[Imc-web] my last comment

[Mike Lehman]

Wendy,

First of all, I am not ccing this to Kevin. It is always most useful if 
we can come to some sort of consensus before inviting the whole world 
into the discussion. Otherwise as a medium serving minority points of 
view, we simply end up allowing UC IMC to be used to replicate existing 
disparities in the media.

Moving on, let’s reflect on the UC IMC mission statement as a starting 
point:

"The Independent Media Center is a global network of collectively run 
media outlets for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate 
tellings of truth. We are motivated by a love and inspiration for people 
who work for a better world despite corporate media's distortions and 
unwillingness to cover efforts to develop an egalitarian and sustainable 
society.

"The Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center is a grassroots 
organization committed to using media production and distribution as 
tools for promoting social and economic justice in the Urbana area. We 
are dedicated to addressing issues that the mainstream media neglects 
and we do not conceal our politics behind a false objectivity. We will 
empower people to "become the media" by providing democratic access to 
available technologies and information."

There are several assumptions implicit in this statement that I feel you 
have been ignoring in favor of the “free speech” model that is so 
favored by the dominant media. To do otherwise will undermine our 
ability to challenge existing inequalities, facilitating their 
continuing dominance of the discourse in the corporate media, which 
maintain and preserve existing inequalities.

You assert that there are “too many things we don’t know at this point” 
about how white privilege functions within the local justice system 
despite clear evidence that it seems deeply implicated in perpetuating 
existing inequalities. I find it most curious that those such as 
“Ishmael” seem unwilling or unable to address this evidence, although 
they still seem to find time to attack BD. On the other hand, there are 
those like Kevin who want to hide behind a screen of anonymity to insist 
on a place at the table to defend these inequalities.

I see no reason to facilitate such abuse of our mission.

It discourages and silences the audiences we were established to serve 
if they come to UC IMC and find pretty much the same arguments they find 
when they tune in WDWS, read the News-Gazette, and surf to Illini 
Pundit. I see no reason to replicate this discourse on UC IMC and even 
less need to facilitate it by undermining long established consensus 
about our editorial policy.

Anonymously, Kevin stated:

“…many on the Left refuse to acknowledge the fact that black people 
commit more violent crimes, as a percentage of their population, than 
non-blacks.”

This is a very disturbing and frankly racist statement. Posted from 
someone anonymously, it has no place on UC IMC. And expecting “the Left” 
to ever buy into such eugenic bullshit is simply delusional, in fact 
just as delusional as Bobby Meade’s rants.

You were careful to draw a far more circumspect conclusion about the 
data, one that I feel fails to take into account abundant evidence of 
racial disparities in the justice system. Given that these disparities 
are NOT fostered by the powerless, but by the powerful who make the 
policy decisions at their discretion that perpetuate these inequalities, 
I am willing to take at face value your different and more thoughtful 
statement that what “we do know is that black people are 
disproportionately more likely to be criminal defendants in Champaign 
County.” While I disagree with at least one of the premises of your 
statement because you choose to so narrowly draw it, it is also one that 
does take into account the nuances of this discussion in accord with the 
UC IMC mission statement. Kevin’s statement clearly does not. I am more 
than a little uneasy that you seem to be leaving the door open to 
arguments that there is a biological or cultural basis for a propensity 
toward crime among African-Americans when you say “Is this because 
they're more likely to commit the crimes in the first place? Maybe, but 
we don't really know.” I really don’t see how any thoughtful person can 
credibly assert that such an argument has any factual basis, even if we 
choose to acknowledge that people who do make such white supremacist 
statements exist.

I don’t mean to sound so abrasive, but let’s be frank. If the justice 
system exercised the same skepticism and doubt about many of the cases 
that are brought before it as you do about what the statistics 
illustrating the outcomes of this system suggest, there would probably 
be no need to even have this discussion. Justice would be far better 
served. Instead, the legal system has shown a propensity to time and 
time again deliver gross inequalities and jump to conclusions that you 
seem to pass over lightly. And I can’t for the life of me understand 
your indecision about the minimum assumptions one can logically draw 
about such outcomes. All I know is that to me is sounds a lot like the 
“false objectivity” that our mission statement implores that we struggle 
against. But as long as you’re careful to couch your indecision in much 
more circumspect tones than Kevin does, I am personally willing to give 
you the benefit of the doubt. But if I were some random member of a 
minority reading your arguments about this for the first time here, not 
knowing you, I would be far less generous in assessing your character, 
because I would have already seen basically the same argument about 
racially disparate outcomes in the justice system in the editorial 
section of the News-Gazette, spouting from the lips of some shill for 
Sinclair Broadcasting or, with a little more frankness, in a piece of 
white supremacist literature.

What is more, should we leave Kevin’s statement there as part of the 
range of acceptable discourse on the website, it will only encourage 
more of those like Kevin to come here anonymously to dump the same pile 
of steaming shit onto UC IMC. The only fit place for such discussions 
here on UC IMC is for it to be in the hidden files, where it can serve 
as an example of what is not an acceptable manner in which to use the 
resources we provide for “media production and distribution as tools for 
promoting social and economic justice.” Kevin and those like him should 
take such discourse where it is welcome if they want it to be easily 
seen – someplace other than UC IMC. The internet is a big place, with 
lots of friendly spaces even for such disturbing and unsupportable 
ideas. And I really, really, really doubt that anyone reading UC IMC is 
unaware of such duplicitous arguments in support of white privilege or 
who needs Kevin, Ishmael or anyone else to drop by and point it out 
again for our edification for the nth time. We have no need to give them 
any more of platform than they already have – and we have a 
responsibility to the underserved communities we were established to 
serve to make sure that such discourse does not begin to increasingly 
dominate discussions here.

Now is it just Kevin that your reformulation of what UC IMC editorial 
policy should be who would be covered if we take the tack you seem to 
want us to? That’s hardly the case. To be equitable under such a 
formulation, then we should also let those such as Bobby Meade and “DAN” 
have their say again also. After all, the ideas they express are not 
really all that far from Kevin’s explicitly racist formulation of crime 
as a genetic or cultural endowment of African-Americans. If you find 
that to be a credible comment worthy of being on UC IMC, then why not 
“Jews are money grubbing usurers and suck the blood of babies”? That is 
just as credible as Kevin’s statement, if we want to use such a standard.

That said, the comments of others made in this discussion that you 
assert are not “any worse than some of the other ones in the discussion” 
were mostly made by Ishmael. He’s a registered user and at least that 
lets the reader know who to blame for such crap. From Kevin’s email, it 
is clear that he may have made at least one of the few other anonymous 
comments in that discussion that I did hide. And that he expects he has 
some right to make such statements and avoid responsibility for them by 
remaining anonymous. And if it wasn’t for your extreme concern that the 
powers that be should be given yet another chance here at UC IMC to 
reiterate their arguments already so thoroughly disseminated by the 
dominant media that otherwise thoughtful people such as yourself give 
them unwarranted credibility, I will frankly admit that, yes, I would 
have hid some of the other anonymous comments made in the recent 
discussions as the racist drivel and distraction from the discussion 
they are. I thought addressing your concerns would help to facilitate a 
better discussion, but I can see now it’s mostly engendered new demands 
from abusive anonymous commenters and yourself to further open the door 
to UC IMC basically replicating the same tired arguments found in the 
dominant media as one that is a questionable preference in seeking to 
serve underserved communities.

If we truly do intend to serve those who the mainstream media neglects, 
then UC IMC needs to maintain an editorial policy that discourages the 
“Ishmaels,” “protest warriors,” and “Jack Ryan’s” of the world from 
posting here, as we have rather consistently done for the last seven 
years. We already know from past experience how much allowing this sort 
of discourse discourages those from underserved communities from 
participating on and at UC IMC. Perhaps you should try looking at the 
world through their eyes for once. For UC IMC to represent a community 
of shared values, especially those of underserved communities, then it 
also needs to be able to draw a line on what is not a shared value in 
our community. Assertions that African-Americans have only their genetic 
or cultural endowments to blame for what the statistics illustrate are – 
and should remain – beyond the range of acceptable discourse at UC IMC. 
Otherwise, UC IMC should justly draw the contempt of the underserved 
communities we claim to serve as a means toward promoting social and 
economic justice.
Mike Lehman


Wendy Edwards wrote:
>> the sort of discourse that appears on our website.  Labeling it as 
>> "leftist" and "doctrinaire" is simply a gratuitous and unwarranted 
>> attack on our editorial policy, as well as a very inaccurate 
>> generalization about UC IMC members and users of the website. Anyone who 
>>     
>
> Well. I think that most people would agree that UCIMC leans to the
> left politically, so "leftist" would probably be accurate.  There are
> a few posts that have struck me as "doctrinaire" and others that
> haven't.
>
>   
>> has been following the recent discussion of the workings of white 
>> supremacy in the Champaign County justice system can see that this is 
>> not the case. For instance, do you consider yourself as part of this 
>> "leftist" crowd you're attacking? If not, then you have just disproved 
>> the statement you made. In addition, discussion of our editorial policy 
>> (as it typically does for the great majority of such web-based services) 
>> takes place in two places -- on this list or in face to face meetings -- 
>> and not as comments to unrelated stories.
>>     
>
> Well, since Kevin does not seem to live in Illinois, he's unlikely
> to show up at a web meeting.  However, he has brought his concerns to
> the list.
>
>   
>> In addition, you chose to use a fundamentally racist presumption::
>>     
>>> many on the Left refuse to acknowledge the fact that black people 
>>> commit more violent crimes, as a percentage of their population, than 
>>> non-blacks. This is backed up by the higher rates of arrest and 
>>> conviction (and the total absence of evidence for some kind of white 
>>> supremacist conspiracy), and, just as importantly, the higher 
>>> victimization rate of blacks.
>>>       
>> Given the string of unproven assumptions, your anonymous comments, and 
>> the chip you so proudly display on your shoulder about them -- a 
>> conclusion reinforced by the tone of your email here -- I concluded that 
>> you were trolling per our policy.
>>     
>  
> Look, as the person who posted the statistics and graphs in the first
> place, the numbers show some things about criminal charges in Champaign
> County between 2000 and 2006.  Period.  They don't show that our justice
> system is "white supremacist" nor do they prove that black people are
> more likely to commit violent crimes.  There are too many things we
> don't know at this point.
>
> For example, not all crimes are reported, and of the ones that are, not
> all perpetrators are caught.  There's no 100% reliable way of 
> establishing "whodunnit" - the best we have is police investigation
> and trials.  We know that some people have been wrongly convicted,
> and it seems reasonable to assume that guilty people have sometimes
> gotten off.  So what we do know is that black people are 
> disproportionately more likely to be criminal defendants in Champaign
> County.  Is this because they're more likely to commit the crimes in
> the first place?  Maybe, but we don't really know.  Are whites just
> more likely to get away with crime?  That's also possible, but there's
> not enough information to prove or disprove that either.
>
> Personally, I didn't think that Kevin's comment were any worse than
> some of the other ones in the discussion.
>
> Wendy
>
>
>