The Gates/Crowley Rorschach Test
How you react to the case of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates and Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley may tell you more about yourself than about the incident itself.
What I have found most disturbing about the case is the nearly universal rush to judgment of almost all commentators, including, unfortunately, the President of the United States.
It is so, so easy to fall back on old story lines to reach a simple conclusion about what really happened.
The quickest, and easiest, conclusion is that this is but one more case of a black man being unfairly accosted by a white police officer. There is certainly ample evidence of historical patterns of racial profiling (including in Professor Gates own voluminous work on the history of racism). So, this interpretation fits an easily available stereotype. A White Cop confronts a Black Male. White racist cop. Easy.
Might even be true. But that ugly well-documented history does not provide the slightest evidence that there was either racial profiling or any racial motivation in this instance. How do we know?
Would calling this incident one more instance of racial profiling represent a rush to judgment?
With the caveat that we really don't know much with certainty, there are ample grounds for wondering if the attribution of a racial role in this case might be unwarranted.
First, a few facts (in case you have been on a deserted island for the last news cycle or two). Gates arrives home in the middle of the day and has to break into his own house. A neighbor reports suspicious behavior to the police.
(Note: my PhD dissertation concerned citizen willingness to report suspicious behavior to the police. This is precisely the sort of situation that public safety demands be reported to the police. If citizens only report things they are certain are crimes, most observed crimes will go unreported. The appropriate citizen threshold for calling the police is reasonable suspicion, not certainty. Seeing someone attempting to gain entry to a house clearly meets this standard -- regardless of the race of the person involved. It is the job of the police, not the citizenry to investigate whether or not what has been observed is actually a crime.)
Cambridge police Sgt. Crowley arrives at the scene and attempts to assess the situation. In the course of his investigation, he asks Gates to show his identification. Crowley's version has Gates getting agitated and confrontational and even verbally abusive, accusing Crowley of racial profiling and even verbally assaulting Crowley's mother.
Is it credible to believe Gates would become so agitated? From Gates' perspective, he is in his own home. And Gates has spent a lifetime documenting and analyzing racism. When confronted by a white police officer, in his own home, could he be prone to conclude, perhaps erroneously, that he had been racially profiled? It is not much of a leap to conclude this is possible. Could he get angry as a result? And see such anger as justified? I watched interviews with several journalists and commentators who identified themselves as personal friends of Gates. All of these friends described him as distinguished, accomplished, and very proud. If his pride was injured (racially motivated white police officer enters his house demanding identification) could he have vehemently resisted cooperating with what he may have seen as an illegitimate inquiry? Could he have become loud and confrontational? I wasn't there and thus don't know what really happened. But the possibility that Gates may have reacted in this way does not seem at all improbable.
Was the disorderly conduct arrest an overreaction? Possibly. But one could reach this conclusion without going anywhere near a racial explanation of events. Would a white homeowner who got agitated and aggressive with a police officer find himself under arrest? Or, as one commentator yesterday morning asked rhetorically, "If the homeowner had been Larry Summers (the white past president of Harvard) rather than the black professor Gates, would he have been arrested?" As a former police officer, and one who has written extensively (and often critically) about police behavior, I think the most likely answer is yes.
There is a code of conduct that dictates police-citizen behavior, especially in situations involving potential danger, such as a call for a suspected burglary. Police must make quick assessments about the threat involved in a citizen interaction. They assess threat by many factors. Race is not a legitimate factor. But demeanor is. Aggressive behavior can be seen as threatening and will be typically dealt with assertively by police.
Even once a physical threat had been removed, there was apparently another level of threat that Gates apparently posed. In the midst of the confrontation, Gates apparently tried to call the Cambridge Chief of Police and threatening the officer: "YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHO YOU ARE DEALING WITH". This was a direct threat to Crowley's authority. Would we want our police officers to back down before a white corporate executive or elected official who threatened to call a Chief of Police? I think not. And a threat to call his police chief might well incline a police officer who is considering whether an arrest is appropriate in the direction of making that arrest.
Such stylized interactions are well-known to most ordinary citizens. If you get pulled over by a police officer for a traffic infraction and you react with some contrition and humility, you have a fair chance of escaping with an oral warning. Challenge the officer, and you get a ticket. With certainty. Regardless of your race.
Should citizens be more free to express their emotions when confronting the police? One could make a case that we should. Certainly, we should feel free to challenge what we see as inappropriate police behavior free from fear of recrimination. A free people should not have to cower in front of the police.
But most would agree that there is a point where such a challenge may be so confrontational that it interferes with legitimate police work. Of course, we don't know enough about this particular encounter to know how severe any provocation may have been.
We could have a very reasonable discussion about what public policy in this area should be. If we want to constrain police discretion, it should be the product of open discussion and explicit policy change at the departmental level.
But the current norm is that if you aggressively, disruptively, and publicly challenge a police officer, you may see the criminal code invoked against you. And Sgt. Crowley did not invent this norm. Nor is there any necessary racial basis for its application in this instance.
I have reflected honestly about how I would react if I were confronted by a police officer under identical circumstances to those faced by Professor Gates. I am quite certain that I would have thanked the officer for his concern. And I would have readily provided identification upon request. Then again, I was once a police officer and know well why he would ask for it. Of course, I would not see the request through the same racial prism that Professor Gates did. So my reaction to the identical request would likely have been quite different from his.
Was this an instance of racial profiling? Did Gates overreact to a reasonable police request? The truth is that we simply do not have enough information to know what really happened in this case. Yet most people are prone to render a judgment non-withstanding this lack of definitive information. Therefore, your answers to these questions are likely to tell us more about your own prior life experiences and perspectives than anything about this particular incident. We all are prone to "fill in the blanks" with stories based upon our own experience.
This case presented an interesting twist on a common situation. The black accosted citizen was not, in this instance, powerless. Indeed he is a prominent Harvard professor who counts the President of the United States among his friends.
For his part, the President was right in asserting yesterday that the matter should not be judged until all the facts are in. He then immediately violated his own principle, proclaiming that the Cambridge police department had acted "stupidly." This was an uncharacteristic faux pas. If Obama had at some point in his life been the victim of racial profiling, the issue may be visceral for him. And he may have felt the desire to defend someone he acknowledged is a personal friend. Still, this rush to judgment represented a rare loss of control by a President who is normally meticulous about his language. And it was inappropriate for a President to comment, especially before all the facts are known.
I would like to live in a world where black men are treated no differently than white men in every respect. And one where police officers may be judged on the basis of their individual conduct rather than the conduct of those who preceded them.
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
Mr. O'Neil,
I am disheartened that someone of your intelligence would engage in a pedantic fit of mental gymnastics to excuse the inexcusable. You ask:
"Would we want our police officers to back down before a white corporate executive or elected official who threatened to call a Chief of Police?"
What we want is immaterial. Law demands no citizen ever be arrested for protected speech. Challenging government "authority" (without violence) is not only the right of every citizen, but an obligation in a free society. Threatening a government official with a legal challenge, or a call to their superiors--even in a loud voice--must never be grounds for arrest.
There is a limited code of conduct for citizens when they interact with police. Gates did not violate that code of conduct. According to the police report Gates was not cooperative; but cooperation is not required, only non-interference. (See Fifth Amendment).
You say:
"Challenge the officer, and you get a ticket...Regardless of your race."
That is a fair observation; but, again, this observation is not germane to the case at hand. Where there is no crime there is no grounds for arrest. This false argument is often used by Sergeant Crowley's apologists to deflect the issue from its proper trajectory: the detention of a citizen who had committed no crime. I reject your mingling of an officer's duty to enforce the law, with extra-legal arrests for purely personal reasons; they are not equivalent.
Well clearly, someone came into this situation with a pre-existing racial bias:
"As always, whitey now sits in judgment of me, preparing to cast my fate. It is your decision either to let me blow with the wind as a nonentity or to encourage the development of self. Allow me to prove myself."
—Henry Louis Gates, in his Yale application
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=104&pid=0&sid=1725138&page=2
See Michael J. O'Neil's Profile
In fairness, you might have noted that the article you cited stated that he has since expressed embarrassment about this statement.
White people who act that way get arrested too. Get real. It is not fair, it is not right, it is not in the constitution, but whoever you are, you had better memorize the following: be nice, reasonable, accomodating, cooperative, and obedient with the police. Unless you like being arrested.
"Don't you know who I am?" Or words to that effect. It's not pretty, but considering the obstacles black people have to deal with to attain a position the likes of Prof. Gates, it is human, and understandable. It was not a polite response. I seriously doubt if I would have been polite in the same circumstances. Not pretty, but definitely not criminal.
"even verbally assaulting Crowley's mother"???
Oh my goodness, now I will have to revisit my feelings on this entire episode! Somehow, I'd missed the reports that Sgt. Crowley's MOTHER had been ON THE SCENE and had been made to fear for her safety by the abusive words and/or actions of Professor Gates.
I worked in retail for years. In one furniture store, a Black woman complained she wasn't getting any attention, which was true. It had nothing to do with her race, only that we were all tied up with other customers. Her words were very similar to what Prof Gates allegedly yelled. "Just because I'm a Black woman in Naples.." She demanded the name of the owner, blah, blah. I calmed her down and offered her a cup of coffee. I apologetically explained the situation & even sold her a chair. When she returned to the store, she always asked for me. A White woman acted in the same manner on another busy day, because she also didn't think she was getting enough attention. The only difference was she substituted race for age. "You're only helping all those old people because you think they have more money than I do." She was out of control & caused a scene. In my humble opinion, these incidents are often about arrogance and ego, not color. I'm sure people will laugh at me for comparing a salesperson to a police officer, but we were both only doing our jobs. However, I'm not so sure I support arresting a man for acting like an ass in front of his own home. He was not a threat to the public or anyone else. In any case, Obama should not have interfered with a local police matter just because Gates is a personal friend.
You're right--not the same analagous situation. For one thing: the level of power and legal authority possessed by one party is not CLOSE to being comparative. Sorry, nice try, though.
See Michael J. O'Neil's Profile
Thank you. I think your pair of very real, personal anecdotes were very useful to hear. And I think your response to them demonstrates an ideal way to deal with them. Had Crowley done what you did, perhaps this entire episode would never happen. You could have reacted to the unfairness of the accusation. Instead you chose to fix the problem. The store was lucky to have you.
Lets do judge some cops by their recent behavior.
1. White cop stopped black man (other blacks in car) and prevented him from saying goodbye to his mother-in-law who was dying. Others at the scene asked and told him to let the citizens go and instead, he threatened the man. I believe this was in Ft. Worth.
2. Ft. Worth police raided a gay club and threw one man up against the wall, sending him to the hospital.
3. Grand Prairie, Texas officers sent racial emails back and forth. Their supervisor knew it and didn't do anything.
4. All of these incidents happened in 2009.
How about that?
I appreciate your thorough, intellectual analysis of the situation. However, I would think that police have training to handle irate public in situations like this. Unless Dr. Gates was totally psychotic, shouldn't hte officer be in propitiation and kindly excuse himself for the neighbor's error and wish the professor a good day and leave. The officer had to be insensitive to how this could appear to the distinguished resident to have allowed it to escalate to the point that he had to arrest Dr. Gates. Having power (and a gun) and using the utmost in respect to others could have made the office into a hero instead of someone trying to sort out who should apologize to whom.
You are correct. That is what we were taught in the academy and is one of the hallmarks of "community policing" as departments in MOST areas of the country attempt to engage in more constructive dialogue with the people they serve.
There is so much nonsense in this blog I can't even begin to cover it in the space allocated. Since when does a tip (via 911) from a third party not under duress give the police a right to invade someone's home without a warrant? This is a wonderful guise for harassment isn't it. What are the conditions the police found: daylight, a man in gray slacks and red golf shirt on the telephone, the man gives proper ID to police. The police should have immediately apologized profusely, gave him his card with badge number and name, and left the premises. The arrest is an abuse of authority because the only acts the man did were to verbally insult the police officer in the man's home. Poor officer - a weapon at his side, many police on the front porch, .... This is abuse of police authority, and the police did act stupidly.
As another poster wrote - it is not a crime to do what Mr. Gates did at any level; not entering his own home, not hollering at police in is own home since he did not call them, none of it. He should not have been arrested, period. If this is what happens under these circumstances, this officer is a smoldering time bomb waiting to go off when things really get rough. He needs anger management counseling at this point of his life.
I've heard people complain that they have called police to report suspected drug dealing happening in a neighborhood home - and the police say that is not enough for them to get a warrant, they certainly would not walk inside the house if the person(s) living there did not invite them in.
Maybe, what concern neighbors should do in this case then is to call in suspected break-ins at the drug houses, and then the police will walk inside?
Very well put. Thankfully Obama put the truth out on this in the news conference. Sure, the powers that reflexively sidle up to authority will force the President to backtrack on his comment, but for a brief shining moment Barack released a little solar disinfectant on the actions of the Cambridge PD.
Read the laws on disorderly conduct. Gates met enough of the criteria to warrant arrest. Nowhere in any account I have seen indicates that the officer entered the residence unlawfully. To classify this as an "invasion" is as ridiculous as your other assumptions. It is also quite funny how you downplay Gates role in this and place all the blame on police. The facts are, the officer responded to a break in call, the citizen who made the call was on the scene to describe what they saw, the officer continued to investigate the situation, and Gates began his tirade. Had the officer ignored the call, and had Gates been the victim of a break in and possible murdered, then the headlines would read "Prominent Harvard Professor Murdered - Racism in Cambridge?" Then the story line would be how the police didn't respond quick enough because the Professor was black.
"Read the laws on disorderly conduct"? Adam Winkler, a UCLA Law Professor, wrote a great piece here on Huffington Post. You should read it.
"vehemently resisted cooperating"? He provided the officer with his ID and proof of residence. Vehemence is not a crime - and one should not be arrested for it. The legitimate police work was done when the ID was provided. While Obama made reference to a long history of racial profiling in this country, his point was not that Gates was racially profiled. His point was that it was unncessary to arrest a 60-something year old man who was legitimately in his own home, who had complied with the officer's request for ID, and was not breaking the law.
See Michael J. O'Neil's Profile
As I wrote, I am not sure any of us know the precise facts. But, if Gates followed Crowley outside and was making enough of a commotion to attract neighbors, it could well meet the legal definition of Disturbing the Peace. (As the police union officials noted in their press conference, lawyers could argue for years about when this line has been crossed). One could well argue that Crowley had the discretion to ignore the transgression (if there was one) and perhaps should have done so. So there need not, and should not, have been an arrest for "vehemence" and I did not mean to say so.
I can tell you that arrests under such circumstances are quite common. If you would like to constrain police behavior under such circumstances, you want to lobby for a change in the law.
I can also tell you that it is also quite common to see such charges dropped. This does not necessarily mean that the original charges were wrong. Such cases are seldom a prosecution priority, nor should they be. Most commonly, the purpose of Disorderly Conduct charges are to diffuse an immediate situation. And arrest can do that, and no legal prosecution of the case is required to effect this result.
Sorry, partner. As a former cop, I can assure you that your comments are mere personal supposition and opinions. That's your right. However--without the benefit of the 911 tapes I can say THIS much: based on MY training AND experience and the words of the notables involved--there simply was no need to arrest this person. Arresting someone is not for the benefit of "diffusing a situation". If you believe that, I recommend a CLOSE re-reading of the 4th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Taking someone into custody is the REQUIRED follow-on to believing an ARRESTABLE crime as been committed and this the person that MOST likely perpetrated the offense.
I find it amazing how Sergeant Crowley's supporters quote his police report as gospel to support their views, but use the "I am not sure any of us know the precise facts" excuse to avoid answering uncomfortable questions.
The Police Union may think lawyers can argue about whether Gates merited a disorder charge, but lawyers sure aren't arguing about it.
This is why I hate the 250 word comment limit. I probably would have written the same thing. Though I think you might mention the "Do you know who I am?!" as indicative of class tensions, if, that is, Americans did not labour under the aggressively promoted delusion that class does not exist between 20 and 300 thousand a year.
America... Racist, backwards, ignorant, and "acts stupidly" .. most of the time
“But most would agree that there is a point where such a challenge may be so confrontational that it interferes with legitimate police work”. So, are you saying that the response to a person using insulting language to a police officer (the only claim Mr Crowley has) can legitimately be viewed as a possible criminal offense? That, whatever the profile of the arrestee, handcuffs and four hours in a police station are a proportionate response to “using insulting language to Mr Crowley’s mother”? Where is this spelled out in the law?
Stepping back a moment from the racial aspects of the Gates arrest, we need to look more broadly about abuse of authority by police. They sometimes arrest people because they can: an otherwise innocent person with an “attitude” who acts inappropriately and would in normal circumstances simply be written off as rude or stressed can be facing criminal charges. Then when one finds a black person who has (as almost all visible minorities do) intimate, repeated experience with racism facing a person of authority who is, probably unconsciously, reluctant to admit an initial error of appreciation, there is an explosive mix. Even if it is demonstrated that Professor Gates lost his temper and used inappropriate language, this would have been no cause to bring him in handcuffs to the police station and keep him for four hours. Was this abuse of authority? Yes and primarily. Was there underlying racism? Yes and compounding the abuse.
I agree with everything pariswoman said. I would also add that you would have to take everything in the police report as gospel and at the same time discount everything Mr. Gates said happened. Are we to believe that a police officer would never "embellish" a police report. And even if we take the report at face value there is simply no legal basis for the arrest.
When the other officer who is black was asked about the arrest he did say he "supported" officer Crowley, but he didnt comment on the facts.
Why did the DA recommend dropping the case? Because they had no case.
http://legalblogwatch.typepad.com/legal_blog_watch/2009/07/gates-gate-whats-the-law-say.html
Gates was inside his own home. There's already a question as to why the officer had to enter Gates' dwelling to ascertain the identity of the property owner. In the report, the officer states that the front door had a large pane of glass. Maybe it annoyed Gates that the cop barged in instead of just seeing his ID through the door. In his report, Crowley emphasizes the number of people who had gathered outside and witnessed Gates yelling at him. Embarrassing a Cambridge cop is apparently an arrestable offense. Maybe if you are guilty of a moving violation and a cop pulls you over it's a good idea to be polite, but how much cordiality is due if a cop has entered your residence and you have shown your ID? If Crowley thought Gates had said something rude, Crowley could have just told Gates he was being rude and then left. In an interview after the incident, trying to pile on horrific descriptions of Gates' behavior, Crowley's topper was that Gates had "acted irrational." The Cambridge PD would need a pretty big jail if they arrested everybody who "acted irrational." Personally, I've heard of some pretty dubious, and definitely non-professional, behavior on the part of the Cambridge Police Department. I hope some reporters will take the initiative to look into the city's law enforcement and find out if ignoring constitutional rights (not to mention standard operating procedure) is the exception for Crowley's department or the rule.
part 2
Racism is subtle and pervasive. One can have Black friends and can still act in prejudiced manner in another situation. We exist on a continuum of prejudice -- all of us. None of us can say whether the officer's intentions were race-based or not for sure because that is something only the Officer knows. However the storyline is so common for so many people of color that it is hard not to take the narrative to that place. And there is no way you can predict what an officer would have done if the resident was indeed Larry Summers. However, if you go by statistics, the frequency of a white man arrested in his own home in an affluent neighborhood just because he was upset at a cop is virtually non-existent.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
