A Deepening Divide on U.S. Civil Rights Panel
Controversy Over Appointment Highlights Historical Disagreements Over Commission's Role
"Civil rights advocates say the conservatives' complaints have no merit. Wade Henderson,
executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, said he
wanted to know where these critical voices were when conservatives ruled the board
under President Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s.
In those days, it was the Democrats that were complaining. Reagan appointee
Clarence M. Pendleton Jr., a black conservative, was as outspoken then as Berry is
now. Pendleton made headlines for saying black civil rights leaders were "the new racists"
for advocating affirmative action. Pendleton said the issue of equal pay
for equal work was "like reparations for white women."
When Berry first spoke out as a newly appointed commissioner, Reagan fired her, along
with Blandina C. Ramirez and Rabbi Murray Saltzman, two other liberals
on the board. A federal judge subsequently barred Reagan from firing them."
By Darryl Fears
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 18, 2001; Page A03
The day after he was hastily sworn in at the White House, Peter N. Kirsanow walked into
is first U.S. Commission on Civil Rights meeting looking assured and confident. He took the
center seat in the front row of a packed audience, where he could look directly into
the face of Chairwoman Mary Frances Berry.
She looked right back at him. During that Dec. 7 meeting, Berry and four supporters on the
commission challenged the Bush administration's appointment of Kirsanow, refusing to recognize
him as a commissioner. An ugly debate deepened the divide between liberals and conservatives
on the board.
The issue seemed bigger than the dispute over whether Commissioner Victoria Wilson's term had in fact
expired, leaving a seat for Kirsanow to fill. That question, which has been taken to U.S. District Court,
centers on whether Wilson was appointed for a full six-year term or just to complete the term of former
commissioner A. Leon Higginbotham, who died in December 1998.
The larger question: Will a panel that was meant to be the conscience of the federal government
survive partisan Washington? And if so, how?
The commission was established in 1957 to help bring the country together, but the bitter debate
on and outside the commission suggests that partisan views are tearing it apart.
Conservatives are trying to "destroy the commission or disrupt its effectiveness," said a
dismayed Democrat who heads a civil rights organization. Liberals should
realize that "the civil rights commission has outlived its usefulness," a disgruntled Republican said.
If Kirsanow prevails, he will become the second Bush appointee to the board, joining
Jennifer Braceras, who was sworn in Dec. 7, just before the rancorous
meeting began. They and the commission's two other conservative members could then
block panel initiatives. If Wilson remains, liberals will retain a 5 to 3
majority, and Berry will continue to be the board's guiding influence.
The commission is an oversight board that investigates issues and publishes reports
but has no other power. Conservatives believe it should collect academic data
in support of civil rights laws. Liberals said it should continue to investigate complaints
of civil rights abuses on Indian reservations and in minority communities
nationwide.
Republicans say the commission uses its investigations as a partisan tool to
embarrass them. Two investigations into allegations of police brutality in New York
came as Republican Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani was considering running against Hillary Rodham Clinton,
a Democrat, for a Senate seat. The commission later found that some minority voters had been treated
unfairly at the polls during the controversial 2000 presidential election, which returned the White House to
Republican hands.
"To a large extent," said Todd Gaziano, director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at
the conservative Heritage Foundation, "the commission's purpose has been superseded by a
umber of civil rights laws and responsibilities that have been given other executive agencies that
have law enforcement authority.
"Without a real purpose," Gaziano said, "bitter partisan struggles seem endemic for that commission."
Republicans on the commission share that view. "I continue to believe that thecommission
has outlived its usefulness," Braceras said. "My problem with the
commission is that it's very partisan and has been used as a vehicle to beat up
on Mary Frances Berry's opponents."
Civil rights advocates say the conservatives' complaints have no merit. Wade Henderson,
executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, said he
wanted to know where these critical voices were when conservatives ruled the board
under President Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s.
In those days, it was the Democrats that were complaining. Reagan appointee
Clarence M. Pendleton Jr., a black conservative, was as outspoken then as Berry is
now. Pendleton made headlines for saying black civil rights leaders were "the new racists"
for advocating affirmative action. Pendleton said the issue of equal pay
for equal work was "like reparations for white women."
When Berry first spoke out as a newly appointed commissioner, Reagan fired her, along
with Blandina C. Ramirez and Rabbi Murray Saltzman, two other liberals
on the board. A federal judge subsequently barred Reagan from firing them.
Reagan found a way around the ruling by filling seats with commissioners "who were nontraditional
civil rights ideologues," Henderson said. "Reagan's influence
wasn't reversed until deep in the second term of the Clinton administration."
Now, the commission is controlled by the woman Reagan wanted to fire. Berry, in her own words,
is "a little black woman" with a strong will who is easy for conservatives to dislike. Some of
the conservative commissioners on the panel are among those who do not like her much.
Abigail Thernstrom said her problems with Berry started at a January meeting in Tallahassee.
"I'm at my first meeting, I don't know what I'm doing, I've had no preparation," Thernstrom said.
"I sit down, and she doesn't say hello to me. She has been so
rude to me. There are very basic procedural matters. I can't get my memos answered."
Thernstrom, who is white, disagreed with the commission's ruling on the elections in Florida.
Her dissent, she said, was tucked deep into the document "and suppressed."
She also said the panel focused on issues affecting only black and white Americans.
Berry disagrees. "The commission has a project on Native Americans," Berry said
"And we're looking at what is happening to Latino and Asian American youth
dropping out in high school." As far as her not speaking to Thernstrom, that's "ridiculous,"
Berry said. "I come into the commission meeting and I speak to
everyone. I do that always."
Another liberal commissioner, Christopher Edley Jr., took issue with Thernstrom's
characterizing the board as being stuck on black and white issues.
"I don't quite understand which planet she's been on," he said. "Because on my planet,
the commission has been working on . . . a wide-ranging agenda."
The disagreements on the commission are fundamental, he said. "Ideological conservatives
consistently refuse to accept anything other than the smoking-gun form
of intentional discrimination reflecting racial animus," said Edley, a Harvard University
law professor and a founding co-director of the university's Civil Rights
Project.
Edley, who is black, said the views of Thernstrom, who does not believe in affirmative action,
are a perfect example of the divide.
Thernstrom disagrees with Edley on the opportunities available to minorities.
"I'm much more optimistic than they are about doors opening, and that is a fundamental difference,"
Thernstrom said. "I do think it's a changed country."
The commission's failure to acknowledge the change, she said, is one reason the board's
"reputation is in the basement."
© 2001 The Washington Post Company |
