I have been reluctant to discuss the shooting of Sam Dubose by a UC police officer. The incident has been traumatic for everyone involved. A man lost his life and a young police officer stands accused of murder. There are no winners in such situations.
Wait, that’s not true. There are winners in such situations. In the aftermath of the shooting UC went on the offensive. They hired new administrators (costing over $600,000 / year), sent out various apology emails, and held/sponsored a number of events. Other UC organizations, too, jumped on the bandwagon. We had a “Sam Dubose” week, “teach in’s,” and several panels of “experts” discussing the history of police brutality, racism, police brutality, racism, and police brutality and racism.
The Black Lives Matters group and the Irate8 were readily accepted by the administration and by various groups on campus. UC even held an event where WE could have our pictures taken with the BLM folks.
As someone who supports free speech, I have to say that I strongly support the right of BLM and Irate8 to voice their views on these matters.
There are 3 points, however, that are instructive:
First, UC came down decidedly in favor of these groups, their rhetoric, and their efforts. Unlike other student groups, UC elevated in priority the agendas and efforts of these groups and, in essence, sanctioned their legitimacy. By extension, UC sanctioned the rhetoric of BLM and Irate8. I know of NO other groups who have been given such exalted status. Why?
Second, while there have been faculty grumblings about how UC has handled this incident and, in particular, UC’s efforts to promote a clear ideological agenda, so far no person, no department, and no group has stood up in opposition. And why would they.....the costs to reputation and self are identifiable. I think most just want to get their work done and to move on.........and those who do disagree are simply intimidated to say anything.
Third, it is also instructive that the various panels and teach-in’s didn’t include a single CJ professor. Those most knowledgable about criminal behavior, racial differences in criminal behavior, policing, ect.......... were not invited to the party. While I cannot speak for my colleagues, I think it fair to say that most likely would not have participated simply out of fear---fear that is legitimate.
We have an entire academic industry designed to propagate certain narratives about African Americans, about the criminal justice system, and about the police. This industry accepts NO criticism, disregards all evidence to the contrary, and attacks those dare to question. It’s an intellectual cabal.
Look at the “community syllabus” posted by the Irate8 at UC. The syllabus was created by activists and UC professors. See if you can find ANY contradictory evidence........ANY.
The syllabus reads like a radical manifesto and the contributors come from across campus.
I could also post the panels that contained zero intellectual diversity--ZERO.
This is what happens when one ideology exists on campus, when one view is elevated and protected over all others, and when data, science, and reality no longer matter. This is the Tribal Moral Community described by Haidt and detailed in our book. This is ideology in action.
Lastly, the attached file (see below) represents a cursory review of certain interventions that work or don’t work with regard to police-community interventions. Interesting.
BTW: Many ask why a UC police officer was patrolling off-campus. The decision was a reaction by UC to the volume of crime, committed overwhelmingly by blacks, against UC students.
John Paul Wright and Matt DeLisi
Professors of Crime and Criminology