Preferential Treatment
August 3, 2009
Much has been said and written about the recent arrest for disorderly conduct of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. two weeks ago in his home by Cambridge police officer Sgt. Crowley.
The questions are whether Prof. Henry Louis Gates’s conduct was disorderly enough to warrant an arrest and suffer the indignity of handcuffs and why did the Boston Police Department later dropped the charges? Was it because they concluded that his conduct did not warrant an arrest or did they give Prof. Gates a preferential treatment because of his stature, position and race?
Preferential treatment is most often also wrong because by definition it is unfair. Fairness is an important value in ethics.
Yet in some cases preferential treatment is justified.
Persons in authority should receive special honor and respect, not because of who they are as individuals but because of the function they hold. When a judge walks in the courtroom the people do rise.
The elderly or the weak in health deserve it because of their condition. We still see today in public transport someone giving up his seat for an older person or a pregnant woman.
We sometimes think we are entitled to preferential treatment when we are not. A little dose of humility will clear the matter very quickly. I am still impressed when I see the chairman of our company wash his coffee cup himself and wait in line with all the other employees to get his yearly flu shot. (I would not be surprised if it never even occurred to him to ask the doctor to come to his office.)
The incident in Cambridge would most likely not have happened if both parties, once the burglary misunderstanding had been cleared, had shown some respect to each other. They had the opportunity to do so at the White House last week during the so-called “Beer Summit.” Professor Gates said of Sgt. Crowley after they met privately, “We hit it off right from the beginning (actually not from the very beginning!) When he is not arresting you, Sgt. Crawley, is really a likable guy.”
As Henri Frederic Amiel once said:
“There is no respect for others without humility in one’s self.”
Comments (2)
August 3rd, 2009 at 4:25 pm Posted by Priya
When I heard of the incident, I remember thinking that Dr. Gates was entitled to act in the way that he did because of the circumstance. If someone accused me of breaking into my own house, I would get pretty angry too. I would definitely then, after presenting my ID, expect a genuine and immediate apology (which Sgt. Crowley didn’t offer).
Do you think that they dropped the charges of disorderly conduct because, after review, they felt that Dr. Gates’ response was justifiable due to what had occurred?
August 4th, 2009 at 12:43 pm Posted by Emmanuel Tchividjian
I can not answer definitively because I was not there. According to the police report, which I have read Prof. Gate’s behavior was truly disorderly. I think there is a difference between being angry and being disorderly. I have spoken with someone that knows Mr. Gates and I understand that he has the reputation of being someone with a temper. I personally would not have been angry if it had happened to me because I would be grateful for the police intervention should a burglary have occurred. I believe that what really happened, based on some of Prof. Gates’ comments is that he interpreted the police intervention as racial profiling. I do not believe that the police department felt that Dr. Gates response was justifiable, because if they had, they would have apologized and they refused to do so.
Emmanuel
Post Your Comment
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)