On April 29, 1971, President Richard M. Nixon and John D. Ehrlichman met in the President's office in the Old Executive Office Building at an unknown time between 10:48 am and 11:08 am. The Old Executive Office Building taping system captured this recording, which is known as Conversation 251-031 of the White House Tapes.
Transcript (AI-Generated)This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.
No.
All right.
On the situation.
Then on...
I guess we were talking about even-handedness.
I guess I did even-handedness.
racial balance.
Let me ask you a couple of questions.
I don't want to get into the interpretation of the case, but Clark does not require, first of all, it does say that there is no requirement of racial balance at all where the impact of discrimination is concerned, does it not?
That's a strong
And second, in other words, let's face it, it really gets down to this.
Where discrimination is a result of the action of people, the individual decisions of people, the case does not speak.
But where the discrimination is a result of the action, a deliberate action of a government body, then the case does speak.
Isn't that really what gets down to it?
And can there be deterring in our opinion?
Now, in this case, therefore, well, I won't get into that case.
I'll say that's a matter of course.
But I have nothing to say about that.
Should I say that the case does not deal with, de facto, well, I can say that the case specifically says it does not deal with discrimination as a result of the decisions of an individual.
Does it?
Sure.
Sure.
Well, you can follow me.
You think I'd say, well, it did in some respects and it did not in other respects.
Right.
The court follows the same reasoning in the housing case.
This is an official action.
But it's still not official action.
Then I take government action.
Action by a government body and action by an individual.
That's what it really gets down to.
Action by a government body, that's really what it is.
By a government body and action by an individual.
But the clear signal was that they would hold that the fact was always not...
Do you think this case is still open?
And how can I go back to my getting back to the Blackjack case?
I certainly have got to say that that, though, is part of the same action by a government body is one thing.
Action by, I don't want to say out of a lot of them, but I'm confused when I study them.
I think that is where it's even-handedness goes out of the sound now as far as the setting of that is concerned.
How do the Republicans vote against it?
Well, the reason, I'm sure, but what do we want to say?
Are you worried for or against the Republicans?
Thank you.