WEATHER »
Thrin Short shared her thoughts on the Miller-Young case outside the courthouse Friday. (April 4, 2014)

Paul Wellman

Thrin Short shared her thoughts on the Miller-Young case outside the courthouse Friday. (April 4, 2014)


UCSB Professor Pleads Not Guilty to Theft and Battery


Friday, April 4, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

Mireille Miller-Young — the UCSB professor charged with misdemeanor theft, battery, and vandalism last month after allegedly taking an antiabortion protestor’s sign, destroying it, and injuring a protestor in the process — pleaded not guilty on Friday. Miller-Young didn’t appear in court but was represented by her lawyer, Catherine Swysen, who declined to comment on the case. The next hearing is scheduled for May 1.

According to a police report filed about the March 4 incident, members of the Riverside-based group Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust were displaying large posters of aborted fetuses on the UCSB campus when they approached Miller-Young. Miller-Young, an associate professor in the Feminist Studies department, later told police that she is pregnant and was “triggered” by the protestors’ signs and that those signs violated her own rights by showing such graphic images. She reportedly took one of the banners, destroyed it in her office, and scratched and pushed 16-year-old Thrin Short — who attended Friday’s hearing — in the process. UCSB has declined to comment on the case.

After Miller-Young’s plea was entered, Short spoke with media outside the courthouse. She said that she was “not very surprised” at Miller-Young’s not-guilty plea but that she is “still very surprised” that a professor would be involved in such an incident, noting that at previous demonstrations, her group has experienced people getting upset but the encounters are “civilized.” Short maintained that her group had the same right to their views as Miller-Young did. “She was going through the same free speech zone as we were,” she said. “I hope she gets what is just, which is to not do anything like this in the future.”

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

Why isn't this 16 year old girl in school?

sbreader (anonymous profile)
April 4, 2014 at 2:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@Sbreader: Because she is not a dolphin. Dolphins always travel in schools.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
April 4, 2014 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SAH is having a field day with this, but I see many liberals defending the admittedly-disgusting photos, and Miller is guilty of these misdemeanors. More interesting is how she got tenure without ever publishing a book? She also did post-doctoral work at UCSB so must have impressed some in the feminist studies area…? I suggest the Professor mend her ways, plead guilty to these misdemeanors, defend even SAH's right to freedom of speech, and let us all move on.

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
April 4, 2014 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Five bucks says the girl's home-schooled.

Looks like the poor thing's kept indoors most of the time, too. Get in your closet and PRAY, Carrie!

Walter (anonymous profile)
April 4, 2014 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

...and Miller-Young is pleading innocent because?...

billclausen (anonymous profile)
April 4, 2014 at 6:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@Walter,

Western objections to infanticide precede Christianity by more than a thousand years. While it may be religious people who protest abortion the majority of Americans would have voted against legalizing it in 1973 if they had been asked. There is a deeply-held revulsion toward abortion that can't be erased by a court decision.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
April 4, 2014 at 6:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@Walter: Did you ask yourself why so many are being home-schooled? 1: Academic standards are down the drain; 2: People are tired of the politics of public schools. Rather than a snarky comment about homeschooling, you should address the fact that the public schools are having so many problems (not to mention that almost all schoolyard shootings happen on public--not private school campuses) despite the $$$ they get. Even the proverbial little schoolhouses on the praries did a better job educating kids.

As for abortion, babies have been born four months premature and survived viably. That's not religion, it's scientific fact.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
April 4, 2014 at 8:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Folks, the professor is charged with theft, battery (physicallly hurting another), and vandalism. She is not charged with forcing abortion on others. Keep your eyes on the target.

As for abortion, males have nothing to say in the argument and have no legal standing. Females have the power and the choice. However, as a male, I will go on despite the previous statement.

Morally, the debate has no black and white sides, only murky shades of gray. Women will get pregnant and almost every one of them wants the best for her fetus. But those who can think into the future have enough insight to understand whether they can provide any reasonable succor that will allow the fetus to truly succeed in life.That assessment belongs to the mother alone. She can abort, can adopt, or struggle at motherhood.

All the rest of us can observe only. I have no right to tell my wife, my girlfriend, my sister, my mother what choice to make---I can only advise if asked. We have a marketplace of opinions, let the marketplace work. Professor Miller-Young and Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust espouse narrow views and accept no others; sad their minds are so incurious, so unwilling to grow.

freespeechisnotfree (anonymous profile)
April 5, 2014 at 5:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This professor is an embarassment. First Amendment does not protect her right to attack a minor with a poster.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
April 5, 2014 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I challenge your statement, dewdly, that "Western objections to infanticide precede Christianity by more than a thousand years." Not substantive objections and not well recorded. We DO however, have significant archaeological evidence of infanticide from ancient Greece -- over 500 years before Jesus -- in the form of tiny female baby skeletons buried.

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
April 5, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Infanticide is not abortion. Public schools are not to blame for shootings and homeschooling is not always better. I know plenty of people who have no business indoctrinating the youth. Case in point. Tax money is being wasted on 'justice' lately, here is one of the many instances...and they say we're broke (not if we can afford this).

spacey (anonymous profile)
April 5, 2014 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Gotta love all the peeps that vigorously defend, with pride, the ability for a woman to kill her unborn living human.

What an awesome thing to be for. How cool!

These are the same crowd that are both against the death penalty for convicted criminals and are often big animal rights fans and vegetarians.

But do anything to prevent suctioning out a dead human after poisoning it - no way! Let that happen as often as any woman wants.

realitycheck88 (anonymous profile)
April 5, 2014 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

These anti-abortion protestors violated Regents regulation 100014.

Miller-Young was following the directive of Gov. Reagan concerning UC rules: obey the rules or get out.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 5, 2014 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MrsDoverSharp: If what you say is true, then both sides violated the rules and should be prosecuted. The main issue though, is what Miller-Young did.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
April 5, 2014 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I have no right to tell my wife, my girlfriend, my sister, my mother what choice to make"

freespeechisnotfree (anonymous profile)
April 5, 2014 at 5:25 a.m.

What if you make them pregnant?

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
April 5, 2014 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Any faculty member has authority to enforce the rules, which is all Miller-Young did. Hard to believe all this clammer over a professor doing the right thing, although the protestors failed to respect her authority. Open disrespect of just the sort Reagan found unacceptable.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 5, 2014 at 4:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

terrific, Miller-Young is a Reagan reincarnation restoring free speech near UCSB's Arbor….OK

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
April 5, 2014 at 4:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Right back at dolphinpod14: Once the wife gets pregnant, she can tell her husband about the event now, or later, or never. But what she can do right now and has every right to do, is see her personal physician and decide how to proceed. Not every joining of a sperm and an egg is a religious miracle, rather most who have thought it through realize it is a biological phenomenon that has gone on for eons and has been brought to us by natural selection and physical forces. Yes, I am an unapologetic scientist and realist.

freespeechisnotfree (anonymous profile)
April 5, 2014 at 6:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Who is allowed to enforce UC Regulation 100014?

See UC Regulation 100002.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
April 5, 2014 at 6:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Faculty are authorized to maintain order on UC Campuses.

Reagan and his appointed Regents in the late 1960's made sure that complete freedom of expression was against the rules on UC campuses. Ability to speak and distribute small flyers was allowed. Large signs like those displayed by the Short sisters were restricted.

A number of students and non-students were prosecuted at Berkeley in the late 1960's for violating the Reagan-approved rules. A small sign saying `F**K' resulted in a non-student spending 30 days in Alameda County jail.

Anyone who supports Reagan also should support the same treatment for the Shorts that Berkeley free-speech advocates received in the late 1960s: 30 days in County jail.

snugspout (anonymous profile)
April 5, 2014 at 7:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I repeat:

Who is allowed to enforce UC Regulation 100014?

See: UC Regulation 100002.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
April 5, 2014 at 7:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In accordance with UC Regulation 100002, faculty are employees who are authorized to maintain order on campus.

Note that the Shorts' video omitted the earliest portion of the interaction with Miller-Young, so there is no public data on whether Miller-Young warned or advised the Shorts' to remove or seek approval for their sign.

snugspout (anonymous profile)
April 5, 2014 at 7:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Read UC Regulation 100002 again.

Any violations by "non-affiliated persons" are subject to a warning first from those designated as campus security personnel.

One needs to establish a reasonable and specific safety threat first, before anyone else may unilaterally take action.

There was obviously no reasonable safety threat merely having a non-regulation sign (more than 30x30 inches). Likewise, it is not yet apparent if the defendant first provided the required warning and offer to mitigate any alleged violations of UC Regulation 100014, before she took action unilaterally on her own.

The courts will have the final say in this matter.

In matters of free speech do not confuse content with the ability to regulate time place and manner. Content is neutral: only time place and manner may be regulated.

In this case, the defendant had the right to object to the size of the sign per college regulations. There upon, it was her duty to notify campus safety personnel and leave the matter in their hands per UC Regulation 100002.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
April 5, 2014 at 9:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"As for abortion, males have nothing to say in the argument and have no legal standing. Females have the power and the choice. However, as a male, I will go on despite the previous statement."

This is tyranny of the Indispensable 'Gender' (Sex) over the Disposable One. Choice needs to be EQUAL under the law. It's MY body MY right TOO, after all.

Sealion (anonymous profile)
April 5, 2014 at 11:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We men must assert our rights. As a man, I WILL have an abortion, it is my right to get pregnant, and have an abortion. That is the only way we will get even. Why is it that only women are allowed to get preggers and then have the abortion?

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
April 6, 2014 at 4:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Shorts failed to obtain prior written approval for their signs. They failed to obey the rules. It will be internal UCSB committees, not the courts, that will decide whether they are banned from the UCSB campus.

The County DA decided to prosecute Miller-Young for enforcing a Regents regulation. Most likely the US Civil rights team will undertake an investigation as to whether race was a factor. The County has a poor record on fairness w/r to blacks. How many deputies or DA office staff are black? Recall the Anaconda, or the crackdown in IV after North Hall?

snugspout (anonymous profile)
April 6, 2014 at 7:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Men choose to initiate the conception. They carry the most power of all.

If men do not trust what their impregnation partner will do with the resultant mutually created new life, they need to choose their impregnation partners more carefully.

Men retain the ultimate and final power in this impregnation condition of choice.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
April 6, 2014 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

UC Regulations allow for a warning first from designated campus safety personnel for violations by non-affiliated persons exercise of their free speech on campus.

There are no legal provision for the actions allegedly perpetrated by this campus employee, regardless of any infraction committed by the allegedly unauthorized sign carrier.

The faculty member's duty was to contact campus safety personnel and not take matters (literally) into her own hands.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
April 6, 2014 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

wow, you go WAY back with the North Hall event, but I recall it well and snugspout is correct in the racist over-reaction of that era. As someone wrote on another thread about this, "The faculty member's duty was to contact campus safety personnel and not take matters (literally) into her own hands." Thus, agree foo.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
April 6, 2014 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Anyone who thinks it's appropriate, ethical or morally upright to forcibly compel the gestation and birth of a human being has a disgusting disregard for the sanctity of human life. --Nitz's wife and mother of his child

Nitz (anonymous profile)
April 7, 2014 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I find it very ironic and sad how people on this post can cry and vilify a women's right to choose what to do with their own body...while millions of people have lost/are losing their lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and around the world... while 1.5 million children die every year from starvation. So what I observe, is that you care about a life that hasn't been brought into this World yet, but you could care less about the living. There is a reason women make a very painful choice to have an abortion. A decision she will live with for the rest of her life. That is not your choice. Its hers, whether you like it or not. You can decry that God is against abortion and that it is murder. Just like when God told the Israelite's to slaughter all of the people in Jericho (save 1)? Or how about when God wiped out all humanity (save Noah's family) during the flood? So its OK for GOD to snuff out life at anytime, at any moment, but its not OK for woman (who was created in God's image), to decide who and when they bring another life into this world? We, as Christians, should be worried about one thing, our own souls. God is the judge. We are commanded to do one thing more than all others, which is love. Love God. Love thy neighbor. Your judgement is not loving, it separates you from your neighbor and from GOD (which is the definition of sin.)

Archer (anonymous profile)
April 7, 2014 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Regents regulations say nothing about `safety' personnel. They say `officer or employee'.

The advice given to faculty is: enforce the rules, unless you feel a need for backup from UCSB police, in which case don't hesitate to call them.

Faculty enforce a multitude of campus rules, in the class room, on field expeditions, in the library, etc. Hard to believe that so-called conservatives expect *no* enforcement of rules, except by sworn safety officers.

What an absurd concept. Imagine the local kindegarten teacher in IV school having to call the police because Jimmy stole Betsy's cup of juice.

snugspout (anonymous profile)
April 7, 2014 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is a basic freedom of speech issue that has nothing to do with university regulations or abortion. Miller-Young doesn't acknowledge that others have a right to do things that offend her. She's wrong. This is the essential meaning of freedom of speech.

If the primary purpose of the signs was to disgust and upset people, there would have been MANY complaints about them; this is an area that hundreds, if not thousands, of students pass through daily.

Any law that restricts a person's right to make decisions about their own body is threatening.
Miller-Young's statement that she was able to grab the sign because she was stronger is a statement by a woman who's aware that women are victimized because they're usually smaller and not as strong as men - it doesn't indicate aggression.
Miller-young was very clear in her statement to police that her reaction was an emotional response, not a rational one, and I think that's important. Outlawing abortion doesn't stop abortion, it only makes abortion very dangerous or fatal to women by eliminating safe medical conditions for performing abortions. I think a feminist professor would see that clearly as a threat.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
April 7, 2014 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm watching this event play out with a great deal of interest.

The Pro-choice faction is in the position where all the evidence appears to be overwhelmingly against the professor judging from the video, and the filed police report,( which for some strange reason is getting harder and harder to find on the internet). Its reached the point that pro-choice posters on this site have to resort to accusing the pro-life group of violating Univ. of Cal. regulations and that the professor was within her rights and had the authority to enforce those regulations.

The Univ. is completely silent because any statement by them could be detrimental to the professor. Themselves, if the professor sues them. Or if any actions by the Univ. causes a backlash from alumni or major donors. (Statements by the Vice-chancellor may not have helped in this.)

On friday in court her lawyer entered her plea. I looked up info about the professor's lawyer and pulled this quote from her website,"Ms. Swysen draws upon her experience as a teacher and former employee of the University of California to handle educational matters for both students and faculty in administrative and disciplinary matters at the University of California, California State University and Santa Barbara City College."

I feel that the Univ. is behind the scene trying to engineer an outcome that minimizes damage.

I'm looking forward to May 1st to see if UCSB can manage to keep things from blowing up even more.

dperson (anonymous profile)
April 7, 2014 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That pasty rat-face girl should have been aborted - Where in the world do these people get the gall to use the word "holocaust" in their moniker.

While the professor did not have the right to do what she did to the rat face girl - being fanatical and egregiously disturbing other people under the justification of "fighting the good fight" is a joke.

This kid should be in her own school - rather than disrupting ours. Acting like God has ordained them to go around judging other people.

CHARRIStheBOSS (anonymous profile)
April 7, 2014 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good posts snugspout - the 'holocaust survivors' (unbelievable) required permission under UC Regents regulations. If they didn't have that permission they should not have been there. Dr Mireille's reaction is another matter, she really didn't handle the situation very well. Call campus security, if these people have permission then fine, otherwise they have to stop their demonstration: there are preconditions for use of 'free speech' areas on campus by non-UCSB personnel.

And is there any chance that we can separate this issue from the abortion issue? They really are quite different.

whitecrow (anonymous profile)
April 7, 2014 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@DavyBrown,

The Roman historian, Tacitus, described the attitudes of the Germanic tribes in his work "Germania" which was written two thousand years ago.

"To limit the number of children, or to destroy any of their subsequent offspring is accounted infamous, and good habits here are more effectual than good laws elsewhere."

Of course, this only makes biological sense because in the harsh and aversive climate of Northern Europe, the nurturance and protection of offspring was of the utmost importance. The value that we descendants of those Northern peoples put on successful reproduction and childrearing is an evolutionary product from our ancient past.

Why do you think pictures of mutilated and dismembered fetuses disturb us? Why do you think women "agonize" over the choice to kill their babies?

dewdly (anonymous profile)
April 7, 2014 at 4:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@CHARRIS,

Holocaust is a Greek word, reference to burning the whole. Words are not proprietary and while it may be inaptly applied to abortion its more common usa is equally inappropriate.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
April 7, 2014 at 6:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@freespeechisnotfree,

In the West mothers have never been allowed to kill their offspring. Just because a baby can be killed en utero doesn't change the character of the act. Surely, you wouldn't argue that the father has no say in the life of a child because it began its life in the womb?

The reason people find the pictures of mutilated, dismembered, and dead fetuses "disgusting" is that they recognize them as victims of infanticide and that goes against their instincts to protect and nurture human infants. We may not think an image of a strangled newborn is disgusting, but we certainly react with horror at the woman who is so denatured that she could kill her own baby.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
April 7, 2014 at 6:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you Archer.

VioletFlame (anonymous profile)
April 7, 2014 at 7:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

dewdly - fantasy. There are plenty of videos of dead, dismembered babies in war zones around the world posted on many websites There are many videos and stills of babies who have starved to death, many due to US embargos and intelligence-engineered warfare on civilians and the theft of food donated by humaritarian organizations by corrupt governments. I work on a TVSB show that has broadcast many over the years, with no complaints. TVSB streamed live on USTREAM in the past. The channel's entire broadcasting was banned from USTREAM months ago due to the broadcast of a live birth. The Indy is currently actively supporting a policy promoted by a minority of the .1%, that they've publicly stated is unrelated to climate and science, that includes murdering 95% of the world's population, making the Holocaust look like a Westside knife fight in comparison, solely because they'd prefer to have the entire planet for their private use, with a sufficient number of others to service them. We live with an immoral, unethical, irresponsible disregard for life, and we have a respect for the unborn that has no correlation with our respect for the living. It's much more acceptable to kill people after they're born.
China has a slightly lower birthrate than the US, and 13 million abortions/year. Mao Ze-Dong murdered 49-78,000,000 million people, and US embargoes on Iraq killed 500,000 children under the age of six.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
April 7, 2014 at 10:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Seriously dewdly, your Freudian slip is showing.

Nitz (anonymous profile)
April 7, 2014 at 10:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@14noscams,

What is your point? Are you making an argument?

dewdly (anonymous profile)
April 8, 2014 at 12:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@Archer,

It isn't a question of what to do with a woman's own body, but what can be done to someone else's.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
April 8, 2014 at 12:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@Dewdly

You are correct about word etymology - but that's it. Words may not be "proprietary" but certain words are invariably linked to particular events and the cultural attitudes that surround them. Their usage of the word holocaust is an attempt to garner attention generated by contrived controversy - aka the model of their entire operation. Its the same as using the word "slavery" in a group name.

CHARRIStheBOSS (anonymous profile)
April 8, 2014 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The abortion issue is irrelevant entirely.

The posters could have been about Japan's whale harvest, infanticide in the Sudan, or global warming.

The contributing relevant facts are that the 16-year old victim of this crime was standing in a specifically designated protected "Free Speech Area" (which is a ridiculous concept to even NEED on a University of California campus, since freedom of speech is protected by Constitutional Law, but I digress), and was engaged in lawful activity.

The professor attacked her, assaulted her, battered her, caused physical harm to her, stole her property, and destroyed her property. Each one of those actions is unlawful and is cause for termination of her employment and potential incarceration.

She is unrepentant and unapologetic for her behavior - instead blaming the victim for her choice to engage in these unlawful crimes against the 16-year old student. This UCSB employee is a disgrace and I'm ashamed that she is named among the ranks of "professors" at my alma mater.

That this professor has one single person supporting her in perpetuating these crimes on a 16-year old child is a sign of sickness and the culture of personal irresponsibility that has invaded the ranks of University of California, Santa Barbara community.

ruminate (anonymous profile)
April 8, 2014 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

UC campuses have never been free speech zones, and only ignorance could lead anybody to argue to the contrary. All actions on a UC Campus are regulated by a corporation, the UC Regents, to accomplish statutory goals.

There is no more right to free speech on a UC Campus than there is inside Koch Industries corporate hq.

UC president Sproul successfully got the Regents to pass Rule 17, which severely restricted speech on UC Campuses. Speakers used to set up podiums and platforms in the streets just off UC Campuses.

Gov Reagan and his appointees to the Regents argued strongly to never allow free speech on UC Campuses. And indeed there remain strict speech regulations to this day on UC Campuses.

The Shorts violated Regents regulation 100014.

When Miller-Young tried to enforce that regulation, the Shorts disrespectfully chased after Miller-Young.

It is the Shorts who were disrespectful and unruly. Obey the rules or get out, as Gov. Reagan had posted in his office.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 8, 2014 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@MrsDoverSharp,

What's with the "designated free speech area"? Miller-Young admitted that she didn't know what the "rules" were, so it is not possible that she could have been enforcing them.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
April 8, 2014 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@Charris,

Wouldn't you have to say that the Jews' misuse of the word "holocaust" is a similar attempt to garner attention?

dewdly (anonymous profile)
April 8, 2014 at 4:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MrsDoverSharp - Michael Young, UCSB Vice Chancellor for student affairs, disagrees with your analysis:

"Here’s a statement sent around to UCSB students by Michael D. Young, Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs, in the wake of the prosecution of UCSB Prof. Mireille Miller-Young for stealing and destroying a protester’s sign, and assaulting the protester...."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vo...

14noscams (anonymous profile)
April 8, 2014 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You need schooling, dewdly, and to study your sources: ABORTION was WIDELY ACCEPTED in ANCIENT GREECE and ROME. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/...
Aristotle in POLITICS 7.16 unequivocally approves of abortion, and his attitude was a common one in Greece and Rome. Also, dewdly, as another poster commented: you confuse infanticide with abortion. Hey, no one likes abortion, and certainly there are far too many in our society today. We resolve this with better education, lessening of our savage inequalities,...

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
April 8, 2014 at 5:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MrsDoverSharp you're having us on, and you're wrong on everything you say. 14noscams gave you the reference for Vice Chancellor Michael Young's comments, AND they are quoted at great length in this online newspaper. Agree ruminate and whitecrow, the Prof. completely mishandled this situation, handing SAH and those fanatics a wonderful chance to look good for once. Move on, the Prof will get convicted of misdemeanors, then Chancellor Yang/Academic Senate can work on her continuing tenure [?], ….all hail free speech.

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
April 8, 2014 at 5:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@DavyBrown, Greece and Rome are not Northern Europe and Tacitus, a Roman, was noting the distinctions between the practices in Rome and in Germania.

Abortion has always been dangerous and in most times and places was considered tantamount to suicide, making infanticide, not abortion, the preferred method of disposing of an unwanted child. Even today, obstetricans have testified that late term abortions are so dangerous for the woman that it would be much safer to deliver the infant alive and then kill it.

Infanticide and abortion are both methods of disposing of an unwanted child so it is a phony, self-deluding distinction. The child is no less human because it is at an earlier stage of development than the full-term newborn or five year-old. Women choose to kill it precisely because if left alone it will be a newborn, a five year-old, a teenager and an adult.

There is no correspondence between "education" and fewer abortions because the kind of education you are talking about is only about how to make females "safe" sex partners and what to do if contraception fails. After fifty years of "education" and readily available contraception young women still have sex because they are in love and have some confidence that they are loved in return.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
April 8, 2014 at 6:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

dewdly and DavyBrown, you are referring to the letter from V. Chancellor Young **TO THE UCSB STUDENTS**. The first line is: `Dear Students'.

http://www.independent.com/news/2014/...

The Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs has no authority whatsoever over UCSB faculty. Faculty report to, depending on the nature of the issue, their Department Chair, their Dean, the Executive Vice Chancellor's office, and various committees of the UCSB Division of the Academic Senate.

Once again, allowing for any regulated `free speech' on UC Campuses was a choice of the Regents. From the 1930's to the 1970's there was *no* free speech on UC Campuses, and all political speeches or advocacy happened ***OFF CAMPUS***, often on the streets adjacent to campus.

The `free speech' zone on the UCSB campus is regulated by many policies and rules, which Chancellor Young's letter refers to. The loudness of the discussions is limited. And signs of the nature that the Shorts brought on campus need prior written approval, which the Shorts did not get.

Miller-Young had complete power to enforce UC regulations. Faculty always have that power. The Shorts were unruly and uncooperative, and followed a professor who took their sign that broke the rules back to her office. The Shorts were clearly in the wrong.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 8, 2014 at 7:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@MrsDoverSharp,

Miller-Young was not "enforcing regulations" she was venting on a very childish level because she did not like the anti-abortion message.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
April 8, 2014 at 7:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe Miller-Young is thinking about the life gestating in her womb. Perhaps she protesteth much.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
April 8, 2014 at 8 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@billclausen,

More likely she is objecting to the depiction of women as childbearers because her area of expertise is in the use of women in pornography. Childbearing and motherhood are seen as impediments to the free expression, enjoyment, academic appointments, and monetary profit of the new, female sexuality.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
April 8, 2014 at 8:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Faculty always have the power to enforce regulations. Whether or not Miller-Young enforced the regulations rudely or nicely is immaterial. Miller-Young was clearly in the right.

The Short did not follow the rules before displaying their sign. Wrong is wrong and right is right, and the Shorts were wrong. If they whine that Miller-Young was a meanie, that doesn't change the fact that the Shorts were wrong and broke the rules.

What the Shorts are arguing for is some sort or situational ethics. *Their* sign, although against the rules, should be allowed. That the enforcer was a black woman who teaches analysis of pornography means that the enforcement was invalid.

Amazing how the Shorts don't believe in objective right and wrong.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 8, 2014 at 9:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@MrsDoverSharp,

In the police report Miller-Young stated flatly that she did not know the limits of free speech on campus and, therefore, could not judge whether anyone had done anything "wrong". In other words, she was not enforcing "regulations" because she didn't even know what the regulations were.

She complained about being "triggered", but that is an entirely subjective reaction; it cannot be the basis for denying people the right to free speech and is not a concept described in the University's regulations.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2014 at 2:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What Miller-Young said or failed to say does not change the fact that the protestors failed to get written pre-approval for their sign, and were in violation of UC Regents regulations. Right is right, and wrong is wrong, and the protestors were in the wrong.

The protestors clearly recognized that Miller-Young was a professor, they say so on the video uploaded to Youtube.

The protestors failed to comply with a professor who was enforcing Regents' regulations, and then pursued that professor and tried to interfere with her enforcement.

The Independent did not post the first three pages of the police report, so what I've seen is incomplete. I don't know what Miller-Young might have said in the first three pages.

In the 2 pages the Independent posted, Miller-Young said that she felt the protestors were in violation of University policy. University policy is a little different than Regents regulation, and there is (in the 2 pages posted) no discussion of the issue of Regents regulation. Indeed, the Regents regulations are law on campus, check the California Constitution.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2014 at 5:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

MrsDoverSharp: Please provide evidence the the professor, prior to her tirade, checked with campus bureaucrats to find out if the protesters had sought proper approval for their sign. Even then, that really begs the question. Speech that is non-threatening must be tolerated. Better to have the anti-choice voice out on campus than in the bushes with rifles aimed at women walking into clinics. All of us who are Pro-Choice and Pro-Free Speech must make sure that jury nullification does not take place in Santa Barbara. We should assist the DA in making sure that anyone in the jury pool who is Pro-Choice but Anti-Free Speech not be empaneled in the professor's trial.

freespeechisnotfree (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2014 at 7:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No evidence is necessary. As a faculty member, she has authority to enforce campus regulations, it is that simple. She had no responsibility to ask permission from anybody; if she felt she needed help, she could have called the police for their assistance.

UC Campuses have regulations that are the legal domain of the Regents; they set the law on campus. They `own' the UC property. That is why all checks you make out for campus purchases, tuition, etc... are to… the UC Regents.

There is free speech on UC Campuses only to the extent that the Regents grant that free speech. As I said, between 1930 and the 1970's, the Regents heavily restricted free speech on UC Campuses. Adlai Stevenson had to speak from a platform on a public street adjoining the UC Berkeley campus, he could not speak on campus.

The Regents decided to loosen speech regulations in the 1970's, but they have complete legal authority to regulate speech for any reason or no reason. Just as you can't storm into Exxon's headquarters and do anything you want, you cannot go on a UC Campus and express yourself any way you want.

You can sue tell you are blue in the face, but you cannot force the Regents to accept any behavior they have previously regulated. Just as you cannot enter a corporate building or a private residence and start expressing yourself any which way you please.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2014 at 7:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@MrsDoverSharp,

It is simply not possible to "enforce" regulations if one cannot say what those regulations are. Defending Miller-Young's embarrassingly, unprofessional behvior by casting her as a hall monitor for the UC regents doesn't have the effect you are seeking.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2014 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Beautifully stated, dewdly. I find it so disturbing that some with liberal views on abortion and race relations find themselves unable to distinguish between right and wrong.

freespeechisnotfree (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2014 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Who knows what Miller-Young said on the first three pages that were omitted from the Police Report? Who knows what Miller-Young said that the recording officer didn't record or didn't understand?

Who knows what Miller-Young said during the first minutes of her interaction with the Shorts that was omitted from their video? The only thing we are sure about is that the Shorts knew she was a professor, and disrespectfully followed a faculty member who in fact was enforcing Regents' regulations.

Wrong is what the Shorts did: fail to get prior written approval for their sign in accordance with Regulation 100014.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2014 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey MrsDoverSharp. I sure hope you are not an example of the thinking ability of the typical UCSB graduate. If the Shorts failed to follow some regulation, the professor could have informed them of their infraction and sought Campus Police help. But let's talk about you. Seemingly, despite input from your parents, teachers, and religious mentors you never learned that two wrongs do not make a right. The professor took private property, assaulted the property's owner when the owner sought to retrieve it, and then destroyed the property. The professor faces criminal charges and, I fully expect, subsequent civil litigation. I cherish your right to choice and I spent my life working for that freedom. However, in this case, you are wrong and misguided to side with the professor.

freespeechisnotfree (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2014 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I watched the live coverage hoping MIller-Young and the Shorts would make a guest appearance at Saturday's riot. That would've made it complete.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2014 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wouldn't have that been great, Ken_Volok!

Sorry, Prof. Miller-Young occupies an entirely different and higher level of authority, granted to her by the Regents, than the Shorts. Assassination of her character and her authority has been part and parcel of this incident from the beginning. Her actions are in no way comparable one-on-one with those of the Shorts. You may not like it, but that is the way it is on a UC Campus.

She is a distinguished person with absolute authority on the UCSB campus to seize items from anyone if she feels the educational or research mission is being compromised through violations of the Regents regulations. She is like an officer aboard a Navy vessel.

She has absolute authority to seize material used by students to cheat in her tests, for example.

Like all faculty she is responsible for orderly functioning of the campus educational and research environment. The Shorts have no responsibilities and no respect for campus function.

All benefit of the doubt goes with the professor, the figure of authority, not with protestors who bring signs that were never approved on to campus.

You wouldn't see the Shorts questioning the authority of their Priests like they question the authority of Prof. Miller-Young. Or of the Professors on the Thomas Aquinas campus. Should a Professor/Priest seize something from a student at Thomas Aquinas, there would be no question as to who is right.

Prof. Miller-Young gets the same benefit of the doubt on the UCSB campus.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2014 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In this vast sea of humanity, extremism miraculously is able to find itself in all its forms.

Georgy (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2014 at 1:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

WOW tried in the court of edhat and set free!!
Good work MDS or attorney for proffesor Young

dadof3 (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2014 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@MrsDoverSharp,

Not only would we not see a priest grab a protestor's sign, carry it off, and destroy it, but we wouldn't see a regent, a professor of engineering, a chancellor, or a campus police officer behave in such a manner.

Miller-Young's area of expertise - black women ("brown sugar") in pornography is pitifully lacking in academic seriousness and does nothing to generate respect for the University, while her petulant antics are bound to come to mind as parents write out tuition checks to UCSB.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2014 at 6:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Priests certainly confiscated and destroyed my brother's Playboy magazines when he attended a Jesuit college, dewdly.

Remember SI Hayakawa, dewdly? He certainly seized signs, berated demonstrators, and pulled the plug on their on-campus speeches at SFSU.

You live in some sort of ahistorical vacuum. A vacuum where Priests are perfect, and, ahem, never do anything untoward with young men in their care.

Miller-Young was hired, reviewed, and promoted in strict accordance with UC Regents' procedures. Your opinions and ignorance of both those procedures and the value of her research render your comments irrelevant.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2014 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Once she is convicted of these charges, Miller-Young should also be reviewed and fired in strict accordance with UC Regents' policies. Please sign the petition that will be submitted to Dr. Yang to encourage him to fire her accordingly.

http://www.change.org/petitions/chanc...

Botany (anonymous profile)
April 10, 2014 at 7:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@MrsDoverSharp,

Is it your contention that Hayakawa was enforcing the Regents' "regulations"? I am not sure he is an apt comparison for Miller-Young - he would have pulled her plug.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
April 10, 2014 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

dewdly and MrsDoverS you're both off on a wild tangent since S.I. Hayakawa's career was with San Francisco STATE UNIVERSITY, so all your "Regents" comments are irrelevant in regard to Sen. Hayakaw! UC Regents. Try checking a bit.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
April 10, 2014 at 6:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@DrDan,

It was MrsDoverSharp's contention that Miller-Young had "absolute" authority to seize and destroy the Short's sign and that authority was granted to her by "the Regents". I suppose she brought up Hayakawa as an example of the way this authority and enforcement works at US campuses.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
April 10, 2014 at 8:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's not right to seize and desytroy anybody's property/artwork. Peroiod. End of discussion. To try and argue otherwise makes one an intellectually dishonest ideologue. And Short had no business being on that campus, why isn't she in school? Or is she just cannon fodder for SAH?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 10, 2014 at 9:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@Ken,

School is not a prison system - or at least it shouldn't be. Most schools sponsor extra-curricular activities and many have a political content. Appealing to young women on the question of abortion means going where there are young women - like college campuses.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
April 10, 2014 at 11:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MrsSharp, having taught at 5 colleges, incl. UCSB (briefly), I can assure you Prof. Miller-Young's status was never one where "She is [was] like an officer aboard a Navy vessel."! Which planet are you on, it isn't Earth. School is neither a prison system NOR IS IT LIKE ABOARD A NAVY SHIP.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
April 11, 2014 at 6:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Take a look at the `artwork':

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kasRjUpGZms...

Both the State University system and the UC System have to have some rules, and the simple fact is, these posters violated UC Regents rule 100014.

Faculty unequivocally have the right to enforce the rules, and that is what Miller-Young did. You can complain all you like... is your point that campuses should have no rules whatsoever? Should protestors be able to disrupt calculus class if they think calculus is a communist conspiracy?

I don't think so. Some rules are always necessary. It so happens the Shorts violated one, and Miller-Young enforced the regulation.

Any other way of looking at it is an argument for chaos on our College Campuses.

The only reason simple enforcment of rules has not been the narrative: Miller-Young is a black woman whose research and teaching is controversial. Lots of people hate her for those reasons, so they give no consideration whatsoever to the fact that the Shorts were the ones in the wrong.

Which, of course, is ironic, becaue SI Hayakawa did exactly the same thing, as did Dean Sheriffs and Hardin Jones did at Berkeley in years past. And Governor Reagan famously had a plaque on his wall that said `Obey the rules or get out'.

So this whole incident proves: the Short supporters think the rules (that Reagan instituted) don't apply to themselves.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 11, 2014 at 6:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DrDan… I guess you've taught at places where students are free to cheat all they want, plagiarize, disrupt class, through eggs at the professors, not show up at class, not turn in work, and then sue the professor if they get a bad grade.

You are arguing for chaos on Campus, DrDan. There have to be some rules, and in this case, the Shorts violated one.

You live in a universe where black female professors get charges filed against them when they enforce the rules. Conservative white or asian men, like Alex Sheriffs or Hardin Jones or SI Hayakawa, did much, much worse, and never had charges filed against them.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 11, 2014 at 6:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In the fields below our tree of liberty there is plenty of chaos, MrsD, and on university campuses freedom of speech remains a hot issue. The Prof will settle her misdemeanors, I hope the university will look at her credentials and academic production, and free speech even for SAH and the Shorts will have been protected. There was always chaos on campus, dear MrsD, and the Prof and SAH need to be thanked for making us all ponder these tricky issues again.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
April 11, 2014 at 7:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What MrsDoverSharp fails to realize is that enforcement of the rules requires knowlege of the rules and intent. By her own admission, Miller-Young had no knowlege of the rules and no intent to enforce any rules. Miller-Young's only intent was only to deprive these people of their right to free speech. This makes MrsDoverSharp's argument superfluous.

Botany (anonymous profile)
April 11, 2014 at 8:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ignorantia legis neminem excusat

Whatever Miller-Young knew or did not now has not yet been proven or disproven. The beginning of the Short video was not posted to the internet, nor was the beginning of the police report.

In any case, she was fully within her rights, whether she was ignorant of the law or not. Faculty have enormous power, or else classrooms would be chaos.

I guess Botany & DrDan are happy with chaos in our places of education.

The Shorts are free to show their posters out on the streets of Isla Vista, BTW. But educational campuses are controlled environments, according to Gov. Reagan & the Regents.

And remember: conservative white & asian men never got prosecuted for much worse actions: the names are SI Hayakawa, Alex Sheriffs, and Hardin Jones. They enforced campus rules and the right wing in the US **LOVED IT*.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 11, 2014 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In a free speech zone, a certain level of chaos can be expected and should be tolerated.

Botany (anonymous profile)
April 11, 2014 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And the chaos of *speech* is tolerated, as long as the loudness does not disturb nearby classrooms. There is a rule for you... there is not unlimited free expression in *loudness* of the speech, even on the Arbor Mall.

The Shorts violated Regents' Regulation 100014 with their sign; there are restrictions on the size of the sign just as there are restrictions on the loudness of the speech.

That they were ignorant of the violation is no excuse.

The one thing that is absolutely proven on the soundtrack of their video: they *knew* Miller-Young was a professor. But they still pursued her when Miller-Young enforced the regulations. That was enormously disrespectful on any campus.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 11, 2014 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's pretty tragic how some people can't see right vs wrong thru the narrow prism of their ideology.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 11, 2014 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"That they were ignorant of the violation is no excuse."

But it's OK that the "enforcer" was ignorant of the regulations and had no intent to enforce it. Your logic is getting funnier by the minute!

Botany (anonymous profile)
April 11, 2014 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Enforcer, judge AND jury?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 11, 2014 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And your logic, Botany, is: Miller-Young was ignorant of the regulations because you say she was.

So far there is no proof either way.

The Shorts did not post the video of the first minutes of the interaction, who knows what Miller-Young said. The police report that I've seen omits the first 3 pages.

Nonetheless, Miller-Young may well have not known the regulation, but still is in the right. Her knowledge or ignorance does not change the fact that the Shorts violated the regulations.

It is common for a District Attorney to add charges that an arresting officer is ignorant of. The police officer need not have a complete command of all aspects of the law, just as Miller-Young need not.

That UCSB provides a free speech zone of any sort is not a narrow prism, Ken_Volok. The streets of IV are a much wider prism, which the Shorts chose not to avail themselves of.

And they were free to *say* anything they wanted as long as they didn't violate the campus noise restrictions. But showing a poster like this *at a picnic area reserved for eating* was in fact outside the bounds of both Regents regulations and campus policies:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kasRjUpGZms...

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 11, 2014 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Keep it up Botany and Ken_Volok; your efforts are appreciated. MrsDoverSharp displays her ignorance and inability to think on every post she submits. It's hard work supporting the right of freee speech when we disagree with the content of the speech. That is our challenge---silence fascistic voices such as that of MrsDoverSharp.

freespeechisnotfree (anonymous profile)
April 11, 2014 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have no intention of silencing her, just pointing out the sheer lack of logic in her argument. Ms. Miller-Young has already stated that she was unaware of what the regulation as to the size of the signage was. But even if she was aware, the prudent thing any "enforcer" would do is to ask the person to remove the sign. Miller-Young did not do that. Miller-Young has already admitted that it was the CONTENT of the sign that was at issue, not the size.

Miller-Young's intention was to deprive this person of her freedom of speech. University regulatory issues had nothing to do that. There is no logical argument MrsDoverSharp can present to refute that.

Botany (anonymous profile)
April 11, 2014 at 10:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm no fan of SAH either, they set up the situation and Miller-Young was dumb enough to take the bait. I'll say it once, I'll say it again- there are no heroes or martyrs in this case.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 11, 2014 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Right you are, Botony. "Silence" was the wrong verb. I should have said we need to out-argue and out-wit voices such as that of MrsDoverSharp.

freespeechisnotfree (anonymous profile)
April 11, 2014 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

THE RACE CARD played by MrsDoverSharp:

"The only reason simple enforcment of rules has not been the narrative: Miller-Young is a black woman whose research and teaching is controversial. Lots of people hate her for those reasons, "

Pitiful.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
April 11, 2014 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@MrsDoverSharp,

The Shorts acknowledged that Miller-Young was a professor with a tone of incredulity because she had stolen the Shorts' sign. Ms. Short called her a "thief" - a professor and a thief - at which point Miller-Young shot back that though I may be a thief - "you are a terrorist". She didn't say a word about violations of University free speech rules, S.I. Hayakawa, or Ronald Reagan or her "absolute" authority to take the sign.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
April 11, 2014 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mrs Dover Sharp it right on target. Her logic is flawless, and it may well be that the Shorts edited out the first 5 minutes of the video.

What a hoot that the intolerant Shorts criticize UCSB for insufficient tolerance. That they forgot to check the regs means Miller-Young will be acquitted.

snugspout (anonymous profile)
April 11, 2014 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Since when is a giant bloody (literally) poster "speech"? The protestor girls had complete speech freedom. Geez, what a phony squabble.

eleventysevendolphins (anonymous profile)
April 11, 2014 at 1:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

FYI:

UCSB instructor Ms Miller-Young was paid base salary of $74,750 in 2012, according to Transparent California Higher Education records.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
April 11, 2014 at 4:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@eleventysevendolphins

It "became" speech when pornography was declared to be speech. Most pornography is entirely visual and often is as large as a theater screen. Miller-Young specializes in that variety of protected "speech."

dewdly (anonymous profile)
April 11, 2014 at 5:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Except in a few big cities, motion picyure picture porn has RARELY been seen on "as large as a movie screen" since about 1984, when VHS (and a struggling BETA) captured the porn market. And while DVD/BR are popular formats, most pornography in 2014 is accessed via the internet. Pornography in print is even rarer.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 11, 2014 at 6:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@snugspot,

Miller-Young admitted that she didn't know what the regluations were when she made off with the poster and yet MrsDoverSharp casts Miller-Young as an "absolute" authority ot enforce the regulations of which she is totally ignorant.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
April 11, 2014 at 6:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@Ken,

Are you arguing that visual "speech" should be restricted to a certain size?

Many of the images and situations presented in today's "R" rated movies would have qualifed as pornographic, and therefore, restricted, fifty years ago and there has never been a size restriction on images of death, dismemberment, mutilation, and torture.

Women like Miller-Young are disturbed by images of dead and mutilated babies because they are human babies and we have an instinct to protect them. As I said before, images of newborns who have been suffocated by their mothers may not be judged "disgusting", but they will certainly evoke feelings of horror that there are women who could calmly murder their own children.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
April 11, 2014 at 6:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

dewdly, I was merely updating you as to modern exhibition and distribution practices in both the mainstream and pornographic motion picture industries.

As for your subsequent paragraphs, you don't want to get into a film/art theory debate with me, I'm a bit above your understanding.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 11, 2014 at 7:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@dewdly Whoa, you want giant megaplex screen-size photos of pornography, death, dismemberment, mutilation, torture, dead babies, and mutilated babies out on the Arbor Mall at lunchtime?

Throwing up those images up on the big screen in a theater where folks pay and choose to go is one thing, but in a public place where everybody goes to eat lunch? Where 3 year-olds walk through from the daycare center holding on to a rope with their room supervisor?

Wow you are extreme. Gotta be some sort of rules IMO.

eleventysevendolphins (anonymous profile)
April 12, 2014 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@eleventysevendolphins,

Miller-Young doesn't like to be reminded that abortion is the mutilation, dismemberment, and killing of a human baby. She would not have grabbed the sign away from a person protesting the birth defects caused by the use of depleted uranium in Iraq. You are participating in her hypocrisy to pretend that the objection to the pictures was aesthetic. Her objection is to the pro-life message and the people who deliver it. She's all for free speech when it comes to pornography - go figure.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
April 12, 2014 at 2:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Some people need to take their abortion debate elsewhere, as this is a Free Speech issue.

Yes, there is a difference and you're not winning converts. If anti-abortion activists se this as a big victory, well hahahhha

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 12, 2014 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@Ken,

Framing it as a "free speech issue" ignores the fact that Miller-Young selectively interfered with the free speech of people protesting abortion because she doesn't like the message.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
April 12, 2014 at 9:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No dewdly you're attempting to use a forum on Free Speech to discuss another topic entirely, remember: "IT'S NOT ABOUT CONTENT"! Youre proscribing motivation when motivaton is irreleveant because we have the action itself.
I was willing to give Prof. Miller-Young benefit of pregancy doubt; but soon after she should have at least apologized and admitted her mistake instead of doubling down like a Survivors of Abortion Holocaust kook.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 12, 2014 at 10:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One must speak their mind, and when their mind is free, so then, shall their speech be.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
April 13, 2014 at 6:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dewdly says…

"Miller-Young doesn't like to be reminded that abortion is the mutilation, dismemberment, and killing of a human baby. She would not have grabbed the sign away from a person protesting the birth defects caused by the use of depleted uranium in Iraq. You are participating in her hypocrisy to pretend that the objection to the pictures was aesthetic. Her objection is to the pro-life message and the people who deliver it. She's all for free speech when it comes to pornography - go figure.''

1)I have no idea what was in or is in her mind. I don't think you know either. However, she is free to think anything she wants, as are you. You have no basis for extrapolating to her behavior in other circumstances.

2)My main point is and remains: the Shorts failed to get prior written approval for their oversized signs, and thus violated Regents regulations 100014. They certainly committed the first wrong in this sad sequence of events by failing to get that approval.

3)Failing to get the required approval is content-neutral.

4)Given that the Shorts failed to get prior approval, any faculty member on the UCSB campus was free to seize their sign. What that faculty member was thinking or their motivation is irrelevant… the Shorts were simply in the wrong. Regulation 100002 says `should' not `must' when describing the behavior of a campus employee who enforces the regulation.

5)Had the Shorts made a sign that complied with 100014, they would not have been in the wrong. But the Shorts did not.

6)Nobody prevented the Shorts from delivering their verbal message, their canvassing of people, or ability to use a UCSB lunch picnic table. Considerable courtesy and freedom of expression was granted to them, and they have expressed no gratitude or appreciation in return. But they made a sign that was out of regulation and failed to seek or receive approval for that sign.

7)When Miller-Young seized the sign, the Shorts (who knew Miller-Young was a faculty member) pursued her. That was unruly behavior that might well get them suspended or expelled if they were UCSB students. As it is, it obviates the so called `assault' charges.

The question is what penalties will be given to the Shorts.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 13, 2014 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Both sides should be stuck on a desert island together for twenty years.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 13, 2014 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken_Volok, I wouldn't want you and your side to be subject to huge billboard-size signs of bloody fetuses on the island with the Shorts, unless you're OK with that.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 13, 2014 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MrsDoverSharp, what you fail to realize is that I take neither of your sides; I'm in the sane middle. You and dewdly are classic! You two should have your own show.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 13, 2014 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My perception of the middle is a place where each side gets a reasonable portion of what they want… SAH gets to come to the UCSB campus, use a picnic table, canvas passersby, say whatever they want as long as it is not too loud, defamatory, etc.

In return they have to obey a few rules, like, prior approval of their oversized pictures. PETA, Palestinians, Holocaust remembrances all have done that and their large pictures were approved with screens to protect the passersby from inadvertent gross out.

If your perception of the middle is always splitting the difference between opposing sides, then extremists always win, because holding out always results in the compromise moving their direction.

In fact the advantage for extremists of splitting the difference describes a lot of American politics today.

So you may perceive yourself as in the middle, Ken_Volok, but I don't think you are. I think the middle way is pretty much how UCSB treated PETA, Palestinians, and the Holocaust remembrances. But you want more rights for SAH.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 13, 2014 at 5:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hahahahahahahaha Mrs. Doversharp!!
I bet the SAH kooks would totally disagree with you!
I agree with you that SAH has to follow the rules, but so does Prof. Miller-Young, and you think she should be granted powers of judge, jury and enforcer! Would that make you God?!

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 13, 2014 at 5:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Really Mrs. Doversharp, if you really wanted to support Prof. Miller-Young you'd be far better off illustrating SAH's history of baiting people into these situations; not justifying the Prof's bad decision making.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 13, 2014 at 5:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, Miller-Young did follow the rules, that is clear. Faculty are actually responsible for order on campus, and need only call the UCSB police when they judge the situation calls for it.

Obviously you and others are uncomfortable with that power that faculty have, and that the Regents in the Gov. Reagan era specifically empowered faculty to do those things.

The real truth is that UC faculty generally would rather avoid enforcing the regulations; any regulations, regardless of the political `side' involved. They avoid the Arbor Mall altogether. Just as they avoided Sproul Plaza and Telegraph Avenue. Read Joan Didion for perspective on that.

The real truth is that engaging protestors and involving themselves in political issues is generally avoided by the overwhelming majority (I'd say >97%) of UCSB faculty. They are wrapped up in their research and their research community. Only a few have any substantial involvement in any local or national political issue.

The rarity of faculty regulation enforcement has made you and others think that the faculty have no power to do so. But they have the vestigial power to enforce the regulations.

Miller-Young would have been much wiser to use her power in a more subtle manner. But her wisdom or lack of it doesn't alter the fact that her actions are within her powers, as defined and encouraged by the Regents in the Gov. Reagan era.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 13, 2014 at 7:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And how much authority does Ronald Reagan have now?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 13, 2014 at 7:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ronald Reagan is obviously dead and has no authority.

But the rules born in the original Free Speech Movement era remain in force. And they cover Miller-Young, whether she knew that fact or not.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 13, 2014 at 9:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A pox on both your houses.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 13, 2014 at 10:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ed Norton from the Honeymooners would say "a pox on you". So a pox on your houses, your family, your entire ancestors, the New York Jets, SAG, The Beatles, The Girl Scouts, and Mr. Ed.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
April 14, 2014 at 2:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

and on the fox in socks, all the lox, and my cereal box.

eleventysevendolphins (anonymous profile)
April 14, 2014 at 6:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

how can dolphin know about SAG; do they have unterwasser screens for their schools? And the Mr Ed insult is gratuitous, but then MrsDover's comments are hardly sharp or relevant or ... commonsensical. KV said it best, "I'm no fan of SAH [either], they set up the situation and Miller-Young was dumb enough to take the bait. I'll say it once, I'll say it again- there are no heroes or martyrs in this case."
Freedom of speech should always, and often, be debated, and while the principle has been held up, Miller-Young will be convicted of a couple of misdemeanors, SAH gets its orgy of attention to an overblown issue, dewdly gets his/her rocks off, but UCSB takes a mighty hit... uh, as a liberal, I still ask, "How did Miller-Young get tenure without a single major book published and just a few flimsy articles"? Oh I know, her Ph.D. diss supposedly comes out as a book with Duke U. Press...but that's been in the offing for years. Where are some academic colleagues coming out to discuss their colleague and her qualifications?
Oh yeah, like doctors, you always support each other, never denigrate in public, "open" discussions always behind closed doors (say at the Academic Senate). And Henry Yang, is he still presiding over there at UCSB, or does Michael Young act as mouthpiece now for everything? And yes, I absolutely support the Feminist Studies Dept. and its subject field.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
April 14, 2014 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sure, DrDan, you seem to think it is common sense for non-faculty alone to enforce rules at schools. Jimmy stole Joanie's pencil, call the police!

e-mail Miller-Young for a copy of her biography/bibliography… you surely know well how the UC promotion system works.

There is no purely free speech. Go falsely cry `fire' in a crowded movie house if you don't believe me.

SAH violated a reasonable regulation on posters on the Arbor Mall, and Miller-Young enforced the regulation. Now SAH has built a whole false narrative around the incident, which you and others here have bought into without checking your facts.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 14, 2014 at 12:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@MrsDoverSharp,

One reason to have campus police is to avoid situations in which a professor may expose herself as an ignorant bully. If Miller-Young discovered "terrorists" holding up illegal signs she only had to make a phone call. That is what the SAH protestors did.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
April 14, 2014 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

dewdly, people who break laws and rules always refer to those who enforce those laws and rules as ignorant bullies. SAH is no different.

Where SAH is different is they have a big megaphone to amplify their falsehoods.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 14, 2014 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The two comments that I think are closest to the truth:

"First Amendment does not protect her right to attack a minor with a poster." _JohnLocke (This is worded badly. The correct part here is that she attacked someone--according to the article, "scratched and pushed". Also, the First Amendment doesn't protect the "right to attack", nor is there really such a thing--unless the "attack" is a defensive response.)

"I was willing to give Prof. Miller-Young benefit of pregancy [sic] doubt; but soon after she should have at least apologized and admitted her mistake instead of doubling down like a Survivors of Abortion Holocaust kook." _Ken_Volok (Pregnancy hormones might be a factor in the professor's reaction. However, even if accepted as an absolute condition, an apology would be a fitting "punishment"--it's unlikely that she will think she wasn't right, but being forced to apologize might make make her realize that she did something wrong.)

This issue is really unworthy to be elevated to requiring a "First Amendment Defense", for either side.

equus_posteriori (anonymous profile)
April 14, 2014 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

e_posterior… Miller-Young attacked no one. Non-affiliates from UCSB were chasing her, because she enforced Regents' regulation 100014 and removed their out-of-regulation sign. She was defending herself from the non-affiliates' unruly shoving of themselves into the elevator of a UCSB office building.

As for seizing the sign in the first place, faculty have the responsibility at UCSB to enforce the regulations.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 14, 2014 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@MrsDoverSharp,

The people you are accusing of breaking rules and laws did not call Miller-Young an "ignorant bully" - they called her a thief. I said people can easily avoid being seen as ignorant bullies simply by calling the police. All that is to say that Miller-Young acted impetuously and there is no way to undo the damage done to her image of that moment of high pique.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
April 14, 2014 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A major step backward for women, thanks to Professor Miller-Young--pregnant women just cannot ABIDE free speech and must be given special privileges like assaulting and stealing from teenagers.

Bull. Her suddenly-delicate sensibilities are somewhat incredible given her "academic" specialty of pornography.

And Mrs. Dover-Sharp--you are so far removed from reality and any understanding of the Bill of Rights that it's difficult to respond--did you watch the video? And no faculty don't have the responsibility for "enforcing regulations" like those surrounding free speech in the Arbor. Keep making up post hoc rationalizations for what is clearly a chilling of free speech and keep embarrassing UCSB.

avocats (anonymous profile)
April 14, 2014 at 7:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Image is irrelevant, substance is what matters. I myself have been arrested and beaten by police officers who acted in a most impetuous manner.

But there is and was no doubt that they had the authority to do what they did. I was acquitted, BTW.

Miller-Young clearly had the authority to seize an out-of-regulation sign. If she did so impetuously, that is regrettable, but immaterial.

Keeping the UCSB campus a place where learning and civilized discussion takes place is a faculty responsibility. The Shorts signs were in clear violation of the regulations that maintain the UCSB campus as a civilized place.

Remember, if the Shorts could have shown their posters off UC land on the sidewalks of Isla Vista.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 14, 2014 at 7:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The County DA decided to prosecute Miller-Young for enforcing a Regents regulation. Most likely the US Civil rights team will undertake an investigation as to whether race was a factor. The County has a poor record on fairness w/r to blacks. How many deputies or DA office staff are black? Recall the Anaconda, or the crackdown in IV after North Hall?"

Oh, this is rich. Really, really rich. A highly-paid (more than $100,000--I looked it up) public employee (with a small chanting mob) blatantly interferes with the free speech rights of two young women, calls them terrorists, doesn't mention (and obviously isn't acting on) supposed sign size trangressions, steals signs and assaults one young woman, and the DA decides to press charges because he/she is racist. Bwa-ha-ha-ha.

You can see in the campus police report their incredulity at this woman's actions violating the First Amendment. The DA has no choice. Look at the video. It is all that is needed--regardless of what may have happened before, and regardless of the belated series of excuses for the inexcusable that have been presented. Miller Young attacked the women because she disagreed with their message. End of story. UCSB should have suspended her immediately after reviewing the video and hopefully will fire her as soon as she is convicted.

Unless Mrs. Dover-Sharp is on the jury, god help us. She ignores the U's own regs about who has authority to enforce regulations. She apparently believes that no one should ever be upset on a college campus. She seems to have missed all the con law courses offered at UCSB and the civics courses offered in high school.

avocats (anonymous profile)
April 14, 2014 at 7:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey avocets, head up to Thomas Aquinas College and show some big old posters of the priest Lawrence Murphy haven a fun time with young deaf boys and see what you learn about constitutional law.

eleventysevendolphins (anonymous profile)
April 15, 2014 at 7:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Avocats: your lucid posts help frame the argument appropriately. I, myself, have given up trying to respond to the frothing, unthinking posts of MrsDoverSharp. As for eleventysevendolphins, I would think those of us protesting in favor of abortion at Thomas Aquinas would face vocally affronted students and staff. I doubt our signs would be snatched and I know we would not be physically attacked. I presume campus security would quickly arrive and we would be asked to leave the private property of the campus. In contradistinction, UCSB is public property where we all are welcome to speak---students at UCSB are lucky, they will confront unpopular ideas that help the learn and mature while those at Thomas Aquinas are unfortunately "protected" from the benefits of education and exposure to controversial ideas.

freespeechisnotfree (anonymous profile)
April 15, 2014 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually, the priest Lawrence Murphy physically attached and molested young deaf boys under his care. Perhaps that is the type of treatment that freenotfree should expect at a Catholic institution.

eleventysevendolphins (anonymous profile)
April 15, 2014 at 8:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Stay on message, 11-7-dolphins: We are discussing the suppression of free speech, not criminal behavior of sexual deviates. You are blathering and obfuscating just like MrsDoverSharp.

freespeechisnotfree (anonymous profile)
April 15, 2014 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Faculty behavior of Professor Mireille is your message, freenotfree. Actually, Catholic priests who are faculty are a whole lot more violent than she is, and even sexually abuse young deaf boys under their care, when they aren't handing out corporal punishment.

From the perspective of Catholic schools and University's Mireille's behavior is mild and well within the boundaries.

eleventysevendolphins (anonymous profile)
April 15, 2014 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Avocats last post should be the last word on this.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
April 15, 2014 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Then they'll have to copy, paste and post again.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 15, 2014 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yup, dewdly loves the fact-free nature and the out-and-out falsehoods of avocats. They believe that if they repeat something three times it becomes true! 2+2=5, 2+2=5, 2+2=5, hey, did you know that 2+2=5?

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 15, 2014 at 5:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MrsDoverSharp was arrested and beaten by police who had the "authority to do what they did". When do police have the authority to beat someone?

dewdly (anonymous profile)
April 16, 2014 at 1:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

dewdly and MrsDover need to meet and break bread together and pray to the Lord/UC Regents, whichever fits, and then resolve their differences.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
April 16, 2014 at 2:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah, agree with comment above. Sometimes threads do need to be closed.

zappa (anonymous profile)
April 16, 2014 at 5:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dewdly, how naive you are. June, 1970, Isla Vista. Now I feel sorry for you.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 16, 2014 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Uh, oh. New York Times online weighs in on this story and claims this was a clearly a "content based" assault; not a vigilante enforcement of a content-neutral size of sign matter:

"……..Here at the University of California, Santa Barbara, in March there was a confrontation when a group of anti-abortion protesters held up graphic pictures of aborted fetuses and a pregnant professor of feminist studies tried to destroy the posters, saying they triggered a sense of fear in her.

After she was arrested on vandalism, battery and robbery charges, more than 1,000 students signed a petition of support for her, saying the university should impose greater restrictions on potentially trigger-inducing content.

(So far, the faculty senate has promised to address the concerns raised by the petition and the student government but has not made any policy changes.) ……."

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 17, 2014 at 9:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The New York Times or one writer at The New York Times?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 17, 2014 at 9:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: