Nonfiction Examination, Box Four

The assignment was to read through five nonfiction articles, newspaper stories, and answer the following questions:

• What patterns do you see?
• How are people reacting?
• What is left unanswered?
• Is there any bias?
• What does this say about what it means to be human?
• What do you advise based on the evidence?

Here are my chosen newspaper stories:

1. "I Lied About Black Boy Groping Me," Admits Wife of Lynchmob Killer
2. Georgetown University sold my family’s ancestors. Now it needs to do more to atone
3. NCAA Reportedly on the Verge of Blackballing North Carolina for Years Over 'Bathroom Bill'
4. Lawsuit alleges mistreatment at Native American Boarding Schools
5. UNM Told Controversial Speaker Has Rights

Originally, I was going to "go for a five" and include counterarguments, but ran out of word space. So here it is. Notice how answering the questions turns into a persuasive essay.

Below are two photos of Emmett Till

The first was taken in Chicago before he went to Mississippi in the Summer of 1955 to make some money picking cotton and spending time with extended family.

The second below, famously, is his body after being found dead floating in a river. Emmett's mother, Mamie Till, wanting the nation to see what had been done to her son, authorized the photo's distribution in magazines and newspapers around the country. Warning: The second photo is graphic and disturbing.

And now the essay...

The articles were chosen as they all include a judicial role in righting social justice. The precise subject differs: a 1950s Mississippi trial in which false accusations helped murderers go free; righting the historical wrongs of a prestigious university which owned slaves; repercussions of anti-transgender legislation; a Native boarding school so academically inferior it should not be called a “school” at all; and, the decision to host a speech by a controversially racist, sexist and homophobic speaker.

One pattern throughout is our judicial system attempting to solve deep and highly controversial problems. The lawsuit by Havasupai children against their Native boarding school is directly judicial. Others, including the speaking engagement at UNM, entail threats of legal action in response to limits on free speech, bathroom access and failure to offer reparations to slave families.

The role of our legal system in solving societal and cultural problems too controversial to be simply voted upon, or left solely to the executive and/or legislative branches, is a stark reminder of the great importance of this third branch of our government. Its civil and even criminal trials involve people and groups lining up on both sides. There is deep bias, lack of empathy, and argument so loud, unending and possibly violent that lawyers take the place of individuals.

Throughout, both side of the issues have a belief, a faith, that while they want the judicial system to “work” and decide in their favor, they will accept the ruling of the court.

What is left unanswered depends on the individual case/story. The confession by the Till accuser finally reveals what was long suspected: that the trial was nothing but a sham. The Georgetown reparations story has not yet involved courts, but the University will be followed closely as it charts a new path in trying to equitably restore social justice to victims’ families. North Carolina’s “Bathroom Bill,” like similar legislation elsewhere, still has a long way to go toward full acceptance or revocation. Will these bills mandating forced use of bathrooms “corresponding with their birth gender” become permanent (Bonesteel)? Will a similar federal law go into effect and pass constitutional muster in the courts?

The same sorts of unanswered questions linger as well for the Native boarding school and free speech cases. In the case of protected speech, the speaking engagement did take place, albeit with protests, but questions always remain on the limits of free speech. All these cases do raise the eternal truth that “final” doesn’t always mean final when it comes to judicial decisions. The arguments often continue, fester and lead to new legal definitions of what constitutes “social justice.”

Given the constancy of argument, social/cultural change, technological advance and other factors, decisions of social justice, like all legal issues, will always be possibly subject to judicial revision. Thus, our court system, like our Constitution, is a “living” thing, adapting to its ever-changing environment and the endless human tendency to argue, disagree, and wittingly or unwittingly harm each other.

Word Count: 500