In his documentary Inequality For All, former Clinton
Secretary of Labor Robert Reich admitted he was somewhat chagrined in hindsight
by his behavior in cabinet meetings, when he frequently played the part of
annoying gadfly—questioning every economic policy suggestion, causing eyes to
roll and inviting comments like “There Reich goes again.” But Reich was
probably the only true liberal in a “New Democrat” administration which was
centrist in orientation; he didn’t “fit in,” and he knew he had to leave.
However, Reich wasn’t subjected
to a smear campaign by Clinton insiders; he was just more or less ignored. Last
month Charles Gaither was de facto
forced to step down as the “civilian watchdog” over the King County Sheriff’s
Office—and he certainly hasn’t been “ignored.” He claimed, according to the Seattle Times, “that his efforts to
bring change to department oversight were met with hostility and political
maneuvering by his opponents”—which apparently includes the Times as well. The former director of the Office of Law
Enforcement Oversight claimed that he “was harassed and intimidated based upon
my race.”
I can’t help but observe that
when white women are charged that any personality defects in their management
style, it is usually the fault of “sexism”; people tend to believe that—or if
they don’t, there are accused of “sexism” too. But unless it has something to
do with a shooting with a “racial” angle, there is this tendency to see a
minority person in an institutional setting where whites normally control the
decision-making process as being, well, “uppity.”
The Times story accepts as fact a mountain of innuendo and self-serving
complaints against Gaither. The paper describes Gaither “as a man who created a
work environment rife with hostility and accused of engaging in a pattern of
inappropriate and combative behavior that drew repeated complaints from
subordinates as well as from Sheriff John Urquhart.” These complaints called
him “hostile and “disrespectful.”
Gaither’s behavior “was the
subject of multiple internal investigations, with one finding that he had
directed ‘hostile and profane language’ at Urquhart during a meeting. Another
document reveals a former staff member filed a complaint saying she feared ‘for
my safety and retaliation’ from Gaither.” One female staffer stated she had to
take a “’stress-related leave of absence’” and did not return, claiming Gaither
raised his voice at her and gave her unreasonable work deadlines.” An OLEO
auditor also sought a restraining order against Gaither, insinuating that he
was planning on shooting her.
Sheriff Urquhart—who angered many
in the black community for his support of “choke hold” training for deputies,
which demonstrated the disconnect between law enforcement and the frustration
of the community over a perception of abuse of lethal force—complained that
Gaither was “conducting his own investigations, which is expressly prohibited
by the OLEO ordinance.” Gaither used “profane” language toward him. Frankly,
so-called in-house “investigations” by law enforcement are never to be trusted,
and I don’t blame Gaither if he did use “profane” language against a hypocrite.
What I find most interesting
about the Times’ take on this is that
(aside from exhibiting a double standard when compared to stories concerning white females accused of abuse while in
positions of power) it doesn’t mention what these “disagreements” were about.
Presumably they concerned the inability of Gaither to obtain any meaningful
cooperation from either his own “colleagues” or from the Sheriff’s Office.
I also have no doubt that Urquhart
was patronizing and obstructive, and his deputies excessively hostile, especially
toward a minority male when much of their “training” and actions are based on
racial profiling. It is fatuous and hypocritical for the Times to ignore to what extent this angle—especially given the evidence
of the SPD’s own deliberate obstruction of a federally-mandated program of
reform—played in this “drama.”
Since I wasn’t “there”—neither
was the Times’ reporter—I can’t say
that what is fact or self-serving fiction. I do know, however, that many whites
have a tendency to drop their patronizing pose toward minorities when
confronted with their hypocrisy, and react with self-righteous “indignation.”
It is thus my suspicion that this
is just a smear campaign against someone who apparently had to battle the
Sheriff's Office all by himself. I can understand his frustration, that no is
taking him “seriously.” I think his "blackness" made him more
sensitive to the issues than his so-called "colleagues" who were more
comfortable with the status quo. Still, if he was white, he'd still be the
gadfly, but viewed more as a misguided “idealist” rather than the subject of this
character smear.
The problem is that if you are a
minority in a hostile environment when you see the need for change based on
your own experience that others do not have or refuse to see, it is easy to see
how frustration can set in. The minority person is viewed as the “problem,”
someone who goes “overboard” and doesn’t understand the “issues.” He angers
people who thinks he wants too much, those who’d rather take things “one step
at a time” to appease law enforcement who are dead set against reform. The Times own handling of this story say as
much about itself.
Oh, and lest we miss the “point”
of all of this, the real issue remains the failure of law enforcement to accept
reform.
No comments:
Post a Comment