Do unto others

Nearly seven decades ago, in rural northwestern Pennsylvania, the incidence of African-Americans was rare. Then one day a black family moved into town and several new students appeared in our school. Them being a bit different, and us being a bit confused, we asked our mother about it. Reaching into her Presbyterian grab-bag, she sweetly told us to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Later, after joining the Marine Corps, I encountered a series of black non-coms and officers who demanded and deserved nothing but respect. Staff Sergeant Tolbert, our assistant DI, pummeled black and white recruits equally into the final product: United States Marines. Later, Master Sergeant Sims, a bulky, black, former professional wrestler, with a wonderful sense of humor but a deep knowledge of what was right, kept us in line.

All this in the late 1960s, not long after the Civil Rights movement began. We were taught that there were no black Marines, no white Marines, only green Marines. The Marine Corps was light years ahead.

And back in the civilian world, in later years, there were many black friends, and colleagues, and neighbors. Trusted and respected.

No, not everyone’s experience was like that. There still remain pockets of vicious racism, particularly evident in anonymous comments posted on the internet. (Anonymous posters are oh-so-courageous).

But indeed things are changing.  African Americans are increasingly successful in a wide range of endeavors. It is not at all unusual to see successful black CEOs, politicians, scientists, doctors, astronauts, and entrepreneurs. And generals and airline pilots, and famous actors and entertainers, and sports heroes and judges. We are no longer surprised to see blacks serving in any of society’s roles.

Another important sign – mixed marriages have become common. More importantly, the acceptance of such marriages has skyrocketed. Dr. Elwood Watson, a professor of African-American studies, describes a Gallup poll from 2014. While in 1958 only 4% of white Americans supported interracial marriage, that has now risen to “overwhelmingly supportive at 84 percent.” And for younger folks 18-29 years old, the support is nearly unanimous at 96%.

So with all this good news, what explains the ongoing national uproar concerning blacks and the police?

Are blacks targeted by police? Are they more likely to be shot and killed than whites?

A surprising study by Roland G. Fryer, a black economist at Harvard, finds an unlikely answer. According to the New York Times:

“A new study confirms that black men and women are treated differently in the hands of law enforcement. They are more likely to be touched, handcuffed, pushed to the ground or pepper-sprayed by a police officer, even after accounting for how, where and when they encounter the police.

But when it comes to the most lethal form of force — police shootings — the study finds no racial bias.”

To anyone who has been paying attention these last few years, that is a shocker.  As Dr. Fryer said, “It is the most surprising result of my career.”

We are left with a problem here. The study finds no bias in shootings, but it does find different treatment in less lethal contact. How to square this circle – why are the officers treating blacks differently? Is it purely racism or is there something else at work?

One possible explanation might be found in the FBI crime statistics as reported by the Washington Post. In the years 2004-2013, 930 police officers were killed by black offenders and 1,180 by whites.  While that seems to offer roughly equal odds for a police officer to meet death at the hands of any offender, it must be adjusted for population. After doing so, we find that the officer is nearly 4 times more likely to be killed by an individual black assailant than a white one.

Further, FBI arrest statistics reveal that blacks are arrested for serious felonies at a rate 2.6 times that of whites. While some of those arrests may result from bias, it is indicative of a very serious crime problem in the black community. (We need only read the weekly body count from Chicago to get a sense of that).

A fair reading of the numbers reveals that officers have more to fear from interacting with black subjects, and a much higher opportunity for such interactions. This is an untenable situation.

We as a society have let down our black brothers and sisters horribly. By not addressing the serious crime issue in black urban communities, we have sentenced them to lives of victimhood, stress, fear, and economic deprivation. And, of course, elevated police scrutiny.

Only by understanding root causes can we effect change. And it is a moral imperative to do so.

Guns: Finding Common Ground in the Debate

There is nothing more contentious than the ongoing debate on gun rights versus gun control. Proponents of individual liberty hew to the position that honest citizens have a God-given right to keep and bear arms. Advocates of stricter control fear the carnage that results from the prevalence of guns.

What makes the debate contentious is that both positions have merit.

There are numerous examples of the evils wrought with guns. Sandy Hook. Aurora. Columbine. Just the names evoke horrific memories, visions of grief-stricken parents and grievously wounded survivors.

A recent in-depth investigation by the Providence Journal described the destructive path of a single community gun “in the hands of teenage boys and young men who passed it around and used it to wreak havoc throughout Providence.”  Over a six month period in 2012, six shootings, four fatalities, several  wounded, familial loss and grief.

In Attleboro, more recently, shots were fired in a road rage incident. Property was damaged but no one killed nor injured. This was pure luck. The suspect, a heavily tattooed ex-con, languishes in jail awaiting a dangerousness hearing, the outcome of which may be self-evident.

On the other side of the debate is the defensive use of guns.

In Chicago’s Logan Square last week, a Uber driver happened upon a chilling scene as a young man began spraying bullets into a crowd. The driver drew his licensed handgun and fired, wounding and stopping the assailant. The driver was not charged because, according to the Assistant State’s Attorney, “the driver had a concealed-carry permit and acted in the defense of himself and others.”

In an earlier case reported by the Chicago Tribune, a licensed citizen “shot and wounded an armed man who had fired into a crowd on Chicago's Far South Side.” (Concealed carry was only recently legalized in Illinois, the last state to do so).

Just this week in Baltimore, a shopkeeper with a shotgun protected a reporter who was being accosted by an assailant. The reporter, Justin Fenton, described on CNN that a man in a hoodie “Maced” him in the head and demanded his cellphone. Fenton retreated to the protection of the armed shopkeeper and was later able to safely depart the area.

Defensive gun use (DGU) is the measure of societal benefit that arises from the positive use of guns to dissuade or stop murder, assault, robbery, rape, carjacking, home invasion, and so on. The statistics on DGU vary widely depending on who is providing them. Estimates of annual DGU range from 1 to 1.25 million instances per year at the high end to 55,000 to 80,000 at the low end.

It should be no surprise that the high-end estimates come from gun rights proponents and the low-end from gun-control proponents. (The true number is almost certainly somewhere in the middle).

Where does this leave us in the great debate?

First, we must recognize the true causal factors in gun crimes. Sandy Hook, Aurora, and Columbine all were perpetrated by sociopaths. The Providence single-gun shootings were all committed by criminals. The Attleboro road-rage shooter is an ex-con with a lengthy record and obvious anger management issues. Of note, none of the aforementioned are concealed carry permit holders.

In contrast, the defensive gun use cases referenced above all involved legally owned weapons that were utilized in a legal manner.

It is not surprising that guns rights advocates react in dismay when opponents attempt to further restrict rights rather than addressing root causes.

It is also not a surprise that gun control advocates continue to seek tighter controls. The Rhode Island legislature is debating a bill to ban the carry of concealed weapons on school grounds even by a permit holder. (This is spite of no instance of a school shooting having been committed by a permit holder, and several documented instances of a shooting being stopped by a permit holder).

So like any negotiation between diametrically opposed sides, the hopeful and the fearful, the way forward is to find common ground.

Neither camp should protest if, for instance, we posted signs in shopping malls stating that “Illegal guns are not permitted.” Nor should there be much controversy on either side if we were to redouble efforts to identify sociopaths and keep guns from their hands. There also should be no argument about getting illegal guns off the streets and putting their criminal possessors in prison.

There is plenty of common ground. Let’s start there.

These kids deserve far better

Pathways to Education Graduates - Celebrating

Attleboro, Massachusetts, and Uniondale, New York, have something in common. Both are safe, with annual crime rates around 3.5 per thousand residents.

Uniondale, situated on Long Island near New York City, is home to many successful middle class families. Of the households with children, 73% are headed by married couples. The poverty rate is about 6%  and average household income is over $70,000.

Attleboro, quite similarly, has  67% of households with children headed by married couples and an average household income of about $64,000. The poverty rate is below 7%.

Attleboro and Uniondale are remarkably alike in important ways: low crime rate, solid average income, low poverty rate, and a high percentage of children living in married households.

But while Attleboro is predominantly white, Uniondale is  one of the most successful majority black communities in the nation.

Contrast this to Chicago, a majority minority city, where the annual crime rate is over 10 per thousand, more than three times higher than Uniondale. The average household income is $47,000 and nearly 30% of its residents live in poverty.  And those are the averages. For many, it is much worse.

The Chicago Tribune reports that the poverty rate for female-headed households soars to 40%, and over half of the city’s children live in such households.

What is the social cost arising from the cauldron of Chicago’s streets?

In the days since the lamentable events of Ferguson, nearly 200 victims have been shot and killed in Chicago, almost 800 wounded. Seventy five percent of these victims are black, as were the great majority of shooters.

For the year to date, 362 poor souls shot and killed, 2,484 wounded. There is a war going on in Chicago that rivals  our losses in Iraq and Afghanistan. And when you add in Detroit, and Boston, and Los Angeles, and Washington DC, and Miami, the statistics are truly staggering.

Activists, academics, and protestors (ably abetted by the media) have stoked the narrative that there is a war on blacks being waged by police. There is indeed a war being waged on blacks, but it is being prosecuted within their own communities. The greatest danger to a young black male in Chicago is another young black male. While this may be an uncomfortable concept, it is a truth revealed in Department of Justice statistics.

Imagine being a young urban black child, where every outing risks a credible threat of death or serious injury. Imagine the effect on his or her psyche, the damage it causes. The social costs are enormous, the moral stain on us for not responding is shameful. How can our leaders, political and activist, not speak out?

Some are responding.

Carolyn Acker, then the Director of the Regents Park Community Health Center, saw that the children of the neighborhood were its future. They would become its doctors and nurses, administrators and lawyers. But to do so, they would need an education, and the dropout rate in the community was an abysmal 56%.

She collaborated with others to create a program called Pathways to Education in 2001. Soon after Pathways went into action, the dropout rate began to drop – to 10%. This was an enormous success. The Pathways program has been replicated to several other communities with similar results.

How does Pathways operate? It is based on four pillars: counseling, academic, social, and financial.

For counseling, each student who signs up is assigned a counselor. The counselor regularly checks in with the student to see how they are doing. The counselor maintains high expectations and provides the student with encouragement and suggestions for achievement.

In the academic arena, tutors are provided and sessions are mandatory unless the student maintains a grade average above 70%.

The social aspect consists of regular activities with peers where students get to interact socially with other like-minded, academically achieving kids. They will have fun, learn new skills, and develop hobbies in a nurturing environment.

The final pillar is financial, in which students are given financial aid for public transportation. To the kids, it is a big deal to be able to ride the bus to school. But if their grades don’t stay up, or if they skip school, the aid is incrementally reduced.

The students participating in this program are amazingly successful compared to their cohort. They are graduating high school, going to college, and getting good jobs.

Pathways is a great success, albeit an expensive one.

But let’s stop and think a moment. Imagine a child in Uniondale growing up in a household with a caring mother and father. She would be counseled to succeed and expectations would be high. Her parents would assist academically, sitting down to help with homework. She would be enrolled in sporting teams, school band, church choir, and other social activities. And her parent would certainly support her financially.

Pathways works because it operates in place of the family, filling the role of the parents.

Here’s our call to action. Our policies and programs, designed to help and with all the best intentions, have devastated the black family. It is time to think constructively, with open, honest debate and determination to find a better way.

These kids deserve far better. To fail them is a sin.

To trust or trust not

Imagine this. Driver’s licenses issued by each state as usual, but before a Massachusetts citizen is permitted to drive in Rhode Island, she must apply for a non-resident license, take additional training, provide personal references, and pay exorbitant fees. And in spite of all this, she will almost certainly be denied the permit. Because Massachusetts drivers are simply not to be trusted on the streets of Rhode Island. So she must circumnavigate Rhode Island, perhaps via Connecticut, assuming, however, that she can secure a Connecticut non-resident license. A quandary.

Indeed a quandary, for a Rhode Island driver likewise could not drive in Massachusetts nor Connecticut or New York or New Jersey without applying for and being granted separate non-resident permits. (And remember that non-resident permits are rarely approved). A road trip to Florida would require at least ten different non-resident state permits, each acquired at great expense and great difficulty, each with different experience and training requirements. Such a road trip would be nearly impossible.

This is the reality faced by persons wishing to exercise their right of self defense.

While licensing of automobile drivers and concealed carry permit holders is decidedly different, both have one major element in common: trust.

Do we trust our neighbor to drive safely, prudently, observing relevant laws and regulations? Beyond immediate neighbors, do we trust our fellow citizens from other states to operate their vehicles carefully? Witnessed by the ease and prevalence of obtaining a driving license and the reciprocity observed among the states, the answer is a resounding yes.

And for the most part, that trust is warranted. But we each see, every day, that road-racer wannabe using the rest of us as pylons as he swerves through traffic at high speed on I-95. Or the scofflaw (usually from another state) who cuts you off or blows a stop sign or red light. Every day there are reports of drunk drivers arrested for their third or fifth offense, often after having caused some heartbreaking carnage.

But we look to the common good derived from the wide availability of driving licenses and the interstate recognition thereof. We hold our noses in spite of traffic accident statistics telling us the chilling truth that getting into an automobile is by far the most dangerous thing that most of us ever do.

Trust.

But when it comes to carrying the means to self defense, that trust is much more guarded. And oddly, it tends to be political. Those in the middle and right of the political spectrum tend to trust their fellow citizens. Those to the left do not.

Concealed carry permit holders are statistically the most law abiding among us. They have willingly submitted to finger printing, background checks, training regimes, and paid substantial fees. Yet a Rhode Island permit is not recognized in Massachusetts and vice versa. Connecticut permits are not accepted by any northeastern state save Vermont (which in its wisdom requires no permits of non-criminals). Pennsylvania is likewise not recognized by New Jersey. In the liberal northeast, we claim to love our fellow (hu)man but don’t trust her if she lives across the state line.

Which is exactly what befell Shaneen Allen.

Shaneen, an African American mother of two, medical professional, and resident of Philadelphia, had recently obtained a concealed carry permit. She had been robbed twice and wanted to be able to protect herself and her family. After completing the required training and paying the required fees, she was granted her permit by the state of Pennsylvania.

Shortly after, Shaneen crossed the bridge into nearby New Jersey to attend a surprise birthday party for her son. A police officer pulled her over for a minor lane violation. Shaneen immediately informed the officer that she was a concealed carry permit holder and had a small handgun in her purse (this notification being an essential part of her Pennsylvania training). But there is something about the northeast that makes a state line a trust barrier. New Jersey arrested Shaneen and she spent 46 days in jail before being bailed out. She still faces trial as a felon and, if found guilty, will serve from three to eleven years in prison, not able to raise her young children.

In our northeastern, liberal zeal to make us all perfectly safe, we seem to have gotten it wrong. Gun crime is a terrible thing, but it is committed by sociopaths, not by the Shaneens of the world. Perhaps it’s time to trust our fellow honest citizens a bit more and redouble our pursuit and prosecution of actual criminals. There are plenty of them to keep us busy.