(DocHoc, pictured right, wears a sinister hoodie.)
A problematic and controversial bill that would ban people from wearing hoodies in public in Oklahoma is slated to be introduced in the upcoming legislative session.
In its current form, Senate Bill 13, sponsored by state Sen. Don Barrington of Lawton, would make it illegal to “intentionally conceal his or her identity in a public place by means of a robe, mask, or other disguise.” The bill also would make it a crime to conceal one’s identity during the “commission of a crime,” but apparently that’s already illegal in the state. Violators of the new law would face a fine up to $500 and/or one year in a county jail.
The draconian fine maximum amount and possible jail time for just wearing a particular piece of clothing in public are just part of the problems with the bill. As various media outlets have observed, the bill seems primarily aimed at people wearing hoodies, a garment worn commonly by younger males in our culture, especially in the African American community. In essence, under one argument, the bill, then, could make it at least implicitly legal for law enforcement officers to profile people on an ethnic basis.
Seventeen-year-old Trayvon Martin, a black teenager, was shot to death in Sanford, Fla. by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch coordinator, in 2012. Martin was unarmed and wearing a hoodie when he was killed. At the time, the hoodie took on symbolic value as prominent people, such as NBA star LeBron James, wore hoodies as they brought public attention to the case. Zimmerman was later acquitted of any wrongdoing.
According to media reports, various government entities and businesses throughout the country have similar laws and restrictions, which target hoodies in particular.
The bill allows for a number of exceptions, including Halloween and masquerade costumes, but that just points out the difficulty in trying to implement such a broad restriction in what people can wear in public. For example, the bill also exempts “those participating in the parades or exhibitions of minstrel troupes, circuses, sporting groups, mascots or other amusements or dramatic shows.” What about people who dress outside of gender constraints? What about people who want to wear a hoodie to just stay warm?
The bill further stigmatizes the hoodie as something sinister when, in fact, it’s just a simple piece of clothing. Here are some hoodies with the Oklahoma City Thunder brand offered for sale on the internet. Will it be illegal to wear a Thunder hoodie in Bricktown before or after a game? How can police enforce the law in some situations but not in others? That’s probably unconstitutional.
Yet the biggest problem with the bill, as I mentioned, is its potential to lead to even more racial profiling of young black males and selective enforcement of laws.
The session hasn’t started, of course, and this bill could change in the coming weeks, but it seems like an overreach at this point. Obviously, criminals often disguise themselves as they commit crimes, and that’s wrong and should be illegal, but staying warm outside on a cold evening or just trying to be stylish with some Thunder gear shouldn’t be against the law.
A couple of close friends brought up some arguments about my recent post condemning a new requirement that forces divorcing parents to take a class that deals with the effect of divorce on children while suggesting reconciliation as an option.
My overall point is that the new law, passed by the legislature and signed by Gov. Mary Fallin, is simply a personal intrusion and could have unintended consequences. Could the requirement intensify an already intense situation during a divorce?
One friend, who is involved in family law, made the point that many couples could benefit from the class and consequently he sees no problem with it. He deals with the reality of the issue everyday. He might agree with me on some abstract level, but he also knows that some divorcing people need to know basic information such as this: If you are ordered to pay child support, you really must pay child support. What’s wrong with that?
Many divorces go smoothly, he notes, but some turn into wars. A class designed to defuse tension or refocus it on helping children cope can he helpful, he suggests, noting such classes already exist in some counties.
My other friend, who has been a long time advocate for decreasing domestic violence here, wondered why I hadn’t mentioned in the post that Oklahoma has a high rate of violence committed against women. Just last year, for example, a report showed that Oklahoma ranked third in the nation in the number of women killed by men. Many women seek divorces to get out of abusive situations for themselves and children, she said, and anything that creates an obstacle for that to happen should be carefully considered.
The new law, however, does only apply to couples divorcing on grounds of incompatibility. But her point is well taken, and is perhaps the most crucial issue in the entire debate.
Overall, divorce is an important and serious issue in Oklahoma. I’ve written about the issue for many years, and I still contend deep-seated conservative cultural factors here prohibit people from growing up with realistic ideas about marriage. Changing that culture through education is where the answer remains.
I also believe our notions of what now constitutes a family has been broadened for the better. Same-sex marriage has been legally sanctioned in places throughout the country and this will continue despite minor setbacks along the way to equality. The advent of same-sex marriage has the potential to change how we might view our overall political structures and institutions and even our own cultural identities.
A new law requiring a counseling class for divorcing couples with children is yet another unnecessary conservative-backed personal intrusion into people’s lives here.
The main purpose of the law seems to be to remind divorcing parents that they are about to commit an atrocious and horrible act that’s sure to hurt their children and then to push the couple to reconcile for their sake. The bill seems based on the logic that people should stay in lousy marriages for the sake of their children. Wasn’t that myth destroyed a long time ago?
Gov. Mary Fallin signed into law this week House Bill 2249, which requires parents divorcing on the grounds of incompatibility take a class that, among other things, focuses on “short-term and longitudinal effects of divorce on child well-being” and “reconciliation as an optional outcome.”
In other words, the class will undoubtedly try to shame a divorcing couple over how they are supposedly hurting their children and then try to get them back together. Here are some questions: What if the couple doesn’t want to even talk about reconciliation? What if only one of the spouses wants to talk about reconciliation, and he/she uses the class as a way to harass the other spouse? (This will surely happen.) What if the couple has been separated for a long time and the children are already adjusted?
Let me throw out a suggestion: People who stay in terrible marriages for the sake of children often have as many anxieties and regrets as people who divorce and establish new blended families. I don’t have any statistical evidence offhand that this is the case, but growing up in a household war zone or in a home without expressions of love and compassion takes it own little nasty toll on children.
I will grant that the new law might seem innocuous and benign to some people. Pay for and complete the class and go about the business of getting a divorce. No big deal, right? But this class could create even more emotional tension between couples during a time period of great stress and anxiety. It presupposes that reconciliation is the answer.
For a long time, Oklahoma has had one of the highest divorce rates in the country, providing the fuel for the social-conservatives who want to engineer our lives with their own narrow worldview abut the sanctity of marriage. Oklahoma is a deeply, right-wing religious state and thus many of our children here grow up with false, idealistic ideas and expectations about marriage and having children. They are taught to find a “soul mate,” not a friend, a “spiritual family leader,” not a partner, “a wife to honor,” not a confidante. A child is a “blessing,” not a responsibility. It’s all coated in religious symbolism and made manifest by the grand wedding spectacle. It has very little to do with the day-to-day life of living with someone and raising children together.
Moreover, children in Oklahoma can get legally married at 16 with their parents’ consent, but we still absurdly deny same-sex couples who have been in stable relationships for years any opportunity at all to legally sanction their partnership, a prohibition that will hopefully change in the near future because of federal court rulings.
We need to one day finally and completely remove the stigma of divorce here and mandate more realistic sex and home-life/home-economics education classes—including discussions about different sexual orientations—in our public schools. That would do far more to lower our divorce rate than haranguing stressed out couples about reconciling.