At the Whitehall Council Committee meeting on the evening of Tuesday July 14th, charges of racism were leveled regarding the concerns raised by community members  about the kids selling bottled water on city streets and… the city of Whitehall itself. I take issue with what was said but, first, let’s start with the video showing those comments (only) as they are all this post is dealing with. For the full video you can find them either through the city’s website http://www.whitehall-oh.us/ or on ‘The City of Whitehall’ Facebook page.

Let’s break this down then, starting with Director of Service and Development Zach Woodruff.

He said: “…some of the folks who’ve called me, it is hard for me to not believe this is somewhat racially motivated. Some of the people who I (unintelligible) it is difficult for me in their conversation to not think that if these were five year old little white kids selling lemonade in front of their house that they would have the same issue.”

Firstly, Mr. Woodruff sits in a position of trust. If he says this is what he ‘believes’ then he is accorded that by the public who take stock in his position within the government’s power. Therefore, he has a modicum of responsibility to what utterances he makes from that position. Given that then, the word ‘believe’ is not the same as ‘knows’. To throw out a word like racism based on ‘believing’, in particular as a public official, is to be irresponsible with the weight that term carries. Its like saying in public, I ‘believe’ so-and-so is a murderer. Its not something which you throw out based on belief. Its charge is too explosive.
Now, given the Administration’s apparent reticence to do anything tangible about the complaints regarding the behavior of the juveniles selling water on street corners*, it is no stretch of the imagination to ‘believe’ that Mr. Woodruff might say things to protect his boss’ interests, as so many have done at City Hall (like making this political football go away). This is not so much a cynical assertion as one based on past behavior by people at City Hall; to use hyperbole or minimize things to protect their interests from harm or against those who would bring harm to them. Protecting their interests with hyperbole or other means is not new at Whitehall City Hall. As for me, while I don’t doubt that he is speaking the truth, I myself can’t help but wonder its degree. (Another reason the Public Trust is so important)

Now, let’s say its completely true. There are, of course, racists, they come in all shapes, sizes, colors and degrees and, not just in Whitehall. The idea that some white people would be pissed off by the presence of black kids on the corner selling wares is not improbable. So, if indeed it’s the truth, and not tainted by self-interested embellishment, it is a sad and ugly, but not unusual, occurrence. Sadly, entering the racism quotient as he did, it threatens to discount all complainants, undermining their authority as voices of reason and the validity of legitimate points they may bring forth. However, and even as Mr. Woodruff said, “somewhat racially motivated”, clearly shows that some of it is so but not most or all. Therefore, those others who have legitimate concerns deserve to have those concerns given the proper weight of serious consideration by him and others who have the power and obligation to the citizens to do the proper thing. For him to brush aside legitimate complaints because ‘some’ may be racially motivated is to shirk his duties and disrespect decent citizen’s rightful concerns. That which Mayor Maggard should never tolerate in her administration.

On to Councilperson Elmore’s comments:

“Some of it is racial complaints, ’cause those are little black kids. I’m just gonna call it like it is. Because that’s the reason why we have the ordinance that we just put in place, racism being a health crisis. Because historically, Whitehall has been one of those cities that has operated in racism. I’m just gonna keep this always 100.”

Whereas Mr. Woodruff used the term “believe” regarding his feelings about the racial motivation of complaints, Councilperson Elmore does not show any uncertainty about “some” of the complaints when she uses the word “is”. She gives no example of people’s complaints given to her or how she came to know they’re racially motivated (“is”), she merely says it is so and its because its “little black kids”. She throws this down but doesn’t explain how she came to this knowledge. Is she assuming racism based on skin color? That white people can’t have issues with someone if their skin color is black because that immediately implies their motivations are based on skin color? Where is her proof that its racial in nature other than implying it because of the sellers and complainant’s skin colors? That, without offering proof, is in itself racially motivated. Until she offers up proof of it, outside opinion, then her charge and misplaced inclusion of it in a discussion on safety and behavioral issues amongst teens in public spaces is morally and professionally irresponsible.

So, both her and Mr. Woodruff have entered racism into the concerns people have brought with their legitimate complaints to their representative body. While I know there are racists and that some of them may not like the kids on the corner, (I myself have NEVER heard, in discussion with many people on this topic, any mention of race regarding their issues) to drop that bomb on a legitimate community concern was an egregious wrong. That term is leaden with rightful feelings of passion, upset, history, murder, slavery and everything else. When deployed, it acts like a nuclear bomb, devastating everything in its wake, including all the legitimate complaints. When rightfully concerned citizens have come to their government body to petition them over grievances and ‘some’ who made their objections did so with foolish and harmful prejudices, that is on those fools and those fools alone. Their awful idiocy must not be allowed to taint the validity of the sensible, non-racist citizens rightful concerns and complaints. Dropping the ‘racial’ component in during a citizen representative’s rightful and reasonable inquiry in a public meeting only threatened to sideline legitimate discussion on a meritorious issue. As well, it sends a chilling effect on any person wanting to bring up matters of concern that may happen to involve people who’s color isn’t white, lest they be labeled racist. Particularly so when criteria offered were charges based on nothing other than the color of their skin  (“black kids”).
Entering the charge that the reason people are up in arms is due to the color of the juvenile’s skin was irresponsible and had no place in a reasonable discussion regarding legitimate, VALID, non-racist concerns and issues based on actions and character only. Its not the use of the term racism that is the issue, it is where and when and why and how it was placed.

Just to reacquaint ourselves with Councilor Elmore’s statement:

“Some of it is racial complaints, ’cause those are little black kids. I’m just gonna call it like it is. Because that’s the reason why we have the ordinance that we just put in place, racism being a health crisis. Because historically, Whitehall has been one of those cities that has operated in racism. I’m just gonna keep this always 100.”

Let me break this completely down to leave no room for doubt: She says “…it is racial complaints ’cause those are little black kids”. There alone she’s saying that “some” complaints are racial because of the color of their skin while giving no evidence to support her assertion. Is this an assumption or based on real evidence? She then correlates her assertion with the resolution Council just passed that states that racism is a public health crisis, thereby giving her statement the weight of truth due to her alignment of it with the “ordinance”, despite it lacking credible backing information to be so aligned.  She then said something which has angered myself and others in our fair city. That “historically” Whitehall has operated in racism. Leaving it at that. She doesn’t specify how she believes that is so or how she arrived at that knowledge, who operated it as such or how it did so.

When she says, “historically”, does that mean just in the past and if so, when? Or is it in a general term like ‘usual’ or as is the custom? Does she have a time period for this racism, did it end, is it still in operation? Where and how did this racism manifest itself? Is it the government she’s talking about, the community…who? Without specificity in her charges, she simply dropped an atomic bomb, tainting the entire city of Whitehall with that scarlet ‘R’ and then walked away. As such, she herself is guilty for the public’s rightful reactions in the wake of her simplistic but damaging comments uttered on the Council dais last week. As for me, (whose parents helped build this city’s success and who weren’t racist) one who grew up here, when she didn’t say “operated in racism” some, then that was a sweeping indictment on an entire town, that blanket statement from someone who hasn’t lived here that long, couldn’t possibly know what went on here the nearly 70 years before she moved here and represents on Council the colors of all the citizens. It was beyond the pale.

Again, because there was no ambiguity when she used the term “operated” (that connotes definitive action, there are none of the uncertainties of might or could), nor did she offer timelines for her charges, nor specificity other than the uncertainty of her use of the term “historically”, she leaves her comments WIDE OPEN for interpretation by the citizens of that city: that ALL the Mayors (which includes Maggard), ALL the Councilpersons, ALL the Department heads, ALL the workers and baseball coaches and teachers and Fire Chiefs and Moms and School Boards and Principals “operated in racism”, because, “historically” that’s the way “Whitehall” has been. (And what is “Whitehall”, merely a government? Is it a community of people? What “Whitehall” is she referring to?)
I grew up here and to think that all the great families and good people who lived and worked and raised families here were a bunch of racists is too much for me to take with just a silent shrug. You can’t say, simply, “…historically, Whitehall has been one of those cities that has operated in racism” without those who did so being racist. She may not have specifically said that the people/citizens of Whitehall are racist but, here’s the thing: no one operates (or allows the operation) of “racism” without themselves being a racist. Non-racists don’t operate anything in racism. Ergo, her generalized statement, without specifics, saying what she said, leaves her statement wide open for interpretation of the citizens of that city, and guess what “some” gathered? That her statement implied that the citizens of Whitehall are racist. “…historically, Whitehall has been one of those cities that has operated in racism”. “has”=definitive.

While I have spent a near-lifetime fighting racism and am completely on-board the Black Lives Matter movement and KNOW there is systemic racism and know there were ‘some’ low-key racists in Whitehall when I grew up here; fighting racism within and without entails all of it, not just the obvious or the general narrative, and so…the broad brush Councilperson Elmore used to paint my hometown, the City of Whitehall, was wrong. She has shown bad judgement in both the statement she made and how she made it. She is a representative of everyone in Ward 4. The black citizens, the white citizens and the brown citizens. She may have her beliefs, which she is entitled to but, she has some level of responsibility to her seat, as their representative, to use caution or restraint in how she communicates those beliefs. That is the respectful, civic responsibility she holds while in that seat.

While being passionate and having a righteous opinion on matters is important as a vital human being, if one makes statements based solely on their passion without restraint in consideration for the representative seat they hold, like this instance, it can create unnecessary and harmful consequences.  There are MANY people here who aren’t racist and are good and kind people, of the full-color spectrum who didn’t deserve to be characterized as such. Not only the citizens of Ward 4 were hurt by the passion of her misguided statement but the entire city was too, and while her passion is understandable, I thought it impetuous and irresponsible and disrespectful of her to make it in such a sweeping, and damaging generalization of a lot of people who didn’t deserve it. It remains to be seen what damage she’s done to Whitehall’s reputation in irresponsibly saying both what she did and how she did it.

*Its my belief that, given the majority of the water sellers are black and, given the current racial climate in this country, that the white Mayor of our city is afraid to actually do something about the situation regarding the content of their character because of how it could be perceived based on the color of their skin (particularly when a black public official is yelling in the background, without proof, ‘racism!’) Its a political minefield she simply doesn’t want to navigate. She likes things that make her look good but controversial public decisions that could bring her real heat? Forget about it.