Social class and the Gates story: "A lot of the debate about the incident dances around the topic but misses the big picture—race and class are always factors because we are human beings colored by experiences and classification within this country’s historical framework of those two elements."

Comments

[David Wharton]

You'd think that a close look at the class dynamics of this little storm in a French press would at least glance at the social class of both involved parties.

But no, it's all about the social class of the Harvard professor, followed by an automeditation on the social class of the blogger. Do cops belong to a social class worth contemplating?

Nah -- they're just a bunch of head-cracking racists.

[Ed Cone]

She's writing from the perspective of a black professional, and she's addressing one part of a complicated story.

If you think that every approach to a complex topic must be all-encompassing, then I guess it's a disappointing piece of work.

I see it as an interesting addition, and one that might spark other posts that address other points of view and perspectives.

I'm not a black professional, or a cop, or someone who looks on either group as undifferentiated masses about which we should comfortably generalize, so I'm eager to hear more from all quarters.

[David Wharton]

"All-encompassing"? I was just hoping for "making at least a half-hearted attempt to understand the point of view of both parties involved in the story I'm writing about."

But I can't say I'm disappointed, because Pandagon met my low exepectations.

[Dan]

It's a good time to be a blogger.

The author makes some very good points. The whole "don't you know who I am" angle is nearly as important as the race angle and they should be considered together.

I keep thinking of the picture of Gates being led out of his house. I'd like to see the entire picture or at least be able to know whether the photog or editor cropped it in a way so that the black cop is visible in the foreground. I think the picture of Gates lecturing all within earshot makes him look silly and the cops look sad. He could be shouting "Don't you know who I am, I'm a black man in America" for all we know... I'm not sure I really have a point here.

[Steve Harrison]

Thanks for the link, Ed. It's actually got me thinking about something I should have considered earlier.

Crowley is a cop, and that's his profession. It is no less (or more) legitimate and important to him than Gates' profession is to him. Within a few seconds of their meeting, Gates throws out the "I'm powerful!" card and jumps on the phone trying to get a hold of the Chief (which chief, I don't know), apparently in an effort to bring some heat down on Crowley and maybe even get him fired. That's gotta give the cop a pucker factor of at least 7.5.

And there's also the fact that Crowley has likely had numerous (negative) encounters with Harvard students in the past, if not faculty, which probably sounded a lot like what the professor was throwing at him. Snotty rich kids can be a real pain in the ass for a cop, I'm sure.

The class angle, at least from the cop's point of view anyway, may actually be more of a factor in the outcome of this confrontation. I used to run with the TKE boys at Elon (a lot of Jersey and Long Island alumni scions), and more than once I offered to stick their convertible BMW right up their ass if they continued to flaunt Daddy's money in my face. Everybody has an inner jerk just waiting to dance around a little bit.

[Ed Cone]

DW, I'm just not getting your ire over this one.

Someone reading your comment but not the blog post would not know that the post is a fairly scathing look at the entitled mindset of certain Ivy League profs -- an indictment, that is, of Gates.

It's a commentary about a narrow subject, and doesn't pretend to be about anything else.

You acknowledge your predisposition to dislike the forum (the blogger is much better known for her work at her own site), and pretty much ignore the provocative essay itself.

It's like going to Ruth's Chris, complaining about the lack of good vegetarian fare, and then saying "I hate that place anyway" when someone says, so, um how was the steak?

[cheripickr]

There's a lot of ire you don't get Ed. Heres's mine.

I agree with PA that you’re a race-baiting dick for introducing Joe and Sam’s possible racism as a discussion topic , your immediate pseudodismissal of it as a segue into your "I have no reason…he was one of my favorite students...BUT…” not withstanding. Another of your great recipes for finding common ground with those who hold differing opinions from yours.

Also, making Joe the subject of a thread and bringing it up again right after he has gone on sabbatical is an especially admirable touch, as well as being too spineless to express your concerns about his “sneering tone” in the thread you keep linking to from any closer than the safe distance of your cozy little castle when he WAS around to discuss it. I guess, unlike Gates, you're fully aware of the risks to a preeminent thinker in stepping off his property.
Yeah, I think we all know Joe to be quite a snarly, sardonic, intimidating kind of guy compared to most of us gentlemen around here.
In the past I have laughed when you invoked the accusation of "cowardice" as pertains to blogging. I think I'm finally starting to see your point. You are truly a piece of work.

Sometimes pseudonymous coward John Hayes (in case my racist creds might make a useful thread for you some day. )


>

[Ed Cone]

John, I don't think those guys are racists, which is why I said I don't think they are racists.

I don't understand what I see as their tone-deaf discussions of racially-tinged issues, which is why I asked about it.

I think it's a subject that people can discuss in good faith, and I think that discussion can be a productive one.

Obviously you believe I'm not dealing in good faith myself. I regret that more than I'm guessing you will believe to be the case.

[David Wharton]

Ed, I'm not irate. Just a little bilious.

I don't think your steakhouse analogy is apt. It's more like I went to the Golden Corral after they advertised a special on extra-good ribeyes and was served the usual chewy, fatty, overcooked slab.

When the ad (the snipped you quoted) offers an analysis of class dynamics, and then the author simply dismisses the class of one of the protagonists by way of shopworn stereotypes, I think I have a fair beef.

Also, I didn't see Pam's stuff on Gates's sense of entitlement as all that insightful. Do people really need to be reminded that Ivy League academics have an outsized sense of entitlement?

You've used this defense before when I criticized the quality of something you posted: Well, you might disagree with that part, but I found other parts interesting/useful. I call BS. The post simply failed to do what it set out to do. It was a prejudiced analysis masquerading as a piece of multi-culti sensitivity.

[greensboro transplant]

ed,

imho, the story isn't about gates. it isn't about the cop. it's about a President who by his own admission didn't know the facts but nevertheless chose to use the bully pulpit to call the the cops actions stupid.

In doing so, he fed stereotypes of all sorts and hurt rather than helped race relations. he then expressed shock that a president's remarks could stir up such a big fuss and called the incident "a teachable moment".

i'm not sure about teachable, but it sure as hell is illuminating.

[Ed Cone]

DW, I read it as a fairly tough takedown of Gates and self-important academics, pertinent in the context of the incident at his home.

It's not a post about Crowley, or cops, although of course they figure in it, it's a post about Gates and the role his class (and self-perception thereof) played in this affair.

So if your beef is that it's not a particularly interesting or original take on that subject, or one worth linking, well, fine, we disagree.

But that's not what I got from your original comment, which focused on the lack of analysis of Crowley's class and its role in the affair. Those are important elements, to be sure, but I don't think that's what Pam set out to do, or claimed to do, in her essay.

GT, the story is about a lot of things. Pam focused on one aspect of one of the things. Certainly Obama's poor handling of the press conference question is another strand of the story. It is a teachable moment -- many moments, on more than one subject. What will we make of those moments?

[cheripickr]

"I think it's a subject that people can discuss in good faith, and I think that discussion can be a productive one."

Yeah? Assuming you meant the Gates affair and not Joe's racism as the subject, here's a suggestion which I suspect will seem rather foreign to you:

The next time you have an issue with a position expressed by local blogger on a discussion underway there, why not join the conversation at the blog where the comments originated, and where, besides allowing direct interaction, your comments can be better understood by interested readers in the context of the original topic?---rather than singling the blogger out by name, making him the topic, and calling his character into question by initiating a separate public discussion about whether he is or is not a racist?

Wouldn't that have been more respectful of his opinions and have better exemplified the "good faith" you are so nobly trying to inspire in all of us? There was an excellent discussion at Joe's recently between he and Jim Buie on the Cronkite/Vietnam issue which I found very thoughtful and productive, where two sides were presented in an informative, easy to follow and for the most part, respectful manner.

But if you still prefer the latter approach, consider at least refraining during times when you know that the blogger you are singling out for discussion isn't around to answer for himself.

Is that unreasonable? Do you not see how that might more likely result in the productive discussion you claim to strive for? I would think any child would be able to see the logic in that. Am I making any sense here?

[David Wharton]

Ed, here's the opening paragraph of the post you link:

In my prior posts on the arrest of Harvard prof Henry Louis Gates in his own home by Cambridge police officer Sgt. James Crowley I have mentioned that class privilege plays a role in this debacle as much as race does. A lot of the debate about the incident dances around the topic but misses the big picture—race and class are always factors because we are human beings colored by experiences and classification within this country’s historical framework of those two elements.

In general, the first paragraph tells you what the rest is about. Reading this, any reasonable person would expect a discussion of the class difference between the six-figure salaried Harvard academic and the police sergeant.

But the analysis that follows deals only with the internal race/class conflict of the black professor. Pam's conclusion? In this case, the usual evils associated with being an upper-class Ivy Leaguer are justified by his being a black man:

Certainly white academics who have the Ivy Effect don’t have to deal with their class privilege getting trumped by race. The altered state of denial for academics of color is easily shattered when they realize they are just any old common black man in the eyes of the oppressor, in this case law enforcement.

She dismisses the working-class white cop simply as "the oppressor." She also assumes that the cop is lying when he said that Gates had produced sufficient ID ("...the cop is the one escalating the issue by continuing to stand there in the house after Gates had fulfilled the request to produce ID...") when the cop and the professor's versions differ.

Here are more of her comments on cops:

I know my Mom always told my brother, when we were living in Bed-Stuy Brooklyn in the height of the crack-addled, crime-ridden 1980s, that you had to be careful dealing with the police because when they were called to a disturbance (if they showed up at all), even an innocent bystander, if he was a young black man, could experience getting a billy club beatdown --no questions asked --for just standing in the vicinity of the disturbance—or worse.

So, she says she knows police are brutal because her mother told her.

Finally, your reading of this as "a fairly tough takedown of Gates" is not supported by Pam's own words: "[Gates] can and has used his station in society to blow this up to a national story. I’m not saying it’s wrong or right, I’m saying it is what it is." Only if you had previously assumed that Gates is the innocent, injured party and the cop is the "oppressor" could you construe this post as a "take-down."

Thus my contention about the poor quality of the post stands.

[Ed Cone]

DW, the central point (and the bulk of the text) deals with the fact that black profs can be self-important jerks, too.

I'm sorry if your reading of the first paragraph, and your preconceptions about the site where the post appeared, set you up for disappointment.

I think you kind of missed the forest for a few trees.

Obviously, you don't see it that way. It happens.

[RecycleBill]

Steve Harrison, you make some great points. Years ago I used to tow cars for GPD and campus police throughout Greensboro. I worked for one of a half dozen or so rotation towing companies. Most mornings around 10 AM we would be called to UNCG where I've seen students and professors dare the cops to have their cars towed even though the cars were obviously illegally parked. One young man threatened us saying his daddy was a US Senator, another said she was the daughter of a US Congressman-- both representing local districts. "My daddy will get you fired," they would tell us. We towed their cars first.

I've seen girls driving Porsches spit on police officers for having their cars towed and on more than one occasion students and professors threatened myself and my boss because they didn't think they should have to pay the tow bill.

(I can't tell you who these people really were as I really don't know but one bore a strong facial resembalance to a politican who was seated at the time-- who knows?)

People who have lead lives of privledge often try to run over the working class in situations like this-- ask anyone who has ever worked in an upscale retail store. The cops had to deal with this crap every day and this was UNCG, not Harvard.

Some of the nicest people I know are college professors. Some of the biggest jerks I've ever met were college professors. Same goes for cops.

And no, I don't hate authority-- I just hate stupid authority be that a professor, cop or anyone else in authority.

[David Wharton]

I didn't (and don't) deny that Pam's post is critical of high-profile black academics in general terms. But I also noticed that she declines to hold Gates culpable because she factors in white racism. (Thus Pam's argument is actually more nuanced and complex than your rather vague metaphor -- "the central point ... deals with ..." -- lets on.)

However, Pam simply assumes (apparently on the testimony of her mother) that the other party involved in the dispute -- Crawley -- is a racist, a liar, and an oppressor. That other party makes up half the universe of discourse she sets up for herself in the first paragraph.

Now, if you want to make the argument that a self-professed "big picture" treatment of race and class re: Gates vs. Crawley succeeds on its own terms when it assumes without evidence the racism, malice, and mendacity of one of the two parties, go ahead.

But let's leave aside for tonight the "I'm sorrys" and the vague, hand-waving generalizations about trees and forests.

[Ed Cone]

DW,

I linked to an article I found interesting. You dismissed it. I wrote back in hopes that you might engage in the conversation a bit. You dug in. So it goes.

I find your close reading highly selective -- Pam's description of her own neighborhood as "crack-addled, crime-ridden" doesn't seem to penetrate your carapace of chosen outrage, for example.

I value your contributions to this blog, and I wish you'd been somewhat less reflexive in this case. Few of us write perfect essays, but even imperfect ones can spark conversations more productive than "that sucked."

Again, so it goes. See you on the next thread.

[Bubba]

"I value your contributions to this blog, and I wish you'd been somewhat less reflexive in this case. Few of us write perfect essays, but even imperfect ones can spark conversations more productive than 'that sucked.' "

Again, so it goes. See you on the next thread."

This, coming from someone who earlier posted:

"I think it's a subject that people can discuss in good faith, and I think that discussion can be a productive one."

We all know how that sort of thing works here.When you can't turn something to your advantage, the conversation becomes of no particular value. It's just not "productive" enough for your porposes.

You don't have the grounds to proselytize about "good faith" in discussions. With you involved, there's very little of that, particularly on subject matters like those discussed in this thread.

[Ed Cone]

Bob, DW is welcome to continue discussing the things he doesn't like about the essay, and you are welcome to join him.

My purpose is not to defend Pam's essay against every criticism, but to pursue what I found to be its thought-provoking themes. Others may choose different directions.

At the end of the day, DW will remain a thoughtful and valued commenter, with whom I disagreed in this thread, as we've disagreed in others. I hope that in his view I retain a similar status.

You, too, may find things to like, and things to dislike, in this thread, and in others. In any case, thanks for taking the time to read, and to comment.

[cheripickr]

"I think it's a subject that people can discuss in good faith, and I think that discussion can be a productive one."

Yeah? Assuming you meant the Gates affair and not Joe's racism as the subject, here's a suggestion which I suspect will seem rather foreign to you:

The next time you have an issue with a position expressed by local blogger on a discussion underway at his blog, why not join the conversation there, where the comments originated, and where, besides allowing direct interaction, your comments can be better understood by interested readers in the context of the original topic?---rather than singling the blogger out by name, making him the topic, and calling his character into question by initiating a separate public discussion about whether he is or is not a racist?

Wouldn't that have been more respectful of his opinions and have better exemplified the "good faith" you are so nobly trying to inspire in all of us?
And wouldn't that have been more conducive to avoiding misunderstandings and "reflexive" responses like pondering whether disagreement with you might indicate racism. Wouldn't that be more inviting of the search for common ground you have campaigned so laudably for?
But if you still prefer the latter approach, consider at least refraining during times when you know that the blogger you are singling out for discussion isn't around to answer for himself.

Is that unreasonable? Do you not see how that might more likely result in the productive discussion you claim to strive for? I would think any child would be able to see the logic in that. Am I making any sense here?
Some direct answers, for a change, would be much appreciated by this reader. I am trying desperately to reconcile the things you advocate for others in blog discourse with your own behavior in that regard.

[Ed Cone]

CP,

"Desperately?" Goodness.

I responded to the email to me about my post shorty after I received it. I did not check Joe's vacation schedule before doing so, nor do I think it was necessary to do so.

I often write at my own blog about subjects raised elsewhere, and in fact see this as an essential value of a personal blog. You are welcome to your own preferences in this realm.

In this case, as I wrote in the original post, I hoped to respond to Sam's post at Sam's blog, but was deterred by the comment registration process.

I do try to live up to the standards I preach. Like nearly everyone else, I fall short with distressing frequency. I don't think this is one of those occasions, but I hear you when you say otherwise (I probably would have heard you even had you not called me a race-baiting dick and a coward).

I've discussed the "I don't think they are racists" thing in another thread. I remain convinced that the question of how we discuss race and politics is one worth discussing.

[Bubba]

Cheri, you're wasting your time, but I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.

Are you ready to leave?

[David Wharton]

Ed, you've misrepresented the nature of my comments on this thread.

You distort what I wrote when you reduce my criticisms of Pam's post to "it sucked."

Though my first comment was intentionally snarky, after you responded to me, I followed it up with substantive criticisms of Pam's post, and referred specifically to her actual words.

I made good-faith arguments which I supported with logic and evidence, but which you have dismissed with vague generalities and unsupported assertions, and, somewhat more gallingly, oblique ad hominems, referring to my emotional state ("your ire," "your carapace of outrage"), my prejudices ("your predisposition to dislike the forum"), and my affect ("reflexive"). In the one case where you do respond to a specific point with specific words, I must say I don't follow you. You quote one of the same passages that I quoted ("crack-addled, crime-ridden") but don't bother to explain how it relates to your, or my, arguments.

I won't belabor any more my point about the incompleteness of Pam's discussion, but I would ask you to respond directly to the other point. I argued that her treatment of Crawley is prejudiced -- that she assumes that he is a racist, an oppressor ("they are just any old common black man in the eyes of the oppressor, in this case law enforcement"), and a liar.

Do you agree or disagree with Pam on these points? And do you approve of her treatment or not?

[RBM]

A small point as a reader:

I found Word Up through mention of the blog scripting news by Dave Winer.

Scripting News has consistently promoted one's own blog as a method of dialog.

I agree.

I read other blogs who would agree with that view.

But it is not the only way to take part in a dialog. The suggestion to go to the source blog is another way - a different way - NOT A LESS RESPECTFUL WAY.

[Ed Cone]

DW, you allow yourself much more latitude in your own tone and comments than you allow me.

Your self-described snark and broad statements persisted well into the thread ("It was a prejudiced analysis masquerading as a piece of multi-culti sensitivity"), yet my breezy responses are objectionable?

You write, "Pandagon met my low exepectations," (sic) but find it galling for me to refer to your preconceptions? And so on.

In any case, to your specific question: I saw the remark to which you refer as an attempt to enter the mind of one party to the dispute, rather than a meaningful indictment of Crowley in particular. Whatever the officer's possible missteps in the event, he does not seem to deserve such condemnation. I understand why that line offended you, although I read it differently.

In any case, I regard other points in the essay worthy of discussion. You may disagree ("I didn't see Pam's stuff on Gates's sense of entitlement as all that insightful,") but others might find it interesting.

[cheripickr]

DW, does it strike you as in any way odd the amount of teeth-pulling required to extract an unambiguous opinion from someone who claims opinion-writing as his career?

[Thomas]

I found it interesting. That's why I linked it here.

Before reading this piece I had only thought about the Gates incident in terms of race. It simply had not occured to me that class might have played a role. The post convinced me otherwise. No, it wasn't a complete exploration of all individuals involved. But it made me see things a different way. Isn't that valuable?

[cheripickr]

Ed, Joe's vacation has been the bold headline at his blog for 6 straight days. So you're saying you haven't been there in six days, despite your obvious interest in it, and despite the fact that you've linked to it at least twice since then, including in yesterday's post? Hmmmmm.

[Ed Cone]

DW,

Let me add that when we go back and forth, as we've done so often, I assume a bantering tone between old friends; in this case that tone seems to have struck you as rude or unfriendly, and unhelpful in furthering what I had hoped would be an invigorating debate. I apologize.

I still think the essay was interesting, though.

[David Wharton]

Ed,

Thank you for the apology. I should clarify thatI don't mind the bantering at all. I was trying hard in this thread to focus on what was said and to avoid speculating on the motives and emotions of those saying it. So comments in that vein irritated me a bit, but only a bit.

Sorry for the slowness of this response. I spent the afternoon and evening yesterday being deeply disappointed by Bob Dylan in Durham.

[Ed Cone]

I hope you'll post a review. You know I love bad ones.

[Margaret Banks]

DW - I didn't get to see Bob, and I'm curious about the show. What disappointed you (Sorry to hijack your thread, Ed)?

[David Wharton]

Your wish is granted.