Abstract
This chapter analyzes the discourse surrounding the Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s public events—its calls for participation, Swearing In and Seating Ceremony, three public hearings, and Report Release Ceremony—to demonstrate how the commissioners reaccentuated the organizational rhetoric of past truth commissions to position the Commission, and the truth commission process in general, as representative of the Greensboro community at large. However, even as they established their representivity, commissioners also highlighted the ways in which they were unrepresentative of the community. Creating this tension enabled commissioners both to identify themselves with community members and to establish themselves as a model of interaction and reconciliation for the community.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Peter Storey, the former prison chaplain to Nelson Mandela, may also have been involved in bringing the notion of representivity to the Greensboro process. Storey served on the National Advisory Committee, which helped to draft the GTRC’s defining documents. In an e-mail to Lisa Magarrell, he wrote, “To get a commission that has broad acceptance, you have to involve the widest number of different constituencies” (Magarrell & Wesley, 2008, p. 57).
- 2.
When Magarrell (2002) suggested that GTRC should be “somehow representative,” she seemed to be using the term primarily to mean that the Commission should be typical—that is, having the distinctive qualities—of some class, group, or body of opinion. Tutu (1999, p. 9) used the term “representivity” in a similar sense: to highlight the typicality of the SATRC in relation to South Africans.
- 3.
In exploring how the Commission positioned itself as representative, I am primarily concerned—as Magarrell (2002) seemed to be—with the ways in which the Commission positioned itself as typical of some larger class, group, or body of opinion. This distinction is necessary because there were moments, before and during the life of the Commission, in which various parties were positioned as representative in another sense—namely, as people chosen to act or speak on behalf of a wider group. To prevent confusion, I use the adjective “representative” to mean typical or characteristic of a wider group, unless I explicitly specify otherwise. I also borrow Tutu’s term “representivity,” which I use, much like Tutu (1999) did, to specify a subject position characterized by typicality in reference to a wider group.
- 4.
I contextualize my findings with media coverage of these events from Greensboro’s newspaper—the News & Record. The News & Record was one of the main media sources that the Commission used to publicize its events, and—at the time of the Commission’s operation—the paper had a fairly wide readership in the city. According to Magarrell and Wesley (2008), the paper claimed “to have a circulation of over 92,000 (rising above 110,000 on Sundays) to a racial demographic that tilts toward white readership but that roughly corresponds to the area’s population” (p. 163).
- 5.
As I will show, representivity enabled commissioners to identify with a greater segment of the Greensboro community, while unrepresentivity served as a warrant for their claim that they would evaluate the past fairly. My thinking about the ways in which the GTRC navigated between these constructions of ethos was informed primarily by two sources. The first was Ruti Teitel (2000), who noted that most truth commissions are expected to be both “politically balanced” and “neutral” (p. 81). The second was D. Robert DeChaine (2005), who, when writing about the non-governmental organization Doctors without Borders, noted that the organization has had two “contradictory motivations”: they have made use of both a rhetoric of neutrality and a rhetoric of moral-ethical commitment. DeChaine highlighted that Doctors without Borders’ practice of temoignage—i.e., its practice of “bearing witness to, and speaking out against, perceived human injustices that its volunteers encounter” (p. 83)—demonstrated a “precarious navigation of political neutrality and moral conviction” (p. 77).
- 6.
For another account of the formation and work of the selection panel, see Magarrell and Wesley (2008, pp. 57–65).
- 7.
The list of interest groups included the student body chairs, Presidents, and Chancellors of Greensboro’s six colleges and universities; the Chamber of Commerce; the Neighborhood Congress; the Police Officers Association; the Truth and Community Reconciliation Project (GTCRP); the Guilford County Democratic Party; the Guilford County Republican Party; the Jewish community; the NAACP; the National Conference for Community and Justice (NCCJ); the Mayor of Greensboro; the Muslim community; the Pulpit Forum of African American Churches; the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the Daughters of the Confederacy; the Triad Central Labor Council; and a consortium of traditional Protestant, Catholic, and Independent churches (GTCRP, 2003b, p. A9).
- 8.
However, Mayor Keith Holliday clarified that his appointment of Judge Lawrence McSwain to the selection panel did not constitute an endorsement of the GTRC (Dyer, Binker, Buchanan, & Shultz, 2004, p. B1).
- 9.
That said, as Magarrell and Wesley (2008) recorded, several of the interest groups mentioned in the advertisement—such as the “traditional Protestant, Catholic, and independent churches” and the “Muslim community”—were actually comprised of many groups representing a variety of viewpoints (pp. 60–61). In these cases, work was done to bring these groups together in order to choose a selection panel representative (pp. 60–61).
- 10.
As Magarrell and Wesley’s (2008) account of the GTRC has productively highlighted, the Commission’s independence from the Project was an issue that the Commission’s architects and the commissioners themselves considered carefully (pp. 70–71, 77–80). Nevertheless, the Commission’s independence was contested at a number of points throughout the process (pp. 135, 158).
- 11.
The commissioners’ names were first listed in the May 28th edition of the News & Record (McLaughlin, 2004, p. B1).
- 12.
Note that claims like these from Magarrell and Wesley’s (2008) account are an important part of the rhetoric of representivity surrounding the GTRC. That is, such comments do not simply describe a state of affairs (i.e., the Commission’s representivity) but help to constitute it as such.
- 13.
As Magarrell and Wesley (2008) put it, the speakers “made it clear that, even though the ‘official’ city had not taken up the call for truth and reconciliation around the events of November 3, 1979, a significant part of Greensboro saw the Commission as a hopeful and an important step” (p. 67).
- 14.
Given that the panel conducted the majority of its work in private, Judge McSwain’s description of the selection process was instrumental in shaping how the public perceived this process.
- 15.
After all 18 speakers had spoken, Gregory Headen—the master-of-ceremonies of the event—provided a coda that broadened the representivity constructed here: “We want you to know,” he said, “that those you have heard today are only a sampling of the many supporters and well-wishers for this project and this process” (GTCRP, 2004). And then he went even further, calling audience members to “autograph the pledge that the commissioners took as a show of your own support for this truth and reconciliation process.” Another, related instance occurred when Headen held up a large scroll and remarked, “We…hold in our hands from the community thousands of petitions. Literally thousands of citizens of Greensboro and the greater Greensboro area have signed petitions as a show of support for your [the GTRC’s] work and what you will be doing, and we just are so happy [about] the overwhelming support, and I think that alone is a reason for us to clap our hands” (GTCRP).
- 16.
3 months after the Swearing In and Seating Ceremony, the mayor announced a project of his own—the Greensboro Bicentennial Mosaic Partnerships Project (Magarrell & Wesley, 2008, pp. 169–170). The Project, patterned after an initiative in Rochester, NY, was intended to “improve communication among the city’s racial and ethnic groups” (Williams, 2004a, p. B1) by pairing “180 top civic leaders across racial lines and encourag[ing] them to become friends and share experiences” (Williams, 2004b, p. A1). According to the News & Record, Holliday claimed that “the program wasn’t a reaction to the Greensboro Truth and Community Reconciliation Project” (Williams, 2004b, p. A1). But many read it as such, in part because the date for the official launch of the Mosaic Project was set for November 4, 2004—one day after the 25th anniversary of the Greensboro Massacre (“Greensboro Initiative,” 2004, p. A8). Moreover, the city stopped funding the Mosaic Project shortly after the Commission completed its work—another indication that the mayor’s program may have been at least somewhat reactionary (Magarrell & Wesley, 2008, p. 170).
Whether or not the Mosaic Project was a response to the Commission’s installation, it generated noteworthy press for the Commission. In the September 14th edition of the News & Record, the cover story compared the two initiatives, noting that the efforts shared a common goal—addressing the racial divide in Greensboro—but that they attempted to achieve that goal in different ways: “Holliday’s effort will be funded and directed by the community’s established institutions and is limiting participation to top leaders of civic groups. Leaders of the reconciliation project say they are taking the opposite strategy, hoping to work with the wider community to face racial problems and to tackle tough truths” (Williams, 2004b, p. A1). Citing Reverend Zeb Holler, an organizer of the Greensboro Truth and Community Reconciliation Project, the article noted, “While Holliday’s group aims for its work to ‘trickle down,’ Holler said the reconciliation project’s approach is ‘bubble up.’ He welcomed the new effort and said there’s a need for both approaches to solve the problem” (Williams, 2004b, p. A1). The Mayor’s Mosaic Project, in short, offered the Commission’s advocates an opportunity to emphasize its own broad appeal and grassroots design in ways not inconsistent with the ethos of representivity.
- 17.
The first, entitled “What brought us to November 3, 1979?”, took place on July 15–16; the second, “What happened on, and after, November 3, 1979?”, took place on August 26–27; and the third, “What does the past have to do with the present and future?”, took place on September 30 and October 1.
- 18.
Although each member of the Commission spoke, they did not emphasize their individual differences; rather, they emphasized their unity as a body, primarily through the repeated use of the pronoun “we” (GTRC, 2005a).
- 19.
These statements by Clark and Lawrence were further reinforced by Cynthia Brown’s closing remarks, read at the end of each of the public hearings: “We have invited speakers to the hearing based on the contributions they can make to the public’s understanding. Such an invitation does not amount to an endorsement by the Commission of that speaker’s views or the acceptance of his or her statement as fact….The presentations today are not the Commission’s findings but rather just a portion of the evidence we will consider” (GTRC, 2005c).
- 20.
Magarrell and Wesley (2008) have noted the importance of choosing speakers “who could present a range of perspectives” (p. 101) and “an array of voices to the public” (p. 202) in establishing the credibility of the Commission. Such credibility is grounded in the rhetoric of representation.
- 21.
Additionally, at each of the hearings, a significant number of academics presented their research on a variety of issues related to November 3, 1979. These researchers, however, may have done less to reinforce the Commission’s representivity than they did to reinforce the Commission’s objectivity.
- 22.
Magarrell and Wesley (2008) make a similar argument about the Klan’s participation in Learning from Greensboro (pp. 202–203).
- 23.
There were also a few editorials that criticized the Commission in the days following the hearing. In a letter to the editor entitled, “Is commission really seeking truth?”, Donnie Stowe (2005) wrote, “In reading about the self-appointed Truth and Reconciliation Commission ‘hearings’ in the paper [on] July 27, I was struck by the apparent small part that truth plays in these proceedings” (p. A6). Similarly, a letter to the editor from Marion Griffin (2005) noted, “When those involved have in their majority people who have already decided the outcome beforehand, mutual understanding and an abrogation of prejudice and animosity among the participants are most unlikely to be in the offing” (p. A14). But these two articles aside, most of the blame appearing in the News & Record was reserved for members of the Greensboro City Council, for their failure to attend the event (Cone, 2005, p. H3; Flynn, 2005, p. A8; Hummel, 2005, p. A1; Johnson, 2005, p. H2; Manning-Moss, 2005, p. H2; “Sad Truths,” 2005, p. A8). Some writers petitioned city leaders to participate. “I would ask our city leaders, and those citizens of Greensboro who share their skepticism, to take another look at the work of the Truth & Reconciliation Commission,” wrote Steve Flynn (2005, p. A8). Others expressed disappointment. For example, Cone (2005) wrote, “[T]he silence of the city at the hearings was almost as sad as the silence at the start of the proceedings to remember the dead” (p. H3). And Johnson (2005) issued the following indictment of city leadership: “City officials may have stayed away in droves from the first Truth and Reconciliation hearings last week, but the Ku Klux Klan didn’t” (p. H2).
- 24.
In the days before the Report Release Ceremony, articles about the Commission began reappearing in the paper. These articles highlighted some of the criticism of the Commission that was circulating in Greensboro at the time, including the notion that the Commission was likely to “skim [over] controversial aspects of the deadly incident” (Banks, 2006, p. A1), and that the Commission was “a thinly veiled attempt to recast history in favor of the communist protestors and against the city of Greensboro” (Friedman, 2006, p. A8).
- 25.
Many of the same individuals who spoke at the Swearing In and Seating Ceremony spoke at this time.
- 26.
For instance, the video showed footage of the Greensboro City Council meeting, in which the council voted not to endorse the Commission’s work (Seel, 2006b). I discuss this meeting in more detail in Chap. 5.
- 27.
Commissioners reinforced this construction of representivity elsewhere in the ceremony as well. For example, prior to the showing of the video, Brown said, “[It] has become very clear that we have very different perspectives” (Seel, 2006a). Commissioners also strengthened their claims to representivity by positioning themselves as ordinary—not extraordinary—individuals. In a series of remarks describing some of the struggles that the Commission faced, commissioner Muktha Jost referred to the Commission as “a group of ordinary people engaged in something extraordinary.” “We [commissioners],” she continued, “have brought deep faith and hope to our work, but naturally, we have brought our human flaws, too.” Jost’s comments here reinforced representivity to the extent that they identified the commissioners with ordinary Greensboro citizens. Claims to ordinariness attenuated the sanctification of commissioners that had occurred during previous events.
In making this claim, I do not mean to suggest here that commissioners were never positioned as exemplary or extraordinary individuals during the Report Release Ceremony; however, for the most part, such designations came from those outside of the Commission. For instance, when, at the end of the Report Release Ceremony, then-President of Bennett College Johnnetta B. Cole thanked the commissioners for their work, she addressed them as “extraordinary sisters and brothers,” adding, “I want to literally bow in acknowledgement of your work, your dedication, your soulfulness” (Seel, 2006a).
- 28.
All of the emphases in this paragraph are my own.
- 29.
Magarrell and Wesley (2008) have suggested that one thing that “made it possible for the GTRC’s diverse commissioners to stay together through intense discussions” was their prior work together over 2 years—which, Magarrell and Wesley seemed to imply, fostered commissioners’ commitment to one another and allowed them to develop skills for interacting productively with one another (p. 121).
- 30.
Magarrell and Wesley (2008) echoed Brown’s sentiments about the Commission: “A microcosm of Greensboro’s own diversity, Commission members had a largely successful struggle with the facts before them, providing grounds for optimism that their commitment to truth and integrity and respect for one another could model a new set of relations in the community itself some day” (p. 121).
- 31.
The members of the Commission “felt strongly that they should model for the community a willingness to seek understanding of each other’s differences and persevere through the difficulties and pain that result from such an undertaking” (Magarrell & Wesley, 2008, p. 95).
- 32.
Moreover, in his opening prayer at the Report Release Ceremony, Sills encapsulated the community model that the GTRC embodied in three different ways. He said that, although we are “unique and separate individuals,” we “gather together”; although “we each have our own story,” our stories are “interwoven into a social fabric that unites us”; although we are “distinct and different,” we are called together into a “shared community” (Seel, 2006a). For those in the audience who had attended the Swearing In and Seating Ceremony, the model of community that Sills articulated should have sounded familiar. It was, after all, strikingly similar to the notion of ubuntu that Bongani Finca (2004) articulated in his keynote address. Sills’ claim, for instance, that “our stories are interwoven into a social fabric that unites us” (Seel) resonated with Finca’s descriptions of human interdependency. And the notion that we become “whole” and “complete” in and through community was seemingly consistent with Finca’s definition of ubuntu.
- 33.
The ethos of representivity was reinforced in other ways as well. Commissioner Mark Sills, for example, helped to reinforce this ethos in the way that he described the audience at the Report Release Ceremony. He claimed it was “a pretty darn inclusive audience” and then stated, “I thought it symbolized in many ways the success of what we had accomplished, that that diverse a group would come together to receive our report” (as cited in Magarrell & Wesley, 2008, p. 33). Similarly, representivity was established through “report receivers”—a heterogeneous collection of groups that pledged to read and dialogue about the GTRC’s report. Magarrell and Wesley (2008) themselves reinforced this representivity when they noted, “The diversity of the report-receivers provides a view into the growing reach of the Commission’s work” (p. 111).
- 34.
For more on the way in which Tutu established these positions, see Beitler (2012, pp. 14–15).
- 35.
References
Banks, M. M. (2006, July 19). City finally joins ‘truth’ dialogue. News & Record, p. A1.
Beitler, J. (2012). Making more of the middle ground: Desmond Tutu and the ethos of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Relevant Rhetoric, 3, 1–21. Retrieved June 1, 2012, from http://relevantrhetoric.com/wp-content/uploads/making-more-of-the-middle-ground.pdf.
Cheney, G. (1991). Rhetoric in an organizational society: Managing multiple identities. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Church, E. (2004, June 13). A quest for truth; panel hopes to shed light on history. News & Record, p. B1.
Cole, C. M. (2010). Performing South Africa’s Truth Commission: Stages of transition. Bloomington & Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press.
Coletta, C. (2005, July 16). Truth panel hears about city’s history; security will be tight today when two KKK members speak to the commission. News & Record, p. A1.
Cone, E. (2005, July 24). Truth commission makes impressive debut. News & Record, p. H3.
Crowley, S., & Hawhee, D. (2004). Ancient rhetorics for contemporary students (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Longman.
DeChaine, D. R. (2005). Global humanitarianism: NGOs and the crafting of community. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Dyer, E., Binker, M., Buchanan, B., & Schultz, S. (2004, April 10). Reconciled? News & Record, p. B1.
Finca, B. (2004, June 12). Keynote address at the Swearing In and Seating Ceremony of the Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission [DVD]. Copy in possession of author.
Flynn, S. (2005, July 27). Give truth and reconciliation a chance. News & Record, p. A8.
Friedman, T. (2006, May 25). The moment of truth. News & Record. p. A8.
Greensboro initiative aims to build bridges; A program pairing people of different backgrounds can pull participants out of their comfort zones and perhaps improve personal relationships citywide. (2004, September 14). News & Record, p. A8.
Greensboro Truth and Community Reconciliation Project. (2003a). Selection process for the Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission [Web posting]. Retrieved October 5, 2007, from http://www.gtcrp.org/selection.php
Greensboro Truth and Community Reconciliation Project. (2003b, May 6). Call for nominations for commissioners [Advertisement]. News & Record, p. A9.
Greensboro Truth and Community Reconciliation Project. (2004, June 12). Swearing In and Seating Ceremony of the Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission [DVD]. Copy in possession of author.
Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission. (2005a, July 15–16). First public hearing: What brought us to November 3, 1979? [DVD]. Available March 1, 2012, from http://www.greensborotrc.org/index.php
Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission. (2005b, August 26–27). Second public hearing: What happened on, and after, November 3, 1979? [DVD]. Available March 1, 2012, from http://www.greensborotrc.org/index.php
Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission. (2005c, September 30-October 1). Third public hearing: What does the past have to do with the present and future? [DVD]. Available March 1, 2012, from http://www.greensborotrc.org/index.php
Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission. (2005d). Hearings summary: Segments of 54 speakers’ statements to the commission [DVD]. Available March 1, 2012, from http://www.greensborotrc.org/index.php
Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission. (2006). The Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission final report: An examination of the context, causes, sequence and consequence of the events of November 3, 1979. Retrieved March 1, 2012, from http://www.greensborotrc.org/
Griffin, M. (2005, August 5). Letters to the editor. News & Record, p. A14.
Griffin, V. (2005, July 16). Testimony at first public hearing. Retrieved July 22, 2008, from http://greensborotrc.org/hear_statements.php
Hummel, M. (2005, July 18). Council absent at truth forums, panelist says: The Rev. Mark Sills says he’s disappointed the city’s lawmakers didn’t attend. News & Record, p. A1.
In search of truth; in a significant step, the group studying the legacy of Nov. 3, 1979, names seven “commissioners.” But are they in danger of preaching to the choir? (2004, May 30). News & Record, p. H2.
Jasinski, J. (2001). Sourcebook on rhetoric: Key concepts in contemporary rhetorical studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Johnson, A. (2005, July 24). Nov. 3: More answers, more questions, more clarity, more hope. News & Record, p. H2.
Magarrell, L. (2002, June 26). Developing a truth commission mandate and selecting a commission [Memo to Greensboro Massacre Reconciliation Project]. New York, NY: International Center for Transitional Justice Library.
Magarrell, L. (2005, July 26). Notes on first public hearings [Memo to GTRC commissioners and staff]. Bennett College Library, Greensboro, NC: Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission Archive.
Magarrell, L., & Wesley, J. (2008). Learning from Greensboro: Truth and reconciliation in the United States. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Manning-Moss, S. (2005, July 17). Council shuns chance to heal past wounds. News & Record, p. H2.
McLaughlin, N. (2004, May 28). Panel forms to review Klan shootings; the panel will examine what happened, and issue a report in 2005. News & Record, p. B1.
Millar, IA. (2004, June 21). Commission pursues one version of truth. News & Record, p. A8.
Olson, E. B. (2005, August 7). Letters to the editor. News & Record, p. H2.
Rizzo, R. (2004, June 25). City cool to U.S. aid for killings; the number of homicides here in 2003 attracts federal attention, but locals fear the help hurts the city’s image. News & Record, p. A1.
Sad truths revisited; last weekend’s first truth and reconciliation hearings successfully delivered compelling testimony and a broad range of perspectives. (2005, July 19). News & Record, p. A8.
Sanders, M. (2007). Ambiguities of witnessing: Law and literature in the time of a truth commission. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Seel, L. (Producer). (2006a). Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission report release ceremony [DVD]. Greensboro, NC. (Obtained from Laura Seel.)
Seel, L. (Producer). (2006b). Video shown at the GTRC’s report release ceremony [DVD]. Greensboro, NC. (Obtained from Laura Seel.)
Shallcross, L. (2004, June 11). Truth commissioners to be sworn in; the seven members of the truth and reconciliation commission are expected to release a report in 2005. News & Record, p. B1.
Stowe, D. B. (2005, August 2). Is commission really seeking truth? News & Record, p. A6.
Teitel, R. G. (2000). Transitional Justice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Townsend, E.J.S. (2005a, July 14). Wizard in Klan to speak at hearing; A list of people slated to address the truth panel this week will be released today. News & Record, p. A1.
Townsend, E.J.S. (2005b, July 15). Truth panel lists speakers’ names. News & Record, p. B4.
Townsend, E.J.S. (2005c, July 15). Truth panel reveals speakers; security is expected to be tight for a two-day hearing that begins this afternoon in downtown Greensboro. News & Record, p. B1.
Townsend, E.J.S. (2005d, July 17). Klan leader remains defiant; Virgil Griffin tells the truth panel it’s a “waste of time” to study the shootings. News & Record, p. A1.
Tutu, D. (1999). Foreword by chairperson. In Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa Report (Vol. 1, pp. 1–23). New York, NY: Grove’s Dictionaries.
Williams, M. (2004a, September 9). Mayor to unveil plan for race relations; the project aims to build communication and trust between Greensboro’s racial and ethnic groups. News & Record, p. B1.
Williams, M. (2004b, September 14). City hopes to repair race divide; Mayor Keith Holliday announces a program to pair top civic leaders of different races. News & Record, p. A1.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Beitler, J.E. (2013). Reaccentuating Representivity in Greensboro. In: Remaking Transitional Justice in the United States. Springer Series in Transitional Justice. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5295-9_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5295-9_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-5294-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-5295-9
eBook Packages: Behavioral ScienceBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)