Talk:Louise Day Hicks

Untitled

I cut this phrase from the lead paragraph:

who became a symbol of racial bigotry

I doubt that it's "neutral" to describe someone as a "symbol of racial bigotry". So, let's identify a person or group who labelled her that.

Like, A 1967 editorial in the Boston Globe called Hicks a "symbol of racial bigotry".

Or, black rights groups including the NAACP called felt that Hicks symbolized the racial bigotry of South Boston's white working class

Better yet, put something in the lead paragraph like

who came to national attention for her opposition to forced busing

And explain what her objections were. (I lived in Boston during that time, but I was just a kid so I don't remember her position exactly.) --Uncle Ed 15:28, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Anonymous wrote:

NOTE: 1.)Life long Boston residents do not refer to their neighborhoods as 'inner city'; 2.) Louise Day Hicks was overshadowed by several other neighborhood anti-forced busing activists; 3.)Louise Day Hicks correctly pointed out that the open enrollment policy negated any segregation in the Boston Public Schools; 4.) The Irish-Catholic working class was a vocal minority in the Boston neighborhoods, surpassed by all the Polish, Lithuanian, Estonian, and Lativian immigrants fleeing 1950's communist persecution from the former Soviet Union; and 5.) Attorney Louise Day Hicks correctly pointed out in the court order, Hennigan v. Morgan, that the offending federal judge was unable to determine "precisely" which schools were alledgedly segregated.

Moved here from the article -- Viajero 13:39, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Where is the attribution for the racial breakdown of Boston Public Schools students? And can someone attribute Hicks' prediction?

And Anonymous, as far as I know, the "open enrollment policy" did not end segregation; it allowed parents of means to pay for their child's transport to another school of their choice. Thus, it became a tool for white parents in racially diverse neighborhoods to send their children to school in majority-white neighborhoods, while most African-American families could not afford the extra expense, thus exascerbating the residential segregation of Boston's neighborhoods. I could be wrong here... Friedrichhajji 02:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Desegregation vs. Busing

Calling her an "opponent of desegregation" is an oversimplification. It ignores the fact that the way "desegregation" was implemented, a lot of (mostly working class) white students were forced to go to school in black neighborhoods where not only were they not expecting to be welcomed with open arms, but the crime rate was indeed higher.

In this 1975 Boston Globe article, Police Supt. Jordan specifically names District 2 (Roxbury), 4 (South End-Back Bay), and 3 (Dorchester-Mattapan) as having the worst crime in Boston. South Boston was District 7. There's also a chart that shows the number of crimes reported by each district during 1973-4. District 2 reported 70 murders, 6 manslaughters, 196 rapes, 3,851 robberies, and 1,450 aggravated assaults. District 7 reported 10 murders, 0 manslaughters, 7 rapes, 144 robberies, and 84 aggravated assaults. Granted, it would be helpful to have per capita numbers, but these were the numbers that were printed in the Globe, and it wouldn't have been unreasonable for readers at the time to look at them and deduce that crime was much worse in Roxbury than it was in South Boston. That is a legitimate concern which was often glossed over by the press and by certain wealthy Irish politicians who were eager to wrap themselves in a mantle of righteousness while at the same time sending their own children to school in white suburbs that were not affected by busing (despite the fact that busing was supposed to enforce a state law, not a municipal law).

Now, I am not saying that Hicks was not biased, or that racism was not rampant in Boston. I'm just saying that somewhere in all that mess was a legitimate complaint that was ignored because the people affected by it weren't rich and powerful. Rosekelleher (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

References

The fact that you are using sources fro. The time written by those I power who opposed desegregation, including many “liberal” journalists seems to negate the whole point that you are making. Sarahefrancis (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Louise Day Hicks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110817185113/http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/tocn-mla000844-louise-day-hicks-talks-about-curfew-proposal to http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/tocn-mla000844-louise-day-hicks-talks-about-curfew-proposal

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)