Final Draft of Essay #1

"Race" in the Media

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 always make mistakes, but mistakes at the expense of others should be taken seriously.

To paraphrase Newman P. Birk, Genevieve B. Birk and their essay “Selection, Slanting and Charged Language,” our knowledge, both 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?

The next step after selection 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 Katie Zezima’s article in The New York Times, one reader may see Zezima’s choice of words, emphasis and fact selection as being balanced, while another may see it as being too critical of the situation. Another person can see it as taking the whole situation so nonchalantly, questioning the situation and the people involved. 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.

If looking at this episode from the perspective of Sgt. Crowley, the officer who arrested him, this case would be seen as an honest mistake. In Zezima’s article, Crowley attempts to justify his actions. However, when looking at the article, Zezima is picking and choosing words that will help justify his actions as well: “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. By using charged language, Zezima is implying a negative connotation. The word “accusing” gives a negative connotation to the reader, as if Gates is instigating the situation and pointing fingers at an innocent police officer. The word “accusing,” – because it is giving off this negative connotation – is influencing how the reader should feel about the situation. Some readers may see the word accusing and say that Professor Gates is all to blame – even without any other facts or knowledge on the circumstance. Maybe Crowley was just doing his job, but analyzing the situation based on his own selection of knowledge and opinions – which then takes this situation beyond a simple mistake.

From Gates’ perspective, however, the situation and its unprofessional conduct could be seen as something far worse. Zezima shares a balanced recollection of facts: “…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. Zezima continues: “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).

Zezima’s use of fact selection in this article, a slant in which “verifiable facts [are] deliberately selected and emphasized to produce an impression” (Eschholz, 354,) is both balanced and biased. She allows the reader to infer something for themselves, but simultaneously makes it clear that Crowley’s actions were not okay. Although it is balanced, there are signs of slant within the facts she highlighted 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 paragraph, 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. 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.