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. Miller-Young was convicted and sentenced in August. Despite the shocking conduct of Miller-Young and the clear violation of the most fundamental values for all academics in guaranteeing free speech and associational rights, the faculty overwhelmingly supported Miller-Young and the university decided not to impose any meaningful discipline. Now, the victims are suing Miller-Young, the UC Regents and others in seeking both compensatory and punitive damages. The lawsuit could finally force the University to explain its inexplicable response, or lack thereof, to the highly improper conduct of Miller-Young. As discussed below, Michael D. Young, Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs, not only issued a statement that seemed to blame the victims but faculty defended Miller-Young’s conduct, including arguments that the pro-life advocates were “terrorists”; Miller-Young’s response was due to that fact that she was pregnant and even that her expression of satisfaction was nothing more than her “mask” from a “cultural legacy of slavery.” Those arguments are likely to find little traction in a court of law.
The nine-page complaint was filed Thursday in Santa Barbara County Superior Court by Life Legal Defense Foundation. As discussed below, it could raise some interesting vicarious liability and discovery issues.
While I have been criticized on this blog for my objection to the lack of serious institutional discipline for Miller-Young by the university, I continue to view her conduct as anathema to all intellectuals and these defenses as not just immaterial but bizarre. Indeed, female professors have fought for decades to refute arguments that such conditions as pregnancies make them emotionally vulnerable or in any way unable to conduct themselves as academics. More importantly, Miller-Young 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. Much of the response from faculty appears to be influenced by their underlying agreement with the political views of Miller-Young. I would be surprised if the same response would be forthcoming if a conservative professor assaulted a pro-choice table and verbally denounced those arguing for the rights of women. In the end, it should not matter what the respective political views were in such confrontations. Faculty cannot lead a mob or fight the exercise of free speech without destroying the defining principles of our profession.
The lawsuit will now force the issue of the university’s lack of response. The lawsuit advances two claims based on the denial of federal and state free speech rights. One claim is based on the California Civil Code guaranteeing that the women would “be free from violence and intimidation by threat of violence against their property because of their religious and political beliefs and the peaceful lawful expression of those beliefs.” The fourth claim is a straight battery allegation.
The third claim is notable since it is part of the Hate Crime provisions generally supported by advocates as tools for fighting racism, sexism, and other prejudices.
Miller-Young only paid $492.40 in restitution to the Shorts and another $295 in fines. What will be interesting about the litigation will be the question of discovery and whether the court will allow the university’s post-event conduct to be considered as well as the question of scope of material that can be accessed by the plaintiffs. Miller-Young clearly committed acts that she admitted were criminal but also acts that constitute such torts as assault and battery. It is the nexus to the university that will be interesting. They could attempt simple vicarious liability through respondent superior. The classic defense is that she was acting outside the scope of her duties — a strong claim here. However, the lack of serious discipline conflicts with the defense on some level. Then there is the failure of the university to protect such free speech exercise — a claim that could make the later lack of action more material for discovery and trial.
The university can be expected to file robust dispositive motions. Yet, a total dismissal seems unlikely given the battery claims and the prior conviction. However, it could prune away a couple of the other claims. In doing so, the university would be arguing for a narrower reading of hate crimes provisions, an ironic position given the defenses raised by supporters of Miller-Young. The university could argue that an employer should not be liable for the actions of such an employee — a position that would be viewed as weakening these laws.
We will continue to follow the lawsuit.
Yeah, and the Nazis weren’t anti-Semitic just because they believed they had the right to kill Jews.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
the label “pro-life” should be kicked out the door. because i support the right to choose abortion does not make me “anti-life”. the so-called pro-lifers are really anti-choice. let’s be accurate in our description of their stance.
Well, Professor Porn will soon show up here to defend the old bag.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Free speech was only useful to get the left in control of universities.
Then they got rid of it.
They do not actually believe speech should be free.
They believe that only their view is the correct view, and all others should be silenced.
Viewed in that way, one can see how the ‘teacher’ felt wholly righteous here.
I recall a very articulate and searingly rational speech given on the floor of the Oregon Senate the year I was an 8th grader by a young state senator defending the right of all viewpoints to be heard on college campuses. (Someone had proposed a complicated vetting process before any campus group could sponsor a campus speaker.) That was Robert Packwood, who went on to become a US Senator. I think his eloquent defense of campus free speech might be found if someone had the time to root around the Oregon records. It was stellar. If I hadn’t been a kid, I might have had enough sense to ask for, and save, a copy of his remarks. They would hold up today. *disclosure: Packwood did resign amid allegations of inappropriate behavior with female employees– nothing was ever established. While I don’t condone that behavior..if true.. I am capable of seeing the good he did.
Jill, Saying you are Christian and practicing Christianity are two different things. Your 90% inmate stat is silly.
You were asking for this.
“Many people do not seem to have any consistent ethical principle on which they base their actions towards others. We really need to have underlying ethical ideals that we try to live up to. When we don’t live up to them, we need to recognize we aren’t doing so, and make a real apology to those we harmed.”
I propose that something like Christianity provides that. But we push it aside and the world is not a better place because of it.
Yes indeed it is to me too Jill. I’ve said all three times this story has been reported on by JT that this Professor was very wrong in stopping someone’s right to protest and engaging in violence. See my 10:53 comment.
Large organizations don’t learn things from lawsuits because there are simply so many of them that defending against them and resolving them is just part of the ongoing business of the organization. The attorneys dealing with this case will be the same ones dealing with catastrophic injuries and multi-million dollar contract disputes which are far more significant functionally. Even if the Risk managers and lawyers see misconduct and resulting liability, that process is separate from personnel management and discipline processes which have usually been completed long before the litigation starts. Since the attorneys representing the university usually also represent the public employee, they have to act in the best interests of both in the matter.
Annie, I am an atheist. I think religion is responsible for great harm as well as great good (depending on the person) around the entire world, not just in the US.
Many religious people absolutely refuse to respect other religious people and atheists. That is wrong. We see many attempts to ban the free speech of atheists and other religions. One example of this is in the blasphemy laws JT has written about many times. It is absolutely wrong for a state to uphold any kind of blasphemy law.
Seeking to equate goodness with religion is just not an idea that has any proof behind it. For example about 90% of the people in prison identify as Christians. Thus, the idea that if one is a Christian one is a good person is a false idea.
I am unequivocally pro choice. That is why the idea of physically harming a young woman is an anathema to me? Isn’t it to you?
The idiotic White Liberal said, “[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.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I don’t see the university fully prevailing in this lawsuit. A likely outcome could be the university pays out a sum of money, lip service will be paid officially, but behind the scenes this professor will be congratulated for championing her cause. No lessons will be learned here on respecting the rights of those who may disagree with certain factions of the faculty.
Jill, do think that the country’s ills are due to secularists? Or the lack of religious belief? In your opinion do religious people respect others free speech more than secular people? What do you think of Jim’s idea that this episode may be connected to a lack of religion? Jill if I recall you are pro choice? Correct?
Jill – “Willingness to physically harm a young woman by an adult is a reprehensible act. That any person or institution would defend this is despicable. This is a defense of violence against women.
Many people do not seem to have any consistent ethical principle on which they base their actions towards others. We really need to have underlying ethical ideals that we try to live up to. When we don’t live up to them, we need to recognize we aren’t doing so, and make a real apology to those we harmed. In this case, it will go beyond apology to a legal hearing.
There are (at least) two missing ethical principles in Miller-Young’s actions: 1. respect for free speech and 2. violence against women is wrong. She failed on both accounts. It would have been great if she could have stood up and apologize for violating these important ethical standards. (I suppose this is now impossible due to legal action.)
But why other people in the university community won’t stand up for them and try to make things right is a real statement about how little people hold to any sense of justice or honor. We need to be much more honorable in our responses to others, especially those who we may have every reason to dislike. Doing so is a matter of self respect and social justice.”
Jill, I am not a Bible thumper but I shared an office once with a very literal interpreter (We had some really great discussions) and he always would tell me, expect bad things as God and religion get pushed aside. At the time I thought he was crazy but the message always stayed in my head. Well over the last couple of decades I seem to see more and more clearly what he was talking about. Progressives can hate religion all they want but it does provide a time to reflect and I believe achieve what you are asking for people/society to do.
BREAKING NEWS
Johnathan Gruber, author of Obamacare, says the law was not a tax, could not pass as a tax and that the American people are “stupid.” He says that a “lack of transparency” was deliberate. The SCOTUS “overreached,” rewrote Obamacare as a tax and was complicit in the abuse of power of government against the people. Obamacare was never supported by the people. The SCOTUS was the “check and balance” and the SCOTUS failed, deliberately as a “legislative” act. The SCOTUS must be impeached and convicted of corruption and deliberate subversion to nullify the Constitution and usurp the power of the legislative branch.
Jonathan Gruber
“In a newly surfaced video, one of Obamacare’s architects admits a “lack of transparency” helped the Obama administration and congressional Democrats pass the Affordable Care Act. The conservative group American Commitment posted Jonathan Gruber’s remarks, reportedly from an Oct. 17, 2013, event, on YouTube.”
“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” says the MIT economist who helped write Obamacare. “And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”
Nicely worded Jill. It kind of illustrates the downward spiral of civilization as a hole.
Why do libs hate babies and white people? This is racism. I’m sure she never would have gone after then if they were her sista’s. Libs are just a bunch of baby hating racists!
Jim22 – I just found out what the smallest group of white liberals are: white males, who are over represented on college campuses.
“I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Whelp, so much for that sentiment! Too many people don’t value a diversity of ideas, only of skin color.
—-
A similar case which has just concluded was Mike Adams vs UNCW. A major victory for freedom of speech.
The last installment of a seven part series is here: http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2014/11/10/our-people-n1916376
(Linking to the last one because in the beginning, it lists the other parts in order- so you can read in order)
Here is the first installment: http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2014/08/28/this-is-providence-n1884028/page/full
Based on Mike Adam’s experience, I think the defendants listed above are in for a brutal wake up call.
Willingness to physically harm a young woman by an adult is a reprehensible act. That any person or institution would defend this is despicable. This is a defense of violence against women.
Many people do not seem to have any consistent ethical principle on which they base their actions towards others. We really need to have underlying ethical ideals that we try to live up to. When we don’t live up to them, we need to recognize we aren’t doing so, and make a real apology to those we harmed. In this case, it will go beyond apology to a legal hearing.
There are (at least) two missing ethical principles in Miller-Young’s actions: 1. respect for free speech and 2. violence against women is wrong. She failed on both accounts. It would have been great if she could have stood up and apologize for violating these important ethical standards. (I suppose this is now impossible due to legal action.)
But why other people in the university community won’t stand up for them and try to make things right is a real statement about how little people hold to any sense of justice or honor. We need to be much more honorable in our responses to others, especially those who we may have every reason to dislike. Doing so is a matter of self respect and social justice.
Jill – the university protected the woman because she was black and a woman. She was a very special snowflake. Had she been a white male, he probably would have been fired, but even that is in question. Michael Mann should have been fired over the emails fracas but the university protected his job and then protected his work product.
Professor Turley–than you for your integrity in reporting on this type of travesty–surely not an easy thing in your profession.
Boy, did Miller-Young give that group some great PR that they would not have otherwise received. Heck, she could be the impetus for a whole new huge movement! She would have been far more effective in “turning the other cheek.” I know those rabid pro-lifers like to get in your face sometimes. Happened near my home recently. Ignore and continue. They can make their case another way. Miller-Young just demonstrating “stupid is as stupid does.” Who be the more stupider. ???? Hmmmmmm.