Clinton Calls for ‘National Effort’ to End Racism

SAN DIEGO — Urging Americans to undertake “a great national effort” to solve the nation’s oldest problem, President Clinton on Saturday unveiled a long-awaited plan to narrow the divides of race and ethnicity in U.S. society and create “a more perfect union.”

“Of all the questions of discrimination and prejudice that still exist in our society, the most perplexing one is the oldest and, in some ways today, the newest--the problem of race,” Clinton said during a commencement speech at UC San Diego.

Offering a challenge more than a question, Clinton asked, “Can we fulfill the promise of America by embracing all our citizens of all races? . . . In short, can we become one America in the 21st century?” In selecting a California campus for the delivery of his vision of racial reconciliation, the president walked headlong into the smoldering statewide battle over affirmative action.

Addressing an enthusiastic audience of 22,000 on this rolling campus near the Pacific, he repeated his opposition to the anti-affirmative-action Proposition 209, which voters approved in November but which is now being fought out in the courts.

“Let me say, I know the people of California voted to repeal affirmative action without any ill motive,” Clinton said. But he expressed concern about falling minority enrollment in graduate schools, a trend that he said could “resegregate” universities.

“To those of you who oppose affirmative action,” he challenged, “I ask you to come up with an alternative.”

The approach Clinton announced Saturday offered little in the way of striking new initiatives, much to the concern of advocacy groups who want the government to take a more active role in combating prejudice, poverty and other problems. Rather, the president said he wants to promote a year of unusually candid dialogue on the inflammatory topic of race relations.

Based on what is learned from town hall meetings and other activities that will be coordinated with the help of an advisory board, he plans to announce findings, including possible policy actions and legislation, in the summer of 1998.

“Honest dialogue will not be easy at first,” the president said. “We’ll all have to get past defensiveness and fear and political correctness and other barriers to honesty. Emotions may be rubbed raw, but we must begin.”

Advocates for different racial and ethnic groups were cautious in their responses Saturday. While they applauded Clinton’s decision to make race a paramount national concern, they also contended that his rhetoric is not yet matched with deeds, and some said they were concerned that the high-visibility effort could prove disappointing.

“He needs to go beyond a dialogue,” said Georgina Verdugo, regional counsel in Washington for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. “There are a lot of things he could do,” she added, mentioning stricter enforcement of civil rights laws as one example. “Hopefully, we’ll see more in the next year,” she said.

In one respect, the president attempted to defuse the criticism, calling on Congress to increase funding to help the administration slash a backlog of legal cases involving discrimination.

“It is imperative that Congress--especially those members who say they’re for civil rights but against affirmative action--at least give us the money necessary to enforce the law of the land and do it soon,” he said.

*

More broadly, however, the president limited himself to explaining why he viewed ethnic and racial diversity as a singular national asset, both economically and culturally, and he encouraged Americans to view each other’s differences in a fair light.

As he spoke, the California backdrop served as a pointed reminder of the changing demographics that have transformed an issue once dominated by black and white concerns--”the classic American dilemma”--into a more complex series of concerns involving such groups as Latinos and Asian Americans.

“We see it in the tension between black and Hispanic customers and their Korean or Arab grocers,” the president said, “in a resurgent anti-Semitism even on some college campuses, in a hostility toward new immigrants from Asia to the Middle East to the former communist countries to Latin America and the Caribbean . . . .

“If a black American commits a crime, condemn the act--but remember that most African Americans are hard-working, law-abiding citizens,” he counseled. “If a Latino gang member deals drugs, condemn the act--but remember the vast majority of Hispanics are responsible citizens who also deplore the scourge of drugs in our life. If white teenagers beat a young African American boy almost to death just because of his race, for God’s sakes condemn the act--but remember the overwhelming majority of white people will find it just as hateful.”

Clinton’s choice of California for the speech also served as a reminder of the volatile and polarizing politics he faces in his bid to elevate an issue he wants to become a signal achievement of his presidency.

Among the University of California regents who shared the stage with Clinton was Ward Connerly, the anti-affirmative-action crusader and champion of Proposition 209. All week, Connerly and his allies have sought to pressure the White House, noting polls that show most Americans prefer race-neutral policies for college admissions and government programs.

Connerly watched impassively as the president defended the concept of affirmative action, citing the military as a shining example: “So much for the argument that excellence and diversity don’t go hand in hand,” Clinton said.

In the past, Clinton has voiced objections to affirmative action policies in which less-qualified individuals are given preference over those who are more qualified. But on Saturday, he suggested that the matter of qualification may be a complex one in the university setting. Some of the same people who would rely entirely on test scores to rank college applicants, Clinton argued, “would not apply the same standard to the children of alumni or those with athletic ability.”

Alluding to concerns about declining enrollment of blacks and Latinos in graduate programs, Clinton declared: “We must not resegregate higher education, or leave it to the private universities to do the public’s work.”

“When I look at you,” Clinton told the graduates of a university that has no racial majority, “it is almost impossible for me even to remember my own life.”

Growing up in the Deep South, he recalled, “I went to segregated schools, swam in segregated public pools, sat in all-white sections at the movies and traveled through small towns in my state that still marked restrooms and water fountains ‘white’ and ‘colored.’ ”

Clinton’s grandfather, he said, a man with “the heart of a true American . . . taught me it was wrong.”

While the president promised “periodic reports” to the American people as the yearlong effort at dialogue develops, it nonetheless remained a somewhat murky quest.

Its unknown policy implications prompted mixed reaction among advocates of minority concerns.

*

“I think he correctly pointed out that this is an area where dialogue is important, but we’ve got to come up with policies that promote inclusion,” said Hugh B. Price, president of the National Urban League, who was generally complimentary of the president’s effort. “He’s got a lot of work to do, and the American people have a lot of work ahead. But I think he set the right tone.”

Karen Narasaki, executive director of the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium in Washington, described Clinton’s effort as a good start. “These are things that are tough to talk about, and we all need to hear them,” she said. But, she added, “the real test is what kind of action is taken at the end of the year.”

The president himself offered a guide on how he wishes the unusual effort to be assessed.

“If we do nothing more than talk, it will be interesting but it won’t be enough. If we do nothing more than propose disconnected acts of policy, it would be helpful but it won’t be enough.

“But if 10 years from now, people can look back and see that this year of honest dialogue and concerted action helped to lift the heavy burden of race from our children’s future, we will have given a precious gift to America.”

* SHIFT TO LEFT

Clinton continues his movement toward liberal approach on race issue. An analysis. A18