Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Law Students Blogs -> Nuts & Boalts

Law Students

: Nuts & Boalts

Oakland is F--ing Dangerous

. . . and the Oakland Tribune thinks de-nial is a river in Egypt.

Last Sunday, Susan Gluss (AKA the public relations face of Boalt Hall) published an op-ed in the SF Chronicle about her personal decision to leave Oakland. Her motivation was personal security -- which is, of course, a politically handy euphemism for "bald fear." After the personal drama of her daily life repeatedly cast her into the role of Unwilling Crime Victim, she decided to move to Marin, and suffer the commute. The Chronicle backed up her piece with a simultaneously published staff article that creates factual support for Gluss' anecdotal story; the bottom line is that Oakland is freaking dangerous, and people are afraid to live there.

(Even if you do not read the article, you should peek at this incredibly disturbing google map of Oakland homicides in the last 12 months. It rattled me. Next to the map there is a scroll down list of hyperlinked victims' names that is beyond sobering -- think about it long enough and you'll want to cry.)

Apparently, the Gluss op-ed pissed off the Oakland Tribune. Yesterday they fired back with this article, which attempts to argue that Gluss' experience in Oakland is an anomaly, and the city is growing at a "jaw-dropping pace," "multi-faceted," and "thriving."

Wow.  Just, wow.  

I'm not sure if I find the Tribune funny or infuriating, but it is certainly a fine example of steadfast denial. Consider that this year Oakland was the 5th most dangerous city on a list of over 400 (down from 4th last year, whoop-dee-freaking-doo!), or that there have been so many armed robberies that the city can't even put them on a map -- instead they create safety "zones," which by definition of the crime rate are facially unsafe.  If you prefer more concrete examples, consider the Chauncey Bailey shooting. 

The truth is that over the last three years violent crime in Oakland is up while arrests are down (see this in-depth discussion), that bright and imaginative people like Gluss are leaving -- if they can be enticed to move to Oakland in the first place -- and word association with "Oakland" on any American street-corner probably conjures images including "gunshots," "weeping children," and "burning tires."  Worse, as far as I can tell the city has nothing that even resembles a plan to address what is indisputably its biggest problem.  True, the roots of urban crime are nebulous, and they touch upon poverty, race, class, and all kinds of other socio-economic undercurrents that no one fully understands.  Even I understand, however, that ignoring those issues (as the Tribune and the Mayor seem wont to do) harms everyone. It harms victims by allowing crime to continue, and it harms perpetrators by tacitly maintaining the social forces that create them. Heck, it even harms the atmosphere by driving down the carbon balance in Gluss' commute.

So: boo, hiss, and shame upon the Tribune -- a good Op-Ed speaks the truth, it does not not spin it. You should have conceded that Oakland is dangerous, you should have lamented the loss of people like Gluss, and you should have asked what could be done. That would have earned credibility out the wa-zoo. Instead, your thin and unrealistic PR campaign smells like bullshit, and taints this reader's confidence in everything else you have to say.

Full post as published by Nuts & Boalts on December 12, 2008 (boomark / email).