Panel Response

In an age where one’s opinions can be published in seconds, the power of words becomes ever-more relevant. “Sticks and stones may break my bones,” they say, “but words can never hurt me.”

The truth is, words CAN hurt. They can be detrimental to emotional development and have long-lasting effects. Words are powerful, motivational, but they can also be destructive, insensitive and completely harmful. And, if used continuously, they can harbor in one’s mind and influence all future decisions for generations to come.

In a 1712 speech to southern slave owners, William Lynch read excerpts from his handbook “Let’s Make a Slave”, which outlines a procedure to properly handle and maintain slaves. According to Lynch, it makes more economic sense to “take the body”  but “keep the mind” of slaves. If executed properly, the system should last at least 300 years.

Lynch states: “…You take a slave, if you teach him all about your language, he will know all your secrets, and he is then no more a slave, for you can’t fool him any longer and having a fool is one of the basic ingredients of and incidents to the making of the slavery system.”

Part of “fooling” the slaves included using words that constantly reminded them of their imposed inferiority and subhuman-ness. The use of the n-word was essential to the systematic cultivation of slaves and slave owners used derogatory language to ensure their slaves remained subservient and ignorant. Today, 303 years after Lynch’s speech, the n-word can still be heard frequently in the media, especially in music lyrics. Rapper Jay- Z even defends the use of the n-word, claiming that African Americans have taken ownership of the word.

And yet, with Lynch’s comments in the background, one cannot help but wonder if, in fact, it is now socially correct to use the n-word? Has the word evolved (or devolved?) almost to the point of endearment? Can white people, or any race for that matter, use the n-word now without guilt? What up, ma n-word? For real, my n-word?

The answer is no. No. No. And no again. This word, in all its conniving political control, has not evolved. It is still an ugly, hurtful, incredibly painful word. It still the last word so many blacks heard before they were hanged. It is still the word that was spray-painted on the Black establishments and homes as a hate crime. It is still the word that recalls centuries of enslavement, segregation and genocide.

No political jargon discussion is complete without mentioning the use of the n-word. It was –and still is– the most successful word used for political control in the history of the United States.

The bodies may have been emancipated but, though we have come a long way, we have yet to fully emancipate the minds. And on that part, Mr. Lynch was right.

Problem Memorandum

TO: Carmen Fariña, New York City Chancellor

FROM: Ysmeli Rosa

RE: Disproportionally High Suspension Rates of  Black and Latino Students

DATE: February 11, 2015

The disproportionally high suspension rates of Black and Latino students is a severe problem in New York City public schools and must be resolved to avoid further academic, social and economic disparities.  This memorandum will briefly examine the data demonstrating racial inequities in public schools as related to suspension rates, including ineffective public policies and weaknesses within the school structure that systematically prepare Black and Latino students for failure. The decline of suspension rates needs to be of utmost importance, otherwise the city will find itself building more prisons than schools.

According to a report from the New York Civil Liberties Union entitled A, B, C, D, STPP: How School Discipline Feeds the School to Prison Pipeline, suspension rates are disproportionally higher in low-income communities. [i] Author Samantha Pownell found that Black students attributed to 50% of suspensions in New York City public schools, though they only make up 29% of student enrollment.

Before this data can be analyzed, it is important to note the circumstances surrounding these young people. First, schools with low academic performance also have the highest levels of novice teachers and higher attrition rates.  Detailed data released in March 2014 by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights shows racial minorities– aside from having less access to math and science classes — are more likely to be taught by teachers with less experience and a lower salary than their white counterparts. Schools in low-income communities with a higher rate of Black and Latino students often have the most novice teachers.  The report also showed Latino students are twice as likely to attend schools were less than 60% of teachers possess necessary licenses and a fulfill state requirements; black students were three times as likely. [ii]

This evidence is alarming because novice teachers are less likely to know how to handle challenging behavior effectively and thus, crises and students suspensions arise. It is fundamentally unethical for the public school system to deprive Black and Latino students of the right to an unbiased education with teachers fit to their needs and instead provide them with the noose with which to metaphorically hang themselves in the future.

Bloomberg-era politics such as the “three-strike” policy, which requires “immediate, consistent minimum response to even minor violations of the discipline code,”[iii] are grossly discriminatory and ineffective, discouraging students from attending school and thus continuing a cycle of racially perpetuated poverty and social injustice. This policy places student insubordination (e.g. speaking back to a teacher) and violent incidents (e.g. fighting, possession of a weapon) under the same category. Suspensions are recorded permanently in students’ records and become impediments for college acceptances and future jobs.

Pownell’s research shows Black students are more likely to be suspended for “behaviors that involve subjective or discretionary judgments by school authority figures, such as disrespect, excessive noise and threatening behavior.” On the other hand, white students are more often suspended for incidents in which subjectivity and judgment are not prevailing factors, for instance, bringing a gun to school.  “This different treatment,” Pownell observes, “results not from differences in students’ behavior but from how school personnel perceive their students.”

It is time Black and Latino students were treated with equal dignity and respect rather than as future criminals. Research also shows the same students in the pool of likely suspensions are more susceptible to Stop-and-Frisk and more prone to arrests. 90% of New York school arrests made from 2011-13 involved Black and Latino youth, a 20% higher rate than the national average.

Pownell writes:

The next mayor must follow these grass-roots examples and commit to an overhaul of this ineffective and overly punitive system that has harmed students for over a decade. The next administration must examine suspension and arrest data and implement meaningful reforms that keep our most vulnerable students in the classroom and connected to resources that support learning, regardless of their academic ability, ZIP code or skin color.

I urge you to  be the administration that takes this matter seriously and develops sound, meaningful strategies for change. A system that does not protect the rights of its children above everything else cannot expect to prosper.

References 

[i] Pownell, Samantha.A, B, C, D, STPP: How School Discipline Feeds The School To Prison Pipeline. New York: New York Civil Liberties Union, 2013. Print.

[ii] New York City Independent Budget Office,.A Statistical Portrait Of New York City’S Public School Teachers. 2014. Print.

[iii]U. S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights,.Civil Rights Data Collection: Data Snapshot (School Discipline). 2014. Web. 11 Feb. 2015. Issue 1.

[iv] Harris, Elizabeth A. (2014 Sept 28) De Blasio Plans for Revised Code for Discipline in Schools. The New York Times. PA19

All four thinkers are correct, however, neither of their ideas can thrive independently without the other three. The need for a wise leader is a convincing argument, yet Aristotle fails to express how this leader’s wisdom is evaluated. Do we trust a leader for his or her academic knowledge, logic and strategy, or are qualities like empathy, patience and mercy more or less important? How is wisdom interpreted? How do we monitor this leader? How do we evaluate his failures or successes? Who is responsible for cultivating the next leader? More importantly: who will guard the guard?

A strong, well-built system is perhaps the most convincing argument. Organized systems work best if they are, in fact, organized. Yet without a prominent leader to over-see all, how can we expect the system to sustain itself? Yes, having the many facets monitor each other is effective, yet who is to assume responsibility during times of turmoil and make the difficult decisions that affect all? Who is to be held accountable for failure? Who will guard the guards?

The idea of knowledge as the foundation of a given system is a provocative thought. And yet, how is this knowledge executed? To segregate decision-making into separate units hinders the ability to communicate and deliberate as a unified system. Just like no man is an island, all issues are interconnected and have ramifications. Who will unite the experts and make definite decisions? Who will out-smart the smart people?

Finally, experience is a valid argument for any position. Practice makes perfect, right? Yet if one is practicing imperfectly, perfection will never be reached. The world changes every day in everything from science to literature and one must keep up-to-date with advances in order to remain relevant. Also, if power is given exclusively to the masses, who, then, is to be held accountable?

No system is perfect, but to piggy back on Robert Dahl’s comments on democracy, a system is perfect by degrees. An efficient system will, however, apply the best practices to meet its specific needs and ensure the sustainability of the system and, most importantly, the well-being of all citizens.

Before the film even starts, viewers are informed the men they are about to witness deliberate on a homicide case that could possibly send a young man to his death are “angry”.  Not “exhausted” from being in a court room for days, isolated from their families, professions and regular lives. Not “uncomfortable” because of the stifling heat, how tight the space is or their attire. Not “confused” by the laws they must now defend, uphold and preserve. They are just, simply, angry.

It is given emotions play a central part in this film, perhaps as the puppet master controlling each of the 12 characters. But the viewer’s emotions also partake in the understanding, sympathizing, resentment and favoring of the characters. When presented with 12 individuals from different backgrounds, viewers subconsciously gravitate towards the characters they identify with the most.  The sports fans may understand Juror # 6’s anxiety to finish quickly so he can watch the game. The older generation may appreciate Juror #9’s patience and analytical thinking.

And yet, the absence of women and other races is so profound it actually becomes another character,  the They or Other mentioned several times by one of the jurors (there is a women’s bathroom in the room, yet women were not allowed to be jurors.) These “angry” white men bicker and argue, make jokes and almost come to blows but they have more rights and liberty than the rest of the population.

The film does present one very important question that perhaps goes unanswered; why, exactly, are these men angry?