How to disrupt philanthropy in response to crisis Darren Walker
I have the privilege of leading the Ford
Foundation a foundation that has existed
for 80 years
foundations in America were really
started by a man named Andrew Carnegie
who in 1889 wrote a seminal document the
gospel of wealth in it he laid out the
tenants of American philanthropy that
would be used by the great titans of
industry and capitalism of the 20th
century from john d rockefeller JP
Morgan Henry Ford Andrew Mellon all the
way through to Bill Gates Michael
Bloomberg and many others and in his
gospel he said that the role of wealthy
men like himself and Rockefeller in
society was to give back to use their
bounty and their wealth to through
terrible causes improved a lot of the
common men the poor the dispossessed and
disadvantaged that idea of philanthropy
remains with us but I read a document by
Martin Luther King about philanthropy in
which he said the following philanthropy
is commendable but it should not allow
the philanthropist to overlook the
economic injustice which makes
philanthropy necessary you see dr. King
unlike Andrew Carnegie questioned the
economic injustice the very inequality
that made their wealth possible he
challenged the wealthy to think about
inequality and their complicity indeed
the complicity of many generous donors
and philanthropists in creating economic
injustice today we
and an age of inequality and if we are
to build back better
we must reconsider philanthropy we must
consider a different kind of economy and
capitalism and the question for the
wealthy the privileged philanthropist is
not what do I do to give back but what
am I willing to give up because without
we privileged powerful wealthy people
acknowledging our complicity in creating
and sustaining a system that is based on
racism and the kind of capitalism that
has generated in these last decades far
too little shared prosperity and so
today we in this country and around the
world are challenged by a sense of
hopelessness which is the great threat
of our time along with climate because
without hope it is hard to imagine that
we can have a democracy that is vibrant
in fact hope is the oxygen of democracy
and we through inequality and the
economic injustice we see far too much
of in America are literally asphyxiates
as we saw the murder of George
Floyd the breath was taken out of his
body by a man who was there to protect
and promote
it’s a metaphor for what is happening in
our society where people who are black
brown queer marginalized are literally
being asphyxiated by a system that does
not recognize their humanity if we are
to build back better that must change
thank you Chris thank you Dan
these are these are powerful words I’m
curious though how this conversation can
best lead to change I mean everyone’s
been shaken up by what’s happened in
your conversations with people let’s say
with the wealthy and the powerful when
you talk about their being complicit in
the system and first step is to
recognize that is that effective as a
rallying cry I suspect that some of
those people feel that they didn’t know
that they had evil intent or were part
of a sort of some sort of hidden
conspiracy that they’re created or this
damage is that the winning pitch to them
or is there also a pitch just based on
look at this system you can agree that
there’s this injustice that people are
suffering let’s fight together to
improve it and to focus more on a
rhetoric of possibility
and unhappiness specific policy changes
that people can support and and get
behind help us with that with the
language because it’s it’s it it’s it’s
it’s so sensitive right now or just
whichever way you look at it that people
are sort of a [ __ ] I think in some ways
even being driven apart just by the very
language in which this current
situation is being framed what’s been
your experience the last few weeks in
how you’ve communicated with others on
this well I think the real challenge
here is that for many people many people
are tired of having to constrain and
contort their language so that
privileged people can be comfortable one
of the things that must happen if we are
to build back better is that we
privileged people have to be
uncomfortable and I think some of the
pushback that you’re seeing is some
people feeling just uncomfortable with
the conversation just as many people
many white Americans have felt
uncomfortable with the conversation
about race let’s just acknowledge that
I’ve had people say to me why do you
have to talk about inequality and race
in the way isn’t there a better pitch
isn’t there a better way of the meaning
underneath that is really can’t we find
a way to keep keep wealthy people and
privileged people comfortable in this
conversation one of the realities is
that in order for us to make progress as
John Lewis points out we are going to
have to get uncomfortable and part of
the challenge for we privileged people
is that privilege buys you insulation
from being uncomfortable the whole idea
of privilege is to buy yourself the kind
of comfort the kind of convenience that
allows you to look away and so I think
for many Americans many white Americans
the murder of George
Floyd was the moment at which we will
look back and say we could no longer be
comfortable with racism in America
and as a friend of mine said she and her
husband were heartbroken by what they
saw
because this is not the America they
want to live in but as I said to her the
hearts of african-americans have been
broken for for centuries in this country
because of racism and so we now all know
we now all have a sense of just how
deeply rooted it is so the language of
how we talk about it is necessarily
going to make privileged people who have
who have benefited from a system that is
racist and a culture of white supremacy
just talking about that makes many
people uncomfortable but it will be
necessary for us if we are to make
progress so talk about how to turn that
discomfort into you know into action
like it you wrote to a powerful op-ed in
The New York Times a few days ago
well you spoke about some of the things
that we must be willing to give up and
you said you included in there the
intricate web of tax policies that
bolster our wealth the entrenched
systems in American colleges of legacy
admissions which gives a leg up to our
children and above all the expectation
that because of our money we are
entitled to a place at the front of the
line you explained that last part what
do you mean by that what I mean by that
is in our system we have created a fast
track a fast lane for the wealthy and
the privileged and the professor at at
Harvard Michael Sandel has written quite
beautifully about this issue and I just
think it is a part of the culture that
the rich and the wealthy believe that
they should always have a place at the
front of the line always
every line and I think that is bad for
our culture do you think they believe
that or that they just haven’t thought
about it
like I I know a lot of white people and
I’ve never heard someone actually
express that belief you know publicly in
any way so is it I always expect to be
at the front of the line no one’s going
to verbalize that but culturally we see
that we see that from the ways in which
people the wealthy attend sporting
events attend the kinds of events that
used to be where we all sat in the
bleachers together I took my daughter my
granddaughter sorry I took my my
goddaughter to Disneyland or somewhere
and they met there was literally a fast
track if you paid more your child did
not have to stand in the hot Sun for as
long as both regular children did and
and my point is just we have to
understand that this is a part of our
culture and because we believe in a
meritocracy in this country most people
believe and particularly most privileged
successful people believe first that the
rules are generally fair because they’re
winners and many of them have stories
and I’ve heard countless stories that I
started with nothing my father was a
bricklayer my mother had a high school
degree I started with nothing well you
started as a white man with the degree
from Harvard Business School in 1978 if
you don’t believe you had an advantage
then you’re not living in the world that
most Americans live in Darren tell us a
bit about your own story well my story
is really punctuated by a nation that
believed in poor low-income kids who
lived in urban and rural America and
that’s how in 1965 in a small town
called Ames Texas population 1,200 a
lady appeared in front of our little
shotgun Shack to tell my mother about
the new headstart program so I was lucky
enough to be in the first class the
inaugural class of head start in the
summer of 1965 and I went to public
schools in fact I like to remind people
that I have never attended a day of
private education in my life and I say
that with great pride because
increasingly in the places and spaces
I find myself I find fewer people with
that same trajectory and it concerns me
I had Pell grants I also had private
philanthropy so my journey was really
financed by of the public-private
partnership that is this amazing web of
support what I worry about today Chris
is that I felt when I was a little boy
and growing up even though I faced
racism and homophobia and lots of issues
I always felt like my country was
cheering me on I don’t think today that
little black boys and girls living in
shotgun shacks or in housing projects in
America cities feel like America is
cheering them on that they are going to
be able to get on the mobility escalator
as I did and I was born in the bottom 1%
in a Charity Hospital in a in a very
poor rural community in Louisiana and I
now find myself firmly as a part of the
1% top 1% so I’ve been on both sides of
the inequality equation
and I see that the difference is growing
further and further apart so help us
understand that better it sounds like
what you’re saying is that for a period
of time and perhaps over the course of
your life there actually was real
progress there were these programs that
allowed some people to you you know
benefit to have at least a chance at a
different kind of life it wasn’t their
progress and and then has that been
reversed and if it has been reversed
what was what was the key cause of that
reversal absolutely there was progress
and I remind people who I hear say
things like we haven’t made any progress
since the 1960s on poverty or why is
black unemployment at the levels it was
in 1968 and such data between 1965 and
1978 we made tremendous progress in this
country rates of graduation from high
school college our wages employment
levels for blacks in America were at
all-time highs we made massive massive
progress and the data are clear on that
but something happened and what happened
was in many facets of American life
White’s saw the progress of blacks as a
threat and so one of the things that
immediately came under attack was
affirmative action which was a policy to
redress the white supremacy that is
baked in to the DNA of this country and
our policies well White’s some whites
argued that that was reverse
discrimination and took a case to the
Supreme Court that outlawed racial
quotas and since that time we have been
in
fight around this issue of reverse
discrimination which is a an incredibly
precious idea to turn a policy that
seeks to redress the white supremacy
that is built into our nation to redress
that as itself a form of discrimination
but this was a huge boon for blacks I am
a product of affirmative action and I
say that with pride because my country
actually acknowledged the historical
legacy but we lost and have lost on that
and it is much more difficult now there
were a number of interventions like that
that propelled us forward but what
happened was a combination of a reversal
of those policies and an economy that
increasingly marginalized black workers
and thirdly at the same time an ascent
of a criminal justice system would
proactively sought to incarcerate black
and brown Americans at higher rates and
so we have seen this convergence of
really pernicious harmful clearly
directed at African Americans these
policies these practices that have
rendered us so marginal in the economy
and it is no surprise that we see people
on the streets marching with the words
black lives matter because it is clear
in this country that black lives have
mattered less than white lives you spoke
there of the need for criminal justice
reform and you’ve played a big role in
that
many people black and white and actually
left and right have
come together to seek different forms of
criminal justice reform but the actual
doing of it ends up really hard I mean I
you published this amazing piece last
autumn called in defense of nuance and
you wrote you wrote this and this
connects to criminal justice reform in a
minute you wrote in the boardrooms of
businesses and museums on committees and
campuses and everywhere in between
seeking common ground has been replaced
by a retreat to our corners like
fighting fire with fire
the fiery is met with fiery and no one
seems willing to turn down the
temperature rather than building bridges
and relationships based on mutual
understanding or shared respect this
oppositional nuanced averse posture
rewards ideological purity and public
shame the very things that scuttles
strong working relationships and
incentivize people to dig in their heels
so that was that was as eloquent a sort
of an appeal to a kind of a bridging
mentality of saying look situations of
complex we’ve got to listen to each
other work through complexity to resolve
them and yet this piece landed you in a
firestorm because one of the examples
you you gave in this was that as part of
you know the the drive to close down
Rikers Island which is this horrifying
cesspit of a prison that you would
support for smaller prisons being built
were you know modern and collectively
much you know smaller than Rikers Island
that was a compromise that that that got
you in trouble I mean do you you know
activists said no you know you you you
can’t support any extra jail building
that they’re far too many people in jail
anyway
I mean how what’s your take on that now
do you still believe in the importance
of nuance as we address these issues I
absolutely believe in the importance of
nuance because the challenges we face as
a society are incredibly complex
and it is important to understand that
if we are to solve these problems we
can’t solve it by simply naming and
shaming I think we have to acknowledge
that there are many opportunities to
build allies and to create the forums
for people who share a diagnosis and and
and it doesn’t mean that you share an
idea about what exactly the solution is
but there are a lot of people who would
share the diagnosis that our criminal
justice system is broken so let’s get
all of those people around the table
let’s not leave out any of those people
and then let’s figure out how we go
forward
and and that’s simply my pitch on all of
these issues were facing and I
understand why for a lot of people and I
think it’s it’s it’s one of the reasons
for example the defund police movement
has has gained such currency when it did
not have the currency that it had before
George Floyd murder I think part of it
also is because for those who were
saying let’s tweak around the edges and
let’s make community policing the model
I think for many people they’ve given up
on that idea that you can actually tweak
around the edges that that may be three
years ago two years ago they might have
been willing to negotiate to say tweak
around the edges but at this point
people are tired people are exhausted
and they’re angry and they’re grieving
and it is all legitimate and so the idea
of defunding the police
which was a marginal radical idea is now
mainstream and being considered as a way
to reimagine
a different kind of law enforcement and
and I believe that we’re going to need
that kind of thinking as we consider how
to build back better No maybe that your
call for nuance is crucial there because
if defending the police is viewed as an
all-or-nothing thing it’s it’s like
that’s a huge arguably that’s a huge
force that will aid the reelection of
the president so forth if it’s fuel
you’re exactly right
so all right so let’s take some
questions from the community here
Andy Burland
what are your thoughts on the best way
for employees of big companies to hold
corporate leaders accountable to honor
their stated commitments to addressing
systemic racism and inequality well I
believe there’s going to need to be a
reckoning in corporate America that is
aligned with the reckoning in the rest
of America that we have built into our
mechanisms of promotion of recognition
with and and and success barriers and
those barriers are often race-based
they’re gender-based the way we hold
them accountable is two ways one that we
come back a year from now because the
media will move on in some ways but the
media will be back and organizations
whose work it is to actually hold them
accountable nonprofits that work in the
ESG space the civil civil rights and
racial justice organizations will hold
them to account the other thing that
must
happen and II is that we have to change
the composition of corporate America
that is how we will hold corporations to
account so we need to move beyond the
tokenism that exists on most public
company boards and in private equity
because we talk a lot about the fortune
500 there are fewer public companies
today because of private equity and yet
very few people understand what is
behind the curtain called private equity
where millions of Americans are employed
and that there are literally thousands
of small to medium sized companies with
boards so these boards need to be
diverse and we need to move beyond the
paradigm of oh we’ve got a black and the
Latinas on our board check-check let’s
move on I’ve certainly been vocal on the
boards that I’m on that we need to think
very seriously about moving from
tokenism to transformation let’s take
the next question
this one’s anonymous how have you chip
how have you changed how the Ford
Foundation operates to address fraud in
equity not in terms of the programs you
support but rather how you support them
and perhaps this is a good chance to
talk about this amazing social bond
initiative that you just announced I
don’t well I do think that we have
changed a number of ways in how we
support organizations first most
foundations provide project support and
having run a non-profit I know that
project support is basically a contract
and is something that is often generated
by the foundation and you’re treated
like a contractor and you’re paid like a
contractor often with very little
overhead I have challenged this
foundation to
a new way of funding and we have an
initiative called our build initiative
which is a is a general operating
support a five-year grant program and we
now are at 76% general operating support
having been 21 percent when I came to
the foundation
I believe providing general operating
support is the most valuable not only
capital for investment but also it is
the way to endorse the leadership the
board the mission the vision the
execution so I believe it’s not about
investing in projects or looking for the
shiny new thing institutions are what
sustain social change yes Martin Luther
King was a great individual leader a
great social entrepreneur but he had the
SCLC as a mechanism an institution
Gloria Steinem a Muhammad Yunus I could
go through the list of individuals the
fourth foundation is funded but they had
to have Grameen Bank and the MS
Foundation and the list goes on and on
so institutions should be invested in
that’s first secondly we have to get out
of our way of of conservative thinking
about the capital we have at our
disposal beyond the 5% what are we doing
with the other 95% how do we think about
deploying that and Chris mentioned an
initiative that we have led here that
came out of our concern of what was
happening what we were hearing from
nonprofits in the wake of kovat and the
wake of canceled fundraisers dark
theaters donors are pulling back on
giving as a result of what was happening
in March and April and May in the
markets so I with the trustees of the
foundation generated this idea of
issuing a social bond a bond that would
be a 50
year dead instrument that we would issue
in the capital market for 1 billion
dollars which would allow us to double
our payout so we would pay out for the
next two years we normally pay out $550
$550 or so so we pay out over 1 billion
for 2 years and that it would primarily
be general operating support to those
key mission critical critical
institutions working on racial justice
inequality issues of reproductive rights
and justice human rights the arts and so
this is how we’re working today it’s
it’s far from perfect we must do better
but we I believe at Ford have we are we
are working at understanding that
balance that legacy foundations have
that I think is too balanced too
imbalanced towards preservation rather
than innovation and I want to focus on
innovation and if we innovate well then
the preservation part will be taken care
of let me just see if I understand the
financial instrument here because it as
I read you got really favorable terms on
this debt you you have to you have these
bonds that you have to pay back at a
rate of about 2% and it’s it’s it’s a
lot lower than like big companies are
paying on the on the bond market too but
some people might wonder why not rather
than having this debt that you have to
service over the next 30 or 50 years why
not just pay out the billion dollars I
mean people you know why should a
foundation sustain its endowment forever
well the future have a lot more wealth
aren’t the intense problems that could
make or break the future with us now
what why not just pay out the money
directly or more radically why not just
have a 10 year plan to spend all of the
endowment and put yourself out out of
out of business how do you think about
that well first most foundations like
Ford or Rockefeller can’t put ourselves
out of business
our charters we are established to exist
in perpetuity and while we probably
could go to court or do something to
break up that the donor’s charter that
established us we do have that
responsibility and I would like to
believe that there will be more funders
in the future who talk about the way we
do race and social justice but we are
far from there because many of these
ideas actually challenge the very
systems that create wealth in this
country so I don’t believe at this point
that taking money and what the
investment experts would say reducing
our liquidity at a time when the markets
are more volatile and we will need that
liquidity to pay out grants that that’s
a smart investment strategy if you
believe that you do have some fiduciary
responsibility to to continue into the
future the social bond idea allows us to
do both allows us to take advantage as
you said Chris this is a historic high a
historic low in terms of rates and for
the Ford Foundation this was the first
ever foundation issued bond of its kind
we were oversubscribed we sold 1 billion
dollars of bonds we had over 5 billion
dollars of orders from customers of the
various underwriters and so there was a
pent-up demand and because of that as
you say we borrowed at basically 2.8
percent for 50 years which is
unprecedented but it shows you I think
the hunger on the part of investors in
investing even at low rates in a social
bond a a bond that is going the proceeds
of which are going to be used to advance
social justice in the world that’s
amazing that there’s 4 billion dollars
of unrequited demand there to me that
implies someone who retail
yes had a full billion dollar idea to
help make America in the world a better
place there’s funding there for it like
that seems like an opportunity to my
other friends in in philanthropy Chris
there was there is you know five point
eight billion dollars of orders and we
were only selling a billion hey guys
there’s a lot of capital out there that
we could all put to work in philanthropy
at very very attractive rates that’s
doing Ted community put your creative
hat someplace on on that one let’s have
another community question how do we
keep the arts theaters concert halls and
the vast web of culture that enlivens
our cities and communities how do we
keep that a priority in this crisis it’s
got to be a priority in this crisis
because without the arts we atrophy as a
society and so not just in the cities
but in small towns as well we have an
obligation so we are taking about of the
social bomb that we are doing we are
investing about a hundred and
seventy-five million dollars of the 1
billion in the arts I would also say
that we have to have our governments do
more and I think there needs to be as we
consider the next round and there will
be another round of support from
Washington the role of the arts is going
to is critical and we should be
advocating to ensure that that is
recognized in whatever large allocation
of federal funds comes to the cities I
also think we are going to have to think
creatively donors can think creatively
in fact I had a billionaire family in
the UK who want to start
an arts trust and through an arts bond
and they are thinking creatively we are
all going to have to think creatively
now in ways in which we never did in the
past to address this issue of inequality
and the way in which kovat is impacting
us I’ve talked about we’ve got in higher
education the HBCUs who are living
hand-to-mouth and the great Ivy’s
Harvard and Yale and Stanford with
literally more money than than one could
imagine and of course it costs a lot for
excellence but wouldn’t it be
interesting for a group of Ivy’s to
issue a social bond of several billion
dollars the proceeds of which could be
used to strengthen the HBCUs whom all
together which number well over 100 how
about taking on that kind of inequality
how about in the arts asking ourselves
not just about Lincoln Center where I am
on the board so I feel strongly about
the importance of the Lincoln centers
and Kennedy centers of the world but
quite candidly Lincoln Center is gonna
be okay it’s going to be rough and tough
but it’s going to survive there are many
arts organizations particularly arts
organizations that are led by people of
color that are in those communities that
don’t have endowments boards who can put
together emergency fundraising campaigns
who don’t have 12 months of operating
cash flow those are the organizations I
worry about being on the precipice and
while I’m gonna fight for Lincoln Center
and Carnegie Hall where I’m on the board
and the National Gallery I’ve got to
also recognize that those organizations
visa vie the larger arts community are
very privileged and we’ve got to be
focused on
the gap between those who have and those
who do not okay we’re gonna have three
more questions quickly let’s and I’ll be
brief I promise all right
so now litora can that be real progress
without taxing wealth no there can’t be
progress in reducing inequality without
and I and Chris you referenced the most
recent New York Times opinion piece
where I wrote we have to have a
reconsideration of our tax policy
without that it is impossible to imagine
how we rebuild all right thank you next
question ad Delaney how do we create
empathy and motivation to give among
those who have generational wealth and
therefore have no experience of
financial need
well actually I find that people with
generational wealth often are very
generous and very empathetic and
sometimes it’s because they understand
that they got the lottery I mean that
they inherited this great wealth and
whether it be guilt or whether it be a
real noblesse oblige or whatever it may
be they they do want to give and I think
many could give more there’s no doubt I
find it much more challenging among
newly wealth people who for whom this
idea of I made the money and it is mine
to decide what to do with and and how
quickly I want to give it away is really
up to me to decide and how and to whom I
want to give it to is for me and I want
to give as little of it as possible to
the government because I actually am in
a better position to make decisions
about how to solve our nation’s problems
than the government um that ideology I
think is very hard because it’s the
combination of arrogance and ignorance
which is a lethal toxic combination that
regrettably I find far too present in
our society today just occasionally you
find among those people like if you’re
talking about entrepreneurs who’ve made
a fortune that that kind of bold
entrepreneurial thinking occasionally
leads to bold philanthropic vision and
so I’ve seen a mix there my god I wish
people would do more but because it’s
that it’s not actually it’s that mindset
of just really thinking big and outside
the box that could make a huge
difference here and really take fernsby
to a new level but it could be worse I
also find among that group people who
don’t believe in institutions as a
mechanism for change who are looking for
the new shiny silver object who want a
one or two year big bang and and that’s
great
I I I’m not diminishing that what I’m
saying is I I would not want that to
become the overall sort of philanthropy
mindset because chasing the shiny new
silver object is not going to to change
how race and racism is addressed
systemically which is the only way we’re
going to be able to change things and
until I’m all for projects I’m all for
prizes I’m all for great but at the end
of the day long term long range
investment as philanthropy in
institutions and people is what sustains
change and I’ll give one final example
on that I just approved in 1963 the Ford
Foundation funded the n-double-a-cp
Legal Defense Fund the LDF to
the states of Mississippi Alabama and
Georgia for voter suppression keeping
blacks from the polls
I just approved a round of grants to the
Legal Defense Fund to sue the states of
Mississippi Alabama and Georgia for
voter suppression there is no shiny
silver object that is going to keep the
issue of racism in those states and
keeping black people from voting
other than rule of law and the
institutions who will hold elected
officials to account and that’s an
institution and it’s going to always
need to exist as long as there is racism
baked in to our policies and our culture
and that’s where my head is for
philanthropy and I know it sounds
old-fashioned and I don’t sound cool and
you know I’m not I mean because I’m not
cool and I’m not that I don’t hang out
with colder people because at the end of
the day those are great and I love the
advances but you got to have
institutions in a democracy yeah we’ll
take one more question I think this may
have to be the last actually Chadbourne
run quest what are your thoughts
regarding how willing our country is to
fundamentally shift our systems in ways
you suggest a required Todd Burr and I
think I am very hopeful I’m hopeful
because I talked to more people more
privileged people especially more
powerful people who share the diagnosis
who two or three years ago probably
didn’t share the diagnosis who two or
three years ago could still find reasons
to say oh it’s not that bad or I mean I
once had a billionaire say to me why do
you write so much about inequality it’s
such a downer why don’t you write about
opportunity this is America we believe
in opportunity all of this inequality
stuff is a downer that same billionaire
today is very comfortable talking about
inequality and racism and the
intersection so I am starting to see I
had a CEO of a major fortune 500 company
who sent my op-ed piece from last week
which called out the precious effect of
stock repurchases the share buybacks
that have become the main priority under
the friedman ideology I challenge that
and said we need to reconsider that as a
priority that’s a that’s a pretty I mean
for a public company director that was a
pretty radical thing to say but it’s
true
and in fact he sent it to the directors
of this company which is very
interesting that actually because my
issue is that executive compensation is
so distorted because of the ways in
which these policies and cent share
buybacks and the fact that you’ve got a
fortune 50 CEO sending that to his board
and his comp committee for conversation
I think is a tiny tiny indicator of what
could be possible if we actually
mobilize people and we don’t we don’t
allow this to subside we keep we keep at
it
so that’s probably a good a good place
to to bring this to a close I mean it
sounds like Darwin you really believe
there is a possibility now that people
from many different quarters can come
together in this moment recognize their
privileges recognize the depth of
difficulty of some of these issues and
work together with passion and with
nuance to try and figure this stuff out
and so solve some of these problems do
you I mean how are you on a typical day
do you feel do you feel just dismayed
about where we are at you do you really
see enough sign
that we could emerge from this and get
some things actually fixed well Chris on
any given day if you are on social media
or have your telly turned on it is
impossible at some point not to be
depressed
dejected despondent but I am actually
very hopeful more hopeful than I’ve ever
been because I see for the first time in
America a reckoning with a history we
have been unable to collectively
acknowledge as problematic wrong and
that history is with us as James Baldwin
reminded us 60 years ago it is with us
and I truly believe my favorite poet
Langston Hughes almost a century ago
wrote let America be America and in it
he says America never was America to me
but he goes on to say in the final
sonnet but yes oh someday America will
be Langston Hughes was defiant and angry
that as a black man in 1938 when he
wrote that poem he knew he was a
second-class citizen in this country
founded on ideals of justice and
equality but he was hopeful that someday
America would be America and I believe
that we no longer can wait for that
someday that this generation should not
have to say someday in the future
America will be America the time for
America to be a
erica is today darn thank you so much
for those words thank you for your
leadership and thank you for being part
of this conversation with us today thank
you thank you Chris for the invitation