When a Black Man's Not Safe in His Own Home...
Henry Louis "Skip" Gates, the director of Harvard’s W.E.B Du Bois Institute for African and African-American Research, was arrested Monday after allegedly breaking into his own home in Cambridge, Mass.
According to one media source, a woman called police after "seeing “two black males with backpacks on the porch” of a two-story home near the Harvard campus. It turned out that the two men were Gates and his driver, and Gates was merely trying to enter his home through a jammed front door. Police arrived and Gates was later charged with disorderly conduct after police claimed Gates confronted them."
I think that word "confronted" is key in any analysis of this situation from a diversity angle.
If someone's in their own home, and they provide irrevocable proof of such via a license or some other state issued piece of identification, an alleged confrontation by the home owner is irrelevant. Speech is free in this country, so in my mind, barring a physical assault, the police should have gone on their way. End of story.
This alleged confrontation sounds like 'I don't like to be proven wrong, so I'll go ahead and do what I want because I think I have the power in this situation, and I'm going to use it.' Wrong.
Abuse of power is at the root of many racially motivated issues, particularly the disproportionate amount of African American and Latino profiling Obama referenced during his press conference.
The President weighed in with a few other comments - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByUfUa_2ffc - namely that the Cambridge police acted stupidly for arresting a man after he showed proof that he was in his own home.
One media outlet wrote in its headline "Obama Slams White Police for Acting Stupidly." In my opinion, this is somewhat inflammatory - some might say my headline is as well - but anything that leads to more problems in a controversial, racially-motivated discussion is unnecessary.
Of course, you can be the judge, but I thought Obama was very straight forward about the issue. Police need to be trained how to handle these types of situations via techniques that remove potential bias and increase safety for all.
What do you think?
According to one media source, a woman called police after "seeing “two black males with backpacks on the porch” of a two-story home near the Harvard campus. It turned out that the two men were Gates and his driver, and Gates was merely trying to enter his home through a jammed front door. Police arrived and Gates was later charged with disorderly conduct after police claimed Gates confronted them."
I think that word "confronted" is key in any analysis of this situation from a diversity angle.
If someone's in their own home, and they provide irrevocable proof of such via a license or some other state issued piece of identification, an alleged confrontation by the home owner is irrelevant. Speech is free in this country, so in my mind, barring a physical assault, the police should have gone on their way. End of story.
This alleged confrontation sounds like 'I don't like to be proven wrong, so I'll go ahead and do what I want because I think I have the power in this situation, and I'm going to use it.' Wrong.
Abuse of power is at the root of many racially motivated issues, particularly the disproportionate amount of African American and Latino profiling Obama referenced during his press conference.
The President weighed in with a few other comments - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByUfUa_2ffc - namely that the Cambridge police acted stupidly for arresting a man after he showed proof that he was in his own home.
One media outlet wrote in its headline "Obama Slams White Police for Acting Stupidly." In my opinion, this is somewhat inflammatory - some might say my headline is as well - but anything that leads to more problems in a controversial, racially-motivated discussion is unnecessary.
Of course, you can be the judge, but I thought Obama was very straight forward about the issue. Police need to be trained how to handle these types of situations via techniques that remove potential bias and increase safety for all.
What do you think?
Views: 1
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by cathy taylor on -
It was an unfortunate situation that got out of hand because both Professor Gates and Sgt. Crowley experienced a "testosterone moment." And it's even more unfortunate that it resulted in the Professor's arrest. Read more in my blog at www.tayloryou.com/blog.
-
Permalink Reply by Toni Wilson on -
I don't think this was a case of racial profiling, as Crowley was initially given information about the 'suspects' race. Another point to consider is that because it was a potential 'breaking and entering' situation, Crowley was 'on guard'. Thus his mindset was triggered by a set of 'assumptions' about the situation he was entering. All of this seem logical to me. What does not add up, is the exchange between Dr. Gates and Crowley which led to an arrest.
Those close to Crowley describe as an easy going, fair-minded person; who was actually appointed to his current assignment by an African American. They also note that he 'expects deference to the uniform'. This is where the problem began. I would also think that Dr. Gates expected 'deference to him as a homeowner'; which makes sense too. So who's right?
It seems to me that the manner in which Crowley presented himself was done in err. It does not sound like he provided any context or explanation for his presence and begin questioning Dr. Gates at the outset. I think if he had used better judgment in presenting himself, the mishap could have been avoided. But why in his mind was an initial explanation unnecessary? What about Dr. Gates appearance signalled danger? This is what I find perplexing!
I agree that it was not only stupid; but a miscarriage of authority to arrest a homeowner who has provided proof of residence. I understand how Dr. Gates would feel disrespected and react to a police officer who did not approach him in a respectful manner by providing an explanation for his presence; before asking for proof of residence. As for Crowley concern for safety, upon seeing Dr. Gates (unarmed, not acting suspiciously, etc.); he should have relaxed a little. His instance that Dr. Gates respond to his 'demand for proof' is what excalated the exchange. Why should Dr. Gates provide proof of anything to someone unwilling to explain why they are on his door step?
Racism is also a 'mindset' which triggers notions of power to marginalize others. This is what Dr. Gates may have been reacting to and is completely plausable. Respect is a two way street, you have to give it to get it. Because Crowley taught a course of racial profiling, doesn't mean is also understands the subconscious mindset that can show up in any number of innocent ways (i.e., no explanation). This lack of awareness is what raises the hair on the neck of African Americans, because we see it all the time. White folks don't see it, because they live a world the reinforces the notion that white is better, is right and should not be questioned by those inherently 'less than' in a white world. The unfortunate part of this is he and other still don't understand that this is a fundmental and ongoing trigger. Very few dialogues have pointed this out so we've missed yet another opportunity to hold ourselves/each other accountable for making different choices. Ignorance is no excuse and yet ignorance seems to be the overriding barrier to breakthroughing the stalmate in the dialogue on race in this country.
-
Permalink Reply by Dororthy on -
I thought this was a publication FOR diversity not another bias outlet. First, the president of the United States should not have passed a racist and bias statement BEFORE knowing the details or the truth of what happened and why did he bother to comment on this particular case? Second, the caller did NOT mention race when she called in the concern of a neighbors home being broken into. The professor and the president owe the police officer an apology.
Who ever your writer is for this article needs to return to journalism school or should I say they and the editor need a course in diversity and ethics. Learn to get the facts first!
-
Permalink Reply by Toni Wilson on
-
I thought that this piece was written to encourage dialogue, so I read this as the author asking questions that would lead to discussion vs serving as an outlet for bias. I don't understand what you perceived as racist in Pres. Obama's comment and would appreciate if you would say more about your point of view. You are correct that the caller did not identify the race of the men; however, before the 911 tape was released we only had what Officer Crowley indicated in the report he wrote. The difference between his report and the actual tape of the discussion raises concerns about integrity for me; so I'm not in the same camp on an apology. The president indicated he did not intend to malign the Cambridge police department with his comment and he also indicated that he didn't have the facts when he expressed an opinion about 'arresting someone who has proven they are in their own home'. Many people have misinterpreted or completely missed the 'context' for his comment. It does seem unusual to arrest someone who hasn't broken the law and has proven they have not broken the law. Given the discrepency between the tape and the polic report the President's comment may not have been unwarranted. As for whether or not he should have said anything...I have mixed thoughts on that. On the one hand, he must use good judgment about when, where and how he uses the power of his office. On the other hand, I think there is an obligation for anyone in the office to make an effort to influence positive change that benefits the greater good. So while, I don't fault the intention of the President, he will always be accountable for the impact (mixed as it was!). Thanks for sharing your perspective, I also hope that you will give the benefit of the doubt and keep an open mind too.
Dororthy said:I thought this was a publication FOR diversity not another bias outlet. First, the president of the United States should not have passed a racist and bias statement BEFORE knowing the details or the truth of what happened and why did he bother to comment on this particular case? Second, the caller did NOT mention race when she called in the concern of a neighbors home being broken into. The professor and the president owe the police officer an apology.
Who ever your writer is for this article needs to return to journalism school or should I say they and the editor need a course in diversity and ethics. Learn to get the facts first!
-
Permalink Reply by NC on -
Dorothy, the neighbor did actually mention race - if you listen to the 911 call - she says it was a hispanic man... the facts were there.
Toni Wilson said:I thought that this piece was written to encourage dialogue, so I read this as the author asking questions that would lead to discussion vs serving as an outlet for bias. I don't understand what you perceived as racist in Pres. Obama's comment and would appreciate if you would say more about your point of view. You are correct that the caller did not identify the race of the men; however, before the 911 tape was released we only had what Officer Crowley indicated in the report he wrote. The difference between his report and the actual tape of the discussion raises concerns about integrity for me; so I'm not in the same camp on an apology. The president indicated he did not intend to malign the Cambridge police department with his comment and he also indicated that he didn't have the facts when he expressed an opinion about 'arresting someone who has proven they are in their own home'. Many people have misinterpreted or completely missed the 'context' for his comment. It does seem unusual to arrest someone who hasn't broken the law and has proven they have not broken the law. Given the discrepency between the tape and the polic report the President's comment may not have been unwarranted. As for whether or not he should have said anything...I have mixed thoughts on that. On the one hand, he must use good judgment about when, where and how he uses the power of his office. On the other hand, I think there is an obligation for anyone in the office to make an effort to influence positive change that benefits the greater good. So while, I don't fault the intention of the President, he will always be accountable for the impact (mixed as it was!). Thanks for sharing your perspective, I also hope that you will give the benefit of the doubt and keep an open mind too.
Dororthy said:I thought this was a publication FOR diversity not another bias outlet. First, the president of the United States should not have passed a racist and bias statement BEFORE knowing the details or the truth of what happened and why did he bother to comment on this particular case? Second, the caller did NOT mention race when she called in the concern of a neighbors home being broken into. The professor and the president owe the police officer an apology.
Who ever your writer is for this article needs to return to journalism school or should I say they and the editor need a course in diversity and ethics. Learn to get the facts first!
-
Permalink Reply by Dororthy on
-
No the caller did not initially identify race, she was asked and replied that she thought the one looked like he may be hispanic and did not see the other person since they were already inside. Another fact ignored was the abuse the professor gave to a man doing his job. Would he have been as rude and uncooperative if the policeman was another "race or color"? Yes, the facts were there, no one paid attention. Besides what difference does race or color make, the suspects were still "thought" to be breaking into a neighbors home.
NC said:Dorothy, the neighbor did actually mention race - if you listen to the 911 call - she says it was a hispanic man... the facts were there.
Toni Wilson said:I thought that this piece was written to encourage dialogue, so I read this as the author asking questions that would lead to discussion vs serving as an outlet for bias. I don't understand what you perceived as racist in Pres. Obama's comment and would appreciate if you would say more about your point of view. You are correct that the caller did not identify the race of the men; however, before the 911 tape was released we only had what Officer Crowley indicated in the report he wrote. The difference between his report and the actual tape of the discussion raises concerns about integrity for me; so I'm not in the same camp on an apology. The president indicated he did not intend to malign the Cambridge police department with his comment and he also indicated that he didn't have the facts when he expressed an opinion about 'arresting someone who has proven they are in their own home'. Many people have misinterpreted or completely missed the 'context' for his comment. It does seem unusual to arrest someone who hasn't broken the law and has proven they have not broken the law. Given the discrepency between the tape and the polic report the President's comment may not have been unwarranted. As for whether or not he should have said anything...I have mixed thoughts on that. On the one hand, he must use good judgment about when, where and how he uses the power of his office. On the other hand, I think there is an obligation for anyone in the office to make an effort to influence positive change that benefits the greater good. So while, I don't fault the intention of the President, he will always be accountable for the impact (mixed as it was!). Thanks for sharing your perspective, I also hope that you will give the benefit of the doubt and keep an open mind too.
Dororthy said:I thought this was a publication FOR diversity not another bias outlet. First, the president of the United States should not have passed a racist and bias statement BEFORE knowing the details or the truth of what happened and why did he bother to comment on this particular case? Second, the caller did NOT mention race when she called in the concern of a neighbors home being broken into. The professor and the president owe the police officer an apology.
Who ever your writer is for this article needs to return to journalism school or should I say they and the editor need a course in diversity and ethics. Learn to get the facts first!
-
Permalink Reply by Rita Wilson Harris on -
While this situation is unfortunate, the bigger question in my mind is this: with as many national and international issues of pressing nature that are before OBAMA, why would he become involved in local matters that should be handled and dealt with at a local level? He has much more important and pressing matters to concern himself than this. He had no business commenting publicly on the matter in my opinion. If the policeman was wrong then he should be dealt with appropriately within his local jurisdiction.
-
Permalink Reply by Toni Wilson on
-
I thought/think that Pres. Obama was actually asked a question by a member of the press. While he could have side stepped the question, I want to believe that because he has a personal relationship with Dr. Gates that he felt comfortable providing a response. At the end of the day, every leader makes choices. What they do or don't do may be different than you or me; and we are all entitled to our opinions. I guess what I don't understand is why those who view the President's remarks as something they would not do have judged him so harshly? I often times wonder, if it were someone's relative or someone that one is somehow connected to personally, how it would be viewed? I forget sometimes that we 'judge ourselves by our last best act, and judge others by their last worst act'. I am often disappointed that we attend church and listen to messages about the importance of forgiveness and agree wholeheartedly with passion! When Monday rolls around, somehow the Sunday message becomes 'instant history'. I'm not perfect and feel uncomfortable judging or making assumptions about someone else's intentions. No matter where we on this issue, I for one don't feel that the President intentionally wanted to cause harm to anyone in his comments. I think it was an invitation to think and reflect. I don't know how I would have responded in that situation. What I do know is that the people I know expect to be respected in their own home. Freedom of speech in our constitution does not say polite speech is the only 'free speech' we have. I may not have liked the tone Dr. Gates or Officer Crowley used, but in my own home, I feel I make the rules. Stewards of the law can't opt out or arbitrarily decide what's ok for a person to say in their own home (assuming they aren't saying something unlawful). This is what I heard the President speaking to, which would apply to any situation.
We may not agree on this matter, but I appreciate that we can have a rational, respectful exchange of views! I've come to realize that when we don't listen to each other, the impact is that one or both people feel disrespected. I wonder if this is what happened here?
Rita Wilson Harris said:While this situation is unfortunate, the bigger question in my mind is this: with as many national and international issues of pressing nature that are before OBAMA, why would he become involved in local matters that should be handled and dealt with at a local level? He has much more important and pressing matters to concern himself than this. He had no business commenting publicly on the matter in my opinion. If the policeman was wrong then he should be dealt with appropriately within his local jurisdiction.
Flickr
About
© 2012 Created by Certmag Admin.
