The Dialogue Group meets on Tuesday evenings at 6:30 pm in the First Presbyterian Church Museum (the room across the large foyer area as you enter the building), located on First Avenue, immediately to the north of the main church (corner of First Avenue and Eleventh Street). There is limited parking in the lot in front of the entrance with more parking on the street. I hope to see you there!

(Dialogue Group 0903 - 68) ;

On Tuesday, May 12, the First Presbyterian/One Columbus Dialogue Group continued its discussion of the book entitled, The Politics of Injustice: Crime and Punishment in America, authored by Katherine Beckett and Theodore Sasson. The book is a study of the changes in crime and punishment over the last sixty or so years and focuses on the impact of partisan politics on the penal policies that have developed over this time period.

As a brief review, for the last two weeks we talked about the question of when the "war on crime" began. We concluded that, although crime has always been with us, the notion of fighting a war against crime is a relatively recent development dating from approximately the time of the Goldwater candidacy for president in 1964 and was part of a Republican political strategy to reestablish itself as a dominant political force. This period was also the time of the civil rights movement. The core issue of the civil rights movement seemed to be the poverty that characterized primarily the black population of this country, especially in the South. The civil rights movement succeeded in bringing to the attention of the nation that poverty existing among blacks was due primarily to the socio/economic environment in which blacks lived (and would continue to live if nothing were done) and that the way out of this pervasive poverty was to address the social causes of the inequities which existed between the races.

The civil rights movement was supported politically by the Democratic party. Most Americans outside of the South recognized that, as the civil rights movement took hold and brought the evils of segregation into public consciousness, there was a growing repugnance nationally. Significant political changes were made--the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The courts, led by the Supreme Court, decided several landmark cases which, together with a growing system of legal requirements, began to dismantle segregation in the South. Progress was slow, but it was progress nonetheless. Many social programs were put in place or given greater emphasis and funding during the years following the civil rights movement. President Johnson even declared a "war on poverty" to get at the fundamental cause of social inequality.

There was widespread resistance to these changes. Because southerners saw the civil rights movement as undermining racial segregation and the "southern way of life," and because conservatives from whatever part of the country saw government "interference" in the lives of citizens as fundamentally un-American, the Republican Party saw an opportunity and seized upon it as a means to regain political power. The party leaders did not overtly attack the civil rights movement but rather changed the rhetoric from social responsibility toward individual responsibility; from poverty toward merit; from socio-economic environmental factors to permissiveness and leniency toward criminal behavior. Talk was now all about individual accountability and "street crime." Without any direct attack on the civil rights movement the public's attention was turned away from civil rights by such code words "coddling criminals," handcuffing law enforcement, "tough on crime," states rights, neighborhood security, and the like. Thus was brought about a fundamental shift away from social reform toward social control, particularly control of evil persons who were responsible for committing crime (think Willie Horton). The Republican message was aggressively pushed into the media, and the party came to be seen as the party which is tough on crime.

The "war on crime" rhetoric effectively undermined the civil rights movement. Republicans came into power with the Nixon administration and the relentless focus on controlling crime became commonplace in political discourse from that time on. Democrats were painted as soft on crime and thereby put on the defensive, ultimately losing political power. They began to compete with Republicans as to who was tougher on crime, but on the field established by the latter.

A practical problem with the "war on crime" for the Nixon Republicans was that there was no national focus on fighting crime at the federal level. Law enforcement under constitutional law was the responsibility of state and local government. How was the national government to raise its profile in this war and keep the focus on the national party and the president? The answer was found in drugs, the regulation of which was under federal jurisdiction. The FBI entered the fray and enormous amounts of federal money was directed to fighting a "war on drugs." In the 1980s the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) embarked on an aggressive campaign to draw the public's attention to the evils of drugs, specifically of "crack" cocaine. Drugs were pitched as the root of (street) crime (not poverty, homelessness, joblessness, lack of education and opportunity). This approach fit the conservative focus on individual accountability for success or failure. The poor (particularly black poor) were caricatured as lazy, shiftless people who believed that they were owed a living and that they did not need to work (interpreted as a consequence of welfare programs) and, therefore, dangerous to (white) society and to be avoided. Thus, the focus on drugs, both possession or "pushing," became the primary violation attended to by the police and punishment for conviction was stern, even draconian. And, by the way, enforcement focused on those types of drugs more popular within the black community.

The next meeting of the dialogue group will be on Tuesday, May 19. As always, anyone interested in joining the dialogue group is welcome.

The Dialogue Group meets on Tuesday evenings at 6:30 pm in the First Presbyterian Church Museum (the room across the large foyer area as you enter the building), located on First Avenue, immediately to the north of the main church (corner of First Avenue and Eleventh Street). There is limited parking in the lot in front of the entrance with more parking on the street. I hope to see you there!

(Dialogue Group 0903 - 67) 

On Tuesday, May 5, the First Presbyterian/One Columbus Dialogue Group continued its discussion of the book entitled The Politics of Injustice: Crime and Punishment in America authored by Katherine Beckett and Theodore Sasson. The book is a study of the changes in crime and punishment over the last sixty or so years and focuses on the impact of partisan politics on the penal policies that have developed over this time period.

As a brief review, last week we talked about the question of when the "war on crime" began. We concluded that, although crime has always been with us, the notion of fighting a war against crime is a relatively recent development dating from approximately the time of the Goldwater candidacy for president in 1964 and was part of a Republican political strategy to reestablish itself as a dominant political force. This period was also the time of the civil rights movement. After exploring the connection between these two issues briefly, our discussion shifted to the civil rights movement and its significance at the time. The core issue of that movement seemed to be the poverty that characterized primarily the black population of this country, especially in the South. The civil rights movement succeeded in bringing to the attention of the nation that poverty existing among blacks was due primarily to the socio/economic environment in which blacks lived (and would continue to live if nothing were done) and that the way out of this pervasive poverty was to address the social causes of the inequities which existed between the races.

The civil rights movement was supported politically by the Democratic party. Because southerners saw the civil rights movement as undermining racial segregation and the "southern way of life," they shifted their allegiance from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. We took up this week's discussion at this point with the question of the political reactions that resulted in those tumultuous times.

Most of us recognized that, as the civil rights movement took hold, there was a growing repugnance nationally to the evils of segregation. Those of us old enough to remember those days discussed some of the significant political support that resulted--the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The courts, led by the Supreme Court, decided several landmark cases which, together with a growing system of legal requirements began to dismantle segregation in the South. Several of the participants did not grow up in the south but recognized the effects of the movement in the north as well. Blacks, for example, began to find employment in areas previously closed to them. Progress was slow, but it was progress nonetheless. Many social programs were indeed put in place or given greater emphasis and funding during the years following the civil rights movement. Indeed, President Johnson declared a "war on poverty." Significant increases in government funding of social programs followed.

Not surprisingly, many could recall that there was widespread resistance to all of these changes. The suggestion was made that this presented an opportunity to the Republican Party which had been so badly defeated in the presidential election of 1964. The opportunity, however, was not overtly against the civil rights movement but rather toward a fundamental shift away from social reform toward social control. What does this mean? We reminded ourselves that the civil rights movement had successfully convinced a majority of Americans that poverty, especially that among black Americans, was the result of social evils like segregation. Was there some way to shift responsibility away from common responsibility of all? The enormity of the social problems identified during the civil rights movement seemed to place an almost insurmountable burden on us. All of us bear some responsibility for the existence of poverty.

We then spent the time remaining to us in discussing some of the changes which we have noticed since the days of our parents and grandparents--such things as the loss of values, loss of parental control, greater emphasis on individual freedom and the right to do whatever we want. We noted that in those days before the end of the second world war we often lived in a more rural setting or in neighborhoods that were not so crowded, where neighbors knew each other and cared about each other. The session ended with the question as to why these changes had come about. What is the relationship between poverty and the loss of these values?

The next meeting of the dialogue group will be on Tuesday, May 12. As always, anyone interested in joining the dialogue group is welcome.

The Dialogue Group meets on Tuesday evenings at 6:30 pm in the First Presbyterian Church Museum (the room across the large foyer area as you enter the building), located on First Avenue, immediately to the north of the main church (corner of First Avenue and Eleventh Street). There is limited parking in the lot in front of the entrance with more parking on the street. I hope to see you there!

SPECIAL NOTE: Mr. Billy Winn will be presenting the fourth of five scheduled sessions of a discussion on race relations in Columbus this evening (May 6). The sessions are located in the parlor of the First Presbyterian Church, beginning at 6:30 and continuing for an hour. Several of our dialogue group participants have attended the first two sessions. All are invited to attend as well. If you wish to join in the excellent church supper ($5) at 5:30, please call the church office at 706-322-4523 to let them know you will be coming.

(Dialogue Group 0903 - 66) 

On Tuesday, April 28, the First Presbyterian/One Columbus Dialogue Group redirected its discussion relating to potential political/social actions which the group might undertake to address one or another of the racial issues that remain with us today. We began with a discussion of a book entitled The Politics of Injustice: Crime and Punishment in America. This book is a sociological study, as the subtitle indicates, of the changes in crime and punishment over the last sixty or so years. The book was authored by Katherine Beckett and Theodore Sasson. The book focuses in particular on the impact of partisan politics on the penal policies that have developed over this time period.

The discussion began by my raising the question, "When did the war on crime begin?" Following a lively discussion where several opinions in response to the question were suggested, it became clear that I needed to add greater clarity to the question. The responses indicated that the participants were attending more to the "crime" aspect of the question that to the "war" part. The understanding of the question was crucial to the discussion because the expression "war on crime" is a relatively recent and very political expression. Once the discussion was reoriented to the whole expression, most of the participants seemed to agree that the expression came into common use around or shortly after the time of the Goldwater candidacy for president in 1964. As we all remembered, Lyndon Johnson swamped Barry Goldwater by an Electoral College margin of 44 states to 6.

As the discussion proceeded, we observed that this was also the time of the civil rights movement. We began to explore what the connection might be between these two issues, if any. Shifting to the civil rights movement we tried to identify the core issue in that movement. While racial discrimination was the obvious target of the movement, we analyzed the underlying issues. After exploring several possible responses, it was suggested that poverty was the fundamental economic issue (although certainly not the underlying moral issue) since poverty was characteristic of the black population of this country, especially in the South. Although the group recognized that many whites were also poor, the poverty of blacks was a direct result of lack of opportunity because of segregation and all of its attendant consequences.

When we look at the thrust of the civil rights movement we found that the movement capitalized on the recognition that indeed the poverty existing among blacks was due primarily to the socio/economic environment in which blacks lived (and would continue to live if nothing were done) and that the way out of this pervasive poverty was to address the social causes of the inequities which existed between the races. Thus the civil rights movement was directed toward overcoming racial inequalities by confronting them directly (although non-violently). As a result, the movement supported such actions as sit-ins at segregated lunch counters, refusal to ride on segregated buses, picketing white-owned businesses, etc. Joined with these actions were the marches and other public protests against segregation. The moral turning point of the movement which gained significant support among whites, especially in the North, was probably the brutal reaction of the law enforcement establishment (and the white population generally) in Birmingham.

These actions and the civil rights movement was seen by many as supported politically by the Democratic party. Not all Democrats were enthusiastic about this support. Indeed sixteen years earlier, Southern Democrats had split from the mainline Democratic Party and formed the so-called Dixiecrats in the belief that the Democratic Party was undermining racial segregation and undermining the (white) Southern way of life. The key political point here is that southerners slowly shifted their allegiance from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. At this point our time was up and we closed the discussion for the week. The discussion will be continued next week.

The next meeting will be on Tuesday, April 28. As always, anyone interested in joining this group to discuss possible civil action is welcome.

The Dialogue Group meets on Tuesday evenings at 6:30 pm in the First Presbyterian Church Museum (the room across the large foyer area as you enter the building), located on First Avenue, immediately to the north of the main church (corner of First Avenue and Eleventh Street). There is limited parking in the lot in front of the entrance with more parking on the street. I hope to see you there!

SPECIAL NOTE: Mr. Billy Winn will be presenting the third of five sessions of a discussion on race relations in Columbus this evening (April 29). The sessions are located in the parlor of the First Presbyterian Church, beginning at 6:30 and continuing for an hour. Several of our dialogue group participants have attended the first two sessions. All are invited to attend as well. If you wish to join in the excellent church supper ($5) at 5:30, please call the church office at 706-322-4523 to let them know you will be coming.

SECOND SPECIAL NOTE: WTVM and One Columbus will be hosting their second public diversity forum Thursday, April 30, (tomorrow evening). The forum will feature issues and concerns that affect the Chattahoochee Valley since the election of President Barack Obama. The theme of the public forum is "The first 100 days" and will focus on how President Obama's policies have affected us here in the Chattahoochee Valley.

(Dialogue Group 0903 - 65) 

On Tuesday, April 21, the First Presbyterian/One Columbus Dialogue Group continued its discussion of potential actions which the group might undertake to address one or another of the racial issues that remain with us today. The participants were all different from those of last week so many of the same points were discussed again. We continued our efforts to identify an issue which we might wish to address as well as the manner in which that issue might be dealt with. Individual discussions of possible topics for action revealed that there were some misgivings among the ones present as to whether the group was ready to move into any action yet in view of the growing realization of the complexity of identifying a meaningful action and the steps that would be necessary to bring it to fruition. The discussion revolved around making more precise the objective for any action which might be selected. Some participants seemed to have assumed that the action would involve directly "taking on" the penal system, for example, if the issue of the unfairness of the probation system as it is carried out by a contractor is selected. The major issue which seems to have the most appeal in this regard is the heavy burden placed on the poor as compared to those who are able to pay any fine levied by the court on the spot and thereby not enter into the probations system at all.

During the discussion of the objective, alternative goals were proposed; for example, rather than taking on the State-wide penal system directly, the group might decide to develop a position on the issue and cast the light of publicity on the discrimination built into the way probation functions, i.e., discriminating both against the poor and against blacks, who appear to be arrested and convicted more frequently than are whites who are guilty of the same offenses. This seems to be particularly true of non-violent drug possession charges. A further elaboration might be to contact state legislators to lobby for a change.

As an aside, one of the group brought up the recent interview on PBS of the author of a book exposing the existence of "slavery under another name," referring to the book by Douglas A. Blackmon, entitled Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II. A lengthy discussion followed regarding the current use of prison labor in Columbus and through Georgia. It was noted that the 13th amendment to the Constitution allows slavery as a punishment for crime. ("Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction" [Section 1, Article XIII]).

The group recognized that any action would be difficult without more consistent participation of persons who are seriously committed to undertaking an action. Additionally, the uneven participation of those who are motivated is something that will continually have to be addressed. The session ended with the recognition that more dialogue is needed before any of these objectives can be met. Next meeting the participants will attempt to determine where it is, where it wants to go, and what steps will be required to get there.

The next meeting will be on Tuesday, April 28. As always, anyone interested in joining this group to discuss possible civil action is welcome.

The Dialogue Group meets on Tuesday evenings at 6:30 pm in the First Presbyterian Church Museum (the room across the large foyer area as you enter the building), located on First Avenue, immediately to the north of the main church (corner of First Avenue and Eleventh Street). There is limited parking in the lot in front of the entrance with more parking on the street. I hope to see you there!

SPECIAL NOTE: Mr. Billy Winn has now presented the first two of five sessions of a discussion on race relations in Columbus. The sessions are located in the parlor of the First Presbyterian Church, beginning at 6:30 and continuing for an hour. Several of our dialogue group participants have attended the first two sessions. All are invited to attend as well. If you wish to join in the excellent church supper ($5) at 5:30, please call the church office at 706-322-4523 to let them know you will be coming.

(Dialogue Group 0903 - 64) 

On Tuesday, April 14, the First Presbyterian/One Columbus Dialogue Group continued its discussion of potential actions which the group might undertake to address one or another of the racial issues that remain with us today. We continued our effort to identify the issue which we might wish to address as well as the manner in which that issue might be dealt with. Once again, discussion opened with an invitation for each of us to express our reactions to the dialogue that has taken place so far during our search. The group again recognized that the whole matter of identifying a meaningful action was more complicated than had been initially thought. It was not clear to several of the participants exactly what the objective of our search is. However, the participants were still attracted to an action confronting the issue of the contracting out of probation services although one participant who had missed our last dialogue session was surprised that that issue was still preferred.

The group again recognized the political attractiveness of the probation-for-hire concept and the large monetary return to the court in fines collected. All of the participants also understood that the burden of probation and all of its additional fees fall disproportionately on the poor, thus reflecting a penal system that is neither fair nor just. Several viewed the primary problem as one of finding a way to extricate those caught in the penal system especially in view of the apparent impossibility of success in taking on the penal system directly. Others felt that such an approach places the responsibility mainly on those who are victims of the system rather than on those who created the system and manage it. All understood that the State and the courts do not wish to get into the collection business, and thus the privatized probation for misdemeanors is particularly attractive as an alternative. Still a $35 fee for the contractor and $9 for the State per month for each probationer seems an enormous rate of return in view of the fact that, for the most part, little supervision beyond collecting the fine is necessary. Thus the appearance of unequal treatment before the law. Furthermore, the discussion also raised a suspicion of a focus on non-white law violators. That in turn raised the question of law enforcement policy decisions and what lies behind them.

Thus did the discussion turn once again to what steps are necessary to identify an issue and a consequent action which the group might decide to undertake. Clear definition of the goal would be necessary as well as an assessment of the actual facts relating to the issue. An approach to the public would have to be identified and developed along with the means to pass the message on. Since the group did not feel that it fully understood the purposes for the action and what we wanted to achieve, it was difficult to add precision to the issue to be addressed. The session ended with an assignment for all of the participants to formulate a purpose statement and forward it by e-mail to me together with any other comments which seem appropriate. I will endeavor to collate the comments and disseminate them by the end of the week to everyone for discussion at the next meeting. All readers of this summary are encouraged to comment as well.

The next meeting will be on Tuesday, April 21. As always, anyone interested in joining this group to discuss possible civil action is welcome.

The Dialogue Group meets on Tuesday evenings at 6:30 pm in the First Presbyterian Church Museum (the room across the large foyer area as you enter the building), located on First Avenue, immediately to the north of the main church (corner of First Avenue and Eleventh Street). There is limited parking in the lot in front of the entrance with more parking on the street. I hope to see you there!

SPECIAL NOTE: On the next four Wednesday evenings (April 22 through May 13) at 6:30 Mr. Billy Winn will be conducting a series on race relations in Columbus at First Presbyterian Church. Several of our participants attended the first session this evening. Most of the attendees found the presentation very helpful albeit shocking. You are all invited to attend as well. If you wish to join in the church supper at 5:30, please call the church office at 706-322-4523 to let them know you will be coming.

(Dialogue Group 0903 - 63) 

On Tuesday, March 31, the First Presbyterian/One Columbus Dialogue Group continued its exploration of actions that might be taken to address racial issues that remain with us today. The discussion opened with an invitation for each of us to express our reactions to the dialogue that has taken place so far during our search for an social action which the group of us might undertake. The first comment that was raised was the feeling that the whole issue of identifying a meaningful action was more complicated than had been initially thought. It even seems to be more than we might be able to handle. The original interest in developing an action addressing the contracting of probation services still seemed appropriate but the realization of what will be required to get to the point of undertaking an action was sinking in.

In spite of the political attractiveness of the probation-for-hire concept and the large return to the courts (approximately $600,000 in fines collected), the burden of probation and all of its additional fees falls disproportionately on the poor. The consensus of the participants is that this creates a penal system that is neither fair nor just. Why should the burden be carried by those least able to bear it? The group understands that the State does not wish to get into the collection business and thus the privatized probation for misdemeanors seems to be primarily a collection from those lease able to pay. Wealthier persons who are summoned to court have the means to pay quickly and thus are not placed on probation. Since minor violations of the law do not normally create the need for supervision services, the contractor need only collect the court-imposed fine with an enormous return. Currently the contractor collects $35 per probationer (who might only owe $100). If it takes several months to pay the fine, the probationer ends up paying over twice that much because of the collection process. And there may be 1500 persons on probation at one time.

This appears to be a non-productive drain on the marginal financial condition of the poor.

The discussion then turned to what would have to be done to prepare for an action on this or any other potential issue which the group might decide to undertake. Clear definition of the goal would be necessary as well as an assessment of the actual facts relating to the issue. An approach to the public would have to be identified and developed along with the means to pass the message on. The group did not feel that it was yet at that point. Some possible next steps were then discussed, on of which might be to invite a sitting judge to come and address the group. While no decision was taken at the meeting, the realization of the many steps and the organization necessary to take them is becoming more apparent.

For the next meeting of the dialogue group the participants will take up this question and continue to specify the goal for a potential action and the process for accomplishing it. All recognized the need for more clarity. The next meeting will be on Tuesday, April 14. As always, anyone interested in joining this group to discuss possible civil action is welcome.

NOTE: There will not be a meeting on April 7. The next dialogue group meeting will be on April 14. Please mark your calendars accordingly.

The Dialogue Group meets on Tuesday evenings at 6:30 pm in the First Presbyterian Church Museum (the room across the large foyer area as you enter the building), located on First Avenue, immediately to the north of the main church (corner of First Avenue and Eleventh Street). There is limited parking in the lot in front of the entrance with more parking on the street. I hope to see you there!

(Dialogue Group 0903 - 62) 

On Tuesday, February 24, the First Presbyterian/One Columbus Dialogue Group continued its search for possible solutions to the race-related difficulties that continue to exist up to our present day. The meeting opened with the observation that much of last week's dialog had been abstract and generalized. The question was asked if we could make more progress by being more specific as to concrete experiences which indicate continuing racial bias in daily life. After some discussion the group felt that reviewing racially biased experiences would cast the black participants as victims and could very well be counter productive.

A paper was then distributed by one of the participants which details the steps taken by the Philadelphia School District to implement an African American studies curriculum in the public schools. The group talked about the importance of this innovation and its potential value for Columbus and the Muscogee County Schools. The value of education as a way out of poverty and the role of African American history as an ingredient in the educational process in Columbus schools was discussed at length. The group felt that such a course would be of great value to schools here, for both white and black students.

Another subject proposed for discussion was racial bias in the jail and prison populations. There is a clear disproportion of black inmates incarcerated as compared to their percentage of the general population. This subject has been discussed before in this dialogue group, but no practical solution was proposed. Another lengthy and detailed conversation followed.

There seemed to be a distinct shift in the tone of the discussion this week because many in the group felt an urgent need for concerted action to address one or another of these issues (or possibly an issue to be identified by the participants). The group recognized the level of commitment that would be required to sustain the process of identifying the issue, gathering the necessary data to support the need for action, clarifying possible approaches to the issue, identifying the community organizations before which the issue would be presented, crafting the approach (including writing papers and/or presentations) to ensure the greatest success, organizing the necessary community support, educating the community, and arranging the meetings and appointments for presenting the issue and its possible solutions.

At the next meeting of the dialogue group the participants will begin fleshing out the details. The next meeting will be on Tuesday, March 3. Anyone interested in joining this group to discuss possible action is welcome.

The Dialogue Group meets every Tuesday evening at 6:30 pm in the First Presbyterian Church Museum (the room across the large foyer area as you enter the building), located on First Avenue, immediately to the north of the main church (corner of First Avenue and Eleventh Street). There is limited parking in the lot in front of the entrance with more parking on the street.

(Dialogue Group 0903 - 61) 

On Tuesday, February 10, the First Presbyterian/One Columbus Dialogue Group completed our four-part discussion of race relations in Columbus, led by Johnnie C. Warner, Jr., President of the Columbus Black History Museum. We turned our attention to possible solutions to some of the racial problems which we see as still existing within our city and its environs.

During the discussions of the past three Tuesdays the participants discussed with Mr. Warner race relations in the pre-Civil War days, during the time of slavery and, finally, at the time up of the "Jim Crow" laws and segregation up until the present day. We also reviewed the four major elements of the relations between the races which we had identified during the discussions, namely, the notion of white superiority over other races, the role of religion in supporting the separation of the races, the economic motivations for and consequences of racial subjugation, and, finally, the fear factor in race relations.

Our closing dialog searched for possible solutions to the difficulties that continue to exist in our present day. While the overt signs of discrimination have vanished, many of us felt that covert discrimination still exists in Columbus. Some of the most obvious indications of that are residential patterns where the sections of town which are predominately black sections are significantly poorer in general that those which are mostly white; the schools in the predominately black areas are not well integrated and the students in those schools are believed to suffer from inferior conditions as compared to the schools in the white areas. Additionally, many of the participants were of the opinion that many African-Americans did not realize the value of education as the key to rising out of poverty and gaining equality with their white peers. (The group recognized that persons of Hispanic origin were also subject to various forms of oppression as well; but, as there were no Hispanic participants in the dialogue group, we felt that it was not appropriate to attempt to address problems or solutions regarding race relations with them.)

Quite a bit of time was spent in animated discussion about the need for African-Americans to become better attuned to the need for education, for stricter discipline toward their children, for improvements in their neighborhoods, for more active participation in the education of their children and many other issues that were identified as problems to be overcome on the road to equality. The general absence of a sense of self-worth was another important obstacle to be overcome.

The observation was then made that all the talk relating to these issues pointed out what African-Americans had to address and change about themselves. Notably absent was any action for which whites had responsibility. It was as though African-Americans are entirely responsible for lifting themselves out of their condition of inequality--by their own bootstraps, if necessary--with no evident responsibility for action on the part of privileged white Americans. And this in spite of the fact that the "inferior" condition of African-Americans was largely brought about as a result of oppressive actions (past and present) taken by whites toward blacks and sustained by the institutional, social, and cultural constructs of present day life. The responsibility for addressing inequalities in our time rests on both black and white segments of society.

The meeting closed with the recognition that most of the dialog had been abstract and generalized. The question was posed as to what concrete steps can well-meaning and well-motivated persons of both races take to address the problems of race relations in present-day Columbus. The group recognized that such steps are not easy to identify and more difficult to implement. Those who have are not inclined to give up or even to share what they have, particularly their positions of privilege, power, and wealth. Religious belief can be blind to religious principles calling for justice for the oppressed. So what is to be done? As was realized at the end of the third session of the series, much racism is deeply embedded in the ways we have of living out our daily lives. The group determined that we need another session to come up with more practical means of addressing this fundamental issue of equality among all of our citizens. The next meeting of the dialogue group will be next Tuesday, February 17.

We invite anyone in the community who is interested in sharing in our experience to join us at the next meeting of the group. The Dialogue Group meets at 6:30 pm in the First Presbyterian Museum (the room directly across the large foyer area as you enter the building), located on First Avenue, immediately to the north of the main church (which is on the corner of First Avenue and Eleventh Street) at the far end of the elliptical driveway in front. There is limited parking in the lot in front of the entrance with more parking on the street.

(Dialogue Group 0903 - 60) 

On Tuesday, February 3, the First Presbyterian/One Columbus Dialogue Group continued our discussion of race relations in Columbus with part three

--Columbus during Jim Crow days--led by Johnnie C. Warner, Jr., President of the Columbus Black History Museum. We expect one more in the series next Tuesday evening. We will turn our attention to possible solutions to some of the racial problems which we see as still existing within our city and its environs.

Last Tuesday's discussion began, as always, looking at some definitions, such as "the Black Codes," "Jim Crow" laws, peonage, and other similar terms. There was also a short review of the main points of our two earlier discussions on early Columbus history and on slavery in our area. We reviewed four major elements of the relations between the races (including both Indian and Negro), namely, the notion of white superiority over other races, the role of religion in supporting the separation of the races, the economic motivations for and consequences of racial subjugation, and, finally, the fear factor in race relations.

The so-called "Black codes" codified in law all over the South and border states a set of legal prohibitions wherein blacks were not able to function in society in the same way that whites were able to. This occurred in spite of the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the Constitution. Several examples of these restrictions were that interracial marriage was forbidden; the rights of Negroes to own guns was severely curtailed; they were unable to gather in groups after a certain hour in the evening; they could not gather in groups of more than a few, and the like. Jim Crow laws were put in place to enforce segregation, the separation of the races, particularly with respect to any action which might be viewed as "contaminating" whites in some way, such as drinking from the same water fountain, eating at the same place, sitting in the same areas (movie houses, schools, churches, etc.). The results of such separation always worked to the detriment of the "inferior" race. Their schools were inferior, their public places were not maintained as well as white places and often such places did not exist at all for non-white persons.

A long and varied discussion followed as to what brought about these laws. Generally speaking, the laws existed because the white power brokers in Columbus and throughout the South wanted them. There were many views as to what might have caused whites to treat non-whites in such a manner that was fundamentally unjust and oppressive. One obvious reason was that they did it because they could! Oppression and subjugation always serve those in power to increase their power and their benefits (political, social, and economic) and at the same time to keep the subjugated in their place and remove them as competitors for wealth and power. At the level of those not in power, a major reason seemed to be fear of what might result for "poor" whites if non-whites were not kept in a position of inferiority. Everyone recognized the complexity of race relations and the fact that there is no simple explanation for the continued existence of racism, however subtle it might be.

The closing comments raised, as they did last week, the question as to how existing black social and economic inferiority might be overcome. It is not simply a matter of blaming poverty on the poor or of blaming racism on the oppressed race. Thus the solution cannot be simply that the poor and the oppressed must improve themselves. The group that overwhelmingly enjoys the benefits of racism must also take its responsibility for addressing racism in whatever forms it continues to exist. The overarching issue of deeply imbedded institutional racism seems at times intractable. The group determined to dedicate our fourth session to beginning the process of searching for a response to the question raised in the first sentence of this paragraph. The dialogue group will meet again next Tuesday, February 10.

We invite anyone in the community who is interested in sharing in our experience to join us at the next meeting of the group. The Dialogue Group meets at 6:30 pm in the First Presbyterian Museum (the room directly across the large foyer area as you enter the building), located on First Avenue, immediately to the north of the main church (which is on the corner of First Avenue and Eleventh Street) at the far end of the elliptical driveway in front. There is limited parking in the lot in front of the entrance with more parking on the street.

(Dialogue Group 0903 - 59) 

In anticipation of Black History Month and in follow up to the One Columbus Diversity Forum the First Presbyterian/One Columbus Dialogue Group continued its series on the history of race relations in Columbus. The series is led by Johnnie C. Warner, Jr., President of the Columbus Black History Museum and is expected to run for an additional two weeks. The format is an open dialogue in response to slides presented by Mr. Warner or questions raised by him or by others participating in the dialogue group.

This week's discussion began with the question as to what constitutes slavery. The key point is that the subjugated persons become legally property of the owner. A short review of the origins of slavery in the colonies and the rise of Black slavery followed. Several prominent slave owners in Columbus were identified and discussed. The participants noted that the black slaves were not given any opportunity to become educated and usually could neither read nor write. Next the discussion turned to the reasons for this practice of keeping the slaves uneducated.

History tells us about a number of slave rebellions (armed uprisings) that occurred from time to time during the days of slavery, in the early days often joined in by white indentured servants. Such rebellions bring about great fear among the slave owners and were responded to with great violence. One of the best know of these was the Nat Turner rebellion in Virginia (1831). Several scores of whites were killed as a result of this rebellion.

The fear among whites was so great that a major concern was preventing any slave rebellions from even getting started. The slave owners believed that an educated Negro was a dangerous Negro and thus did not allow slaves to go to learn anything more that what they needed to get their work done. As a consequence there were no schools available to them. The fear of blacks by whites was so great that repressive laws limiting black activities were instituted all over the South. Blacks could not gather in even small numbers for fear that they might foment rebellion. Black families were broken up and slaves were sold periodically and moved to a new and unfamiliar location.

The next topic of discussion was whether Sunday is the most segregated day of the week. Most of the participants agreed that it was, but some of them noted that even the large churches have integrated, albeit with relatively few black members. When asked why this is, a variety of responses were proposed. Churches tend to be neighborhood churches and thus are predominantly white in white neighborhoods and predominantly black in black neighborhoods. Another reason might be that during segregation mixing was not allowed or at best the black members were relegated to balconies and did not mix with the whites on the main floor. Current membership patterns might reflect a segregated holdover. A third reason suggested was that neither race is comfortable with the other on a social level and thus are not comfortable going to the same church, especially because the worship patterns, the preaching, and the music is different among black congregations as compared to white ones.

Interestingly in the early founding days of Columbus, several of the downtown churches were founded by committees which included one or more black members, e.g., First Baptist and St. Luke's United Methodist churches. The congregations did not become integrated for long, however, and each of the aforementioned churches sponsored the establishment of "sister" black churches, viz., First African Baptist Church and St. James Methodist Episcopal Church respectively.

The closing comments addressed what is the answer to question of how can existing black social inferiority be overcome. A variety of responses were given although all of them seemed rather tenuous. One issue that leads into next week's discussion is that of institutional racism. That will be discussed in the context of the Jim Crow period which lasted roughly from shortly after the Civil War until the Second World War. The dialogue group will meet again next Tuesday, February 3.

We invite anyone in the community who is interested in sharing in our experience to join us at the next meeting of the group. The Dialogue Group meets at 6:30 pm in the First Presbyterian Museum (the room directly across the large foyer area as you enter the building), located on First Avenue, immediately to the north of the main church (which is on the corner of First Avenue and Eleventh Street) at the far end of the elliptical driveway in front. There is limited parking in the lot in front of the entrance with more parking on the street.

(Dialogue Group 0903 - 58) 

In anticipation of Black History Month and in follow up to the One Columbus Diversity Forum the First Presbyterian/One Columbus Dialogue Group began a series on the history of race relations in Columbus. The series is led by Johnnie C. Warner, Jr., President of the Columbus Black History Museum and is expected to run for an additional three weeks. The format is an open dialogue in response to slides presented by Mr. Warner.

The discussion began with the question as to what constitutes racism. While many definitions exist, for purposes of this discussion, a simple definition was agreed upon, namely, that racism is the belief that one race is superior to any other. The discussion traced that notion of superiority as it existed in the New World, to the beginning of the Spanish occupation of the western hemisphere. The Spanish conquerors saw themselves as superior to the native inhabitants, whom they called Indians; and, consequently, forced the Indians into their service in search for gold. When the expected gold horde did not materialize, the Spaniards attempted to force the Indians into slavery. That experiment did not work out because the Indians continuously ran away into the surrounding jungle, albeit at the cost of much suffering and many lives. Nevertheless, the notion was firmly established in the minds of the Spanish as well as in the minds of successive European invaders, that "the red man" was an inferior race.

The discussion then turned to an exploration of what justification was used by the Europeans to determine that one race of human beings was inferior to another. There seemed to be at least three such justifications--greater power, more advanced technology, and religious authority. The first of these, greater power, results in obvious physical superiority, which is easily translated into racial superiority through the stronger belittling and dehumanizing the weaker. The second, more advanced technology, suggests to the possessor mental and intellectual superiority over the non-possessor. Finally, the third, religious authority, arises out of a Biblical interpretation that considers the less favored race to have developed under the curse of God and thus naturally inferior to the favored race. Christians considered themselves to be that favored race.

As a consequence of this thinking, when the white man desired the property of the Indians, it was a short step to decide that the natives could be displaced and their property simply taken. In the Columbus area this viewpoint resulted in the Indians being forcibly deprives of their property in contravention to the treaty of 1832, which recognized their rights to that property; and, by order of President Andrew Jackson to remove all Indians from east of the Mississippi to the west, constrained the Creek tribe to gather at Fort Mitchell, Alabama, and force-marched them in chains across the intervening territory to Oklahoma at great loss of life.

The Indians were not the only race deemed inferior to the ascendant white race. The black race was also a victim of this racism. That will be the subject of the next in our series on the history of race relations in Columbus. The dialogue group will meet again next Tuesday, January 27.

We invite anyone in the community who is interested in sharing in our experience to join us at the next meeting of the group. The Dialogue Group meets at 6:30 pm in the First Presbyterian Museum (the room directly across the large foyer area as you enter the building), located on First Avenue, immediately to the north of the main church (which is on the corner of First Avenue and Eleventh Street) at the far end of the elliptical driveway in front. There is limited parking in the lot in front of the entrance with more parking on the street.

(Dialogue Group 0903 - 57) 

On Tuesday evening the dialogue group resumed its meetings after our holiday "vacation." This meeting was the first of the new year. There were nine participants, one of the larger groups we have had recently. Since this was the first meeting of the new year, the facilitator felt that it was also an opportune time to raise the question of where the group wanted to go over the next several months. Several options were proposed. One was that we would identify newspaper or periodical articles germane to the subject of diversity in today's world. Another was that we could take a more systematic approach and use chapters from more serious studies of racial or other contemporary issues, including a discussion of the history of race relations in Columbus, and use them as discussion topics. Still another possible option would be to identify and invite speakers to talk with us on diversity-related topics. A final potential subject area would be for participants to share their stories with the rest of the group.

There are strengths and drawbacks with each approach and the consensus among the participants was to use all of the options on a kind of rotating basis. The facilitator would take on the responsibility of duplicating and distributing materials for discussion for the next meeting and all participants are encouraged to send to him for consideration any pertinent articles. The facilitator also agreed to approach potential speakers as identified by the group.

On a related topic, the question was raised as to how we might grow our attendance. There are many competing activities for people's time and attention. Because the meetings are in the evening, many may be too exhausted to participate. However, these summaries are sent out to over one hundred persons every week so our best resource is you, the reader. Almost all of you have either attended a past dialogue session or know about this One-Columbus-sponsored event. What would motivate you to come to our dialogue group? What would you like to see happen at the dialogue group? What is your particular interest related to diversity, either locally in Columbus or in the larger world? I invite your response, as briefly or as expanded as you feel moved to offer. I look forward to your input.

As always, we invite anyone in the community who is interested in sharing in our experience to join us at the next meeting of the group. The Dialogue Group meets in the First Presbyterian Church Museum (the room directly across the large foyer area as you enter the activities building), located on First Avenue, immediately to the north of the main church building (on the corner of First Avenue and Eleventh Street) at the far end of the elliptical driveway in front and across the street from the CB&T parking garage. There is limited parking in the lot in front of the entrance with more parking on the street.

2008

Notes from the 2008 series of Dialogue Groups

Comments

081104 - Mathews Report

Click here to view the document.

(Dialogue Group 0703 - 53) 

Since the Dialogue Group did not meet last Tuesday, I am presenting a revised paragraph from the summary for the week before last to remind all those who will be attending the next meeting on October 21 at 6:30 as to what the topic of discussion is.

It became evident to the participants that there is a need for additional information to determine whether there is a basis in fact to the a widespread view that the police are easier on members of the dominant (white) social group. Why is there such a wide disparity between the proportion of the non-white community that is arrested and incarcerated and its proportion of the population? We agreed to do some research on that topic for the next meeting. Additionally, someone broached the opinion that whites tend to be more afraid of non-whites that they are of members of their own group. That is where the discussion ended for the last meeting. We will take up at the point where we left off at the next meeting.

We invite anyone in the community who is interested in sharing in our experience to join us at the next meeting of the group. The Dialogue Group meets in the First Presbyterian Museum (the room directly across the large foyer area as you enter the building), located on First Avenue, immediately to the north of the main church (which is on the corner of First Avenue and Eleventh Street) at the far end of the elliptical driveway in front. There is limited parking in the lot in front of the entrance with more parking on the street.

(Dialogue Group 0703 - 50) 

I am glad to be back with the dialogue group after several weeks away. The First Presbyterian/One Columbus dialogue group held its 50th meeting on Tuesday, October 7. After a review of the past several weeks' discussions, the Kenneth Walker case was brought up once again. This time, however, the case of Coach Wallace Davis was presented and another case of police enforcement gone wrong. While no serious consequences for Coach Davis resulted from the improper arrest and detainment, the concern about inappropriate police action was again expressed. This brief discussion provided a segue into a discussion of what we expect of our police.

The immediate response from the participants was that we expect protection from them. A lengthy discussion of what kind of protection followed. One of the group suggested that protection is not the main expectation from the police; rather equal enforcement of the law--any law--is the primary expectation. The conversation gradually transitioned into the question of "from whom or from what do we want protection?" The major concern expressed by the group seemed to revolve around violent crime rather than so-called "white collar" crime. The participants insisted that they want protection from violent crime and that they do not identify any particular group of persons as more likely to commit crime. Recognizing that this may indeed be true with this group, we made an effort to move to a broader level and to identify the dominant culture's tendency.

Once the discussion reached this level, the group admitted that all other things being equal, the dominant culture tends to focus on the black community as more likely to be engaged in violent crime than the white community. This tendency seems to be also reflected in the police arrest record. The group also felt that a black person accused of crime was more likely to be incarcerated for the crime that a white person accused of the same crime. When the reasons for this perception were examined, one participant suggested that there were perhaps two reasons. One is the exercise of power. The dominant group with power tends to exercise it with regard to those who are not in power. The second element is fear. The dominant group is afraid of those not in its group. Another reason surfaced to the effect that police training is paramount and lack of training may be at the basis of any discriminatory treatment by police.

It became evident to the participants that there was a need for additional information to determine whether there is a basis in fact to the view that the police are easier on members of the dominant social group or more precisely if the crime rate is larger among members of the non-white community. We agreed to do some research on that topic for the next meeting. Additionally, someone broached to opinion that members of the dominant group tend to be more afraid of non-whites that they are of members of their own group. That is where the discussion ended for this meeting. We will take up at the point where we left off at the next meeting which is scheduled for Tuesday evening, October 14, at 6:30.

We invite anyone in the community who is interested in sharing in our experience to join us at the next meeting of the group. The Dialogue Group meets in the First Presbyterian Museum (the room directly across the large foyer area as you enter the building), located on First Avenue, immediately to the north of the main church (which is on the corner of First Avenue and Eleventh Street) at the far end of the elliptical driveway in front. There is limited parking in the lot in front of the entrance with more parking on the street.

(Dialogue Group 0703 - 46) 

On Tuesday, September 9, the facilitator began the meeting with a brief review of the topics of dialogue that have occupied the group over the last several weeks. Successively we have talked about our impressions of the CNN special "Black in America" series and the reactions which we experienced. Subsequently the focus turned to the Walker settlement and our varied responses to the fairness/adequacy of that action by the city. Last week the dialogue group began its discussion by attending to the presence of anger or bitterness in the discussions of the dialogue group. After a brief sharing of opinions on that matter, the remainder of the meeting was taken up with the voting process and the use of electronic voting machines which cannot produce a "paper trail" record of individual votes.

At this week's meeting the facilitator raised his view that the dialogue relating to anger/bitterness raised last week remained incomplete and had left the subject hanging. Again there was general agreement that anger or other similar feelings can be productive and can help advance the dialogue toward greater understanding. A clarification was added that the bitterness that had been expressed within the group seemed to be directed by blacks toward the negative attitudes which they have often experienced from whites. In the discussion that followed, several participants felt that, even though it might be difficult both to express and to hear such feelings, the expression of anger or bitter feelings was a reflection of the openness that has been built up within the dialogue group and of the safety that persons have felt to express such feelings. All participants believed that this development was positive and has allowed the group to move closer to its objective of developing mutual understanding of the points of view of persons of diverse background and has enabled the hope that increased understanding would lead to greater compassion and acceptance of each other's experience.

Out of the discussion on feelings of anger or bitterness, one participant broached for the first time in our dialogue the matter of white guilt as a key to understanding at a deeper level the relationship between the races. It was suggested that perhaps this guilt rises out of the institution of white privilege where whites benefit in myriad ways, many of which are not based on merit but merely on the fact of being white. Several whites acknowledged that they had so benefited. Such privilege is more or less taken for granted by many whites and has been reflected in the structures of the dominant (white) culture. While some progress has been made by individual blacks or individual whites, at least one person felt that such progress is at the surface level only and at a deeper level that race relations have really not progressed significantly at the structural level. Many of the structures of racism are still with us more or less unabated, particularly as reflected in housing patterns, economic conditions, including poverty, employment opportunity, education inequalities and patterns of incarceration .

There seems to be much more that can be shared on this topic; but, unfortunately, time ran out at this point.

We invite anyone in the community who is interested in sharing in our experience to join us at the next meeting of the group on September 16. The Dialogue Group meets in the Museum (the room directly across the large foyer area as you enter the building), located on First Avenue, immediately to the north of the main church (which is on the corner of First Avenue and Eleventh Street) at the far end of a elliptical driveway. There is limited parking in the lot in front of the entrance with more parking on the street.

While I am out for the next three weeks, please contact Ken Crooks at 706-315-0162 for additional information.

(Dialogue Group 0703 - 45) 

On Tuesday, September 2, the dialogue group began its discussion by focusing on the role of anger in the discussions of the dialogue group--constructive or not? One person observed that it was not so much anger but bitterness that was the point of the last week's observation. It was not clear to the group what difference that made as many understood that anger was the feeling at issue. In the short discussion on the topic which followed the view was expressed that, when anger is present, it should be expressed but without violence. Honesty requires that. Several participants understood that, in the case of the history of black Americans, we can understand why they would have experienced many things which would inevitably lead to feelings of anger, whether expressed or not.

The next topic that was brought up by a first-time participant was the responsibility of black Americans not to use racism as an excuse not to take responsibility for themselves. There was a short review of the group's past discussions on the topic of racism and its effects within American culture. Once again the issue of what to do about it came up, and someone asked if this dialogue group could take positions on issues of importance to us. It was explained that dialogue groups have mutual understanding of the points of view persons of diverse background with the hope that increased understanding would lead to greater compassion and acceptance of each other's experience. That itself should lead to increased respect for the other and gradual dissolution of racism. Others felt that in the absence of action racism will always be with us as a society even if some individuals overcome differences and see others as human beings with as much dignity as they have.

Finally the discussion turned to talking about the voting process and the fact that the voting machines used in Georgia cannot produce a "paper trail" and thus are subject to manipulation. There was evidence of vote tampering in the last two elections and the matter has not been resolved since a recount is not possible with no record of the individual vote. There was some fear that this could work against Obama. Our election expert acknowledged that no paper trail is created with the machines used in Georgia, but that is a matter for the State legislature which has prescribed the machines to be used in the state. Electronic voting machines were put in place to avoid the "falling chad" problem in the Florida presidential vote of 2000. But it may have created another problem as bad as the one meant to be solved because of the inability of the machines to create a mechanism for recount of disputed votes.

Although there was considerable interest in this issue, there is really nothing that can be done about that for this election. It was proposed that the group go back to its discussion of our personal reactions to the "Black in America" documentary run by CNN.

We invite anyone in the community who is interested in sharing in our experience to join us at the next meeting of the group on September 9. The Dialogue Group meets in the Museum (the room directly across the large foyer area as you enter the building), located on First Avenue, immediately to the north of the main church (which is on the corner of First Avenue and Eleventh Street) at the far end of a elliptical driveway. There is limited parking in the lot in front of the entrance with more parking on the street. If you need additional information or directions, please contact me.

(Dialogue Group 0703 - 44) 

On Tuesday, August 26, the dialogue group held its third discussion centered on issues arising out of the Kenny Walker case. At last Tuesday's meeting two main issues arose out of our dialogue: (1) that the monetary settlement was viewed by many in the white community as a resolution of the issue while the black community generally did not agree; and (2) that the underlying problems had still not been addressed satisfactorily. The main concerns related to the latter issue are that, although some additional training of the police and deputies has taken place, there remains a lack of confidence, particularly among black citizens, in the integrity of the law enforcement process, especially as it relates to the police treatment of black citizens. Secondly, there is a deep feeling among many of the participants that the grand jury process is flawed, resulting in a belief that justice is unlikely to result, particularly when a white officer and a black victim are involved.

Both of these concerns became the topic of discussion in the August 26 dialogue. Almost universally the black participants agreed that the amount of the settlement was very small compared to other settlements that they have heard of which have run into the millions. The discussion\, however, did not focus on that issue. Rather the two concerns noted in (2) above occupied the attention of the group. There was expressed a deep and enduring fear of the police and profound resentment with the manner in which black citizens feel that they are treated by the police. They are often stopped for what they believe is no good reason and during the process are not treated with respect. In fact, they feel that they are treated as criminals and frequently not given a chance to say anything in their own defense.

The discussion turned to talking about the grand jury process and the control over it exercised by the prosecutor. The grand jury does not perform its own investigations but is limited to the evidence which the prosecutor presents to it. The issue of the Public Safety Advisory Board/Review Board came up for much discussion. That led to ideas as to how white citizens can support black citizens in their efforts to address perceived injustices. The meeting ended with an observation by one participant that there was a lot of anger in the group which seemed to make the person feel uncomfortable. The next meeting will begin with a discussion of the role of anger in the discussions of the dialogue group--constructive or not?

We invite anyone in the community who is interested in sharing in our experience to join us at the next meeting of the group on September 2. The Dialogue Group meets in the Museum (the room directly across the large foyer area as you enter the building), located on First Avenue, immediately to the north of the main church (which is on the corner of First Avenue and Eleventh Street) at the far end of a elliptical driveway. There is limited parking in the lot in front of the entrance with more parking on the street. If you need additional information or directions, please contact me.

(Dialogue Group 0703 - 43) 

On Tuesday, August 19, the dialogue group held its second discussion on the topic of the Kenny Walker case. There is no summary for the first of these two discussions (August 14). At last Tuesday's meeting two main issues arose out of our dialogue. Some felt that the monetary settlement was a step in the right direction and indicated the willingness of the city and its business leaders to get the issue behind them. On the other hand several participants expressed a fear that the underlying problems had not been addressed satisfactorily. Although some additional training of the police and deputies has taken place, there remains considerable concern that, if similar circumstances arose again, another incident like the Walker case might happen again. There is still, in other words, a lack of confidence in the law enforcement process in the city. Many feel that it is biased against the African-American community.

A second concern expressed was a belief that the grand jury hearing was flawed because all relevant voices had not been heard. This resulted in a feeling of lack of trust that justice had been achieved during the grand jury process. There was a belief that, if the roles had been reversed and the victim had been white, the grand jury might have resulted in a different finding. So, not only is there a lack of confidence in the law enforcement process and its ability to handle a black suspect appropriately, there is a parallel distrust of the judicial system's commitment to assess a situation involving a white officer and a black victim adequately. Both of these concerns left the issue still unresolved in the minds of some of the participants.

We invite anyone in the community who is interested in sharing in our experience to join us at the next meeting of the group on August 26. The Dialogue Group meets in the Museum (the room directly across the large foyer area as you enter the building), located on First Avenue, immediately to the north of the main church (which is on the corner of First Avenue and Eleventh Street) at the far end of a elliptical driveway. There is limited parking in the lot in front of the entrance with more parking on the street. If you need additional information or directions, please contact me.

(Dialogue Group 0703 - 41) 

Last dialogue we continued with our discussion based on the CNN documentary on "Black in America." We had a smaller group this week but a very animated discussion. The topic for this week, as you may recall, was the reasons for the over-representation of African-Americans, especially young black males, in our prison system. In preparation for this discussion I had sent out some statistics which reflected some of the numbers. The discussion began with a presentation on the history of black people in America, beginning with slavery and progressing through until today. There was a particular focus on the history of blacks in Columbus, particularly on how things have changed as the black population in and around Columbus has gradually become more urban. Notice was taken that more blacks than whites seem to be arrested; and, of those arrested few blacks can pay bond and thus remain in jail while awaiting trial. One participant observed that it is easier for a judge to sentence someone to prison for a crime if he is already in jail. Several persons observed that the way the prison system works is complicated, and there are no simple explanations for why the numbers are what they are. Some discussion was then held on what can be done to remedy this situation. Education was immediately suggested as an important step. The more educated a person is, the less likely he is to end up in jail. Others then talked about the disincentives for young black men to stay in school. Another suggestion was that whites could become more involved in criminal justice proceedings.

Once again, the observation was put forward that a big disappointment with the CNN series was the almost total focus on the successes of those blacks who have made it and on the mistakes that unsuccessful blacks had made when they were younger. Some were able to escape their background and others were not. But the documentary placed little or no responsibility on what white America can or should do to address this problem. The burden seemed to fall primarily on the shoulders of the black American--to succeed by being smart or to fail as a result of the mistakes made. What seemed remarkable that the blacks seem to have bought into that analysis. The answer to the question that was raised last meeting concerning the documentary's exposition of the disproportionate number of young black men in prison is still incomplete. We will begin next week's dialogue with that question.

As a reminder, we will continue our dialogue group meeting on August 14, next THURSDAY evening, at 6:30. This will be the last time we meet on Thursday. Beginning the following week we will resume our regular meetings on Tuesdays. So the meeting for the week after next will be on Tuesday, August 19, at the same time and place.

We extend a cordial invitation to anyone interested in sharing in our experiment to join us at the next meeting of the group on August 7. The Dialogue Group meets in the Museum (the room directly across the large foyer area as you enter the building), located on First Avenue, immediately to the north of the main church (which is on the corner of First Avenue and Eleventh Street) at the far end of a elliptical driveway. There is limited parking in the lot in front of the entrance with more parking on the street. If you need additional information, please contact me.

(Dialogue Group 0703 - 39) 

At our last meeting we began our discussion of the CNN documentary on "Black in America." We had about fifteen participants, almost all of whom had viewed the documentary. The purpose of the discussion was to share our feelings in response to the film. We began with several of our African-American participants describing what they felt the message of the series was and noting that they felt somewhat sad or perhaps even overwhelmed by what Black folks, especially young black men are doing to themselves. At the same time they also related some experiences of their own where they have felt some of the same discrimination that those interviewed in the documentary had gone through. The common experience seemed to be that there are still far too many examples of the continuing existence of racism in the lives of black Americans. The white participants could identify to some degree with these experiences and how it must have felt, although no whites had had similar experiences. Before coming to this dialogue session, the whites who spoke up seemed to have felt that the series was a good report on the present situation of black Americans, even those who have "made it" and on those who still have a ways to go.

The final discussion centered around the fact that the documentary spoke very little about white privilege and laid no responsibility on white Americans to do anything about the current circumstances of blacks in America. The documentary seemed to focus entirely on what blacks needed to do. Just before closing for the evening the question was raised concerning the documentary's exposition of the disproportionate number of young black men in prison. Following some discussion we ended with the question of why this is. We will begin next week's dialogue with that question.

As a reminder, we will continue our dialogue group meetings on THURSDAY evening, at 6:30. We extend a cordial invitation to anyone interested in sharing in our experiment to join us at the next meeting of the group on August 7. The Dialogue Group meets in the Museum (the room directly across the large foyer area as you enter the building), located on First Avenue, immediately to the north of the main church (which is on the corner of First Avenue and Eleventh Street) at the far end of a elliptical driveway. There is limited parking in the lot in front of the entrance with more parking on the street. If you need additional information, please contact me.

(Dialogue Group 0703 - 37) 

The First Presbyterian dialogue group (Dialogue Group 0703) continued its discussion on the differences between individuals who described racially-related experiences in their lives. There were three new participants in attendance. The meeting again opened with a brief summary of the last several weeks discussion. One of the participants shared a very moving incident involving sexism compounded by racism. The other participants joined in the dialogue with compassion and respect. Both white and black participants shared additional race-related stories of their own. Several persons raised the issue that the group would like to hear more about the experiences of the white participants. The dialogue continued in private after the meeting ended. A trusting community seems to be developing which even includes those who are relative newcomers to the dialogue. Participants seem to be picking up the spirit of compassionate listening from those who have been with the group for longer. Hopefully all of us who participate will continue to learn of the ways in which racism shows itself even in our time. It is encouraging that people are gradually doing the hard work of moving into personal reflection on the meaning of these shared experiences, not only for the ones relating them but also for those hearing them.

As a reminder, to accommodate the summer schedule of the First Presbyterian Church, we are continuing our dialogue group meetings on THURSDAYS, at 6:30. We extend a cordial invitation to anyone interested in sharing in our experiment to join us at the next meeting of the group on Thursday, July 17. The Dialogue Group meets in the Museum (the room directly across the large foyer area as you enter the building), located on First Avenue, immediately to the north of the main church (which is on the corner of First Avenue and Eleventh Street) at the far end of a elliptical driveway. There is limited parking in the lot in front of the entrance with more parking on the street. If you need additional information, please contact me.

(Dialogue Group 0703 - 35) 

The First Presbyterian dialogue group (Dialogue Group 0703-35) continued its animated discussion on the differences between the black (non-white) and white experiences in America once again last Tuesday evening. The meeting began a little around 6:40 and included several new persons. The meeting opened with a summary of the last several weeks discussion on understanding black liberation theology and, subsequently, raising the issue of white privilege. The dialogue then moved on sharing experiences involving race and the impact that it made of those of us who had these experiences. Compassionate listening and respect for what persons decided to share were the keynotes of the dialogue. Both white and black participants shared some of the stories of their own encounters with racism. Questions from the group followed each presentation. All in all the discussion was a good beginning of what is likely to be a very emotional sharing experience. Hopefully all of us who participate will learn something about how others have experienced the effects of racism or the absence of effects within their own lives.

As the short summary above indicates, the dialogue group continues to probe more deeply into each of our own personal reflections as we examine the differences arising out of our diverse worldviews. This is a subject which ought to be of interest to everyone in our community. Our discussion on next Tuesday evening will continue this dialogue. I would again suggest that each of us spend a little time exploring this topic and be prepared to share our findings as well as our personal feelings on the topic.

To accommodate the summer schedule of the First Presbyterian Church, we are going to move our dialogue group meetings to THURSDAY, beginning next week and continuing into August when school reopens. Once again, I extend a cordial invitation to anyone interested in understanding others and our diverse histories or those who have information to contribute to join us at the next meeting of the group on Thursday, July 10, at the First Presbyterian Church. The Dialogue Group meets in the Museum (the room directly across the large foyer area as you enter the building) located on First Avenue, immediately to the north of the main church (which is on the corner of First Avenue and Eleventh Street) at the far end of a circular driveway. There is limited parking in the parking lot in front of the entrance with more parking on the street. If you need additional information, please contact me.

(Dialogue Group 0703 - 34) 

The First Presbyterian dialogue group (Dialogue Group 0703 - 34) opened with a dialogue centering on what was our first experience with race. The white participants responded first, followed by a non-white response to the white observations. Then, in turn the non-white participants responded to the same question. There was a clear difference between the responses of the two groups. Most whites stated that their first experiences with race were with black servants. In contrast, while some of the non-white responses referred to their first experience with race was their recognition of the servant relationship of their parents to whites. Others told of experiences which they had had as blacks where they felt discriminated against or worse. Oddly enough, neither whites nor non-whites identified their experience with race in terms of their own self-experience. At the end of the discussion, the group came face to face with the need for each participant (when they are ready to do so) to share his or her race-related experiences with the others. Only in that way will we be able to "walk in the other's shoes." That is the point at which we agreed to begin our next meeting.

We all understand that this will be a challenge. For that reason, the sharing will be completely voluntary.

Once again, I extend a cordial invitation to anyone interested in understanding each other and our diverse histories to join us at the next meeting of the group at 6:30 pm on Tuesday, July 1, at the First Presbyterian Church. The Dialogue Group meets in the Museum (the room directly across the large foyer area as you enter the building) located on First Avenue, immediately to the north of the main church (which is on the corner of First Avenue and Eleventh Street) at the far end of a circular driveway. There is limited parking in the parking lot in front of the entrance with more parking on the street. If you need additional information, please contact me.

 (Dialogue Group 0703 - 24) 

The First Presbyterian dialogue group (Dialogue Group 0703 - 24) continued its vigorous discussion once again last Tuesday evening. The meeting began a little after 6:30 and included two new persons. The group opened with a couple of participants urging the group to begin thinking about moving into action. Several commenters opined that dialogue is itself an action--an action to more deeply understand each other and the experiences which we have had during our lifetimes and thus grow in compassion. One of the new participants reviewed her experience growing up and noted that, until recently, she had really not understood the pain of growing up black in America. She has started reflecting on the slavery experience, the aftermath of the civil war, the civil rights struggle, and the impact which all of that must have had on non-white Americans. Another participant noted that America is a society based on white supremacy, which was the primary message of Dr. Wright in his sermons and speeches. The Asian perspective on being in America was briefly discussed as well.

As the short summary above indicates, the dialogue group continues to probe deeply into the very personal impacts of our diverse world. This is a subject which ought to be of interest to everyone in our community. Our topic next Tuesday will be whether ours is in fact a society based on white supremacy. I would suggest that each of us spend a little time exploring this topic and be prepared to share your findings as well as your personal feelings on the topic.

Once again, I extend a cordial invitation to anyone interested in understanding each other and our diverse histories or those who have information to contribute to join us at the next meeting of the group on Tuesday, June 3, at the First Presbyterian Church. The Dialogue Group meets in the Museum (the room directly across the large foyer area as you enter the building) located on First Avenue, immediately to the north of the main church (which is on the corner of First Avenue and Eleventh Street) at the far end of a circular driveway. There is limited parking in the parking lot in front of the entrance with more parking on the street. If you need additional information, please contact me.

p.s. Please forgive me if you receive duplicate copies of this e-mail. If there are any errors or corrections needed, please let me know by return e-mail. Thanks.

2007

Notes from the 2007 series of Dialogue Groups

 (Dialogue Group 0703 - 4) 

We had another good session at our fourth session of the dialogue group meeting at First Presbyterian Church.

Here is a brief summary of the highlights of the meeting. The session began with a brief wrap-up of the Jena 6 discussion of last week. We then turned to a letter to the editor in the Ledger which asserted a "right to hate." A lively discussion of that letter and what it might mean ensued and led to the question as to whether we whites really understand or even notice what a person of color experiences in day to day life. Several of the participants shared experiences which they had had relating to school, shopping and when they had been stopped by the police. Again considerable progress was made in understanding what the non-white experience was, specifically the black experience.

At one point the question was raised as to what we can actually do about this situation of unequal treatment of persons of color. We had a brief discussion of that question. It turned out that the suggestions were general in nature and the group determined that perhaps it is necessary to get a deeper understanding about what one participant identified as "leaving my house each morning as male and black" to get a better idea about what action we personally can take.

The group will meet for the fifth time to continue our discussion of the topic of race related issues in present day Columbus. I hope that you will be able to come and join us for the discussion. We meet at 6:30 in what I will call the fellowship building immediately adjacent to the Church on the north side. Enter from First Avenue, northbound side. There is plenty of parking on First Avenue and limited parking in the small lot in front of the entrance to the fellowship building.

 (Dialogue Group 0703 - 3) 

At the last meeting of the dialogue group we discussed the directions and format for future meetings. The group seemed inclined to study further the impact of racism on American culture and specifically on the attitudes and experiences of us as Columbus residents. One of the values that we wanted to preserve is the group's ability and willingness to share our personal stories, many of which have been profoundly moving. To that end the proposal was made to combine our study with our personal experiences by having each one of the participants take a turn leading the group discussion and joining his/her area of interest or study with the personal dimension of why and how that area of interest or study has affected his/her outlook.

We will not meet during Advent and the Christmas holidays. Our next meeting will be on January 8 at the same time and place, i.e., at the First Presbyterian meeting hall at 6:30pm. For additional information, please contact me or Frazer Loomis (at floomis@synovustrust.com or by phone at (706) 644-8951).

 (Dialogue Group 0703 - 2) 

The last meeting of the dialogue group was a discussion of where we will go from here. The participants have decided to remain together as a permanent dialogue group and, consequently, needed to determine the direction in which the group will go in the future. We discussed several possibilities. The goal of the group is to continue to learn more about the differences among us and to cherish those differences. To do that will require our continued exploration of our differences and what they mean; how we experience our differences; and what actions we might engage in to overcome our prejudices. The group felt that by sharing our personal stories we are enabled to experience how others feel and thus develop both a deeper understanding as to where we are in our diversity and greater compassion for others.

Among the possibilities we explored were the following:

1. We could read and discuss relevant books to learn more about racial attitudes 2. We could invite persons in the community to come in and discuss race-related issues with us 3. We could focus on such issues that appear in current articles that appear on the internet or in print 4. We could obtain, watch and discuss pertinent videos 5. We could conduct group visitations to schools, churches, civic or political organizations or other institutions.

None of these are mutually exclusive and the group may wish to implement several or even all of these possibilities.

The next meeting of the dialogue group will be at First Presbyterian on Tuesday, November 27, after a Thanksgiving holiday. We are extending a welcome to all of you and any others whom you may wish to invite. If you wish to come and join us, come to First Presbyterian Church on First Avenue between 12th and 11th. Enter the small cul-de-sac just to the north of the church (the 12th street side). There is limited parking there (otherwise you can use the street for parking). We meet at 6:30 pm and go for an hour. Hope to see you there.

2006

Notes from the 2006 series of Dialogue Groups

Dialogue Group 0601

St Luke's United Methodist Church

Facilitator- Berrien Zettler

• Session 1- "Se Habla Espanol? Learning to Relate to the Hispanic Community."

• Session 2 Notes

• NotesDG0601-3.doc

• Session 4 Notes

• Session 5 Notes

• Click here to view a photo from DG 0601

Dialogue Group 0602

St. Mary’s Building

Facilitator- Steve Chittum

Session1 Notes

Session 2 Notes

Session 3 Notes

Dialogue Group 0603

St. James AME Church

Darlene J. Porter, Facilitator

Session 1 Notes

Ongoing

Dialogue Group 1

Ruth Ann’s- Ongoing

Click here for information

Facilitator- Lee Brantley

Every 2nd and 4th Wednesday, 7:30 am.

$5  donation requested.

Dialogue Group 3

Barbers & Friends- Ongoing

Facilitator- Willie Coleman

2005

Notes from the 2005 series of Dialogue Groups

Dialogue Group 0501

Ruth Ann’s- Ongoing

Click here for information

Facilitator- Lee Brantley

DG0501 (Race Relations Breakfast)

Dialogue Group 0502

House of Mercy- August

Facilitator- Steve Chittum

DG0502 Comments

Dialogue Group 0503

Barbers & Friends- Ongoing

Facilitator- Willie Coleman *

*Board liaison

Dialogue Group 0504

 St Francis Hospital- September

Facilitator- Ed Booth

• Session 1 Sept 13th
• Session 2 Sept 20th
• Session 3 Sept 28th
• Session 4 Sept 30th
• Session 5 Oct 4th
• Session 6 (Follow-up) Nov 11th

Dialogue Group 0505

Columbus Library- July

Facilitator- Ken Crooks

• DG0505-01
• DG0505 2

• Session 3 Aug 22nd  

• DG0505 4

• DG0505 5

Dialogue Group 0506

East Highland United Methodist Church- November

Facilitator- Berrien Zettler