Blog

I have just received a response to the email I sent on facts about policing in the U.S. raising a question about “who” should be accepted as a guide to realities within the African American community or any other community for that matter?

Who, for example, speaks for white Americans, Hispanic Americans, the Chinese in Hong Kong, the religion of Islam, ad infinitum?

Jason Riley, whom I quoted in my cover note, wrote that in a commentary published by the Wall Street Journal. Riley’s views are different from those of many other African Americans. I am increasingly of the thought that we so often confront impasses when the perceptions of one culture – widely shared within that culture and arising from historical conditions – are foreign to those coming from another culture. The outsider is removed intellectually and emotionally from what seems so true and real to the insider. When we seek to become more aware of the “other,” a challenge is who speaks for a collective other, what texts, what artifacts express a core perception for that other?

I know of other African Americans who have the same general point of view as Riley and we all know from their public remarks and writings of notable African Americans who disagree with him.

In a way, the work of the Caux Round Table is to be between various “others,” both individual and group and through dialogue, seek to bring out what can be accepted and believed in by more than one tradition.

I have received many worried emails from our international network about the protests and violence here in the U.S. since the death of George Floyd. Some abroad may presume the worst about our institutions.

I have also read, more on the margins of our anguished public discussions than featured front and center by leading media outlets, a few commentators who have brought forth facts about policing in America, facts which should inform our thinking.

For example, Jason Riley, an African American, wrote in the Wall Street Journal today: “So long as blacks are committing more than half of all murders and robberies while making up only 13% of the population and so long as almost all their victims are their neighbors, their communities will draw the lion’s share of police attention. Defunding the police or making it easier to prosecute officers, will only result in more lives lost in those neighborhoods that most need protection.”

I feel an obligation from seeking to understand truth to communicate uncomfortable facts to our network internationally and so have written a short piece titled “Narrative and Reality: Racism and Policing in the United States.”

As the Caux Round Table advocates in its Principles for Government and as is implied in our Principles for Business, moral judgment depends on thoughtful discourse about reality. Morality cannot be the forceful imposition on others of untruth or personal prerogative.

Two phrases have come to mind. One is the Latin fiat justicia, ruat caelum – “Let there be justice though the Heavens Fall,” which is a call to irresponsibility and dismissal of consequences to others. The other is the quip of Mme. Roland, on the way to her execution by other Jacobins during the French Revolution, said: “Oh, Liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name!”

I would be very interested in your thoughts and feedback.

As you know, anger and resentments have once again boiled over in American cities. The fault line of displacement is along the interface of police and African Americans in the inner cities. But this time, protests calling for an end to racism and for justice were manifest in London and in Paris.

There is a time to reflect and a time to plan, but there is also a time for action. “There is a time for every purpose under Heaven.” Ecclesiastes 3:1-8.

Here in Minnesota, I was working the past few days with two of our colleagues – Matt Bostrom, former Sheriff of Ramsey County and now working on a Ph.D. in policing at Oxford and Richard Bents, a psychologist who helped us with a self-assessment psycho-metric questionnaire on leadership decision styles – to design a new method of hiring for character in new police officers.

Yesterday morning, I sent our proposal to the Governor of our state and the Commissioner of Public Safety.

For your information, you may find a copy of our proposal here.

What we are living through these days is historic. In several senses, historic as of great importance and an inflection in the course of events and historic in its parallels to past moments of breakdown – Lexington and Concord, the Bastille, the March from Selma 1965, Detroit 1965, Watts 1967.

When disruption subjects the common good to abuse of power, there are no winners and cycles of fear and retribution dissolve well-being, fair politics and cultural reassurance. The community falls apart.

The actions of four Minneapolis police officers on Monday night were such a disconnection between the common good and the use of power. A particularly important insight into the behavior of those officers is the complaint issued by Hennepin County for the arrest of officer Derek Chauvin. A copy of the complaint is here. Please read its statement of facts.

In 1829 when creating the first modern police force, Sir Robert Peel demanded that the force of law be part of the community and never stand against it. He set down ethical principles for policing for the benefit of community.

These principles are:

1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.

2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.

4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.

5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary, of avenging individuals or the State and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.

9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

With our podcast discussions with guests, keeping up with family and associates and reading here and there, after a while, one begins to settle on some lessons learned from our global exposure to a mere virus. I’ve been keeping notes and put my thoughts into five different short video commentaries.

My attention has been drawn to 1) risk shifting and not sharing, 2) the responsibilities of government, 3) self-reliance, 4) leadership and 5) capitalism.

The series of videos are available here in order, with the first being the one on risk shifting and the last on capitalism.

I welcome your reactions and comments.

I wanted to share with you an article from one of our fellows, Stephen Jordan, on how we can recover from the policies enacted to combat the coronavirus.

Stephen is a keen thinker looking at the forces set in motion by institutions and markets who served as the Executive Director of the Business Civic Leadership Center at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Today, he is the CEO of the Institute for Sustainable Development.

Since the intent of the Caux Round Table for Moral Capitalism is to offer practical help and not be too overly conceptual, discursive and academic, we consistently seek to provide you with evidence of alignment between our recommendations and wider perspectives on business and financial realities.

Recently, I was sent a paper by McKinsey & Company on “purpose.” I have excerpted portions which validate our emphasis on vision and mission as determinative of success with stakeholders and so as drivers of profit and growth in a firm’s equity valuation.

Responsibility – of a person or an organization – reveals itself in mindful intentionality. Purpose has become a trendy word in the last year, or so, for highlighting our intentions. As the McKinsey paper advocates, purpose focuses our intentions into a channel of dedication and collaboration leading to success.

You may find the paper here.

The full version can be found here.

I welcome your thoughts on these recommendations.