Writing While Clueless

Occasionally I encounter a Republic editorial that is so badly written and so logically flawed that I assume that the Board is playing some sort of game to see if anyone notices.  That or Keven Willey is back in town.

Here's Tuesday's lead editorial in its entirety together with my commentary in blue. 

In America, how we drive and how we play may reveal unpleasant truths about who we are.

That’s exactly right.  I can drive 90 mph in the left lane on the 101 and I still get flipped off by people passing me on the right. 

But the U.S. Constitution was written with the aim of forming "a more perfect union." Consider it a work in progress.

Excuse me?  I thought we were talking about bad drivers.  Do those sentences have any relation to each other?  Why are they connected with “but?”  Are we contrasting the way we drive with the the purpose of the Constitution?  The “more perfect union” is from the preamble, and is a reference to the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation.  The previous “union” wasn’t working out very well because the loose confederation of states couldn’t pay its debts.  Does that have something to do with how we drive and how we play?

An important tool in that process could be a federal study that found disparities in the way people of color are treated by police.

What process?  Creating a national bank, eliminating tariffs between the states and coining money?

The Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics reviewed traffic stops during the last six months of 2005.

OK, we are off the Constitution and back to driving and play, but I guess we are going to ignore “play.”

Latinos, Blacks and Whites were stopped at similar rates.

That’s  a really important point.   “Latinos, Blacks and Whites were stopped at similar rates.” That's good, because for a moment, I thought the author was going to argue that the cops are racists. 

What happened next was troubling.

Uh oh.

The police searched 9.5 percent of the Blacks and 8.8 percent of the Hispanics but only 3.6 percent of the White drivers.

Blacks were arrested 4.5 percent of the time, Latinos 3.1 percent and Whites 1.2 percent. Force was also more commonly used against Blacks and Latinos.

There were other disparities. Men were more likely to be searched than women, and people younger than 30 were more likely to be searched than those older.

OK, so people of color, men and people under 30 are more likely to be searched or arrested than middle aged white women.  Why is that?

Individual circumstances that could account for these differences were not analyzed...

Oh, we don’t know.  That’s a key sentence.  There was no analysis of individual circumstances.  So we have no idea why cops search soccer moms less than they search teenage boys.  My guess would be that soccer moms, you know, give cops less probable cause than teenage boys.  But the study didn’t address that.  So we don’t know, because, like I said, the study didn’t analyze it.  But the author obviously has a view.

...so it is not possible to attribute the statistics entirely to prejudice.

Entirely?  Actually it’s not possible to attribute any of the statistics to prejudice.  That’s because, you know, the study didn’t analyze the differences. 

Those circumstances should be analyzed. More detailed research needs to be done.

That’s a great idea.  Maybe we should wait for the analysis to be conducted before we attribute the differences to prejudice, and then write editorials in major papers about the prejudice. 

The perception that "driving while Black" is grounds for being stopped is strong in some communities.

Wow, that's an awkward transition.  "Some communities”?  Well, communities of editorial writers apparently conclude that “driving while Black” is grounds for being stopped.  But the study referred to above would demonstrate that those “communities” would be wrong.  Remember that first key sentence. “Latinos, Blacks and Whites were stopped at similar rates.”

Doubts about the fairness of the justice system can be as corrosive as a reality...

What? False doubts are as corrosive as reality?  The study shows that the perception is wrong, but I guess that’s as corrosive as the reality.  But what’s the alleged “reality”?

...in which some people are treated differently because of the color of their skin.

Hmm, nice try.  But remember that the study didn’t address why people are treated differently.  The editorial writer originally tried to slip in the prejudice angle by saying that without a study, we couldn’t tell if the differences were “entirely” from prejudice.  Now the “reality” is that people are treated differently because of the color of their skin.  Which is of course, NOT what the study determined, because this entire editorial is about a study that found no evidence of prejudice because the study didn’t analyze the different treatment. 

Either way, America needs to know what's going on.

Yeah, I need to know what’s going on too.  After all, the study shows that blacks, Latinos and whites are stopped at similar rates yet the study provides no information on why people of color, men and people under 30 are searched and arrested at higher rates than middle aged white women.  My theory is that they commit more crimes than middle aged white women, but that's probably a reflection of my personal bias, so I won't opine on that issue until I see the results of a study. 

The study suggests we have a ways to go as we work toward that perfect union.

Are we back to the Articles of Confederation?  Good, because the Commerce Clause is really starting to tick me off. 

But it also provides information that can help the process.

What information?  The study provides no information.  What process?  And why are those sentences connected with “but.”

The author claims that “America needs to know what’s going on.”  And I’m beginning to understand what’s going on.  Someone with weak writing and analytical skills is claiming that traffic cops are racists despite the fact that the study didn’t address that issue.

The Republic had better stop treating its readers like idiots or readers are going cancel their...well never mind.

Comments

[Karen of Scottsdale]

I'm glad you read these editorials so I don't have to. LOL

[Geoff]

I read that editorial the other day and had pretty much the same reaction. And then today, I was overjoyed to see that Jon Talton has a new job. Someone sold the Republic a FRONT PAGE ad for the City of Denver. Nice.

[Ann]

This is just one more account of assumptions of racism with no substantiation or facts to prove the claim aimed at persons in positions of authority. They are so vague and general as to disallow any sort of defense or explanation.

Recently Oscar Tillman has made claims against “several Arizona schools” that unfair discipline had been delivered to Black and Hispanic students based on ethnic bias. No schools were named and no specific cases were outlined. Yet 16 Arizona legislators signed a letter to Tom Horne asking for a new level of bureaucracy based on this claim; they requested a hearing board to verify that no student was unfairly treated by the school or the school board.

Sup’t. Horne dismissed the notion and made it very clear that schools needed more support not less and that parents needed to accept responsibility for their children. He clearly stated that children who disrupt the classroom should be removed and that schools have the right to administer necessary discipline.

Racial bias, targeting, or unfair treatment based on ethnicity is wrong. That also applies to claims of racism by an ethnic minority against a person(s) of the majority. When someone labels another with an unfair negative stereotype is it ever OK? Is it made more vile when they use their own minority status as a shield against question? Are they using the past sins of others for their own present benefit, to gain personal position and power, without regard to truth? The double standard should not be allowed much less fueled by the press or elected officials.

[Andy]

Hey Greg,

what are the "grounds for being stooped" ?

[ron]

Greg,

I actually took this article along to my university class on Tuesday night - the class is on ethnicity and race (multiculturalism). The class is not a class on critical thinking, however, I encourage critical thinking.

My students, in their 30s to early 50s, all came up with same analysis you did.

ron

[Trish]

Remind me to have you edit my next English Composition assignment. YIKES!!! Glad you weren't my professor in College!