This is the amazon.com link to the Black Empowerment Controversy Book.

It is entitled “Long Challenge: The Empowerment Controversy (1967-1970), written by Victor H. Carpenter.

As I mentioned earlier, there were at one time direct links to the UU World website where this controversy was talked about in some detail, but since the website was redone, the links are dead.

I’ve seen, with my own two eyes, it create more problems than solve. It tends to rip scabs off of open wounds in (IMHO) a misguided effort to reveal the inherent racism amongst Caucasian society. Indeed, I know of no other religious group that has institutionalized this form of well-meaning, but ultimately self-destructive practice.

I’ve seen a particularly militant demonstration of AO/AR programming literally create an immense drama storm during Opus/ConCentric ‘04 the likes of which turned many people away for good and produced many a letter of protest to Michael Tino.

That particular con, I felt as though I was been asked to flagellate myself for the sins of my whiteness. I refused to do so.

I know of people who deliberately avoid C*UUYAN and GA functions specifically to protest of AO/AR programming.

The point of all this is not to trivialize the concerns of African-Americans and LGBTs within UUism. Let me underscore that. Their concerns are valid and I certainly understand them. I think we need to come together as a unified force. We have more than enough enemies lined up against us; why create strife within our own ranks? What good does it accomplish?

AO/AR, no matter how gently performed, is always going to be a combative, controversial, highly emotional endeavor that risks bursting into flames and rapidly getting out of hand.

I agree with one commenter to this thread who compares this to “the left eating its own”.

Off the record, MidSouth District leader Eunice Benton expressed to me no small degree of consternation about AO/AR programming and mentioned that she had complained about its very nature, but that her complaints had fallen upon deaf ears.

Furthermore, I encourage those of you who are interested in this matter to look into our not-so-recent past and find that such matters and battles have already been fought. Indeed, under the subheading of The Black Empowerment Crisis in 1968, we learn that this denomination has never adequately dealt with the matter. We seem stuck in the late 60s and utterly without a new course of action. We don’t like to talk about it, but being that it is our history, we need to have open, honest dialogue.

For those unfamiliar with the Black Empowerment Crisis, I’ll give a brief summary. For those curious to explore more, Beacon Press has an excellent book on the subject and a series of articles on this issue ran in UU World some years ago.

It is well-known that white Unitarian clergy were instrumental during the Civil Rights Movement. They proudly marched on Selma and we hold dear the name of a martyr by the name of James Reeb who was killed there by an angry mob. That was in 1965. Fast forward a few years.

By the time GA rolled around in 1968, it was tacitly assumed that white clergymen would be able to meet in committee with their black brothers and sisters in faith. Instead, they found their paths blocked. Black clergymen and leaders wanted their own private meetings without white attendance, which struck many white attendees as deeply hypocritical and a slap in the face, since they had stood hand in hand with them during Selma, Freedom Rides, and at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, amongst other places.

This created immense turmoil amongst the delegates of that GA, leading to a substantial number of delegates actually walking off the conventional floor. Fights nearly broke out. Concessions were made towards a African-American only group of UUs, the acronym (and don’t we love our acronyms in UUism) of which escapes me at the moment, who had the full funding of the UUA. As the group became more radical and as the tide turned against its existence, it was dissolved due to lack of funding after only a few years of existence.

Whether this was due to racism on the part of the White controlled UUA board or the increasing militancy of the African-American only group is a matter of conjecture that I wish not to state an opinion one way or another. Suffice it to say that I am stating the facts.

Our current president, Bill Sinkford, remembers how the Black Empowerment Controversy lead to massive disillusionment on the part of both whites and blacks and admits that the wounds of those days have not fully healed.

As an aside, let me also point out that Sinkford was president of LRY (Liberal Religious Youth) which got so far off into left field that it ended up having to be dissolved in the early 80s. I could tell a multitude of stories about the problems that led to the dissolution of LRY, but they read as a scandal sheet and I am not inclined to rake the muck.

Clearly, we must take stock of our history before we forge ahead in our present.

I do not think you are being disrespectful to my feelings, and I am certainly not trying to be towards you, only that this is a real issue, that needs real discussion, and in my opinion to only way towards real wholeness is addressing it.

Thank you for this insight. I’ve thought about this for several days and come to the conclusion that you are right.

I have to tell you, I think that your comment above is very unfair and part of the whole problem. As soon as someone says… no do not call me a racist, I do not associate nor consent to that term, someone says… oh then.. you don’t care about the needs of people of color, or you do not care about this work. It is the same thing white AR/AO people are saying and I am saying no! This is not true!

I am telling you has honestly and truthfully as I know how that I do not believe the needs of people of color are served by white people calling themselves racist. In fact I think it hurts real work that has been done, and is being done, to address all our needs. And I think it alienates many, many people like myself from taking a greater role in this work.

This might be a good time for me to focus my anti racism efforts on working with other people of color. The needs of people of color are rarely part of these types of conversation.

It is not a matter or prejudice, we all have prejudices. I admit to mine, learn to explore them deeply, and more often than not learn that I completely wrong.

The word “racist” implies a concious choice. It is one who takes a look at the world and ends at the viewpoint that his or her own race is better then some, or all other, races out there.

This is not a unique approach to racism. This is the common understood conotation of the word. There are many things in our language that we can (and should) take in and make our own. Like the language of reverence that has made such a come back in our churches.

But those words should be powerful, meaningful, and uplifting. I have no need or desire to take in this hateful and angst filled idea and make it my own. I am not racist, I will never refer to myself as such, and I am concerned that my chosen faith now expects me to.

Where I grew up, people who were racists were a certain type of vile, loathsome people. It was not a casual racism. They lived in sundown towns (or wished that they still did), they called people niggers, they threatened to disown children who dated across racial lines, and they moved when a person of color moved in next door. And that wasn’t the worst of them.

I think—and Jamie can correct me—that what Jamie hears when he is told he is a racist is that he is that sort of person. (Joyce’s comment touched on this.) Anyone being told that’s who they are is going to be offended and feel their worth and dignity is being insulted.

The ARAO work I’m familiar with—and I’m talking more about general rhetoric than any specific UUA programs, which I’m not all that familiar with—equates white privilege with racism. There is talk that a white person, because of skin privilege, is born a de facto racist. From where I sit, that’s a politicized doctrine of Original Sin.

Then there’s the idea that white people have to become Allies™ of the ARAO Program™. To me, this has felt like a demand for a conversion experience, followed by a lifetime of ARAO Work™ to make up for my being born white. (Again, this is my impression of the rhetoric, going back to the 90s, not any specific UU program, which I only have secondhand information for, aside from Thandeka.)

So when they put the old school definition of racist together with the ARAO version of Original Sin and the need to convert to being a White Ally&trade, the ARAOists really set a lot of people off who might otherwise be on board.

It might be helpful if the ARAO folks had a list of different types of racism. (And maybe they’re out there.) That might help ease the pain some. Short of something like that, the rhetoric is going to continue to alienate folks. (Not all of these points offend me, but some of them do make me recoil.)

And as for the “current model” of AR/AO work, - what is this? Can someone point out to me which program they are talking about? Or where, in the programs - because there are several - that are currently being used that the underlying belief is that white people don’t have inherent worth and dignity?

The work I’m doing within the UUA right now does not state this. I’m afraid people are talking about programs that have perhaps *changed* over the last decade, but if not I’d like to know more so that as a trainer I can be more informed about what other UUs concerns are about the work I’m doing.