Hi

I was confused on parts of this last year in discussions about the 3^rd Tradition. There are 3 incidents being intermingled that really have no cause/effect relationship:

1.        The incident of the member who had an "addiction even worse stigmatized than alcoholism" (12&12 essay on Tradition Three) occurred at Akron, OH in 1937 ("on the AA calendar it was year two” pg 141). The "group's oldest member" and "one of the three" was Dr. Bob (Dr Bob and the Good Old-timers pgs 240-241). Last year in his search for an audiotape on the matter, David S came into possession of a tape of Bill addressing a Conference. Bill revealed that the member described his “addiction” as "sex deviate." The presumption is that the man was a homosexual (see AAHistoryLovers message from David S re Tradition 3 And Bill W.). There is no indication he was black.

2.        The 2^nd incident occurred 8 years later (1945) at the 45^th St Club House in NYC. Barry L (Pass It On pgs 317-318) contacted Bill W. The prospect was black, an ex-convict, had bleached blonde hair, makeup and was a "dope fiend" (there is no mention of heroin). Bill's comments set the spirit of how the 3^rd Tradition should be practiced. There appears to be an element of myth around this incident. Many in AA assert that the individual went on to become one of the best 12^th Steppers in NY. Pass It On says, "The prospect was invited to attend meetings, and although he soon disappeared, his presence created a precedent for the Third Tradition." His role, though dramatic, appears quite brief.

3.        Dr Jim S, a black physician, spoke at the 1955 convention in Cleveland (AA Comes of Age pg 37). He resided in the Washington DC area. In Jim's Story (3^rd ed Big Book pg 483-496) it cites that his main assistance came from Charlie G. (his sponsor) and Ella G., who introduced Jim to his sponsor. Jim's Story credits him with starting the 1^st black group but I don't know if that is factual or not.

"The man with the other addiction,” has no linkage to the black community or Dr. Jim S.

As far as ‘black outreach” is concerned, some in the Fellowship retrospectively (and much too idealistically) view AA as being elevated above the social problems of the times. Prejudice seems to have been as much a challenge within AA as outside it. Pass It On (pgs 315-317) speaks openly about the challenge (prior to the info you cite). On pg 316, Bill states, “In all the South and in most of the North, whites refuse to mingle with blacks socially.”

Blacks predominantly had to start out with black groups or were invited to groups as “observers.” Later Bill states, “As I long since learned that no man can dictate to an AA group, I tell each fellowship to abide by the wishes of the majority of its members. And if a group refuses Negroes socially, it ought to make a superhuman effort to help every single colored case to start a group of his own and permit him access to a few open meetings as an observer.”

Blacks started their own groups principally due to prejudice not preference. That might raise a howl or two within AA as being inconceivable. There certainly would be exceptions but there would be no compelling reason to presume members of AA were any different from the society of which they were a part (other than with booze). I'm still uncertain on how much the racial divide has been breached. There clearly has been progress but demographics are difficult to come by other than the membership surveys. They don’t seem to probe very far into the matter.

Cheers

Arthur