The Jena Six

There may be some of you for which the title of this blog has no meaning. For those, here are the facts, and nothing more.

Jena, Louisiana is a small town with roughly 3,000 residents. The local high school (and the town itself) is roughly 80% white. On the campus of Jena High School there is a tree. It's big, it's pretty and students love to sit under it during lunchtime. Historically, only the white students have sat under this tree. In September 2006 a black student asked school officials if he could sit under the tree. They told him that he could sit wherever he wanted. The boy and a couple of his friends took the school officials up on it and sat under the "white tree". The next day three nooses, painted in school colors, were hanging from the tree. The three white students found to be responsible for hanging the nooses were originally expelled, but the Superintendent of the Parish School Board commuted that sentence, instead suspending the three boys for three days. He called it a "prank".

The black students of Jena High organized a "sit-in" under the tree to protest the lack of justice. The District Attorney and law enforcement officials came to the school to address the protesters reportedly telling the black students, "I can be your best friend or your worst enemy. I can take away your lives with a stroke of my pen."

On Thursday, November 30th, someone tried to burn down the High School.

On Friday, December 1st, a black student attending a white party was beaten by a group of white students.

On December 2nd a young white man pulled a shotgun on three black boys at a Jena convenience store. The boys wrestled the gun away from the man, and fled. The boys were charged with theft of a firearm, the white man was not charged with anything.

On Monday, December 4th, a white student made harassing remarks, using racial slurs and supporting the students who hung the nooses and beat the black student the weekend before. That afternoon he was knocked down, punched and kicked by several black students. He suffered a concussion and several bruises. He was treated at the local hospital and sent home within hours. That evening he attended a social function.

Six black students, supposedly responsible for beating the white boy, were charged with second-degree attempted murder. Bail for the six boys was set between $90,000 and $138,000. All six were expelled from school. Most of the boys stayed in jail for months as their families were unable to come up with the funds for bail.

One of the boys' case has already gone to trial. Mychal Bell, a former star football player, was found guilty by an all-white jury of second-degree aggravated battery and conspiracy. The second-degree murder charge was mysteriously dropped at the last second when it became clear that Mychal wasn't going to plead guilty. Aggravated battery, some of you might know, requires that a deadly weapon be used in the attack. What was Mychal's deadly weapon? His tennis shoes, according to the DA. Mychal is currently awaiting sentencing and if given the maximum, he will be in jail until he is 40.

The other five members of the "Jena Six", as they are being called, await what will undoubtedly be similar fates. Theo Shaw will be the next one to face trial. He was just released on $100,000 bail. The "white" tree on Jena High School's campus is still standing, and still segregated.

There are the facts. Now it's time for the opinion.

**Update** My way might be more poetic, but it appears it is not factual. One of my readers (thank you El Guapisimo) has informed me that the tree in question has recently been cut down. The Superintendent said it's removal was almost necessitated by the reconstruction after the fire. El Guapi did not have any info on where the white students are sitting these days.**End Update**

I've never been to Jena. As a Louisiana native, I've seen just about every square inch of this state, but I haven't been there. I don't know these six boys. There is ever possibility that they are troublemakers, with bad attitudes and a pre-disposition to violence. They might have methodically planned to gang up on the white student and "pay him back" for perceived wrongs. If given the chance to do it over again, they might beat him worse. I don't know.

But I do know injustice when I see it. The fact that the boys who made an obvious threat with the display of the nooses were not punished at all, the boys responsible for beating the black student at a party were given slaps on the wrist, and the man that pulled a gun on three unarmed black boys was not even charged, while these six boys, who happen to have what appears to be the wrong skin color to live in Jena, were charged to the full extent of the law for an act of violence no greater than what is commonly seen in after school fights, is the very definition of injustice. I've never been anything close to a bleeding heart. I believe in law and order, and a strict adherence to the rules. The DA here did not follow the rules.

There is some hope for the boys. Mychal's sentencing (originally scheduled for July 31st) has been postponed until September 20th. The Justice Department is finally paying attention to the case and has begun an investigation into possible civil rights violations. But, without pressure from the state and national level, this case could easily be pushed under the rug. We can't let that happen. The idea that our state is again being painted as such a hotbed of intolerance is unacceptable. The idea that six young black men could have their lives taken away from them without cause while we all stand by and watch is unacceptable.

If you agree with me, even one iota, I ask that you do two things.

1. Follow this link to an online petition. Sign it electronically showing you support for the investigation into civil rights violations in Jena, Louisiana.

2. Contact your Congressman, Senator, Governor or the White House and express your concern with this case. There are form letters for this sort of thing all over the internet. It will take you thirty minutes to find it, fill it in, and send it by email, but it could save these boys from a lifetime behind bars.

If you want more information on how you or others can help you can contact The Jena Six Defense Committee, PO Box 2798, Jena, LA 71342 or by email at jena6defense@gmail.com

One Whiteboy's Opinion

This one could get me in trouble.

This weekend, Major League Baseball is celebrating "Jackie Robinson Day" honoring the man that first broke the color barrier in America's Pastime. This morning, some of the biggest names in the African-American community (as well as giants of sports, politics etc.) will pay their respects to the man that put Grambling State University on the map, Eddie Robinson. But most of the talk this weekend on sports and political programs won't be focused on these two wonderful men. The pundits and their rabid listeners will probably be discussing Don Imus, and Newt Gingrich.

A little more than a week ago, Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, made this less-than-well-thought-out statement, "We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto." He has since apologized (in Spanish even) insisting that while his word choice was poor, his thoughts were well-intentioned. The idea (and I agree with him on this) was that those who speak English fluently have an exponentially better chance of succeeding financially and otherwise in our society. By using mostly (or entirely) their native tongue, immigrants are locking themselves into place geographically, financially and otherwise. For these statements, Newt was hung out to dry.

Aren't they true? Isn't learning the language of business one of the easiest things a person can do to put themselves in a position to succeed? Sure he could have made his point without using that flag word, "ghetto", and therefore implying (however unintentionally) that immigrants (particularly Latinos) WANT to be (and stay) in the ghetto. That's not what Newt meant, and it's not even really what he said. But that's how it was taken. So he apologized and explained. Very good, Newt.

Then there's Don Imus. Imus is not (thank God) a former Speaker of the House. He is the forefather of Disc Jockeys like Howard Stern and Opie and Anthony. He has recently skewed his show a little more political and has hosted some high caliber guests. This made it all the more noticeable when he and his producer, Bernard McGuirk, had the following conversation:

"That's some rough girls from Rutgers," Imus said. "Man, they got tattoos..."

"Some hardcore hos," McGuirk said.

"That's some nappy-headed hos there, I'm going to tell you that," Imus said.

So, before we go any further. I want everyone to understand that these two incidents are COMPLETELY different. Newt Gingrich made an intelligent comment in a tactless way, Don Imus made an insensitive comment trying to get a laugh. This isn't Imus' first controversy, and I'm sure it won't be his last (his ratings are far too high for him to be fired altogether), but hopefully it will make him understand that there are consequences to his actions.

That being said, why do we react so strongly to Imus' statements while letting others just like them pass without commentary. Mr. McGuirk, Imus's producer, made a further racially insensitive statement that is almost never mentioned when journalists or editorialists discuss the incident. Might that be because McGuirk's statement was a quote from a Spike Lee movie? If I read the lyrics to almost any song from rappers like Eazy E or Dr. Dre (minus the profanities of course) over the airwaves, would I be called out for bigotry, racism and misogyny, or would it be overlooked because of the authors?

Don Imus got a butt whooping in the press, and he deserved it, but he's not anywhere near the worst offender where misogynistic and racist comments are concerned. When is it okay to question the actions of people of another race, while not allowing them to question your actions? Jews are often accused of this very attitude. The idea that they can question Israel's policies, but Gentiles must keep their opinions to themselves or be accused of antisemitism. African-Americans sometimes take this one step further. Bill Cosby, for instance. He spoke out about problems he saw for young African-Americans and was called an "Uncle Tom". I don't get it.

Then again, maybe I'm not supposed to. I am, after all, about as white as you can possibly be. I am Protestant, and do come from a middle class family. I'm not the first one in my family to go to college (or to graduate even). I'm not really in any minority. The closest I come is that several generations ago my ancestors crossed the ocean from Ireland. They were a minority, downtrodden and despised. But those days are long over (everybody's Irish on St. Patrick's Day, remember). The Irish went from "No Irish Need Apply" to the White House to beloved part of American society. The days of me being discriminated against are over.

So maybe I can't put myself in the shoes of someone who still lives with oppression and discrimination. Perhaps if I could, I would understand why there are a set of rules that apply to those of us in the group and another set for those outside of the group. Even if I could sympathize with this frame of mind, I still think it is wrongheaded.

The Golden rule, a concept that literally every religion and civilization has some version of, states: Love thy neighbors as thyself. The idea is that we do unto others, as we would have them do to us. We treat others as we want to be treated. Isn't the reflexive true as well? Shouldn't we treat ourselves like we want others to treat us? If we belittle ourselves verbally and overlook our abilities aren't we setting ourselves up for others to do the same?

Doesn't that apply to using racial slurs and sexist speech?

"Mick" is a slang term for Irish that has long since lost its sting, but if it hadn't, and I (and Irish musicians) used it freely, could I really expect for no one outside of my race to use it? Why does anyone want to use the "n-word"? Why not toss that aside as a dark reminder of a time we have left behind?

Likewise if I refer to my wife or my sister as a "ho" or a "bitch," do I have any right to expect others to stay away from such characterization? Sure, I might have meant it as a term of endearment (I'm not sure how), but how can the stranger that overheard us talking know that? I have represented these women I care for as less than worthy individuals, and now he will likely act on that representation. That doesn't make it alright when he uses the offensive words, but it leaves me with a big chunk of the blame.

None of this excuses or explains what Don Imus did. It was offensive, it was rude, and it was wrong. But Al Sharpton and the like should understand that Imus is not the real problem. There seems to be (from one whiteboy's perspective) a culture of negativity that is very prominent in African-American youth, and Don Imus didn't have anything to do with that. But then again, this is just one whiteboy's opinion.