http://www.mediafire.com/view/?2dvtec1ccu283u1

Here’s the Interdisciplinary Studies thesis by Michael Rogers, Class of 2011 that I mentioned in class! So relevant to what we’ve been talking about.

Pratt describes 1960s Richmond as having Black schools that were overcrowded and white schools that were not filled to capacity— all of which were all overseen by a Richmond Public School System (RPS) that used discriminatory practices to keep black children in inadequate, segregated schools (Pratt, 36).  Meanwhile, RPS used the Pupil Placement Board (PPB) as a crutch to deflect blame for their delay in fulfilling the Brown ruling.

John and Joe both highlight the impact that residential segregation had on school segregation; Pratt weaves this connection through all three chapters.  One such example of school segregation based on residential segregation is the feeder system that existed in Richmond.  Typically, white middle schools “fed” white high schools and black middle schools “fed” black high schools.  As John points out in his timeline, in March 1963, this feeder system was abolished.  As a result, a new “freedom of choice” plan was established that technically allowed any student to transfer to any school she wanted if she could support the reasoning.  However, Pratt argues that despite the new façade of choice, black students still had to filter through the racist PPB.  In addition, the problem of segregated teachers along race lines was not addressed. Even after Brown was 11 years old, RPS was still fighting to maintain school segregation by enacting school reform policies that used residential discrimination.

• In what ways did school segregation and housing segregation continue to play off of each other during this time in Richmond’s history?
• How do you think the city officials in Richmond were able to get away with creating school de-segregation policies that clearly didn’t benefit the black students (because they were based on residential segregation)?
• What can you glean from Pratt’s chapters 2-4 about the interplay between local and national politics and the enforcement of legislation?

Caitlin

Pratt’s chapters 2-4 explains the long slow struggle the public school system in Richmond experienced regarding desegregation after the Brown decision. The passive resistance movement in Richmond created the Pupil Placement Board on December 29, 1956. The board released its role and mission statement communicating that “no child can be legally enrolled in the public schools of the Commonwealth of Virginia until an application has been filed in his behalf, unless he remains in the school in which he has enrolled prior to December 29, 1956,” and that “in the event there is a refusal on the part of the parent or legal guardian of the pupil to file an application in the pupil’s behalf, at that moment the pupil is no longer legally enrolled, and should not be allowed to further attend the public schools of Virginia.” In effect the Pupil Placement Board arbitrarily enrolled students based on race and was another tactic used by the passive resistance movement to keep Richmond public schools segregated. The response from the African American community formed “child care units” by organizing church officials, parents, teachers, and post office workers to volunteer for looking at the children. Oliver Hill would enter the picture realizing the major challenge the Pupil Placement Board would be in overcoming desegregation in the Richmond Public Schools. However, the first successful legal battle mandated that two black students be admitted to all white schools, but this would foreshadow a slow pace of progress toward desegregation. Another problem still were the residential segregation policies that kept blacks closer to black schools in their neighborhood, undermining any hope black parents had for sending their kids to better all white schools. The Virginia moderates cultivated the fears of white residents and instituted a policy of conversion that would change a white school to a black school and vice versa depending on the demographics of the school. The Bradley v. Richmond School Board in 1961 was the first time the court’s had reprimanded the school board for not honoring integration policies.

Then we see in the spring of 1963 a victory toward desegregation in which a court order required the school board to eliminate the feeder school system and dual attendance zones. This would lead to the School Board’s response with the “freedom of choice” policy that would bring eventually take them to the Supreme Court. During this time the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would be passed, adding to the desegregation movement. The Supreme Court finally made a ruling regarding the freedom of choice policy was inadequate in honoring desegregation on the grounds that it didn’t include teacher placement, transportation, and left out other key components.
In all, the battle for integration took over 17 years, giving way to resegragation through the use of multiple tactics involving white flight, restrictive covenants, and white absenteeism. Do you think that the NAACP should have gone after residential segregation prior to focusing on integrating schools, and if they did what do you think the affect would have been on the student’s educational and social experiences ?

Hey guys! Dr. Fergeson has agreed to make a play that I’m in an extra credit opportunity for class, so I wanted to give you all the information. The play is for a class called “Documentary Theater: Civil Rights & Education” and is an American Studies seminar. In the class, we have conducted interviews of George Wythe High School alumni and created a play from their stories, which we will perform Monday (tomorrow), April 16 at Henderson Middle School at 6:00pm. Here’s a link to an article about the class/play from Richmond Magazine:

http://www.richmondmagazine.com/arts/blogs_thehat.php

And here’s a link to directions from UR to Henderson:

http://www.mapquest.com/#d5d9c47b321aa481489a952a

If you write a 250 word response to the play, Dr. Fergeson will give you extra credit. Hope you guys can make!

Amanda Lineberry

Both the Murrell and Bonastia articles brought up some interesting points about the Prince Edward County school closings and the actions taken by both sides.  The Murrell article discusses the general feeling of civic spirit throughout the county previous to the Brown decision.  The citizens of the county were proud of the positive relationship between blacks and whites within their community and appreciated that civic spirit was needed to make a community develop and progress.  The county had a reputation for being one of few places in the South where both races worked together to make the community a better place.  What is interesting is that, after the Brown decision, white leaders used this portrait of the community against the black citizens in order to gather support from other community members.  Even though the Brown decision came down from the Supreme Court, white leaders of Prince Edward County blamed the African Americans within the community for disturbing the peaceful balance that had been maintained.

The media also played a significant role in the aftermath of the Brown decision in Prince Edward County.  Murrell describes The Herald, the local newspaper, as a hub of communication for community members to voice their civic concerns.  The Herald became a “key link between segregationist leaders and white residents.”  It was interesting to read about media being such an important instrument for molding public opinion because we have talked about the power of social media numerous times in out class discussions but mostly related to current events.  The way The Herald was described in the article, however, sounded very similar to how we see social media being used to rally support for civic issues today.

One thing I found very interesting about the Bonastia article was the idea that “no single tactic or combination of tactics promised optimal outcomes for social movement organizations.”  The article presented the question of whether the NAACPs heavy emphasis on legal mobilization prolonged the educational stalemate in Prince Edward County.  Some residents of the county were ambivalent about civil disobedience believing that protesting would bring too much trouble and would only increase tensions within the community.  Others believed the school shutdowns would not have lasted as long if protests had started immediately after the schools were closed.  Towards the end of the article, Bonastia maintains that “without question the addition of direct action to the tactical repertoire of groups fighting for civil rights furthered the cause.”  In fact, direct action did lead to African Americans winning certain concessions from the white elites as well as convincing others that they could contribute personally to the fight against racial inequality.

 In light of these arguments, do you agree that the NAACPs focus on litigation discouraged citizens of Prince Edward County from taking direct action and if so, did this help to prolong the school closings?

Laura Bailey

“I hope you will not sell your birthright of freedom for a mess of segregated pottage. Nothing is more sublime than suffering and sacrifice for a great cause. But there can be no growth without pain.” These words from Martin Luther King Junior epitomized the struggle of black members of society during the Prince Edward County schooling crisis. Even after the court’s decision in 1959 to outlaw segregation, the white schools were not compelled to change their institutions, but rather to close them down to even further impede the black population’s access to educational resources. They closed their public schools for 5 years, launching the community into an educational crisis and forcing them to migrate outward. Because many of the older generation of the black community did not have formal educations or resources, they could not educate their children on their own, and they could hardly afford to send them elsewhere to school. For those that could, migrating to other communities was the next step to get education. But the others, who either could not afford the travel or demanded to post up in Prince Edward County for protest, had to suffer the consequences of no educational opportunities. At one point, the Negro’s were offered a chance to attend a separate black private school, which would give them a chance at education but would ultimately curtail their long-fought goal of desegregation. White leaders of schools were increasingly irritated by the continued demand for better facilities or more equal treatment, but as their “intransigence” grew, so did the determination of the black population.

After seeing the hardships that Prince Edward County black citizens were facing, it is clear why Martin Luther King’s statement is so provoking. His reference to the Biblical story of Jacob and Esau is a perfect representation of the decision that they all had to face. In the book of Genesis, Esau has just returned home and is faced with severe hunger to the point of bodily pain. His brother and adversary, Jacob, offers him soup, a temporary relief for what he feels like he readily needs, to satiate his hunger. In order for him to obtain the soup from Jacob, he has to give up his birthright to him, which was Esau’s personal right given to him at birth for the riches of his father. Paralleling that story, if the Negro’s of Prince Edward County were to accept the white leaders’ substandard offers of separate schools during the time which they were the most starved of education, then they would ultimately give up their dreams and rights of having integrated schooling and a better education for their children. Indeed, they had to suffer through momentary pain in order to see growth.

-What do you think would have happened if the Prince Edward County black members had settled for the separate schooling in order for their kids to have any education at all in the midst of the school closing crisis?

-The reverend Martin Luther King Jr. often refers to Jesus Christ’s supreme sacrifice when encouraging the suffering and eventual victory of the black citizens. I am curious what you all think about the Biblical rhetoric he uses. What is the importance of Jesus Christ and religion to the people and their morale? How does the emulation of Jesus Christ’s sacrifice translate into their fight for equality?

Since we did not have an opportunity to discuss the Hall article in greater detail today in class I felt that it would be a good idea to discuss it here. While reading about civil rights activism in Virginia during the 1960 I couldn’t help but notice the tension between numerous different civil rights activists fighting for the same cause. Fighting for civil rights in the Jim Crow South was hard enough given the numerous political restraints. It was imperative that civil rights activists remained a cohesive group that worked together to accomplish a common goal, and the last thing that civil rights activists needed to be doing was fighting with each other. However, the Hall article informed us that civil rights activists were not one big happy family.

I was surprised that the group of civil rights activists was riddled with rifts and factions that did not get along with each other. I always thought that all African Americans were on the same page when it came to the Civil Rights Movements, and that although there were different organizations and tactics, the different organizations supported each other. This was evidently not the case, and animosity existed both between and within organizations. First, although we have somewhat lionized the NAACP as the architect of the Civil Rights Movement, Hall discussed in the article that the organization was not beloved by all African Americans. The NAACP had “an uneasy relationship with the direct-action wing of the Civil Rights Movement” (252) and constantly but heads with the youthful, more radical organizations. Also, tension existed between national organization and its local branches. For example, the national SCLC office had rocky relationships with its local branches due to “ an inadequate support from the national office” (259). Another source of tension amongst civil rights activists existed between white and black activists. Although they were fighting for the same cause, “hostility surrounded white involvement in the movement” (261). Furthermore, tension existed between black male and female members of the same civil rights organizations as well. As a result, activists not only had to worry about fighting segregation during the Civil Rights movement, but they had to worry about fighting each other as well.

The question I kept asking myself is weren’t these guys all on the same team? If they were all trying to accomplish the same goal why were they fighting? There were enough enemies out there trying to stop civil rights activists from accomplishing their goals it seems extremely detrimental to the cause to be fighting with each other. I understand that different perspectives and strategies are needed to advance a social movement, but I believe that if these organizations and individuals would have worked together rather than quarrel more could have been accomplished faster. When you are on the same team, bitterness usually leads to a lack of production, and I believe this could have been the case during the Civil Rights Movements.

So what do you guys think about the tensions between different organizations during the Civil Rights Movements. Do you think it was as detrimental as I do? Could the hostility and separation amongst the different organizations actually have been beneficial for the movement?

Ethan Wolf

The main focus of the beginning of chapter 10 in Sullivan’s Lift Every Voice concentrates predominantly on the events leading up the the Brown vs. Board of Education decision in 1954. Today I felt as if we had a great discussion on Virginia’s role in lower-court cases fighting discrimination in education and I have a feeling we’ll be fully fleshing out the Brown decision during class discussion and therefore I’m focusing this blog post on what posed the most interesting leadership/social movement questions for me while reading.

During the 1950s it became exceedingly difficult for NAACP leaders to gain momentum and excitement for their movement in the North because-at least socially-it was becoming more and more uncouth to be racist. According to Sullivan, “Many states had civil rights laws; racial segregation had few prominent defenders” (388). And yet, in Northern areas like Stuyvesant Town the government sanctioned the condemning of black neighborhoods, thus evicting nearly 75% of the black population from their homes. Sullivan says, “Tens of thousands of Negro families, regardless of their economic status may be rendered homeless in the name of urban development” (387). In the case Dorsey vs. Stuyvesant Town, the NAACP argued that the separate housing area called Riverton House (the condemned area was converted into new housing that discriminated against black residents) was unconstitutional because separate is inherently unequal. The court decided. however, that the new complex had a right to choose their tenants because it was private property (387).

At this point Walter White calls attention to the importance of the federal government’s role in housing discrimination when he says, “Where do we go from here?” (392). It was, after all, the federal government’s fault that thousands of blacks had been displaced from their homes and therefore it was the government’s responsibility to make up for the slum housing they created. White responds by working with the Public Housing Authority and other government institutions in order to ensure that blacks would have available access to not just equal housing but the same housing accessible to whites.

It seems as if the very blatant and gruesome evidence of racism in the South would make a more compelling case for blacks and other activists to become involved in NAACP activities. The main question that I have been pondering is how NAACP leaders are able to galvanize Northern blacks to fight against (not necessarily racial violence that’s seen in the South) but more institutionalized discrimination as seen in the Dorsey case where the government supported the mass eviction of blacks for their own neighborhood.

So how do you provide momentum for NAACP activism in Northern cities? Were Marshall and White justified in their decision to go through the courts as they had in Virginia leading up to the Brown decision? Or would more grassroots organization within Northern communities have been a better route for the NAACP?

Several things happened in the readings for April 4th; education reform continued, Charles Houston died, and Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP’s now robust legal department continued to win small and ever-increasing victories. However, the main focus was on the litigative shift from a focus on “equalization” cases, where the litigators fought to make the separate black and white schools equal, to a focus on cases that attacked the very idea of segregation. Thurgood Marshall, Oliver Hill and other NAACP lawyers thought that they had won enough cases and had made enough headway to start to challenge the very institution of the Jim Crowe South.

Many of the successes that were won prior to the 1951 national convention where the resolution to focus exclusively on anti-segregation cases and no longer promote equalization cases were highly thought of. These cases helped raise the salary of black teachers, got better facilities and refurbishments of black schools, and got many state schools to begin graduate programs for black students. Although these victories were hard fought and highly thought of, many people within the black community believed that equalization policies and cases were putting “the nail in the coffin” for hopes to end school segregation. After all, if black schools actually get refurbished and appear similar to white schools, then it becomes harder to make the case against separate but equal schools when the appearance of equality is maintained.

In addition, especially in places like Virginia where many in the white populace believed that they were in control of the pace of desegregation, the practice of equalization was not believed to be radical enough and played to white comfort zones and not black needs. It could be misconstrued that by fighting for only equal and not desegregated schools and facilities, the NAACP and the black lawyers were actually supporting segregation.

However, in 1951, the NAACP decided to do away with equalization practices in favor of anti-segregation lawsuits and cases. With their victory in Henderson vs. United States earlier that year, the NAACP began to tear down the barriers between southern whites and southern blacks.

In my opinion, the shift in focus and the NAACP’s realization that a new direction should be pursued represents incredible strength of leadership and organizational management. Only a strong organization with competent leaders can identify when the time is right to make a shift in its/their mission. However, the argument could be made that anti-segregation cases should have been pursued all along or the shift could have happened sooner. Based on the readings that you did for class, what do you think and why?

What are your thoughts on the shift from equalization to anti-segregation?

How would you classify the leadership that the shift of focus required?

Bonus fun question: I personally was very sad read about Charles Houston’s death. The testimonies at his funeral were all very nice but I thought that section of Sullivan’s chapter was underwhelming. Knowing what we have learned about him and his massive affect on the NAACP, what would you say at his funeral if you were asked to speak at it?