-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/11c0485a0c9bef2d257c9e5ea03826e8.pdf
d8b8ae49d205c68f7d983b18ab6de9a0
PDF Text
Text
FOIA Number: 2006-0462-F
FOIA
This is not-a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting
Series/Staff Member:
Terry Edmonds
Subseries:.
OA/ID Number:
10989
FolderiD:
'
''
..
Folder Title:
UCSD [University of California at San Diego]- Race Reconciliation Meetings/Consultations
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
s
0
0
0
0
�& .
1.._
::z:¥i'it
c•
,.
n~tJ
.
/
/
rrRECONCIL!ATION AND L!WTY MEETING
~
1
y
~~K,
\ ;-:'
?\ /rP
,:;
'(;,/. r
~
'
J'
rlf' •
~
~ nr"'§' ·~"" ~ ·V ~
II.
J;;Y
~
/'lj. .jf~
-e
I
~
o/
BACKGROUND.
PARTICIPANTS
See Attached List
l;J,
-.J'~
LOCATION: Cabinet Room
TIME: 5:00pm- 6:30pm
CONTACT: Sylvia M. Mathews
Over the last few weeks, the reconciliation working group has been meeting to devise a proposal
that would enable you to take steps to improve race relations, lessen intolerance and capitalize on
the nation's diversity as a strength. Attached is an informational memorandum on the group's
proposals and background materials including: l) a memorandum on the previous presidential
commissions dealing with race relations 2) excerpts from editorials on race commissions; 3) a
list of the core reconciliation group members; and 4) funding options.
~~II.
Jl J .~
"\~J
1\(
DATE: March 25. 1997
intolerance and promoting racial understanding and reconciliation.
~¥"\
f
March 24. 1997
IV.
PRESS PLAN
Closed Press
V.
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
NIA
VI.
REMARKS
None required
�List of Attendees
Agencies and Other non-White House staff
Secretary Pena
Secretary Slater
Chris Edley
Bill Galston
David Ogden
Department of Justice
Michael Wenger
Appalachian Regional Commission
Governor Winter
White House Staff
Don Baer
Erskine Bowles
Dawn Chirwa
Carolyn Curiel
Michael Deich
Maria Echaveste
Terry Edmonds
Rahm Emanuel
Richard Hayes
Alexis Herman
Ben Johnson
Elena.Kagan
Ron Klain
Ann Lewis
Sylvia Mathews
Doris Matsui
Andrew Mayock
Cheryl Mills
Minyon Moore
Janet Murgia
Bob Nash
John Podesta
Bruce Reed
Richard Socarides
Doug Sosnick
Tracey Thornton
Melanne Verveer
Ann Walker
Rob Weiner
�March 25, 1997
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
ERSKINE BOWLES, SYLVIA MATHEWS
AND THE RECONCILIATION GROUP
SUBJECT:
ACTION ON RECONCILIATION
PURPOSE
This memorandum is to prepare you for Tuesday's meeting on proposals for combating
discrimination and intolerance and promoting racial understanding and reconciliation. The
memorandum is an informational memorandum for our discussion. Therefore, we have not
included any recommendations.
What follows is a discussion on background, scope and two proposals for your consideration.
Attached to the memorandum are the following background items: 1) a memorandum on the
previous presidential commissions dealing with race relations; 2) excerpts from editorials on a
race commission; 3) a list of the core reconciliation group members; and 4) funding options.
BACKGROUND
In examining whether to form a race commission, we considered how to address your concerns,
as articulated in the State of the Union Address, that America must become "One America" and
must confront unresolved issues of race and bigotry. Over the last few weeks, we have convened
a number of meetings (list of participants, attachment #3) to devise a proposal that would enable
you to take steps to improve race relations, lessen intolerance and capitalize on the nation's
diversity as a strength.
·
In order to achieve the difficult balance between study and action, we have concluded that any
proposal must include two elements: 1) an ability to provide immediate action on this issue, which
includes creating a greater dialogue between the races in this country; and 2) the means to
examine the difficult policy issues involved and to provide recommendations for addressing them.
This memo lays out two options for pursuing these goals: 1) a commission with an action entity
and a study entity; and 2) a series of town meetings, a national conference and a report from~-*
President to the American people.
Either undertaking is not without risks. A candid discussion of race and discrimination is bound
to stir passions, cause controversy and give offense across the political spectrum. Specific
remedial prescriptions are sure to spark controversy. For example, if you appoint a commission,
we might receive recommendations on affirmative action that do not align with our position.
�.
;;~;/~er~
ffY~,/.
r
Y'!
c
h
. .
.
. . .
Al so, c hoosmg
parttctpants 10r sue a commtsston would present a challenge m balancing the twin
goals of reaching a consensus and including diverse opinions.
Yet, along with the risks is the opportunity to provide leadership that may change the national
environment concerning race and discrimination. While any President is in a special position to
use the moral authority of the office to promote healing of the racial divides and an appreciation
of our diversity as a natio~, you are unique because of your deep commitment to racial justice and
reconciliation and your ability to talk about race and unity in a way that moves the American
people. Moreover, we believe that leading the country towards racial reconciliation and tolerance
could be a central element of the legacy you leave as President.
SCOPE
A threshold question that you need to confront is how broad or narrow this initiative should be.
Three options to consider are the following: I) an initiative that addresses racial issues
exclusively; 2) a "unity" initiative which broadly encompasses minorities affected by bigotry and
intolerance, including racial groups, women, the disabled, gays and lesbians; or 3) an initiative that
would be dominated by race issues. but also generally address other, often inter-n!lated types of
discrimination. This concept might be titled "race and intolerance" or "race and unity."
The argument for focusing specifically on racial intolerance is that the long history of racial
struggle for civil rights has led to a consensus on the principle of racial equality. Precisely
because that consensus has become fragile--witness the attacks on affirmative action and the antiimmigrant rhetoric--your initiative must focus solely on racial discrimination in order to reinforce
and strengthen our country's commitment to equality._ Another reason for focusing on racial
intolerance is that a commission or conference about everything will, in the end, be about nothing.
Also, the issue of race is in itselfa very difficult, complex, broad-ranging problem that touches
everyone.
The argument for a broad "unity" focus is the fulfillment of your call for "One America." Many
of the problems of discrimination and hatred are experienced just as strongly by groups other than
racial minorities. Narrowing the initiative's charter may yield discord among key constituencies,
and we may find ourselves responding to highly visible and vocal critidsm from certain
constituencies from the onset of our effort. Gays and lesbians may argue that their struggle for
civil rights is now coming of age and that to not include them in a reconciliation initiative may be
characterized as a lack of commitment to broad inclusion in the Administration's initiatives.
The argument for a "race and intolerance" or "race and unity" initiative is that it recognizes that it
is race which continues to be "The American Dilemma," without dismissing others who face
intolerance and bigotry.
2
�OPTION 1: RA<:::E"·COMMISSION
One option is for you to create and appoint a race commission by Executive Order. The
commission would have two components: l) an action task force which would conduct a
sustained and intensive campaign to build a national environment receptive to addressing the
divisions within our country; and 2) an academic task force which would conduct an effort to
develop a deeper understanding and provide recommendations to overcome the differential
treatment accorded various groups. The commission would thus be both action-oriented and
academic.
1
Membership I Executive Director: The commi~sion w?uld be compose_d of appr~ximately
,
J
twenty to twenty-five members and would be national, diverse (geographically, racially and ~;,:.·/:-""
1
professionally) and bi-partisan. We believe that limiting the commission's size is important to
\create a group that can actually achieve something. The members would be former elected
-~~~ public officials. former judges. educators. business and religious leaders, spans and
~6 entenainment notables. scholars. foundation and other non-profit officials, and civil rights and
~
community advocates. Due to the commission· s size limitations, currently serving elected
, ;;It i officials may not be included because inclusion would lead to a demand that could not be met.
, rJ ~
The commission would be administered by an executive director. This position will be a key to
~~~·' the success or failure ofthe commission. The selection ofthe members and the executive
~r-Y J.J-_.~ [f,,-'
director will communicate how serious. bold and creative you consider this project.
t?.
1 0
~-rJb•tl
1
Action Task Force: To pursue an action agenda, the commission would have a task force that
heightens awareness. promotes reconciliation, confronts negative stereotypes and encourages
~ .-4
rational discourse on divisive issues. The action task force would pursue these objectives
(,.-a.~~
through various initiatives, including: l) holding town meetings and debates which include state'
and local leadership; 2) surveying local and community groups for ideas that already work and
disseminate best practices to a wider range of community and governmental bodies (e.g.
ministerial groups, U.S. Conference on Mayors and National League of Cities); 3) reaching out
to youth in schools and on campuses through meetings and youth-oriented media: 4) nominating
people and groups for a Presidential Award; 5) initiating a nation-wide theme campaign; and 6)
creating public service announcements. Also, the action task force could sponsor a White House
Conference on Hate Crimes, which would unequivocally signal the Administration's opposition
to and abhorrence of violence against those who may be different from others, and bring affected
groups together to identify commonalities and possible solutions.
Academic Task Force: A scholarly task force created by the commission would undertake an
inquiry that would draw upon the nation's best minds on this subject. This task force would
organize working groups to review existing research. pursue original research and recommend
action. Among others, the group could focus on the following specific areas: judicial system,
education. housing, employment and health care.
3
�Timing: The actiou task force would be at work over the next year. The academic task force
would deliver a report to you one year from its inception. Under current assumptions, which
include time for selecting and appointing the members, a realistic timefrarne would probably
indicate an initiation date between July- September 1997 and a report date between NovemberDecember 1998.
Variant: A variant of the commission option splits the action and study entities
(described above) into two separate organizations: a Commission on Race and a Council
on Unity. Ideally, the commission and council would be well coordinated, but one would
not have formal authority over the other. The commission would be a scholarly endeavor
· and focus on the policy issues of racial discrimination. The council would be actionorienred and broadly focused to include issues of discrimination against women, the
disabled. gays and lesbians. The council would do all those things that the action task
force would do (e.g., youth outreach, town meetings, etc.). This commission/council
option may simplify participant selection with academics and experts on the commission
and public figures on the council. However, this option has its drawbacks in that the
broader public may be confused about the role and purpose of the two entities, especially
if the council is more broadly defined. Furthermore, a dual-entity option could set up a
jurisdictional dispute between the council and the commission.
Pros and Cons on Commission
•
If successful, the commission's report will be a living document that guides the nation's
thought on race relations and frames the debate and solutions for a long time to come
(e.g. Kerner report and Nation at Risk).
•
A commission could provide a flexible tool for utilizing your participation. This option
would allow your time to be strategically scheduled. Thus, your schedule could include
various events such as town halls, meetings with the commissioners and public service
announcements.
•
A commission provides your Presidential imprimatur which lends the authority and highprofile of your office to this important initiative, while it also provides some distance
from a hot-button, high-risk issue.
•
Establishing an independent bi-partisan commission widens the range of advice received
and issues considered, enhances the credibility of the commission's findings and
recommendations. and shows that to promote the long-term public good, you are willing
to run the risk of receiving recommendations that may not be fully consistent with your
own v1ews.
4
�•
There are- a humber of areas (e.g. reinforcing the legitimacy of the criminal justice system
for all Americans) in which the problems are clearer than the solutions. The commission
would address the need for more policy research in areas that need it. By harnessing the
research of the nation· s top thinkers, it could enhance policy-making at all levels and
provide guidance on non-governmental actions. (This can be accomplished less directly
in the second option.)
Through its action component. the commission could overcome the "study means delay
rather than action·· criticism and provide a base for reaching out to the American people.
•
It addresses the need for more research in areas that need it and leverages the
Administration· s resources by placing the policy work outside your Administration.
•
Depending on the strength of the commission, you could cede control over large aspects
of your domestic agenda -- for example, welfare, education, and criminal justice -- to an
outside body that may or may not agree with your priorities or accept the constraints of
your budget. Of course. you could reject all or part of the commission's eventual
recommendations. but that could present a difficult situation.
•
Appointing a commission will pose a number of difficult questions. Membership? How
wide or narrow should be the spectrum of ideological views represented on the
Commission? The size of a commission is necessarily limited, hence the membership is
often dra\VTl largely from academics and economic elites. Also, selecting appropriate
members to fulfill the action and scholarly functions further complicates the selection
process. (However. participation in any proposal on this issue will be difficult.)
•
If there is an emphasis on balancing the commission across the ideological spectrum, it
may make civil rights advocates in the community nervous about potential outcomes.
The use of a "commission'' to address this issue subjects you to criticism that you are
foregoing action on the issue of race and discrimination only to study a problem which
has been studied long enough.
A commission may not take full advantage of your unique talents on this issue. Any
President could appoint a commission and respond to its proposals. You have the
unprecedented ability to talk about race in a way that the American people respond to and
to construct your own agenda for racial reconciliation.
•
Commissions are often "top-do\VTl" exercises rather than "bottom-up." Many of the
important ways to improve race relations may not lie within the ambit of the federal
government. The problem is national, but many of the solutions may be local. State and
5
�local gov~rup1ents. religious institutions. charities. private enterprise and individual
citizens must panicipate.
•
An independent commission opens the possibility of stalemate from a divided
commission (e.g. Advisory Council on Social Security, which split into three factions ·on
privatization recommendations. and the U.S. Civil Rights Commission).
•
A commission with scholarly and action task forces may confuse the public, and lead to
ongoing jurisdictional fights and substantive disagreements between the two groups.
OPTION II: TOWN MEETINGS, NATIONAL CONFERENCE AND REPORT
Under this proposaL you would convene a series of town hall meetings, host a national
conference at the White House. and deliver a report from the President to the American people.
The following proposal was devised with specific details so that you may envision the positive
and negative aspects that might result from this concept. The details would be refined and
modified, if you select this proposal. The concept includes the following components:
Town Meetings: A series of four .. town halls" on specific race-related issues would be held:
two meetings led by you. one by the Vice President and one by the First Lady.
Subject/Location: These events would occur in different areas of the country among
different kinds of communities (rural/urban): judicial system in Los Angeles, California;
employment in Detroit. l'v1ichigan; education in rural south; housing in Chicago, Illinois
or Santa. Fe: New Mexico. (These locations are illustrative only.)
Participants: The panicipants would consist of mostly people from the community, a
few experts in the field and you. The experts could contribute empirical evidence and
exacting analysis to the discussion and listen to citizens for input into the Presidential
report to the American people.
Timing: At the earliest. the town meetings would start in the early part of SUIIUI:ler. One
town meeting per month could follow with the conference in the fifth month and the
report following the conference.
Action: The town halls would be part of our policy development where certain policy
ideas could be tested. For example, affirmative action could be a topic of the discussion
on the judicial system where we elicit the community's views and reflect on our policy
decisions. To develop these policies, we could put into place a broad process that is led
by the White House and involves all the agencies. This group could also reach out to
public policy experts outside the government. This process, with the events described
above serving as action-forcing mechanisms, would produce a wide range of actions and
proposals -- both large and smalL executive and legislative. Also, this process would
6
�feed into areport to the Nation with specific proposals based on the town meetings and
outreach to scholars and other experts in the tield. Furthermore, papers and essays, which
may provide a valuable resource for communities, might be commissioned and released
in conjunction with the town hall meetings and the conference.
You could encourage local officials to have preparatory, parallel and/or follow-up
sessions on their own to try to agree on, or at least identify, key problems and solutions.
If these meetings are successful. they may"become regularized forums in the communities
and proliferate to other communities. Ideally, these meetings would be the seeds of
organizations that live on and promote interracial dialogue inthe local communities. We
may even explore ways in which the Administration could provide encouragement or
support to sustain this dialogue.
·
Conference: Following these town meetings, a multi-day conference would be held.
Subject/Location: The conference would be at the White House and would consist of a
number of segments (e.g. panels and roundtables). For example, the conference could~
inclu~e th_e followi~g segments: 1) ju~icial system; 2) empl~~ment; 3) ~~ucation; 4)
housmg; .) ) ?ate cnmes: 6) be_st practices _for l~cal comm~tles; 7) famthes; 8) I j (J
governments role; and 9) ractal groups dtffenng percepuons.
~
Participants: Participants would vary segment to segment. They would include all the
people who would be candidates for the commission (former elected officials, former
judges, educators, business and religious leaders, civil rights advocates, and scholars).
The conference would include elected officials (e.g., Members of Congress, mayors and
governors). It also would include the participation of the town hall communities so that
( they could share their experience with the other conference participants.
Timing: At the earliest, this conference could be held in early fall.
Action: The conference would provide a forum for a national articulation of the existing
problems and solutions as presented by everyday people, experts and leaders. Cabinet
Secretaries could prepare materials to help focus and guide discussions on topics relevant
to their missions. As with the town meetings, policy announcements could accompany
and/or follow the conference. The conference results would be included in the report by
the President to the American people.
ent's Report to the American People: Following the town hall meetings and
nee, a report "from the President to the American People" would be developed for you.
report would include input by the communities, the agencies and
The White House would work with an informal outside group to
7
�Timing: T[le ?Jllliversaries of the birth or death of Martin Luther King, Jr. have been
suggested as·dates for delivery of the report.
Action: The report would be a thoughtfuL comprehensive description of the existing
problems and a presentation of action items to address those problems. It would include
the following items: 1) an update on the state of race relations and discrimination in the
U.S. today, including a report on our progress since the Kerner Commission; 2) a
description of those events that have occurred through your initiative - your town halls,
others' town halls and the conference; 3) recommendations for moving the country
forward; and 4) a selection of realistic action items which you could pledge to pur~ue.
Pros and Cons of Town Meetings. National Conference and Report
•
This option fully draws upon your unique talents on this issue. It places you in the
forefront of the issue that you have exhibited an ability to talk about race in a way that
moves the American people. It allows you to more fully demonstrate the power of moral
leadership.
•
It addresses several needs: 1) bringing people in communities together to talk to each
other about these issues; 2) forcing policy development on this issue in the government;
3) creating a comprehensive and inclusive report through the town halls and conference;
4) initiating broad-based action on this issue.
•
It would allow you to maintain control over the long term and allow you, with input from
the people most affected. to create your own agenda for unity and reconciliation that is
consistent with your priorities and within the constraints of your budget.
•
This initiative increases our ability to actively include more national and community
leaders.
•
It directly confronts the broad-scale policy issues of criminal justice and education that
are central to achieving progress in this area.
•
The process of this initiative has the potential to improve race relations and promote
tolerance through broad-scale, community-based dialogue, as well as generate innovative
solutions to old and new problems alike.
8
�•
Town halls may be perceived as a shallow exercise of talk Vvithout serious action. Many
people think we have studied and discussed the questions involving race long enough and
that it is past time to put that study to practical use.
•
We may receive a ·'not another White House conference" response.
•
The town halls and a conference bring this hot, divisive issue literally to your front door.
If the town halls and the White House conference are to be a real discussion of the issues.
principals may be in a position to receive strong criticism directly.
Attachments
Memorandum on the Previous Presidential Commissions Dealing with
Race Relations
Excerpts from Editorials on Race Commissions
List of Reconciliation Working Group
Funding Options
9
�------------------------------
EXCERPTS FROM EDITORIALS ON RACE COMMISSION
ANTI-COMMISSION:
"Nation Doesn't Need a Kerner II," Editorial, The Tampa Tribune, 10/30/95
The dilemma of rough-edged race relations has been commissioned, studied and
talk-showed with small result. But better race relations will come from sincere efforts at the local
level, not from another Washington-based government commission. [The Kerner report] ignores
the fact that there are other groups in this nation besides Americans of European and African
descent. We are a multiracial society, more so than when that report was written. The report
devoted 70 pages to the education, housing, job training and welfare programs that the authors
thought. would bring blacks into the national mainstream. The only real obstacle the
commissioners foresaw was some resistance in raising the necessary taxes. We now know that
too .much faith was put in Washington. There is no reason to believe that lawmakers and
bureaucrats are any better equipped this time around. Improved race relations will come from
the dedicated efforts of churches. community organizations, employers and individuals at the local
level. T_hat is where people interact with each other every day. It is through personal contact and
open. honest dialogue that real improvement will take place.
ANTI-COMMISSION:
"One Study of Race Echoes Another," by Alan Lupo, Boston Globe, 11/5/95
In Washington, they are talking about another study ofrace relations, another commission
- a "blue-ribbon" commission of course, not some rlin-of-the-mill gathering of alleged experts,
but one with ribbons. So the big boys down in D.C. are talking studies again. One of the first
witnesses was Dr. Kenneth Clark. a noted scholar and African-American, testified that he had
read the report "of the 1919 riot in Chicago, and it is as if I were reading the report of the
investigating committee on the Harlem riot of '35, the report of the investigating committee on
the Harlem riot of '43, the report of the McCone Commission on the Watts riot. I must again
in candor say to you members of this commission - it is a kind of Alice in Wonderland - with
the same moving picture re-shown, over and over again, the same analysis, the same
recommendations, and the same inaction." The report noted, "We have learned much, but we have
uncovered no startling truths, no unique insights, no simple solutions. The destruction and the
bitterness of racial disorder, the harsh polemics of black revolt and white repression have been
seen and heard before in this country. It is time now to end the destruction and the violence, not
only in the streets of the ghetto but in the lives of people." And now they're talking about
another commission? Another study? Forget the commission. Forget the study. Save a pile of
buckaroonies by simply reprinting the 1968 report, which, in paperback form, contained more
than 600 pages of explanatton, testimony, history, perspective and proposals: In the wake of the ...
right-wing political blitzkneg of the past two decades on both common sense and compassion,
1
�perhaps a few mqre._quotes are in order. The commission argued that the alternative to a divided
America would require "a commitment to national action- compassionate, massive and sustained,
backed by the resources of the most powerful and the richest nation on the earth .... The vital
needs of the nation must be met; hard choices must be made, and, if necessary, new taxes
enacted."·
So the commission proposed programs for everything from job training, to criminal justice
reform, to better education. It suggested, for example, more public housing "with emphasis on
small units." Sound familiar today? It suggested consolidating existing job-training programs to
avoid duplication? Hey, have we heard that recently? Aha, conservatives now mutter. You see?
We spent all that money, and the poor are still poor and having poor babies. And liberals answer:
What money? We started, but we never finished. The money went south, really south, to wage
not a war on poverty but a war on Southeast Asians. So, by all means, then, let us have another
study. It's a traditional cop out. Pols in both parties can claim they are doing something about
the divisive issues of race and class. And Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich might especially like
it, because it's such a neat baby boomer exercise - to talk, and talk, and talk, without ever having
to take the shot to the face by making an unpopular commitment, such as raising taxes. They
can have neat hearings in those alabaster conference rooms for which D.C. is so famous. And
the media will converge breathlessly to report on the best sound bites. And some of us will
wonder how many in the media and how many testifying will even know what Kenneth Clark
said in 1967. "I read that report ... the 1919 riot in Chicago, and it is as if I were reading the
report of the investigating committee on the Harlem riot of '35 ... "
PRO-COMMISSION:
"Do We Need Another Blue-Ribbon Investigation?"
Editorial, The Dallas Morning News, 10/23/95
Not since the 1960s has our country been so wracked by the divisiveness of race.
Without a true assessment of how we as a nation are doing to provide each citizen an equal
opportunity to reach his or her full potential, misperceptions on the effort will continue to fuel
racial tensions. A report can help bridge racial divide. Given how high racial tensions have been
running, something has to be done, even if only symbolically. Another commission to give
America an up-to-date report card on civil rights could be useful in sorting out statistics and
perceptions. 1Some studies indicate that middle-class blacks have made enormous progress in
recent years. At the same time, rates of illegitimacy have gone up, and record numbers of black
men have been incarcerated. A carefully selected commission could dispel some perceptions and
affirm others. It would give the nation a new empirical base from which to move forward. But
no report is worth the paper it is written on if there is no serious political will to act on its
conclusions. Thus, a commission must have strong support from the president and Congress.
There must be a commitment at the local level to improving race relations that goes far beyond
enforcement of equal-opportunity laws. Laws can change people's actions but not their attitudes.
"Do we need another blue-ribbon investigation?"
2
�PRO-COMMISSION, ACTION ENCOURAGED:
"It Can't Hurt: Any New Commission on Race Relations Should Propose
Solutions, Not Pin Blame," Viewpoint, Nassau and Suffolk Edition, 10/19/95
Despite the desperate need to defuse tensions between blacks and whites, it's hard to get
excited about a national commission on race relations. The creation of blue-ribbon panels,
however, is often a convenient, even cynical, way to duck tough issues. Washington is famous
for that. There's a slim possibility on a problem so volatile as race that the commission could
actually increase divisiveness, by squabbling over its membership, leadership and scope: [W]hile
there have been changes for the good - the emergence of a black middle class and some gains
in education and in the professional ranks for people of color- the continuing divisions were easy
to see in the racially polarized reactions to the O.J. Simpson verdict and other recent flash points.
Jesse Jackson said, in calling for a White House conference on urban policy, economic
development and equal opportunity, "We don't need to be studied; we need to be employed."
If the panel is to be of real value, however, it must be more than merely a starting point for frank
discussion and fresh ideas - although those are needed. It must not get bogged down on the issue
of who's to blame - there's plenty on all sides of the racial divide - but instead come up with
specific ideas for action. And not just for government.
PRO-COMMISSION, ACTION ENCOURAGED:
"A Commission, and More," Editorial, The Christian Science Monitor, 10/19/95
[I]t has been nearly 30 years since the last hard, public look at race in America, the
1968 Kerner Commission. Things may no longer be as simple as "two societies ... separate and
unequal." Another examination - of a country whose racial and ethnic mix is rapidly changing
- would be useful. But only if it's joined to the kind of individual and community changes urged
by Monday's marchers. The building of a more perfect union remains America's central task, and
it has to be tackled through the prayers, actions, and thoughtful attention of everyone. No one
need wait for a definitive study.
COMMISSION FOR COMMON GROUND:
"The Search for Common Ground," Editorial, Tlte Fresno Bee,10/22/95
The divisions are deeply drawn between the races in America. Efforts at the highest level
could help bridge that dangerous gap. Presidential commissions are often disparaged as a way
to avoid difficult issues, and their reports dismissed as collections of pieties that make a day's
headlines ~d are then quickly forgotten. But given everything that's occurred in this country in
the past few years, President Clinton can hardly refuse the proposal, endorsed by members of
Congress of both parties, to name a commission on the state of race relations in America. The
3
�need for such a Stfltetnent on race relations from a respected panel is even more necessary now.
For rarely, if ever, have even the perceptions of the nation's racial divide been as divided. Most
troubling ... is how differently whites and African-Americans view the criminal justice system, a
fundamental institution of a civilized society. Unfortunately much of the nation still fails to
recog.nize the nature of such social dynamite. That failure by itself is reason enough for a
commission. Our divided perceptions cry out for a new, serious attempt to find the common
ground from which all people of good will, whit~ and black, can proceed.
PUBLIC DIALOGUE:
"America Has a Race Crisis That Americans Have to Discuss," by David Broder,
International Herald Tribune, 10/12/95
In the last few days, The Washington Post has been publishing polls dramatizing the
gulf in perceptions on a wide range of subjects. Whites predominantly and mistakenly believe
that blacks have achieved parity with whites in in~ome, jobs, education, housing and other
measures of well-being.
As a consequence, few whites but most blacks believe racial
discrimination is a continuing problem. The gap is so wide, said Robert J.Blendon, the Harvard
professor who analyzed the poll, that ""blacks and whites may as well be on two different
planets. "The danger in that situation cannot be reduced without honestly confronting it, nor will
it be helped by an inherently exclusionary march of a million black men in Washington on
Monday. Now is the time. while the Simpson case is still echoing, for President Clinton to take
the lead in organizing a public dialogue among Americans of different races about where we are
and where we. are going, as he suggested Tuesday he might do. The television and press, which
gave so much attention to the trial, ought to make comparable time available for this
conversation. Of course it is risky for leaders to step forward. But the president could do no
greater service to the. nation than convening the first such group and inviting the nation to join
in - while there is still time.
4
�ADDENDUM
INSTRUCTIVE EXERCISE:
"'Nightline' Series Confronts Hard Realities of Racial Gulf," by Tom Walter,
The Commercial Appeal (Memphis), 5/24/96
One of Nightline's most instructive exercises this week was asking those white
Philadelphians whether they favored affirmative action. None did. But then anchor Ted Koppel
put it another way. Say there's an organization that determines race. Say it made a mistake when
it had you born white and was changing your color. to black tomorrow. Would you accept
payment in return? Many of the whites did - up to $ 50 million to help ease the pain of being
black in this society. These white people clearly believed being black made it harder to make
your way in America. Twenty-eight years after the Kerner Commission Report, many white
people want to throw their hands in the air and say: Two separate, unequal societies? Sure.
Things will ne\jer change. But at least Nightline assumes things must change if America is to
fulfill its promise to everyone.
KERNER REPORT AT 20 YEARS:
By Barbara Vobedja, The Washington Post, 3/1/88
Today, a group of experts on race and urban affairs, some of whom had worked on the
Kerner Commission report, said that the problems the commission set out to erase two decades
ago persist. While great stndes have been made in some areas of race relations, the plight of
poor, inner-city blacks, they concluded, is more dismal now than it was 20 years ago. The
panelists, organized by former Oklahoma senator Fred R. Harris (D), one of the Kerner
Commission's ll members. spent the weekend assessing the state of black America on the 20th
anniversary of the landmark report. They pointed to gains, primarily the emergence of a black
middle class, the election of black political leaders and the integration of police forces,
newsrooms, corporate offices and other previously segregated workplaces. "The Kerner report
warning is coming true," the group said in its update of the original report. "America is again
becoming two separate societies .... " Tearing the nation apart today, the new document said,
are "quiet riots," in the form of unemployment, poverty, housing and school segregation and
crime. "These quiet riots are not as noticeable to outsiders ... but they are more destructive of
human life than the violent riots of 20 years ago." Much like their counterparts two decades ago,
members of the group called for public job and housing programs and urged that affirmative
action be enforced and the minimum wage be raised. But for some who were here, the exercise
was more sobering than their work .on the presidential panel -- the sense of promise dulled by
two decades of experience. But the epic, charted in stacks of academic papers compiled for this
conference, has unfolded with a menacing twist. While civil rights legislation and Great Society
programs enabled middle- and working-class families to leave the inner cities, their departure,
5
�in combination wi'th'~economic and other factors, has created urban ghettos far worse than those
of the late 1960s, Wilson said.
·
KERNER REPORT AT 25 YEARS:
By Chris Reidy, The Boston Globe, 4/4/93
A Democrat from Oklahoma who ran for president in 1976, Harris says there was much
progress between 1968 and 1978. But then the economy slumped and President Reagan cut
federal aid. Between 1981 and 1991, urban aid declined by 50 percent, says the National League
of Cities. With subsidies slashed, Harris notes, cities experienced "quiet riots" of despair and
poverty, riots far more destructive in human terms than the fires of the 1960s. "It's a myth of
the Reagan administration that nothing the government tries works," Harris says. "What we tried
largely worked. Either we quit trying or we're not trying hard enough. As a result, all major cities
are re-segregating. They're just as bad as 25 years ago. Gaps that had narrowed are widening
again- infant mortality, life expectancy, the number of people going to college. We have to focus
again on people: job training, child development, education." Last month, the Milton S.
Eisenhower Foundation reached a similar conclusion, issuing a silver anniversary update on the
Kerner Commission report. The. foundation urges Congress to enact a 10-year plan that would
allocate $ 30 billion annually to job training and education, says the foundation's Vesta Kimble.
The 29-page summary may have "captured headlines;" Lemann says, but it was "unrepresentative"
of the commission's 609-page report. In any case, the general perception was that Lindsay's words
represented a solid consensus. That such a harsh indictment could seemingly come from a group
of ll mainstream moderates gave the report added impact. The perception of police brutality in
the Rodney King case provoked riots in Los Angeles last spring. In response, the California
Legislature formed a committee on the "Los Angeles crisis." Its conclusions were similar to those
of the Kerner Commission. In Washington, President Bush fashioned his own response to the
LA crisis. Congress approved his emergency aid package, but Bush vetoed it the day after he lost
the election, the Eisenhower Report notes. Earlier, Bush and his advisers had decided against
appointing a Kerner-like commission. Says Lemann, "They figured, 'Why give critics a platform
to beat up on Bush in an election year?"'
FORMER KERNER COMMISSIONER'S VIEWS:
"Race Relation Commission Vital to Review Today's Issues,"
All Things Considered, NPR, 10/18/95
Judge Nathaniel Jones. U.S. Court of Appeals. 6th Circuit: "My first reaction is similar
to the reaction that Dr. Kenneth Clarke, the very imminent social scientist, expressed in testimony
before the Kerner Commission in 1968 ... [t]hat this is sort of like Alice in Wonderland with the
same moving picture reshown over and over again, the same analysis, the same recommendations,
and the same inaction. That was my initial reaction. Now, on reflection, though, I feel that a
6
�commission of nat~on:al stature would be very timely because it appears to me that one of the
great problems we have is a severe case of national amnesia. We do not, as a society, seem to
be able to recall with precision and with accuracy the racial history that we as a country have
had and why it's necessary for various steps to be taken to redress vestiges of that past. I would
suggest that people even go back beyond the Kerner Commission. There was a report issued in
1946 by a committee appointed by President Truman which was a very significant document.
It was called To Secure These Rights, and very few people are familiar with that report, but the
recommendations that were contained in that report were revolutionary, and they certainly laid
the groundwork for much progress of really a dramatic nature that took place with regard to
military, particularly at a time when we now are talking about a presidential candidate who was
a four-star general, a person of color. He is a direct result of the very bold programs and the
very bold step that President Truman took back in 1947 or '48 when he ordered the military
integrated. I think what we have to be mindful of is the nature of the crisis today, whereas in
'68 and the mid '60s, it was- the Commission was the result of the civil disturbances in major
cities. But today the crisis is of a divisiveness and a return to a separate society. The Kerner
Commission attempted to warn us that we were going down that path - two societies, separate,
black, white. separate and unequal. And the only way I see us stemming it is for our national
leadership to re-examine this racial history and to inform the American people of the role that
government played, that law played in creating these inequities and because the progress toward
correcting them has not been as rapid as it should be, the frustration is causing people to
withdraw in anger into racial and ethnic and color enclaves. And this kind of re-segregarion, a
return to the separateness, is a frightening prospect for many. Time for serious discussion about
race."
7
�rREVwus PRESIDE.QAjj;6j!MMissioNs DEALING
WITH
RACf~~\IS
OVERVIEW
Previously, t\vo Presidential Commissions dealt \vith the subject of race relations. President Truman
established the President's Committee on Civil Rights in December 1946. to investigate racial
violence and recommend remedial measures. The second commission was the National Advisory
Commission on Civil Disorders. widely known as the Kerner Comm:ission. President Johnson
appointed it on July 27. 1967. following riots in the mid 1960s.
In addition. two other historical gatherings dealing with race have occurred that have a bearing on
the current proposal. President Lyndon B. Johnson convened the White House Conference To
Fulfill These Rights. on June 1-~. 1966. lts purpose was to "seek a solution of the Negro Problem
since the Civil War ... and to tigure out how to best translate the promise of racial equality into
reality. Finally. the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library at the University of Texas in Austin. sponsored
a symposium on civil rights. Equal Opportunity in tlte United States. December 11-12. 1972. Its
primary purpose was to honor Johnson· s contributions to civil rights. but it also dealt with the
unfinished agenda with respect to racialjustice for blacks.
PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS
President Truman established the President's Committee on Civil Rights in December 1946, in
response to an impending racial crisis between blacks and whites. With the return of hundreds of
thousands of black soldiers who had fought overseas in World War II. and the migration north of
thousands more searching for economic betterment. a new age of black aspiration had been ushered
in. Simultaneously, a violent white backlash persisted in the south. which relied on Jim Crow
segregation. poll taxes and literac.y tests. and lynching to dissuade black advancement. Eventually,
tensions between blacks and whites erupted into race riots in several major cities.
Guided by Charles Wilson. President of the General Electric Corporation. the Committee thoroughly
examined the issue of civil rights. in both public and private forums. On October 29. 1947, the
Committee issued its report. Tu Secure These Rights. The report concluded that there was a large
gap bet\veen what the country stood for and the reality for millions of blacks. It recommended the
enactment of many civil rights laws. including:
Providing federal protection against lynching: .
Banning poll taxes and protecting the right to vote:
Establishment of a permanent Fair Employment Practices Commission:
Expanding the Justice Department's civil rights section:
Desegregating the military:
Home rule for the District of Columbia:
Resol~ing the evacuation claims of Japanese-Americans interned during World War II: and
Proposals attacking segregation in education. housing. and interstate transportation.
�Truman enthusiastically endorsed To Secure These Rights. calling it "an American charter ofhwnan
freedom.'' On February 2. 1948. he sent Congress a message on civil rights followed by specific
legislation to dismantle segregation and ensure black voting rights. Noting that not "all groups are
free to live and work where they please or to improve their conditions of life by their O\VTl efforts,"
he urged Congress to enact into law the Committee's
recommendations.
.
-
~
Most African-American leaders. the NAACP. and the black press embraced the president's efforts,
as did white liberal organizations such as Americans for Democratic Action. Ultimately, Truman
failed to get any of his legislati \'e program enacted because of strong congressional opposition.
However. when his initiati \·es stalled on capitol hill. he issued executive orders to: 1) desegregate
the Armed Forces and 2) to right discriminatory hiring practices by Federal agencies. In the end,
opposition to Truman· s proposals was so great that he made only modest progress in fighting
segregation over the next two \ears of his term.
KERNER COMMISSIO!\
This presidential commission was headed by Illinois Governor Otto Kerner. The Commission's
official title is the National Adviwry Commission on Civil Disorders. however, it is widely known
as the Kerner Commission. It was appointed by President Johnson on July 27, 1967, following a
series of riots in dozens of American cities in the mid 1960s. The worst riots occurred in Newark,
New Jersey, and in Detroit. \ 1ichigan during the surruner of 1967. In the wake of the Detroit Riots,
hundreds of black and white businesses were destroyed. forty-three people lost their lives, and over
7.200 people were arrested.
President Johnson appointed the Commission to find out whether any subversive or conspiratorial
elements were involved and to determine how future riots could be avoided. The Commission was
also charged with examining the reasons why ghettos persisted. It also explored the problems of
unemployment. family structure. and social disorganization in the ghettos. and the experiences of
other immigrants with those of blacks. In addressing the nation on the racial disturbances sweeping
the country, Johnson said. "(t ]he only genuine. long-range solution for what has happened lies in an
attack -- mounted at every le\ el -- upon the conditions that breed despair and violence. All of us
know what those conditions are: ignorance. slums. poverty, disease. not enough jobs. We should
attack these conditions -- not because we are frightened by conflict. but because we are fired by
conscience. We should attack them because there is simply no other way to achieve a decent and
orderly society in Amenca ...
On March I. 1968. the Kerner Commission issued its report. stating that the United States was
'"moving toward two societies. one black. one white -- separate and unequal." The report warned
that racism and hatred were grO\\lng deeper and that communication between the two communities
was breaking down. Unlike the earlier Truman commission that largely focuse.d on civil and legal
rights. the Kerner Commission pointed out the growing economic inequality among the races.
2
�\1any ci vii disturbances in 1960s occurred in northern cities ~vhere the most oppressive vestiges of
segregation had not existed. n1ere. African Americans were confronted with substandard housing,
meager job possibilities. J.nd the J.bsence of economic and political power.
The Commission recommended J. massive government assault on the economic inequality between
the rJ.ces. which would hJ.ve cost billions of public dollars to implement in its entirety. The
. Commission· s key recommendJ.tions called for:
Creating public and private sector jobs in the inner cities aimed at the hard-core unemployed;
Eliminating desegregation in both secondary and higher education:
Improving the quality education in inner city schools:
Overhauling public welfare programs. including providing "a national system of income
supplementation.·· for the working poor: and
Eradicating inner city slums. including building low and moderate income housing
units.
A.lthough the Commission uncovered no seditious or conspiratorial ingredients. many did not like
the report. possibly owing to the culpability it attributed to the white community. Generally, white
liberals applauded it: conservatives felt that its assessment was prejudiced and unfair; and blacks
regarded it simply as another report. Beyond this. critics say all levels. of government largely
ignored the report. Reportedly. Johnson was deeply suspicious of the Commission's
recommendations. and refused to comment on the report. or allow the Commission to present it to
him. or even sign form ktters thanking the members for their work. Johnson was convinced that
there was a conspiracy behind the riots.
Although critics charge that the Commission's recommendations were not immediately adopted.
others argue that the report significantly altered public opinion on racial matters and helped pave
the way for later successes. For example, de jure segregation was eliminated by 1960's civil rights
legislation and affirmati\·e action and other programs were started to help close the economic gap
between blacks and whites. Also. in 1969, the Supreme Court ordered cities to desegregate their
schools immediately and in 1971, they approved the use of busing to accomplish this aim.
Moreover, Charles Evers was elected Mayor of a Mississippi city. Additional electoral victories
s~on followed in Detroit. Cleve!
;-L-o~ngeles. Chicago, Gary, Indiana. and other cities. Thus.
most experts say that we have ade rogress. but that much remains to be done.
.
.
(
\
'
)
WHITE HOUSE CONFERE~> ~-FILL T~ESE RIGHTS
.
On June 1-2. 1966. President Lyndon B. Johnson convened the Wlrite House Conference To Fulfill
these Rights. Its purpose was to ··seek a solution of the Negro Problem since the Civil War," and
to ··move beyond opportunity to achievement." President Johnson announced his intentions to hold
this conference at a speech he gave at Howard University. on June 4. 1965 .
...
.)
�Leading up the con.ference. the \Vhite House held a national plarming session November 17-18,
1965. Attending was more than 200 scholars and practitioners from the civil rights. labor, business.
education. religious. and social welfare community who met for intensive working sessions on eight
subjects of concern. The result was a comprehensive set of recommendations dealing with four areas:
economic security and welfare. education. housing, and administration of justice.
ln February 1966. the President appointed a 30-member Council to oversee the Conference. In
addition. White House and agency staff. and various consultants collected extensive background
materials and prepared background papers for the conference itself. The published proceedings
distilled the background materials and previously prepared recommendations for each area.
According to reports. more than 2.500 people participated in the conference. In retrospect, many
· Conference's recommendations were later reflected in the programs of the Great Society.
CIVIL RIGHTS SYMPOSIUM PROGRAM:
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN THE UNITED STATES
The LBJ School of Public Affairs in Austin. Texas. held a civil rights symposium on December ll12. 1972. Equal Opportunity in tlte United States, in which all the major civil rights and other
leaders at the time attended. !\1any of these leaders have since died. but other surviving participants
include Vernon Jordan. Roger \Vilkins. Julian Bond, Gary Hatcher, Yvonne Brathwaite Burke
among others. Besides honoring LBJ. the main purpose of the symposium was to discuss what
should be done in the future with respect to civil rights. It was felt that we had already taken all of
the required legislative actions. and that the next steps were purely economic opportunity.
Chief Justice Earl Warren \vas the keynote speaker at the conference. Hubert Humphrey, Barbara
Johnson. Louis Stokes. and Henry Gonzalez. were among the other speakers. In addition, in what
was his last address before dying shortly after the conference, Johnson summed up the progress that
we had made with respect to civil rights over the years saying, "that it's time to leave aside legalisms
and euphemisms and eloquent evasions. It's time we get down to the business of trying to stand
black and white on level ground ... He went on to ask the participants a series of questions:
·Are the federal government and the state government. the foundations, the churches, the
universities. all doing what they can do to assure enough scholarships for young blacks?
Are our professions such as law. medicine. accounting, etc .. sounding the call to make
sure that Blacks are taking the leadership courses to avail themselves of leadership
opporrunities in professional careers?
Are our trade unions and those concern with vocational occupations do the same with
regard to apprenticeship and training programs?
Are employers who have already opened their doors to Blacks making sure that they are
4
�providing advancement opportunities up the career ladder?
·.
Johnson concluded his remarks. saying ··[\\je know there·s injustice. We know there's intolerance.
We know there·s discrimination and hate and suspicion. And we know there·s division between us.
But there is a larger truth. We have proved that great progress is possible. We know how much still
remains to be done. :-\nd if our efforts continue and our will strong and if our hearts are right and
if courage remains our constant compan1on. then. my fellow Americans. I am confident we shall
overcome.
5
�CORE RECONCILIATION GROUP
Don Baer
Maria Echaveste
Chris Edley
Bill Galston
Richard Hayes
Ben Johnson
Elena Kagan
Ann Lewis
Sylvia Mathews
Andrew Mayock
Minyon Moore
Bob Nash
Rodney Slater
Richard Socarides
Rob Weiner
Michael Wenger
Governor Winter
�\',
DRAFT
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
Sylvia Mathews
Maria Echaveste
DATE:
May 21, 1997
RE:
Reconciliation Outreach Efforts
This memorandum updates you on the outreach efforts for your race initiative and is primarily an
information memo. The memo lists the people with whom White House staff have consulted and
reflects their input. Please note that we solicited the input reflecteed here at a time when we
were considering a large commission as the centerpiece of your initiative. At this point the
emphasis has shifted from a large commission to creating a small advisory group that will work
with you on these issues. The rriemo also describes the context for conversations we recommend
you and the Vice President have with Jesse Jackson and Mary Frances Berry.
ISSUE FOR DECISION
Whether you call Reverend Jesse Jackson to discuss the race initiative.
INTRODUCTION
In developing recommendations for your initiative on race and diversity, we consulted a number
of individuals and national leaders who have spoken out on this issue in the past. We explained
that you were considering a number of proposals that would speak to the unresolved issue of
racial and ethnic discrimination, and would focus on the great challenge facing our country as we
move into the next century. We solicited their views regarding the advisability of a Presidential
initiative on race, whether such an initiative should take the form of a commission or some type
of a White House summit, and asked for suggestions of who should be asked to serve on a
commission, if that were to be established.
INPUT FROM CONSULTATIONS
Everyone we called supported the idea of a Presidential initiative; many speaking enthusiastically
of your unique ability to speak to the nation on the subject of race and reconciliation and to move
the country toward racial healing and tolerance. For example, Father Leo J. O'Donovan and
Father Theodore Hesburgh both expressed strong support for your taking on the race issue.
Father Hesburgh cited your success with the Memphis speech and said he felt America is ready
to face this ~ssue and suggested that you should try to build on the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
�Several people expressed concern about creating a commission believing that it would run the
risk of being big on rhetoric and short on substance. Some argued that there has been enough
study; that it was time for action. Among those cautioning against a commission were Al
Fromm, Xavier Becerra and Hugh Price. Others such as Kwesi Mfume and Joe Lowery, while
not opposing a commission, were more concerned about the potential lack of concrete actions.
John Sweeney thought selecting a commission would be hard but supported your effort to engage
the public on the issue. Senator Moseley-Braun thought a commission was an excellent idea and
the you were ideally suited to leave a lasting legacy on the matter of race. She believes that you
have the credibility and can give direction to the nation on this important issue
Hugh Price also suggested that the real challenge for the future is ensuring that what he called the
"opportunity structure" be open to all populations in the country, and not just focus on past
discrimination. He proposed that you convene a dialogue with mayors who have real life
experiences with interactions among different people and the difficulty of governing diverse
populations. Andrew Young argued that you would get much further by focusing on the issue of
poverty and highlighting the common goal of economic security. He also thought consideration
should be given to human relations and how we develop respect for all types of diversity.
Representative Patsy Mink said that the commission should have a name that was inclusive and
that a commission on race was a very bad idea which conjured up very negative and divisive
signals. Representative Bob Matsui agreed with the idea of a reconciliation commission and
suggested several prominent Asian-Americans be considered. Becerra of the Hispanic Caucus
also stressed the import.ance of going beyond a black and white dialogue. Ron Allen, a Native
American leader, expressed great concern that racism was at the very heart of the problems
besetting the Native American community but that a commission on race would not address the
needs of this community. Substantial participation by Native Americans in this initiative will be
required to allay those concerns.
Anna Devere Smith argued that the press should be challenged and included in the effort to bring
about reconciliation.
We also had lengthy conversations with both Mayor Dennis Archer and Mayor Willie Brown;
both were highly supportive and pleased to be asked for their advice. Mayor Brown was
particularly interested in trying to identify new leadership -- younger people not already
previously identified with the Civil Rights movement to participate in this effort. Both indicated
they will applaud you when you make your speech.
Lastly, we have spoken with Rev. Jackson who stressed that vision, policy and politics must be
connected. The key question for him is whether you are prepared to make some bold moves to
advance this effort with particular emphasis on our criminal justice system and our economic
structure. While he believes that you are deeply committed to the issue, the initiative must be
more than dialogue.
�\
CONSULTATIONS LIST
Below is a list of the individuals with whom we spoke:
KwesiMfume
Wade Henderson
George Stephanapoulos
Taylor Branch
Chris Edley
Hugh Price
John Sweeney
Michael Wenger
Mayor Dennis Archer
Rev.Jesse Jackson
Rev. Joseph Lowery
Congressman John Lewis
Congressman Bob Matsui
Ambassador Bill Richardson
Henry Cisneros
Father Leo O'Donnovan
Senator Ted Kennedy
Vernon Jordan
Bill Galston
Secretary Rodney Slater
William Julius Wilson
Congressman Xavier Beccerra
Governor Winter
AlFromm
Mayor Willie Brown
Father Ted Hesburgh
.Senator Carol Mosley Braun
Congresswoman Maxine Waters
Warren Christopher
Secretary Federico Pena
Anna Devere Smith
OUTSTANDING CONSULTATIONS
Before the initiative can be announced and before your speech, there are two critical calls that
remain to be made: Rev. Jesse Jackson and Mary Francis Berry, Chair of the U.S. Commission
on Civil Rights. There is no plan to place either on the commission, but we propose to consult
with them regularly throughout this effort. Our recommendation is that you speak with Rev.
Jackson to ensure his support for your initiative.
We also recommend that the Vice President speak with Mary Berry. The U.S. Civil Rights
Commission, in particular, has addressed aspects of this issue of race as part of their ongoing
work and one question that will have to be answered is why create another commission.
Certainly there are opportunities to use some of the Commission's findings and research as we
do our work.
Before the speech is given, we plan to call 10-15 key elected officials nationwide to give them
advance notice of the speech. Additionally, attached is a much longer list of people whom we
intend to call in advance of the speech, that will be supplemented by calls to regional and state
civil rights leaders and activists.
DECISION
That you call Reverend Jackson to discuss the initiative.
Approve _____ Disapprove_____ Let's Discuss _ _ _ __
�AGENDA
I.
Presentation of Initiative Goals
Overview- Sylvia Mathews (3 minutes)
Discussion ( 15 minutes)
II.
Presentation of Initiative Components
Policy Development- Elena Kagan (3-5 minutes)
Advisory Board- Rob Weiner (2 minutes).
Staffing - Dawn Chirwa (2 minutes)
Discussion_ ( 10 minutes)
III.
Presentation of Announcement
Outreach - Maria Echaveste (2 minutes)
Announcement Events- Ann Lewis (2-3 minutes)
Discussion ( 10 minutes)
�[f~.~g~f~·~g·.·vqpp·········~················
. · · · · · · ·•· · · ·
[Addendum?]
Dialogm~
Matters
[A primary goal ofthe Race Initiative will be to foster dialogue on issues of race and
thereby promote racial understanding and reconciliation. \Ve rnay receive questions as to what
will be accomplished by such a di<1logue. Indeed, although another major goal of the initiative is
to develop approaches and solutions to structural problems of race in our nation, we may still
receive criticism that we are avoiding making tough policy decisions in this area by spending time
and resources talking about issues that have been discussed ad intlnitum. We must be able to
answer such questions and counter any criticism with concrete examples of why dialogue is a vital
component of the Initiative's goals.]
The way in which our nation as a whole perceives ami acts on issues of race is, in large
part, shaped by the attitude of those at the highest levels of government. When the President and
other high onlcials appear hostile to open discussions of racial issues, or, through their silence
allow negative depictions of racial minorities to tlourish, such postures signitlcantly affect national
policy. And, the converse is true. Positive racial changes have followed when Presidents, who
have the unique ability to speak as the "one voice" of our government, have taken up the
challenge, even symbolically, of speaking openly about race. John Hope Franklin explained this
synthesis between dialogue and policy eloquently in The Color Line
It is too much to claim that the President of the Unitt:d States, by his \VOrds and deeds, can
unilaterally determine the course of history cluri11g his administration and countless
subsequent years. It is not too much to assert, however, that the President ofthe United
States, through his utterances and the policies he pursues, can greatly intluence the
national climate in which people live and work as well as their attitudes regarding the
direction the social order should take.
Throughout our history, symbolic and not-so symbolic moves by Presidents to focus the
nation on issues or problems
r<tce have proved to be crucial elements in pron1oting racial
or
harmony.
•·
President ·rrullHtn, con1bining syn1bolisn1 <tnd pulicy, forever changed race relations in the
military by ordering integration of the armed forces. His move was important for two
reasons: (I) it began the process which has led to our cut-retlt rni Iit ary being one of the
more integrated and racially egalitariatt organizations in our country~ and, (2) it began to
change the way white Americans viewed segregation and helped future generations of
white Americans perceive minorities rnore positively as they served in a military in which
their com1nancling otllcers as well as their fox-hule partners were people of color.
President Kennedy, by speaking out on the issue of civil rights, provided the type of moral
leadership which only a President could show, challenged A111ericans to overcome racial
prejudices and bega11 to create the tlalional cli111ate which led ultirnately to
�[?''''''=''="""''''''''''"'''''·''"''''''~·'·"·'·'"·''''''''~·''''
-.RACE"';:ALK. WPD
\............ .. .......................................
·~•·"=•·~""'"'~""""'"""'"''w•''"'''""""'''".'"''"'"'"
ground.:breaking civil rights legislation.
When Robert Kennedy, who was the nation's "top cop" at the time and with the support
ofPresident Kennedy, called Martin Luther King as he sat in jail in Birmingham, he helped
greatly to legitimize King's use of civil disobedience at a time when supporters of
segregation were atten1pting to gain public support by painting King and other civil rights
leaders as criminals.
You, yourself, in reaching out to people of all races in 1992 and in 1996, have sharply
curtailed the sometimes blatant use of racial politics which was becoming a disturbing
hallmark of previous elections.
On the other hand, when our leaders have used their bully pulpit to portray racial
minorities in a negative light, it has· had significant impacts on national policy and on race
relations.
President Reagan ollen used tales of a '·weii:He queen" who defi·auded the welfare system
to purchase designer jeans and Cadillacs in his speeches on the evils of the welf~1re system.
While the discussion of \vell~lre reform was a neutral topic on its f~tce, the real woman he
relied on for this anecdote was an African-American, and the image of this black woman,
literally growing l~tt fi'cllll taxpayer-ll.ttJded welt~ue payments burned itself into the national
psyche.
The Willie Horton ads during the 1988 carnpaign lent legitimacy to the perception ofblack
men as violent criminals.
These types of potent imagery had concrete elfects on, for example, our national welf~ne policy.
They also tangibly affected the country's perception of Afi·ican-Arnericans and other people of
color. During the era in which these types or depictions were popularized, racial tensions on
college campuses rose-- fLir example, it becarne legitimate, if not popular, for conservative
student newspapers to refer to professors of color as "welhu.e queens"-- overall hate crimes rose,
and surveys during this period showed that white Americans perceptions of Afi·ican-Americans
were distorted in negative ways
In addition to overtly negative discussions ol't~acial issues, the absence ofpositive dialogue
at the highest levels ol'government can be just as harrnll.tlto {'ostering racial harmony. For
example, attacks on allirmative action llourishecl when they were met with silence by leaders of
the country. By contrast, in the past year. your support or htir, balanced alftrtnative action
programs slowed the mometltum building against such programs in Congress.
These are just a few examples of the many ways in which dialogue and discussion on racial
issues under the aegis or Presidential leadership matters and is therefore an essential part of the
Race Initiative. Finally, it is helpll.tlto rernember that during the time in which racial tensions on
college campuses were increasing, a solution that was proposed was the institution of college
"speech codes" to stem racist speech withi11 the university setting. Many groups, including civil
�[·'''''""''''"'''''''''''''''"'''"'''''''''''"''''''''""'''''"'"'''''"'''''''''' ,,,,,,,..,,,,.,...,.....
.• RACEI"ALK.WPD
..........................................................
rights and civil liberties organizations, opposed the speech codes and argued that the antidote to
racism and hate speech is not "censorship, but more speech." This is exactly the challenge which
the Race Initiative can take on-- fostering more and positive speech to promote a climate in
which racial issues can be discussed without divisiveness and concrete change can occur.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Terry Edmonds
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Speechwriting
James (Terry) Edmonds
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1995-2001
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36090" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763294" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0462-F
Description
An account of the resource
Terry Edmonds worked as a speechwriter from 1995-2001. He became the Assistant to the President and Director of Speechwriting in 1999. His speechwriting focused on domestic topics such as race relations, veterans issues, education, paralympics, gun control, youth, and senior citizens. He also contributed to the President’s State of the Union speeches, radio addresses, commencement speeches, and special dinners and events. The records include speeches, letters, memorandum, schedules, reports, articles, and clippings.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
635 folders in 52 boxes
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
UCSD [University of California at San Diego] – Race Reconciliation Meetings/Consultations
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Speechwriting
James (Terry) Edmonds
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0462-F
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 41
<a href="http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/assets/Documents/Finding-Aids/2006/2006-0462-F.pdf" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763294" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
12/9/2014
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
42-t-7763294-20060462F-041-008-2014
7763294