College President Apologizes After Campus Crime Alert Includes ‘Black’ in Suspect Description
“did not serve its intended purpose and likely made many on our campus feel less safe than more safe”
People are no longer allowed to include race in a criminal suspect’s description? This is absurd.
The College Fix reports:
College president apologizes for campus crime alert which had ‘black’ in suspect description
About a week after Ohio State faced a 100-person-strong protest for a campus crime alert which identified the suspects as “black,” the president of the University of Louisville is apologizing for same.
According to the Louisville Courier-Journal, the school sent out a “RAVE” alert early Thursday morning warning the campus of a “Black Male wearing a red hoodie” who had run away from Clark County Indiana Police.
The notice told people to contact Louisville metro police if they saw a man matching the description.
UL President Neeli Bendapudi said the alert “did not serve its intended purpose and likely made many on our campus feel less safe than more safe.”
UL Police Chief Gary Lewis added that RAVE alerts are suppose to be used for instances of “a serious crime” or “immediate threat[s].” This situation was neither, he said.
From the story:
In a letter from the Louisville Student Government Association, student leaders wrote Thursday that the description in the RAVE alert was “incredibly vague and put every Black male student on campus at risk.”
“This action is absolutely inexcusable at any time, but is especially hypocritical considering the recent conversations our community has had surrounding racial justice and police brutality,” the letter reads. …
“If our university truly wants to become the ‘premier metropolitan anti-racist research university,’ then our administration must back their words up with antiracist action,” the letter reads.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
If the perp was black, then why not state it? Another campus trying to minimize the idea that blacks commit most of the crime. OSU is apologizing for something that it should not apologize for.
Most broadcast news stories already follow that pattern. Viewers are left to guess the description by what’s omitted.
No need to guess, if a description is omitted you know they’re black (or possibly hispanic, in a city like Los Angeles).
So the answer to an “incredibly vague” crime alert is to make it more vague.
Of course if the suspect had been seen to be white there would be an uproar if race was omitted from the alert, as this would also endanger “every black male on campus.”
Thus the not-so-new rule is that any criminal perpetrator of unreported race can be assumed to be black, as our newspapers have been following for many years.
Criminal = black. That is so much better for black people than reporting the truth.
Any black who votes Democrat is insane. Any white who votes Democrat is insane. Any Hispanic or Asian who votes Democrat is insane.
Black = quota-hire. That is so much better for black people than lettiing them stand or fall based on merit, which many of them can.
This was years in the making. Remember when LEOs weren’t allowed to “profile” offenders? That was Bush 43 in an attempt to protect actors from the religion of peace, as he sold it. Granted, he was gobbling up crazed racist theory, but I think that’s the start of this idea that you can’t describe a black perp as a black perp. That’s RAAAACIST, even if the perp is, in fact, black. Why spend time investigating whites, Asians, Latinos, when you know the perp is black? Racial justice. And stuff.
Seriously, don’t let Biden win. Biden is addled, an empty suit intended to “win over” an America they want to destroy.
Liquor store holdup news coverage.
Black/“Hispanic” perp: “Good evening from KRUD New Central! There was a holdup at John’s Liquors on Century Boulevard earlier this evening. The alleged perpetrator is described as a male, wearing a zipper jacket and sneakers. He was last seen leaving the scene in an older model car.”
White perp: “Good evening from KRUD News Central! There was a holdup at John’s Liquors on Century Boulevard earlier this evening. The perpetrator is described as a white male, red hair, blue eyes, and stands about 6ft tall, weighing 240 lbs. He was wearing a blue North Face jacket and black New Balance shoes. And, get this, folks! Security cameras recorded him leaving in an unusual vehicle! A car buff at the police department identified it as a rare, 1955 De Soto Firedome sedan, with California license KCW692. Anyone with information is asked to call 1-800 123-4567.”
(I feel safe in describing the car: it was my father’s, then mom’s, and I am sure it long ago went to the shredder. Neither held up liquor stores.)
So how are folk supposed to identify suspects if it’s now racist to include a fundamental element of their appearance?
Gatestone Institute site has heaps of articles about this happening for a while in place like Germany and Sweden.
They use euphemisms like “Southern appearance” (Sudlander) to describe swarthy North African suspects.
Or they don’t mention the names of suspects. 40% of criminal suspects in Berlin in 2016 were non-Germans.
Sorry, but this is fake news.
I followed the layers of links supposedly supporting this story and they don’t support the premise.
Apparently early last week there was your typical BLM race hustling protest on the campus demanding (among many other things) that race not be mentioned in “public safety notices” reporting crimes on or near campus.
Then, a few days later, a Rave alert went out warning the students and faculty about a potential criminal actor in the area. This alert only identified the suspect as “a black male wearing a red hoodie”.
In order to gin up a controversy over nothing, the “College Fix” equated the two completely unrelated incidents.
The people who complained about the Rave alert didn’t complain that it contained the suspect’s race, they complained that the description was too vague and could have been describing a large number (if not most) of the black males on campus.
It just so happens that Ohio State’s University colors are scarlet with gray trim (I would remind you that scarlet is another word for “red”). I would have to imagine that on the campus of Ohio State, a hoodie in the school colors is likely not an uncommon wardrobe choice.
That’s also what the university apologized for: not for including the suspect’s race, but that the description was too vague.
I submit that the complainers are correct. That description was completely useless in identifying a suspect and could have had any number of innocent people prompting a police response.
The proposed solution is not to leave out the suspect’s race in the future as some on here have opined, and that was never even mentioned by the administration. The solution is to refrain from releasing an alert like this unless the description is specific enough to actually narrowing down the pool of suspects to a reasonable number.
I absolutely hate it when the liberal media takes things out of context to gin up controversy where none exists.
I would be a hypocrite on the same scale of the liberals if I didn’t call you and the College Fix out for doing the same.
There are plenty of controversial things going on on college campuses right now without having to make controversies up out of whole cloth and I expect better of conservative outlets.
Well, you’re wrong for several reasons, but I’ll use the ones straight from your own post.
First of all, you are dealing with eyewitness accounts…these are OFTEN vague because most people aren’t detail-oriented plus perpetrators often try to hide distinguishing characteristics. Therefore, a more detailed description is often impossible.
Secondly, your proposed solution is to pretend it didn’t exist and don’t send out an alert if a complainer-approved description can’t be released? That’s an awful idea and defeats the whole purpose of safety alerts to try and avoid a dangerous confrontation.
Back to the drawing board for you on this one.
Would “dark complexioned” have been more acceptable (more politically correct. Guess not.