Andrew Thornton and Matt Barnum /
Click image to enlarge
» Dear Andrew,
I’m not sure if you went to Tuesday’s open forum regarding the student arrest on the A-level. But if you did, you would have heard Divinity School student Paul Ford say, “I am sick and tired of black students being racially profiled at the University of Chicago by their own police department.”
This is a serious charge to make. In the present case, there is no question that the police officer did not profile Mauriece Dawson. The officer (who is black) was called by a library staff member (who is also black) to remove a student whom she deemed unruly. Now, without knowing all the facts, it seems to me quite unnecessary for the policeman to have put Dawson in a chokehold and placed him under arrest. But this was not profiling, which is when an officer assumes that someone is “suspicious” because of his or her race.
This is not a semantic point. On the issue of race, the worst that the officer can be accused of is giving Dawson harsher treatment because he is black. There is no evidence of that; however, it’s not hard for me to imagine an officer doing the same thing to a white student whom he deemed was “mouthing off.” We’re examining the wrong problem here: It’s not one of racism, but rather of excessive force, and an assumption, it seems, by some officers that “contempt of cop” is an arrest-worthy offense.
Similarly, the library clerk may have been guilty of poor judgment. It seems a lot more likely to me that she held some personal grudge against the specific students. This is not an insignificant personnel problem, but it hardly seems worth extrapolating much further than that.
Cheers,
Matt
» Dear Matt,
I guess we’re just two white guys talking about racial profiling. Our ignorance isn’t that bad in this situation, though, since the students’ charges are nothing more than speculation (the officer treated Dawson differently because of his race) or anecdotal (black students were stopped by the police on occasions X, Y, and Z). Without further evidence—e.g., the officer called Dawson an epithet while arresting him; aggregate statistics about profiling and discriminatory treatment—such claims don’t contribute fruitfully to the discussion.
To draw a comparison: If Dawson were speeding and the police had pulled him over, would he have also refused to cooperate on the assumption that racial profiling was involved? After all, giving over his driver’s license isn’t a guarantee that the officer would write a ticket, because the officer perhaps just wants to make sure Dawson has no outstanding warrants. Similarly in the A-level: The UCPD officer may merely have wanted to make sure that Dawson was a student before bringing him upstairs to be lectured by the librarian.
Anyway, why refuse to show identification? Is the cost of cooperating with the police really so great? (Keep in mind you’ve already given up anonymity by swiping your card to gain access.) Would you feel as safe working late in the library if you did not know that there was a staff member making sure that every library patron was actually a student? Even if showing your UCID to staff is some invasion of privacy, isn’t it worth the enhanced security?
Earnestly awaiting your reply,
Andrew
» Andrew,
I’m genuinely thrilled that we can agree that the argument-by-anecdote that these types of discussions seem to always devolve into is unproductive. I would argue in fact that such arguments are destructive, serving only to further polarize both sides.
Our agreement, I regret to say, ends with your analogy. It is reasonable—so says the Supreme Court and I happen to agree—for a police officer to demand an ID if he has reasonable suspicions of wrongdoing. A traffic stop is an example of this. But if an officer were to ask me for a state-issued ID without stating any cause, then I think I would decline (if I had any guts).
Such a situation is different, though, from one in which a university police officer asks for a university ID on university grounds, which seems quite reasonable. By accepting this ID we agree to present it “on demand,” after all.
Does that mean it’s all Dawson’s fault? No, of course not. What it does mean is that he can perhaps take some responsibility for the situation, without, it’s worth adding, excusing any police misconduct that might have occurred. In other words, I think I agree with you: He should have presented his ID upon the officer’s request.
My guess—and let me emphasize guess—is that Dawson was asked by the police officer to show his ID, and Dawson assumed some sort of racial animus, made this apparent, if not by words, by actions and by tone, and that this set the officer off. This is what, it seems to me, occurred with Henry Louis Gates. Instead of focusing on how to stop all these supposedly racist cops, we need to talk about breaking such a cycle: dropping the assumption of racism and ensuring that police officers don’t criminalize disrespect, perceived or real.
Best,
Matt
» Dear Matt,
I’m not sure that I understand your point of disagreement about my traffic-stop comparison; it seems to be quite similar to the A-level incident. In both cases, the officer is entitled to quell his suspicion by verifying Dawson’s identity, and my view—albeit layman—is that he doesn’t have a justification to refuse in either case.
Of course, the applicability of my comparison depends on the officer actually requesting Dawson’s identification, admittedly a point of dispute. If the police officer merely ordered Dawson to “come with me,” should he still have refused? Doubtful.
To be frank, I’m embarrassed by several things about this incident: first, that a student thinks that breaking library rules is acceptable because everyone else is; second, that these students refused Ms. Franco’s direction to keep it down, despite her warning of police involvement (Ms. Franco’s explicit warning—supported by witness reports—effectively destroys Dawson’s later claim that he didn’t know why he was being asked to leave); third, that students think they have an inherent right to be in the library regardless of their illicit conduct (Do I have a right to work out at Ratner if I am too loud?); and fourth, that a student would physically resist arrest just because he thought the arrest was unmerited.
Each of these is apparently undisputed by witness reports, and each is contrary to my ideal of intellectualism. There exist grounds for disobeying unjust police requests—most notably, in the course of civil disobedience. Dawson lost whatever moral superiority he had when he resisted this arrest.
A tout à l’heure,
Andrew
» Andrew,
Fair enough about the analogy. I think looking back, I may have been a bit too nitpicky with it.
I’m surprised, though, that you’ve saved all of your embarrassment for Dawson, and none for the police officer. You ask whether Dawson should have refused the officer’s request to “come with me”; I would ask whether the officer should have declined to answer Dawson’s perfectly reasonable reply: “Why?” (You say that his right to ask why was “destroy[ed]” by the clerk’s warning. I disagree. It’s one thing to be told to quiet down by a library employee; it’s quite another thing to be asked to leave by a police officer.)
I agree that Dawson—like many of us might have—probably didn’t handle the situation perfectly, but you seem to have no anger for the officer, whose job it is to handle such situations. Couldn’t the situation have been avoided if only the officer had been more forthright? Did Dawson’s noise, which by most accounts was not notably loud for the A-level, really merit his removal from the building?
Yes, Dawson shouldn’t have resisted arrest (if indeed it’s true that he did). But should he have been arrested? I think you need to engage that question as well.
Yours,
Matt
» Dear Matt,
The reason the officer’s alleged impropriety doesn’t embarrass me as much is that I am not a fellow UCPD officer, whereas Dawson is my fellow student.
The question “Why [must I leave]?” can be interpreted as either “Under whose authority am I being requested to leave?” or “On what basis am I being asked to leave?” Both answers are obvious: “On the property owner’s authority” and “For refusing to follow library rules.” If Dawson thought discrimination was afoot, he should have simply complied and then filed a complaint of disparate treatment with University administrators ex post.
We don’t know how forthright the officer was in this situation, do we? After all, the UCPD says Dawson was asked for his identification, but witnesses dispute this. Hence, it’s difficult to say whether or not Dawson or the officer acted improperly. My points earlier were based on facts that I thought were undisputed.
Regarding Dawson’s unfortunate arrest, the statute is clear: “A person who knowingly resists or obstructs the performance by one known to the person to be a peace officer . . . of any authorized act within his official capacity commits a Class A misdemeanor” (720 ILCS 5/31-1(a)). So, yes, by refusing the officer’s lawful request that he leave, Dawson should have been arrested.
This has been fun,
Andrew
— Matt Barnum is a fourth-year in the College majoring in psychology.
Andrew Thornton is a third-year in the College majoring in philosophy.
Read this article and others relevant to places near you with the Chicago Maroon iPhone App. Also view upcoming campus events and find free food within walking distance.
Discussion
MEGAN DEAN
March 5th 2010 at 03:54 AM
Dear Andrew,
I am entirely embarrassed that you are a fellow student here at the U of C.
Since when is it it improper conduct or warrant for arrest to question "why?". Is this not the entire purpose of our U of C education. Dawson's question[why?[must I leave] regardless how obvious you may think the answer may be, deserved a verbal answer rather than a response of physical force. You say,"I guess we’re just two white guys talking about racial profiling." This is not an issue of race. Regardless of whether Maurice is white or black he should have the right to ask and know the grounds for investigation.
Why should a driver unquestioningly present his identification to a police officer, or Maurice hand over his ID to the UCPD if neither one of them knows or understands the basis for the request. Asking questions is not an obstruction of the law, but rather a right. The police officer should be obliged to answer the question, after which the student or driver should be obliged to show ID. Furthermore, you suggest that if Maurice question "why?" was fueled by suspicions of racism or racial profiling. Maybe he just plane and simple wanted to now why he was being asked to leave the library for making noise on a level known for noisiness. You say that you are embarrassed by Maurice because he refused to unquestioningly submit to police authority, well I am embarrassed to be your fellow student because you seem to think it is a good quality to unquestioningly submit to representative authority regardless of reason.
Furthermore you say that Dawson's arrest was warranted because "he resisted this arrest". No where in the maroon article was this mentioned. Yes Dawson asked the police officer why he was asked to present his ID, however this doesn't qualify "physically resisting arrest" you seem to so often refer to. You suggest that if Dawson was unhappy with the manner in which the police officer carried him or suspected racism at play, he should have just put up with the behavior, let the officer escort him out and then filled a complaint afterwards. Do you truly think this would have been effective? The complaint would have been thrown to the bottom pile of the complaint pile, and in most likely hood neither you nor I would have heard Maurice's case. There is no back door to fighting what one may perceive to be injustice. It is silence and unquestioned resignation that have enabled the UCPD to continue conducting mal practices. It is also silence and unquestioned resignation that you attribute moral worth to that gives rise to totalitarian regimes.
I am fortunate enough to live in a democracy where I am able to ask "why". If ever asked for identification in a situation where I don't understand why the presentation of ID is needed, or if I suspect unjust and prejudice motivations for the request, I will ask "why'. If I don't ask, "why" then on what basis can can I confirm or disconfirm that my rights are being unjustly violated, and I, as an individual being unlawfully subjected.
I am not only embarrassed but ashamed. I am ashamed to call you-- a person who would have suggested Rosa Parks "complied" and sat in the back of the bus (and perhaps "filed a complaint of disparate treatment") in order to "comply" with "lawful" authority-- my fellow student.
Also, you end your last few words with, "this has been fun". As fun as it may be for you to sit at your computer and speculate and form arguments, I am sure it was incredibly UNFUN for Maurice to spend one night in jail. It was also UNFUN for me to read your self dignified and non sensical assertions. We are not discussing SOSC readings on dead authors,and (perhaps) exciting ideas but discussing the implications of a situation that are recent and were, I am sure, anything but fun. So before expressing embarrassment about named students on public forums, it may be wise to tread with with an inclining of sensitivity.
Megan Dean
DISAPPOINTED
March 5th 2010 at 10:50 AM
Wait, I'm sorry. Where is the point-counterpoint here? Because I'm just seeing two white guys congratulating each other for holding the same opinion, namely that racial profiling rarely occurs (and certainly not in this case) and that of course students can and should be arrested in the Reg for failing to show their ID.
If you're going to tout point-counterpoint as a fair and balanced opinion piece, you really should come through.
ANDREW THORNTON
March 5th 2010 at 02:30 PM
Ms. Dean,
Against my better judgment, I’m going to briefly respond to your comment; in the interest of not spending all my time writing about this instead of studying, I’ll stick to your most obviously incorrect claims.
1. I do not suggest it is “improper conduct” to ask a police officer “why?”, nor do I suggest Mr. Dawson did not have the right to ask that question.
2. You have misstated my speeding-driver hypothetical by removing the word “speeding.” A speeding driver, after being pulled over, cannot honestly be confused about the reason she is pulled over. Nor can Mr. Dawson honestly be confused about the reason the police demand that he leave the library, given Ms. Franco’s explicit warning. (Whether the underlying request is legitimate is another question altogether.)
3. I do not suggest that Mr. Dawson’s question “was fueled by suspicions of racism or racial profiling.” You are confusing me with Mr. Barnum, who emphasizes its mere possibility: “My guess—and let me emphasize guess—is that Dawson was asked by the police officer to show his ID, and Dawson assumed some sort of racial animus . . .”
4. I do not say that I am embarrassed by Mr. Dawson “because he refused to unquestioningly submit to police authority . . .”, nor do you sufficiently justify your claim that I “seem to think it is a good quality to unquestioningly submit to representative authority regardless of reason.”
5. I do not say that Mr. Dawson should have been arrested because “he resisted this arrest.” You are misquoting me.
6. I do not attribute “moral worth” to “silence and unquestioned resignation.” Again, you are misrepresenting my writing.
7. Asking “Why?” will never confirm that your rights have been unjustly violated; in our democracy, we reserve that determination—indeed, all determinations of legality—for the courts.
8. It is incorrect and grossly offensive for you to claim that I “would have suggested Rosa Parks ‘complied’ and sat in the back of the bus . . .” I explicitly distinguish civil disobedience from this incident. The differences are blinding, at least to me.
Best,
Andrew Thornton
Dear Disappointed,
Nowhere do Mr. Barnum and I suggest that “racial profiling rarely occurs” or that “students can and should be arrested in the Reg for failing to show their ID.”
Best,
Andrew Thornton
(It goes without saying that the preceding opinions are not necessarily shared by Mr. Barnum or any other member of the Maroon.)
REALLY?
March 5th 2010 at 04:01 PM
Does no one realize that racial profiling and police abuse might be INSTITUTIONAL policies and not PERSONAL choices? It matters none that the arresting officer was black. The officer's race shouldn't an alibi. Black officers are still complicit with institutional structures (from the LAPD to the UCPD) that cast suspicion on young black men and women.
PAUL ROBESON FORD
March 5th 2010 at 10:58 PM
It seems that Matt and Andrew are enjoying their intellectual masturbation as "two white guys talking about race," all the while demonstrating why these types of conversations end up being so useless because the two people talking have absolutely no experience with the issue. Like race itself, racial profiling has never been some objective phenomena that "two white guys" can sit around and banter about in terms that give new meaning to philosophical posturing. To be racially profiled is as much a matter of lived experience as it is of statistics. As usual, the hyper-intellectual focus of everything U of C loses touch with the lived experience of real people whose existence stretches beyond the walls of the Ivory Tower. Black people can be profiled by black cops as easily as by white cops and unfortunately, it is usually the black cops who gave black students the most trouble (as well as black library employees suffering from internalized racism). But I imagine that neither Matt or Andrew have considered much in the way of critical race theory to see how the whole subject of race and its manifestation in society defies neat rhetorical and intellectual categories. Matt and Andrew, I'm sorry that our experience doesn't meet your empirical standard; the fact remains, we're still mad as hell, and have every right to be. That fact that you two don't understand why says more about you than it does about us. Be blessed, my friends. Enlightenment comes in many ways to all humankind. On this subject, I trust that it shall reach you one day soon.
ANDREW THORNTON
March 6th 2010 at 11:13 AM
Dear Mr. Ford,
I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the piece.
By emphasizing early on that Mr. Barnum and myself are both white, I was pointing out that we do not have experience being racially profiled and thus cannot speak intelligently about the costs it imposes on profiled non-criminals. (Consider two men pointing out their sex during a discussion on the availability of abortion. Is it at all controversial?) Indeed, neither Mr. Barnum nor myself ever discuss whether racial profiling is merited, worthwhile, occurs frequently, etc. Mr. Barnum disputes whether this can be called “racial profiling” because that term usually involved an authority’s suspicion of wrongdoing based on race, but continues that “the worst that the officer can be accused of is giving Dawson harsher treatment because he is black”—-i.e., racial discrimination. (We also do not discuss the ostensible merits of racial discrimination.)
Nor do we say that profiled blacks’ “experience doesn’t meet [our] empirical standard”; instead, I point out that without aggregate statistics about profiling, individual anecdotes do not contribute fruitfully to the discussion. By definition, those statistics are wholly made up of personal experiences, and the fact that they include many more experiences, and relates them more efficiently, makes them much more useful in answering the question “Does the UCPD systematically profile blacks?”. Additionally, no one disputes that those who are racially profiled have a right to be angry about it.
With the exception of the above points—-(1) that white men can’t intelligently discuss the experience of being racially profiled; (2) that Mr. Dawson’s incident may be better called “racial discrimination” than “profiling”; (3) that statistics about profiling are much more useful than individual anecdotes—-and (4) Mr. Barnum’s speculation that Mr. Dawson presumed that the UCPD was discriminating, neither Mr. Barnum nor I discuss race.
For my own benefit, I’ll reproduce my primary concerns about the incident: “first, that a student thinks that breaking library rules is acceptable because everyone else is; second, that these students refused Ms. Franco’s direction to keep it down, despite her warning of police involvement . . . ; third, that students think they have an inherent right to be in the library regardless of their illicit conduct . . . ; and fourth, that a student would physically resist arrest just because he thought the arrest was unmerited.” It is plainly obvious that none of my concerns have anything to do with race per se. I would be saying the same things if Mr. Dawson were white--though I acknowledge that some dispute whether the library administrator and the police officer would have acted differently.
Respectfully, I don’t know which “philosophical posturing” or “hyper-intellectual[ism]” to which you refer. I don’t think that Mr. Barnum or myself are practicing philosophy here, that we are being overly intellectual, or that we are employing “neat rhetorical and intellectual categories”. You’ll have to be more specific.
Best,
Andrew Thornton
athornton [at-sign] uchicago
KEO
March 6th 2010 at 04:35 PM
Isn't a point counterpoint supposed to debate two sides of an argument? I would have liked to see Andrew or Matt debate someone who thinks that that the incident was an example of racial profiling/indicative of larger such problems at the U of C. It seems like that would actually represent the two main views about the issue on campus. Can the Maroon give this another try?
Or an article on how one of concerns coming out of the arrest is that we have a police force that treats campus like any other part of the city? It seems kind of conflated in other arguments that some students want the UCPD to act more civilly than law requires, and it's debatable whether that's something we could or should have on campus...Maybe try debating that?
ANOTHER WHITE MALE TALKING ABOUT RACE
March 6th 2010 at 05:26 PM
ugh ...
1. Maroon: please don't calling "point-counter-point" what Disappointed as rightly identified as two people agreeing with each other. Especially when it's two white men (the image of impersonal authoritative truth) talking about race. Just don't do dumb stuff like that, seriously, I'm embarrassed that you're my school news paper.
2. Institutional racism is real, and it's subtle. Fortunately we live in a world where "The Law" is not racist (usually), it took us a long time to get here, but at least that. Racism therefore isn't gonna be as bad as /only/ black students being harassed the cops, and only unusually (I hope) will a cop be stupid enough to use an epithet while arresting a person of color (which Andrew alludes to). The fact is nothing is ever going to be clear from a single incident, that's what it means to say it's a /systemic/ problem. We don't need to know all the minor, minute, unknowable details of Mr. Dawson's case to see that it's part of a pattern, a pattern that is founded on race and constitutes differential harm based on race. That's what we're talking about, a pattern of differential treatment that counts as harm, on a systemic level.
What matters is not what happened to Mr. Dawson. What matters is that again and again, incidents like this happen differentially to students of color on this campus. And that those students feel, and /are/ harmed by these events. I am yet to hear of a white student who feels they were wronged by the UCPD, though I have heard (especially in the last week) a long string of complaints form student of color. Each time there was certainly "a reason" that was not racist. That's because we don't have racist laws anymore. Sure, Mr. Dawson was causing a disturbance. And sure, the profile of suspects the UCPD often has is a black male. And certainly the UCPD has the right to ask you for your ID and you risk arrest by not giving it to them. But I am yet to hear from a white friend that the UCPD was anything but civil to them, or to ask for their ID when they are on campus to ensure that they are in fact students. Just because there is "a reason" for the UCPD's behavior does not mean it is not differential according to race, nor that it constitutes harm. I'm not calling the cop racist, nor am I calling the reg attendant racist. I'm saying the operations institution of the UCPD harms people of color more than white students. That's what we need to fix, that's what's wrong.
This is also bigger than the UCPD, and that's what people aren't realizing. This is about students of color having a different experience on this campus that they don't like. A friend of mine pointed out to me that she's seen several times where a shuttle bus has not stopped for a black student. Not because the driver was "afraid" or just plain hated them because they were black. It was probably down to the simple reason that most often UofC students are white, and community members are black. Ok so there's "a reason" for the bus driver not to stop. But it would suck if that happened to you. And it sucks that it happened to anyone. Just because of the color of your skin, the bus didn't stop for you. That's what I want to fix. I do not want to go to a school where that's the experience of anyone one campus.
Let me give one more example that not about race, and so isn't so controversial, but is also tentative. What if you're physical condition requires you use a wheelchair. You have the right to be able to live a life as close to the same life as every other student as you can. You should not be stopped from taking a class on the second floor because of you handicap. The university goes to great lengths to ensure that your experience at this school is not hindered by your physical condition. What I think the overwhelming anecdotal evidence of students of color shows that there is something like this going on. The university has a right to correct this, and if they can't, like the fact that most suspect descriptions are of black men, they need to acknowledge the differential treatment of black men, and apologize for it.
This assumes that the officer and reg attendant would have treated a white student differently. I ardently hold that this is the case. This is why the madness that goes on in the A-level is important to realize. When there was a tent built, it was a disturbance, but it was built by white students. I personally, nor have I heard from any white friends of mine (even the disruptive ones), have never been told I would have the police called on me. But at the forum on tuesday we heard several black students say this has happened to them in the library. And the last white student I know who was arrested by the UCPD was standing on a table in the Reynolds Club calling military recruiters Nazis. He was asked repeatedly to calm down and leave the building and he decided to be arrested as an act of civil disobedience. Mr. Dawson was not causing /that/ much of a disturbance and was tackled to the ground in a matter of minutes. Had Mr. Dawson been white, I think it is safe to assume, things would have gone differently.
Now I'm not saying either that racist people don't exist, and that people being made uncomfortable by people because of the color of their skin doesn't happen all the time. I'm just saying that's not what at issue here. What at issue here is the fact that it's different being a white student of a student of color at this school, and that in certain real ways (like getting tackled by a cop for being too loud) it sucks more being a student of color. And that sucks and that's what I want to change.
Please stop being so sure of your self people, be a little sympathetic
-Another White Male Talking about Race.
TED RIQUELME
March 6th 2010 at 06:32 PM
I’d like to address your responses in the comments, Mr. Thorton. I will go by the numbers you use.
1. You make clear you think that it was wrong to ask why when you list reasons that it should not have been asked. Your given reasons are that it has answers you view as obvious, and that a complaint should have been filed later if the student had felt something improper was happening.
2. Based on what I have seen of interstates, it is not misrepresentative at all to leave off the word speeding. I cannot vouch for Illinois, having only used its interstates a few times, but in Florida, you cause a disruption if you don’t speed. Pulling over someone for speeding would actively seem strange, especially if every car around the person was speeding also. Perhaps if other students had complained of a disruption, I would feel that Mr. Dawson had been acting out of order, but in the reports I have seen and the people I have spoken with, I have never been told that other students felt his behavior warranted removal.
3. If you don’t agree with Mr. Barnum in the point counter point, then say it. People reading this article think that you two represent both sides of the debates being held across campus. In fact, neither of you seems to represent those who believe that believe some sort of profiling or discrimination occurred.
4. The fourth thing that you found embarrassing about this situation is “that a student would physically resist arrest just because he thought the arrest was unmerited.” Mr. Dawson did not feel his questions were answered, and resisted. By your own admission, you found this embarrassing. This is you being embarrassed by him refusing to submit to authority unquestioningly, just as Megan Dean accuses above.
5. You make clear that you believe the arrest was warranted. Specifically, you think he should have been arrested for not immediately leaving the library. In this instance you are correct. You think he should have been arrested for standing his ground and asking questions, not for resisting arrest.
For 6, 7, and 8, Miss Dean extrapolated based on the values you espoused within your writing. Please, next time, elaborate on how she misrepresented you rather than saying, in a more eloquent and professional fashion, “Nuh-uh.”
And for Chirst’s sake, actually have two sides next time there is a point counter point. Call me if you need to, I’ll argue just for the sake of you not totally misrepresenting the nature of the article.
ANDREW THORNTON
March 7th 2010 at 11:18 AM
Mr. Riquele,
1. I did not say it is improper conduct to ask a police officer "why?"; instead, I say the question "why?" cannot be a legitimate question because the answers are obvious. Further, I do not say--nor do I believe--that citizens do not have the right to ask a police officer "why?" when the officer directs the citizen to do something. Context matters.
3. I do not believe that there are only two sides to this debate. Further, I think you would be hard-pressed to articulate them, even in the abstract. "Racial discrimination occurred" vs. "Racial discrimination did not occur"? As I emphasize above, the disputed facts make it "difficult to say whether or not Dawson or the officer acted improperly." Anecdotes (instead of statistics) make it difficult to say whether the UCPD practices racial profiling in any systematic way.
4. Advocating that "people ought to submit unquestioningly to police authority" and advocating that "Mr. Dawson should not have resisted arrest, even if he believed the arrest was unmerited" are two different things. As I have now explained multiple times, Ms. Franco's explicit warning means that he could not be confused about why the police officer was telling him to leave. And, to repeat, whether or not that request was unmerited/discriminatory/etc. is another question altogether.
5. Ms. Dean misquoted me: she wrote that I "say that Dawson's arrest was warranted because 'he resisted this arrest'"; I said that "Dawson lost whatever moral superiority he had when he resisted this arrest." Later, looking at the statute on resisting arrest, I speculate that "by refusing the officer’s lawful request that he leave, Dawson should have been arrested." Perhaps I'm the only person left who cares about accurate attribution, but it's clear that I am correct in saying that Ms. Dean misquoted me. (I am sure everyone has a copy of Lipson's book. Please read it.)
6. I do not have the responsibility of proving my own innocence after Ms. Dean makes an incorrect claim. Rather, she has the responsibility to prove my guilt. This is so axiomatic that I cannot believe I have to actually explain it to fellow U of C students. If she (or you) believe that it follows naturally from what I wrote, then she (or you) should explain why and how, instead of simply claiming, e.g., that I attribute moral worth to silence and unquestioned resignation. (I am a second-class citizen in my own country; the accusation that I attribute moral worth to silence is preposterous and offensive.)
7. Ms. Dean writes: "If I don't ask, 'why' then on what basis can can I confirm or disconfirm that my rights are being unjustly violated, and I, as an individual being unlawfully subjected." This is a factual misunderstanding of the judicial system. Asking "why" cannot possibly confirm that your rights are being violated; this determination is wholly reserved for the courts.
8. I explicitly distinguished civil disobedience from this incident. Thus, to claim that I would have "suggested Rosa Parks 'complied' and sat in the back of the bus" shows that Ms. Dean did not read what I wrote. The differences between these situations are huge, and Ms. Dean's claim is patently offensive. Again, if she (or you) think it follows naturally from what I wrote, then she (or you) have the responsibility to show how it does.
If my response is unsatisfactory, it is because I have more important things to spend my time on than repeating what I have already said--viz., finals.
Best,
Andrew Thornton
MAX
March 7th 2010 at 03:06 PM
I really liked this article and think that you guys both made great points that needed to be made amidst this controversy. In a heated atmosphere where everyone is making assumptions and accusations based off of them, its nice to see some cool headed logical thinking about the situation.
Yet while it is unreasonable to infer that this kid did nothing that warranted being arrested, that this was simply an example of police brutality, it is also unfair to assume that the kid did mouth off to the cop, causing the officer to arrest him. I think by the end, both of you assume the latter is the more reasonable inference (and I think it is), but if this is indeed an instance of police brutality we should keep an open mind to this being a possibility, even if it seems a less likely situation.
I also appreciate how this is the first article (I think) that the maroon has published about this incident that mentions the fact that the cop and the librarian were both black. It has to be really insulting having a bunch of obnoxious rich white elitist students accusing working class black people of racism. Excessive force and police brutality, maybe, but I think its absurd that people are trying to so desperately to make this about race.
TOBY
March 8th 2010 at 04:07 AM
NEWS FLASH. Black people can be, and often are, racist against people of their own race. Actually, I doubt this is any news at all to most black people. Non-blacks, on the other hand, are often oblivious to this. Thus it's typically only non-blacks who use someone else's blackness as a counter to charges of racism. (I believe the reaction to this case is already bearing this out.)
You might think it's obvious that people are unlikely to be racist against someone of their own race, because you assume that racism only ever takes the form of explicit judgments about people of that race ("All people of race X are ..."). If this is the standard of racism, few of us need worry that we might be harbouring racist tendencies. How terribly convenient for us all! But this is a primitive understanding of racism. It needs to be educated. (I am sorry this school is not doing a better job of providing this sort of education.)
This society suffers from social and economic divisions that run very deep, and very close to racial lines. And this leaves a mark on every one of us--it is psychological poison. Here is a very basic and pervasive manifestation of this. I defy anyone living in America to tell me that, in their perceptions and snap judgments of people they see on the street, they don't automatically see young black men as being somehow more suspicious and dangerous than young white men. (If introspection isn't your thing, there are studies. I think some simple perceptual tests are even available online for you to try on yourself.) Of course we are not monsters, we decisively reject racist epithets and statements of the form, "All people of race X are...". But this entry-level liberal enlightenment does not eradicate the more elementary manifestations of racial prejudice. And that leaves us ripe for recruitment as vectors of institutional racism. (And in case it still needs to be said, being black does not render one immune to this.)
MAX
March 9th 2010 at 03:48 PM
No Toby, its not news to me, or probably anyone else, that black people can be "racist" against black people. In fact, from reading the article you can correctly infer that the officer is black because almost no white cop would ever have done that in 2010, precisely out of fear for being called a racist.
The problem is that it is dishonest journalism to not mention that the cop and the librarian were both black. This allowed people to make assumptions that they weren't, and get angry first; then when they found out that they were black, they continued their anger by perpetuating the argument you made above. By this point, its too late to see this as anything but a racial issue, and I am saying that we should take a step back, and actually see if there is any evidence that this had anything to do with race.
Fortunately for right-minded liberals, they can see racism everywhere by placing it as an inherent feature of the system. While this may be true, it is not necessarily true in this instance, nor do I think there is any evidence for it. But please, enlighten me.
CAROL AB '87
March 10th 2010 at 09:15 AM
What happened to the "white frat boys" who were drinking beer [in their shorts!]?
BOBBY
March 14th 2010 at 04:44 PM
By the way, I love those caricatures.