The Kerner Commission’s report is regarded as one of the nation’s most important works on race. However, the earlier rejection of an internal staff paper (“The Harvest of American Racism”) because it was “too radical” left a “gaping hole” in the Commission’s plans (“Harvest,” which sought to use social science to explain why only some cities encountered rioting, was to have been the report’s “core chapter”) and caused a staff split that threatened its work. Much has been written about the challenges of incorporating social science and public policy with references about them being in separate worlds with different languages, schedules, values, etc. This article examines to what extent any of these challenges was present as “Harvest” was being written and reviewed. It then seeks to determine what influence any complicating factor may have had and what, if anything, could have been done to produce a different outcome.
