Monthly Archives: May 2016

A Take on Racial Controversies

I have had a hard time lately trying to think of a subject to blog about. But I have come up with something that we come together all warm and friendly about. We all join hands and sing “Kumbaya” every time the subject comes up. Why, I mean race relations, of course.

I am starting with the assumption that most people mean well. I don’t think most people think racial or ethnic prejudice is a good thing, and most people don’t believe that they are prejudiced. Let me define my terms:

1) Racism means believing that a person’s race is, by itself, a determinant of inferiority or superiority. Nothing changes that fact, not income, social background, nothing.

2) Racial prejudice means the opinion that a person’s race infers a negative, but not necessarily beyond that person’s control.

For reasons of simplicity, I’m just referring to blacks and Caucasians, but inferences can be drawn to include other races as well. I think that there are relatively few racists among us. But I believe that every single one of us is prejudiced. Prejudice, racial and otherwise, is just part of survival. A person moves forward in life and has different experiences. Maybe every time a person goes to an Italian restaurant they either witness an argument or have a disagreement with somebody. That person may develop a prejudice against Italian restaurants, regardless of how irrational it might be. The past is prologue. A lot of things can cause somebody to have prejudices. A big one is upbringing. I’ve witnessed people who knew their parents were making mistakes in their lives, but went on to make the same mistakes themselves. It seems almost like it’s hardwired. It is hard to go up against a parent’s beliefs and core values. I had a sociology professor at Worcester State University who told our class that a lot of people are prejudiced against something different than themselves. Period. No other reason. Another professor said that we are all prejudiced. The difference among us is the extent that we let our prejudices influence our behavior. In other words, prejudice, racial and otherwise, is part of being human.

People on different sides can come up with arguments that are both true. A liberal might correctly point to the abuses against black people by police officers. A conservative might correctly point out that the crime rate per capita of black people is much higher than that of whites. It’s called confirmation bias. It occurs when a person interprets an event or an alleged fact in a way that confirms what the person already believes. Confirmation bias can happen much easier now, with the internet and social media. A person nowadays doesn’t have to listen to anything that they don’t approve of. A conservative will be likely to discount the effects of slavery and many years of Jim Crow as they relate to black crime rates. A liberal will likely discount a person’s freedom of choice and personal responsibility for their situation. Another thing that separates us is that blacks have a tendency to focus on institutional racism or prejudice, whereas whites are more likely to focus on individual relationships. Which also leads to friction, when a white person says that they didn’t do anything to cause racism, so why should I pay the price by submitting to a quota where institutions are forced to reflect the racial composition of their business concentration or customer base. The blacks will say that they deserve an even playing field and remediation for past injustices. They both have a point.

I personally think that there needs to be affirmative action to try to even the playing field in education and business. The Republicans and other conservatives, especially those on the Supreme Court, would like to do away with any type of affirmative action government program. The trouble with doing away with government-sponsored affirmative action programs is that it does nothing to do away with white male affirmative action programs such as legacy admissions to college. As well as informal networking among the more privileged white folks.

I doubt that, short of divine intervention, we will ever eliminate racial prejudice. But I think that there are steps that can be taken, like affirmative action in education and minority scholarships, that can help even things out. One other observation I would like to make is that nothing is accomplished by shouting at people. Working for change and making opportunities available for constructive dialogue should be the way to move ahead toward better relationships.

Exit Gemme

Well, I opened up my Telegram this morning, and I saw the headline that WPD Chief Gary Gemme was going to retire in less than 2 weeks. I guess, if it had been widely known that he originally committed to retire at this point, it wouldn’t have come as a surprise. The good thing for him is that he is leaving on his own terms, on his own schedule, and not being forced out.

I grew up in Holden. I lived in Worcester from 1989 through 2009, moving back to Holden after my father died. I had a lot of interest in the goings on in Worcester, particularly with law enforcement, when I lived there. I still do, to a large extent. Especially considering that, while Holden is a wonderful town to live in, it isn’t very exciting. Especially since Mark Ferguson was voted out as selectman, but that can be fodder for another story.

I first heard of Chief Gemme back when he was a captain. He had accused then-Chief Edward Gardella of sexual harassment after Gardella made a joking pass at him. Before that, in 1997, he had accused a deputy chief of interfering with police procedure by helping out a friend who had a case filed against him. I felt then, and still feel, as though Gemme is a kind of Dudley Do-Right, with a thin skin and little sense of humor and a feeling of moral superiority. Nothing he has done has made me feel any differently. He had a long-running feud with the T&G,in particular, columnist Dianne Williamson. He has had a rocky relationship with the city council, seemingly close to boiling over at various points. There is scant evidence that he has done much to rein in Worcester police officers who overstep their bounds. Worcester has paid over a million dollars in settlements since 1999. However, in his favor, Gemme fought tooth-and-nail against reinstating an officer who was accused of assaulting three teenage boys. That can be looked at in different ways. Some might attribute it to being overly moralizing and against the rank-and-file. That certainly was the way that the rank-and-file viewed it, but, in my view, this is one case where a little morality was a good thing. I’m not sure where that whole thing stands now, but that officer could be in line for a lottery-size payout. The system that allowed that officer to escape punishment sucks, and Gemme deserves credit for standing up to it, even though it didn’t work.

So, exitus Chief Gemme. He could have been better, and he could have been worse. On balance, he is a human being with flaws like anyone else, and he did the best he could in a difficult and thankless job. I hope he enjoys his retirement, but if he’s anything like me, he will find something to do to keep him busy. It’s not as it seems like when you are working. You have to experience it to understand it. It comes with a whole new set of challenges that can be as daunting as any full-time job.