I don’t think there have been any changes to the Smith policy because of this incident. Employees still have the option of calling security any time they see a situation they want help with. No requirement to talk to the person first or to use judgment to determine if there is danger.
Smith still thinks the language in the handbook is okay. It’s still the position of the campus security that they’d rather be called and find out it is not a security problem than have the employee misjudge a situation and have it become a safety issue.
If they want employees to have to first use their own judgment to assess the situation, the policy should state that.
I’ve worked at places where we were required to call security for EVERY situation where we saw someone out of place. We were not to ask for ID or confront anyone, whether dressed in a suit or looking like a street person. I left my desk and went to another area without my ID, and security had to escort me back even though 4 co-workers assured them I worked there. They checked my ID and I was ‘released.’
These two sentences in sequence actually prove the point that unless some specific concern or risk was in play the employee had discretion. The policy does state they can either engage or call the police. I quoted the supervisor above several times who described it was up to the employee to EITHER engage or call.
This is unlike the place you worked where for EVERY situation employees were required to call security.
So in the absence of a response from Roy what was this student doing that was so suspicious and fear inspiring that the employee couldn’t defer to the policy option to engage or take a closer look before calling the police?
The direction this thread has taken makes me beyond sad. While I haven’t participated much in the discussion, I have followed it closely and given the comments a great amount of thought. It has been a learning experience for me. While I haven’t agreed with everything, there have been moments where my eyes were opened to a new perspective and for that I am thankful.
If anyone wants to read about Smith’s policies on equity and inclusion, here is a link. It is good reading for any student considering Smith and seems to reflect initiatives born of Ms. Kanoute’s traumatic and unfortunate experience.
I have included the bullet points related to racial justice since they apply most closely to this thread. (bold font is mine)
Toward Racial Justice Principles
Because Smith was not originally designed for the diverse students, staff and faculty that we have now, we are called to reflect on our past and present to build a more just and inclusive future.
Because we believe in the humanity, worth and potential of every member of our community, we must align our systems, actions, pedagogies and traditions to uphold our belief.
Because race is one dimension of diversity among many, we will take an intersectional approach.
Because we recognize that our individual perspectives are limited, we will engage with our community and seek their guidance as we build a better future.
Because transformation must be measurable, we will listen to community members and be attentive to survey data and other metrics.
Because change will need to occur at multiple levels, we will work across individual, departmental and institutional domains.
Because this work will take time and resources, we commit to investing human and financial resources over the long term.
Because racism and other forms of oppression are ever-evolving, we will remain flexible and open to feedback and revision.
If her actions “are the only relevant factor here,” then why ignore her actions and instead describe the subjective impressions of an employee who wasn’t wearing his glasses, and who, admitted, saw nothing more than a black person on a sofa?
Her “actions” were entering an an area she was authorized to enter and lounging on a sofa while eating her lunch, reading books, and looking at her phone. She did nothing wrong. The officer knew this, which is why he apologized for bothering her and left her in the location which wasn’t “closed off to all.”
The officer reached that conclusion, MT, only after he entered the area. Once he did that, he recognized her as a student, and he naturally apologized for having disturbed her. The whole point of checking her out was to be sure she was not up to no good. She looks like a beautiful young lady, but all the janitor could see was that someone, who incidentally was black, looked to be sleeping in an area that was not in use. The report, which you have told us all we should read, takes seriously the situation that the janitor thought he was perceiving without entering that space and with perhaps impaired vision due to the missing specs. Nothing in it suggested he was unjustified in believing there could be a problem. Making a call to security was one way of dealing with it - and for doing that he was not criticized.
Those absent glasses appear to bother you. Do you believe he actually had them with him and failed to use them?
The amount of vitriol is remarkable. Equally, the attempts to malign a great institution like Smith seems OTT, but I remember such remarkable beings like Milo Yiannopoulos who went after UC-Berkeley. I guess I understand why it’s important for some to make such a big deal about this. Most of all, it helps Ms. Shaw increase her $300k and growing stash from GoFundMe.
Nothing is new under the sun. While I am not the oldest or most frequent posting CC member, I do believe that some of the posters on this thread have set World, Olympic, and/or CC records for the most number of posts banned and the most number of wacky emojis evincing complete disbelief in what the poster claims. Indeed, some of these are wind-aided, if you know what I mean.
That seems to me that’s all that’s been accomplished. I hope that CC considers erasing this thread. There have been some great posts, but the awful posts and personal attacks, plus castigating a fine institution like Smith, make this thread useless.
“If posters are made to feel unwelcome here as well, that is something we should all care about.
What is accomplished by driving people away? Hoping posters go back to their shell and don’t engage in any future discussions with anyone? Doesn’t sound like a recipe for progress to me.”
Roycroftmom’s words from a prior thread (above) have proven prescient as the tone of this thread regrettably devolved occasionally into implied accusations of sexism, misogyny and name calling.
Thankfully, however I believe that the vast majority of those who posted were sincere in their desire to progress the discussion and open to one another’s perspectives.
My views definitely evolved based on your collective comments. Prior to this thread I had relied almost entirely on the NYT piece to form my opinion (never a good thing). The opinions and perspectives of several posters provided an insight I had lacked previously while the obvious bias of some others caused me to look in the mirror and be introspective.
(I found out the hard way last night that the 2 hour delay also applies to edits. So hopefully I get this right the first time! )
@Catcherinthetoast , your post gives me hope and I hope this discussion will re-center and once again become civil and productive.
As mentioned in my last post, I’ve appreciated the insight from those sincerely sharing their perspectives. It made me realize how I initially perceived much of this discussion through the lens of my own experiences. As others shared their thoughts and concentrated on different aspects of the report and discussion, it became obvious to me that I should strive to understand how and why others perceptions may differ from my own, even when that is an uncomfortable undertaking. I do not always have to agree, but I can try to understand and respect those perspectives. The posters in this forum most likely have different histories, whether that relates to race (Black POC and other POC), socioeconomic status, gender, professional and other life experiences that influence our individual sensitivities and perspectives in interpreting the events in the Smith report. And that can be a wonderful thing leading to personal growth or it can lead us off that cliff if we can’t be respectful of those differences. I try to remind myself that showing respect and understanding does not mean I have to agree. And that is okay.
One major point I wished to make in my previous post (that I failed to state and could not edit) was to gently suggest we move past the report that relates to an event that occurred a few years ago and address where Smith is today. That is why I linked to the Smith website and specifically highlighted their policy on racial justice. I am not trying to sweep that event under the rug or downplay it in any way and hope it does not read that way. I am interested in what has been done to prevent it happening again.
A poster PM me asking if Smith had updated the staff job descriptions and pay scale, if additional responsibilities were expected. My answer was that I did not know and asked if that person did. I did not receive an answer. But I can try to respect that that point is important to that person without it taking focus off the other points I find more important. I personally would be interested in any discussion of Smith’s current policies as that could be beneficial to students and parents considering Smith. That can certainly include policies for faculty and staff as they play a big role in the Smith community and student experience.
Of course, others may not feel the same way and want to keep the current discussion going. Either way, I hope we can make progress.
Is everyone ready to discuss Amherst and Lacrosse?(Boston Globe this morning). I’m sure the situation will prove to be much clearer.
And what about Brown and how some women feel unprotected there?
It is as though college campuses are representative of all that ails the world right now.
“I suggest we move past the report that relates to an event that occurred a few years ago and address where Smith is today.” Totally agree that Hebegebe asked a forward looking question and we (I) have largely focused on the past.
DramaMama2021 I agree and bear responsibility for that digression. As you suggested I thought about the practical realities Smith (and society as a whole) currently face in achieving the basic tenets of their policy and creating an inclusive community.
On its surface the following Smith “goal” seems self evident and readily achievable;
Because we believe in the humanity, worth and potential of every member of our community, we must align our systems, actions, pedagogies and traditions to uphold our belief.
It is an optimistic statement rooted in mutual respect, trust and equality.
But when juxtaposed against some of the distrust and fear of humanity expressed in this thread I am less optimistic. I appreciate Roycroftmom’s candor and willingness to express vulnerability when she says;
While clearly that comment doesn’t suggest any racial biases or bigotry it does express a certain universal embedded cynicism in all people. I respect that such a view can be formed by painful personal experience and don’t mean to understate or diminish it in anyway.
Personally, however I take from this thread the lesson that my default position should (and will continue to be) to assume the best in people. While risky at times, presupposing others to wish me harm would require me to live in a society I wouldn’t want to be a part of.
I suspect Smith will be able to continue to make strides forward (and is already a great place) but fear for our broader society in such a polarized world.
Seems to me that this whole situation could have been easily defused if the parties involved had tried to communicate, rather than make assumptions. I will say, as one of the few blue collar posters on this site, I am disgusted by how long standing employees at the school were treated. This is why unions were formed, way back when.
None of the employees lost their jobs or were otherwise disciplined for what happened to the student.
Smith protected the identity of the janitor who made the call, did not release the names of any of the employees, and corrected the false reports (not by the College) that the cafeteria worker had made the call.
Smith did not accuse any of its employees of intentional racism and commissioned an investigation and report that found insufficient evidence of any violation of the Smith’s affirmative action policy.
Smith apologized to the employees involved for difficulties they had endured as a result of the incident.
Regarding the social media posts of the student, According to Smith, “When the college was notified that individual employees were named on social media posts, the college took prompt and successful action to have those posts taken down and the names removed.” https://www.smith.edu/news/campus-police-call
How would you react if Smith apologized privately to Ms Kanoute and publicly to Jackie Blair and Mr. Patenaude (let’s leave the janitor out of this for now).
If the answer is “outraged”, well yes, that is why the staff is outraged.
Jackie Blair was effectively unemployable after being laid off due to being publicly called a racist. The private apology did not help her.
Nobody may have lost their jobs but I am still concerned for the workers involved, ( including a long term , probably loyal employee who just may have felt he
was responsible for the building at the time ). They have been labeled, had threats sent their way, had health issues. Could the janitor , should the janitor have just approached ? In hindsight, that certainly would have avoided this whole thing but he was not obligated to do so.
My oldest 6’6" white kid worked as a janitor and facilities guy (cutting grass , cleaning the outside buildings including the toilets , etc) as a teenager and in early college in the summer as an engineering student . His supervisor was a long term employee ( who was an African American who had hearing and speech issues). This man takes his responsibility for the building very seriously and with pride. He may very well have either approached someone he runs across unexpectedly or ask security to take a look. What do you see as the problem if someone feels they want to get another opinion about someone in a building or on the grounds they were not
expecting? Even years later when the janitor runs into my husband, (who works in the main building), he always asks how our son is doing. He signs something to the effect of how’s the big guy doing. It has meant a lot to know that my kid is still thought of fondly years later.
I obviously have a soft spot for janitors and working class people and I admit it. My dad was a steel worker and union guy . Put in his time at the mill and then came home to his family and to read voraciously!
We don’t know what, if any, discipline Ms. Kanoute was given by Smith because that is something that has remained private. I don’t support racial profiling at all but after reading all the info, still not sure that was really involved here. I wish her all the best but am concerned this will follow her for a long time.
I think there is a subtle undercurrent with some here that if you don’t support Ms. Kanoute fully, you may be an alt right type of person. For me at least, that is absolutely not the case. No way, no how .
I’m just sad this all happened and hope Ms. Kanoute feels more safe and included in her adult life going forward. I have no frame of reference for being a POC in America . I hope we can all work together better to figure this out but there is probably going to be a long, hard ahead.
Anyone who believes Smith acted well in this matter should read the account in the New York Times.
President McCartney had been feeling the heat from activist students on account of a couple of previous microblunders on the racial front. She was determined not to let that happen to her again. Accordingly, when Ms Kanoute made her accusations on social media and the matter blew up on campus she immediately called to offer “profuse apologies” and issued a pulbic statement: “This painful incident reminds us of the ongoing legacy of racism and bias, in which people of color are targeted while simply going about the business of their ordinary lives.” She didn’t speak at all to any of the employees; she put the janitor who made the call on paid leave; and she commissioned an independent investigation. There can be little doubt that she had made up her mind as to what its findings would be or should be, and she was certainly at no pains to show anything like an open mind about what might have actually occurred.
The employees were left to twist in the wind during the three months of that investigation. It might have taken the heat off McCarney, but it put it on all of them. With respect to Jackie Blair, the employee who was not even present in the building the day of the incident, when that information became known McCartney called her to apologize, but it was a private call which did her no good with her tormentors. Smith College put out a statement that, while “noting [she] had not placed the phone call did not absolve her of broader responsibility.” Smith further attempted to pressure her to go into mediation with Ms Kanoute, just as if the entirely innocent employee had anything to attone for. Ms Blair was incrdulous at this - she was the one who had been called a racist on social media, had notes placed in her mailbox and taped to her car window, and teleophone calls at home telling her she “should be ashamed of herself.” This continued to follow her when she returned to work and and even when she applied for a job outside the school and was reminded of it by her potential employer. She was permanently damaged goods. As she said plaintively at the end of the Times piece, “What do I do? When does the racist label go away?”
McCarthy’s prejudgment of these employees didn’t go away even after the report found no evidence of it. According to the Times she offered no public apology at that time. Her response was to order mandatory anti-racist training for all employees because, as she said, “it is impossible to rule out the role of implicit racial bias.” In some nebulous way all the staff were now held to be guilty of what no one connected to the incident was. Franz Kafka, call your office.
Not all the blame in this goes to President McCartney. The individuals writing these hateful and erroneous notes to these working class employees were undoubtedly Smith students, many if not most of whom must be children of rich and influential parents and few of whom have ever mopped a floor or woked on a food line. They were living in their own privileged bubble at Smith and prepared to accept the very worst allegations about the people who serve them and clean up for them. As Mr Patenaude, the janitor who left the building before the incident occurred, said after submitting to an anti-racism session in which he was called upon to acknowledge his white privilege, “I don’t know if I believe in white privilege. I believe in money privilege.”
You have always seemed like a smart and reasonable poster, so I’ll respond to your version of this argument, which has been relied upon heavily by the “Smith screwed up” side here.
Where you worked is like where I work. There are both safety and corporate security concerns. You have to have a badge to get in and out, and even though the guys at the desk know me as a senior officer at the company, if I forget my badge we go through a process. We do that because (1) we are HQ in a busy and urban area and they can’t remember everyone’s face and (2) there are serious trade secrets at risk and we would for sure be a target for corporate espionage.
Smith College is a campus with strangers coming and going all the time. Visitors, students, parents, etc. When my D was there … living there … she and her friends were found to be in restricted areas, closed off areas, areas that can only be used during certain times, etc. etc. Innocent stuff that happens every day. They were told so or escorted away by staff, maintenance people, contractors, coaches, professors you name it. A few times while she was on the phone with us, so we heard how it was playing out. It was always a chuckle and a “no big deal” or a “ok, we’re leaving.” That’s it. No police. Each time would have been absurd.
Context. It’s super important. The “danger” argument is, IMO, incredibly disingenuous. I’m sorry. Maintenance people interact with students/visitors constantly. “Hello there. Nice day today!” “Excuse me, can you tell me where Ford Hall might be?” “Sir! Sir! Are we allowed to park here?” or the other way.
“Sir. Sir! You can’t park there.” “Sir, the library is closing.” “Ma’am, you can’t go in there. It’s only for staff.” On and on and on. This is how people interact at Smith. I know first hand.
All of the foregoing represents interaction with “strangers”. There is inherent risk getting out of bed everyday. But as careers go, I’d say being a janitor at Smith College, albeit on the rough streets of Northampton, MA, is on the safer end of the spectrum. The danger argument is bunk, unless, UNLESS …
wait for it, there was something “suspicious” or “out of place” that represented risk based on what Mr. Magoo the Janitor was able to see in light of the apparent fact that it was too risky to approach a little bit. Had he taken this [sarcasm warning] “great risk” to get a little closer, he would have seen he was really looking at a 5’ nothing 95lb young woman eating lunch in the wrong place.
Seriously. I’m a “look at it from multiple perspectives” kind of person, and Lord knows I’ve never been accused of being politically correct. But I just can’t see this from a policy standpoint. That ain’t it. The guy acted unreasonably. Policies have to be applied by human beings. Some are black and white. No badge, no entry and we go to alternative security process. Period. This isn’t that kind of policy, no matter how hard we try to make it one. This “call the cops” policy, by virtue of the very words cited, requires discretion.
Mr. Magoo the janitor? Wow. So
offensive If I remember, you resurrected this thread after it was not active for months? Please correct me if I’m not remembering that correctly.
Of course most exchanges are clear cut. I’ve had many exchanges like that on college campuses. I was going through checkpoints or areas that were not available to everyone. You seem to want to keep going there about who should be approached . Have at it.
And my 6’6" and 6’5" sons can have the police called on them but not a 5’ woman? They are automatically a threat to you? Please remind me to tell them to not go out of their homes. Thanks for the warning .
You keep saying she did nothing wrong. Well, she appeared to be the only one in a closed building at 1:45. No one left in the dining room, no one supposed to be in the rest of the building. I think, but of course don’t know, that if she’d been sitting in the dining room and they were ready to close up someone would have said, “Okay, time to clear this building.”
She claimed in her statement that two people were walking back and forth in the foyer, but she never made herself known, never said something like “oh sorry, are you trying to close up? Do you need my dirty dishes?” I don’t believe she really did hear two people in the foyer as everyone else claims there was only one, and she also claimed she was on her computer and phone and the janitor said all he could see were legs bent up on the couch with feet/shoes on the couch. Remember, he couldn’t tell it was a 5’2" woman, he thought it was a man because he couldn’t see the whole person. Would it have been okay to call for help if it really was a man, even a 5’2" one?
So, a lone 60+ year old (I did read his age in one of the articles, I think Higher Education) hard of hearing and bad sight janitor, thinking he was alone in the whole building and that someone was in a room who shouldn’t have been there had a choice: 1) call for help or 2) confront this unknown person. He picked choice 1. If the school doesn’t want to give a choice, don’t give it. Write the rules as “if you see something suspicious, make sure you investigate it first and make sure it isn’t a student, and only then call security.”
Smith has not changed this rule to make it more clear. The choice are still there, on the books, for the staff to choose. The security office says that 90% of the time the suspicious situation turns out okay. and just students, as you @cquin85 say, in the wrong place and they move on. They don’t take offense that they were asked to clear out by the security officers, they laugh it off and say “oops, didn’t know it was that late” or “sorry, just taking a short cut.” That’s exactly what happened here, except Ms K took offense and then posted about it on social media with a few wrong facts of her own. Those facts, posting the wrong officer and claiming that it was the cafeteria worker who called in the complain, and she wants everyone to forgive her mistakes but is unwilling to consider that the janitor was actually concerned that someone who shouldn’t have been in the building needed some help. She claims no responsibility for hurting the misnamed officer or the cafeteria worker.
I’ve thought it strange though this whole thing that the security guard recognized Ms. K and said he’d seen her around campus ‘over the years’ but she didn’t recognize him or even his uniform as being campus security and not the local police. She thought he was armed, but she couldn’t see a gun (cops and security wear their weapons in plain view).
And what did Ms. K want to accomplish with her posting? Did she want a policy changed? Did she want the employees fired? If she wanted real change, it didn’t work. The policies are still the same.
)