The incident is described very well in print in today's edition of the News-Times. Apparently, the operations manager of Ives Park found the noose while inspecting the grandstand, where concerts and other performances are given frequently in the summer months. No other evidence of criminal activity was found.
University officials speculated that the incident might be linked to an alleged burglary several weeks ago in Ives Park, though it is unclear what the basis for this speculation is, and discussed the noose incident in connection with a prior bias incident in which a Swastika was found etched by a finger on the dew-covered side window of a car in the WestConn parking lot.
The University Administration was quick to issue a appropriate and timely statement condemning the perpetrators who had left the noose. In a memo to the campus community, President Schmotter emphasized that "symbols of hate and bias are not tolerated at WCSU." His statement recalled the swastika incident, noting that the "perpetrators" of that act were "apprehended and disciplined."
In general, this statement seems appropriate. There is no question that in many cases the hanging of a noose is an act of deliberate racial bias and is a painful reminder that lynchings, Klan rallies, and other acts of hate may not only be a legacy of America's troubled racial past but also a fundamental part of our present culture.
Yet in addition to condemning these incidents, we also need to inquire into what they might mean. We may jump to conclusions about incidents of potential bias, conclusions that are not helpful in understanding their causes and preventing these incidents in the future. The circumstances behind these incidents may surprise us at times. For example, it might astonish some that the victim of the swastika incident was not Jewish, nor was this person perceived to be Jewish by the perpetrators.
The noose found in Ives Concert Park may well turn out to be more complex than it originally appears as well. First of all, this incident can be clearly distinguished from the more famous 2007 incident at Columbia University in which someone tied a noose to the door of Teachers College professor Madonna Constantine (who--in a possibly unrelated incident--was fired for plagiarism the next year). It also differs from the very public hanging of nooses on a tree in Jena, Louisiana by white students who objected to the fact that black students were deciding to sit in a spot that was "theirs." In both of these two prior cases, the nooses in question had a specific, and very public target, and the meaning of their hangings could not have been lost on their communities.
But a noose found on the stage of Ives Concert Park in the spring is different. Those not familiar with WestConn's Westside campus might be unaware that Ives Concert Park is essentially closed off at this time of year. Walking down the main path to the park, visitors would encounter a white gate closed off with a "no trespassing" sign on it. Of course, this does not stop the occasional member of the local community from walking their dog through Ives Concert Park in the winter and spring. In essence, however, the "park" is in fact a desolate forest, disconnected and far removed from the WestConn campus at large.
The isolation of Ives Concert Park this time of year raises a critical question: why would someone hang a noose in a place where it would not be seen by anyone for weeks, and then only by a groundskeeper who is white? Who would commit a bias crime in the middle of nowhere, hanging a noose that no one is likely to see and that was directed at no person in particular?
Of course, the fact that the noose was found in an obscure and remote closed-off area does not eliminate the possibility that the intent of the noose hanging was to commit a hate crime. After all, there is always the remote possibility that a hate organization is operating in or around Westconn and that they held a secret meeting in Ives Concert Park that included a noose.
It's also possible that the noose may have an explanation that some might consider innocuous. Consider for example, the possibility that a drama club was rehearsing a play that included a discussion of lynching on the stage of Ives Concert Park, or that the noose was a prop left over from some earlier dramatic performance staged at the park. Any number of dramatic performances, such as Ten Perfect or Minstrel Show, include depictions of lynchings in order to expose the horrors of American racism, and these performances include the use of nooses. This possibility, however, also seems unlikely.
The most likely explanation for the noose hanging in Ives Concert Park is that its display was a prank performed either by local high school students or perhaps a younger student at WestConn, a prank that was meant not primarily to display bias but to do something on a dare that was perceived of as "dangerous" or "illegal." Certainly the fact that WestConn's earlier swastika incident was essentially a case of such a prank lends credence to this theory. Additionally, this explanation explains why the crime had no apparent intended victim. Perhaps the perpetrators chose Ives Concert Park because, although they wanted to do something that was forbidden, they did not want to be caught doing it.
However, when examined in this light, the publicity generated by the response of President Schmotter, the campus administration, and the local media suddenly looks like it might be very unproductive indeed. If the purpose of the incident was to do something scurrilous, then publicizing a condemnation of the event and having every member of the local media announcing the event will only encourage such acts to continue, since the perpetrators will know that their act will attract attention. One would be remiss to forget that the publicizing of Professor Constantine's noose led to dozen of copycat acts throughout the country, leading to a considerable amount suffering that could have been avoided but for the media frenzy. Blanket, highly publicized condemnations such as President Schmotter's may well contribute to these acts being committed, rather than to deterring them.
Of course, even if the incident is not based on racial intent, there is no question that the perpetrators need serious punishment anyway because of the kind of wounds that are opened and the atmosphere of fear that is created by each one of these incidents. I wonder, however, whether such an investigation should be so heavily publicized before we know the results.
This episode may provide an interesting test of a 2008 Connecticut law that makes the hanging of a noose in a public place a crime punishable by imprisonment of up to a year. Clearly, depending on the situation, this law may well be too overbroad to withstand First Amendment scrutiny.
In any case, as a campus, we need to do a better job of trying to understand both the situation that gives rise to these kinds of acts and the way to best prevent them in the future.
