Last week, Marc Sevastopoulo ’15 wrote an article titled “Beyond Black and White” about the tragic shooting of Trayvon Martin. In it, Sevastopoulo argues that American society was quick to label the situation as a racial hate crime and that a careful evaluation would perhaps prove otherwise. While I respect my classmate’s opinion, I find myself in disagreement. No amount of craftily worded excuses, rebuttals, justifications, or redirections of attention can obscure the facts.
Sevastopoulo argues that Zimmerman was raised to be tolerant of all races. He says that therefore Zimmerman could not be biased by the stereotype of “black violence.” However, his source is a former neighbor of the Zimmerman family–not necessarily what one would call an “insider”–who says he doesn’t “think” the family had any racial problems.
Similar to the situation depicted by Sevastopoulo, the same fallacy in this logic appeared in the analysis of Anders Breivik. Last July, Breivik, an Islamaphobic domestic terrorist, bombed government buildings and a youth camp in Norway. This man was a Christian activist, raised by a feminist, liberal mother. His upbringing, too, was rooted in the ideals of acceptance and tolerance, yet that did not seem to stop him, proving that one cannot simply rely on what appears to be so.
Sevastopoulo goes on to point out that Zimmerman was Latino, and thus the incident is clearly not one of White-on-Black violence. No one denies Zimmerman his Hispanic heritage. Sevastopoulo is right in saying that this is not an issue of the “cookie-cutter white-on-black violence story,” but in judging whether or not this is a hate crime, that fact doesn’t matter. The race of the offender is irrelevant; the issue is that the offender judged Martin by his race.
Beyond the possible racial motivations of Zimmerman, the national protests about the incident take issue with the Sanford Police Department’s handling of the investigation. For example, according to ABC News, more than one witness has spoken up and said that investigating officers attempted to correct those who reported that Martin cried for help, claiming instead that it was Zimmerman who cried for help. Many people also take issue that police did not second-guess Zimmerman’s report of self-defense, when Martin’s criminal record is clean and Zimmerman had been charged with battery against a police officer in 2005. Might there have been racial bias on the part of the Sanford Police Department? It is no wonder the Sanford town council passed a motion of no confidence in the Sanford police. Regardless, Sevastopoulo mentions none of this potential racism in his argument.
Finally, Sevastopoulo criticizes the Reverend Al Sharpton for a statement Sharpton made. Sharpton argued that the police should investigate the incident as a potential hate crime since Zimmerman had a history of race-based actions. Sevastopoulo claims there is no history, yet he neglects to mention some key facts. The BBC reports an e-mail Zimmerman sent to his neighborhood watch community prior to the incident. In it, he references a recent string of burglaries, warning his community to watch out for African-Americans who “don’t belong.” Does that not qualify as a history of racial prejudice? What about the alleged racial slur Zimmerman said in his 911 call while pursuing Martin?
Zimmerman has a criminal history (and Martin a lack thereof) and what could easily be construed as a racial bias, both of which lead to the conclusion that this case requires at least an investigation of a hate crime, where, upon due process of law, the truth will be flushed out. Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence notwithstanding, the national reactions to this case provide an important lesson to the Andover community: follow Marc’s suggestion and get the facts before passing judgment.
Devontae Freeland is a Junior from Metuchen, NJ.
