Support NeoGAF

[excelsiorlef]

I expect to see all y'all in the next thread about a black 12 year old being shot and killed.

They'll have to wait for more details... that never sufficiently come.

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

Great response from the Chancellor in my opinion. I don't see how either side can disagree with this.

http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/02/02/campus-condemns-violence-defends-free-speech/

It's just free speech whining that some decent people physically prevented Berkeley from funding right wing extremism.

 

[LosDaddie]

Great response from the Chancellor in my opinion. I don't see how either side can disagree with this.

http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/02/02/campus-condemns-violence-defends-free-speech/

This is a great statement. Props to the university

 

[Kinsei]

Great response from the Chancellor in my opinion. I don't see how either side can disagree with this.

http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/02/02/campus-condemns-violence-defends-free-speech/

That's a pretty shit statement.

 

[Lime]

Great response from the Chancellor in my opinion. I don't see how either side can disagree with this.

http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/02/02/campus-condemns-violence-defends-free-speech/

Funny how "let's not allow and give platform a racist shithead to speak at the freakin' Martin Luther King Jr. Student Union" never crossed the Chancellor's mind.

 

[remist]

The police and Trump are literally the Executive Branch of the government.

State and local police have nothing to do with the executive branch.

 

[OniBarubary]

Great response from the Chancellor in my opinion. I don't see how either side can disagree with this.

http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/02/02/campus-condemns-violence-defends-free-speech/

That's not a great response.

 

[EatinOlives]

Milo is a gigantic piece of shit and I feel zero sympathy anytime something bad happens to him.

That said, I am strongly opposed to anyone who would riot/violently suppress someone from giving a speech, no matter how appalling the content is. You're just handing them a moral victory, and not only in the eyes of their supporters. Not a good look.

It's only a "victory" if you're willing to actively give them one.

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

State and local police have nothing to do with the executive branch.

Holy shit. I'm not even an American and I know more about your government than you do.

Police are under the executive arm of the government.

 

[Audioboxer]

Great response from the Chancellor in my opinion. I don't see how either side can disagree with this.

http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/02/02/campus-condemns-violence-defends-free-speech/

The apex of standing by your principals as an institute is applying it equally, therefore a University should be able to both have it's personal opinion on someone while also having it's practical objective view to its upholding of freedom of speech. Much in the same way law does, which is what my rambling above is about. Government has to apply it equally, and yes, that means even giving rights to shitty people. A University isn't government, no, but as I also said above many educational institutes were founded on freedom of ideas and thoughts, and challenging them out in the open, not banning them. You may not approve of that, but it's a long-standing practice of many educational institutes.

However, you're wrong in saying what you said ant from the POV that people will disagree with the statement. It's not everyone's view of what a University should be, or should value as a priority. If the Uni wants to change it's mission statement, it can, basically, where as government isn't going to change rights for who is and isn't protected by freedom of speech.

 

[rjinaz]

Great response from the Chancellor in my opinion. I don't see how either side can disagree with this.

http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/02/02/campus-condemns-violence-defends-free-speech/

I agree with most of it though

which stands for and helps to maintain and nurture open inquiry and an inclusive civil society, the bedrock of a genuinely democratic nation

I don't think the freedom to spout hate speech is the bedrock of a genuinely democratic nation. The nations that have outlawed hate speech are just as democratic in my mind. Agree to disagree I guess.

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

The apex of standing by your principals as an institute is applying it equally, therefore a University should be able to both have it's personal opinion on someone while also having it's practical objective view to it's upholding of freedom of speech. Much in the same way law does, which is what my rambling above is about. Government has to apply it equally, and yes, that means even giving rights to shitty people. A University isn't government, no, but as I also said above many educational institutes were founding on freedom of ideas and thoughts, and challenging them out in the open, not banning them. You may not approve of that, but it's a long-standing practice of many educational institutes.

However, you're wrong in saying what you said ant from the POV that people will disagree with the statement. It's not everyone's view of what a University should be, or should value as a priority. If the Uni wants to change it's mission statement, it can, basically, where as government isn't going to change rights for who is and isn't protected by freedom of speech.

Government has no obligation to provide your speech fairness. It is only legally barred from preventing you from your speech.

nurture open inquiry and an inclusive civil society

I don't want to be inclusive of right wing fanatics.

 

[Metalingus5150]

Would anyone expect a different statement from them?

 

[Audioboxer]

Government has no obligation to provide your speech fairness. It is only legally barred from preventing you from your speech.




I don't want to be inclusive of right wing fanatics.

You can play technicalities, but as it stands the 1st amendment does protect everyone. Even if you are an asshole. That's the line the University is towing, they may personally not like Milo, but they'll allow speakers they don't like to appear on their campus. Just as they support the rights to protest and challenge, but they won't support violence. Violence is illegal (differentiated from self-defense), speech isn't.

Now you know damn well this is a lie.

Why isn't Milo locked up then for his speech?

 

[Poor GRIMES]

You can play technicalities, but as it stands the 1st amendment does protect everyone. Even if you are an asshole. That's the line the University is towing, they may personally not like Milo, but they'll allow speakers they don't like to appear on their campus.

Now you know damn well this is a lie.

 

[remist]

Holy shit. I'm not even an American and I know more about your government than you do.

Police are under the executive arm of the government.

You are wrong. He only has control of federal law enforcement like the FBI or the DEA. Local law enforcement who would enforce the laws under discusion are completely seperate from the federal government or the executive branch.

 

[ultratruman]

The fact that Milo was set to speak at a venue named after MLK just tops this whole thing off.

the fact that people are advocating physical violence at a venue named after MLK also tops this whole thing off.

 

[theJwac]

Holy shit. I'm not even an American and I know more about your government than you do.

Police are under the executive arm of the government.

You are completely incorrect. The executive branch of the federal government is separate from municipal and state police (cops, police, troopers, etc) agencies. The FBI would fall under the federal government. Don't confuse the conversation with ignorance and arrogance.

 

[ant_]

The apex of standing by your principals as an institute is applying it equally, therefore a University should be able to both have it's personal opinion on someone while also having it's practical objective view to its upholding of freedom of speech. Much in the same way law does, which is what my rambling above is about. Government has to apply it equally, and yes, that means even giving rights to shitty people. A University isn't government, no, but as I also said above many educational institutes were founded on freedom of ideas and thoughts, and challenging them out in the open, not banning them. You may not approve of that, but it's a long-standing practice of many educational institutes.

However, you're wrong in saying what you said ant from the POV that people will disagree with the statement. It's not everyone's view of what a University should be, or should value as a priority. If the Uni wants to change it's mission statement, it can, basically, where as government isn't going to change rights for who is and isn't protected by freedom of speech.

I agree with you; the last part of my statement was unnecessary and is already generating quotes that I didn't intend.

I agree with, I think, your view.

The University has an obligation to allow free speech and differing viewpoints. The people have a right to protest these views. In my mind, what happened with the protest was nearly perfect. A hate mongering individual was shut down by individuals who detest his views. I despise the use of violence to achieve this, though.

I also am pained by the idea that the whole outrage to the event is giving Milo an even larger platform to speak on. I think we need to think more about these unintended consequences, which in some ways was facilitated by violence (to be clear: not violence from the protesters, but from obstructors).

To be clear, Berkeley is my alma matter and I have been pondering this protest / event for a while. I've seen a lot of protests at Berkeley but none of them have ever resulted in violence/destruction.

 

[Lime]

If you're more angry about broken windows or destroyed property than Milo harassing a young trans woman out of her education, then you need to take a look at your priorities

 

[tfur]

Great response from the Chancellor in my opinion. I don't see how either side can disagree with this.

http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/02/02/campus-condemns-violence-defends-free-speech/

Good response from the home of the free speech movement. It's good to see the Chancellor still gets it.

 

[Nafai1123]

the fact that people are advocating physical violence at a venue named after MLK also tops this whole thing off.

Please stop with this white-washing MLK BS.

It’s rare that social progress comes without force — typically violent force. Gay and transgender Americans fought police and rioted in New York and San Francisco to overthrow homophobic policies. Violent labor riots helped end unsafe work conditions. Slavery in the United States ended only after the deadliest war in the nation’s history.

We remember, even celebrate, the by-any-means-necessary grit of the people who ultimately made American lives better in these historic moments. But when it comes to the American fight for racial equality, we bury the truth about the tactics that are necessary for progress. We’ve convinced ourselves that racism can be eradicated passively, without aggression or violence. “As America progressed, violence was always part of it,” says St. Louis University historian Stefan Bradley, who studies black youth activism. “No other movement in history has ever been held to these standards.”

King, we’ve convinced ourselves, is proof that any lingering racism can be eliminated without tumult. Yet the civil rights movement was one of the most violent moments in American history. As the Rev. Jesse Jackson recalls, the tactics of the 1960s demonstrators “worked very well because the violent forces against us weren’t able to justify attacking us.” While the activists’ nonviolent response magnified the brutality, the aggressive reaction of today’s protesters has proved effective as well. “The police overreaction, the tear gas — that’s what made Ferguson,” Jackson says.

 

[Valhelm]

Holy shit. I'm not even an American and I know more about your government than you do.

Police are under the executive arm of the government.

State and local governments are separate from the federal government.

 

[Poor GRIMES]

If you're more angry about broken windows or destroyed property than Milo harassing a young trans woman out of her education, then you need to take a look at your priorities

People are never going to realize that free speech is never free.

Some marginalized group always has to pay the price for it.

 

[ultratruman]

If you're more angry about broken windows or destroyed property than Milo harassing a young trans woman out of her education, then you need to take a look at your priorities

I'm angry about both. The problem is, the effects of the former leads to more of the latter.

 

[Audioboxer]

I agree with you; the last part of my statement was unnecessary and is already generating quotes that I didn't intend.

I agree with, I think, your view.

The University has an obligation to allow free speech and differing viewpoints. The people have a right to protest these views. In my mind, what happened with the protest was nearly perfect. A hate mongering individual was shut down by individuals who detest his views. I despise the use of violence to achieve this, though.

I also am pained by the idea that the whole outrage to the event is giving Milo an even larger platform to speak on. I think we need to think more about these unintended consequences, which in some ways was facilitated by violence (to be clear: not violence from the protesters, but from obstructors).

To be clear, Berkeley is my alma matter and I have been pondering this protest / event for a while. I've seen a lot of protests at Berkeley but none of them have ever resulted in violence/destruction.

A clear separation though is that the University is a private institute (even with government funding) upholding a mantra it chooses to sit on. The University could be like others and outright ban speakers it doesn't like. Whereas the government has to give freedom of speech to everyone, all the time, even if you're, to put it bluntly, a cunt. Where government can get involved is usually around specific libel matters and/or calls to violence/incitement to violence. In America you really need to get into real specifics to get in legal trouble for speech, for better or worse. Even some European countries with hate speech laws are still incredibly open, in that you can mock, ridicule and lambaste just about anything.

The University is choosing not to flip-flop on its mission statement basically, which like it or not is fairly admirable. Government doesn't really get to choose, it has to uphold.

From what I've seen as well it looks like anarchists trashed this protest, not so much the more sincere campus protestors. Although with the black dressing and face covering you don't know if some of them are students. Probably are. This topic in general though veered onto GAFers talking about supporting violence, so it's been a bit of a mixed bag of chat around violence, whereas I think for the benefit of the protestors not being violent it's only fair not to paint them all with the same brush.

 

[OniBarubary]

the fact that people are advocating physical violence at a venue named after MLK also tops this whole thing off.

If you swallow the homogenized and safe MLK that white people trotted out to make it easier to shit on black people and convince "well-meaning" white people to ignore what actually happened, sure.

 

[ant_]

If you're more angry about broken windows or destroyed property than Milo harassing a young trans woman out of her education, then you need to take a look at your priorities

Is it really that difficult to be angry about both? They aren't mutually exclusive.

A clear separation though is that the University is a private institute (even with government funding) upholding a mantra it chooses to sit on. The University could be like others and outright ban speakers it doesn't like. Where as the government has to give freedom of speech to everyone, all the time, even if you're, to put it bluntly, a cunt. Where government can get involved is usually around specific libel matters and/or calls to violence/incitement to violence.

The University is choosing not to flip-flop on its mission statement basically, which like it or not is fairly admirable. Government doesn't really get to choose, it has to uphold.

From what I've seen as well it looks like anarchists trashed this protest, not so much the more sincere campus protestors. Although with the black dressing and face covering you don't know if some of them are students. Probably are. This topic in general though veered onto GAFers talking about supporting violence, so it's been a bit of a mixed bag of chat around violence, whereas I think for the benefit of the protestors not being violent it's only fair not to paint them all with the same brush.

UC Berkeley is a public institution, not private.

 

[Audioboxer]

Is it really that difficult to be angry about both? They aren't mutually exclusive.



UC Berkeley is a public institution, not private.

Universities are still able to choose, though. Public or private. The government isn't going to swoop in and force a Uni to have Milo speaking. Whereas in general, the government will allow Milo to say whatever the hell he wants as long as it isn't breaking the few rules around speech there is in America (ironically usually around incitement to violence). The head of the Uni isn't getting arrested because they banned Milo from speaking, but if you hit Milo with a metal pole and your defence is he says shitty things, you're the one going to jail.

This is why Trump's remarks at the Uni are totally outrageous. First of all they do have a choice, but secondly, this Uni is actually standing firm on their ideas around freedom of speech. Thirdly, as just seen they have also condemned the violence. All of which does make Trump look like a damn idiot for going after the Uni.

 

[ultratruman]

Please stop with this white-washing MLK BS.

I'm not white-washing anything, you're twisting MLK's words to defend the idea that it's morally OK to beat up political opponents. It is utter nonsense and not at all how the civil rights movement achieved its goals.

MLK deliberately invited physical violence from the establishment as a tactic, as Gandhi also did, but he never initiated it. He saw riots as the language of the oppressed, but he never argued that they are effective or morally justified.

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral,
begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy.
Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it.
Through violence you may murder the liar,
but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth.
Through violence you may murder the hater,
but you do not murder hate.
In fact, violence merely increases hate.
So it goes.
Returning violence for violence multiplies violence,
adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness:
only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.

 

[SyenceLabb]

I'm not white-washing anything, you're twisting MLK's words to defend the idea that it's morally OK to beat up political opponents. It is utter nonsense and not at all how the civil rights movement achieved its goals.

MLK deliberately invited physical violence from the establishment as a tactic, as Gandhi also did, but he never initiated it. He saw riots as the language of the oppressed, but he never argued that they are effective or morally justified.

Preach, Brotha' ultratruman

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

You can play technicalities, but as it stands the 1st amendment does protect everyone.

From the government.

If Person A says something offensive and Person B rightfully smacks them, the government doesn't prosecute Person B for denying Person A's "right to free speech", they prosecute Person B for violating the laws against violence.

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

State and local governments are separate from the federal government.

Your state and your local government still have the same branches of government and your local, state, and federal government are still the same government.

You are wrong. He only has control of federal law enforcement like the FBI or the DEA. Local law enforcement who would enforce the laws under discusion are completely seperate from the federal government or the executive branch.

You seriously don't think Trump has any political control over a rabidly racist and national institution like the police?

White people are so disillusioned.

 

[OniBarubary]

Preach, Brotha' ultratruman

Didn't you see yourself out of this thread?

 

[Audioboxer]

From the government.

If Person A says something offensive and Person B rightfully smacks them, the government doesn't prosecute Person B for denying Person A's "right to free speech", they prosecute Person B for violating the laws against violence.

That's exactly what I'm saying? We must have misunderstood each other or maybe I did a poor job of my post(s).

I even tried to point out above even if the Uni is publicly funded, it still has the ability to ban and restrict. In this case, it is the Uni itself which is standing by its beliefs in freedom of speech on its campus. As seen in the statement released.

 

[ant_]

Universities are still able to choose, though. Public or private. The government isn't going to swoop in and force a Uni to have Milo speaking. Whereas in general, the government will allow Milo to say whatever the hell he wants as long as it isn't breaking the few rules around speech there is in America (ironically usually around incitement to violence). The head of the Uni isn't getting arrested because they banned Milo from speaking, but if you hit Milo with a metal pole and your defence is he says shitty things, you're the one going to jail.

This is why Trump's remarks at the Uni are totally outrageous. First of all they do have a choice, but secondly, this Uni is actually standing firm on their ideas around freedom of speech. Thirdly, as just seen they have also condemned the violence. All of which does make Trump look like a damn idiot for going after the Uni.

We're in agreement, I believe.

I'd be fine with the University disallowing Milo to speak. I also understand their decision to let him speak. Berkeley faced a similar issue when Bill Maher spoke at the University. There was large protests due to Bill's view on Islam, but Berkeley decided to let him speak despite student protest.

Trump's remarks are ridiculous because the institution didn't do anything. They defended the right to free speech on both sides, even if one side is a giant piece of shit. I'm happy the students protested and removed his platform. I'm not super pleased with the means in which it was most successful (violence from outsiders)

 

[remist]

Universities are still able to choose, though. Public or private. The government isn't going to swoop in and force a Uni to have Milo speaking. Whereas in general, the government will allow Milo to say whatever the hell he wants as long as it isn't breaking the few rules around speech there is in America (ironically usually around incitement to violence). The head of the Uni isn't getting arrested because they banned Milo from speaking, but if you hit Milo with a metal pole and your defence is he says shitty things, you're the one going to jail.

This is why Trump's remarks at the Uni are totally outrageous. First of all they do have a choice, but secondly, this Uni is actually standing firm on their ideas around freedom of speech. Thirdly, as just seen they have also condemned the violence. All of which does make Trump look like a damn idiot for going after the Uni.

That is untrue. Public universities are considered an arm of the government when it comes to free speech issues. If they provide a limited public forum for students to invite speakers, they can make time, place, and manner restrictions but they can't make viewpoint based restrictions.

Private universities, even if they recieve government money can ban anyone they want but they usually have free expression codes that allow for controversial speakers.

 

[Audioboxer]

We're in agreement, I believe.

I'd be fine with the University disallowing Milo to speak. I also understand their decision to let him speak. Berkeley faced a similar issue when Bill Maher spoke at the University. There was large protests due to Bill's view on Islam, but Berkeley decided to let him speak despite student protest.

Trump's remarks are ridiculous because the institution didn't do anything. They defended the right to free speech on both sides, even if one side is a giant piece of shit. I'm happy the students protested and removed his platform. I'm not super pleased with the means in which it was most successful (violence from outsiders)

The Uni's tend to find themselves between a rock and a hard place if they stand by being founded on freedoms of speech/inquiry. Maybe 5~10 years ago it was more of a local matter, with protest still happening with speakers. However, now the whole internet knows what is going on at every Uni so there is so much vocal pressure for Uni's to stop prioritising freedom of speech and start micro-managing every speaker. Some will do it, some won't. In most cases, security expenses will land on the speaker or the club/student group inviting. I think that is fair.

In this case thanks to the internet it seems anarchists know when a speaker is going to be somewhere and they can organise weeks in advance. Will things like this force the hand of Uni's? Who knows... We're entering a lot of uncharted territory politically these days.

That is untrue. Public universities are considered an arm of the government when it comes to free speech issues. If they provide a limited public forum for students to invite speakers, they can make time, place, and manner restrictions but they can't make viewpoint based restrictions.

Private universities, even if they recieve government money can ban anyone they want but they usually have free expression codes that allow for controversial speakers.

So all the Uni's that have banned Milo have to be private? I'm pretty certain public Uni's can still make individual calls on speakers. The buildings/grounds are still usually privately owned, even if publicly funded. I will hold my hands up if I am totally wrong here.

 

[Kaiterra]

Any restrictions on public or limited public forums have to be viewpoint neutral.

Sure but Milo doesn't exactly have a viewpoint. He makes his bones off being a provocateur rather than actually standing up for things he believes.

 

[theJwac]

Your state and your local government still have the same branches of government and your local, state, and federal government are still the same government.





You seriously don't think Trump has any political control over a rabidly racist and national institution like the police?

White people are so disillusioned.

The sentiment behind this statement is disgusting. How do you know what race the other poster is? Your skills at debate and reason come down to chest thumping and stating conjecture with stupefying aplomb. Not every state or city has the same breakdown of government and on top of that, states don't always fall in line with what the federal government agrees with. See marijuana legalization laws...

 

[M3d10n]

I know Milo is reviled on GAF, but I have watched hours of his college speeches on YouTube and never have I come across anything close to nazi speech. He is definitely Republican and pro-Trump, but I guess Republican=nazi is the new narrative. In fact, in many of the college speeches I've viewed, he has let those opposed to him make their point and ask questions as long as they've been somewhat civil. He can be a troll just to stir the pot, but I think it's pretty obvious when he's trying to get a rise out of people.

Seems you missed his speech in a campus where he singled out a trans student, calling her a "dude in a dress". It's very likely he had a list full of student names prepared for his cancelled anti-sanctuary speech.

This crosses beyond hate speech and into hate conduct, according to the ACLU:

Q: Does the ACLU make a distinction between speech and conduct?

A: Yes. The ACLU believes that hate speech stops being just speech and becomes conduct when it targets a particular individual, and when it forms a pattern of behavior that interferes with a student's ability to exercise his or her right to participate fully in the life of the university.

The ACLU isn't opposed to regulations that penalize acts of violence, harassment or intimidation, and invasions of privacy. On the contrary, we believe that kind of conduct should be punished. Furthermore, the ACLU recognizes that the mere presence of speech as one element in an act of violence, harassment, intimidation or privacy invasion doesn't immunize that act from punishment. For example, threatening, bias-inspired phone calls to a student's dorm room, or white students shouting racist epithets at a woman of color as they follow her across campus -- these are clearly punishable acts.

Several universities have initiated policies that both support free speech and counter discriminatory conduct. Arizona State, for example, formed a "Campus Environment Team" that acts as an education, information and referral service. The team of specially trained faculty, students and administrators works to foster an environment in which discriminatory harassment is less likely to occur, while also safeguarding academic freedom and freedom of speech.

But I do agree that going into violent protest isn't the way to go, even if were a speech outright asking for the extermination of a race or something similarly abhorrent.

 

[Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!]

Seems you missed his speech in a campus where he singled out a trans student, calling her a "dude in a dress". It's very likely he had a list full of student names prepared for his cancelled anti-sanctuary speech.

This crosses beyond hate speech and into hate conduct, according to the ACLU:

I'm failing to make the jump from making fun of a trans student to NAZI

 

[M3d10n]

I'm failing to make the jump from making fun of a trans student to NAZI

Indeed, that doesn't make him a NAZI, but it shows he's willing to go beyond the protections of free speech if it suits him.

 

[remist]

.
So all the Uni's that have banned Milo have to be private? I'm pretty certain public Uni's can still make individual calls on speakers. The buildings/grounds are still usually privately owned, even if publicly funded. I will hold my hands up if I am totally wrong here.

Yes. He doesn't automatically have access to all areas of campus. It's that when a public university sets aside a public forum for expression they have to be viewpoint neutral when deciding restrictions on who can use it.

 

[Dastardly Jerks]

If you're more angry about broken windows or destroyed property than Milo harassing a young trans woman out of her education, then you need to take a look at your priorities

 

[SerTapTap]

Seriously, what about this one event has people all up in a fucking dander? I insult Trump, Trump supporters and all manner of racists on a daily basis but somehow people keep dragging this shit into my mentions no matter how direly unrelated it is. Never really seen anything like this (beyond "cuck" and their other garbage vocabulary; they ain't smart, don't know many different words).

Did breitbart pull out their dogwhistle or something? Why THIS hill to die on?

 

[Gordon Shumway]

the fact that people are advocating physical violence at a venue named after MLK also tops this whole thing off.

Why's that?

 

[Dastardly Jerks]

the fact that people are advocating physical violence at a venue named after MLK also tops this whole thing off.

 

[SerTapTap]

Why's that?

Because people can't read and or don't like to acknowledge that MLK was vastly less quiet, docile and white-safe as they like to remember him.

 

[thepotatoman]

You are wrong. He only has control of federal law enforcement like the FBI or the DEA. Local law enforcement who would enforce the laws under discusion are completely seperate from the federal government or the executive branch.

That's technically correct, but that doesn't mean the executive branch has no control over local police.

The 14th amendment gives the federal government constitutional authority to make sure local police aren't being racist, codified by many civil rights laws that have been passed by congress since the civil war. It's up to the executive branch to enforce or not enforce those laws put on local police.