Tuesday, May 21, 2019

Loretta Lynch v James Comey "Matter"

James Comey stated that the investigation into the set up of a private server in the home of then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was interfered with by the Justice Department. He made a specific claim that Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch instructed him to specifically not call it an "investigation" but call it a "matter."

Loretta Lynch denied it. 

                         Who is telling the truth?

The set up of a private email server to avoid transparency and subjection to the Freedom of Information Act has been covered here before. Specifically, analysis showed that former President Barack Obama was deceptive in his claim to have not known about its existence until the public did. 

The home server investigation indicated that it was  used to communicate classified and sensitive information, was hacked by "foreign actors" (governments) and was dealt with by deletion of 30,000 emails, "bleach bit" and the physical destruction of evidence (smashing with hammers). 

With this, James Comey announced that "no reasonable prosecutor" would litigate Clinton's case, citing "no intent", in which no such requirement exists. 

Previous analysis of both James Comey and Loretta Lynch have been Deception Indicated. 

Analytical Question: Is one of them telling the truth? 

Can both be deceptive? 

The article that follows has links to the transcripts.  Analysis is added in bold type. 

Comey statement: 

“The attorney general had directed me not to call it an investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which confused me and concerned me. That was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude, ‘I have to step away from the department if we’re to close this case credibly. The Clinton campaign, at the time, was using all kind of euphemisms — security review, matters, things like that, for what was going on. We were getting to a place where the attorney general and I were both going to have to testify and talk publicly about. And I wanted to know, was she going to authorize us to confirm we had an investigation? ... And she said, ‘Yes, but don’t call it that, call it a matter.' And I said, ‘Why would I do that?’ And she said, ‘Just call it a matter.’”

Comey said that Lynch's secret airport tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton in the summer of 2016 later cemented his assessment that Lynch lacked independence.

Here is Comey's statement again, with emphasis added along with the analysis: 

“The attorney general had directed me not to call it an investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which confused me and concerned me. 

This is a very strong statement. It becomes sensitive as he adds his emotion. James Comey does a great deal of emotional editing in both his statements and in his facial expressions. 

In a commentary, Newt Gingrich advised turning off the volume of a video and only watching Comey's facial expressions. 

Although Body Language Analysis is a most inexact discipline, this particular exercise is revelatory. 

On its own, there is nothing within the assertion itself to conclude deception.  

His inclusion of emotion is consistent with his baseline of manipulation in other statements. 

It is interesting the colorful or poetic language he often employs. 

Consider some points within the following: 
That was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude, ‘I have to step away from the department if we’re to close this case credibly. 

That Comey was put in a very difficult position is affirmed by the language. Here he is "weighted down" by the context.

James Comey was charged with a near impossible task: Investigate the one who would then be his boss in short order.  

As a top intelligence official in the nation, he could have feared retribution from Hillary Clinton including anything from professional reprisal to a complete loss of reputation to possible consequences of a grave nature. If the Clintons were known accurately for revenge upon their political enemies, Comey would likely know if this was myth or truth. 

He allowed latitude in the investigation that demoralized rank and file in the FBI, including the above references to the destruction of evidence and the statement of "no reasonable prosecutor." 

He was, indeed, burdened with a "no way out" situation in which he attempted to "split the difference" of implicating Clinton while not prosecuting his expected boss. 

He was championed by both parties, and condemned by both parties. 

Leaking, lying (he did not "remember" or "know", in his testimony, more than 120 times) and lecturing, Comey has put himself in a much worst position. In his most recent tweet, it is interesting to note:

"... Russian once said..." 

He is now the subject of an investigation into corruption, in which his tweets and public statements are valuable for insight into his attempts to obstruct justice by demonizing the current Attorney General before any information has become public. 

He may rue the day he ever crossed paths with the Clintons.  Here he addresses the Clinton campaign with a reference to "euphemism"; something that may echo back to the clever language of both Bill and Hillary Clinton in what is now well known statements, including 

"I smoked but did not inhale" and "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is..." 

The Clinton campaign, at the time, was using all kind of euphemisms — security review, matters, things like that, for what was going on. 

Did you notice that he did not say "for the investigation" here? This  comes in context with "Clinton."  We now watch for any change. 

We were getting to a place where the attorney general and I were both going to have to testify and talk publicly about. 

"We" -- is this the investigation (FBI) or is it he and the attorney general?

Note he does not use her name. 

When he introduces her, again, it is "the attorney general and I" (not "we") and there is emphasis with "both." 

The question of "we" appears to be answered in context: 

And I wanted to know, was she going to authorize us to confirm we had an investigation? ... And she said, ‘Yes, but don’t call it that, call it a matter.' And I said, ‘Why would I do that?’ And she said, ‘Just call it a matter.’”

"She" would have to authorize "us", the investigators under Comey. 

"I did not," Lynch responded when asked if she had "ever" told Comey to call the investigation a "matter."

This is in response to a specific question.  We need her to enter the free editing of her own language, speaking for herself. 

We expect her to say,

"I did not tell Comey to call it a 'matter'" in some form.  We need to hear her use the pronoun "I", to speak in the past tense, and to specify or address the allegation. 

The simplest or shortest denial is often the strongest. 

"Comey" (in any form)
Past tense verb
"matter" as a word. 

Here is her open denial. 

Expectation remains the Reliable Denial: 

"I did not tell Director Comey to use the word 'matter' instead of investigation." 

"I have never instructed a witness as to what to say specifically. 

I believe her. 
The pronoun "I" is present, meaning that we have a strong psychological presence here. 

What does her presence indicate?

That she "never" (it is "have never", which expands time) which is not reliable. 


a.  "never" avoids a specific point of time. The allegation is that this conversation took place, not over time, but at a specific time. 

b. see the context of the conversation, through Lynch's words. 

This is to violate component number two: past tense commitment. 

Next, we seek that she violates component number three by avoiding the accusation. 

Comey said "me" and it was a private meeting. 

She uses the unreliable "never" to address "witnesses"; not James Comey. 

Deception Indicated 

This is in her open statement and she is avoiding the internal stress of a direct lie.  

It may be true that she never has, in her career, instructed a witness what to say, specifically.  

It may be a lie, but in this context, she has changed James Comey, Director of the FBI,. recipient of a specific statement in a specific meeting, into a non specific "witness", who could be anyone, at any time. 

Never have, never will. 

This is more important than some may realize. The subject has a need to tell us that she is a "good person", which analysts will flag to the contrary. 

But it is also insight into her personality-- 

"never will" is a vow for the future. 

You've likely recognized that dropped pronouns, but aside (it is often used as an expression without pronouns), it is to tell her audience of her future intent. 

Not only is she a "good person"., but she may be giving us insight into the need to "amend" her life, moving forward. It could be a signal of conscience. 

Those in position of authority who often make unethical or even illegal decisions reluctantly, sometimes make expressions of showing a need for redemption or reformation.  It may be a verbal indicator, similar to things Barack Obama has said, that showed regret for being involved with the Clintons.  

She now goes to affirm the analysis for us by citing the specific meeting with "the Director"" 

In the meeting that I had with the Director, we were discussing how best to keep Congress informed of progress and discuss requesting resources for the Department overall. We were going to testify separately. 

This affirms that "never" is not appropriate.  It was a specific meeting with a specific subject that she avoided issuing a reliable denial over. 

Did you notice the pronouns "we" here?

Pronouns are pre thought and reliable. 

She likely saw herself and Comey psychologically unified in this meeting. 

This is very likely why she did not, here, call him a liar, but that he "mischaracterized" her.  

She emphasizes unity, while he separated himself from her. They are giving us insight into not only the relationship perception (at that time) but, perhaps, into the drive of self interest that may show itself in Grand Jury testimony. 

And the concern that both of us had in the meeting 

She emphasized that Comey shared her concern. 

This is then betrayed by the distancing language of the unnecessary wording here:

that I was having with him in September of 2015 

She was in charge. She was instructing him (one way) with the expectation that both ("we") shared the concern of the new, incoming boss, Clinton's reputation. 

The word "with" between people indicates distancing language. 

Note the specific month and year of a specific meeting.  

was how to have that discussion without stepping across the Department policy of confirming or denying an investigation, separate policy from testifying.

Obviously, we wanted to testify fully, fulsomely, and provide the information that was needed, but we were not at that point, 

Note that unnecessary moralizing is an indication of guilt.  She does not say they testified truthfully, instead what "we" (unified) "wanted" to do. 

Note the word "truth" is missing as well. 

Note the qualification of information limited to "what was needed."

Note the refutation by the word "but."

in September of 2015, ready to confirm that there was an investigation into the email matter -- or deny it. We were sticking with policy, and that was my position on that. I didn't direct anyone to use specific phraseology. When the Director asked me how to best to handle that, I said: What I have been saying is we have received a referral and we are working on the matter, working on the issue, or we have all the resources we need to handle the matter, handle the issue. So that was the suggestion that I made to him."

Pressed for her reaction to Comey's statements, Lynch said they had come as a shock.

"I was quite surprised that he characterized it in that way. We did have a conversation about it, so I wasn't surprised that he remembered that we met about it and talked about it. But I was quite surprised that that was his characterization of it, because that was not how it was conveyed to him, certainly not how it was intended."

House Oversight Commitee ranking member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio -- then the panel's chairman -- interjected.

Jim Jordan asked:  "Excuse me. Ms. Lynch, so in the meeting with the FBI Director you referred to the Clinton investigation as a matter -- I just want to make sure I understand -- but you did not instruct the Director when he testified in front of Congress to call it a matter. Is that accurate?

"Is that accurate?" is a yes or no question.  Note the length of her answer. This is to produce 226 words rather than 1; showing its inherent weakness and need of buttressing. 

Lynch: "I said that I had been referring to -- I had been using the phraseology. 

Note the avoidance of "yes or no" 

Note the Clintonesque "phraseology", rather than "word"

Note that she does not want to be psychologically "alone" with her response: 

We've received a referral. Because we received a public referral, which we were confirming. 

It is not her fault. It was because "we" received a "referral" that which is to shift responsibility. 

She next reverses the linguistic law of economy to change "referral" to a "public referral" --this takes more effort; making it more sensitive to her. 

The explanation is not done: 

And that is Department policy, that when we receive a public referral from any agency, that we confirm the referral but we neither confirm nor deny the investigation

This may help us understand why Comey's use of "Clinton" produced avoidance as well as "euphemisms" from "Clinton campaign", along with his departure of unity ("we") from Lynch and the Clinton campaign. 

Question: Did Comey perceive Lynch and Clinton Campaign as unified? 

That's actually a standard DOJ policy.

She did not say, "this is DOJ policy" 

a. "that's" is not "this"
b. "actually" indicates she is comparing her statement to something else
c. "standard" is the "normal factor" which tells us that in her mind, this was anything but normal or standard, and she has the need to make it appear such. 

Back to the meeting, she now will show us some conflict, ingratiation and conflict again: 

So in the meeting with the Director, which was, again, around September -- I don't recall the date -- of 2015, it was very early in the investigation, I expressed the view that it was, in my opinion, too early for us to confirm that we had an investigation,

She did not "tell" him, she "expressed the view"

Note it is not her view, but "the" view. 

This is to accept a pre existing standard.

This is insightful into the predeterminate outcome of the Server scandal investigation. 

At some point in the course of investigations, as you all know from your oversight, 

Note the ingratiation into her audience 

Note the persuasion continues: 

it becomes such common knowledge that we talk about it using the language of investigation and things, but at that point we had not done that and we were not confirming or denying it. We weren't denying it at all. There was, just essentially, in my view, we were following the policy. 

She does, here, indicate her willingness to shift blame to him: 

And when the Director asked me about my thoughts, I said, yes, we had to be -- we had to be completely cooperative and fulsome with Congress for both of us, and that we needed to provide as much information as we could on the issue of resources."

The unnecessary language is similar to Susan Rice's "notes" of a meeting with President Obama (see link below) in which unnecessary moralizing and manipulation is present. It is a form of contempt for the audience that is found in habitual liars. 

It is also to indict Comey, perhaps via warning, perhaps via self preservation, into what she may do in the future. 

Unnecessary Information is highly sensitive.  The need to assert "we had to be completely cooperative" indicates not only this moralizing, but reluctance. It is a rebuke of intimation: 'I had to tell James Comey to be completely cooperative and "fulsome" with Congress...' 

Analysis Conclusion:

 James Comey reliable reported that he was instructed to publicly change the investigation into a "matter" by Loretta Lynch. 

In her denial, Lynch is both deceptive and indicates a need to persuade that should not exist. She is lying. Her need to split words, phrases and to qualify indicate her priority.  

As prior analysis has shown, the language of guilt projection as well as that of self interest continues to indicate that if put under oath before a Grand Jury:

James Comey and Loretta Lynch will turn on each other, as the language of Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein, John Brennan, James Clapper, Bruce and Nellie Ohr,  and others has shown. 

It is unknown, at this time, if Susan Rice will testify against President Obama, should the situation dictate, based upon limited statements made by her. 

We may see a number of criminal indictments of former members of the United States investigatory and intel communities, as well as in the the Obama Administration and Clinton campaign.  

Analysts should be following the statements of those who signed the FISA applications, who were involved in the gathering of the "Russian Dossier" and who were associated with the Clinton campaign.  

The FBI is the premier investigatory entity and the envy of the western world.

Rank and file were betrayed by a select few who gave themselves to calculated corruption for their own personal gain. 

The FBI's reputation should be restored when justice is served.  


Mike Dammann said...

"I have never instructed a witness as to what to say specifically."
Notice the distance between "I" and "specifically"?

General P. Malaise said...

"And when the Director asked me about my thoughts, I said, yes, we had to be -- we had to be completely cooperative and fulsome with Congress for both of us, and that we needed to provide as much information as we could on the issue of resources."

"the issue of resources" that skirts the reason for the hearings. it basically says tell them how many people are working on the case and nothing about the case.

Hey Jude said...

Loretta Lynch Interview

James Comey Interview


- “using the language of investigation and things” - why does she say “and things” - an attempt to make “the language of investigation” seem less significant, and somehow non-specific, like “things”?

Anonymous said...

OT regarding sensitivity in questions.

In previous lessons, Peter has taught:
"When a question is avoided, the question itself should be considered sensitive to the subject.
When someone answers a question with a question, it is a signal of sensitivity, as the person may be stalling for time to think of the answer.
When the question is answered with a question, the subject needs time to think of an answer, indicating sensitivity.
... Always note that when someone answers your question with a question, you've asked an important question and will want an answer.
... Still avoiding the tension of "yes or no" with minimization. Comical, but a good example of how humans hate guilt and hate to lie outright."

Sample for application - A messaging exchange:

Q: Are there any well known musical guests scheduled to perform at the [event]? I am specifically asking about the world famous band [name].

A: We suppose you’ll have to wait and see?

Q: That's a cagey answer. ... If they are going to appear at the [event], I would like to make an effort to get closer to the stage. ... Yes or No. Who can I ask?

A: Have you seen or heard anything that would suggest to you that they will appear at the [event]?



Trigger said...

Great post!

Loretta Lynch is a master of deflecting the truthful answer when she is called into question about her specific conversation with James Comey about her command to him regarding the use of the word matter instead of investigation. A superb Clintonesque tool.

I feel sorry for James Comey. I hope that he gets the chance to unburden himself. He was and is, caught between two crushing forces. At this place in time, he would benefit by full disclosure of his part in this crime. His pubic disgrace and shameful departure from the FBI has to be sucking the life out of him.

Leigh said...

OT No Man Can Lie Twice

Hi Peter,

I think this is further proof that no man can lie twice. The detective must have known about this principle and trapped Chris Watts in his lie. I've attached the link to this video. It starts at 1:01:15 in his interrogation.



Tania Cadogan said...


A frail businessman was arrested and charged with the same crime as Jussie Smollett, and admitted his crimes straight away to save Chicago police an investigation, but now has a criminal record.

Robert Racky pleaded guilty to filing false police report last month, after calling the cops in August 2018 saying he been carjacked. In fact, he had been booted by the city for unpaid parking tickets.

The frail 76-year-old, who opened the first rooftop club outside the home of the Chicago Cubs in Wrigleyville in 1988, was thrown in jail for two days before a lawyer posted his bond.

He couldn’t afford to pay the bail himself because of a slew of financial problems and was suffering from crippling bronchitis at the time.

Racky admitted his crimes straight after he was arrested and saved the city a lengthy investigation, but was still dragged through the courts and will now likely end his life with a rap sheet.

It was his first offense. Now questions are being raised as to why Racky was subjected to different standards to Smollett.

Just a few weeks before Racky’s guilty plea, Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx dropped all charges against the Empire star after he allegedly staged a hate attack to try and get a raise on the show.

The actor, who is black and gay, claimed that two white men attacked him on the sidewalk shouting racist and anti-gay slurs, as well as slogans of Donald Trump.

Smollet avoided a criminal record, despite the sworn testimony of two Nigerian bodybuilders who said Smollett had paid them to stage the hoax.

Smollett has never apologized for his actions, has never been held accountable, and the investigation into his conduct cost Chicago police $130,000. He did two days of community service.

Ever since, Foxx’s office has defended their decision to drop the charges against Smollett and insist they only focus on ‘violent crime’. She has also suggested race may be a factor in the criticism against her.

Foxx even said that Smollett's deal is available to all defendants.

There was no violence involved in Racky’s arrest or conviction. However, police did find unloaded guns locked in a box in the back of his booted car.

However, he was never convicted of any weapons charges.

Foxx has faced calls to resign and her office has faced huge scrutiny since her decision not to go through with prosecuting Smollett.

Smollett has also been under intense scrutiny from President Trump, who on Saturday urged the actor to apologize to millions his ‘complete lie’.

Foxx dropped the charges after she was contacted by Tina Tchen, Michelle Obama’s former Chief of Staff, who was working on behalf of the Empire star and said she had ‘concerns’ about the investigation, according to multiple reports

Tania Cadogan said...


Racky is the father of the famous rooftop seating at Wrigley Field. He used to be a wealthy man with substantial real estate holdings in the Windy City.

But, now his only income is $1,660 from social security after a series events within his family meant he was essentially stripped of his fortune.

Racky started the first Wrigley Field rooftop, The Lakeview Baseball Club, in 1988.

It became famous for the tote board under its seats that details the years elapsed since the Cubs' last division, league and World Series titles.

In 2015, for example, the sign read AC0770107 (seven years since a division title, 70 since the pennant, 107 since the World Series title).

‘AC’ stands for ‘anno catuli,’ generally translated from Latin to mean “in the year of the Cub.” The accompanying “Eamus Catuli!” sign means “Let us go, little bears,” or “Let’s go Cubs!”

It was flipped to zero when the Cubs beat the Cleveland Indians in 2016, their first World Series win since 1908.

In 2011, a judge foreclosed the property. Ever since Mr Rasky has suffered a slew of financial problems and healthy issues.

Gilbert Liss, Racky’s lawyer, told DailyMail.com he had recently moved from Chicago to Iowa and mounting frustration with his business and ailing health was a factor with the run-in with the police.

‘Sometimes he doesn’t have his hands on any money, so he is unable to travel. I got him excused from failure to show up,’ he said.

‘The public defender got the weapons charges dropped,’ he added. ‘Those charges were kind of ridiculous because they (the weapons) were locked up in a car and there was no ammunition. I am not quite sure what the deal was.

A boot is clamped to the car when more than two parking tickets haven’t been paid.

‘He was having financial problems and he was frustrated. He had talked to people about getting the parking tickets wiped out and for whatever reason, it didn’t happen.

‘He got frustrated. Lost his temper and did something he stupidly shouldn’t have done.

‘It certainly wasn’t a Jussie Smollett type thing where it took the police days and days of intense investigation to figure out what happened.

‘It was clear cut and he admitted exactly what he had done.

Mr Liss opened the first Wrigley Field rooftop with Mr Racky. While they were trying to get it set up they endured pressure from the police and the city and neighborhood.

But they still managed to get it open. Mr Racky, who also was successful in real estate, was a wealthy man, but after decades it started to crumble.

‘There were family problems and other things that stripped him of control of his assets and it meant it was foreclosed upon,’ Mr Liss said.

‘These were not financial problems of his doing. He went from a wealthy man to being broke.

‘He couldn’t come up to the money to pay for two parking tickets. I had to post his bond and bail him out of jail after two days.

‘He is trying to build his business, things are tight and he was overwhelmed. He is trying to get together to put together some deals.

A spokesman for the Cook County State’s Attorney told DailyMail.com: ‘On Aug. 9, 2018, Racky contacted the Chicago Police Department and reported that he was the victim of a robbery in progress.

‘Racky yelled obscenities at the responding officers and told them that he called police because he was upset that a boot was placed on his car.

‘Officers recovered two rifles from Racky's car. He did not have a FOID card or a valid driver's license. Racky was arrested and while in custody later admitted to officers that he said he was being robbed because he wanted the police to show up.

‘On 4/22/19, Racky pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of reckless conduct and was ordered to pay a $434 fine and the felony charges were dropped.’

The office did not answer questions on why Racky was given different treatment to Smollett at the time of publishing.

It is not the only accusation of double standards that Foxx’s office have received.

Tania Cadogan said...


CWB Chicago have highlighted some of the cases, including Mr Racky's, that have been the victim of double standards in Foxx's office.

Their research shows eight cases that are similar to Smollett's, but the outcomes were far different.

Candace Clark, a Chicago resident, allegedly gave a friend access to her bank account and then falsely telling police that money had been stolen from it.

Clark is charged with a felony.

Judge Marc Martin slammed Foxx in a tirade on the bench.

'I'd like to know why Ms. Clark is being treated differently than Jussie Smollett,' he said. 'It's a disorderly conduct case. A lot less egregious than Mr. Smollett's case. I have a problem with it.'

In Clark's case, prosecutors are demanding that she make full restitution of $2,800 and serve deferred prosecution - none of which was asked of Smollett.

In court on April 11, Judge Martin pressed the prosecutor on the discrepancy.

'We review each case individually and make offers based on the facts of each individual case,' prosecutor Allison Kudzy responded, according to a court transcript.

Judge Martin was unimpressed.

'Well, Ms Clark is not a movie star, she doesn't have a high-priced lawyer, although, her lawyer's very good,' he said.

'And this smells, big time. I didn't create this mess, your office created this mess. And your explanation is unsatisfactory to this court. She's being treated differently,' he continued.

'There's no publicity to this case. She doesn't have Mark Geragos as her lawyer or Ron Safer or Judge Brown. It's not right. And I proceed in this matter, you're just digging yourselves further in a hole,' the judge said.

'Press gets a hold of this, it'll be in a newspaper. Why is Ms Clark being treated differently than Mr. Smollett?' he continued.

A spokesperson for Foxx declined to comment at the time, saying the case is ongoing.

Clark, who works an overnight shift at Home Depot, said she couldn't believe it when the judge demanded to know why she was being treated differently than Smollett.


Bobcat said...

A happy ending for the family, friends, and rescuers of Amanda Eller! The veracity shown by those closest to her is a stark contrast to what we usually read here.

New England Water Blog said...

This story regarding the students at the MFA in Boston and the "watermelon" incident has gotten international attention. This article is the only place I could find the teachers account which is worth a look.


New England Water Blog said...

The teachers statement:

***THE Museum of Fine Arts, Boston RACIALLY PROFILED MY STUDENTS**

On Thursday, May 16, 2019, some of the 7th grade students as well as the 7th grade teachers went on a field trip to the Museum of Fine Arts to look at some exhibits to enhance what they’ve learned in their history class. I should add my students are ALL black and brown. At the very beginning of the tour, one of the staff gave an overview on what to expect and told the kids no food, no drink, and no watermelon (we didn’t know they said this until the end). There were other groups of students that were there, but those students were white. We were instructed not to touch any of the artifacts in the museum, yet the white students there touched the displays several times while security looked on without saying anything. The minute one of our students followed suit, the security guards would yell at them that they should not touch exhibits. Throughout our walk through, they followed us. Many of our students grew agitated. At the end, we went through the gender bending exhibit where the security guard followed our every movement. It got so bad that I started gathering our students so we could leave. I was pulling one of my students to come out the exhibit, when she said that one of the visitors made a comment towards her when she was dancing to music included in the exhibit. The visitor said that’s it’s a shame that she is not learning and instead stripping. That’s when I had it. I told them we are leaving right now. The security guard following us in this exhibit, literally walked us out and yet again tracked our movements. He did not do that for ANYONE else there. When I told him I did not appreciate him following our students, he said that he was just doing his job. As we were walking out, our students were standing in the doorway of the Africa exhibit. We had them clear out the doorway so people could pass by. This lady walks by and says, “Never mind there’s fucking black kids in the way.” And ironically she says this in the African exhibit. We reported all these incidents to the staff at the MFA, and they just looked on with pity. They took our names and filed a report. Their only solution, they will give us tickets to come back and have a “better” experience. We did not even receive an apology. The worse part about all of this is seeing the hurt look on my children’s faces as this was their first time experiencing racism first hand. It’s sad that although our students are well behaved and our teachers are well educated, that we are still seen as less than and as criminals. I cannot stress to you enough, I WILL NEVER GO BACK TO THE MUSUEM OF FINE ARTS. They will not see a dollar of mine. If you are a person of color, please do not support this museum until they improve how they treat people of color at their institution. Please feel free to share this. I will not stop until action is taken and people are held accountable.

Hey Jude said...

Interesting that in both Tania and New England Water Blog posts the authors’ complaints are that as some offenders and students weren’t indulged in law or rule breaking as were Jussie Smollett, or some other museum visiting students, that standards should be lowered for all. Do they believe that some failures in applying the law or rules to some, should generally negate them for others?

The teacher’s account is not too convincing.

Were none present at the start of the tour, to have missed the alleged “no watermelon” instruction? How, if it had been said, could it have been missed, particularly as there was more than one teacher present? If it had been missed, were no teachers present to supervise the students while they toured, or to see how they behaved? It is likely students must be supervised on such a tour, so unlikely a “no watermelon” comment could have been made and missed by teachers, yet heard by, presumably, a student. This comment was not known to the teacher “until the end” - really? “One of the staff” - who made the comment, also becomes the plural “they” - which I think is due to avoiding identifying a male or female staff member rather than a case of PC pronoun usage; while gender is mostly avoided throughout, there are also exceptions for one “he”, a security guard, and one “she”, a lady. The teacher doesn’t want to be specific or helpful in giving the gender of the staff member who supposedly made a racist “watermelon” comment, which is unexpected.

The ‘agitated’ students maybe were not as well behaved as their teacher claims.

It may not be reasonable, to most, to expect an apology from museum staff for comments allegedly made by other visitors as that could not be within the staff’s remit or ability to prevent. I doubt those comments or “yelling” were made - “would yell” and “she says” are not too convincing.

Why the change of language from “our students” to “my children”? They looked hurt to be criminalised and to experience racism - a question is, who did that to them? Was it museum staff and visitors, or their teacher, who introduced them as grade seven students who are “all black, or brown”? It is the teacher who introduces racism and criminalisation, whilst also acknowledging that all the security guard said was that he was just doing his job - generally that includes following any potentially boisterous school parties.

She acknowledges that at various points “our” students were touching things, “agitated”, dancing, and crowding a doorway - so perhaps they were not the best behaved or the best supervised. While on the tour, they are “our students” for whom she is not taking sole responsibility, but notice how, once she assigns them as victims of racism, who also have, she claims, been “criminalised”, they are no longer “our students” but “my children” - they or no longer “our students”, but her very own children.

They look hurt by the realisation that they are victims - it is, she says, the first time they have experienced racism. That’s significant - they weren’t aware, until the teachers informed the museum staff, that they were victims or racism, or had been criminalised. That’s what she says - and up till then they were just “our students” and “the kids”. Only after she has inducted “our students” into the knowledge that they are victims, and viewed as criminals, and seen “the hurt look on their faces”, do they become “my children”.

It may not be the first time the teacher has complained of racism and got free return visits, or stuff, as a result. She is likely a professional victim of ‘racism’, who will teach children that they are victims, and viewed as criminal, despite their lived reality. That they become “my children” at the point they do may speak to a strong agenda, and to grooming in the ways of perpetual victimhood.

Hey Jude said...

I also noticed how the teacher scoped the scene in order to make comparisons with how some “white” school tours were managed - was she looking for trouble? Museum staff are experienced to know which tours are more or less likely to need closer supervision from how large the party is, and how well the teachers manage the children on arrival - to account those considerations to racism rather than safety and logistics, especially when there are several tours in progress, is probably to have an agenda.

Anonymous said...

OT: teacher + museum

The teacher and her students are warned that they are not allowed to touch the museum’s artifacts. One of her students does it anyway. The teacher should have prevented this and should have reprimanded the student herself for that. Instead she resents it when a security guard tells her student that touching is not allowed. That is the world upside down. Never mind that a white kid was not reprimanded for touching the artifacts (if that was even the case). Her students are her responsibility and she should make sure they obey the museum rules.

Also, I don’t believe that the security guard yelled. I have been in many museums and I have never heard a security guard yell instructions. They always talk in the lowest voice possible so as not to disturb other visitors. Maybe it was the teacher or a student who yelled?

And how is it the museum’s fault that a visitor tells a student that it’s a shame that she’s not learning and instead stripping (apart from the fact that there’s nothing racist about that comment). I furthermore fail to see how it is the museum’s fault that some lady supposedly said that there are “f…ing black kids in the way”. Actually, I would not be surprised if this comment emerged from the teacher’s own brain as she switches to present tense when she says it.

A security guard followed the students throughout the museum. I understand that that is a bit annoying. However, what alternative did the security guard have now that the teacher apparently did nothing to prevent her students from touching the artifacts?

Also: the teacher probably perceived the security guard following her group as an insult to her supervising skills. Is that why she decided to bad mouth the museum and started to see racism everywhere?

The teacher reports her complaints to the staff of the museum. The museum staff seems to have handled it very professionally. They looked on with pity, took their names and filed a report. They even offered tickets for a next visit. But that wasn’t enough for the teacher. The staff should have apologized according to her. For what? The watermelon comment that wasn’t heard by the teacher? Like Hey Jude says: it’s unlikely that a teacher would have missed such a comment.

I think the teacher was in over her head with her students. She was unable to control them (so the security guard had to), she resented that fact and blamed the museum staff. I don’t think her students grew agitated. She was the one who “grew agitated” with her students behavior. "It got so bad" that she wanted to leave.


Anonymous said...

Considering she is making it out to be a race thing. I would like to know what race / color the security guard is. I should imagine if he was white she would have mentioned it adding to her complaint, was he black?