Mark and Patricia McCloskey

Mark and Patricia McCloskey pointed firearms at peaceful protestors passing in front of their home at 1 Portland Place in St. Louis on June 28.

Photo by Bill Greenblatt/UPI

Mark and Patricia McCloskey, who confronted peaceful protestors passing in front of their home while heavily armed and screaming, followed up with the amazing claim that they support the Black Lives Matter movement. This claim was amazing because the peaceful protestors they confronted on June 28 were a diverse group visibly affiliated with that movement.

If the McCloskeys have, in fact, embraced the Black Lives Matter movement, this was a dramatic shift from their position in the mid-1990s, when they advertised for a live-in nanny for their child, according to someone who applied for the position.

The McCloskeys’ former nanny candidate, who did not want to be identified for fear of retaliation, shared with The American four pages of typed instructions she said the McCloskeys gave her at the time of her interview. (She said she kept it as a memento because she thought it was so outrageous.)

The American reached out to the McCloskeys via their attorney, Albert Watkins. They denied that the document is authentic and described it as “a hit job.”

If black lives mattered to the McCloskeys then, they certainly did not want black lives or culture to matter to their daughter, if the document is authentic.

According to the document, their daughter was allowed no more than one hour of monitored TV time per day – and it was explicitly to include no “black culture,” which appears in a revealing list of forbidden television experiences: “no violence, sex, drugs, rap music, black culture, MTV or talk shows.”

Their daughter also was forbidden to use “modern slang like ‘cool,’ ‘radical,’ ‘awesome’” or to exchange high-fives, according to the document. “She should learn alternative words and learn how to shake hands instead,” the document states.

Given that the McCloskeys’ defense of their mansion in an exclusive private neighborhood in the heart of St. Louis has gone viral as a meme of unhinged defense of white privilege, the instructions to where their daughter is allowed to travel is interesting, according to the document. It’s delivered all in capital letters for emphasis: “REMEMBER DON’T GO NORTH OR EAST OF THE HOUSE AS IT CAN BE DANGEROUS EVEN DURING THE DAY. EUCLID DURING THE DAY IS OKAY, HOWEVER.”

Portland Place, where the McCloskeys live, is seven blocks south of Delmar Boulevard, the notorious Delmar Divide between white south and black north St. Louis. It also is just inside the City of St. Louis limits, two miles east of the whiter St. Louis County. The McCloskeys were telling their nanny to keep their daughter away from the blacker areas of the city, according to the document. Euclid Avenue, however, which is one block east, is “okay,” presumably because it is lined with restaurants and shops.

Most telling, though, is the statement of “PERSONAL VALUES” with which the job description ends. “We think it is important that [our daughter] learn the value of traditional western, Christian, white, heterosexual, family oriented lifestyle,” the document states. “We are opposed to ‘cultural diversity’ or alternative lifestyle propaganda and would like [our daughter] to accept as normal and proper traditional American family values.”

Again, the McCloskeys deny that they are responsible for writing this document. The American also left a message at a number for their daughter, whose name was redacted to respect her privacy, and will report her response when received.

You must be logged in to react.
Click any reaction to login.

(6) comments


As far as I know, their daughter has jungle fever and has been dating a handome basketball player at college.


They have a right as parents to raise their child as they believe is best. I hope she was taught to respect authority. That along is missing from today's society.


These Missouri Citizens have a right to protect their property on their private street. "The 1980 U.S. Supreme Court case Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, discussed below, said the U.S. Constitution does not give individuals an absolute right to enter and remain on private property to exercise their right to free expression." and St Louis Prosecutor Kim Gardner (as are others in other cities) is off base. Once again hats off to this couple, I would have taken similar measures to protect my property and love ones in the face of violators and unsuspecting dangers.


The daughter is now in her twenties. I wonder what she thinks of how she was raised. It would be interesting, whether her attitude is now negative or positive, or a mixture of both. She might have children of her own, now.


I’m not sure this is the same young lady I’ve met in mid-90s who was their nanny, but I knew a nanny who worked for them.

I remember that they specifically told her not to show the kid Sesame Street, as the show had Black characters. I think she quit because of that.


These people have been exposed.....they wrote this document, I dont understand why they dont admit it. It there right to raise the child the way they wish...when she is 18 she will make decision that will shape her life. But i do belei e they did wfite the document according to the nanny which they deny. I beleive they are lieing because there business is at risk. And they are humiliated in fro t of the world

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.