MUST-READ ESSAY BY TIMOTHY SNYDER ON AMERICA'S NEW "MEMORY LAWS"

 Six US states have recently passed laws or guidelines limiting what can be taught about race and racism in US history and in the US today. Twelve more states are considering similar legislation.

                                                 Credit: Patrick Hoesley/Creative Commons

This isn't just a slippery slope; it's a slime-coated declivity that tramples vital facts underfoot and elevates an official narrative and the feelings of discomfort that facts may cause into the arbiters of what can and cannot be taught.

In the June 29th edition of the New York Times Magazine, Yale professor and author Timothy Snyder has gifted us a compelling essay about this dangerous movement, entitled The War on History is a War on Democracy.

I'd add that this isn't just a war on democracy, it's a war on reason and reality. 

If you haven't done so already, please take the time to read it.

---

REA 7/13/21

ARIZONA BILL TO BAN TEACHING OF "SOLIDARITY" OR "SOCIAL JUSTICE"

If you're rich, it's inconvenient if poor people start to wonder why they're poor, and even worse if they recognize they're not alone, come together, organize, and gain political power. If you're white in America, it's inconvenient if people of color start to wonder why they face so many more obstacles than you, and even worse if they come together, organize and gain power. If you're a member of a privileged group, it's not surprising that you would see recognition of that fact by non-members as divisive and dangerous.

Sarah Palin's tweeted advice to President Obama on this year's Martin Luther King day is a great example of this: "Mr. President, in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. and all who commit to ending any racial divide, no more playing the race card." 

And if you're Arizona State Representative Bob Thorpe, a " . . .life-long Fiscal-Conservative Republican who promotes Constitutional Liberties (freedoms), limited government, low taxes, protecting the lives of our unborn children and 2nd Amendment rights . . .," and you sit on the legislature's Education Committee and chair the Government and Higher Education Committee, you're the right person in the right position at the right time to propose HB2120--the "education; prohibited courses and activities" bill.

The University of Arizona, Tucson--soon an idea-free zone?/Credit Jr P/Flickr

Coming from an avowed promoter of "Constitutional Liberties (freedoms)", the bill is remarkable in that it sets out to limit the freedom of school teachers and college professors to teach, and students to learn about pretty much anything involving how groups of people have been defined and treated in the past or are being seen and treated today.

Here are some of the bill's "prohibited courses, classes, events and activities" for school districts and charter schools throughout Arizona, community colleges, and universities under the State Board of Regents, including the state's educational flagship, the University of Arizona. To be banned, classes, events or activities that . . .

Promote DIVISION, resentment OR SOCIAL JUSTICE toward a race, GENDER, RELIGION, POLITICAL AFFILIATION, SOCIAL CLASS or OTHER class of people.

 Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group.

Advocate ethnic solidarity OR ISOLATION BASED ON ETHNICITY, RACE, RELIGION, GENDER OR SOCIAL CLASS instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.

God forbid that teachers should expose students to a crazy, divisive idea like social justice.

Thorpe's bill significantly expands and extends to colleges and universities a 2010 law that banned K-12 courses or classes that "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of students as individuals."

The new bill has some very sharp teeth--a school district, community college or university could lose ten percent of its state funding if it's caught teaching a forbidden subject or allowing prohibited activities.

Tacked onto the bottom of the bill is a statement with a remarkable twist on the words of Martin Luther King, whom I imagine would be appalled by this gross misuse of of his dream for justice.

Martin Luther King: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

Bob Thorpe: "It is the intent of the legislature that Arizona shall not educate nor judge an individual based upon their religion, political affiliation, social class, gender, ethnicity, race or by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." (Emphasis mine).

King's dream was of a nation providing equal rights, respect and justice for all. Thorpe's dream is of a state prohibiting teaching or learning about unequal rights, prejudice and injustice impacting the very groups he names.

To say that enacting this bill into law would have an enormous effect on education, especially higher education, would be a huge understatement. A quick glance at the University of Arizona's course catalog shows multiple classes dealing with all of those issues--as would the catalog of any self-respecting institution of higher education.

I can picture someone in the Attorney General's office--that's the agency that would be empowered to vet what gets taught or not at the college level--going through the university's course offerings line by line:

"OK, here we go. Anthropology 150A1--Race, Ethnicity and the American Dream. That one's got to go."

"Anthropology 222--African American Studies: A History of Ideas. Cross that one off."

"303--Gender and Language? Hmm. Questionable. Let's cancel it."

"314--Race and Language in the US. No way."

"317--Latin American Immigration and the Remaking of the US. Are they kidding?"

"319--Mexican American Culture. When in doubt, close it out."

"344--African American Religion--Could go either way. I'll kick that up to the A.G."

And that's just part of the offerings of one department. What about African Studies; Care, Health and Society; Communication; Public Health; Education; Environmental Health; Family and Community Medicine; History; Gender and Women's Studies (clearly that whole department needs to go); Latin American Studies (likewise); Mexican American Studies (ditto); Psychology; Public Health; Sociology; Teaching, Learning and Sociocultural Studies; etc., all of which offer courses analyzing those forbidden group differences?

I'm guessing that a few departments, such as Veterinary Science, might escape unscathed.

It's also impossible to exaggerate the chilling effect such a law would have on all teachers, professors and administrators, knowing that a class exercise or even a comment that someone in the Attorney General's office might decide was in the forbidden zone could threaten financial support for their institution.

In George Orwell's disturbingly prescient novel, Nineteen Eighty-four, he elaborates Newspeak, a debased version of English in which concepts like "freedom," "peace," or even "science" do not exist, and so cannot be thought. Anyone who somehow managed to think a forbidden thought was committing a thoughtcrime and would soon be found out by the Thought Police.

In light of the progress this proposed law makes towards Newspeak, I suggest that Representative Thorpe change the name and number of the bill to HB1984--the "Education; Ignorance is Strength bill."

Credit: Stephen Bettany

Click here to read about a brilliant response to Arizona's embrace of ignorance, the Librotraficante Caravan, which is carrying banned books about Mexican-American history to Arizona.

And go here to read a deeply insightful essay by Roberto Rodriguez, an associate professor of Mexican American Studies at the University of  Arizona, who links HB2120 with the book burnings and torture carried out by the Spanish Inquisition in Mexico as part of the demonization and destruction of indigenous knowledge and culture.

And here and here to read about successful legal challenges to this legislation.

2021 update: Under the new banner of fighting "critical race theory," the Republican controlled Wisconsin State Legislature just passed legislation prohibiting the use of certain terms in K-12 classes. These include "white privilege," "diversity," "woke," "structural bias," "systemic racism," "multiculturalism," "social justice" or "patriarchy." In addition, teachers and administrators would not be allowed to attend training in which such concepts might be discussed. 

God forbid that anyone in the great state of Wisconsin should be able to think about such issues. Clearly, enforced ignorance is much better.

US POLICE KILLED THREE PEOPLE A DAY IN 2016

The international newspaper The Guardian has been tracking killings by police in the US since 2015. They've just published their findings for 2016. The numbers continue to be shocking, both in terms of racial disparities and the enormous contrast between the US and other countries.

Protest following the death of Akai Gurley, 11/20/14--Credit Wikimedia

The basics:

--Police in the US killed 1091 people in 2016, slightly down from 1,146 in 2015.

That represents a rate of 3.4 deaths per million people in the US. For perspective, that's 44 times the rate in the UK, 38 times higher than in Germany, 24 times the rate in Canada and 15 times that of France.

--If you're Black in America, your risk of being killed by police is 2.3 times as high as if you're white.

--If you're a Black man 15 to 34 years old, your risk of dying in a police encounter is 9 times that of whites and 4 times higher than a white man your age.

--If you're a Native American, you have 3.5 times the risk of being killed by police than if you're white.

--Deaths at the hands of police vary greatly state-by-state. Police in Alaska, New Mexico and Oklahoma are 3 times as likely to kill people as the national average, and 10 times more likely than police in Delaware, with just one such death in 2016 and a population just under 1,000,000.

In recent years, videotapes of shootings by police under questionable circumstances have shocked millions of people, provoked multiple demonstrations and riots, and brought the issue of police use of lethal force in the US out into the open. Although the statistics for 2016 (and earlier years) clearly show a serious racial bias in US policing, we should be equally concerned about the fact that US citizens, regardless of race or ethnicity, are far more likely to die at the hands of police than citizens of any other western nation.

You can read about some of the causes and possible cures for this ongoing epidemic in two earlier postings:

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN THE US--DUE PROCESS VS STREET "JUSTICE"

OFFICER-INVOLVED DEATHS IN BLACK AND WHITE

And you can read an update for the first 10 months of 2017, showing a continuation of the same deadly pattern, here.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN THE US--DUE PROCESS VS STREET "JUSTICE"

As I discussed in an earlier post, "Officer Involved Deaths in Black and White," there's an enormous gap between justice as its administered in our courts and "justice" as it is meted out in the thousands of fatal encounters with police that take place in the US every year.

Justice in a court of law / Credit Slater and Zurz

First, a little background about capital punishment.

The US is the only western nation that currently enforces the death penalty. Thirty-two states and the US federal government apply it; 18 states and the District of Columbia do not. There were no legal executions in the US between 1967 and 1977. Since then, more than 1400 convicts have been executed, an average of about 40 people per year (just 20 in 2016, a 25-year low). The death penalty has not been shown to decrease murders or other crimes. The murder rate in non-death-penalty states is consistently lower--30 percent on average--than in death-penalty states. Nonetheless, capital punishment in the US retains strong popular support.

As you would expect, the death penalty is only applied for very serious offenses. These vary from state to state, for example intentional homicide with aggravating circumstances such as rape, multiple victims, or the killing of an on-duty police officer. At the federal level, treason, espionage and large-scale drug trafficking are also capital offenses. The constitutional right to due process guarantees that even after a fair trial, conviction and sentencing, convicts facing death have access to legal appeals that can delay their execution for years--currently an average of more than 14 years.

None of the above is true on the streets:

--Rather that 40 per year, 1000 to 2000 people die in encounters with police every year--25 to 50 times more than are legally executed.

--As multiple notorious cases have shown in recent years, a fatal encounter with police can stem from a broken tail-light, shoplifting, carrying a crucifix, or as minorities have been reporting for years, walking, driving or parking while Black, Hispanic or Native American.

--As a depressing number of videos show, "due process" is often reduced to minutes or even seconds between an officer's first contact with a suspect and a fatal barrage of shots.

--Fatal encounters with police are far from fair with respect to race or ethnicity. A recent study in the American Journal of Public Health analyzed 2,285 "legal intervention deaths" in the US between 2010 and 2014 and found that Blacks, Native Americans and Alaskan Natives were 2.7 times more likely to die in police encounters than Whites, and Hispanics 1.6 times more likely to die.

--The interactions between police and the people they are supposed to serve and protect vary greatly from state to state. Police in New Mexico, with a population just over 2 million, killed 28 people in the first half of 2016. Nevada, with a comparable population, saw just 4 police-related deaths. Arizona has a slightly smaller population than Washington, yet Arizona police killed more than twice as many people. Californians are three times more likely to die in an arrest-related event than New Yorkers. There's something wrong with this picture.

Justice on the street / Credit A Gude

Of course, this does not mean that all or most of those deaths are illegal or illegitimate. Police officers do represent the front line of our system of justice, place their own lives at risk (although not nearly as much as the public believes), and have to deal with many difficult and sometimes dangerous people and situations. University of South Carolina criminologist Geoff Alpert points out that in 98.9 percent of cases, killings by police are found to be justified.

However, justified does not mean necessary or just. The number of police killings places the US at the ragged edge of other developed countries. A few examples:

The US has about 6 times the population of England and Wales. Yet US police killed more people in the first 24 days of 2015 than police in England and Wales over the last 24 years.

The US has about 4 times the population of Germany. US police kill two or three times as many people every week as German police do in a year. Almost twice as many unarmed Black men (19) were killed by US police in 2015 than all the people killed by police in Germany that year (10).

The police in Kern County, California--population 875000--killed 14 people in 2015. That's almost three times as many as were killed that year by police in Germany and the UK combined--total population 145,000,000.

Police in my home town, Albuquerque, New Mexico, killed 28 people between January, 2010 and July, 2014. That's more than twice as many as police killed in Germany during the same time period. Albuquerque has a population of 556,000. Germany has a population of 80,620,000. That means that the citizens of Albuquerque were 300 times more likely to die at the hands of police than the citizens of Germany.

Clearly, there's something different about how US police are trained, governed and see their relationship to the rest of us, compared to police in other countries. You can read a thoughtful expert commentary by criminal justice professor Paul Hirschfield at this URL.

Hirschfield identifies a variety of contributing factors, but emphasizes that police in other developed countries receive significantly more training than in the US, including  much more training in how to manage critical situations--for example dealing with agitated or mentally ill people--without resorting to lethal force.

He also focuses on national and international standards which typically permit lethal force only as a last resort and when absolutely necessary. In the US, standards are far more lax. Most states empower police to use lethal force if they reasonably believe they or someone else is at risk of imminent or grave harm. In the vast majority of cases, review boards, district attorneys, judges and juries give police officers enormous leeway concerning the circumstances or behavior that could have justified their perception of risk, resulting in a lack of accountability. A recent in-depth study by Reuters reveals how police union contracts across the country can shield officers who repeatedly use excessive force or even engage in clearly criminal acts, for example by expunging their records every few years. A recent Pew Research Center survey finds that 72 percent of police officers nationwide agree that badly performing fellow officers are not held accountable.

It's in large part that very low bar to the use of lethal force in the US that leads to the kinds of killings that outrage us all too frequently. Both training and the legal standards for the use of lethal force need to be improved if the police are to be seen not as soldiers on the front line of a war, but as the face of justice in our communities and on the streets.

OFFICER INVOLVED DEATHS IN BLACK AND WHITE

If you consider yourself a member of the fact-based community, you might be interested in some new research about deaths at the hands of police in the U.S.

Memorial to Michael Brown, Ferguson, Missouri. Credit: Jamelle Bouie

The study was carried out by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York. They analyzed data from the National Violent Death Reporting System for the years 2009 through 2012. The 812 fatal encounters they studied came from 17 states that voluntarily provide the CDC with relevant statistics.


You can access the full report, "Death Due to Lethal Force by Law Enforcement," here. 

I'll list some of their key findings:

The victims were predominantly male (96.1%), as were the police officers involved (97.4%). 

Blacks were 2.8 times more likely to die at the hands of police than whites.

If you assume that blacks are more likely to be armed in these fatal encounters, you would be wrong. Black victims were 1.6 times more likely to be unarmed (14.8%) compared to whites (9.4%).

If you assume that blacks are more likely to have placed the officers involved at risk, you would also be wrong. "Black victims were also significantly less likely than whites to have posed an immediate threat to LE [law enforcement]," the authors write.

The authors cite an earlier study by other researchers using FBI statistics that found that the likelihood of a suspect being killed per 100,000 police stops or arrests was not significantly different among blacks, hispanics and non-hispanic whites. However, the same study showed that compared to whites and Asians, blacks, native Americans and Hispanics were stopped by police significantly more frequently.

That study also produced two statistics that surprised me--a suspect or bystander is seriously injured or killed in one out of every 291 police stops, and U.S. police killed or injured an estimated 55,400 people in 2012.

The 812 deaths in 17 states analyzed in the current study represent just a fraction of the total number of people killed by police during those years. Reliable numbers are hard to come by, but the Nevada-based website fatalencounters.org sets out to count every case by collating information from multiple sources. They list by name 3825 individuals who died in encounters with police during those same years.

If you compare either number with the number of legal executions (i.e. capital punishment) in the United States--never more than 100 in any year since 1976, and just 43 in 2012--it becomes obvious that there is an enormous gap between justice applied with our constitutionally-guaranteed due process and what actually happens many times per day on the street. You'll find a more recent, in-depth post on that subject here.

The authors of the current study take pains not to vilify law enforcement officers. They write about the kinds of implicit biases that almost everyone carries, perhaps exacerbated by negative experiences policing particular neighborhoods, training issues, police culture, and a variety of other factors that together may help explain this disparity.

Whatever the causes, the study provides hard data that support what blacks know all too well--that far too many black men die in encounters with police, including a disproportionate number who are unarmed and non-threatening.

But it's also clear that this isn't just a racial problem--it's a systemic nationwide problem involving the police and the communities they are supposed to serve. Even the "safest" Americans, non-Hispanic whites, are 26 times more likely to die in an encounter with police than, for example, a German citizen. 

Whatever happened to "protect and serve?"

Credit: Thomas Hawk