USIA, U.S. Society & Values, August 1997 - PERSPECTIVES
ON
RACE
PERSPECTIVES ON RACE
Prepared by Charlotte Astor
The subject of race in America continues to
inspire
a lively and intense expression of opinion
across the American social and political landscape. What follows
is a sampling of recent
commentary from a variety of sources.
NATIONAL DIALOGUE ON RACE
The New York Times:
President Clinton's June 14 call for a national conversation on
race evoked skepticism and
criticism from partisans on both sides of the racial divide.
Foes of affirmative action were
disappointed that he did not reject what they consider to be the
failed path of quotas and
racial preferences. Advocates of more aggressive action on race
and poverty were
disappointed that he did not commit more resources for
job-training and education....The
President focused on the future, however, and encouraged his
newly appointed advisory
panel, with the historian John Hope Franklin as its chairman, to
listen before making
recommendations.
The issues of race, affirmative action and diversity can be
discussed candidly. If Mr.
Clinton's speech starts such a process, and leads to concrete
actions, it could be remembered
as a turning point....
(Excerpted from an editorial of June 16,
1997, p. A22.)
Dr. John Hope Franklin:
Ours is a rare and unique opportunity to make a significant
contribution to the resolution of
the virtually intractable problem of race that has plagued this
country for more than three
centuries. I say virtually intractable because the
problem was
created and nurtured by gifted
human beings, but that which man has created can indeed be put
asunder....
The task with which this advisory board is assigned is daunting,
even awesome....We have
the advantage of undertaking the task in an atmosphere of
peace....We must therefore seize
the present and use the present to promote a significant
improvement in the racial climate and
racial contacts, and race relations in general.
If black-white relations became the hallmark of race relations
in general, they served in turn
to influence inter-ethnic, inter-religious, inter-racial
relations in subsequent years in many
places and in many ways:
"More damn Jews," xenophobic European-Americans complained as
they watched some
Eastern Europeans disembark in New York City in 1890.
"Restrict
Asians in every possible
way," Western Americans demanded toward the end of the
19th-century.
"Build mile-high
fences," Southwestern Americans commanded, as Mexicans and others
from south of the
border entered the United States in increasing numbers in the
middle of the 20th century.
I do not know how many Americans, of whatever color or race or
national origin, are
familiar with these old, old stories. Some cannot see the
relevance....To them and to all of
us, I would say that the beginning of wisdom is knowledge, and
without knowledge of the
past we cannot wisely chart our course for the future.
The President has called for a national dialogue, and I hope that
all of us will answer his
call. If we speak frankly and honestly about matters in which
feelings are deep and long-held, the conversations will not
always be painless....The road
to racial peace is not
without its problems and even pain. But the journey is worth
taking, for in the end we can
forge institutions and adopt practices that will help us build
communities....
We've only a short time to have an impact on certain courses in
our society that are not only
old and powerful but resourceful as well. We will not be
intimidated by their strength and
their resources, for we enjoy support and good will of millions
of American citizens....So
let the dialogue begin....
(From remarks by Dr. John Hope Franklin to the
July 14, 1997,
meeting of the Advisory
Board to the President's Initiative on Race and Reconciliation.
Dr. Franklin, Chairman of the
Advisory Board, is one of America's premier scholars of African-
American history. Among his seminal publications are Racial
Equality in America, 1976, and From Slavery to Freedom: A
History of Negro Americans, [7th edition published in 1994],
and The Color Line: Legacy for the Twenty-First Century,
1993.)
Randall Kennedy:
Promise and peril surround President Clinton's initiative on race
relations.
The promise is a focused examination of racial issues that will
clarify dilemmas so that at
least we can know where and why we disagree with one another.
This is a precondition for
sensible reform. Nearly everyone recognizes, as the President
recently said, that "we have a
long way to go." What precisely, however, is our aim?...
Do we want a society governed by racial demography, in which
presidential cabinets,
criminal juries and editorial offices must "look like America"?
Or do we want a society
governed by an anti-discrimination principle that requires
citizens to look beyond looks? To
understand the ramifications of the choice...requires
considerable thought and discussion.
That is why the public should eschew the objections of those who
contend that we have had
too much "mere" talk about racial matters. We have not had too
much talk; we have had
too much rhetoric and spectacle....
If Clinton's initiative is to amount to anything memorable it
must create forums in which
knowledgeable, thoughtful people address their fellow citizens
about the racial matters that
touch them most intimately.
We need to hear about and from people who live in the nation's
black and brown ghettos.
Do they have reason to believe that if they "play by the rules",
their lives and the lives of
their children will become more prosperous, secure and
enjoyable?... We need to hear from
white women who view race as a signal that a black male stranger
poses more of a threat to
them than a white male stranger. Is their calculation
sensible?...We need to hear about and
from Latinos, Asian-Americans and blacks, who view one another
with racial resentment and
discord. What is the basis of their discord?...
To pose these and even more pointed questions, and to permit and
consider a range of
divergent responses, might help to create the thought-provoking
conversation that many
Americans would like to have about their racial dilemmas.
(The
Washington Post, June 15,
1997, pp. C1-2. Randall Kennedy is a professor at Harvard Law
School and
the author of Race, Crime
and the Law, New York: Pantheon, 1997.)
Robert Johnson:
First, and most important, is that the President, the leader of
this country, is saying that race
is a top issue for America and giving it the highest visibility.
Second, it is at the black/white
level that race has to be addressed first and foremost, and I
hope that the President's task
force addresses it as the major conflict, the primary issue.
(The Washington Post, June 15,
1997, p. C2. Robert Johnson is President and Chief Executive
Officer of
Black Entertainment
Television.)
Anita Allen:
I see encouraging evidence in my family, neighborhood and
workplace of the possibility of a
kind of racial unity that transcends mere integration (which
tends toward assimilation) and
multiculturalism (which tends toward balkanization). But
President Clinton is right that there
is work to be done. As a nation we need to accept the moral
responsibility for the
inequalities and animosities that are the legacies of slavery,
legally enforced segregation and
prejudice. We need to design creative, politically-viable new
approaches to addressing
economic, educational and social inequalities.
(The Washington
Post, June 15, 1997, p. C2. Anita
Allen is Associate Dean and Professor at Georgetown University
Law Center, Washington,
D.C.)
Angela Oh:
You cannot legislate attitudes and gut reactions. But the
federal government has the capacity
to set a tone, to get some thoughts out there for the nation to
consider. This initiative comes
at a time when we are poised to consider some other possibilities
only because we are going
into the year 2000.
When we talk of race relations, one thing we are going to become
conscious of as a nation is
that we're a very young nation. Yes, we've made mistakes...but
we have maintained a
strength and leadership role that no one in this country wants to
give up. As a nation we
have an interest in coming together, and this President is
visionary in asking this diverse set
of folks and communities to come to the table and seriously
consider where we are....
We're a country that is quite unique in that we tend to put
things in terms of race. I know
several Asian-Americans who grew up in Latin-America....They
identified culturally as
Brazilian, Panamanian, Chilean, not by race. Then, when they
came here...their face...put them in the category of Asian. So
then they had to struggle
with what that means in this
context.
This country has always been segmented, based on skin color or
race. Asian-Americans because of how we look....Our
susceptibility or vulnerability
to being called foreigner is
never going to go away. I have had people ask me, "How does it
feel to always be viewed as
a foreigner?" African-Americans actually have said to me, "At
least we know we belong
here...." That is a very unsettling question when it is put to
you. African-Americans are
never told, "Go back to your own country...."
We have this wonderful heritage in the instrument that provides
the basis of building this
nation [U.S. Constitution]. When our forefathers drafted the
instrument, they certainly
didn't expect people like Angela Oh to be part of the picture.
But the extraordinary thing
about this nation is people have interpreted these rights to mean
we do want to include the
Angela Ohs, the Linda Chavez-Thompsons [advisory board member]
and the John Hope Franklins....
Los Angeles Times, July 13, 1997, p. M3.
Angela
Oh, a
Los-Angeles-based lawyer,
is a member of the Advisory Board to the President's Initiative
on Race and Reconciliation. She serves on the Los
Angeles City Human Relations Commission and the Korean American
Family Service Center.)
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Christopher Edley, Jr.:
Whether Asians or any other particular group should be targeted
for affirmative action
depends on the context and on the justification for affirmative
action....I suggest that
some of the central choices are whether group-based
discrimination still exists and requires
either remedy or preventive measures, and whether a particular
institution or organization
needs diversity in order to be excellent and fulfill its mission.
For new immigrants generally, I don't think the question is
whether they or their forebears
have suffered discrimination. That reasoning assumes that the
moral justification for
affirmative action has to do with reparations for historical
wrongs. It doesn't, in my view. I
ask, what are the risks today of discrimination, and how potent
are the lingering effects of
recent discrimination? What are the benefits today of special
efforts to be inclusive and
diverse in a given setting? To me, the historical wrong is most
relevant because it
powerfully compounds the moral imperative to adopt effective
measures that bring about
racial and gender justice.
If an immigrant group, based on our history, is likely to
overcome obstacles in relatively
short order, within the ordinary operation of America's
mechanisms of opportunity, then the
extraordinary justification for race-conscious affirmative action
is missing. But if we see a
new group in all likelihood is becoming just another generation
of victims to familiar patterns
of discrimination and injustice, then something must be done.
Affirmative action, done the
right way, can be helpful.
(From an Oct. 5, 1996, Internet Forum submission
on Proposition 209.
Christopher Edley, Jr., a law professor at Harvard University,
worked on the July 19, 1995, Report to the President on
affirmative action.)
Jack Kemp and J.C. Watts Jr.:
In [his June 14 speech in] San Diego, when [the President]
turned to "affirmative action," he offered no improvement over
the current system of race-based
quotas, set-asides and
preferences. He issued the following challenge: "I ask you to
come up with an alternative. I
would embrace it if I could find a better way." Well, Mr.
President, there is a better way....
Our "better way" replaces discrimination with opportunity,
poverty with jobs, and despair with
education. We offer more than the simplistic and absolutist
version of "affirmative action."
A new approach must focus not only on equality and strong
enforcement of our existing
civil rights laws but also on the expansion of opportunity.
Instead of deliberating over fair
ways to mete out educational acceptances, job openings, contract
agreements and program
slots, we should be looking for ways to multiply and extend them.
The "better way" we offer can be summed up in five policy
prescriptions....Establish
renewal communities and enterprise zones to draw businesses and
jobs into distressed urban
areas; open up the educational system to the influence of
parental and community choice;
reverse federal and state welfare provisions to reward rather
than punish recipients for
working, saving and investing toward an independent future;
implement privatization of
public housing and other efforts to bring home ownership and
property ownership into low-income neighborhoods, and embrace
strategies that will get our
national economy growing at
a pace that will accommodate the talent of all Americans.
The legislation that could help achieve all five of our desired
goals is already here before Congress in the Community Renewal
Project. This bill...would
expand opportunity in our
cities by removing tax and regulatory barriers to job creation
and entrepreneurship and by
expanding access to capital and credit.
Expansion of opportunity requires expanding the overall economy
so that it has plenty of
room for the effort and enterprise of all Americans, including
minorities and women. On
principle, we should not accept the idea that a job gained by one
American equals
unemployment for another, or that a contract won by one qualified
bidder spells disaster for
an equally qualified contractor.
Finally, we must move to a place of real racial
reconciliation....We must begin the dialogue
that President Clinton and others have called for....As a great
African-American abolitionist,
Frederick Douglass, said, "When we are noted for enterprise,
industry and success, we shall
no longer have any trouble in the matter of civil and political
rights."
(The Washington Post,
July 8, 1997, p. A15. Former Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development Jack Kemp, who also served as a
Republican in the U.S. Congress, is co-director
of Empower America, a
nonpartisan public policy and political advocacy organization
that promotes progressive-conservative policies. J.C. Watts is a
Republican member of the U.S. Congress from Oklahoma.)
Ward Connerly:
Today, I believe we are saying to young black kids, if at first
you don't succeed, redefine
success, because your failure must have been the result of
culturally-biased exams, the lack
of role models and a racist society. Our kids have come to
believe that they cannot survive
in a world without special consideration. Their competitive
spirit has been weakened by this
dependency on affirmative action. We owe it to them to better
prepare them for the rigors
of a highly competitive world. And we owe it to all that is good
about America to not let
them sink into the debilitating mentality of believing that our
nation is racist at its core....
There are those who defend racial preferences who often speak in
glowing terms about "diversity." Let me be clear: Today's vote
was not a rejection
of diversity. It was a
rejection of using diversity as an excuse to discriminate....
(Excerpted from a November 1996 speech by
Connerly, a University of
California official, and chief proponent of the California Civil
Rights Initiative, Proposition 209, which largely prohibits
discrimination or use of preference programs by California state
or local governments.)
ASPECTS OF DIVERSITY
Joe R. Hicks:
Clearly, black political power and influence, particularly in
U.S. cities, must be reconceptualized in the context of an
America that is far more diverse than white and black
people. What then does racial integration mean in the context of
an American population in
flux?...
The shifts in the racial mix of U.S. cities, with the percentage
of African-Americans falling,
and growing black skepticism toward the value of integration,
both undercut traditional
notions of "integration" and "assimilation." In the 1960s,
"integration" meant inclusion in an
America largely defined by European-Americans. Today,
integration must mean inclusion,
involvement and participation in a nation that has evolved far
beyond the black-white
paradigm.
(Los Angeles Times, July 20, 1997, pp.
M1, M6. Joe
R. Hicks is former executive director of
the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a civil rights
organization that strives for full
equality and equal opportunity through political and economic
action.)
Raul Yzaguirre:
Our nation is truly at a crossroads and Latinos are [at] the
proverbial "fork in the road."
What is crucial for us as a nation is to come to terms with how
we will respond to the
difficult challenges that lie before us. If we, as a nation,
choose to continue separating our
interests -- as well as our communities -- based on which are
more powerful, more clever, or
more "deserving," we will surely perish. The healing that
President Clinton so eloquently
spoke about in his second inaugural speech cannot and will not
happen unless we take
affirmative and proactive steps to be inclusive and honest about
who we are and what we are
all about as a people.
(Excerpted from a June 1997 Forum in
Hispanic magazine, p. 40. Raul Yzaguirre is president of
the
National Council of La Raza, a
private, nonprofit organization which strives to improve life
opportunities for Hispanic-Americans.)
Dr. Samuel Betances and Dr. Laura M. Torres Souder:
To discriminate is deadly. To be inclusive is just plain good
for business. The future is
screaming at us with new demographic trends which announce a new
world reality in which
to do business....Harnessing the rainbow of the total workforce
-- its diverse ways of
knowing, world views, insights, passions and talents -- will in
fact add value to the
organization and its goals.
African-Americans, together with numerous other interest groups,
will reap the rewards of a
non-racist system since, as an interest group, they have
struggled most consistently to
eliminate discrimination. Their struggle has proved a blessing
to every group seeking to be
included, respected and rewarded for their work. All groups,
therefore, must take a strong
position against racism.
(From a July 11, 1997, speech, "New and
Improved Workplace
Diversity Initiatives for the Bottom Line," at Agway Technical
Center, Ithaca, New York.
The authors, respectively, are senior consultant and chief
executive officer of Souder,
Betances and Associates, Inc., Chicago, Illinois.)
U.S. Society &
Values USIA Electronic Journal, Vol. 2, No. 3, August
1997
Sorry, you need a JavaScript capable browser to get the best from this page |
|
