Zimmerman travesty shows we have a long way still to go

   I was shocked and angered Saturday night by the "not guilty" verdict in the trial of George Zimmerman, who stood accused of killing 17-year-old Trayvon Martin 18 months ago. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Zimmerman got away with murder. His claims of self-defense are laughable, at best. At the very least, he should have been convicted of manslaughter. As it stands now, an innocent 17-year-old is dead, and there's no justice for his family, who now has to watch his killer walk free. It's a tragedy. No, it's a travesty.
   For those few who hadn't been keeping up with the sensational case, George Zimmerman is a Hispanic neighborhood watch captain from Sanford, Fla. One night, in February 2012, he spotted Martin walking home from a snack run. He was dressed in a hoodie and walking through an exclusive gated community, where he happened to be staying,  so Zimmerman decided he was up to no good and started following him. This is where it gets hazy. After confronting Martin, Zimmerman says the teen attacked him, so he shot him to save his own life. However, there was some dispute during the trial over who could be heard screaming for help on the recording of the 911 call. Martin's family says it was Trayvon, while Zimmerman's family claims it was Zimmerman. Either way, in the end, Martin ended up dead. And now his admitted killer walks free.
   Some people would like to pretend that this case had nothing to do with race. According to this narrative, which was advanced by Zimmerman's defense team, he was simply "standing his ground," as allowed under Florida's ill-advised "Stand Your Ground" law. According to this narrative, Zimmerman was simply defending himself from a menacing black teen. That's hogwash. Here's the harsh truth. Trayvon Martin was killed for one reason and one reason only: He was a young black male walking through the wrong neighborhood at the wrong time.
   Here's some more truth. Martin was an honor student with no prior criminal history. At the time of his murder, he was "armed" with nothing more menacing than a bag of Skittles and a can or Arizona watermelon iced tea. At no time during the five-week trial was there any evidence presented that Martin was a thug. Nor was there any evidence presented suggesting a motive for the supposed attack. So how does this qualify as self-defense? Answer: It doesn't. The truth is, Martin is dead because Zimmerman was afraid of him. He wrongly profiled Martin, assuming that because of the way he was dressed and where he was, he was "up to no good." He acted on that fear, and now an innocent young man is dead.
    Zimmerman's supporters like to say that because the jury found him innocent, he did nothing wrong. They like to say that because the jury said so, Martin's death wasn't murder, but self-defense. Those people are wrong, just as the jury was wrong in its verdict. Juries are fallible. They make mistakes, and in this case it appears they simply ignored the evidence in coming to the wrong conclusion.
    Under  our justice system, Zimmerman is a free man. Because of double jeopardy, he can't be retried on criminal charges, even if new evidence came to light that proved conclusively it was murder. So what happens now? Should we simply move on? Should we simply turn our attention to the next sensational trial to come down the pike? For our sake, I hope we don't. I hope we take the time to digest what has happened and try to learn something from the tragedy of Martin's untimely death.
   I hope this tragedy, once and for all, shatters the illusion that we are living in a "post-racial era." Have we made progress since the time of "Jim Crow?" Of course we have. We have made giant strides. Today, our schools are no longer "separate but equal." Public facilities are no longer segregated. Today, minorities are serving in every level of government. In 2008, our nation elected its first black president. That's something I never thought I'd see in my lifetime. Today, blacks and other minorities have more opportunity to succeed than their parents and grandparents could have dreamed of. And yet, if we say that we have overcome racism, that it no longer exists and is no longer a problem, we are only fooling ourselves.
   The one thing that the Trayvon Martin case should make crystal clear is that, despite all the advances minorities have made in the last half century, racist attitudes still persist. I'm not talking about the overtly racist attitudes of years past, either -- the idea that minorities are inferior, even subhuman, for instance. I'm talking about the more subtle racist attitudes: The idea that all young black males are beer-guzzling, lazy, promiscuous ne'er-do-wells. The idea that young black males are inherently dangerous and we should lock our doors or keep our hands on our wallets when they walk by. Or, as in this case, the idea that a young black male in a hoodie is automatically a thug.
   How do we begin to change those attitudes? It has to begin at home with parents. Parents have to teach their children not to judge others based solely on race or appearance. Teach them instead to judge others based on their actions, and even then only after getting to know that person.
   Another way to change our racist attitudes -- and make no mistake, we all have biases -- is through exposure. In other words, we need to get out of our comfort zone and seek out friends from different races, ethnicities, sexual orientations and backgrounds. I know it's easier and more comfortable, even natural, to gravitate to those who look like us or who come from similar backgrounds. But if we only associate with those who look like us, who think like us, we will never understand why people in other groups think as they do. We will never understand why they do what they do. Our understanding will only be informed by what we're told by others. It's that kind of ignorance that breeds fear, and it's that type of fear that ultimately cost Trayvon Martin his life.