Recent Missouri editorials

Jefferson City News-Tribune, June 14

Students at the University of Missouri again are petitioning to remove the Thomas Jefferson statue from the Columbia campus, though university officials have said they will not remove it.

Jefferson, after all, was a slave owner who fathered children with one of his slaves.

The push to remove the statue was brought up five years ago amid racial tension on campus, and it has been resurrected in recent days in the wake of the death of George Floyd, a Minnesota man who died while in police custody.

Racism has been an ugly stain on our country since its inception. We’ve made progress with civil rights, but it’s been slow. We need to do more - much more.

Student Roman Leapheart started the petition, which had garnered more than 3,200 signatures on Change.org by Wednesday. In part, the petition reads: “A memorial of a racist has no place on out (sic) campus. The vast majority of these Confederate monuments were built during the era of Jim Crow laws (18771964).”

Jefferson’s MU statue isn’t a Confederate monument. It’s a statue of one of the Founding Fathers of our country. And it wasn’t erected during the era of Jim Crow laws; it was a gift in the early 2000s.

Thousands of black students, Leapheart wrote, pass by the statue daily and are “forced to deal with imagery of the past in the future where we should be promoting equality, diversity and inclusion.”

We agree that we must promote those values. But the removal of Thomas Jefferson’s statue or his name from all public view isn’t the answer.

Here in Jefferson City, should we remove Thomas Jefferson’s statue at the Capitol? Do we rename Jefferson Street? And what about the name of our city?

Jefferson was our third president. He was a Founding Father, a principal author of the Declaration of Independence. He organized the Louisiana Purchase, which doubled our nation’s land.

He was also a slave owner who said slavery is a “moral depravity” and tried to reduce it.

That contradiction - that hypocrisy - is hard for us to understand. But here’s part of the problem: We’re judging an 18th century man by our 21st century standards. It’s an ethnocentric view.

Jefferson’s ownership of slaves was commonplace for landowners in his day. Since then, we have refined our values and beliefs, and our attitudes of slavery and many other things have changed for the better.

We want to see historic characters such as Jefferson in black or white, good or evil. It’s not that simple.

Would removing Jefferson’s statue - or anything else named after him - eliminate social injustice? Would it cure the racism that does still exist in this country? Would it change people’s hearts? No, it would just be an attempt to erase our history.

Our country will continue to evolve and change for the better. But let’s not forget our past.

Let’s continue to honor Jefferson’s many achievements to our great nation, but let’s not forget that, on the issue of slavery, he was on the wrong side of history.

______

The Kansas City Star, June 11

Renaming the J.C. Nichols Memorial fountain near the Country Club Plaza and the J.C. Nichols Parkway nearby would be an extraordinarily powerful symbol of inclusion for a city that still struggles with racial division.

The city should move quickly to make these needed changes.

The proposal comes from Christopher Goode, a member of the Board of Parks and Recreation Commissioners. In a memo to colleagues, Goode suggests changing the name of the fountain to the Dream Fountain and renaming J.C. Nichols Parkway for the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

Nichols’ racist approach to development left a scar on this city, and his legacy should not be celebrated. For decades, he used zoning and restrictive covenants to exclude African Americans from his projects.

“No person accelerated white flight, redlining, and racial division in the Kansas City area more than J.C. Nichols,” Mayor Quinton Lucas said in a statement.

Goode made a similar point in his memo. “The fountain named in (Nichols’) honor, as well as the adjoining parkway allow racism to take center stage in our most photographed, valued and visited destination in Kansas City.”

Plainly put: J.C. Nichols was a racist. Kansas City need not honor him.

Nichols’ disturbing views on race would be reason enough for renaming the fountain and parkway. But the project takes on new urgency because the fountain, the surrounding park and the parkway have been at the epicenter of recent protests over racial injustice and the police.

It’s the right time to replace what J.C. Nichols represents with names that can unify the community.

It’s also the perfect place. J.C. Nichols Parkway generally marks the eastern border of the Plaza. Naming it for King would disrupt relatively few homes and businesses, but would remind visitors and residents of the city’s commitment - still unfulfilled - to inclusion and diversity.

Renaming the fountain and parkway would also likely end the frustrating debate over renaming The Paseo for King. We supported that effort, but Kansas City voters overwhelmingly rejected it. That vote and the hard feelings it caused still haunt Kansas City politics.

Goode’s promising proposal addresses The Paseo dilemma by naming a significant midtown roadway for the civil rights leader.

As is often the case with the Board of Parks and Recreation, the precise process for renaming the two assets is murky. City officials said Wednesday that the board can rename the fountain on its own, subject as always to a citywide petition drive.

Renaming the parkway for King may take City Council review, following a parks board recommendation and the involvement of a street renaming committee.

The mayor has voiced his support for both changes, which will help. The parks board will hold two hearings on the plan in the next 30 days, and written testimony is being accepted. Kansas City residents should help build momentum for action by endorsing the proposal.

This shouldn’t be hard. Renaming the water display as the Dream Fountain and naming J.C. Nichols Parkway for Martin Luther King Jr. are obvious steps in a city still struggling with questions about racism and inequality that have been highlighted by recent protests.

Erasing J.C. Nichols’ name won’t solve every issue in Kansas City, but it’s a start. And at this consequential inflection point for our city and our country, this would be a small step in the right direction.

_______

The Joplin Globe, Jan. 14

How can so many be calling to defund the police? On the face of it, the call seems foolish. We need a force to deal with serious and violent crimes: assaults, robbery, rape and killing. They are our first responders, meant “to protect and serve,” as the motto goes.

But some high-profile national cases of police brutality or excessive force have renewed reform efforts and makes the call to “defund the police” a rallying cry at recent protests.

Let’s make it clear. We respect and support police officers. Most perform their duties admirably, and many acts of heroism are documented each year throughout the country by law enforcement officers who save lives, console victims and risk their own lives in dangerous situations.

It is unfair to project negative stereotypes to all officers based on the misconduct of some. Most police abhor the heinous brutality like what happened to George Floyd in Minneapolis. Joplin Police Chief Sloan Rowland said the video “evokes a visceral response of disgust, disbelief and anger” from him and “every law enforcement officer I have spoken with here.” He said it does not align with the values of the Joplin Police Department, and for that we are thankful, and we commend him for speaking out and walking with protesters.

Still, a systemic problem does exist, at least nationally. Black males make up 24% of those shot by police and constitute 40% of unarmed people shot by police, even though black Americans make up about 13% of the U.S. population. And those numbers are only shootings - George Floyd and Freddie Gray wouldn’t even be counted.

And the use of excessive force has been evident in incidents such as the Floyd killing, and just this weekend in the killing of a black man who fell asleep in the drive-thru lane of a fast-food restaurant by Atlanta police.

So what can be done? Repeated commission reports and reform attempts have sought to reduce violence and resolve racial injustice in policing - in 1919, 1935, 1943, 1967, the ’70s, the ’90s, 2015 and more - but here we are again. These efforts have failed to stop acts of brutality. Why?

Much of it lies in the courts.

A standard on use of force from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals tells juries, “You must judge the reasonableness of a particular use of force from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene and not with 20/20 vision of hindsight.” That’s a standard that enshrines police perspective in law. It almost always results in police acquittal in criminal brutality cases. Another barrier is qualified immunity, a legal principle that protects police from civil liability.

Police power must be tempered by accountability. Those the state empowers with deadly force should be held to at least the same standards as everybody else by prosecutors and courts.

Historically, there was little accountability in cases of excessive force, but in some recent incidents, there is evidence change is at hand. Misconduct is not being tolerated. In Minneapolis, four officers are charged in Floyd’s murder. In Buffalo, two officers who pushed a 75-year-old man to the ground at a protest have been charged with assault. In Philadelphia, a captain was charged with assault for using a baton on a college student at a protest there.

Some police departments around the country have already taken steps to reform - striving to build a police culture from a “warrior” to a “guardian” mindset, and activist groups such as Campaign Zero have released specific steps in their 8 Can’t Wait project, which outlines eight steps to reduce police violence, including banning strangleholds, demilitarizing forces, intervention policies and community oversight.

The digital video camera - in every pocket in addition to those body cameras - has been the most effective tool against police misconduct. Allegations have been made and denied for generations, yet we now have the truth at the hands of every witness with a cell phone. Body cams should be required for all arrests. Joplin has them already, but not all police forces do.

Some who claim they want to “defund” the police really want to restructure, or shift more funding to social services to handle the many social problems that police are required to deal with on a daily basis. Police have become the go-to service for any disruption. Law enforcers are called to tackle social ills such as homelessness, mental health issues, substance abuse matters and family crises. There should be more funding for social services, and let police focus on just catching the bad guys.

Defund the police? No, thank you. All communities need the police. Crime is not going away, and fewer police could reduce public safety or slow response times. But in the wake of the Floyd killing, a nationwide conversation has started, fueled by protesters and joined in some cases by the police themselves. This is how positive change happens.