THE DESEGREGATION BUSING CRISIS: THE MOTIVES AND CONSEQUENCES OF “ROAR”

Historian’s Craft HST-300 Fall 2020 Dr. Scott H. Bennett

By Nicole Russo

4 November 2020

World Count (Total): 2,122 Word Count (Quotes): 73 ABSTRACT

Restore Our Alienated Rights (ROAR) was an organization formed in Boston in 1974 to oppose the court mandated busing system used to integrate the city’s schools. ROAR claimed to oppose the busing policy on the grounds of parental rights, but their controversial actions suggest otherwise. This paper focuses on the question: Was ROAR fighting for its own rights or suppressing those of the blacks? This paper argues that ROAR was a racist organization that sought to hinder the effectiveness of desegregated busing. ROAR’s claim about underrepresentation is invalid as its leaders, members, and supporters held many powerful political positions, including members of the school committee. ROAR’s speech was hateful and racist, and their actions violently targeted the black community. Their flag indicates greater importance about white unity than parental rights, further supported by praise from members of the and American Nazi party. This paper concludes that ROAR’s actions prove they were more concerned with maintaining their power over the city’s black community then they were with protecting parental rights. The Boston desegregation busing crisis (1974-1988) was the fallout of Boston’s use of court mandated forced busing to desegregate schools. Concerned that their children were not receiving a quality education, black parents fought for integration, knowing more money would be spent on schools attended by white students. There were multiple reasons that people opposed busing. Some questioned its effectiveness, while others opposed it as a means to integration.

Integration sparked a massive, frequently violent, white opposition. One of the largest opposition groups was Restore Our Alienated Rights (ROAR).1 This paper focuses on the question: Was

ROAR fighting for its own rights or suppressing those of the blacks? This paper argues that ROAR was a racist organization that sought to hinder the effectiveness of desegregated busing.

Historians disagree about the motives of ROAR. Some historians believe that ROAR was fighting to protect parental rights.2 Conversely, other historians argue that ROAR used “parental rights” as a racist cover to prevent integration.3 This paper supports the position that ROAR was a racist organization opposed to integration on racist grounds.

Knowing how and why Boston’s schools were segregated is important to understanding why ROAR should be considered a racist group. Integrating schools in Boston and elsewhere in the North presented different challenges then desegregating schools in the South. Northern segregation is often referred to as , because there were no laws mandating segregation.

Other factors caused educational segregation. In Boston, schools were segregated due to residential segregation.4 Residential segregation was often caused by housing and other socio-economic factors shaped by race.5 On June 21, 1974, Judge W. Arthur Garrity ruled that the Boston school committee was guilty of intentionally taking actions to maintain segregated schools.6 Black parents in Boston worried that their children were not receiving a

1 quality education and that integration would change this as more resources would be allocated to schools attended by white students.7

ROAR used the slogan “integration without representation,” which was inspired by the

Revolutionary slogan “taxation without representation.”8 The irony is that ROAR was anything but underrepresented. ROAR’s members were white, mainly of Irish or Italian descent. Whites controlled the schools through elected school committee members.9 ROAR co-founder Louise

Day-Hicks and other members on the school committee had the opportunity to tackle desegregation in a manner acceptable to their constituents, but they ignored the issue.10 Meanwhile, attendees at a ROAR convention included 125 delegates from eight states, other school committee members, a city councilor, and many other local and national anti-busing politicians. Contrary to their claim, ROAR had powerful support. This was a stark contrast to black families who had been waiting twenty-one years since Brown v. Board of Education (1954) for Boston to acknowledge de facto segregation, enforce desegregation, and integrate the city’s schools. 11 ROAR’s refusal to grant representation to other racial groups was hypocritical.

ROAR interpreted the busing policy as an attack against parental rights and whites. Their name and lion symbol illustrate how ROAR believed that their voices were not heard. Early accounts of ROAR record their name as standing for Return Our Alienated Rights, indicating that they thought that their rights had been taken from them.12 A survey of 468 white Bostonians living in areas effected by busing asking respondents to rank members of the community and rank them by status and power over busing. By status blacks were ranked tenth out of eleven but were ranked first in power over busing. The participants ranked blacks above rich people, the category which would have encompassed Judge Garrity, as well as other government officials responsible for busing. This survey indicates that white Bostonians viewed desegregation and busing as a power

2 struggle between themselves and black Bostonians rather than a struggle between parents and the government.13 ROAR’s dilemma, however, was that Boston’s black voices were beginning to be heard, and the white power over the schools was starting to decline.

ROAR’s racial motives can be seen by examining the motives of co-founder Louise

Day Hicks. Hicks was a member of the school committee and, like her fellow members, was more concerned with reelection and her political career than the education of the city’s students. The school committee lost more than $52 million in funding by violating the Racial Imbalance Act

(1965) in order to satisfy their racist constituents.14 For years before the busing crisis, Hicks had focused on how to prevent desegregation rather than how to secure a better education for all

Boston students. Hicks opposition to desegregation promoted and hatred among ROAR members and would eventually far exceed her expectations. Although Hicks insisted that she was not a racist, her actions certainly fueled those who were racist, and harmed Boston’s black community. 15

John Kerrigan, the chair of Boston’s school committee, illustrates ROAR’s racial views and motives. 16 A strong opponent of busing, he was the defendant in Morgan v. Hennigan /

Morgan v. Kerrigan (1974), the case in which Judge Garrity mandated school busing to integrate

Boston’s schools. Like Hicks, Kerrigan was guilty of maintaining segregated schools. Kerrigan claimed, “Racism is the cry of those who don’t want to work.”17 This statement is ironic considering the blacks had been working for two decades to persuade Boston to desegregate its schools following Brown v. Board of Education.18 Moreover, black parents were demanding better education so that their children could contribute even more the work force and society.19

Oddly, for an organization concerned with parental rights, ROAR took their anger out on blacks. The predominately white High School was covered in hateful graffiti such as

3 “No Niggers in South Boston,” while protesters carried signs and chanted “Bus ‘em Back to

Africa.” There were violent attacks against the school busses carrying black students, resulting in both physical and emotional scars.20 Busing opponents, displeased with Mayor White’s handling of desegregation, dubbed him “Mayor Black” and criticized him for siding with the black community over his fellow Irish.21 The problem was “not the distance, it’s the niggers,” as one mother stated.22

If ROAR were truly defending parental rights, they would not be attacking blacks.

Although some of ROAR’s rhetorical violence was aimed towards government officials responsible for implementing busing, most of it targeted blacks, particularly students. Protesters threw objects at busses carrying students from black communities. These students were just children, following the law and attempting to obtain an education, yet they were the victims of threats and violence.23 Student alterations initiated by both blacks and whites, led to a crisis after the stabbing of a white student by a black student. An angry mob formed outside the school, decoy busses. were used to distract them in order to safely evacuate black students remaining in the school. Although they had the right to be upset and angry, the ROAR rioters seemed prepared to attack innocent black students, who were compelled to hide inside the school.24 ROAR’s attacks against black children were inexcusable. As Deputy Mayor Robert Kiley declared, “There is no such thing as an acceptable level of violent incidents.”25

While this violence was sometimes defended as bussing opponents taking their anger out on busses as a symbol of forced busing, the violence was also aimed at blacks south Boston. For example, a black television soundman was attacked. One man was recorded saying, “Any white kid that goes to school out of his neighborhood should be shot, and any black kid that comes out of his neighborhood to school here should be shot.” In another incident the crowd spotted a black man in his car and shouted, “There’s one, get him.” The crowd attacked the car and the man

4 eventually ran out and unsuccessfully attempted to flee the mob. While the Deputy Police

Superintendent held the injured man in his arms, the crowd pleaded to “offer him up!” ROAR’s violence targeted black people, a sign that they were angrier with integration than with busing.26

ROAR often based their tactics on those of the . For example,

ROAR, along with other busing opponents, organized a march on Washington. This march took place only a few blocks from a civil rights demonstration. 27 The irony of ROAR’s march on

Washington is that attendees compared a Ku Klux Klan leader and the leader of the American Nazi

Party, notable white supremacists, to civil right leaders such as Martin Luther King.28 By copying the civil rights movement, ROAR acted as a countermovement, not a movement for parental rights.

Despite the KKK’s history of persecuting the Irish, their presence was welcomed, one ROAR protestor declared, since “they just hate the Niggers.”29 White supremist groups supported ROAR because their intentions were racial and aligned with those of white supremist groups.

The flags flown at ROAR’s movements also call into question its motives. ROAR’s flag served as a symbol of white unity rather than parental rights. The flag consisted of the green, white, and red colors of the Italian flag, with a green shamrock to represent the Irish in the center.30 The flag demonstrates how the organization excluded the black community and that parental rights were not actually at their forefront. ROAR’s flag shows that they were only concerned with keeping their schools and neighborhoods white.31 ROAR also flew the American flag and noted that the civil rights movement was anti-American because its members often disgraced the flag. Yet one of the most famous photographs to come from the busing crisis is that of a young white bussing opponent using the American flag to attack a black busing advocate.32

ROAR mimicked another tactic used by civil rights activism, school boycotts. Boston’s black community boycotted the schools while they were fighting for desegregation. These

5 boycotts, however, only lasted one day and had little interference with the children’s education.,

ROAR’s boycotts, however, were more extreme. During the first six months, only half of the students enrolled attended. On the first day of school at the predominantly white South Boston

High School, less than 10 percent of the students attended. Of those, almost half were black. Less than 10 percent of the white students assigned to predominantly black Roxbury High School attended.33 In 1976, one mother admitted that she had kept her children home from school during the two years since busing had been implemented.34 ROAR was willing to compromise their children’s education for the sake of maintaining segregation.

The boycott was just a precursor to the declining number of white students in Boston’s schools. Opposition to integration led to the phenomenon known as , which was the rapid migration of whites from cities into the surrounding .35 In less than a decade, school enrollment had declined 43 percent while the population of the city only declined 9 percent. White flight enabled families who opposed integrated schools to move to a predominately white and enroll their children in all white schools. Other white families fled the public education system and enrolled their children in parochial schools.36 Some members of ROAR even opened their own private school.37 White flight had a negative educational impact on black students. As the wealthier, white families fled the city, Boson received less tax revenue and public schools received less funding.38

ROAR’s impact on white flight and opposition to desegregation wreaked havoc on

Boston’s schools. The schools today are more segregated than before the busing crisis.39 Boston, as well as Massachusetts as a whole, had some of the highest resegregation rates in the nation.40 The number of white students had dropped so much that the Racial Imbalance Act had to be Revised. 41

6 So little money is being spent on education in Boston, the city’s test scores rank among the lowest in the state. The education black parents fought so hard for still does not exist.42

It is important to note that while ROAR was a racist organization, not all who opposed busing were racists. Busing failed, and most agree that it was poorly planned and executed. Many saw the situation as a class struggle. Government officials, including Judge Garrity, were hypocritical, imposing desegregation on the poor while sending their children to all white schools in the white suburbs.43 Many black parents did not support and were more concerned with their children’s quality of education than with racially balanced schools. They viewed desegregated busing as a means rather than an end.44

In conclusion, ROAR was a racist organization that sought to keep whites in a position of power over blacks. , along with the rest of the Boston school committee, was found guilty of maintaining the school system’s de facto segregation. The actions of the organization were motivated by hate and challenged those of the civil rights movement. ROAR claimed to be protecting the rights of parents and white communities, but their actions undermined black quality education and black rights.

7 1 Restore Our Alienated Rights (ROAR) was an organization that opposed Boston’s desegregated busing. For ROAR, see Kathleen Nutter, “‘Militant Mothers’: Boston, Busing, and the Bicentennial of 1976,” Historical Journal of Massachusetts 83, no. 2 (Fall 2010): 53-75; William N. Preston and Robin W. Lovin, “Rights and Remedies: A Study of Desegregation in Boston,” Journal of Religious Ethics 6, no. 2 (Fall 1978): 137-63.

2 Kathleen Nutter, “‘Militant Mothers’: Boston, Busing, and the Bicentennial of 1976,” Historical Journal of Massachusetts 83, no. 2 (Fall 2010): 53-75. 3 Bert Useem, “Models of the Boston Anti-Busing Movement: Polity/Mobilization and Relative Deprivation,” Sociological Quarterly 22, no. 2 (Spring 1981): 263-74; Michael Patrick MacDonald, All Souls: A Family Story From Southie (Boston: Beacon Press, 1997).

4 Joseph T. Durham, “Sense and Nonsense About Busing,” Journal of Negro Education 42, no. 3 (Summer 1973): 327-332; William M. Gordon, “The Implementation of Desegregation Plans Since Brown,” Journal of Negro Education 63, no. 3 (Summer 1994): 310-315.

5 Vincent N. Parrillo, “Segregation, Residential,” ed. Encyclopedia of Social Problems, (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2008).

6 W. Arthur Garrity (1920-1999) was the Judge who ruled that Boston’s schools were intentionally segregated. For Garrity, see Carey Goldberg, “Judge W. Arthur Garrity Jr. Is Dead at79,” New York Times, September 18, 1999. p. A15; N.a., “W. Arthur Garrity Jr. 1920-1999,” Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, no. 25 (Autumn 1999): 128.

7 Morgan v. Hennigan. 379 F. Supp. 410 (D. MA. 1974); Jane M. Hornburger, “Deep are the Roots: Busing in Boston,” Journal of Negro Education 45, no. 3 (Summer 1976): 237-245.

8 Matthew Richer, “Bussing’s Boston Massacre,” Policy Review, no. 92 (November 1998): 42-48.

9 Jack Tager, Boston Riots: Three Centuries of Social Violence (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 2019), Ch. 9; Preston and Lovin, “Rights and Remedies,” pp. 139-140.

10 For this sentence, see Nutter, “Militant Mothers,” pp. 55-57.= Louise Day-Hicks (1916-2003) was a politician, a member of the school committee, and co-founder of ROAR. For Hicks, see Katie Zezima, “Louise Day Hicks Dies at 87; Led Fight on Busing in Boston,” New York Times, October 23, 2003, p. C15; Tager, Boston Riots, Ch. 12; Nutter, “Militant Mothers,” pp. 53-75.

11

John Kifner, “2 Boston Rallies at Odds on Busing,” New York Times, May 19, 1975. p. 19; William M. Gordon, “The Implementation of Desegregation Plans Since Brown,” pp. 310, 315.

12 John Kifner, “6,000 In Boston Protest Busing,” New York Times, December 16, 1974. p. 19; Richer, “Bussing’s Boston Massacre,” pp. 42-48; Nutter, “Militant Mothers,” pp. 59-60.

13 Bert Useem, “Models of the Boston Anti-Busing Movement: Polity/Mobilization and Relative Deprivation,” Sociological Quarterly 22, no. 2 (Spring 1981): 267-68.

14 Tager, Boston Riots, Ch. 12. The Racial Imbalance Act made it illegal for schools in Massachusetts to have racially imbalanced enrollment and cut funding for schools found in violation. For the Racial Imbalance Act, see Hornburger, “Deep are the Roots,” pp. 235-45; Preston and Lovin, “Rights and Remedies,” pp. 137-63.

15 Zezima, “Louise Day Hicks Dies at 87,” pp. 55-59.

16 For John Kerrigan (1932-1996), see Preston and Lovin, “Rights and Remedies,” pp. 137-63; Morgan v. Hennigan; Lawrence S. DiCara and Chris Black, Turmoil and Transition: A Political Memoir From the Busing Era (Lanham, MD: Hamilton Books, 2013). 17 Kifner, “2 Boston Rallies at Odds on Busing,” p. 19. 18 Ibid. 19 Gordon, “The Implementation of Desegregation Plans Since Brown,” p. 316. 20 Tager, Boston Riots, Ch. 12. 21 (1929-2012) was the mayor of Boston during the busing crisis. For White, see Margalit Fox, “Kevin H. White, Mayor of Boston During Busing Crisis, Dies at 82,” New York Times, January 29, 2012. p. 20; Marilynn Johnson, “White, Kevin,” ed. American National Biography Online (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). 22 Hornburger, “Deep are the Roots,” p. 243. 23 Tager, Boston Riots, Ch. 12. 24 Nutter, “Militant Mothers,” pp. 62-63.

25 John Kifner, “Boston School Buses Stoned a 2d Day, But City is Mostly Calm; Whites in South Area Press Boycott,” New York Times, September 17, 1974, p. 13.

26 John Kifner, “Violence Mars Busing in Boston,” New York Times, September 13, 1974, p. 1; John Kifner, “South Boston Crowd Attacks Black as Tensions Rise,” New York Times, October 8, 1974, p. 85. 27 DiCara and Black, Turmoil and Transition, pp. 73-76. 28 Ernest Holsendolph, “Busing Opponents Rally in Capitol,” New York Times, April 25, 1976. p. 25.

29 Michael Patrick MacDonald, All Souls: A Family Story From Southie, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1997), pp. 86-87.

30 Robert L. Kierstead, “A Real Estate Story Stirs Painful Memories: A Story and Photo of a House That Caused Pain,” Boston Globe, June 4, 1990, p. 15. 31

Kifner, “2 Boston Rallies at Odds on Busing,” p. 19; Kifner, “6,000 In Boston Protest Busing,” p. 19. 32 Richer, “Bussing’s Boston Massacre,” pp. 42-48. 33 Nutter, “Militant Mothers,” p. 61. 34 Holsendolph, “Busing Opponents Rally in Capitol,” p. 25. 35

Vincent N. Parrillo, “White Flight,” ed. Encyclopedia of Social Problems (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2008).

36 George V. Higgins, “Boston’s Busing Disaster,” New Republic, February 28, 1983. p. 19. 37 Nutter, “Militant Mothers,” p. 69. 38 Durham, “Sense and Nonsense About Busing,” p. 305. 39 Higgins, “Boston’s Busing Disaster,” p. 19. 40 N.a., “W. Arthur Garrity Jr. 1920-1999,” p. 128. 41

Richard H. Gentile, “Garrity, W. Author, Jr. (1920-1999), Lawyer and Federal Judge,” ed. American National Biography Online (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).

42 Richer, “Bussing’s Boston Massacre,” pp. 42-48.

43 Nutter, “Militant Mothers,” pp. 63-66. 44 Hornburger, “Deep are the Roots,” p. 245; Richer, “Bussing’s Boston Massacre,” pp. 42-48.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. PRIMARY SOURCES A. Government Documents Morgan v. Hennigan. 379 F. Supp. 410 (D. MA. 1974).

B. Newspapers & Periodicals Fox, Margalit. “Kevin H. White, Mayor of Boston During Busing Crisis, Dies at 82.” New York Times, January 29, 2012. p. 20. Goldberg, Carey. “Judge W. Arthur Garrity Jr. Is Dead at79.” New York Times, September 18, 1999. p. A15. Higgins, George V. “Boston’s Busing Disaster.” New Republic, February 28, 1983. pp. 16-19. Holsendolph, Ernest. “Busing Opponents Rally in Capitol.” New York Times, April 25, 1976. p. 25. Kierstead, Robert L. “A Real Estate Story Stirs Painful Memories: A Story and a Photo of a House That Caused Pain.” Boston Globe, June 4, 1990. p. 15. Kifner, John. “2 Boston Rallies at Odds on Busing.” New York Times, May 19, 1975. p. 19. ———. “6,000 In Boston Protest Busing.” New York Times, December 16, 1974. p. 19. ———. “Boston School Buses Stoned a 2d Day, But City is Mostly Calm; Whites in South Area Press Boycott.” New York Times, September 14, 1974. p. 13. ———. “Boston Whites March in Busing Protest.” New York Times, October 28, 1975. p.16. ———. “South Boston Crowd Attacks Black as Tensions Rise.” New York Times, October 8, 1974. p. 85. ———. “Violence Mars Busing in Boston.” New York Times, September 13, 1974. p. 1. Zezima, Katie. “Louise Day Hicks Dies at 87; Led Fight on Busing in Boston.” New York Times, October 23, 2003. p. C15

C. Memoirs DiCara, Lawrence S. and Chris Black. Turmoil and Transition: A Political Memoir From the Busing Era. Lanham, MD: Hamilton Books, 2013. MacDonald, Michael Patrick. All Souls: A Family Story From Southie. Boston: Beacon Press, 1997.

II. SECONDARY SOURCES A. Books Tager, Jack. Boston Riots: Three Centuries of Social Violence. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 2019.

B. Journal Articles Durham, Joseph T. “Sense and Nonsense About Busing.” Journal of Negro Education 42, no. 3 (Summer 1973): 322-35. Gordon, William M. “The Implementation of Desegregation Plans Since Brown.” Journal of Negro Education 63, no. 3 (Summer 1994): 310-22 Hornburger, Jane M. “Deep are the Roots: Busing in Boston.” Journal of Negro Education 45, no. 3 (Summer 1976): 235-45. N.a. “W. Arthur Garrity Jr. 1920-1999.” Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, volume ??? no. 25 (Autumn 1999): 128. Nutter, Kathleen. “‘Militant Mothers’: Boston, Busing, and the Bicentennial of 1976.” Historical Journal of Massachusetts 83, no. 2 (Fall 2010): 53-75 Preston, William N. and Robin W. Lovin. “Rights and Remedies: A Study of Desegregation in Boston.” Journal of Religious Ethics 6, no. 2 (Fall 1978): 137-63. Richer, Matthew. “Bussing’s Boston Massacre.” Policy Review. Volume ??? no. 92 (November 1998): 42-48. Useem, Bert. “Models of the Boston Anti-Busing Movement: Polity/Mobilization and Relative Deprivation,” Sociological Quarterly 22, no. 2 (Spring 1981): 263-74.

C. Dictionaries / Encyclopedias Gentile, Richard H. “Garrity, W. Author, Jr. (1920-1999), Lawyer and Federal Judge.” ed. American National Biography Online. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Johnson, Marilynn. “White, Kevin.” Ed. American National Biography Online. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Parrillo, Vincent N. Encyclopedia of Social Problems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2008.