Trayvon, George, and the Burden of Proof

The burden of proof can be seen in two ways: the burden the prosecutors bear as they try their case AND the burden of the plaintiff (or victim or survivor) to prove the case was worth bringing.

Any talk of the merits of the jury system in this trial is moot. At the end of the day, a number of civilians heard arguments, received instructions about the law, and made a decision using what they had. Our jury system is not perfect, but there are few democratic alternatives.

But we know justice is seen with human eyes, and I know this to be true: Trayvon Martin, even in death, had a higher burden of proving that he did not bring his death on himself than a white male teenager would have.

Benefit of the doubt is a powerful concept in human relations because it creates a space where you can excuse someone even if you don't believe them. It is essential to the functioning of a democracy, where we can't even consider everyone, let alone know them, but we must live together.

But Trayvon had less space to move in. Why else would a toxicology test be conducted on his corpse and not George? Why else would it matter whether he smoked pot or was suspended from school?

At the time of his encounter with George and during his trial, Trayvon was both expected to explain himself but was not able to speak. He was under examination at times others wouldn't be. And because he failed this "examination" he's dead and a sense of injustice hangs over his death.

Many people have used random facts about the lives of Trayvon and George to justify what has happened to them. For Trayvon, the facts include his purchase of Skittles, his wearing of a hoodie, and his status as a student. For George, they include his feeding a homeless person and his mentoring two black youth.

These facts are irrelevant to the case: while they may try to paint a fuller portrait of George, they do so at the expense of Trayvon. Why must one person be humanized at the expense of the other? If you're compelled to lighten the burden of the suspect, why can't the victim's burden be lightened too?

If George can be given the benefit of the doubt - "A person who mentors black youth wouldn't purposefully kill one" - then why can't the same courtesy be extended to Trayvon - "Trayvon wearing a hoodie makes him a thug as much it makes Mark Zuckerberg a thug".

If you can't do that, consider your biases and your values. But first read this:

"Whenever any American's life is taken by another American unnecessarily - whether it is done in the name of the law or in the defiance of the law, by one man or a gang, in cold blood or in passion, in an attack of violence or in response to violence - whenever we tear at the fabric of the life which another man has painfully and clumsily woven for himself and his children, the whole nation is degraded."
- RFK

And then ask yourself this:
- Was the death of Trayvon Martin necessary?
- Would the death of George Zimmerman have been necessary if the roles had been reversed?

Let us all think about this so that we may move forward better people. Amen.

A Word of Caution

I never truly felt deprived until I grew up. Suddenly, the goals I had became unreasonable and the path from potential to achievement became murky.

There are one of two unhealthy ways you could respond to recent events. One way would be to burst onto the world, ready to be confronted, ready to fight. Another way would be to hide, to be wary of unfamiliar places and people, to shrink from that which makes you uncomfortable. One way could lead to an early death, the other will lead to a deformed life...a series of bad options, but the only ones we get.

I can't imagine what a healthy response to a toxic environment is. Do you pretend the poison isn't there or do you try to prevail over it with "the power of positive thinking"? How much ignorance can the body take? When does positive thinking without action become idiotic?

I feel deprived in the most essential way. I am deprived of the freedom of confident action, the ability to move and think freely, to have full agency. I can't do something well without my achievement being qualified and when I do wrong I can never redeem myself.

I can never quite be right, but I have no clear idea of what the wrong is.

So, what do I do? How do I thrive in a world I have no say in shaping, a world that moves too fast in the wrong direction? Who will stand with me when I ask for help? Who will vouch for me?

The problem isn't that I don't have clear answers to these questions, but that I care less about asking. I wasn't made for this world, but I'm trapped in it. Heaven help me!

The Cream Rises to the Top

I'm not really into fandom, but Susan Rice is my type of public figure. She maintains a balance between the practical and the academic that I find is being lost on aspiring thought leaders today and she seems like someone who is put together, even in the face of controversy.

Whatever you thought of her role in communicating what happened in Benghazi last fall, she handled herself really well. I only saw one interview where she addressed being passed over for Secretary of State, but her comments lacked the faux vulnerability that too many interviewees feel the need to communicate. She may have been mad, she may have even gone home and punched a wall, but you wouldn't know it from her demeanor. She's a trooper and I like that.

Rice was an early supporter of then-Senator Obama, so I'm glad to see her vision has paid off. Not that she's been slumming the past four years as our UN Ambassador, but this is a great opportunity. "National Security Advisor" may not sound as prestigious as "United States Secretary of State", but it is more impactful.

As the White House has become more active in foreign policy in recent decades, the National Security Council (NSC) has become a power center. The Secretary of State may have more cameras following him/her, but the National Security Advisor coordinates a national security apparatus that has become larger as national security has become tied to more domestic and international issues.

While I have misgivings about how bloated our national security architecture has become, I am in favor of a more expansive conception of national security. Our security is connected to the security of others and the best ways to improve security are to provide more people globally with opportunities for social mobility. This means increased innovation, improved education, and access to legitimacy, access, and capital - the successful deployment of smart power and social impact. One example of this is American embassies abroad providing grants to local youth for social projects.

While Rice's name may not be explicitly attached to big foreign policy initiatives like that, I hope she'll be a forceful advocate for them in the Oval Office. National security is about more than drones after all.

Now, what about Samantha Power for UN Ambassador? 

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/magazine/111353/susan-rice-isnt-going-quietly

The Wrong "View" of Education

I don't watch "The View" regularly, but I found a YouTube clip from the show titled "Should Mediocre Students Skip College?". The hosts were responding to comments Mayor Michael Bloomberg made suggesting that not all students are meant to go to college. I found myself disappointed in the discussion and I wanted to I forget it, but I can't, so I'm going to write about it.

First of all, a major political figure, college graduate, and leader of arguably the nation's most influential public school system making any statements about choice, achievement, and mobility is going to be noteworthy, which is why I found Bloomberg's comments incredibly irresponsible.

"Mediocre" may bring to mind images of a student who refuses to reciprocate the kindness and hard work of his teachers, but what we consider a "mediocre", "failing", or "successful" student is actually a source of great debate right now. While it may seem heartening in theory to think that an unmotivated student should do something outside of school, we know that's not as easy as it should be, especially when so many college graduates are unemployed or underemployed.

Different people learn in different ways, but the response to that shouldn't be "Leave school and learn a trade". There are some passionate advocates of Career and Technical Education (CTE) in high schools, but I take issue with how CTE is suggested and to whom. The fact is, in an education system that can vary widely in quality from neighborhood to neighborhood, there are different responses to the same issues. Where one school might offer tutoring to a student failing math, another might suggest the student drop out and pursue a GED.

Mayor Bloomberg didn't make his comments because our country needs more plumbers and electricians than we have. He couldn't have, because we also need engineers and doctors, which requires people go to college. While it would be cheaper to set up six-month training programs that offer a certificate at the end, it would be more desirable to develop rigorous college preparatory curriculums and robust extracurricular cultures...just ask the students. And if a student is underperforming, you can't just assume it's because they don't care; you have to ask. But maybe that's too radical for some...

Brooke Shields, a guest co-host, made the point that college is expensive and students are graduating with a lot of debt. True, but the argument "students are graduating with too much debt" does not lead to the conclusion "less students should attend college". Instead, it should beg the question "What should we do to reduce the student debt burden?".

Barbara Walters tried to defend the intention behind Bloomberg's comments, suggesting that he was trying to decrease the stigma attached to people pursuing careers in the trades. I might have been convinced IF Bloomberg had addressed his comments to any student who doesn't find our traditional educational structures appealing, but he said nothing like that.

According to the show, he said "mediocre" students, implying that high-achieving students shouldn't deign to pursue a trade. The idea that a trade is a good option only if every educational option falls through actually reinforces the stigma, and I worry about how educational professionals- teachers, counselors, social workers- will apply this thinking to their interactions with students who have been failed by our system and may not know how to advocate for themselves.

Mayor Bloomberg sets the tone for education reform in New York City and to some extent nationally, and this was an awful message to send to students who need more.

Watch "Should Mediocre Students Skip College? - The View" on YouTube

Guns and Rights

On the most recent episode of "Real Time with Bill Maher", there was a discussion about guns. As would be expected in the wake of recent events, the discussion turned to the issue of a gun registry.

S.E. Cupp and Michael Moore were on this episode's panel. If I was going to be writing about anyone's comments, I thought it would be Mr. Moore's, but Ms. Cupp and Mr. Maher surprised me for different reasons.

I've never thought of Bill Maher as reactionary, but his statement, "I'm going to own a gun as long as we live in gun country" struck me as such. He mentioned that there had been several home invasions in his neighborhood in the past year, but he didn't make the domestic security argument many gun rights advocates make. In fact, he didn't come off as a gun rights advocate at all, just someone who wanted something that other people had or someone who was justifying a curiosity by connecting it to something substantial. I felt this even more as Moore asked Maher how many times he practiced his shooting and Maher responded dismissively.

Whatever issues one may have with guns or even gun owners, I've never heard a gun owner, on television or personally, be dismissive about being properly trained. In fact, my understanding of the arguments of gun rights advocates in this gun control debate has been that the vast majority of gun owners are well-trained and take other precautions to make sure their weapon is not misused. Maher's idea about gun ownership seemed to be more "if you can have it, I can have it" than it was "I will use my gun responsibly to hunt and/or protect my home".

Cupp, this week's lone conservative on the panel, brought what I thought was some depth to the debate. In spite of the audience's feelings she made the point that gun owners are offended by the registry idea because it presumes that they are innocent until proven guilty. She stated that when someone goes to a store to buy a gun and is told they have to wait five days, that makes them feel that they can't be trusted.

I have to admit she has a legal point. We don't add sex offenders to the sex offender registry before they've committed a crime, but only after they've been tried and convicted of sex crimes. We don't use the commission of other crimes such as robbery or murder as a reason to assume "if X committed these crimes, then he could commit a sex crimes" and then add X to that registry. The mere accusation of sexual abuse, even if it's baseless, can ruin a person's life. And in light of the awful gun crimes we're seeing, the presumption that someone could commit gun crimes because they're purchasing a gun (or even ten) could be offensive to the purchaser and damage their reputation.

If the presumption that someone walking in a high-crime area is going to commit a crime isn't enough to justify a stop-and-frisk, why should purchasing the same guns Adam Lanza used lead to the assumption you'll do what he did? Guilt by association is not appropriate, especially when the associations made are vague.

There has to be some way of tracking who's buying guns and where that's less offensive. I know you can't please everyone when making public policy, but you should try to offend as few as possible. Maybe, instead of a gun registry that lists all current and future owners, we should develop a database of people convicted of any crimes that reflect dangerous behavior as a result of poor or impaired judgment. These crimes could range from felonies to DUIs. This database would be available to gun shop owners so that when someone who has proven to be a danger to the public tries to buy a gun, then a delay of however long can kick in.

It's not a perfect proposal for these issues, but which one is?