What exactly did Crystal Wilsey say and in what context were the racial slurs used?
Executive summary
A viral TikTok from a Bay Park Square Mall Cinnabon shows an employee identified by multiple outlets as Crystal Terese Wilsey repeatedly using the N‑word, saying “I am racist” and making obscene gestures toward a Black Somali couple; Cinnabon confirmed the employee was fired after the clip circulated [1] [2] [3]. The recording is short (about 29 seconds in some reports) and was posted by a relative of one customer; supporters have since raised six‑figure donations for Wilsey on GiveSendGo while critics and news outlets catalog both the slur and Wilsey’s later public defenses [4] [1] [5].
1. What the video shows — the core exchange
The clip, posted to TikTok by a cousin of the customers, captures a brief but intense interaction in which the woman later identified as Crystal Wilsey directs repeated racial insults at a Somali couple, including the N‑word, mocks the woman’s hijab, declares “I am racist” and flips the middle finger as the couple records and warns she could lose her job [6] [3] [4]. Multiple outlets recount the same principal lines — the use of the N‑word, the admission of being racist, and obscene gestures — and describe the video as roughly half a minute long [1] [4].
2. Source chain and how the story spread
The initial footage was shared on TikTok by a relative of the customers and went viral; national and regional outlets then identified the employee as Crystal Terese Wilsey and reported that Cinnabon had fired the worker after reviewing the recording [6] [1] [2]. Newsweek, Hindustan Times, IBTimes and others published identifications and summaries of the same clip, while regional coverage supplied local details about the mall location in Ashwaubenon, Wisconsin [1] [2] [7].
3. Exact language reported by outlets
Outlets uniformly report Wilsey used the N‑word in the video, repeatedly declared “I am racist” and told the customers to “suck it” or gestured with a middle finger; she also mocked the woman’s hijab, according to the accounts [4] [1] [2]. Exact verbatim transcripts beyond those quoted phrases are not provided in the cited reporting; the summaries come from journalists who viewed the viral clip or from aggregations of the viral posts [1] [3].
4. Context offered by those near the recording
Reporting notes the exchange began after the couple asked for more caramel sauce on a pastry; the customers’ cousin who posted the video says the request and subsequent interaction escalated, prompting the recording [6] [7]. Some supporters of Wilsey later framed the incident as her being “harassed” or “intimidated” by the customers and launched a GiveSendGo fundraiser portraying her as targeted for defending herself [4] [5].
5. Reactions, consequences and competing narratives
Cinnabon confirmed it does not condone the behavior and fired the employee after the video circulated [1] [8]. Simultaneously, a GiveSendGo campaign supporting Wilsey raised five‑ and six‑figure sums, with some donors and notes defending or echoing her statements — a pattern media noted as similar to prior fundraising for others filmed using racial slurs [1] [5]. Outlets report Wilsey later posted defenses on social media — saying she “threw it back” or citing family details as rebuttals — but those posts intensified criticism rather than resolving the dispute [9] [10].
6. What reporting does not (yet) show or prove
Available sources do not mention a full verbatim transcript of the entire exchange beyond the quoted slur, “I am racist,” hijab mockery and obscene gestures; they also do not include a public statement from Wilsey to news outlets accepting responsibility beyond social‑media clips, nor do they provide independent corroboration of every contextual claim made by supporters or critics [1] [9]. Detailed law‑enforcement outcomes or an official investigative transcript beyond the video itself are not reported in the cited articles [2] [8].
7. Why this matters — broader patterns and incentives
Journalists highlight two recurring patterns: short viral clips can quickly end employment and trigger online crowdfunding that financially rewards the person filmed, and conflicting narratives emerge — victims’ footage prompting corporate discipline, while sympathetic networks raise funds for the filmed employee [1] [5]. Readers should note outlets relied on the same viral video as primary evidence; variations in tone reflect editorial choices and the fundraising campaigns that followed [4] [11].
Limitations: This analysis uses only the supplied reporting; it does not include the primary TikTok file itself or statements beyond the cited pieces.