The Kerner Commission examined the riots that occurred throughout the United States in 1967. The summary of its Final Report concluded that the nation was moving toward “two societies, one black, one white—separate and unequal.” So powerful is the wording that it continues to be invoked whenever there is a Ferguson-type incident. While much has been written about the reaction to the Kerner Report, little has been known about the summary’s development or why it has endured. New interviews with key participants and an examination of Kerner Commission files have not only resulted in the discovery of information which runs counter to what was previously thought, but helps explain why the summary is still influential after almost fifty years.

No abstract

The Kerner Commission’s report is regarded as one of the nation’s most important works on race. However, the earlier rejection of an internal staff paper (“The Harvest of American Racism”) because it was “too radical” left a “gaping hole” in the Commission’s plans (“Harvest,” which sought to use social science to explain why only some cities encountered rioting, was to have been the report’s “core chapter”) and caused a staff split that threatened its work. Much has been written about the challenges of incorporating social science and public policy with references about them being in separate worlds with different languages, schedules, values, etc. This article examines to what extent any of these challenges was present as “Harvest” was being written and reviewed. It then seeks to determine what influence any complicating factor may have had and what, if anything, could have been done to produce a different outcome.

No abstract

The Kerner Report, which examined why 1967s rioting occurred, is one of America’s most important works on race and the inner city. Yet, for many, a belief exists that it has been ignored and represents a lost opportunity. Knowing now how the report was received, is there anything that could have been done to produce a more influential report? To answer this question, this article utilizes recent interviews with key Kerner Report participants. Such information not only expands our knowledge about the report, but given recent proposals to create new Kerner-type commissions to address today’s disparities, it possesses additional relevance.