Jena 6 Protest on 9-20 in DC

I was watching the news yesterday here in VA about local and national protests. It's a shame that the news stations I watched only explained the Jenna 6 situation as some white students hung a noose under a tree and then 6 black students brutally beat up a white student. It's funny they interviewed a member of some euro-american group who insisted the only real victim was the white kid!
 
Quote:
Were there other factors involved in how the scholarship was to be issued (i.e. test scores, total GPA, etc) or was it strictly based on performance on the track?
:\
ohwell.gif
said |I
tired.gif


Good Ole Akron... of the 26,000 students... 1800 were black
Click to expand...
 
Quote:
It's a shame that the news stations I watched only explained the Jenna 6 situation as some white students hung a noose under a tree and then 6 black students brutally beat up a white student. It's funny they interviewed a member of some euro-american group who insisted the only real victim was the white kid!
bothThe Argument Culture on this point: A scale will balance only when the items placed on both sides are of equal weight. When journalists showcase marginal, extreme, or even thoroughly discredited views and people in order to provide balance, they give them more weight than they deserve and bestow upon them the credibility of the press.

So when issues like this one are framed, it's presented 1) as a conflict that only has TWO sides 2) it's "balanced" so that these two sides have an "equal" say 3) the media outlet's own agenda is masked as "objective," meaning that their framing of an issue or story (in this case the insufficient background material that oversimplified the Jena 6 timeline and occluded many of the most damning and blatantly racist events) becomes accepted as the single "objective" interpretation, with the other two sides positioned as extremes.

Media coverage, for events like this and countless others, remains critically flawed and public opinion, with regard to a great many issues, has been poisoned as a result.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the explanation, methodman. On one station after interviewing a couple protesters they even stated "to be fair we're going to hear a different side of the story", which was some authority figure in Jena who basically said "there is no law against hanging a noose but it is a crime to assault someone." From what I recall, the news channel stated that some of the outrage was from the fact that the students who hung the noose didn't get punished by the law. So it almost made the comments from the person in Jena seem sensible because the whole situation was never explained properly to begin with.
 
Not to dredge up something people are sick of talking about, but I didn't get the opportunity to respond to this.

Quote:
Thanks for the explanation, methodman. On one station after interviewing a couple protesters they even stated "to be fair we're going to hear a different side of the story", which was some authority figure in Jena who basically said "there is no law against hanging a noose but it is a crime to assault someone." From what I recall, the news channel stated that some of the outrage was from the fact that the students who hung the noose didn't get punished by the law. So it almost made the comments from the person in Jena seem sensible because the whole situation was never explained properly to begin with.


It's interesting you mention that, because it's become something of a theme common to recent coverage of the Jena 6. As expected, most articles allow for an "official" rebuttal - which is an interesting framework to adopt. Generally, a member of the community, demonstrator, leader, or what have you has the opportunity to state their purpose. The "official," be that person a police officer, the DA, or what have you, then has the opportunity to debunk that statement - at least in their view - and offer a last word of sorts. What this means, then, is that the "official" view goes largely unchallenged within the article itself.

You're absolutely right that the community outrage did NOT result because the students who chose to hang nooses on public property were not charged with vandalism or a hate crime but, rather, because they were not expelled - as the principal had initially recommended. The superintendent stepped in and overruled the expulsions, characterizing the act as a "prank."

Now, students were justifiably upset as a result and some of them chose to sit under this same tree in symbolic protest. As a result, police officers and the DA were called in. Step back: someone hangs nooses from a tree, it's a harmless prank. Black students sit under said tree in protest and they call in the cops and the district attorney, who goes on to say that he can "take away [their] lives with the stroke of my pen"? That's just outrageous.

Yet those contradictions in the official statements are rarely brought to light within the same article.

I was reading the front page story on the Washington Post on the 21st, which by the way did not mention the rally at the Capitol Building, and it included the following quote from the same racist DA: "The injury that was done to [Barker] and the serious threat to his survival has become less than a footnote."

Hang on a second. According to a number of reports, including conservative author Jason Whitlocks op-ed appearing in the Kansas City Star, Barker was released from the hospital after three hours. Others, as we've seen, would estimate his length of stay at a mere 45 minutes. Not to trivialize the crime of assault, for the act of beating Barker was, quite obviously, wrong but to characterize his injuries as life threatening in light of the fact that he was out celebrating that same evening at a class ring ceremony seems spurious at best. And yet, it goes unchallenged. The reporters have this information in front of them. Much of it is indisputable. In spite of this, they allow officials to print patent falsehoods and reframe the issue without subjecting these claims to the rigor one would expect from a responsible journalist.

Too often we analyze "what is" on a page without looking at its structure, let alone what's NOT on that page. It's too often accepted that articles are constructed objectively in accordance with fact, that what's included a report encapsulates all of the essential information available without acknowledging that, at any point along the way, spin may be imparted by those interviewed, by official sources, by the reporter, by the editor, by those details included, and by those details omitted.

It's as though you can place something on the table, call it "dinner," and everyone merely assumes that it's wholesome and nourishing.

This is nothing new and certainly nothing exclusive to this particular sequence of events, but it's an interesting case study in that issue framing within the media seems to govern, in large part, the reaction of many citizens to this incident. For example, framing the issue such that outrage over the conduct of the DA, in particular, then becomes interpreted as support for the ACT of assault. That's not the case. The tendency, and there's a lot of theoretical assertions of this that I won't bore everyone with, in today's society is to overlook structural forces, especially with respect to racism, and focus exclusively on individual factors.

I think what's important here, though, is to parse out the disparities in the justice system, in this case the juvenile justice system, and recognize that the interest in this particular case is, primarily, an interest in rectifying these disparities more so than overturning an individual conviction.

For example, there's an enormous disparity in the enforcement of the death penalty depending upon the race of the victim and the race of the assailant. If the victim is white and the perpetrator is black, the accused is FAR more likely to be sentenced to death than would a white murderer convicted of killing a black person or someone whose victim is of the same race. To recognize and object to this disparity is NOT to endorse the act of murder. That's what people need to move beyond. It's not that someone wishes to come to the aid of a murderer per se, but that justice itself comes into question when you and I can commit the same crime and yet, because of race, we may receive drastically different sentences. That is an injustice, and that's what we're faced with here.

Unfortunately, that's NOT how the issue is being framed.
Click to expand...
 
Its sad to see that after all the "protesting" done by thousands of Americans, nothing in this case has changed.
Another one bites the dust!
 
^ Not true... as the DA has "reverse" his position... they are now being tried as Juvees instead of adults...
Whats more confusing to me is why is the one kid still in jail when is bail is just 90K????
 
Quote:
I just want to know was the kid who got beat up one who hung the nose??

Although Justin Barker wasn't among the three students given suspensions (when their expulsions were overruled by the superintendent...) for hanging the nooses, it's alleged that he was involved.

According to witnesses, Barker taunted Bailey, which included the use of racial slurs, because Bailey was attacked at a party by white students earlier in the week. Bailey was struck with a glass bottle, yet his assailants were charged with simple battery resulting in mere probation - not attempted murder and conspiracy.
Click to expand...
 
Method Man is a genius.
+1138
nicefro69
Wanted Badly: Size 11 Wmns Air Max 1 Classic HOA
 
Quote:
Meth, question for you out of curiosity if you were the judge what sentence (if any) would you give the defendants?
anyoneviolencesymbolic "Equalitythat the benefits and burdens of society should not depend on what we look like or where we come from

Redemption(Renewal) that people grow and change over time and deserve a chance to start over after missteps or misfortune

Voicethat we should all have a say in the decisions that affect us

Communitya shared sense of responsibility for each other, our shared fate, and solutions that serve the common good." [/i]


Most people in our society would hold those values regardless of race, class, gender, etc. wouldn't you agree?

So, with that in mind, it's a matter of applying those values to the current situation. Most of us value equality and justice. What is it about justice that's pertinent to the Jena 6? Well, when we think of justice, we think "the punishment should fit the crime," and with respect to simple fairness, most would agree that the same input should produce the same output. In other words, if you and I both shoot free throws, we should each receive one point. If you and I both pass go, we should each receive $200. That didn't happen here. Our shared value has been violated.

You can go on down the line from there, and to avoid another lengthy response I'll assume that everyone can fill in the blanks, though we can certainly discuss the other points if desired.

The biggest problem with the framing of the Jena 6 is that most people don't think it affects them. It affects ALL of us. The treatment of the Jena 6 - whether you would've attacked someone who addressed you by using a racial slur or not - is an affront to our shared values. It's an affront to JUSTICE.
Click to expand...
 
I never intended to accuse you of asking a trick question, but I interpreted it as a representative question. In other words, I thought what you were ACTUALLY asking was about whether I agreed with or was willing to wholly overlook the violence that did indeed occur - and the answer is no.

With regard to "Free the Jena 6," think for a moment about the amount of time these young people have spent in detention, what's happened to them, their families, their lives. Compare that to the sentences issued to others in violation of assault - e.g. probation. Wouldn't you say they SHOULD be freed? Their time has already been served and THEN some. They're being held when someone CONVICTED of battery was given probation and set free. Think about the bail component of this.

I think that gets at the point behind your question, but I'll address your question, too, because it's a valid one.


What's a fair sentence? Well, let's go back to our values.

I believe in redemption. Young people make mistakes. That doesn't mean that we all go through a phase in life where we're beating people up at parties, thank goodness, but fights happen and we all know that. To suggest that someone should be sent to prison until he's middle-aged due to a fight as a teenager precludes the possibility of redemption. You're taking that person out of the prime of their life, a time in their life when they must gain experience, education, and job skills if they're to successfully integrate into society. If you come out of prison at age 36 and, at best, you've earned a GED while in prison - what, realistically, are your life chances? By the odds, you're condemning this person to poverty almost as surely as a 25 year sentence condemns a 70 year old to death in prison. There's a chance it won't happen, but the odds are overwhelmingly against it. You're saying that you don't think this person has any chance to become a productive member of society - and how can you do that to a 17-18 year old young man because of a fight?

I don't agree with the concept of selectively trying a minor as an adult. That's inherently biased. We have a firm definition of what a minor is. To change that in the middle of the game to produce a different outcome is sort of like the Tim Donaghy situation. It's not enough for this person to be found guilty, but we need him to be sentenced to ________. That's like covering the spread. You don't say, "we've decided to try you as a woman because the jails are all full here and we really, really want to send you to jail." Your status is what it is. To even attempt to alter that betrays a desired outcome.

Is a punishment required? Sure. We have to acknowledge, though, that a young person in this situation isn't going to count on the system to protect them, which encourages you to stand up for yourself because no one else will, whereas from the privileged perspective if someone were to strike or harass you you'd almost certainly let the law handle it - because based on your experience you feel like the law is there to protect you in that situation. The law did not protect these young people in Jena. It did not protect them when nooses were hung from a tree - which is a CLEAR threat and a serious crime. A noose doesn't signify a broken nose, it signifies a broken NECK. Nor did the law protect these students when, for example, Robert Bailey Jr. was attacked with a broken bottle. So, why in the world would he then feel, the next evening, that the law would protect him and his classmates when someone who allegedly helped hang those nooses, someone who mocked him for being beaten, was calling him by a racial slur and attempting to take his dignity from him? The law did not protect these young people, and I think many of us WOULD have done the same thing had we been 17-18 years old and placed in that situation.

Ultimately, we don't wish this to be the case. We'd like to think that the law would serve to protect ALL of us, no matter our wealth, no matter our connections, no matter our race or ethnicity, no matter our religion, no matter our sexual orientation, no matter our gender, no matter our style of dress.

But, yes, you want to send the message that conflict should not be resolved through violence. You don't do that by ignoring the incident, but nor can you ignore the circumstances that contextualize and, in some ways, caused this to occur.

Is a punishment warranted? Yes.

Does it have to be extensive jail time? Not at all. It could be community service for a first-time offender. For someone with priors, you could certainly add in counseling or perhaps a stay in juvenile hall IF that experience serves to better integrate someone into society as opposed to isolating them. In other words, the juvenile hall experience is a deterrent, yes, but it should also be a way of taking someone from a negative environment and exposing them to a set of services that allow them to walk away further ahead as opposed to further behind.

When jail WORKS for people, you so often hear them say "jail saved my life. Had I stayed on the streets, I wouldn't be here today." It works as an intervention of last resort whereby an individual is removed from a negative environment and given access to a well-stocked library, to classes, to different ideologies that help present different possibilities, different ways of being such that people are able to formulate a different image of themselves. That's when people change.

It's not that the outside world doesn't have libraries, doesn't have classes, doesn't have counselors - but that people can become stuck in a situation where it becomes increasingly difficult for them to access these resources or even consider them a part of their world. If you become known as a "problem student," the further you slide the further that school pushes you away. If you become known as a criminal, the further you slide the further that society pushes you away. It's a slippery slope, and once you pass a certain point, what attachment do you have? Why do you respect that school, that society, their values - values that consider you unworthy, hopeless, and undesirable?

I think it depends on what you want out of the criminal justice system. Many people - in spite of their actual values - just want the criminal justice system to be used to remove "bad people" from society. They don't need them to die, per se, but they just need to be banished, taken somewhere far away and safely under lock and key so that there's no chance of these "bad people" ever crossing paths with you in a dark alley or moving next door to you.

Someone whose actions are in line with their value of redemption, though, would want the criminal justice system to behave differently - at least with respect to people we still consider REACHABLE, and most of us would have to consider young people, still so malleable, in that category. The ultimate goal isn't to take these people out of negative environments, but to take the negativity out of the environments in which we live.

This is all sort of beyond the immediate point, though. The immediate point is that, yes, you have to acknowledge that a wrong was committed and you have to take certain steps to ensure that EVERYONE is protected by the law. That means penalizing those who violate it.

I think we all know, though, that had a wealthy white kid gotten into a fight at a party, no one would even raise the possibility of serious jail time, much less in an adult correctional facility. Ultimately, that's what this is about. It's not that people dispute the need for law, only the fairness of its application.
 
if theres one thing that this situation has reminded me of, its that i @#%$ hate everyone and everything in this entire world
BEE THHERREE!!
 
QUESTION?Link to YouTube Video



I mean... if it is them... I know they are young and all... but... nevermind.

They should not done them boys like that but then if this is them... come on... play it smarter

Dont even bother reading the youtube comments.. they are worst then the ones left on WTOP (regarding PWC immigration laws and such)... what times we living in.
 
J PayCheck, it is really the dude from the Jena 6. I was looking into it myself last night, and came across an article where a relative of his defended him about the pics:

blackinformant.com/2007/09/29/
At night at dream that when I wake up, the males in the area will no longer be dressed like deflated packs of Skittles.
 
Quote:
This is all sort of beyond the immediate point, though. The immediate point is that, yes, you have to acknowledge that a wrong was committed and you have to take certain steps to ensure that EVERYONE is protected by the law. That means penalizing those who violate it :smh:
smh.gif
Click to expand...
 
Quote:
If it was all so simple...

If it were that simple, people would've been expelled for hanging nooses on school grounds. If it were the simple, those who assaulted black victims wouldn't be given a slap on the wrist and a kiss on the cheek while those who assaulted white victims wouldn't be tried with attempted murder.

Let's not confuse supporting the cause with complete and total endorsement of the individuals involved. If they're acting foolish on myspace, people have a right to be disappointed but it really doesn't change anything on the larger scale. The issue is institutionalized racism. We're just looking at one everyday example that has finally been granted, however belatedly, a couple weeks of national attention.

That the 18 year olds involved are acting very much like 18 year olds doesn't mean that institutionalized racism does not REQUIRE the full attention of the nation.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tr1ll
I propose a new SPOILER rule for media in NT's Terms and Rules.
Replies
22
Views
2K
maldonado
maldonado
eracism
Texas ranked worst state for quality of life
5 6 7
Replies
165
Views
10K
Mark Antony
M

Latest News

View All News

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

Site contents may not be incorporated into AI training data or any other derivative works without prior express written consent.

Links to participating merchants may generate referral or affiliate commissions that help support our community. See our policies for details. NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom