CRASH!That's my take on last weeks arrest in Cambridge of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.
This was a Crash of epic proportions. But unlike the Titanic, when we knew the factors and markers (Iceberg, Large Ship Steaming Too Fast) this Crash was not what most people expected.
What was expected was the all to quick jumping on the bandwagon that took place. Most people immediately got sucked into the comfortable Left-Right paradigm. Liberals immediately claimed of "Racial Profiling" and conservatives jumped right to "Stop Playing the Race Card - That Doesn't Happen Anymore."As usual, both extremes were very, very wrong. And as usual, the truth lied somewhere in the middle. In the movie CRASH. There is a heart wrenching scene where a fairly wealthy African American is stopped by a clearly racist caricature of a cop. The cop, played by Matt Dillon, has clear hostility toward blacks and we know this because we hear stories about how his dad lost a job to a black person due to affirmative action. Most times, we are not lucky enough to get into some one's head, but that's the beauty of movies - they give it right too us. Sad part about the Gates saga is that after about a day - we DID have the answers right in front of us. In the movie, the police officer clearly abuses his power, pulls over the well dressed black man because he is black and proceeds to insult and physically/sexually harass his wife. Its horrible, it black and white, and we get it. But that is NOT what happened here. Not even close.
What began to emerge after reading the police reports and watching the interviews with officer Crowley, was a story that had a touch of racial bias - MAYBE - and a ton of overreacting to police presence, attitude, and procedure. Lets start with the bias first. To be fair, who knows if the elderly woman who pointed out to her neighbor that the break-in was occurring would have done so had the occupant (Gates) been white? Who knows if she would have known him better had he been white. What we do know by listening to the tapes and matching them with the reports is that Professor Gates seemed to be upset at the very presence of the Police and not really by anything they did or said. It would appear that because they did not leave when he said it was his house, that he truly believed being black was the reason. That's the baggage. It is baggage that I don't have and its the baggage that I can only imagine.
But here's what I do know - when I was younger I used to resent being stopped by the Police. Of course I always thought I was right and was always innocent of any traffic violation the police may have thought they saw or invented. I grew up with many kids who were schoolyard bullies-turned-guys with a badge and a gun and really resented that. But after I got more experience with the Law and what police have the right and ability to do - to ANYONE - things changed. From that moment on, if I am stopped, BOTH my hands go to the 10 o'clock position on the steering wheel, in plain sight, and I don't move a muscle until the police tell me too. And I have never really had anything bad done to me, I just don't like the absolute power police have and I'll be damned if I'll "give them a reason."
Now I brought up the scene from the movie "Crash" because most likely, the character in the scene who was stopped knows full well what the police have the power to do and probably did do all the time in his community. Professor Gates is knowledgeable enough to know all of that as well. So why would he act more like an impetuous 18 year old then a mature, responsible Harvard Professor who, without any real provocation, could put up with a little police machismo and procedure and not blame it all on race so quickly. The answer to that can only be one thing - baggage - and the probability that Gates is a pompous Harvard professor who feels he is DUE a disproportionate amount of respect. (that's what an 18 year old would think anyway) He even specifically used the "do you know who I am" phrase. How many poor minority kids in the projects all over the country get to use that one (and mean it)? And how many actually say things like "this is because I'm black - give me your badge number" (and expect to either get BETTER treatment after that or expect NOT to eat some pavement.)
This is the real world where real police do real things. I know that and I am amused that Professor Gates did not. You DON'T MOUTH OFF TO POLICE - period. Black or white. Especially if you want to end things amicably. But to be fair, if I heard ONE thing, in Gates' accounts or on the tapes that made me think for a second the police did something overtly racist to deserve this, believe me I would be acknowledging it. But I didn't and I don't think its there.
But here's what's interesting. I will bet anyone any amount of money that had Gates been wearing a three piece suit and was clean shaven, things would have gone a little differently. And here is why. No one ever wants to talk about the class issue. In this case - and in many, many others - it trumps race. I was clearly not at the house, but based on the tapes and interviews, I am willing to bet the dialogue went something like this.
CP - (Loud knocks or bangs) Cambridge Police, identify yourself (no guns drawn I believe).
HLG - What - what are you doing here? This is my house (said like Eddie Murphy in Raw) now get out of here.
CP - We have a a report of a break-in, please come out on the porch and identify yourself.
HLG - I am Henry Lewis Gates Jr. a Harvard Professor and this is my house, please get out of here. (Please is not said in a nice way).
CP - For the last time sir, I am asking you to cooperate and follow me out of the house.
HLG - Why, because I'm black? If I were white, you wouldn't be asking me to leave my house. I'm not leaving and you can't make me - and you don't have a warrant.
Now I am going to stop there and give some analysis. But right after this point is where I believe things went really bad. Gates, not being a lawyer, didn't realize that because of the reported break in, the Police could come in. I believe they did and then all hell broke loose with Gates yelling.
As reported by officer Crowley, his only intention was to see who this guy was. But his worry was that 1) This guy may not be telling the truth (that's never happened before right) 2) If the report was correct, there may be other's in the house and GATES may be in danger. That is why he was asking him to come out on the porch and I BELIEVE HIM. IT MAKES SENSE. NOTHING THAT GATES SAYS DOES.
Now I want to depart from the story line to talk about three things related to police procedure.
1) In ALL cases if the police just said why they were doing something, even the short version, things would ALWAYS go better. But they never feel they need to. And because of that they often HEIGHTEN tensions instead of diffuse them. In this case, it was not clear to Gates why he should go out on the porch of his own house. In Gates' mind, history shows that coming out of the house is the beginning of the end for an accused black person - resulting in arrest or violence. And while that CAN be true , even in 2009 (my conservative friends would say that's crap) it probably wasn't going to be true outside a 3 million dollar home in Cambridge just outside of Harvard. So in that case - JUST DO WHAT THE POLICE ASK. How complicated is that? I wish they were always more polite and explained things more, but until that changes and until you put your life on the line every day like they do to understand why they do what they do - just do what they ask. I know that. Why does Professor Gates not? And please don't think that just because he is a College Professor he is an expert on in-the-trenches encounters like this.
2) From the sounds of the tapes, it does also not seem like the proper doubt about the situation being a robbery got communicated to the police on the scenes. The woman calling in was SO equivocal about whether this was a break-in or the owners returning from vacation. She actually said that last part. And why? Because she saw suitcases and wondered out loud to the police on the phone whether that might mean they were in fact the owners returning home. She even admitted that she was only calling because her elderly neighbor saw this happen. This was in man ways a second hand account. As for the bags, the officer on the phone responded with "what do you mean they had bags, what does that even mean, why is that important." Well it may have changed the opening line to "Cambridge Police, we got a call about a break-in, are you the owner sir?" Now why that did not happen is partly because of a problem I have with police procedure that can easily contribute and make worse even a small HINT of racial/class bias. I truly believe the above line is often the more conciliatory one delivered in places like WAYLAND and SUDBURY and especially if the person was clean-shaven, wearing an expensive watch and a three piece suit. But this is Cambridge, a fairly urban setting, and this guy looked like anyone, and he was "maybe Hispanic" according to the call.
Now I know that last part will ruffle some feathers. Some will say "Its just for identification". But I say that's crap. Any student of anti-Bias education knows that the more we label and the more we diminish the totality of identity, the more we spread bias. And who knows how someone processes that information. You plant the idea of Hispanic and you can't help but have preconceived notions enter you brain. Its human nature. That wouldn't stop if we used other terms, but it would at least let the person fill in the blanks. No need for us to help them out. These days what does that even mean for purposes of identification. Is he light skin or dark skinned. Is he tan or as black as night (the color). There are so many mixed marriages these days someone on the cream side could be about 5 different nationalities or of a million ethnic backgrounds. Let just agree to use distinguishing marks, clothes, and color pigmentation in shades - instead of what the office on the phone asked fro abruptly. "Is he white, Hispanic or black man" As if any of us really know. And clearly, she did not.
In talking to a friend, he said that using race in this case was no problem at all, it was that "easiest, most efficient way to communicate identity in that situation." I have already dispelled that myth above, but my point here is that YES, NOT using race is not as easy. We are programmed to do it from years of common practice. We don't even ask why when clearly another way would actually help us be MORE careful about what people look like and whether they were the perpetrator or not. Isn't a pink striped Izod and a receding hairline with, light brown skin a lot better then "I think he's Hispanic." The very question is both out of date and becoming more and more USELESS.
3) But here's the last part. Please listen to the 911 call . You'll get my point about what REALLY contributed to this situation.(http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/BO120131/) It was not race. It was the over-reaction of Gates spurred on by an attitude that police carry into EVERY situation. The Globe had an interesting story about this the other day. They took the one sided view that "suspicion" save lives. Not once did they ask police to be a little better in at least trying to identify situations where they do not need as much bravado. But that's the way police do things. In this same way, police look at every person - not like they are suspicious, but like they are scum. I'm sorry but that's what it feels like with EVERY interaction - and that needs to stop. If it is a strategy to put people on the defensive, then fine, but be more careful about how you use it. There are more good people out there then scumbags, and just because you see more scumbags on a daily basis does not mean you get to unload that baggage on everyone else. Yes, yes, just like my "who is really a terrorist" argument goes, one could ask how police can possibly separate the wheat from the chaffe, the good from the scum. Well I don't know exactly, but we won't know until they try. And why is this important? Did you LISTEN to the 911 call? I have been that person - made to feel like an idiot and a 2 yr old as I am talked to like I am bothering the person on the other end. The woman was clearly trying to do her civic duty and this guy was grilling her. And because of that grilling and supposition of superiority, or some other testosterone driven reason, he LEFT OUT THE CRITICAL FACT ABOUT THE SUITCASES. He didn't think it was important because the goal is NOT to exonerate but to suspect. The woman was trying to explain "barged in" - something you and I really can picture in our minds. Did the officer even somewhat politely ask her to explain further in this way - "Mam when you say barged in, was the door already open, was the lock broken or was the door broken down" Instead he scoffed and said, "barged - what does that mean, what is .. barged in.." in the most - you are just so horrible at relating to me what I want to know in the way I want to hear it" manner of speaking. I think my mom use to call my dad on that same 'tone'. You all know what I'm talking about.
And the best part was at the end of the call with the laughing exhale by the woman who made the call. Its the same sound I have made after calling the police. It is the sound of "You - A-hole! I'm trying to HELP YOU! No wonder people don't like the police and I'm wondering if I I'll ever call to report a crime again if I'm going to be treated this way."
To be fair, Police provide a necessary service and we should all kiss the ground they walk on. But too many walk around with that very phrase practically tattooed to their faces and flowing in their voice. I can't explain it, I only know it when I see it. Take a look at the guy standing to the right of Crowley in that video of the Police responding in solidarity to Obama's comment. This may be tantamount to racial bias itself, but that's the face. The face of "I don't have to justify my actions to you." Its the face of Jack Nicholson's Nathan Jessup - the face of "you should just thank your lucky stars I'm on that wall, eat your breakfast and say thank you." I really think that was the face that Professor Gates saw, and I really think that was the tone he heard. And frankly, if I were as prominent as him and sensed for one second I would be talked to differently if I were white, I may have reacted similarly. And that's what I want to end with. I think Gates over-reacted. But every bone in my body wonders how much of the tone I am describing here and the way police don't ever feel the need to explain themselves plays a role in all of these kinds of encounters. And that's what I think Obama was responding to. It's like in baseball when we say the umpire should have walked away. At some point, even though Gates was belligerent, someone should have walked away. And since the guys with the guns and the cuffs have the power, I'm putting that ball in their court. Gates gets the "Dude, not everyone is a racist" ball put in his court. It will be interesting to see if this blue ribbon panel they've put together agrees with me. I doubt it, but you never know.
For conservative 
---