And this is the crux of the problem. Apparently, the emotional damage to her is worth more than the lives of multiple working class people.
I mean, do you have any idea of how much contempt you seem to be showing to those who work quiet but honest jobs? And while your posts are the most extreme example, the lack of support from Smith people for these workers is notable.
Again, as far as we can tell, Jackie Blair’s only offense is that she spoke to the student. Mr. Patenaude’s offense seemed to be that he existed.
Smith students are supposed to be for social justice. Where is the social justice for Smith staff?
The janitor reported someone who was in an area that was closed off. Whether he should have reported that particular person or any other person in that area is open for debate, more on the grounds of good sense than because it was in itself an egregious thing for him to do (in fact, as Hebe keeps reminding us, it was college policy). So to make this into the race-panicked thing it has become you have to be convinced that it was the race of the individual that decided whether the janitor reported her. If that wasn’t the motivation (or even, as MT puts it, the basis for the janitor’s perception of out of placeness) then the event has no significance, especially in light of the courteous interaction of the avuncular campus cop and this young woman. Before lives are to be ruined we need more proof than this.
Cate, I can go a long way with you there, as I think all Americans can. For that reason I haven’t anywhere said anything critical about the response or even the subsequent actions of this young woman. If she was a student at Smith she was highly privileged and she was studying at one of the least racist institutions on this continent. Still, I cut her some slack for the historical reasons that you indicate. I don’t extend that same tolerance to the anonymous individuals who mobbed and tormented the four employees about whom these false allegations were made. Nor to the President, who offered no support of them, though she too knew better, and used the occasion to create a program of mass re-education predicated on the assumption that they were all racists. Understanding the sensitivities of a sincerely aggrieved young person is one thing; ignoring the facts in favor of punishing the innocent is quite another. As a lawyer you will appreciate that distinction.
For doxxing people, you are right, because that crosses a line. But here is what I have written about how she and the staff should be treated. Does this treatment of her come across as contempt to you?
… and used the occasion to create a program of mass re-education predicated on the assumption that they were all racists.
Isn’t that a little hyperbolic? A similar response would have occurred at many, many organizations. I can tell you categorically it would have happened at my company, and I don’t score us as a group as being racially hysterical.
Or are you saying that such actions can only be pursued when racial animus is proven with mathematical precision?
Any time you avoid the harm done to Ms Kanoute and you focus on the perceived harm to anyone other than Ms Kanoute caused by a result of the publicity of this event, you are showing contempt to Ms Kanoute.
Any time you (or anyone in this thread) focus on what Ms Kanoute might have done wrong while you simultaneously defend/applaud nearly every action of every non-black individual who did not come to her defense, you are showing contempt for Ms Kanoute.
Every single time anyone tries to bring up BLM or any other such organization as a defense/cudgel/smart-alec-remark in this thread, that person is showing contempt to Ms Kanoute.
Any time you recenter the discussion from the harm done to Ms Kanoute and toward the perceived/alleged harm done to anyone by the college during its respectable attempts to support Ms Kanoute, you show contempt for Ms Kanoute.
I don’t know what you mean by “mathematical precision” in this context. All I know is that the mandatory anti-racism training was instituted directly in response to this incident. And for training to be called by that name can only mean that there is a pre-existing condition of racism in the people who are required to submit to it. I pass over the many disputable and in my view objectionable tenets and practices that actually constitute this DiAngelo-inspired training. It would be torture. It’s interesting that, according to piece in the NYTimes, the faculty are generally choosing not to undergo such training though encouraged to do so. The poor working stiffs who serve the grub and clean the floors don’t have that choice.
This is a fine strategy to win this battle and lose the larger war on social justice. It will create far more enemies than converts. How is this not obvious?
Just for the record, how many ruined lives are acceptable? Apparently four is fine. How about ten?
What is obvious to me is that once again, instead of showing support to a teenaged student who was grievously harmed, you shift the focus elsewhere. It’s obvious you want to recenter this to be about, among other things, your wish to fight your “larger war on social justice”.
I wish you had as strong a desire to fight for justice for Ms Kanoute.
Might I remind members of the forum rules: “Our forum is expected to be a friendly and welcoming place, and one in which members can post without their motives, intelligence, or other personal characteristics being questioned by others."
and
“College Confidential forums exist to discuss college admission and other topics of interest. It is not a place for contentious debate. If you find yourself repeating talking points, it might be time to step away and do something else… If a thread starts to get heated, it might be closed or heavily moderated.”
"Greviously harmed? Actually, I don’t think anyone would consider this grevious harm, by the age of 18. Women put up with way, way more than you realize, apparently
I would like to recommend a book to the Smith community: Coming Apart by Charles Murray
And before you say I would never read a book by Charles Murray, hear me out.
Coming Apart is not about race at all. It’s about the immense social divide caused by class. In order to avoid any of the controversy caused by “The Bell Curve”, Coming Apart only looks at the differences among different groups of white people in America. It reveals just how disconnected the lives of working class whites (like Smith staff) are from that of wealthier whites (the majority of Smith students). They are often so different that the two groups can barely communicate with each other. This book also helps explain and predict the polarization in this country.
Please read it. It will help you better understand the world, and perhaps better understand the staff working at Smith. If you don’t want to give money to Murray, you can probably find it at the library.
Closing the thread for 10 minutes to allow users time to read my earlier message and to eliminate the “Oh, I must have been typing, so I did not see your post” messages that I often get.
I don’t know what you mean by “mathematical precision” in this context. I’ll bet you do.
I’ve sat through unconscious bias training and haven’t (to my knowledge) been accused of being racist. It was enlightening and I learned some things. YMMV.
Now, in light of the moderator’s reminder, and my waning interest in covering the same ground any further, it would seem we’ll have to agree to disagree on a number of things here, but, and this may come as a surprise, not all. And with that, I am really out on this one. I appreciate everyone’s candor and thoughtful, adult-level debate.
Perhaps you’ve left the building, my friend, but if not, let me ask you whether there were any dissenters to any of the propositions in that training you underwent? I take it as axiomatic that no good discussion can be one without dissent leading to spirited argument. To be able to do that is one of the marks of civilized people. Would it be allowed to express the view that we as human beings can hardly go through life without biases, that to extirpate them would be to strip out what is individual and unique in our personal histories, that what really matters is that we act with decency toward our fellow human beings in this complex world we share? Decency is a concept that would require discussion. Certainly it would involve courtesy and responsiveness in actions taken so as not to give offence, but it would also involve restraint in not flying into conniptions over every offence given. Live and let live is the best policy. Let him who is without sin, etc. will take you even further. It’s a big script.
