Increasingly, it looks as if the upshot of the racial rift resulting from the Cambridge, Mass., arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr. is not the inexplicable case of racial profiling it initially appeared to be. In fact, it seems that race was less a factor than a post-facto overreaction.
We now know that the 911 caller was reporting a possible break-in by two individuals. She didn’t identify them by race. But there had been a break-in nearby recently. It’s what neighbors looking out for each other, frankly, don’t do enough of.
As to what precisely was said in subsequent exchanges between the 58-year-old African American Harvard professor and white, 42-year-old Police Sgt. James Crowley, there will always be wiggle room. Memories of the verbal confrontation — that was both nuanced and emotional — are likely to be as flawed as they are selective. A beer won’t change that.
No, this is not a variation on a racial-profile theme not unlike the plight of the bling-bedecked, young black man who can’t catch a cab on the way to his Oxford interview. This was a race-neutral 911 call that went preposterously wrong. The Gates-Crowley contretemps should never have been about race; it should have been about common sense. With the onus on Crowley to have applied some.
Gates was in his own house and showed identification to prove it. He also showed his Harvard ID. He also had just gotten off an international flight from China. Did he ultimately try to play a race card? Did he resort to a variation of “Do you know who I am?” Did he get vehement? So? A lot of folks would have.
A police officer, especially one who trains others in how to defuse potential racial powder kegs, needs to know when to walk away and when to snap on the cuffs. Especially after you’ve determined you’re on the scene by mistake. That’s what’s teachable about this moment.
What this isn’t is another preachable moment – with all the familiar assignations of blame and historical guilt.
Is Crowley a racist? Likely not. But to quote someone – someone who was uniformly criticized for such a characterization – Crowley, indeed, acted “stupidly.” Consider: You’ve wrongly confronted someone in their own home. The homeowner, an older guy with a cane, morphs into a loud, unhappy camper. But you don’t hit the empathy button, don’t turn a deaf ear to an understandably irate homeowner, and don’t exit. No, you arrest the homeowner for disorderly conduct.
Perhaps someone else should teach that course.