On March 14, 1972, President Richard M. Nixon and William L. Safire met in the Oval Office of the White House from 2:55 pm to 3:15 pm. The Oval Office taping system captured this recording, which is known as Conversation 685-012 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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.
Drink your saffron, please.
go.
Bill, I wanted to give you a little guidance in regard to this thing you're working on now.
As you know, we want 10 minutes, so we're talking about 1,500 words in 10-12 minutes.
So with regard to TIL, the message, of course, will be given out the following day, and it naturally will be balanced, and if anything will be good toward the reasonable and so forth approach.
The TILs on this one,
Because there should be any guilt at all.
There should be more toward those, toward the majority, basically.
In other words, you don't have to put in all the qualifying things about how this is my job, trying to demonstrate that this is not great, and so forth and so forth.
A little bit going on that, but just so that we will cover it.
But the main point is that this must be one that in effect says, we've got this problem, bust in, and we're going to do something about it.
And this is what we're going to do.
And this is why I'm against it, and so forth.
Now we're going to put in, of course, we're going to turn the clock back on education and so forth and so on, education and so forth.
But as far as those concerns in that direction.
As far as what is said in it, I, as much as possible, pick up, I mean, we just pick up on the rhetoric that we'll have in the message, because there's a lot of good rhetoric in there already.
In other words, those lines are fine.
I don't mind adding some.
But in terms of what could be added, what should be added would be along these lines.
to make it understandable for the television audience.
I think if you're sitting out loud, you can put your mic to it.
I've had a chance to speak to businessmen about it.
But I would say, getting something in the building that doesn't, for example, we could say,
under a, I don't have one, an eight-year-old child is picked up by a, there's been violence in the school, which she can walk to or she can march to.
And where we go to the corridor or the bus,
She has to get up a half hour, an hour early in the morning, and then ride with us for an hour, both ways, or something like that, to a faraway, in other words, another area, etc.
You know, take that, this first, this is done in the name of basically attending segregation.
And of course, if you carry it out wrong,
It certainly is detrimental to education.
And this has got to stop.
I'm against this.
This has got to stop.
And, you know, using it, putting in a vivid example, one of the most horrible examples that we hear so much about, we'll say, for example, that this is what's happening now.
This will drive it.
I don't want to discuss this with anybody.
Maybe it goes to Elliot.
and we can land the rest above the wall because the point is, it's what I'm concerned about, it's what the country's concerned about, and also, they're right.
Now, it's true that there are many examples where that isn't the case, but it is that we're trying to get about, and that is stirring up the country.
Now, it's also true that a lot of questions parents are disturbed about.
sending their kids to black neighborhoods, black teachers, kids with such late minds, that's true.
I got it, too.
You can tell this child is way over black from being here.
I don't care if that child's white or black, it's a child who has to go past the neighborhood school.
In other words, that is where we should go.
But the fine on its way is in the neighborhood school where all of her friends go.
Because, I'm sure you've heard it, because of the court order, you see, she has to go out and get out an hour or two, right at school once for an hour, clear across town, to another school, another neighborhood, another neighborhood.
And then, in order to assert it from them, this is wrong.
This is going to be stopped.
We're not going to add to their respect.
It's got to be a better way, or something like that.
You see what I mean?
It is on that.
We must make that a positive example.
We'll make this.
We'll talk.
All the other reference is, of course, important.
But the message the following day, and all of those others on the editorial here, have to be received upon and largely by the legislation and the rest.
So what I'm going to be saying is make this as simple as possible.
Don't go into any detail in pointing out the exceptions and the fine points and the rest about what the moratorium does and does not cover.
I mean, let that come the next day.
It's just enough that it's honest.
But so the country, the 80% of the people, including over 50% of the black, that are a bunch of their kids, they will say, oh, my God, he is saying what we believe.
See, not clear enough of the record.
And this has to be him to say that they don't know the idea of it.
This is not a black and white issue.
We don't want to turn the clock back on segregation, on desegregation.
Let's all move forward together, et cetera, et cetera.
I want to lie in so that, because I think it's necessary to enlighten the country a bit here too and not just make a waltz kind of speech.
But what I'm concerned about is here,
The Sympathetic answer, as you know, is a constitutional one, stopping, busting.
Now, we're rejecting that, and we're even rejecting the Sympathetic Mortarium.
We're back on as far as some of the more liberal people want.
It's just made us a soft meat, I think, just leaving them harassed in courts.
One of them that I think is certainly worth looking into is to get the hell out of the courts.
I'm afraid if I had to, in regard to, well it isn't in there yet, but if you can think of a better one, I believe, that the court decisions in the interim are contradictory.
Here's AI.
It's harassed, amazed, it's a jumble, it's about what have you.
I mean, and not because, of course, you can't do that.
No, it's not your Congress's stuff, isn't it?
and fill this vacuum and so forth and so on by pointing out some important decisions because it gets the money lost far back with what, with regard to what's already happened, you see.
Well, I don't know what this is talking about, but it needs to give you a little bit of a feel of that.
I mean, 20,000 workers is what I want to get out of 1,500.
Yes, sir?
Well, I think so, and I do feel different.
I feel that I'm going to be speaking to the public because I think we've got to grab right into it.
I'm not sure what way the way it starts in there isn't too bad, as you would say.
But I ought to talk about an issue that is, you know, after all this will be two days out of the Florida primary, that an issue that is of concern to everybody.
uh, all Americans, or something like that.
You know what I mean?
It's a, it's an issue that affects every American.
The issue of busing divides some Americans.
The issue of equality of mind isn't bad.
It's education.
A little of that in the monarchy is alright.
But, that, and then I would say, my position on busing, well, I'm a cancer.
I'm a cancer person.
I've said it many, many times.
The, uh, my, my position also with regard to segregation is,
I, I, I oppose, as do the great majority, and the great majority of Americans, and on segregation, that I, I, I, I oppose such, uh, uh, uh, the, the legal, etc., the dual school system, or, well, I don't like that, but I, I oppose segregation.
Of course, we've got to get a word there from people who understand what we're talking about.
The question is how can we deal with segregation, desegregation, in a way that does not result in inferior education?
Because the purpose of Brown, of course, was not primarily desegregation.
The purpose of Brown was better education.
I mean, that was what they thought.
That case was not.
We can't say that.
quite in those words, but that's what Brown, Brown was about, was highly suggestive about education, I was there, and it was because segregated education was found to be as a result of Brown-Green inferior education that they said segregated education is unconstitutional, see?
Now, so I said, now, read it.
And they suggested, so what do you want to do?
And maybe tie up what is the constitutional amendment, rather than the end.
It's almost just constitutional.
And then blasted out, I said, the constitutional amendment is the way to go.
But the main trouble is that there's a doubt that if you get it together, it will be better than if you didn't.
the majority amount, it would have to pass, of course, it would be a matter of years, and what is needed, it would take too long, and this is, of course, not the likelihood of, it is, what is needed is action now, and therefore, and what I have as a program to deal with now, and the way to get action now is by legislation as a program.
Well, yeah, more than that, we had in there, if you read the message, we had actually, we're asking for other reasons, too, but basically, to be the same, that currently apart from some of the great questions that arise, whether constitutional amendments would work and so forth,
For those that are interested in doing something, it does not speak to the problem now.
We've got it now.
It takes two years.
And one year of a child's life is worth saving on one year of a period of education because the cost is too high to pay or something like that.
And then you come to this last question for one, the moratorium.
We're going to stop all of us at this time.
We have a chance at two.
We're for equality of opportunity, education, action, and work.
And then a couple of third.
to improve education where our kids live, and so forth and so on.
Three, to be sure we get a little bit stronger in this one, I instructed the agencies of the government, in case I had an agency plan for education, all agencies of the government, and every government,
to carry out the spirit of this message and their actions.
You see, the radio devil is here.
Bill reminds the people are the Justice Department lawyers and the HEW have been here for years.
And I ought to be the one to say that.
And I've also instructed the Justice Department to intervene in cases where this is not being carried out.
And then it comes in with some more on something very, you know,
I would not put in, I don't think you need to put in, that long defense, the fact that I really for Negro rights, I mean, that's just, I mean, my commitment, which is my language, is not our record, our record matters.
That can be any other message.
You can say it in a sentence, but you don't need to put all that.
I'm just telling you these are things you can drop out at great length.
You can drop out all that, bring them a roll about how the ones that worked in California, in any direction, I'll drop that out.
Just say it in a sentence.
But I'm mainly interested in getting across the fact that this is an issue for the Boston people.
So I'm concerned about just the – there is no way, let me say, that we can get the support of the people that are –
that are pro-us, they're going to get this, they're going to get anything.
But what I am concerned about is that we will not get the support of those, I don't mean to get a waltz, but we will not get the support of the decent people like the Baylors and the Rocks and the rest, and the Ricketts who have constitutional amendments.
We've got to get their support.
And unless we speak to that issue,
Very actually, you won't get that story.
It's that life that we have to do primarily through this message, you see.
and also through this message we want to put the president strong on the side the question is how to build it how to build the right way i don't have a reason i don't have the luxury of identifying about it i'm being simplistic about it it's very complicated we want to do the right thing we want to do this we want to have uh we want to deal with this problem without
without stopping, you know, turning, without violating the constitutional rights of the people.
You know.
I have, but I have, I have something that is a blank thousand words to the Congress.
I urge all of us to read it carefully.
I've been working on it.
I've been working on it for weeks.
I'd like to thank the people from all over the country who have varied reasons to discuss and represent my best friend,
a lesson in my life as to the, as to the most decent solution to a terribly difficult problem.
It is the most difficult domestic problem that I have encountered since the present and perhaps the most difficult one that has confronted this nation in a hundred years.