At first I thought it was a piece from The Onion—you know, one of those eyebrow-raising bits of satire along the lines of “Police Still Searching For Missing Productive, Obedient Woman” and “Jilted Hasbro CEO Laughs Coldly As Scrabble Destroys Another Relationship.”
I figured that a headline reading “Henry Louis Gates Jr. Is Arrested at His Own Home by Police Investigating a Break-In” must be a joke.
I thought it was in poor taste and not that funny, true; frankly, I thought it was a little, well, stale.
Turns out that Prof. Gates, of Harvard, was arrested for entering his own home.
Here is the link, and this will lead you to other articles from The Boston Globe, The Associated Press, and elsewhere:
Amazing, right?
It’s frustrating when the world is so dumb, so nuts, and so absurd that you can’t tell the difference between a headline and a racist joke.
21 Responses to Barbarians at Professor Gates’s
maxsdadeo - July 23, 2009 at 3:19 pm
What is really frustrating Gina is when someone who attempts to pass themself off as intelligent can’t discern the difference between a belligerent arrogant pompous twit (Gates) and an individual who has been truly wronged simply because of his color.
There is your amazing!
ulyssesmsu - July 23, 2009 at 3:40 pm
What is this article about? And what is its purpose? The author’s statement, “Prof. Gates . . . was arrested for entering his own home,” is not at all correct and is a gross distortion of the facts.
What’s “amazing” is that anyone would rush to defend Gates without bothering to first get the facts straight.
dhubin - July 23, 2009 at 3:55 pm
It’s misleading to say that Professor Gates was “arrested for entering his own home.” The actions that resulted in Gates’ arrest arose out of his entering his own home but he was not arrested *for* entering his own home. To have a serious discussion of this incident in light of the very regrettable, indeed, despicable, history of racial profiling and discrimination against African-Americans by police–especially one that will help us move forward–we need to use care in describing the case.
22071211 - July 23, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Who cares?
langrishe - July 23, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Perhaps Gina meant that for all practical purposes, Professor Gates was arrested for entering his own home. The greater care advocated above is all well and good, but sometimes the truth needs to be treated “carelessly.” In this instance, the truth (ahh!) is not a matter of police reports and careful verbiage that covers “mistakes” and “errors of judgment”: it is a matter for a higher level of error, a misrecognition that gets to the heart (ahh!) of things. Professor was arrested going into his home, for this he was arrested. For going into his home. As for the charmingly named “22071211″: who cares? well, we all should or we too will be arrested “for” “going” “into” “our” “own” HOMES. Amen.
11259522 - July 23, 2009 at 5:05 pm
He was arrested not for going into his own home, but because the police were called suggesting a burglary was in progress as that address. Gates, had he any common sense, would have welcomed the officer and cooperated as he tried to ascertain exactly who Gates was. Gates’ supersensitivity has served him well in the past, but one hopes those days are over.
22217816 - July 23, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Nobody seems to be making this clear, so I’ll try. The charge was disorderly conduct, not burglary or breaking & entering.
Aside from that, I know nothing more than anyone else. I withhold judgment.
waldo2384 - July 23, 2009 at 5:16 pm
He was arrested for arguing with a cop, which is an unfair abuse of power by the cop, but still — Arguing with a cop who is on a call is a very foolish thing to do, no matter your skin color. Both parties behaved badly.
11259522 - July 23, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Waldo2384, you are exactly right that it is stupid to argue with a cop, but it is not an abuse of power (it is hard to imagine a fair abuse of power) by the cop; after all, Gates was the one who behaved stupidly, to the point of inviting arrest. It is not clear that both parties behaved badly. From the police report, only Gates was to blame for his arrest.
tiburon - July 23, 2009 at 5:35 pm
s
tiburon - July 23, 2009 at 5:36 pm
PART 1 – Profiling, racial and otherwise, is part of our own daily life. In fact I would say that the majority of people profile people on an on-going basis. I have been profiled and treated accordingly in numerous occasions. For instance, I wear suit (many tailor-made) and tie every day to work; my job as an executive requires it. My shoes are always shinning. I like to shop in places like Neman Marcus, Saks and Nordstrom. Not once but several times I have been ask by other customers questions such as “Do you carry these in other colors?” I generally laugh, or if the customer is a lady y may reply something like “I have no Idea, but I will be happy to make you company while you shop”. You can imagine the reactions. I do not get mad or insulted, I have concluded that most men who go shopping do not do it wearing a suit, but salesmen on the floor generally do so. I am Hispanic and very proud of it. Yet many have told me “you do not look Hispanic” (Surprise!). I guess that my white skin, green eyes, etc. are too much for some and my stereotype does not “fit their mold”. In some case I would keep my own thoughts (How ignorant can they be, I would tell myself.) But the fact remains, I do stereotype and profile as well; on a regular basis, and I wonder how many times that has saved my bacon.
11259522 - July 23, 2009 at 6:37 pm
A less pejorative term for “stereotyping” is “using subjective probability”. As tiburon correctly states we all are “stereotyped” or “stereotype” others in most every interaction. Stereotypes are stereotypes because there is some objective truth in the population that gives a larger than random subjective probability.
drj50 - July 23, 2009 at 7:15 pm
If half of what is in the police report is true, Gates should be apologizing for his antagonistic behavior toward a policeman who was doing his job. He was not arrested for being in his house, but for his resistance to reportedly reasonable requests from the officer. (Note: it has now become difficult to find the originally posted police report online. Curious.)
drj50 - July 23, 2009 at 7:15 pm
If half of what is in the police report is true, Gates should be apologizing for his antagonistic behavior toward a policeman who was doing his job. He was not arrested for being in his house, but for his resistance to reportedly reasonable requests from the officer. (Note: it has now become difficult to find the originally posted police report online. Curious.)
edresearcherinca - July 23, 2009 at 8:00 pm
11259522, you claim “From the police report, only Gates was to blame for his arrest.” Why on earth would you base your conclusions solely on the police report instead of considering both the police report and Gates’ account? A good researcher considers the full range of evidence. (drj50, this applies to you too; we don’t know “if half of what is in the police report is true” — all we can assume is true are those facts on which Gates’ account and the officer’s account agree.) Moreover, the police officer arrested Gates for disorderly conduct, and Gates’ behavior doesn’t meet the legal requirements for disorderly conduct. Arguably, choosing to arrest someone when there is no legal basis to do so consistutes an abuse of power. Gates did, in fact, cooperate in providing his ID to the officer; the officer says so in the indicence report. Please get your facts straight. langrishe, I don’t think the evidence confirms your claim that Gates was arrested “for going into his home.” Rather, it seems that he was arrested for (some part of) what he said to the officer and/or the way in which he said it, despite the fact that Gates was legally within his rights to say whatever he said (whether it’s what Gates claims he said or what the officer claims Gates said) in whatever tone he used. Some readers may think Gates acted rudely or stupidly, and perhaps he did (I don’t know; the two reports of what he said are quite different), but it’s clear that he did not break the law, and he was nonetheless arrested. We should all be concerned about that.
langrishe - July 24, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Hmmm. This is all rather too empirical for my tastes. What I think Gina was getting at, and what I was trying to say, was that it is AS IF he were arrested for going into his own home. This was an event that can be documented, sure, and (as we see above) misread in a variety of heartfult ways (and with evidence to boot!). I was trying to embrace my misreading and get at the affective dimension, what it must have felt like for Professor Gates to be in this event (this “event”) and how some of us “understood” it. But then, I’m an English professor and tend to think in this “faulty” way on purpose. Cheers to all for bothering to be concerned.
jds2006 - July 26, 2009 at 9:08 pm
This thread is worth keeping in mind the next time you hear that the academy is “liberal.” Is anyone (besides me) on Gates’s side here?
reincarnate - July 27, 2009 at 8:48 am
This is not a Liberal/Consrvative issue. It is an issue of racial politics v. common sense. Gates was arrested because he was creating a public disturbance that was racially inflamatory because that’s what he (and others in the race industry) do everytime they encounter an adult situation. And that’s why sensible people, of all colors, races, and ethnic backgrounds, reject Gates’ and Obama’s apporoach to situations wherein law enforcement is involved. Obviously, Obabama DID hear Rev. Wright’s sermons loud and clear.
11259522 - July 27, 2009 at 2:48 pm
edresearcherinca: I cite the police report because it has a harder legal standing and is backed by reports of other witnesses, and also is more credible than the self-serving testimony of one famous for activism.
It is not the police officers’ task to determine the legality of borderline situations; that is the job of prosecutor, judge, or jury.
11259522 - July 27, 2009 at 2:48 pm
edresearcherinca: I cite the police report because it has a harder legal standing and is backed by reports of other witnesses, and also is more credible than the self-serving testimony of one famous for activism.
It is not the police officers’ task to determine the legality of borderline situations; that is the job of prosecutor, judge, or jury.
11259522 - July 27, 2009 at 2:48 pm
edresearcherinca: I cite the police report because it has a harder legal standing and is backed by reports of other witnesses, and also is more credible than the self-serving testimony of one famous for activism.
It is not the police officers’ task to determine the legality of borderline situations; that is the job of prosecutor, judge, or jury.