| Awake Study Group Interview: Mr. Byron Kunisawa and Neely Fuller Jr. |
| Facilities Management Division Code 220 Workforce Diversity Discovery Session with Mr. Neely Fuller Jr. in 1994 at the Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland. Bilal: We have with us Mr Bryon Kunisawa. Mr. Kunisawa is diversity trainer, uh, approved diversity trainer for the RCO Inc., I'm sure he's going to do a better job of introducing himself than I can. But we have been discussing here for some time issues relating racism and issues relating to the workforce since we are here, as employees at Goddard. We invited him to discuss some issues of racism with us. So maybe I'll just ask first of all, maybe Mr. Kunisawa can give a brief overview, if he can, of what he's attempting to do in working with the Goddard 'diversity' issues. BK: What I've been doing here is trying to separate three programs, EEO, from workforce diversity, from multi-cultural. And in doing that trying to at least get both employees and managers to recognize that what goes on in every institution in the country is a form of what we call racism, sexism, whatever, simply because the populations who are now here aren't supposed to be here. So when you have a system that's not designed for everybody to be here, then it can't ever be fair to specific populations. And then it really becomes very difficult to evaluate who really is racist and who really is sexist, because if they're just normal its gonna be unfair and its gonna show up in all aspects of the organization. So, I think what were trying to do is narrow it down, then, whether some things are endemic to the system and/or is there a culture in management that perpetuates something, and then the third one would be individuals, I think you're looking at systems, you're looking at groups and then you're looking at individuals, I think you have to look at it from that format. Because you really can't tell, you know, individually whose racist, because even if you're not in your mind 'racist' if you execute a policy that by its structure adversely effects your population, then, they'll deny racism, but, by the structure it will be racist. So I think that's where all the confusion is, I think in America right now people look at individualized racism, they don't look at systemic or institutional. And they don't look at a different cultural norm for employees than it is for managers. And then a different cultural norm for different levels of management. So I guess, the result is, the higher you go in management, you have a greater possibility for racism and sexism, because you have a greater degree of homogeneity. So if you look at white managers, even in the system there's more diversity among white managers at first level supervision than at the top, so if you're looking at bias. Just ... down and take the word racism out because they kinda 'freak' whenever you say 'racism' right. If you talk about the bias that could exist there, there has to be a greater degree of bias at higher levels of the organization than even at the lowest levels. So there is, I would believe that if you were going to do a test it or do an assessment, like you were doing, then, you could probably determine that there a higher degree of belief that there's NOT bias as you move forward. Because what you do in the higher positions, it would be easier for them to agree. Because their frame of reference is more common. So they would talk amongst each other and basically agree they can't see what people are talking about, but, if you had a greater degree of diversity, there's someone in that room that might be able to see some logic in whats being discussed. So I think its difficult when you want the change to occur by getting support at the very top, because you have the least amount of comprehension at the top. You actually have a better chance at the very bottom, cause you have a wider range, you know, of experiences and perceptions. So I think that's why whether its Goddard or NASA as a whole, I think Goddard's one of the more difficult ones, cause you have a long history here at Goddard about how we've always done it and its worked. And I don't see why you think it's not fair. And they'll always find somebody, you know, a black person upscale, some individual and they'll say "well, they did well", because they, meaning the individual did well, you may find that that individual did well had to conform to whatever the norms of their acceptance, of being comfortable, you know. I can be comfortable with a black person as long as there is this range of this behavior, if you go outside of that range behavior, then I'm not comfortable with you, and then, you're chances of advancing are greatly reduced, regardless of your competency. Because, its not competency that ultimately gets you advanced, you know, its whether you fit in and they're comfortable interacting with you. And I think that's where that bias shows the most. JD: Were you approached by Dr. Klineberg or Dr. Goldin? BK: In 93 I did a four hour session for Mr. Goldin and his executive group. O.K. now, I think that what happened in that session, and some people think that it went awry, it went off, because from that session, even afterwards, Goldin still went after numbers. Went after numbers, so people said Goldin doesn't understand what you're saying about diversity. I think Goldin understood it, I think Goldin determined that in his short span of time he couldn't just sit back for diversity to solve the problem. I thought Goldin decided that what he could also do to expedite that was to get a higher degree of representation of diverse viewpoints and if you have that diverse viewpoint at every level, then I think his belief is, that we wouldn't have so much of the kind of agreement that there's not a problem. So I think that people think that he didn't get the message. Yeah, I think he got the message. I think he understands your system very well and that he's not going to be here ten or fifteen years so he can't support just doing one thing. Diversity takes a long time so that's something you have to have all three program models. You can't eliminate EEO from the (unintelligible) you just can't use that as the sole solution. But its important to maintain it. I think what he did was, he combined the two. I think that he just said I support diversity but I can't wait for diversity to solve the problem. But I think that I can expedite that by having representation. So I think, you know, that's my interpretation. Now I haven't really sat down and talked to him about it, but, I know that at the end of our session he understood it. There's no- I mean if every body here can understand it, you can't tell me that Dan Goldin didn't understand it, right. He understood it, but, he's also an action oriented man. He's not, he wants to do something, and I think that one of his problems, he's not a JD: You basically see him being limited by how he wants to do it? Kunisawa: Sure, sure, because he has to do it though the center directors. And that's why he fired some center directors or at least got them eliminated cause they weren't willing to do what he wanted them to do. And I think that's why most of the center directors right now realize that he's serious about what he's talking about. But I do believe that he doesn't have the great personal skills. He doesn't the kind of skills that can talk to people and kind of coax them along and get them on the same page. He's, he's just like this hurricane that comes though man, and so he's very blunt, you know, and just boom, and that's it. And I tell you, a lot of people at NASA at that level don't want to be talked to that way. You know, they want to be kind of coaxed and they want to just give you the responsibility to do it in your own way in your own time, I'll take care of it. And I think what Goldin has said is I gave you time for you to do it and you didn't take care of it so I can't wait no more. Bilal: Can I ask you a question. I noticed that you prefer to use the term 'bias' as opposed to racism or as opposed to 'white supremacy' and the reason that you gave is because you said the people 'freak'. And um, here, I don't know if you know the history of the TQ bulletin board, um, but,... Kunisawa: What is that? Bilal: Its an electronic bulletin board and um, earlier this year I'd put some messages on the bulletin board that made reference to 'racism' or 'white supremacy' and I got lot of flack. Kunisawa: (Laugh) Your name was on it too!!? Bilal: That's correct. Kunisawa: O.K. Bilal: And the term was clarified or at least given some clarification and explanation by a white lady. Since then I've been barred from writing about 'racism' on this particular board which has to do with 'total quality management'. I guess what I'm asking is when you use the term 'bias' do you think that it is correct for you to use the term 'bias' as opposed to what I would feel is a more accurate term and a more specific term dealing with the root cause of the problem. Maybe you can address that. Kunisawa: I guess its two things, one of which is, when you make the issue 'white supremacy' or 'racism' you narrow the scope of the discussion and get people responding as individuals, right, and you kind of get away from the organizational bias and people want to talk about it with regard to their personal experience, "I don't do things like that, I don't know anybody who does things like that", and we don't get to the heart. Because I think what you want, I want, at the end, is the system to change and the way things are carried out in the environment to change, so that whoever the group is, whether its blacks, gays, disabled, whatever, can feel that there going to be seen judged and evaluated on their individual merits, right. And I think that when you get into the terminology of racism and supremacy, when I say the 'freak', I think they get so afraid of it and they get so concerned about being labeled that, that they think more about themselves than the topic or the issue. Then they want to be, they get very defensive rather than cooperative, right. And I think what we want them to do is not back off and shut down, we want them to participate, and in their participation, hopefully they will see that maybe I do, yes, do some things that we're calling whatever the term may be, right. But I think that... Bilal: By 'them' you mean, white people? Kunisawa: Yeah, white people, sure, yeah. When we say it in a way that they personalize it or they're terrified with it or uncomfortable with it, they can't move forward. I mean, they kinda just get stuck there, right. Now, I'm not saying to you that its not important for the issue to go on the table, I'm saying at the same time its brought to the table, perhaps you'd better discuss it from a different point of view. Just that I don't think that we should eliminate EEO and affirmative action just because we're doing diversity. I think if we don't do EEO and affirmative action we're never gonna get diversity, so I think Goldin is right. But, I think you have to run them separately. And I've had meetings with Dillard Menchan, right. And its clear, at least in our discussions that he should just do EEO and affirmative action. He shouldn't do diversity, just do, its enough to do EEO and affirmative action. Don't diffuse your effort by doing diversity. Have another department or section focus on diversity. (...) And not do what EEO does, so people in the organization concluded in the past its a different objective for EEO and affirmative action than it is for diversity. So don't get into the position that we're gonna eliminate EEO and just do diversity Now ideally, if we did diversity well with multi-culturalism, we may not need the intense effort of the EEO. We're never gonna eliminate the EEO because its never gonna be 100 percent fair and perfect. But we may reduce the intensity of the EEO and I think that's what we want to do. So I don't think that you ever reduce it by not talking about it, you know. So, when you said you put this stuff on the TQM bulletin board, were they saying it doesn't relate to TQM? Bilal: That's correct. Kunisawa: O.K. Kunisawa: But, if you said for example the concept of TQM is cooperation and collaboration of each individual member to be able to participate.. BR: Which was said. Kunisawa: And if you said that what prohibits or minimizes that participation is because of 'racism' or 'white supremacy' whatever, I would think that's a legitimate issue. As long as you kept it in, right. BR: That's what was said. That's what was said. Bilal: Well, the basic, the fundamental argument total quality management is impossible without total quality relationships. Kunisawa: Good, good. Bilal: As a consequence of that, anything that inhibits that and anyone who supports that is a person being subversive in fact to the goals that Mr. Goldin or others have set for Goddard and TQM. Kunisawa: I think the problem is, they look at TQM as this generic concept. When ever it goes generic it means, I don't want to talk about culture, I don't want to talk about race, I don't wanta... You've got EEO to talk about culture and race. They separate everything. That's what the problem is see. If you want to talk about race and culture talk about EEO. If you want to talk about the important things that go on in the organization, you talk about TQM, engineering, astrophysics, right, right, but they separate so what we have to begin to send the message is we don't want it in a separate track when we're here, we want it in everything that we do. Unless you're saying everyone who is here shouldn't participate in everything. That's where the discussion has to be, right. Now if you say to me that everybody is supposed to participate then we gotta talk about culture, gender, race or whatever, because those are the barriers for participation, huh. Now if you keep it along that line, right, then I think its very difficult to refute that its not a reasonable point of discussion. I think what they're reacting to is terminology, 'White supremacy' you know, 'racism'. I think because they overreact to that, they don't even listen to the cogent points you make about how it does effect successful TQM. BR: On the bottom line, in your opinion, do you feel that the issues of 'racism and white supremacy' exists. Kunisawa: What are you defining as, when you say 'white supremacy'? Cause people get like Klu-Klux-Klan you know, when you say 'white supremacy'. BR: Basically it is defined as the complete subjugation by all white people of all non-white people in the known universe for the purposes of white supremacy alone or pleasing or serving white people. And that that's a concept and a religion, a belief... Kunisawa: O.K. yeah, I don't believe that's here at Goddard. I don't
believe that all white people here at Goddard want to subjugate or believe
all non-white people are inferior. No, I believe that there's an inherent
belief in this system like every other system in this country that, that
supports all those, you know, genetic books that are coming out now around
ethnic and cultural superiority. I think there's a sense of that in this
stereotype of groups, right. BR: Well the fact I asked about was the concept. I definitely would never say, or could never say that every white person is a white supremacist, nor believes in white supremacy. Kunisawa: You're just defining the term, right? BR: The term, right. So the concept that 'white supremacy' the concept, and I also heard you, if I heard you correctly that you believe that concept exists, but, I'd like to clarify it before we go onto the nest question. Do you feel that the concept of 'white supremacy' exists. Kunisawa: I believe in certain arenas, yes. Clearly the KKK believes that and there are other groups, I sure that maybe even clearly elements of the republican party believe that, even though they might deny it. I don't think they realize that when they carry out certain actions. I mean what usually is defined as 'mean spirited' we would say is 'racist'. I mean, that's how they-, the mean spiritedness is a nineteen ninety four acceptable terminology for that kind of bias or that kind of prejudice. Because, just like 'apartheid' was an acceptable term... BR: For racism. Kunisawa: Yeah, yeah and so the press said that sounds a lot better than racism so we could probably gravitate support to not want to maintain apartheid, right, but if they'd called it racism, then I think it would have been much more difficult to come up with the action whatever cause people just can't relate, you know, cause maybe its guilt whatever it is. BR: But notwithstanding that guilt, and notwithstanding the terminology our question, and this question is relative to all people who are white and all people who are non-white, is does the concept of 'white supremacy' exist. Is it a global and universal concept, does it apply in all areas of the known universe, on earth, and is it always working, and always working for the benefit of white people and against non-white people. Kunisawa: I don't think its universal. I think there's history to say that you can chronicle specific events, you know... BR: At the present time. At the present time. Kunisawa: Oh even at the present time, you can chronicle events, you know, but, I guess we try to make every thing fall under that particular umbrella I think then it becomes very difficult to resolve a lot of the problems. I think that we should be able to identify when things are very specifically under the definition of 'white supremacy' and then define it when it seems to be more around discrimination if not believing that they're inferior that they basically don't have the capability to evaluate. But even if they're a good person trying real hard, they don't have the capability of evaluating another groups competency and because of that they make assumptions based upon what they're comfortable and uncomfortable with that relates to whether you're capable of doing, picking up the next level. CT and BR: So why does it happen (simultaneously) Kunisawa: Well I believe because, that they haven't had much interaction with people who are different than themselves and believe because of that because whether they're gay or whatever, even if they try real hard, because they don't have interaction with people just themselves, they don't have the capability. Its a capability that you have to, you know, cultivate and develop. That's what my belief is. Alright. Bilal: Do you believe that 'white supremacy' was established based on two basic factors, the factor of deception and the factor of violence. And the follow on question would be if you agree on these two factors, how can a non-white person, thinking, speaking or acting logically, how can they not suspect ALL white people, not accuse, but, suspect ALL white people as being racists. How can they not suspect them as being racists. Considering that from what we see all non-white countries are domina- or all non-white people collectively are dominated by all white people on the earth or in the known universe. In other words, we had to be subdued physically first and then we had to be deceived in order for a minority population on the planet to come to the fore. Kunisawa: I always have a problem when we make everything universal and paint everything under one limited um. I believe if you have a system that consistently excluded a population whether its black people, american indians, whatever to be full and equal participants and you don't change that system or model then it continues and carries forth that belief. Yeah, I believe that, and I believe it to the point that it could effect even the total population to begin to support that. We could call that internalized oppression or whatever because that's how cancerous it may be, right. But I also believe that given the strides being made by people to not accept that, that there has to be both majority and minority people realizing that-... You have to really monitor yourself and check yourself when you find yourself falling into that kind of behavior or norm and I believe that there are majority and minority people that consciously do that. BR: When you say majority, who are you speaking of? Kunisawa: White people. BR: So we're speaking about locally in this country. What about globally? Kunisawa: I don't know globally, cause all I know really is this country cause I haven't travelled the world, I could read history, but, history is contaminated too, right. Whoever rules the world writes history that's typically what's been when you look at the money and the power that's a thing that's there. If let me say I followed that line of thinking here at Goddard; that everybody who is white here is racist-... BR & JB & CT: That's not what-... Bilal: That's not the issue. That's not what I said! Basically what I've asked is if you feel non-white people should SUSPECT that all white people are racist. Not accuse, but SUSPECT. That any white person could be a racist. Kunisawa: Yeah. BR: And that that's a reasonable suspicion. Kunisawa: Yeah, sure, yeah, yeah any, yeah, yeah... BR: So basically given, your opinion seems to say that you, and let me know if this is what you seem. What I hear is that... Kunisawa: Why is my opinion so important? BR: Because you're very influential in the way that you speak and particularly. Bilal: Um,... BR: To me, I'm sorry, I'm speaking for myself and that you have a lot of information on the subject. This is why its not an attack on you particularly. Um and uh, the concept that white supremacy does exist. Did I hear you to say that you believe that it exists, but, you don't believe that all white people are white supremacists. Kunisawa: Yeah. BR: And then basically, given all your knowledge and whatever work you've done, do you have any idea what can be or should be done about it. Particularly in the arena of what non-white people should do about that phenomenon. Kunisawa: You know I think it should be dealt with in different perspectives. One clearly is the very candid, straight forward one you had on the TQM board. I think that's one methodology, that should be included in the process. I think there should be another methodology that allows people to examine if it potentially exists and I am in the environment where it potentially exists could I be effected by it? Not that I have to defend it but just to contemplate, if I admit it exists, right, is it possible that I might be effected by it, right. And in that process of thinking begin to examine the things that I've done and that I do that potentially could either say yea or nay to that, alright. I think that's a different methodology, if I wanted someone to really seriously examine whether or not they're conscious, because if you raise the issue for consciousness, right, and then you engage me in non-accusation, but, you engage me in this very logical scope and sequence that says if its in the environment, right, is it possible that you could have been effected by it in the environment and not be conscious that you also in some shape or form, unconsciously, could carry out some behaviors like that, alright. Then we have different line of discussion, right, cause I'm not accusing you, I'm just saying potentially if its, you know, if cancers in the environment or if AIDS is in the environment is it possible for you to get cancer or AIDS, right? And we won't know it unless we test you right? So, its kind of like a verbal test, right. To let us find out. But, I don't want to do it so that its, um, I'm gonna give you an 'F' grade or an 'A' grade, right, its just like pass or fail. So, I just want you to-, and you don't even have to tell me if you don't want to tell me, I just want you to think about it, right. And I may help you by giving you the categories that I'd like you to think about it in. (Laughter) Kunisawa: O.K. now you're exactly, this is, this is, this is basically a method that we have looked at and we we're just getting around to see... Fuller: I can't hear you Mr. R. BR: O.K. I guess as a follow on question to that you were continuing to say what should be done. You stated that the straight forward method of the identification, the second method given that the phenomenon exists could a person be effected by it. Kunisawa: I would say, could a group be effected by it, cause a group would have to be like, could a group of managers be effected by this? Not just the individual, you see, you have to look at the global, the global right, which is either the universe or the whole center called Goddard, is it possible that this concept whether its white supremacy or whateve-, we'll stick with white supre-, is it possible for this concept of white supremacy to be here, is it possible, right. And if people say yes its possible, then we say, is it possible then that people could unconsciously, right, carry out these things because they weren't conscious it was in the environment, they never thought about it, they thought that they're doing everything right and fair and everything. Is it possible that a whole group of people could be unconsciously be carrying this out? In some shape or form, not individually, but they reinforce each other collectively, right so that if you have that group and their managers and their significance by carrying that out whether its consciousness could we not measure it by some adverse impact. You gotta measure it by something, right. So if you say, well the way we measure it is if it has an impact, if we're saying it's 'racism' and define it toward black people so we just test does it have an adverse impact toward black people in this environment? Then I think you're moving into a more tangible concrete rather than an abstract, theoretical or whatever. And if they say yes it may be in the environment, yes, but we're not sure we're practicing it. Then, its like if you're not sure then lets find out if there's an impact or result. Now if there's an impact or result that seems not logical then how did we get to this impact and result if you say this is an environment and nobody is practicing it. BR: Do I hear identification, just identifying? Kunisawa: Well I think if people accept it, then, I don't think that its a problem for the data. If they accept it then we have to look at what you're doing given you've accepted it. But if you don't accept it I have to give you something tangible to say you need to accept it. And I think that the tangible says that is it logical that given all the people here 99% of managers at the top are white males. And if you say well its not a logical result then what do you think causes this illogical result? Could it be somewhat connected to, you said its possible for this to be in the environment, right. If its possible for it to be in the environment even though you believe we don't do it and we have this unexplainable outcome then could what's possible in the environment produce this unexplainable outcome, alright. Cause I think you have to keep moving along a point where they have to engage in discussion. Somewhere you have to engage in discussion. But I think you're gonna have a problem if they disconnect from it being in the environment, you see, if they say that its not possible for it to be in the environment, cause that's why I don't want you to put it on the board or whatever, right, for whatever reason. You've gotta get people to at least admit its possible, right! I didn't say it exist, just its possible. I think sometimes in our earnest we want them to admit, dammit, it does exist. No, I just want you to admit its possible for it to exist. Just possible! It is possible for it to exist. Then, at least, we're moving to step two. You see, if they say its not possible to exist, you can't get past step one, cause its not possible for it to exist. So whatever you want to do, with whatever premise you want to raise, you have to present it in a way that its irrefutable, to be possible. Not it exists, it is possible, because once you admit its possible, then you keep the sequence going. When somebody says its not a possible, they shut down the discussion because why would I discuss with you what I think does not exist, is not possible to do. That's why I think that its very important in the way you couch or present something, that it removes any reason to believe its not possible. Bilal: So, are you saying that, just using the word 'bias' is a first step to words that would more accurately describe what we're talking about. Kunisawa: I think if you build upon it, yes. I say, is it possible for bias to be here? I mean you've got to be a fool to say no. Everybody has a bias, right. So how does the bias play out? Cause now you've engaged them, right, cause now they've said that bias is possible. So we're, now we're having conversation now if I say to you is white supremacy possible and you say no, then we can't continue the conversation. But if I say, bias is possible, then we ask well what does bias look like then, how could it play out. Is it possible there's a bias different for white people than it is for black people, is it possible bias is different for gays than it is for non-gays, so now we're moving the discussion in the arena that there is a possibility then that the way you look and treat people are different. Its clearly something that may be problematic. But if you allow the discussion to be shut down from the beginning then they may give you air time but they're not conceiving it has any type of credibility. Its just, they'll right you off as this kind of faction of people there's always one percent of the population you know... Fuller: I'm not hearing what's being said. Kunisawa: There's always the potential for people who don't really want to entertain the discussion to simply write off a group of people as zealots, you know, and not having a reasonable premise to address. So I think that what we want to do is keep them moving along the lines of probability. Is it probable that bias exists here at Goddard, yes. Is it probable that bias could be different towards different groups of people, yes. BR: Well along those lines, if we were to get it to the point where we have agreed that its possible and we would agree that it exists do you have any suggestions from your point of view for it. What would the quote 'most influential' or final step be after you've determined that its possible or exists do you have any suggestions for going on from there? Kunisawa: Yeah I think that you have to look at what are the different levels or categories of how it exists. Clearly it could be racism, clearly it could be ignorance, all the different categories. Then you have to determine, it doesn't really matter what category it comes from if the result is the same. Because then what you're saying, rather they say well, only one percent of people are racist, I accept one percent, that means 99 percent are not racist, so we can't do anything about it because only one percent are racist. I think if the impact is, you know, people don't get promoted, they don't get treated fairly whatever, right, at that point in time how do we solve this problem? If we say only one percent are racist then how do we impact the other 99 percent to solve this- Because what we really want is to solve this problem. That's what we really want right, we want to solve this problem so it doesn't continue on and on where people don't get adversely affected with their careers. I think the dilemma is when they believe that the only thing they have to address is racism, and only one percent is racist. So they typically do, what we call, blame the victim. Cause they say, "What do you want us to do?". They stand back and say, "You raised the issue, I don't think its here, but, what do you want us to do?". Now, they don't have to put any energy in looking at what they should do, they simply want you to do all the work, right, present all the options so that they can pick from the options. That's a bad concept. See, we need to have them come up with, see, you're the ones that are doing it, right, what do you think? We seem to, minorities right, fall into this game of we make the accusations so we've got to solve the problem. BR: Exactly. Kunisawa: Even though we don't carry out the actions, right, they sit back and say we don't understand what you're saying, that what they always say, we don't understand what you're saying, so what do you want us to do! Alright, I'd say well, what we want you to do is stop producing this outcome, right. BR: Exactly, right. Kunisawa: So that, since you're producing the outcome we can't give you the strategy cause we don't produce the outcome. BR: Right. Kunisawa: What do you think, you should do to stop producing this outcome? BR: So then you'd say that after that step we identify the phenomena is possible, we then identify or verify that it exists. Kunisawa: And has an impact! Its got to have an impact! BR: Um, huh. Kunisawa: You have that data, I know you can get that data, right. BR: And that it produces victims. Kunisawa: Right. BR: But then what I'm hearing you get into as a last and final solution is then ask the people who are most capable of solving the problem, to solve the problem. Kunisawa: Well, reality says they don't want to admit they're capable of solving the problem. Cause the way you slide off of solving the problem is going back to denial. BR: Exactly. Kunisawa: But, then, they'll deny racism, I'd say, I don't care if you deny racism; you can't deny the outcome! BR: Right. Kunisawa: So if I don't engage you in just a discussion of racism, right, I say, well then, this is what I want you to do, how do you think that you as managers can stop this from continuing? Whether its racism, whatever, why aren't you- we sat down at a meeting, and at this meeting- they set the meeting, they got to come and get them something at the next meeting! I mean that's typically, they set the damn meeting, right, then we talk about problems, then we got, we do all the work, right! (Laughter) BR: So, so... Kunisawa: That's not empowerment! (Laughter) Kunisawa: But they're empowered right! BR: So what I'm hearing you say though, Mr. Kunisawa is, and this is not an attack in fact this is a verification of what we've worked out here, is that these work groups and diversity groups don't effectively address the problems, because they're groups where we have gone out and done the work on the diversity issue when what I hear saying and I would like to add that I agree with the chain of logic that we got through that in fact there should be groups of capable people working on and solving the problem as opposed to people who have been identified as victimized by the problem. BR: I think there's just two things, one is we need to maintain the advisory groups just to maintain a image in the organization. Just so that they don't forget we're around. I don't believe that they're a solution, but, they represent that we're here. And it also represents that there's a need for something to remind you that we're here because if we don't have that, you're gonna forget about us again. And that's a part of racism, right. Cause the most, I think the most significant oppression is, you don't exist! I mean, you're a non-entity, I mean so, we need the group so that we remain an entity. Alright, but I guess that what happens is, and we fall into the process, they admit that there might be a problem, they play ignorant or denial, and they want us to come back and solve a problem that we didn't create, right. BR: Yeah. Kunisawa: And then they don't like it when we come up with a solution, so we gotta go back again. I mean that's the issue, the process, right, right. We give them a choice of solutions, that's the history of this problem, they pick the least offensive or the least difficult to do. I say no you create the options, let us choose, now THAT'S EMPOWERMENT! Because its a process. Fuller: I have a question. Kunisawa: Yeah. Fuller: I have a question about quality management. If the issue of race is discussed, and within that context, the issue of the existence white supremacy, whether it does or does not exist, and that that line of reason should be pursued. Is this legitimate within the 'diversity' discussion and to actually use those terms! Because if you're gonna talk about Total Quality Management, basically, you're talking about in interactions with people, the production of an entity called Justice. Now, you cannot get Justice and at the same time have a white supremacist situation or have white supremacy and/or racism being practiced. So therefore whether you use the term 'bias' which leads to the term, which is within the realm of TQM, and you start off with the term 'bias' you eventually come up talking about the word 'Justice' and if you talk about the word 'Justice' you're eventually going to end up talking about what is prohibiting justice from being produced and you finally wind up with the central entity being racism and/or if you're talking about racism, what is the potent form of racism, it is white supremacy. So it all comes down to whether or not white supremacy exists. Whether you're speaking globally, locally or minute by minute or whatever. Either it does exist or it does not. Now if it does then its incumbent upon everyone, white and non-white to first admit that it exists. If that admission does not come forward then there can be no progress toward a solution to whatever the problem is, because all of the problems will flow from that. Because racism is the most potent of all problems as most studies have shown throughout the world. I just wanted to interject that line of thinking getting back to the TQM and what can be said on the installation that is legitimatized by your diversity presentation today. Because that's really the bottom line of what would be coming out of this discussion and your presence there at Goddard Space Center today, whether or not the line of thinking that is being perpetuated now by the people who have evaluated that racism is a problem, whether or not it will be legitimatized by your presentation and their method of approach is correct or incorrect. Its either one or the other. I would like a response to that. Kunisawa: I don't think that white supremacy should be eliminated from any discussion in diversity, but, I don't personally believe that its a singular solution to equity or justice. I believe that once you do that you really limit the kind of discussion that will take place. That's just my personal belief. I think that, yes, I'm sure it does exist, its definitely something that should be discussed, but, I think if you limit every thing that has occurred and everything that will occur based upon addressing that one issue I think you'll limit the kind of participation and response you will get. Fuller: Who will be the person who would respond, and in what ways? If I use the term white supremacy and/or racism and presumably someone would respond to it, presumably, the person who is not a racist would not have any problem with responding and only the person who IS a racist would have a problem in responding and that would be the source of the problem in the first place, presumably. (Pause) Kunisawa: I don't think people will respond to it because they're afraid of the term. I think their a lot of people believe that its going to lead down a separatist road or that they're going to be individually accused of something that they don't personally believe they are. I think that, and I'm talking about management, that's what I'm talking about, because I think that's the core of what we want to resolve here. And I think management will do two things, they will either acknowledge the discussion and not put much weight to it, or they will determine whether or not they believe that whatever group is raising it either has a significant base or power of constituency that they should have to address it or they'll discount it and ignore it and just call it a zealot position and that's what they'll do. And I believe just knowing this culture of this organization that they'll probably ignore it or just find it to be an extremist position. I'm not saying that it should not be raised. I'm just saying that you have to look at different methodology to reach whatever end you want to reach. But I think you have to be very clear on, what is the outcome you want. There have got to be outcomes. You can have process objectives and process objectives may be simply to enter into a discussion around white supremacy. To engage in it, that's a process objective, but, its not an outcome objective, an overall outcome objective means you have to stay this course. And you have to make a measurement on whatever you decide to do is it continuous down this course. Are we making progress to reach this objective. BR: Mr. Kunisawa, real quick, I think we all basically agree here. At first you want to use language and terms which are acceptable so that the conversation can continue, however, I'm hearing one central issue. Its that even from all the suggestions we've heard including yours is, we have to identify barriers to improvement. You say the whole thing needs to be result oriented and the result is basically justice, the elimination of all forms of bias, racism/white supremacy needs to be eliminated and in all of our methods that have been proscribed by the people who have had a chance to speak they include identification of the problem. So therefore we have to conclude that identifying that racism exists in the form of white supremacy and using those words. And however you have to co-opt the people into that discussion, because we said that was the first step. We couldn't even get to- Kunisawa: Right, they eliminated that one when they wanted John's stuff off the board, right. BR: Exactly. Kunisawa: They said they didn't want to entertain that as an issue for discussion, right. BR: Exactly, so even in the last sequence of steps that we had basically agreed on we couldn't even go on to the second step until that first is affirmed, that it exists. So, we all obviously have different opinions about how you'd bring it into the conversation, keep it into the conversation. What I wanted you to do is to understand I guess a philosophy or a attack that Mr. Fuller takes in keeping the discussion going and how to go though basically these steps that we've agreed on. I wanted you to basically hear what his suggestion is. In terms of his methodology for bringing it out and attacking the problem. Kunisawa: And I want to make clear, I think its really important for certain issues to be brought up, white supremacy and racism, so that it doesn't get out of our consciousness, alright. I think its an important reminder of things that we should conceive of, but, I think that its the methodology per se to move us down the road that people who are empowered to look at their own behaviors, because all they have to do is discount-, I'm not a white supremacist so whatever you're talking about isn't talking about me, so that then there's this non-credible discussion going on, right. But, I think the most important thing that has to happen though is number one; why are they so afraid to have the terminology being discussed? I mean that's one thing, right. See, because if we have freedom of speech around nazism and everything else, or anti-nazism, right, what is it that when you say white supremacy or anything like that or racism here in conjures up this kind of reaction that you can't say it, we can't talk about it. Now, that, in and of itself is an issue. Even, not even discussing the reality of its existence, what is it that conjures up this kind of reaction to the term. That you don't even want to talk about it, you don't wan to even have anybody see it. I mean that's a point of engagement. Fuller: Could it be because the terminology is accurate? Kunisawa: Yeah, it may be, but, I'm saying that I want for them to be able to say what is it that causes you to not even want to open up a discussion on the issue. Fuller: Excellent question! Kunisawa: Because that's what we did we censured your position on white supremacy and TQM we didn't even want to entertain your discussion and not entertain whether its a legitimate issue adversely affecting TQM. Because, I think if you make whatever your position is on 'supremacy' or whatever and relate it to the organization, then you've got to talk about the issues. If you talk about the world or the universe, if you talk about society as a whole, they don't have to engage the discussion. They must engage if you say it effects something very specifically at work. Because, now you're raising the issue this does effect the success of TQM. So, its not generic, its not universal, its not world history, its right here. We're saying TQM is not going to work unless we can address this issue. Fuller: I have a question. Kunisawa: Uh, huh. Fuller: How many people classified as white are in that room right now. Bilal: There's one. BR: No, you have to ask. CT: We have to ask. Bilal: Would you classify yourself as a white person? MR: Yes. Bilal: Yes, she says she would. So there's one person who classifies herself as white. Fuller: Now, do white people usually participate in these diversity meetings or meetings dealing with TQM and/or meetings dealing with race there at the installation? Bilal: I would say, yes. Fuller: Question answered. Because that's significant. Kunisawa: But, you know, I know that they're mandated for diversity. I'm not sure that they've ever mandated a race discussion have they? So that I think that the race discussion may occur more significantly in the advisory group setting. Its gonna occur right? BR: I think this is where we've gotten some progress Mr. Kunisawa, in fact, just for information purposes; when the discussion race and um, racism in the form of white supremacy comes up in these groups, the response is to your question, from the responses I've heard is, why are people so afraid to talk about race, they say because it evokes emotions in people, therefore, and then usually you'll hear something about, its not me, but, in other people, therefore, why don't we use the term diversity,- Kunisawa: Oh, I see. BR: -bias, multi-culturalism, and this is what makes a person suspect that the term 'racism' is an accurate term and that these other terms the person feels are less on the point. Kunisawa: I got it, OK. It seems to me then, that what needs to be,- diversity is simply the umbrella for all the issues that need to be addressed its not saying that diversity is a synonym for racism, or sexism, no, its an umbrella that says there's a lot of issues that are not being addressed in the organization, alright. You can run them from primary issues around race and maybe gender or whatever, to secondary or tertiary issues around in don't know, religion or personalities or whatever that that's the wide range. So, you have to determine whether or not the emphasis is on the primary issues of diversity which maybe color, gender, whatever, or you're gonna rather attribute that time to the personality issue, I think that's where you get into the broad definition of diversity. I don't think diversity should ever be seen as a synonym for anything. Its an umbrella that deals with a wide range of different kinds of biases that exist within organizations some are far more significant than the others and they're identified as primary, secondary and tertiary. And clearly racism is primary. And personalities that effect white males its like tertiary, its like third level. If you spend 90 percent of your time on tertiary issues, that tells you where the emphasis is. (Laughter) Kunisawa: I think you have to identify it that way. This is the range of diversity there are primary issues, secondary, tertiary and where do we want to fit in our priority to address problems; on primary issues, secondary or tertiary? And I don't want to say we shouldn't address them all, but, we have to have some emphasis. And by definition, primary issues will tell you it should be the highest priority, they're primary issues, right. So I think that we just haven't gone as far as we need to in looking at the things that are available to us as options because right now we're just trying to separate the differences between EEG from diversity from multi-culturalism. Bilal: May I ask a question? Are you in favor of fast forwarding what we're calling the production of justice by any 'just' means necessary? Kunisawa: Any, yeah, any 'just' means? Yeah, any 'just' means yeah, definitely, yeah, right. Bilal: One of the things we're doing as a code is we're attempting to bring small discussion groups together to exchange views on race or racism. Do you feel that that will be effective or do you feel that it is a good idea, considering you've said that diversity is an umbrella and that there should be maybe some- Kunisawa: Yeah, yeah, I think that, yeah, number one its important, there no question its important. I think the importance has to be matched with utility. Match it with something in the organization. Don't do it generically. Don't just talk about race in general, or race in the world or whatever. Talk about the impact of race in TQM, the impact of race in evaluation, right. The impact of race in promotions, the imac-, I mean, make it tie into something that's organization related. Because then they can't say that I don't know, like I said to you, I don't know what goes on in the world I live in America, right. So, I didn't have to answer that question because you asked me because you asked me, "in the world". So, once you say do you think that race could effect the success of TQM, that's a different discussion now. That's not does racism effect people in the organization, do you think race, not even with the implication of racism, right, effect the success of TQM. Now, we're talking about something about that we want to be successful with here, but, is that a barrier to be successful. I'm thinking you have to connect whatever racism you want to look at to a specific entity. Evaluations, hiring, you know, promotions, job assignments, committee work, all of those things. Bilal: One of the things I think that Mr. Fuller has said is that when you go in and you deal with this subject, you should go in with a list of items to discuss and I think that's intelligent. Fuller: What was said about the diversity and in targeting the specific things about hiring, promotions, et-cetera, there are also variables that are not mentioned like inter-personal relations that are not in these specific categories, such as, how people interact with each other and pass on information, by passing by other people and not giving that information. For instance, a metaphorical example would be a person getting information that would be very useful and passing it on to say a 'buddy', but, it would be passed on on the basis of 'race'! And this is very crucial, all of those intricate variables that go into the interaction between people on a minute by minute, day by day level. These are very important, and information IS POWER. JD: (Unintelligible)... contract from Dr. Goldin? Kunisawa: No I don't have the contract with Headquarters, no, my contract right now is with Goddard. JD: O.K. with Dr. Klineberg? Kunisawa: No, no really, it really came out of, uh, the support of Pete Burr. Pete Burr right, not Klineberg. CT: He's retired, right? Kunisawa: He signed off on it before he retired, alright, that's how the training really got approved. Now, I'm sure he had to convince Dr. Klineberg, but, I'm saying, the initial support came out of Pete Burr. He was the one who... JD: Can I ask you one more question? Kunisawa: Yeah. JD: When you were, uh, got the contract, whatever, you know, to come to talk to us about diversity and so on and so forth, did they elaborate on whether or not there were any problems seen here at Goddard? Kunisawa: I got some information about problems here from the EEG office. You know, about things that seemed to support that there was a need for it even though there's a denial of the problem, alright. So that, just like I know that there's information available that you can't say there are no problems here, O.K. but, I got that information out of the EEG because that's what there job is, to maintain that kind of resource repository. But no, I didn't get any information from management that said to me the reason why we're doing this is because we're concerned about...(Unintelligible). CT: Oh no! They wouldn't do that. Kunisawa: I think there's a greater concern by Golden, and headquarters, that the problems are here, therefore, he maintains this diversity initiative that requires every center to do something. O.K., and I think that, I think people, in the centers reacting to Dan Goldin. JD: So, you wouldn't have to give a report, I don't know if you do, at the end of your contract? You don't have to do anything, just come over here and, you know, just teach us and then, boom you go. Kunisawa: Well there's an evaluation done at the end of each session where they're determining whether or not it appears the information is being received, but, because really the, uh, accountability in your system is the directorates and their diversity plans. So the measurement will be around the impact of the diversity plans for the codes and the directorates. Yeah, but, right now I'm working with code 200 on a two day session, where we are going to write some stuff, we ask them to comment on whether they felt where they worked was fair and equitable and whether they thought that there were problems in that environment, but, that's not at Goddard its just... JD: Yeah, its not... Kunisawa: And then we'll look at some range of feelings and perceptions around how people feel in code 200. JD: How long are you going to be here? Kunisawa: Um, I'll finish right now, in February with the mainstream of Goddard, but, I won't finish until I think August with code 200. Because code 200 is going to the next step, to what you're asking now, beyond awareness, how do we do something in the environment so they're giving, um, me their employees and managers together for two days offsite. JD: Sounds good. The reason I have these questions is, uh, they always say well there are problems, ok, and they said, somebody would come to them and say, you didn't do anything about this. Well, we give classes. Kunisawa: Yeah. JD: And then that's it! And the problems still remain. Kunisawa: They still might say that, but, I never heard ANYBODY admit there was a problem. When you say, we did this because of this problem, that's different than, you come after the fact and say, what about this problem and then they say, "we did this". No, I did not enter the organization because management believed there was a problem, I believe there was a higher belief by management that there isn't that big of a problem here. There's just a group of people who are completely satisfied and who... I think that somehow there has to be another way to engage them, for them to recognize that its in their best interest! Alright, to really find out if there's a problem here because ultimately its going to effect the accomplishment of the mission, and whether or not there going to be an employer of choice. I think that's, you know, something that's a very important issue right now. But, I don't think they see the importance of the issue of diversity in its whole ramifications as something essential to the mainstream of the organization. I think they see it as a tangential topic, you know, that's somewhat hygienic, you know. CT: I heard it described as 'touchy-feely' type courses to make you feel good. So that you'll come back and do a better job. Bilal: When I first met you, uh, you asked me to call Ms. Ross and when I called her she engaged me in discussion for a brief period of time. She said that she had worked here before. You were aware of that, right? Kunisawa: Yes. Bilal: She said that she found the institution to be, um, very racist. Uh, huh, and she said that she really had a hard time reconciling that with coming here to actually to do business, but, that's I guess, its just an item of note. Its an interesting story when you look at it, you know, to see that she was victimized and now, she's back. Doing what she's doing. CT: Who's Ms. Ross? Bilal: Beatrice Ross, she's the CEO.. Kunisawa: She owns the company. CT: Oh. Kunisawa: She's basically is my agent. She brokers my work. Yeah, she uh, by training she's a zoologist. Bilal: Oh. Kunisawa: Because she's older than most of you, when she came into the work environment it was much more severe for a black female to be a scientist. Even more than it is today. And then to be at Goddard at a time where she wasn't even being discussed, I think, uh, gives her a different perspective to what happens at Goddard after all this time to almost see whether there's any progress here today. But I believe that, um, Beatrice, whether she likes it on base or not, she's got to work with it. Bilal: Right. Kunisawa: If the changes are going to occur. So, you know, I think you're right, I think it has been difficult for her to come back to the environment that you have painful experiences in, right. But I think that, her belief that she's committed to change, so, if she gets an opportunity she just can't go to the environments that are easy and receptive. CT: What kind of measurable outcome does your company expect, aside from getting paid? Kunisawa: I think the measurable outcome really is that we get the chance to continue, that if we seem to make an impact, then, like I told you always want the engagement process to continue, that's when you want to see the changes occur. Its when you get stopped, then I think any chances for a change are eliminated. CT: So if your contract is renewed in 96 you know ... Kunisawa: I think if the contract goes to phase two, uh, which I already have for code 200, so I know that part of code 200 has bought into it. So if it goes to code 300, 400 and 500 then I would say that its working well, but, say if they cut it off at code 200 then I'll have to decide whether we did it too well and they got afraid of it, right. JD: You at some point of time, I think you did, but, didn't you meet with all of the managers including the center directors? Kunisawa: You know, that happened a long time ago, but not this current phase. This phase which I started I guess in August or something right. No, I'm not, but I do know that, Sherry Foster came to the session for code 200 and then realized that the senior level had not been exposed to what I was saying, but thinks, what she would like to do is try to set up that sessions. So, I think that's coming, I mean, a lot of this is coming out of code 200, there's no question that there is, for whatever reason I don't even know what it is, but, there's a lot more effort coming out code 200 than any other code. BR: I would tend to guess that that may be because code 200 under the classical definition of 'diverse' is probably one of the most diverse organizations. I would guess that under the classical definition of 'diverse' it probably is one of the most diverse codes here. Um, a question for me is have you ever encountered any organization that was able to have an open and honest discussion of, for example, racism. I mean, using the terminology of racism and/or 'white supremacy'. Kunisawa: I think the easiest groups to engage are educators. The easiest group because, you know, they're into educational purposes so I don't think they personalize things as much, and I think they're, yeah, this is it, I mean educators seem to be, like if I talk to any group of educators easier to engage that discussion its more difficult as you get, you know, like in the more technical areas. Bilal: Would you feel more comfortable in using terminology like 'white supremacy' in dealing with the educators also? I mean, is that what you would feel? Kunisawa: No, I don't feel comfortable in using 'white supremacy' period. No, that's not my, you know... Bilal: I understand. CT: What word would you replace it with? Kunisawa: I guess, I'd rather talk about systemic exclusion, discrimination, oppression, you know, and looking at those kinds of impacts and outcomes, alright. Because number one, I'm not as knowledgeable around it and/or, I guess, if people come to me to try to explain it or whatever at this point in time, its much more difficult for me to respond to do that. Fuller: I have a question. Uh, I understand that, if I'm correct, that you've had experiences with an internment camp, is that correct? Kunisawa: Yes, I was born there yes. I was born in an internment camp, yeah. Fuller: In your opinion, did that have anything to do with, directly or indirectly, a 'white supremacist' posture. Kunisawa: (Silence) Fuller: Hello? I'm not hearing a response. Kunisawa: Well, I guess I'm trying to, because I'm trying to relate it to a familiarity with, you know, white supremacy. I guess, I'm trying to think if if under the subjugation of every white person wanting that to happen, if its around taking advantage of a population by a group of white people, yes, that's very true. If I would say that every white person supported, endorsed and wanted that to happen, I don't really think that's true. Fuller: No, I, I, that wasn't what I was implying. Uh, that every white person, but, that the white persons who made the decision probably, there's probable cause to believe that it was based on racism, because from what I understand from documentation this did not occur with other so-called 'groups of people' who may have been classified as alien and/or alien oriented. Is this correct? Kunisawa: I'll agree with that, there's no question about that. I'll agree with that, Yeah. JD: How did you feel about the stamp coming out. You know the stamp that came out, of Hiroshima? Kunisawa: I don't know whether I've heard about a stamp... BR: The U.S. Postal service, their latest commemorative stamp is showing a mushroom cloud over Hiroshima, and he was asking what you feel about it. Kunisawa: I guess, I would feel its important for acknowledgement. I wouldn't look at it as. I would look at it this way. It's important for it to be maintained in memory, and if its a stamp that's part of the curriculum or whatever, it means there's always a reminder that the event occurred. My biggest concern is when they don't want to document anything about certain incidents or events. That's where I have a greater concern, again around omission. When you document something it always has to bring back the discussion. So that other generations will say "how come they had this stamp?", it generates discussion. I'll take any form of reasonable, accurate documentation, hell, I'll take inaccurate, as long as its documented, cause they'll argue and... It doesn't mean that this, this,..I think the worst thing is omission. CT: But what happens when they change the wording, or change a couple of words, it essentially fades away. Kunisawa: Well, I think that its important to always have, regardless of documentation, a level of awareness that's ongoing. You can't, I mean, writing doesn't stop discussions in the community, it doesn't stop discussions in the church around what we call 'the truth', alright. But something that's documented always enables us to talk about it. It always reminds us that no matter how people view it, it did occur. So if we ignore it occurred then it does fade away. Sometimes its best if its inaccurate because it gets us more into the discussion around what it is, alright. But I believe that the worst thing is to pretend like it didn't occur. I doesn't exist and therefore we eliminate the discussion around the event. Bilal: Anybody have any other questions? BR: I think I wanted to, one thing is to, I discussed with Mr. Kunisawa, giving him the benefit to hear Mr. Fuller describe his technique for addressing racism and white supremacy and if Mr. Fuller could give a brief overview of his concept. Fuller: Well just a brief overview, well, first I start with the premise that the greatest motivating force among people on this planet in all areas of activity is 'white supremacy', what we loosely call 'white supremacy' and/or racism and I say that other people have tribal customs or animosities and including white people themselves have tribal customs and/or animosities that causes friction. Sarajevo, etc, etc, etc... kind or uh, brings this out. And also among the people of the Southern Pacific so-called, and uh, of Asia, of Africa as in Rwanda you have tribal animosities but the umbrella that governs the behavior of people on this planet, regardless of where they are, in all of the nine areas of activity, and uh, these are the areas that I categorize: Economic, Education, Entertainment, Labor, Law, Politics, Religion, Sex and War. Now all people, every minute of every day are engaged in one or more of these areas of activity and all of these areas of activity. Whether you are talking about people who are non-white who are Chinese, or Japanese, or African, or so-called African American, as long as its in the non-white category, these people are directly or indirectly subject to the will of white people who believe in, or perfected the practice of a system of called 'white supremacy'. We loosely call it that, almost as a slang term, and I think that this is why people don't like to discuss it because it covers all nine areas of activity. The non-white people of this world do not behave as they decide to behave without the white supremacists deciding whether or not they can behave in that manner. And this is why you have a thing called racism. Racism and white supremacy have become synonymous. Some people sometimes raise the question what about 'black supremacist'? There is no such thing, black people will kill or misuse or mistreat each other based on tribe or some type of custom or little trivial things sometimes. Most of the times trivial, but, not on the basis of color. Black people do not do anything where white people are concerned on the basis of color except where they are 'forced' to. And among the non-white people of the world this is generally true, white people can move almost with impunity among non-white people unless they do something that disturbs the customs. But not just on the basis of a person looking at them and deciding that they are persona non-grata because they are white. It is only the white supremacist who think this way. And they have devised a system, called white supremacy, the most powerful and awesome system in the world based on the premise that the non-white people are to be suppressed and they have done it with great efficiency. And the reason no one else has done it is because they simply didn't have the proclivity to do it. They didn't have the urge to do it. Now, that's the basis of my premise. Now, how to rid the world of it. The first thing that has to happen is that the white people who participate in the system of white supremacy, who benefit from it, first have to admit that it does it does exist. That's a prime requirement and that they do participate in it. And that gets down to the nuts and bolts of what happens each and every day. How that participation is perpetuated in all of those nine areas of activity. What do they do in religion, the churches they go to, the form that the religion takes, what do they do in economics when it comes to use of time and energy. What is there preference? Why is it that they prefer to one place than another, and to do certain things with some people and not other people, based on color or non-color. And this has to be explained, because it has an impact within the system of racism. And I'll get back to something I said before, there's no such thing as a black supremacist. There might be many black people who do not like white people, and there are many that don't, in fact, there are many black people who may hate white people, but, they are not black supremacists because they do not have the power to express that hate ad-infinitum. It is only a white person who decides to become a white supremacist that has the power ad-infinitum, unlimited power to wreak destruction on non-white people. Now, that's the general overview of he premise of what I call the counter-racist ideology. Fuller: Hello? BR: Yes, Mr. Fuller. Bilal: Mr. Fuller were gonna close up this discussion, but, we appreciate you being on the line and we appreciate Mr. Kunisawa coming to talk with us today. Kunisawa: Yeah, Fuller: And I appreciate everybody having me on line, and Mr. Kunisawa being there and making his presentation which I thought was excellent. BR: One quick thing Mr. Fuller, if you could briefly do it, I would like you to give Mr. Kunisawa the benefit of some of your suggestions or any of your suggestions for a method to correct the situation. Fuller: Well, first of all I would endorse the perspective that I
have put forth as a basic premise for going forward. You have to get to
the genesis of a problem, that's in anything. You go into the doctor's office
and even though the doctor may not want to tell a person that that person
has cancer, at some point, regardless of the words chosen, the doctor is
actually going to have to tell the person "you have cancer and we are
going to have to facilitate a major, a major operation in order to correct
it". Now the person would usually would not want to hear this. I know
that I would not, but, if it is the truth of the matter, you have to get
to the truth of anything. Now you might start off, speaking at a very gentle
tone, so that you do not run the person out of the office, but, at some
point you have to settle down and face the truth.
This interview is brought to you by the Awake Study Group, c/o Black History Club at GSFC at Greenbelt Maryland. Any inquiries as to this document should be directed to John S. Bilal II, Workforce Diversity Committee at Code 220, NASA, GSFC, Greenbelt Road, Greenbelt, Maryland 20771. Thank You, PEACE.
|