I didn’t actually see this happen. It took place several months or years before I got there, but the students and faculty were still talking about it. A boy named Bobby walked into Professor Candy’s Psychology class shortly after it began that day. “Ah, there you are! I thought I could find you here,” he shouted. “You gave me an ‘F’ on my term paper! Well, revenge is so sweet! You will never give me another ‘F.’” Bobby pulled out a gun and shot Professor Candy twice. Meantime the professor had reached into a drawer of his desk and pulled out a gun and shot Bobby three times. Both men collapsed and sprawled on the floor. Five men opened the door and came in. Four of them carried off the bodies. The fifth was one of the other Psychology professors, and he took over the class. Up to this point in time the stunned students did not know that both guns were loaded with blanks. It was all a theatrical performance.

“Take out two or three sheets of paper,” the substitute professor instructed. “First, write a description of the assailant. What race was he? How tall? How much did he weigh? What color were his hair and eyes? What was he wearing? What did he say? Then tell me exactly what happened.” For the remainder of the class period the students wrote. After their papers were turned in Professor Candy entered and explained that it was an act. Their written accounts would be compared to see how well they had observed, and how accurately they had remembered.

You may have guessed, no two accounts were the same. Nobody was lying. Nobody had a secret axe to grind. It is just that each observer was seeing from a slightly different angle and from a slightly different set of experiences and assumptions. All were telling the truth as they were enabled to see it.

The 21st century race baiters make me sick. If a policeman shoots someone and his account of what happened varies from that of a bystander, he is accused of lying, of trying to protect the “corrupt police department,” and they want him fired or sent to prison. Police rarely lie about these incidents. Of course his account will vary from all the others. The accounts of the others will disagree, also. That is the way humans function. It is rarely a matter of lack of transparency. Deciding who is telling the truth is not a function for a lynch mob. If legal action is contemplated, let a jury of the accused’s peers decide. Otherwise our whole system of justice will be destroyed.

Don’t the race baiters moan and complain about the days of lynch mobs? Then why do they find lynch mobs so handy today? Why do they work so hard to create them?