The debate surrounding the arrest of Henry Louis Gates has created an unprecedented opportunity to engage in national conversations about the age old question infamously articulated by Rodney King; "Can't we all just get along?"The confrontation between Professor Gates and Sergeant Crowley is an example of two men who failed to get along. The debatable questions about the incident, those questions that will ostensibly be examined during this "teachable moment," are many, but the immediate reactions of whites, blacks, cops, civil rights activists, media commentators, politicians, political partisans, and the public-at-large (via polling data)do not bode well for either the quality or duration of this "teachable moment."
There are some types of reaction that we as a community of reasonable people should set aside as "unreasonable," at least for now. For example, if you are convinced that either man in this confrontation is completely right or completely wrong, I would suggest that you are not going to be helped by or helpful to a serious discussion of the matter and its larger lessons. This does not, however, preclude reasonable, evidence-based analysis that focuses only on the actions, behavior, and decisions of one man; Gates or Crowley. Indeed, If we are discussing police procedure, policies, or professionalism (as I have been), it is perfectly appropriate to analyse Crowley's performance in this incident. If we are discussing the way a responsible citizen should interact with police officers, then an examination of Gates' actions, behavior, and decisions in this matter are a reasonable focus of analysis.
Conclusions that one man's conduct in this matter was more irresponsible or inappropriate than the other's should not be dismissed as unreasonable, partisan, or counter productive. In fact, the inference that is most unreasonable and counter-productive is the idea that they were both equally blameworthy and we should call it a draw and get past it. Indeed, this might be the most nefarious of all the postures being taken on this matter because it alone judges the incident unworthy of critical examination.
What about racism? Should this "teachable moment" be centered on this phenomena? Not necessarily, for two reasons: First, the terms "racism" and "racist" have been so abused in America that they no longer represent the systemic issues to which they actually refer. Racism is NOT defined as hatred of or discrimination against those of another race. A racist is NOT (necessarily) one who hates or intentionally discriminates against someone based on their race. Racism is the widespread presence of disparate treatment in society that contributes to a reduction of opportunities for a group of people of a certain race. A racist is someone who's actions, behaviors, decisions (consciously or unconsciously/intentionally or unintentionally) contributes to, or fails to mitigate, the negative effects of this disparate treatment.
If this rather clinical and impersonal (and debatable) understanding of racism is not widespread in America, then any efforts to make race and racism the central and exclusive focus of discussion will undoubtedly get bogged down by definitional debates, which is why this "teachable moment" should probably be diverted from an explicit effort to educate Americans about race.
Can we have a useful national conversation about the lessons of this incident that avoids the nonrational assumptions and convictions that so many Americans believe and/or espouse on racial issues? I think we can have a couple of them. I also think that most of the folks whose minds were made up about this incident as soon as they heard the initial press accounts will be dead weight in this conversation; hecklers at best.
The first order of business ought to be an effort to lay out "facts" that are beyond reasonable dispute. It doesn't matter what the motives of the proponents are, only that the facts they identify are accepted by reasonable people on all sides. For example, in the largely uncritical opinions espoused to date there are plenty of "facts" about which everyone could agree. Consider the following list:
1. Crowley was responding to a valid call and had a valid reason for engaging Gates.
2. Gates was at his own home throughout the incident and was not aware of or involved in any break in.
3. Crowley did not overstep his authority by asking Gates for ID, or by entering the home without Gate's expressed permission.
4. Gate's behavior led Crowley to report on his radio that Gate's was being "uncooperative."
5. Crowley called for the Harvard Police to come to the scene, as well as other "backup."
6. Gate's did provide ID and his innocence of any crime related to the investigation was established on the scene.
7. The security of the house, Gates, and Crowley was established at the scene.
8. Sergeant Crowley made the decision to arrest Gates for "disorderly conduct."
9. Other police on the scene supported Crowley's decision and assisted in the arrest.
10. At no time was Gates a physical threat to anyone during this incident (not required to charge disorderly conduct).
11.Gates' behavior prior to following Crowley out of the interior of the house onto the porch was NOT the basis for Crowley's decision to charge him with disorderly conduct.
12. At no time while in the interior of the house did Gates' conduct violate the law.
13. At no time while in the interior of the house did Crowley's conduct violate the law.
14. Gates' alleged disorderly conduct occurred after the on scene investigation of a possible break in at Gates' home had been completed.
15. The charge against Gates was dismissed by the District Attorney.
16. Crowley has conducted training for police officers on "racial profiling."
While all of these factual claims are individually less significant to the broader discussion that this incident might spawn, obtaining consensus on them will accomplish two important things. First, it will debunk many of the politically motivated falsehoods being propagated by those who are willfully or unconsciously incapable of participating in a reasonable dialogue about this matter or the lessons it may hold. Second, It would provide common ground and agreements on which additional common ground may more easily be found and it would help to highlight the factual claims that remain reasonably in dispute.