Now, we can’t even discuss the N-word?
If you’re offended, it’s your problem. – Salman Rushdie
A 41-year teacher at Chicago’s Southwest Side Mother McAuley Liberal Arts High School was fired in early February for using the N-word during a lecture on Native American culture in her World History class. Apparently, after a student asked why the Washington Football Team changed their name from the “Redskins” to the “Commanders,” the teacher explained that, “The term ‘Redskins’ was as offensive to Native Americans as the term ‘Nigger’ is to black Americans.”
She didn’t hurl the epithet at anyone, she didn’t exclaim it in anger, and she didn’t say it for shock value. She simply applied the kind of educational analogy that best got the point across.
As the great Chris Rock once noted in a standup special:
Nobody got it worse than the American Indian and everybody needs to calm the f**k down…You know how bad the Indians got it? When was the last time you met two Indians?…I have seen a polar bear ride a f*****g tricycle in my lifetime, but I have never seen an Indian family just chilling out at Red Lobster.
Exactly! That student asked the “Redskins” question because they lacked the perspective that only comes from a regularly interacting with a minority group. And that teacher bridged that gap with a perfect comparison, so what’s the problem?
Had she directed the N-word at a student or used it in a rant about minorities, she should never teach another day in her life. But a stellar 41-year teaching career ends because of this when, the truth is, most of you wouldn’t last two weeks in the classroom.
There is a parent-based effort to get her reinstated, but in light of growing educator shortage, I’d flip Mother McAuley the double bird and simply seek greener pastures. And wouldn’t it be fuckin’ magnificent if Catholic administrators everywhere approached the pedophile priest issue with this same kind of zeal and grim determination.
License plate readers make me very nervous!
Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say. ― Edward Snowden
In yet another early February story, the Tribune reported that the Village of Morton Grove, Illinois, would shortly be installing eight license plate reader cameras at two major Dempster Street intersections. And I gotta tell ya folks, the fact that another intelligence/military technology is filtering down to our local police departments doesn’t do a damn thing to help my insomnia.
They may not trash the Fourth Amendment quite like unconstitutional face recognition technology does, but in my mind, passively reading the license plate of every vehicle that travels through an intersection still crosses the unreasonable search and seizure line.
So, in an effort to better understand the legalities and crime solving possibilities involved, I turned to my usual judicial and attorney suspects, and here’s what they had to say.
First, this kind of surveillance has already been challenged in the courts, but even before the tern “license plate reader” entered the lexicon, they’ve repeatedly ruled that, because vehicle tags are owned by the State, no expectation of privacy can ever be attached to them.
Then one of the judges said something that somewhat softened my steadfast Orwellian stance. He explained that, with Cook County car jackings up 44 percent in 2021, license plate readers are the fastest way to find the vehicle and apprehend the offender. Though, when you consider the Tribune is announcing the cameras’ locations, that likely means they’ll only be catching the truly stupid criminals.
One attorney noted that the Illinois State Police have already been given the go ahead to install hundreds of similar cameras on our Interstates with 99 of ‘em currently operating on Chicago’s Dan Ryan Expressway. Other than the fact I trust the State Police more than our local police departments, I’m not sure how that’s supposed to make me feel better. I suppose his point was, regardless of any debate here, these contrivances are here to stay.
But what really bothers me about devices like these is their eminently passive nature. It’s one thing for an officer to proactively execute a law enforcement strategy, but it’s another thing entirely for them to simply sit back and watch the data roll in.
And these kinds of passive strategies are always ripe for abuse.
Don’t believe me? A Hoffman estates hospital was just sued for drug testing a pregnant woman’s urine provided for other purposes without her consent. The woman learned about the illegal test after it turned up a false positive.
Worse yet, the City of San Francisco just admitted that their police department crime lab used rape kit DNA in regular attempts to identify suspects in other crimes. They actually arrested a rape victim for a separate property crime, too. Can you say, “Chilling effect?” I knew you could!
I’m not one who’s necessarily prone to using those slippery slope arguments, but what’s to stop a police department from using these camera’s to track “questionable individuals,” or a single officer from tracking his ex-wife’s or girlfriend’s movement?
Given the plethora court rulings ceding their constitutionality, and particularly when you consider the considerable savings over active surveillance, not only has my unreasonable search and seizure argument already fallen flat, but my objection will have about as much impact as a bug against the windshield of a vehicle being tracked on the Dan Ryan.
That said, my impending Constitutional defeat in no way undermines those sage words once uttered by Ben Franklin, “Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Someone’s certainly spinning in his grave!
I told you so!
Shortly after the column on the fracas at the St. Charles Library ran, four of my favorite female readers swiftly reached out to tell me I was “dead on.” That was the one where I posited that “minimal power corrupts absolutely” and providing formerly powerless people with power – like enforcing a pointless mask mandate – is always a recipe for disaster.
And sure enough! These four fabulous friends unanimously agreed that if men were running that library, that pointless kerfuffle never would’ve happened.
I rest my case!
Author’s Note:
Though I always thank them privately, it’s time to give a public shout out to all the attorneys and judges who make this perpetually fascinating journalistic burden a little easier to bear. Knowing that you can always count on individuals who are at the top of their fields and will never steer you wrong is truly a precious commodity in these days of cookie cutter journalism.
So, thank you legal sources for making my life a little easier and making sure I get it right!
