EthnicMajority

Early public opinion polls seemed to indicate that the public blamed Professor Henry Gates more than Cambridge police Sgt. James Crowley for their high-profile incident in Boston. I found this very curious because you would think the general distrust of the police and sympathy for Gates getting arrested in his own home would shift the blame to Crowley. Guess again.

So I asked my barber, who has had his own run-ins with the cops, which side he was taking. To my surprise, he also sided with the police officer. This, in spite of his acknowledgment that Gates committed no crime and the officer not having any justifiable reason to arrest him (which was borne out by the Cambridge Police department immediately dropping all charges against Gates).

Then I realized that, like most polls, the answers depend on how you ask the question. My barber explained that he sided with the police officer because he thought Gates got what was coming to him by challenging the cop, which he thought was utterly idiotic. In other words, his interpretation of the question was “who acted more stupidly” in this incident, and he knew only one of the participants had the power to arrest the other.

So this week CNN published its own poll, specifically asking who acted “stupidly”: Gates, Crowley, and President Obama. In its reporting, the Boston Globe botched its reporting of the survey results, saying that “58 percent of whites surveyed blamed Gates for the confrontation, 59 percent of blacks faulted Crowley”. Not true. If you look at the survey, it shows that 59% of blacks think Crowley acted stupidly and 58% of whites think that Gates acted stupidly. But the “blame” question is clearly different and more complicated to answer than the actual survey “stupidly” question. Even 44% of blacks think Gates acted stupidly.

When the survey goes on to ask who the public “sympathizes with more”, this is where the answers divide along racial lines. Blacks side with Gates 61% to 19% versus whites, who side with Crowley 45% to 29%. The African American answer is no surprise, but I think caucasian answer is illuminating. Even though 58% of whites think Gates acted stupidly and 58% think Crowley did not act stupidly, 29% still sided with Gates and another 26% did not side with Crowley.

I think the “teachable moment” here has less to do with race relations than it does the public’s attitude toward law enforcement. We would all acknowledge that being a police officer is one of the toughest jobs around and that they take more than their fair share of verbal abuse on a daily basis, however like any other profession, they have their share of “bad apples”. I don’t think Crowley is a bad apple, but when a significant percentage of white America sides with an African American for speaking out even though they think it was a stupid idea, that tells me there are more bad apples than the nation’s local police departments care to admit.

How many 911 calls begin with: “there’s a strange black man breaking into my neighbor’s house”? I am not surprised that the 911 operator would ask for a physical description later in the call. I don’t think Lucia Whalen was deliberately casing her neighborhood and targeting African Americans for suspicious behavior. That would be a clear case of racial profiling. But I am not ready to assume Ms. Whalen acted in a color-blind fashion either.

If you review the 911 call transcript, when asked whether the perpetrators were white, black, or Hispanic, Ms. Whalen said “there were two larger men, one looked kind of Hispanic, but I’m not really sure. And the other one entered and I didn’t see what he looked like at all.” Professor Gates is multi-racial and his lighter skin could be confused with being Hispanic when viewed from behind at a distance. Ms. Whalen also acknowledges that she wasn’t sure whether this was a break-in or the owner trying to get into his own house: “I noticed two suitcases so I’m not sure if these are two individuals who actually work there, I mean who live there”.

So here’s my question. If you saw someone in broad daylight with two suitcases on the front porch trying to enter your neighbor’s house, what would you do? Since most burglaries do not occur during the daylight hours through the front door, this situation would appear to me to fit the profile (pardon the pun) of someone returning from a trip and accidentally locking himself out of his house. I would be more inclined to help him rather than call 911.

Had Ms. Whalen seen two white people trying to enter the house instead of one who looked Hispanic, might she have been inclined to help them rather than call 911?

Was Harvard professor Henry Gates the victim of racial profiling? I say yes, but not at the hands of the police. It was his neighbor, who saw a mysterious-looking black man breaking into an expensive house in an affluent neighborhood in Boston, and called the police. Would she have called 911 if the man was white? Maybe she would have figured the man locked himself out of his home (which Gates was) and brought him a crowbar. One thing is certain – Professor Gates should get to know his neighbors better.

According to the police report, Gates became belligerent and called the officer a racist. According to Gates’ account, he denies calling the officer a racist and believes he was arrested because he asked the officer for his name and badge number. As with many situations with two radically different accounts, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. But that said, how crazy would Gates have to act in order to justify being arrested?

There have been reports of complaints of police mistreatment by black students at Harvard, so it appears we do not have an aberration – we have a trend of a more serious racial profiling problem. But in Professor Gates’ case, it seems he was more of a victim of racial discrimination than racial profiling. Either way, he is owed an apology and the Cambridge Police Department has a problem that needs to be addressed.

Ethnicmajority racial profiling page.

Now that we have an African American President, it seems like the politically correct thing to do. Barack Obama’s immediate predecessors, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton both expressed heartfelt regret for slavery but never moved to issue a formal apology.

So now the U.S. Senate has unanimously voted to issue a formal apology for slavery, and the wheels are in motion for the House to approve it and Obama to sign it. Then all will be forgotten, right? Not by a long shot.

In approving this resolution, the Wall Street Journal quoted Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA): “Let us make no mistake: This resolution will not fix lingering injustices. While we are proud of this resolution and believe it is long overdue, the real work lies ahead”. What “real work” is he referring to? Clearly the work does not include any accountability by the government. The apology does not include any admission of guilt or acceptance of liability: “Nothing in this resolution (a) authorizes or supports any claim against the United States; or (b) serves as a settlement of any claim against the United States”.

While I am not in favor of reparations, nothing spells insincere quite like an apology filled with CYA disclaimers written by government lawyers.

Ethnicmajority Civil Rights page.

While the election of Barack Obama has signaled a more liberal attitude towards diversity in politics by the American public, we shouldn’t forget that the Supreme Court still has considerable authority over race relations through its case decisions. Here the Bush legacy lives on in the form of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. Their appointments by Obama’s predecessor have turned the court far to the conservative side and their opinions thus far on race issues have not been encouraging.

This session the court will take on four significant civil rights cases.

The most high-profile case involves a promotions test for New Hampshire firefighters the results of which were set aside because no African Americans and only one Hispanic American passed. The firefighters who passed the test are suing to eliminate any diversity considerations from the promotion eligibility process.

There is also a challenge to the Voting Rights Act that questions Congress’ authority to enforce voting rights at the State and local level, an English-only case in Arizona public schools, and discriminatory lending case in New York.

The conservative leanings of the court already do not create an optimistic view toward potential rulings, but it seems that the country is in a different place on race relations since Obama’s election. The election of the first African American President has created an “anything is possible” attitude, in spite of a worsening economy, two wars raging on, and fragile international relations.

With all of these problems and a black man as President, are race relations even an issue? Stay tuned to see how the Supreme Court gives its two cents.

For more information, see related stories in the USA Today and Washington Post.

Ethnicmajority Civil Rights page.

So here’s the latest example of a shocking racial profiling incident that wouldn’t have made the news except that it happened to a celebrity, in this case an NFL running back named Ryan Moats. According to the Dallas Morning News, Moats was rushing to a local hospital with his wife to be at the bedside of her dying mother when he was pulled over at the entrance to the hospital by a police officer for running a red light. Moats tried to explain the situation, but the cop insisted that he find his insurance card or he would have the car towed. Nurses from the hospital and another cop even tried to plead his case to no avail. Twenty minutes later the incident was over, but too late. Moats’ mother-in-law had died. Fortunately Moats’ wife ignored the cop’s orders and went to her dying mother’s bedside anyway and was able to comfort her before she passed.

For most Americans, we take for granted that we will be treated with respect and dignity by law enforcement because they are after all public servants. Unfortunately some of us are treated like criminals without being given an iota of the benefit of the doubt.

Check out the video:
Part 1

Part 2

Ethnicmajority racial profiling page.

Finally some good news in stemming the tide against the sham civil rights initiatives that started with the passage of California’s Proposition 209 in 1996. Similar initiatives passed by Michigan in 2006 and Nebraska in 2008 prohibit using race as a factor in government hiring or contracting, and public schools with simply-worded ballot measures under the guise of “civil rights” initiatives.

According to the National Law Journal, a state appellate court has ruled that Berkeley’s plan to consider racial makeup of a neighborhood does not violate Proposition 209. In a separate ruling, the California Supreme Court has asked the state Attorney General for an opinion as to whether Prop 209 violates federal equal protection laws as part of litigation over San Francisco’s public contracting program.

These initiatives have functioned as Trojan horses against civil rights because they sound philosophically appealing to voters who don’t understand the ramifications of implementing them. They leave state and local governments without tools like affirmative action or minority business programs to mitigate racial discrimination problems, and don’t even allow the government to gather statistics or conduct research needed to determine whether there may be a problem in the first place. This effectively makes racial discrimination permissible because it is now illegal to even gather evidence to make your case. Fortunately the voters of Colorado figured this out and defeated a similar initiative in 2008.

Proposition 209 has hurt California’s schools, government, and business community. If the courts don’t overturn it, the voters should.

For more information, see the Ethnicmajority civil rights and affirmative action pages.

I wanted to inform EthnicMajority readers of some new documentaries that have recently been released by California Newsreel. They look at contemporary civil rights issues such as housing descrimination, unfair incarceration and health inequities along racial lines.

TULIA TEXAS

Though its scrupulous investigation of a landmark case, this documentary uncovers the deep-rooted assumptions about race and crime that still permeate our society and undermines our justice system. The film convincingly shows how the ‘war on drugs’ has become a war on due process, waged against African Americans.

http://www.newsreel.org/nav/title.asp?tc=CN0218

SCARRED JUSTICE: THE ORANGEBURG MASSACRE

This documentary brings to light one of the bloodiest tragedies of the Civil Rights era after four decades of deliberate denial. The killing of four white students at Kent State University in 1970 left an indelible stain on our national consciousness. But most Americans know nothing of the three black students killed at South Carolina State College in Orangeburg two years earlier.

http://www.newsreel.org/nav/title.asp?tc=CN0223

(more…)

President Obama’s recent comments about possible investigations into the abuses of the previous administration are indeed troubling. While he does use language like “no one is above the law”, he always follows it up with concerns about the current economy, wars in the Middle East, terrorism, etc. that require us to look towards the future rather than the past.

It is certainly true we are all concerned about the present, but President Obama is overlooking one of the main reasons why his message of change and hope was embraced by the American public – that he would restore our faith that the Constitution is still the prevailing foundation of our representative Democracy and no one, even the President of the United States, will be permitted to compromise it. Clearly there is much to look back on: torture and detainment of suspected terrorists, warrant-less wiretapping of innocent Americans, ginned-up intelligence to justify invading Iraq, hiring and firing U.S. attorneys based on a political agenda, outing a CIA operative and then pardoning Scooter Libby, allowing staffers to hide behind Executive Privilege and refuse to answer Congressional subpoenas, to name just a few.

President Bush will leave a legacy of unprecedented failures of government, but none more significant than his blatant disregard for the Constitution. President Obama inherits all of these failures, but even if he should be successful in turning things around, his legacy will be forever tarnished if he turns his back on the Constitutional abuses of his predecessor.

As the old saying goes: there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics. The Los Angeles Times published a story this week that the LAPD had rejected a study of racial profiling conducted by a Yale University legal scholar and endorsed by the ACLU. The reason cited for the rejection was that the study did not examine individual circumstances, and instead looked at more macro level statistics, such as finding that African and Hispanic Americans were 29% and 32% respectively more likely to be arrested after being stopped by the LAPD.

It is interesting that whenever there are complaints from individuals about racial discrimination or racial profiling, the standard response is that these are isolated incidents and we shouldn’t impune the integrity of an institution without broad statistical evidence. Years ago, when California voters passed Proposition 209 to prohibit affirmative action, its supporters successfully forced the legislature to remove laws on the books that required statistical reporting of racial statistics in state employment and contracting. I assume that the same thing has happened for the dozen or so other states that have passed similar ballot measures.

Trying to pursue an individual discrimination claim without statistical evidence is like trying to stop Americans from driving their cars. And passing laws making it more difficult to gather statistics to determine whether there is a discrimination problem is the equivalent of locking the door and throwing away the key.

I do agree that discrimination studies should supplement macro level statistical data with anecdotal data, however the jurisdictions need to ensure that the necessary data is being gathered and reported in order to get in front of a problem instead of having to react to it. And in the meantime I guess we need to just take LAPD’s word for it that they don’t have a racial profiling problem.

More information on racial profiling.