<Begin Segment 9>

VY: Well, then now is probably a good time -- sorry.

DS: Go ahead.

VY: I didn't mean to interrupt. I was just going to say, now is probably a good time to talk about that difference between the hearings on the West Coast and the hearings in Boston.

DS: Right. Well, I can't speak for the staff of the commission, but I think there were a number of civic leaders, largely Japanese American, and many of them may have had experience with the internment as well as survivors of the internment as well as local Japanese American civic leaders testifying before the commission. We had none of those. I don't think we had one survivor that was on the list to, that was presented to the commission as potential witnesses before the commission. But all the names that were on that list were, like Lawrence Tribe, constitutional expert, a number of Harvard professors, academic leaders, physicians, all Caucasians. There was not one Asian witness that spoke before the commission. And the commission hearing was held on the Harvard campus, and on December 9, 1981, which was almost forty years to the date of the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

VY: Can you talk a little bit more about what the strategy was there, like the purpose of having more...

DS: Well, it was quite obvious that we couldn't field a large group of survivors to testify to their personal experiences, which, you know, on the West Coast, those hearings were heart-wrenching. It was the first time many spoke of their experience in the camps. We realized that we didn't have that community to draw from, but we decided that we could draw from experts in the field of constitutional law. Where else would you go if you wanted an opinion on constitutional law at Harvard Law School. We felt that there would be other individuals from the academic world that could make contributions as to how do you value the loss of life. How do you compensate, how do you redress the survivors, and what the size of the monetary fund and the size of the redress payment should be. And so it was more of an academic exercise, giving the commission a much different perspective than what they were hearing on the West Coast. So the New England chapter of the JACL was not asked to testify, but they had a full house of experts to talk about psychological, financial, emotional, constitutional issues. And we felt that that was our strong point.

VY: And was that... who made these decisions to have that approach on the East Coast? Was that a National decision, National JACL decision?

DS: Well, I think we raised the idea of bringing the commission to Boston. That we as the New England Chapter broached the National Chapter as a possibility. That we felt left out because there was so much emphasis on the West Coast. But we also felt that we had resources here. We had valuable testimony that the commission might appreciate. So we worked off of our strengths, and even though we were a small group, I think the national organization recognized the value that we could bring to the redress effort.

VY: As you were preparing for all of this and participating in it, were there specific JACL leaders that you had to interact with, that you were able to interact with?

DS: Well, I think John Tateishi who was sort of the co-chair or chair of the redress committee, met with us. He was the first to come to Boston to introduce the concept of a JACL chapter, and it was, I think, at the invitation of, as I mentioned, Glen Fukushima and Alex Kimura. But I think we continued to work on our contribution, keeping the national office informed. But the communication finally was really between Harvard, Harvard University and the commission, and the staff at the commission.

VY: Oh, that's interesting. That's interesting that it was the university itself.

DS: Right. And one of our JACL members was a longtime staff member at Harvard, his name is Kiyo Morimoto. And Kiyo headed up the study department for, it was designed to give special help to students that are struggling. So the study center was headed up by Kiyo, and we have in our records the letter that he wrote to President Derek Bok suggesting that Harvard invite the presidential commission to hold hearings on the Harvard campus. So it was Kiyo's personal relationship with the president that I think put the issue on the table, and there was finally, in late October of '81, a letter sent by Allen Counter who was head of, I think, sort of a diversity center at Harvard inviting, officially inviting the commission to hold hearings at the Harvard campus. And that letter really sealed the agreement that Harvard, the great Harvard University, extended an invitation to the presidential commission to come and hold hearings on the prestigious Harvard campus.

VY: Do you think it would have moved forward if it weren't for those things?

DS: Yeah, I think so. Well, Harvard is very, continues to be a very monolithic, a monolithic organization. And unless you have good inroads, good contacts, and access, it's very difficult to move this ship upstate in one direction or another. So the fact that Kiyo had a good relationship with President Bok made it so much easier. I think it was the key to putting the commission hearings on the agenda for Harvard University.

VY: Wow, that's such a good example of the importance of having those connections.

DS: Right.

VY: And kind of, if not a seat at the table, at least an ability to approach the table.

DS: But I think Kiyo was also a 442nd survivor. And I don't ever recall him ever taking credit for opening, help to open the door, it was just something that he did. In retrospect, I think Kiyo was the main instigator in promoting the commission hearings on the Harvard campus.

<End Segment 9> - Copyright © 2022 Densho. All Rights Reserved.