Racism as a Misandric Aggression: Patriarchy, Phallicism, and the Extermination of Black Males as Social Order
A California woman faces a hate crime charge after police said she accused a Black delivery driver of speeding and followed him, leading to a confrontation in which she used “hateful language.”
Berkeley police said a 35-year-old woman, who hasn’t been named, was arrested April 18 after they received a report of a disturbance. The woman said a delivery driver was speeding and that she and her boyfriend decided to follow the driver, according to police.
The woman “used force” to stop the driver from leaving and “used hateful language disparaging people of color,” authorities said.
The driver, Kendall McIntosh, who is Black, told KRON4 that the woman’s boyfriend stood behind the truck to stop him from leaving and that the woman used racial slurs against him and jumped inside the vehicle, grabbing the steering wheel.
McIntosh said he was “thankful” that witnesses recorded the incident on video.
“What constantly was running through my mind was you know it could be me in handcuffs instead of her so no matter what the situation is, just protect yourself,” McIntosh said. “If you feel like you have to videotape it or anything, definitely do that because I felt like if there wasn’t a video. … she probably could’ve gotten away with saying this.
The woman was arrested for false imprisonment, battery, using offensive words and threatening a person based on their perceived characteristics, police said.
Berkeley police said the woman faces a hate crime charge because she is accused of committing “a crime against a person, group, or property motivated by the victim’s real or perceiving protected social group,” according to the news release.
Verdell and Julie Franklin had visited their friends on Zukey Lake in Hamburg Township many times over the last ten years, and when a house on the same lake came on the market in September, they were eager to see the property.
It was after their experience viewing the house that they decided to file a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan. Julie is white and Verdell is Black. The lawsuit alleges housing discrimination, and that the real estate agents involved purposefully misled and prevented the Franklins from making an offer on the house because of race, in violation of the 1968 Fair Housing Act. The lawsuit was filed on Friday.
Julie Franklin called Mary Kay Ikens of RE/MAX Platinum and asked to schedule a showing of the house. When she came to the house with her husband, Verdell, and their friends who owned a home on the lake, Julie says it was like interacting with a totally different person.
“Yeah, on the phone she was really friendly, then when we got up there, she mostly just spoke to our friends, she really didn’t speak much to us,” says Julie.
The lawsuit states, “During the showing, Ikens demonstrated no interest in the Franklins as potential buyers.” The couple says she asked no questions about their occupations or means to purchase a home. They wanted to make an offer as soon as the tour was over, but when they told Ikens, they say she said she had to show another property. When Ikens returned to their friends’ house to discuss the offer, Julie says her detached behavior continued.
“Even when she came back, the five of us sat at the table, and she just talked with our friends, and didn’t have much to say to us at all. Like, didn’t even make eye contact, really, with us,” she says.
The Franklins say Ikens told them she had spoken with listing agent Rick Beaudin, who she referred to as her boss. She said that their proposed offer of $300,000 would not be considered, even though they were willing to make a higher offer. The Franklins say Ikens said this was because the homeowner was only accepting all-cash offers of $350,000, with the house as-is, no inspection. According to the lawsuit, none of these stipulations were mentioned in the listing. After Ikens dissuaded them, the Franklins decided not to make an offer.
Julie periodically checked in on the listing, and says it was listed as “pending offer” for nearly all of September and October. On October 28, the house was listed as “sold,” and the selling price was $300,000—the same offer the Franklins had wanted to make at the beginning of September. The offer was not all-cash, but made with a down payment and a mortgage. The lawsuit says the buyer was a white man who was permitted to have the property inspected before he purchased it.
Verdell Franklin says at that point, their friends who had accompanied them to the original showing encouraged them to do something about this.
“These friends of ours said, ‘you need to contact the fair housing authority in Michigan, because something’s going on here.'” He says after they contacted the fair housing authority, they found out that the listing agent for the property was Rick Beaudin.
Beaudin was let go from RE/MAX Platinum in June, following comments posted on social media. Joseph DeKroub of RE/MAX Platinum confirmed that he had fired Beaudin.
“It was a combination of a lot of stuff. He was doing, like ‘All Lives Matter,’ ‘If [Black Lives Matter] come to Pinckney, we won’t put up with your crap,’ and he was just antagonizing. I just told him, that’s about as racial as it gets, you can’t do that.” DeKroub says he hasn’t had any contact with Beaudin since, adding, “I don’t know much about if he’s continuing down that path or not, obviously he had a problem here. I don’t know.”
The lawsuit alleges that Ikens and Beaudin violated the 1968 Fair Housing Act by “imposing unfair conditions of sale—namely, cash-only and a higher sales price, and ‘as is’—on Verdell and Julie Franklin because of race.” It also alleges Beaudin violated the law when he “refused to present to his clients the Franklins’ bona fide offer to purchase a dwelling because of race.” RE/MAX Platinum and KW Realty Livingston, Ikens’ and Beaudin’s respective agencies, are also listed as defendants, and they “ultimately presented to their clients for acceptance a white man’s offer of $300,000, financed by a mortgage loan, that they informed the Franklins, an interracial couple, would not have been acceptable.”
The Franklins’ attorney, Robin Wagner, says the lawsuit is important, because recognizing housing discrimination can be tricky.
“A lot of times you wouldn’t even know this had happened to you in trying to buy a house. You might’ve just been told sorry, your offer won’t be accepted, as Verdell and Julie were told, only to find out later the exact same offer was good enough for a white man to buy the house,” says Wagner.
Verdell Franklin says he and his wife have faced discrimination before as an interracial couple, but rarely anything so blatant. He says the lawsuit is to make sure the people involved are held accountable for their actions.
“First and foremost is accountability. These people need to answer to what has taken place, and that is the biggest thing that we’re looking for here is accountability because this should not be going on in this day and age,” he says.
Rick Beaudin says he has not yet been served this lawsuit, and does not know who the Franklins are.
Mary Kay Ikens did not respond to a request for comment.
RE/MAX Platinum says it does not comment on pending litigation, and KW Realty Livingston says it has yet to be served the lawsuit and does not have any comments at this time.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
Black Lives Matter 757, a Virginia ally of the national racist hate group, has spent four months trying to send a black man to jail.
Even though the racist organization had demanded the dismantling of the Virginia Beach Police and its judicial system, it had dedicated its Shut Down the Oceanfront 2.0 rally on Independence Day to demanding that the police, whom they wanted to eliminate, arrest Manny Wilder.
“We are calling for Hampton Police & Virginia Beach Police to get this menace off of the streets IMMEDIATELY!” the hate group had posted.
The lines of Black Lives Matter radicals, most of them white, crowded the street demanding that the police arrest and put away a black man. A skinny white girl in an oversized Black Lives Matter t-shirt brandished a pricey cell phone while screaming at a tired police officer. An obese white man wearing a stretched BLM shirt mumbled incoherently through the folds of a mask.
And then everyone, white hipsters and occasionally black people, marched down the boardwalk screaming, “Black Lives Matter”.
Except for the life of Emanuel “Manny” Wilder.
Black Lives Matter 757’s Facebook post complained that “MannyWilder is still a free man on minimal charges”. And Manny was one black man they didn’t want to see roaming the South.
“Virginia Beach Police Department Needs help (Ironic right) – But the Virginia Beach Police need help finding #MannyWilder,” Black Lives Matter 757 had posted at the end of September.
Manny was one of many drivers to be caught in the tide of Black Lives Matter violence. And, like many of those drivers, he made a run for it, past the racist mob that was coming after him.
“I was creeping forward. I wasn’t going to stop because we were under attack. I mean look at my arm. We were getting attacked. They literally knocked my dog out. They hit my fiancé with a bottle as she was riding in the back of the pickup,” he told a reporter a day after the attack.
Even though video showed Manny being attacked by one of the Black Lives Matter rioters and photos showed that his arm was bloodied and his truck battered, none of the BLMers were busted. Instead the authorities came after the “white male” who had confronted them.
Black Lives Matter 757’s leader claimed that Manny had been “yelling racial slurs”. Media accounts falsely described Wilder as a “white male”. There was just one problem.
Manny’s mother is black and his father is Mexican.
The media had assumed that Manny was a white male because his truck was flying American flags. Who, except a white racist, the media concluded, would have American flags on his truck? Anyone flying the flag and getting into a fight with Black Lives Matter must be a white male.
And four months later, most media accounts still haven’t acknowledged who Manny is.
The Virginia resident is not the first black driver to end up in a confrontation with Black Lives Matter thugs. In the worst incident to date, Secoriea Turner, an 8-year-old black girl, was shot and killed at the Black Lives Matter protest for Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta while her mother was trying to make a U-turn around the barricades erected by the violent racist hate group.
The alleged gunman’s lawyer claimed that he was protesting “peacefully.”
But at least Secoriea was safely out of it and couldn’t be arrested for interfering with a Black Lives Matter riot. The same was not true for Manny or other black drivers similarly arrested trying to escape the illegal roadblocks and violent assaults of the racist hate group.
Manny’s story is a familiar one. He tried to evade the Black Lives Matter bigots, came to a stop when one of them blocked his vehicle, was assaulted, and then did his best to escape. The hate group accused the black man of shouting racial slurs at them and trying to run them over. The media echoed the BLM narrative, falsely claiming that the hate group members barely survived.
The familiar narrative became, “Driver runs into crowd of Black Lives Matter protesters”.
And Manny, who is black, was turned into a white male who shouted racial slurs at the rioters.
“Of course people are going to get upset. This is a protest. It is very clear what we are doing. You shouldn’t even been on the street, which you were,” a Black Lives Matter 757 organizer ranted.
So much for the peaceful protests.
“If I was going to run over people, why wouldn’t I start with the female protestor standing in front of me as I was trying to leave? I wouldn’t run her over, but she was standing in front of me,” Manny asked. “I stopped the car. My goal was never to hit anyone, my goal was never to run anyone over. My goal was to leave.”
But while Manny’s Black Lives Matter attacker wasn’t charged, he was hit with charges of reckless driving, disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace and abusive language. Black Lives Matter 757 was right that these were “minimal charges”. These weren’t real criminal charges because the black driver targeted by the racist hate group hadn’t done anything illegal.
Manny was just one more sacrifice that local authorities had to make to the racist lynch mob.
Meanwhile, Black Lives Matter activists and supporters had widely circulated Manny’s name and address, along with pictures of his fiance, on Facebook and Instagram. And despite the social media company’s eagerness to censor militia groups, it did nothing to stop the doxxing.
“See you soon,” a Black Lives Matter supporter messaged Manny on Instagram.
“Yes sir, see you then. Wanna beer when you come?” Manny asked.
“Put it on your head, I’ll play target practice,” was the reply.
“Anybody know where #MannyWilder is hiding out at? I’d like to pay him a visit,” a white supporter of the BLM hate group posted on Facebook, and then added Manny’s address.
A white political science student boasted of having “screenshotted his location”.
Yet another white BLM supporter commented, “why does he look like a coconut”, a racial slur implying that a black man acts white, followed by three skull emojis.
The media, in its typically biased fashion, failed to report on the harassment or death threats.
Instead of staying to face the lynch mob, Manny got out of Virginia Beach, was tracked down and arrested in Florida, before being sent back to the local authorities and the BLM lynch mob. He was only arrested in Florida because he “fit the description of the person they were looking for, but he ended up not being the suspect”. The irony of the profiling should be obvious.
Manny’s back in Virginia Beach now and faces a biased system aimed at lynching him.
The irony of Black Lives Matter organizing a lynch mob to hunt down a black man, and then dispatching white protesters to demand that the police and justice system they claim represents white supremacy do the lynching for them is also abundantly obvious and obscene.
Virginia Beach isn’t going to all this trouble during a pandemic and the breakdown of law and order to secure a suspect from another state for using “abusive language”. It’s doing it to appease the Black Lives Matter lynch mob and keep them from spoiling another weekend.
There are lynch mobs roaming in the South again. But its members wear Black Lives Matter shirts and its diverse members shout, “Black Lives Matter” while hunting down a black man.
“I was flying the American flags. Everyone wants to stand for what they represent, ” Manny had told a reporter. “I represent patriotism. I stand for the unity of one. I support Black Lives Matter, but I do not support the violence.”
Manny’s Instagram account now carries a different message, “Better to be judged by 12 then carried by six.”
It is stunning how many recent riots over purported racial injustice have been based on phony stories. Ferguson, Missouri was pillaged and burned over the false contention that Michael Brown was gunned down with his hands up (the Obama Justice Department confirmed that he was struggling to kill the police officer arresting him for a strong-arm robbery he had just committed by grabbing his gun when he was fatally shot). Baltimore was sacked over the contention that Freddie Gray was assassinated by police officers deliberately tossing him around in a police van (a jury acquitted the officers).
Just this past week, rioters looted downtown Minneapolis on the false story that police had gunned down a suspect who had, in fact, committed suicide — which was captured on surveillance video. Yet Target, Saks Fifth Avenue, and Nordstrom were still looted.
Most damaging of all, three months ago, the first videos released to the public created the impression that George Floyd was asphyxiated by Officer Derek Chauvin of the Minneapolis Police, whose knee on his neck prevented him from breathing. That account has now been proven to be false, yet it is still embraced by nearly all of the media, the public, and political figures (including Rudy Giuliani, whose address to the RNC referred to the “unforgivable police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis”). The facts of the case have been suppressed with Minnesota’s Attorney General Keith Ellison delaying their release, but we now have body cam footage of the entire encounter of Floyd and the medical examiner’s report that indicated he had a fatal overdose of fentanyl in his system, which caused him to complain multiple times, “I can’t breathe” while sitting upright in the police car from which he bolted, leading to his being pinned down. (For the shocking details, you and Rudy Giuliani should read George Parry’s “Who Killed George Floyd?“)
We can now add the riots in Kenosha and beyond to the list of race riots sparked by assumptions of police behavior contradicted by the facts. As with George Floyd, the impressions created by the first videos released to the public were misleading and highly inflammatory. In considering the facts that follow, ask yourself what you would do if you were charged with the task that faced the Kenosha police officers.
The Kenosha Police were called to a residence not to deal with a domestic dispute in which Jacob Blake was a peacemaker, but rather to arrest Blake. They were called by his girlfriend and the mother of three of his children. The Wisconsin Department of Justice, which is investigating the shooting, writes:
Kenosha Police Department officers were dispatched to a residence in the 2800 block of 40th Street after a female caller reported that her boyfriend was present and was not supposed to be on the premises.
That same female had made a complaint against Blake about four months ago that led to the issuance of a warrant for his arrest. Cited in the warrant were her allegations of trespass, domestic abuse, and sexual assault. There were some stark parallels to the situation facing the KPD in the current instance that led to Blake’s shooting:
On May 3, 2020 Kenosha Police Officer Raiche, in full uniform and operating marked squad#3343, responded to 2805 40th Street Unit D, City and County of Kenosha, state of Wisconsin for a report of an ex-boyfriend who had broken into the residence and stole vehicle keys, a vehicle and a debit card from the victim before fleeing. (snip)
LNB stated she was upset but collected herself and ran after the defendant out the front door and then realized her vehicle was missing. LNB ran back inside to her purse, which was on the kitchen counter and checked it, quickly realizing her key to her truck (Ford Explorer 2002), a black individual key and the only key for the vehicle and her Great Lakes Debit Card were missing.
Compare this situation in May with the undisputed facts released by the Kenosha Professional Police Association (the union representing the cops):
- The officers were dispatched to the location due to a complaint that Mr. Blake was attempting to steal the caller’s keys/vehicle.
- Officers were aware of Mr. Blake’s open warrant for felony sexual assault (3rd degree) before they arrived on scene.
- Mr. Blake was not breaking up a fight between two females when officers arrived on scene.
- The silver SUV seen in the widely circulated video was not Mr. Blake’s vehicle.
- Mr. Blake was not unarmed. He was armed with a knife. The officers did not see the knife initially. The officers first saw him holding the knife while they were on the passenger side of the vehicle. The “main” video circulating on the internet shows Mr. Blake with the knife in his left hand when he rounds the front of the car. The officers issued repeated commands for Mr. Blake to drop the knife. He did not comply.
- The officers initially tried to speak with Mr. Blake, but he was uncooperative.
- The officers then began issuing verbal commands to Mr. Blake, but he was non-complaint.
- The officers next went “hands-on” with Mr. Blake, so as to gain compliance and control.
- Mr. Blake actively resisted the officers’ attempt to gain compliance.
- The officers then disengaged and drew their tasers, issuing commands to Mr. Blake that he would be tased if he did not comply.
- Based on his non-compliance, one officer tased Mr. Blake. The taser did not incapacitate Mr. Blake.
- The officers once more went “hands-on” with Mr. Blake; again, trying to gain control of the escalating situation.
- Mr. Blake forcefully fought with the officers, including putting one of the officers in a headlock.
- A second taser (from a different officer than had deployed the initial taser) was then deployed on Mr. Blake. It did not appear to have any impact on him.
- Based on the inability to gain compliance and control after using verbal, physical and less-lethal means, the officers drew their firearms.
- Mr. Blake continued to ignore the officers’ commands, even with the threat of lethal force now present.
So what should the officers have done, confronted with Blake, armed with a deadly weapon and attempting to drive away the vehicle with three young children in it? The fact that he was able shrug off two tasers suggests he may have been on some mind-altering substance like methamphetamine, PCP, or angel dust. The children reasonably could be believed to be at risk in a vehicle fleeing arrest.
Steve Sailer alleges:
Five years earlier, Blake had been involved in a similar resisting-arrest incident in which, after pulling a gun in a bar dispute, he was pulled over and charged the police. Back then, it turned out that he did have a gun in his SUV.
The officer who shot Blake, Rusten Shesky, perhaps should have stopped with one shot. Certainly, seven shots seems like a lot. But Blake had already demonstrated his ability to remain a threat after being tased twice and had physically overcome officers, escaping a headlock. With a deadly weapon at hand, the risks to the officer and the children were not insignificant.
One final note: The woman who swore out the complaint against Blake that led to the warrant for his arrest, the mother of three of his children who in her complaint “stated she and the defendant have three children together but have never resided together in the eight years they have been on and off,” is named Laquisha N. Booker (LNB in the warrant). Now that she is represented by Benjamin Crump and will be suing Kenosha for damages, she is calling herself his “fiancé.”
Long Island University punished a black student for sexual assault despite his white accuser’s constantly changing story and several witnesses who either contradicted or couldn’t corroborate her claims, according to a lawsuit filed last week against the private university in Brookville, New York.
“John Doe” accused LIU of Title IX and Title VI violations, saying “gender bias was a motivating factor” in the “erroneous outcome” of his proceeding and racial bias explains the “differential treatment” he received compared to “Jane Roe.”
The university also violated his due process rights under New York law and committed breach of contract, including by failing to use the “preponderance of evidence” standard outlined in its disciplinary code, the suit claims.
Jane had drunkenly kissed John, “an active and well-respected member of his church,” without his affirmative consent “in front of many witnesses” in a dorm room. (As a football player on LIU’s team, John had also resolved not to drink during the season.) Later that night she panicked that her public behavior could harm her “committed relationship” with another man.
The next day she filed a complaint against John, claiming that the night before he had forced her to perform oral sex on him. He also “pulled” her into another room where he held her down and continued kissing her, Jane claimed. In the final version of her story, she made a factual assertion that could be vetted: John assaulted her behind a “wall” of dressers in the room, which is furnished by LIU.
Despite the fact that Jane’s story held no water with witnesses and she was never alone with John, LIU found her more credible in a “deficient and hasty investigation.” Having found him guilty of sexual assault, the university then inexplicably invited John to reapply to LIU for the next fall semester, the suit says.
That invitation may have been a ruse: John would learn from his coach several months later that the guilty finding had nullified his full-ride athletic scholarship, which “effectively expelled” him from LIU.
Title IX Coordinator Jean Anne Smith (below), also associate dean of students, wore several mutually exclusive hats in the proceeding, the suit claims. She represented herself to both John and Jane as each student’s “advocate,” investigated the allegations, judged John guilty and then picked his sanctions.
Smith and the other investigator, Nicole Thomas, repeatedly withheld information from John, including his right to present witnesses, he argues. Their own interviews with witnesses were “cursory and brief,” ignoring “key inconsistencies and contradictions.”
They also gave no reason for siding with Jane’s story over John’s – that she initiated nonconsensual contact with the kiss – and didn’t even let him hear her testimony, much less cross-examine witnesses, the suit claims. John says neither LIU nor Jane ever reported her allegations to police.
Rights limited to ‘reporting individuals’ – not those accused
LIU’s bias is institutionalized in its Sexual Violence and Harassment Policy’s Students’ Bill of Rights, which “shockingly” limits protections to only “reporting individuals” – those who allege violations, according to the suit.
This is despite the policy’s explicit promise of several rights for “all” students, including the presumption of innocence for accused students, “right to make an impact statement” on the cusp of sanctions and “equal opportunity” to present witnesses and evidence. John claims he was afforded none of these.
The policy does, however, reflect New York’s affirmative consent law: “both evince a surface-level refusal to recognize uniform rights for the accuser and the accused.” Signed into law by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, the statute has an “inherent bias” because it requires colleges to predetermine that any accuser “is at fault … or should have acted in a different manner to avoid” violations that have not been proven, John says.
Jane twice offered John drinks that he declined over the course of the night of Sept. 2, 2017, which started at the party and then moved into a dorm room. He says he didn’t know who she was until he learned she had accused him of sexual assault.
She “unexpectedly kissed” him for “a few seconds” even though he told her he had a girlfriend. Later, when he stopped to say hello to his football team captain on the way home, John saw Jane in that room as well, but she “appeared dramatically more intoxicated” than when she had kissed him.
He rushed back from his own dorm after a teammate called to say Jane was telling people he had “forced himself” on her. His own teammates – all white – were too drunk to tell him what she was saying, and no one else he recognized from the party knew who had accused him, or of what, according to the suit.
‘Objectively’ false claim about room configuration hiding the assault
Public safety officers told him the next day he had to leave campus immediately, having been accused of sexual assault. He was not told at the investigation’s outset that Jane had accused him of forcible oral sex and “dragg[ing]” her into her room, where Jane’s roommate allegedly pulled him off her.
Not only was the date of the incident wrong in the report, but it included no “single factual allegation” or specific code violation, he says, alleging it violated New York law.
Smith, the Title IX coordinator, was “masquerading” as John’s advocate when investigator Thomas interviewed him, before he knew Jane’s allegations or that Smith was also representing Jane. Neither told him he could pick his own advisor, conveyed “the significance of an advisor in the context of a Title IX investigation” or told him his other rights, the suit says.
By John’s count, Smith had “surreptitiously assum[ed]” four “conflicting simultaneous roles” – advisor to John and Jane, Title IX investigator and “sole party responsible” for adjudicating Jane’s complaint. He characterized the Sept. 5 interview as “unlawful.”
John never did get notice that the university was deliberating sanctions against him, with Smith telling John’s mother in a phone call Sept. 11 that she was going to “represent” him in “the best light possible” so he could return to school, he claims. He never received evidence either.
The guilty finding and one-year suspension did not describe the evidence or “the rationale underpinning the determination.” It wasn’t until he had asked for them several times that the university finally gave him a “one-paragraph response letter” more than a month later.
It vaguely and falsely claimed that the investigation had corroborated Jane’s story “in important respects” through “other evidence,” while John’s account “was inconsistent” with evidence, the suit claims.
This is despite the fact that she accused him of forcing her to perform “oral sex in a well-lit room in the presence of many people,” none of which was corroborated, “and the room objectively did not have dressers in the middle” that obscured the alleged assault “a few feet away” from others, as Jane claimed in her third account of the night.
Chose to ‘railroad a young Black man with no history of misconduct’
Jane’s friends also contradicted her story about being “dragged” down the hallway by John, saying they were walking “one-behind-the-other,” and her roommate denied he was on top of Jane in their room. “Roe’s claims remain completely unsubstantiated to this day”:
This decision was obviously contrary to the preponderance of evidence standard and demonstrated a dramatic bias in favor of the female accuser, even when that accuser’s claims constituted facially-implausible allegations that she had been subjected to two separate and consecutive instances of public sexual assault in front of dozens of peers and somehow none of those witnesses saw any of it happen.
LIU’s treatment of John versus Jane is so disparate as to suggest “strong” sex- and race-based bias in the proceeding, from flipping the burden of proof on him to yanking his scholarship without notice, he claims. It also failed to give a rationale when it rejected his appeal, “doubl[ing]-down on their choice to railroad a young Black man with no history of misconduct on a full scholarship to their institution.”
He and Jane were “similarly situated” parties because each accused the other of initiating sexual contact without affirmative consent, meaning both should be “equally credited” as alleged violations LIU policy. The university showed its “pattern or practice of racial bias” against John by claiming it could find no “negative motivat[ion]” for Jane to accuse him, despite her observed panic that the public kiss could harm her other relationship.
John’s racial bias claim also extends to LIU’s treatment of a white teammate who assaulted his girlfriend the same week Jane accused John. The university did not put the teammate through the same ordeal as John’s, instead holding “a meeting with their athletic teams about sexual assault.”
IMAGE: ZuKIN Art Studio/Shutterstock
Though I’m sure my name was a hint, I happen to be black. My parents are West African (Mali and Senegal to be exact), and I was born and raised in France. When I was 13, my family and I moved to a suburban community outside of Atlanta. The school I attended, though relatively diverse for Georgia, was majority white. I had an easy time there. I made friends quickly, a lot of them white. To this day, more than ten years later, my friend circle is still very much white, populated by the people I met at my mostly-white high school, or at my mostly-white university, or in my mostly-white neighborhood. I have always attributed my ability to fit into both multicultural and white environments to my personality and my immigrant’s need to adapt to whatever environment I’m in.
But recent research published in the American Sociological Association’s Sociology of Education journal shows that my gender (male) was one of the determinative factors in the relative ease of my social integration. In an article published last year, Megan M. Holland, a professor at the University of Buffalo and a recent Harvard Ph.D., studied the social impact of a desegregation program on the minority students who were being bussed to a predominantly white high school in suburban Boston. She found that minority boys, because of stereotypes about their supposed athleticism and “coolness,” fit in better than minority girls because the school gave the boys better opportunities to interact with white students. Minority boys participated in sports and non-academic activities at much higher rates. Over the course of her study, she concluded that structural factors in the school as well as racial narratives about minority males resulted in increased social rewards for the boys, while those same factors contributed to the isolation of girls in the diversity program.
William Marcus Wilson’s lawyers say said he feared for his life when “racists” tried to “run him off the road.”
A judge in Georgia has denied bail for a Black driver who claims he shot in self-defense at a truck trying to run him off the road while yelling racial slurs at him in June.
William Marcus Wilson, a 21-year-old bi-racial man charged with murder in the shooting that killed a teenage girl despite being legally permitted to carry a gun, has been held behind bars for more than two months in a case centering on the kind of Stand Your Ground Law that has routinely allowed white defendants similarly charged in other states to post bond and be released while awaiting trial. However, even after hearing from a parade of witnesses that included people inside what Wilson’s lawyers have called a “truckload of belligerent racists” offering inconsistent accounts, Bulloch County Superior Court Judge Michael Muldrew apparently resorted to a familiar trope when denying bail.
According to the Newman-Times Herald, a local news outlet, Muldrew decided a preliminary hearing on Tuesday that “Wilson’s anger appeared to have overtaken him when he had contact with the person in the truck,” which renders him “a significant threat to persons in the community.”
Wilson’s lawyers have argued their client should never have been charged in what they described as an unfortunate case of justified self-defense that ended with a life being lost.
The deadly episode unfolded when Wilson and his girlfriend, who is white, went on a late-night food run to Taco Bell in the early morning hours of June 14. While they were there, a truck carrying five teenagers — Mason Edward Glisson, Luke Harry Conley and Ashton Robert Deloach, all 18, and Haley Hutcheson, 17 — saw Wilson’s car and mistook his girlfriend for someone else they saw earlier night with a different Black man.
Perhaps outraged at believing they saw not just one interracial relationship but two, the case of mistaken identity that was admitted in court Tuesday seemed to be the reason why Wilson encountered the truck while he and his girlfriend were returning from getting food.
According to the Statesboro Herald, Wilson told police the truck was swerving in front of his car, which he said was also struck by an unidentified object thrown from the truck.
“All I can tell you is me and my girlfriend were really scared that night,” the detective testified that Wilson told him. “With everything going on in this country, I’m not going to let me and my girl get run off the road.”
An online petition demanding justice for Wilson said he “fired off a warning shot” that struck Hutcheson. However, the other teenagers inside the truck each said Wilson fired two separate sets of three shots, with one of them striking Hutcheson in the back of her head.
Defense attorneys established on Tuesday that all of the teenagers in the truck were drinking beer when they encountered Wilson.
One of the teens in the truck — Luke Conley — has a criminal record and withheld information from police, which resulted in his arrest for obstruction of justice. All of the teens told police they never used racial slurs nor tried to run him off the road. However, another of the teens inside the truck testified that Conley “may have flipped the vehicle off.”
Francys Johnson, one of the attorneys representing Wilson, said in a press conference in June that the four male teens in the truck “have a reputation” in the area and that they were afforded special privileges by police.
A preliminary hearing was held in Statesboro last month but was cut short after witnesses subpoenaed by Wilson’s lawyers announced they had tested positive for COVID-19 and would not be able to participate because of social distancing guidelines. Local news outlet WTOC reported that both the defense and prosecution had “a line of witnesses to testify why Marc Wilson should or should not be granted bond.” However, because the hearing in Bulloch County Superior Court was cut short and set to continue at another date, Wilson had to remain jailed.
Muldrew issued a gag order during that hearing despite Wilson’s lawyers arguing that the police instantly criminalized their client, local press offered sympathetic coverage to Hutcheson and cast their client as the villain despite the law being on his side.
Legislators have been pushing to change Georgia’s Stand Your Grund Law for years now. According to Courthouse News, the law was enacted in 2006 and “allows Georgians to use deadly force to defend themselves, other persons or property based on a ‘reasonable belief’ that such force is necessary to prevent death, bodily injury or a forcible felony.” Before that, the law said that only “victims of a crime” were allowed to use lethal force. Just last month, 10 Georgia lawyers sent a letter to the General Assembly asking for the state’s “stand your ground” law to be repealed.
Those efforts were partially because, as NBC News reported, “concepts such as danger and fear, even who is the aggressor and who has a right to self-defense, are often manipulated or blurred in real life by race.”
That was certainly the case earlier this year when the same law was being used by the white men involved in the killing of Ahmaud Arbery, a Black jogger who was tracked, trapped and gunned down in the street by white men in what appeared to be a premeditated killing. Arbery’s accused murderers said they were defending themselves and avoided arrests and prosecution for months until media attention exposed the clear miscarriage of justice. While all three men accused of Arbery’s murder have all been denied bond, it was only after a video of the shooting went viral when it was established that the state’s Stand Your Ground did not apply to them.
However, under its definition, it would appear that the law does apply in Wilson’s case.
The case for granting bail in Stand Your Ground cases seemed to be much more clear in neighboring Florida, where neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman killed unarmed Black teenager Trayvon Martin in 2002. Even though police told Zimmerman to stand down, he still approached Martin and need up shooting him to death. Still, not only was Zimmerman granted bail but he was also acquitted in the second-degree murder case.
So much for innocent until proven guilty.
So much for innocent until proven guilty.
This is America.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in parts of the Chinese Canadian community, of which I’m a proud member. While covering the election last fall, I ventured into neighbourhoods in Toronto filled with individuals of Chinese descent who, aside from the usual headaches over money, health care, or employment, were worried about “illegal border crossers” making their way onto their streets. They were clearly being fed that language by right-wing campaigners, but the pervasive fear showed how easy it is to capture people of colour with narratives that, though often rooted in racist untruths, galvanize a sense of superiority vis-à-vis those who “don’t belong.”
Which brings us to the question of anti-Blackness in communities of colour. I think it’d be hard to find a young person of Chinese descent in Canada who can’t recount at least one instance of hearing an older member of their family repeat a well-worn anti-Black trope. It might not be routine dinner conversation, but it happens all the time. Slogans of underclass ideology are robotically repeated: “Why don’t they just work harder?” “Black parents have a problem raising their kids the right way.” Or the popular, “I came to this country with [insert small dollar amount]; don’t talk to me about discrimination!” And so on.
Part of the problem is internalizing an implicit hierarchy based on race that only gets reinforced by “model minority” ideals in a country that operates on white normality.
This leads to envious worship of those above you in the arbitrary ethnoracial hierarchy, along with contempt or fearful hatred of those who you think can’t get to your level. The latter have always tended to have darker skin.
More optimistic activists may suggest that common experiences of discrimination should lead to people of different races (and from all walks of life) to automatically form political and social solidarity. Or that they naturally amount to a tangible political constituency because they all faced racism at some point. This is a naive assumption, even for people within the same race, which makes the current Black Lives Matter moment — spurred by the death of George Floyd — a valuable wake-up call.