drivers had been charging 10 cents – the price of a bus ticket; the pro-boycott
organisation, the Montgomery Improvement Association, the MIA, headed by King,
then instituted a ‘private taxi’ scheme); a very old law prohibiting boycotts was
used, and King was arrested; liability insurance on the private taxis was not granted.
Eventually a federalcourt decided that such segregation was unconstitutional, and
this was confirmed by the Supreme Court.Freedom rides
In 1947 the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) set out to test the Supreme Court’s
1946 ruling that segregation on interstate transportation was unconstitutional by
sitting in ‘whites only’ seating. The so-called ‘journey of reconciliation’ met heavy
resistance and was not a success. In 1961 the same strategy was adopted, but this
time other court rulings had reinforced the claim for desegregation, and the
campaign was better organised: white civil rights activists would sit in ‘blacks only’
seats and also use blacks only facilities at rest stops, and black civil rights activists
would do the reverse on the same buses and at the same stops. They met a great
deal of resistance, including mob violence and mass arrests. Ultimately they
succeeded in getting the Interstate Commerce Commission to outlaw segregation.
From the perspective of Rawls’s criteria for civil disobedience, the freedom rides
are a grey area: the politicalaim of the action was to shame President Kennedy,
who was perceived at the 1960 election to be sympathetic to civil rights, but who
on taking office in January 1961 was much cooler about tackling the Southern
states. The legalaim was to test the Supreme Court’s 1946 ruling. It is a matter for
debate whether testinga law constitutes civil disobedience.Sit-ins
The strategy here was very similar to the freedom rides: groups of black students
would challenge segregation by sitting at ‘whites only’ lunch counters and wait until
they were served; once served they moved to the next shop. There was also an
element of boycott: the Woolworth’s chain had segregated counters in the South,
but mixed counters in the North – there was a boycott of New York shops designed
to force the company to desegregate its entire chain. At first, the sit-ins met with
little resistance – the students were not served, but neither were they harassed – but
a white reaction did build up, with white youths attacking the activists, and the
police then arresting the (peaceful) activists. A common tactic of the activists
was for one group to be ready to take the place of the arrested group, with the
consequence that the jails would soon fill up and the machinery of justice grind to
a halt. Again, from our perspective this is interesting: Rawls says that civil
disobedience must not only be non-violent – and the sit-ins certainly were non-
violent – but also non-coercive. Arguably, incapacitating the justice system is
coercive. Also, relatedly, and again contra Rawls, the reason why many actions,
including the bus boycotts, worked was not because the majority became aware of
injustice, but because their interests were damaged – pressure came from bus
companies and stores to desegregate.438 Part 4 Contemporary ideas