GREENSBORO DAILY NEWS
(Second of a series)
p One of the premises of the Hum
Relations Commission's report on 1
aftermath of the November 3 violence
that groups of black and white citize
in Greensboro are not talking with o
another. This responsibility is laid at t
floor of city government which, the
port states, "should take a leaders
role in establishing meaningful dialogu
of unity between the races, the vario
arms of government and the local ci
zenry."
What specific topics that dialog
should entail the report does not sa
though it alludes to some problem
along the way. But it is true that the
has been an absence of outspoken leac
ership on the part of the community
imany civic, business, religious and ec
cational groups.
The assumption underlying this stat
ment is simple. While the confrontati
between extremist groups on Novemb
3, 1979, did not result from an earli
expression of grievances in this comm
nity, it did contribute to a polarizing o
views and a heightening of suspicions —
Often along racial lines — that already
existed in Greensboro. This mingling of!
real community issues with the aberrations of November 3 has made it harder
to talk about one set of problems without dragging in the other.
As always, community perceptions of
what happened are important. Some of
those perceptions are largely in the eyes
of the beholder. For example, city officials repeatedly portrayed the events of
November 3 as an alien imposition
Whose repetition must be prevented at
aJEcosts. These attitudes led to the now
much-publicized and widely-discredited
attempts to pass a restrictive city parade ordinance and to prevent use of the
coliseum by a coalition of leftist groups
on-February 2, 1980. The city's posture,
in other words, was defensive and reac-
The city's black leaders also deplored
the violence, but from a different-4ier:-
spective. They were disturbed that the
violence of November 3 occurred in
black neighborhood and in the absence
of proper police protection. The subsequent controversy over the parade ordinance and the coliseum rental only
fueled suspicions that city government,
at the least, was out of touch with black
community sentiment.
To be properly understood, these e-
sponses to the aftermath of Novembe 3
must also be seen in a broader histori al
perspective. In the early 1970s, Gree s-
boro was seen as a progressive comm
nity, .particularly for its smoo
handling of the difficult school busi
issue. But in recent years some of t le
leaders active during that era have s
fered from diminishing influence. T
current woes of the Greensboro Cha
ber of Commerce, which cannot deci<
how active a role it should take in c
affairs, are instructive.
Many people think a leadership vo
has developed, a void in which city vo
ers in the last year have rejected a re
erendum for a downtown conventi n
center and narrowly turned down
ward system for electing city council,
lack of agreement among leaders in go
ernment, the clergy, civic groups, t
business and educational communiti
on how to respond to these develo
ments — much less on how to react
the violence of November 3 — h
created a vacuum into which the adv
cates of extremism have nimbly stepp
with their programs of exploitation.
anyone has adapted quickly to the
flow of events, it is, ironically, the purveyors of discord and hatred. On several
occasions, the city has taken the bait.
Most recently, for example, city officials
have become ensnarled in a dispute over
the wording of a tombstone the Commu- J
nist Workers Party wants to erect on
the graves of its slain members in a
municipal cemetery.
Some of the community leadership's
reticence comes from a legitimate desire
not to influence the trial of Klan and
Nazi defendants. Some of it also stems
from an attitude of indifference, or mingled feelings of anger and frustration
that extremist violence had to be played
out here and not somewhere else. But
this is no longer the point. The violence
did occur here, and Greensboro has
been changed by it.
There is another reason for the rela- j
tive silence. The events of November 31
were frightening and traumatic, but
tney are hardly responsible for every-1
thing, good or bad, that has happeied in
Greensboro since. Yet there is a reluctance to respond to problems for fear
that it might be interpreted as making
false amends or apologies for what has
happened — as a reaction to events, not
a positive response to needs.
There is concern; for example, over
what community reaction might be to
the outcome of the Klan/Nazi trial. A
verdict is expected soon. It obviously
behooves the city to consider the possibility of trouble, consideration that can
— no, must — be made with no thought
of cavilling or appeasement.
This is no time for reticence. City
leaders, from the mayor on down,
should make a clear and vocal distinction between what happened on November 3 and what new initiatives might be
undertaken for the benefit of all Greensboro citizens. This means deploring the
violence and the views of extremist
groups in our midst. But it also means
setting a positive agenda of our own
which exists above and beyond the aftermath of November 3.
Instead of constantly reacting to issues that others have raised, the city
should raise issues to which others may
respond. This is not only sound strategy; it is good politics and good policy.
It's time to try it.
(Next: Unfinished business)
