Courts, Free Speech, Lawyering, Politics, Society

Racist or Clueless? Chief Judge of Montana Under Fire For Obama Joke

Chief U.S. District Judge of Montana Richard Cebull is under fire for a joke that he sent to friends from his court email. The email has been denounced as racist and “compares African-Americans to dogs.” He insists that it was not for public circulation and reflected his dislike for the president, not black people.

Judge Cebull sent an email entitled “A MOM’S MEMORY.” It opened with the statement “Normally I don’t send or forward a lot of these, but even by my standards, it was a bit touching. I want all of my friends to feel what I felt when I read this. Hope it touches your heart like it did mine.” It follows with this “joke”: “A little boy said to his mother; ‘Mommy, how come I’m black and you’re white?’ His mother replied, ‘Don’t even go there Barack! From what I can remember about that party, you’re lucky you don’t bark!’”

Cebull says that it was only sent to six other people as well as his own private emails. It appears that one of the six other people sent it along to the media.

Cebull insists that the email simply shows that “I am not a fan of our president, but this goes beyond not being a fan. I didn’t send it as racist, although that’s what it is. I sent it out because it’s anti-Obama.”

We previously saw Chief Judge Alex Kozinski involved in a controversy over pictures and jokes sent to friends over a personal website.

The case raises the question of how to respond to such an email. Some have called for his resignation or removal. Others for judicial discipline. There are two likely ethical charges. One is the misuse of the court computer and the other is the transmission of a racist communication.

First, judges routinely use their work emails for private communications. We all tend to use office email for a variety of purposes. I do not see how this judge can be severely disciplined for simply using office email for a private communication. If Cebull is punished, what about the fact that probably 90% of judges use their office emails for private messages as the rest of us do (the other ten percent do not use email).

Second, there is the racism charge. Cebull insists that this was anti-Obama and not anti-black. It is still a stupid joke. However, I am not sure it is fair to assume that the judge is a racist from this one joke. It could simply show that he is entirely clueless and thoughtless. That is never good in a judge, but the question is whether it warrants the actions demanded against him.

Working in his favor is the relatively small number of people who received the email (though one always has to anticipate re-transmissions or forwarding of emails). He was sharing a bad and racially loaded joke with friends. We have discussed the trend toward punishing public employees for private emails, postings, and activities. Of course, a judge is required under ethical rules not to conduct themselves in a way to bring contempt upon the court. Canon Two states “a judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” The comment Canon 2A does seem to have some relevance here:

Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the prohibition is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules, or other specific provisions of this Code.

While I certainly see why this type of joke raises serious and legitimate concerns, I am not convinced that it warrants punishment beyond the current (and justified) public criticism. The judge is claiming that he thought he was sending this to a handful of friends. It would be akin to a bad joke at a party being repeated later. He clearly failed to appreciate that “the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen.” That would include racially-charged jokes that get out. Yet, the question is whether it warrants an actual reprimand or more serious punishment. There may be a sense that, given the use of the court computer, an admonishment is needed — just as Chief Judge Kozinski was admonished.

Cebull received a B.S. from Montana State University in 1966 and a J.D. from the University of Montana Law School in 1969. After a long stint in private practice, he served as trial judge of the Northern Cheyenne Tribal Court from 1970 to 1972. He then served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Montana from 1998 to 2001 before being nominated by President George W. Bush to a seat on the United States District Court for the District of Montana. He became chief judge in 2008.

Source: Politico

456 thoughts on “Racist or Clueless? Chief Judge of Montana Under Fire For Obama Joke”

  1. Off Topic:

    ‘Go to hell Barack’: Row over Washington Metro ad
    http://news.yahoo.com/hell-barack-row-over-washington-metro-ad-051919392.html

    Excerpt:
    In the heat of a US presidential election year, with Americans immune to the polarized and bitter nature of political discourse, it takes a lot to shock them, especially in Washington.

    But one ad at a DC Metro station — which starts off criticizing Obama’s health care reforms and ends up telling the president to “go to hell” — goes beyond the pale, says Jim Moran, a Democratic congressman from Virginia.

    The advertisement is for “Sick and Sicker: When the Government Becomes Your Doctor,” a documentary that interviews Canadian doctors and patients in the hope of showing how dangerous “Obamacare” is for the American people.

    “Barack Obama wants politicians and bureaucrats to control America’s entire medical system. Go to hell Barack,” the ad says.
    Moran wrote a letter to Metro general manager Richard Sarles calling for the removal of the advertisement.

    “The ad is deeply disrespectful of the President of the United States and does not belong in the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) network,” he wrote.

    It turns out that such language is within the accepted limits of American law and such advertisements are protected under the First Amendment of the US constitution, guaranteeing free speech.

    “WMATA advertising has been ruled by the courts as a public forum protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, and we may not decline ads based on their political content,” the Metro authority said in a written statement.

  6. “Why didn’t you tackle Mike S.
    He said as I recall that sending a racist joke makes you a racist. Or do I remember wrong.”

    Because Mike didn’t make his rebuttals using personal attacks. You might be surprised to learn this about Mike, he is one of the nicest guys on the Internet, but when people attack him personally as you did to me (either on rebuttal or directly), he’s just about as gentle with them in response as I am. Which is to say, not at all. Plus I think the point about a single incident does not a pattern make stands in rebuttal to that assertion unaided.

  9. Gene H.

    Your pummeling me is hard to take. so will point out a minor “technical” point. Of course I knew that shoe casting was an insult. Should I have believed it was a joke?

    Missed your earlier assertion of culture’s importance.
    But my pointing out hanging around with racists, meant that jokes are “private” to some degree, ——————–
    Bla Bla forget it.

    Thanks for the kind lesson. You’re just doing what others never accorded me when growing up. And I’m not retreating into the victim role either.. So will have to take my licks.

    Why didn’t you tackle Mike S.
    He said as I recall that sending a racist joke makes you a racist. Or do I remember wrong.

    Yeah, I’m a dumb old fart (his substantive) and with no cred here.
    But don’t want to fall into the “old” trap. Only memories count. No thanks.

    No mattter,, learned something and retreating better equipped—-let’s hope.

  10. chuck,

    “Freedom of speech applies to everyone. if i don’t like a person based on race, gender, or any other reason I have the right to express that.”

    *****

    That’s right. And freedom of speech gives others the right to criticize you for what you say.

  11. Gene H.
    You leave me speechless but uncowed. But at this point not suspecting you for wanting me cowed. You never seemed the type. Just did not know either that you were such a lawyerly person. You’re hard but just.

    Shamed to say, it maybe was I playing dogs pile up on the rabbit, or whatever it’s called over there. But I still stand by my condemnation of the judge as a racist or a habitual purveyor of racist jokes. Yes, you’re right that it won’t stand up in court. That was admitted long ago.

    But my opinions of him is not based solely on what is proveable. And there are enough other people who keep me company to strengthen my resolve to hold with my own opinion..

    Not that numbers make right. See the issue of the recent bill passed on restricting demonstrating near an SS protected person. What was it 300 to 3 or something. And they are mostly lawyers. Does that make them right.

    Just one point, don’t say I am lying about being an American ex-pat living in Stockholm. I am. Just that. Why should I adopt such a subterfuge.

    Or shall I write something in Swedish. Vad som helst du begär så länge det ör inte snuskigt eller illegalt. Varsågod. säger till bara. OK?

    Or am I a swedish immigrant in the USA or a russian spy?
    I think you could skip that accusation, if indeed you meant so. As for anonymity, is your name open? There must be lots of Gene H.’s. Or have I missed something?

  12. “In your world, an ideal one I insist, only perfection counts, no attempts allowed.”

    Insist all you like, buttercup. Perfection is not a prerequisite. However, substandard crap attempts that are little more than appeals to emotion and personal indignation used to jump to a conclusion on insufficient evidence aren’t going to be applauded either.

    “My social intent is not to paint anyone black (in this case meant as the color of evil), but rather point out weaknesses in our awareness due to our filters we have acquired.”

    The hell you say. Too bad you don’t see the raw hypocrisy in that statement created by your own prejudice in examining evidence (or lack thereof). Your emotional filter keeps you from seeing that 1) whether the joke is prime facie racist is in fact debatable and 2) that a sample space of one is not a trend let alone a pattern of behavior, and yet 3) you have no issue with applying a label of a pattern behavior (racism) and ergo a label of guilt without evidence of a pattern. Yep. Those filters sure are a weakness to critical thinking.

    “As for being an ex-pat, that’s the first time I’ve encountered that as a derogative term. Do you have any evidence/logic to support it as derogatory? It couldn’t been as a factual term you used it.”

    The question is do you have evidence it was used as a derogatory term? To my knowledge from your own words and by my usage based thereon, you are an American expatriate living in Sweden. The only way this wouldn’t be a factual statement is if you were lying and my statement was based upon such a lie. That you post anonymously is self-evident. You are by admission an expat and by action an anonymous poster. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

    “As for judges being provers of fact, I guess that’s why the “latino woman” when alluding to that as a merit, was not greeted with cries of approval.
    Where were you on that. Let me guess……no do enlighten us on your logical position.”

    This is close to gibberish. Whether or not someone is a Latino woman would be a statement of fact, not a statement of merit based upon argument as informed by evidence. Either she is or she isn’t. Unless here Latin-ness or womanhood were questionable as a material issue, this is always going to be a statement of fact.

    “You have passed that stage other than in your embroidering with your logical lawyerly talents, where you pile them up. I was going to use a “liknelse” (allusion) to a historic case but such have no value with you.”

    That is gibberish.

    “The butt of the joke as I see it is Barack Obama and his mamma. They are the subject of derision, isn’t that what butt means?”

    Except the object of derision isn’t the child structurally. The child from parents with different qualities (as demonstrated, the form works even if the difference isn’t racial) is part of the setup’s preconception to be punctured. The object of derision is the mother. The exaggeration and punchline is the dog.

    “I don’t ‘attack the messenger’, rather the message.”

    Now it’s my turn to call bullshit. You haven’t come close to attacking “my message” in any meaningful manner. Your first direct response to me was: “Have you hung out with racists? You’d be scratching your head all the time with them, if it was your first time there. Similarly, how many of you understood what the casting of shoes at GW Bush implied. Jokes are cultural, not always analyzable. And the model you use…..ho ho ho, say the script writers, Now go ahead and hate or deflate me. [. . .] Disagreeing is the point of it all here as I see it. When your kids shoot you down, are you coming here for solace and comfort?” This was followed by quite a few comments of equal quality and merit (or lack thereof). Later, you said, “I’ll try to calm myself down—out of courtesy to all, not just you, but mostly as an effort to get away from my childhood defenses using demeaning attacks as a rebuttal tactic.” You even admitted this was your tactic. Disagreement is fine. I’ll offer a rebuttal. If you go ad hominem (as you did)? I’ll give it right back along with a rebuttal. Up until this thread I have treated you with nothing but courtesy since your arrival. Notice the change? Ask yourself why and then look to your own admission to find the answer. The Golden Rule is reciprocal. I’m simply reciprocating. As long as you want to act like a douche bag, I’ll treat you like you’re acting like a douche bag. That’s equitable.

    Also, as a technical matter, throwing shoes at Bush wasn’t a joke that most people in the West lacked cultural context to understand. It was an insult that most people in the West lacked the cultural context to understand. Not all insults are jokes just as not all jokes are insults. In that case, it was simply an insult. Speaking of cultural context . . .

    “Jokes are cultural”. No kidding. I already said cultural context is what often makes a joke funny. Structure is how a joke is funny. The basic structure is the same across cultures: setup and punchline. “What” and “how” are distinctly different qualities. “not always analyzable.” False. That analyzing “what versus how” may have differing criteria and those criteria (especially regarding “what”) may require cultural context to analyze or that you don’t know how to analyze a joke does not change that joke are indeed capable of analysis just as they are capable of construction. Joke writing is no different from any other kind of writing: it can be deconstructed, constructed, reconstructed, analyzed. There are people who make their livings analyzing and building jokes. They’re called professional comedians and comedy writers.

    You’ve also mistaken me for somebody who doesn’t think lawyer jokes are funny. You can make fun of any group of people or any subject if you do it properly. “There are no bad words,” said George Carlin. “Bad thoughts. Bad intentions. And woooords.”

    Speaking of George Carlin, here are a few of his insights about what is funny and how jokes work. A part of his act called “Rape Can Be Funny.”

    “Ohhh, some people don’t like you to talk like that. Ohh, some people like to shut you up for saying those things.
    You know that. Lots of people. Lots of groups in this country want to tell you how to talk.
    Tell you what you can’t talk about. Well, sometimes they’ll say, well you can talk about something but you can’t joke about it.
    Say you can’t joke about something because it’s not funny. Comedians run into that shit all the time.
    Like rape. They’ll say, “you can’t joke about rape. Rape’s not funny.”
    I say, “fuck you, I think it’s hilarious. How do you like that?”
    I can prove to you that rape is funny. Picture Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd.
    See, hey why do you think they call him “Porky,” eh? I know what you’re going to say.
    “Elmer was asking for it. Elmer was coming on to Porky.
    Porky couldn’t help himself, he got a hard- on, he got horney, he lost control, he went out of his mind.”
    A lot of men talk like that. A lot of men think that way. They think it’s the woman’s fault.
    They like to blame the rape on the woman. Say, “she had it coming, she was wearing a short skirt.”
    These guys think women ought to go to prison for being cock teasers. Don’t seem fair to me.
    Don’t seem right, but you can joke about it. I believe you can joke about anything.
    It all depends on how you construct the joke. What the exaggeration is. What the exaggeration is.
    Because every joke needs one exaggeration. Every joke needs one thing to be way out of proportion.
    Give you an example. Did you ever see a news story like this in the paper?
    Every now and then you run into a story, says, “some guy broke into a house, stole a lot of things, and while he was in there, he raped an 81 year old woman.”
    And I’m thinking to myself, “WHY??? What the fuck kind of a social life does this guy have?”
    I want to say, “why did you do that?” “Well she was coming on to me. We were dancing and I got horney.
    Hey, she was asking for it, she had on a tight bathrobe.” I’ll say, “Jesus Christ, be a little fucking selective next time will you?”

    Now, speaking of rape, do you know what I wonder? I wonder is there more rape at the equator or the north pole.
    These are the kind of things I think about when I’m sitting home alone and the power goes out.
    I wonder is there more rape at the equator or the north pole. I mean per capita, I know the populations are different.
    Most people think it’s the equator, I think it’s the north pole.
    People think it’s the equator because it’s hot down there, they don’t wear a lot of clothing, guys can see women’s tits, they get horney and there’s a lot of fucking going on.
    That’s exactly why there’s less rape at the equator. Because there’s a lot of fucking going on.
    You can tell there’s a lot of fucking at the equator, take a look at the population figures.
    Billions of people live near the equator. How many Eskimos do we have?
    Thirty? Thirty five? No one’s getting laid at the north pole, it’s too fucking cold.
    Guys say to their wives, “hey tonight honey, huh, tonight, huh?”
    “Are you crazy? The wind chill factor is three hundred below.”
    These guys are deprived. Their horney. Their pent up. Every now and then…p-pmm…they bust out, they got to rape somebody.

    Now, the biggest problem an Eskimo rapist has, trying to get wet leather leggings off a woman who is kicking.
    Did you ever try to get leather pants off of someone who doesn’t want to take them off?
    You would lose your hard-on in the process.
    Up at the north pole you dick would shrivel up like a stack of dimes.
    That’s another thing I wonder.
    I wonder, does a rapist have a hard-on when he leaves the house in the morning, or does he develop it during the day while he’s walking around looking for somebody.
    These are the kind of thoughts that kept me out of the really good schools.” – George Carlin

    Now . . . have you got some other evidence that the judge is in fact a racist? Aside from one joke which may or may be be racist depending up the audience’s connotation, but demonstrably isn’t racist as a matter of structural denotation? Perhaps several more data points indicating racist or potentially racist behavior on the part of the judge? Because I’d be interested if you do. Otherwise? Not so much.

  13. Freedom of speech applies to everyone. if i don’t like a person based on race, gender, or any other reason I have the right to express that.

  14. Gene H.
    Guess you’re right about insaníty, or is it analogous to the infánt learning to use language and brain.

    Whatever the mill keeps rolling This popped out.
    Was thinking about the publics high opinion of lawyers and then came:
    “When accused of being a crook, call a crook to defend you”. Now that wasn’t either logical nor proven, but evidentiary material seems not to be lacking. Poor taste in jokes in these hallowed halls perhaps, but to have distance from himself and that which one finds important seem to be healthy in my eyes. .

  17. BobEsq
    Right on cue. Honor member of the formalist club are you?
    I understand and enjoy the poem you cited. Hope you do too.
    And to use it to deride? How sad, if so.
    I thought that most children loved and learned it by heart.
    Did you too?

    But really, “are we here to discuss personnel policy or personalities”, as I cited my Kerstin. Let’s return to JT’s thread and agree to disagree on that, at least until I step on another toe.

    OK, Gene H.? el al?

  18. Ha! Try that again with using exotic characters

    “When *you* use a word (or forward a lame joke),” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what *I* choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

  19. “When use a word ,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what *I* choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

  20. Swarthmore Mom:

    you have a street name?

    Say from the Rockford Files or TJ Hooker or Simon and Simon.

    Something like Downtown Brown or Fuzzy Dice?

Comments are closed.