What spurred the need for the President’s National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders?
Starting in 1965 and for several years, there were major incidences of unrest in Newark, New Jersey, Chicago, Cleveland, and other places. In response, Lyndon Johnson formed a commission. It was put together, as these things usually are, with about a dozen well-known dignitaries, but the real work was to be done primarily by hired staff and a variety of volunteer social scientists. I was a graduate student who was encouraged by my mentor, Peter Rossi, to volunteer. There was an important role for statistically sound social science in such a volatile political setting. Facts mattered then, too.
What was your role exactly?
I worked as a research assistant on the supplemental studies. I was responsible for significant portions of the data analysis and the writing, for which I was made a co-author. The supplemental studies became a remarkable document of several hundred pages with lots of data and conclusions, so the commission wouldn’t just shoot from the hip but would accurately represent what was known. It was an evenhanded, fact-based report, and we had a feeling that something good might come of it.
What exactly did the report say about the root cause of the violent protests?
Johnson was expecting something that was much more measured and focused on law enforcement. But the commission came out with a stinging indictment that the problem was massive inequality and blatant injustice fueled by systematic racism. That, in turn, generated resentment that was a backdrop for the unrest. There were, to be sure, police incidents that were pretty grisly, but they were just a match; the fuel was already laid. The report said it was time for the country to wake up and do something about systemic racism and inequality.
And yet we struggle with the same challenges a half-century later. Why?
It’s remarkable, in the worst sense of the word. Sadly, the report was prescient. Much of what was said is still relevant. Unfortunately, after the report came out, Nixon was elected. He brought with him a law-and-order regime, and the report was either ignored or forgotten. And yes, here we are today, though it’s not surprising. We knew what triggered it before. Those basic circumstances haven’t changed. The whole thing is a replay. There’s this general feeling that we’ve already done this and, look, nothing has changed. But COVID-19 and the economy have made things still worse.
Can you expand on what you mean in terms of the pandemic and the economy?
There are several things going on. Social media has amplified the role of information and misinformation, while also becoming a vital tool for political organizing. COVID-19 has disproportionately affected African American and Latino communities. The pandemic has not just highlighted earlier grievances but made them worse. We have an economy in freefall, which has exacerbated problems that already existed. And just think about our national leaders. In 1967, Lyndon Johnson was president, Ramsey Clark was attorney general, and Mike Mansfield was Senate majority leader. That’s a wholly different flavor of politician than we currently have at the national level. They had their difficulties, too, and nobody’s perfect, but certainly the framing was very different.
Although the problems that triggered the Kerner Commission still exist and, as you mentioned, have worsened in some cases, are you hopeful that real change might come soon?
My glimmer of hope is that, insofar as a lot of this can be tied to the current political scene at the national level and some state levels, too, we can change that political scene. Maybe if we do that, there will be meaningful structural change. After this got started last time, the backlash gave us Richard Nixon. Let’s hope that this time, we can do much better. But meaningful structural change still will take decades.
