I felt compelled to chime in on the recent arrest of acclaimed Harvard historian Henry Louis Gates, but I haven't followed the story closely enough to write thoughtfully about it. So, I'll let NewSocProf and Crooked Timber write thoughtfully about it for me.
Scoob, you're in the area: what's the local coverage like?
31 comments:
HOLY CRUD...I have to post this as two replies...my original is too long...
Dr. H, you "baited" me into this story so here it goes....
As you can imagine, the local coverage is about as disgraceful as the national coverage. I respectfully find comments by NewSocProf and Crooked Timber quite distasteful. You seem to know the Sgt. in this situation and seem to be experts in police procedure. Like our President who seems to have such a sense of clarity about this situation, both seem to lose sight of the pertinent facts. First and foremost, my information does come from the police report. Interestingly, I have not yet heard Gates dispute the most critical facts of the case...and God knows he and his daughter haven't missed any chances to get their mugs in the news. So, let’s address some of the myths or misrepresentations of this case that the national and local media have portrayed here.
First, the 911 caller is being VILLIFIED here as a racist - you know, those racist who work for the Harvard Magazine (yes, she works for this publication). Importantly, Gates home was in fact broken into two weeks before this incident. Thus, the reason for the broken door that was difficult to open. To suggest that anyone calling 911 to report a potential break in when someone appears to be forcing entry into a home (I can only assume she did not recognize him as the owner) - black, white, green - is a racists is simply outrageous. If my memory serves me correct, I heard a news report there was something like 7 break-ins in this neighborhood within the last two months. Last time I check isn't this a concept that we sociologists call collective efficacy? I think Barbara Warner in her Criminology piece in 2007 talked about this...different forms of informal and formal social control. Most importantly, neighbors taking responsibility for their own neighborhoods and acting on the behalf of neighbors.
Second, the officer responding to the scene was trespassing or otherwise had no legal right to be on the property and/or question the occupant. Again, simply silly. This officer had a legal obligation to respond to the call, be on the property, and question Gates. Period, end of story.
Third, the media (and our courageous President last night) have implied he was arrested for breaking and entry even after showing proof of his identification. They have not explicitly said this, but certainly implied it with the omission of the fact he was arrested for disorderly conduct.
Fourth, I read on CNN yesterday a story from one of their ever-so-smart commentators - essentially, how could anyone assume this elderly, distinguished black man with a cane was criminal....So, if it was a young black kid with a gold chain that is a likely criminal? Are you serious? I have never heard such a racially charged statement in my life. How about a white teenager in hip hop clothes? What, dare I ask, is the appropriate “profile” for a criminal that is acceptable?
If you ask me, here is what happened. The officer showed up, asked for ID, and Gates became enraged. It is quite likely the officer unfortunately let himself get sucked into an ugly situation. Both parties blew their stacks and let the situation get the best of them. Is NewSocProf right that he "baited" Gates to come outside so he could arrest him, I really don't know. Right or wrong, I can see a situation where someone jumps in your face, screaming racist, and yes, you get pissed. I wonder how this situation would have ended up if Gates simply showed his identification.
PART 2:
To me, the real shame of it this....Both parties seemed to attempt to save face and share blame with a JOINTLY released statement from all parties involved including Gates...this was released on Tuesday I think. This statement acknowledged some "wrongs" (I don't recall the wording) had been done on both parts, and both parties wish to move on. People get caught up in the emotion of situations. In the end, it was a good call, legal action. Could Gates let that stand (even after he apparently agreed to the statement), no. He had to inflame this whole situation. It is sad. I take back my previous statement, the REAL SHAME of this situation is that it masks the true problem of racism and racial profiling. It is debatable if this is good police work (simply the part about arresting him for disorderly…personally, I think it was a bad but I see how it happened). Racism this was not…bad police work, let’s talk about that.
There are people out there who make their LIVING on racial disharmony. While I am not supporter of Obama (and I lost even more respect for him last night for making comments on a racially charged case he admitted he knew little about – you know, that post-racial guy), Obama's presidency really has/d the ability to put people like Al Sharpton out of business. Never for a million years would I think someone like Gates would be in the racial disharmony business. This guy does not want to educate people, this guy does NOT want to open a discussion on race. This guy is quoted as saying the officer to "beg for his forgiveness" and then he will "consider" forgiving him. Yep, that is a way to open a dialogue. Shame on the race mongers who support these sort of ideas. Let's consider for a moment, even IF this officer did someone wrong...to suggest it was racially motivated is well, simply disgraceful. Any single person yelling at an officer (assuming this happened...Gates has yet to deny it), berating him/her, would have talked themselves into an arrest. Is that a problem, maybe, but folks, it ain't racism.
Wow! Thanks for the (lengthy) response, Scooby. This is why I didn't write a full post about this case -- I don't know anything more about it beyond what I've read in the headlines.
I did see one comment (on a blog post, or maybe a CNN.com story? If I find it I'll link to it) that made a good point, I thought: maybe instead of being racially motivated, Gates was arrested because he engaged in the number one behavior that prompts arrest in a borderline citizen encounter: antagonizing the responding officer. I don't know how accurately that reflects what really happened, but it made me wonder whether our policing scholars would agree with that assessment.
P.S. No baiting, I promise! I just figured that you'd be particularly familiar with the story since you're in the area...
One last post for the time being....Here is one of the most lucid analyses of this situation I have seen yet...and from all places, the Boston Globe (www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/07/23/machismo_and_the_gates_incident/?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed3).
In the process of posting this, I read your response. You are DEAD on...Right, wrong, good or bad...more people talk themselves into traffic tickets than if they just shut their mouths. I would only add, making racially charged statements to a police officer investigating a crime is inappropriately - period. I really wish the officer didn't let himself get sucked in this, and I also wish Gates could have found a more constructive outlet for his frustration once the joint statement was released and charges were dropped. Alas, neither happened.
I broke my own promise made not more than 15 minutes ago to not submit more posts about this for the time being.
It is incredible how the woman reporting the crime is being lamblasted on some blogs as a racist. Here is one example: http://blackoncampus.com/2009/07/21/harvard-professor-henry-louis-gates-jr-profiled-by-police-and-neighbor/
For the life of me, I cannot understand how someone could think a neighbor calling 911 to report a potential break-in, especially after the very location was broken into weeks prior, could say the person is a racist. Honestly, would anyone reading this blog (Dr H., that might just be me and you) get pissed at a neighbor for reporting similarly suspicious behavior at your own house? I know I would not - quite frankly, i would thank them for keeping such close watch of my house. How long do you think it will take until this woman if fired from Harvard? All for what? Being a good neighbor and watching out for others.
I just watched the clip of Obama's answer to the Gates question from his press conference last night, and I have to say that I don't see the problem with it. (Apparently there has been substantial blowback within the right-wing political blogosphere to Obama's response.) What's so objectionable about what he said? Is it his use of the pejorative adverb "stupidly" to describe how the respondng officer handled the encounter with Gates? Or is it that he provided commentary on an issue about which he did not have first-hand knowledge? If it's the latter, I think that's a pretty disingenuous critique for two reasons: (1) had he deferred the question, everyone would have accused him of being evasive, and (2) as the first person of color to be elected president, I think he's got a particular duty to respond to issues of race/racism. Plus, I'm just elated that the president -- the president! during a prime-time press conference!! -- spoke about issues of race and policing. How often is it that our own research areas are topics of discussion at a White House press conference, for crying out loud?!
Dr. HnK-
My problem with the President's statement is when he remarks "that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home." The officer's choice may have been stupid, but this reinforces one of the points I think Scooby was trying to make. Dr. Gates was charged with disorderly conduct, not burglary or some similar charge. He was not arrested based on the presumption he did not have a lawful right to be in the house.
Was Gates baited? Was Gates baited out on the street? Did race motivate Sgt. Crowley? The court of public opinion would seem to suggest the answer is "yes." I would reserve judgment based on the facts in evidence.
Did the Sgt behave stupidly by acting emotionally? That seems far more likely. Disorderly conduct is one of the vaguest laws around. It is a catch all. I've heard cops around the country refer to the charge of "contempt of cop"; tick the office off, they can find a way to bring enforcement action. That may mean they give you a ticket you earned or it may mean, as in this case, loud protesting (even if you are correct) results in a DC charge.
Race may play a roll in all of this, but I would go back to the general body of scholarship on police arrest decision making, which suggest the demeanor of a suspect is the key or one of the key determinants of charges being brought.
My concern is I don't see this as a prime example of the problems that DO exist regarding race and policing. Rather, this exemplifies how vague laws can lead to abuses of police discretion. The latter, to me, seems a much more viable concern in this situation. And frankly, we don't hear many calls for action to be taken to rein in police discretion, though that problem is something we all might confront (though admittedly race may confound that experience).
Cranks
My problem with the President's statement is when he remarks "that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home."...Dr. Gates was charged with disorderly conduct, not burglary or some similar charge. He was not arrested based on the presumption he did not have a lawful right to be in the house.
Aha. This clarifies things for me greatly, Cranks -- thank you.
Did scooby just call himself a sociologist?
Great dialogue peeps...this is the only reason I go/went to ASC and ACJS: to hear Dr. H "talk" with scooby about ANYTHING. You guys rule.
I wish my neighbors would have called the fuz when my car stereo got stolen in EL a few years back. I hope this incident doesn't result in less community involvement in reporting suspicious behavior.
This has been a very interesting discussion. Here's another piece of information from NPR--the officer criticized for the arrest teaches diversity training.
He actually teaches a racial profiling course at the Lowell, MA academy. ShockProf...what are your thoughts about that?
The Commissioner has finally weighed in on the case. Much to my own surprise, he is strongly supporting the officer. In a city such as Cambridge I am surprised. As a side note, I know the Commissioner a very little bit and find him an extremely engaging, "progressive" (god I hate that word) person. I recently spent a few house with him in a professional setting and was really impressed. I wonder if he can survive this situation.
Dr H., you asked for some of the more localized news on the case so here is two tidbits I picked up today. Not sure if I mentioned it earlier, but Gates house was broken into while he was away on the very trip in question. This was also part of a larger spike in BE's in the area. Also, to address NewSocProf's concern, I heard it reported one reason the officer went outside (referencing the baiting comment) was because Gates was yelling so loud that between that and the general acoustics of the room, the Sgt. could not communicate on his radio. Radio commentators have indicated there are radio transmissions that make him sound like a lunatic. I am not sure if this is truly the case or not, but if so, that could help explain the "baiting" of Gates outside.
This is really big news now -- currently it's the main story on CNN.com!
I think this is a difficult situation because nobody really knows just exactly how things went down. I'm guessing that there was culpability on both ends: that Dr. Gates took unnecessary umbrage at being asked for ID, or otherwise overreacted after assuming a racial motivation for routine policework, and that Sgt. Crowley took unnecessary umbrage at the insinuation (or outright accusation?) that he was a racist and consequently rushed to make an arrest that was not warranted.* Whatever the case, I maintain what I said earlier: I think it's fantastic that we're having a national conversation about racial profiling and police-citizen encounters. I just wish that classes were in session -- what terrific material for in-class discussions!
*Both of these reactions can be understood, I think, when placed in their appropriate contexts: Gates' reaction in the context of the historic mistreatment of African Americans by police, and Sgt. Crowley's reaction in the context of a diversity trainer and someone who likely takes pride in his racial sensitivity being accused of racist behavior.
Dr. H., while I generally agree with your assessment, I have one big point of disagreement. There is NO justification for Gates initial accusations of racism - regardless of the "context of the historic mistreatment of AA by police." We say, police should never get their backs up in the air when inappropriately challenged. they should be more professional, better trained, smarter than that. And you know what, I generally agree. Is it unreasonable to ask the brilliant Harvard professor to uphold a similar standard? I simply reject the idea that since someone's perceptions are framed by some historical context that excuses their behavior. Honestly, THAT is profiling to presume that a white man or a police officer would abuse their power because you are black. This is a circular argument I know, but its silly to use the loop whole of historical context. Gates is smarter than that. I will give you some room where I can sort of understand maybe how it happened during the initial scenario....but what has transpired after is simply incredible to me. The joint statement was everyone's out with saving some sort of face. Gates decided to blow this thing up to levels that brings him to an Al Sharpton level. It is much, much more calculated on Gates part at this point than a simple overreaction.
Just saw your comments, Scoob. I have a few questions:
First, who is reporting that Gates' home had recently been broken into? Where did that information come from? I haven't seen it reported anywhere (though admittedly I'm not looking very hard) -- maybe the Globe?
Second, if those radio transmissions exist, do you think they'll be released to the public?
By the way, Gates appears not to have an issue with the 911 caller -- who is NOT a neighbor, for the record -- per his comments to WaPo:
"I'm glad that someone would care enough about my property to report what they thought was some untoward invasion," Gates said. "If she saw someone tomorrow that looked like they were breaking in, I would want her to call 911. I would want the police to come. What I would not want is to be presumed to be guilty. That's what the deal was. It didn't matter how I was dressed. It didn't matter how I talked. It didn't matter how I comported myself. That man was convinced that I was guilty."
I think we must be sensitive to the fact that Gates (understandably, in my view) felt that he had been singled out, scrutinized, or otherwise targeted simply because he is Black. History's on his side with that one, after all. As for what has transpired since the incident? I don't know.
On the one hand, I don't think there is anything wrong with him continuing to discuss his arrest -- or the larger issues of racial profiling and the relationship between law enforcement and communities of color -- with the media. On the contrary, I think it's healthy and even necessary to have this debate, and he has every right to give voice to his experiences. (According to WaPo, Gates is now planning a documentary about the CJ system, which is, as he put it, "rotten.")
On the other hand, some of his recent comments -- like accusing Sgt. Crowley of fabricating his police report, or saying that he (Gates) would be prepared to accept an apology once Sgt. Crowley "told the truth" about what happened -- strike me as being inflammatory. It's a big deal to accuse a police office of falsifying a report, isn't it? As Ta-Nehisi Coates says below, doth Professor Gates protest too much?
Finally, I think it's important to widen our lens a bit. Here is some commentary about this case from:
*The Root
*Racialious
*The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates
I thought Scoob, in particular, would appreciate this last bit from Coates:
"That said, the wind is leaving my sails over this one and I'm not sure why. I keep getting this 'doth protest too much' vibe every time I read Gates's interviews. It's interesting that it took his own arrest for Gates to decide to make a doc about this."
As a dissent to my very own post, though, Scatterplot's olderwoman points out that, of course, sometimes police officers do falsify their reports, and links to this analysis of the Gates arrest report in making that point.
OK, some more analysis to consider, this time from Racism Review, here and here.
Be sure to check out the links in the second RR piece to both the article in The Nation and to the NYT blog post, which features a great roundup of commentary on this story.
Good discussion--I almost always (minus the swimsuit discussions) learn something when I visit here.
Just two things:
1) I did not appreciate the President's comments about the incident. Being a friend of Gates and (as he stated) having little knowledge of what happened, he should have simply not addressed the incident specifically. He could have then made his comments in general about racism in America and police profiling without undermining the authority of officers and making a tough job more difficult.
2) I thought
professor Boyce Watkins' (of Syracuse University) commentary on the incident was insightful.
Here is an essay from John Jay policing scholar Maria Haberfeld that makes several of the points Cranks and Slamdunk raised in their comments, both about the initial incident and about President Obama's subsequent remarks.
I am having a hard time reading hyperlinks – the box is so small and I can’t seem to expand it so I couldn’t read all of that stuff. Any idea how to make the box bigger?
I am not sure about the neighbor thing. It is WIDELY reported she was a neighbor. I can only imagine (although not sure) she is not an adjacent neighbor but lives in the neighborhood. What is the significance of that to you? Gates’ comments that he harbors no ill-will to the caller seems really disingenuous to me. This seems to be a little reconstructionist. If he had no ill will, why make the “because I’m a black man in America” comment when the officer arrives on the scene. From everything I read and Gates’ own comments, he made that comment when the officer arrived – not at some point later in the encounter. Thus, the officers presence on the scene and inquiry into the situation struck him as racially motivated. I can only assume that extends back to the original call.
You ask about the information about the previous break-in to his house. Again, that and the fact of multiple breaks in the weeks leading up to this is widely reported up here. The Commissioner mentioned this in his statement (http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/07/cambridge_polic_3.html) (sorry, I still can't figure out this hyperlink stuff in a comment) yesterday but gives no specifics.
Your comment about officer fabricating a report. That certainly is possibly. Yet until proven otherwise, I will assume it reflects reality. There were multiple officers from multiple agencies (Cambridge PD and Harvard University Police – the house was Harvard University’s property thus their presence). Assuming this was reported as a crime in progress, and the fact that every cop within 20 square miles would respond to a hot call for a little excitement, I have to assume one or more of these officers was on scene rather quickly into the encounter. Importantly, most of Gates’ comments about inaccuracies seem to be about later stages of the encounter. Not the key part – his early accusations of racism when the officer immediately responds and his failure to comply immediately with the request for ID. I still wonder why he insisted on showing his Harvard ID and not his driver’s license? It reminds me of Larry Craig’s “Do you know who I am?” comment when arrested. Importantly, I will not assume the officer is lying or intentionally falsifying his report.
As for the 911 and transmission tapes – I just saw bits of the Commissioners press conference. He suggests the tapes may be released. Stay posted on that one.
Finally, and this is where we really disagree Dr. H. Gates is not and was not trying to have a conversation about race and/or racial profiling. It is shameful he missed that opportunity. It is disgraceful one of the most allegedly smartest race scholars in the world miss this. Gates pulled a big fat race card and inflamed race relations – he made no attempt to talk about them. It is interesting - I just saw his daughter (not sure why she is appearing everywhere) interviewed. She indicated, “Geeze, why won’t this cop just sit down and talk to my daddy?” Give me a friggin break. The time for that, maybe, was once the joint statement was released, maybe then make a statement – “You know, maybe we can ALL learn something from this” and then sit down in a private meeting and talk. Don’t release a statement, call the media before the ink is dry, and then have your mug all over the news shouting racism and the “poor me” routine. Oh yeah, and threaten a law suit also (his daughter yet again suggested that as a possibility). This officer would be C-R-A-Z-Y to sit down and talk with this maniac at this point.
I would tend to question whether this case will productively advance a national discussion on racial profiling and policing. My thinking is that the term "racial profiling" is largely misapplied to this case based on the information currently at hand.
The term is generally applied to a situation where an officer engages in discretionary action (i.e. deciding to stop someone) based on race. Having said that, the term IS used in various ways and is sometimes used to imply differential enforcement action based on race. But for most folks, I think the term is meant to imply the decision to initiate contact with someone.
In addition, just based on what is known about this situation, there is little to suggest the Sgt. engaged in a racially motivated manner. I will concede we do not know what is in his heart or his mind, but there is no evidence of using slurs, using excessive force, or making irrational choices, save the debate over whether or not Dr. Gates should have been arrested (and I think the evidence suggests he COULD have been arrested, though perhaps that arrest would be based on reacting emotionally rather than in the spirit of "disorderly conduct" as an offense). Dr. Gates has referred to lies or other untruths in Sgt. Crowley's report, but has offered no specifics at this time (at least that I've seen) (and yes, police do lie in reports...and much to the dismay of some in our part of the world, student observers lie and cut corners when reporting data in a systematic social observation study).
The point of my rambling set of observations is this....I think most police officers will look at this case and see Sgt. Crowley as the victim for "doing his job." They might quibble over whether the arrest was prudent, but they likely will not see evidence of racially-motivated misdeeds on the part of the Sgt. We don't have any smoking gun in this case, even in the form of a concrete example.
Most officers will look at this and see a peer who was hand picked to train others on not engaging in racially charged conduct. An officer who works in a community where being sensitive to diversity and power/politics is quite important (this isn't Detroit or Flint). An officer who was at a call with peers from other agencies (which should diminish the impulse toward impropriety, if it exists...don't know who you can trust).
To hold this up as an example of problems with race and policing (which, again, DO EXIST...not disputing that for a moment) might make most police officers dig in their heals. I would question whether officers and organizations can advance forward in a needed discussion based on this case. In short, this is the wrong example situation to launch that needed dialog. I fear the dialog may be postponed if policy makers and advocacy groups try to use this as their rallying cry.
Perhaps race was an issue. I wasn't there, I don't know the Sgt, and don't know what is in his heart. It appears unlikely based on the limited amount I know, but my personal view is it does not seem to be a major factor in this situation. But I will be the first to admit I could be wrong. Given that race is at best an ambiguous variable in the situation (in my view...could be wrong), I think holding this situation up as an example of race and policing could actually hurt things.
Dr HnK- Thanks for the Haberfeld link. I have a lot of respect for her work and she raises some good points even beyond what Scooby and I have mentioned that are quite relevant.
Scooby- I gotta say, while I disagree with Dr. Gates' conduct in all of this, referring to him as a maniac or with other disparaging terms only adds to the divisiveness of the discussion. I am on the same pages with you on most of this, but would take issue with those types of characterizations.
Slamdunk -- thanks for the link to Dr. Watkins' commentary. I enjoyed hearing his thoughts, especially this:
"What is abundantly clear is that this is NOT the case of a poor Black male being exploited by the racist, classist power structure. Perhaps the next time there is another Jena Six incident, Dr. Gates will fight as diligently for poor Black men as he is fighting for himself, and his fight will go beyond writing papers for academic journals that hardly anyone ever reads." [Ed. Note: OUCH! Hey, people read our papers!!]
This is an important point, I think: young, poor Black men certainly pay far greater punishment costs than Dr. Gates, even as a Black man, ever would.
Scoob -- I will email you the info about embedding links and expanding the comments window.
Thank you for being our "on the ground" reporter on this case! Thanks also for the links to the local coverage. Please keep the details coming.
I only indicated that the 911 caller wasn't a neighbor in an attempt to clarify what may have been misinformation. There's really no significance to it beyond trying to get the facts straight.
I completely agree that there is a big difference between advancing the national conversation about race in a constructive way and merely engaging in racial antagonism. You believe that Gates has done the latter rather than the former ("Gates pulled a big fat race card and inflamed race relations" -- Dude, tell me how you really feel), and as I said in one of my (many) earlier comments, I'm actually inclined to agree with that to a certain extent. But you go too far in your characterization of him as a "race-monger" who merely wants to get his "mug" in the news. It's disrespectful and unproductive to use that kind of language.
Cranks -- very astute analysis. I especially appreciate your comments about the misapplication of the term "racial profiling" in this case, which I myself have been guilty of.
I also agree that it is extremely dangerous to treat the arrest of Dr. Gates -- even if it were racially-motivated -- as representative of Black mens' experiences in the Criminal Justice system, as I said in my response to slamdunk. Despite the discrimination he faces as a Black man, Gates carries in his "invisible knapsack" the privilege of wealth, social status, and age, among others -- advantages that the young, unemployed men of color who are grossly over-represented in the CJ system simply do not possess.
I can only say we are all in trouble when Dr. Cranky is the voice of sensitivity. This is a side of him I have never seen before. That is one of the many reasons I am President of the Dr. Cranky fan club.
I actually believe gates IS a race-monger in this situation. He has played right into this situation. He is quoted in the police report (so far not disproven nor has he denied it) as saying "Don't you know who I am?" You know, as a general rule of thumb anytime someone says that be sure they are about to abuse their power. What does Gates have to lose here? He lives in a University house (I assume likely for free considering how these things generally work), probably makes in excess of $200k (good for him!), has a house on Martha's Vineyard, is a hugely accomplished scholar, and is now an even greater hero in the minds of many of his supporters. Boy, even had the President and Gov. of Massachusetts defend him.
how about this cop? He has tried to beat up some blue collar guy doing his job. This IS classist - one of the many things he arguably tries to fight against. Gates as zero to lose here...What are the prospects of this cop keeping his job? Sure, Sgt. has gained lots of support around the country and some shortterm fame...but in the end, can he keep his job? Can he continue to rise through the ranks of the organization? Does he get discredited in court the next time he testifies. Or boy, the killer is if someone claims racism in the future against him we NOW have a pattern of behavior. Gates used his power, prestige, and bully-pulpit to beat someone up. Powerful people in all walks of life try to abuse their power. I find that distasteful. The racially charged nature of this makes Gates a race monger. I would have hoped someone of his intelligence, background, and prestige would not fallen into this trap. Worse, he can get out of the trap and lose nothing...but so far, he refuses to do so. He has threatened lawsuit - the cop, department, commissioner, and city should stay out of ALL talks with this guy. He already backed out on one agreement - to let the joint statement stand on its own. Yet within 2 hours he was doing medial interviews claiming racism. Intentionally, I really don't know. did the situation get the better of everyone, possibly. But only HE has the power, prestige, and pulpit to stop this situation. Gates got what he wants, now EVERYONE knows who he is.
I have made some comments, at times, tongue-in cheek (although not completely), on a blog that a half-dozen people read and among friends. Gates made his claims of racism in public, in the international media. He has tried to besmirch the record of a police officer, a police department, a community, police in general, and by extension society. All because he refused to show is ID. Self-fish, mean-spirited ,and quite destructive. If those facts are inflammatory, the flame away. The facts are sometimes hurtful. Again, imagine if after this situation, Gates then said...nothing? I wish the Sgt. would remain silent but I guess he is tired of getting beat up. I hope the department does NOT release the tapes. Hopefully, let this die down (the tapes will only reinforce both sides on this situation who will hear what they want to hear) and continue the unhealthy arguments (not debate...there is not national debate on this topic right now). Comm. Haas is forming a group to look into the situation which is the right move.
Here is the police report, courtesy of The Smoking Gun. This report, of course, represents only the officer's side of the story. However, to the extent that it accurately reflects what happened, it doesn't exactly portray Professor Gates in the most favorable light ever. ("You have no idea who you're messing with," "I'll speak with your mama outside," et al. As Scooby said, not exactly the kind of response one would expect from such a gifted and respected scholar.) It also lends support to the idea that Gates' greatest transgression in this instance was not being "a Black man in America," but rather was refusing to calm down and ignoring Sgt. Crowley's repeated requests to stop yelling.
I'll say this: the more I read, the more confident I am in my original assessment: that Gates talked (or, rather, yelled) himself into those handcuffs, and that Crowley all-too-willingly placed them on.
I also think that the entire event was racially charged: white (female) 911 caller, Black male suspects, white responding officer. It was a tinderbox from the get-go. But as far as the officer's on-scene actions go, I think Dr. Cranky's sentiments (comment @8:13 a.m.) best reflect where I'm at with this.
P.S. I've seen comments on some websites along the lines of "if the officer had such thin skin that he couldn't take someone calling him names, then he shouldn't be a cop!" Of course, this argument completely ignores the reality of policing. Officers have to keep control of situations for their and others' safety. When citizens are belligerent and refuse officers' commands/requests to comply, they sometimes get arrested. This scenario would be totally unremarkable had the citizen involved not been a noted public figure.
P.P.S. Scoob, just wanted to say how much I love the word "besmirch"! : )
So, by now it seems clear that President Obama spoke out of turn with his "acted stupidly" comment at Wednesday's press conference. (At first I didn't see what was so controversial about the remark, but at the time I also erroneously assumed that Gates had been arrested for trespassing or B&E, which was not the case.) Today Obama apologized for his earlier remark and offered a more detailed and thoughtful statement, which you can watch here.
This passage I thought was particularly instructive:
"What I'd like to do then is make sure that everybody steps back for a moment, recognizes that these are two decent people, not extrapolate too much from the facts, but, as I said at the press conference, be mindful of the fact that because of our history, because of the difficulties of the past, African Americans are sensitive to these issues. And even when you've got a police officer who has a fine track record on racial sensitivity, interactions between police officers and the African American community can sometimes be fraught with misunderstanding. My hope is that as a consequence of this event, this ends up being what's called a teachable moment, where all of us instead of pumping up the volume spend a little bit more time listening to each other."
besmirch - great word, eh? Yep, every once in a while I move beyond grunts and single syllabal words and pull a Papism.
By and large, I agree. I still find big exception based that people can rationalize any reaction to situations based on "historical context" and "past experiences" but that is for another time and place. I am pleased how this is taking shape. I am pleased the President called Sgt. Crowley. I think his statement is about as much of an apology as one will ever get out of a President. I still wouldn't trust Gates based on his record on this situation, but maybe the President can help bring some closure to this situation.
Good disucssion my peeps.
By the way, as I said to Cranky over email....why all the nice words about Cranky? How did he get on your good side? Grant it, he gave me a little smack down but do you have to stroke his ego so much? He got so cocky after winning the sexiest man alive award, and now this...when does it ever stop?
I can retire now. Since I'll never win the Stockholm prize, being considered both sexy man alive and rational/lucid on this point is likely the pinnacle of my career. That being said, neither honor suggests particularly strong judgment by this group.
I agree with your assessment Cranks. Quite frankly, I thought you had a much better chance at winning the Stockholm prize over the sexiest man alive or even the Smartest person in the Universe award. I mean, really.
A nice commentary from Stanley Fish - http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/henry-louis-gates-deja-vu-all-over-again/?ref=opinion&8ty&emc=ty
Nice discussion everyone.
Scoob pointed out earlier that the 911 caller had been vilified as a racist on some blogs. The authorities have just released the tape of her 911 call...turns out she never identified either suspect as Black, and in fact never even mentioned their race/ethnicity until asked about it by the dispatcher.
Scoob asked my opinion on this a while back, but I really didn't have one. I never felt like I knew enough about what had happened to comment.
Now that I know more, I still feel like I don't know enough to comment. I wish the President hadn't used the word "stupidly" but I am glad he took the time to clarify his statement at a later date.
I can't believe that Professor Gates was on CNN so soon after the incident, which seemed very self-serving to me.
I ran across this article today, which I think is very interesting and well-written: http://www.twincities.com.
I also found this debate interesting (from last week's George Stephanopoulos show).
I suppose my overall thought is that if this incident increases discussion about race relations in the U.S., that's a good thing. Otherwise it seems to be a case of people acting badly and the media jumping on it to make it a bigger deal than it really is.
Post a Comment