The news and entertainment media often present a slanted version of the racism-fueled controversy in Jena Louisiana.  I was especially appalled by how the Dr. Phil television show presentation this racial conflict.  He presented himself as an unbiased moderator seeking harmony between racial groups.  The show’s perspective did not impress me as neutral.

Most people say the controversy began when six male students labeled African-American allegedly attacked one labeled white. Allegedly, he called them the N-word. Some say it started when some students hung lynch-nooses on a schoolyard tree. It started at the nation’s birth. These students are only the latest draftees in the racist war against the Constitution’s color-blind mandate for equal treatment for all Americans.

I suspected the worse when the Dr. Phil show opened with pictures of six male students labeled African-American and one picture of a badly bruised male-student labeled white.  They showed this line-up repeatedly throughout the show. It screamed guilty attackers and victim despite Dr. Phil saying all people are innocent until proved guilty. 

They should not have featured any pictures or showed them all healthy as they are now.  Maybe it would have been acceptable to show the student’s bruised image when they discussed his injuries.

 Dr. Phil asked the parents what were their son’s injuries. They and a talkative audience member from Jena answered as if from a script saying that one more kick and he’d be dead. This speculative answer implied he suffered many kicks. Given this opportunity, one expects they would tell the public about their son’s chipped teeth, bruised ribs, crushed cheekbones or even headaches if he suffered them. Surely, he must have some of those injuries if six teenage males kicked him repeatedly to near death. Dr. Phil did not challenge this response. 

Dr Phil had as a guest on this show a man he described as a white supremacist.  He introduced him with cutting criticism. He accused him of betraying the injured student’s family by plastering pictures of their home on his white supremacist website after they entertained him in their home.  I thought it strange the guest was there, because he had no connection with Jena.

Dr Phil’s conduct toward the guest puzzled me. He defended this family’s conduct in this suspicious affair as if he was he was their defender. The family’s involvement with this alleged racist seemingly had no connection with the students’ schoolyard assault.

Later, I understood this exchange’s significance. Dr. Phil asked the injured student’s mother if her son called his attackers the n-word racial slur.  She said he assured her that he did not do this. Nobody would believe this answer from a family who entertained white supremacists in their home proven by pictures on his website. Suddenly, it was clear why Dr. Phil needed to redeem the family’s credibility by verbally attacking him on the show. 

 Even if the alleged racial supremacist duped her, it creates doubt about her ability to judge peoples potential to commit acts of racism; even her son’s potential to do this. You decide if she is believable.

A female audience member riled against Al Sharpton’s presence in Jena claiming he brought the racism there. Repeatedly, she interrupted him when it was his turn to respond although he remained silent during her long attack. She continued to interrupt despite Dr. Phil’s weak efforts to restrain her.  Then, Dr. Phil told Sharpton he had to give her time to respond although Sharpton never had his chance to defend himself.

This was the common disrespectful treatment visited on speakers labeled African-American.  Dr. Phil often interrupted them to ask or to suggest they probably agreed the alleged attackers deserved some punishment. He devalued the status of the speakers when he interrupted them this way and devalued the worth of their side of the Jena racial controversy. This show was unfair. Most of the speakers labeled African-American limited their comments fearing that honest responses might antagonize community members labeled white who would serve on their child’s jury.  

The self-righteousness people strongly assert that punishment for the alleged attackers is warranted. They insist that violence is never a justified response to words. This may be true, but many state laws do punish people who incite riots or incite others to violence. In addition, all instigators or perpetrators of violence are potentially liable for the injuries. 

Anybody yelling hateful racial slurs at a group of tense and angry group of teenage males is inciting violence if not a riot. They should suffer the same legal outcomes as the most violent actor, even if they misjudged the situation and incited the violence against themselves.   

Kenneth Brooks is an independent writer. Contact him at P.O. BOX 882, Vallejo, CA 94590.  opinion@ethicalego .com