502 stories
·
8 followers

This Is What Racism Sounds Like in the Banking Industry

1 Comment and 8 Shares

Jimmy Kennedy earned $13 million during his nine-year career as a player in the National Football League. He was the kind of person most banks would be happy to have as a client.

But when Mr. Kennedy tried to become a “private client” at JPMorgan Chase, an elite designation that would earn him travel discounts, exclusive event invitations and better deals on loans, he kept getting the runaround.

At first, he didn’t understand why. Then, last fall, he showed up at his local JPMorgan branch in Arizona, and an employee offered an explanation.

“You’re bigger than the average person, period. And you’re also an African-American,” the employee, Charles Belton, who is black, told Mr. Kennedy. “We’re in Arizona. I don’t have to tell you about what the demographics are in Arizona. They don’t see people like you a lot.” Mr. Kennedy recorded the conversation and shared it with The New York Times.

It’s no secret that racism has been baked into the American banking system. There are few black executives in the upper echelons of most financial institutions. Leading banks have recently paid restitution to black employees for isolating them from white peers, placing them in the poorest branches and cutting them off from career opportunities. Black customers are sometimes profiled, viewed with suspicion just for entering a bank and questioned over the most basic transactions.

This year, researchers for the National Bureau of Economic Research found that black mortgage borrowers were charged higher interest rates than white borrowers and were denied mortgages that would have been approved for white applicants.

Banks, including JPMorgan, say they are committed to eradicating the legacy of racism. And they insist that any lingering side effects simply reflect stubborn socioeconomic imbalances in society as a whole, not racial bias among their employees.

What recently transpired inside a cluster of JPMorgan branches in the Phoenix area suggests that is not true.

Mr. Kennedy was told he was essentially too black. His financial adviser, Ricardo Peters, complained that he, too, was a victim of racial discrimination. What makes their cases extraordinary is not that the two men say they faced discrimination. It is that they recorded their interactions with bank employees, preserving a record of what white executives otherwise might have dismissed as figments of the aggrieved parties’ imaginations.

Patricia Wexler, a JPMorgan spokeswoman, defended the bank’s overall treatment of Mr. Peters and Mr. Kennedy. She said that the bank hadn’t been aware of all of the audio recordings and that “in light of some new information brought to us by The New York Times,” the company put one of its executive directors on administrative leave while the bank investigates his conduct.

The Back of the Branch

Mr. Peters started his career at JPMorgan as a salesman in the bank’s credit cards division. After about eight years in various roles, he was promoted to a financial adviser position in Phoenix in 2016. His job was to help bank customers prudently invest their money.

Mr. Peters had won numerous performance awards at the bank, but things soon started going wrong for him.

He was working in a JPMorgan branch in the affluent Sun City West area of Phoenix. He sought a promotion to become a private client adviser, a job that would have let him work with wealthier and more lucrative clients.

The promotion never came. Instead, Mr. Peters was moved out of an office at the heart of the branch where he worked with other financial advisers and was relegated to a windowless room in the back.

In April 2017, one of his bosses, Frank Venniro, told Mr. Peters that another manager had accused him of taking customers’ files home at night, a violation of the bank’s code of conduct. Mr. Peters denied it, and Mr. Venniro accepted that he was telling the truth, according to a recording of the conversation. But, he added, Mr. Peters needed to be more cognizant of how his colleagues perceived him.

Mr. Peters was left with the impression that his managers, who were white, were predisposed to view him suspiciously. Could he prove it? No. What happened next was clearer.

Mr. Peters complained to Mr. Venniro that another financial adviser was trying to steal a prospective client: a woman who had just received a $372,000 wrongful death settlement after her son died. She was black.

Mr. Venniro told Mr. Peters that there was no point in his intervening in the dispute, because the woman was not a worthwhile client. “You’ve got somebody who’s coming from Section 8, never had a nickel to spend, and now she’s got $400,000,” Mr. Venniro said, referring to the federal program that provides vouchers to help with housing costs and whose title is sometimes used as a racial slur. “What do you think’s going to happen with that money? It’s gone.”

“But I thought that’s why we get involved,” Mr. Peters protested.

Mr. Venniro said no. “You’re not investing a dime for this lady,” he said. He knew from experience that she would quickly burn through the money. “It happens every single time.”

When Mr. Peters tried to argue, Mr. Venniro interjected. “This is not money she respects,” he said. “She didn’t earn it.”

Mr. Venniro declined to comment.

Ms. Wexler, the bank spokeswoman, said that Mr. Venniro was put on leave after inquiries from The Times and that he resigned last Thursday. “Our employee used extraordinarily bad judgment and was wrong to suggest we couldn’t help a customer,” she said. She said Mr. Venniro knew the client was in subsidized housing but didn’t know her race.

Marching Orders

In February 2018, Mr. Peters was transferred from the Sun City West branch to a JPMorgan branch in a less wealthy neighborhood. He perceived it as another example of managers, including Mr. Venniro, mistreating him because he was black.

One day, Mr. Peters met Mr. Kennedy, then 38. Mr. Kennedy had played for five N.F.L. teams as a defensive tackle. In 2011, he had joined the New York Giants — a homecoming that, The Times wrote at the time, was notable because of his impoverished childhood in Yonkers, N.Y. That season, Mr. Kennedy and the Giants won the Super Bowl.

Mr. Kennedy retired and later moved to Phoenix. JPMorgan bankers had been courting his business, but he hadn’t liked the financial advisers the bank had proposed to manage his investments. Then he met Mr. Peters. “The chemistry was just so real because he knew exactly what I needed to do,” Mr. Kennedy said in an interview.

In the summer of 2018, Mr. Kennedy gradually moved $800,000 to the bank. Mr. Peters and a colleague promised he would get “private client” status, which was reserved for accounts with more than $250,000.

Landing a wealthy client like Mr. Kennedy was a big win for Mr. Peters, but he was anxious about being targeted by his superiors. On Aug. 24, he filed a formal complaint with the bank. He said he had alerted Mr. Venniro “that I feel that I am being treated differently because of my race and color of my skin” and that Mr. Venniro had suggested that the solution was for him to work in the less-wealthy branch.

Less than two weeks later, JPMorgan agreed to pay $24 million to end a class-action lawsuit brought by other black employees who said the company had discriminated against them — in some cases by isolating them from colleagues and dumping them in poorer branches.

On Oct. 5, Mr. Venniro took Mr. Peters to a meeting room and said he was being fired. Mr. Venniro said he didn’t know why. “I’m just given marching orders,” Mr. Venniro told him, according to a recording of the conversation.

Mr. Peters filed a discrimination claim with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the civil rights division of the Arizona attorney general’s office, accusing JPMorgan of racial discrimination. JPMorgan denied that and said Mr. Peters was fired for improperly assigning credit for a new client to an employee who managers didn’t think deserved it.

“We stand by our decision to terminate Peters,” Ms. Wexler, the spokeswoman, said. “The facts are indisputable.”

Mr. Peters disputed the facts. He said that he had given credit to the correct employee. He said the bank was using a mundane internal dispute as an excuse to fire him. He has since started his own investment advisory firm in Arizona.

‘If This Dude Gets Upset’

Mr. Peters’s termination left Mr. Kennedy in the lurch. A number of his transactions were frozen or not carried out. In one case, $92,000 of Mr. Kennedy’s money that was supposed to go into a new investment product ended up in a holding account, inaccessible to Mr. Kennedy. (Ms. Wexler said the problems were caused by administrative errors.)

JPMorgan assigned him a new financial adviser, Mr. Belton. He struck Mr. Kennedy as inexperienced. He was black, and Mr. Kennedy felt that was the only reason they’d been paired. Mr. Kennedy said he began recording their conversations so he could get feedback from other people about Mr. Belton’s financial recommendations.

Mr. Kennedy had been under the impression that he had been granted the coveted “private client” status that Mr. Peters had promised. When Mr. Kennedy learned that was not the case, he complained to Mr. Belton — and then to Mr. Venniro.

Mr. Belton warned Mr. Kennedy not to talk to Mr. Venniro again. In two secretly recorded conversations in October last year, he asked Mr. Kennedy to think about the impression he left on people at the bank. He pointed out that Mr. Kennedy was a big black man in Arizona. And he said that Mr. Venniro had been afraid to tell Mr. Kennedy that his application to become a private client had been deleted when Mr. Peters was fired.

A few days later, Mr. Kennedy went back to the branch, and the conversation returned to the question of why the bank refused to grant Mr. Kennedy the status and perks of being a private client.

Mr. Belton said that bank employees were scared of dealing with him and that therefore Mr. Kennedy would be better off interacting only with Mr. Belton.

“They’re not going to say this, but I don’t have the same level of intimidation that they have — you know what I’m saying? — not only being a former athlete but also being two black men,” Mr. Belton said. Referring to Mr. Venniro, he added, “You sit in front of him, you’re like three times his size — you feel what I’m saying? — he already probably has his perception of how these interactions could go.”

Moments later, he said: “We’ve seen people that are not of your stature get irate, and it’s like, ‘Well, if this dude gets upset, like what’s going to happen to me?’”

Mr. Kennedy asked if Mr. Belton was saying that Mr. Venniro was racist. “I don’t think any person at that level is dumb enough for it to be that blatant,” Mr. Belton replied. “I don’t have any reason to believe blatantly that he’s that way. You feel what I’m saying? Now, whether there’s some covert action? To be honest? I always err on the side of thinking that. You know, people that are not us probably have some form of prejudice toward us.”

Mr. Kennedy pulled most of his money out of JPMorgan and filed a grievance with an industry watchdog, and in June the bank sent him a letter trying to put an end to his complaining.

“You stated that Mr. Belton informed you that our firm was prejudiced against you and intimidated by you because of your race,” the letter said. “We found no evidence to substantiate your allegations.”

Read the whole story
CallMeWilliam
1 day ago
reply
acdha
1 day ago
reply
Washington, DC
diannemharris
1 day ago
reply
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
mareino
1 day ago
reply
All horrifying, nothing surprising
Washington, District of Columbia

Impeachment Q & A

1 Share

I finished reading Bowman’s book on impeachment, which means I’ve now read these:

I was planning to write Over the Cliff Notes but my head is so stuffed full of information, I wasn’t sure where to start.

So I took questions on Twitter.

Cindy threw me an easy one. Is Trump’s behavior impeachable? Most certainly. In fact, I can see lengthy Articles of Impeachment. I wish it was my job to write them.

Good question. The Constitution doesn’t give much guidance on procedure, just that the Chief Justice “presides.” But the Senators are both judge and jury, so it isn’t like a normal trial.

There is something I wonder: What if the Democrats call as witnesses all the people stonewalling the subpoenas? What if Roberts orders them to testify (and bring documents)? What if he even orders Mazars to bring Trump’s tax records? Maybe that’s why the Democrats aren’t waiting for SCOTUS to decide.

So for the people wondering why the Democrats are plowing ahead before they get Supreme Court rulings, and before they get all the evidence . . . maybe they don’t need to wait for the Supreme Court because Roberts himself will be at the trial.

None of us know what all the House has in terms of evidence, so all we can do is speculate. I suspect that Pence (and whether he committed impeachable acts) won’t be part of this proceeding. It will complicate things too much.

Start with Sunstein. There’s unnecessary chit-chat, so skip the preface, Chapter 1 and most of Chapter 2. Start with “Unitary Executive, and read through chapter 9.

These scholars agree on the basics. Dershowitz is the oddball (but he’s not in these books). Dershowitz is only important because I’m sure he gives the Trump-GOP view. He differs from the others in that he thinks there must be an actual crime, as in a violation of the federal criminal code, for impeachment to be constitutional.

This makes no sense whatsoever. The federal criminal code didn’t exist when the Constitution was drafted, “high crimes and misdemeanors” was a term of art the drafters would have understood, and POTUS, by virtue of his office, can engage in dangerous acts that are not a crime if ordinary citizens do them.

To take a completely (totally) random example, if an ordinary citizen is in the pay of a foreign government, there is no crime.

The easiest response to Dershowitz, though, is to include a few federal criminal violations in the Articles of Impeachment. There are several.

House rules: Special committees can investigate, but the Judiciary Committee has had jurisdiction over impeachments, ever since it was created in 1813. So the judiciary committee writes the articles.

(I told you my head is stuffed full of facts.)

Impeachment has been a process since the 1300s, when impeachments first appeared in Britain. The best quotation, though, is from Benjamin Franklin: “Anyone who wishes to be president should support an impeachment clause, because the alternative is assassination.”

Benjamin Franklin of course meant that we need impeachment for the president who uses the power of his office to keep himself in power.

An actual trial is different from the fact-gathering portion, which is what we’ve had so far. At the Senate trial, the House Managers act as the prosecutors. I assume, as prosecutors, they call witnesses and put on evidence.

The most complete historical analysis is in Bowman’s book. He goes back to the 1300s, traces all impeachments, explains what the drafters would have understood, given their participation in drafting state constitutions and trying impeachments.

For sensible people, Dershowitz has lost all credibility.

If this were a normal trial, the verdict would be easy. The evidence is overwhelming. The opposition, though, is armed with propaganda. Truth itself will be on trial.

Another easy one. Trump’s behavior was exactly what the founders feared: A president using the powers of his office for self-enrichment and self-dealing, using the powers of his office to influence an election, and selling out to a foreign power.

It depends on what “presides” means, right?

This is from Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman. (I haven’t researched the Senate rules. I just finished Bowman’s book!):

Remember, the Senate trial also plays in the Court of Public Opinion.

Consider the optics of this: Chief Justice says X testimony or Y documents are necessary to get to the truth. Senate Republicans say: “We’re blocking them.” (Not enforcing them)

Some things are complicated. Other things are refreshingly simple. Like a “coverup.” We all know that innocent people don’t bury evidence. Let it happen on the Senate floor with the cameras rolling (will cameras be rolling?)

I agreed with this last spring, if impeachment would have been based entirely on the Mueller report. But this is different. Trump’s Operation Ukrainian Shakedown was exposed and foiled. He’s now paranoid about “spies” in the White House watching him.

Answers”

  • If the recordings are deemed reliable evidence, I’m sure they’ll be included.
  • Yes, definitely, the Mueller report will be included. In fact, I expect obstruction in the Mueller probe to be an Article of Impeachment
  • Depends on what they add.

I agree that there won’t be a second impeachment, for various reasons. Legally, it’s possible. Politically, it would be suicide.

Left-leaning Twitter often fails to consider strategy as it relates to vulnerable Democrats are in red-leaning districts.

Without representatives like Lauren Underwood, the Democrats wouldn’t have won the House in 2018 and none of this would be possible: Trump would not be exposed, and Operation Ukrainian Shakedown would have [most likely] worked.

Basically we’d be in big trouble.

When you read interviews with these Democrats, it’s clear that their districts aren’t happy with the impeachment, and they want their reps back to business. They need the impeachment behind them as they go into the election season. Ignore their needs at the peril of democracy.

Yes, I’d bring in Mueller’s obstruction. Emoluments might fit into the articles as evidence of self-dealing. But I wouldn’t include a laundry list of everything Trump has done that endangers security. Not all wrongs are impeachable, nor should they be.

Personally, I really hope we see witness intimidation, which is a federal crime, and also has a gut-wrenching simplicity easily understood. Regarding the whistleblower, Trump used the word “treason” and talked about “execution.” Look at the smear campaign launched against Yovanovitch and Lisa Page.

All I can say is this: Because truth itself is on trial, I don’t expect a senate trial to look like a normal trial.

Given what we’ve seen so far from the GOP, I expect grandstanding, kicking up dust, and attempts to confuse people.

This is a good question. I did some posts over the summer about why it isn’t realistic to expect a Trump impeachment to follow Nixon’s trajectory.

Trump may retain 35-40% approval no matter what comes out.

The people who will stick with Trump no matter what know exactly what he is.

That percentage of the population has always been with us.

They insisted on a Constitution that allowed slavery.

They didn’t want women to vote.

They were in favor of Jim Crow laws.

They were opposed to Brown v. Board of Education.

They hated the 1960s radicals.

They cheered Gingrich who said the GOP mustn’t compromise.

Trump’s support may still erode, but not as far as people may hope or expect.

The abolitionists, Susan B. Anthony, Thurgood Marshall, Martin Luther King, Jr., and all the progressive heroes have been fighting the same enemies since the start of the nation. The fight is always hard. That’s why they’re heroes. So what do we do?

We fight the same fight that others fought before us. The GOP is a reactionary party.

They push us backwards. We push forward again.

It never really ends. I’ll end this thread here:

Fortunately, Susan B. Anthony and others taught us how to do it.

The post Impeachment Q & A appeared first on Musing about law, books, and politics.

Read the whole story
CallMeWilliam
9 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

The Existential Horror of Non-Anthropocentric Morality in Fantasy Worlds

1 Comment
The new Diablo 4 cinematic had me looking into the lore of Diablo. I looked into it and it got me thinking about angels without God. This is a theme I have seen in much fantasy and fiction: Darksiders, Diablo, Good Omens, even Kill Six Billion Demons. God is always absent or dead or just never was. More interesting still, in so many of these worlds inspired by what is essentially Christian mythology, Christ is conspicuously absent. I am a Christian but I very much do view a lot of the mythos surrounding angels and demons to be mythology, both technically and in the sense that it was added to Christianity with fairly minimal textual support from Scripture and I thus view it as less than credible from a faith perspective.

From Kill Six Billion Demons

So a question that began to circle in my brain was: why remove Christ and God from these fantasy worlds which are so clearly inspired by Christianity?

For one thing, God's victory is assured and has already occurred in the Chrisitan view. The cosmic battle is essentially already won in Jesus Christ. Now that isn't the totality of it but trying to apply stats to God in a game world would lead to similar results and a similar question: Why hasn't God just won this thing already with his Infinite Power Level?

Also, we want to leave the door open for angels to be bad guys. If angels truly serve the absolute and pure good, embodied in God, then it is hard for them to be villains and it can become an odious story restriction in a fantasy world so centered on the battle of angels and demons where the usual story instinct is to show how both sides are flawed.

An interesting consequence of this is that Good and Evil typically take on a rather Dualistic split rather than evil being a corruption of good which I would say is the usual religious formulation. A question I thought of when learning about Diablo is that since in that setting humans are the offspring of an angel and a demon, why ought human beings automatically prefer the angels? If they are fairly even combatants in a war for the universe, what makes the good that the angels serve any better than the demons' evil? Really, the result seems obvious, human beings should choose their own side rather than angels or demons.

Its usually once this understanding has occurred that angels become far more menacing than demons. Their supposed good, the righteousness that they serve doesn't care about human wellbeing. It is an end unto itself and the wrath of heaven can just as easily wipe out rebellious humans as they squash demons. They have what I would call a Non-Anthropocentric Morality.

Our morality as human beings is usually Anthropocentric. It is the manner by which we are to behave in the world which best brings about wellbeing for humanity. Even Deontological morality typically assumes that its moral system is ultimately better for human beings just in a different way than Consequentialist morality.

I would say that the real inception of the wide-spread acceptance of this kind of morality for the Western world was found in the Chrisitan moral revolution, based on the idea of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ which is probably another reason that Jesus is typically absent from Chrisitan inspired fantasy worlds. Indeed, I would go so far as to say the Pharisees of Jesus' day represented a Non-Anthropocentric morality that he railed against. "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."

Anyway, this Non-Anthropocentric morality is really horrifying in a very existentialist way. It makes morality absurd. Why should human beings follow a way of Being that is fundamentally unconcerned with how we benefit from that mode of existence? Angels become an oppressive force holding mankind down in servitude to a master that neither cares if they live or die. Demons are at least selfish and honest about what they want. You know what to expect from a demon. You might convince a demon to leave you alone if you can show it is in its best interest. An angel is not selfish. It enacts with brutal surety a cold iron law that has no room for mercy.

They mirror the way in which human morality can become quickly abusive when ideology severs its roots in Anthropocentrism. Soviet Communism placed its Greater Good over the immediate good of its citizens, particularly those with any kind of money. Nazi Germany did something similar. Any time the good of human beings is subordinated beneath the Greater Good, you have the set up for a nightmare world of existential horror.

When you hand that philosophy into the palms of beings with divine power, you create true monsters. No demon in this sense can compare to the terrifying wrath of an angel.

Then the last taste of horror, that I think really hits me, is how do we decide what is moral? In a world where the cosmic forces of the universe say Good is what the Angels stand for and Evil is for Demons, how do mear humans decide what ought to be right and wrong? Do we just accept the factional morality, creating a third front in the cosmic battle for Humanity, and doom ourselves to constant warfare with the other two sides?

It seems regardless of what we choose there would only be more strife, more death, more unending war. I suppose that very kind of world is represented in Warhammer 40K to a certain extent. It also, strangely enough, does not seem like the kind of world I would like to live in.

That's the real horror: no right choices. It's not just a matter of making a complex choice, every choice is equally bad and none of them get us what we want. It is all pure absurdity: a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Read the whole story
CallMeWilliam
15 days ago
reply
Selfawarewolves
Share this story
Delete

Braveheart's Speech

1 Comment and 5 Shares
Description: William Wallace is giving his speech before a battle, like in the movie Braveheart.

William Wallace: \
Read the whole story
CallMeWilliam
15 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
wmorrell
17 days ago
reply
Marx stabbing the parasite like a BOSS.

Pete Buttigieg Lies About Education Disparities

3 Comments and 4 Shares

Seven thousand three hundred twenty-two dollars.

I hid it in a white Piggly Wiggly bag in the back of the dishwasher. Every single time I returned to that tiny apartment, I opened up that Navajo-white Kenmore dishwasher and made sure it was there. It was not a gift. It was not a reward. It wasn’t even mine.

And it still wasn’t enough.

I am from what most people would call “the hood.” The bad section of town. You know—where black people live. During the crack revolution of the late ’80s, to get to school every day, I would give a friendly nod as I walked past the early-rising dope boys. I meandered through the projects and—if it had recently rained—I waited for someone to help me put a 10-foot long wooden plank across the ditch that separated the black part of town from the bucolic neighborhood where the only high school in town was located. If no one was there, or if a prankster had hidden the makeshift bridge, then I had to either leap across or walk the long way around, adding an extra 15 minutes to my morning walk. Our neighborhood had no bus, so either you walked that balance beam behind the projects, took the 30-minute stroll or you said: “fuck it.”

I never said fuck it.

But if I did, it wouldn’t have been because of a lack of role models. If I had chosen to keep my mama’s lights on instead of making that daily trek, my decision wouldn’t have been based on a tropological dearth of “motivation” or communal ambivalence. As I grow older, I realize that I was not gifted, talented or even diligent.

I’m just a lucky motherfucker.

Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg is a lucky motherfucker, too.

He attended one of the best private schools in the country that was quite literally on the campus of one of the best colleges in the country, Notre Dame University, where his father worked as a professor for 29 years. His mother taught at an even better, more elite school. And if you ask how he got into Harvard or became a Rhodes Scholar, Mayor Pete would probably insist that it had nothing to do with whiteness. He would likely tell you that he valued education and had great role models, both of which are probably true. There is no question that he is intelligent, hard-working and well-educated.

But he didn’t have to jump a ditch.

So, when a clip surfaced of Buttigieg explaining why negro kids fail at school so often, his answer made perfect sense.

“Kids need to see evidence that education is going to work for them,” Buttigieg explained whitely, when he was running for mayor in 2011. You’re motivated because you believe that at the end of your education, there is a reward; there’s a stable life; there’s a job. And there are a lot of kids—especially [in] the lower-income, minority neighborhoods, who literally just haven’t seen it work. There isn’t someone who they know personally who testifies to the value of education.”

I want to be clear: Pete Buttigieg is a lying motherfucker.

This is not a misunderstanding. This is not a misstatement. Pete Buttigieg went to the best educational institutions America has to offer and he—more than anyone on the goddamned planet—knows that everything he just said is a baldfaced lie.

Majority-minority schools receive $23 billion less in funding than majority-white schools, according to a recent study by EdBuild. Black students in Indiana, the state where Buttigieg serves as mayor, and across the country, are disciplined more harshly than white students. But even though Buttigieg has never attended a school with more than 10 percent black students, he thinks he knows what’s stopping black kids from achieving their educational dreams.

Apparently, it’s not the fact that the unemployment rate for black college graduates is twice as high as the unemployment rate for white grads. Black college graduates are paid 80 cents for every dollar a white person with the same education earns. White people leave college with lower debt and higher earnings. White kids get more resources, more advanced classes and have access to more technology. But Pete says it could all be solved with a vision-board.

Mayor Pete’s bullshittery is not just wrong, it is proof.

It proves men like him are more willing to perpetuate the fantastic narrative of negro neighborhoods needing more role models and briefcase-carriers than make the people in power stare into the sun and see the blinding light of racism. Get-along moderates would rather make shit up out of whole cloth than wade into the waters of reality. Pete Buttigieg doesn’t want to change anything. He just wants to be something.

This is not just a lie of omission, it is a dangerous precedent. This is why institutional inequality persists. Not because of white hoods and racial slurs. It is because this insidious double-talk erases the problem by camouflaging it. Because it is painted as a problem of black lethargy and not white apathy. Pete Buttigieg is standing over a dying man, holding the oxygen machine in his hand and telling everyone:

“Nah, he doesn’t need CPR. He’s just holding his breath.”

Negligent homicide is still homicide.


Occasionally someone would invariably fall in the ditch. It wasn’t because they didn’t see someone cross successfully, it was because the banks of that ditch was slippery and muddy when it rained. To this day, no one has ever built a bridge over that ditch. But over the years, so many people have walked that same path, that the banks eventually wore down and became crossable.

No one ever gave a fuck.

But motherfuckers never stopped jumping.

In the summer of 1992, for weeks, those same D-boys I walked past every day collected all of the ones (and a few five-dollar bills) from guys on the block and handed it to me when I left for college. It was seven thousand three hundred twenty-two dollars.

I didn’t have a driver’s license and my mother is legally blind, so they hired someone to drive me to college. None of my college friends ever knew that I had a hidden treasure in my dishwasher but a few of them noticed that it seemed like I always had a wad of cash. When I arrived to campus in a chauffeured, 1965 drop-top Cadillac (white, with hydraulics and gold specks), a couple even said:

“Damn, you’re lucky.”

They were right.

Read the whole story
CallMeWilliam
16 days ago
reply
Majority-minority schools receive $23 billion less in funding than majority-white schools, according to a recent study by EdBuild. Black students in Indiana, the state where Buttigieg serves as mayor, and across the country, are disciplined more harshly than white students. But even though Buttigieg has never attended a school with more than 10 percent black students, he thinks he knows what’s stopping black kids from achieving their educational dreams.

Goddamn.
shanel
17 days ago
reply
Damning.
New York, New York
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
sirshannon
14 days ago
reply
Sure, he’s wrong but not knowing anyone who graduated from college was literally the reason I never considered going to college as something I should do.

A Brief History of Ethical Theories

2 Comments and 6 Shares
Read the whole story
CallMeWilliam
29 days ago
reply
For Shane.
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
tante
31 days ago
reply
Brief history of ethical theories
Berlin/Germany
Next Page of Stories