For those who haven’t been following the news, there was a police shooting in Charlotte the night before last.  The facts of the case are still being investigated: the police claim that the black man who was shot had a gun; his family says he had a book.  I’m not sure the distinction matters, as North Carolina is an open carry state, so “he had a gun” isn’t obviously relevant.  There were violent protests both last night and the night before.  Yesterday afternoon, I put the following statement on the Ethics Center’s webpage (including the italicized portion marking it as my own).  I woke up this morning to an email ordering me to take it down, and to call my dean.  I am not going to die on this hill, so I removed the post.  But we live in a world where University Ethics Center directors are not allowed to attempt to exercise moral leadership in the communities they serve, even as those universities claim to commit and recommit to their communities. And where Ethics Centers are forced to be strangely silent on moral issues like HB2 and police violence.

I reproduce the statement in its exact form below, in case someone may find it useful. Systemic violence against people of color is worse than the loss of our universities – including public ones, as I was sternly informed UNC Charlotte is – as places of intellectual engagement.  But the latter is not trivial or insignificant, as the steady collapse of meaningful public discourse is a disaster for any viable understanding of democracy.

UPDATE (9/22): There is dashcam footage of the shooting, which the CMPD has.  The family has seen the video, and wants it made public.  Earlier in the day, the CMPD chief had declared that the video would not be made public, because "The video does not give me absolute, definitive visual evidence that would confirm that a person is pointing a gun."  Unless this is a misstatement (but this is the exact quote I have seen, in several sources), this means that the CMPD Chief has essentially refused to release the video on the grounds that it does not clearly exonerate his officer.  Someone please show me how I am misreading this statement!   In any event, there are already too many issues to discuss here, but the national conversation has to include discussion about what to do with video footage of shootings.  North Carolina has passed a law that generally suppresses the public availability of that video.  It takes effect Oct. 1.  I do not know what the legal situation with the footage is now, but the conflict between the CMPD Chief and the family on whether the video should be released is important.

***

[Please note: The following statement represents my response to the shooting.  It does not represent the views of the Center, the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, or the University]

I had the privilege of being able to attend some of the community gatherings at lunch today on campus, and will say something about last night’s shooting, in University City, of Keith Lamont Scott.  I want to extend my condolences to his family: especially to his wife, who has lost her husband, and to his children who will now have to grow up without a father. With the Chancellor, I hope there will be a thorough and transparent investigation into the incident.

But much more needs to be said.  At the gathering, I heard one person after another – mostly African-American women – speak to an incredible sense of fear: fear not just for themselves, but for their brothers, their cousins, their fathers, their children, or their future children.  They also spoke of despair.  One woman sitting next to me pointed out that in the face of systemic injustice, it seems to have become impossible to protest or even to be heard: both non-violence and violence are condemned loudly in the mainstream media.  And several people spoke of difficulty sleeping at night and of recurring trauma.

I do not have very many solutions, but I think minimally that it’s very important that white people hear this (and there were few other white people in attendance, at least at the session I was in).  Consider the following.  In the past week, there was the Friday shooting in Tulsa of Terence Crutcher, who appeared to have his hands in the air and whom even the Tulsa police have conceded had no weapon.  The candidate for a major political party, who has spent the last several years proclaiming (or questioning, or insinuating with a wink) that the country’s first African-American President wasn’t eligible to be President on account of his supposedly being born in Kenya, suddenly declared not only that he believed Obama was born in the United States, but falsely claimed that his opponent started the smear campaign.  Then, in a stunning display of gaslighting, he and his spokespeople denied that he had said otherwise since 2011, even when shown video evidence refuting him.  On Monday, that candidate’s campaign released a video showcasing the support of Ted Nugent, who is one of the most racist individuals to have set foot on a stage in a long time.  Then on Tuesday evening, the national Fraternal Order of Police endorsed that candidate.  This is just in less than a week.  In the meantime, the regime of mass incarceration (that the other candidate facilitated a generation ago) continues: although the rate is dropping a bit, Black Americans are incarcerated at six times the rate of White Americans, a situation that legal scholar Michelle Alexander calls the “New Jim Crow,” because being convicted of a crime can permanently disenfranchise someone.  Even a study that seemed to find that Black Americans are shot (it did not distinguish fatal and non-fatal shootings) at a frequency similar to white ones, also found they are subjected to routinized non-lethal violence at a much, much higher rate than white Americans.  Any society ought to find this state of affairs intolerable.

In the face of a steady drumbeat of news like this, how could any person of color not feel despair and desperation?  The national background frames how we interpret last night’s shooting in Charlotte: even if it turns out that CMPD did nothing wrong, it is impossible not to think about Mike Brown or Kajieme Powell when we hear that another Black man has been shot by police. That impossibility fuels both anger and despair, and the national-level problem makes both police and members of minority communities less safe, here and elsewhere.

I do not know exactly what happened last night, but even more than I hope that the CMPD will conduct a thorough and transparent investigation, I hope that something triggers white America to care about the deep structural racism that permeates so much of our society, and about the incalculable damage that racism does to real people, real families and real communities, every day.

Posted in , , , ,

6 responses to “On the Police Shooting in Charlotte, and being Ordered to Remove a Post”

  1. Henry Avatar
    Henry

    I have heard the news, and it is indeed quite disturbing. How was Charlotte (not just the university, but also the city itself) affected, such as the roads, I-85 highway, and even the streets? Was the daily routine interrupted or different from usual? I recall that the news mentioned there were lots of riots and chaos and a state of emergency has been called. Furthermore, I wonder why there is censorship in giving a statement on the ethics website, was it an attempt to restrict the 1st amendment?

    Like

  2. Gordon Hull Avatar

    So basically the shooting occurred at some apartments fairly near campus (on Old Concord Road), and things spilled over. The events on campus were all peaceful, and designed to be therapeutic. I think they succeeded in that. There were a number of peaceful protests off campus, and splinter groups that broke off and became more disruptive and even violent. I do not know all the details well enough to put together a timeline for you (any decent news site should be able to do that). I know that on the first night, parts of both I-85 and Harris Boulevard [both streets near the university] were blocked for a while. Last night, there were planned protests in the government-buildings area downtown. As I understand it, those were peaceful. The activity on the news seemed to be near the EpiCenter (again, apologies to those not familiar with Charlotte. The EpiCenter is downtown and is a complex of mainly bars and restaurants and clubs, with hotel space on top). It went on until pretty late; at least one person was shot (not by a police officer). First he was reported dead, then that was revised to “serious” condition. At around 11:00, the Governor called out the national guard and declared a state of emergency. A number of venues around town are closing today (there was a moderate amount of property damage yesterday), including (apparently) South Park Mall (non Charlotteans: it’s a high-end mall, but about 6 miles away from downtown) and various businesses downtown, including the university’s downtown building.
    As a state employee I have the First Amendment right to post this here, which the dean even stressed. The question in my mind is whether I can call upon my subject-matter expertise and the podium I have to offer an opinion. The answer given is no, apparently in part because it’s “the university website” where “personal” opinions aren’t welcome. Assuming for the moment that’s correct, I think it’s highly unfortunate. Taken to its end, the logical principle there would seem to disqualify anyone from a university from offering their expert opinion on anything, or even perhaps linking to their articles. But the university actively wants news media (etc) calling faculty for their expert opinions. I’ve even offered opinions on a couple of local ethics controversies on TV, all vetted through the university communications department.
    I suspect the difference here is one that won’t be stated: what I am saying is very controversial or “political.” But, as you know, almost all statements can be construed as political (think about anything to do with, say, climate change, or gun safety). And if I get a conversation going about white privilege and the background conditions that help us understand what’s happening in Charlotte, well, then I’ve done something that I think has some value. Even if everybody decides I’m wrong.
    In short, the line between “university” and “faculty” and “personal” speech is a fuzzy one, and I disagree with how it’s being drawn here.

    Like

  3. Robin James Avatar
    Robin James

    Hi Gordon. This is seriously disturbing. This same dean is demanding that the Center increase its ‘visibility’ in the community. (FYI everyone else: I’m in the same department as Gordon and a member of the Center Director’s Advisory Committee.) She basically told you to make the Center more publicly prominent. Using the Center website as a venue to have faculty contribute their research expertise to highly prominent local public issues sounds like a great way to make the Center more visible and publicly prominent. This dean also pushes faculty to publicize their research (e.g., through public lecture programs.) This all suggests to me that she’s either caving to pressures from above, and/or the problem with your post was that it talked about things like white supremacy and cis-sexism as the obviously reprehensible things they are and didn’t do that disingenuous ‘both sides of the debate’ thing that we, as political philosophers, know only naturalizes existing inequities by ignoring structural domination.

    Like

  4. Ed Kazarian Avatar

    Thank you for this, Gordon, for the words of your original post and for reposting it here and calling attention to the way that our institutions’ are narrowing the definition of acceptable critical and scholarly engagement.

    Like

  5. Tim Kirk Avatar
    Tim Kirk

    One plausible/defensible inspiration for asking that the post be removed would be the perception that it takes a position on a political candidate for president in an active election; and, that a center at a public, State, university needs to remain neutral in matters of elections. Though arguable (the post does not endorse or renounce the candidate, it simply states facts about the candidate’s behaviors) the perception, and a request arising from it, is defensible. An alternate request from the University administration would have been simply to ask that the poster remove or revise the four sentences referencing that candidate–including with the request a justification that clarifies a public University’s role in active electoral races and references applicable University policy/State regulation. The overall point of the post could surely be made without reference–even implicit–to a Trump candidacy. (Such a request may nonetheless be offensive to some, but would not be entirely unreasonable.) So, it would be helpful to understand precisely what the request from the Dean said, and how that request was justified. That would give appropriate context to the implied message of this blog post–that the incident was University censorship at its worst and is inconsistent with basic tenets of academic freedom. Absent that context, the post is a bit one-sided.

    Like

  6. Gordon Hull Avatar

    Tim (if I may) – that’s a very good question. The request from the dean was that I remove the post because it contains personal opinion, and that can’t be on a university server. She did not differentiate parts of the post, or suggest that it had inappropriately partisan material. One of my colleagues brought your question up, and I’m pretty sure if the dean had said that “look, I get what you’re trying to say, but folks are gonna say you’re working for the Hillary campaign,” I’d probably have grumbled for a minute and then agreed to make the point without the Trump references.
    You’ll notice I linked to everything I said about him – that was deliberate, as was my parenthetical reference to Hillary’s support of the dismantling of welfare and mass incarceration in the 1990s. I do think the Trump campaign is a contributing factor to a climate of fear and violence. I know there is documentation for hate crimes against Muslims (they’ve spiked during his candidacy, and declined against all other groups). The rest is of course inference based on who supports him most enthusiastically. I remember that the best predictor of a Trump vote in the Republican primaries was authoritarian personality, and I believe racial resentment is one of the better predictors now (no, I can’t produce the cite off the top of my head, but I know that being lower income is not an accurate predictor of Trump support). In any case, I put all that in there deliberately, as part of sort of a climate assessment… but you’re absolutely right that the post could have been without it. But if that was the dean’s problem, she didn’t express it to me.

    Like

Leave a comment