We have recently discussed a number of incidents of professors acting badly in shouting down student protesters or journalists on campus. (here and here and here). This has include prior attacks on pro-life demonstrators. Now a teenage pro-life demonstrators has accused a University of California (Santa Barbar) professor of taking her sign and assaulting her on campus. Thrin Short, 16, and her sister Joan, 21, have posted a videotape of Feminist Studies Associate Professor Mireille Miller-Young walking away with their sign and getting into a confrontation with the teenagers.
The Shorts were handing out pro-life pamphlets when they say Miller-Young confronted them and became irate over their demonstration. They videotaped her after she appeared to organize students in yelling “take down the sign.” They say that she grabbed the sign and walked off–ignoring the protests of the teenagers. Campus police were called and Short says that she was pushed by Miller-Young three times — leaving bruises on her wrists — at an elevator confrontation.
On the video below, Miller-Young is seen taking the sign with graphic images and saying “I may be a thief but you are a terrorist.” At the elevator, she can be seen shoving the teenagers and blocking them. The fact (as noted by her students) that the teenagers do not go to the school is no excuse for this type of conduct. If there was some real violation in the protests (which seems dubious), Miller-Young has no authority to quash the speech. This appears a clear content-based act by Miller-Young. It is even more disturbing to see her encouraging her students to silence opposing views by stealing a sign. It is the very antithesis of the academic mission which is based first and foremost on free speech and association — and civility.
Miller-Young lists her areas as “Pornography; Sex Work; Black Film, Popular Culture and Art; Feminist & Queer Theory; African American & African Diaspora Studies; Visual Archives; New Media; Ethnography; Oral History.” Her bio states that she focuses on pornography and African-American women.
According to reports, Miller-Young has retained an attorney. Catherine Swysen of law firm Sanger Swysen & Dunkle (Notably, Swysen draws not only from her considerable legal experience but experience as a former teacher in the University of California system). She is making no comment but a student her Women of Color class, insisted that she was write to do what she did because “She’s pregnant, so she’s very sensitive to horrifying images like that.” It is very distressful to see a student supporting anti-free speech conduct, a concern expressed recently with regard to French students in suing Twitter.
She could face assault charges based on the videotape. My greatest concern is with her conduct as a faculty member. There are few violations as serious by an academic than attacking free speech or violently trying to stop the expression of viewpoints. Her actions are clearly incompatible with the position of a faculty member. The question is whether the university will act to remove her from the faculty based on this videotape. Putting aside the criminal allegations (that should be left to the criminal justice system), there is the separate question of her judgment and conduct as an academic. The delay in issuing an apology is only going to reaffirm concerns in the minds of some faculty. I fail to see a viable defense for this conduct. Once again, regardless of the status of these teenagers or the disturbing images of the protests, this was an act of free speech. If there is a prohibition on such displays (which would itself raise free speech issues), this was not how academics address controversial speech. If Miller-Young had a legal concern, she can call the police — not lead students in stealing signs and trying to silence their speech.
The faculty code states that faculty “accept the obligation to exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending, and transmitting knowledge.” This includes a prohibition on “any exploitation, harassment, or discriminatory treatment of students.” Misconduct includes:
1. Intentional disruption of functions or activities sponsored or authorized by the University.
2. Incitement of others to disobey University rules when such incitement constitutes a clear and present danger that violence or abuse against persons or property will occur or that the University’s central functions will be significantly impaired.
The admission on the tape that she has stolen the sign will not help in any university investigation. Regardless of any claim of provocation by Miller-Young, the means chosen by the professor is clearly unacceptable and inimical to the academic mission. To call people with opposing views “terrorists” is a shocking view for an intellectual. To enlist students in an act of censorship only magnifies that violation.
What do you think should be the proper discipline (if any) for Miller-Young?
borisgv, if your home next to a university is under threat of eminent domain by this same university, which you do not attend, and you protest, and they take your sign away, and they give you $5, you are saying you will roll over and play dead, right? Come on, why don’t you just admit that if these protesters were protesting pro life, instead, you would give them a free pass.
The protesters don’t go the school and shouldn’t have been there. They were there to cause trouble, and by following the professor to her office it’s evident they they were looking and hoping for a confrontation like this. The professor probably shouldn’t have stolen the sign, so in the end she should pay the protestors $5 to cover the cost of their sign and then the protesters should be banned from school property indefinitely.
borisgv – the students were there legally. It is a public institution and as thus is open to the public. They were in an area specifically set aside for free speech. They were following a thief and probably were not aware of her job at the university. They filmed the whole incident which was great on their part. The assoc professor was not only trying to censor them but stealing their materials. Then assaulted the young girl.
Now she is claiming ‘victimhood.’ Although, according to the film evidence, the student was only trying to get her sign back. According to the heavily redacted police report, she took the sign from the girl because she was stronger. That makes her a bully.
On the upside for the young girl the school might offer her a full-scholarship after she was injured on school property by a school employee who stole her property. The civil suit is not going to be pretty.
borisgv wrote: “The protesters don’t go the school and shouldn’t have been there. They were there to cause trouble…”
Actually, no. They were there to help educate the students about what abortion really is. This is what is necessary when our public institutions of education censor information and present what information they do have in a slanted way. So, enter free speech on a public campus paid for by the taxpayers.
borisgv wrote: “… so in the end she should pay the protestors $5 to cover the cost of their sign…”
LOL. $5? You apparently do not know what signs can cost. I don’t know about this girl’s particular sign, but I experienced a sign being stolen from me by a student. She snatched it out of my hands and went running. Do you know what I did? I went running after her, yelling thief. I chased her all the way across campus until the police put her in handcuffs and gave me back my sign. Why did I run after her? Because they sign cost me over $150, and at the time, I did not have the money to make another one. You really have no idea how much money it takes, and the personal sacrifice it takes, for these people to help educate others. Our public educational institutions are failing us by censoring and discriminating against certain ways of thinking. These people are just helping out in filling the gap in our educational system. If the schools were teaching what abortion really was scientifically, along with pictures like these, there would be no need for these brave people to come to campus and help give the students a more broad education.
Charges filed against professor: https://www.countyofsb.org/da/msm_county/documents/MireilleMillerYoung.pdf
Be interesting to see how this plays out. If she was a NCAA football player, she would be suspended. Duke Lacrosse player, she would be expelled. What will the university do???
Judging from her credentials, she is a black person first. Why is this not racism, Mr. Sharpton and Rev. Jackson?
Read Clarence’s concurring opinion in Missouri v Jenkins. Right out of Plessy. (IMO)
The left uses ad hominum arguments and abuse rather than just admitting that they have given no rationale, other than expedience, for saying that personhood should be recognized at birth in law, rather than at some other time. If they could only manage to say as much, I could endure the ranting more easily. Yes we know that morality and legality differ, and always will, and must: one being objective and shared, the other being subjective and personal. Should people stop objecting to things that they think are immoral? No.( eg, Terror Tuesdays, or more generally, the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, and Clarence Thomas.)
I’m really surprised at you for using the weasel words “Pro-life”, Jonathan. Have you forgotten the barbaric murder of Savita Halappanavar at University Hospital, Galway in Catholic Ireland? These anti-abortion bigots are killers if they get the chance. There is no equivalence with pro-choice activists because they don’t force anyone to have an abortion.
These nasty non-students should have been cleared off by campus security, but the professor had to do the job herself. Talk of free speech and theft of property is dishonest. If pro-choice demonstrators invaded a Roman Catholic church (Pussy Riot style) I have no doubt that all those attacking the professor here would support the right of the priest and congregation to remove them and confiscate their placards (as would I, of course).
London – the pro-lifers had a perfect right to be where they were. They did not ‘invade’ anything. What the pro-death professor did was illegal and unprofessional. And she is setting herself up to be the victim in all this which is immature. The student was calm enough to get it all on film so she is going to have a hard time getting out of it. Still, I think the university will cover her ass and theirs. Assault and theft charges should have been filed against her by now.
Savita Halappanava was not barbarically murdered. Murder is the unlawful taking of another life. Everything that happened to her was within the constructs of the law of Ireland. Your grasp of both the article and the law is weak. You tar with a broad brush.
FINALLY! Annie, you could have saved so much of this argument with your last comment!
Oy! She should’ve kept her hands off that sign and called it a day.
Annie, check out some of the “or what” on her UCSB website bio page. Her dissertation for her PhD? “A Taste for Brown Sugar: The History of Black Women in American Pornography.” Sweet.
This behavior is so unacceptable from a professor, she should be fired immediately. For the university not to stand behind freedom of speech is to bring disrepute upon their educational institution.
Once again, looks like the inmates are running the asylum.
On the or what.
And you base this on what she said? Or what?
Annie, she’s never felt truly valued in her life.
Why are you sure she has many sensitivities Tony?
Gus, if you don’t highly value free speech and the preservation of the marketplace of ideas and you don’t understand how critical those notions are to the survival of the democracy then you won’t think this is a big deal. And if it’s no big deal then, you’re right, we all can chill.
Max, I’m glad that, as a seeker of peace and wisdom, you don’t go around showing the mutilated body if troops. You get to express yourself the way you think best. If you have that privilege shouldn’t others? Or is it that your way is better and therefore should be the only way allowed?
Laura, that the feminist was pregnant and triggered sounds like a potential basis for an insanity plea if she’s charged with the robbery she committed here. Maybe she ought to get an automatic out simply because she is a woman. On the other hand that something triggers her particular sensitivities, and I’m she has many, ought not be able to trump someone else’s free speech rights. I know this sounds crazy but they are “inalienable.”
Lost in a lot of the coverage was the professor’s (or one of her student’s) comment that she (the professor) is pregnant and the pro-life poster was a “trigger” for her. This means nothing to most of us, but it has a distinct meaning in academic circles,particularly (apparently) gender studies and feminist theory. Feminist professor and Chronicle of Higher Education blogger Laurie Essig has written a scathing piece about the term “trigger warning” here:
http://chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/2014/03/10/trigger-warnings-trigger-me/
Read Professor Essig’s column, and then read the news story about the UC Santa Barbara professor again. Sheds a whole new light on the subject.
Too many hair-trigger demands for retribution…… chill out folks
I was made aware of this incident the other day and wrote a letter to the Board of Regents and to the University of CA president, Janet Napolitano. I called for a termination of this professor, who did not conduct herself in the proper manner of her profession.
As a past California educational instructor and administrator, I know that an educator cannot lay hands on a student, except in self-defense. The video shows that the teacher was the culprit in this case.
Although the pro-life students were not students on that campus, they could still sue for Battery, since someone pushed and scratched them. Secondly, they could file theft charges against the professor and the girls who carried the sign. Thirdly, I would hope a judge would consider the pro-life protesters 1st amendment rights to freedom of speech.
California University’s are public colleges, supported by taxpayer monies, so anyone can go on campus.
Years ago when the public protested that such studies, as Merielle Miller-Young teaches in her repertoire, the liberal base won out. Now we have an array of meaningless (in my opinion) classes, which I assume come under the Humanities Dept.
Max–Yes, the majority of pro-lifers are against war, torture, and the death penalty. Neither you, nor I are sure whether the girls had permission to be on campus or what the policy is regarding protestors. However, it is a public institution.
The reason people carry pictures of mutilated bodies is to make a strong point. You probably wouldn’t complain when seeing a dying emaciated child in a 3rd world country when asked to donate and stop hunger–but the pictures do make you think and ultimately give or at least pray for these poor children.