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. 

Support for Democrats has collapsed in Missouri

Missouri citizens voted in recent Presidential elections as follows:

2000
Republican = 50.4%
Democrat = 47.1%

2004
Republican = 53.3%
Democrat = 46.1%

2008
Republican = 49.4%
Democrat = 49.3%

2012
Republican = 53.8%
Democrat = 44.4%

2014
Riots in Ferguson

2015
Disruptions at the University of Missouri

2016
Republican = 57.1%
Democrat = 38.0%

More simply, here is the Democratic Party's collapse in the last three Presidential elections:

2008 = 49%
2012 = 44%
2016 = 38%

=========

An exit poll of Missouri voters indicates that two-thirds of White voters voted for Donald Trump.

=========

Below are the Missouri elections for other positions in November 2016.

US Senate
Republican = 51%
Democrat = 48%

US House, District 1 (Saint Louis)
Republican = 20%
Democrat = 75%

US House, District 2
Republican = 59%
Democrat = 38%

US House, District 3
Republican = 68%
Democrat = 28%

US House, District 4
Republican = 68%
Democrat = 28%

US House, District 5 (Kansas City)
Republican = 39%
Democrat = 58%

US House, District 6
Republican = 68%
Democrat =28%

US House, District 7
Republican = 68%
Democrat = 27%

US House, District 8
Republican =  74%
Democrat = 23%

Governor
Republican = 51%
Democrat = 45%

Lieutenant Governor
Republican = 55%
Democrat = 40%

Attorney General
Republican = 61%
Democrat = 39%

Secretary of State
Republican = 60%
Democrat = 36%

State Senate Seats
Republican = 26 seats
Democrat = 8 seats

State House Seats
Republican = 117 seats
Democrat = 45 seats


https://ballotpedia.org/Missouri_elections,_2016
http://enr.sos.mo.gov/Default.aspx

Brown stopped on the east end of Copper Creek Court

The US Justice Department's report about the death of Michael Brown did not specify the spot where Brown stopped running away, turned around and began charging toward Police Officer Darren Wilson. Rather, the report specified only the 21.6-foot distance from Brown's first blood drops to his dead body (page 7).

Brown charged a considerable distance before that first blood drop hit the street, but the Justice Department preferred to omit any such consideration -- preferred to create a false impression that Brown charged perhaps only 21.6 feet (about 7 yards).

The charge-beginning spot was discussed but not specified clearly either in the grand-jury documents that were released to the public. The police investigators told the grand jury that Brown began charging from the the northwest corner (page 32) of Canfield Drive and Coppercreek Court and that the distance from that corner to Brown's body was 16 yards (48 feet) (page 89).

The grand jury transcripts (pages 31-33) record that a police detective told the grand jury that such a point was confirmed by multiple eyewitnesses:

Prosecutor:
Next board I’m going to mark [as] Grand Jury Exhibit 105. …. And why is it that this cone was placed at that location on Canfield Drive ...?

Detective
As best we could tell based off of witness accounts, that would have been the furthest point east that Michael Brown would have went to. So that intersection of roughly Coppercreek Court and Canfield Drive. ….

Grand Juror
… is this the point where he stopped in the roadway and turned?

Detective
Yes, ma’am. We are basing that off of witness statements as best we could tell. That was the point that they had made reference to and so we used that as the furthest eastern point to go to.

Grand Jury Exhibit 105 has not been released to the public, but two documents indicate that police investigators set a "baseline" at the southwest point of the intersection of Canfield Drive and Copper Creek Court. The cone's location seems to be the one in this unofficial photograph:

This cone seems to be the one mentioned in regard to Grand Jury's Exhibit 105,
but this is not that exhibit, and the annotations are not official.

(I have lost my reference to the photo's source.) 

The below photograph indicates Brown's charge -- about 16 yards -- from that spot.

The grand-jury documents indicate that Brown charged according to the blue arrow,
a distance of about 16 yards.

However, three African-American witnesses -- whom I have designated as Balcony Brother, Visiting Brother and Visiting Sister-in-Law -- indicated that Brown began charging from the southeast corner, near the intersection's street sign. I estimate that this distance from this spot to Brown's dead body was about 25 yards.

Those three witnesses were watched the event from the balcony in this photograph's upper-right corner.

The three best eyewitnesses for the spot where Brown
began his charge watched the incident from the balcony
in the photograph's upper-right corner.

The photograph's top edge is
the scene's east area.

The upper side of Copper Creek Court
in the photograph is that street's east side.

Visiting Sister-in-Law told investigators that the spot where Brown began his advance was on the east side of Copper Creek Court (page 17), and Visiting Brother indicated that the spot was near the intersection's street sign (page 91). Based on those and other remarks from the three balcony witnesses, I have marked the spot on the below photograph.

Visiting Sister-in-Law said that Brown began his
charge from the east side of Copper Creek Court

Visiting Brother said that Brown began his
charge near a street sign.

Accordingly, I have placed a red dot near
the spot where Brown began his charge. 

The above photograph is taken from the below video, atsecond 27.

The below photograph indicates Brown's charge -- I estimate about 25 yards -- from that spot.

The three balcony witnesses indicated that Brown began his charge from
Copper Creek Court's east side, near the street sign. 

In an interview with investigators on August 18, Visiting Sister-in-Law was given a photograph of the scene and was asked to draw an arrow showing Brown's run from the police car. Then one of the questioners described the arrow point:

Question: You indicated the grassy portion to the east of Copper Creek Court. Is that correct?

Visiting Sister-in-Law: Yes .... and then he [Brown] stopped and he turned around. 

(Pages 16-17; emphasis added)

Visiting Sister-in-Law said in her testimony to the grand jury on October 6:

Visiting Sister-in-Law: He ... got into the grassy area and he stopped. ... Then he turned back around and started going back towards the police officer. ...

Prosecutor (pointing to a photograph): The victim [Brown] stops in this area here, in the grassy area. So he's not on the street any more?

Visiting Sister-in-Law: No. 

 (Pages 23 and 26)

-----

Visiting Brother-in-Law, in his testimony to the grand jury on October 2, pointed to a photograph and said:

He stopped right here at this driveway, and he turned around in the entrance of the driveway, about right there on the corner of the driveway. ...

He got to right at the edge of the driveway. This is a ... street sign, right there at the corner of the driveway. He stopped right there at the edge of the driveway, and then he turned around. 

(Pages 83-84 and 91; emphasis added)

-----

Balcony Brother, interviewed by a detective on August 12, pointed to a photograph and said:

He ran to right here. He was standing about five feet from the street, on the driveway. That's when he turned. ...

He was about five to six feet off the street, in the driveway, right on the corner. ... He had one foot on the grass and one foot on the driveway, and then he turned around. ....

This is the driveway here. Then you'll see a street sign right here. He never made it that far, [to] the street sign. 

(Pages 6 and 7; emphasis added)

Balcony Brother on September 24 told an FBI Special Agent:

He crossed the sidewalk, he got on the back [east] part of the driveway, and he stopped. 

(Page 10; emphasis added)

Balcony Brother, testifying to the grand jury on September 30, pointed to a photograph and said:

Apartment Resident: When he got to here, Michael was standing right on the grass. ....

Prosecutor: Is he on the grass actually?

Apartment Resident: He is standing at the very edge [of the grass]. The driveways are blacktop. He is stopped right at the blacktop's very edge. 

(Pages 116-117)

----

The below photograph shows how far Brown ran forward. In the upper-right, I have red-circled the street sign that Brown almost reached. In the lower-left, I have circled blood stains where Brown's dead body lay.

According to the three balcony witnesses,
Brown began his charge from the street sign
circled in red in this photograph's background.

Brown fell dead n the area marked by the teddy bear
and candles in the foreground.

.

Ferguson is the model for federalizing local schools

Even though the accusations that Ferguson's Police Officer Darren Wilson murdered Michael Brown were false, the Obama Administration used the accusations as an excuse to expand the Federal Government's control over Ferguson's municipal government and police force. The Obama Administration found Wilson to be innocent but then deftly changed the subject to the local Blacks' complaints about traffic tickets. Suddenly the racism accusations were re-aimed toward police officers who issue traffic tickets and toward municipal officials who treat the traffic fines as municipal revenue. The Obama Administration then proceeded to impose a series of new Federal controls onto Ferguson.

Ferguson is merely the first city that will suffer this fate. The Federal Government will follow the Ferguson model in any city where a White police officer is accused of murdering a Black. An FBI team will be rushed to the city to try to develop a case for indicting the officer on Federal charges. The FBI team also collect anecdotal evidence that any local officials ever have sent racist e-mails or that local Blacks are fined disproportionately for traffic violations. No matter whether the police officer ever is convicted, the FBI team will return to Washington DC with enough evidence to justify Federal control of that city's municipal government and police force.

---------

Ferguson is a model also for the Federal Government to take over local education by preventing school board elections.

Wherever some Black is killed by a White police officer, the local Blacks will argue that the local school board is as racist as the local police force. Ferguson has shown that the following three arguments are effective in convincing a Federal judge to cancel all school-board elections:

* The local teachers union endorses relatively few Blacks for school-board seats.

* The town’s Blacks own disproportionately fewer homes and therefore suffer from a “calculus for voting” that results in fewer votes for Black candidates.

* The town’s Black students are subjected to disciplinary actions disproportionately, which is a “particularized need” ignored by the racist school board.

Here is how Ferguson established that legal precedent, which will be applied to other cities' school boards.

The decision by St. Louis County grand jury to not indict Wilson was announced on November 24, 2014. Within the following month, the local NAACP sued the Ferguson-Florissant School District (FFSD) because school-board elections are won disproportionately by Whites.

Twenty months later, on August 22, 2016, federal judge Rodney Sippel agreed with the NAACP and stopped all future school-board elections in Ferguson until some new scheme is established that will result in more Blacks winning school-board elections.

Judge Sippel reasoned that Ferguson’s school-board elections are racist because the local teachers union endorses relatively few Blacks for school-board positions. Sippel wrote:

…. the Ferguson-Florissant National Education Association (“FFNEA”) and the North County Labor Club (“NCLC”) are two well-established local slating organizations that endorse candidates for the [School] Board. …. Each of these organizations promotes its endorsed candidates jointly. …. Beyond providing the signaling value of slating candidates, these organizations provide tangible resources to endorsed candidates, including campaign literature, mailing lists, and access to volunteers. ….

African American candidates have less success than white candidates in getting endorsed by these organizations. …. Since 2006, similar numbers of white and Black candidates have run for office and sought FFNEA endorsement. The FFNEA has endorsed eleven of nineteen white candidates (58%) but only three of fifteen African American candidates (20%). ….

Neither FFNEA nor NCLC has written down or shared with the public their criteria for endorsement, and neither organization informs candidates after the fact why they were or were not endorsed.

The District presented credible evidence that the FFNEA endorsement process is open to everyone. … the FFNEA sends a letter to every candidate that files for the District board asking him or her to interview for their endorsement. Once a candidate applies, the FFNEA sends the candidates a list of questions and sets up an appointment time for the interview. The chair of the FFNEA Political Action Committee (“PAC”) is the leader of the endorsement committee and chooses its members. The PAC chair attempts to make the endorsement committee as racially diverse as possible and to include a mixture of males, females, teachers, and support personnel. …. the endorsement committee has been racially diverse for as long as he can remember.

The endorsement committee interviews candidates, asking the questions from the list of questions given ahead of time. No questions are added or omitted, and the questions are usually the same every year. Once the interviews have concluded, the committee discusses each candidate and votes on who to endorse. …. the endorsement decision is based on the candidates’ answers to the interview questions, which are aimed at finding out if the candidate’s interests are aligned with the FFNEA members’ interests.

In 2014, members of the African American community came together to brainstorm about ways to help the District. The group formed a Political Action Committee named “Grade A for Change.” … They decided to interview and recruit more African American candidates to run for the school board. In 2014, three African American candidates ran together under Grade A for Change: [Donna] Paulette-Thurman, [James] Savala, and [Willis] Johnson. Paulette-Thurman was elected to the Board in 2014, but Savala and Johnson were not. Grade A for Change supported the candidates’ campaigns financially and helped with signs and pamphlets. …

…. the testimony shows that all candidates are sent invitations to seek endorsement. It is undisputed, however, that both the FFNEA and the NCLC endorse more white candidates than Black candidates. Moreover, white candidates who are endorsed are more likely to win than African American candidates who receive endorsements. Accordingly, African Americans have much less success than white candidates in receiving the established slating groups’ endorsements, and in that sense, they are largely denied meaningful access to those slating groups.

Pages 106-109

Sippel reasoned also that the current elections are racist because Blacks own less housing and therefore their “calculus of voting” causes them to vote less.

African Americans in FFSD [Ferguson-Florissant School District] continue to bear the effects of past discrimination. …. One can still see once-formalized policies of racial segregation and housing discrimination “inscribed on [the regional] landscape” and that the formalized pattern of segregation by deed covenant had been “written into land use zoning,” which is “still very much the way in which we organize property and housing opportunity in a metro area,” causing officially sanctioned race discrimination and segregation to “persist to the present day.” ….

Housing equity is the principal form of wealth for most families, so barriers to equal opportunity to home ownership that African Americans in St. Louis County have faced for decades have had and continue to have a substantial negative impact on a family’s opportunity to accrue and retain wealth, to get favorable loan terms, to access public services and high-performing schools, and to benefit from increasing property values. … The wealth gap has increased recently “as a result of the last housing bubble and bust.” The wealth gap is one chief driver of continuing (and in some cases widening) disparities between African Americans and whites in FFSD in areas such as educational achievement, level of poverty, employment, and health care. ….

Political scientists who study voting behavior commonly use the “calculus of voting” as a cost benefit framework for determining whether and why individuals, as well as groups of people, do and do not vote. The calculus takes into account the probability that one’s vote will determine the outcome of an election, the benefits of seeing one’s preferred candidate win an election and potentially implement preferred policies, and the costs of voting, including: informing oneself about candidates, completing the administrative process of registering to vote, locating one’s polling place, and getting time off work. …..

This cost-benefit framework “indicates that for many people the decision of whether to vote or not can be a close call, and that . . . relatively small changes in either the benefits or the cost side of the equation can substantially increase or decrease the likelihood of voting in an election.” A small change in benefit or cost has a more pronounced effect on voters with less education and/or less income, and/or who are “less habitual” voters, because for them “it’s a little more difficult to overcome the cost that is associated with registering and turning out to vote, learning about candidates and so forth.” ….

There is ample evidence that the costs of voting are higher and the benefits lower for African American residents of FFSD as compared to white residents. There continue to be undisputed disparities between Black and white residents of FFSD on almost every socioeconomic indicator, including employment, wealth, home-ownership, access to health care, and other factors underlying basic economic security.

There are also undisputed disparities between African American and white FFSD students in educational achievement (including enrollment in advanced classes, the FFSD gifted and talented program, enrichment programs, extracurricular activities) and the application of discipline (including in-school suspensions, out-of-school suspensions, referrals to law enforcement, and corporal punishment).
There also continue to be undisputed disparities between Black and white residents of FFSD in the numbers of law enforcement stops, arrests, fines, and fees. …. “neighborhoods with higher levels of contact with the criminal justice system tend to have lower levels of voter participation.” This occurs because of the resulting “loss of economic resources,” and because criminal justice system involvement “tends to foster more negative attitudes and less trust of local government, which lowers the benefit side of the cost of voting calculation and makes those distrustful individuals less likely to see the benefit of voting in local elections.” Additionally, contact with the criminal justice system causes people “more difficulty engaging in joining in . . . local organizations and social networks that help bring people into local government and local community affairs.”

The turnout rates in FFSD Board elections provide further evidence that African American political participation is depressed. …. factors like home-ownership and education and income are strong predictors of voter turnout. Those factors provide resources that help people overcome the cost side of the calculus of voting and lead to voter turnout. So if there are racial disparities in those factors, they can contribute to racial disparities in political participation as well.”

Likewise, evidence in the record regarding registration rates also supports a finding that African Americans in FFSD are hindered in their ability to participate in the political process. According to Census Bureau data for November 2014, in the state of Missouri, the registration rate for people who identified as Black alone is 67.1%. The registration rate for people identifying themselves as white alone is 72.2%.

Pages 93 – 100

Sippel reasoned also that the current elections are racist because the current election procedures result in School Board members who do not address Blacks’ “particularized needs” to Sippel’s satisfaction.

…. the African American community in FFSD [Ferguson-Florissant School District] has particularized needs, and certain members of the [School] Board have been, at times, unresponsive to those particularized needs. …. There is significant evidence that the African American community in FFSD has particularized needs concerning several issues, including …. the disparate use of school discipline against African American schoolchildren, disparate educational opportunities for African American schoolchildren, and racial profiling by law enforcement.

…. certain members of the [School] Board are or were unaware of the African American community’s particularized needs. Certain Board members testified that they were unaware of any particularized needs, and others testified that they were unaware of socioeconomic disparities, racial profiling, historic discrimination, and the discipline gap. ….

The Board responded poorly to the transfer of Black students into the District, and the Board has done little to respond to discipline and achievement gaps. (… the Board’s emergency closed-meeting decision to decrease class sizes, candidates’ campaigning on this issue, and the Board’s later decisions to decline to provide transportation costs or set a lower tuition rate for these students had “very vocal and nasty” racial overtones and were perceived as “solely” intended “to prevent those kids from transferring to the district”) ….

The African American community in FFSD has particularized needs concerning the Board’s lack of transparency surrounding the suspension of former FFSD superintendent Dr. Art McCoy and its subsequent handling of the community’s response to that decision. It is undisputed that the Board’s decision to suspend Dr. McCoy, the first African American superintendent of FFSD, was contentious and widely opposed by the African American community in the District. There is also strong evidence that members of the African American community were frustrated with the Board because they would not give an explanation for the suspension. Members of the Board testified, however, that they remained silent about the reasons for the suspension because it was Board policy to keep matters private.

Pages 101 – 104

During the trial that led to Judge Sippel's decision, Ferguson's lawyers pointed out that, because of the controversy about the killing of Michael Brown, the Whites on the Ferguson school board informally arranged for a Black candidate, Dr. Courtney Graves, to win a seat. However, this increase in Black representation failed to convince Judge Sippel that the FFSD should be allowed to continue to conduct its own elections. Sippel reasoned that Graves’ victory was an exceptional event that did not disprove Sippel’s general opinion that Ferguson’s school-board elections are racist.

The 2015 election was held six months after the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, which led to large-scale demonstrations in the area, ongoing unrest, national attention, and a Department of Justice investigation into the Ferguson Police Department. Michael Brown’s death also had a substantial impact on FFSD itself; a protest was organized by District high school students, schools closed for a week, and counseling was provided to teachers, staff, and students. ….

On March 4, 2015, one month before the 2015 Board election, the Department of Justice released a report detailing the results of its investigation into the Ferguson Police Department. It found extensive discrimination by government officials in Ferguson, including racial bias and intentional discrimination in local law enforcement and municipal court practices, and referenced at least two incidents with school resource officers within FFSD schools. The Department of Justice’s investigative report specifically cited incidents of unconstitutional policing activities within FFSD schools.

The events surrounding the death of Michael Brown and the release of the Department of Justice’s report brought national and local attention to the area. Candidates, and voters more broadly, testified that they were aware of these events and there was some national interest in area elections, including the April 2015 election for the City of Ferguson’s City Council, which was on the ballot for many FFSD voters.

The death of Michael Brown and the local events in its aftermath had an impact on the FFSD 2015 election. It is undisputed that there were get-out-the-vote efforts in the area that may have caused greater rates of voter turnout than usual.

There is evidence that candidate behavior in the local April 2015 elections was affected by the events surrounding Michael Brown’s death. One white candidate chose not to run in the Ferguson city council election as a direct result of the events surrounding Michael Brown’s death. And only one incumbent white candidate ran for a FFSD Board seat; a longtime incumbent white candidate, Schroeder, decided not to run, leaving open a seat. At the same time, Black candidates joined the FFSD candidate pool in direct response to these events. As a result of these events, there was increased interest among African American candidates, and only one major white candidate in the candidate pool.

Voting patterns also changed in 2015. Dr. Graves explicitly encouraged a bullet voting strategy. Dr. Graves won by a “landslide,” there was suddenly a “striking” “surge” in white turnout, and unprecedented white support for Black candidate,” and her victory is due, in partly, to her use of a “single-shot” voting strategy. Such changes suggest the existence of special circumstances. The [School] District argues that the 2015 election was not impacted by special circumstances because Dr. Graves’ victory was the product of demographic changes that have occurred gradually over the past decade, as well as Dr. Graves’ qualifications and excellent campaign strategy.

While there can be little doubt that Dr. Graves ran an effective campaign, it does not diminish the fact that Dr. Graves’ overwhelming level of support was an exceptional occurrence rarely experienced by Black-preferred candidates, and therefore not necessarily evidence of a trend or the African American community’s sudden equal opportunity to elect preferred candidates. As Dr. Engstrom testified, “In my roughly 40 years as an expert witness in voting rights cases, I do not recall a post-litigation election that departed as dramatically from previous elections.”

Moreover, Dr. Graves’ success must be viewed under the totality of the circumstances. Taking the totality of the circumstances into account, I find that Plaintiffs’ explanation that the election was impacted by the events of late 2014, including the death of Michael Brown, subsequent protests, DOJ action, and national news coverage, is more plausible than the District’s argument that there was no such impact.

Pages 70 – 73

The general argument is that local school boards are inherently racist because their members are elected by the local electorates, which are inherently racist. The only solution is for federal judges to overthrow our system in which schools are governed by school boards that are elected by the local population. This racist system will be replaced by a political system in which all schools are governed by the US Department of Education, which is dominated by permanent bureaucrats who are are "social justice warriors", experts in combating racism.

Crime rates rose significantly in Ferguson during 2014-2015

Crime in the city of Ferguson, Missouri, has risen significantly since police officer Darren Wilson was falsely accused of murdering Michael Brown there in August 2014. Crime in Ferguson -- population about 21,0000 -- rose significantly more than in other US cities of similar size.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) provides the following statistics for crimes that were recorded in US cities with population in the range from 10,000 to 25,000.

The 2013 statistics are here.
The 2014 statistics are here.
The 2015 statistics are here.

The below list indicates that the rates changed little during the three-year period 2013-2015.

All rates below are incidents per 100,000 residents, rounded to the nearest integer. An exact half is rounded upward.

Violent Crimes
In 2013 = 269
In 2014 = 264
In 2015 = 270

Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter
In 2013 = 3
In 2014 = 3
In 2015 = 3

Rapes (revised definition)
In 2013 = 35
In 2014 = 34
In 2015 = 33

Robberies
In 2013 = 60
In 2014 = 56
In 2015 = 55

Aggravated Assaults
In 2013 = 177
In 2014 = 176
In 2015 = 180

Property Crimes
In 2013 = 2,727
In 2014 = 2,572
In 2015 = 2,461

Burglaries
In 2013 = 538
In 2014 = 472
In 2015 = 428

Larcenies - Thefts
In 2013 = 2,055
In 2014 = 1,971
In 2015 = 1,902

Motor Vehicle Thefts
In 2013 = 135
In 2014 = 129
In 2015 = 131


-----------

Ferguson fits into the above group of cities -- populations 10,000 to 25,000. The FBI provides Ferguson's statistics, from which I have calculated the rates. You will see in the below list that the rates rise significantly compared to the above list.

The 2013 statistics are here.
The 2014 statistics are here.
The 2015 statistics are here.

Ferguson Population
In 2013 = 21,115
In 2014 = 21,090
In 2015 = 21,059

In each case, I used the year's population and the number of incidents to calculate the rate (per 100,000 residents).

Violent Crimes
In 2013 --> 101 --> 478
In 2014 --> 115 --> 545
In 2015 --> 190 --> 902

Murders and Non-Negligent Manslaughters
In 2013 --> 2 --> 9
In 2014 --> 2 --> 10
In 2015 --> 5 --> 24

Rapes (revised definition)
In 2013 --> 3 --> 14
In 2014 --> 2 --> 10
In 2015 --> 8 --> 38

Robberies
In 2013 --> 54 --> 256
In 2014 --> 51 --> 242
In 2015 --> 82 --> 389

Aggravated Assaults
In 2013 --> 42 --> 199
In 2014 --> 60 --> 284
In 2015 --> 95 --> 451

Property Crimes
In 2013 --> 1,126 --> 5,333
In 2014 --> 1,027 --> 4,870
In 2015 --> 1,005 --> 4,772

Burglaries
In 2013 --> 300 --> 1,421
In 2014 --> 326 --> 1,546
In 2015 --> 366 --> 1,734

Larcenies - Thefts
In 2013 --> 749 --> 3,547
In 2014 --> 628 --> 2,978
In 2015 --> 520 --> 2,469

Motor Vehicle Thefts
In 2013 --> 77 --> 365
In 2014 --> 73 --> 346
In 2015 --> 119 --> 565

----------
The rate of Property Crimes declined in the such-size cities in general and in Ferguson in particular. Property Crimes encompass the following:

* burglary

* larceny

* theft

* motor-vehicle theft

* arson

* shoplifting

* vandalism

I speculate that in Ferguson the shop-lifting incidents declined significantly because of the destruction and bankruptcy of retail businesses.

Brown and Johnson walked the whole way from the Market

Since I began writing this blog, I have been trying to argue that the white Monte Carlo drove Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson part of the way from the Ferguson Market and Liquor store to their encounter with Police Officer Darren Wilson. Today, however, I found proof that my idea was wrong.

Located at the southeast corner of West Florissant Avenue and Canfield Drive is a business called Shopping Center Services. That business had three cameras pointed at that intersection's sidewalks. Those three cameras filmed Brown and Johnson, a few minutes before the encounter, walking north on West Florissant Avenue, turning east on Canfield Drive, and walking east on Canfield Drive.

The information is on the Investigative Report, pages 167-168.

During the next few weeks, I will rewrite the relevant articles in this blog.