Harvard Prof arrested for breaking into his own home

[murlough23]

So I'm sure some of you folks must have heard about this story by now. A Harvard professor returns from a trip, finds that he can't get into his Cambridge home, enlists the help of his taxi driver to basically "break in" through his front door, a neighbor calls police, the prof gets agitated when police ask him for proof that he actually lives there, prof gets arrested. Oh, and the professor, one Henry Louis Gates, Jr., just so happens to be black. President Obama, a friend of Gates, remarked that the Cambridge Police "acted stupidly" by arresting him, and here you have the latest controversy over an Obama gaffe.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/24/officer.gates.arrest/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

So who's right and who's wrong here? My personal take: Everyone's wrong.

• Professor Gates, while understandably agitated over having to deal with the police when he had done nothing illegal, should probably have known better than to cop an attitude (pun intended) with a police officer.
• The police officer, while he was justifiable in trying to establish that this was in fact Gates' residence, overreacted by arresting Gates for "disorderly conduct". Seriously, the dude's middle aged and walks with a cane. There was nothing threatening about the guy other than his mouth.
• President Obama had full knowledge that he was commenting on the issue without knowing all of the facts, and yet he still commented, and he made it about race. I feel like he's still getting used to the fact that he's President and he can't make comments like this off the cuff as a "normal guy". You or I can get away with that crap (it won't get blown out of proportion by the media and taken as some sort of "official" position on an issue), but a President really should know better.

I guess the big questions here are (a) what actually went down during the confrontation between Gates and the arresting officer, and (b) whether the same exchange would have happened if it had been a white man breaking into his own home. I see no hard evidence of racism on the part of the police department - just an overreaction in the officer's decision to make an arrest. But I wonder if Gates was provoked by the expectation of racism on his part - i.e. whether he thought as soon as the police showed up, "Oh great, they're going to arrest me because of course a black man in a neighborhood like this is suspicious!" So in his mind he made it all about him being black, which put him on the defensive, which basically became a self-fulfilling prophecy because he wouldn't have been arrested if he'd just cooperated with the guy. He knew he wasn't doing anything illegal. He got arrested because of his mouth, not the color of his skin.

Now I'm not black and I've never lived in an upscale neighborhood. But even when I had to get a locksmith once to let me back into my cheap-ass apartment after I stupidly locked my keys and my wallet inside one morning, I knew I had no right to be offended when the guy asked for proof that I actually lived there. He basically told me when I explained that I'd need to be let in first and then show him my ID that he'd have to call the police if the address didn't match. That made all kinds of sense. if you're in your own home and have not broken and entered on someone else's property, it should take a mere matter of seconds to prove it's your residence and explain the situation to a police officer who rightfully turns up to make sure order is maintained.

[Wildcatblue7]

My short answer:

I can certainly understand the professor getting upset initially.  But to continue to be a horse's ass to a cop who was responding to a call that was really, looking out for you, is a douche move.  Playing the race card is both low and unoriginal.

And Obama is just continuing to prove to me that he is, in fact, a dumbass who should never go off script.  he had the opportunity to leave it at "well, I don't know the facts" and didn't just stick his foot in his mouth, he swallowed his leg.  Idiotic statements like that are what turn public sentiment against cops which leads to cops getting killed.

Basically, the whole situation makes me want to slap some sense into people.

[NinjaRob17]

It's the neighbor's fault.

[murlough23]

I can certainly understand the professor getting upset initially.  But to continue to be a horse's ass to a cop who was responding to a call that was really, looking out for you, is a douche move.  Playing the race card is both low and unoriginal.

Agreed. But is being a horse's ass a crime that warrants being arrested? That's where I think the officer overreacted. I mean, there should probably be a fine of some sort for that, but cuffing a guy just for mouthing off? Really?

And Obama is just continuing to prove to me that he is, in fact, a dumbass who should never go off script.  he had the opportunity to leave it at "well, I don't know the facts" and didn't just stick his foot in his mouth, he swallowed his leg.  Idiotic statements like that are what turn public sentiment against cops which leads to cops getting killed.

One statement doesn't make a President a dumbass (it took several before I got to that point with Bush), but I think the issue here is knowing how to choose your battles and when to hold your tongue, not intelligence. This is echoed in other controversial things Obama has said, where I can understand what he's getting at, but he should have known he was phrasing it in a way that could allow it to be taken out of context. (Like his "Special Olympics" gaffe on Jay Leno.)

Of course, I probably shouldn't argue that point with you, since in your view, Democrat = Dumbass.

Basically, the whole situation makes me want to slap some sense into people.

That's fine, but take a cue from Zsa Zsa Gabor and slap the cop, too.

[Vlad!]

I'm naturally biased against the police, but I have to say that I pretty much agree with Murlough's analysis. The dude should have taken a chill pill and showed his ID, but the cop overreacted as well.

Although race may have been the root of the issue--the professor gets belligerent because he assumes that the cop has racially profiled him, and the cop deals with the professor differently because he's a black man in an upscale neighborhood--I don't think this incident was about race.

It's the neighbor's fault.

I know you're being facetious, but it did make me wonder if there's a statement in there somewhere about how we've lost our sense of community to such a degree that when you see your neighbor trying to break into his own house you a) don't recognize him and b) call the police. Admittedly the taxi guy probably looked shady--I think looking shady is a prerequisite to becoming a cabbie--but still.

To me, though, the real question is: why does a Harvard professor living in an upscale neighborhood not have a backup plan for getting into his house? I bought a plastic, watertight container for six bucks and buried it in my yard just in case something like that happened. First of all, the guy's not very foresightful to not have a backup plan, and he's doubly-silly for not calling a locksmith (and he's triply-silly if his house is so insecure that you can break into it without doing a prohibitive amount of property damage).

[Simon]

I think its the neighbor's fault since it was the neighbor, not the cop who assumed that the black man who happened to be his neighbor was up to no good.

The professor maybe shouldn't have gotten angry, but I can't blame him because this is probably nowhere near the first time he was mistaken for someone who's up to no good. The fact remains that most respectable citizens don't have to get pulled over frivolously or have the cops called on them by their neighbors. I have broken into my house, my apartment, friend's apartments, friend's houses, and my church without ever having a problem. Maybe I'm more careful, but maybe not. This professor should not ever have to deal with people thinking he looks like something less than a respectable citizen and he probably got disproportionately angry in this occasion because of the disproportionate amount of similar occasions he has had to deal with throughout his life.

[NinjaRob17]

I know you're being facetious, but it did make me wonder if there's a statement in there somewhere about how we've lost our sense of community to such a degree that when you see your neighbor trying to break into his own house you a) don't recognize him and b) call the police. Admittedly the taxi guy probably looked shady--I think looking shady is a prerequisite to becoming a cabbie--but still.

Actually, I was being serious, partly because of what you said here, and partly because of what Simon said (no pun intended). The neighbor's the one that started the whole incident. Of course you could also say the professor started the whole incident by forgetting his keys, but that's a normal occurrence.

[Vlad!]

Actually, I was being serious, partly because of what you said here, and partly because of what Simon said (no pun intended). The neighbor's the one that started the whole incident. Of course you could also say the professor started the whole incident by forgetting his keys, but that's a normal occurrence.

I don't agree with this at all...first of all, although as I said I certainly think neighbors should get to know each-other more than they do, if I'm trying to break into my house and a neighbor who doesn't know me sees me doing it, I *want* her to call the police, because that means she would do the same if it were some dude trying to steal my crap. For all I know, the neighbor was also black. Second, maybe all the neighbor saw was the taxi guy. Let's say that you're walking by your neighbor's house and you see a shady-looking fellow helping some other dude whose face is obscured break into a house. Calling the fuzz seems to be an appropriate response, don't you think?

While as I said above I'm not 100% sure the neighbor can be absolved of all blame, I certainly don't think the ultimate responsibility for this gaffe rests with him or her.

[Simon]

yeah, I'm sure there's a lot we don't know, but I also know that racism likes to slip in those areas we don't feel like looking. There's a lot I don't have to deal with as a white male that I know others have to deal with and we can't allow it to keep happening just because we aren't sure who is to blame. In this instance, it may have been just a neighbor trying to look out for his neighbor, but we shouldn't be so shocked to think that racism might have been a factor. We can't know that it was, but it is fair to say that it might have been a factor. We are in a bad situation of "playing the race card" becomes a bigger crime than racism.

Lets not forget that the only reason Obama was asked what he thought of this, the only reason that it is a "national issue", is because he is the first black president. There is no way Bush would have had to deal with someone asking what he thought of something like this.

[Vlad!]

We are in a bad situation of "playing the race card" becomes a bigger crime than racism.

Racism is a very hot-button issue today. Assuming you have had a relatively decent modern history class, I'm sure you learned about the Cold War and McCarthyism. It's really difficult to prove that you're not racist.
"I was just looking out for my neighbor; I didn't recognize him because he was facing away from me"
"Or maybe you just called the police because he's black"
"No, I'm pretty sure it's because he was breaking into the house"
"And you assumed it wasn't his house because no black person could own a house like this"
"No, that thought never entered my mind."
"Or did it?"
Just like it's difficult for a public figure to prove he's not a Communist--maybe he's just keeping up a good facade--accusations of racism must be made carefully, because it raises a suspicion and places a taint that it can be difficult to recover from.

Could race have played a part in this scenario? Absolutely. Did it? Quite possibly. But does this imply that one or more people in the picture are racist? Probably not. Maybe the neighbor is racist and when he saw a black man trying to break in he automatically assumed he was a thief. Maybe the police officer is racist and wouldn't have handcuffed him had he been a white man. Maybe the professor is racist and refused to comply with the officer's request because he thinks all white cops are out to get him. Maybe the taxi driver is racist and tried to frame the professor by hiding his keys. But let's not blow that whistle if we don't have to; it's important to get these issues out in the open, but finger-pointing based purely on speculation is ridiculous and alarmist.

[Simon]

True. And I'm not trying to point any fingers. The whole thing probably should have never been a national issue. Racism may be a national issue, but a Harvard prof is not since we cannot know the situation.

[murlough23]

Although race may have been the root of the issue--the professor gets belligerent because he assumes that the cop has racially profiled him, and the cop deals with the professor differently because he's a black man in an upscale neighborhood--I don't think this incident was about race.

It requires a bit of an assumption to get to either of these things. Based on the cop's record, I have no direct reason to believe he'd treat a belligerent black man any different than a belligerent white man. But I don't know what he was thinking at the time.

It also wouldn't be fair of me to assume that the prof was thinking, "You're just doing this to me 'cause I'm black." Thus far, I don't believe we have a record of what was actually said inside the professor's house. The first public comment tying this issue to race may have been Obama's, but correct me if I'm wrong there.

I know you're being facetious, but it did make me wonder if there's a statement in there somewhere about how we've lost our sense of community to such a degree that when you see your neighbor trying to break into his own house you a) don't recognize him and b) call the police.

I agree with A, but not B. A is unfortunately all too common in America - especially in an upscale neighborhood like that where people probably keep to themselves and whoever they don't recognize is probably seen as a threat to their personal space. But B is something that would indicate neighborly concern - if I didn't give a crap about my neighbor, I wouldn't care that someone was breaking into their home (unless maybe I thought mine was next). There are Neighborhood Watch programs and all that - I see that sort of thing as neighbors looking out for one another. Though when you can't tell the difference between your own neighbor and a petty thief, then it becomes a comedy of errors. Sure, the neighbor probably should have known who the guy was, but it's not a crime and it's not racist to not know one's neighbors.

Admittedly the taxi guy probably looked shady--I think looking shady is a prerequisite to becoming a cabbie--but still.

That's racist. 

To me, though, the real question is: why does a Harvard professor living in an upscale neighborhood not have a backup plan for getting into his house? I bought a plastic, watertight container for six bucks and buried it in my yard just in case something like that happened. First of all, the guy's not very foresightful to not have a backup plan, and he's doubly-silly for not calling a locksmith (and he's triply-silly if his house is so insecure that you can break into it without doing a prohibitive amount of property damage).

I thought about that, too. You mean he didn't have an alarm that would go off and summon the police or private security automatically?

Though he may have had the ability to turn off an alarm, but not had his keys. Or he had his keys, but the door was stuck. I think I read something about the door being stuck.

This professor should not ever have to deal with people thinking he looks like something less than a respectable citizen and he probably got disproportionately angry in this occasion because of the disproportionate amount of similar occasions he has had to deal with throughout his life.

Do we know that for a fact (that he's been treated that way in the past, I mean - I think it's fair to assume he looks like a "respectable citizen"), or are we assuming that?

We are in a bad situation of "playing the race card" becomes a bigger crime than racism.

"Playing the race card" is unlikely to lead us to hundreds of years of slavery and segregation, so I wouldn't say it's a worse crime. But it is still a problem.

Lets not forget that the only reason Obama was asked what he thought of this, the only reason that it is a "national issue", is because he is the first black president. There is no way Bush would have had to deal with someone asking what he thought of something like this.

Obama is a personal friend of the professor. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Bush would have been asked about it if Bush knew the guy. That doesn't mean Obama wouldn't have been asked if he hadn't known the guy - I'll admit that the media does tend to use him as a barometer for race relations in our country, and I'm sorry to break this to you people in the media, but you shouldn't be so shocked that having a Black President didn't automatically eliminate all issues of racism in our country.

That said, I still have no evidence that anyone stated this as being a race issue until Obama's opinion was asked.

Maybe the taxi driver is racist and tried to frame the professor by hiding his keys.

Man, you're really down on the taxi drivers today!

The whole thing probably should have never been a national issue.

Indeed. Who the hell decided to pin Obama with this question while a camera was rolling, anyway?

[Vlad!]

So why is it that this dubiously-racially-charged story was all over the news, but I had to rely on digg for this other story, in which it seems that race played a much larger part and had a much worse outcome?

[Simon]

1. Because digg is user motivated rather than ratings motivated.
2. Because the Harvard prof story was about Obama and how his race plays into his statements.
3. Because those with power in the country do not believe in racism and do not believe that this kind of things still happens.

[Vlad!]

Pretty sure numbers 2 and 3 contradict each-other there, Simon. I'm just sayin'.

[Simon]

haha
I knew it would have been easier not to say anything. . . .

That implies that one action could not have two contradictory motivations.

IMO the media jumped at the chance to show that the first black president is a "race sensitive" and sees racism when there isn't any making him potentially one of the feared "reverse racists" like the professor may have been who (supposedly) might be racist against white people seeing them as oppressors when we (the collective majority white voices of those in power) believe that racism does not exist and is only perpetuated by those exceptions (white and black) who persist on claiming that the other is out to get them. This is how the media could simultaneously be motivated by the two contradictory motivations that (2) the president saw racism and (3) that racism does not exist leading them to highlight two sentences of a Obama about an ambiguous circumstance and ignore a story reminiscent of lynching trials that we supposedly don't have anymore. (Ask yourself this, if he wasn't a soccer player from Ghana, would the story have even made it on digg?)

IMO the generic voices of society like to walk around with the two contradictory notions that (a) they oppose racism and (b) racism no longer exists. IMO this often leads those generic voices to look the other way on everyday situations where racism does (but maybe doesn't) occur such as "friendly" racist jokes and write of more serious instances within their view. IMO this action (or inaction) disproves both notions (a) and (b).

in my experience only white males have the freedom not to believe in things like racism and sexism. Everyone else is either forced to face it or submit to it in some way or another at some point.

But of course I am a white male, I know hardly anything at all, I'm young, stupid, naive, and have been recently influenced by one of those "crazy" sociology classes common to undergraduate students that infects them with "race sensitive" liberalism. Maybe I'll grow out of it. A little.
(spacebrat knows exactly which class and will chuckle when he reads this since I took the class because I was skeptical of the product it seems to produce and wanted to see for myself. I am still skeptical and yet it clearly got to me too.)

On a side note, I am not trying to start a debate or an argument and have no intention of proving myself right and will therefore not find any intentions to prove me wrong to be of any use. I am just trying to share the way I see things and welcome others to do the same. I would appreciate it if responses were a collective discussion and I apologize if this was unspokenly obvious and this statement was not necessary.

[murlough23]

On a side note, I am not trying to start a debate or an argument and have no intention of proving myself right and will therefore not find any intentions to prove me wrong to be of any use. I am just trying to share the way I see things and welcome others to do the same. I would appreciate it if responses were a collective discussion and I apologize if this was unspokenly obvious and this statement was not necessary.

I think we're all just trying to make sense of a situation that doesn't make sense. There are times when I agree with another person's take on such a situation, but then I have to play devil's advocate, which was the motivation behind questioning your Obama/Bush comparison.

Regarding the media wanting to trip up Obama (a notion that I first brought up, I think)... whatever happened to the supposed "liberal media" that was biased towards him? It seems both things can't be true at the same time... unless it was Fox News or something, LOL.

[Simon]

I think the media is a business and it does what makes them money, which is usually what sounds like a bigger story and gets them better ratings.
That can lead to sensationalism which I think both liberals and conservatives abuse (think of Limbaugh on the other end, he's media too). The media goes with what sounds better and I think any bias towards liberalism is probably because liberalism sounds better; I don't think the media has an "agenda", but I also don't think they are objective.

[Vlad!]

Ask yourself this, if he wasn't a soccer player from Ghana, would the story have even made it on digg?

Unquestionably I think it would still have made it to digg if people had known about it. The real question is, would it have made it to ESPN magazine?

IMO the generic voices of society like to walk around with the two contradictory notions that (a) they oppose racism and (b) racism no longer exists.
...
in my experience only white males have the freedom not to believe in things like racism and sexism. Everyone else is either forced to face it or submit to it in some way or another at some point.

I'm not sure I've seen the same attitude that you have, that racism no longer exists. Also, I feel compelled to point out that in this case, a and b are not contradictory. It's very possible to oppose something that doesn't exist. I oppose child sacrifice, but as far as I know people haven't chucked their babies on altars for a few thousand years now.

On a side note, I am not trying to start a debate or an argument and have no intention of proving myself right and will therefore not find any intentions to prove me wrong to be of any use. I am just trying to share the way I see things and welcome others to do the same. I would appreciate it if responses were a collective discussion and I apologize if this was unspokenly obvious and this statement was not necessary.

In regards to the topic of race perceptions when dealing with crime, I was talking with a friend today about the case of the Harvard professor that Murlough brought up to start this topic. My friend is black, and he recounted a story of how he was suspected of attempting to steal his own car when he was looking through the window to see if he had left anything in it. The (white) police officer asked him to produce documents proving he owned the car. Note that he had done nothing wrong--merely peered through the window--and he had the keys to the car in his pocket. He asserted that if he had been white, the mere fact that he had the keys would have been enough for the officer and he wouldn't have had to dig through his glovebox to get his registration.

It's offensive to be treated like a criminal. Even a while male like me has sometimes noticed it. The visible differences between "computer programmer" and "bum" are not always immediately obvious, and occasionally I'll be in an electronics store and notice that the salespeople are paying special attention to me as I'm checking out what's for sale. Maybe they're watching me because they've had a rash of thefts that I don't know about or because my preference for baggy cargo pants suggests that I might try to smuggle something out in them, but regardless of whether I've been profiled or if they're just staring me down because they're bored and it beats watching whatever movie they're looping on the display TVs, I don't like the feeling that they're expecting me to steal stuff. But me, I can always swing by a nice clothing store and get a haircut. To think that I might have to go the rest of my life having white people pay special attention to me because they think based on my skin color that I'm up to no good, that would certainly rankle.

But at the same time, profiling works both ways. Maybe the cop my friend encountered was just overzealous, and she would have asked a white dude for his registration as well. Maybe the guy who works at Best Buy is staring at the black girl because he's wondering if he'd have a chance if he asked her out. Maybe the cop responding to the neighbor's call knew that his job would be on the line if he let a prowler go who turned out to be a thief and made off with some goods in such a upscale neighborhood with influential residents, so he was trying his hardest and went overboard without regard to race or age. So just like white people shouldn't assume that our black brethren are up to no good, they shouldn't assume that we're assuming that they are up to no good, if that makes any sense at all.

[murlough23]

So just like white people shouldn't assume that our black brethren are up to no good, they shouldn't assume that we're assuming that they are up to no good, if that makes any sense at all.

Yeah. The notion that all whites are secretly racist is, in and of itself, racist. (But then so is the assumption that blacks or other non-white groups always assume this. And on and on it goes, in an endless recursive series of assuming the other person is assuming.) I know there's the idea that everybody's subliminally racist, which I can understand - in some ways it's natural to be suspicious of people who don't (look, think, act, etc.) the way you do. But at some point you've gotta move beyond that and figure we're never gonna get along if we always assume the worst about one another.

[Simon]

Yes its clear that we can never really know if a given action is racist, but it is just as dangerous (maybe more) to assume that a given action is NOT racist as it is to assume it is racist. Maybe people don't think that racism doesn't exists, but it is dangerously easy to pretend it doesn't exist or act as if it doesn't exist. It is easier for me to assume that a given action (such as your friend w/ the car) is not racist, because it causes me, the cop, and all the rest of white people less trouble; it is to my advantage as a white person to ignore, rationalize, or justify the cop. It costs me nothing to allow racism to continue, while calling something racism implies a necessary change from my comfort in the status quo; if I even show discomfort in a racist joke I am challenging the dynamics of my friendships. So while all situations are ambiguous, (as sociology calls it) my social location as a white male puts it to my advantage to maintain the status quo because my position has the most privilege, and it is to everyone else's disadvantage because they have less. It's not my fault that I was born a white male, anyone else's fault if they weren't so it's not fair to assume anything about anyone. However, this is the system we were all born into and the fact remains that it doesn't treat all people equally. True Vlad, race and gender are not the only social factors in prejudices, but they are the ones we cannot change (as well as disabilities and possibly sexual orientation) although it may be to some an advantage to try to act like another race or gender to improve our position.

I need to stop before I write a ten page sociology paper without the all important footnotes.

Basically you're right, you never know if something's racist. Heck, maybe that soccer player is being prosecuted by a family who sincerely believes that the man raped their daughter. Maybe the daughter believes it too. The point is, even though it is ALWAYS ambiguous and unfair to assume, we must be careful not to be naive since it so easy to look the other way and nothing will ever improve (for the least of these) unless we do something.

[murlough23]

Yes its clear that we can never really know if a given action is racist, but it is just as dangerous (maybe more) to assume that a given action is NOT racist as it is to assume it is racist.

If it's dangerous to assume either way, the only recourse is to gather the facts. When the facts don't lead us to a provable conclusion, then I've gotta go with "innocent unless proven guilty". The facts are fuzzy in this case because we don't have a record of what was said inside the professor's house (and that will probably only become known, or at least both men's versions of events, if the issue is taken to court). So you could spin the story in a myriad of ways - one which makes the cop racist and the professor innocent, one which makes the prof racist and the cop innocent, one which makes them both racist, one which makes neither racist, and hell, I'm not even factoring in the neighbor.

I am also a white male. But I feel no compulsion to make excuses for the cop. Honestly, my first instinct when I originally heard about this whole thing was to side with the President, 'cause I like the President. Then I read the cop's side of the story and thought, "Well, he's being a bit of a hard-ass here, but he could be right, he could have made the kind of split-second judgment call his job required him to make on a daily basis." I finally came around to realizing that I couldn't really know who was in the wrong here, because like President Obama, I didn't have all the facts. Then I thought, "So why was Obama so quick to jump to that conclusion while admitting he didn't have all the facts?" My only personal stake in this is that it takes my respect down a peg for a President who I voted for and whose views I generally support. It'd actually be more comfortable for me if the black man was in the right and the white man was racist in this case. But just because I want something to be so doesn't make it so.

[Simon]

I guess I didn't clarify, but I was thinking of the cop in Vlad's story since that circumstance is a little more clear and we have more information.

See the trouble is I find it hard to imagine an instance where racism is provable. You can prove that something was done wrong, but you can't prove that it was done because of race. It could always be something else.

And I wasn't claiming that white males feel a need to maintain their position in society, just stating that assuming someone is innocent of racism and sexism maintains the status qou of white male privilege. And maybe sexism is a more clear example because women make 60 cents on the male's dollar in equivalent positions in America. Using that example, it's not that I feel the inequality shouldn't be acknowledged, but if I don't acknowledge it, I will save males in America the frustration of having to change the way our system works and I will make more money. I'm not saying we all have deep desires to ignore inequalities, I'm saying that the system is rigged to encourage us to do so. Simply put, the path of least resistance will keep the status qou, so if something is to change, someone has to be willing to face some resistance.

This seems simple enough, but on the category of the "isms," it makes me skeptical when all we are willing to see is innocent faces.
(but here I am along with you not willing to say who might be guilty of what)

[NewDimension]

Yeah, there's really no way we can come to an informed conclusion on the matter - since we weren't there and can't testify to what happened (and we haven't even heard the full story from either the cop or the professor). That's why I didn't reply to this thread earlier. All we can do with the information that we have about the situation is speculate on the possible reasons for why the situation unfolded the way that it did.

Also, even if racism did play a major factor in this event, unless something explicitly racist was stated, how are we to determine the actual motivations (racist or not) for the actions that occured? The cop could lie and say that racism wasn't a leading motivation in his actions even if it truly was - and the professor could try to project his racism onto the cop and blame him for being racist when in fact he was the one who was racist (possibly due to events that occurred in the past); or racism could have played a role on each side of the story (the neighbor included); or perhaps racism wasn't a leading motivation in the actions of either side, but one/both of them came to unverified assumptions of racism in the other individual which caused one/both of them to act in ways they wouldn't have if they didn't assume racism in the other person - then the whole incident would have just been blown out of proportion due to misunderstanding the intentions of the other individual. So there's really no way we can know exactly what happened, since much of this incident is focused around the unspoken and unverifiable motivations of the individuals involved. How do you prove motivations unless they're explicitly stated or someone's behavior unambiguously reveals the persons' intentions? It's really impossible.

[murlough23]

I guess I didn't clarify, but I was thinking of the cop in Vlad's story since that circumstance is a little more clear and we have more information.

We still don't have enough. For the cop, the issue is going to be whether he overstepped his bounds as an officer. I'm inclined to think that he overstepped by arresting the guy. What I'm not clear on is the sequence of events, and exactly what the prof said that made the cop feel he had cause to arrest him. I think we're pretty clear that it was logical for him to ask the prof for proof of residence, though. While that may have been the thing that originally angered the prof, I think the cop would have been doing a sloppy job if he hadn't verified that the person who broke into the house had a right to be there.

See the trouble is I find it hard to imagine an instance where racism is provable. You can prove that something was done wrong, but you can't prove that it was done because of race. It could always be something else.

Proving the negative (that there wasn't racism involved) is almost certainly impossible, just because of that whole "proving a negative" thing... proving the positive (that the cop's actions were racist) is potentially attainable, if in fact there was any. Racism, as a way of thinking, technically isn't against the law, but acting on it generally is, especially for police officers who are supposed to protect and serve citizens with no consideration for specific classes or races or sexes, as far as I understand it. Best way to prove/disprove it would probably be to see how he's handled similar situations in the past.

And I wasn't claiming that white males feel a need to maintain their position in society, just stating that assuming someone is innocent of racism and sexism maintains the status qou of white male privilege.

Well, I agree that the status quo needs to change. That doesn't mean that I should jump to the conclusion that every white male whose actions could be interpreted as racist is actually a racist. That would be an unjust way to obtain a false sense of justice for people who deserve a much more real justice than that. It'd just be petty retribution. If the officer's actions were truly racist, then by all means, string the guy up by his pinkies. (I'm less inclined to feel as harshly toward the professor's potential racism, because he wasn't acting in any official capacity - he was just a dude in his private home.)

And maybe sexism is a more clear example because women make 60 cents on the male's dollar in equivalent positions in America. Using that example, it's not that I feel the inequality shouldn't be acknowledged, but if I don't acknowledge it, I will save males in America the frustration of having to change the way our system works and I will make more money.

Yes. This situation can and should be acknowledged. And something should be done about it. But that doesn't give us the right to persecute every manager who gives a male employee a higher raise than a female employee at the same level because he feels that the male employee happens to be doing better work. It'd be preposterous to assume the male employees were doing better than the females in all cases, but all things being equal, there must be some cases where this is true. Even in a fair system where men and women have the same earning potential, there will be women and men who slack off at work.

I do understand the concept of systemic racism - meaning that the system makes it much more difficult for minorities to get fair treatment than it does for the majority, even if no individuals within that majority hold racist views. I agree that inertia - people being comfortable and just wanting to maintain the status quo - is a huge problem. There are a lot of well-meaning people out there who do nothing. We need to do something. But let's not persecute the innocent out of some misguided sense of justice. That won't help. It will just lead to further accusations of blacks/women/Jews/gays/whoever wanting a free ride.

This seems simple enough, but on the category of the "isms," it makes me skeptical when all we are willing to see is innocent faces.

Well sure, there's a part of me that wants everyone to be innocent, because then nobody would have done anything racist in this situation and that'd be hunky-dory. But I realize that's a rose-colored view of it. In reality, I see faces with question marks on them. They could go either way - innocent or guilty. I just don't want them to be punished unless their crimes can be reasonably proven. But the question needs to be asked, and in the case of the cop whose job binds him to a higher standard, his actions in particular should be scrutinized. His guilt would not automatically absolve the professor of any wrongdoing, but for the professor's part, it's less of a legal issue and more an issue of responsibility (i.e. what attitudes is he going to teach to his students?)

But then I'm gonna hold the President to the highest standard of them all. He was chosen by (however slightly) more than half of Americans to run this country, after all.

NP: "Reprise", Mew

[murlough23]

or perhaps racism wasn't a leading motivation in the actions of either side, but one/both of them came to unverified assumptions of racism in the other individual which caused one/both of them to act in ways they wouldn't have if they didn't assume racism in the other person - then the whole incident would have just been blown out of proportion due to misunderstanding the intentions of the other individual.

I have the strong suspicion that this might be what happened - both nice guys who harbor no ill will toward any group of people on a regular basis, but they might both go on the defensive if led to believe someone of another race was demeaning them due to the color of their skin.

A little grace could have gone a long way in this position. The cop is not legally bound to apologize, and I understand why he's sticking to his guns and saying he did what he felt it was his legal responsibility to do. But since he obviously realizes it was a misunderstanding, it really wouldn't hurt him to apologize for the stress that he caused the professor to go through. At this point I feel like he's just being stubborn. of course, the prof seems to have started from a place of stubbornness, but then we don't know what's happened in his life up to this point that may have informed that stubbornness.

[Vlad!]

I agree with murlough here in pretty much all respects, which is a little shocking in itself. If the facts don't point to racism I don't think we can assume it, and by trumpeting racism when there's no clear evidence of it we perpetuate the culture of trying to deny that racism exists. If I'm a white man and I want evidence that racism no longer exists, all I have to do is point to the situation with the professor. Here's a black man calling "racism" where no true evidence of racism exists; thus, I incorrectly generalize this to all situations and assume that all calls of racism are by the minority trying to incorrectly indict the majority.

If we censure the officer without any evidence of racism, we're just as racist as the white jury who convicts the Ghanese soccer player of rape despite the overwhelming lack of evidence.

[Simon]

I agree that in this instance we know hardly anything, I'm just saying we have to be careful because it is very easy not to see racism if you don't want to.
Let me repeat (I don't remember blaming anybody) that in this instance we don't know enough to tell if anyone is guilty. From here it all could be a big misunderstanding. This situation seems like a local issue that got shared with the nation. We don't even know if the whole story made national news. We aren't close enough to decide.

But, I think similar situations happen right in our view all the time, and for those situations that we do know, and may be involved in, I think we need to be careful not to ignore casual injustices that happen around us. I'm not even implying legal action, I m more thinking of those five friends we all have who can do a good Mexican immigrant impression.

[murlough23]

But, I think similar situations happen right in our view all the time, and for those situations that we do know, and may be involved in, I think we need to be careful not to ignore casual injustices that happen around us. I'm not even implying legal action, I m more thinking of those five friends we all have who can do a good Mexican immigrant impression.

I agree with all of this. It's really a separate issue from the case being discussed in this thread. But I think you're on to something in the sense that we shouldn't jump from the belief that we can't prove racism in this one case to the more general assumption that racism doesn't really happen and people are just being overly sensitive all the time. One has to take these things on a case-by-case basis.

As for the jokes, I tend to let people make those about themselves. I have a Chinese friend who hates Asian drivers. It's OK for him to joke about that. I won't touch it.

[murlough23]

The thing I like about Obama is that he generally cops to it when he screws something up. (Even if it's a politician apology. Come on, "unfortunate" choices of words that could have been "calibrated" better don't happen by themselves.)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gates.harvard.obama/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

[Vlad!]

I happened upon this story (on a technical blog, no less!) which seemed incredibly apropos. Here's a white guy acting suspiciously who can't prove he owns the place and the police let him go.

Obviously this proves nothing because it's a different area and a different officer, but it does lend a slight bit of credence to Gates' claim that race played a large part in the officer's decision.

[murlough23]

I happened upon this story (on a technical blog, no less!) which seemed incredibly apropos. Here's a white guy acting suspiciously who can't prove he owns the place and the police let him go.

Obviously this proves nothing because it's a different area and a different officer, but it does lend a slight bit of credence to Gates' claim that race played a large part in the officer's decision.

I think the issue there is that those cops were being a bit lazy. I suppose that, to some extent, cops do have to be trained to read people and make judgment calls based on whether things seem suspicious. But can you imagine how stupid those cops would look if the guy had really been trying to gain illegal entry to a property that was not his? They would have been right there at the scene of a crime about to happen, and they would have failed to stop it, and their only excuse would have been, "Well, he seemed like an honest guy".

Now, whether this happened because the property owner was white, or what would have happened had the property owner been black, we can't say. But it'd be stupid of me to pretend that the police are never guilty of racial profiling. Whether it was true in Gates' case, whether it was true in this guy's case (reverse racial profiling, I guess - he's a white dude, so he must be legit), it still happens way too much. It'd be nice if we could go back and recreate the same exact circumstances, but with this property owner dude and Grant swapping places. But in the real world, we can't do that and there are other circumstances in play.

NP: "Chandeliers", Sleeping at Last

[murlough23]

Stop me if you've heard this one: A white cop, a black professor, and the President of the United States walk into a bar...

OK, so it was the White House Rose Garden, not a bar. But I'm highly amused by the fact that these people all had a beer together to discuss the issue. Apparently Prof. Gates and Sgt. Crowley have plans to follow up with each other back in Boston. So what started as a misunderstanding could have led to a deeper understanding. Smooth move on the part of everyone involved. (I knew a little alcohol would solve everyone's problems! Interestingly, Joe Biden was also there, and managed to not say anything ludicrous. Then again, he was the only one not drinking alcohol.)

Also, since we've discussed the neighbor a bit, I was wondering how folks reacted to the news that her actual 911 call didn't identify either of the break-in suspects as black. (She actually said something like "One of them might be Hispanic; I don't know" upon seeing them from behind.) She also might not have noticed the "break-in" at all if a passerby hadn't pointed it out to her.

As far as I can tell, the first person to make this issue specifically about Gates being black was Gates himself, when the officer showed up and asked Gates to step outside, and he responded, "Why, because I'm a Black man in America?" But that's according to the police report, not according to Gates.

Gates's version of events offers the following bit of humor: When asked if he made a comment insulting the officer's mother, Gates replied: "Does it sound logical that I would talk about the mother of a big white guy with a gun?" Alright, you've got a point there!

[Vlad!]

Also, since we've discussed the neighbor a bit, I was wondering how folks reacted to the news that her actual 911 call didn't identify either of the break-in suspects as black. (She actually said something like "One of them might be Hispanic; I don't know" upon seeing them from behind.) She also might not have noticed the "break-in" at all if a passerby hadn't pointed it out to her.

To me, it seems to exculpate her entirely. Personally, I think that she was just doing a good neighborly deed. The guy who lives across the street from me is pretty old; if he saw a shady-looking guy (me) trying to break into my house, I wouldn't expect him to come charging out and get a positive identification first. If he didn't recognize me, calling the police would be a very reasonable thing to do.

[murlough23]

I'm going to assume that "exculpate" means "to remove blame" or something like that.