Opinion
The Jena Six and the Durham Three
Jack Manetta Once Told Me
October 2, 2007 - 11:00pm
Two weeks ago, Sun contributing columnist Evan Baker Smith ’08 introduced the Cornell community to the small town of Jena, La.; a town that is now at the center of a racial — and media — firestorm, following the arrest of six African American youths for the savage beating of a racist classmate. The defendants in this case have come to be known as the “Jena Six.”
This divisive issue is certain to attract even more press attention as the story develops. As the public trial of the Jena Six intensifies, another racially motivated controversy is winding down to an end. Duke President Richard H. Brodhead, speaking at a Duke Law School conference last Saturday, issued an apology to the three Duke lacrosse players falsely accused of rape last year. Brodhead regretted the “failure [of his administration] to reach out to the lacrosse players and their families in this time of extraordinary peril.”
Both of these incidents involve serious allegations and a great deal of media attention, but that is about all they have in common. These cases differ in the most important way: the Jena Six committed a crime; the Durham Three did not. The media coverage in each incident, however, would tell a much different story.
Dave Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann were not treated like the victims they were. The media called the incident the “Duke Rape Case” — a very subtle way of discarding the idea of innocent until proven guilty. Had the Durham Three attacked an African-American in Jena, the incident would more likely be called “The Jena Gang Beating Case” rather than the “Jena Three.”
Public outcry did not work in favor of the Durham Three. Protests against the men were held throughout the campus. The entire lacrosse team was indicted by the Duke administration and faculty. 88 professors declared the players guilty in a public letter. Several lacrosse players were given failing grades by teachers, which were undeserved — a mature form of protest in liberal academia, I presume. President Brodhead himself canceled the lacrosse season and fired the head coach.
Jesse Jackson even descended upon Durham to rally behind Crystal Gail Magnum — a lying pole dancer that was out to ruin three lives. The good “reverend” maintained that the issue was about “Black women; white men. A stripper; and a team blowout. The wealthy white athletes — many from prep schools — of Duke; and the working class woman from historically black North Carolina Central. Race and class and sex.” In the same essay, Jackson definitively proclaimed, “we know that the two women were abused,” referring to both strippers at the party, one of which did not even allege abuse.
Jackson’s allegations were proven false. The three lacrosse players were completely absolved of guilt, just as they had claimed all along. The DNA evidence and Magnum’s lies would eventually force the state attorney general to declare the young men innocent. The state would later disbar and jail District Attorney Mike Nifong for shielding evidence of the players’ innocence from the public eye.
These facts, however, did not stop Rev. Jackson from predetermining the outcome of the case.
Jackson was wrong then and he is wrong now. Commenting on Jena Six case today, the good reverend told the Columbia State newspaper, “Jena is a defining moment, just like Selma was a defining moment.” Jackson then criticized Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama for not being more vocal about the case saying that Obama was “acting like he’s white.”
The mainstream media and “civil rights activists” relied on race baiting and rhetoric in their pursuit of “justice” for Crystal Magnum and they are doing the same for the “Jena Six.” Allegations of racism, however, should not trump the facts of the case. The “Duke rape case” shows how dangerous this kind of rhetoric can be. And the facts of the Jena gang beating are indisputable.
Three nooses were hung from a tree after black students were seen standing under it. This resulted in the suspension of several students; it is worthy to note, however, that the principal recommended expulsion. Legal recourse could not be pursued because hanging a noose is not illegal, even if it is racist and dumb.
Three months later, Justin Barker insulted an African American for losing a fight to a white student earlier in the school year. Six students then beat Barker unconscious and repeatedly kicked and stepped on him as he lay on the ground. Barker later dropped out of school, fearing future violence.
The six teens responsible for the beating were arrested and booked on attempted murder charges; a fact which has spurred many of the Jim Crow allegations being tossed around by activists like Al Sharpton and Jackson. These charges, however, were reduced to second degree battery long before civil rights activists descended upon the small town.
Not one activist has denied that an attack took place. That is because it is more than obvious that these six teens assaulted a classmate.
Not one Jena Six activist has denied that Jena Six member Mychal Bell has a prior criminal record. That is because Bell has been convicted of violent crimes in the past, namely two charges of battery.
Jena Six activists have relied on emotion and rhetoric to turn attention away from the teens as attackers and instead focus on them as victims. They have cited crimes perpetrated by white students against blacks; crimes that apparently were not prosecuted. They fail to mention whether such crimes were reported or if the victims cooperated with authorities. But do crimes perpetrated by whites really absolve the Jena Six of settling their debt to society?
Relieving the Jena Six of their responsibility for the December assault on Justin Barker will not help to end racism. It will only set the precedent that fighting is tolerable, as long as we agree with the reason behind it.
Bill McMorris is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be contacted at bmcmorris@cornellsun.com. John Manetta Once Told Me appears alternate Wednesdays this semester.
Two weeks ago, Sun contributing columnist Evan Baker Smith ’08 introduced the Cornell community to the small town of Jena, La.; a town that is now at the center of a racial — and media — firestorm, following the arrest of six African American youths for the savage beating of a racist classmate. The defendants in this case have come to be known as the “Jena Six.”
This divisive issue is certain to attract even more press attention as the story develops. As the public trial of the Jena Six intensifies, another racially motivated controversy is winding down to an end. Duke President Richard H. Brodhead, speaking at a Duke Law School conference last Saturday, issued an apology to the three Duke lacrosse players falsely accused of rape last year. Brodhead regretted the “failure [of his administration] to reach out to the lacrosse players and their families in this time of extraordinary peril.”
Both of these incidents involve serious allegations and a great deal of media attention, but that is about all they have in common. These cases differ in the most important way: the Jena Six committed a crime; the Durham Three did not. The media coverage in each incident, however, would tell a much different story.
Dave Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann were not treated like the victims they were. The media called the incident the “Duke Rape Case” — a very subtle way of discarding the idea of innocent until proven guilty. Had the Durham Three attacked an African-American in Jena, the incident would more likely be called “The Jena Gang Beating Case” rather than the “Jena Three.”
Public outcry did not work in favor of the Durham Three. Protests against the men were held throughout the campus. The entire lacrosse team was indicted by the Duke administration and faculty. 88 professors declared the players guilty in a public letter. Several lacrosse players were given failing grades by teachers, which were undeserved — a mature form of protest in liberal academia, I presume. President Brodhead himself canceled the lacrosse season and fired the head coach.
Jesse Jackson even descended upon Durham to rally behind Crystal Gail Magnum — a lying pole dancer that was out to ruin three lives. The good “reverend” maintained that the issue was about “Black women; white men. A stripper; and a team blowout. The wealthy white athletes — many from prep schools — of Duke; and the working class woman from historically black North Carolina Central. Race and class and sex.” In the same essay, Jackson definitively proclaimed, “we know that the two women were abused,” referring to both strippers at the party, one of which did not even allege abuse.
Jackson’s allegations were proven false. The three lacrosse players were completely absolved of guilt, just as they had claimed all along. The DNA evidence and Magnum’s lies would eventually force the state attorney general to declare the young men innocent. The state would later disbar and jail District Attorney Mike Nifong for shielding evidence of the players’ innocence from the public eye.
These facts, however, did not stop Rev. Jackson from predetermining the outcome of the case.
Jackson was wrong then and he is wrong now. Commenting on Jena Six case today, the good reverend told the Columbia State newspaper, “Jena is a defining moment, just like Selma was a defining moment.” Jackson then criticized Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama for not being more vocal about the case saying that Obama was “acting like he’s white.”
The mainstream media and “civil rights activists” relied on race baiting and rhetoric in their pursuit of “justice” for Crystal Magnum and they are doing the same for the “Jena Six.” Allegations of racism, however, should not trump the facts of the case. The “Duke rape case” shows how dangerous this kind of rhetoric can be. And the facts of the Jena gang beating are indisputable.
Three nooses were hung from a tree after black students were seen standing under it. This resulted in the suspension of several students; it is worthy to note, however, that the principal recommended expulsion. Legal recourse could not be pursued because hanging a noose is not illegal, even if it is racist and dumb.
Three months later, Justin Barker insulted an African American for losing a fight to a white student earlier in the school year. Six students then beat Barker unconscious and repeatedly kicked and stepped on him as he lay on the ground. Barker later dropped out of school, fearing future violence.
The six teens responsible for the beating were arrested and booked on attempted murder charges; a fact which has spurred many of the Jim Crow allegations being tossed around by activists like Al Sharpton and Jackson. These charges, however, were reduced to second degree battery long before civil rights activists descended upon the small town.
Not one activist has denied that an attack took place. That is because it is more than obvious that these six teens assaulted a classmate.
Not one Jena Six activist has denied that Jena Six member Mychal Bell has a prior criminal record. That is because Bell has been convicted of violent crimes in the past, namely two charges of battery.
Jena Six activists have relied on emotion and rhetoric to turn attention away from the teens as attackers and instead focus on them as victims. They have cited crimes perpetrated by white students against blacks; crimes that apparently were not prosecuted. They fail to mention whether such crimes were reported or if the victims cooperated with authorities. But do crimes perpetrated by whites really absolve the Jena Six of settling their debt to society?
Relieving the Jena Six of their responsibility for the December assault on Justin Barker will not help to end racism. It will only set the precedent that fighting is tolerable, as long as we agree with the reason behind it.
Bill McMorris is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be contacted at bmcmorris@cornellsun.com. John Manetta Once Told Me appears alternate Wednesdays this semester.
The Jena Six and the Durham Three
Thank you, Bill, for telling it like it is. It is refreshing, to say the least, to read a factually honest account of events involving these two situations. There are far too many "journalists" who rush to judgment to placate racist jerks like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
Perhaps if white, privileged
Perhaps if white, privileged lacrosse players had endured hundreds of years of mistreatment in this country there would be similar outrage over the prosecutor's treatment of the Duke students. The author's willingness to pretend such a distinction does not exist between these two cases displays a frighteningly high level of naivete on his part.
The naivete is yours, Jake.
The naivete is yours, Jake. A crime is a crime, regardless of historical factors which are centuries old.
Who has endured hundreds of years of mistreatment?
For someone to have endured hundreds of years of mistreatement they would have to have lived for hundreds of years. Who alive today has even lived for hundreds of years?
As to the context of the artlicle to who you responded, two main groups were talked about: the Jena 6 and the Durham 3. All nine individuals are young men born in the 1980's or the 1990's. None of these have experienced over three decades of life. For the Jena 6, none of them are even 19 years of age. As far as documented mistreatment, the Durham three's alleged mistreatment began in March 2006. For the Jena 6, the earliest alleged mistreatment we have is September 2006. The Jena 6 have a considerable criminal history of violence including several convictions of battery, at least one of which was against a young female. The Duke 3 have one conviction of a misdemeanor excessive noise, and a charge that that has been removed from the record resulting from making a fist in an altercation.
The biggest charge of persecution against the Jena 6 is that the prosecutor overcharged them for the crime that they committed. With the Durham 3 it was that the DA and police fabricated a frame for a ficitious crime and hid evidence in order to continue the prosecution of it. In Jena there are allegations that that the law was not equally applied between all citizens, specifically black and white. With the Durham 3 the Durham Police Department has a publicly aknowledged policy of unequal application of the law against Duke students versus other citizens. In Jena, the US Justice department has already conducted a throuogh investigation into allegations and held community meetings to explain their findings on no verifiable wrong doings. In Durham, the US Justice department is just now starting to investigate and has issued no public statements nor have conducted any public meetings. With Jena, a host of presidential candidates, the President, and many congressmen and senators have called for US Justice investigation, despite one already having taken place, and are calling for congressional hearings on the Jena 6. In Durham, Barrak Obama is the only presidental candidate to call for a Justice department investigation, only a handful of senators and congressmen have called for a Justice department investigation, and the President has remained silent. In Durham 2 of the formerly accused had their mug shots displayed promently across multiple media including the cover of Newsweek. I have yet to see a copy of the mugshots of the Jena 6 anywhere. In Jena, the US Justice department and local authorities are looking into threats by racist organizations and individuals. In Durham, no law enforement organization has looked into numerous written, verbal, and other threats against the accused and other members of the Lacrosse team by racist orgainizations and individuals including death threats caught on TV inside of the courtroom and elsewhere. In Durham, substantial evidence suggest that witness tampering was conducted by Durham PD and the DA office including the pressing of false charges against a black cab driver who was a major defense witness. No law enforcement organization has publicly aknowledged investigating these offenses, most of which are over a year old. I have yet to hear any allegations of witness tampering in the Jena case. In Jena, thousands publicly demonstrated and marched for the release of the of the Jena 6 despite their having committed an extremely violent crime. In Durham, thousands marched and demonstrated demanding punishment and conviction of the Duhram 3 despite there being no credible evidence to suggest a crime was committed. Now considering this ample evidence, how can anyone honestly allege that the Jena 6 have beem mistreated worse than the Duhram 3?
Beware Grant Farred
Bill, if you care about your GPA don't take any classes taught by Professor Grant Farred (lately of Duke.) If he reads this article, expect him and his friends to denounce you as a racist just as he did to the Durham Three and their supporters.
Just to reply to today's
Just to reply to today's article...i fully understand that the Duke case was a travesty and that the DA and our judicial system as a whole failed those three men. That being said however, the same has occurred here in the jena 6 case. What about the shotgun that was pulled on a few black members of the school by a fellow white student at a gas station. For them to then wrestle the gun away and be arrested and charged with robbery?? How ludacris does that sound? To say that the judicial system isnt failing the Jena 6 and the community as a whole and that the cases are completely different is a mis-statement on your part.
And can we please stop this Jesse JAckson, Al Sharpton crap. I admire what these men have done for our country in the past and in the present by keeping race alive as an issue in certain cases where it has mattered. BUT and i state BUT they are NOT the leaders of the black community. Whoever believes that is living a lie. Any semi-intelligent African American respects them for their efforts but we do not follow them. It seems like to me every time a race issue comes about (and i understand that REv. Jackson and Shaprton must be talked about) the media and all who follow it think that African-Americans are just like these two and have opinions exactly matching theirs which is wholly a fallacy. (i apologize for digressing)
Witnesses told the tale that
Witnesses told the tale that the the 3 black teens attacked a 21 year old white man at gas station. The white man pulled a shot gun from his truck to try and defend himself. The teens wrestled the gun away from him, beat him up and took the gun home. The beat up man called the police. The story you tell is the one the black teens tell. Why didn't they call the police? Why do uninvolved witnesses tell a different tale? There are definitely two sides to the stories in Jena, and it doesn't appear that the Jena 6 camp is telling the whole truth. I know it helps their story to leave out the reasons that police give for arresting the black teens instead of the white man, but that doesn't appear to be very honest.
Oh and one of the teens arrested was one of the Jena 6. So why go out and commit a violent crime against someone who wasn't involved with the previous incident? Was it because the victim of the violent crime was the same race as the other party in the previous incident?
I believe you are incorrect
Numerous witnesses, the gas station owner, said that the white student was chased back to his pickup by the black students trying to attack him.
If I was being chased down by a gang and had a gun, you'd better believe I'd run for it. You would too.
I read an article interviewing a few black residents of Jena. They thought for certain the town was racist. They'd been calling police for years about Mychael Bell and the other hooligans destroying neighborhoods. They were upset because nothing had been done about them until they finally attacked a white boy.
Jena Six
The Dallas Morning News article seriously distorts statements made by federal attorney Donald Washington.
Jena High School students, teachers and administrators say that students of both races congregated beneath the tree and that the tree was never officially or unofficially reserved for white students. According to the Jena Times, the black student who requested permission at an assembly posed the question in jest. The paragraph below is taken from the Jena Times chronology of events:
“August 30, 2006: During a Wednesday assembly of all males at Jena High School, many items were discussed concerning rules and policies of the school for the new school year. Such items included dress codes, etc. Near the end of the assembly, one black student jokingly asked Assistant Principal Gawen Brugess if black students were permitted to sit underneath the tree in the center of the square located in the center of the campus. The question evoked laughter from everyone at the meeting, including the black students, with Burgess responding, “Don’t even go there. You know you can sit anywhere you want.” Burgess and the rest of the students knew the remark was made to gain laughter as a joke, not as a serous question. A couple more jokes were also made (not about the tree) before the lighthearted assembly was dismissed.”
Following the beating incident, the Justice Department reopened its investigation into the noose-hanging incident and determined there was no link between the nooses and the attack on Justin Barker at Jena High School. U.S. Attorney Donald Washington told CNN that, “A lot of things happened between the noose hanging and the fight occurring, and we have arrived at the conclusion that the fight itself had no connection.” He added that none of the black students involved in the beating made “any mention of nooses, of trees, of the ‘N’ word or any other word of racial hate.” According to CNN, federal official also examined the way the school handled the infractions and whether black students were being treated differently than white students. Washington told CNN that they discovered “it was not unusual for the school superintendent to reinstate students after the principal recommends expelling them.” Washington also told CNN that the 16-year-old defendant, Mychal Bell, has “several previous assault charges on his record.”
The CNN story (”U.S. Attorney: Nooses, Beating at Jen High Not Related”) is online at http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/19/jena.six.link/index.html
Statements witnesses made to police following each of the Jena Six incidents, including the shotgun episode, have been posted at http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/http. Anyone reading the statments will understand why Mychal Bell's defense attorney called no witnesses to the stand.
Irrelevant Analogy
The most interesting thing about the analogy you make is that it is largely irrelevant. If, by chance, there were black athletes who raped a white girl in North Carolina but were not charged for their actions only THEN would your analogy make sense. You, like many other peple who choose the facts to fit their positions, are missing much of the reason why Jena-6 supporters are angry. White students committed a very similar crime and NOTHING was done to them. Black students commit a crime and, were not just charged, but were charged with inflammatory and ridiculous charges that represent the epitome of an overzealous prosecutor. It is this disparate treatment that has many outraged.
Allow me to put some things in context for you. A few days ago, in California, a black girl was EXPELLED for spilling cake on the floor. She attempted to clean up the mess THREE times, walked away from the scene and was attacked by a security guard who broke her arm in the process. Not only was she expelled but, to add insult to injury, she was charged with littering. Now, compare this to white students who hang a noose from a tree (which by the way is recognized by the Supreme Court as a hate crime) and they are SUSPENDED.
White students attack a black student in Jena and (of course) there is not enough to convict or even charge the white perpetrators who used a bottle to attack their black victim. However, a fight that results in a white student being attacked results in charges of attempted murder! How can we support this type of justice that is clearly not used on a consistent basis? How can you, someone who attempts to be viewed as a "fair" person, support this brand of justice that is not employed even-handedly?
Is it more important to you that these black individuals be charged with ridiculous charges than to demand that their white counterparts be charged as well? If so, I am sorry that you feel that way.
It is a complete fabrication
It is a complete fabrication to say that white students committed a similar crime to the crime that the Jena 6 committed. There was no attack from behind of a white student on a black student that left the black student unconcious. In fact there were no attacks from the front that left the black student unconcious. There were no gang beatings of a single by multiple white students where the white students continued to beat the black student long after unconciousness set in, in fact there were no gang beatings of black students by white students period. Contrary to your belief, simply hanging a rope in a tree, even if fashioned as a noose is not a crime in LA nor a federal hate crime. Violence or the eminent threat of violence must be associated with the crime for it to be a hate crime. The students who hung the nooses received far harsher punishment than a suspension for a couple of days as has been falsely advertized by the Jena 6 supporters.
Now, in Durham right after the Lacrosse incident a black fraternity had a party at a house rented by black fraternity members where underage drinking took place and illegal drugs were found. Additionally a white girl was allegedly raped by a black man. Unlike the Duke Lacrosse hoax, there was credible evidence to suggest that a rape had occured. The black fraternity didn't get their fraternity suspended for a year as the Lacrosse players team was. No group of Duke faculty posted a public letter condemning the black fraternity members for their poor judgement in partying and who they invited to the party. Pictures of the black fraternity weren't placed on wanted posters and distributed across campus. School administrators did not publicly speakout against the black fraternities actions. Racist organizations were not allowed on campus to harrass members of the black fraternity. Lynch mobs composed of students, faculty, and adminstrators did not form and hurl threats of violence against the black fraternity for their actions.
As for your story about the black girl getting assaulted by a security guard and expelled for accidentally spilling cake even after trying 3 times to clean it up, it is horrible if that is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. But I very seriously doubt this to be the case. I would have to hear much more from both sides before making a judgement, less I rush falsely to a judgement. What was wrong with the girl that she couldn't clean up a piece of cake in 3 attempts? Was she mentally or physically handicapped? What reason did the security guard give for his acions? What is the name of the town and school where this happened? Anybody can tell a one sided sob story, but it doesn't mean the story is true. The media is not known for getting facts correct, especially in racially charged news pieces.
But even if there were crimes against black students that were not prosecuted in Jena, it in no way justifies the attack by the Jena 6 nor dropping charges. The just recourse would be to demand charges against those not charged and those responsible for not charging them if indeed they white offenders were guilty.
I was once shot by a black man, and charges weren't brought against him. I had a DVD player stolen by a black man and charges weren't brought. But I'll be damned if I'll turn myself into a racist and violent bigot and get 5 of my friends to gang beat the first black man we can find. Racist and violent behavior against someone does not justify racist and violent behavior against someone the same color as the original assailants. Anyone who thinks so is a stupid, bigoted, idiot.
Billy, I find your article
Billy, I find your article shallow and pedantic.
Kidding. It's actually well reasoned and written.
Young billy Please....
Let me first introduce myself, I am a graduate student with a Bachelor of Arts in Print Journalism who is currently seeking a Master of Arts in Journalism as well. I happen to be African American and I happen to be female. So with that being said, Let me advise you on a little tact when writing. When you start an "informative hard news piece" by Implying that a young white student was Brutally and savagely Beaten...You must admit that you are FRAMING the situation. The facts in the Jena case have proven that the Young white male pulled a Shot gun on the young black males who then took his gun and beat him up. The white boy went to the ER, was awake, alert, and functioning because he then went to a party after the fact!!!! When you suggest that the white boy was "SAVAGELY" beaten how do you know that is true??? What savages where beating him? By whose standards is savagely the correct term for the description of this situation? If you were SAVAGELY beaten would you have attended a Party after you were SAVAGELY beaten? ...I doubt it. Please don't use "Filler Phrases" to sound educated and informed. It only makes the reader resent your work and resent you as a Credible Source. Just some Advice.
Let me offer you a little
Let me offer you a little advice. Capitalizing words at Random doesn't Make you a JournalIST. And I would ask that YOU Admit that you, yourself are THe One Framing this Conversation. As you Well Know, the facts of the JENA case clearly Show that the Savage attackers kicked and Stomped the Victim after he had been Rendered unconscious.
IF this story was about 6 white Youths who had attacked a black Youth From Behind and then stomped on his Head would you consider that Savage?
Just a simple question.
You don't have the facts of
You don't have the facts of the Jena 6 incident straight. Maybe you should do more research before you offer advice or criticism.
The girl involved in the cake incident turned out to be a liar. Her arm was never broken and the security guard was cleared of any and all wrongdoing. She threw the cake on the floor, refused to clean it up, shouted profanity, stuck her finger in the security guard's face then bumped him and he put her in a submission hold. Basically, he did his job! She was a bratty teenager who was causing a scene, breaking the rules, and refused to acquiesce to an authority figure. Now that all the "civil rights" leaders have crawled out from under their rocks the story is that she was a poor helpless black-girl who's arm was broken by a brutish white racist security guard who slammed her on the table and called her "nappy head". LIES!!!!
I found this article while looking to see if Jesse Jackson every apologized to the wrongfully accused lacrosse players: He didn’t. Reading this article I found it to be poignant, well written, and thought provoking. I applaud you for it. These black leaders jump at some of the most specist of alleged racial incidents before all the facts are known and whipping people into a frenzy. When all is said and done and the lives of three innocent students have been disrupted they slink off like nothing every happened refusing to take any responsibility for their actions. There is no doubt in my mind that had Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton not held so many press conferences regarding the Duke players they would have never been charged. The DA felt pressure to make a hasty decision because of the race baiters.
The Jena 6 are not the poster children to demonstrate that racism is still alive and well in American. Why they are being treated like innocent saints who were wrongfully accused is unbelievable to me. Two of these thugs who took part in the gang beating of a fellow student, beating him into unconsciousness and then continued to beat him, recently presented an award to Rap artists in the BET hip-hop awards. These 6 are being celebrated and treated as if they are celebrities. Huh? Is the black community really embracing them has heroes? What kind of backwards world do we live in? What kind of message is this sending?