Stockton Police Chief Eric Jones Reached Directly to the Community to Seek Reconciliation

I just ran into a speech from three years ago, when Stockton, California Police Chief Eric Jones spoke to a meeting at the Progressive Community Church of Stockton California. His goal was to repair the city’s strained police-community relationships. He went directly to the community, to an audience at a large African-American church, to confront their concerns. While standing up for the police, he also stood up for the community. Davis is a white police chief in a racially diverse city. He sought reconciliation, atonement, and mutual cooperation. The most important aspect of his speech is where he gave it and who listened. Speech scholars of a bygone era would say that audience and occasion shaped Jones’ speech.

We all know that tension often arises between police departments and African-American communities. Jones’ speech was one of a series of meetings that the Stockton Police Department has conducted under his leadership to reach out to African-Americans and repair relationships. 

Speaking at an African-American church, Chief Jones admitted that he was nervous but wanted to reach out. Jones began by acknowledging a problem: “Violence is ripping our nation,” he said. He continued that: “Tragedies in Baton Rouge and Minnesota are leading to pleas against injustices.” He reminded the audience of funerals for five Dallas, Texas police officers ambushed and murdered. He pointed out that “Tensions are high everywhere. And we can’t deny that, and we need to talk about that.”

He then turned to the positive: “We need to make sure we have a guiding light here in our community.” He promised to a crowd that called out its approval that it was necessary to be “Relentless on both building community trust and also assuring that our police officers are safe in their work from ambush and attack.”

Jones also complained about groups that are “divisive.” His voice stressed the word divisive, and he added: “But we must be decisive instead in galvanizing our community and galvanizing our community together.”

In a remarkable turn, Jones then recognized that police departments have too often served to enforce social order instead of justice: “I want to acknowledge a little bit about the historical perspective of policing that many are not accustomed to hearing from law enforcement.” Although Jones emphasized that he himself had not done such things, he knew that other police had. He acknowledged that this history added to community mistrust.

Then, looking for solutions, Jones spoke metaphorically about building bridges, crossing canyons, and moving earth to create unity. He said that we couldn’t think just in terms of one side or another. He told the audience that: “There was a time when police used to be dispatched to keep lynchings ‘civil,’ That’s a fact of our history that we need to acknowledge.” He discussed the role that police once played in returning captured slaves to their masters and enforcing Jim Crow laws.

Problems were surely on everyone’s mind. In several well-reported cases, police officers have used deadly force against African-Americans when it was not necessary. In few of these cases did the police face charges.

Let’s contrast Chief Jones’ speech with President Donald Trump’s recent speech at Benedict College. Benedict is a historically African-American college. President Trump also spoke about race relations. Trump mostly bragged about his own minimal accomplishments in race relations. Chief Jones, instead, talked about ways to heal past wrongs and injustices. He sought reconciliation. That is more difficult, but also much more positive. Jones spoke directly to a church full of local community members and leaders. Trump, however, allowed only ten Benedict College students to attend (seven showed up); the rest of the audience was hand-picked to assure a favorable reaction. Most Benedict College students were confined to their dormitories. Trump seemed rather cowardly, while Jones showed courage as he confronted the situation directly.

Their motives differed. Trump has no real interest in reaching out to African-Americans; his only obvious goal was to convince his mostly-white supporters that he is not racist. But Jones was spearheading a series of difficult community dialogues.

The same words might convey different meanings when spoken to different audiences. Audience and occasion remain central if we want to understand speeches.

Trump Spoke at Benedict College, an HBCU, but the Students Weren't Invited. So What Was the Point?

Donald Trump, White House photo

President Donald Trump spoke yesterday at Benedict College in Columbia, South Carolina. Benedict is a historically Black university or college (HBCU). President Trump, as we know, has received little support from African American voters. Only 10 Benedict students were invited. The mainstream press seemed to think the event was pretty silly. But Trump used the event to manipulate his image.

Trump’s speech said nothing remarkable. He boasted about the economy and complained about impeachment. No surprise. One student said that she thought Trump attended only to “antagonize” the students. I understand why she felt that way, but she was mistaken. Actually, Trump was manipulating the situation for his own purposes. The college was just a prop. For that matter, the seven students were just props.

But: only ten Benedict College students attended the speech, only seven of whom showed up. The rest of the audience consisted of reliable supporters who Trump’s staff invited.  Benedict students and professors were asked to remain indoors unless they had business that required them elsewhere. Students, confined to their dorms, missed the historic event. Area streets were blocked off. That guaranteed a calm event. A small protest group gathered just off campus. For some marginally explicable reason, Trump received an award for criminal justice reform.

What was the point? Trump is not unrealistic enough to think that he is going to harvest African-American votes. Nor is there any possibility that this charade would fool anybody who paid attention. So what was Trump doing?

First, Trump and his supporters constantly maintain that Trump’s policies are good for African-Americans. Although few African Americans believe this, that does not make Trump’s rhetoric pointless. According to a recent Associated Press poll, “Large majorities of black and Latino Americans think Donald Trump’s actions as president have made things worse for people like them, and about two-thirds of Americans overall disapprove of how he’s handling race relations.” But voters don’t like to be called racist. His supporters don't like to be called racist. That means that Trump has an image problem.

Second, there is no possibility that Trump could give an actual speech to actual students at an HBCU institution without encountering a nasty protest, hard questions, heckling, and an altogether unpleasant experience. To prevent that, he needed to control the environment.

Third, in politics, image is everything. Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, two men who spent little time with their families, both presented family values images. Franklin Roosevelt, paralyzed below the waist, projected an image of vigor. John Kennedy, who suffered from a raft of terrible health problems, created an image of youthful athleticism. Politics is not about reality. Trump cannot seriously create a pro-civil rights image – it’s far too late for that – but, by pretending to reach out to an African American community, he could create the impression that he was.

Fourth, no one was fooled. That doesn’t mean Trump failed. Now that he has given this ridiculous speech in this ridiculous situation, his right-wing supporters have additional ammunition to defend his record on racial issues. Trump spoke about African Americans at an HBCU! Wow! We can expect to see tweets, comments, and talk radio discussions about Trump’s brave effort to reach out to African Americans and the tremendous good that he has done for them. Again, no one on the planet believes any of this, but that won't stop his supporters from saying it. There is a lot to be said for giving his supporters a reason to feel less guilty. Harsh racial rhetoric has long been part of Trump’s appeal. Events like this help Trump have it both ways: he can continue to adopt unpleasant racial policies, while, at the same time, he can give his supporters a way to assuage their guilt. He can play both sides. Trump is very, very good at playing both sides, and he pulled it off once again.

How Did Ambassador Bill Taylor Establish His Credibility in the Impeachment Hearing? Why Did He Need to?

Ambassador William Taylor

Good communication skills make a difference! A good speaker needs to be believable.

Bill Taylor, American Ambassador to Ukraine, testified before three congressional committees in closed session yesterday about the controversy that has led to serious talk of impeaching President Donald Trump: the accusation that he abused his power to involve the Ukrainian government 2020 American election. The testimony itself is still secret, but Taylor’s opening statement has been released. Like Ambassador Yovanovitch last week, he went to great efforts to establish his credibility. This was wise, for President Trump’s defenders, to this point, offer little defense on the substance of the Ukraine controversy, and instead busy themselves criticizing the investigative process and complaining about the witnesses.

What makes a speaker credible? My former professor Kenneth Andersen and his colleague Theodore Clevenger, Jr. published a landmark research article about the factors in source credibility. They discovered that credibility consists of expertise, good will, and dynamism. Dynamism is mostly a factor of delivery, and, unfortunately, we have no sound recordings of Taylor’s testimony. We can, however, look at how he established expertise and goodwill. 

First, right at the outset, to establish good will, Taylor explained that he was a nonpartisan public servant:

“I have dedicated my life to serving U. S. interests at home and abroad in both military and civilian roles. My background and experience are nonpartisan and I have been honored to serve under every administration, Republican and Democratic, since 1985.”

Since President Trump and supporters often accuse their critics of being left-wing Democrats, while Republican voters increasingly view the most basic facts through their partisan microscope, Taylor began by emphasizing that he had served under both Democratic and Republican presidents and had a long tradition of being nonpartisan. Continuing, Taylor gave evidence of his nonpartisan background:

“For 50 years, I have served the country, starting as a cadet at West Point, then as an infantry officer for six years, including with the 101^st Airborne Division in Vietnam; then at the Department of Energy; then as a member of a Senate staff; then at NATO ; then with the State Department here and abroad in Afghanistan, Iraq, Jerusalem, and Ukraine; and more recently, as Executive Vice President of the nonpartisan United States Institute of Peace.”

First, Taylor’s military education and experience make it more difficult to question his patriotism. Second, his experience shows a long record of acting on behalf of official United States policy. He emphasized that the United States Institute of Peace was “nonpartisan.” The specific examples of his experience helped Taylor establish that he was not a political hack. Furthermore, reviewing his extensive professional experience demonstrated that he had the background to speak knowledgeably about the incidents in question.

Only after establishing that point did he express his concern US policy in Ukraine had been influenced “by an irregular, informal channel of U. S. policy-making and by the withholding of vital security assistance for domestic political reasons.”

Expertise includes the possession of first-hand knowledge. Was Taylor in a position to know about the contents of back-channel communication? Well, he specifically addressed that issue:

“I was clearly in the regular channel, but I was also in the irregular one to the extent that Ambassadors Volker and Sondland included me in certain conversations. Although this irregular channel was well-connected in Washington, it operated mostly outside of official State Department channels.

Thus, Taylor gave evidence of his expertise and good will. For the remainder of his opening statement, he reviewed events that certainly seem suspicious and legally dubious.

I have, so far, heard no leading Republican deny any of the facts that Taylor reviewed. Instead, their defense, so far (other than pulling childish publicity stunts), has been to deny that there was a quid pro quo, to claim that Taylor did not have first-hand knowledge of the events he was discussing, and otherwise to attack his character. But Taylor had already pre-empted these claims.

The argument about a quid pro quo has been much discussed in the conservative media, although campaign-finance law violations, bribery, and extortion – the crimes of which the Trump administration is suspected – do not require a quid pro quo. Taylor’s testimony seemed to demonstrate one anyway. In addition to denying a quid pro quo, Republican representative Mark Meadows said that news stories about Taylor’s statement were “laughably overblown and don’t tell the full story.” He continued that “Much of the statement and hearsay allegations didn’t hold up against any real scrutiny.” But, again, Taylor had cleverly pre-empted those criticisms in his statement’s introduction.

All things considered, however, Republican criticisms of Ambassador Taylor have been remarkably muted. He showed that he was credible, thus narrowing the Republican's options to defend the president’s actions. For example, the best that an article in the right-wing Breitbart.com could do was to pass on a claim that Taylor’s accusations were “destroyed” for unknown, unstated reasons. That sounds desperate.

So much of persuasion comes down to whether we believe the speaker. Taylor did a good job of explaining why we should believe him, and, in so doing, he made serious accusations with considerable authenticity.

For centuries, speech experts have debated whether credibility is a pre-existing circumstance or something that a speaker establishes during a speech. In Taylor’s case, it was both. Not only was he believable to start with, but, also, he gave specific evidence to establish his expertise and integrity.  

Image: U.S. Department of State