Well, he we are on Thursday of a week when the Trumpet announced days ago that the "Underwear Thief" has been apprehended. The article does not identify the alleged culprit by name, but Chief of Security John Meyers is quoted as saying, in effect, "it's not someone you'd imagine would being doing such a thing." Which naturally leads me to wonder: who among the students I've had in the past two or three years is someone I'd not be surprised to discover was the perpetrator? And, why is the community so steadfastly committed to keeping anonymous the identity of an individual alleged to have stolen some 350 or so pairs of (mostly women's) underwear? It may be admirable that the journalists who broke this story were protecting sources, i.e., persons who, if identified, would be put at risk of retaliation and persecution by vigilantes in the community who regard panty thefts on a par with felonious assault. But is that really a prospect?
Is it really violating an unwritten ethical obligation -- or a legal coda -- to publicly name the accused perpetrator? If so, why? For fear of embarrassment--of the perpetrator and/or the identifier? I know that we are confronted with a host of heavy issues and dilemmas on this blog, but we're also members of a committed colony of behavioral scientists and, well, we're confronted here with a case of unusual, perhaps disturbed, behavior. Not knowing the accused's identity makes it hard to speculate on whether this is an instance of unusual behavior rooted in dispositional eccentricities or even more eccentric environmental pressures. Moreover, don't innocent members of the community have a right to know if and when and who when it has been determined that a particular member of the same community poses a threat to their intimate apparel's safety?
Inquiring minds may or may not want to know.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Knowing who the underwear thief would be great. Everytime I go into a laundry room nowadays I am suspicious of the people who are around me. Disclosing the persons identity might lead to ridicule of his person, but it would be fair to those who have been outed by the trumpet in the past. Protecting this persons identity only because he somebody we would not expect, shows that there is no fairness in the system. Is he above all those who have been exposed in the past?
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Fadima. Everyone in the world knows the identity of the "Underwear Bomber," but for some reason the identity of the "Underwear Thief" is held like a state secret. If anyone on this blog knows the identity of this person, but is afraid to "out" him or her -- yes, it could be a woman -- then drop your info on Wikileaks. There's a place for whistleblowers to preserve their own anonymity while exposing information that the public has a right to know!
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with Fadima. They are showing no fairness at all to previous cases. Earlier last year when some people got caught for stealing from cars they were named in the Trumpet. If they are going to make some people stigmatized...they might as well be consistent!
ReplyDeleteNow, here's some gossip. I have heard this individual also stole band dresses from the FAC, and I have heard this individual tried selling it on E-Bay... I have tried to figure out some reason not to judge this individual, but its tough to say the least. I have pondered, maybe this individual was trying to pay for college...but there is always one fact that ruins every logical reasoning i come up with... The person stole 350 pairs of underwear.
Not to beat a dead horse, but I heard there is an E-Bay Type market for "used" underwear. But whether there is or isn't is impertinent. Only four years ago, the starting quarterback for the football team was singled out in the Trumpet by name after allegedly using a derogatory term for a gay sexual orientation in referring to another student. The offended student filed charges and legal action ensued. At no time was there any effort to hide the identity of the student using the offensive language. As a believer in the constitutional right to privacy that many conservative constitutional scholars and judges deny, I cannot imagine a fourth amendment or case-law basis for extending to the accused any legal ground for remaining anonymous. This is a Wartburg "cultural" matter, and I find it strange -- in a way, as strange as the behavior by the person whose identity remains, remarkably, unknown publicly in an environment normally and deservedly regarded as anathema to secrets.
ReplyDeleteHail to the Thief! Or is it the Chief? As an alumnus of Obamadogs, this caught the better of me. I've been asking myself - not just in reference to the "Underwear Thief" but, to a number of cases in society that justice has sought to glorify. It has been cumbersome to define the thin line between morality and fairness.
ReplyDeleteBut, to students of Political Science, or those who've invested their passions in what goes on in society, this shouldn't come as a surprise. The only kind of justice that exists is that which is selective. We are yet to see the kind of justice that fries all of us in the same pan. Maybe in a lifetime of my grand-children. And I still doubt it!
I think the only reason, aside, from the stupid conventional one that defines the practice of journalism unexplained, in the case of the "Innerwear Thief" has everything to do with the make-up of the individual. We are offered a seat in the coveted hall of society's infamy, based on the price of our linen or the kind of car we arrive in. This individual, if one could know who they are, would be in possession, of those traits that Wartburg finds hollistic than what say a foreign person like me would be bringing to this society. Thus, either, like the contemporary society, Wartburg is saving herself face in this matter, or, the face of the individual is "worth saving" - and trust me, that's exactly how society works. No question marks...I rest!
Benson, I think your input is very interesting, and I don't doubt that it might be somewhat accurate. I didn't know quite what to make out of that piece of journalism in the Trumpet. "It is someone you wouldn't expect", what is the point of that when they're not even going to disclose the name? Its just irritating me... But back to it, its interesting to speculate with the idea of the individual's position at Wartburg.
ReplyDeleteI have heard that the reason they can't name the person is because the person didn't get charged with theft...bs?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have been forced by a credible threat to remove the previous comment. I know that sounds utterly fantastic, but then so does the idea that someone who happened to walk off without permission with some 350 pairs of someone else's underwear would not be charged with theft.
ReplyDeleteIt is indeed unfair as the "laptop snatchers" were outed on the Trumpet too. Maybe the administration is afraid of losing money being put into the system by this individual.
ReplyDeleteIt is my feeling (with the help of my sources who happen to be high on the food chain) that this instance is a bit different than aforementioned times when students were "outed" in the Trumpet.
ReplyDeleteIn the car thief instance, reporters from the Trumpet secured the names from the Waverly newspaper. Due to the charges that were filed with the Waverly Police by people who were the victims of the crime, the names were printed in the police blog of the paper as a public record.
The same is true in the laptop instance, there were charges filed within Bremer County, at the request of the victims, so the names appeared in the paper.
In the "football incident" the victim chose to tell many people on campus about the incident that happened to him and who did it. When the buzz was going around campus, the victim was contacted by the Trumpet for a confirmation of the person causing assault, and it was listed as "X person" allegedly assaulted... etc.
In this instance, as far as we know, no one witnessed the "underwear thief" in action, so know one knows who this person is. The individuals who had their clothing stolen were notified that their belongings had been retrieved, but were not told who the thief was. This is why there has been no name, because students contacted by our on campus media do not know who it was. If there are students who know, they have not disclosed that information to the media and that is why the secret remains secret. It is obvious that the college would not send out this student's name in a "Wartburg Alert" message for confidentiality reasons. However, I am told that the individual is receiving counseling.
I had to visit the Security Office today searching for my lost glasses, which indeed were there as was Chief of Security John Meyers, who shared a few aspects of this case on how the "clothing thief" was apprehended over the Christmas break, and thus not in full view of student witnesses. He also made it clear that he is "expected" to not identify this person or risk losing his job as Chief of Security. I mentioned my concern about the college's liability if the thief's disturbance graduates to stalking or more threatening forms of behavior, a view for which he seemed to have some sympathy. In all, my impression is that those sources higher up on the food chain that Trevor refers to do not want this person's identity disclosed. Whether that's be best judgment rmaiins unknown; that it is the operating deicion of powers that be at WC is not under dispute.
ReplyDelete