See article here. My reply to the facebook commentary on it is below.
Segregation wasn't necessarily 'destroyed'. 'Reduced' and/or 'discouraged' might be more accurate. Today, it is done largely via credit scoring, speculation on property values (including use of Census data), school re-districting, electoral re-districting and as was claimed by a recent UW study (for what its worth), by unconscious, learned behaviors.
Occasionally, it is done Jim Crow style, as was the case in Philly where a public pool refused to allow a group of black youth to swim there, but this is rare, since it is usually viewed as disruptive to commerce. It is an easier sell to a judge, jury, or the public (and completely legal) to accuse someone of shoplifting, vandalism, theft, drug dealing, 'disorderly conduct', tresspassing, or 'noise distrubance' and then ban them from a public or private area on that basis, which can be done even if no evidence is ever presented and no charges are ever filed.
In someways, it is a non-issue when sat down (figuritively) next to issues such as 'reparations' and 'the right to self-determination'. Both are codified in international law, but both are considered 'non-issues' since many black people have accepted our colonized position (and the above-mentioned modus operendi of the state and its supporters; 'liberal' and 'conservative'), as it has been strengthened by integration and affirmative action: aka the 'carrot'. The 'stick' was COINTELPRO.
And now, affirmative action has been largely rescended in most states in both the private and public sector, including this one!
Never lose sight of the fact that the 'professional', church-based leadership that eventually took control of this movement (specifically SCLC) were fundementally pro-imperialist and just wanted a bigger piece of the loot and all the privileges amerikka offered to its settler population. It is no mystery as to why Kennedy, Johnson, and later Nixon supported this neo-colonial [mis]leadership. Take careful note that King was assassinated shortly after he spoke out against the war in Vietnam and the looting that was going on there by amerikkkan companies.
There is a qualitative difference between an imperialist nation allowing limited access to social, political, and economic opportunities, which in fact helps strengthen that imperialist nation more than it strengthens those it has granted greater access to; and actually creating social, political, and economic opportunities that not only do NOT need the imperialist nation's premission to exist, but that also in fact DESTROYS that imperialist nation!