Panel votes to suspend Ms. Lawson-Muhammad
ctrzaska said:
At least we’ve apparently established that highly charged words may merely have whatever superficial context the speaker (or those otherwise divining intent) chooses to assign them, regardless of any generally accepted negative connotation or deeper meaning, particularly if those words pertain merely to one’s grooming or sartorial choices. Sometimes a word really is just a word. Who knew?
The pains being taken in this discussion to infantilize points in order to knock them down are a real tour de force.
Lawson-Muhammad wasn’t seizing a serendipitous chance to share with one of Chief Kroll’s employees a superficial observation about his grooming choices. She was lashing out. If there was a rational seed to what she called her irrational response, it was the mental picture of the chief that gave her a spur-of-the-moment (as I see it) slur to hurl. Bad move, followed by public and private apologies, and then a poorly reasoned ruling by an abomination of a state commission.
sprout said:
If you're going to sum up my point
annielou said:OK. And how did I suggest it applied?
Several of those 13 pages were filled with repetitive explanations of de-escalation theory and why it somehow applies to the event being discussed.
I’d bet my Virtue Signal that you, flimbro or anyone else on this side of the discussion could, if you chose, write posts under different user names that would have the other side clamoring in agreement. You understand their POV as well as they do.
I wouldn’t wager an Enya cassette that anyone on that side, so far, could do the same.
Skinhead = racist only to racists.
- Bizarro on Virtue Signalling, Vol VI.
DaveSchmidt said:
The pains being taken in this discussion to infantilize points
Robert_Casotto said:
Squiggy!
I’m destined to run out of that card myself.
DaveSchmidt said:
sprout said:I’d bet my Virtue Signal that you, flimbro or anyone else on this side of the discussion could, if you chose, write posts under different user names that would have the other side clamoring in agreement. You understand their POV as well as they do.
If you're going to sum up my point
annielou said:OK. And how did I suggest it applied?
Several of those 13 pages were filled with repetitive explanations of de-escalation theory and why it somehow applies to the event being discussed.
I wouldn’t wager an Enya cassette that anyone on that side, so far, could do the same.
Actually I think any of us could, it’s the easy default position for anyone who cares about equality and fair treatment under a common law.
If I knew nothing about the ethics committee and the standards that BOE members are held to (and the privileged position that they have), I would have jumped on board with you and characterized the ethics committee process as a bad American translation of The Wiggles’ “Brown Girl in the Ring”.
But it’s the wrong position in this instance.
kmt said:
Actually I think any of us could, it’s the easy default position for anyone who cares about equality and fair treatment under a common law.
If I knew nothing about the ethics committee and the standards that BOE members are held to (and the privileged position that they have), I would have jumped on board with you and characterized the ethics committee process as a bad American translation of The Wiggles’ “Brown Girl in the Ring”.
But it’s the wrong position in this instance.
Let’s return to this, then. If my position is the easy default “for anyone who cares about equality and fair treatment under the law” (thanks, I’ll take it), what’s the more complex, more sensible position for supporting the commission’s decision? I’ve asked a couple of times already. Maybe I need to elaborate:
First, why isn’t the commission’s composition a problem? As you formulate your response, bear in mind that any defense has to contend with the obvious follow-up question: So what’s wrong with all-male, all-white juries? Tom_R hinted at a possible distinction when he asked about individual qualifications: Unlike a jury, a commission is built with experts, so what matters is their expertise. But even putting aside Jude Tanella, whose failure to recuse himself undercuts his grasp of ethics, the commission lacked any qualifications in the matter at the heart of Lawson-Muhammad’s account. Explain how that does not impede the commission’s ability to rule on her credibility.
[ETA: If “the standards that BOE members are held to (and the privileged position they have)” are givens, why have a hearing at all? Just throw the book at the malefactor. I’d have to say, though, that sounds like a pretty easy default of its own. Apologies if I’m infantilizing.]
The second part of the question has nothing to do with race: What’s the logic of finding a Rule (e) violation in addition to Rule (f)? Was the commission’s reasoning more convincing than mine? If so, why?
It’s possible that my position is so simplistic that these questions aren’t worth addressing — that any of you could if you wanted to. I’d ask you to humor me, but both humoring me and having the serious discussion you clearly desire poses its own complication, doesn’t it.
To save some time, I’ll anticipate another argument: Lawson-Muhammad is the one who brought race into it, and it’s not the ethics commission’s fault that she fabricated a defense that isn’t relevant to ethics rulings.
It’s possible that this position is so simplistic it’s not worth addressing.
DaveSchmidt said:
yahooyahoo said:I trusted that my point, like my earlier one about double jeopardy, would survive a loose use of familiar terms.
This is not a criminal trial. It's an ethics hearing for an elected official.
Tom_R said:If the Intercept article is correct, I believe that Jude Tanella should have recused himself from this case. Beyond that, it’s not a question of individual suitability. It’s a question of the suitability of the group as a whole. Which should be clear enough, unless the idea of all-white juries, all-male electorates, single-party Congresses, all-righty pitching staffs, etc., doesn’t trouble you.
Does anybody believe that the members of the commission are not suitable persons to hold their positions?
If so, why?
TomR
If the paradigm for juries, electorates and legislative bodies don't require the results you posit, I'm OK if those results occur.
As far as baseball goes; if the GM doesn't produce the results the owners desire, he'll soon find himself out of a job.
If you don't like the result of the Commission's decision, that's one thing, and you're entitled to hold that point of view. But if you just want to complain about the gender/skin color of the Commissioners because you don't like their decision, that's just weak.
TomR
This is a thread that will never end. Spout, DS, and filmbro will be on one side and others will be on the other side. No one will ever change their POV. Lawson-Muhammad has already been judged by anyone who cares about these things and will ultimately be re-elected or not based upon those judgments. She’ll either feel bad about her behavior or she won’t and none of us will have any effect on that. No analysis of the panel or her apology or decisions made about her future on the Board will change anyone’s mind. This is like a car accident. I just wish I could turn away but for some bad reason, I can’t. One thing I know, I probably have a lot more in common with the folks I disagree with on this thread than I don’t. (is that grammatical?). I’d rather talk baseball!
Tom_R said:
If you don't like the result of the Commission's decision, that's one thing, and you're entitled to hold that point of view. But if you just want to complain about the gender/skin color of the Commissioners because you don't like their decision, that's just weak.
TomR
Thank you, TomR, but I wouldn’t touch the word “entitled” in this thread with a 10-foot pole.
Come to think of it [I’ve rewritten this sentence], I bristled at the commission’s composition before I concluded that its decision was flawed. Your parting pejorative, I’m afraid, is unpersuasive.
jeffl said:
This is like a car accident. I just wish I could turn away but for some bad reason, I can’t. One thing I know, I probably have a lot more in common with the folks I disagree with on this thread than I don’t. (is that grammatical?). I’d rather talk baseball!
Turn away, or don’t turn away. Your call. My call is that race in America can’t be over-discussed. Sometimes I’m even able talk about it and baseball at the same time. (Dick Allen’s behavior in the 1960s remains a stimulating topic between my dad and me.)
No, it’s not entirely grammatical. But if you’re tired of hearing me on race, you definitely don’t want to get me started on syntax.
jeffl,
We don't have to look at the results of a car accident, we choose to look.
With regard to this thread, I keep checking in, because of its entertainment value.
TomR
jeffl said:
No one will ever change their POV.
Sorry, jeffl — you’re wrong. As I mentioned before, sprout’s illuminating (and patient) posts on de-escalation got me to rethink and abandon my initial skepticism. And I owe flimbro a debt for challenging me to look at race in new ways over the years here on MOL. Every time he posts, it’s an opportunity to learn something.
TomR checks in for the entertainment. I check in for that, too, but also more. I’m proceeding under the assumption that I’m not unique.
How about looking at race in “new ways” as it plays out in almost every facet of life here in SOMA? There are so very many issues to tackle that are barely mentioned here on MOL: a history of nearly all white governing bodies in both towns (especially South Orange), the nanny culture as seen through the eyes of a Black child, a handful of Black teachers at almost every level of education in our schools, the clear racial and economic segregation particularly in Maplewood, I’m exhausted just listing these items.
annielou said:
How about looking at race in “new ways” as it plays out in almost every facet of life here in SOMA?
Of course.
This discussion shouldn’t stop anyone from wrestling with those problems.
Perhaps I was unclear. I meant to say "I think it's very unlikely that anyone will change their mind on this thread." And, I agree, flimbro, you, and others have given me pause a number of times about assumptions that I make, and I'm grateful for that. But on this topic, I, for one, will never be convinced that race played a part in the officer's behavior towards Lawson-Muhammad or that the panel's decision was based on her race or theirs. Of course one can never know the inner workings of anyone's mind so I will never (and you will never) know for sure. And now, I promise, in the words of Ken Pettis, "I'm outta here!" GO CARDS!
DaveSchmidt said:
jeffl said:Sorry, jeffl — you’re wrong. As I mentioned before, sprout’s illuminating (and patient) posts on de-escalation got me to rethink and abandon my initial skepticism. And I owe flimbro a debt for challenging me to look at race in new ways over the years here on MOL. Every time he posts, it’s an opportunity to learn something.
No one will ever change their POV.
TomR checks in for the entertainment. I check in for that, too, but also more. I’m proceeding under the assumption that I’m not unique.
You were clear. My nod to sprout was about her posts in this thread. My nod to flimbro came in extra innings.
DaveSchmidt said:
...Thank you, TomR, but I wouldn’t touch the word “entitled” in this thread with a 10-foot pole.
Come to think of it [I’ve rewritten this sentence], I bristled at the commission’s composition before I concluded that its decision was flawed. Your parting pejorative, I’m afraid, is unpersuasive....
If you bristled at the Commission's composition before it's decision; what, if anything, at that time, did you do to correct that which you perceived as an impropriety?
If you don't think that you are entitled to a unique point of view, be one of the sheep. We are all different people, with differing pasts; all of which provide us each, a unique perspective. Except for those who drank the Kool-aid and follow whatever Jim (by whichever name or title) dictates as orthodoxy.
Weak has become a pejorative? Like ****** or skinhead?
Based upon your non-response, it does still seem as though you're complaining about the gender/skin color of composition of the Commission, because you don't much like it's decision.
You queried regarding all white juries, all male electorates and single party legislative bodies.
I responded, and I think that any intelligent person would have read the implicit counter query.
How say ye?
Do we not proceed to trial because only caucasians responded to a jury summons? Only men etc.,...?
TomR
three to five successive posts by white guys.
Virtue Signal Alert Code Blue.
DaveSchmidt said:
Can someone translate the preceding post for me, please?
I don't think you're stupid; so I'm going to go with purposefully obtuse. If you need to plod through this, we'll plod.
Tom_R said:
DaveSchmidt said:If you bristled at the Commission's composition before it's decision; what, if anything, at that time, did you do to correct that which you perceived as an impropriety?...
...Thank you, TomR, but I wouldn’t touch the word “entitled” in this thread with a 10-foot pole.
Come to think of it [I’ve rewritten this sentence], I bristled at the commission’s composition before I concluded that its decision was flawed. Your parting pejorative, I’m afraid, is unpersuasive....
So, what did you do when you realized that the Commission's composition was something worthy of your bristle?
TomR
Tom_R said:
DaveSchmidt said:I don't think you're stupid; so I'm going to go with purposefully obtuse. If you need to plod through this, we'll plod.
Can someone translate the preceding post for me, please?
Actually, I was hoping you’d be entertained.
Plodding along, then ...
If you bristled at the Commission's composition before it's decision; what, if anything, at that time, did you do to correct that which you perceived as an impropriety?
Believing that the commission’s makeup was worthy of discussion — that it might inform the opinions of others — I shared my observation with the thread. It’s a discussion board, after all. I did not petition or otherwise lobby Trenton to take any action.
If you don't think that you are entitled to a unique point of view, be one of the sheep. We are all different people, with differing pasts; all of which provide us each, a unique perspective.
I don’t know where you got the impression that I don’t think I’m entitled to a unique point of view. My reference to “entitled” was in jest. Although I’m doing my best to plod here, I draw the line at explaining a joke.
Except for those who drank the Kool-aid and follow whatever Jim (by whichever name or title) dictates as orthodoxy.
Too soon.
Cont’d.
Weak has become a pejorative?
Since at least 1882, when “pejorative” was used to mean a word or phrase that has negative connotations or that is intended to disparage or belittle (according to Merriam-Webster).
Like ****** or skinhead?
No.
Based upon your non-response, it does still seem as though you're complaining about the gender/skin color of composition of the Commission, because you don't much like it's decision.
Your original post contained no questions; I didn’t realize it had set forth a standard that my response was expected to meet. When the GM you mentioned diagnoses his team’s poor results, he might determine that a lack of southpaws is a cause. When I read the commission’s decision and didn’t like it (including for a specifically objective reason that has yet to be rebutted here), I took the next step and made a diagnosis. I concluded that the commission’s makeup was a cause.
You queried regarding all white juries, all male electorates and single party legislative bodies.
I responded, and I think that any intelligent person would have read the implicit counter query.
How say ye?
I’m still failing this IQ test. The implicit counter query eludes me.
Do we not proceed to trial because only caucasians responded to a jury summons? Only men etc.,...?
Your analogy might make more sense to me if the School Ethics Commission were filled by a similar process: a blind sweep that, on occasion, might net only whites or only men. That’s not how it’s appointed, though.
That said, yes, the “paradigm” allows such juries. The “paradigm” also subjects them to scrutiny and sometimes finds them indefensible. I have scrutinized the School Ethics Commission paradigm and found it indefensible.
we interrupt our regularly scheduled white guy battle of wits with a message from our sponsor.
Memorex.
Is it live or is it Memorex.
Memorex.
Six of the nine terms are listed as expiring next year.
Coalition on Race Asks Gov. Murphy to Review Ethics Commission in Light of Lawson-Muhammad Ruling (Village Green)
An excerpt from the Community Coalition on Race’s letter:
A significant amount of the Board’s written opinion and deliberation on the recommended length of suspension focused on their board assessment of whether or not a black woman feared a police officer. As not a single member has the life experience of a woman or person of color, their systematic dismissiveness of those claims displays bias.
Moreover, the revelation, if accurate, that one of the commission was in law enforcement and was indicted for first-degree manslaughter after shooting a black man in the back in 2002 (the charge was later dismissed), betrays the commission’s extreme poor judgement in allowing that member to deliberate on this case. How is it possible not to have demanded his recusal in a case involving a black woman expressing fear about the police in the context of increased national and local dialogue about the disproportionate use of force on black persons?
That reminds me, TomR. One other small thing I did when I bristled was contact Mary Mann, an acquaintance, to suggest that the commission’s composition might be worth looking into as part of the Village Green’s follow-up coverage.
DaveSchmidt said:
Six of the nine terms are listed as expiring next year.
Coalition on Race Asks Gov. Murphy to Review Ethics Commission in Light of Lawson-Muhammad Ruling (Village Green)
An excerpt from the Community Coalition on Race’s letter:
A significant amount of the Board’s written opinion and deliberation on the recommended length of suspension focused on their board assessment of whether or not a black woman feared a police officer. As not a single member has the life experience of a woman or person of color, their systematic dismissiveness of those claims displays bias.
Moreover, the revelation, if accurate, that one of the commission was in law enforcement and was indicted for first-degree manslaughter after shooting a black man in the back in 2002 (the charge was later dismissed), betrays the commission’s extreme poor judgement in allowing that member to deliberate on this case. How is it possible not to have demanded his recusal in a case involving a black woman expressing fear about the police in the context of increased national and local dialogue about the disproportionate use of force on black persons?
Is the Community Coalition on Race officially backing SLM in this matter or are they just asking Murphy to address the Ethics Commission membership?
yahooyahoo said:
Is the Community Coalition on Race officially backing SLM in this matter or are they just asking Murphy to address the Ethics Commission membership?
I don’t know what “officially backing” would entail, but it sounds like the coalition agrees there are grounds for her appeal:
We question the commission’s ability to give due consideration of the perspectives of people of color and women, and consequently to rule fairly and without bias in the case involving SOMSD BOE member Stephanie Lawson Muhammad.
No surprise, the CCR is once again stoking racial conflict. They’re kiss-up/kick-down people, slandered locals in BOE elections for years, desperately trying to appear relevant.
If you're going to sum up my point
OK. And how did I suggest it applied?