National police union chapter slams city department for sponsoring art which incites violence against law enforcement
Many residents were floored over the recent San José Office of Cultural Affairs art exhibit, “Holding the Moment” which included a work many people thought glorified, or at the very least normalized, violence against law enforcement.
In this Opportunity Now exclusive, community leader and former city council candidate, Jonathan Fleming, interviews Silicon Valley Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 52’s President, Cindy Calderon, and Vice-President, Tim Jackson, regarding the law enforcement community’s reaction to the curious curatorial conduct at the government Office of Cultural Affairs.
Jonathan Fleming (JF): Many of the artists in this exhibition tie their art to an unsupported claim of systemic violence by the police in the U.S. Is that true?
Cindy Calderon (CC): The data on this issue has been researched by the National FOP which found that less than .001 percent of all interactions between police and suspects result in moderate or severe injury to a suspect. It's extremely rare. Those incidents are always fully investigated and adjudicated in a court of law when appropriate. These claims are just not true at all and I encourage the public to watch the National FOP video for more information.
JF: One piece in particular in the exhibition, Americana by Eric Bui, shows what appears to be a protestor standing on top of a damaged police car, with either broken or bloody windows, waving a flag. How has the law enforcement community reacted to this?
Tim Jackson (TJ): They have reacted and a lot are upset because these paintings promote violence against our law enforcement community. Now people from all over the world are seeing this statement at the airport when they land (and online) depicting violence against officers. The city is making a difficult job even harder for its employees by displaying this message publicly.
JF: What is it about this artwork that promotes violence?
TJ: Wow - it looks like the officers were shot in their heads inside their vehicle. Some view it as a police car that has been vandalized. Some see it as an attack by Antifa against police. We’ve had incidents like that in LA where an officer was sitting inside his car, suspect comes up and shoots the officer. All violence is bad, whether it’s against residents or officers. There is no place for violence and to have the city of San José sponsor that, to pay for a competition that depicts art against its own employees, it is upsetting. Whether it’s vandalism or a headshot, there is no place for violence and I believe the city of San José is better than that.
CC: Nationwide, we lost 148 officers and 28 canines in 2019. This year we are approaching 300 officers. Our job is not a TV show. The danger is real. For the city of San José to fund and promote a picture that clearly promotes violence against law enforcement is just all wrong. We don't appreciate it and it makes us very angry.
JF: I don't think anybody is suggesting that artists don't have a right to produce art like this using non-public funds, but are instead questioning why taxpayers are paying for it and why the Office of
Cultural Affairs endorses it. Why would this city department choose to support a piece which incites violence against law enforcement officers and fund it through Capital Improvement Funds intended for “iconic” works of public art?
TJ: Our complaints are not against the artist. He is obviously a creative individual and his piece promotes controversy. That's his right. We are not upset with him. It's the city funding it, using city-owned international venues to promote it, and therefore using the city's power to incite violence against its own employees – those are the problems. This is not a free speech issue. When government funds are being used you have government speech, which is a completely different legal situation. The Office of Cultural Affairs made a bad choice. The city made a bad choice.
CC: Businesses in San José are closing because of the COVID-19 epidemic, and the city is paying money to promote art against law enforcement? They are really out of touch.
JF: Last I looked, the Police Department was a branch of the city of San José and its officers are employees of the city. Do you believe the Office of Cultural Affairs is harassing its fellow city employees by promoting violence against them? How is this not creating a hostile work environment?
TJ: How is it not? I don’t know how the city can say that it is not. Our community sees this as violence toward officers. How can you not see this? You got me on that one. It doesn’t make sense. It clearly is violence. Anybody who says that it isn’t is pretty much blind. Whether you see it as vandalism on a police vehicle or headshots, it’s violence and there is no place for that in city government. It’s workplace harassment.
CC: Can you envision the city funding art that portrays a judge being shot outside a courtroom? A firefighter being run down by a car outside a fire? Unfortunately these are tragedies that happen--just as officers get attacked in the line of duty. This is just not appropriate material for government-funded art.
JF: Have you run into the issue of the government itself discriminating or promoting violence against law enforcement officers?
TJ: I do not recall a time when a government office promoted violence against its own employees. It is bizarre for the city of San José to fund this and I have no idea why they would do it.
CC: I haven’t really seen a government promote violence against law enforcement directly before now, but I have seen politicians attack officers through laws designed to give criminals the upper hand as well as movements such as, “defund the police,” which really defunds community safety, by impacting officers ability to their jobs safely and uphold the law.
JF: To clarify on that point, you’ve seen it more with laws such as CA Propositions 47, 57, and AB 109 impacting our community by making it less safe and impeding our officer’s ability to lock up criminals.
CC: Correct. Prop. 47 gives criminals the upper hand by making it almost impossible to lock up serial offenders for drug and property crimes while Prop. 57 allows for the early release of hardened felons.
JF: The artist said Americana was, ”Inspired by the worldwide protests in 2020 condemning the rampant police brutality that continues to plague the United States…as well as atrocities committed by those who were sworn to protect the public.” How do you feel about an artist or politician saying
all cops are bad and demanding sweeping changes to law enforcement in Silicon Valley based on a police involved tragedy that occurred in Minnesota?
TJ: What happened in Minnesota hurt officers across the United States but to say all is bad is an ignorant statement. If officers break the law anywhere they should be held accountable. We take an oath and swear to protect the City we work in by preserving life and property. That specific officer in Minnesota needs to be held accountable. You don’t group people together and say you are all that way based on the actions of one person. What happened in Minnesota really upset officers across our nation and to say all are that way is an ignorant statement because all aren’t that way. When an officer makes a mistake you hold them individually accountable.
CC: Sometimes we see politicians manipulate tragic incidents into hot political topics to advance their own careers or redirect the flow of funds to use for their own pet projects. They won’t spend time looking at the real numbers or statistics, instead they just take advantage of the moment to use it for their own means and gains.
JF: Would you say that the law enforcement community in general would hold an officer who has violated the law to a higher standard than to a private citizen?
TJ: I believe so. If an officer breaks the law then they will be held accountable and are going to receive the proper punishment for their crime.
JF: Michael Ogilvie, Director of Art for the Office of Cultural Affairs, stated “The exhibit online is intended to be up indefinitely.” Why don’t they take it down and what message is is being sent to our law enforcement community across the United States and to government employees who are victims of hostile work environments by keeping this online?
CC: I feel like the city is saying we don’t care about law enforcement here or anywhere, that law enforcement is the enemy, and that they are actively inciting violence against law enforcement.
TJ: I think it is bullying and arrogance. A lot of the time with the city, you almost have to force litigation against them in order to get them to act and that is a shame. Right is right, and wrong is wrong. This artwork is violent, I don’t care how you try to frame it – this is violence against your law enforcement community. The right thing to do is just to take it down, remove it from city publications. It just takes a click of a button to take it down off a website. We as officers love the cities we work in, we love the communities that we work for, or else we wouldn't be doing this job. The job is hard enough and anything that promotes violence shouldn’t be on a government website.
CC: I do not know how this art helps the citizens of San José or residents anywhere. Law enforcement is here to help. If you are inciting violence against law enforcement, you're taking them away from their job. You are throwing more obstacles in their way. Residents are tired of their cars being stolen, they are tired of their homes being burglarized and the police want to help them but now the out of touch city of San José is interfering with officer’s ability to safely help their community.
JF: When an employee violates the terms of their employment, they are generally required to attend classes to correct the issue, go on leave, and/or are terminated from their position. What type of sensitivity and training classes do you envision are appropriate for those in the government who played a role in the approval of this artwork?
CC: I want to see training classes to educate and correct the misconceptions that some have against police officers. The city should be educating its employees about attacks on police officers, officers killed in the line of duty, and use of force statistics. Governments need to ensure everyone knows their city's policies for use of force and how they compare in Silicon Valley to those in other parts of the country. People are getting inaccurate information from untrusted sources and that needs to be corrected.
TJ: Yeah, when someone violates their own policies and does this to their own employees, they should be subject to the same type of corrective course actions and discipline. In this instance the Commissioners, judges, city employees and everyone who participated in this should attend sensitivity training focusing on how their actions endanger the lives of our law enforcement and develop action plans to ensure this never happens again.
JF: San José City Manager David Sykes released a short statement stating the exhibit was, “rotated out three days early” but did not state the reason or apologize for the harm the piece has caused. Was the City Manager’s statement good enough? What is it lacking? What did you want to hear him say?
TJ: It’s lacking an apology. Where is the sensitivity? He rotated it out from one place but did he remove it or take it down from all city owned platforms? No, it’s still online. Instead this tells me that the city acted in its own interest and did nothing to support our officers and that’s not right. It depicts violence and the city tries to hide it. That is very insensitive. He’s just doing it because of the complaints, not because he wants to do the right thing. He did a half job, he didn’t do the full job. This feels like an appeasement, not honest remorse.
CC: They are showing total disregard for their own policies. They have offered no apology and no corrective action.
JF: Is it your intent to inspire law enforcement officers and their unions around the United States to endorse the online petition?
CC: I feel that the law enforcement community should all be on the same page on this and we are hoping to get the attention of POA’s nationwide and FOP’s nationwide and work together on this because this shouldn’t be in anyone’s city. No one in law enforcement should have to deal with this anywhere in the nation.
TJ: This is a law enforcement issue. This is violence against law enforcement officers and it affects the law enforcement community nationwide.
JF: All the pieces in this art exhibit are supposed to reflect, interpret, or comment on the impact of COVID-19 on our community. There is no mention of COVID-19 in the artist’s description. Do you believe this really is an artwork about COVID-19?
CC: I don’t see anything that has to do with COVID-19 in that picture.
TJ: No. There is a mask on the figure on top of the car but remember, you have people in Antifa who cover their faces like that. I’m not saying it’s an Antifa person up there for sure, but that is the only
thing I can possibly see that is remotely related to COVID-19. A lot of the time when someone vandalizes government property they try to hide their faces. Everything else in the piece is 99.9% political in nature and an agenda is being put forth here.
JF: The artist seems to define law enforcement as the “pandemic” instead of COVID-19. His statement, “This piece was inspired by the worldwide protests in 2020 condemning the rampant police brutality that continues to plague the United States. The imagery reflects a nation frustrated with an ongoing pandemic, as well as atrocities committed by those who were sworn to protect the public...” What is your take on the artist's use of the word pandemic?
TJ: The artist is definitely not using the word pandemic to describe COVID-19. If he was, he’d be talking about something like the number of ICU beds that are down to zero or would make reference to someone like Dr. Fauci. I don’t see where the COVID pandemic ties into this artwork or its description. It seems like they are just trying to make it fit into the competition with a loose description. I don’t see where a viral pandemic ties into violence. It’s a political agenda.
JF: Racial arguments have been used in attempts to undermine the online petition and to hurt those who are calling for this artwork to be removed. To be clear, the petition does not evoke race in any way. As persons of color, what are your opinions on the use of race arguments against your position?
TJ: This is an issue of violence against officers, this isn’t about race. It has nothing to do with race. It has nothing to do with the artist. It has everything to do with violence and it doesn’t belong on government property, nor should the government be paying someone to create an image inciting violence. That’s what the issue is. Nothing should ever be about race. I am an officer and I have a job to do. I do not need the city paying for anything that depicts or incites violence against me or my family who I want to go home to at the end of my shift. Race is not the issue and is the wrong argument here.
Note: This story has been delayed by almost two months due to the interviewer’s lengthy recovery andcomplications from COVID-19.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity.
Photo by Eric Bui.