Did They Get Away With Murder?

On February 17, 2003, a fight broke out on a very crowded second floor of the E2 Nightclub in Chicago. In order to stop the fight, club security used pepper spray, which caused people to panic and try to escape. However, due to a broken exit, people charged the stairwells, and in the process 21 people were trampled to death. The two owners of E2, Dwayne Kyles and Calvin Hollins, were first charged with manslaughter, but they were found innocent. Then, in 2009, they were charged with and convicted of violating an earlier mandatory court order "not to occupy the second floor" of the nightclub.

However, last Thursday, the Illinois Appellate Court threw out the 2009 convictions, so Kyles and Hollins are now considered innocent of those charges as well. As their main argument in the appeal, the two argued that the court's order was "too vague," and that as a result the order could not be enforced against them. The court came to the conclusion that because of the order's vagueness, the violation of the order was unintentional and that the deaths of the 21 people could not be blamed on the nightclub's owners.

Judge Tosses Guilty Verdicts in Chicago E2 Nightclub Deaths: MyFoxCHICAGO.com

The families of the people killed during the stampede are devastated and appalled at the reversal of Kyles' and Hollins' guilty verdict last week. The lives of their loved ones can never be brought back, and in their opinion, these two men are to blame, regardless of the Appellate Court's ruling.

In my opinion, Kyles and Hollins can argue that the judge's order was "too vague," but regardless, these two men knew they had violated the spirit of the order and the law. To me, it is highly unlikely that the order to "not occupy the 2nd floor" was too vague to understand. Just because something may be vague doesn't mean its purpose and common meaning can't be understood. I understand it pretty well.

Hollins is pictured on the left next to Kyles on the right.

I feel that this idea of a law (or court order) being "too vague" relates perfectly to the civil liberties issues we have been discussing in American Studies Class. For example, the Sedition Act of 1918 ruled against anyone who spoke "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" against the US government. At first glance, this Act seems to be fair and reasonable. But it was not enforced in a fair and reasonable way: suddenly, people were being arrested left and right for uttering "disloyal phrases." From the way the Act was enforced, hanging a flag for another country outside your home might be considered "abusive and disloyal."

The problem with this Act was that the specific words were all so open for interpretation. What makes someone disloyal? When is someone using "abusive language?" Who gets to decide whether you are in violation of the law? This was the issue: The words were just left open for interpretation, they were too vague, and therefore many people were charged with crimes under the Act which they felt didn't fall under the original intention of the Act.

It's similar to the E2 case, although I firmly believe that Hollins and Kyles knew their actions violated the court order. Because of the argument that the order was to vague, broad and open-ended, the owners are now free of charges.

The language of laws can be interpreted in so many ways; it's almost impossible to make the drafters' intentions perfectly clear without getting way too specific. That is why the process of making a law is so difficult and lengthy. It's necessary to continually revise the law until it is believed that the law is clear. But most likely, someone who is charged with violating the law or convicted under it will find a way to make an argument that the law is vague.

Who Is Really Winning?

Perhaps one of the most controversial stories in the news this week was over the firing of Joe Paterno, Penn State's head football coach. Paterno, having been a coach at Penn State for over forty years, was let go this past week after evidence came out that he had been aware of a sex scandal going on with one of his assistant coaches and young boys, but had neglected to report the information to law enforcement. 


Jerry Sandusky had been a defensive line coach at Penn State for almost 30 years when he retired in 1999. No one was aware of the reasoning behind his sudden retirement, but nobody seemed to look beyond his decision. Sandusky had been not only well-respected coach, but appeared to be an honorable person as well. In 1977, Sandusky had established a foundation to help needy children called "The Second Mile." The focus of this organization was to plan activities and programs for the needy children "to promote self-confidence, as well as physical, academic and personal success." Little did the public know that Sandusky was far from helping these young kids, in fact, he had been sexually assaulting and raping many young boys, and Paterno had known all about it.


Multiple witnesses and victims had confronted Paterno about this issue, but Paterno failed to report the information beyond his immediate supervisors, the Penn State athletic directors. Even after the athletic directors appeared to downplay the information, Paterno remained quiet and put aside this highly serious issue. For almost ten years this story remained private, until several weeks ago when many victims - now in their early twenties - began to share their abuse stories. Sandusky was arrested, and details of the facts were made public.

Sandusky (pictured on left) stands next to former head coach Paterno.

It's obvious that sports are a huge part of our American culture. We bundle up in layers to go watch football games in the winter, we continue to unconditionally love and support our favorite teams, and even worship our favorite players like heroes. Many Americans would sacrifice a lot in order to see their teams win it all. But, when did this obsession with winning, sports heroes and athletics in general become more important than our own personal integrity? Paterno's decision to not pursue an investigation of Sandusky's behavior shows us what was really important in his mind. And that was winning to the point of not putting the financial aspect of the football program at Penn State in danger. Even if in the process at least twenty young boys were sexually abused, winning was still the name of the game for Paterno.


When did personal success become more important than our core American, let alone human, values?
Would such a thing happen outside of the sports or college sports context? Should this ever be justified?

How Much Has Changed?

Yesterday, our American Studies class took a trip to Chicago to see the Pulitzer Prize winning play, "Clybourne Park." The first act takes place in 1959 in a small house near downtown Chicago. The house is occupied by an older white couple, who have just sold the house and are in the process of packing their things. When news comes to the people of the town that a black family will be moving in,  many fear that other black families are sure to follow, and the value of the houses in the town will decrease as a result and make the town less desirable. Through a very heated argument containing various racial slurs, a neighbor tries to talk the couple out of selling their house to the black family.

Fast forward fifty years. The second act takes place in 2009 in the same house. This time, a black family is selling the house to a white family. And, since it is the present time, there is no racism present. Both sides are completely accepting and warm to the other. Right?

Wrong. The discussion between the black and white couple in the present scene was just as awkward, uncomfortable and definitely contained as many, if not more racial slurs than the 1959 scene. As an audience member, I sat stiffly in my chair, unsure as to when it was appropriate to laugh and when a joke had "crossed the line." In the first few minutes of the second act of the play, it almost felt as if race was the "elephant in the room," the one topic that everybody was thinking about, but nobody would dare bring up out loud. In other words, I believe if the playwright's intentions were to make the audience feel uncomfortable and nervous, then he for sure succeeded.

I think that we would like to think that over the last fifty years the way our society deals with race has dramatically changed for the better. And in many ways, this is true. We have successfully integrated our schools and the number of intermarriages have increased. But in some ways, not much has changed.

Take the layout of Chicago, for example. In 1959, as is evident in the play, the idea of interracial communities frightened most whites in the community. Nowadays, although Chicago is much more integrated, it still has the title of being America's most segregated city. The division between the different communities in Chicago is evident in this map but also just by simply driving down the streets. It's clear when one community ends and the next one starts because of the different infrastructure and of course, the different races of the people in each area.

Over the years, the level of acceptance of other races and cultures in Chicago has come a very long way. We as a society have made great strides in our ability to integrate and come together happily. However, segregation and racism are still present. While it may not be as severe as it existed historically, it does still exist. So I guess the question I am left with is, will we ever reach a time when the world is completely integrated? Is that possible? Is that desirable? When will race truly be an acceptable topic to speak about and no longer be the "elephant in the room?"