The Progressive Fortress: How Boston's Liberal Suburbs Built America's Most Effective Segregation System

The question of whether Greater Boston is 'really as racist as people claim' serves as one of the most persistent and uncomfortable inquiries in American urban sociology. For decades, the region has existed within a duality that confuses external observers and frustrates residents.

On one hand, Massachusetts stands as a citadel of American progressivism. It is the cradle of the abolitionist movement, the first state to legalize same-sex marriage, and a reliable Democratic stronghold that delivered overwhelming margins for Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election. Its premier suburbs—Lexington, Wellesley, Newton—are populated by a highly educated 'cognitive elite' who consistently vote for civil rights, environmental protection, and social equity at the national level.

Yet, lurking beneath this progressive veneer is a reputation for profound racial intractability. This reputation was cemented globally during the violent busing crisis of the 1970s, where the desegregation of Boston Public Schools was met with visceral white resistance. It was reinforced more recently by the Boston Globe's 2017 Spotlight series, 'Boston. Racism. Image. Reality.,' which utilized data to argue that Boston remains one of the most unwelcoming major cities for Black Americans in terms of economic mobility and social integration.

To answer this inquiry with the necessary depth, this analysis rejects a superficial examination of interpersonal prejudice. Instead, it posits that the 'racism' of Greater Boston is best understood not as a collection of individual biases, but as a rigid structural outcome of land-use policy, municipal fragmentation, and historical design. The racism of the region is 'exclusionary by design,' to borrow the title of a seminal report by the Boston Indicators. It is a system where progressive ideology and exclusionary morphology coexist.

The segregation visible in Greater Boston today is not an accident of market forces or personal preference. It is the legacy of a century of deliberate policy engineering. To understand why a Black family is statistically less likely to live in Dover-Sherborn than in Brockton, one must understand the legal scaffolding constructed between 1920 and 1975.

The foundational layer of Boston's segregation was laid in the 1930s by the federal Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC). Government surveyors graded neighborhoods across the region to determine mortgage risk. Areas with significant populations of color, immigrants, or Jews were color-coded red ('hazardous') or yellow ('definitely declining'). This policy, known as redlining, effectively shut off the flow of capital to Boston's urban core—Roxbury, Dorchester, and the South End.

While the city was being starved of investment, the suburbs were being constructed as exclusive enclaves. The GI Bill and the post-war housing boom subsidized white flight, allowing white families to accumulate generational wealth through homeownership in the developing suburbs. Black families, denied these mortgages, were trapped in the city. This initial divergence in wealth accumulation is crucial because, as the suburbs began to utilize 'economic' zoning, they were effectively engaging in 'racial' zoning. If a town requires a minimum lot size that necessitates a certain level of wealth, and that wealth is racially stratified due to federal policy, the zoning ordinance becomes a racial filter.

The suburbs of Greater Boston did not merely passively receive white flight; they actively engineered their demographics to ensure exclusivity. Amy Dain's comprehensive research for the Boston Foundation identifies four distinct eras of zoning that tightened the noose of exclusion around the city.

The initial zoning codes were established ostensibly to separate incompatible land uses—keeping factories away from homes. However, even in this nascent stage, the intent to separate 'compatible' populations was evident. Towns began establishing residential districts that excluded multi-family housing, setting the foundation for future exclusion.

As the Great Migration brought Black families to Boston and the economy shifted, suburbs began to feel the pressure of potential integration. In response, towns began increasing minimum lot sizes and implementing stricter building codes. This era established the baseline of the 'bedroom suburb,' but apartment construction was still legally possible in many areas.

This is the critical historical inflection point that defines modern Boston. Between 1968 and 1975—precisely coinciding with the height of the Civil Rights movement, the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., and the court-ordered desegregation of Boston schools—suburban towns engaged in a frenzy of downzoning.

What happened during the Big Downzone:

• Towns banned new multifamily housing entirely
• Minimum lot sizes were drastically increased, often to one or two acres (e.g., Dover, Sherborn, Weston)
• Growth caps were instituted
• Height restrictions and density limits were imposed

The timing suggests this was a reactionary measure. As Boston was forced to integrate its schools, the suburbs built a legal wall to ensure they would not have to integrate their neighborhoods. The 'Big Downzone' was a structural 'White Flight' mechanism that required no individual prejudice to enforce; the code did the work.

Since 1975, this exclusionary framework has largely remained frozen in place. While some multifamily housing has been built, it has typically been restricted to age-restricted (senior) developments. This 'fiscal zoning' allows towns to accept housing that pays taxes but generates no school children, further enforcing the exclusion of young, diverse families.

The result of these policies is a region where inequality is mapped geographically. The towns that engaged most aggressively in the 'Big Downzone'—such as Dover, Sherborn, Weston, and Lincoln—remain the whitest and wealthiest in the state. They have effectively privatized their public goods. By requiring a $2 million entry fee (the cost of a home) to access their public schools, they maintain a level of exclusivity that rivals private institutions, all while maintaining a 'progressive' political identity.

This disconnect between the ideology of inclusion and the morphology of exclusion is the defining characteristic of Greater Boston's racial landscape. For homebuyers, this means that towns with 'excellent' schools often achieve that excellence through exclusion, not just educational quality.

The tension between Boston's progressive self-image and its exclusionary reality has erupted into a 'civil war' over the MBTA Communities Act (Section 3A of MGL c. 40A). Enacted to address the state's crippling housing shortage, this law requires 177 communities near transit nodes to zone for multifamily housing by right. It is the first serious state-level attempt to dismantle the zoning walls erected during the 'Big Downzone.'

The resistance to this law provides a real-time map of the region's racial and class anxieties. For homebuyers, understanding this battle helps identify which towns are genuinely working toward integration versus those maintaining exclusion by design.

In February 2024, the town of Milton became the epicenter of this conflict. Milton is a wealthy, highly educated suburb that borders Boston. It is politically liberal, voting heavily for Biden and Harris. It prides itself on its 'excellent' schools and community character. Yet, when presented with a zoning plan compliant with the MBTA Act—a plan approved by its own Town Meeting—the voters rejected it in a high-turnout referendum (54% against).

Why Milton's rejection matters:

• Rejection of State Mandates: It signaled that 'Home Rule'—the right of a town to determine its own makeup—trumped state-level goals of equity and housing production.

• The 'Urban' Fear: Rhetoric surrounding the 'No' campaign focused on 'traffic,' 'overcrowding,' and the fear of becoming 'like Dorchester' (its urban neighbor). In the context of Boston's history, 'urbanization' is often a coded term for demographic change.

• Consequences: The vote stripped Milton of state grant eligibility and triggered a lawsuit by the Attorney General, escalating the conflict to the Supreme Judicial Court.

Milton's resistance exposes the 'Progressive Paradox.' Residents who likely have 'Black Lives Matter' signs on their lawns voted to maintain zoning laws that effectively prevent Black lives from moving into their neighborhoods in significant numbers.

While Milton garnered the headlines, it is not alone. As of late 2024 and early 2025, a specific subset of towns has engaged in active resistance or non-compliance. This list often overlaps with more conservative or traditionalist demographics, creating a strange bedfellow coalition with the progressive NIMBYs:

Conversely, the 'Super-Elite' progressive towns—Lexington, Wellesley, Weston, Newton—have generally moved toward compliance, but often in a way that preserves their core exclusion.

Newton: The battle over the 'Village Center Overlay District' was fierce. A group called 'Save Newton Villages' managed to oust several pro-housing incumbents in the 2023 elections. However, the City Council eventually passed a compliant plan. The key insight here is that Newton's compliance is often focused on specific commercial corridors, protecting the vast single-family neighborhoods that comprise the town's wealth.

Lexington: Compliant, but careful. The zoning changes are often targeted to areas away from the most prestigious residential streets, ensuring that the 'character' (and property values) of the town remain undisturbed.

This differing response highlights a nuance in the region's racism: The 'Elite Progressives' are willing to allow density if it is managed technocratically and contained, whereas the 'Traditional Conservatives' and 'Moderate Suburbanites' (like Milton) are more likely to engage in outright rebellion against the concept of change itself.

A fundamental question emerges: Are there 'excellent' school districts that aren't conservative? This request touches on a fundamental misunderstanding of Massachusetts political geography. In many parts of the US, 'wealthy suburbs with good schools' are Republican strongholds. In Greater Boston, the opposite is true. The most elite, high-performing school districts are located in the most progressively voting towns.

The following districts represent the pinnacle of academic achievement in the state. They are consistently ranked in the top 5-10 by US News and Niche, and they are politically deep blue.

Academic Rank: Consistently Top 5 in MA; Nationally ranked for STEM.

Political Leaning: Overwhelmingly Progressive. In 2024, Kamala Harris won Lexington with nearly 80% of the vote.

Demographic Reality:

• Asian: 46.7%
• White: 46.3%
• Black: 4.4%
• Hispanic: 4.6%

Analysis: Lexington is the archetype of the 'Global Meritocracy.' It is not conservative; it is cosmopolitan. Its excellence is driven by a massive population of high-skilled immigrants (largely Asian) who prioritize education. However, its low percentages of Black and Hispanic students (relative to the state averages of 9.6% and 25.1% respectively) reveal that its 'diversity' is selective. It welcomes the 'cognitive elite' regardless of origin, but its housing prices exclude those without substantial capital.

Academic Rank: Often #1 in the state for standardized test scores.

Political Leaning: Progressive. Harris won decisively.

Demographic Reality:

• White: 70.2%
• Asian: 14.1%
• Black: <1%
• Hispanic: 3.6%

Analysis: Dover-Sherborn is the 'Unicorn' district. It serves two small, incredibly wealthy towns with 1-2 acre zoning minimums. It functions essentially as a private school system funded by public taxes. The near-total absence of Black students (<1%) in a state that is ~10% Black is a stark indicator of how effective large-lot zoning is as a segregation tool. It is socially liberal but structurally hermetic.

Academic Rank: Top 10 consistently.

Political Leaning: Progressive.

Demographic Reality:

• White: 62.1%
• Asian: 18.8%
• Black: 3.8%
• Hispanic: 7.7%

Analysis: Wellesley represents 'Old Money' transitioning to 'Smart Money.' Like Lexington, it has a significant Asian population but remains largely inaccessible to lower-income minority groups. Its compliance with the MBTA act was strategic, protecting its schools from overcrowding while meeting the letter of the law.

Are there excellent schools in conservative towns? Yes, but they occupy a different tier. They are 'excellent' in that they are safe, well-funded, and have good graduation rates, but they typically lack the hyper-competitive, Ivy-League-feeder atmosphere of Lexington or Weston.

Academic Rank: Very Good. Ranked ~#26-31 in MA.

Political Leaning: Conservative. Donald Trump won Lynnfield in 2024 with 50.9% of the vote.

Demographic Reality:

• White: 77.7%
• Asian: 8.0%
• Black: 1.5%
• Hispanic: 9.5%

Analysis: Lynnfield represents a different cultural archetype: the 'White Flight' suburb of the mid-20th century that remains culturally traditional. Heavily Italian-American (33% ancestry), it values stability and local control. It offers a high-quality education without the 'pressure cooker' environment of the western suburbs, appealing to families who may feel alienated by the intense progressivism of Lexington.

Academic Rank: Solid/Strong. Ranked ~#60 in MA.

Political Leaning: Conservative. Trump won with 51%.

Demographic Reality:

• White: 91.9%
• Black: 1.4%
• Hispanic: 3.4%

Analysis: Located on the South Shore, Hanover is a bastion of the white middle/upper-middle class. Its diversity metrics are among the lowest in the region. The excellence here is defined by community cohesion and athletics rather than global STEM dominance.

When we consider diversity (race, religion, language) while ignoring economics, the data suggests a cruel paradox: Academic excellence in Greater Boston is negatively correlated with racial diversity (specifically Black and Hispanic diversity).

Malden Public Schools is cited as the most diverse district in the state.

• Diversity: ~76% chance two random students are different races
• Excellence: While it provides a robust social education, its test scores and rankings (Rated B by Niche, 3/10 on some metrics) lag far behind the exclusionary suburbs.

Cambridge Public Schools is the exception.

• Structure: It uses a 'controlled choice' lottery system to balance schools by socioeconomic status.
• Outcome: It is the only district attempting structural integration. It is excellent (highly resourced), diverse, and progressive.

Sharon Public Schools: The Multicultural Anomaly

• Rank: Top 20.
• Diversity: High Asian (14%), significant Jewish and Muslim populations.
• Analysis: Sharon offers a unique 'interfaith' excellence. It is highly educated and progressive but feels culturally distinct from the WASP-legacy towns like Dover. It proves that excellence can exist with diversity, but usually only when that diversity is comprised of groups with high levels of educational capital.

To fully answer the question of identity and exclusion, we must look beyond the simple Black/White binary. Greater Boston is sorted by religion, origin, and language in ways that are often invisible to the casual observer but deeply felt by residents.

There is a sharp cleavage between towns that are globally connected and those that are locally rooted.

In towns like Lexington, Acton, Westborough, and Brookline, the population is increasingly international.

• Data: In Lexington, 33% of residents are foreign-born.
• Language: 39% of Lexington households speak a language other than English at home. This is driven largely by Mandarin, Hindi, and other Asian languages.
• Implication: These towns are not 'white ethnostates'; they are 'credentialist ethnostates.' They welcome anyone who can navigate the global knowledge economy. A Ph.D. from Mumbai fits in perfectly in Lexington; a working-class family from Boston does not. The 'racism' here is not xenophobic—it is strictly class-based, which results in racial exclusion due to the racial wealth gap.

In contrast, the conservative towns are defined by their nativism.

• Data: In Hanover, only 4.6% of residents speak a language other than English at home. In Lynnfield, the foreign-born population is 11.8%, significantly lower than the metro average.
• Implication: These towns represent a preservation of 'traditional' American suburban life. They are less dynamic demographically, which correlates with their resistance to political and zoning changes.

The Jewish Corridor

Towns: Newton, Brookline, Sharon.

• Data: Newton is estimated to be 20-30% Jewish. Sharon has historically had a Jewish population nearing 50%.
• Culture: These towns function as the intellectual and liberal conscience of the suburbs. They are intensely focused on education and social justice. The high concentration of Jewish residents in Newton helps explain its intense engagement with both progressive local politics and global issues (e.g., Israel/Palestine debates in City Council).

The Catholic Shore

Towns: South Shore (Hanover, Marshfield, Scituate) and North Shore (Lynnfield, Saugus).

• Data: These areas have the highest concentrations of Irish and Italian ancestry in the state. Lynnfield is ~33% Italian-American. The South Shore is famously the 'Irish Riviera.'
• Culture: The cultural bedrock here is Catholic, traditional, and family-centric. The shift of these white ethnic groups from urban Democrats (JFK era) to suburban Trump voters (2024) is the key political realignment of the region. Their conservatism is often rooted in a defense of the 'American Dream' they feel they earned by leaving the city.

Massachusetts is often viewed as a monolith, but the 2024 election results reveal the fracture lines.

In 2024, Kamala Harris won Massachusetts with 61.2% of the vote. This victory was powered by the 'Blue Wall' of the western suburbs.

• Weston: Harris ~75%
• Brookline: Harris ~85%
• Newton: Harris ~82%

The Cognitive Dissonance: These voters represent the 'Limousine Liberal' archetype. They support DEI initiatives, affordable housing advocacy, and school desegregation in the abstract. However, their voting behavior on local referenda (like the MBTA Communities Act) contradicts their national politics. They vote Blue for President but 'NIMBY' for Town Meeting, protecting their property values with the same fervor that Red states protect gun rights.

The 'Conservative' vote in Greater Boston is geographically specific. It is not found in the wealthiest towns, but in the exurbs and the white-collar/trades communities.

The 'Trump Belt': Donald Trump won towns like Saugus (54.4%), Lynnfield (50.9%), Hanover (51%), East Bridgewater (54.6%), and Whitman (50.4%).

Characteristics: These towns are distinct from the 'Elite' suburbs. They are less connected to the transit core (Hanover has no train station). They are less reliant on the 'Knowledge Economy' (universities/biotech) and more tied to local industries, trades, and small businesses. Their vote for Trump is a rejection of the 'Boston Consensus' of progressive cultural politics.

The answer to the core question is nuanced but affirmative, provided one accepts a structural definition of racism.

If racism is defined by interpersonal hostility—people shouting slurs on the street—Greater Boston has evolved. The 'Elite' suburbs are polite, welcoming to international elites, and politically committed to anti-racism. You are unlikely to experience overt hostility in the coffee shops of Lexington or Wellesley.

However, if racism is defined by structural exclusion and outcomes—where people of different races are permitted to live, learn, and build wealth—Greater Boston remains deeply racist. The region has perfected a form of 'Paper Racism' that is more effective than burning crosses because it is legally enforceable.

If you seek an 'Excellent' school district that is NOT conservative:

You have the pick of the litter. Lexington, Newton, Wellesley, Weston, and Dover-Sherborn are the best in the state, and they are deep blue. However, understand that their 'excellence' often comes with exclusionary costs—$2M+ entry fees and minimal racial diversity.

If you seek an 'Excellent' school district that is conservative:

Your best options are Lynnfield (North Shore) and Hanover (South Shore). They offer a traditional community feel and strong schools, distinct from the hyper-competitive atmosphere of the western suburbs.

If you seek true diversity:

You must look to Sharon (for a wealthy, multicultural mix), Cambridge (for intentional integration), or Malden (for organic diversity), accepting that 'excellence' in rankings often requires the exclusion you may be trying to avoid.