Trackbacks & Pings

1. Alabama-Judge-Marvin-Arrington-Excludes-Whites-From-Courtoom-To-Lecture-Blacks | Popehat on 08 Apr 2008 at 7:03 am

   [...] This post at Racialicious and the comments thereto demonstrate some of the common race-based defenses of his conduct: that no one should care about being excluded from getting a lecture, that complaints of “reverse racism” from whites are silly, and the like. These miss the point, I think. It’s true that I think it self-evident that a sitting judge should not exclude people from the courtroom based on race. But even more than that, I think that a sitting judge should not single out defendants based on their race for a lecture about good conduct, character, and culture. The judge’s lecture to those defendants implies that they bear some collective responsibility for crime in the African-American community because they are African-American — that when they are in front of him, they are judged in part based on the color of their skin, not based on the rule of law. [...]

Comments

1. Ailurophile wrote:

   Technically, I’m not a random GUY but the answer is “no.” Sure, I believe that we’d all benefit if we could talk about race more candidly; but in this case, I don’t see the problem with the judge sending all of the non-black people out of the room, really.

   And maybe that lecture will do those kids good. A verbal butt-kicking from an older authority figure has been known to benefit younglings on the wrong track. Sometimes.

   Posted 07 Apr 2008 at 9:44 am ¶

2. islandgirl550 wrote:

   Yea, who was that random guy? I know he didn’t want to hear nothin’ from his Paw-Paw about doing better. (LOL!)

   I agree with you Latoya, I have been snatched aside by older black people when they’ve felt I needed a “talking to.” I really didn’t react to this that much at all.

   Posted 07 Apr 2008 at 9:59 am ¶

3. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

   “Really, random, guy, you seriously want a scolding lecture about your responsibilities to the black race?”

   LOL @ 9:30AM

   Seriously, the judge reminds me of the fed-up Black folks like my mom (63 yrs and going) and older generations who feel it’s their duty to “get the race right” because “the race has gotten so far off-track,” even if it means just having a word to young women like you and me (and what they mean as “young” is anyone young enough to be “their child,” grown or not) or clearing the courtroom to have a heart-to-heart with the young brothas and sistas.

   I also wonder if the judge also felt like this was his opportunity to address members of a group middle-class Black folks feel is keeping “the race” down–poor Black folks, a disproportionate number of whom recycle through the criminal system, including this judge’s court room. Instead of taking the Bill Cosby approach and being public, the judge shoo’d everyone else out and performed his “racial elder” duty by shutting the doors to “his” court room and speaking to the defendents.

   Posted 07 Apr 2008 at 10:30 am ¶

4. Aaminah wrote:

   I think this comes from flat out nosiness… people think everything is about “me” so they feel left out when they are told “this isn’t about you, this isn’t your business, you don’t need to hear this”. “Random guy” may feel that he is just keenly curious to know what went on when he wasn’t part of the conversation, but you know, it’s not his right. (Saying this having not seen the video yet, because I’m at work.)

   Posted 07 Apr 2008 at 10:42 am ¶

5. CG wrote:

   Maybe “that guy” thought the talk was about him.

   LOL

   Posted 07 Apr 2008 at 10:46 am ¶

6. Juan wrote:

   I think it’s less nosiness and more entitlement.

   Sorta the same instance with safe spaces/private moments geared towards women and/or people of color. The dominant group think they’re entitled to be there/heard and disallowing them from such a space is wrong and [reverse] racist/sexist.

   Posted 07 Apr 2008 at 11:02 am ¶

7. Lyonside wrote:

   My only problem is that the “talk” seems to have broken the structure of the court, which could be seen as undermining the idea of a fair trial (and by extension, court appearances and procedures), because this seperation and talk were towards one group of people. Unless the judge does this for every defendent, or every young defendent, or every first time offender, whatever the criteria may be, it can be perceived as bias and segregation, regardless of intent.

   Talking to an entire courtroom isn’t the solution – it wouldn’t apply to most people in that courtroom (the lawyers, the social workers, the guards, the family members, press), of whatever ethnicity.

   But I’d rather the judge talk to EVERY young defendent, or first time offender, or criminal that he thought had a chance of getting their act together, individually or as a group, AFTER the court preceedings. Yes, in his court most of the defendents are black. But I’d hope that any advice he gave to a 20 YO black man from a lower socioeconomic status in his court would be applicable to a 20 YO white man with the same socioeconomic status, etc. – which in my head goes something along the lines of, “Get it together, you have a chance to redeem yourself, is this what your momma wants for you, is this the life you want for your younger brother/sister/cousin/children, there are better things for you than jail, drugs, or the streets, if you just open your eyes,” etc.

   Posted 07 Apr 2008 at 11:13 am ¶

8. Rob wrote:

   Well, I’m from Atlanta and all I got from some people that I know was “Well, if it was a White judge we would have had Jessie and Al down here the next day calling for him to resign” response. Its almost like they see it as a chance for payback. I understand where they are coming from but touching that is an entirely different can of worms.

   This just proves that its difficult to talk about race issues period. If you do it in public, you are airing dirty laundry. if you do it in private, you are segregating or preaching hate. You can’t really win.

   Posted 07 Apr 2008 at 11:30 am ¶

9. queer hapa wrote:

   Wait a sec, did he kick out all the white people or did he kick out all the non-black people? ‘Cause, you know, those are not the same thing. Even if his courtroom only contained whites and blacks, the conflation of “white” with “non-black” is troubling.

   And am I watching a different video than other people? Who is this “random guy” people keep referring to?

   Posted 07 Apr 2008 at 11:36 am ¶

10. macintyre wrote:

    Agree with Lyonside and Juan. It wasn’t a very “judicial” thing for him to do in a courtroom, where different treatment based on race is supposed to be nonexistant, but the complaints smack (at BEST) of entitlement.

    Posted 07 Apr 2008 at 11:48 am ¶

11. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    qh -

    I posted it as non-black, but the video may have said white. There were other people in the video who did not appear to be white, but since newsmedia tends to only make two racial distinctions, it’s anyone’s guess.

    And the “random guy” I referred to was near the end of the video, the one who was like “This is a message that everyone needs to hear!”

    Posted 07 Apr 2008 at 11:50 am ¶

12. Tariq Nelson wrote:

    @ Lyonside

    I agree with you, but I think that the Judge may have just been at his wits end when he saw the parade of young black males going to jail. It must have appeared that other races/ethnicities are not having the problem that we are having so there was a need to have a “special message”.

    Posted 07 Apr 2008 at 1:18 pm ¶

13. evita wrote:

    I’m really over white people using reverse racism whenever they feel individually slighted. The judge made a good point when he said he didn’t want to embarrass them in front of other people. I think that many people of color have been talked to historically by family and close friends about how what we do as individually affects how we are ALL treated as people of color. I’m sure he, as an older man of color has a lot of power in speaking to them with his power and with his willingness to be so candid with the, would have a lot of influence on them as young black men.

    White people have historically believed that the world and what is right or wrong is from their perspective… aka what has been happening with Jermiah Wright and the whites belief that what he said on the 30 second loop was not Christian etc. In order to not be misunderstood, he excused the white folks from the room- the message wasn’t to them.

    I see nothing wrong here but yet another example of white privilege.

    If whites have recognized the existence of racism, then yes

    Posted 07 Apr 2008 at 1:46 pm ¶

14. Aaron wrote:

    I think lyonside has the right idea. If some non-blacks, or whites, whatever the case was, felt “left out”, well that’s a bit silly. The reason it was not the right decision though was because the justice system is supposed to have a certain level of transparency. Most court proceedings are open to the public for this reason. There are instances where they’re not for very good reasons, like privacy, security, etc. But even in those cases, people other than the defendants are allowed to be there. The judge probably didn’t clear the court in order further infringe on the rights of the defendants, but what if he did? How would we know? That’s why it’s a problem.

    Posted 07 Apr 2008 at 2:24 pm ¶

15. Michelle wrote:

    Goodness, Blacks are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. What was the judge supposed to do? Sometimes things have more impact when they are done with urgency and immediacy. But….here’s my question to White America, what can Blacks do about the problems besetting Black America that is acceptable?

    Posted 07 Apr 2008 at 2:25 pm ¶

16. sey03 wrote:

    I can understand the judge’s frustration. Over 20 years ago I remember my high school government class spending the day at the courthouse. I literally cried because all the defendants were black and I had to be excused. That experience alone delayed my law school entry by a few years…

    That being said, I personally find this recent need for transparency as it relates to our church sermons and court conduct tiring despite the rational arguments often presented. I think that is because I don’t think the most outrage or concern we are witnessing is based on anything legitimate.

    What I really feel like saying is…it ain’t always about you!

    Posted 07 Apr 2008 at 2:27 pm ¶

17. Aaron wrote:

    I don’t really care what goes on in church. And concern about transparency in court proceedings is nothing new. The right to due process is one of the most basic rights we have in the US. And that right includes transparency in court proceedings. If a judge feels he needs to clear his court of all but a very limited group of people in order to say something, they probably shouldn’t say it. At that point it’s not their job. The problem with clearing the courtroom like that is what if it was a white judge? What motivation could there be behind that? It could be relatively harmless, as was this judge’s, or it could be in order to deny basic rights to one of the parties of the trial. The point is, we wouldn’t know for sure. It is a problem. It’s a huge problem. The main problem is not that the judge took it upon himself to solve the problems of black youths by lecturing them. It’s that he cleared almost his entire courtroom.

    Demanding transparency in the legal system should never be found tiring.

    Posted 07 Apr 2008 at 2:59 pm ¶

18. sey03 wrote:

    Aaron, I did not see your earlier post. I do agree with you about transparency of the legal system.

    However, I was speaking to the need for the black community to be transparent to those outside the community. I still do not think most of the outrage we have been witnessing as it relates to that specifically is completely legitimate.

    Poor choice of words on my part.

    Posted 07 Apr 2008 at 3:33 pm ¶

19. Sulyp wrote:

    I think what the judge should have done was to take them into his private chambers for a talk. This is not unheard of.

    I can see why people were feeling “left out”. Not that I totally agree with the reasoning, but I can surmise that it’s only natural.

    Posted 07 Apr 2008 at 5:07 pm ¶

20. DivergentDana wrote:

    I agree wholeheartedly on the importance of preserving the transparency of court proceedings, and due to that, I believe that he probably should’ve used another venue to deliver his talk. That being said, I think we should open everything up…yup, everything. Frankly, I’m tired of people pretending that the social distance between blacks and everyone else isn’t largely mutual. If black people opened everything up, more than likely nothing would change, because usually the “interest” isn’t an honest one, the bluff would be called (ex. HBCUs, black churches), and the “gotcha” game would be over. That being said, it could possibly have been uncomfortable to have sat there through the lecture for both parties… why, just today, I decided not to go to this lecture on the relationship between Dalits and Hinduism because I was worried about intruding on “in-house matters.”

    Posted 07 Apr 2008 at 6:37 pm ¶

21. AC wrote:

    Due process and other constitutional rights are safeguarded by court proceedings being recorded, whether by court reporter (stenographer) or audio/video recordings, not by the presence of bystanders and onlookers. The fact that the Courthouse is open to the public does not necessarly mean that each and every court proceeding is open to the public, nor does the public have a right to “observe” everything that goes on in Court.

    Not everything that happens in a courtroom is part of the court proceedings. The Judge is in control and charge of his (her) courtroom and within the canon of ethics may do what is necessary for the administration of justice.

    With that in mind, my understanding of this specific situation is that the judge went off the record, called a recess and asked non blacks to clear the courtroom so as not to embarass the defendants he was about to lecture.

    There are plenty of safety reasons these days for the Judge to not take criminal defendants back into his chambers. But he didn’t have to take them back into his chambers to have a private meeting with him because he was free to use his courtroom. Judges routinely use their courtrooms for such “chamber” meetings when its inappropriate to actually hold the meeting back in the Judge’s chamber.

    As a judge myself I don’t see anything wrong with what this judge did. He wanted to speak man to man with some young blacks appearing in his courtroom and part of what he wanted to say was something he did not want to discuss “outside of the family”. You can be sure that if he cleared non-blacks from the courtroom part of what he had to say was not for non-black consumption. Asking why he can’t give the same speech to all defendants who appear in his courtroom ignores that aspect of his lecture that was for family only. I am sure this judge has a version of the speech available for mixed company and is more than willing to use it on the rest of his docket.

    Posted 08 Apr 2008 at 12:08 am ¶

22. Lyonside wrote:

    >Asking why he can’t give the same speech to all defendants who appear in his courtroom ignores that aspect of his lecture that was for family only.

    OK, not being a lawyer or a judge, I’ll buy the idea that a judge can use the main court as impromptu chambers.

    But I still have the problem with the idea that all the BLACK defenders are presumed to be from the same circumstances based on their ethnicity, that they’re in the same “family,” as you put it.

    Never mind the idea that if this happened BEFORE a verdict, there is no presumption of innocence.

    Posted 08 Apr 2008 at 8:57 am ¶

23. bdsista wrote:

    This is what I wrote to popehat and I agree with AC and with evita.
    As an attorney and an educator, I applaud Judge Arrington. You can argue the the fine points of the law all you want, but if the end result is young people in the criminal justice system, then I am glad that Judge Arrington showed some measure of caring by providing these young people with a lecture on their behavior. Sometimes getting a message to young people is not convenient to persons’ sense of what is conventional. In education we call it a “Teachable Moment”. It is disingenuous to argue the fact that they are not responsible for the actions of their race in the community, when in fact, all Black people get painted with the same brush. When you say inner city crime or hell, crime at all, what image comes to mind in most of America? If the defendants are Black and commit crimes in the Black community, then then are responsible for the crime. We all are responsible for our young people. Had the Judge commented in a full courtroom, they would not have heard his well intended and caring message. They would have been embarrassed and felt denigrated, particularly before an audience of those whom are not in their community and whom they feel do not care about them or their lives. Teachers learn to pull difficult students aside or address them in small groups to modify behavior. Males in particular get very upset if they are humiliated in public. Judge Arrington like all other Judges are also human. It must be very trying to see young people throw their lives away and in his capacity he had the opportunity to make a difference. I notice in the midst of all this criticism, no one has asked the young people how they felt or if the message had an impact. Before you criticize someone who is trying to do right by our young people, look at what you do to change them. Volunteer in a school or a Boys Club, Mentor a youth. Our young people of African American and Hispanic ethnicity have the lowest test scores in many states and need mentors and people willing to give them straight talk about life and the choices they make. No one is better qualified than a Judge to make an impact on a person who can go one way or the other.
    Addition: Lyonside-I disagree, we all all responsible for our young people and as for the verdict. It was not a jury trial so the Judge had to give the verdict, it is unclear as to at what stage of the proceedings this took place, to to say there is not presumption of innocence is unproven and may be invalid. It appears that prior to sentencing, he took it upon himself to deliver the message which would be timely, he would not get that chance afterwards. Often Judges give lectures prior to verdicts, in this case Arrington showed sensitivity to needs of the Defendants. Everyone else is grown, so if they didn’t get the lecture, they need to grow up and deal with the reality.

    Posted 08 Apr 2008 at 10:30 am ¶

24. Lyonside wrote:

    >it is unclear as to at what stage of the proceedings this took place, to to say there is not presumption of innocence is unproven and may be invalid.

    BDSista, which is why I said, “if this happened BEFORE a verdict, there is no presumption of innocence.” It wasn’t clear from the video.

    And I still want to know if the judge would give this kind of speech to ALL young, first-time, whatever convicts (since we’re both assuming after a verdict), or just the black ones. I have a problem with the latter.

    Posted 08 Apr 2008 at 12:28 pm ¶

25. Lyonside wrote:

    >It is disingenuous to argue the fact that they are not responsible for the actions of their race in the community, when in fact, all Black people get painted with the same brush. When you say inner city crime or hell, crime at all, what image comes to mind in most of America?

    BDSista: So, because there are sterotypes out there, we should feed into them? Tactically agree with them? Talk to EVERY black defendent/convict the same way regardless of circumstances? Absolutely not. I’m not willing to go there.

    Posted 08 Apr 2008 at 12:30 pm ¶

26. cw wrote:

    They left out a very important point that Judge Arrington made in an earlier broadcast. He said that his grandmother told him if you are going to chastise black people don’t do it in front of white people.

    Posted 08 Apr 2008 at 3:07 pm ¶

27. RainaWeather wrote:

    “The judge’s lecture to those defendants implies that they bear some collective responsibility for crime in the African-American community because they are African-American”

    Maybe this comment would make sense if this hadn’t happened in a courtroom. The judge was talking to a group of Black criminals so they most certainly do bear direct responsibility for crime in the Black community.

    I really see nothing wrong with what he did. It may have been a bad career move, but really stuff like that happens a lot, just not in a courtroom. It seems a little weird that people feel left out. If a person sent me out of the room to talk to White people about racism in the predominately White communities, I certainly would not mind being excluded. I agree with Evita, it would have been embarrassing if everyone was in the room.

    Anywho, who gives a damn, if they are in court they need a good talking to.

    Posted 08 Apr 2008 at 9:06 pm ¶