Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Stanford Offers Support Services to Students and Staff Upset About Noose Found on Campus

Stanford Offers Support Services to Students and Staff Upset About Noose Found on Campus

“Stanford’s Counseling and Psychological Services offered drop-in office hours”

This is an update to a story we’ve been following. It looks like the school is taking this very seriously.

Palo Alto Online reports:

Discovery of noose leads Stanford to offer support services

Stanford University has tapped on several campus offices to offer support services for students and staff affected by the discovery of a noose found hanging from a bush near one of the residence halls earlier this month. The resources were outlined in an update on the incident released Saturday, which offered more insight into the university’s response to the report.

The noose was found around 11:20 p.m. on July 12 by an education adviser for an on-campus summer program for high school students. She called 911 and posted a photo on Twitter, where it quickly gained national attention. Deputies from Stanford’s Department of Public Safety arrived about an hour after the noose was reported due to a separate call made at 11:37 p.m. of people seen forcing their way into a locked building. Once they completed the call for service, they headed to the location where the noose found. The deputies removed the rope and searched the surrounding area for more evidence. They also spoke with those at the residence and the woman who reported the noose, who was staying at a different residence nearby.

The deputies met with FBI agents who specialized in the investigation of hate crimes and civil rights violations. The department also alerted the Acts of Intolerance office, which assists with bias-related incidents. However, Stanford has not released the results of the investigation.

In response to the incident, Stanford’s Counseling and Psychological Services offered drop-in office hours at the Black Community Services Center last Thursday, July 18.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

So I guess a new tactic would be to place a dozen nooses on bushes around the periphery of a campus and while the po-po are occupied just rob the rest of the place blind.

How long until all litter is considered a hate crime?

I give 50/50 odds this will soon provably be another fake hate crime, 90/10 that it is – even if this particular culprit isn’t caught on security camera planting the noose.

There have been too many recent cases of “racist” paraphernalia and messages found to be either not what they’re reported as (que recent “noose” that was medical tubing tied in a boating knot and replaced by an innocent person – or – multiple supposed KKK costumes that were either just hoodies or drunk students wearing sheets instead of clothes because – drunk students) – or fake incidents planted by “woke” students who were frustrated by not enuf convincing proof of OrangeManHitler so the manufacture some – because not everyone else is as enlightened as them to believe the meme without in-your-face evidence.

Richard Aubrey | July 25, 2019 at 5:11 pm

They should call U-Mich.

Even an actual noose, placed by an actual white supremacist, for genuinely racist reasons, is not a crime, and therefore cannot be a hate crime.

Hatred is not a crime.

    BobM in reply to Milhouse. | July 26, 2019 at 1:54 pm

    I get where you’re coming from, and would agree that most “hate crime” bruhaha is useless and unnecessary gilding of the Lilly. If someone assaults someone, charge them with assault. Assault is assault, murder is murder, vandalism is vandalism, harassment is harassment. Does it really matter if they did it because of X Y or Z? If you curb stomp someone for stealing your parking space is it appreciably worse if you include verbal components that reference race or religion?

    To play devils advocate, there is an actual use for a “hate crime” statute. ORGANIZED and/or repeated harassment or attacks based on race, religion, gender, even politics designed to “discourage the others” should be a separate class of chargeable offense, as they are both an attack on an individual and an attempt to terrorize an entire sub population.

    Burning a cross on a mixed-race couples lawn.
    Desecrating your mom’s Jewish grave in a cemetary.
    Punching someone for wearing a political campaign hat you don’t like.
    All actual crimes against both an individual AND society as well.

      Milhouse in reply to BobM. | July 28, 2019 at 2:04 am

      I disagree. Hate crimes (i.e. crimes motivated by hatred) are different from the same crimes committed for other reasons. There is a qualitative difference between the harm committed by a graffitist who puts his tag on a building and one who paints a swastika on a synagogue or on a home known to be that of Jews. That’s why it’s right that the latter’s sentence should be much harsher.

      Motive has always been a factor in sentencing. At least as far back as the 18th century (and probably earlier) statutes have provided for harsher penalties if a crime’s motive made it particularly heinous. For instance murdering someone because you’ve been paid to do it is worse than murdering someone because something they said or did offended you.

      But what you propose, charging the hatred as a separate crime, makes no sense and is dangerous. And probably unconstitutional, which is why no state has even tried to enact such a law.

        BobM in reply to Milhouse. | July 28, 2019 at 10:36 pm

        Perhaps I was unclear in my intent. I’m arguing that any “hate crime” law should address acts which act against both an individual and civil society at large – by trying to terrorize both the Individual AND a group he/she is part of.

        If someone in a bar fight issues racial epitaphs I don’t think that arises to that level.
        If someone goes to a bar with the intent of attacking someone of group in order to terrify members of group THAT should be a hate crime.
        By that criteria, the cops rousting stonewall patrons 50 years ago for shits and giggles qualifies.
        Someone assassinating random cops to terrorize law enforcement fits too.
        As does most cross-burning or other classic KKK “get out!” Signals.

        As it stands, most “hate crime” laws are imho too broad and too easily misapplied..
        And – no – wearing a maga hat is not a “hate crime”.

      Milhouse in reply to BobM. | July 28, 2019 at 2:06 am

      PS: I forgot to make my main point, which is that I was not talking about what the law should be. I was merely observing that under the current law, leaving a noose somewhere, even when it is intended as a racist statement, is not a crime. It can’t be. No legislature has the authority to make it a crime.

amatuerwrangler | July 26, 2019 at 11:04 am

So these are our supposed best & brightest? “911” is for actual emergencies, not ropes or lines hanging on shrubbery. Is it really a noose or just a leftover from a Boy Scout knot-tying contest.

What are these people going to do when finally released into the real world? Will they freeze up and call 911 when a drive in the country brings them face to face with a sign in an orchard that says “TRUMP!”.

[Still no preview]

healthguyfsu | July 26, 2019 at 11:42 am

Of course, they are “upset” and “unsafe”. Doing such ridiculous displays of hyperbole is a way of distracting from the fact that this is ABSOLUTELY FAKE. It makes all of the woke cultists tread extra carefully around their feelings.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend