The melting pot theory held that America was a place where people become alike, homogenized into one conforming mass. The standards for that homogeneity were white middle class, mostly Anglo-Saxon values. When those values were acted out, the “melting pot” eliminated differences in dress, behavior, language, and traditions. The result was a homogeneity which defined societal acceptability in white terms. The melting pot became racist because people who are not white just cannot “melt” into “whiteness.”
At Community Change we believe that all white ethnic groups have benefited from and contributed to the perpetuation of racism. Any failure by white ethnics to deal with their involvement in racism is an obstruction to the goal of cultural pluralism. It is not a question of whether or not white ethnics as individuals or groups “like” Black people, or Chicano, or Native American people … instead it is a question of the ways in which white ethnics have institutionalized racism, i.e., in trade unions or in urban school systems, such as Boston, where resistance to desegregation is embedded in a white ethnic controlled School Committee.

At Community Change we want to move into cultural pluralism as rapidly as possible. Our anxiety is that the movement into cultural pluralism might become a substitute for dealing with racism. For instance it would be possible in a school to initiate cultural exchange programs without changing tracking and testing systems which often place racist limitations upon Black students. A business might implement an equal opportunity employment policy intended to recruit a multicultural group of employees, but never change policies which deny access of non-white persons to decision-making positions of power. High school students might be encouraged to celebrate a Mexican festival, while the school continues to deny a bi-lingual program for its Spanish-speaking students. Or it might become fashionable to study Native American customs as if they represented a “dead” culture, and bypass responsibility for a modern-day Wounded Knee.

All of these might be done in the name of cultural pluralism, but all fail to deal with racism.

At Community Change we are committed to working “through” racism toward cultural pluralism. That means working to eliminate racist policies, practices, and values as a means of preparing for cultural pluralism. Our focus is on the elimination of racism.

The article to which she referred me served as the time machine. I didn’t want to believe what I read, but there it was-1960 re-visited! The article was about a new advertising campaign to be launched “to spread the message of racial tolerance” in the city. The campaign was announced by two leading spokespersons for the Boston Covenant Committee, originators of last fall’s Covenant for Peace and Harmony, an effort which secured over 250,000 signatures on a petition for harmony and understanding. The advertising campaign is a follow-up on the Covenant signing, and pictures in the newspaper showed large posters saying, “All children are born color blind. Let’s keep them that way.”

The “color blind” posture which is called for is what took me back to the early sixties at least. That is before the “black is beautiful” movement, before the affirmation of racial identities by many people of color. Shadows of the past enveloped me and I heard all the familiar words of yesteryear. “I don’t see color; I see only people.” - “I see all people as humans; that’s all.” - “I don’t see you as black; I see you as a person.” I hadn’t heard anyone talking like that for a long time, and my shocked sensitivities sent me reeling into the past.

I’m sorry, but I cannot cooperate with that effort to encourage a return to the “color blind syndrome.” I cannot because the reality with which I deal every day is very different in 1980. I cannot cooperate for at least two reasons.

First, I cannot say to my friends who are people of color, that the affirmation of their color is now unimportant. I remember a young black mother telling of the day when her daughter went to school in her first Afro, announcing as she left the house, “I am black and beautiful,” and I still thrill with the sense of pride with which that mother told of the incident. Her daughter had never gone out of the house saying that and feeling like that before! It was an important day for that whole family! Pride in color was and still is to that family an important concern. I cannot now say to my friends that I am not going to see that color which they have affirmed so strongly.

I remember a black man in a workshop group responding to a white man who had just told him that he only wanted to see him as a human being, not as a black man. With intensity and conviction the black man said something like this: “Of course I am a human being, and I want you to see me as such but, if you really want to see me as the full human being I am, I want you to see me as a black. My blackness is an essential part of my humanness and, if you forget that or will not see that, then you are not seeing me as the full person I am.” I cannot say to that man or any other person of color that I want to be color blind, or want them to be color blind, or want their children to be color blind. Among the people of color whom I know the vast majority have struggled to proclaim respect for their color, have labored and fought to claim the dignity of their color. Now I cannot turn my back on all of that recent history and say, “Let’s be color blind.”

Second, I cannot say to my friends who are white that color is no longer important. Whenever I have encountered the “color-blind” emphasis among white people, it has very frequently been a way of denying race and subsequently, of denying racism. If one doesn’t have to think about color (race), one doesn’t have to think about racism, because obviously if there is no color (race), then there can be no racism. If there is no color there can be only individual acts of wrong-doing, of prejudice; there can be no systematic, historic conscious or unconscious, constant oppression because of color. If we don’t have to think about, talk about, and deal with race, then we won’t have to think about, talk about and deal with racism! And there are lots of white people in particular who would prefer it that way!

I cannot cooperate because it is important that I and others of my friends are white. I want to affirm whiteness, value it, and call for respect for that too! My whiteness is an important part of who I am. It helps me to understand the history of my people in this country. It puts me in touch with a history and a present fact of white privilege gained at the expense of people of color. Unless I can get in touch with that, feel it, and understand it, then I’ll never be able to move beyond it. Unless I can understand that the dominant values, beliefs, and life styles of this country are white, and how that relates to people of color, I will not understand my present situation at all! Unless I can understand that the major institutions and systems of this country have been and are white-controlled, white-dominated and know how that impacts people of color, I can never know how to move out of oppressive modes of community life.

If I deny that there is color, it is to enter a false world. There is color difference, and it is beautiful! There is nothing wrong with differences in color; it is only what we think, believe, and do about that difference that might be wrong. The difference itself is beautiful, exciting, to be affirmed, respected (never merely tolerated), and encouraged as a positive attribute of life! Vive la difference! Don’t deny it! Don’t blind yourself to it; see it, celebrate it!

My hunch is that most people of color will not buy this ad campaign to become “color-blind.” My concern is that lots of white people might flock to its banner. It sounds so “good” if you like the sounds of yesterday, and lots of people do! It sounds so “liberal,” so “human,” so “nice;” it unclutters a lot of things and tidies up things. Go for it!

Not me, thank you! I cannot cooperate with this one! To be “color-blind” requires me to deny color which is important to me and to hundreds of my friends. To be “color-blind” requires me to ignore a history and a present fact of prejudice, discrimination and racism built on assumptions that white people are superior to people of color. To be ignorant of racism is to assure that we cannot move beyond it. I cannot buy that, any of it! I cannot step into that time machine. I cannot go back to the early sixties. For all that is wrong with 1980, give me the present reality! So says one white man!

The two diseases are called DONTKNOW and CANTDO. I will describe them so that if you ever feel yourself succumbing to them, you can run for the antidote quickly!

DONTKNOW attacked some good friends of mine the other day. These are highly-educated people, who, for several months, have been gathered in a group which has a stated intention to mount a concerted attack on institutional racism in their city. They are mostly white males; among the group of twenty-five or so people, they hold at least forty degrees. They are highly trained people, who can marshal informed arguments on a wide variety of subjects and issues. Ask them about anything and you will hear knowledge spout forth. If your question is in a field where they have little direct knowledge, they do know how to go about gaining the information they need so that in a short time they will be prepared to respond to your question intelligently. These are well-educated people with a high degree of knowledge.

Given the composition of this group, you can imagine my dismay to hear them say that, when it comes to institutional racism, they just DONTKNOW what to do about it!!!  DONTKNOW strikes; the group is in disarray and, in sadness, they disband. Fortunately, the DONTKNOW syndrome does not seem to affect their ability to perform in other areas of their professional lives. They DONTKNOW what to do only when it comes to institutional racism.

Then there is CANTDO. It is equally dangerous in its consequences, devastating to the work of racial justice. CANTDO went to work among some other people I know who are all members of the same institution. If I were to describe the institution and the positions these people hold in it, you would agree that they are in places of power and influence, that, in fact, they are prime decision-makers. They were wondering what they could do to implement a stated commitment to work against racism. It was exciting because these were people who really could move things within their sphere of influence! But then a terrible thing happened, and it was the CANTDO germ!

You have already guessed the result. These friends, all white males, decided that they really couldn’t do anything! They had no influence! They were devoid of power! Their institutional muscles were nothing but flabby fat! In desperation I poured out suggestions of a wide variety of things they might do, but, to my amazement, my friends were completely impotent. Job descriptions of their positions notwithstanding, they really had no power to act! CANTDO had taken over! Again, the disease does not seem to have affected their ability to continue to perform impressively in other areas of concern which have nothing to do with racism.

Now these two diseases bear watching, because they can immobilize people who have  the  best of intentions. DONTKNOW seems to attack most those who are highly educated; there is some indication that the more degrees one has received the more one must be on guard against DONTKNOW. CANTDO, as you might have surmised, seems to root and flourish most readily among people who are in high positions in the organizational chart.

When people who are highly educated are also in positions of great influence and combine both knowledge and power, there is a frightening susceptibility among them to a combination of DONTKNOW and CANTDO!!! When the two diseases strike the same people, the prognosis is seldom good for racism.

I noted in the two situations I described that most of the people who suffered the attack of DONTKNOW and CANTDO were white males. This does not mean that others need not worry about the diseases, but controlled observations do indicate a higher degree of susceptibility among white males. That susceptibility may not be generic in white males; there is some indication that the cause of the susceptibility of white males to DONTKNOW and CANTDO is simply environmental, due to the fact that white males generally have received more degrees and have found their way to positions of influence more frequently than other categories of human beings. There is evidence to indicate that white males who are highly educated and in positions of influence had better be on guard against DONTKNOW and CANTDO!

Fortunately there is an antidote which, if taken upon the appearance of the very first symptoms, may overcome the affects of DONTKNOW and CANTDO. The antidote is the same generally for both diseases, though in some cases dosage may vary. If you feel yourself being overtaken by an attack of either DONTKNOW or CANTDO, please rush immediately to make contact with some of the victims of institutional racism. Don’t be put off by the fact that some of the victims may not be highly educated; they will KNOW what you could do! As a matter of fact, you might go out on the street and just ask some of the victims, found most often among Black Americans, Native Americans, Hispanic, or Asian Americans. They have a remarkable ability to KNOW what others don’t know about racism, how it functions, and how to dismantle it! In most cases, careful listening will help overcome DONTKNOW.

The same antidote is often helpful in cases of CANTDO. Contact with victims of racism is what is needed. Again, don’t be put off by the fact that they may not carry cards which list their names and organizational positions. They will help you with the CANTDO’s, because often you will find them doing a lot of things you might either replicate or complement at your level of influence. Try it; it might work! It is better than giving in to the dreaded disease.

The key is to act at the very first symptoms of the diseases. If either progresses too long, it becomes predictably fatal to anti-racism intentions. These diseases are powerful, so beware! I know personally their treacherous nature, and must constantly be on guard. So the advice I offer is directed to myself also. The very first time you hear yourself say, “I don’t know what to do about racism,” check it out; you are susceptible to DONTKNOW! The very first time you hear yourself say, “I can’t do anything about racism,” check it out; you may be invaded by the dread disease of CANTDO! Move quickly or you may be “a-goner” to the cause of racial justice.

I have no say as to what goes into any dictionary, and I don’t anticipate requests for advice from any publishers, but I can control my own vocabulary usage. I will no longer use the word “minorities” to refer to racial groups in this country. There are several reasons.

First, there are a number of my friends who are offended by a word which has an accumulated meaning which is tainted with images and concepts of inferiority. Here are some examples of that prejudice:

In logic the “minor” premise is the lesser or secondary one.

In sports we designate as “minor” leagues those which are deemed not as good as the “majors;” to call a player a “minor leaguer” is to diminish that player’s status.

When we name periods of life, we reserve the term “minor” to apply to those who have not attained a legal age, who are assumed not to be as responsible as persons over the designated age. Minors are still legally treated as children. Add to that the history of ways in which society stripped black people of their adulthood, particularly referring to black men as “boys,” and there is a powerful image of deprivation.

In playing cards the “minor” suit is the one which has lesser scoring possibility.

In numbers the “minority” is less than half, the smaller number, and in a society where bigness is valued, that which is smaller is often de-valued.

In music the word is more neutral; even there, however, a “minor” note which is simply a half tone between whole tones might carry for some a meaning of being “half’ and therefore not “complete.”

The accumulated weight given to the word leaves “minority” heavily burdened with negatives. It is doubtful that many people can apply-the word “minority” to racial groups in this country and be free from those deeply enculturated assumptions which accompany the word. The word is often heard as offensive by those whom it labels. Since I don’t like to offend people, there goes that word!

A second reason for eliminating the word “minorities” from my vocabulary is that its meaning has diminished as more and more people claim to be “minorities.” There was a time when the word was used almost exclusively to refer to groups which were either small in number and/or oppressed groups; in everyday use here in the United States of America, that most often meant racial groups. After the attention given to “racial minorities” in the Civil Rights movement and in Congressional debates, more and more people began to claim the status of “minorities.” Gay people were defined as “minorities” both because of their numbers and their oppression. Women ^.cannot claim to be a “minority” by numbers, but certainly by their oppression they qualify. Handicapped persons, older citizens, and white ethnic groups began to claim “minority” status, and all have a just claim to that word in some sense. Stretching the word to the logical conclusion of its meaning everyone becomes a minority of some sort, and then the word begins to lose meaning. It loses meaning especially as it becomes applied to any group which is oppressed, because it seems to imply that all oppressions are the same.

All groups have not suffered oppression in the same way; racial groups have been especially singled out for harsh forms of oppression in this country:

-                   Not all “minorities” have been enslaved and lynched as have blacks. Not all “minorities” have had land and rights stolen from them as have Native Americans.

-                   Not all “minorities” have been the object of fluctuating immigration and border rules as have Chinese and Mexican people.

-                   Not all “minorities” have been born as citizens, as have Puerto Ricans, migrated to the mainland and then been treated as foreigners.

-                   Not all “minorities” have been put behind fences as Japanese Americans were during World War II

-                   Not all “minorities” have been subjected to the consistent and long-standing discrimination of anti-Semitism.

There are distinctions which are blurred when we begin to refer to all groups as “minorities” in the same way in which we refer to racial “minorities.” Since I think it crucial to keep those distinctions clear, there goes that word in reference to racial groups!

A third reason for eliminating the word “minority” when referring to racial groups, comes from an expanding world view. The groups to which we in the United States of America have traditionally referred as “racial minorities” clearly represent a majority in the world. Those of us who are white are the numerical minority. Designating people of color as “minorities” obscures this fact. To forget that people of color are a majority in the world and that whites are the minority is to operate in the context of a myth which we can no longer afford. The term “minority” when applied to racial groups in this country contributes to a misunderstanding because it encourages a way of thinking which denies the world reality. The reality is a world made up largely of people of color.

So I have eliminated the word “minority” in referring to racial groups. If you have read carefully you have already understood what I will substitute. I will refer to racial “minorities” as people of color. (And that is not the same as the old term, “colored people!”) I will do so because it more accurately designates what I mean, it avoids a word loaded with negative connotations, it refers to a wide range of racial groups, it includes a recognition of the uniqueness of racial groups, and it avoids the illusion that whites are the majority of people in the world.

For several years I have heard discussion about the phrase in the YWCA One Imperative which states an intention to eliminate racism “by any means necessary.” That phrase often gets a reaction which seems to rise out of a fearful vision of YW members across the country plotting incendiary and revolutionary activity. “Any means necessary” seems to imply a “no holds barred” permit for illicit action which chills the blood of traditional “Y” people. As one who has been close to the YWCA at many levels as it has developed its Imperative, and yet as one who speaks from “outside,” I offer some comments on this storm-centered phrase, “by any means necessary.”

I like the phrase. I get a bit frightened that sometimes “any means necessary” becomes an excuse for people to talk about it rather than do something to implement the Imperative. Parlor discussions about meanings and definitions often become exercises which are substituted for more concrete action. In some cases the phrase may even become an excuse for people to “drop out” of the effort to eliminate racism, because they claim a disagreement with the intent of that phrase. Whenever we lose any of that collective power I am concerned.

What is the thrust of the phrase, “by any means necessary?” What is the practical importance of the phrase? Here is one person’s view.

First, I like the phrase “by any means necessary” because it has led me to look at the means of combating racism which the YWCA has used historically. In doing so I have found a wide range of possibilities which have characterized the YWCA efforts. Here are some of the means which the YWCA has used to combat racism in the past.

The YWCA has:

-                 Established orphanages and homes for black children.

-                 Organized branches in areas to serve black people.

-                 Integrated Associations and staffs.

-                 Organized interracial conferences.

-                 Provided recreational services to segregated troops.

-                 Demanded equal treatment of attendees at conferences.

-                 Taken stands on public policy issues.

-                 Provided programs to influence public opinions against lynchings and violence.

-                 Monitored court trials to assure justice.

-                 Conducted internal audits of interracial practices.

-                 Testified at legislative hearings.

-                 Published and distributed articles and pamphlets.

-                 Worked for outlawing fraternities and sororities with discriminatory clauses.

-                 Affirmed support for non-violent civil rights movements.

-                 Desegregated its own public dining facilities.

-                 Established study programs.

-                 Supported voter registration programs.

-                 Investigated the racial justice impact of its investments.

-                 Supported boycotts.

-                 Utilized its purchasing power to support minority firms.

-                 Adopted Affirmative Action plans.

-                 Worked toward curriculum changes.

Reading the “by any means necessary” phrase in the light of that YWCA history gives substance to a discussion about what “means” we can expect the YWCA to use today as it addresses racism. There is a firm tradition of a wide variety of “means,” all of which fall safely within the range of legal and democratic action. I like the sense of being rooted in history, and this particular bit of history ought to give some clues for what to do in the present.

Second, I like the phrase “by any means necessary” because it prods me to look for new ways to combat this systemic social cancer called racism. “By any means necessary” stretches my imagination and leads toward the possibility of greater creativity in response to racism. I look at what has been done in the past, I identify the function of racism in the present, and then with “any means necessary” in mind and heart, I begin to look for new answers. New approaches, new “means” are always important to discover, and, if the phrase “by any means necessary” sets me searching for them, that is a plus.

Third, I like the phrase “by any means necessary” because it agitates me. It makes me uncomfortable. It prods me to be discontent with whatever I am doing. It makes me dissatisfied with any amount of progress short of the complete elimination of racism. There is a temptation to “settle in” too quickly with small signs of progress. Small victories may be all that I will see in my lifetime, and I am convinced that fundamental social change comes from a long series of “small victories.” However, contentment with minor changes is dangerous if it becomes a stance toward the future. The post-reconstruction periods of both the 19th and our present century are reminders that gains can be quickly swept aside until all that remains is the illusion of progress. When I am tempted to contentment with minor changes, the Imperative reminds me that the goal is still out there ahead of us somewhere in time. “By any means necessary” agitates me and makes me uncomfortable, and if I am uncomfortable enough, I am more likely to change. “By any means necessary” moves me forward toward the final goal: the elimination of racism.

So to the YWCA a “thank you” for that phrase “by any means necessary.” Keep it there, and wave it at me often.

I knew then that my friends were wrong for a number of reasons. First, they assumed that the problem of racism existed only when people of color were present. The assumption “located” the problem among black people and other people of color; it failed to see that racism is rooted in white people and in white institutions whether or not there are black people present. Second, I knew that the absence of many black people was itself part of the problem; attitudes and practices by the majority white population limited the choice of blacks who may have wanted to live in the suburbs. Third, the “no problem” argument was an attempt to avoid responsible action; if there is “no problem” or if the problem is somewhere else, then one is absolved from doing anything. Fourth, I knew that a lot of people in the suburbs were there precisely because they wanted to avoid “urban problems,” and that many of my friends equated “urban problems” with the presence of racial minority groups. To assert that “we have no problem here” was to distance themselves from the city.

That was some time ago, and while the “no problem” attitude still persists it is argued in slightly different forms now.

One of the “new” statements of the “no problem” syndrome proceeds from an assumption that there is no problem of racism unless there is some overt incident which expresses hatred and bigotry. Recently a high school principal assured me, within minutes of our introduction, that “we have no race problem here.” That meant there had been no stabbing, no violence, no racially-motivated incident in the school. Before seeing the principal I had already talked with a number of students, both black and white, and a couple of teachers; they had all told me of the presence of racism in a variety of forms in classrooms, corridors, and school activities. But the principal made it his priority to assure me that there was “no problem.”

In the “no problem” view, the word “problem” is used almost exclusively to refer to an incident of bigotry; someone calls a name, a racial slur appears in graffiti, an openly discriminatory act occurs. When something like that occurs, people on the site and in the community are quick to respond, ready to condemn it, and hopefully, equipped to administer a just solution. In many instances, after that initial response everyone goes back to “business as usual” as quickly as possible. A collective sigh of relief goes up as everyone says, again, “we have no problem.” It is the underlying, ever-present problem that is seldom addressed. Most white people don’t believe it is there, they don’t want to have it pointed out, are eager to leave it alone. So the enculturated, institutionalized base of the problem goes untreated. It remains the festering bed of the next incident.

There is a second interesting way in which the “no problem” argument appears. A recent experience on a college campus is an example. I was on campus to conduct discussions about racism with a number of different people. A number of faculty and administrators were concerned that I might “stir up something,” and thus create a problem. That response embodies two contrary assumptions. First, it betrays a fear that a placid “no problem” setting will be disturbed. “There is no problem here, so what are you looking for … why are you here … any problem will be your creation … so be careful, and leave as quickly and quietly as possible, please.” I had enough time and talked to enough people who did acknowledge the presence of a problem. The statement of “no problem” was then seen as a way of keeping that placid exterior calm. So we are not far from the second and contrary assumption behind the “don’t stir up something” pleas. That second assumption is that there is “something” to be stirred up. If there were no problem, there would be no need to be concerned about “stirring up” something because the “something” to be “stirred up” would be non-existent. “Don’t stir up anything” is a plea to avoid the problem. It may be founded in fear that the problem is in fact more pervasive, more difficult, more present than people want to deal with. “Bury it” … “it will go away” … but “don’t disturb anybody or anything.”

The “no problem” response to racism is usually heard from white people, and usually in institutional settings where there are few people of color. Since I have not yet found an institution where there is no problem, my assumption always is that we have simply to uncover it.

It doesn’t take long for most people of color to say there is a problem. If the problem is not identified, and if there are no mechanisms for continually dealing with the problem, it is more likely to erupt in an ugly form at another day and time. As with most problems, it is best to identify it, respond to it and provide support for everyone in the situation while attempting to move beyond racism. To leave the sore unattended is to invite a more serious manifestation later.

People of color can tell you where the problem is, and what its effects are. White people who have been sensitized to racism can also be helpful. The important thing is to put aside fear of the problem, because it is a human problem which can be solved by people of good will.

Our culture is deeply ingrained with racism; our institutions are founded on it. As long as we move in this culture and in the institutions of this culture, assume a problem of racism. Don’t fear it; discover it; uncover it; even stir it up if necessary. Then we can begin to deal with it. If we don’t do that, then we’ll soon be right back at the same old place … “we have no problem” … again!

What you were reminded of was obviously not foremost in your thoughts, not a major concern, something relegated to a subsidiary notion, obviously not a priority matter, but something you just happened to think of … “incidentally.”

Most of us would agree that, when acts of bigotry and violence are perpetrated, they ought to be viewed as a major social concern, matters of high priority, to which immediate attention should be given. Yet often the beating, the mugging, the stabbing, the robbery, the break-in, the name- calling, the assault is characterized as an “incident.” So we soon find ourselves referring to a series of racial “incidents.” We can sit in the cool comfort of a cozy chair and talk about “incidents” abstractly.

When we begin to talk about “racial incidents” as a substitute for naming them as what they are, they become trivialized, de-personalized, and both compassion and passion are removed from our response. Maybe that’s why we use words such as “racial incidents;” it sounds a lot better than “racial mugging,” “racial stabbing,” “racial attack.” The abstraction reduces the hurts, the anger, and the shame. It also reduces the sense of urgency, that there is something of first importance to be addressed right now, right here!

I’m not referring to the difficulty of determining whether or not a stabbing or an assault for instance, is racially motivated. I focus rather on how we refer to violent behaviors after it has been determined that race is involved. Categorizing such violence as “incidents” may be an attempt to take the sting out of wounds we wish were not there. But they are there; racism exists, and naming its evidence as “incidents” will not make them disappear. The way of health is to name what happened correctly . . .”stabbing,” “beating” . . . You may call them “incidents;”be around to remind you that they are not incidental!

It may be that the use of the term “racial incident” arises from the fact that society generally does not view things racial as of first importance. If so then the use of “racial incident” is a way of saying “it’s not important” … “if we think of it tomorrow … incidentally … we may do something about it …” You may lapse into that relaxed state too easily; I’ll be around to remind you that racism is not incidental.

Look at that word “incident” for a moment. An incident, according to some of the dictionaries I have consulted, is a “natural happening, especially of a subordinate or subsidiary feature” … it is a “subordinate action or event,” an “accidental occurrence,” a “slight matter,” “something incidental to another.” Deriving from “incident” is “incidental,” defined as “casual, hence minor” or “a chance or undesigned feature.” Then we can add “co-incidence,” “coincidentally,” and with each derivative we are removed farther and farther from the event to which we refer. The heat of the beating, the mugging, the assault is removed, and the passionate anger is removed from our response. Dispassionate reviews are necessary, and I am not calling for blind passion in our response, but our capacity to emote is sometimes dulled by the way we talk about racial “incidents.” At times it may be necessary to “distance” ourselves from the pain of violence; I hope we will never allow ourselves to become “distanced” from the anger which demands that violence be stopped.

Acts of violence are not “incidents.” Let’s not think about them, or feel about them, or talk about them “incidentally.”

I have two other objections to the insistence that whites must seek forgiveness from black people for their involvement in racism. First, it places the burden for the whole matter back on black people, asking them to take the role of savior. The oppressor takes a foot off the back of . the oppressed and says, “What I have done is terrible … I feel guilty … now forgive me!” Second, this approach misses the fact that demographically there are not enough black people to do the forgiving for the many more whites, and most black people have better things to do than run around forgiving whites.

Guilt is a common human response which many white people experience when they are confronted with the facts of how white racism exploits people of color. Guilt is felt, guilt is given verbal expression, and when it is “acted out,” it takes numerous forms. Guilt can warp responses, or it can give direction to them. Guilt can motivate action or it can become a substitute for action. Guilt can contribute to understanding, or it can cloud realities between people. Guilt can manipulate or it can be manipulated.

Most often when I hear white people talk about guilt in relationship to race relations and racism, there is an attempt to deny it. “I don’t feel guilt” … “don’t blame me for slavery” … “I never owned slaves” … Or sometimes the expression of guilt by one white person is met with an “Oh, you shouldn’t feel guilty; that will do no one any good!” In each case there is an attempt to deny the feeling of guilt.

Since the issue of guilt does come to the fore frequently, here are several observations about guilt which I hope will be helpful.

1.                                    Guilt is a predictable human reaction when one sees another person or group oppressed. It is probably a peculiarly human reaction; not to feel guilt under such circumstances would be a measure of inhumanity. One who is incapable of feeling or expressing guilt may be on less healthy psychological ground than the one who does feel and express guilt. So let’s not deny the guilt feelings when they come; guilt is a real human emotion.

2.                                    Guilt is a feeling which we can acknowledge, work through, and then move beyond, to take a positive action to correct the situation about which we feel guilty. A major danger is that we become flagellants, delighting in the wringing of hands and endless verbalization of remorse. Then guilt becomes a swamp of inaction. The trick is to avoid getting trapped in guilt, but rather to use that emotion to generate activity which counteracts racism. Doing this is much harder than saying it, but the goal is to move beyond guilt over the past into responsible action for the present.

3.    Religious expressions have often led people into guilt feelings, and some will argue that religion has created more guilt than it has alleviated. Religion at its best provides a way for many people to deal with guilt, and from that perspective guilt should hold no horror at all. The Christian churches and their members should have no fear of guilt. In its theology and forms the church has ways of responding to guilt, for leading people through guilt to positive action. Some of the words which remind us of those forms are: confession, forgiveness, repentance, new witness. Similarly Judaism and other forms of religious expression have ways of acknowledging guilt and responding to it, with positive results in the lives of adherents to the particular faith.

4.      People often argue that they cannot feel guilty about the past, for things that happened before they were born, or for events in which they were not actors. This is usually the argument that white folks make when they say, “Don’t blame me … I didn’t own slaves!” Yet those same people are quick to invoke an opposite emotion and to express pride over things in the nation’s past to which they did not contribute. No one I know who so proudly celebrated our Bicentennial fought in the Revolutionary War or helped to write the Constitution! Every fourth of July we glow in the pride of our history, and shout about events to which we did not contribute! Maybe the complainer did not own slaves, but slavery was a national system, and it is an appropriate response to feel some sense of guilt about slavery, if one is a part of the dominant society. Similarly in the present, one may not contribute directly to housing discrimination, but still feel a sense of shame for a society in which housing discrimination functions to make it measurably more difficult for a person of color to obtain housing than for a white person.

5. There is a corporate nature of life which often finds us in situations where we carry out a responsibility assumed by someone else or some other group with whom we are identified. I am part of a corporate group which is obliged to make a regular mortgage payment, necessary because forebears fifty years ago borrowed money with which to erect the building we still enjoy. Most of us who now are responsible for raising and paying the mortgage were not around when the obligation was incurred. If we were to go to the bank and announce that we were not going to make more payments because “we did not incur the debt,” we would be told clearly and forcefully (with law behind the statement) that the corporate nature of our relationship to the original debtors does indeed make us responsible for their past decisions.

Another aspect of the corporate nature of life carries extra-legal obligations for national, religious, racial, and other groups. The Old Testament knew of that corporate nature when it spoke of grandparents eating sour grapes and setting “on edge” the children’s teeth. The history of racism, the constant oppression of people of color is a part of that corporate life which white people in the United States share. Though not personally responsible for that past, we bear a part of the corporate responsibility. If society’s “teeth are on edge” because of the past sourness, we are wiser to acknowledge the responsibility and to do something about it than to shrug it off with an “I never owned slaves … don’t blame me!”

6. Some have noted a distinction made in Japanese culture between shame and guilt which may be instructive for us. Shame, felt as a societal phenomenon in Japanese culture, does not carry with it the intense form of personal guilt which is often associated with guilt in the United States. This is not to assume that patterns in Japan can easily be transferred to the United States of America. Other peoples have developed different ways of responding to the sense of guilt; maybe we can learn from them. In this nation we often appropriate guilt in a personal way … “I am guilty” … “I am diminished” “I am not what I ought to be.” Guilt of that sort is not something many want to accept, especially when dealing with corporate and societal forms of racism. It is easier to push it away, and say, “I am not guilty.” Perhaps we can learn from other cultures a more healthy way of assuming responsibility without personal incrimination.

There is obviously much more to be said about guilt and racism. Each of the above observations might be a first sentence of a separate article. Maybe this will start the discussion for you and your friends. If you feel guilt at some point, don’t be surprised; please don’t become captive to your guilt. If you don’t feel guilty, then please don’t start feeling guilty because you don’t feel guilty! There is enough genuine guilt around without creating more.

The questions about Affirmative Action come while political conservatism sweeps across the nation, and that observation leads me to speculate about a larger historical context for what is happening. That larger context seeks to understand present trends in regard to race relations as representing a movement similar to what happened during the Post-Reconstruction period of the last century. Many have drawn the parallels between the two centuries in the late years of each. The 1980s are similar to the 1880s, each characterized by a retrenchment from moves which had been made toward equality of the races in mid-century. It will be well to look at what happened in the last century to see what might be in store for us if the present trends continue.
Joel Williamson has characterized what happened to race relations in the South during the period after Emancipation and through the present.[1] He has collected a great deal of data to support his finding that Southerners could be divided into roughly three groups, each representing a distinctively different “mentality” in regard to race relations. The smallest number of people were those whom Williamson groups under what he calls the Liberal mentality. These were the people who were most hopeful about the future, who believed that the newly freed Negro people, if given proper support, could become productive citizens in a unified South. Liberalism believed “that the capacity of Negroes to absorb white culture in America had not yet been fairly tested, and it refused to close them out brusquely and across the board somewhere far below the white man.”[2]

At the other end of Williamson’s spectrum was the group whom he calls Radicals. This group “envisioned a ‘new’ Negro, freed from the necessarily very tight bonds of slavery and retrogressing rapidly toward his natural state of savagery and beastiality.”[3] This group claimed that there was no place for the Negro in the future of this society, and in fact looked forward to the disappearance of the black race. Out of this mentality sprang waves of direct violence and brutality.

In the middle, between the Liberals and Radicals, stood the group who espoused the Conservative mentality on race. These were clear in a belief that Negroes were inferior but, as distinguished from the Radical racists, Conservatives were willing to allow a place for Negroes, so long as it was clearly an inferior place, and that the place was defined and controlled by whites. As long as the Negro populace stayed in that defined place it was assumed that things would be all right and the South would persevere.

While the Liberal mentality never gained a great following, there was a time, particularly from 1897 to 1907, when the Radical racists gained ascendancy, but eventually the Conservatives won out and became dominant. By the second decade of the twentieth century the Conservative mentality gave firm and clear direction to the South.

Certainly the three views of the race issue which Williamson applies to the South might also categorize Northern attitudes. While Williamson focuses on the South, he acknowledges that something very similar was also happening in the North; the North was simply later than the South in discovering its prejudices. The thin veneer of Northern liberalism cracked under pressure and it gave way with little struggle to the Conservative mentality.

As the Radical and Conservative mentalities struggled for the mind of the nation in those closing years of the nineteenth century, the Supreme Court decision in Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896) gave impetus to the Conservative point of view. That decision said that it was constitutionally all right for the state to provide separate railway carriages for whites and blacks. In its decision the Court said that laws permitting or even requiring the separation of the races “where they are liable to be brought into contact do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other.” Thus issued the famous “separate but equal” doctrine of law. The Court was careful to say that there is a fallacy in the argument which assumes that the “enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority.” “If this be so,” the court said, “it is solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it.”

The Court denial aside, we know that it was the white mentality which gave birth to the concept of black inferiority, it was no mere construction of the colored mind! The history of the nation clearly proves a foundation in the assumption of white superiority. Embarrassed by that history and its discontinuity with lip service to egalitarian principles, now the Court saw a way to affirm equality while defining a clear place for the former enslaved people, separated from white society.

Society seized upon the idea quickly. “Separate but equal” became the mode for the first part of the twentieth century. It was easy for the dominant whites to claim and pretend that the separate facilities, the separate schools, the separate services were equal. It also became clear that the ability of dominant whites to designate a place or the place for the minority groups of society was in itself a denial of those principles of American faith which assert that a person’s place is a matter of achievement and not of fixed definition by any group or person. The nation and the Supreme Court learned that separate is not equal. That learning was announced in the Brown decision in 1954, when the Court made it clear that separate is inherently unequal. The Court also understood the power dimensions of our society; so long as access to power (money, control, status) is unequal, then separate institutions and services will not be equal.

In our century Affirmative Action has been one thrust which came out of the Civil Rights Movement and the new Reconstruction efforts to rebuild a society based on equality. Affirmative Action has been a method of providing members of groups who have been victims of discrimination at least some better opportunity to gain access to education and jobs, a simple one-step attempt to redress the injustices of over three hundred years.

There has been much debate about whether or not Affirmative Action has worked for the protected groups it has defined. Richard B. Freeman, an economist from Harvard University and the National Bureau of Economic Research, concludes that “Affirmative Action and equal employment opportunity have helped the nation reduce discrimination in the job market and improve the economic position of minorities and women.[4] He concedes that Affirmative Action has not been a panacea and that huge problems remain. Freeman quotes the findings of Jonathan Leonard in some of the most conclusive statistical studies which have been done to measure the effectiveness of Affirmative Action.[5] Leonard has charted changes in the relative earnings and occupational attainment of full-time black and female workers relative to white male workers, and the ratios of the same groups in professional managerial occupations from 1964 to 1982. These studies show conclusive evidence which, with other data, lead Freeman to say that Affirmative Action has “raised employment for protected groups” . . . has “raised the overall employment and employment in better occupations for protected groups,” and has “raised the demand for labor in companies subject to Affirmative Action pressure, and thus contributed to the economic progress of minorities and women.” [6] Freeman and Leonard point us to some hard facts which show that Affirmative Action has worked.

Theodore Cross, in his most recent study, discusses the contention that Blacks have actually suffered as a result of Affirmative Action policies. He says,

This thesis goes against all evidence. Wherever we do find gains by blacks, there is a close connection between these gains and the presence of strong affirmative action. For example, during the late 1970s, Census figures show that black men in managerial positions dramatically increased from 2.8 to 6.9 percent of the total, a 146 percent increase. Clearly this is due in part to the fact that affirmative action had been particularly strong in business school admissions and in admissions to management posts in large corporations. Gains in these fields were much less dramatic during the 1960s (1.6 percent to 2.8 percent), a period usually characterized as the pre-affirmative action era.[7]

Cross goes on to assert that the increase during the 1970s of blacks in government posts, in higher education and in some cases in police forces, is attributable to affirmative action policies. Progress in the blue collar trades, traditionally closed to minority persons is directly attributable to affirmative action pressures. The number of black judges, Cross reminds us, tripled during the years 1977-1980 as a consequence of expressly race-conscious judicial appointments. Cross also points us to a Labor Department Study during the Reagan administration, which examined hiring practices at 77,098 businesses between 1974 and 1980, and found that minority employment grew by 20.1 percent in companies covered by affirmative action requirements, but only 12.3 percent in companies with no government contracts or other special hiring obligations.[8]

These statistics do show progress. That progress came because we adopted Affirmative Action policies knowing that equality was not going to be made simply by declarations of openness or equal opportunity; race prejudice and racism are recalcitrant and will not give in to the ebb and flow of a simple open market. The problem we face is so deeply embedded, so systematically woven into the fabric of economic, political, and social life, that it demands more than just nondiscrimination. We must act affirmatively to overcome the separations. That is what history taught us and that is the reason for the progression from plans of nondiscrimination to affirmative action.

There are some parallels to be drawn between the gains under Affirmative Action in this century and similar gains during the Reconstruction period of the last century. In each case there was some progress made toward the ideal of actual equality of access to power and resources in society; in each case there were people who were pleased at whatever progress they saw, and there were some who were pleased but unsatisfied, and others who saw what happened and were threatened.

In our day those who are not happy with what they see in Affirmative Action join the conservative mentality of the time and seek to undermine the effort. They claim that Affirmative Action does not work as intended, that it puts an onerous burden of stigma on the protected groups. The studies suggested above indicate that Affirmative Action has worked, and certainly few of the so-called protected groups are voicing a concern that they are stigmatized! That construction of stigma seems to be placed upon the situation primarily by white males!

Perhaps it is the effectiveness of Affirmative Action which troubles those of the conservative mentality who want to shoot it down. Certainly they would not be concerned about Affirmative Action if it were not working at all? The expressed concern for what they call equality does not ring with much authority, since the racially conservative mentality has a poor track record on that issue historically.

The conservative mentality is in reality frightened because Affirmative Action is working, has worked too well, and blacks and other people of color are too frequently moving out of their places. Even the thought that they might have a better opportunity to escape their assigned place is a threat to the conservative mentality. So the strategy calls for getting rid of Affirmative Action, or to redefine it. The nation is supposed to be committed to equality; therefore, any anti-Affirmative Action strategy must not fly too blatantly in the face of that concept. So we hear talk about equality, but it is an equality which carefully protects the place of those in power. That means assuring that people of color stay in their places. Enter again, separate but equal!

We must not fall into that trap again! Separate is not equal! Separate is not equal because access to power, resources, money, control is not equal in this nation. Those who make the major policy decisions which affect large numbers of people are white, and they make those decisions in the long run with a white bias. Those who control the major sources of financial revenue are white, and the distribution of those resources is made to stabilize the existing relations of economic power.

If the current move to redefine Affirmative Action is successful, one of the results will be to move our society back into the separate but equal mode of the early part of the century. In this case separate will mean that the conservative mentality will define the place for people of color in education and employment. That place will be one that constricts access to power. In higher education that will mean a declining enrollment of people of color, and restrictions of students of color to vocationally-oriented schools, and community colleges which are not close to the center of power. In employment the place will be defined largely as service jobs: people of color will serve hamburgers, sweep streets, wait on others in stores, banks, restaurants and airplanes, drive the cabs and serve the drinks. Employment will be largely limited to low-level entry jobs with limited upward mobility or access to power. As we move rapidly into automated production many jobs in some of those categories will become insecure, and the prospects of even an increased ratio of unemployment among people of color looms! Blacks and other people of color will be kept separate and in their place. For many that will mean no place at all!

The rush to redefine Affirmative Action may in fact take us back to separate but equal. History has taught us that is a false choice. Separate places are not equal and will not be equal until there is a foundational change in the relationships of power. Separate but equal is a strategy designed precisely to avoid such change. History warns us that we may be headed backwards. We must maintain the forward momentum of Affirmative Action!

[2] Ibid., page 5, Introduction.

[3] Ibid., page 6, Introduction.

[4] Freeman, Richard B., “Affirmative Action: Good, Bad, or Irrelevant?” New Perspectives, Fall 1984, page 26.

[5] Ibid., page 25 Leonard’s study analyzes employment patterns in 68,000 establishments. “Splitting Blacks: Affirmative Action and Earnings Inequality Within and Across Races,” Working Paper No. 1327, National Bureau of Economic Research, April 1984.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Cross,Theodore, The Black Power Imperative: Racial Inequality and Politics of Nonviolence, Faulkner, New York, 1984, page 488.

[8] Ibid., page 492.

A black male student on what would generally be called a “prestigious” campus described his three-year experience on that campus in words something like this: “Racism is very subtle here. I haven’t experienced any blatant form of racism, but I encounter it almost everywhere I turn; it is all-pervasive. The sum total of all that subtle racism is blatant.”

Here are some instances of racism, both subtle and blatant:

A black woman student enters a classroom on the first day of classes in a new semester. The class is small and she is the only person of color enrolled. The professor speaks to her quietly, saying that he is not accustomed to having minority students in his classes and he hopes that he will not say anything to offend her at any time. Then the class begins and the professor spends a considerable amount of time going over the syllabus and describing the course requirements. At several points during this process he turns to the black student and pointedly asks, “Do you understand?” She wants to take the course, but at this point she feels like hiding or running away.

In the lobby of a graduate school there is a bulletin board, and one section of that board has been used as a place where people can post pictures under which they invite others to write captions, often evoking humorous responses. Reading the responses provides a pleasant pause in the daily round of academic pursuits. Someone posted on the board a picture of a KKK rally, and invited people to give it a caption. The first comment to appear was a boldly written, “This isn’t funny!” Both that comment and the picture were quickly removed and the issue was dropped.

A woman student who was proud of her Native American heritage but whose physical appearance does not fit the stereotype, told me that whenever she rolls a scarf into a small band and wears it to keep her hair in place, she gets stares and comments which indicate that the stereotype is not dead. What she wears is not remotely like an Indian head band, but it evokes a behavior toward her which is different from the way she is treated when she does not wear the scarf.

A white male professor announces what I assume to be an honest hope that the student body at the college where he teaches might be more racially diverse than it is at present. In almost the next sentence he says, “There is not a single urban high school in the northeastern part of the United States which can graduate a student qualified to attend our college.” This professor also sits on the Admissions committee which in part functions to set up a budget and a plan for recruiting prospective students.

A white student who frequently associates with the few black students on her campus, is walking across the college quadrangle in company with four black students. The words, “Nigger lover!” are yelled at her several times from an anonymous dormitory window.

An Academic Dean meets with me and three professors. We make plans for a faculty meeting which is to be devoted to a discussion of issues of curriculum and race. We even set the date on which the Dean will call for the faculty meeting to discuss this topic. The Dean is preoccupied with insuring a process which will make it appear as though our decision really rose out of the faculty itself He engages in a discussion in which it is agreed that someone will bring up this matter at the next faculty meeting, that a committee will be appointed to look into the matter, that a report would be made to a subsequent faculty meeting, and then finally a decision to do that for which we had already set a date! After our meeting ended, the process outlined began. With many convoluted manipulations the plan finally fades away and is lost in the ether of words and process. Nothing ever happens.

Both male and female athletes, black and white, from six different sports, report that they have seen or experienced discriminatory practices on the part of coaches in the athletic department of their college. Black players do not get the playing times they feel they deserve, systems for ranking people through challenge matches are manipulated, and positions on teams are often not awarded on the basis of ability. The reports are consistent enough to indicate that there should be some response at least to the perceptions expressed. When these complaints are brought to the attention of college officials, they dismiss them as unfounded because “the Director of Athletics is such a nice man”.

In a class examining recent United States history, the name of Dr. Martin Luther King comes up and someone makes a critical remark about him. All heads turn immediately to the one black student in the class, begging for a response.

Two black women students in Boston get on a subway car and take seats beside each other in the front section of the car, where all seats are then occupied. The section at the back of the car has several vacant seats. A middle-aged white woman gets on at the next stop; she is carrying numerous bundles, is obviously hurried and harried, and eager for a seat. She stands over the two black women, looks down at them and says, “I need a seat. Don’t you know you folks are supposed to be up back?”

A white woman student has become friendly with a black male student at a Boston area college. They go on a date together at an apartment in downtown Boston. The evening slips away quickly and, when they leave the apartment, the subway is no longer running to their campus. They don’t have enough money for a cab, so they decide to hitch-hike, assuming that the many students returning to campus will include someone willing to offer a ride. Cars go by; none stop. Then a car full of several white students goes slowly past them; one student leans out of the car window and yells at the girl, “You’ll never get a ride as long as you’re with that thing!”

No one of these anecdotes is fiction! Each has happened in the 1980’s! No one of them is to be dismissed lightly, because each one hurts. Collectively they are just the tip of a frigid iceberg. There are still lots of places where one can get a “higher education” about/in racism.