[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 40 (Thursday, April 14, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: April 14, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
HONORING WILLIAM RASPBERRY
Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate one of
the most valuable journalists we have in America--William Raspberry of
the Washington Post--on the occasion of his Pulitzer Prize.
I think this recognition is not only richly deserved--it is in fact
long overdue. I have been a Raspberry fan for many years, and I would
like to share with my colleagues the chief reasons why.
Anyone who believes in a reasoned, thoughtful approach to our
national problems can only have watched in dismay the trend in our
political discourse in recent years. Never in America's history have
public issues been talked about so much--with so little intelligence
and illumination.
I like to refer to it as the ``Crossfirization'' of politics. On any
issue, there are two and only two sides. We determine which side is
right by judging the slogans on their bumper stickers. Because pretty
much everybody today has clever media consultants, the slogans tend to
be of a uniform quality--so we need a tiebreaker. The tiebreaker is,
who can shout the slogans loudest on TV.
It is against this background that the eminence of William Raspberry
takes on its true dimensions. Diogenes--the Greek philosopher of the
4th century B.C.--walked around in the daylight with a lantern ``in
search of an honest man.'' Today, he would have to look no further than
William Raspberry.
The truth is an iceberg, and Raspberry recognizes this. A poor
columnist lacks insight entirely. A good columnist provides some
insight. A great columnist--like Raspberry--uses an original insight as
a springboard for a full-scale investigation into the heart of social
and political reality.
Earlier this week, Raspberry did something characteristic. He began a
column about the rage of professional African-Americans who confront
bigotry in their daily lives. In the middle of the column, Raspberry
stopped: ``(I)f I were smart, I'd simply acknowledge the truth of the
thesis . . . and let it go at that. Instead, I'm about to turn a no-
brainer into one of the most difficult columns I've ever written.'' He
admitted that he personally didn't share that rage--and the rest of the
column was devoted to his attempt to understand it in others.
A lesser columnist would have made the easy point about
discrimination--and avoided the personal admission that ostensibly
undercuts it. William Raspberry--in contrast--recognizes that
scrupulous honesty increases the credibility and seriousness of one's
arguments.
This approach animates the work of William Raspberry from start to
finish. When he writes about social disintegration and the crisis of
values, he writes in the voice of one who lives with these issues and
takes them seriously. He is a man who listens--and a voice to be
listened to.
I congratulate Mr. Raspberry on his Pulitzer. He deserves it. And I
hope that the journalists of tomorrow take note of William Raspberry's
example: Good guys can finish first.
I ask unanimous consent that a selection of excerpts from Raspberry's
work--from the Washington Post of April 13--be included in the Record
at the conclusion of my remarks.
There being no objection, the excerpts were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Prize-Winning Thoughts on Race, Rapprochment, Redemption
Following are excerpts from Washington Post columnist
William Raspberry's Pulitzer Prize-winning entry:
On a Supreme Court desegregation decision, likely to result
in the closure of at least one predominately-black
Mississippi college (1/29/93):
``It's impossible to grow up as I did--as a poor, black
Mississippian forced into segregated and third-rate schools--
and not admire the man most responsible for bringing an end
to school desegregation. . . .
``But if the death of Thurgood Marshall prompts these
thoughts, the threatened death of a tiny college in the
Mississippi delta prompts other, contradictory notions, among
them this question: Must integration be the overriding
priority for those who care about the education of young
African Americans?''
On the birthday of black abolitionist Frederick Douglass
(2/22/93):
``What would Frederick Douglass say . . . now? Wouldn't he
be overjoyed to see college attendance rates for blacks
approaching those of whites? Wouldn't he smile in
satisfaction to see the growth of the black middle class, in
affluence and influence . . . in knowing that the top
military man in America is Colin Powell, a black man. . . .
``What would Frederick Douglass say if you seated him in
the parlor of the Executive Mansion in Virginia--Virginia--
and bade him sit while you fetched the governor, and then you
walked in with Doug Wilder? . . .
``Suppose you ticked off the academic and political
accomplishments of the grandchildren of slaves, even while
informing him that there were still in America those who were
indifferent, even hostile, to the advancement of his people.
. . .
``And then suppose you put him in the governor's limousine
and drove him through the slums of Richmond, or Washington or
Los Angeles and let him see what my wife and I have seen too
many times: the aimless drifters, the homeless in their
cardboard shelters, the bullet-riddled walls, the vandalized
schools, the pitifully undereducated children, the drug
dealers and their prey.
``What would Frederick Douglass say?
``I think he would say nothing at all. I think that . . .
Frederick Douglass would simply cry.''
On gangsta rap and violence (6/2/93):
``My generation worried about racial segregation, mean
southern sheriffs and the lynching of Emmett Till, but we
sang about young love. My children's generation worries about
being `dissed' and sings about killing cops. . . .
``I wish their songs could be more like ours.
``But . . . I wish their world could be more like ours--
that we could come together across the generations to reduce
the amount of violence and despair in their lives. It'll take
a lot more than censorship to get us there.''
On reports that President Clinton planned to drop Lani
Guinier's nomination as assistant general for civil rights
(6/4/93):
``Something other than principle is at stake in the get-
Guinier campaign. And something besides newly discovered
information has led Cuban to confide that he doesn't agree
with `all' of her writings. Of course he doesn't. I don't
either. I doubt that she does, no matter how serious she may
have been when she wrote them.
``There are some things I'd like to hear her on. I'd like
to know, for instance, how many of the proposals . . . would
require new legislation and . . . in her view, are doable
under the voting rights legislation she would interpret and
administer as assistant attorney general.
``Hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee are the
place to get these matters cleared up. . . .
``Bork may have added a new verb (`to Bork') to our
vocabulary. But at least Bork had his hearing. Ronald Reagan
insisted upon it.
``Can't Clinton muster the guts to do as much for his
nominee?''
On the long-term prospects for ``rapprochement'' between
the Nation of Islam headed by Louis Farrakhan and mainstream
black leaders troubled by his ``baggage of antisemitism'' (2/
20/93):
``For Farrakhan, all this may be a sign of wimpishness. . .
. For the black political-civil rights establishment, on the
other hand, Jewish support is critical . . . most of them
simply don't subscribe to Farrakhan's notions about Jews, and
they are troubled by his apparent fixation with Jews.
``But they are also intrigued by the prospect of a unity
that could link mainstream activists with the disaffected
masses that Farrakhan can . . . turn out by the thousands.
Can they bring Farrakhan into the camp without triggering the
defection of other critical allies?
``My guess is that they can't. . . . If he insists on going
his own unreformed way, taking his occasional shot at Jews
and equating black disconfiture with wimpishness, it's hard
to see how last week's shining show of unity can turn out to
be more than just another flash in the pan.
Repeating his call, first made in 1989, to ``bring out the
troops'' in Washington (9/29/93):
``I believe we need to deal with the depression and despair
of our young people--their joblessness, their hopelessness,
their empty vision of the future. But I also believe that
none of this is possible unless our children's homes and
schools and playgrounds are safe places. We're got to do what
it takes to make our cities safe again: with federal help and
with federal troops, if necessary.''
On Jesse L. Jackson's call for the black community to take
as stand against violence (10/6/93):
``It does not absolve America of its racism. It does not
contend that racism is no longer of much importance. It
simply gives voice to what all of us know but have so much
trouble talking about: that the major forces that threaten
black America--family deterioration, teen pregnancy, drugs,
violence--are things that have to be dealt with from the
inside.''
On stiffer sentences in the new crime bill (10/27/83):
``The crime that may lead to frightened America to take a
chance on this flawed bill has its roots no in inadequate
punishment but in unformed consciences. The rest of us may
violate societal rules whose validity we nonetheless accept.
The youngsters we so fear are not backsliders from an
accepted faith; they are social infidels. Our values are not
their values, our expectations are not their expectations,
our fears are not their fears.
``None of this means that we shouldn't punish--even
severely--those who violate the law. It means only that the
problem--and any hope for solution--begins much, much
earlier. . . .
``Maybe it's too much to expect a nation petrified by crime
to do different things a different way--by undertaking
serious prevention and, yes, redemption.''
____________________