by John Buntin
Parker, Ferraro, and Yorty rejected this critique. In his testimony before the McCone Commission on September 17, Parker put forward his analysis of what had happened—to a strikingly sympathetic audience. According to Chief Parker, Watts reflected the general decline of law and order throughout the United States. Parker’s rambling testimony, with its strange third-person references to himself (e.g., Negro leaders “seem to think that if Parker can be destroyed officially, then they will have no more trouble in imposing their will upon the police of America … because nobody else will dare stand up” to them) would later be described by the historian Robert Fogelson as “bordering on the paranoid.” But McCone and most white Angelenos found it perfectly reasonable.
Civil rights leaders attacked Parker for provocative comments, particularly his “we’re on top and they’re on bottom” statement. Critics interpreted this as an endorsement of the status quo. It was possible that Parker’s remarks in that particular instance were simply descriptive. But there is no mistaking the drift of Chief Parker’s comments. Despite his earlier experiences as a Catholic in an aggressively Protestant city, Parker had never been sympathetic to the civil rights movement. Its embrace of civil disobedience horrified him. He did not see the history of hundreds of years of legal oppression. He did not see the horrifying indignities that African Americans in his own department such as Vivian Strange or Tom Bradley (who once dressed up as a workman in order to go look at a house in a majority-white neighborhood he was considering buying so as not to draw unwanted attention) routinely faced. This was a tragic failure of empathy for the chief of a great African American city.
Yet for many years, Parker’s comments on race had a certain balance: He criticized civil disobedience but also disdained the “pseudoscience” of racism. He foresaw a time when “assimilation” would remove racial conflicts. But as the 1960s progressed, any sense of balance fell away. Bill Parker had denied that blacks in Los Angeles experienced racism in any significant way. Now he actively played on white fears of black and brown violence to rally support for the police department.
“It is estimated that by 1970,” he told viewers of ABC’s Newsmaker program on August 14, “forty-five percent of the metropolitan area will be Negro; that excludes the San Fernando Valley…. If you want any protection for your home and family, you’re going to have to get in and support a strong police department. If you don’t, come 1970, God help you!”
Given such comments, it is hardly surprising that Chief Parker’s relationship with his critics did not improve. Back in Los Angeles at a city council meeting in September, Councilman Bradley attempted to pin down Parker on the “shadowy organization” that Parker constantly (albeit elliptically) referred to in his talks about the Watts riots.
“Can you identify the organization?” Bradley asked the chief.
“I have my suspicions,” replied Parker. Then he turned the question around on Bradley. “Perhaps you can. You’re closer to those people.”
PARKER’S combative appearances belied his fragile health. That October, he returned to the Mayo Clinic, this time for heart surgery. In his absence, the department took a few small steps toward a less combative posture, assigning African American lieutenants to five critical divisions (Public Information, Newton, 77th Street, University, and Wilshire) to serve as community relations officers. But when rumors began to circulate that Parker might be about to retire, Yorty urged him to return to the job.
On December 2, 1965, the day before Parker was scheduled to return to Los Angeles, the Governor’s Commission on the Los Angeles Riots, which was known simply as the McCone Commission, issued its report. Written largely by commission vice chairman Warren Christopher, it attempted to tack between the two camps. The rioting was dismissed as the handiwork of a disgruntled few, not a mass uprising driven by legitimate concerns. As to whether the LAPD’s style of policing was to blame for the outbreak of violence, the McCone Commission report was coy. It reported “evidences [of] a deep and longstanding schism between a substantial portion of the Negro community and the Police Department,” and mentioned the frequent complaints of “police brutality” (a phrase the report placed in prophylactic quotation marks, lest the commission be accused of confirming that such things occurred). The report also noted that “generally speaking, the Negro community does not harbor the same angry feeling toward the Sheriff or his staff as it does toward the Los Angeles police.” Indeed, the McCone Commission correctly observed that “Chief of Police Parker appears to be the focal point of the criticism within the Negro community.”
“He is a man distrusted by most Negroes,” the report continued. “Many Negroes feel that he carries a deep hatred of the Negro community.”
But the commission raised these issues only to dismiss them. “Chief Parker’s statements to us and collateral evidence such as his record of fairness to Negro officers are inconsistent with his having such an attitude,” the commission declared. “Despite the depth of feeling against Chief Parker … he is recognized, even by many of his most vocal critics, as a capable Chief who directs an efficient police force that serves well this entire community.” This, of course, was precisely the proposition that many African Americans rejected. Christopher concluded the section on the policing with the Parkeresque declaration: “Our society is held together by respect for law.” The police, it continued, were “the thin thread” that bound our society together. “If police authority is destroyed… chaos might easily result.” The commission also echoed Parker’s rhetoric about the civil rights movement: “Throughout the nation unpunished violence and disobedience to law were widely reported and almost daily there were exhortations here and elsewhere to take the most extreme and illegal remedies to right a wide variety of wrongs, real and supposed.”
The report’s criticism of the Police Commission was more pointed. It noted, with wonder, that “no one, not a single witness, has criticized the Board for the conduct of the police, although the Board is the final authority in such matters. We interpret this as evidence that the Board of Police Commissioners is not visibly exercising authority over the Department vested in it by the City Charter.” Yet the commission’s recommendations—that the Police Commission meet more frequently, request more staff, and get more involved, were strikingly naive. The Police Commission’s powerlessness was not simply a matter of its occasional meetings and limited resources. It also reflected a deliberate, decade-long strategy by Chief Parker to assert the prerogatives of the professional policeman over those of the casually involved citizen. A mere exhortation was hardly an effective remedy against as skilled a politician as Bill Parker.
To many on the left, the McCone Commission’s report was a bitter disappointment. A January 1966 assessment by the California advisory committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights criticized the report for ignoring warnings, such as the one sounded by assistant attorney general Howard Jewell, that the bitter conflict between Parker and civil rights leaders might well lead to riots. But to Parker, even mild criticism smacked of a personal attack.
Back on the job after a six-week period of rest and recuperation, he responded with characteristic bluntness.
“I think they’re afraid I’m going to run for governor,” Parker told the Los Angeles Times. “[T]his is just a political attack on me in an attempt to use the Police Department as a scapegoat and to repeat the completely false charge that the Police Department caused the rioting.”
In fact, it was Mayor Yorty who was planning to run for governor against Pat Brown—as a law-and-order conservative. Not surprisingly, Yorty backed Parker’s response to Watts 100 percent. Politically, Parker had become a potent symbol of law and order. Personally, Yorty worried about Parker’s health. On December 16, Yorty wrote to the Police Commission to propose appointing a civilian police administrator to assist Parker in his job. Nothing came of the idea.
Forced to choose between Chief Parker and his critics, L.A.’s elected politicians went with the police. In Mar
ch 1966, the city council voted to commend Chief Parker for his management of the department and the “pattern of realistic human relations” he had established with the city’s African American community. Only three members of the council, Tom Bradley, Gilbert Lindsay, and Billy Mills, voted against this curiously worded expression of support.
Parker’s popularity dissuaded the city’s elected officials from criticizing him directly. “It’s most plausible that Chief Parker is the most powerful man in Los Angeles,” mused Los Angeles Times publisher Otis Chandler to a Washington Post reporter that summer. “He is the white community’s savior, their symbol of security.”
Privately, however, many recognized that Parker was the major obstacle to improved race relations in the city. On March 4, 1966, an FBI agent who’d attended a special panel on Watts at the National Association of District Attorneys in Tucson reported on his conversation with L.A. district attorney Evelle Younger and Judge Earl Broady, a member of the McCone Commission and an African American. Both Younger and Broady described Parker’s “ingrained action [sic] against Negroes” as “the major stumbling block to any problem of effective community relations.” Younger also identified the LAPD’s failure to recognize or promote black officers as a major problem. Both men said that they believed Parker would have resigned by now if not for demands from civil rights groups such as the Congress of Racial Equality that he step down. (Parker didn’t want to lose face.) Younger also confided that Chief Parker was a very sick man. Less than a week later, Parker was hospitalized for “a temporary cardiac incapacity.” Not until June 1 was Parker able to resume command of the department.
On July 5, 1966, Chief Parker sent a memorandum to the city council that represented a serious attempt to come to terms with the city’s public safety needs. In it, Parker returned to one of his favorite themes: the need to increase the size of the LAPD. The memo noted that in October 1965, L.A.’s ratio of police officers per thousand residents had fallen to a mere 1.87—little more than half of New York’s 3.31 officers per thousand. Yet while L.A.’s population had risen 17 percent since 1958 (and serious crime had risen 47 percent), the size of the police department had actually fallen. One table comparing the number of police per 1,000 residents in Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles made a powerful case for Parker’s argument that Los Angeles had made a disastrous decision to underinvest in its police force:
The memo concluded by noting that “if the recommended [police] manpower rate for 1958 were projected to a police-officer-per-thousand ratio in 1965, Los Angeles would need 11,010 police officers”—double the size of the current force. As for the chances of this happening, even Parker considered the idea “academic.” Thanks to his insistence on high standards (of a certain sort), the LAPD couldn’t even fill the much smaller number of positions that were currently available. But Parker’s fundamental analysis was almost certainly correct. Los Angeles was underpoliced—criminally so. It still is.
On the evening of July 16, 1966, Bill Parker went to a banquet at the Statler Hilton Hotel to receive an award from the Second Marine Division, which was celebrating its seventeenth annual reunion. He received a plaque citing him as one of the nation’s foremost police chiefs. After a few brief remarks, he walked back to his table, where Helen was sitting, while a thousand Marine Corps veterans gave him a standing ovation. He sat down, then, suddenly, he leaned back and started gasping for air. Slowly he crumpled to the floor. His heart had finally failed him. After almost thirty-nine years on the force, Chief William H. Parker was dead. He was sixty-one years old.
The public responded to Parker’s death with an outpouring of grief. Mayor Yorty declared himself to be “shocked and heart-broken.”
“Los Angeles and America will sadly miss our courageous and beloved Police Chief Parker,” Yorty declared. “He was a monument of strength against the criminal elements.”
Governor Pat Brown (a frequent Parker antagonist) praised the chief for his “courageous commitment to the rule of law.” Even adversaries such as A. L. Wirin had admiring words. Although they had “disagreed sharply on most subjects,” the civil liberties attorney declared, “I have admired him throughout the years as an efficient and dedicated police officer.”
Said councilman Tom Bradley, “I regret the death of a man who did much to change the image and practices of the police department, although he often spoke from emotion without considering the effect of his words.”
Only Thomas Kilgore, the western representative for Dr. Martin Luther King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference, seemed willing to dissent: “His death will be a loss in the sense he put together a strong, disciplined police force. But I think his death will be a relief to the minority community, who believe he woefully misunderstood the social revolution taking place.”
At the funeral home, Parker’s casket was given a twenty-four-hour police honor guard. The day before the funeral, Parker’s body was brought to the City Hall rotunda to lie in state. More than three thousand mourners came to pay their respects and view Parker’s body. The funeral itself was scheduled for 10 a.m. the following day at St. Vibiana’s cathedral. Police and church officials alike were caught off guard by the massive turnout. Thousands of Angelenos—including Gov. Pat Brown, Republican gubernatorial nominee Ronald Reagan, and Mayor Sam Yorty—and police chiefs from sixty cities filled the cathedral for the requiem high mass, with Cardinal James Francis McIntyre as the officiant. Another 1,500 people lined Main Street to listen to the mass on loudspeakers and, afterward, to observe the hearse carrying Parker’s body, escorted by 150 LAPD motorcycle officers. The funeral procession to Parker’s grave site at the San Fernando Mission Cemetery was seven miles long. There, a military honor guard buried Chief Parker with full honors while the American Legion Police Post 381 band played “Hail to the Chief” as the casket was moved to the grave site. Taps was played, a rifle volley fired, and then Chief Parker was lowered into the earth.
* In November 13, 1965, Saturday Review article, King offered the following explanation of why rioting had broken out in Los Angeles: “Los Angeles could have expected riots because it is the luminous symbol of luxurious living for whites. Watts is closer to it and yet further from it than any other Negro community in the country. The looting in Watts was a form of social protest very common through the ages as a dramatic and destructive gesture of the poor toward symbols of their needs.”
* During the same interview, Parker also made it clear that “less than one percent” of L.A. County’s 600,000 African American residents were involved in the violence.
28
R.I.P.
“I don’t want to be rude, but I got to beg off this thing.”
—Mickey Cohen
WILLIAM PARKER was dead, but the system he had created lived on.
On July 18, Parker’s old rival, chief of detectives Thad Brown, was sworn in as chief of police. This time, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover was quick to convey his congratulations. The new chief responded in the proper fashion. (“It is encouraging to know that I may rely upon your confidence and support in the great task that lies ahead,” gushed Brown in reply.) But Thad Brown was only an interim chief. From the beginning, he made it clear that he would not take part in the civil service examination that would select the next permanent chief of police.
During his life, Parker had made no secret of who he thought the next chief should be. “Meet Gates,” he’d tell other (more senior) officers in the department. “This officer is going to be chief someday.” But a few months before his death, Parker had confided to his young protege his doubts that this would come to pass.
“I’ve always thought you would be the next chief, but if I have to leave now, you’re too young,” he told Gates. “You don’t even have your twenty years in.”
“What difference does that make?” Gates asked.
“You can’t afford to take this job unless you have twenty years, and you have your retirement benefits. Because if something happens, if you�
�re forced to resign, you wouldn’t want to stay at a lower rank. So you’d leave and you wouldn’t have anything,” Parker replied. Parker died when Gates had been on the force for nineteen years. Nonetheless, after Parker’s death when the civil service exam for a new chief was held, Gates took the test, as an inspector. But the top score—and the position of chief—went instead to Gates’s old instructor at the Police Academy, Tom Reddin. One of Reddin’s first actions was to request the intelligence file on himself.
“The notions in it,” he later recalled, “were almost laughable, and most of them were wrong.” But this did not lead Reddin to disband the intelligence unit. Instead, he expanded its operations further. Even the department’s oldest friends fell within its purview, including the former attorney general of the United States, Robert Kennedy.
IN EARLY 1968, Robert Kennedy began a last-minute campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. On June 5, Kennedy scored a huge win over front-runner Eugene McCarthy in the California Democratic primary. The celebration party was held at the Ambassador Hotel on Wilshire Boulevard.
In 1960, the LAPD had provided security to John F. Kennedy during the Democratic convention. (Secret Service protection was not then offered to candidates before they became the nominee.) The LAPD would normally have provided security at the Ambassador. However, Kennedy’s staff wanted no police officers to be visible. Just two months earlier, Dr. Martin Luther King had been assassinated in Memphis. The presence of uniformed officers at the Ambassador was seen as simply too provocative. Instead they relied solely on former FBI agent William Barry and two professional athletes he employed.
“Kennedy’s people were adamant, if not abusive, in their demands that the police not even come close to the senator while he was in Los Angeles,” recalled Daryl Gates.
