Monday, July 27, 2009
GADFLY: The Question is Race
Posted by Marty Aussenberg on Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:16 AM
Well, guess what? Racism (or at least accusations of it) is back in the news, both locally and nationally. Our mayor trotted out that old saw, for the Nth time, because he was pissed off at City Council for actually taking him at his word about “retiring” on July 30th, and passing a resolution declaring the office vacant as of July 31st. The gall of them! Obviously, there's no other explanation for that than racism. Oh, and he embellished the accusation, this time, by adding the charge that the Council's action was “perverted.” Who knew that part of the resolution declaring a vacancy in the office apparently was language praising child pornography?
On the national scene, there have been two prominent incidents: the first was the exclusion of a group of black children from an apparently “whites only” swim club in suburban Philadelphia, and the second was when our President entered the fray over the arrest of prominent African American scholar Henry Louis Gates by suggesting this was another example of racial profiling. Imagine—-an African American male suggesting that law enforcement officials occasionally target people of color for “special” treatment. How dare he! It couldn't possibly be because there's hardly a black person who's lived long enough who hasn't been harassed for the “crime” of being black, could it? But the corporate media, looking for a controversy about this president, when the only other thing on their radar screens was the “birther” goofiness, jumped on Obama's remarks as if he were channeling Jeremiah Wright.
I've been privileged to become friends with a number of African Americans in the last few years as a result of my membership in a predominantly (well, except for me, exclusively) black social organization made up of doctors, lawyers and other professionals. It's been an enlightening experience to have the shoe be on the other foot, as my black friends have (playfully, I think) referred to me as the “white boy,” or the “slave master,” among other things. Nonetheless, I've come to the realization from being around these guys that it is virtually impossible to be a black person in this country, regardless of status or stature, and not have experiences where the color of your skin has been criminalized by law enforcement authorities. “Driving while black,” has become almost a cliché, but, as with most clichés, it has a reality-based origin.
It's a sad fact that our Mayor's ubiquitous hurling of the racist accusation has had the effect of inuring us to instances where the charge may actually be meritorious, like the incident in Philadelphia, not unlike the way the villagers in the Aesop fable stopped believing the boy who kept crying “wolf.”
I am the last person to scoff at charges of bigotry or intolerance, being the child of Holocaust survivors, and having had personal experience with anti-Semitism. But, I also have enough life experience to know that just because you are a member of a group that has been historically discriminated against doesn't mean that everything bad that happens to you is the result of discrimination.
I also know that just because a black person cries “racism” every time something bad happens to them doesn't mean it isn't the result of discrimination. The saying is, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean everyone isn't out to get you. Eventually, even the boy who cried wolf was right, even if, by that point, he couldn't get anyone to believe him.
There are lessons to be learned in these episodes. For Obama, it's that discussing issues of race may not always be accepted with open arms, even coming from him. Oh sure, everyone admired his confrontation of race in that memorable campaign speech in Philadelphia. But that was as much because it put distance between himself and someone many white folks saw as a virulent black racist as because it spoke to broader issues of race.
We “palefaces” liked that speech because it made us feel Obama had common cause with us in decrying the kind of racism we're not used to, the kind that threatens us. But identifying with a prominent black scholar because he may have been the victim of the kind of racism we would prefer to believe is mostly anecdotal? Unh-unh; that was a bridge too far. But the fact is, Obama's foray into racial profiling may end up having the salutary effect of making us (black and white) realize that we may not have made as much progress towards becoming “post-racial” as the pundits would have us believe.
The lessons in the Herenton episode are harder to glean, if only because his accusations of discrimination have become so indiscriminate. After all, our mayor has enjoyed a record-breaking tenure in his office in no small part because whites, as well as blacks, have repeatedly re-elected him, and because he has been the beneficiary of the white power structure's largesse.
Nonetheless, the lesson in Herenton's incessant invocation of the “race card,” especially in juxtaposition with the incident at the Philadelphia swim club, may be that racism is still alive and well in this country, even if the carriers of that message may see that wolf at the door all too often.
Comments (36)
Showing 1-36 of 36
While most of what you say is undeniable, Gates was not arrested for "profiling" reasons. He was arrested because he could not control his mouth or his temper. Not having been there I'm sure people will jump on me for saying this. I have read all of the reports and have experienced this situation more times than I can count (through work people, not by being arrested). For some reason people of all racial make ups find it necessary to yell and scream at the police. I have yet to figure out why, especially since they carry guns and handcuffs. The simple fact is that Mr. Gates, by all accounts, was rude, loud, disruptive, and disorderly. Maybe if he had shown some restraint in his words and actions, this would not have happened.
Herenton on the other hand does this stuff intentionally. He constantly uses the race card to attempt to silence his critics or to duck out of answering to his actions. He is a vile person that perpetrates racial division for personal gain. The worst part of this is that Herenton has continued to do this, but then basically spits on those that provide him his support. He pockets profits and promotes unqualified cronies to positions of power and high pay, all while the masses that he riles up with his divisiveness are still left in squalor and poverty. He is the most despicable of political types.
like
dislike
"He was arrested because he could not control his mouth or his temper." So this is cause to be arrested in this country? And, based on what I have read and seen on TV, it's the policemen's (who stick together no matter what) word against Mr. Gates. But as you said above, you've not had this experience other than through those who you work with who have not been arrested. Curious, why weren't they arrested?
Probably the only salient point that anyone can make about the arrest of Dr. Gates would be 'I wasn't there'.
You misunderstood my statement. Because of the nature and location of my work, I have been witness to people of all types (black and white, rich and poor) be rude and just downright nasty to the police that they called for assistance, and they themselves wind up arrested. Not that I have ever been arrested as I have learned a very valuable lesson by watching others being led away.
Now I am not naive and do believe that there are plenty of cases in which the police either instigate, over react, or just plain out have a bad attitude towards people of different ethnicity. Just look at the Oklahoma trooper that assaulted the paramedic for no apparent reason. In the case mentioned above, and everything that has come out from it, I simply believe the police version, this time.
please remind me never to look to mad_merc to have my back when my civil rights are challenged by jack-booted thugs.
it is absolutely wrong for any police officer to abuse their authority by arresting a person on their own curtilage unless they've been involved in a crime.
Do your rights extend to threatening police even if they are on your property? I am asking just how far can one go before your rights over step the bounds of disorderly conduct? I am not a lawyer or a cop so I don't know.I personally try to be nice to people, especially if they're there to help or simply perform their job.
According to the law, threatening, or disrupting a officer in the line of duty is considered a punishable offense.
I dont know how it would come into play in this instance as I do not know the situation well enough to comment. However, working in the criminal justice field that is the law.
Overall I think the article points out how far we have to go, especially in this city.
Allow me to suggest that there are times when resistance to authority can be a matter of dignity, self-worth, and sometimes even of survival.
The Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto are the best example of that, and though I hasten to say I am NOT drawing an analogy here, painfully aware of the overuse of comparisons to Hitler and Nazism as I am, there are, nevertheless, parallels.
Professor Gates represented the culmination of hundreds of years of the oppression of members of his race by the jack-booted thugs of the white power structure. Under the circumstances, the LAST thing he should have been expected to do was to turn into Steppin Fetchit, and say to someone he saw as another Bull Connor, "yassuh, massah, whatever you says, 'cause I be's a good n____."
The Gates thing seems to me a case of bad timing all around. The Herenton race-baiting of recent weeks is premeditated, although in the case of our delusional (soon-to-be-former?) mayor, his gibberish seems more reminiscent of King Lear on the moor. Fine column, gaddy, fine essay.
Rude, loud, disruptive, and disorderly is not a crime in your own home, even if the police are there. But from what I've read, Gates took offense to the officer's assumptions and wanted the officer's badge number. The officer refused to provide it, although he is obliged to provide such information upon request, even if the request is made in a hostile tone of voice. All he had to do was give his badge number and the whole thing would have been over and done with.
To follow up on what Holly says, threatening a police officer with physical violence is against the law. Threatening to report the officer or threatening to get the officer fired is not against the law. Disrupting the officer in the line of duty is against the law, but once it was established that Gates was the homeowner, Gates was no longer disrupting the officer in the line of duty. Obviously the court saw it this way, too.
The problem we have here is that police feel far too free to arrest people for being anything less than being utterly submissive. If you stand up for your rights against a beligerent cop who doesn't understand the law or his proper role as an officer of the law, you get arrested, and then after you've spent a few hundred to a few thousand dollars on bail and lawyers and missed work, plus the pain and trauma of being arrested in the first place, the court throws out the arrest. Therein lies the problem, because when the court throws out a frivolous arrest, the arresting officer suffers no consequences. They just go on about their business, and good luck suing the police department for false imprisonment.
We need some kind of law , maybe a three-strikes law, wherein any officer who has three arrests dismissed by a judge during pretrial should be suspended without pay and have to go through training, and officers who show a history of frivolous arrests should lose their job.
Being a cop is a hard job. I understand that. But it is supposed to be hard. A free society is built upon two things - a fair and impartial justice system and a police force worthy of our respect and trust. I respect police officers who are doing their job, but their power over me ends where my civil rights begin, and they should understand that. Unfortunately, some of them don't, and when they abuse their power and lose the public trust, as they have historically done within the black community (which is the point of Gadfly's editorial and the president's comment) they make it that much harder for their fellow officers to do their job.
I guess in a way Gates was lucky. They didn't taze him.
The police have no alternative than to take control of each and every situation they encounter. And if someone doesn't let them, this is what happens. Mr. Gates should have been compliant, checked his attitude, and all this wouldn't have happened. He didn't have to turn into to "Steppin Fetchit" to be compliant. And acting like there is nothing in between is ridiculous. Gates saw a wonderful opportunity to try and make a statement and he pounced on it.
"The officer refused to provide it, although he is obliged to provide such information upon request, even if the request is made in a hostile tone of voice. All he had to do was give his badge number and the whole thing would have been over and done "
Simply put.... nope.
None of that is correct
Gad, I wasn't implying that he should be "step-n-fetchit" or anything of the sort. Being cordial or civil does not have to emasculate anyone. I agree that this is something that needs to discussed openly and frankly so as to overcome it. At the same time I don't believe characterizing Mr Gates as downtrodden victim and the cop as a jack-booted thug is very fair in this situation. The only two people that truly know what happened are Gates and Crowley, and I am pretty sure that each one's perspective is completely different.
Either way, it was a very good article and an informative discussion.
Wait a minute. How in the world did the arresting officer become a stand-in for Bull Connor?
If it is only because Gates is black, and therefore "[represents] the culmination of hundreds of years of the oppression of members of his race by the jack-booted thugs of the white power structure," then you've got a pretty good argument for segregating the police forces right there. Under those circumstances, no white officer can arrest any black person without invoking slavery and white sheets. I just don't buy it.
If this incident is somehow representative of the relationship between whites and blacks in this country, it is only because we are making it so. Based on the available facts, this could have happened to absolutely anyone.
Yikes... all of this bickering because a professor wouldn't show some ID to a police officer?
I found Mr. Aussenberg's article to be thought provoking and the message poignant, though I find his examples to be lacking. I'll offer this summation: racism is still a problem from time to time in the US, but rarely is it correctly identified or addressed, and that is, perhaps, a bigger problem in itself.
"as with most clichés, it has a reality-based origin. " lol. contradiction. I love it.
Gates is an egomaniac. He brought all of the trouble upon himself. Instead of remaining calm and explaining the misunderstanding, he chose to go berserk.
I am glad to see the backlash against him. I think it signals that America is getting weary of those who scream racism everytime they don't get their way.
Auto is right, it could happen to anyone. Another big problem is driving while young. Not as problematic as driving while black, but certainly young drivers are harrassed. I was, when I was a teenager. The standard reason for pulling you over was "There have been reports of vandalism in the neighborhood." Then they'd want to search your car for, I don't know, spray paint or something. I knew a kid once who was pulled over for the crime of helping his sister move - his truck was full of furniture, therefore he must have been a burglar.
Politely deferring to this sort of unconstitional behavior on the behalf of the police has not A) reduced the amount of unconstitutional behavior of the police; or b) reduced crime by giving police greater latitude and powers than they should have. Giving them more power and submitting ever more willingly to anything they order us to do isn't going to improve things, unless you like living in a police state. I hear Singapore is lovely this time of year.
Gates' arrest and Marty's editorial are not an argument for segregation. If the arrest was only because Gates is black, it's an argument against granting police the power to arbitrarily arrest people because they are black. Or argumentative. Or uncooperative.
Zippy, the police do not have an obligation to take control of a situation unless the situation is out of control or about to go out of control with violent consequences.
If the only way the police will feel safe from danger is to walk all over our civil rights, then they need to find a new, safe job. Being a soldier is dangerous, too, but that doesn't give soldiers the right to shoot anybody and anything they perceive as possibly constituting a future threat at some point. Being a police officer is a dangerous job. We should pay them well to compensate them for the danger they face, and them hold them to the highest, strictest constitutional standard of police behavior. Maybe if we did that, we'd get better cops and less crime.
Jeff, you are wrong. Police have to assert authority in all most all cases. And the quicker they do that the better. None of us were at the house. But the cop has a lot to think about. a) do you actually live here b) is there any reason you shouldn't be here anyway (restraining order for instance) c) is there anyone in this house that could be coercing you? d) etc. etc. etc. So when Gates starts going off on the police officer I think his arrest was probably appropriate, especially since they didn't "rough him up" or anything like that. I am sure the officer could have handled it better from the start. But officers can have a lot more to consider than monday morning quarterbacks.
Actually zippy, Gates had already proven to the officer he was the legal resident of the house and had asked (or told, doesn't matter which) the officer to leave his property. It wasn't like he busted in and arrested Gates by accident. He knew who he Gates was. The possibility of a criminal situation was resolved. He arrested Gates for being pissed about having to prove he owned his own house. I think this is where the profiling came in. I wasn't there, so I don't know for sure, but if he had looked like a white professor, I doubt he'd have had to show his papers. I've had cops ask me, "Do you live here?" before, and yes, once in a stressful situation (there was an burglar alarm), but never was I asked to prove it. My word was good enough for the cop.
I think the final argument about this situation is that the charges against Gates were dropped. The officer clearly, according to whatever superior dropped the charges, exceeded his authority and his responsibility.
I don't know how many ways you can say it, but being an asshole is not illegal, and being an asshole does not mean you deserve to be illegally arrested. Of course, plenty of people get tazed AND arrested for doing what Gates did. But that doesn't make it right.
38103, being an asshole is not illegal (It is quite clear Gates is an egomanical asshole), but disorderly conduct certainly is illegal.
You can try all you want to make it a racial issue, but it never was, and most of America knows it. The whole incident only hurts the chances of REAL racist incidents being taken seriously.
I still disagree with you Jeff. I do believe that the incident was instigated by Gates. Why would he back down so quickly? Why would he go silent so easily? Speculation? Sure. But it sure adds a great deal of credibility to the police side of this matter. I do hear what you're saying about illegal search and seizure. I honestly don't know how often it happens. I do know from being pulled over waaayyyyy too many times for speeding, that I have never been hassled by any cop of any color. But then again, I don't give them any reason to do so either. I don't kowtow or lick their boots, I simply remain cordial and polite. I do agree that there are bad cops out there. And that those bad cops do bad things to innocent people. This incident, however, was not one of those. Nor is it some indication of our society balancing precariously on the precipice of falling into a police state.
The charge of disorderly conduct, as anyone who's ever been arrested at a peaceful demonstration can tell you, is a common police tactic designed, frequently, to divert attention, or shift the blame, from police misconduct. In this instance, it is a telltale that the officer's conduct was inappropriately provocative.
The fact that the charge was dismissed could be because the Cambridge PD decided to take the path of least resistance in dealing with the controversy or, what is more likely, because they were advised by a prosecutor that the charge would never stick. The dismissal of the DO charge is, I suggest, the most damning fact in this entire story.
There are several facts available about this incident which can be easily corroborated by public records, audio tapes, etc.
Previous burglary at that address, and others in the area, put out by neighborhood watch.
Neighbor calls 911, never mentioning the race of the 2 gentlemen. Neighbor meets police personally.
Police (white and hispanic officers) at the burglary in progress situation see only 1 man, who at first refuses to provide ID, and is very agitated. That person finally produces an employee ID with no address.
Police follow SOP for such situations (and could have been derelict if they didn't) and attempt to entice the agitated individual outside to a safe place so they can tell if his agitation is possibly due to the reported burglar/s still being inside... they opt to do that by the standard tactic of holding the ID and walking to the door... and the person follows them outside, exactly as planned.
While the person is being drawn outside to a safer place, he demands and receives the officer's name and badge number, then demands that the uniformed officer stop and produce his ID card (which under the law, the officer is *not* obligated to produce 'on request', if that might be unsafe).
Once outside, and determining that there was no burglary, the police arrest Dr. Gates for allegedly being the person heard on the audio tape yelling and such... now outside in view of the public. ('In view' makes it a disturbance, even on one's own property).
Now reasonable people can draw differing conclusions from these facts...
Mine is that everything listed before the arrest that was done by the police, fell well within established policies, and had they acted otherwise, and it had in fact been a burglary-hostage situation, they would have been to blame for leaving just because someone yelled at them to leave.
My *opinion* is (unless other facts come to light) that the arrest itself was a 'payback' result of the police being angry, and should not have not occured.
And my question is...
How sick and twisted do people have to be to deliberately use this incident as an opportunity to spread media gossip, and inflame racial hatred with disinformation and outright lies?
Just have to point this out. A lot has been made about whether or not the caller described the race of the men entering the residence. What the hell does that matter? Every time I call the fuzz they ask me "white or black?" Don't you think it is a reasonable request? Seeing how the police might want to no what a potential suspect looks like. Gadfly must be a cheap swindling dude. Since all cliches have a basis in reality.
I read this afternoon that it was the DA who dropped the charges. As Zippy says, charges get dropped all the time - when there isn't a case. The fact that the DA dropped the charges is, as Gadfly says, the most pertinent fact of this case. Tseneau's description sounds like perfectly reasonable police conduct. Why then did the DA drop the charges? To avoid the hassle? Wow, that worked so well, didn't it? I'm not sure DAs are in the habit of making their cops look like bullying idiots by dropping the charges on solid cases.
Anyway, I may be wrong, but I believe the charges were dropped before this became a national scandal.
Nobody is suggesting cops should leave just because somebody yells at them. That's a dishonest argument. The facts are, even in this description, that Gates' identity was established before the arrest. Standing on your porch yelling at cops still doesn't meet the requirements of disorderly conduct because no one was in danger, no traffic was being disrupted, and one man yelling clearly isn't a violation of a noise ordinance. How do I know it doesn't meet the standard. Because the charges were dropped. All the cops had to do was say Have a nice day and drive away.
Merc, there is no precipice of a police state. Barring a violent revolution or coup, a police state is built upon small incidents, a gradual increase in police power and a gradual decrease in civil liberties. We have been seeing this happen since the War on Drugs, and it only got worse with the War on Terror. Drawing attention to even the mildest abuses of power is how we turn it around, because the vast majority of people would be perfectly happy living in a police state - until the day the police are turned on them. But by then, it's too late. You have to be loud while you can still be loud, or one day you'll be arrested for yelling.
Oops!
No, it isn't a contest, and no score needed.
I've spent a lot of time working on police abuse, and I find that the more accurate one's information is about the legalities, policies, and realities, the better.
Don't forget, there actually are people out there who will try anything, even spouting some street corner lawyerese in order to get away with something, up to and including hurting the emergency services personnel.
Cops in turn develop strategies to stay within the letter of the policies, anticipate perceived threats and problems, and generally cover themselves against all sides... crooks, the media, civilians, bosses, and even other cops.
And that 'back and forth' is one place where the potential for abuse creeps in.
One cop's 'For your safety as well as my own' can be the next cop's 'Here is where I teach you to respect my au-thor-it-tie...'.
mad_merc,
I have been arrested several times for disorderly conduct, had the charges dismissed the next morning and been told if I argued about it I'd be arrested for contempt.
In each case, I was well aware that the police would arrest me but CHOSE not to roll over for the police state. Yeah, the night in 201 is never pleasant, but I refuse to acquiesce to jack-bootery.
If a police officer enters my property, he should immediately identify him(her)self and give good reason for their presence--like hot pursuit of a criminal. Otherwise, they should show me a warrant or have a damn good explanation for trespassing.
If I'm not committing a crime that they can observe, they're not in pursuit of a criminal and they don't have a warrant, I am perfectly within my rights to tell them to leave MY property and they should do so immediately.
I am only obligated to show ID when driving. Otherwise the police have to have "reasonable suspicion" that I am involved in a crime, in which case they'd better explain to my satisfaction exactly what that suspicion is.
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"
Tseneau 2, Jeff 0, Sbanbury DQ'd for using jack-bootery and trying to come off as some sort of folk hero.
I am tempted to ask, but just won't do it.
Let's just say we have different approaches to dealing with the police, or else you're just a magnet for bad cops. I don't know. Quite honestly I am much more worried about what was passed in the (un)Patriot Act, than getting arrested to try and prove that the cops are jack-boot thugs. I personally have 201ophobia.
@Sbanbury
There are no such things as unlimited rights, and any discussion of 'it's the law' needs to deal with reasonableness before trying to enter the world of reality.
If you really think that the police always have to immediately stop whatever they are doing and comply with demands for ID and so forth, you are oversimplifying.
And if you want to learn how to yell at cops without getting arrested,(and make a real difference), get in touch with my former colleague Diop Kamau, and ride along with him for a while.
38103, I ain't tryin' to be any kinda "folk hero", just a good American.
mad_merc, I'm also concerned about the unpatriot act and in particular any attempts to create universal/national IDs. Police have no right to ask for one unless there's a reasonable cause to believe a crime's been/being committed.
Tseneau, I've done ride-arounds and several friends are officers--not all abuse authority but some do and do so disproportionately when handling those who they have profiled as powerless.
Great Post! I love it when people react and bring even more great points to the already great article. Keep it up Marty.
THIS WEEK'S ISSUE
SPECIAL ISSUES
