TRC Report blogging analysis, part 4
The executive summary identifies seven sets of "key issues" surrounding the incident and its aftermath.
Violent language and provocation, pp. 13-14: The commission doesn't quite come out and say this, but the two sides seemed determined to goad one another into a fight. That said, it generally comes down more harshly on the Klan/Nazis, calling some of their words "immoral and demand[ing] public rebuke." It cites less extreme language from the WVO and calls that group's merely "troubling" although it is, particularly in the quote from demonstrator Paul Bermanzohn, no less eliminationist.
The commissioners emphasize, however, that because of the historical roles played by the Klan and Communists in the U.S., the intent and effect of the two groups' rhetoric were "inherently unequal." As I previously noted, unlike the Klan, Communists in this country do not have an established history of violence, although the commissioners cite the 1960s radicals the Weathermen as an exception. They add:
Founded specifically as an insurrectionist terrorist organization, the Klan has counted among its members many elected and law enforcement officials, including at least one U.S. president.
Group history aside, the two sets of individuals also had very different histories with respect to violence, the commissioners emphasized: Basically, the Klan and Nazis had such a history; the Communists did not.
Injustice in the justice system: I think that in the minds of many people, what took this incident from tragedy to travesty was the judicial outcome, particularly the state and federal criminal trials, both of which resulted in acquittals on all charges by all-white juries. As the commissioners observe:
We find one of the most unsettling legacies of the shootings is the disconnect between what seems to be a common-sense assessment of wrongdoing and verdicts in the two criminal trials. When people see the shootings with their own eyes in the video footage, then know that the trials led to acquittals, it undermines their confidence in the legal system. ...
... when the justice system fails to find people responsible when wrongs were committed, it sends a damaging signal that some crimes will not be punished, and some people will not be protected by the government. In addition, the majority of us believe that the system is not just randomly imperfect; rather, it tends to be disproportionately imperfect against people of color and poor people.
Commissioners call the jury selection process then in use "problematic" because it led to unrepresentative juries. In particular, poor people and minorities were underrepresented in jury pools, and at the time (and until 1986), it was legal to strike a potential juror just because of his race. In our stories last night and this morning, Mike Schlosser, then the Guilford County district attorney, acknowledged that the outcome might well have been different in the state capital-murder trial with a more representative jury.
The commissioners acknowledge that WVO/CWP members didn't cooperate with prosecutors during the state trial. But they point out that they cooperated with federal prosecutors, only to come up empty again.
Commissioners also emphasize that state prosecutors could have called other witnesses both to testify as to the facts of the shootings and to describe the victims as real people, human beings, rather than as faceless, stereotypical Communist protesters.
Moreover, commissioners point out, at the time of the first trial, some CWP members were reluctant to testify because they themselves faced rioting charges and were concerned about self-incrimination.
In the civil trial, a jury with one black member Greensboro police detective Jerry Cooper and Lt. Paul Spoon, commander of the parade coverage, liable with the white supremacists for one wrongful death among the five who were killed. The city paid roughly $400,000 to settle all claims, including those against Klan/Nazis -- why? That decision, commissioners note, "gave the appearance to many, rightly or wrongly, of the City's support for or alliance with the Klan and Nazis."
Yeah, when you're paying their bills, it's hard for people not to presume they're with you.
This section concludes with an explanation of the differences between the role of the courts and the role of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission in addressing wrongs. The two institutions are set up differently because they're intended to do different things.
Courts, for good reason, look at narrow issues, narrowly and technically, to answer narrow and specific questions of fact and law. Although each witness swears to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, such a full truth is far beyond the scope of a court proceeding.
Commissions such as this one, however, attempt to look at a broader range of facts and context, causes and consequences. The opportunity for retribution is one price a society might have to pay to get at the larger truth, although commissioners emphasize that the two need not be mutually exclusive.
At this point, I've got a bit of other work to do so I'm going to call it a day. I do not know when or if I'll get to continue this effort; all I can say is to keep checking back.
I hope this has been helpful.
