Barbara Jordan : Closing the Gap in Perception : SPECIAL REPORT: Race and Black America

It has long been agreed by those who know Barbara Jordan that if anyone ever needs to cast a voice for that of the Lord God Almighty, Jordan is the obvious choice. The deep, rolling voice with its exceptional purity of diction became familiar to most Americans during the impeachment proceedings against Richard M. Nixon. “My faith in the Con-sti-tu-tion is whole,” began the black congresswoman from Texas, and the nation fell into respectful silence.

Interviewing Jordan is still a bit like grilling God: The precision of her diction is matched by the precision with which she selects words and with which she expresses thought. Her formidable physical presence is matched by an equally formidable intellect. She is given to magisterial, lawyerly dissections of whatever subject is at hand. The surprise is how easily and how often clear, light laughter comes bubbling out of her. Although a slow, progressive disease now keeps her confined to an electric cart, the former congresswoman remains profoundly optimistic. She has never suffered fools gladly, but she does have a lively sense of comedy, even about herself. That always seems a bit startling in a person of such astonishing dignity.

She is now a professor of government at the Lyndon Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas and clearly enjoys teaching, but also retains a passionate interest in politics. She is still consulted by those with political power and her influence is much sought after.

Question: Since Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, we have undergone a great sea-change in the climate on civil rights. President Bush is about to veto the civil-rights bill, the Supreme Court is clearly moving against affirmative action. Those who work for civil rights are seen as whiners, special pleaders. What do you make of all this?

Answer: Ah, a small topic. I believe what has happened is the development of a great gap in perception. The majority believes that civil rights is something we have accomplished, finished with--that it is done. Beginning with the great Civil Rights Act of 1964, under President Johnson, and on through the succeeding acts, that laws have been enacted to correct the previous wrongs and now we can go on to something else. The minority understands this is not the case, that much remains to be done. It is the problem of this gulf in perception that now plagues our political debate. We have got to close the perception gap.

Q: Do you think there is any chance that this gap in perception can be resolved and that we can continue to move forward on the remaining agenda?

A: If I believed this current climate would hold fast, then I would stop getting up in the morning.

Q: How do you go about closing that gap?

A: We must change the people in power. If we cannot change their perceptions, then we must change who they are. I do not dream it will be easy. I cannot tell you how many places I go where I am still the only voice, the only . . . .

(Here, the interview was interrupted by a telephone call from Rep. Don Edwards of California. “Mr. Chairman, how are you?” began Jordan, and thereafter spoke only briefly, making sounds of shock and distress after listening to Edwards for long moments. “No.” “This must not stand.” “It is dreadful.” At the end of the call she said, “You may put me down for whatever I can do to help,” and rang off.)

I have just been informed that the Senate has voted to destroy habeas corpus. (The Senate had voted to abolish habeas corpus and federal court review in the course of passing “anti-crime” legislation. Jordan was obviously perturbed and far graver than she had been.) Do they understand nothing of the Con-sti-tu-tion, or even of English common law? You see, this matter of civil rights is not some exclusive concern of racial minorities. This is a matter of concern to all, the Constitution is for all.

Q: Yet survey after survey shows that most Americans neither know nor care much about the Constitution.

A: Ah, but you see, the reason people do not care about the Constitution is because they do not understand that it is specifically and directly related to themselves. Unless they understand that the Constitution has a direct relationship to themselves, it will all remain some abstract concept, honored in theory but of no real concern to them.

Q: The current attack on civil rights focuses on the issue of quotas and, by implication, on reverse discrimination. The idea is that by trying to see to it that blacks have full opportunities, we are, in fact, discriminating against whites. Do you believe in reverse discrimination?

A: Absolutely not. It is simply wrong. To re-introduce discrimination into law after all our efforts to get it out is unconscionable.

Q: Yet one can make an intellectual argument for reverse discrimination: The idea is that if a racial minority has been unfairly handicapped for so long, it isn’t sufficient to say, “OK, we won’t do that anymore.” Something else must be done even though that minority is no longer legally discriminated against, because the legacy of that long discrimination has left them far behind: They don’t start out equal.

A: What we seek is equity, with redress. And I will tell you something which not many of those who are called civil-rights leaders will say: In order to achieve equity, with redress, the result will, in fact, be some unfairness to individuals in the majority. It is not often acknowledged, but it is so.

Q: I know you use words with great care: You say you do not believe in reverse discrimination, but you want what you call equity with redress. And you acknowledge that to achieve it, there will be some unfairness. What is the difference between equity with redress and reverse discrimination?

A: I see reverse discrimination as imposing an unfairness on the majority. You cannot achieve an appropriate solution or correct a wrong by creating a further wrong. Now, when I speak of redress, I believe you must act affirmatively to try to place the complaining party, the victim, in the position he or she would be in were it not for discrimination.

Q: Do you think such a policy could be written into law?

A: I don’t know. I don’t know what words I would put down, but I know what the intent would be.

Q: Do you think there is a real chance of achieving what you seek?

A: Of course. I am profoundly optimistic. For those of us who grew up in the South before the civil-rights movement, there is constant reminder of how much change can be accomplished, and how quickly it can be accomplished. Do you think I, growing up on the dirt streets of the Fifth Ward (Houston’s most notorious ghetto) thought the world was open to me? I would still be there, on those dirt streets, had not so many worked to make the world change.

Q: Yet the world was not open to you even after you had achieved a great deal. You were always “the first and only”--first and only black woman in the Texas Senate, first and only black woman in Congress from Texas.

Years ago, I asked you a stupid question. It was right after you had been elected to Congress. I had been a great fan of yours while you were in the Senate, and had great visions for your political future. I remember asking you with great enthusiasm if you had ever considered running for statewide office.

You looked at me as though you’d never met such a fool and said sarcastically, “Bar-bar-a Jordan run for statewide office, in Texas? A black woman run for statewide office in Texas? “

I sort of picked myself up off the floor and said defensively, “Well, Sissy (Farenthold) just ran for statewide office and she almost won and she’s a woman.”

You turned to me and spat out, “Sissy’s white. “ You knew there were limits on your career.

A: (Jordan laughed quite merrily.) Well, since Ann (Richards) got elected (governor) last year, perhaps I am now prepared to believe that absolutely anything is possible--even in Tex-as!

Q: But many of the signs are ominous. The new Supreme Court nominee appears to have serious doubts about affirmative action. By the way, what do you think of Judge Clarence Thomas?

A: Ah. I have just gone through his record with great care. I have read his opinions and his speeches, studied them thoroughly. President Bush called me a few weeks ago and asked if I would support Judge Thomas. Of course I could not do so until I had studied the record. I had to call and tell the President I could not support Judge Thomas. The record raises too many questions. However, I will not oppose him either, as I did in the case of Judge Bork. In part because I doubt it would do much good. If Thomas is defeated, consider who might be the next appointee.

Q: What do you think of Bush’s veto of the civil-rights bill? Do you think he did it for political reasons, because he wants quotas as an issue for the campaign next year?

A: No, I do not believe that was the bulk of the reason for the veto. I do not believe that George Bush is a racist in the sense that word is commonly used. I believe he has--perhaps it is because of his privileged background--some inability to empathize with those who suffer. Not that he is a callous man, but I believe there is some partial failure of understanding there. However, I do not believe he would have vetoed the civil-rights bill had he not been persuaded that it was, in fact, poor policy.

Now, I do not consider myself a fool, and I know there was also a political consideration, that making quotas an issue is a political maneuver. But, no, I do not think that was the entire, or even the main, reason for the veto.

Q: Do you find it discouraging?

A: The most discouraging thing about these events is that they force us to re-fight battles we have already won. Now we must use our time and our energy to re-fight old battles instead of moving on to the problems that so desperately need to be addressed.

I have thought that perhaps we should redirect our efforts away from civil rights per se and toward addressing the problems of the inner cities and of poverty without regard to race. Nor do we need to re-invent the wheel or to come up with new solutions. Many anti-poverty programs have been tried and they worked. Model Cities, and other programs from Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society did work, they did move people up out of poverty. We need only put them into place and to persevere.

Q: I don’t want to sound negative, but again, we are not only not moving in that direction, we seem to moving in the opposite direction. Do you think we will ever be able to build a just, multiracial society?

A: Yes, I believe that we will. But I believe that goal is far in distance and far in time.