I'm not anti-Obama, I just love "President-speak"
I wanted to come out here, first of all, to tell you that Jay (Carney – White House Press Secretary) is prepared for
all your questions and is very much looking forward to the session. The second
thing is I want to let you know that over the next couple of weeks, there’s
going to obviously be a whole range of issues -- immigration, economics, et
cetera -- we'll try to arrange a fuller press conference to address your
questions.
The reason I actually wanted to come out today is not to take questions,
but to speak to an issue that obviously has gotten a lot of attention over the
course of the last week -- the issue of the Trayvon Martin ruling. I gave a
preliminary statement right after the ruling on Sunday. But watching the debate
(demonstrations) over the course of the last
week, I thought it might be useful for me to expand on my thoughts a little
bit.
First of all, I want to make sure that, once again, I send my thoughts
and prayers, as well as Michelle’s, to the family of Trayvon Martin, and to
remark on the incredible grace and dignity with which they’ve dealt with the
entire situation. I can only imagine what they’re going through, and it’s
remarkable how they’ve handled it.
The second thing I want to say is to reiterate what I said on Sunday,
which is there’s going to be a lot of arguments about the legal issues in the
case -- I'll let all the legal analysts and talking heads address those issues.
The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the
defense made their arguments. The juries were properly instructed that in a
case such as this reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict.
And once the jury has spoken, that's how our system works. But I did want to
just talk a little bit about context? and how
people have responded to it and how people are feeling.
You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot I said that this could have
been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35
years ago. (35 years ago, in 1978, Obama was on a scholarship
attending the private preparatory school Punahou in Hawaii. His mother was in graduate school earning her
Phd in Anthropology.) And when
you think about why, in the African American community at least, there’s a lot
of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the
African American community is looking at this issue through a set of
experiences and a history that doesn’t go away.
There are very few African American men in this country who haven't had
the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store.
That includes me. (Read that sentence again: Obama is one of the men who haven’t had that experience.)
There are very few African American men who haven't had the experience of
walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars.
That happens? to me -- at least before I was a
senator. There are very few African Americans who haven't had the experience of
getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding
her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often. (Not all the time, but often. As it does to a lot of other people besides
blacks.)
And I don't want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences
inform (making it right, because that is the
information available to them?) how the African American community
interprets what happened one night in Florida. And it’s inescapable for people
to bring those experiences to bear. (What does that
mean? It suggests that African Americans
cannot reason this otherwise because their history clouds their judgment.)
The African American community is also
knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application
of our criminal laws -- everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our
drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret
the case. (Another way of saying blacks are
overrepresented at all levels of the justice system except those who make and
enforce the laws.)
Now, this isn't to say that the African American community is naïve
about the fact that African American young men are disproportionately involved
in (soft language for victims of) the criminal
justice system; that they’re disproportionately both victims and perpetrators
of violence. It’s not to make excuses for that fact -- although black folks do
interpret the reasons for that in a historical context.
(More fuzzy language to express the idea that blacks have a bias or prejudice
because of their history.) They understand that some of the violence
that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of
a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that
we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history. (Ghettoization, or the fact that when people are put in
ghettoes, they tend not to care for their belongings, family values shrink,
they become violent, etc.)
And so the fact that sometimes that’s unacknowledged adds to the
frustration. And the fact that a lot of African American boys are painted with
a broad brush and the excuse is given, well, there are these statistics out
there that show that African American boys are more violent -- using that as an
excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain. (Bias is unacknowledged, this adds to Black’s
frustration. Statistics prove African
American boys are more violent… but he doesn’t discredit the statistics? Black
boys being treated unfairly and this causes more pain.)
I think the African American community is also not naïve in
understanding that, statistically, somebody like Trayvon Martin was
statistically more likely to be shot by a peer (another
black boy) than he was by somebody else. So folks understand the
challenges that exist for African American boys. But they get frustrated, I
think, if they feel that there’s no context for it and that context is being
denied.(? Permit
crime by constantly reminding yourself of the context, that context being that
blacks are less fortunate because of the history of bigotry in the United
States.) And that all contributes
I think to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of
scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.
Now, the question for me at least, and I think for a lot of folks, is
where do we take this? How do we learn some lessons from this and move in a
positive direction? I think it’s understandable that there have been
demonstrations and vigils and protests, and some of that stuff is just going to
have to work its way through, as long as it remains nonviolent. If I see any
violence, then I will remind folks (I hate that word!)
that that dishonors what happened to Trayvon Martin and his family. But beyond
protests or vigils, the question is, are there some concrete things that we
might be able to do.
I know that Eric Holder (Attorney General) is
reviewing what happened down there, but I think it’s important for people to
have some clear expectations here. Traditionally, these are issues of state and
local government, the criminal code. And law enforcement is traditionally done
at the state and local levels, not at the federal levels. (Obama was criticized in March by saying Trayvon would have
looked like his son, and this, before the jury had rendered a verdict. He narrowed it here to read that it could
have been him, thus avoiding the implication that all brown-skinned boys are
alike.)
That doesn’t mean, though, that as a nation we can’t do some things that
I think would be productive. So let me just give a couple of specifics that I’m
still bouncing around with my staff, so we’re not rolling out some five-point
plan, but some areas where I think all of us could potentially focus.
Number one, precisely because law enforcement is often determined at the
state and local level, I think it would be productive for the Justice
Department, governors, mayors to work with law enforcement about training at
the state and local levels in order to reduce the kind of mistrust in the
system that sometimes currently exists. (Nothing new
here.)
When I was in Illinois, I passed racial profiling legislation, and it
actually did just two simple things. One, it collected data on traffic stops
and the race of the person who was stopped. But the other thing was it
resourced us training police departments across the state on how to think about
potential racial bias and ways to further professionalize what they were doing.
And initially, the police departments across the state were resistant,
but actually they came to recognize that if it was done in a fair,
straightforward way that it would allow them to do their jobs better and
communities would have more confidence in them and, in turn, be more helpful in
applying the law. And obviously, law enforcement has got a very tough job. (He avoids telling us the rate of success, the results of the
data compiled, etc. He just compliments
the “folks” in law enforcement who have a very tough job.)
So that’s one area where I think there are a lot of resources and best practices
that could be brought to bear if state and local governments are receptive. And
I think a lot of them would be. And let's figure out are there ways for us to
push out that kind of training.
Along the same lines, I think it would be useful for us to examine some
state and local laws to see if it -- if they are designed in such a way that
they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies
that we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations. (Stand your ground.)
I know that there's been commentary about the fact that the "stand
your ground" laws in Florida were not used as a defense in the case. On
the other hand, if we're sending a message as a society in our communities that
someone who is armed potentially has the right to use those firearms even if
there's a way for them to exit from a situation, is that really going to be
contributing to the kind of peace and security and order that we'd like to see?
(Stand your ground laws are otherwise known as “Shoot
to kill” laws.)
And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something
like these "stand your ground" laws, I'd just ask people to consider,
if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that
sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in
shooting Mr. Zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt
threatened? And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it
seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.
Number three -- and this is a long-term project -- we need to spend some
time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African American
boys. And this is something that Michelle and I talk a lot about. (Slips in a reference to his wife. Unnecessary because it adds nothing to the
argument.) There are a lot of
kids out there who need help who are getting a lot of negative reinforcement.
And is there more that we can do to give them the sense that their country
cares about them and values them and is willing to invest in them?
I'm not naïve about the prospects of some grand, new federal program.
I'm not sure that that’s what we're talking about here. But I do recognize that
as President, I've got some convening power, and there are a lot of good
programs that are being done across the country on this front. And for us to be
able to gather together business leaders and local elected officials and clergy
and celebrities and athletes, and figure out how are we doing a better job
helping young African American men feel that they're a full part of this
society and that they've got pathways and avenues to succeed -- I think that
would be a pretty good outcome from what was obviously a tragic situation. And
we're going to spend some time working on that and thinking about that. (No answer given at all, just a very emotional presentation
of the problem.)
And then, finally, I think it's going to be important for all of us to do some soul-searching. There has been talk about should we convene a conversation on race. I haven't seen that be particularly productive when politicians try to organize conversations. (Didn’t he just do that, a paragraph above?) They end up being stilted and politicized, and folks are locked into the positions they already have. (O.k., he did that but here’s his alternative.) On the other hand, in families and churches and workplaces, there's the possibility that people are a little bit more honest, and at least you ask yourself your own questions about, am I wringing as much bias out of myself as I can? Am I judging people as much as I can, based on not the color of their skin, but the content of their character? (Very obvious quote from Martin Luther King, a necessity in a speech like this one.) That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy.
And let me just leave you with a final thought that, as difficult and
challenging as this whole episode has been for a lot of people, I don’t want us
to lose sight that things are getting better. (Hope)
Each successive generation seems to be making progress in changing attitudes
when it comes to race. It doesn’t mean we’re in a post-racial society. It
doesn’t mean that racism is eliminated. But when I talk to Malia and Sasha, and
I listen to their friends and I seem them interact, they’re better than we are
-- they’re better than we were -- on these issues. And that’s true in every
community that I’ve visited all across the country.
And so we have to be vigilant and we have to work on these issues. And
those of us in authority should be doing everything we can to encourage the
better angels of our nature, as opposed to using these episodes to heighten
divisions. But we should also have confidence that kids these days, I think,
have more sense than we did back then, and certainly more than our parents did
or our grandparents did; and that along this long, difficult journey, we’re
becoming a more perfect union -- not a perfect union, but a more perfect union.
Thank you, guys.