• commentary
  • THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 20 2007 1:31 PM

Racial Protests Overwhelm Small Louisiana Town

Tags: Jena six



I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not much of a journalist. They have me here at Suicidegirls.com to write somewhat-witty-but-certainly-long-winded political or legalesque stuff so people have something to read before they go post on someone else’s thread. It’s OK. I’m comfortable with that. I gave up my dream of being a reputable newsman years ago. I gave it up mainly because the “reputable” aspect of that particular fantasy didn’t really appeal to me. So naturally, I became a lawyer instead.

However, it’s times like this when I wish that dream was a dream deferred rather than a dream denied. Because there are times when I wish I could be that newsman I wanted to be, down on the front lines covering the story that moves me to action. I wish I were there to write about that particular story that seems so incredibly wrong and so incredibly human at the same time. There are times, like now, when I wish I would have become a journalist so I could cover things like the “Jena Six” story first-hand. It is so unbelievable that a story like that could take place in the year 2007 that frankly I have a hard time wrapping my head around it without having seen it myself. However, it’s happening. And it’s infuriating.

Months after declining to charge three white high school students who were briefly suspended for hanging nooses in a tree, local prosecutors charged five of the six with attempted second-degree murder in the beating of a white student. The sixth defendant's case is sealed because he is charged as a juvenile.

Critics allege the cases show authorities in this predominantly white town are disproportionately harsh toward blacks. District Attorney Reed Walters, breaking a long public silence Wednesday at a news conference, denied racism was involved.

Walters said the suffering of the beating victim, Justin Barker, has been largely ignored. Barker was knocked unconscious, his face badly swollen and bloodied, though he was able to attend a school function that night.


A six-on-one beating rendering the victim unconscious is certainly worthy of serious discipline. But attempted murder for a schoolyard fight seems a tad extreme, especially when the kid was out and about at a social event within a few hours. Regardless of the severity of the charges, they don’t necessarily show racial bias in and of themselves. Perhaps there was legitimate intent to kill or reckless disregard for human life (the general definitions of second-degree murder) apparent from the facts of the case. Perhaps.


Or perhaps not. Perhaps there’s quite a bit more to the story than one would glean from a first glance at the AP story. Unfortunately there does seem to be, and the story gets weirder, more frustrating and more damning the more you read into it.

As with anything this politically-charged, the factual accounts vary and it’s difficult to sort through rhetoric from observation. The Washington Post reported this in June:

Black residents said the tying of the nooses was evidence that race relations have not improved that much. They said the superintendent's decision to hand only a three-day suspension to the white students who tied the nooses, overriding the principal's decision to expel them, sparked the anger that led to the disturbance.

The chain of events began at the start of school last September. At an assembly that kicked off classes, a black freshman asked the white principal if black students could sit under "the white tree" -- a shade tree where only white students regularly sat. The answer was, "You can sit anywhere you want."

But when black students showed up in the broiling hot yard, they found three nooses hanging from the tree's branches. After a number of scuffles, the district attorney came to the school and gathered students for a tough talk.

"I can make your life go away with the stroke of a pen," they recalled him saying. Black students said he looked directly at them. Walters denied it.


Another account of the school assembly from the father of one of the accused (and appearing in a decidedly less “reputable” source than the Post) goes into greater detail:

"Now remember, with everything that goes on at Jena High School, everybody's separated. The only time when Black and white kids are together is in the classroom and when they playing sports together. During lunch time, Blacks sit on one side, whites sit on the other side of the cafeteria. During canteen time, Blacks sit on one side of the campus, whites sit on the other side of the campus.

"At any activity done in the auditorium-anything-Blacks sit on one side, whites on the other side, okay? The DA tells the principal to call the students in the auditorium. They get in there. The DA tells the Black students, he's looking directly at the Black students-remember, whites on one side, Blacks on the other side-he's looking directly at the Black students. He told them to keep their mouths shut about the boys hanging their nooses up. If he hears anything else about it, he can make their lives go away with the stroke of his pen."


It’s a similar account to the one in the mainstream press, even down to the “stroke of his pen” line. I can certainly imagine that black students sitting at a self-segregated assembly where the District Attorney is called in to tell students to knock off the racial tensions would feel singled-out. However, it’s a third-hand account from someone directly affected by the situation so it is hard to find this entirely persuasive. Still, it does give one pause because the situations seem so familiar and so plausible. Racism exists. We know this. Self-segregation happens. We know that. So to put them together isn’t much of a stretch.

Following the assembly, racial tensions simmered before a chain of events and non-events led to the brawl in question. Returning to the Post’s piece:

The incident was never reported to police, said U.S. Attorney Donald W. Washington. A report might have triggered a hate-crime investigation, although federal authorities rarely go after juveniles for such crimes. Washington added that if the students had been expelled, tensions might have been eased and the violence avoided.


To me, it’s this paragraph that makes the alarm bells go off. This is a D.A. that is so thorough that he’s willing to go after 16 year old schoolyard brawlers for attempted murder but he doesn’t think enough to report a lynching threat to the police? Walter said he didn’t charge the three students found responsible for the nooses with a crime because he couldn’t find one on the books in Louisiana to charge them with. Assuming that’s true, are we to assume he had never heard of federal hate-crime legislation? Not buying it. He might not have been able to charge those kids under federal law himself, but as gung-ho as he appears to be about law and order one would think he’d make the effort to try and kick that one up to the feds. I guess he had better things to do or something.

In the weeks that followed, the fighting continued. In one scuffle, Robert Bailey, one of the six teenagers now facing trial, said a white man broke a beer bottle over his head after jumping him at a party, but there was no immediate investigation. Months later, Justin Sloan, who is white, was charged with simple battery and given probation for that attack.

Bailey was involved in a second incident when he and friends spotted one of his attackers at a gas station. As Bailey and his friends approached, they said, the white teenager ran to his truck and brandished an unloaded shotgun at them. Bailey helped wrest the weapon away, refused to give it back and was charged with stealing the gun.

Days later came the school fight that led to the prosecutions. Sheriff Carl Smith said the crimes justified the charges.


I find it similarly unbelievable that Mr. Sloan was only charged with simple battery for his attack on Bailey. I’ve seen people charged with assault with a deadly weapon for attacking someone with a bottle. Granted, jurisdictions differ but the crimes don’t seem very far apart.

Undaunted by criticism of his actions and the apparent unequal treatment given these assailants, the District Attorney pressed on with his seemingly excessive charges, convicting Mychal Bell, one of the six, of aggravated assault and conspiracy. Those convictions carried a maximum sentence of 22 years in prison before they were subsequently overturned because Bell was too young to be tried as an adult. Facing increased pressure from civil rights groups, prosecutors have begun to lessen some of the charges faced by the other five. Bell remains in jail while the D.A. figures out what to do with him next.

Bell’s overturned convictions didn’t stop thousands of protesters from descending upon Jena this Thursday, September 20th, and thousands more from protesting in solidarity at satellite actions around the country.

Thousands of chanting demonstrators filled the streets of this little Louisiana town Thursday in support of six black teenagers initially charged with attempted murder in the beating of a white classmate.

The crowd broke into chants of "Free the Jena Six" as the Rev. Al Sharpton arrived at the local courthouse with family members of the jailed teens.

Martin Luther King III, son of the slain civil rights leader, said the scene was reminiscent of earlier civil rights struggles. He said punishment of some sort may be in order for the six defendants, but "the justice system isn't applied the same to all crimes and all people."


Any time you have racial tensions overflowing in the South (or most anywhere, really) you’re going to evoke memories of the civil rights movement, the manifest inequality that spawned it, and the atrocious injustice of slavery that preceded even that. In that sense, the last quote in the above paragraph is the important one, the one that elucidates why this story has touched such a nationwide nerve. Because while many in America believe that Jim Crow have been laid to rest, those that are paying attention know that he’s alive and well and working in our criminal justice system. Beyond the Jena Six are stories like Genarlow Wilson. Beyond that, there is the appallingly racially uneven way that the death penalty is applied. And on and on. Few address it because they choose to fall back on the apparent equality in the way laws are written, but that doesn’t mean they are equally applied. All evidence seems to point to the contrary, in fact.

I don’t know what happened in Jena, Louisiana the day that white kid was assaulted by six black teens. I can’t say for certain that they don’t deserve to be charged with attempted murder. I can say I seriously doubt they do and that I strongly suspect racial bias. However, I know that the justice system is racially biased. While I’m aghast at what this prosecutor has put the Jena six through, I am very encouraged by the response it has received. Reverend Sharpton in a speech at the rally in Jena said that he hoped these protests for the Jena Six would help spark a new civil right’s movement aimed at correcting racial injustice in sentencing. That remains to be seen, but the overwhelming response to this situation speaks to a deep undercurrent of resentment and anger about the way the criminal justice system treats people of color. After all, no one else from around the country really knows what happened either, but you can only see a pattern repeat itself so many times before you begin to believe it is intentional. This situation is just another heavy straw on the camel’s back.

Will it ever break?

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 13

Next

Comments
MessyJessy

MessyJessy

Fort Myers, FL
August 2005

SEP 20, 2007 09:43 PM

IrFu said:

It sounds like to me that you're saying hanging nooses in a tree is a hate crime? As ignorant as it may be, I don't see a crime.



Ummmm do you care to explain how that is not a hate crime?

MessyJessy

MessyJessy

Fort Myers, FL
August 2005

SEP 20, 2007 09:58 PM

IrFu said: Is your point that even "intimidating" someone with racism is illegal? If so, I disagree, siting your link "federal hate-crime legislation" where it says "If a person delivers a hate speech...this would not be considered a hate crime..because no criminal act has occurred." No one was physically hurt by the nooses being hung, so how could it be a crime?



I'm not a lawyer but I am assuming that a "hate speech" as you put it (I am assuming you're speaking about a KKK rally or something because "fighting words" are not protected speech) would be protected by the first amendment whereas hanging nooses would likely not constitute "speech".

Max16Characters

Max16Characters

Korea, Republic Of
March 2003

SEP 20, 2007 11:03 PM

Hell even in Celebrity Justice, it's unequal. Lindsey Lohan steals a car, is caught drunk driving for the second time, tries chasing someone off the road and is found in possession of cocaine and is hardly charged with anything. Foxy Brown violates probation by shoving someone at a hair salon and gets a year in jail for probation violation.

Nessagirl

Nessagirl

Snohomish, WA
May 2006

SEP 20, 2007 11:12 PM

I hadn't heard anything about it until someone in the elevator spoke to me at my apt. complex about it. ANd then i researched some more. I'm disgusted, sadden and slightly outraged. I would just like to know when america will grow up...

and not sweep these everyday issuses under the rug....

*sigh*

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

SEP 20, 2007 11:35 PM

IrFu said:
If that's true, then whats this all about: freethejena6.org? I realize the protests is about injustice as well, but thats certainly not the only thing they're yelling for.


They are yelling for equality. If a white assailant gets no jail time for the same or similar offense, why should a black assailant get 22 years?

I'll be honest, its hard for me to decipher that US Code language. Is your point that even "intimidating" someone with racism is illegal? If so, I disagree, siting your link "federal hate-crime legislation" where it says "If a person delivers a hate speech...this would not be considered a hate crime..because no criminal act has occurred." No one was physically hurt by the nooses being hung, so how could it be a crime?


Intimidation through threat of force to achieve a desired result is always a crime. It's called extortion, generally, and is a criminal act even when there is no physical harm to anyone but mere threats. When it's racially motivated it can be a federal crime in addition. Pure speech (i.e. "I hate black people because they are an inferior race") is not a threat. Hanging nooses on trees to infer that if the black people continue to sit under it that those folks will end up swinging from said nooses IS a threat. That's what the distinction is in the most general terms.

Archaneus

Archaneus

Kalamazoo, MI
October 2006

SEP 20, 2007 11:37 PM

MessyJessy said:

IrFu said: Is your point that even "intimidating" someone with racism is illegal? If so, I disagree, siting your link "federal hate-crime legislation" where it says "If a person delivers a hate speech...this would not be considered a hate crime..because no criminal act has occurred." No one was physically hurt by the nooses being hung, so how could it be a crime?



I'm not a lawyer but I am assuming that a "hate speech" as you put it (I am assuming you're speaking about a KKK rally or something because "fighting words" are not protected speech) would be protected by the first amendment whereas hanging nooses would likely not constitute "speech".



Actually, it's been ruled several times in the Supreme Court that freedom of speech applies to anything meant to make a statement. This does indeed include the hanging of nooses. Now, it's a downright vile thing to do and I don't condone the act itself, but I would say that the Constitution protects their right to do it. Under the circumstances however, this may have been more of a display of force to intimidate and in that case it's not a statement it's a threat of violence, which would be a crime. Of course, the sentencing does still show a huge bias, but I wonder if this would have spun into the huge issue it has if it was some white kids being treated unfairly by a court. I kind of doubt it would have been anything more than a 50 word mention in the back of the newspaper. I'm not saying this is right, I'm just saying this should be less of a race issue and more of a civil injustice issue. When we draw racial lines around everything we just perpetuate the problem.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

SEP 20, 2007 11:39 PM

Archaneus said:

MessyJessy said:

IrFu said: Is your point that even "intimidating" someone with racism is illegal? If so, I disagree, siting your link "federal hate-crime legislation" where it says "If a person delivers a hate speech...this would not be considered a hate crime..because no criminal act has occurred." No one was physically hurt by the nooses being hung, so how could it be a crime?



I'm not a lawyer but I am assuming that a "hate speech" as you put it (I am assuming you're speaking about a KKK rally or something because "fighting words" are not protected speech) would be protected by the first amendment whereas hanging nooses would likely not constitute "speech".



Actually, it's been ruled several times in the Supreme Court that freedom of speech applies to anything meant to make a statement. This does indeed include the hanging of nooses. Now, it's a downright vile thing to do and I don't condone the act itself, I would say that the Constitution protects their right to do it.


You're utterly and fantastically wrong about everything above. Thanks for playing, Kalamazoo.

Archaneus

Archaneus

Kalamazoo, MI
October 2006

SEP 20, 2007 11:57 PM

Subrosa said:

You're utterly and fantastically wrong about everything above. Thanks for playing, Kalamazoo.



Please, go ahead and prove me wrong. I guarantee that you can't and for one simple reason, I'm not. Now, it is indeed speculation on my part to say that the nooses would be included but as I said, the circumstances on this one imply it was a threat, not a speech issue. I can't think of the exact names of the cases off the top of my head since I'm not a lawyer and therefore don't have much reason to memorize the names of said cases but indeed freedom of speech does not just apply to what you say. Freedom of speech covers everything intended to make a statement. A benign statement not meant as an immediate threat. So I will say for the third time, not necessarily the case in this instance, but freedom of speech does indeed cover the hanging of nooses in other situations. Just because you assert that I am wrong does not make it true.

Archaneus

Archaneus

Kalamazoo, MI
October 2006

SEP 21, 2007 12:34 AM

Zarth said:
Racism isn't natural. Suspicion and negative attitudes about people outside your group (however that's defined) is. But racism as such is a social development that evolved during the European colonization of the New World, as an ideological support of a rigidly-defined caste system. That's the legacy we're dealing with currently, both in the Americas and in Europe. It's not atavistic at all, really, but it's so deeply ingrained in our culture that we experience it that way.



I have to respectfully disagree. I'm a history major with a focus on pre-modern history and I can say for a certainty that racism is indeed something experienced and displayed well throughout history. I've heard respected history professors lecture on the subject and there really is a large body of irrefutable evidence to show that racism has existed for as long as humanity has been in contact with other races. Now, really what this gets down to is semantics. On one hand you're completely right, the suspicion and negative attitudes are natural but you ignore the fact that racism is simply that exact thing just directed at a specific other race. They are indeed an outside group. The only real reason that racism as the concept we think of it today can be argued to not have existed is the very narrow way we think of racism. Racism is any prejudice against another racial group, generally for unfounded and bigoted reasons. If anyone wants to discuss medieval instances of racism or very ancient instances of racism I would be very happy to do so it just doesn't need to be explored right here right now, and in any case, much bettered qualified PhD.s have explained it far better than I could. I guess the point here is that racism is a natural human tendency, but that doesn't make it any more true. We are at an age in human history where we should be able to cast off superstitions but sadly we are still just humans and it's hard to break thousands of years of programming. However, part of the reason racism is still such a problem today is because it is so much a part of our culture. And by that I mean the subtle stereotypes injected into everything around us. It would be less of an issue if there wasn't such a conflicting message in our society where on one hand we denounce racism and on the other reinforce it by reducing issues that are related to race, but not purely race-based to straight out race issues.

I apologize for the back to back posts, I was catching up on this topic and responded to some comments as I saw them.

MessyJessy

MessyJessy

Fort Myers, FL
August 2005

SEP 21, 2007 01:59 AM

Archaneus said:
Actually, it's been ruled several times in the Supreme Court that freedom of speech applies to anything meant to make a statement.



Wrong. As I said before, fighting words- such as threats (which is exactly what this was) are NOT PROTECTED speech. If these students were to stand next to the tree and discuss white superiority it would be protected speech, this was not.

Archaneus

Archaneus

Kalamazoo, MI
October 2006

SEP 21, 2007 02:10 AM

MessyJessy said:

Archaneus said:
Actually, it's been ruled several times in the Supreme Court that freedom of speech applies to anything meant to make a statement.



Wrong. As I said before, fighting words- such as threats (which is exactly what this was) are NOT PROTECTED speech. If these students were to stand next to the tree and discuss white superiority it would be protected speech, this was not.



And if you didn't take my comment out of context you would see that I qualified that statement by saying that in this case it probably was a threat and therefore did not qualify. The only reason I started arguing the application of freedom of speech was that someone further up in the thread had said they weren't sure about whether freedom of speech applied to demonstrations as well and someone else then implied that it was only speech literally. I was pointing out that the Supreme Court has backed the idea that freedom of speech protects any demonstration of idea whether it be written, spoken, or demonstrated. I will say this for the... what, I lost count, 5th time now? I am not saying this situation was a freedom of speech issue, it was intended as a rebuttal against the previous statement implying that freedom of speech is for spoken word only. Your response is indicative of misunderstanding my point and intention.

MessyJessy

MessyJessy

Fort Myers, FL
August 2005

SEP 21, 2007 02:18 AM

Archaneus said:

MessyJessy said:

Archaneus said:
Actually, it's been ruled several times in the Supreme Court that freedom of speech applies to anything meant to make a statement.



Wrong. As I said before, fighting words- such as threats (which is exactly what this was) are NOT PROTECTED speech. If these students were to stand next to the tree and discuss white superiority it would be protected speech, this was not.



And if you didn't take my comment out of context you would see that I qualified that statement by saying that in this case it probably was a threat and therefore did not qualify. The only reason I started arguing the application of freedom of speech was that someone further up in the thread had said they weren't sure about whether freedom of speech applied to demonstrations as well and someone else then implied that it was only speech literally. I was pointing out that the Supreme Court has backed the idea that freedom of speech protects any demonstration of idea whether it be written, spoken, or demonstrated. I will say this for the... what, I lost count, 5th time now? I am not saying this situation was a freedom of speech issue, it was intended as a rebuttal against the previous statement implying that freedom of speech is for spoken word only. Your response is indicative of misunderstanding my point and intention.



Chill out douchebag... I could say the same exact thing about your original argument... When did I say that it was not protected for anyone to hang a noose (e.g at their own home)? Where did I say that other forms of communication are not protected speech? I was speaking only in the context of the current issue. Who is misunderstanding now?

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

SEP 21, 2007 04:01 AM

Archaneus said:

Subrosa said:

You're utterly and fantastically wrong about everything above. Thanks for playing, Kalamazoo.



Please, go ahead and prove me wrong. I guarantee that you can't and for one simple reason, I'm not. Now, it is indeed speculation on my part to say that the nooses would be included but as I said, the circumstances on this one imply it was a threat, not a speech issue. I can't think of the exact names of the cases off the top of my head since I'm not a lawyer and therefore don't have much reason to memorize the names of said cases but indeed freedom of speech does not just apply to what you say. Freedom of speech covers everything intended to make a statement. A benign statement not meant as an immediate threat. So I will say for the third time, not necessarily the case in this instance, but freedom of speech does indeed cover the hanging of nooses in other situations. Just because you assert that I am wrong does not make it true.


My point was to clarify that just because something is intended as speech does not make it protected under the first amendment. Symbolic speech (just like regular speech) is limited in many ways, and to say that the students had the right to hang nooses is a gross understatement of law. You've clarified yourself further in subsequent posts, but I was responding to your first which was anything but clear.

Mankarlen

Mankarlen

Columbia City, OR
June 2006

SEP 21, 2007 04:06 AM

There is bias in the justice system in many ways. Justice goes alot of times to who has the most money.

Cairo

Cairo

SUICIDEGIRL

Maryland, USA

SEP 21, 2007 04:21 AM

Excellent article, 'Brosa.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 13

Next