Densho Digital Repository - Emlei "Emi" Kuboyama Interview

Densho Digital Repository
Emi Kuboyama, Office of Redress Administration (ORA) Oral History Project Collection
Title: Emlei "Emi" Kuboyama Interview
Narrator: Emlei "Emi" Kuboyama
Interviewer: Todd Holmes
Location: Berkeley, California
Date: September 26, 2020
Densho ID: ddr-densho-1020-12

<Begin Segment 1>

TH: This is Todd Holmes from the Oral History Center at UC Berkeley. Today is September 26, 2020. I have the pleasure of actually sitting in the interview chair, or interviewer chair, I guess, for the first time on this project, and sitting down with Emi Kuboyama from Stanford University for this project on the Office of Redress Administration. And this will be her interview discussing her career and experience there with the office. Emi, thank you so much, A, for starting this project and giving me the opportunity to sit in this chair and interview you today.

EK: My pleasure. Thanks for working with me.

TH: Well, let's start with getting some of the official information down. Can you go and state your full name and what your role and title was with the Office of Redress Administration?

EK: Sure. So my full name is actually Emlei Kuboyama, I don't know if you knew that, but I go by Emi. I was an attorney with the Office of Redress Administration in the Department of Justice.

TH: And what were your years of service?

EK: I was there from 1994 to '98 when the program sunset.

TH: And where were you born and raised?

EK: Born and raised in Honolulu, Hawaii.

TH: And why don't you tell us a little bit about your educational background and experience prior to joining the Office of Redress Administration.

EK: Sure. So I did my undergraduate degree at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and then I went to law school at Vanderbilt School of Law. Working for the Office of Redress Administration as an attorney, was my first job out of law school.

TH: And so why did you want to start this oral history project?

EK: Sure. So given the historic nature of what the office did, which was provide reparations to Japanese Americans who were incarcerated during World War II, I really wanted to be able to capture the individual stories and history of the office and what it did, as well as the people. And being a proud DOJ employee, I felt like it was also a great example of a government program that worked well, that really tried to work with the community and the people it was intended to serve.

<Begin Segment 2>

TH: Well, tell us a little bit how you became involved with the Office of Redress and maybe even give us a little example of your experience on the first days and weeks on the job.

EK: Sure. So actually when I graduated from law school, I wasn't exactly sure what I wanted to do. All I knew was I wasn't interested in doing the typical law firm route. So I ended up moving to the Washington, D.C. area where a classmate of mine, Nike Okediji, also was. And she was working in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice and heard about this opportunity, that the Office of Redress Administration was looking for people to help out. And I actually started as a contractor initially for the first couple of months before switching over to joining as a staff attorney with the office. So originally... by the time I joined in 1994, early '95, the office had really gone through a lot of the easier-to-verify claims. These were claims that were submitted by people who might have been on incarceration camp rosters or other official government documentation. And for the duration of my time, we dealt with a lot of the unique cases. And so I often worked with community leaders and individuals one on one, to try to help them verify and establish their claim. And as I became more experienced working with the office, I had a little bit more leeway to exercise what that legal judgment might be. And I worked a lot with Tink Cooper, who was the other attorney in the office at that time, in coming up with legal theories and arguments for whether someone should be eligible or not. And we also worked with Joanne Chiedi, and at that time the administrator was DeDe Greene, where there were close calls or unusual cases to decide the outcome.

<Begin Segment 3>

TH: Well, I want to get to more of that, but also I wanted to ask you -- kind of backing up a little bit -- what was your knowledge or experience in regards to the history of Japanese American incarceration?

EK: Sure. So I grew up in Hawaii. And as I came to learn, there was no mass incarceration or rounding up of Japanese Americans during World War II, despite the fact that Pearl Harbor was in Hawaii. What ended up happening was, unlike on the mainland, there were a lot of unique individual cases where people were rounded up on an individual basis. So my family had not really been impacted by the incarceration during World War II. My father and his family were living on Maui, and he was a little boy at that time. And so I had heard about it more in terms of from history books, I had heard about the redress program that Congress had passed, redress legislation. And really at the time that I was in law school and just getting ready to graduate, that was the period of time that the first apology letters and checks were issued. I think the first apology letter was actually issued about thirty years (ago) today, in the first week of October. So I just knew about the existence, I didn't really have a personal connection to it as far as my family went. But I was aware in general about the internment as well as the search for reparations.

<Begin Segment 4>

TH: Let's discuss... I know you started in '94. Let's discuss, though, because you were bringing it up, the legislation, the start of redress. Let's discuss that process a little bit. Can you give us kind of an overview of what the process of redress was and maybe some of the other agencies, the kind of interconnections and intricacies of that process for claiming (reparations).

EK: Sure. So I'm certainly not an expert in that, but my understanding is that it was really a push by the Niseis and Sanseis, primarily, who were the (second and) third generation of Americans or Japanese Americans in the United States, who really had learned very little oftentimes about their parents' experiences or their grandparents' experiences during World War II. It was not something that was widely discussed. So there was a commission, the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, I believe, that basically went around the country and had hearings where, for the first time, people provided testimony about their experiences and as a result of what came out during the Commission, the Commission recommended that, recommended to Congress that there be some form of reparations or redress provided to Japanese Americans. And so that got the ball rolling in Congress and in 1988 the Civil Liberties Act was passed, which established a formal apology as well as a symbolic redress payment of $20,000 to individuals who were -- and I believe the language was "evacuated, relocated or interned as a result of federal government action." And you had to be, it was pretty limited, the legislative language was limited to those types of federal government action and was also limited to people who were alive at the time that the bill was passed in 1988. And so it was about... it took about another year, year and a half for the office to be set up within the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. Bob Bratt was the one that was really in charge of getting that up and running, and it resulted, again, in the first payments and letters being issued in October of '90, so about a year, year and a half after the legislation was originally passed.

<Begin Segment 5>

TH: In setting up that office, I mean, again, I know you didn't join until '94. What were some of the most memorable maybe stories or incidents that you remember of those early years because you can imagine setting up a brand new federal office, newly created with these powers with this kind of mission of redress, it's never been done before. What were some of the memorable, maybe, stories or incidents that that were passed down to you from those early...

EK: Sure. So certainly, I was not around at that point but I recall that what was really important was I think the department was not quite sure where to house the office and how to staff it. And thankfully, Bob Bratt, who's also been interviewed for this project, was approached to set the office up. And he was a young but experienced employee, career employee, at the Department of Justice, and he really lobbied for the office to be placed within the Civil Rights Division, where he was working. And he was also very knowledgeable about the internal workings of the department, which I think helped tremendously for the office to be able to operate in a pretty independent manner within the department. I think Bob and all of us were given trust and leeway to really make the decisions, and where they were not clear cut, we often involved those higher up. But I just recall there being a tremendous affinity by all the staff that have worked with this program. It was a lot bigger of an office before I got there. In the early days, I believe one hundred or so employees were there as they processed a lot of the more clear cut cases. And when I was there, the office was probably smaller than a dozen people, and we were left primarily with the more unique cases. But I think it was a really unique experience for most people. Most people there were early in their career, oftentimes right out of undergraduate or law school, and there was just such a clear vision for what the office was there to accomplish and a lot of buy-in by everyone involved. And, you know, people just loved their work and worked around the clock. And I certainly felt that and got to experience that even when I joined in 1994/'95.

<Begin Segment 6>

TH: I want to get to some of those special cases that you were discussing, but before we do, you were mentioning Bob in setting up this office. Who were some of the other kind of key people that were involved with the office and that you also worked with?

EK: Sure. So there were a couple of folks that were involved, like some of the earlier attorneys, one or two folks that were there before I was there, who I did not know. But as far as who I worked with, certainly Joanne Chiedi was there early on with Bob and helping set the office up. Lisa Johnson who came on as an intern, as well as Angela Hussein and Aaron Zajic, Pam, and� Anita who did a lot of the more public facing side of things in terms of answering the helpline. And then there were folks like Martha Watanabe who was still at the Department of Justice when I joined, but was, I believe, in the Voting Section. She wasn't in the Office of Redress Administration any longer. And of course, Tink (Cooper), who I worked probably most closely with as we decided a lot of the legal cases. And again, DeDe Greene was the ORA administrator for most of the time I was there.

TH: Before we, you know, before we move on, but I really also want, I think it was interesting, I wanted to hear your thoughts of many of these people who started as you did, started out this is their first job or that kind of stepping into working within an office, a federal office for the federal government. Many of these people continued to stay. Can you discuss a little bit about that and list that out?

EK: Sure. So... it's so funny, I always thought that perhaps I felt uniquely about this, in that I felt like this was the best job I've ever had. And in the course of these interviews, it became apparent that a lot of my colleagues felt the same way. Many of them have gone on and continued as career federal employees, some of whom have continued with the Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division like Angela, some of whom have moved on to other leadership roles in the federal government like Joanne Chiedi. And it was just something... you know, Aaron is still around and he actually still works with Joanne with the Department of Health and Human Services. So it was just such a unique launching ground, I think, for people and especially under both Bob and Joanne, people were given the opportunity to really grow in their role, and I think that was just one of the important things that both Bob and Joanne brought to the program, was really giving people the opportunity and the authority to do some important things early on. And I think that really helped the trajectory of a lot of the, my colleagues in the office.

<Begin Segment 7>

TH: Well, now moving back again, thank you for that. Wanting to kind of discuss when you joined in 1994, a lot of the easy, as you said, easy and kind of clear cut cases were already... already went through the process. Leaving, of course, you to deal, you and others in the office then to deal with what you would call very special cases, unique cases that didn't really fit within the parameters of the program or that needed more attention to that. Can you discuss some of those cases and the issues and challenges you confronted during your work at the office?

EK: Sure. So as I mentioned before, Hawaii was definitely one of those things where there were areas that were affected, geographic areas, or classes of people, say a Buddhist priest or a Japanese language newspaper editor, where there was certainly some sort of action, people were told they had to leave an area or they couldn't live in a place any longer, or they couldn't work in a particular role any longer. So definitely there was harm established. But in Hawaii and other places, it was unclear whether this was as a result of federal government action, which was one of the requirements under the Civil Liberties Act. So a lot of these unique cases, and on the mainland they included things like the railroad workers where many folks were not allowed to continue working on the railroad as some sort of vital transportation. Or we had, I learned what a chick sexer was. [Laughs] I don't know if you know what that is, but apparently there is a job where you determine the sex of chicks. And so we had a lot of these really unique cases. And sometimes they were individual cases and sometimes there were groups of individuals where we heard similar stories and we would have to do either archival research or talk to witnesses and get sworn statements from them. So these were all cases where it was just unclear why something happened. We could readily establish something happened, but why it happened was often what we went to the archives for or we called up the railroad companies to try to really figure out what happened. And so those are the types of cases that I worked on primarily.

TH: I wanted to kind of, you know, because you were just again discussing those very hard and more unique cases to document eligibility. Maybe, could you... let's maybe jump back a little bit and span out to what was the overall process for documenting that eligibility for, say, even the clear cut cases? Could you just maybe go through that process briefly for us?

EK: Sure. So there were a number of historical records like the incarceration camp records where people were identified with their family as having been incarcerated. So for those people it was a matter of establishing their identity to verify their name, their date of birth, those are the types of information that the camp rosters contained and so they basically had to prove that they were the ones who were in that record, and so those were the more clear-cut cases. For the other ones where there was really no readily-available government record, it became a lot trickier to try to track down the sequence of events that led to what this person experienced. And so those were the cases where we would have to go to the National Archives, or go to Suitland, Maryland, sometimes to San Bruno, California, just various repositories where information might be, and oftentimes it was really not clear whether you would even find relevant information. And so we had people like Alice Kale, who were able to just spend their most of their time just digging through records, and it was back in the days where we could actually go down into the bowels of the archives and go through boxes and try to figure out whether a particular box contains useful information. So it was just a lot of legwork and trying to piece together what had happened in conjunction with the statements of the individuals. And the way the information was considered was by a preponderance of the evidence, so if it was more likely than not, that what someone claimed was true, actually happened, then that person would be determined eligible.

<Begin Segment 8>

TH: It's interesting, in this process we think of it almost is very bureaucratic: are you eligible, are you not, but this is a very -- and this comes through, I think, in a lot of the interviews, is this was a very human process as well. Maybe share, what are some of the stories passed down or even those that you've experienced yourself of some of, just the kind of successes within this process.

EK: Oh gee, there were so many. And really, that was why, one of the primary reasons I wanted to do this project was to be able to capture those types of stories which, you know, historical records, historical documents wouldn't otherwise capture. There were times where I know that siblings who had been separated during the war were reunited, with our office kind of helping serve as the go-between between the individuals. There were just really unique opportunities to work with the community and to have -- and they went to great extraordinary measures to try to help us track down people or documents. And a lot of this was just the relationships that were formed between people in the office and people in the community who were working on this. And I think it was just a really, really unique partnership almost between the federal government and these individuals who had worked diligently for, I mean, really, for decades, often since the war, but primarily from the '80s on, to not only pass the legislation, but to make sure that everyone was included. I want to say out of the 120,000 people who are believed to be estimated to have been impacted by this discriminatory action on behalf of the federal government during World War II, I want to say over 83,000 people were compensated and received a letter of apology. And I think there were only 1,500 people that we could not verify one way or another. And so there are just so many stories in such a, I think, an illustration of the successful partnership.

TH: Tell us a little bit about, because you mentioned the community involvement and I know that is something that, of course, Bob Bratt, very early on, had to establish those that, at least a bridge for that kind of relationship to develop. Tell us a little bit about the efforts of the office to establish that relationship and also your own experience of those community leaders and their work on, you know, on behalf of their fellow neighbors in this.

EK: Sure. I think Bob's understanding from day one, how important it was to educate himself about historically what happened, as well as his recognition of the importance of working with the community was definitely the key to how this all ultimately played out. I think he had a very humble approach to saying that he didn't know a lot about this and that he really was eager to learn, and he was eager to talk with the community. And while, you know, we were not able to do everything I would imagine the community wanted us to be able to do in terms of finding people eligible, I think it established a degree of trust from day one and certainly a degree of humility in our approach as the, you know, representatives of the federal government, the very entity which was responsible for the incarceration. I think it was just really key. And he went and spent just a lot of time having meals with people, just having very non-bureaucratic personal conversations with people getting to know them and their families. Everybody loved Bob and that was certainly something that, when I was there, continued. The community was really responsible for the success of our outreach. They would, whenever we would go out and have meetings all across the United States, they would basically be the communication strategy. They would send out word where we were going to be and when, they would secure the location for us, they would provide refreshments. They would do everything to make it possible for us to really just come in there and do our job in a very effective way. And afterwards -- I think Bob mentioned this in his interview -- afterwards we would always, always go out for a meal, no matter what time it was, even if most of the city was shut down. But it was just such a unique relationship with folks that were very invested in the program, but also very invested in that personal connection. And so I think Bob was definitely responsible for laying the ground for us to continue to do that work.

<Begin Segment 9>

TH: Talk about some of your recollections of working with the community, maybe some memorable events. I mean, you were mentioning trips that it wasn't just, say, sorting through applications in Washington, D.C., it was also members of the office hopping on a plane going to those communities and working within those communities as well.

EK: Right. I mean, personally, I can recall going to everywhere from New York, up and down the West Coast to Hawaii, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles on a number of occasions. And we made these trips regularly and we would usually bring a handful of staff and our laptops and spent several hours. Sometimes it would be an evening event, sometimes it would be both a daytime and an evening event in one day. And often... what I remember most was the fact that in the process of talking to people to understand what happened to them during World War II, it was often apparent that the younger generation, the kids who were not perhaps alive during World War II, or grandkids, had never heard the story until they started talking to us at these workshops about what had happened to us. And just being privileged to watch that unfold and really understand how people often viewed this as shameful or wanted to put it behind them and seeing what happened when those stories were uncovered and were revealed to the subsequent generations was tremendously impactful. And those are the types of things that I remember. And, you know, also just lots of fond memories, getting to know these people and going out for meals afterwards and all of that. But definitely a unique opportunity to get to know people in the community.

TH: Who were some of the community leaders that you recall being involved?

EK: [Laughs] Well, some of them are folks that have also been interviewed for this project. So Kay Ochi in L.A., Sox Kitashima in San Francisco, Bill Kaneko in Hawaii. And those are the folks that I recall dealing with. I also met Dale Minami through this process in San Francisco. But I know there were significantly more folks involved before my time as well as -- and I apologize, I'm missing a lot of people that were there during my time as well. But these were people who just, you know, came from all walks of life and were really just dedicated to the cause. And it was kind of a cross section of people, both in terms of backgrounds and ages and experiences that really, really made this a successful process.

<Begin Segment 10>

TH: Looking back, I mean, what do you... discuss some of what you see as the program's highlights. If we're looking at that large span of about ten years that it almost operated.

EK: Sure. Program highlights. Well certainly I was not there for it, but the original check presentation ceremonies I often hear about. It took place in Washington, D.C. first, in the Great Hall of the Department of Justice. Where a number of people... and we paid, every year there were a limited amount of payments that could be made. And so the priority was always to pay the oldest eligible people first. And so at the first presentation ceremony where people received letters of apology and their $20,000 check, we had a number of the oldest, most of whom were in their nineties or a hundred, come to the Department of Justice for this ceremony. And, you know, all sorts of dignitaries were there, I don't remember if the Attorney General was there, but certainly a lot of high level DOJ officials as well as people from the office really doing everything they could to make this a significant and meaningful event and respectful event. But I remember Aaron talking about running to the airport to pick people up and we had just a number of people who were really touched by seeing federal government officials kneeling down and presenting the letters and the checks to these people who had been wronged. Personally, I think my program highlights would include just the dedication and working with all the staff. I mean, we all loved the work we did, and in hindsight, I guess we worked a lot of overtime, but I never felt that way. And it was just such a diverse group. It was certainly diverse early on when the office was particularly large, particularly with the contract staff. But even when I was there, there were, I would say half the people were contractors and half were DOJ career employees. Really, really diverse staff, and I think that was a strength of the program rather than a weakness. It wasn't that they didn't, they didn't identify or understand with the program so much as they were just really bought into it. So working extended hours with those dedicated folks are certainly a highlight for me. And then also the partnership. I mean, it was my first professional experience out of law school and seeing what the impact of a federal program can be and how you can really remove the bureaucracy from it and really put a face and a name to a lot of what the office was doing. So those are the program highlights that I really still hold.

<Begin Segment 11>

TH: Talk to us a little bit about, because one of the also, you talked about the very first check ceremony. But then there was also when, as you were there for the program sunset, oh, there was also a closing ceremony, if I'm correct. And you had a lot, I think you were very much involved in that. Could you tell us a little bit about that and some details and memorable aspects of that event?

EK: Sure. It was definitely bittersweet for me because after the closing ceremonies, I believe it was September of '98, that would mark the end of the program officially and for most of the staff, they went on to do other things. And I was fortunate to have the opportunity to oversee that celebration, marking the end of that ten-year program. And it was something that we really thought long about how to... what we wanted to accomplish in that ceremony. I recall we wanted to make sure that it was celebratory, respectful, it was inclusive, that it included a lot of folks that were involved with the success of the program, not just within the department, but certainly with the community as well as other people that we have worked with. I recall we had a military color guard start us off, and we had kind of large photos from, some from the incarceration, but also from the first check presentation ceremonies that we blew up and we hung. This was also in the Great Hall at the Department of Justice. And I recall we put together, the office and all of our friends and family folded a thousand origami cranes. It's kind of symbolic of, you know, if you fold a thousand cranes that you have like your wish come true. And so for us, it was important to do that, to honor the symbolism of the program. And I remember getting a lot of friends and family involved to make sure that we had those thousand cranes folded.

And we also just invited a lot of different people that were responsible for the program. So those included not only the Japanese American community who might have been incarcerated, but also community leaders who were with a couple of organizations that were key to the passage of the legislation and that were key to working with us. We had members of Congress, we had members of the Commission on Wartime Relocation also there. We had past and present Department of Justice officials, including the attorney general at the time, Janet Reno. And so it was just a really nice way to commemorate the historic program and, yeah, it meant a lot.

<Begin Segment 12>

TH: Kind of reflecting back on your time with the office, what are some of the key takeaways from your experience working at ORA?

EK: Yeah. Well, I think professionally it was significant because I grew to really understand the power of marshalling a lot of people behind a certain vision or goal and how you can do that, and within government to not do it in a bureaucratic way, to really lead with the individuals working with other individuals to really foster that cooperative spirit. And I think it also demonstrated the importance of creative thinking. There was no template for us to look at when we were figuring out how to set the office up or how to determine eligibility or track claims. This is all pre-computer, by and large. So it was definitely the power of creative thinking and the power of that can-do spirit and also the importance of leadership and trust. Those are two things that I think started with Bob and Joanne and certainly continued over the duration of the time that I was there, but it was something that I think was really key early on that laid the groundwork for us to be successful.

TH: In thinking about government offices, and if you asked the person on the street, you know, for what their opinion or observation would be, usually you wouldn't get a positive view, or at least it would be somewhat dampened in any time, perhaps. But I wanted to, I wanted to ask, what are some of the takeaways you hope people get from learning about the office? Because this really does seem like one of the "not within the norm," not... that actually the government does work. What were some of the takeaways you hope people get from that, and your thoughts on that?

EK: Yeah, so I almost feel like it was a different time, so the takeaways may or may not be relevant today. I think that, yes, government certainly is large and can be bureaucratic. But I think it really brought home the importance of having career federal employees who were there across, you know, spanning administrations who have the institutional knowledge to really know how to get things done effectively within government. I mean, that's the, to me, the biggest thing. I think today there's a suspicion of government and a suspicion of government intentions that thankfully, I think we weren't really up against back then in the way that it might be today. I think the Civil Liberties Act was passed with bipartisan support, which is rare, but possible, and I think that was tremendously helpful. That's not to say we didn't get the occasional hate letter or people that disagreed with the program, we certainly did. But I do think that it was a really good example of what a relatively small group of people within this larger federal bureaucracy of the Department of Justice or the federal government can do. And oftentimes in working with partnerships, we worked with the White House, we worked with Congress, we worked with a number of federal agencies to achieve this. And it was something that was built on those relationships of primarily career employees, sometimes political appointees, but I think it really showed the impact of having people who are there to do a good job and not to serve, perhaps, partisan interests.

TH: I wanted to ask you, you were talking about impact. Personally, what kind of impact... I guess personally and professionally, did your time working on redress have on you?

EK: Yeah, so I think I just, as I mentioned before, best job I ever had. We had really clear goals and we all rallied behind it, and so it was really just a great work environment. And so personally, the role of, again, leadership and relationships and understanding how to navigate what could be a bureaucracy, those are the types of things that have stuck with me. And I always recall, I think Bob said it in his interview, he always knew before he asked for permission to do something, he always knew ahead of time what the answer was going to be. So he made sure he did his homework beforehand and rallied support beforehand. And approaching problems in that way and showing leadership in that way I think is the type of thing that has stayed with me personally.

TH: You know, I know this may be a tough question, and usually, I mean, this is a full oral history, so we're looking back on the history of the program, but putting it in context, it's 2020, do you think a program like this could happen today, Emi? Because there are discussions and there are, in a sense, references to the Office of Redress Administration.

EK: Right. That's a tough one. I would like to say theoretically it was possible, but I think certain things need to be in place. Certainly being willing to and able to reach across the aisle is certainly key, I think building consensus is a key, at least from the legislative side of things, but also within the Department of Justice to get things done. And I think as things become more partisan, everything is, decisions are made based on political calculations rather than the goal of something beyond partisanship. I think it's difficult. I would like to say that I hope it would be possible. If people can generate the political will to do something, just about anything is possible. So yeah, I don't know. I would like to be positive about something like this potentially happening again. Not the bad things, but the good impact of a government program. But I would say today I'm not sure.

TH: Are there any final thoughts or stories that you'd like to share?

EK: Yeah. So I'm certainly grateful, tremendously grateful for having figured out a way to do this. I think until I learned about oral histories and went to the oral history program at Cal at UC Berkeley, I wasn't quite sure what this was going to look like. So I'm tremendously grateful for having found, first of all, the funding to do this, but also to have colleagues who saw the value in doing this and agreed to spend some time being interviewed. And I'm obviously grateful to you, Todd, who patiently guided me through this whole process and helped me understand what this could be. You know, just also grateful for the circumstances, most of which I had very little control over, that allowed me to participate as an attorney in this historic program.

TH: Well, Emi, thank you so much, A, for sitting down and contributing your part to this oral history project, but also for undertaking it and for preserving this experience and the history of this very historic office for generations to come. So thank you.

EK: Thank you, Todd.