Let the BLM mural remain.

In 1969, I got my basic law degree from the University of Florida.  In doing so, I supposedly learned some of what lawyers call "the black letter law" -- the statutory, administrative, and case law that lawyers use to advise their clients and that courts usually use to decide cases.

In an act of part bravery and part possible folly, the law faculty at the University of Florida invited me upon graduation to join them as a law teacher.  But by my second year of teaching -- maybe "attempted teaching" is a more accurate term -- I realized that the black letter law would not be enough.  So with the help of some generous financial aid I was off to Yale Law School in hope of learning some law "beyond the black letter."

My hopes were not disappointed.  Of all the "non-black-letter law" I learned, perhaps the most valuable was this bit of wisdom from my jurisprudence professor:  If one or more individuals are wanting to do something worthy, but the desired goal breaks the mold of perceived legality, he, she, or they can find a way to reach the desired goal without breaking the law.

In other words, where there is a will, there is a way.  Or more to the point, where there is a good will, there is a legal way.

Possible application: If the City of Tulsa wants to preserve the Black Lives Matter mural in its original location without having to allow others to paint their messages on city streets, it can find a legal way to do so.

One arguable way is the doctrine of "government speech."  The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the government may at least sometimes express a viewpoint without violating the rights of persons who hold an opposing view.

Admittedly, the BLM mural is not yet government speech.  It was written by one or more private persons, and in an arguably illegal way.

Why say "not yet government speech"?  Because there is nothing in the government speech doctrine that should prevent private speech from becoming government speech if the government wants to endorse that private speech as its own.

In fact, it would indeed be weird to say that a government of the people, by the people, and for the people could not adopt one or more ideas from one or more of its citizens as its own.

Accordingly, the City of Tulsa should indeed be legally able to preserve the Black Lives Matter mural in its original location as adopted government speech, thus without having to allow others to paint their messages on city streets as well.

Fairness.  But let's move from law to an even more important subject:  ethics.  Would it violate basic fairness for the City of Tulsa to allow the BLM mural to remain without allowing others to paint their messages on Tulsa's streets as well?

Stated differently, do black Americans have a moral right to affirm their self-worth in a way -- by painting a street mural -- that need not be accorded to the rest of us?  Unless we are blind to our own history as a nation, the answer has to be a resounding yes.

Any people whose forebearers were forcibly brought to this country in chains, and who then suffered the bonds of continued slavery, and who even after emancipation were subjected to extreme bigotry -- from massacre to lynchings to other KKK terror to separate water fountains -- have surely earned the right to express their self-worth in a special way.

Should the rest of us begrudge our black brothers and sisters being accorded the right to proclaim their self-worth in a way not necessarily accorded to others?  Or should we instead rejoice that despite the atrocities and injustices heaped upon them, Blacks have not given up on the rest of us?

In painting "Black Lives Matter" on a Tulsa street, aren't Blacks hoping that all of us can listen, learn, and join together in a shared dream of liberty and justice for all?