Mysteries of UC San Diego: The Pillow Case-and-Rose Atrocity, the Disappeared "Follow-Up," and the Non-Existent "Task Force"
Print Friendly and PDF

As part of my now over one month-long investigation into mushrooming allegations of “hate crimes” victimizing black college students all over the country since January, I conducted a series of interviews regarding the site most exhaustively covered by the MSM, UC San Diego (UCSD). At least four “hate crimes” were alleged to have been committed at UCSD, the campus police department has been heavily involved, and there has been much talk by the school and law enforcement of “aggressive police investigations,” possible criminal charges, and “possible hate crimes.” However, aside from a noose that was found in the school’s main library, Geisel Library, which a self-described female “minority student” quickly confessed to the school newspaper to having hung, as far as I could determine, none of the “hate crimes” were, in fact, crimes.

After having sent many e-mails, and made many telephone calls to college officials, police, and prosecutors in San Diego, I am still waiting for someone to tell me what law was broken. But if UCSD Chancellor Marye Anne Fox is abusing her authority, in using the UCSD Police Department to pursue racial witch hunts, then laws are most certainly being broken.

Note that when the racist, segregated Black Student Union—whose very existence would appear to be illegal—committed crimes (trespassing and vandalism), and made 32 non-negotiable demands, “to be effective immediately,” of Chancellor Fox on February 19, virtually all of which required that she violate Article I, Sec. 31 of the California State Constitution (better known as Prop. 209), prohibiting public sector affirmative action, instead of having its members arrested and suspended from school, she praised them, acceded to all of their demands, and signed an agreement with the group, which almost certainly had no legal standing to sign any binding contract on behalf of the UCSD student body.

Late in the night of March 1, someone found a pillow case with a hand-drawn symbol supposedly characteristic of the KKK covering the statue of Theodore Geisel (Dr. Seuss) outside the eponymous, main school library, and a rose placed in the statue’s fingers.

The UCSD PD immediately began employing “fingerprint and DNA analysis,” in order to determine who the dangerous pillowcaser-and-roser was.

In the following interview, conducted on March 19, I sought to find out from Christine Clark, who is UCSD assistant manager of Marketing & Communication, and also responsible for information on Parent and Family Programs and Student Affairs, just what laws the malefactor behind the Pillow Case-and-Rose Atrocity had broken.

Christine Clark: This is Christine.

Nicholas Stix: Hello, Ms. Clark? This is Nicholas Stix calling, I’m a freelance journalist in New York.

CC: Yes.

NS: I’m calling about the incident at the Geisel Library with the KKK hood that was hung on the Dr. Seuss statue.

CC: Um, yes.

NS: The March 2? I have a story in front of me from The Guardian by Angela Chen from that day, where it says—it doesn’t quote you directly—but it says that both “Director of Library Communications Dolores Davies and Assistant Manager of University Communications Christine Clark said the planting of the hood is being treated as a crime, and all those responsible will be punished under the law.” Now, is that an accurate—it’s not in quotes, it doesn’t have either of you saying X, Y, Z in quotes, but is that an accurate rendition of what you said?

CC: Uh, sort of, yeah, I [unclear] that comes from a statement, so I would look at the statement that was put out by the university.

NS: Is that at your Web site?

CC: Yeah, I think, there UCSD ...go to Battle Hate UCSD edu, and that’s where you’ll find all the information on ...[reads aloud] ”university response’...You go to University Response. I know the statement on [trails off] think follow-up statement. Yeah, I would go to, it’s on the home page, Battle Hate, and it said read “A Follow-Up Statement from Chancellor Fox on Friday’s Event.” That was the statement, in regards to that incident.

NS: [The statement Clark cited referred to the February 25 noose incident, and had nothing to say about the Pillow Case-and-Rose Atrocity.] Because I’m trying to determine, I understand that the noose violated California law AB 412 [correction: Section 11411 (a) of the California Penal Code], but I’m trying to find someone who can tell me what law the hood...

CC: Well, it’s under, I know it’s, the investigation is underway, so, that’s all I know, the investigation is underway.

[Cross talk.]

I’m not a lawyer.

NS: I know, but if there’s no crime, there shouldn’t be an investigation. And if there is a crime, then there has to be a statute that was violated.

CC: Well, I, I mean, I, the only information I can give you is in the statement [which gives no information about the instant case]. That is the only information that I have. I’m not in the task force that’s investigating the crime.

NS: When you say “Task Force”...

CC: I know that they’re investigating what was violated, etc., etc., so.

NS: When you refer to the task force, who, what

CC: No, I’m not saying Task Force, I’m saying that the UCSD Police. Campus Police Department.

NS: Thank you so much for your time.

Apparently, there is a rule somewhere, whereby journalists aren’t supposed to transcribe an interviewee’s every hem and haw, unless, that is, the interviewer is a lefty, and the interviewee is a “fascist” (i.e., non-lefty). I actually left out some of Christine Clark’s stop-and-start speech patterns, but left most of them in, because I see them as indicative not of stupidity or inarticulateness, but of evasiveness. She was intent on stopping short of answering any of my questions, some of which she was probably hearing for the first time. And who is on the mysterious, non-existent Task Force to which Clark, in her one slip of the tongue, referred?

I finally found a statement similar to the one to which Clark referred, mixed in the pack, on the “What We are Doing” page of Chancellor Fox’ personal/official Web site, Battle the Hate.

“UC San Diego police are investigating the discovery about 11 p.m. Monday [March 1] of what appeared to be a white pillowcase that had been crudely fashioned into a KKK-style hood with a hand-drawn symbol. It was placed on a statue outside the main campus library, and a rose was inserted into the statue’s fingers. The items have been removed and the police are processing them for evidence, including fingerprint and DNA analysis. An aggressive police investigation is underway. University officials noted that this incident will be pursued with all of its authority, and individuals who are responsible will be punished to the full extent of the Student Code of Conduct and all applicable laws.”

I then serendipitously stumbled onto a March 2 UCSD press release, containing Chancellor Fox’ response to the Pillow Case-and-Rose Atrocity:

“We will not allow this incident, or any incident, to deter the progress we are making to change and heal our university community. We will not tolerate these despicable actions. We stand in firm solidarity with our students [read: the BSU] and are fully committed to instituting their [the BSU’s] recommendations. We know these changes will make this university a better place and will help us improve our campus climate.”

Aggressive Police Investigation Underway for Individuals Involved with Latest UC San Diego Incident: University stands in firm solidarity with students and is committed to improving campus climate by Judy Piercey, UCSD Press Release, March 2, 2010.

Note that, in contrast to the press release that Christine Clark and The Guardian’s Angela Chen cited, which indirectly quoted both Clark and Dolores Davies, the director of Library Communications, the above passages come from press releases that do nothing of the kind. Thus, the university administration has either sent the press release in question down the memory hole, or dramatically revised it.

I still don’t see any references anywhere to a law that was violated. Do any readers see something that I missed? If no law was broken, then Chancellor Fox is abusing the UCSD PD on behalf of the BSU, in order to racially terrorize, and disenfranchise the school’s white students. She and the UCSD PD appear to be engaged in the simultaneous hyper-policing, regarding whites, and de-policing, regarding blacks, that one increasingly sees in America today, in and out of academia, and in particularly virulent form where the powers that be seek to crush white political dissent.

Update: Wednesday, March 31, 2010, 5 p.m. EST.

Minutes ago, I spoke with Dolores Davies, the director of communications for the UCSD Libraries, who had just returned from vacation. She was so kind as to return a call that I'd made to her at least 12 days ago. There was no blockbuster news, except for her correction of the news reports that whoever had covered the Dr. Seuss statue with a pillow case, had also “inserted a rose” in its fingers. She said that there had initially only been a pillow case on the statue, and that students had later covered the statue with dozens of roses, in response to the pillow case. Thus, the incident was simply a Pillow Case Atrocity, rather than a Pillow Case-and-Rose Atrocity.


Print Friendly and PDF