Trayvon Martin’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, recently grieved her son’s loss before an assembly of the National Urban League in Philadelphia. “Wrap your mind around no prom for Trayvon, no high school graduation for Trayvon ... all because of a law -- a law that has prevented the person who shot and killed my son" from paying "for this awful crime." Ms. Fulton was referring to Florida’s “stand your own ground” statute, which provides that a person, when faced with death or serious bodily injury, does not have to retreat before defending himself. 

It should not go unnoticed that Ms. Fulton had ready access to legal counsel as she sat through the trial of George Zimmerman. Yet she remains apparently ignorant of the fact that the law to which she referred played no part whatsoever in the trial of his case. That is because her son, who had had prior run-ins with the law and disciplinary suspensions from school, viciously assaulted Mr. Zimmerman, to whom he referred as “a creepy-ass cracker.” There was no opportunity for Mr. Zimmerman to retreat, even if he had wanted to do so, before using deadly force.  

I can comprehend the raw and turbid emotional state of a bereaved mother. When her spirit is crushed, she may do and say things out of character. I can also understand how, when faced with the loss of her child, she may wish to shift blame to another person or thing. Deflection of culpability is a psychic defense mechanism.  Yet I cannot fathom how Ms. Fulton, at this point in time, can remain oblivious to the circumstances of her son’s death and make completely ill-informed statements about the defendant and the law governing his case. In addition, she is now hoping he will be forced to stand trial again, this time under federal law in Orlando, Florida, for alleged civil rights violations. 

Note 1: Accusing Mr. Zimmerman of a crime when there is no legal or factual basis on which to support the accusation is a violation of his civil rights, and supporting the federal government's attempt to indict him on a civil rights charge based upon race, when there is again no supporting evidence, is unquestionably racist. 

Note 2: If there is any evidence of racism in this scenario besides her own unfair statements, it is her son Trayvon’s racist characterization of Mr. Zimmerman.  

Ms. Fulton’s ignorance is, sadly enough, characteristic of millions of black people in this country who cling to the belief that George Zimmerman got away with murder.  Anthea Butler, for example, pictured below, who is a professor of religious and Africana studies at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote the following concerning Mr. Zimmerman’s acquittal: “God ain’t good all of the time. In fact, sometimes, God is not for us. As a black woman in a nation that has taken too many pains to remind me that I am not a white man, and am not capable of taking care of my reproductive rights, or my voting rights, I know that this American god ain’t my god. As a matter of fact, I think he’s a white racist god with a problem. More importantly, he is carrying a gun and stalking young black men.”  

So, in a few sentences, Professor Butler broadsidedly condemns America as both misogynist and racist and its public faith as perverted and misguided. Her shallow, hysterical indignation reminds me of the axiom of an old trial lawyer I once knew, who advised that, when the law is on your side, pound the law; when the facts are on your side, pound the facts; but when neither the law nor the facts are on your side, pound your desk!” Professor Butler is simply “pounding her desk,” and is convincing no one who is not otherwise convinced. Like so many of her race, her comments about the Zimmerman verdict are emotionally driven and almost entirely reckless and irrational.  Can she really be blind to the fact that most of the killings of young black men in this country are committed by young black men?  Why would she discount the fact that black people have fared much better in America than in any other nation in the world?  Why would she not take pride in the public faith of this country, the liberal tenor of which has steadily advanced the cause of civil rights for both women and minorities?  More specifically, what is the substance of her own complaint, since – thanks to official government policy giving preferential treatment to members of her race for at least a half century – she is privileged to teach at an Ivy League institution?  Her scholarship has surely been less than stellar, and her primary academic credentials appear to be her gender and race. 

Note 3: Professor Butler’s statements regarding the Zimmerman case are maliciously accusatory, hateful, devoid of evidentiary support, and unquestionably racist. 

This observation gives rise to fundamental questions that urgently need to be addressed by American government and society.  What is “racism?” What is “misogyny?” What is “invidious discrimination?" Intellectually barren responses to these questions are pandemic. Thanks to the left's thought police, it is now politically incorrect to express many thoughts and ideas, some of which are incontrovertibly true, without being accused of malevolent intent.  It is frowned upon in numerous circles to point out that acts of terror against the United States, from 1972 to the present, have been perpetrated almost exclusively by Muslims. It raises eyebrows among the cultured to note that most accomplished athletes in professional sporting events are black and that the voluminous results of intelligence tests demonstrate that, collectively speaking, Asians are on top while other races (not all the individuals within them) are less than their equal.  It is deemed unpardonable, and might even occasion a loss of employment, for one to suggest that women and men do not have the same physical and intellectual capabilities. 

In Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on Virginia, he boldly contrasts whites and blacks on a number of matters, which are unpopular (and unmentionable) in contemporary America.  Should he be condemned for his insights?  Charles Murray’s and Richard Herrnstein’s Bell Curve draws thoughtful and empirically based conclusions about racial intelligence. Charles Darwin’s The Descent of Man and Sigmund Freud’s essay on "The Psychical Consequences of the Anatomic Distinction Between the Sexes" argue for inequality of the sexes.  Should their writings be assigned, read, and carefully considered in today's classroom, or should they be summarily discarded and perhaps even burned? It is one thing for them to be mistaken in their conclusions, but quite another for them to be damned from the get-go as misogynist or racist.

Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust surviver and Nobel Prize-winning poet, once wrote,  “No human race is superior; no religious faith is inferior. All collective judgments are wrong. Only racists make them.” Shades of Franz Boas, the nineteenth century anthropologist who thought "race" arbitrary and irrelevant!  I beg to disagree. Consider the race of the winning sprinters in any major international track meet. Notice the race of most celebrated stars in the NFL and NBA. Reflect for a moment upon  the notables in the history of mathematics, the sciences, and philosophy, and the overwhelming number of white and Asian men you see among them. Are these observations racist, misogynist, and misguided? Perhaps they are in some sense, but they are also indisputably true. 

Note 4: When conclusions, which are based upon a fair and impartial consideration of empirical evidence, happen to offend a particular group, they are not ipso facto racist.  

If Trayvon Martin were actually profiled, there is a reason.  Blacks in the criminal justice system, who are between the ages of 18 and 25 years, dramatically outnumber similarly situated whites within the same age group. When a person’s neighborhood is repeatedly burglarized by young men who are black, and a Trayvon Martin subsequently walks through the neighborhood at night, his presence there is sure to arouse suspicion in anyone who is not brain dead. By keeping an eye on Martin, Mr. Zimmerman was acting with nothing less than common sense.  If Ms. Fulton, Professor Butler, Rev. Sharpton, Rev. Jackson, Attorney General Holder, President Obama, or anyone else has a problem with this kind of profiling, they should point a finger squarely at themselves for tolerating a depraved black culture instead of insinuating that Mr. Zimmerman is a racist. 

Note 5: Profiling in some cases does not rise to the offense of racism, but is instead the exercise of basic intelligence. 

Note 6: Racism is frequently exhibited by those who use the term most glibly to identify themselves as a target of it. 

Note 7: Employing the term “racism” in a critical and analytical manner will help to uncover the truth and to make inroads into solving the problems before the country.  Indulging the dictates of political correctness and using the term against white people emotionally and irrationally in deference to the “civil rights racket” will ultimately be disastrous for all.

 July 27, 2013