Clinton’s Race Dialogue Gets Off to Hesitant Start

From the moment he launched a national initiative on race in June, President Clinton has said he wants to foster a dialogue on the sensitive subject.

On Wednesday, after months of criticism that the initiative is off to a slow and unsatisfying start, he got at least part of what he sought: a town-hall-style meeting at the University of Akron, with participants holding forth, if politely, on such social hot buttons as affirmative action and school integration.

The president, true to form, conducted himself like a talk-show host, exhorting participants to reveal their true feelings before a nationally televised audience.

In one unusual exchange, he bore down on Abigail Thernstrom, a scholarly opponent of affirmative action who has written a book on the subject: “Abigail, do you favor the United States Army abolishing the affirmative action program that produced Colin Powell? Yes or no? Yes or no?”

“I do not think that it is racial preferences that made Colin Powell,” she responded.

An animated Clinton cut her off. “He thinks he was helped by it,” he stated.

Thernstrom said that “the overwhelming majority of Americans want American citizens to be treated as individuals.”

A moment later, Clinton, who opposed California’s Proposition 209, the controversial anti-affirmative action measure, explained: “The trick is to find a way of doing this that people believe is merit-based . . . so they don’t think someone is getting something that they’re not entitled to.”

Clinton shared the spotlight with more than 60 participants of varied backgrounds, including authors, students and local citizens, in an effort that he compared to dropping “a pebble in a pond.” But the president clearly occupied center stage, swiveling in his chair as he pressed participants for their unvarnished opinions.

Repeatedly, but with only limited success, Clinton encouraged participants to let loose with their innermost thoughts about race.

“That’s a pretty gutsy thing for you to admit,” he complimented a white student who acknowledged that he is sometimes fearful when he encounters black males on the street. “But that’s the kind of stuff we’ve got to get out on the table.”

Some critics of Clinton’s racial initiative have said it lacks focus. Others have questioned whether it is too narrow ideologically. In any case, Clinton gamely pushed a somewhat cautious group to talk bluntly.

“If we don’t speak frankly about what we believe, then when it’s over we won’t feel very good. . . . You’ve got to imagine that we’re at a cafe downtown, sitting around a table drinking coffee together.”

Still, Clinton seemed to appreciate the irony of seeking a kitchen-table sort of exchange inside a media fishbowl: “Forget about the fact that all these people are staring at you and you’re on television,” he said to laughter.

To be sure, there were several frank outpourings. Anna Arroyo, a premed major who is taking a college course on Latin America, lamented that people assume she knows everything about the continent because of her background.

“What people don’t understand is that I’m Puerto Rican. I’m not Bolivian, I’m not Peruvian, I’m not Mexican. I don’t understand their culture. I don’t know their culture. I’m not part of their culture. . . . Just because I’m Hispanic or I’m Latin doesn’t mean that I know everything about Latin America or other Hispanic countries.”

At another point in the rambling discussion, Clinton said he is troubled by the high school dropout rate of Latinos, who tend to quit school and go to work in greater numbers than members of other groups.

“Apparently, for good cultural reasons, they think they’ve got to get out and help the family and all, but it’s a disaster in the modern economy,” Clinton said. “We need to figure out what to do about it.”

The president also tossed out questions: “How much integration is enough? How much--what kind of--segregation is acceptable if it’s voluntary?”

Christine Ibarra, a university student, responded: “I think that certain segregation is OK. If people feel more comfortable with their own race, then that’s fine, as long as you don’t put down other races.”

But Ibarra, a Mexican American, noted that it can be awkward for her when students divide along lines of black and white. “If students come together more and integrate more, I think that would be better.”

Sensitive to criticism that a racial advisory panel appointed by Clinton has limited itself to a narrow range of views, White House aides had promised that Wednesday’s forum would be diverse in philosophy as well as race and ethnicity.

In fact, Thernstrom, who argued that the nation already has gone a long way toward easing its racial problems, was very much a minority at the gathering.

“Growth of a significant black middle class, increasing suburbanization, rising homeownership rates and so forth--this is a train that left the station 50 years ago and there is no turning back,” said the author, whose recent book, written with her husband, is titled “America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible.”

Clinton, while not seeking to specifically rebut Thernstrom’s statistics, maintained that racial problems remain unique and cannot be explained away solely in terms of economic or educational progress.

He also sought to explain the significance that he saw in the Akron forum: “When this is over, I want you to go out and do this all over again--at work, or in any other groups that you’re in,” Clinton said.

“Because what we’re trying to do here is drop a pebble in the pond and have it reverberate all across America. . . . I don’t want anybody for a moment minimizing the importance of this sort of dialogue.”