July 17, 2006
Racism or Reality?
The recent increase in violent crime in the District has once again exposed what may be the District's most obvious Achilles Heel -- the continuing racial insecurities and tensions that exist between affluent newcomers (who tend to be white) and a dwindling yet historic African American community. Two murders in the last week -- Andrew Senitt, white, young, in Georgetown; Chris Crowder, black, older, around Mount Vernon -- have brutally exposed the city's racial anxieties, so much so that the Post's ombudsman dedicated her column yesterday to explaining why one received front-page treatment while the other never escaped the Metro section. It is within this troubling context that a policeman's comments about Senitt's murder have touched off a new round of debates over crime, race, and what residents can do to protect themselves.
Just days after Senitt's slaying, Andy Solberg, the acting commander of the Second District (which includes Georgetown), stood before a crowd of residents urged them to report suspicious activity, noting, "This is not a racial thing to say that black people are unusual in Georgetown. This is a fact of life." His comments earned him a quick admonition from D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey, and he was shortly thereafter reassigned to a school security unit.
But his comments have generated debate -- both pro and con. In yesterday's issue of The Mail, a popular bi-weekly online newsletter published by D.C. Watch, contributor Leo Alexander called for Solberg's firing, writing:
Just think. If this is what he feels comfortable saying in an open forum in an affluent community, only God knows what he and his colleagues say behind closed doors. This is an example of the indignities minorities suffer everyday in America. At some time or another we’ve all talked about it, we’ve all felt it, and some have even experienced it first hand — but we had little proof. Now, thanks to one of our finest, we’ve got the goods. Andrew Solberg, a ranking member of the Metropolitan Police Department, experiencing a lapse in judgment, had the audacity to publicly state that in certain neighborhoods, racial profiling is the official sanctioned strategy for community policing. This example of institutional racism must be eradicated.On the other end of the debate stood the Washington Times' Tom Knott, who wrote last Thursday in a column titled "Political Correctness Should Not Trump Sense":
Is it fair to be suspicious of three black youths who are returning to their parked automobile at 2 o'clock in the morning after a night of partying along Wisconsin Avenue or M Street? No, it is not fair. Is it fair that Fortune 500 companies probably are going to look in another direction if your body is adorned with tattoos? No, it is not fair. Is it fair that white women clutch their purses with emphasis around a fortysomething black friend of mine? No, it is not fair. Is it fair that the tall and pretty have an employment edge over the short and fat, even if their credentials are the same? No, it is not fair. Then again, life is not fair, and no amount of thought and speech policing is going to change that. It is not fair that a killing in Georgetown prompts swift action in a way that 10 killings in Southeast never could. It is not fair that Cmdr. Solberg, in attempting to respond to the fears of residents, winds up being posted elsewhere because of political considerations.The Post's Metro columnist, Marc Fisher, took a middle-of-the-road stance, criticizing Solberg but noting that he still remained a competent officer:
I just don't know what was in Andy Solberg's head when he said that. Obviously, it came out all wrong. Obviously, he and everyone else in the room knew instantly that it was a dumb thing to say. But equally obviously--and this is why you are starting to hear a whole lot of people, most of them black people, defending him--Solberg is one of the good guys. He's the real thing: He's a white cop who lives in a black neighborhood, sends his children to a 95 percent black school, coaches a soccer team that is all black but for his own child. He is a religious man who, according to numerous of his friends who have gotten in touch with me, has more black friends than white friends and who, more important, could always be relied upon by black Washingtonians to stand up against those cops who do use race as a shortcut to make unfair judgments about people.Was Solberg right, and was he brought down by an institution more concerned with its image than its officers? Or were his comments insensitive and damaging to the police force and the communities they are charged with protecting? More importantly, will he survive on the force, or will be forced out?
His efficacy as a police officer notwithstanding, Solberg's comments may signal the end of his career in the District police force. This isn't because he's a bad cop, ironically enough, but because in a city already struggling with issues of racial identity and transformation, his words may give the African American community the impression that the police are less concerned with their safety and more concerned with their presence in white neighborhoods. Many a public servant's careers have been ended by misguided remarks, and Solberg's name may be one more on that list.
But if anything is left to be learned from Solberg's comments and the furor they has generated, it's that the District remains unsure of itself, struggling to reconcile its past with its future and the changing racial dynamics associated with that process. Those struggles have often remained masked by a vivid geographic division which finds Rock Creek Park starkly separating white from black, rich from poor. Now and then they have flared up, whether in the battles over church parking or liquor licenses for new businesses in Shaw. But the violent crimes of the last month have reminded us that we're still working towards being a community. Maybe something good can come of the horrors of these summer months.
Picture snapped by andertho
|
Stupid and inaccurate statement, but fair and competent officer. I don't think he should be fired, nor should he be relieved of his post at Second District. However, there should be a note in his file, and should anything like this happen again, severe penalites should be imposed.
You should also include these two articles in citing The Post's coverage of this topic:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/14/AR2006071401396.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/14/AR2006071401398.html
Sorry to say- I know it's bound to offend- many areas at the upper and lower ends of the economic scale tend to be effectively segregated. That means that, in certain expensive residential parts of town, black folk ARE not represented in proportions equal to their proportion of the overall demographic.
I have to admit, when I see white people of a certain look coming into certain predominantly black areas of DC, I assume and, by watching am generally proved correct, that they are there to buy heroin or crack... How is the officer's comment materially, rather than politically, different?
In a city that is approximately 60 percent African American, making it the city with the fifth largest African-American population in the U.S., I find the author's categorization of the district's African American population as "dwindling yet historic" to be inaccurate. Even though the proportion of African Americans in the district's population is on the decline, it is hardly what one could consider to be "dwindling". Perhaps the author was referring to specific areas of gentrification within the city, places where a categorization of "dwindling yet historic" would probably be more accurate.
DC is hardly the only American city with a serious problem with residential segregation. This is a tricky problem to solve, because national public opinion research shows that while both blacks and whites would like to live in "integrated" neighborhoods, their definitions of "integrated" make it's implementation infeasible. Both whites and blacks overwhelmingly claim that a 70/30 distribution is the ideal racial distribution; in other words 70 percent like me, and 30 percent different. Obviously this is a problem since it is impossible to create this arrangement.
Until we solve the problem of residential segregation, base racial stereotypes and assumptions will continue to dominate. With residential segregation comes educational segregation and social segregation. Without a sea change in pubic opinion that would put these suspicions and assumptions behind I don't see these problems being solved in the near future. Dialogue is nice, but this problem is quite deeply entrenched and until people live, learn and work with those who are unlike them (at more than a token level) I fear that we will not see a huge change in race relations in the District and elsewhere.
First off, people are just realizing that DC is racially segregated? Wow, it's been a known fact for years.
Second, I think that there is more than just racial segregation. Class plays in the picture as well. If you don't have a college degree or a secure government job, then there aren't that many options for people who are "working class." There is no manufacturing base in the city, so what's left are low-paying jobs. Couple that with high cost of living and you have a problem.
Don't forget the Latino aspect. Most of the 10 most wanted DC murders are Latino. It is almost a certainty that Latino on Latino crime is highly under reported due to language/culture barriers and immigration fears.
http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/
The man murdered in Georgetown was Alan Senitt, not Andrew Senitt.
I am hispanic/white. I grew up west of Rock Creek Park, and had many friends who lived east of Rock Creek Park, in Adams Morgan, and Mt. Pleasant. One summer evening, at about 10 or 11 pm, there were perhaps a dozen of us standing at the end of an alley, all saying goodbye to my girlfriend who was leaving for summer camp the next morning. Suddenly from behind us a police office asked, "Is everything ok here?"
"Yes, everything's fine. We're just saying goodbye to a friend who's leaving town tomorrow", I replied.
"Ok", said the officer. "We just don't see his many white people in one place in this part of town, so we wanted to see what was going on."
I never knew then, that a dozen white teenagers counted as a suspicious group in Mt. Pleasant. I also never knew then, that a dozen black teenagers would be suspicious to the police in Georgetown.
Racial profiling by the MPD is nothing new. They just don't usually do it in press conferences that are covered by the media.
Heaven help us for an officer saying something that has been obvious for ages now.
Profiling? I think not.
The officer made the mistake of saying something candid and truthful.
He ought to have known better.
What Solberg said was totally indefensible. He inadvertently cast suspiscion on every single black person in a white part of town. And, with the attention the Senitt case is getting, that damage can't be undone.
He must be severely disciplined. I certainly don't want to lose a good cop, but a good cop wouldn't have said something that damaging.
I agree with Rusty to a point. If a black man in Georgetown is suspicious, is he still suspicious in Foggy Bottom? How about Glover Park? At what point across the Key Bridge can a black person not be considered suspicious?
That's just stupid.
It also assumes that crime in Georgetown is only committed by black people. I don't have any statistics in front of me, but I'm going to assume that the facts don't bear that out.
I don't know what "severely disciplined" means exactly, but I think they did the right thing reassigning him.
Besides being a stupid thing to say, my experience is that Solberg's comments were rather inaccurate. I see black people in Georgetown all the time, and not just on the strip. So it isn't at all unusual to see black people there.
The officer didn't say a black person in Georgetown was unusual. He specified groups of people in specific sub-neighborhoods at specific times of day.
The over-simplification by posters is of the same sort that allows his original comment to be (so badly) viewed.
As I mentioned earlier, I can employ the same tactic and pretty much nail the white heroin/crack addicts coming to my predominantly (and historically) black neighborhood in Pleasant Plains.
"The officer didn't say a black person in Georgetown was unusual."
~Ain't Sayin.
"This is not a racial thing to say that black people are unusual in Georgetown."
~Aforementioned Officer
I maintain that is shameful that so many people see a black person on the street at 2am and immediately assume "CRIME." Do blacks commit more crimes in DC than whites? Of course. But people (and I'm getting this from the trolls on my blog as well) are acting like blacks walking on the street late at night are dangerous. That's horrifyingly racist.
There's nothing more fun than being a black male living in a predominantly white part of town during a crime spree. I get more whites (than usual) crossing the street when they see me coming, and I stop waving at cars that let me cross the street because most times I can hear the doors lock before I step off the curb. In my heart of hearts, I'd wish I could tell any one of my neighbors that they have nothing to fear. But the fact of the matter is that most whites are pretty indifferent to blacks except when it comes to crime...oh, and when someone else is being accused of being racist.
Dear aint sayin:
Reading comprehension is your friend.
Whether you can employ ANY tactic is irrelevant. Unless Martin just made up the quote, the phrase "black people are unusual in Georgetown" comes right from Solberg's mouth.
But the fact of the matter is that most whites are pretty indifferent to blacks except when it comes to crime...oh, and when someone else is being accused of being racist.
So true. It's almost like white people have a reflex to immediately try to minimize, deny, and deflect accusations of racism.
Robis: Kojo and Jonetta had a nice piece on this last week. You can check it out online or listen to the pod-cast. According to Jonetta, that line you quote was spoken along with the other things he said, those things I cited. Reading comprehension may be (our) friend, but try more than one source, or try to research your source material, please. I'm not saying he was not careless or impolitic, just that my understanding is his speech was more nuanced than you (most) seem to credit.
Hill Rat: Why no observation that denial is a two-way street? You could have easily and more accurately written "It's almost like all people have a reflex..."
Rusty, it is racist, but we are all racist (to an extent). It just depends on how you act on it. It is the way are brains work – our brains classify things we see (how we stereotype people), and since society and crime statistics continues to reinforce the idea that black males are criminals, our minds go there.
I don't know Officer Solberg myself, but I know he is popular and considered to be a good cop. He just articulated what naturally everyone does - we classify and categorize what we see. But the difference is what you do beyond that initial classification - do you go and harass the kids because they are black, or do you observe some more to see if they seem suspicious.
I would base Officer Solberg’s actions more than this one comment. Sure, repeated racist comments can suggest malice; this comment to me does not.
"
But the fact of the matter is that most whites are pretty indifferent to blacks except when it comes to crime...oh, and when someone else is being accused of being racist.
So true. It's almost like white people have a reflex to immediately try to minimize, deny, and deflect accusations of racism.
"
And blacks have developed a reflex whereby they go into race-hustling, race-pandering, victim mode whenever someone calls out the disproportionately high crime rates among young black males.
"And blacks have developed a reflex whereby they go into race-hustling, race-pandering, victim mode whenever someone calls out the disproportionately high crime rates among young black males."
Absolute statements, like b/w thoughts, are the enemy. Reality is more nuanced. I guess a format that lends itself to toss-off comments might not reflect this.
"And blacks have developed a reflex whereby they go into race-hustling, race-pandering, victim mode whenever someone calls out the disproportionately high crime rates among young black males."
Yeah, I guess I wouldn't have what I said if historical evidence doesn't prove how disproportionately whites have put blacks into the position of being victims. I think many American blacks are disenchanted by the American way--for a very long time they have not been open to collaborating with whites because of their global history of dishonesty and self-interest when it comes to doing business. The extreme examples of this refusal, of course, are criminals who resort to hurting others in order to get what they want. If American blacks wanted to succeed in America, they would, and they would be able to create a lobby for war-torn parts of Africa that America just doesn't seem to care about because there's too much of a kleptocracy in the country; self-interested businessmen have lobbies there to keep little wealth from enriching the country as a whole, and benefit from their personal business ventures with the western mode of capitalism.
What I mean is that many Africans and Africans in the diaspora(African Americans, Jamaicans, etc.) don't feel that they have many resources to control, and it bleeds down to a feeling of powerlessness amongst individuals who are African and are of African descent living in the US and elsewhere. Sure, it's not just whites who perpetuate this, but it's whites who have framed it, and they're in the majority in the States. So it's not victimhood. It's distrust with plenty of justification.
I think what many blacks are looking for is an admission by whites that they have been put into this position, a position that's been arranged over the course of centuries, not just decades. And criminals? If American cities want to do something about that, then the idea of dialogue needs to sound less like a campaign promise and more like a reality, embodied in effective social, cultural, and economic programs. Pointing out other racists get nobody anywhere, it's a reactionary and short term response to the reality of racism and what can be done about it.
I care about my country as a whole (including new debates about immigrants and others assimilating into American culture), not just how the people who have been historically successful are making it work.
I've meet Solberg and he's a good guy. I don't think that he meant to be insensitive with his remark.
I'm sure that he meant that black people standing on corners in residential parts of Georgetown at 2:00 AM is unusual and you should be on guard.
That said, I'd be on guard if anyone were standing on a corner watching me at 2:00 AM, black or white.
the black people arguing against this comment are, not trying to insult anyone its just the truth, making themselves look so foolish and idiotic. This cop did not say that black people in a neighborhood are dangerous. He said YOUNG black MEN in an MOSTLY WHITE neighborhood LATE AT NIGHT are SUSPICIOUS. Those are huge differences. Not all black people are young black men, not all neighborhoods are all white, and seriously who wouldnt call the police if a bunch of thugs were around their house at a time when every normal perosn is alseep?????? As this at a time when a MURDER was just committed, but I don't see anyone rushing to put out that it was BLACK people who pulled the triggers. I think anyone who wants people hanging around there house at 2 am can do live in one neighborhood, and everyone else who logically wants to live on a street without loitering can live in the rest of the country.