Full body scans of a man and woman. Given the current security situation, the federal government is considering measures such as these types of invasive scans to detect terror plots like that used by the underwear bomber. Unfortunately, these techniques still cannot detect explosives and other contraband hidden in bodily orifices. Photograph courtesy of Wired.

Imagine being the host of one of the most successful American morning shows on television. People love you. They love your personality, your charm, your wit. People look to you for advice, but they also look to you for some early-morning fun.

Now imagine that one day, on camera, you make an incredibly stupid remark poking fun at people different from you. The viewers don’t seem to notice, though. Maybe the remark was said too quickly. Or maybe they thought the joke was funny. Regardless, you go on with your show, the show ends, and you go on with your day.

One person remembers though. Me. Unfortunately, you made one deeply offensive, ignorant comment that deeply resonated with me.
The FOX & Friends morning show can certainly be entertaining. In fact, I know many people who watch this show every day. Anchors Steve Doocy, Gretchen Carlson, and Brian Kilmeade make an engaging trio. Their appealing personalities make their show one of the most watched morning shows on television.

The anchors seem to make ridiculous remarks quite frequently, but this particular comment left me so dumbfounded that I stared at the television with a face that resembled the genie from Disney’s Aladdin.

Kilmeade discussed President Barack Obama’s response to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s failed bomb attack when he referred to Abdulmutallab as the “would-be crotch bomber.” Doocy then shifted the discussion to a lighter tone, in which he lauded Kilmeade’s apparently original nickname. After a few laughs Carlson decided to make this stupid comment: “It’s impossible to say his last name anyway.”

Now this might just be a joke, but no one should be made fun of or judged based on his or her name. A name is someone’s identity, and it says nothing of a person’s personality or character.

These sorts of inconsiderate jokes tell viewers that it is acceptable to criticize someone based on his or her name.
What Abdulmutallab did was inexcusable and deservevs punishment—but the condemnation should rest solely on his actions rather than how complicated his last name is.

One of the reasons why this issue strikes me so much is that I don’t have the most ‘conventional’ name either.

People have unintentionally butchered my name many times, and many people still do. It’s not very hard; the name is pronounced exactly the way it is spelled. But if people accidentally pronounce my name incorrectly, I would not hold any grudge against them. Instead, I would respect the fact they tried to respect the name my parents gave me. But people too lazy to even try to pronounce my name correctly instantly lose my respect. It especially annoys me when this sort of laziness translates into third-rate jokes attacking minorities in our post-9/11 world.

Carlson never seems to be far from controversy. She once referred to the late Senator Ted Kennedy as a “hostile enemy… on the home front” for disagreeing with the Bush administration on congressional approval for troop surges in Iraq. On the issue of free speech, she has stated, “I am tolerant. I’m all for free speech and free rights, just not on December 25th.” Apparently, Carlson is a big fan of the United States Constitution, just not on Christmas Day.

I don’t mean to infringe upon Carlson’s free speech rights. I believe that everyone deserves the right to freedom of speech everyday. Carlson should be allowed to say what she wants, whenever she wants.

However, she must be aware of people who don’t agree with her views. Such criticisms can come in various forms, whether as an article or increased voter-turnout against conservative candidates.

I find it funny how many right-wing political analysts have discussions on why minorities tend to not vote for the more conservative candidates. None of the analysts realize that one of the reasons is that conservative political commentators, such as Carlson, straight-up attack minorities for no reason.

Why should I, a racial minority, vote for a candidate who does not even respect the vast diversity that makes this country unique?

Though I tend to agree with the social and economic viewpoints of more liberal candidates anyways, I know quite a few minorities who refuse to vote for Republican candidates. It is not because the voters do not agree with the conservative platform, but because the people representing the conservative platform are intolerant to people who are different from them.

Neither Carlson nor conservative analysts should be surprised.

No one should be judged based on his or her external features or what other people label him or her.

Though people have the right to make politically incorrect jokes, TV shows should use better judgment when addressing a national audience that includes minorities of all races, religions, and ethnicities.

magine seeing your friend’s head “repeatedly smashed into the floor.” Imagine your friend not being “offered any medical attention” after the incident. This is not a fictitious story, unfortunately. This seemingly unthinkable scenario recently occurred at Colby College, where student Liz Beltran witnessed campus security officers brutally assault two of her friends.

On April 12, 2009, after a party at the Colby Student Center, Ozzie Ramirez and his friend, Jacob Roundtree, were brutally attacked by Waterville policemen and campus security officers. Ramirez had allegedly interfered with the EMT’s attempts to aid an intoxicated student, and Roundtree had simply tried to approach security officers. After the incident, the two intoxicated students—both of whom are racial minorities—were arrested for assault and criminal trespass.

Now, you can say that interfering with the EMT’s efforts to help a student is a crime, and as such the students should be punished accordingly. But the brutal response from policemen and security officers was an obvious overreaction. Slamming Ramirez’s head against the floor and spraying mace at Roundtree—who already had at least two officers literally on top of him—are not effective means of controlling a situation. A short video is available online documenting the atrocities, if you have the stomach for it: http://www.truveo.com/Excessive-Force-Used-in-the-Unjustified-Arrest-of/id/541780657.

This case of police brutality is an utter embarrassment for both Colby College and the police, considering that campus security and the police force are institutions that are supposed to protect citizens, not mercilessly attack them. The irresponsible so-called “law-enforcers” completely misjudged a situation and used excessive force on defenseless students. Some witnesses stated that the student surrounded by the EMT’s was conscious and simply sleeping, which is a possible explanation for Ramirez’s actions. Regardless of his motivations, however, the vicious beating he endured is certainly out of proportion to any crime he may have committed.

Probably in an effort to devalue the severity of their brutality, Police Chief Joseph Massey tried to emphasize the fact that the victims were intoxicated. “I hope some of [the Colby students’] criticisms of police and security is not their way of taking the focus off the real issue, which is alcohol,” he said. However, the reality is that alcohol is a completely separate issue; both of the victims are above the drinking age, and whether or not they should have been drinking does not justify the actions taken by the police. Further, even if the students were so intoxicated that they could not control themselves, the officer’s actions would still have been gratuitous. Spraying mace at a student who is already immobilized is inarguably brutal.

The truth of the matter is that the police ruthlessly attacked two college students. Obviously, Officer Massey is trying to downplay this simple fact, as he sincerely stated on local television that the police officers at the scene “acted professionally.” Massey must be either completely oblivious to the reality of the situation or needs to learn the difference between law-enforcement and brutality.

Naturally, Colby students are outraged, so much so that a new campus organization, Colby United, was conceived. Two days after the incident there was a campus demonstration during which the witnesses of the incident gave their accounts of what happened. All who spoke seemed to be in disbelief; seeing a friend, or even a stranger, being attacked is certainly not something that anyone should have to witness. One witness even claimed that she had heard a policeman tell a security guard that he would have used a Taser stun gun on Roundtree had there not been so many people in the area at the time,. The President of the College, William D. Adams, addressed the students during the demonstration, but neither he nor any member of the college administration offered an apology on behalf of the officers. The administration has only revealed that there is an ambiguous “investigation” being conducted.

Brianna Lind, a student at Colby, explained her frustration with the administration’s lack of initiative and the speed at which the investigation is proceeding. She asked, “How many eye witnesses do you really need to convince others that the officers took inappropriate measures that night?” She explained how exasperating it is “to see how the media is one-dimensionally portraying Colby students as high on their horse, and rich and snobby people.” Despite the press’ portrayal, hundreds of Colby students are taking some sort of action; it’s pretty obvious that most students are heavily invested in making sure the officers are held accountable.

Whether or not the victims actually physically abused the EMTs and officers in the first place is also disputed. Susie Hufstader, the interim leader of Amnesty International at Colby, explains that “Several student witnesses have come forward to say that the actions taken by Security officers and the police…were not provoked by violence.”

The fact that the students were arrested for assault and criminal trespass lends an ironic twist to the whole situation. First, if there were any people “assaulted” that night, they were Ramirez and Roundtree. Second, as a Colby student mentioned in a campus forum on April 15, how were the Colby College students charged with criminal trespass at the Colby College Student Center? Does that mean that everyone else walking back to their dorm rooms that night should be charged with criminal trespass as well?

Some can argue that the security and police officers were just doing their jobs. However, if this were true, then the officers were not trained properly, and the administration and police department should take steps in retraining their officers and should discipline those involved in the incident.

After the attack, the campus security officers involved had their shifts changed. Also, each Colby security guard now has a recording device at all times; the officer can turn it on whenever necessary. If there are any future altercations, this plan can hopefully clarify any unclear situations.

We cannot let these attacks slide by. The vicious violence could have been racially motivated, considering that it seems all of the officers present were white while the victims were racial minorities. Though nothing can be done to reverse the events of April 12th, we can make sure that these injustices are not repeated. Student activism is burgeoning on the Colby campus, and as this story gets more attention, more people want answers. The Colby administration and Waterville Police department must apologize for this particular incident. These egregious acts should remind us that police brutality on college campuses can happen, even somewhere as remote as Waterville, within the “Colby bubble.” Just because a college environment is relatively safe does not mean that standards should be relaxed. A full investigation should be conducted rapidly to ensure that these brutal actions are not repeated, both at Colby and at other college campuses.

he contentious debate over the ethics of the death penalty hit close to home when the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted’3-174 to abolish capital punishment on March 25. The bill’s fate is now in the hands of the State Senate. However, Governor John Lynch has already stated his opposition to the measure, threatening a veto. “I believe there are some crimes that are so heinous, the death penalty is warranted. If legislation repealing the death penalty were to reach my desk I would veto it,” he explained.

This statement appears to echo the sentiments of many Americans. According to a recent Gallup poll, 69% of Americans support the death penalty for people convicted of murder. However, there are many problems with the current legal system, including reports of bias and narrowly averted executions of innocent people in light of new evidence. Quite possibly the biggest issue is racial bias. A very high proportion of death row inmates are minorities, leading many to accuse the current system of discrimination against minorities.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), racial minorities account for 43% of executions since’76. Currently, 55% of people on death row are minorities. These statistics are appalling, considering that 26% of the American populace consists of racial minorities. Are we really to believe that minorities commit more than twice as many murders deserving of the death penalty than white people do? “Furthermore,” the ACLU explains, “as of October 2002, 12 people have been executed where the defendant was white and the murder victim black, compared with 178 black defendants executed for murders with white victims.” Whether or not people like to admit it, racial prejudice is obviously prevalent in our legal system.

Some argue these statistics can be explained away by the overall higher crime rates among minority populations. But even if this were true, it obviously speaks to an ominous gap between the socioeconomic conditions of whites and minorities. Even if we make the unwarranted assumption that the system is flawless and always correctly determines guilt or innocence, what does the disproportionately high percentage of black people on death row say about the gap between the average living conditions of whites and minorities? A disproportionate number of black people live in poverty, suffering from reduced access to quality education, healthcare, and other important services. Living in such impoverished and undeveloped urban areas forces people to endure more difficult life experiences, eventually leading to more controversial decisions. So yes, minorities might be more likely to commit crimes, but that could be due to the domestic oppression they face on a daily basis. In addition, no geneticist has ever found a “Racial Minority Crime Gene,” so biologically, this assertion can’t be possible either. The outrageous disparity in how capital punishment is meted out should force us to look at the living conditions that lead to future criminal actions, rather than endlessly debating the abstract ethics of of the death penalty.

Of course, race is not the only problem with capital punishment. Many times, people have been incorrectly sentenced to death. Since just 2003, twenty-one people on death row have had their convictions overturned. In addition to racial profiling, this can also be due to inadequate legal representation, an unfair trial, and evidence tampering. The death penalty also costs much more than a lifetime prison sentence without parole, due to the costly, endless appeals preceding an execution.

Governor Lynch should consider all of these factors when evaluating the death penalty. He must realize the death penalty is an unjust way of punishing criminals. He cannot make the same mistake former Governor Jeanne Shaheen made in 2000 when she vetoed legislation that would have abolished the death penalty. If Governor Lynch decides to veto this legislation, he would be perpetuating an unjust, biased, ineffective system; the same mistake should not be made twice.

The death penalty’s inherent prejudice is further exemplified by the case of Michael Addison. On October 16, 2006, Addison, a black man from Boston, killed Michael Briggs, a Manchester police officer. On December 22, 2008, the judge sentenced Addison to death. Yet it’s important to realize that if Addison weren’t sentenced to death Briggs and his work as a police officer would not be any less appreciated or respected.

Addison was raised in the Roxbury neighborhood of Boston, which is one of the most violent and turbulent areas of the city. His father abandoned him, and his mother was an alcoholic. This does not excuse him from his crime, but the correlation between inequitable living situations and crime cannot be ignored. Had he been raised in a more affluent neighborhood with more caring parents, this event might have been avoided. Or, had there been some social program that helped troubled individuals, he might have been adequately educated about making correct decisions. Aren’t these better options than blindly sticking needles in the arms of those who commit these crimes? The extraordinarily high murder rate in the United States, compared to that of the vast majority of developed countries, shows the death penalty is not an effective deterrent. The world is not so black and white, right and wrong, and addressing the conditions that lead to violent crimes is a much more effective and humane strategy than execution.

We cannot go back in time and change crimes that have already been committed, but we can initiate change for the future instead of continuing in our current path. Politicians need to increase funding for social programs to address the omnipresent gap between the rich and the poor, between minorities and white Americans. If action is not taken, more generations will be lost, failed by their schools, their healthcare system, and ultimately, their government. The situation isn’t hopeless, though: we need to pressure Governor Lynch to abolish the death penalty and to promote some equity in our legal system.

What Governor Lynch needs to realize is that the real “heinous” crime is refusing to abolish the death penalty. An outdated practice such as the death penalty must be reexamined; the old adage “an eye for an eye” fails to reflect the realities of today’s social climate and ultimately hinders any sort of progress. So if the State Senate passes the bill, Governor Lynch should do the right thing: obey the will of the people, and sign the bill into law.

Posted in UncategorizedComments (0)