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 [1]. John Manetta Once Told Me appears alternate Wednesdays this semester.
Links:
[1] mailto:bmcmorris@cornellsun.com