TWO VIEWS: The ambiguous phrasing of a
The symbolic “Defund the Police” motto has come to re misinterpretations over its actual meaning. Would changing th COMMENTARY BY GREGOIRE WINSTON, CO-ONLINE EDITOR
A
S DECLARED by Abraham Lincoln during his speech on June 16, 1858, “A house divided cannot stand.” A l t h o u g h the “Defund the Police” movement has brought together the masses in search for greater equity among races, it has been met with fierce criticism due to its misinterpretation, and as a result, progress has failed to occur at the federal level. United under the slogan “Defund the Police,” protestors and activists may be drawing attention away from their movement simply because of its phrasing. Opponents to the movement were quick to point out the ambiguity surrounding what the movement actually stands for. Between completely removing law enforcement to reallocating funds to other public sectors, the goal of the movement is unclear. The “Defund the Police” movement has been influential in polarizing both political parties. Indeed, some rightleaning figures of society — most notably former President Donald Trump — have openly criticized the movement. “Without police, there is chaos. Without law, there is anarchy. And without safety, there is catastrophe,” Trump said in a speech on June 16, 2020. Statements like these
YES
14 opinion
not only demonstrate the most radical interpretation of the movement, but also deepen the rift between Democrats and Republicans. In an interview with Good Luck America’s Peter Hamby, former U.S. President Barack Obama attempted to clarify the meaning. Obama claimed that “snappy” comments ultimately hurt Democratic candidates, as “[they] lose a big part of the audience the minute [they] say it.” U.S. Congresswoman Cori Bush reacted to Obama’s comments,
“
UNFORTUNATELY “DEFUND THE POLICE” HAS GOTTEN SUCH A BAD REPUTATION FROM REPUBLICANS THAT A PROPER SOLUTION IS NOT POSSIBLE WITHOUT REFORM. DERRICK MARTINEZ, JUNIOR claiming, “It’s not a slogan, it’s a mandate for keeping our people alive. Defund the police.” By his logic, Obama prefers rewording the term in a more bipartisan approach, as a way to achieve lawmaking change. In unison with him, President Joseph Biden argues the police funding should only be supplied “based on whether or not they meet certain basic standards of decency and
honorableness.” Both of these public figures grasp the idea that the phrasing appears to be causing more harm than good, for its meaning prevents the goal of the movement from actually occurring. “Any controversial issue seen throughout [American] history could only be solved with the majority of Congress agreeing on a solution,” junior Derrick Martinez said. “Unfortunately, “Defunding the Police” has gotten such a bad reputation from Republicans that a proper solution is not possible without reform.” Furthermore, the term “Defund the Police” is not the best at fulfilling its objective due to the misinterpretation surrounding the term. From “rebalancing police funding” as suggested by U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to Biden claiming he supports “conditioning federal aid to police,” ultimate success can be ensured using less aggressive wording. According to Christian Davenport, a political science professor at the University of Michigan, all of this additional funding has not increased or decreased crime rates. Although it is clear that allocating funds to other public sectors is a necessity, its phrasing prevents many Americans of different political backgrounds from approaching the issue with an open-mind. “It is important to make the distinction about the naming of it, because for a lot of people it means getting rid of the police, but the majority want to see funds redirected to key community programs,” history teacher Frank Cipriani said. The Black Lives Matter movement stands front and center of a country struck by racial inequalities and injustice. As one of the largest social movements in American history, minorities eager for change must decide whether they want their fight to be effective and achieve impactful conclusions or keep a divisive and misinterpreted slogan at the forefront of their efforts. Rephrasing the slogan into more neutral wording will allow for both Democrat and Republican lawmakers to find common ground and a solution to the issue. Words such as ‘reallocate,’ ‘redistribute’ or ‘rearrange’ come off less crude than “defund” and can possibly open the doors to future laws concerning the problems at hand. h
