The recent events in St. Louis have left me incredibly saddened for two reasons reasons. First, an unarmed young man only one week away from starting college was shot and killed by a police officer. I remember how excited I was in the weeks before I left for college. I'm sure the last thing on this kid's mind was the possibility of being shot to death by a cop. Unfortunately, this is just another incident in what is becoming a disturbing trend of police brutality across the US. As a libertarian, I have a healthy dose of skepticism with regard to our civil 'servants.' Sometimes this skepticism is misrepresented as paranoia. And yet here we are, mourning the death of another unarmed kid at the hands of a cop.
Second, I am saddened by the response of some in the St. Louis community. To protest and to loot are two very different things. To those that are peacefully protesting, I would be out there with you if I could (that means if it wasn't dangerous and I was in St. Louis). I truly hope that a full investigation into this incident is carried out and that justice is served. However, to those are are taking the opportunity to loot and riot: if change is what you truly want, this is not the way to achieve it.
Tonight I'll focus on the latter topic (looting and the culture of inner cities). The next post will be about the problem of police brutality in the US.
"They Never Had a Chance"
It seems as though the first response many of us have in the face of these kinds of events is "they didn't know any better." There is almost a perverse desire to remove as much responsibility from the individual as possible. We cite socioeconomic circumstances to account for the present actions of criminals, as if the individual never had a choice in the matter. I think we need to be very careful about what message we send when we say "society is not giving these kids a chance." If we aren't clear, we run the risk of excusing the ignorance and violence that permeates through the culture.
If these truly kids "are set up for failure" we need to ask whose fault that is. Is it the government's fault for not addressing the issue of poverty? I'm always a bit shocked when I first hear this argument. It seems like there's plenty of programs and special interests groups dedicated to the advancement of blacks in America. But whenever inner-city youth act up, the response is such that you'd think the emancipation proclamation had been declared yesterday and blacks had been thrown out of the farms and into the streets without so much as a good-luck pat on the back. Is it true? Are we really leaving black Americans high and dry?
The War on Poverty
In 1964, President Johnson declared the a war on poverty. Since then, some $16 trillion has been spent to alleviate the woes of the lower class. Hundreds of programs have sprung up, including the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit, Unemployment Insurance, Food Stamps (SNAP) and Social Security. In 2012, the US government at the state, local, and federal level spent a total of $1 trillion dollars on poverty programs. That means we literally could have *given* $20,000 to every single poor family in America and it would have cost less than these programs.
What about education? Are our public schools working? Do we give them enough attention and funding? What about the caliber of the teachers? In Missouri, 30% of the state and local budget goes to funding education--more than any other sector. Healthcare is second at 26%. The rest of the sectors combined make up for the final 44% of the budget. This means that education is, by far, the top priority for spending in Missouri.
Much has been done to alter the fate of inner-city children's education. In 1980, the Voluntary Interdistrict Coordinating Council began transferring thousands of black children living in the city of STL to suburban school districts. This gave parents a choice when their local schools were failing. In the meantime, St. Louis Public Schools (SLPS) was establishing magnet schools designed to provide quality education that would attract a diverse student body from the surrounding suburbs in hopes of revitalizing the city's school system. Unfortunately, while the VICC flourished, the inner city schools lagged behind. Due to a continued decline in overall quality, in 2007 the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education stripped the STL Public School system of its accreditation and appointed a three-person special advisory board in hopes of saving the district. Since the change, high-school graduation rate has increased by 18% and $25 million in debt has been eliminated.
(Libertarian plug: what has been one of the secrets to the successful turnaround? "Mr. Adams said his 18 months as chief of staff in New Orleans, where he oversaw the opening of 33 traditional schools and 26 charter schools, convinced him that choice and competition are vital. "It puts people on notice that public schools won't necessarily have kids in them just because they are there," he said. Now, he continually warns principals that if they cannot keep enrollment up, he will close the schools. In his first two years in St. Louis, Mr. Adams closed 14 schools, dismissed about 10% of principals and has since replaced about 60% of the system's 77 leaders. He has transformed 11 schools by firing half the teaching staff and installing new principals.")
Admittedly, there are still improvements to be made. The issue of inner city education is certainly a difficult one. But in light of this reform, can it really be said that nobody was fighting to give these kids a chance?
What about the cost of education? Is there an unfair system in place that keeps poor black families from having an opportunity to afford college? According to the US Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics:
"In 2007–08, a higher percentage of Black full-time, full-year undergraduate students received financial aid than did White, Hispanic, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander full-time, full-year undergraduates and full-time, full-year undergraduates of two or more races. Ninety-two percent of full-time, full-year Black undergraduate students received financial aid, compared to 85 percent of Hispanic students, 77 percent of White students, 68 percent of Asian students, 80 percent of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander students, and 83 percent of students or two or more races."
So a greater percentage of black students are receiving some sort of financial aid. But is it an amount that will actually make a difference?
"In 2007–08, among full-time, full-year students who received financial aid, Black students received higher average amounts of aid ($13,500), than White ($12,900), Hispanic ($11,400), Asian ($12,600), and American Indian/Alaska Native ($10,900) students."
This means that if you are black, you not only have the best statistical chance of getting a scholarship, but the scholarship you receive will be at or near the top of those given out in terms of dollar amount.
I'm not saying this is a bad thing--I am simply pointing this out to dispel the myth that these people are not getting a chance. If you actually look at the numbers, young blacks are being rooted for more-so than any other group in America right now. (I should note that there is a large amount of evidence out there that suggests the large amount of social welfare has slowed the decline in poverty rates. But that's not what I'm discussing here.)
A Change in Culture
I came home for St. Patrick's day this past spring and went to the parade downtown. I found it really odd that people were cheering as the police showcased their new armored vehicles. People were literally applauding the militarization of the police forces.
But this is obviously not how to address it. Sure, there might be hundreds of years of pent up anger within the black community, but how does lighting a Quiktrip on fire or stealing a pair of sneakers do anything to fix that problem? In what universe does that solve anything? If you're sick of being treated like a violent degenerate thief, how do you decide that going out en masse and committing violent, degenerate acts of thievery will accomplish anything?
Any amount of defense for these looters is too much. You don't need to spend 30 billion dollars on education to teach someone that stealing is inappropriate. If these kids didn't know any better, why are they covering their faces with shirts as they loot the stores? The problem is not a lack of knowledge--the lifelines have already been thrown (see above). The problem is a lack in desire or willpower to take personal responsibility and change the culture.
Parents: I'm looking at you. In my opinion, the behavior of the parents is at the heart of this problem. No amount of government funding or education reform can ever replace the values and morals that are taught at home. If teachers spend their days stressing the importance of an education only to be undermined by a dysfunctional parental unit, nothing will be fixed. It's easy for a parent to say "well I grew up in a shitty household, so how am I supposed to know any better?" and allow the status quo to continue. But as soon as those words are spoken, the parent has implicitly acknowledged that it is now his or her responsibility to stop the cycle.
Immediately following this admission, the parent should begin finding ways to be a better parent. Anything else is a refusal to rise above the circumstances to take not just personal responsibility, but to also start the ball rolling for positive change in the future. Refusing to help future generations because nobody gave you a chance is nothing short of selfish.
Perhaps one of the more prominent figures currently preaching the need for a cultural change is Bill Cosby. He has called for an end to the blame game--replaced by a sense of personal accountability:
|
Naturally, during times of civil unrest we are reminded of the gains that Martin Luther King Jr. made during his years of activism. How would he have behaved if he were alive today? I think his writings give us a very strong answer. The following is a list of "commandments" that everyone wanting to join in MLK's Birmingham protests were required to read and agree to abide by. After reading this, ask yourself if he would have reacted to last night's actions at any of his protests. Would he have found excuses for their behavior, effectively condoning the events of last night by attributing them to a 'boiling over' of emotions? Or would he have scolded those that refuse to take responsibility for their actions and their futures today?
"I HEREBY PLEDGE MYSELF- MY PERSON AND MY BODY- TO THE NONVIOLENT MOVEMENT. THEREFORE, I WILL KEEP THE FOLLOWING TEN COMMANDMENTS:
1. Meditate daily on the teachings and life of Jesus.
2. Remember always that the nonviolent movement in Birmingham seeks justice and reconciliation—not victory.
3. Walk and talk in the manner of love, for God is love.
4. Pray daily to be used by God in order that all men might be free.
5. Sacrifice personal wishes in order that all men might be free.
6. Observe with both friend and foe the ordinary rules of courtesy.
7. Seek to perform regular service for others and for the world.
8. Refrain from the violence of fist, tongue, or heart.
9. Strive to be in good spiritual and bodily health.
10. Follow the directions of the movement and of the captain on a demonstration."
