Does Smith College have a toxic atmosphere towards staff employees?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Smith College
282

Smith College’s apology to the student was appropriate and necessary. She had done nothing wrong and the responding officer found nothing suspicious. It blows my mind that anyone would object to this.

After the incident, Smith College was trying to protect the privacy of their employees by keeping their names off of social media and out of the press, and was successful in having posts taken down and names of employees removed. Yet you insist that rather than continue to keep their identities private, Smith should have publicly apologized to the cafeteria worker, and the other janitor? This makes no sense.

Ever hear of the Streisand effect? Publicly apologizing would have further violated the employees’ privacy, and would have brought them even more unwanted attention. And the same critics would be castigating Smith for further doxing these employees.

This brings to mind another issue that I have been wondering about throughout this conversation:

  • The college worked to get rid of the personal information as soon as they became aware, and was successful in so doing.
  • The student apologized and removed the personal information from her page within a matter of days or a few weeks at the most,
  • The college never publicly identified the employees, and as far as I can tell the still have not publicly identified the employees.

So how many people learned of the employees’ involvement from this student’s Facebook page? Some, I’m sure, but the main reason these employees are in the public eye is because the culture-war-mongers (and/or the employees themselves) have endlessly publicized the employees’ situation. It generates clicks and gets donations.

It is purposeful manipulation of the Streisand effect. ‘These poor employees, Mr. X, and Mrs. Y, have had their lives ruined because they were called racists by this horrible student. Let us repeat their names again and again, so everyone will always know forever that they have been called racists, so we can capitalize on that, and blame the student and Smith.’ At some point don’t those martyring the employees have some responsibility for the dissemination of this information well beyond the reach of this student’s Facebook page? Or are they absolved from spreading the information everywhere because this student made a mistake, which she corrected and for which she apologized?

Go back and look how many times you and others have named these employees in this thread alone. It is a reasonable possibility that more people have become aware of the employees’ identities from posts here than from this student’s Facebook page.

And how about the repeated attacks on this kid? Search the right-leaning blogosphere and discussion groups and you will find many nasty, inhumane, and demonstrably false attacks on this student. It is horrific. And the hatred and nastiness isn’t just about the supposed doxing, it is mostly about how she dared complain when wrongfully had the cops on her. How dare she.

Or if you don’t want to enter that online cesspool, just look at the attacks and insults directed at her in this thread one, including the ridiculous and insulting attempts to blame the initial incident on her, the hyperbole about the damage. done, and the outrageous claims that she should just shake it off and that this was just a pleasant interaction. What about all of the false and misleading information about this event (small kids, heightened security, restricted area, etc) and the vitriol posters have put out there about this kid, not to mention the apparent vendetta you and other posters seem to have against Smith and the president? For example, how about your (recently rescinded) demand that she should be expelled, and your outrage that the president apologized, and your mocking tone about the whole event. Sure you some of it back. But, hey, so did she. Plus, even now you still recoil at the idea of this student who was wrongfully treated like a criminal received an apology.

Or look no further than the title of this thread: Does Smith College have a toxic atmosphere towards staff employees? Really? That’s an awful lot like asking “Does X beat his wife?” The damage is done by way the question itself is framed, no matter the answer. It is at best irresponsible when combined with your repeated attacks on the student, the college, and its president.

But what is your responsibility here?

  • Are you going to publicly apologize to the student, the college, and its president for all the vitriol, hyperbole, and misinformation you’ve put out there?
  • Will you contact all the parents and students of potential Smith applicants who have read your posts where you implored them to send their children elsewhere?
  • Should CC issue a public apology because you and others have gone too far?
  • Will you hold yourself to the same standard you foist on a black student who had just been treated like a criminal in a place that was supposed to be her home? What’s your excuse?

At least twice now you have written this, and both times your wording creates the false impression that the employee was “laid off due to being publicly called a racist.” This isn’t what happened. Surely this is just an innocent mistake on your part. Right?

Regardless, how about we correct the record. This employee was not “laid off due to being publicly called a racist.” Can you acknowledge this? Any suggestions what you should do about the readers who have already been mislead?

@sevmom, while I understand your sympathy for the employees, I was specifically asking about what Smith did could have done differently and your response mentioned nothing Smith could have done differently. So I’ll leave it at that.

@marlowe1. Much of what you have written is inaccurate and exaggerated, but it is discussed above so I’ll not through it again, other than to note that you got the name of the wrong. Ironic given your vitriol toward the student for doing the same thing.

2 Likes
283

You took offense to Mr. Magoo? It was one of my favorite cartoons. And I’m blind as a bat w/o my distance glasses. Can’t see the broad side of a barn. Just a little levity.

The rest of your post, where you seem to support my position and then curiously
bring up your large sons, just confused me. I don’t think you understand what I’m getting at, and I certainly don’t get whatever it is you meant to say.

That’s a good place for us to stop. Especially seeing as how you don’t like Magoo. :v:

3 Likes
284

Irony ought to have some point to it, MT. Yes, Jackie Blair was the falsely accused cafeteria worker and not the worker who was not even present the day of the event. Careless of me, but how exactly does that change anything? Oh, yes, you think it is linked to the vitriol you say I heaped on Ms. Kanoute. That is more than careless on your part. I have said nothing really critical of her much less vitriolic - unless you count, as you evidently do, my speculation that she may have had a personal vulnerability or temperament that could have led her to over-react. I said this just after I said that I cut her lots of slack because of the historical context. And I will add that the ideological climate of the times probably helped to light the fuse that caused the big explosion. I don’t blame her for that.

No, I have been far more critical of the President and those who mobbed the employees than of her. I did not even name her in early posts. I only started doing that when those on this thread sympathetic to her began using her name regularly and even posted a picture of her. Nevertheless, for you this is vitriol and casts me into some right-wing hell-hole where you consign all who depart from a purified narrative of noble outrage. That’s the nature of the debate nowadays. It is just another petty instance of the two solitudes that afflict the greater world beyond these kerfuffles on cc.

In my previous post I attempted to answer the question you asked as to what Smith did wrong. I assumed that was a serious question, and I attempted to answer it seriously. I understand well enough that you don’t draw the conclusions from the facts that I do, and I reckon that’s why you call it “inaccurate and exaggerated,” but the facts recited (other than the misnaming the cafeteria worker) were drawn from the piece in the New York Times. Perhaps the problem you have is with the Times, not me. You don’t in any event seem very interested in those particular facts, which don’t fit your narrative.

1 Like
285

Perhaps you might revise this?

Excellent post.

In addition, I had previously mentioned that it looks like this thread is creating a new standard for assessing dangerous situations at US higher learning institutions:

However, in light of some of the remarkable attempts to justify calling in the campus cops that have been developed in this thread since the proposed rule was first enunciated, can I suggest the following restatement of this touchstone of danger? :

5’0" - 6’6" All Gender (but Non-Sexist) Beautiful/Attractive But Potentially Stoned and/or Lethal (either by arms or martial arts) Navy Seal Rule.

Perhaps this rule can be further fine-tuned as more contortions are proposed to justify the Smith College employee actions?

Meanwhile, from their respective GoFundMe pages as of the time of this post, Mark Patenaude has made $36,605, Jodi Shaw has made $312,184, and Jackie Blair has made $15,940. And that’s just from GoFundMe.

I couldn’t find a similar page for Oumou Kanoute.

4 Likes
286

@mtmind, your latest post deserves a response, but due to slow mode, it will have to wait a bit.

In post 257, I asked if people would be willing to discuss a hypothetical, but nobody did. Since people didn’t want to answer that, I will present a simpler scenario:

Those of you who believe the janitor to be guilty of racism should be able to respond by filling in the blank. If you cannot, I think that itself is revealing.

287

@mynameiswhatever , are you suggesting in your first comment above that I’m making an ethnic slur? Really? Is that what we’ve come to? --It is my custom to shorten the names of posters from time to time. It seems less stilted. Not all in this world is what offence-seekers think it is. Sometimes a cigar, etc. In any event OP can let me know if he wants me to cease and desist fooling around with his moniker. However, if you’re trying to tell me something substantive, myname, and I’m too dull to get it, you’re going to have to be a little less oblique.

What conclusion do you draw from the absence of a GoFundMe page for Ms Kanoute? Could it be that she has no need of augmenting the financial resources of herself or family? Mr Patenaude and Ms Blair, you must surely recognize, are in a different category of need. That’s sort of the point being made by those of us who have a concern about their treatment. Ms. Shaw has kicked her story of resisting racial training into an entirely different sphere; she has become a crusader. You don’t need to like that, but it’s a free country. No one in this thread is shedding tears for her. She can look after herself.

It’s not logically correct to liken the question in the title of this thread to, “When did you stop beating your wife?” That’s an old illustration of the rhetorical slight-of-hand known as begging the question. It’s a particularly egregious example in that the question being begged (whether you have in the past beaten your wife) is so flagrant and so evidently needs proof; yet it is simply assumed as a fact inside a purportedly gormless question about timing. OP is not doing that. He believes he knows the answer to the question, but he is not assuming it and is in fact inviting a discussion. He has even altered his thinking a bit as the discussion has proceeded. The point is it’s a perfectly straightforward question without rhetorical tricks. Some don’t like the question and don’t want to discuss it. But that’s another matter, which this thread has largely been taken up with.

1 Like
288

I don’t know (and no one knows) if this was a case of “intentional racism”. The caller would never admit it if it was and he may not even be aware of subconscious biases such that this was unintentional racism.

Your preface however, in my opinion is flawed in evaluating the existence of institutional racism or bias on the part of those making the calls to the police.

Of course the vast majority of those “suspicious” but innocent people were white. At Smith the vast majority of people are white. Only 6.53% of the Smith community is black.

“The enrolled student population at Smith College is 50.9% White, 11.2% Hispanic or Latino, 9.12% Asian, 6.53% Black or African American , 4.6% Two or More Races, 0.104% American Indian or Alaska Native, and 0.0691% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders.”

If only 6-7% of those suspicious but innocent people were black that would serve to prove a degree equitability in terms of callers color blindness. I don’t believe that to be the case.

As an example if you think of traffic stops “driving while black” is a proven phenomenon. The vast majority of those stopped are in fact white, and black people pulled over are ticketed typically at the same percentages as whites who are pulled over. Unfortunately black people tend to be pulled over at a rate multiple times their population representation.

So my response to your theoretical would be to address the specifics of what we know. This student had the police called because she was sleeping while black in the early afternoon in a closed space at a school were black students represent a small minority. “It seemed weird” as the caller said.

I don’t know that the racial element was what triggered the call but I suspect sleeping while white probably would have elicited a second look before calling the police and felt less weird.

3 Likes
289

Thank you for a thoughtful post. I have comments about a few parts of this:

My key point here is they were white and therefore not subject to institutional racism, and yet 90% of the time calls were made despite nobody doing anything wrong. The “vast majority” being white indicates that the statistics are not skewed due a large number of calls happening to minority races.

Next, let’s go to this:

It turns out that both whites and blacks are overrepresented in the call logs:

So, from the evidence we have, there does not seem to be any more bias against black “suspicious persons” vs white “suspicious persons”.

290

Again Hebegbe I appreciate you advancing the conversation.

I think this report actually highlights the issue of I understand it correctly. Only 47 of 105 involved a racial description. Per the specific incident we have been discussing the caller never mentioned race on the call (although he acknowledged that was the only descriptor he observed). So we don’t know what percent of the people reported were black only the 45% on which race was reported. I suspect in today’s world people don’t want to be labeled Karen’s so they would never provide a racial description.

Second and most conspicuously 15% of calls were made about black people when they are less then 7% of students. Caucasian can easily be confused and reported without recrimination whole black is not ambiguous and reporting it erroneously can come with consequences.

I am not suggesting black students were necessarily reported to the police based upon racial animus at more then a 2-1 ratio be population but it clearly demonstrates an implicit bias of fear.

291

Really? Because your post suggests otherwise. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think my post “deserves” a response nor is a response expected, and there is no need for you to try a create the impression that I deserve a response while at the same time going off in entirely different direction.

The rules/moderators make it clear that not every post deserves a response, nor is one required. For instance, and with no intended offense, in my opinion your previous hypothetical didn’t warrant a response, and your new hypothetical doesn’t either. But since you view it as so pressing, perhaps it will advance the conversation if I explain why I don’t feel like it warranted a response the first time, and I still don’t.

I don’t believe your hypotheticals warrant a response because IMO they are rhetorical artifices meant to frame the conversation in a manner which doesn’t accurately reflect the reality of the situation. IMO, one cannot honestly and accurately discuss what happened to this student without understanding that these things happen black people a heck of a lot more than they happen to white people, and the fear and indignity suffered by black people in these situations is often of a different degree and nature. Yet your hypothetical assumes away this reality by misapplying the extremely limited call center data (see @catcher’s response for more on this) to assume a situation where there is no reason to believe this is the case, and I don’t think it advances the conversation to entertain rhetorical artifices that assume away the real world.

By maybe I have you wrong and you can clarify . . .

  • Do you really believe that, generally, these sorts of things don’t happen to black people any more than they happen to white people?
  • Do you really believe that, generally, black people have no more reason to feel harmed and violated by these types of situations the do white people?
  • If you don’t believe these things, then why are you proposing a hypothetical where these things are ignored and/or minimized?

Likewise, your hypothetical misconstrues reality by forcing the conversation into an oversimplified, binary choice, which in my opinion accomplishes little more than distraction:

There it is in the first sentence, the intricacies of the human experience and the complex, layered nature of human decision-making are reduced to a single, overriding binary choice: Is the janitor “guilty of racism” or is the janitor not "guilty of racism.” Never mind that:

  • The janitor is not on trial for “racism.”
  • As the responding officer determined, the student was doing nothing suspicious, whether or not the janitor is “guilty of racism.”
  • The harm, fear, and indignity suffered by the student are real, whether or not the janitor is “guilty of racism.”
  • This sort of thing happens way too often to black people, whether or not the janitor is “guilty of racism.”

I think it worth considering why you and others keep forcing this false “racism” dichotomy.

I could be wrong, but my work-in-progress theory is that, whether intentional or not (this may vary), by hinging the entire conversation on this oversimplified binary choice, commentators create an artificial framework which will almost always allow them to dismiss and/or continue to ignore the all-too-common harms suffered by this student and others who suffer similar indignities. In other words, they demand a trial on the “racism” of the individual so they can ignore the racism in society as a whole. It is upside-down world once again.

But, in reality, most people don’t consider themselves to be explicit “racists,” nor do they view their own actions as having even an implicit racial element. Whatever decisions people make, they like to think that those decisions couldn’t possibly be based even in part on race because they would never, ever judge people based on physical appearance. (See @roycroftmom’s posts for an articulate expression of this viewpoint.)

So unless an actor is overt and explicit and perhaps wearing a pointy sheet, it is nearly impossible to prove anyone is “guilty of racism” on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis, because evidence of the “intent” element will almost always be absent. @marlowe1 i made this point earlier in the thread by setting out the following version of the “Racist-or-Not-Racist” false dichotomy:

Unfortunately, that is a fairly accurate depiction of the proof required when the conversation turns to whether the janitor is “guilty of racism." But while @marlow may not see it, surely you and others must realize that, by framing the debate as a trial hinging the false “Racist-or-Not-Racist” dichotomy, it becomes impossible to ever even begin to address the type of harm suffered here.

That’s why I won’t play along.

Turning to the second sentence, what does my refusal to play along with your hypothetical reveal about me?

And what do your repeated attempts to frame the conversation in this manner say about you?

My guess is that in today’s climate people would be much less likely to provide a racial description when the person it black.

It would be fascinating to know the percentage of calls to authorities where race isn’t mentioned but ultimately involve a black person, where the caller hems and haws and making vague statements about how something just didn’t look right, or something seemed out of place.

I mean, let’s face it, an honest and accurate report for the midday call would have gone something like this: “I’m calling to report a suspicious person on a sofa in a room across from the dining hall. All I can tell you about the person is that they are black. It seems out of place.”

3 Likes
292

When you say, MT, that your guess is that “in today’s climate people would be much less likely to provide a racial description when the person is black,” you are undoubtedly correct. The fact that the janitor in our case did provide that description is one indication to me he wasn’t a racist. That he later tried to deny he had noticed the student’s race tells us, however, that he figured out the lay of the land rather quickly: no one was going to believe him.

The simple reality at today’s Smith College requires an equally simple precept: Never, janitors and kitchen workers, place a call to security if the individual in question is black. And there’s a corollary to that precept: When the race cannot be known with certainty, don’t place a call at all. In such a case you are flipping a coin. If the person turns out to be white everyone will be fine with it. If the person turns out to be black, no one will be fine with you ever again.

Why would anyone run that risk? Any poor dumb cluck who doesn’t get the message and makes the call could find himself on the business end of social media mobs, hate calls, notes under the windshield, the ruination of reputation and career. That stuff isn’t being done because of nebulous concepts such as structural racism under which the guilt of the individual actors is left open or judged irrelevant. Reports don’t matter either. With respect to the four employees in our case the mob had reached the conclusion that racism lurked in the hearts of all, and it acted accordingly. It can hardly be subtler or kinder to future offenders. Thus, my advice is this: At Smith College keep it simple: Place no calls.

We may have reached consensus here.

1 Like
293

That is a strawman argument. Nobody said never place a call. Nobody says the guilt of the individual actor is irrelevant.

3 Likes
294

He actually did not provide any racial description. This is the call transcript…

image
image1545×1117 225 KB

Per your comment should the absence of the description indicate he was I racist? Personally I don’t think so but you suggest the correlation.

She just looked “out of place”

2 Likes
295

As @Catcherinthetoast pointed out, you’ve got the entire scenario upside down, and your implication cuts in the opposite direction you intended. Might I again suggest you read the report?

As for the rest, your hyperbolic predictions lack a sound factual basis. As @splash1 wrote, yours is a strawman argument. More than that, the issues you raise could potentially be addressed through training and education aimed at creating a community where employees better understand whether or not a situation is actually “suspicious” so that black students aren’t assumed to be suspicious or criminal when they are doing nothing wrong.

But you derisively reject any such education and training as "mandatory DiAngelo-inflected anti-racism training for all of them,” as if teaching those in the community to coexist in an a diverse and inclusive environment is a bad thing.

1 Like
296

The only consensus that can be reached from a statement like this is that it is dead wrong. YouTube is REPLETE with videos where PoCs are threatened with cops being called for things like selling water in San Francisco as a child to raise money for tickets to Disneyland, BBQing in Oakland, swimming in your apartment complex’s swimming pool, entering your apartment complex, etc etc etc.

Why, oh why, would cops be called for ANY of these? I’m not even going to touch the issue of what might happen if police actually come, which is actually the most serious aspect of all of this.

The most optimistic I can get is Will Smith’s statement: “Racism Is not getting worse, it’s getting filmed”.

Was it “racism” in this case? I don’t know. Was it TOTALLY unnecessary to have campus cops called for this, much like many of the other documented cases on YouTube etc? Absolutely.

2 Likes
297

Good point. To clarify, she was not laid off due to Smith believing she was racist. She was laid off because the campus was shut down due to Covid and didn’t need the labor. She was unable to get another job due in part to the publicity of Ms Kanoute calling her a racist.

That is what I meant in my head, but I can see that my previous wording could be confusing.

@mynameiswhatever , I have no problem with Jackie Smith and Mr Patenaude getting some money from GoFundMe. They didn’t ask for either the emotional or financial distress, so nothing wrong with them trying to fix those issues. I do think that Jodi Shaw is being an opportunist for the amount of money she has raised, and is no longer a sympathetic figure.

Well, I think the motive for his actions are pretty central to this. If Ms Kanoute thought that the call was just an innocent misunderstanding, then it would not have led to this situation where it eventually became a feature story in the NY Times.

I mean, let’s take a look at EconPop’s reaction from an earlier post:

He was so convinced of the janitor’s guilt that he was willing to overlook all the collateral damage.

And even after it was pointed out that this type of mistake of calling the police on innocent parties happens all the time, there was no reflection that perhaps the janitor’s call was just a boneheaded mistake rather than an intent to harm.

I strongly do believe bad things happen more often to Black people. I am also sympathetic to how Ms Kanoute reacted (prior to doxing). The reason for this of course is the systemic history of discrimination. Given this history of discrimination, it’s not a surprise if someone believes it is happening to them.

But someone feeling that discrimination happened to them doesn’t automatically make them correct, especially given that most calls to police are unfounded. For it to be publicly called racism, you need evidence, and the investigative team looked long and hard for it, and didn’t find any.

If someone’s behavior was intended to be race-neutral but pain is still felt, then what do we do? Perhaps the best answer is the training, which I think can be useful if done right. To me that means everyone has to take it, not just the staff. It also means it has to be done in a way that makes the staff into partners for the solution and not the problem to be fixed.

3 Likes
298

@Catcherinthetoast , you’re quite right that the janitor didn’t mention race when he made the call. On subsequent questioning he mentioned it. If he hadn’t we wouldn’t be parsing the question of whether that was the determinative factor in his making the call.

@mtmind , you’re a hard one to figure out. You’ve been saying repeatedly that you’re not interested in the janitor’s motivation. Most recently, in good po-mo-speak you are deploring those of us who are reducing “the intricacies of the human experience and the complex, layered nature of human decision-making … to a single, overriding binary choice: Is the janitor ‘guilty of racism’ or is the janitor not ‘guilty of racism’.” And you tell us that it is not only impossible to answer that question but that even asking it something we ought to question ourselves about - presumably because that reveals our “racism” in some sense of that word: “I think it is worth considering why you and others keep forcing this false ‘racism’ dichotomy.” If this means anything it must mean that racism isn’t really a thing for you but only a meta-thing; thus the word itself must be put in scare-quotes. None of us is guilty, all of us are guilty. Thus you say that racism in the heart of the janitor is unknowable, and you’re not at all interested in the effects of the very real charges made against all four of these employees as detailed in the NYTimes report. You’re not really interested in the conclusion reached by the independent investigators, who found that “more probably than not” racism had nothing to do with the janitor’s decision. You either don’t accept that conclusion or believe it to be irrelevant in light of your “core issue” - the fact that a campus cop was called and the individual in question was black. Yet now, confusingly, you adopt @splash1 's erroneous statement that “nobody says the guilt of of the individual actor is irrelevant.” That’s the very thing you have been saying throughout this discussion. Perhaps you would like to say something more, but the evidence isn’t there for it. Thus I am hardly setting up a straw man to say that the episode illustrates the inadvisability of calling security in any such situation in future. The mob doesn’t go in for advanced po-mo readings in the field of racism studies.

I must turn to your belief in anti-racism training. You are a big believer in it, the centerpiece of which is the concept of “white privilege.” The applicability and effect of that concept on these poorly paid working class whites is worth pondering. Mr. Patenaude didn’t buy it; he said it “left workers cynical.” Several profs were concerned about the “loss of loyalty” of the workers. A Professor Lendler “said in an interview that such training for working-class employees risks becoming a kind of psychological bullying” and that “unless it relates to conditions of employment, it’s none of your business what I was like growing up or what I should be thinking of.” The workers “felt scapegoated.” A finding in the report quoted in the Times piece says that “Ms Kanoute could not point to anything that supported the claim she made on Facebook of a yearlong ‘pattern of discrimination’”. Most telling of all is this: “It is safe to say that race is discussed much more than class at Smith. It’s a feature of elite academic institutions that faculty and students don’t recognize what it means to be elite.”

I can’t help noticing that the pushback against both the race-obsessed narrative of what happened at Smith and the anti-racist training deemed necessary in consequence is coming largely from those with working class roots. It must be easier for elite students to own up to a privilege they actually have, especially inasmuch as doing so is painless, fashionable, and lets you hold on to your privilege. If you don’t have any of this you must feel you’re collateral damage to the moral preening of your betters.

1 Like
299

Distraction and misdirection are obviously two of the original (and developing) goals of this thread.

Another apparent goal.

The final two or three individuals continuing to defend the bigoted actions of the Event are not engaging in an honest and earnest discussion. They are simply using the continuing life of this thread to continue to peddle consistent insipidness.

Honestly the negative opinions that continue to be spouted do not deserve the immense dignity, clarity and thoughtfulness of your responses or of anyone else.

I am glad the mods allowed this thread to live on life support. Important things took place in this thread, whatever the original intention for its creation.

1 Like
301

I’ve seen the tactics employed here many times before in many places, online and in person. Everyone can view them every hour on cable television.

You and others can make requests for mods to police me. You may feel you can peddle your thinly-veiled observations with impunity here and for all I know you may be correct - maybe some of the mods don’t grasp what you’re doing, or maybe they agree with your views. You may feel you can then threaten me with calling the mod police on me, which you are actually doing now. You may feel emboldened to do so because I made an assessment of what’s going on in this thread and you may feel you have adequately covered your tracks.

Whatever. If the mods want to ignore the offensiveness of your comments and take you up on your offer to “check me out”, it won’t be the first time someone like you called the law on someone like me for not doing anything wrong.

3 Likes