The incident reminds me of a case near my home in Georgetown a while back. After a robbery and murder, a senior police officer advised residents to be alert to black men in the area--his point being that very few live there, so their mere presence should arouse suspicion. The comments attracted wide attention and caused an outcry.
For the police (or anybody else) to be suspicious of somebody on grounds of race alone is unjust and unacceptable, and it is surely plain bad policing too. I don't doubt that it happens all the time, and the anger of many black Americans over this seems entirely justified. I do find myself wondering, though, whether the Gates case really fits the same pattern, and whether Obama was right to react as he did.
Certainly the outcome was absurd. To cart Gates off in handcuffs for disorderly conduct after he was confronted in error in his own home is preposterous. But everybody, including Gates, is just taking it for granted that this could only have happened to a black man. Based on my admittedly limited encounters with the police, I find it easy to imagine them doing exactly the same thing to a white man.
Conforming to the pattern of learned brainlessness which seems pervasive through many US bureaucracies, public and private, the police seem obsessively preoccupied with "following procedure". If a person, black or white, becomes angry and unruly when being interviewed by an officer, I can well believe that the procedures call for handcuffs and detention. Whether the procedures cause crazy outcomes is no concern of the officer on the spot. The training seems to induce limitless tolerance for absurdity. These are the procedures. The officer has no discretion. It is all by the book.
This is the same mindset that has TSA officers dismantling the wheelchairs of sweet old ladies to check for explosives. It is also the mindset, by the way, that has prisoners like Bernie Madoff, an old man who poses no physical threat, cuffed and shackled as he is moved to and fro. I don't know what the rules called for in the Gates case, or what actually happened. But if you ask me whether the same thing could have happened to a white man, my instinctive answer would be, "Sure, why not?".
In any event,
it was unwise of Obama to say the police acted stupidly--and to affirm
that race was a key factor--without knowing all the facts. You'd think
a lawyer would know better. On the other hand, of course, he and Gates
are friends, and Obama may have found it impossible to believe that
Gates could in any way have been in the wrong. Nonetheless, a milder
comment, deploring the outcome--which was bad on any analysis--but not
assigning blame so confidently, and not simply assuming that race was a
key factor in this instance, would have been more presidential.
Anyway, so much for post-racial America.
The president never said that race was a key factor, he only said the Cambridge police acted stupidly. His point about racial profiling was a separate point about what occurs in general, but not this specific case. He even made sure to say that racial profiling was something that we know "separate and apart from this incident."
You state that Obama "affirm[ed] that race was a key factor". I do not see that from the transcripts that I have seen. Obama starts his more specific comments by saying "Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that."
He then says "But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact."
I am not sure how you take away from his comments that he affirmed that race was a key factor in Gates' arrest.
I totally agree with your commentary. I think the reason that Obama reacted so unscripted was because he was acting as black man instead of The President or a lawyer. Remember that big poliitical question that supposedly broke some candidate because he didn't answer it from his gut? What would you do if your wife had been raped/beaten/killed? I think it pertained to the gun laws or death penalty or something. Well I think when it comes to race Obama or rather white America wants Obama to act as if his experiences don't count. You can't have it both ways. There is also this fear from white America that all black people secretly want them to die or become their slaves. So they get affeared when black people speak out forcefully. Black people really want fairness. And black or white, the arrest of Gates seems wrong. Unless you live in Iran or Iraq but not in America.
I thought Obama went out of his way to not give an opinion on the racial angle... of course you could say that just by mentioning it it brings it into the picture (just imagine if he's said it three times into a mirror)!
Your larger point I couldn't agree more with though. I had a friend hauled away for being drunk in a private home on his 20th birthday; the police told him they were bringing him to his own home. Turned out they were bringing him thirty miles away to the drunk tank (which he would then have to pay for of course). When my friend realized that the police had lied about where they were taking him, he became upset, cursing the officers--this netted him a disorderly conduct charge. My friend was white, although he was also quite poor.
No one has any reason to care about this story except to the extent that it happens all the time to people of all races. The police in this country are far too alienated from the people (I, mostly, blame the drug war for this although the way this country has chosen to police its roadways doesn't help). The militaristic, us-vs-them mentality is endemic, and far too often it leads to police getting out of control--even when the crime in question is nothing more than making it clear how little you like them.
"In any event, it was unwise of Obama to say the police acted stupidly--and to affirm that race was a key factor--without knowing all the facts."
The reality of race was a key factor in Gates' bad reaction to the police officer. That is all that Obama affirmed. Racist or not, it was STUPID of the cop to arrest a man in his own home for the non-crime of being a jerk to the officer. Contrary to what police often think (including the Cambridge union rep today), it is not an arrestable offense to be a jerk to a cop. Crowley had Gates' IDs and was certain he was the lawful occupant. At that point, even if Gates accused him of being in the KKK or anything else offensive, Crowley needed to get out of Gates' home. There was no physical threat to Crowley or anyone else. He arrested Gates for accusing him of being a racist or otherwise being rude. It was punishment for something that was not criminal.
I'm more optimistic than you that we're in a post-racial America. After all, you have a black congressional caucus, supporting a black president's statements in support of a tenured black professor, defended by a black tenured law professor, who screamed at a white cop with no serious consequence.
Where and when else can such a thing happened?
Also, are people really really suspicious of somebody on grounds of race alone or is that just a straw man? Crowley was suspicious of two men carrying backpacks who forced a door open (as Gates concedes).
68% of violent crime in New York is committed by black perpetrators and less than 5% by whites, as reported by victims who are overwhelmingly minority. So, necessarily, you will have a higher incidence of arrest for blacks but those disparate numbers cannot be attributed to race alone.
I should add that I'm in complete agreement that the procedures and mindset that led Crowley to arrest some old professor, no matter how obnoxious, is ludicrous. I admire the way Bobbies act (acted? its been a while) as if they're of the people instead of over the people.
Agreed. I think this could have happened to anyone. I also think that if the officer's account of what happened is accurate, it may have even been justified. An officer responding to a burglary call shouldn't just walk away if someone claims they're the homeowner (and produces a school ID that the officer doesn't have any immediate way to verify). Therefore, he did have to investigate, and if the homeowner grew abusive I can imagine that it may have been justified to arrest him.
On the other hand, if Gates' version is accurate, I can imagine the same thing happening to anyone. I have seen my fair share of police officers overstepping their authority. When I was a teenager, some cops thought my friends and I (all of us white) had broken into some houses (because we were walking down a public street in a neighborhood that had a spate of recent burglaries). We were cuffed, taken to the police station (without evidence or charges), and questioned for about 4 hours. I now know that what they did was illegal (and explains why they sucked up to our parents when they came to pick us up). Bad policing doesn't necessarily equate to racism, regardless of the race of the cop/victim.
Confused by your point (whatever that might be...)
The President said it was stupid for Gates to have been arrested (which it was, politics aside) and he acknowledged that race is still a problem in America (which it is...). He did not say the two were necessarily related because we do not know (and will probably never know) if it was...
But everybody, including Gates, is just taking it for granted that this could only have happened to a black man.
I think that this is probably true, for the simple reason that a white person would have calmly answered the officer's questions instead of launching into a tirade about how this is what happens when you're a white man in America.
didn't Gates threaten Crowley with a complaint real early on?
doesn't getting as a white policeman a complaint from an obviously well connected black man bode endless trouble?
if I put myself in the shoes of Mr. Crowley I can understand that he fell back on following procedure letter by letter (and wouldn't it have been gracious if Mr. Gates as a member of the smarter classes had been helpful by acting understanding with a possibly a bit confused policeman? - policeman by the way being a job which did not figure on Mr. Obama's recent list of jobs to be aspired to - and do not believe we with the jobs considered less desirable do not notice when only academics are listed)
and isn't handcuffing everybody helpful insofar as the handcuffs do not give any hint as to guilt? When a German newspaper shows a handcuffed person "we" automatically assume that "they" must have caught somebody especially evil which leads to a kind of Judging before the trial
In most circumstances police officers follow the book because the book has been stress tested by the department's attorneys to minimize both lawsuits and adverse consequences. The police officer may think that the application of the standard procedure is absurd, but by following the book the officer gets into the least trouble and can best defend his or her responses to the situation. It should be noted that the response was witnessed by other police officers and that if there had been any substantial deviation from the book this would have been noted.
One suspects that tiredness after a long trip and frustration with a sticking front door goes a long way towards explaining the interactions.
The way back machine can't go back far enough to find this law that was made more than 100 years before the United States came into existence.
According to a Massachusetts expert on this law, it is the "stupidest" law on the books.
Can't help but bolster the notion that while enforcing the stupidest law in the nation the cops behaved stupidly.
It is axiomatic isn't it?
Mr. Crook is right. What happened to Mr. Gates can happen to anyone who treats a police officer with the same level of disrespect as Gates did.
Had Gates treated me in the demeaning and humiliating manner that he treated those police officers I might very well have Tasered the SOB.
Those who claim the police profile blacks may be right. But it is equally likely that blacks profile the police with charges of racism. Identity politics, an enterprise Gates traffics in, has created an atmosphere in which blacks are pre-conditioned to believe that every encounter they have with the police is racist in nature. This attitude is alienating and leads to increased negative encounters with the police.
It is a viscous cycle.
I was hoping Obama would help put as end to that cycle but his comments at his last press conference is likely only to escalate it. Unfortunately it also demonstrates that Obama and Reverend Wright likely see eye-to-eye on race relations in America. What a shame.
What the Gates case illustrates is not racial prejudice, but abuse of power. The police forces in the U.S. are generally considered close to the worst among Western democracies when it comes to restraint in the use of force and in due respect for their employers, the tax-paying citizens. U.S. police are trained to demand submission at all times, even when clearly unjustified as in the Gates incident, and to arbitrarily apply the use of force, including deadly force, to achieve compliance for such demands of submission. This “philosophy” is no different from that used by the police in many dictatorships.
Even more troubling than the generally undemocratic and abusive mentality and attitudes of the U.S. police is their acceptance by a significant segment of this country’s population. This may be an indication of a heavy democratic deficit in U.S. culture. The U.S. population who accept as natural a dictatorial police force may be the same who support creationism and reject evolution, or who have decided to believe that Saddam Hussein ordered the 9/11 attacks. All these are traits that distinguish us from the rest of Western civilizations.
That said, I also believe that Mr. Obama should have gauged his words much more carefully. For a moment, he seemed to have forgotten that he is the President of the United States, a position that, ideally, should transcend race, gender, religion or socio-economic status at all times. The President should never act to induce anyone to question his full understanding of such a role.
The fact that this could happen to anybody should be great cause for alarm. As I have followed this debate over the course of the week the overarching argument, and it sounds plausible, is that it was not a racist incident because this is how the police treats 'everyone'.
Setting aside the issue of race, if law abiding citizens like yourself sincerely believe that this could happen to anyone - then the police have a much bigger problem on their hands. It's public relations that needs to be improved, not simply race relations...
Clive or anyone,
Where did the notion of "post-racial" America originate? To think that a superb intellect, charisma, great oratorical skills and a nuanced, yet approachable politician, who happens to be black was elected to be president of the United States, equals the idea that we as a country are post-racial is inane. It denies reality is nothing more than a cute pop phrase such as "the end of history" or "the post-American world."
Whoever came up with the term, and whatever their sophmoric definition may have been, [the end of racism in America?], are jerks. The same goes for anyone who keeps repeating the whimsey that something is over that never began, or even existed.
What's up with you morons, anyway?
The most sensible comment on this I've seen. Thanks.
It seems to me that you end on a negative note. As if you were not looking for a post-racial America. That you are glad, in fact, it still exists (race) and it was the president himself that reminded us. At least it was not a white man, you seem to say. True? Does that make the white man more superior? Land mine territory. Stay off it.
I still say it's more about class than race. Townie cop gets to stick it to arrogant Harvard prof.