Yale “White Girls Only” Racism Claim: Fake, Fake Fake Fake
Not a victimless false accusation.
The Yale campus erupted in protests after a claim that a fraternity held a party but allowed in female guests limited to “White Girls Only.”
It started with a Facebook post:
The frat denied the claims:
An investigation by Emily Shire at The Daily Beast also called the claims into question.
But none of that stopped the media from running with the story and campus tensions to rise. Combined with an overreaction about a faculty member’s mocking a Halloween costume warning from the administration, the atmosphere at Yale boiled over:
The Yale administration just finished its investigation about the “White Girls Only” claim. Verdict: Fake:
Yale investigation finds 'no evidence' of racism at frat party alleged to have been for 'white girls only' https://t.co/rnECFTHZ1d oops.
— Jonathan H. Adler (@jadler1969) December 12, 2015
It was the Facebook post heard across the Ivy League, if not the entire country.
On Halloween, Yale undergrad Neema Githere wrote that black friends of hers had been turned away from a fraternity party because it was for “white girls only.”
That accusation, combined with an administrator’s controversial email defending “offensive” costumes, ignited a firestorm of debate over racism on campus.
Students confronted the administrator and her husband who also holds an administrative post at the undergrad college, and then they confronted Yale College’s first African American dean. They packed protests at the prestigious university by the hundreds, using bullhorns to demand more diversity on campus and that the school rename buildings after people of color, rather than proponents of slavery.
Faculty members rallied to support the protesters. Students at universities across the United States marched in solidarity, as a wave of anti-racism demonstrations swept campuses from coast to coast.
There were troubling moments, too. A discussion on the importance of free speech on campus was, ironically, interrupted by protesters. Campus newspapers reported claims that people leaving the event were spat upon.
Now, more than a month later, Yale has finally released the findings of an investigation into the incident that set off the soul-searching series of events: the so-called “white girls only party.”
That the party might not have been racist after all.
In a statement sent out Wednesday, Jonathan Holloway, dean of Yale College, wrote that the university’s investigation had found “no evidence of systematic discrimination against people of color” at the Halloween frat party.
The University Statement read, in part:
A partial picture of what happened has emerged from these accounts. On the one hand, the investigation found no evidence of systematic discrimination against people of color. Students inside the party reported that early in the evening, before the party became crowded, guests were granted admission on a first-come basis; men and women of color were among those admitted. On the other hand, students also reported that as the event became intensely crowded, hosts restricted admission, applying subjective criteria and using harsh language. When the investigation focused on what hosts had said specifically, two students provided credible accounts that they were told, or heard either one or two SAE members say, “white girls only” as they were seeking admission to the party, although the SAE members interviewed denied making these statements and nobody else who was interviewed heard the statements.
So the only two corroborating witnesses may not even have been witnesses, as they “were told, or heard….” All other evidence, including that fact that the party was open to all races, contradicted the claim.
Verdict: Fake, Fake Fake Fake.
This is not a victimless false allegation. It not only smeared the frat, it contributed to the overheated reaction to the faculty member on the unrelated Halloween costume issue.
That faculty member just announced she no longer will teach at Yale.
Ms. Christakis has made a “voluntary decision not to teach in the future,” according to a statement from the university on Monday. Her husband, Dr. Nicholas Christakis, a physician and a professor of sociology at Yale, will take a one-semester sabbatical, the university said. The statement said the administration hoped Ms. Christakis would reconsider.
“Erika Christakis is a well-regarded instructor, and the university’s leadership is disappointed that she has chosen not to continue teaching in the spring semester,” the statement said. “Her teaching is highly valued and she is welcome to resume teaching anytime at Yale, where freedom of expression and academic inquiry are the paramount principle and practice.”
I doubt the students feeding the frenzy care. They achieved what they wanted, the truth be damned.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Maybe “fake but accurate?” What’s the frequency, Neema?
Most likely scenario, a rowdy drunken girl, who happened to be black, was turned away and she turned it into a racism case.
Locally some Islamic Center had their sign disappear, hours before they were to have a meeting with other faiths to show how peaceful they are. They declared it was an act of hate.
That’s possible I guess, though I doubt most reprobates even know they exist, or care. My immediate thought was one of their own took it, to propagandize “they are peaceful, we are haters”.
The timing and messaging were especially suspecious … but who knows, maybe someone stole it.
“I believe they understood more,” Ali said. “They’re not as ignorant as they were early this morning or last night”
Still ignorant, not AS ignorant, for the few that came. The rest of us are still fully ignorant infidels, that hate. heh
For their terrorists it is a random act by two rogues (like the IRS scandal), but a missing sign means “they hate us”.
I meant to add, the reporter stated “someone stole it”. I’m thinkin’ normal non-dhimmi reporting would say “it was reported stolen”, but they hadn’t reported it. So a reporter would say, the member of the center said it was stolen. Just the facts ma’am.
sounds fake fake fake
“one or two SAE members say, “white girls only” …”
Sounds more like something those seeking admission would say sarcastically, to play the race card to get in. In PC world white girls can’t say that, but I bet blacks can, in accusing whites.
And a POC can make it so just by saying it.
Presumption of guilt. The damage is done. This story will be added to the ball of yarns spun by the social complex.
The pro-choice doctrine includes a principle of selectivity that rationalizes deception among other uncivilized behaviors.
I note that they pointedly avoid making a statement on if the students who lied and mad false allegations and statements will face disciplinary action.
On the contrary, the report found those two students’ statements to be “credible”. So why would they face disciplinary action?
Can the fraternity treat the false posting as libel?
What do you mean by “treat” it as libel? Treat it how? The fraternity claims it was libel, and it can go on claiming that forever, but the two witnesses claim to be telling the truth, and the university’s report backs them up. So if the fraternity were to sue them it would be taking a chance that the jury wouldn’t reach the same conclusion as the university did. And there’d be no chance of recovering anything if they won. Or the witnesses could sue the fraternity for libel, for calling them liars, and they’d be taking the same chance, except that the fraternity has assets.
Figured it was all BS. And I don’t blame Ms. Christakis for resigning. I would. Who could work in that poisoned atmosphere?
Getting one’s way using whatever means necessary seems to be the point of “social” justice.
So, did WTNH do a follow-up and report that there was no substance to their previous story?
This “white girls only” story should never have gotten traction because it is so easy to refute. A picture of non-white party attendees or interviews with non-white party attendees would be sufficient to refute the claim.
Also, I do not know why the Yale report found the accusers’ account credible. The attendance of non-whites at the party, lack of any other witnesses in the crowded conditions, the house at overcapacity, and the denials of the frat members all challenge the credibility of the claim that the girls were told “white girls only.”
The “victim’s” facebook post also claims that a similar incident happened last year.
Nice Seinfeld touch. One of my all-time favorite scenes!
Wrong. Whether they were themselves told it, or merely heard someone else being told it, they are witnesses, and the university for some reason found their statements credible. You are entitled to be skeptical of this finding — I am too. But you’re not entitled to mischaracterise what the finding says.
Bear in mind, though, that “credible” doesn’t mean “true”. It just means “may very well be true”. It doesn’t say whether it found the fraternity’s denial to also be credible. It’s easy to have two contrary statements be equally credible, in which case one can’t determine which is true.
Credible can also mean that they just can’t find definitive proof that these two are lying thorough their teeth so they will call it credible to keep from being branded a racist. Even though from the tone of the report it would seem that they investigators believed they were lying.
Where in the report did you find such an implication? Credible means credible, and the investigators said they found these witnesses credible, so on what basis do you doubt it? It seems to me that you’re just making that up because you want it to be true.
Because “credible” means actionable, if there testimony was credible then the University should have taken action against the frat. However, especially with the liberal PC influence on campuses today that fact that they didn’t take action speaks louder than anything else.
“It seems to me that you’re just making that up because you want it to be true.”
Right back at ya there bud.
Credible does not mean actionable. You just made that up on the spot. Credible means believable. If a person says something, and there’s no reason to believe that they’re lying, then they’re credible. That doesn’t mean they’re telling the truth. The other person may be equally credible. He said, she said. Neither we nor the university administration were there, so we have no way of knowing what actually happened.
So you are honestly saying that they have 2 people who they believe were told “white girls only”, but that in this overly pc time, especially on campuses, that they didn’t take action on it? Seriously?
Because if they didn’t then I have a problem with that, because that would be overt racism and should be acted upon.
“Neither we nor the university administration were there, so we have no way of knowing what actually happened.”
That doesn’t stop them from ruining the lives of young men when someone had morning after regret.
Basically these two race baiters were lying though their teeth, the liberals in charge just don’t have the guts to say it out loud.
No, they have two witnesses who say they were told this, or heard someone else being told this, and they find those statements credible. Credible does not mean true.. It also doesn’t mean “actionable”; you made that up out of thin air. All it means is that there is no indication that these witnesses are lying. But at the same time the fraternity denies that anyone was told this, and the investigators may have found that statement credible as well. There is no reason that you can’t have two credible statements that contradict each other; in such a case one of them must be false, but there’s no basis for deciding which one. The investigators don’t say what they believe, perhaps because they don’t know what to believe.