Westmont Says Its Students Cleared of Tea Fire Wrongdoing

I am pleased to hear that Westmont wasn't involved. We now can wait without such condemnation, for the announcement indicating who was responsible. Knowing the kind of Institution Westmont has been in our community so far, they won't have the same "revenge" based response that many posters did when they were ready to convict Westmont. I'm certain that Westmont College will continue to respond with maturity and genuine concern.

From the article above:

"...He [Drew Sugars} emphasized that department officials have never said that students from Westmont, or any school for that matter, had been implicated..."

Maybe he ought to check with his boss, who was quoted in yesterday's article "Tea Fire Cause is Determined" as follows:

"...Brown also described them as all coming from one school and being cooperative with investigators..."

The SBCSO knows who they are and they'd spoken with them prior to the press conference.

Ongoing investigation or not, that is certainly an "implication" of the students from "any school"

The silent inference here was damaging to Westmont. Sugar's refusal to comment on (confirming or denying) a direct quote attributed to him by the college president only furthers that damage.

The information from Beebe was not just in an email. It's posted at http://westmont.edu for those who may be interested in reading it.

Color me cynical, but does the photo of Westmont's president need to be a wide smile? How about a more somber expression, given that his college and community was scorched. Who is the editor who matched the happy fellow with the "don't blame us" article?

Did Westmont have any choice but to announce that it was not Westmont students?

For 24 hours there has been thousands of fingers pointing at Westmont students. And attacking the students for any faith belief or political belief they hold. They have been attacked because they do not allow alcohol or co-ed dorms on campus.

While Westmont has suffered the biggest damages and known it was not Westmont students, they have not pointed the finger, but instead of gone to help other in the community, even though many have no home and no belongings.

It would be nice for all those who have attacked the college to now step forward on this blog and show their integrity and apologize.

@Thurston: You may notice that the caption under the picture of Westmont's president notes that is from the Independent's files...meaning it is not a recent picture taken in the last week.

I agree The Independent could have chosen a better picture, but neither Westmont nor its president have any control over the picture the Indy published. Perhaps next time they might be more thoughtful.

stella,

I was the one mentioned the alcohol & dorm policies but it was not an attack! Re read my posting. I was just pointing out that, due to these policies, *some* Westmont kids (who are after all, kids) do drink, smoke, and socialize in the adjacent neighborhoods, and thus they do need to be educated about fire safety. How is this an attack?

Did anyone notice Beebe's mention of "no current Westmont students?" Does this mean that this are recent graduates or dropouts or were they expelled last Friday morning???

It was a Mensa meeting gone wild!

LWH16

You weren't alone in "mentioning" the alcohol & dorm policies, but your posts, taken as a whole took every opportunity to criticize the school for not controlling the students...your central theme.

You made an observation that would (at least) imply that you felt that there were some (political??) shenanigans involved in NOT identifying the students involved as being Westmont students (when it now appears that, perhaps, the inverse is the case)

Your words, posted on the other article...

" It's hard to think of a plausible reason that a CC or Brooks or UCSB affiliation would be withheld, whereas it's very easy to imagine why a Westmont affiliation would be withheld."

Your further criticism is laughable...

"Why wouldn't Westmont safety officers patrol the Tea Garden, if it was a well known party spot?"

Well, for starters, it's not Westmont property, nor is it contiguous to Westmont property. I daresay you'd be in high dudgeon if "Westmont safety officers" decided to "drop in" at your place now and then to make sure that there were no Westmont students enjoying themselves there (illegally).

I'm not being critical of the owners of the Tea Garden here, but, plainly and simply, it's been what falls in the category of an "attractive nuisance" for decades. If anybody is responsible for keeping track of what goes on up there, it's the owners and local law enforcement, not the Westmont safety officers. The "trespass" on that property has elevated to the level of what we (in Texas) call "open & notorious use". I suspect, however, that will no longer be the case.

In any case, you've repeatedly turned the discussion of the reporting of the events leading up to this fire into your own personal forum to promulgate unceasing criticism of Westmont College.

I agree with previous posts--this picture of Westmont president is a "file" photo. The Independent is responsible for implying he is in "good cheer," not Beebe himself.

The Arches in the Tea Garden is a popular spot for many, many young adults in SB. Having lived in SB since 1989, I have friends from all parts of SB and it's not unheard of to have UCSB students, Brooks College students, City College students, etc at the Arches. When you're in town for other activites, it's only a short drive to get an amazing view of the city. Trespassing? Absolutely but do young adults always think of such things???Unfortunately not. I am glad Westmont students were not involved. I feel bad for those who were--what a terrible accident.

I noticed how no one from the previous article RE: the Tea Fire cause is commenting.

I guess it is time for the Westmont faculty, staff, and students to grieve in peace...

Peace that has always been provided to their neighbors and community members.

This all seems fishy to me...wait to give your lectures on integrity and apologies until the public receives the official press release, with FULL details, from the SB Sherrifs Dept.

gml -

Read my earlier post on the first story. Very clearly I talked of integrity and apologies. Take a look at what I wrote at 11 am today:

Stella wrote:

Sheriff Brown is a wise man.

As exhibited here, there are those who are willing to jump to a conclusion, or worse to create a conclusion to forward a personal hate about a person or a group of people.

Lets say these are Westmont students, I read here that because they might have voted in favor of Prop 8, and because they are from out of town, the college campus should be sold to pay the victims.

What if it is not Westmont? What if it was the UCSB Gay and Lesbian Club? Should UCSB be sold to pay the victims?

Westmont as a College and the faculty have been hit maybe the hardest by this fire, and if it is caused by another group, how will Westmont respond?

Will Westmont attack them because they may voted differently at some time on some issue?

Will Westmont and those faculty who have lost everything demand - those in any way related to those who started the fire be forced to sell and give them money?

I doubt it. I think Westmont after all the pain and cost, will forgive.

Maybe Westmont is in our community for a reason. Maybe we can learn forgiveness and integrity from these young men and young women.

And maybe we can see the extreme sharp contrast to those who hate Westmont no matter what and Westmont and their students and then determine who do we want as a neighbor at a time of trouble or who we want around when we make a mistake or need a helping hand.

For me the answer is clear. I will pick Westmont, they are a bright light in a community obsessed with wealth and selfishness.

Time to back off, wait for the truth and then there are many on this blog who need to apologize if what most know that it was not Westmont students.

Will you?

________________________________________
gml - - - - You have been horribly abusive to Westmont - this what you have said:

"Obviously, these were 10 oblivious Westmont students with no regard or knowledge of the community around them. It was not intentional, but the degree of stupidity and negligence is unbelievable and deeply saddening. To me, this terrible event just shows that it is too dangerous to have a bunch of "college kids" living the time of their lives amidst residential neighborhoods and Santa Barbara landmarks. Westmont is, to some degree, responsible." gml
_______________________

So gml when this is done and confirmed we will see your apology?

As a Westmont graduate, I am of course relieved to hear that the recent fire was not started by Westmont students. Our community (in Montecito, and alumni and parents scattered around the country) has been mourning for the campus and surrounding area since Thursday evening. Just as so many in Montecito and Santa Barbara feel a loss, so do we.

When I first learned of the fire, I hoped this would bring the Montecito community together. For the many who love Westmont students there is a vocal minority who does not. That's okay. We have always, and will continue to, turn the other cheek.

What I hope we all remember is that no matter who started that fire, they did not intend to. That fact has already been determined. It was an accident. And I guarantee you, 1,200 Westmont students will be the very first to forgive whoever did start that fire.

We've all made dumb mistakes. Some of us have made horrific mistakes. We're human. I'm grateful for a God and community who forgives.

jrb/stella:

You guys need to take a few english classes (maybe at Westmont!) because you tend to quote out of context.

What I *said* was that the way the Sheriff presented the (sketchy) facts made it *seem* that Westmont kids were involved-- it was a very natural assumption given the few details presented, the way they were presented, and the context.

That's not a slam of Westmont, it's stating the obvious. The Sheriff should probably have said "a group of 18-22 year olds, all of whom were SB residents" and left it at that. Saying they were "local" and from "one school" (and leaving the school unnamed) raised eyebrows.

I also prefaced my comments with an "if"-- and even a second "IF"-- because I was not assuming the kids involved were Westmont students. I was just thinking hypothetically.

My comment was that *IF* the kids who lit a campfire were from the school, the school would have *SOME* culpability *IF* they had not done a good orientation that included thorough fire prevention information.

I never called for anyone's head. I agreed with Westmont supporters-- many of whom *also* seemed to wonder, at first, if Westmont students might be involved, and urged tolerance and understanding-- that impulsive kids make dumb mistakes.

Obviously this is a tragic accident, no matter who the "10" are.

LWH16

Never quoted you at all - sorry if it appeared I did. My request is that those who attacked Westmont should apologize. Did not call you out, but maybe you should examine how you responded to this.

It is a tragic mistake by kids, I forgive them no matter who they are . They will suffer enough without us adding to it.

My case since 11 am today has been the hate spewed out at Westmont, never mentioned you at all, only you know your heart.

Okay, I assumed it was me you took offense to because I brought up the booze/dorm rules.

Thanks for clarifying.

1. None of this should be misconstrued as referring to Westmont
2. People are responding with anger & fear because they feel out of control or powerless. This is instructive, not damning. Folks who reply with peaceful/religious rhetoric are also trying to soothe themselves, in an equal & opposite way. Neither approach is superior.
3. Education institutions are political. I worked at SBCC and witnessed them diverting attention from their security guard/rapist incident. While working for law enforcement, I watched UCSB attempt to minimize the Eric Frimpong controversy. At my own college, far away, my life was tossed upside-down by a similar natural disaster. That administration also failed to meet the crisis with integrity. It's an incredibly difficult task, but these educational institutions, like most, have intentionally sought to become surrogate parents. They have pursued parental jurisdiction to varying degrees to increase their authority and leverage on the student body. However, they don't want to be held responsible for their students' negative actions, only their successes. Kind of like alot of parents out there.

The priviledge these students and their school abuse is not a tangible one like wealth but a state of mind. It is a capricious attitude of getting away with whatever you can. Usually this involves much rationalization / justification and attempts to confuse the issue.

ps...and confusion of the issue includes this idea that hatred is being spewed at Westmont. A terrible phrase and frail attempt at martyrdom.

Curious..maybe you should re-read all of the posts before you declare what you say are non specific comments. Comments about "daddy paying for it" and "they probably also voted for prop 8" and using Westmont by name are fairly specific. I'm proud of the positive way in which Westmont is handling this. But hateful comments from the public should be recognized for what they are. And I am not even part of the Westmong community! I'm not sure I could be as gracious as they are being.

@Curious---

If you read through all of the posts at this article and the one preceding it ("Tea Fire Cause is Determined"), I think you'd have to agree that it is inarguable that hatred has been spewed at Westmont by a lot of people.

Read what they wrote. It's not "attempted martyrdom" or a paranoid delusion to draw that conclusion

Any remaining "confusion" is direct result of the way the Sheriff chose to present the information that he gave out in the initial press conference and the subsequent refusal of his Public Information Officer to either verify or deny a quote attributed directly to him (Sugars, not the Sheriff) by the President of Westmont College.

Come ON...What's THAT about anyway? Either the college president is lying...unlikely...or Sugars has taken the position that ..."Oops...this same information WAS public earlier today, but it isn't public now".

Maybe Beebe should have asked for that information in writing and posted a copy of the signed letter. I'm sure it never entered his mind that it might be necessary to do so in order to "prove" his statements to those of you who would continue to attempt to blame this fire on Westmont students and/or administration.

And as for me quoting LWH16 "out of context"...while you're reading, I would invite you to read those posts in full and draw your own conclusions as to the "agenda" there.

Sadly, there are a number of people who, having experienced a loss, have lashed out at every opportunity to lay blame for that loss on an institution which they already disliked/despised/hated or whatever you want to call it...with the sole agenda of bringing others around to their own way of thinking....and some have done so...all the while denying it.

Beyond sad...this is pathetic

jrb,

There is a wide range of sentiment about Westmont in this community. Some people are very fond of the school. Others less so.

I wouldn't say any of it corresponds to "hate"-- but there is certainly some skepticism/bitterness over past events and-- yes-- past misdeeds of the college in promoting ITS "agenda" in the community.

No entity is perfect; Westmont is no exception. Try to be a little more serene about that fact. Yes, Westmont has done good things-- but it has also stepped on toes over the years, and created resentments in the neighborhood and community. This is not something invented by unhinged neighbors, this is simple reality.

I would say that most people in our area, even those who have specific, pointed criticisms of the college, DO understand that there are wonderful aspects to the school as well. All of us in SB have friendships and associations with alumni, staff, students.

I AGREE with you that to accuse the fire-starters of being from Westmont without hard evidence was wrong. Some people went off half-cocked with only sketchy info. That's obviously very upsetting. But many others-- like me-- just raised questions ("what is the college's fire prep orientation? etc) without making any hot headed accusations or assumptions.

Westmont supporters seem to freak out if anyone questions Westmont *on any level*. This position essentially demonizes and judges those who, for any reason, look askance at Westmont-- and I think it's an immature, reductive position.

There's a huge blind spot if supporters think Westmont is so perfect that it has never 'blown it,' never offended or disregarded neighbors, never thrown its weight around over a 50 year history. Come on!

And re prop 8 (which I did not bring up but some others did): this is an institution that forbids homosexuality in its school rules. If you are gay, that is likely to be offensive. It might feel like you are 'hated' by Westmont. You might think Westmont is "against" you. I doubt Westmont hates gay people, but it could be construed that way by someone who is gay. Can't you see that? That's the flip side of the coin.

Supporters of Westmont would do well to understand that *reasonable* people can have resentments or lingering distrust based on their experiences with the school, and that DOES NOT indicate an agenda, or hatred, or any other blanket condemnation of the school as a whole. It's a complicated neighbor relationship and like any complicated relationship-- sibling, marriage-- there will be resentments and disagreements and two sides to all those stories.

Thurston,

There you've gone and embarrassed yourself again.

It's time for your medicine.

Regards to Lovey and Gilligan.

@LWH16

I don't think you'll find anything in any of my posts that is other than "serene", nor will you see anything in any of what I have written (here or on the other thread) which can be construed as representing an opinion that Westmont is "perfect", above reproach, or beyond criticism.

I have not, in any way, promoted Westmont or its policies, nor have I commented on the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the beliefs or actions of any of its students, faculty, or administration.

I HAVE, however, taken issue with the way in which the Sheriff's office handled this press conference and the predictable results of same, as well as the exploitation of the forums by those who have a "bone to pick" with Westmont.

You, in dredging up the entirely irrelevant reference to Proposition 8 (insofar as anything to do with this fire or its cause is concerned), have continued in that vein, even now.

Just as the beliefs of those associated with Westmont are irrelevant here, so are your reasons for taking issue with the school. It doesn't matter WHY you've continued on in this, no matter how you came to arrive at your feelings.

Your posts have served to foment divisiveness and unrest in what should be a time of healing for all concerned.

Um, I brought up prop 8 because you did -- and I used it to illustrate that persecution complexes can flow both ways.

I am not taking issue with the school, and I have not done so.

People should be able to express divergent opinions civilly without being accused of "hate" or "agenda." If any critic, however mild, of any aspect of Westmont College is labeled as having an "agenda" or hating, THAT is divisive.

You brought up my comment about the sheriff office's unfortunate, implication-ridden statement as though it's evidence of me having anti-Westmont agenda, when it was simply stating WHY some neighbors (again, not me) leapt to conclusions. That's why it is out of context.

Relax! Some of us have no agenda!

Lets just say that a large fire struck in your area and your home burned to the ground on A Street and the police statement says that a family from A Street may have caused the fire. A blog starts with some bloggers calling for the eviction of all who live on A Street, one saying "A Street will pay" in a blatantly threatening manner . Other bloggers say A Street was just full of rich spoiled idiots and rant about lawsuits against those fools who lived on A Streets and their relatives. Others rant against the alleged political views of the people on A Street. In this situation- would you say that those who defend people who live on A Street are hyper-sensitive? Regardless of our religious views, can't people see that kicking a victim when it is down is just plain wrong?

LWH16

You have me confused with someone else. I have made no mention, anywhere, at any time, of Proposition 8 (other than in my 8:31 am post of today, above).

My reference to the Sheriff's office and the press conference was not to your posts, but in explanation of my own position (and prior posts on both threads).

As I stated earlier, a review of all of your posts would...well, all I can say is..."res ipsa loquitor" (Latin for "The thing speaks for itself").

I invite you (and anyone else) to do so and draw your own conclusions as to "agenda" or lack thereof.

I was stating that none of MY comments should be misconstrued as referring specifically to Westmont. Obviously other folks have been.
This is not a holy war. It is people who are hurt and angry & need not escalate beyond that.
The sheriff's department has not been straightforward and another institution, perhaps, is letting Westmont bear the brunt of the publics' anger. This is a poor model of integrity for young people.

jrb

I apologize for attributing prop 8 comments to you that were not yours.

I'm perfectly happy for people to read all my comments and draw their own conclusions. Good idea.

Did everyone just see the press release on msnbc.com at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27824470/ that says the students are from Santa Barbara City College? I am glad that Westmont was not involved because so many rushed to judgement. In any case, these SBCC kids just made a mistake that I am sure is devastating them. Thank God I am not 18-22 any more.

Just wanted to clarify a point....

I'm a Westmont student and I think it's important that everyone know that we are all educated in fire safety and the high level of fire danger in our area. There is no smoking allowed on campus which has nothing to do with how the college feels about the act of smoking, but is completely due to the issue of how easy fires start in the dry area surrounding Westmont. Every student is aware of this fact and understands that a bonfire on campus or even up near the arches (Tea Gardens) would be very dangerous.

Thanks.

By the way, many universities and college campuses have a no smoking policy. Westmont students start out as teenagers. They are not white trash. Generally classy kids, though they may seem loopy with the religious hugging and sing-alongs.