The death of Trayvon Martin and the trial of George Zimmerman has once again brought race to the forefront of conversation in America.
Sadly, the conversation isn't about trying to bring people together. Rather, the diatribes emanating from various groups are about bringing race into an issue in order to divide the country further.
Never mind that George Zimmerman was on his way back to his vehicle when he was attacked by Trayvon Martin. Never mind that this young person was slamming this middle-aged man's head against the ground when the fatal shot was fired. Never mind that this young person was not the squeaky clean teenager portrayed by the news media.
Never mind that the local police and the FBI both concluded that race played no part in this tragedy. Never mind that the testimony of one of Zimmerman's black neighbors -- an eye witness -- was one of the main reasons for his acquittal. Never mind that a jury found Zimmerman not guilty of all charges after listening to and examining all of the evidence.
All that matters in the minds of those who are spewing the hatred is that Martin was black and Zimmerman was white. That's racism.
Was Zimmerman "innocent?" No. He clearly assumed that this young person was up to no good and instead of simply asking this young man if he were living in this neighborhood, he watched and followed him. But one wrong doesn't give a young person the right to attack a middle-aged man, or to slam his head against the ground.
Do we know exactly what happened? Not really. But the eyewitness who testified, as well as the forensic evidence, suggested that Martin was beating Zimmerman soundly when the shot was fired. That alone provided the jury with enough reasonable doubt to find Zimmerman not guilty of second degree murder and manslaughter. Thankfully, thinking someone might be guilty isn't enough in America; there's a much higher threshhold that must be met before someone is sent to prison.
Sadly, instead of having a civil conversation about race and about the American system of justice, most Americans are more divided than ever. The voices of rational people are not being heard. Even the President and his Attorney General, Eric Holder, have done more to fan the flames of racial hatred than try to promote a civic dialogue among Americans of different skin colors.
Throughout my life, I have searched for opportunities to have civil conversations about race and culture. While in college, I befriended a fellow black student and we would talk for hours about race, with each of us truly listening to the other and trying to understand how the other's experiences shaped his way of thinking. While working in college, I rode to work every day with a black man who was Muslim, and we talked about religion and world politics. While living in a southern state, I happily lived in a county that was overwhelmingly black. While there, I became friends with a black legislator, who helped me to understand why he felt that racial quotas were fair, given all that he had been through during his life and how this affected him socioeconomically. I learned things I never knew because I simply took the time to listen and try to learn. While in that same southern county, I started a program to encourage more female and minority representation in science, technology, engineering and math careers and spent a great deal of time working with these young people.
I listened. I learned. They listened. They learned. We talked and shared ideas without anger or hatred or ever raising our voices. This is true dialogue.
A civil dialogue among Americans can be held. But it will only begin when groups such as the NAACP stop yelling and start listening.
Friday, July 19, 2013
Monday, July 15, 2013
The Voice of Reason: Not Guilty Does Not Mean Innocent
I remember vividly when the O.J. Simpson verdict was announced in October 1995. I was working at a school where the teachers were predominantly African-American. When the verdict was announced, the vast majority of teachers at that school cheered loudly.
I understood their reaction to a point. After so many years of seeing injustice in America -- real and perceived -- a black man was found not guilty of killing two white people. In years past, not only would the black man have been convicted, but he would have been convicted quickly and probably sentenced to death. In the decades before that, the black man would have been hung in a tree with a rope.
When the O.J. Simpson verdict was read, I was disappointed, but not outraged. I understood that the evidence had been compromised by the police and that Simpson's attorneys had done enough to make at least a few of the jurors to have reasonable doubt about his guilt. I would say that every single person on that jury would have said that in all likelihood he was guilty of that crime, but that there was enough reasonable doubt that they could not vote "guilty."
In America, there's a significant difference between "not guilty" and "innocent."
Many of the same people who cheered the O.J. Simpson verdict are outraged today at the verdict in the George Zimmerman trial. After all, Zimmerman clearly killed Trayvon Martin, a black teenager, and yet, he was found to be "not guilty" of second degree murder or manslaughter. He was cleared of all charges.
Again, "not guilty" does not mean "innocent" in our American system of justice.
Clearly, Zimmerman made mistakes in following Martin. He was told by police to stop his pursuit, but he continued. Zimmerman should not have been so aggressive in determining that any person wearing a hood over his head in that neighborhood was a punk out to do mischief. Zimmerman was the adult, and made a few bad initial decisions that ultimately led to Martin's death.
However, forensic evidence clearly showed that Martin was the one on top of Zimmerman when that fatal, single shot was fired. Evidence also showed that Zimmerman was the one with the back of his head and nose bloodied, with grass on his back from lying on the ground. Clearly, Martin was on top of Zimmerman, and Zimmerman was being beaten by this teenager, who was taller and in much better shape. There was no real evidence of who threw the first blow, or who initiated the fight, only of what occurred while the fight was occurring.
The jury looked at the evidence and decided that although Zimmerman made some initial bad decisions, he had every right to protect himself when he was being beaten by Martin. Zimmerman certainly wasn't innocent, but the jury could not find him guilty.
America has a system of laws designed to require a high threshold of proven guilt before anyone is found guilty of a serious crime. The same laws that helped a jury find O.J. Simpson not guilty of a crime he most likely committed also allowed a jury to acquit George Zimmerman of murder or manslaugher after he fired the gun that left a teenager dead.
Those who are outraged by the Zimmerman verdict should be happy that the system worked as it was designed. The jury made its decision based on the facts, not public opinion or sentiment. Jurors looked at the laws and the evidence and decided that they did not have enough support from either to convice George Zimmerman.
That same public opinion or sentiment that exhibits so much outrage by the Zimmerman verdict resulted in black people being convicted or lynched with little or no evidence in decades past. That same public opinion or sentiment that was blind to the laws or evidence in decades past, is just as blind today in the Zimmerman case.
Hopefully, we have moved past the time when public opinion and sentiment determines whether or not a person is found guilty or not guilty. Although those who vehemently wanted George Zimmerman convicted may not understand it just yet, Zimmerman's acquittal is a victory for American justice, no matter what the color of your skin might be.
I understood their reaction to a point. After so many years of seeing injustice in America -- real and perceived -- a black man was found not guilty of killing two white people. In years past, not only would the black man have been convicted, but he would have been convicted quickly and probably sentenced to death. In the decades before that, the black man would have been hung in a tree with a rope.
When the O.J. Simpson verdict was read, I was disappointed, but not outraged. I understood that the evidence had been compromised by the police and that Simpson's attorneys had done enough to make at least a few of the jurors to have reasonable doubt about his guilt. I would say that every single person on that jury would have said that in all likelihood he was guilty of that crime, but that there was enough reasonable doubt that they could not vote "guilty."
In America, there's a significant difference between "not guilty" and "innocent."
Many of the same people who cheered the O.J. Simpson verdict are outraged today at the verdict in the George Zimmerman trial. After all, Zimmerman clearly killed Trayvon Martin, a black teenager, and yet, he was found to be "not guilty" of second degree murder or manslaughter. He was cleared of all charges.
Again, "not guilty" does not mean "innocent" in our American system of justice.
Clearly, Zimmerman made mistakes in following Martin. He was told by police to stop his pursuit, but he continued. Zimmerman should not have been so aggressive in determining that any person wearing a hood over his head in that neighborhood was a punk out to do mischief. Zimmerman was the adult, and made a few bad initial decisions that ultimately led to Martin's death.
However, forensic evidence clearly showed that Martin was the one on top of Zimmerman when that fatal, single shot was fired. Evidence also showed that Zimmerman was the one with the back of his head and nose bloodied, with grass on his back from lying on the ground. Clearly, Martin was on top of Zimmerman, and Zimmerman was being beaten by this teenager, who was taller and in much better shape. There was no real evidence of who threw the first blow, or who initiated the fight, only of what occurred while the fight was occurring.
The jury looked at the evidence and decided that although Zimmerman made some initial bad decisions, he had every right to protect himself when he was being beaten by Martin. Zimmerman certainly wasn't innocent, but the jury could not find him guilty.
America has a system of laws designed to require a high threshold of proven guilt before anyone is found guilty of a serious crime. The same laws that helped a jury find O.J. Simpson not guilty of a crime he most likely committed also allowed a jury to acquit George Zimmerman of murder or manslaugher after he fired the gun that left a teenager dead.
Those who are outraged by the Zimmerman verdict should be happy that the system worked as it was designed. The jury made its decision based on the facts, not public opinion or sentiment. Jurors looked at the laws and the evidence and decided that they did not have enough support from either to convice George Zimmerman.
That same public opinion or sentiment that exhibits so much outrage by the Zimmerman verdict resulted in black people being convicted or lynched with little or no evidence in decades past. That same public opinion or sentiment that was blind to the laws or evidence in decades past, is just as blind today in the Zimmerman case.
Hopefully, we have moved past the time when public opinion and sentiment determines whether or not a person is found guilty or not guilty. Although those who vehemently wanted George Zimmerman convicted may not understand it just yet, Zimmerman's acquittal is a victory for American justice, no matter what the color of your skin might be.
Thursday, July 11, 2013
The Voice of Reason: Dealing with 11 Million Undocumented Democrats
Earlier this year the Associated Press decided that it was no longer going to use the terms, "illegal immigrants" or "illegal aliens" in its news reports. Making fun of of this major news organizatio's decision to cave in to the current era of political correctness, comedian Jay Leno suggested that the Associated Press should refer to those in this country illegally as "Undocumented Democrats" because the Democrats view the 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. as potential voters for the Democratic Party.
Once you view the issue of immigration reform through this lens, you begin to see why the Democrats want immigration reform with an easy or immediate path to citizenship for illegal immigrants so badly and why Republicans are so vehemently opposed to this idea.
A lot has been written and said about immigration reform. To most, this is a very complex issue with a lot of emotion. But when you think about it -- really think about it -- it is very simple although in reality it is a national security issue that has been turned into a political one.
The first step in any immigration reform must be securing our borders. To do otherwise would be kind of like bailing water out of a boat without first fixing the leak that's causing the boat to sink. Republicans see this as being the logical first step. Members of the other party see this as an effective way of stopping the influx of potential Democrat voters from crossing the border.
The second step is to figure out what to do with the 11 million illegal aliens currently in the U.S. A few Republican hardliners believe that they should simply be forced to return to their home countries. Realistically, there is no way to round up 11 million people and force them out of the country.
Moderate Republicans realize this and propose a path to citizenship over time, while the majority of Democrats believe that these illegal immigrants should simply be given an easy or immediate path to citizenship.
The most realistic approach, and one that would probably gain sufficient support from both parties to pass both the House and Senate, is to provide a path to citizenship for these illegal immigrants over a lengthy period of time, while providing them with a way they can stay in this country legally, work and pay taxes, without their having the right to vote.
I'm of the opinion that they should not be allowed to receive most major government benefits (i.e., welfare, social security, etc.) until they have worked a sufficient period of time and have paid taxes for a number of years. Otherwise, we're simply providing those who have broken the law a way to receive all of the benefits of being an American without having paid their fair share.
There are a number of other tough questions that need to be answered, including, "Should the children of illegal immigrants receive a free public education?" or "Should the children of illegal immigrants receive financial aid for college?" There are also a large number of children of illegal immigrants who were born in this country but don't have the documentation to become a U.S. citizen. These are tough questions that can be answered. Although I believe that the children of illegal immigrants should receive a free public education, I don't believe they should be entitled to financial aid for college until their parents have paid sufficiently into the system through taxes. We should encourage illegal immigrants to work, pay taxes and prosper. This would be one way to do just that.
I'm also of the opinion that our laws should be changed so that anyone born in this country has to have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen in order to become an American citizen, which is the way most countries in the world allow citizenship for children born within their borders. Our current, outdated laws simply encourage those from other countries to cross the border so that their children can be born in America and become full-fledged citizens with all of the benefits afforded Americans.
A common sense and effective approach to immigration reform is possible, but only if both parties compromise just a little and look at the issue reasonably, instead of just looking at these 11 million illegal immigrants as potential Democrat voters.
Once you view the issue of immigration reform through this lens, you begin to see why the Democrats want immigration reform with an easy or immediate path to citizenship for illegal immigrants so badly and why Republicans are so vehemently opposed to this idea.
A lot has been written and said about immigration reform. To most, this is a very complex issue with a lot of emotion. But when you think about it -- really think about it -- it is very simple although in reality it is a national security issue that has been turned into a political one.
The first step in any immigration reform must be securing our borders. To do otherwise would be kind of like bailing water out of a boat without first fixing the leak that's causing the boat to sink. Republicans see this as being the logical first step. Members of the other party see this as an effective way of stopping the influx of potential Democrat voters from crossing the border.
The second step is to figure out what to do with the 11 million illegal aliens currently in the U.S. A few Republican hardliners believe that they should simply be forced to return to their home countries. Realistically, there is no way to round up 11 million people and force them out of the country.
Moderate Republicans realize this and propose a path to citizenship over time, while the majority of Democrats believe that these illegal immigrants should simply be given an easy or immediate path to citizenship.
The most realistic approach, and one that would probably gain sufficient support from both parties to pass both the House and Senate, is to provide a path to citizenship for these illegal immigrants over a lengthy period of time, while providing them with a way they can stay in this country legally, work and pay taxes, without their having the right to vote.
I'm of the opinion that they should not be allowed to receive most major government benefits (i.e., welfare, social security, etc.) until they have worked a sufficient period of time and have paid taxes for a number of years. Otherwise, we're simply providing those who have broken the law a way to receive all of the benefits of being an American without having paid their fair share.
There are a number of other tough questions that need to be answered, including, "Should the children of illegal immigrants receive a free public education?" or "Should the children of illegal immigrants receive financial aid for college?" There are also a large number of children of illegal immigrants who were born in this country but don't have the documentation to become a U.S. citizen. These are tough questions that can be answered. Although I believe that the children of illegal immigrants should receive a free public education, I don't believe they should be entitled to financial aid for college until their parents have paid sufficiently into the system through taxes. We should encourage illegal immigrants to work, pay taxes and prosper. This would be one way to do just that.
I'm also of the opinion that our laws should be changed so that anyone born in this country has to have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen in order to become an American citizen, which is the way most countries in the world allow citizenship for children born within their borders. Our current, outdated laws simply encourage those from other countries to cross the border so that their children can be born in America and become full-fledged citizens with all of the benefits afforded Americans.
A common sense and effective approach to immigration reform is possible, but only if both parties compromise just a little and look at the issue reasonably, instead of just looking at these 11 million illegal immigrants as potential Democrat voters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)