I have had far too many occasions to call attention to the racially abrasive rhetoric and behavior of M. Rick Turner, the Dean Of All Things Black at the University of Virginia (most recently, here, when he lambasted a black fraternity for withdrawing from the Black Fraternity Council to join the Inter-Fraternity Council).
Over the past several days two UVa students, one a fourth year (UVa doesn’t have freshmen, sophomores, etc.; it has first years, second years … , just as it has Grounds instead of a campus) and one a law student, have called my attention to a remarkable letter recently published in the Cavalier Daily. Here’s an excerpt:
It is virtually unknown that in a meeting with the members of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. to resolve rumors and disagreements surrounding their move to the Inter-Fraternity Council, Turner reportedly called the young black students names such as “Uncle Toms,” and in a later incident without Alphas present referred to them as “house niggers.”
One of my correspondents, who says the editor of the Cavalier Daily has independently verified Turner’s remarks, believes the author of this letter is a former member of the Black Student Alliance. Whoever she is, she’s quite eloquent. Her letter concludes:
Racism and terror towards minorities of all kinds are sadly a part of this country and the University’s distressing history. Regrettably, as members within the University community act to mend the injuries sustained to our psyches and our spirits, there still exist a few who continue to weaken these deeds, even if inadvertently. Turner’s approach does not effectively brace his aim of creating a bettered racial climate. This is not to say that a stalwart approach is always wrong. However, constant hostility in concert with substandard behavior, such as insulting or excluding students based upon race, is simply unprofessional.
Indeed.
UPDATE [26 Feb. 3:30PM]
Eric Wang, who has been quite critical of Dean Turner, has sent an email pointing out that Turner has stated that he “would never disrespect” students (or at least black students) by referring to them with racial epithets. That is a constraint that the good dean apparently does not feel with regard to whites, or at least to whites at UVa and in Charlottesville, whom he has recently called Ku Klux Klan members.
Hey, I’m home for President’s Day.
“Racism and terror towards minorities of all kinds are sadly a part of this country and the University’s distressing history.”
I’d disagree with this statement. There is no ethnic or national group that has not experienced war, terror and hatred. The belief that this is the experience of “minorities,” whatever that is, is false. These things are simply part of human experience, and nobody’s got a corner on it. As usual, what is missing is the “compared to what…” In fact, the U.S. is heaven on earth in this regard. This is the most peaceful and equitable society ever in terms of race.
The thing to do is to shut up about it, not to turn it into the principle focus of one’s life… and education.
Having M. Rick Turner as the African-American Affairs Dean is equivalent to hiring a pyromaniac to be your fire chief.
‘I’d disagree with this statement. There is no ethnic or national group that has not experienced war, terror and hatred.’
But not necessarily ‘in this country or university’ and not to the extent of what happened in the slave and jim crow periods.
Here’s hoping that the university will appropriately sanction turner, applying a standard that measures the content of his character, not hte color of his skin.
In short, he merits precisely the same punishment that a white faculty member would receive for making similar statements about black students.
You are wrong actus.
How do you measure comparative suffering?
Pretending that you know how is the ultimate corruption of today’s liberal thinking. That you think this is, to me, just another nail in the coffin of thinking that you are a serious and on the level person.
It’s a crock. I reject it completely. The suffering of my family during the Irish potato famine is just as important. People died.
Now, a little advice. I gather you are a white guy. Quit walking around with your head down, doing penance. The people you are really doing this to impress is white feminist women. They’re not worth the trouble. Blacks are just looking at that act, helping themselves to your stuff, and wondering why you are such a fool. Why are you?
The people you are really doing this to impress is white feminist women. They’re not worth the trouble.
Oh, Stephen, quit it, please. We regular readers know a lot more than we want to about the better, more deferential attitudes of Asian women, and frankly I’m a little sick of that particular subject.
I’ve been around the play acting that actus does for a long time.
This has nothing to do with Asian women. Asian women are not “more deferential.” That is an outright racist statement that shows that you know nothing about Asian women. Asian women view the world differently than white women. To a much greater extent, Asian women do not believe that the purpose of male/female relationships is a constant fight over who’s dominant. The traditional Asian societies continue to teach their young that complementing and harmonizing with the opposite sex is what we’re here for. Asian society is smart in this area, and western society has become abysmally stupid.
Thus, the great success of Asians in the U.S. They’re smarter than us.
In white feminist society, this fight for domination is regarded as the most important sign of “intelligence.” It is, in fact, a recipe for public triumph and private misery. It is stupidity incarnate.
Thus, the continuing catastrophic failure of white families and marriages.
The reason we are focused on black suffering is because… Ta Da… blacks are the erotic opposites of white women. This is fact. Yes, this is the reason. We place so much importance on it because that’s what white women want. See porn for further explication.
I was a kid on college campuses when this hang-dog role actus plays was invented. It was invented by white men to prove that they were “sensitive” in the hopes of getting laid. “Yes, honey, you can have anything you want,” might as well be the mantra of the young white man. It hasn’t changed.
Stephen, there’s no need to stoop to historical revisionism and intentional ignorance in order to oppose the politics of victimhood.
‘How do you measure comparative suffering?’
I don’t know what you want. I do have a hard time coming up with the idea that every other ethnic groups in the US has faced something as recent and as similar to slavery and the terror of jim crow. At least not in VA and at UVA.
‘The reason we are focused on black suffering is because… Ta Da… blacks are the erotic opposites of white women’
I think you’re still chasing those ghosts in your head. I’m sorry.
Exactly what facet of M. Rick Turner’s comments prompt alarm in light of our friend Stephen’s last posts? Michelle and Actus can’t be the ONLY folks who actually READ what’s posted, can they?
Maybe Turner’s run into more than a few administrators, officials, and students that reflect Stephen’s point of view.
I know I have. ;-)
–Cobra
Stephen,
See porn for further explication.
Um, no thank you. Not interested. Indeed, words fail me.
I’d fight with you Nels, but I don’t understand a word you said.
What I said is a very discomforting truth, and I’m glad actus gave me the opportunity to say it.
This is where the hangdog attitude of white men came from. I’m white, so I can say this about white women. They love to exploit it. And, they’re good at it.
There’s no “revisionism” in my statements, Nels. This is just the first time you’ve heard it right. It’s shocking, isn’t it? This is the very nut of what you’re not supposed to say. The artistic (i.e., movies and books) fight over this subject was fought out entirely over whether white women could have sex with black men. See “Guess Who’s Coming for Dinner,” among literally thousands if not millions of others.
White men are really silly.
And I forgot about Cobra.
He plays this game like a pro. He’s got you white guys right where it counts.
You really are a player, Cobra. I’ve got to admire you.
Remember the white women clutching their purses? Cobra, I’m beginning to like you.
This should have been a comment thread under the Chappelle heading.
File under: “What black men can say that white men cannot.”
Go get ’em, Cobra. They’re such fools. They actually like being beaten by you. It impresses their girls. If I were you, I’d start going after their girls.
Cobra,
Maybe Turner’s run into more than a few administrators, officials, and students that reflect Stephen’s point of view. I know I have.
Sorry, Cobra, but I don’t believe that you’ve run into a university administrator who casually remarked on how black and Asian women are “erotic opposites.”
And what the (possible) existence of such people has to do with Turner referring to “Uncle Toms” and “house niggers” is anyone’s guess.
Stephen, could you just lie down and take a rest? Please?
Are you kidding?
That was fun!
And, correction, I said that black men and white women were “erotic opposites.”
Stephen, I should have been clearer that I was referencing only your first post. I’ve little clue as to what you’re talking about in your subsequent posts, though from what I can piece together it has something to do with watching pornography.
And there’s no need to start a fight with me, as your challenge of a bare-knuckled, back alley meeting-of-the-minds from a couple of years ago is, I assume, still on the table.
Well, Nels, try reading it a few times. Your mind has difficulty getting itself around story lines.
It’s really pretty clear.
Thanks, folks. This was one of the better comments threads I’ve ever seen on this site.
I’m an artist, Nels. I don’t deal in the hyper-rational. There’s nothing wrong with that side, which you so often and ably represent. The problem is that the subject of this log delves into issues that are not at all rational… race is much more the province of the irrational and erotic. Chew on it for a while.
And, it’s funny, too, how serious people get commenting on this blog. Nothing is more humorous than deadly serious people. Watch Monty Python for further explication.
‘And, it’s funny, too, how serious people get commenting on this blog.’
Part of the problem is we can’t tell how serious you are being.
A dean has no business using abusive language to any students or calling them offensive names. Period.
“This is where the hangdog attitude of white men came from. I’m white, so I can say this about white women. They love to exploit it. And, they’re good at it.”
Stephen, I’m about to cross you off my happy list, permanently. I don’t care whether you’re black, white, or purple, that’s an ugly thing to say and I take it personally.
Stephen,
I said that black men and white women were “erotic opposites.”
My apologies for misquoting you! But I’m afraid you are misquoting yourself. What you actually wrote was
blacks are the erotic opposites of white women.
Not “black men,” but “blacks.”
I take it that when you refer to “whites,” you wouldn’t be meaning, say, me; and when you refer to “blacks,” you wouldn’t be referring to, say, Condi Rice. I know all about the generic masculine, but really, this is ridiculous. Is an unidentified individual of a particular group presumed male unless specifically identified as female? Just asking.
Ok, Laura. I already knew you were a feminist woman. So, we’re basically enemies. What’s new? I don’t doubt that you are one of the best at exploiting this weakness in white men.
Most of the ones you attack don’t have the verbal facility I do. That really makes feminist women mad.
I know that you exist in a world where it’s not allowed to hate and ridicule feminism. I don’t. I have poetic license.
As I said, this should have been under the Chappelle headline.
I’ve got to to out to dinner, so I’ll miss the beating, but I’ll check back later.
Cobra, where have you gone? We need you right now.
Because, I want to say right in your hearing that I don’t care if white women sleep with black men. If fact, they probably should.
Oh, my, Stephen. Just keep digging, why don’t you?
Let me just say that I’m surrounded by white men, and every one I have day-to-day dealings with (starting with my husband) could see your astonishing-in-your-own-eyes “verbal facility” and raise it. Sheesh.
O.K., enough is enough. Actually, it is too much. I have sent a private email warning that continued ad hominem (ad wominem?) attacks will, for the first time, lead the commenter to be blocked here. And while I’m at it, I would also appreciate, in addition to lowering the decibel level a bit here, that all of you do what most of you already do, which is to try to stay within sight of whatever the post attempted to be about. I do appreciate the time you all take to comment, but we’ll all enjoy this more if the conversation is more civil and on point than it has been of late.
Michelle writes:
>>>Sorry, Cobra, but I don’t believe that you’ve run into a university administrator who casually remarked on how black and Asian women are “erotic opposites.”
I never narrowed my statement down to ONLY “university adminstrators who casually remark on how black and Asian women are erotic opposites.” (actually, Stephen states that white women are, and encourages me to…well, you can read for yourself.) I suggested that MAYBE Turner’s run into more than a few college administrators, officials and students that reflect Stephen’s point of view. Stephen, not to change the focus of this thread, has just made several spirited posts about everything from Asian intellectual supremacy to white male emasculination, interracial dating, and pornography. If you’re suggesting that these topics are never discussed on the college campus, or that administrators, officials and STUDENTS don’t have opinions on them, I don’t know what to tell you, since a simple internet search will fill your screen with more hits than you could ever read.
Back to the THREAD. Turner obviously displays a strong and aggressive desire for black solidarity. His choice of words aren’t polite and probably aren’t temporate, if he INDEED actually USED them. Does it make some uncomfortable? I’m sure it does. But I also observe, on the SAME letters to the editor page that John points us to, the sage wisdom of a student named Alex Wu:
>>> If minorities did not focus on their own concerns, who would? Throughout history, out of pure necessity, it has been the mobilized minority who has taken up the flag of righteousness and moral integrity.
Furthermore, it is na
‘As I said, this should have been under the Chappelle headline.’
There certainly is a big joke goin on.
Cobra-
Please explain to me the difference between Dean Turner and David Duke, another staunch advocate of racial solidarity who makes some uncomfortable.
Wouldn’t you be first in line to boycott and condemn any institution to put Mr. Duke in a position of authority over the minds of young people in our society?
P.S. – Mr. Wu referred to the Daisy Lundy “incident” as though it is fact. Those of us who read this blog regularly need to remember to attach the word “alleged” to the front of that whenever referencing it, as that’s all it is – alleged.
Cobra,
Stephen, not to change the focus of this thread, has just made several spirited posts about everything from Asian intellectual supremacy to white male emasculination, interracial dating, and pornography. If you’re suggesting that these topics are never discussed on the college campus, or that administrators, officials and STUDENTS don’t have opinions on them, I don’t know what to tell you, since a simple internet search will fill your screen with more hits than you could ever read.
“Discussing” a topic or having “an opinion” on it is not the same as taking a particular position on it. If you’ve met a school administrator or official who openly holds any of Stephen’s opinions as you lay them out above, I should be very surprised.
Your position is that the world is full of Stephens, and therefore there’s a need for black solidarity, including nasty language towards black kids who aren’t sufficiently, shall we say, solidaritous? You might just as well say that in a world full of misogynists any woman who defends any man in any context is a ho.
I really don’t like this garbage. But you know that.
Michelle writes:
>>>Your position is that the world is full of Stephens, and therefore there’s a need for black solidarity, including nasty language towards black kids who aren’t sufficiently, shall we say, solidaritous?”
Actually, that’s my description of what M. Rick Turner’s position is. I am on the record as saying I don’t neccessarily agree with EVERYTHING M. Rick Turner says or endorses. I have my own set of controversial positions and beliefs to defend, as many of you constantly remind me.
Eric writes:
>>>Please explain to me the difference between Dean Turner and David Duke, another staunch advocate of racial solidarity who makes some uncomfortable.
Softball question. David Duke believes that blacks people are, Jews are plotting world takeover, and American whites should join whites in Russia to create a “white homeland.”
These facts about Duke are easily researched on any search engine in America, and of course, on his own website, but in the interest of brevity–
http://www.adl.org/special_reports/duke_own_words/duke_intro.asp
M. Rick Turner, as far as I can see from the readings provided,and subsequent internet searches has NOT suggested that whites, or any other group are inferior, Jews are plotting world takeover, or African Americans should combine with other international blacks for a “black homeland.”
As far as people being quick to denouce Duke, as opposed to Turner, I will concede that most people of sound mind do so. I will also note that David Duke WON election to the Louisiana State Legislature in 1988, and even though he was unsuccessful in his gubernatorial bid–he an interesting quote for those who doubt his popularity.
>>>”I won my constituency. I won 55 percent of the white vote.”
Cobra, the post is about Turner’s calling insufficiently-cohesive black students “Uncle Toms” and “house niggers.” I don’t assume you agree with “EVERYTHING” Turner says, but I should like to know if you agree with this bit.
As I recall, Duke’s opponent in that race was Edwin Edwards, a convicted felon. That happened as the result of a runoff. I don’t know how it came about that the people of Louisiana didn’t have a better choice to make. Duke had toned down the racial rhetoric quite a bit before the election, as I recall, but no one believed him; and rightly so, since it flamed out again afterwards. I think a lot of Louisianians (?) sat that one out. It’s a lesson to us all.
Laura, as I recall it, the going bumper sticker was “Vote for the Crook! It’s Important!”
Cobra-
Having gone to UVa and spoken to Dean Turner, I assure you that he views his constituency as the “black vote” and could care less about the white students there. In fact, he does worse than care less – he holds an open contempt for them that is poisoning the environment on Grounds. You think his anger about the Alpha’s joining the IFC is because he holds a wonderful view of the white students at UVa?
There is a lot more similarity here than you would like to believe.
Eric writes:
>>>Having gone to UVa and spoken to Dean Turner, I assure you that he views his constituency as the “black vote” and could care less about the white students there. In fact, he does worse than care less – he holds an open contempt for them that is poisoning the environment on Grounds. You think his anger about the Alpha’s joining the IFC is because he holds a wonderful view of the white students at UVa?
There is a lot more similarity here than you would like to believe.”
Can you point me to some direct quotes or published materials by M. Rick Turner that would substantiate your claims? I’m not saying it’s impossible to believe, but David Duke’s websites, books, videos, and on the record quotes leave NO room for imagination about what his mindset is. And as the letter from the editor posted by John very clearly states:
“No, Turner is not responsible for the tumultuous racial climate at the University.”
You claim to have gone to UVA, Eric. In your opinion, who or what is responsible for the “tumultuous racial climate at the University?”
Michelle writes:
>>>Cobra, the post is about Turner’s calling insufficiently-cohesive black students “Uncle Toms” and “house n******.” I don’t assume you agree with “EVERYTHING” Turner says, but I should like to know if you agree with this bit.”
Michelle, as the letter clearly stated, Dean Turner “reportedly” said these terms. As much as I can follow this story from the web, I don’t believe any recording exists that authenticates the claim. If there is one, I would be happy to review the material.
I will say this, however. There are terms to describe people, practices or events that are benign and non-controversial. Euphemisms are excellent tools to avoid unneccessary tension or insult in many cases, but not all. For example, I can go on the radio tonight and say “bovine excrement” without incurring a $500,000 fine from the FCC, but it doesn’t change the definition of the term or what it means.
In applying this to the alleged Turner incident, before I condemn him, I would probably want to know more about the full story line, including quotes from fraternity members and leadership of the IFC. I would want to know how the phrases, if they were actually said, came up during the meetings. I can easily see where phrases are repeated by speakers in answer to audience questions, so an unedited transcript would be required.
My own creed? I would most likely, in all probability reserve the most caustic and inflammatory language to describe those individuals who truly deserve it. Overuse of any particular word or phrase dilutes its impact, IMHO.
That being said, I think they may have been inappropriate to use in this example, without me knowing all the facts. If they were used at all, that is.
My question back to you, Michelle, is do you believe in the use of euphemism to describe people or activities you find to be personally abhorrant? I don’t believe our argument is over the EXISTENCE of toadies, collaborators, sycophants, boot-lickers, office-kiss ups, and teacher’s pets, but on the “acceptible” terminology and application thereof.
–Cobra
Dean Turner is beyond comtempt. As a UVa student, I have absolutely no problem believing Eric when he says that Dean cares nothing of white people.
Look, this issue is plain and simple. Why is a GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL influencing private decisions? Why is a UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATOR turning people away from university sponsored events because of their skin color? WHY IS DEAN TURNER CONSTANTLY FOMENTING SEPARATIST ATTITUDES AND SEGREGATIONIST BEHAVIOR?
“My own creed? I would most likely, in all probability reserve the most caustic and inflammatory language to describe those individuals who truly deserve it. Overuse of any particular word or phrase dilutes its impact, IMHO.
That being said, I think they may have been inappropriate to use in this example, without me knowing all the facts. If they were used at all, that is.”
Cobra, maybe I’m just a country rube (actually, a city rube), but it seems to me you didn’t really answer Michelle’s question, and it’s a very important one. And with all things NOT being equal, it’s much more important how you, as an African-American, feel about not just euphemisms in general, but these types in particular, as they are constantly pointed toward minorities, and particularly blacks.
Young blacks are put into a terrible position. Constantly told, on the one hand, that the man is holding them down, doesn’t want them having a seat at the table. But how to get that seat? Education, first. Then, adopting the boring, accepted practices that are universal in the business/corporate/successful world. Everybody pretty much joins the same club. Maybe cut your hair. Keep it to two or three colors of the rainbow. Consevative attire. No tattoos or piercings, please. Proper speech. It’s just the way it goes.
But acceptance of these universal stnadards is tantamount to selling out in the eyes of these false prophets. It’s acting white, trying to pass. Education itself is often ridiculed among the lower incomes, particularly blacks.
And if you actually hold conservative views? Forget it. Harry Belafonte refers to the Secretary of State of the United States as a house slave. Cartoonist Ted Rall calls the National Security Adviser a house nigga (at least he had the guts to use the correct term). And people like Turner let everyone know they’re Uncle Tom race-traitors if they don’t act ‘black enough’. And even if he didn’t actually say it (yeah), there are plenty of others lining up behind him who will.
You are right — he does not answer the question.
Why not?
Because he wants to defend the indefensible, but lacks the context of the remarks in which the remarks were made which would allow him to do so.
But the problem is that there is virtually no context in which the remarks are defensible — the only available exception being the possibility that he was quoting others.
Simple question for you, Cobra — would I, a white man, be permitted to direct such comments towards a group of black students? And if I would not be permitted to do so, why should Turner be permitted to do so?
I guess what I am really getting at is the notion that certain standars of decency and civility must apply across the board, especially to those who are in leadership positions and who are expected to provide examples to youth as role models. Taken in its totality (with or without this particular incident), does Turner’s conduct set the sort of example expected for one in his position? Is the acceptance of such conduct really the application of a substandard standard to individuals based upon race?
Scott writes:
>>>Cobra, maybe I’m just a country rube (actually, a city rube), but it seems to me you didn’t really answer Michelle’s question, and it’s a very important one. And with all things NOT being equal, it’s much more important how you, as an African-American, feel about not just euphemisms in general, but these types in particular, as they are constantly pointed toward minorities, and particularly blacks.”
Scott, you wrote a great post. I actually agree with most of it, but I feel I did answer the question. It probably wasn’t the answer many here wanted to hear, but my belief is that there is a place for those terms, but I don’t have enough facts to know if they were appropriate in this instance. If you don’t believe that there are some African-Americans who will appease and supplicate themselves despite any indignity before non-black bosses, leaders, peers, and strangers for acceptance, approval or personal gain, well…that’s another topic.
>>>But acceptance of these universal stnadards is tantamount to selling out in the eyes of these false prophets. It’s acting white, trying to pass. Education itself is often ridiculed among the lower incomes, particularly blacks.”
Here’s where I disagree with you. First, you haven’t defined who these “false prophets” are. Second, “acting white” is a topic I’m quite familiar with. I’ve spoken much like I type for most of my life–“proper speach” and all. What you don’t seem to realize is the double edged sword…many WHITES weren’t all that enthralled with my diction, mild-mannerisms, or “universal standards.” It’s as though they expected the same stereotypical behavior you allude to as being counterproductive to success.
Not to overgeneralize, but African Americans don’t control the majority of media in this country, but which image of blacks dominates movies, television, music and theater? Are the majority of them within the “universal standard” you endorse?
I don’t want to broach the “conservative blacks can’t get no respect” theme again, because that’s not the focus of this thread.
The Precinct Chair writes:
>>>Simple question for you, Cobra — would I, a white man, be permitted to direct such comments towards a group of black students? And if I would not be permitted to do so, why should Turner be permitted to do so?”
What is with this, “permission” thing? You have the right to free speech. The reactions you’ll get to your free speech is a different matter entirely. Obviously, M. Rick Turner has not received a “free pass” on the statements he may or may not have allegedly made. Look at the letters to the editor, and the comments posted here.
–Cobra
“I don’t have enough facts to know if they were appropriate in this instance.”
Cobra, I too like to get the facts before I pass judgement. I think, though, that a dean should never use offensive, abusive language toward or about students. I just can’t see how that could be right. If he did think they were sellouts – well, for one thing, they’re supposed to be grown enough to have developed their own values and make their own decisions; and for another, what the fraternities do is hopefully only peripheral to the real business of the university, which should be academics as far as those undergraduates are concerned. Why is he so exercised about it?
But you again dodge the question, Cobra.
What sanction has Turner faced for his statements (not just these, but others as well)? What sanction is he likely to face? Might I suggest that a relatively few nasty blog entrys/comments and some letters to the editor written by UVa undergrads is hardly an official sanction.
Were similar comments made by a white academic at UVa, would he/she escape sanctions by the University? Would the outrage be nearly so muted?
I’d suggest that, given the totality of comments and statements made by Turner over time (regardless of whether this particular incident happened as reported), that Turner has more or less been given carte blanche (or should that be carte noir?) to make inflammatory racial statements in his official capacity. Does this not constitute a double standard, given the intolerance for such comments from white indivuduals under speech codes?
I currently attend UVA, I’m about to finish my third year.
Wow, I have a lot more to say on this topic than I thought I did. I’m more than unhappy with the way race is handled here. I have rewritten it several times to keep it short.
-How come when a white student paints his face black for halloween, everyone goes nuts, but when a black student paints his face white for a party, nobody cares?
-How come when white students attack black students, it is ALWAYS a hate crime, but when local area black people go around in a gang of up to 9 people, they tell the police they went out for the sole purpose of finding and beating up specifically white people, they repeatedly do these attacks for several years before getting caught, and THESE ARE NOT HATE CRIMES?
That basically sums it up. As for Turner, I don’t really see how you can defend him too much. No ethics, no class, no place at The University. I am a student, and my tuition money is paying a man who called me a member of the KKK? The funny thing is I’m not surprised. You can deny it all you want, or try to insist its only alleged, but if you insist this claim is alleged, I think I will insist the white people who dragged the black man to his death in jasper didn’t do it because of race, because there is no proof. *Side Note: Suspects admitting crime was done based on race is not sufficient proof crime was committed based on race – see above for example.