Oswald Letter

5 Lessons from Obama’s ‘Beer Summit’

A couple of weeks ago, President Barack Obama held a gathering at the White House that has become known as the “beer summit.” In attendance at this meeting with the President were prominent Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates, who is black, and police sergeant James Crowley, who is white, along with Vice President Joe Biden.

Crowley had arrested Gates for disorderly conduct on July 16 after a confrontation at the professor’s home. The incident sparked a media frenzy as Gates accused the policeman of racial profiling. Crowley denied the charge and has even taught courses against racial profiling.

Obama inflamed the situation when he said that he thought the police had “acted stupidly” in arresting Gates, who is a friend. After speaking with Officer Crowley,  Obama said  “. . . this has been ratcheting up — and I obviously helped to contribute ratcheting it up — I want to make clear that in my choice of words, I think, I unfortunately . . . gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sgt. Crowley specifically,” the President said. “And I could’ve calibrated those words differently. And I told this to Sgt. Crowley.”

So the “beer summit” was a result of Sgt. Crowley’s suggestion they meet over a beer to discuss the situation. The President jumped at the opportunity to do some damage control and decided to bring both parties to the White House for a beer. The President indicated that he hoped the meeting would be a “positive lesson” in race relations.

But it doesn’t appear that the “beer summit” has turned out all that well for the President. His attempt at fixing a gaffe may have just brought more attention to it. Regardless of your politics, here are a few lessons from this entire episode for any executive dealing with a touchy, controversial situation:

Have all the facts before you act. President Obama made critical remarks about the officers in the case when he said they “acted stupidly” in arresting Gates. These comments came in response to a reporter’s question about the incident. The President was obviously not prepared for the question as it came at the end of a long press conference on health care reform. By any account, neither the President nor any of his representatives had spoken directly with either party before he responded to the reporter. It would have been wise for the President to deflect the question, saying that he needed to fully understand what had transpired before he could comment. Then he could have taken the time to get the facts before he spoke about it. Coming to the defense of his friend before hearing the other side of the story put him in a compromised position.

Choose your words carefully. The President’s comments that the police in this matter “acted stupidly” threw gas on what was already a volatile situation. He immediately caused the officer, the department, and the police union to react in defense of the handling of the arrest. Later the President admitted that he should have chosen his words more carefully. I’d argue that this entire episode would have gone away much more quickly had the President never uttered those two words. Words matter.  Sometimes what you say is just as important as what you mean. There’s a lesson in that for all of us.

If you screw up, admit it. The President did back track from his “acted stupidly” comment, but he fell short of apologizing. “I could’ve calibrated those words differently” isn’t an apology. The President is a married man, he should know that that type of weak attempt at an apology won’t fly. What he should have said is that he spoke too soon and his characterization of the police officer’s efforts was unfair. Instead, he tried to straddle the middle, and his efforts fell short. President Obama has proven he isn’t above admitting when he’s wrong. I think he should have done so here, and things would have gone much better.

Choose your battles wisely. Was this really a matter that the President should have been involved in in the first place? I understand that Gates is his friend and that it was an issue of race relations, but this was a local matter that gained national attention because the President chose to respond to a reporter’s question. His comments made the matter worse, not better. I’m sure he had the best of intentions when he first spoke about what transpired, but he involved himself in something that really wasn’t his place, and has paid a price for doing so.  And, if he thought that this was truly a way to bring attention to the subject of race relations, then beginning with offending one half of the parties involved isn’t a way to get started.

Be careful of symbolic gestures. The “beer summit” came out of a suggestion made by Officer Crowley that they could settle all of this over a beer. I’m certain the President’s advisers figured this would help them stem all the negative publicity surrounding the event. But it actually raised more questions. Was the meeting really the best use of the President’s time when the country is in the middle of a recession, is involved in wars abroad, and is contemplating health care reform? What was actually accomplished by holding the beerfest in the Rose Garden? Crowley admitted that the two “agree to disagree.” If the “beer summit” is viewed by most to have failed to accomplish anything, then it is a symbol of very little. If you want to make a gesture as a way of setting an example, be sure you know how it will be perceived before you do it.

If nothing else, the events leading up to the “beer summit” provide some great lessons for all of us in how to act and not to act when faced with a controversial situation in the workplace. The President may have had the best of intentions, but sometime it takes more than that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *