Harvard Urbanologists Debate Riot Report

When the President's Riot Commission Report reached Cambridge in early March, most of Harvard's urbanologists were pleasantly shocked by its strong tone.

"I expected it to be a white-wash job, said Thomas F. Pettigrew, associate professor of Social Psychology, and former teacher of Harvard's major course on race relations. He admitted that he had refused to cooperate with the Commission. "I did not think I would want to have my name associated with it," he said.

According to several reports, the Commission did have some difficulty in finding nationally prominent sociologists to work for it. Several reasons were given:

* the Commission was formed at a time when most academicians had already made their plans for the year

* some were in fact afraid that the report would turn out to be "a white-wash" job

* academicians prefer to criticize rather than take the responsibility for policy decisions

* this last factor was especially salient because of wide-spread disaffection with the administration.

The surprise in March was all the greater since the preceeding months had brought stories that the findings of the more radical staff members had been surpressed. In December, Gary T. Marx, associate professor of Sociology, wrote an angry letter to the New York Times, complaining that he had been fired from the Commissions research staff after turning in a very radical interim report.

However, on later examining the list of people who were let go, "for financial reasons" according to the Commission, Marx admitted he could find no pattern. "I am very impressed by the honesty of the Report," Marx said. "It contains at least as much as the interim report."

Not everybody at Harvard was surprised. James Q. Wilson, professor of Government, and Edward C. Banfield, Henry Lee Shattuck Professor of Urban Government, agreed that the results were predictable. "Every local or state official wants to have a good reason for asking for more federal money for various programs," Banfield said. "Whatever Mayor Lindsay's prior convictions, he needs more federal money." Furthermore,, Banfield said, "it would be impossible for an official to tell his Negro community that the cause of riots are other than racial injustice."

Criticism of the President's Riot Commission Report falls into three categories. Many agree with Pettigrew that "the diagnosis is excellent" even though the research would win no A for scholarship.

To these ranks also belong, for instance, such recognized experts as Adam Yarmolinsky, professor of Law and formerly one of McNamara's "whizzkids" and Gary Marx. Marx admits that the research was rushed, but, he added, "if they had more time they would only have found more racism."

This list would further include James Rosenthal, associate of both the Joint Center for Urban Studies and of the Kennedy Institute and general editor of the Riot Report, James Vorenberg '48, professor of Law and author of the President's Crime Commission Report, Abram J. Chayes '43, professor of Law and author of the Report's chapter on the mass media, and Maurice D. Kilbridge, professor of Business Administration.

Others, notably Oscar Handlin, Charles Warren Professor of American History, have more serious quarrels with the Report. Handlin feels that the report over-emphasizes the peculiar historical position of the Negro and is too pessimistic about the Negro's potential ability to improve his own lot. Such a distorted perspective, he feels, is in effect racist and can have a debilitating effect on Negroes.

Putting all the blame on "white racism," one of the Commission's catch-phrases credited to Rosenthal, not only discourages Negroes but also does nothing to soothe the potential Wallace voter, Handlin said. Furthermore, "it might stir up some Negroes who read nothing but the newspaper headlines on the Report," he added.

Nevertheless, like Daniel P. Moynihan, director of the Joint Center for Urban Studies, Handlin feels that the wrong answers might just lead to the right solutions. They are unwilling to jeopardize this possibility.

The Report's strongest critics point out that such hope cannot justify the Report. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions," iconoclast Banfield quipped.

"They (the Commission and its defenders) all assume that whether it's true or not it is not bad to tell white America that it is bad to be racially prejudiced. They feel that white people may then be led to do things which are intended to right the wrong but,," Ban-intended to right the wrong. But," Banfield said, "citing Urban Renewal as an example, "their actions may have bad practical effects."

The Urban Renewal Program based on many good intentions and little real knowledge, was hailed as a great liberal measure, Banfield said. According to many Negro leaders it has actually hurt the poor. Slums are razed, only to give way to middle-income housing which leaves the former occupants homeless.