Smith College Under the Microscope: A New Video Channel Explores a Hyper-Racially Charged Environment

Image credit: Smith College, President Kathleen McCartney.

When Jodi Shaw, a Smith College alum and current administrative staff member at Smith, launched a new video channel just about a week ago discussing the hyper-racially charged atmosphere at Smith College, she received over 50K views and more than 1.5K permanent subscribers to her channel. Her initial video even prompted a letter from the college’s president addressing Shaw’s right to express her concerns, while not seeming overly pleased that it was being discussed.

Shaw has since released additional videos, allowing her story to unfold in short intervals which each leave us with much to ponder. She refers to an incident which occurred in the summer of 2018, which Shaw plans to discuss in more detail in subsequent videos. While the situation was investigated and deemed to be non-discriminatory, Shaw hints that this incident has had lingering effects. 

I had written about the facts of the case as we knew them at the time. Here is a summary of what we knew publicly which may provide some background as we follow along with Shaw’s new video channel. I hope to be visiting with Shaw in the future and finding out more about her personally and professionally and more about her messaging goals. Meanwhile, I find her most essential message to all of us to be that we need to keep talking without fear of retaliation, retribution or social shaming. On this, I heartily agree.

AN INCIDENT AT SMITH COLLEGE

During the summer of 2018, an accusation of racial profiling occured at Smith College when an employee called campus police to report a person in the dining area.

An account of the incident is summarized in an article titled Smith College launches outside probe after employee calls police on black student at lunch.” 

The Smith College incident follows a similar trajectory to those that have occurred at other campuses across the US. Campus police are called and a student perceives the call is made only because he or she is Black. The student then takes to social media and the story goes viral. 

Like other universities, the Smith College president quickly responds saying an investigation will occur to determine if the police call was racially motivated. Protests, rallies and marches are held. Often, facts are scarce and emotions run high.

However, one difference with the Smith College scandal is that a longtime employee and graduate of Smith College wrote the following letter questioning the interpretation of the events as they unfolded:

I have worked at Smith College for 33 years; I am also an alumna. However, I now find myself ashamed of Smith for the way the incident of July 31st has been handled.

The administration was so intent on their outrage that they failed to ask important questions of staff that could have cleared this issue up immediately.

The student in question was, at the time, a College employee. She was supposed to eat her meals at her assigned dining area across campus but chose instead to eat lunch in a residential dining hall that was open for feeding students/summer programs. However, the house itself was closed on that day, July 31st and had been closed since the end of the academic year in May. The student decided to leave the dining hall and lie down on a couch in the dimly lit living room. The staff member accused of unfairly confronting her was not wearing their glasses – she/he could not tell for sure whether the person on the couch was male or female, as can be seen from the use of different pronouns in the transcript.

The accused staff member is perfectly aware that there are black students at the College; however, the staff person had no reason to think that the unknown person was a Smith student. When he/she said the person ‘seems to be out of place’, she/he was referring to the fact that the house was closed; this is made apparent when he/she says, ‘I don’t see anybody in the building at this point’. In other words, there were no folks coming in early for a summer program that the unknown person could have been a member of. Both President McCartney and Amy Hunter (Interim Director of Inclusion, Diversity and Equity) seem fixated on the idea that the staff member thought this person was ‘out of place’ at Smith because she was black. This is ludicrous – the accused staff member has worked on campus and in student residences for over 30 years. Oumou Kanoute’s own actions put her ‘out of place’, not the color of her skin. This was never an incident of racial bias.

As staff, we are told that if there is a stranger in our area we are not to approach them; we should call Campus Police, which the accused staff member did. The call was made at 1:53 pm; lunch in the dining room was over at 1:30, so only staff should have been in the building at 1:53. The staff member leaves for the day at 3:00 and was responsible for securing the house. A dance program with many young children was scheduled to be housed in this dorm that weekend. She/he had no way of knowing if the person lying on the couch had come in off the street, or even if the person might have overdosed on drugs and needed help.

Amy Hunter writes that, ‘Smith College does not tolerate race- or gender-based discrimination in any form. Such behavior can contribute to a climate of fear, hostility and exclusion that has no place in our community.’ I must say that Smith staff are now living in such a climate. Staff now feel at a loss as to how to keep their areas safe – ‘See something, say something’ will no longer be practiced. At this point the lives of three dedicated staff members have been seriously disrupted, their jobs have been jeopardized, they have been labeled as racists and have had nasty comments and threats directed at them. Predictably, staff morale is at an all-time low.

A simple meeting between the student, the staff member, the responding member of Campus Police and a College representative could have solved this whole misunderstanding without the predictable social media circus and the associated histrionics. Why wasn’t such a meeting arranged immediately after the incident? Why did the College post inflammatory statements on the Smith website instead, essentially finding the staff member guilty before any investigating was done? The staff member has had a spotless work record for over three decades at Smith, handled the situation correctly and according to protocol, and has now been on leave for almost a month. How can this be considered fair and equitable?

Sincerely,

Tracey A. Putnam Culver, AC ’95

BA cum laude, PBK 

In a subsequent media interview, Culver said many staff members emailed her to thank her for speaking up, although some students did remain unconvinced and felt questioning the narrative of a black student was wrong.

=============================

As school reconvened for the fall, there was this from Smith College President about a month after the incident:

Thursday, August 30, 2018

Dear students, staff and faculty,

I write to offer updates and reflections on the July 31 call about a student to Campus Police.

A number of you have written to me to express concern for the student, especially as we begin the new semester. I want to assure you that I have reached out to her, offered a meeting and apologized on behalf of the college. Dean of the College Susan Etheredge ’77 and her team have been in contact with the student as well, to offer their support.

While the investigation of the incident is ongoing, both the student and the staff member have been invited to participate in mediation, a voluntary process that can offer a path forward for both parties. A core tenet of restorative justice is to provide people with the opportunity for willing apology, forgiveness and reconciliation.

In the context of a profoundly divided political and social climate, in this country and around the world, it is urgent that we, as members of an educational community, learn to speak with one another, not past one another, when we disagree, and to do so with the goal of true understanding. Learning how to have authentic conversations about our identities, especially race and class, is among the most challenging work many of us do—and we all need to learn how to do this work better.

I offer a case in point by sharing several excerpts from the hundreds of messages I have received from students, faculty, staff and alumnae, about the July 31 incident. As you will see, members of our community have expressed a range of perspectives. While you might disagree—even vehemently—with one or all of these viewpoints, they provide a way to understand the challenge that lies ahead in healing and improving our community.

  • “It’s not really possible to articulate a ‘truth’ about which experiences are and which are not influenced by race. For the student, race was most certainly central because it speaks to every part of her life experience and how she has seen Black people treated. People of color can feel frustrated by the question—Was race involved?—because to ask the question does not recognize their life experience.”
  • “While instances of racial profiling can stem from hate, I also believe such profiling often stems from a lack of education on the matter. I’m sure many Smith students, employees and faculty come from predominantly white communities, and they, perhaps, have been directly or indirectly taught to fear people who appear different from themselves.”
  • “At this point the lives of three dedicated staff members have been seriously disrupted, their jobs have been jeopardized, they have been labeled as racists and have had nasty comments and threats directed at them.”
  • “The student was extremely hurt by the incident. AND the caller might not have done anything wrong, given the context and the instructions from the college about how to handle suspicions. Both can be true.”
  • “We all think we know the story. We only know the perspective we bring to it.”

Let us each ask ourselves how we move from different perspectives, like these, to deeper understanding and needed structural changes. I am heartened by the fact that a number of our faculty and staff members have been piloting programs to examine the ways in which race, gender, class, implicit bias and power influence our assumptions, interactions and conversations. Clearly, Smith has a great deal to do to ensure that the college is a place where each of us feels we belong. I have never worked at a college or university as committed to social justice as Smith College. However imperfect our campus community—indeed, our world—might be, this ongoing commitment gives me hope.

Each year, I send a message to the community about our sustained work on inclusion, diversity and equity. You will hear more from me soon about specific opportunities for training and education, with the goal of meaningful, systemic change. I embrace the work that lies ahead.

Sincerely,

Kathleen McCartney

President, Smith College

===========================

Smith College appears to have demonstrated extreme transparency in its handling of the incident, right down to a transcript of the original phone call. Complete documentation and final investigative reports are available here: https://www.smith.edu/news/campus-police-call

Smith College protected the identity of the employee, even though the offended student did post a demand on Facebook to have the identity released and attached photos of two staff members as potential perpetrators. The post was later deleted and Smith College confirmed neither of the employees posted on social media were correct.

The ACLU announced it would be representing the student in seeking restorative justice even after the investigation was completed, expressing displeasure at the outcome, and reupping the claim that it was “a racially motivated suspicious person” call.

https://www.aclum.org/en/news/aclu-represents-black-student-profiled-smith-college

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-statement-smith-college-findings-racial-profiling-black-student

————-

For more about the reliability of the investigation of bias incidents on campuses, see 

Sarah Braasch, Yale University, Investigation of Bias and How a Similar Incident at Smith College was Resolved

Follow along on Twitter: Smith College Big Dig @Smith_Surge

Moral Panic: What is it & are we currently in the midst of one?

Illustration: Adramelech, from the 1863 edition of Collin de Plancy’s Dictionnaire infernalSource.

Remember the Satanic Panic of the 1980s? Satanic abuse ritualists were lurking behind every corner. These secret Satan worshippers were working behind the scenes 24/7, intent upon abusing little children, indoctrinating older children, or ritually sacrificing your baby.

This phenomenon is classified as a moral panic. Sociologist Stanley Cohen coined the term in his book Folk Devils and Moral Panics, published in 1972.

In a January 2018 article written by Ashley Crossman titled “Definition of Moral Panic: Overview of the Theory and Notable Examples,” Crossman summarizes Cohen’s theory as follows:

“Cohen developed a theory of moral panic that outlines five stages of the process.

  1. Something or someone is perceived and defined as a threat to social norms and the interests of the community or society at large.
  2. News media and members of the community/society then depict the threat in simplistic symbolic ways that quickly become recognizable to the greater public.
  3. Widespread public concern is aroused by the way news media portrays the symbolic representation of the threat.
  4. Authorities and policy makers respond to the threat, be it real or perceived, with new laws or policies.
  5. The moral panic and actions by those in power that follows it results in social change within the community.

Cohen suggested that there are five key sets of actors involved in the process of moral panic. They are:

  1. The threat that incites the moral panic, which Cohen referred to as “folk devils”;
  2. Enforcers of rules or laws, like institutional authority figures, police, or armed forces;
  3. The news media, which breaks the news about the threat and continues to report on it, thereby setting the agenda for how it is discussed, and attaching visual symbolic images to it;
  4. Politicians, who respond to the threat, and sometimes fan the flames of the panic;
  5. And the public, who develop focused concern about the threat and demand action in response to it.”

While the Satanic Panic has subsided in its most frenzied form, in which we saw specialized law enforcement training as well as crimes attributed to Satanic ritual abuse, we still see the suggestion that there are “gateways” to Satanism we might want to avoid. Among these dark influencers:

Yoga

Astrology

Heavy Metal

Halloween

Dungeons and Dragons

Harry Potter

Pokemon

Animorphs

Lord of the Rings

Smurfs

Walt Disney/Disneyland

Thriller (Michael Jackson)

Beyonce (& various other pop stars)

Hollywood stars in general

So, are we experiencing a moral panic today with regard to Racism?

 

Let me look at the above list again, only with a lens that believes racism permeates everything. I’ll research each topic briefly to see if I find an assertion that the same phenomena purported to be infected by Satanism are now infected by racism.

 

Yoga

Yoga promotes white supremacy because white Americans have appropriated and colonized it. White people, and especially white women, now behave as though yoga belongs to them.

Astrology

Astrology doesn’t appear to be racist in itself, though it might promote stereotyping others or being biased or prejudiced against someone because of the astrological sign. Let’s call it racist-adjacent.

Heavy Metal

Some heavy metal has undoubtedly been associated with Neo-Nazi fans and even actively promoted racial division.

Halloween

Halloween promotes racism if costumes are culturally appropriated or make fun of or belittle another race.

Dungeons and Dragons

Yes, D & D promotes white male dominance which makes it racist by default. 

Harry Potter

Apparently the entire Harry Potter series can be interpreted as racist if you focus on issues such as the mistreatment of minorities or the purity of certain bloodlines such as witches or warlocks. 

Pokemon

Yes, Pokemon has been caught with racist stereotypes such as the character Jynx, who echoes the look of Little Black Sambo.

Animorphs

Apparently, Animorphs “whitewashes” certain characters who are depicted as being “white” as opposed to being authentically ethnic in their characterization.

Lord of the Rings

Lord of the Rings is definitely racist because dark is associated with evil.

Smurfs

Apparently the blue blobby cartoon characters exhibit their racism by treating Blacks as less than and are also anti-semitic to boot.

Walt Disney/Disneyland

Of course, we have old Disney cartoons which reflect a time period of overt racism, but more recently Splash Mountain has been deemed racist for its association with the film Song of the South which was made in 1946.

Thriller (Michael Jackson)

Well, Thriller isn’t a problem but Michael Jackson could have been something of a self-hating racist if he did indeed deny his Blackness and present himself only as a “good Black.” 

Beyonce (& various other pop stars)

Beyonce is not racist herself, but white women who criticize Beyonce probably are.

Hollywood stars in general

Hollywood stars may not be individually practicing racism, but the industry itself is roundly criticized year after year for never having enough roles for Black people, and specifically for Black women.

We certainly can’t draw any conclusions from this little comparison and will probably understand this period in history more clearly when we look backwards, but I suspect that a feature of moral panic is the inability to recognize it as such while it is actually happening. Time will tell.

Transgender & locked up: A case study on prison policies & life on the inside

Corporeal prison, by Erik Pevernagie, oil on canvas, 2004

In 2011, then 16-year-old Demitrius Minor stabbed his 69-year old foster father 24 times. Theotis Butts, a retired railroad worker, and his wife, nurse Wanda Broach Butts, had taken in other troubled children in their New Jersey home, and some went on to lead successful lives. Demitrius (who now goes by the name Demi) is now serving a 30 year prison term for aggravated manslaughter and an unrelated carjacking. Demi must serve 85 percent of this sentence before being considered for parole.

Demi is now 25 years old, and has made the decision to transition to a woman while incarcerated. What does this mean going forward?

Transgender rights in prison may vary from state to state, but are guided by the Eighth Amendment of our Constitution, which disallows cruel and unusual punishment.

New Jersey, where Demi is serving her sentence, has an up-to-date policy on treatment of transgender or intersex inmates.

Below are pertinent excerpts from New Jersey Department of Correction’s Official Policy regarding transgender or intersex inmates.

*Inmates committed to the custody of NJDOC may be diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria and receive treatment by Medical and/or Mental Health staff.

*Gender Dysphoria means discomfort or distress caused by a discrepancy between a person’s gender identity and that person’s sex assigned at birth (and the associated gender role and/or primary and secondary sex characteristics).

*Gender Identity means a person’s deeply felt sense of being male or female.

*Transgender means an individual that identifies his or her gender identity as different from his or her birth-assigned sex.

Identifying Transgender/Intersex Inmates

  1. Inmates will be asked if they wish to disclose their gender identity. If they answer in the affirmative, they will be asked what gender they identify with. NOTE: inmates are not required to disclose their gender identity.
  2. Inmates that elect to disclose their gender identfty, who identify as transgender, intersex or as a gender other than the birth gender indicated in the court record, will be referred to medical/mental health for evaluation to determine and document in the Electronic Medical Record if identification as transgender/intersex is warranted.
  3. Inmates may disclose that they are transgender at any time during their incarceratlon. Such disclosures will be processed using steps above.

Additional considerations:

Inmates are reviewed for safety.

Safety includes safe housing. NJ policy on housing transgender inmates is handled on a case-by-case basis.

Gender Identity Based Housing

In deciding the facility, housing and/or programming assignments for a transgender or intersex inmate, the following will be considered on a case-by-case basis:

  1. custody level and sentencing information
  2. criminal history
  3. institutional disciplinary history
  4. current gender expression
  5. medical and mental health needs/information/status
  6. vulnerability to sexual victimization
  7. likelihood of perpetrating sexual abuse
  8. facility-specific factors including inmate populations, staffing patterns, and physical layouts (e.g., types of showers available)
  9. any other relevant information

In Demi’s case, she is housed in the general population with male inmates.

Genitals, Genitals, Genitals

In a recent lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of plaintiff Sonia Doe, a transgender woman who requested a transfer to a women’s prison, also in the State of New Jersey, the ACLU wrote:

“Despite its formal policy, upon information and belief, the NJDOC’s practice has been and continues to house prisoners according to their genitalia only. Upon information and belief, all women who have penises are assigned to men’s prisons solely on that basis.”

In other words, the lawsuit implies that although New Jersey has a formal policy that transgender prisoners may be considered for alternative housing, the only inmates who are ever accommodated have had gender reassignment surgery. At the time of the lawsuit, only two other trans women had been assigned to a women’s prison and in Doe’s case, this had not happened.

Sonia Doe prevailed in her lawsuit and was ordered to be transferred to a women’s prison, when days later New Jersey corrections officers tried to block her transfer because of… her genitals. According to a complaint filed by the Policemen’s Benevolent Association Local 105, a union representing prison guards, female guards should not have to strip search an inmate who has a penis.

NJDOC policy on strip searching reads that it must be conducted, “By custody staff of the same gender as the inmate and may include a scanning/testing device operator(s) of the same gender as the inmate” so this policy is ambiguous in terms of the expectations set forth by the DOC and may need to be revisited when dealing with transgender inmates.

More about transgender policies in prison:

Gender dysphoria is considered a medical condition, and as such, transgender inmates have a right to be medically treated with hormonal therapies.

Just this week, Demi was granted an appointment with an endocrinologist which should allow her to be prescribed hormone treatments.

Demi’s experiences will be fully documented at https://justice4demi.org/, which also has links to a Twitter and Facebook page created to follow her progress.

Demi would love to hear from anyone who would like to send her letters of support as she goes through this process. Details on how to contact her are provided at the Justice for Demi homepage. Demi’s personal experiences shall provide a look inside prisons in general, as well as transgender prison policies in particular. The prison policies have promised a lot to protect the dignity of the transgender inmate, and it will be interesting to see if these policies deliver.

Sarah Braasch to participate in “The Call,” a new documentary by C-Line Films

Filmmaker Chico Colvard, courtesy C-Line Films

Filmmaker Chico Colvard accidentally shot his sister in the leg when he was a 10 year old boy. His sister, fearing she was going to die, blurted out that she and their other two sisters were being molested by their father. This set in motion a chain of events that Colvard’s first major film, “Family Affair,” documents over a multi-year period.

Chico Colvard and co-producer Madison O’Leary are currently working on a new documentary with the working title “The Call: America’s Gilded Age of Grievance.” The film will explore the topic of phone calls to police and their different, and sometimes very tragic, outcomes. 

One of the subjects of the film will be Yale University Ph.D. candidate Sarah Braasch, who was depicted in the international media as a racist cop caller in what is now known as the “Napping While Black” incident. (If you are unfamiliar with Braasch’s story, a background link is below.) 

Sarah Braasch, Portrayed as Racist Cop Caller at Yale, Debuts YouTube Channel

In an interview with Craig Phillips for PBS’s Independent Lens collection,  Colvard says:

“THE CALL: America’s Gilded Age of Grievance examines 911 calls that range from acts of white supremacy to displays of implicit bias and genuine concerns about suspicious behavior framed by roiling racial divides. By inviting to the conversation racial justice experts, dispatchers, law enforcement, victim/survivors and the ever-elusive callers cloaked in veils of anonymity, this project synthesizes the 911 epidemic in America’s ‘New Jim Crow.’ As with any story, the ‘truth’ is elusive. Shifting memories are compromised by implicit bias, fear and trauma. The goal is not to endorse or refute the participants’ agendas, but to expose epistemic habits and emotional dispositions that shape how we understand ‘us,’ ‘them,’ and the world around us.”

Subjects of “The Call” will include: 

Corey Lewis, made famous for “Babysitting While Black,” when a woman called the police while two children were in his care. Lewis runs an after-school program and camp for children in Marietta, Georgia.

Marc Peeples, a Detroit, Michigan native who established a community garden on an abandoned lot. In a rather complicated case, three neighborhood women repeatedly called the police accusing Peeples of a variety of misdeeds which eventually resulted in his arrest on allegations of stalking. All charges were ultimately dismissed. The incident became known as “Gardening While Black.”

Blake Murphy, a medical student, who called police when she thought she saw a man breaking into a car in Evanston, Illinois. The man turned out to be a Ph.D. candidate at Northwestern University getting into his own car. However, local police pursued him as he drove away and Murphy’s own dash camera caught officers violently taking him to the ground.

Stephon Clark, who was shot and killed in his grandmother’s backyard in Sacramento, California, when police responded to a report of someone smashing car windows and stealing loose items. Clark was shot dead when police mistook his cell phone for a gun. His family continues to pursue justice against Sacramento Police Department.

Sarah Braasch, known internationally in the “Napping While Black” incident, who is currently working on her dissertation from Yale University. Braasch has two engineering degrees from the University of Minnesota, a JD from Fordham University and is a member of the New York State Bar. Braasch has petitioned the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission to release the Yale Police Department bodycam footage from the incident. To date, the YPD refuses to release the video to the public.

Colvard’s films have a unique quality as he is able to view situations as more complex than they may appear on the surface. “Family Affair” and his second film “Black Memorabilia,” surprise the viewer by approaching taboo topics with a subtle sense of duality.

After Colvard shot his sister and she disclosed the molestation by their father, his father was arrested and sent to prison, the parents divorced, and the children were torn apart and farmed out to relatives. Colvard cut off any relationship with his father for years, but his sisters ultimately formed a new and different relationship with their father.

“Family Affair” thus documents the aftermath of this tragedy and Colvard’s deeper understanding of how this family attempted to put itself back together. Colvard writes, “Family Affair does not attempt to mitigate the long-term dysfunctional impact of incest. Instead, this documentary reshapes the commonly held view that molesters are pushed to the margins of society, never to reconnect with their victim/survivors. In the end, the film focuses on the motives, accommodations and levels of forgiveness survivors make in order to maintain some semblance of family.”

Colvard’s goal is to move beyond the obvious, taking the viewer along on a ride that is complex and emotional. He writes, “At first, this documentary ran the risk of turning into a crude indictment of my father, a figure the audience is sure to view as a ‘monster’. While that assessment might be unavoidable, I do not want the audience to only view him or other pedophiles as a one-dimensional ‘monster-like’ figure.”

More recently, Colvard made the film “Black Memorabilia,” featured as part of PBS’s Independent Films collection. Again, the film is more than a simple indictment. In his director’s statement, Colvard writes, “The goal of the film is not to demonize or blame the people that hold these objects dear, but to understand the context and background in which they came to know them. Often times black memorabilia is seen as a connection to family, heritage and ‘the good old days’ of one’s childhood. In many cases these objects aren’t even considered hateful, but rather historical or even cute.”

Again, confronting a taboo topic, the film’s goal is to educate and open a difficult discussion. In a synopsis of “Black Memorabilia,” the producers explain: “In the midst of the roiling ethnic unrest in the US today, the film’s confrontation of our feelings about these objects strikes at the heart of a pressing contemporary issue and opens a unique dialogue about the continuing legacy of racism in America.”

Chico Colvard teaches Race, Law and Media related courses in the Boston area. He was the Founding Curator of the UMB Film Series. Chico is the founding member of C-LineFilms.

Madison O’Leary is a Boston-based producer. She received her BA in Communications from UMass Amherst. After working around the country as a Trauma and Abuse Counselor in federal prisons, she came on to work as an Assistant Producer and Researcher on FAMILY AFFAIR (Sundance, 2010). She worked as a Producer on BLACK MEMORABILIA (MoMA 2018) and currently heads-up operations at C-LineFilms, LLC. 

C-LineFilms is an independent storytelling group committed to social justice documentaries. Their work screens globally at festivals, museums, broadcasts and online platforms. C-Line aims to partner with college/universities, libraries, grassroots organizations and community allies to raise awareness, provoke meaningful conversations, stimulate syllabi and enhance professional development.

 

For more about C-Line Films, visit https://www.c-linefilms.org/

For more about Sarah Braasch’s FOIA request to the Yale Police Department and the Yale investigation, visit

Sarah Braasch, Yale University, Investigation of Bias and How a Similar Incident at Smith College was Resolved

The Dissident Right: What is it and why should we care?

In my ongoing research on Antifascism and NeoFascism in the U.S., I have had contact with certain white identity Twitter accounts who are quite open about their beliefs. I decided I would monitor them for a bit just to get a feel for what they talk about, and in the network I follow, it’s pretty easy to detect the overriding ideology.

These are not the same people that “troll” or “meme” on chan boards. In fact, they present themselves as well read (although reading choices are selective) and consider themselves to be intellectuals, strategizers and gentle recruiters through information sharing.

Like-minded white nationalists sometimes label themselves “Right Dissidents” or part of the “Dissident Movement.” These dissidents seem to be what’s left of a discontented alt-right, former followers of Richard Spencer, which they now consider to have been a failed movement. For his part, Spencer dismisses the dissident right as not much more than a trollish spectacle of edgy conservatives.

Within this loosely knit ideology, President Donald Trump is considered to be a complete and utter disappointment, having promised to deport all illegal immigrants. In addition, they find his friendliness with Israel to be extremely troublesome. They view Trump supporters as potential recruits and would certainly like to have them on their team, but Trump supporters are not part of the “Dissident Movement.” Generally, they consider Trump supporters to be old-fashioned, hard-working and good and honest conservatives–but not dissidents.

Similary, this “movement” disdains the GOP as they assert it will facilitate a Non-White USA if a high skill immigration policy is put into place. Why? Because, according to the “dissidents,” the white doctor/lawyer class will be replaced. They believe the ultimate goal of such a policy is to make white people completely dependent on everyone else by reducing whites down to a powerless working class people.

“Right Dissidents” talk very seriously about how to reorganize politically, perhaps on an international scale, with other white nationalists who believe in the value of a white ethnostate. They brainstorm about how to fundraise and how to find back-up platforms in the event they lose any they now have. They hope for a legitimate political party and sophisticated candidate of their own in the U.S., while also considering the possibility of moving beyond isolationist nationalism and gathering strength on the world stage.

In a recent piece for Truthout, counter-far right researcher and activist Spencer Sunshine, PhD, observes that “the revived white nationalist movement has split into different wings. One wants to go mainstream, while the militants are promoting a campaign of terror.” 

The Right Dissidents active on Twitter are reflective of the mainstreamers, those who want to organize politically and not through violent means–but continue to spread these elaborate conspiracy theories that can inspire actual violence. Sunshine warns that the more militant groups are now reorganizing on the Telegram app, where content is not regulated.

And most disturbingly, a large part of what they talk about is Jews.

Imagine a worldview in which Judaism is a fake religion used as a cover for a global elite to infiltrate each country one at a time until ultimately they achieve global domination. 

Some believe it is already too late in the U.S.–the “Jewish Masters” are already in control of the West, and are moving on to infiltrate India (they’ve already infiltrated Bollywood) and China will be next.

Adherents refer frequently to “ZOG.” According to the ADL, “ZOG is a white supremacist acronym for ‘Zionist Occupied Government,’ which reflects the common white supremacist belief that the U.S. government is controlled by Jews.”

The “Right Dissidents” believe Jewish people have some sort of supernatural mind control abilities. This ability is the equivalent of a Weapon of Mass Destruction. They believe some of this mind control is observable, such as the way Jews are the producers of pop rap music that is listened to by Third World Immigrants living in the U.S. Belief in Jewish control of the media and entertainment industry contributes to the brainwashing. They call it a “mindfuck.”

Within this belief system, Jews are behind the flooding of Europe with immigrants. Within this ideology, this is a distraction strategically employed by Israel and the Jews in order to achieve their ultimate goal, which besides world domination, is the extinction of white people. 

Likewise, they suggest Jews and Israel are behind much of the  immigration to the U.S., especially encouraging Third World Immigration and granting asylum to refugees. In fact, according to them, Bari Weiss admitted as much in an NPR interview

Why do the Jews do this? 

Within this belief system, Jews are not white, and hope to propel the white race into extinction through this constant flood of refugees and immigrants. This will help them to blend into society unnoticed and fulfill their prophecy.

Some of the “Right Dissidents” are also “truthers,” believing the Holocaust (they say there is no evidence except three people were tortured into a false confession) and 9/11 (they share with one another the true culprit was Israel) to be hoaxes. Some just go full on Neo-Nazi, declaring Hitler to be a great man, and becoming incensed if Trump is compared to Hitler, because Hitler was a passionate and great leader and Trump is an idiot.

Why should we care what members of fringe movements think and say?

Under normal circumstances for most of us, we are not going to encounter this kind of chat in our Twitter feeds. You have to kind of go out of your way to find it. So why is it important?

The FBI Report on Conspiracy Theories and Domestic Terrorism

In May of 2019, the FBI Phoenix Field Office issued a bulletin titled “Anti-Government, Identity Based, and Fringe Political Conspiracy Theories Very Likely Motivate Some Domestic Extremists to Commit Criminal, Sometimes Violent Activity.” 

The FBI report states that “throughout history, such conspiracy theories have fueled prejudice, witch-hunts, genocide, and acts of terrorism.”

Further, “In the context of domestic terrorism, extremists often view the activities of alleged conspirators as an existential threat that can only be stopped through drastic, or even violent means.”

So, again, why should we care about the Dissident Right? The danger lies in the real possibility that an individual or a group will resort to violence or terrorism to confront the “evil force” behind this “existential threat.”

The Dissident Right is at its core conspiratorial in nature. Butte College has published a handy Tip Sheet titled “Conspiracy Theory and Conspiracism.” 

According to the Tip Sheet, “The comfort of conspiracy theory is that it provides a well-defined enemy and a sense of control (or at least structure) in the face of upheaval and disempowerment; the tendency to perceive conspiracy is more common in groups experiencing social isolation or political marginalization. The freedom fighters of conspiracy theory need not see themselves as being at the mercy of irresistible, inexplicable, or random natural or social forces, but as soldiers in a just cause.”

Upheaval. Disempowerment. Social isolation. Political marginalization. Let’s take a look more closely at the Dissident Right with respect to these societal triggers.

UPHEAVAL: The Great Replacement, or Slow White Genocide

The “Dissident Right” claims the U.S. is a white homeland not because whites were here first, but because they are descendants of the builder race. They believe racism is now a weaponized word used to make whites believe that any preference for their own kind is inherently evil. However, they assert, in-group preference is natural and healthy, so it is therefore noble to try and preserve an endangered species.

“Right Dissidents” offer a variety of “scientific facts” to support their belief system, and if there is any alternative information, it is easily dismissed as propaganda because only low-IQ people will fall for these lies.

DISEMPOWERMENT: “The Anti-White Agenda” or “The War on Whites”

Presumably, since “Right Dissidents” believe Jews run academia and the media, the anti-white agenda is purposeful and targeted. (The roots of these conspiracy theories may be found in a fraudulent document called “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” forged in 1897.) 

In addition, the “Dissident Right” claims Jews are perceived to be behind any tension that exists between blacks and whites in order to sow societal discontent. They complain that white people are sick of being lectured about white privilege because the real privilege in society is elite privilege–money and power. In fact, they are happy to report black separatists and black nationalists are on the same page as the white nationalists and could even join up with white nationalists to advance the ideal of an ethnostate–a segregated ethnostate, of course.

SOCIAL ISOLATION

“Dissident Right” enthusiasts complain of an anti-white male agenda where men are portrayed as predators to be profiled and feared. They espouse outdated ideas about the role of women, preferring females return to childbearing and homemaking to stabilize society. Women have been “pozzed” (an alt-right term for cultural and societal degeneracy), especially by universities. (Remember, Jews are controlling academia.)

The epitome of social isolation is seen in incels, or involuntary celibates, who feel they are nice guys being rejected by women as a direct result of extreme feminism and this all-pervasive anti-male agenda. At school, in the media, and on social media men are being taught they are toxic, good-for-nothing idiots. 

POLITICAL MARGINALIZATION

Right Dissidents feel stigmatized and victimized. They believe the Alt-Right made progress but it wasn’t aggressive enough. Right dissidents complain deplatforming has slowed their progress and troll culture has made them look bad. They hope to complete what the alt-right tried to start, finding a solid leader and formalizing a party. Then they can begin to attract more to the movement, beginning with conservatives and libertarians.

What can we do?

Conspiracy theories are not a new phenomenon–they have always been with us, but the rapid proliferation was not. With the powerful growth of social media, the ease with which conspiracy theories may be shared and promoted, sometimes even disguised as legitimate news sources, the problem is on the rise.

However, there are always those that may be on the fence–dabbling in conspiracy theories, but not yet wholly committed. These are the people we may be able to sway through facts–the problem is how.

Education and Social Media

Many conspiracy theories are harmless. If Elvis and Tupac are still alive, this is not going to inspire domestic terror. If Keanu Reeves is immortal, good for him! 

Social media echo chambers contribute to the problem. In a 2018 BBC article titled “The Enduring Appeal of Conspiracy Theories,” author Melissa Hogenboom writes, “we live in a polarised world. One study looking at how conspiracy theories spread online, revealed that there is no overlap between those who share scientific news, and those who share conspiracies or fake news.”

While social media companies have tried various attempts to flag fake stories, the onus will always be on the consumer of information to make the right decisions.

Encouraging digital literacy–learning how to separate fake news from legitimate resources–should be ever more important in today’s curriculum. Understanding how to fact check from more than one source or ideally from the original source, can be a learned skill. 

Furthermore, students should understand that bias in media exists, and should know how to recognize or check that as well. A sense of becoming a good digital citizen should be valued and praised. Sharing fake news is poor digital citizenship. 

Attempts at recognizing fake news sources can be fun and engaging. Take the game Factitious, for example, available for free online. The Center for Media Literacy also offers some great resources for parents and teachers. 

Awareness and Conversation

Regardless of partisanship, we must open this conversation and familiarize ourselves with the proliferation of the more dangerous conspiracy theories, some of which have already inspired domestic terror attacks. Awareness needs to be ongoing as new conspiracies arise.

Remember this. 

“All Jews must die.” This is what the shooter reportedly yelled out as he opened fire on the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in October of 2018.

And this is why it’s important and this is why we should care.

 

Is this racism? Or is this just a guy in an elevator I don’t know? #NappingWhileBlack at Yale University

Anyone following the Sarah Braasch “Napping While Black” incident at Yale University has probably heard that Braasch had indeed called the Yale Police non-emergency number a little over 2 months earlier (February 24, 2018) because of a suspicious person in her dormitory.

Braasch had observed that an unfamiliar man, who got on the elevator with her, did not have a key to operate the elevator or to enter the locked room where he said he had a meeting on the 12th Floor. In fact, this would imply the man didn’t have key access to have entered the building without an escort in the first place. Braasch confirmed that the 12th Floor meeting room he said he was looking for was locked with the lights off before returning to her dorm room, also on the 12th floor, to notify the YPD.

Braasch is currently pursuing a Freedom of Information request with the Connecticut FOI Commission asking that Yale Police release the body camera footage of a later, related encounter with the Yale Police on May 8, 2018. Yale is vigorously defending the FOIA request.

Yale University retains prominent attorney to defend FOIA request made by Yale student Sarah Braasch

More on the FOIA request and the post-hearing briefs may be found here:

Sarah Braasch, Yale University, Investigation of Bias and How a Similar Incident at Smith College was Resolved

 

Interestingly, in Yale’s post-hearing brief, they make much ado about proper access to the building and the regulations thereof.

From Yale’s brief, we are able to understand that intrusions or unauthorized access to dormitories do occasionally happen:

 

A link to Yale’s full post-hearing link may be found here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzOJKJMkQ_ajeEV0MjBVY2xlbkNSLTdpTVM5cVpwbk53TFg4/view

A link to Sarah Braasch’s post-hearing brief may be found here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzOJKJMkQ_aja1BoVUNvbjJsZFpEUXQzbHU0YVdNd2xQMlA4/view?usp=sharing

As it turns out, the man Braasch encountered on February 24, 2018 did not have proper access to the building without an escort, but once police discovered that the man was a Yale affiliate and was to be met by a resident, all was declared fine and everyone was to go about their business. Case closed, right?

Well, no. Here’s what happened next. A few days later, the man in the elevator and his host wrote a joint letter to Yale Housing Director George Longyear. In the joint letter, it was explained that the instructions to the male were to text his host upon arrival at the gate so the host could escort her guests to the 12th Floor per dormitory regulations. However, the male had gained access to the building and the elevator and was attempting to find the meeting room on his own.

The letter to Yale’s Housing Director recounts the elevator encounter from the man’s perspective, but then goes into quite a long discussion of “microaggressions and psychological violence” experienced by black students on Yale’s campus.

The letter then moves on to a discussion of lynchings for entertainment and public executions by police. Thus, the authors of the letter believe Braasch’s phone call to the non-emergency line of YPD was “an act of violence because of the history of state sanctioned executions of faultless Black men, women and children.”

The final line of the letter refers to “the context in which they are operating without making racist judgments.”

A link to the full letter may be found here. The majority of the letter was released to the public via Facebook immediately following the May 8, 2018 encounter. That post has since been deleted.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzOJKJMkQ_ajZ1V5RVlLUkVPX2piNFNnQXdQUWcxYXUxTzZN/view?usp=sharing

In an interview with CNN’s Don Lemon, the man remains convinced Braasch only called the Yale Police because he is black and was racially profiled. After the story went viral, Braasch continues to try and prove to the public that racial animus was not a motivation in asking YPD to confirm the man’s access to the dormitory.

 

Braasch plans to release additional documents in the coming days. She is also raising funds to support her legal defense against Yale Police and Yale University.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/sarah-braasch-legal-fund

Tweet others as you would like to be Tweeted: Twitter Etiquette

At the end of 2018, Sarah Haider, Executive Director of Ex-Muslims of North America, announced that she was making a New Year’s resolution on Twitter that would hopefully make her interactions with others pleasant. I liked her advice so much I saved it along with a collection of other recommendations I have read. 


Sarah Haider’s Rules:


  1. No snark ever. No liking/rting (retweeting) “dunks” (no matter how valid). 
  2. Aim for high ratio of sharing good work to criticizing bad work. 
  3. When criticizing, provide solutions or alternative.
    ———- 

The reactions to her new rules were overwhelmingly positive, but… there were many who protested the idea of “no snark.”

So what exactly is “snark”?

According to the Oxford Dictionary, the word snark dates back to 1876. It was originally coined by Lewis Carroll as a nonsense word in The Hunting of the Snark.

On Twitter, it is an informal North American term that means to make snide and sharply critical comments.

Merriam Webster defines snark as an attitude or expression of mocking irreverence and sarcasm and suggests that snark first appeared in informal use around 1999.

Urban Dictionary identifies snark as a combination of the words “snide” and “remark”. Other definitions referred to sarcastic comments that should be creative, subtle, and stabbing all at once.

Snark may be thought of as a smart ass remark or the equivalent of talking smack or dissing.

There are apparently degrees of snark. Some users describe snark as mere teasing, while others see it as more malicious. 

——

Opposition to Snark

The snark-opposition can be very strong. Some users will not tolerate it all, calling it an automatic unfollow, while others object to it on humanitarian grounds, assuming the snark comes from a troubled place.

Snark Supporters

Some find snark to be a form of correcting others because they are simply hopeless to even engage and deserve nothing more. Besides, they say, if done properly and sparingly, it simply makes Twitter more fun.

Others believe the Twitter word limit invites snark and that people who want a no-snark environment should just go back to Facebook.

————-

“Dunking” on Twitter is defined as using the “retweet with comment” function and mocking the quoted tweet.

In general, people don’t seem to mind this quite as much, probably because it is very often aimed at a public figure. If it is not a public figure, the greatest risk would be the inciting of a dogpile or accusations of “punching down” which can certainly backfire. 

Often, a retweet or subtweet is actually complimentary, and, as Haider notes, can be a great way to share good content.

Critique

Critique without constructive feedback doesn’t seem to be very popular. Some find it boring and just plain lazy. There seems to be a certain consensus that there are those who try to get attention or increase follower accounts through these tactics. An account that never produces content or that provides dishonest content doesn’t seem to be worth much time. It seems many actually appreciate positivity and constructivity!

Other tips:

Be aware of Twitter rules and avoid hateful conduct as defined by its policies. Twitter is not a free speech website. Remember that rules are constantly revised.

Consider that you are the curator of your own Twitter feed. Design it the way you want to be.

Be charitable with others. Assume good faith unless or until proven otherwise.

Block and mute as necessary. Many people feel blocking or muting is a weakness or surrender, but there are accounts that are just not worth engaging. Others seem to have little else to do and will simply waste valuable time. Occasionally, accounts actually become abusive and need to go.

Confront slurs and/or misrepresentations of your statements or ideas and then cease further interaction.

Take breaks if necessary or consider taking your account private for a bit. Maintain calm and composure. Apologize if it’s warranted. 

Stay away from out-of-context isolated tweets or viral videos. There is often much more to the story.

Read or at least skim articles before commenting. Headlines are often quite misleading.

Don’t participate in outrage mobbing, especially if the person is not a public figure or is underage.

Treat others with dignity. Some do suffer from mental health problems and may not have other communication outlets. Stay humble. 

Embrace good digital citizenship and never retweet fake news. Fact check.

Use humor or gentle teasing to ease tension.

Ask questions.

The Roseanne Rule: Tweet while intoxicated at your own risk. Remember that even though she apologized profusely, she was ostracized.

Sarah Braasch, Yale University, Investigation of Bias and How a Similar Incident at Smith College was Resolved

UPDATE 1.3.2020 Link to post-hearing legal brief filed with Connecticut Freedom Of Information Commission on behalf of Sarah Braasch

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzOJKJMkQ_aja1BoVUNvbjJsZFpEUXQzbHU0YVdNd2xQMlA4/view?usp=sharing

A link to Yale’s response brief is available here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzOJKJMkQ_ajeEV0MjBVY2xlbkNSLTdpTVM5cVpwbk53TFg4/view?usp=sharing

(My original post did not include a credit to @keikoinboston for unearthing the original PDF that was shared on Twitter. My apologies to her.)

Yale University and the Yale University Police Department are under scrutiny as the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission deliberates a request by Yale PhD candidate Sarah Braasch to release body camera footage filmed on May 8. 2018. Braasch, made internationally infamous by a viral video now known as “The Napping While Black Incident,” met with the FOI on November 4, 2019. The Commission is in the process of deliberating at this time.

If you are unfamiliar with the background story of Sarah Braasch and her situation at Yale University, follow this link.

Sarah Braasch, Portrayed as Racist Cop Caller at Yale, Debuts YouTube Channel

Within days of the event, Yale Administrative Officials began issuing statements implying this was an instance of racial bias and harassment. Examples:

“As Vice President for Student Life, I have worked with administrators, faculty and students to strengthen the resources available to address incidents of racial bias, discrimination, and harassment.” (Message to graduate students from VP for Student Life Kimberly Goff-Crews, Yale News, Published May 10, 2018)
“Racism is an unqualified evil in our society. Universities are not utopias, and people of color experience racism on our campus as they do elsewhere in our country. This fact angers and disappoints me. We must neither condone nor excuse racism, prejudice, or discrimination at Yale.” (Thursday, May 10, 2018,
Peter Salovey, President and Chris Argyris Professor of Psychology)

“The incident that occurred at the Hall of Graduate Studies last week shines a spotlight on the topic of race and racism, though it is just one example of the larger challenge of building and maintaining a community built on mutual respect.” (Message from Dean Cooley, May 15, 2018, Published on Yale University Website)

Further documentation of Yale’s official statements may be found here.

Yale University Public Statements in Reply to Sarah Braasch Incident

A petition was created to have Braasch removed from Yale and forced to undergo a mental evaluation. It read in part, “Students of color at Yale should not be re-traumatized by seeing Braasch on campus this fall. We also insist on a mental health evaluation for Braasch so that she can be prevented from doing harm to herself or others.”

Tweets, comments and TV interviews conducted by prominent celebrities circulated quickly, including the likes of Shaun King, Reverend Jesse Jackson, Jemele Hill, Whoopi Goldberg, Don Lemon, Joy Behar, Shonda Rhimes, Roxane Gay, Sunny Hostin and many, many more.

Major news media covered the story, including CNN, Washington Post, New York Times, ABC, CBS, Buzzfeed… eventually the story became international. A Google search for yale white woman calls police yields more than 11 million hits.

Lolade Siyonbola, the black student also at the center of the controversy, appeared on Good Morning America and said she was aware of at least one other incident where the same student (Braasch) had called the police on another black student by the name of Reneson Jean-Louis.

Reneson Jean-Louis, for his part, posted a long letter on Facebook (since deleted) in which he compared Sarah’s actions to a lynching. He quickly made an appearance on CNN’s show hosted by Don Lemon.

Siyonbola publicly called for punitive measures in her interview with ABC: “Someone who uses the police in the way that Sarah uses it should be held accountable,” Siyonbola said. “Whether that’s expulsion [or] some other form of disciplinary action, there needs to be some punitive measures for people who act out of racially motivated bias.

“If there are punitive measures I think someone like Sarah will think twice about calling the police,” she added.
Demands were made to Yale that included this open letter.

http://www.conversationx.com/2018/05/26/an-open-letter-to-the-yale-administration-from-black-graduate-students-and-allies/

Sarah Braasch has insisted all along this was never an issue of racial bias. In the elevator incident with Reneson, an unfamiliar male who appeared to have no access to the building, Sarah checked with the Yale Police to verify he was supposed to be in the building.

In the second incident, Braasch called the non-emergency Yale Police Department number because she interpreted Siyonbola’s presence as a threat after she claims she suffered an extended period of harassment in her dorm, presumably in retaliation for having reported an unfamiliar male in the elevator and on her floor.

At this time, Braasch is pursuing a FOIA request made to the Yale Police Department that she believes will verify her claims that no racial language or racial animus was ever expressed by her. That request in still pending.

Interestingly, the #MeToo ideology was not applied to the incident with Reneson. While #MeToo is characterized by a believe-all-women principle of charity in situations where women are uncomfortable or feel unsafe–an unfamiliar man in a dormitory who didn’t seem to have access to operating the elevator–would normally have qualified as reason enough to take precautions. However, since Reneson interpreted the encounter as racially motivated, this complicated the situation.

Also interesting, during Siyonbola’s contact with the Yale police, she makes reference to Braasch’s mental disability as the motivation for the phone call, saying Braasch needs to be in an institution and that she is “mental.” Siyonbola actually seems to downplay racial bias herself and be more concerned with Braasch being a “mental” woman.

Specifically, Siyonbola tells the officers, “I think you probably need to commit her to an institution” and “I think when someone mental calls the police for no reason you guys should just tell them to you know go to an institution.” Later, Siyonbola adds, “she called the police on my friend about three months ago the university knows that she’s unstable and she’s still here.” Siyonbola then brings up race for the first time, saying, “well this is my first time actually meeting her in person but I know that she’s the one who called the police on my friend because he was in a stairwell and he was black.” Siyonbola then returns to her insistence that Sarah is mentally ill, saying “she needs to be put into an institution so that she could stop harassing people,” adding “this is the second time I personally experienced her psychosis.” (Toward the end of the video, Lolade refers to Sarah as a “psycho.”)

So when bias is not overt, but is perceived as implicit racial bias or racial profiling, how are universities to navigate these claims?

Why, when Siyonbola emphasized Braasch’s mental health issues as being responsible for the phone call to the YPD, did the Yale administration send out public statements couching the incident in terms of racial bias?

According to The Clery Act, a federal law which subjects colleges and universities to report crime statistics, disparaging remarks regarding mental health or disability are considered to be bias-related incidents. The Clery Act handbook notes that bias toward a disability is “a preformed negative opinion or attitude toward a group of persons based on their physical or mental impairments/challenges, whether such disability is temporary or permanent, congenital or acquired by heredity, accident, injury, advanced age or illness.” While I am not suggesting Siyonbola’s words rise to the level of a hate crime, the Clery Act handbook does include “Bias-related oral comments, written statements or gestures were made by the offender which indicate his or her bias. For example, the offender shouted a racial epithet at the victim.” One would not have to look far to find references to usage of the word “mental” or the word “psycho” to be a derogatory slur or even a “microaggression.” (FIRE notes that “while the Clery Act requires federally funded institutions to publish statistics concerning hate crimes, most schools define “bias incident” more broadly than criminal acts. In any event, most institutions publish neither statistics nor reports.”)

Incidents of racism on college campuses are not a new phenomenon. What may indeed be different in today’s polarized environment is that whereas in the past, acts of prejudice investigated had to be fairly concrete (graffiti, slurs, assaults, etc.), we have now moved into a broader definition of what constitutes an incident worthy of investigation. This occurs when an incident is perceived by a victim, through the lens of lived experience, to be motivated by an implicit or unconscious bias.
At the same time cases of implicit or unconscious bias are being taken very seriously by some colleges and universities, questions are being raised about the validity of connecting implicit bias to behavior. This makes investigations into these incidences quite complex and potentially unfair to all involved.

To understand the hazards of investigating bias, FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, has researched the topic extensively. The Bias Response Team Report 2017 is a very complete reference on the topic.

Important highlights from the FIRE report applicable to an incident of perceived bias include the following:

While FIRE conducted research on response to “bias incidents” on campus, collecting data from 200-plus private and public universities, one overriding trend seemed to surface–universities were casting a wider and wider net on bias-related incidents with no clear, common definition of what a demonstration of bias actually is. In fact, some definitions were found to be quite “open-ended” and to use “broad wording.”

From the FIRE report:
“Take, for example, the University of Northern Iowa’s definition: A bias-related incident is any word or action directed toward an individual or group based upon actual or perceived identity characteristics or background of a group or person that is harmful or hurtful.”

“Western Washington University’s definition extends to ‘demonstrations’ of bias, including ‘language, words, signs, symbols, threats, or actions that could potentially cause alarm, anger, or fear in others[.]’ Moreover, the existence of a bias incident under the policy turns entirely on whether the complainant subjectively perceived the incident to be motivated by bias, rather than on the intent of the speaker.”

“Macalester College’s now-deleted definition included ‘bias against another person based on … his or her membership in a group … or an individual’s particular characteristics, role, or behavior.’ This definition could apply to almost any criticism of anyone.”

While many universities have no formal bias response team, they may conduct investigations which may include representatives of law enforcement or “student conduct administrators,” including campus police. Thus, while confronting bias may be stated as educational, it often appears punitive in nature, with some moving dangerously close to “policing politeness or civility.” (“42% report speech to members of law enforcement or campus security officers, even though the teams deliberately solicit reports of a wide variety of non-criminal speech and activity.”) FIRE points to guidelines by some universities that are couched in the language of criminal justice.

There was a reticence among some universities to disclose information regarding these policies and procedures and a general lack of transparency when it comes to releasing records or statistics on these matters.

“FIRE also used public records requests to discover the reports made at some institutions, how the schools responded to those reports, and the teams’ policies and training. Many institutions complied with these requests. Others stonewalled, hid records, deleted websites, or demanded thousands of dollars to view records, claiming that knowing how Bias Response Teams operate is not in the public interest.

In addition to the sometimes secretive and/or punitive nature of an investigation into an incident of bias, the question arises as to whether universities can conduct such investigations in a neutral and fair manner when their own reputation is at stake More from FIRE:

“12% of teams include at least one administrator dedicated to media relations, suggesting that part of the purpose of such teams is to deter and respond to controversies that might embarrass the institution.”

“Including media relations administrators is also concerning, because it suggests that a school’s decision to respond to offensive speech may be driven by the potential impact to the school’s reputation. Where this is the case, it undermines the notion implicitly underlying Bias Response Teams that universities are primarily concerned with providing a safe environment.”

“By learning of events and disputes quickly, public and media relations administrators can attempt to frame the institution’s response in the media. At the University of New Mexico, for example, administrators pushed to release a statement ‘rather than waiting for the media to get ahold of’ flyers criticizing UNM’s logo (which involves a conquistador) that were reported to the Bias Response Team.”

“The ways in which universities respond to offensive speech and discrimination are of particular public concern, and doing so without being transparent, or being selectively transparent, risks being seen as an effort to hide incidents from the community.” (This has certainly been a concern with Yale’s refusal to release video camera footage recorded by the Yale Police Department. Note that Braasch has requested footage of her interview with police officers only.)

AN INCIDENT AT SMITH COLLEGE

During the summer of 2018, an accusation of racial profiling occured at Smith College when an employee called campus police to report a person in the dining area.

An account of the incident is summarized in an article titled Smith College launches outside probe after employee calls police on black student at lunch.” 

The Smith College incident follows a similar trajectory as what occurred at Yale. Campus police are called and a student perceives the call is made only because she is black. The student takes to social media and the story goes viral. The Smith College president responds saying an investigation will occur to determine if the police call was racially motivated. Protests, rallies and marches are held. 

However, what is different is that a longtime employee and graduate of Smith College wrote the following letter questioning the interpretation of the events as they unfolded:

I have worked at Smith College for 33 years; I am also an alumna. However, I now find myself ashamed of Smith for the way the incident of July 31st has been handled.

The administration was so intent on their outrage that they failed to ask important questions of staff that could have cleared this issue up immediately.

The student in question was, at the time, a College employee. She was supposed to eat her meals at her assigned dining area across campus but chose instead to eat lunch in a residential dining hall that was open for feeding students/summer programs. However, the house itself was closed on that day, July 31st and had been closed since the end of the academic year in May. The student decided to leave the dining hall and lie down on a couch in the dimly lit living room. The staff member accused of unfairly confronting her was not wearing their glasses – she/he could not tell for sure whether the person on the couch was male or female, as can be seen from the use of different pronouns in the transcript.

The accused staff member is perfectly aware that there are black students at the College; however, the staff person had no reason to think that the unknown person was a Smith student. When he/she said the person ‘seems to be out of place’, she/he was referring to the fact that the house was closed; this is made apparent when he/she says, ‘I don’t see anybody in the building at this point’. In other words, there were no folks coming in early for a summer program that the unknown person could have been a member of. Both President McCartney and Amy Hunter (Interim Director of Inclusion, Diversity and Equity) seem fixated on the idea that the staff member thought this person was ‘out of place’ at Smith because she was black. This is ludicrous – the accused staff member has worked on campus and in student residences for over 30 years. Oumou Kanoute’s own actions put her ‘out of place’, not the color of her skin. This was never an incident of racial bias.

As staff, we are told that if there is a stranger in our area we are not to approach them; we should call Campus Police, which the accused staff member did. The call was made at 1:53 pm; lunch in the dining room was over at 1:30, so only staff should have been in the building at 1:53. The staff member leaves for the day at 3:00 and was responsible for securing the house. A dance program with many young children was scheduled to be housed in this dorm that weekend. She/he had no way of knowing if the person lying on the couch had come in off the street, or even if the person might have overdosed on drugs and needed help.

Amy Hunter writes that, ‘Smith College does not tolerate race- or gender-based discrimination in any form. Such behavior can contribute to a climate of fear, hostility and exclusion that has no place in our community.’ I must say that Smith staff are now living in such a climate. Staff now feel at a loss as to how to keep their areas safe – ‘See something, say something’ will no longer be practiced. At this point the lives of three dedicated staff members have been seriously disrupted, their jobs have been jeopardized, they have been labeled as racists and have had nasty comments and threats directed at them. Predictably, staff morale is at an all-time low.

A simple meeting between the student, the staff member, the responding member of Campus Police and a College representative could have solved this whole misunderstanding without the predictable social media circus and the associated histrionics. Why wasn’t such a meeting arranged immediately after the incident? Why did the College post inflammatory statements on the Smith website instead, essentially finding the staff member guilty before any investigating was done? The staff member has had a spotless work record for over three decades at Smith, handled the situation correctly and according to protocol, and has now been on leave for almost a month. How can this be considered fair and equitable?

Sincerely,

Tracey A. Putnam Culver, AC ’95

BA cum laude, PBK 

In a subsequent media interview, Culver said many staff members emailed her to thank her for speaking up, although some students did remain unconvinced and felt questioning the narrative of a black student was wrong.

=============================

As school reconvened for the fall, there was this from Smith College President about a month after the incident:

 

Thursday, August 30, 2018

Dear students, staff and faculty,

I write to offer updates and reflections on the July 31 call about a student to Campus Police.

A number of you have written to me to express concern for the student, especially as we begin the new semester. I want to assure you that I have reached out to her, offered a meeting and apologized on behalf of the college. Dean of the College Susan Etheredge ’77 and her team have been in contact with the student as well, to offer their support.

While the investigation of the incident is ongoing, both the student and the staff member have been invited to participate in mediation, a voluntary process that can offer a path forward for both parties. A core tenet of restorative justice is to provide people with the opportunity for willing apology, forgiveness and reconciliation.

In the context of a profoundly divided political and social climate, in this country and around the world, it is urgent that we, as members of an educational community, learn to speak with one another, not past one another, when we disagree, and to do so with the goal of true understanding. Learning how to have authentic conversations about our identities, especially race and class, is among the most challenging work many of us do—and we all need to learn how to do this work better.

I offer a case in point by sharing several excerpts from the hundreds of messages I have received from students, faculty, staff and alumnae, about the July 31 incident. As you will see, members of our community have expressed a range of perspectives. While you might disagree—even vehemently—with one or all of these viewpoints, they provide a way to understand the challenge that lies ahead in healing and improving our community.

  • “It’s not really possible to articulate a ‘truth’ about which experiences are and which are not influenced by race. For the student, race was most certainly central because it speaks to every part of her life experience and how she has seen Black people treated. People of color can feel frustrated by the question—Was race involved?—because to ask the question does not recognize their life experience.”
  • “While instances of racial profiling can stem from hate, I also believe such profiling often stems from a lack of education on the matter. I’m sure many Smith students, employees and faculty come from predominantly white communities, and they, perhaps, have been directly or indirectly taught to fear people who appear different from themselves.”
  • “At this point the lives of three dedicated staff members have been seriously disrupted, their jobs have been jeopardized, they have been labeled as racists and have had nasty comments and threats directed at them.”
  • “The student was extremely hurt by the incident. AND the caller might not have done anything wrong, given the context and the instructions from the college about how to handle suspicions. Both can be true.”
  • “We all think we know the story. We only know the perspective we bring to it.”

Let us each ask ourselves how we move from different perspectives, like these, to deeper understanding and needed structural changes. I am heartened by the fact that a number of our faculty and staff members have been piloting programs to examine the ways in which race, gender, class, implicit bias and power influence our assumptions, interactions and conversations. Clearly, Smith has a great deal to do to ensure that the college is a place where each of us feels we belong. I have never worked at a college or university as committed to social justice as Smith College. However imperfect our campus community—indeed, our world—might be, this ongoing commitment gives me hope.

Each year, I send a message to the community about our sustained work on inclusion, diversity and equity. You will hear more from me soon about specific opportunities for training and education, with the goal of meaningful, systemic change. I embrace the work that lies ahead.

Sincerely,

Kathleen McCartney

President, Smith College

===========================

Smith College appears to have demonstrated extreme transparency in its handling of the incident, right down to a transcript of the original phone call. Complete documentation and final investigative reports are available here: https://www.smith.edu/news/campus-police-call

Smith College protected the identity of the employee, even though the offended student did post a demand on Facebook to have the identity released and attached photos of two staff members as potential perpetrators. The post was later deleted and Smith College confirmed neither of the employees posted on social media were correct.

The ACLU announced it would be representing the student in seeking restorative justice and after the investigation was completed, expressed displeasure at the outcome, reupping the claim that it was “a racially motivated suspicious person” call.

https://www.aclum.org/en/news/aclu-represents-black-student-profiled-smith-college

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-statement-smith-college-findings-racial-profiling-black-student


As we continue to await the Connecticut FOI decision on the release of body cam footage, I’ll end with a suggestion made by FIRE to better handle these incidents:

“Universities would do best to focus on how they can help the reporting student, not on the reported speaker… any institutional response to bias should avoid uninvited intervention with the speaker and instead focus on providing resources to the reporting student. In doing so, they will help encourage all community members to express themselves and participate in the marketplace of ideas that our nation’s colleges and universities are uniquely suited to provide.”

My Divorce Attorney Fired Me Without Due Process

I normally don’t write about my personal life, but in this instance I think it’s important for me and for you to understand something about the legal system that I find very troubling.

So… I’ll try to be concise and accurate.

I was married for 36 years as of January 15, 2019. My former husband refused all attempts to mediate a settlement, although the law in my state regarding an equitable distribution of property is pretty uncomplicated. 

Instead he forced a divorce trial like he was a Rockefeller (he is not). 

It is estimated that less than ten percent of divorces ever go to trial–in fact, it’s estimated by some statisticians to be closer to five percent. In other words, ninety five percent of US marriages that end in divorce are settled amicably and out-of-court. 

A divorce trial is a horrible waste of funds, and yet if your spouse presents a stalemate, you are simply forced to run up your legal fees. We had no custody issues, by the way. My children are grown and have their own lives.

So… on January 10, 2019, forced to go to trial, I had to sit through a day of ridiculous back and forth that ended up with a judge having to divide property. To give you an idea of how long this process was drawn out by my former spouse and his attorney, I filed for divorce on October 12, 2017. He refused court orders to present his financials, of course.

During the trial, there wasn’t anything to go after as far as my character or my financial disclosures and total transparency, but his lawyer certainly did his best, even pointing out I had allowed my disabled son to use our joint credit card to go to Taco Bueno and get gas for my car unfettered.

The opposing attorney then asked, did I use our credit card to go to something called “The American Atheist Convention” with my son. I said yes, I did. He then asked, “Is that some sort of religious organization?” 

I snapped back, “A religious organization? Of course it’s not. Don’t you know what atheism is?” 

No further questions. I live in the Bible Belt. Attempting to malign my character by implying I am a heathen was the best they could do. I really don’t even know if that violates my civil rights, but no one stepped up to defend me on that one. Just one more humiliation I suppose.

Anyway, by January 18, 2019 the judge issued a multi-page decision with official orders on property distribution to be carried out by my attorneys. So, I was awarded one half of all our retirement accounts which requires something called a Qualified domestic relations order. “A qualified domestic relations order (or QDRO, pronounced “cue-dro” or “qua-dro”), is a judicial order in the United States, entered as part of a property division in a divorce or legal separation that splits a retirement plan or pension plan by recognizing joint marital ownership interests in the plan.” 

In addition to that, I was ordered one half our debt, which included a credit card that needed to be transferred into my name only by some legal mumbo jumbo.

So, I asked my attorney how I would get my money and she said she’d file all the stuff for me so I could receive my funds. 

I was awarded a monthly alimony (small) as well as the judge deciding my husband could pay out a debt settlement over an 18 month period. Dates I was to receive these amounts were specified.

The attorney filed a lien on my house in case I failed to pay my debt. That was fine with me. They also filed something asking for some of the attorney fees to be awarded to me since he failed to provide his finances. (I will likely never be compensated for being forced to go to trial.)

So, low and behold, my ex-husband stopped paying his monthly obligation to me and is now $8500 behind.

So I asked my attorney could she please file contempt. She said not until I paid some on my bill. I said, well, when will I get my money in my name? She never answered and then left the firm without notifying me. Lovely.

So I figure the only way I can pay is to put it on my one credit card. I contacted the firm to pay by credit card, and guess what? After nine months, they have never transferred a single thing into my name. Nine months. So the credit card is rejected and what am I supposed to pay them with? 

Mary is the attorney who said she was already taking care of my property division. 

 

HERE ARE MY EMAIL RECORDS OF OUR EXCHANGES

Jul 8, 2019, 12:39 PM

to Mary

Mary I have not received any of the ordered money from (former spouse)  since May 1st. I guess I have only the choice of a contempt of court action? My understanding is that it also requests all expenses I will be out of pocket for your time and filing fees. I’m so tired of this. BTW claims he doesn’t have the money are false. There’s a large amount of cash available to him in life insurance which is the only way I am even surviving right now was to access my own. 

(Former husband) showed contempt over and over in judge’s orders but the judge never would hear it so I don’t know if he’s very sympathetic.

From Mary

Jul 8, 2019, 5:34 PM

to me

Hi Gretchen,

Thanks for the update.  I wanted to also let you know that I’ve checked our billing software and it looks like you are carrying a substantial balance with our firm right now.  You will want to address this before we start a new action. Let me check with John (head attorney) to see what his take is on (former husband’s) failure to pay and I’ll get back with you.

Jul 9, 2019, 8:21 PM

to Mary

Ok, thank you. Do you know when I will receive my money in my own name? In other words, the property division of his IRAs and retirement accounts? That will help me know how much I can pay. I would prefer to cover my entire balance that I owe and can I leave the sanctions money in there assuming he will cover it or what do I do?? 

AND THAT’S THE END OF MARY. NO “I’LL GET BACK WITH YOU” EVER HAPPENED. NO ANSWER AS TO WHERE MY MONEY IS SO I CAN ACTUALLY PAY MY BILL.

So by September 12, I decided to try putting a large sum toward my bill on my single credit card that was supposed to be transferred into my name (I have been paying on it monthly as I was awarded that debt.)

Gretchen 

Sep 12, 2019, 9:53 PM

to John, Mar

Have I paid enuf on my bill for you to file contempt. I cannot make it financially without my settlement. Please tell me what to do. I don’t understand how someone can just deny a court order. Please bill this to (former husband) as well. I understand contempt is to be charged to the offending party.

I also don’t understand where we are on the division of property and when I will receive my money in my name. I have been very sick and am having a hard time.

Judy handles the invoicing. Guess what? This is how I found out Mary left the firm.

Gretchen 

Sep 12, 2019, 9:59 PM

to Judy

I just received an auto message that Mary is no longer there. Ugh. Each time it changes someone new doesn’t know what’s going on. This is a mess. (Former spouse)  is not following the court order for monthly payments and I’m not getting any info on my money division. I can’t believe this. Please bill this to (former husband). Contempt should be covered by him.

Judy 

Sep 13, 2019, 10:55 AM

to me

Gretchen I forwarded your email to John for a response.  Do you not want me to run the credit card you gave me? If you do, I will have to have the zip code for the billing address for the card.

From: Gretchen 

Sep 13, 2019, 5:31 PM

to Judy

Yes, I do. I’m sorry but (former spouse)  has messed with all my accounts but it should be #####. If that’s not right let me know.

Judy 

Sep 16, 2019, 10:26 AM

to me

I tried to run the card but it was declined due to a mismatch on the zip code.  ?

Gretchen

Sep 16, 2019, 11:30 AM

to Judy

Ok let me see what he changed it to now hang on

Gretchen

Sep 16, 2019, 11:34 AM

to Judy

Must be #####

Judy

Sep 16, 2019, 11:37 AM

to me

Still says it is a mismatch and won’t go through. 

Gretchen 

Sep 16, 2019, 11:47 AM

to Judy

Ok, I’ll check it out. I’m so sorry. This is why I need help. I’ll get back ASAP

Gretchen

Sep 16, 2019, 12:00 PM

to Judy

Well, the last statement had ##### on it, but I just went into my online account and changed it to ##### manually and received a confirmation. It that doesn’t work, I’ll have to do even more investigation.

Judy 

Sep 16, 2019, 1:05 PM

to me

Still no match. 

Gretchen

Sep 16, 2019, 1:11 PM

to Judy

Ok, thanks. I will contact Cap One

Gretchen 

Sep 16, 2019, 1:22 PM

to Judy

It would appear I have to charge this way

(credit card number)

9/20

(3 digit code)

Mastercard

Former husband’s name because nobody ever put it in my name.

zip #####

Gretchen

Sep 16, 2019, 1:46 PM

to Judy

Please let me know if that was declined too. 

Judy 

Sep 16, 2019, 4:47 PM

to me

I’m sorry but I can’t run a card with (former husband’s)  name on it.  

Gretchen

Sep 16, 2019, 5:07 PM

to John, Judy

Thank you Judy. It was Mary’s job to do this since the judge’s decision in on January 18, 2019.

This entire law firm has dropped the ball on me. I have no credit now? Wow. 

And (former husband) has ( not) paid a cent for months and Mary said I had to pay to get her to file that. 

This is shameful treatment.

Gretchen

Sep 16, 2019, 5:14 PM

to Judy, John

(former husband) has not paid a cent (since May). Here’s the document from the judge. (I attached Judge’s orders). So I’ve been paying down the debt assigned to me but can’t charge anything because for 9 months not a single move has been made to separate these assets and accounts as ordered by the court?

I am stunned.

Gretchen

Sep 16, 2019, 5:16 PM

to Judy, John

I mean seriously, what do you want me to do? Contact Legal Shield or what?

(NOW JOHN, HEAD ATTORNEY FINALLY DECIDES TO RESPOND)

From John 

Sep 16, 2019, 5:26 PM

to me

Gretchen, 

Have you contacted (former husband) to get any of these assets separated?  You told me you are not going to pay for a contempt case. We have no obligation to start new litigation and work for free.  If you want to fire me then let me know. Otherwise, I am planning to appear at the hearing on our motion for fees. 

I can tell you are frustrated with (former husband) but that gives you no reason to be rude to Judy or to threaten me. 

Gretchen

Sep 16, 2019, 7:04 PM

to Judy, John

No I did not say I wouldn’t pay. What I said was the person in contempt is responsible for contempt costs and those fees need to be charged to him as well. Mary specifically told me she was separating the funds through an outside service she had worked with before and that I could not do that myself. 

She also never consulted me about the sanction amount which I wanted to see. 

Being upset that no one from your firm has separated my assets for 9 months as promised is justified. I was never rude to Judy and if you find I have threatened you then I suggest you grow up and do your job. 

You are ridiculous and unprofessional to speak to me that way. Your firm has dropped the ball and you need to fix it.

And Judy I am sorry if you think I was rude. You were quite patient with me.

John

Sep 17, 2019, 9:41 AM

to me, Judy

Gretchen:

You are misstating the facts and insulting me and my firm.  I am not required to put up with this level of acrimony or to work for free.  We will be filing a motion to withdraw from your case. There is a motion for fees pending that is scheduled to be heard in October.  I will mail you a copy of the motion to withdraw. I still expect you to pay your bill. 

Gretchen

Sep 17, 2019, 10:16 AM

to John

Please let me know what I am mis-stating. I was told my funds would be separated by your firm per the court order 9 months ago. Is this what you feel I am mis-stating? The judge ordered this and through negligence you have failed to comply or thru malfeasance on the part of your employee who actually never carried thru on that court order. 

Again, what am I mis-stating so I may explain this to a subsequent attorney.

John 

Sep 17, 2019, 10:27 AM

to me

The only thing that we have not done is prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).  We typically have an actuary prepare the QDRO but we are not going to front that expense as you have declined to pay on your bill.  Additionally, (former husband’s attorney) was not particularly cooperative in getting a QDRO prepared. Otherwise, we have completed everything we would reasonably be expected to complete.

Gretchen

Sep 17, 2019, 10:33 AM

to John

I am trying to pay the bill, John. You have left me with no funds since January or I would have paid you months ago. Mary never once said in January I must pay before she filed that. So the facts are different here as she told me she was doing that immediately. In addition, you have a lien on my house. Put a lien of whatever you want in addition to that. You will be paid. Otherwise, I will take this to a higher authority including the judge, showing proof that your firm did not follow his orders either as I was promised you would do.

Otherwise, feel free to withdraw and I will forward that letter on to the Judge, the bar and Legal Shield and see where I stand.

Gretchen

Sep 17, 2019, 12:32 PM

to John

Also, if you plan to withdraw, I would like the following questions answered in your withdrawal please:

I quote you:

Additionally, (former husband’s attorney (Mr. Klenda) was not particularly cooperative in getting a QDRO prepared.  Otherwise, we have completed everything we would reasonably be expected to complete.

My question: Did you not consider it part of your duty to make sure (former husband’s attorney) cooperated by reporting him to the judge during a period of 9 months? If so, I would like a copy of that dated motion you filed on my behalf to get this done.

Or, if you don’t believe that is the duty of the attorney representing me, did you consider it my responsibility to force (former husband’s attorney) to comply with the judge? If so, please produce the documentation that you notified me even once in the last 9 months that you communicated with me that your were passing the duty on to me and expected me to know he was not cooperating or that I needed to force him to comply through some sort of non-legal method? What instructions did you supply  to me to tell me how to do that? 

Again, that’s any time in the past 9 months that I was notified of anything other that Mary instructing me it was going into the hands of the actualies (actuaries immediately) immediatey in January.

=============================

So, that’s the end of the email exchange. And guess what? He filed a motion to withdraw and had it signed by a judge within about 24 hours time, never allowing me to present my side of the story to the judge. 

Because I was “rude” and “insulted” his firm and “refused to pay.”

I called three judge’s office and asked if there was some kind of due process to present the facts I had. Nope. I asked so you mean a lawyer can say anything they want about you, withdraw and you receive no opportunity to defend yourself? Nope.

And that’s where I am today. I did check with Bar Association ethics and I believe he violated just about everything you can as far as withdrawing at a time that leaves the client at a crucial point–and a judge that couldn’t care less and signed the paper–sort of like the thin blue line. 

There is no end to this story. I have to go to court by myself this week (pro se) and just ask the judge what he expects me to do.

Why do I care that the attorney withdrew? Because I will have to pay extra for a new attorney to catch up on all this. I want him to finish the job. 

The legal system is so flawed. I am so worn down.

Yale University retains prominent attorney to defend FOIA request made by Yale student Sarah Braasch

Sarah Braasch, made unintentionally famous by the “napping while black” incident at Yale University on May 8, 2018, made an FOIA request to the state of Connecticut in hopes that Yale Police Department would release body camera footage of the police interview with Sarah herself only.

Sarah contends that what she said during this interview was not racist in nature, but instead was an attempt to explain the backstory of the situation. She believes the release of the footage will exonerate her of the statements rapidly made by Yale University couching the incident in racist terminology.

The hearing was scheduled for October 3, 2019, but the new attorney had requested a postponement and this postponement has been granted by the State of Connecticut. Braasch had already booked and paid for her travel.

The request for the postponement was made by Aaron Bayer, partner in the law firm Wiggin and Dana. According to Mr. Bayer’s impressive bio, he is “a litigation partner who heads the firm’s Education Practice Group and previously chaired the firm’s Appellate Practice Group.” His complete bio may be found here. https://www.wiggin.com/content/uploads/pdf/aaron-s-bayer.pdf

Mr. Bayer “draws on his experience in positions in higher education and government to advise colleges, universities, private secondary schools, and nonprofit organizations on the complex legal, regulatory, and public relations issues they regularly face.”

What is FOIA? Courtesty United States Government, FOIA.gov

Since 1967, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has provided the public the right to request access to records from any federal agency. It is often described as the law that keeps citizens in the know about their government. Federal agencies are required to disclose any information requested under the FOIA unless it falls under one of nine exemptions which protect interests such as personal privacy, national security, and law enforcement.

The FOIA also requires agencies to proactively post online certain categories of information, including frequently requested records. As Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court have all recognized, the FOIA is a vital part of our democracy.

What is the Presumption of Openness and Who Issues Guidance to Agencies on the FOIA?

The FOIA provides that when processing requests, agencies should withhold information only if they reasonably foresee that disclosure would harm an interest protected by an exemption, or if disclosure is prohibited by law. Agencies should also consider whether partial disclosure of information is possible whenever they determine that full disclosure is not possible and they should take reasonable steps to segregate and release nonexempt information. The Office of Information Policy at the Department of Justice is responsible for issuing government-wide guidance on the FOIA as part of its responsibilities to encourage all agencies to fully comply with both the letter and the spirit of the FOIA.