Special to the Vanguard
Davis, CA – In a statement to the community, DJUSD Superintendent Matt Best condemned an incident that occurred on Friday where “an adult in the community shouted the words “white power” at students on our Black Student Union float during the DSHS Homecoming Parade.”
“The term “white power” has historically been used as a racist rallying cry for white supremacist groups,” Best said in his statement.
He continued: “DJUSD staff and the Board of Education condemn the offensive and racist language targeted at our students. What is sometimes a classroom conversation about racial inequities in U.S. history once again revealed its ugly presence in Davis. We are heartened by the quick condemnation of the words by our community members and students.”
Best added, “We are committed to serving and supporting our Black and African American students, and the DSHS Black Student Union, as well as all students and community members targeted by such language. We will always strive to root out the systemic and structural aspects of racism that persist in society’s institutions, including education.”
The statement concluded, “DJUSD will continue to combat racism wherever and whenever it occurs. Expressions of hate like this are an attack on our entire community. We hope you will continue to partner with us to ensure that this is a community that values diversity and where everyone belongs.”
Do they have any idea who the adult was? There had to be people all around.
So the person who shouted was identified as an “adult”.
If they know that they must also have an idea of who it was or at the very least what race they were.
According to the Davis Police, they have identified the individual. He is a 35 year old, white, male
Are there any articles or police reports about this incident?
Did the police do an investigation?
I don’t know, they knew who the guy was. Remember it’s not a criminal offense to do this so my guess is any investigation would have been limited.
So if it’s not a crime why would the police be looking into it at all? Why would they have identified the individual? How would they know it was a 35 year old white male?
None of this makes any sense.
We have explained a number of times on here the difference between a hate crime and a hate incident.
Hate incident is “Non-criminal conduct that is motivated by hatred or bigotry and directed at any individual, residence, house of worship, institution, or business expressly because of the victim’s real or perceived race, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability. Hate incidents also include conduct directed against an individual or group because of their association or advocacy on behalf of a member or members of a protected class.”
“All incidents of hate or bias are investigated whether or not a crime has been committed.”
“So if it’s not a crime why would the police be looking into it at all? Why would they have identified the individual? How would they know it was a 35 year old white male?”
A 35 year old guy yells crazy race related nonsense at a bunch of high school kids during a homecoming event for the students of our community and you want to nitpick the facts as reported. That, in my opinion, is pathetic conduct by the adult as is your predictable challenge as well.
Not at all. We either have free speech rights, or we don’t.
It would be interesting to know exactly how the police “investigate” non-crimes. (Not saying it’s a bad idea, but what exactly would they even say to an individual who isn’t breaking the law? And, how can they then demand that he identify himself, for example?)
Would it go something like this? Possibly at the guy’s front door?
“Sir, we have a report that you said something that others don’t like, which (although not a crime), we have classified as a “hate incident”. Please show us your I.D.” (And forgive us for any assumptions made regarding our use of the word “sir”.)
“Of course, we’re powerless to stop you from doing anything similar in the future, but we’re here regardless (for some undefined reason).”
“By the way, did you happen to be involved in any (legal) banner-hanging, on a freeway overpass recently?” (At least, the message was legal.)
I would think that “investigations” like this might be challenged as harassment. Something that the ACLU (in the past) might have investigated, themselves. (They have changed, from their original mission.)
That is absolutely horrible! The DHS Black Student Union is full of members that I’ve met before and they all are so nice. They didn’t deserve that at all, especially since it was during a parade of celebration.
Actually speech is generally subject to reasonable restrictions. The courts never interpreted the first amendment to guarantee all forms of speech without any restraint whatsoever. Instead, the court has repeatedly ruled that state and federal governments may place reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of individual expression.
Here’s some information regarding the law as it relates to “hate speech”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
As far as I know, no government entity at the state or federal level has banned “hate speech” (such as the use of the term “white power”, or whatever that banner said that was hung over a freeway overpass recently). And if they attempted to do so, the court system would strike it down.
I’m sure that many people would not only support banning such language – they mistakenly think it’s already banned. This mistaken belief can lead to violence – perpetrated by those who think they’re on the “right side” of the law.
Not sure if school systems can ban it on campus, but I suspect they can do so by rule – not law.
My guess is that even “investigating” hate speech has the potential to tread upon constitutional rights. In the past, the ACLU is one of the organizations that might have attempted to protect those rights. (Not so much, anymore.)
I guess it’s important to reiterate: a hate incident is not a crime. However, local law enforcement as well as the FBI track hate incidents. There is no banning of hate speech.
It would be interesting to know how law enforcement is tracking this information, and what it is used for. Along with whether or not individuals or groups have the ability to uncover what is being tracked, via a freedom of information act type of request.
These are people who are being clandestinely investigated without having committed a crime. Sounds like something to be concerned about, in a “free”, democratic country.
As I recall, the FBI sometimes “investigates” people like John Lennon and Charlie Chaplin, as well.
The individual uttered his racist words in a public venue, hence he lost his right to privacy. His 1st Amendment rights don’t apply as long as he isn’t punished in any way. The police can investigate as long as no one is arrested. If the police can determine his identity, they can simply issue a press release naming this racist. People can decide for themselves if they want to be associated with the person or his family. This isn’t police over reach because they have probable cause. There were plenty of eyewitnesses.
This would be akin to publishing arrest records, before there’s even a determination regarding whether or not he’s brought to “trial” (for a non-crime). (Which also occurs – regarding actual crimes.)
It would be easy to smear someone’s reputation (e.g., possibly for something that didn’t even occur) if this type of thing was encouraged. All it would take is hearsay, to “convict” someone this way (resulting in loss of employment, etc.).
I can envision false allegations and resulting civil lawsuits regarding what you’re proposing.
I’d like to see exactly what the police stated in this case – and who they said it to. In other words, is this documented somewhere? And did they actually speak with the individual?
I don’t know what the law is, regarding that. But I do know that plenty of people with your type of political beliefs don’t even support the use of cameras to deter and arrest people for actual crimes. Maybe they should start with that.
Someone has to watch all of those dozens of cameras 24×7 and pay close attention. That means not looking at their personal phones or watching TV. What happens when the police need to go to the bathroom or get something to eat or drink? Who pays for all of the people necessary to watch those cameras all of the time?
Who ensures the watchers don’t doze off or fall asleep?
Pretty sure that they’re only looked at after they become aware of an incident. In other words, the recording. (Just like the videos which show police actions.)
Since 2019, less than half of students in DJUSD have identified as white, non-Latino, and that trend will probably continue. At UC Davis, currently 23% of the students identify as white. Although the target in this incident were students of the DHS Black Student Union, it is not hard for plenty of other younger Davis residents to imagine themselves being the public target of such a comment. Potentially it directly insults a majority of both Davis populations. Regardless of the statistics, this isn’t how I want anyone to remember Davis.
I appreciate and support Superintendent Matt Best’s statement.