NAACP - Dolezals - Fraud AA allegations

[SKL]

Well I just hope that I never have to have my life opened up to public scrutiny.  The web is uncaring and cruel from what I have seen.

 

Take that Nobel prize winning scientist who made the sexist statements a few weeks ago.  He was villified, lost his job, lost his role in numerous scientific institutions he had been part of for years.

 

Was the comment wrong?  Yes.  Sexist?  Yes.  Backwards and outdated?  Yes.

 

However, the interview with his wife, who identifies as a feminist gave a much fuller picture of the man, the work he had done, the support he had given students (men and women).  However, he has lost EVERYTHING from one really bad statement, perhaps made in jest.

 

I just think people are WAY To quick to judge people based on very little information circulated widely on the web.  Wouldn't want it to be me.

 

I agree that the media, the internet, and people in general seem to have a general blood lust, and it is kind of sick.  And yes, sometimes I feel like this could happen to anyone.  It doesn't only happen to people who "deserve" it or "should expect" it.

 

But if this thing had happened to me, God forbid, I would have found a hole and crawled in it.  I wouldn't be out there giving interviews etc.  Especially not before I had my story straight.  :/

[SKL]

Gosh, come to think of it, I haven't had a DNA test, so maybe my parents aren't who I think they are ....  Maybe I am actually Barack Obama's sister.

[Samm]

Has she actually portrayed herself as African-American or more generically as black?  I mean, someone covering their bases would not want to exclude the entire Caribbean.

[maize]

She is a woman who defines her own truth. I, personally, call what she is doing lying. Here is how she describes it:

 

"I really feel like there have been moments of some level of creative nonfiction. I have kind of had to explain or justify some of the timeline and logistics of my life in a way that made sense to others," she said.

 

http://www.today.com/news/rachel-dolezal-caitlyn-jenners-story-resonated-me-t26651

Creative non-fiction huh?

 

So that's what they are calling lies these days...

[Samm]

Creative non-fiction huh?

 

So that's what they are calling lies these days...

 

Sometimes they call themselves "unreliable narrators"

[Jean in Newcastle]

I agree that the media, the internet, and people in general seem to have a general blood lust, and it is kind of sick.  And yes, sometimes I feel like this could happen to anyone.  It doesn't only happen to people who "deserve" it or "should expect" it.

 

But if this thing had happened to me, God forbid, I would have found a hole and crawled in it.  I wouldn't be out there giving interviews etc.  Especially not before I had my story straight.  :/

Yes.  She is not a random pathological liar.  There are many pathological liars in this world that we do not hear about.  We are hearing about her because she put herself in the limelight   She was in a couple of positions of influence.  If journalists suspect that she has untreated mental health problems then of course they are going to follow it up.  

 

She has had choices all along..  She could have been upfront about being white and still been influential in advocacy work.  (In theory anyway, since there is no race barrier to her involvement.)  Once the story broke, she could have admitted her lie, admitted how damaging the continual lieing was to people's trust in someone of influence, and still with time recovered from that over time, I think.  The NAACP was on her side at first (I don't know if they are still now that she is digging herself in deeper and deeper with more lies and deception).  Of course, if she is a pathological liar she may have lost sight of reality and really can't proceed without mental health treatment.

[Slojo]

Well here's a thought experiment for you.

 

If race is ONLY a social construct, and my two black children have been raised almost from birth by midwestern rural-town, middleclass parents of caucasian European descent, then by race are these two kids...white?  Should these two girls who look black, but are essentially "white" in culture--should they get preferential treatment from affirmative action and quotas?  Well they will.  If my AA daughter and my white son both had the same aptitude, and both applied for the same engineering job, just who would get the job?  

 

I can bring the AA culture into my home, we can go out into the community and appreciate AA culture, we can  have AA friends in the community and at church, but seriously, if these two extremely dark skinned girls grow up and decide they want to go to Howard or the Historically Black College in the southern city where we live, do you imagine that they will be accepted as black?  Or would those girls get told they are white as white can be?

 

You know the answer to that.  

 

We had a friend, God Rest His Soul, who was AA, raised by his awesome AA family, and if he didn't act "black" enough, people would call him an Oreo.  You know, black on the outside, white on the inside.  

No, they'd still be black because they do not only exist in your house. They go out into the world and are engaged as black women, and all that that can entail. Their familiarity with and identification with white culture will likely make their individual experiences different from AAs who do not have that experience, but they will be profoundly shaped by their African American identity -- something that may not be apparent until they are adults and out of your house. I was raised by AA parents, but went to school in a very white school and had a lot of white cultural influences growing up -- so I personally get the Oreo thing. Was called a "white girl" for 3 years running in high school. It's just a variation of the black experience - not unique to your girls. 

 

Have you spent significant time on an HBCU campus?  I'm not sure about your "you know the answer to that" comment - it sounds bitter and paints the black community with a broad, unflattering and undeserved brush (which if you do have that bias, you might want to do some further self-examination of those feelings -- while you've certainly provided a loving home, you might want to check any notion that you've "saved them from some horribly biased, unidimensional black community that is embodied on the campuses of HBCUs" - you might one day need "that black community" to support your children in ways that you may not directly be able to). I'd imagine that they'd have more nuanced and varied experiences with the black community on HBCUs than what you are implying. Yep, they'd certainly run into many black 18 year-olds (with all of the limited life experiences that 18 year olds tend to have) who have a unidimensional way of viewing "blackness" (guess what? not matter where they go to college, they'll run into 18 year olds of all races that have limited life experience with the diversity that is black America - hopefully, college will provide an opportunity for a wider lens). Chalk that up to immaturity and limited life experience. But I'd imagine that they'd also get exposed to the full range of black life, inclusive of many, many multi-dimensional black people who appreciate a full range of black experiences: those of transracial adoptees, of recent black immigrants, of biracial individuals of African descent (like my children), of black people who grew up in an all-black community with very few connections to white America, of black people who grew up in all-white communities, of highly religious black folks, of black folks who have never once set foot in an African American church and have no religious affilation, etc, etc... all of those life experiences can be found on HBCU campuses. 

 

Most likely your white son. Affirmative action exists because, given two people with the same aptitudes, the person from the marginalized group is still less likely to get the job, and these policies seek to change that. Affirmative action does not mean that those belonging to marginalized groups now actually have the advantage. 

 

Agreed, even in cases where affirmative action is applied, your white son - for a variety of sociological reasons - is far more likely to be deemed as "just a better fit for our company's culture." And even if the black daughter gets in, she's is far more likely statistically speaking to have issues with not quite fitting the male and white majority culture that is the vast majority of engineering firms and far more likely to have career stalls in which she is not advancing as quickly as male counterparts because of those "intangibles."

 

Rachel Dolezal changed her identity from white to black so that she could get the jobs she wanted. Now whether or not she actually HAD to do so in order to work for the NAACP is interesting, but clearly she thought so.  

 

Why was it that Elizabeth Warren said that she was Native American? An old article from Atlantic Monthly said she didn't benefit from it professionally, but her employer touted the fact that she was Native American.  Why would her employer do that?  Does it help an employer to be able to say, "We have these minorities on staff"? http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/is-elizabeth-warren-native-american-or-what/257415/

 

And here is an article about affirmative action in practice  http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418530/what-ivy-league-affirmative-action-really-looks-inside-david-french  

 

A bid my husband's empoyer recently competed for required that the bidding firms  list the ways that in which they hire and encourage minority subcontractors.  It's a big deal.  Your bona fides are the numbers you can present about the diversity of your business!

I

 

You may need to widen your lens a bit. What you see isn't the full picture. Your husband's anecdotes about his business are great, but on the large scale the numbers aren't fully adding up. And I'm talking about for qualified folks. 

 

Actually, I watched the interview and I thought she seemed rather nice, and genuine.  And there was an interview with his son which was also very sweet and loving towards his mom.

 

I think her parents are the real ones with the issues.  Who was she hurting.  Why would her parents go and bring this public humiliation on to her?

 

Perhaps I am more sensitive to her because I have been the person who has at times overly adapted to a culture not my own.  When I was younger it was very tempting to go all out on the Indian clothes, food, jewelry, etc.  Of course I never said I was Indian.  But I understand so identifying with a culture/background that is not your own that you might get that close.

 

Oh well, starting to reallly feel for people whose lives are put under the microscope once twitter picks up on their story.

 

Sure, but again this was brought on her by her own actions. The hate mail seems to be faked, there are more people than just her parents that are refuting parts of her story, and she has not shied away from any spotlights herself. If she's being put under the microscope, well, let's just say she prepared her own slides. 

 

I'm not saying she doesnt' have issues.  She clearly does.

 

However, in the grand scale of things is there evidence that she was out to hurt anyone?  That she did hurt anyone?  From what I heard she was an advocate, a mother, a sibling.  Her relationship with her parents is clearly a big issue.  

 

I fall in the "race is a construct" side of the argument.  It is different than a nationality. 

 

At different times in American a different percentage of African-American heritage resulted in a person being designated black or not.

 

Are we really going to go back to a time when people had to chart out ancestry to determine...what?  The box that should be checked?

 

There are different cultures, different histories, different backgrounds.  That should be celebrated. 

 

Actually, it's been whiteness that has had far more protected and sliding boundaries (read the book "How the Irish Became White") -- and that's kind of "why" we are at this bizarre place with this story in the first place.  America has always (to protect whiteness) left room for the possibility of a light-skinned black person, but has almost no historical, legal or sociological precedent for leaving room for a dark-skinned/brown-skinned white person.  

 

This idea that she hasn't hurt anyone -- I don't know -- is she a monster, no -- but there's plenty of hurt that seems to be lying in her wake (mostly, her family -- I feel sorry for all of them, I think they all have issues to deal with). To have been such an advocate in the black community, she seems quite oblivious to the hurt and pain associated with blackface, cultural appropriation and claiming stories that are not one's own. For many, it rankles and it's tone deaf. And, yes, now I think that the NAACP chapter will have a lot of work to rebuild its organization and to try to operate as a "normal" organization. So, yes, I think she's hurt that institution and cause - at least in the short-term - as well. She said as much in one interview - there is a police misconduct case that the NAACP was involved in at this same time -- and her situation (and the lies that led to that situation in the first place) is totally eclipsing and distracting from that really important issue, and for her not to have thought about that, and how her lies could actually end up hurting the community she says she wants to support, is well -- bizarre (and kind of self-absorbed) to me. 

 

Should she have lied?  No.

 

Should she be publicly vilified over international press, the web, chat groups, etc. because of those lies?  I don't think so.  In the grand scheme of things (what corporations and politicians are doing, for example) I think her life does not deserve to be pulled apart and examined by everyone (literally - it is the headline in EVERY online paper I read).

 

How many of us lead perfect lives?

 

How many of us have things in our past we would prefer not be made public?

 

How would it feel to have that as the lead story on the nightly news?  I think we need to stop the incessant prying into the lives of anyone that has not been perfect and who comes to the attention of the TWITTER-verse.

I have a lot of things in my life that I wouldn't want to be made public, but she's in this weird "love the attention/hate the attention" place with regard to her behaviors. There's many things that she could have done to NOT have her stuff made public. Before she blames "the media" she might be just a little bit introspective on that front. 

[Laurie4b]

 

 

 

 

Sure, but again this was brought on her by her own actions. The hate mail seems to be faked, there are more people than just her parents that are refuting parts of her story, and she has not shied away from any spotlights herself. If she's being put under the microscope, well, let's just say she prepared her own slides.

 

 

 

Great line. 

[idnib]

They were approached by a journalist doing what a journalist should do and FACT CHECKING.  Kudos to that journalist. 

 

Yes, kudos to the journalist. I'm super curious about how this journalist was turned on to this story. Did someone leak a suspicion? Did the journalist have his or her own suspicions after running into this woman at the tanning salon and/or hairdresser or wig shop too many times? I'm guessing it's a protected source so we won't find out. If the journalist came up with it I think we would have heard how that happened by now.

 

If they were asked outright if she is their daughter, what else should they have done? 

 

What everyone else does: "We have no comment."

[SKL]

It does hurt the credibility of the NAACP chapter (and maybe the broader NAACP leadership) when people find out it's been headed by a loon and nobody internally figured it out.

 

How did the lie get discovered in the first place?  Who broke the story first?

[SKL]

What everyone else does: "We have no comment."

 

I don't think that's fair.  If they refused to acknowledge their own kid, that would be viewed as their either being in cahoots with her, or disowning her.

 

I think parents have a right to expect their kids to own them, and therefore to never have to wonder "gosh, is it OK if I tell people she's my kid?"  Really?

 

And even if that weren't so, she was the first to drag her parents through the mud.  We don't know if her allegations are true or not, but she accused them of a lot, while they simply "outed" her as their kid.  I am surprised people are blaming the parents for the fallout.

[idnib]

I don't think that's fair.  If they refused to acknowledge their own kid, that would be viewed as their either being in cahoots with her, or disowning her.

 

I think parents have a right to expect their kids to own them, and therefore to never have to wonder "gosh, is it OK if I tell people she's my kid?"  Really?

 

And even if that weren't so, she was the first to drag her parents through the mud.  We don't know if her allegations are true or not, but she accused them of a lot, while they simply "outed" her as their kid.  I am surprised people are blaming the parents for the fallout.

 

I'm not blaming the parents. Until I hear otherwise, this is 100% on her in my mind. I just think "no comment" is the best policy when dealing with the media, especially if you're a layperson.

[Kathryn]

Somewhere I read that an NAACP member thought she was a fake and a liar and was trying to get her out.

[Kathryn]

I'm not blaming the parents. Until I hear otherwise, this is 100% on her in my mind. I just think "no comment" is the best policy when dealing with the media, especially if you're a layperson.

I don't blame them in this case, given the case pending on their son that seems to have begun with Rachel. Having her lies publicly exposed might help his case.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I haven't read all the comments.  I don't know, I have a hard time disliking the woman.  She seems genuine to me.  I don't mean genuinely black, but I believe she truly believes she is and feels she is.  I don't see why it isn't possible.

 

 

[kitten18]

I haven't read all the comments.  I don't know, I have a hard time disliking the woman.  She seems genuine to me.  I don't mean genuinely black, but I believe she truly believes she is and feels she is.  I don't see why it isn't possible.

I felt that way a few days ago but now I think she's either completely crazy or just a narcissist. 

[Valley Girl]

 

What everyone else does: "We have no comment."

 

See that makes no sense to me. If someone asked me "Is so-and-so your kid?" I'm answering with a "yes" or a "no." It's not a difficult question. I can't imagine a parent answering "no comment." To me, answering a straightforward question that does not have privacy implications with a non-answer like that would just make this whole weird thing even weirder.

 

ETA: Whatever her parents did or didn't do, I think blaming them for the exposure of her lies is misplaced. This one's on her doorstep.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I felt that way a few days ago but now I think she's either completely crazy or just a narcissist. 

 

Yeah I don't know.  It's hard to tell what is true via the media anyway.

 

I also heard she came from a crazy family.  And of course she was homeschooled.  People had to latch onto that one.

[regentrude]

I haven't read all the comments.  I don't know, I have a hard time disliking the woman.  She seems genuine to me.  I don't mean genuinely black, but I believe she truly believes she is and feels she is.  I don't see why it isn't possible.

 

She truly believes some black guy is her father and her parents were lying on the birth certificate?

 

That seems genuinely delusional.

 

[SKL]

If she comes across as a "genuine' person under all this pressure, that shows us how she's managed to fool people so well.

 

A person who thinks she can freely rewrite her entire life history from DNA on up may be many things, but "genuine" ... I don't think so.

 

Now you guys have me curious to see one of these interviews.  Sometime when I'm in the mood for "doo-wee-ooh."

[idnib]

See that makes no sense to me. If someone asked me "Is so-and-so your kid?" I'm answering with a "yes" or a "no." It's not a difficult question. I can't imagine a parent answering "no comment." To me, answering a straightforward question that does not have privacy implications with a non-answer like that would just make this whole weird thing even weirder.

 

ETA: Whatever her parents did or didn't do, I think blaming them for the exposure of her lies is misplaced. This one's on her doorstep.

 

I'm not sure anyone would think it's a difficult question. I've already said the responsibility is on her.

 

I just wouldn't want to get involved and this would let the media know not to bother me about it. Once they know you're not going to engage, they stop showing up at your doorstep. I would find that desirable and it wouldn't bother me at all if the newscast that night said, "Ms. X's parents had no comment." I feel no obligation to the media or their customers. Let people draw their own conclusions, but keep me out of this narcissist's drama.

 

ETA: Common advice for dealing with narcissists in your family is to avoid engaging them or getting caught up in their drama.

[SparklyUnicorn]

She truly believes some black guy is her father and her parents were lying on the birth certificate?

 

That seems genuinely delusional.

 

 

No I think she thinks she is a black person. Did she say that? 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Well if a person can be born a male and think they are female, how is this impossible?

 

 

[SKL]

I'm not sure anyone would think it's a difficult question. I've already said the responsibility is on her.

 

I just wouldn't want to get involved and this would let the media know not to bother me about it. Once they know you're not going to engage, they stop showing up at your doorstep. I would find that desirable and it wouldn't bother me at all if the newscast that night said, "Ms. X's parents had no comment." Let people draw their own conclusions, but keep me out of this narcissist's drama.

 

Except that in this case, how could they say "Ms X's parents" when the daughter said they weren't?

 

The black buy she called her father did deny being her father and said he would not comment further.  I think that was better than just leaving it out there with "no comment."

 

Granted, the parents could have said something like "she is our daughter and we don't plan on commenting further to the public."  But so what if they said a few more things?  They are under attack.  Imagine how bizarre all of this is for them.

[kitten18]

See that makes no sense to me. If someone asked me "Is so-and-so your kid?" I'm answering with a "yes" or a "no." It's not a difficult question. I can't imagine a parent answering "no comment." To me, answering a straightforward question that does not have privacy implications with a non-answer like that would just make this whole weird thing even weirder.

 

ETA: Whatever her parents did or didn't do, I think blaming them for the exposure of her lies is misplaced. This one's on her doorstep.

 

I don't know if I would say "no comment" but I not answer a reporter's questions about my kids.  Period.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I don't know if I would say "no comment" but I not answer a reporter's questions about my kids.  Period.

 

Me either.  Not unless my doing so would protect them in some way.

[Jean in Newcastle]

No I think she thinks she is a black person. Did she say that? 

Yes, she said that.  What she said initially is a lot tamer than what is coming out now.

[idnib]

Except that in this case, how could they say "Ms X's parents" when the daughter said they weren't?

 

Well they could, because public records speak much more loudly than personal denials. "The parents listed on the birth certificate, Mr. and Mrs. X, declined to comment." Am I missing some obligation on the part of the parents to answer the media's questions?

[Catwoman]

I haven't read all the comments. I don't know, I have a hard time disliking the woman. She seems genuine to me. I don't mean genuinely black, but I believe she truly believes she is and feels she is. I don't see why it isn't possible.

The thing is, she also believed she was "genuinely white" when she was suing Howard University for discrimination.

[regentrude]

No I think she thinks she is a black person. Did she say that? 

 

She passed off a photograph of some African American man as a picture of her father.

 

She said there is no proof that her parents are her biological parents, that there were no witnesses to the birth and that the bc was not issued several weeks after the birth. 

[MinivanMom]

I'm a little confused by some of the coverage of the abuse allegations. Is the biological brother, who was accused of abusing the adopted brother, also estranged from the parents? One of the articles seemed to imply that he was also estranged from them (prior to them coming forward to support his innocence in the abuse case).

[Laurie4b]

I'm a little confused by some of the coverage of the abuse allegations. Is the biological brother, who was accused of abusing the adopted brother, also estranged from the parents? One of the articles seemed to imply that he was also estranged from them (prior to them coming forward to support his innocence in the abuse case).

 

It was the biological brother accused. It is a little unclear who the alleged victim is. I think it's the adopted sister, not the estranged brother, but I could be wrong. The media is not saying. 

[Kathryn]

It was the biological brother accused. It is a little unclear who the alleged victim is. I think it's the adopted sister, not the estranged brother, but I could be wrong. The media is not saying.

I've read several articles that say it's the sister.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I'm wondering why this is coming out now. 

 

 

[Laurie4b]

I've read several articles that say it's the sister.

 

Well okay then! SOME of the media were refraining from naming the victim since it's a sexual assault case. I guess not all of them!

 

(Really, they shouldn't when it's an allegation of something that took place when the person was a minor.) 

[creekland]

See that makes no sense to me. If someone asked me "Is so-and-so your kid?" I'm answering with a "yes" or a "no." It's not a difficult question. I can't imagine a parent answering "no comment." To me, answering a straightforward question that does not have privacy implications with a non-answer like that would just make this whole weird thing even weirder.

 

ETA: Whatever her parents did or didn't do, I think blaming them for the exposure of her lies is misplaced. This one's on her doorstep.

 

:iagree:  I see no reason to extend the drama and wonder by "No Comment."  There's nothing at all wrong with the simple truth.  They certainly aren't dragging her through anything, but I can't say the same about what she's doing to them.

 

And if she didn't draw pics of herself brown when she was young, I see no problem answering a question like that truthfully either.

 

One of the people I know who are from a similar mold claim they never had birthday parties growing up... except I was AT some of those birthday parties that never happened and there are pictures (on film) of them.  Should the parents claim those don't exist?

 

The other claims they never went anywhere or did anything fun - except we were young together and went some of these "nowhere" places together doing plenty of fun things.  Should the parents in this case deny reality too?

 

There are other claims from both, but those two have absolute proof to me.  Nonetheless, it doesn't stop the lies.

 

Telling the truth (if asked) is far better than letting anyone continue the lies IMO.  If no one asks, it doesn't really matter to anyone, but once someone does, it all changes.  To me, "No Comment" would mean I agree with what she's been saying.  It's sort of like pleading the 5th in court.

[krsmom]

And then there is this:

 

http://www.kxly.com/news/spokane-news/condon-stuckart-call-for-dolezals-immediate-resignation/33635198

[EmseB]

Oh, it's in certain parties' interest to have this situation out now...co-incidence that it's just after the Jenner stuff, and the Duggar stuff ? I do not think so.

 

It's funny, because the liberal sites I frequent have had a couple of people saying stuff like this, and the conservative sites have mentioned the Dolezal story as a distraction to the OPM hack debacle.  I think it's much more simplistic in that the media wants to report on whatever gets them ad $$ in the form of viewers or clicks.

 

Of course, this is only in the US, so I'm not even sure what kind of play it's getting nationally, although I did hear an NPR reporter asking a few South Africans what they thought about it.

[krsmom]

This:

 

Her former student states "It calls everything she's said into question," says Muller. "The legitimacy of everything she's said because she took on the struggle of minorities that weren't truly her own. Which is sad, because we need those voices in Spokane."

 

Interview here:

http://www.khq.com/story/29337285/former-dolezal-student-voiced-concern-over-teaching-style

[unsinkable]

Here is an article by the reporter who "broke" the story with a timeline of when and a bit of why.

 

http://www.kxly.com/news/spokane-news/rachel-dolezal-the-story-behind-the-story/33608002

 

From the middle of the article:

 

"As we would in other high-profile cases like this, kxly4 filed a public records request with Spokane Police, asking for a copy of the investigative report. Over the ensuing months, we checked in on that request, but were told the investigation was not complete. In March, I requested all police reports Dolezal filed in Coeur d'Alene. We waited.

 

Last Tuesday, we checked in on that records request with Spokane Police. We were told our records were ready and they were emailed to me early Wednesday morning. We looked through the report, which raised questions about the validity of the hate crime. It mentioned that the package did not go through the regular mail and that someone with a key must have placed it. The report – and, kxly4 – never said Dolezal was responsible. It simply showed that there wasn't enough to pursue any more leads.

 

We knew we had a story about the hate crime report and needed to hear from Dolezal. KXLY4 senior reporter Jeff Humphrey called every listed number, sent her an email and finally went to her home and relayed to a teenage boy that we needed her comment on a story.

 

In the course of preparing that story, Humphrey heard from a trusted source that there was more to Dolezal's story. Specifically, that Dolezal had been lying about her race and misleading her employers, the city of Spokane, her students and the community. Humphrey reached out to her parents in Montana – on a phone number found through a simple search – and, they confirmed what the source had said: Dolezal is a white woman, born to white parents, with childhood photos and the birth certificate to prove it."

[EmseB]

It's all over the place.

 

Oh, there is an undeniable sense of glee from some commentators that this story somehow 'catches out' progressives. Gosh, even in this thread....

 

Well, yes, and people in the Duggar thread were feeling the same way about progressives being gleeful over the Duggars being taken down a notch which was quickly rebutted with a lot of "well, I never!".  I didn't see much "glee" in either thread (and it's hard to tell what you're referencing without direct quotes), but I do think there is a tendency to use any given situation to prove a point no matter which "side" one is on.  Then again, I think it's generally okay to examine one's positions on certain issues and apply the logical conclusions to such positions to other issues and make sure there is consistency within one's own worldview.  And I think it's okay to argue and for someone (even someone with an agenda) to say, "If you believe x, then what about y?".  Although I do know it is hard not to take that sort of thing personally.

[idnib]

:iagree:  I see no reason to extend the drama and wonder by "No Comment."  There's nothing at all wrong with the simple truth.  They certainly aren't dragging her through anything, but I can't say the same about what she's doing to them.

 

And if she didn't draw pics of herself brown when she was young, I see no problem answering a question like that truthfully either.

 

One of the people I know who are from a similar mold claim they never had birthday parties growing up... except I was AT some of those birthday parties that never happened and there are pictures (on film) of them.  Should the parents claim those don't exist?

 

The other claims they never went anywhere or did anything fun - except we were young together and went some of these "nowhere" places together doing plenty of fun things.  Should the parents in this case deny reality too?

 

There are other claims from both, but those two have absolute proof to me.  Nonetheless, it doesn't stop the lies.

 

Telling the truth (if asked) is far better than letting anyone continue the lies IMO.  If no one asks, it doesn't really matter to anyone, but once someone does, it all changes.  To me, "No Comment" would mean I agree with what she's been saying.  It's sort of like pleading the 5th in court.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree then.  :)  I don't think declining to comment is the same as denying, esp to the media. If I had a problem in my family, I'd prefer to handle it through legal channels, therapy, the court system, etc. but I would do whatever I could to minimize the media's knowledge. Making it clear you don't want your private mess aired out in the nightly news is not the same as saying it didn't happen.

 

If my child or someone I cared about said there were no parties or we never went anywhere fun, I would probably drag out the pictures as proof. If I opened the door and a random news reporter was on the porch saying my daughter said we didn't have parties and asking if we did, I simply wouldn't feel any obligation to them or the public's curiosity. Shrug.

 

I don't find anything wrong with pleading the 5th in court or keeping silent until you get a chance to consult an attorney. These are constitutional rights. I took issue with the "Well the media appeared, what else could they do?" question upthread. They may decide to do whatever they want, but to act as if the media had arrived and there was no choice but to answer their questions is strange to me. There's always a right to not answer questions from the local reporter.

 

Frankly I'm more concerned that people in this thread think that if someone is exercising their rights to remain silent (under arrest of taking the 5th in court) or not answering questions posed from the press, that means they are hiding something or in cahoots. 

[maize]

Here is an article by the reporter who "broke" the story with a timeline of when and a bit of why.

 

http://www.kxly.com/news/spokane-news/rachel-dolezal-the-story-behind-the-story/33608002

 

 

This stood out to me from the article:

 

So, why does it matter? Our community was misled. We trusted this voice to speak for those without a voice. We trusted her to teach our students. We stood by her when she said she and her family were targeted and afraid. We rallied alongside Dolezal and her family in front of city hall, with community members carrying signs of support. We're a trusting community and she broke that trust. At best, our community will continue to support the causes for which Dolezal once advocated. At worst, people will be less likely to trust and support the minority community and believe in the very noble cause of advancing civil rights in the Inland Northwest

[creekland]

We'll just have to agree to disagree then.  :)

...

Frankly I'm more concerned that people in this thread think that if someone is exercising their rights to remain silent (under arrest of taking the 5th in court) or not answering questions posed from the press, that means they are hiding something or in cahoots. 

 

No problem on my end agreeing to disagree.  ;)

 

And just FTR, I don't think remaining silent until one gets to talk with a lawyer is taken anywhere near the same way as pleading the 5th (which by definition says "nor shall any person ... be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"), so by using it, it is pretty normal for others to conclude what they would say would be against themselves.  They would say things to support their innocence.  They are supposed to say things to support their innocence.

[Jean in Newcastle]

And then there is this:

 

http://www.kxly.com/news/spokane-news/condon-stuckart-call-for-dolezals-immediate-resignation/33635198

Yup.  Just heard this on the news.  This implicates her in misconduct that has nothing to do with her perceived race (though she got on the commission I think partly because of her position at NAACP, though don't quote me on that).  

[ErinE]

Well they could, because public records speak much more loudly than personal denials. "The parents listed on the birth certificate, Mr. and Mrs. X, declined to comment." Am I missing some obligation on the part of the parents to answer the media's questions?

She may the Dolezals' daughter, but she is an adult. I can easily see her parents thinking she needs to take responsibility for her actions.

 

Stepping into the parents' shoes:

 

Your adult daughter has lied about her history, her culture, and her relatives. She's lied about hate crimes. She has given media interviews where she has said you (the parents) beat the children according to skin color, with a switch used on baboons, because you lived in South Africa.

 

You live in a small town. Likely, many people know she is your child. But you haven't said anything because you want to keep things private. Now, your adult daughter is supporting allegations against your adult son, by another child who you believe has RAD. At the time the alleged abuse occurred, you know your son was not around often, and you were diligent watching the younger child, because of the behaviors associated with RAD. Your son is being tried in criminal court over these allegations. There is a risk he could go to jail.

 

Your adult daughter is a liar, and your son could go to jail. The media calls and asks a simple question: is your daughter black?

 

By answering, you expose her, to the media, as the liar you know her to be. You perhaps help your son in his trial by exposing her as a liar. What do you do?

 

********

 

This is all hypothetical, and told from the POV of the parents. I make no assumptions about the accused son's innocence or guilt. I make no assumptions about the parents' alleged abuse.

 

All I know is that one person in this whole mess has been shown to be a liar. I'm surprised that so many people are defending her in the other allegations she's making.

 

ETA: And I'm surprised some are criticizing the parents for the choice they made. They didn't seek out the initial contact and I would expect all follow up interviews came from the media, not the parents.

[idnib]

She may the Dolezals' daughter, but she is an adult. I can easily see her parents thinking she needs to take responsibility for her actions.

 

Stepping into the parents' shoes:

 

Your adult daughter has lied about her history, her culture, and her relatives. She's lied about hate crimes. She has given media interviews where she has said you (the parents) beat the children according to skin color, with a switch used on baboons, because you lived in South Africa.

 

You live in a small town. Likely, many people know she is your child. But you haven't said anything because you want to keep things private. Now, your adult daughter is supporting allegations against your adult son, by another child who you believe has RAD. At the time the alleged abuse occurred, you know your son was not around often, and you were diligent watching the younger child, because of the behaviors associated with RAD. Your son is being tried in criminal court over these allegations. There is a risk he could go to jail.

 

Your adult daughter is a liar, and your son could go to jail. The media calls and asks a simple question: is your daughter black?

 

By answering, you expose her, to the media, as the liar you know her to be. You perhaps help your son in his trial by exposing her as a liar. What do you do?

 

I understand what you're saying and certainly a case could be made. I'm just talking about what I would do.

 

I have certain principles about what I say to whom and I would follow them. It's always the people who talk to the police or the press without a lawyer or press representative who create headaches for those same people later. Personally, I would not be surprised if this ends up in court somehow and I would keep my mouth shut in the meantime. Let it all come out, but not through me. The press can ask the neighbors or former teachers or childhood friends. I'm confident it would have come out that she's not black whether her parents had said anything or not.

 

I would absolutely go to criminal court in my son's case and testify there or submit a letter to the judge about my daughter's deception; I already said I would pursue legal channels and work through the courts, law enforcement, etc. My court testimony would probably get out in the media and I would be fine with that if it's legal and I think it is in most states.

[zoobie]

We'll just have to agree to disagree then. :) I don't think declining to comment is the same as denying, esp to the media. If I had a problem in my family, I'd prefer to handle it through legal channels, therapy, the court system, etc. but I would do whatever I could to minimize the media's knowledge. Making it clear you don't want your private mess aired out in the nightly news is not the same as saying it didn't happen.

 

If my child or someone I cared about said there were no parties or we never went anywhere fun, I would probably drag out the pictures as proof. If I opened the door and a random news reporter was on the porch saying my daughter said we didn't have parties and asking if we did, I simply wouldn't feel any obligation to them or the public's curiosity. Shrug.

 

I don't find anything wrong with pleading the 5th in court or keeping silent until you get a chance to consult an attorney. These are constitutional rights. I took issue with the "Well the media appeared, what else could they do?" question upthread. They may decide to do whatever they want, but to act as if the media had arrived and there was no choice but to answer their questions is strange to me. There's always a right to not answer questions from the local reporter.

 

Frankly I'm more concerned that people in this thread think that if someone is exercising their rights to remain silent (under arrest of taking the 5th in court) or not answering questions posed from the press, that means they are hiding something or in cahoots.

5th amendment covers criminal cases only. You can plead the 5th in a civil case so as not to incriminate yourself, but it is taken as a civil admission.

 

I agree that a private citizen should have the right not to speak to the press, but saying "no comment" usually is taken as an admission of some sort. Maybe her parents didn't want people to think they were a party to her shenanigans. They have the right to speak up for themselves.

[Cammie]

I am trying to see this story from multiple sides.

 

I have "passed" as Indian in a few situations here in India where being seen as Indian meant I could go someplace with my family without additional hoops to jump through.  I didn't affirmatively lie, but I pulled a sari over my lighter color hair and kept my blue eyes downcast.

 

Did I somehow unintentionally offend the entire notion of Indianness when I did that?  I didn't think so at the time.

 

Is it cultural appropriation when white people do yoga?  When they drink chai?

 

Or when they have dreadlocks (my brother has had them for 25 years, identifies with the Rastafarian community on many issues, and is undeniably white.)

 

OBVIOUSLY all her lying was wrong, terrible, very very bad.

 

But I am more interested in the reaction to how she chose to live her life.  Who she chose to associate with.  What she chose to study.  The causes she chose to dedicate her life to.

 

I have a degree in South Asian Studies.  I could easily have continued on to be a professor in Indian Studies.  I speak an Indian language.  I have been involved in numerous South Asian advocacy groups.  I even have a nose ring.  I'm white.

 

I have an Indian husband.  I have two children who clearly look more Indian than not Indian.

 

People seem equally upset by the cultural, appearance, professional choices she made than by the lies she told.

 

Is it not possible that people can feel more "at home" in a culture other than the one they are born into?  Is it wrong to say that there is an African-American culture that has a strong pull for many people? 

 

I'm really just thinking out loud because I struggle with the concept of cultural appropriation - knowing what it means and the boundaries of it.  What is appropriation and what is appreciation?  What characteristics can only be assumed by people born into that particular culture and what characteristics can be adopted by others without causing offence?

 

 

 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Well, yes, and people in the Duggar thread were feeling the same way about progressives being gleeful over the Duggars being taken down a notch which was quickly rebutted with a lot of "well, I never!".  I didn't see much "glee" in either thread (and it's hard to tell what you're referencing without direct quotes), but I do think there is a tendency to use any given situation to prove a point no matter which "side" one is on.  Then again, I think it's generally okay to examine one's positions on certain issues and apply the logical conclusions to such positions to other issues and make sure there is consistency within one's own worldview.  And I think it's okay to argue and for someone (even someone with an agenda) to say, "If you believe x, then what about y?".  Although I do know it is hard not to take that sort of thing personally.

 

No one in the Duggar threads was gleeful, despite the repeated sick accusations to the contrary.