A series of unfortunate events occurred in the United States in the last couple of weeks: a jammed door, an emergency call, a huge misunderstanding, an accusation, an arrest, and some really terrible statements to the press.
I am referring, of course, to the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis “Skip” Gates, Jr. last month in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Gates, arriving home from China, found his door jammed. He and a friend had to use their shoulders to force their way into the house.
A 911 emergency call followed. The woman who called told police that she could not see if they had a key, but two men used force to enter the house and had suitcases.
Sgt. Crowley was the first to arrive on the scene. When he arrived, he asked Gates to show identification proving that he was the resident of 17 Ware Street.
This is the most questionable bit: the argument. Sometime in the course of events, Gates accused Sgt. Crowley of racial profiling. Gates had his say loudly enough for Crowley to charge Gates with disorderly conduct.
The charges were dropped the following week.
But the story is not that simple.
Of course, a reporter asked President Obama about the situation. Obama answered too quickly and without all the facts. Obama accused the Cambridge police of “acting stupidly”.
His remarks are not wholly without merit. The history of race and police work in the United States is grim. Racial profiling is still a widely-practiced policy, even if not written in the books.
However, Sgt. Crowley teaches a class on avoiding racial profiling and how to deal with sticky race situations. He would, theoretically, be the person in the department least likely to accuse someone based on race or ethnic background.
On the other hand, ‘Skip’ Gates, who I have met, is an intelligent and widely respected Harvard professor. I doubt he would have accused a police officer of racial profiling without a good reason.
President Obama later amended his statements, but did not retract the previous comments. He stated that Crowley and Gates both “overreacted” and that “cooler heads should have prevailed”.
That sounds more reasonable. That is the statement he should have given at the beginning.
To smooth things over, Obama invited both men to have beer with him and Vice-President Biden in the White House. I think this was an attempt to bring closure to the news outbreak. With Obama pushing his health care agenda, this story about Gates only serves as a temporary distraction. The media focused on the Cambridge row and not on Congressmen trying to filibuster the health care bill.
Still, taking the “beer summit” as a serious discussion on race, at least everyone is headed in the right direction. Regardless of its significance against Obama’s economic challenges, the matter of racial profiling demands our attention.
The place to begin with changing race relations is dialogue. Even the end of slavery began with heated discussions drawn out over several years.
Interestingly, Crowley and Gates are making plans for lunch. I suspect they will find a few cameras watching them.
An excellent post…
( even if the ‘beer summit’ is something straight out of an episode of ‘The West Wing’ !! )
Stephanie
“That is the statement he should have given at the beginning.”
No, as President of the USA he should not have made any statement. If he wants to eradicate racism, get another job.
This will not go down as one of President Obama’s finest moments. Enough people saw past his colour to elect him, why can’t he do the same? He went off the deep end without having the full facts.
I am slightly annoyed that he didn’t invite the female caller to join the blokes for a beer.
I’d comment on this matter, but I feel I’d be violating the 1783 agreement to do so, as it is not at all in our British interest. However, I must move to condemn racist acts committed by British policemen.
There was a similar media debate in the UK a few years back when someone made a remark to the effect that black males were more likely to be the perpetrators of muggings so it was understandable that they were stopped more often.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/mugging-criminal-or-political-offence-1594666.html
Of course, this raises many points, not least of which is why black youths are so disproportionately involved in crime. Well, they may not be when ALL crime is considered. But they may be stopped more due to their greater involvement in ‘street crime’.
But surely the point is that people like Diane Abbott and Bernie Grant, however well meaning, shouldn’t gloss over the issue and ask what the underlying cause is. Education system transmitting low expectations ? The general breakdown of ‘nuclear families’ both white and black. A culture of complacency ?
Liberal education tolerating the behaviour found in ‘urban’ youths, black and white, more than in the rural shires and suburbs ?
Media portrayals glamorising violence and the ‘gangsta rap’ culture ? Of course, in some of our bigger cities, the most totally disenfranchised youths are white working class boys, who benefit from none of the ‘politically correct’ field-levellers, but have access to the crappiest comprehensive education system known to man and therefore are more likely to be ill-educated racists who turn to crime.
The fact that bringing back grammar schools might rescue some of these individuals from a life of crime is, sadly, lost on the Tory party who are all for state education, just as long as their kids aren’t infected by it.
However, at least Michael Gove understands the increased expectations which African American school-children can have access to through programmes which take place after school and on Saturday mornings or in the summer vacation.
If you expect children to be lazy, criminal, nasty good-for-nothings, a self-fulfilling prophecy is sure to follow. I sure would not have been able to use ‘class’ as an excuse for not doing my homework or behaving badly when I was at school – and it shouldn’t be allowed now, so long as poverty, deprivation and social division can be reduced.
I want to make it clear that I am not saying everything I might say. That is always true but here being damned by failure to state one or more of the many things one might say is almost a certainty. For those who are not Americans I want to add something to the discussion which his Lordship may not be aware of unless he wathes primetime American television a great deal:
1.While not in the class of failed presidential candidates, famous musicians and successful athletes Gates is a celebrity. He is a huge celebrity by the standards of history professors in this country being more known by face than all but ten or so at the very utmost. He has been interviewed and has interviewed extremely famous African Americans about their ancestry on televison shows in good programming slots. He has been in the news.
2.The police in most places know where famous people live. I repeat this is true even in a town of names like Cambridge, Massachussettes when one is a s famous as Gates.
3.In our law more and more one has a standard of “knew or should have known” and although there is no privilege or right for celebrities to be treated differently it is odd that the police did not know what the owner of that home looked like.
I will not jump to all of the vastly tempting conclusions if one accepts these premises as valid. But this colors the whole event’s perception. It is quite challenging to accept that two total strangers who should not have been especially aware of one another were interacting. Is it possible?
It is absolutely possible. But it is also true that neither the international nor national press want to discuss the fact that if this really is a legitimate news account there was a failure of celebrity profiling which is quite distinct from our typical expectations of what goes on in this paragon of democratic equality.
I guess the door was made of wood because it took tree fellas to fix the problem. Question is, did they take a plane to do it?
Useful article from the Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/05/harlem-poverty-children-schools
FWS – I don’t have a telly at all, so I’m not really one to ask about how famous this chap is. He certainly sounds a bit pompous. But in this country [UK] class is the real killer in prejudice, not race. Even if one changed a skin colour, there is still a huge amount of prejudice based on where one grew up, went to school and accent.
Well, to be honest, that is possibly more specifically true of England than the rest of the UK. But the police are in an invidious position. If they ‘stop and search’ more black kids they are racist.
But until the level of crime is level across the piece, not doing so will penalise people who live in the neighbourhood of criminals which in many cases will penalise ethnic minority victims.
Ladytizzy:
President Obama was asked about the episode. Since he did choose to answer the question, I would have liked to see a more diplomatic response from him from the very beginning. He did not choose to say “no comment”, he chose to answer. Professor Gates is also a friend of Obama. Naturally, it would be right for a friend to help another friend. A response from him is not a shock here.
Bedd Gelert:
All instances of racial statistics provide insight into an ongoing problem. We all need to study the causes and effects of things like education systems and racial profiling. I, like many others, am doing my best to be part of the solution. Thank you for your input.
Also, Professor Gates is extremely well-known, especially among those in the academic fields. He is something of an academic celebrity. He was returning from China, where he was filming a documentary for PBS.
Frank Wynerth Summer:
Thank you for your input. I did know the things you mentioned, as I have met Professor Gates previously. These are, as you say, nuances that help explain the incident, but they are not necessarily hard facts. I did, in my post, point out the importance of Gates, and I would have hoped this served to impress his importance on the reader. In my post I attempted to keep to the basics, using only solid information with credible sources.