This story made my head explode, and thus it will be tagged “Kaboom!” Unlike most such Kaboom! posts, however, this one is likely to make my head explode every time I read it. Or think about it. Forever.
On June 16, a third grader made a comment about the brownies being served to his class during an end-of-the-year class party at the William P. Tatem Elementary School in Collingswood, New Jersey. After another student opined that the remark was “racist,” the school called the Collingswood Police Department.
Okay, stop. I’m puzzled already, and my head exploded again just writing that:
- How could a comment about brownies be racist? Did the child say, ” As with human beings, the blonde brownies are innately superior to the dark ones”? Somehow, I doubt it.
- Another third grader pronounced the statement as racist. Not a teacher, now. An eight-year old. How can that trigger anything, in a sane world, but a discussion led by the teacher about what is and isn’t racist, and how people shouldn’t leap to such inflammatory observations, because it makes human interaction difficult if not impossible?
- The school called the police department? For what? A threatened brownie massacre? How is this conceivably a police matter? Why did the police come?
“What is the nature of your emergency?” “A third-grader in my class made an inappropriate remark about brownies!” “Calling 911 with prank calls is a crime, ma’am. Don’t do this again.”
It is per se unethical and irresponsible for any police department to treat such trivia seriously.
All right,slogging on…
Let’s quote directly from the Philadelphia Inquirer report:
“The police officer spoke to the student, who is 9, said the boy’s mother, Stacy dos Santos, and local authorities.”
And said what? “Watch what you say about brownies, kid”? “One more politically incorrect dessert item crack like that, and you’re going to the big house”?
“Dos Santos said that the school overreacted and that her son made a comment about snacks, not skin color.”
Ya think? Why does the mother have to make this observation of the obvious? Calling the police when a third grader scratches another student is an over-reaction; calling the police when a third-grader says something is child abuse.
“He said they were talking about brownies. . . . Who exactly did he offend?” dos Santos said.
“The boy’s father was contacted by Collingswood police later in the day. Police said the incident had been referred to the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency. The student stayed home for his last day of third grade.”
I feel like I’m losing my mind.
What?
WHAT???
“Dos Santos said that her son was ‘traumatized,’ and that she hopes to send him to a different Collingswood public school in the fall.”
Hopes to? Every single parent with children attending this fascist, brain-addled, hyper-sensitive SJW wreck of a public school should pull out their kids, lest they be sent to a gulag for daring to announce a preference for regular over chocolate milk.
The Inquirer goes on…
“The incident, which has sparked outrage among some parents, was one of several in the last month when Collingswood police have been called to look into school incidents that parents think hardly merit criminal investigation.”
Wait..”some” parents? All parents aren’t troubled by police officers interrogating their children based on what they say? Wait, wait..Parents think these incidents hardly merit criminal investigation? The reporter, editors and newspaper itself are apparently uncertain, and thus are unable to state with confidence and authority, as a matter of public knowledge and reality, that such incidents don’t merit criminal investigation.
“Superintendent Scott Oswald estimated that on some occasions over the last month, officers may have been called to as many as five incidents per day in the district of 1,875 students. This has created concern among parents in the 14,000-resident borough, who have phoned their elected officials, met with Mayor James Maley, blasted social-media message boards, and even launched a petition calling on the Camden County Prosecutor’s Office to “stop mandated criminal investigation of elementary school students.”
In what dystopian society do parents have to launch a petition demanding that a city should “stop mandated criminal investigation of elementary school students”? Was New Jersey taken over by Martians? Donald Trump?
“The increased police involvement follows a May 25 meeting among the Collingswood Police Department, school officials, and representatives from the Camden County Prosecutor’s Office, where school officials and police both said they were told to report to police any incidents that could be considered criminal, including what Police Chief Kevin Carey called anything ‘as minor as a simple name-calling incident that the school would typically handle internally.”‘
Again, stop. My head exploded again. Simple name-calling is not a crime, nor evidence of a crime. Simple name-calling by kids is called “being a kid.” How could a meeting like this even take place, unless a critical mass of Americans have completely abandoned common sense, proportion and responsibility while never absorbing basic ethical, legal and constitutional principles?
I really don’t understand this story.
Maybe I’m afraid to understand it.
Final Observations:
1. This incident appears to be part of society-wide indoctrination efforts to make the next generation terrified to venture any opinion that someone won’t find “offensive” according to approved progressive race/gender/ ethnicity speech, belief and attitude rules. Not just the abused child in this case, but all of the students who witnessed or learned of this abomination surely got the intended message: not only non-conforming opinions, but any words someone else finds “offensive” is a crime.
2. The free speech and free thought threat level in the U.S. should be set at Defcon 1. [Note: I originally had Defcon 5, because I was careless. I apologize.]
3. Our public school system can no longer be trusted with the education of students. This incident can’t be called an anomaly, for such an anomaly cannot occur unless the system and society itself has already been dangerously corrupted. I guarantee that no elementary student has ever been interrogated by police for alleged racist dessert quips. This is because, not too long ago, every single American competent to dress themselves recognized that such a thing would be absurd. How many teachers, school administrators, police and parents no longer know its absurd? A hundred? A thousand? A million? 20 million?
4. Free speech is no longer understood nor sufficiently respected or protected in the U.S., as the comments of the parents and the bizarre meeting prove.
5. Race-consciousness autocracy has to be stopped if the nation is to survive as a free and open society. Who is going to stop it? Donald Trump is not the solution, but if no other serious solutions appear, desperate citizens will take what is available.
6. The nation’s many mounting problems have many sources, but responsibility for this problem has to be placed at modern Progressivism’s doorstep. Its loving embrace of thought and speech control as the means to its ends has brought us to this precipice. If there is sanity and accountability on the left, it will take the lead in repairing the cultural damage.
7. When police come to schools to intimidate third-graders for their remarks at parties, how far away can a police state be? Not far, if this incident doesn’t spark an immediate and unequivocal rebuke.
Ethics Alarms 
Sadly, the kid is learning a lesson about the current state of free speech in America: Say the wrong thing and the Gestapo arrives. At least the Police Chief recognized what an incredibly stupid decision this was to call in the cops for this. Hopefully the Board of Education will fire the Superintendent and tell him to move to North Korea.
C’mon Jack, you HAD to know this was coming.
Always one to see ahead of the curve, I long ago eliminated Apple Brown Betty, Black Forest Ham, Yellow Squash Casserole, Golden Rum Torte, and anything from Red Lobster.
On a more positive note, it appears that for anyone with the stomach for it (Vegans need not apply), Solyent Green may be enjoyed guilt-free…
BUT IT’S PEOPLE!!! PEOPLE!!!
Did I miss something; what did the kid actually say that was deemed racist by another student, and the teacher, and the school, etc.?
Not a single article I can find has actually said what the comment was. It’s irrelevant to most of the post, but it’s technically possible he actually did say something racist. I doubt it though.
No where is there any hint of what that might be. Maybe it will come out eventually. What COULD it be? “I like the light ones better than the dark ones” is my best guess.
It all sounds questionable; but, I can’t simply condemn or condone the reactions to what the child said without the appropriate information to make an informed opinion.
There is a valid reason for my hesitance and unwillingness to engage in hyperbole without all the knowledge on this topic; I have a very close personal friend who has an autistic grade school child that has said and done some pretty horrible things in their school classroom and some of these things have gotten the student ejected from the class room and the police have justifiably been called on a couple of occasions. On a positive note; medications are finally starting to work to curb the detrimental attitude problems caused by the autism.
I understand your concerns, but no account mentions any conduct. Mere words do not justify involvement by the police. Ever.
Jack Marshall said, “Mere words do not justify involvement by the police. Ever.”
Could you clarify that completely open-ended statement a bit before I reply.
Mere words, as opposed to plausible threats, like: “I’m going to kill you,” or “I have a bomb.”
Thanks for the clarification.
What I find troubling about this whole thing is how people have engaged in lots of hyperbole and condemnation based on assumptions from fact omitted information. This is quite similar to what BLM has done time after time.
That’s my opinion.
I assumed it was your opinion. I honestly don’t know what more information is needed to justify both genuine alarm and condemnation. A third Grader had the police called on him based on something he said about brownies. Go ahead, give me mitigating, unreported circumstances.
The other alarming element is that a POLICE OFFICER questioned a 3rd grader about a comment the child made about a chocolate-infused delicacy without the knowledge, presence or consent of the child’s parents. I wonder what went through the officer’s head. Was it,
“You called me about a comment this child made about a chocolate-infused delicacy? Really? (turning to Billy) Tell me, son, was it tasty Do you like chocolate-infused delicacies? With nuts or without nuts? Walnuts or pecans?”
jvb
The information obviously has facts intentionally omitted and yet you and others are willing to condemn the people involved based on incomplete information knowing full well that there are more facts that have not been released. This is the exact same guilty until proven innocent hyped up rhetoric that is displayed by BLM every time they open their mouths. We currently only know of one fact that has been omitted, the actual words of the child; we do not know one way or the other if there are additional mitigating, unreported circumstances surrounding the level of reaction to the incident.
In my opinion, when it’s completely OBVIOUS that the original story is built on selected facts and other facts are omitted (regardless of why those facts are omitted) I truly start to question the factual accuracy of the overall information and the motivation of the author; what else was intentionally omitted that helped craft the overall tone of the story? I see reasonable doubt, you and others see bad/ignorant/PC/unjustifiably freaked out people doing things they shouldn’t have done and that’s based on assumptions made from fact omitted information.
The problem is that since this was a minor child involved with police and the laws regarding such things are pretty strict about not releasing such things to the public, we will likely never know the whole truth.
I choose not jump on this hyped up bandwagon for the exact same reasons I choose not to jump on the hyped up BLM bandwagon – it’s rhetoric based on assumptions derived from omission and/or ignoring of facts!
Zoltar, your open-mindedness and refusal to jump on a partisan bandwagon is admirable, and an all too-rare quality these days. As a progressive, I must admit that I think it is likely this was a case of “PC gone awry,” but I too am willing to hear more before I fully condemn either the police or the school.
Again, it’s the right church but the wrong pew. Unless you can imagine any information being withheld consistent with the information we do know—3rd grade, child, word, brownies, police, interrogation, meeting—that would render the story as a whole misleading and my verdict unfair, then your legitimate point is misapplied in this case.
Again–I’ve invited you already—supply such details. I have a pretty good imagination, and I can’t come up with any that BOTH the school and the POLICE reasonably could traumatize a child like this. If you come up with one, I’ll happily concede.
Now, if you want to claim the story is too stupid to be true, and I and all the many media outlets that have carried it are gullible idiots, well, you may be right. I would think we would know by now, though.
I don’t understand why the exact remark and its context hasn’t been publicized.
Jack,
Let me get this straight, I’m supposed to make up some plausible scenario that would justify the reactions? Speculate, really? Okay I’m game, for one round, and since omission of facts was front and center to my argument, anything goes.
How about an autistic kid gets ragingly verbally at the sight of light vs dark brownies and starts yelling and then violent grabs pencils and stabs at the darker brownies calling them niggers and then threatens other kids in the classroom.
You asked me to use my imagination and come up with something, there you go. What’s sad is that this scenario is not too far from off from a true life scenario except before the police got there the child ended up climbing out the classroom window and running away after a huge violent exchange in the classroom. That was my neighbors kid many years ago; that didn’t make the local news and overreaction of teachers, school and police but of course the world wasn’t so damned PC in the 1990’s.
I’m done now.
What the child said is irrelevant. Words about a chocolate-infused delicacy do not constitute a crime.
jvb
I second.
But the white ones are better than the black ones.
Yechhh. Not to me.
“white” chocolate is not REAL chocolate — it’s a (I have to borrow Jack’s word here) Yechhhy mixture of cocoa butter, sugar and milk solids. It comes out yellowish. And brownies aren’t bla … uh oh … it’s not a black/white racist problem. It’s between yellow and brown. Two minority colors of pastry. Unfit for human consumption. Disgusting. Of course they called the police!
I will respond to points #3 and #7 of your final summary. Caveat: I wasn’t at the schol in question to observe what transpired so I can’t be sure that everything that was reported here is accurate. #3: You indict the entire public education ssystem based on one lame-brained person who called the police about Brownie Gate, which set in motion the actions of more lame-brained people who exist throughout society and nor just in our public schools. That’s not fair to the many able-brained educators in our schools. I imagine ou might find lame-brained teachers at the most esteemed private schools. #7: While not vouching for the reported police reaction to the Brownie Gate phone call (and, again, I wasn’t there to witness how they performed), I will say that police have a,professional responsibility to at least look no a report, especially involving children. Again, I didn’t hear the actual initial cal to the police. So, erring on the sude if caution it MIGHT have been appropriate for the police to respond to the initial call. A parallel case might be the “feral kids of Silver Spring,” where an anonymous citizen called the police to report two unattended young minors (aged 10 and 6, i think) walking in downtown Silver Spring. The cops HAD to respond — appropriately. After that, the case is muddier and you could question how the police or Social Services handled it. Nonetheless, two minors unattended could face various situations they are ill-equipped to handle, so it could also be questioned whether the parents were negligent.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
You’ll have to explain to me in what nation and under what Constitution a police officer ever is justified in “investigating” speech, without even getting to the “third-grader” speech and “dessert speech.” Indeed, the police have an obligation NOT to investigate, and I don’t care if the child did a Linda Blair impression and shouted “Your mother sucks cocks in HELL!” Still not a police matter.
This wasn’t one teacher. It was the whole school, prompted by a community meeting, supported by the police department. This wasn’t an isolated mutant outpost, either…this is New Jersey. If this can happen, it is important to assume it is happening.
“The cops had to respond – appropriately.”
An appropriate police response to a school’s report of ANY comment by a third grader is “Why are you calling us? Call the child’s parents directly and handle it.” This reply should come from a dispatcher or a non-ranking officer and never rise to the level of the police chief, for crying out loud. I cannot fathom why any police agency would allow its resources to be misdirected in this manner. I sure liked this country better when the adults were in charge.
Jack,
No word on what he said regarding brownies? It doesn’t change anything, I realize, I’m just curious.
-Neil
No! What’s your guess?
He asked if they are made from real brownies? (obscure reference to Adams Family movie)
Some clarifying info can be found at this link: http://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/29/elementary-school-call-the-cops-after-racist-statement-about-brownies/.
Apparently some kind of ‘mandated’ reporting is involved.
Yes, the mandate is based on that meeting the post referenced. The police aren’t “mandated” to abuse kids. That can, and should, say, “No.”
Reminiscent of the imbeciles who call 911 from the drive-thru because something had been screwed up with their orders, or they can’t have the item they want at the wrong time of day, but far, far worse. The drive-thru imbeciles were not acting for the educational needs of anyone. This places the school staff that made the call to the police squarely in the idiot range of IQ. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imbecile )
Phil and Jim raise a good points. Jack, if you are going to indict the entire public education system for this, why not also indict our nation’s police? It would seem that if the student simply made, at worst, a genuinely racist comment (and perhaps it could have been threatening, but none of the reports I’ve read said it was–they just said it was racist) the response from the police should have been “Why are you calling us? This is not a police matter.” It seems like if you are going to conclude that this incident proves “Our public school system can no longer be trusted with the education of students,” you should also conclude that our police can no longer be trusted to even know which situations they need respond to, let alone how to respond to situations appropriately.
That’s right, I’m willing to make the call, especially in light of many, many, many other documented incidents, that this is a symptom of systemic rot and signature significance. Even if I’m jumping the gun, it should be treated that way, otherwise it allows people…like you, perhaps—to just shrug it off as an insignificant anomaly.
I did indict the police. 7. When police come to schools to intimidate third-graders for their remarks at parties, how far away can a police state be?
That seems pretty clear to me, no?
And let me elaborate some more: this incident has a context. Children have been suspended for wearing military T-shirts, or having lego guns in school, or pointing their fingers. Democratic Attorney Generals are trying to criminalize policy debates. Democrats, gun control activists and much of the news media announced that due process didn’t matter, and the House Democrats actually staged a sit-in to beach the Fifth Amendment, and were called heroic. In Idaho, a federal prosecutor threatened to prosecute anyone who “spread rumors” about Muslims. UC Irvine tried to permanently ban the College Republicans because students rioted to hush a politically incorrect speaker. Campus speech codes and looming discipline for “microaggressions,” including colleges that urge students to “report” mere words, are common. The dots are connected, and stretched from elementary schools, to the colleges, supported by news media, into the parties, into government, back to the schools. I’m not imagining it.
Fair points, Jack. You did indict the police, though perhaps not as strongly as you did the education system. I think there is a “context” for police overreach as much as there is a context for PC-motivated school overreach. I’m not dismissing this as an anomaly–there are real systemic trends that motivated this, and assuming there was no actual threat made, unfortunately the rational faculties of the adults involved couldn’t overpower those trends.
And the gun shaped Pop Tart and pizza slice, the 4-year-old suspended for hugging his teacher, the 6-year-old who was suspended for three days for snapping the waistband of a girl’s pants, this kind of suspension started about 10 years ago. It has escalated to things like today’s story, where police are called to deal with something a child said.
The public school system *is* broken.
10 years? The schools were full of petty tyrants when I was a child and from what m mother tells me, they were just as bad when she was a girl. The kind of idiot who would suspend a child over a op tart is the same type who marked me tardy for retrieving a pencil that rolled a couple feet away so I wasn’t seated at my desk when the bell rang. It’s the same person who takes the time to scrutinize the signature on a hall pass, It’s the same person who will only accept black ink and not blue. It’s the one taking a ruler to prom dresses. It’s the one who gives a detention when one student splashed another in the pool. It’s that very weird authoritarian mindset that says rules are rules without a thought to the purpose behind them, who takes glee in finding infractions no matter how minor. I promise you, those people would have called the police if they were allowed to, it would show how powerful they are.
We’ve always had these people, they’ve been the stuff of comedy since the invention of comedy. You’re just hearing it more often now because in this polarized society nothing sells like outrage. Hell, I’m outraged. An idiot calls the cops and an idiot dispatcher sends a cop and an idiot cop questions a child. Fire all three.
That said, it’s still a case of same shit different day. Not some new or even ten year old problem.
The boys listed above were threatened with the sex offender list. Others have been threatened with charges for making ‘terroristic threats’. Little bit different from how I remember school.
How many times were the police called to your school for the color of the ink on a bathroom pass, or the length of a prom dress?
The police are being called into elementary school classrooms, and little boys are being threatened with the sex offender registry for innocuous stuff that kids who are not yet aware of sex sometimes do.
“I promise you, those people would have called the police if they were allowed to”
And that is just what I’m talking about they ARE allowed to call the police. You don’t think that’s a big change?
The impression I had, from the article I read yesterday, is that the one student’s use of the word “brownie” – which I understood was the student’s reference to the food so commonly named, “brownies,” i.e., a kind of chocolate colored and flavored cake – was what the other student said was “racist.” Somehow, events snowballed from there.
If so, this is a case of pathological pettiness, gone fully fascist.
I can’t find such a reference, and it would make no sense. There is no other word in common use for “brownies.” It had to be more than that.
This is the one and only article I have tolerated reading about it (and abused myself to read about it).
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437306/new-jersey-elementary-school-student-brownies?utm_source=NR&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=June29Timpf
Ultimately, all other sources I’ve checked cite the Philadelphia inquirer article. Which is a bit of a red flag for me.
Why? It’s a local story. And I just cited a link on a follow-up.
I, too, would like to believe that “It had to be more than that.” What’s that “Razor” I am trying to think of? Occam’s? Hanlon’s? The article I read, though, suggested to me that calling the police to the local school for a possible incident of racist speech was only the latest in a recent bunch of ridiculous, pathetic overreactions.
I’m now sitting here imagining what level of brownie comment could be considered a racist threat such that the student was in fear of his well-being. I’m actually coming up with some, but the odds of a ten year-old saying them is beyond remote.
Erm . . . what level of a brownie comment could ever be considered a racist threat such that the student was in fear of his well-being? You must a more creative imagination than I. All I can think of is whether cold milk or a caffe mocha go better with such chocolate-infused delicacy.
jvb
PS: As you might have guessed, I am, in fact, a HUGE fan of the brownie. By God, yes, I am!
Here’s a possible racist threat the student could have made: I’m gonna destroy all the brownies!” *points to black student* “Like you!”
Of course, even that should not be taken as a real threat worthy of calling the police for, but simply a racist joke that should have been dealt with by the school,
Something along the lines of … “I’m going to shove all these ______ brownies down your _____ _______ throat until you die, ____ _______ bastard!”
That comment coming from a 3rd grader would mean a whole lot more is wrong in/with the story as reported. If my 12 year old spoke like that, I would wash his brain out. But, the “_____ _____ bastard” line was not racially motivated, nor was the “all these ____ brownies”. Threats? Maybe. Racial threats? Hardly. Chris’ scenario is closer, but still not a direct threat – could ‘destroy’ mean eat every last one of them in one bite? Young people today talking about ‘crushing’ something, meaning that they are going to defeat it in a huge way, e.g., “Wow, Beth! You crushed that obstacle course in record time!”, “Hey, Chris! You crushed that whole pizza!”.
Remember, Beth, the story said that the 3rd grader hurled a racist remark in connection with BROWNIES at another student/person. The 3rd grader was interrogated by a police officer for making a racist comment about BROWNIES!!!!! That should offend even the most progressive- minded person on the planet.
jvb
It’s all in the blanks.
“Man, I just killed that brownie! The same way I’m gonna kill all you brownies!” *points at black students while laughing maniacally*
Good one, except that this is not a comment about brownies, but a direct threat to people following a comment about brownies. If that was the remark, it is inaccurately described as a comment about brownies.
Well, it’s described that way by the boy’s mother, who has some motivation to put the most charitable spin on it as she can. The police and school have to stay mum, so it’s going to be all spin from one side. It will be interesting to see if any of the other students in class will reveal what was actually said.
Huh? Where is it described that way? I’ve been checking all day. As of the last web article, just an hour ago, there is no description of the remark by the mother or anyone else. You’ve seen the mother describe the comment as a threat? Where?
No, the mother described the remarks as innocuously as possible, as just “a comment about brownies.” Of course, if she wanted to make things ultra-clear and the remarks are as innocent as she maintains, she could have just actually quoted what the boy said, and let everyone draw their own conclusions from that. So it’s interesting that she didn’t.
Again, not a comment about brownies. That’s like saying “I’m going to shoot you” is a comment about guns.
Now, if he said, “Now watch these brownies. I hate brownies…all kinds of brownies, get me? I’m not going to eat these brownies, oh no. I’m going to treat these brownies like all brownies deserve to be treated. I’m going to rip out their nuts, and then crush them, and cut them, and rip them apart. Then I’m going to take the pieces and feed them to dogs, and then I’m going to kill the dogs! That’s what I think brownies deserve, because they need to be wiped from the face of the earth! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!”
Now that would be disturbing. The child would need to be talked to, and the parents, and conferences would need to be called.
And it STILL wouldn’t justify calling the police.
I think you’re likely right Jack, but I would like to know what the boy said. Right now, we’re only speculating. For example, if he DID say something along the lines about killing another child, that probably means the police should be called. If he said something like, “Only brown people should eat the brown brownies, ” then my head will explode along with yours because of the school’s reaction.
Have the Cleveland NFL franchise or Buster Brown Shoes issued condemnatory statements or retained crisis-control teams?
The former may want to consider suiting a few up come September.
Just to nitpick a little….Defcon 5 is the least severe on the scale with Defcon 1 being the most severe, and likely engaged in active warfare.
I read that remark of Jack’s, recalling the same thing about Defcon numbers. After reading what he said there several times and pondering each time to be sure I understood him, I gave up. Maybe level 5 IS the level Jack meant, as in, “Let’s all just cool off and quit the hair-trigger, launch-all-nukes responses to the slightest perceived offenses.”
Oh, rats. I knew I would do that. I asked my wife, who is my authority on that stuff. I should have re-watched “War Games”. Thanks, I’ll fix it.
So “your” Defcon level is according to the existing threat TO free thought and speech – and is not according to the threat that should be assumed to be POSED BY free thought and speech. That is clearer now – thanks.
The school district has said this incident didn’t happen, for what it’s worth:
http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/30/collingswood-racist-brownie/
Well, what that post says to me is that the accounts that Snopes now has a writer, Kim LaCapria, with an evident left-biased agenda doing political stories may be true. Her post doesn’t say that the story is false, which is what I expect Snopes to say, or shut up. It gives reasons to question the account by the mother.
“While it is possible that the woman gave an entirely truthful account of events, parents angry with schools’ administrative decisions are typically poor sources of accurate reporting. Absent from the news account were key details such as the specific complaint that triggered a police response, whether police corroborated the mother’s claim, why police questioned a small child over an issue supposedly involving the racism of brownies, or commentary from anyone party to the dispute other than the one boy’s mother.” That’s just speculation. Yeah, I’d like to hear from the police. IF the mother is the only one talking, my assumption is 1) her story is not easily debunked and 2) the school and the police are stonewalling.
The Inquirer story does suggest that the School District was contacted, and didn’t deny the account. Then she makes a gratuitous attack on “the standard clutch of outlets specializing in “political correctness gone amok” tales from picking up the “alleged” story, such as the National Review.” Sounds like Kim is in SJW defense mode—and Snopes is supposed to be apolitical.
Then Kim writes,
We[That is , SHE] contacted Collingswood Public Schools to find out whether it was true police were called over “racist brownies” [ none of the stories claimed the brownies were racist–if that’s what she asked about, she provided an opening for deceit]in an elementary school classroom, and the representative with whom we spoke stated [Wait–title? name? This hack is criticizing the many papers and sites that ran the story for not verifying it, and she gets a flat denial from an anonymous “representative”—and leaves it at that? (without elaboration) that the rumor was completely “false.” We also attempted to contact the Collingswood Police Department about the issue but have so far been unsuccessful in obtaining a response from anyone there. [ You mean like all the outlets she mocks for not talking to the police couldn’t get through?]
I’m now watching two stories—the brownie story, which needs some details or disproof, and the decline of Snopes, which shouldn’t have allowed this snide non-check be published.
After reading the Snopes article, I have to admit that was very disappointing, and not up to their usual standards. I hope that doesn’t signify a larger decline, given how trusted Snopes has been for so long.
Yeah, isn’t that weird. Chris? I too depend on Snopes, and this is a very bad sign.
Jack
The only facts that are relevant are did the police get called to deal with child (or anyone for that matter) make a comment, statement or other utterance that another felt was offensive. If so, your conclusions were spot on.
Having read all the responses, those that seek to explain the school’s reaction as potentially reasonable are failing to see the larger point such that mere words cannot be criminalized.
If the following is true then the Police Chief needs additional schooling in Constitutional law.
“The increased police involvement follows a May 25 meeting among the Collingswood Police Department, school officials, and representatives from the Camden County Prosecutor’s Office, where school officials and police both said they were told to report to police any incidents that could be considered criminal, including what Police Chief Kevin Carey called anything ‘as minor as a simple name-calling incident that the school would typically handle internally.”‘
That statement is the most damning indictment of the abuse of power by government officials. Recently, you posted a piece condemning Yale’s Dean of the law school in which you correctly pointed out that he was using his position of authority when . . . “he attached his influence and credibility to the idea that the government should use the power of prosecution to intimidate opponents of government policy and widely accepted left-wing agenda items. This is exactly what the Police Chief and the Prosecutors office did when conferring with school officials. School officials happily complied because they deferred to the “authority figures”. The fact that the school officials did not object makes them either lazy or incompetent; thus unqualified to teach civics or engage in the socialization of our youth.
My question is where was the PTA during this meeting with law enforcement and the school officials?
Risking a charge of racism, I ask: what were the … demographics … of the boys involved?
Since the charge was racism, the assumption is that the child who made the comment is white, since everyone knows whites, and only whites, are racist.
I also think the unnamed comment was a preference the other kid didn’t like. If the kid HAD said anything more inflamatory, they were probably echoing something they heard from media or parents. As such, the schools should have made a discreet call to the parents to find out if there is some systematic prejudice they must deal with, like if the family contained a grand wizard of the klan. Then the school is required to put special effort into teaching and enforcing manners. It teaches the kid that a sullen silence is much safer. No, it doesn’t matter what was said as kids have more cunning than rationality at that age, and the teachers/admin should know that. 150 police calls in the last month says they don’t understand.
The bigger problem is that every adult involved was trying to CYA and not take responsibility for anything, except I think the mother. The teacher and school didn’t want to be blamed for racist (or if older, gang behaviors) so they passed the buck happily to the police. The police are feeling under fire from the BLM people (NJ is kind of between the NYC and Baltimore furors, all on I95) and are forced to make ‘appropriate response’ to keep things calm. They all are so busy trying to avoid even the appearance of prejudice and partisanship that they made no effort to protect the child. (Or maybe those people grew up when kids could trust teachers and police to make a bigger effort to avoid scaring a child during an investigation. NOW, you’re on your own, kid!) The kid was in the last place for their consideration and they treated a 9 year old like he was a gang-banger threatening a lynching.
Way to train the young to trust adults and society at large is worthy if respect and trust! Way to socialize them to be good citizens! Way to get them to like teachers and education! Way to seed that dropout rate!
Per this latest report, it is fair to conclude that the incident really happened as described: http://www.phillyvoice.com/collingswood-teacher-calls-cops-third-grader-remarks-about-brownies/
I never doubted it happened, there or elsewhere, then or otherwhen. Kids are swearing more than ever these days (just like their parents, sibs and tv). What bothered me was what was going on in that school that has 9-year-olds accusing other children of being “racist.” Is that the New (virtually meaningless) Dirty Word? Or is this actual racial polarization at the third grade level? Did the Happy Meal Minion really say “What the fuck!”
Jack:
Lookie what I found:
http://www.philly.com/philly/education/393502131.html
Good catch! Also: good!
Classic False Story, designed to feed conservative commentators. http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/30/collingswood-racist-brownie/
No, Geoff, a classic example of Snopes “disproving” a story embarrassing to political correctness freaks without disproving anything. This is the kind of bias triggered piece that flagged how unreliable and agenda driven Snopes has become. How in the world could you cite that pathetic post as evidence of anything else?
Geoff Irvin wrote, “Classic False Story, designed to feed conservative commentators.”
Bias makes you stupid.
Seriously Geoff, you have fallen into the trap of believing Snopes because it fits your preconceived narrative of Conservatives. You do know that that Snopes piece was designed to feed into the blind ignorance of Progressives. The Snopes piece presented absolutely no verifiable evidence to support your claim that he story is “Classic False Story” or that the story was “designed to feed conservative commentators”.
Snopes wrote this, “We contacted Collingswood Public Schools to find out whether it was true police were called over “racist brownies” in an elementary school classroom, and the representative with whom we spoke stated (without elaboration) that the rumor was completely “false.” “
So who is this unidentified representative they spoke with, is it the non-English speaking guy mowing the playground grass on the weekend? The facts aren’t in favor of making a claim of “completely “false” “, in fact the facts are just the opposite. There is absolutely no factual dispute that the police were in fact called to the Grade School on that date for a incident surrounding a brownie and racists claims, beyond that the files are sealed because a minor was involved. Snopes publishing a claim that this is “completely “false.” “ is a verifiably false claim, thus Snopes is again publishing fake news!
Snopes also wrote this, “We also attempted to contact the Collingswood Police Department about the issue but have so far been unsuccessful in obtaining a response from anyone there.”
This little snippet of information doesn’t prove a damn thing one way or the other and is 100% irrelevant because it contains absolutely no information regarding the incident whatsoever. Snopes put it there to sucker ignorant Progressives into believing their fake news.
The quotes I referenced from Snopes on this is the same kind of claptrap that the New York Times prints all the time to sucker their readers into believing their lies and innuendo.
Geoff, Presenting this false claim piece from Snopes shows that you’re using Progressive Magical Thinking. Peel off your permanently attached industrial-strength weapons-grade thickened ideological blinders (#Cornelius_Gotchberg) and stop being so blindly naive.