Nasty Conclusions

Errors are made, particularly when someone is under great pressure. And what greater pressure can any political leader constantly be assailed with than control and guidance of the affairs of his country? Which country of the world is more embroiled constantly in the affairs of the international community than that of the United States, imparting a further burden on its leader? And which country of the world is more conflicted through traditional suspicions between black-and-white than the United States?

So when President Obama, during a news conference, was prodded to give his opinion on the fractious controversy that has resulted over the arrest of a prominent black Harvard professor during a police investigation of a reported home break-in, Mr. President began his response really well, then proceeded to jettison the balance he initially attempted to achieve through impartiality. As a (bi-racial) black man well acquainted with the constant discrimination suffered by black men, he succumbed to an irresistible provocation.

He was right; he wasn't in possession of all the facts. And he, as a friendly acquaintance of Professor Henry Gates, knows him as a calm, dispassionate professional of high regard. This was most certainly not the man who confronted an investigating police officer who regarded him with suspicion that he might be an intruder. Just doing his job. Had the police not responded to an alert that a break-in appeared to be underway, because it was the home of a black family, they would have been accused of racism.

As it is the Cambridge police have now been obliquely accused by the President of the United States, of racism. It proved to be just too tempting not to give one of those impromptu little lectures on police profiling and undue harassment of blacks. Not that there is no truth in the content of the lecture, just that the context was out of place. When the President said: "Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, [!] what role race played in that, but I think it is fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry..." he should have stopped right there.

Or perhaps stopped at the division in the sentence between 'facts' and 'what role'. The fact is, it is irritating to be accused of wrong-doing when one is just going about one's business. But breaking into a house at an odd hour would cause suspicion, wouldn't it? Proving the house is one's own by providing the adequate documentation should suffice, but when confronting a public servant whose job it is to defend the public weal with angry contempt in the process, it is asking for trouble.

Respect is reciprocal. Think about it: wouldn't it actually be reassuring to know that the police are alert to the possibility that some thug up to no good might have targeted your possessions. And when alerted to what appeared to be precisely that were on duty to ensure that this did not actually proceed? And how could a police officer take on trust, without adequate identification that one is who they claim to be, under those circumstances?

That it has been revealed that the arresting officer, St.James Crowley, was well schooled in race relations and the delicacy of proper and respectful relations between the public and the police, to the extent that he himself teaches a similar course, only adds to the absurdity of the entire event. It would appear that it was Professor Henry Louis Gates whose response to a perfectly logical sequence of events precipitated his misfortune.

President Obama made an understandable error in judgement in pronouncing on his opinion, according to his understanding of the situation as he imagined, not experienced it. President Obama has sought to defuse the situation which has truly been blown out of reasonable proportions.

What he has said since his initial response should be taken on trust demonstrating in good measure the metier of the man's humanity.