Two Strategies, One Goal: Evaluating Civil Rights Tactics, 1960–1965
An organizer in a mid-sized southern city in 1963 must choose between two plans. Plan A: a downtown lunch-counter sit-in campaign targeting segregated businesses, aiming for mass arrests that generate national press coverage. Plan B: a voter-registration drive in rural counties where Black residents are 38% of the population but 2% of registered voters, with a sheriff known to harass registrants. The organizer has 90 volunteers and a $6,000 budget. Local clergy support Plan A but fear backlash; sharecroppers in the rural counties support Plan B but cannot risk arrest. A funder will only support one plan this year.
1. Compare the two plans on risk distribution and likely payoff, using the details given.
Read the worked answer
Plan A (sit-ins):
- Risk borne by volunteers who can absorb arrest (students, clergy-backed)
- Payoff: media coverage, economic pressure on downtown business, builds local coalition
- Constraint: clergy fear backlash; segregated business may wait out the campaign
Plan B (registration):
- Risk borne by sharecroppers who cannot afford arrest - the very people whose votes matter
- Payoff: structural power (38% of population vs. 2% registered is a huge gap), durable beyond a news cycle
- Constraint: sheriff harassment, small budget, 90 volunteers spread thin across counties
Comparison: Plan A trades concentrated risk for visibility; Plan B trades visibility for structural change but imposes risk on the most vulnerable. Neither is 'more correct' - the choice depends on which resource (press or voters) the movement most needs this year.
2. The funder says 'pick the plan with the clearest measurable outcome.' Argue for one plan and name one way the chosen plan could fail despite meeting its metric.
Read the worked answer
Argument for Plan B: the metric is concrete and structural - registered voters as a share of eligible Black adults. Moving from 2% toward the 38% population share is a durable power shift that outlasts a single campaign, and it addresses the mechanism (disenfranchisement) rather than a symptom (a lunch counter).
How it could fail despite the metric: registration numbers can rise while actual voting stays suppressed - registrants may be purged, face literacy tests or poll taxes at the ballot, or be deterred by retaliation after registering. High registration with low turnout would satisfy the metric while leaving political power unchanged. The organizer would need a turnout and protection plan, not just a registration count.