Public Advocate Jumaane Williams just made his criticism of Bill de Blasio’s handling of Big Apple protests personal — accusing the mayor of using his biracial family as a political shield. “This
is me talking, like, you can no longer hide behind your black wife and
children, not anymore,” Williams said during a press conference
live-streamed on Facebook Friday. “You’re exposed now. We are at a time when we need your leadership. It is not there,” Williams said. A spokeswoman for the mayor did not immediately return a request for comment. De Blasio’s wife, first lady Chirlane McCray, is black, and they share two biracial children, Dante, 23 and Chiara, 25.
Former President Bill Clinton, left, speaks before he administers
the oath of office to Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio, right, as Chiara de
Blasio, second from left, Dante de Blasio, center, and wife Chirlane
McCray, second from right, watch on the steps of City Hall Wednesday,
Jan. 1, 2014, in New York City. (Associated Press)
In 2013, then 15-year-old Dante, sporting a
puffed-out afro, starred in a campaign ad for his father’s mayoral race
that some pundits say helped de Blasio clinch the primary race. A year later, thousands of cops turned their backs on
the mayor at the funerals for a pair of officers who were shot just
weeks after an interview in which de Blasio said he and McCray had
taught Dante about the “dangers” posed by the police to young black men. Williams’ rebuke comes a day after de Blasio was booed off the stage at a George Floyd memorial in Brooklyn. When
the mayor attempted to tell the crowd, “Black lives matter in New
York,” one heckler shouted, “Not to you!” even as McCray stood by de
Blasio’s side. And in an echo of the 2014 police funeral, much of the crowd turned their backs on the mayor before he finished speaking. On
Friday, Williams said the NYPD should take a hands-off approach to
protestors who are demonstrating past the city’s 8 p.m. curfew, instead
of aggressively shutting them down. “Don’t
put additional tension spots and say you got to be home by this time,”
he said, before faulting the mayor for failing to assure protests remain
peaceful. “It’s like you’re not even trying. I don’t know how
much you care at his point to put forth a plan. I guess it’s good to
show up at a George Floyd memorial, but where’s your plan?” Williams
asked. Pressed on his Facebook comment, Williams later said, “This
time we’re in is not about the mayor’s family or any one family, but
the thousands of families and people across the city who are looking for
leadership and action but aren’t receiving it.”
We are getting a great insight into the culture of the New York Times. The paper struck a blow for honest journalism--and that greatly upset many of its staffers. At
stake is whether the op-ed pages of a newspaper should be a forum for
debate, or just a vehicle for reinforcing what its top editors and a
majority of its readers already believe. To choose the latter course is
to reduce that precious real estate to predictable propaganda, which is
not just one-sided but boring. The Times did the right thing--well, until it didn’t. The paper’s editors chose to publish a piece by Tom Cotton,
a Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, titled “Send In
The Military.” Cotton argues that it’s perfectly appropriate for
President Trump to use the military to restore order in cities wracked
by violent protests after the brutal killing of George Floyd. Well, there was an open revolt at the paper, led by black journalists who were offended. Nikole
Hannah-Jones of the Times Magazine, who worked on the paper’s
Pulitzer-winning “1619” slavery project, said: “As a black woman, as a
journalist, as an American, I am deeply ashamed that we ran this.” Jenna Wortham echoed many on the paper in tweeting: “Running this put Black @nytimes staffers in danger.” Roxanne
Gay said she was open to pieces with dissenting voices, but not this
one: “His piece was inflammatory and endorsing military occupation as if
the constitution doesn’t exist.” I’m all for journalists speaking out, and I understand the sensitivity for black staffers. But to be “ashamed” of the paper? To their credit, the editors are sticking to their guns. Editorial Page Editor James Bennet took to Twitter to defend his decision: “Times
Opinion owes it to our readers to show them counter-arguments,
particularly those made by people in a position to set policy. We
understand that many readers find Senator Cotton's argument painful,
even dangerous. We believe that is one reason it requires public
scrutiny and debate.” Publisher A.G.Sulzberger added his support in a sensitively worded note to employees yesterday: “I’ve
heard from journalists on the front lines of this story about the
trauma of watching brutality replayed on endless loops on television and
social media. About conversations with your children that have brought
you to tears. About being afraid to walk down the street, get in your
car, or — particularly — put your safety on the line reporting from
inside the protests. You’ve told me about boiling frustrations over
entrenched inequalities that, as our colleagues have reported, are a matter of life and death. “Throughout
this crisis and over the last several days, the Editorial Board has
used our institutional voice to tackle many of these issues... “It
is clear many believe this piece fell outside the realm of
acceptability, representing dangerous commentary in an explosive moment
that should not have found a home in The Times, even as a counterpoint
to our own institutional view. I believe in the principle of openness to
a range of opinions, even those we may disagree with, and this piece
was published in that spirit.” It’s stunning to me that both men
had to plead with their employees (and readers) to understand the
essence of op-ed debate. I grew up in newspapers. Most of them have
always offered a nod in the direction of dissenting views, and whether I
agreed with those views or not was irrelevant. Every regular
Times columnist, liberal and conservative, is fiercely anti-Trump. The
editorial page has denounced his handling of the nationwide protests. Is
one op-ed going to dramatically change U.S. policy? Cotton could have
made his argument in dozens of forums, but he chose to engage readers of
the Times, who otherwise might not have seen it. The Arkansas
senator praised the editors yesterday, telling Fox: “They’ve stood up to
the ‘woke progressive mob’ in their own newsroom. So, I commend them
for that.” But he spoke too soon. About two hours after I checked in with the Times PR office, the paper caved. Suddenly, the column that both the publisher and editorial page editor had spent the day defending was found wanting. “We’ve
examined the piece and the process leading up to its publication,” the
new statement said, moments before my story on the subject aired on
“Special Report.” “This review made clear that a rushed editorial
process led to the publication of an op-ed that did not meet our
standards.” The paper said it would make changes, expand its
fact-checking operation and publish fewer op-ed pieces. Fewer op-eds? No explanation of supposed factual shortcomings? The internal pressure must have been overwhelming. Meanwhile, a similar controversy erupted at the Philadelphia Inquirer, and staffers were so angry that some of them walked out. In fairly short order, the paper apologized. The Inquirer ran a piece by its columnist Inga Saffron that examined the reaction to the Floyd killing: “The
anger is fully justified. Black people have been the victims of
systemic oppression in America for 400 years, but video footage and
social media have now made it impossible to deny how bad things really
are. The grotesque killings of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and Breonna
Taylor — and many others before them — are attacks on the fundamental
promise of our democracy.” The problem was the headline:
“Buildings Matter, Too.” A play on Black Lives Matter, it was used to
buttress the argument that the destruction of downtown buildings by
rioters would leave a permanent scar on the city. But the headline was a
bit insensitive. Dozens of Inquirer staffers signed a protest
letter, according to HuffPost, that said: “We’re tired of shouldering
the burden of dragging this 200-year-old institution kicking and
screaming into a more equitable age. We’re tired of being told of the
progress the company has made and being served platitudes about
‘diversity and inclusion’ when we raise our concerns. We’re tired of
seeing our words and photos twisted to fit a narrative that does not
reflect our reality. We’re tired of being told to show both sides of
issues there are no two sides of.” No two sides--there’s that
ideological stance again. Agree with us or your words shouldn’t be
published. And this for a column that flatly declared black anger is
justified--but lamented the senseless destruction of property. Not only did the editors change the headline, but they slapped this editor’s note on the piece: “A
headline published in Tuesday’s Inquirer was offensive, inappropriate
and we should not have printed it. We deeply regret that we did. We also
know that an apology on its own is not sufficient. We need to do
better. We’ve heard that loud and clear, including from our own staff.
We will.” We all need to do better. White journalists need to
listen to black voices who explain why police brutality resonates so
deeply in their daily lives. But the notion that only one
viewpoint is acceptable, and no contrary words should be published, even
on an opinion page, gets at the heart of why journalism has lost so
much credibility.
Former NFL safety Burgess Owens told "Tucker Carlson Tonight" Thursday that those demanding New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees
apologize for saying he would never agree with people who disrespect
the American flag are "elitists" who are embarrassments to their home
country.
"What
you're seeing here is exactly why President Trump will be elected once
again; as they were surprised last time," Owens told host Tucker
Carlson. "Americans don't like bullies. They don't like people
who demand that we disrespect our flag and our country. I think what
Drew did, he was spot on." Owens,
who won Super Bowl XV as a member of the Oakland Raiders and is running
for Congress as a Republican in Utah's 4th District, added that people
who know Brees know that he is not a racist, and that people going after
him are "cowards and Marxists -- period." "I'm one of those guys
that will never, ever acquiesce and apologize for pride in my country,
and I'll say another thing," Owens continued. "I will always say 'All
Lives Matter'. I don't care what the bullies say ... those of us that
tell the truth will win our country back. "One thing is for sure,"
Owens went on, "we need to understand that we are under attack and it
is the evil of trying to destroy our middle class." Owens said the firestorm created by Brees' comments stems from larger issues. "I
lived in the middle class. I grew up with it and I saw how the leftists
and the elitists destroyed my middle class," he said. "It went
from [blacks being] 50-60 percent of the middle class during segregation
to 40 percent, and it was mostly the elitist ones that you see on TV
blasting out," he said.
"These
Marxists ... and in particular the black ones, are enemies to our race
and it's time to stand up against these guys and say, 'We will not be
used anymore by you people'," Owens said. Before introducing
Owens, Carlson played a clip of Brees' new teammate, Malcolm Jenkins,
slamming the Super Bowl-winning quarterback in an emotional video posted
to social media. "I'm
disappointed, I'm hurt," Jenkins said. "While the world tells you
that you are not worthy -- that your life doesn't matter, the last
place you want to hear it from are the guys that you go to war with
and that you consider to be allies and to be your friends." In
introducing the clip, Carlson said it appears people like Brees are now
"required to disavow the nation of your birth -- to attack your own
country -- or you can't live here."
Former Vice President Joe Biden claimed Thursday that "10 to 15 percent" of Americans are "just not very good people." As
first reported by The New York Times, Biden held a virtual town hall on
Thursday evening with black supporters where he knocked President Trump's divisiveness and weak leadership. “The
words a president says matter, so when a president stands up and
divides people all the time, you’re gonna the worst of us to come out,”
Biden told actor Don Cheadle, who was moderating the virtual town hall. “Do
we really think this is as good as we can be as a nation? I don’t think
the vast majority of people think that," Biden continued. "There are
probably anywhere from 10 to 15 percent of the people out there who are
just not very good people, but that’s not who we are. The vast majority
of the people are decent. We have to appeal to that and we have to unite
people -- bring them together. Bring them together.” It is
unclear who exactly he was referring to within the "10 to 15 percent" of
people and whether or not he believes they support President Trump. The
remarks harken back to the controversial comments made by former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election
when, at a campaign event, she estimated that "half" of Trump's
supporters belong in a "basket of deplorables." While Biden
received praised earlier this week for his address following the May 25
death of Minneapolis man George Floyd while in police custody, the
presumptive Democratic nominee previously landed himself in hot water
during a recent interview on "The Breakfast Club." During the show, he
told radio host Charlamagne tha God "you ain't black" if any black voter
is still undecided between supporting him or President Trump. He later
walked those comments back, saying he shouldn't have sounded so
"cavalier" and acted like a "wise guy." However,
in multiple interviews since then, Biden appeared to cast blame for the
remarks on Charlamagne tha God, insisting the host was also acting like
a "wise guy" and later claimed he was "baiting" him, which prompted the
offensive remark. Charlamagne tha God shot back Wednesday night,
telling Stephen Colbert "I didn't bait" Biden and that he "volunteered
that fish" on his own.
Former New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly told "Hannity" Thursday that the National Guard may be needed to help control unrest in the city amid ongoing protests following the death of George Floyd. "The
NYPD has 38,000 police officers, and I would think enough police
officers to do the job," Kelly said, "but I’m starting to think if this
continues for a couple more nights, we are going to need the National
Guard. "That was not my initial position," Kelly added, "but something has got to be done." Kelly,
the longest-serving commissioner in NYPD history, said NYPD officers
are exhausted from working extended shifts, "being assaulted in
every possible way, run down [by cars], hit by bricks, trashed." On Wednedsay evening, an NYPD officer was randomly attacked and stabbed in the neck while patrolling in Brooklyn, which resulted in a struggle that caused two additional officers to suffer gunshot wounds. In addition, a shocking video posted on social media early Tuesday showed a NYPD officer being struck by a vehicle in
what appeared to be a deliberate hit-and-run. NYPD Commissioner Dermot
Shea said the officer was still in intensive care, "but recovering
slowly." Kelly blamed New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio for the unrest, saying he was limiting officers' ability to properly do their jobs. "The
mayor mentioned the other day that he was on the phone with them
50 times [one] night," Kelly said. "That is way too much, way too much
involvement from City Hall. [You] have to let the police professionals
do their job." Fox News' Talia Kaplan contributed to this report.
LOS ANGELES— Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti
said Wednesday that he tasked the city to “identify $250 million in
cuts” to invest more money into the black community, communities of
color, women and “people who have been left behind." The Los Angeles Times reported that
the city will try and cut between $100 million to $150 million from its
police budget alone. Garcetti said it is incumbent on the city to “step
up and say, ‘What can we sacrifice?’” The mayor said that the city will not increase its police budget of $1.8 billion. Deadline reported that
Garcetti said that he will offer more specifics at a later press
conference but said the money will be distributed “now, not years from
now.” “It’s time to move our rhetoric towards action to end racism
in our city,” he said, according to Deadline. “Prejudice can never be
part of police work…It takes bravery to save lives, too.” Melina
Abdullah, the co-founder of Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, told a
reporter at the paper that the city needs to go further with pulling
money from police and "need to know that we’re fighting for truly
transformative change here and won’t be bought off with just this
minimal amount of money.” Police departments across the country
have had to respond to looting and arson in the wake of George Floyd in
police custody in Minneapolis last week. One former city police officer
faces second-degree murder charges and the three others were charged
with aiding and abetting murder. More than 3,000 people have been
arrested in Los Angeles County since protests began last week, most
accused of curfew violations. Los Angeles District District Attorney
Jackie Lacey has been criticized for reluctance to bring charges against
police officers for misconduct. At some Los Angeles protests,
demonstrators have chanted for her to be removed. She said she
supports peaceful protests "that already have brought needed attention
to racial inequality throughout our society, including in the criminal
justice system" but has a duty to "prosecute people who loot and
vandalize our community." Garcetti has been the focus of some
criticism by protesters in the city who are unhappy with the handling of
his own police chief, Michel Moore, who said earlier this week that
Floyd’s death was on the hands of those who committed criminal acts at
protests “as much as it is on those officers.” “And that is a
strong statement but I must say that this civil unrest that we are in
the midst of, we must turn a corner from people who are involved in
violence, people who are involved in preying on others,” he continued. Garcetti, who was next to Moore when he made the remarks, said that he has “known this man’s heart for decades.” “When
I heard him say what he said, I knew that he did not mean that, and I
know that he corrected it right away. He continued, “If I believe for a
moment that the chief believes that in his heart, he would no longer be
our chief of police,” he said, according to Fox 11. The Associated Press contributed to this report
The letter practically screams its message: “Dangerous
MOBS of far-left groups are running through our streets and causing
absolute mayhem. They are DESTROYING our cities and rioting - it’s
absolute madness. President Trump has made it clear he will not tolerate
their disgusting acts of violence against innocent citizens.” That,
says the mass email from the Trump-Pence campaign, is why the president
is designating Antifa as a terrorist organization -- and why recipients
should add their name to a list, undoubtedly to receive future
fundraising pitches. On the other side, a Washington Post editorial is headlined: “Trump’s Threats to Deploy Troops Move America Closer to Anarchy.” We
are going through many things right now: Sometimes violent protests
that have scarred cities across America, a fierce debate about
protecting black men from police brutality, all in the midst of a
gruesome pandemic. But we are also being plunged into a full-fledged
culture war. Trump, while repeatedly expressing concern about
George Floyd’s death, is seizing on the riots to militarize the response
and govern as a self-described law-and-order president. Joe Biden,
while expressing concern about violence, is seizing on the Minneapolis
tragedy to cast himself as a racial healer taking on systemic injustice. This
will very likely become the framing for the November election: Did
Trump protect the country from radical rioters -- and from the
coronavirus -- and would Biden be too beholden to minority interest
groups to do a better job? Trump is taking aim, as he has so many times, at the media. He tweeted: “If
you watch Fake News @CNN or MSDNC, you would think that the killers,
terrorists, arsonists, thugs, hoodlums, looters, ANTIFA & others,
would be the nicest, kindest most wonderful people in the Whole Wide
World. No, they are what they are - very bad for our Country!” Now
there’s plenty to criticize in the coverage, especially the
over-the-top hostility toward Trump. But if there’s an anchor,
correspondent or contributor who has portrayed killers, arsonists and
looters as wonderful people, I haven’t seen it. They certainly may
have said it’s important to understand black anger and frustration in
the wake of Floyd’s death, but I haven’t seen them justifying violence. One
who went too far, in my view, is Nicole Hannah Jones, a New York Times
Magazine reporter who won a Pulitzer for the paper’s “1619” slavery
project. She told CBSN that “violence is when an agent of the state
kneels on a man’s neck” and kills him. But, she said, “destroying
property which can be replaced is not violence,” and using the same
language for that is “not moral.” Okay, murder is definitely worse, but
if your shop is smashed and looted or your car is torched, that, ladies
and gentlemen, is violence. If this is indeed a culture war, it
has scrambled the usual battle lines. Some African-American commentators
responded to Biden’s Philadelphia speech by saying that his
nice-sounding words weren’t enough, that he needs to push for more
concrete action. Several
religious leaders have sharply criticized Trump, including onetime
presidential candidate Pat Robertson. The Episcopal bishop and the
Catholic archbishop of Washington have also been sharply critical of the
president’s visits to St. John’s Church and a shrine to Saint John Paul
II. And George W. Bush was implicitly critical in a statement urging
greater attention to the black community’s complaints. Trump’s own
Pentagon chief, Mark Esper, distanced himself by saying he did not
think active-duty military should be used to quell protests (and tried
to clean up a mess by dropping his denial that he knew he was
accompanying the president to the church photo op near the White House). And in an extraordinary break, Jim Mattis, who resigned as Trump’s first defense secretary, wrote in the Atlantic: “Donald
Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite
the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to
divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this
deliberate effort.” The retired general said he never dreamed that
troops “would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the
Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a
bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military
leadership standing alongside.” Mattis commands enormous respect, and
this will not be as easy to dismiss as a tell-all book from Omarosa. As
for the media’s role, my main concern is whether the 24/7 cable
coverage is exacerbating the situation. There is of course no question
that these protests are now a global story and need to be heavily
covered. But every day now, many cable news shows are essentially
anchored or co-anchored from the streets. You see the tension build
toward evening as the journalists walk with protesters in New York,
Philadelphia, Minneapolis, Houston, Los Angeles, Seattle and other
cities. The question, spoken or unspoken, is whether something bad is
about to happen. And there can’t really be any question that the
presence of television cameras, more than a week after Floyd’s death,
draws demonstrators who want to be seen, to get their message out, and
in some cases to wreak havoc. And if things turn ugly, it’s “good
television.” It’s driving ratings. When there are clashes,
television magnifies them. When things are peaceful, the networks often
run footage of previous clashes or violence as a kind of highlight reel. Steve
Hilton, the conservative British author and Fox News contributor,
tweeted that “the media are making this worse by harnessing the violence
for commercial gain/ show the peaceful protests/ DO NOT give violent
thugs the publicity they crave.” We hear a lot of rhetoric about how we all have to be part of the solution. Media people have to rethink their approach as well.
A
former high-level Obama administration intelligence official has
guaranteed the $250,000 bail for the New York City lawyer who allegedly
firebombed an unoccupied NYPD police cruiser early Saturday, calling the
suspect her "best friend," Fox News has confirmed.
The Washington Free Beacon first reported
that Salmah Rizvi, who served in the Defense Department and State
Department during the Obama administration, went to bat for Urooj
Rahman, who was arrested this weekend alongside Pryor Cashman associate
Colinford Mattis. Rizvi, an associate at the law firm Ropes & Gray, told the court:
"Urooj Rahman is my best friend and I am an associate at the law firm
Ropes & Gray in Washington, D.C. ... I earn $255,000 a year." The Free Beacon noted that, according to her biography at the Islamic Scholarship Fund, Rizvi's "high-value work would often inform the president's daily briefs." Rahman's biography on Ropes & Gray's website states that she was an analyst "focusing primarily on sanctioned finance operations." Rizvi also received a scholarship supported by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a radical anti-Israel group, and was a fellow at a legal organization that supports boycotting Israel. In 2009, the FBI severed its once-close ties to CAIR amid mounting evidence that the group had links to a support network for Hamas. Rizvi additionally received scholarship funds from the Paul and Daisy Soros Fellowships for New Americans, founded by the brother of left-wing megadonor George Soros .
Urooj Rahman after her arrest on Saturday. (COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK)
Rahman and Mattis are charged with intentionally
torching a police cruiser, and could each face up to 20 years in
prison. Mattis had been furloughed amid the coronavirus pandemic and is
currently suspended without pay from Pryor Cashman, Fox News was told.
Both have now made bail. Evidence in the case appeared strong, the judge overseeing the case acknowledged. Prosecutors presented the court a photograph
appearing to show Mattis driving a van from which Rahman allegedly
hurled a Molotov cocktail at the police cruiser. Authorities said they
later found additional incendiary devices in the car.
As
a result, prosecutors strenuously objected to the decision by
U.S. District Judge Margo Brodie to grant bail and release the attorneys
on home detention with GPS monitoring devices. Prosecutors said Mattis,
for example, has "not demonstrated himself to be a rational person" and
that "bomb-throwers" should not be released back onto the streets amid
continuing demonstrations. “The conduct was reckless, it was
violent, it was completely lawless,” the judge said, before noting that
the pair had a stable social circle and would be confined to their
homes. The government has said it will appeal the judge's decision to
release the suspects.
Colinford Mattis
The news that highly educated attorneys were participating in violent protests has stunned the legal community
and New Yorkers in general. The development raised questions as to how
attorneys with promising futures became interested in pursuing violent
forms of protest. Fox News has obtained and
reviewed communications from Yale Law School's internal message board,
known as "The Wall," which seemingly indicate that disdain for American
institutions isn't uncommon among elite legal programs. Yale Law School
is one of the nation's most prestigious professional schools, and
routinely sends apparently anti-American alumni into prominent positions
in government and private practice. For example, Ropes & Gray, the firm where Rizvi currently works, also employs Jordan Bryant -- an associate who previously declared on "The Wall" that she hopes America is burned "to the ground." "F--k
the United States," Bryant wrote to the internal message board
available to all of her Yale Law School classmates in 2014, amid the
protests surrounding Michael Brown's death in Ferguson, Mo.
Bryant
continued: "A system cannot fail those it was not meant to protect. We
came here as slave labor upon which the glittering promise of this land
was built, and it will never grow to accommodate us as anything but a
dehumanized other. The stench of the putrefaction of poorly-buried
bodies murdered in the name of freedom (read white freedom) has not
dissipated in 400 years." "Why do we remain here, where we are so
clearly unwanted?" Bryant added. "It's time for a mass exodus. I am a
citizen of this place name only; my nationality is not American as far
as I am concerned. Black people, use the US for a passport and nothing
else. Mine this den of hypocrisy for the privileges it can afford you,
and shun it otherwise. I pray for Michael Brown's family, but do not
pray for this country. Indeed, I hope we burn it to the ground." Bryant's biography
on Ropes & Gray's website states that she was a "Fox Fellow" at
Moscow State University, where she studied "race relations." A
handful of Yale classmates attempted to challenge Bryant's comments on
"The Wall," and were immediately rebuffed en masse by multiple other
students for committing "microaggressions" against a "person of
color," documents reviewed by Fox News showed. Presented with Bryant's comments on Wednesday, Ropes & Gray said they don't reflect the firm's values. "Ropes
& Gray was built on the foundation of human rights, dignity and
equality," a firm spokesperson told Fox News. "We continue to maintain
those core values and our commitment to freedom, justice and equality
under the laws of the United States. Acts of racism, violence and hatred
have no place in our society -- and we strongly condemn them. The
statements made are inconsistent with our values as a firm. Words that
might incite others to violence have no place in our civil discourse."
Police ride their scooters through the East Village neighborhood
of New York, patrolling the streets during an imposed curfew on Tuesday,
June 2, 2020, in New York. Thousands of demonstrators protesting the
death of George Floyd remained on New York City streets on Tuesday after
an 8 p.m. curfew put in place by officials struggling to stanch
destruction and growing complaints that the nation's biggest city was
reeling out of control night after night. (AP Photo/Wong Maye-E)
Over the weekend, New York University Law School,
where both Rizvi and Mattis received their law degrees, issued a
statement through its dean, Trevor Morrison.
Morrison condemned systemic violence against black Americans and
suggested ways that students could help them: "Change will not come
easily, but problems of criminal justice, racial justice, and fair
policing are deep societal problems that demand attention," Morrison
wrote. "As lawyers, professors, students, and citizens of the
world, we all have both an opportunity and an obligation to seek
solutions," Morrison continued. "We stand together. And together we can
help make real and lasting change." The statement did not mention
violence against police or store owners. When pressed by Fox News on the
omission, the law school eventually issued a new statement that
included a condemnation of violence against police and protesters. “It
is deeply regrettable that, amidst the peaceful demonstrations of the
past week, some have resorted to violence, but it would be inappropriate
for the Law School to comment on allegations against specific
individuals," the law school responded. For his part, Obama has praised the "transformative" protests in the wake of Floyd's death.
