Demetria (00:01.432)
So I was working on an article that was titled, Boycott to Bring Back a Better Version of DEI. And the premise of that article was, if we are boycotting and one of the demands is to bring back DEI, then we need to get really specific about what we're asking for. Because a lot of these companies like Target and Walmart, Amazon, I don't know that they were doing DEI in the way that is the most impactful or meaningful. A lot of it was performative. And so,
Bringing back DEI is just demand that's way too general. We've got to get specific. And so I was utilizing the Montgomery Bus Boycott as an example, because they had three demands. And before I get into that, I want to ask you, why did the Montgomery Bus Boycotts end? Like, what were you taught was the reason why the boycotts ended?
Because for me, what I've always been taught and what I've always seen is that the headline is, you know, the Montgomery Bus Boycott lasted 381 days. And, you know, there were so many people who came up with their own plans and strategies for how they were going to get around. you know, the collective action and effort of a group is really what facilitated this change. And it wasn't until I started doing research on the Montgomery Bus Boycott and the demands of the boycott that I was like, wait a minute.
Something's not adding up. One plus one is not equaling two. And so then I started to get curious. And my first question was, why did the boycotts last 381 days? Because as a business, it doesn't take 381 days to see your revenue and income start to go down. You notice that a lot sooner. And so if you were going to make a change, you're not going to wait over a year to do that.
So I thought, gosh, what happened? What's the thing that facilitated change? And so I first wanted to see what were the specific demands of the Montgomery Bus Boycott. And there were three. There were three demands. One was for the bus operators to treat black customers just with some respect, to be courteous to the black passengers. That was the first demand.
Demetria (02:30.601)
The second was that passengers are seated on a first come first serve basis with the black passengers still sitting in the back and the white passengers sitting up front. But the idea was that the white passengers could not demand that black passengers give up their seat for them should there not be any seating in their area. The third demand was that black people were to be employed as route bus drivers on the routes that were
used primarily by Black people. So those were the three demands. And they modeled these demands based on kind of what other cities had done as they were demanding, you know, fairness and equality and equity. And they saw that it worked. They did not want to, you know, fully go for desegregation because they saw that that hadn't been working. The boycotts and things that folks were doing did not lead to desegregation. And so they said, you know,
if we scale back a little bit, ask for something that is still progress, but it might not get us to that final point, then we might be able to get there. And then at some point ask for full desegregation. But the city of Montgomery wasn't going for any of that. They didn't want to concede to any of the demands. As a matter of fact, they pushed back hard. They pushed back by intimidating. They pushed back.
by suing, they sued groups that created some sort of transportation system so that they could not operate. They did everything that they could, what was in their power to break what the black community had set up so that the boycott could continue. And in no way, or form had they ever come to the table and said, all right, well, let's talk about what we can do.
let's see where we can come up with a compromise. That was never part of the equation. And so I was like, wow, let me keep digging. What am I going to find? And it didn't take long for me to find it, but there were four black women who sued the city of Montgomery amongst others, like the mayor and other departments. And it was because of that lawsuit that segregation on buses was ruled unconstitutional. It was the lawsuit that facilitated the change.
Demetria (04:55.131)
That's why the boycotts lasted as long as they did. It's because they weren't working. It wasn't getting the desired effect. It was the lawsuit that got the change that they were wanting. I don't know, maybe the boycotts did have some sort of, it was a factor in some way, right? It was some sort of contributing factor, but it wasn't the headline.
It wasn't the headline like I had been taught that it was the headline. And I mean, I feel like I was taught that the Montgomery bus boycott was so impactful that the leaders were kind of shaking in their boots and were like, if we don't do these things, then we're going to lose money. And if we lose money, it's going to put us out of business. And that wasn't it because if they were concerned about that, it would not have taken 381 days.
It would have been resolved much sooner than that. It was the lawsuit. And what I find to be interesting is that one of the four women who were, four black women who were plaintiffs in this lawsuit, one was Claudette Colvin. And that name might sound familiar because Claudette refused to give up her seat on the bus before Rosa Parks. And...
was originally going to be the Rosa Parks, serve in that capacity, but because she was unmarried and pregnant, she wasn't kind of the model spokesperson. So it was then Rosa Parks who became that. Claudette was one of the four plaintiffs of this lawsuit and it was ruled unconstitutional. They cited Brown versus education as the reason for the desegregation.
And it's like, whoa, wait a minute. Wait, why isn't that the headline? Why isn't the headline that there were four Black women who sued the city of Montgomery and the U.S. District Court panel said that segregation on buses was unconstitutional. Why isn't that the thing that we were taught? And I don't know, maybe some folks were taught that.
Demetria (07:16.12)
But I feel like that's not the narrative that I was taught. That's not how this situation was described to me. It was like, it's the Montgomery bus boycott. There's not even a name for the role that this lawsuit had in overturning segregation on buses. And so I was thinking about that in relation to today. I'm all for utilizing our dollars and supporting organizations and companies
that align with our best interests. But I'm wondering if there's no legal strategy, how effective are the boycotts going to be? Which then led me to ask, if there was no lawsuit, how long would the Montgomery bus boycotts have gone on? Because it doesn't appear in the research that I've done, it doesn't appear that
the city of Montgomery was willing to come to the table at all.
So how long would the boycotts have gone on if there had been no lawsuit? I mean, so what were you taught? Were you taught that the Montgomery Bus Boycott was the thing that facilitated the change or were you taught that it was a contributing factor, that it was really the lawsuit? The Montgomery Bus Boycott was there to apply pressure, but it was really the lawsuit that facilitated change. What were you taught?
Share this post