Statement of Concern from Arizona Critical Ethnic Studies

posted on behalf of Arizona Critical Ethnic Studies

The members of Arizona Critical Ethnic Studies and the undersigned organizations are deeply concerned by a recent incident involving an Arizona State University (ASU) police officer and an ASU faculty member. We call for a swift and thorough investigation into this matter.

On the evening of May 20, 2014, Dr. Ersula Ore, a professor in the English department at ASU, was walking home from campus after teaching a summer course. Dr. Ore, who is African American, was stopped and questioned by a male ASU police officer patrolling the area in his vehicle. After a short exchange with the officer, a brief physical altercation ensued in which Dr. Ore, who was wearing a dress, was forced up against the officer’s car and then onto the ground, fully exposing portions of her lower body to the public. Eyewitness accounts of the incident, including video evidence, support Dr. Ore’s assertion that the officer did not clearly inform her regarding why she was being stopped or inform her of her rights, and engaged in excessive force during her detention. Despite these questionable circumstances, however, Dr. Ore has subsequently been charged with felony aggravated assault on the officer, among other charges.

We are troubled by the responses of the media, University, and ASU Police Department about this incident. Media versions have presented a sensationalized, one-sided story that differs substantially from Dr. Ore’s and eyewitness accounts. Officials at ASU, in response to questions about the incident and possible racial profiling, have sought to distance the University, stating that 1) because the incident occurred on a public street between parts of campus, it was technically “off campus,” so Dr. Ore was a private citizen; and 2) although they will comply with any investigation, there is no evidence of racial profiling. We find these responses insufficient. First, the officer involved was an ASU police officer and the University is responsible for the conduct of its employees, including its police force. Second, whether as a private citizen or as a member of the ASU community, Dr. Ore has the right to expect dignified and humane treatment by ASU’s police officers. ASU, as a public institution, has a responsibility to ensure this occurs. Third, ASU has not undertaken a thorough investigation into the matter, so how can officials claim that there is an absence of racial profiling? In a state and metropolitan region in which racial profiling has been proven to be widespread, the ASU administration’s lack of concern for the well-being of an ASU community member of color is unacceptable.

Given that the mission of the ASU Police Department is, “To enhance the quality of life by providing a safe and secure environment through professional and proactive law enforcement services in partnership with the University community,” this incident clearly warrants further inquiry from ASU.  We ask the ASU administration to conduct a comprehensive investigation into this matter as well as an audit on the conduct of its police force vis-à-vis racial profiling.  How can ASU ensure a safe, secure, and just environment for its faculty, students, and staff if it disclaims any responsibility for the actions of ASU police officers? The following questions should be starting points for its audit: In the ASU Police Department, what training is in place to ensure that its police officers are knowledgeable and well-trained to be in compliance with laws prohibiting racial profiling and excessive force? What monitoring systems exist to ensure accountability? How does the department respond to racial profiling complaints?

Dr. Ore, the ASU community, and the broader public deserve a full and just investigation into this incident.

Arizona Critical Ethnic Studies is a network of college and university educators and independent scholars throughout Arizona.

Contact: AZCriticalEthnicStudies@gmail.com

Cosigned by:

National Council of Teachers of English/Conference on College Composition and Communication Latino Caucus

National Council of Teachers of English/Conference on College Composition and Communication Black Caucus

National Council of Teachers of English/Conference on College Composition and Communication American Indian Caucus

National Council of Teachers of English/Conference on College Composition and Communication Queer Caucus

National Council of Teachers of English/Conference on College Composition and Communication Asian/Asian American Caucus

National Association of Multicultural Education

National Association for Multicultural Education, California Chapter

Arcus Center for Social Justice Leadership, Kalamazoo College

Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona

Greater Phoenix Urban League

American Friends Service Committee of Arizona

Critical Ethnic Studies Association Working Committee

Pittsburgh Collaborative for Working Class Studies

Women, Gender, & Sexuality Studies at Oregon State University

Third Woman Press Collective

SAFE Groups (Sexual Assault Forums for Every Veteran and Civilian)

Save Wįyąbi Project

Grandmothers of the Light, Inc., A California 501(c)3 charity

Facundo Element

Against Equality

LGBT Books to Prisoners

Multiracial Americans of Southern California

Reflections: A Journal of Public Rhetoric, Civic Writing, and Service Learning

Association of American Indian Premedical Warriors

 

136 Responses to Statement of Concern from Arizona Critical Ethnic Studies

  1. Shaun Thomas-Arnold says:

    A good statement, written with facts and genuine concern rather than hatefulness and unruly accusations. I will definitely share this and look into further action.

    • Marshata Randall says:

      So you want something to tickle your ear????

    • Mike says:

      God you’re stupid. Facts? Yes, because one was black and one was white its automatically racial profiling, EVEN THOUGH she broke the law, broke it again by refusing to provide ID, and broke it AGAIN by resisting arrest (Funnily enough, once you’ve tried to resist arrest, the cop won’t say “OHH!! You’ve tried hard enough, here you go, go free!”.

      Liberalism is a mental disorder

      • Thinking it through says:

        If your point is that it’s too quick to jump to the conclusion there was racial profiling, I’d like to think you could have made it without calling anyone names. But then again, maybe I’m wrong?

        “Liberalism is a mental disorder.”

        Or it’s political view held by people with beliefs that differ than yours, perhaps because their experiences are different from yours? Of course, if that were the case, it would be a view one would have to consider, weighing the evidence and reasons for and against, then doing the same for other views, and comparing the results, reaching a conclusion with confidence proportionate to the extent of one’s evidence, taking into account that we’re all working with incomplete information.

        Some might find that exercise difficult and uncomfortable, and find it easier and more comfortable to say liberals smell bad and dress funny, and leave it at that. Others might find it challenging but important and interesting, though perhaps not one to which they can give a lot of time, given all the other demands on their time and attention. I wouldn’t call the later group “stupid”, but of course, your mileage may vary.

        Peace.

      • Thinking it through says:

        I forgot to add that people who are most definitely _not_ liberals, might nonetheless be greatly concerned about constitutional rights such as equal protection of the laws, the right of the people to be secure in their persons … and … against unreasonable … seizures, etc.

        And given past findings of racial profiling by police departments, all based on a careful analysis of the data, such people might be greatly concerned if Ersula Ore’s rights were violated.

        I don’t know how anyone on any side of this issue can be confident on the racial profiling issue without further information. It might be premature to judge, and perhaps people are jumping to conclusions, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a legitimate question to consider and investigate. No?

      • Showing ID is not required. says:

        You don’t legally have to show ID if stopped ON FOOT by an officer. You must state your full legal name, but you are not obligated to display identification. If you are found to give a false name, that is grounds for arrest. If you are on a bicycle or in a car, that’s different, but she was a pedestrian. It should be noted that jay-walking is also not illegal, so the officer had no grounds to stop her and was in fact incorrect in his reasoning and unreasonable in his demands.

        That being said, as soon as she resisted arrest, the tables turn. If you’re wrongly arrested then it’s all well and good for you and while the cop may not be severely reprimanded you will be cleared of charges and vindicated. But resisting arrest, even if it’s wrongful, is itself a crime.

  2. Shirley Rose says:

    Thank you for drafting this statement of concern. I share your concern and I support this call for a comprehensive investigation into this incident as well as an audit on the conduct of its police force vis-à-vis racial profiling.

  3. Elias Serna says:

    I know Dr. Ore personally as she moderated a panel on rhetoric and rights a few years back. She is an outstanding person and scholar whom I and my colleagues hold in great respect. It is tragic that she is undergoing this procedure and we hope for the moral high ground to be found.
    Police self-investigation, history teaches, is a paradox. Recently, LAPD Police Chief Bratton made an announcement based on an “internal investigation” this Summer: “The LAPD does not racially profile.” But if we took that for granted it would not stop the majority of motorists being pulled over from being Black, Brown or persons of lower and working class with beat up cars. The statement does not make me feel any different the numerous times I’ve been wrongfully pulled over, searched, and once thrown in jail for “stealing my own car” outside of Cal State Northridge. Racial profiling is a reality too often and tragically only understood by people of color. We need to evolve as a society.

    • jill says:

      I am sorry this happened to the professor, but if she would have just given her ID over to the officer it wouldnt have happened. I feel that some people think they are above the law, just I understand that the police and others do racial profiling, but if the you show respect and comply with simple orders most people would be released no harm really done only a bit of embarrassment of being pulled over.
      I have been pulled over several times and I mind my manners, speak to the officer with respect and follow orders, I am always let go with a warning. it pays to have manners and to show an officer respect.

      • Kim says:

        My question to you would be: does the citizen not deserve respect from the officer? Is he above the law, also? She was not required to show ID, only to give her name if asked. She was not asked for a name. She was upset because of disrespectful remarks that the officer made to her before ever asking for her ID. She asked him to speak to her in a more respectful manner and requested that he hear her out.

        Another question not specifically to you but to all: would anyone be questioning the officer’s overreaction if he were a black man throwing Ersula Ore, white woman, to the ground for resisting a jaywalking arrest in a construction zone that forces pedestrians into the street?

        • Thinking it through says:

          “She asked him to speak to her in a more respectful manner and requested that he hear her out.”

          Yes, she did. Unfortunately, as a matter of law, “he was not being as respectful as he should have been and didn’t hear me out” isn’t a defense against a felony count of resisting arrest.

          I wish, for her sake, she hadn’t resisted and instead had filed a complaint against the officer, and if, on the advice of counsel she thought it warranted, sued for wrongful arrest. If the officer was disrespectful, he should be sanctioned. And he might still be. But that’s no help to Ersula now.

  4. Sheryda Tucker says:

    I am outraged as a parent of a graduate from ASU. My daughter, who is African American or Black, graduated with honors and after reading this article, I’m just ashamed at how an ASU police officer would racially profile a woman as they did. It is 2014. What could she have done to merit being thrown against a vehicle and forced to the ground where she was exposed. There is no excuse for her treatment, no matter what reason given and if ASU doesn’t look into this matter fully and properly, heads need to roll.

  5. Elenore Long says:

    It’s one thing to prevent situations like this. It’s another to find ourselves in the throes of such circumstances, asking what it means to respond humanely. I commend this commission’s call for due process not merely in its technical sense but in its most robust sense where it has the capacity to mete out justice and rectify abuse.

  6. Patricia Sullivan says:

    Thank you for the statement of concern.
    I know Prof. Ore through conferences and her work as a reviewer for Peitho (a journal on women in the history of Rhetoric and Composition). She is generous national colleague and I hope the Arizona State University intercedes to protect her as a valued faculty member, especially since their police force was involved.
    I share Prof. Rose’s support of a call for a comprehensive investigation of the incident as well as an audit of the conduct of Arizona State University police vis-à-vis racial profiling.

  7. Bishop Dr Metcalff president of National Action Network Arizona chapter stand in support of Dr.ersula ore.Arizona professor experiencing excessive force from the Arizona State University Police Department we are calling for a federal investigation into this matter.we are outrage, at the conduct
    this police officer.we don’t believe this would have happened to a white woman.we will also work to ensure this never happens again on campus.

    • Stanley Rich, Ph.D. says:

      Dr. Jeff Metcalff, while I agree with your message (I think), I must ask, were you heavily intoxicated/medicated when you wrote this?

      Frankly, were I one of your colleagues, I would be embarrassed that you represented your institution and mine in such a manner. Good heavens, proofread your prose, man! You are representing yourself and speaking on behalf of the National Action Network.

    • Marshata Randall says:

      You are clearly ON POINT with this post!

    • Thinking it through says:

      “We don’t believe this would have happened to a white woman.”

      May I ask, why not? I’m not disagreeing. I’m only asking for the evidence you base that on.

      As I mentioned below, I would have thought some statistical analysis was required, for example the ratio of jaywalking citations given in that vicinity to blacks, whites, women and men as compared to their prevalence in the area, with a sample size big enough to draw statistically significant inferences, or similar ratios involving the force used to detain a person who is resisting being cuffed, etc etc. No?

      • Laurinda Reynolds says:

        The statistical analysis you suggest is insufficient and a sufficient analysis is impossible because the truly relevant data cannot be obtained. The relevant data would be how many individuals and of which demographic groups an officer DID NOT stop compared to how many individuals and of which demographic groups the officer did stop, and subsequently an analysis of the the approach and outcome of each stop the officer did make.

        Furthermore, in order to make any kind of generalizations of the data, it would have to be correlated to the demographic profile of the officer and the study would have to be repeated across many officers of various demographic groups to analyze for correlations between officers demographics and who they do and do not stop, and how they stop them.

        Some bloggers have mentioned that Ms Ore could have responded differently. Obviously those individuals aren’t truly immersed in ethnic studies so I don’t know what they are doing in this blog. People who truly understand the phenomena of racial profiling know that although laws may be written to describe what racial profiling is, the phenomena itself is actually a legacy cultivated by fear that is passed down through generations in minority groups and sub-groups of the majority that have been suppressed, repressed, persecuted, etc.

        Even the most educated and peaceful man or woman carrying this historic memory may have to work hard to calm their mind and resist their own “fight or flight” instincts. I don’t know if this is what Dr Ore experienced and from what I saw and heard on the recording I won’t even try to make a case for if she did or did not do anything wrong because it is irrelevant as far as I am concerned.

        What is relevant is that an officer used an authoritative and intimidating approach in a situation when just saying “are you okay can I help you?” would have been sufficient. His approach turned what should have been a simple stop into a horrific incident. Approach is what sets a PEACE officer apart from an Police Officer or Officer of the Law. The officer who stopped her was policing.

        • Thinking it through says:

          “The statistical analysis you suggest is insufficient and a sufficient analysis is impossible because the truly relevant data cannot be obtained.”

          So none of us are in a reasonable position to hold a confident view, one way or the other?

          • Laurinda Reynolds says:

            It depends on how you personally define “confident” and “reasonable”. If you are asking me if irrefutable statistics can be produced to support either side, my answer is no. Both sides could present convincing statistics to support their view and whichever side has the best statistical mind and persuasive attorney would come out on top.

            Statistics are plagued with confounds, some inadvertent and unforeseeable, some due to limitation such as this, and others may even be subconsciously created by omission to support a researcher’s hypothesis. That is why responsible researchers design studies with the intention to do everything they can to disprove their own hypothesis.

            The only way there can be justice in this situation is if both Dr Ore and the officer are treated with compassion. Both their reputations are being scrutinized. It is obvious Dr Ore is experiencing repercussions of the living legacy of racial profiling. I don’t know what his underlying problem is, but I don’t need to. Someone in authority at ASU should be accountable because the officer either didn’t receive enough of the right training or because hiring department didn’t screen a person with a counterproductive personality out during recruitment.

            I feel for both of them as individuals, but the problem is that ASU has taken the officer’s side, obviously out of liability concerns, and that is just wrong. For a university promoting diversity and bragging about having the first School of Social Transformation in the US, that is just wrong.

        • Thinking it through says:

          I’ve been thinking about your reference to “a legacy cultivated by fear that is passed down through generations in minority groups and sub-groups of the majority that have been suppressed, repressed, persecuted, etc.” as a result of which “even the most educated and peaceful man or woman carrying this historic memory may have to work hard to calm their mind and resist their own ‘fight or flight’ instincts.”

          Like you, I don’t want to speculate, but that does strike me as a possible explanation for her resisting arrest and assaulting an officer (_if_ that’s what she did) after she was forcibly arrested.

          Or perhaps the was some other social pathology at play (e.g. a legacy of fear and violence that women have experienced at the hands of men), which would provide a similar explanation.

          If she did/does have some sort of psychological/emotional issue resulting from such legacies, that might be the kind of thing a judge would consider when sentencing her, especially if there’s expert testimony documenting her condition. So, yes, I think you’ve got an important point there.

          • Laurinda Reynolds says:

            Is it a “psychological/emotional issue” that prevents you from being able to grasp that in either case this is a constructed social condition or “social pathology” as you put it. We all live this historic legacy of the oppressed and the oppressors. Few individuals transcend the legacy. Whether an individual inherits either side of the legacy is a travesty for the individual and future generations of all humanity.

            As to whether Dr Ore being a woman has anything to do with her response, how could it not. Just as the officer’s being a member of the culture of policing cannot be separated from him being a member of the advantaged majority by race and gender.

            Indeed, women were the first oppressed group due to periods of physical vulnerability throughout primitive times. Here in the Americas the indigenous tribes became civilized and maintained gender equality socially and politically, until Europeans arrived. In Europe and the Mediterranean societies of gender equality were eventually oppressed and from the beginning of recorded “his”stories, women of oppressing and oppressed cultures have been treated as non-people and property, slaves bound to the will of their husbands and fathers.

            In historic writings, even Aristotle and Plato endorsed denying women the right to birth control, but it wasn’t under the guise of “pro-life” then. Men claimed the right to see every offspring they sired so they could commit infanticide if it had imperfect characteristics or was not the sex the wanted. Of course that was followed by Christianity’s witch trials, which pretty much wiped out the last of the indigenous societies maintaining gender equality at the time.

            Things may look different today because oppression has many new disguises contrived to rationalize oppression and impoverishment, and maintain the oppressor’s status-quot. Of course what better way to maintain oppression that to deny minorities and minorities withing the majority birth control. For this reason, women’s issues and issues of ethnicity and culture are inseparable. My point is that your implication that Dr Ore was reacting like a threatened woman not to racial profiling is invalid.

            I agree, on some level every woman knows the fear of being overpowered or raped by a man, but we all react differently to it. Some can freeze and hope they will not be torn apart and others will fight to the death. Does either woman have a “psychological/emotional issue”? NO. Likewise, when men come back from war, after seeing and doing similar horrific things, some have PTSD and others do not. Does either group of men have a “psychological/emotional issue”? NO.

            If you really want to understand why human beings react to threat and trauma differently you must study neuroscience, the relationship between the amygdala and the hippocampus is a good place to start. In sociopaths the two are totally disassociated and at the other end of the spectrum are the people do not have any degree of dissociation, the people who freeze like a mouse when threatened and also find it difficult to psychologically move beyond a traumatic life experience or legacy, such as this.

            The spectrum in between has a myriad of behavioral manifestations. I would probably find myself in a similar spectrum to Dr Ore, or maybe more extreme since I was robbed a knife-point once and slammed the man’s hand in the register drawer, and then ran him out of the shop screaming and yelling at him as he dropped much of the money.

            I would also speculate that someday, neuroscience is likely to prove that all people who rationalize why the victim deserved the treatment they received at the hands of an oppressor are more on the sociopath side of the spectrum. Primitive survival instincts and the fear of not having enough (hording resources) are still so strong in modern times that intelligent educated people still rational oppressive behaviors, and in courts of law and the court of public opinion, pervert justice, undermine civilized behavior, and social transformation.

  8. Mindy says:

    I am DEEPLY disturbed that a) Dr. Ore was the victim of police abuse; and b) that some press and (horrifyingly) her own university are twisting the facts and blaming the victim. There is no question in my mind that there is racial profiling going on in this situation, and moreover, that the conservative media is in cahoots with the state to present Dr. Ore as incompetent and maybe a bit crazy(“why was she walking in the street”), thus validating their incompetent police. Sadly while this incident is outrageous, the political context – with a right-wing anti-immigrant Governor who supports the rights of citizens to carry concealed guns in bars and restaurants – lays the foundation for incident like this. It appears that Dr. Ore was not told what she had done to be detained, and the demand of identification was not warranted. I’m just sorry that she and many other people of color must live with this harassment and injustice in their day to day lives. I only hope that this incident (among many) will fire up protest and resistance, a necessary step towards living in a just society.

    • Thinking it through says:

      “There is no question in my mind that there is racial profiling going on in this situation.”

      Why isn’t there a question in your mind?

      I’m envious if you’ve found conclusive evidence while I’m sitting here frustrated wishing I knew the answer.

      As I’ve said, twice now, I would have thought some statistical analysis was required, for example the ratio of jaywalking citations given in that vicinity to blacks, whites, women and men as compared to their prevalence in the area, with a sample size big enough to draw statistically significant inferences, or similar ratios involving the force used to detain a person who is resisting being cuffed, etc etc. No?

  9. Anthony Douglas says:

    University response to this is horrific. If, as they say, she was “Off Campus” at the time, so they aren’t liable, then what was the ASU Police Officer’s jurisdiction even “stopping” her off campus? They can’t have it both ways!

  10. Linda Thompson says:

    I’m a white, fifth generation American whose daughter has been accepted to ASU.

    After this breach of civil decency by ASU employees, and especially after ASU’s response, my daughter will NOT be attending ASU this fall….or ever.

    Disgusting!

    • A. Ansari says:

      You have stated a plan of action that expresses the humiliating and horrifying pain that Dr. Ore was subjected to on that one evening near ASU campus. Boycotting has always been a meaningful tool to use when trying to resolve injustices.

  11. Carole Boyce Davies says:

    Having taught on two occasions a course which read and studied differential modes of police enforcing. Incarceration and ongoing racializing of black populations via the prison industry, I know that students and faculty always assume that somehow the university provided some safety and a sense of fair treatment, though we know there are ongoing disparities. So this is a sad historical moment, but also a reality check. Thankfully there is the ubiquitous camera footage now. Thank you of providing this statement and clarification. I predict a substantial settlement but nothing can repay one’s dignity after being humilitated in this way. Malcolm X had an interesting comeback on whether or not a Ph.D immune some from being racialized.

  12. Esther Newton says:

    If the cop didn’t like her walking in the street why couldn’t he just ask her to get back on the sidewalk. The fact that he apparently didn’t and instead asked for I.d. Makes it racial profiling most likely. Disgusting,demeaning and sexist conduct by the police.

    • Thinking it through says:

      “If the cop didn’t like her walking in the street why couldn’t he just ask her to get back on the sidewalk. The fact that he apparently didn’t and instead asked for I.d. Makes it racial profiling most likely.”

      No, it doesn’t. Not by itself.

    • Thinking it through says:

      “If the cop didn’t like her walking in the street why couldn’t he just ask her to get back on the sidewalk.”

      He claims he did:

      “According to the police report, ASU Police initially spoke to Ore because officers patrolling the area nearly hit her with their police vehicle as they turned the vehicle onto College Avenue to investigate a disabled vehicle. Officer Stewart Ferrin had no intention of citing or arresting Ore, but for her safety told her to walk on the sidewalk…. Ore refused.”

      https://asunews.asu.edu/20140630-ersula-ore

      • Laurinda Reynolds says:

        Her word against his. Benefit of the doubt goes to her or at least it should if we are truly innocent until proven guilty. If she was truly that uncooperative he should have turned on the recorder sooner. Instead he is free to write whatever he wants in the report that his partner agrees to.

        • Thinking it through says:

          “Her word against his. Benefit of the doubt goes to her or at least it should if we are truly innocent until proven guilty.”

          The presumption of innocence means only that the burden is on the prosecution to first present evidence of guilt upon which a reasonable jury could convict the accused, and if the prosecution fails, the defendant must be acquitted, as a matter of law, without having to present a case. It doesn’t mean that when there’s conflicting testimony, a court or jury is required to accept the testimony of the accused over the testimony of a witness for the prosecution, such as a police officer.

  13. This is incredible. Absolutely no clear or present danger to anyone (except perhaps herself). A member of the professoriate is crossing street, avoiding construction, as many other pedestrians are doing. Officer singles her out, demands ID (she points out to him that others are doing same and why is he targeting her). She speaks respectfully and calmly. There is nothing to signal any threat or danger. And he, rather than simply saying “please move out of traffic” decides to escalate the situation, throwing her to the ground even after she asks, “Do you see what I am wearing?” The only physical thing she does to him is AFTER being wrestled to the ground wearing a skirt and being handcuffed, and officer touches her bare leg and she kicks him away. That’s it. ASU finds no wrongdoing on part of police.

    David Palumbo-Liu, Louise Hewlett Nixon Professor, Stanford

    • Thinking it through says:

      “Rather than simply saying ‘please move out of traffic’ decides to escalate the situation, throwing her to the ground.”

      Clarification please. Did the officer “escalate the situation” by asking her for her ID? Or was it the “throwing her to the ground”? Those two points are closely linked.

      I wouldn’t have thought asking for ID was by itself an escalation, but perhaps I’m wrong?

      If it wasn’t an escalation to ask for her ID, and she refused to provide it, is the officer guilty of escalating the situation if he doesn’t let her go, and instead detains her until her identity can be ascertained so that he may write a citation for an infraction he witnessed? If that is an escalation, is it one that’s “incredible”?

      If she physically resists detention, is that an escalation for which _she’s_ responsible?

      Is it an escalation if the officer uses the minimum force required to detain her?

      Did the officer use more than the minimum amount of force? That would most certainly be an escalation, but I’m wondering at what point you think he could have cuffed her with less, or how he might have done so, given the way she can be seen to be physically resisting.

      As a Stanford Professor with an endowed chair, I’m hoping you could take a few minutes to explain, so that anyone who reads this blog might have the benefit of your insights.

      • Laurinda Reynolds says:

        Sadly, we don’t know who you are but what is obvious is that you do not understand that this is what happens as a result of the legacy of racial profiling. There shouldn’t have to be laws against racial profiling half a century after Civil Rights were passed, but the work that was started was never finished.

      • Jose Torres says:

        Dude…Did you see the video? No? Those comments critical of Professor Ore’s response to the officer of yours? Yeah, you’re gonna wanna take them back if you aspire for integrity.

        • Thinking it through says:

          I wish I’d been able to find a video of the entire incident. The one video I’ve seen is an incomplete clip from what seemed to be a dash cam. If you have a link to a video of the incident from the moment she was approached to the moment the office tried to cuff her, I’d be most grateful.

    • Thinking it through says:

      “Rather than simply saying ‘please move out of traffic’ [the officer] decides to escalate the situation.”

      That’s not what the police report says.

      “According to the police report, ASU Police initially spoke to Ore because officers patrolling the area nearly hit her with their police vehicle as they turned the vehicle onto College Avenue to investigate a disabled vehicle. Officer Stewart Ferrin had no intention of citing or arresting Ore, but for her safety told her to walk on the sidewalk…. Ore refused.”

      https://asunews.asu.edu/20140630-ersula-ore

      Maybe they’re lying. It wouldn’t be the first time police falsified a report to cover their asses. Then again, maybe the automatic dash cam and audio recorder they have in the cruisers will back them up.

      If they’re lying, let’s hope the officers are dismissed, charged and convicted. If they’re not lying, Ersula pretty much dug her grave from the get-go and isn’t likely to get much sympathy from the court so far as sentencing goes.

      Or perhaps you, David Palumbo-Liu, the Louise Hewlett Nixon Professor of Comparative Literature at Stanford University, already know what’s on the video/audio recording of those first few moments of the encounter? I envy you. It takes me so much longer to learn such things.

  14. Laurinda Reynolds says:

    ASU’s statement that the ASUPD officers were not inappropriate shows the disparity between the “new” ASU’s approach to diversity recruitment and reality. Until ASU’s aspirations and the actions of ASUPD match, it’s a farce. This is a stark example, but throughout my first year at ASU I observed similar contradictions, e.g., during the month recognizing women I attended an event on the flyer promoting the events. It was at the MU it turned out that a middle-aged white male was the speaker. Academically, at least in the health professions, I have observed how professors inadvertently sabotage the success of underrepresented minorities, using outdated teaching and syllabi pedagogy and “teaching to the top” of their classes. Furthermore, the financial programs to recruit diversity seem to abandon students after the first year and in the Health Professions, ASU has failed to qualify for HRSA and other national programs that offer tuition forgiveness to help improve the ratio of minority health professional serving their own communities.

  15. Verónica Solís says:

    ASU had me at providing tuition for Starbucks employees. They should take care and treat their faculty delivering these courses with respect.

  16. Katherine Heenan says:

    I share the commission’s concerns as well as those of others shared here. I fully support this call for a comprehensive investigation into this incident as well as an audit on the conduct of ASU’s police force vis-à-vis racial profiling.

  17. Maria Herrera-Sobek says:

    Hi Lucha,
    Thanks for your comments/endorsements.
    I will try to call you this weekend.
    Maria

  18. MAPB says:

    Mothers Against Police Brutality, supports professor Ore.

    • Meghan says:

      Dear MAPB, if your organization would like to sign on to the statement, please email azcriticalethnicstudies@gmail.com.

    • Thinking it through says:

      “Mothers Against Police Brutality, supports professor Ore.”

      May I ask why, at this juncture? I could well be a strong advocate for her, depending on the evidence. But I’m finding it hard to find evidence at this point which clearly favors one side or the other. If you’ve managed to do better than me, I’d be grateful if you would share.

      • Laurinda Reynolds says:

        There you go again. Basing your position on an incomplete audio and video recording and trying to convince someone who has a personal connection to this issue that Dr Ore is at fault. It isn’t going to happen.

        • Thinking it through says:

          “There you go again. Basing your position on an incomplete audio and video recording”

          Given that my position is that I’m not in a position to know what happened because I’ve only seen an incomplete audio and video recording, I think I’m pretty safe ground there. No?

          “And trying to convince someone who has a personal connection to this issue that Dr Ore is at fault.”

          I wasn’t trying to convince Meghan of anything. I asked her if she had more information she could share.

          • Laurinda Reynolds says:

            Obviously I have been following you very closely.

            My perception of what you are doing is going from post to post working to undermine confidence, belittle, intimidate, or deflate the reaction of bloggers supporting Dr Ore on this post. Your are doing it all under the guise of wanting to understand, using academic and legal vocabulary, but choosing to remain anonymous, both by name and credential.

            We all use cognitive labeling to manage the vast amount of information we collect through our life experience. We do it for objects, concepts, and people. I am filing you away in my cerebral cortex as a troublemaker. A person who may be intelligent, but ignorant, indoctrinated into “letter of the law” beyond the ability to comprehend abstract concepts, and/or self serving in this blog/issue.

  19. yelsew says:

    It seems to be that she could have shown a little more contrition and avoided all this nonsense.

    • Laurinda Reynolds says:

      Don’t hide behind a gender/ethnically neutral alias. Are you a man or a woman?

      In either case, how do you rationalize your perspective. Did you watch the whole video include listening to how the officer approached her? Is your ignorance rooted in a patriarchal, conservative-religious view? Or have you voluntarily abdicated your intellectual and social responsibility to our “benevolent patriarchal society”? Yes I was being sarcastic.

      Contrition! Really? That is a concept from the dark ages and the witch trials.

      • Stanley Rich, Ph.D. says:

        Laurinda Reynolds, were you taught to argue through strawman and ad hominem attacks? Do you believe that the more lazy, slipshod method of debunking an argument through attacking its source makes your own any stronger? It matters not with whom you are arguing, but rather with what she (or he) is saying.

        Were she a woman of color, would her argument have any more or less merit because of that fact? Were his argument NOT rooted in a patriarchal, conservative-religious view, would that have any bearing at all on its veracity? Of course it wouldn’t! His argument is weak, and it can be debunked by sticking to the point. By doing so, you won’t make your own position appear weak by displaying a need to marginalize some anonymous stranger’s character.

        • Laurinda Reynolds says:

          Dear Stanley Rich, PhD. Sr VP and University Planner.

          No, I wasn’t taught to do any of that, but I am astute. Why are you doing that to me? Since you are so well versed in those concepts was it intentional or was it unintentional projection? Or, given your position at ASU, are you using my second comment as a platform to discredit my earlier comment about the “new” ASU?

          My motivation was not to have any effect on the person who made the comment at all. They are lost. It was to vent my own justifiable anger, which of course all good little girls are taught to suppress, but it is my right. I am a grandmother with a diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural background who is angry with the fact that Civil Rights and Women’s Rights are regressing and now the children and young people of today are going through the same inequities all over again, they just look different from when I was a child growing up in the south in the 50s and 60s. The media no longer obligated to be unbiased and much more adept at spin.

          So here is a constructive comment from a grandmother student to the university. After returning to school in my 50s, it became very clear to me that academia persists in cultivating patriarchy and in fact has contributed to the regression by persisting in writing, publishing, and teaching a version of “his”story biased by omission. As a result, most young women in college today, and I have discussed this subject with many, have no idea of what their mother, grandmothers, and great-grandmothers lived through.

          To fix this, early college and university prerequisites should allow students, male and female, to take women’s or other ethnic history to satisfy the American history prerequisite until a truly equitable course and textbook, incorruptible by the views or ignorance of the lecturer, is available. When that changes, there will be hope for true lasting change. Academia shapes the American story and worldview and an educational institution receiving federal funds should be required to do it honestly and equitably.

      • Graz says:

        Why, “Laurinda Reynolds,” do you need to know a writer’s ethnicity or gender to respond to their remarks? Regardless of my opinions on this unfortunate situation, your opening salvo toward “yelsew” are unwarranted and mark you in my book to be a profiler yourself.

        • Laurinda Reynolds says:

          The contrition statement really pushed my buttons and in retrospect, I could have made my point more skillfully. However, two wrongs don’t make it right so please don’t profile me as a profiler because that is not my motivation.

          I am very sensitive to how our right to free speech is exploited by internet and media anonymity, e.g., Political Action Committees and the individuals with financial and partisan interests behind them. Someone who is not under threat of retaliation and who is telling the truth does not need to hide who they are. If someone does feel threatened, then they should make it known as a preface to their anonymous statement so people are aware of the seriousness of the situation.

          Obviously that’s my opinion not law, but we can’t have our cake and eat it to. Anyone concerned about PACs needs to contemplate individual anonymity in electronic media and free speech as well.

    • Elizabeth Moon says:

      “Contrition” for what? That is a religious term, completely inappropriate in this context. Whether or not she “assaulted” an officer is one of the points at issue; from the evidence, she was one assaulted, and her one movement of resistance came when a male officer who had exposed her lower body touched her bare leg. ANY woman in like circumstances would expect a sexual assault and most would resist it.

      If anyone has sinned in this (the context of contrition) it is the police officer who manhandled her and forced her to the ground, exposing her body to public view. Or do you think police officers ought to go around throwing women down and yanking up their skirts? What if they threw men down and yanked down their trousers?

      The police behavior was entirely wrong.

      • Thinking it through says:

        “Contrition’ … is a religious term.”

        Actually, it’s note. Take for example FIFA’s explanation for sanctioning Luis Suárez so severely. It was the third time he bit someone in competition, and yet he tried to deny it rather than showing “contrition” (as FIFA put it). They weren’t using the word in a religious sense.

        The origin of a word is often an unreliable guide to its meaning. I think they call it the “etymological fallacy”.

        Then again, maybe I’m wrong?

        • Laurinda Reynolds says:

          The meaning of “contrition” like all words in an individual’s vocabulary are based on a personal lexicon accumulated over a lifetime of learning and experience. Outside of a court of law, any one person’s personal definition of a word or the definition from a dictionary is subjective and cannot be imposed on any human being. I am referring to a concept that goes beyond freedom of speech, it is freedom to think which underlies the production of speech.

  20. yelsew says:

    Btw there was no need for her to assault that officer.

    • Serenity*1 says:

      There was also no need for those officers to conduct themselves in the manner in which they did. So you are wearing rose colored glasses?

    • Jose Torres says:

      First, “Yeslew” thinks reversing “Wesley” is a brilliant way to achieve anonymity. Second, Yeslew is leaving food out so that people will feed the Trolls. Trying to feed the Trolls is like screaming “Because!!!?!?!” when someone asks why – those individuals are often bereft of more intelligent discourse than, “Because!!!?!?” – and hence, plenty of food for Trolls. Please don’t feed the Trolls – Equality is far too important for Troll food.

  21. Kimberly says:

    I have known Ersula since elementary school and am disgusted, and in tears that something so horrible could happen to such a wonderful person. I pray that a full investigations are conducted and justiced is served immediately. There is no justifcation for what took place.

    • Maria Maciak says:

      Please let us all know via Facebook and other means what support/action network is being formed. My colleagues and friends are disgusted how ASU, local media and others are suggesting that Ersula should have not defended herself and was in some way provoking these pigs. In solidarity let us take action against the brutal, humiliating police behaviors.

  22. Lacey Sloan, MSSW, Ph.D. says:

    Seems ASU like arresting women of color. The Department of Social Work organizes stings of prostitutes which can and has resulted in women loosing their housing and employment–way to “help.” Also serious ethical concerns about violations of the Belmont Report as the women arrested are coerced into participating. definitely sad to see ASU join the state of Arizona in their racist law enforcement policies.

  23. Sterling Vinson, Ph.D. says:

    I support the call for a thorough, impartial investigation.

  24. Maria Maciak says:

    Sickening.

    These cops are racist, misogynist oppressive pigs and cannot be allowed to reign their intimidation. Brutal cops all over the US are being allowed to abuse their power. Police force in its current structure should not exist. They humiliate and attack people meanwhile citizens pay they salaries. What actions are we taking?

    The raw video showing the attack:
    http://www.azfamily.com/video/raw/Raw-video-ASU-professor-arrested-after-struggle-with-police-265002461.html

    • Thinking it through says:

      “These cops are racist, misogynist oppressive pigs.”

      How do you know?

      Perhaps you could share the evidence you have, so that I too could know?

  25. S!ick says:

    http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/28/01595.htm states it is mandatory to show identification…when driving. I have been unable to locate any statute where citizens are required by law to present identification otherwise.

    • Thinking it through says:

      “It is mandatory to show identification…when driving. I have been unable to locate any statute where citizens are required by law to present identification otherwise.”

      Unless an office witnesses you commit and infraction and asks for ID to write a citation. If you refuse, you can rightly expect to be detained until the office can ascertain your identity. Otherwise, by refusing to provide ID, pedestrians would have, in effect, a license to break any law with impunity.

      You’re confusing a “Terry-Stop” (investigative detention) with a “stop and cite”. Two very different circumstances. If a police officer sees someone randomly, or even someone they have reason to_suspect_ of having done something illegal, they can stop that person briefly, ask questions, even cuff them while they search for weapons to ensure their safety, but one has absolutely no obligation to answer those questions of provide ID.

      However, if a police officer _witnesses_ you commit an infraction, and stops you to write a citation, you either have to show valid ID or accept that you’ll be detained until they figure out who you are.

      It’s pretty basic, no?

      • Laurinda Reynolds says:

        If you watch the video beyond him pushing her to the ground to get he cuffs on, there is a recording and transcript of what happened first.

        The officer said “Let me see your ID or you will be arrested for failure to provide ID.” asked her for her ID because he was going to write her a citation for not providing her ID. He did not state he wanted her ID so he could write her a citation for jaywalking or any other violation he had observed. She said “Are you serious” and he said “Yes I am serious that is the law and if you don’t understand the law I am the law to you.”

        Based on your description it sounds more like a Terry-Stop to me. He didn’t mention she had been walking down the street till after it escalated.

        • Thinking it through says:

          “He did not state he wanted her ID so he could write her a citation for jaywalking or any other violation he had observed.”

          Maria Maciak provided a link, above, to a video and a partial transcript of the conversation. According to that article, _before_ asking for her ID, the officer said “the reason I’m talking to you right now is because you are walking in the middle of the street.”

          Is your point that she could not reasonably have been expected to know that walking in the middle of the street is a violation, and hence the officer is blameworthy for failing to inform her of that fact?

          Or is your point that if an officer witnesses her walking down the middle of the street, says that’s why he stopped her, and then asks for ID, that she could not reasonably have been expected to know that the request for ID was predicated upon his having witnessed her walking down the middle of the street?

          Sometimes the police don’t explicitly threaten to cite a person before asking for ID, it being understood that they could. And the reason they don’t explicitly threaten to cite is because they might let the person go so long as there aren’t any outstanding parking tickets, etc. That’s usually the only circumstances in which they’ll let someone go with a warning. But I would have thought everyone knew that if a police officer witnesses you walking down the middle of the street, stops you, says that’s why, and asks for ID, that the request for ID is predicated on the fact he just witnessed you walk down the middle of the street. No?

          • Laurinda Reynolds says:

            The words I quoted in my post were direct quotes from the transcript in that video and his statement about walking in the street came after his statement telling her he wanted to write her a ticket for refusing to provide her ID.

            In general, my point was that the situation is complicated and without a panoramic video of everything that happened, starting from the officer’s first steps, the expression on his face, and his physical posturing as he approached her, and his first to final words and actions, the information will be incomplete. Communication between to people is more than words that can be heard.

            That is why I keep coming back to ASU’s responsibility in this. If the officer had special training, what was he trained to do, and were his actions in accord with that training? If he did not have special training to help him approach individuals from minority groups, why didn’t he? Was he given guidelines for exercising his discretion in training or by the department? What are the guidelines? Did he follow those guidelines?

            This is not an open and shut case based on the video alone.

  26. Seanic says:

    Seems the lady got more government than she wanted.

    Which seems strange, as I am sure she is very supportive of more government.

    • Thinking it through says:

      Another non-sequitur.

      • Laurinda Reynolds says:

        For those wondering, non-sequitur means a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement (per Google).

        Hopefully this explanation is unnecessary but some of your comments are so literal maybe you missed it. The guy was not trying to be logical, it was a derogatory remark based on the idea that Dr Ore is probably liberal and as such, she is in favor of more government.

  27. Dwain P. says:

    21st Century-Racial Profiling: First, pass “tough on crime” laws to give law enforcement wide legal justification to stop people based on “probable cause” or “safety” concerns. (e.g., Arizona is a “stop-and-identify” law state–SS2014). Second, use these powers to disproportionately stop people of color (POC) for ANY legal reason. Third, use the stressful encounter to make a lawful order like asking for identification or search. The racial profiling officer then hopes for one or more of these: 1. The POC doesn’t understand her or his rights; 2. The POC has an outstanding ticket or warrant to justify an immediate arrest; 3. Find an actual probable cause situation (high likelihood of arrest); or, 4. Find an uppity (expects respectful treatment) POC wiilling to question the officer’s absurd stop. This is about power and control, an opportunity to put “those people in their place.”
    This professor fell into the last category. Law Enforcement knows they are on video, so no way will he or she reference race. The video only protects a POC against overtly demonstrated racism. However, the officer knows he can escalate the situation when an order is disobeyed (safety judgment). Sometimes the escalation will provoke a gift wrapped felony for the DA.
    The outcome of such investigations has already been rehearsed–insufficient evidence to conclude racial discrimination. Once she gave him A reason to state she disobeyed a lawful order, it was over and he knew it. The insidiousness of the police state and profiteering on imprisonment is a fact. Unfortunately, these are facts very difficult to prove. It is also unfortunate that choosing to merely cross a busy street may cost a hard-working African-American educator to lose her career.

    • Thinking it through says:

      “Once she gave him A reason to state she disobeyed a lawful order, it was over.”

      Pretty much, but not quite. That was the point at which there was no walking away for her. She was going to be cuffed, but she hadn’t yet committed a felony and her career wasn’t in jeopardy.

      It was all over for her when she physically arrested as the officer tried to cuff her. At that point she did commit a felony, with all the career and employment consequences a felony record has.

      The ACLU has an excellent video called “The Citizen’s Guide to Surviving a Police Encounter”, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA. It might be worth a look.

      • Jose Torres says:

        …Memo to you: In the social media age, with abundant videos, I question if it is ever “All Over”. If it was truly “All Over” for Professor Ore…why is this being discussed? Both Professor Ore and ASU will be on trial in the court of public opinion. I submit that it is not even close to being, “All Over”. Respectfully, that is – something the officer on the video could not define, pronounce, or even imitate.

        • Thinking it through says:

          Perhaps I misunderstood what Dwain P meant by “all over”.

          He was making the point that “the officer knows he can escalate the situation when an order is disobeyed… Sometimes the escalation will provoke a gift wrapped felony for the DA. … Once she gave him A reason to state she disobeyed a lawful order, it was over and he knew it.” Hence I took him to mean “all over” so far as the law is concerned: it’s a “gift wrapped felony for the DA” at that point. And I agreed with him, with the one qualification I noted.

          You seem to be using the phrase in a different sense: “Both Professor Ore and ASU will be on trial in the court of public opinion. I submit that it is not even close to being, ‘All Over’”. And I agree with you, if we’re talking about the court of public opinion.

          Those are two different claims, and I accept both of them: his and yours. So there’s no disagreement between us, so far as your point quoted above is concerned.

          Do we also agree about Dwain P’s point, that it’s “all over” so far as the legal disposition of the case is concerned? Ie, that it’s a “gift-wrapped felony for the DA”? If we do disagree, could you share with me the points I’ve missed, so I can reconsider the question? I’m always open to changing my mind.

          Peace.

          • Laurinda Reynolds says:

            I do not agree at this point. I am not an attorney and at this point we still do not know if you, Thinking it Through, are an attorney or non-attorney without full knowledge of the law like most of the rest of us. Would you please state whether you are or are not an attorney in your next reply?

            In earlier posts by a number of individuals, there have been statements about the difference between stopping someone on the street and stopping someone to cite them. I don’t know how accurate those posts were. If people would disclose their identity, profession, and interest in this blog it would be helpful.

            To go back to why I won’t agree at this point, as a citizen I assume an officer is obliged to accurately state why he is asking for my ID, except when I am driving a car and may have done something wrong without realizing it. Similarly, if an officer wants to enter my home, I would expect him to have a search warrant. From a purely logical perspective, I also assume any error in a citation or arrest procedure could throw out a case.

            As I mentioned in another post, at the beginning of the stop before everything escalated, the officer asked for her ID and threatened her with a citation for not providing her ID. Based on content from some of those earlier posts about stop and cite vs Terry Stops I believe he made an error. Whether there is precedence that would make this clear I do not know. However, at this point, I would not concede that this was a legal arrest.

        • Thinking it through says:

          “Professor Ore … will be on trial in the court of public opinion.”

          Yes she will. And if the automatic video and audio recordings in the police cruiser back up their report (see below), she’s going to lose there too. Badly.

          Of course, if the video/audio contradicts their report, there up the creek without a paddle, legally and in the court of public opinion.

          Hence, given your suggestion that one with integrity should be prepared to take back one’s comments, depending on what we learn from the video/audio of the entire encounter, I’ll keep you posted if I hear more.

          “According to the police report, ASU Police initially spoke to Ore because officers patrolling the area nearly hit her with their police vehicle as they turned the vehicle onto College Avenue to investigate a disabled vehicle. Officer Stewart Ferrin had no intention of citing or arresting Ore, but for her safety told her to walk on the sidewalk…. Ore refused.”

          https://asunews.asu.edu/20140630-ersula-ore

  28. Grace says:

    Absolutely necessary to investigate the reason why an ASU Police officer would be wrestling with anyone who did not display a weapon, or physically attack them or another person!
    The same is true if the person accosted by the police officer were white, green, male, female, young or old, no weapon was displayed, no crime had been committed and no reason for arrest was evident prior to the assault by the officer.
    ASU is ultimately responsible for hiring, security to protect the students and members of the faculty. In this case, they failed and further fail if they do not do a complete and thorough investigation of the officer in question.
    The officer clearly lost his head, and made a huge error that if the situation were different could have cost someone their lives. The officer needs to be in a different line of work and ASU not only owes Dr Ore and apology but compensation for the pain and suffering as well!

    • Thinking it through says:

      “Absolutely necessary to investigate the reason why an ASU Police officer would be wrestling with anyone who did not display a weapon, or physically attack them or another person!”

      The answer to _that_ question is simple. He was trying to detain her and she physically resisted. If an officer is trying to cuff a person and he or she resists, what else would you expect the officer to do?

      Why was he trying to detain her? Because he witnessed her commit an infraction, asked for her ID, she refused to provide it, and at that point an officer needs to detain the person to ascertain his or her identity so he can write the citation.

      Why did he ask for her ID, rather than simply give her a verbal warning and ask her to get off the street? _That’s_ a good question. I can think of benign explanations and others less so. With the right kind of data, we’d have the answer.

      • Laurinda Reynolds says:

        You seem to be putting a lot of effort into ignoring the point that the officer could have used a different approach and had a different outcome. Unlike most of us, you are hiding behind an alias. What is your personal interest in this blog?

        • Thinking it through says:

          “Unlike most of us, you are hiding behind an alias.”

          Is that bad?

          “What is your personal interest in this blog?”

          Honestly? A friend called about Ersula Ore, and based on her concerns I took an interest in the case. Questions about race and justice are too important to me to leave unexamined, and I thought be reading what others had to say I could learn something and find ways to challenge my perceptions. If you’d rather I not participate in the discussion, I’d understand. Analysis and advocacy are two very different things, and each have their place, though not often the same place. I wish you peace.

          • Laurinda Reynolds says:

            Obviously you are scrolling through this blog and picking apart every post that is interesting to you, and I am following right along responding to you. Eventually you will get to a post I already made about my concerns about the use of an alias. You will also find a post where I address your suggestion about statistics and the difference between the law and legacy of profiling.

  29. Nick says:

    As far as the law is concerned, the officer was within his right to arrest this individual. It’s a shame that she felt the need to resist a lawful arrest, but the officer is also expected to use reasonable force to affect the arrest, which he did. Ms. Ore was not seriously injured despite resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer, she should consider herself lucky.

    Being a professor at ASU does not exclude Ms. Ore from following the law, nor does being black. If Ms. Ore is not happy with the laws as they are written, I encourage her to write her representatives in an effort to get them changed.

    • Jonathan Taylor says:

      People who excuse police violence against non-violent individuals are essentially fascists. I encourage you to stop being one.

      • Nick says:

        Mr. Taylor,

        If someone spray paints your car, and the police are able to locate the suspect, do you advocate them not apprehending him, so long as he is not violently fighting them? What level of offense are the police justified in using physical force to affect an arrest?

        Ms. Ore physically resisted arrest after refusing to cooperate with an officer after breaking a law. The stop was lawful, the request for identification was lawful, the use of force to affect an arrest on a resisting suspect was lawful. Could it have been handled more professionally? Most likely, but it started with Ms. Ore.

        • Jonathan Taylor says:

          “Following the law”, “legal orders” – these can be used these days to excuse almost any conduct by police. This is in fact the root of the problem. Police are almost immune from prosecution when they commit unnecessary violent acts. In Fullerton CA where I live and work, an unarmed schizophrenic homeless man was savagely beaten to death by police officers, who were acquitted because the jury swallowed this same line of reasoning “he didn’t obey a legal order.” This is, with all due respect, bullshit. Our justice system is hopelessly broken and police officer don’t act as impartial agents of justice but too often as judge, juries and executioners. If someone spray-painted my car should an innocent person be slammed to the pavement for refusing to show ID to a cop? Hell no, no, and no. You need to start doing some reading on this topic if you’re going to try arguing it. Here are some places to start:

          http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

          http://www.amazon.com/Government-Wolves-Emerging-American-Police/dp/1590799755/ref=pd_sim_b_4?ie=UTF8&refRID=1SF59MZFGSQ9Y7A6K2HZ

          http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610392116/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=0XR3SVH2EH6TBG5QAHGD

          • Thinking it through says:

            Jonathan Taylor: “‘Following the law’, ‘legal orders’ – these can be used … to excuse almost any conduct by police.”

            Maybe someone else would use them that way. But Nick certainly didn’t.

            “If someone spray-painted my car should an innocent person be slammed to the pavement for refusing to show ID to a cop?”

            That wasn’t the question Nick asked.

            “[Nick needs] to start doing some reading on this topic if [he's] going to try arguing”

            Would it be too much to ask you to read what Nick wrote before replying to him? He raised a number of reasonable questions, yet you didn’t respond to a single one. Instead you recounted an anecdote about a police encounter in your home town, as if that were relevant to this particular case or to the specific questions Nick raised about it.

            Nick might not have a Ph.D. or be a full professor at Cal State Fullerton, but his comment was polite, on topic and reasonable. Would you be willing to engage with it, or is skipping over the part where you think things through and going straight to calling for a “total strike” by ASU faculty (which wouldn’t affect your own paycheck or job security) and declaring your own personal boycott of ASU, with the implication they would care, more your thing?

      • Thinking it through says:

        “People who excuse police violence against non-violent individuals are essentially fascists.”

        Meh. Rather than call people names, let’s just agree that police violence against non-violent individuals is a very bad thing.

        But was Ersula Ore non-violent? I’ve been at non-violent protests and was told that the only non-violent way to resist arrest was to go completely limp, making it hard on the police without resisting arrest. But Ersula Ore was physically struggling well before she ended up on the ground or anyone touched her bare leg. Not the same thing. No?

        • Jon Taylor says:

          OK, if you insist that we all be exceptionally, stupefyingly pedantic:

          “If someone spray paints your car, and the police are able to locate the suspect, do you advocate them not apprehending him, so long as he is not violently fighting them? ”

          I advocate them apprehending the suspect without using violence. If the suspect flees then I don’t, for instance, advocate shooting him in the back. Similarly, if a “suspect” is jaywalking and refuses to show ID, I don’t advocate violently throwing her to the pavement. That clear now?

          That was the only question Nick asked. Other than that he made assertions about how the stop and arrest were “lawful.”

          “Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to be on the alert to point out its faults, and do better than it would have them?”

          ― Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience and Other Essays

          Feel free to leave me out of the rest of your endlessly uninteresting discussion.

          • Thinking it through says:

            Nick asked two questions:

            1. Would you advocate having the police let someone suspected of spray-painting a car go free if they resisted arrest?

            2. How serious must an offense be for the police to be justified in using _force_ [Nick's word] to arrest a suspect?

            In reply you say that you would only have the police arrest a suspect if it could be done without “violence”. The example you gave of “violence” was shooting a fleeing suspect in the back. That answers neither question.

            Consider (1). What if a someone suspected of spray-painting a car said “get your hands off me, and in response the office used one hand to hold one of the suspect’s wrists, used his other to cuff that wrist, and then repeated the same procedure with the suspect’s other wrist, without beating the suspect, shooting the suspect, etc etc?

            Or (2). What if the the situation above involved a more serious offense? You say nothing about that.

            Is it your position that any use of force, including the example above, constitutes “violence”. Some hold that sort of view. Do you? That would be very interesting to know.

            “I don’t advocate violently throwing her to the pavement.”

            Again, that’s not what Nick’s asking. Nick is asking a deeper and more interesting question. He’s asking if force of any kind is justified when arresting a suspect, and if so, what degree of force and for what sorts of offense?

  30. Jonathan Taylor says:

    You guys should be on total strike in protest of this incident. No teaching. No research. No committee work. No service. And I don’t mean the Ethnic Studies Department – I mean the entire faculty of the University.

    I am personally boycotting ASU completely and indefinitely.

    Best wishes,
    Jonathan Taylor, PhD
    Professor, California State University, Fullerton

    • Laurinda Reynolds says:

      Thank you for speaking up. You are quite right. However, most people in AZ are just too accepting of civil rights violations. Some complacency is out of fear and some is sincere ignorance about what racial profiling really is. And of course, there are also the more sinister and selfish motivations under convincing and well rationalized disguises.

      The ASU faculty needs to remember that the original reason for tenure was to protect them from retaliation when they needed to be socially or scientifically responsible. This blog will not go far enough to make a difference, but participants will “feel” like they did something and may be less motivated to take action.

      I hope the faculty is organizing and planning to do something tangible to bring this issue to the media.

      There are many things “wrong” here in AZ, not just at ASU and I will be leaving AZ for a less complacent and red state as soon as possible.

      • Jonathan Taylor says:

        Hi Laurinda,
        I wonder where the ASU Academic Senate is in all of this. They should have already met and discussed the issue and given a voice to the faculty.
        best,
        Jon

    • Thinking it through says:

      “You guys should be on total strike in protest of this incident. No teaching. No research. No committee work. No service. And I don’t mean the Ethnic Studies Department – I mean the entire faculty of the University.”

      The “Statement of Concern” asks for “the ASU administration to conduct a comprehensive investigation into this matter as well as an audit on the conduct of its police force vis-à-vis racial profiling.”

      Are you suggesting at the entire faculty of the University go on total strike before the ASU administration conducts a comprehensive investigation and releases the results? Nay, before the ASU administration even responds to the request?

      Wouldn’t you want faculty to be involved in a comprehensive investigation? How are they supposed to do that if they’re on “total strike”, with no committee work or other service?

      • Laurinda Reynolds says:

        Speaking for myself, ASU should have taken a neutral position with the media right from the beginning. That is why the faculty and students like me should be taking action.

        This university claims to promote diversity and is claiming to be on track toward social transformation. However, ASU’s initial response was one of a university that seems to be more concerned with liability since the officer was on the clock and Dr Ore was not.

        Since ASU’s aspirations used to recruit diversity students do not match their actions and reactions around this kind of issue, it is incumbent upon faculty, staff, and students of diversity like me, to raise a public outcry in any way we can.

        ASU’s initial response has inflamed this situation. The should have refused to take a side and remained neutral until there was an investigation.

  31. Gary says:

    What would have happened if she had been polite and just said “Sure, here’s my ID.” It would have been “OK, Ms. Ore, move along and stay out of the street.”

    • Nick says:

      At worst? She may have received a citation for jaywalking.

    • Laurinda Reynolds says:

      What would have happened if the officer would just have said. Ms. I notice you are not in the crosswalk is everything okay?

      She could then have responded to a respectful concerned officer instead one treating her as if she was being disrespectful of the law and him (transference on his part) by walking across the street outside of a crosswalk.

      What are some valid reasons for not walking on the sidewalk to a distant crosswalk.
      1) In AZ, how about a long walk in 100+ degree heat.
      2) In 100+ degree heat, when a regular route is cut off by construction and you aren’t sure of the shortest route to get around it.
      3) At night when a woman has to walk through poor lighting to get to her car.
      4) At night when buildings are close to a sidewalk and can easily conceal someone lurking in the area.

      The point is that as a campus officer his first thought when stopping a person male or female should be for their safety. If Ms. Ore was a woman of his race instead of a woman of color, the officer would have related to her as a relative and most likely approached out of concern instead of with an attitude of accusation.

      • Nick says:

        You live in Arizona, the heat is part of normal life. I don’t get a pass on breaking the law because I feel a little warm.

        I walked three miles to get home from the mechanics shop this week while it was 108 degrees. I used the crosswalk.

        If it’s poorly lit, walking in the middle of the road in dark clothes, at night, demonstrates poor decision making. She could easily be hit and killed by a passing car.

        • Laurinda Reynolds says:

          Sounds like you are a strong person without much compassion for those who are more vulnerable. PEACE officers should be concerned for the safety of individuals first, not the letter of the law. They have autonomy and often exercise discretion.

          If a driver swerved outside of their lane to avoid a collision or a pedestrian they justifiably ignored one law to keep someone/thing safe. Are you saying they should get a ticket for swerving?

          A person crossing a street at night outside of a crosswalk can see and hear a car coming in the dark and get out of the way. A person can’t see a creep hiding in the dark.

          • Thinking it through says:

            “Compassion for those who are more vulnerable.”

            I think that’s an important point. I fear we don’t interact enough with people who are different, and that our ability to be compassionate suffers as a result. That’s speculation and anecdotal. But it’s something I worry about.

            Off topic, but the word “compassion” caught my eye and reminded me of larger issues.

      • Gary says:

        No, you absolutely don’t know that the officer would have treated her any differently if she were the same race. I’m white, clean-cut, suburban and have been treated the same way as Ms. Ore by white cops. And I was with my suburbanite white family in a suburbanite minivan. They’re terse and abrupt because their job is dangerous and they deal with unstable people all day. I totally understand that, for their own safety, they have to approach every situation as if it could turn bad.

        • Marshata Randall says:

          I’m confident you were treated as she….

          • Gary says:

            I treated in a way that most would describe as rude and abrupt. The officer who pulled me over was a lot less friendly than the officer who asked Ms. Ore to hand over her i.d. Cops are just rude, and I get why – they deal with nutjobs all day. Ore got what she deserved because of what she did.

  32. [...] Arizona Ethnic Studies Network believes this incident may be connected to racial profiling, and is criticizing ASU for not undertaking a full [...]

  33. Rafa says:

    As a Hispanic male, I have a deep dislike and distrust of Arizona, especially Maricopa County. That being said, the majority, if not all, of the blame rests with Ms. Ore. Regardless of how you feel about being stopped, resisting an officer’s instructions never ends positively. If you feel like the officer was behaving inappropriately, there are other, more effective avenues to “fight” the perceived injustice. This lady needs to watch Chris Rock’s “How not to get your a$$ kicked by a cop” skit.

    There is certainly racial injustice in this country, but c’mon, AZ Ethnic Studies. You guys need to stop crying wolf because you water down legitimate concerns. As much as I somewhat dislike law enforcement, I understand that we have to respect their authority to a degree if we want to have a civil society. We can’t have a society in which people can pick and choose which police orders they wish to abide by. Again, there are more effective, mature ways to handle perceived injustice. This is just realistic. In short, you freaks are to liberalism what the Tea Party is to conservatism.

    Also, I love how several people here list their titles or education in an attempt to validate their opinion…on an anonymous internet comment section! Nowhere do the “Leave a Reply” requirements list education/title/etc, but you clowns chose to put them in. Hilarious.

    Sincerely,
    Rafa, Czar, Kindergarten graduate, licensed automobile operator, contact lens wearer, 315 lb. bench press club, hater of Robben’s dive.

    • Jonathan Taylor says:

      I signed with my academic affiliation to offer my support to the faculty at ASU and to encourage them to protest their treatment at the hands of their campus police. Your statements about authority reveal to me your own complicity with the unjust use of police powers and violence that this case so clearly demonstrates. I wouldn’t be calling people “freaks” since they might just turn around and call you something like “a goosestepping gutless bootlicking enabler of the police state” and you wouldn’t like that, would you?

      P.S. you concede 30 corners in a game or whatever it was, you’re gonna lose. Don’t blame the refs for a week game plan :)

      • Thinking it through says:

        “I signed with my academic affiliation to offer my support to the faculty at ASU and to encourage them to protest their treatment at the hands of their campus police.”

        In fairness, you didn’t stop with your academic affiliation. You also included the fact that you have a Ph.D., which is somewhat redundant if you hold the academic rank of full professor at an institution like Cal State Fullerton. That, coupled with the declaration that “I am personally boycotting ASU completely and indefinitely” might have lead people to reasonably wonder if an element of self-importance was creeping through. Clearly, that wasn’t true in your case, as you’ve now explained, but Rafa’s comment wasn’t directed specifically at you, and his comment came before your response.

      • Thinking it through says:

        “[Rafa's] statements about authority reveal to me his own complicity with the unjust use of police powers and violence that this case so clearly demonstrates.”

        Which of his statements about authority are you basing that on?

        Was it his statement that “as much as I somewhat dislike law enforcement, I understand that we have to respect their authority to a __degree__ [emphasis added] if we want to have a civil society”?

        Or his statement that “regardless of how [one feels] about being stopped, resisting an officer’s instructions never ends positively. If [one feels] like the officer was behaving inappropriately, there are other, more effective avenues to “fight” the perceived injustice.”

        I don’t see how either would make him “[complicit] … with the unjust use of police powers”.

        For that matter, I don’t see what evidence you have in virtue of which you could know this case demonstrates “the unjust use of police powers.” This case might well involve an unjust use of police powers. I just don’t see how one can know right now. Hence AZ Critical Ethnic Studies request for an investigation, rather than a call for the immediate dismissal of the officer from the force. If you have evidence that allows you to know already, please share, so that I too can know.

        • Laurinda Reynolds says:

          I hope that you will eventually absorb the idea that this particular incident doesn’t have to be found to be racial profiling in a court of law to justify our feelings or for us to know in our gut that there was something wrong with the approach and the arrest.

          When a person is willing to show their emotion, reveal who they are, and even put their livelihood on the line to show their support and compassion for another human that has been hurt and betrayed by her employer it reflects their pure motivation in the issue, not a need to show off.

          ASU should have stayed neutral in their initial response to the incident. They are the institution, the collective higher authority, and as such they are responsible and accountable for the entire incident. Why don’t you pick apart ASU’s initial response?

          ASU markets to diversity so people of diversity assume they will be safe and treated with respect here, even though the state of AZ has a notorious reputation for profiling that is talked about across the country and around the world. If ASU wants to market that way, fine, but if they have not screened and trained police officers to approach people of diversity peacefully, and all students for that matter, they need to get out of the diversity business.

          When inevitable incidents like this do happen, they have to take a neutral response from the beginning and use it as a learning opportunity for the general public or they should get out of the social transformation business too.

          • Thinking it through says:

            “ASU should have stayed neutral in their initial response to the incident…. Why don’t you pick apart ASU’s initial response?”

            Could you provide me with a link? You’re quite right. How ASU responded is a fair and important question.

          • Thinking it through says:

            Google to the rescue:

            https://asunews.asu.edu/20140630-ersula-ore

            “Arizona State University authorities have reviewed the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the arrest of assistant professor Ersula Ore and have found that the officer involved did not violate protocol and no evidence was found of racial motivation by the ASU Police Department officers involved.

            However, the ASU Police Department is enlisting an outside law-enforcement agency to conduct an independent review on whether excessive force was used and if there was any racial motivation by the officers involved. In addition, although no university police protocols were violated, university police are conducting a review of whether the officer involved could have avoided the confrontation that ensued.

            According to the police report, ASU Police initially spoke to Ore because officers patrolling the area nearly hit her with their police vehicle as they turned the vehicle onto College Avenue to investigate a disabled vehicle. Officer Stewart Ferrin had no intention of citing or arresting Ore, but for her safety told her to walk on the sidewalk. When Ore refused to comply and refused to provide identification after she was asked for it multiple times, she was subsequently arrested.

            The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office has independently reviewed all available evidence, including the police report, witness statements, and audio and video recordings of the incident, and decided to press criminal charges of assaulting a police officer, resisting arrest, refusing to provide identification when requested to do so by an officer, and obstructing a highway or public thoroughfare. The charge of assaulting an officer is based on the fact that Ore kicked the officer as is shown on the video and as she admitted in her recorded statements to the police.”

            That’s dated yesterday, June 30th. It doesn’t match up with what’s mentioned in the “Statement of Concern”, so I gather there was an earlier statement you found objectionable.

            So far as this one goes, I found it interesting that:

            1. He began by asking her to walk on the side-walk, with no intention to cite her. It was only when she refused that things went south.

            2. “ASU .. is enlisting an outside law-enforcement agency to conduct an independent review on whether excessive force was used and if there was any racial motivation by the officers involved.” That’s a start, though I’d like to now which outside law-enforcement agency is conducting the review, otherwise it’s hard to evaluate how “independent” they are.

            3. “In addition, …. university police are conducting a review of whether the officer involved could have avoided the confrontation that ensued.” That’s a fair question, and one you’ve raised yourself. I’m glad they recognize it’s a separate issue that needs to be investigated.

          • Laurinda Reynolds says:

            The only part of the statement that the media reported on was “ASU authorities have reviewed the circumstances surrounding the arrest and found no evidence of inappropriate actions on the part of the officers evolved.” the rest of the statement had to be read from the website.

            ASU could have left entire sentence out of their initial statement. There was no reason to take sides at that point, except that one employee was on duty and the other was not so they are financially responsible for the officer’s actions, not Dr Ore’s.

  34. Professor Christine Gailey says:

    A number of staff and faculty here at the University of California, Riverside have circulated the MoveOn petition to support your colleague, Dr. Ersula Ore. We use our titles and academic affiliations to show her that not all faculty or administrators support the kind of racial profiling and misogyny shown by the ASU PD. It’s important to use her title in writings on the case to heighten public awareness of the ASU PD’s racial profiling. We stand in solidarity.

    • Thinking it through says:

      “We stand in solidarity.”

      Against “racial profiling and misogyny”? I hope we all do.

      But I wonder how staff and faculty … at the University of California, Riverside” know that this particular case involves racial profiling and misogyny. Could you please share the evidence you base that conclusion on?

    • Thinking it through says:

      “We use our titles and academic affiliations”

      As an aside, please use them carefully. They represent hard work, merit and accomplishment. They deserve respect, not only from others, but from you as well

      I admire your willingness to involve yourself in issues of social justice. However if you leap prematurely to support a cause, and make assumptions which turn out to be false, you spoil not only your own reputation, but also the reputations of others who have worked equally hard, have equal merit, and similar accomplishments. Even if your assumptions turn out to be right, people are unlikely to see that as exculpating, and rightly so.

      This is a moment where critical studies, comparative literature and the like can rise to the occasion, by expressing interest in a fuller investigation and waiting judiciously for the results. Please embrace it, for your sake, and for the sake of all those you’d like to support, both now and in the future.

      Peace.

  35. George says:

    It is very likely that there was an encounter, the prof responded with attitude, the officer responded with commands that the prof chose not to follow; when the officer required compliance the prof made unlawful contact, and then, it went physical.

    Ivory tower types forget what average people know — to be respectful, compliant, and never challenge an officer in a threatening way. The place where you challenge anything that you feel is improper is in court. You meter your words, you remember them, you record them if you can; and often the act of recording reinforces for an academic, the realization that they are not in a confrontation with one of their classroom kids, but instead dealing with an officer.

    All this “support” and “posturing” by other academics is useless. First, the prof needs to deal with the charges and let her lawyer do the talking. Second, if the prof gets off completely, then she can file a civil rights action against the officer, if warranted, and see if that sticks. Until that time comes, even a letter of support from Vladimir Putin won’t do her any good.

    Best thing is to sit back and see how she and her attorney approach her current problems.

  36. Thinking it through says:

    1. Although it’s true that, in general, a pedestrian has no legal obligation to provide ID if asked, even if stopped on “suspicion” (a so-called “Terry Stop”, going back the 1968 USSC case where the point was fist considered), the same is not true for persons stopped by the police for an infraction the officer witnessed. In those cases, the police are legally permitted (and rightfully expected) to detain the person until his or her identity can be ascertained so they may issue a citation. Otherwise, by refusing to provide ID, pedestrians would have, in effect, a license to break any law with impunity.

    2. Hence, once the officer saw Ersula Ore walk down the middle of the street, asked her for her ID, and she refused to provide it, he acted lawfully by detaining her.

    3. Ersula Ore physically resisted the officer’s attempt to detain her.

    4. In light of the above, she’s guilty of a felony count for resisting arrest.

    5. Some claim the officer used excessive force. I can’t see in the video a point at which the officer used more force than was necessary to cuff her, given her resistance. At one point, he asked her to stop fighting so he could place her in handcuffs without a struggle. If I missed it, please let me know the point at which he could have cuffed her with less force than he used, and how he might have done so.

    6. Some say she’s a wonderful person, an assets to the University, etc, but sometimes wonderful people who are assets to the community commit felonies. I hope people are there to testify to her good character before she’s sentenced. But none of that is relevant to her guilt or innocence, as a matter of law.

    7. I can’t speak to the issue of whether the police were engaged with racial profiling. FWIW, I’ve noticed police departments in a number of jurisdictions have recently begun to give out more citations for jaywalking, based on their apparent institutional belief that it’s one of, or the perhaps the, most common contributing factor in pedestrian deaths. If they ASU police held that view sincerely, and on reasonable grounds, citing people for jaywalking would be part of their mission “To enhance the quality of life by providing a safe and secure environment through professional and proactive law enforcement services in partnership with the University community.” No? But in any event, I don’t see how one can directly infer that if a black woman is stopped for walking down the middle of a street at night, that she was stopped because she was black, or because she was a women, or both, as opposed to being stopped for walking down the middle of the street. The relevant evidence, I take it, would involve such things as the ratio of jaywalking citations given in that vicinity to blacks, whites, women and men as compared to their prevalence in the area, with a sample size big enough to draw statistically significant inferences.

    8. It’s a shame this happened. Had Ersula Ore not been mistaken about the law, perhaps it wouldn’t have. I don’t know.

  37. Rafa says:

    I agree completely, George and Thinking it Through. Ms. Gailey – correct me if I’m wrong, but there is no evidence of racial profiling or misogyny. From what I can see, it’s 100% speculation. I doubt you’d make claims with zero evidence in your research, so why here? Again, I know from experience that racial profiling unfortunately continues, but not all police interactions are due to profiling. This outcry resembles knee-jerk, mob-like reactions that only serve to trivialize genuine racial profiling. I can already hear people saying, “see…THIS is what they call racial profiling….”

  38. jay says:

    Ethnic Studies Professor..? Another under-educated, over-paid dumbo, teaching useless & subversive courses…In my day, when America was a healthy country, this piece of human nigger trash would be picking cotton. Thats all its good for. And in full color, the American people get a real glimpse into just what kind of losers the colleges have hired, due to political correctness, diversity, and affirmative action.
    Hope she rots in jail after the assault conviction.!!!!!

    • Laurinda Reynolds says:

      This post is a perfect example of why no law can ever adequately address ethnic/gender profiling, and why the benefit of the doubt should always go toward the minority individual. After all, people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

      There are two sides to the coin of ethnic/gender profiling. One side is the legacy individuals of minority groups live with because of suffering they have experienced and observed, or that has been passed along through their family and social history.

      The other side of the coin is the legacy of ignorance also passed along through their family and social history. Ignorance is not the same thing as being stupid or uneducated. Even highly educated intelligent people can be ignorant.

      The legacy of ethnic/gender profiling seems to be an unstoppable plague in this country and no law can erase a person’s life experience on either side of the coin. Only education can can actually have impact on this paradigm.

      ASU leaders please stop being so concerned about liability that you ignore this incredible opportunity to educate the student body and open minded members of the general public about how both these legacies are perpetuated.

      • Thinking it through says:

        “This post is a perfect example of why no law can ever adequately address ethnic/gender profiling”

        Maybe. Maybe even probably.

        On the other hand, it could be someone who, at some level, knows better, but lacks maturity and hence takes pleasure in provoking people who are upset, trying to fill some sort of emotional void with a helping of schadenfreude.

        That’s not to say no law can ever adequately address ethnic/gender profiling. It’s only to say that this might not be a perfect example of why that’s so. It might be a perfect example of some other social malady.

        Thank you, by the way, for setting up this discussion. I’m still thinking over points you’ve made and I think I’m beginning to better understand them. If I can, I’ll expand on that later.

        Peace.

    • Thinking it through says:

      Jay,

      I’d like to think you’re not an “under-educated … dumbo … piece of human … trash … loser”, but you make it harder for people to give you the benefit of the doubt when you introduce such extravagant non-sequiturs, aspersions and racial slurs–and nothing else.

      Wouldn’t an educated, smart, wonderful human being such as yourself want to engage by contributing something more than ad hominem arguments? Even amongst those who disagree here, the discussion has been largely civil, which in my experience is a rare and wonderful thing that educated, smart, wonderful human beings value and cultivate.

      Of course, your mileage may vary.

      Peace.

  39. Sarah Hanley says:

    The telling disparity between the “Police Video”–2 min.– heavily redacted– and the “Raw Video”–5 min.– shows what is actually at stake for the police, who abysmally managed the shameful scene they created. First, they demand the professor’s I.D. (why?, this is not a country that requires the carte d’identite) as she attempts to cross a street unevenly obstructed by construction, hence not on a normal crosswalk. Then they wrestle physically with her and throw her to the ground (the pavement). Then they handcuff her. Finally, they try to escape responsibility for this odd arrest by launching against her–the victim in the altercation–the charge of resisting the brutality actually manifested against her at their hands. The Raw Video tells the tale only too well. Shame on the administrators at Arizona State University for hiding their heads in the sand. Hopefully the faculty will not be thrown to the ground with their colleague. Stand up here. S.H.

    • Thinking it through says:

      “First, they demand the professor’s I.D…. Then they wrestle physically with her and throw her to the ground (the pavement). Then they handcuff her.”

      Isn’t that leaving out a few steps? From the video I saw:

      1. The officer asks for her ID.

      2. She refuses to provide it.

      3. He warns her that she will be arrested if she does not.

      4. She argues that she has legal obligation to provide it.

      5. This goes on for a while, until the office tells her to put her hands behind her back so that he may arrest her.

      6. She says “get your hands off me”, not allowing him to cuff her without a struggle.

      7. The officer uses force to cuff her.

      Obviously, there’s controversy about the _grounds_ for her arrest

      But there’s no controversy whether she physically resisted arrest, is there?

      Whether the officer used the the minimum force reasonably necessary to overcome her physical resistance is a second, controversial issue. But those are two separate, though related, issues.

  40. We stumbled over here from a different website and thought I might as well check things out.
    I like what I see so now i am following you.
    Look forward to looking at your web page for a second time.

    Review my blog post: download hay day for pc

  41. [...] Critical Ethnic Studies, a coalition of ethnic studies professors in the state, has issued a statement [3] criticizing earlier media coverage of Ore’s arrest, and the university’s response. [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Powered by WordPress | Designed by: diet | Thanks to lasik, online colleges and seo