You can volunteer for all unknown person situations. The rest of us prefer not to do so.
I do not assume the janitor should want to intervene. He was fairly old, right? Who knows the state of his health. So easy for healthy strong adults to opine on what others should have done. Maybe you did not walk in his shoes, either
I am sorry and super sad.
I am not going to insult you by repeating what I said anywhere. But I want you to know most of all that I absolutely believe Ms Kanouteâs suffering is real and the biggest tragedy of the story.
And your suffering and your familyâs too. And every Black person I know and loveâs suffering. And people I donât knowâs suffering.
It all just sucks.
How about a requirement that before an employee calls the police on someone lounging on a couch, that the employee at least put on his glasses first? Too much to ask?
From the report:
He said that he has âglasses for distanceâ and that he âdidnât have them on at the time.â
Not making assumptions is different then a default assumption that all strangers are dangerous which is what you are suggesting.
Either you view all people as dangerous in which case when is the last time you called the police on someone? Must happen often given the broad ambiguous definitions you have provided previously.
Alternatively you only selectively define people as dangerous. In which case what about this student is dangerous?
Please donât be disappointed for me as you are more then fulfilling my expectationđ
Yes. Very dangerous. He didnât know what he was dealing with. If you canât see it, better not get near it. Iâm sure that was the janitorâs thought process.
Someone said a while back that some people in the thread are working suspiciously too hard. Whatever did that person mean? I wonder.
If you have a problem with the policy, address the policy. He followed the rules. Would you prefer no rules?
@skieurope, time to lock this thread. Just debating now.
This is an aside, but after a certain age, glasses that are required for distance work such as driving may not be required for his janitorial duties. He might not have them nearby.
Am I on candid camera? Is this like an initiation for me? The last hour has been SO bizarre. Good Lord.
Well, given that we now have the 5â4" All Gender (but Non-Sexist) Navy Seal Rule to deal with as our yardstick (literally!) for dangerous situations, perhaps we can turn to the giant teddy bear as the real villain in all of this? Maybe thatâs what triggered âdangerâ in someoneâs mind?
Sorry to make light of what seems to be a sad story all around.
I have absolutely no connection to Smith College, but I know it is excellent, and this thread cannot, in any way, be representative of that fine institution. I hope many of the posts on here (including this one) donât survive the night.
The one person I know who is smiling is Ms. Shaw, whoâs already gotten more than $300k out of this, and more to come. Sadly, this thread has become a circusâŠand in homage to P.T. Barnumâs famous quote (which he apparently never said!), perhaps thatâs whoâs making Ms. Shaw a wealthy person.
Roycroftmom-â If you have a problem with the policy, address the policy. He followed the rules. Would you prefer no rules?â
He would have been well within the rules had he taken a closer look before calling the police. He could have casually walked by, engaged, gotten another employee, etc. The rules did not mandate he call the police it was one of many options.
You should read the report for further detail but below are the verbatim rules per the employees boss.
âThe Director of Building Services, who supervised the Caller the week of the Incident, said that employees may either approach unknown persons in areas they are not expected, or call the Campus Police.â
So you agree, he followed the rules. You donât like the rule he followed, but it was a permissible option
Glad you clarified that.
Sorry? Are you now saying the studentâs only transgression was doxxing? But that you agree that she was within her rights to be offended and scared that campus cops were inappropriately called in this situation? Thatâs literally what you appear to be saying. Indeed, you refer to the student as âthe victimâ, albeit one who doxxes.
If so, good for you for being courageous enough to admit youâve changed your view! And no one is putting words in your mouth, as these are your own words.
In spite of your desire to provoke a response to close the thread I wonât take the bait.
The rules as described previously were deliberately (and perhaps incorrectly) structured such that the employee had latitude and discretion under the presumption they would use common sense.
Letâs apply this to a corporate setting so you can better understand. Most employee handbooks provide an emergency number or protocol in the event of a dangerous situation. They donât even specify that an employee should use common sense or discretion as it is implied. If a masked person acting irrationally shows up the expectation would be to call the designated number. If a 5 foot 2 inch women of slight build were sitting in the waiting room the expectation would be that you ask âcan I help youâ. Calling the police would be the absolute last thing on anyoneâs mind.
We can have an interesting discussion, if one conducted at a great distance from the facts, of whether the janitor handled things correctly here. Much opprobrium has been dished out on his conduct, and it has been suggested that the reason he escaped a finding of racism was simply lack of a smoking gun. Any thoughtful reader of the report would see the whole situation and the motivations of all concerned as occupying some gray area of judgment about how to apply rules and procedures to the particular instance which the janitor believed he was confronted with. Several times in the course of the evaluation of his conduct it is said that his decision was consistent with policy, and the policy is quoted. All this can be found in the report. It is worth quoting the summation of those findings, found at page 22:
âBased on the above information, the investigation determined that the [janitor] provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for calling the Campus Police on the day of the incident. The investigion did not find that the asserted reason was a pretext for discrimination. Nor did the investigation reveal reveal other evidence that would indicate that it was more likely than not that the [janitorâs] decision to contact the Campus Police was motivated by [the studentâs] race or color.â
In the face of that finding some on this board simply know that it all had to be about race. Sigh.
Corporations want policies followed, in part to limit liability in the event of an adverse outcome. As corporate counsel, I would absolutely demand the policy be followed consistently-there is no reason to expose anyone it to potential risk from inconsistent application of the rules, as you suggest employees should do here based apparently upon sex and height. It appears you would accept security being called for a 6 foot black male, but that isnât how corporations work, at least not those who have legal counsel. The consistent application of rules regardless of race, gender, etc is usually promoted by those supporting civil rights to avoid improper profiling, as you have done in this case.
As a practical matter, you should be aware that petite teen girls, little old ladies, and anyone else, might very well be carrying a firearm. Indeed, you would likely be surprised by how many people apparently are ( and no, I never have). Corporations make rules to protect their employees from harm as well, and requiring questioning strangers is not in most peopleâs job descriptions. I am certain the union would object, as it should.
This thread has gone to the ledge of the cliff, and I am wondering if it is possible to pull it back.
I would like to discuss a hypothetical, rather than the particulars of this situation and get peopleâs reactions.
We see from the report that about 90% of the time that the police are called on innocent parties. That was a surprisingly high number to me, but I have no reason to doubt it. But for the sake of this discussion, letâs assume that police are called on innocent people only 50% of the time (it will make the rest of the discussion easier).
Letâs also assume that this is a large college campus and calls to campus police about suspicious people are common, and that the police keep detailed logs to screen for bias.
Letâs define race neutral to mean that the calls on innocent parties are about the same for each race. In other words, about 50%. If 75% of the calls on a particular race are innocent, thatâs clearly discriminatory. But if only 25% are, thatâs potentially a safety issue.
Letâs assume that after a careful review of the logs, the police find that when race is mentioned, that the percentage of calls on innocent parties are about the same for âsuspicious peopleâ of each race (if not, that brings up an entirely different set of work to be done).
But I understand it completely possible for things to be neutral on a statistical level and harm to be felt on a deeply personal level. How should an institution such as a university balance the two?
Once again the policy did not mandate the employee report but gave them discretion to use their judgement;
âThe Director of Building Services, who supervised the Caller the week of the Incident, said that employees may either approach unknown persons in areas they are not expected, or call the Campus Police.â
Clearly the âonlyâ option per policy wasnât to call the police!
Therefore the employee would also have been following procedure if he had looked closer, engaged or any number of actions to deescalate and evaluate before calling the police.
Up thread you described your personal criteria and justification for not approaching people as followsâŠ
âThere are enough homeless, mentally unstable, stoned, and other worrisome people in publicâ
No mention is ever made of this student appearing to be mentally unstable, stoned, homeless or armed? So what about this student or her behavior do you believe justified the employee calling the police versus following policy by taking a closer look, engaging, approaching with a coworker etc as policy allows? Keep in mind it took the cop less then 3 minutes to recognize her as a student so the employee must of seen something that triggered him.
Thanks In advance for hopefully being specific in your response.
Not sure how much clearer I can be, but I will restate it one more time, and then sign off. Given that policy, I would always repeat always default to calling security; the physical characteristics of the individual are not relevant to me, tho they clearly are to you, in frankly a legally impermissible way. It is a civil rights violation to profile as you suggest repeatedly.
I do not care if she or he is beautiful or homely, young or old, fat or thin, richly dressed or disheveled. There is a risk of harm in any approach to a stranger, and I am not taking that. So I really donât care if the person is 5â2 or 6â2, any race, gender, etc. Anyone can be unstable, stoned, armed etc., so if I can avoid that, I will. No amount of cute Christmas pictures will change that.
Earlier this week we had a shootout at a local post office. I would never expect that people going to mail packages are carrying firearms, but apparently some are. This student turned out to be harmless; the next might not be. The janitor is there to clean; if you want to include investigating strangers to that duty, prepare to pay a whole lot more and provide training.
âI would always repeat always default to calling security; the physical characteristics of the individual are not relevant to me, tho they clearly are to you, in frankly a legally impermissible way.â
We actually agree that physical characteristics are irrelevant. I presume then a person would have to present some risk or display some behavior to require a call to the police.
You canât possibly have a college campus in which employees call the police on any and all students they donât recognize. There has to be some criteria for escalation that involves reasonable assumptions.
First and foremost the staff should try and identify if the person is a student (cop did so âimmediatelyâ). If that canât be done the persons behavior and circumstances are relevant.
Once again what behavior or circumstances suggested the need for law enforcement?
If there was none then it was the physical appearance which we agree is wrong. I am asking one question and you are answering another.
I recognize you donât want to define what that determinant is or should be but a default âI am calling the copsâ with no discretion does not and canât exist in a college community.
âEarlier this week we had a shootout at a local post office. I would never expect that people going to mail packages are carrying firearms, but apparently some are.â
So in your world do you call the police on anyone carrying a stamped letter?
