Protect persons who are LGBTQ+

Walking into a store or restaurant, most people wouldn’t even consider the possibility that they might be denied service. Even those people not wearing a shirt or shoes would move forward with confidence in procuring what they need. This isn’t the case for the LGBTQ+ population across the country. For this community, the reality is that they may live in a state where businesses and organizations are within their rights to deny them service. A 2015 study found that 63% of people who identify as LGBTQ+ have experienced some form of public accommodation discrimination. Most of these cases pass by with little to none media attention. This, however, wasn’t the case in the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission complaint.

In 2012, a recently married gay couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, requested a wedding cake be designed and baked by the Masterpiece Cakeshop where they lived in Colorado. The bakery, owned by Jack Phillips and run as an LLC, refused that service to the couple based on his belief that their marriage was a sin and that it violated his religious beliefs. The bakery did offer to sell the couple an already baked cake but would not design what the couple specifically wanted. The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC) and the commission determined that the complaint was founded. The case would end up in front of the Supreme Court who, unfortunately, never got to the real issue of the case but focused on the response of the CCRC. In avoiding to address the issue of the discrimination, the Supreme Court inadvertently gave support to this type of behavior. 

There are debates happening at every level of government about the right for LGBTQ+ people to be treated equally in businesses and public places. Let that sit there for a minute…not to be given special rights or to offer extra protections but to be treated the same as everyone else. Public accommodation policies typically reference places that people visit outside of their home environment. Those include restaurants, retail stores, specialty shops and gyms but can also include public transportation, state offices like the DMV, and churches and healthcare facilities. The most well-known public accommodation law is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination in public accommodations based on race, color, and national origin. These laws are particularly important for the members of this community who are homeless or food insecure. Discrimination in shelters and social service organizations increase the individuals’ risk significantly by creating an environment in which community members feel unsafe. However, in the US today, men and women are still being discriminated against based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. According to the Movement Advancement Project’s (MAP) LGBT Policy Spotlight: Public Accommodations Nondiscrimination Laws:

Laws protecting people from discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation and gender identity exist in only 19 states and the District of Columbia. And there are no federal nondiscrimination protections in public accommodations for any of these characteristics. As a result, just over half of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBTQ+) people in the United States live in a state where businesses could refuse to serve them because of who they are.

Simply put, that means that they can be denied service based on who they love or how they identify in relation to their gender. Transgender people report a significant amount of discrimination; “According to the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey of nearly 28,000 people, transgender respondents reported being denied equal treatment or service, verbally harassed, or physically attacked at many places of public accommodation.”  (MAP, 2018, p. 2)  

Interestingly, the majority of Americans support the broadening of discrimination laws. The Civil Rights Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act cover a majority of the population that needs to be protected, and most Americans feel that the LGBTQ+ community should simply be added to those laws already in place. Based on a study done in 2015, 72% of the people polled believed that adding protections for this group was essential while only 23% oppose these types of laws. Similarly, half of Americans polled do not support laws that require that transgender people only use the bathroom that corresponds with the sex they were born with whole 38% favor such laws. (MAP, 2018) 

With the patchwork of state laws in place and the lack of a federal non-discrimination law, it is important more now than ever, that the rights of the LGBTQ+ community are forefront and addressed. Local and state lawmakers need to work to shore up current laws and ensure that all vulnerable populations are included. Those states, like Arizona, Florida, Michigan and Indiana, need to move to write and sign into law clear non-discrimination policies that cover all public accommodations. The federal government needs to work to update the protections already in place to include this community. Businesses need to ensure that they are serving everyone in their community and customers need to frequent the businesses that exhibit non-discriminatory practices. 

It can be shocking to realize that this type of discrimination is still occurring and is somehow considered to be acceptable. The need for these laws at all, laws that make clear that treating people unfairly is not ok, seems unimaginable. Advocating for these communities, demanding fair treatment from the businesses that people support, voting for laws and politicians who respect these communities are the steps that need to be taken in order to ensure equality and fairness for the LGBTQ+ community.

Movement Advancement Project. January 2018. LGBT Policy Spotlight: Public Accommodations Nondiscrimination Laws. https://www.lgbtmap.org/policy-spotlight-public-accommodations.

A student is fed up with discrimination

Throughout the last few weeks, in most of classes, we have been talking about the unfair treatment of African Americans in America today. In particular, the classes have been discussing the over incarceration rate of African Americans in prisons compared to White Americans along with police brutality issues. This is a very significant issue in todays society, and is one that makes me very upset because the inhumane treatment of Americans still happening in 2020 is just not right. Hearing the facts about how African Americans were treated in the 1950’s time period, and surrounding time periods, and how similar they are being treated today in some areas is just dumbfounding and infuriating to me. 

I feel as though there needs to be more restrictions and a stronger watch on certain states where authorities are still blatantly discriminating against people of color. There have been states in the past few years, and possibly still this year, that have laws and actions in place to prevent people from voting at polls during election times and going into certain parts of town because of police brutality. There are states and cities all over the country that have areas where police brutality is a major problem, and these places are allowed to get away with this brutality without any consequences. There are areas where police get away with using excessive force on certain people, simply because those people have Black/dark skin. The police claim that Black people who even ask why they are being pulled over are resisting and therefore using unnecessary force and get away with. Police also harass and pull over Black people more than white people simply under the excuse that the Black person was “suspicious.” Many cops also have a tendency to pull a gun more often and sooner when dealing with Black people, regardless if they are kids or adults, than they do or would with white kids and adults. This is not right that in the county that takes pride in its citizens having freedom, a large percentage of its population lives in constant fear of those who are supposed to, and swear to, defend and protect all Americas from harm and danger. 

I believe that the federal government should step in and put a stop to this brutality and racism, as it is infringing on these people’s lives that are being affected by it. Innocent people are still dying because of their skin color, or at least experience violence in some form or another, and this is a huge compromise to their safety. If state’s government won’t do anything to stop the racist actions still happening, or worse are even the reason for it, then I think the federal government needs to implement policies and actions that will stop these practices from being allowed. I also think that society as a whole needs to grow up and move on from the old ways of thinking, and stand up for the injustices that are taking place and realize that all lives matter. No one should die or be hurt because of their skin color, and even more is the fact that in the land of the free it should not be tolerated and allowed to still continue happening. I also do not feel that white people should be allowed to get away with claiming self-defense when they have murdered an innocent Black person, including the cops who shoot and kill unharmed people because they were black. The laws and biases that allow for a grown white person to claim he shot and killed a black child under self-defense because the white person felt the kid was “dangerous,” even though he was unharmed and minding his own business, and got off with this claim even after a police dispatcher told him he needs to leave the kid alone is just not right. 

For me, knowing that kids are not getting a good education, if any at all, because of their skin color, and are instead being thrown out on the streets or straight into jail is just not humane. America is still abandoning its own kids because of a centuries old thought that skin color makes someone a monster and not a human. The prison systems are overflowing with inmates, most of which are Black Americans, as a result of the system that is currently set up to help White American kids and adults succeed but make Black American kids and adults fail. The system from the bottom is still racist in way to many areas of the country, and is designed to make Backs fail and therefore push them towards a life of crime and prison. In 2020 America still suffers from the same problems that it had 100 years ago, even after all the progress that has been made and all the fighting for the rights of blacks over the last 50+ years. It is time that it stops, and I truly hope that enough people will it see it this way and stand up for what is right; even if it is only little by little.

Comment

Around the time you wrote this, we had to read portions of the Justice Department’s report on the police and courts of Ferguson, Missouri. That report, and your essay, report on the very real problem we have. There are many persons in law enforcement and the courts who are unbiased, who are idealistic, and who work against prejudices and racism. But, as they are not causing problems, we give less attention to those, and focus instead on the transgressions that need correcting.  That report on Ferguson should inspire anyone who reads it to take action to improve community relations with police forces.  More people ought to read this report.  Here are excerpts—sentences and notes I took as I read it:

Ferguson’s law enforcement practices are shaped by the City’s focus on revenue rather than by public safety needs.

The result is a pattern of stops without reasonable suspicion and arrests without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment; infringement on free expression, as well as retaliation for protected expression, in violation of the First Amendment; and excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

City and court officials have adhered to these court practices despite acknowledging their needlessly harmful consequences.

This evidence of bias and stereotyping, together with evidence that Ferguson has long recognized but failed to correct the consistent racial disparities caused by its police and court practices, demonstrates that the discriminatory effects of Ferguson’s conduct are driven at least in part by discriminatory intent in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Restoring trust in law enforcement will require recognition of the harms caused by Ferguson’s law enforcement practices, and diligent, committed collaboration with the entire Ferguson community.

City and police leadership pressure officers to write citations, independent of any public safety need, and rely on citation productivity to fund the City budget.

There is no indication that anyone considered whether community policing and public safety would be better served by devoting five overtime officers to neighborhood policing instead of a “revenue pipeline” of highway traffic enforcement. 

Ignoring the central fact that they had handcuffed a man and put him in a police car despite having no reason to believe he had done anything wrong, a sergeant vigorously defended FPD’s actions, characterizing the detention as “minimal” and pointing out that the car was air conditioned.

When the man then extended his identification toward the officers, at their request, the officers interpreted his hand motion as an attempted assault and took him to the ground.

FPD’s suppression of speech reflects a police culture that relies on the exercise of police power—however unlawful—to stifle unwelcome criticism.

FPD officers seem to regard ECWs as an all-purpose tool bearing no risk. But an ECW—an electroshock weapon that disrupts a person’s muscle control, causing involuntary contractions—can indeed be harmful.

The punitive use of force by officers is unconstitutional and, in many cases, criminal. 

The video makes clear, however, that the man never tried to stand—he only writhed in pain on the ground.

Finally, FPD does not perform any comprehensive review of force incidents sufficient to detect patterns of misconduct by a particular officer or unit, or patterns regarding a particular type of force.

Alongside its divisive law enforcement practices and lack of meaningful response to community concerns about police conduct, FPD has made little effort in recent years to employ community policing or other community engagement strategies.

When implemented fully, community policing creates opportunities for officers and community members to have frequent, positive interactions with each other, and requires officers to partner with communities to solve particular public safety problems that, together, they have decided to address. 

Another officer told us that officers cannot “get out of the car and play basketball with the kids,” because “we’ve removed all the basketball hoops—there’s an ordinance against it.”

Student enraged by Tennessee legislation concerning adoption

As I was searching the internet for information on present day policies in the news I came across a very interesting title that caught my eye right away. The title of the article that grabbed my attention is Tennessee OK’s Anti-LGBTQ Discrimination in Adoption. Overall, the article discusses how the governor of Tennessee, Bill Lee, signed the discriminatory adoption bill into law. This means that any faith based adoption and foster care agencies in the state of Tennessee can turn away same sex couples and other prospective parents who violate the agencies’ religious beliefs. As I was reading this article, another aspect that stood out to me is that eight other states have similar laws, with West Virginia still pending on the law. This article had me very intrigued and I am glad that I decided to read the entire article. 

This article mainly caught my attention because I want to go into the adoption field with my degree. Reading this article actually disgusted me and infuriated me. Reading more and more into it I could not help but agree with what a lot of the individuals who oppose this bill were stating. One of these individuals, the Human Rights Campaign President Alphonso David,  was expressing that with “this bill will do nothing to improve the outcomes for children in care, it shrinks the pool of prospective parents and is a blatant attempt to discriminate against LGBTQ Tennesseans.” I could not agree more with this statement made by Alphonso David. It does limit the amount of prospective parents and will eventually lead to an increasing number of children in care. What I do not understand is why they feel like LGBTQ parents would not be a deem-able fit to be parents to children that need a good home. Alphonso David also stated “These legislators are disregarding the best interests of kids in the child welfare system to create a ‘license to discriminate’ against qualified, loving prospective parents.” After reading that statement, it got me to thinking about how LGBTQ parents have just as much love to give and just as much the possibility to provide a wonderful life to a child as a heterosexual couple. Another point that was made in this article is that by allowing faith-based discrimination against the LGBTQ adoptive parents, this law is limiting the pool of potential parents. By allowing this law, agencies can even discriminate to refuse to place these children with close relatives who are LGBTQ or of a different faith than the agency believes in. This bill that is being passed as a law is only harming the children. A statement made by the Rev. Stan J. Sloan, the CEO of Family Equality, “If the bill is signed into a law, Tennessee will join a small group of states that have broken the cardinal rule of child welfare-that the needs of children should come first.” When I think about this statement, it really upsets me how some people can be so against LGBTQ and other religious beliefs that they would put children’s needs below these hateful feelings. In my opinion, if you are going to act this way towards these groups of people, you need to find a different line of work. The individuals that suffer the most from this bill are the vulnerable children, and that is not fair to them. It is also not fair to discriminate against these groups of people. 

After reading this article and trying to let my brain process all of this absurd information, it made me that much more determined to try and change some aspects of child welfare. As I want to work on adoption cases when I earn my degree and start working in the field, I am getting a first look into what I may be dealing with. This article has made me want to change some aspects of the child welfare system but it also makes me nervous to see what the system is going to be like in a year or so when I do start working in the system. Is the system going to be even more beyond repair to where it may be a lost cause? I have always told myself that “I know I can’t change the whole world, but if I can change the life of just one individual, I will consider myself successful.” Overall, this article infuriated me, but it also made me that much more determined to start working on the child welfare system. 

First, I agree that it’s infuriating that people have such prejudices and will be allowed to base decisions on placement using these prejudices to discriminate against potential parents. Any argument that homosexual or queer parents are by nature of their sexual relationships or identities unfit parents isn’t supported by evidence, because even if this were generally true, the adoption agencies could still screen adoptive parents and use valid reasons related to actual unfitness rather than using sexual orientations and identities as a determining factor.

But, for the sake of enhancing our critical thinking, let’s consider the possible motives. 

One possibility is that these adoption agencies have people who dislike LGBTQ, and they are motivated by hatred and a desire to harm the LGBTQ parents who would like to have children through adoption. Another possibility is that they want the “best interests of the child” and believe that any child that grows up in a household headed by LGBTQ will be harmed in some way, and the harm that the child suffers as a result of being in a family with LGBTQ parents is greater than the harm the child suffers if they are must wait longer to find an adoptive family. This would raise empirical questions: how much longer would children have to wait if LGBTQ adoptive parents weren’t allowed to adopt from some agencies? If the discrimination is only allowed in regions where at least agency does not discriminate, would all potential LGBTQ adoptive parents go to the agency that didn’t discriminate against them, and would that remove all harm children would suffer by needing to wait longer for adoptive parents (because there would be no increase in waiting time)? What moral principle would a person claim justifies this sort of bill? I understand that freedom of thought and religious belief is a very fundamental value, and would that freedom of religious expression be damaged by any policies that forced religious groups to allow children in their custodial care to be adopted out to families that were LGBTQ, or atheist, or non-Christian, or “immoral” according to some peculiar religious teachings of the sect operating the child welfare agency (e.g., interracial marriages?) 

But, what if we aren’t so much concerned with the violation of the religious rights of those family welfare agencies, but the religious groups operating them said they would shut down if they weren’t allowed to discriminate against parents who weren’t “spiritually worthy” in some sense (were atheist or LGBTQ or whatever). That would raise questions about harms to children arising from the new decrease in supply of child welfare agencies providing services.  

If our priority is the well-being of the children, I could imagine a situation where religious child welfare organizations could extort from me approval for a bill allowing them to discriminate.  This could happen if: 1) the agencies were doing a lot of help to a lot of children in foster care, and were very successful in placing many children in homes of people the agencies considered spiritually “worthy” (e.g., straight, religious, racially homogenous, and Christian); 2) there was in the same region an agency that did not discriminate against prospective adoptive families based on their “spiritual” condition (e.g., was happy to place children with LGBTQ, atheist, interracial, and non-Christian adoptive parents); 3) the religious agency would cease its operations if it was not allowed to discriminate; 4) there was no plausible alternative possibility of non-discriminatory agencies to take up the increase in demand for chid welfare services if the religious groups closed their child welfare services; 5) there was evidence that if the religious child welfare was forced to not discriminate, and therefore reacted by closing down operations, children awaiting adoption would face much longer waits and placements in areas much further away.  If all those five conditions were met, I think I might regretfully allow some agencies to discriminate, because it would be a way to avoid harm to the children. 

The article did not give us enough information to understand if the government in Tennessee was going to pass the law because failing to do so would cause a collapse in the provision of child welfare services in their state.  Were the child welfare services and adoption services in Tennessee highly dependent on private religious organizations that were threatening to close their doors if they were not permitted to discriminate?  Were there other private child welfare organizations that could place children with LGBTQ parents, so that there would be no delays in adoptions, but where those non-discriminatory agencies unable to take up the service demand if all the discriminatory private agencies ceased providing services?  I wanted to know those, so I could know if this was an entirely ridiculous case of politicians conceding to demands from ignorant citizens to implement stupid policies, or whether this was a case of politicians genuinely concerned about religious freedom and making a pragmatic decision to accommodate some people for the sake of maintaining an adequate level of services to children in foster care and awaiting adoption. 

The Ban on Transgender Soldiers

 Donald Trump recommended a new policy saying that people who are transgender and have had gender reassignment surgery be disqualified from military service. In July of 2017, court rulings halted the ban because it could have been potentially unconstitutional. The Defense Secretary Jim Mattis recommended this to President Trump. He thought that by banning transgender people from the military, this would enhance the military’s ability to protect Americans and win wars. The thought was that the exclusion of transgender persons would help military people to survive better. In July President Trump posted on Twitter that the government will not accept or allow in any capacity for transgender people to be in the military. In August, he guided the Pentagon to reverse a policy made my President Obama to allow transgender people and people with gender dysphoria to serve in the military.

President Trump also tweeted that the military cannot be burdened with the disruption and medical costs that transgender people would bring to the military. Republicans are for this policy and say it is for saving money for the military, but Democrats and LGBT advocates are against the policy. The Human Rights Campaign suspects the Trump Administration of being prejudice against transgender people. Nancy Pelosi tweeted that no one should be turned away from serving in the military, and the ban is trying to humiliate transgender people in the military. Advocates say the ban is worse than the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy which banned gays from serving in the military. They could not talk about being openly gay. Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights said the policy has zero medical credibility and that it is anti-transgender propaganda made by Republicans. 

I’m curious about how many transgender persons serve in the military.  Does anyone have a guess?   I found a source at the BBC and at Snopes that review the research:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40950946. 

https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/07/27/how-many-transgender-people-currently-serve-in-the-u-s-military/  

There are interesting historical examples of women who disguised themselves as men to serve in the military.  That history might be an interesting note to consider in a contemplation of the issue of transgendered soldiers.  I recommend you do a search for The Drummer Maid or the Female Drummer.

You might have informed your audience about the political reasons why the Commander in Chief might want to ban transgendered persons from serving.

There are the claims for direct reasons, which were covered fairly well in your paper:

1) It is detrimental to the fighting effectiveness of the military

2) The costs of helping those soldiers transition to their new gender through surgery and hormone treatments is too expensive a burden for the military to bear

3) Allowing the transgendered persons to serve makes it difficult to recruit persons who would otherwise be good soldiers.  Allowing transgendered soldiers harms the reputation of the military.

There are also indirect reasons.  I assume these are likely to be the real reasons for the attempt to ban transgendered soldiers, but I didn't pay much attention to the issue, and perhaps no one has published an analysis of the likely reasons for this policy.

1. Trump and General Mattis are uncomfortable with transgendered persons, and want to exclude them from the military, and will do so because that is what they want to do and they have the power to do it.
2. Trump wants to increase the intensity of the political support he has from those who approve of his presidency, because in some critical areas he is failing to deliver policies that will please those supporters, so he uses a ban on transgendered persons serving in the military as a way to appease his supporters.
3. There are very few transgendered persons in the general population, and many people do not accept transgendered persons as normal or good (some people hate any challenges to their ideals about binary gender and sex). Since this is a small group with little political power, it’s easy to scapegoat them and direct attention and hostile emotions toward them, as this will help Trump get political support from people who don’t know about his other policies or their (harmful) effects, and who will ignore those policies because they are so delighted with the attack on the (politically weak) transgender interest groups.

Transgender persons and bathroom use

A student reaction paper

The United States has reached a social justice boiling point on several issues. But one that has recently been heating up is the issue of transgender rights. Several states have passed discriminatory legislation that attacks transgender men and women, directly violating some of their most basic rights. And while the stigma of gay and lesbian identity has slowly been melting away, transgender people are still regarded as "others." This group is not widely accepted, even by some in the LGBT community. But we still need to focus on protecting their rights as individuals. 

HB2, a recent law passed in North Carolina, mandates that public and government buildings must restrict access to restrooms based on birth-assigned sex. In other words, whatever gender your birth certificate says, is the restroom that you must use. Now there are several problems with this law, namely its enforcement. But my biggest issue, and several other cisgender women's biggest issue, is that the law claims to protect the rights, privacy, and safety of cis women. The argument against allowing men who identify as women into the women's restroom is based on the assumption that transgender women pose an inherent danger to cisgender women is completely unfounded. In my own personal research, I couldn't find a single incident of a trans woman attacking, harassing, or sexually assaulting a cis woman. Not a single case. So where is this coming from?

I find it completely asinine that the same legislators passing this law in the name of women's safety are the same legislators passing laws that restrict access to abortion and contraception. The governor of North Carolina, Pat McCrory (the same governor who signed into law a piece of legislation that forced abortion providers to meet the same surgical center standards and prevented public health insurance policies from paying for abortions) stated that HB2 was designed to "stop the breach of basic privacy and etiquette."

I want politicians to stop using my safety to justify their unfounded fear of transgender men and women. They don't give a damn about my safety when it comes to almost anything else. They don't give a damn about my safety when it comes to obtaining safe and accessible abortion services. I don't have a problem with a transgender person using the same restroom as me. And how should I know whether they are transgender or not? Who cares? Transgender people have to walk around every day being conscious of who they are, what they are doing, and how they present themselves. I have the privilege of being cisgender and not having to worry about that.If using the women's restroom makes them more comfortable, then so be it. It isn't my concern where they evacuate their bladders and bowels. It's none of my business, and it isn't anyone else's.

I am comfortable with this situation because I'm sure it has happened to everyone at some point in their lives, and you probably didn't even notice it happened. I'm not going to ask to check whether everyone in the restroom that I am using has female genitalia. I suppose that a transgender woman could peek through a stall door, but a cisgender woman could too, and both situations would be equally creepy. I wouldn't be more comfortable if someone who looked like a woman did it. 

 Transgender people experience more harassment than cisgender people do, and why would we exacerbate that by forcing a "man" who identifies as a woman to use the men's restroom? How much more uncomfortable would that be for all involved? Imagine walking into the men's room and seeing a young woman washing her hands at the sink. Or walking into the women's restroom and having a bearded man follow you in. This legislation could present potentially dangerous situations for transgender people. This could also potentially have a worse effect on transgender people of color. People of color experience more bias and prejudice than whites. In states like Florida, where stand your ground laws exist, and citizens can conceal and carry handguns, imagine the outcome of the above situation in the women's room. A white woman walks into the restroom to find a black "man" standing there. It's hard to believe, especially in today's current racial climate, that there wouldn't be a huge stir arising from this situation if she were to fire on him.  

The message that legislators are sending with this legislation is that transgender people are not welcome. And this is already coming back to bite them in the ass. Several large chain retailers in the state have openly stated they will not enforce or support this law, and have showed open support for the LGBT community. There are so many other real threats to women's safety, and often it is perpetrated by the same legislators who support this type of bill.  Don't use my very real concerns about my personal safety to justify your hate, to further oppress an already extremely oppressed group. You don't get to use my life and my experiences and the real threats that exist at your convenience. I will not stand idly by to act as your excuse, as your justification, as your reason. I will not stand by while you pit victims of white male privilege against each other. And while I'm supposed to appreciate the sentiment that these politicians had in mind when passing this bill, I must respectfully decline to be a part of their transphobic legislation and ask that instead of worrying about my "safety" in the restroom, that they worry about my safety everywhere else.

The case of Officer Liang and Akai Gurley

In class, we recently had a discussion over the relationship between African Americans and police officers within the United States. Many of my classmates had notions regarding this topic that I agree with, while some did not. Because of this, my second reaction paper will cover the relationship between African Americans and police officers in the United States, as well as ideas conceived by classmates on how to repair this relationship to ensure the well-being of both African Americans and police officers.

The discussion stemmed from a classmate bringing awareness to the case of Peter Liang, an Asian American cop accused of shooting and killing an unarmed African American man. According to journalist Fuchs, November 20^th of 2014, officer Peter Liang entered a stairwell with his partner, Rafael Ramos, for a “vertical patrol” ( Fuchs, 2016).  During this patrol, Liang heard a noise that frightened him, fired his gun, the bullet ricocheted off a wall, and struck an unarmed Akai Gurley.  Though, Akai Gurley was shot by the bullet, he was able to knock on a resident’s door and tell the resident to call 911.  The 911 dispatcher detailed how to give CPR,  however, neither police officer performed CPR on Gurley. Instead they are quoted to have  argued over calling for help while Gurley “lay dying” (2016).

Gurley, in fact, died as a result of his injuries. As a result, in February of 2016, Liang  was convicted of second-degree manslaughter, assault, and reckless endangerment, criminally negligent homicide, and a count of official misconduct (2016). The one count of official misconduct stemmed from Liang not performing CPR on Gurley. In response to this count, Liang stated that he felt unqualified to perform CPR, as he did not practice CPR at the Police Academy, and his instructors gave those training answers to the exams (2016). In response to Liang’s conviction, the Asian American community was divided by those that supported the conviction and those that did not.

Those in support of the conviction argue that “police violence” which stems from systemic racism will continue not combatted (Guillermo, 2015). However, some groups argue that the murder of an unarmed African American man by an Asian American and the conviction of the Asian American police officer was used as a scapegoat. These groups contend that if the police officer was a European American then he would not have been convicted, as many have been before.

It is from this idea that some of the Asian American groups have, that if Peter Liang had been a white police officer he would not have been convicted that the class discussion stemmed. Because I cannot speak for any member of the Asian American community, it can be inferred that many groups in support of Liang, believe that because some European American cops or European Americans, in general, are not punished has harshly as people of color or cops that are of color when convicting the same or similar crimes, there is an importance placed on the lives of European Americans that is not placed on the lives of people of color. This importance is perpetuated in both the private and public spheres, more specifically and in this case of Liang, in jobs that are deemed uniformed service or public safety service.

From this idea that the legal system fails to punish white cops as it does cops of color who commit the same or similar crimes, that my classmates began to give ideas on how to repair this system. Some inferred that the reformation of the legal system begins in the Police Academy – that certain incentives be given and that requirements to become a police officer are lengthened. I believe that both of these conditions could result in individuals being more equipped to fulfill their duties as a cop without feeling as if they had the capabilities to abuse the power that is instilled in the job title.  Also a furthered education, possibly promoting individuals obtaining a secondary education, would also be another benefit as the individual would have additional knowledge along with what is learned in the Police Academy.

Aside from what can be done to ensure that individuals become police officers who will not abuse their power, classmates also argued that there should be ways for miscommunications and harsh feelings between African Americans and police officers to be resolved. One way to resolve these issues could be programs that allow one-on-one interaction between the two communities which could also disprove any prejudice or bigoted notions one community may have towards the other. This could also be done with other minority groups and police officers, as well as non-minorities and police officers.

In class, my peers also offered their stances on how they believe African Americans should respond to police officers. These responses seemed to stem from the idea that cops are going to act upon racist, bigoted, or discriminatory notions or may have a superiority complex. While some cops may act upon these notions, some will not. Because of this, I was confused on my classmates’ stances, as I perceived it as them believing that African Americans should believe that when pulled over or approached by a cop they should act submissively due to the cop possibly having these kind of beliefs – submissively as in not objecting to any wrongful treatment they may be subjected to.

There were also comments made on acting African Americans making sure they act respectful to police officers. This is definitely needed, but I believe this should be promoted with all individuals, not just cops. These ideas were easier to digest than the ideas suggesting that an individual allow wrongful treatment by a cop by not speaking out, simply because they are a cop. This not only promotes the continuation of unlawful abuse by cops, but allows for animosity to grow between police officers and the public. 

Overall, I really enjoyed this in class discussion and the different stances that my classmates’ had, whether I agreed with them or not. As for the case the encouraged the discussion, I think that certain subgroups within communities are vying for solidarity within themselves and their community and are willing to come together for any reason – whether it be good or bad. I strongly believe that this case, more specifically, the murder of an unarmed minority would also not be such a taboo topic if there was not varied treatment of individuals who have the same job title. By working with both police officers and various communities affected by police mistreatment or anger these groups may have, matters like this could be resolved without contesting the worth of another’s individual’s life.

References

Fuchs, C. (2016, February 11). NYPD Officer Peter Liang guilty of second-degree Manslaughter in Akai Gurley killing. NBC News. Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/nypd-officer-peter-liang-guilty-second-degree-manslaughter-akai-gurley-n516796 

Fuchs, C. (2016, February 23). Chinese community divided over NYPD officer's indictment. NBC News.  Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/chinese-community-divided-over-nypd-officers-indictment-n306946 

Guillermo, E. (2015, April 28). Police violence will repeat itself': Asian groups call for accountability. NBC News. Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/police-violence-will-repeat-itself-asian-groups-call-accountability-n349601

In this case an innocent person is dead, and the person responsible for that death ought to face punitive consequences.  It seems clear that the death was not intentionally caused, but officer Liang had his gun out of its holster and pulled the trigger when there was evidently no need, and that seems to justify the charge of second-degree manslaughter and criminal endangerment. The fact that Officer Liang did not offer assistance to the man he had mortally wounded seems to justify the official misconduct charge, and perhaps also the criminally negligent homicide. So, it seems to me hardly any fair person could object to these charges being made, and since I haven’t read the court transcripts or attended the court processes, I will just have to trust that the verdicts were fairly reached.

So far, I think there isn’t really any room for dispute, although I suppose some might argue for charges of less serious crimes, or more serious crimes, depending upon their dispositions.  I think the agents of the state tend to make the harshest and most serious charges they can possibly make, because built into the system is the assumption that there will be some sort of plea-bargain and the accused defendant will admit to a lesser charge and spare the state the cost of the full prosecution. 

By the way, CPR usually does not save lives, but it is a criminal injustice for two law enforcement officers to fail to provide the first aid assistance when they have accidentally shot someone, or even intentionally shot someone. 

Should police officers be charged with crimes when they commit crimes?  Of course they should be.  Are police officers frequently given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to get away with justifications for their decisions and actions, and thus escape prosecution and punishment for terrible decisions, reckless incompetence, and criminal behavior?  Yes, probably so.  There is always a problem of “who will police the police?” and this is an inherent crisis in every act of state violence.  The state (largely through its police and military functions) holds a monopoly on the right to use violence, but the use of violence is always a serious matter, and states tend to use more violence than necessary, partially because the people who are allowed to use the violence frequently are frightened, or brutal, or over zealous in their caution to prevent any injury that could be inflicted upon them.    

If police of one ethnic background are treated differently from police of another ethnic background, is this a violation of moral principles?  Yes, certainly it violates the principle that all should be treated equally under the law.  Do European-American police commit reckless acts that get innocent people killed?  Of course they do, and these acts of violence are sometimes recorded and made public.  Are they always prosecuted and punished when they do these horrible things?  No, sometimes they are not, although sometimes they are.  The fact that police are sometimes not prosecuted or punished when they, through incompetence or misconduct or brutal recklessness kill people who ought not to have been killed, is a social problem.  The solution to this problem is to more frequently and fairly prosecute and punish police who deserve prosecution and punishment.  

But, do we always know when police have acted in a way that deserves prosecution and punishment?  No, we cannot always know.  Sometimes actions that seem terrible may be justified and excused.  Sometimes actions that seem excusable and justified may really be terrible and worthy of prosecution and punishment.  There will be ambiguity in many cases.  When there is ambiguity, bias can infect the decision-making processes, and that means European-American police may get the benefit of the doubt (a preference for being very selective and avoiding errors of sensitivity) while Asian-American or African-American police may be held to higher standards (a preference for tolerating more errors of selectivity and avoiding errors arising from not being sensitive enough).

However, bias is something that influences probability, and in single cases, I doubt we can really know if bias is working its devilry. We know there is bias when we can show patterns or probabilities that are tending toward unfair differences for members of groups.  If three or four European-American police are given a benefit of the doubt and one Asian-American officer is prosecuted and convicted, we do not have a large enough sample to be certain whether bias is at work.

So, what is the proper response when bias may be causing an injustice, but we are not certain whether it is?  Sometimes we ought to protest and make a loud noise about the potential for bias and the real threat of bias, even when we are uncertain that bias exists, because it would be an injustice to wait for better evidence of injustice.  Other times, we ought to wait and see, and delay our protest until we are more confident that we can demonstrate a pattern of bias or injustice.  How do we make that decision?

The mixed feelings about the death of Akai Gurley and the conviction of Officer Liang is probably rooted in the mix of complicated moral issues.  Police do seem to have a bias against African-Americans, and this bias certainly has caused some deaths of innocent African-Americans and African or Caribbean immigrants. That’s an outrageous injustice.  Sometimes police are not prosecuted or punished when they ought to be, and that another insult to our sense of justice.  Officer Liang may have been made a scapegoat, and may have suffered greater punishment than he deserved, in an attempt to diminish the public outrage over the behavior of many European-American police who had committed similar or worse acts of homicidal incompetence, and if that is so, then that is yet another tragic injustice that might reasonably stir up our hot indignation.

The problem comes, I think, in comparing relative injustice.  Here is an injustice that seems clear, and here is one with ambiguity, so should I disparage the injustice shrouded in a veil of uncertainty in a comparison to the injustice that is clear and evident?  Here is an injustice that seems worse to me, and here is another injustice that seems not as evil to me.  Should I dismiss the smaller injustice and point instead to the greater injustice?  Here again, we have no clear moral certainty.  Yes, some injustices are much worse than others, and we ought to put greater effort into correcting those greater injustices.  But sometimes the relative level of misery and injustice is approximately similar, and then, what is the point, what is the objective, what is the goal of using our minds to discriminate between which violation of the good is the worse?