Babson College's Faculty Duped by Bogus Accusations

The Ferguson yarn -- that a White policeman shot to death a Black teenager who was standing still, hands raised, pleading to surrender, in the middle of a street of a residential neighborhood at high noon -- deserved skepticism. Instead, millions of supposedly intelligent people denounced the skeptics as racists.

Despite the lessons learned from the Ferguson incident, however, supposedly intelligent people continue to rush to make racism accusations in response to implausible yarns.

A website called Heat Street reports this story:

Two Babson College [in Wellesley, Massachusetts] students who were alleged to have yelled racial slurs at black women during a celebration of Donald Trump’s election victory have been cleared of any wrongdoing. 

After the election [on November 8, 2016], Parker Rand-Ricciardi and Edward Tomasso decided to go out and celebrate their candidate’s win. They did so by driving onto the nearby Wellesley campus, an all-women college, with a Trump flag flying proudly. 

Students at Wellesley, however, told a different story.  Rand-Ricciardi and Tomasso, they said, spit on a student and shouted “racial and homophobic slurs while parked in front of the Harambee House, an on-campus gathering place traditionally meant for African American students.” As a result of that, the two students were told to leave the Babson campus and not return until Dec. 11. 

But no one was ever able to prove that the two students did anything other than yell “Make America Great Again.” 

On Monday, the school officially ruled that Rand-Ricciardi and Tomasso did nothing wrong. .... 

[the article continues]

Babson College immediately initiated a careful investigation of these two students and eventually issued its exonerating decision on December 19.

Meanwhile, however, more than 200 gullible faculty members rashly fell for the ludicrous accusation and signed the following statement, dated November 14, 2016.

To: The Babson Community: Students, Parents, Alumni, Staff, President, President’s Cabinet, and Trustees 

From: The Babson College Faculty 

In light of recent events in our country, the rise of insensitive and aggressive behaviors by members of our community on our campus, and the shocking affront to members of the Wellesley College community, the faculty of Babson College feels the need to remind everyone who we are, what we expect, and what Babson College stands for. Recent events demonstrate that we still have a long way to go to fully meet these expectations. 

When interacting with one another, we expect everyone in our community to display: 

* Mutual respect for differences, 

* Honest and respectful discourse, 

* Empathy towards others, 

* An open mind to the concerns and experiences of others,

* A commitment to creating and maintaining a safe environment, and 

* The courage to speak up when others are violating community values. 

Central to Babson College’s mission is the promotion of diversity and inclusion. [blah blah blah] The racist rhetoric, intimidation based on identity, and other demeaning ways in which some students are reportedly treating each other must end immediately. Regardless of personal point of view, political stance, race, gender, religion, or identity, it is imperative that we create an environment [blah blah blah] ... 

We are emphatic that we must all treat one another with respect, civility, honesty, and open-mindedness, reflecting both our moral responsibilities and our academic mission. We look forward to strong action by President Healey and her cabinet [blah blah blah]  

In this difficult time, we need to demonstrate leadership and to set a positive example. Let’s start together, right here and right now.

The statement is followed by a long list of gullible faculty members who were supposed:

* to teach and model careful thinking

* to treat their White male students Rand-Ricciardi and Tomasso with respect and civility.

Fortunately, most people are not as reflexively gullible as these 200+ Babson faculty members. The Heat Street article was followed by 117 comments, including he following:

Now the students need to sue the school and the women who made the false allegation. Unless there is a price to pay for making a false report, and for the school immediately suspending the students without proof, there will be moreof these incidents. Then there is the crying wolf problem. If this conduct is allowed to go unpunished, when a real hate crime occurs, it may be dismissed as just another fake.

and

I keep hearing these stories about roving groups of white males   attacking black women and other minorities verbally and sometimes physically when Trump won. Then the stories  don't pan out. A woman was  just arrested on NYC for filing a fale police report. It  just doesn't add up. People who supported Trump were happy, not angry and violent.

and

islamaphobia and hate crimes are real, but the second that i hear (white guy in Trump hat, guy in a Trump shirt, the guy yelled Trump) there is a 99.5% chance its a hoax. the whole boogeyman Trump supporter is a myth.

and

The professors should be disciplined.  Taking action without proof is punishment without cause, and there has to be something in the school charter prohibiting that. 

It'll also serve as a deterrent for other professors too eager to jump on the "Smear Trump Supporters at Every Opportunity" bandwagon. 

Truly amazing that people with Ph.D.s, where dissertative analysis requires hypothesis and evidence, seem so eager to jump to unproven conclusions when it suits them.

and

Yelling 'Make America Great Again" IS seen as racist and homophobic by the idiots on the Left who think they have carte blanche to do as they please including lying about others.

and

It seems like the standards of proof are similar to the Salem witch trials.

and

In America, people are INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. 

In La-La-Liberal-Land collage campuses, the accused is punished simply on the politically incorrectness of the accusation, long before even an investigation has occured, let alone anyone being proven guilty.

and

The history of PROVEN false accusations by leftist liberals SHOULD have created an air of suspicion around ALL accusations by liberals, yet they still immediately believe their liars (then they have no comment when their lies are revealed).   #HandsUpDon'tShoot

and

It would seem that this is a good opportunity to invite the faculty who signed the letter to equally publicly apologise to the accused Babson students and to the Babson student community ...

Most of those commenters write in an uneducated manner, but they communicate more good sense than Babson College's faculty.

People Who Did Not See Keith Lamont Scott Being Killed

On September 20, 2016, an African-American named Keith Lamont Scott was shot to death in an encounter with five police officers in Charlotte, North Carolina. Essentially, the officers shot Scott because he threatened them with a loaded firearm. (The Wikipedia article about the incident is here.)

On November 30, District Attorney Andrew Murray announced that the officers were justified in shooting Scott and therefore would not be charged. The District Attorney's office published a 20-page report titled The Keith Lamont Scott Death Investigation, which provided the following details (emphasis added) about false witnesses who lied that they saw Scott being murdered by the police officers as he was walking away or trying to surrender.

False Witness Tahesha Williams

Williams said to the media: “I actually saw the shooting.” In interviews that aired on local television and Al Jazeera, Williams claimed Scott was unarmed with his hands raised, asking officers, “What is the problem? What did I do? What’s wrong?” when he was shot by a white, bald-headed police officer. She also said there were no black police officers present during the shooting and that the first black officer did not arrive at the scene until 10-15 minutes later. Williams told the media Scott had a black book and that she saw Scott step over the book – with his hands raised – after it fell off his lap. 

* On September 23, 2016, Williams told the SBI [State Bureau of Investigation] that she did not see the shooting. 

* She told the SBI that she was sitting on the couch, watching television, with the volume turned up loud and never saw Keith Scott until she went outside her apartment after the shooting. 

* She told the SBI she did not see a book or a gun at the scene when she went outside. ...

[Pages 9-10]

False Witness Tracy McLean

McLean gave a media interview on September 21, 2016, claiming that she was an eyewitness to the shooting. She stated that Scott was shot by a white police officer in a red shirt, and she said Officer Vinson wasn’t anywhere around. 

* On September 26, 2016, McLean told the SBI she did not see the shooting but did hear officers yelling, “Drop the gun.” 

[Page 11]

False Witness "John Doe 3"

This witness is a juvenile and was interviewed in the presence of his mother by the CMPD [Charlotte Municipal Police Department] and the SBI. He said he observed the incident from his bedroom window and later from a sliding glass door in his living room. 

* On the evening of September 20, 2016, this witness told CMPD that .... Scott was reading a book on the date of the incident and that Scott kept reading as the officers attempted to break the SUV’s window. He said Scott eventually put the book down and exited the SUV empty-handed. He said Scott’s hands were empty and “wide open” and that Scott walked toward officers and then turned and started going toward Scott’s SUV. According to this witness, “I’m pretty sure it was [the white officer because] like he was the one I could really, really see cause he wasn’t by no trees or nothing.” He also said that when Scott was in his SUV, “you could see the book and the pages on it.” 

* On September 26, 2016, this witness told the SBI that ...  officers said “stop,” and Scott stopped. There was a 30-second pause, and then officers said they were going to use a Taser on Scott. “Then they tased him,” he said. At this point, in response to the agent’s question, he clarifies that he did not, in fact, see Scott get “tased.” Instead, he heard that it happened from someone’s claim in a YouTube video. ... At the end of his interview, when asked by an agent whether he heard the police say anything about a gun after Scott exited his vehicle, he said the police did not say anything when he got out of his vehicle. He claimed everyone “got quiet.” 

* Investigators took photographs from this witness’ vantage point. The photos show that it would have been very difficult, if not impossible, for the witness to have seen all that he described. 

* This witness’ vantage point was from the passenger side of the SUV. All of his observations of the incident would have been made not only through the obstruction of a large tree but also through Scott’s SUV. 

* During his interviews, when asked to clarify parts of his statement, it becomes apparent that this witness incorporated information he heard from other sources as part of his eyewitness account. These sources include Scott’s family members, other residents of the neighborhood and YouTube videos concerning the shooting. .... 

[Pages 10-11]

False Witness "John Doe 4"

This witness was interviewed by the SBI because he left a voicemail with the CMPD, saying he saw the shooting and that officers must have planted the gun. He claimed he saw the shooting from 14 feet away, Scott did not have a gun and the police were involved in a cover-up. 

* When interviewed by the SBI, this witness admitted he did not see the shooting. He denied leaving the voicemail and claimed someone else must have used his phone. Further investigation showed that he was in the State of Nebraska when the shooting occurred. 

[Page 12]

The same kind of lying happened after the killing of Michael Brown. Various people lied that they saw Michael Brown standing still, raising his hands and pleading to surrender as a police officer shot him to death.