Juan Williams
Author of Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years, 1954-1965
About the Author
Juan Williams is a political analyst for Fox News, a regular panelist on Fox News Sunday, and a columnist for poxNews.com and for The Hill. He hosted NPR's Talk of the Nation and has anchored Fox News Channel's weekend daytime news coverage. He is the author of the bestsellers Enough and Eyes on show more the Prize. show less
Image credit: Pete Wright
Works by Juan Williams
Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America and What We Can Do About It (2006) 182 copies, 5 reviews
My Soul Looks Back in Wonder: Voices of the Civil Rights Experience (AARP) (2004) 154 copies, 1 review
We the People: The Modern-Day Figures Who Have Reshaped and Affirmed the Founding Fathers' Vision of America (2016) 99 copies, 28 reviews
New Prize for These Eyes: The Rise of America's Second Civil Rights Movement (2025) 39 copies, 3 reviews
Associated Works
Tagged
Common Knowledge
- Birthdate
- 1954-04
- Gender
- male
- Education
- Haverford College (B.A.|Philosophy)
- Occupations
- reporter (Washington Post)
correspondent (senior, National Public Radio)
writer
author - Organizations
- The Washington Post
National Public Radio
Fox News
Haverford College Board of Managers
Aspen Institute Communications and Society Program
New York Civil Rights Coalition Board of Directors - Awards and honors
- Political commentary award, American Association of University Women
Best National Book, Time Magazine
Outstanding Memorial Book, Myers Center for the Study of Human Rights in the United States
Emmy Award (1989)
Columnist of the Year, Washingtonian (1982)
Education Writers of America (1979) (show all 9)
Front Page Award, Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild (1979)
Honorary Doctorate from Haverford College
Honorary Doctorate from State University of New York - Short biography
- Juan Antonio Williams (born April 10, 1954) is a Panamanian-born American journalist and liberal political analyst for Fox News Channel. In May of 2021, he quit his job as one of the co-hosts on the Fox program, "The Five," citing his experience with Covid-19. He will continue as a news analyst.
He writes for several newspapers, including The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal and has been published in magazines such as The Atlantic Monthly and Time. Williams has worked as an editorial writer, an op-ed columnist, a White House correspondent, and a national correspondent. He is a registered Democrat. [Wikipedia, mostly] - Nationality
- USA
- Birthplace
- Colón, Panama
- Places of residence
- Colón, Panama
Pleasantville, New Jersey, USA
Brooklyn, New York, USA
Washington, D.C., USA - Associated Place (for map)
- USA
Members
Reviews
We the People: The Modern-Day Figures Who Have Reshaped and Affirmed the Founding Fathers' Vision of America by Juan Williams
Full disclosure: I received an ARC of this book through LibraryThing's Early Reviewers program.
When this book came up, I was thrilled as I love history. I was aware of Juan Williams reputation as a journalist and author, so figured I couldn't go wrong with this one. Sadly, I was mistaken. While there is a LOT of interesting information, it's presented so dryly in places, it was like reading a textbook. Some of the chapters are so slow and so boring you wonder why Mr. Williams bothered to show more write it (Kennedy's and immigration, for example). Others, like the sections on Eleanor Roosevelt and Dr. King were much livelier and interesting.
I had to struggle to finish this book, and was greatly relieved when it was done. If you're familiar with Mr. Williams' writing style or you love modern history, you will probably do fine with this book, but I was sad to have so much trouble reading it. show less
When this book came up, I was thrilled as I love history. I was aware of Juan Williams reputation as a journalist and author, so figured I couldn't go wrong with this one. Sadly, I was mistaken. While there is a LOT of interesting information, it's presented so dryly in places, it was like reading a textbook. Some of the chapters are so slow and so boring you wonder why Mr. Williams bothered to show more write it (Kennedy's and immigration, for example). Others, like the sections on Eleanor Roosevelt and Dr. King were much livelier and interesting.
I had to struggle to finish this book, and was greatly relieved when it was done. If you're familiar with Mr. Williams' writing style or you love modern history, you will probably do fine with this book, but I was sad to have so much trouble reading it. show less
This review was written for LibraryThing Early Reviewers.
Eyes on the Prize utilizes the tactic of revisionist history -- that is, telling historical events from perspectives not often considered. For instance, the master narrative or textbook version of the Civil Rights movement is generally focused on Martin Luther King and how he empowered a repressed people.
Eyes on the Prize approaches the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s with a different perspective. It starts by introducing the social elements and people between the Civil Rights Acts of show more 1866 and 1964, and explains how the second Civil Rights movement gained momentum and spread.
I was particularly struck by the story of Kenneth Clark and how his Dolls Study was used as evidence in the Briggs v. Clarendon County case. I think this instance is a great example of the combination of legal strategy and action with the intent to change public opinion. It is clear they were aware of the charged nature of this decision from the quote on page 20,
I think this choice must have had more impact in the legal and public spheres than is focused on in this book, as it is now relatively common for a court of law to seek the expert opinion of a mental health worker. Psychologists and others who work with the mentally ill are often tainted with a sort of stigma-by-association, yet in a high-stakes trial, they chose to highlight not only a psychological study, but a study done by a black psychologist. It is clear why: Not only is the study itself sound, the ramifications are unsettling on an instinctual level. To prove the effect of discrimination on innocent young minds is an extremely effective way of inciting both sympathy and desire to act in the viewer -- it draws on the innate human desire to protect our children from harm.
In many ways, both the legal strategy and the public action danced around this concept. Charles Houston drew on it when he focused his initial efforts of educational desegregation oat the higher education levels, knowing that it would be less threatening to whites if it started in adult institutions rather than with children. He drew on this human instinct, too, whether consciously or not, when he filmed the contrasting situations of white and black children in their segregated learning environments. I suspect it is easier for a moderate white to be unconcerned about the plight of black children if they are not aware of the reality of that plight.
Clearly, hard-core racist segregationists didn't particularly care if black children were in school, in the gutter, or dead. But it wasn't the hard-core segregationists they needed to sway; it was the moderates and public opinion in general. I think Martin Luther King's advocacy of nonviolent, passive resistance also appealed, in a sense, to the parent's desire for their children's safety. The nonviolent movement showed through both word and actions that blacks were not the threat segregationists were trying to paint them as. Indeed, as the movement progressed, the juxtaposition of dignified non-violent resistance of the blacks and their white allies to the lashing anger and rage of the of segregationists highlighted who the real danger to society was.
This is further alluded to on page 113, in an interview with a white student at Central High in Little Rock, Arkansas:
I wouldn't go so far as to argue that the entire civil rights movement was predicated on the human urge to protect the children, but I do think that a sensitivity and awareness of this shared instinct permeates the movement. It present in the cases they choose to argue and the order they chose to pursue them in. It was a consideration in the way blacks and their white allies presented themselves to the public.
In the arena of national attention, they often focused on the violence done to black children. In the arena of legal cases, they chose defendants who were either children or adults who were not considered a threat to those who needed to be protected. They also chose to focus on litigation that either did not affect children and was therefore not perceived as a threat to white children, or that focused on the harm done to black children, which incited sympathy in moderate whites. On top of these choices was the conscious decision to employ children in many marches and boycotts, which both made for moving publicity and allowed their parents more freedom of movement behind the scenes. Whether these choices were conscious or subconscious, they positively impacted both the participants in and the observers of the freedom movement on a very instinctive level.
The impact of this was even evidenced by segregationists, who in the immediate wake of the Emmet Till murder were, "outraged at what happened,"(43) and promised justice would be done. As it turned out, justice was not done -- but I do think it's telling that in the immediate aftermath of the murder, the reported reaction of, "all 'decent' people," was outrage and horror. The Southerners did not initially respond with a meh, or (worse), glee: They reacted with the disgust any right-thinking person should feel upon learning of such an incident. As the media attention grew and swelled, the white community drew back on itself and became defensive and angry, but their first reaction to the murder of a child was one of horror.
Today, many social activist groups say, "Think of the children," when they try to defend or argue some stance or other. I suspect the segregationists said this phrase, too, or some 1950's equivalent of it. It is interesting that a successful social movement is the one that does think of the children, and that considers the impact of their movement on all children, rather than just their children. show less
Eyes on the Prize approaches the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s with a different perspective. It starts by introducing the social elements and people between the Civil Rights Acts of show more 1866 and 1964, and explains how the second Civil Rights movement gained momentum and spread.
I was particularly struck by the story of Kenneth Clark and how his Dolls Study was used as evidence in the Briggs v. Clarendon County case. I think this instance is a great example of the combination of legal strategy and action with the intent to change public opinion. It is clear they were aware of the charged nature of this decision from the quote on page 20,
"It was highly unorthodox evidence to present in a courtroom, but the situation called for unusual legal ammunition."
I think this choice must have had more impact in the legal and public spheres than is focused on in this book, as it is now relatively common for a court of law to seek the expert opinion of a mental health worker. Psychologists and others who work with the mentally ill are often tainted with a sort of stigma-by-association, yet in a high-stakes trial, they chose to highlight not only a psychological study, but a study done by a black psychologist. It is clear why: Not only is the study itself sound, the ramifications are unsettling on an instinctual level. To prove the effect of discrimination on innocent young minds is an extremely effective way of inciting both sympathy and desire to act in the viewer -- it draws on the innate human desire to protect our children from harm.
In many ways, both the legal strategy and the public action danced around this concept. Charles Houston drew on it when he focused his initial efforts of educational desegregation oat the higher education levels, knowing that it would be less threatening to whites if it started in adult institutions rather than with children. He drew on this human instinct, too, whether consciously or not, when he filmed the contrasting situations of white and black children in their segregated learning environments. I suspect it is easier for a moderate white to be unconcerned about the plight of black children if they are not aware of the reality of that plight.
Clearly, hard-core racist segregationists didn't particularly care if black children were in school, in the gutter, or dead. But it wasn't the hard-core segregationists they needed to sway; it was the moderates and public opinion in general. I think Martin Luther King's advocacy of nonviolent, passive resistance also appealed, in a sense, to the parent's desire for their children's safety. The nonviolent movement showed through both word and actions that blacks were not the threat segregationists were trying to paint them as. Indeed, as the movement progressed, the juxtaposition of dignified non-violent resistance of the blacks and their white allies to the lashing anger and rage of the of segregationists highlighted who the real danger to society was.
This is further alluded to on page 113, in an interview with a white student at Central High in Little Rock, Arkansas:
"Other Whites, however, lost sympathy for the governor. 'I began to change,' remembers Craig Rains, a white senior at Central during the 1957-1958 school year, 'from being . . . a moderate, who, if I had my way, would have said, 'Let's don't integrate, because it's the state's right to decide.' I changed to someone who felt a real sense of compassion for those students, and felt like they deserved something that I had, and I also developed a real dislike for the people that were out there causing problems." (pg 113)
I wouldn't go so far as to argue that the entire civil rights movement was predicated on the human urge to protect the children, but I do think that a sensitivity and awareness of this shared instinct permeates the movement. It present in the cases they choose to argue and the order they chose to pursue them in. It was a consideration in the way blacks and their white allies presented themselves to the public.
In the arena of national attention, they often focused on the violence done to black children. In the arena of legal cases, they chose defendants who were either children or adults who were not considered a threat to those who needed to be protected. They also chose to focus on litigation that either did not affect children and was therefore not perceived as a threat to white children, or that focused on the harm done to black children, which incited sympathy in moderate whites. On top of these choices was the conscious decision to employ children in many marches and boycotts, which both made for moving publicity and allowed their parents more freedom of movement behind the scenes. Whether these choices were conscious or subconscious, they positively impacted both the participants in and the observers of the freedom movement on a very instinctive level.
The impact of this was even evidenced by segregationists, who in the immediate wake of the Emmet Till murder were, "outraged at what happened,"(43) and promised justice would be done. As it turned out, justice was not done -- but I do think it's telling that in the immediate aftermath of the murder, the reported reaction of, "all 'decent' people," was outrage and horror. The Southerners did not initially respond with a meh, or (worse), glee: They reacted with the disgust any right-thinking person should feel upon learning of such an incident. As the media attention grew and swelled, the white community drew back on itself and became defensive and angry, but their first reaction to the murder of a child was one of horror.
Today, many social activist groups say, "Think of the children," when they try to defend or argue some stance or other. I suspect the segregationists said this phrase, too, or some 1950's equivalent of it. It is interesting that a successful social movement is the one that does think of the children, and that considers the impact of their movement on all children, rather than just their children. show less
Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What by Juan Williams
Let me start by saying that I am not African-American, so this feels like an "outsider looking in" discussion. I do live in Birmingham, AL though, where talks of race, economics, education and history are brought to the forefront of discussion, news, etc. every day.
With that disclaimer out of the way...
I thought Juan Williams did a fantastic job of shining a light on the social ills of the past 50+ years.
I thought his arguments were well constructed and clear. And I found it very hard to show more counter his logical approach. His presentation was so logical and "non-involved" that he could have been arguing about anything. But I understand that his "emotional disconnect" is what some people have a problem with.
But an "emotional argument" is one of the things that Williams seems to be writing against. Williams thinks that blacks (as he referred to them in the book) are so angry and tired and historically downtrodden that they can't lift their heads to look at the world pragmatically enough to maneuver upwards. Williams called them "blinded". He never said it was their fault they were initially blinded. But he did say that it's their fault they keep themselves blinded.
Williams wrote this book, on the heels of Bill Cosby's speech given at a benefit dinner in Washington D.C honoring 50 years of Brown v. B.O.E. Needless to say, Williams agreed 100% with The Cos and uses that speech as a rough outline and (often times) the only emotional elements in his arguments.
Williams also went on to talk about contemporary black culture. Primarily concerning himself with rap music for encouraging young folks to persue a life of self-indulgent self-hurting lifestyle.
Williams also took issue with black culture's "leadership". We've all seen them on TV, invoking the names of this slain civil rights leader or that beating victim from 50 years ago, or even Jesus. Williams says that this leadership has gotten so good at emotional connecting and stirring the populace with these tales of victims, that they have ingrained a sense of "we're always gonna be a victim" into the culture.
Williams says this fact holds black people back more than anything.
His points of comparing today's leaders to yesterdays tips when he cites many cases where today's civil rights leaders fight for lesser jail time for crack dealers that are black, solely because they are black. Whereas, yesterday's leaders fought to be treated as equals to everyone else, even in the case of jail terms and sentencing.
Many people have taken exception to Williams arguments and fortunately Williams takes the time to counter some the reports we've read in news accounts and points out errors in their logic and arguments.
If you are looking for a fiery emotional plea for the plight of blacks, this isn't it. This is simply a cold logical look at the status of our world and where do we go from here. Williams is operating under the idea that black people have been kept down for so long and have felt hopeless for so long that their anger and emotional outrage keep them blind to the possibilities of rescuing themselves. It's a bitter pill that may or may not need swallowing, but it's a pill that's well worth reading. I learned a lot about people and places that I had heard of, but never knew about (to my delight, the whole "40 acres and a mule" thing is clearly explained). So it's also a good primer for those of us who aren't true civil-rights academics.
A highly recommended read for anyone interested in the current civil rights movement and the future of our country. show less
With that disclaimer out of the way...
I thought Juan Williams did a fantastic job of shining a light on the social ills of the past 50+ years.
I thought his arguments were well constructed and clear. And I found it very hard to show more counter his logical approach. His presentation was so logical and "non-involved" that he could have been arguing about anything. But I understand that his "emotional disconnect" is what some people have a problem with.
But an "emotional argument" is one of the things that Williams seems to be writing against. Williams thinks that blacks (as he referred to them in the book) are so angry and tired and historically downtrodden that they can't lift their heads to look at the world pragmatically enough to maneuver upwards. Williams called them "blinded". He never said it was their fault they were initially blinded. But he did say that it's their fault they keep themselves blinded.
Williams wrote this book, on the heels of Bill Cosby's speech given at a benefit dinner in Washington D.C honoring 50 years of Brown v. B.O.E. Needless to say, Williams agreed 100% with The Cos and uses that speech as a rough outline and (often times) the only emotional elements in his arguments.
Williams also went on to talk about contemporary black culture. Primarily concerning himself with rap music for encouraging young folks to persue a life of self-indulgent self-hurting lifestyle.
Williams also took issue with black culture's "leadership". We've all seen them on TV, invoking the names of this slain civil rights leader or that beating victim from 50 years ago, or even Jesus. Williams says that this leadership has gotten so good at emotional connecting and stirring the populace with these tales of victims, that they have ingrained a sense of "we're always gonna be a victim" into the culture.
Williams says this fact holds black people back more than anything.
His points of comparing today's leaders to yesterdays tips when he cites many cases where today's civil rights leaders fight for lesser jail time for crack dealers that are black, solely because they are black. Whereas, yesterday's leaders fought to be treated as equals to everyone else, even in the case of jail terms and sentencing.
Many people have taken exception to Williams arguments and fortunately Williams takes the time to counter some the reports we've read in news accounts and points out errors in their logic and arguments.
If you are looking for a fiery emotional plea for the plight of blacks, this isn't it. This is simply a cold logical look at the status of our world and where do we go from here. Williams is operating under the idea that black people have been kept down for so long and have felt hopeless for so long that their anger and emotional outrage keep them blind to the possibilities of rescuing themselves. It's a bitter pill that may or may not need swallowing, but it's a pill that's well worth reading. I learned a lot about people and places that I had heard of, but never knew about (to my delight, the whole "40 acres and a mule" thing is clearly explained). So it's also a good primer for those of us who aren't true civil-rights academics.
A highly recommended read for anyone interested in the current civil rights movement and the future of our country. show less
We the People: The Modern-Day Figures Who Have Reshaped and Affirmed the Founding Fathers' Vision of America by Juan Williams
One of the first things that I noticed, as I delved into We the People: The Modern-Day Figures Who Have Reshaped and Affirmed the Founding Fathers’ Vision of What America Is, written by Juan Williams, is the concise, objective journalistic writing style used to create an easy-to-read narrative. In spite of the fact that I began reading the book with a somewhat curious, if not skeptical, attitude about the author’s premise that America has had other “Founding Fathers” besides the show more “originals”, I also found that, chapter by chapter and topic by topic, Mr. Williams makes a convincing case that throughout the course of American history, we have had many “Founding Fathers” as well as “Founding Mothers” in the great “experiment” we call the United States of America. Using many examples, Mr. Williams also makes the case that the United States Constitution is indeed a living document, open to interpretation by the people, and based on the times in which we live.
The opening introduction sets the scene, as the narrative delineates a direct contrast between the America that our original Founding Fathers knew and the America that we live in today. This comparison continues throughout the book. Mr. Williams personalizes his introduction by placing himself in history, giving the reader his birth year of 1954. Because he is about my age, I found myself “re-living” the history that he describes. Many of the names, places, events, and issues are familiar to me, but as I read in detail about them, I realized that I didn’t necessarily understand the context in which they occurred. This gift of historical perspective and the “filling in of the details” is laid out carefully by the author. As a lover of history, I was hooked on learning more about things I remember in my own lifetime, as well as learning more about events in my history textbooks.
Not only did I enjoy learning about the unknown details of the events I remember, but as I read, I also began to think of how high school and college students would benefit by having this book as part of their school curriculum. I believe that this book would serve as an outstanding supplemental guide for discussion of current events and topics relevant to young people’s interests. In my opinion, the tradition of “living history” is what young people need to understand about their country in order to counteract the abrasive, negative reports that they are inundated with in the news. By showing students how people have effected important change throughout American history, they may be inspired to become a bigger part of the process.
The book is parsed into chapter topics, representing major events, trends, and issues, as it acknowledges the people who have championed major changes in our evolving nation. Each chapter could be a “stand alone” reading. The subjects explored include immigration, civil rights, urban crime, the military, the economy, the shrinking of the middle class, income inequality, global human rights, labor unions, religious influences, women’s rights, racial equality, and citizens’ right to bear arms.
It is refreshing that Mr. Williams does not reveal his positions on any of these topics, but chooses instead to present the facts and let the reader consider them for himself. The objective narrative was so skillfully done that, based on new information, I found myself rethinking some of my opinions on certain subjects, or at least seriously considering the viewpoint of those who hold opposing beliefs to my own. This is another reason why this book needs an an audience. It could serve as a vehicle for meaningful dialog on the major issues of our time.
I would highly recommend this book to people of all ages, political persuasions, and cultures. This book is a reminder that “We the People” have a voice, and that we are an absolutely necessary voice in the survival of our democracy.
March 26, 2016 show less
The opening introduction sets the scene, as the narrative delineates a direct contrast between the America that our original Founding Fathers knew and the America that we live in today. This comparison continues throughout the book. Mr. Williams personalizes his introduction by placing himself in history, giving the reader his birth year of 1954. Because he is about my age, I found myself “re-living” the history that he describes. Many of the names, places, events, and issues are familiar to me, but as I read in detail about them, I realized that I didn’t necessarily understand the context in which they occurred. This gift of historical perspective and the “filling in of the details” is laid out carefully by the author. As a lover of history, I was hooked on learning more about things I remember in my own lifetime, as well as learning more about events in my history textbooks.
Not only did I enjoy learning about the unknown details of the events I remember, but as I read, I also began to think of how high school and college students would benefit by having this book as part of their school curriculum. I believe that this book would serve as an outstanding supplemental guide for discussion of current events and topics relevant to young people’s interests. In my opinion, the tradition of “living history” is what young people need to understand about their country in order to counteract the abrasive, negative reports that they are inundated with in the news. By showing students how people have effected important change throughout American history, they may be inspired to become a bigger part of the process.
The book is parsed into chapter topics, representing major events, trends, and issues, as it acknowledges the people who have championed major changes in our evolving nation. Each chapter could be a “stand alone” reading. The subjects explored include immigration, civil rights, urban crime, the military, the economy, the shrinking of the middle class, income inequality, global human rights, labor unions, religious influences, women’s rights, racial equality, and citizens’ right to bear arms.
It is refreshing that Mr. Williams does not reveal his positions on any of these topics, but chooses instead to present the facts and let the reader consider them for himself. The objective narrative was so skillfully done that, based on new information, I found myself rethinking some of my opinions on certain subjects, or at least seriously considering the viewpoint of those who hold opposing beliefs to my own. This is another reason why this book needs an an audience. It could serve as a vehicle for meaningful dialog on the major issues of our time.
I would highly recommend this book to people of all ages, political persuasions, and cultures. This book is a reminder that “We the People” have a voice, and that we are an absolutely necessary voice in the survival of our democracy.
March 26, 2016 show less
This review was written for LibraryThing Early Reviewers.Lists
Awards
You May Also Like
Associated Authors
Statistics
- Works
- 14
- Also by
- 1
- Members
- 1,798
- Popularity
- #14,307
- Rating
- 3.9
- Reviews
- 41
- ISBNs
- 44
- Favorited
- 1
