Does Smith College have a toxic atmosphere towards staff employees?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Smith College
101

@econpop, I need this explained to me, if you don’t mind (and I ask you specifically knowing that it isn’t your job, but historically you have been great and remarkably patient at explaining things to me).

I see a lot of harm to a lot of people in this story. Is there a way to talk about the harm (perceived or real) to the employees without “showing contempt to Ms Kanoute”? Serious question. I want to think/talk it all through from all of the angles I can, and that includes evaluating the harm caused to others from the publicity that Ms Kanoute set in motion. In your view, is doing so in and of itself offensive?

2 Likes
102

Going back to your earlier post about “eggshell skull”, I’d like to discuss “felony murder”. If a man goes to rob a bank with a gun and a customer dies of a heart attack, the robber can be charged, convicted, and sentenced for murder even though he did not actually kill the woman who died of a heart attack. The law says that once you set in motion the chain of events that led to the murder, you are responsible for the murder whether or not you actually committed the murder.

In the Smith College instance, I present to you that the entire set of events initiated when the employee decided to call the police on the student who had broken no law. He started the entire sequence of events, and everything that followed would have never happened had he not made that first bad move.

Therefore, he is the one who is responsible for everything that follows, including, but not limited to, losing his job and being unable to secure employment afterward. The student did nothing wrong. Even if she doxed him (which she did not,) even if the university president acted inappropriately (she did not,) even if the police handcuffed and shot the student (they did not,) he should be held responsible because he set the entire sequence of events in motion.

Thus, when this discussion turns to “who doxed who”, or “why can’t the cafeteria worker find a new job,” or “what about this employee whose reputation is ruined,” … it all comes back to the root cause that the cafeteria employee called the police on a teenage female student who had broken no laws.

He started everything. Everything that followed lies at his feet.

Now, there are other topics and threads I could bring up that would get into more of the racial and bigoted aspects of the case, but I don’t think they are necessary. In this case, I think it’s very obvious that the cafeteria employee’s initial bad judgement led to every other negative result of this situation. He is 100% responsible for everything.

He was a 35-year employee, who as far as we know, had never called the police on any white student that he felt was in “the wrong place.” She was a teenage female student eating and resting on university property that was, for all intents and purposes, “her home.” Who should have known better and been expected to show better judgement?

Do you find that an incorrect accounting?

Yes, I understand that calling the police for a bigoted reason when you should not is not a felony crime. However, the morality of the issue stands. Through his bigoted actions, he initiated the sequence of events - he’s to blame for what followed.

103

Well given that he followed the policy set by Smith, then the more correct person to blame for everything that happened is Kathleen McCartney. As I said earlier, with true leaders, the buck stops with them.

But Kathleen McCartney’s best skills seem to not be leadership, but political operator. How best to deflect blame given lack of leadership skills? Throw some staff to students calling for blood. They can’t fight back, and does it really matter if they are guilty or not?

1 Like
104

“Well given that he followed the policy set by Smith, then the more correct person to blame for everything that happened is Kathleen McCartney. “

That is not the case given the external counsel’s report findings. Please see below which is a direct quote…

“The 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.”

They employee had the opportunity and discretion to take a closer look, further approach, wait, or call the police per the policy (this has been misstated in the press). Let’s be realistic calling the police should be a last resort.

I can’t speak to the employees motivations or biases but the employee could have avoided the entire event with a modest amount of discretion that was within their mandate.

Also of note (and possible motivation for the caller) is an interaction earlier in the day in which another cafeteria employee told the student she wasn’t allowed to eat in the designated area. The student responded she had access. It is debatable after 1:30 if in fact she was allowed or not and the area which was in fact “closed” for summer session and not air conditioned. Realistically it becomes a grey area but to be honest who cares. No one was hurting anything as she was clearly a student eating lunch per the police officers dismissive tone.

The employee for whatever reason decided to not look harder or deescalate but instead called the police.

I am deliberately trying to avoid hyperbole but defer to the verbatim findings. I am not on a side.

As I have previously posted I don’t think anyone had their finest day.

3 Likes
105

I don’t know what I think, honestly. It is complicated. I hear you on the felony murder rule. I don’t know what the “killing” is in this series of events. The phone call? The publicity? The administration’s reaction? More than one person caused harm. With the felony murder rule, the other actors involved are not absolved of responsibility for their actions.

Setting the publicity in motion was a conscious, intentional act. Don’t we want a world where people are responsible for their actions regardless of the color of their skin? Is it exculpatory that Ms Kanoute may have been provoked and in a highly emotional state when she made the mistake of publicly blaming someone who wasn’t there? Should the caller be punished for his bad judgment, even if what he did was consistent with protocol? Is someone losing their job who wasn’t even there justifiable collateral damage? Does the school administration have a greater duty to the employees or the students?

I don’t think it is enough to stop the inquiry at “the call should never have been made”. We can agree on that. The follow up questions are important too.

7 Likes
106

You just explained that employees can, by official policy, take one of two actions, and are now blaming the employee for taking one of those allowed actions? Some serious Monday morning quarterbacking going on.

3 Likes
107

No, but they are usually not charged. Only the individuals directly associated with the commission of the felony crime are usually charged. In the Smith College incident, it is illogical to lump Ms Kanoute in with the cafeteria worker. They are on opposite ends of the case.

This is possibly a natural course for non-minorities to follow that appears very convenient in the opinion of minorities. Always, it is “even after acknowledging the fact that a bigoted/racist event occured, what could the minority have then done to prevent the escalation of the event into further damaging effects to both the minority and the white person?”

Let’s not forget how this all happened. A teenage female student broke no law. A white university employee called the police on her. Stop. At this point, we should not be dividing straws as to whether an 18-19 year old teenager should have the wherewithal to overcome demeaning, immoral, illegal racist treatment and rise above and behave as a consummate adult professional. The injustice has already been committed against her! Stop. Think about that. To now say that she should have behaved this way or that way is asinine. She was the injured party.

Why is it that we should, at this point, expect an 18 year old to behave more appropriately than a 50 year old? This is where institutional racism begins to play an even bigger role in this case.

Yes.

This is a college campus. Students are always going where “they do not belong.” I might possibly be willing to allow this employee the benefit of the doubt if it is proven that in his 35 year employment at the university it can be shown than he called the police on 5 different occasions where white students strayed where he deemed unacceptable. Or even 3 students. Or maybe even 1 white student? Show me that, then we can address this question. Otherwise, NO.

You’ve adroitly said elsewhere that you can’t possibly understand what it’s like to be a minority in this situation. I ask you now to not decide what is “justifiable collateral damage.” Until you are a minority being confronted with more than one armed policemen accusing you of a crime, it might be difficult for you to imagine how much damage is inflicted to your psyche during such an incident. Especially if you have personal or family history with such incidents.

Ehhhhhh, this is getting into dangerous territory for me. When a minority is subjected to this sort of treatment, the response from white always seems to be … “what happened after the racist treatment is really what’s important.”

I gotta say, “NO, that is not what is most important.” If people don’t accept that, this is likely where a large part of the misunderstanding lies.

1 Like
108

Thank you for now conceding it was the employees decision to take one of two actions. This is contrary to what you intimated when you said, “ Well given that he followed the policy set by Smith”. Let’s be realistic, no school would have a policy mandating an employee confront a stranger and Smith didn’t have a policy mandating a police call. They deliberately gave the employees the latitude to evaluate the situation and use some common sense.

So let’s get to “Monday morning quarterbacking” which translates to hindsight. In hindsight it was very clearly the wrong decision not based upon the consequences but the facts. This was in fact a student who was highly recognizable as a student. Both the other cafeteria worker and the police officer immediately recognized her. The plate in front of her made it clear she had recently accessed student dining. The callers confusion over the students gender confirms he made absolutely zero effort to identify the person upon whom he was calling law enforcement in spite of the policy allowing him to approach.

The building was vacant for the summer. No physical threat to anyone or potential property damage was ever reported in the call to the police and there was no urgency. Something just “seemed out of place”.

This is the exact scenario for which the discretion to approach was incorporated in the policy. It is not speculative Monday morning quarterbacking considering the circumstances to conclude that deescalating and avoiding police involvement were not just allowable but called for.

Once again not trying to attribute motivation or suggesting the consequences were “fair” but yes he called the cops on a student without making any effort to identify the person or any visible threat just a bad feeling. That is simply wrong and I would be furious if the same thing happened to any of my kids.

I think plenty of blame to go around but you can’t possibly think calling the police was justified in hindsight given the cops immediate apology to the student. “The Responding Officer recalled that he said to the Caller, “it’s obvious she’s a student”, from the report. Caller could have (per the policy) and should have looked before calling.

2 Likes
109

EconPop, what I find disturbing about your comments is that you seem far more interested in vengeance than justice.

1 Like
110

Or the student could have shrugged it off, the way I do and my kids do when challenged by various officials wrongly. Life is way, way too short to take offense unless you are certain it was intended. You will live happier, and possibly longer, if you follow this maxim, but perhaps that is not your goal

1 Like
111

That is great that your personal experience allows for that response. But are you suggesting your reactions are the measure of how others respond? Have you walked in the shoes of others and gained the wisdom to speak a universal truth?

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the students response but I am categorically stating your theoretical response to the situation is 100% irrelevant!

Try not to limit your perspective to the limited prism of your experience. You will live a more enlightened and compassionate life, “if you follow this maxim, but perhaps that is not your goal”.

1 Like
112

To charge someone with felony murder, there actually has to be a felony committed. THEN things that were set in motion can fall under that original felony. If the man had gone to the bank intending to rob it but didn’t actually rob it, and the customer had died of a heart attack, no felony so no felony murder.

The janitor calling in the report was not a felony, and in fact it was an option in the employee handbook. The handbook doesn’t say it is the last option and all the other options should be tried first. I really doubt there would be enough to even call it false reporting as the janitor said what he observed, that there was someone in an area where he didn’t expect to see anyone at that time (past lunch hour). There is no misdemeanor murder rule.

Does Smith have a method for the students to report acts of discrimination to them by staff, or are they on their own to go to social media?

113

I see it as a series of events, not opposite ends. That’s an interesting difference.

But we aren’t talking about imputing an obligation to prevent escalation, are we? She affirmatively caused escalation, involving people beyond the white person who caused the event. That is a big difference to me, insofar as determining whether she has any responsibility for what comes next.

Not a minority, but i have been pulled out of my car by a police officer pointing a gun to the back of my head, on the side of a freeway, with my husband forced spread eagle face down in the gravel with a gun pointed at him by his partner, in a case of mistaken identity. It was one of the most terrifying experiences of my life. Will never forget it.

4 Likes
114

As another OP has noted, those of us fortunate enough to have already lived long lives have been in far more diverse situations and experiences that you might expect. We may actually have acquired a bit of wisdom about human nature during that time. You are always free to ignore that, though it was well-intentioned.

1 Like
115

I am having a hard time with this - you are putting words in my mouth. I did not say what happened after was “most important”. I said that follow up questions are important, too. I am glad you gave your responses to the follow up questions, they are helpful. But please don’t attribute racist statements to me I didn’t make.

7 Likes
116

The law firm investigation showed that the Responding Officer was in the dorm (Tyler House) for 3 minutes. THREE minutes. He walked in at 1:59. He spoke to the janitor, they both spoke to Ms. K, he reported ‘all clear’ at 2:02.

117

Wow. I cannot believe that anyone would cite the author of The Bell Curve. For folks who don’t know about this highly discredited author, feel free to look at this Charles Murray (political scientist) - Wikipedia and this https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/charles-murray for more detail about this cited author. Please feel free to come up with your own views as to the validity of what Murray and those citing him espouse.

I think we kinda’ get it that rich folks have huge advantages over less rich/poor folks. We don’t need the author of completely lambasted works to tell us that.

I really had no dog in this hunt, but your citation to Murray’s works speaks volumes. Feel free to amplify what you mean.

4 Likes
119

I’m not sure I understand what you mean. By “opposite” I meant the cafeteria employee was the antagonist/perpetrator, and the student was the victim. In my opinion, those are opposites.

IMO, there are two components to this event. The first is the gross misconduct of the cafeteria employee who called the police on a student who was doing nothing illegal. By far (far far far) that is the initial and greatest misdeed committed in the overall event. All other subsequent incidents in the Event pale both in importance and in the need to assign culpability, because none would have occurred had the very important initial misconduct never happened.

IMO, all the time spent trying to parse how much we should fault Ms Kanoute for her actions following the gross misconduct against is misguided at best.

If an arsonist sets a house afire and two children die, are we then to fault the mother for waking up on the 1st floor couch and immediately running out of a smoke filled fiery house and not being able to save the children who were on the second floor? No, we would never consider blaming the mother when she did not set the fire. Yet in this event, some continue to want to spend time faulting Ms Kanoute, or the university president, or anything besides the initial gross misconduct of the cafeteria worker.

I consciously refuse to participate in the parsing of blame to a victim. I will have no part in it. And I will have no part in blaming the president for supporting her student who was done a grave misjustice. I applaud the president.

I’m sorry you went through that.

1 Like
120

I expect you would be equally critical if the employee had confronted the student directly-why weren’t other procedures followed, experts called in, why didn’t the employee know precisely what to say in this situation? No one is perfect, and calling security is not a felony. But I am sure it won’t happen again on that campus, so I would be way more worried about potential crime there, which will hurt all students, regardless of race.

3 Likes