Boston Busing Crisis Background Guide Table of Contents

Letter from the Chair Letter from the Crisis Director Committee Logistics Introduction to the Committee Topic One: Protests & Violence Topic Two: Implementation History of the Problem Past Actions Taken Current Events Questions to Consider Resources to Use Dossiers Bibliography

Staff of the Committee

Chair Faisal Halabeya Vice Chair Evan Teplensky Crisis Director Samantha Koplik Assistant Crisis Director Jorge Gonzalez

Coordinating Crisis Director: Julia Mullert

Under Secretary General Elena Bernstein

Taylor Cowser, Secretary General Neha Iyer, Director General

Letter from the Chair

Hello Delegates!

Welcome to the Busing Crisis Specialized Committee at BosMUN XIX! My name is Faisal Halabeya and I am thrilled to be serving as your chair during our conference! A little about myself: I am a sophomore studying math and physics and minoring in the Core Curriculum. At , I serve on the Executive Board of HeForShe and as a Student Ambassador at the Howard Thurman Center for Common Ground. I’ve been engaging with MUN in some capacity for the past 4½ years and I am anticipating a successful conference!

I hope that our committee is fast-paced yet thoughtful, productive but without compromising its integrity, and competitive at the level the delegates desire without losing our cooperative aims. Along with all our staff, I will do my best to make sure every delegate has the opportunity to participate fully and that everyone gets out what they put into our three days together.

Please keep in mind that the topics we will be debating are sensitive ones which hold significant historical and emotional weight. Topics such as race, , violence, police brutality, and others will come up and delegates should be aware of that. This being said, we the staff will expect everyone in the room to treat the debate with the gravity it merits, and to hold each other—and us—accountable for doing so.

As BosMUN XIX will be hosted in the City of Boston, our topic should be of special interest to all of us. It is also of great personal importance to me because one of my mentors was a journalist during the busing crisis. She led the Globe to its Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of the events in Boston, and she often tells me stories about her experiences as a black woman in this city. Her courage and dedication are an inspiration to me. So, suffice it to say, there is no committee I would rather be chairing.

I look forward to welcoming you all to Boston. Please do not hesitate to reach out to me with any questions or concerns, or just to get in touch between now and February!

All the best, Faisal Halabeya [email protected]

Letter from the Crisis Director Hello Delegates!

Welcome to BosMUN XIX! My name is Sam and I am very excited to be your Crisis Director for the Boston Busing Crisis committee! Faisal and I have been working hard to plan this committee and we have chosen topics that are both relevant and impactful to Boston’s busing crisis.

Before I talk more about this committee, let tell you all a bit about myself. When I am not busy writing dossiers, you can find me in the lab decked out in personal protective equipment! I am a senior at Boston University, studying Biomedical Engineering and I intend to pursue a PhD this fall in Biomedical engineering. While my major is a bit atypical from my fellow MUN companions, I do plan to eventually have a career where I can combine my interest in science and engineering with my interests in public policy and international relations. With regard to MUN, I have previously served as a crisis staffer for BosMUN and an ACD and I am excited to end my MUN career on a strong note with Boston Busing Crisis!

As your CD, I will aim to make this committee immersive and relevant to Boston in the 1970s and 1980s—an era at the pinnacle of legislature, riots and violence relating to desegregation. The topics of this committee are socially and politically sensitive as they pertain to and violence. Some characters in this committee even have inherently racists beliefs. However, as long as we all respond maturely and appropriately to conflicts pertaining to topics of this nature, Faisal and I expect this committee to go off without a hitch! I am excited to plan interesting crisis archs for this committee and to challenge you all with crisis updates as you attempt to mitigate violence in Boston whilst also navigating the complexities of desegregating Boston schools. To ensure your success in this committee, crisis notes and directives should be creative, relevant, consistent and purposeful. Please do not hesitate to talk to me if you have any questions about this committee. I am going to have a blast working with you all to make this committee as fun and enjoyable as possible and I look forward to seeing you all soon in good ol’ Beantown!

All the Best,

Sam Koplik [email protected]

Committee Logistics

As a specialized committee with a fast-paced crisis backroom, we will be utilizing directives as our primary form of operative document. This is done in order to allow delegates to respond more efficiently to crisis updates, to prevent time lost to the writing of preambulatory clauses, and to make collation and collaboration easier for you as delegates. In order to be considered, there is no minimum or maximum number of sponsors/signatories that a directive may have, but the expectation is that delegates will seek common ground amongst themselves before submitting directives (ie. if no one else in committee has seen your directive yet, it is not yet ready to be debated).

Additionally, when directives are introduced the general rule is that no more that three will be introduced at a time, so collaboration will also be expected in order to pare down the number directives to three or fewer before they are introduced by the chair.

In committee, delegates are expected to remain civil, respectful, and mindful of the impact of their words and actions. We hope that debate will remain at a high level and that everyone will participate as actively as possible. Additional expectations will be set as needed. We will hold you to a high standard and invite you to do the same; if you feel that your expectations of the committee are not being met, or if you have any feedback during the conference, please do not hesitate to let any member of staff know.

Introduction to the Committee

Our committee represents a diverse range of opinions, positions, and appointments throughout the City of Boston and the Commonwealth of in the year

1974. We are being placed in the middle of a crisis: the implementation of Busing in

Boston Public Schools. You, the delegates, are a group of leaders, politicians, community activists, and other public figures from the area tasked with debating both the policies surrounding Busing as well as their implementation. Secondarily, you must also deal with the reactions of the public and the violence and protests that ensue as a result of the heightened tensions between different communities in Boston.

You are situated at the beginning of Phase II of the crisis, shortly after Judge W. Arthur

Garrity Jr. has ruled that any school in Boston with more than 50% nonwhite students must be racially balanced by busing students between segregated school districts and has submitted Phase II to address the issues arising during the fall of the

1974-75 school year.1 Throughout debate it should be kept in mind that delegates each have their own interests and influence throughout the City and that these may be of consequence to the crisis that is unfolding. Not all delegates support the Busing plan and some may seek to undermine it. Regardless of what happens, however, the success of your committee will rest on all members; all must respond to the crisis and all must face the consequences not only of their own actions but that of their colleagues’.

Topic One: Protests & Violence

Following the Garrity ruling, Boston erupted into chaos caused by the implementation of Busing alongside a backdrop of both violent and nonviolent resistance.

Unfortunately, most of the pushback came in the form of aggression or violence, and was often met with the same.2 It all began with the establishment of Restore Our

Alienated Rights (ROAR) under the leadership of former Boston School Committee member . The organization had as its goal to fight the Garrity ruling, calling it an overreach of power and claiming that segregation and discrimination did not exist in .3

Hicks and her organization took their model from Civil Rights activists, leading sit-ins, public prayers, and even a small march on Washington, DC.4 Over time, as it became clear that busing would happen no matter what, the group dwindled in influence and fell off. But though they were gone, their influence would remain significant and manifested itself in efforts to continue to undermine the busing initiative. These included both indiscriminate and organized forms of resistance.5

Topic One: Protests & Violence

Incidents of violence were commonplace, and often included attacks on black people.

Notoriously, an attack on attorney Theodore Landsmark left him near-dead, and retaliatory incidents ensued involving more bloodshed.6 But those who suffered perhaps most of all were the students who were being bused. They often faced intimidation both from other students and from parents and the community at large.7

South Boston, often called Southie, was a hotbed for anti-busing violence. White demonstrators pelted a caravan of 20 school buses carrying students from black neighborhoods to white schools. This was particularly psychologically damaging to the students who had to endure violent forms of racism from adult community members on their way to school. These intimidation tactics were initially quite effective. In the

first days after the implementation of busing, less than 1% of the estimated number of enrolled students at newly integrated, predominantly white schools were in attendance. Even white students who opposed the busing initiative began to boycott their schools to put pressure on the administrations to reverse the decision.8

Though police outnumbered students at the volatile High School, violence continued. Mayor made an appeal to Bostonians to support the initiative but also remarked that he could not do much more than impose a curfew.9

Topic One: Protests & Violence

The violence and protests continued to escalate through the 1974-5 school year as the

Busing Crisis took full hold. South Boston High was a focal point for much of individual attacks and taunting of black students. Even teachers were said to treat black and white students very differently. But black students responded to these threats in their own ways. For instance, the Black Students Caucus at South Boston High School organized in the fall of 1975 to demand more black representation in administration, on sports teams, and in student government. These demands were met with everything from screaming lynch mobs to indiscriminate attacks which rendered South Boston effectively entirely off-limits to black people who feared for their lives.10

Ultimately, the protests and violence continued as busing was implemented, and posed both administrative and personal threats to black individuals and to City policymakers.

Violence was not restricted to one neighborhood or race, though it was mainly focused in the hotspots of South Boston and Roxbury as these were the first areas to be integrated, with the former a predominantly white neighborhood and the latter predominantly black. As busing continued, the strife spread throughout the city and caused great grief to all citizens of Boston. It left wounds which have yet to fully heal.

Topic One: Protests & Violence

Iconic photograph, “The Soiling of Old Glory”, taken in Boston in 1976.11

Map of Boston, showing the adjacency of Roxbury and Southie.12

Topic Two: Implementation of Busing

As violence and protests continued to rage in the City of Boston over the Garrity ruling and its proclamations, this committee will need to continue to pursue a method of implementing Busing that both achieves the goals of desegregation as well as curbs the amount of pushback, violent or otherwise. The main challenges are to establish a system that makes sure the Racial Imbalance Act is fulfilled, to recognize the limitations of public money and resources and to work within those restraints, and to ultimately get students to and from school safely. Securing schools themselves may also be an issue, as violence may pose a threat to bused-in students during the school day.

Firstly, it is important to establish the necessity of integration rather than a focus on other areas. The Post reports that “when the National Assessment of Educational

Progress began in the early 1970s, there was a 53-point gap in reading scores between black and white 17-year-olds. That chasm narrowed to 20 points by 1988 ... But since

1988, when education policy shifted away from desegregation efforts, the reading test score gap has grown — to 26 points in 2012 — with segregated schooling increasing in every region of the country.” In other words, busing will be a vital component to establishing equity in Boston Public Schools, and is the reason why this committee needs to focus on implementation to make sure desegregation is actually achieved.13

Topic Two: Implementation of Busing

Here is an assortment of quotations from an article decrying the inefficacy of busing in

Boston. This is not to discourage delegates, but rather to allow you to recognize some of the pitfalls of what happened so you can do better.14

“Racially homogenous neighborhoods that resulted from historic housing practices such as red-lining have driven school segregation. The problem is worst in the

Northeast — the region that, in many ways, never desegregated — where students face some of the largest academic achievement gaps: in Connecticut, Maryland,

Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.”

“White families fled to the . Supporting neighborhood schools and opposing rides became rhetoric to fight desegregation without overtly racist language. But as black activists in Boston noted at the time, “It’s not the bus, it’s us.”

Before the court order, nearly 90 percent of high school students rode a bus to school without protest … Busing ended because of a combination of white protest, media that overemphasized resistance, and the lack of systematic collection to judge the impact of desegregation. So we need to be sober about our history: Busing didn’t fail; the nation’s resolve and commitment to equal and excellent desegregated schools did.”

Topic Two: Implementation of Busing

A police escort of school buses through a street in Boston in 1974.15 In less than a year,

the amount of white students taking a bus to a desegregated school would fall by so

much that minority students would outnumber white students in many schools.

History of the Problem

Though our committee begins in 1974 with the initial implementation of busing, a number of events have occurred leading up to this point that will impact the decisions of our committee. In addition, this background guide will detail some of the actions that happened after 1974 in order to give delegates a better sense of how actual historical events proceeded. The format is a “timeline” of sorts with emphasis on protests and violence against the backdrop of the general crisis.16

1954: The Supreme Court rules unanimously in Brown v. Board of Education that the segregation of public schools is unconstitutional.17

1965: The Supreme Court again rules that there must be no further delay in implementing the desegregation of schools. This decision will be the impetus to begin busing immediately following the Garrity ruling in 1974.18

1965: Massachusetts General Court adopts the Racial Imbalance Act, which declares segregation of public schools to be illegal. It states “racial imbalance shall be deemed to exist when the percent of nonwhite students in any public school is in excess of fifty per cent of the total number of students in such school.” Integration is demanded to occur by the fall of 1966.19

1971: The Supreme Court declares busing as a constitutional method of desegregation.20

March 1972: The NAACP files Morgan v. Hennigan, accusing the Boston School Committee of discrimination. The main allegation was that the predominantly black schools were of much poorer quality and received much less funding than white ones.21

History of the Problem

February 1973: The Massachusetts Supreme Court rules that the Boston School Committee has violated the Racial Imbalance Act and states that integration must happen during the school year of 1974-5.22

June 1974: Importantly, in in Milliken v. Bradley the Supreme Court rules that Judge Arthur Garrity cannot order suburban schools to participate in busing since they have not been designated as segregated by the Racial Imbalance Act.23

1974 School Year: Desegregation is set to occur in 80 Boston schools. Most politicians refuse to take a side as various protest groups like ROAR become established.24

September 1974: Schools open without heavy police presence. In South Boston, nine black students are injured by rocks thrown at buses. Violence spreads to Hyde Park High School, affecting attendance in both neighborhoods. Restore Our Alienated Rights calls for a two-week boycott of schools, the first in a series of walkouts.25

September 1974: Newly hired black teachers at South Boston High School face violence, have their car windows smashed, and receive death threats.26

October 1974: Mayor White’s plea to use federal marshals to maintain order is denied. At this point the program has cost the City of Boston over $2 million in the first 18 days. 350 State Police and 500 National Guard troops are put on alert to secure South Boston High School.27

December 1974: A white student is stabbed by a black student at SBH. Parents barricade the school and state police rescue black teens trapped inside. When the school reopens after winter break, police officers line the hallways. The police overtime in the first four months of the 1974-5 costs over $4 million.28

History of the Problem

Following these events came the implementation of “Phase 2” of the busing plan. The plan divided Boston into eight geographic zones and a citywide zone, each having to be racially balanced. Half of Boston students would be bused under this plan. Between the

1974 and 1975 school years, attendance at Boston Public Schools fell by so much that there ended up being more minority than white students by the 1975-6 school year.29

Another form of protest that became quite prevalent in the 1975-6 school year and moving forward was the opening of private schools, especially Catholic schools, in order to allow white students to enroll. These were often run by anti-busing activists, and paired with boycotts of public schools. All of this activism put increasing pressure on Boston city officials to reverse the busing decision.30

In May 1975, Garrity issued Phase 2 of the busing plan to go into effect for the following school year. By that fall, many South Boston High teachers had requested to be transferred to different institutions.31

This will be a starting point for the committee to understand the kinds of resistance, violent and otherwise, that ought to be expected in the City of Boston as busing is implemented and refined.

History of the Problem

Louise Day Hicks speaks through a megaphone at an anti-busing protest in 1974.32

Past Actions Taken

Boston used a variety of tactics to calm protest and violence and to incentivize or coerce busing in a city that was often staunchly opposed to it. The main phases of the busing plan were as follows.

Phase I: This plan was intended to correct student racial imbalance in schools with a non-white enrollment of more than 50 percent. The city used mainly redistricting and some busing. Initially, no effort was made to desegregate faculty or staff, or to education programs to help facilitate this transition. It was mainly intended to satisfy the Racial Imbalance Act and did not go much further. Each high school with more than

10 black or 60 Asian American or Spanish speaking students was to create a

“racial-ethnic” parent council to address issues like protests and violence.33

Phase II: This was a more complete and total integration plan. The Educational Planning

Center produced it on December 16, 1974, but the School Committee neither approved nor disapproved it and refused to submit it to the court. The School Committee submitted a plan of its own on January 27, 1975, and the new plan was implemented. The

December 16 plan did not specify how students would be assigned to continue to minimize segregation. It also did not define a criteria for segregation, and it also mandated that mainly minority students would be bused.34

Past Actions Taken

Both the December 16 and January 27 plans were too reliant on communities making the free choice to desegregate and did not specify a desired percentage of white and non-white students. The plans were less a guarantee and more of a recommendation.

The Supreme Court then heard the case Morgan v. Kerrigan, which featured the two plans of the Committee as well as a third one created by the plaintiffs. A panel of four

Masters made recommendations on all the plans and finally generated a new one.35

Masters’ Plan: This solution attempted to desegregate through community district schools, with racial percentages reflecting the racial makeup of those districts. Parents and students had five options: (1) assignment to a community school district, with the specific school not named; (2) a voluntary desegregation program; (3) preference for the same school if assigned there under Phase I of school desegregation; (4) a citywide ; (5) a special program at another community district school, if that program was racially balanced.36

Our committee begins here. We have the option to implement Phase II directly or to make amends to it, or to draft entirely new proposals if so desired.

Current Events

At present, the Masters’ Plan has been proposed and is about to be put into action. The main goals of the committee are to evaluate its efficacy, to implement or revise it, and to deal with ongoing threats of violence and protest.

Currently, there is also a media war going on as groups like ROAR try to emphasize the negative effects of busing. They are also calling for boycotts and for parents of white children to send them to private schools including especially Catholic schools. The archdiocese heavily restricted transfers to the school in an effort to prevent the undermining of integration. In response, small private schools are being established for white students to allow them to not comply with the busing mandates.

Boston’s black community is also actively seeking out ways to push for busing and to make sure it remains legally mandated. They do this in a variety of ways, including aforementioned protests and petitions, but also by running for office in positions such as members of the Boston School Committee.

Questions to Consider for Topic One

1. How can violence be curbed as quickly as possible without causing further instability? 2. What responsibility, if any, does the committee have to racist or prejudiced demands from the public? 3. How will the committee bring together the views of such polarized, opinionated members and find a cohesive goal? 4. How will students be kept safe, from violence and abuse? 5. How should members of the committee treat and respond to emerging and established media?

Questions to Consider for Topic Two

1. What solutions worked in the past and which ones did not stand up to scrutiny or implementation? 2. How will the committee take all needed perspectives into account whilst maintaining some level of impartiality? 3. How should segregation, desegregation, and racism be defined? Does hate speech need to be addressed? 4. How will you know if you have been successful? One of the biggest failures of the original Phase II plan was a lack of metrics. What metrics will you employ to ascertain the success of your implemented plans? 5. Should the committee consider other programs of implementation besides busing, and if so, which ones and why? Resources to Use

1. SCHOOL DESEGREGATION IN BOSTON: A staff report prepared for the hearing of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in Boston, Massachusetts, June 1975.

A report detailing the various proposed plans and commenting on their efficacy.

2. WGBH: ECHOES OF BOSTON'S BUSING CRISIS Essays written by bused Boston sixth-graders, 40 years later.

A collection of first-hand accounts from the oft-forgotten perspective of children affected by the busing crisis.

3. Rethinking the Boston “Busing Crisis” by Matthew Delmont, Jeanne Theoharis.

A journal article arguing that the entire framing of the “busing crisis” is one borne of privilege and which needs to be questioned.

4. Also refer to the sources in the bibliography and use your research skills to do some of your own work. This background guide is meant to be a starting point for delegates to engage in the process of deliberate and precise inquiry. Dossiers

Kathleen Sullivan Alioto Boston School Committee Member Kathleen Sullivan Alioto was an American educator and politician who served on the Boston School Committee as a member from 1974–79 and served as its president in 1977. Prior to serving on the school committee, Sullivan Alioto worked as a teacher of disabled children in Harlem and Bedford-Stuyvesant, then at the John Marshall School in Boston's Dorchester neighborhood,where she taught children with behavioral issues. While serving on the School Committee, Sullivan Alioto earned her doctorate at Harvard. Kathleen Sullivan played in important role in the move to desegregate Boston Public Schools and brought up the idea of a lottery system, in which, when possible, students would get their first or second choice school. During the initial vote to appeal Judge Garrity’s decision to submit a plan to desegregate the public schools, only Sullivan voted no. Kathleen Sullivan Alioto was not afraid to disrupt the status quo while in the school committee, no matter her stance. Serving on the committee, she helped set policy for the district and approve the district's annual operating budget.

John J. Kerrigan Boston School Committee and City Council Member John J. Kerrigan was a member of the Boston School Committee from 1968 to 1975, and a member of the City Council from 1975 to 1977. He was one of the leading opponents of the plan to integrate the Boston Public School through busing. Kerrigan was chair of the school committee when, in December 1974, it voted to refuse to comply with the order of Federal District Judge Wendell Arthur Garrity Jr. to desegregate the Boston Public Schools. Kerrigan argued that sending children on long bus rides from one neighborhood to another would not improve the quality of their education. In an interview he called the ruling “a gun that's held to the head of the people of Boston.”As a school committee member, Kerrigan particularly criticized suburban support for busing, and in 1972 introduced a busing bill solely intended to bus students from inner-city schools into the suburban school district where the governor lived. He was also among those who took his child out of public school during the forced busing, John Kerrigan,said the schools were unsafe. He understood that it was unfortunate how society has made it this way, but the only way to desegregate city schools at that time was through forced busing.Serving on the committee, Kerrigan helped set policy for the district and approve the district's annual operating budget. Serving on the council, he advocated for all Bostonians and had authority to approve the city budget; monitoring, creating, and abolishing city agencies; making land use decisions; and approving, amending, and rejecting other legislative proposals. Dossiers

Ruth Batson Director of METCO Ruth M. Batson was an American civil rights activist and outspoken advocate of equal education. She spoke out about the desegregation of Boston Public Schools, served on the Public Education Committee of the NAACP Boston Branch and later served as the executive director of the Metropolitan Council for Educational Opportunity (METCO). In the early 1960s, she challenged the Boston School Committee, charging that Boston Public Schools were largely segregated. In her work on the Public Education Committee of the NAACP Boston Branch she gathered information on the condition of Boston schools, advocating for parents and children, and finally becoming a spokesperson to call for necessary changes in the schools. Batson had an avid career at the METCO. She was involved with this program from its inception, helping to develop it from an idea to a thriving program. She started out on a steering committee and went on to become its executive director. Batson was also found taking a stand behind the scenes during the early days of forced busing; From her job at Boston University and as a committee member at Freedom House, she worked to support children and families during this unsettling time.

Ellen Jackson Director of Operation Exodus Ellen Swepson Jackson was an American educator and activist. She is best known for founding Operation Exodus, a program that bused students from overcrowded, predominantly black Boston schools to less crowded, predominantly white schools in the 1960s. The program paved the way for the desegregation of Boston's public schools. Jackson was a housewife with five children when she formed the Roxbury-North Dorchester Parents' Council in 1965. The neighborhood's predominantly black schools were overcrowded, and students were usually encouraged to enter vocational programs rather than prepare for college. The Parents' Council wrote letters and circulated petitions to get the attention of the Boston School Committee. After Jackson saw a document showing the numbers of students and seats in each classroom and school in Boston, She and other parents conceived the idea of sending students from overcrowded schools to less crowded ones. They founded a program called Operation Exodus, with Jackson as executive director. From 1965 to 1969, the program transported over 1,000 students to less crowded schools. In the early years of busing in Boston, she was a member of the Citywide Coordinating Council, established by US District Judge W. Arthur Garrity Jr. to oversee the desegregation of the public schools Dossiers Jean McGuire Boston School Committee Member Jean McGuire was the first female African American to gain a seat on the Boston School Committee at Large, in 1981 during the Boston busing desegregation era. She also served as the executive director of the METCO starting in 1973. In this position, she has helped provide educational opportunities to numerous urban school children. She had witnessed how predominantly African-American schools often lacked even basic supplies. She became METCO’s fourth executive director in 1973 and oversaw the voluntary placement of tens of thousands of students of color from Boston in 190 suburban schools. McGuire believes society is better off with Garrity's decision to desegregate schools and believed that part of education is “getting along as a city”. When McGuire served on the committee, she also helped set policy for the district and approve the district's annual operating budget.

Louise Day Hicks Chair of Boston School Committee Louise Day Hicks was an American politician and lawyer from Boston, Massachusetts, best known for her staunch opposition to desegregation in Boston public schools, and especially to court-ordered busing, in the 1960s and 1970s. A longtime member of Boston's school board and city council, she served one term in the United States House of Representatives. In 1960, Hicks won election to Boston's school board, where she served until 1970, including holding the position of chairwoman from 1963 to 1965. During her tenure on the school committee, she came into conflict with civil rights groups and black residents of Boston over her opposition to the desegregation of schools. From 1970 to 1971, she served on the Boston City Council and In 1970, she won the Democratic nomination for the U.S. House seat of the retiring John McCormack where expectations were that Hicks would become a prominent opponent in Congress of federal efforts to enforce busing programs. After leaving Congress, Hicks was the head of an anti-busing group, "Restore Our Alienated Rights" (ROAR), which remained active until a 1976 federal court decision mandated busing to achieve integration in public schools. In 1974, Hicks returned to the Boston City Council, and she served until 1978, including holding the council president's position in 1976. Serving on the council, he advocated for all Bostonians and had authority to approve the city budget; monitoring, creating, and abolishing city agencies; making land use decisions; and approving, amending, and rejecting other legislative proposals. Louise Day Hicks opposition to busing to achieve school integration helped to polarize the city in the 1960's and made her a national symbol of racial division. Dossiers Thomas Atkins Boston City Council Member Thomas Irving Atkin was an African American attorney and politician who served as a member of the Boston City Council and General Counsel of the NAACP. He did important work on the Boston City Council, on the Boston and National NAACP boards. The day after MLK’s assassination, Atkins is credited with persuading Mayor Kevin White to famously not cancel the James Brown concert, which was instead broadcast live on WGBH-TV. Elected to the City Council in 1967, Atkins was in office during the rise of the school desegregation crisis. He went on to serve as the associate trial counsel for the plaintiffs in the Morgan v. Hennigan case, fighting against the de facto segregation in Boston, especially its public schools. This case was assigned to Federal Judge W. Arthur Garrity, and resulted in the court-ordered busing plan. He was the first minority elected to the Boston City Council.Serving on the council, he advocated for all Bostonians and had authority to approve the city budget; monitoring, creating, and abolishing city agencies; making land use decisions; and approving, amending, and rejecting other legislative proposals. He ran for mayor in 1971 and although his bid was unsuccessful he would go on to serve as the first minority member of the state cabinet under Gov. Francis W. Sargent. Atkins would later hold the post of lead lawyer for the NAACP, taking his fight for equality to the national stage.

Edward Logue Boston Redevelopment Authority Member Edward Logue of the Boston Redevelopment Authority proposed busing students to suburbs to achieve integrated schools. Edward Logue was an urban planner, public administrator, lawyer, politician, and academic who worked in New Haven, Boston, and New York State. Logue was best known for overseeing major public works projects, such as Faneuil Hall-Quincy Market and Government Center in Boston. Logue had criticized plans to deal with Boston’s segregated schools. Logue had no background in educational policy,but instead drew from his expertise in urban development to craft a proposal for desegregation. Logue proposed a busing program, referred to as “scatteration” that involved certain communities to prevent overcrowding. Logue had pioneered strategies of acquiring federal funding through his line of work and suggested that the Federal Aid to Education Act or the Federal Poverty Program could cover his plan, as he was adamant about the desegregation of schools not affecting the tax base of either Boston or the participating towns. Edward Logue brings an outsider's perspective with his breadth of financial and urban development advice, to a widely educationally and politically driven fight. Dossiers

Edward Brooke State Attorney General moved to Boston and enrolled in law school. He voted for the first time in his life.Brooke was elected the state’s attorney general in 1962. Edward W. Brooke’s election to the U.S. Senate in 1966 ended an 85–year absence of African–American Senators.Brooke was the first popularly elected Senator and the first black politician from Massachusetts to serve in Congress. During his Senate career he championed the causes of low-income housing and an increased minimum wage and promoted commuter rail and mass transit systems. He helped lead the forces in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment and was a defender of school busing to achieve , a bitterly divisive issue in Boston. When Louise Day Hick refused to acknowledge the existence of de facto segregation, more than one quarter of Boston’s African american students boycotted the schools. The state commissioner of education asked Brooke to rule on whether the boycott was legal. At root, Brooke did not view himself as a civil rights leader. He was a politician, a lawyer, and a policymaker.

Gov. Governor of Massachusetts John Volpe was an American businessman, diplomat, and politician from Massachusetts. A self-made son of Italian immigrants, he founded and owned a large construction firm.During his administration, Governor Volpe signed legislation to ban racial imbalances in education, reorganize the state's Board of Education, liberalize birth control laws, and increase public housing for low-income families. Governor Volpe proposed the Racial Imbalance Act, calling for the Massachusetts State Board of Education to require desegregation plans from local school committees and withhold funds, if necessary. Local school committees were to formulate desegregation plans where de facto segregation exists. John Volpe aimed to combat all causes of prejudice by signing his bill. However, the Boston School Committee repeatedly voiced their opposition to Volpe’s Racial Imbalance Act and worked to limit the meaningful school desegregation efforts that Volpe aimed to accomplish. Dossiers

Mary Ellen Smith Chair of Board of Education An activist in Boston, Smith was a founder of the City-Wide Educational Coalition (CWEC) and in the mid-1980s served as Chair of the state Board of Education. The CWEC was the only multiracial, broad-based, citywide group of people. At the time, the racial imbalance plan is happening but Boston did not tell students where they were going to attend school. Mary Ellen Smith brought the CWEC together worked to raise some money and circulating clear and accurate information regarding . Mary Ellen Smith and the CWEC disseminated accurate information to parents through the Rumor Control Center and its newsletters, reports and parent guides. The Coalition actively participated in the desegregation of Boston schools. Throughout this volatile process led by Mary Ellen Smith, the Coalition developed safety procedures in the schools and along the bus routes, worked with students, parents, teachers and school administrators to improve educational experience.

William Bulger President of Massachusetts Senate William Bulger is a retired American Democratic politician, lawyer, and educator from South Boston, Massachusetts, whose eighteen-year tenure as President of the Massachusetts Senate is the longest in history.Bulger joined other Irish-American neighborhood leaders in opposition to court-ordered . William Bulger, Along with South Boston’s most vocal busing opponents, phrased their major objection as an issue of security. However, It was clear that he, along with State Representative Michael Flaherty and Louise Day Hicks, also resisted the influx of the large number of African American students into South Boston. This was made clear by his signing of the “Declaration of Clarification” which defended Southie’s resistance. Bulger claimed that the issue was not race, but rather the misuse of the state’s power. William Bulger’s power was virtually unlimited in the Massachusetts Senate, and was not balanced by a strong leader in the House. Dossiers

Pixie Palladino Member of Boston School Committee Pixie Palladino was an American politician from Boston, Massachusetts, best known for her affiliation with Restore Our Alienated Rights (ROAR) and her opposition to court-ordered busing in the 1960s and 1970s. She was elected to the Boston School Committee several times in the 1970s, and served three two-year terms. Though she was cleared of bribery charges related to the Boston School Committee in 1981 this ultimately led to the loss of her Committee seat. As the federal courts imposed busing in 1974, Palladino rose to prominence with Louise Day Hicks, to help found the anti-busing group ROAR. in 1975, Palladino and 80 ROAR women stormed into a governor’s commission on women. Dressed in a “Stop Forced Busing” T-shirt, she called on the group to see busing as a women’s issue. Pixie Palladino appeared before a grand jury in a bribery trial for School Committeeman John J. McDonough and through both committee members were cleared of charges, both of them lost their school committee seats. Prior to losing her seat Pixie Palladino voted against virtually every progressive program to come before the committee and believed that federal funds destroyed local school systems. Serving on the committee, she helped set policy for the district and approve the district's annual operating budget.

Robert A. Dentler Member of Boston Mayor’s Commision Robert A. Dentler was an American sociologist who co-authored and oversaw the court-ordered busing plan to desegregate Boston's public schools in the 1970s through the 1980s. He was involved in the school desegregation plans for at least sixteen other northern American cities and the University of system. In 1973, Dentler was appointed to the Boston Mayor’s Commission on the Public School, as U.S. District Judge W. Arthur Garrity Jr. considered whether the Boston Public Schools were in violation of the Massachusetts Racial Imbalance Act. In 1975, Garrity selected Dentler and Boston University's associate dean, Marvin B. Scott, to draft the Boston school desegregation plan, which involved the busing of thousands of students to break up the high level of segregation in the Boston school system. Dentler had a passion for the cause of ending segregation in The United States. Dentler worked to devise a new approach to public education which would be imposed on the city by the federal court. enjoyed staying up late and pouring over cases and court documents involving segregation and desegregation. Dossiers

William O’Connor Boston School Committee Chair William O’Connor, successor of Hicks, served as a School Committee Chair in 1964. Serving on the committee, O’Connor also helped set policy for the district and approve the district's annual operating budget. He was a professor of business at Suffolk University and was a former Boston school teacher. Like many members of the school committee, he thought the black students, not the schools, were the problem. Once elected to his spot in the committee, William O’Connor allegedly said, “We have no inferior education in our schools. What we have been getting is an inferior type of student”. O’Connor had been a Boston teacher and had been listening to former colleagues in the Boston Public Schools who urged him to fight criticism from black parents. Black youth in Boston rejected O’Connor’s claims of Black intellectual and cultural inferiority through their demands for Black history courses and celebration of African style dress and hairstyles. They challenged school officials’ efforts to put the blame on Black youth by shining a light on the racist actions taken by the Boston School Committee, elected officials, and banking and real estate interests that resulted in a racially segregated city and school system. William O’Connor served an important role on the school committee and his vocaled opinions contributed to the uprising of riots and boycotts in Boston.

Gov. Endicott Peabody Governor of Massachusetts Endicott Peabody was an American politician from Massachusetts. A Democrat, he served a single two-year term as the 62nd Governor of Massachusetts, from 1963 to 1965. He is probably best known for his opposition to the death penalty, his many electoral failures, and for signing into law the legislation establishing the University of Massachusetts Boston. In 1964, Governor Endicott Peabody appointed a Racial Imbalance Advisory Commission, asking the committee to make a thorough, independent study of racial imbalance in the public schools of the Commonwealth. The black community organized a “Stay Out for Freedom” campaign which kept over 20,000 students out of school. While the Stay Out did not change the attitudes of School Committee members, it prompted action by Massachusetts Governor Endicott Peabody. Peabody assembled a committee led by state commissioner of education Owen Kiernan to examine the discrimination in the state’s schools. After finding that the majority of nonwhite children attended predominantly non white schools, the committee asserted that the harmful segregation needs to be put to an end. Governor Peabody took a strong stand against the School Committee and conceded to the existence of de facto segregation in a very public way in the aftermath of the Stay Out

BT Dossiers James Hennigan Jr. Boston School Committee Member James Hennigan, Jr. is a Suffolk University Law School alumnus, Massachusetts state representative (1953-1954), state senator (1955-1964),and Boston School Committee member (1970-1974) from Jamaica Plain. Serving on the committee, O’Connor also helped set policy for the district and approve the district's annual operating budget. The Morgan v. Hennigan case bears Hennigan's name because he was chairman of the Boston School Committee in 1972 when the case came before federal Judge W. Arthur Garrity. The Boston School Committee had been under fire for years for failing to comply with federal and state mandates. James Hennigan was regarded as a moderate because he occasionally pointed out the committees growing legal vulnerability and had been the leading advocate of trying to implement integration on the School Committee. Hennigan had tried to get his colleagues to support limited school desegregation. He thought he had the three votes he needed to approve a redistricting plan that would have created a racially balanced student body in three newly built schools. However, at the last minute, school committee member John Craven switched his vote, and was applauded by the audience for doing so. This resulted in the continuation of segregated schools, and subsequently The Morgan v. Hennigan case which eventually brought about forced busing. Hennigan played a major role in convincing Boston School Committee members to corroborate on plans for desegregation.

Albert Leo O'Neil Boston City Council Member Albert L. O’Neil was an American politician who served as a socially conservative member of the Boston City Council for twenty-eight years. Prior to joining the council, he served on the Boston Licensing Board and was an operative for the legendary . In January 1971, O'Neil was appointed to the Boston City Council after the resignation of Louise Day Hicks, who had been elected to the United States House of Representatives.Picking up where Hicks left off, Mr. O'Neil opposed busing in school desegregation efforts. Serving on the committee, he helped set policy for the district and approve the district's annual operating budget. After Peabody was elected Governor of Massachusetts in November 1962, he considered appointing O'Neil as his patronage secretary. O'Neil confirmed he was a supporter of Council of Conservative Citizens, a white supremacist group. O'Neil openly called supporters of integration "suburban liberals". O'Neil was raised in an Irish Catholic family of limited means and was fiercely protective of what he called the “little people of Boston”. Dossiers

Joe Moakley State Representative Joe Moakley, born into South Boston's Irish American enclave, was an American politician who served as the United States Representative for Massachusetts’ 9th congressional district from 1973 until his death in 2001. Moakley won the seat from incumbent Louise Day Hicks in a 1972 rematch; the seat had been held two years earlier by the retiring Speaker of the House John William McCormack. Many of his friends and neighbors took to the streets to reject court-ordered school busing between predominantly white South Boston and the black community of Roxbury. Moakley too, opposed the busing order, but refused to join in the demonstrations. For that his South Boston constituents demonstrated against him. He was one of the few politicians from the South Boston area who was not inciting to riot. Moakley deliberately kept a very low profile during the busing crisis. On the one hand, he very much believed in the neighborhood school as a value. He felt that the neighborhood school represented the value of community, that that was an important value that middle class people did not necessarily understand, like the Judge. In Moakley's view, it was more valuable to maintain the community school as a center in which people organized their lives around and that had a value in and of itself.

Tallulah Morgan Tallulah Morgan was the main plaintiff in the historical case Morgan v. Hennigan, which led to the desegregation of the Boston school system in the 1970s. Tallulah was a 24 year old mother of three school-age children. She claimed that through malpractices such as the adoption and maintenance of pupil assignment policies, the establishment and manipulation of attendance areas and district lines reflecting segregated residential patterns, the establishment of grade structures and transportation practices, the Boston School Committee had in effect denied children equal protection under the law. Her victory in the class action lawsuit led to major efforts in dismantling the dual system of education. The court concluded that the defendants had, on multiple occasions, taken decisions to perpetuate in the Boston school system and so had acted unconstitutionally. Tallulah Morgan played an invaluable role in bringing attention to the clear segregation of the Boston school system and ultimately led to the resulting crisis of the implementation of the busing program. Dossiers Barbara Smith Combahee River Collective Founder Barbara Smith is an American lesbian feminist and socialist who has played a significant role in building and sustaining Black Feminism in the United States (US). In high school, Smith and her sister Beverly participated in school desegregation protests. Before entering college, Smith became a volunteer for The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE). In 1965, she helped to desegregate Mount Holyoke College and participated in Students for a Democratic Society activities. Since the early 1970s, she has been active as a critic, teacher, lecturer, author and scholar. Smith co-founded the Combahee River Collective in Boston with Demita Frazier at a time when the mainstream feminist movement was erupting around the country and the city’s plan to desegregate schools turned chaotic and violent, making widely visible the racism rampant in neighborhoods. The Combahee River Collective was originally a chapter of the National Black Feminist Organization. In 1975, the group in Boston decided to become an independent organization Members of the collective were actively involved in political struggles across Massachusetts, including desegregation in Boston schools.Their work, including its influential manifesto, reflects the group’s belief in Black feminism as movement to combat the oppressions that women of color face. Barbara Smith plays an important role in representing women of color in Boston, working on community campaigns and organizing protests against the injustices against people of color in Boston.

Judge W. Arthur Garrity District Judge of Massachusetts Wendell Arthur Garrity Jr. was a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts notable for issuing the 1974 order in Morgan v. Hennigan which mandated that Boston schools be desegregated by means of busing. He utilized a busing plan developed by the Massachusetts State Board of Education to implement the state's Racial Imbalance Law that had been passed by the Massachusetts state legislature a few years earlier. The Boston School Committee consistently disobeyed orders from the state Board of Education. Garrity's ruling, upheld on appeal by conservative judges on the United States Court of Appeals and required school children to be brought to different schools to end segregation. This ruling led to the Boston busing crisis where Garrity had assumed more control over a school system than any judge in American history. Judge Garrity faced the heavy task of overseeing the steps taken to desegregate the system. Judge Garrity as a man of great courage and a consummate jurist. In legal circles, Judge Garrity was known as a careful, methodical and painstaking judge. Dossiers

Mayor Kevin White Mayor of Boston Mayor Kevin White was an American politician who served as the Mayor of Boston from 1968 to 1984.He presided as mayor during racially turbulent years in the late 1960s and 1970s, and the start of desegregation of schools. White led the city during the school desegregation crisis of the 1970s and oversaw revitalization of the waterfront, downtown and financial districts. Bulger, who frequently disagreed with White on issues like the enforcement of the controversial busing order in South Boston, said that White remained level-headed and professional throughout such racially-tinged crises. White played important roles in managing the wave of violence resulting from the implementation of the federally mandated busing laws.White has the authority to call and request for Federal Marshals to help maintain order and to prevent the further spread of violence.

Francis Sargent Governor of Massachusetts was an American politician who served as the 64th Governor of Massachusetts from 1969 to 1975. During the friction-filled busing period in Boston in the early 1970's, Mr. Sargent responded to the racial tension raised by the integration plan to shuttle black and white children between neighborhoods by proposing a ''freedom of choice'' scheme that would have allowed white children to remain in their neighborhoods while black children were bused to better schools. Sargent supported a judicial order to desegregate the Boston public school system. Sargent had vetoed attempts to repeal the Racial Imbalance Act, which attempted to withhold state funds from racially imbalanced school districts. Sargent preferred to amend the act rather than repeal it completely. Sargent, who had long refused efforts to weaken the law, authorized a repeal of the state’s 1965 Racial Imbalance Act, making school integration voluntary.Sargent stated frequently that he was opposed to busing, but never put forth an alternative plan to accomplish integration, Governor Francis Sargent was an attentiative leader who often met with representatives of the marchers to hear their opinions. Dossiers

Raymond Flynn Mayor of Boston is an American politician who served as 52nd Mayor of Boston, Massachusetts from 1984 until 1993. Boston public schools ended 14 years of forced busing in 1989. The Boston School Committee voted 10 to 1 to adopt a parental choice pupil-assignment plan. Its leading advocate was Mayor Raymond Flynn, who in 1974 was an ardent supporter of Louise Day Hicks, then a school board member who obstinately opposed forced busing. Flynn, led an unprecedented effort to desegregate Boston public housing in the 1980s. Flynn was a leading proponent of abolishing the elected school committee and replacing it with an appointed body. Many business leaders supported Flynn's position. The elected committee, however, had many supporters, particularly in the minority community. Later Flynn used his mayoral capacity to appoint individuals to a new committee. While tentative at times, Mayor Flynn pointed to changes in school governance as critical to the future of Boston’s schools.

Gov. Governor of Massachusetts Michael Stanley Dukakis is a retired American politician who served as the 65th Governor of Massachusetts, from 1975 to 1979 and again from 1983 to 1991. Dukakis offers his own integration plan for Boston's schools. The plan would implement a major decentralization of the city's school system, dividing it into 12 community districts of about 60,000 residents each. Districts would be created along historical, geographic, and natural boundaries and open enrollment would be allowed. He believed that what was needed was a true desegregation plan involving the state, city, and suburbs and that a voluntary plan would likely not meet court-imposed requirements. Dukakis also believed that suburban participation in school desegregation would reduce tensions in Boston substantially. He also rejected many of ROAR’s demands and their calls to repeal the Racial Imbalance Act. Dukakis had a significant amount of political influence. Though he opposed school busing, he still has good relations with Boston's civil rights leadership. Dukakis lost the 1988 presidential campaign but used it as an opportunity to use successful state policies to frame a national message. Dossiers

William J. Harrison Associate Superintendent of Boston Schools William J. Harrison served as the Associate Superintendent of Boston Schools and was the former headmaster at Dorchester High School. Harrison oversaw the School Department for safety of the city’s children in 1974. Harrison was responsible for the transportation plans, hiring and training of bus monitors, and the organization of emergency communications betweens schools and the superintendent of schools. Associate Superintendent of Boston Schools William J. Harrison is named to be in charge of the safety aspects of school integration when the Boston School Committee announced a task force to work with the Board of Education on school integration.

Michael Flaherty Boston City Council Member Michael Flaherty, originally from South Boston, was a member of the Boston City Council and served as State Representative during the desegregation of Boston Schools. Along with Louise Day Hicks and William Bulger, Flaherty signed the Declaration of Clarification which served to resist the influx of the large number of African American students into South Boston defended South Boston’s resistance. Serving as representative, Flaherty’s primary job was to create legislation as well as meet with constituents and listen to their concerns. Flaherty later led the charge to stop busing in the Boston public schools, to save money and so more students could attend their neighborhood schools

Roy Wilkins Executive Director of NAACP Retired executive director of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Roy Wilkins was the diplomat of the . Wilkins was in the forefront of the successful effort to persuade the Ford Administration not to use the Boston school busing case in 1976 as a vehicle for seeking reconsideration by the Supreme Court of busing as a means of integration. early 1970's .Wilkins had to beat back several attempts within the NAACP. to wrest leadership from him. Wilkins inistited on retaining his leadership in NAACP as he had the experience to promote progress for people of color. Roy Wilkins served as a voice for the members of NAACP and criticized Boston’s resistance to Judge Garrity’s orders, arguing that anti-busing boycotts will never be beneficial. Dossiers

Joseph M. Tierney Boston City Council Member Joseph M. Tierney was an American politician who served as a member of the Boston City Council from 1972 to 1987. He was the President of the City Council in 1977, 1979, and from 1983 to 1985. Tierney, who served 16 years on the City Council before falling far short in a bid to unseat Mayor Raymond L. Flynn in 1987. He cared about people and made a difference in the community. He was respected for his ability to craft policy and pore over the city budge. City Councilor Joseph M. Tierney believes the City Council should seek an end to forced busing and announces plans to file for an order. Serving on the council, he advocated for all Bostonians and had authority to approve the city budget; monitoring, creating, and abolishing city agencies; making land use decisions; and approving, amending, and rejecting other legislative proposals.

Notes

1. Delmont, “Introduction”. 2. “Boston Desegregation”, Wikipedia. 3. “Restore Our Alienated Rights”, Wikipedia. 4. “Desegregation Busing”, Encyclopedia of Boston. 5. Gellerman, “Busing Left Deep Scars”. 6. Staff, “Life After”. 7. Gellerman, “It Was Like a War Zone”. 8. Ibid. 9. Ibid. 10. Chancy, “Report From Boston”. 11. Staff, “Life After”. 12. Goran tek-en, CC BY-SA 4.0. 13. Theoharis, “Forced Busing”. 14. Ibid. 15. Delmont, “The Lasting Legacy”. 16. “Timeline”, Spare Change News. 17. Ibid. 18. Ibid. 19. Tan et al, “Boston Busing Timeline”. 20. “Timeline”, Spare Change News. 21. Ibid. 22. Ibid. 23. Ibid. 24. Ibid. 25. Ibid. 26. Ibid. 27. Ibid. 28. Ibid.

Notes

29. Seelye, “4 Decades”. 30. “Timeline”, Spare Change News. 31. Tan et al, “Boston Busing Timeline”. 32. Lussier, “Louise Day Hicks”. 33. “School Desegregation”, Staff Report. 34. Ibid. 35. Ibid. 36. Ibid.

Bibliography

“Boston Desegregation Busing Crisis.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, December 17, 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_desegregation_busing_crisis#Protests_and_ violence.

CHANCY, JOETTE, and BRENDA FRANKLIN. "REPORT FROM BOSTON: The Struggle for Desegregation." The Black Scholar 7, no. 4 (1975): 19-27. www.jstor.org/stable/41065946.

Delmont, Matthew, and Jeanne Theoharis. “Introduction: Rethinking the Boston ‘Busing Crisis.’” Journal of Urban History 43, no. 2 (March 2017): 191–203. doi:10.1177/0096144216688276.

Delmont, Matthew. “The Lasting Legacy of the Busing Crisis.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, June 28, 2019. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/the-boston-busing-crisis-w as-never-intended-to-work/474264/.

“Desegregation Busing: Encyclopedia of Boston.” Desegregation Busing | Encyclopedia of Boston. Boston Research Center. Accessed December 19, 2019. https://bostonresearchcenter.org/projects_files/eob/single-entry-busing.html.

Gellerman, Bruce. “Busing Left Deep Scars On Boston, Its Students.” Busing Left Deep Scars On Boston, Its Students | WBUR News. WBUR, September 5, 2014. https://www.wbur.org/news/2014/09/05/boston-busing-effects.

Gellerman, Bruce. “'It Was Like A War Zone': Busing In Boston.” 'It Was Like A War Zone': Busing In Boston | WBUR News. WBUR, September 5, 2014. https://www.wbur.org/news/2014/09/05/boston-busing-anniversary.

Goran tek-en, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31073914.

Bibliography

Lussier, Ray. “Louise Day Hicks Speaks through a Megaphone at a Busing Protest.” NEU Digital Repository Service, December 12, 1974. https://repository.library.northeastern.edu/files/neu:111425.

“Restore Our Alienated Rights (ROAR).” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, December 15, 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restore_Our_Alienated_Rights_(ROAR).

“SCHOOL DESEGREGATION IN BOSTON: Staff Report.” UMaryland Law. University of Maryland, June 1975. https://www2.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr12sch618.pdf.

Seelye, Katharine Q. “4 Decades After Clashes, Boston Again Debates School Busing.” . The New York Times, October 5, 2012. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/education/new-boston-busing-debate-4-de cades-after-fervid-clashes.html.

Staff, NPR. “Life After Iconic 1976 Photo: The American Flag's Role In Racial Protest.” NPR. NPR, September 18, 2016. https://www.npr.org/2016/09/18/494442131/life-after-iconic-photo-todays-parallel s-of-american-flags-role-in-racial-protes.

Tan, John M, Risako Nozaki, Andrea Estacuy, and Madeline Wallace. “Boston Busing Timeline.” Sutori. Accessed December 17, 2019. https://www.sutori.com/story/boston-busing-timeline--fdccrmS5JkdhuHRNbnbngfq.

Theoharis, George. “'Forced Busing' Didn't Fail. Desegregation Is the Best Way to Improve Our Schools.” . WP Company, March 1, 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/23/forced-busing-d idnt-fail-desegregation-is-the-best-way-to-improve-our-schools/.

“Timeline: The Chain of Events That Brought Chaos to Boston's Schools.” Spare Change News, March 8, 2016. http://sparechangenews.net/2016/03/boston-busing-timeline/.