Jim Kenyon’s July 12 column, which covered demonstrations in Canaan around Black Lives Matter, cited 2015 FBI data: “While Blacks make up 13.2% of the U.S. population, 31.8% of people shot by police were Black — a proportion of more than 2½ times.” But he left it at that, pushing the false narrative that police are indiscriminately shooting Black people. In doing so, he violated the third principle of the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics: “Provide Context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing, or summarizing a story.” Kenyon oversimplified police shootings of Black people and left out explanatory context. When I reached out to him about the lack of context, he said I was welcome to write to the Forum.
All righty, then.
A number of studies have looked at whether police use deadly force on any race disproportionately — after controlling for important context. One contextual explanation, which Kenyon could have easily included, is that despite making up 13.2% of the population, Black people are 31.8% of those shot by police, but they also commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime, such as 51% of murders and 53.5% of robberies, according to 2015 FBI data. Might there be an increased likelihood of being shot by police if you commit a murder or a robbery?
A 2016 Harvard study properly evaluated contextual factors and was “unable to detect any racial differences” in officer-involved shootings. Economist Sendhil Mullainathan, of the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, wrote in 2015 that police bias may be a factor, but the data “does not prove that biased police officers are more likely to shoot (Black people) in any given encounter.” And author and Manhattan Institute fellow Heather Mac Donald, citing a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote in 2019: “The persistent belief that we are living through an epidemic of racially biased police shootings is a creation of selective reporting.”
These studies, which properly evaluated context, all found the same thing: Police do not disproportionately shoot any race.
DANIEL WORTS
Windsor
Jim Kenyon is like a lot of columnists I’ve known: word-savvy, carefully elliptical, a keen reader of public sentiment. I agree often with his views — though less often with the zig-zags he employs to convince us of them.
His Aug. 5 column (“Unwelcome, Ungrateful”) offers several examples. Its general thesis, broadly interpreted, is that Hanover residents are a “hand-wringing” bunch, overcautious in their reactions to the COVID-19 perils that come with the return of Dartmouth College students. While there may be some truth to this, it is largely obscured — for me at least — beneath the bramble of indirection and innuendo that accompanies its telling.
Early in the column, we read that the Selectboard (by way of “feeding the frenzy”) plans to limit the number of allowable renters per bedroom, a measure, already in use at several colleges, that would fall most heavily on the town’s “unwanted college students” — and would, we’re told, risk “local officials threatening to peep into their bedrooms.” I’m not even sure what to call that piece of dubious logic.
Then, after taking a somewhat cheap shot at the town’s plan to impose fines for students who repeatedly go without masks — “trying to turn (their) failure into a moneymaker” — Kenyon closes by falling back on one of the columnist’s (or lawyer’s, or politician’s) surest gambits: the old “prick the liberal conscience” plea. While he concedes that some residents’ concerns are valid, he laments that no one “seems to be fretting about the risks facing the college’s bathroom scrubbers.” How would he know this? Who is he speaking for? Where does he come by the notion that the “bathroom scrubbers” are not among those the rest of us self-satisfied, persnickety folks are also fretting about?
Jim Kenyon is plainly well-meaning. He is also, however, a clever writer who knows his audience well — and for whom it is therefore dangerously easy to weave word-spells, often short on substance, in service of persuasion. And easy, too, for the rest of us to forget that.
GEOFFREY DOUGLAS
West Lebanon
Many of us would give New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu positive marks for his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. He handles himself well on stage in his frequent briefings. However, during this past year, he vetoed 57 bills, a number of which were bipartisan and would have helped people during this pandemic. Let us not lose sight of these vetoes. Sununu is not the moderate he claims to be.
For instance, HB 712, the family and medical leave bill, was vetoed by Sununu on July 10, during the pandemic. This bill would have allowed family members to stay home and care for those with COVID-19. It also would have helped victims of this terrible virus to stay home instead of having to go to work in order to put food on their families’ tables.
Fortunately, two qualified candidates are on the ballot in the Democratic primary in September to run for New Hampshire governor. Dan Feltes, the Senate majority leader, and Andru Volinsky, a member of the Executive Council. Both are highly qualified to serve as our next governor. Please join me in electing a Democratic governor for the state of New Hampshire.
MAUREEN STRACHAN
New London
Elections this year carry great importance as we face the unprecedented threat of COVID-19 along with a disintegrating economy. We must elect dedicated individuals ready to work on Day One, and for this reason I support Beatriz Pastor as the Democratic candidate for New Hampshire Senate from District 5.
Pastor has already served six years as a New Hampshire state representative. She brings with her an understanding of how to assess and craft bills, a familiarity with the mechanics of state government, and the skills to negotiate compromises. She will work hard to pull us through the difficult future we face. Her experience counts, and we don’t have time to lose.
A lifelong Democrat, she has always been committed to the party ideals of strong community and social responsibility. She has consistently supported voting rights, affordable child care, a government-led response to climate change, broadband access and universal access to affordable health care.
This is in contrast to her opponent, Sue Prentiss. Prentiss switched her affiliation to the Democratic Party in late October 2019, just months before filing her candidacy for a Senate seat reliably won by a Democrat. Prior to the switch, Prentiss was an active member of the Republican Party, even serving as a steering committee member for Republican presidential candidate George Pataki’s super PAC in the 2016 campaign.
While it has come into fashion for some Republicans to leave their party given the particularly offensive behavior of President Donald Trump and his enablers, the fact remains that the platforms of the two parties have been, and still are, distinct and often opposed both in general philosophy and positions on key issues. While all are welcome to join the Democratic Party, candidates for office need to show true and consistent commitment to the ideals and platform of the party over time — not just in the Trump era. Beatriz Pastor is the only candidate who fits the bill.
JENNIFER STONE RANDOLPH
Hanover
Rarely in my 50 years of being active in government have I ever met anyone with the integrity, honesty and genuine caring for people as Beatriz Pastor.
Having served with her in the New Hampshire House, I can testify to her ability. Her skills as a legislator are remarkable and proven. As a former city councilor and mayor of Claremont, I especially appreciate her work on Property Assessed Clean Energy districts, now a law, that can provide major energy savings for downtown merchants in Claremont and other New Hampshire municipalities. I am convinced that she will work for everyone, and I wholeheartedly support and endorse her for the New Hampshire Senate. Please vote for her on Sept. 8 and again in November.
RAY GAGNON
Claremont