And another thing: this attitude some people have that it must be racism when a black (or whatever) person is treated badly is counter-productive to the goal of furthering equality and racial harmony. It creates fear when dealing with black people–banks (for example) may feel they must handle black people with kid gloves for fear of being branded as racists.
Isn’t it crazy how everyone’s always proving your points?
But no, I’m not concluding anything. I’m pointing out your assumption. You asked whether he knew the race of the teller, because he said the teller’s reaction sounded racist. You are making the assumption that it can only be racism if we know the teller is white. That Dewey’s point depended on that. And that’s because, to you, the important thing is that white people are always being falsely accused of racism. From the customer’s point of view, though, if he was treated a certain way based on his race, what does he care what the teller is?
Based on my anecdotal experience, the teller was probably not black, and I’m sure that if you had to place a bet on it knowing only what we know, you wouldn’t. But more importantly, there’s no reason to ask the question in the first place, because it doesn’t matter to Dewey’s point. So let’s say the teller was black. What’s your point?
Someone upthread said that this unfortunate guy lost his job over this. Maybe I’m being naive here, but what sort of employer would fire an otherwise fine employee for
a) not coming in for two days, but
b) having a very valid explanation for it afterwards, and proof that it’s not his fault?
Just doesn’t seem very smart from a business perspective. But maybe I can’t wrap my communist German mind around such a pointless firing.
And billfish’s story?
I’ll leave my own experience out of this, since admittedly it too could have been caused by racism. But his story comes close to having the same kind of ending; had he left the bank instead of staying for a couple of hours, he might well have found himself in bracelets.
As I understand it, he was fired not for the two days missed, but the fact that he no longer had a car and was unable to get to work without one.
I was wondering about that too. “Falsely imprisoned” is a damn good excuse to miss a few days of work. I’m positive that my employer wouldn’t fire me over something like that. The only thing that I can think of is that he was high-profile at his job and they didn’t want the stain of his arrest affecting their image.
ETA: Bricker, that makes more sense.
I do not believe “the important thing” is that white people are always being falsely accused of racism. I think the important thing is that some people take any incident where something less than optimal happens to a black person as proof that racism is still prevalent.
And I suppose a black person can be a racist who believes that black people are inherently and irredeemably inferior to at least one other race, but that’s not very likely in my experience. Also, I absolutely would not bet that the teller here was not black–that’s your assumption shining through again.
What is my assumption?
Yes, but the way it is related implies that the the only possible reason for her skepticism was his appearance - and this is clearly not the case.
If my account had lately been closed because I kept writing bad cheques, and I explained to the teller that the large cheque I wanted cashed was a tax benefit from closing on a new home, I wouldn’t assume that her reluctance to accept my statement at face value was because she figured I was too short to be a home-owner, or something like that. In point of fact, it does seem reasonable to express some doubt that someone that you know to have had their account closed with a deficit on it because they were considered a poor risk had soon thereafter turned around a bought a new house.
It does nothing to suggest there was racism, either.
People of all stripes get erroneously arrested with much less reason for suspicion. Buddy who got arrested for paying a bill with a denomination of U.S. banknote which does not enjoy high levels of circulation got arrested on the strength of suspicions that had the tiniest fraction of justification that the suspicions against the gentleman in the OP, yet we don’t look for ulterior motives there.
The fact is that anyone (regardless of ethnicity) otherwise presenting to a financial institution with the history, circumstance, and demands that Mr. Njoku did would likely be suspected of attempting to commit fraud. You try it - set up a bank account somewhere, write enough bad cheques to have your account closed, and then walk back in with a high-value cashiers’ cheque, insist on cash, make a fuss about how long it’s taking and head out the door in about 15 minutes, while calls are being made to confirm the authenticity of the instrument. Then call the next morning to see if you come back in to pick up cash. Nobody is going to have a pleasant experience with this.
This is just going by his own account, which also tells us that the CSR said something looked wrong with the cheque, and that they called for direction on what to do. Clearly, (since he was arrested) everyone involved was confident that he was attempting to commit a felonious fraud. Does it really seem likely to you that they would take the step of involving law enforcement if they didn’t have a reasonable degree of certainty that he was a criminal? Does it really seem more likely to you that everyone involved was comfortable with having him charged with fraud substantially because he was black, rather than (in addition to the considerable amount of circumstantial evidence from Mr. Njoko’s own account which would quite naturally contribute to this conclusion) that some other unfortunate an unprejudiced error persuaded them that it was a definite attempt at fraud?
Suppose, say, that the cheque looked unusual to bank employees because it was for some reason printed on a different type of cheque stock than was typical. (Either new stock just being rolled out, or the cheque printer was loaded with the wrong stock for the purpose, etc.) Teller, according to SOP, calls “Bank Support,” and describes the instrument. Bank Support refers to official documentation and advises the teller what security features she should look for to confirm that the cheque is the genuine article - and these features are not present.
This entirely plausible scenario describes circumstances in which anybody might find themselves in cuffs. Given how much other unfortunately misleading circumstance pointed to fraud, why is it easier to believe that people would expose themselves and their employers to the risk and embarrassment that has blown up in their face because of nothing more tangible than racist feeling than (in addition to all things that would naturally raise suspicions in any bank employee) some additional miscommunication led them to believe that they had confirmation of criminal intent?
They are bank employees. I am inclined to believe that their actions were dictated by very strict SOPs without a lot of room for personal discretion. I find it much more credible that their suspicions were aroused by all the frankly suspicious (if apparently innocent) circumstances, and that procedures they were obliged to follow in order to confirm their suspicions somehow returned a false positive.
It’s probably silly that I feel the need to add (based on some other assertions I’ve seen here) that I am under no naive illusions about the persistence of racism in contemporary society. However, I don’t think it is reasonable to infer from the information we have about this incident that it is “alive and well in banking” or even at Chase Manhattan - because this looks like a mistake which might happen to anyone, owing to unfortunate appearances unrelated to race, inadvisable behaviour, and (in all probability) an unfortunate SNAFU with the security SOPs.
You are assuming that he was treated the way he was because of his race.
Yeah but if he comes in on Tuesday and says “Sorry I was in jail all weekend for bad checks. But it wasn’t really my fault, honest.” then 9 out of 10 bosses are going to think he’s full of it. And if he’s hasn’t been on the job long, or he’s working an hourly-wage type position where they can always find someone else, then I could see a lot of employers not wanting to find out if this will be a regular pattern. Employment at will and all that.
[QUOTE=Larry Mudd]
It does nothing to suggest there was racism, either.
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t say that it did suggest that. I don’t know if there was racism or not, and I haven’t tried to convince anybody that it was. I certainly don’t think there’s any proof in a news story about it either way.
But it’s not somehow a more legitimate and less knee-jerk reaction to say that we can tell there was no racism involved than to say that it sounds like there was, if we’re going to point to things like that as our proof. Holding up the fact that the bank “discovered an error” as evidence that there was no racism, as Bricker did, is less parsimonious and less rational than looking at the facts and concluding there was a racial influence.
If we’re going to assume there’s no racism involved until we have specific reasons to think there was, that’s one thing, and it’s fair enough. But “look here, they found a mistake. No racism!” is not a compelling response to an argument from somebody who sees it differently.
I’m not sure I understand this story. The details don’t add up.
For example - the guy shows up with a cheque for some $8,000. Fraud suspected, he’s tossed in jail. The next day, the bank discovers its error, but because the detective is off duty, they leave the guy in jail all weekend - okay.
Then, when he gets out, his car’s been towed and he has no money to pay it off - for weeks.
Wait a second - didn’t the bank pay him his $8,000 when they discovered the cheque was not forged, and he was let out?
According to the story, the cheque was seized “as evidence” and thus he lost his car:
Evidence of what? The bank said there was no crime and the cops agreed and let him out of jail. Why could he not get his $8,000 and pay to get his car back?
I’m trying to find anything about whether they gave him the check back or not. It’s not mentioned.
Probably because he had to drive to some middle of nowhere “evidence building” and then pay a 100 dollar “service fee” to get his check 
Oh and show valid ID, which was also still locked up with the check…
Maybe. I just have a hard time believing it. I don’t think he would have.
Everyone was sincerely convinced he was committing felonious fraud, but some of us think that was because of racism. Not “because he’s black, I’m going to make his life miserable,” but an unconscious “this guy is a scammer” because he’s black.
According to one of the articles on this situation, the Auburn Police Department gave the check to him in August, more than a month later.
I don’t know, maybe there aren’t a lot of black folks where you live, but in my experience it does exist (black clerks treating black customers with suspicion, for example). And we have plenty of black bank tellers here too.
If this is true, it is more clear-cut evidence of bad treatment (and possibly discriminatory treatment) than anything else in the story. There is no possible reason I can think of to hold onto the cheque after the bank itself determined that it was legitimate.
OK, I found the cite about not getting the check until August. It’s from the letter to the bank from his attorney.