Ok. I think I understand what you are saying. I am asking the questions not because I am trying to convince you of anything or change your mind. I just want to understand. I think what you are saying is that the nature of the preceding events is exculpatory. Period. Full stop.
Changing your hypothetical facts up a bit, if the mom ran out of the house on fire, jumped into her car, ran a red light on the way to the fire department and hit a pedestrian, does the mom have any responsibility for harm caused to the pedestrian?
I donât understand the focus on wanting to assign blame to events that happened because of the initial gross misconduct of the cafeteria worker. At some point, it seems either a conscious or unconscious effort to avoid the difficult discussion of race. EDIT (not saying you specifically are avoiding the topic, but that seems to be a repeating trend in this thread and the desire to blame the victim seems to be a vehicle others use to do that)
We all know race played a part in why the cafeteria worker placed that initial call. Instead of focusing on that, it is swept under the rug. Some say, âWe canât read his mind.â Some say, âhe couldnât tell if it was a male or female.â Some say, âshe should not have been in that room.â Some say, âwhat did she have to get upset about?â Some say, âshe was wrong to dox such and such.â The very first post in this thread is basically a plea for the university to respect the preciousness of whiteness, even going so far as to say this âŠ
Understand, that comment is not saying Smith College might be in violation for an employee calling the police on an African-American student who was eating and lounging peacefully. That comment is saying Smith College might be in violation of the Civil Rights Act for what happened to the white employees. This sets the tone for the thread.
So now, when we get 120 posts into this thread and the re-centering of the tragedy of the event continues to be consciously moved away from the initial and greatest victim, the student, and primarily onto two white employees, one of whom committed the gross misconduct that initiated the Event ⊠yes, at this point, I have to speak out and say you are seemingly being unintentionally carried along by the stated intent of the OP to recenter the sympathy from the true victim to an assortment of white people who have suffered as a result of the police being called on an African-American teenage female student who was eating and lounging with a stuffed animal.
If anything, this thread should be a discussion on how the cafeteria worker racially profiled the student and how we can avoid such incidents in the future. Somehow, the majority of the posts in this thread are focused on assigning as much blame as possible to the African-American victim and the university president who supported the victim. And from the statements in post #1, that seems to have been the intent of the OP.
Your use of the word âconfrontedâ suggests a false set of absolute options. The employee could have sought deescalation by simply putting themselves in a position to accurately access the situation. There was no present danger or urgency that required escalation.
What there was, was a kid eating lunch. Police officer was there 3 minutes and was able to not just draw that conclusion but talk to the student and leave.
FYI the employee didnât call âsecurityâ he called the police. Big difference in the real world.
It doesnât mean that the student wasnât afraid, but itâs important to set the record straight. Even when armed, there is a difference between campus police and regular police. But Smith campus police are not even armed.
In hindsight, it was not dangerous. At the time? Who knows? A serious question, do you regularly approach strangers and engage them? There are enough homeless, mentally unstable, stoned, and other worrisome people in public that I would never do so, regardless of whether you think I should. My physical safety is paramount, and I am not willing to risk it; I will call security if something seems off. I am sorry if that offended you, but so be it.
You might wish to ask the women in your family what they would do.
Campus police at Smith College, as on the majority of American college campuses are sworn officers who have the authority to detain, assault, handcuff and arrest students as they deem necessary.
Q: Does Smith outsource its security to the Northampton Police Department or any other armed police department?
A: No. Campus Police officers respond to all on-campus calls, 24 hours a day, 365 days per year. Campus Police may contact the Northampton Police Department for additional support only in those instances where requiredâlarge events, major crimes, etc.
Q: Are Campus Police officers armed?
A: No. Campus Police officers do not carry firearms.
I included links in my post that go directly to the Smith College website. The quotes are pulled verbatim from the Smith College website.
EDIT: But this is so far off from the main topic of a university employee racially profiling a student, that I have to admit I feel sleezy for even following this bait. Touche, mister hebegebe - you got me this time.
Yes, but you missed the key difference. Your post says that the campus police could carry firearms. My post says that they do not.
Ms. Kanoute knew that as well, because she later posted that her fear was that Smith could have outsourced security to the Northhampton police, which is armed.
Whoa. There is so much to parse in this thread. I have been thinking about it on and off the last day and learning from the various viewpoints. I expect I will continue to take in the comments and want to thank everyone for sharing their perspectives. @EconPop and @CateCAParent in particular I have appreciated your respectful exchanges in this thread and others on what could be uncomfortable topics.
A minor point of clarification: The cafeteria worker did not contact the police or anyone else. She had an exchange with Ms Kanoute. A janitor contacted the police. That janitor has never been identified, to my knowledge. Another janitor was misidentified as having been the instigator.
I see multiple missteps in this situation that reasonably could have been avoided. I wonât restate the order of events as that has been covered more than sufficiently. Regardless of those details or anyoneâs interpretation, the fact is that Ms Kanoute was traumatized and that should not be overshadowed by the details. Yes, Ms Kanoute turned to social media as a result of her trauma and accidentally misidentifed two individuals who were not involved with contacting the police. Ms Kanoute is young and justifiably upset and reacted as many in her generation would by using social media to regain some of what she lost. Once again, those details should not overshadow her trauma and that she was the victim.
Where I seem to feel differently than some other posters is regarding the Smith administration. This is a college website and discussions about colleges should be appropriate. Students considering Smith should be interested in how the administration handles difficult situations, in particular those involving minorities (or discrimination of any kind, but in this instance, particularly toward an African-American woman).
What I think Smith got right:
Kathleen McCartney immediately spoke out in support of a student, in particular a minority student, and acknowledged an unacceptable event and promised a full investigation. She offered an unconditional apology to Ms. Kanoute without waiting for that investigation.
Smith provided anti-bias training for faculty and staff. Regardless of whether one believes conscious or unconscious bias was involved in the janitorâs decision to contact police, this is beneficial training for any business EDIT and hopefully will prevent this happening again and allow minorities at Smith to feel it is a safe place for POC.
What I think Smith got wrong:
The administration did not speak out in support of the misidentified employees who were publicly accused of racism on social media. This should have been done without pointing a finger at Ms Kanoute, simply as an employer supporting its employees.
The administration did not adequately acknowledge the role Smith policy potentially played in the decision to contact the police and the need to modify that policy for very clear guidelines for staff to follow. Regardless of what I personally feel would have been a reasonable interpretation of that policy, I donât necessarily think a judgement call should be placed on staff at that pay scale; the policy should be clear.
Actually you know nothing about my wife beyond my direct response to your question about her. Please donât presume to create an uninformed narrative to suit your purposes. It is entirely inappropriate!
I did not raise the issue. I merely point out that many people, particularly women, do not share your willingness to approach strangers, often for very good reason. They are not paid to take that risk. And it is not part of their job duties for which they are trained.
I agree with every part of this. I bolded one part because people here are judging the janitor based upon what they would have done in that situation. But you are not the janitor. You come at it from a completely different level of education and life skills. I see this mistake often on CC in judging those less fortunate than themselves. The janitor was given one of two choices, and people here are roasting him for choosing one of them.
EDIT: A slight clarification. Smith provided anti-bias training for both faculty and staff, but it was optional for faculty and many chose not to attend. Staff however were required to attend. That was a mistake; it should have been mandatory for both.
