Friday, May 22, 2015

Amanda Vining: Victim of Fake Hate Accusation?


I.  The written statement of Amanda Vining
II.  Statement Analysis 

Amanda Vining, guest columnist: Hostility, rudeness and perhaps even a case of racial profiling in Austin



Recently, Robert McKnight, a legislative fellow for state Sen. Rodney Ellis, wrote a column published in several newspapers in which he very soberly suggested that, as an African-American male, he was unwittingly subjected to racial profiling while attempting to help a South African legislative fellow move into Austin’s University Village Apartments. In the piece, he portrayed himself as an innocent.

The column makes excellent points about racial profiling. It also demonstrates how two people can see one encounter very differently.

I am the blond-haired, blue-eyed Caucasian woman who answered the door of our apartment to Mc-Knight the evening of Jan. 13. From my perspective, the situation played out as such:
I had returned home from work about 7:30, changed into my pajamas and was preparing a quick dinner in the kitchen so I could go to bed early. About 20 minutes after I returned home, there was a very forceful knock on the door.
I opened the door to a man in a trench coat — McKnight — who promptly demanded, “Who lives here?!’ ” He was holding a set of keys to our apartment but no lease or room assignment sheet, despite what he stated in his column.
Before I could answer, he said, just as forcefully, “Does anyone live in Bedroom C?”
My other two female roommates and I had not been informed that anyone was moving into our empty bedroom, so I told him no.
McKnight said: “Good! I’m moving my intern in.” He spun around and started walking away.
I asked him who the intern was and who he was, but he responded with: “Is everything OK here? Is there a problem?”
I told him that everything was OK but that I was shaken by the forceful way he knocked on our door and that I didn’t know who either he or his intern were. The last thing McKnight said to me before walking down the stairs was, “Everything better be fine because she’ll be here for six months!”
I was pretty scared by this abrupt encounter. I went into my bedroom, locked the door and texted my other two roommates that there was a man at the apartment who had keys and said he was moving someone in, but that I didn’t know who he was or who he was moving in. I never mentioned his race. One of my roommates told me to call the police, but I didn’t.
A few minutes later, she texted me to let me know she had called the police. Given the racial context of all this, I suppose I should note that she is African-American. She did not know the man at our apartment was African-American at the time of her call to police.
McKnight returned to the apartment and began screaming about everything in the unit. Apparently, the toilet in his intern’s bathroom was running and I heard him yelling: “Who the f--- rents an apartment like this? Don’t they know who I am? He (meaning the leasing manager) is going to have to respond to me! This is unacceptable! Don’t they know who I am and who I work for? I’m a lawyer, not a plumber!”
Police arrived a few minutes later and asked McKnight to wait at the bottom of the stairs until they figured out what was going on. A police officer came and pulled me from my room. I went outside with him to tell him that I didn’t know what was going on or who was in my apartment. He told me that I had a new roommate, then made a joke about how this probably wasn’t the best way to meet the new roommate. I agreed.
I thanked the police officer and told him that if McKnight was supposed to be there, then that was OK. I didn’t know who he was and hadn’t seen any new roommate with him, so it was terrifying to see a strange man come to my apartment after dark with a set of keys to get in.
When the police let McKnight go back upstairs, he re-entered the apartment obviously very angry and started yelling: “Who the f--- does that? Who the f--- calls the police? Don’t they know who I am?” The police officer heard McKnight yelling so loudly from the parking lot that he came back into the apartment building, knocked on my bedroom door and asked if I would like for him to escort me to my car so that I could go somewhere else for the night.
When the police officer walked me to my car, another police officer approached me and said that he was glad the police were called because McKnight was inappropriately belligerent. He said that he and the other police officer (I saw two officers, not the four Mc-Knight described) told McKnight that he wasn’t in trouble, that they weren’t detaining him, that all they asked of him was to stay out of the apartment, which was not leased to him, until they figured out what the situation was.
I went to my best friend’s house for the evening (who, as long as we’re name-dropping, is senior staff at the state Capitol for another lawmaker). On my way to her house from my apartment, I ended up being a witness to a fatal car-motorcycle accident. I was the one who called 911, so I had to stay on the scene. I met the very police officers who had been at my apartment 30 minutes earlier.
McKnight says at the end of his column, “For that, my friend, I thank you.” Had McKnight not forced me away from my apartment that evening, I would have just gone to bed and not come across this accident and not been there to call emergency responders to help the victim. For that, my friend, I thank you.
Since that night, my roommates and I have agreed McKnight is more than welcome to come over as long as he is respectful, calm, polite and makes us feel safe in our own home. Race was never an issue in this situation. The police were not called because of Robert’s race; they were called because an unidentified man approached our all-female apartment after dark with a set of keys to our apartment in hand, with no one else present, and addressed us with belligerence and aggression.
Questions remain: Why didn’t Robert approach the apartment with the new roommate? Where was the roommate? Why didn’t the roommate come up to meet us first? Why didn’t Robert introduce himself first? I didn’t learn his name till much later.
Was I the unwitting victim of racial profiling that evening, easy prey to pointed assumptions and hostility? McKnight assumed that, because I am Caucasian and have blond hair and blue eyes, I automatically called police, but that wasn’t what happened.
Incidentally, McKnight came back to our apartment a few weeks later at 9:30 p.m. looking for the new roommate (with whom he works at the Capitol) and was equally belligerent with one of my other roommates who opened the door. His rude and inappropriate behavior has been a pattern, not just an isolated incident.
One of my roommates and I have lived together for three years. We once had an African-American man as a roommate. Our apartment does not exclude people based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or disability. All we ask is that anyone who comes to our home is respectful, polite and makes us feel secure.
Amanda Vining is a graduate of the University of Texas at Austin. She has worked at The White House, the Texas Legislative Council and the U.S. Fund for UNICEF.

I.  The Form

The statement is a total of 1249. It is not a statement of "what happened" alone, but has two different issues:

The first issue is to tell the audience "what happened" and should be measured in its form. 

The second issue is no longer about "what happened" but responding to McKnight's letter.  

I will measure it both ways.  

The statement may be divided into two statements:

1.  The "what happened" in describing the account
2.  Her direct response to Robert McKnight's letter. 

 In an open statement about "what happened", there is a natural division of three parts:
1.  The introduction that sets the stage to what happened.  In truthful accounts this is about 25% of the words
2.  The main event:  this is the bulk of the account and in truthful accounts, it is about 50% of the words used;
3.  Post event:  the immediate action taken after the main event, and in truthful accounts, it is about 25% of the account. 

The 25/50/25 formula is to test the form of a statement for reliability.  The overwhelming number of deceptive statements have more content weighted in the introductory stage and lose the balance of 25/50/25

The introduction:  110 words or only 9 % of the statement. Statements that are deceptive are often heavily weighted in the introduction, and the main event falls below 50%. 

In her statement, the main event is given 644 words or 51%

The post event is long, as it addresses the article written by Robert McKnight and is 40%.

The 51% main event is thus enlarged as the subject revisits the account at the point where she says McKnight returned to the apartment.   

9/51/40 is the first measurement.  This includes McKnight's return weeks later, which is not part of the original "what happened" in the statement.  

The purpose of the article changes the dynamics of the Form.  Rather than only report what happened, the writer tells us what happened and then gives commentary and follow up, including reporting what the police said. 

If we restrict the article to  the "what happened" only, and remove the portion of her response, the balance of the statement  is changed and now comes much closer to 25/50/25.  

In using only the beginning of her statement going all the way through to what happened that night, and what happened when she left that night we have:

916 Words Total.   

Our introduction remains the same:

Introduction is:  110 words.    12%

The main event:  644 words or 70%

The post is  162 words or 18%

Conclusion:  In looking at the account of what happened that night, the main event is 70%, which is well above the 50%.  By its form, this account should not be discounted as unreliable.  This passes the reliable test, but we now look for specific indications of deception or veracity within the wording.  

II.  The Analysis of the wording


Recently, Robert McKnight, a legislative fellow for state Sen. Rodney Ellis, wrote a column published in several newspapers in which he very soberly suggested that, as an African-American male, he was unwittingly subjected to racial profiling while attempting to help a South African legislative fellow move into Austin’s University Village Apartments. In the piece, he portrayed himself as an innocent.

Where one begins a statement is very important and often the reason for writing.  Here the subject begins her statement about Robert McKnight writing a column that was published in several newspapers in which the claim is made about racial profiling. 

This is a very long sentence, which suggest strong inclusion of emotion over logic.  Note the lengthy respectful introduction of McKnight, including his connection to a politician.  

That Robert McKnight wrote an article that was published is the reason this subject is writing.  This is why it is the first sentence. 

Short sentences are more logic than emotion. 
Long sentences are more emotion than logic. 
Both can be truthful while both can be deceptive.  This simply means that the presence of emotion is strong here, regarding the article, but the purpose of writing remains the same:

She writes because of the published article.  

The second sentence is much shorter:  "In this piece he portrayed himself as an innocent" is void of emotion, and is running on logic.  There are no descriptive words within in it. 

 This claim of innocency is what we now expect the subject to address. 

Note regarding racial profiling:  the writer has strong emotions. 
Note during the claim of innocency:  the writer has strong logic.  

We are likely, therefore, to encounter these two distinct but parallel themes, and if she is consistent, we can expect "racial profiling" to have strong emotional words, while "innocency" to be 'tackled head on', that is, directly.  

The column makes excellent points about racial profiling. It also demonstrates how two people can see one encounter very differently.

She praises the articles points on racial profiling.  She then identifies that she is the one who was racially profiled in the article:  

I am the blond-haired, blue-eyed Caucasian woman who answered the door of our apartment to Mc-Knight the evening of Jan. 13. 

First, she gives McKnight's specific use of racial profiling:  blond-haired, blue eyed, Caucasian, and woman, as the included elements that McKnight had used. 

Social Introduction.

Note she began with his full name, title, and even the politician he interns for.  This is a lengthy introduction of respect.  There is no personal pronoun as there is no personal connection to him.  

Next, note that he is here "McKnight" and not "Mr." nor his first name.  This is consistent with the emotional 'downgrade' from the topic of racial profiling (suggesting the author has very strong views on it) to McKnight's "innocency", where he is given only the use of his last name:  impersonal and the departure from the highly respectful introduction. 


From my perspective, the situation played out as such:

To be racially profiled by armed authorities (police) is not a "situation" but something that is traumatic to the one being profiled which was missing from the language of McKnight.  Here, from her account, she has already praised McKnight for highlighting racial profiling, and calls it a "situation", which is a softer term.  This is consistent with her allegation that he was not racially profiled by her or police.  
Note "from my perspective" recognizes that she is writing to answer another's perspective.  This is an appropriate reduction of commitment here, but we look for the formula of reliability to be evident if the subject is truthful in the account:  

This is where the event begins.  For commitment, we seek to learn if she follows the formula for reliability which begins with the pronoun "I" and connects her to activity by past tense verbs:    
I had returned home from work about 7:30, changed into my pajamas and was preparing a quick dinner in the kitchen so I could go to bed early. About 20 minutes after I returned home, there was a very forceful knock on the door.

There is a sensitivity indicator in the need to explain the need for "quick dinner", but the statement of "what happened" began with the pronoun "I" (statistically indicating reliability) and she used past tense language.  The knock on the door was "very forceful" , that is, outside of a knock that would be expected by an average visitor.  
I opened the door to a man in a trench coat — McKnight — who promptly demanded, “Who lives here?!’ ” He was holding a set of keys to our apartment but no lease or room assignment sheet, despite what he stated in his column.

This next portion of "what happened" also begins with the pronoun "I" and the past tense verb and shows reliability. 
"McKnight" continues distancing language without the title of "Mr", and she adds in the response to his column, refuting it.  
(please note that in a strict measurement of "what happened", this piece of additional information should be considered "outside of the sequence of events" and testing the Form of the statement would bring the 70% number down closer to a more balanced formula:  this is a signal of reliability.) 

She has accused him of lying in his written article with "despite what he stated in his column" which is consistent with the short, logical sentence (2) she opened with.  
This rebuttal has no qualifiers and no sensitivity indictors.  It is very likely to be truthful based upon its language.  

Thus far, the subject has told the truth about what happened.  We continue noting the editorialization:  
Before I could answer, he said, just as forcefully, “Does anyone live in Bedroom C?”

The knocking on the door was "very forceful", and his initial statement was in a "demand" and this is "forcefully", making "force" sensitive to the subject. 

Question:  Did the subject fear McKnight would use "force" in his appearance at her apartment?
The reader/analyst should consider this possibility as the statement continues, looking to learn if the subject gives linguistic indicators of such a fear, or not:  
My other two female roommates and I had not been informed that anyone was moving into our empty bedroom, so I told him no.

The subject feels the need to explain why she told him "no", using "told" appropriately (informative). 
Note that her two roommates are identified only by gender. 

That they are "female" may support the sensitivity of "force", and possible fear or concern of such by McKnight.  This should be viewed, also, in light of what his statement revealed. 
McKnight said: “Good! I’m moving my intern in.” He spun around and started walking away.

Please note that she quotes him as saying "my intern", which, given his status, sounds high minded, as he is able to claim that he, himself, has an "intern."

Question:   Is this high-minded language  consistent with the analysis of McKnight's words in his article?

Answer:  Yes 

Conclusion:  The subject is accurately quoting him, and/or his demeanor.  

Note "started" as something that has begun.  We look for this to continue since she used this word.  Does the activity continue?
I asked him who the intern was and who he was, but he responded with: “Is everything OK here? Is there a problem?”

It does continue:  this is an indicator that the subject is writing from experiential memory; telling the truth.  

She next reports that he asked two questions.  "Is everything OK here?" and "Is there a problem?"

This is a linguistic signal that the subject may have done this deliberately to elevate a "cause" or "problem."  This is evident in the previous quote as the subject appears to be working from memory.  
I told him that everything was OK but that I was shaken by the forceful way he knocked on our door and that I didn’t know who either he or his intern were. The last thing McKnight said to me before walking down the stairs was, “Everything better be fine because she’ll be here for six months!”

Communicative language ("said, told" etc) is seen consistently when one is telling the truth, while inconsistency can suggest deception.  We would not expect, at this point, where he has asked rhetorical questions, for her to "say" ("said") something to him, as there is a tension of division between them.  He knocked forcefully, refused to give his name, spoke roughly and did not have the identification required, that he claimed in his article.  

Next, we have the confirmation of impact:  "force" is used again. 

Question:  is this "shaken" an artificial inclusion of emotion in the "logical" part of the statement?

Answer:  No, she is quoting herself on the words she used, and not commenting on emotion.  

Note "force" as sensitive, and here something that may have felt like a "threat" from one who has the "power" (high mindedness) to enforce:  "it better be..."

The encounter appears over here, and if we stop the "what happened" form here, the balance goes even further into reliability.  Now is time for emotional inclusion:  
I was pretty scared by this abrupt encounter. 

What does the emotion cause her to do?  We look for logical follow through:  

I went into my bedroom, locked the door and texted my other two roommates that there was a man at the apartment who had keys and said he was moving someone in, but that I didn’t know who he was or who he was moving in. I never mentioned his race. One of my roommates told me to call the police, but I didn’t.

In her descriptions of him, she did not use "race" and here he is "man" only.  Is this reliable?  Note "I never mentioned race" uses "never", which is not a substitute for "did not."  Next, note that while that denial is not reliable, regarding calling the police, she did not say "I never called the police", but "didn't", which is reliable. 

Why "never"?

A.  it is unreliable, as it is,  or;
B.  She did use his race in later conversations.   

It is very close to "didn't", making it a change of language.  This could occur if the roommate asked, "Is he black?" and the subject said, "yes" which remains technically truthful:  she didn't say, for herself, that he was black.  Yet, the change of language suggests that she knew her roommate understood. 

On "never" versus "did not" in analysis: 



A few minutes later, she texted me to let me know she had called the police. Given the racial context of all this, I suppose I should note that she is African-American. She did not know the man at our apartment was African-American at the time of her call to police.

The context is racial profiling so she adds outside of the sequence of events that the caller , herself, was African-American.  
McKnight returned to the apartment and began screaming about everything in the unit. 

Note "began screaming" may be a confirmation of impact, and that the "force" left her with some trauma.  Recall even PTSD-like symptoms will elongate the verb usage as it has a feel of still bothering the recipient of the action; in this case, "screaming."
This is further strengthened by the additional language of what he was screaming about:  "everything", which removes rationality from his complaints.   

Apparently, the toilet in his intern’s bathroom was running and I heard him yelling: “Who the f--- rents an apartment like this? Don’t they know who I am? He (meaning the leasing manager) is going to have to respond to me! This is unacceptable! Don’t they know who I am and who I work for? I’m a lawyer, not a plumber!”

This is the language of someone who is narcissistic and high-minded; self important.  The analysis of McKnight's own word show how self aggrandizing he is and how he portrays himself.  This means:

This statement and McKnight's statement agree in their description of him.  The language matches one to another.  

Her language shows consistent use of the pronoun "I" and the past tense verb usage, regarding the events.  
Police arrived a few minutes later and asked McKnight to wait at the bottom of the stairs until they figured out what was going on. A police officer came and pulled me from my room. I went outside with him to tell him that I didn’t know what was going on or who was in my apartment. He told me that I had a new roommate, then made a joke about how this probably wasn’t the best way to meet the new roommate. I agreed.

Communicative language is appropriate and signals memory.  That police "asked" is also appropriate because McKnight is not under arrest and signals that the police were likely polite to him, perhaps due to attempting to deescalate him.  
I thanked the police officer and told him that if McKnight was supposed to be there, then that was OK. I didn’t know who he was and hadn’t seen any new roommate with him, so it was terrifying to see a strange man come to my apartment after dark with a set of keys to get in.

Linguistic confirmation of impact.  His "forcefulness" "terrified" her, which is seen in her texting roommates, locking the door, and being likely conflicted about reporting to her roommates his race.  ("never" is not reliable). 
When the police let McKnight go back upstairs, he re-entered the apartment obviously very angry and started yelling: “Who the f--- does that? Who the f--- calls the police? Don’t they know who I am?” The police officer heard McKnight yelling so loudly from the parking lot that he came back into the apartment building, knocked on my bedroom door and asked if I would like for him to escort me to my car so that I could go somewhere else for the night.

Analyzing the subject's language tells me that the police report will show the same impression of McKnight and the same description that she gave.  
When the police officer walked me to my car, another police officer approached me and said that he was glad the police were called because McKnight was inappropriately belligerent. 

There is a difference between being "belligerent" and "inappropriately belligerent."

Had McKnight been angry at the toilet running, or something along these lines, he would have been described as "belligerent", but by adding the word "inappropriately" in the quote of the police officer, it is very likely that this officer knew that McKnight was trying to turn the situation into a "Fake Hate" styled scenario in which he could falsely claim to have been discriminated against and use it for his own potential fame.  (In this case, it worked as the politician praised him). 

He was not only "belligerent", which is enough to have police intervention, but the recognition is that he was "inappropriately" so, showing a disconnect between the situation and the anger.  

He said that he and the other police officer (I saw two officers, not the four Mc-Knight described) told McKnight that he wasn’t in trouble, that they weren’t detaining him, that all they asked of him was to stay out of the apartment, which was not leased to him, until they figured out what the situation was.
I went to my best friend’s house for the evening (who, as long as we’re name-dropping, is senior staff at the state Capitol for another lawmaker). 

The subject also appears to be an attention seeker, even though it is shielded with "as long as we are name-dropping", shows a desire to do just that:  name drop.  This also shows a competitive spirit with McKnight, perhaps on which is the most "racially correct" social warrior-type.  This is another similarity between them. 

The struggle for the writer is how her ideals and reality appear in conflict.  In attempt to avoid mentioning his race, the unreliable "never" surfaced. This could have been even her black roommate asking, "Is he black or white?" brining race and gender together.  

On my way to her house from my apartment, I ended up being a witness to a fatal car-motorcycle accident. I was the one who called 911, so I had to stay on the scene. I met the very police officers who had been at my apartment 30 minutes earlier.
McKnight says at the end of his column, “For that, my friend, I thank you.” Had McKnight not forced me away from my apartment that evening, I would have just gone to bed and not come across this accident and not been there to call emergency responders to help the victim. For that, my friend, I thank you.

This is to enter McKnight's language and to affirm the spirit of competition for attention for "racial rights" (political) in media.  

Note "that evening", with "evening" being the language of McKnight's article.  It is likely that here she is entering into his language and description:  that is, while answering his allegation of racist, she is thinking of the words of his article while typing her own article.  
We also see consistency in the early sensitivity about why she was cooking as she messiness here again going to bed.  
Since that night, my roommates and I have agreed McKnight is more than welcome to come over as long as he is respectful, calm, polite and makes us feel safe in our own home. Race was never an issue in this situation. The police were not called because of Robert’s race; they were called because an unidentified man approached our all-female apartment after dark with a set of keys to our apartment in hand, with no one else present, and addressed us with belligerence and aggression.

"agreed" tells us that there was disagreement prior to coming to the agreement.  
"Never" is not reliable, and race was front and center in this situation.  She was terrified by a black man angrily banging on her door at night, wearing a trench coat (trench coat profiling?) refusing to give his name, barking out orders, and demanding his way because he is so important.  

Note the need for him to be "respectful, calm and polite" highlighting that the writer felt his behavior was 
1.  disrespectful
2.  escalated
3.  impolite 
to which she joins "feeling safe" indicating the feeling of being unsafe in her own home ("in our own home"). 

Note that the descriptions order speak to priority:  2 of the 3 have to do with words.  This is to suggest that his words, more than appearance, frightened them.  There is also the element of insult.  Why might this be?
This may be due to the subject's own claims as being one who wants to work for social equality.  

He racially profiles her using her eyes, hair, skin and gender, to typify her as one who unjustly feared him because he is black. 

This is a fraudulent claim.  

Her use of "never" may be the struggle to come to honesty:  she had developed a reputation as a modern 'social warrior' so very much not wanting to profile him, yet was, indeed, scared of him (very much so, to the point where the impact was active at the time she wrote the article), while wanting to deny this. 

He "played the race card" looking for an opportunity to victimize a white female of whom he did not predict would call him on his lies. 

She appears to struggle with self-honesty, which is something we all do.  She was terrified by an angry, belligerent male. 

He is a liar. 

He is one who fabricates reality to fit his agenda, and has profited from a "Fake Hate" in which he portrayed Amanda Vining as a racist.  She is not a racist.  

He reveals his own racism, and his contempt for others, as he expected to be believed as if he was born into trouble, and has to "carry his weight" (pigmentation) so much so that every day of his life is just awful and sometimes "overbearing", that is, he is not able to carry himself being black.  This is not something he, himself, believes.  

He is full of himself.  He has issues with race and with anger.  He deliberately carries himself as someone of great importance and with an angry countenance, so that he can condemn anyone that fears him, particularly women.  This may carry some undertones of misogyny, particularly enjoying the bullying of women, as men may not be as quick to feel such terror.  

As a fabricator of reality for his own gain, he is the outright liar, who will always put himself above the needs of others, including personal, business and the civil realm.  Given this attribute at such a young age, he may have a successful career in politics where such deception is often a key to success. 

The rest of her statement is commentary outside the event of the night.  

Conclusion:  

She told the truth about the incident.  She has some internal wrestling to do about how her own hopeful beliefs fit into reality, but regarding the events of him being belligerent and forceful:  she told the truth.  She is not a racist.  She is a young woman who was frightened but her roommate who is black, was also frightened, and is immune from being accused by McKnight of being a racist by virtue of the pigmentation of her skin.  Had a white male in a trench coat banged on the door at night, they would have been afraid.  

He lied.  

These types of liars do not care how their "Fake Hate" hurts those who report the truth.  Like a future Al Sharpton, he is willing to lie to get his name published alongside a politician.  

He is egotistically driven, as his language reveals and there is no telling how much damage he will do as a liar.  

Liars hold the rest of the world in contempt, as they have an expectation of being successful.  He also has a fiery temper and an aggressive demeanor. 

Should McKnight be confronted as a liar, he would not simply reply in anger, as all liars do, but given the nature of his personality, he is very likely to react violently.  

Vining's instinct of being terrified was justified and accurate.  
Questions remain: Why didn’t Robert approach the apartment with the new roommate? Where was the roommate? Why didn’t the roommate come up to meet us first? Why didn’t Robert introduce himself first? I didn’t learn his name till much later.
Was I the unwitting victim of racial profiling that evening, easy prey to pointed assumptions and hostility? McKnight assumed that, because I am Caucasian and have blond hair and blue eyes, I automatically called police, but that wasn’t what happened.
Incidentally, McKnight came back to our apartment a few weeks later at 9:30 p.m. looking for the new roommate (with whom he works at the Capitol) and was equally belligerent with one of my other roommates who opened the door. His rude and inappropriate behavior has been a pattern, not just an isolated incident.
One of my roommates and I have lived together for three years. We once had an African-American man as a roommate. Our apartment does not exclude people based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or disability. All we ask is that anyone who comes to our home is respectful, polite and makes us feel secure.
The analysis shows that Amanda Vining told the truth, is not a racist and the profile that emerges from her statement shows an honest idealist who has had not only a shocking upset, but has had her reputation publicly torn apart.  

It hurts. 

It hurts for her, and for her family, loved ones and friends.  

And...

it has been done to them by a liar. 

Neither she, nor I, nor anyone else, can predict just how much pain this 'Rev Al Sharpton Wannabe' will inflict upon others in life. 

I can state that unless he undergoes a dramatic personal awakening and change, he will hurt many, beginning with the woman who has the misfortune of falling in love with him, and on to those who will view him as a leader.  

When liars gain positions as district attorneys, for example, there is no telling how many lives, black or white, will be sacrificed for political gain.  As assistant DA's may pad their records on easy marks, they make the dedicated and honest professionals all look bad, just as corrupt police taint all who serve in this capacity.  

13 comments:

John mcgowan said...

I asked him who the intern was and who he was, but he responded with: “Is everything OK here? Is there a problem?”,

He does not answer her question making the question it's self sensitive, but answers with two questions.

Why wouldn't he identify "the intern"? He also avoids introducing himself when prompted to.

GeekRad said...

This is an excellent comparison of their statements. I agree hers is reliable, his is not. He is an arrogant angry man who no doubt has played the victim his whole life. She must have been terrified. I know I would have been.

Peter Hyatt said...

Geekrad,

he was deceptive overall;

she was 'shaving' the truth about revealing his race. She may have "never" said it, but she likely confirmed it when asked. This is why we see the change from "didn't" call to "never" gave race.

He has a long career ahead of him and will do much harm, especially to race relations as he will also divide "us" from "them" and no one can predict how bad it will be.

Peter

Anonymous said...

I wonder if Peter or others send a link or copy pasta of this analysis to those who've been analyzed or in this case their employeers? I do remember back when members of Hailey's family were posting here, that was very entertaining. I sat out to attempt analysis of these two statements, i didn't get very far. Then i get to read Peter's analysis which makes such sense that it makes me feel "how could i not have drawn those same conclusions". That's why i keep reading here, when the analysis is done correctly you know it's right, it's so obvious. That fact doesn't make it easy to do yourself however.

BallBounces said...

Surely in some cases "I never" is equivalent to "I did not" -- particularly if the thing was assumed or expected.

E.g., you were expected to go to the hockey game. Next day, someone asks you about your evening at the hockey rink. You say, "I never went to the game".

On the other hand, if you were supposed to be working last night, and someone says, "I saw you at the hockey game", your response would be "I did not go to the hockey game".

So, I never went vs. I did not go. To my ear, both are truthful and reliable depending on the context.

BallBounces said...

In the case at hand, if the writer had been directly accused of referring to the man's race, then an appropriate response would be, "I did not refer to his race". However, when there is an assumption in the air that at some indeterminate point of time she referred to his race, then an appropriate response would be, "I never referred to his race". Whereas "I did not" refers to a particular point in time or place, "I never" is broader and broadly covers the duration of the time and/or place.

Anonymous said...

Peter,

May I offer an alternative explanation that I THINK happened. I THINK the man knocked on the door with the usual amount of force the first time. He saw light under the door and knew people were home. Amanda looked out through the spy glass and being in her nightwear and seeing he was a stranger and black, decided not to answer the door. Then he got mad and started pounding furiously.

I agree with you that at some point during the text exchange with the roommates, she revealed his race.

kimisan03 said...

Mr. Hyatt, I've been reading your posts for a long time and this comparison is, in my opinion, one of your best! Thank you!

I also note you use the word "messiness" in the analysis, perhaps instead of "mentions." What is on YOUR mind? :D

Peter Hyatt said...

kimisan,

autocorrect and fast typing.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

BallBounces said...
Surely in some cases "I never" is equivalent to "I did not" -- particularly if the thing was assumed or expected.

E.g., you were expected to go to the hockey game. Next day, someone asks you about your evening at the hockey rink. You say, "I never went to the game".

On the other hand, if you were supposed to be working last night, and someone says, "I saw you at the hockey game", your response would be "I did not go to the hockey game".

So, I never went vs. I did not go. To my ear, both are truthful and reliable depending on the context.
May 22, 2015 at 9:40 PM
BallBounces said...
In the case at hand, if the writer had been directly accused of referring to the man's race, then an appropriate response would be, "I did not refer to his race". However, when there is an assumption in the air that at some indeterminate point of time she referred to his race, then an appropriate response would be, "I never referred to his race". Whereas "I did not" refers to a particular point in time or place, "I never" is broader and broadly covers the duration of the time and/or place.
May 22, 2015 at 9:44 PM >>


This is worthy of a response.

I may do so in a separate article.

Ballbounces, do you mind be quoted?

Peter

BallBounces said...

No, I do not mind being quoted. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

I know Amanda Vining personally and I want to thank you for this analysis. Amanda is the nicest person I have ever met. I can't imagine her judging someone based on their race because she is always urging others to take people on an individual basis and not make assumptions based on stereotypes. She told me back in January about a man coming to her apartment and being aggressive but she didn't mention his race. She was really upset in March when the article came out accusing her of racially profiling him. Even after all of this (and I think that Robert McKnight has been a downright a-hole to her) she still seems to believe that he is just acting out of insecurity and isn't trying to hurt anyone intentionally. I hope this all goes away soon because Amanda is the sweetest person and doesn't deserve to be in this kind of situation splattered all across the internet. She's the type of person who reads bedtime stories to foster kids several times a week and donates her graduation money to children's charities. Robert McKnight and everyone else just needs to leave her alone.

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous,

She comes across as a dynamic and caring person, but also one at a cross road, as a young adult, facing reality versus idealism.

To think that one who carries himself as an activist did this on purpose likely shook her.

Look at the Long Island Fake Hate Race letter today.

Peter