Blogtown, PDX

Thursday, January 17, 2008

News Racial Profiling Committee Gets Down To It

Posted by Matt Davis on Thu, Jan 17 at 5:20 PM

I can’t tell you what’s been discussed at the racial profiling committee this afternoon, because I’ve agreed to keep the conversation off the record. I took the decision a few months ago on the basis that the committee considered barring the media altogether.

The idea of today’s conversations between the community and the police is to discuss some of the real issues relating to racial profiling that both sides are afraid to talk about on record, or be quoted on.

Needless to say, the conversation has been fascinating. It’s touched on racial stereotypes and prejudices in a way more honest than I’ve ever seen in this city. Emotion has been running high, and at times I’ve felt extremely uncomfortable, even listening to what’s being said. I can’t imagine how difficult it must be for those participating, and I salute their bravery in doing so.

I just wish I could tell you about it.

Incidentally, last night, Police Chief Rosie Sizer and Oregon Action Director Jo Ann Bowman presented to the mayor on the progress of the committee. I was not there to see it, because the session looked to be going extremely late, and I had a Flexcar to return by 8pm. Shame. I’d have thought 2 hours would be enough for the council to get there, which shows how naive I am.

Bowman, it’s understood, told the mayor that the committee wants to hold a two day retreat, focused on outcomes, and to hold a conference on racial profiling issues. She also wants to hold more community sessions. Sizer, it’s understood, recommended hiring a technical writer to work on the police plan to end racial profiling, and forming a group within the Bureau to implement the police plan within the organization.

Seriously though, I wish I could tell you what’s been said here today. It was far, far more important and relevant to the issue at hand. But I’m aware of how sensitive the discussion is, and how my reporting on it could thwart the process. It’s conflicting. Your thoughts?

Permalink

Comments

Lemme guess,

'Portland is racist'
'You can't say that, I said Portland is more racist first'
...

etc.

Posted by D | January 17, 2008 5:56 PM

Not exactly, D. That's why I wish I could tell you what was said.

Posted by Matt Davis | January 17, 2008 6:28 PM

How could listing topics of discussion, without the discussion, do harm? For example, telling us that what was discussed included the shooting of Kendra James, or the relative presence of officers in NE vs westside, or the consequnces for violent police behavior (or lack thereof), or the perceived disparities of treatment for black and white citizens, doesn't seem like anything that would jeopardize the willingness of people to speak freely. Also, would it be possible to tell us whether either side seemed to learn anything new, whether people left with a better understanding of each other, whether certain issues came closer to resolution, whether any action would be taken on issues, etc.?

Posted by James X. | January 18, 2008 1:11 AM

You shouldn't have acquiesced. It's a public meeting, which means anybody could have attended. But since people have things like jobs and school, it's your job as the press to show up and represent the public, and let the public know what happened. Your duty isn't to the process, it's to the public.

At the least, you should have pushed back and perhaps agreed to not attach names to comments, but still report on the contents of the meeting.

Posted by Blog Junkie | January 18, 2008 10:54 AM

Seriously, mate. Hearing what was said, there was no way I could have reported it without people figuring out who'd said it.

Posted by Matt Davis | January 18, 2008 2:01 PM

Not what was said, what the topics were.

Posted by James X. | January 18, 2008 7:06 PM

What is wrong with profiling? It is not against any law and it is effective. What is good about it is that white, black, latino, asian police officers can all do it and it makes it so much easier to narrow down the field. The airport police do it sucessfully and nobody squacks about that..It is only blacks that whine about it because they are the ones commiting most of the crimes. (go to the national prison stats) So the next time you hear someone screaming "you are profiling" They are either black, criminal, or an appoligist liberal fool.

Posted by Friends of Meatpuppet | January 20, 2008 7:06 PM

Matt this is the biggest bunch of horse hockey I have heard since the baby Gabriel story, why even bring it up if you can't report on it? What is the point? To fill a hole in the paper?
Any time the government does anything in secret it is because it is wrong or actionable.
Anytime a reporter fails to publish a story it is because they are a liberal pig, it does not fit the liberal rags idea of good news, or they are a tool.

Most importantly and above all else, profiling is not against any laws, it works great, and only criminals, apologist liberals, and blacks are against using it.

Posted by Friends of Meatpuppet | January 29, 2008 11:10 AM

Was Sam Sachs there? That guy is such a weirdo...he thinks everyone is racist.

Posted by Whatever | January 30, 2008 1:58 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).