Police committee
disputes minority
focus
by W. C. McRae
The Police Cross Cultural Com munica
tions Committee was ‘‘like the (JN," accord
ing to committee Chairman Nick Barnett.
The committee, made up of representatives
of Portland ethnic andcultural minorities and
the police, was convened last sum m er after
the death of Lloyd Stevenson exacerbated
tensions between police and the black com
munity. Members of the North Northeast
Coalition of Neighborhoods, voicing black
outrage, met with the police and city officials.
These meetings concluded with an agree
ment to establish a "hands-on” cross-cultural
education for police officers. N N E Coalition
members then contacted representatives of
local ethnic and cultural minorities, who were
asked to present letters from minority organi
zations attesting to their legitimacy. The re
sulting 14-member committee, meeting at a
variety of locations and with no fixed sche
dule, undertook the establishment of criteria
for an eight-hour practical training in minor
ity issues for police officers; issued a request
for proposals offering a $20,000 consultancy
fee; reviewed 15 proposals from interested
consultants; and financially sent three
recommendations for trainer to Chief
Harrington.
The training is currently underway, directed
by Michael Benjamin Associates. Tlie com
mittee continues to meet sporadically and in
a truncated form, to monitor the training.
But the workings of the committee in pro
cess — the trade-offs made between minor
ity solidarity and ethnic self-devotion — pro
vide a droll commentary on local inter
minority relations.
An irony of the Cross-Cultural Committee
was that it could not agree on what “cross
cultural” functionally m ean t That is to say,
members could not agree, in terms of min
orities represented in the training, how wide a
focus would be effective, but how narrow a
focus would be equitable. One school of
thou ght propounded by the police, called for
a minority extensive approach — Portland as
a “global village” as put by Captain Inman
of the Police Bureau — which would provide
training about several minoritites and police/
public relations in general. An alternative
philosophy held that Cross-Cultural C om
munications training should be minority in
tensive and in this instance present training
about ethnic minorities — specifically black—
most impacted by the police. Once those
structures were in place, they would then be
available to other minorities.
With these two philosophies as points of
departure, this ‘ modern CIN,” was then open
to politics. No savvy and enterprising minor
ity representative, having stood for his/her
constituency on the committee, would then
care to return to that constituency not having
gained representation in the training. Also
complicating the issue, some black members
of the committee suspected that the police’s
seemingly benevolent injunction to include
all minorities was actually a ploy to avoid
dealing directly with black issues. But other
committee members felt that behind such
black suspicion and disgruntlement was
black self-interest and discontent with the
equal involvement of other minorities.
“Everyone else wanted to become part of
the stew on the pot” once the black com
munity had demanded the training, says
black committee member Robert Phillips of
Multnomah county Affirmative Action, refer
ring to other minorities’ involvement “Eight
hours is not a lot of time to devote to a lot of
different groups," claims Phillips, and by ex
panding the focus of the training to include
more minorities, “you dilute a concentrated
approach” that would emphasize black/
police issues. Adds Chairman Barnett, “It was
blacks who were in uproar, not the hispanics."
Other committee members dissented and
were concerned that the training be more
broadly multicultural. “We were set the task
of getting total representation,” says Maria
Marin of Oregon Council for Hispanic Ad
vancement, emphasizing that cultural and
not just ethnic minorities must be included in
the training.
The issue was moved to center stage when
training regarding gays was discussed. A
proposal submitted by Dr. Darrell Millner of
Bus-Corn Consultants, heavily favored by
black and American Indian members of the
committee, did not include a training about
gays. When asked by committee member
Keeston Lowrey, chair of the Right to Privacy,
PAC, why gays were not included in the pro
posal, Millner, chair of PSU’s Black Studies
Department, reportedly replied, “We talked
about gays and decided it wasn’t important”
When contacted Millner said he could not
recall making the statement, though he “may
have.’ I am not a smooth public-relations
type," he stated.
When it seemed that the black-sympa
thetic portion of the committee might
choose to ignore the criteria established and
not include cultural minorities, exclusion of
gays became the issue which focused dis
satisfactions felt by some members with
black intransigence on the committee.
*
rvP££S
Mens Resource Center Counseling Service
GAY T H E R A P IS T S
•
•
•
•
•
Professional Counseling
Low Fees — Sliding Scale
Individuals, Couples, G roups
H y p n o th erap y
E vening & W eekend
Lowrey says that other sympathetic commit
tee members realized that “specifically
excluding one minority would effectively
exclude others. These members "decided
not only to support gays, but to stick
together." "Some members of the committee
felt that gays were not an issue," says Bong
Wellerton To, of Chinese Social Services, and
adds that these members “maybe forgot"
that all minorities were to be represented.
The perception that the committee might
be steamrolled into making a recommenda
tion favoring specific interests was intensified
at the final meeti ng when the vote for trainer
was taken. According to the protocol of the
committee, rather than vote for or against a
proposal, each committee member was to
give to each of the top five proposals votes
out of 100, based on how well each proposal
matched the already-established criteria. At
the last minute a move was made by the chair
to recommend out of committee only the top
vote-garnering proposal. This was followed
by a voting process that four committee
members described as having been
“askewed" by two members voting 100
points for the Millner proposal while voting 0
points for competing proposals, which “pur
posefully distorted” the voting to favor the
Millner proposal. The Millner proposal re
ceived the most points and was recom
mended to Chief Harrington as such.
Harrington later went against the commit
tee’s recommendation and chose the pro
posal submitted Michael Benjamin
Associates.
Robert Phillips hints that those who did not
side with blacks in the voting naively played
into the hands of the police, who wanted “to
dilute a pure black approach” by including
cultural groups such as gays in the training.
Burnett claims that “no one was insensitive
to the gay issue," and goes on to say that
Lowrey’s contribution to the committee was
“hesitant" because Lowery assumed “that
gay issues won’t be put on the front burner in
a committee like this." Faith Mayhew of Af
filiated Tribes of North America says “some
members were playing politics with the gay
issue" and the Benjamin proposal, adding
that gays already have an established liaison
with the police. Mayhew claims Lowery
thought he was being “unfairly treated be
cause no one backed his candidate.” The
Benjamin proposal did specifically include a
gay training, the only one of the 15 original
proposals to do so.
Lowery says “the gay issue is sensitive to
several black leaders.” But another member
admitted off the record that under the guise
of gay inclusion was actually being fought fair
representation of any minority but black.
“It was the most diverse groups of minori
ties ever assembled in the city’s history," con
cludes Chairman Barnett, who hopes that the
com m ittee can serve as “the pattern for other
inter-ethnic cooperation."
Despite Lowery’s efforts, the inclusion of
gays in the Police Cross Cultural Training
may have been somewhat of a Pyrrhic victory.
Although Michael Benjamin Associates has
pledged in his training to inform police offi
cers about gay concerns, his approach has
been questioned. Helen Lottridge of Phoenix
Rising reports that, while Benjamin has hired
a minority m em ber to do the training for each
paricular minority, a straight psychologist is
training the police on gays and lesbians.
When approached by Lottridge with an offer
to subcontract for the gay training, Michael
Benjamin and Steven Willard (the psycholo
gist presently responsible for the gay train
ing) stated that they couldn’t afford it
Lottridge says Willard justifies his expertise
on gay issues by claiming he has had “a lot of
gay patients.”
CHESS Awarded
$ 30,000
The Multnomah County Board of
Commissioners, in its final meeting of the
year, voted unanimously to award a lump
sum of $30,000 to CHESS for social services
to persons living with AIDS and related condi
tions. The authorization, introduced by Com
missioner Gretchen Kafoury, transferred
funds within the Human Services department
budget to fund a contract over the next six
months. Under the terms of the contract, the
funding may be used at the Board’s discre
tion, with regular reports made on expendi
tures and services provided. This funding was
requested as an emergency measure to pro
vide for additional professional support for
CHESS/PAL Project’s volunteer forces.
This one-time-only budget transfer marks
the first time that any government body in
Oregon has provided funding for community
based social services to persons and families
living with AIDS, so the Board will be exercis
ing special care in its use.
This financial support was desperately
needed and will be needed again, so it would
help a lot if you thank your commissioner.
Messages can be sent to Ms. Kafoury, or Pre
siding Officer Earl Blumenauer, or your own
commissioner, c /o County Courthouse;
1021 SW 4th Ave., Room 605; Portland, OR;
9 7 20 4 . Let them know that you appreciate
their continuing support!
RAYMOND M. BERGER, ACSW, Ph.D.
Nationally Certified Counselor
Phobia/Fear Control Program
Relationship Counseling I Stress I Depression
Sexual Identity I Personal Transitions
Sliding Fee Scale
Cedar Hills and Downtown Locations
(503) 292-2735
235-3433
P r o b le m s .............We
Can Work It Oat!
é
Just O ut, February, 1966