Why Maureen Dowd Isn’t In Jail (And A Question For Dennis)
Maureen Dowd is a free woman because “Being obnoxious isn’t a crime.” That is the opening line of Dowd’s column from this morning. She intended her words as a defense of Henry Louis Gates, but it’s awfully tempting to see them as a sort of mea culpa.
Although Kathy offered considerable praise for Dowd’s column, I protest. Dowd’s column is an exercise is just the sort of profiling that she claims to denounce. In what way? Without any evidence to back it up, Dowd suggests that “testosterone” led both Sgt. Crowley and Prof. Gates to behave in a combative manner.
Dowd also suggests that both Crowley and Gates became more combative because their egos were in play. That is clearly the case for Gates, who warned Crowley not to mess with someone as important as Prof. Gates. But what is Dowd’s evidence for Crowley’s ego getting in the way? Just that it was an encounter of “the town vs. the gown” and “the hard-working white cop vs. the globetrotting black scholar.”
Once again, Dowd fixates on racial and class status, relying on them as explanations for individual behavior.
In contrast, our own Dennis Sanders provides a much more thoughtful and constructive take on the whole series of events. Dennis writes,
White conservatives want us to “get over it.” Maybe in time we will, but it isn’t that easy. You can’t just undo 400 years of history in a few decades.
Context is everything here. What are the real world implications of not “getting over it”? Dennis writes,
Like Professor Gates, I would also be a bit apprehensive around a white cop because I don’t know how things will transpire.
There’s nothing wrong with Dennis being apprehensive. Yet the first three words of his sentence suggest that Gates’ confrontational behavior is the natural extension of apprhensiveness, which itself is the natural extension of “400 years of history”.
This is the chain of thought that strikes many people, conservative or otherwise, as problematic. It suggests that completely unacceptable behavior may be excused, at least in part, on the grounds of racial history. Dennis does not say this explicitly. Rather, it all comes back to that enigmatic phrase, “getting over it”. What does it mean? Can we agree on what it means?
Here is the essential question I would ask about “getting over it” — If someone has not gotten over the history of discrimination against their particular group, are they entitled to any behavioral leeway to which a member of the majority is not entitled? Or are they simply entitled to a measure of sympathy?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
7 Responses to “Why Maureen Dowd Isn’t In Jail (And A Question For Dennis)”
As a member of the working class, my father taught me by example the necessary posture when dealing with figures of authority. He taught me to “assume the position” or a position of passivity, one of answering questions and certainly not asking questions or otherwise attempting to assert your so-called rights. As a teenager I learned time and again, if you challenged the cop in any way, it gave him the right to come at you more aggressively. And their are a host of things you can be charged with once they begin to aggress themselves on you: Disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, disturbing the peace, etc, etc.
I think people who have power and are comfortable with their position in society know they will have their day in court, can hire an expensive lawyer, and a host of other remedies that help them to dissect the situation they are in a very different way.
As well the enforcement of law in the wealthy part of town was delivered with deference, sometime kindly, while on the other side of town raw authority. If you challenge, if you are unhappy about what is transpiring, if you express any disdain or disrespect you were likely in for a bumpy ride.
If you have never had the experience of being bullied by a cop, than you don't really know or understand what is going on.
The mano to mano stuff really does exist………..more so than with man to women exchanges.
I don't buy your read on the event. I believe that once the cop saw the man's ID he should have changed his attitude and turned it around so Gates would feel he was being serviced by the cop. It might have included an apology and an explanation as they had had calls of a burgulary here earlier in the week….and so on…………that would have diffused it……..
Here’s a video of Gates that displays the attitude Crowley was up against. Once again, I concur with Billy Ray Valentine in the movie “Trading Places” when he said:
“May I suggest using your night stick officer?.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRlIdFcWd5k&eurl…
David,
What you consider “completely unacceptable behavior” on the part of Gates – as Dowd notes – isn't a crime. The idea that we should be fearful and respectful of police even when we've committed no crime, seems dangerous and authoritarian to me.
Chris,
404 error on that link you provided.
Well said, spirasol — your common sense is needed here.
Chris,
I did not say that anyone needs to be “fearful” of the police. And even if one has committed no crime, one should certainly be respectful. I don't know the legal nuances of what counts as disturbing the peace or disorderly behavior, but there seems to be a consensus that Sgt. Gates persistently berated Sgt. Crowley.
Spriasol,
I have mixed emotions about your suggestions that Sgt. Crowley should've assumed a deferential tone and possibly apologized to Prof. Gates. In hindsight, given the mess this has become, it might have been wise for Sgt. Crowley to listen carefully when Prof. Gates claimed (quite accurately) to have friends in high places.
On the other hand, as a matter of principle, I can't sign off on special treatment for those with friends in high places. Even if you're friends with the President, you have an obligation to give your full cooperation to police officers investigating a 911 call.
Here's a clue when dealing with cops. Threatening them by mentioning friends, positions, or lawyers will get you treated worse not better.