TWO VIEWS: The ambiguous phrasing of a renowned movement

The symbolic “Defund the Police” motto has come to represent the push for racial equality, but has resulted in misinterpretations over its actual meaning. Would changing the phrase serve as the best method in clarifying its definition?

YES

COMMENTARY BY GREGOIRE WINSTON, CO-ONLINE EDITOR

As declared by Abraham Lincoln during his speech on June 16, 1858, “A house divided cannot stand.” Although 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 not only demonstrate the most radical interpretation of the movement, but also deepen the rift between Democrats and Republicans.

"Unfortunately "Defund the Police" has gotten such a bad reputation from Republicans that a proper solution is not possible without reform," junior Derrick Martinez said.

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, 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.

NO

COMMENTARY BY DEEANNE MONTERO, STAFF WRITER

As a country of chaos, panic and rage has resulted from the twisted interpretation of a presentday reform movement. Originally aimed at communicating the demand for redirecting federal funds towards government agencies other than the police department, the phrase “Defund the Police” has become known as a term equivalent to abolishing the police — not at all the movement’s intentions.

Just days after the video of George Floyd’s murder went viral in May 2020, the concept of defunding the police became popular among activists protesting against police brutality and systematic racism.

According to 10 Tampa Bay WTSP, this movement originated in the 1800s as a result of white patrollers who used to capture runaway slaves. The abuse of slaves from white patrollers developed a habit of viewing people of color (POC) in a degrading manner. Despite slavery being abolished, police officers continue showing aggressive behavior toward POC, which many believe pertains to there not being enough funding for other deparments more equipped to handle tense situations.

According to research by the Urban Institute, 87% of the police’s funding in 2017 came from the government. Although their role is to protect all citizens from danger, the movement’s followers believe that current training has shown to generate unqualified officers incapable of handling crimes. This movement works towards making the government re-evaluate the role police have in society and the amount of money being invested towards the police departments.

To understand the definition of the term, people must begin to educate themselves on the true concept. Many people misjudge the phrase primarily by incorrectly relating the word “defund” to abolish. In this context, “defund” simply means to redirect funds from the police department to help other government agencies such as grant programs for low-income students and social workers. To abolish would mean to eliminate, not at all the aim of the movement.

“Though it comes off as harsh, I think [the phrase] is meant to be that way because of the amount of harm that the police community has done,” senior Imgard Bonheur said. “Changing it would only cause more confusion because most people do not have a general understanding of what it constitutes.”

The defunding movement does not mean that police departments will cease to exist, it simply means that police officers are not suitable for every scenario, especially handling those with mental illness.

Reported by the New York Times, a successful attempt at providing beneficial programs occurred in Dallas when the local police and fire department collaborated with Parkland Hospital to dispatch social workers to 911 calls that are prone to handle the situation better than police officers. The results show that dispatching social workers rather than police in mental health emergencies leads to patients receiving better care afterwards compared to the care in jail.

While the movement’s name should not be changed to ‘police reform,’ changing the phrase should be up to those directly impacted by police brutality. Even though the word ‘reform’ implies change, police have proven to not be the most efficient in de-escalating situations properly, as seen from the constant news reports showing police mishandling tense situations.

The word ‘reform’ does not entirely represent the movement nor is it promising in being effective to cause change. Under the Justice in Policing Act introduced to the House of Representatives on June 8, 2020, the Minneapolis police attempted various reforms including deescalation training of police officers

Reforming has not worked in the past; therefore, other areas should be given opportunities because they are trained to handle situations better.

“People shouldn’t determine the fate of others [and the phrase] shouldn’t be altered until change has been made to prove that individuals who stand for the ideals behind it won’t stop until they get what they are fighting so hard for,” sophomore Matteo Rocha- Chaves said.

A different phrasing would fail to capture the true essence of the movement. Although there are some negative stigmas surrounding the movement, it is an endeavor to explore various solutions and deviate from police violence. Becoming educated on the phrase can lead to more Americans realizing what the movement behind the phrase stands for and contribute to the unification of every race.