Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates arrested

Drosselmeier · August 21, 2009, 10:14am

I don’t think so. The Constitution is not a divine, self-validating document the principles of which stand apart from the people it was designed to protect. It lives or dies with the people, and even takes on their character.

There was a man in a village who married a wife and then went away to war. The man was a stellar soldier: brave, strong, but he was also kind and compassionate. Even the enemy honored him, while also fearing him. For ten years he spoke of his wife to his fellow soldiers, and in the most reverent way. He would allow no coarse language to be associated with her in any way. In fact, he would not allow coarse language to exist in any conversation wherein she had been mentioned. The men at first thought he took his wife too seriously, but eventually they came to understand that the man was such a good soldier because of his love and respect for the wife. She made him what he was, and so, since they honored what he was, they had little choice but to honor her, though they had never met her.

Another soldier in another village married and also went to war. He always spoke to his fellow soldiers in lewd terms about his wife. In fact, he was a rank pervert who was so lost in perversion that he had little understanding that the things he said and did concerning his wife were reprehensible. The men at first thought he didn’t take his wife seriously enough, but eventually came to understand that the man was such a pervert he could only attract a woman of his own moral stature. So, since they had no respect for him, they had little choice but to disrespect her, though they had never met her.

The war ended, and the band of brothers went home. The pervert wanted the men to meet his wife. When they arrived and knocked on the door, a tall, gorgeous blond greeted them. The husband entered the house, gave the woman a perfunctory kiss and demanded she get beer for himself and the men. I am not sure that she retrieved the beer. She may have simply stormed away, but it did not matter. Her spirit had been crushed from years of neglect and abuse so that pretty soon, rather than seeing a gorgeous blond, the men saw only a tramp, a woman worthy of abuse.

Then they went to the good soldier’s home. At once, the men combed their hair, and straightened themselves up. When they arrived and knocked on the door, a short, homely woman greeted them. The husband rushed to her and squeezed her with his given might, so happy was he to be back home. For a long time he stood there holding his wife, and for him everything else disappeared but her. I do not know if she said anything. She likely said nothing. But her spirit had been elevated from years of honor and encouragement so that as the men looked on, they rather than seeing a homely woman, began to see the truth, that she was a very deep and beautiful creature worthy of awe.

The point of this little parable is that we are husbands of our Constitution. We can ignore her and thereby teach everyone around us to do likewise, and her value will ultimately diminish until she is effectively worthless. Or, we might give her the honor she deserves, and demand that everyone around us do likewise, and her value will ultimately expand until she protects anyone fortunate enough to fall under her wing.

The people here in this forum are like the perverted soldier, and they are a majority here in the Cursed Land. They have left us with a Constitution that is of little worth. Had they done their duty to her, she would have protected Skip Gates that day. Crowley would have revered her out of fear and respect for us, and Gates would have enjoyed his due protection.

The problem is that we have a large majority of people in this place who are not just willing, but eager to trample the Constitution if its protections are to be extended to people they do not like, people such as Skip Gates. Honoring the Constitution as you have described requires confronting this majority. Most people are not that courageous because they know it is a futile effort. They will make their last stand and the perverted soldiers will still trample everything that was meant to be good and noble. It is why Skip Gates now says nothing, and why Obama is grateful he will say nothing. The cost is too high, and the returns are non-existent. And the Constitution has been taking these sorts of abuses for a few hundred years. Though it is inherently beautiful, its spirit has been broken by this ill treatment.

epiphany · August 21, 2009, 10:34am

Yes, we our husbands of our Constitution. But our husbandry, or lack thereof, does not invalidate our Constitution; rather, the quality of our husbandry reflects on us, not on the document, which remains the fixed principle, created as it was to define fixed principles.

I agree that principles are only effective when carried out, but the document still stands for the absolutes which its imperfect creators and imperfect subjects strive, in the pursuit of honor, morality, and ideals, to carry out. The tension between imperfection and the aspiration to perfection is what the human journey, and a democracy’s journey, is all about.

Drosselmeier · August 21, 2009, 10:43am

I don’t agree with the notion of absolutes. It seems to me if I believe blacks are bad, or that Jews should be gassed, and then I set out to discriminate against and murder both groups without a sufficient challenge to stop me, then I get to establish reality. You may say it is always wrong to murder Jews, but if I say otherwise and back it up with impunity, I do not see how your claim matters.

I think this is what is also in effect regarding the Constitution. We declare its value by our actions. I may stand by claiming that her values are timeless, while hordes of ignoramuses trample those values with impunity, but I hardly see how I am left defining reality above those ignorant hordes.

epiphany · August 21, 2009, 10:57am

^Well then, it seems to me, respectfully, that it is you who are not in accord with the Constitution or its creators, who indeed were guided by principles (ideals) they would call absolutes. I wish you well, but I do not agree with what I take to be a rather gloomy view of the guiding concepts (absolutes) upon which our government & laws are based, however they have been perverted through centuries, however still imperfectly they are administered and occasionally interpreted, however politicized individuals use/misuse those statements of purpose. and however its subjects fail to be vigilant and educated about those statements of purpose.

When I abandon my ideals, and my belief systems – governmental, educational, & religious – I compromise my humanity in my own eyes. To me, your arguments are not logically consistent, given what I have discussed on these forums with you previously about the ideals, for example, within education. Those ideals are not limited by the imperfect educators who often subvert or ignore those ideals. Those ideals remain the beacon for those who truly aspire to fulfill them. You yourself admitted in those discussions that, surprised as you were by my insistence on those ideals, they could indeed be reached by those generous enough to implement them.

Drosselmeier · August 21, 2009, 12:19pm

Perhaps. I am still working it through. I will accept fixed meaning, if that is what you mean by fixed principles or absolute principles. It is the truth or ultimate value of the meaning or principle that I have difficulty accepting. I am having a very difficult time seeing inherent value in anything. If the horde literally does not see the wrongness of denying a certain man his rights, and then they commence with running roughshod over the man, and if I am the only one disagreeing with them, what is it that declares me right and them wrong?

I have an answer to this question, since I used to believe in absolute value. I just don’t see that the answer matters if the man is dead from the horde, as a result of my inability to implement my reasoning against them.

I don’t see the gloominess. I struggle to preserve the once status quo concerning the Constitution, not its historical practice, but its principles. I do this because it seems most in line with what I value. But I suspect what I value is something altogether different than what the horde values. I think I am something of a relic in this regard, and that the horde has already replaced me. The reason I claim the Constitution is a sham is because the horde lies to itself and to me that we all believe in the same noble principles when nothing could be further from the truth.

Still, rather than see gloominess, I see that I have a role to play, to expend myself in the assertion of my value with the hope of prevailing. If I prevail, then fine. And if I am defeated, then that is also fine. I don’t see the ultimate meaning in any of it. It just seems to me that if, for now, we agree with a certain value, we have a duty to assert it simply because it is us. I don’t think this is gloomy, though it is meaningless.

Actually, there is something wonderful I always feel when I think about this, looking around me and seeing the savages reveling in the denial of a man’s rights simply because they do not like him, and then seeing myself declaring them wrong, and with no ultimate authority to support the declaration. I always find myself looking toward some Ultimate Authority to step in and make Itself known, so that this sort of thing can be put to rest once and for all. People may make fun of this, but when I acknowledge the true lack of meaning in our world, I sense something standing up and declaring itself to me.

I do not think you should ever abandon your ideals. They are you. You have a duty to yourself to assert them. But I don’t see the basis of declaring your ideals to be true. They are you, and it seems to me the best thing you can do is make yourself known through them. To get back to the issue, the ideals of the Constitution appear to have run their course. I agree with them, but apparently they belong to people who generally no longer exist in our country. We have another species of people infesting the land now. They are hostile to me, very much opposed to what I am. But they are in the majority, and what they say goes.

Absolutely. I have experienced the possibility firsthand. For this reason and also because the values seem inherent to my nature, I assert them, and will continue to assert them until my last breath. The same applies to the values I perceive in the Constitution. I wonder, however, what is it that makes those who reject my view ultimately wrong. It seems to me that the duty I have is to assert what I know to be right, hoping that there are still enough representatives to help the assertion along. Then, should the chips fall against me, I know they fell where they were supposed to fall.

I am going to let you have the last word. Very much looking forward to your reply.

spideygirl · August 21, 2009, 12:49pm

Drosselmeier - Your arguments seem affected because of an obsession with racism (to an unhealthy, unproductive extent), so much so that they are not persuasive. I have learned a lot by hanging around on CC - sometimes throwing things out there to see what people’s best responses would be when challenged. On the topic of racism, I have read some really amazing, powerful stuff here, and have enjoyed being enlightened by people with a very different set of experiences than my own. I love the process, and I am very open to it. With all due respect, particularly since you spend a lot of time attempting to share and articulate your opinions, my experience is that your view of racism in America is distorted. There are probably some great insights in your posts, but I can’t find them because I am so distracted by the over-the-top parts.

Drosselmeier · August 21, 2009, 12:56pm

Well, if you can’t find the insights, then you can’t find them. They still exist.

epiphany · August 22, 2009, 12:43am

Its not a matter of abandoning my ideals. Its the reality of human beings falling short of their own ideals, despite their best efforts. It doesnt make me a sham when I fall short of those ideals. It makes me human. Same for the Constitution, and those (all of us) entrusted to understand it, respect it, enforce it. It would only make me a sham if I failed to try my best to meet my ideals.

As for feeling alone in your perceptions and your battles, I think many of us feel that way with regard to other battles & perceptions. I feel very alone with regard to some moral battles vs. the culture at large. It feels like a losing battle most often. In fact, I feel generally, privately at battle with modern culture, given its trumpeting of superficiality, of empty celebrity, of materialism for its own sake, the abandonment of a common ethical base, the elevation of mediocrity, and even of the pursuit of recreation, which when taken to an extreme, I personally find distasteful and profane. (Ironic that I was called shallow on another thread because I use moderate makeup to enhance my appearance never mind that that makeup also preserves the moisture in my skin; I guess thats not allowed. Unbelievable. First time in my life I have ever been called shallow, since I am known for quite the opposite, despite my many different faults.) Its just an example of how we cannot get too discouraged when people call us names or disagree with our perceptions and question our sincerity.

I think what I do understand about your frustration is what I sense to be your heightened level of discouragement about ignorance (i.e., the nation at large). I share that frustration. I find it in the media, from people who have several degrees; I find it in my own Church; I find it absolutely in my profession; I find it among some very educated people.

Possibly because my career is rooted in the reversal of ignorance, I dont react quite like you do: rather, the discovery of ignorance energizes me to inform.

I do think you have an exaggerated perception of the hordes. (Perhaps I do, too, regarding my causes.) Its easy to hear only voices of destruction, as they are the loudest, most sensational, and thus most media-worthy in our distorted, negatively-driven media messages. You (and I) probably usually dont hear the voices who do agree with you, who share your or my passions. Thats why its important to keep communication lines open, such as on messageboards, discussion forums, and IRL. I know that when I do & where I do, I inevitably find a great deal of agreement, eventually.

Note: none of my negative phrases in this post are in the slightest way directed toward any posters on this thread! I wasnt thinking of anyone here when I typed this. They relate to my observations about modern culture generally, and to how we receive its messages. Its a broad response to Drosselmeiers broad statements. Not an underhanded criticism of anyone!

cartera45 · August 22, 2009, 7:54am

Agree completely.

QuantMech · August 22, 2009, 12:20pm

A few previously unexpressed thoughts and questions:

I’d like to raise the issue of “standing” to file suit, in case of a violation of Constitutional rights. I am essentially certain that no one else has standing to file suit on behalf of Professor Gates. Yet, I believe that in fact everyone’s Constitutional rights are infringed when anyone’s rights are infringed. So, does anyone think there is a possibility of expanding the conditions for “standing” in cases of Constitutional law? Or perhaps at least moving in that direction?

In cases of criminal law, the plaintiff is (for instance) the State vs. the accused, because it is recognized that harm is done to the state itself, by a criminal act (of which the accused is presumed innocent, I hasten to add). Now, obviously a case which is “Commonwealth of Massachusetts” vs. “Commonwealth of Massachusetts” poses some logistical difficulties, which would be difficult to overcome. But what about X vs. the city of Cambridge, where X is not Professor Henry Louis Gates himself? Any Dworkin-ites or others out there willing to discuss this issue?

In part, this issue comes up because Professor Gates is in a difficult position. On the one hand, he has followed the path of conciliation throughout his life, to the best of my knowledge–and in fact, he has taken it to the extreme, when, for instance, in Lexington, MA, he introduced himself to the police force, in order to prevent them from pulling him over when he was driving home. The fact that he felt that he had to do this makes me truly sad. In addition to that, President Obama has given a pretty clear signal that he’d like for the issue to be resolved amicably. And yet . . . as far as I can determine from what I’ve read, there was a clear-cut violation of Professor Gates’ Constitutional rights in this case. So does he sue?

There is one argument that just dropping the matter might move the nation forward faster toward racial equality, overall. But then there is another argument that equality has only been advanced when people were willing to stand up for their rights, often at great cost to themselves. Indeed, the experience of Professor Gates shows that there can be negative repercussions, even when a case has not been filed (or not yet). So, how does one decide whether to sue or not, especially if one is inclined by long practice toward a conciliatory approach? Obviously, this question refers back to the issue of “standing” to file a case.

I’d have to say that if I were Professor Gates, reading this thread would push me toward a lawsuit, rather than away from it.

QuantMech · August 22, 2009, 12:22pm

Another question, to the thread participants in general: When you first read about this incident, with whom did you identify, and why?

(I think I identified with the 911 caller first, and then with Professor Gates second.)

younghoss · August 22, 2009, 12:34pm

Dross has made 5 posts since my post #1878.
So far, he has not addressed my questions to him relating my choice of behavior in a bar(described my post 1842), and my citizenship; further, he has not addressed my request to withdraw his slur on my heritage. Am I less American because I chose a course of behavior less likely to get me beat up? Is Dross suggesting I could have done/said anything that night because I had the protections of the First Amendment? Is Dross suggesting that the First Amendment is an invisible force field(like in cartoons) that would have protected me from the harm of an angry few fellows offended by my actions?

While we may disagee on our interpretations of how well/poorly Gates conducted himself, I have not cast any disparaging remarks against Dross, his heritage, his ancestry or other disparaging personal remarks. Is it unfair of me to expect the same in return?

I will repeat my post 1878, and request Dross re-read my post 1842, answer my questions in 1878, and also ask that he withdraw his slur on my citizenship:

" I was one of Dross’ examples and he referred to me as a “so-called American”.
It’s ok if those here agree with me, and it’s ok if they don’t. I may try to persuade some to my way of thinking, and that’s the beauty of a reasonable debate.
I do not however, like being called a “so-called American”. You are skeptical of my citizenship, Dross? Am I less American because I disagree with you? My choice not to press the issue in a bar was somehow wrong? I don’t have the right to make the choice that I feel was best for me?

I was born in this country and have done nothing to renounce my citizenship. I shall ask Dross to withdraw the “so-called American” slur on my heritage, or document proof that I am not an American. "

QuantMech · August 22, 2009, 12:35pm

Finally, I feel that I ought to grasp the nettle of the role of racism in the incident. I will say this: it is extremely difficult to eradicate all traces of subliminal racism from one’s thinking. I have been fortunate to have good role models, when it comes to reducing racism. I “pass” the “Project Implicit” tests with regard to everything except age-ism-- where, oddly, I prefer the old (students on this thread, consider yourselves forewarned).

On balance, I’d have to say that I do believe that racism played a role in this incident. When Officer Crowley had arrested Professor Gates, he reported, “I have the perp.” I have mulled various possible interpretations of this, but the one that seems most likely to me is that Officer Crowley honestly believed in that incident that he had arrested a person responsible for breaking and entering, albeit on the charge of “disorderly conduct.” I think he may have expected new information to emerge that would justify his taking Professor Gates into custody. While Officer Crowley was talking to Professor Gates, inside his house, Officer Crowley probably believed that the preponderance of evidence pointed to the fact that Professor Gates lived there. Yet it seems to me that he had some residual doubt about it; otherwise I can’t account for the “perp” remark. And was there subliminal racism that affected the magnitude of that doubt? Does anyone really think otherwise?

I am open to reasonable alternative scenarios.

QuantMech · August 22, 2009, 12:52pm

@younghoss: The substance of Drosselmeier’s argument was that your situation was not equivalent to Professor Gates’ situation. You were deciding whether to assert your rights to freedom of association and freedom of speech, in the face of a large number of people whose reaction you could not know in advance (and probably none of whom had actually sworn to uphold the Consitution). Professor Gates was facing an agent of the government, who is supposed to uphold the law.

I think your decision was prudent, in the circumstances you faced. I agree with Drosselmeier that it wasn’t parallel, though.

I understand why you are upset. I’m not sure how consistently you have been posting on this thread, or whether you’ve read all 126 pages of it. I think Drosselmeier has been driven to legitimate anger by some of the posts. (It’s possible that you may get a response from him if you type out “Drosselmeier” in full. I am happy to respond to comments directed to Quant or QM. Shortening Drosselmeier to Dross is not the same thing.)

QuantMech · August 22, 2009, 1:59pm

Another comment or two: Back in post #876, dontno remarked on a study done by the Public Service Research Institute in Maryland, to study speeding and arrests for speeding. In this study, high-speed cameras were used to take pictures of 40,000 turnpike drivers. The race of the drivers was assigned based on “identification” by a team of evaluators, who did not know whether the drivers had been speeding. The researchers found that African Americans constituted 16% of the drivers, but 25% of the violators, and that they were stopped less often than their speeding pattern would indicate.

The report linked by dontno calls this study “elegant.”

But a couple of points to note:

1) One needs to differentiate between cases of “false negatives” (a person violates a law, and is not arrested) and “false positives” (a person is violating no law, yet is stopped and/or arrested). You can interchange the terminology, if you prefer–the real distinction is between Type I and Type II errors, as in AP Statistics. The issue of “driving while black” involves the “false positives,” where a person is stopped while doing nothing wrong. The study does not illuminate the racial aspects of this issue at all.

2) Even with respect to the “false negatives,” the study is not clear-cut. First, it is not clear whether the law enforcement officers would be able to identify the race of the driver before deciding whether to pull him/her over, since the drivers were on a turnpike, and so presumably going 55+ mph. Second, it is not clear what “speeding” entailed, from the write-up–maybe it was in the report. But I think one would need to sub-divide the data according to the actual speed of the driver. Going 68 mph in a 65 zone is “speeding” just as much as going 85 in a 65 zone; but the latter is much more likely to get the driver pulled over. So I think one would need to examine the distribution of speeds. Also, one needs to know whether there were other factors that influenced the likelihood of arrest, and whether they were evenly distributed by race, or not. (For example, were the cars “speeding-ticket red?” Were the drivers speeding in the fast lane or the slow lane?) Also, were Asian-Americans disaggregated, or assigned to the “white” group? What about Hispanics?

QuantMech · August 22, 2009, 2:10pm

One more comment, to reply to part of Drosselmeier’s post #1879: I have encountered a number of people who are indifferent to violations of Constitutional rights, when they know nothing about the victims–they don’t have to hate the victims to be willing to tolerate violations of their rights. In fact, I have known a number of people who are even willing to see their own rights violated.

More than 30 years before 9/11, there were a number of people in my home town who found nothing wrong with “the government” reading the U.S. mail before delivering it, on the grounds that people who had nothing to hide should have no problem with that. In this case, the people whose rights were being violated were purely hypothetical; they weren’t hated at all.

That is not to dismiss the role that race has played in this case; nor is it even to say that this case needs to be considered in the context of a larger pattern.

QuantMech · August 22, 2009, 2:11pm

End of my essays.

Drosselmeier · August 23, 2009, 1:53am

Yes. I understand this point. And if what happened in this thread had been limited to one or two people, then I would be inclined to accept that the behavior here was generally confined to the thread and that something other than race was likely in effect. And if some of the people here, after seeing that there was at least a possibility that Gates was correct and that his rights were infringed, had decided to explore the import of the affair to the issue of American rights, then I would be most convinced that a good number of the people had simply made an honest mistake in not considering Gates rights.

But the fact is that many people here failed to acknowledge Gates’ rights and even insisted that Gates was at fault for being arrested, though he was innocent of breaking the law. And this phenomenon was not limited only to this thread. When the Gates matter was fresh, poll after poll showed that whites, by far more than blacks, blamed Gates for the issue, and not Crowley. The people here insisted upon blaming Gates, repeatedly, even after the possibility of a Constitutional issue had been mentioned. What could explain this insistence? Let us remove race from the issue for a moment. What then can account for this sort of insistence against Gates in the face of the issue of American rights? And when you come to your answer, ask yourself if there was sufficient information for it, and why it affected so many whites than blacks.

I have no doubt that there are multiple reasons why a person, regardless of race, might overlook the importance of maintaining Constitutional integrity. The point I would like you to explore is the insistence of doing this in Gates case? What are the possibilities and why did it affect so many whites over blacks?

Kitties · August 23, 2009, 2:58am

Since the media tends to taint stories a bit, the first time I heard it, I immediately identified with Gates simply because of racial incidents involving black men when I live in NYC. I didnt hear about he neighbors phone call until a day later. There have been studies on how people react to race and most of the time even when the participant was a black man, people were quick to take action against a black man before waiting just a second or two to see if they were actually holding a weapon or dangerous. Of course it was a computer simulation and does not dictate how people will behave in the real world but based on past events it seems to be true. I do agree that sometimes people are too quick to pull the race card but if you have never been in this type of situation before you would never understand what it feels like. This reminds me of when I had a class presentation on racial profiling. The person who presented (whose race I will not mention) agreed will the idea of racial profiling because of whatever negative ideas she had in her head and because she knew that if the NYPD did begin racial profiling, she would not be a part of the group being profiled. Boston and many other places in the US are far behind in terms of race relations so I wasnt surprised with what happened, although saddened, because I have had things shouted at me from car windows and heard stories of what happened to friends. I know Harvard isnt in Boston but the two places are close enough that there probably arent vast differences in the mentalities of the people that live there. Regardless of the story, the ruling will be in favor of the police officer just as it has been for Amadou Diallo, Sean Bell, and the police officer that died in “friendly” fire, because they can do no wrong.

younghoss · August 26, 2009, 11:07am

To respond to Qm’s comments(1894)was about the parallels of how Drosslm and other(s) sees the Bigger picture of Gates compared to my personal story in a bar.

Keep in mind please, the context I offered my comments/comparison in all referred to what some called the “theoretical protection” of the Constituition, and other laws. That context is important.
As I see it Drosslm sees that Gates had protection of Constitution and was permitted to be a mouthy A-hole(my phrase) as long as his words weren’t threatening, just annoying, then he shouldn’t be arrested for being annoying. I agree with most here that his words were annoying not threatening. Yet, his words and actions did get him arrested(briefly) though charges were soon dropped.
My personal bar situation- I could have choosen to flirt and maybe dance with the 2 black women we found attractive, but at 150 blacks to 2 whites, we feared that if even if only a tiny % of the blacks there(remember too it’s a bar[alcohol]) were racist we could be in a jam. Theoretically state/local laws protect us from bodily harm by making it illlegal to hit us; yet we know that legal protection isn’t an invisible force field, and though we use the word “protection”, a punch in the nose would hurt.
We wouldn’t deserve to be hit, but imprudent actions could make it likely, and although unfair, getting hit would still hurt.
So that’s what I meant, and I think some others have meant about “theoretical protection” of laws. They encourage people to stay within the laws, and they afford ways to address situations after-the-fact, but they do not always prevent the infraction.
The idea that if after I got beat up, I could have the perp arrested, gave me no comfort that evening.

<pre><code>No doubt in my mind Gates acted imprudently- and that contributed to his arrest. His arrest(just as a punch in the nose) wasn’t the proper reaction, but I see it that his behavior led to the forseeable consequences. And just as with a punch in the nose, those consequences may not have been fair; but they were forseeable and preventable.
</code></pre>

That is the parallel I see.
I offered another comparison too. We all figure the pedestrian has the right-of-way. Yet, if I choose to cross the road blindfolded, counting on drivers to stop to let me pass, well, sooner or later I’ll be hit. In that example I am within the law, but doing a very unwise behavior and subject to serious consequences. Knowing I can sue afterward(if I live) doesn’t help me at the time of the impact.

Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates arrested

CONNECT WITH US