A Big Deal - Graded Essay #1

People make mistakes. It is a part of being human to be wrong every once in a while. But at whose expense or reputation? Henry Louis Gates, preeminent scholar and professor at Harvard University, was publicly humiliated last Thursday when arrested in front of his home, even after providing photo identification. Although the arrest was accidental and the charges against him have been dropped, Gates thinks this more than an accident. “Why, because I am a black man in America?” yelled Professor Gates as he was taken away in front of his own home. The situation was “regrettable and unfortunate,” as Gates and the police stated. However, how would this have been handled if it were someone other than Gates, or someone from another ethnic background or race? People make mistakes, but when it is at another person’s expense, it should be taken seriously; it is a big deal, and needs to be addressed.

To paraphrase Newman P. Birk and Genevieve B. Birk and their essay “Selection, Slanting and Charged Language,” our knowledge, both inside and out, unconscious and conscious, is influenced by the “principle of selection.” What we select is what we notice, and this determines what serves as fact in our own system of knowledge. However, since all people are unique and have their own set of beliefs, values and stored knowledge, three different people can have three different impressions on the same subject. Wouldn’t this be the case with Professor Gates and the man who arrested him, Sergeant James Crowley?

If looking at this episode from the perspective of Sgt. Crowley, the officer who arrested him, this case would be seen as a simple mistake. Crowley justifies his actions by putting emphasis on Gates in Katie Zezima’s report in The New York Times: “The police said Professor Gates yelled, ‘Why, because I’m a black man in America?’ and accused the sergeant of racism.” This quote makes Gates out to be the bad guy, accusing Crowley of racism when, by analyzing the situation, could undeniably be seen as an act of racial profiling on Crowley’s behalf. Maybe Crowley was just doing his job, analyzing the situation based on his own selection of knowledge, maybe allowing his own opinions to take charge – which then takes this situation beyond a simple mistake.

From Gates’ perspective, however, the situation and the unprofessional way in which it was handled could be seen as something far worse. Zezima reports, “…Professor Gates said he showed the responding officer, Sgt. Crowley, photo identification, but he did not believe [Gates] lived at the home.” In this situation, anyone would feel harassed if someone were questioning their ownership of property. What if Crowley and his fellow police officers had handled the situation differently? Zezima continues to say, “Frustrated, [Gates] asked for Sgt. Crowley’s name and badge number, which he refused to give.” Required by law, police officers are supposed to give this information to those who request it. For an officer to refuse this right of any citizen is not only suspicious of his character, but also shows his lack of respect towards others; even though Crowley was suspicious of Gates, it is the law to show a badge. Gates – due to previous memories and stored knowledge throughout his lifetime – could have had the impression that this “accident” is more than just an accident but an attack based on skin color and Crowley’s own judgment. A Caucasian police officer (Crowley) may have a different background that influences his selection of knowledge – and his impression of the whole situation – than an African-American preeminent scholar and civil rights activist (Gates).

The next step, as Birk and Birk state, is called the “principle of slanting.” After selecting knowledge, this principle “[chooses] the words and emphasis that we shall use to communicate our meaning.” (Eschholz, 353). Slant can clearly be seen – through charged language, the emphasis of a word, and fact selection – when it is giving a negative or positive connotation. In Zezima’s article, one reader may see the article as being balanced, another may see it as being too critical of the situation and giving it too much thought and importance, and another may see it as taking the whole situation so nonchalantly and wonder how it would have been different if it were not Gates and a male belonging to a different race or ethnicity; each impression depends on a person’s unique way of selecting knowledge through the “principle of selection,” and sometimes – if we are not sure on how we feel – an article can have enough slant between the lines to tell the reader what impression they should have.

Zezima’s use of fact selection in this article – which is a slant in which “verifiable facts [are] deliberately selected and emphasized to produce an impression” (Eschholz, 354) – is allowing the reader to infer something for themselves, but simultaneously making it clear to the reader that Crowley’s actions were not okay. Although majority of the article is balanced, there are signs of slant within the facts she chose in this report. Embedded in the language she has chosen, Zezima is giving us the report with a slant (which is most likely a subconscious choice on her part). Referring to the same quote in the previous paragraphs (of Crowley still not believing Gates even after he showed him proper identification,) one would think Crowley’s suspicion of Gates would stop there. However, it did not, as Crowley still did not believe that Gates lived in the home. By giving us this slice of information, Zezima is showing the reader – through her point of view – that it is insulting to Gates and others who have been racially profiled to have their character questioned, also acknowledging the police and their lack of a justifiable reason for such treatment. For some readers, this type of racial profiling may be known; for others, Zezima is giving them insight into how a person would feel when this type of profiling occurs because of something as insignificant as the color of their skin.

Maybe this terrible situation is nothing more than just a simple miscommunication. A statement, released this week, ensures that this “regrettable and unfortunate” episode has been resolved, and Gates has been dropped from all charges. But, maybe – through Crowley and Gates’ own selection of knowledge, and through Zezima’s selection of facts within her article – there’s something more to it that we should all be paying attention to.