On the evening of Friday, Dec. 13, Kathy Zoner, Chief of Police for the Cornell University Police Department (CUPD), sent out an all-campus email in which she apologized for using the phrase “All Lives Matter” in an earlier message.
Zoner, who frequently sends out emails to students, faculty, and administrators about various campus safety issues, sent an email on Dec. 8 with the subject line “PLEASE READ: All Lives Matter” and the following message:
Note how in her original message Zoner capitalizes each word of the now-controversial phrase “all lives matter.” Because one would not regularly capitalize every word in a sentence, it can be inferred that Zoner must have seen the phrase written like so elsewhere on the Internet. But in her apology email she changes the phrase to “#AllLivesMatter,” calling the Twitter hashtag a “disrespectful pushback against #BlackLivesMatter.” At the end of the day, whether you use a hashtag or not, or whether you use correct grammar or not, the phrase is the same phrase.
So what happened between the time Zoner first saw the phrase used on the Internet and took a liking to it and Friday evening, when she issued an apology to more than ten thousand people on campus for using it?
In a strikingly similar occurrence, Smith College’s president was forced by students to issue an apology for using phrase “All Lives Matter” instead of “Black Lives Matter.” Smith College students took to Twitter, and probably to email too, to force the apology and retraction. Did something similar happen at Cornell?
The real shocking aspect here is that the chief of police on a college campus has just apologized for using the phrase “all lives matter.” Let that sink in.
Zoner has not replied to an email inquiry concerning her statement to the campus.
Casey, I suggest you learn more about why people have problems with using the phrase “All Lives Matter” in response to the Black Lives Matter movement. Read origin of #BlackLivesMatter and the problems people have with saying #AllLivesMatter instead of and in the context of #BlackLivesMatter here: http://thefeministwire.com/2014/10/blacklivesmatter-2/. This should help explain that people who are against folks using that phrase (#AllLivesMatter) in response to #BlackLivesMatter aren’t doing it out of hate for all non-black races or even a devaluing of non-black lives, which if you didn’t read their arguments or the origin of the #BlackLivesMatter, would be a reasonable response to seeing Kathy Zoner issue an apology.
Omar, there is nothing wrong with using a phrase like “all lives matter.” But, if you like your phrase “black lives matter” you can keep your phrase. There’s nothing wrong with that one either.
The contention here is that the chief of police, who runs an organization that is supposed to keep all law-abiding citizens on campus safe, just apologized for using the phrase “all lives matter.” What are the implications of such a sentiment and, possibly, a new policy? Will the campus police now only selectively protect people on campus? Of course, your retort will be that the police already does this — selectively protecting whites and selectively targeting blacks. Shouldn’t police policy, then, be to protect all lives equally? Wouldn’t this satisfy your sentiment and mine alike?
Casey,
I’m serious when I ask this: do you really believe her apology has those implications? She didn’t just apologize for just saying “All Lives Matter”; she apologized for saying that *and* giving the implication that she was trying to derail the conversation of #BlackLivesMatter with how #AllLivesMatter has been deployed on social media. This derails the conversation because it erases the disparities between the experiences of black folks in this country and non-black folks, particularly in their experience with the police. This hashtag and phrase of “Black Lives Matter” is used because we are trying to show empathy and humanize a group that has been dehumanized far too much. When saying Black Lives Matter, I don’t think it’s particularly a call to “police blacks equally to whites” even if it is said by the police chief. Should police police blacks less aggressively, to the point of policing the same as whites? Sure, but I don’t think that is particularly what is being asked in #BlackLivesMatter. It’s a call to stop killing and dehumanizing all black lives (male, female, queer, trans and disabled). We already know #AllLivesMatter. If we really believe All Lives Matter, and it’s fair to say we both do, then we should end the structural racism that makes #BlackLivesMatter relevant.
People say #BlackLivesMatter because the status quo seems to suggest it doesn’t. So it’s both a self-affirmation of the humanity for black folks when they use it and to express that to others and an act of solidarity and acknowledgement of black folks’ humanity for when non-black folks like me or the police chief use it. If I am in a conversation with someone about the particular violence/dehumanization that black folks face that other groups of people don’t in this country and then I say “All Lives Matter”, I’m not saying something that isn’t true or that shouldn’t be supported or that we don’t already know, I’m saying something that specifically, in that conversation’s context, derails the conversation and co-opts black folks’ struggle because it erases the very real disparities that exists in this country and it no longer centers black lives. A lot of this happens unintentionally. You may disagree that this derailment doesn’t happen, which is fine. But this perspective – that all lives matter derails the conversation of why people are saying Black Lives Matter – is shared by a lot of black folks and many, including I, want to respect that. I don’t think the Rev. Kenneth Clarke intended to derail and co-opt #BlackLivesMatter and as stated by the police chief in the “Blue Light” email, neither did she. Hopefully this post clarifies my points. I apologize for making it so long.
Casey. I think you may be getting excited about nothing. You need to understand that words do matter. And words that seem to be innocuous or reasonable are sometimes hijacked to mean other things. For example. the term “states’ rights” which seems to be solely a statement underlining the relationship between the federal and state governments actually means something more than that. The phrase was hijacked in the 1960s (when I was growing up) by the racist governments of the south . The meaning was perverted to mean that state government should have the right to prevent blacks from using restrooms, eating at restaurants, marrying whites, etc. I can still remember seeing the governor of Alabama standing in front of the University of Alabama in order to stop black students from getting a college education. All under the misuse of the proper idea of “states’ rights”.
On the surface “All lives Matter” seems reasonable. And it is. But we need to see how certain phrases are used or abused . The police chief evidently felt that the meaning of “All Lives Matter” has been perverted into something less than that. She felt it had a negative connotation, not a positive one. So, she corrected herself.
I guess she wanted to make it clear she did not agree with the particular hashtag in question. That does not imply selective law enforcement on her part. Just clarification of language.
Joseph,
People can misuse and abuse a term like “states’ rights,” but that doesn’t change the true and fundamental meaning of this phrase–one that is a hallmark of this constitutional republic. Simply because Southern racists co-opted the idea to use it to their evil doing doesn’t mean the idea loses all legitimacy. It doesn’t mean we can’t use it anymore in a positive way and in the way it was meant to be used.
So, how has the phrase “all lives matter” been perverted, exactly? I understand how “states’ rights” was perverted for a while, but not how “all lives matter” has been. Is “all lives matter” really a racist phrase? Do you truly believe that? “Black lives” are a subset of “all lives,” so really one who is saying the latter is saying the former. Don’t let “being upset” or “being offended” cloud your mind of cold, hard logic. In fact, “all lives matter” is a bit repetitive, since “lives” (plural, general) does not necessitate the qualifier “all.”
Simply put, if you can’t get behind the idea that “lives matter” or the equivalent phrase “life matters,” then that is truly shocking.
Casey. I am not taking a position on either phrase. (I don’t believe all lives matter, actually. There are many lives that do not. Terrorists, for example.) What I am suggesting, however, is that the use of language is not limited by academic analysis. Language exists and is used and abused in the real world. Evidently the police chief felt that using the words “All Lives Matter” in the CONTEXT of the phrase being used in opposition to the idea that “Black Lives Matter” was sending a negative message.
The reason that “Black Lives Matter” was adopted in the first place is because we have seen a disregard, in many cities, for black life. By political leaders and to some extent by SOME law enforcement personnel. The slogan tries to emphasize that “black lives” are just as important as other lives . (Note, it does not say ONLY black lives matter). Statistics are pretty clear concerning mortality rates in the poor, black areas of this nation compared to rates in other areas.
My understanding is that “All Lives Matter” is a slogan that was generated as a response to the idea that “Black Lives Matter”. The phrase did not come from out of the blue. It only appeared as a negative response to the former. I suppose that is what gives it a negative connotation to some people.
In an ideal world we would not even have the outdated concept of race. But we don’t live in an ideal world. Racism does exist. Just as the concept of states’ rights continues to be used to justify racism is some quarters. We cannot analyze and solve these issues if we deny them.