Weeks Six and Seven

          It has been two weeks since I did an MTC internship round-up so there is much that I could talk about but there are two meetings especially of note. On June 29 we met with Scott Barretta, a blues expert. With Mr. Barretta, we discussed the legend of Robert Johnson, evolution of blues music, relationship of blues music with the civil rights movement, and revival of blues consumerism. I found Robert Johnson particularly interesting. Dead by the age of 27 under widely disputed circumstances, Robert Johnson was a talented musician who received little fanfare while alive but has since exploded into a blues phenomenon. His legend and musical recognition continues to grow despite (rather probably because of) the fact that only two verified pictures of him exist, his cause of death and gravesite are unknown, and few recordings exist. Most interesting, is the famous “crossroads” myth. Supposedly, his prodigious talent can be attributed to a deal he made with the devil at a crossroads in which he gave up his soul. I had previously thought that the devil had gone down to Georgia, as explained by The Charlie Daniels Band, but apparently he had time to stop in the Delta as well. Meeting with Mr. Barretta was a treat as I have little ability to recognize the finer points of music. Additionally, prior to my time in Mississippi I hardly grasped the true connection between blues music and the black experience in the Delta. Blues music tells the musicians story, but the history of blues music places those stories within a context, fraught with suffering, faith, and talent.  

            This past Wednesday, we met with Tucker Carrington, director of the Mississippi Innocence Project. The Innocence Project fights to obtain justice for wrongfully convicted individuals, exposing blatant negligence within Mississippi’s criminal justice system. In speaking with we focused on two cases. The cases involved Kennedy Brewer and Levon Brooks, both of whom had been wrongfully convicted of kidnapping, rape, and murder within a span of a couple years in the same town. In each case, the guilty party was exonerated and a confession from a third party was elicited, linking the same person to both crimes. Also in each case, an medical examiner and bite-mark specialist had been employed by the district attorney to testify in the prosecutions favor. The medical examiner, as has been widely publicized yet disregarded by Mississippi officials, has and continues to perform well over four times the recommended number of autopsies each year, has been found to produce fraudulent results and has insufficient credentials. The bite-mark specialist, who has even less formal training and appears to simply benefit from his friendship with the medical examiner. Both Brooks and Brewer were convicted, more or less simply because they were in town at the time. The supposed bite-marks were not even bite-marks, refuting any possible matches. With the help of the Innocence Project and newly developed DNA analysis, both were eventually freed, but only after their lives were shattered by false convictions. Worst of all, they are not alone. Irresponsible investigating, lackluster defense litigation, poverty, twisted testimony, and government indifference plague our justice systems. Surely not every verdict is accurate, not every perpetrator can be caught, and not every lawyer is Atticus Finch, but simple laziness and blatant negligence is an attack upon the fundamental right to a just and fair trial.

            On a lighter note, the interns had this past weekend off and I returned home to Bethesda, Maryland. While there I watched the Fourth of July fireworks on the National Mall, spent time with family and friends, and had the pleasure of watching Washington’s 126 million dollar man strike out against the Pirates.

Oxford School Board Meeting

          On June 27, 2011, the MTC interns attended a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of Oxford School District at Oxford High School. Now, prior to attending this meeting, my experience of school boards and their many procedures was very limited. In fact, that experience was almost entirely derived from scenes in the movies Hoosiers, Field of Dreams and Footloose. As far as I knew a school board meeting consisted of irate parents, powerfully self-invested students, and either Gene Hackman or Kevin Bacon. At the Oxford meeting I did observe unsatisfied parents, but neither basketball nor dancing was discussed, no books were banned, and no one was dubbed a “fascist cow.” But despite this lack of Hollywood fanaticism, the meeting itself was absolutely fascinating and clearly highlighted the structural limitations of school systems and frustrations of those involved.

            To describe the scene, I will say this: there were fewer than forty people in the entire room, board members accompanied by the district superintendent sat in front, a podium for speaking was placed to the side of them, a man was filming an the entire process, and the lecture hall had swivel chairs worthy of a defunct Roy Rogers restaurant. After I got over the travesty that was the swivel chairs, I was given the meeting’s agenda and things got under way.

            Two things caught my attention during the meeting: the rigidity of the procedural process and dysfunctional public participation. Clearly, for the sake of transparency and consistency certain regulations are needed to ensure that meetings are on point and legitimate. But, when time is precious, spending ten minutes determining the date and length of a board retreat (I timed it on my watch) seems wholly avoidable and irresponsible. To be fair, I do not blame this on the board members themselves. Rather, this is a minor grievance against the larger inefficiency of the systematic procedures which must be followed. Why the board cannot have such frivolous discussions behind closed doors baffles me. Which leads me to my next point: more back and forth should be allowed between the board and audience. For, even if they discuss every single detail and have complete transparency what is the purpose if public reaction is stifled, or disallowed? I know this invites meetings to become marathon disagreements but ideally a reasonable middle ground can be found. During the meeting, a disgruntled mother shared a complaint regarding test scores for minorities and disabled students. Her intentions were commendable but her delivery was abrasive and personal in nature so she was quickly silenced. From my perspective, it appeared that the board was simply being self-defensive and refusing to grant her a pulpit out of self-preservation. I say this because they were not allowed, or maybe unwilling, to address her complaints. I would have liked very much to hear their opinions.

            Two days after the meeting the interns met with Marian Barksdale, a member of the school board. We had met with Mrs. Barksdale a month before and knew her to be genuinely concerned and dedicated to improving the education of all students. Speaking with her I grew to understand how frustrating it must be to sit before the public unable to fully educate them concerning the board’s efforts. Clearly, there is much that the board does, and is trying desperately to do, which goes unseen. Being a board member must feel like a full time job and I wonder how far good intentions can go in a system crippled by budgetary limitations, wealth disparity, and self-interest.