Political correctness run amuck again. It seems that in Minneapolis, some of the students are taking offense at the police having specific identifying information on perpetrators of crime:
School officials at the University of Minnesota are working with black student and facility organizations after they wrote a letter to the school’s president about the racial descriptions given in crime alerts.
The letter, sent on Dec. 6, 2013, was issued by members of the African American and African Studies, Black Faculty and Staff Association, Black Graduate and Professional Student Association, Black Men’s Forum, Black Student Union and Huntley House for African American Males.
/snip
Students and staff mailed the letter more than a month after the campus went on lockdown because of an attempted robbery at Anderson Hall on Nov. 11, 2013. University of Minnesota Police wrongfully identified a student as the suspect.
On Tuesday, school officials reported there have been 25 robberies in and around the University, an increase of 27 percent over the last few years.
Okay, with a rise in crime, you’d think you’d want the cops to know who they’re looking for, and they’d want the students to be careful, too, right? I’m sorry the wrong guy was arrested, but that happens sometimes. It doesn’t mean that it was intentional, nor does it mean it was racially motivated.
The organizations wrote that while campus safety is crucial, the profiling can be devastating for black male students.
You mean the perpetrator might have been black?! And the description might have mentioned – gasp! – skin color?! And mentioning an obviously obvious identifier of the criminal(s) is devastating to those of the same race?
“[We] unanimously agree that campus safety should be of the UMPD’s utmost importance; however, efforts to reduce crime should never be at the expense of our Black men, or any specific group of people likely to be targeted. In addition to causing Black men to feel unsafe and distrusted, racial profiling is proven to inflict negative psychological effects on its victims.”
At Wednesday’s forum, Ian Taylor Jr., president of the Black Men’s Forum, said members of his organization feel threatened when the use of a racial description is given in the crime alerts.
What in heaven’s name did the authorities do? They didn’t mention eye color, or perhaps the small mole at the corner of the left nostril, as a descriptor?
“The repeated black, black, black suspect,” Taylor said. “And what that does it really discomforts the mental and physical comfort for students on campus because they feel like suspicions begin to increase.”
It’s about here that I wanted to do this:
At least some semblance of sanity prevailed:
On Jan. 27, 2014, a formal letter was issued by Wheelock.
/snip
She did disagree with the organizations when it comes to excluding racial descriptions in the alerts.
“I firmly believe that a well-informed community is an asset to public safety…I believe that sharing more information in our Crime Alerts, not less, is most beneficial in terms of public safety, especially when that information is available.
The information we share can include a complete description of suspects, unique identifying characteristics such as an accent or a distinctive piece of clothing, or the description of vehicles involved.
Okay, so now we know – including a description of the largest organ of the body, which is visible from quite a distance, is allowed as part of a description of a human being.
For now.
PS: The “black” groups could have focused on helping the police capture the bad guys, which would then have stopped the constant mantra of “watch out for a black guy!”. That would have been much more effective than whining about their feelings getting hurt.