Why Is Annie Le’s Murder Being Called “Workplace Violence”?
Posted by: Jessica Wakeman
Filed in:
news
10:30AM, Friday September 18th 2009
We’ve been following the story of Annie Le, the Yale grad student who went missing on Sept. 8, days before her impending wedding. Her murder is beyond sad: The body of Le, who was killed by “traumatic asphixia” or strangling, was found inside a wall in the lab where she worked—found on the day she’d planned to marry her fianceé, Jonathan Widawsky, on Long Island. Yesterday, police arrested Yale lab technician, Raymond Clark III, after his DNA matched samples taken from where Le’s body was found and swipe cards proved he had been in lab rooms at the same time as Le. Clark’s bond has been set at $3 million.
Le was not sexually assaulted before her death, the New Haven Police Chief stated yesterday, which is an oddly consoling bit of information. But what I don’t understand is why police are calling it “workplace violence,” which has been referred to in the New York Post as “work rage.” (USA Today referred to it as “workplace violence” as well.)
“Work rage”? What the hell is “work rage”? That makes it sound like Clark was just some fussy jerk who had a temper tantrum. (Every office has one of those!) But this wasn’t just a temper tantrum. Allegedly, Clark killed her.
Calling Le’s murder the result of “work rage” just sounds wrong, as if that label is a way to create a legitimate motive. But labeling motives reminds one of those two men who murdered Matthew Shepherd, the gay man in Laramie, Wyoming. They tried to explain why they killed Shepherd by saying they had “gay panic.” Frisky blogger Kate even pointed out to me that sometimes when a husband or boyfriend kills the woman he is with, we still call the murder “domestic violence,” as though he just slapped her. My personal suspicion is that perhaps Yale University, in whose lab Le was killed, wants to brand the murder (for lack of a better word) as “work rage” so the incident doesn’t reflect badly upon them.
Still, doesn’t a cutesy little label give legitimacy to a motivation that should never be considered legitimate? True, calling a murder “domestic violence,” “work rage” or “gay panic” may help us as a society zero in on areas where we need more sensitivity. But when a young man’s fianceé is killed one week before they’d planned to marry, who really cares what the reason was?
- Raymond Clark III, Yale Lab Tech, Arrested In Annie Le’s Death
- Today’s Lady News: Yale Lab Tech Raymond Clark III Questioned In Annie Le’s Death
- A Morbid History Lesson On On-Campus Murders
- A History: Sex Tapes We Weren't Suppossed to See (Maxim)
- Sneak Peak at Brad & Angelina on Date Night (PopEater)
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
maroon
wrote on September 18 2009 @ 09:41 am: [report]
the police felt the need to disseminate any public notion that it could have been related to her wedding, which i guess was just coincidal to the murder. and since they didn’t have a personal relationship- like postal workers don’t have personal relationships)- his going postal on her had nothing to do with emotions towards her.
my lab is all abuzz about this. we work in a small and locked down facility with about 100 other people, and never would we have guessed that something like this could happen. you just don’t hear about this kind of thing happening in a research environment. it’s really sad, and unfortunately makes us a bit on edge about what exactly can happen even though there are precautions in place so we can be “safe”
GreenAura
wrote on September 18 2009 @ 09:41 am: [report]
Workplace violence makes me think of someone getting fired and coming back with a shotgun. Going “postal” if you will. This was different, it was personal, him against her (allegedly). Although the prosecution doesn’t need a motive in order to obtain a guilty verdict due to evidence, I am still curious as to what that motive is *exactly*.
tabby
wrote on September 18 2009 @ 09:54 am: [report]
My understanding of the case is that the police have been having a hard time finding a motive for this murder. Perhaps calling it some variant on workplace violence is the media’s way of giving a motive?
bethlynn00
wrote on September 18 2009 @ 09:59 am: [report]
I don;t think that Yale had anything to do with that label, it is the investigators who are labeling this as a case of workplace violence. I wouldn’t call workplace violence or domestic violence cutesy labels. Whenever someone is murdered the first question everyone ask is why? It’s a psychological response, these terms are not meant to be legit motives, but rather a start of an explanation for the circumstances of the crime. I mean they are not viable legal defenses, although they can be added to a legal defense, but not the sole reason. I mean obviously in the case of Ms. Le, this was a violent act, that happened in the workplace and if Clark is not talking to them, and people are asking why this happened, it is legit that they would label this as a case of workplace violence, since that is what it is, as far as they know.
Also if you look at any power and control wheel for something like domestic violence, murder is always apart of that, so when a man kills his wife, and there has been a history of other violence and abuse, it is a domestic violence issue. Domestic violence, or Intimate Partner Violence is WWWWAAAAYYYY more then just someone being slapped around. It can include emotional abuse, threats, intimidation, isolation, emotional abuse, heterosexism, homophobia, economic abuse, and so on. That’s the problem with so many men and women who don’t know what intimate partner violence is, they think, “oh, he/she is not hitting me or slapping me around, so there is nothing wrong with my relationship.” But in many relationships the abuse isn’t physical, but that doesn’t make them any less dangerous. Similarly, issues like workplace violence and work rage, encompass a full range of acts, even if it’s as simple as not cleaning up an area to intentionally irk co-workers and then up to and including murder. And maybe we see a big difference between those two things, but in retrospect they are all aggressive acts that are not and should not be apart of the workplace.
HermannM
wrote on September 18 2009 @ 10:20 am: [report]
This is absolutely a case of branding and spin. I just don’t know who is the responsible party.
Annie Le was the object of Raymond Clark’s “unrequited love” and the murder was a reaction to her upcoming wedding. The fact that he met her at the lab was tangentially related to the crime. There have been recent stories about women outperforming men in the workplace and this recession affecting men more than women. Someone actually coined the economic climate a “mancession” if you can believe that. I see the media using this crime to amplify the “supposed” cultural wedge between men and women in the workplace. But that isn’t the case at all.
He “luv-ded” her and would not let her go. NEVER! He’s a control freak and he should fry. I do have a few interesting thoughts about the case:
- Is it relevant that he is the third generation to share the name Raymond Clark? His name suggests a man of distinguished ilk but he couldn’t get into Yale.
- Did anyone else hear that his sister, brother-in-law and fiancee work at the same research facility?
- Isn’t it strange that he proposed to Jennifer Hromadka but won’t get married until December 2011? Who, other than a control freak, has a 2 year 6 month engagement?
- Am I the only one who knows that “luv-ded” is the African-American verb form of mad and passionate love?
retro chic
wrote on September 18 2009 @ 10:41 am: [report]
[Rebroadcast] Finally… Thank god there’s been some outrage over the term “Workplace Violence for this crime!” (ie, bomb threats, shooting sprees which are rare). “Today” addressed how it diminishes (and I agree!) and skews the personal, heinous nature of Clarke’s crime on Le. It is this kind of spin and posturing that always sends the wrong message, esp to would-be perps and the authorities/investigators, skewing the justice process. I fault the Univ’s self-serving influence on the police (or collusion) for this to avoid culpability. This was a one-on-one stalker crime and they know it. [insert collective Duh! here]
We had to know he’d been sending her “personal” emails, the final of which she took him to task about the disposal of lab rats, with his heated response that directed her to the lab area where she was murdered. Freakin’ stalker perv.”
[this is a rebroadcast from the other thread]
joyy
wrote on September 18 2009 @ 10:55 am: [report]
Um, it’s called workplace violence because the victim and the suspect were coworkers and it happened at their place of work. Why are you blaming society for your own desensitization to the words violence and rage?
Oh Kathryn!
wrote on September 18 2009 @ 11:05 am: [report]
Uh, because murder is violent…and it occurred in the workplace.
bittermelon
wrote on September 18 2009 @ 11:29 am: [report]
What’s wrong with calling Le’s murder workplace violence? How is the label cutesy? I don’t see how the label takes away from the severity of it being a murder. The same way labeling a murder as a result of domestic violence doesn’t take away the significance of a murder. (And seriously, who working at The Frisky could construe a murder from domestic violence as “though he just slapped her”. Hasn’t there been enough written about domestic violence on this site that we all know initial battering and assault often escalates to death?)
Labeling Le’s murder as workplace violence just helps define what the relationships were of the people involved, that they had a working relationship. As opposed to some random stranger, serial killer, rapist, etc. coming into the building and killing her. I have yet to read that there was any romantic business going on, one-sided or not.
If labeling it as workplace violence gives the students and residents of New Haven relief from thinking there’s a serial killer on campus or in town, what’s the harm? Not sure I see how it makes the violent act less horrific, or the fact that it happened just before her wedding any less sad.
impoddity
wrote on September 18 2009 @ 01:02 pm: [report]
Workplace violence seems to downplay the true graveness of the situation. If the roles had been reversed (woman murdering man) would the same term have been applied? Or if a man murdered another man?
It’s a shame, regardless…..
effing hickster
wrote on September 18 2009 @ 06:20 pm: [report]
I’m still contemplating the oxymoron “found missing”.
annalisa
wrote on September 19 2009 @ 01:58 pm: [report]
I think the terms “work rage” and “domestic violence” were intended to help sociologists/forensic people study the different kinds of violence, which can be important if, for example, a certain type of violence is suddenly on the uprise. It helps to study and observe these changes in society. Unfortunately, media and others tend to latch onto phrases like these as catchphrases, and defense attorneys try to use them as evidence that their client was simply the victim of a “syndrome”. None of this diminishes the importance of understanding the different kinds of violence, which can run the gamut from words/gestures all the way to murder.
HermannM touched on something I was wondering: Was there a sexual factor involved in Annie’s murder? I haven’t read anything to confirm that Clark felt that way towards her, but I did suspect it when I read that Clark was a member of something called the “Asian Awareness Club”. I’ve never known a man who was a “fan” of a different culture who WASN’T attracted to the women of that culture. Annie was a very pretty Asian woman, and I’d be willing to bet that there was some sexual tension between them. It will be interesting to hear Clark’s account of the last meeting between them.
I know this is obvious to most people, but I think it bears repeating: If you are having a disagreement with a contentious co-worker, DO NOT meet them alone! Always bring someone to be a witness, or at least meet them somewhere where there are other people close by.
fifi
wrote on September 20 2009 @ 11:44 pm: [report]
I don’t think it’s cutesy. The cops probably emphasized “workplace violence” because this case could be very easily sensationalized. I mean, look at the facts: she was missing a few days before her wedding, the suspect has had a history of violence with his girlfriends, and they work together. A romantic/passionate angle to the crime could easily be blown out of proportion by the media.
Anyway, I’m also a female graduate student in the biological sciences who also works with mice and thus, animal facility technicians. This murder is a BIG cautionary tale for me and makes me reassess my long work hours…
BlueVibe
wrote on September 21 2009 @ 09:54 am: [report]
From what I’ve read, it sounds like it could very well have been “workplace violence.” Apparently the guy has been violent before and has a history of being officious and overbearing (i.e. neurotically picky) in his job. Okay, so he didn’t have a gun to shoot the place up, but why should he have had to for this to be “workplace violence,” which is hardly a new term?