decides that a rule apparently has been violated and brings the alleged violation to the attention of the court by beginning a law suit. The Congress and the President, of course, can, and often do, start their own investigations and propose solutions to the problems which those investi• gations uncover. The courts, however, must wait until others come to them with an apparent violation of applicable rules. 7 The Power of the United States District Courts Third, the courts are not wholly free to resolve the disputes presented to them based on their own ideas of what the applicable rules are. Instead, they must follow precedent- that is, they must look to see whether a similar kind of dispute was resolved by a court at some time in the past and, if it was, generally they must resolve the current dispute in the same way. If the relevant precedent was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States or of a Federal Court of Appeals, then a Federal District Court must follow that decision. If, however, the relevant precedent was a decision of a Federal District Court, then a District Court may refuse to follow it but will only do so under extraordinary circumstances. The rule that courts 1nust follow precedent is essentially a rule designed to insure that all people with the same kind of dispute are treated alike by the courts and that, once a controversy is resolved by a court in a certain way, others can rely on that resolution to plan their own conduct. Of course, the Supreme Court can, and sometimes does, overrule its own precedent by resolving a dispute in a manner completely different from the manner in which it resolved a similar dispute earlier. It does so extremely infre• quently, however. In its history the Court has decided about 3o,ooo cases and only about rso of those overruled earlier decisions. Even when the Court does overrule an earlier decision, it is not thereby setting up a new set of rules purely to suit its own fancy. Instead, it is giving frank recognition to the fact that, as times change, so do conditions in the society and thus the con• siderations which ought to bear on interpretation of the sometimes ambigu• ous language of the Constitution. Fourth, the courts have no power to do anything unless they determine that a rule contained in the Constitution, in the laws of the United States or in some other appropriate place has been violated. If some one comes into a federal court, for example, complaining that various automobile manufacturers are making cars which pollute the atmosphere, the court cannot order the automobile 1nanufacturers to build different kinds of cars which pollute less simply because it does not like pollution and thinks that less would be better for society. Instead, the court must determine whether any law passed by Congress requires the manufacturers of automobiles to build cars which create less pollution than the cars which they in fact are making. If it finds that there is such a law and that the manufacturers have violated it then it can order them to comply and may be able to award the person who started the law suit damages because they did not do so earlier. Until the court finds such a violation, however, it is powerless to do any- thing regardless of its own preferences. . Fifth, the court, in ordering a particular kind of remedy after finding that a rule has been broken, generally has the power only to put an individual in as good a position as the one in which he would have been if the appli• cable rule had not been broken in the first place. Everyone knows, for example, the general rule that you cannot build a house on property you do not own. Suppose, however, that Smith builds a house on property owned by Jones and Jones, when he discovers what Smith has done, sues 8 Desegregation : The Boston Orders and Their Origin him. After the court decides that Smith had no right to build his house on Jones' property, it can order Smith to tear the house down, remove the foundation and replant whatever grass and trees he dug up in the course of building it. That remedy is designed to place Jones in just as good a posi• tion as he would have been if Smith had not built the house in the first place. The court cannot go further, however, and order Smith to tear down all of his other houses or to build a new house for Jones, for to do so would be to do more than simply restore Jones to his old position. Sixth and finally, the court, in general, has limited means to enforce the orders it issues. Usually, it must rely either on voluntary compliance with those orders by the individuals whom they affect or on the President and executive branch of Government to take affirmative action to see that the orders are carried out. The court can hold people in contempt under appropriate circumstances if they fail to carry out its orders and does have available to it a few marshals who can physically go out to find the person held in contempt, bring him before the court and then take him to a jail. The number of marshals the court has available to it, however, is very small and, by themselves, they cannot effectively enforce any complicated order affecting more than a handful of people. If there is no voluntary compli• ance, the main source of enforcement must come from the executive branch of the Government. The fact that the executive branch of Government enforces orders made by the courts is a primary example of the dedication to the rule of law which has been an essential element of our system of government since its beginning. It was that dedication which led President Eisenhower to send federal troops into Little Rock, Arkansas to prevent interference with court• ordered desegregation of Central High School in I957· It was that dedica• tion which led President Kennedy to send federal troops to Oxford, Missis• sippi to prevent interference with court-ordered desegregation of the University of Mississippi in r962. It is that dedication which will lead any President to use federal troops again in the unfortunate event that there is substantial interference with court-ordered desegregation anywhere else. In sum, the Constitution gives the "judicial" powers to the federal courts in a careful and thoughtful fashion. It limits those powers by limiting the jurisdiction of the courts, by denying to them a "self-starting" function, by limiting the manner in which they may exercise their powers and by en• trusting enforcement of their orders to another branch of Government. Once having limited those powers, however, the Constitution insures that they can be exercised effectively by insulating federal judges from the normal political pressures felt by others who occupy offices in the federal govern• ment and by prohibiting anyone from revising or annulling final orders they issue. The Constitution thus insures that rhe power of the courts, though limited, is indeed an effective part of the system of "checks and balances" mandated by the Constitution as a whole. III The Equal Protection Clause As stated earlier, in addition to setting forth an outline of the organization of the Government of the United States, the Constitution also contains the broad rules for operation of the Government it organizes. Many of the most important of those rules are contained in the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, better known as the "Bill of Rights". The Constitution, as initially written, approved and put into effect, contained none of the pro• visions of the Bill of Rights. Many of the framers believed that it was not necessary to list all of the guarantees of those Amendments, believing as they did that the principles contained in them would be recognized and observed by everyone even if they were not listed in the Constitution. Many of the states which approved the Constitution were not so sure, however, and several expressed their approval only with the qualification that a Bill of Rights be added i1nmediately. As a result, on December 15, 1791, about two years after the Constitution became effective, the first ten Amendments were added to it. The rrth and 12th Amendments were adopted in 1798 and r8o4 respectively. After adoption of the 12th Amendment, no further amendments to the Constitution were added until after the Civil War, some 6r years later. Then, three Amendments were adopted in relatively quick succession. The 13th Amendment, prohibiting slavery or involuntary servitude, was adopted on December r8, r865. Approximately three years later, on July 28, r868, the 14th Amendment was adopted. Finally, on March 30, r8yo, the rsth Amendment, prohibiting denial of the right to vote on account of race or color, became part of the Constitution. While the 13th and rsth Amendments were directed to relatively specific practices which the states decided to prohibit, the 14th Amendment was written in very broad terms and dealt with a number of problems which had arisen before and after the Civil War. Today, however, only the rst and sth sections of the 14th Amendment are of significant continuing impor• tance. In part the rst section provides that [n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or im• munities of citizens of the United States; or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; or deny to any person in its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The italicized portion of Section r of the 14th Amendment has become known as the "Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th Amendment and is perhaps the most import~nt substantive, OI· rule-making, clause of the entire Constitution for resolution of disputes concerning racial segregation of public schools in the United States. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives to the Congress the power to enforce the provisions of the 14th Amendment, including the Equal Protec• tion Clause, by "appropriate legislation". Soon after the amendment was ro Desegregation : The Boston Orders and Their Origin adopted, Congress passed a number of laws designed to eliminate state laws, as well as the acts of private persons, which denied equal protection of the laws to citizens of vari9us states. Some of those early laws were held un• constitutional by the Supreme Court. Others survived and are in operation today. More recently, Congress has enacted a series of laws designed to eliminate various forms of racial segregation in public accommodations, housing, employment and other areas. Nevertheless, the federal courts have been the primary branch of the Government of the United States involved in application of the guarantees of the 14th Amendment to a wide variety of circumstances, including, but not limited to, racial segregation. As interpreted by the courts, the basic meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the r4th Amendment is fairly simple. In essence, that clause means no state- and the term "state" has been interpreted to mean any governmental organization in any state, whether that organization be the state legislature, a city council, a school committee or a board of county commissioners- can pass a law or regulation which arbitrarily denies to some state citizens benefits which it gives to others. The word "arbitrarily" is an important one, for the Equal Protection Clause does not mean that every law passed in a state must treat every per• son in that state exactly alike. Instead, the Clause means simply that, if a state passes a law treating various classes of people differently, the state must have a valid reason for doing so. Under the Equal Protection Clause, for example, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts cannot pass a law which says that only persons with blond hair are entitled to obtain driver's licen• ses. The fact that a person has blond hair does not necessarily mean that that person will be a better or a worse driver than a person who does not. Accordingly, the Commonwealth cannot use blond hair as a factor on which it bases decisions concerning whether it should issue licenses. On the other hand, it would not violate the Equal Protection Clause for the Com• monwealth to pass a law, as it has, that a blind person may not be issued a driver's license. The ability to see obviously has a great deal to do with an individual's ability to drive safely on the highways. Thus, there is a good reason for the Commonwealth to distinguish between people who can see and people who are blind when it comes to issuing driver's licenses. Although the two groups are treated differently by the licensing law, the Equal Pro• tection Clause does not prohibit that different treatment. Obviously, a state can apply its laws unequally not only by arbitrarily re• fusing to extend to some of its citizens those privileges it extends to others, but also by arbitrarily refusing to extend to some citizens exactly the same privileges it extends to others. For example, a law which said that driver's licenses issued to people with blond hair were good for all roads in the Commonwealth while licenses issued to all others were good only for inter• state highways would violate the Equal Protection Clause just as much as a law which said that only blonds could drive. For a number of years begin• ning in the late r8oo's, however, many states did have numerous laws which distinguished between people, not on the basis of hair color, but on I I The Equal Protection Clause the basis of skin color. People who happened to have black skin often were not prohibited absolutely from attending theatres, for example, but state laws provided that, if they did attend, they had to sit in sections different from those in which people with white skin sat. People with black skin were not prohibited absolutely hom riding on trains, buses and carriages, but, if they did, state laws provided again that they had to sit in sections different from those in which people with white skin sat. Most important for present purposes is that the laws of many states also said that people with black skin had to attend schools which were separate from the schools attended by people with white skin. Primarily those laws were the result of illogical beliefs that people with black skin- many of whom had been slaves until the Civil War- were inherently inferior to people with white skin and should be dealt with in a manner which both recognized and per• petuated that inferiority. In 1892, a man named Homer A. Plessy challenged the constitutionality of those segregative laws. Mr. Plessy bought a railroad ticket for a ride on a train from New Orleans, Louisiana to Covington, Louisiana. At that time, Louisiana was one of the numerous states which had laws like those just described requiring black people to ride in different parts of the trains from those parts in which white people rode. The law also required, how• ever, that the two parts of the train be "equal". Mr. Plessy- who, inci• dentally, was described by the Supreme Court of the United States as being "of mixed descent, in the proportion of seven-eighths Caucasian and one• eighth African blood"-refused to sit in that portion of the train which had been set aside for blacks. Accordingly, he was arrested and charged by the New Orleans police with violating the laws of Louisiana requiring separate seating for blacks and whites. At the appropriate time, Mr. Plessy started a law suit to challenge the con• stitutionality of the Louisiana law he was charged with violating. He claimed, among other things, that state laws which required separate seat• ing in public accommodations for blacks and whites violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. When his case reached the Supreme Court of the United States, the Court disagreed with him. The Court decided that the equal protection of the laws required by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution related only to "political equality" and not to social equality. Thus, in the Court's view, the 14th Amendment prohibited states from passing laws which kept black people from sitting on juries while permitting white people to sit on them since the right to sit on a jury was a "political" riglit. In the Court's opinion, however, the right of a black individual to sit in the same railroaa car as a white individual was a "social" right and thus was one not guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. In the course of its opinion, the Court appeared to say that the right of a black person to go to a school attended by a white person also was a "social" right and thus also was one not guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. From the Supreme Court's decision in Mr. Plessy's case came the doctrine of "separate but equal". That doctrine, simply stated, meant that with re- 12 Desegregation: The Boston Orders and Their Origin spect to a whole class of rights or privileges, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, as then interpreted by the Supreme Court, was not violated by a state if the state provided equal, although separate, accom• modations for blacks and whites. Schools which by law were for whites only or for blacks only thus did not violate the Equal Protection Clause as long as they were "equal". In deciding Mr. Plessy's case, however, one judge, John Marshall Har• lan, dissented and wrote his own opinion rejecting in ringing terms the reasoning employed by other members of the court. His dissent is worth quoting at some length. "Everyone knows," said Justice Harlan, that the [law requiring separate seating on railroad trains] had its origin in the pur• pose, not so much to exclude white persons from railroad cars occupied by blacks, as to exclude colored people from coaches occupied by or assigned to white persons .... The thing to accomplish was, under the guise of giving equal accommodations for whites and blacks, to compel the latter to keep to themselves while traveling in rail• road passenger coaches. No one would be so wanting in candor as to assert the contrary . . . . [I]n view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitu• tion is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surround• ings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved .... . . . The destinies of the two races, in this country, are indissolubly linked to• gether, and the interests of both require that the common government of all shall not permit the seeds of race hate to be planted under the sanction of law. What can more certainly arouse race hate, what more certainly create and perpetuate a feeling of distrust between these races, than state [laws], which, in fact, proceed on the ground that colored citizens are so inferior and degraded that they cannot be allowed to sit in public coaches occupied by white citizens? That, as all will admit, is the real meaning of such legislation as was enacted in Louisiana. The arbitrary separation of citizens on the basis of race, while they are on a public highway, is a badge of servitude wholly inconsistent with the civil freedom and the equality before the law established by the Constitution. It cannot be justified upon any legal grounds. If evils will result from the commingling of the two races upon public highways established for the benefit of all, they will be infinitely less than those that will surely come from state legislation regulating the enjoyment of civil rights upon the basis of race. We boast of the freedom enjoyed by our people above all other peoples. But it is difficult to reconcile that boast with the state of the law which, practically, puts the brand of servitude and degradation upon a large class of our fellow-citizens, our equals before the law. The thin disguise of "equal" accommodations for passen• gers in railroad coaches will not mislead anyone, nor atone for the wrong this day done. 13 The Equal Protection Clause Despite Justice Harlan's powerful statements, the Supreme Court's de• cision in Mr. Plessy's case, along with the notion of "separate but equal" derived from it, remained generally the accepted construction of the 14th Amendment for years. On May 17, 1954, however, the Supreme Court of the United States said that its earlier opinion in Mr. Plessy's case had been a mistake and no longer could be followed. It said so in a case called Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark case dealing with desegregation in public schools in the United States. Brown involved four groups of people who had started law suits to challenge the constitutionality of laws of the States of Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia and Delaware which required white and black children to attend separate public schools. That forced separation, they argued, much as Mr. Plessy had argued 58 years earlier, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. This time the Court agreed. The Court first noted that times had changed since the decision in Mr. Plessy's case had been written. Unlike the situation in 1892, the Court said, in 1954 public education was "perhaps the most important function of state and local government." Moreover, given the complexity of society in 1954, the Court believed that it was "doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education." The Court then said that "[t]o separate [black children] from others of sim• ilar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone." That separation neces• sarily had an impact on the educational opportunities of black children, in the Court's view, because the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group . A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educa• tional and mental development of Negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system. In light of all that, the Court wound up its opinion by concluding "that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." Having found that the States of Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia and Delaware had violated the rule of equality contained in the Equal Protec• tion Clause, the Court th~l'i turned its attention to the remedy which should be ordered for violation of that rule. The Court decided that no one univer• sal remedy would be proper for all segregated school systems in the United States. Instead, it said that, while " [ a]ll provisions of federal, state or local law requiring or permitting" segregation in public education were uncon• stitutional, "[f]ull implementation of [that] constitutional [principle] may require solution of varied local school problems." Local school authorities, the Court said, had the "primary responsibility for ... solving [those] prob• lems; courts will have to consider whether the action of the school authori- 14 Desegregation: The Boston Orders and Their Origin ties constitutes good faith implementation of the governing constitutional principles" prohibiting segregation by race. Moreover, the Court held, the task of desegregating the public schools had to go forward "with all delib• erate speed." While it recognized that local problems might, in some cases, cause some delay in what it hoped would otherwise be a prompt elimina• tion of segregation, the Court said that the "burden rests upon the [school board] to establish that such [delay] is necessary in the public interest and is consistent with good faith compliance at the earliest practical date" with its decision outlawing segregation. The Court's decision in Brown was not greeted with overwhelming en• thusiasm in those states which had laws requiring that black children and white children attend different schools. Indeed, in many states, the first reaction to the Supreme Court's decision in Brown was creation of a series of laws which, while not explicitly requiring that black children and white children continue to attend different schools, had the same effect. Laws were passed in some states forbidding busing to achieve integration, or closing all public schools, thus leaving previously public education in the hands of "private" groups. Almost without exception, the Supreme Court ruled that those laws were unconstitutional because they helped to perpetuate the segregation of school children in public schools which it had outlawed in Brown. Nevertheless, progress toward fully integrated education was slow. Fourteen years after Brown was decided, the Court unanimously expressed in strong language its dissatisfaction with the progress of school desegrega• tion efforts in those school systems which had operated under state laws requiring separation of the races. In a case called Green v. County School Board, the Court was presented with a challenge to a so-called "freedom• of-choice" law which had been set up in a school system in New Kent County, Virginia. Under that plan, each pupil in the school system was permitted to chose between attendance at what was then an all white or what was then an all black school. Under the plan, then, the New Kent County school board appeared to be taking a simple "hands off" approach to pupil place• ment in schools within its school system. In the Court's view, however, apparent "hands off" by the New Kent County school board was not enough. The board had created a racially segregated school system while operating under prior Virginia laws. It could not, 14 years after Brown was decided, simply take its hands off pupil assignments and hope that the segregated system it had created eventually would disappear. Instead, under the Equal Protection Clause, it had the burden of coming forward with a plan which realistically promised to eliminate segregation immediately as well as to eliminate, as far as possible, the effects of past segregation. While the Court did not say that "freedom of choice" never could be permissible under the Equal Protection Clause as a means of eliminating segregation, if there were quicker and more effective ways to convert a segregated school system to one which was integrated, simple freedom of choice plans would not be permitted. To use a rough analogy, the Court's decision in Green was similar to the common-sense notion that, if you break the law by driving 15 The Equal Protection Clause your car at roo m.p.h. on Route 128, it is not sufficient for you simply to take your foot off the accelerator and hope that the car will coast to a stop. Instead, you must step on the brake. Until June 2r, 1973, all of the major cases decided by the Supreme Court in the field of public school segregation dealt with school systems in those states where there had been state laws requiring separate education for black children and white children at the time Brown was decided in I954· On June 21, 1973, however, the Court decided a case involving the public schools in Denver, Colorado. Those schools never had been operated under state laws requiring black children and white children to attend different schools. Nevertheless, it was clear to the Court from the evidence which was presented at trial that pupil assignments to schools in Denver often were made by the Denver School Board on the basis of race. As a result, there were a significant number of schools in the school system which were predominantly black, predominantly white, or predominantly hispanic. Even though there had never been in Colorado, laws requiring children of different races to attend different schools, the Court held that, because Denver pupil assignments had been made on the basis of race and had resulted in segregated schools, the resulting segregation was just as much a violation of the Equal Protection Clause as racial assignments made because of state laws. Accordingly, it ordered the Denver School Board to take affirmative steps to eradicate promptly the segregated school system it had created just as it earlier had ordered predominantly Southern school systems to eradicate segregated school systems created by state law. The ruling of the Court in the Denver school case that intentional segre• gation by a school board was illegal whether or not a state law specifically required it to segregate was not a new kind of ruling. At least as early as r886, in a case involving Chinese operators of laundries in San Francisco, the Court had held that even though a state law appears to be fair and equal to all, if state officials enforce it in a manner which is clearly unfair and unequal, those state officials violate the command of the Equal Pro• tection Clause. To return for a minute to the example of the driver's license discussed earlier, you will recall that, if the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had a law stating that only people with blond hair could receive a driver's license, that law would violate the Equal Protection Clause. Suppose, however, that the law only said that no person could receive a driver's license until he had passed a written examination. Sup• pose further that, althougl]. a great number of people with a wide variety of hair colors passed wri tteh examinations, . o:p.l y those with blond hair in fact were given a driver's license by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles. Under those circumstances, it cannot be doubted that the state, acting through its agent, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, would be discriminating against people who did not have blond hair just as clearly and just as effectively as if the state itself had passed a law saying that only blonds could drive. That kind of discrimination also is forbidden by the Equal Protection r6 Desegregation: The Boston Orders and Their Origin Clause. That kind of discrimination is essentially the kind of discrimination the Court found to exist in Denver, Colorado. By the time that the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued its opinion and order on June 21, 197 4, then, a number of principles concerning application of the Equal Protection Clause in the context of racial segregation had been made quite clear by the Supreme Court of the United States. Any racial segregation in the public schools expressly required by state law was flatly prohibited. Moreover, even if racial segregation in the schools was not, and never had been, required by state law, racial segregation in those schools resulting from intentional acts and practices of a school board which were designed to keep black school children separate from white school children also violated the Equal Protection Clause. If impermissible racial segregation in the public school systems was found by a court to exist, then the remedy ordered had to include the requirement that every form of racial segregation in the school system be eliminated. While the school board had the primary responsi• bility for proposing and implementing plans designed to eliminate racial segregation once the court issued an order, the court itself was required to issue appropriate supplementary orders if the school board failed to meet its responsibility. Finally, since 20 years had passed since the Court first explicitly outlawed racial segregation in the public schools, speed in elimi• nating impermissible segregation now was of the essence. The time for "all deliberate speed" long since had passed, and the burden of justifying any delay whatsoever rested squarely on the shoulders of those who sought it. These principles were absolutely binding on all federal district courts faced with law suits commenced by individuals who claimed that the schools which they attended were impermissibly segregated by race; they could not be changed, altered or abolished by any person or organization save the Supreme Court itself or the people of the United States acting collectively to amend the Constitution. In fact, those principles were the ones applied by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on June 21, 1974 and thereafter. IV The Decisions of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts A , The Findings and Conclusions In March of 1972, attorneys for Mrs. Tallulah Morgan, her children and a number of other black parents and children, filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts a document called a Complaint. "Complaint" is the title of the first document an individual files with the clerk of the court when he desires to start a law 17 The Decisions of the U.S . District Court for the District of Massachusetts suit and, basically, it contains an outline or summary of a dispute which the individual wishes to have the court resolve. The person who files the Complaint is called the plaintiff and the individuals about whose conduct the plaintiff complains are called the defendants. In essence, Mrs. Morgan's Complaint alleged that her children, as well as all black children enrolled in the Boston public schools, had been denied equal protection of the laws by the Boston School Committee which, she claimed, intentionally had brought about and maintained racial segre• gation in the public schools of Boston. The Committee had done so, accord• ing to the Complaint, by various means. The principal means included adoption and maintenance of discriminatory pupil assignment procedures, manipulation of attendance areas and district lines for various schools in the system, establishment of grade structures and feeder patterns which had a discriminatory intent and effect, manipulation of construction policies and school capacity plans, and unreasonably failing to take steps which were reasonably designed to eliminate segregation found within the school system. The Complaint also made certain allegations concerning the con• duct of the Board of Education for the Commonwealth. Since the Court later determined that the Board had acted properly, however, the allegations concerning its conduct are not of significant importance for present purposes. After the Complaint was filed, the Boston School Committee filed with the Clerk of the Court a document called an Answer. The Answer usually is the second document filed in a law suit and the first one filed by the defendant. In essence, the Answer contains, also in outline form, a reply to each of the statements contained in the plaintiffs' Complaint. In addition to denying many of the statements contained in Mrs. Morgan's Complaint, the School Committee said in its Answer that, to the extent that some schools in the Boston school system contained disproportionate numbers of either black children or white children, that result came from residential segregation over which the School Committee had no control. According to the Committee, that circumstance also was due to a "neighborhood school" policy which the Committee claimed was permitted under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Finally, in its Answer the School Committee said that, in effect, it had attempted to eliminate racial segregation in the City of Boston schools and could do nothing more than it had done to bring about that result. After preliminary proceedings .. yvere completed, the case went to trial before Federal District Court Judge W. Arthur ~ Garrity, Jr., who had been chosen to preside by a random selection process used for all law suits started in the Federal Court. At that trial, the law imposed on the plaintiffs the burden of proving that the statements they had made in their Complaint concerning racial segregation in Boston were true. Judge Garrity's task was to listen to the witnesses who testified at the trial, to review any docu• ments or other exhibits introduced at trial and then to decide whether the plaintiffs had met their burden of proving the truth of the allegations r 8 Desegregation: The Boston Orders and Their Origin of their Complaint. There was no jury present at the trial because, gen• erally, juries are only present at trials where the plaintiff is seeking money damages from the defendant. Here, Mrs. Morgan and the other representa• tives of the black parents and school children were seeking, not money, but an order requiring the defendants to take steps designed to eliminate segregation in Boston public schools. The trial before Judge Garrity lasted for approximately rs days and involved the testimony of a great number of witnesses plus presentation to him of several hundred exhibits. During the course of the trial, Judge Garrity left the courtroom on one occasion, along with the attorneys for both the plaintiffs and the defendants, to actually look at several of the schools in the City of Boston which were being described in the testimony and the exhibits presented to him. On June 21, 1974, the judge filed with the clerk of the court a lengthy opinion containing his findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the testimony he had heard and the exhibits he had reviewed. Boiled down to their bare essentials, those findings and conclusions said one thing: Mrs. Morgan and the other plaintiffs were right. The School Committee of the City of Boston intentionally had brought about and maintained racial segre• gation in the Boston public schools . In reaching that ultimate conclusion, Judge Garrity considered several factors. First, he considered prior law suits in which the School Committee had been involved concerning the issue of racial segregation in the public schools. Secondly, he considered the extent of school segregation in the City of Boston as revealed by statistics showing the racial composition of various schools in the City. Thirdly, he considered what the School Com• mittee had done with respect to segregation existing in the Boston schools and, in particular, focused on six areas of the School Committee's conduct. Those areas involved (r) the School Committee's use of existing schools in the City, (2) the method by which the School Committee divided the Boston public school system into districts, (3) the operation of so-called feeder patterns, (4) the policies of the School Committee concerning trans• fers between various schools, ( 5) the assignment of faculty and staff to various schools, and (6) the School Committee's policies with respect to vocational and examination schools. Judge Garrity's opinion quickly presented facts which indic~ted that the Boston public schools were "characterized by heavy concentrations of black students in some schools and heavy concentrations of white pupils in other schools." While black children accounted for 32% of all children attend- ing Boston public schools, more than half of those black children attended schools that were more than yo% black. White children accounted for approximately 6r% of all children in the school system, but 84% of them attended schools that were more than 8o% white. In light of those facts, Judge Garrity's opinion stated that "at least 8o% of Boston's schools are segregated in the sense that their racial compositions are sharply out of line with the racial composition of the Boston public school system as a whole. 19 The Decisions of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ... Racial segregation permeates schools in all areas of the city, all grade levels and all types of schools." The real issue in the case was not whether the City of Boston's public schools were characterized by racial segregation. Even the School Commit• tee agreed that they were. Instead, the question was how they got that way; that is, whether the existing segregation was simply something which had happened despite best efforts to keep it from happening or whether the School Committee had " intentionally and purposely" caused it to happen. On the basis of evidence presented to him, Judge Garrity reached the con• clusion that the School Committee indeed had caused it to happen. First of all, he looked at the School Committee's use of existing school buildings in the City of Boston and its activities with respect to new con• struction. He found that, in general, some existing schools were badly over• crowded while others had significant excess available space. He also found, however, that the overcrowded schools were predominantly white while the underutilized schools were predominantly black. He further found that, while overcrowding in the predominantly white schools could have been cured by transferring some of the students in those school to underutilized schools which were predominantly black, the School Committee did not do so on many occasions when it believed that such transfers would cause "problems" with white parents. On other occasions, however, when transfers from overcrowded to underutilized schools would not significantly affect the racial composition of either, such transfers had been approved by the Committee. Furthermore, Judge Garrity found that, in some instances, por• table classrooms had been used to help relieve overcrowding but, in large part, had been used only at predominantly white schools. Use of those classrooms, he found, thus perpetuated the racial concentration in over• crowded white schools as well as the racial concentration in undercrowded black schools to which the overflow white students could have been sent. In addition, the judge stated that construction of new facilities by the School Committee was carried out in a manner which had the "over• whelming effect" of increasing racial segregation. In effect, Judge Garrity found that, instead of building new schools in areas where they would have been "neighborhood schools" for both black children and white children, the School Committee had placed new buildings in either predominantly black or predominantly white areas of the City and had done little to attract black students to schools built in the white areas or to attract white students to schools built in the black areas. The second aspect of the Committee's actions considered by Judge Garrity concerned the creation and maintenance of various-·school districts in the City of Boston. While he did not find that, in general, the School Com• mittee had drawn school district lines to create black districts and white districts, he did find that, on numerous occasions when it could have done otherwise, the Committee intentionally had refused to change exist• ing districts so that predominantly black or predominantly white districts would be avoided. Judge Garrity did find, however, that on one occasion 20 Desegregation: The Boston Orders and Their Origin in 1968, the School Committee had drawn new district lines to relieve some of the overcrowding at the Cleveland Junior High School which, at the time, was 91% white. In redrawing the district lines to relieve over• crowding, some of the students then attending Cleveland were transferred to the Russell Junior High School district, which was 85% white, and some to South Boston High School which was then 99°/o white. This was done even though Russell Junior High and South Boston High were then them• selves overcrowded and were further away from Cleveland than the King, Burke and Girls High Schools which had available seats but which were predominantly black. The third area considered by Judge Garrity concerned so-called "feeder patterns", a complex system for assigning students to the City's various high schools. In theory, there were no district high schools in the City of Boston, at least in the sense that the students living in a certain geographic area are assigned automatically to a high school in that area. Instead, Judge Garrity's opinion stated that " [e]nrollment at high schools is determined by a combination of seat assignments, preferences and options collectively called feeder patterns" which are announced in February of each year by the Superintendent of Schools. While the actual operation of the feeder pattern system is too complicated for detailed examination here, Judge Garrity found that the intended and actual consequences of that operation were that the students from predominantly black elementary and junior high schools were channeled into predominantly black high schools. Similarly, students at predominantly white elementary and junior high schools were channeled into predominantly white high schools, even though many of these high schools were overcrowded. White students, Judge Garrity found, generally were given certain kinds of options which allowed them to escape from predominantly black schools if they were assigned to those schools while black students generally were without those options. The effects of the Committee's policies, according to Judge Garrity's opinion, often were swift and severe. For example, in the 1967-68 school year, black students at English High School accounted for 18.5% of the student body. In the 1968-69 school year, shortly after certain feeder pat• terns had been changed by the School Committee, the entering class at English High School was 56.5°/o black and the following year the entering class was 76% black and 18.5 °/o other minority. As a result, the Judge found, by the 1972-73 school year, the student body at English High School as a whole was 81% black. The fourth area considered by Judge Garrity's opinion was the School Committee's management of a policy of open enrollment and controlled transfer between schools. While the general assignment of students to elementary and middle schools was governed by the district in which the students lived and while the general assignment of students to high schools was determined by feeder patterns, beginning in 1961, the School Com• mittee had adopted a so-called "open enrollment" policy. That policy per• mitted students, on an individual basis, to go to a school other than the 21 The Decisions of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts one called for by the district in which they lived or by the feeder pattern applicable to them. Initially thought of by the School Committee as a device to aid racial balance because it enabled black students to attend predominantly white schools, Judge Garrity found that, in practice, the "open enrollment" policy soon became an aid to segregation because it was used primarily by white students to transfer from schools which were pre• dominantly black to those which were predominantly white. Moreover, he found that various state agencies had attempted to get the School Commit• tee to limit the open enrollment policy so that it would not have a segre• gating effect. In August of 1971, under agency prodding, the Committee ap• peared to limit the open enrollment policy by substituting for it a so-called "controlled transfer" policy. In essence, the new policy provided that trans• fers between schools would be allowed if, but only if, the transfer tended to decrease racial imbalance in the school into which the student transferred. In fact, however, the Committee worked into the controlled transfer policy so many exceptions that it became little different from the old open enroll• ment policy. After reviewing the operation of those policies, Judge Garrity concluded that "the open enrollment and controlled transfer policies were managed under the direction of the [School Committee] with a singular in• tention to discriminate on the basis of race .... The result of the [School Committee's] maneuvering was to encourage and facilitate the abandonment by white students and parents of schools which appeared to be in the pro- cess of becoming predominantly non-white." The fifth area considered by Judge Garrity pertained to assignment of faculty and staff to various schools in the city. Teachers as well as students, Judge Garrity concluded, were segregated by race in the Boston public schools. Indeed, 40% of all of the schools in Boston never in their history had had a single black teacher. About r7% had had only one black teacher in any year since the 1967-68 school year. In the 1971-72 school year, 74 °/o of the black classroom teachers in the Boston school system were teaching at predominantly black schools. Administrators, too, the judge found, were segregated by race. In the 1972-73 school year, there were five black prin• cipals in the Boston School system and all five of those were assigned to predominantly black schools. During the same year, there were 14 black assistant principals and assistant headmasters and all of them were assigned to predominantly black schools as well. His opinion also stated that pre• dominantly black schools had higher percentages of provisional teachers than did predominantly white schools. Provisional teachers, Judge Garrity said, were not simply teachers who were new _to the system but also teachers who lacked the basic qualifications necessary to enable them to be employed as regular teachers. Finally, Judge Garrity found that the School Committee discriminated intentionally in its hiring and promotion of black teachers and administrators in the system. Indeed, in the 1972-73 school year there were 4,243 permanent teachers in the entire Boston school system of whom only 23 r, or 5-4% were black. Of the 509 senior admin• istrative positions in the school year I970-7r, only r8, or 3·5 °/o, were occupied by blacks. 22 Desegregation: The Boston Orders and Their Origin The final specific area considered by Judge Garrity concerned the School Committee's practices with respect to the examination and vocational schools and programs. He found that the three examination schools, Boston Latin, Girls Latin (now called Boston Latin Academy) and Boston Technical, were predominantly white during each of the school years 1967 through 1972. He also found that two trade schools, Boston Trade and Girls Trade, were predominantly black during the same period. Judge Garrity's opinion did not specifically state that the evidence received at trial showed that the segre• gated results just described flowed from intentional acts on the part of the School Committee. Given the other evidence of intentional segregation pre• sented in the case, however, he stated that decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States required him to presume that those segregated results were the consequences of specific intentional practices on the part of the School Committee unless the School Committee proved otherwise. He con• cluded that the School Committee had failed to meet its burden of proof in that regard. After reviewing the six areas just discussed, Judge Garrity's opinion turned to the primary defenses or explanations for the segregated school system that the School Committee had offered. The first of those was that the segregation found to exist in the schools was the result of neighbor- hood residential patterns over which the School Committee had no control. Secondly, the School Committee said that the segregation the Judge had found also resulted from the Committee's "neighborhood school" policy which, in the School Committee's view, was permitted by the Constitution even though it had the effect of creating segregated schools. Judge Garrity rejected both arguments. Residential segregation, he said, did not explain the findings he had made with respect to the School Com• mittee's discriminatory intent concerning assignment of faculty and staff to various schools, open enrollment and controlled transfer of students or feeder patterns. Moreover, he concluded that the School Committee's ac• tions over the past 10 years with respect to segregation in the schools may have helped to create the segregated residential patterns which the School Committee now sought to use in an attempt to justify the segregation found to exist in the schools. Even beyond that, Judge Garrity found that the School Committee "with awareness of the racial segregation of Boston's neighborhoods, had deliberately incorporated that segregation into the school system" both in its practices with respect to construction of schools and in its practices with respect to utilization of existing facilities. Judge Garrity then concluded that the so-called "neighborhood school policy" "was so selective as hardly to have amounted to a policy at all." Specifically, his opinion stated that a number of conditions tended to elimi• nate the effectivenesss of any neighborhood school policy. 3o,ooo students, he found, used public transportation to get to school in 1973. Some 4th graders walked up to 3/4 of a mile to get to school. High school students were assigned to schools on a citywide basis. Busing, multi-school districts, magnet schools and feeder patterns all were educational tools employed by 23 The Decisions of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts the School Committee, Judge Garrity found, and all were inconsistent with a desire for strictly neighborhood schools. Moreover, many so-called "neigh• borhoood" schools, according to the opinion, were farther away from the homes of students attending them than were other schools. Attendance at those distant schools was required nonetheless, he found, because of the segregative intent of the School Committee. Based on all of the findings of fact discussed above, Judge Garrity con• cluded that the School Committee of the City of Boston intentionally and purposely had created and maintained a segregated school system in Boston over a number of years. Obviously, his conclusions were not based on any single phase of the Committee's activity or any single action the Committee had taken. Instead, he carefully reviewed the course of the Committee's conduct over an extensive period before his decision was issued. On the basis of his findings of fact, when those findings are considered in light of earlier decisions of the United States Supreme Court, there clearly was no other conclusion he could have reached. Accordingly, it became necessary to devise a remedy to eliminate the effects of what he found to be the School Committee's illegal action. B TheRemedy As stated, Judge Garrity's initial findings were issued on June 21, 1974. School, which was in recess for the summer at the time, was to begin again in Boston the following September. Because of the very short time involved, it was obvious that any remedy ordered by the Court had to take into account the amount of time remaining during the summer for both planning and implementation. Accordingly, as a temporary measure, Judge Garrity ordered the School Committee to comply with the Racial Imbalance Act plan which the Committee earlier had been ordered by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts to implement on or before opening day of school in September, 1974. In addition, Judge Garrity ordered the School Committee not to begin construction of any new school or expansion of an existing school or the use of any new portable classrooms, not to grant transfers of white teachers from schools with majority black enrollments or black teachers from schools with majority white enrollments and not to grant transfers of students under existing exceptions to the so-called "con• trolled transfer" policy discussed above until a final plan had been devised. The initial or Phase I desegregation plan ordered by Judge Garrity- the plan which was put into effect d~ring the 1974-75 school year- thus was not a plan which Judge Garrity himself created. Instead, it was a plan which the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts previously had ordered the School Committee to follow. As Judge Garrity noted in his opinion, in 1965 a so-called ''Racial Imbalance Act" had been passed by the Legislature of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. That law required the school committees in Massachusetts cities and towns to file with the state Board of Education each year racial statistics concerning students in their school 24 Desegregation: The Boston Orders and Their Origin systems. If, on the basis of those statistics, the state Board determined that "racial imbalance" existed in any school in the school system, the law required that it notify the school committee. After notification, the local school committee was then required to file with the state Board of Educa• tion a plan designed to eliminate that racial imbalance. Soon after the Racial Imbalance Act was passed in I965, the Boston School Committee filed a law suit in state court seeking to have the Act held unconstitutional. It lost. The state Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the Act was a fully constitutional law and the Supreme Court of the United States later, in effect, agreed. Then, on June 25, I973, the state Board of Education, after various hearings and law suits, issued an order requiring elimination of the racial imbalance it had found to exist in various Boston public schools. The School Committee started another law suit seeking to invalidate the state Board's order. That law suit, too, the Committee lost. On November I4, I973, the Supreme Judicial Court ordered the Committee to file with the state Board of Education a detailed plan for implementation of the Board's order. On December I I, I973, the Committee filed a pro• posed plan with the Board. On December 26, I973, the Board disapproved a portion of the Committee's proposed plan and, in addition, ordered that specific steps be taken to insure implementation of the Board's earlier order by September, I974· On January I6, I974, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered the School Committee to comply with the Board's order by January 2I, I974· On April I?, I974, the Supreme Judicial Court ordered the School Committee to complete staff assignments in compliance with the state Board's plan by May I, I974 and also ordered that safety and transportation plans for students be completed, adopted by the Com• mittee and submitted to the state Board by May IS, I974· The plan which Judge Garrity ordered the School Committee to use as a temporary plan on June 2I, I974, thus was a plan wholly created by Massa• chusetts state agencies, a plan which the School Committee had been offered a role in creating, and a plan which the Committee not only had been aware of for some time but also had been under orders to comply with for some time. That plan never was considered by Judge Garrity or the School Committee or the plaintiffs to be a satisfactory permanent remedy for the violations Judge Garrity had found but it was considered to be a workable temporary solution. Accordingly, that plan was put into effect during the I974-75 school year. After the I974-75 school year began, work started on creation of the permanent or Phase II plan for remedying the violations Judge Garrity had found on June 2r. On October 3I, I974, after several hearings on the general terms and contents of a new plan, Judge Garrity entered an order requiring the School Committee to present a plan by December I6, I974· The order required the plan to be approved by vote of the School Committee prior to filing, and the general contents were described in the order. The overall guiding principle was to be the following: 25 The Decisions of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts Taking into account the safety of students and the practicalities of the situation, the student desegregation plan shall provide for the greatest possible degree of actual de• segregation of all grades in all schools in all parts of the city. A plan was developed by the Boston School Department at the School Committee's direction, but the School Committee, by a vote 3-2, refused to approve it primarily because it contained provisions for mandatory busing. As a result, the plaintiffs asked that the three School Committee members who had voted against the plan be held in contempt of court for violating the court's October 3 r order. At hearings on that request, it became clear that those members would obey future orders of the court, but would take no affirmative action inconsistent with their conscientious opposition to any form of mandatory busing of students. All three members adhered to this view, even though they understood that there might be no desegrega• tion without mandatory busing. In the words of Chairman Kerrigan: It is unfortunate that is the way our society exists, the way the housing patterns are laid out, but the only way you are going to desegregate city schools is through forced busing. In the end, the court did not impose sanctions on the three School Com• mittee members for contempt, but allowed them to authorize a new plan, which they did. Their new plan, with no provisions for mandatory busing, was submitted to the court on January 27, 1975. In addition, around that time, the plaintiffs filed an alternative plan, as did the Home and School Association, with the permission of the court. Criticism of and comment on the various plans were filed by numerous community groups and indi• viduals, as well as by the plaintiffs and defendants. As a result of the contempt hearings and a review of the contents of the School Committee's January 27 plan, the court concluded that the Com• mittee had not fulfilled its responsibility and obligation to remedy the effects of segregation by coming up with an adequate desegregation plan. The court's duty was to insure actual desegregation of Boston schools in order to protect the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs; the court and Chairman Kerrigan agreed that this could not be done without mandatory busing; a School Committee majority had committed itself in court and on paper to taking no affirmative steps in the desegregation process which would include mandatory busing; and the court thus had no choice except to assume a more active role in the formulation of a desegregation remedy. As Judge Garrity said in the opinion he issued on June 5, 1975 to explain the remedial order issued on May-ro, 1975: Education is a matter entrusted initially to elected local authorities and appointed state authorities. Even after unlawful segregation has been found, responsibility falls initially upon the local school authorities to remedy the effects of this segregation . . . . Only the default of the School Committee in this case has obliged the court to employ the help of the appointed experts and masters and to draw an adequate plan. The masters mentioned by Judge Garrity often are used to aid the court in sorting out complex factual situations and legal issues in all different 26 Desegregation: The Boston Orders and Their Origin types of legal proceedings. Masters are appointed by the court, and a judge may refer either all or some portion of a case to them for consideration. Masters are paid for their services by one or more of the persons involved in the law suit referred to them as the court directs. Masters have many of the same powers as a judge, for example, to compel attendance of wit• nesses and to decide whether or not evidence is admissible, but their find• ings and conclusions are never final. The master usually submits a report to the judge, who will ordinarily give considerable weight to the facts reported by the master, since the master (and not the judge) has heard the witnesses and reviewed the other evidence. But the inferences and con• clusions to be drawn from those facts and the ultimate disposition of the case are entirely up to the judge. In this case, the various plans, together with supporting and explanatory memoranda as well as criticism, were submitted to a panel of masters and experts for consideration. The judge considered that submission advisable because of the complexity and multiplicity of the proposed plans and responses to them. The masters reviewed all proposed plans and held hear• ings in which they heard testimony relative to them. They then submitted a report to the court on March 31, 1975, in which they recommended a plan drawn up by them which incorporated some elements of the plans they had reviewed and some proposals of their own. The court heard objections to and criticism of the masters' plan, and finally adopted a plan somewhat modifying the masters' plan. This was the Phase II plan which was announced by Judge Garrity on May 10, 1975, for implementation he concluded in September, 1975. It is important to remember that the court issued its plan on May 10, 1975 because that of the School Comn1ittee had failed to fulfill the responsi• bility which was originally its own- the responsibility to formulate a constitutionally adequate plan for desegregation of public schools in Boston in September, 1975. The January 27 plan filed by the School Committee was considered to be constitutionally inadequate because it relied almost entirely upon parental choice to accomplish desegregation. Although Judge Garrity recognized the importance of parental choice among options within the school system, he found that experience in other communities and past experience in Boston itself bore out the inadequacy of primary reliance upon parental choice to realistically accomplish desegregation. The Judge's May 10, 1975 plan is intended, however, to provide the maximum degree of parental choice which is realistically consistent with a plan designed to achieve maximum desegregation. Under the plan, though, the overall goal remains, as it is required by the Supreme Court of the United States to ·remain, desegregation and desegregation now. 1 GENERAL PRINCIPLES While achievement of prompt desegregation was the overall goal of the Phase II plan issued by Judge Garrity on May 10, 1975, necessarily, that plan focused on certain subsidiary goals which were designed to aid in achieve- 27 The Decisions of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ment of the ultimate one. Principally, the subsidiary goals were four in number: (r) elimination of racially identifiable schools to the greatest extent practically possible; (2) elimination of discriminatory practices in the ad• ministration and operation of the public schools, coupled with the removal of effects of past discriminatory practices; (3) equalization of educational opportunity and services at schools throughout the city; and (4) minimiza• tion of mandatory busing. Under the plan, full desegregation in the City of Boston school system does not require that each school be attended by the specific percentage of each ethnic group in the system as a whole or that all schools have the same exact percentage. It does require, however, that conditions and assign• ment patterns which leave some schools so disproportionate in their ethnic make-up as to make them racially identifiable must be eliminated. The racial composition of the system as a whole is a reference point and not a formula which must be applied to each school in the system. Of course, under the plan, the School Committee is prohibited from taking any action which affirmatively discriminates on the basis of race. No minority students may be excluded, either directly or indirectly from any public school, from any public school program or from any public school activity on the basis of race. Since the primary goal of the plan announced on May ro, and indeed of any plan designed to eliminate school segregation, is equal educational opportunity, redistribution of students is merely the first step. The plan must also address itself to the specific problems of transition and adjust• ment which accompany desegregation. One such problem is effective imple• mentation of the plan through responsible administration. The plan issued by Judge Garrity on May ro provides for an administrative network of district superintendents, councils of principals within each district, and a principal or headmaster at each school. That administrative network, with the aid of colleges and universities, is designed to insure equalization of services which have been unequal in the past as well as to insure non• discriminatory curricula and programs of instruction. The May ro plan relies on school personnel to insure non-discriminatory instruction and services, and their efforts are to be monitored by citizen groups estab• lished under the plan. Desegregation is encouraged through voluntary choice by the inclusion of magnet programs- specialized and distinctive programs at different schools which will be strengthened through the expert aid of colleges and universities 'lnd the business and cultural communities. Taking the City of Boston ··as- it is today, hqwever, virtually everyone involved in the law suit generaly agreed that redistribution of students, full utilization of special programs and equalization of administrative services throughout the school system simply could not be achieved without busing. Busing, it is important to understand, is not an end in itself but is only a tool which must be used when needed to achieve prompt desegregation. The opinion issued by Judge Garrity on May ro, 1975, focused at some length on the question of busing and stated: 28 Desegregation: The Boston Orders and Their Origin [T]he court does not favor forced busing. Nor, for that matter, have the plaintiffs advocated forced busing. What the plaintiffs seek, and what the law of the land as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States commands, is that plaintiffs' right to attend desegregated schools be realized. This right cannot lawfully be lim• ited to walk-in schools ... . If there were a way to accomplish desegregation in Boston without transporting students to schools beyond walking distance, the court and all parties would much prefer that alternative. In the past years, feasible pro• posals that would have substantially lessened segregation through redistricting with• out busing were made by various public agencies and uniformly rejected or evaded by the Boston School Committee. The harvest of these years of obstruction and of maintenance of segregated schools is that today, given the locations and capacities of its school buildings and the racial concentrations of its population, Boston is simply not a city that can provide its black schoolchildren with a desegregated edu• cation absent considerable mandatory transportation. Nevertheless, the plan issued by Judge Garrity on May ro reflects a con• cern that busing be minimized. For example, because of the location of East Boston and the problems involved in transporting students there, many students in that area will remain in racially identifiable "white" schools. In addition, the boundaries of the school districts drawn under the plan have been laid out so as to minimize the number of students bused and the distances traveled. A flexible approach to the racial composition of schools within each district also serves to minimize busing. With the foregoing general principles in mind, the court's plan provides for the division of the Boston public school system into nine districts - eight of which are geographically delineated and a ninth which is citywide. The purpose of this arrangement is to maximize voluntary choice of school programs and curricula within a framework designed to achieve full de• segregation. The most important features of the plan can be divided into five categories: (r) the citywide school districti (2) community school dis• trictsi (3) administration and supervisioni (4) school closingsi and (s) student assignment policies. Each of these categories merits brief discussion. 2 THE CITYWIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT The citywide school district contains schools at each grade level through• out the city. Each school in the citywide district has distinctive programs or features designed to attract students of all races who have common interests, including the magnet programs described briefly above and more extensively in a booklet distributed by the Boston School Department in late May of 1975. To enhance these magnet programs, each school in the citywide district has been paired with a college or university, and high schools will also have the aid and cooperation of various businesses. To the greatest extent possible, attendance at these schools will be the student's choice, but each school's student body will be desegregated and will closely reflect the ethnic composition of the student population of the city as a whole. Thus if insufficient numbers of students apply to citywide schools, some students will be assigned to them. Citywide schools include the three examination schools with special entrance requirements as well as other 29 The Decisions of the U.S. District Court for th e District of Massachusetts schools which have achieved distinction in offering unique programs at all levels. Under the plan, all citywide schools except the examination schools and the English Language Center (for the teaching of English as a second language) will reserve twenty-five percent of their seats for students residing in the district in which the school is located. Of particular concern to the court and the parties was desegregation of the examination schools- Boston Latin School, Boston Latin Academy and Boston Technical High- since students in those schools follow programs which are different from the general high school curriculum and which build upon themselves year after year. The solution contained in the plan is to desegregate only the entering grades in those schools in 1975-76, with at least thirty-five percent of each entering class to be composed of black and hispanic students. The court has left to the school department for that school year the task of setting appropriate admission criteria which will obtain the desegregated results. Programs to prepare students to apply to the examination schools, and programs within the schools themselves, are to be conducted on a desegregated basis. The portion of the court's plan dealing with the examination schools is not final. The court has specifically left open the question whether the seventh and eighth grades should be eliminated at the examination schools, as well as whether any other modifications might be necessary to insure their eventual complete desegregation. 3 COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICTS Under the plan, the eight Community School Districts represent communi• ties of schools designed to serve a defined geographical body of students from kindergarten through grade thirteen. The district concept recognizes the desire of many parents for their children to attend school within the defined geographical area in which they reside. The manner of drawing the district boundaries limits travel distance to an average of 2.5 miles each way within the district, while still accomplishing a rough equality of racial composition among all districts with the exception of East Boston. The schools at all levels are designed to provide a variety of educational opportunities which will be responsive to the needs of the residents of each district, and high schools will be paired with colleges and universities in a manner similar to those in the citywide district. Community district schools will be equal in educational offerings to citywide schools, although citywide schools will provide s9me specialized programs not offered within the district. Bilingual instruction and facilitie_s for special needs students will be provided wherever necessary in both dis-trict and citywide schools. 4 ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION Under the plan, each district, including the citywide district, will have a Community Superintendent, and each school will have a headmaster or principal, organized for overall administration into a Council of Principals chaired by the Community Superintendent. The Racial-Ethnic Parent 30 Desegregation: The Boston Orders and Their Origin Councils (RPC) and Racial-Ethnic Student Councils (RSC) in each school, as provided for in the Phase I plan, will continue, and schools involved in desegregation for the first time in 1975 will set up such councils. The RPC and the RSC are the primary mechanisms through which concerned parents and students may address racial problems in their schools. The Citywide Parents' Advisory Council (CPACL composed entirely of parents, will also continue, expanded to include all districts under the new plan, and will continue to provide support and liaison between and among local RPCs. A new feature of the court's plan is the formation of Community District Advisory Councils in each district. These councils will be composed of ten parent representatives elected at a meeting of all the districts' Racial• Ethnic Parent Councils, two student representatives elected by the Racial• Ethnic Student Councils of all the districts' schools, and the balance of the members (the total membership not to exceed twenty) nominated by the Citywide Coordinating Council (CCC) and appointed by the Court. The CCC itself is made up of approximately forty members appointed by the court. The members are drawn from various segments of the community, including two members from CP AC and two student members selected by the RSCs. These councils are to monitor implementation of the plan on various levels and to act as advisory groups to school administrative personnel. The following chart indicates the organizational structure of the councils just described: (See chart to right) The plan thus provides for an interlocking network of input and partici• pation between students, parents, school personnel, community and busi• ness groups, and the court, designed to provide accurate information back and forth between all interested parties and to identify and resolve all types of problems which will be associated with the implementation of the plan. 5 SCHOOL CLOSINGS As a general statement, Judge Garrity's opinion of June 5, 1975, said: Closing schools is always a difficult decision, especially since some schools whose location and physical condition compel their closing have promising educational programs. Attempts have been made to close schools that are in poor condition or unsafe in both black, other minority and white areas to avoid burdening any one group unfairly. The plan does order the closing of several schools, most at elementary level. Many of those schools have long been considered unfit for school use by various agencies and city and state officials. Since desegregation is accomplished most efficiently through the consolidation of student bodies, Judge Garrity believed that closing schools and using newer and better facilities and resources also would aid desegregation. In addition, schools to be closed were selected from areas with excess seating capacity where closing would result in more efficient assignments to other schools and the CITYWIDE LEVEL DISTRICT LEVEL SCHOOL LEVEL THE COURT / CITYWIDE COORDINATING COUNCIL (CCC) 40 members appointed by the court, including 2 parent representatives from CPAC and 2 student representatives selected by RSCs -------.... , ' ' \ \ \ \ \ COMMUNITY DISTRICT ADVIS- \ OR Y COUNCIL in each district- ~ not more than 20 members- 10 ~ parent representatives elected by ~ RPCs of schools in each district, 2- ... : student representatives elected by "':,, RSCs of schools in each district, ... , : \ balance nominated by CCC and ', : \ appointed by the court \1 ' ~ " ' ' I \ \ \ \ \ \ ' ' \ \ \ ' CITYWIDE PARENTS ADVISORY COUNCIL (CPAC) composed entirely of parents elected by RPCs 'RACIAL-ETHNIC PARENT COUNCILS (RPCs) in each school, elected from among the parents 'RACIAL-ETHNIC STUDENT COUNCILS (RSCs) in each school, elected from among the students SCHOOL COMMITTEE 1 SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT COMMUNITY DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT in each district COUNCIL OF PRINCIPALS in each district, chaired by Com• munity District Superintendent in each district PRINCIPAL or HEADMASTER in each school 32 Desegregation: The Boston Orders and Their Origin minimization of overall busing. Based on the information received by the experts and masters, seating capacities have been set in the plan for those schools which remain open, and no condition of overcrowding is antici• pated, nor will any overcrowding be permitted. If overcrowding should develop, schools previously ordered closed may be reopened. 6 STUDENT ASSIGNMENTS The student assignment process is a complex one designed to eliminate racially identifiable schools, to guard against disproportionate racial isola• tion in any school, either black, white, or other minority and to permit as much parental choice as possible consistent with overall desegregation. An informational booklet along with an application form was sent to all parents of children in the school system in late May of 1975. Under the plan, applications for various schools were required to indicate an order of preference for placement in a school in the district of residence without naming a specific school, and/or for placement in one or more specific citywide schools. Although the plan said that those preferences would be honored to the greatest extent possible, citywide preferences were not guaranteed at any level, nor was assignment to a community district school guaranteed at the high school level. One important aspect of the plan is that no elementary or middle school student was to be forced to attend a school outside of his own residential district unless attendance outside the district was the student's or parent's own preference. The plan provided the school department with the power to assign the applicant to a specific school, either within the district or citywide. The plan's basic unit for assignment to the community district schools is the "geocode", a bounded area of from five to fifteen residential blocks which may contain anywhere from half a dozen to several hundred public school students. Each community district school has a set of geocodes assigned to it in such a way that the school's student population reflects generally the racial and ethnic composition of the district students as a whole and in such a way that neighborhoods are divided as little as possible and transportation is minimized. In Judge Garrity's words, [g]eocode assignments offer the advantage of fostering contact of students in school with their neighbors at home within a geocode. Students who are transported to school will travel with their neighbors, attend school with them, and be able to maintain ties developed in school while in their home neighborhoods. The court's plan set forth a formula for determining the permissible ranges of variation of the racial and ethnic composition of each district school based on the racial and ethnic composition of all students within that district as a whole, but no racial or ethnic groups were to be assigned to a particular school in groups of less than twenty. Thus there will undoubtedly be some schools where there will be no bilingual students, special needs stu• dents, or "other minority" students in attendance. An exception to the gen• eral assignment pattern contained in the plan is that students entering their 33 The Decisions of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts senior year of high school and students wishing to continue participation in certain vocational programs may request to be reassigned to the school they attended in the previous year, without regard to its location or their resi• dence. Assignment and admission of students to schools in the citywide district is not by geocode, but on an individual basis, with student preferences granted to the greatest extent possible consistent with achieving desegre• gation. In general, the racial composition of citywide schools is permitted to deviate less from overall enrollment percentages than is the racial com• position of the district schools. The guidelines with respect to composition of the citywide schools are intended to prevent racial isolation by providing close adherence to the system-wide ethnic composition. In the citywide high schools, as in the district high schools, students entering their year of graduation may, if they wish, attend the school they attended the previous year. The following priorities for entrance to citywide schools have been set by the plan in the event that any citywide school is oversubscribed: (r) applicants residing in the district where the citywide school is located (up to twenty-five percent of the school capacity); (2)applicants who attended the school in the preceding year; (3) high school students whose district school is oversubscribed; and (4) all other applicants. If citywide high schools are undersubscribed, leaving district high schools overcrowded, the district high school will be filled first by random selection from among racial and ethnic groups in the district. The remaining students will be placed in citywide high schools on the basis of stated preference or geo• graphical proximity and in keeping with the citywide student racial and ethnic composition guidelines. 7 SUBURBS AND CONTINUING JURISDICTION Two final words about the content of the plan are appropriate. First, it does not involve Boston suburbs in desegregation of the Boston public schools. It does not do so because there was no showing at the trial that suburban school committees had taken any action which was designed to promote racial segregation within the Boston school system. As you will recall from the discussion in Chapter II of this pamphlet, no federal court has the power to order anyone to do anything unless it finds that a rule contained in the Constitution, in a law passed by Congress or in some other appro• priate place has been broken by the person or group to whom it issues the order. Since there was no showing that the suburban school committees had violated applicable rules, the court thus had no power to include the suburbs in the remedy it ordered to cure the effects of intentional segrega• tion within the City of Boston itself. Second, although Judge Garrity's Phase II order of May ro, 1975 promul• gated the "final" plan for desegregation of the Boston public schools, here• tains the power or jurisdiction to oversee implementation of the plan to insure that it is carried out and to deal with problems encountered in do• ing so. This kind of retained and continuing jurisdiction is normal when- 34 Desegregation: The Boston Orders and Their Origin ever a federal court issues a complex order which necessarily must be carried out over an extended period of time. It does not exist only in deseg• regation cases and, indeed, is frequently encountered in cases dealing with complex commercial transactions. In any event, Judge Garrity's retention of jurisdiction means that he may continue to hold hearings and issue appropriate orders to deal with various aspects of the Phase II plan as implementation continues over the next several years. C The Appeals As the Court and the parties were in the process of formulating the final remedy just described, the School Committee also was in the process of appealing Judge Garrity's decision of June 21, 1974. That decision, of course, was the one in which Judge Garrity first found that the School Committee had intentionally and purposely maintained a segregated system of educa• tion in the schools of the City of Boston. The appeal was filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit which, like the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, is located in the Post Office Building in downtown Boston. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit hears all appeals from decisions of United States District Courts in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Puerto Rico. In deciding an appeal, however, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, like all federal courts of appeals, has a limited role. That Court cannot change, except under the most unusual circum• stances, any findings of fact by the District Court on the basis of evidence presented at trial. The Court of Appeals hears no witnesses, receives no exhibits other than those which were introduced at the trial in the District Court and never uses a jury. Instead, it simply receives written documents called briefs from the lawyers for all groups involved in the appeal, listens to oral presentations or arguments from the attorneys for all groups and then, accepting as true the facts found by the District Court, determines whether the District Court properly applied the governing law to those facts. Unlike the case in the District Court where only one judge ordinarily sits during a trial and writes any opinion which is necessary, three judges decide each case presented to the Court of Appeals. The vote of two of those three judges is necessary for the Court to reach a decision. In the Court of Appeals, the primary argument of the School Committee was not that the public schools in Boston were not segregated, nor was it that Judge Garrity had made mistakes in his findings concerning what the School Committee had or had not done concerning segregation in Boston. While it did argue that some of Judge Garrity's factual findings were in• accurate, the dominant thrust of the School Committee's argument was that, even if one accepted all of Judge Garrity's findings of fact as true, the most that could be said of the School Committee was that it failed to take some affirmative action to eliminate segregation in the school system caused 35 The Decisions of the U .S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by residential housing patterns or by its adherence to a policy of providing neighborhood schools. In other words, the School Committee argued that Judge Garrity's findings would not support a conclusion that it had inten• tionally and purposely created segregated education in Boston and that, at most, those findings would support a conclusion that the School Com• mittee had not eliminated segregation which had created itself. That failure, the Committee argued, was not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Unanimously, the Court of Appeals rejected the School Committe's argu• ments. First of all, the Court of Appeals said, applicable decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States made clear that the failure to take some affirmative action to remedy the effects of segregation brought about by residential housing patterns or other factors could be evidence of an intent to maintain a segregated system of education. Particularly was this so, in the Court's view, since, in the context of management of the public schools of Boston, the difference between action and inaction often was a difficult one to see. As an analogy, if someone sees a burning cigarette thrown by another into a waste basket full of paper and simply walks away, it cannot be said realistically that his "inaction" has nothing whatsoever to do with a subsequent fire which develops and consumes the house in which the waste basket is located. Beyond rejecting the School Committee's arguments dealing with "mere inaction", however, the Court of Appeals also agreed with Judge Garrity that, in its use of classroom facilities, in its use of feeder patterns, in its use of controlled and open transfer policies and in its hiring and placement of teachers and administrators, the School Committee went beyond "mere inaction" and intentionally took steps designed to segregate the Boston school system by race. Accordingly, it "affirmed" or upheld Judge Garrity's opinion and order of June 21, 1974, concluding that, in light of the "ample factual record" compiled at the trial and the precedents of the Supreme Court, it did not see how Judge Garrity could have reached any other conclusions than those he did. The next step in the appellate process was an appeal by the School Com• mittee to the Supreme Court of the United States. Once the Supreme Court decides to hear an appeal, it operates in much the same way as the Federal Courts of Appeals. Thus, the Supreme Court listens to no witnesses, receives no exhibits other than those which were presented to the District Court and never uses a jury. It receives briefs from the lawyers for the parties and hears oral argument from them. Nine j_udges decide each case argued in the Supreme Court and a simple majority of those judges is sufficient to decide a case in one way or the other. Appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States, however, are dif• ferent from appeals to the Federal Courts of Appeals in that, unlike the Courts of Appeals, the Supreme Court is not required to consider the merits of every appeal presented to it. Indeed, approximately 3,ooo cases are appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States each year and it actually 36 Desegregation: Tbe Boston Orders and Their Origin hears and decides only about 200 of those. In order for a case to be heard on the merits by the Supreme Court, at least 4 judges must vote in favor of having it heard. Generally, the Supreme Court will only decide cases which either present some new issue which it has never decided before and which is thought by the Court to be of significance for the entire country, or on which various Federal Courts of Appeals have reached opposite conclusions. If it decides not to hear an appeal on the merits, the Supreme Court simply issues a brief order stating that the appeal will not be considered and only in the most extraordinary circumstances does it list any reasons why consideration of the appeal has been denied. On May 12, 1975, the Supreme Court issued a brief order of the type just described stating that it would not entertain the School Committee's appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. One can only speculate, of course, about the reasons why the Court decided not to hear the appeal, but it is clear that Judge Garrity's opinion of June 21, 1974 followed very closely the Supreme Court's opinion issued in the Spring of 1973 concerning the Denver public schools. Accordingly, the Court may have felt that Judge Garrity's opinion of June 21 contained no new issue of substance which required full examination. In any event, whatever the Supreme Court's reasons for declining to listen to the appeal in detail, its order of May 12, 1975 ended all possible appeals from the June 21 order. While there presently is pending in the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit an appeal from the Phase II remedial order of May 10, 1975, Judge Garrity's June 21 order is a final one, cannot be changed through any further appellate processes and is absolutely bind• ing on all citizens. V Conclusion Even when the power of the Federal Courts is explained, even when the source of the law applied by Judge Garrity both on June 21, 1974 and on May 10, 1975 is examined, and even when his decisions as well as the decision to date of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit are reviewed, one dominant question tends to linger. Given the fact that we have in the United States a democratic form of government and given the fact that, in a democracy, the majority rules, how is it possible for a federal court to issue an order like Judge Garrity's Phase II order of May 10, 1975 when that order, if put to a vote, might well be defeated at the polls by a majority of those voting? The answer is a simple one. The Constitution does not set up an "absolute" democracy in which the majority rules absolutely no matter what the effect of that rule on various minority members of 3 7 Conclusion the society. Instead, it sets up a democracy which, though primarily operat• ing on the principle of a majority rule, nevertheless guarantees to all citi• zens certain basic and absolute rights which no majority can take away. It is not surprising that the framers of the Constitution, many of whom were themselves members of political and religious minority groups, were convinced that the democracy they created had to be kept in check by limitations on the absolute power of a majority to work its will. Nor is it surprising that the basic constitutional limitations on the power of the majority -limitations primarily contained in various amendments to the Constitution including the 14th Amendment- have survived to this day. All of us, at one time or another, are, or have been in some kind of a minority, be it religious, political, social or ideological. All of us, therefore, at one time or another, benefit from limitations imposed by the Consti• tution on the power of a majority to act in a manner wholly unrestrained by anything save its own ideas of the common good. The principle that all minorities have certain basic rights which a majority has no power to deny or reduce is the foundation on which a just society is built. Basic fidelity to that principle often requires difficult and un• pleasant decisions. Largely voluntary adherence by all to that principle, however, is a fundamental requirement if our society is to remain dedi• cated to the principle that it provides liberty and justice for all. Judge Garrity's opinion of June 21, 1974 found that a minority in Boston composed primarily of citizens whose skin is black had been denied a basic right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, namely, the right to equal educational opportunity. His Phase II remedy of May 10, 1975 is intended by him to prevent continuation of that denial and to attempt to restore those citizens to the position in which they would have been had that right not been denied in the first place. The remedy may well cause some hardship for citizens of Boston of all racial and ethnic backgrounds who live in all parts of the City. Some citizens may agree with all of it, some with none of it and some with part of it. Some may see it as a cause for hope and some as a cause for despair. But for all citizens of Boston, words quoted by the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit have today a special meaning. Deep emotions have ... been stirred. They will not be calmed by letting vio• lence loose ... submitting to it under whatever guise employed. Only the construc• tive use of time will achieve what an advanced civilization demands and the Con• stitution confirms. Judge Garrity's decision and order of fune 21, 1974 are the law. His Phase II remedy of May 10, 1975 is the law and will continue to be the law unless reversed or modified during some forthcoming appeal. That law will be enforced, if necessary, by appropriate law enforcement agencies. Nevertheless, only the concerted action of citizens of good-will wherever residing in the City of Boston can make that law fully effective with a minimum of disruption, inconvenience or fear of physical harm. And only 38 Desgregation: The Boston Orders and Their Origin through such action can we remain dedicated to the principle that ours is a just society, that ours is a society in which equality is more than a distant dream and that ours is a society in which the rule of law, and not the might of men, is truly sovereign. VI Appendix Sources for Information and Assistance Relating to Desegregation, Busing, School Regulations, Student Rights and Criminal Procedure I Publications The following organizations have pub• lished rna terials covering several topics that may be of interest to members of the public. Several of the publications are general in naturei others are limited to the extent that they were written during Phase I. They nevertheless offer back• ground information that should assist the reader in understanding the current situation. A. Massachusetts Research Center Ioo Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts o2I IO 426-307 5 1. "The Desegregation Packet" (Fall I97 4) (Approx. 70 pages, 81/2 x I I. A charge of $3 per copy is made to cover the cost of reproduction.) A collection of reports, including a de• tailed chronology of events in Boston from I96I through June, I974, brief discussions of the constitutional background of de• segregation as it relates to Boston, busing in the Boston school system during the I973-I974 academic year and the busing plans for the I974-I975 academic year that were under consideration as of July, I974, the concept of the neighborhood school and its history in Boston, the financial as• pects of desegregation, the effects of de• segregation on the quality of education, and a brief factual summary of the school desegregation process in four other cities. 2. Desegregation. There's some• thing more to it than busing." (4 pp., 31/2 x 81/2) (free) Eleven short questions and answers about the situation in Boston as it existed in September, I974· B. Massachusetts Department of Education Bureau of Educational Information Services I82 Tremont Street Boston, Massachusetts 02I I I 727-5792 1. "Balancing the Public Schools, Desegregation in Boston and Springfield" ( I97 5) (25 pp., 51/2 X 81/2) (free) A short history of events leading to the desegregation of public schools in Boston and Springfield prepared by the Massa• chusetts Research Center for the Board of Education. A limited supply is available on a first-come, first-served basis. C. Freedom House, Institute on Schools and Education I4 Crawford Street Roxbury, Massachusetts 02I2I 440-9704 1. "Boston Desegregation: The First Term, I974-I975 School Year" (Feb. I975) (22 pp., 81/2 X II) (free) Over Ioo questions and answers on all aspects of the desegregation experience in the Boston school system for the first term of the I974-I975 academic year. 39 Appendix 2. "Boston Desegregation: Questions and Answers" (II pp ., slfz X 81/z) (free) Over 6o questions and answers on the situation in Boston as it existed in the Summer of 1974. D . Office oflnformation and Publications The United States Commission on Civil Rights rr2r Vermont Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20425 The following publications are available free of charge if you mail a request for no more than so copies to the Commission at the above address. Many of them are also available for a charge at the U.S. Government Bookstore in the basement of the J. F. K. Federal Building, Govern• ment Center, Boston, 223-6071. 1. "School Desegregation in Ten Communities" (Publication No. 43, June 1973) (So pp., 81/z x rr) A study of school desegregation in ten communities throughout the United States covering such aspects as the legal history in each community, community involve• ment in implementation of the desegrega• tion plans, the role of busing, and the effect on the quality of education. 2. "Racial Isolation in the Public Schools" ( 1968) (Vol. I., 286 pp. GPO Catalog No. CRI.2 :Sch6/ r2v.r. Vol. II (appendix), 295 pp. GPO Catalog No. CRI,2:Sch6/ !2/V.2.) Study on the extent of racial isolation in public schools, its deleterious effects, and existing and proposed remedies. 3· "Title IV and School Desegrega• tion: A Study of a Neglected Fed• eral Program" (1973) (r87 pp.) Evaluation of Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, under which technical assist• ance is provided to school districts to help them end segregation. 4· "Twenty Years after Brown: The Shadows of the Past" (1974) (II9 pp.) First in a series. Historical background for forthcoming reports examining the ex• tent of civil rights progress in the United States since Brown v. Board of Education. s. "EducationParks" (r967) (109 pp. CHP No.9) Appraisals by six educators of an inno• vative technique of providing quality edu• cation for all children on a desegregated basis. 6. "What Students Perceive" (1970) (88 pp. CHP No. 24) Students of all ethnic groups and from various parts of the country discuss their education and the racial climate in which they received it. Based on a Commission survey of 2 77 students in I7 communities. Introduction by Dr. Alvin F. Poussaint, Harvard Medical School. 7- "Your Child and Busing" (1972) (2o pp. CHP No. 36) Reviews historical use of busing in edu• cation and legal background of busing for desegregation. Discusses myths and reali• ties of school busing, including safety, cost, and educational effects. 8. "Five Communities: Their Search for Equal Education" ( 1972) (s 5 pp. CHP No. 37) Describes the experience of five areas that have used busing extensively in school desegregation (Pasadena, Calif.; Tampa/Hillsborough County, Fla.; Pon• tiac, Mich.; Winston-Salem/Forsyth County, N.C.; and Charlotte/Mechlen• burg County, N.C.). 9· "Inequality in School Financing: The Role of Law" (1972) (153 pp. CHP No. 39) -Summarizes history of the movement toward equal educational opportunity, re• views court decisions mandating equality in educational expenditures, and raises questions about ramifications of these decisions. 40 Desegregation: The Boston Orders and Their Origin IO. "The Diminishing Barrier: ARe• port on School Desegregation in Nine Communities" (I972) (64 pp. CHP No. 40) Identifies school desegregation problems and how they have been met in Alachua County (Gainesville), Fla.; Escambia County (Pensacola), Fla.; Evanston, Ill.; Harrisburg, Pa.; Hoke County, N.C.; Jefferson Township, Ohio; Leon County (Tallahassee), Fla.; Moore County, N.C.; and Volusia County (Daytona Beach), Fla. I I. "Public Knowledge and Busing Opposition: An Interpretation of a New National Survey" (I973) (27 pp.) Based on a survey by Opinion Research Corporation of national attitudes on bus• ing of school children. Finds that those who are well-informed about busing are inclined to support it. I2. "To Ensure Equal Educational Opportunity" (I975) (Vol. III, 396 pp.) Evaluates enforcement of civil rights laws pertaining to education. Covers De• partment of Health, Education and Wel• fare, Internal Revenue Service, and Vet• erans Administration. Includes findings and recommendations. I3. "Twenty Years After Brown: Equality of Educational Oppor• tunity" (I975) (94pp.) Describes desegregation of schools since I954 and discusses areas where desegrega• tion is lacking. Contains findings and recommendations. Second in a series. E. Boston Bar Association I 6 Beacon Street Boston, Massachusetts 02I08 742-06I5 1. Desegregation: The Boston Orders and Their Origin ( 42 pp.) (free) F. American Civil Liberties Union Civil Liberties Union of Massa• chusetts 3 Joy Street Boston, Massachusetts 02I08 426-3325 1. ACLU handbooks published by Avon Books a. The Rights of Suspects, Oliver Rosengart, $.9 5 b. The Rights of Teachers, David Rubin, $1.50 c. The Rights of Students, Alan H. Levine, $.95 These books discuss various topics re• lated to their titles. In addition to being available from the Union, they are also available in many bookstores in Boston. G. Massachusetts Law Reform Institute 2 Park Square Boston, Massachusetts 02I I6 482-0890 1. "Making School Work- An Education Handbook for Students, Parents and Professionals" (1974) (approx. IOO pp. 6" X 9") ($3.95) A thorough handbook which tells parents what rights their children have under the public laws relating to educa• tion, and how to secure their rights. 2. "Parents Rights Manual• Lawyers Edition" ( Io6 pp., 81/2 x u) ($r.oo) A back-up manual to "Making School Work" with legal citations. H. Massachusetts Bar Association I Center Plaza Boston, Massachusetts o2ro8 523-4529 1. "Your Rights if Arrested" (4 pp., 31/2 x 81/2) (free) A brief description of procedures in• volved in arrest, searches, obtaining bail and appearing in court in criminal cases. Can be obtained in person or by mail if you enclose with your request a self-ad• dressed stamped envelope. 2. "What Does a Lawyer Do?" (4 pp., 31/2 x 81/2) (free) I4 general questions and answers about lawyers and the law. Available in English and Spanish. Can be obtained in person or by mail if you enclose with your request a self-addressed envelope. 41 Appendix I. "De Facto School Segregation: A Constitutional and Empirical Analy• sis." Frank I. Goodman, 6o California Law Review pp. 275-437 (No.2 March, 1972) A lengthy legal analysis of de facto segregation. Available in most legal libraries. J. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination 120 Tremont Street Boston, Massachusetts o2ro8 727-3990 1. "Route 128: Boston's Road to Segregation" (ro7 pp., 81/2 x rr 1/2) (free) A report to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the MCAD concerning overall urban-suburban segregation in the Boston area, its causes and effects. Con• tains a set of findings and recommenda• tions designed to deal with the problem. II Services 1. Boston School Department Informa• tion Center 727-6555 At this number, information is available concerning school assignments, transporta• tion, conditions at a given school or schools, programs at the various schools and virtually every other question you have concerning the operation of the Boston public schools. If the person who answers cannot provide you with an answer to your question, he or she will give you the name and number of a per• son who can. The Center ordinarily op• erates from 9 :oo to 5 :oo but the hours of operation will be expanded as necessary during peak periods. .. 2. Boston Legal Aid Society 14 Somerset Street Boston, Massachusetts o2ro8 227-0200 The Boston Legal Aid Society gives legal advice and representation in Court in all civil matters to those people who cannot afford the services of a private attorney. The services rendered cover all the cities and towns in Greater Boston where the United Way of Massachusetts Bay holds its annual campaign for funds for social agencies. The Boston Legal Aid Society is a pri• vate charitable organization and has been in existence since 1900, and receives its funds from the United Way of Massachu• setts Bay, lawyers and law firms, and a number of charitable trusts and founda• tions. Those clients who are able, pay a $r .oo registration fee. The Society handles approximately ro,ooo cases annually for indigent persons. People seeking assistance must person• ally apply at the office of the Societyi advice by telephone is limited to emer• gency matters only. 3. Boston Legal Assistance Project• Juvenile Courts Project Fields Corner- 1486 Dorchester Avenue Dorchester, Massachusetts 02122 436-6292 South Boston 424 Broadway South Boston, Massachusetts 02127 269-3700 Attorneys are available to represent juveniles under the age of 17 who are charged with criminal offenses in any Dis• trict Court Juvenile Session within the city as well as in school suspension proceed• ings. To be eligible, the juvenile must live in the City of Boston and be unable to afford the services of a private attorney. Services are free. 4· Massachusetts Advocacy Center 2 Park Square Boston, Massachusetts 021 r6 357-8431 Provides free advice and representation by attorneys and paralegals to students who are suspended from school for viola• tions of the Disciplinary Code. It also pro• vides free advice and representation to parents and students seeking assistance under Ch. 766, the new Special Education Law, as well as other education laws. 42 Desegregation: The Boston Orders and Their Origin 5. Massachusetts Black Lawyers Association 2 7 School Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 227-0750 Attn: Wayne A. Budd, Esq., President Has developed a panel of member attor• neys available for representing students in criminal matters arising out of school dis• turbances as well as in the other matter arising out of implementation of the Phase II plan. Services are available both to those who can and those who cannot afford to pay for legal services. The Asso• ciation also has speakers available on request to explain to groups the desegre• gation orders and their background. 6. Massachusetts Defenders Committee 120 Boylston Street Boston, Massachusetts 02116 482-62!2 Provides attorneys to represent juveniles charged with criminal offenses in the Boston Juvenile Court and Dorchester Dis• trict Court. Services are available only to those who cannot afford to pay for legal representation and normally only if a Committee attorney is appointed by a court. Attorneys are available, however, for initial advice on pending criminal matters without court appointment. In the event that a significant number of arrests occur simultaneously in a given geo• graphic area or areas, the Committee has a plan under which it will provide repre• sentation to indigent defendants arrested in those areas. 7· Roxbury Defenders Committee 124 Warren Street Roxbury, Massachusetts 02119 445-5640 On a limited basis, provides attorneys to represent juveniles charged with crim• inal offenses. Services are free and are available only to those who are unable to pay for legal representation. 8. Boston Bar Association Lawyers Reference Service 16 Beacon Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 742-0625 Provides referral assistance to anyone who needs a lawyer but does not know one. The Service refers people to lawyers who have special qualifications with respect to the subject on which advice or representation is needed. The Service is available both to those who can and those who are not eligible for assistance from agencies providing legal assistance to the indigent. 9. Massachusetts Bar Association Attorney Referral Service r Center Plaza Boston, Massachusetts 02108 523-0595 Provides referral assistance to people who need a lawyer but do not know one. The Service refers people to lawyers who have special qualifications with respect to the subject on which advice or representation is needed. The Service is available only to those who are able to pay for the services of an attorney.
2023-05-17T15:27:49.862Z