Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Fool's avatar
  2. Santa Monica's avatar
  3. Charles Bakker's avatar
  4. Matty Silverstein's avatar
  5. Jason's avatar
  6. Nathan Meyvis's avatar
  7. Stefan Sciaraffa's avatar

    The McMaster Department of Philosophy has now put together the following notice commemorating Barry: Barry Allen: A Philosophical Life Barry…

My one and only comment on the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Jr.

A few readers have asked whether I might have a comment on the arrest of Professor Gates of Harvard for "disorderly conduct" after someone phoned the police after seeing him and his car service driver forcing open the front door of the house, which was jammed.   President Obama, who described the arrest of Professor Gates as "stupid," has now been backtracking, since one is not supposed to criticize the police, apparently, in America.  "Stupid" is, I think, a very nice way to put it:  I do not see any evidence that the officer was stupid, just arrogant and irritated at being bawled out.  Even if one accepts verbatim everything in the police report–and more on that in a moment–it's pretty clear the arrest was unlawful.   Why would an intelligent officer make an unlawful arrest?  Because he was pissed off at being shouted down and thought he could get away with it, as the police usually do.

In any case, the police simply aren't very credible in circumstances like this, so it would be bizarre to credit the police report in all details:  police lie, all the time.  I recall a Queens (N.Y.) prosecutor telling me years ago that the police he would have to call as witnesses would openly joke about testifying in court as "testilying."  The culture of dishonesty in the service of both commendable (e.g., getting genuine criminals and preserving public safety) and self-serving (e.g., concealing misconduct and allowing the police to trample on those who offend them) ends is, from all the evidence I have seen, absolutely pervasive in American policing, at least in the major urban areas, where the pressures on the police are probably the greatest.  (On testilying, see the first few paragraphs here [and citations therein] or this L.A. Time article.)  Anyone familiar with police practice in major urban centers knows that "disorderly conduct" is the charge the police always fall back on when they don't have an actual charge to support an arrest.  (See the comments of Northwestern law profesor Steven Lubet in this regard.)  Some minority of "disorderly conduct" charges are probably legitimate, most are not.  Professor Gates acted imprudently, without a doubt, but he was right to be angry, and all the evidence now available strongly suggests the arresting officer acted illegally.

What role did race play in all this?  Less, I suspect, than the initial news coverage has suggested (or than this would suggest).  The woman who called the police was probably influenced by racial considerations:  why are two dark-skinned men forcing their way through the front door of a nice house near Harvard Square?  But would she have called the police if two white men were doing the same thing?  One hopes so, but who knows?   The arresting officer's annoyance at being bawled out may have been exacerbated by the fact that it was an African-American man shouting at him:  it's hard to know, we'd have to know a lot more about the officer in question.   Police do not like to be berated or challenged, period, and an incident like this should call more attention to police abuse of the charge of "disorderly conduct" as a way of trampling on the First Amendment rights of citizens to challenge police conduct. 

Signed comments from readers are welcome:  full name, valid e-mail.

Leave a Reply to Brian Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

49 responses to “My one and only comment on the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Jr.”

  1. Thank you for pointing to the person who called this in – one of my first thoughts was who was the person and is there a reason they don't know who their neighbor is (at least by sight & and yes I do get too many people can't identify their own neighbors) – apparently they don't watch any PBS either where Professor Gates has appeared prominently on various programs. I also found the fact this officer believed he usurped any home owners authority in their own house, on their own property ludicrous and arrogant – as well the fact Professor Gates could be the mans father (age wise) might have got the fine sargents dander up. There are many facets to human communication that when then layered as this situation is with the American subtext and subculture around race, class and or individual rights COMPOUNDED by media reporting, hype or something in between we have the making of a new mini series or show!

    Thanks for your comments and thoughts regarding this situation and the expansion of it into the truth(s) of living in communities around America.

  2. Thank you for commenting on the Henry "Skip" Gates fiasco. Stupid it indeed was, what the police did. But sadly enough, it is probably common practice. We are hearing about it only because Gates is a respected Harvard professor.

    The fact that the policeman wanted the professor to step out of his home even after he had established ownership of the home, indicates to me that the cop wanted witnesses for the "disorderly conduct" of Gates, who by that time was irate and probably ranting. And for those of us who think that we have to meekly obey the police even when we have broken no law and the police may be in a bullying mood, please see the first comment on this Slate article.

    http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/permalink/3024983/3024983/ShowThread.aspx#3024983

    I do not think that President Obama's election is going to necessarily improve race relations in this country, not in the short term anyhow. There are plenty of people who are unnerved by a dark skinned man at the pinnacle of world power. To combat that queasiness, they wish to undo that reality. Rumors, innuendos and plain old ugly prejudices are spewing forth from the reactionary quarters of America. The resentment toward Obama may in fact spill over toward other successful members of minority groups who will unfairly be targeted for their "uppityness."

    Stanley Fish for a change, is on the right side of the Gates / Obama / racism issue.

    http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/henry-louis-gates-deja-vu-all-over-again/

  3. Actually, I think Stanley Fish misses the point (as usual!). Race seems to me the minor element in this story. The major element is police abuse of "disordely conduct" charge as a way of stifling criticism of their conduct.

  4. I assume there is some truth to both sides, which means I do not see either side as having acted in the best possible manner. Should you yell at a cop who is acting badly? Or, refuse to show id with an address, initially (I know what con. law says you have the right to do but the administration of law is different)? No, that will only provoke force from one who only knows force and someone who presumably knows better. One should not let the actions of another dictate their own. If you are dignified act as such regardless of how you are being treated, and just wait for the proper moment. There are more productive avenues available. Cops, like all people, get worn down by their job. They are constantly yelled at, lied to and berated those they encountered. And in some instances their safety and life are at risk. How many times a day do you think a cop is lied to? I understand why he would not initially believe Gates' account. However, they are professionals and should act as such. Once we start excusing any impropriety, bad behavior will run rampant and only get worse. But again, I would not tell this directly to an officer who has wrongly pulled me over for not using a blinker and then asks to search my car for no reason. In the field is not a place to give a civics lesson to someone who obviously does not care about your rights.
    This is not being meek, but simply being aware of how to press one's rights more effectively.

  5. Marie, the person who called the report in was on a walk and not a neighbor. I agree that this is basically the sort of thing that happens all the time, and that what happened was unfortunate,* and the only reason it's a big deal is that Gates is a famous African American Harvard professor. Even so, the original news reports were all intentionally misleading in that they just said Gates was arrested, which led readers to believe he was arrested for burglary, which is obviously absurd.

    I also think it is worth nothing that while the incident is unfortunate, it's not clear that it's something a reasonable person could expect not to happen. No one like's attitude, and no one takes it if they don't have to. Hence, cops don't take attitude. That's unfortunate, but hard to avoid…that's why people are anarchists.

    *Given the atrocities suffered by less fortunate people at the hands of the police, I refuse to call this anything worse than unfortunate.

  6. Stanley Fish did not miss the point on this occasion. Your well-taken point in the original post is quite compatible with his. Surely, "race" often can be a significant factor without being the only or the leading factor. Fish focused on the race angle, which hardly seems irrelevant under the circumstances. You focused on police abuse of authority, which as a general phenomenon can be expected to have a racially disparate impact given policing strategies in major urban centers.

    There is no embarrassment in not being deeply at odds with Fish this time.

  7. Not a huge point but it's worth pointing out (in response to Marie's comment above) that it looks as if the woman who called the cops was *not* a neighbor; this article identifies her as "of Malden," which is *definitely* not Cambridge:

    http://www.washingtoninformer.com/wi-web/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1742:harvard-scholar-gates-arrested-charges-later-dropped&catid=51:national&Itemid=114

  8. steve flemming

    officers were dispatched to the gates home fot a possible breaking and entering.the first order of buisness for any police officer arriving at the scene is to take control of the situation.the officers were there to protect mr. gates property. anybody remembering that fact?officers are trained to quell any sudden movements,hand gestures and even language so they can survey the situation. cooperation on the part of mr. gates and there is no story. lines were crossed by both parties. mr. gates first.it is about race, mr. gates perseption of the police

  9. I agree 100%. All the talk of race issues (which are present of course) obscures the important issue of the grossly inflated perceptions of authority invested in law enforcement. Law enforcement too often operate in a way in which they do not expect their authority to be challenged by citizens.

    Professor Gates should use this opportunity to challenge the prevailing attitudes in the broader culture towards law enforcement officers and their authority vis-a-vis citizens.

  10. I think the police also use 'resisting arrest' when they can't support any good charge. Sadly (at least in Ontario), 'resisting arrest' can give someone a criminal record.

    Probably the worst comments on the Gates case are those of David Horowitz on Fox a couple of days ago, when DH somehow managed to bring in a reference to O. J. Simpson. Even Glen Beck was put off by this.

  11. Have you seen philosophy's new apologist for state-sponsored violence:

    http://crookedtimber.org/2009/07/23/police-discretion-a-different-perspective/

  12. To Kyle Scott:

    I am sure it is not a good idea for a member of any minority group to talk back to the Klan or the Neo Nazis either especially if they are packing guns or swinging baseball bats. I know that I won't challenge them if confronted. But it is still a good thing if someone braver than I am can take them on and bring the menace to the notice of the public.

    I have full sympathy for policemen who perform their duties with thoughtfulness and consideration. I am also aware of the pressures they are under on a day to day basis. As in the case of soldiers and EMTs that is their job description. Perhaps the police should focus more on psychological testing to assess that quality (calm under pressure) among their recruits. But whatever the constraints, it does not justify bullying an elderly person, shooting at unarmed citizens or making arrests under false pretense. Exercising proper authority should not degenerate into unlawful intimidation. Parents and school teachers too can go nuts. There is proper justification to ban corporal punishment in our schools for that reason and child abuse at home is a punishable crime.

    Just to refresh everyone's memory, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr and other civil rights activists broke the law of their day in the deep south. And they did it outside the confines of their homes after they had been asked to "behave" by the police.

    The police force is for the most part, a useful arm of our society. But it is not above the law. There are unfortunately many in this institution who mistake proper authority to enforce the law as a license to put themselves above it.

    PS: I doubt that Professor Gates began his loud protests right at the beginning of his encounter with Sgt. Crowley. May be he felt frustrated when he saw that the proof of ownership of the home was being questioned repeatedly by the officer. We'll find out. Apparently, Crowley's explantion for asking Gates to step out was "bad acoustics" in the kitchen! What, he couldn't hear a man who was by that time screaming at him? A bit laughable, that one.

  13. mike livingston

    I think that you're tending, perhaps understandably, to see this from the professor's rather than the police's point of view. Yes, police don't like it when people are abusive or disrespectful to them in the performance of their duties. Who does? But it looks to me like Gates, not the police officer, was spoiling for the fight here: seeing it through the prism of race relations, which he writes about for a living, rather than as a more routine incident. If I screamed at a Black police officer, I would expect no better and probably worse treatment.

    BTW Brian, I am curious at your opinion as to the academic reputation of Prof. Gates. I took an admittedly quick look at his online resume, and an awful lot of his publications seem to involve the "discovery" of other people's work together with what I would call second-order academic questions (the importance of diversity, the need to change the literary canon, etc.) as opposed to genuine theoretical breakthroughs. He's certainly smarter than I am, but is really one of the leading academics in the country? Is it possible that he is, to put it mildly, insecure about his status, and some of this came out in the incident?

  14. I certainly agree with much of what Brian says but I do think that this is a rare occasion where Stanley Fish is right. See the anonymous attack on Gates, who did absolutely nothing wrong as far as I can tell in his own house, in Salon. Hopefully, this is a moment where we can all reflect on both race and also the politics of policing which Brian rightly emphasizes.

  15. I agree with LK McPherson’s comment above.

    Here’s why I don’t think race is just a minor element in this story:

    Assuming, as I do, that his account (in an interview here http://www.theroot.com/views/skip-gates-speaks ) of his arrest is sincere, it was Henry Louis Gates’s conviction that he was being treated in racist fashion by a police officer that explains the way in which he reacted to Sergeant James Crowley’s visit to his house.

    This conviction has an obvious social context. As Obama said in his first press conference statement: “what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by police disproportionately. That’s just a fact.” There’s also the more specific history of complaints by Harvard faculty and students of being treated with undue suspicion by the Harvard police. Gates mentions in his interview that Allen Counter was one of the Harvard professors who got in touch to express outrage and solidarity. In 2004, Counter was stopped by the police while walking to his office across Harvard Yard because they mistook him for a black robbery suspect.

    Even if we assume that James Crowley does not himself have a racist bone in his body and treated Henry Louis Gates no differently from the way he would have treated a white man, well-grounded beliefs about the way in which African Americans are treated by the police lie at the root of this train of events. It’s neither accidental nor incidental that the professor who was arrested was African American and that the arresting officer was white. Try to conceive of a scenario in which the races are reversed and a white, middle-aged Harvard professor is arrested on the porch of his own house for disorderly conduct by a black police officer following up a report of a suspected burglary.

    What follows are some quotations from Gates’s account:

    “Now it’s clear that he [Sergeant Crowley] had a narrative in his head: A black man was inside someone’s house, probably a white person’s house, and this black man had broken and entered, and this black man was me.”

    “So he’s looking at my ID, he asked me another question, which I refused to answer. And I said I want your name and your badge number because I want to file a complaint because of the way he had treated me at the front door. He didn’t say, ‘Excuse me, sir, is there a disturbance here, is this your house?’—he demanded that I step out on the porch, and I don’t think he would have done that if I was a white person.”

    “…It escalated as follows: I kept saying to him, ‘What is your name, and what is your badge number?’ and he refused to respond. I asked him three times, and he refused to respond. And then I said, ‘You’re not responding because I’m a black man, and you’re a white officer.’ That’s what I said. He didn’t say anything. He turned his back to me and turned back to the porch. And I followed him. I kept saying, “I want your name, and I want your badge number.””

    “…A crowd had gathered, and as they were handcuffing me and walking me out to the car, I said, ‘Is this how you treat a black man in America?’”

    “… He didn’t follow proper police procedure! You can’t just presume I’m guilty and arrest me. He’s supposed to ask me if I need help. He just presumed that I was guilty, and he presumed that I was guilty because I was black. There was no doubt about that.”

  16. John S. Wilkins

    From this distance (Australia) it looks like what you say; that this is a matter of police abuse of power in the face of a rant of someone who may or may not be right about racial profiling. The fact is, in every country in the world the police abuse their powers when they feel like it, because they police themselves, and the culture of police Omerta is ubiquitous even among police officers of good will and honest intent. The only solution, in a democratic country is, I think, to have a police misconduct commission that is appointed by and responsible only to the democratically elected representative body, your Congress and our Parliament, at arm's length.

    Police as an institution arose before fully democratic principles were in play, but we know that democracy relies upon a balance of powers to avoid corruption and the imposition of power injudiciously. Police need to have this as well. In Australia, some attempts to set up a Crime and Misconduct Commission, or an Independent Corruption Commission (and other titles) have been made. Political interference has made these less effective than they ought to be, but a surprising number of cases against police abuse of power have nevertheless been brought successfully.

  17. Christopher Morris

    Given how little information we have — even if more than a few days ago — it's interesting that most of the conjectures coming from the academy are boringly familiar. This is not surprising, of course, for many reasons, the obvious one being that a black man is arrested on his property. However, one possible reading seems to have escaped the notice of many profs, though not I expect most non-academic residents of Boston-Camb-Somerville: "Arrogant Harvard Prof dresses down working-class cop". (It helps to know that the cop is something of a local hero.)

    What's so surprising about this tale is how politically tone-deaf are our President and the White House. I'm not surprised the academy is — we're not politicians who must face re-election. But calling some cops stupid, in the most public way possible, on the basis of very little information, is a remarkably inept move for a skillful politician (nd surpising for a former law prof.). And the assumption of countless profs. that the motivation of the police officer had to be, at some level, racist, betrays remarkable prejudice (in the absence of evidence). Perhaps our obsession with race has made us lose sight of class, among other things.

  18. Jeremy Ginsburg

    I completely agree with Brian's comments. I will add that it is all too common for police officers to refuse to provide their names and badge numbers when confronted by citizens skeptical of their conduct and, if such requests continue or passers-by resort to documenting the incident on video, to respond with arrests for "interfering with police business" and the like. I'm inclined to view the Gates case as essentially an example of this type.

  19. The policeman's comments at Crooked Timber
    http://crookedtimber.org/2009/07/23/police-discretion-a-different-perspective/
    that scott linked to seemed to me, on a very quick perusal, intelligent. I recommend.

    "Disorderly conduct," it seems to me, is an inherently vague charge: necessarily so, since human ingenuity will always come up with new forms of disorderliness that would skirt any attempted precise definition. In application it involves a "judgment call" by the police officer. In effect, therefore, having a charge of disorderly conduct on the stature books is a way of giving the police the power of discretionary arrest. (Other charges that have done this in the past are loitering, and — one of my personal favorites (assuming it was real and the policeman who told me about it wasn't just bullshitting me) — "vilifying and abusing a police officer.")

    Trouble is, I'm not sure it isn't a good idea to give the police limited powers of discretionary arrest. Think about the kind of low life that haunts places like the Port Authority Bus Terminal in New York (or, at least, that haunted it in my youth in the 1960s). Much of it, at any given time, will not obviously be in the act of committing a well-defined offense, but (for the safety of the traveling public!) some of it should be stopped, spoken too, possibly even escorted off the premisses or to the holding cells. Possible solution to problem: give policemen the power of discretionary arrest, but make every effort to see that only mature, experienced, sane policemen with nothing "to prove" get assigned to that beat. (The last bit, I thought in the 1960s, was probably feasible: PA Bus Terminal was an indoor beat, so with luck cops with enough seniority to know about coming in from the rain would bid for it!)

    And maybe it is a good thing if Harvard professors and other public intellectuals have the opportunity, from time to time, to see the paint-peeling environments in which policemen work — I had occasion to visit a station-house on my most recent trip to New York and found it the most depressingly ugly interior I saw on the trip — and see how the police try to work professionally despite paltry resources they are given. But that's another issue altogether.

  20. Chris,

    (1) I grant that accounts, including mine above, of the role of race in this are boringly familiar. I thought the obvious needed to be stated, however, in response to claims in this thread that race played only a minor role.

    (2) I don’t myself maintain that Gates was justified in thinking he had been treated in racist fashion, nor do I assume that Crowley’s motivation must at least at some level have been racist.

    (3) I doubt that the ‘Arrogant Harvard Prof dresses down working-class cop’ reading will have escaped the notice of professors who have posted in this, as anyone who has been following the comments on various blogs will have encountered readings along these lines several times.

    (4) A class-based reading of what happened is not incompatible with my account of the role that race played in this.

  21. I hope I'm misunderstanding Mr. Hazen. It reads as if he is saying that Gates should be grateful for the unfair treatment he received from the police.

  22. Although I don't enough about this case to have a confident opinion either way, I do wish there were more voices like Christopher Morris's in the fray.

  23. I don't understand how Mike Otsuka's (2) squares with his (1). If Gates isn't justified in his interpretation of the role of race in this incident, then how could his interpretation, which is Mike's main bit of evidence, at all relevant to whether or not race played a significant role in this incident?

  24. Belated reply to Mike Livingston: I have no opinion about Gates's academic reputation. I've never read a word he's written. That Stanly Fish is a huge fan of his doesn't make me optimistic, but needless to say, it would be unfair to render a verdict on that basis! In any case, I'd like the discussion to stay focused on the arrest.

  25. Brian,

    On the issue whether race had anything to do with the cop's aggressive attitude, I shouldn't be at all surprised if it did; but, then again, given what British cops do to a white person in this video, I shouldn't be at all surprised if it didn't. I'd be astonished if there weren't cases similar to this in the US. Obviously, racism is often cited as the cause of this kind of behaviour in Britain too, and plausibly sometimes it is the cause; but who knows, before the relevant inquiry, what was going on in the cops' minds? Surely, instead of focusing exclusively on the (alleged) facts of this particular case, we need to consult some data on police complaints (broken down by the race of the complainant) etc. Does anyone know where to find the relevant data for the Cambridge Police Department or for the particular police officer involved?

  26. Brian, about Mike Otsuka's argument:I think Mike is saying (correctly) that the reason race played a role in the incident is that it was Gates's incorrect perception that he was being treated in a racist way which caused him to react in the way he did thus 'disrupting the peace'. Gates had this incorrect perception because of the significant history in America of unfair treatment of blacks by the police. Race played a role in this not by causing the cop to treat Gates poorly, but rather by causing Gates to interpret his treatment as racially motivated.

  27. “I don't understand how Mike Otsuka's (2) squares with his (1). If Gates isn't justified in his interpretation of the role of race in this incident, then how could his interpretation, which is Mike's main bit of evidence, [be] at all relevant to whether or not race played a significant role in this incident?”

    To explain what I was thinking, let me supply another quotation from the Gates interview:

    "All of a sudden, there was a policeman on my porch. And I thought, ‘This is strange.’ So I went over to the front porch still holding the phone, and I said ‘Officer, can I help you?’ And he said, ‘Would you step outside onto the porch.’ And the way he said it, I knew he wasn’t canvassing for the police benevolent association. All the hairs stood up on the back of my neck, and I realized that I was in danger. And I said to him no, out of instinct. I said, ‘No, I will not.’"

    Whether or not Gates was justified in thinking that Crowley was treating him with a menacing suspicion, such an interpretation is perfectly comprehensible, given the heightened suspicion of criminality, and the brutality, that African American men have experienced in their dealings with the police. And it would have made a lot less sense had Gates been white rather than a member of a group that has been treated by the police in the way African American men have.

    So my point is simply this: we don’t need to leap to the conclusion that Gates was justified in thinking that this particular police officer was treating him in a racist manner – and that would be a leap, given what we know – to see that this incident doesn’t make a whole lot of sense if we filter out the perceptions that Gates and many other African American men share about the police, where these perceptions are grounded in the realities of the ways in which African American men have been treated by the police.

  28. Guillermo Jimenez

    Brian,

    Excellent post with which I agree in general — you are right that this has been blown into a racial incident when the legal issues are just as important to all Americans regardless of color. However, I do not see it primarily as a 1st amendment issue but as a 4th amendment one.

    Prof. Gates may well have been guilty of racial hypersensitivity; and it seems likely that Sgt. Crowley is not any more racist than the average American, white or black; but that does not mean that the police acted correctly in this case nor that Prof. Gates' ire, however unreasonably expressed, was not in part provoked by unacceptable police procedures.

    In a constitutional law analysis I've posted on my website redgenesbluegenes.com I point out that the arresting officer violated Prof. Gates 4th amendment rights — as officers do every day — with impunity. This is definitely a "teachable" topic that Americans should pay attention to. The Boston Tea Party, which set off our own Revolution, was a direct response to British statutes that allowed unreasonable searches of a person's home. The 4th amendment guarantees us that police officers must pause at the thresholds of our homes; lacking a warrant, they may not enter, period.

    The cops have got to learn to STOP at our front doors and ASK permission to come in, just like all well-educated children do. Instead, they barge right in whenever they can, and then arrest you if you protest. Prof. Gates may well be a jerk, but in this case he did have some justification to act like a jerk, though he expressed himself in regrettably racial terms (which were probably irrelevant).

    Stanley Fish's analysis is not particularly helpful, because this was not principally a racial incident. Fish loves to tell stories and the stories he tells about Gates are indeed interesting, but I fear completely irrelevant.

  29. Gates was incorrect in his interpretation of the way race played a role in the incident. Gates thought that race played a role in the incident by causing him to be stopped and questioned in the first place. In fact, the real racial causal chain ran from America's dolorous racial history to Gate's mind and then to his behavior when questioned.

  30. I normally don't comment on these matters, but since most everyone is backing up Professor Gates, I thought I would add in my two cents. This case appeared to me from the very start to be mainly about a person filled with arrogance owing to his Harvard professor status and his connections to the powers that be, who is under the impression that owing to these connections, he has no responsibility to behave civilly towards the police. Had he acted decently and explained the misunderstanding calmly, the problem never would have then hit the newpapers. The policeman was responding to a legitimate possible break-in report and he had every right to be cautious. Their job in the Boston area is frequently a dangerous one. What I found saddening was that someone as supposedly sophisticated and articulate as Dr. Gates,when dealing with a "real life" situation, could do nothing better than to abuse the policeman with street language, "mama" references and bullying threats. I would have arrested him myself for disordly conduct, had I been the police officer on duty.

  31. Cases are about facts, not generalizations.
    Gates was arrested by a multi-ethnic assortment of cops.
    He refused to respond to standard investigative procedure. "please step outside"
    The post at CT explains why procedure is as it is.

    By the facts of the case as described by both sides he was upset at being asked the appropriate questions given the situation. Gates could have been an ex husband breaking into his wife's house.

    He demanded not courtesy but deference and a cop should not show deference to anything but law. As far as I'm concerned anyone who answers a cops questions with "Do you know who I am!!?"should be arrested immediately. This is a democracy that argument should mean nothing.

    As to the lead arresting officer himself:
    http://feministx.blogspot.com/2009/07/henry-louis-gates-jr.html

    As always, people who assume their own position as moral or righteous don't like having that questioned, but that's a cop's job.
    A cops' mistake is to assume that representing the law is embodying it. Personalizing the law by analogy: 'I am the law," is fascism. Many liberals, arguing from their own -pedantic, insecure- assumptions of self-worth can't tell the difference. And most conservatives, from the other side of the argument, can't tell it either.

    Cops are supposed to act like robots, it's not an easy thing to do. But they're paid to be robots serving law, not you.

  32. The preceding two comments (Wicks, Edenbaum) make certain claims that presuppose the truthfulness of the police report. As noted in my original post, even if the report is accurate (i.e., even if Gates is a pompous, condescending ass), the arrest would still appear to be unlawful.

  33. Ryan,
    I didn’t say, and don’t think, that Gates was unjustified in thinking he had been treated in racist fashion. I’m agnostic as to whether Gates was justified in thinking this, since I haven’t got sufficient evidence as to what happened on that porch that day.

  34. My brother is a 30-year career cop who moved from the street to Assistant Chief and stationed in the deep South. I'm an unabashed liberal professional philosopher. Let's just say he is wildly not. But he has dealt with a loaded gun to his face where he had to counter, "Drop it or if I don't kill you ******f****r my partners will." But later in an administrative position, he disciplined a street officer for maligning a homosexual, even though he is personally what I'd call a homophobe. And though he cancels every vote I cast in every election, I would not want to face the things he has. Many cops face things that modify their long-term behaviors–and mainly not for the good. I'm on the same page as Brian here–clearly by principle it is the officer's responsibility to control the situation, and I think the evidence shows that the officer in the Gates' case allowed his emotions to override his best judgement. And by all lights this is an officer of some integrity otherwise. But so many as such have been in so many dangerous situations that they simply react–and often in the way that vested authority informed by stressful experience does–what might be called fascist. They are oh-so-human, and in an environment mostly informed by negative day-to-day circumstances and idiotic macho peer reinforcement. I do not apologize for that–but here's where "for the grace of god" arguments have some force at least for understanding another experience (I will not say point of view–the point of view of law enforcement is often imperious and unintelligible). I don't have any wisdom to offer to rectify this. I wish I could say that better education of officers (like Obama's latest overture) would help: but I doubt it given the larger issues of ongoing social woes. Officers of the law from even the most benevolent state will always be partly formed in their behaviors by what they face day-in, day-out–and by definition, it will not be good.

  35. I've never known a cop to let you get away with yelling at him on the street when he's doing his job.
    It was, as the poster at CT- a Police captain and PhD candidate at CUNY- said "a judgment call" and ties pay the dealer.
    The other cops on the scene, black white and hispanic, backed up the arresting officer. The second incident report was written by the hispanic cop. If you want to see a photo of the arrest it's

    here http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_NQT53cHf6Z0/SmjVB8840ZI/AAAAAAAAA28/l2zUISUEdWY/s1600-h/gates-arrest.jpg

    KEYWORDS:
    Primary Blog
    ———-
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090724/ap_on_re_us/us_harvard_scholar_arresting_officer
    A black police officer who was at Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s home when the black Harvard scholar was arrested says he fully supports how his white fellow officer handled the situation.
    Sgt. Leon Lashley says Gates was probably tired and surprised when Sgt. James Crowley demanded identification from him as officers investigated a report of a burglary. Lashley says Gates' reaction to Crowley was "a little bit stranger than it should have been."
    Asked if Gates should have been arrested, Lashley said supported Crowley "100 percent."

    Re: Wicks, putting aside for a moment the overly credulous attitude towards the police report:

    -A police officer should be able to make his decisions in the field based on an understanding of the law, as calmly and rationally as possible, and without allowing hostile circumstances to influence his decisionmaking. Police, by the nature of the occupation, will be exposed to less-than-ideal circumstances and upset individuals, and their responsibility is to enforce the law fairly. Even if Gates was the ass than the police report claims his arrest remains legally untenable, and was accordingly nothing more than the angry and malicious action of an officer who resented Gates' unwillingness to submit meekly to a stranger in his own home.

    -Certain suggestions that Gates' arrest was appropriate because of his lack of respect towards the officer are predicated on the assumption that authority is inherently deserving of respect regardless of its conduct, that it does not owe equivalent respect to the citizenry from whom its authority flows, and that a lack of respect on the part of a citizen is grounds for arrest. This is most peculiar.

    -Once it had been established that Gates was on his own property, Gates certainly had all the right in the world to be upset, and it was the responsibility of the officer, having confirmed that the crime he was investigating was nonexistent, to withdraw.

  36. Assuming that the Professor had not been informed by the police that somebody called to report a break in, then in the Professor"s mind ,the police officer was simply doing a beat and thought that a black man was committing a crime.That is profiling.
    But if the officer informed Gates that there had been a report of an attempted break in and they were doing a routine check, and Gates continued yelling, then he would have been in the wrong.
    You also have to consider that Gates had travelled from the other side of the Atlantic, was obviously tired and really had to get into his house, only for an officer to question his occupancy.
    it is really a question of the officer being smart.

  37. Anita Bernstein

    Like many other people on this thread I have spent more time than strictly necessary reading blog posts on this issue, and I encountered a tidbit that struck me as supportive of Brian's view. Massachusetts has two rules for cops on point, said this blog commenter. I repeat them unverified:

    1. "Disorderly conduct" is defined as excluding the officer's opinion. Whether he is shocked, offended, or made uncomfortable by behavior doesn't matter. A citizen other than the officer must have complained.

    2. When asked for name and badge number, a Masschusetts police officer must immediately give the requester a business card. Claiming later that the fracas precluded compliance is an unaccepable excuse. (I don't think Crowley is saying seriously that he didn't hear the request, or denying that Gates made it.)

    Sound like good rules to me, and they pretty much resolve who was wrong here.

  38. And some in the GOP would like to milk this episode for all it is worth to try and paint Obama as anti-law enforcement. Unpatriotic and un-American he already is in their eyes.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/27/gop-rep-will-offer-resolu_n_245287.html

  39. Kahlil Chaar-Pérez

    The opinion that pretends to validate the officer's authority in arresting Gates by alluding to the African-American and Hispanic cops' support of Crowley's decision is completely bogus.

    Within the tightly-woven, hierarchical community that is the police its members will generally back their precinct and their peers in these sort of cases. Not doing so, even if they believed the person acted wrongly, would be detrimental for the reputation of the police force. Having lived in New York and Chicago, two cities with a large percentage of minorities in the police force, I can safely say that more often than not African-Americans and Hispanics in the police force will close ranks around their fellow cops in racially inflected cases. I cannot imagine what would happen to the career of a Cambridge cop who ventured to question Crowley's actions.

  40. Here is something that someone brought to my notice. NPR is reporting that white police officers were venting their rage anonymously about the Gates affair on a website called Domelights.com (The Voice of the Good Guys…a Website Devoted the Abolition of Political Correctness) . The website has now been taken off the internet by its owner. Apparently black police officers sued to shut down the site for the racially hostile content of its discussions.

    http://www.domelights.com/forums/

    http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20090720_Black_officers_want_immediate_ban_on_domelights_com_website.html

    http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20090723_Phila__blocks_city-computer_access_to_Domelights_com.html

  41. The NY Times posted the 911 call. The woman who made the call is pretty clearly hesitant to call it a break-in, adding that the men looked like they might be residents (due to the presence of 2 suitcases).

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/us/28gates.html?hp

  42. Someone probably already said this, but you do realize that the woman who called the police never mentioned anything about the men being black, right? She said she couldn't tell their race but thought one of them was hispanic. By the way, she is Portuguese.

    And last I checked, "fighting words" were not protected speech especially when being directed at an officer.

  43. I approved Tre's comment, despite his failure to adhere to the posting rules, in case others are similarly confused.

    The relevance of what the woman said on the 911 call is unclear.

    What Gates said, even according to the police report, are not "fighting words," they are constitutionally protected speech. There is no special category of "protected words that are unprotected when said to a police officer."

  44. I have actually found the police in "major urban areas" to be polite and helpful. It's the wannabes working in smaller municipalities (and on college campuses) that you have to be wary of. ("They don't need you and man they expect the same." 5 bucks if you name the song and writer.) I doubt that a Boston PO would have made such a huge deal of this incident, having bigger fish to fry.

  45. The 911 tape makes it difficult to believe the following sentence in James Crowley's police report:

    "She [Lucia Whalen — the 911 caller] went on to tell me [while standing on the sidewalk outside of Gates's house] that she observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the porch of [redacted house number] Ware Street."

    According to Whalen's lawyer, "She didn’t speak to Sergeant Crowley at the scene except to say, 'I'm the one who called'."

    And why would Whalen have told Crowley that she had observed what looked like two black males when she had minutes earlier answered as follows when the 911 operator asked for a racial description: "Umm, well there were two larger men, one looked kind of Hispanic but I'm not really sure. And the other one entered and I didn't see what he looked like at all"?

    The information regarding the race of the two men that Crowley received from the dispatcher was: "Unknown on the race … one may be Hispanic, I’m not sure."

    This sentence in Crowley's police report would, if true, provide Crowley with a defense against Gates's complaint that he had been racially profiled as an intruder rather than the owner of his house.

    This sentence appears to be false.

    Is it also a lie? In part because it would be stupid of Crowley to fabricate a witness's racial description which ran the risk of being contradicted by 911 tapes, I wouldn't jump to this conclusion.

    Perhaps there's an entirely innocent explanation of this sentence. Neither Crowley nor anyone else in the Cambridge police department has, however, yet come up with a credible account of the truth or innocent falsity of this statement. I don't think Crowley has said anything more than: "Obviously, I stand behind everything that’s in the police report. It wouldn’t be in there if it wasn’t true."

  46. Brian, last I'd heard Gates hadn't challenged anything in the police report. Is that still true? If it is, then it does somewhat undermine the claims that the police report is inaccurate. Given the claims Gates has since publicly made about this being an incident of racial profiling, there's nothing in the report that's all that surprising. I wouldn't have expected him to be the type to say the things in the report, but I also wouldn't have expected him to be the type to get all upset about an incident like this and call it racial profiling when there's genuine racial profiling directed against much less well-off black people who bear much more serious consequences from it.

    This incident reminds me those who complain about the so-called War on Christmas as if it's severe persecution of Christians, when Christians in Saudi Arabia and Indonesia are being beheaded for converting from Islam. Someone capable of that kind of exaggeration might well be prone to assume racism at the outset of an investigation into some very suspicious-looking behavior, and it's that very assumption of racism that seems to have gotten Crowley so upset (not that it follows that the arrest was justified).

    Scott, how is the Crooked Timber piece an apology for state violence? He does say that he thinks what Sgt. Crowley did is within the law, but he also said that he thinks President Obama was right to call it stupid. He insists that it was an unwise act that just happens to be within the letter of the law, but he thinks both parties did wrong. I'm seriously trying to figure out how that's an apology for state violence (not that any actual violence occurred here, from what I've seen; it's not as if Crowley and Gates got into a fistfight or anything).

  47. In one of his first public statements about the matter (on his website "the root"), Professor Gates (or his attorney) described the police report as "fiction." That hardly decides the matter, but as I noted at the start, even if we accept the report verbatim, it would not have justified an arrest under Massachussetts law.

  48. I'm not trying to defend Sgt. Crowley here. You're right that the question I'm asking doesn't determine his innocence on the question of whether the arrest was legal. But it does have a bearing on whether Gates behaved badly in provoking the officer, and even if it doesn't excuse the officer it undermines the degree of victimhood Gates can claim. That does seem to me to be an important moral issue.

    What bothers me is that Gates hasn't questioned any particular elements within the report. Calling it fiction doesn't tell me any particular parts of it that he's insisting didn't happen. Since he's been willing to opine on the incident publicly, it's a bit surprising if he won't challenge any of the particulars of the report, if indeed it's inaccurate about what Gates did. I'd like for him to state what it is that he's calling fiction in the report. It's much harder for me to give the charge of fiction as much credence if he's not willing to make his charge specific.

Designed with WordPress