I spoke with Detective Lieutenant Shelly Vander Veen of the Claremont Police Department about the alleged bias incident at Pomona College. Pomona College failed to mention what the "anti-Semitic, anti-queer, and ethnic slurs" were. They also failed to mention that the police have ruled out calling it a hate crime or even an act of vandalism as no damage was done. (More on that in a moment.)
I did some investigative reporting and contacted the police. Here are the facts. At the bottom, I'll give my analysis.
There were 3 cars involved in what police are calling a "hate incident" in the parking lot of Amherst and 6th street.
The slogans and symbols were written in dirt and as they did no permanent damage, the police aren't calling it an act of vandalism.
On the first car, there were two swastikas. On the second car, there was the phrase, "go back to Chinatown," and the phrases "Jewish bitch" and "Jewish shnooze(sic)." On the third car, there was a chicken drawn (no joke) and the following message: "hi my name is Christine, but you can call me chris because I am butch."
The police are not calling it a hate crime because none of the car owners was Jewish, Chinese, or gay.
To quote Lt. Vander Veen, "We do not believe it was directed towards any of the people."
"Although it's obviously an incident of concern, there was also no permanent damage."
Lt. Vander Veen wants anyone who knows about the incident to come forward. She also says that she'll let us know if anything develops.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
My analysis:
I don't know of too many hate crimes in which the perpetrators don't leave damage and draw chickens.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
What a Surprise! The Truth about Pomona's Latest Bias-Incident
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe in a reader
3 comments:
This sounded fishy from the instant I saw the email. Vandalism on April Fool's Day in the same parking lot as the Dunn incident, with swastikas, homophobic and anti-Semitic slurs to boot!
Charles, it sounds from the tone of your post that you're offering criticism of Pomona's "bias-incident" policy, but I'm unsure what exactly your criticism is. You write that "Pomona College failed to mention what the "anti-Semitic, anti-queer, and ethnic slurs" were. They also failed to mention that the police have ruled out calling it a hate crime or even an act of vandalism as no damage was done."
It seems to me, from reading Pomona's original statement, which classified the incident as a "bias-incident" rather than a "hate crime" (as your original criticism seems to suggest they had), and the police's follow up on the incident, which they termed a "hate incident", that the analysis of the incident was in no way misleading. Some cars had obviously hateful messages written on them, and Pomona informed the campus, as their policy dictates.
Pomona didn't claim a "hate crime" had occurred.
Pomona did use the word vandalism to describe the dirt on the cars, a word which the police are not using, but nonetheless I think that vandalism is a reasonable word to use to describe what went down even if its not the official terminology being used (after the fact) by the police.
Are you criticizing Pomona for not fully disclosing the facts of the case? Are you criticizing them not sending a follow up e-mail? Do you simply think we shouldn't have to hear about this kind of stuff?
At any rate, it seems to me that no egregious injustice has been committed by the Pomona admins, and that whatever you're complaining about is fairly trivial, and comes off feeling like a petty nit-picking of an overwhelmingly unproblematic e-mail which accurately characterized a transgression on campus that could be of interest to many people.
I just don't understand why this bias incident e-mail demands such a sensationalist treatment.
Ben,
I don't believe hate crimes or bias-related incidents have the force of law and I think the school should get rid of them. I think it's questionable whether or not the college are legally allowed to call them "bias-related incidents." Be sure to turn in on Monday when I explain why, but I don't want to spoil it. For the record, I think the policy is ridiculous because it presupposes to be able to read man's mind.
My first complaint is that if you are willing to call something a "hate incident" or a "bias related incident" or a "hate crime" (which is what the email alludes to and what others want to call that incident) you have a moral and possibly a legal obligation to let people know what was said.
Second, I don't think the phrase vandalism should be used because no damage was done. Suggesting damage had been done is akin to suggesting writing on a whiteboard is "hateful."
I am criticizing them from giving any statement at all about the incident and then for giving a statement and leaving out key details. They essentially give students conclusions instead of facts. I have examined numerous "hate" incidents on campus and found them to be little more than pranks.
As for sensationalist treatment, when you bring in the police to investigate you use the town's funds to look into an incident. I think that's a waste of money and of police resources.
Post a Comment