Conor Friedersdorf, writing on Andrew Sullivan's blog, thinks that we should not focus on the Henry Louis Gates case, when there are much cases of much greater injustice to fret about. Jason Zengerle agrees. Why should we worry about an Ivy League prof, who has not been seriously harmed, as opposed to someone of a lower social class, wrongly imprisoned for years and years?
Perhaps we should feel injustice only to the degree that there is injustice. The greater the injustice, the greater our outrage. That would make Peter Singer happy, I know. But frankly, that's not how people work. We tend to respond with greater outrage when an injustice happens to someone we know (or, in the case of Gates, know of) or we take to be similar to us or we take to be generally a sympathetic person. Writers and artists who wish to awaken the world to injustices have capitalized on this for some time - it's why, for example, Oliver Twist speaks the King's English, and not a lower class dialect. The more details we know about a specific case, the more sympathy we are likely to feel. Hearing about one wrongful imprisonment is more moving than hearing that there are 10,000 people wrongly incarcerated. We are even more moved when it is someone we know. Rather than bemoaning this fact, there is nothing wrong with taking advantage of it to raise awareness.
We think it admirable when a celebrity starts raising money for a charity once they are personally touched by a particular affliction (e.g., Michael J. Fox and stem cell research). We're not angry at them that they were not raising money for the cause before it touched their lives, because it is a recognized fact that being personally acquainted with a harm makes one generally more aware of it.
Part of the reason it is so helpful for gays to come out of the closet is that it awakens the awareness of those who know that person. When your good friend cannot visit a loved one in the hospital, it may strike you with greater force than a greater injustice that happened to a stranger, such as the murder of Matthew Shepard. Then, as one is aware of the smaller injustices that befell someone one knows, one is gradually awakened to the greater injustices that exist.
Seems perfectly human, then, to dwell on Gates. And I bet you good money that the Gates case will make more people realize how hard it is to be a minority in relation to the police than any of the cases that Friedersdorf linked to.
Posts
97th Oscars Projections: The Awards Season Kickoff
-
The fact is that elections' results have, and will, affect what Academy
voters' tastes are like for the season.
The post 97th Oscars Projections: The Awa...
8 hours ago
I'm not at all clear that this was a case of bad police and good prof. We have two different stories. Apparently, Officer Crowley had his radio mike open, and he appears to be contemplating a suit against Prof. Gates, so we may hear some more shortly. But until then, it is not obvious this is racist police work. It could easily be a case of tired, hassled by Chinese and US border officials, airport security, Harvard prof losing it when officer doesn't immediately go away after being shown ID. Perhaps the officer was checking to see if there was a Ms. Gates, and if a protective order existed that would have made it illegal for Mr. Gates to be at that address on his driver's license. Perhaps there is another explanation. I don't know. But it does seem clear that Prof. Gates followed the officer out of his home and was berating him with the "I'm important, and you are going to regret not paying appropriate deference to me" line. That makes it quite hard for me to have loads of sympathy for the Professor.
ReplyDeleteI think that's possibly true, and the police officer may well not have been motivated by racism. But the disorderly conduct charge does seem by all accunts unwarranted, and so we at least have a case of a policeman unwarrantedly throwing his weight around because he allowed himself to get pissed off. Also not pretty, and not just.
ReplyDeleteYou are right, it shouldn't be a crime to film, photograph, or verbally abuse police officers in the US But you know what? Start giving lip to an officer, and white, black, female, Asian, whatever, you'll wind up on the short end of the stick quickly. Best to smile, be very polite but firm, and save the anger for the complaint later, when there is less danger of being tasered or shot while "resisting arrest.". How can a Harvard man not know this?
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what happened in this case. But I have zero doubt that, generally speaking, a police officer will take mouthing off more amiss from someone black than someone white or Asian.
ReplyDeleteI for one want to hear the radio tape from the residence of Professor Gates. From what I understand about Cambridge Police policy is this: When called to a home for a break-in and finding persons inside, a sweep of the residence is required by the Cambridge Police Department. There could have been someone behind a door with a gun trained on the professor. The tape should answer any questions. Seems to me both President Obama and Professor Gates sure quited down after the tape surfaced. You can bet your last dollar the WH and the President has heard it. Cambridge is the most liberal city in the US and is constantly referred to as the, Republic of Cambridge.
ReplyDeleteJim
Thought I should return to this post. I heard the tape on the news this evening and no answer to my questions. The tape did not contain Professor Gates voice that of the police officer. Continue in a quandary.
ReplyDeleteJim
Elizabeth, I'm curious how you know to a certainty that "generally speaking, a police officer will take mouthing off more amiss from someone black than someonw white or Asian." I really don't know if this is true or not. It could be, but I have no real way of knowing for sure. How did you come to your conclusion? What evidence did you use? Any geographical caveats, or is this true in all 50 States?
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen empirical evidence on this. But I also have not seen empirical evidence that toddlers like to test limits, that men are generally (although not in every instance) more interested in mechanical stuff than are women, that New Yorkers talk faster than Southerners. And yet, I am sure all these things are true, too, based on conclusions I've drawn from my experience of the world.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, I do imagine there would be geographic variance.