Monday, February 10, 1997
DIALOGUE:
Expression of views will not completely alleviate tension in
America, but it is a start in building mutual respectBy Andy
Zelleke and Phil Wang
Many commentators concerned about the direction of American race
relations, including former Sen. Bill Bradley and authors like
Newsweek magazine’s Ellis Cose, have called for a "national
dialogue" on the subject. This raises the important question, one
rarely addressed, of what exactly racially-themed dialogue can
accomplish.
More than a few people would scoff at the notion that any good
can come from discussing race or racially-charged topics such as
affirmative action, crime or welfare reform  not to mention
anything having to do with O.J. Simpson  in racially-mixed
company. Since we’re all too quick to label pejoratively rather
than give each other the benefit of the doubt, open conversation
about race would only turn the already uncomfortable into something
much uglier. According to this view, dialogue can only make a bad
situation worse. Most people, already suffering from race fatigue
and coming up short on optimism, choose the safer course of
avoidance rather than engagement.
Having participated in countless discussions about race, we
firmly believe the dialogue route is worthwhile. Although dialogue
itself won’t accomplish miracles, it does tend to build mutual
respect and to decrease the distance separating people from members
of other racial groups. For these reasons, dialogue has an
essential role to play in mending American race relations.
Recently, one of us facilitated a series of discussions on race
relations during the Los Angeles’ Days of Dialogue, organized by
the City Council in an effort to improve the climate of a city that
has contributed to more than its share of the nations’ late 20th
century race-relations "highlights." These discussions were held in
particularly inauspicious circumstances as they were sandwiched
between the Simpson acquittal and the referendum on the polarizing
California Civil Rights Initiative on affirmative action.
We have observed a few consistent patterns in race-relations
dialogues:
1. People need to warm up. It takes some time before people feel
comfortable enough to share their views on such delicate subjects
as affirmative action with strangers, particularly in a
racially-integrated group. An initial barrier of discomfort has to
be overcome. But people willing to commit themselves to the
situation quickly establish bona fide attitudes of basic decency
and soon create an atmosphere of mutual respect.
2. People often initially assume the worst about the other side.
Supporters of affirmative action, for example, often walk into the
room believing that the other side’s position is based on racial
animus, while opponents tend to assume that those in favor of
affirmative action are looking for "payback" or a free ride.
3. Dialogue can increase respect for opposing views. Although
it’s rare to see someone change positions on an emotional and
high-profile issue like affirmative action, what does frequently
change is the perception people have of those who disagree with
them. A supporter of affirmative action who hears a thoughtful
rationale for opposing it  one straight from the lips of a
human being with whom she has begun to bond rather than through the
filter of media or campaign propaganda  can simply disagree
with the position without feeling bitter or resentful towards the
person.
Ideological liberals and conservatives typically blame
race-relations problems on, respectively, the majority’s racism or
irresponsible behavior by minorities. We agree that it’s unlikely
that dialogue can neutralize hardcore racism or reform destructive
behavior.
But America’s race-relations problem is much more complicated
than the ideologues would have us believe. Even if every single
American woke up tomorrow committed to the principles of racial
equality and personal responsibility, we’d still have debates
inseparable from race on issues like affirmative action, economic
inequality and immigration. And disagreements over these issues
would continue to strain race relations in this country.
Although dialogue can’t single-handedly relieve all the tensions
that cumulatively constitute America’s race-relations problem, it
can help us understand that our fellow citizens’ viewpoints can in
fact be principled and entirely free of either racial hostility or
a desire to freeload off the system. That’s a good beginning. In a
pluralistic democracy, we don’t have to agree on everything, but we
need to be able to disagree without demonizing each other.