Of Simpson, Fuhrman and Black-and-White Opinions

While discussing the O.J. Simpson trial recently with a friend, he asked, “Am I the only black man in America who doesn’t think Simpson was framed?”

He was exaggerating for effect, but he has his ear to the ground. Blacks and whites across the country are discussing the Simpson case--typically, though, not with each other--and see things quite differently.

A high percentage of African Americans are inclined to believe Simpson was framed by police. I’d venture to say that the overwhelming majority of white Americans are baffled by that view and consider it wholly illogical. I don’t think most whites see this as a “racial” case, and they find it ludicrous to believe that Detective Mark Fuhrman made a judgment on the spot to relocate evidence from the scene of the murders to O.J. Simpson’s home.

But because blacks and whites seldom discuss things together, any chance to find common ground disintegrates in a swirl of disdain for the other’s position.

Bill Bradley, the U.S. senator from New Jersey and former professional basketball player, bravely sized up the dilemma in a 1992 speech on the Senate floor. Decrying the state of race relations in America, Bradley said, “People of different races often don’t listen to each other on the subject of race. It’s as if we’re all experts, locked into our narrow views and preferring to be wrong rather than risk changing those views. . . . White Americans continue to harbor absurd stereotypes about all people of color. Black Americans take white criticism of individual acts as an attempt to stigmatize all black Americans. We seem to be more interested in defending our racial territory than recognizing we could be enriched by another race’s perspective.”

Bradley’s assessment lends itself well to the Simpson case. For white America, it might be helpful to dwell less on being “right” about Mark Fuhrman and spend more time pondering why so many blacks are suspicious about him or other police. A common-sense belief that Fuhrman couldn’t have picked up, concealed and then deposited the bloody glove shouldn’t be used to dismiss all other African American citizens’ concerns about law enforcement or the justice system. The Fuhrman episode may be bogus, but that doesn’t mean the issue of African American paranoia about police is bogus.

For African Americans, a reality check also is in order. Despite the temptation to link Fuhrman’s suspect racial feelings with his actions in the Simpson case, the logic breaks down. For starters, try to imagine someone scaling the wall outside the Simpson home with a plastic bag containing a large glove stuck in his socks. How could it not be seen by other officers?

What’s troubling in watching or listening to call-in shows is the degree to which many blacks have hung their hats on the Fuhrman scenario. They seem genuinely angered that white America won’t accept that he could have done it, given the allegations about his views on race. It’s as though Fuhrman has become a symbol of white Americans not listening to black Americans’ concerns about their treatment by the system.

That is the debate that needs to be held, and let it be no holds barred.

If white Americans talked to black Americans, they might realize that the way blacks are treated by the system is a legitimate, bedrock issue in American life. White America should realize that winning the argument on what Mark Fuhrman did or didn’t do with the bloody glove is to win but one measly point in a 100-point game.

Likewise, if black Americans talked to white Americans, they might realize that we are indeed aware that there’s discrimination toward them in the system. They should realize they don’t need Mark Fuhrman to make the case for them, and that they may lose ground in doing so.

If white America takes Mark Fuhrman’s “side” in the Simpson case, it’s important to say that doing so isn’t tantamount to disbelieving that police have not in the past planted evidence or unfairly suspected or accused African Americans. But the next breath drawn should be to say it also harms society to blame police where all logic dictates against doing so.

If racial dialogue ever comes into fashion in America, it will happen only when there’s credibility. In poker parlance, it won’t happen when one side says, “I’ll see your canard and raise you a straw man.”

It’s all about picking your arguments. If you pick the wrong one and lose, you give the other side an easy excuse to close off discussion, convinced there’s no common ground.

That’s the inherent danger in the Fuhrman scenario. I find it as strategically misguided for some blacks to use Mark Fuhrman as a symbol as it was for some whites to justify police actions in the Rodney King affair.

Are you telling me that whites and blacks of good hearts and minds can’t agree on that?

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesday, Friday and Sunday.