I did some commentary on CNN last week about Justin Barrett, the cop who referred to Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates as a "Banana eating jungle monkey" in an email. You can imagine my surprise when I found out that the officer is suing the city of Boston, claiming that they violated his civil rights.
As part of my assignment for media work I was doing on the topic, I read through the email by officer Barrett very carefully. The email was not written by a disciple of David Duke, a man with gallons of racism flowing through his veins. Rather, it was written by a man who seemed to hold a great deal of anger and resentment toward almost everyone. In one sentence, he was critiquing the grammar of the journalist who wrote the original Gates article. In the other, he was degrading Professor Gates in ways that a police officer should never degrade the citizens he/she is sworn to protect.
I am not angry with Barrett, I feel sorry for him. In fact, when it comes to Barrett, I offer the following thoughts:
1) There is the broader constitutional issue of whether or not Officer Barrett has a right to say what he said. We do have the First Amendment, and no one seems to clearly understand the great social price we must pay to uphold these rights. Personally, I feel that Barrett has the right to say whatever he wants, but revealing such bias while serving as a police officer becomes a completely different issue. At the same time, should it be ruled by a court that Barrett has the right to say what he says, then I would stand behind his rights as well. I guess if someone calls you a "banana eating jungle monkey," you should just say, "ya mama."
But Elliot Millner, a legal analyst for YourBlackWorld.com, feels that Barrett's lawsuit might be frivolous. "Police are public figures, and thus are treated differently concerning issues like this," says Millner. "They are held to a higher standard of conduct as part of their position as public servants. Anything that legitimately calls into question the officer's ability to do his job effectively when interacting with all people is valid grounds for termination, suspension,etc. Anytime you work for any government in any capacity, you are a representative of that government, and are expected to conduct yourself in a way that they consider appropriate."
2) Barrett's words did not make me question his racism as much as it made me question his sanity. As he showed manic highs and lows during various sections of his letter, my mind drew a picture of a man who should not be given a badge and a gun. Additionally, there is something quite odd about a person who makes inflammatory statements in a public email, and then goes onto national TV to apologize profusely. I argue that a normal person would have simply made his statements at home in private, where he (like millions of other Americans) can be a racist and get away with it. Additionally, the idea that a man with this much anger in his mind is being asked to put the lives of others in his hands is quite a frightening concept. At the very least, I am hopeful that a psychologist would read his letter and make the case that Barrett should not be in the streets pointing his weapon at people he might perceive to be "banana eating junble monkeys."
3) Barrett has attempted to plead his case to the public by stating that he is not a racist (OK, I wonder what he has to say in order to be defined as being racist?). But I am going to say something that may shock you: Barrett would probably be just as angry if Officer Crowley (the man who arrested Gates) had been black. Many cops have such a powerful commitment to the blue line that race is clearly a secondary factor in the way they process their allegiance. I know of black officers who've patrolled the streets with Ku Klux Klan members and remained friends for life. Additionally, references to race are often used by non-racist people in order to take advantage of their opponent's social liability. Remember all those racist things Bill and Hillary Clinton did to undermine the Obama campaign? A person doesn't have to be racist in order to degrade black people or to use America's racism to undermine an opponent's objectives. This is not to say that Barrett is not a racist; rather, it says that he may not be. But it is clear that his comments were highly inappropriate.
The bottom line on Justin Barrett is this: There are consequences for his words and he should pay dearly for what he said. He has not only offended millions with his comments, he has also made the citizens of Boston fear for their lives. If the Boston Police Department (which doesn't have the most stellar reputation when it comes to race) has any evidence whatsoever that Barrett's attitudes permeate throughout the force, they should work diligently to extract the racism that keeps good officers from being able to do their jobs. We should remember that not every white cop is a racist, and Barrett may very well be an outlier.
What's most interesting is that the Gates case is yet another missed opportunity for us to deeply explore our racial problems in America. We keep seeing symptoms of a serious virus, yet we keep treating these symptoms as a cold. By only scratching the surface and remaining a nation of cowards, we will never work through our problems with race. The fulfillment of Dr. King's dream is going to take hard work, and we sure as hell aren't doing it.
Dr Boyce Watkins is a Finance Professor at Syracuse University. He does regular commentary in national media, including CNN, MSNBC, BET and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment