Here & Now

Noon Wednesday with guest Noble Wray

Marisa Wojcik:
I’m Marisa Wojcik, a Multimedia Journalist with Here & Now on Wisconsin Public Television. As we all know, social media is a powerful tool that can spread information across networks and get information out to communities. But today, we’re exploring the question of what happens when that tool can be used for hate. A recent influx of some derogatory and racist remarks from various Wisconsin law enforcement officials and sources is drawing some renewed criticism on this issue and forcing departments to answer to the communities that they serve. Joining us to unpack some of this is Noble Wray. He is the former Madison Chief of Police as well as spent a year at the US Department of Justice leading a program called Community Orienting Police Services. Thanks so much for being here.

Noble Wray:
Thank you.

Marisa Wojcik:
I want to start this past weekend, the Portage County Chief Deputy Sheriff Dan Kontos posted on the department’s Facebook page a photo depicting a meme that many have criticized as racist. The Stevens Point Journal reports one of the commenters said this is a reflection of ignorance and hatred. Kontos posted that it was not racist and that commenters should return to their safe spaces, and both of Kontos’s original posts have been deleted. Is this an appropriate response?

Noble Wray:
Response, that it was not appropriate?

Marisa Wojcik:
Is it an appropriate response to both respond to commenters that way, telling them to go to their safe spaces and then also deleting the original posts?

Noble Wray:
Well, when you’re in a position of public trust, what you want to do is make sure that you’re responding in a way where community members feel that you are going to provide service in a just manner. In answer to your question, no, because when people perceive, perceived or real because the way it’s impacting someone, it’s real, when people perceive that they have been disrespected in some way, shape or form, it’s incumbent upon law enforcement to try and understand as opposed to just push it away. Try to understand and try and find out more as to why this person perceived this post in that manner.

Marisa Wojcik:
So, they shouldn’t just keep saying that they should reach out to the people that have been responding in the comments?

Noble Wray:
Absolutely, because it’s a two way street. One, is that you’ll find if you go through this that you will get a greater understanding and then two, we have an obligation to understand why someone felt as though they were hurt or disrespected in that manner. So, not to have the dialogue is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

Marisa Wojcik:
How quickly does this erode public trust?

Noble Wray:
It erodes public trust in this manner. Typically, comments like this are perceived in three ways. One is it’s perceived as you mentioned hatred or animus or mockery or just downright insensitive. In order for law enforcement, in order for the police professional to provide service, justice and fundamental fairness, people have to believe that they have their best interest at heart. That has to be it. That’s why there’s so much discussion about procedural justice. It can be very subjective, but on the part of citizens, they need to believe that police officers are not biased in any way and they can provide service to them.

Marisa Wojcik:
No one’s perfect, though, so these biases do exist. Is the public better to know that some of these biases exist and that they come to light so that it’s not manifesting itself in more dangerous ways?

Noble Wray:
Sure, let me break this down because sometimes biases are just thrown out there. They’re the explicit biases and those are the ones that do carry animus, mockery and at times really insensitive and those are the ones that people are conscious of. That’s totally different. If you are saying something about a particular race, a particular group and you know and the average person would know that that was done intentionally, that’s totally different and that should not be allowed in any way, shape or form. Then there are the implicit biases. Those are things that based upon the way we were raised and information that we don’t have about people, we may say and do things unconscious of the fact that it’s having that impact and unconscious of the fact that we may have a bias. And those are two different strategies, but they hurt people in many instances the same way.

Marisa Wojcik:
So, following the arrest of Milwaukee Bucks player Sterling Brown, Milwaukee police officer Erik Andrade who was involved in the arrest made racist posts from a personal account. He has since been fired. Milwaukee Police Chief Alfonso Morales said in a statement, members are free to express themselves as private citizens on social media to the degree that their speech is not disruptive to the mission of the department. However, speech on or off duty pursuant to members’ official duties and professional responsibilities is not protected. First of all, are these fileable offenses?

Noble Wray:
Yes, a lot of it also depends upon the way your policy is laid out, the things that you’ve done on the front end and that’s probably the biggest thing. If you hire someone, you should be looking at their social media posts before you hire them because a lot of the stuff is out there. It’s already out there. Then, number two, you should be talking about it internally. These are the expectations. What was framed out by the Milwaukee Police Department is pretty consistent in terms of the way departments have their policies and procedures and guidelines laid out nationally.

Marisa Wojcik:
Is this a unique case?

Noble Wray:
It’s not unique. Social media has really impacted not only our profession, but all professions. The difference here is that we’re in a position of public trust. The difference here is people depend upon us not only for service but for life in many instances. Not only that, we’re a reflection of society, law enforcement. So, this is not unique. It’s not unique and social media has impacted law enforcement in two ways. One is not only what we say, but also in what people see us doing and then they put out there. So, it’s really impacted this profession.

Marisa Wojcik:
How do you determine what is pursuant to official duties? This is made on a personal account. Is that subjective?

Noble Wray:
In some instances, it’s subjective, but again, it’s what you tell officers in advance of this. Usually, there’s a sense of was there a reputational harm to the department or the city. Does it have an adverse impact on the city or that officer to be able to provide service? What was the sense of the community reaction based upon what was stated and said? So, those are some of the things that you would look for. Also, being well aware of what your policies, equal protection issues and things like that all say about what the comment was made.

Marisa Wojcik:
Do departments have consistent policies from department to department or is it up to their own. . .

Noble Wray:
It’s about 18,000 law enforcement agencies and you will find variations, but usually there’s a body of information that’s pretty consistent. Again, most departments have talked about just because you’re off duty and you’re posting on your private account that does not mean that we can’t take action. That’s pretty consistent.

Marisa Wojcik:
Okay, should it matter if it’s on a personal account versus a departmental account? The case of the Portage County sheriff deputy was on a department’s account. Is that even more dangerous because people look to those official accounts for emergency service information?

Noble Wray:
Yeah, it speaks of an individual I think more so than anyone else. The person that’s posting it because it’s a higher likelihood that it’s going to be exposed. During my tenure as a Police Chief and a Police Officer, that information is going to come out if it’s public or private. It’s going to come out and that’s what we try to express that eventually somehow that’s going to come out.

Marisa Wojcik:
Do some of these instances of implicit bias come out amongst officers one-on-one and it’s harder to report those things, but when it’s on social media, it’s permanent, well, there could be a record of it. Is that sometimes a benefit to be able to identify that issue when it comes up?

Noble Wray:
Well, here’s where it gets really tricky. If you were to watch television on a weekend and you watch a comedy show, the shtick is really based in large part on stereotypes. So, people feel very comfortable in one-on-one or when they’re not at work in communicating in that manner. Whereas years ago, it was usually a face-to-face, now, people are communicating in that manner on social media. The problem is or the difficulty with this is that you have a lot of opportunity for contacts, but once it’s printed, once it’s out there, it’s very difficult for you to come back and say how it was nuanced, what was your context, what was the social meaning behind it. That’s what really gets difficult.

Marisa Wojcik:
Even with that context and nuance, does that make those comments any more appropriate?

Noble Wray:
No, it really doesn’t. What I was pointing out is it’s like you can’t unring that bell and that’s what makes it more difficult. It is difficult to come back and explain it because of the social media, because it’s existing in perpetuity, but that doesn’t make it any better. When we’re using stereotypes or thinking about people in a stereotypical manner, and it is and that’s why I started off saying if it’s being done in a manner in which it is demonstrating disdain or animus or mockery, even insensitivity, but again that gets to be more tricky to be able to determine if the person intentionally tried to say something or do something to hurt someone.

Marisa Wojcik:
Do you see it as a benefit that the community can call out certain officials or certain officers and almost police them back and call them out for certain behaviors and comments?

Noble Wray:
You know, we’ve talked about transparency and that’s what this gets down to. We’ve talked about transparency for years and in some ways, we were thinking that transparency was when we were doing something right and we’d show you. But right now with social media, transparency is there. There are things that we say that now there are things that will come out and so in answer to your question, it is important for community members to have that dialogue and to call out their law enforcement. That saying goes, sometimes you get the law enforcement you deserve. So, we need to be calling out law enforcement in our profession.

Marisa Wojcik:
So, the town of Madison recently hired former DeForest Police Chief Daniel Furseth. He quit last August after a years-old video surfaced on YouTube of him making racist remarks. He stated he regrets it and the city of Madison Common Council has called for a rescind of this hire. What’s the right move here?

Noble Wray:
In terms of rescinding the hire or making the hire? (laughs)

Marisa Wojcik:
Either. I guess, the hire’s been made, so what do you say now?

Noble Wray:
Well, first of all, again, I have to reiterate the idea that if someone has made a comment like that upfront, there’s no reason today why a department should not know that that exists. There’s just no reason. What you typically do when you’re in the hiring process? They ask you to come in, they ask you to post your social media account and they start looking through it. So, that should’ve been there. Number one, it’s good to hear that the Chief acknowledged that that was wrong. That’s number one. And then number two, he probably should step down. It’s not something that is worth unbalance, creating a wedge between a department and a community.

Marisa Wojcik:
Does that mean that people shouldn’t get a second chance? I think a lot of people get really uncomfortable with these conversations and someone who is sharing remorse for what they said, some are saying, well, I’ll give him another chance but being a part of law enforcement is a very important position and so should we give someone a second chance in such a position of power?

Noble Wray:
I think a lot goes into that. First of all, you’re not only in a position of power, but at one point in time, this person was a Chief of Police, so should have known better. Number two, when you start talking about giving a second chance, there should be some time in there. I mean, just some time of reflection. Some time built into that, not automatic because if there’s no time, if there’s not something where a human being has to reflect on that, it becomes a conditional response. I’m sorry, give it back to me. It’s very complex and these things should be dealt with on a case by case basis and I know we’re talking about things in a way that will help people to understand what law enforcement does. They’re very complex. There’s usually mitigating circumstances surrounding it, but on balance. If it’s a statement of animus, disdain, mockery, I would be very hesitant to hire that person, very hesitant.

Marisa Wojcik:
Is any sort of healing possible? How do police departments gain public trust back and can that happen in a timely and an effective manner?

Noble Wray:
Healing is always possible and the way that it is possible if an agency is open and the community is willing to sit down because when we talk about biases, it’s not only the biases that police officers may have with communities, it’s vice versa as well. There are tapes of people making fun of police officers. So, it cuts both ways. But if you can sit down and have these conversations and have the dialogue and do it from the standpoint of trying to understand each other as opposed to just assuming that the other person is wrong, that’s how you start the healing process. But not to say anything, to ignore it, not to have a plan to be proactive and address it upfront, those are the things that create the problem. The last thing I’ll say on this is it is incumbent upon the police department as leaders and officers of public trust to really make that first move.

Marisa Wojcik:
Yeah, is it the public’s responsibility to give benefit of the doubt to a police officer when they are potentially in a situation where they are more vulnerable and they feel like they don’t have the power in the situation? Is there more responsibility on law enforcement and the officer to take on that burden?

Noble Wray:
I think it’s more important for the department, the officer to make the first move. But I also believe that it’s important that we all remember that even though everyone is wearing a certain uniform, there’s still a human being in that uniform. To understand that they’re going to act and behave in that way is important on the part of the citizen, but it’s important for police officers to make the first move. It’s important for the department to create an environment that’s a welcoming environment to make that first move, but it’s also important for citizens to want to be part of. If we stay divided, we’ll never get down that. You can’t have wounds, which I refer to them as the museum of hurt, existing forever. At some point in time, you’ve got to talk about it.

Marisa Wojcik:
Thank you so much for joining us and talking about this. If you want to hear more from Wisconsin Public Television and Here & Now, visit wpt.org and thanks for joining us on Noon Wednesday.