We have been following the controversy surrounding the confrontation of Feminist Studies Associate Professor Mireille Miller-Young with pro-life advocates on campus. Miller-Young led her students in attacking the pro-life display, stealing their display, and then committing battery on one of the young women. Thrin Short, 16, and her sister Joan, 21, filed complaints and Miller-Young was charged with criminal conduct including Theft From Person; Battery; and Vandalism. To the surprise of some of us, faculty and students rallied behind Miller-Young. She remains employed as a faculty member. Miller-Young initially pleaded not guilty but later entered a guilty plea with an apology. She has now been sentenced to sentenced to three years of probation, 108 hours of community service, 10 hours of anger management, $500 in restitution and a small fine. While her actions (and absence of serious university punishment) remain highly disturbing, some of the letters written on her behalf raise new questions over the commitment of University of California faculty to free speech and core academic principles. Miller-Young has been defended by faculty as the victim of a media campaign to portray her as “an Angry Black Woman” and her seemingly happy demeanor on the videotape has been dismissed as a “mask” that she wears as part of a “cultural legacy of slavery.”
Miller-Young’s actions should be anathema to all intellectuals and a violation of the most sacred values of an educational institution. Ironically, she has acted in the same way that critics of early feminists and birth control advocates responded to their protests. Feminist signs and protests were attacked and students censored for their views. However, it became clear later that students in her department have been taught that such action is not only justified but commendable. Pro-life advocates have been denounced as simply terrorists or haters who deserved what they got from Miller-Young and her students.
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.
Miller-Young’s view that pro-life advocates are “terrorists” were picked up by her students and continue to be heard in her defense. Others have insisted that such images were virtually hate speech when displayed in front of a pregnant woman (Miller-Young was three-months pregnant at the time).
Various faculty members publicly supported Miller-Young and some wrote to the court to ask for leniency. Some publicly denounced the media and the victims in this case. History professor Paul Spikard (left) wrote to object to the court that Miller-Young is the victim of “an energetic smear campaign . . . fomenting racial hatred and rallying right-wing political sentiment.” He insisted that the media was intent on displaying another example of “an Angry Black Woman.” What is striking is that Spikard opposed even a mandatory anger management class in the case. It is hard to see how the media is concocting a smear campaign when a professor is seen stealing a display and trying to stop an act of free speech on campus. Most academics would be horrified by that scene, including professors who are not part of a “right-wing political” agenda. I have an academic agenda that includes faculty member respecting and encouraging free speech on campus. Spikard teaches social and cultural history and has a faculty bio stating that he has been “blessed to spend most of my life immersed in racial populations and cultural traditions that are different from my own.” I have no question that that experience has given him great insight into cultural and racial controversies. However, I fail to see the dominant race issue in a professor acting in this reprehensible and violent manner. We all teach different subjects but we are committed to an intellectual enterprise. We inherited a commitment as educators to protect the unique environment — and our students — on campus. It is not a protection from ideas but a protection of an environment for the free discussion of ideas. It is a safe harbor for ideas even when many would silence such debates outside of our walls. In this case, it was a professor who was physically seeking to silence those with opposing views.
Another to the court came from Eileen Boris, a professor in the Department of Feminist Studies. Boris picked up on the earlier defense that the signs were traumatizing to a woman who was three-months pregnant. Boris told the court “she was at the stage of a pregnancy when one is not fully one’s self fully, so the image of a severed fetus appeared threatening.” Boris then tries to deal with the fact that Miller-Young is smiling and both she and her students appear to be proud of their actions in the video. Professor Boris dismisses the video record as misleading and inaccurate. She explained to the court that “[i]f she appears smiling on camera, she is ‘wearing the mask,’ that is, she is hiding her actual state through a strategy of self-presentation that is a cultural legacy of slavery.”
It is hard to see how a court is expected to ignore the record of the video under a “cultural legacy of slavery” claim. Miller-Young and her students referred to these young women as “terrorists” for voicing their views and creating their display. There was not a hint of hesitation on the video in seeking to stifle free speech.
I previously wrote a critical piece of the response by Michael D. Young, Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs which seems to treat the pro-life demonstrators as the problem while encouraging faculty and students not to attack such “outsiders.”
In addition, some 2000 faculty and students have signed a petition in support of Miller-Young while only 150 have signed a counter petition calling for her termination.
Students have clearly learned a lesson from Professor Miller-Young that free speech is only protected when we agree with the message. Consider the truly chilling view of UCSB sophomore Katherine Wehler, a theater and feminist studies major: “They are domestic terrorists, because the definition of a terrorist is someone who terrorizes.” Wehler added:
“I have a lot of feminist friends that went to them [pro-life protesters] with an educated academic response, because they were extremely triggered by these images, and the activists were saying this is for ‘women’s rights,’ . . . As feminist scholars and activists, we were insulted to hear that their cause is for women’s rights, because we felt personally attacked as women. Then, we were repeatedly called murderers. That is not okay. . . In my opinion, Professor Miller-Young would never attack anyone as the media suggests unless feeling an invasion of her own personal space like anyone else would in a fight or flight situation . . . If the university did decide to revoke her employment, there would be a large uproar because she is so celebrated.”
These letters reflect how such views of intolerance can take hold in students. I have become alarmed by the increasing anti-speech activities by students. For decades, social activists, including feminists, faced this type of intimidation in having signs ripped down or being called criminals. Campuses were the bastions of free speech and students were its champions. Increasingly however the West seems to have lost patience with free speech and often the voices for speech regulation and even criminalization are coming from the left.
As someone long associated with the free speech community, I find the Miller-Young scandal — and the response to it by faculty and students — to be incredibly depressing and alarming. We have seen the corrosion of our foundation of free speech in our educational institutions. It has long been the very touchstone of the intellectual life of our schools, but it is now denounced as shield for terrorists and haters. Such views will cut us adrift without any common principle or commitment as academics. The loss of a single sign is of little consequence, but what has clearly been lost at the University of California Santa Barbara (and other schools) is a common article of faith.
Paul, Didn’t our wonderful govt. also set up “zones” for protesting during the recent rancher standoff?
Jim22 – I know the guberment sets up protest zones all the time. In some cases they have set them so far away as to be useless for protesting. And the SC has just changed the criteria on protesting at abortion clinics.
squeeky – Dissertation: “A Taste for Brown Sugar: The History of Black Women in American Pornography.”
Now that that porn industry is leaving California I wonder if she will have to move as well?
Sumpeter wrote: “I do not know any liberals that are against the 1st Amendment.”
If you are pro-choice, you are against free speech for the unborn baby.
By year end there will have been another 50,000 abortions, because liberals believe there is no one to take care of unwanted children. But when it comes to 50,000 illegal children crossing the border, well, that’s different.
There’s no resemblance between liberals today and those during JFK’s time.
If my ancestors are from France do I have a cultural legacy of froggery? If the other side is from Germany do I have a cultural legacy of Krautism? If my ancestors came over on the boat from Africa after the civil war like Obama’s dad then I would not have the cultural legacy of slavery.
If my cousin moves back here to the East Coast from the West Coast he will have the cultural legacy of idiocy.
“mespo727272
Advocacy meets immaturity — It never works out. I don’t subscribe to the so-called “pro-life” (isn’t everyone?) bandwagon either but there are plenty of intellectual reasons to reject that position without resort to the silliness displayed here. The Prof should apologize and move on.
_—————————————
The problem is that the prof and her supporters are convinced of the righteousness of their cause. Much like the crusaders of old. Not saying those on the right can’t be the same, but i have seen much more evidence of this intolerance from the intellectual left. Disheartening to say the least that those who should unquestionably know better about the dangers of fanaticism and censorship are so quick to employ the tactics in their own defense.
@pauls
Do you have a link to it???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Paul:
“sumpter – it is amazing the number of liberals and progressives who are against the 1st amendment except when it comes to them.”
******************
I don’t recall any of them relegating their opponents to the Orwellian named “free speech zones.” I recall some conservatives did with nary a peep from the chorus over at Fox.
mespo – aren’t the free speech zones the bastions of the liberal/progressive campuses?
Advocacy meets immaturity — It never works out. I don’t subscribe to the so-called “pro-life” (isn’t everyone?) bandwagon either but there are plenty of intellectual reasons to reject that position without resort to the silliness displayed here. The Prof should apologize and move on.
sumpter – it is amazing the number of liberals and progressives who are against the 1st amendment except when it comes to them. And for JFK, talk is cheap when you have as much money has he did.
It is amazing to me that we are still having to have this conversation about a woman’s constitutional right to choose an abortion or not. Many groups are against Big Government, they want Less Government, except when it comes to women, they want Government to dictate what we can do with our bodies. You can not dictate to others your decision about abortion. If you are against abortion, do not have one. Make sure you use birth control – which some groups are against using and do not want to make available for women to use. I refer to Hobby Lobby’s case, which is rathering interesting, since money from their retirement plan investments are invested in companies that manufacture Birht Control. LOL! I am sure that if men were the ones responsitble for child birth, we would not being having this controversy or conversation.
P.S. I do not know any liberals that are against the 1st Amendment. That is just rhetoric thrown out there to disparage them. Look up the definition of a Liberal.
JFK wrote:
“If by a liberal they mean someone who looks ahead
and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas
without rigid reaction, someone who cares about the
welfare of the people — their health, their housing,
their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their
civil liberties, — someone who believes we can break
through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in
our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a
liberal, then I’m proud to say I’m a liberal.”
John F. Kennedy
I love the BS excuses put forth by her defenders. The “legacy of slavery” crap is particularly hilarious. Her “areas ” are similarly a bunch of BS. Maybe if Christian Theologists take over the country, as some here expect, she can be put to useful work along with her defenders on a farm somewhere.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky – you need to check out the title of her dissertation. Clearly a page turner.
Paul C. Schulte
…. Liberals and progressives make up a small number of the general population …
===============================
General tales from the bunk bed.
The old dusty book in the old dusty book store says that “bunk” (useless talk) originated on bunk beds.
So did generals like Clapper.
Better to build one’s knowledge somewhere else than on a bunk bed.
Dredd – Dude, you are not even making sense any more.
Interesting comments
Power corrupts. You give it to a liberal, you get liberal corruption. You give it to a conservative, you get conservative corruption. Most can’t or won’t make the distinction.
Extremists will always rationalize their violence towards others.
With big cultural cultiness being cultivated by those in the wrong culture klub.
I am personally appalled at the actions of the school, faculty and students. I went to college in the early sixties. We went to the barriers for free speech for students. I remember the New Times (which started in Tempe, AZ and was distributed free on the ASU campus) being seized by the campus police. I remember the protests it took to get the right for these feminists to have feminist studies or gays to have gay studies. Now all those hippie wannabes from the 70s are full professors and leading the charge for shutting down discussion.
Liberals and progressives make up a small number of the general population but they make up a overwhelming number of the academic population. Not that I would advocate this, but if if someone bombed public colleges and universities across the country it would put a major dent in the the progressive movement.
A really big case.
“Students have clearly learned a lesson from Professor Miller-Young that free speech is only protected when we agree with the message”
This has been going on for quite some time, but it unfortunately is now being taught in academic settings by instructors who seem less concerned with serious research and education than they are with promoting and justifying their world perspective.
My biggest concern is this new concept of trigger words. It’s being pushed relentlessly by big hearted individuals who are concerned with the mental well being of weak souls that are in apparently dangerously damaged by hearing certain words or viewing images that are contrary to their beliefs. By being tolerant to this concept we’re setting ourselves up for another round of book burnings and word banning in the future, and a generation of kids that are ill prepared to handle modern life or conflict.
These are the people taking tax payer dollars to teach your children, folks. The education industry needs to be dismantled and reconstructed w/ people w/o an agenda opposed to the First Amendment. Liberal campuses HATE the First Amendment.