Can Even O.J. Be a Victim of a Police Rush to Judgment?
Earl Ofari Hutchinson
O.J. Simpson screamed loud and long that anyone who thinks he’s stupid enough to commit robbery in of all places Las Vegas has got to be nuts. The world’s best known accused and acquitted double murder defendant seems to have a point. His mug is known far and wide, and any and everything he does generally makes news. And when it doesn’t he makes sure that he turns up at a sports card signing, makes a reality show pitch, or takes a failed shot at a self-confessional book to grab some headlines and further stir the public’s hate Simpson juices.

So why did Simpson according to police feel that he needed to charge into a hotel room and snatch and grab some sports memorabilia from two collectors, at gunpoint no less? Why not call the police if the items as he claims are his and have them recover them? Simpson says the explanation is simple. The police won’t lift a finger to help him. That’s a clumsy, but tactful way of saying that he’s a marked man, and that police have had it in for him ever since he beat the double murder charge.
At first glance this seems to be the desperate rant of a guy who’s prone to lie, cheat, and as most think kill. But beyond his vehement protest that he’s innocent, Simpson also knows that playing the anti- police card might resonate if ever so slight with some. There’s no evidence at this stage of the case that Simpson was framed, or that Las Vegas police licked their chops at the thought of getting him back in a legal noose. He was at the hotel, the goods were taken, and a robbery complaint was filed.

From the day that he beat the double murder rap and walked out of a Los Angeles court a decade ago, he has gone wherever he pleased and done what he pleased. He’s at times been trailed by a pack of doting former fans, and celebrity gawkers. There is no evidence that police in any of these cities have routinely subjected him to a special get Simpson profile. Yet, Simpson’s ill gained notoriety and perverse celebrity virtually guarantee that the legal hammer will drop especially hard on him at the first whiff of criminal wrongdoing. There is little chance that given the savage public mood toward him and the two person truth squad of Fred Goldman and Denise Brown continually wagging the guilt finger at him that Simpson would get benefit of the doubt on any charges against him, and he, of all people, should know that.
Since the bloody and mangled bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman were found in the walkway of his Brentwood, California apartment a more than a decade ago, it seems that time has stood still with him. Tongues still furiously wag at the mention of the murders and at him. If a poll were taken today, a majority of the public will still rage that Simpson is a murderer who skipped away scot-free, and that the trial and his acquittal were a farce and a blatant travesty of justice. But there are also some who would contend that Simpson was victimized by a biased criminal justice system and the verdict to acquit was a just one.
Simpson didn't invent or originate this sometimes ugly divide in public opinion about celebrity guilt. It has always lurked just beneath the surface. But his case propelled it to the front of public debate and anger. The horde of Simpson media commentators, legal experts and politicians that branded the legal system corrupt and compromised also fueled public belief that justice is for sale. Simpson's acquittal seemed to confirm that the rich, famous and powerful have the deep pockets to hire a small army of high priced, high profile attorneys, expert witnesses, experts, and investigators that routinely mangle the legal system to stall, delay, and drag out their cases, and eventually allow their well-heeled clients to weasel out of punishment. Even when prosecutors manage to win convictions of or guilty pleas from celebrities, their money, fame, power, and legal twisting often guarantee that they will get a hand slap jail sentence, if that.
Whether the police did indeed as Simpson claims rush to judgment and grossly overcharged him, and he eventually stands trial, the chatter from most will be that a killer is finally getting at least some of his due. Others will say that even Simpson can be a victim of a vindictive and unforgiving criminal justice system. The truth as always may lie somewhere between the two views. In any case, Simpson will do his best to make sure that a public that believes that everything he says is a lie believes that even he can be falsely accused. A second non-trial of the century, anyone?

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book The Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation between African-Americans and Hispanics (Middle Passage Press and Hispanic Economics New York) in English and Spanish will be out in October.

Why the Feds Won’t Prosecute West Virginia Torture Case as a Hate Crime
Earl Ofari Hutchinson
The Reverend Emanuel Heyliger, pastor of the Ferguson Memorial Baptist Church in Dunbar, West Virginia was livid when he got word that federal prosecutors won’t prosecute the attack on Megan Williams as a hate crime. It seemed that if ever there was a case that screamed for the feds to jump in and charge the six crime prone, apparently hate spewing whites that assailed the young black woman with a hate crime, this was the case. The heinous facts seemed beyond dispute. The bunch allegedly kidnapped, tortured, raped and harangued her with racial epithets.
But Heyliger in his understandable anger missed one thing. The feds will do anything and everything possible to stay out of state criminal cases, especially cases that are racial tinged. There are two reasons for their keeping hands off. Federal prosecutors are loath to step on the toes of police and prosecutors in criminal cases, no matter how badly the crime is tainted by race. Federal prosecutors flatly said that William’s assailants are more likely to be convicted and get stiff sentences in state court. That makes perfectly good legal and political sense.
The other reason for their non-involvement is much more troubling. Federal prosecutors have rarely placed much stock on bringing criminal civil rights cases. They see them as no-win cases with little political gain, and the risk of making enemies of local police, DAs, and state officials. The rare time that the feds cracked down on civil rights violence was during the 1960s civil rights battles. The wave of violence then stirred national and international revulsion and forced then President Lyndon Johnson to order more civil rights prosecutions.
Though federal prosecutors in recent times have had more than sufficient legal ground to bring cases in the old race murders from the 1960s, the prosecutions have been almost exclusively in state courts. The only exceptions to the set in stone rule that prosecutors stay out of state cases occurs when a hate crime triggers a major riot, generates mass protests or attracts major press attention. The Rodney King beating case in Los Angles in 1992 is still the best example of how it took a mass civil upheaval to move the feds to go full blast after a conviction of the police that beat King, and then only after a failed prosecution in state court. The King case is also an example of how criminal cases with clear civil rights abuses become highly politicized and racially divisive.
The Williams case is a near textbook example of how prosecutors deal with crimes, even possibly racially motivated crimes. They may be horrific, but they are seen as common crimes and are treated as such. Few state prosecutor will chance inflaming racial passions and hatreds by slapping a hate crime tag on a case.
There’s also the belief that hate crimes are mostly a thing of the past. When they do occur, they are isolated acts committed by a handful of quacks, and unreconstructed bigots, and that state authorities vigorously report and prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes.
When Congress passed the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990, it compelled the FBI to collect figures on hate violence. However, it did not compel police agencies to report them. Record keeping on hate crimes is still left up to the discretion of local police chiefs and city officials. Many police departments still refuse to report hate crimes, or to label crimes in which gays, and minorities are targeted because of race or sexual preference as hate crimes. Still other police departments don't bother compiling them because they regard hate crimes as a politically loaded minefield that can tarnish their image and create even more racial friction. The official indifference by many police agencies to hate crimes prevents federal officials, even if they wanted to more aggressively enforce civil rights laws, from accurately gauging the magnitude of civil rights violence.
The picture of how much hate violence there actually is in the country and even what constitutes hate violence is even more blurred by confusion and uncertainty over what makes a crime a hate crime. Simply pillorying someone with racial epithets while committing a physical assault may not pass the legal muster of what is a hate crime. The crucial element is whether the racial epithets shouted out were incidental to the attack or were they the precipitating factor in the attack? It’s the finest of fine legal hair splitting. But ultimately that’s what prosecutors rightly or wrong look at in deciding whether they have any chance to get convictions in crimes where race is involved.
The black ministers in West Virginia are dumbfounded at the apparent refusal of federal prosecutors to recognize what they see as a cut and dried case of white bigots brutalizing an innocent young black woman. That’s probably exactly what happened. Yet when prosecutors try to sort out whether a crime is a hate motivated crime or just plain crime it’s anything but cut and dried.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book The Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation between African-Americans and Hispanics (Middle Passage Press and Hispanic Economics New York) in English and Spanish will be out in October.

Jena Case Won’t Help Black Teen Offenders in Louisiana (Or Anywhere Else)
Earl Ofari Hutchinson

Four years before an indifferent, drowsy press and public finally fumed at the news that a prosecutor and judge tossed the book at six black teens in a small Louisiana town for beating up a white teen following a racially charged incident, a Louisiana legislative investigating team sternly warned that the state’s juvenile justice system was horribly mangled. It found that the state couldn’t lock up juveniles fast enough for mostly non-violent crimes. The team noted that the sentences slapped on them were wildly out of proportion to their crimes, and that the kids had almost no access to counseling, job and skills training, and family support programs that could ensure that they didn’t wind up back in the slammer. Though alternative sentencing programs are far more cost effective than jailing, they are scarce and under-funded, and Louisiana officials have resisted calls to increase funding and resources to boost these programs.

The investigators also found unsurprisingly that black teens were hit with far stiffer sentences than white teens for the same crimes. It made no difference whether the whites had a prior history of criminal or bad behavior and the black teens were alter boys and had a squeaky clean record. The blacks still got harsher sentences. Countless studies show that a black teen is six times more likely to be tried and sentenced to prison than young whites, even when the crimes are similar, or even less severe than those committed by white teens. Nationally, blacks make up 40 percent of youths tried in adult courts and nearly 60 percent of those sentenced to state prisons.

In Jena, the prosecutor, mostly because of the public furor over the case, reduced charges against two of the youth. But that’s an exception. Prosecutors nearly always push for hard time for offenders. This is infuriatingly apparent in Jena. One of the defendants, a star football player, was convicted on a reduced battery charge. Yet, he still could get a 15 year prison sentence.

The investigators implored the legislature to do something to correct the problem. They came up with a series of reform recommendations. They were largely ignored and four years later, state legislators have shown little inclination to fully enact the juvenile justice reforms. Louisiana legislators haven’t turned a tin ear to screams for reform solely out of ignorance, inertia, or fear of a public backlash. The legislators read and watch the same relentless stream of newspaper and television reports of drive-by shootings, drug shootouts, and gang wars, most of them involving young blacks. This confirms the terrified feeling that many Americans have that young people -- especially young black males -- are out of control.

They are convinced that teen violence has spawned a new class of youthful "super predators" and that the juvenile justice system is far too easy on them. The notion that juveniles are running wild though is a myth. According to recent FBI crime figures, the rates for murder and assault among teenagers have plummeted since 1993, even among black teens.

Yet politicians have overreacted badly to the public panic. In the past decade, more than thirty states have loosened if not eliminated laws requiring juveniles be tried and sentenced in juvenile courts. The criminal justice system's harsh treatment of young blacks, like the Jena teens, fuels the suspicion of many blacks that judges, prosecutors and probation officers bend way over backwards to give young white offenders the benefit of the doubt and are far less willing to label and treat, them as dangerous habitual offenders, even when they commit violent crimes. One study of the attitudes of probation officers toward black and white teen offenders found that they were far more likely to attribute black juvenile crimes to family or character flaws such as chronic disrespect toward authority and to brand them as inherent troublemakers. They were more likely to blame white bad behavior on conditions outside their control such as hanging out with the wrong crowd, or to troubling family conflicts. Judges and prosecutors read the probation reports and heed their recommendations and if they are favorable, as they are more often than not with young whites, judges are much more inclined to approve alternative sentencing or treatment programs for them. An unfavorable report is just as likely to result in hard time in juvenile or adult jails.

The outrage over the Jena case will probably force town prosecutors to edge away a little more from the harsh charges against the teens, but only a little. They, like prosecutors everywhere, are convinced that black teens are habitual lawbreakers and that the public clamors for them to heave the book at them. And that’s exactly what they routinely do in daily courts throughout the country. It’s business as usual for black teen offenders and Jena won’t change that. And that’s an even bigger tragedy.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book The Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation between African-Americans and Hispanics (Middle Passage Press and Hispanic Economics New York) in English and Spanish will be out in October.

Oprah’s Star Power Does Zilch for Obama
Earl Ofari Hutchinson

What do Willie Nelson, Madonna, Jon Bovi, Martin Sheen, and in reverse, George Clooney have in common? They are big money celebrities and virtual household names. They all endorsed Democratic presidential candidates in 2004. Nelson endorsed Dennis Kucinich. Bon Jovi endorsed John Kerry. Sheen endorsed Howard Dean. Madonna backed Wesley Clark. One of their picks went down to flaming defeat. The other three never came close to getting the Democratic presidential nomination.
As for Clooney, he publicly declared that he hoped that his non-endorsement of Kerry probably helped him at the polls. It didn’t. But at least Clooney recognized a political truism that’s etched in stone. That’s that a celebrity cheer lead of a presidential candidate does absolutely nothing to boost the candidate.
Yet mega star Oprah Winfrey thinks things can be different now that she’s signed on as one of Barack Obama’s major bankrollers, an ex-officio campaign cheerleader, and celebrity marketer. After all how could millions of voters refuse a command from the closest thing to America’s earth mother to back Obama? It’s simple. Almost no one pays any attention to what celebrities have to say about politicians. A September Newsweek poll removed any doubt about that. Barely three percent of respondents said that a celebrity endorsement had any influence on who they voted for. Oprah will have zilch effect on Obama’s White House run for two common sense reasons.
In between an occasional touch on social issues, Oprah feeds millions of daytime housewives and house husbands a steady dose of sneaks and peeks into gossipy movie star chit chat and self-help marital and family relationship problem solving. Now in one big leap she’s asking the same millions that dote on her sage advice on relationships to shift gears and trust her judgment that Obama is the best to handle global warming, tax policy, the Iraq war, terrorism, job creation and inflation, failing public schools, criminal justice issues, and judicial appointments. That’s like asking millions to accept disgraced Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick as the chair of the Humane Society of the U.S.’s animal cruelty prevention week. It’s a terrible fit, and Oprah lovers will see through that.
The one group, though, that Obama is banking that Oprah can help pry loose from the Hillary column is women. But polls have shown that women voters don't march in lock step with a woman candidate solely based on gender no matter how much personal sympathy and empathy they may have with the female candidate. They also judge a female candidate on their stance on the issues, their political beliefs and party affiliation. Hillary is a tough sell to many women who either like or loathe her, and she's a politician. There's absolutely no reason to think that women voters will stampede to Obama because their favorite female talk show guru told them too.
The ultimate irony is that Oprah's roughest sale of Obama will be to black women. Polls show that they are overwhelmingly backing Hillary. Though most adore Oprah and are well aware of her long standing backing of Obama, that hasn't shaken their support of Clinton the least bit.

The other reason Oprah's lusty public cheer of Obama won't work is Oprah. She’s fabulously bankable, and much beloved, but she’s also an African-American. And so is Obama. Oprah hasn’t given the faintest hint that her tout and bankroll of Obama has anything to do with race, and is careful to make it clear that it’s based solely on her belief that his competence and qualifications make him the right presidential stuff. However, an underlying suspicion is that there’s more to it than that and that she’s just as thrilled as many other blacks at the thought that an African-American can actually bag the presidency. That’s not exactly playing the race card, but for an untold number of skeptical voters, and that include those that are enraptured with Oprah, it edges uncomfortably close to a racial motive.
Recent polls have shown that more whites than ever say they are willing to vote for a black candidate for the presidency and that they like Obama. They also say by big margins that he is to new on the scene, inexperienced, and unknown. His gaffes on foreign policy in debates, and his grope for a killer position that will separate him from the other Democratic candidates hasn’t done much to mark him as a sure-handed, experienced, public policy wonk.
Super celeb George Clooney came closest to sizing up the media and public’s infatuation with Obama when he compared him to a rock star. That's not good. How many voters would vote for Madonna for president, or even Clooney for that matter? That's not to say that endorsements don't help a candidate, but they have to be the right endorsements. The right ones come from seasoned politicians and respected industry, labor, or public interest groups that have the trust and confidence of voters, and a solid track record in fighting for legislation and public policy change.
Oprah can dump plenty of cash into Obama’s campaign coffers, and that counts for something. But it’s not the adrenalin shot that his candidacy needs. That’s the something even America's most beloved day time talk show host can’t give.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book The Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation between African-Americans and Hispanics (Middle Passage Press and Hispanic Economics New York) in English and Spanish will be out in October.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book The Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation between African-Americans and Hispanics (Middle Passage Press and Hispanic Economics New York) in English and Spanish will be out in October.

The Unbearable Whiteness of Viewing Tween-Teen Film

By Sikivu Hutchinson

On Friday nights, after the clamor of the school day dies down and the kid-driven euphoria of the weekend mounts, a simple trip to the video store in search of a children’s DVD can resemble a cultural minefield. While feature length DVDs of Barbie, imperiled princesses, anthropomorphized ponies with flowing hair and big blue eyes, and Europeanized Japanese characters abound, cartoon or dramatic depictions that center on girl of color protagonists are, not surprisingly, absent from the shelves.* The lack is a reminder of how little progress has been made in the tween/teen film industry, despite the widespread mantra that youth multiculturalism in advertising and programming is “hot” and a colorblind standard is the norm.
To be a girl of color and a media consumer is to be positioned as perpetual voyeur. Media savvy, deluged with the latest fashion and glamour news on pop singers and fifteen minutes of fame movie stars, girls of color negotiate a morass of cultural products that supposedly promote “affirming” themes for tween/teen girlhood. In this era of tween/teen consumer sophistication, the narrative of the empowered heroine predominates. One of the more shopworn examples of this empowerment narrative is represented by the scrappy white heroine, alà the protagonist of the summer movie musical hit Hairspray, set in 1960s Baltimore. The scrappy white heroine is a time honored tradition in literature, mainstream movie melodrama and teen flicks. She is generally an outsider of sorts; either in appearance, class station or both. She fearlessly treads where the more self-absorbed won’t deign to venture, breaking curfew, defying the strict Christian mores of her straight-laced family and/or most daringly, consorting with the denizens of black communities. For this heroine racial otherness is an adventure, a resort vacation into heretofore unexplored vistas of self-discovery. As always in these kinds of scenarios blackness holds special appeal for the white outsider because of its transgressive potential. Black music, black dance styles, black lingo—are all ripe territories for vigorous Euro mining and imitation. The exploration of these hackneyed themes via the travails of a white female protagonist struggling with her own “outsider” status in the thin, blond-worshipping, relatively privileged world of middle class Baltimore has its precursor in literature like Norman Mailer’s infamous 1950s “White Negro” shtick and the global appropriation of hip hop by white consumers.
In Hairspray, the white female protagonist’s spiritual journey officially takes off when she is sent to detention and discovers that it is merely a showcase for “funky” black dance shenanigans. The blacks, of course, are just waiting to corrupt an impressionable young white thing like her. Much of the film’s visual spark lies in its near obsessive focus on Tracy’s bright-eyed bushy tailed exuberance over her dalliances with forbidden fruit.
What are young black female viewers to make of these portrayals? While my elementary school-aged nieces loved the singing, dancing and pageantry of the film, they are old enough (with some prompting), to grasp the relevance of all the black students in the film being confined to detention. Disciplinary action at any age is a harsh and ever present reality for black children, one that satirical movie portrayals of frolicking black youth can’t obliterate. Since images of unruly black children abound in American culture, featuring a group of black teens dancing in a classroom with no teacher in evidence is just another slice of comic relief for most mainstream audiences.
When presented with evidence of their irrelevance, children of color make the painful adjustment to misidentification. Socialized with white beauty norms, consuming and misidentifying with whiteness becomes an intimate part of the young female viewer’s experience of visual “pleasure.” Countervailing images of black, Latino and Asian femininity are available in literature (and to a much lesser extent in alternative film by artists of color) but are insidiously measured against the gold standard of white femininity. In fact, a recent revisitation of the 1954 Kenneth and Mamie Clark “doll test” by a young filmmaker named Kiri Davis found that black children still identified white or lighter skinned dolls as being “nice,” while darker-skinned dolls were still rejected as being “bad.” Davis’ widely acclaimed documentary on black female teen self-identity, “A Girl Like Me,” is a welcome antidote to depictions of black female hypersexuality, and a reminder that more black women need to be behind the camera to truly turn the tide of disfigured black images.
The dominant culture’s equation of female agency with unbridled sexuality and exhibitionism is especially damaging for young black women. While white women like Hairspray’s fictitious heroine have always had the luxury to flout patriarchal categories of “good girl” “bad girl” without fear of relinquishing their claim to white privilege, black women and other women of color are already marked as amoral, sexual and hence outside of “normative” femininity. Early exposure to these kinds of narratives sets a dangerous precedent for tween/teen girls of color, who are readily deployed in white TV programs and films as streetwise/commonsensical sidekicks for imperiled white girls and/or the “sassy” antidote to white girl “blandness.”
If efforts like Davis’ are to be more than just a drop in the bucket there must be a nationwide push to train middle and high school aged black women to do similar documentary and narrative film work around image construction. Programs such as L.A.’s Inner City Filmmakers and New York-based Women Make Movies help connect youth with production, development and distributional resources to critically engage the media regime with their films. Without these initiatives, and more, the multi-billion dollar tween/teen film industry will continue to thrive on our complicity in the distortion of black female subjectivity.

*With the possible exception of such popular staples as Dora the Explorer and the Cheetah Girls.

Sikivu Hutchinson is an author and writer specializing on women's and cultural issues.

Here They Come Again: Another Go Round for Wacky 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Earl Ofari Hutchinson

There isn’t much that the 9/11 conspiracy theorists say that can or should be believed. That even includes the windy claim that their celebration in New York of the sixth anniversary of the September 11 terror attacks will be the biggest in history. The problem with that grandiose boast is that the same bunch claimed last year that their fifth anniversary event would be the biggest yet. In the fine print at the bottom of the wearechange.org website release, they add the “clarification” that many of the performance artists for their big 9/11 concert shebang are only tentatively scheduled to appear. Translated: The conspiracy theorists dumped any artist’s name they could find on the bill, and they’re keeping their fingers crossed that a few might actually show up.

None of this should surprise anyone who has the dimmest notion of what and how the 911 conspiracy theorists operate. We’re all by now well familiar with the way they’ve spun the 9/11 plot. The attacks were part of a sinister plan by President Bush, the GOP, the CIA, FBI and Justice Department to wipe out civil liberties protections, impose a national security state, create a pretext for the quagmire in Iraq, regiment the American people, and strengthen the hand of the pro Israeli lobby in U.S. politics. Some of the more shrill theorists with an anti-Semitic bent flat out say that the terror attack was part of a decades old web of intrigue woven by international Jewish groups to dominate global politics.

Conspiracy theorists allege that explosives were planted at the WTC, Jewish and Israeli Tower workers and occupants were warned the day before supposedly by Mossad (Israeli Intelligence) to stay away, a missile slammed into the Pentagon, the government hid the wreckage of the United Airlines plane that terrorists crashed in Pennsylvania. Every one of these theories has been subject to repeated and meticulous tests, studies, and examinations. And every one of them has been proven absolutely groundless.

But thousands of Americans still believe them. That’s easy to understand. The American woods swarm with groups that fervently believe that government, corporate, or international Zionist groups busily hatch secret plots, and concoct hidden plans to wreak havoc on their lives. The Manchurian Candidate syndrome popularized in books and countless movies and TV shows has firmly implanted the notion that shadowy, government groups routinely topple foreign governments, assassinate government leaders, and brainwash operatives to do dirty deeds.

9/11 conspiracy theories have so easily infected the popular imagination for two other not so zany reasons. Government agencies, such as the FBI, CIA, Army intelligence, with the connivance of presidents, have often played fast and loose with the law and even the rules of democracy. They have spied on, harassed, and jailed thousands of Americans from Communists to anti-war activists. The biggest, juiciest and most relentless target for government spymasters during the past decades has been African-American political groups from the moderate NAACP to the radical Black Panther Party and the Nation of Islam. Just two weeks before this years 9/11 anniversary a fresh batch of publicly disclosed FBI documents show that the agency waged a kinder, gentler, but no less illegal, spy campaign against Coretta Scott King then the relentless, and lethal campaign the FBI waged against her husband, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The other reason for the paranoid style about 9/11 is the fury that many Americans have toward President Bush. Many Americans are still convinced the GOP hijacked the White House by rigging the votes in Florida in 2000, and repeated the ploy in Ohio in 2004. That makes it easy to believe that the GOP and the administration will say and do anything to win and hold power. The Florida vote was a mix of registrar ineptitude, bureaucratic bungling, partisan political haggling, legal interpretation, and Democratic Party capitulation rather than a concerted conspiracy to seize the top office. The Ohio vote in 2004 was more of the same on a smaller scale. But Bush ultimately conned more voters in Ohio (including the black evangelicals) into believing that he would do a better job of defending family values and fighting the war on terrorism than Democrats. He and the GOP did not need to hatch a conspiracy to do that.

Bush, as other presidents that have got in hot water with the American people with their domestic and foreign policy fumbling, are hardly above beating the war drums and fanning national security jitters to boost their poll ratings, secure public allegiance, and increase their party’s political standing. Bush has done that at times. But his in the tank poll ratings, and the resistance of Congress, and the Democrats, and millions of Americans to the war and the further erosion of civil liberties protections, prove that if there was indeed a 9/11 conspiracy to seize power it didn’t work. But of course there wasn’t one. Yet, on the six anniversary the conspiracy theorists will again busily spin their shopworn 9/11 conspiracy fantasies. And that’s part of the fun of conspiracies; they don’t require any proof, just true belief.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book The Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation between African-Americans and Hispanics (Middle Passage Press and Hispanic Economics New York) in English and Spanish will be out in October.

Will They Arrest Britney in Mansfield for Sagging Pants?
Earl Ofari Hutchinson

It’s a good thing that Brittany was at the MTV TRL show in London a year or so ago and not in Mansfield, Louisiana when she pranced across the stage with her pants slung low around her behind. If Spears had dared to show so much belly and behind flesh in the town on September 15 she would be fined $150 and tossed in the slammer for 15 days. But we all know that the screwy, harebrained law that the fashion censors in Mansfield and a handful of other Louisiana cities passed in recent years that mandate fines, community service, and now jail time for sagging pants wearers don’t really apply to the male or female Brittany’s of the world. They apply to young black males. The laws are much more than a terribly wrong headed effort to regulate public dress, decency, discipline, or moral values. They reinforce the worst media and publicly ingrained stereotype of young black males as drug dealers, drive by shooters, gang bangers, and educational cripples.

Sagging pants are an easy and convenient symbol of the supposed dereliction and menace of young blacks. The consequence of that symbol and thinking has been devastating. Despite the plummet in crime rates, racial stereotypes have deeply embedded the popular and terrifying belief that crime in America comes exclusively with a young, black male face. The result: nearly one million blacks are now warehoused in America's jails, the majority of them young blacks, and a significant number of them are there for non-violent, petty drug crimes.

Sagging pants are such a soft and juicy target for the scapegoat of young black males that even comedian Bill Cosby couldn’t resist taking a swipe at it and them in his now legendary tirade a couple of years ago against low achieving, bad behaving young blacks. He fingered sagging pants as proof to him that they had become a menace. Cosby later made a partial recant of his knock and explained that it was a call for action and not a broad brush stroke indictment of all young black males. But it was too little, too late. The sagging pants equals black male perversity notion was even more firmly imprinted in the public psyche.

Though Cosby is one of the best-known blacks to fan negative racial stereotypes, he's hardly the only one. Despite much evidence to the contrary, many blacks routinely trash, demean and ridicule themselves. In fact, it was the African-American councilpersons in Shreveport, Mansfield and the other small towns that dredged up the ridiculous sagging pants laws. Some blacks in the rap and hip-hop world, of course, are deeply complicit in fanning the stereotype. The rap moguls have reaped king's ransoms peddling their music-video-cartoon version of the thug life. The rebellious young of all colors that shell out billions to enrich them are almost totally mindless of the social complexities, and the artistic and intellectual richness of the black experience. Even more tragic, some blacks further bolster the thug life stereotype by committing or winding up as victims of violence. The murders of rap icons Tupac Shakur, and Notorious BIG have been the stuff of cheap media sensationalism.

The spate of sagging pants laws does even more social damage than just reinforcing vile stereotypes and potentially swelling the jail population. It also confirms for many that the problems of poor blacks are self made and insoluble. Many employers admit that they won't hire young blacks because they believe they are lazier, more crime prone, and educationally deficient. Many politicians, even without the excuse of ballooning state and federal budget deficits and cutbacks, mightily resist efforts to increase spending on job, health and education programs for the poor.

In Shreveport, where the sagging pants law passed by a narrow four to three vote, the opponents raised the standard arguments that the law infringes on personal and freedoms, probably violates free speech, free expression constitutional protections, and will overburden police and the courts by forcing them to waste valuable time and resources measuring the hem line on pants when they should be about the business of dealing with serious crimes. The opponents of the law though didn’t raise any protest that the law won’t provide jobs, skills training, fix failing schools, and provide greater mentoring and family support programs for young black males.

The sagging pants law has been the butt (pardon the pun) of jokes, and much ribald fun poking. But stereotypes and bad social policy are no laughing matter. The city fathers and mothers in Mansfield, and the other towns that foisted the law on their books should stop the craziness, realize that this law solves no problems, and wipe it off their books. That is before some other cities are tempted to follow their lead and make themselves look silly and pass this crazy law too. That is unless they plan to arrest Britney for her bottom dragging pants.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book The Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation between African-Americans and Hispanics (Middle Passage Press and Hispanic Economics New York) in English and Spanish will be out in October.

Craig’s a Liar from the ‘Hood’ Too

Earl Ofari Hutchinson

Minneapolis airport police Sgt. Dave Karsnia has taken some heat for maybe being a little too zealous in putting the collar on so many guys that get their sexual kicks off with other men in public restrooms at the Minneapolis airport. But most say he is a diligent, upstanding, young cop that does his duty as he sees it. So it’s curious that Karsnia lectured Idaho Senator Larry Craig about lying and added that that’s what he’d expect from the guy we get out of the ‘hood.’ Now Karsnia is confronting a respected, GOP Senator on his lewd act, and his lame defense of it, but why did the comparison of Craig to the guy from the ‘hood’ so easily roll out of his mouth. It didn’t seem to fit. Or did it?

From what’s on the tape, Craig didn’t dispute the characterization. And in the tortuous public gyrations he’s gone through to try and explain what he did or didn’t do in the men’s bathroom, he made no reference to the reprimand. But way should he? There’s absolutely no way that Craig would ever compare himself to a guy from the hood. But could he be? The answer is yes and no. Legions of white men, and that includes wealthy, prominent, high positioned white men, have been indicted and jailed for lying to judges, grand juries, congressional committees, FBI and Justice Department investigators. Over the years, the white men that run government agencies from the White House to the FBI have been repeatedly caught in lie after lie to cover-up their misdeeds or blatant criminal wrongdoing. So it’s no stretch to compare men such as Craig to the guy from the ‘hood.’

The problem with that and here’s the no part, the comparison insults the mythical guy from the ‘hood. But he is very real to Karsnia because he fits in snugly public beliefs, or to be more precise, stereotypes about the ‘hood.’ The stereotype fits even more snugly when it’s jammed next to negative public perceptions and fears of black crime. When some young blacks turned to gangs, guns and drugs, and terrorized their communities, much of the press titillated the public with endless features on the crime-prone, crack-plagued, blood-stained streets of the ghetto.
TV action news crews and cop pseudo reality shows have turned that stereotype into a major growth industry, stalking black neighborhoods and filming busts for nightly news. The explosion of gangster rap and the spate of Hollywood ghetto films have convinced many Americans that the thug lifestyle was the black lifestyle. They have ghastly visions of the guy from the ‘hood’ heading for their neighborhoods next.

This racially disfigured view of blacks as inherent crooks and liars doesn’t change even when the actual crime figures don’t square with that perception. A few years ago researchers at the University of Wisconsin actually compared white views of neighborhood crime with actual figures from police reports and victimization surveys in three cities - Chicago, Baltimore and Seattle. They found huge a gap between public perception of the crime threat and the reality of it. The perceived severity of the crime problem fluctuated with the number of young African-American men nearby - more so than with any other neighborhood factor, including the actual crime rate.

The skewed perception of crime and blacks has also deeply colored how judges and juries perceive and decide criminal cases when the defendant is as Karsnia put it a guy from the ‘hood.’ A 2003 Penn State University study found that many whites are likely to associate pictures of blacks with violent crimes, and in some cases where crimes were not committed by blacks they misidentified the perpetrator as an African-American.

The prevailing notion of who’s a crook and a liar and who isn’t has also spilled over into the job market. In 2005 Researchers at Princeton University surveyed nearly 1,500 private employers in New York City. They found that black men with no criminal records were no more likely to find work than white men with criminal records. In another study of employer attitudes toward minority hiring, some employers didn’t even try too hide the reason they were reluctant or refused to hire the guy from the ‘hood.’ They flatly described blacks as "unskilled," "uneducated," "illiterate." "dishonest," "lacked initiative," "unmotivated," "involved with gangs and drugs," "did not understand work," "unstable," "lacked charm," "had no family values," and were "poor role models."

The last reason they gave for slamming the employment door on blacks was especially apt in relation to Karsnia’s reprimand of Craig. He was righteously offended that a senator could so abuse his name and reputation by stooping to commit a petty criminal act in a men’s restroom. That immediately disqualified him as any kind of fit model for decency. In that instant whether Karsnia knew it or not, and could admit it or not, Craig was the fictional guy from the ‘hood.’

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book The Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation between African-Americans and Hispanics (Middle Passage Press and Hispanic Economics New York) in English and Spanish will be out in October.

Poverty Is Still America’s Katrina Shame
Earl Ofari Hutchinson

President Bush and the three top Democrats that want to replace him couldn’t get to New Orleans fast enough this week. The occasion of course was the second anniversary of the Katrina debacle. Predictably, Bush as he’s done in his twelve previous treks to the Gulf since Katrina publicly boasted that he’s done everything humanly possible to get the region back on its feet. He also insisted that much more still must be done and his administration will do it. Just as predictably, his would be replacements Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards just as publicly lambasted Bush’s efforts as hopelessly failed and flawed. And they insisted that there’s no reason to believe that he’ll improve on the anemic effort.

They both missed the real story and tragedy of Katrina, and that’s that the naked face of poverty that shocked the world two years ago remains just as naked and shameful two years later. And Bush and the Democrats are to blame for it. For a few weeks after the shocking scenes of the black poor fleeing for their lives from the floodwaters in New Orleans, Bush and the Democrats talked tough about a full court press on poverty. In that instant, talk of fighting poverty became almost respectable in business, public philanthropy, Congressional and White House circles. In a post Katrina assessment of public opinion on poverty, more Americans agreed that the government should do more to end poverty.

Civil rights leaders, the Congressional Black Caucus, and anti-poverty groups saw an opening and pounded on the Bush administration and Congress to do something about whittling down the ranks of the estimated 35 to 40 million Americans that still wallow in poverty.
That was two years ago. The national soul search about attacking poverty has evaporated faster than a Houdini disappearing trick. The nearly $100 billion that Bush says his administration has shoved out to the states to aid the recovery effort has either been wasted on showy and ineffectual redevelopment, public works reclamation and retrenching projects, inflated construction contracts, or flat out misappropriated (some say stolen). Not one of Bush's anti-poverty proposals from tax breaks and grants for minority and small business to job training and transportation subsidies have been enacted.

Bush deserves to get the blame finger wagged at him for the failure to fully follow through on his rhetoric about aiding the poor. But the Democrat’s hands aren't clean in this either. To his credit, John Edwards has made a credible and courageous effort to sound the warning gong about poverty, even launching a modern-day scaled down version of the old Martin Luther King, Jr.-Lyndon Johnson-Robert F. Kennedy in –the-street and legislative anti-poverty crusade. But he's been about the only Democrat to speak out consistently on poverty, and since he holds no office, he's in the least position among the top Democratic presidential contenders, to do anything about it.

Democratic contenders Obama and Clinton are in the Senate and can and say do much more about poverty than the obligatory photo-op whacks at Bush in New Orleans on the second anniversary of Katrina. But they, like other House and Senate leaders, gave no sign in the year between the first anniversary of Katrina and their trek to the Gulf this year that they were willing to fight for the billions that it would take to enact a comprehensive program to combat poverty. The Congressional Black Caucus was the only group among Democrats that pounded Congress and the Bush administration to spend billions to aid the Gulf poor. But their cry fell on deaf ears. Since then, the Caucus hasn't shown any willingness to renew the fight for the billions it demanded.

The talk about a fresh assault on poverty was dead in the water from the start. While Katrina momentarily increased empathy for the poor, it didn't fundamentally change public attitudes toward the poor. Poverty is regarded as a perplexing, intractable and insoluble problem that government programs can't or even shouldn't cure. In other words, the best cure for poverty is for the poor to get jobs and fend for themselves.

There's not much chance that this will change. Bush will exit the Gulf area quickly after his speech and head back to his Crawford, Texas ranch to continue clearing brush, biking and relaxing. In the weeks and months after that he’ll spend countless, and fruitless more hours trying to sell the Iraq war to Congress and the public. The Democratic contenders will just as quickly exit the area to get back on the campaign trail and spend countless hours hammering Bush and the Republicans for the wasteful war.

The Gulf's poor, meanwhile, will be just as numerous, scattered, dispirited, and forgotten. The talk about waging war on poverty will be tossed back on the political shelf until the third anniversary of Katrina.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book The Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation between African-Americans and Hispanics (Middle Passage Press and Hispanic Economics New York) in English and Spanish will be out in October.

The Rehabilitation of Michael Vick

Earl Ofari Hutchinson


The absolute last person one would expect to cut former Atlanta quarterback Michael Vick the slightest slack is John Goodwin, the manager of dog fighting issues for the Humane Society of the U.S. This is the group that screamed the loudest, longest, and fiercest for Vick’s head. But oddly enough in a media query after Vick admitted his guilt, Goodwin hinted that Vick could do much to undo at least some of the damage to his name by helping federal prosecutors finger other dog fighting rings.

It’s a nice try but it won’t work. In fact, given the way the Humane Society whipped up public rage against Vick, that fawn hope is probably disingenuous anyway. If Vick had information about other dog fight betting rings, sang like a canary to federal investigators about them, served every minute of a maximum stretch in federal prison, the outrage against him would still pulsate the Richter scale.

He could volunteer round the clock at PETA events, camp in front of fur manufacturers with a picket sign, clean kennels at pet shelters and bankroll and appear in ads against animal abuse. It wouldn’t change a thing. The imprint “reprehensible” that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell stamped on him and his crime, not to mention the much less charitable epithets that thousands have hurled at him in Internet chat rooms and on sports talk shows would stick tightly in big, bold letters on him.

He’s not just a dog profiteer and torturer. He’s a rich and famous African-American celeb that went bad. When sportswriters, corporate sports product manufacturers, fans, and much of the public instantly tossed the presumption of his innocence out the window, he was fitted for a prison cell before a trial date was set or he copped a plea.

The NAACP Atlanta branch sensed that a mob vendetta against Vick had quickly welled up. It publicly pleaded against rushing to judgment about his guilt and begged that Vick not be permanently barred from the NFL It took much heat for that and drew the inevitable squawk that it was playing the race card. But it understood that in the case of men such as Vick, even when they admit guilt and plead for forgiveness, the words mercy and compassion are alien terms.

One need look no further than the other two Michaels, namely Jackson and Tyson, for proof of that. Even before they set foot in a court, the battle lines instantly formed. They were guilty as sin to thousands, and convictions were expected, even eagerly prayed for, for both. The courtroom play was a mere formality. Whatever public goodwill and fan support they had evaporated faster than a water drop in the Mojave Desert.

They could spend millions and hire legions of pricey publicists, consultants and image makeover specialists and it wouldn’t change one whit the public’s hostility and negative perceptions of them. The bad boy image of both was indelibly plastered on their foreheads by the public. The two Mikes realized that and didn’t even try to thaw the public’s frozen mindset toward them. They mostly kept their mouths shut tried, confined their public appearance in the case of Tyson to the ring, or in the case of Jackson, left the country.

Public revulsion over Vick's crimes and resentment at his fame, wealth and race only partly explain why he’s in a near hopeless spot when it comes to rehabilitating his image. He’s the latest and handiest target for a public sick to death of sports icons and mega celebrities getting kid glove treatment for their misdeeds or outright lawbreaking. The backlash against favored celeb treatment exploded in public outrage at the farce of jail time Paris Hilton initially served, and the equally farcical jail sentences for the other bad behaving girls, Lindsay Lohan and Nicole Richie.

However, there’s a colossal difference between the anger at them and the anger at the Mike’s and Vick. The party girls will be fawned over on the social circuit, swarmed over by the paparazzi, can resume (in Lohan’s case) a no acting career in movies, will be in hot demand on celebrity gossip TV shows, and can cash in their ill-gotten celebrity with chic magazine photo spreads and book deals. If their name is Martha Stewart they can even be reconfigured into a figure of public and media respectability. That won’t happen with Vick.

Vick will pay and continue to pay two steep prices for his crime. He’ll do jail time, cough up a load in fines and restitution, and be canned indefinitely by the NFL. That price is fair and warranted. The other price he’ll pay is that he’ll be the permanent poster boy for animal abuse and the bad behaving celebrity. That price is questionable.

If given the chance Vick would do whatever he could to get his mug off of that poster. But the mania surrounding him and other rich and celebrated black men that misbehave is just too great to overcome. The office of compassion remains tightly slammed on them. That’s as much society’s shame as it is Vick’s.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book The Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation between African-Americans and Hispanics (Middle Passage Press and Hispanic Economics New York) in English and Spanish will be out in October.

Crucifying Michael Vick
Earl Ofari Hutchinson


Soon to be former Atlanta Falcons star quarterback Michael Vick never had a chance. The instant word publicly leaked out that he’d be slapped with an indictment by the feds, he could kiss his football cleats good-bye. The indictment was just a formality. Those good government high school civics courses feed us the myth of the little Constitutional admonition innocent until proven guilty. But Vick was tried, convicted and sentenced in the only court that counts in the big money world of sports and celebrity hood, and that’s the court of public opinion.
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and Falcons owner Arthur Blank heard Senators John Kerry and Robert Byrd lambaste Vick in the Senate, and saw those picket signs, and heard the screams and taunts and jeers from the PETA orchestrated pack outside the Richmond, Virginia courthouse when Vick surrendered. They listened and watched as sports writers and TV commentators angrily denounced Vick. They heard sports talk jocks saber-rattle against Vick on sports shows and fans burn up Internet chat rooms screaming for his head. They watched as Nike and other firms that Vick had endorsement deals with melt away like hot butter. They watched the NAACP issue a tepid and cautious statement pleading against a rush to judgment against him and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference quickly withdraw their invitation for him to appear and be honored at their annual confab. When Vick’s pals fingered him as being knee deep in the dog battering that did it. No pads, scrimmages, training camp, and definitely no games for Vick. If he hadn’t had a bonafide multi-year contract with the Falcons after Goodell barred him from the Falcon’s training camp he wouldn’t have gotten a nickel in pay.

As celebrity athletes go, even the deal that federal prosecutors offered Vick is anything but generous. He won’t wear an ankle bracelet, be allowed to tool around his estate under house watch, and he won’t get a walk around the street probation stint. He’ll do time, and, it may not be in a cushy country club fed prison. Prosecutors tipped that when they said they’d make an object lesson of him that animal abuse won’t be tolerated and will be severely punished. That of course, is bluster, the breeding, training and even killing of dog gladiators won’t grind to a halt, the dozens of magazines that prep the “sport” will continue to do brisk sales, and thousands will continue to toss hefty cash into the ring at the dog matches. Vick will just be a bare footnote to all of that.

However, he is an object lesson but for a far different reason than what the prosecutors had in mind. More often than not, celebs and sports superstars, even black ones, get cut a lot of slack for their boorish, stupid, arrogant acts and misdeeds, and in some cases even criminal behavior. They are after all the repository of the fantasies and delusions of a public and advertisers, sportswriters, and TV executives that are in desperate need of vicarious escape, titillation, excitement and profits. The sports hero fulfills all of that. He or she seduces, strokes, and comforts those fantasies. They are expected to operate above the fray of human problems, and at the same time raise society’s expectation of what’s good and pure. He or she is rewarded handsomely for what he or she does as a fantasy filler, not for who the often terribly flawed person they actually are. That’s a false, phony, and horrible burden to dump on anyone.
Vick had the double misfortune of standing on the rarified perch of the football icon. Football more than any other sport mirrors the best and the worst in American society-- competition, greed, selfishness and violence. Vick typified all of those qualities on and off the field. But he also typified the good side of the sport--cooperation, organization, achievement and heroism. That crept through in his public statement after the announcement was made of a pending plea deal. He talked about respecting the league, taking responsibility for his actions taking, and he apologized to friends and teammates.

Should we feel pity for Michael Vick? Yes and No. No. He did the crime and as the old cliché goes he should do the time. He’ll still have what the average Joe and Jane that yelled their lungs off for him on the field won’t have and that’s memories of the adulation he received from a fawning public, sports writers, and his mega buck contract and lucrative endorsement deals.
Yes. Vick is yet another reminder that sports icons are the fragile creations of an indulgent sports crazed, hero worshipping, and celebrity idolatrous public. When they take a tumble from their lofty perch, those same fans, sportswriters, and league officials that cheered and back-patted their idols turn vicious and unforgiving. They can never cobble the broken pieces of their name and reputation back together again. Vick in the end waved the ugly issues of wealth, race, celebrity hype, fan idolatry, and animal cruelty in the public’s face. Poor Vick, Poor Us.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book The Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation between African-Americans and Hispanics (Middle Passage Press and Hispanic Economics New York) in English and Spanish will be out in October.

Newark Slayings Fan Hysteria over Illegal Immigrant Crime Wave

Earl Ofari Hutchinson


When Newark Mayor Cory Booker learned that the alleged shooters in the execution killing of three black college students were illegal immigrants, he did the responsible thing. He did not finger point a porous border and lax law enforcement for allegedly letting so many supposed violent prone illegal immigrants slip into the country as the cause of the killings. Booker may have said and did the right thing as a responsible public official, and in this case a black elected official, who did not want to arouse public passions any more than they already were over the murders. He certainly did not want to inflame the always fragile tensions between blacks and Latinos any more than they already are.

But others have not exercised the same restraint. Some black talk show hosts and black writers have burned up Internet sites and sent of floods of emails ( this writer got several) with outlandish and reckless charges that the killings were part of a concerted plot by Latino gangs to target African-Americans for murder and mayhem. Leading immigration reform foes from the Center for Immigration Studies to Bill O’Reilly also claimed that state and federal officials are so cowered by the thought of being branded racist that they have turned a blind eye to waves of illegal immigrants who supposedly have unleashed a violent crime wave across the country. They gleefully added that Newark is a sanctuary city where police are forbidden to ask questions about a suspect’s citizenship status. With the arguable exception of the spate of violent clashes between black and Latino inmates in California’s prisons, and Los Angeles county jails last year, and the headline-grabbing murders of black teen Cheryl Green last December and three other young blacks in Los Angeles, there is no evidence that Latino gang members have embarked on a systematic campaign of ethnic cleaning against blacks.

The second claim about illegal immigrants uncorking a violent crime wave is easier to sell. The movie industry and TV series such as The Untouchables, The Godfather, Scarface, Miami Vice, and The Sopranos has long fed the popular image of violent prone immigrant reeking havoc in cities. Then there are the endless tales of crime cartels like the mafia, Cuban marielitos, Colombian cocaine cartels, Japanese yakuza and Chinese triads that also spread terror. The rumors were rife that the alleged shooters in Newark were connected with the Salvadoran Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13). This gang has gotten a lot of press ink lately as a virtual immigrant’s drug and murder incorporated.

There is however no truth to the claim that illegal immigrants have unleashed a crime wave in the country. There are more immigrants than ever in the U.S. and crime rates in the country have plummeted. The plunge has been most notable in the big cities with the largest illegal immigrant populations. FBI figures show big drops in property crimes and violent crimes, particularly the homicide rates, during the past decade. The sole exception to this has been a spike up in black on black homicides. Few of the killers here are illegal immigrants.Illegal immigrants whether juvenile or adult are far less likely to be incarcerated than native born Americans. That includes native born Latinos.

But facts never got in the way of a good politically driven scare tactic to turn public opinion against any sort of meaningful immigration reform.
It’s heartbreaking to see the falsehood about an illegal immigrant crime wave masquerade as fact in the Newark slayings. Apart from the incidents of Latino on black violence cited earlier, and the Newark murders, black and Latino relations have not been marred by violence. Most of the violence in urban areas, and that includes Newark, have been black on black or Latino on Latino.

There is no evidence that the Newark killings were anything other than a random robbery attempt gone bad. Yet, the not so subtle inference that the killings are part of an ethnic sanitizing plan against blacks comes at a time when more blacks continue to voice fears that illegal immigrants are muscling them out of jobs, and competing for scare resources in health, public services and public schools. With 1930’s depression era levels of unemployment among young black males, and with blacks making up more than nearly half of America’s record 2 million plus jail population, this is a concern that can’t be ignored. The Newark slayings fuel fears among many blacks that they are losing ground to illegal immigrants and are under siege from violent street gangs such as the Mexican Mafia and MS-13. The relatives of the three students gunned down in Newark demanded to know how one of the suspected shooters was back on a Newark street even though he had two prior felony arrests. This is a legitimate question. They’re owed an answer.

But the victim’s relatives and Booker did the right thing by not blaming their deaths on bad illegal immigration policies, or worse feeding the myth that illegal immigrants are America’s new gangsters. The pity is that others haven’t done the same.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book The Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation between African-Americans and Hispanics (Middle Passage Press and Hispanic Economics New York) in English and Spanish will be out in October.

To Snitch, Or Not to Snitch
Earl Ofari Hutchinson

A few days after veteran black reporter and editor Chauncey Bailey was gunned down on the streets of Oakland, Oakland City Council member Desley Brooks made a heart felt and impassioned plea for anyone who knew anything about a killing in the city to come forth. She wasn’t talking about the murder of Bailey. A nineteen year old reportedly confessed to that. She was talking about the more than half dozen killings that occurred in the days immediately after the Bailey killing. The victims were black and the assailants almost certainly were also black. Oakland isn’t unique in grappling with the latest murder surge that has racked poor black neighborhoods in America’s big cities. The surge was capped by the shocking execution style murder of three black students in Newark, New Jersey.

According to FBI figures, murder rates have spiked up in New Orleans, Philadelphia, Detroit, Oakland and a dozen other cities. The victims as in Oakland in almost all cases are blacks, and their killers are also black. But Brooks faced a big uphill battle in trying to get residents to loosen their tongues to the police. Many are petrified at the thought of being labeled a snitch. That’s the tag that some silly, misguided rappers, activists and even some academics have plastered on those blacks that inform to police on other blacks.

The resistance of blacks to provide information that could help catch killers has frustrated and infuriated police and prosecutors, increased the spiral of violence that racks some poor black neighborhoods, and deepens the fear and panic of many blacks over violent crime. Though the anti-snitch movement has been roundly denounced by many black leaders, victims of violence, and gang violence prevention groups, there's still a brisk growth industry in peddling T-shirts with the words "stop snitching" printed in bold letters that urge blacks to keep quiet when they witness crimes.

The long history of police-black community conflict, the fury that many African-Americans feel over the countless number of blacks that have been jailed and even dumped on death row merely on the word of a street or a jailhouse informant is a sore point.
A study by Northwestern University Law School Center on Wrongful Convictions found that in the 100 wrongful death penalty convictions of black men in the past quarter century, the majority were convicted on the perjured testimony of alleged eyewitnesses. Numerous studies have shown that blacks are far more likely than any other group to distrust the police and less likely to talk to them about criminal acts.

The fear factor also is a powerful disincentive for many blacks to provide information about violent crimes. Many are scared stiff that they'd suffer retaliation if they blow the whistle on a violent perpetrator, and that the police wouldn't protect them. These are not totally false fears. City police departments spend far fewer dollars on witness protection programs than the federal government does. Many blacks feel the risk is too great if they unzip their lips.
The fear of pay back and the rocky relations with the police are understandable. But it doesn't justify a rapper or anyone else telling blacks to keep silent when they witness a crime and can provide information about it. Blacks have more to lose than any other group when they turn a blind eye to crime.

They are more likely to be the victims of homicide, assaults and other violent crimes. A murderer or assailant will less likely be caught when a victim is black. While the homicide clearance rate nationally is about 60 percent, the clearance rate for solving murders in some big cities is in single-digit figures. Police and prosecutors in some big cities continue to scream loudly that they can't get people to come forth and tell what they know.

This has put poor blacks, especially young black males who are the prime targets of the violence, in even greater harms way. In Los Angeles, homicide investigators note that gang members that kill often have committed multiple killings. They are emboldened to continue their wanton violence precisely because they feel there is little chance that they’ll be caught, and if they are that witnesses will not come forth to testify. In New Orleans, where the murder rate has gone off the charts, the witness problem got Eddie Jordan, the city’s first black District Attorney, in hot water with crime weary residents. He had to drop charges against the alleged shooters of several young blacks in a murder that made national headlines in June 2006, because a key witness disappeared.

In Los Angeles and a handful of other cities, anti-violence prevention activists have tramped into shops and demanded that the storeowners yank the anti-snitch shirts from the shelves. But pulling a shirt from a rack is one thing, getting people to come forth and tell what they know about a crime is another. When they don’t they insure that the mounting carnage in some black neighborhoods such as Oakland will mount even higher.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book The Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation between African-Americans and Hispanics (Middle Passage Press and Hispanic Economics New York) in English and Spanish will be out in October.