Gates's Arbitrary Arrest: It Happens in New York Too
Fairly consistently, many whites view the arrest of Harvard's distinguished scholar, Henry Louis Gates, as justified, even as most blacks do not.
Context, as Judge Sonia Sotomayor attempted to point out, before backtracking, while not everything, remains all-important. Getting undressed, so long as it's not in front of 'queers,' for some teenage males, inducing future Supreme Court Justices, may not be a big deal. But Ruth Bader Ginsburg uniquely appreciated a different point of view: how a strip search might not seem so harmless for an adolescent girl.
Similarly, irrespective of how educated or rich one might be, to be a black man in America is still a condition in which one feels he has no rights that any police officer is bound to respect. Indeed, very often, to be black and successful only provokes the anger of some whites, far more than if one neatly fulfilled an expected stereotype.
So we African Americans all know President Barrack Obama was only commenting on such harsh realities when he unexpectedly chimed in. So was Congressman Charles B. Rangel when he stated that even the President needed to be wary in Harlem, because as a black man, he too, could be randomly shot by the police. And still it was a call of , "No excuses" with which President Obama admonished black citizens at the NAACP's centennial celebration recently in New York.
Well before he spoke, before Professor Gates was arrested at home for no discernible reason beyond race and class, I disagreed. For there are, if not excuses, nonetheless real persisting reasons for the still-deep disparity between black and white Americans concerning economic and academic attainment, concerning our experience of equal protection, liberty and justice, that no amount of preaching or taking stock can wish away.
Whites very often don't see it. They instead rationalize their advantageous position to a greater commitment to take advantage of the opportunity so widely offered in the United States. And so impassioned are their lamentations concerning the absence of real bias in the post-racial era and the harm of reverse discrimination, that one might almost be persuaded, until, that is, one regards their complaints turned around.
If most firefighters were black, and a multiple-choice written test were given for their promotion, on which blacks always scored best, would white civil servants really respect that test as fair and impartial? Do whites really feel blacks love their children less, that we are merely disinclined to work hard to acquire all those good things whites desire too? What, beyond a lack of opportunity, inferior schools, housing and jobs, do whites attribute these gaps? If Tiger Woods, the Williams sisters, Obama and Ophrah Winfrey are no more indicative of black potential than Bill Gates is of white possibility, do they not at least dispel the old lie of African American inability?
In this time after we have elected a black president, supposedly, magically, newly devoid of prejudice, where are the white undercover police officers slain by their black colleagues? There are so many more white officers; statistically, oughtn't some to have been victims of black 'friendly fire?' Where are the unarmed white youth or grandfathers, shot by black officers? There are so many more white youth than black. Where is the renowned, infirmed white professor arrested for disorderly conduct on his own porch by a black policeman?
More importantly, even if Professor Gates raised his voice or gritted his teeth, haven't we got a First Amendment? Don't white police officers routinely swear in the most uncouth manner to presumed 'perps'? Would white men truly, sanguinely, put up with the routine stops and searches of black officers in their neighborhoods?
Once he was a Democrat. But leading up to the Grand Old Party's national convention in August 2004, New York's billionaire-mayor, Michael Bloomberg cavalierly suggested that our First Amendment rights of free speech and free assembly are not rights at all but mere "privileges" that, if abused, could easily be taken away, by him!
Mayor Bloomberg was only trying to downplay concerns among Republican volunteers that protesters might disrupt their proceedings. During two terms, instituting the greatest expansion of police surveillance of political activity in 50 years, asserting that the city cannot rely on the federal government to protect New York from another terrorist attack, he has contended that most robust intelligence operations possible are essential. These 'legitimate' police powers have included undercover infiltration of legally formed groups around the country and a declaration that his honor's private mansion is 'off limits' for protest of any kind.
Picketing there all alone on the eve of his infamous term limits hearing I was arrested, handcuffed, interrogated and held for seven hours. The reasoning of the officers who grilled me was that I was out to do harm to the mayor. 
"People who avail themselves of the opportunity to express themselves ... they will not abuse that privilege...Because if we start to abuse our privileges, then we lose them, and nobody wants that."
Despite expressing a reluctance to abridge rights, the mayor oversaw the arrest of 1,821 mostly peaceful demonstrators during the RNC in 2004. On April 10, 2009 Jim Dwyer reported in the Times about these hapless hundreds who, "were arrested, fingerprinted and held for as long as two days on charges...no more serious than a traffic ticket. In about 90 percent of the cases, the charges were dismissed outright or dropped after six months. The city has spent more than $8 million on lawsuits related to the convention, but that figure is sure to rise because only a fraction of the claims have been settled."
Critical of Bloomberg's interpretation of the First Amendment's lack of protection of free speech, civil rights advocate Leslie Cagan countered,
"The right to protest is not nor has it ever been a privilege - it is a constitutionally protected right that everybody in this country enjoys". Head of United for Peace and Justice, which had confronted the city over its attempt to prohibit a 250,000-person protest in Central Park, an impassioned Cagan continued "I have no idea what he's talking about. I'm completely flabbergasted!"
Bottom line: racism, and elitism, are still with us, not as faintly remembered vexations of the past, not to use as knee-jerk excuses, but as dire obstacles to fairness, to overcome as reasons to alter public policy to effect real change.
Follow Michael Henry Adams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/harlemhellion
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
It has happened to me. Partial Chronology of Police Incidents Involving Gary and Fort Lauderdale Police:
**Friday, July 24, 2009, about 3:30pm Gary is detained while bike-riding on NE 12th Street near Middle River Drive by 2 police officers in 2 cars. Officer notes that Gary’s bike is a registered bike and requests Gary’s ID. Officer’s stated reason for detaining: recent area bike theft. Gary later learns the theft occurred 3 blocks away and 5 days prior to his being detained.
**Saturday, May 30, 2009, about 9:30pm Gary is detained while driving, by 2 unidentified police officers in 2 cars. Stated reasons for detaining: the officer had (for no apparent legal reason) run a check on Gary’s UNexpired and still valid license plate and could find no record of it in his computer system.
**Tuesday, December 23, 2008, about 10:30am Gary is detained twice by Detective Charles T. Sierra (Badge No. 354). The second time, Gary is handcuffed and placed in the back seat of Sierra’s police car (No. 9523) for 30 minutes. Officer Sierra pokes fun at Gary’s name and seems incredulous that Gary has no prior criminal history and is not a convicted sex offender. Stated reasons for detaining: Gary was walking on the wrong side of the street, carrying a backpack, walking during the day in a neighborhood where daytime burglaries had occurred, Gary has no surname, and a Detroit-issued sex offender warrant contains the name “Gary.”
More at http://bit.ly/2ot27
Gates broke the law, and anyone of any race would have been arrested for it. The definition of disorderly conduct includes "makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop". It is a crime to not cooperate with policemen who are responding to a call, whether you are a victim, perp, or witness. To refuse to come outside, and to yell at the officer (as Gates admitted), will get anyone arrested. Despite this editorial, being belligerent to the police IS a crime. Crowley went by the book. He didn't know if there was a perp inside unbeknownst to Gates or what. Crowley must control the situation, and if Gates won't cooperate, he will go to jail, just as I would if I behaved that way, which I wouldn't do.
I agree that maybe Gates was overly sensitive for a good reason (the history of police/black relations), but this cannot be a reason to commit disorderly conduct with impunity.
Crowley has VOLUNTEERED five out of the last six years with his African American colleague to train officers how to avoid racial profiling. He is a good man who followed the book.
several learned jurist have commented that at home, in one's own house, to speak loudly , to curse a police officer even is legal, is not, in accordance with Massachusetts law , an arrestable offense! Were it so, one imagines that the charges would not have been dismissed . What is sad, tragic even , is that you, and many others, not merely mistakenly believe that the law gives police such vast and arbitrary authority, but seem to feel if it doesn't , that it should! Just what do you think Washington ET AL, fought a revolution for? It was to be free of just such tyrannical, arbitrary and capricious threats from police officers disregarding law and becoming extra legally, a law unto themselves!!!!
RE: Crowley has VOLUNTEERED five out of the last six years with his African American colleague to train officers how to avoid racial profiling. He is a good man who followed the book.
There are bigots who go to church and temple, every day, big deal,
'ye shall be known by your deeds!'
Just when we think that people, black men in particular, are safe on their own property with authority figures present, incidents like these take us all the way back to late nineteenth and twentieth century when black men weren't even safe in their own homes against authority figures. The same black coping strategies exist then as they do now. "Don't say anything to question the officer. Say yes sir and no sir." The only difference back then is that black men couldn't even protect their own wives from being sexually assaulted in their own homes by authority figures, or random white men posing as authority figures. The question that I would ask other Black people is that, do you honestly believe that this is acceptable? And also, when in our history have things drastically changed when black people decided to acquiesce to unjust behavior?
Every time an unarmed black or brown person gets killed in this country at the hands of the police, people discard the legal issues and focus on what those people "should have done" in that situation which "may have" influenced the outcome. So therefore, Robbie Tolan should not have asked the police officer what he was doing when the officer ruffed up his mother on her own property, which resulted in him being shot in the chest. All of this is justified because the officer claimed that he (she) thought the person was reaching for a weapon, therefore the actions were justified because the officer's life was perceived to be a jeopardy. This is the absolute powerlessness that people, especially black men have, in situations like this. Any move they make can be perceived as being threatening.
What really irritates me about this situation is this narrative of a "belligerent" black professor, who could have controlled his emotions and thus controlled or prevented the outcome, while the police officer just "lost his cool." They should both come together and have beers and discuss their differences. This whole argument makes me sick to the stomach. On one hand, no one wants to question why so many people believed that Gates was acting like George Jefferson, while the "understanding and hard working" cop was just doing his job and lost his cool. Regardless of the lack of evidence that captures Gates in this light, people are so eager to accept this characterization of the situation without hesitation. People clearly don't realize that these sort of characterizations show up in police reports all the time, which serves to justify unlawful arrests or justify shootings of unarmed black men. Were the police officers who shot Robbie Tolan, who happened to be unarmed, not driving in a stolen SUV, and in his parent's driveway in a, surprise, predominantly white suburban neighborhood outside of Houston, Texas JUST doing their job? These officers did not bother to ID themselves when they pursued this individual on his parent's property in the dark of night.
thank you, I agree
One need only go to the Constitution to SEE that WE weren't included in the Great American Scheme...and one has to remember the Adam Smith theology that was the backbone of this country---LAWS are made to protect the rich from the poor.
IF we were mired in poverty like the system is designed for US to be, then the police and the Uber-class wouldn't be so worried...but it looks like WE are about to rise up!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LukWzli19M
hey! take a look at our president, checkout Professor Gates, it took almost 300 years for there to be black professors at Harvard and 200 for us to have a black president , but there they are, and as Maya Angelou said, "and still, we rise!"
Well written post with points that clearly other blogger's have brushed off.
Know this no matter what the outcome between these two men their lives are forever changed by this event...God will see to it!
1. We Didn"t Just Fail To Support President Obama And Professor Gates; We Failed To Support The Common Sense Values We All Share As Americans.
The president of the United States made a straight forward common sense comment about the Gates" arrest at a national press conference. I"m sure he assumed that there would be universal common sense understanding throughout the media and our society about the injustice of arresting a middle-aged man within his own home for being rude to a police officer. Sadly the media, law enforcement, political institutions and race baiting public in this society allowed this common sense evaluation to spiral out of control. The minority population in this country has always and will always need a coalition of proactive citizens with a similar sense of values in this society so injustices can be expressed without chaos, political unrest or violence. That has been the basis of every minority civil rights movement of our country. The president acknowledged an obvious injustice at a national press conference and expected common sense police officers, nurses , doctors , teachers, the media, politicians and everyday citizens to understand and support his outrage at the injustice and humiliation Professor Gates endured in his own home.
2. Common sense values dictate that no one would want their dad or grandfather to be arrested in their own home for being rude to the police. But instead, this society debated and continues to debate whether Professor Gates should have been humiliated in such a manner by a professional police officer. President Obama is president of the United States, but he is also a member of a minority group of citizens in this country, and he has to navigate in ways someone who is not a member of a minority will never have to. As a member of a minority group, just as in the civil rights movement, President Obama's voice on injustice in this country, is and will only be as strong and as loud as the courage, strength and volume of the coalition of common folks who elected this president to office. Without common sense folks repeatedly speaking out loudly and confronting an obvious injustice, the president"s voice will be drowned out by the race baiting fringe groups, media and other institutions that know his voice is only as strong as yours.
3. The radical fringe wants everything about President Obama, from birth certificates to pre-school, from friends to religious associations, marriage, political appointments and opinions to revolve around race, so that the voices of common sense folks with common sense values and issues can be drowned out by fake controversies, chaos and political unrest. If we empower the president's voice on common sense issues within this country, we will mute the divide and conquer tactics of these racists fringe elements in our society that surely benefit from political unrest and racial strife in the United States. The president spoke out about an obvious injustice to one of the most respected scholars in the country. It is our responsibility as citizens to back the common sense approach and determination that the president came to, repeatedly and loudly. In this democracy our president is a reflection of who we are and what we represent as a society. If we fail to speak up and support this president"s common sense approach on issues of injustice and policy in this country, the president we elected will have no voice, and neither will we.
H. Smith
Thank you H. Smith for underscoring part of my complaint about injustice that seeks to simply express the notion that we all want the same thing basically, and not only is equal liberty and justice possible for all, but that the lack of the same for anyone, imperils whatever freedom and fairness we any of us might enjoy.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
