BUILDING THE WORLD WE DREAM ABOUT
A Tapestry of Faith Program for Adults
WORKSHOP 15: HOT TOPICS AND CONTEMPORARY ISSUES WITHIN THE UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST COMMUNITY
BY MARK HICKS. GAIL FORSYTH-VAIL, DEVELOPMENTAL EDITOR.
© Copyright 2010 Unitarian Universalist Association.
Published to the Web on 9/29/2014 10:40:40 PM PST.
This program and additional resources are available on the UUA.org web site at
www.uua.org/religiouseducation/curricula/tapestryfaith.
WORKSHOP OVERVIEW
INTRODUCTION
... for all the significant identities that constitute each of us, there is a personal essence that defines who we are, a singular soul that is hidden deep within, beyond the layers of identity that protect it. When we make initial contact with each other, we only see the outside of that soul at first. But only through sustained communication and authentic relationships can we begin to penetrate the layers of social identity to view and enjoy the singular soul within. — Julio Noboa, contemporary educator and author, member of Latino/a Unitarian Universalist Networking Association (LUUNA)
This workshop presents three issues in Unitarian Universalism that have provided teachable moments and learning opportunities for transforming our community. Because these issues have been accompanied by pain and loss, participants with first-hand knowledge of or direct experience with them may harbor feelings of anxiety, hurt, or anger. Encourage participants to use the tools and knowledge they are gaining in these workshops to identify lessons they can draw from their experiences to help move the congregation and Unitarian Universalism toward Beloved Community. Pay special attention to the issues that arise, especially those that have an impact on your congregation and community. This information may suggest future actions the congregation might take.
Before leading this workshop, review the accessibility guidelines in the program Introduction under Integrating All Participants.
GOALS
This workshop will:
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Participants will:
WORKSHOP-AT-A-GLANCE
Activity | Minutes |
Welcoming and Entering | 0 |
Opening | 10 |
Activity 1: Drinking from Our Own Wells | 30 |
Activity 2: Cultural Misappropriation in Worship and Congregational Life | 30 |
Activity 3: The Fort Worth Incident | 30 |
Activity 4: Large Group Discussion | 10 |
Closing | 10 |
Alternate Activity 1: The Empowerment Controversy | 30 |
SPIRITUAL PREPARATION
Take some time to consider what you are learning in the process of facilitating this program. What pieces are falling into place for you? What are you still curious about? What challenges you still? Journal or share your thoughts with your co-facilitator(s) or a trusted conversation partner.
WORKSHOP PLAN
WELCOMING AND ENTERING
Materials for Activity
Preparation for Activity
Description of Activity
Greet participants as they arrive.
OPENING (10 MINUTES)
Materials for Activity
Preparation for Activity
Description of Activity
Light the chalice or invite a participant to light it while you read Leader Resource 1 aloud.
Share feedback from the previous workshop evaluations. Acknowledge shared patterns and observations to give participants a sense of how people in the group are thinking and feeling about the program. Be conscientious about maintaining confidentiality. One technique is to say, "Some people felt... ," rather than saying, "One of you felt... ." If time allows, invite participants to share one-minute observations or new insights they may have gained since the last workshop.
Remind participants of the spirit of their covenant.
Share the goals of this workshop.
Introduce the workshop with these or similar words:
In this workshop, we will examine three issues involving race and culture that reverberate in Unitarian Universalism today. We will not only look at the issues in each case, but also use the tools we are developing to explore when and how multicultural competence (or lack of it) played a role in the situation.
ACTIVITY 1: DRINKING FROM OUR OWN WELLS (30 MINUTES)
Materials for Activity
Preparation for Activity
Description of Activity
Introduce the video clip with these or similar words:
In November 2005, the Unitarian Universalist Association Hispanic Ministry Caucus met at Meadville Lombard Theological School (Chicago, Illinois) for a conference called Drinking from Our Own Wells. Some of the conversations were recorded. We are going to watch an overview of the conversations, as well as the closing comments.
Invite participants to watch the clip from Drinking from Our Own Wells. Then, distribute Workshop 14, Handout 3 and have participants use it as a lens to observe how the conversations in the video clip reflect multicultural competence, or lack of it.
Invite the large group to share their comments, insights, and observations after watching the video clip. As part of this conversation, demonstrate how to use the worksheet and identity map to analyze multicultural competence (or lack thereof) in Unitarian Universalism.
ACTIVITY 2: CULTURAL MISAPPROPRIATION IN WORSHIP AND CONGREGATIONAL LIFE (30 MINUTES)
Materials for Activity
Preparation for Activity
Description of Activity
Distribute handouts. Invite participants to read Handout 1 and to use Workshop 14, Handout 3 as a lens to help examine the issues and to observe how multicultural competence (and lack of it) is reflected in congregational conversations about cultural misappropriation. After 15 minutes, invite participants to move into groups of three or four to discuss their observations and insights.
ACTIVITY 3: THE FORT WORTH INCIDENT (30 MINUTES)
Materials for Activity
Preparation for Activity
Description of Activity
Distribute the handouts. Invite participants to read Handout 2 and to use Workshop 14, Handout 3 as a lens to help examine the issues and to observe how multicultural competence (and lack of it) is reflected in the way situations developed in Fort Worth. After 15 minutes, invite participants to move into groups of three or four to discuss their observations and insights.
ACTIVITY 4: LARGE GROUP DISCUSSION (10 MINUTES)
Description of Activity
Gather the large group for a general discussion, using these questions as a guide:
CLOSING (10 MINUTES)
Materials for Activity
Preparation for Activity
Description of Activity
Invite participants to spend five minutes writing feedback in response to the question you have posted on newsprint.
Distribute Taking It Home and invite participants to do the suggested activities before the next meeting. Read the instructions aloud and invite participants to ask questions.
Offer Leader Resource 2 as a closing and extinguish the chalice.
Gather participants' written feedback.
Including All Participants
Prepare a large-print version of Taking It Home.
LEADER REFLECTION AND PLANNING
Take a few moments right after the workshop to ask each other:
TAKING IT HOME
... for all the significant identities that constitute each of us, there is a personal essence that defines who we are, a singular soul that is hidden deep within beyond the layers of identity that protect it. When we make initial contact with each other, we only see the outside of that soul at first. But only through sustained communication and authentic relationships can we begin to penetrate the layers of social identity to view and enjoy the singular soul within. — Julio Noboa, contemporary educator and author, member of Latino/a Unitarian Universalist Networking Association (LUUNA)
What are you curious about? What practical things can you do to develop your personal cultural awareness of groups/people unlike you? Make a plan and journal about your intention, or find a trusted conversation partner to help you be accountable, over time, for your own good intentions.
ALTERNATE ACTIVITY 1: THE EMPOWERMENT CONTROVERSY (30 MINUTES)
Materials for Activity
Preparation for Activity
Description of Activity
Distribute the handouts. Invite participants to read Handout 3 and to use Workshop 14, Handout 3 as a lens to examine what happened and to observe how multicultural competence (and lack of it) was an issue as the situation developed. After 15 minutes, invite participants to move into groups of three or four to discuss their observations and insights.
BUILDING THE WORLD WE DREAM ABOUT: WORKSHOP 15:
HANDOUT 1: PERSPECTIVE ON MUSIC AND CULTURAL APPROPRIATION
By Rev. Jason Shelton. Originally published on the UUA website. Used with permission.
I. Background
The question of cultural appropriation (sometimes called misappropriation) is a hot topic among ministers and other worship leaders in our time. I first remember hearing about it couched in a story of worship leaders who had adapted certain First Nations rituals for use in Unitarian Universalist worship without the permission of the tribe or nation with whom the ritual had been associated. The story raises complicated questions about ownership and rights, about race and race relations, and about who can legitimately participate in rites and rituals which have their origin in a cultural "other."
As our congregations have begun moving into new musical directions in recent years, the question of cultural appropriation seems to be taking on a new shape. Namely, should people be making use of musical traditions that have a cultural heritage other than that of the musicians (or congregations) involved? It is a question that needs to be addressed carefully, especially as we welcome the wealth of diverse music found in our new hymn supplement, Singing the Journey, into our congregational worship experiences.
I would like to begin by questioning the idea that the rituals or musical traditions of any culture can ever really be "owned" by any person or group, no matter what their cultural background might be. Cultural anthropologists have pointed out for many years that all cultures are profoundly affected and necessarily changed by interaction with the "other." Cultural exchange happens under both positive and negative circumstances, in peaceful trade relations as well as in situations of oppression and theft.
This is not to say that rituals and musical traditions cannot be traced back to particular peoples or cultures. Rather, I am saying that the possibility that any one ritual or custom can be claimed by a people or culture as solely their own invention, without any influence from the cultural other, is remote at best. True, there are moments when peoples express their particular genius in a truly unique and unaffected manner, but these moments are rare indeed. More often, cultural traditions evolve over long periods of time through experiences of contact and exchange with others.
I want to make this point very clear not because I somehow wish to devalue the qualities that make our cultural traditions special, but because I believe that our tendency to guard those traditions with references to cultural appropriation or even accusations of racism (or at the very least insensitivity) cut off the possibility of dialogue and real learning that can come from the sharing and exchange of ideas and traditions that is possible in our world today as never before.
II. Who Owns It?
Who owns a particular musical or cultural tradition? Who has the right to invite others to participate? Once invited, must a person seek permission again and again in order to bring that tradition into her or his own life?
I once participated in a retreat that was focused on earth-centered spirituality and led by a Catholic nun. She had ministered among a group of First Nations people in North Dakota for many years, and as she had gained the trust of the tribe she was, with time, invited to participate in some of their most sacred rituals. After nearly twenty years she was reassigned to another ministry, and when she left, the leaders of the tribe gave her permission to build, use, and invite others to participate in their traditional sweat lodge ritual. What's more, she was given permission to adapt their ritual so that it fit within a more traditional Catholic framework. I had the privilege of participating in a sweat under her leadership, and it was a deeply transformative, life-changing spiritual experience.
However, when I have spoken of this experience with other persons of First Nations descent, I have been told that what the nun had done was totally inappropriate, that she had no right to build and use a sweat lodge, much less to adapt the ritual in any way. Further, the tribe that had given her permission to do so, they said, had betrayed their heritage by their actions.
I have also participated in various workshops on singing in the African American traditions. And I have seen non-African American participants in these workshops go forth from them and try to put into practice what they have learned—what they, by all accounts, have been given permission to use by the workshop leaders—and been reviled by some African Americans in their congregations who claim that the person had no right to lead or sing those songs.
Again, I recognize that these are extraordinarily complex issues. They bring up questions related to personal cultural heritage, and our differing levels of comfort in sharing these traditions with others. But we, as people of faith who claim to celebrate our diversity in all its forms, cannot afford to make assumptions about the legitimacy of a person's participation in what seems on the surface to be a ritual or tradition that comes from a cultural tradition that is not his or her own. We cannot know whether a person making use of a particular musical tradition or religious rite has come to that usage through respectful, disciplined study or through haphazard, careless conscription, simply by looking at the color of their skin.
So how can we approach this issue in a way that is both respectful and invites full participation from the whole community of faith? I would first look at the history of a truly great American musical art form—jazz.
III. What is Appropriate?
The popularly accepted theory that Jazz stemmed from a simple combination of African rhythms and European harmony is in need of a little revision. Both African and European rhythms were employed. African music supplied the strong underlying beat (absent in most European music), the use of polyrhythms, and the idea of playing the melody separate from or above the beat. European music provided formal dance rhythms. Combined, these rhythms give Jazz its characteristic swing. Likewise, the harmonies and musical ideas of both continents are present, the blue notes derived from the pentatonic scale, "call and response" and unconventional instrumental timbres of African music together with "conventional" harmonies and, most important, the formal structure of European music. The multiplicity of ethnic, cultural, and musical conditions needed to spawn Jazz was thus unique to the United States, and specifically to New Orleans. The necessary philosophical impetus for Jazz, i.e., democracy and freedom of individual expression supported by group interaction, are also American institutions. — from "The Origins of Jazz" by Len Weinstock, Red Hot Jazz Archive (at www.redhotjazz.com)
What's more, the history of jazz is rife with stories of ways in which racial barriers were broken down long before the Civil Rights movements made national headlines. Integrated bands toured the country and confronted segregationist policies both directly and indirectly, often making dining or lodging decisions based on the maxim, "if we're not all welcome, then none of us is staying here." Yes, racism is a part of jazz history, and that cannot be overlooked. But there has also been an underlying sense among many jazz musicians—especially bandleaders—that the important thing was not the color of the musician's skin, but whether or not he or she could play. In jazz, if you can play, you'll get the gig (until someone comes along who does it better than you—so you'd better practice!).
As jazz has spread throughout the world, it is impossible to know the ethnic or cultural heritage of the players one might hear on the local jazz radio station just by listening to them. The music itself has transcended its particular cultural origins to become something in which dedicated musicians the world over can participate, regardless of cultural heritage. To be sure, there are some who consider themselves "purists" who might say that persons of non-African American descent should not play jazz, and so we find ourselves revisiting the question of permission giving and who has the right to speak authoritatively on behalf of all persons of a particular ethnic heritage. But the cultural norm that seems to be taking hold at this time is to say that the people who should be playing jazz are those who are dedicated enough to invest the time and effort to learn to play it well.
What if we were to apply this norm to our situation regarding what is appropriate when using the traditions of the cultural "other" in worship?
IV. Conclusion
I have, on several occasions, gotten myself into trouble by using what seems to be a very small word—we. We is a problematic term because it can be used to describe a group that is related in many ways, and yet is quite different in many others. We are Unitarian Universalists, but we may have very little else in common. Groups of people who share a similar tone in their skin are not necessarily of the same ethnic or cultural background. And even if you and I did share this background in common, my experience of being a Jewish/Italian/Thai who is 1/8 Cherokee has most likely been vastly different from yours.
OK, so that is not my heritage. But you wouldn't know by looking at me that my musical background includes being a jazz trumpet player, or that I learned most of what I know of the Gospel music tradition by singing and worshipping in predominantly African American Catholic congregations for several years. You wouldn't know that I play bluegrass mandolin, either, or that I sing in a Renaissance vocal ensemble. You wouldn't know that I have been commissioned to write music for GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender) choruses. You wouldn't know that I am a nut for old Stevie Wonder tunes and shape-note hymns, or that my current favorite song is the silly ditty I made up for my three-week-old daughter when she was in the hospital. And it would certainly be a mistake to assume that anyone else who looks like me shares my particular combination of musical background and tastes.
So, when I use the term we, I have to acknowledge that I am making a certain set of assumptions about the group I am addressing that may or may not be correct. We don't sing very well. We can't clap on 2 and 4. We have to read ahead to make sure we agree with the words to the hymn. Sound familiar? How about this one: we shouldn't be singing African American spirituals, or Venezuelan folk tunes, or Native American chants, because we don't have the right to sing their music. What assumptions are being made about who it is that is a part of the picture when we say we?
My experience has been that some people will start talking about "cultural appropriation" when what they really mean to say is that the musical offering or ritual just experienced was done poorly. Many Unitarian Universalists, it seems to me, are not comfortable making a judgment about the quality of a presentation, but are somehow OK with raising cultural or racial issues instead. I have been a part of numerous worship situations where the song leader has bounced and shimmied through a poorly sung African American spiritual. Do I think that what they did was cultural appropriation? No—I have seen song leaders from many cultural traditions, including African Americans, do the same thing (please do not assume that every African American can sing or lead spirituals well—stereotypes are very dangerous). I think what happened was that a person who was not really familiar with a particular musical style tried to lead a congregation in something that was beyond his or her particular musical skill. Such a situation is not only disrespectful to the musical tradition that has just been trampled upon, but also to the whole congregation, regardless of personal ethnic background, all of whom deserve better.
If I were going to conduct my choir in a performance of a Bach cantata, you can bet that I would spend an enormous amount of time researching the work, checking on stylistic and performance practice issues, so that I could present the piece in a way that is respectful and as "authentic" as I could make it. If I didn't, there would certainly be people in the audience who knew better, and who would be very disappointed that I had not made adequate preparation for the performance. They would not, however, accuse me of cultural appropriation, even though I am not of Germanic descent. A reviewer might say that I should do more homework the next time I chose to present such a work. Or perhaps I should listen to a recording made by a reputable ensemble.
This, I believe, is sage advice for the musicians in our congregations who have been moving in new musical directions (as evidenced by the incredible musical diversity in Singing the Journey). Rare indeed would be the church musician who is equally well versed in Bach's and Luther's hymnody as they are in 60s R&B and the music of the Salvadoran liberation movement. But you will find such music within these pages, and much more, all composed and arranged by people who are leaders in their particular genres and who have given their permission to have their work included in this collection.
But for the collection to be used most effectively, our musicians must take seriously the music of the "other." Many of the styles of music found in this collection will be largely unfamiliar to the conservatory-trained musician. To help, we have provided stylistic and interpretive markings which should be carefully observed. And we have collected a list of recommended listening examples for further study and deepening familiarity.
All of this to say that while the question of cultural appropriation may never completely be resolved, our musicians can go a long way toward alleviating many of the most obvious concerns by committing themselves to respectful, dedicated preparation of all music that is to be used in worship. Moving in these new directions with quality and integrity will speak volumes about our collective musical experience and encourage more new music from our authors and composers. This, in the end, is my greatest hope for Singing the Journey—that it will move and inspire us to create even more new music that reflects our diverse musical and experiential backgrounds while resonating across our communities as songs that speak to the heart of our faith.
BUILDING THE WORLD WE DREAM ABOUT: WORKSHOP 15:
HANDOUT 2: THE FORT WORTH INCIDENT
"Report examines racism, youth at 2005 General Assembly," by Tom Stites and Christopher L. Walton. Reprinted with permission from UU World online, February 6, 2006. Copyright 2006 Unitarian Universalist Association.
After conducting more than 80 interviews to probe events distressing to Unitarian Universalist youth of color and others during the 2005 General Assembly, a special review commission has made public an interim report and preliminary recommendations...
The centerpiece of the 17-page report, presented to the January meeting of the board of trustees of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, is an exhaustive timeline of events at the denomination's annual meeting in Fort Worth, Texas. The interim report also offers "The Elevator Story," an account of an emotionally charged incident on the last night of GA viewed from two very different perspectives... and nine preliminary recommendations.
Separately, General Assembly planners said they are working on ways to make the 2006 gathering more hospitable for the youth.
The timeline reports "miscommunications and misunderstandings" at a Leadership Development Conference in Dallas for youth of color the week preceding the General Assembly; a failure to reserve hotels for youth near the convention center; incidents in which GA participants mistook UU youth of color for hotel staff and others in which hotel staff ignored the needs of youth of color; a conflicted GA workshop on transracial adoption; harassment by Fort Worth police; and a confrontation between three youth of color and a white UU minister at the assembly's closing ceremony, leading to cancellation of an intergenerational dance scheduled later that night.
"What we have learned is that none of these events happened in a vacuum," the commission wrote.
Before the commission presented its report, competing narratives about tensions at the June 2005 General Assembly had circulated by email and on websites, but most delegates to GA returned home unaware of the conflicts. The board first heard from a group of young people about allegations of racially insensitive behavior the day after the assembly adjourned.
In response in early July, the board published a letter expressing "deep sadness and regret that these incidents took place." News reports—including UU World's General Assembly coverage and a Religion News Service article—quoted the board's letter and mentioned a heated exchange between a white UU minister and several youth of color outside the plenary hall during the assembly's closing ceremony.
The review commission, charged with "reviewing the trajectory of events" at the 2005 assembly and identifying "learnings about the structures of racism and ageism both within and outside our faith community," was appointed by the Rev. William G. Sinkford, president of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, and Gini Courter, the association's moderator. It promised a final report at the board's next meeting, in April.
The interim report says the three youth involved in the dispute at the closing ceremony "were not visibly wearing nametags." The first of the report's nine preliminary recommendations is that "all General Assembly participants be asked to wear and display nametags at General Assembly events, regardless of identity and (assumed) status."
Janiece Sneegas, the UUA's director of General Assembly and conference services, said the board-appointed General Assembly Planning Committee has adopted this suggestion for the 2006 assembly, which will be held June 21 through 25 in St. Louis. Another step, she said, is that local UU ministers will meet with the St. Louis police to alert them about who they should expect to see when General Assembly gathers and the values that UUs care about.
Other recommendations: Publish guidelines to help GA participants and youth seek help when a problem arises; provide more chaplains for youth; highlight "successful youth activism" in UU history; urge participants to see each other as "members of a religious community"; encourage program planners to consult with others about "potentially stressful events"; show sensitivity to the time and energy commitments of youth leaders and help youth set limits; and involve youth in all levels of General Assembly programming.
"Youth of color themselves are still confused about the roles and groups they're part of," Rachel Davis, a youth member of the review commission, told the January meeting of the board, where she and another member, the Rev. Jos頂allester, presented the interim report.
In a follow-up e-mail to uuworld.org, Davis explained: "In doing antiracism work, youth of color are often forced into painful situations in order to teach others about oppression. Their feelings, comfort, and sense of belonging are considered expendable. While white youth have the distinct title 'ally' that can be worked for and hopefully used responsibly, youth of color are always 'youth of color'—a vaguely defined title that is rarely associated with tangible forward motion. Youth of color caucuses often spend most of their time talking about white people, or their relation to whiteness, and healthy identity development is dangerously lacking."
The report's timeline also explores decades of adult engagement with UU youth and finds gaps that troubled Ballester, minister of the First Unitarian Church of Houston and an at-large trustee on the board. "One learning that keeps coming up," he said, "is if our goal is youth empowerment, but our method is adult abandonment, the result is entitlement."
BUILDING THE WORLD WE DREAM ABOUT: WORKSHOP 15:
HANDOUT 3: THE EMPOWERMENT CONTROVERSY
From the forthcoming Tapestry of Faith program, A History of Unitarian Universalist Resistance and Transformation, by Rev. Colin Bossen and Julia Hamilton.
The involvement of Unitarian Universalist clergy and laypeople in the series of civil rights marches in and between Selma and Montgomery, Alabama, in 1965 is often regarded as a highpoint in Unitarian Universalist social justice efforts. During this time, three people were killed by white supremacists. Jimmy Lee Jackson, a young African American, was shot defending his family from the Alabama State Police. The two others, Rev. James Reeb and Viola Liuzzo, were both white Unitarian Universalists who were participating in the marches following Jackson's death. Reeb's assassination is credited by many with drawing national attention to the struggle for voting rights and prompting passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. President Lyndon Johnson sent yellow roses to Reeb's hospital room and Martin Luther King, Jr., preached Reeb's eulogy. King's eulogy summed up the vision of the integrationist arm of the civil rights movement, "He was a witness to the truth that men of different races and classes might live, eat, and work together as brothers."
That vision was tested over the next decade within the Unitarian Universalist Association in what has come to be known as the Empowerment Controversy. The controversy began in October, 1967 at the Emergency Conference on Unitarian Universalist Response to the Black Rebellion at New York's Biltmore Hotel, a conference called in response to the rising tide of violent protests and riots in America's inner cities. Shortly after the conference began, the majority of African Americans attendees withdrew from the planned agenda to form the Black Unitarian Universalist Caucus (BUUC).
The Caucus was immediately controversial. Some delegates to the Biltmore conference alleged that it was engaging in separatism or "reverse racism." After meeting, the Caucus demanded that the conference endorse, without amendment or debate, a series of proposals calling for African American representation on the UUA Board of Trustees, Executive Committee, and Finance Committee, as well as subsidies for black ministers. Most remarkably, they called for the creation of a UUA-affiliated Black Affairs Council (BAC) to be financed by the UUA at $250,000 per year for four years. The Biltmore conference endorsed the proposals.
When presented with the proposals endorsed by the Biltmore conference, the UUA Board rejected them. Instead, the Board decided to fund a national conference for BUUC; at that conference, the more than 200 participants reaffirmed the Caucus's prior demands. The UUA Board response was to create a Fund for Racial Justice Now, with an annual goal of $300,000, to be administered by a newly created Commission for Action on Race. The Black Affairs Council (BAC)'s application for affiliate status with the UUA was also granted, but no promise was made to fund that organization. BUUC chairperson Hayward Henry charged that the Board's refusal to fund BAC and to allow such funding to be controlled directly by the Caucus reflected "a traditional racist and paternalistic approach to black problems."
Over the next few months, as preparations were made for the 1968 UUA General Assembly, supporters organized to place a resolution to fund BAC on the Assembly's official agenda. Unitarian Universalists who opposed the BAC resolution formed Unitarian Universalists for a Black and White Alternative (BAWA) "to provide an independent denominational agency in which...black and white Unitarian Universalists...can work together as equals."
The assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King shortly before the 1968 General Assembly changed the shape of race relations in the UUA and set the tone for the meeting. In the wake of King's death, BAC supporters became more militant and more explicitly linked to the growing national Black Power movement. The General Assembly passed the motion to fund BAC by a vote of 836 to 326. Victor Carpenter wrote that this showing of support for BAC's agenda "gave the nation its first example of a denomination's making a significant 'reparational' response to the conditions of racism in America."
The action approved by the 1968 General Assembly soon ran aground. The Association's finances were in dire straits, a situation which at that time was known only to the UUA Administration and Board. In an attempt to relieve some of the financial pressure the Association faced, UUA President Dana Greeley tried to alter the financial outlay called for in the resolution, making an offer to BAC to divide the million dollar total payment over five years instead of four. Instead, the UUA Board reintroduced the issue of BAC's funding as part of the 1969 Assembly agenda. Their intention was to require reaffirmation of BAC's financial support each year.
These events set the stage for the most dramatic General Assembly in the UUA's history. It began with a struggle over the agenda. The official agenda placed the vote on the funding of BAC, now coupled with an additional $50,000 to fund BAWA, near the very end of the meeting. Members and supporters of BAC felt that this was not in keeping with the urgency of the issue and moved that it be placed at the beginning of the agenda. The vote to alter the agenda received a simple majority but did not reach the two-thirds majority required for an agenda change. In response, BAC chairperson Henry declared, "Unless the Assembly agrees to deal with these basic problems...now and not next Wednesday, the microphones will be possessed and the business of this house will come to halt." Sure enough, the floor microphones were seized by BAC supporters and the business session was forced to end with nothing resolved.
The next day a motion was made to reconsider the order of the agenda. When the motion lost, Black Unitarian Universalist Caucus (BUUC) members quietly walked out. After talking with leaders of BUUC, the Rev. Jack Mendelsohn addressed the Assembly, stating, "Our Black delegates of BAC have now left the room. They have left this Assembly, and they have left our movement, because life and time are short...the Assembly is returning to business as usual and to the position of Black people at the back of the bus." Mendelsohn invited those who shared his feelings to join him down the street at the Arlington Street congregation where he was minister.
In a show of solidarity with their Black co-religionists, more than four hundred white Unitarian Universalists joined Mendelsohn. The UUA leadership made overtures to those delegates, who rejoined the General Assembly the next day. The Caucus members remained in the Association and BAC won full funding by vote of the General Assembly delegates.
A few months later, the UUA Board, faced with the ongoing fiscal crisis and their own legal responsibility for the financial well-being of the institution, voted to reduce the grant to BAC from $250,000 to $200,000 and spread the million dollars over five years instead of four.
BAC's members decided to disaffiliate from the UUA and attempted to raise money for the organization's programs directly from Unitarian Universalist congregations and institutions. Over the course of a few months they were able to raise as much as $800,000 from the Liberal Religious Youth, the UU Women's Federation, the First Unitarian Society of West Newton, Massachusetts, All Souls Church, Washington, DC, and the First Unitarian Congregational Society of Brooklyn, New York. The money was raised through bonds that were marketed primarily as an investment.
Despite this initial success at fundraising, BAC, beset by internal strife over differences in strategy, direction, and loyalties, slowly faded from the Unitarian Universalist scene and many of its members left Unitarian Universalism altogether. In 1973 BAC changed its name to the Black Humanist Fellowship. Shortly afterwards began a three year-long legal battle between BAC members
over the money lost on the bonds and the legality of the BUUC meeting at which the name was changed. In time, the Black Humanist Fellowship dissolved and its demise marked the end of the Empowerment controversy. However, the feelings left by these events were so raw that not until 1979 did the UUA begin to explore what had happened and why, so that it could again begin to move forward on the issue of racial justice.
BUILDING THE WORLD WE DREAM ABOUT: WORKSHOP 15:
LEADER RESOURCE 1: WE MAY HAVE IT
By Rev. Lewis A. McGee.
We may have it!
Millions upon millions of people everywhere are drifting from the old formulations, no longer willing to view the ancient myths as religious truths. They are looking for a vital, modern religion with a personal and social imperative. We may have it! I think we do!
Our religion is a religion of social concern, a religion of intellectual and ethical integrity, a religion that emphasizes the dynamic conception of history and the scientific worldview, a religion that stresses the dignity and worth of the person as a supreme value and goodwill as the creative force in human relations. This religion can and ought to become a beacon from which this kind of faith shines.
BUILDING THE WORLD WE DREAM ABOUT: WORKSHOP 15:
LEADER RESOURCE 2: THE SINGING OF ANGELS
By Rev. Dr. Howard Thurman.
There must be always remaining in every life some place for the singing of angels, some place for that which in itself is breathlessly beautiful and—by an inherent prerogative, throwing all the rest of life into a new and creative relatedness—something that gathers up in itself all the freshets of experience from drab and commonplace areas of living and glows in one bright light of penetrating beauty and meaning, then passes. The commonplace is shot through with new glory, old burdens become lighter, deep and ancient wounds lose much of their old, old hurting. A crown is placed over our heads that for the rest of our lives we are trying to grow tall enough to wear. Despite all the crassness of life, despite all the hardness of life, despite all the hard discords of life, life is saved by the singing of angels.
FIND OUT MORE
The UUA Multicultural Growth & Witness staff group offers resources, curricula, trainings, and tools to help Unitarian Universalist congregations and leaders engage in the work of antiracism, antioppression, and multiculturalism. Visit www.uua.org/multicultural (at www.uua.org/multicultural) or email multicultural @ uua.org (at mailto:multicultural@uua.org) to learn more.