Two pieces on the UC Davis situation warrant some discussion. First, we will look at Daniel Filler’s op-ed that appears in the Davis Enterprise, “Policing’s ‘new normal’ doesn’t work with white folks,” which focuses on an issue that has long troubled me, that police get away with certain tactics on minorities that would outrage the white community if it happened in middle America.
Daniel Filler, a dean and criminal law expert at the Drexel University Law School notes that, while the militarization of police in this country has been occurring since 9/11, the UC Davis pepper spray incident has finally focused white America’s attention on this trend.
He argues that “this militarization, and the attendant cultural shift within police departments, is what made it possible for police officers to imagine that pepper-spraying students practicing civil disobedience was proper.”
But he argues that this and other practices are hardly new, what is different is the impact of polices such as “stop-and-fisk” is now being “felt by a narrow segment of the population.”
He argues such polices mean that people who reside in high-crime areas, which is invariably areas where the majority are people of color, “are subject to persistent risk of police intervention.”
Does this result in catching more criminals? Dean Filler cites statistics that show that roughly 70 percent of the people that Philadelphia police “happened to ‘reasonably suspect’ of criminal activity were African-Americans.” Moreover, the bar for what “constitutes reasonable suspicion” is remarkably low, as “it turns out only 8.4 percent of those stops led to an arrest.”
He also notes laws in place like Arizona and Alabama, where immigration laws now “justify active police intervention where they identify individuals who might just be in the United States improperly. We properly assume that these typically will be Latino people.”
As he points out, it is not that public is silent on these shifts, but rather, “It’s just that these complaints have gotten minimal traction among the public at large. And the new policing has thus become the new normal.”
However, the crux of his argument is this: “As police culture has shifted, the police seem to have forgotten – or perhaps never realized – that these aggressive policies are really only politically sustainable when they’re employed against disempowered communities.”
And so, he argues that airport profiling is fine for Muslims, random street searches for African-Americans, and immigration detentions for Mexicans. However, “you can’t engage in invasive stops, searches and unsubstantiated detentions of, and attacks on, white folks without other white people getting agitated. What’s good for the goose has never been good for the gander.”
“That’s why the UC Davis video is so powerful,” he argues. “These are campus cops using the new normal police strategies – the police experts agree – on white people. It turns out, the public isn’t as comfortable with the new normal as the police believed.”
“I suspect that the police won’t be quick to dispense with their new model of policing. It’s part of the core strategy and identify of a modern police chief – and his or her officers,” he writes. “Instead, I imagine that management will work much harder to ensure that these strategies and techniques are applied strategically to all the people voters don’t care much about. After all, we are told that we’re in a perpetual war – on drugs and on terrorism.”
“The question is really whether it’s possible to walk back police culture, once militarization and hyper-policing are both the approach – and the identity – that define the modern American police,” he concludes.
I think professor Filler gets it partly right. From my perspective, he is correct that people are less tolerant of aggressive police tactics on people that they agree with, can relate to, and are perceived to be less than dangerous. However, middle class whites, even liberals, are remarkably willing to tolerate tactics that they perceive will make them safer.
Shifting to UC Davis Law School Dean Kevin Johnson’s piece, where he argues, “As a lawyer and dean of the UC Davis School of Law, I have a different perspective on the incident than some others. We must not be hurried into possibly ill-advised judgments.”
Instead he argues – without specification, that “immediate actions to ensure student safety have been taken.” Now, he argues for basic principles of due process and fairness.
He argues that we all agree that the video of the pepper-spraying incident is shocking and then goes on to note the various processes, led by notables such as Former Police Chief William Bratton and “civil rights icon” Cruz Reynoso have been put into place.
He writes, “These investigations will proceed with the fundamental constitutional acknowledgment that students enjoy a robust right to free expression and peaceful protest – part of the proud history of the University of California. The students are demonstrating against drastic fee increases caused by the state’s budget crisis and a general – and accelerating – defunding of public education by the state of California. We all should applaud the students’ passion for ensuring that public education remains accessible to students from all walks of life.”
He then notes, “The university, of course, bears the responsibility of keeping students safe as they exercise their rights. University policy bars the placement of tents and other structures on the campus to protect students from violence, sexual assaults and sanitation issues, such as those that plague Occupy camps across the country.”
He goes on, then, to defend the prohibition of camping on university grounds, citing a 1984 US Supreme Court decision that ruled “overnight camping as a form of symbolic protest of homelessness is not protected by the First Amendment.”
Indeed, it seems like a strange court ruling, and stranger still that the Dean of the Law School would support such a ruling.
He argues, “It was out of concern for student safety that Chancellor Katehi sought to remove the tents and encampments while preserving students’ rights to peacefully protest. Chancellor Katehi says that she specifically instructed the police not to use violence to remove the encampments but to do so ‘peacefully and without incident,’ and that she never directed police to arrest students who were peacefully protesting. She also has said that the police were told directly that the administration did ‘not want to have another Berkeley,’ a reference to UC Berkeley police officers’ use of batons the week before.”
He writes, “I believe that the investigations should be allowed to run their courses before further action is taken.”
He goes on to defend the chancellor’s record before this incident, arguing that “as an administrator… [she] is direct, charismatic and extremely intelligent. In the two and a half years since she has been chancellor, she has taken the campus to new heights of respectability and spearheaded efforts to expand student access to UC Davis.”
He concludes, “Ultimately, we should allow the investigations of the pepper-spraying incident to run their courses. Only then can we, as a community, decide what changes and actions are needed. Due process of law and the integrity of our university require no less.”
Perhaps I read too much into the use of words here, but it seems to me that what the dean is actually arguing here is that the chancellor did a good job before this event, that the use of force went against her direct orders, and that she has done enough by putting the police chief and two police officers on administrative leave.
Maybe he is absolutely correct. I can certainly see the case made that, if we have a process in place, we should allow it to play out. I think others rightly question whether this process can work, but we can wait to see the results of the investigation before we go there.
I respect the dean and the work he has done on behalf of the law school and his work on immigration. I just get this sneaking suspicion that there is a great effort underway to get all of the stuff back in the horse and get back on Ms. Katehi and hope she can fulfill her fundraising commitments before she moves on.
Call me a cynic, but I don’t see any way at this point that the findings from an investigation will be such that she has to step down. Unless, of course, there is a direct memo that contradicts her assertion that she ordered the UC Davis police not to engage in force with the protesters. If there was, I am confident that that memo is long gone and that we will never find out the truth.
I just hope, in our haste to paper this over, at least there was a lesson learned and that we will not see a repeat of this. Given the history of police-UC Davis protester interactions, however, I tend to doubt it.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Another perspective: http://www.shortform.com/FrankDaTank/ucdavis
Again, take note how quickly in a crowd siutation things can morph…
In light of the accusations that the DA’s office “overcharges” – Consider CA Penal code sections 406.6 (inciting a riot) and 664 (attempt) 236/237 (false imprisonment) and tell me again with what have the protestors been charged?
DG wrote: [quote]Indeed it seems like a strange court ruling and stranger still that the Dean of the Law School would support such a ruling.[/quote]
What is so ‘strange’ about a law professor who supports a USSC ruling?
Because he hasn’t opposed other SCOTUS rulings?
David
” Call me a cynic, but I don’t see any way at this point that the findings from an investigation will be such that she has to step down. Unless of course, there is a direct memo that contradicts her assertion that she ordered the UC Davis police not to engage in force with the protesters. If there was, I am confident that that memo is long gone and that we will never find out the truth.
In this case, I would call your position more than cynical. It seems to me that you have decided, prior to any investigation, that the Chancellor should resign. I would call this position prejudicial. If indeed, she did act as she claims, why would the findings be such that she should step down ? And why the completely speculative , and in my opinion egregious, comment about someone presumably hiding a memo that is in itself completely speculative
in nature ?
Unlike your other article of this date, and the first half of this article, it would seem that with regard to the chancellor, you have made up your mind and no finding would be adequate to change your opinion. This would seem to me to be a case of David Greenwald opining, not David Greenwald reporting.
Typical, I don’t care what the issue is but liberals always have to bring race into the equation.
Maybe its the cameras instead of the race.
With all respect to Dean Johnson, Katehi has already pleaded guilty in the court of public opinion, taking responsibility and asking for forgiveness. So isn’t an investigation only to find out the degree of her culpability? I have not called for her resignation but i am still waiting to hear what her penalty will be.
Maybe it should read taken responsibility and apologized. i don’t know if she has asked for forgiveness.
AdRemmer, that video shows much provocation by the students.
After the police arrested some of the students the protesters started to demand:
“set the free”
“let’s march as one to where they’re being held” as the protesters surrounded the officers also blocking their path out.
“if you let them go we will let you leave”
“from Davis to Greece, f the police”
then after the spraying:
“we’re willing to give you a brief moment of peace, you can go”
Anyone know who was manning the bullhorn? He seemed to be leading the protest. Was he a student?
[quote]And so, he argues that airport profiling is fine for Muslims, random street searches for African-Americans, and immigration detentions for Mexicans. However, “you can’t engage in invasive stops, searches and unsubstantiated detentions of, and attacks on, white folks without other white people getting agitated. What’s good for the goose has never been good for the gander.”[/quote]
Leave it to somebody to bring race into an issue that has absolutely nothing to do with race.
[quote]He goes on, then, to defend the prohibition of camping on university grounds, citing a 1984 US Supreme Court decision that ruled “overnight camping as a form of symbolic protest of homelessness is not protected by the First Amendment.”
Indeed, it seems like a strange court ruling, and stranger still that the Dean of the Law School would support such a ruling.[/quote]
Your criticizing the Dean of the Law School bc he advocates following the law? Really? And since when is “camping” speech in anyone’s book? IMO the definition of speech has been stretched beyond all recognition to the point of absurdity. For instance striptease is now considered “speech” – our forefathers must be rolling over in their graves!
[quote]He concludes, “Ultimately, we should allow the investigations of the pepper-spraying incident to run their courses. Only then can we, as a community, decide what changes and actions are needed. Due process of law and the integrity of our university require no less.”[/quote]
Amen!
Curious thing, the term, “Independent” investigation. Calls for independent investigations come from persons and entities that are anything but independent, objective, or willing to hear all facts and circumstances.
By their analysis, an independent investigation is one that holds the most chance of reinforcing the findings they have already formed and rendered. If a commission is comprised of persons who are perceived as not supporting a favored view, that investigation is denounced before it even begins. Conversely, a “fact-finding” body deemed favorable due to its composition or authorship, it’s immediately supported.
We now have five investigations looking at the same issues. Relevant questions to the same people will be phrased a bit differently. Answers will be summarized and analyzed according to the questioners’ interpretation. Existing documentation will be available or not as determined by vested parties at all levels inside and outside the University.
In reality, there is no such thing as an Independent Investigation, and even if there were were, there would be fractured support for the findings no matter what they revealed.
David –
Why is it so hard for you to agree that Katehi and Lt Pike have the right to an investigation of the matter, while you fight so hard to prove that several convicted criminals, despite convincing evidence, are actually innocent? I’m not arguing one way or the other about their guilt or innocence, I do believe they have the right to a full investigation.
And I agree with ERM and medwoman – it is very surprising that you would criticize a sitting law professor, or any law enforcement professional, for agreeing with a 27 year old Supreme Court decision that was decided 6 – 2, and has yet to be reversed.
rusty49
It seems that everyone likes to edit these clips according to their personal opinion. I also have watched the entire clip, and many others.
What you have left out of your ” quotes” is the word “peacefully” which was included in all of the chants about intended actions.
And of course, if you see civil disobedience as provocation, then by definition there was provocation. Again, it is not the arrests that are troublesome to me. They are clearly warranted. The only thing I object to is the escalation to the use of pepper spray on the least threatening members of the crowd, those sitting with linked arms, the universal signal of peaceful protest.
[quote]i don’t know if she has asked for forgiveness. [/quote]Interesting comment. As I understand it, the concept of asking for/giving forgiveness is not innate to human beings, and generally derives from spiritual/faith-based constructs. Our public institutions seem adverse to either.
“Typical, I don’t care what the issue is but liberals always have to bring race into the equation.” And equally typical, white folks in a 70+% white community immediately cry “Foul.”, rather than risk any honest introspection .
[i]”… what is different is the impact of [b]polices[/b] such as ‘stop-and-[u]fisk[/u]’ is now being ‘felt by a narrow segment of the population.’ He argues such [b]polices[/b] mean … ‘”[/i]
[u]Polices[/u] is a nice neologism. I think you are onto something, David. It may have been by accident, but you seem to have invented a new word which means ‘police policies.’
As far as [u]Fisking[/u] someone goes, that is not a new word. Back in the mid-1970s, when a base-runner tried to cross home plate, the catcher for the Boston Red Sox would stop him and run his catcher’s mitt up and down the runner’s body, searching for illegal accoutrements. That is the origin for the term, ‘stop-and-fisk.’
Elaine
” IMO the definition of speech has been stretched beyond all recognition to the point of absurdity.
I agree with your statement and believe it applies equally on both sides of the political divide. We now define pouring vast amounts of money into the support of favored candidates as “speech” and on a different but related torturing of the English language have Mitt Romney declaring that “corporations are people”.
hpierce
“the concept of asking for/giving forgiveness is not innate to human beings
I tend to disagree with this statement, but am wondering if you have evidence to support it. My reasons for disagreement about the innate nature of the quest for forgiveness:
1) Children, even in infancy, well before they have had the chance to be socialized into whatever religion or ethical belief system their parents hold, will stop a disapproved behavior and use body language in an attempt to reconcile with their parent.
2) Primates will exhibit similar behaviors in an attempt to reinstate themselves in the good graces of other members of their troop who are manifesting disapproval of their behavior. And while we have developed much more sophisticated means of communication and societal organization we are also primates.
[i]”And equally typical, white folks in a 70+% white community immediately cry ‘Foul’, rather than risk any honest introspection.”[/i]
For the record, the 2010 Census says Davis is 58.9% non-Hispanic white. Here is the breakdown:
[b]Total Population: 65,622[/b]
Non-Hispanic whites: 58.9%
Asians: 21.9%
Hispanic whites: 6.0%
Non-white Hispanics*: 4.8%
Blacks: 2.3%
Pacific Islanders: 0.2%
Mixed race: 5.4%
[u]Native American: 0.5%[/u]
Total: 100.0%
*The Hispanics/Latinos category confuses the “race” categories in the Census. Some of the “non-white Hispanic” category also consider themselves of mixed racial ancestry.
[i]We now define pouring vast amounts of money into the support of favored candidates as “speech” …[/i]
In the Citizens United case, to which your statement refers, the issue was not ‘vast amounts’ of money. It was whether a private group (or an individual) has the right to publish his views on a specific candidate* when he wants to. I understand the consequential problems that this sort of free speech can create. But I cannot understand how anyone can honestly argue that it is not free speech. My own view is that if you don’t like the First Amendment, then push for a new constitutional amendment. Don’t try to pretend that all political speech is not protected by the First Amendment.
*You did not claim this, but keep in mind the Citizens United does not affect how much money anyone can give to a candidate. It simply permits independent groups to spend whathaver they like in order to express their political opinions on candidates or issues.
hpierce
“generally derives from spiritual/faith-based constructs. Our public institutions seem adverse to either.
I do not believe that our public institutions “seem adverse to either”. I see them as neutral. I agree this may seem “adverse” to those who desire religious observation as part of our public life. However, I would urge folks to recognize that Christian religious observation may seem isolating to those in our society who are Jewish, or Muslim, or Hindu, or adhere to the beliefs of any of our Native American societies. And that any public observance of any religious belief will seem exclusive to atheists.
While I recognize that some of you will probably immediately label my comment as “PC” as a convenient means of discounting it. However, I would ask you if inclusiveness of the beliefs of all is not inherent in our founding documents ?
Any public observance of religious beliefs will seem exclusive to people who are [i]secular[/i], of which there is a much larger number than avowed atheists. About 15% of Americans now are secular, while only 1 – 2% avow atheism.
Rich
“In the Citizens United case, to which your statement refers, the issue was not ‘vast amounts’ of money. It was whether a private group (or an individual) has the right to publish his views on a specific candidate* when he wants to. I understand the consequential problems that this sort of free speech can create.
My comment was not limited to the Citizens United case, although it was also on my mind. I find it equally undesirable when unions or other politically motivated groups essentially “buy” the outcome of elections. I think that both sides are very adept at “spinning” how their particular expenditures do not constitute “buying” the election but that the other sides do. What I would like to see is not a constitutional change, but a voluntary adherence on both sides to an agreement to public funding of election campaigns and to not circumvent this with individual contributions or group contributions through what ever means of subterfuge. I know…I know…. good luck with that one.
I want to know if any or all of the five”independent” investigations of the pepper spray incident have subpoena power.I would think that a forensic investigation of Chancellor Katehi’s computer hard drives and those of vice chancelors, who are now being thrown under the bus by Katehi, would very quickly provide evidence as to culpability. Either Cahncellor Katehi did or did not order cops to bust up the tent camp at 3:00 pm on a Friday afternoon, in front of a couple of hundred non-protesting look-e-loos.
It occurs to me that if administrators felt that a few tents on the quad were a threat to safety, and must be removed, simply turning on the lawn sprinklers at 3:00 am would have solved the problem. Monumental errors in judgement were made, politically, and logistically. Now we are being told that it will take a full 30 days to determine who is responsible. Lets get to the bottom of this fiasco, ASAP, and remove responsible parties from positions of authority.Long, drawn out investigations always lead me to believe that the responsible parties are hoping we all forget about their malfeasance.
Thanks Rich, I’m updating my almanac now . Think I got the old figure from “City of Davis “site sometime back . Statistical difference seems to be accounted for by separation of non-hispanic and hispanic whites and the increase in Asian segment of the community .
MEDS: [i]”I find it equally undesirable when unions or other politically motivated groups essentially ‘buy’ the outcome of elections.”[/i]
Unions, per the Citizens United decision, have the same rights as any other groups or individuals to spend what they like, when they like, to advocate for or against a candidate they like or don’t like. That is free speech.
According to the SCOTUS, giving to candidates (or to parties or to others like PACs) can be limited. Unions in California have for decades been the largest contributors to candidates and to the Democratic Party and to cause campaigns, such as ballot initiatives. The only others who merit mention are the Indian tribes (casinos), a relatively recent development, and professional groups, notably nurses and lawyers, both of who give largely to Democrats.
[i]”What I would like to see is not a constitutional change, but a voluntary adherence on both sides to an agreement to public funding of election campaigns …”[/i]
Public funding, by definition, is not voluntary. That said, I too favor public funding of all campaigns for public office at all levels**. Privately funding campaigns for public office is inherently corrupt. And it always results in far too much public spending and or regulating for the benefit of the special interests which pay for campaigns.
**I should add that I think we elect way too many officers. But even if we have to keep electing county judges and treasurers and public guardians and the assessor, it is better to have them elected with clean money than to have it done with tainted money.
“Thanks Rich, I’m updating my almanac now . Think I got the old figure from “City of Davis “site sometime back . Statistical difference seems to be accounted for by separation of non-hispanic and hispanic whites and the increase in Asian segment of the community .”
Right, liberals should always be sure and keep current with those race statistics, you never know when they might come in handy.
Do you ever get tired of disparaging liberals, rusty?
Rich
I am well aware of the implications of the Supreme Court ruling and that it applies equally to unions and corporations and any one else who has enough money to influence elections. That does not mean that I must necessarily agree. Regardless of the Supreme Court decision, “spending “is not equivalent to “speech “in any definition that I have ever seen. Now your knowledge of the complexities of the English language is superior to mine, so if you can show me where in any dictionary this is incorrect, I will freely admit my error.
“Public funding, by definition, is not voluntary.
In my sentence, the word “voluntary “was modifying the word “adherence” ( meaning I would prefer that people not challenge) not the words “public funding”. I fully understand that laws are not voluntary and that any public funding of campaigns would probably be objectionable to some.
“Do you ever get tired of disparaging liberals, rusty?”
Don, I get tired of liberals always playing the race card as if that had anything to do with the UCD incident.
Never mind the race card chatter, It’s BS. I am a white woman with friends and relatives of many colors and I can tell you from firsthand experience that racial prejudice in law enforcement is institutionalized, just as it is and has always been throughout all American institutions. PERIOD. A white person is subjected to invasion of their home and firing off a shot makes you a hero. Do the same as a person with brown sin and you go directly to jail charged with two felonies. Be present in a public park when a mugging takes place and leave to avoid the trouble…if you are white it’s a smart thing to do; if you are black you are considered a part of the “gang” and charged with assault and robbery. You have bail set so high your family can’t afford to get you out so they can sweat you and get you to plea to a crime you didn’t commit. This is real and it happened to people close to me. It happens to people of color day in and day out and no one does anything to stop it. If you are black or brown you are guilty until proven innocent and my friends and family have learned that the hard way. Doesn’t matter even if you have money and education; institutionalized racism trumps all.
@ rusty: Dean Filler just used the pepper spray incident as a lead-in to his main topic, which is that policing actions fall most heavily on minority populations, yet backlash occurs when they are applied to white people. Do you disagree with that premise? Similarly, TSA actions get a lot of attention from activists, particularly Tea Party folks, yet those have been routinely applied to people of certain appearance without objection — in fact, with support from conservatives.
Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips on TSA scanners: [url]http://www.prisonplanet.com/tea-party-nation-founder-tsa-scanners-and-body-searches-are-abusive-appalling-and-unconstitutional.html[/url]
Republican candidates on profiling Muslims: [url]http://www.therightperspective.org/2011/11/24/cain-and-santorum-advocate-profiling-muslims/[/url]
PRO RACE EXPERT: [i]”It happens to people of color day in and day out and no one does anything to stop it. If you are black or brown you are guilty until proven innocent and my friends and family have learned that the hard way. Doesn’t matter even if you have money and education; institutionalized racism trumps all.”[/i]
I am always grateful to have a maven to ask questions of:
1) Does this “happen every day” when the majority of the police on a force are black?
2) Does this “happen every day” when the majority of the residents in a city are black?
3) Does this “institutionalized racism” you speak of with so much expertise equally affect other non-white races, such as yellows, reds, Pacific Islanders, people from the Indian sub-continent? (Please address each of them with your expert knowledge.)
4) How does this institutionalized discrimination affect other groups such as gays, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, bi-racials, etc.? Are the people who fit into those categories also ‘guilty until proven innocent’?
I look forward to your answers. I am always happy to learn from an expert.
PRO RACE EXPERT: I realize from your wise teaching that America is a racist country and that blacks and other minorities have no chance in this horrible nation we have built. But that does raise a question I think your expertise could clarify: Why is it that we have a black president and that the highest paid athletes in our country are black and that the highest paid movie star is black and the highest paid music stars are black (the top two happen to be married to each other) and the most powerful and highly paid person in TV history is a heavyset black woman who now owns her own network, called OWN? I am sure you have a great explanation, but it seems odd that in our racist country all those blacks would have done so well with the cops needlessly chasing them down and beating them for no reason.
I’m not even going to entertain this retarded discussion with people who pull out the same retarded worn-out arguments. We’ve heard this crap before.
Medwoman:
“Unlike your other article of this date, and the first half of this article, it would seem that with regard to the chancellor, you have made up your mind and no finding would be adequate to change your opinion. “
With all due respect, I didn’t state that. When I say: “Call me a cynic, but I don’t see any way at this point that the findings from an investigation will be such that she has to step down,” that’s not me saying she’s guilty and need to be found guilty. That’s me questioning the process. Now I have called for her to resign. I did so on the basis of the videotape but more importantly the fact that her story kept changing. I am willing to wait out the process, the problem is I don’t trust the process because I think they have gamed it.
I find it interesting that more than one person came to the conclusion that my point here was that she needed to resign period, you’ll recall I argued against that point earlier in the week when one of the students espoused it.
Rich Rifkin: I wonder why it is that you find a disconnect between that. First of all, any serious academic would call the entertainers (black athletes and the like) equivalent to the modern day minstrels. That’s certainly a loaded term and I would not go quite that far, to say that we pay entertainers well is not really proof of anything. As for Obama, I think we’ve made progress in race, at the same time time, I would argue that a lot of people who voted for Obama, did it to show they weren’t racist and wanted to feel good about themselves. At the same time, a lot of them in this community are nowhere to be seen on substantive racial issues. So I’m not convinced on this point.
I’m not convinced that things like racial profiling and police interactions with minorities is really about racism, rather than laziness by law enforcement who are taking shortcuts by drawing the inference that since a disproportionate amount of crime is perpetrated by people of color, the way we should police is through racial profiling. Is that racism? I don’t know.
I also believe that most of middle america, is oblivious to what happens in the urban streets and such incidents rarely get on their radar to have any form of outrage. I mean if this occurred in an urban setting with ten minorities on a street corner, would it have ended up on national news? I don’t know.
You can paper over them as 91 Octane clearly has and call them retarded, but there are real issues out there with how minorities are treated by the police versus how white people are. We don’t expect the college kid to get rough treatment and maybe we look the other way when the minority does.
Rich
I do not have any expertise in this area, but I do have a personal experience in possibly differential treatment to which I believe many of us can relate if honest. A few years ago my son was stopped for a bike helmet violation resulting in us having to make an appearance in ” helmet court “
In Woodland. As a DaVinci student , my son had been taught “presentation dress and manner” and while not in suit and tie, he was dressed nicely as was I,,in business casual, as I was working directly after.
The mother/son pair called immediately before us were less well attired, clearly not accustomed to public presentation, and Hispanic. I was mentally cringing at the ordeal we were about to go through as the judge lit into this kid for the irresponsibility of his actions and reiterated several times to both boy and mother the consequences of a repeat offense as he had with several previous multiple offenders. I was greatly surprised and relieved that when my son was called, the totality of the conversation was ” Jeremy, do you understand that you must always wear your helmet when riding ?” My son answered clearly “Yes,sir”. And that was that. We were on our way to the clerk. Now I do not pretend to know that the differential treatment was based on race, or appearance, or clarity of expression, or perceived difference in wealth or social standing ……
Of course not. But not to even wonder if that could have been the case, and to consider the impact that such differences in treatment might have
Is to ignore an important aspect of our society.
I am so damn tired of the left and left-media’s tendency for interjecting racism into every social and political debate. So how do you race-baiters explain why the conservative Tea Party folks propelled Herman Cain to the top of the Republican primary (until his unfortunate historical lack of libido control took him out)? Racism is a manifestation of ignorance, and except for the most ignorant of conservatives, they tend to ignore race and focus exclusively on behavior. Conversely, Liberals consistently demonstrate a tendency to categorize and label based on race and “class”… even going so far as to discount the behavior of others not fitting with their template. (e.g., Bill Cosby is not a “real” black).
Medwoman’s story of her courtroom experience is an example of how liberals tend to ignore most other explanations for difference in treatment that they observe… it just has to be race-based. How about this simple principle: dress and act like a drug dealer, pothead or gangster and be treated as such.
I think much of our political and social polarization stems from conservative anger over the left and left-media’s constant assertion that conservatives are racist. Personally, it makes me want to punch my accuser as a form of civil disobedience and semi-peaceful protest.
DAVE: [i]”any serious academic would call the entertainers (black athletes and the like) equivalent to the modern day minstrels.”[/i]
First, that is absurd and obviously false. But second, you do know that the minstrels of yesteryear were not actually black people?
DAVE: [i]”That’s certainly a loaded term and I would not go quite that far, to say that we pay entertainers well is not really proof of anything.”[/i]
You claim that serious academics–whose opinion should hold no weight on this topic, by the way–would call the brilliant success of an Oprah Winfrey just an example of a minstrel show, but you, by contrast, “would not go quite that far.” How strange that you don’t hold yourself up as a serious academic.
DAVE: [i]”As for Obama, I think we’ve made progress in race. At the same time time, I would argue that a lot of people who voted for Obama did it to show they weren’t racist and wanted to feel good about themselves.”[/i]
I have never met anyone who voted for Obama who says he did so to feel good about himself. We had a choice between Obama and McCain and most on balance thought Obama was the better choice. If Americans were by and large anti-black racists–apparently your theory–they would have thought McCain was the better choice.
DAVE: [i]”At the same time, a lot of them in this community are nowhere to be seen on substantive racial issues. So I’m not convinced on this point.”[/i]
You are not convinced by your own point?
DAVE: [i]”I’m not convinced that things like racial profiling and police interactions with minorities is really about racism. Rather they are about the laziness by law enforcement (officers) who are taking shortcuts by drawing the inference that since a disproportionate amount of crime is perpetrated by people of color, the way we should police is through racial profiling.”[/i]
You have no tangible evidence that the police in our community are doing anything you have charged them with, such as racial profiling.
[i]”Is that racism? I don’t know.”[/i]
It seems like you like to wantonly charge people with racism or some other form of prejudice. But here, knowing how weak your evidence is, you disclaim it by saying you don’t even know if racism is racism.
[i]”I also believe that most of middle America is oblivious to what happens in the urban streets and such incidents rarely get on their radar to have any form of outrage.”[/i]
Yeah, the real crimes on urban streets are racist cops. It’s not the high rate of children born to unwed mothers. It’s not the high rate of drug abuse and alcoholism. It’s not the high rate of domestic violence. It’s not the high rate of violent crimes. It’s not the parents who beat their kids and who don’t feed them properly and who don’t encourage them to learn to read at a young age and who don’t care about their children’s education. Yeah, the real problem in the David Greenwald world is … racist cops?
[i]”I mean if this occurred in an urban setting with ten minorities on a street corner, would it have ended up on national news? I don’t know.”[/i]
Of course it would. Of course you know. The only difference would be that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would arrive on the scene, claim America is a racist country, David Greenwald would nod in agreement, and the blackmailing shyster reverends would leave with their pockets full of cash.
[quote]I was mentally cringing at the ordeal we were about to go through as the judge lit into this kid for the irresponsibility of his actions and reiterated several times to both boy and mother the consequences of a repeat offense as he had with several previous multiple offenders. I was greatly surprised and relieved that when my son was called, the totality of the conversation was ” Jeremy, do you understand that you must always wear your helmet when riding ?” My son answered clearly “Yes,sir”. And that was that. We were on our way to the clerk. Now I do not pretend to know that the differential treatment was based on race, or appearance, or clarity of expression, or perceived difference in wealth or social standing …… [/quote]
From your story it sounds to me like the judge was irritated at this kid for being a repeat offender…
[i]”but there are real issues out there with how minorities are treated by the police versus how white people are.”[/i]
There are many, many, many more blue-collar crime transactions than white-collar crime transactions.
Blue-collar crimes are more obvious.
Police focus on blue-collar crime.
Poor people commit the vast majority of blue collar crime.
Some minorities groups are over-represented in the population of poor people.
Hence: some minority groups are over-represented in police work for crime prevention and punishment.
Question, if the police are just racist, then why are not Asians over-represented in police work?
[quote]There are many, many, many more blue-collar crime transactions than white-collar crime transactions. [/quote]
I’m not sure that is true, as evidenced by the mortgage meltdown and Gulf oil spill… LOL
Doesn’t Lt. Pike spraying all the white law-breakers prove that race is not a factor for his police work?
What if the it had been a bunch of middle-aged white guys in suits blocking the entrance to the bank because senior management just cut their bonus dollars? All other things being equal (the original surrounding and blocking by protesters, the warnings given, the chants and expletives from the crowd, the physical resisting removal, etc.)… my guess is that Lt. Pike would have sprayed his pepper spray as a compliance tool. So, why has race entered into this discussion?
[i]”I’m not sure that is true, as evidenced by the mortgage meltdown and Gulf oil spill… LOL [/i]
In terms of dollar amount white collar crimes are probably quite a bit higher; but not the number of transactions/crimes committed.
Also, blue collar crimes are more obvious. White collar crimes require the work of forensic accountants to uncover and prove.
MEDS: to my mind, it would be absurd to conclude the judge in that case was a racist or had any racial/ethnic prejudice based on your telling of the story. Would you have thought the judge was racially or ethnically biased if he had come down hard on your son, but not on the other kid?
I have an anecdote about a false charge of racism from my childhood in Davis. It’s a long story but this is the gist of it: I was arrested along with 6 other boys from Davis High School, based on a false report given to the police by two girls (one white; the other Hispanic) who lied to the father of one of the white girl in order to clear themselves from blame for something they had done.
The boys in our group that night numbered 12, but 5 avoided arrest by walking away just before the police showed up. Of the 7 arrested, one was Asian and the rest white. Of the 5 who were never arrested, 2 were Asians and three were whites.
After a long interrogation–which included a mouthy Davis cop backhanding one (white) kid in the face when he looked away from the cop while he was being questioned–we were taken down to the jail at City Hall. (It was in the basement, now beneath Bistro 33.) The police continued their investigation over the next few hours. They also called our parents to let them know we were “in big trouble.”
Eventually the girls confessed that night that they had lied and all of us were released to our families.
What does this have to do with racism? The parents of the one Asian in the group who was arrested filed a lawsuit, claiming their son was the victim of racism by the Davis Police Department. (I heard the City of Davis settled the case out of court for some amount of money.)
Although I thought the cops in our case were total a**holes to all 7 of us, I think back on that event and realize that they were simply doing their jobs, based on the claims made by those 2 girls. They were no better or worse to anyone based on race. But I also realize that if I were a racial minority and I bought into the “America is a racist country” ideology that people like David Greenwald believe, I might have thought they arrested me and mistreated me because they were prejudiced.
One thing all people of all hues need to realize about cops and about their fellow countrymen: for every one racist, who would use his position or power to harm someone based on prejudice, there are 1,000 a**holes who mistreat other people indiscriminately. When a black person is mistreated by a cop, chances are very strong the mistreatment has far more to do with a**holery than race hatred.
[i] So, why has race entered into this discussion? [/i]
While I agree with your concerns about race entering far too many discussions, I think race was raised in a slightly different way here. The issue was raised because the author of the op ed that David referenced suggested that the pepper spraying incident became an outrage because the students pictured being sprayed were predominantly white. The author suggested that this type of police behavior happens often in non-white neighborhoods, but without the outrage that we witnessed here.
Ok, but as he has before, David goes on from there.
Frankly, I was outraged after reading the piece in the Enterprise. It demonstrated the typical dysfunctional race-tinted mindset that permeates the thinking of many otherwise intelligent people with a left worldview.
I would just yawn again if I didn’t see this as being part of a bigger problem that distracts us from analyzing; understanding and fixing the true causes of racial disparity that exist in this country. The easier and more political-serving left and media template is the accusation that white, wealthy, conservative types – and law enforcement – are racist and this is the root cause of racial disparity in this country.
Check the long and extensive list of terms and labels disallowed by the protectors of correctness to ensure no qualified individual is offended. Then note that these same people throw out claims of racism like it is chicken scratch. It is one of the MOST offensive accusations and I would like to consider the use of hate crime laws against anyone publically claiming anyone else is a racist.
Jeff Boone
Two points are of interest to me about your comment. First you completely discount that nowhere did I say I believe that the difference was race based, only that I thought it was a factor worthy of consideration. And I do not recall maki any mention in my post about these folks being dressed as drug dealers, pot heads or gangsters….was that your assumption based on my comment that they were “not as well attired”. Perhaps that says more about your assumptions and biases than mine since they gave no such appearance but were treated very differently from my son and I.
Where in my post did I claim that anyone was a racist ? I addressed the possibility of the influence of race, or of dress, or of perceived social standing. I make no accusation, only raise the question. I think that in the face of some very blatant, and recently rectified, discriminatory treatment, namely extremely different sentencing rules for possession of crack cocaine, largely used by minority communities, vs powder cocaine in the same quantities, largely used by Caucasians, that it is at least reasonable to think that race could be a factor in differential treatment.
Elaine
I can see from the lack of clarity of my post how you could have thought that. The problem with that is that this particular boy was a first time offender just like my son. It was a couple of boys before him who were repeaters, so that was clearly not the issue.
Rich
I agree with you that it would be absurd to conclude that this judge is a racist based on this very limited interaction. There are many other reasons that he could have acted as he did. He could have simply been bored with his spiel by the time he got to Jeremy, he could have liked Jeremy’s face and demeanor, he was fairly close to my age, maybe he thought I was cute and wanted to impress me…. There are lots of things that could be the case, but having been there and watched the whole thing unfold, I think it would be naive to not at least consider whether race or social status as read by our clothing and demeanor could have been a factor.
And on a question regarding your personal story, do you believe that “back handing a kid in the face for looking away” is ” just doing his job” ?
[i]”I addressed the possibility of the influence of race, or of dress, or of perceived social standing.”[/i]
Or, maybe the judge noted that your son attended with his obviously caring mom and the other young man did not and he decided a harsher admonition was warranted to compensate for the apparent lack of parental involvement. Sometimes the harsher message and punishment are indicative of stronger caring. My experience as a son and having sons is that the fear of puishment from adult male role models and people of authority can be the difference.
” So how do you race-baiters explain why the conservative Tea Party folks propelled Herman Cain to the top of the Republican primary”
I think his campaign is suspended. But the answer as to why he was popular for a few seconds is the same reason Democrats elected Obama – it made them believe they were not racist and they felt better about themselves. It’s just like white liberals in Davis proudly voting for Obama as proof that they aren’t racist.
Jeff
Or maybe you didn’t notice that my post read ” the mother/son pair called immediately before us”. It was the parallels in every way except our physical appearance that has made this experience stand out in my mind..You apparently never got to enjoy the benefits of “helmet court” or you would know that a parent or guardian must be in attendance. I doubt the judge could discern by appearance which of us was the more caring mother. Solomon, not withstanding !
And my experience from having once been married, and having raised my children without the blessing of a “strong male role model” is that fear of punishment will be trumped by approval of good behavior every time.
Without the capacity for honest introspection, we cannot move past racial divisions in our society . This comment section offers little hope .
medwoman,
Fair enough. My point was that you should not project racial bias into the motives of others because: 1 – There are thousands of other potential explanations for human actions and decisions; 2 – It is a very offensive accusation and because of this, the bar for it should be very high.
I don’t disagree with your point about the desire for approval being a strong motivator. It depends on the child. Boys especially are prone to more risky behavior and a bit of fear of strong discipline can be the thing that causes them to make a few more correct choices in life. However, without doses of approval for good behavior, discipline alone rarely works.
Davis:[i]”But the answer as to why he was popular for a few seconds is the same reason Democrats elected Obama – it made them believe they were not racist and they felt better about themselves. It’s just like white liberals in Davis proudly voting for Obama as proof that they aren’t racist.”[/i]
I’m so glad you posted this; you are one of the few honest liberals to admit having this opinion. But it saddens me a bit that you and others actually believe this.
Lefties tend to fall in love with their politicians; Righties tend to be all business. Lefties tend to vote to feel better about themselves; Righties are generally happier and more self-confident people and hence feelings don’t enter into their vote. In fact, this myth about why Republicans supported Cane is actually a sign of the left grasping to continue to feel good about themselves for their supporting a black President. One thing I know about lefties… they tend to measure themselves by comparison.
Lefties continue to see the world through race-tinted glasses; Righties are more progressive, have moved on since the civil rights movement, and don’t give a crap about the color of anyone’s skin… they only care about behavior.
David, I think you need to get out more and actually listen to people outside of your tribe. Do you know where most of Cane’s support came from? It was primarily white middle-class and upper middle-class males… the same demographic your ideology and the left media consitently demonize for being racist.
[quote]Elaine I can see from the lack of clarity of my post how you could have thought that. The problem with that is that this particular boy was a first time offender just like my son. It was a couple of boys before him who were repeaters, so that was clearly not the issue. [/quote]
Thanks for the clarification. Personally, having been to “helmet court” once with my youngest daughter, IMO it is “overkill”…
Jeff Boone
“Fair enough. My point was that you should not project racial bias into the motives of others because: 1 – There are thousands of other potential explanations for human actions and decisions; 2 – It is a very offensive accusation and because of this, the bar for it should be very high.
I agree with you completely on the above quote. And then went on to read your next post in which you completely betray these ideas by characterizing liberals as having their actions based on racial identity ” to continue to feel good about themselves for having elected a black president”. How is stating that someone supported someone because of the color of his skin any less offensive than stating that they discriminated against him because of the color of his skin ? And whatever happened to ” the thousands of other potential explanations for human actions and decisions “? That concept seems to have gotten lost between your posts of 8:40 and 9:00 am.
medwoman: That was David’s post answering my question about why all those “racist” Tea Party people supported Herman Cain.
[i]”But the answer as to why he was popular for a few seconds is the same reason Democrats elected Obama – it made them believe they were not racist and they felt better about themselves. It’s just like white liberals in Davis proudly voting for Obama as proof that they aren’t racist.”[/i]
Frankly, I beleive there are more people with left-leaning tendencies that support Obama largely because he is black (as evidence by his high approval ratings even with such dismal performance), than there are conservatives that would support a black candidate just because of his skin color. I see plenty of evidence in the words and deeds of people from both political leanings to be confortable saying that liberals tend to be addicted to, or obsessed with, race/gender/sexual orientation… basically anything they can categorize as a group worthy of special protection. Meanwhile most conservatives have moved on long ago to judge a man by the content of his character and not the color of his skin… nor what he does in his own bedroom.
For us conservatives, it really helps having a cold, cold heart since it allows us to not recognize or accept “protected class”.