In a reenactment of the noose incident that occurred in Jena, La; a black college professor at Columbia’s Teachers College found a noose hanging from her door. The noose appears to be the new calling card of racists in America; it has replaced the burning cross. After all, it is smaller and not as messy. This is important for the cowards who want to hide behind the façade of normalcy while they play out their sickness on society. There are those who say Blacks should ignore the nooses popping up and their vile implications, after all we have free speech and while it is ugly it is still only an expression of free speech. To this I strongly disagree, it is not the presence of the noose that is so contemptible to black Americans; it is the implication of it. To an outsider it is just a rope, harmless in and of itself and I would agree if not for one tiny detail, the presence of black bodies hanging from them. To hang a noose is to imply wanting to harm another human being, black, white or otherwise. This would be akin to my using verbal threats to one’s person to express my displeasure. While it could be argued it was an expression of speech, its connotations would be unmistakable.
A hangman’s noose was found hanging on the door of a black professor’s office at Columbia University Teacher’s College on Tuesday morning, prompting the police to start a hate-crime investigation.
Detectives with the New York Police Department’s hate-crime task force were investigating whether the noose, which was discovered on the fourth floor of the college at about 9:45 a.m., was put there by a rival professor or by a student who was angry over a dispute. Colleagues of the professor identified her as Madonna Constantine, 44, a prominent author, educator and psychologist.[1]
Upon learning of the incident the authorities in New York immediately begin to investigate, the authorities in New York acknowledge it for what it is without hesitation. Why do the people in New York and not in Jena recognize it, because in Jena hanging nooses is considered a harmless prank, distasteful but merely a prank. Just kids having a little fun, no big deal. The authorities at Columbia and in New York understand the volatile nature of the noose and how it could escalate if not checked immediately. In Jena, due to centuries of black subjugation they assumed the Blacks would just accept their benevolent explanation and once again put up with another affront. It is still a shock to them that so much became of a few nooses.
In an e-mail message to students and faculty at the school, the president of Teachers College, Susan Furhman, said the incident was a “hateful act, which violates every Teachers College and societal norm.”
The president of Columbia, Lee C. Bollinger, also released a statement condemning what happened.
“This is an assault on African Americans and therefore it is an assault on every one of us,” he said. “I know I speak on behalf of every member of our communities in condemning this horrible action.”[2]
There can be no vacillating or indecisiveness; a response must be quick and direct. If a similar tack had been taken in Jena, I believe the incident would not have escalated to the level it did. Will the response from the authorities prevent similar occurrences? Probably not, there will always be those who choose to use the language of hate to express their displeasure. I do believe though that it has sent a message and set a tone that this will not be tolerated publically and if caught will be dealt with in an appropriately serious manner. By doing so it also gives the administrators an opportunity to open a dialog on race and diversity, an opportunity the people in Jena chose not to take.
This despicable act could have presented opportunities to educate some young people, but in order to educate you have to have teachers willing to teach. Diversity and race were not lessons that they wanted to teach in Jena. The lessons they wanted to reinforce were fear and segregation, the same ones they had been teaching for centuries. It could have also been an opportunity to show just why this symbol is so virulent to Blacks by relating its historical significance and its malicious past. These are lessons which many Americans could use a refresher course.
The lesson in the response of New York versus the response of Jena is simply this if we continue to minimize the behavior of those who pull at the scars of racism; we only provide them with the cover to continue more brazen acts. If enough people had stood up at the first cross burning and said we won’t stand for this, imagine where we would be today. Instead there was silence and that silence led to more unspeakable horrors. No, there must be a collective repudiation of hate and racism and it must be clear unequivocal.
Free speech is one of the most important freedoms we have and I would never take its fundamental application lightly, but when free speech incites violence and hatred it is no longer free.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/nyregion/10cnd-columbia.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1192036442-ax087f9Yzju/OrNMiliM9g
[2] Ibid.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
What The Officials In Jena Should Have Done
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Swift Boats To The Rescue
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court loosened political advertising restrictions aimed at corporate- and union-funded television ads Monday, weakening a key provision of a landmark campaign finance law.
The court's 5-4 ruling could become a significant factor in the upcoming presidential primaries, giving interest groups a louder and more influential voice in the closing days before those contests as well as the general election.
The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that an anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections. The law unreasonably limits speech and violates the group's First Amendment rights, the court said.
''Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election,'' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. ''Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor.''[1]
With this Supreme Court decision, what was already going to be a contentious election has now been ratcheted up a notch. I am dreading the level that some will be willing to stoop to in the name of “fair and balanced” information. This decision has opened the door for distortion and misrepresentation of our political process. The Court had the opportunity to rein in the fringe that has turned our political process into a cantankerous and character assassination tour de force. Rather than strengthening our political reform process they have in effect continued to place politics over the people and allowed political money to overrule not only good law, but good judgment. At a time when we need to reform our political process, these political hacks have chosen to keep the status quo.
The McCain-Feingold bill was not perfect law, but it was atleast the beginning in the process to restrict the effects that money has turned our elections into. Unfortunately, as we try to control the tap of runaway campaigns and special interest money, there are those who still want to have the best government that money can buy. It appears that we can no longer count on the politicians or the judges to shut off this spigot; it has to come from you and I, the people. We should realize that if we continue to let the special interest groups, corporations, and unions have unlimited access to our elected officials through contributions and by intimidation ads, we will continue to get the politics of division and fear.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who has been critical of McCain's stance, promptly hailed the court's decision.
''McCain-Feingold was a poorly-crafted bill,'' Romney said in a statement. ''Today's decision restores, in part, to the American people a right critical to their freedom of political participation and expression.''[2]
What has been masqueraded as free speech is no such animal; it is influence peddling and corruption of our political process. I fail to see the harm in limiting the amount of contributions any single person, corporation, or union can give. If our goal is to give equal representation to all of our citizens then this is the place to start. Is there anyone among us who truly believes that these entities give away all this money and they receive nothing for it?
There were four justices who were willing to stand up and pull the curtain open to see what this really is about. They recognized that this is not about free speech, but an outright attempt to influence elections by those with the money to do so with false and misleading ads. These ads don’t help the political discourse and they allow the politicians to rise over the fray and claim ignorance to the misrepresentation that they spew.
'Thus, what is called a 'ban' on speech is a limit on the financing of electioneering broadcasts by entities ... that insist on acting as conduits from the campaign war chests of business corporations,'' Souter said.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens joined Souter's dissent.
These guys are like roaches, you close one loop hole and they run in through another. Until we begin to put limits on political contributions we will continue to have politicians that ignore our desires and wishes and vote for the special interest. They go where the money is and the money is with special interest lobbies. We need to level the playing field; it’s like anything else you take away the money and the rats run back into their holes. We have to begin to demand an end to this endless money pit and political influence peddling. It is happening on both sides and everyday there is a new indictment of some politician who received campaign contributions and denies any quid pro quo. Yes, these people give hundreds of thousands of dollars just to make the acquaintance of these guys. I know politicians have big egos, but to think that someone is going to give me money just to know me is the height of arrogance or the bottom of foolishness. It is past due time for real campaign reform. It isn’t going to get any better.
Stumble It!