Response to Roger Lindmark

The debate over whether to publish Roger Lindmark’s letter in this week’s edition of The Record was thoughtful and hard-won. In that same breath, as an Executive Board, we knew illustrating our rationale for running the piece in advance would be a prudent step to take.

Although controversial, we ran Lindmark’s article because of his relationship to the CSB/SJU community. Lindmark is an SJU alumni, donor and has previously sent letters to The Record.

Further, it is worth noting that both Instagram comments and conversations in dining centers are indicative of others within our community maintaining these same views. It cannot be made clearer that The Record running a submitted opinion or letter is not an endorsement of the work’s content.

As a student newspaper, our Constitution encourages our paper to serve as a forum to promote civil discourse. If a reader encounters an opinion they disagree with, they are highly encouraged to participate in campus dialogue by submitting a publication of their own.

As mentioned, publication does not imply agreement. In fact, we disagree thoroughly with Lindmark’s submission on several points.

Conflating legal justification with moral correctness is missing the point. To quote St. Augustine, “an unjust law is no law at all,” and we cannot help but believe that laws allowing police to use brutality and violence against citizens are unjust. The point made referring to last week’s Breonna Taylor piece being editorialized is a just one. In future editions, maintaining objectivity will continue to be an active pursuit of all non-editorial pages.

Additionally, the Editorial Board of The Record maintains that Lindmark’s remarks claiming George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, “are not deserving of CSB/SJU scholarships” heavily misses the mark. To characterize Floyd based on the two offenses occurring immediately before his death is an additional mischaracterization. The George Floyd Memorial Scholarship is not based on the first 46 years of his life. The purpose of this scholarship is to highlight the courage, honor and strength of the peaceful demonstrations occurring globally following Floyd’s killing.

Further, Lindmark writes that Floyd was accused of passing a counterfeit bill, which is considered a felony in the United States. This is after he wrote that all Americans are innocent until proven guilty and that “to brand the police as ‘unjustified murderers’ before the grand jury findings is legally defamation libel of their reputations.” Does this same principle of due process not apply to Floyd, and is using counterfeit currency a capital offense?

Lindmark concluded his remarks on Breonna Taylor’s killing by saying that there was no malice in her killing and that “everyone makes mistakes.” By this reasoning, agents of the state are permitted to kill citizens in their own homes if these officers simply made a mistake when finding the address for their suspects. We hope no reader of this article makes the mistake of living at the wrong address.

Towards the end of his letter, Lindmark asked why police who shoot BIPOC are condemned, while “criminals, looters, arsonists, rioters and drug dealers are canonized.” Taylor worked in an emergency room and, as Lindmark wrote, did not live at the address the police intended to raid. The reason police who shoot BIPOC are condemned is because, in high-profile cases such as this one, those shot did not pose a threat.

In Lindmark’s last letter to The Record in 2015, he concluded with a Chinese proverb. Like the debate over publishing Lindmark’s letter this week, the Editorial Board thought long and hard about including a proverb of our own. However, we decided against it. Instead, we wish to pay homage to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said “I tell law students… if you are going to be a lawyer and just practice your profession, you have a skill— very much like a plumber. But if you want to be a true professional, you will do something outside yourself… something that makes life a little better for people less fortunate than you.”
Rather than including a condescending proverb, we would instead like to speak to our broader community. When faced with radical or even hateful ideas, lean in, strengthen your argument, and prove your opponent wrong. We will continue publishing divisive letters. We will continue providing our platform for vehement dissent.