[Imc-web] my last comment

[Wendy Edwards]

On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 01:09:10PM -0500, Mike Lehman wrote:
> 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.

Perhaps you might want to consider having this discussions somewhere
other than a publicly archived mailing list, then?  Just a 
suggestion.

> 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. 

Well, I would have called it "rationality," actually, though it's
interesting that you use the term "false objectivity."

> 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.

Oh, I'd give the "random member of a minority" more credit for
intelligence.  Claiming that what I said sounds like an excerpt from
"a piece of white surpremacist literature" would be a pretty dumb
statement, and most minority people I've interacted with are brighter
than that.
 
> 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.

Actually, Kevin did NOT say that crime was a "genetic or cultural
endowment of African-Americans."  He expressed the opinion that the
higher rate of criminal charges and incarceration was due to black
people committing more violent crimes.  He goes on to state that this
shows that there are problems in the black community that need to
be solved.  We've established that the rates of poverty and
unemployment are appreciably higher for blacks in Champaign County,
and it's also been suggested that there's a correlation between being
unemployed and being charged with a crime.  Is there also a racism
problem in Champaign County?  Quite possibly.

>From my perspective, it's a problem that black people are 
disproportionately represented as defendants and prison inmates.  So
how can this problem be solved?  One of the first things to do is to
figure out what's going on.  Refusing to consider anything other than
unfairness in the criminal justice system isn't very useful.  What
can be done to improve the situation before minorities end up in
front of a judge?  One of the speakers said that programs like Head
Start could make a big difference for low-income kids.  Why not use
UCIMC to fight for programs like Head Start?  There's also a diversion
program in Champaign County that gives certain minor offenders an
alternative to criminal conviction, and I assume that this also 
benefits minorities.  The program needs volunteers - why not 
encourage UCIMC members to help?

Kevin's point that minorities are also disproportionately represented
as victims was important.  In fact, I remember reading about a study
years ago that sentences were usually more severe when the victim
was white.  How do we factor black victims into our notion of fairness?

> 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.

Actually, I don't see Ishmael as a problem.  If he is indeed a cop,
I'd say that he deserves the right to respond since UCIMC posts are
frequently critical of cops.
> 
> 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. 

If that was actually what he said, it might have merited deletion, but
I think we need to read comments carefully before deleting them.

> 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.

I think it would be nice if UCIMC did not draw contempt, period, but
deleting comments you disagree with doesn't help. 
 
Wendy