Modern Boston History Class Exam 2

Lecture 4.2 !1

Lecture 4.2 The 1970s History 385

Julie de Chantal

Last module When we left in last module, we saw that tensions were rising in Boston, especially in terms of race relations. Prior to the 1960s, Boston was almost undistinguishable from any other large city in the United States. Like other metropolitan centers, the city and its inhabitants went through the Depression, then the war, and the suburbanization of the 1950s. It also went through the second Red Scare, like all of the other cities. As it hit the 1960s, things started to get more complicated. The Second Wave of the Great Migration changed the composition of the population. The migration of Latino and Asian populations also changed the city’s political landscape. The Black community organized against segregation in the city’s public school system.

We saw that there were three sides in the fight against segregation: • the NAACP wanted the desegregation of the public school system • Black mothers and Operation Exodus were not interested in desegregation per se.

They wanted access to the same resources available to white schools but unavailable in Black schools.

• the school committee was opposed to even admitting that there was a problem.

The fight against these inequalities, however, are just the tip of the iceberg.

Ghetto Riots of 1967-1968 In the mid- to late-1960s, African Americans rioted across the nation. Most of these riots stemmed from the frustration of African Americans who lived in some of the poorest areas in the cities and faced racial discrimination. They lacked jobs, decent schools, or opportunities for advancement. In these riots, they protested the conditions of ghetto life, attempted to redress grievances, expressed the need for respectful treatment, and signaled those in power that they would no longer accept their exclusion from American prosperity. Riots took place in:

• Rochester on July 24-26, 1964 • Harlem on July 16-22, 1964 • Philadelphia on August 28-30,

1964 • Watts Riots on August 11, 1965

(Los Angeles) • Cleveland on July 18, 1966 • Omaha, Nebraska on July 5, 1966 • Newark on July 12, 1967

• Detroit on July 23, 1967 (a movie/documentary came out on the anniversary of the riot)

• Minneapolis in the Fall of 1967 • Chicago on April 4, 1968 (After

assassination of Martin Luther King, jr.)

• Washington D.C on April 4, 1968 • Baltimore on April 4, 1968 


Lecture 4.2 !2

Boston’s ghetto riot of 1967 African Americans living in Boston faced a similar situation. They competed for unskilled jobs with other ethnic groups who were favored by employers and Boston’s political intelligentsia. They lacked sufficient numbers to yield political power through voting. They were ignored and discriminated against by businesses and the educational system. Ultimately, they found themselves powerless in the city.

Context of 1967 The administration of Mayor John Collins had focused on the revival of the downtown business district, increasing business investment, and rehabilitating neighborhoods to “woo” the middle and upper class (who had moved to the suburbs) back to the city. When they moved to the outskirts of the city, these people took their resources with them, leaving the city increasingly segregated and impoverished. Like many other mayors at the time, Collins ignored the plight of African Americans arriving in Boston through the second wave of the Great Migration and the issues that they faced as they settled in the city. At the time, Boston was one of the most racist cities in the Northern United States. In early 1965, sociologists who studied the ghetto warned communities that “when grievances are not resolved, or cannot be resolved under the existing arrangements,” riots occurred. This warning, however, fell into deaf ears. In the 1960s, Boston had several elections, but no Black politicians elected on ether the city council or the school committee. African Americans held few positions in the police department or in any major city agencies (that did not change in the 1970s either). The ghetto riot, however, did not only come from the frustration of African American Bostonians.

A poor people’s riot The riot of 1967 started with poor mothers trying to express their grievances with the city’s administrative and legal systems. At the time, both Black and white mothers had attempted to make the city’s welfare system listen to what they perceived were legitimate demands. City administrators handled all welfare applications, processes, and payments. Welfare recipients had difficulties navigating the system. They faced discrimination, ridicule, and arbitrary decisions from the administration. After trying to have the mayor and the welfare office respond to their demands, welfare mothers formed an organization called Mothers for Adequate Welfare (MAW).

In April 1965, MAW organized a sit-in at the Hawkins street Department of Welfare Office to denounced what they considered to be the failure of the city to distribute surplus food. Department officials listened to their demands and promised to address the situation promptly. In the following weeks, the city opened 6 distribution centers (food banks), leading MAW to feel that confrontation, through sit-ins, was a viable strategy. In July 1966, they marched to the State House and confronted Governor Volpe, asking for larger rent subsidies, the possibility to earn more money without affecting their welfare benefits, better management of the welfare department (less red tape), and a say in policy making regarding welfare regulations. Unfortunately, the governor ignored them, because this was a city issue, not a state issue. In May 1967, they organized a sit-in at the Roxbury Welfare office.

Lecture 4.2 !3

MAW members arrived at the Blue Hill/Grove Hall Department of Welfare Office in Roxbury around 3:10 pm. Upon their arrival, they requested an audience with City Welfare Director Daniel J. Cronin. Mothers, who used the services of the office, often had to wait for hours prior to meeting anyone to discuss their case. The center was understaffed, inefficient, and rarely showed compassion to families in need. One of the social workers affiliated with the center mentioned to a reporter that “conditions here [were] terrible for us and worse for the clients. We’re overcrowded, understaffed, case loads are high, budgets inadequate, and social workers are bogged down with paperwork, releases, and forms to fill out. I can really understand the gripes of the Mothers.” (You can read a great rendering of the issues in the optional Tager reading for this week.)

A few minutes after their arrival, college students, supporting the Mothers’ cause, joined the protesters outside of the office. More than an hour later, MAW leaders had yet to hear back from Cronin. To pressure the administration into action, some members of the delegation entered the building and used bicycle chains to lock the doors from the inside. Other members locked the doors with bicycle chains from the outside, thus preventing anyone from entering or exiting the premises. Police officers already on-site attempted to cut the chains to no avail, and called for reinforcement as the situation escalated. Around 4:30pm, Cronin was finally made aware of the situation when one of the welfare office employees, Katherine McNeill, suffered a heart attack.

At 4:55 pm, nearly thirty police officers arrived at the Welfare office. As they attempted to break the chains locking the doors, the officers claimed that they were “set upon by demonstrators and interfered with,” later even adding that they had been “assaulted.” Five minutes later, the MAW delegates asked to speak to Cronin who had just arrived at the scene. He agreed, but only if they allowed him to come inside the building. The mothers, however, insisted on keeping their advantage inside the building. The situation reached a breaking point. Instead of allowing Cronin to discuss the concerns of MAW delegates, police officers broke into the rear windows of the building to evacuate the employees who were locked inside. By six o’clock, firefighters had set up ladders on the side of the building to allow workers to escape. Less than a half-hour later, “a score or so of policemen; armed with billy clubs and riots helmets moved into the reception hall,” charging the front doors. “The police” according to the Harvard Crimson, were “‘wielding billy clubs and shouting ‘kill'em’” as they tried to disperse the “group of demonstrators who had gathered in front of the doors.” Another unit, which had stood by, waiting, “clashed with another group [of protesters] who attempted to join those in front of the doors.” The third group of officers “broke through the crowd outside to reach the entrance.” “In the shuffle,” the Crimson ended, “police crashed through the glass doors.”

Although the standoff ended shortly after the police intervened, the situation was far from over. After they cleared the building, police officers proceeded to arrest the demonstrators. Many were beaten and thrown into police wagons. One of the mothers, who was already outside, yelled, “they’re beating our people in there.” In the following hours, the situation deteriorated, and a riot began. Vandals and arsonists destroyed private property, broke store windows, and set buildings on fire. Violence continued late into the night. At 2:30 am, almost twelve hours after the sit-in

Lecture 4.2 !4

began, police fired “60 to 100 rounds of gunfire over heads of crowd of 200” in the Intervale Street and Blue Hill Avenue area.

Roxbury, which had been a relatively quiet neighborhood until the confrontation, had broken the myth of Boston being “almost unique among Northern city” as it “had experienced no riots or other racial outbreaks” until then. Due to the outburst of violence during the confrontation, the MAW’s demands were a second thought to most newspaper reporters, who had been more interested in the violence than in its cause.

Their demands • Welfare benefits will not be lost as a result of rumor or heresy; there should be a

chance to defend oneself from charges. • Police will be removed from welfare centers as they are a “threatening presence.” • Welfare workers should be available to talk to mothers every day and not just once a

week. • Welfare workers will treat clients with respect as “human beings” • Every welfare office will designate a board of clients to aid in dealing with

emergency situations. • “Welfare mothers must be appointed on all policy-making boards of welfare.” To

help children get off the dole, welfare mothers can save money from small jobs to pay for children’s education.

• Mothers should be able to earn $85 a month without penalty, and also be able to keep 70 percent of what they earn over that sum.

• The city should initiate a public relations campaign to change the negative image of welfare recipients.

• Boston Welfare commissioner Daniel I. Cronin should be dismissed • MAW should have input in the selection of a replacement.

Changes in the welfare system. Since the mid-1970s, the idea of the “welfare queen,” a lazy woman who collects welfare benefits fraudulently while driving a large SUV and making money on the side, has tinted the ways in which we see welfare recipients. I would like to give you more details on what women received, what was considered a necessity, and what type of issues recipients faced at the time.

City officials considered that the following were sufficient for a grown woman with a family (from the 1970s):

• 1 hat, 1 dressy dress, 1 girdle, 2 cotton dresses, 3 pairs of panties, 2 pairs of stockings (all items had a certain price attached to them. One could not get a more expensive dress for example)

• Living room: Couch “springs on legs with new cotton linter mattress,” table “drop leaf or extension (wood)”

Lecture 4.2 !5

• Kitchen: “Dinette set table and 4 chairs,” Linoleum (new) [floor covering, ancestor of tiles that we have today, ask your parents or grandparents to talk to you about linoleum if you do not know what it is!]

• Food allocations were determined based on the number of people in the family (today, food stamps recipients receive $4 a day for food. Think about it, what do you buy for $4 to create 3 fulfilling meals? A student at New York University recently wrote a cookbook for Food Stamps recipients. You can see it here https:// cookbooks.leannebrown.com/good-and-cheap.pdf).

• The welfare department also had a list of “special needs” that could be fulfilled: medical materials for diabetic patients, transportation for a doctor’s visit, baby-sitter for an “overburdened mother” if “certified by a case supervisor.”

As you can see, welfare payments did not cover extravagant purchases and barely covered the families’ expenses.

Back to the riot After three days of violence and destruction in the neighborhood, authorities finally conceded that, “public assistance recipients should have a choice in making decisions affecting them.” On the same day, the Mayor acquiesced to another demand of the Mothers for Adequate Welfare and removed all uniformed police officers from the welfare office. However, he asked plainclothes officers to remain in post, concerned that the violence might continue. The Board modified welfare regulations so that women could be allowed to work part-time jobs and to keep up to $65 a month ($473 in today’s money), while still receiving full benefits from the Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Children and teenagers were also able to keep part of their earnings— children could keep up to $50 a month ($365 today) with a maximum of $150 per month ($1093) per family including the parents’ income, while teenagers could keep all of their income from Neighborhood Youth Corps jobs where they earned $1.25 an hour ($9.11/hour).

In addition to the improvement to benefits and the removal of officers, the riot transformed the ways in which recipients interacted with the welfare office. Instead waiting for two or three hours, one recipient reported that her “social worker saw [her] in 20 minutes today.” The office, in fact, was extremely quiet, perhaps because of the events of the weekend.

Consequences Of course, the Mothers for Adequate Welfare did not intend to trigger a riot, however, the intervention of the police triggered it. A large number of community leaders claimed that the police started the violence and that the community only attempted to defend itself. The community did not explode because of the difficulties that they were facing, but because of the pervasive feeling of helplessness, especially among the younger residents of the neighborhood. One young man, who was old enough to sport a goatee, explained his point of view. “Yeah, we’re angry,” he said. He had just taken a shiny gold watch from a store that he had looted. “Why don’t I live out in Brookline or Newton?” he asked, pointing out the injustice. “Why don’t

Lecture 4.2 !6

I live in a great big house?” “Why don’t I win any contests.” “I’m going to throw bricks until winter,” he finished, “and when winter comes, I’m going to throw snowballs.”

The violence did not surprise the elders nor other residents of the neighborhood. A young woman argued that while she could not “condone the violence,” she also could not “condone the exploitation that goes on in this community.” “People are paying $85 and $90 a month for their rent for unheated apartments,” she explained adding that, “food costs more in Roxbury,” “telephone and fast deposits here are higher.” “How often are our streets cleared,” she asked, “when is our trash picked up?” “Instead of going on their vacations,” she suggested, “those suburbanites ought to come down to Roxbury for a Summer to see how we live.”

Others perceived the riot as the only solution to the neighborhood’s issues. Maryanne Weathers, a 23-year old resident, claimed that she “prayed for something like this riot.” She continued, “I really hoped for it because, you see, this way we have to get along.” Weathers felt that the riot had brought “unity” within the community. William Hart, a young man of 25, shared her impression. Similar to Tager’s analysis of riots, he argued that, “people were finally getting to express their personal opinions, their feelings.” “Other times,” he continued, “nobody listens.”

That is pretty much what continued to happen even after the riot. Before we get to the busing crisis, I would like to talk about a few more things.

Birth Control If you remember well, we talked about how Massachusetts was ahead of the curve in terms of birth control during the Progressive Era. The Massachusetts Birth Control league was founded in 1916. In the 1960s, Bostonians finally saw the emergence of a non-mechanical form of birth control. The pill, the first formula was called Enovid in the United States, was developed by Dr. Gregory Goodwin Pincus.

Pincus was a zoologist who was interested in the reproductive functions of the mammals, especially in how hormones regulated ovulation. He was a bit “out there” since he was involved in parthenogenesis, the ability to produce offspring through asexual reproduction. He produced a baby rabbit in vitro which was a revolutionary concept in 1937. In 1944, he founded the Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology in Shrewsbury, Massachusetts. He wanted to continue his research on the relationship between hormones and diseases such as, but not limited to, cancer, heart disease, and schizophrenia. By the end of the 1960s, more than 300 international researchers came to participate in the Worcester Foundation of Experimental Biology.

In 1951, he met Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, who provided a small grant for his research. The same year, Pincus along with Min Chueh Chang, who worked at the Worcester Foundation, confirmed that progesterone inhibits ovulation in mammals. However, at the time, the research for a contraceptive pill did not really appeal to the medical community, and Pincus was unable to secure more funding. In 1952, Sanger contacted her good friend Katharine

Lecture 4.2 !7

McCormick (the heir to the McCormick farming supplies). McCormick gave Pincus a substantial amount of money to expand his research.

In 1953, the pill was ready for human trials. Dr. John Rock in Brookline, who was a staunch Catholic, started the trials with progesterone on patients in his parish (mostly Irish Catholics). Although his trials went against the Catholic Church’s position on contraception (i.e. people should not use contraception, no matter what), Rock encouraged his patients who already had large families to limit the number of subsequent pregnancies. (Similar to the philosophy about family limitation in the Great Depression) In 1954, he continued the trials with three different types of pills in Boston to help more women. In 1955, Dr. Edris Rice-Wray conducted additional human trials in Puerto Rico. (The tests outside of the United States were rather controversial at the time). She expanded the trials to Haiti, Mexico, and Los Angeles, targeting poor communities where large families were often the norm.

There was a high rate of people dropping out of the trials due to the side effects (women gained a lot of weight, had nausea, vomiting, acne, tender breasts, etc), You have to remember that the pill tricks the body into thinking that it is pregnant. Despite the drop rate, the combined contraceptive pill (estrogen + progesterone) was finally approved by the FDA in 1960.

Consequences Despite its incredible side effects, the pill was revolutionary. Its use meant that women were no longer slaves to their biology. They could now have sex for pleasure instead of for reproductive purposes. The ability to avoid pregnancy allowed women to get ahead in their careers and to postpone having children. They now had a choice as to what they could do with their own lives and could plan ahead. However, the pill was only prescribed to married women. Until 1972, single women could not be prescribed contraceptives. Again, this battle for access to contraceptives took place in Boston.

Eisenstadt v. Baird William Baird, an birth control activist living in the city, led the battle. In 1967, he was charged with a felony for distributing contraceptives to a non-married woman after he gave a lecture on birth control and population control at Boston University. He had actually prearranged the violation, knowing that police officers were watching him from off stage. Under the Massachusetts law on “Crimes and Chastity,” contraceptives could only be distributed by registered doctors or pharmacists to married people. He gave packages that he said contained birth control devices (condoms and contraceptive foam) to many young women who studied at the University.

As a result, after his conviction, Baird appealed the decision until it reached the United States Supreme Court. He used the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution to argue his case. He argued that the conversation between a woman and her doctor was confidential and that women were entitled to privacy under the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment to the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor and from that point on, unmarried couples could get access

Lecture 4.2 !8

to contraception. The decision on privacy also challenged laws in states where couples were prohibited to have sex outside of marriage (considering them private).

Bellotti v. Baird In 1976, Baird took on another fight, again leading to the Supreme Court, against restrictions on abortion in patients under the age of 18. At the time, the law required that parents give consent for a procedure on a patient under age. Again, he used the privacy clause of the Constitution to fight the law. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor, explaining that the law “permits a minor capable of giving informed consent to obtain a court order allowing abortion without parental consultation, and further permits even a minor incapable of giving informed consent to obtain an abortion order without parental consultation where it is shown that abortion would be in her best interests.” In 1979, he continued the fight, asking the court to frame the context in which a teenager could ask a court order instead of asking for parental consent.

Oil Embargo effect on the city (1973) The oil embargo was another important aspect of the period. In 1973, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) used oil as a leverage against the United State’s involvement in the Israeli-Arab conflict. The OPEC decided to quadruple the price of oil barrel and to decrease the shipment of oil to the United States by 5% per year. The oil pricing for the United States went from 3 dollars a barrel to 12 dollars a barrel, spurring gas rationing. U.S. gas stations put a limit both on the amount of gas that could be dispensed, and limited the days it could be purchased based on license plate numbers. For example if the last digit on a car's license plate was even, then gas could only be purchased on even days. Gas stations were closed on Sunday. Prices continued to rise after the Embargo ended.

The Oil Embargo of 1973 had a lasting effect on the United States. Americans began to purchase smaller cars that were more fuel efficient. It also led to a lot of questions on how Americans used energy. The Federal government got involved first with President Nixon recommending citizens reduce their speed for the sake of conservation. Congress issued a 55mph highway speed limit at the end of 1973. This change decreased consumption as well as crash fatalities. Massachusetts followed the national trend in terms of speed limit. Unfortunately, the oil embargo might have reduced the size of cars that people used but it did not do anything for the parking and traffic situation in the city. (See the pictures of the issues in the slides).

Eyes on the Prize Let’s get to the busing crisis. The best way to understand the busing crisis is to watch the episode on Boston of the series Eyes on the Prize. You have access to this episode through the Blackboard portal. You will need your NetID to access the resource. The documentary is 30 minutes long. (Only watch the part on Boston. A second part tells the story of Atlanta’s first Black mayor.) If you watch it in a public location, make sure to have earphones. This documentary will show violence and people will scream racial slurs to African American children.

Lecture 4.2 !9

Rafael Hernández School When discussing desegregation, historians rarely talk about the difficulties experienced by the hispanic-speaking communities who also went through desegregation. In Boston, the Rafael Hernández School got caught up in the 1974 federal decision to force desegregation. The school opened in the early 1970s to educate young Spanish-speaking students, especially of Puerto Rican descent in Boston. The school offered a bilingual program to help students integrate into the regular Public School system. However, when the 1974 decision came through, the Rafael Hernández School was deemed an imbalanced school, notwithstanding its special mission. As a result, it was forced to desegregate. In order to integrate white students, the school came up with a creative solution. It developed a two-way language program, offering English immersion to Spanish-speaking students and Spanish immersion to English-speaking students. The school still operates today using the same model that it developed to comply with the federal desegregation law.

The busing crisis lasted into the 1980s, and segregation still continues to this day, despite the law preventing it. Read the article on the “do-over” for Boston.