Author Archives: Jarris

Pratt: Richmond Public Schools and Integration

Posted on by

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 ?

Meyer Chapter 5

Posted on by

Joseph Harris
Dr. Fergeson
Blog Project
2/14/12
“Chapter 5: The Strategy and Tactics of Social Protest”
Meyer describes the process of deciding the strategies and tactics of a social movement as an interrelated cyclical process that has to be taken into account before the movement takes any actions because each action has a different impact on the multiple audiences. Meyer defines a strategy as “a combination of a claim (or demand), a tactic, and a site (or venue) (82). Since movements are comprised of multiple organizations competing for attention, the most effective way to developing a strategy is by examining organizations one at a time in order to match an organization with an appropriate tactic based on an organization’s relationship with its audience and other social movement organizations. The tactics of a social movement have to embody the movement’s demands that “need to appear actionable enough to avoid being dismissed, yet challenging enough to inspire attention” (83). Meyer poses three different tactical choices that each has their own unique set of pros and cons that will be interpreted by its different audiences. The first tactic described by Meyer is a candlelight vigil that shows the commitment of the activists and communicates to bystanders, but are easily dismissed by politicians. However, the second tactic of disruptions identifies an enemy and demands a response from authorities, but depending on how it is perceived by the other audiences can detract some bystanders. The third tactic projects the demand in an artful and political way which is less aggressive than disruptive tactics and builds coalitions within the movement and can change support from bystanders who sympathize with the movement. Meyer notes that’s multiple tactics must be undertaken by social movements in order to reach its audiences and doing so effectively requires a critical analysis of “how people think about engaging in social movement activism as both an alternative to and an addition to move conventional political activity,” in order for an organization to present its argument that relates to the social culture (84). Meyer stresses the importance of organizations using this model because taking this approach assists organizations in implementing tactics that aren’t going to require excessive risk than is necessary. Meyer brings up again how examining someone’s identity shapes the resources available to them because their social standing impacts the tactical choices and available rhetoric in order to get an audience to listen. Self-examination is a critical step in determining tactical approaches because it impacts the perception the audience will have of the social movement. In addition to individual identity constraint, organizations have to examine their own identity constraints because of “how a range of outside actors sees the organization” (87). Establishing the foundation of an organization will help not only provide answers to its audience, but more importantly will show the organization its strengths and weaknesses. In communicating the intentions of an organization, Meyer identifies four audiences: authorities, activists, bystanders, and media while encouraging organizations to sometimes broaden their issue in order to effectively reach each audience. In reaching out to authorities, organizations have to take on a political perspective and evaluate how their action will cause sympathizers and antagonistic authorities also keeping in mind that “the authorities who make the decisions about the matters of policy that activists generally protest are often far away from the site of protest” (88). Identifying appropriate communication to activists, the organization has to chose a tactic that “speaks to their experiences and not suggest actions that find abhorrent,” in order to make people identify with the movement and believe that they can make a difference. The third audience comprised of bystanders is most effectively reached by choosing a tactic that generates meaning and draws attention from how the other audiences respond in order for them to choose sides on the issue. The media plays a large role in how organizations communicate to their audiences and in order for organizations to gain the responses they want from their tactics, they have to be aware of how the media dynamic operates. Media focuses on publishing stories based on what people want to read which usually consists of some sort of conflict, celebrities, and drama. Activists can overcome their disadvantage by outlining their demands in correlation to media operation and more importantly protecting themselves from having their message distorted in the meaning causing the movement to lose traction.

Considering Meyer’s approach in identifying strategies and tactics looks good on paper, but do you think it could expose the organization of being criticized for being on both sides of an issue and if so how do you think that impacts the movement’s traction?