Of Justice And Racial Partiality

Of Justice And Racial PartialityThe headlines have been abuzz with the controversy over George Zimmerman’s acquittal in the Trayvon Martin murder case. Streets have been flooded by people who protested this acquittal and racial discrimination has been the talk of town.

‘Fine line between’

Many people believe that Zimmerman should have been pronounced guilty. Many also believe that Martin was in the wrong. Between the shouts of protests and the silent resignation, what is your opinion about dispensing justice in the wake of a case tainted by racial issues?

Whenever there is a serious case between a white and a black person (or any non-white person, for that matter), the jury is torn between two underlying and mostly unspoken issues. First, there is the issue of discrimination. Second, the issue of right justice.

Under the issue of racial discrimination, the blacks (or non-whites) are usually the victims. For this reason, lawyers, prosecutors and the jurors are usually more careful when treating the blacks because every untoward statement can be seen as discrimination. Under the issue of right justice, there is the burden to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. And in a case as confusing as the Zimmerman-Martin case, it is easy to teeter on the fine line between dispensing justice rightfully and wrongfully identifying the true victim in the case.


‘Racially partial’

What if, in the search for true justice, the rights of the defendant are stepped upon just to avoid being called out for being racially partial? What if, the person that we thought was he victim was really the assailant? What if, even without the race factor, we still have the tendency to condemn the wrong person?

These are difficult questions that warrant careful thought and consideration. These situations can happen all the time, everywhere, to anyone. And we cannot do anything else except hope that the jurors come up with a verdict that is truly right and just.

What is your opinion regarding the Zimmerman-Martin case? Do you think the jury gave the right verdict?

Image: Bossip

Ohio State President Gordon Gee To Retire In The Wake Of Controversy

Ohio State President Gordon Gee To Retire In The Wake Of ControversyOhio State president E. Gordon Gee announced on Tuesday afternoon that he plans to retire from his post, a move that will go into effect on July 1.

‘Wrong side of the microphone’

Gee’s retirement announcement comes on the heels of a scandal, per ESPN.com, regarding comments he made about the University of Notre Dame and the Southeastern Conference at the school’s Athletic Council last December.

Gee has been a source of controversy for Ohio State for quite some time. In addition to his comments about Notre Dame, the SEC and the pitfalls of what the Irish in the Big Ten would mean for the conference, Gee has been on the wrong side of the microphone about his state’s governor and comparing the coordination of Ohio State’s division to the Polish Army (via ESPN).


‘Off-the-wall statements’

He also took to defense of his football team’s non-conference schedule in 2010, taking issue with the resumes that non-BCS schools (at the time) TCU and Boise State had going into bowl season (via this ESPN report). Gee noted that Ohio State’s schedule was challenging and used the now-infamous phrase, “We do not play the Little Sisters of the Poor.”

Always apologetic following his off-the-wall statements, Gee’s favor with university officials steadily ran out over the course of his tenure with the Buckeyes. His latest gaffe proved to be his undoing and will likely be the long-lasting memory associated with his time at Ohio State.

Is retiring the right decision for Gordon Gee at this moment? Feel free to share your opinion via the comment box below!

Source: Ethan Grant, Bleacher Report

Image: Cleveland.com