Klansman on the Court: Justice Hugo Black's 1937 Radio Address to the Nation

Supreme Court Justice Hugo L. Black, known for being a liberal First Amendment absolutist and a courageous defender of individual freedom, is considered one of the best justices ever to serve on the nation's high court. This essay examines the events surrounding Justice Black's controversial nomination to the Supreme Court, focusing on his nationally broadcast radio address on October 1, 1937, to answer charges that the then Alabama Senator was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Utilizing archival research from both the Franklin Roosevelt and Hugo Black papers, the analysis focuses on how Black's rhetorical philosophy and his adaptation to multiple audiences resulted in a remarkable "minimalist" address that, despite first impressions, ultimately contributed to his success in pacifying the situation.     

Utilizing “On Tap” Experts in Deliberative Forums: Implications for Design

Experts play important roles in supporting public deliberation. These roles include developing and vetting background materials, participating in question-and-answer sessions with citizens, and giving pubic presentations. Rarely, though, are experts asked to be on hand during deliberative forums, whereby they have the opportunity to interact with deliberating groups. The inclusion of experts during forums presents a tension because, although they can elevate the quality of the conversation by correcting factual errors, they can also, perhaps unknowingly, crowd out and silence citizen, or “nonexpert,” participation. Careful consideration of communication design can help public deliberation practitioners manage this tension so that experts, when involved in forums, enhance rather than undermine the deliberative process. Taking communication as design, we analyze the interaction of an invited expert at a water scarcity forum in Northern Colorado who derailed discussion and hindered dialogue by “going rogue.” We then turn to stasis theory to conceptualize the effective inclusion of technical experts in public deliberations. Through forum design and training practices, we propose that experts can help resolve issues of conjecture and definition in a manner that frees deliberating groups to discuss substantive and subjective issues of quality and policy.