Yesterday, The Washington Post, for a second time, accused Obama of being wrong, or lying about his statement that there are more black men in jail than in college.
Obama’s exact words on November 29th were, “I don’t want to wake up four years from now and discover that we still have more young black men in prison than in college.” This apparently didn’t sit well with Richard Cohen of the Washington Post. Yesterday, he wrote this:
What concerns me is the lie or fib or misstatement — call it what you want — involved in Obama’s assertion that more young black men are in prison than in college. It is a shocking statistic — and it is wrong. But when The Post’s lonesome but formidable truth squad, Michael Dobbs, brought this to the attention of the Obama campaign, he not only got the brushoff but the assertion was later repeated. [Source: WaPo]
It irked me a bit to see Cohen take such a strong position on this without having the facts straight. This issue is not so black and white as he claims. Before Obama’s comment, I had written on this in a Baltimore Sun op-ed and on this blog in response to some criticism I received. My bottom line, and what the data points to, is that overall there are more black men in prison and jail than college but among college-aged black men there are more black men in college. So Obama’s statement was not false or a lie. You can argue about whether it is fair to compare the entire college population to the entire jail population, but whatever side you come down on in that argument, you can’t say the other position is a lie. And citing “The Post’s lonesome but formidable truth squad” as a source doesn’t make Cohen’s position any more accurate.
6 responses so far ↓
1
L
// Jan 3, 2008 at 10:50 am
I didn’t read the article in the WaPo, and rely only on what you’ve posted of Cohen’s article. Given that, I don’t think it’s fair to criticize Cohen for pointing to Dobbs as a “source” for the proposition that there are not more black men in jail than college. Cohen does not cite Dobbs as a source of information; rather, he points to Dobbs’s effort to reach out to Obama’s camp to explain his exasperation in the fact that Obama made the more-in-jail-than-in-college remark AFTER he was apprised of the technical inaccuracy of the statement. Even if Obama didn’t lie, he shirked the nuances of the situation for force of a sound bite. And we just can’t be playing politics with this issue. He’s still my man though.
Further, I don’t think that any thinking person can justify remarking that there are more black men in jail than in college given the data you cite. The relevant universe of black men for the comparison to make any sense is, clearly, college-age black men. Not limiting the comparison to this population would allow pundits to talk about employment rates that include newborns, wouldn’t it?
Anyway, all that being said, Obama’s point is more forcefully made without the comparison anyway. In fact, as I’ve been saying for months now, the comparison is balderdash. All that needs to be said, focused on, and fixed is the tragic and astronomical number of black men who live in this country’s prisons and jails.
2
Mike
// Jan 3, 2008 at 3:02 pm
It is fair to say that Obama shirked the nuances of the comparison (as most have). That’s not the same as saying it was a lie. He chose one perspective (Justice Policy Institute and others) over another (Dobbs). It’s not wrong that Cohen cites Dobbs. It’s wrong to call it a lie or “mendacious” (the title of his op-ed was Mendacity of Hope). When a lawyer presents a different and more persuasive perspective on evidence, does it render the other position a lie?
As I’ve stated in my Baltimore Sun op-ed, I’m with you about the better comparison to make being among college-age black men (BTW it doesn’t mean by not doing so comparisons would include newborns–more like 18 and up). Also, as I have written about here, I am in agreement with you that the bigger issue has to do with there being far too many black men in jail and prison.
3
L
// Jan 3, 2008 at 4:30 pm
It seems we are in almost complete agreement then, but I am compelled to split hairs. I may not go so far as Cohen to call Obama’s invocation of the data on black men in jail vs. college mendacious, but I am comfortable calling it disingenuous. Especially if he was, as it appears, fully aware of the relevant population for the comparison.
To your evidentiary point, there is a difference between a lawyer presenting evidence in a more persuasive light than her adversary and using fuzzy facts to her benefit. In law, most “evidence” is facts, i.e. objective, historical pieces of information. This information, often, is open to various interpretations and contexualization. A lawyer’s job is to offer a persuasive interpretation of these facts, or to give them context that is helpful to the client’s position. However, the study in dispute is not objective or historical. It is nuanced. No good lawyer is obliged, in making her case, to ignore the blatant nuances of her or her adversary’s position.
For example, imagine you represent a class of individuals who bought Ford trucks between 2001 and 2005 who were killed or injured when their air bags did not deploy upon contact, as they should have. You present evidence to the jury that Ford’s failure to install working air bags in their trucks that establishes that more than 2 million people died or were injured when the air bag in their truck did not deploy. At closing argument, you emphasize that “Ford’s blatant disregard for the public has cost millions of Americans their lives and livelihoods, and these people should be reimbursed for Ford’s greed.” However, you also knew when you presented the evidence and made that argument that between 2001 and 2005, at most, 30,000 people had been killed or injured as a result of air-bag malfunction in Ford trucks. The multi-million figure you reference included those injured before 2001 and after 2005.
Given this example, which I admit is not perfect and completely made up, you may not have been “lying” in court on your clients’ behalf, but you were being disingenuous, ignoring the whole truth, and shirking nuances to make a larger point. This is not good lawyering, nor is it good politics.
4
L
// Jan 4, 2008 at 8:12 am
Whether Obama lied or not, he won Iowa! My man.
5
Mike
// Jan 5, 2008 at 9:54 am
Yes he did! An historic moment.
Re your other comment, yes, we are in agreement on most of the main points and yes, you were really splitting hairs. But since I know how much you love to debate, I’ll go down that road with you…
Part of this depends on how you define “college aged” black men. Some use 18-24 (which is what I was referring to) but it’s really an arbitrary age range. If I were to use say, use 18-30 (since there *are* black men in college at that age), it changes the comparison. Depending on which age range you use you *could* defensibly say there are more college-age black men in jail than college. Who is to say which age range is “right?” One could (I wouldn’t) even make the argument that since a black man can attend college at any age after obtaining a diploma, that they would use the 18+ age group for the comparison.
So I’d suggest a better analogy in the example you gave… Say as the attorney, in your figure of deaths due to malfunctioning airbags, you include deaths due to side collisions. (Hypothetically) crash test research shows that it is questionable as to whether front airbags protect you from side collisions even when they do deploy, thus it is a judgment call as to whether you decide to include those deaths in your figure. You choose to do so without being “nuanced” in your explanation. Does that make you “disingenuous?’ Maybe. Maybe not. It certainly doesn’t make you a liar.
6 Stop Obama » When Will Anyone Ask Him Tough Questions? // Feb 20, 2008 at 6:30 am
[...] of antiwar hero? He ain’t no Kucinich, or Cynthia McKinney. In fact, with his scant handle of facts, and overindulgence in cheap chaff, he may be as close as the Democratic party can get to a George [...]
Leave a Comment