By Tracy F. Harrisassistant Managing Editor
After moving the date three times, the U of L debate team finally picked a day to present “Should police investigations be conducted internally?”
Debate planners had hoped for a number of guest speakers and audience members, but the turnout for both was low.
“It’s Friday,” debater Phil Bailey said, summarizing the general sentiment. The Strickler lecture hall was nearly empty; a class that would receive credit for attending only had three students sign in. Scheduled for 3-5 p.m., the debate started late because hosts were hoping more people would arrive.
The first portion featured debate between three debaters: Bailey, Shauntrice Martin and John Morris. The second hour was for audience participation; however, the lack of audience condensed that section to 15 minutes and two questions.
Martin and Bailey teamed up on the con side, arguing internal investigations did not represent those affected. Morris took them on alone, contesting that the general public doesn’t understand the training police officers receive to handle these situations.
Martin opened the debate with a hip-hop clip and some a cappella rapping of her own. Her first argument was rhymed out, pointing out Enron didn’t investigate itself and Bill Clinton didn’t conduct his own impeachment.
“Organizations cannot be truly self-critical,” she said. “That’s one of the reasons why internal investigations are laced with bias and inherently flawed.”
Since 1998, 13 men have been shot to death by Louisville Metro Police. Seven of them were African-American. Of those seven cases, Martin said, all were deemed justifiable homicide or the officers were found not guilty.
Martin proposed that a civilian board with political power was necessary for those who had been affected by police brutality to let their voices be heard.
The current civilian review board, the Citizen’s Commission on Accountability, only has authoritative power, not political, she said. That’s not enough, because the outcome of the case is independent of what the review board concludes, Martin said.
Morris argued that a civilian review board with more power is “inherently dangerous” to the officers. Information could be leaked to the general public that could put officers’ lives at risk, he said.
Important decisions, like terminating officers, “should be the job of the commissioner and the mayor, not self-righteous vigilantes,” he said.
Bailey presented last, arguing on the same side as Martin but not with the same reasoning.
He declared it was not just a racial issue — the problem of police corruption and brutality affect everyone, making it a human rights issue instead.
“It’s the most ignored human rights issue in America,” he said.
An independent board should consist of elected members from the community, Bailey proposed, and would have the power to make decisions regarding policies and termination.
During cross-examination, the trio discussed the role university students and the under-21 community in general should factor into a civilian review board. All three agreed representation by the younger demographic was essential — Morris held the position that a review board was not the solution, but that a more active community was, and that should include minors.
