Lakefront Decision

May 19, 1968
Plainfield

Lakefront Decision

Some of you may groan audibly or silently because I am devoting this sermon to the Black Affairs Council of the Unitarian Universalist Association (U.U.A.). Some may feel they have heard enough already about Black Power, the President's Commission on Civil Disorders and the prospects before us, but the delegates to the U.U.A. meetings next week in Cleveland will find the issues so intense and difficult that they may face tough tests of conscience and principle in choosing where to vote "aye" and where to vote "no." Furthermore, here at home you will read news releases which may represent neither full facts nor undistorted opinion or may simple be utterly inadequate reporting.

There will be many issues at Cleveland but the most crucial will be whether or not to recognize the Black Affairs Council (B.A.C.), and if recognized, how it will be financed. The considerations involved are formidable issues within our Unitarian Universalist family. In addition, the debate and decisions are symbolic of the crisis in Black and White which so thoroughly penetrates all levels of American society. In Cleveland there will be sharp differences among delegates. These differences will not represent a division of the concerned versus the unconcerned. Opponents will be equally concerned, but divided on such central principles as the application of the historic decision-making process of the U.U.A.; and whether or not Black separatism should be accepted and approved as a present necessity.

The best factual reporting on this whole matter of a Black Affairs Council is contained in THE BRIDGE, Summer issue, 1966. Those who have studied that article may find my remarks repetitious. In this talk, I'll review the history and attempt to state the issues and changing attitudes toward the issues, and give my own present views.

In reviewing the history, first there is a preface; then there is the development of the Black Caucus, which led to the Black Steering Committee and the proposed B.A.C. In addition, there are the policies of the U.U.A. Board, policies which have been somewhat fluid. A U.U.A. Board meeting scheduled just prior to the Cleveland meetings may result in modified policies on the part of the Board.

The preface is twofold: Black rebellions in the U.S. Black people discovered that Supreme Court decisions (anniversary of Brown) and civil rights legislation did not create social change quickly enough; rising expectations were woefully short-changed; they have realized that the dominant White culture would not act promptly in the fields of employment, housing, police relations, education, and governmental service. Overarching all of these was the rightful feeling that their human dignity was either
ignored or violated.

Out of this social ferment came disorder in the cities, aptly summarized in the President's Commission on Civil Disorders: "White racism is essentially responsible for the explosive mixture which has been accumulating in our cities since the end of WWII .... Race prejudice has shaped our history decisively; it now threatens to affect our future."

Another social consequence was the emergence of Black Power. Black Power is the effort of many Black people to achieve self-determination, to meet their own needs themselves, to recognize and be proud of their Black identity and traditions. They seek political power to achieve change because they simply do not believe Whites care enough to make the effort required to produce an equal opportunity society.

It is out of this scene that we can narrow the focus to specific events in our Unitarian Universalist movement.

Out of the Summer disorders came the call of the U.U.A. Department of Social Responsibility for an "Emergency Conference on the Unitarian Universalist Response to the Black Rebellion," held in October last year in New York. Several members of our Society attended all or some of these sessions. We have discussed this Emergency Conference at length and a sentence or two should be a sufficient review.

About 37 Black Unitarian Universalists formed a Black Caucus under the leadership of a California group, BURR – Black Unitarian Universalists for Radical Reform. Most Black Unitarian Universalists attended a separate meeting limited to Blacks. Returning to the final sessions, the members of the Black Caucus presented a series of proposals. There was an insistence that these proposals be parsed without discussion and transmitted directly to the U.U.A. Board.

In November the Steering Committee elected by the Black Caucus met with the U.U.A. Board. But before presenting their proposals, the Black Steering Committee insisted that the U.U.A. Board commit itself in advance to saying "yes" that very day. This was discussed for two hours, with the majority of the U.U.A. Board declining to commit itself before hearing the proposals. The Black Steering Committee then did present its proposals: 1) To establish a Black Affairs Council instead of the Committee on Religion and Race, with Blacks in a clear majority. The Purpose of the B.A.C. would be to mobilize talents of Black and White Unitarian Universalists for service and action in the ghettos under Black leadership and control. It was proposed that the B.A.C. be financed by the U.U.A. at $250M per year for four years. The Board was also asked to encourage Black Caucuses in Unitarian Universalist churches and fellowships and to support other demands made in New York.

After much discussion, the U.U.A. Board passed a resolution which stated in effect that the problem can be solved only by "Blacks and Whites together" not by separatism, Black or White. The U.U.A. Board also voted to re-organize the Commission on Religion and Race with a substantial participation in the re-organization by the Steering Committee of the Black Caucus. This re-organized Commission on Religion and Race would be given the responsibility of carrying out the most important recommendations of the Emergency Conference in New York.

The Black Caucus was thoroughly and heatedly in disagreement with these findings by the U.U.A. Board, asked that churches withhold support of the U.U.A. and give instead to the Black Caucus Fund.

In late November the U.U.A. Committee on Religion and Race made a grant of $4,100 to the Black Caucus to help finance a continental meeting in February of the Black Caucus in Chicago.

In these Chicago meetings attended by about 200 Black Unitarian Universalists, the following positions were adopted: 1) That the U.U.A. General Assembly would be asked to commission the B.A.C. as an affiliate of the U.U.A. to replace the Committee on Religion and Race. This B.A.C. would have 6 Black and 3 Non-Black members. All members of the B.A.C. would be appointed by the Black Unitarian Universalist Caucus. Members of B.U.U.C. individual caucuses in churches and fellowships would be limited to Blacks, but membership in the Unitarian Universalist Church would not be required.

The B.A.C. would seek financing for its program at $250M per year for four years from the U.U.A., using capital funds if necessary.

The U.U.A. Board also has been dealing with the same issues. Following the Chicago meetings of the Black Unitarian Universalist Caucus, the B.A.C. was invited apply for affiliate or associate membership in the U.U.A. At the same time, the U.U.A. Board announced that the Committee for Action on Race would replace the Committee on Religion and Race. The members would be appointed by the U.U.A. Board but would include representation from the B.A.C., the Unitarian Universalist [Service] Committee and other appropriate associated or affiliated members of the U.U.A. This Committee would be financed by a fund to be called the Unitarian Universalist Fund for Racial Justice Now, with a goal of $300M; and would be an appeal to all Unitarian Universalist societies to impose on themselves an annual, per capita, voluntary assessment.

The forgoing represents the events that had occurred up to last Monday evening when four of your delegates attended a meeting in NYC planned to inform those who would be representing their Societies at Cleveland, beginning next Friday. We had known that the issues involved in the Black Caucus were difficult because contradictory principles are involved. We know now more than ever that the intensity of feeling is considerable and that the Cleveland meetings may bristle with passion on several sides of several issues.

We were reminded of the existence now of two alphabetical organizations: FULLBAC and BAWA. FULLBAC stands for Full Recognition and Funding of the Black Affairs Council and is comprised of White Unitarian Universalists who support the Black Caucus. FULLBAC’s purpose is to recruit support and votes for recognition of the B.A.C. as an independent, continuing agency of Unitarian Universalists. Furthermore, that recognition or membership is not enough, adequate financing must be made available by the U.U.A. There is an impressive list of ministers and laymen supporting FULLBAC. They believe that to recognize Black leadership, named and controlled by the B.A.C. is a necessary step in a long-range goal of an "inclusive, effective U.U.A." In essence FULLBAC believes the demands made by the Black Caucus are just, proper, and must be adopted or the U.U.A. will have flunked its most important test in its history.

In strong opposition both to the Black Caucus and its supporters is a newer organization, BAWA - Unitarian Universalists for a Black and White Alternative. Dr. Donald Harrington, nationally-famous minister of Community Church is co-chairman of BAWA. A recent statement of his outlines the reasons why BAWA opposes the recognition and financing of the Black Caucus:

1) Because UU should maintain the "principle of an inclusive community of mankind, undivided by considerations of race, color, creed or class. Therefore, because the Black Caucus is a racially segregated organization it will impede progress toward the achievement of the goal of an inclusive community of mankind.

2) BAWA questions whether the Black Caucus has demonstrated that it speaks for most Unitarian Universalists, that such claims by a few individuals undermine the democratic process.

3) That the proposed proportion in the B.A.C. of 2/3 Black and 1/3 White represents a quotaed arrangement which should not be acceptable by a church which has outlawed segregation.

4) That the demand of the Black Caucus for large sums of money for un-designated programs is bad financial practice and an unrealistic demand to be treated as no other Unitarian Universalist denominational organ has ever been treated.

BAWA outlines a number of specific programs that are commendable, although the main point at the moment is the development of this organized effort of an integrated group to oppose the recognition and financing of the B.A.C.

The recommendations made by the U.U.A. Board are unacceptable to the Black Caucus. They believe even a re-organized Committee for Racial Justice Now will not do because power will still reside in the U.U.A. which would make the appointments and allocate the money. By the Black Caucus view this is paternalism and offensive. The B.A.C. insists on full control of organization or Committee which will plan programs and action in the ghettos and other areas involving the issues of the struggle for equality and power in this country.

As a ministerial delegate to Cleveland, I am planning to keep my options open. But my present views are these:

I, too, believe in the overall goal, or strategy, of an inclusive religious body with no walls between us of caste or color. As a tactic however, given the circumstances of our time, I support the Black Caucus in urging the recognition of the B.A.C. as an affiliate or auxiliary organization of the U.U.A. The status of the B.A.C. would be that of the U.U.W.F. and the Laymen's League. I also believe the Black Caucus should have full power to make the appointments to the B.A.C.

Given the state of our feeble efforts in this country to make equality real, we need to adopt all varieties of innovative steps to try to break through the vicious circle of discrimination and inequality in education, housing, employment, governmental service and other sore areas. The B.A.C. should have the recognized organizational base to lead the U.U.A. and its churches and fellowships in programs and actions that may make some positive differences.

We who are White simply do not understand either the ghastly neglect of rights or the callous indifference to human suffering that prevails so widely. Just the other day, an attorney from Mississippi told an audience that she was sick of watching people starve in that State; no longer able to tolerate such facts as that 65% to 75% of the children registered in a Head Start Program were suffering from anemia due to malnutrition; that 78% of the Black people of that State lived below the poverty level; and that unemployment has reached epidemic proportions due to the large scale mechanization of farms ending jobs for thousands.

I believe we should encourage the Black Caucus to exert leadership; to prize their identify as Black People; to applaud their commendable evaluation that Black is beautiful. This identity and self-determination is a present tactic which may in the long run create a more significant authentic inclusiveness and sharing than we have ever experienced or even glimpsed in our dreams of human brotherhood.

One aspect of Black Caucus demands I cannot vote for without qualifications. This is the demand for $250M per year for four years. One agenda item at Cleveland calls for $150M to be turned over to the B.A.C. by July 1, 1968. My reluctance to endorse this demand is based on two considerations. First of all, the amount of free capital funds in the possession of the U.U.A. is so limited that, almost every other operation would have to be drastically limited, many programs terminated. The U.U.A. has been going through the agonies of strenuous budget-cutting in order to end deficit budgets. Perhaps the program of the Black Caucus is relevant, important and necessary to a degree that we should toss out most other programs we have believed necessary. But such a decision would have to be based, in my view, on a knowledge of what the alternatives are. So far the Black Caucus has given little indication of what programs would be financed by this $250M per year. Their case is that one, we should show our confidence in their judgment by allocating millions [of] dollars with no questions asked. Maybe it's a hang-up on my part, but I cannot function organizationally in this manner. Financial decisions using U.U.A. funds must be made on a judgment of the value of proposed programs. So I do not plan to vote for this aspect of the demands of the Black Caucus.

However, if we are asked to "bet on them" [the Black Caucus] by supplying substantial appropriations with no prior knowledge of how the appropriations were to be used, I could support following alternative:

Already fund-raising proposals are in preparation if the [General Assembly] should recognize the B.A.C. This will be a voluntary campaign, separate from the Annual Fund. I would presently favor turning the proceeds of this campaign over to the B.A.C. with no prior requirements to enable the development of programs. This would be understood by all who gave to the fund. At the end of a year, the B.A.C. would report on the ways it has used this voluntary money, and ask for continuing support on a program basis. This alternative would enable the B.A.C. to get its action priorities established and initial programs off the ground.

More than that, it would demonstrate the authentic concern of Unitarian Universalists in the churches and fellowships for the peaceful resolution of the crisis in Black and White. It would be a grass-roots expression more than action by delegates at Cleveland or votes by the U.U.A. Board, "whatever support resulted would be the proof of the feelings of Unitarian Universalists about the issues.

One closing point I believe essential: I've been disturbed by good people who say, "If the B.A.C. is not recognized and funded at Cleveland, I'm cutting off support and will quit the Unitarian Universalist movement. The executive director of the LL has already announced his speech in Cleveland as "Why I'm Leaving the Unitarian Universalist Denomination." Others are saying, I'll leave the Unitarian Universalist movement if the B.A.C. is recognized.

To me it is important to go on record that I'm not going to leave the movement, no matter what minority position I may find myself in. We engage in dialogue, debate, and decision-making. In Cleveland these will be sharp, probably hostile and the losers will be very much tempted to be sorely aggrieved and resentful and be tempted to walk out.

It is my hope that the B.A.C. will be recognized and that it will supply fresh leadership in these extremely critical times of rebellion. It is my hope that Unitarian Universalists will respond heartily with voluntary financial support. But no matter how the issues are resolved on the lakefront, the search for an adequate faith, the quest for effective action and the growth of deeper fellowship and friendship can best be pursued within the framework of the Unitarian Universalist religion.