In Reply: Racism, Bad Judgement, or a Tiny Tempest in a Teacup?

In reply to: Ku Klux Kontroversy - Youth for Western Civilization, a story about a Georgia teacher who led four white AP History students wearing Klan garb through the school lunchroom, where students--including black and mixed race students--were eating.

Pretty offensive, right?

But here are more facts:
The students were dressed that way to shoot a class video project about the history of racism, almost certainly depicting KKK bigotry as the evil it was and is.
The teacher didn't know the lunchroom was being used at the time.
The teacher realizes she made some mistakes in judgement, and takes full responsibility for her actions.

Less offensive? I think so, too.

The author at the Youth for Western Civ blog sees the bruhaha erupting from this incident as "a small tempest in a teacup about 'racism'," the result of "the PC Left" getting bent outta shape over an "AP History teacher [who] obviously thought it would be a good exercise in white guilt over racism and slavery."

I think he's mistaken. My comment (revised and extended from the original, for clarity) appears below.
---

I don't know, but it seems to me that even the teacher herself isn't on your side, here... She admits she made a few errors in judgement in this situation, and I think she's correct.

She shouldn't be fired over the incident--as you say, she didn't intend to offend anyone, and she takes responsibility for screwing up--but it isn't "a tempest in a teacup" or "an example of political correctness run amuck," either. (I'll feel differently if she is actually fired over the incident, but up to this point, I believe the school's actions are justified... and again, I don't hear the teacher saying any different.)

Seeing kids dressed up as racists (like the klan) or genocidal murderers (say, in Nazi uniforms) is offensive, and rightly so--particularly to those cultural groups who are descendants of their intended victims, but also to anyone who thinks these groups were a stain on humanity (and continue to be--there are bigots wearing Klan/Nazi symbols and preaching some of their tenets to this very day, who do intend offense and harm).

Context counts for alot, but there's also something to be said for thinking things through and planning ahead. Simply realizing that kids in Klan garb could easily be misunderstood and
1) running the idea by the principal,
2) having the kids take the sheets off when not actively shooting video (it's not like it's hours of costuming and make-up. It's a white sheet and a party hat. Toss the sheet over the head, strap on the hat, and your "dressed."), or
3) just not allowing kids to dress up as bigots/murderers in the first place, because whatever one's good intent, it's just too easily misunderstood and misinterpreted,
would've prevented the whole incident.

I don't agree with your take on this... While it wasn't the teacher's intent to be offensive, she didn't do enough to prevent some folks from being rightly offended by what they saw. They lacked the context to judge the incident for what it actually was because the teacher failed to provide it to them ahead of time. (For the person at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution article who likened this to a civil war reenactment: One big difference is, when you attend one of those, you know it's a reenactment and choose to be there. The folks in the lunch room did neither. And for another, I don't think many see either the union or confederate army uniform as offensive...)

It's not a firing offense, but it's not nothin' either... As you (sarcastically) say though, at least it furthers the ongoing discussion of race and tolerance in America, and (contrary to that sarcasm), I think that's a good thing...
---
Posted Friday, 28 May 2010 05:39 (Western Youth blog time)

In reply: I just can't support SB 1070. I think it's a bad law.

In reply to: Arizona Law in Action: Illegal Aliens Arrested in Protest Face Deportation - Youth for Western Civilization
---

"For example, if the police discover you are driving a vehicle lacking registration or insurance, or if you do not have a driver's license, they will not simply permit you to drive away."

Well, they do write you a ticket first, but yeah, they do generally allow you to drive away afterward... ...still without the thing you're lacking... ...and as long as you pay the ticket, you can generally keep driving without it, until you get caught enough times that they do haul you away as a repeat offender.

But I do see and more or less agree with your point.

"I don't see the logic of why immigration laws should be treated any different than any other law, or why people are allowed to continue to violate the law even after law enforcement becomes aware of the issue."

Well as I said, being here illegally is different than many laws, in that it isn't a criminal offense. For all the bruhaha, it's not even as serious as driving without license/reg/insurance... There's not even a fine involved, let alone court or jail time...

As I said below, I favor having police go after the criminal element first and foremost, and not spending a whole lotta time on folks who sneak in to spend 8-10 hours a day picking vegetables or butchering meat, or whatever... Yes, they are breaking the law, but I'd prefer that ICE deal with them.

I also think that we'd do far more to curb the problem of illegal workers by making it as difficult as possible for them to find work. E-verify, stiff fines/no government contracts for the companies who hire undocumented, unverified workers, and continued raids would do a whole lot toward getting illegals to deport themselves, without involving law enforcement unnecessarily. When there is no work for them here, many of the illegals who come here to work will stop coming.

(And--probably because I'm a liberal--I think it would be worth it to provide foreign aid to some of the countries from which they come, to improve the political, social and economic outlook there, so that leaving their homes and families becomes that much less attractive. I can see where Cons might not buy into that part of the plan, however...)

And I have no real issue with border fences, walls, alligator-filled moats or seriously increased manpower on the border, either. (though I'd insist that whatever we build be constructed by US companies and workers.) It's a damned shame that we need to ruin the landscape that way, but apparently we do need to do so...

My main point is, I don't believe that making illegals into criminals and going to the trouble of rounding them up, trying them, jailing them, and then deporting them is the best use of law enforcement time and energy. Better we cut off the demand for illegal labor here (and perhaps sweeten the pot by increasing the chances of their finding work back in their home countries) and allow the illegals to self-deport.

By all means arrest, convict and jail the murderers, rapists and thieves, no matter where they come from, and then deport their asses after they've served their time here in the US... But wasting time trying to do the same with all the illegal workers and families doesn't seem to be a good idea, in my humble...

(And that's not to mention all the problems with potential profiling and discrimination of illegals and hispanic citizens alike that I've talked about previously...)

I just can't support 1070, for these reasons. I think it's a bad law.
---

Posted Wednesday, 26 May 2010 21:31 (Western Youth blog time)
---
Previous:
In Reply: SB 1070 facts vs fictions
In Reply: SB 1070: "...impossible to do, impractical to try to do."

In Reply: SB 1070: "...impossible to do, impractical to try to do."

In reply to the following comment about AZ's SB 1070:

It requires some sort of law enforcement contact aside from immigration concerns, such as a traffic stop or arrest. My main point was that they couldn't just go in and check them for IDs before their action became criminal trespass, or all the other protesters hanging around, including the one who felt confident enough to tell the media about her illegal status and give her full name. If for example you had told the media you had marijuana plants in your backyard and given your full name, in most places you could expect a visit from the police. Likewise for bragging about nearly any other violation of the law. Apparently, if you give your full name to the media and brag about breaking immigration laws, this does not happen. Instead, only if you get arrested or detained in a traffic stop, or some other police activity. The image being put out by the media is that the police may stop anyone and ask for ID based on 'reasonable suspicion' that the person is violating immigration laws, which is simply not true. - John Anderson, Wednesday, 26 May 2010 11:21 Arizona Law in Action: Illegal Aliens Arrested in Protest Face Deportation - Youth for Western Civilization
---

First off, I can appreciate that you believe law enforcement ought to round up every single illegal and send them back where they came from, but I think it's impossible to do, and impractical to try to do.

Like it or not, there's a distinction between being in this country illegally and growing marijuana and many of those other violations of law to which you refer: It isn't a criminal offense to be here illegally. With the exception of AZ under 1070, there is no jail time or even a fine. When found, there's no trial or pleading guilty or innocent... they verify that you're not a US citizen, and you're deported. It's a civil offense.

That's not to say that I think folks who admit to being here illegally shouldn't be deported, but I'm not so sure I want the police wasting time looking for those illegals who haven't broken any criminal laws, especially if doing so will take time away from real police work. Similarly, I don't believe that AZ should be including nuisance complaints like loud parties or barking dogs among "lawful contact." If the goal is to reduce crime in AZ, wasting time, money, and energy on detaining and deporting the owner(s) of a barking dog is going to be counterproductive to meeting that goal, nine times outta ten.

Second, it's the subjectivity of the terms "lawful contact" and "reasonable suspicion" that have me concerned about the AZ law. While I agree that most cops are far too busy to bother harassing random people just because they can, there are cops who will use this new law to harass specific individuals because 1070 gives them another tool with which to do so. (If there was no such thing as police misconduct, there wouldn't be rules against it. Power can easily corrupt, and sometimes, it does.)

The fact is, I'm not entirely sure that all contact with a law enforcement officer isn't "lawful contact," or that such a standard wouldn't prevent an officer from checking any group of hispanics he finds "loitering" in a park or in front of a business or home, or making a "furtive movement" upon seeing an officer (stuffing hands into pockets, abruptly taking hands out of pockets, as though dropping something, staring at sector car as it drives past, purposely NOT looking at sector car as it drives past, ...), or even being the guy who called in the complaint about his neighbor's barking dog... ...assuming you're not "american-looking," of course...

I just think the AZ law is too subjective and casts a net so wide as to catch too many Americans and "illegals" who--but for their status under the new AZ law--would not be criminals. Aside from the wasted police man hours devoted to detaining loiterers and barking dog owners rather than murderers and rapists, the AZ law is going to overwhelm the enforcement and legal systems as they try to detain all these new "criminals" and answer wrongful arrest, profiling, and other lawsuits.

As I said below, I believe AZ do far better by following the example and experiences of Prince William County, VA, and changing 1070 to require status checks upon arrest rather than on reasonable suspicion during lawful contact, by not criminalizing the civil offense of being in the US illegally, and by cutting the illegal whose only offense is having a dog that won't stop barking, a little slack.
---

Posted Wednesday, 26 May 2010 13:46 (Western Youth blog time)
---
Previous:
In Reply: SB 1070 facts vs fictions

In Reply: SB 1070 facts vs fictions

In reply to: Arizona Law in Action: Illegal Aliens Arrested in Protest Face Deportation - Youth for Western Civilization
---

Two things:

"Three illegal aliens who criminally trespassed in Senator John McCain’s office were arrested for the offense, and as per the new Arizona law, their citizenship was examined and found to be wanting."

1) SB 1070 is due to take effect July 28th, 2010. The immigration status check of these three perps did not take place because of it, or according to the conditions contained in it.

(And obviously, current AZ law is sufficient to check a suspect's status, making 1070 superfluous, at least in this regard.)

"Unlike claims of liberal commentators, they could not be asked for proof of legal residency until after they had been arrested for another offense, in this case criminal trespass."

2) SB 1070 does not require arrest before checking a person's immigration status:

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

The standard is "reasonable suspicion," and can take place during any "lawful contact" between law enforcement and a person suspected of not being here legally.

I'm hoping that AZ goes (or returns) to a "check status upon arrest" standard... I'd have no issue with that... ...though I'd kinda prefer to have suspected criminals tried (and if convicted, jailed) here if they break US law, rather than sent back to their country of origin scott-free. YMMV...
---
Posted Tuesday, 25 May 2010 18:36 (Western Youth blog time)
---

Reposted Wednesday, 26 May 2010 07:05 (Western Youth blog time), after "some comments by actual people got deleted" in a spam sweep--including this one, as posted Tuesday, 25 May 2010 18:36, I'm hoping... (Better that than moderation for ideological content...)

In Reply: Driving While Honduran, the squeakquel (and moderation)

In reply to the following comment: "If Elias Garcia had been properly deported to Honduras for breaking the law, this crime and others like it would never have happened." - Long Island Loses - Youth for Western Civilization
---

Well sure, but that's just one "if" among many... The same would be true:
if he was a better driver
if he (or the victims) had stopped to eat at Burger King, so they weren't on that same road at the same time
if his vehicle had broken down
if he'd been at work

The thing with playing the "what if" game is that there's a million variations, and none of them express much in the way of truth... While it's a great game to play if you're trying to find a new solution to an old problem, it's no help in relaying a news story describing actual events.

Shoehorning the immigration issue onto a hit and run accident--as though being illegal has any bearing on how one drives, or for that matter one's morals--really isn't necessary, and worse, clouds what are real problems with having too many people who don't belong here in the US.

---
And for the record, deleting the comments of those with whom you disagree is kinda cowardly. You called those folks at "Long Island Wins" out, and they each responded with their side of the story--which to me, seemed pretty reasonable, by the way. They write about the immigration issue, and their whole point--and mine, as well--is that this accident has nothing to do with the perp's immigration status, just as it wouldn't if he was native born, and the girls were illegal... ...or if Elias Garcia had been the bystander who chased the native-born perp down. (Show that he ran 'em down because of his status or theirs, and I'd be right there with you. But simply having an illegal involved doesn't make an issue an illegal immigration issue. It just doesn't...)

To call them out, but then delete their comments when they answer your call--and answer their comments after deleting them, besides--makes it look like you're afraid to take them on in a fair exchange of ideas.

It's your blog, and you can certainly moderate for content if you like, but as far as I'm concerned, it makes you look like you lack strength in your convictions. (And yeah, I know what my saying this likely means for my own comment(s)...)
---

Posted Tuesday, 25 May 2010 15:55 (Western Youth blog time)

In Reply: Driving While Honduran

In reply to: Long Island Loses - Youth for Western Civilization, a story about an illegal immigrant driver who jumped the curb and hit six girls... which the blogger in question sees as an issue of illegal immigration.
----

Yeah, sorry, but the perps's immigration status has about as much to do with the accident as whether or not he brushed his teeth that morning.

Illegal immigration is a complex issue, but demonizing any group involved, en mass--be they the illegals who come or those who want to enforce the laws that would curtail their being here (and I count myself in that latter group, for the most part)--is just a bad idea that will do nothing to make the situation any better.
---

Posted Tuesday, 25 May 2010 09:43 AM, (Western Youth blog time)