In The Heat of The Night (Reaction)

 

Cheif Gillespie looking at Police Officer Tibbs in "In the Heat of the Night."

In class, we watched "In the Heat of The Night" which is a movie about a black police officer who gets stuck in Sparta Mississippi and helps solve the murder of Colbert - a very well-known man in Sparta. 

One aspect of this movie that caught my attention was the relationship between Tibbs and Gillespie. Their relationship evolves over the course of the movie becoming something quite rare during this time period in the South. 

In the beginning, Tibbs is introduced as the suspect of Mr. Colberts murder - but it is quickly revealed that he is a police officer in Philadelphia. Not only is he a police officer but Tibbs was referred as his chiefs "best homicide officer." 

Police Chief Gillespie is stubborn about letting Tibbs help in the beginning but after realizing what he is capable of - he starts to change his mind. 

In the beginning, Gillespie acts as if he doesn't need the help, that they had so easily found the suspect. 

Tibbs easily proves him wrong and this is when I saw Gillespie start to act differently towards him. 

Colberts wife said she wanted Tibbs on this case and that there was not any other option. 

Tibbs wanted to leave but Gillespie came back to find him at the train station. 

I think Gillespie knew they needed Tibbs to solve this case no matter what - despite what the people of Sparta may have thought about Tibbs being there. 

The evolving we see throughout the movie is consistent - from both Gillespie and Tibbs. 

I think the entire reason this case was able to be solved in the first place was based on the trust these two had for each other in the first place.

Tibbs could have easily walked away and left Sparta, but he didn't. 

We see throughout this movie that Gillespie did his best to make sure that Tibbs was treated with the most respect possible. 

For example, in the beginning when he took Tibbs to see Colbert and examine him he said "You better give this man anything he asks for" because Gillespie trusted Tibbs to get the job done - despite the views people in the South had on people of color at this time. 

Another moment I saw their relationship evolve was on Tibbs last night in Sparta and the two men were sitting together in Gillespie's house. 

This was not something you would ever see during this era. Two men, one white and one black, sitting together in a white man's home. 

So, to answer this question: "In what ways did their relationship reflect the changes in the broader society that were under way at that time?" 

I would say their relationship reflects the harmony between the two races that was lacking in the majority of America at this time - which would come long past when it should have. 

I continuously noted throughout this movie that Gillespie was the one character throughout this movie that trusted Tibbs despite his skin color. 

Tibbs also was different from others like him. It was not normal for colored people to be police officers or to wear a suit and tie. 

He was the representation of why colored citizens also needed to be respected because like Tibbs, they were doing things a lot of white people could not accomplish themselves at the time. 

This is the exact reason the relationship between Gillespie and Tibbs was special, because I think Gillespie saw and also represented what the broader society that was to come. 

Mock Trial Reaction Post

A white man stopping black citizens from boarding a train car

Two Sides of Plessy v. Ferguson

My classmates presented both sides of Plessy v. Ferguson. Here is what each argued.

Defending Homer Plessy

Homer Plessy could “pass” and live in white society. He bought a first-class ticket for a white car illegally and was fined under the Separate Car Act. His side asked: does this violate his rights under the 14th Amendment?

They argued the Constitution should not play into a citizen’s legal rights because of race. Plessy was not drunk or disorderly; he simply was there and faced consequences for it.

  Justice Harlan said, “Our constitution is colorblind.” They also cited the Declaration of Independence, “All men are created equal,” and said the country has not been living up to it.

Citizens who purchase tickets and obey the laws have a right to equal service, and Plessy paid an equal fare for an equal seat.

Segregation, they said, is unjust and unconstitutional, and bad for the community. It teaches children racism; do we want children to grow up this way? 

It also has costs that affect the entire nation: separation causes unnecessary confusion, may leave valuable seating unused, harms workers and users, and risks businesses losing supporters and customers.

Louisiana passed the law and had the choice, so they should follow it, and a law is not wrong just because someone dislikes it.

Defending Ferguson

The Separate Car Act does not treat people differently: they are separated but treated equal. Louisiana did not invent separation; it happens everywhere.

The 13th and 14th Amendments did not command mingling of races and social life, and they do not reach private, social distinctions. 

The 13th abolished slavery, nothing more, and the 14th makes people equal only by law, not through social mingling. The Congress that drafted the 14th knew of the rulings and left it anyway.

To honor order is not hatred; it’s humility. Inferiority lies not in the act, only in the meaning itself. 

No society has ever existed without some form of social expectations, and separate institutions have existed for generations. Whether someone approves is not the issue here. Law cannot overcome social customs by decree.

________________________________________________________________________

AI DISCLOSURE: AI was used to form this blog post from my own notes that I took while listening to my classmates give a mock trial presentation on the Plessy v. Ferguson case. I asked Claude AI to give only add embedded links to reliable sources related to the topic. AI did not add or change any information above.