My tweets in recent days and an old blog post have apparently irritated a lot of people. That was far from my intention: let me apologize for that. Did I choose my words and comparisons wisely? I did not. My apology, once again. Let me also make clear that all these are just
my views, not pronouncements by the JPE and most certainly not the @UChicago or my department: a bastion of free speech, where we disagree all the time and where surely a considerable number of my colleagues passionately disagree with things I said. I said what I said because
these are difficult, but important matters to speak up about and we all should engage, and not because of my professional expertise. How can one watch what happened to George Floyd and not speak up?
@imbernomics (as one among the many irritated voices: I thank him for letting
@imbernomics (as one among the many irritated voices: I thank him for letting
me share what he wrote) wrote several concerned e-mails to me: the full-length versions are here . He wrote "To oppose the “defunding the police” term and policy is fine – I myself am not supportive of the specific language though I do support large scale
reform to the policing system as it appears you do -but the tone you are setting in your discussion is insulting to many (myself included) and dangerous to the profession as it sends signals of hostility to the ideas and people who support them and says they are not welcome here.
It infantilizes people with genuine concerns that should be addressed through civil policy discussion."Thank you @imbernomics for these remarks.The concerns are genuine and they are genuine to me.There are many thoughtful and sensible voices on what needs to be done, for example
washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/… , foxnews.com/politics/sande…, nytimes.com/2020/06/08/us/… . If you read those description carefully, they are largely about truly reforming police. They may actually result in increased funding for the police, to accomplish it all: "defunding" is an odd term
for that. I am with Rep James Clyburn who "bitterly complained ... about those trying to 'hijack' the swelling movement with calls to defund the policy" (NYT today). I was therefore frustrated with @Blklivesmatter , a movement that is sorely needed now and applauded by so many,
to apparently side with the extreme version of #DefundThePolice with people that truly want to severely cut funding to the police, see blacklivesmatter.com/defundthepolic… . Let me hope and politely suggest that they clearly rectify that (as they did initially, I believe). My last tweet
was trying to make fun of that radical and untenable view of massively cutting funding of police departments. Wrong words, mea culpa. But we all share the same goal.
To my colleagues, students, neighbors and friends of color. All of you that I have met over the years want that
To my colleagues, students, neighbors and friends of color. All of you that I have met over the years want that
neighborhoods are safe, that schools are decent, that opportunities are plenty, that the color of the skin should not matter, that the law is upheld as stated in the constitution, that the police do their job to do so and go protect your rights, that you and your family are free
and can live unafraid. All of you do not sympathize with gang warfare, illegal drug sales or looting of stores. The southern part of Chicago suffers from all this in particular, and it pains me deeply. These people are not against the police.
These people are desperate for a police that stands with them, supports them, ensures their freedoms. I believe that many in the police wish to do exactly that. They wish to separate themselves from those that violate their oath to protect and serve, and they
welcome sensible reform. The freedoms we enjoy were so hard to come by. Let us work so that all of us get to enjoy them. Apologies for this lengthy tweet: nuance is hard on Twitter. Perhaps this helps.
