The Jena 6 Events in Louisiana Show the True Face of Racism

In a small town in Louisiana a scandal has brewed - causing the city to become the quintessential Sodom and Gamorrah of racial tension. The events that transpired there have immortalized the area, apparently conjuring images of the civil rights era of the 50's and 60's that conjured such figures as Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks who stood against southern injustices. Unfortunately for those that see this as their chance to live their own glory days, the reality of the situation is not another Rosa Parks, but the criminal behavior of six individuals known as the "Jena 6".

A number of articles have already appeared on Associated Content supporting the Jena SIx, the most popular by a content producer known as Shamontiel, whom I've discussed the issue at length with. The situation, for those unaware, involves, at its barest, six students of African-American descent ambushing and beating a Caucasian student until he lost consciousness, then continued to kick him until he acquired a concussion. Consequentially, the boys were arrested, which has spurred a neo-civil rights suggesting that these boys are being martyred for their race.

A keen observer of the events will point out the activities leading up to the attack, which does much to carry on the beliefs that this is a racial injustice that must be battled.

Jena High School has a remarkably small population of African-American students compared to Caucasian students, reflecting the demographics of the small town where 85% are white and 12% are black, according to the BBC. As occurs in most high schools, groups of people when not in class clump together in certain parts of the school. One particular location was an oak tree where several white students would sit for shade, which the African-American students would refer to as "the white tree". An important factor to consider is that there has never been an official school or legal policy declaring this oak tree as "a white only tree" - the terminology came about by the students based on who usually occupied it.

According to U.S. Attorney Donald Washington, an African-American student inquired of Jena High School Principle, in a jocular fashion, if he was allowed to sit under the "white tree". The principle dismissed the less than serious question of there being a "white tree" and informed him he could sit wherever he likes.

The next morning three nooses were strung from the tree, reported as a joke, no matter how tactless, that harks back to the 19th century lynchings that were carried out from such trees. When the school found the students involved, the principle immediately suspended them with the recommendation of expulsion - however the board of education overruled the recommendation with the backing of the Super Intendant who recognized it as an ill-conceived prank.

It is further important to note that none of the parents involved, Caucasian or African-American, reported the incident as a hate crime. Although there were complaints that this stoked racial tensions, neither side felt it was important enough to submit to federal authorities, by extension suggesting it to be the tactless and racist prank it was.

This is where the story becomes remarkably skewed. While some people report that African-American students conducted a sit-in in protest of the lack of expulsion of the students, no evidence has actually surfaced backing this claim. At the request of the Jena Police Department, attorney Reed Walters came and lectured the school - allegedly aggravated by the distraction as he was preparing an aggravated rape case.

In the process he declared that he would be capable of ruining one's life with a stroke of his pen - the African-American students claim the threat was directed at them, yet still no evidence suggests this and Reed Walters denies directing it at any ethnicity of student. The action bears remarkably similarity to when a Caucasian student had his grades threatened if he would not confess to an terrorist plot in Palmdale, California.

Finally the story descends into the madness it is now.

For reasons unknown, several African-American students attempted to enter a birthday party at Fair Barn they could not produce invitations to and thus were asked to leave. When they refused, a white male who was not a student with Jena High arrived and instigated a fight - and was later asked to leave the premises. Another fight ensued that resulted in the arrest of several Caucasian students for battery.

According to Expert Law, battery is defined as the "willful or intentional touching of a person against that person's will by another person, or by an object or substance put in motion by that other person." The African-American student involved in the altercation claimed a bottle was smashed over his head, however no evidence exists to substantiate this claim and there were no medical records to verify any lasting damage.

Where do the Jena Six come in?

The following Monday, a student named Justin Barker, a seventeen year old Caucasian student, allegedly bragged about the previous weekend's altercations that also involved a student being arrested following another fight that resulted in the brandishing of a firearm. He declared, bragged according to National Public Radio, that a black student had been beaten by several white students. The black student, Robert Bailey, then gathered five of his friends and laid-in-wait outside of the gymnasium for Justin. They then beat him until he lost consciousness and allegedly continued to kick him even after that.

Medical records prove he suffered a concussion. In the midst of all of this, several protesters claim that this incident was justified by the nooses - even though there has been no correlation drawn between the nooses and the assault. While it would be convenient to several persons' arguments to suggest that this was the case, none of the statements at any time involved the mention of the nooses that were hung from the tree, indicating that the events that transpired were in no way linked.

This does little to batter aside the Jena Six apologists. The aforementioned Content Producer, Shamontiel, makes it clear that she believes that because the six black students were antagonized through racial slurs, their assault was justified. The law, of course, disagrees with her. With the First Amendment insuring free speech, the boy was legally allowed to state whatever he liked about the boys.

Furthermore, the privileges of Assault and Battery stipulate the only times battery are allowed are when there is consent, if it is carried out by police conduct, in self-defense, in the defense of others, during mutual combat, defense of property, for legally stipulated disciplinary actions, or in what is referred to as "merchant's privilege" to protect one's goods in store.

In this case, none of the above situations apply.

Furthermore, in stark contrast to the opposition who feels that racial slurs are a provocation, the law specifically states on this matter:

"Words alone, no matter how insulting or provocative, do not justify an assault or battery against the person who utters the words."

In defense of the "Jena Six", content producer Shamontiel has dipped to advocating conspiracy theories - suggesting that doctors refused to see Bailey on the grounds that they hoped it would escalate into what it has so far and that the town is involved in a massive attempt to hurt the boys based solely on their race. Naturally, she has failed to provide any evidence, but states firmly, "But who are we kidding here? The jury was rigged and are all friends of the prosecuting group..."

She also suggests that criminal records should have been omitted from the case.

"If one of the Jena 6 was to be punished for previous crimes, those should be tried on an individual basis..."

Other Content Producers go on to protest the notion that Jena Six T-Shirts are being banned, calling it a form of censorship and decrying the school's decision to do so as racist. The Super Intendant specifically forbade T-Shirts that read "Free the Jena Six" and other variants because they were a "threat to the order of the campus." This legal claim has precedent as 9th Circuit Court ruled on a Michigan Case stating, "the school is permitted to prohibit Harper's conduct...if it can demonstrate that the restriction was necessary to prevent either the violation of the rights of other students or substantial disruption of school activities." Naturally with a high school being a place of learning rather than political activism, it should go without saying that an issue that has already resulted in three fist fights and has violence spilling over into Lafayette, Louisiana (with over 70 students arrested for racial fighting now) that the shirts represent a substantial threat of disruption to school activities.

With arguments as weak as these, it does not seem entirely surprising that there has been a vocal appeal to day time talk show host Oprah to try to lend credence to their already failing arguments.