Andy Answers His Mail
June 21, 2009 4:57 PM
Andy Rooney takes a look at his mailbag. He claims he gets some good and some bad letters from time to time.
Recent Segments
Scroll Left Scroll Right
-
Rooney Not Negative? 1:58 November 29, 2009
-
The Great Explorer, Part 2 9:21 November 29, 2009
-
The Great Explorer, Part 1 14:13 November 29, 2009
-
Congo's Gold 13:23 November 29, 2009
-
Web Extra: Greed and Chaos 1:17 November 29, 2009
-
Web Extra: A Blind Eye 0:51 November 29, 2009
After a recent occurrence in Cambridge, occurring when a law professor (Bates) made a late-night return to his home which resulted in a visit from a police officer (Bates), ensuing events have led to a dust-up reaching the national level of prominence. Because of the national media coverage, the repercussions have been widely felt, and most of us have heard of the matter. If it please you, allow me to offer my humble musings on the matter.
Upon reflection, it strikes this observer that the situation offers a prime example of the role of perception vs. the role of reality as the principals of the situation and the bystanders view ongoing events. Feelings are very much involved, and by nature, feelings are perceptions, quite subjective to the person(s) forming those feelings. Such feelings can quite often give any of us a colored view of events, distorting our perception of reality. One thing to watch for: when people begin a statement of their feelings in the form of: ?If feel that ??, watch out. The word ?that? usually marks the point at which a statement of feeling is turning into a statement of opinion. Professor Bates, upon being accosted (in his own home) by a policeman, ha used words to the effect ?I feel that I was being subjected to racial profiling by this officer?. A more accurate statement of his feelings could have been: ?I feel apprehensive and threatened by this situation?. In doing so, he would have been owning his feelings, stating objectively how his person is emotionally reacting to the situation. By going further into remarks about racial profiling, he is going beyond his feelings and offering an opinion into the officer?s motivations. And in my humble opinion, that opinion was an assumption not particularly based on fact. Sergeant Crowley was doing his job, investigating because of a bystander?s report of suspicious late at night suggestive of burglary.
Beyond this point the facts of the situation become a bit murky, reported by the two principals, apparently a bit contradictory in the details, and reports that are likely somewhat self-serving for the two principals. No doubt voices were raised and feelings heightened. At some point the officer deemed this of itself involved a breaking of the law and arrested the professor for Disturbing the Peace.
?Disturbing the Peace? ? what does that mean? Here again where the issue of perception vs. reality comes up. An officer of the law has the prerogative of coming to such an opinion and making such an arrest as he deems to be appropriate. In fact, he doesn?t like what the professor was saying (and I can understand why) and how he was saying it. Whether this warrants an arrest for Disturbing the Peace can be questioned ? and the city of Cambridge did so in the morning and dropped the charge entirely.
I applaud Cambridge for exercising some wisdom in the matter. Each of the principals could have exercised more wisdom at the time, but that can happen. Then there is the question of an apology ? does either of the principals owe the other an apology, considering that both, in their misperceptions and how they were voiced, contributed to inflaming the situation?
May I offer a formula which both principals could use: ?I?m sorry you feel that way, and I?m sorry that this all happened.? Such a statement could well be made sincerely by each party, while avoiding, for either party, taking on sole responsibility for blame for the ensuing brouhaha.