Voluntary local desegregation produced tokenism and arbitrary exclusion rather than integration.
Evidence
Under this “voluntary” approach to integration, no one could be sure which hotels and restaurants accepted black guests. Civil rights activists tried to maintain up-to-date lists of “integrated establishments,” but the situation was constantly changing and incredibly confusing. A few hotels accepted black visitors, but usually with the provision that they were part of a larger convention and, as a group, composed no more than 3 percent of the total conventioneers. For restaurants, “integration” was even more convoluted. A reporter for Newsweek explained the problem to his home office: “Some said they were integrated, but would accept no more than two Negroes at a time; some said they wouldn’t accept mixed parties; some said they were integrated only between one and two p.m.; some would agree on the telephone they were integrated, but would close the door in the face of negro patrons; some did vice versa.” It was, the journalist noted, an exasperating pattern of “confuse-and-divide.” — Kevin M. Kruse, White Flight, 481
Categorization
- recurring: this claim recurs 2 times within its source
- XREF: connects to: Court-ordered desegregation of public spaces produced resegregation and private alternatives, not integration — Kevin M. Kruse, White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of…, 250; School token integration recreated segregation inside schools — Kevin M. Kruse, White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of…, 366; Atlanta’s celebrated moderation enforced only token minimal desegregation — Kevin M. Kruse, White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of…, 311 (+6 more)
Broader Connections
- Voluntary Black separation differs fundamentally from discriminatory segregation
#responds-to(0.75) — Ibram X. Kendi, Stamped from the Beginning, 872 - Voluntary segregation processes rarely produce high dissimilarity index values.
#complicates(0.70) — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 2422