Once More Unto The Gates

SCOTT C., in yesterday's comments, explains what I thought said but didn't, which is that, having put Dr. King on a stamp, society apparently demands in return that no black man express the opinion that any portion of society still harbors, you know, the R Word. Gates is accused--and charges later dropped--of Disturbing the Peace, but it's not the disturbance which makes the "news" but its emotive content, as though he were a drunken Mel Gibson and not a man with several centuries worth of Good Reasons behind him. (Gibson, of course, faced the considerably more serious charge of operating a vehicle while under the influence, but got to use It Was The Liquor Talking as a cover for public anti- Semitism and sexism. The Professional Black Professor will receive no such consideration, as he, like the Latina judge, reveals a deep, permanent character flaw by not being a middle-class white person.) That he is "accusing" the cop, and perhaps all white officers by extension--though not the system, generally--of being a racist, and not of being a cog in institutional racism, is taken as given. And there is no distinction made, even to be rejected; by the evening the story broke Sgt. Crowley had told the papers "I am not a racist", as though that settled things, as though we shouldn't be troubled that the justice system disproportionately falls on minorities, and the poor, and especially African-Americans, so long as every (non-elected) official involved personally attests to his lack of bias, his principled egalitarianism, and his general bonhomie. And coaches Little League.

As though we shouldn't be asking ourselves what "diversity" has brought to the news room.

It's ridiculous, of course. It's ridiculous philosophically--we know, without question, that, under the Aegis or in the tenth row of the mob, people will do things they wouldn't dream of doing--let alone admit they were capable of--face to face, and it's ridiculous experientially and statistically. All we have to do is look at the prison population. Now, maybe it's racism, maybe it's class, maybe it's racism, maybe it's cultural and communications static, maybe it's racism. Whatever it is, "I'm not a racist" is not a defense.

Which--let us be scrupulously fair--Sgt. Crowley may be justified in considering himself accused of, but not in imagining this is all, or even the major, point of contention. Again, we do not presume to know what happened. We do know that Crowley works for the Cambridge PD, and like every other such force in the country, it is, we presume, acutely aware that words to the Press must be chosen carefully. Crowley--or his speechwriters--could have informed us that by temperament, and training, he is certain that race never plays a role in his professional actions. This would have answered the charges, and the presumed personal attack, without doubling down on the Race card, a tactic that answers neither.

We will learn, over the weekend, that Sgt. Crowley was not merely a veteran supervisory officer, but one who was chosen to instruct new recruits in avoiding racial profiling. And we will also learn that, as the "get" of a "sympathetic local pair of radio talk show hosts" (Why?), Crowley will say “Speaking about my mother; it’s just beyond words.”

Game, set, match, and Example #1 of why public employees, especially of the law-enforcement type, should not be out on the hustings talking off the top of their heads (if he is)? I'm old enough that this will always be Playin' the Dozens to me, and something I'll view both in its original cultural context and its later expansion into the popular culture at large. Professor Gates denies having said it:

“I don’t talk about people’s mothers … You could get killed talking about somebody’s mother in the barbershop, let alone with a white police officer … I think they did some historical research, and watched some episodes of ‘Good Times.’ ”

And by now "dozens" may also refer to the number of extra eggs this pudding has received. I always thought it was a matter of context and knowing one's audience; you could get killed for overcooking the Thanksgiving turkey, reaching for your wallet, or being gay in Montana, too. My guess is that Gates felt he was in danger of receiving an Amadou Diallo Special the way Crowley felt like he was about to be rushed.

We will also learn that Gates, despite his non-stop abuse of Sgt. Crowley, seems to have been observing something else as well Via Judith Warner again:

He very likely would not have seen what Gates was sure he saw in Crowley’s face, as the cop scanned the professor’s Harvard ID, trying to take in the fact that the man before him was not an intruder. “He’s trying to unpack a narrative … He was so sure that he had a catch,” Gates recalled to [Sirius Radio's Gayle] King. “That is when everything turned.”

That is what has not been answered, and what needs to be answered, at least so long as Crowley persists in his refusal to apologize and his willingness to keep the issue alive via Press statement and Radio appearance. Okay, you're not a racist. Why didn't you just back away? Why wasn't Gates' ID enough for you? He obviously wasn't burglarizing the house. Just checking a report, sir, sorry to've bothered you. Go back to the station house and tell everyone within earshot what an asshole Mr. Big Shot Professor is. Or wasn't that enough? Why'd you try to lure him outside, more than once? Is there anything else that's "beyond words" when you're in uniform? Questioning your masculinity, your parenting skills, your relationship with a particularly attractive K-9 officer? If so, isn't admitting it in public a bit risky? It's like showing the playground bully exactly where you're ticklish.

Gates has the right to think and say whatever he pleases, Sergeant. You, professionally at least, do not. The field isn't level, but it isn't level by design, because the one man has the right to take the other's freedom away. But the result of a spotlight shown on all this isn't an enshrinement of that (vital) distinction; it's the instantaneous reduction of the thing to a public pissing match, and one in which the underlying theme is "a black man complaining about racism must be suspected, at least, of making the whole thing up", of gaming a system that's already So Unfair to White People, instead of being someone who has a legitimate reason to see things that way, even if he's myopic about it. While the cops do not, or should not, have that privilege.

So what we meant is that it is apparently unthinkable, despite our having "moved on" about Race, that Gates' charges could be more than theoretically correct. He is, as a black man and a scholar, permitted an intimate familiarity with the history of institutionalized racism (insert recent headline-making example here), but that is supposed to end in the abstract. Stopped by the police--including in a case where most white commenters are obliged to admit they would have felt such pressure directed at them, in their own homes, to be excessive, and threatening, even if they insist they'd have remained polite--Gates is supposed to demonstrate a middle-class white attitude as the default position. Like Dr. Johnson, Dr. Gates can kick the rock--and the Press will helpfully allow he Has A Point--but he's not supposed to draw any real conclusions about it.

I'm Sorry, But Doesn't That Actually Settle The Issue? Vol. LVIII

Michael Wilson and Solomon Moore, "As Officers Face Heated Words, Their Tactics Vary". July 24

FIRST, it's certainly gratifying to see the old Clinton Rapid Response technique back in action; it's just too bad that instead of fighting the Right Wing Noise Machine (Now 20% Noisier!) it's now activated by the Presidential loafer lodging in his mouth. The man perfected Instapology™ technology during the campaign, if you'll recall. And maybe the ensuing small modification of the reaction ("The President has apologized. But the issue his original comments raise is...") will eventually undermine the entire structure, if he can wait twenty years. Or maybe they should start working on not needing it.

Okay, fine, the man has a lot on his mind, but, honestly, you have to wonder who these DLC types think they're dealing with on the Right, and what they imagine the stench coming from the Press Corps is if not putrefaction. I know, you can't treat either of them precisely the way they should be treated--though that didn't stop Cheney from theorizing about it, mutatis mutandis--but, c'mon, a politician who hasn't mastered the three-paragraph No Comment isn't spending enough time on the Basics.

And not even I would have said "the police acted stupidly". One officer acted aggressively, provocatively (that "bad acoustics" and "would you step outside, sir" routine has drawn little comment, but it's probably damning enough to have gotten the case tossed on its own, provided the defense attorney had a fighting shot at literacy, and depending on how badly someone wanted to fuck with you). Bad day, bad cop, or public servant driven beyond reasonable levels of endurance, we don't know. We do know a little more than what people are saying, though.

The police say Professor Gates was arrested and briefly charged with disorderly conduct after he ignored warnings to stop haranguing an officer who had asked him for identification inside his home.

Though Professor Gates said he was not abusive and was the victim of racism, the police report said he told Sgt. James M. Crowley, “I’ll speak with your mama outside.”

Yo' Mama! It is, by the way, one of three complete sentences Sgt. Crowley's incident report quotes--the other two being Gates' refusal to produce his information, and his claim that "This is what happens to black men in America,"--and the only one he quotes from their one-on-one inside Gates' house. Did Crowley miss the point? Did the two Times reporters? Is it possible? Can a supervising white officer really think every Yo' Mama is directed at his cardigan-wrapped Grey Haired Mother Dear, knitting away next to the expectant bowl of Werther's Originals? Especially when, as here, the context is unmistakable? The earnest spectator hopes he'll get the chance to explain in the civil proceedings. But, then, the earnest spectator armed with badge, sidearm, nightstick, mace, and the power to arrest, and confronted by a hobbling 58-year-old topping out at about five-and-one-half feet, would probably have laughed, and encouraged the man to enjoy the rest of his day as he worked his way back out the front door.

Several officers interviewed in four cities on Friday said they tried to ignore such remarks. Others said they had zero tolerance for being treated disrespectfully in public.

And in public, we would think, is a place where they'd spend little actual time if they were constantly perp-walking and filling in paperwork on anyone who said something cross to 'em.

A mounted police officer who has been with the Los Angeles Police Department for 25 years said that taking verbal abuse was a regular part of his job.

“We don’t get to tell people what they want to hear,” said the Los Angeles officer, who, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid being quoted on duty. “Whether we’re giving them a ticket or responding to some conflict between a husband and wife, we’re not dealing with people at their best, and if you don’t have a tough skin, then you shouldn’t be a cop.”

Thank you, officer. Though we would note that it's probably a little easier when you're sitting atop 1200 pounds of witless beast trained to shove people out of its way.

But in Brooklyn, a 24-year-old officer, with three years on the force, seemed less inclined to walk away from verbal abuse.

“We say, ‘Back down,’ ” he said. “If they don’t back down and start making direct threats, that’s an offense. They don’t get a free pass.”

He said that threats could be defined in different ways, and he preferred to talk people down, but that the rules changed if a crowd formed, which was routine in New York and also occurred during the Gates incident.

Okay. But one suspects that the "crowd" Sgt. Crowley engineered in Cambridge was, at minimum, a bit too polysyllabic to be mistaken for your average threatening mob.

So, despite the standard Ignore the Context, Explain Why This Is Controversial Anyway routine, haven't we--worst case scenario, really--already explained why Professor Gates was correct, even if he was disorderly? If the "law" is However the Individual Cop You Draw Reacts then he's got every right--rhetorical and historical--to suggest he was being treated unfairly, and too bad if Sgt. Crowley doesn't like the implication. If the standard is Back Down When You're Told To Back Down--which is at least clear--then he still has the right to object that it was applied too quickly, or unfairly, provided he's willing to face arrest. Willingness to be arrested, whether to prove a point, get a dry place to sleep, or just for the hell of it, is not itself a crime.

This is why we'd like to see the President stay out of it, and to suggest to the Press that it gather the facts instead of plugging the Script. The reaction he fans--Played the Race Card! Cop Doing His Job! Not A Racist!--is excuse-mongering for an incident that never should have happened; and instead of a He Said/He Said with side order of Race, we ought to be noting here that the two sides are unequal, and that the Police do not have the right to take offense, or, rather, that they do not have the right to let offense drive the response, but that they are merely in a position to do so and blame it on the acoustics, something they are not supposed to be allowed to get away with with impunity. And I say that as someone who, had he law enforcement powers, would automatically reach for the nightstick the minute anyone--black, brown, white or ecru--told me I "didn't know who I was dealing with." Hell, I consider reaching for the hard salami every time someone pulls that attitude in the deli line. But cops cannot. It ain't about "who" Henry Louis Gates is; that's just the reason we heard about it. It's not even about a cop overreacting, really. It's about the fact that it's still impossible, in 2009, for a black man to believe he was being treated unequally by the police without being accused of saying so just to gain an unfair advantage. Newspapers ought to know better, even if they see their mission as flame accelerant and not the firehose of truth; for the police it's not supposed to be an option.

Well, Thanks For Sharing

Jonathan Saltzman and Erica Noonan, "Officer in Gates case says he won't apologize". July 22

I'M a civil rights absolutist--or what I like to call "an American"--but I'm also a Midwesterner, so I believe in polite, twice over, to cops, parents of small children, even disc jockeys, while expecting the same against all reasonable historical evidence.

Now, being an absolutist doesn't mean I have to think everyone's innocent until conviction, after which I get to pile on; it means they're entitled to my presuming their innocence before the Bar. I have no idea whether Professor Gates became disorderly and "disruptive", whatever that means (Police report, which the Globe scrubbed, is here.) Dunno if he threw open his unstuck door and called Sergeant Crowley a racist, or if he started in with the sorry-assed "You don't know who you're dealing with" routine, though, for the sake of someone who wants to take offense at being racially profiled, I hope not. Dunno if he was jet-lagged, drunk, medicated, or cranky. Dunno if the sales job that Incident Report tries to do is legitimate or suggestive.

What I do know is that Gates has the right to be obnoxious, should he decide that's a good idea, and a peace officer has the power to arrest and the right to lie as when, to chose an entirely hypothetical example, he asks an irate citizen to step outside his domicile and continue yelling in order to draw a crowd that interferes with the officer's performance, and blames it on "accoustics". The facts are obscured; the general outline--Gates pisses off cop, cop runs him in in retaliation--can be glimpsed through the fog; charges are dropped (read: Gates wins, read: never should have reached that point).

And leave us depart from Rashomon meets In The Heat Of The Night here and suggest that you receive a report of "two [black] men trying to break into a house", and you determine that there was no break-in, and that one of the men was the homeowner, the other his cabbie, then you bear the responsibility for the thing managing to wind up on the national news that evening anyhow. Police work, like bartending and network teevee programming, is all about how far you cooperate with assholes. (I gotta tell you, Sergeant, that if "Suspect refused to get the non-verbal message when I flashed my cuffs" is part of the department standards your Association says you live by, I personally would like to see them augmented by "biceps flexing in shirt-sleeve weather" or "cracking walnuts in the fist, where possible".)

And, look: whoever took the last sheet of toilet paper should replace the roll. That's the situation you guys are in, and I know you resent it, because I watch The Closer*. Get yourself some professional PR help. Do not say "I'm not a racist". That's what racists say.

The Globe, our dedicated story scrubber, does its best to help:

A father of three who coaches youth basketball and plays on a local softball team, Crowley declined to comment in the afternoon, but spoke to a Globe reporter this evening.

"The officer, who admits he "bawled like a baby when Old Yeller died," said..."

One of Crowley's neighbors, Ed Shagory, a retired attorney, said he has been friends with Crowley and his family for more than 17 years.

He said he was upset about the criticism levied against his friend, whom he supports in the dispute. "I think the world of him and his family," Shagory said.

He said he was disturbed by the intense worldwide, often sensational, media coverage on the case. His daughter, serving in Iraq, even read about the news, Shagory said.

Good Lord. The terrorists have won.

Nice attempt. I think you should have used a bigger trowel, but then I'm no professional; my one semester of Journalism was so long ago I remember the professor saying that shit that had no fucking connection whatsoever to the story was supposed to be left out. But I'm just wondering how much longer ham-fisted reverse racism charges are going to fly, via pseudo-crypto Birther pandering and faux-analysis of what was "decided" in Ricci, in our coming Post-Racial Age. Not that the Globe will be around to see it, but Scary Black Man Cries Racism would seem to have a dwindling appeal, and the expectation that the Police, Corporate America, and even, yes, the Republican Party might reach the point where they got entangled in such messes only by accident, not design, are rising. Dunno who's at fault. Maybe both, maybe nobody, really. Dunno if Sgt. Crowley would have behaved differently with a white suspect, but I know that his Many Fine Personal Attributes have nothing whatsoever to do with the reality of racial profiling, in this case or in every last one of 'em. And I don't know, but I suspect, that if the arrestee had been a newspaper reporter for a Tottering Metropolitan Daily, Crowley's kindness to old people and injured wildlife would have been, uh, less newsworthy.

____________
* God help us, appending soap-opera "personal" storylines is apparently as essential to teevee policiers as bolted-on tits are to pole dancing, but do we have to have the Ambitious Professional Rival combined with The Conniving Other Woman, the Evil, Unscrupulous Internal Affairs Officer, and The Paragon of Bleeding Heart Concern For Everyone's Rights Except The Victim's, Even When It's Gunned-Down Cops like some sort of basic cable English Trifle or something? Pah. At least when these storylines ground Hill Street Blues to a halt you knew they weren't going to take over entire episodes.

In Other News, Larry Craig: Still Not Gay

Racist Star, as always, no links to ephemera:

Prison teacher says he forgot about gun

By MAX SHOWALTER
Posted: February 26, 2009

Authorities in northern Indiana said a gun was confiscated Tuesday from a West Lafayette man who teaches classes at the Westville Correctional Facility.

No charges have been filed, but an investigation is continuing into the actions of Jeffrey Grupp, who serves as a limited term lecturer at the Purdue University North Central campus in Westville and teaches classes at the prison.

Grupp was stopped from entering the prison shortly after noon Tuesday when an X-ray screening of a milk crate of books he brought with him showed a gun in a hollowed-out book.

"I'm a gun owner. It's one of my two big hobbies in life. I have a permit and I carry (the gun) with me all the time," said Grupp, who explained that he had been running a number of errands Tuesday morning and made an expensive car repair payment before heading to the prison for the class.

"I was very stressed out. I have to keep the gun concealed. What I do is keep it inside a book.

"I usually remember to separate it and I forgot. I came home and ran inside, got my lunch, got some of my books and forgot it was in there. They questioned me for about four hours. The gun was bought legally. I have no criminal record."

O-KEE, so one could argue, if one were feeling charitable, that he would have known the books would be x-rayed. And the syntactically beneficent may attribute his confabulating like a five-year-old caught exposing himself at Recess to that "stressed out" business.

Me? I own two guns, as it happens, though it's not a big hobby, nor a hobby of any size; I can't discourse on ammo, I've never shot at anything but a target, bullseye- not man-shaped, and I don't own or carry either of them for "protection", not even when braving the highwaymen-infested by-roads of Indiana's glacier-flattened Badlands. And if I did they wouldn't be hidden in a hollowed-out Volume 12 (Paricutin to Quicksand) of The Golden Book Encyclopedia ("My wallet and car keys? Sure, just gimme a sec to look something up.").

Haven't touched either one of 'em since the last time I cleaned 'em, which was probably too long ago.

But, y'know what? I fucking know where they are.

Look, after forty years of the NRA telling us we "have enough gun laws on the books", and after the "Supreme" Court has ruled that there never was any controversy over the Second Amendment, can't we at least find a way to make "Armed While Stupid" something more than just an invitation to appear on a reality program?