"Okay, I know how bad it sounds, but they all really do look alike to me..." said the cartoon rabbit to police after viewing a "line-up" of several animals depicted on the other side of a glass partition.
Was the bunny racially insensitive? Did his comment invoke the cliché that all blacks look alike, or worse, that all black criminal suspects are indistinguishable?
Apparently, the Cleveland Plain-Dealer thought so. On January 13, the editors pulled the popular comic strip, "Non Sequitur," from the newspaper. In its place was a note that said the strip "was deemed objectionable."
Hundreds of angry readers found this decision objectionable, voicing their complaints in online posts that excoriated the paper for "outright censorship." The readers pointed out that the animals in the line-up were not the same color, size or even species. They noted that the bunny's comment was more apologetic than it was antagonistic. Mostly, they didn't understand the fuss. As one reader wrote: "The only thing I found controversial was the fact that you did not publish it."
I'm with the readers on this -- but for reasons that go beyond the ones they articulated. If anything, I think Wiley Miller's satirical strip didn't go nearly far enough to make the point: Eyewitnesses (the bunny, in this case) are abysmally inaccurate in identifying perpetrators who look different from themselves. For this reason, I would have supported running the strip even if the bunny was white and the suspects behind the glass were black.
We can't pretend that cross-racial misidentification isn't a significant problem in criminal cases. In fact, false witness testimony is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing. More telling, 40% of these cases relied -- wrongly -- on identifications by witnesses whose race was different than the suspect they selected. Mostly, the mistaken witness was white and the suspect was black.
Experimental research further illuminates this problem. Virtually every study has found that whites can't get it right when asked to choose the correct photo from an array of possible black assailants. Same goes for Asians, though interestingly, people of color are generally more accurate in selecting white perpetrators.
A famous study of this issue spotlighted a harrowing case of cross-racial misidentification. The five victims of a violent crime spree, all of whom had spent hours with the perpetrator, each identified a man who subsequently was proved to have been hundreds of miles away at the time of the crime. When the actual perpetrator was caught, it was apparent that, other than his black skin, he bore no resemblance to the original suspect.
Back to the bunny. The wascally wabbit vanished from the pages of Cleveland's leading daily because he dared to admit a fallibility shared by humans. Have we sadly reached the point in our country where a major newspaper censors a comic strip as "objectionable" because it depicts the truth -- or more troubling, a tepid version of the whole truth?
How ironic that racial over-sensitivity created a missed opportunity for the public to learn that the victims of crime, and of wrongful convictions, are disproportionately black. And, that a sizable proportion of those responsible for their incarceration are witnesses who are white.
Keeping You Posted: The new year has provided a new beginning to several wrongfully convicted Chicago area residents. On Dec 12, 2011, I wrote about the plight of the Englewood Four and Juan Rivera, saying that the legal obligation of prosecutors was to seek justice, not merely convictions. Earlier this month, Lake County State's Attorney Michael Waller dropped the case against Rivera, ending his 19-year ordeal behind bars for a crime he did not commit. Two weeks later, Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez announced she would not re-try the quartet of Englewood youths who had been convicted based on false confessions. A tip of the hat to both county prosecutors -- and a hearty welcome home to the victims of injustice.
Scroll down the posts and you'll see several other examples of cartoon strips that were censored, including another Non Sequitur strip that seemed to offend only "the editors."
I especially like two of your suggestions: To educate the public about controversial issues, not to hide them, and to have editors put their names on material they've censored so we know who they are.
Seems to me that we subconsciously notice the most predominant feature first and not until you have been exposed to someone do you look into the lesser features. Of course all of these statements are meant to mean "in general” and certain people or circumstances could cause you to recognize some one after one glance. The point is that the process of recognition itself should not be judged racial in and by itself.
Interesting, though, empirical research shows that people of color have less trouble identifying whites than the reverse, at least in the States. Not true where you live, huh? Wonder if the culture of a country or other factors make a difference.
http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2012/01/13
Nor, as a Muslim, did I see a problem with another strip that was pulled by more than 20 papers because the artist poked fun at radicals.
http://www.comicsalliance.com/2010/09/29/non-sequitur-muhammed-strip/
I don't mean to go off-topic as Mr. Protess is bringing light the number of innocent people behind bars because of mistaken identity, but this political correctness has got to stop.
OldHippieEnt: The presence of two cops, the one-way plexiglass, and the "height lines" on the wall behind the animals pretty clearly indicate that it's a lineup, at least to me. But I couldn't agree more that it's a "tempest in a teapot." The only arguably offensive words are "all look alike," which could be construed as a racial cliche -- except the animals are not black and the rabbit is not white. I'd get the fuss if, say, the animal-suspects were all monkeys. Right??? But again, they're not. It's ridiculous.
For instance, on Huffpost, they are currently building up and whitewashing a rich hip hop artist who was formerly a crack cocaine drug dealer, and whose claim to fame is referring to African Americans as N's, B's, and H's in his lyrcis. These lyrcis have made him filthy rich, and he can now be seen in different publications rubbing shoulders with the uber rich and famous.
He is being touted as the answer to the problems of Black America, and on Huffpost any posters who bring up his sordid past and present find that their posts never make the light of day. Only after I wrote an official complaint letter did I start seeing my posts about this super rich individual being published.
Thanks for you comments about the hip hop artist. Who is it? In any case, I'm glad HuffPost's moderator for this exchange did not censor what you had to say. From my experience in blogging for HuffPost, they are very open about posting just about anything that isn't libelous or profane -- but that's just my experience.
As for hip-hop, I'm with you. I don't get it, and it certainly isn't the answer to the problems of Black (or White) America.
Prosecutors, because of absolute immunity, can ignore the law and hide exculpatory evidence, use cop testimony that is plainly unlikely or perjured outright, and then snub their noses at any criticism and keep innocent people in prison until forced to let them go. Prosecutors routinely seek improper indictments for retribution, knowing they can dismiss latyer but have arrested and jailed and caused great financial and personal suffering before doing so..they cannot lose.
All prosecutors care about are convictions and moving up in the smarmy world of the justice system to become judges and politicians..no wonder this nation is screwed..too much power for anyone.
Try and get your head on straight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdz4dCMGbbw
per Wikipedia:
"seven witnesses testified they had seen Davis shoot MacPhail, and two others testified Davis had confessed the murder to them among 34 witnesses who testified for the prosecution"
"ballistic evidence presented at trial linked bullets recovered at or near the scene to those at another shooting in which Davis was also charged. He was convicted of murder and various lesser charges, including the earlier shooting"
You really should read the Wikipedia information on the Troy Davis case.
The witnesses KNEW Davis.. Davis owned a .38 revolver...had a prior conviction for carrying a concealed weapon... admitted to carrying it that night.. was involved in a earlier shooting that same night.. the victim was shot twice.. in the heart and the head.. yet Davis refused to produce his .38, claimed he 'gave it away'??
thirty four witnesses testified at trial for the prosecution... most knew Davis.
Davis immediately fled the city... why, if he had nothing to do with the murder?
There was 20 years between the murder and execution... 20 years for the 'real killer' to be revealed...
The decline continues.
Nice to see you are still making authorities uncomfortable.
Rollins
Some will always refuse all evidence, refuse to punish anyone.. see the OJ trial.