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.

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

  1. The harm d people should file fed lawsuit under 52 U S.C. section 1982. Race discrimination. Sex discrimination. School discrimination.

  2. Professor Turley’s main complaint is a lack of due process. The left and the Democrat leadership do not believe in due process. They are lawless. It starts at the top of the party and progresses downward based on fear and intimidation.

  3. Was the child (Kanoute ) wrong to feel and act the way she did? Perhaps not. She was taught how to react to unpleasant events by her Democrat leaders that supported Antifa, BLM and all sorts of other civil disobedience that was inappropriate. The type of behavior that the child exhibited was immediately validated by academia who have all sorts of degrees but no comment sense. That was further validated by today’s leftist ACLU whose agenda is contrary to its founding and further by the leftist media and political establishment.

      1. There’s a difference between chronological age and social function. My mother was a married woman with a child before her 24th birthday, and she was behind the curve for her cohort. She’d be several years ahead today.

        1. Kanoute, 20 y.o. Smith sophomore who was TA’ing in a summer program, isn’t a child in social function either.

      2. “She was 20 y.o. at the time, not a “child.””

        Since she was going to Smith College it is obvious she is not considered a child based on age. However, she acted childishly like many students today whose development has slowed, due to the types of behavior expressed by the left, and many Democrat leaders. They are encouraging people to act like children. I am sure that is not your desire.

          1. You can’t help yourself, you have to fight and insult no matter what.

            Kanoute acted like a child. I don’t care if she was 20 or 200. You are acting like a child because you cannot divorce yourself from petty concerns.

              1. Do you know how a child acts? An adult is assumed to have self-control, but even on this blog and despite the fact I have been nothing but polite today trying to prevent ill feelings you once again have to insult and attack

                You started this way when I joined the blog and didn’t even know who you were. Initially I disregarded you but that seemed only to inflame you. You don’t like my opinions and you have problems attacking the opinion so apparently you decided to attack the person.

                Apparently your nature is such that you will insult for no reason at all. I don’t think I am alone in that opinion.

          2. ANincompoop:
            It’s great knowing we own you body and soul and all the time. Too bad the market for manure is pretty flat.

      3. She’s also the daughter of Mail immigrants – who has been given much in the USA – a private high school education and a very expensive Smith education……but she remains, ‘without grace or gratitude’

          1. That would be correct. A place in the world from whence sprung the Wives of the Leopard, true Amazons, all.

    1. A dynamic that is similar to the Tawana Brawley incident, and maybe a case for constructive termination, if equal application of the still even applies to the real victims in this case.

    2. Yes. She was aided and abetted in her actions, prompted by a single facebook post. Lost in the narrative it seems, is the fact that as she lashed out, she accused a staff person who was not even present on the day in question. And this is justice? I’d call it something a little different than that. Collateral damage is apparently fair play. The actual facts matter little, it seems.

  4. There are serious problems with allegations of racism in our society, including in our educational institutions.

    FIFY.

    Anyway, like 1980’s racism? 60’s? 40’s? 1880’s? 1850’s?

    It’s the hammer and nail idiom: If all you have is an allegation of racism, then everyone becomes a racist.

  5. One year ago today –

    Trump, on 2/26/20: “when you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that’s a pretty good job we’ve done.”

    2/26/21: Over 500,000 people are dead from Covid.

    1. What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Nothing? No. It tells all how the mind of the left works. There was no good solution to the Covid crisis except to have excluded governors like Cuomo from the ability to govern and encouraged more governors like de Santis who protected his citizens better than Cuomo without destroying Florida’s economy.

      When next we deal with Covid I expect a I similarly poor off topic response where the person behind this response blames racism for the Kanoute affair. His logical linkage of events is non existent as is his explanation of them.

      1. S. Meyer said: “What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Nothing? No. It tells all how the mind of the left works.”

        I will note that S. Meyer rather frequently links to off-topic articles.

        He continues, “No. It tells all how the mind of the left works.”

        “The left, the left, the left…” is a common and silly refrain of his, too.

        smh

        1. Allan is a hypocrite who complains about behavior that he himself engages in.

          As for “There was no good solution to the Covid crisis,” Allan pretends that Trump couldn’t have been honest instead of lying that “within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero.” Trump could have followed the science better, like New Zealand, South Korea, and other countries that did a better job containing it.

          Allan again resorts to one of his go-to trolling strategies, pretending to read someone’s mind and attack the person on the basis of your made up attribution.

          He claims “the person behind this response blames racism for the Kanoute affair.” No, I don’t. I blame an inept college President who did a terrible job in her response. JT is right that the college “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.” McCartney should have apologized to the employees. Kanoute should have been asked to apologize to Mr. Patenaude, who wasn’t involved and whom Kanoute doxxed and accused of being racist.

          1. “Trump couldn’t have been honest instead of lying… “

            We can discuss this after we reach an understanding of what a lie is and what the President’s job is. We don’t want to be hypocritical do we?

            “Trump could have followed the science better, like New Zealand, South Korea, and other countries that did a better job containing it.”

            That is a meaningless statement that isn’t comparing much of anything. One can close down an island like New Zealand though we aren’t sure of the benefit with all contagious diseases. I guess what you are saying is that the United States pretend itself to be a small island like New Zealand (without the industry, power, etc.) far away from everywhere else. Can you tell us the effect on the United States if we were to do such a thing?

            There is the seen and the unseen. You are looking only at the seen which can be likened to covering an advancing abscess with a BandAid. Eventually you are covered with BandAids and end up dead.

            Again you include a gratuitous insult. Is that a reaction to the logical dilemma you face?

            1. A lie is a knowingly false statement. Trump made a knowingly false statement. How do we know that? Because he admitted to Bob Woodward in an audiotaped interview that he was purposefully downplaying the risks.

              1. Do you automatically assume that all lies are equal? That all lies are bad? That all lies are for personal gain?

                There was an explanation for Trump’s comment and he provided such an explanation. One also has to look at the surrounding actions of the person. What you are doing is quoting out of context. In essence that itself is a lie. What Trump said was appropriate.

                1. I’m not discussing “all lies,” an immensely large number.

                  I’m discussing the lie that Trump told a year ago today and that I quoted above. It was a harmful lie to downplay the seriousness of the coronavirus instead of talking honestly with the country. I do not buy his excuse, as Trump is entirely happy to say things that might “panic” people when it serves him.

                  “What you are doing is quoting out of context.”

                  BS. The context is that it’s the 1 year anniversary, and if you want to read the quote in context, I already linked to a complete transcript.

                  It’s your opinion that what Trump said was appropriate. It’s my opinion that what Trump said was NOT “appropriate.” The country deserved an honest discussion and didn’t get one from him.

                  1. “I’m not discussing “all lies,” an immensely large number.”

                    But this is the lie you chose to highlight so it must have been somewhere at the top of the list. However, now we are finding that whether the “lie” was justified or not was an opinion.

                    We face threats on almost a daily basis. Even the Pandemic response booklet stated not to overly alarm the public in the face of potential pandemics. I assume you remember the debates over the pandemic response. Here, however, you do not wish to follow what the book said to do.

                    We have faced many potential catastrophes involving infectious disease, terrorism, and natural threats. It is not justified to continuously alarm the public when the vast majority of threats turn out to be nothing.

                    Can you imagine if NYC shut itself down every time it was threatened? That the mayor doesn’t announce the threat doesn’t mean he is not taking it seriously. If you know the city you can sometimes tell a threat exists by the numbers of law enforcement available and their type. If you ask a police officer what is happening he will say he doesn’t know anything though he might have a pretty good idea.

                    What Trump said may have very well occurred in the fashion suggested. Most frequently, that is what happens. His actions are what count and he enacted the Chinese ban while Pelosi and de Blasio were mocking him and doing all the things they later wanted to arrest people for doing. They are hypocrites.

                    Yes, you are reading things out of context. You live in a confined world without the broader knowledge available. Most of us do until we start thinking about things and then calculate the trade-offs. Trump didn’t benefit from what he said, but I believe he thought the nation would. You assume the transcript is everything that needs to be known, but that is wrong.

                    1. “this is the lie you chose to highlight so it must have been somewhere at the top of the list.”

                      Out of all the lies in the world? No.

                      It’s the 1-year anniversary. It may be the top lie Trump told on 2/26/2020.

                      “Even the Pandemic response booklet stated not to overly alarm the public in the face of potential pandemics.”

                      One can be honest without overly alarming people. If Trump needed help figuring out how to do it, he could easily have asked for help.

                      “Here, however, you do not wish to follow what the book said to do.”

                      Don’t pretend to read my mind, Allan. You cannot. You can’t even bring yourself to quote something from the playbook that you imagine I disagree with. Here’s a copy, https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6819268/Pandemic-Playbook.pdf, just cite the page #.

                      “he enacted the Chinese ban”

                      He enacted a restriction on entry from China, not a ban: “I … restrict and suspend the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of all aliens who were physically present within the People’s Republic of China, excluding the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macau, during the 14-day period preceding their entry or attempted entry into the United States.” Tens of thousands of American citizens returned to the US from China after he announced the restrictions. He did not require that people returning from high risk areas be tested and quarantine upon return.

                      “You live in a confined world without the broader knowledge available.”

                      You have no idea what I’ve read, and I bet that I know more than you do about it.

                      “Trump didn’t benefit from what he said”

                      Trump repeatedly indicated that he wanted to undercount the number of infected people due to his narcissism. For example, he didn’t want infected Americans on Grand Princess cruise ship to disembark and be treated because they’d increase the total number of infections in the US. “I like the numbers being where they are. I don’t need to have the numbers double because of one ship that wasn’t our fault.” On May 11, he lied again, saying “you see the numbers; they’re dropping very substantially. The numbers are dropping around our country very, very substantially.” They weren’t dropping.

                      “You assume the transcript is everything that needs to be known”

                      Stop pretending that you can read my mind. You cannot.

                    2. I see that you started getting nasty again so I won’t bother with trying to tread lightly. I won’t deal with you further tonight. I will see how you behave tomorrow. Let me remind you of the large series of responses I sent to you today. They were polite, informative and with content. I wish you would do the same.

                      You provided a site. You can search it yourself. We do not know if this is the complete pamphlet nor do we have the other informational pamphlets that are part of the response for infectious disease. Your information is incomplete as usual. Other existing material is mentioned in this document.

                      However, I did take a fast glance at this document and low and behold this document warns of panic with resultant insecurity or instability. These are things you don’t consider, nor do you consider the Democrat response and your own which were terrible. All those responses completely neglected the virus until it suddenly became politically notable.

                2. I’m not going to waste my time discussing “all lies” – an immense number – with you.

                  I’m discussing the lie that Trump told a year ago today and that I quoted above. It was a harmful lie to downplay the seriousness of the coronavirus instead of talking honestly with the country. I do not buy his excuse, as Trump is entirely happy to say things that might “panic” people when it serves him.

                  “What you are doing is quoting out of context.”

                  BS. The context is that it’s the 1 year anniversary, and if you want to read the quote in context, I already linked to a complete transcript.

                  It’s your opinion that what Trump said was appropriate. It’s my opinion that what Trump said was NOT “appropriate.” The country deserved an honest discussion and didn’t get one from him.

                  1. “The country deserved an honest discussion and didn’t get one from him.”

                    Would that “him” be Lord Fauci? In February 2020, he declared that the risk from coronavirus is “just minuscule.” And that “there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to wear a mask.”

                    1. I’ll ask you the same thing that I asked Gabby when she presented that same “just minuscule” quote: quote the entire sentence that Fauci said.

                      As for the quote about masks, Fauci also explained the reason he said it at the time: there was a shortage of masks: “the feeling was that people who were wanting to have masks in the community, namely just people out in the street, might be hoarding masks and making the shortage of masks even greater. In that context, we said that we did not recommend masks.”

                      That just highlights another way in which Trump’s response to Covid was inept: he could have used the DPA to ramp up mask production, but he didn’t. He should also have been doing annual checks of whether the national stockpile needed to be increased or replaced. He should have facilitated national distribution instead of having states compete with each other for supplies; he didn’t.

                    2. “I’ll ask you the same thing that I asked Gabby”

                      I am not going to provide a long response as I did above because this entire post isn’t worth it and demonstrates a political response rather than a rational one. Trump made some mistakes and made some policy decisions that I didn’t agree with, however, overall Trump did an excellent job when compared to the leadership of the Democrat Party.

                      I can answer all of the questions asked in the above response but that only leads to more and more questions rather than the accountability of all parties. Overall the answers to these particular questions are a net positive for Trump and a strong net negative for the Democratic leadership along with those that wish to promote politics rather than good governance.

                    3. Anon, below, is in denial.

                      From “The Washington Post” (not exactly friendly to republicans):

                      “Well, if Trump lied, so did Anthony S. Fauci.”

                      “This is not a major threat for the people of the United States, and this is not something that the citizens of the United States right now should be worried about.” (Fauci)

                      “As a nation, the risk is relatively low” (Fauci, March 2020)

                      “Now, in the United States, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to wear a mask.” (Fauci, February 2010)

                      “The suggestion that Trump knew how dangerous the virus was, but intentionally misled Americans and failed to take action, is demonstrably wrong.”

                      https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/10/if-trump-lied-so-did-fauci/

                      Fauci is *not* a scientist. He is a life-long bureaucratic hack, with his finger in the political wind, desperate for attention and political power. And he’s all over the map: It’s not a threat; it’s a threat. Don’t wear a mask; wear 10 masks. Life will be back to normal when we “flatten the curve;” what “curve?” Schools should be open; not open. Life will be back to normal after a vaccine; no it won’t.

                      That a phony like Fauci is regarded as “the authority,” is the best argument for the complete separation of science and government.

                    4. Sam, commenters want not to be held responsible for what they say and want to hide among more than one anonymous figure. In essence it is a dishonorable way to hold a discussion unless the anonymous use is a one time use by a new individual seeking to better understand whether or not he wishes to join the blog.

                    5. Sam, you are entirely correct.

                      Firstly panic is an enemy and everyone knows that despite knowing the fact that the left uses that panic to destroy economies all over the nation, increase childhood depression, battering, drug addiction, and suicide, cost jobs, homes, and livelihoods. Need I say more? I don’t think so but I have to add that we have threats to the nation or significant portions of the nation that initially we can do little about. Only a small fraction of those threats ever are seen, yet the left claims the destruction of society is necessary so we can address that small fraction. The panic called for was political and hateful, nothing else. That can be seen in how the leaders of the Democrat Party handled themselves while Trump WAS acting against the virus.

                      Woodward, in order to sell a book, has to provide some shocking news whether true or not. Not only must he provide shocking news, but he must also omit news that explains why that “shocking news” wasn’t shocking at all. To sell the book he must omit why that news WAS being appropriately handled, in this case by the President, and inappropriately handled by the Democrat leaders. Did Woodward feel the way he wrote? If he did, he would have told the public of his fears when his fears existed. Here, the truth is not so important. The book deal is.

                      Trump’s knowledge was limited because much of the knowledge was withheld and WHO provided guidance based on what the Chinese wanted WHO to say. Trump went against WHO in his silent panic. He even placed a ban on Chinese travelers that WHO said was not needed. And we have to ask ourselves who today supports the WHO that helped disguise the threat? Democrat leaders. We have videos of the Democrat leaders trying to prevent Trump from acting against the virus. We have an impeachment by Democrats who not only didn’t focus on the virus but impeded Trump’s actions to protect the nation from the virus.

                      The left wanted Trump to follow the science which he did despite the leadership of the health bureaucracy in Washington. Anthony Fauci on Covid, it “isn’t something the American public needs to worry about or be frightened about. Fauci is an icon of the left. Such is the warped political mind that the left has to offer. He testified before Congress that panic was NOT justified.

                      After writing what I have above, I don’t see where Trump misleads the public. I see where Democrats did and even some Republicans but not Trump. He could not know what would happen. He could only know the threat and his threat reports are non-stop.

                      CDC Director Redfield: “Trump …sought the counsel of the White House task force doctors throughout the COVID-19 response … relied on the data and science presented to him at that time to make decisive decisions to protect the health and safety of the American people.”

                      The funny part is one doesn’t need advanced education to know how many threats we have faced where panic was prevented by our leaders. Leaders are not supposed to panic. Panic is what false prophets of the left and Democrat leaders use to benefit themselves while undermining American stability and security.

                    6. Sam, in all of your new quotes, none of them includes the phrase “just minuscule” that I asked you about.
                      Are you unable to determine what sentence that phrase comes from? If so, just say that you can’t find it.

                      Let’s go through your quotes. I’m going to provide longer excerpts for the first two from Fauci.

                      “Obviously, you need to take it seriously and do the kind of things the (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and the Department of Homeland Security is doing. But this is not a major threat to the people of the United States and this is not something that the citizens of the United States right now should be worried about.” Fauci said that on 1/21/2020, the day after the first confirmed Covid diagnosis in the U.S. He didn’t imply that it couldn’t become something to worry about.

                      “What we’re saying today is that although we keep coming in and saying appropriately that as a nation the risk is relatively low, there are parts of the country right now that are having community spread in which the risk there is clearly a bit more than that. And you know the places: Washington state, California, New York and Florida.” “When you have community spread you’re obviously going to ratchet up the kinds of mitigations that you have.” Fauci said that on 3/10/2020. Although you chose to excerpt “as a nation the risk is relatively low,” he clearly wasn’t saying that the risk was low everywhere; he was comparing the risk nationally at that point to the risk in specific states. This is one of the reasons that I ask for a complete quote. When you take excerpts out of context, you can end up misinterpreting them.

                      I already addressed the quote about masks; he made it clear that he said it because there was a PPE shortage at the time.

                      Notice that in none of the quotes you present from Fauci did he pretend anything along the lines of “within a couple of days [the number of cases] is going to be down to close to zero” — said by Trump at the end of February.

                      Marc Thiessen’s opinion in September was that “The suggestion that Trump knew how dangerous the virus was, but intentionally misled Americans and failed to take action, is demonstrably wrong,” but we know from the tape released by Bob Woodward that that’s false. Trump deliberately misled Americans.

                      “Fauci is *not* a scientist.”

                      BS. Take a look at how many peer-reviewed scientific publications he has –
                      https://www.niaid.nih.gov/director/publications
                      You can use Google Scholar to see how often they’re cited by other scientists.

                    7. Do you know who else severely criticized Donald Trump? Mario Cuomo the killer of nursing home patients who won an Emmy for his job and was loved by the MSM.

                      Florida was also trounced by Cuomo but Florida which likely was the most at-risk state due to its vast numbers of elderly people to this date handled itself better than most or all without destroying its economy and all those other things I mentioned recently.

                      I will provide just a small part of my prior post: Cuomo and “the left uses that panic to destroy economies all over the nation, increase childhood depression, battering, drug addiction, and suicide, cost jobs, homes, and livelihoods. “

                      I will leave the rest of the post alone because it doesn’t deal with the facts that are known. It deals with selective facts frequently out of context. That is pure political rhetoric that should not be included in our dialogue.

                    8. S.M.:

                      You are right about their creation of panic-porn. Then they used fascist diktats to outlaw countless human values — all in the name of eradicating a panic that they themselves created. It’s a vicious cycle.

                      Their utterly destructive “lockdowns,” “shut downs,” house arrests are akin to a person saying: “In the name of reducing my debt, I’m going to stop eating.”

                      Then they want us to swallow the swill that the (so-called) experts are untouchable. But that somehow, Trump is responsible for everything from sunspots to grandma’s hangnail.

                      Hell, early on in the development of the *novel* coronavirus, nobody knew what was going on — because, well, it was a *novel* virus.

                      “Leaders are not supposed to panic.”

                      Reminds me of the slogan from a WWII British poster: “Keep Calm and Carry On”

                    9. Sam, I love the word “panic-porn”. I think it is the best description around.

                      “WWII British poster: “Keep Calm and Carry On”

                      Think of Britain during the attack on London and other population centers. If they were our leftists, they would be blaming themselves for German aggression and mandating that only German be taught in the classroom. Churchill would have been cancelled.

                    10. “Take a look at how many peer-reviewed scientific publications [Fauci] has”

                      Better yet, look at his 36-year history of scientific *failures*, and the hundreds of million of dollars he has bilked from the American public.

                      “A Short History Of How Anthony Fauci Has Kept Failing Up Since 1984”

                      https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/13/a-short-history-of-how-anthony-fauci-has-kept-failing-up-since-1984/

                      The true scientists and heroes in this pandemic are the private industry bench scientists who decoded the nature of the virus, and who, along with the industrialists, mass produced a vaccine. The lesser heroes are those politicians (like Trump) who reduced the regulatory roadblocks. Glory-seekers like Fauci are attempting to ride their coattails.

                    11. Sam, some people can live with a lie and some can’t. Fauci is the former while Trump is the latter.

                      I am not sure of Fauci’s scholarship. I assume many of us that read this blog have published. But, a lot less publish significant articles where they are the justified lead investigator. One has to be careful when they attribute an article to the first person mentioned if he has an M.D. after his name because sometimes his major contribution is his M.D. and overall “supervision” where the M.D. is necessary by law. One also has to be careful when that person has a position of influence since frequently that position is needed to get an article published. Lastly, some publish good stuff when they are young spending immense amounts of time doing so. With age and position, one cannot assume the published paper wouldn’t exist without the influence.

                    12. “[L]ook at how many peer-reviewed scientific publications [Fauci] has”

                      I’ll grant you this much: Some time in the distant past, he might have been a decent scientist. But then, just as with Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, over the years he allowed his inner Hyde (aka “Potomac fever”) to destroy whatever good was in him. Now he’s just a monstrous phony running amok and wreaking havoc.

          2. ” It could have held sessions to discuss claims of systemic racism and privilege at the college for anyone to attend.”

            I am glad you didn’t fall for the looney left’s typical reactions like much of the left did. You do note how many left-wing groups initially sided with the student ruining good reputations.

            I’m also glad to know that you would say the MSM handled this badly. I presume you wanted this claim to be internally reviewed and the student held liable for any negative effects on others that she made based on her claims. The recording said something different from what she said. Perhaps you feel she should be suspended from Smith College because of her actions? Maybe if she stayed she should have her understanding of systemic racism reevaluated and the idea of white privilege reevaluated as well. After all, Shaw was being paid $45,000 while the student was paying Smith College $75,000. It sounds like the privilege and systemic racism was within the student not within the others that have been discussed.

            1. “the looney left’s”

              The left isn’t any loonier than the right. There are thoughtful people and foolish people on the left, the right, and in the middle.

              “You do note how many left-wing groups initially sided with the student ruining good reputations.”

              I haven’t tried to investigate how diverse groups on the left and right responded.

              “I’m also glad to know that you would say the MSM handled this badly.” This is just another example of you putting words in other people’s mouths, Allan. I don’t know why you regularly pretend to be a mind-reader. If you were aiming for truthful discussion, you wouldn’t do this.

              I think the NYT article that JT linked to does a better job of discussing the case than JT does. I haven’t tried to look at the reporting by the MSM more broadly, so I have no opinion about how the MSM in general handled it.

              “I presume you wanted this claim to be internally reviewed”

              I didn’t know about it until today, and I presume that if you were paying attention, you’d know that it was ALREADY internally reviewed. Smith paid for the investigation that JT refers to as “an independent investigation.” It’s not hard to find a copy of their 35 page report on the Smith website.

              “Perhaps you feel she should be suspended from Smith College because of her actions?”

              Perhaps you should pay attention to the fact that this occurred over 2 years ago and she’s already graduated.

              1. The left isn’t any loonier than the right. There are thoughtful people and foolish people on the left, the right, and in the middle.

                Says a man who fell asleep around 1998. Aside from a few wonks like Harold Pollack (and the late Mark Kleiman), the objects of the left are based on a mixture of fiction and malice. See, for example, Burn-Loot-and-Murder, a political movement that has no basis in observable social reality but which you’d have to scrounge to find any politician or journalist to critique.

                1. This is correct:

                  The left isn’t any loonier than the right. There are thoughtful people and foolish people on the left, the right, and in the middle.”

                  1. The left isn’t any loonier than the right.

                    Again, this is false. There are no valid causes perused by the left anymore, based in empirical observation.

              2. “The left isn’t any loonier than the right. There are thoughtful people and foolish people on the left, the right, and in the middle.”

                Today the looney left covers a lot more people than it did years ago and most Democrats, whether they ascribe to everything the looney left says or not, are following many of its dictates. Art Deco explains a bit more below.

                “”I’m also glad to know that you would say the MSM handled this badly.” This is just another example of you putting words in other people’s mouths, Allan.”

                Do you think the MSM handled this properly? People were unnecessarily demonized. Based on your statements I believed that along with other potential objections you might have felt this way. That is not mind reading. It is merely reading what your words tell others. I am stating how I interpreted your words. You should not be upset, because it gives you a chance to clarify what you said. Now, I understand, you have not drawn any conclusion.

                I feel confident that some in the media jumped too quickly and some may regret doing so. This is a story that went viral and was initially blown up by the ACLU. I don’t know how the NYT first reported the incident.

                I wrote: “I presume you wanted this claim to be internally reviewed” to which you responded, “I didn’t know about it until today, and I presume that if you were paying attention, you’d know that it was ALREADY internally reviewed.”

                I don’t believe your inflammatory language was necessary. Firstly I am asking a question. Secondly the word “wanted” was in the past tense so the conclusion you drew would be wrong based on the grammar suggested in my sentence. You don’t like mind reading. That is something you think is occurring but it may be occurring because your words may not be clear. I have no basis of comparison, to better understand your meaning. I have to interpret your comments as the first comment ever posted.

                Why do you first assume the other person is mind-reading instead of first looking at what you wrote” Perhaps what you wrote wasn’t clear.

                “Perhaps you should pay attention to the fact that this occurred over 2 years ago and she’s already graduated.”

                I am concerned with policy and rule of law. I don’t particularly care about any singular incident other than how that incident affects policy and whether or not the rule of law is the basis of any actions or policies created. I am hear today to discuss the issue no matter when it occurred.

                1. “Firstly I am asking a question.”

                  No, your statement “I presume you wanted this claim to be internally reviewed” is not a question.

                  You could have asked something like “would you want this claim to be internally reviewed?” Had you asked a question like that, I would have said “yes, and I see that they arranged for that.” Similarly, had you asked ”Do you think the MSM handled this properly?” instead of making the statement “I’m also glad to know that you would say the MSM handled this badly,” I would have said something like “I don’t know how diverse MSM outlets reported on it, I’ve only read the NYT article that JT linked to.”

                  “Why do you first assume the other person is mind-reading instead of first looking at what you wrote” Perhaps what you wrote wasn’t clear.”

                  Because you were making statements presuming what I thought instead of asking questions. If I’ve written something that you find unclear, all you have to do is indicate what you find unclear and ask for clarification.

                  “I don’t particularly care about any singular incident other than how that incident affects policy …”

                  If you ask whether she should be suspended, that’s about the specific incident. If you have some broader policy in mind, then you might ask about a policy for determining whether students should be suspended. I assume that Smith has such a policy, but I haven’t looked it up.

                  1. “You could have asked something like “would you want this claim to be internally reviewed?”

                    I could have but I assumed you to be rational and I believe any rational person would want the claim to be internally reviewed. I also note you stayed away from the second part of that question or whatever you wish to call it. “I presume …you wanted the student held liable for any negative effects on others that she made based on her claims.”

                    I didn’t want to interrogate you feeling that would promote hostility. You have your ways of saying things, I have mine. What was written was polite and direct.

                    If you prefer I can interrogate you instead of stepping softly.

                    Did you want the student held liable for the hardship she created for others? Do you believe the tape that is different from what she said is a lie? Do you think she lied?

                    In your mind is that a preferable way of being asked a question? You can answer the softer question or the interrogation. You can choose not to answer the question but then the interrogation goes on. Why aren’t you answering the question? Are you acting politically?

                    No, I am not asking with some broader policy other than when one liable another and causes harm they can be made to pay for their libelous actions. Do you disagree with that opinion? If so why? What makes her different?

                    I think soft-pedaling the question was a much better way of asking the question where I felt you could overreact.

                    1. I’m not going to answer 9 questions in a single comment, no matter how they’re asked.

                      I’ll start with the first four: “Did you want the student held liable for the hardship she created for others? Do you believe the tape that is different from what she said is a lie? Do you think she lied? In your mind is that a preferable way of being asked a question?”

                      You haven’t made clear whether you mean legal liability (such as defamation) or being held liable in some other way (in which case you’d need to clarify what kind of liability you’re referring to). It’s up to Ms. Blair, Mr. Patenaude, and the janitor who called the campus police to decide whether they wish to sue. With respect to her lying, please quote which statement of hers you’re asking about, so I can judge whether it seems to be a lie (knowingly false) or a mistaken claim. For right now, my sense is that she believed what she said, which would mean that she wasn’t lying even though I’d say some of her statements are false.

                      I prefer that if someone has a sincere question for me (e.g., not a loaded question), they ask the question and don’t make assumptions about how I’ll answer.

                    2. “I’m not going to answer 9 questions”

                      You seldom answer questions where the answers are of the type that disagree with your vision. Instead, you deflect, ask new questions or do all sorts of things to avoid direct and pleasant responses.

                      I don’t care if you answer the questions or not. I can answer some of them with what happened. Kanoute was not punished by the school. She didn’t apologize to those whose lives she ruined. The school didn’t apologize either. What is done civilly is the concern of the injured parties. If it were up to me I would be suing Kanoute and McCartney personally along with the school and any other involved officials and groups, personally if permitted by law.

                      What was done by the school, along with its lack of apology is the norm, not the exception. You responded with questions instead of answering the questions. You want questions asked in a fashion that suits you, but that leaves the question open as to whether or not you will answer the questions. Things of this nature don’t need all your preliminaries. Your answer should have been similar to what I answered above.

                      A lack of such an answer without a suitable explanation means one approves of such actions, one will not speak against such actions or the left that is promoting that type of abusiveness.

                      “ With respect to her lying, please quote which statement of hers you’re asking about, “

                      This is another evasion. I will quote Turley: ” Oumou Kanoute accused the school of racism in an incident with a security officer and a lunch worker. The incident was disproven” Oumou Kanoute, accused the school of racism in an incident with a security officer and a lunch worker. The incident was disproven” Isn’t that the question you should have answered without evasiveness?

                      Your response is not a discussion. It is an obstruction of discussion. It is the way a child will play the game. We have a tape recording of the incident which clearly demonstrated no racism on the part of anyone. We have Kanoute’s statement which is the polar opposite. We have statements afterward and her episodes of crying in front of the camera. When the tape of the event was released we do not have an apology from Kanoute.

                      Earlier when asked about how the MSM handled the situation you stated you didn’t watch the media or something of that nature. Your lack of knowing what the media said doesn’t hold water. Turley informed you of the media’s reaction. ” ABC’s “Good Morning America” ran an account that notably did not seriously question the underlying facts.” “Various media outlets also ran stories about the shocking and abusive encounter with the security officer who allegedly confronted Ms. Kanoute without any justification. “

                      Turley demonstrated media involvement but you chose again to be evasive.

                      When I soft-pedaled my questions to you to prevent a combative response you used the way I soft-pedaled the question instead of using an interrogative questioning used later in my questions which you evaded anyway.

                      This is very disappointing. I worked hard to keep the discussion pleasant. I carefully explained why I believed certain things. I got no response to any of that but evasiveness, unpleasantness, and partial statements that are meant for others to interpret so you can later accuse them of reading your mind.

                    3. Allan, you cannot even get basic facts straight. “She didn’t apologize to those whose lives she ruined” is at least partly false, as she clearly did apologize to Mark Patenaude. “The school didn’t apologize either.” The President did apologize to Jackie Blair.

                      “I will quote Turley”

                      Turley isn’t Kanoute. I didn’t ask you to quote Turley, as I can and did read his statements. I asked you to quote the statement of Kanoute’s that you were alluding to. You’re unwilling to do so.

                      Today you’ve reverted to kind, and I’m not going to waste time responding to the rest.

                    4. “Allan, you cannot even get basic facts straight.”

                      An apology requires an apology to all. I heard differently from other news sources than you so I can’t say who is correct, but there was no apology to all. However, I do believe one person was apologized to because that person had no involvement in the incident. If that is who you are talking about your actions are not honorable.

                      Then comes the time factor. That is something you left out. Any apology if made should have been done immediately or as quickly as possible so the least damage possible occurred. That did not happen even if there was an apology to those that were hurt.

                      Let’s analyze further. You made the nasty comment, “Allan, you cannot even get basic facts straight.” But, you haven’t demonstrated an apology proving it went to anyone involved. Nor did you show an apology that helped mitigate and reduce the harm done to others. Unless you prove otherwise, your comment was wrong and dishonorable. This is the way you normally handle things you don’t want to hear.

                      ” I asked you to quote the statement of Kanoute’s that you were alluding to. You’re unwilling to do so.”

                      I don’t have to. Kanoute’s comments are well documented and so is the transcript of the actual conversation. Her lack of apology is also well known. The damage to the innocent is well known as well

                      Instead of standing up straight you are hiding and being evasive trying to avoid the questions at hand.

                      “Today you’ve reverted to kind, and I’m not going to waste time responding to the rest.”

                      I don’t know what that means. It sounds like you are afraid to say exactly what you mean because others will evaluate it poorly.

    2. Fauci doesn’t want people to worry about coronavirus, the danger of which is “just minuscule.” But he does want them to take precautions against the “influenza outbreak, which is having its second wave.”. USA Today 2/17/2020

        1. Trump’s comment was based on what was known at the time and his responsibilities as President of the United States. Some people have to act without knowledge of the future. Then there are others that can only sit on their hands.

    3. “Over 500,000 people are dead from Covid.”

      Bullsh*t! If that was true, then the number of US deaths in 2020 would be higher than 2018-19.

      But there was no increase in total US deaths in 2020.

      “A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19” – Johns Hopkins

      https://behindtheblack.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/A-closer-look-at-U.S.-deaths-due-to-COVID-19.pdf

      “This trend is completely contrary to the pattern observed in all previous years. Interestingly, as depicted in the table below,
      the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19. This suggests,
      according to Briand, that the COVID-19 death toll is misleading. Briand believes that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory
      diseases, infuenza and pneumonia may instead be recategorized as being due to COVID-19.”

      So you’re just another greasy little troll.

      1. The number of deaths recorded in the US (preliminary) during calendar year 2020 was 3.4 million. The number in 2019 was 2.85 million. The difference was 550,000.

        I’ll wager they’ll be a deficit in 2021 or 2022 as people who would have died of other causes in those years (but for COVID) were carried off earlier. The median age of a COVID death (76 years) is about 3 years younger than the median age of a the population dying in a given ordinary year. I’d wager that, but it hasn’t happened yet.

        1. “I’ll wager they’ll be a deficit in 2021 or 2022 as people who would have died of other causes in those years (but for COVID) were carried off earlier. “

          Art, logically one cannot conclude otherwise.

        2. The Johns Hopkins data is very clear, Art.

          The recovery rate is 99.07%. No different than the seasonal flu.

          But feel free to get that vaccination. You’ll end up regretting it.

          1. “No different than the seasonal flu” says the guy who can’t even admit he was wrong when he claimed “there was no increase in total US deaths in 2020.”

            “COVID-19: There have been approximately 2,509,666 deaths reported worldwide. In the U.S, 508,314 people have died of COVID-19 between January 2020 and February 26, 2021. Flu: The World Health Organization estimates that 290,000 to 650,000 people die of flu-related causes every year worldwide.”
            https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-disease-2019-vs-the-flu

            You also ignore the differences in the long-term effects for people who recover.

            1. Pray tell. Why is the seasonal flu completely non-existent his year, future vaccination candidate?

              (I realize the answer requires basic critical thinking skills. But give it a try).

      2. “there was no increase in total US deaths in 2020.”

        Nope. The increase was over 10%.

        CDC, Number of deaths in 2019: 2,854,838 (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db395-tables-508.pdf)
        CDC, Number of deaths in 2020: over 3.2 million people, final figure not yet compiled due to lags in state reporting (https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2021/01/08/u-s-2020-deaths-total-will-be-at-least-12-higher-than-expected/)

        “another greasy little troll.” you say, looking in the mirror.

  6. “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.”

    And faculty. There were a few who stood up to the race/gender/class mob, and for the innocent students, by saying: “Wait a minute.” Some of those few faculty paid dearly.

    1. About 70 professors signed a statement welcoming the falsely accused students back to campus, about 1/2 the number who signed the statement denouncing them or the non mea culpa statement refusing to retract the statement denouncing them. There was a chemistry professor who publicly defended the students before they were exonerated by the Attorney-General’s office. He was almost alone in this endeavour. NB, I believe Duke University has about 1,000 faculty members, of whom about half are employed by Trinity College.

  7. Remember, the student could have genuinely believed that had she been white, there would never have been any intervention. If she did not believe that, then she played the race-card card, and that is something she learned.

    1. Remember, the student could have genuinely believed that had she been white, there would never have been any intervention.

      She could have seriously believed she was the Dean of the college and could go anywhere she wanted. What you don’t do is entertain that fantasy and assume (without evidence) the worst of your staff while assuming the best of the student.

  8. “It’s troubling that people are more offended by being called racist than by the actual racism in our society.”

    Collectivist race hucksters always make that move: “Well, there might not be racism in this particular case. But there is racism in the community, so we’re justified in sacrificing these individuals to the cause, and destroying their lives. After all, to make an omelet . . .”

  9. Just asking, why can’t these people administrators and students as well be taken to court for destroying the lives of innocent people? Start hitting their pockets and there might be a change? All this racism, white privilege and white supremacy is getting old. Why are we letting good people and businesses being destroyed by intimidation?

    1. Takes money, sophistication, and free time to sue.

      And if you sue, count on years of commitment.

      And the suing class has little interest in these people: they don’t matter.

      By definition, these victims don’t have the means to sue.

      The working poor are the perfect target if you are a bully.

  10. Wealthy black student lies and incites hatred against poorer white janitor and security guard. The media and elite college staff side with the money. This is a class issue.

    1. Guess what. Affirmative action was a move by “global capital” and its pets in management to break the white working class, long before political correctness brought the next wave of it. Sal

  11. As we see innocent people be victimized by bogus allegations that are easily and convincingly proven false and malicious….and those good people leave these Colleges and Universities….leaving others who have to exist in that hostile environment…..am I the only one seeing the very ugly results all of this creates and fosters a self fulfilling agenda of evil in our public institutions?

    The innocent should have been given a public apology…re-instated with compensatory payments….and the person making the false accusation should have been sent packing for the FALSE allegations.

    Allegations….all of them should be investigated and the truth of the matter determined and dealt with accordingly.

    Plainly that was not done in this Smith College incident.

    For the College to order yet more “Racial Diversity Training” for alleged systemic or prevalent Racism KNOWING there was no allegation of wide spread racism and the complaint about the one incident was clearly false…..why the over-reaction by. the College Management?

    Doesn’t the College have an obligation to do right by all of its Students, Staff, and Management?

    It is time for principled Lawyers to inject themselves into these events and do Pro Bono or Contingency work and file civil actions against those who do harm to innocent people.

    McCarthy and Smith College should be in Civil Court defending their actions and if they failed….face huge settlement costs upon the Court siding with the Plaintiffs.

    That is the only way to combat this scourge we see being foisted upon the American People by these racial zealots who make false allegations and those who fail in their duty to investigate and resolve legitimate claims of injury.

    A just and moral society demands it.

    1. Doesn’t the College have an obligation to do right by all of its Students, Staff, and Management?

      The people whose job that is are (1) faculty and (2) administrators in academic affaris, student affairs, and HR. You’re expecting that they’re people of good character or can be embarrassed in front of people of good character. Actually they’re self-centered Bourbons, office politicians, and social fanatics. There are lots of not-bad people on faculties. There are very few good people.

    2. Hey Ralph go ahead and fund a :”legal aid clinic” to take begin to vet and possibly farm out these cases to willing counsel. they are out there but they are not going to do them entirely for free. Cases like this can be very very time consuming and most working lawyers are not “indpendently wealthy” to volunteer months of time over years.

      For the outfit, could start with a $2 million dollar budget a year and you can have a skeleton crew and staff that has a chance of getting somewhere, building something. Otherwise, it’s very badly underfunded and might as well not even try.

      Does that seem like much? Oh, it isn’t. Take a look at the SPLC and see how much they’re spending on themselves. Go to charity navigator and look up their Form 990s.

      The so-called “LEFT” throws hundreds of millions into lawfare. Coming from billionaires, a lot of it. Kind of tells you how fake they are, and how poorly we are equipped to do battle, if we think to engage this foe on his most secure ground– the courts.

      Sal Sar

  12. So the takeaway is racism exists so even if the ” incident ” does not show racism, and could ruin innocent lives, that is ok. What is wrong with these people? This is the ultimate ” crying wolf”. Totally counterproductive to making our society better.

  13. This story may have made the news, but others like it happen every day all over the country. In the US, unless you have a union or personal employment contract, you have zero due process rights. You employer can accuse you of whatever they want, ignore evidence that shows you are innocent, and fire you at will. To change that would require a massive change in our labor laws, and every R would oppose that with every fiber of their being.

    So, either support changing our labor laws, or admit that you are ok with businesses screwing over their employees just like happened here.

    1. Just bring back organized workers in strong labor unions and unionize thirty or forty percent of the labor force, allow strikes, do not allow scabs to replace stikers, slap tariffs on imported products made by workers who cannot organize, guard your intellectual property, support public education, build parks, regulate business, and assure that police forces and the FBI are honest . . . or is that too populist? (I would think Hamilton, with a smidgeon of Jefferson, and perhaps a pinch of Debs or FDR, and a bit of Goldwater).
      These things are all connected; they are not discrete issues. It is not just a matter of free speech or workers’ rights; it is a question of what kind of society you want — a ‘democratic’ one in which we are free to speak and have the right to an education and a job, or a hierarchical one in which ideologues dictate what you can say and think while your superiors can tell you what you must do and, like the President of Smith, direct you to the nearest reeducation seminar.
      But what can we do? The Democrats have abandoned their base and Republicans always disliked strong labor unions.
      The world began to change under Reagan, and that change accelerated under Clinton and the Bushes, with Obama applying the finishing touches. Then along came Trump and nearly ruined all their hard work. No wonder Hillary was bitter. So praise be for Biden, who shall restore sanity and order to the world! Just ask Naomi Wolf.
      Was it Lenin who said that to have a viable one-party system you needed two parties? That certainly seems increasingly to be the case in the States. Trump temporarily gummed up the works, so the professional politicians of both parties, along with the intelligence community, the Pentagon and the mainstream media, wanted him not just gone, but disgraced and exiled to Florida. Seems that they have succeeded for the most part.
      All praise to the status quo!

      1. “Was it Lenin who said that to have a viable one-party system you needed two parties? That certainly seems increasingly to be the case in the States.”

        This is really interesting. I guess the question is will the two party/one party system in the future be the current democratic polarity of progressives/blue dog or will it be dems/ repubs? As it stands, the sustainability of the repubs seems destined for self destruction due to complete personality driven mechanics and demographic shifts in the population.

        EB

      2. For all those not well versed in right wing dog whistle, let me explain what he meant when he said.”The world began to change under Reagan…..Then along came Trump and nearly ruined all their hard work.” This means that the US was gradually becoming less racist and a more open and tolerant society, then Trump brought the racists back from exile.

        1. I’d be curious if he values the dog whistle or the sentiment more? Or whether he’s completely conscious of the link?

          EB

        2. For all those not well versed in right wing dog whistle, le

          You hear the dog whistle, Molly, because you’re the dog.

        3. “This means that the US was gradually becoming less racist and a more open and tolerant society, then Trump brought the racists back from exile.”

          Actually, Obama brought racism back to the forefront. Racism is the cry of the left and the Democrats when they are not calling for slavery.

          Obama, part black, put us back a decade or so where race relations were concerned since Democrats use the race card to advance their political agenda even though almost everything they did injured the non elite black family. Trump came in to revive a stagnant economy and a foreign policy that was destroying America’s interests and the interests of billions of people around the world. The left and Democrats knew they were in trouble so they used the entire bureaucracy and Democrat establishment to again bring racism to the forefront and as they have always done, using it to divide America.

            1. You should blame the birthers (like Trump) and other racists responding to Obama for their racism.

              Trump challenged Obama in 2011 to produce his long form birth certificate (which Obama eventually did). Gov. Abercrombie also suggested BO put an end to the controversy by producing it.

              Thanks for reminding us that the term ‘racism’ as used by liberals has a semantic content approximate to ‘poopy pants’ when used by young schoolchildren.

              1. AFAIK, Trump never released his own long form birth certificate. Of course, there was no neither for EITHER Obama or Trump to produce a long form. Yet Trump and others demanded it of Obama. Why? Because they’re bigots. There is no other reason to demand Obama’s long form birth certificate when the short form was already public, as was a contemporaneous birth announcement in a local paper.

                I’m not a mindreader and don’t know what quote of Abercrombie you have in mind. If you want to discuss what he said, quote him.

                Some quotes from Trump –
                “He doesn’t have a birth certificate, or if he does, there’s something on that certificate that is very bad for him. Now, somebody told me – and I have no idea if this is bad for him or not, but perhaps it would be – that where it says ‘religion,’ it might have ‘Muslim.’ And if you’re a Muslim, you don’t change your religion, by the way.”
                “I have people that have been studying [Obama’s birth certificate] and they cannot believe what they’re finding … I would like to have him show his birth certificate, and can I be honest with you, I hope he can. Because if he can’t, if he can’t, if he wasn’t born in this country, which is a real possibility … then he has pulled one of the great cons in the history of politics.”
                “An ‘extremely credible source’ has called my office and told me that @BarackObama’s birth certificate is a fraud.”

                Trump’s claims often have “a semantic content approximate to ‘poopy pants’ when used by young schoolchildren.”

            2. “You should blame the birthers (like Trump) and other racists responding to Obama for their racism.”

              Could you be talking about Hillary?

              I’ve listened to you enough about the economy to know that I won’t get more than a citation that proves nothing.

        4. This means that the US was gradually becoming less racist and a more open and tolerant society, then Trump brought the racists back from exile.

          This sentence means that MollyG has one talent, and that’s a capacity for confirmation bias.

          Trump has done nothing to injure any ascribed group in the United States in any way. Trump bears no responsibility for the social propaganda promoted by woke-tards in the educational apparat, in the media, and at the bar. Trump bears no responsibility for the machinations of a character like George Soros.

        5. Ordinarily, I do not respond to those who reply to my posts, because that just invites ad hominem attacks, not reasoned argument. But when somebody imputes motive to me, then it seems reasonable to set the record straight.
          I belonged to more than one trade union back when we had a lot of them; I have worked third shift, on the line, on construction sites and for minimum wage as well as a good salary; I have sppent time in the classroom, and I have pushed for faculty governance and been punished for doing so. . . .
          I do not own a dog whistle, and have no idea how to produce one. I just have my opinion, and if you disagree, that is your right. It is not your right to slander me.
          I was not a fan of Reagan, nor am I a fan of Biden. I did not vote for Bush or Clinton. I voted for Nader and I would love to have a third party that reflected my view of politics (in that sense, I am a big fan of Mill’s work On Representative Govt.).
          I admired Pete Seeger, both for his music and his politics, and I have long been a fan of Woody Guthrie and can do a fair rendition of Long Haired Preachers and Union Maid.
          I supported Nader when he was taking on GM and the powers that be, and I think Naomi Wolf is on to something right now.
          But, frankly, I am tired of being called a racist because my skin is not darker, and I do not buy into multiculturalism, which is an invitation to segretation, not a celebration of ethnic diversity. I admired King, not Malcolm X, and I was rasied to be tolerant, to treat people fairly, and to deal with individuals as such, not as members of groups.
          Does that help?
          By the time Trump appeared on the scene, CEOs had literally given away the industrial and intellectual property which generations of Americans had created, in the process destroying my hometown and dozens like it across the country. “We” had become an imperial power addicted to constant warfare, with mercenaries fighting our wars and our intelligence agencies overthrowing regimes of which “we” (fill in the blank) disapproved. I effect, my country’s eliites had ceased to observe international law, did not give two figs for the concept of sovereignty, and did not care about their fellow citizens.
          Should I go on?
          You have no idea who I am, where I have been, or what I have done in my life. But I assure you, that when one of my co-workers, family, or friends was mistreated, I did my best to support them, even if things did not always turn out well.
          As for Trump — he was a GOP president, annoying, crude, self-centered, and brash. But until the virus came along, he had the lowest unemployment rate in years, and wages for workers had actually begun to rise (in real terms). He had also called out China, for the first time in memory, and he was the first president in my lifetime (and I was a fan of Truman) who did not start a war and tried to bring home the troops. Nor did he play the race card; he courted and insulted everybody, regardless of their race or their class. Had there been no virus to justify mail-in voting, I have no doubt that he would have been reelected in a landslide. As it is, doubts abound, even if nobody wants to discuss them.
          Trump was a rich pain in the neck, but no worse than most of those in Congress or some other ex Presidents.
          You do not have to agree with me, but, please, refrain from trying to read my mind and infer what I did not imply.

  14. These kinds of incidents and the publicity they engender only serves to cause divisions between people. Super liberals now see white supremacists and racism in every person who does not have dark skin. It is almost as if they WANT separation of people, not a unified population. Unless of course everyone absolutely believes in everything they do. Actual education in this country is being supplanted by indoctrination programs. Then they wonder why there is a backlash when people are vilified for being white.

    https://whdh.com/news/confederate-flag-controversy-roils-middle-school-in-western-mass/
    https://www.city-journal.org/buffalo-public-schools-critical-race-theory-curriculum

    1. I’m pretty liberal.
      I don’t “see white supremacists and racism in every person who does not have dark skin.”
      I do see your hyperbolic nonsense.

      1. So incidents like this are not real and racial sensitivity training programs are not teaching that “all white people are racists”? The real hyperbolic nonsense is the far too common, undefined, unspecified and unproven claim of systemic racism. And the real absurdity is that these people make these accusations because they are arrogant enough to believe that they know what others think and feel. They do not! You do not!

  15. “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.”
    Actually, the burden for the administration is to conduct a thorough investigation of what actually occurred and determine whether it is necessary to roil the entire “community” based on the accusations of a single individual.
    These sorts of “discussions” are rarely discussions; they are ‘consciousness raising sessions’ in which those who disagree are bullied and everyone is encouraged to obey the dicatates or whomever is running the ‘discussions.’
    The “training seminars” are exercises in indoctrination, the equivalent of training a soldier at boot camp to give the drill sergeant twenty on command without any backtalk.
    Due process requires assumption of innocence, an unbiased investigation, and a fair and open hearing before any measures are taken. Or do I misunderstand the term ‘due process’?
    A link on Jodi Shaw, and the observation by Bari Weiss, who ends her piece on the incident a bit differently: “Any ideology that asks people to judge others based on their skin color is wrong. Any ideology that asks us to reduce ourselves and others to racial stereotypes is wrong. Any ideology that treats dissent as evidence of bigotry is wrong. Any ideology that denies our common humanity is wrong. You should say so. Just like Jodi Shaw has.”
    https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/whistleblower-at-smith-college-resigns

  16. Only in the world of today’s Left can we have a person getting (I would love to know if she is paying) a $300,000 education attacking a janitor as being privileged. We have students receiving a $75,000 A YEAR education attacking staff earning $45,000 a year as being the party that is oppressing them.

    There is a site called Twicthie that mocks these Twitter addicted pretenders by showing their asinine tweets and the justifiable demeaning rejoinders and one of the pictures the site likes to use is a shot of George Orwell with the caption, “Boy was I right or what”.

    1. This problem was not caused by the left, but by the right by opposing all employment protection laws that would have stopped this.

        1. Oh she has lots of responsibility, but it would have been a different story if the school knew that they could not take any adverse action based on the false accusation. It would have never even made news. The student publicly and falsely accused innocent low wage workers of racism, that is pretty bad, but her name is not all over the internet and good luck to her finding a job now. Who wants to hire a person who has a history of false accusations like that?

      1. Sorry, MollyG, there are laws that protect workers and they have not been opposed by the right. Now, what employment protection laws have the right opposed that you are referring to, specifically, that are NOT already covered under existing law? The Left has engaged in what I consider classic bullying. As far as I know the Left has not proposed a law against that. However, I wonder if Jodi Shaw et al can file a discrimination case with the Dept of Labor because they were targeted because they are white. If a black/brown staff member had said that “they were not comfortable talking about their skin color” would they have been treated the same way that Jodi Shaw was? Probably not.

        1. Discrimination cases are very hard to prove and expensive. They might have a case, but it is a long shot. It is very rare to see a workers right bill that the right has supported. The right has opposed any law or change that would help unions, and have been weakening union protections for decades. Now it is completely legal for an employer to fire a worker for false reasons, or even no reason at all. That needs to change.

      2. Ridiculous remark by Molly.

        100 to 1 odds Molly is white

        She is what is called a self loathing white person

        Sal Sar

  17. The (mostly black) people who make these complaints are often racial bullies using an effective weapon to crush their perceived enemies.

    The sad part is that they win these encounters at a huge cost to their race – doesn’t take much imagination to guess what readers are thinking.

    But worse are the cowardly virtue signallers who throw people and justice to the wolves.

    Those people abandon their obligations in order to be seen as just. Cowards and bullies.

  18. Yet another race hoax (aren’t they all) perpetrated by folks with chips on their shoulder enabled, abetted and emboldened by liberals with very little on their shoulders but cloaked with a sense of divine mission that Joan of Arc would have envied. They all deserve Joan’s fate if only figuratively. Destroying lives should be punished severely and these punks who perp these stunts need to be the first in the dock.

    1. As shown on Tucker Carlson last night we had the “victim” going on GMA (or some other left wing venue) and crying her eyes out at the oppression she faces on her “dangerous campus”. This student has the opportunity to receive a $300,000 education and yet she is oppressed by the JANITOR???? When did we become Bizzarro Land?

          1. ANincompoop:

            “Mespo openly muses of the pre Civil Rights Act days.”
            *******************************************************
            Pre? There were two Acts in place by 1964 and scads of other civil rights actions.

            Often wrong, never in doubt:

            Brown v, Board, 1954
            Civil Rights Act of 1957, 1957
            Woolworth’s Lunch Counter, 1960
            Freedom Riders, 1961
            I have a dream Speech, Aug. 1963
            Civil Rights Act of 1964, 1964

          2. So you’ve decided to skip right passed the rational option and ask Mark what event(s) in 1964 lead you to that conclusion and instead channel Kanoute and make a baseless allegation. Nikita Khruschev told us what will happen: “We will take America without firing a shot,” Khrushchev said. “We do not have to invade the U.S. We will destroy you from within.” And Yuri Bezmenov told us how it will happen. It’s happened and you’re proof positive.

    2. “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.”
      **********************
      Oh and the author of the foregoing piece of majesty is my hero. Brava, Librarian Jodi Shaw, you’re the embodiment of all that’s good about Smith and you’ve left. That’s not just sad, it’s telling in a mathematical sort of way.

        1. Once again, mesblow demonstrates how hard it is for him to disagree with people without infantile name-calling.

          I didn’t say that there are no hoaxes. I correctly answered your “aren’t they all” comment by pointing out no, people’s individual stories of racism are not all hoaxes.

          Will these stories do for you?
          https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/07/your-stories-of-racism/398117/

          If not, what WOULD convince you that not all reports of racism are hoaxes? Do you need videotape?

          If so, how about Amy Cooper falsely reporting that a Black man was threatening her when all he’d done was ask her to leash her dog, when she was in an area of Central Park that requires dogs to be leashed.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_birdwatching_incident
          There’s a link to the video there.

          1. ANincompoop:

            Not really. It’s just a cattle call article for unverified “stories” from the race-driven crowd that read Ta-Nehisi Coates. Mine are verified; theirs are … well … from the Atlantic. The same Atlantic that smeared Trump with an allegation from four anonymous sources that he called our war dead “losers.” Twenty-one people said on the record that story was pure leftist election interference, hogwash including no-friend-of-Trump, John Bolton, who was in the room. Amy Cooper is one instance of likely overreaction rather than outright lying but conceding the point, that’s still the equivalent of putting up a toothpick on the wood pile and claiming you contributed to the bonfire. Try again.

            1. A critic of Coates notes that in his memoir the earliest incident of abusive behavior by a white person to which he makes reference occurs when he’s past 20; someone was rude to his child on an escalator.

              Note, the editors of The Atlantic abjured their usual hiring screens and gave him a spot in their line-up and the book-buying public made him a member of the petty rich by buying his memoir. The notable thing about his topical commentary is a refusal to acknowledge what makes life so disagreeable for blacks in Baltimore, because the actual agents of that are not deplorables.

            2. The issue, mespo, is what you’ll accept as evidence. You’re a lawyer, are you going to ignore all of the racial discrimination lawsuits that present evidence of racism?

              Moreover, a single example – which you’ve already granted – is sufficient to prove your claim “aren’t they all” false. You made an extreme claim (“all”), so it doesn’t take much to disprove it.

              “Amy Cooper is one instance of likely overreaction rather than outright lying”

              No, she was outright lying. He didn’t threaten her.

          2. “what WOULD convince you that not all reports of racism are hoaxes?”

            No one is denying injustices occur all the time whether the injustice has to do with religion, national origin, race, color, sex, weight, height, intelligence etc. I believe others are looking at your intense focus on singular problems where your solutions create greater injustices for the rest and frequently greater injustices for the people you say you are trying to help.

            1. “No one is denying injustices occur all the time whether the injustice has to do with religion, national origin, race, color, sex, weight, height, intelligence etc.”

              Mespo’s denying that racism exists. He said “Yet another race hoax (aren’t they all)”

              Maybe you can help him understand they aren’t all hoaxes.

              1. Some racism will always exist in one form or another. The left’s reaction to it is inappropriate. We saw that in action with Kanoute.

Leave a Reply