Conversation on Race and Release of Second Annual Survey on Racial Attitudes in Pulaski County by the UALR Institute of Government
March 10, 2005
Joel E. Anderson, Chancellor, University of Arkansas at Little Rock - Opening Address
The greatest problem we have with race is that many people don't believe there is a problem. Our survey data show that there is a problem, in 2005; that blacks and whites experience the land of the free and the home of the brave very differently - not equally in terms of opportunities for success or in terms of being treated with respect and fairness.
I will return to that opening statement, but before I do, let me thank you very much for your attendance. A number of you were here last year. I am particularly gratified that you have returned. I hope you will see fit to come every year. Good things are ahead.
Last year, at our first annual conference, I addressed two "why?" questions. For the first-timers who are present today, let me do that again briefly.
As a metropolitan university, we believe we should be partners with the larger community in multiple ways. We should, for example, assist the community in addressing its major problems. Race is a major community problem. Race is a major state problem, and has been since statehood in 1836. In my judgment it has been and is the single biggest obstacle to progress in our community and in our state.
So what can the university do in response? We can do something. I am reminded of a story about comedian Flip Wilson. As the story goes, Flip Wilson was asked about his religion. He responded he was a Jehovah's Bystander. The questioner said, "A Jehovah's Bystander? Never heard of that." Flip Wilson replied that they wanted him to be a Jehovah's Witness but he didn't want to get involved, so he was a Jehovah's Bystander." The university will not be a bystander!
What can the university do? We can break the code of silence that inhibits frank discussion. We can be a convener and call people to the table and facilitate discussion. We can provide a neutral site for dialogue.
We can provide good information, as we are doing today, which is a prerequisite to solutions. Indeed, I believe that if the university did nothing more than conduct this survey and provide the data each year, it would be a significant public service.
We can focus sustained attention on the issue - as we are doing today with this ongoing series of annual surveys and annual meetings.
We do not want to duplicate the good work of other organizations and groups in the community.
We do not pretend that the university is going to solve the problem. It is a longstanding community problem and requires a community solution. But we are ready to get involved, and we want to do what we can to help.
A survey of attitudes and perceptions can serve as a mirror that enables the community to see itself better. Mirrors show us both the clean areas and dirty spots on our faces ... if we will look. In addition, a survey will permit us to gauge our progress or lack thereof over time.
However this annual meeting may evolve, the survey will remain the anchor piece, the point of departure.
This year there are new questions that focus on local government. Government is arguably the most influential institution in society. Government teaches values and enforces boundaries on behavior and provides a variety of services.
I am most grateful to the UALR Institute of Government for conducting the survey, preparing the report, and organizing this meeting.
Let me note some things that followed last year's release of the survey and the panel discussion and luncheon roundtables - in addition to the immediate newspaper, radio, and television coverage.
During the year there were some other notable activities and programs at UALR - and I do not claim them as stemming from our survey or our meeting last March - which also addressed issues of race in one way or another.
But in addition - and I particularly commend them for this - UALR Public Radio:
I am especially proud that such quality programs on such topics are being produced locally.
These programs told stories unfamiliar, most of them, to both blacks and whites. The programs on Ninth Street and on Jim Crow told me more. They told me we should never kid ourselves that "the clock cannot be turned back." It was, beginning more or less in the 1890's.
And I want to mention one other event during Black History Month. It was not a campus event. But in town there was a showing of "Journey to Little Rock," a documentary on the life of Minnijean Brown-Trickey, one of the Little Rock Nine. Ms. Trickey, when she was 16 years old, was in the eye of one of history's storms, and the eye of the storm for awhile was right here in Little Rock. We need to hear her story. She is one of us - an American, an Arkansan, a citizen of Pulaski County and of Little Rock.
The film itself was educational and moving. I was most moved, however, by something she said in the question and answer session afterwards: "It is a real burden to be black in America," she said.
We come to understand such a statement through stories, not numbers. But numbers do help us gauge the extent of a problem.
Each year in the annual survey there will be both continuity and change. We will continue asking some questions every year. We will ask selected new questions each year. We intend to learn and adjust as we go along.
As noted earlier, in this year's survey there was a special focus on local government. In the next several years, business, education, health care, and criminal justice are topics that are candidates for special focus in an annual survey.
Looking ahead, I am confident that the impact of the survey will grow.
My hunch is that the third year of the survey will lead to heightened interest and greater impact. With three data points we will be able to provide visuals. That is, we can prepare charts that suggest trends.
When community leaders and thoughtful citizens see a chart rather than just a percentage figure, they will begin to pause longer and think more about the implications of what they see.
Perhaps I am dreaming, but in the fifth or sixth year I see us doing a much larger, maybe two-day, conference at which we report the latest annual survey findings and also review five years of data. At that time we might want to call attention to what we are doing by inviting national participants. But the purpose of a larger fifth-year conference will not be to put on a show. The purpose will be to achieve helpful impact in our county, to enable us to improve life right here in River City.
One question I am pondering is how do we - beyond a regular survey - secure sustained and meaningful attention to this persistent problem in our community? I do not think we are obliged to have an answer to that question in the early years. I do think we had better be thinking hard about it. Your thoughts are most welcome.
Related to this question, several weeks after last year's meeting four of my Institute of Government colleagues and I received a letter from an attendee, along with a gift.
The attendee was Mr. Jim Glover, an attorney in the Wright firm and a member of the Social Action Advisory Board of the Catholic Diocese of Little Rock.
The gift was a book by David L. Chappell, entitled A Stone of Hope: Prophetic Religion and the Death of Jim Crow. David L. Chappell is a member of the history faculty at the Fayetteville campus of the University of Arkansas.
This scholarly work published by the University of North Carolina Press shows that religion was a key factor in understanding how Martin Luther King and civil rights activists defeated Jim Crow: religion inspired blacks in the civil rights movement and religion inhibited southern whites in opposing the movement.
In his letter, Mr. Jim Glover offered a number of most interesting observations (and I quote his letter with permission):
"I am convinced of at least two things as a result of my experiences in this area. First, the group of religious leaders that you were most impressively able to gather on March 8 is the only community group which has the realistic potential to motivate and create meaningful systemic change in the area of race relations. Second, I do not believe that anyone has yet found a way to keep an adequate 'critical mass' of leading members of the Central Arkansas religious community involved in concrete, practical efforts on a continuing basis."
In another paragraph he wrote:
"As your summary of lunch discussions mentioned, there have been many attempts over the years by various types of community groups, including individual religious denominations or groups of denominations, to sustain an ongoing substantive effort addressing racial issues in the Central Arkansas area. There have been many well-attended dinners, conferences, and retreats. Regrettably, however, it seems that within a short period of time after the initial 'revivals' have concluded and the first bursts of enthusiasm have waned that things have reverted to isolated pockets of activity by a relatively few 'die hards' in the area."
Is Mr. Glover on to something? Assuming that racial prejudice is ultimately a matter of the heart, do we need more insistently to call on the religious leaders of our community to address the issue of race on an ongoing basis? How would we call on them? Would they respond? Would a high percentage of them in connection with our fifth year conference agree, if we asked them, to deliver a lesson to their respective congregations on the race issue - all during the same weekend?
As in the Old Testament, we expect our prophets from time to time to call us to the mountain of the Lord and say, "You have been living one way and you must live another." I also recall that sometimes the people responded by stoning the prophets!
Or is there a better horse to ride? If not religious leaders, who else can bring people along? We need to think about these things if we want to make a difference, if we want to speed progress, in our community.
I can assure you that at the university we would welcome your thoughts and your help in thinking about these questions.
Enough reflections and musings! It is time to see the survey results.
As we saw last year, we will see again this year that at the broad level, blacks and whites see race relations in pretty similar and positive terms. But then in more narrow areas of life and interaction, the survey reveals very different attitudes and perceptions.
I do not believe that anyone among us would say that these data paint a healthy community picture, much less that this is the way we want it and the way it should be.
In the survey results that my colleagues will now report, you will see, as I said at the start, that blacks and whites experience the land of the free and the home of the brave very differently - not equally in terms of opportunities for success or in terms of being treated with respect and fairness.
We still have to face it to fix it.
Let's now hear it from our researchers.