Smith College Under Fire For Treatment Of Employees After Disproven Bias Incident

Smith College and its President Kathleen McCartney are under fire for its treatment of employees after a student, Oumou Kanoute, accused the school of racism in an incident with a security officer and a lunch worker.  The incident was disproven but McCartney and the college (as well as the media) treated the allegation as manifestly true — resulting in destruction of the reputations of a number of employees who were labeled as racists or examples of white privilege.  To this day, McCartney remains unapologetic for her failure to guarantee due process and fairness for these employees, even after an investigation of the incident in a recent New York Times piece.

Smith has long been a symbol of the elite with tuition costs exceeding $75,000. It is also an institution known for its liberal politics. The school was thrown into a frenzy in 2018 when Ms. Kanoute tweeted out that she was the victim of a racist encounter with a campus security officer. “All I did was be black. It’s outrageous that some people questioned my being at Smith College and my existence overall as a woman of color.” ABC’s “Good Morning America”  ran an account that notably did not seriously question the underlying facts.  On the program, Kanoute stated:

KANOUTE:  I see the cop walk in with a Smith employee, whom I’ve never seen before, and the man asked me, ‘We were wondering why you’re here.’ … It just still upsets me to just talk about it, because I don’t even feel safe on my own campus and I’m away from home. I’m the first in my family to go to college. 

Various media outlets also ran stories about the shocking and abusive encounter with the security officer who allegedly confronted Ms. Kanoute without any justification.  In reality, Kanoute was in a house that was closed to students. Only children attending a summer camp were allowed to use the building’s cafeteria.  There are various reasons, including legal reasons, why schools close access to areas used by younger children in such programs. The encounter with the security officer however was taped and (despite the clam of his being armed and abusive) the officer was unarmed and polite. Here is the entire exchange;

KANOUTE: Hi.

MAN: How you doing?

KANOUTE: Good, how are you?

MAN: We were wondering why you were here.

KANOUTE: Oh, I was eating lunch. I’m working the summer program, so I was just relaxing on my couch … 

MAN: Oh, just taking a break. So you’re with one of the summer programs?

KANOUTE: Yeah, I’m actually a TA …

MAN: So that’s what it was … 

KANOUTE: Yeah, I mean, it’s OK. It’s just, like, kind of, stuff like this happens way too often where people just feel, like, threatened. 

Nevertheless, the school ordered immediate action on the assumption that this was a serious racial incident.  The ACLU (which apparently did little investigation) agreed with Kanoute that this was an incident of a student being abused for “eating while black.” McCartney suspended the janitor who called campus security. She also ordered campus wide training sessions and seminars to deal with racism on campus.

Kanoute publicly demanded the release of the name of an employee in the incident for public condemnation and she was supported by many like Charles Song:

Your racist employee probably permanently scarred that student and you’re worried about protecting the privacy of that racist employee? Get your priorities in order.

— Charles Song (@CS70) August 3, 2018

Kanoute reportedly published the picture and name of at least one of the employee and accused a cafeteria worker, Jackie Blair, of being a racist despite later findings that Blair played no role in the incident.  According to the reports, “[Blair] discovered that Kanoute had posted her photograph, name and email on Facebook, along with that of another janitor, Mark Patenaude, a 21-year veteran of Smith College, who was not even on site at the time of the July 31 incident.”

The custodian, the security officer, the cafeteria worker, and others found themselves the targets of threats and public denunciations.

Even after the intensive investigation found that there was no racial bias incident, McCartney and others refused to apologize and most of the media did not report on the fact that the original allegation was disproven. McCartney simply declared “I suspect many of you will conclude, as did I, it is impossible to rule out the potential role of implicit racial bias.”

The ACLU was even more dismissive of the abusive treatment of these workers who earned less in salaries than the annual tuition at the school. Keep in mind that the report exonerated these employees who spent years being called racists and left the school. Rahsaan Hall, racial justice director for the A.C.L.U. of Massachusetts and Ms. Kanoute’s lawyer, simply said “It’s troubling that people are more offended by being called racist than by the actual racism in our society. Allegations of being racist, even getting direct mailers in their mailbox, is not on par with the consequences of actual racism.”

Most recently, another employee went public with a resignation and her own story. Jodi Shaw is graduate of Smith College and worked at the college as a librarian. She objected to the racial training seminars ordered by the school in response to the Kanoute incident.  While she loved Smith College, she finally left after what she saw as indoctrination and humiliation. She published the following letter which has been posted publicly.  In the letter to McCartney, Shaw states in part:

In spite of an independent investigation into the incident that found no evidence of racial bias, the college ramped up its initiatives aimed at dismantling the supposed racism that pervades the campus. This only served to support the now prevailing narrative that the incident had been racially motivated and that Smith staff are racist.

As it turned out, my experience in the library was just the beginning. In my new position, I was told on multiple occasions that discussing my personal thoughts and feelings about my skin color is a requirement of my job. I endured racially hostile comments, and was expected to participate in racially prejudicial behavior as a continued condition of my employment. I endured meetings in which another staff member violently banged his fist on the table, chanting, “Rich, white women! Rich, white women!” in reference to Smith alumnae.

Although I have spoken to many staff and faculty at the college who are deeply troubled by all of this, they are too terrified to speak out about it. This illustrates the deeply hostile and fearful culture that pervades Smith College.

The last straw came in January 2020, when I attended a mandatory Residence Life staff retreat focused on racial issues. The hired facilitators asked each member of the department to respond to various personal questions about race and racial identity. When it was my turn to respond, I said, “I don’t feel comfortable talking about that.” I was the only person in the room to abstain.

Later, the facilitators told everyone present that a white person’s discomfort at discussing their race is a symptom of “white fragility.” They said that the white person may seem like they are in distress, but that it is actually a “power play.” In other words, because I am white, my genuine discomfort was framed as an act of aggression. I was shamed and humiliated in front of all of my colleagues.

This was an extremely difficult decision for me and comes at a deep personal cost. I make $45,000 a year; less than a year’s tuition for a Smith student. I was offered a settlement in exchange for my silence, but I turned it down. My need to tell the truth — and to be the kind of woman Smith taught me to be — makes it impossible for me to accept financial security at the expense of remaining silent about something I know is wrong. My children’s future, and indeed, our collective future as a free nation, depends on people having the courage to stand up to this dangerous and divisive ideology, no matter the cost.

McCartney rejected the allegations in the Shaw letter and said lashed out at Shaw. In a letter from McCartney the College maintained that it “flatly denies” Shaw’s “baseless” claims and stated that her letter “contains a number of misstatements about the college’s equity and inclusion initiatives.” McCartney  also attacked Shaw for saying that she was offered a large settlement in exchange for a confidentiality agreement:

“The employee suggests that Smith tried to buy her silence. But it was the employee herself who demanded payment of an exceptionally large sum in exchange for dropping a threatened legal claim and agreeing to standard confidentiality provisions. Further, while the employee aims her complaint at Smith, her public communications make clear that her grievances about equity and inclusion training run more broadly…”

It is clearly true that Shaw was objecting to the training programs. I also do not fault McCartney in ordering campus reviews in light of the allegation. The allegation was made national news by ABC and other outlets. As a community, it is important to discuss such issues and look at any concerns, particularly among faculty and students of color. I cannot speak to the need for “training seminars” or their content since we only have opposing accounts. However, when such allegations are raised, it is important for the college to initiate discussions among faculty and students. Clearly McCartney did more than that in the use of these training sessions, but it is important for schools to move quickly to allow for a community dialogue on such disturbing allegations.

Where I (and many) are most critical is in the treatment of employees accused by Ms. Kanoute and others. There was no semblance of due process for these workers.  Moreover, there was no acknowledgment of the disproving of the allegations and the pain that it caused these workers. The College and others immediately appeared to accept that the incident was true and proceeded from that basis even though it turns out that innocent workers (including one not even involved) were mistreated.

In her letter McCartney defends her racial training seminars as “grounded in evidence.” That could be true, but the treatment of the College of these workers was not. It was based on assumptions and merely followed the public narrative created in the media to the deprivation of workers at the college. These workers have little power or money to contest such actions by the college. Yet, McCartney’s empathy clearly does not extend that far.

None of this was necessary. Smith College had a video of the incident. It could have declared that the matter would be thoroughly investigated but reaffirm that both the student and these workers are entitled to an opportunity to be heard on the matter. It could have held sessions to discuss claims of systemic racism and privilege at the college for anyone to attend. Likewise, the media could have done a modicum of investigation and even presented both sides of this story as a contested account of racism. The costs of those failures were placed on these workers. Indeed, most media (and certainly McCartney) did not admit to the failures or the unfair treatment of these workers.  Even after the investigation disproving the Kanoute allegation, it is simply too risky for many to be seen as critical of the original narrative.

The Smith College incident should be a learning experience for all universities but the lesson has not taken in the past. Schools like Duke University have engaged in the same presumptions of guilt in incidents that later were proven false but destroyed the lives of students or staff. As with Smith, the rush to judgment was led by the Duke President who seemed to dismiss any obligations to the accused students who were labeled as gang rapists.  What is most striking is how such failures to guarantee fairness ultimately undermine not just the institutions but the cause itself. There are serious problems with racism in our society, including in our educational institutions. These false allegations undermine those efforts and these schools magnify those costs by failing to exercise a modicum of judgment and fairness in their responses.

219 thoughts on “Smith College Under Fire For Treatment Of Employees After Disproven Bias Incident”

  1. All of the reports omit the most disturbing element of this whole episode. As part of the response to the incident, Kounate,and Rahsaan Hall demanded and were granted dormitories at Smith the were “set aside for people of color” That’s right folks, in order to mollify complaints about racism (that were proven false) the College instituted segregated dormitories where students of European descent were not only not welcomed, they were explicitly EXCLUDED on the basis of their ethnicity.

    Fifty years after the civil rights struggle, people of color demand segregation.

  2. I’m unclear despite Turley’s assertion that the student was not supposed to be in the cafeteria? Was she a TA related to the program allowed to be in the cafeteria? I’m sure some adults were present to monitor the children of which she may have been one. Also, the “disproven” claim of racial bias begs the question, disproved how and by whom? In this day when according to many, nothing qualifies as actual racism unless it’s accompanied be shouting out the N-word at the same time, the alleged disproof means little. There may well have been no discrimination, but the ability to smugly disprove it concerns me. I’d be interested to know what happened after Turley cut off the quote from the conversation which didn’t appear to be over. Asking for a friend.

    1. She was allowed in the cafeteria because she was working with the program. The cafeteria worker asked whether she was with the program. No one was supposed to be in the living room where she took her food to eat (as no one was living in the dorm at the time), and the janitor who noticed a person sitting in the living room couldn’t tell whether the person was male or female from the window. Smith is a women’s college, so the possibility that there was a man sitting in a living room of a closed dorm would also be a reason for the janitor to call for a campus police officer to check.

      Re: disproven by whom and how, the college hired an outside law firm to investigate and write up a report. They interviewed a number of people and also gathered written and video evidence. Their report and the appended exhibits are on Smith’s website.

      AFAIK, the recording ends where Turley ended the transcript, since the transcript cuts off in the report in the same place and they then turn to interview recollections.

      1. Thanks for the information. The outside law firm, hired by the university, seemed to have a vested interest in producing a certain result. I’ll review the information and see what I think.

          1. I went to the Smith website and couldn’t find the report. Perhaps you could direct me further. I did read the article from the Daily Mail which added to the confusion. Turley implied the student lied about the armed security guard. “(despite the clam of his being armed and abusive) the officer was unarmed and polite.” The Daily Mail article indicates the security guard brought with him a police officer who I suspect may have well been armed. I wonder if the report from the janitor included the fact she was black which precipitated the response of a security guard and police officer to remove someone sitting in the wrong room? The article indicates the independent review found “no evidence” of discrimination which is different that Turley’s supposition that it was disproved. I don’t have enough information to say one way or another whether discrimination occurred. I do have an opinion about the woman that resigned because she would have had to undergo some training. She might need it most of all.

            1. The report: https://www.smith.edu/sites/default/files/media/Documents/President/investigative-report.pdf
              The exhibits: https://www.smith.edu/sites/default/files/media/Documents/President/exhibits.pdf

              I haven’t read the Daily Mail article but did read the NYT article that JT linked to and read most of the report and some of the exhibits. My recollection is that the janitor called the campus police, waited for an officer to arrive, and they went in together to check on the person in the living room, who turned out to be Ms. Kanoute. There was no security guard. The campus police officer wasn’t armed, nor was the janitor, but Ms. Kanoute didn’t know that and was concerned that the officer might be armed.

              The woman you mention wasn’t involved in the interaction with Kanoute.

              1. “The woman you mention wasn’t involved in the interaction with Kanoute.”

                I’m aware of that, I still have an opinion. And those on the left are called snowflakes? What actual harm has she experienced? Reviewing the report.

                    1. You don’t have to eat every sh!t sandwich, Enigma. Attempting to make the case for Smith’s administration is a waste of your time.

                    2. Liberal’s hold some of the same biases as those on the hard right.

                      Whatever.

                    3. Some do, yes. I was simply responding to your “And those on the left are called snowflakes?” quip.

                    4. I’ve listened so far to one of her You Tube videos. I’m now curious as to what she said on Tucker Carlson and what her perceived racial grievances are as to the curriculum. I will continue watching though her perception of harassment against her sounds in many respects like the perceptions of the black student.

                    5. Such perceptions are held by children and people who never matured.

                    6. I’ve yet to hear any reference to her liberalism. There does seem to be a recurring theme of reverse racism which in my mind requires a form of power and control rarely found.

        1. Disagree that the law firm had any vested interest here. If anything, it appears the college would have preferred a report showing rampant discrimination, which would have justified the college’s over the top reaction to this (e.g.profuse apology to the student before the facts were even known; institution of anti-bias training for low wage staff etc.) This was a brief and trivial encounter between the student and campus security. The officer was polite and treated the student respectfully. This should have been a non-incident. But the student’s actions afterwards (I.e. doxxing two low wage workers with false accusations of racism) were inexcusable. She’s the racist here.

          1. Max – Of the two sides, the college was paying the law firm and was much more likely to purchase additional services in the future. The law firm would know who they would prefer to make happy.
            In American history, no Black person can assume any encounter with the police will turn out to be “brief and trivial.” Black people have been killed by police by engaging in several types of non-criminal behavior including sleeping, driving, and allegedly passing a counterfeit $20 bill. I truly wonder if the campus worker would have called the police had the student been white?

            1. In American history, no Black person can assume any encounter with the police will turn out to be “brief and trivial.”

              If my risk assessment skills were about what yours are, I’d never get behind the wheel of a car because I might have a fatal accident on a ‘brief and trivial’ errand.

              Black people have been killed by police by engaging in several types of non-criminal behavior including sleeping, driving, and allegedly passing a counterfeit $20 bill.

              George Floyd died of a fentanyl overdose. The number of people killed by police officers in a typical year is around 400, of whom about 40% are black. Very few cases are troublesome.

              1. Gee, whose conclusion should we trust: a coroner who actually examined Floyd’s body, or a commenter who didn’t?

                1. Coroners are subject to political pressure and ‘homicide’ is a term of art in forensic pathology distinct from its popular or legal use.

                  The level of fentanyl in George Floyd’s femoral blood was 11.3 nanograms per cc. Do a literature review. That’s a midrange value for an overdose death and 3x a lethal level. The autopsy also notes there was no damage to the trachea or neck muscles. He began complaining he coundn’t breathe when he was bolt upright in the car and continued complaining when he was on the pavement, because his lungs were filling up with fluid. Had the police missed him, he’d have died in short order anyway.

                  1. Art– Something similar with political pressure on the Epstein autopsy probably. First no determination as to cause of death, a strange hesitation, and then ‘suicide’ even though the objective information in the autopsy pointed to murder.

                    The Floyd autopsy doesn’t support murder but it appears to indicate undue and improper influence on the pathologist. But he at least seems to have left the objective observations undisturbed and they point to death by overdose.

                    1. “The Floyd autopsy doesn’t support murder but it appears to indicate undue and improper influence on the pathologist. “

                      True.

                      I will quote some of the significant parts of the report:

                      “No life-threatening injuries identified”

                      “Head: …arterial systems are free of injury…”

                      The carotid artery is part of the arterial system.

                      “Neck: …no areas of contusion or hemorrhage…”

                      The knee was on the neck but caused no damage.

                      “Respiratory: …pulmonary parenchyma is diffusely congested and edematous.”

                      Guess what Fentanyl does and how it kills people.

                      “Brain (microscopic) …without hypoxic-ischemic…”

                      One would expect the microscopic to show something if the artery was obstructed.

                      Sickled-appearing red blood cells in areas of congestion [post mortem]

                      Final Diagnosis: “No-life-threatening injuries identified”

                      Multiple drugs including Fentanyl 11ng/mL

                      http://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Other/floyd, george_report.pdf

                2. Yeah, please know Mr. Enigma I am in no way on board with the “Anonymous” comment above; George Floyd was murdered.

                  Respectfully, I have great difficulty drawing any analogy between the encounter between on-campus college security in this situation (there is zero history of campus police brutality at Smith) and the situations you describe. More to the point, there was in fact no conflict, verbal or physical, between this student and the officer. Whatever she imagined might have happened, it didn’t. That’s why I have such an issue with her reaction to this; it was totally unwarranted and caused real harm.

                  1. George Floyd was murdered.

                    The person who put the fentanyl in his system was…George Floyd.

                  2. I don’t know why you’re not on board with my comment. All I did was tell Art Deco that I trust the coroner’s conclusion (homicide) over Art Deco’s conclusion (fentanyl overdose).

                    1. Epstein’s autopsy said ‘suicide’ but the objective observations pointed to murder.

                      That is why you look to the body of the report to see what really happened. Drug reports are less subject to political pressure.

                      By the way, there was no indication in the autopsy that Floyd died from suffocation. He died of the overdose and significant co-morbidities noted in the autopsy.

                    2. I think it was Michael Baden’s idea that compression of the carotid artery was decisive. Problem, the other carotid artery wasn’t compressed.

                    3. Most coroner offices are elected and that tells you something important. The coroner is only sometimes a doctor.

                      Look to the pathologist report that underlies it. You guys are blind if you think the lethal dose of fentanyl is not a serious intervening cause.

                      I predict that the jury will acquit Chauvin on charges 1 and 2, whereas, negligent homicide 3, possibly a toss up, flip a coin for the outcome.

                      If Chauvin walks, charges on the other guys dismissed after that.

                      Sal

                    4. Perhaps we have missed a moment to teach the youths here.

                      Besides overdosing, another good reason not to get blasted out of your mind on a chemical cocktail, is that if you get arrested, you may act incoherently, and perhaps even foolishly, and in a disorderly manner, and then if you are overdosing, or having a heart attack or something, your intoxicated and irrational behavior will prevent law enforcement from properly recognizing your medical trauma, and getting you assistance.

                      I wonder, has anybody bothered to say this? Amidst all the furor? Sal.

                3. Anonymous the Stupid, read the coroner’s report that was reviewed by another board certified forensic pathologist before being released. That is the unadulterated report.

                  Final Diagnosis: “No-life-threatening injuries identified”

                  I like simplicity so instead of changing your name to Anonymous the very Stupid and Dumb, I will leave it at Anonymous the Stupid. You should be tagged with that name when you act Stupid.

              2. “George Floyd died of a fentanyl overdose.”
                I don’t know which is worse. That you believe that (if you actually do) or that any number of people agree with you. Instead of “Stop the Steal,” there needs to be a movement to “Stop the Stupid.”

                1. I don’t know which is worse. That you believe that

                  The level of fentanyl in his femoral blood is right there in the autopsy report. It was 11.3 nanograms per cc. That’s a typical value for an overdose death. You can undertake a literature review on fentanyl overdoses and learn that yourself.

                  1. My recollection was that he also had Covid. I think Fauci said that might be dangerous; particularly if you are overweight and have arteriosclerosis and other morbidities.

                    Top it off with a lethal dose of fentanyl [all in the autopsy] and he was a dead thug even without police.

                    This was never murder or manslaughter. I said that here months ago.

                    But It is a Soviet-style show trial.

                    1. Next up, Septemberist Trials– The defendant gets a quick interview and is shoved out the door and into the hands of the mob.

                      Practically that now without a change of venue except now the mob gets to scare the judge and jury too.

                    2. Except that he had all the other conditions 5 minutes earlier (fentanyl, medical problems, etc.), and he didn’t die 5 minutes earlier. He didn’t die until Chauvin placed his knee on Floyd’s neck and didn’t take it off when Floyd said he was having trouble breathing, and made no attempt to resuscitate Floyd after he stopped breathing.

                      You choose no to accept the cause of death — the knee on the neck — as the contributing factor without which Floyd would not have died then.

                    3. He didn’t die until Chauvin placed his knee on Floyd’s neck and didn’t take it off when Floyd said he was having trouble breathing, and made no attempt to resuscitate Floyd after he stopped breathing.

                      Having someone’s knee on your neck is not lethal. Having that amount of fentanyl in your blood is lethal. This is not that esoteric.

                    4. He didn’t die until Chauvin placed his knee on Floyd’s neck and didn’t take it off when Floyd said he was having trouble breathing

                      Again, the earlier part of the tape, not initially released. Floyd was complaining he couldn’t breathe when he was bolt upright. Because fentanyl causes your lungs to fill with fluid.

                    5. I think he’d more or less recovered from COVID. His father’s life span was abbreviated (the man died at 53), so he may have been facing a head wind anyway. He had coronary artery disease. I would tend to doubt these factors were all that important, bar that they’d make survival marginally less likely. His problem was that he had overdosed on fentanyl.

                      Keith Ellison shouldn’t be put in charge of a Chia pet. He hasn’t practiced law in 20+ years and has zero experience as a prosecutor or corporation counsel. Enough buffoons in Minnesota voted for him that they could steal the votes they needed to put him over the top.

                    6. “more or less recovered from COVID”
                      ***
                      Could be, but I have a cousin who has recovered from the virus but has significant respiratory damage requiring him to use oxygen. Even minor residual damage coupled with the Fentanyl overdose would compromise and likely kill Floyd. The autopsy did not say that neck pressure killed him. There are significant breaks in the chain of causality needed to convict anyone. But I think it nearly impossible for there to be a fair trial under these circumstances.

                    7. The ‘expert’ they quote runs an advocacy group. Grant funded agitprop, surely the best expertise.

                    1. You could try watching the whole video. You’d figure out that his breathing problems weren’t a function of the position he was in and you’d figure out he was placed on the ground because he was bouncing off the walls in the car.

                  1. Max– There is no such thing as 1000%. Per cent means per hundred, not per thousand.
                    Yours is an expression loved by excited teenage girls.

                2. Enigma- So you suppose the lethal levels of Fentanyl in his system, coupled with Covid, coupled with hypertension, coupled with arteriosclerosis, coupled with artery disease played no role in his death?

                  Any one of those was a runaway train to death.

                  You really should read the autopsy report. He was a diseased, drug-raddled thug who should have dropped dead long ago.

                  1. Any one of those was a runaway train to death.

                    COVID – very seldom for someone in his age range. The others are problems to be addressed, not immediately lethal (though the coronary artery problem is a ticking time bomb).

                    1. “COVID – very seldom for someone in his age range.”
                      ***
                      True but less so with weight and other morbidities. A physician friend a little older than Floyd but with similar underlying problems died of Covid. Systems failed one after the other like falling dominoes though several times he seemed okay.

                      It would be interesting to know if Floyd had been to a doctor and his oxygen sats recorded. Probably not, but the defense might want a peek in that direction. Low sats on an ordinary day would be a bad sign.

                    2. True but less so with weight and other morbidities.

                      He wasn’t heavy. The comorbidities they cite are all correlates of weight and age.

                    1. Just took another look at his autopsy. The dissection of his neck showed no trauma. But I had forgotten that he had a number of other drugs in his system. Ate part of a drugstore., He killed himself.

            2. Again, don’t think the law firm had any incentive to exonerate the workers; if anything, this made things more difficult for the administration.

              We can never know if the janitor (we are talking about a janitor here) would have called the police if he saw a white person instead of a black person. ( All he saw was an unknown person’s legs). Black or white,he made a reasonable judgment call in my opinion.. Understood that encounters with law enforcement are different/ exponentially more dangerous for black people, but this was an unarmed security guard who walked away almost immediately. This student had 3 weeks to think about and responded by doxxing innocent people.

            3. “no Black person can assume any encounter with the police will turn out to be “brief and trivial.””

              I got news for you and all my fellow crackers reading this. NOBODY can assume that, black or white.

              You run the risk in every contact, that you are jailed or killed. It may be rare, perhaps they are fair.

              But one is wise to approach every stop, with the usual set of cautionary habits. I won’t elaborate on them right now, but keeping your hands where they can see them, and complying with clear commands, is a good place to start.

              Sal Sar

  3. OT:

    “John H. Durham today announced his resignation from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, effective at midnight on February 28.”

    Is he going to release his report? A Sunday resignation announced on a Friday afternoon suggests that he won’t, but that’s just a guess.

    1. Never mind. Resigning from the U.S. Attorney’s Office doesn’t mean he’s resigning from the DOJ.

    2. The man’s previous history suggests he’s where they send investigations to die. I’m guessing Barr took the attorney-general’s job to prevent a housecleaning and to head off any further damage to Robert Mueller’s reputation. Their wives are friends. Barr likely knows details about Mueller’s cognitive impairment.

  4. It seems that Jason Hill has given at least some of the answers to what we saw at Smith. He talks about “new liberal white supremacy” He states “they don’t know what to do with their lives and these new liberal white supremacists have honed in like vultures and have told them that you need to continue the drama, you need to continue your careers being victims.”

    Interesting video at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_t9ovqf8yxU

  5. Here’s what a lot of white people who don’t want the trouble are doing now.

    Getting as far away from the spoiled young POC as possible

    No contact, no problems. See how easy that is? Back to segregation and we can all just get along, like Ole Rodney King suggested.

    1. Here’s what a lot of other white people are doing: welcoming all good people into their lives regardless of race/ethnicity. See how easy that is?

  6. Don’t forget that these are the same school admin personnel that believe that they should have the power to adjudicate and judge the guilt or innocence of students accused of felony sexual harassment and rape.

Leave a Reply