Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Fox News is a little bit on the ... Um ...It seems a little nasty to me. It's funny because these guys at Cornell are actually starting a debate. The debate seems like maybe something like, "Is stereotyping blacks as criminals helpful? SHould we avoid blacks in general the same way we should avoid police, because they are potentially dangerous?"
What apparently irked Smith is an article in the American decrying the lack of media attention to black-on-white crime in the area.
Cornell American Article
Other interesting findings of the study include:
  1. Blacks are as much more dangerous than whites as men are more dangerous than women
  2. Blacks commit violent crimes at four to eight times the white rate. Hispanics commit violent crimes at approximately three times the white rate, and Asians at one half to three quarters the white rate
  3. There is more black-on-white than black-on-black violent crime
  4. Hispanics are a hate crime victim category but not a perpetrator category. Hispanic offenders are classified as white, which inflates the white offense rate and gives the impression that Hispanics commit no hate crimes.
If all of these numbers are correct, then why don’t we hear more about black-on-white crime from the media? The answer is because it would be deemed politically incorrect and racist to point out a minority’s shortcomings (i.e. a 70% illegitimacy rate, grossly disproportionate assault, murder, rape, and armed robbery rates, etc). Who’s to blame the media though? Such a gross detail of violence would most definitely spark NAACP backlash or Jesse Jackson tongue-lashings.

It is also common-knowledge that, regardless of one’s race, greater precaution is taken when traveling through black neighborhoods than white neighborhoods. In the words of prominent black economist Walter Williams, “I carry two friends with me when I go into New York [city]. And my friends are... Smith & Wesson.” So what is stopping people from realizing this and calling a spade a spade? The answer is nothing except the hesitation to “perpetuate stereotypes” and the possibility of being termed a racist because of it.
Anna Marie Smith' response:

We, the professors and administrators, are also responsible for creating the sort of enduring infrastructure that will enhance the power of the anti-hate voice, for we do not have a level playing field when it comes to free speech and the exchange of ideas. The Supreme Court has affirmed the legitimacy of our interest in genuine diversity — that is to say, the presence of a critical mass of individuals from groups that have faced historical discrimination. We should take The American incident as a reminder that we must re-double our effort to build a diverse university community that establishes a critical mass of African-American and Latino/a faculty, senior administrators, and students.

I normally don't wager into fox news territory much. I found this one above the J-word one. (worth a read) But something in it struck me as worth reading.
My experience in the Pacific Northwest has not left me with the feeling that blacks are especially dangerous, it's the cranksters we have to worry about here. Now there's a stereotype: People who fidgit like an earthquake, holes in their skin, hair falling out, teeth,- well, bad teeth, faint odor of formaldyhyde, and audibly grinding their bad teeth are more likely to steel, rob, urinate in public, die of infection and the like. So what's to stop us from calling that spade a spade. Or maybe in the case of the ones who have buck bad teeth, a rake. Or am I going over the same edge? It's all a little complicated. Anyway, it does seem in bad taste to phrase it the way they did but, hey, they're kids, right?

-peace out

No comments: