The September 2018 issue of the Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences includes a 10-paper symposium from a range of social scientists concerning \”The Fiftieth Anniversary of the Kerner Commission Report.\” The introductory essay by Susan T. Gooden and Samuel L. Myers Jr., \”The Kerner Commission Report Fifty Years Later: Revisiting the American Dream\” (pp. 1–17) does an excellent job of setting the historical context and contemporary reactions to the report, along with offering some comparisons that I at least had not seen before about difference between rioting and non-rioting cities over over time.
The opening paragraph above is quoted from the Gooden/Myers paper. As they point out, perhaps the most commonly repeated comment from the report was that it baldly named white racism as an underlying cause of the problems. As one example, to quote from the Kerner report: “What white Americans have never fully understood—but what the Negro can never forget—is that white society is deeply implicated in the ghetto. White institutions created it, white institutions maintain it, and white society condones it.”
Although the report was widely disseminated, it was not popular. As Gooden and Myers report:
\”President Johnson was enormously displeased with the report, which in his view grossly ignored his Great Society efforts. The report also received considerable backlash from many whites and conservatives for its identification of attitudes and racism of whites as a cause of the riots. `So Johnson ignored the report. He refused to formally receive the publication in front of reporters. He didn’t talk about the Kerner Commission report when asked by the media,\’ and he refused to sign thank-you letters for the commissioners (Zelizer 2016, xxxii–xxxiii).\”
Other contemporary critics of the report complained that by emphasizing white racism, the report seemed to imply that changes in the beliefs of whites should be the main topic, while not paying attention to institutions and behaviors. Gooden and Myers cite a pungent comment from the American political scientist Michael Parenti, who wrote back in 1970:
\”The Kerner Report demands no changes in the way power and wealth are distributed among the classes; it never gets beyond its indictment of “white racism” to specify the forces in the political economy which brought the black man to riot; it treats the obviously abominable ghetto living conditions as “cause” of disturbance but never really inquires into the causes of the “causes,” viz., the ruthless enclosure of Southern sharecroppers by big corporate farming interests, the subsequent mistreatment of the black migrant by Northern rent-gorging landlords, price-gorging merchants, urban “redevelopers,” discriminating employers, insufficient schools, hospitals and welfare, brutal police, hostile political machines and state legislators, and finally the whole system of values, material interests and public power distributions from the state to the federal Capitols which gives greater priority to “haves” than to “have-nots,” servicing and subsidizing the bloated interests of private corporations while neglecting the often desperate needs of the municipalities. . . . . To treat the symptoms of social dislocation (e.g., slum conditions) as the causes of social ills is an inversion not peculiar to the Kerner Report. Unable or unwilling to pursue the implications of our own data, we tend to see the effects of a problem as the problem itself. The victims, rather than the victimizers, are defined as “the poverty problem.” It is a little like blaming the corpse for the murder.\”
Gooden and Myers point to another issue with the report that social scientists immediately point out. The members of the Kerner Commission made personal visits to cities that had experienced rioting, and made an effort to talk with people in the affected communities. But they made essentially no effort to visit cities that had not experienced riots. It\’s hard to draw inferences about the causes of riots without making some effort to look at what differs across rioting and non-rioting cities.
\”This evidence points to a possible flaw in the Kerner Commission’s report. Although the evidence clearly points to a divided America—a divide that continues today—the trajectories of the riot cities and the nonriot cities are remarkably similar. Thus, it is a bit more difficult to embrace the conclusion that this racial divide was the cause of the riots given that the racial divide was evident in both riot cities and nonriot cities and perhaps was even more pronounced in the nonriot cities than in the riot cities before the riots.\”
- \”The Kerner Commission Report Fifty Years Later: Revisiting the American Dream,\” by Susan T. Gooden and Samuel L. Myers, Jr.
- \”How Does It Feel to Be a Problem? The Missing Kerner Commission Report,\” by Keisha L. Bentley-Edwards, Malik Chaka Edwards, Cynthia Neal Spence, William A. Darity, Jr., Darrick Hamilton, and Jasson Perez
- \”From Bakke to Fisher: African American Students in U.S. Higher Education over Forty Years,\” by Walter R. Allen, Channel McLewis, Chantal Jones, and Daniel Harris
- \”Whither Whiteness? The Racial Logics of the Kerner Report and Modern White Space,\” by Matthew W. Hughey
- \”Measuring the Distance: The Legacy of the Kerner Report,\” by Rick Loessberg and John Koskinen
- \”Changes in the Policing of Civil Disorders Since the Kerner Report: The Police Response to Ferguson, August 2014, and Some Implications for the Twenty-First Century,\” by Patrick F. Gillham and Gary T. Marx
- \”The Effects of the Neighborhood Legal Services Program on Riots and the Wealth of African Americans,\” by Jamein P. Cunningham and Rob Gillezeau
- \”Fifty Years After the Kerner Commission Report: Place, Housing, and Racial Wealth Inequality in Los Angeles,\” by Melany De La Cruz-Viesca, Paul M. Ong, Andre Comandon, William A. Darity, Jr., Darrick Hamilton
- \”The Evolution of Black Neighborhoods Since Kerner,\” by Marcus D. Casey and Bradley L. Hardy
- \”Detroit Fifty Years After the Kerner Report: What Has Changed, What Has Not, and Why?\” by Reynolds Farley