Riots are Just the Loudest Symptom of What Ails America

Freddie Gray

Ever since Michael Brown was shot dead in Ferguson, Mo. Aug. 9, leading to riots that turned a town that most people outside Missouri had never heard of into a household word, the nation's focus has turned to racial tensions that have simmered in the year since the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and 1960s.

Make no mistake: Brown's death and the deaths of others who shared his skin color by white police officers are nothing new. Years of discussion about police brutality and racial profiling have occasionally flared up violently, such as the Los Angeles riots almost exactly 23 years ago after a jury acquitted four police officers even though video showed them pummeling King.

The latest example of tension between rioters and police came after Freddie Gray's death April 19. Gray was arrested April 12 and, his family's attorney contends that police injured his spinal cord in the incident. Police admitted on Friday they didn't get Gray timely medical attention upon his arrest.

Anger over the incident, plus accusations of rampant race-related brutality by Baltimore police boiled over during the past couple of days. Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan declared a state of emergency and activated the state's National Guard Monday.

The Baltimore Orioles postponed their scheduled game against the Chicago White Sox Monday because of riots near Oriole Park at Camden Yards.

Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred said the decision to postpone Monday's game was made after consulting with local officials, according to Yahoo! Sports.

"We feel like we made the decision that would provide us the greatest possible security in terms of protecting the fans, the players, the umpires, everybody involved in the game," Manfred said.

More to the point, Orioles executive vice president John Angelos, the son of owner Peter Angelos, wrote a series of tweets in which he sought to put things in perspective.

"The innocent working families of all backgrounds whose lives and dreams have been cut short by excessive violence, surveillance and other abuses of the bill of rights by government pay the true price, and ultimate," John Angelos wrote, "and one that far exceeds the importance of any kid's game played tonight, or ever, at Camden Yards."

Unfortunately, the rest of reactions around the country, and even within the state of Maryland haven't been nearly as unified. Facebook posts that decried liberals, condemnations of rioters and strong statements directed at those who support or oppose police have demonstrated yet again the great divides that plague a country that seems to be ironically called the "United" States.

Look, I get the fact that many African-Americans feel disenfranchised in reaction to abuse at the hands of white cops. I recognize that too many African-Americans deal with both open and subtle racism on an everyday basis. However, that doesn't excuse violent protesting. It doesn't justify three gangs joining forces to attack cops, as Baltimore police argue is happening.

These events also don't justify police brutality or racial profiling. Baltimore City Police Commissioner Anthony Batts has refused to resign in response to questions surrounding alleged abuse, although Batts also said he wanted the authority to fire officers who perform poorly or otherwise warrant termination.

"It could have been my son at the bus stop that night that event of excessive force was used. It is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in this organization," Batts said in October of last year in response to a video of a police officer beating 32-year-old Kollin Truss in September. 

Police need to be held accountable, yes, but simply giving police the authority to fire officers is just the tip of the spear. The riots, the violence and the backlash against police are just the heaviest symptom of the wedge being driven through people in this country. Facebook statements condemning "liberals" and racist criticism of rioters are an example of our lost ability to disagree with others without resulting in enmity.

Frustrating disrespect for Jenner during a difficult journey

Former Olympic gold medalist Bruce Jenner will sit down with ABC's Diane Sawyer to discuss his impending transition to present as a female on April 24.

Some people are familiar with former Olympian Bruce Jenner's athletic accomplishments. Jenner won the gold medal in the decathlon at the 1976 Olympic Games in Montreal, turning him into a sports hero with endorsements that kept his face in front of the American public well into the 1980s.

More recently, however, Jenner became more famous as the patriarch of the Kardashians, as the former Kris Kardashian married Jenner.

If that wasn't bad enough, Jenner has borne the brunt of jokes and snide comments about his appearance as he has been seen in public with long hair, sometimes in a ponytail. Eventually, word got out that Jenner is undergoing a process to "transition" into a woman.

Both before the seeming confirmation reported by People magazine in January and in the days and weeks that followed, people poking fun at Jenner has unfortunately continued. Even questions from well-meaning people have hinted at disrespect toward the journey. On such question I've seen out there illustrates the point: "what's wrong with being a man?" in response to Jenner's transition.

For someone who isn't familiar with the journey, it's hard to imagine the emotions and the feelings involved that would lead toward the transition. I don't pretend to have all the answers. I don't even profess to have any. That said, from my limited experience, some, if not all, people who choose to take on the journey face something called gender dysphoria, also known as gender identity disorder.

Long story short: People with gender identity disorder believe they were born with the wrong gender. To use Jenner's example, TMZ is reporting that when he sits down with ABC's Diane Sawyer on April 24, he is expected to present himself as a woman for the first time. He is expected to tell Sawyer that he considered himself a female since age 5, but was not able to present himself as one.

The interview in itself may not be disrespectful, but ABC's trailer for the interview certainly is. It sensationally avoids showing Jenner's face, choosing to use a silhouette of Jenner along with the back of Jenner's head in shots in a blatant attempt to create interest in the interview.

I understand the need to drive an audience to watch a program and that ABC needs to promote the interview. I also understand that Jenner's appearance alone may cause interest in the story. However, the shadows and the back of Jenner's head bring a carnival freak level of attention to Jenner that someone going through the emotional anguish of that transition under the glare of public attention should never face.

ABC's decision to tease Jenner's interview the way it has is yet another example of far too much disrespect directed at people who deserve understanding, no matter how little we have of exactly what they're going through.

Anatomy of a failure: What Rolling Stone got wrong

Rolling Stone magazine's publication of "A Rape On Campus" last November, which purportedly chronicled a brutal rape at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house on the University of Virginia campus, resulted in the entire Greek life system being suspended by university president Teresa Sullivan.

The suspension was intended to allow the school to do some soul searching. It was intended to allow the university to examine its policies and for students to ponder their own responsibility to prevent sexual assault.

As we now know, there was one major problem with the narrative. Sabrina Erdely, the author of the 9,000-word story, spoke with "Jackie," the alleged victim and the sole source quoted in the account. The Columbia Journalism School reviewed the piece and recounted several failures of basic journalism. 

Rolling Stone has subsequently retracted the story and has apologized to all the real victims involved. Erdely has also apologized, but she cited the admitted difficulties of handling a story about a crime that so deeply violates its victims.

Erdely interviewed "Jackie" a total of eight times, and the Rolling Stone online account indicated that "Jackie" "proved to be a challenging source," and refused to provide the name of a lifeguard who worked at the pool on campus whom she claimed organized the rape. At that point, Rolling Stone's editors agreed to continue with the story "without knowing the lifeguard's name or verifying his existence."

Erdely, editors and a fact-checker all believed "Jackie," and the fact-checker even provided details as to why she believed Jackie.

"She wasn't just answering, 'Yes, yes, yes,' she was correcting me," the checker said. "She was describing the scene for me in a very vivid way. … I did not have doubt." Rolling Stone asked not to reveal the name of the fact-checker because she didn't have decision-making authority, according to the Rolling Stone account of the story.

After the story published, Erdely asked "Jackie" for the name of the lifeguard and assured her it would not be published. Armed with the name, she attempted to verify his membership in the fraternity and his employment at the pool. She was unable to do either.

Columbia deservedly didn't hold back in its harsh assessment of Rolling Stone's systemic failures.

"The failure encompassed reporting, editing, editorial supervision and fact-checking," Columbia's account read. "The magazine set aside or rationalized as unnecessary essential practices of reporting that, if pursued, would likely have led the magazine's editors to reconsider publishing Jackie's narrative so prominently, if at all."

Besides Rolling Stone now facing the worst possible embarrassment as the result of its lack of responsibility being laid bare before the entire country, there are, of course, myriad ripple effects. Erdely's credibility as a journalist has clearly been shot to hell. The university's reputation has been sullied, as it turns out, under false pretenses. 

I'm admittedly not the most sympathetic person toward the Greek life system, but it turned out Sullivan's suspension of all Greek life activities was a punishment for a crime that we have little to no real evidence to believe actually happened. Much like the Duke lacrosse case in 2006, in which three players were falsely accused of raping a woman at a party, the fraternity brothers in Phi Kappa Psi now will have to deal with the ramifications of being accused of sexual assault unjustly.

One of the few things Erdely did right in the wake of this failure was to express concern about the effects that her and Rolling Stone's mistakes will have on the discussion about sexual assault and rape. Make no mistake: Rape still is a serious problem and communities the world over need to do a much better job of addressing the root causes. A false account, especially one so graphic, can do untold damage to the good work that started, even under bad pretenses.

Ultimately, it will be a long time before Erdely and Rolling Stone regain lost credibility. Worse yet, it will be a very long time before all the wounds caused by shoddy reporting, editorial oversight and fact-checking are healed.