SNL’s Minnesota Skit Supports Vandalism 24 Hours Before Rioters Vandalized Minneapolis

On 4/10, Saturday Night Live’s Minnesota News skit normalized vandalism during protests. On Sunday night, rioters had vandalized at least 20 stores in Minneapolis, as violence broke out between police and protestors. SNL didn’t cause these new riots; they were a reaction to Sunday’s police shooting of Daunte Wright. However, SNL supported a pervasive tolerance, if not endorsement of looting, arson and other vandalism as an appropriate means of dealing with police injustice, right as the nation awaits the outcome of the trial over George Floyd’s death. That message emboldens violent riots and further inflames sociopolitical tensions, which ultimately detracts from the cause of justice.

The Message of SNL’s Skit

In the skit, black and white news anchors start out by all agreeing with hopes for justice in the Derek Chauvin trial, but disagreements follow shortly after:

Kenan and Ego’s characters: “The last thing we want is another riot.” “Amen to that.”
Craig: “And I think we can all agree that no matter how bad things are, destroying property is never the answer.”
Kenan and Ego: “Well, I wouldn’t say never.” “I mean… it’s just property.” “There’s insurance.”
Craig: “I’m sorry but it’s not just property. I just think protests should be non-violent.”
Kenan and Ego (sarcastically): “Well thank you for that little note Craig.” “Yes, we’ll be sure to tell the others, Craig.”

The exchange shows the black characters tolerating and justifying vandalism and dismissing the condemnation of violent protests. Obviously SNL is satirical, and the ideologies they portrayed have already long existed in our society. Satire helps us scrutinize prevalent attitudes that people have through a different lens, and is not necessarily an endorsement of the portrayed perspectives. However, satire often has an underlying political viewpoint cloaked in a veneer of comedy, and has a way of letting our guard down to accept those ideas.

Maybe they meant to satirize the tense exchange as a whole, but mostly Craig is portrayed as the butt of the joke and his condemnation of violent destruction of property is depicted as out-of-touch or off-limits. Would the writers at SNL accept Sunday night riots as unavoidable, or perhaps applaud them as justifiable? If so, then that message certainly came through, and I adamantly disagree with that. If they wouldn’t endorse the riots, then perhaps they should consider how their platform might encourage it nonetheless. Or perhaps they would refuse to pin down their opinion under the shield of comedy, even as their jokes dissuade opposition to vandalism.

I’m not trying to “cancel” SNL. Satire is protected speech, but it is not free from criticism. In fact, satire exists to spark reflection on the ideas being portrayed. Words matter, and that includes comedy. As Oscar Wilde said, “Life imitates Art.” How many of SNL’s millions of viewers internalized the idea that property damage is an acceptable method of responding to injustice in policing, that vandalizing businesses will improve the cause of black Americans, or that opposing vandalism is socially unacceptable? In general, what culpability does the media have in shaping public opinion toward violent, unlawful behavior?

We cannot tolerate violent riots

This isn’t just about Saturday Night Live. Their satire is an opportunity to challenge the idea that police injustice warrants violent retaliation directed at businesses and even the police force as a whole, or that it’s not OK to openly condemn such violence. We cannot right wrongs by committing more wrongs. It cannot be socially unacceptable to say “I am against violence.” There is certainly a time and a place for civil disobedience, or “good trouble” as the late John Lewis called it, but that is not the same as justifying wanton violence and destruction.

Daunte Wright’s mother said, “All the violence, if it keeps going it’s only going to be about the violence. We need it to be about why my son got shot for no reason. We need to make sure it’s about him and not about smashing police cars, because that’s not going to bring my son back.” George Floyd’s brother said, “If I’m not over here blowing up stuff, messing up my community, what are y’all doing? Y’all doing nothing. Because that’s not going to bring my brother back at all.” President Obama said, “So let’s not excuse violence, or rationalize it, or participate in it. If we want our criminal justice system, and American society at large, to operate on a higher ethical code, then we have to model that code ourselves.” President Biden said, “There’s no place for violence, no place for looting or destroying property or burning churches or destroying businesses.” I too insist that destroying property is not the answer.

I’m reminded of the violent LA riots of 1992 and the heart-wrenching pleas of the local business owner who cried out, “That’s not right what y’all doing. I came from the ghetto too.” I highly recommend watching the documentary LA 92, and then ask yourself if all that violence was tolerable, justifiable or effective at improving the lives of black Americans. Although it’s easy to sympathize with local minority owners but care less about corporate chain stores, destruction of either harms the community’s access to goods and services as well as employees from that community, and generally leaves the neighborhood worse off than before.

I believe that violent riots increase racism, and increase tensions with police. We must confront our modern problems in a way that both brings accountability for perpetrators but also improves race and police relations in the long run. When violence is justified, or when we hesitate to condemn it, it drives away would-be allies of justice-for-all, out of fear that the movement really supports justice-for-some.

For those who still think violence is a justified reaction to police injustice, consider that those who attacked the Capitol on 1/6 also felt their violence was justified. Imagine if the SNL skit had been DC news anchors where the guy condemning the Capitol attack was the butt of the joke, portrayed as insensitive to the concerns of the “Stop the Steal” protestors. Of course George Floyd’s killing was well documented while the “stolen election” narrative was essentially a big lie. However, if we allow for violence in response to certain grievances, it’s easy to see how others might use the same justification of violence even though we disagree with their perceived grievance. Instead, we must demand peaceable resolutions and create the changes we want to see through organizing and working toward those changes.

On policing and racial issues

Police abuse of power definitely needs increased accountability and consequences. Black communities have certainly faced many cases of unequal law enforcement and are justified in demanding change. People absolutely have the right to protest, and when people are unjustifiably injured or killed by police, it creates anger. It is understandable that the protests would not be perfectly calm and quiet. There is a level of justifiable disruption of daily life that corresponds to the level of pain experienced by the aggrieved. However, that escalation cannot reach the level of lighting buildings on fire or attacking people, especially businesses or people who had nothing to do with the original offense.

Martin Luther King said, “A riot is the language of the unheard.” Understandably, some people will become so angry when injustice occurs that condemnation alone will not discourage them from unlawful behavior. But empathizing with resentment cannot lead us to back down from condemning further violence. Importantly, Dr. King reminds us that we must also confront the injustice that caused them to become so angry in the first place, just as vigorously as we condemn the riots.

While I condemn violent riots, I support Black Lives Matter protestors who are against both unnecessary police violence and also against riotous violence. A large majority of protestors have peacefully but assertively demanded justice, and we cannot allow a minority of violent acts to detract from the important mission of equitable law enforcement and police accountability. At the same time, while I condemn police abuse of power, I also support the large numbers of police officers who do a good job and help our communities. I recognize the need for law enforcement and condemn acts of violence targeting police officers. We must be against violent injustice in all forms. Clearly there are more abuses happening than just the ones caught on camera that must be addressed. However, we cannot allow instances of abuse to form sweeping narratives that every police officer in every community is abusive, and therefore justify abuse toward any cop anywhere in the country. Some police stations are better run than others, and we must recognize what’s working and what’s failing. We must be specific with our ideals as well as our criticisms, targeted at only those who are abusive, and not also sweep up those who are working for the right way to enforce the law.

I refuse the false dichotomy that you’re either on the side of black rights or you’re on the side of police. Instead, I am on the side of peace and justice for everyone, especially for underrepresented minorities, and against violence from any race or profession against non-violent, innocent people. I recognize that “justice for all” sometimes fails to provide justice for minorities. Black people face these particular issues more than most and special attention is needed to ensure that they are treated with the same respect as anyone else. But other kinds of people face injustice too, which is why it’s important for everyone to know that improving police accountability and civil rights is work that benefits the lives of everyone, and that helping those most affected ultimately helps you too.

Bringing it home

I’ve strayed from my mission of sticking to Ohio issues by discussing New York influences and Minnesota unrest, so I will end by bringing it home. Here in Ohio, we await the trials over the police killings of Andre Hill and Casey Goodson Jr. Will justice be served in these cases? What will our response be when their trails conclude? How should we change our laws to be more fair to citizens, especially underrepresented minorities, and also fair to police officers, in a way that makes us all safer? How can we increase transparency and accountability and ultimately build trust in the fair enforcement of the law? Who will we be as a society 10-20 years from now when citizens and cops operate under new laws and norms that we build out right now? We cannot tolerate a descent into more violence. We must vote for, work for and be the change we want to see in the world.