This opinion piece was written by Seven Days‘ former Poli Psy columnist.
Kareem G. Louard was driving under the influence of alcohol and weed. He was driving with a suspended license, due to a 2015 DUI charge. Thanks to some possibly extenuating circumstances, Louard’s public defender, Lucas Collins, worked out a pretty good plea deal. Then Chittenden Superior Court Judge Gregory Rainville dropped the charges and let Louard go.
Those are the facts, as reported here. But this is the most pertinent fact, the one no one will utter: Rainville let Louard go because he is an African American.
The decision was a perfect example of what speechwriter Michael Gerson called the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” Collins, who like the judge is white, exhibited his own racial chauvinism.
Herewith, text and subtext (in italics):
Collins: “My client, to his credit, behaved very well, was very compliant, was polite.” (My client was a credit to his race.)
“[He] did not give them any trouble.” (Now, you’re not going to give us any trouble, are you? Imagine this sentence emanating from the mouth of a Southern cop addressing a black man on a lonely road in Mississippi, circa 1965.)
Rainville: “You’re a black man.” (You are categorically different from other motorists).
“This could have gone really bad, really quick if you had gotten your back up about this or gotten upset or just got overly excited.” (Being black, your emotions are easily excited, and you have a hard time controlling them.)
“You’d probably have gotten hurt, and they might have as well.” (If someone had gotten hurt, it would have been your fault.)
“[Y]ou did everything by the book. And that’s more than a reasonable person could be required to do under the circumstances.” (Obeying the law, acting reasonably, is more than a black person could be expected to do under the ordinary circumstances of being pulled over for driving erratically.)
“So I think you deserve a break here. You’re done.” (That’s a good boy. Now run along home.)
The Burlington police, according to Chief Brandon del Pozo, are working on “creating better bonds” between cops and young black men. Start with this: the 14th Amendment, which guarantees all Americans, including African Americans and former slaves, equal protection of the law.
This article appears in Aug 10-16, 2016.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
The comments made by the Public Defender Lucas Collins in this case are common and consistent with what would be said in any case to argue a reduced sentence. To assign some other motive is ludicrous.
Sooooo Judge Rainville was softly racist when he decided to buck the trend of disproportionally incarcerating and levying fines on individuals that are non-White (i.e. black – or is that a softly racist word now?). By focusing on paralanguage (which I might add, your interpretation is just that, an interpretation) you completely overlook the disproportionate representation African Americans hold in Vermont jails or the fact that African Americans are pulled over at higher rates and have fines levied against them at higher rates.
This is a really strange column from Judith Levine. She ignores the fact that the initiating call was a false report intended as revenge. No erratic driving occurred, as Louard was likely aware.
Yes, he was driving under a suspended license – a fact that would not have been discovered, incidentally, without a false report. Nor would Louard have been caught “driving under the influence” with a BAC that 10 minutes later would have been under the legal limit and likely did not impair his driving even at .09.
It’s not outrageous for Rainville to complement Louard for reacting well after being stopped under effectively false pretenses. Many others, white or black or Christmas red and green, might not have.
And I suppose that Ms. Levine will tell us that she is opposed to affirmative action because of the “soft bigotry of low expectations”? Somehow I doubt it.
I find it absurd that someone born with white privilege seems to believe that she is the ultimate arbiter of what is best for African-Americans.
It is always disappointing when someone who has no idea what goes on in criminal courtrooms on a daily basis tries to use a single exchange in one criminal case to extrapolate commentary on some larger social issue. Spend a little time at the courthouse, Ms. Levine, and you would see that a defendant’s behavior during an arrest, regardless of their race, is regularly discussed as a factor in bail arguments and plea agreements. Systematic and personal racism in the justice system is certainly a real problem, even here in Vermont, but Mr. Collins, making the kind of argument he would make for any client on these facts, is not an example of it. You should do more research and be better informed about your subject matter before making these kinds of accusations.
It’s interesting that, apparently, Ms. Levine hasn’t spent a lot of time in courtrooms. That type of exchange between the judge and public defender is routine among defendants of all races, as other commenters have noted. What I find interesting though is that Ms. Levine doesn’t seem to realize that criminal law is typically far more focused on deeds and facts than intentions and motives. Ironic then that she sees fit to judge Mr. Collins’s and the judge’s motivations. What was her intent and through what subjective measure did she use? I won’t guess.
I could easily imagine this exchange between any individual before the court under these circumstances, especially if they were white and privileged. This is a horrible critique.