Police and Professor: who had moral high ground?

coberst

Well-Known Member
Messages
427
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Police and Professor: who had moral high ground?

Can both simultaneously occupy the moral high ground?

The NYTimes published a news article that ignited “a national discussion about race and law enforcement unfolded after the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr., Harvard’s prominent scholar of African-American history. Professor Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct July 16 at his home in Cambridge, Mass., as the police investigated a report of a possible break-in there. The charge was later dropped, and the Cambridge Police Department said the incident was “regrettable and unfortunate.” President Obama said the police officer had acted stupidly.

Are experiences, meaning, and comprehension pertinent to the facts?

Did the police officer and the professor “see” the same thing?

The police officer saw himself once again going into a dangerous situation in order to preserve law and order; in this dangerous situation he saw a potentially dangerous black man giving him a hard time just like so many others have done.

The well respected university professor saw a police officer harassing him because he is a black man; just as many police officers constantly harass him and all black men because almost all Irish police officers harbor racial hatred for all African Americans.

I claim that both the policeman and the professor had made moral decisions of the highest meaning. Both made decisions affecting the interrelationships of the community in its widest variables.

The Scientific Method seeks to bracket [fence out] meaningfulness. The scientific method hates bias and bias is one form of meaning. Bias causes the individual to often distort “truth”. In the lab bias is the enemy, i.e. meaning is the enemy.

Religion seeks to bracket the word “morality”, i.e. to create a fence protecting the “word” from outside influence. Religion seeks to bracket human critical thought. I was raised as a Catholic and went to Catholic schools and was taught by nuns. I learned quickly that to “entertain” impure thoughts (thoughts about sex) or questions about my religion were sinful and had to be confessed to a priest in the confessional.

What is meaning?

Meaning is not a thing: meaning is a creatures’ association with an object.

Meaning and epistemology (what can we know and how can we know it) go together like a “horse and carriage”. Epistemology is about comprehension and comprehension is about meaning.

Comprehension can be usefully thought of as being hierarchical and formed like a pyramid. At the base is awareness followed by consciousness. Awareness is the beginning of comprehension; it begins with preconceptual and unconscious happenings in our brain. Consciousness adds to awareness the focus of our attention on this object that results from awareness. We are aware of much and we are conscious of little. When I walk in the woods I am aware of much and become quickly terrified by the consciousness of a shape that makes me think bear.

Knowing follows consciousness on this pyramid. Knowing is followed by understanding. Understanding is at the pinnacle of the pyramid of comprehension.

Meaning follows comprehension side by side. Meaning begins with awareness and grows with consciousness and knowing. At the pinnacle of the pyramid is the creation of new meaning through the process of our understanding, which organizes into a gestalt that which is known. The understanding at the pinnacle of comprehension is that rare moment of eureka when all becomes clear after a great struggle to understand a complex matter. Understanding is like putting together a jigsaw puzzle where our knowledge are the pieces of the puzzle.
 
Coberst, every nice analysis. However, one had power and became the oppressor. The other had no power and became the oppressed. Therefore, although they may be on the same moral high ground, compassion must play a role in our overall analysis. In this sense the police officer was wrong the the professor was right :).
 
In this sense the police officer was wrong the the professor was right :).

I'm going to agree with you Avi. While I won't go as far to say the professor was "right," the power and ability to ultimately determine the course of events was in the hands of the police officer James Crowley. I've heard reports that Gates was belligerent, but that is not enough to take a man out of his own house and arrest him.

I do not watch Cops or shows like that. But on the rare occasion I have run across that program it appears as if nearly everyone acts belligerently from the perpetrators, to the victims, to the bystanders. Cops need to have a thicker skin and an ability to determine the difference between belligerent and dangerous. It seems to me that Crowley failed to discern the difference.

Here's a opinion piece from Time magazine that I think sums it up well: Viewpoint: The Stupidity of the Gates Arrest

One a side note... during a ABC network radio newscast, an incident that involved Crowley was reported to illustrate that he wasn't racist. Former Boston Celtic Reggie Lewis collapsed from a heart attack and Crowley was the first responder on the scene. The reporter said Crowley then gave Lewis mouth to mouth resuscitation. Lewis died from the heart attack. Apparently the report confirms that Crowley isn't a racist because he wasn't afraid to touch a black man's lips. I guess this also proves that he's not a homphobe. :rolleyes:
 
There is another interesting related point here. This is the first time in our history that we have an African-American President who can comment on day to day issues. I really liked his reaction to this, and I had posted it in the politics section:


The president showed a flash of humor in an otherwise serious evening when asked about Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., an African American scholar who was arrested for breaking into his home after he lost his keys.

Obama said if he were seen trying to break into the White House, "I'd probably be shot."

Obama is using the Office of President to show that there is some moral absolutism. I think this is also making me re-think whether they are indeed both on the same moral high ground after all ??
 
For a smart professor he was rather stupid to try to break into his home in that neighborhood.

Perhaps his advanced intellect should have suggested that he phone the police first a let them in on the break-in so that it is not a surprise.
Hello...911...I would like to report that I am about to break into my home as I locked myself out and I will probably have a neighbor calling in and or alarms going off..
you know, simple and straightforward.
No surprises.
Maybe call the locksmith, as his service call would be about the same as the glazier who would have to come to replace a broken window.


Not having read anything about this incident....was he kind of drunk at the time???
 
Shawn, here is a nice report by the Wall Street Journal:

Two Unlikely Protagonists In a Racial Confrontation - WSJ.com

Not having read anything about this incident....was he kind of drunk at the time???

Your assumption that he was drunk is part of the racial profiling and stereotyping issues that he needs to deal with on a daily basis.

Here is his personal webpage, and CV, a very accomplished person:

http://aaas.fas.harvard.edu/faculty/henry_louis_gates_jr/index.html#bio

http://aaas.fas.harvard.edu/pdf/henry_louis_gates_CV.pdf

I am glad that this racial profiling issue is being give some national exposure.
 
Mr. Gates had just returned after being away on a trip to China. He couldn't get into his house due to a jammed front door. As a homeowner I can relate to leaving small nuisance repairs unresolved. I'm sure his sticky front door has been an issue for quite some time.

I checked the rainfall in Cambridge for July, and in the 2 weeks preceding his return there had been 2.8", nearly the normal amount for the full month. His wooden door, expanded from the extra moisture likely worsened the jam. And Mr. Gates needed the assistance of his taxi driver to open it.

He didn't need to call a locksmith, because he knew it was just a sticky door. It also seems a little excessive to call the police in order to tell them, "My front door's jammed, but I think I can get it opened with the help of my taxi driver. Please ignore any phone calls alerting you to a possible break in."
 
Your assumption that he was drunk is part of the racial profiling and stereotyping issues that he needs to deal with on a daily basis.
No assumption on my part, I was just asking as I hadn't read anything about it, so don't you go assuming that I am doing any racial profiling as that is assuming too much about me.
I have a very multi-cultural family comprised of Native American, African, Latino, Filipino, Chinese, Jewish and European so I am about as far as one can get from a bigot you will find. Don't be rude dude.

I also didn't know about any particulars so did assume that maybe he broke a window.
All around it sounds like a bum rap and the cop is in the wrong.
Really, look at the guys ID and see if it matchs some mail or such, his drivers license should have his address, and for sure that info is in their police data base in their car.
Whatever.
 
I am about as far as one can get from a bigot you will find. Don't be rude dude.

Shawn, I never called you a bigot. But I have seen, for lack of a better description, a lack of sensitivity to racial issues on your part. :eek: This was just another example. Remember the picture you posted of the Muslim man with the multiple wives that was fabricated ?
 
Police and Professor: who had moral high ground?

Can both simultaneously occupy the moral high ground?
Both, and neither. When it comes to claims of bias then both would be wrong. When it comes to simple fear of the unknown, the both were right.

The assumption that almost all Irish-American policemen have a hatred or bias against all African-Americans, is so out there...

I'm an Irish-American Police man. My partner is an African-American. We fear those who refuse to step back and reason, but instead knee-jerk because of a fear of the unknown.

Sure, there are "some" non-African-Americans with a bias, as there are "some" African-Americans with a bias. But the reality (at least in America), is that over 50% of the population, has never personally met an African-American (which consists of only 12% of the total population, and tend to gravitate towards the major cities for a place to call home).

What actually is the moral question here? Because the professor has had run-ins with non-African-American police officers in the past, he was right to get defensive in his own home, on that assumption that "here we go again", note?

Or because the non-African-American police officers have had run-ins with African-Americans in the past, they were right to get aggresive "here we go again", in order to neutralize what they perceived was a threat?

What would the higher ground have been for both?

How about, the professor calmly stating he lived there...and the police calmly asking for ID, then the professor showing ID, and the police becoming consillatory for intruding in the professor's privacy, but for justifiable reason (better safe than sorry, for everyone concerned), and the professor thanking them for trying to protect society at large, and him in particular...

That would have shown reason on both parties' parts.

The irony here is that both the professor and the police were highly educated people, yet that didn't stop primal fear from getting in the way...

Fear does not make for morality...one is an emotion and the other is a choice based on sound reasoning.
 
Darn, I was going to give you a thumbs up for your post as I agree. However, I need to spread the reputation around before I can do that again for you. This whole situation is about fear and knee jerk reactions: both parties are guilty. However, as our President said, we need to learn from this teachable moment about how we can make better choices when confronted with our own fears. I really don't think this was about race as much as it was about mutual respect or the lack thereof.
 
it could have played out like this.. " hello sir, what are you doing there?"

"Oh good evening officer, i locked myself out of my house, and Im just trying to get in.."

"Ah ha, ok, do you have any id, Sir.."

"yep, sure do.." or,.... "No, sir, but i can provide some ..."

My point is, pleasant, polite, it takes both parties, its all abou the attitude....
 
Shawn, I never called you a bigot. But I have seen, for lack of a better description, a lack of sensitivity to racial issues on your part. :eek: This was just another example. Remember the picture you posted of the Muslim man with the multiple wives that was fabricated ?
But that picture was so funny though.:D
Besides, that was a religious issue and any racial aspects never even entered my mind.
Ever watch any Russell Peters (comedian)?
 
Darn, I was going to give you a thumbs up for your post as I agree. However, I need to spread the reputation around before I can do that again for you. This whole situation is about fear and knee jerk reactions: both parties are guilty. However, as our President said, we need to learn from this teachable moment about how we can make better choices when confronted with our own fears. I really don't think this was about race as much as it was about mutual respect or the lack thereof.
:) I don't need a thumbs up. I just got it from your point.:D
 
It's a non story that has so far backed three good men into a corner and none of them will look better in the end cause each of them is still trying to retain face.

I think it was about the heat of the moment, as if we all haven't said and done stuff we regret we should give them both a break....

I also think as it was right for Obama it is also right for us..."I don't know all the facts and I shouldn't comment"

None of us know all the facts, none of us ever will as there is no recording, it will always be he said she said. Hindsight says yes one or both could have taken the higher moral ground....yeah so could we have the umpteenth time we've let our tempers get the better of us....

So....ye without sin cast the first stone.
 
If anyone's interested. here's the police report:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/Police report on Gates arrest.PDF

As far as I can tell from the articles I've read, Gates was being a privileged, upper-class idiot. Unfortunately he played the race card and it's working in his favor. If there was any profiling going on it was on the part of the neighbor, not the police. There are certainly legitimate cases of racial profiling and prejudice but I don't think this is one of them.

wil said:
I also think as it was right for Obama it is also right for us..."I don't know all the facts and I shouldn't comment"

Obama didn't stop there. He kept going to justify his previous statements.
 
It's a non story that has so far backed three good men into a corner and none of them will look better in the end cause each of them is still trying to retain face.

I think it was about the heat of the moment, as if we all haven't said and done stuff we regret we should give them both a break....

I also think as it was right for Obama it is also right for us..."I don't know all the facts and I shouldn't comment"

None of us know all the facts, none of us ever will as there is no recording, it will always be he said she said. Hindsight says yes one or both could have taken the higher moral ground....yeah so could we have the umpteenth time we've let our tempers get the better of us....

So....ye without sin cast the first stone.
Bull, it is a generations old adage. Someone has to say "I was afraid". Then the next guy and the next, and so on until they all realize they were all afraid, and acting on what they grew up to expect, but were trying to prevent.

Don't belittle what actually happened. Address it.
 
Back
Top