America's missing moral compass
In a wholly righteous world, Tucker would have been the sole focus. Her community would have rallied around her for being unfairly robbed of her place in the competition. They would have talked about all the hard work that she put into her body and spirit to become an elite runner. And they would have shamed her assailant into acknowledging her transgression and pledging to better herself as a member of the community.
But we don't live in a wholly righteous society. For far too many, their moral compass is off.
After the incident, the assailant, Alaina Everett, told a local news station that she hit Tucker by accident. "I lost my balance when I pumped my arms again. She got hit," Everett said. "I know my intentions and I would never hit someone one purpose."
I saw the video with my own two eyes. I watched the video multiple times. Everett whacked Tucker on the head without question. She lifted her arm at her passing competitor and whacked her. No two buts about that.
What happened at that moment was that Everett knew she was getting beat. She wasn't good enough for whatever reason. Maybe she didn't put in the hard work or she couldn't find that extra speed. Whatever the reason, that moment exposed her shortcomings as a runner. Rather than dig in and run all out, knowing deep down that she would have to put in even more work, she lost her composure and did the unthinkable.
What also struck me about that interview that Everett gave to the local TV station was that she asked for her feelings to be considered. "Everybody has feelings," she said. "So you're physically hurt, but you're not thinking of my mental well-being."
Huh?
This is sad. No, this is shameful.
Everett is trying to avoid the truth and what happened next astonished me. A rally was later held in her honor and the NAACP showed up in her defense. The Black community has been screaming "Black excellence" at America for so long, and they choose to rally behind someone like this?
The NAACP chapter from Portsmouth, Virginia said, "Alaina is NOT AN ATTACKER and media headlines that allude towards that in any way is shameful," the organization said. She is an exceptional young leader and scholar whose athletic talent has been well-documented and recognized across our state. She has carried herself with integrity both on and off the field, and any narrative that adjudicates her guilty of any criminal activity is a violation of her due process rights."
The narrative is that Alaila did not lie about what happened. The narrative is that our eyes showing the baton landing on Tucker's head with such force are lying to us. The narrative is that we must believe the assailant, we must believe the NAACP, and we must believe those whose moral compass is so far off that even the bad actor down on the corner has more balance.
And where is her family? Is there any decent human there who knows right from wrong?
In some ways, what happened here reminded me of what happened in Ferguson, Mo., immediately after the shooting of Michael Brown. If you watched the documentary, "What Killed Michael Brown?" Shelby Steele details how the lie of "Hands up, Don't Shoot" took a life of its own. It was completely divorced from reality.
What happens when lies like those continue to fester in our society? When the truth lies buried? It creates an immoral streak throughout our society. It permits individuals to shun personal accountability for lies. It permits once-vaunted organizations to bastardize themselves before lies.
That is why Everett must still be held fully accountable. There is no other action that she can take other than a full and sincere apology. The only way to end this charade is to stop it in its tracks.
It is only until she does, that she can work on becoming a better person and member of our society.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's Washington police takeover echoes history of racist narratives about urban crime
Trump's action echoes uncomfortable historical chapters But for many residents, the prospect of federal troops surging into the district's neighborhoods represents an alarming violation of local agency. To some, it echoes uncomfortable historical chapters when politicians used language to paint historically or predominantly Black cities and neighborhoods with racist narratives to shape public opinion and justify aggressive police action. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up April Goggans, a longtime Washington resident and grassroots organizer, said she was not surprised by Trump's actions. Communities had been preparing for a potential federal crackdown in the district since the summer of 2020, when Trump deployed National Guard troops during racial justice protests after the murder of George Floyd. Advertisement 'We have to be vigilant,' said Goggans, who has coordinated protests and local civil liberties educational campaigns for nearly a decade. She worries about what a surge in law enforcement could mean for residents' freedoms. Advertisement 'Regardless of where you fall on the political scale, understand that this could be you, your children, your grandmother, your co-worker who are brutalized or have certain rights violated,' she said. Uncertainty about what's a safe environment raises alarms According to White House officials, National Guard troops will be deployed to protect federal assets in the district and facilitate a safe environment for law enforcement to make arrests. The administration believes the highly visible presence of law enforcement will deter violent crime. It is unclear how the administration defines providing a safe environment for law enforcement to conduct arrests, raising alarm bells for some local advocates. 'The president foreshadowed that if these heavy-handed tactics take root here, they will be rolled out to other majority-Black and Brown cities, like Chicago, Oakland and Baltimore, across the country,' said Monica Hopkins, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union's D.C. chapter. 'We've seen before how federal control of the D.C. National Guard and police can lead to abuse, intimidation and civil rights violations — from military helicopters swooping over peaceful racial justice protesters in 2020 to the unchecked conduct of federal officers who remain shielded from full accountability,' Hopkins said. A history of denigrating language Conservative lawmakers have for generations used denigrating language to describe the condition of major American cities and called for greater law enforcement, often in response to changing demographics in those cities driven by nonwhite populations relocating in search of work or safety from racial discrimination and state violence. Republicans have called for greater police crackdowns in cities since at least the 1965 Watts Riots in Los Angeles. President Richard Nixon won the White House in 1968 after campaigning on a 'law and order' agenda to appeal to white voters in northern cities alongside overtures to white Southerners as part of his 'Southern Strategy.' Ronald Reagan similarly won both his presidential elections after campaigning heavily on law and order politics. Politicians ranging from former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to former President Bill Clinton have cited the need to tamp down crime as a reason to seize power from cities like Washington for decades. Advertisement District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser called Trump's takeover of the local police force 'unsettling' but not without precedent. The mayor kept a mostly measured tone during a Monday news conference following Trump's announcement but decried the president's reasoning as a 'so-called emergency' and said the district's residents 'know that access to our democracy is tenuous.' Trump threatened to 'take over' and 'beautify' the nation's capital on the campaign trail and claimed the district was 'a nightmare of murder and crime.' He also argued the city was 'horribly run' and said his team intended 'to take it away from the mayor.' The president repeated comments he'd previously made about some of the nation's largest cities during his news conference, including Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, Oakland, California, and his hometown of New York City. All are currently run by Black mayors. 'You look at Chicago, how bad it is. You look at Los Angeles, how bad it is. We have other cities in a very bad, New York is a problem. And then you have, of course, Baltimore and Oakland. We don't even mention that anymore. They're so far gone. We're not going to let it happen,' he said. Civil rights advocates see the president's rhetoric as part of a broader political strategy. Advertisement 'It's a playbook he's used in the past,' said Maya Wiley, CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. The president's rhetoric 'paints a picture that crime is out of control, even when it is not true, then blames the policies of Democratic lawmakers that are reform- and public safety-minded, and then claims that you have to step in and violate people's rights or demand that reforms be reversed,' Wiley said. She added that the playbook has special potency in the capital because the district's local law enforcement can be directly placed under federal control, a power Trump invoked in his announcement. Civil rights leaders denounce DC order as unjustified distraction Trump's actions in Washington and comments about other major American cities sent shock waves across the country, as other cities prepare to respond to potential federal action. Democratic Maryland Gov. Wes Moore said Trump's plan 'lacks seriousness and is deeply dangerous' in a statement and pointed to a 30-year-low crime rate in Baltimore as a reason the administration should consult local leaders rather than antagonize them. In Oakland, Mayor Barbara Lee called Trump's characterization of the city 'fearmongering.' The administration already faced a major flashpoint between local control and federal power earlier in the summer, when Trump deployed National Guard troops to quell protests and support immigration enforcement operations in Los Angeles despite opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. Civil rights leaders have denounced Trump's action in Washington as an unjustified distraction. 'This president campaigned on 'law and order,' but he is the president of chaos and corruption,' said NAACP President Derrick Johnson. 'There's no emergency in D.C., so why would he deploy the National Guard? To distract us from his alleged inclusion in the Epstein files? To rid the city of unhoused people? D.C. has the right to govern itself. It doesn't need this federal coup.' Advertisement
San Francisco Chronicle
5 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Can San Francisco avoid Trump's ire after National Guard deployments in D.C. and L.A.?
Once again, President Donald Trump has brought his campaign of retribution against liberal jurisdictions to the streets of a major American city, ordering hundreds of National Guard troops to deploy to another Democratic stronghold. And once again, the city in question is not San Francisco, a past Trump target that has so far avoided the kind of direct clash with his administration that previously played out in Los Angeles and is now unfolding in Washington. Trump announced Monday that he was temporarily placing the D.C. police department under federal control and sending 800 National Guard troops to the nation's capital. Those extraordinary steps were necessary because of 'violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals' that have overrun the city, Trump said, even though official statistics show violent crime in Washington is down. The president put other cities on notice, warning that New York, Chicago, Baltimore and Oakland could also see National Guard deployments over crime concerns. He did not mention San Francisco, a famously liberal sanctuary city that was panned by Trump last year as 'not even livable.' It's not as if San Francisco is flying under Trump's radar entirely. He has promoted the unlikely idea of reopening Alcatraz as a federal prison, and immigration agents have detained people in the city as they've sought to carry out Trump's mass deportation plans. San Francisco has also repeatedly fought Trump administration policies in court. But when it comes to Trump sending military forces to what he views as lawless cities led astray by Democratic politicians, San Francisco and its mayor, Daniel Lurie, do not appear to be top of mind for the president — at least not for now. Some political observers say that's a testament to how well Lurie and other moderate Democrats are running the city, while others warn that Trump could easily turn his ire on the city at a moment's notice. Jay Cheng, executive director of the moderate political group Neighbors for a Better San Francisco, sees political vindication in the fact that Trump didn't invoke San Francisco when he previously sent National Guard troops to Los Angeles or when he announced the actions in Washington on Monday. Cheng said San Francisco voters have shown in electing Lurie, District Attorney Brooke Jenkins and a moderate Board of Supervisors majority that they're focused on improving police staffing, reducing crime, shutting down drug markets and making the city function more efficiently. 'In San Francisco, we're showing that Democratic leaders can successfully govern a city,' Cheng said. 'He's not mentioning us because we're not a good example for his narrative, because we have Democrats that are doing a great job around public safety.' State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, had a more blunt assessment of Trump's treatment of New York, Chicago, Baltimore, Oakland and Washington. All of those cities have Black mayors and large Black populations, Wiener noted, calling it 'straight up Donald Trump's alley and straight out of his racist playbook.' Wiener doubted that Trump was taking note of any specific political changes in San Francisco when thinking about where he wanted to send the National Guard. 'Donald Trump has taken many swings at San Francisco over the years — just ask Nancy Pelosi,' Wiener said. 'The other thing is, when it comes to Trump, the eye of Sauron is going to look wherever it's going to look,' Wiener said. 'If he's going after Oakland, Baltimore, Chicago, New York and L.A. today, he's going to go after other cities tomorrow.' Since he became San Francisco mayor in January, Lurie has carefully avoided even uttering Trump's name in public in an attempt to avoid drawing too much attention from a vengeful president with a reputation for being unpredictable. He's seen little evidence that his approach is unpopular: In fact, 50% of respondents in a recent Chronicle poll said the mayor was right to prioritize local issues. Lurie's office had no comment Monday. Former Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf said Monday that she has 'great compassion for the mayors who are struggling with the right thing to do in Trump's second term,' pointing to the decisive conservative control of the U.S. Supreme Court and the Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress. Schaff had a widely-publicized clash with Trump during his first term in 2018, when she as Oakland mayor issued a public warning about an imminent immigration sweep. Trump called her action a 'disgrace' and urged his attorney general to consider prosecuting Schaaf. In direct response to Schaaf, a Republican Congressman introduced unsuccessful legislation that would have imposed criminal penalties — and possible jailtime — against local officials who made similar disclosures. Schaaf said she thinks it's 'wise' for mayors to focus on what they were elected to do, unless they find themselves directly in the crosshairs of the White House, which is the situation that she thinks she faced in Oakland seven years ago. 'I really did not want to be sucked into a national debate when I was elected to run the city, to keep people safe,' Schaaf said. 'It doesn't surprise me that Mayor Lurie is focused on what he was elected to do and not allowing himself to be distracted, because Trump hasn't called out San Francisco in this way.' Barbara Lee, Oakland's current mayor, responded Monday to Trump's comments about her city by calling them inaccurate and 'an attempt to score cheap political points by tearing down communities he doesn't understand.' Schaaf told the Chronicle that she has 'a lot of respect and faith' that Lee will 'do what is right for her values and the values of Oakland.' And while Trump isn't talking much about San Francisco now, that could change under the wrong circumstances, said Jeff Cretan, who was a spokesperson for former Mayor London Breed. A high-profile violent incident during an immigration action or protest in San Francisco could quickly result in Trump setting his sights on the city, Cretan said. 'I don't want to see something horrible happen, but that could change things,' he said. 'Sometimes those moments are what galvanize people … Those bigger, symbolic things that resonate with people more often are what draw a lot of the attention.' Lurie has clearly indicated his desire to avoid such a scenario. In June, after Trump first sent National Guard troops to Los Angeles, a reporter asked Lurie if he anticipated something similar happening in San Francisco, where protests had already erupted. Lurie said he was focused on 'keeping San Franciscans safe.' 'We have this under control,' he said.
San Francisco Chronicle
8 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
By sending troops to D.C. and eyeing Oakland, Trump continues targeting Black-led cities
When President Donald Trump announced Monday that he will deploy National Guard troops to the streets of Washington D.C. to combat crime, he named several other cities where he might take similar action. 'We have other cities also that are bad. Very bad,' Trump said during the White House news conference. 'You look at Chicago, how bad it is. You look at Los Angeles, how bad it is. We have other cities that are very bad. New York has a problem. And then you have, of course, Baltimore and Oakland. We don't even mention that anymore there.' Trump and other members of his administration, while often using false or misleading statistics, have cited rampant crime as the justification for deploying federalized troops within U.S. cities. But these cities share another commonality: They're led by Black mayors. Critics don't think that's a coincidence. Trump's focus on Washington D.C., Chicago, Baltimore, New York and Oakland is part of a larger pattern in which the president has suggested cities with majority-Black populations, or those led by Black leaders, are hotbeds of crime and corruption and symbols of American decline. 'I see this as a political dog whistle to his base, evoking long-running stereotypes that Black mayors cannot adequately govern or are soft on crime in their cities,' said Jordie Davies, a professor of political science at UC Irvine. 'Donald Trump is engaging in political theater so he can be seen as responding to the racist ideas that these cities are poorly run and overrun with crime — even as statistics demonstrate that violent crime in major U.S. cities, including D.C., is down this year.' Reports of violent crimes — homicides, robberies, assaults and sexual abuse —have seen steep declines over the last two years, the Washington Post reported. 'If he is going to start lying about major American cities to justify sending the military there, it is not surprising to me that he would pick cities with Black leadership and significant Black populations,' state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, said Monday. 'That is straight up Donald Trump's alley and straight out of his racist playbook.' Crime is also falling in Oakland, a trend that Mayor Barbara Lee cited Monday in arguing that Trump was less interested in facts than in scoring 'cheap political points by tearing down communities he doesn't understand.' Oakland experienced a 6% increase in reported violent crimes in 2024, but saw a decrease in homicides and property crimes, according to a Chronicle analysis. So far in 2025, violent crimes including homicides are down significantly in the city. 'We're making real progress on public safety in Oakland, and while we acknowledge we have more work to do, we are doing this work each and every day,' Lee said. 'Our comprehensive public safety strategy is working — crime rates are coming down even though we still face many challenges. And let me repeat, President Trump is wrong.' Before Trump accepted the Republican presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee last year, he reportedly called the city 'horrible.' 'Trump is a lot of things but he certainly isn't subtle—all of the cities he denigrates have one important thing in common: they all have significant Black populations,' DNC Chair Jaime Harrison said in a statement to the Daily Beast at the time. In 2020, Trump said of Detroit, Oakland and Baltimore, 'these cities, it's like living in hell.' 'And everyone gets upset when I say it, they say, 'Is that a racist statement? ' It's not a racist,' Trump told Fox News. 'Frankly, Black people come up to me, they say, 'Thank you. Thank you sir for saying it.'' Davies, the UC Irvine professor, said using the fear of crime — especially the idea of 'Black crime' — has always been an effective political message in the U.S. It was a message Trump hammered consistently in the 2024 election, a race in which he doubled his share of Black voters from 2020. (still, Trump's opponent, then-Vice President Kamala Harris, won 83% of Black voters.) 'Crime evokes fear and fear provides a political vacuum that can be filled with state violence,' Davies said. 'It will be important for experts, politicians, and journalists to call out Trump's lies about crime in these places and name this for what it is: a racist attempt to dominate Black cities and a performance of power for his base.'
