Editor’s note: This commentary is by Mark Hughes, who is the co-founder and director of Justice For All VT, a grassroots organization that peruses racial justice within Vermont’s criminal justice system. He is a tri-chair of the Vermont chapter of the New Poor People’s Campaign and serves on the board of Rights and Democracy. He is a retired from the military where he specialized in cryptography and has had an extensive career in cyber security.
[T]he article “Anti-racism bill sparks debate” by Mike Faher did us a disservice. The title of the bill mischaracterizes the reality on the ground under the golden dome. This bill was never put forward to address racism nor is there any debate about its necessity. The bill was put forward to address patterns and practices that have historically created disparities for people of color across all systems of government in Vermont, commonly referred to a systemic racism. At the core of this debate is a simple question: Should we remove the intent to ensure people of color are given an opportunity to have a voice in addressing systemic racism? The framing of this question is vitally important and unfortunately, VTDigger missed an educational moment.
This article goes on to confuse readers more so than inform them by speaking in terms of racism as opposed to systemic racism and referring to instances of overt racism such as that previously reported in the state psychiatric hospital. Our readership also deserves to understand that the statement made by Sen. Randy Brock indicating “I believe it’s wrong, particularly for a state position – a paid position in state government – to indicate that it can only be filled by persons of a certain race” is misleading. The three folks of color, to which the bill refers is the panel that will be appointed (who will not be paid state employees), not the hired civil rights officer.
The smallest amount of research would yield precedent in appointing people of color to panels and commissions where, as a result of their impacted positions, their input is of vital importance. Racial Disparities in the Criminal and Juvenile Justice System Advisory Panel and the Human Rights Commission are two. Finally, it is poor journalism to hold the debate on this amendment out as “the story.” This legislation is unprecedented in Vermont and likely nationally and why this is the nature of the coverage exemplifies the issue it seeks to resolve.
Perhaps the real story should be why so many of the same senators who signed similar legislation don’t understand why it is important to have people of color on this panel. Why do these 12 senators believe that this panel should still be “debating” systemic racism as opposed to getting the work of addressing it done? With the current racial posture as it is in Vermont and the national climate deteriorating, accurate and responsible journalism is an imperative. Anything less adds to the problem, and we certainly don’t need that, do we? By the way, from an African-American, the use of the term “minority” is a dog whistle and misleads folks from the reality that people of color represent the vast majority of this planet.
