Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates was arrested earlier this week on his own front porch on a disorderly conduct charge after being mistaken for a burglar. The charges were later dropped.
You would think that the arrest of a man on his own property, a man who had already proven (via two valid forms of photo identification) that the property was indeed his own, would prompt nearly universal outrage. Conservatives and right-wing libertarians would be bothered by the property rights implications; liberals and left-wing libertarians would be bothered by the racial profiling implications.
But despite Gates' mainstream popularity, the right-wing blogosphere has been primarily silent. And the comments fields of the stories and blog entries about the Gates arrest reveal strong sentiments against Gates and in favor of the arrest.
The argument against Gates seems to be based largely on the idea that Gates, an unarmed 58-year-old, 150-pound man who walks with a cane and could barely speak above a whisper due to a severe bronchial infection, was "loud and disruptive" in his own home, to the point where it became necessary to arrest him.
Gates has been gracious, thanking the neighbor who called the police on him (believing her intentions to be sincere) and stating that he would be willing to forgive the officer if he offers up an apology--an opportunity that the officer has vehemently refused to take. Meanwhile, prominent NAACP critic Michael Meyers has accused Gates of "racial histrionics" for his purported failure to "cooperate" in a "courteous and calm" manner.
But Gates cooperated with police requests: He was asked to provide identification, and he did so. Asking for the officer's name and badge number, the offense for which he was ostensibly arrested, seems reasonable enough--certainly not "uncooperative," given that Gates had already been excluded as a suspect.
The idea that failure to show deference in one's own home should be an arrestable offense is not an idea that's compatible with any realistic definition of civil liberties, liberal or conservative. The arrest of Dr. Gates should offend all people of good will. The fact that it is being reduced to yet another standard two-sided political argument about an "issue" demonstrates, in clear and unavoidable terms, why we still need a civil rights movement in this country.
It also demonstrates why people who claim to be libertarians, but do not take the concerns of the black civil rights movement seriously, aren't really libertarians at all. A policy that allows police to arrest a black man on his own property for verbally asserting his rights is not a libertarian policy; it is a radically authoritarian policy, one that would be more at home in a police state than in a liberal democracy. If the black civil rights movement is concerned about this sort of thing, while the mainstream libertarian movement is not, then it's reasonable to ask who the real libertarians are in this country.
See also:
You would think that the arrest of a man on his own property, a man who had already proven (via two valid forms of photo identification) that the property was indeed his own, would prompt nearly universal outrage. Conservatives and right-wing libertarians would be bothered by the property rights implications; liberals and left-wing libertarians would be bothered by the racial profiling implications.
But despite Gates' mainstream popularity, the right-wing blogosphere has been primarily silent. And the comments fields of the stories and blog entries about the Gates arrest reveal strong sentiments against Gates and in favor of the arrest.
The argument against Gates seems to be based largely on the idea that Gates, an unarmed 58-year-old, 150-pound man who walks with a cane and could barely speak above a whisper due to a severe bronchial infection, was "loud and disruptive" in his own home, to the point where it became necessary to arrest him.
Gates has been gracious, thanking the neighbor who called the police on him (believing her intentions to be sincere) and stating that he would be willing to forgive the officer if he offers up an apology--an opportunity that the officer has vehemently refused to take. Meanwhile, prominent NAACP critic Michael Meyers has accused Gates of "racial histrionics" for his purported failure to "cooperate" in a "courteous and calm" manner.
But Gates cooperated with police requests: He was asked to provide identification, and he did so. Asking for the officer's name and badge number, the offense for which he was ostensibly arrested, seems reasonable enough--certainly not "uncooperative," given that Gates had already been excluded as a suspect.
The idea that failure to show deference in one's own home should be an arrestable offense is not an idea that's compatible with any realistic definition of civil liberties, liberal or conservative. The arrest of Dr. Gates should offend all people of good will. The fact that it is being reduced to yet another standard two-sided political argument about an "issue" demonstrates, in clear and unavoidable terms, why we still need a civil rights movement in this country.
It also demonstrates why people who claim to be libertarians, but do not take the concerns of the black civil rights movement seriously, aren't really libertarians at all. A policy that allows police to arrest a black man on his own property for verbally asserting his rights is not a libertarian policy; it is a radically authoritarian policy, one that would be more at home in a police state than in a liberal democracy. If the black civil rights movement is concerned about this sort of thing, while the mainstream libertarian movement is not, then it's reasonable to ask who the real libertarians are in this country.
See also:
Comments
Among the matters you raise, one is very much to the point–the officer’s failure to provide identification to Gates. Massachusetts law is clear on this:
“Chapter 41: Section 98D. Identification cards
Section 98D. Each city or town shall issue to every full time police officer employed by it an identification card bearing his photograph and the municipal seal. Such card shall be carried on the officer’s person, and shall be exhibited upon lawful request for purposes of identification.”
I cannot imagine any more “lawful request” than that of a legal resident into whose home a total stranger has just entered.
I agree that there has been almost no public response over this outrageous situation. There was NO reason for this man to have been arrested after showing proof that he lived in the home and was not a burglar. The world has unfortunately grown numb to the partisanship, bigotry and recurring racial discrimination that this country has afflicted upon African Americans for centuries.
This type of thing happens much too often in the lives of African Americans. Unfortunately, point of bias is raised, we are accused of pulling the race card and bombarded with comments like “It was his attitude, not his race”. Perhaps the real issue was that the officer was looking for an excuse to arrest and humiliate Dr. Gates because of his own personal demons…Let’s be honest. Can you say, the “P” word…it’s just plain old prejudice!
Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. could easily have prevented this incident by simply obeying the officer, politely and quickly.
But he was unable to get over himself. That is common and why no one cares about his idiotic situation.
So, Tom, you are saying that the police officer lied in his police report, that the other police who heard Gates yelling over the open police radio channel are lying, and that the neighbors are lying when they say that Gates was disorderly IN FRONT OF HIS HOUSE?
I haven’t seen anyone else claiming that Gates was not yelling.
That doesn’t even touch on the fact that the police officer claims to repeatedly have identified himself inside of Gates’ home after having determined that Gates was the lawful resident (and not someone who would kill a cop when his guard was down).
This cop is highly decorated, and, as far as the police unions, the Cambridge police commissioner, and his fellow officers go, didn’t do anything wrong.
I think I am going to side with the cops on this one.
I don’t know what “libertarians” you’re referring to, but no libertarian I know would side with the cops on this one based on your description. Note: I haven’t seen any other reports which supports your claim re: the dearth of coverage. I’ve been involved in Libertarian Party (LP) politics for about four years and I think I can safely say I haven’t met anyone who would have sided with the cops in the LP.
I will say there are a lot of people calling themselves libertarians these days who are not. Note that even many members of the LP including myself aren’t 100% libertarian since that would entail espousing complete anarchy. I prefer a minarchy where government is greatly reduced in size and power, leaving enough for criminal law enforcement and justice, national defense and one or two other functions.
At the heart of libertarianism is the mandate against uninitiated force or fraud. There isn’t any caveat for race, gender, religion. I for one disassociate myself from anyone calling themselves a libertarian who condones what you described.
I’m tired, so if that rambled a little, just consider that I wouldn’t even have written it but for the fact that this blog really upset me.
Gates should never have had to PREVENT an incident. He was in his own house. He can certainly rant if he wants.
JFranco, you miss the point, since we supposedly do not live in a police state, Gates shouldn’t have to “obey” the officer once it was established that it was his home. Citizens have no more need to defer to the police than the dog catcher or any other public servant. The arrest was outrageous.
Having held a law enforcement certification, having been the father of an Ivy Leaguer, and teaching government courses (including an indictment of criminal justice) on the college level, I suspect that Gates’ indignation was more about CLASS than it was about RACE.
Concerning the above, I would suggest reading Phantom Negro’s “Skip Gates, please sit down” on Salon.com. I would also suggest reading the Boston Globe’s profile of Crowley. I’ve been around racist officers; he doesn’t fit the profile.
Finally, remember that racism is a two-way street. Black racism isn’t really all that much different than the white version.
It seems to me that the way I was brought up was that if an officer asks you a question you try to comply with it. If this fool had merely provided the necessary proof of who he was then there would have been no problem however from all indications it appears that he is the racist in this situation. Would I as a white person acted this way with a black officer would I have been correct in claiming racist profiling?
I am a right to privacy advocate, too often invasions of our personal property is made on pure hearsay, illegal in the eyes of the law, except when they look the other way. was a warrant issued? And how did they come to be at the professors house? Find the report and procecute the liar who caused the issue in the first place.
I too appreciate the benefits of privacy however had the professor cooperated nothing would have happened. The policeman did nothing wrong except his job. What would the professor had said if the police took the persons word for it and they turned out to be robbing the professors house. He would still have complained that the police did nothing because he was black!
I am a Hispanic and I have suffered cop’s agression. And, the ones who performed it were, one African American woman and a Hispanic!! They said I hadn’t paid to enter the subway in New York City. Totally wrong!! I did pay. It happens to be that I had to go through the handicapped entrance because I was moving a stroller with my one year old baby in it. But I did pass my metro card in it. Ï would have passed it again two, three or more times if they had let me, but they didn’t. And they did not understand any of my words and I couldn’t understand their English nor Spanish. Both were terrible!! When I tried to pay the next day at the Brooklyn station, they listened to my wife and myself and the person there said they would send me the fine to my personal address in Mexico. I must tell you we were tourists, we were not going to stay in NYC. We had just arrived the day before. And we were travelling with my 83 year old father in law as well as my 71 year old mother in law were with us. They were also tourists, they didn’t know what the policemen were saying. I cannot speak good English either and later, in January -this happened in July 2006-, I got a bill for more than 100 dls. when they had told me it was going to be a fine for 60.00 dls.!!! In that communication they said they had sent me bills =which I did not receive=.
So, we are not going back any more! We are not going to spend our money over there!! We were spending our money in hotel, meals, transportation, souveniers, etc. etc. We are certified accountants, we work very hard to get our money and spend it the way we want. And NYC was a terrible experience.
Now that this about.com e-mail has made a second appearance in my Inbox, and after digging a little more into Gates’ background during the intervening time, I must ask: Is the diminutive Professor Gates a professional agitator?
He got that terrible laryngitis after his screaming frenzy at the police.
Yoga teaches me to breathe deeply and go with not against a positive force. The police were there to protect him. He lashed out. They cuffed him. Police behavior – normal, Gate’s behavior – aggressive.
General public agrees with this. Hence no outrage. Outrage and righteousness are ugly irresponsible approaches. This article reflects irresponsibility because it wants to insight anger where there is none and none for good and right reasons.
To #1 Joe Styles>
The officer was in uniform with a badge & name tag. Do you yell at uniformed police trying to investigate a reported breakin. Gates rant about getting the officers name and badge are stupid. Read the report!
Amazing story, did not thought this was going to be so great when I looked at your title.
I find it hard to become truly informed about these types of events. In any case, though, an excellent and necessary article. Just be sure to watch your back Mr. Head; it is a sad time to be a true patriot in this country.