It is the title of an Op-Ed over at the Atlantic.
If the case does go to court, the trial may have to take place on another planet...
If Zimmerman is indicted by state authorities for homicide, or for a federal hate crime, where in the world will the judiciary find an impartial jury? So many people have already convicted Zimmerman; so much prejudicial evidence and speculation have been so widely disseminated.
My comments over the jump.
On an emotional level, my first reaction to this article was "don't ask me to weep for George Zimmerman." I realized, as I read the article, that it's not the question that I have a problem with, at all. It's an important question in a free society that values equality before the law. But Wendy Kaminer's answer misses the most important point in regards to this question.
This is all happening because of racial injustice.
She did try not to be racist:
I'm not questioning the outrage generated by Martin's killing and the cursory initial investigation of it. I'm not criticizing the campaign to re-open the case, the demand for federal intervention, or the skepticism about Zimmerman's story and his self-defense claim. I'm commenting on the dilemma posed by popular campaigns for criminal prosecutions: The effort to correct what appears to have been one grievous injustice risks creating another.
That's an important dilemma to point out. But her answer is wrong. Worse than wrong, it's ignorant of the most important facts in this case: If Zimmerman doesn't get a fair trial, then it is the logical consequence of a society where racist statements are commonplace, and where unbridled racism isn't even noticed.
It's obvious that it was racial injustice that killed Trayvon. Racism is why Trayvon was targeted. Yet Kaminer argues that it isn't racial injustice that threatens Zimmerman, but the response from the victims of racial injustice.
We've heard again and again about how Trayvon deserved to be gunned down because he was dressed "like a thug." Yet what was the young, blond, Danish boy wearing on the cover of the much derided "Conservative Teen" magazine? A Hoodie! So when young blond blue eyed Aryan-looking boys wear hoodies, the Media Research Center puts him on the front of their magazine, but when a young black man wears one, then it's an excuse to shoot him. We know there's obvious racism going on here.
But there's also not-so-obvious racism. Not so obvious racism like the line:
The effort to correct what appears to have been one grievous injustice risks creating another.
She sees the consequences of racial injustice as somehow seperate from racial injustice itself. But we'll get back to that.
What bothers me so much about the piece over at the Atlantic isn't so much what Kaminer said, though some of it (like the preceding line) is incredibly ignorant. What really bothers me is what she didn't say. It's what facts anyone who does any writing about our legal system or court system should already know.
Young black men are much, much, much more likely to be arrested in the first place. They're more likely to go to trial. They're more likely to be convicted. There isn't a black man alive in the United States right now who's guaranteed a fair trial. So you can bet that when a white man walks for murdering a black child, there's going to be widespread outrage. Especially when if their situations were reversed, if Zimmerman were a black man who had chased down a white teenager and shot him dead, he would likely have been arrested immediately. He would likely not be out on the streets right now. If the case received the kind of media attention it's currently receiving, you can bet that the people defending Zimmerman would be howling for the death penalty.
The racist treatment of blacks in our judicial system and our society doesn't isn't mentioned once in Kaminer's piece. The fact that it's left out, when that's one of the many reasons for a protest like this, indicates a kind of ignorance that I find disturbing. Because if Zimmerman doesn't recieve a fair trial it will be a direct consequence of the injustice felt by the black community. We've all heard about Zimmerman's alleged crusade against black men in his gated community. If true, then there's a likelihood that in a non-racist society, Trayvon Martin would still be alive and well.
The reason that there is such public outcry about this case is because Black Americans face injustice every single day. They are targeted by the police and by private security. They are unjustly profiled. They are often arrested with little justification, they are beaten and even killed quite often by people in positions of authority. When they are arrested, it's very likely that they'll be convicted, even on the flimsiest of evidence. Much more likely, that is, than whites. That's why 40% of people in prison are Black, while blacks make up only 14 percent of our population.
An unfair trial in this case means that Zimmerman will be tried in the same way that so many black folks are tried: through the eyes of prejudice. In the same way that so many black folks are judged to be guilty before they even enter a courtroom because of the color of their skin, Zimmerman might be prejudged to be guilty because of the evidence we've all already seen.
This is exactly what Martin Luther King was talking about when he said that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. If black folks were treated like white folks, if they didn't have to fear the police, if they weren't convicted at a greater rate, if they weren't portrayed as criminals, if a thousand things were different, we might not know about this case at all.
The blackening of Zimmerman's name in the press before he has been charged with a crime isn't a direct result of the protest actions being taken today. These actions grow out of racial prejudice and injustice. That prejudice and injustice is the ultimate problem. The protests, and the prejudice Zimmerman will see are both symptoms of racial injustice.
But let's say that Kaminer's right, and that there's no way in hell that Zimmerman will receive a fair trial. What should we do?
You won't see the Orlando DA refusing to try any black men because we live in a prejudiced society. Equality before the law means, ultimately, that the trial should go forward, though I can promise you we'll be seeing people who will argue otherwise. If we're not willing to shield millions of black and minority men and women from judicial racism by having a moratorium on convictions, then neither should Zimmerman be shielded from the societal consequences of injustice.
The fact that one white man is now experiencing some small level of judicial prejudice as the result of racial injustice should indeed be a cause for concern. It should wake us up so that we can have a conversation about white privilege and prejudice. We should be having a conversation about the kind of society that programs people like Zimmerman to assume that a black man in a hoodie is a "thug." We should be talking about the consequences of injustice.
We should be having a conversation about the fact that racism in America isn't just harmful for Black Americans, or Native Americans, or any other individual group, racism against anyone harms everyone. Injustice anywhere threatens justice everywhere.
Wendy Kaminer's article won't be the first arguing that we should be concerned about justice for George Zimmerman. There will be articles talking about reverse racism. There will be articles pleading to shield Zimmerman from the consequences of societal racism, and ultimately, the consequences of his own actions.
All of these articles, like Kaminer's, will be completely missing the point.
Wendy Kaminer's article in the Atlantic is here.