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.
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
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.”