Author: ken

What the Ethicist Suggests

Randy Cohen, The New York Times resident ethicist, suggested over the weekend that Prof. Gates should sue Sgt. Crowley, not for profit so much as for greater learning. Here is his argument: “A trial . . . would draw increased attention, stimulate more news stories, create more teachable moments and inspire more conversation about issues of race and class that are of genuine national importance.” (See “Should Henry Louis Gates Sip or Sue.”)

What a bad idea. A trial might do some of those things, but, much worse, it would also reinforce the public’s belief that this is essentially a matter of right and wrong, and that the complexities of the issues involved could be – and should be – resolved once and for all. I am not saying that Gates has no right to sue, or even no grievance to file. I am saying the issues deserve more reflection and association than a judgment in a court of law.

It strikes me that “The Ethicist” typically passes pronouncements on a regular basis for people who have a hard time accepting ambiguity. “Tell me what to do” or “Tell me what to think” are the questions he intrepidly sets out to answer.  But if we want to know what we don’t know we know, we can’t so easily settle for an answer — or accept someone else’s opinion.

When Three Folks Make a Summit

Well, it is fascinating to think about what it means. The President, disparaging the media’s preoccupation with the event, said he was “fascinated with the fascination.” He also corrected the reporters’ language: “It’s a clever term, but this is not a summit, guys. This is three folks having a drink at the end of the day and hopefully giving people an opportunity to listen to each other.” (See in Friday’s New York Times, Over Beers, No Apologies, but Plans to Have Lunch.)

But it was more than just “three folks.” Each one was an implicit, informal representative of a constituency, and they met for the very serious purpose of forging a truce. For once, the press got it right.

Professor Gates, surely our country’s foremost Black academic, represented the aspirations and achievements of Black professionals, the new class that emerged out of the civil rights struggle of the sixties, the class that made Obama possible. And Obama made it clear that “Skip Gates” was “a friend of mine,” and he might be biased in his favor.

Sgt. Crowley represented the white working class, what used to be known as “the moral majority” of hard working, law abiding citizens. Generally speaking, this constituency does not have friends in high places, much less access to privilege. They tend to vote for whoever seems to represent their interests of the moment or understand their values and needs. For a time last summer, it seemed as if Sarah Palin might be able to represent them. Certainly she herself thought she did.

The President? Well, that was the question: whose side was he on? He brought in his Vice President, Joe Biden, according to the Times, to “add balance to the photo op that the White House presented: two black guys, two white guys, sitting around a table.” Biden also added credibility, the Times went on to say, with his links to “blue-collar, labor union America and his roots in Scranton, Pa.” If Obama was friends with “Skip” Gates, Biden could be seen, at least, as identified with Sgt. Crowley.

The test for Obama was to present himself as President of all Americans. His intitial reaction was that the police had acted stupidly, and while he said he regretted his choice of words his identification with the black man who was arrested was clear. For all our talk, we are not yet in “post-racial” America – if we ever will be. The public and the media might well understand and forgive a frank and honest expression of his sentiment, but they were intensely curious about how he would restore his connection with the other parts of his constituency.

And so the Beer Summit was arranged. The representatives of Middle America and the Black Professional class from which Obama sprung shook hands. Afterwards, Prof. Gates noted Obama’s exceptional skills in having arranged the event, and Sgt. Crowley summed it up: “What you had today was two gentlemen who agreed to disagree on a particular issue.” Case closed.

Or a Collapse of Authority

There comes a moment in the decline of established authorities when they suddenly lose their power to compel obedience. We are seeing this now in Iran: the Supreme Leader has lost his aura of religious authority, becoming just another political figure contending for his right to rule. Suddenly, in the street, a protestor refuses to obey the police; an invisible line in the minds of people has been crossed, and you know it is only a matter of time before authority it replaced with mere power – and real power will then eventually shift. In a different way, here at home, we are seeing it in the rebellion of debtors, less and less intimidated by the institutions to which their are in debt.

The banks and credit card companies are calling these rebels “ruthless defaulters,” according to Sunday’s New York Times. More and more of them are simply not paying and not responding to increasingly frantic efforts to get them to pay. “They’ve done the math on their account and they’re very angry,” said Corey Calabrese, a Fordham Law student who is an administrator of the school’s walk-in clinic for debtors at Manhattan Civil Court. Public sentiment is on their side, she added: “For the first time, Americans are no longer blaming the borrower but are looking at the credit card companies.” (See “They’re Not Paying Anymore,” on the Times’ website as When Debtors Decide to Default)

The choice of words is interesting. Usually the banks or mortgage companies are called “ruthless,” without pity, as they go after the irresponsible or hapless debtors. The language suggests that financial institutions now see themselves as the underdog, craving sympathy in the face of merciless debtors. But looking at it more carefully suggests that they are starting to feel powerless – perhaps because they are. If more and more debtors simply refuse to pay, what will they do?

The example of the Wall Street firms that got bailed out – and then went on to award big bonuses again to those responsible for the debts that got them in trouble – has not been lost on at least some of the little guys. It’s a gut reaction, but all the more powerful for just that reason.

Disrespect and Fear – and a Chance to Learn

I might have said “stupid” myself — and I am not sure it would have been incorrect. But the national dialogue about Gate’s arrest and Obama’s response has given us a rare chance to slow down and reflect on our automatic reactions and develop greater racial intelligence.

The police have a difficult and dangerous job, and they are sensitive to signs of disrespect for reasons not hard to figure out. Their world splits into “good guys” and “bad guys,” those who obey the law and need protection and those who don’t. Usually they work for the good guys, of course, but it isn’t always easy to discriminate who is who, especially since “we” ourselves shift around so much. Respect is one of those crude signs that help them detect the difference, but it is also something they may feel entitled to expect and demand under all circumstances, especially in a job that often feels under-appreciated if not actively maligned.

That seems to be the case with Sgt. Crowley. Not a rogue cop, he seems a decent guy, doing his job, much like other cops on beats like his. For him, the incident seems to have been routine. And that would have been that if it hadn’t been for the fact that Prof. Gates was, well, Prof Gates.

The Times today, surveying the field, did a good job of and pointing out how much judgment and discretion is involved in such situations, and it is clear that many other cops would not have responded as Crowley did – but also many would have. And, of course, most of them have now rallied around one of their own who is under attack. (See As Officers Face Heated Words, Their Tactics Vary)

On the other hand, we can also understand how Prof. Gates got riled up trying to get into his own home after a long trip. No doubt, he too felt thwarted and disrespected. And, to be sure, both of them felt afraid, each not only of the unknown other but finding themselves facing off across our country’s racial divide, with little to go on but their own stereotypes.

But, rather than escalating and speeding up, the incident, fortunately, has been slowed down. It has given us all a chance to reflect on what we don’t know we know about race.

The Times’ survey helps to make clear that while in the many police have developed thoughtful strategies to deal with such situations, many rely on crude rules or gut reactions. Many could use help in gaining a better understanding of the psychological dimensions of such encounters, and there are a number of policemen and women who could provide it.

The ordinary citizen could also be more thoughtful about the fear and stress that the police are under when faced with ambiguous and potentially threatening situations. More aware of that, they might be able to refrain from resentful provocations.

Even Obama could learn – and apparently has. Modifying his earlier stance that he had “no more to say” on the subject, he has helped us all take the events apart and learn about our own reactions. That’s what we need: more racial intelligence.

Good Business Opportunities?

The conventional wisdom on blogs is that they can be trusted to be real, truthful – even if occasionally boring. The blogger’s authority derives from his spontaneity and freedom. As the Cluetrain Manifesto puts it: “Corporations do not speak in the same voice as these new networked conversations. To their intended online audiences, companies sound hollow, flat, literally inhuman.”

But can that difference survive commercialization? According to Forbes, Ted Murphy, head of Izea Entertainment, a social media marketing company in Orlando, Fla., has engaged a network of 250,000 bloggers to write reviews on behalf of corporate clients like Hewlett-Packard, SeaWorld, Sears and Dirt Devil, for up to $3,000 for a 200-word blurb. He thinks about it this way: “I’m giving voice to the little guys.” (See Blogola)

Perhaps there is a surface plausibility: fresh, independent voices harnessed to corporate ends. But this ignores the inexorable unconscious influence of the blogger’s motivation on his mind — and words. If you are being paid – and want to continue being paid – your voice will adjust. Someone is looking over your shoulder, listening in, expecting results.

Those voices will start to sound hollow too.