WEATHER »

Speech Is Free, Sometimes

UCSB Anti-Abortion Incident Sparks Reflection


Monday, April 28, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

UCSB has been in the news lately for a variety of reasons, some positive, some not. One of the recent incidents that received national media attention involved an associate professor who was arrested and charged with vandalism, battery, and theft for taking a pro-lifer’s graphic poster and the events that ensued. It sparked a discussion about freedom of speech, and what is, and is not, protected under the First Amendment. The incident has given everyone an opportunity to take a crash course in what freedom of speech means in practical terms. It may not mean what you think.

Freedom of Speech Is Perched on a Slippery Slope

In school we learn that the freedom of speech is a right guaranteed by our Constitution. We are told that most types of speech are protected, with some exceptions. For example, you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater. This simple discussion makes it seem that this freedom has a clear definition that is understood by all and rarely challenged. However, a little research at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) website dispels this notion. In case after case, FIRE describes situations in which people, and even the courts, disagree about what freedom of speech means.

Cat Neushul

At the beginning of March, a UC Santa Barbara associate professor became embroiled in a free-speech debate. Dr. Mireille Miller-Young allegedly took and destroyed a graphic poster being displayed by the Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, a pro-life group from another college, in a free-speech zone in front of the Arbor on the UCSB campus. Two young women from the group, Joan and Thrin Short, followed Miller-Young as she took the poster to her office. One of them videotaped the encounter and posted it on YouTube. The associate professor has been charged with vandalism, battery, and theft.

The videotape of the encounter is both interesting and frustrating to watch. It’s like watching a horror movie in which you want to tell the victim not to walk into the dark house. You can see how easily the whole thing could have been defused. Abortion sparks intense feelings in people. However, what you do about these feelings is at the root of the incident. Miller-Young felt strongly that she shouldn’t have to look at graphic images of aborted fetuses, and the women from Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust felt that they had a right use this type of shock tactic to promote their cause.

Cat Neushul

The free speech zone outside UCSB’s Arbor.

UCSB Vice Chancellor Michael D. Young sent an email to the campus community highlighting the fact that the practice of free speech can be messy and that there are definite pros and cons. He said, “Freedom and rights are not situational: we either have freedom of speech or we do not. We cannot pick and choose which views are allowed to be aired and who is allowed to speak.” He added, “The price of freedom for all to speak is that, at times, everyone will be subjected to speech and expression that we, ourselves, find offensive, hateful, vile, hurtful, provocative, and perhaps even evil. So be it!”

He talks about the disruptive influence of certain groups and a way to avoid their impact. Young said, “You do not have to listen to, look at, or even acknowledge speech or expression that you find provocative or offensive. The Arbor Mall is a free-speech area, as is the area in front of the University Center. If you do not want to be confronted by certain materials or expressions, you should avoid the free-speech areas when you expect that you might encounter them, or simply ignore them. I promise you the visitors will hate that.”

This letter is a lesson in itself. It shows that free speech on university campuses isn’t so free. There are areas designated for its expression. People are allowed to pass out pamphlets, set up displays, or share other types of information only in certain zones. At UCSB, this is in the Arbor Mall and in front of the UCen. However, UCSB isn’t alone in assigning designated free-speech areas. This is a common practice on university campuses.

What can be gleaned from this experience is the fact that freedom of speech is a right that cannot be taken for granted. It is something that needs to be constantly cultivated and refined. What we think constitutes free speech, and where we want to see it practiced, should be part of a constant discussion.

Related Links

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

Im a confused boy today. R U saying that even if somebody like Noam Chomsky or some other high profile person gives a speech at UCSB that the speech is free and I dont have to pay to get in and listen to them?

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 5:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

When you say Michael Young's letter is "a lesson in itself" that is an understatement as you conveniently forget to hi-light the fact that it is also so telling how he takes an "US vs Them stance", refers to "Evangelical types" and goes on to say we are "under attack".

It is telling how out of touch he is, arrogant and seemingly willing to write off "evangelicals" as the other, or outsiders, without realizing that many students on campus identify as Christian and do take offense to this kind of generalization.

Imagine for a moment that a campus administrator, who supposedly speaks for all students, lumps all Mexican Americans together as "those types". The man would never do that, yet he has No problem doing so in this case.

I ( and many others ) do find this telling and very troubling.

yendopostal (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Many students may identify as Christian but that is NOT the same as "Evangelical". To say that is to further the fallacy that not only every Christian, but every person of any faith is an Extremist.
While the fringe have the very same rights as everyone else, they also have to follow the rules everyone else does as well (like following guidelines for public displays on the UCSB campus.)

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And this shouldn't be a surprise but will be to some, there are many "Evangelicals" who identify themselves as Liberal/Progressive. Chew on that!
Lesson: the larger your group, the more variations you will have.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

yendopostal, you miss the point. These anti-abortion extremists are modern Crusaders, from nowhere around here, on their own self-defined Holy Quest to convert the heathens, or else. Like the wackos defending armed range anarchy in Nevada, they try to provoke confrontations in order to publicize and thereby, in their eyes, legitimize their cause. It's just plain nuts. Protected by the First Amendment, yes, but just plain nuts.

GregMohr (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually Greg, the main thing they are protesting at Bundy Ranch, among other things, is unelected federal bureaucrats having control over lands that belong to those who have been grazing on them for generations. These unelected federal bureaucrats usually turn out to be corporate lackeys who go to DC to get jobs in these type of positions where they have free reign to make up and enforce all the rules they want, which are never voted on by our congress, in order to push their competitors out of business and rip people off their land for corporate interests. These federal departments are the very essence of fascism. The media is doing everything they can to make Bundy look bad because the media is owned by the same corporations that control the government and create these type of federal bureaucracies that they exploit.

People argue that the Bundys owe these grazing fees and other ranchers pay them so they should too. That is incorrect, the Bundys are THE LAST cattle ranchers in Clark County, NV, the rest were driven out by the BLM when they raised their grazing fees to an unreasonable amount which forced all of the other cattle ranchers to call it quits. Bundy was the only one with the balls to stand up and refuse, since this land was given to them to graze cattle on. Bundy is standing up for what is right. The land belonged to these ranchers before Nevada was a state and the feds subsequently illegally took possession of the land.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LoonPt, you fail to grasp the logistical obvious- which is we can't afford to elect each and every civil service employee. wow one sentence debunks your entire multi-paragraph rant. In addition all his rancher neighbors and the townspeople are against him. His only supporter are the fringe who've gathered there. Yeah Bundy has balls, for brains! Machismo is no substitute for Intelligent.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken the problem is that the unelected bureaucrats are MAKING the rules and SELECTIVELY enforcing the rules that they make up. At minimum, all "rules" should be voted on by ELECTED officials so we have somebody to hold responsible for making them.

"In addition all his rancher neighbors and the townspeople are against him."

He doesn't have any cattle rancher neighbors, I told you, there are ZERO cattle ranchers left in Clark County, NV, thanks to the BLM.

Cattle ranching associations are against him because they have all been taken over by corporate ranching industrial complex.

My parents live about 30 minutes from there and they have friends who are his neighbors, they are Democrats and they support him. The mainstream media will do everything they can to lie to get people not to support him.

One day you will see how many people actually support this guy, things are coming to a head in this country and right now. People are sick of the federal government stealing everything, ruining peoples lives and telling everybody how to live their life.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Loon, when do you think things are going to come to a head? After Thanksgiving?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bundy needs to be convicted and placed in jail, like any other felon.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Whenever the government finally oversteps its bounds and the people have had enough.

"Numerous police troops were deployed to disperse the crowds, but people kept protesting and demanded that media report what happened. Police used tear-gas and fired warning shots in the air, but could not control the angry crowds, which kept growing."

http://revolution-news.com/china-viol...

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Bundy needs to be convicted and placed in jail, like any other felon."

The average person knowingly or unknowingly commits 3 felonies a day. I guess everybody should be in prison.

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-...

Three Felonies a Day-

"The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior."

DrDan, you can't just make up unjust laws, steal people's property and put people in prison and go to sleep with a good conscious. Can you? I don't know, maybe you can, but I couldn't. There is no way around it, Bundy and others were grazing cattle on that land before the government got there, it belongs to them. The other ranchers put up with the government's crap and finally had to give up and leave, Bundy should be paraded through every town as a true Patriot for standing up against an oppressive government.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 2:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The average person doesn't pull a gun on people and threaten to shoot them. One sentence debunks 5 paragraphs.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)


"The average person knowingly or unknowingly commits 3 felonies a day. I guess everybody should be in prison."

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 2:49 p.m.

Not to worry, they're building more prisons and finding more ways to incarcerate people so we're well on our way. When I think of how the Feds are breathing down our backs, sometimes I wonder if we're not already in a sort of prison. (And yes, I do note your comment was tongue-in-cheek)

billclausen (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken, who pulled a gun on WHO exactly?? This is a peaceful rancher on his own land with the BLM pulling guns on him threatening to take away his livelihood.

I can't believe your blind faith in the state has led you to become so anti-humanity. This is a farmer growing our food, and you are rooting for the corporate fascist government stealing his land for the military industrial complex.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 3:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Think for yourself, question authority. Don't be on the wrong side of history.

"BEAVER, Pa. – A widow was given ample notice before her $280,000 house was sold at a tax auction three years ago over $6.30 in unpaid interest, a Pennsylvania judge has ruled.

The decision last week turned down Eileen Battisti's request to reverse the September 2011 sale of her home outside Aliquippa in western Pennsylvania.

"I paid everything, and didn't know about the $6.30," Battisti said. "For the house to be sold just because of $6.30 is crazy.""

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/28/...

Don't steal, the government HATES competition.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Loon, are you sure you wouldn't rather walk back your statement "I can't believe your blind faith in the state has led you to become so anti-humanity." rather than post links to a dubious corporate news site?
Really?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You're just mad because you agree with Glen Beck about Bundy.

Ken, humanity needs to go back to its roots if we want to find any sort of peaceful resolution to the huge problems we face today with the corporate fascist take-over of not only our country but pretty much the entire globe.

Those roots must be based on self sufficient food production, we HAVE to eat. They must be based on individual liberty and property ownership. If you give an inch to the government, they won't just take a mile, they will take everything given enough time.

You know I would have been the first person to post an article from MSNBC over at a right-wing site back when Bush was in office if what MSNBC posted was related to the Bush admin committing war crimes or something of the sorts. I have no problem posting a fox news article about government over-reach.

There is a huge divide and conquer strategy being played out where one side gets 10% truth and 90% lies, and the other side gets another 10% of the truth and 90% lies (and that 10% is being really generous). So at least 80% of the truth is completely missing from the mainstream media.

Bundy is what I would call the "salt of the earth". He exemplifies the last vestiges of what we have left of our freedom, which is almost nothing.

http://www.ecowest.org/wp-content/upl...

"The King" owns all that federal land and "The King" is a small group of people who own all of the big banks and corporations. When people finally realize that they will revolt. It's time to give the land, our property and our production value back to us, the people, and end the corporate fascist banker take over.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 5:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

1. The only Beck I follow is Hansen.
2. I wouldn't advertise being nuttier than Glen Beck.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 5:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms. Neushul, good to read that you understand that a UC campus is not public property. All possible forms of freedom of expression are not allowed on non-public property; folks are not free to set up a political display inside one's private residence without permission, for example.

For years UC Campuses and no expectation whatsoever of free speech; politicians who came to campus had to get permits to set up and give speeches in the streets around the Berkeley Campus. Adlai Stevenson, for example.

You can read all about this in `Subversives' by Seth Rosenfeld. The free speech movement at Berkeley started to at least allow student groups to pamphlet and give speeches, and eventually was expanded to non-affiliates, in some measure.

But what is allowed on a UC campus was always regulated. There are loudness restrictions in the Arbor Mall at all times, because classrooms are nearby. And there are always restrictions on the size of posters. SAH neglected to comply with the UC wide restrictions on poster size.

There is no doubt that Prof. Miller-Young viscerally reacted to the SAH posters. That is precisely why there are size restrictions on posters, to limit these sorts of events from occurring in the first place. Previous Arbor Mall displays that were set up required screens for graphic posters of deaths in the Mideast and the slaughtering of animals for food consumption. Establishing reasonable requirements like screens so that random walkers in the Arbor Mall don't see giant bloody entrails is a purpose of the restrictions on the size of posters.

There is an entirely different interpretation of what happened: SAH broke the rules and Miller-Young, however rudely, enforced the rules. When the Shorts chased after her, they were interfering with enforcement of campus regulations.

I do feel that the absence of this interpretation from media descriptions was indeed due to the prejudice that a black woman whose research area (although, generally not her teaching) involves pornography is not allowed to enforce the rules.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 5:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So IV residents' houses are public venues but a UC campus is not a public venue.

WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

Got it.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 7 p.m. (Suggest removal)

UCSB is a public school; therefore it stands to reason that it sits on public property.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 7:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There are many public entities that have restricted uses… public libraries, public courts, public County supervisors' offices. Police stations and military bases.

All public educational institutions restrict the uses of their land. The SAH would never be allowed to set up with their posters inside any of the Santa Barbara High School Districts school grounds without prior approval of the District office and/or the local principal.

UCSB is no different. Rights of expression are simply not free on a UC campus, and the reason is that the public influenced the UC Regents, who administer the UC campuses, to keep it that way.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 9:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That's true MrsDoverSharp. What do you suggest we change the name of the "free speech zone" at UCSB to then?

How about "Restricted speech zone"? or

"politically correct speech zone"?

Because if what you say is true, the free speech zone the university designated as such will no longer exist.

Botany (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 9:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MrsDoverSharp: I have a question: Who is the proper authority to enforce the 'unclear and ambiguous code' that concerns the Arbor Free Speech area on campus to which you make reference? Is this tenured associate professor of pornography from the Feminist Studies Department in fact THE properly authorized agent of the administrations' enforcement authority to regulate free speech in a public university on public land?

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 9:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Two wrongs don't equal a right.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 10:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I believe that the faculty member in question was out of bounds for faculty behavior and showed an extreme lack of professional standards that certainly border on moral turpitude and such behavior should normally call into question her qualifications as an appropriate faculty member at a public university. She certainly is not teaching by example. I would think the administration would at least suspend her and form a faculty committee of her peers to review her case for final disposition.

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 10:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The two wrongs are:
1)a non-affiliate bringing a sign on to campus without bothering to get the required permission, and
2)a non-affiliate chasing a faculty member who enforced the rules.

The free speech zone is for those affiliated with UCSB. Check the regulations.

All faculty obviously can enforce the rules. The campus becomes impossibly disorderly otherwise. People will cheat on tests, disrupt classes, and disrupt the learning environment. Perhaps that is the goal of most of the commenters here.

Sure, Miller-Young was rude. But the only misdemeanors were committed by the Shorts, who violated the regulations and then resisted their enforcement and chased a faculty member.

Miller-Young deserves a commendation from UCSB for enforcing the regulations. Most likely the most conservative UC Regents have already voted to cover her legal defense. Intentional disruption of a UC Campus gets no sympathy from the administration or the Regents.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 11:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Okay four wrongs don't equal a right. I suppose (in)fractions are next?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2014 at 12:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Miller-Young's actions were based on the content of the sign and for no other reason. She even admits as such. You're not fooling anybody with this ridiculous argument.

Botany (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2014 at 5:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The issue of free speech is that it applies everywhere. When we speak of constitutional rights, those rights are not abrogated by whether we speak of private, or public property.

FoolPt (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2014 at 6:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yup, when I was arrested (not convicted), the cop said `You slimy hippie whore!'. Didn't make the arrest invalid. Nor did the baton beating to the soles of my feet. Didn't change the fact that the assembly had been declared illegal, way back in 1970.

Miller-Young was a meanie, and called the Shorts terrorists. Doesn't invalidate her enforcement of the Regents rules.

Another time in class a few years ago a student kept insisting that when a priest raped a woman, god prevented pregnancy. We listened once, twice, three times at her insistent and louder claim. After a 5 minutes of class time we asked her to please be quiet. She shouted that free speech allowed her to say anything she wanted. I escorted her from class.

UC Campuses are not public property. They are Regents property.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2014 at 7:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I woulda tossed that kook out of my class on her tail.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2014 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I see by your comment MrsDoverSharp that you're of a certain age and no Spring Chicken! As DonJose, I too can represent the collective memory of Santa Barbara (at least back to 1818) and I can remember the 1970 incidents. Bands of roving students, disrupted classes chanting "On strike, shut it down" and "This class is not relevant". Were you one of THEM MrsDover Sharp? That was a violation of free speech too wasn't it?

I can see from your remarks that you don't like police as enforcers of free speech either. I can remember the violence that was fostered on the police too. (Tit for tat, makes both sides tired, I'd say).

Your anti-Catholic example in class seems irrelevant here in this discussion, however I agree that disruptive students should leave a class. What was the subject matter you were teaching that so infuriated the student?

Do you now feel virtuous in your resistance to the cops? Righteous in your exercise of authority towards the student. It would seem so.

On the matter of who owns the campus, the public or the Regents? I
remember way back your ancient time that Governor Reagan was a member of the Regents and that he shut chaotic campus behavior down. Was he acting on behalf of the public as duly elected Governor or as Regent of the University of California? It's an interesting question. I'd guess even you'd have to say that he had the right.

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Nope, my only demonstration was IV III in June 1970. Lots of injuries to police in IV I and II, but only Kevin Moran was killed, by a Santa Barbara police officer. Kevin Moran had put out fires in the temporary B of A and was mistakenly shot.

Governor Reagan arranged the abrupt firing of Clark Kerr by the Regents because Kerr had allowed too much free speech at Berkeley. It was Reagan (and his education assistant named Sheriffs) who liked to say `Obey the rules or get out'. Those rules were and remain the regents rules.

Discussion was about contemporary views of rape. Todd Akin was not Catholic, BTW. But there is plenty of magical thinking when it comes to pregnancy and rape. Should the university teach the scientific data that circumstances of insemination are in general uncorrelated with the outcome, or allow ever kind of magical thought equal time?

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2014 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

MrsDoverSharp: I remember the burning of the Bank of America too and what followed. And what happened to Kevin Moran. And the dump trucks full of police that zoomed around the streets of Isla Vista. And the antics of Sheriff Joel B. Honey.

The Free Speech movement at Berkeley is also known to me as well as the firing of Clark Kerr. If he was fired, by your logic, it must have been because he wasn't able to enforce the Regent's rules, right?

Are you still arguing that the tenured but unpublished associate professor of pornography in the Feminist Studies Department of UCSB did the right thing in destroying the property of the 'right to life' individuals in the free speech area of the Arbor and who later harmed one of the young women who was trying to get her property back? Do you think her actions reflect well on the proper comportment of a professor on a university campus?

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2014 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In Gov. Reagan's words, there was a `mess at Berkeley'. Kerr was fired because in Reagan's view Kerr allowed the mess to occur, by not enforcing the rules. Sproul was the one who kept the Campus strictly out of all forms of political discussion; political candidates and various political speakers could not speak on campus during the Sproul era. That Kerr bargained with the FSM folks who blocked a police car for a day or so on Sproul Plaza was the sort of thing Reagan disliked.

Miller-Young is not at all unpublished; e-mail her and she'd probably send her full Biography/Bibliography with many publications. This website:
http://www.femst.ucsb.edu/people/acad...

is not the official publication record, her Bio/Bib is. Another site has a few of her publications:
http://ucsb.academia.edu/MireilleMill...

Saying she is unpublished is sloppy and false, just another fiction in this misreported incident.

I think Miller-Youngs actions are precisely what conservatives like Ronald Reagan want for the University of California. I also think the perspective that Miller-Young was doing what Ronald Reagan wanted for UC has not been part of the sloppy reporting. Miller-Young's actions are consistent with campus regulations, and that Miller-Young did nothing illegal.

The Shorts were interfering with enforcement of campus regulations when they chased a faculty member. They have shown no respect whatsoever for campus regulations nor for a faculty member who enforced them. There disrespect has not been reported at all.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2014 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Looks like there is plenty of "magical thinking" when it comes to who is supposed to enforce campus regulations, setting an example
for civil behavior on campus, academic standards of conduct, using your influence to coerce students into breaking the law etc etc.

Why is it so hard to admit that both sides are wrong here, but that Miller-Young is also a poor example of what we should expect
( as taxpayers and tuition paying students -And Yes I am both ) from a tenured Professor at a State institution ?

yendopostal (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2014 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The `magical thinking' concerns any idea that faculty cannot enforce regulations. Again and again real examples of faculty's authority to do so on campus have been provided, and again and again posters like yendopostal just go into denial.

An incredibly shoddy job of reporting on Miller-Young has taken place. She has published a lot, as a cursory internet search proves, although her department web page of publications *is* blank. She rarely *teaches* pornography-related topics; most of her teaching is straightforward Women's Studies. And Women's Studies is a widely recognized area of teaching, with many conservative universities adopting programs in women's studies, like, say, Pepperdine.

In the face of the rotten and inaccurate media accounts of Miller-Young, why would any careful, fact-based person accept that she has done anything wrong? All the posted video shows is a faculty member seizing a poster acknowledged to be on campus in violation of the rules. The faculty member is unpleasant and says unpleasant things. However, they are mild on the scale of the things police say when they make arrests.

Then the rule-violators pursue the faculty member and interfere with her enforcement of the rules. The nonaffiliated rule violators are clearly in the wrong to do so.

Want to know why the leadership of UCSB is silent? Easy. Because Miller-Young is in the right, and if they say anything to impeach her, the faculty will go on the warpath. On the other hand, if they say she is in the right, the inaccurate media nabobs will have a field day. So they stay silent.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2014 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MrsDoverSharp, you do appear to suffer from "Academentia" -amusing at best.

But, since you appear to be such an authority on campus policies, How do you define "faculty" anyway ?? Is this academic senate ? or does it include lecturers, supervisors, coordinators and researchers too, and what about staff and visiting professors. Who knew that they all had an obligation to police the campus ? And does that include stopping skate boarders and bicyclist from breaking the laws as well ?

Ever wonder why leadership stays silent ? I'm pretty sure it has a lot to do with cowardice and embarrassment, not to mention legalities. I know many, many faculty here ( some who by the way DO speak up) who do NOT approve of Miller-Youngs actions nor do they, like you, believe she is in the right.

I'd say that UCSB administrators would like this all to go away as quick as possible, BUT as you say the media nabobs will have a field day, this is what they do, just look at the LaTimes and the Sterling debacle !

It will be interesting in the end to see if Miller-Young's defense argues that, as you say, she was obligated to enforce campus rules, OR will she just use the "trigger defense".

yendopostal (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2014 at 4:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Speaking of free speech, remember when pretty much the entire world hated President Bush and some people were so excited to have Obama in office? Many people thought that, if anything, at least the rest of the world would view us in a better light. Even I was so naive to think that would be one of the few (if any) benefits from an Obama administration.

Here is a picture of a giant Obama effigy being burned in a parade in the Philippines:

http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/...

People on the left need to wake the f up to what is going on in the world. I used to listen to Noam Chomsky in college and I LOVED that guy.. Manufacturing Consent -- OF COURSE!! The media is completely owned by corporate America and they convince us to go to war so the war machine can profit and global corporations can grab more resources! So simple, yet so true.. Too bad they also convince us that it is ok to slaughter local militias, they convince us that global warming is man made and will destroy the environment, they convince us that the medical industrial complex and the agricultural industrial complex are looking out for our health and safety and worst of all they convince us that we need to have a large centralized government to protect us, even from ourselves.. They convince us the police are almost all good people, public education is good and there should be more of it (in order to reinforce all of the above beliefs and behaviors..)

Its' time to put 2 + 2 together. The left is a relic, it's time for the truth to come out.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2014 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Faculty are members of the Academic Senate. Faculty do have the power to enforce all regulations, and regularly I've seen them stop taggers, skateboarders, vandals, etc.

Magic Johnson and others insulted by Sterling had not violated any regulations, and they had not interfered with enforcement of regulations, which the Shorts did do.

Don't have to invent any cutesie words for you, yendopostal: you suffer from denial and dementia if you think the Shorts are innocent.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2014 at 4:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks MrsDoverSharpe for the links to Miller-Young's publications. I see a dissertation and a list of "publications" but I see no peer reviewed scholarly book is out there published, yet she already has tenure and is called an Associate Professor. Academic Standards must have changed since my time. I can remember how important that first scholarly book was to a academic's career. I must say, as I think about all these issues, I am struck by the fact that a lot has changed at UCSB since I was there. I must say I don't know many of these so-called publications of hers by reputation, however, they do have titillating and suggestive titles. Just for the record here in this conversation in the Independent, here's the list of her 'fine', important, and outstanding scholarly work:

"Dr. Miller-Young has published research in Meridians: Feminism, Race, and Transnationalism and Sexualities, and in book collections such as Pornification: Sex and Sexuality in Media Culture, Blackness and Sexualities, and C’Lick Me: A Netporn Studies Reader. She is an editor of The Feminist Porn Book: The Politics of Producing Pleasure (The Feminist Press, 2013), with Constance Penley, Celine Parreñas Shimizu, and Tristan Taormino.

In addition, she has written essays for The New York Times, Feminist Theory, Colorlines, Re-Public.com, Cut-Up.com,and $pread, a sex worker magazine. Miller-Young is also working on a documentary film on black women in the porn industry, and a visual archive project called The Black Erotic Archive. Miller-Young has been interviewed for numerous books, articles, radio programs, and documentaries, including NPR’s “News and Notes” with Farai Chideya."

Undoubtedly, MrsDoverSharpe, you think Associate Professor Millar-Young is a superb addition to the Mission of the University of California to educate its young men and women. Others might think differently.

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2014 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DonJose, quite an extrapolation you make there. My point was that the claim that she is unpublished is false.

Given the proof that she has indeed published, you don't bother to correct or criticize the false claims that she is unpublished. You start in on a critique of her publications, which a few minutes ago you denied even existed.

If you want more details, get a copy of her Biography/Bibliography. You can surely get a copy via a California Public Records Act request. It might be that her book was accepted for publication as in galley proofs. I don't know.

As for my `thinking' about her being a `superb addition'… I think that her department and the Academic Senate, and also Chacellor Yang (who had to approve her Tenure) have an excellent process for weighing her contributions. They are not infallible, but I am sure every i was dotted and t crossed in their evaluation.

Contrast that with you, DonJose. You claimed she was unpublished without even bothering to check. How could anyone give your viewpoint, which is based on falsehood and innuendo, any serious weight at all?

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2014 at 5:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MrsDoverSharp...In the academic business, book reviews, editing article collections, and participation in unknown publications of dubious value don't count for much in the world of academic promotions. What's supposed to count is an academic book where she's the author and say for example, it's published by an academic press, a University Press even better. Then the book should get good reviews by those who count, academics. That a book has been merely accepted by for publication has little value for promotion unless it's a known publisher. These were of course the old criteria. I am not making this up. Fulfil those criteria and you get tenure if you can also prove that you're a good teacher.

I did say she was 'unpublished'...and by the above criteria...I'd say, this remains the case to this day. So let me conclude by saying that by normal academic criteria Ms. Millar-Young is a debutante in the academic business. Additionally, I find her area of interest and subject discipline, complete hogwash. I'll take the trivium and quadrivium over this discipline anyday.

Woe to UCSB should the public find it interesting to take a closer look at Departments who have the word 'Studies' in their designation and titles. But this takes me afield into the corruption case for modern academia...

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2014 at 7:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So the question remains, by what right did Ms Millar Young take it upon herself to disrupt and destroy these two young ladies' rather well mannered (yes powerful visuals but impeccable behavior on their part) attempt to convince the academic community passing by, that they ought to think twice about the abortion issue--certainly an appropriate subject for a free speech area, don't you think?

Ms Millar Young's behavior afterwards was even more deplorable.

Why defend Ms Millar Young? Why not just fire her or at the very least discipline her? Is her behavior, one that students should emulate? For me, this is the proper test of what constitutes a good teacher and faculty member.

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2014 at 8:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The problem DonJose is that everyobody who utolizes the free Speech zone agrees to a vertain Standards & Practices. SAH admits they knowing broke these guidelines, one of which was notifying UCSB of their intentions. EVERYBODY else has to follow these procedures. Let's not lose sight of the fact that SAH sent underage girls.

Where Miller-Young erred has been discussed ad nauseum, she may slip by on a technicality but she should still admit she was also wrong and apologize instead of doubling down and being all Rumsfeld like.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2014 at 8:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ol' Rummy boy, I had almost forgotten about him.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2014 at 6:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DonJosedelaGuerra, your carelessness is breathtaking. Get Dr. Mireille-Youngs Biography/Bibliography, which lists all publications by type, before making wild allegations about her publication record.

That you *fail* to do so shows the slipshod nature of your character assassination.

Referreed journal articles, for example, count as publications. You don't even bother to assess that contribution of Miller-Young. Nor do you evaluate whether her book is accepted and scheduled for publication by, say, the Duke University Press.

You just want to make up your own criteria and sit in judgement. You have no interest in actual facts. That is why your opinions about Miller-Young don't count for doodly-squat.

As for the Shorts behavior… lets see, they knowingly violated Regents regulations. When they were caught, they resisted, and chased after a faculty member who enforced the regulations. That is not impeccable behavior.

Impeccable behavior would have been, `Professor, Ma'am, I'm sorry, I take it on myself to comply with the rules here. If I have violated them, it is my responsibility. I will look into it and get back to you; until then I will vacate campus'.

But humility and honesty are not what how the Short behave.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2014 at 7:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

MrsDoverSharpe...a book contract with Duke University Press does not a book publication make.

Critical evaluation of someone's written record does not constitute character assassination. Let the list of 'publications' speak for themselves.

I've noticed that one regularly finds outside campus groups in the free speech area.

The Shorts behavior was excellent. Ms Millar-Young abominable. (Who are you trying to kid MrsDoverSharpe?)

I'm done with this issue. Tell the Foundation for UCSB NOT to call my number.

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2014 at 7:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.dukeupress.edu/A-Taste-for...

You have no idea, DonJosedelaGuerra, of the publication status of the book. You (and no reporter) have bothered to examine the only official document that describes Prof. Miller-Young's publication record, her Biography-Bibliography. Facts don't matter to you, DonJosedelaGuerra, you want to act as judge and jury in absence of facts. You cannot conduct a critical examination without the facts.

Of course there are non-affiliates in the free speech area. They can speak and distribute pamphlets without seeking prior approval.

Signs of the size that the Shorts brought to campus require prior written approval. The Shorts didn't bother to do that. Ignoring campus regulations is simply not excellent behavior.

Be honest, you hate public education and want to destroy it, DonJosedelaGuera, because you admire people who intentionally violate the Regents regulations. UC doesn't need support from haters land rule-breakers like you. UC has accomplished great things in its history, from providing the basis for California Agricultural, developing the weapons that ended the War in the Pacific and the Cold War, supporting the most brilliant mathematicians, physicists, and engineers this world has known.

All you do is hate those accomplishments, DonJosedelaGuerra. Crawl back into your slimy hole and shut the f*** up.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2014 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I do read my mail MrsDoverSharp. Your link proves that the Millar-Young book is NOT published yet. Yet she has tenure. Curious.

I do know the history of the University of California. Millar-Young is proof of how far it has fallen in some areas. But I do not judge UCSB just on the basis of this one mistakenly promoted professor or the bizarre subject matter of the Department of Feminist Studies.

In fact, by and large, I understand that UCSB is a great institution...but this episode is a sorry tale.

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2014 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Again, you have no idea of the publication status of her book. The text might well be all complete and Duke University Press is doing the final negotiations for the rights to images used in it. Or not. The point is, you don't know, I don't know, but the committees and Chancellor know exactly what the status is, from her Biography/Bibliography.

Your claim that UC has somehow fallen over her case has no basis in fact whatsoever. You convert your ignorance into innuendo and presumption that something is amiss. You really should be ashamed of yourself.

UC is one of the greatest institutions on the planet. Nitwits like you who try to smear it without evidence are lower than the belly of a maggot that has just crawled through feces.

And keep your money and continue using it to support where your heart lies: helping the the priest Lawrence Murphy or SAH or groups that assassinate doctors who provide abortions. Great institutions like UC that drive the future leave you in the forgotten benighted past.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2014 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hmm, I think there was a reason why i seldom look at the comments section here anymore? Oh yeah, just remembered.

sockpuppetsareus (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2014 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DJG! getting a rise out of crazy town, man you presented the bait over and over, and finally, a bite and a hook up...
Very nice work

Sockpuppets I think its a nice place to visit, just don't let your friends see you on it...

dadof3 (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2014 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh so witty and most excellent, sock pup and dado. You give me goosebumps and build a miniature diorama to your holiness.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2014 at 2:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Personally I think it's pretty low to attack the professor's work (while at the same time extolling UCSB's history of excellence).

Miller-Young's work is NOT the issue. Abortion is NOT the issue.
Standards and procedures for public displays on the UCSB campus; and a specific reaction to an unpermitted display are the question.

As disgraceful as the two parties in question.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 1, 2014 at 10:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well said, Ken_Volok.

Of course one of the reasons large signs are supposed to be approved in advance is so that a system of screens or obscuring layout can be devised so random walkers and lunch folks in the Arbor Mall don't inadvertantly see a disturbing image.

If random walkers get control of whether or not they happen to see a large disturbing image, the sort of emotional response that Miller-Young displayed might be far less likely, and everyone wins.

Had Miller-Young and a troop of undergrads walked into a well-designed space that had been pre-arranged with the UCSB administration for display of the SAH images, and then destroyed the SAH posters, she should IMO be charged with crimes.

Apparently DA Dudley was quoted in today's News Press that the case was a lot more complex than she originally thought. Indeed I agree with that.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 2, 2014 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So when is the court date? When do we find out if she goes to jail?

redspool (anonymous profile)
May 2, 2014 at 6:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Last week I was walking across campus and there was a large anti-sweat shop group set up in the area between the Arbor and the Library, with many graphic images of dead bodies in rubble, children and adults suffering, etc. I looked around and there were no warning signs posted anywhere. I contacted the Office of Student Life through their website, inquiring about the policy of posting warning signs when disturbing images were on public display. The Associate Dean responded "There is currently no policy that a warning be posted to warn the community" and "We are considering adding to our campus regulations the requirement of posting signage."

So I'm not sure where this alleged policy that folks keep quoting in comments on articles comes from, but according to the Office of Student Life at UCSB, no such policy exists. I have seen many groups with graphic images set up over the years, and I've never once seen a warning sign posted.

This being the case, the anti-abortion group did not violate any UCSB policy. Non-affiliate groups are allowed to set up in the free speech zones at UCSB.

Minimally, in my opinion, the professor was wrong by forcibly stealing the sign and destroying it...by her own admission. I do not believe she felt she was enforcing any university policy.

Obviously the DA thought there was enough evidence to charge her with theft, vandalism, and battery. The anti-abortion group, has not been charged with any crimes and to my knowledge, no UCSB official has mentioned them violating any campus policy.

In addition to the professor's crimes, I also personally acted extremely unprofessionally and is an embarrassment to our campus.

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 2, 2014 at 11:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wrong Ken. Freedom of speech is the issue. The content of the display provoked Miller-Young's violent reaction, not the size of the display or any perceived violation of university policy. That argument is a farce.

Botany (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 6:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If I remember correctly, there was once a recurring living re-enactment of Gitmo with tortured prisoners in hooded orange prison suits on view as I walked along to the library. Should this have qualified for administrative review?

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well that sounds like a re-eneactment "Don Jose". In addition was there real or fake blood and gore?
I think it's also fair to assume the Gitmo protest followed the rules of engagement.
NO FREE PASS FOR SAH

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

the issue is freedom of speech, and hafta agree Don Jose that this Prof's academic work is slender [I like the topics!], and I've asked on other threads about this how she got tenure without a single book. And talk of the "Duke U. Press book" has been bandied about for quite awhile.
Ken, I agree that a side issue is SAH and their provocations, but admit it the Prof played right into their hands. The Chancellor's lack of response is very revealing.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Regents Regulation (which has the force of law on UC Property) is 100014, posted at:

https://www.ucsf.edu/sites/default/fi...

The Shorts were supposed to get prior, written permission for their oversized signs, shown here:

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

As part of obtaining prior, written permission they would either have been denied or only allowed to show their posters if there was a system whereby casual Arbor Mall walkers (which include kids from UCSB child care and after school programs) from inadvertent connection with such violent and disgusting posters.

I have verified with Student Affairs at UCSB.

I walk on the Arbor Mall several times daily and over the past few weeks I did not see the alleged poster set up that jongaucho claims they saw. Post some pictures, jongaucho, from your cell phone if you want to be convincing.

Miller-Young `stole' nothing. She seized contraband on campus illegally. The Shorts interfered with enforcement by a faculty member (always empowered to enforce) of campus regulations.

It is certainly reasonable to question Miller-Youngs motivations, but in the end, doesn't matter. The Shorts were in the wrong, and if Miller-Young said something inappropriate while enforcing campus regulations, Miller-Young is still guilty of nothing but saying the wrong words as she undertook the correct action.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 2:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DoverSharp is at it again:Miller-young was required to contact campus security to deal with any violations who were authorized to give a warning first before any confiscation of improper materials.

Worry first that people like DoverSharp and Miller-Young have anything at all to do with education in any form in this country today.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

foofighter, why do you think a faculty member is required to contact campus security?

Suppose during a test a student has a cheat sheet. Is a faculty member supposed to call campus security to remove the cheat sheet? Obviously not.

Faculty simply have power to enforce the rules. It is people like foofighter who want to allow cheating on tests.

As to warnings: the Shorts did not post the early portion of their video. Who knows what warnings were given?

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 2:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I just love the way, MrsDoverSharp, in trying to prove her case, consistently gives us the evidence to disprove her argument. She (?) now posts and cites Regent regulations governing the conduct of Non-Affiliates (off campus folks) in the Buildings and on the Grounds of the University of California. Thank you for this MrsDoverSharpe.

I read the text. Independent reader, you can read it too.

However, I'm doubtful MrsDoverSharp reads the things she posts herself, but in the 'introduction to the Regulation governing Conduct'...I quote here from the Regulation: "The regulations may not be utilized to impinge upon the lawful exercise of constitutionally protected rights of freedom of speech or assembly, or the constitutionally protected right of personal privacy."

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah, but the faculty member actually has to know a student has a cheat sheet before removing the cheat sheet. How can someone enforce a rule if they don't know what the rule is?

That's the severe mistake in your analogy that you can never get around.

Botany (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now we must determine if, by some stretch of the imagination, whether or not Associate Professor Ms. Millar-Young was actually even an AUTHORIZED AGENT of the Regents' regulations. I shall look into this next.

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DonJosedelaDover. Some are on to you. Go away.
How disgusting to use the name of an innocent murder victim (Dover Sharp) as part of one of your BS online identities.
Is that part of your "historical" (self-identified at least ) profession?

sockpuppetsareus (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In reading your posted system wide regulation, I see that the regulation permits signs as large as 30 inches by 30 inches...how big was the offending imagery?

Now, MrsDoverSharpe, are there any other regulations you can cite that refer specifically to the precise rules for the designated 'free speech areas'?....must all free speech activity be pre-approved? I can't determine if your cited University wide regulation pre-determines what can go on in a designated free speech area. Rather the opposite in fact seems to be the case, because the University wide Regulation makes clear in the Introduction that 'constitutional free speech' is an exception to the regulation's scope as I noted above.

Additionally I observe this statement in the Regulation that provides that the Officer or Employee authorized to maintain order on campus..."should make a reasonable attempt to warn and advise a non-affiliate subject to cease the prohibited conduct or activity before citing and/or arresting the offending party." Do you think Associate Professor Millar-Young abided by this dimension of the regulation? Do you think in fact, that Millar-Young even is an "AUTHORIZED AUTHORITY"?

The Regent Regulation additionally stipulates that the criteria for approval (or disapproval) for non-affiliate activities shall be content-neutral and specified as so in advance. Where would I find that the Shorts' content was specified and refused in advance?

Any help you could provide concerning these matters would be greatly appreciated.

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Careful Don Jose ! you are about to provoke another feminazi temper tantrum - you know that when you press for answers, use common sense, don't back down and call the gender bigots on their illogical BS they have no choice but to resort to elementary school yard name calling.

yendopostal (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dover Sharp was the 55 year old caretaker who was killed in an explosion at the UCSB Faculty Club in 1969: see http://files.legendarysurfers.com/sr/...
remember, Don Jose "knows who you are"..

DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

More of the `equal time for nonsense' going on by you residents of crazy town.

The John Thompson case at Berkeley proved that the Regents can lawfully regulate speech on UC Campuses. Thompson had a small sign that said `F***' which violated Regents' regulations and so he spent 90 days or so in the County Jail. Supreme Court let it stand. Known as the filthy speech movement.

Hardin Jones and Alex Sheriffs, both conservative faculty at UC Berkeley in the 1960's, proved that faculty are authorized authorities. Additionally, a faculty member can seize *any* material not authorized to be present in, for example, laboratories or examinations; no proof is required that the intention of the material was for cheating or danger. Faculty rule the place, which is exactly how Governor Ronald Reagan wanted it to be. In fact faculty are getting hauled into Court (at UCLA recently) for not enforcing regulations sufficiently assiduously.

Campus police can be called (or not) at the discretion of faculty.

Signs over 30" by 30" must be pre-approved in writing. Pamphlets and spoken words do not have to be.

The signs posted here clearly exceed the 30" by 30" dimensions (the officer is 6' or 72" tall):
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kasRjUpGZms...

Whether Miller-Young warned or not: maybe her attorney has gotten the **COMPLETE** Short video under discovery, or, maybe the Shorts destroyed the first few minutes. Miller-Young might have warned, or might not have. The regulations say `should' warn, not `must' warn, so if Miller-Young did not warn, it is regrettable, but doesn't change the basic logic of the case: that a faculty member sized illegal contraband, and the law-breakers resisted and followed/harassed the law enforcement individual.

That the faculty member couldn't cite chapter and verse is irrelevant. Law enforcement officers often cannot cite chapter and verse. There is evidence in the portion of the interview with Miller-Young by Law Enforcement that has been released that she did believe something was illegal about the posters. And she was right.

The link to the Regents regulations has been posted many times on the Indy. Pretending the link here is the first link is just phony.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 4:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you DrDan. Glad my name has gotten Dover Sharp remembered. His death was a full tragedy. Every minute our law enforcement spends on Miller-Young is a minute not being used to find the perpetrator of the Sharp killing.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Our police can multi-task Ms DoverSharp. They are trained professionals.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Non-sequitur

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 6:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Non-sequitur?...Here is a non-sequitur: Tonight, the Los Angeles Kings are playing the Anaheim Ducks in the semi-finals to the Stanely Cup. Daryl Sutter, the head coach for the Kings, makes weird contorted faces all the time. This isn't a serious sport, this is hockey!

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 6:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is said "There's no such thing as a free lunch" so I guess the same applies to speech.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 6:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The country providing the most legal immigrants in Southern California is Canada. Vive le LNH.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 6:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And you should be grateful that Canada exports something besides Terrence and Phillip. But bear in mind mon ami Francophone que tout le monde ici parle anglaise. Non? Non-sequitur?

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

J'habite en La Mer.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 6:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And now for something completely different:

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 6:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MrsDoverSharp,

If you walked the Arbor Mall several times daily on April 24th, there is no way you could have missed the Anti-Sweat Shop group. They had multiple strands of tshirts strung across the entire arbor walk way (I had to duck under/around them to pass by). They also had a large wall of photographs set up on the Girvetz side of the walkway (several feet high and long). I only glanced at a handful of photos as I walked past, but stopped looking when I saw the dead bodies in the rubble...that was enough for me. I wasn't offended or triggered, but not something I desired to see. I certainly didn't feel any need to take pictures to prove anything to anyone. Your suggestion that I should have makes no sense. Their set up was there for sure from Noon-4pm, The two times I walked by.

Over the years, there have been groups posting graphic images in that area on campus and I have never once seen a warning sign. The ones I remember the most are the animal rights groups. I've definitely seen some graphic war pictures and previous anti-abortion pictures.

I have not heard one campus official mention that the anti-abortion group violated any policy. Certainly seems like AVC Michael Young's letter could have mentioned that if it was the case, based on the tone of his letter.

In Professor Miller-Young's questioning by the police, she never mentioned that she was trying to enforce a campus policy. Again, that certainly would have been a good place to mention it if it were true. Maybe it'll come up at her trial? I don't believe that was her intent at all, but I can see that you do.

This is the notice I sent to the Office of Student Life:

"FYI, offensive pictures are currently being displayed in the Arbor Courtyard. This time in the form of an anti-sweat shop group. Pictures include dead bodies in rubble, suffering children and adults, etc.

Is it not policy that there be warning signs posted when graphic images are displayed on campus?

I am not one to be offended or triggered, but we know that some may be."

And the response I got:
"There is currently no policy that a warning be posted to warn the community. The Office of Student Life will put up such signs if we receive a complaint and if possible. I did not see this concern until the event was just about over. We are considering adding to our campus regulations the requirement of posting signage.

Katya"

So it seems like, at most, if Professor Miller-Young was offended by a sign, she should have contacted the Office of Student Life to put up a warning sign (again, I personally have not seen a warning sign, ever).

Continued...

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 7:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Contiued...I didn't realize there was a limit on comment length. And I've probably way more verbose than I needed to be, but I don't take lightly to being accused of lying.

Instead she chose to steal a sign by force, by her own admission, and destroy it. In the process there was a scuffle. She has been charged with three crimes by the DA. The Shorts have not been charged with a crime and, to my knowledge, no UCSB official has stated that they violated a campus policy.

Now it's up to the courts to sort out the truth :-)

As a member of the UCSB community, I feel Professor Miller-Young's actions are an embarrassment and am surprised to see anyone defending her actions.

For the record, I'm pro-choice and I certainly have no desire to pictures of aborted fetuses. But I believe in the First Amendment for all. What I don't believe in is having a bully break the law when she sees and hears something she disagrees with.

I can only speculate what was running through Professor Miller-Young's mind that day, but I feel very confident that enforcing campus regulations was not one of them.

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 8:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"This letter is a lesson in itself. It shows that free speech on university campuses isn’t so free. There are areas designated for its expression. People are allowed to pass out pamphlets, set up displays, or share other types of information only in certain zones."
-- Cat Neushul

Isn't that more of a practical issue? I wouldn't want someone standing outside of my classroom shouting about who knows what while I'm trying to listen to a lecture and take notes.

And if the expression is in the form of handing out leaflets, I wouldn't want that clogging up entry/exit into the lecture hall. You only have 10 minutes to get across campus for the next class for crying out loud :)

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 8:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jongaucho seems reasonable to me...very refreshing. Thank you.

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 8:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks DonJosedelaGuerra. I've been a member of the UCSB community for a long time and I just call it how I see it.

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 9:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jongaucho… I definitely walked through the Arbor Mall on the afternoon of April 24 and don't recall any such display. Go ahead and post photos if you have them, that would prove me wrong.

I have seen warning signs *many times* in the Arbor Mall, another point on which I disagree with you.

You are confusing and conflating Regents Regulations, Campus Policies, and policies of Student Affairs. The Regents *Regulation* 100014 is posted here:

https://www.ucsf.edu/sites/default/fi...

and the regulation applies to signs that are bigger than 30" by 30". Perhaps you could post photos that prove the alleged demonstration photos from April 24 exceed 30" by 30". I won't hold my breath. There is no doubt that the Shorts posters exceeded 30" by 30":

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

jongaucho, you have no proof what Prof. Miller-Young's actions actually were. The Shorts video omits the initial interaction, which is crucial for understanding what really happened. So you have no reason to be embarrassed, unless of course you believe the Shorts version.

The first amendment does not guarantee all behavior at all locations at all time. If SAH came into your house and forced you to see their giant posters in your bedroom, that behavior would not be guaranteed by the first amendment.

The UC Campus is not public property, it is the Regents property. They have never allowed unlimited expression of an arbitrary nature on UC Campuses.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 10:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MrsDoverSharp,

Haha, did you not read that I had no reason to take pictures that day? I walk through there nearly every weekday and I have never taken pictures of any group that has been set up in the arbor mall. Why would I have taken pictures of their display? I had no reason to. You make no sense. They were there, whether you saw them or not. I am not in the habit of photographing everything I see in case some random person thinks I need photographic evidence for proof.

I do find it hard to believe that you could walk through the arbor area that afternoon and not at least see all the t-shirts that were hung across the entire walkway. I could see if you were distracted by the shirts and didn't seen the picture boards they had set up, but you had to walk through the shirts if you walked through the walkway at the end closest to the music building. The pictures that were set up on multiple tables were MUCH larger than 30x30". But again, I have no photographic evidence Little did I know I'd be having a discussion with someone a week later and they'd want to see photos.

If you (or anyone) honestly think I'm lying, contact Katya in Student Life and she can verify that she saw the display as well. While you're at it, you can ask her about the policy for posting warning signs at the same time if you think I'm lying about what she emailed me. Then again, she probably doesn't have photographs, so you might not believe her either.

If I were to use your logic, I'd say post the pictures you took of the warning signs to prove it.

But I am not in the arbor area most of the time, so I can't comment on what is or isn't there when I am not there. I can only state in my experience, which spans decades of walking in the arbor walkway, that I have not seen them. You say you have seen them many times. I am in no position to dispute that, but I can report that I haven't seen them :-)

You're right, I was not there the day of the Miller-Young/Short incident, so I can only report on what I saw in the video and the what the people involved said. I don't believe the Shorts edited out earlier footage, but they likely didn't start the recording until after their sign was stolen. Professor Miller-Young admits that she took the sign by force and was able to because "she was stronger". It wouldn't make any sense for the Shorts to want to edit that out. But I don't know either way, and neither do you.

I'm guessing since you haven't mentioned it, that you were not there for this event. In which case, you and I have the same information about what happened that day.

Continued...

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 4, 2014 at 12:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

...continued.

Your comparison of the SAH coming into my house by force is a ridiculous one, because it's not at all what happened. Obviously if the SAH broke laws, they would be charged with their crimes and have to pay the consequences.

Non-affiliates have always been allowed to express their ideas in the area of the Arbor (at least for as long as I've been on campus). Of course that's not unlimited, but there have been many that have displayed large graphic signs with no warning signs and no university officials have done anything about it to my knowledge.

You seem to honestly believe that Professor Miller-Young was doing her duty to enforce this alleged policy, that is at best in dispute. I disagree and don't believe Professor Miller-Young had any campus regulation in mind. I have read that her excuse for her actions that day is because she was "triggered" by the graphic images. I do believe if Professor Miller-Young was acting on this campus regulation regarding the size and nature of the images being displayed, she would have mentioned it when she was being questioned by the police. Personally, I think folks found this regulation that you've posted after the fact and are trying to use it as justifications for her actions. Those are just my thoughts. Neither of us know what was really going on in Professor Miller-Young's head that day and we are just speculating based on the information we have.

You say you have verified this regulation with student affairs, which covers 20 departments and hundreds of employees...so I'm not sure what department or employee verified that for you. I have verified with the Associate Dean of Student Life, which is in Student Affairs and seems like they would be in a position to be knowledgeable on the subject which is why I contacted them. I have shared their response here.

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 4, 2014 at 12:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jongaucho… "If I were to use your logic, I'd say post the pictures you took of the warning signs to prove it"… here is a picture of a warning sign. I've seen many like it through the years:

http://thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu/wp-c...

The Associate Dean of Student Life at UCSB has verified that Regents Regulation 100014 remains in force on the UCSB campus. A little googling will convince you the regulation has been used all through out the UC system to prosecute various sign-carriers.

jongaucho, your logic is flawed. You claim to have seen sweatshop protestors *AFTER* the SAH contraband violation, and to have been so concerned you contacted student affairs. Yet you took no photographic evidence.

All the many times I've seen warnings of disturbing images occurred *before* the SAH contraband violation. To ask me to take photos prior to the SAH violation would have required precognition or other acausal information transmission, which does not exist.

I did see pro-Palestinian demonstrators with large posters on the edge of the mall near the bike path. The images were in no way disturbing. Also the AS elections had huge signs, but those are from affiliates and therefore not subject to Regents Regulation 100014.

jongaucho, looks like we agree the first amendment would not protect SAH if they came into your home and showed you their poster in your bedroom.

First amendment guarantees are not absolute. You can make rules on your property as you see fit.

UC is the Regents property. The Regents have made rules about the display of signs greater than 30" by 30". SAH and the shorts violated those rules. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

What was in Miller-Young's head is not part of the regulation. What is in the head of police officer when they arrest you is immaterial.

Whatever she was thinking the fact remains: SAH & the Shorts violated Regents Regulation 100014 and by doing so initiated the entire sorry sequence of events.

That you and others accept the word of the lawbreakers over a UC professor is curious. I'm more of a Gaucho than you are, jongaucho, I think.

I'm sure this will all come out in the trial, or more likely in the meetings with the DA, where it is likely all charges will be dropped. The DA will want to bury the DA's office ignorance of Regents Regulation 100014.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 4, 2014 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm counting on the Shorts to demonstrate the true spirit of Christianity by forgiving Miller-Young and dropping the charges. They ARE Christians right? But it doesn't seem very Christian to lay traps for people that provoke them to act sinfully, so maybe SAH is just another cult. They're certainly structured like one.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 4, 2014 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Popular "Christian" concepts in context: Sermon on the Mount - turn the other cheek etc. (Wiki)

Nonviolent resistance interpretation

The scholar Walter Wink, in his book Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination, interprets the passage as ways to subvert the power structures of the time.

He says that at the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma.

The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. An alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality.

Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was demanding equality.

Wink continues with an interpretation of handing over one's cloak in addition to one's tunic. The debtor has given the shirt off his back, a situation forbidden by Hebrew law as stated in Deuteronomy (24:10–13).

By giving the lender the cloak as well the debtor was reduced to nakedness. He notes that public nudity was viewed as bringing shame on the viewer, not just the naked, as seen in Noah's case (Genesis 9:20–23).

Wink interprets the succeeding verse from the Sermon on the Mount as a method for making the oppressor break the law.

The commonly invoked Roman law of Angaria allowed the Roman authorities to demand that inhabitants of occupied territories carry messages and equipment the distance of one mile post, but prohibited forcing an individual to go further than a single mile, at the risk of suffering disciplinary actions.

In this example, the nonviolent interpretation sees Jesus as placing criticism on an unjust and hated Roman law as well as clarifying the teaching to extend beyond Jewish law.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 4, 2014 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

That was exceptionally fascinating Foo thanks for adding that.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 4, 2014 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

MrsDoverSharp,

Thanks for a picture of the warning sign. I had not seen one prior to your picture, Granted I only walk through the arbor area on an average of one round trip per day or so. So obviously they can be put out. Which matches what Katya told me, that if they receive a complaint and if possible, they will put them out.

I'm not sure why you are so hung up on me not having taken pictures of the anti-sweat shop group. They were there. I had no reason to photograph them. I was merely curious about the warning sign policy (I was not trying to prove anything to anyone), so I contacted the office of student life to inquire. I got a response from Katya that said she saw the group and that there is no policy requiring warning signs. You say that the Associate Dean of the Office of Student Life has verified to you that there is a policy requiring warning signs. I believe Katya is the only Associate Dean of Student Life. So I guess that means she has either mistakenly replied incorrectly to one of us, or lied (which I don't believe is the case).

You say that I believe the SAH's story more than the professor's story. That's simply not true, I believe everything that Professor Miller-Young said in the the Police report...it pretty much matches perfectly with the Shorts story and video. It seems those involved all agree on what happened. The claim that you are more of a gaucho than me because we have a differing opinion on the appropriateness of Professor Miller-Young's actions is just silly.

As far as what happens in the legal proceedings, I have no predictions. I am not privy to what has been going on legally other than the Professor pleaded not guilty. We'll just have to wait and see. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a plea agreement with possibly the professor agreeing to pay for the sign that was destroyed or something of that nature and having the official charges dropped. That's just wild speculation on my part, we'll have to see what happens.

Unlike many, I don't see this incident as a significant one. A very small blip on the radar that got blown way out of proportion by the right wing media. However, I do feel it's unfortunate that the Professor didn't act more professional and this whole media circus could have been avoided. Professor Miller-Young even said in the police report that she probably shouldn't have taken their sign.

Continued...

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 4, 2014 at 12:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

...continued.

I am very proud of our awesome university and I hold our representatives to high standards. Though ultimately I realize we are all just people and not everyone is going to live up to the standards I might like to see.

I hate to have our reputation tarnished with all of the negative media stories of late. Especially, when this news story could have been avoided if the professor had acted more professionally. She could have contacted the Office of Student life and had them put up a warning sign. She could have contacted the campus police and a discussion could have been had as to whether or not the SAH were in violation of any regulations. What I wish wouldn't have happened, is what did, that she took the sign by force and destroyed the sign. Instead of rising to a higher level than to that of SAH, she allowed herself to be brought down to there level...and in my opinion, dropped below their level with her actions. She is an Associate Professor and a world class research institute, but that day she acted like a child. She should have been better than that.

Go Gauchos! :-)

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 4, 2014 at 12:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Very well said jongaucho, I agree wholeheartedly.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 4, 2014 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jongaucho, I wish that SAH had followed the law on UC property, which is: if you want to display a sign larger than 30" by 30", you get prior written approval. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Had SAH followed the law, the whole incident would have been avoided. I think *they* should also be held to high standards, but no-one else seems to agree.

That the right wing media blew this out of proportion and failed to check the law is not Professor Miller-Young's fault. It is the fault of the right wing media. Blaming their falsehoods, distortions, and innuendo on her or on UCSB is utterly immoral.

Sure, Prof. Miller-Young could have acted differently, and better. But she was simply right and had the law on her side. That is the single most important aspect of the case. Everything else is spin.

Again, you have only seen a redacted fragment of the one police report on the issue, and a partial video that omits a key portion of the issue. There is no evidence whatsoever that what has been released to the media is the whole truth. Yet you base your decision on that fragmentary information. You didn't even know that SAH had violated Regents Regulation 100014. Kind of shows you are inherently biased against Prof. Miller-Young. The important question is: why are you biased against her?

I would never be as confident as you seem to be, jongaucho, as to the entire set of facts.

For the umpteenth time, faculty have the responsibility to enforce regulations on campus. That was established during the 1960's by Gov. Reagan, Alex Sheriffs, Hardin Jones, and others. The assertion that Prof. Miller-Young should have done anything else is at odds with policy and the facts.

Isn't it curious that the only media outlets that have actually shown the actual posters are the UCSB media outlets? So much for claims of suppression of free speech… The Indy, the News-Press, Fox News, etc, while arguing for free expression, don't once publish the actual posters that SAH displayed. I suppose their policies don't allow display of those images...

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 4, 2014 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks Ken_Volok. I do hate re-reading my comments and seeing the typos, like "there" for "their" in one spot, etc. But I like to think my thoughts aren't too unreasonable, so I appreciate your response.

I find it hard to believe that folks would support Professor Miller-Young's actions that day. As a representative of our university, there were so many better options for how she could have responded to the situation. And now, because of her choice, the University is having to deal with the negative situation.

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 4, 2014 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

haha I myself have been knocked off my high horse by typos, don't sweat it.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 4, 2014 at 1:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No-one, not jongaucho, the news media, nor any poster hear knows the full extent of Miller-Young's actions. You seriously think that the Shorts will be honest after breaking Regents Regulation 100014? As for the police report, that released starts on page 4 of 5. It is not a verbatim transcript of Prof. Miller-Youngs statement, but is what the police officer interpreted Miller-Young to say. It would have been much more valuable if it was a direct transcript of Miller-Young's statement. Even then it says:

`Miller-Young said that she and others began demanding that the images be taken down'

This is completely consistent with enforcement of a violation of Regents Regulation 100014.

`She said that the demonstrators refused.'

There you go. The Shorts were breaking the law (Regents Regulations are law on UC Campuses; policies are *not*), and refused to comply.

BTW, the UC police also failed to enforce Regents Regulation 100014. They have no compelling interest in honestly addressing their failure; much more convenient to focus blame on Prof. Miller-Young.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 4, 2014 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"nor any poster hear knows.."
Yeah, hear, hear, Mrdoversharpjosedelagaucho. Pathetic on so many levels.

sockpuppetsareus (anonymous profile)
May 4, 2014 at 3:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mrdoversharpjosedelagaucho ??

DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 4, 2014 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This entire issue is a tempest in a teapot.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
May 4, 2014 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

C'mon people, only 106 comments so far?...you can do better than that. Let's try to get this thread up to 200 comments by mid-week.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
May 4, 2014 at 5:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK, there is 14 of us, and we all say billclausens right, so that makes it 121 comments so far.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
May 4, 2014 at 5:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The injured parties have no reason to lie. What is your value system that makes you assume so, Ms DoverSharp?

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 4, 2014 at 5:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In the interest of the 200, I would like to point out again that Mrs Dover Sharp's 'God and Regents' regulation 100014 actually states in the Introduction:

"The regulations may not be utilized to impinge upon the lawful exercise of constitutionally protected rights of freedom of speech or assembly, or the constitutionally protected right of personal privacy."

And regulation 100014 states the enforcing authority (whoever that is!):

"should make a reasonable attempt to warn and advise a non-affiliate subject to cease the prohibited conduct or activity before citing and/or arresting the offending party."

Just sayin'...It seems our Associate Professor Millar Young comes on like an armed "Get out of Dodge Now" sheriff...

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
May 4, 2014 at 5:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The horse is dead. There is no reason to keep beating it. Mountain meet molehill.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
May 4, 2014 at 6 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'll call the "injured party" liars if they: deny this is part of their overall modus operandi: create problem and sue.
Exhibit A: "In 2007, an anti-abortion protest at Asheville-Buncombe Technical Community College, in which approximately 15 group members displayed signs depicting images of aborted fetuses was deemed “unruly” and resulted in trespass arrests when the group members refused to leave campus when told to do so by police. [38] Video of the incident shows group members saying the college is federally funded, and is therefore public property, so they have the right to protest there. In response, the arresting officer informed the group members that AB-Tech’s vice president of student services, Dennis King, had the authority to ask them to leave. Dennis King said he asked the protesters to leave after three faculty members “approached me in a highly agitated fashion and demanded that the protesters be removed.” In 2008, two group members involved in the incident were found guilty of trespassing." (from Wikipedia for expediency)

They have a demonstrable pattern, they should not receive any financial rewards for their actions.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 4, 2014 at 6:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Exactly Ken. This was a political stunt gone wrong, sort of a right to life guerrilla theater designed to provoke a reaction. It was kinder gentler version of what the Westboro crew used to do.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
May 4, 2014 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

But we must guard against censorship. The success of our society is incumbent upon our ability to exchange ideas, without resorting to suppressing them, regardless of how offensive they may be.

As the saying goes "build a better mousetrap". Namaste.

FoolPt (anonymous profile)
May 4, 2014 at 8:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Herschell_Greenspan… great damage to Prof. Miller-Young has been done by false reporting of this incidence. Will be a molehill when that bell has been unrung.

sockpup… the evidence so far supports the interpretation that a Professor was simply enforcing the (Supreme Court tested) Regents Regulations, and the violators resisted. That hasn't stopped a certain group of people, including many posters here, from falsely interpreting that evidence and smearing Prof. Miller-Young. Eventually all the evidence will see the light of day; I bet at the end Miller-Young will go free with a letter of commendation from the Regents, and the Shorts and SAH will get a token fine.

foofighter… the injured party i.e. Prof. Miller-Young, and the implication of your comment is that the Shorts are mendacious, which is what the evidence we have so far indicates.

DJG… `should' differs from `must', and the John Thompson case proved the Regents Regulations are constitutional.

jongaucho… you don't condemn the Shorts or SAH, who intentionally broke the Regents Regulation 100014, lie about it, resisted enforcement, and falsely claimed they were the victims.

Ken_Volok… SAH has gotten a windfall of free publicity based on mendacity. Additionally they have falsely impugned Prof. Miller-Young and UCSB and through false representation caused quite a waste of public funds expended on the false prosecution of Prof. Miller-Young.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 5:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't you mean a letter of reprimand?

But that would be too kind.

Botany (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 5:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Prof. Miller-Young enforced the Regents Regulation 100014, and might well get a letter of commendation for doing so.

A tower of fabrication based on mendacity has been built by lots of unscrupulous media and religious people.

A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes, and that was before modern media.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 7:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Miller-Young didn't know what the regulations were and didn't care. She reacted violently to the content of the display and nothing more. When are you going to get it through your thick head that enforcement of university regulations had nothing to do with her thought process when she did this.

Botany (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 7:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany, prove the Miller-Young didn't know the regulation, and while you're at it, provide a reference to the Regents Regulation that requires a specific thought process while enforcing the regulations.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 7:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany, you are way ahead of the game on this one. Ms Sharpless has a one trick pony she is beating to death. Call PETA. UCSB should be very embarrassed if Sharpless has even a remote associations with them.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 8:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

MrsDoverSharp nails it… there is a character assassination machine in full gear to trash Miller-Young. Miller-Young should have walked on by and avoided those kooks. And the Campus Police messed up big time… they shouldda known their own regulations and they should have got those signs down ASAP.

I've heard Miller-Young has gotten a few death threats. No wonder she is not appearing in court.

sevendolphins (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@Botany: "She reacted violently to the content of the display and nothing more."

You and your buddy foofighter are such hypocrites that it borders on the absurd. You want Miller-Young gone, and you really don't care how it happens - this is just the B.S. excuse you're using to justify it.

She reacted violently to content that was presented for the sole purpose of obtaining a violent reaction - and when these WBC-wannabes got that reaction, they gutlessly try to hide behind the first amendment. They baited a pregnant woman into a confrontation for the sole purpose of creating controversy, and you saps are falling in line defending them. How courageous.

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ETR - Don't you understand the difference between defending the content of what was said and defending the right to say it? I don't like these religious nuts anymore than you do. But they have the right to express their opinions just as you and I do. Do you want to say it's OK to hide behind political correctness or the fact she was pregnant or to use some ticky-tack sign size regulation to excuse depriving people of their right to free speech just because you don't like what they have to say? DrDan is a liberal that understands the principal behind this, why can't you?

Botany (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

MrsDoverSharp - Please review the police report. That's proof enough for me, it should be for you too.

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

:In the report, Miller-Young, who is pregnant, said she was “triggered” by the graphic images of aborted fetuses on the large posters and said she felt the demonstrators didn’t have a right to be on the university’s campus, because their messages were upsetting to her and students. When asked by police if there had been a struggle between her and the activists when she took the poster, Miller-Young responded, “I’m stronger, so I was able to take the poster.”"

I don't see how it could be clearer that she was responding to the content of the poster and ONLY to the content.

And do you really want me to prove that someone has to have knowledge of what a regulation is in order to enforce it? That's so absurd I won't even bother addressing it.

Botany (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@Botany: " I don't like these religious nuts anymore than you do."

Plenty of evidence to the contrary, buddy...

@Botany: "Don't you understand the difference between defending the content of what was said and defending the right to say it?"

Because I think you're full of it. If this had been an anti-war protest and some right-wing economics professor would have punched out a student, you'd be falling over yourself defending the professor while condemning the student. You're looking for every reason under the sun to throw Miller-Young under the proverbial bus because of her politics, not because you're really all that outraged by her actions.

Sure, it would have been better for everyone had she simply not engaged these lunatics, but I also think cow-towing to this faked outrage is a travesty in and of itself.

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That is not a verbatim transcript of Miller-Young's phone conversation, and the report omits the first 3 pages.

No proof whatsoever in Botany's post or the police report that Miller-Young did *not* know about the Regulation. The police officer never asked `Did you know about Regents Regulation 100014?'.

Whatever Miller-Young knew or did not now, the fact remains: the Shorts and SAH violated Regents Regulation 100014, which had already been vetted by the US Supreme Court via the John Thompson case.

The Shorts' violation is the heart of the matter. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. As Ronald Reagan said during similar situations in the 1960's, involving the University of California: Obey the rules or get out.

The Shorts disobeyed a request by a faculty member to turn over contraband. Everything that followed is completely their fault.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ETR - Here is an article that I expressed my opinion on regarding a woman's right to choose. Please review the comments section.

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

Could my opinion on the subject be any clearer?

How about an apology?

Botany (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

basically ETR's correct, but NONETHELESS Miller-Young's got to have a better comprehension of the US Constitution and First Amendment rights. Yeah, she played into the hands of SAH, and she'll get her hands slapped with a misdemeanor citation.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sure!

I'm very sorry that you're so insecure about your beliefs that you feel as though you have to prove that your pro-choice while you attempt to malign a pregnant woman who confronted a bunch of religious nuts after she was baited into an altercation. Really... I wonder what other views you're willing to abandon when it becomes inconvenient?

I really hope you know where to put my 'apology'.

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ETR - You accused me of being aligned with the religious nuts. Obviously, I'm not. It's also obvious that you don't understand the difference between principal and one's own belief system. I'm not maligning anyone. She made an irrational and illegal decision to deorive these people of their constitutional right to freedom of speech. That's a fact. Deal with it.

Botany (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 1:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I did not know faculty members were the end all of policy on campus??

Most are just trying to get as much out of the system as they can...

dadof3 (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

UC Campuses are under legal control of the UC Regents; you have as much free speech as they allow on campus. Until 1964, all political speakers were banned from UC Campuses. Adlai Stevenson set up in the public street off the Berkeley campus. That policy was not reversed by the courts, but by a vote of the Regents.

Now there is an issue of favoring one sort of speech over another. Regents Regulation 100014 is content neutral, and the Shorts violated it.

The US Constitution does not allow expression of any idea at any time on any entity's property. Although UC is a public university, you can't assume that its land is exactly the same as the public square. Its land is governed by the Regents, period.

And so these comments that Prof. Miller-Young `made an irrational and illegal decision to deorive these people of their constitutional right to freedom of speech' or `Miller-Young's got to have a better comprehension of the US Constitution and First Amendment rights' are flat wrong.

The illegality was committed by the Shorts and SAH. That is a fact.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@Botany: "You accused me of being aligned with the religious nuts. Obviously, I'm not. "

Wait for it....

@Botany: "She made an irrational and illegal decision to deorive these people of their constitutional right to freedom of speech."

There it is.

Again, I don't really think you care about 'free speech' at all. I think it's just an opportunity to criticize a young, ambitious professor whose politics you dislike - a view you'd most certainly abandon if the situation was reversed and it was a liberal group and a conservative professor.

And again, you seem to be missing the part where this group that you-are-not-aligned-with-but-love-defending came to the campus with the sole purpose of provoking a confrontation, got one, and then ran crying about their freedom of speech like cowards - with people like you suddenly championing 'free speech' on campus when 99% of time you could really care less. Suddenly, you're concerned about free speech. Uh, huh. Right.

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 2:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Again, you can't seem to grasp the concept of defending a principle and not an ideology. Just like I don't agree with these religious nuts, I'll defend OWS's (who I also don't agree with) right to free speech just as vehemently whether you want to believe it or not. The point where I diverge from OWS's right to free speech is when they do things like block traffic and the like. because at that point they are interfering with the rights of others.

Botany (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Indeed the size restriction (30" by 30") of Regents Regulation 100014 is a compromise to prevent giant imagery from interfering with the rights of random walkers through the Arbor Mall.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My guess is if the same sized sign was selling donuts or even green pickles, this incident would not have played out with this alleged pregnant porn-prof.

I do believe it was the content that "triggered" her violent reaction; not the size of the image. But hey, I wasn't there.

However you are asking me to believe this prof flipped out only because the sign in question was too large and outside of University regulations (which she had memorized ahead of time) causing the porn-prof to have a total meltdown and take matters into her own hands. Literally.

"I am pregnant. I cannot abide by large, out of regulations signs!!! Cease and desist immediately. Or else. "

Yeah, sure.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 3:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Foo you doubt the Prof is pregnant? You doubt she teaches Porn Studies? Or do you not know what "alleged" means"?

Alleged : al·leged
əˈlejd/
adjective
(of an incident or a person) said, without proof, to have taken place or to have a specified illegal or undesirable quality.
"the alleged conspirators"
synonyms: supposed, so-called, claimed, professed, purported, ostensible, putative, unproven

The professor is both demonstrably and scientifically proven to be pregnant, and there are hundreds if not thousands of people who've witnessed her teach porn studies.

It's so sad one of the few times you make a valid point (she suddenly goes crazy over the size of a sign) and then you shoot yourself in the foot with your usual BS!

What is it you allegedly do for a living Foo? heh

She'll walk on a technicality, the regulations which SAH chose to ignore will be her savior.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And so because Professor Miller-Young was upset, that means SAH and the Shorts can violate Regents Regulation 100014? That is, their compliance with the law is contingent on everyone else's behavior, and independent of their own behavior?

That is how it is with people like the Shorts: they never step up and take responsibility. It's always someone else's fault.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 3:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken_Volok, as for her teaching `Porn Studies', is there such a class at UCSB? I've found no record of one.

Odd, for all the claims that she is the `Porn Professor' I can't find a single class on pornography that she has taught at UCSB.

Is the claim that she teaches pornography another fabrication? Now, it may be that one of these classes uses pornography as an example for other topics listed, but frankly, that is a whole different thing.

---------------------------------------------------------

FEMST 60. Women of Color: Race, Class, and Ethnicity
(4) CHANG, MILLER-YOUNG
Enrollment Comments: Concurrently offered with WM ST 60H.
Repeat Comments: Not open for credit to students who have completed Women's Studies 60H or Feminist Studies 60H. Legal repeat of Women's studies 60
Examination of the interlocking dynamics and politics of gender, race, sexuality, class, and culture in the experience of U.S. women of color. Readings focus on oppositional consciousness and resistance to oppression in the scholarship and literature by women of color.

FEMST 151AAZZ. Sexual Cultures
(4) MILLER-YOUNG
Prerequisite: upper-division standing
Seminars focus on the political, social, and cultural dynamics of sexuality in modern society. Offerings may explore sexual representations, economies, laws, identities, performances, literatures, technologies, relationships, communities, and customs in the United States or abroad. Topics may vary.

FEMST 182. Feminist Methodologies
(4) HARTHORN, MILLER-YOUNG, OAKS
Prerequisite: Upper-division standing; open to Feminist Studies majors only.
Recommended Preparation: Completion of Feminist Studies 180 and 181 recommended.
Enrollment Comments: Open to Women's Studies minors with consent of instructor. Letter grade required for majors and minors.
Methods of feminist textual, theoretical, and empirical analysis, including the principles of research design.

FEMST 220. Genders and Sexualities
(4) RUPP, MILLER-YOUNG
Prerequisite: Graduate standing.
Enrollment Comments: May only be repeated with different instructor and topic.
An intensive reading course on diverse sexualities and genders in different times and places with a focus on the interconnections among race, ethnicity, class, gender identities, and sexual desires and acts.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The greatly esteemed and loved Prof. Constance Penley teaches (or taight) a very popular class on Pornography and it seems the studies have expanded. It was originally an offshoot of Film Studies which is where it primarily belongs. What Feminist Studies does with the topic I have no idea. But the media (including Indy) have all identified her as teaching Porn Studies so that's where people are getting that impression.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 4:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And because the media says it, it is true? ``For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.'' That famous quote aptly describes this SAH affair.

Yes, it is Penley that teaches an actual course on pornography. If anyone finds any record of any course devoted primary to pornography taught by Prof. Miller-Young, sure would be great to get the course number and description. My supposition is, though, that some of Miller-Young's research involves pornography as a perspective from which to gain insight into Women's Studies. Not obviously a useless avenue.

--------
FLMST 154PG. Topics in Film and Popular Culture
(1-4) PENLEY
Prerequisite: FLMST 46 or junior status or consent of instructor.
Enrollment Comments: 4 unit requirements: attendance at all class meetings, weekly essays, final research paper. 2 unit requirements: attendance at all class meetings, weekly essays 1 unit requirement: attendance and participation in all class meetings Course must be taken for 4 units and a letter grade to count toward major requirements.
The course approaches pornography as a major instance of film and popular culture, from the pre-history and history of cinema and video to the Internet and virtual worlds. Course content augmented by guest lectures from the adult industry and academia.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 4:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

keep having fun and your way with serious posters, "DoverSharp"... silly, and you repeat yourself all the time from your earlier comments on related threads, get over yourself.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You are making way too much sense Mrs Dover Sharp. The entire incident has been blown completely out of proportion by the SBNP, Fox News et all. As usual they make up the facts, like "porn studies" to fit their political agenda. Then you have the Indy trolls like Foo that have no interest in facts, they just need a forum for their bizarre ideas on their quest for some sort of relevance. Sad.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LMFAO, DrDan. As if repetition is uncommon here, I guess you only are chafed by repetition of the truth.

Again, I find no evidence that Prof. Miller-Young *teaches* pornography. All the evidence I've found is to the contrary. But always glad to be corrected, like, if just one of Ken_Volok's `hundreds if not thousands of people who've witnessed her teach porn studies.' would post a youtube video of her *TEACHING* porn studies to undergraduates.

Her research clearly is primarily on pornography, however. Surprised to google and find an interview with her… OMG, DrDan, you are calling this goofy unthreatening woman a femiNazi?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmZzLF...

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why is pornography a bad thing? Why should one be ashamed to teach the study of it?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 6:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No quarrel over pornography. But either Prof. Miller-Young teaches pornography or she doesn't. If she doesn't, it is inaccurate to say she does. And if she doesn't, shows another instance of the generally inaccurate reporting on the SAH affair.

The `Big Lie' is that she is a violent intolerant b**ch who assaulted a 16 year old and teaches pornography to 18 year olds.

The truth is that a 16 year old violated Regents' Regulations, resisted when caught, and then chased after the professor who seized her contraband, and, that Prof. Miller-Young doesn't teach pornography at all (at least I can't find evidence), but whose research is primarily into pornography. And as the `Big Lie' is contradicted by facts, its traces remain and leave a residue of animosity toward Prof. Miller-Young and UCSB.

Her youtube interview shows that her research is rather interesting.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 6:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

yeah, Laughing My F**king A()rse Off at you as well, DoverSharp. Quit hijacking this thread off onto the obfuscating side issue of "porn studies", and away from a tenured professor's incapacity to understand that others, even SAH, have free speech rights.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 6:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That the UC Regents can regulate speech on UC Campuses is settled law. As I've said, political candidates for years could not speak at all on UC Campuses, until the Regents let them (in 1965 or so).

Then, when John Thompson made a small sign that displayed an obscenity, he served 30 to 90 days in jail for the offense, at that time a violation of the Regents' conditions on obscenity. He appealed to the US Supreme Court who refused to reverse the conviction.

UC is a public university, but that does not mean its campuses are a public square. The Regents law-making ability regulates speech, albeit in a content neutral fashion.

The Regents made Regulation 100014 which has been on the books for years. Violating its size limit is not a `technicality', it is a very simple and straight forward rule.

The Shorts did not comply with the Regents Regulation. Simple, open and shut case.

Now maybe Miller-Young said some emotional things when she confiscated the Shorts contraband. Who cares. The Shorts were in the wrong. That the media has failed to report the Shorts violation is a lie.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 6:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

According to her own course catalog description, Ms Miller-Young puts an entirely new spin on "adult education".

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 7:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms Dover, you haven't yet answered.

What was it about the size of the sign that allowed Ms Miller-Young to introduce her own pregnancy into this argument as justification to violently take this persons sign, instead of calling a campus security person.

Did the size of the sign block out the sun so Ms Miller-Young was afraid she would not get sufficient Vitamin D and her baby would be born with rickets?

Happens.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 7:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wiki explains "contraband", and in this case the sub-category of conditional contraband, since the size of the sign in itself in other settings is not ab initio prohibited:

…." Conditional contraband, formerly known as occasional contraband, consists of such materials as provisions and livestock feed.

Cargo of this kind, while presumably innocent in character, is subject to seizure if, in the opinion of the belligerent nation that seizes them, the supplies are destined for the armed forces of the enemy rather than for civilian use and consumption.

In former agreements among nations, certain other commodities, including soap, paper, clocks, agricultural machinery and jewelry, have been classified as non-contraband, although these distinctions have proved meaningless in practice. ….."

NB: If Ms Miller-Young gets no satisfaction for her case under the UC Regents, perhaps she can apply to international treaty law regulating contraband instead.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 7:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

see, foo, DoverSharp doesn't answer if it doesn't fit her very narrow lens; s/he also likes to divert discussion, and I am chafed at his/her repetition of pathetic diversions... "feminazi" is a term YOU bring in along with "goofy unthreatening woman" -- who thoughtlessly and without awareness of the First Amendment seized the SAH sign and gave them a lovely issue to bash UC, liberals, and all profs. There is no honor in this for UC or higher education. Oh yeah, and when does our timid Chancellor ever dare speak out? C'mon Henry, find your voice, dude.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 7:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Help me out here Dan and Foo, please provide proof that Miller-Young is a " professor of porn studies " or that she teaches a class called "porn studies."

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 7:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh and Foo you should be ashamed of yourself. Dan you know better . A pregnant woman is very likely to become very upset at the sight of an aborted fetus.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 7:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So it was content related then after all, eh Hersh?

I was just about ready to believe it was only about the size of the poster that triggered Ms Miller-Young's hostile take over of the disproportionate sign, in order to maintain the integrity of UC Regent's policy as a self appointed vigilante on behalf of University administration. A real local heroine, was that mom-to-be.

If it was content related after all as you now suggest, then it was Ms Miller who violated the UC regs and used vigilante action to censor protected free speech.

Time, place and manner can be regulated. Which was the foundation of the pro Miller-Young argument - remove this over-sized sign.

But content is always neutral when it comes to regulating First Amendment rights in this passive speech situation. No one was yelling fire in a crowded theater in this case.

Therefore Ms Miller-Young's only argument for her vigilante action had to be based solely on the size, and not the content of the poster, if she is to make her case in court. That the size of the sign created an emergency situation allowing her to confiscate it immediately. Just the size. Nothing more.

So we do have to return to the size of the sign blocked Ms Miller-Young's access to fetal Vit D, which both objectively and subjectively created this emergency scenario that could reasonably justify her vigilante actions.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 9:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Abortionists' motto: "No fetUS can beat us."

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 10:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, foofi, the bigger the sign, the easier it is to see, because it takes up a bigger fraction of the field of vision.

Suppose a group wants to bring images that are 20 feet by 20 feet. Takes up such a big portion of the field of vision that the right of bystanders to be free from inadvertent glances is wiped out.

The Regents decided that 30" by 30" was where they'd draw the line. The line had to be drawn somewhere, and that is where it was drawn.

BTW, the SAH images are far, far bigger than life size. They are magnified by a factor of 500 or so.

Faculty are empowered to enforce Regents regulations if they feel the necessity. That is not vigilante action, just keeping good order on campus.

DrDan, as I've repeated 10 or 15 times, but you don't listen: the Regents regulations of speech on UC Campuses have been taken to the Supreme Court, by John Thompson. His conviction of displaying F**K on a small sign, in violation of Regents regulations, led to 30-90 days in jail and the SCOTUS let it stand.

So say as many times as you want that Miller-Young had know understanding/knowledge of the first amendment. Stamp your feet and hold your breath. The SCOTUS simply says you are wrong.

And Professor Miller-Young is a well-spoken, nice person. Quite a cut above you, DrDan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmZzLF...

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 10:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You are getting the issues confused again, Sharpless. How big was the sign in question; not a hypothetical sign?

If you are protesting the content of the sign as you just stated (500 magnification) and acting as a self-deputized vigilante because of the content, you remain the one in violation of UC regulations.

it is nice we are having this little chat to get things sorted out.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 10:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As I've posted many times, here is the link to the posters:

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

Their dimensions are 60" by 36".

As to the content, indeed as was done with John Thompson, the Regents via Regulation 100014 allow discretion of the prior written approval to require screens for any reason or no reason. That is, a poster display can be required to be behind screens to reduce inadvertent viewing by random pedestrians, if the content is gruesome. Many displays in the Arbor Mall have had screens or other blockages of the field of vision.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 10:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is the deal, Sharpless. Next time just ask them nicely to cut their signs in half. And ditch the vigilante act.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 11:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have no knowledge of what the Faculty's powers are to enforce Regents regulations are, so I am curious about it. Obviously there must be limits, maybe guidelines? Does it include taking property by physical force if you are stronger. Does it include destroying this property. It would seem that destroying the evidence against the accused would definitely be frowned upon. Does it include getting involved in a physical altercation with a minor in the process? Like I said, I have no knowledge of the regulations regarding faculty enforcing regulations, but I am curious.

As a logical person, I would assume that breaking laws in the process of enforcement certainly not be part of those powers. But I could be wrong.

If, and I don't believe it, but if Professor Miller-Young was enforcing 100014, did she establish that 100014 had been violated before her actions. Did she establish that none of this group were affiliates of the UC system? If so, did she establish that prior approval for their signs had not been received by an designated university official? I don't know the answers to those questions.

Granted, I learned after the fact that these folks were non-affilates and had not contacted the campus. But did Professor Miller-Young know this before her enforcement began? Seemingly a question that would need to be answered in regards to her alleged enforcement of 100014.

I am curious how easy it would be for an outsider to know of such a policy. Is it easy to find? I did a few quick google searches on things I might use to find out information like that, such as "UCSB sign policy" and don't get anything relevant, much less any mention of 100014. It's been said on this thread that the SAH group knowingly violated this policy. I find that highly unlikely that they knowingly violated 100014. Most likely they had no knowledge of 100014.

I contacted the office of Student Life and was told there was no warning signs required, but if possible they would put signs up if they got a complaint. The signs I inquired about and that were seen by the Associate Dean of Student Life were larger than than 30x30". Had the SAH contacted the Office of Student Life, would they not have gotten a similar response from the Office of Student Life as I did? That warning signs weren't required but that if they received complaints, that they would put them up if possible. It's all speculation, because it didn't happen I know...but it doesn't seem like they would have told they couldn't be there, and possibly at most Student Life would have proactively put up warning signs, knowing the likely nature of what might be displayed.

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 11:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And I honestly have no idea if the anti-sweat shop group was affiliated with the UC. I had never heard of the regulation 100014 at the time. I had just heard anecdotally that warning signs were required for graphic images, which was refuted by the Office of Student Life.

But that brings up another thing to ponder. Regulation 100014 only applies to non-affiliates. But if we are so concerned about being offended or triggered by graphic images of a certain size and content, shouldn't there be a policy that applies to both affiliates and non-affiliates. Won't the "kids from UCSB child care and after school programs", pregnant ladies, etc be just as traumatized and possibly triggered by a graphic image regardless of whether it's being displayed by an affiliate or non-affiliate.

The office of student life didn't make any mention to me about the size of signs or there being a difference affiliate/non-affilates. My hunch is that if they get a complaint, they will put up a warning sign, if possible, regardless of those factors.

Just a few things I'm curious about. I'm not really worried about Professor Miller-Young's case at this point. I'll leave that for the courts to sort out.

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 11:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I lost my faculties long ago.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 5:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jongaucho, think of a test at UCSB where the Professor has said: closed book, no notes, no talking.

If the Professor sees a student using a cheat sheet of notes, is the Professor supposed to call the police? Does the student have a free speech to have the notes in class? Does free speech cover talking in an exam?

Professors simply may take the cheat sheet of notes, or give the students talking zeros. And indeed, the students may suffer enormous loss, like, not getting into law school or medical school.

This is why Professors have enormous power on campus. If every incident had to go the DA for evaluation it would be a mess.

As it turns out: the Shorts and ASH *were non-affiliates*, *did not get prior written approval*, and *resisted enforcement of Regents Regulation 100014*.

And somehow, although the Shorts broke the Regents Regulation (which has force of law on a UC Campus), all the inquisition focuses on Prof. Miller-Young.

I think much more scrutiny belongs on the Shorts. Why didn't they comply with 100014? It is very easy to find by googling, it has been regularly enforced at Davis, Berkeley, and UCLA. And why have they maintained (as they have in various press reports) that they had complied with all rules?

And why has the media (including the Indy) been so lazy in researching the circumstances of this case?

Goodness, Prof. Miller-Young simply does not `teach' pornography by any record I can find. But the media has gotten that falsehood too in its echo chamber.

That affiliates have different rights than non-affiliates is a remnant of in loco parentis. Give students a break if they do something a little out of bounds.

And there is also a remaining concern for `outside agitators', who in the 1960's were literally thought to be communist representatives from the Soviet Union and China, influencing UC students.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 7:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm not sure equating enforcement of cheating in class to violating a UC campus regulation is fair. One is an internal matter that is dealt with by the professor and the dean of students (if reported). The other is a criminal charge dealt with by law enforcement and the courts. It seems at least in the case of the criminal charge, one would not be encouraged to destroy the evidence that would be used in the case. If the professor believed she was enforcing a UC regulation, she certainly should not have destroyed the evidence in my opinion.

I am curious are their limits in enforcing cheating in a classroom? If a professor sees a cheat sheet, but the student isn't willing to turn it over upon request. Is the professor allow to physically wrestle the cheat sheet from the student? Would it matter if the student was a minor? I'm curious. I don't know the answer, but I would assume initiating physical contact wouldn't be appropriate.

Just to clarify, you are saying it's okay for affiliates to have such graphic images on display? I believe the images will be just as offensive/triggering/traumatic to children, pregnant women,etc. But it seems like you're saying that we should give our students a break if they do it?

I don't believe that professor Miller-Young was enforcing 100014. But even if she was, did she make any effort to verify that 100014 was violated before her enforcement began?

Of course the focus is on Professor Miller-Young. She acted very unprofessionally and not up to the high standards I believe our faculty should be held to. In my opinion, she acted like a ill mannered young child who wanted to get her way. She physically took the sign by force and said that she was stronger, so she could take it. That is bully mentality to enforce your will because you are stronger and can.

In the eyes of the police, the DA, myself, and others there is sufficient evidence that she committed crimes. The case is still pending, so she may be exonerated of her charges.

She had a lot of options at her disposal that day and I don't believe she chose wisely.

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

At worst, the SAH girls brought graphic signs that were maybe too large to campus...maybe they should have contacted the Office of Student life or someone else on campus? I still have not heard a campus official, police officer, or court say that they weren't allowed to be there with their signs. But maybe they weren't, I don't know. They are young girls expressing their opinions on a controversial issue that is important to them. They had a professor take their sign by force, yet they had restraint to let go of the sign and not continue the struggle. They then called the police, started recording the situation, and followed their property. All very reasonable actions for the situation.

I personally would hold our professors to a higher standard of professionalism. Yet, at least for me, Professor Miller-Young did not meet those high standards on that day with her actions. While the younger girls, at least on the video, showed much more professional behavior when dealing with a bad situation.

One can try to defend Professor Miller-Young's actions that day, but for me they are indefensible. Had she made a wiser choice, this whole mess could have been avoided.

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If the professor is smart who observes potential cheating, he/she will bring in administrative resources to deal with this issue because it is fraught with legal technicalities as Ms Miller-Young is now belatedly learning after her own misguided vigilante action.

Part of teacher trainings is to learn exactly what to do within proper guidelines when these issues come up.

You instead are making up ridiculous scenarios. You need to stick to the issue at hand with the facts in front of you.

Save your Socratic diversions for the classroom where the stakes are not as immediate as a professor taking the law into her own hands and causing bodily harms to another humans being.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Of course, jong and foofi, you conveniently omit the early lines from the (obviously incomplete, with the first 3 pages missing) police report that the Short girls *refused* to take the oversized images down.

A professors request on a college campus should be respected.

In fact, you not once have conceded the obvious: the Short girls did not comply with Regents Regulation 100014. They were supposed to get prior written approval for display of their signs. And they did not!

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

All you do, jong and foofi, is whine and plead and make excuses for the Short girls.

In contrast, I agree that Prof. Miller-Young was unwise. Maybe unprofessional. But not criminal or illegal, and from a logical perspective, simply correct.

Ronald Reagan, Hardin Jones, Alex Sheriffs, and the UC Regents would commend Prof. Miller-Young: Obey the rules or get out.

And BTW, not one shred of evidence that Prof. Miller-Young teaches any course on pornography. Not one.

Your main goal, foofi and jong, is a `Big Lie' and character assassination of Prof. Miller-Young. Throw a bunch of false accusations up about her, and maybe after most are disproven, the residue will remain to taint her and UCSB. Of course you never respond to that, because your goal is to taint her and UCSB.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

aka MrsDoverSharp continues to suck the life out of facts...

Associate Professor Millar-Young's dissertation is "A Taste for Brown Sugar: The History of Black Women in American Pornography."
(as cited in Feminist Studies department website)

The Department says on the website, she teaches pornography et al.

So ....can we put this issue to rest, please.

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Her *research* is pornography, and she makes a fairly good case for it…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmZzLF...

I have not found a single course description that supports the claim that she `teaches' pornography. Not one of her course descriptions (below).

Yes, we can put this issue to rest: agree that she does *NOT* teach pornography (unless you find a course where she does), and if not, admit that claims that she does teach pornography and that any such claim was part of a smear campaign of inaccuracies.

----------------------------------------------------------------

FEMST 60. Women of Color: Race, Class, and Ethnicity
(4) CHANG, MILLER-YOUNG
Enrollment Comments: Concurrently offered with WM ST 60H.
Repeat Comments: Not open for credit to students who have completed Women's Studies 60H or Feminist Studies 60H. Legal repeat of Women's studies 60
Examination of the interlocking dynamics and politics of gender, race, sexuality, class, and culture in the experience of U.S. women of color. Readings focus on oppositional consciousness and resistance to oppression in the scholarship and literature by women of color.

FEMST 151AAZZ. Sexual Cultures
(4) MILLER-YOUNG
Prerequisite: upper-division standing
Seminars focus on the political, social, and cultural dynamics of sexuality in modern society. Offerings may explore sexual representations, economies, laws, identities, performances, literatures, technologies, relationships, communities, and customs in the United States or abroad. Topics may vary.

FEMST 182. Feminist Methodologies
(4) HARTHORN, MILLER-YOUNG, OAKS
Prerequisite: Upper-division standing; open to Feminist Studies majors only.
Recommended Preparation: Completion of Feminist Studies 180 and 181 recommended.
Enrollment Comments: Open to Women's Studies minors with consent of instructor. Letter grade required for majors and minors.
Methods of feminist textual, theoretical, and empirical analysis, including the principles of research design.

FEMST 220. Genders and Sexualities
(4) RUPP, MILLER-YOUNG
Prerequisite: Graduate standing.
Enrollment Comments: May only be repeated with different instructor and topic.
An intensive reading course on diverse sexualities and genders in different times and places with a focus on the interconnections among race, ethnicity, class, gender identities, and sexual desires and acts.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Associate Professor Millar Young's page in the Feminist Studies Department. Check for yourself...
http://www.femst.ucsb.edu/people/acad...

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

1) I never said the Shorts girls refused to take down their poster. It's obvious they didn't. I never disputed that.

2) I have only heard about 100014 from you. I got conflicting information from the Associate Dean of Student Life. So it is unclear to me what the policy of groups with graphic signs is. Though even 100014 is valid, I still believe the professor acted in the wrong. I have no reason to believe that she verified that the policy was being violated before her actions, and I believe in the process of her actions she committed crimes. She should not have taken the sign by force and then destroyed it.

3) I'm whining? Making excuses? I don't think so. I'm just stating my opinion on the situation. If anyone is making excuses, it's you for the professor by saying that she was just enforcing 100014.

4) I am less sure than you that she would be commended by the UC Regents for her actions, but unless they go on record, we'll never know.

5) I have never mentioned anything about what Prof. Miller-Young teaches because it has no relevance on the issue of her actions that day.

6) My main goal is certainly not to lie or a character assassination of Prof Miller-Young. I certainly have not thrown up any false accusations about her. I have no interest in tainting her. Her and the Shorts reporting of facts the incident are in agreement. I have no reason to dispute them. To say I want to taint UCSB is ludicrous. Professor Miller-Young's actions have tainted UCSB.

I'm am simply stating my opinion on the situation :-)

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Importantly, as I've stated, in my opinion, what she teaches has no relevance to her actions that day. I don't care if she teaches FEMST or HIST.

Also, I'm not sure how one defines "teaching porn", but her first syllabus that comes up on Google, mentions porn on one of the days.

"Thursday 3/5
-Mireille Miller-Young, "Desire: Black Women Laboring in Porn""

(Note: There are other topics that day, but copying and pasting from the PDF didn't work, so I manually typed just the one topic that specifically mentions porn)

http://www.femst.ucsb.edu/classes/FEM...

Again, I don't have any problem with this topic being taught and I'm not sure what folks mean by "teaching porn". But it is at least a topic of one of the classes she teaches.

BUT, in my opinion, it has no relevance to her actions that day.

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DonJo, you are intermingling her teaching and research. Her research is clearly about pornography. The evidence that she `teaches pornography' remains non-existent.

jong, 1/4 of 1/20 of a course on Women's Studies, discussing women who work in pornography, is not `teaching pornography'. Perhaps it doesn't matter to you what she teaches, but you are incurious as to why the broader media inaccurately reports her teaching.

From the Associate Dean:

`I just wanted to thank you for sharing your thoughts and highlighting Section 100014. No, there is no intention to modify or override this.'

Yes, your opinion is that the Shorts did nothing wrong in violating Section 100014, and did nothing wrong in disobeying the request of a faculty member, and did nothing wrong in chasing after their seized contraband.

Your opinion is that the Shorts need show no respect to people who enforce the rules.

The evidence and facts actually show that the Shorts broke the Regents Regulations, and are responsible for the entire sequence of events.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What imminent danger did Ms Miller-Young assert about the size of the sign that allowed her to circumvent university policy.

Why did she claim her state of pregnancy triggered a violent self-help solution in reaction to the size of free-speech zone sign?

Did Ms Miller-Young explain her request was content neutral and why the size of the sign put herself and others in imminent danger requiring emergency actions?

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There is no requirement by the Regents of imminent danger. Faculty have power to seize things on campus in violation of regulations. There is no requirement to explain anything. Would be nice to do so, but not a requirement.

The Shorts violated the Regulation 100014 directly and simply. They refused a request to remove the violating material. They chased after the person who enforced Regulation 100014.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"jong, 1/4 of 1/20 of a course on Women's Studies, discussing women who work in pornography, is not `teaching pornography'. Perhaps it doesn't matter to you what she teaches, but you are incurious as to why the broader media inaccurately reports her teaching."

It's no secret why the media is focused on the fact that she has studied pornography, because it makes for a titillating story that might induce people to watch/read their reporting. They go to her UCSB page and it is dominated with studies of pornography and sex work. So of course they are going to glom onto this tidbit and run with it. The reason most media is pretty crappy. They are less interested in the facts, and more interested in ratings. And it's obvious why folks are focused on it in various comments, because they are trying to use something irrelevant to make their points seem more relevant. A very common practice in such discussions. To me, it's all just distracting.

Even if, and it's a big if, Professor Miller-Young was enforcing 100014, in my opinion she crossed the line from enforcement, to criminal acts. Even if she was authorized to enforce this policy, there are limits. I believe she exceeded those limits. Even if the SAH group violated a campus sign policy, they are certainly not responsible for Professor Miller-Young's actions...she, and she alone is responsible for her actions (as we all are). She could have ignored them. She could have engaged them in discussion. She could have contacted the Office of Student Life to put up warning signs. She could have contacted campus police to determine if a violation of campus regulation was happening and let them take the appropriate actions. But she chose instead to forcible take a sign from one of the girls and take it back to her office, getting in a scuffle with a teenager, then ultimately destroying the sign. Because of her choice, the police and DA determined there was enough evidence to charge her with three crimes. The case is pending and we will just have to wait for the outcome at this point. Perhaps she will be found not-guilty or the charges will be dropped. But so far, to my knowledge, the charges are still active. To my knowledge the Shorts have not been charged with any crimes. I'm not defending or degrading anyone, just calling the situation as I see it.

Que sera, sera :-)

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 1:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And before all of those choices, the Shorts and SAH chose not to learn the UC regulations, and still chose to come to campus and display a sign that violated UC Regents Regulation 100014. Then they chased after a Professor who enforced the rules. The Shorts and SAH were responsible for those choices, but you jongaucho fail to acknowledge their responsibility for those choices, as they do.

And as for Prof. Miller-Young's choices: good on her. Without Professors enforcing rules and regulations, cheating and special pleading would cause UC to degenerate into chaos, which is certainly the goal of SAH and the Shorts. Maybe you too, maybe not, but you certainly save ***ALL*** of your criticism for Miller-Young, and ***NONE*** for SAH and the Shorts. Shows whose side you are on.

Me, I agree, Miller-Young could have done a whole lot better. But she was within the envelope. And faculty do not report either to Student Affairs or the Police in the UCSB org chart.

And indeed, the negotiations with the DA (which obviously have become very complicated, hence the 1.5 month delay) will resolve this thing. I have no doubt the DA is working hard to avoid a trial, as will the UCSB police, who also seemed to have forgotten about 100014. No doubt a jury would lean toward the polite and nice woman (at that time with a small child) that Prof. Mireille Miller-Young is.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MrsDoverSharp, you keep saying the same thing over and over... Yet avoid answering key questions.. We get it, you know how to copy and paste !

How DO you define "faculty" you realize this term is very loosely applied by many on campus. ??

Also, No-one seems to be discussing the fact that the good professor appears to have also involved at least two students ? ( her Grad students ? ) in her act of, ahem ... what MrsDoverSharp calls enforcing the "regulations" . The Video shows them taking the sign(s) with her I believe.

Does that then mean that "faculty" can enlist ( or is the word coerce ) their students ( for whom they have enormous influence ) to Also engage in enforcing the regulations where they see fit ?

Don't you see this as a potential for an abuse of authority a faculty member has over their students ?

Apparently when the UCPD questioned her she refused to name the students, but at least one of them has been identified as a grad student in the Education School ( a haven for activist -feminist BTW )

yendopostal (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, the Shorts also made choices. None of which resulted in them being charged with crimes. They are also responsible for their choices of course (as we all are).

My concern over a group of youngsters displaying graphic signs on campus to promote their cause is very minimal. Groups on campus doing this is not uncommon. Even if this is against 100014, hardly anything I would lose sleep over. I am not on their side in any way. If they committed any injustice, it's pretty minor. They don't represent our campus and I don't agree with their stance. They are insignificant to me.

On the other hand, it's not unreasonable for me, to expect a tenured faculty member of my campus to not break the law. I have nothing against Professor Miller-Young, I don't know her outside of this incident. I do hold her accountable for her actions that day. I do not think they were appropriate (obviously the main point you and I disagree on).

I'm not sure why you mention that she doesn't report to student affairs or the Police. She is, of course required to adhere to the laws, same as we all are. Her position as a Faculty member doesn't grant her immunity from criminal code.

I have not heard any updates on the legal front since she pleaded non-guilty. So I cannot speculate as to what is going on with those that are working on the case. I am curious for the outcome.

You never know how a jury would react (if it went to jury trial). It would probably depend on the makeup of the jury. If they were allowed to see the video, they might not think that she was a polite and nice woman. My hunch all along, is there will be some sort of plea settlement...but that's just speculation on my part.

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Are you actually saying MrsDoverSharpe that the "Associate Dean" made a statement? Yes or No?

Which Associate Dean?

Are you attributing his actual words correctly in your comment?

(You are very INaccurate about what Regulation 100014 says...but I'd be repetitious to point that out...)

But a statement from an Associate Dean about the matter is indeed of interest. Now please confirm if you are being accurate...and can you cite where this statement comes from?

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 4:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Faculty are members of the Academic Senate. I don't see any evidence in the video fragment that there was coercion. I think enforcing Regents Regulations is fine training for keeping good order on a UC Campus.

Being charged with a crime is not being convicted of a crime. Innocent until proven guilty. There is no proof Prof. Miller-Young broke the law. Fair people presume she is innocent until proven otherwise.

In contrast, the Shorts did not contact UCSB prior to displaying their signs:

http://thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu/2014...

``Another CALPIRG member explained that the protest had already caused problems with the Office of Student Life, which requires that organizations obtain permission before displaying graphic images on campus.

Student Life officials had already been at the scene. They posted signs on each end of the Arbor warning students about the graphic images ahead.

“The Arbor is a free area,” said the front desk assistant for the Office of Student Life. “Anyone can literally go there and table, and that’s what happened, but they didn’t inform us, so we went and put up the caution signs.” ''

Sure, jongo, you want to give the Shorts & SAH a pass because you are on their side, even though there irresponsibility and law-breaking is the root cause of this whole issue. What you choose to say and not say proves you are a supporter of disruption on UC Campuses.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I name the office and not the individual. Was an e-mail to a colleague of mine. From an Associate Dean in Student Affairs. You can also see the quote in The Bottom Line above.'

I have been completely accurate in my quoting of Regents regulations, DonJo. You are the one who has made mistakes: you mistake `should' for `must' and you are ignorant of the existing SCOTUS first amendment tests of UC Regents authority.

But to jong, I found photos of the Sweatshop protest on April 24. Indeed they must have set up after I walked through the Arbor Mall.

1)They are a group affiliated with UCSB, so are not subject to 100014.
2)None of their images exceeded 30" by 30" in any case.

http://thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu/2014...

Remember how huge the SAH images were:

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

Those clearly violated the size limit, and SAH should have gotten prior written approval under 100014.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You are correct, being charged with crime is not being convicted of a crime...that's why I've said we'll see how it works out in the courts. You have multiple times accused the Shorts of misdemeanors and law-breaking and yet they have not even been charged with a a crime. Aren't they also innocent until proven guilty?

Thanks for posting that article, I had been under the impression that no warning signs had been posted. Apparently Student Life had been contacted and warning signs put up. This matches the policy that the Associate Dean of Student Life, Katya Armstead, emailed to me.

So the Office of Student Life was aware of the group and their graphic signs and posted warning signs. This to me seems like at the point, the group has been sanctioned by a designated university official to be there. Once the Office of Student Life was on scene and had posted warning signs that seems to me that 100014 was no longer in violation. Why, if the Office of Student Life came and posted warning signs, would the SAH or anyone believe that the SAH was not allowed to be there. Why if there are warning signs posted, would Professor Miller-Young think that 100014 was being violated? With this information, I believe any argument about Professor Miller-Young enforcing 100014 to be null and void. The Office of Student Life was aware of the group and their signs, had posted the appropriate warning signs. At that point, the group has been sanctioned by a designated university official.

“The Arbor is a free area,” said the front desk assistant for the Office of Student Life. “Anyone can literally go there and table, and that’s what happened, but they didn’t inform us, so we went and put up the caution signs.”

At this point, the issue of notifying student life and warning signs was resolved and Professor Miller-Young's actions were not in enforcement of 100014, but just her desire to have the signs removed.

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is a free speech protest in 2005. As you can see from the picture it is massive, emotional, and triggers bad feelings. Can it be that some free speech content is more acceptable than others at UCSB? I hasten to point out that this is a non-affiliate display well beyond the rule of Regulation 100014 and clearly well-after the time that Reagan laid down the God-like rules for free speech on campus as MRSDOVERSHARP would have us believe...Where were the outraged faculty members like Associate Professor Millar-Young or other concerned faculty on this day. The administration? Am I missing something? Here's a picture of the outrageous display.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/twoinst...

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, there you go again, explicitly defending the Shorts and SAH whom you unconditionally support, jong. And you are thereby for disruption of UC Campuses.

100014 requires prior written permission. Either the Shorts have that or they don't. If they don't, they are in the wrong. But it is clear that `they didn't inform us' according to student affairs.

All the rest is spin.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, your dislike for those who die defending the US while in Military Service is showing, DonJo. Faculty at UCSB generally continue to support ROTC in presence of a small number of strong dissenters, who tried to get ROTC off campus due to discrimination based on sexual preference. The great majority of faculty wouldn't let that happen. It has been the military that has threatened to close down ROTC at UCSB, the oldest student group at UCSB:

http://dailynexus.com/2013-11-18/unit...

And I believe that demonstration you point to got approval under 100014, DonJo.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms Miller-Young objected to the content of the signs; not the size of the signs. And then took vigilante action against the sign holders. Next case.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Whatever additional reasons Miller-Young had, the signs were there in violation of 100014, and removing them was within Miller-Young's authority. Next case.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 5:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh thank goodness someone had an photograph of the sweat shop display, so you could have your proof that I wasn't lying. They were for sure completely set up between noon and 4pm, the two times I walked through the arbor walkway that day.

You had stated,
"I definitely walked through the Arbor Mall on the afternoon of April 24 and don't recall any such display. Go ahead and post photos if you have them, that would prove me wrong."

Perhaps you were mistake on the time of day you walked through the Arbor on the 24th...and easy mistake that any of us could make. I certainly wouldn't remember the times I walked somewhere if there was not something specific to remind me (like I had this particular day).

"1)They are a group affiliated with UCSB, so are not subject to 100014."
As I stated, I had no idea either way if they were affiliated with UCSB. Though it would seem folks would be outraged equally by graphic images regardless of what group is posting them.

"2)None of their images exceeded 30" by 30" in any case."
Individual images may not have been larger than 30x30, but the signs they were posted on sure were. 100014 makes no reference to the size of individual images on a sign, just to "signs, posters, placards, or banners". Yes, I realize you're response is likely that they weren't bound by 100014 because they were affiliates, but I thought I would clarify since you mentioned the 30x30 limit, but this time changing the wording to image instead of sign, poster, placard, or banner.

Really, I'm just happy you were able to find proof of the alleged poster set up that I claimed I saw :-)

Just to note, you can't see most of the wall of pictures in that photograph, it was much longer across the tables. But all of the same format, large signs (greater than 30x30) with a collage of images smaller than 30x30.

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Well, there you go again, explicitly defending the Shorts and SAH whom you unconditionally support, jong. And you are thereby for disruption of UC Campuses."

Untrue :-)

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 5:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Not one peep of criticism of SAH or the Shorts from you, jong. Shows where you stand.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Whatever additional reasons Miller-Young had, the signs were there in violation of 100014, and removing them was within Miller-Young's authority. Next case."

Your interpretation of 100014. Mine interpretation would be that once the office of student life was contacted and put up the warning signs, at that point the group had been sanctioned by the office of student life.

But, the SAH is not on trial here...they have not been charged with any crimes.

Professor Miller Young, was not aware that they didn't notify anyone they were coming. Warning signs were posted, so obviously the office of student life had sanctioned them there. There is no way at that point that Professor Miller-Young could have felt she was enforcing university policy. Having the warning signs posted on site, blows out the whole attempted argument that Prof Miller-Young was enforcing 100014 with her actions. There's no logical argument for that at this point. There wasn't much ever, but now there is none in my opinion.

:-)

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Not one peep of criticism of SAH or the Shorts from you, jong. Shows where you stand."

Where is that? My only stance is that Professor Miller Young acted inappropriately enough on that day to be charged with three crimes.

I have said that I don't want to see pictures of aborted fetuses and that I don't agree with their stance on the abortion issue of SAH. That's as far as my thoughts go with them. They have not been charged with a crime.

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 5:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

100014 requires prior written approval. Student Affairs says that was not obtained. Any approval after the signs are up is not prior.

Blows away your argument, jong.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 5:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Professor Miller-Young did not know if prior written approval had been obtained. So your argument for her enforcing that policy doesn't fly. It never really did, but I was going along with it because it could be argued.

You can argue that the SAH violated 100014 when they put up their signs. But no one has charged them with that violation. One could aldo argue that the approval requirement was taken care of once the Office of Student Life posted the warning signs. I seriously doubt any University Official would try to do anything after that point regarding 100014.

I can't imagine for a minute that a judge or jury would buy that argument. Granted, it's not a defense that Professor Miller-Young has mentioned. Just one that you have.

:-)

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 5:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There is no evidence that SAH or the Shorts *ever* contacted Student Affairs. In fact, it appears that Student Affairs was trying to be helpful to passers-by by putting up the warning signs, in absence of any request by your besties who want to disrupt UC, the Shorts and SAH.

Student Affairs responded to *UCSB Students* who complained about the gruesomeness of the images, which proves there was disruption already.

The Shorts never showed any respect for UC's regulations.

Members of the Academic Senate like Prof. Miller-Young are University Officials, despite your continual attacks on her.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 5:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"your besties" - You are laughable when you say stuff like that :-)

The SAH stated that they did not contact the university...that has never been in question.

"Student Affairs responded to *UCSB Students* who complained about the gruesomeness of the images, which proves there was disruption already."

Agreed, this is the policy that the Associate Dean of Student Life, Katya Armstead quoted to me. That if they received a complaint, they will place warning signs if possible.

"Members of the Academic Senate like Prof. Miller-Young are University Officials,"
--There are many university officials. Like the Associate Dean of Student Life, who is responsible for overseeing the posting of warning signs when graphic images are displayed on campus. Once the Office of Student Life had posted warning signs warning of the SAH graphic images, the event was then sanctioned by the campus. Professor Miller-Young had no right to steal their sign and destroy it.

despite your continual attacks on her."
--I have not attacked her. I have voiced my extreme dissatisfaction in her choice of actions that day.

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 6:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Once the Office of Student Life had posted warning signs warning of the SAH graphic images, the event was then sanctioned by the campus."

Wrong. `Sanctioning' is a fantasy you have introduced. UC sanctions no action of non-affiliates. The warning signs are akin to the warning that would be erected if a student with a gun was going berserk.

According to Regents Regulation 100014 display is not allowed without `prior written permission of the Designated University Official.'

Your heros SAH & the Shorts, who you don't criticize, *never* were granted prior written permission of the Designated University Official.

You've just slipped up and revealed that you have tried and convicted Miller-Young, by saying she `had no right to steal their sign and destroy it.'

Miller-Young was a duly constituted Academic Senator of UC, and seized contraband only after the offenders (the Shorts and SAH) refused to take down the contraband from view. That is not stealing, it is proper enforcement of Regents Regulation 100014. There is no presumption that contraband illegally brought on to a UC campus be preserved, although it would have been nice if Miller-Young had left it just over the boundary of campus in IV or Goleta for retrieval by SAH or the Shorts.

Miller-Young's state of mind is irrelevant. There are no regulations on what a UC official must be thinking when they enforce the regulations. It would have been better if she had warned the Shorts as suggested by the Regents policy, but that warning is not mandatory.

Nobody in Student Affairs or the Police Department `outranks' an Academic Senator.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 8:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

....and my comment makes it number 200.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 9:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

swimmin' with 14 * 14 + 4….

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 9:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Miller-Young was a vigilante. Academic Senate membership does not grant police powers.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 9:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

foofi, Prof. Miller-Young did not appoint herself to the Academic Senate, so she is not a vigilante.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 9:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You have your opinion. I have mine. We'll see what the court thinks.

"Your heros SAH & the Shorts,"

No matter how many times you say things like that, doesn't make it true and makes you sound foolish.

I do like how you've added Academic Senator to her title this evening to make her sound more impressive. Yes she is in the Academic Senate.
https://senate.ucsb.edu/membership/

No matter what title you use, that doesn't grant her immunity from the law.

"Nobody in Student Affairs or the Police Department `outranks' an Academic Senator."

When it comes to law enforcement, the police definitely outrank a faculty member (or Academic Senator if you prefer that term).

"You've just slipped up and revealed that you have tried and convicted Miller-Young, by saying she `had no right to steal their sign and destroy it.'"

No slip up, I've said that in my very first comment: "Minimally, in my opinion, the professor was wrong by forcibly stealing the sign and destroying it"

That's two of the three crimes she's been charged with. I have also said it's up to the courts to decide. White you have multiple times said the SAH committed misdemeanors and were law-breakers and they have not been charged with a crime. So you have apparently tried and convicted them without them even being charged with a crime.

:-)

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 10:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The evening grows late and all semblance of coherent response is lost. This is the UCSB brain on drugs. Cray cray.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 10:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 10:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@dolphipod14. Nice, American Graffiti is my all-time favorite movie :-)

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 10:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Another good youtube… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvF1Q3...

foofi, from your perspective drugs are everything I guess, unlike the vast majority of folks at UCSB.

Yes, jongaucho, as you said, your opinion from the outset and in absence of all the facts is that Professor Miller-Young is guilty, and that you admire and idolize the Shorts and SAH.

From your perspective, violating the regulations at UCSB is just fine.

One by one all your counterarguments has been proven false… the Shorts and SAH *never* got prior written permission for their oversize signs, which doesn't bother you.

Nevertheless, that bad choice by the Shorts remains the cause of this sorry affair.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2014 at 5:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ladies and germs, I do believe that at 209 posts this thread may have achieved a record number.

Perhaps you all can post and tell me if you agree.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2014 at 5:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)


@dolphipod14. Nice, American Graffiti is my all-time favorite movie :-)

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 10:51 p.m.

Yes, but let us be clear that we are talking about the first film, not the second "More American Graffiti". I made the mistake of seeing the second film, and found it to be rather dark and depressing. More than just a case of a sequel not living up to the original, but almost a slap in the face to the original, which as you point out, is a great film.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2014 at 6:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

but few can answer your rhetorical query, dolphin, "but let us be clear that we are talking about" ... but it's been good to have foofi, Doversharp, and jongaucho wrangling with each other and staying off the other threads

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2014 at 6:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"and that you admire and idolize the Shorts and SAH."

Haha

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2014 at 7:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sharpless, rule of thumb: when you can only win arguments putting your own words into other people's mouths, you know you have lost. No need to speculate on your extra-judicial loyalties but I am sorry you are a self-appointed spokesperson for UCSB.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2014 at 8:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't be a hypocrite Foo.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2014 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, I'm relieved and surprised that you have a thumb, foofi.

jong not once has evinced a single criticism toward or doubt that SAH & the Shorts are anything but 100% right. Shows where his loyalties are. Facts don't matter, Miller-Young is a thief and a destroyer, yada yada yada.

The words I use are an accurate summary of jong's position.

He has utter certainty that he is right and everyone else is wrong.

From my perspective, Miller-Young made lots of mistakes. But she did not break the law and in the end was on the right side in all this: UC campuses are not supposed to be the kind of chaos, cheating, and disrespect that foofi and jong want them allowed to decay to.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2014 at 8:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bad habits are hard to break, Sharpless. Again, putting your words into other people's mouths is lazy argument. Work on it, Sharpless. Woof.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2014 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"jong not once has evinced a single criticism toward or doubt that SAH & the Shorts are anything but 100% right. Shows where his loyalties are. Facts don't matter, Miller-Young is a thief and a destroyer, yada yada yada."

Not criticizing someone doesn't make them your hero, bestie or someone that you idolize or admire. The SAH has not been charged with any crimes. Professor Miller-Young has been.

"The words I use are an accurate summary of jong's position."

Definitely not.

"He has utter certainty that he is right and everyone else is wrong."

I have said we'll have to leave it to the courts to decide. You are the one that has has utter certainty that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

"UC campuses are not supposed to be the kind of chaos, cheating, and disrespect that foofi and jong want them allowed to decay to."

Umm...I don't want our campus to decay. I feel like if it was decayed at all that day, it was by Professor Miller-Young's actions.

:-)

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2014 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What's sad is there's actual agreement that both sides were behaved badly but somehow that gets lost in all the snark.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2014 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just noticed the Carlin video...I love Carlin! That's a great bit from a great show!

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2014 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, I am of the very strong opinion that the Sharps did not get the prior written approval, required by Regents Regulation 100014, for their oversized signs.

And Yes, I am of the very strong opinion that this fact changes everything.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2014 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Everyone is in agreement that the 'Shorts' didn't contact the university. They've said that.

They have not been charged with a crime for their lack of actions/actions. I doubt they ever will be.

"And Yes, I am of the very strong opinion that this fact changes everything."

Where we disagree, but we'll have to see what the courts think.

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2014 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Freedom of Press is a good thing. Trial by Press is not.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2014 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sharpless, the "facts" about the Shorts you allege does not change everything in the case against Ms Miller-young. Ms Miller-Young already stated she was motivated by the content of the signs; not the size or any specific university regulation for which she felt immediate threat and necessity for vigilante actions.

A technical violation, subject to equitable defenses (Student group's acquiesene) does not absolve Ms Miller-Young of her Biven's vulnerable assault under color of law on constitutionally protected First Amendment Rights.

Your assertion Ms Miller-Young was acting in an official capacity on behalf of the Universithy of California conducting her police raid on this Free Speech site is what "changes everything".

You may want to rethink this University agency assertion which both widens the game and closes the defense of Ms Miller-Young's actions.

Biven's Act may come in to play if you try to pin Ms Miller-Young's actions were undertaken as an agent of the University of California - allowing Ms Miller-Young to be sued as an individual.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2014 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Freedom of Press is a good thing. Trial by Press is not." A+

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2014 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Freedom of Press is a good thing. Trial by Press is not." A+

#truth

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2014 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

but in plenty of cases "trial by Press" is in fact what happened, no? Not approving of this, but people get crucified in the press fairly often, and not always in a fair fashion. I detest Donald Sterling, and his racist comments, and I was definitely FOR Elgin Baylin in his earlier lawsuit vs. Sterling, but still --- if TMZ is "the press", then Sterling was tried and convicted in the press days before Comm. Adam Silver spoke and penalized him. And our dear UCSB Chancellor Yang has yet to utter one word about Miller-Young, freedom of speech, SAH and their provocations... hmmm... like Obama, leadership from behind [cf. Vice-Chancellor's Michael Young's weak letter to students]

DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2014 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh lord, I cannot support getting lawyers on to campus and suing over every grade, decision on whether late work gets credit or not, etc. One of the reasons this prosecution of Prof. Miller-Young opens a can of worms.

Put me in the column of people who says: if you did the crime, that is the principal fact. Prof. Miller-Young did not stop and search the Shorts, they put their sign right out in public, and there is no doubt it violates the rules.

Miller-Young did not round up 100's of profiled people and check them for signs. Now, something like that did happen in IV in June, 1970.

Judgements based on what Miller-Young was thinking are irrelevant in my opinion. In any case in the released portion of the police report reports that she did think the signs violated University policy… a niggling fact overlooked in this trial by press of Miller-Young.

As for Chancellor Yang, I bet he has to deal with the full complexity of this case, including all the consequences of 100014, John Thompson, `Obey the Rules or Get Out'. Not surprising to me that he has said nothing.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2014 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Folks, I just thought of a brilliant idea !

And, in honor of MrsDoverSharpe, who has inspired it with her illumination of the merits of faculty enforcement of campus policies, I propose we call it the "doversharpe plan".

It goes like this:

Lay-off the law enforcement officers on campus ( UCPD ) and enlist faculty members to dedicate several hours a week each to policing the campus. And to create an incentive, tie this policing duty to the tenure process. Faculty will gain tenure points based on their ability to police the campus, you know illegal posters, pesky skate boarders, right wing agitators etc.

BUT, most importantly is catching ( and stopping ) any right wing or conservative points of view, or speech, on campus, anyone who might contradict a professors work, such as anyone against illegal immigration, pro Israel, anti abortion or anti affirmative action. You get the idea, all the " just causes " Extra bonus points could be given for events where real evil sneaks in , the likes of David Horowitz, Condolizza Rice or any Bush era criminals, and don't forget the Ex Mozilla CEO.

UCSB can save a substantial amount of money with the doversharpe plan. This money in turn can then be given to those poor and needy, BUT Highly deserving, departments where cutting edge scholarship and research is going on, you know Chicano studies, Feminist studies, Education, and maybe even establish a pornostudies major.

I'm pretty sure faculty will all jump at the chance to do their part, AND Chancellor Yang and Faculty enforcers can come out looking like heroes !

Thank you MrsDoverSharpe for inspiring this innovative, tolerant, sound and cost saving idea !

You ARE a genius !

yendopostal (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2014 at 7:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yawn. Oh so clever. zzzzz...

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2014 at 8:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I ask you what has 'free speech and commentary' led to on this long string of comments?

The Cathars called this the 'endura'....

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2014 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

so Don we're starving ourselves to death with this silly garbage from Doversharp...and I learned LMFAO from her...and we got lost from the First Amendment point...

DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2014 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We learned that DrDan refers to my opinions as garbage, and the DonJo views this discussion as starvation.

Anyone who paid attention learned that John Thompson served a considerable jail sentence in the late 1960's for holding a small sign saying F**K (without the asterisks) on Sproul Plaza at Berkeley, and that the SCOTUS refused to reverse his conviction.

But mainly we learned that most commenters are impervious to information that disagrees with their preconceptions.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2014 at 2:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I was curious about John Thomson, since I was unfamiliar with the case.

He was charged and convicted with violating two penal codes for his sign; Disturbing the Peace and Displaying Obscenity, (Pen. Code, § 415) and (Pen. Code, §311.6). Not for violating university regulations. He was sentenced to concurrent 15 day sentences.

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 9, 2014 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

that's why doversharp can't even get John Thompson references correct: duh, concurrent 15 day sentences, madam, is NOT "a considerable jail sentence", and the sentence was for Disturbing the Peace.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 9, 2014 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DrDan, tell Ty Warner that 30 days is not considerable. More evasion of the point: freedom of speech has limits, which the SCOTUS does not strike down. SAH is by any measure more extreme than Thompson.

eleventysevendolphins (anonymous profile)
May 9, 2014 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

agree! SAH is much more extreme that John Thompson.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 9, 2014 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just to remember, the SAH (who I agree is extreme), has not been charged with a crime or violation of campus regulation.

I'm not sure how considerable 15 days is...I know I don't want to spend 15 days in jail. I just added that in because I saw what the sentence was when I looked up the case and I had seen different amounts referred to in this thread. The important part for me was that he was charged and convicted of penal codes, not UC regulations as earlier reported.

Happy Friday :-)

p.s. - if anyone wants to google the John Thomson case, there's no P in the last name...that through me off when I first started looking, partially because there is some capital punishment case with a John Thompson that was dominating the search results. Cheers :-)

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 9, 2014 at 5:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I see DoverSharp is still at it; but she is just as clueless as ever about free speech.

Simply restricting some people with certain ideas to circumscribed areas in which they may then speak freely is unprincipled and unworthy of a university.

Miller-Young and Michael Young treat free speech like a privilege only bestowed upon those in a position of "authority" and those with the right ideas.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
May 9, 2014 at 5:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK, 238 posts is enough. I'm ending this thread right now by mentioning Hitler.

Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
May 9, 2014 at 7 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dewdly, in a public place like the streets of IV you are more or less right.

UC Campuses aren't in general public places. As I've reviewed in many posts, UC Campuses are used for what the Regents decide they can be used for, which is primarily teaching and research.

UCSB might feel like a public place but it is not, it is the Regents place.

Whenever there has been a conflict between chaotic distractions and orderly functioning of the University, the Regents come down on the side of orderly function. SAH and their behavior is near the line.

Their *speech* was regulated from the beginning… there are sound level restrictions on the Arbor, for example, and good for those restrictions. There are classrooms nearby.

*Images* are also regulated via Regents Regulation 100014.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 10, 2014 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

When I was a student it was pretty clear what was public and what was campus. It's why you don't see panhandlers on campus.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 10, 2014 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok. I can accept this notion that there is no free speech on campus. I've learned my lesson. There is only politically correct speech as defined by the University. Lesson learned. Non-affiliates keep this in mind.

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
May 11, 2014 at 9:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Another fine mess.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 11, 2014 at 9:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So there's the situation at UCSB. However, everything must be seen and understood in context. Here is what's going on at Harvard:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/200...

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
May 11, 2014 at 9:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Exaggerate much, DonJo? Think the DHS is tapping your phone, or, really, that DHS, the FBI, DEA, KGB, MI5, and others are all tapping your phone and beaming high intensity radio waves into your home to scramble your thoughts? Hmmm, those scrambled thoughts must have some kind of origin.

So yes, at UCSB, we all check with the Faust thought approval algorithm before we say anything. When unacceptable, the Faust algorithm suggests more obscure and less sex-centric possibilities. Like in quantum field theory, all the variables x and y must be used in strict frequency 3 x's for every y to preserve the typical chromosomal frequency among men and women.

And for every occurrence of `henhouse' (from Lacaria article) we must work in an occurrence of `cockhouse'.

Wrong speech is regulated with a team of undergraduate interveners who chant outside UCSB offices.

Save us DonJo!

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 12, 2014 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As we all know: "Freedom isn't Free"...The battle goes on... 'power to the oppressed'--the religious white male patriot.

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
May 12, 2014 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As a "religious white male patriot" I officially endorse Mrs. DoverSharp.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 12, 2014 at 5:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All the argument about signs is ridiculous. It is ridiculous that anyone is holding, UC Regeant's "law?" over the constitution.
That aside, why and how can anyone defend an adult putting their hands on a child who isn't theirs?
Please reevaluate if you are seriously considering answering that question with something along the lines of, "It was a couple scratches" or "she hardly touched her."

There is no ambiguity to this; if you put your hands on someone and they do not want to be touched you are committing a crime. If Doversharp is honestly going to take the plunge and say the reagents have granted the authority to violate our persons to any employee, I should reevaluate how long I will be on this campus.

If you pat someone's ass in the sports game, make someone uncomfortable with your looks or touches... you are wrong. These kids are claiming it not only did she not want to be touched but that they were physically damaged by the professor.

Don't be the hypocrite that demotes their concern regarding the sanctity of their own bodies.
It is embarrassing and filthy.

redspool (anonymous profile)
May 12, 2014 at 6:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Faust is a good Pres of Harvard, and the author of this 2007 article snickers while listing some of her publications --"“The Rhetoric and Ritual of Agriculture in Antebellum South Carolina,” “The Civil War Soldier and the Art of Dying,” and the above-mentioned “Altars of Sacrifice.” I think they sound fascinating. Is the supposed comparison to some of Prof. Miller-Young's scholarly work, which also sounds quite interesting. My issue with her qualifications for early tenure have to do with no published book, no Duke U. Press book.... does this woman really understand the First Amendment and the free speech provisions therein??

DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 12, 2014 at 6:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DrDan...Connecting Harvard's Faust and a Black Mass on campus is a juxtaposition too good to pass up. "The Civil War Soldier and the Art of Dying" is magnificent work so I agree with you about her talents.
On the other hand, I didn't find myself very interested in Associate Prof Miller-Young's published titles...they sound ideological to me although her oral history approach might be interesting...but then her work would be like collecting witnesses...

And no, I agree with you I don't really think anybody imagined Miller-Young as an arbiter of speech and decorum on campus.

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
May 12, 2014 at 8:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Miller-Young's research and demeanor seem fine to me. The `Big Lie' campaign that she is some sort of monster is just that, a Big Lie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmZzL...

Professors get promoted based on whether their research is new and covers ground not yet covered. It is kind of obvious that the trillions of words already written on the US Civil War make it a bit harder to find untrod ground in Civil War studies.

Miller-Young's research focus on the long term history of pornography and its depiction of non-whites sort of obviously is untrod ground in the academic world. That it makes DonJo uncomfortable validates the novelty. Maybe not as august and respectable as Civil War studies.

There is no evidence that Miller-Young has ever taught pornography to undergraduates; another part of the Big Lie. If she did, I wouldn't care, because I'm sure she would do so in an academically appropriate manner. But the elements of the `Big Lie' must be pointed out.

As for Miller-Young being an `arbiter of speech and decorum': you can have your own opinions but not your own facts, and the fact is that SAH and the Shorts did not seek prior written approval for their huge signs, as the Regents Regulations require. That speech rights are not absolute has been already decided by the Supreme Court, for example in the John Thompson case (I trust Seth Rosenfeld's spelling; he is the author of `Subversives', the best history of the Free Speech Movement).

When Miller-Young confiscated the contraband from the Shorts, the Shorts freely chose to resist. The responsibility for the scratches they received rests primarily with the Shorts, who violated Regents Regulations and chose to resist the enforcement of the Regents Regulations.

Miller-Young could have done a much better job of enforcement, but her enforcement passes muster (just barely). On the other hand, the Shorts didn't even try to comply with Regents Regulations and were on campus to disrupt campus business.

More parts of the `Big Lie'… that she is unpublished. She definitely has published in refereed journals, so the claim that she is unpublished is false. When I pointed that out, the goal posts got moved to `Her book is not published'. My response is simple: the status of her book (which is due for release in 2014) might be sufficiently advanced with Duke Press that the final publication is a formality. The review committees at UCSB know, nobody here does. But in the end the review committees at UCSB have a lot more credibility than any comment here, and it is a safe bet that Miller-Young's book is so far past the hump that its publication 100% likely in 2014.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 13, 2014 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Where we disagree is that I believe that Professor Miller-Young had no reason to believe that Regent Regulations had been violated. Warning signs had been posted by the Office of Student Life. So why would she assume that they were violating Regent Regulations? I believe that she didn't like the content of the signs or the message that SAH was spreading. She took their sign by force and destroyed it, in the process of taking their sign back to her office, got in a small scuffle with one of the girl's at the elevator and seemingly left scratches on a girl's arms.

The DA felt there was enough evidence to charger her with three crimes, which I believe are still pending. So we'll have to see what the courts decide.

I honestly have no idea of the correct spelling of John Thomson/Thompson's last name. But I can say that you well get a TON more google hits with the "Thomson" spelling. I did use the author's name you mentioned and he does definitely spell it "Thompson". Doesn't really matter, he wasn't charged with violating Regent Regulations. He was charged with violating Penal Codes and sentenced to 15 days. I couldn't find any mention of his specific case going before the Supreme Court with either spelling of his name. I'm not saying it didn't, but that I couldn't find it. I did see some references to other Berkeley Free Speech cases at that time that might have gone at least to the State Supreme Court...maybe with the Berkeley Students or maybe those that were fired and reinstated. I didn't dig deeper, because it was irrelevant. Doesn't really matter since it doesn't have any bearing on Professor Miller-Young's action. And yes, Free Speech isn't without limits...I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

Yes, it's a fact that the SAH didn't get prior written approval to display their large graphic signs. No one disputes that. But they have not been charged with a crime. And certainly the fact that they did not get prior written approval in no way was responsible for Professor Miller-Young's actions that day. Had they gotten prior written approval, the warning signs would have been posted and the scene would have looked the same when Professor Miller-Young arrived.

As I've mentioned, I don't believe the content of Professor Miller-Young's teachings, or if she seems nice a video, or if she's published has any relevance to her charges. Simply her actions that day are what is pertinent.

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 13, 2014 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There is no necessity of having `correct thoughts' in one's mind when one is addressing a violation like that of the Shorts. If there was a `correct thought' requirement legal appeals over what the police were thinking when they arrested people would run rampant.

Pretty much all the rest is territory we've covered but jongaucho you are spinning to make the case you want to make.

One other point… technically (according to the News-Press, a modest source, admittedly) it was the *Shorts* who initiated this Citizens Arrest. That is a good reason to remember `innocent until proven guilty'.

And in the missing 3 pages of the police report, there might well be record of whether Miller-Young was queried whether she wanted to press charges against the Shorts. It is possible that Miller-Young turned the other cheek.

Another reason one cannot attribute any great weight to whether charges are brought. But you attribute great weight to the charges being brought, jongaucho, too much in my opinion.

I myself was the victim of a crime on the UCSB campus, and the police asked me if I wanted to press charges. I declined.

It was a bike theft, and I found the bike later and proved it was mine through the serial number and the licensing. The police & I waited for the student who possessed the bike to return. They were in possession of stolen property. When they came, the police officer gave me the choice of pressing charges or not. We gave the student a good scare, but in the end, I just wanted to get on with life.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 13, 2014 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Pretty much all the rest is territory we've covered but jongaucho you are spinning to make the case you want to make."
--Not spinning anything to make anything. Just stating my opinion on Professor Miller-Young's actions. Same as you :-)

"One other point… technically (according to the News-Press, a modest source, admittedly) it was the *Shorts* who initiated this Citizens Arrest. That is a good reason to remember `innocent until proven guilty'."
--I wasn't even aware that an arrest had been made. But the DA obviously felt there was sufficient evidence to charge Professor with the crimes. Yes, it's just charges not convictions. The court system will decide on the outcome of those charges.

"Another reason one cannot attribute any great weight to whether charges are brought. But you attribute great weight to the charges being brought, jongaucho, too much in my opinion."
--And you not enough in my opinion :-)

The SAH haven't been charged with a crime.

The 4th page of the police report starts with the police officer's interview with Professor Miller-Young. While not a verbatim transcript, I highly doubt they would have omitted all mention of a discussion of the SAH of charges not being brought against the Shorts by Miller-Young. Seems a stretch at best haha.

Glad you got your bike back!

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 13, 2014 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I doubt this will make it to court. Misdemeanors don't necessarily ever get to court. The question is what settlement will be negotiated at the DA's office.

Actually, we don't know anything about what the Shorts and/or SAH have been charged with or not charged with. But it is most likely they have not been charged. Even then, we don't know why.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 13, 2014 at 5:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

3:20 video of incident: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLemX9...

Why weren't the students who carries the signs charged?

V. Chancellor for Student Affairs M.Young:

"...Some passionately believe in their causes, while others peddle hate and intolerance with less-than-noble aims.

Whatever the motives and goals, the presence of such people and groups on campus can be disruptive and has the potential to draw us into the kind of conflict that puts at risk the quality of exchange of ideas that is fundamental to the mission of our university.

What is happening now is not new: evangelical types have been visiting UCSB and university campuses since time immemorial. What we see at UCSB today is simply the most recent generation of true believers, self-proclaimed prophets, and provocateurs."

Young really doesn't seem open to freedom of speech by those who disagree with him. Where's the hate and the intolerance?
He really reminds me of AGW-scam supporters.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article...

Is anyone else bothered by Miller-Young's labeling as a "porn professor"?
I think it's libel. This is the UCSB Department of Feminist Studies website's description of her research

"Her research explores race, gender and sexuality in visual culture and sex industries in the United States. Her manuscript, A Taste for Brown Sugar: Black Women, Sex Work and Pornography (forthcoming from Duke University Press in 2014) examines African American women’s representation and labor in pornographic media. "

14noscams (anonymous profile)
May 13, 2014 at 5:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

More `Big Lie' support, 14noscams. Reading Young's letter, he tells it like it is. Your selective culling of his words proves your bias.

You are also blurring Miller-Youngs research and teaching. There is no evidence that she teaches pornography to any undergrads in her classes.

There is abundant evidence that she uses pornography in her research as an avenue to examine the situation for non-white people in the US.

But your goal, 14noscams, is pretty clearly to mash up everything and make the connections most scurrilous to people you want to excite appear true, when they are in fact false.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 14, 2014 at 6 a.m. (Suggest removal)

MrsDoverSharps descriptive device: "The Big Lie" is of course the REAL"Big Lie"...

On the notion that Feminist Studies and Pornography is a great leap forward in progressive scholarship...I remind everyone here that long ago, Professor Frank Frost in the History and Classics scholarship business (and a County Supervisor), used to do a great job with the 'Satyricon'....just sayin...'Ain't nothin' new under the sun'....

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
May 14, 2014 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Feminist Studies and Porn Studies are a step forward in Academi. Yes it's important to study the classics such as [Fellini] Satyricon, but thankfully artistic exploration didn't stop there.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 14, 2014 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Young Man...Satyricon is much older than Fellini...Fellini is but a late milepost on Classical Feminist Studies...

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
May 14, 2014 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I hope you know I knew that DJDLG!

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 14, 2014 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How far UCSB has disorganized and distanced itself from the Western Canon with all these bizarre Departments!! I say bring back the Trivium and Quadrivium....I repeat: 'Ain't Nothin' New Under The Sun'...Do you think our Associate Professor's Research (One Day to be published at Duke so they say!....), will be a best seller?

FYI dear reader:

"Satyricon (or Satyrica) is a Latin work of fiction in a mixture of prose and poetry (prosimetrum). It is believed to have been written by Gaius Petronius, though the manuscript tradition identifies the author as a certain Titus Petronius. As with the Metamorphoses of Apuleius, classical scholars often describe it as a "Roman novel", without necessarily implying continuity with the modern literary form.

The surviving portions of the text detail the misadventures of the narrator, Encolpius, and his lover, a handsome sixteen-year-old boy named Giton. Throughout the novel, Encolpius has a hard time keeping his lover faithful to him as he is constantly being enticed away by others. Encolpius's friend Ascyltus (who seems to have previously been in a relationship with Encolpius) is another major character.

It is one of the two most extensive witnesses to the Roman novel, the only other being fully extant Metamorphoses of Apuleius, which is quite different in style and plot. Satyricon is also extremely important evidence for the reconstruction of what everyday life must have been like for the lower classes during the early Roman Empire."

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
May 14, 2014 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'd be interested in a Feminist take on Pasolini's "Medea" (with Maria Callas in her only film role, nonsinging.)

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 14, 2014 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

None of the subjects for which UCSB faculty have received Nobel Prizes are in the Trivium or Quadrivium either. Optoelectronics? Light-emitting polymers? Quantum Chromodynamics?

It is, however, the nature of research that most work done leads nowhere. If you can bat 0.050 you are a superstar. I have no idea whether Miller-Young's research will prove to be paradigm-breaking or left on the trash heap of history. Can't know in advance.

A curious connection she makes (and that Constance Penley made before her): pornography is interwoven with technological advance. No pornographic photos survive from the year 1350 because they had no photographs then at all. Maybe some paintings.

The technology of photos, movies, and the internet have been interwoven with the respective technological advances. I don't particularly like that, but facts are facts. And the pornography that has been made does reveal something about how humans think. Whether looking at humanity from the vantage of its pornography will be eventually an important insight or a waste of time is too much for me to predict.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 14, 2014 at 2:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The technology of photos, movies, and the internet have been interwoven with the respective technological advances."

Ha So profound !... Sounds like more academic "mumbo jumbo" regurgitated by so many liberal arts clowns who know so little about the internet/computing and less about the technology of image making... Dover Sharp you are really trying too hard, but not fooling me for one.. :)

The Harvard lampoon big book of college life had it right when they referred to "academia as faking it in a bold and aggressive way"

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

Scoff if you want, as a movie-photo professional what she says is true.
In image making there is the nevessary technology, but that technology is nothing without content. And it is content that helps the investment in new technology.

Don't be blinded by bias or dogma.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 14, 2014 at 7:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe the Shorts can re-eneact abortions instead of just photo displays. Strap some tubing to the girls leg, connect it to a blood pump and go to town. That'd be effective, they can demonstrate all the different methods of abortion throughout history and be guerilla theatre at the same time.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 14, 2014 at 7:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@Doversharp "When Miller-Young confiscated the contraband from the Shorts, the Shorts freely chose to resist. The responsibility for the scratches they received rests primarily with the Shorts, who violated Regents Regulations and chose to resist the enforcement of the Regents Regulations."

-So.... what level of force is appropriate to use when "enforcing" the Regeant's decrees? How much force is acceptable when stealing a sign?
I'm assuming now that you've enlightened everyone to the absolute authority of the regeants and the freedom granted to the professors, janitors, groundskeepers, and administrators, to exercise force upon anyone in violation of the code which supersedes the law of the state or country. I'll also assume that the University has done their due diligence and given the professors instruction on just how and when to apply force to someone in violation of their law. Finally, I'm going to assume that you aren't the type to get on a police officer's case when they apply force to make sure the actual laws are followed, nor are you the type of person to shame a victim.

To sum up your defense of that moron: Offal.

redspool (anonymous profile)
May 15, 2014 at 12:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

well, yendopostal, the fact is the fact… pornography provided a lot of the investment $ and impetus for VHS, DVDs, and the internet. Probably old-style movies as well. Rant and rave and stamp your feet about how you don't like the facts, but the facts are the facts, and people devoted to empiricism and not taking the last thought in their mind as gospel know the difference.

redspool… the Shorts were not injured by the seizing of their contraband sign.

After their contraband sign was seized, they chased after Prof. Miller-Young. Obviously the Shorts were displeased that their violation of the Regents Regulation 100014 had been detected and corrected. So the Shorts interfered with the enforcement and tried to prevent the elevator with the Professor on it from going up. That is when the minor scratches to the Shorts occurred.

And that is why the scratches are primarily the Shorts responsibility.

Miller-Young was definitely ham-handed in her actions. She was imperfect. But she was on the side of right in this event. The root problem was caused by the Shorts violation of Regents Regulation 100014, and their subsequent resistance.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 15, 2014 at 7:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mrs. Dover-Sharp is correct (again.). Pornographic VHS and BETA cassettes are creditted with seeding consumer demand for VCRs. With Home Video people no longer had to go to sketchy movie theaters and bookstores. Until the internet, the porn industry was consistently more successful year after year than Hollywood films in the home video market.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 15, 2014 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.pornographyhistory.com/

``The result was profound; in 1848, there were thirteen photographic studios in Paris, by 1860, there were over four hundred. The Parisian output of nude photographs was prolific, in 1852, forty percent of the photographs registered for sale in Paris, were nudes (McCauley, 1994).''

``The first mass-market VCRs were Sony Corporation’s Beta (1975) and JVC’s Video Home System (VHS; 1976). Sony Corporation refused to license its Beta technology to pornographers whereas JVC took the opposite stance. In part, this action made VHS the most popular VCR format; the market wanted to view pornography from the privacy of the home and hence Sony Corporation paid the price for not factoring this in (Van Scoy, 2000).''

Pornography certainly has good reasons to be researched at Research Universities.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 15, 2014 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, you've said you think she had the right to scratch somebody for not allowing an elevator to close. That totally washes....

-Police are trained and allowed to apply force to citizens in defense of policy and law... gardeners, professors, administrators, Subway staff, etc. ARE NOT. If in your crazy world they are then you can expect a hell of a law suit against the UC for not properly training their employees in the use of force. I'd love to see the professor's POST graduation paperwork.

-You are dodging simply because you've realized how tenuous that defense of her is.

-There is no entity within the UC system that gets to decree that battery is acceptable. Ever. Your attempts at re-framing the situation are sad, you can't paint her a hero for scratching a child no matter how justified you feel the scratches were.

-When you say the shorts are responsible for their injuries, that is akin to saying a woman is responsible for the black eye her husband gave her for the things she said to him. That sentiment is unequivocally wrong.

-Feminists do not harm little girls who have been misled by their parents. Adults do not harm children because they disagree with them. Professionals do not embarrass their institutions. Intelligent people do not engage in this type of blatant straw grasping.

-0 gray area.

redspool (anonymous profile)
May 15, 2014 at 6:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, the Shorts intentionally broke UC Rules. Had they respected UC Rules, this whole incident would never have happened. Amazing how, redspool, you utterly evade this point.

The Shorts should never have chased after a Professor who enforced the UC rules. That is both irresponsible and disrespectful.

I guess in your world, redspool, there is no concept of responsibility, except for those who enforce the rules, who must be absolutely perfect. And I suppose if, say, the police injured a man when they pulled him away from someone he was beating, you would accuse the police.

OK, that is an exaggeration, because in that case the injury the person getting beaten is a concern. But many, many students complained about the Shorts images which were clearly oversized and violated Regents Regulation 100014. So Miller-Young has a reasonable grounds for seizure. I saw the images myself and was approached by the Shorts prior to the Miller-Young. The Shorts were by no means polite, they were very stressed and pushy. They clearly are true believers in their case, and stubbornly interrupted strangers. That is within bounds, but their image was a violation, and I thought so the first time I saw it.

There really was no need for the Shorts to chase after Prof. Miller-Young. What was the imminent danger? Her taking of the poster posed no imminent danger to them. And there was no need for them to jump into the elevator, either. The Shorts clearly bear some responsibility for those actions.

But in addition, they were in the wrong in the first place…they broke the UC rules.

So I'd say that tips the balance so that there was no battery, there were mostly consequences of the Shorts's rule breaking and resistance.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 15, 2014 at 7:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A lot of usually fair people have forgotten the Shorts instigated the event, whether intentional or not; by intentionally breaking the rules.
What part of SAH pimping out these girls don't people understand?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 15, 2014 at 7:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The story goes on. The New York Times has an article on 'Trigger Events' for people with PTSD and campus life. And of course, I read the Nexus article on the new UCSB campus policy. Any comment?
http://dailynexus.com/2014-03-07/a-s-...

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
May 18, 2014 at 5:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Absolutely ridiculous it is DJDLG. "Teacher i can't watch the documentary on Vietnam, but hey did you see the new SAW film?"

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 18, 2014 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm sure having to do Algebra & Trigonometry & Calculus in college triggers PTSD from high school classes. Indeed I've heard that a fair number of students now get accommodations for extra time because of anxiety issues brought by having to do math during a test. As Tom Lehrer once said, `the important thing is to understand what you're doing, rather than to get the right answer.' - `New Math'.

But perhaps true conservatives like DonJo don't like Algebra (dirty Arab concept) and Trigonometry (darned transcendental numbers, so non-Pythagorean) and of course Calculus, with its wild claims about infinitesimals. Maybe true conservatives want to purge all that stuff as not being in the Trivium or Quadrivium. Bunch of darned lies introduced by the same self-interested academics who want more public dollars to ruin the American Way by ranting about human-induced Global Warming.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 19, 2014 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And poisoning our minds with critical analysis and theory.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 19, 2014 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There's a new documentary in release: "God Loves Uganda" illustrating American Evangelical Imperialism in Uganda and other African nations including the murder of gay people.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundam...

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 19, 2014 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Come on.. you all aren't mouth-breathers. The balance was tipped into erasing battery because the CHILDREN broke campus rules? You've got to be kidding. Come off it.

On the PTSD subject; we are all very well aware of the epidemic of sexual assaults at UCSB. I hope you are also aware of the silly shock tactics many of these professors engage in. Care to speculate how many rape-ish scenes have been shown on campus for one lesson or another? Your opinions are that the victim of a sexual assault can't have the courtesy of a heads up on the syllabus that a professor is going to show something like that, simply for the value they glean in shocking the audience?

Ken speaks about Vietnam and then disregards PTSD casually because people enjoy horror movies. Never mind your position is frankly disgusting, but you're well aware that there are veterans on campus right Ken? What harm is there in a schedule that says, on X date we are watching Restrepo, to which the veteran who lived it decides they'll spare themselves the heartache or blood pressure spike?

I don't agree with people getting over-the-top handouts, or being excused from tests etc. But Dover and Ken, you need to check yourselves, what the hell is wrong with you? Do not defend the institution when their position is untenable, you have to relent at some point.

redspool (anonymous profile)
May 19, 2014 at 6:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And other forms of American Evangelical Imperialism support the Third Temple Gush Emunim settler fanatics in Israel, too, so it ain't just SAH KV.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 19, 2014 at 7:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And other forms of American Evangelical Imperialism support the Third Temple Gush Emunim settler fanatics in Israel, too, so it ain't just SAH KV.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 19, 2014 at 7:05 p.m

The Third Temple Gush Eminem?...whats this got to do with rappers? SAH KV? Screen Actors House and the King (James) Version? Wwwwat?

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
May 19, 2014 at 7:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Every class & syllabus I'm aware of is incredibly careful about delineating explicit material. I'd like to see a broad-based statistical analysis of the alleged problem prior to forming an opinion as to whether a policy for PTSD is needed. One or two anecdotes don't cut it.

`Silly shock tactics many of the professors engage in' ? darned few. In my experience, none, actually.

`rape-ish scenes'… the Bible and western literature are filled with them

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 20, 2014 at 7:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well that is what this is about Doversharp, warning students. Oh please, broad-based statistical analysis.... the campus climate survey had something like 20% participation (I'm not confident that number isn't far too high.) They offer iPads to students to participate. You aren't getting any reliable statistics on this. Even if you could, you are suggesting the associated students find funding for that "broad -based analysis" and a means to convince the student population who didn't decide to fund the recent Student Affairs request.
Anecdotes certainly do cut it, they're all you're going to get. Not only are anecdotes going to cut it, they are the only thing that will. Individuals standing up and sharing their various experiences are exactly what cause things to change at UCSB. Raise a ruckus, get a result. Ask nicely with the numbers and statistics, get blown off. I encourage you to ask the Black Student Union how things get done on campus.
-A disclaimer on a syllabus is not too much to ask of our faculty.
-Your point about the Bible? Do you have to read the Bible Doversharp? Or any literature? Do you often find that you are stimulated as easily by the Bible as you are by a movie? You are implying that since there are rapes in the Bible we are good to go for screening them on campus.. In a weird way it seems you have more in common with the Shorts than would make you comfortable.

redspool (anonymous profile)
May 20, 2014 at 4:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://campusclimate.ucop.edu/_common...

shows participation rates rather higher than 20%.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 22, 2014 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jongaucho said on May 2, 2014 at 11:06 p.m:

``Last week I was walking across campus and there was a large anti-sweat shop group set up in the area between the Arbor and the Library, with many graphic images of dead bodies in rubble, children and adults suffering, etc.''

The anti-sweatshop group is there today. The poster boards are the same as:

http://thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu/2014...

I looked very closely at all the photos. I didn't see one dead body, although maybe with a magnifying glass or a microscope I might have found one. I saw no blood, no cuts on anybody. Nothing remotely close the the giant posters the SAH folks showed:

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

Not even apples and oranges. The sweat shop people are more like a fountain pen, or a transistor radio, and the SAH poster an orange.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 22, 2014 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh ya... blew it out of the water. Right into the "broad-based" range of 30% including staff (union and non-union,) faculty, graduate, undergrad, and post-doc.
-Undergrads (the majority and who the concern regarding syllabi etc. is focused on) 23%
- Less than half of the faculty even bothered.
You hardly helped your position with that. I'm glad you're done with your other b.s though. I'm happy to chase red herrings all day; it slows down the aging process for me. I was dying inside reading the other inane commentary.
Good thing the reagents haven't made any decrees preventing us from defending guilty fools because a lot of people might get "justifiably" assaulted by anyone drawing a paycheck if they had.

redspool (anonymous profile)
May 22, 2014 at 5:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I believe 8193 responses more than one or two of your anecdotes, redspool. And you think you've helped your position by your ignorant sarcasm?

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 22, 2014 at 9:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Not really sure why MrsDoverSharp decided to bring up the sweat shop display again. As you've mentioned, they are affiliates and not bound by the rules of non-affiliates. Unrelated to the incident here, I personally think if an image is graphic, that a warning sign should be posted regardless of affiliation and from my response from Katya in Student Life, I think they would if they deemed it necessary/possible.

I wasn't ever trying to compare the sweat shop display to the SAH group's photos, etc. I just mentioned when I saw their display with graphic images that I contacted the Office of Student life about their warning sign policy.

About not being able to see the images on that board, that is just silly, most of them aren't even shown in that photograph and what is shown resolution and not focused on.

I walked though the courtyard, roughly where the bike is in the photo and I could clearly see the pictures. Once I saw the picture of the dead bodies in the rubble, I stopped looking at them. I wasn't triggered or offended, but not something I wanted to look at. No microscope/magnifying glass was needed to clearly see the images from the middle of the walk way.

I've seen in the comments here since I last looked at this thread, that folks have mentioned the SAH group intentionally broke the campus rules. Do you really think it was intentional? I could see a claim that they negligently broke the rules, but I seriously doubt they knew of that rule.
But again, to my knowledge, they have not been charged with breaking a rule or law.

As far as chasing after their seized contraband, I see it differently...that they were following their stolen property. The also started filming the event and called the police to report the incident. They had no reason to believe that Professor Miller-Young was enforcing a campus policy (and my personal opinion is that Miller-Young didn't know she was enforcing a campus policy).

Regardless of injury, that doesn't answer the taking the sign by force question...what are the limits of the enforcing the rules? I've asked before, but didn't notice an answer here. My guess is that physically wrestling a sign away from someone wouldn't be part of those enforcement rights. Certainly destroying the evidence would have to be frowned upon? Getting physical to the point of leaving scratches might cross the line?

As far as rule breaking erasing battery charges, I'm pretty sure that's not how it works in the legal system.

Has anyone heard any update on the charges against Professor Miller-Young? I haven't and am curious.

:-)

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 23, 2014 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

``Once I saw the picture of the dead bodies in the rubble, I stopped looking at them. I wasn't triggered or offended, but not something I wanted to look at.''

I could not see any dead bodies in the rubble. I could not see any bodies in the rubble. I could not see children & adults suffering, although you never know what is in the mind of someone in a photo.
I got my face right up within a few inches of all the sweat shop photos. Couldn't see anything remotely characterizable as gruesome.

My point is: now that I have inspected the sweatshop photos close up by myself, I cannot see how they are remotely comparable to:

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

jongaucho, you first claimed that the sweatshop images were disturbing.

I strongly disagree with you. I bet 999/1000 of people would agree with me. Of course, some people would find pictures of Lassie or the Easter Bunny disturbing.

In my opinion your comparison of

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

with the sweatshop photos is invalid.

I think that the SAH folks know that their images are outside the realm of any image regularly seen in any public place anywhere in the US and most of the world. I think they intentionally avoid checking whether there are any rules or limits, and I think most people would check.

In any case, if you don't pay your taxes ignorance doesn't excuse you from the consequences. Ignorance of the rules is no excuse.

As for enforcement, faculty regularly seize rule-breaking cheat notes and destroy them, seize gum and cigarettes present against the rules and destroy them.

Obey the rules or get out.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 23, 2014 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You believe what about them? They aren't even related.
Here is where we stand Doversharp: Don't hurt people. Don't put your hands on them.
If you cheat in class, the professor still doesn't get to put their hands on you and if they do I hope that any student vigorously defends themselves.
Back to the trigger warning stuff, as you don't care about the anecdotal veterans on campus, there are a whole lot more students who have experienced a violent and traumatic event given this recent tragedy. I hope you consider their feelings, the rest of the world is moron.

redspool (anonymous profile)
May 27, 2014 at 3:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"I could not see any dead bodies in the rubble. I could not see any bodies in the rubble. I could not see children & adults suffering, although you never know what is in the mind of someone in a photo. I got my face right up within a few inches of all the sweat shop photos. Couldn't see anything remotely characterizable as gruesome."

"I strongly disagree with you. I bet 999/1000 of people would agree with me. Of course, some people would find pictures of Lassie or the Easter Bunny disturbing."

You previously claimed you didn't see the sweat shop display (and doubt it existed because I didn't take pictures of it and you didn't see it despite walking through the are during the time it was up)...Are you claiming you have now? You're correct, I find dead bodies in concrete rubble disturbing. You may not...but I think many if not most would. If you are talking about the photograph that you posted a link to, that doesn't show most of the photograph display and is from a side angle far away from the photo display and the photos are not in focus at all. If you had seen the display that day, you would have been able to see what I saw. Comparing dead bodies buried in rubble or people suffering in sweat shops to Lassie or the Easter bunny is in pretty bad taste in my opinion.

You are the only one I've seen compare the sweatshop photos to that of the SAH photos. Like I've said multiple times, I saw the sweatshop display and it prompted me to inquire about the warning sign policy. I never was using it as a comparison to anything.

"Ignorance of the rules is no excuse."

True, but it's different than claiming someone intentionally broke the rule. Again, to my knowledge, they have not been charged with anything.

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 28, 2014 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

redspool wrote:

``Here is where we stand Doversharp: Don't hurt people. Don't put your hands on them. ''

I agree of course. But I'd add: don't interfere with enforcement of the rules. Don't run after a Professor who is enforcing the rules. Don't try to get in an elevator with a Professor who is enforcing the rules. If you do those things, you are at least partially responsible for the consequences.

jongaucho wrote:
``You previously claimed you didn't see the sweat shop display (and doubt it existed because I didn't take pictures of it and you didn't see it despite walking through the are during the time it was up)...Are you claiming you have now? ''

I didn't see them *on the date you specified, April 24*, and indeed I doubted they came to campus at all. Then *I*, not *you*, found photographic record that the sweatshop people were actually there on April 24, and I forthrightly posted that fact and a link to The Bottom LIne article describing their setup.

The same sweatshop people *returned* on May 22 and I saw their photos first hand. I put my face up right to the each of their photos. I saw nothing resembling ``the picture of the dead bodies in the rubble…'' that you referred to, jongaucho. I can't imagine how any reasonable person could claim that the sweatshop images were gruesome or offensive, but as I said and maintain, there are surely people who are offended by images of the Easter Bunny or Lassie. It is just that the overwhelming majority of people are not offended by either the sweatshop images, the Easter Bunny, or Lassie.

I live in Isla Vista and am on campus and in contact with students every day. I don't need any lecturing on the events of the past few days.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 28, 2014 at 10:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

7 more comments and we will make it to 300 posts.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
May 29, 2014 at 3:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

“I didn't see them *on the date you specified, April 24*, and indeed I doubted they came to campus at all. Then *I*, not *you*, found photographic record that the sweatshop people were actually there on April 24, and I forthrightly posted that fact and a link to The Bottom LIne article describing their setup.”

I did not have a need to find photographic evidence, I knew I saw them. I never felt a need to prove it to anyone :-)

“The same sweatshop people *returned* on May 22 and I saw their photos first hand. I put my face up right to the each of their photos. I saw nothing resembling ``the picture of the dead bodies in the rubble…'' that you referred to, jongaucho. I can't imagine how any reasonable person could claim that the sweatshop images were gruesome or offensive, but as I said and maintain, there are surely people who are offended by images of the Easter Bunny or Lassie. It is just that the overwhelming majority of people are not offended by either the sweatshop images, the Easter Bunny, or Lassie.”

I did not walk through the Arbor area on May 22nd, so I can’t speak to what was on display that day. But on the day that I saw them, there was an image of dead bodies in concrete rubble. Had you seen that image, perhaps you wouldn’t compare it to the Easter Bunny or Lassie. You can choose not to believe me and that is fine. You also didn’t believe that they were even there on the day I saw them and went as far to state that you had “definitely walked through the Arbor Mall on the afternoon of April 24 and don't recall any such display. Go ahead and post photos if you have them, that would prove me wrong”.

I’m not even sure why you are still so focused on the sweatshop display, as you have already mentioned, they are affiliates and would not fall under the signage restrictions of 100014. When I saw their display with graphic images, I simply inquired with the Office of Student Life regarding the warning sign policy on campus, because I was curious. Not because I was offended or triggered, I had just been hearing about a warning sign requirement and thought I'd ask a school official about it.

You can disagree with my opinions. You don’t have to believe anything I say.

On a side note, I have heard anecdotally that Professor Miller-Young’s next court date is June 12th and is listed as a R&S/Settlement Conference. I can't confirm that it's accurate, because it was just word of mouth. But sounds like maybe some kind of plea settlement as I thought might be the case with this situation. Maybe we'll know more next month.

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 29, 2014 at 5:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The sweatshop people told me on May 22 that their display was the same as that on April 24. They helped me try to find any image of dead bodies in rubble. Neither I nor they could find any such image.

So I use that as a metric of your veracity, jongaucho. I can test whether your claimed facts are indeed facts, and make further conclusions based on the outcome of that comparison.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 30, 2014 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have no reason to lie about what I saw. The picture of dead bodies in concrete rubble was there on the 24th.

If we're doubting the veracity of folks in these comments. You previously claimed you had definitely walked through the area of the display on the afternoon of the 24th and it wasn't there.

:-)

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
May 30, 2014 at 5:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I did walk through. The anti-sweatshop people definitely weren't there at the time I walked through. Timing must have been wrong. But I forthrightly corrected myself about their presence on that day (but at a different time than I walked through) when I found the online photos of them.

I guess you are the perfect man, jongaucho, just like the Shorts are perfect girls, you all never make a mistake. I guess they never have to ask forgiveness for their sins. What perfect gods they are!

Anyone who tries to enforce rules that they violate must be sinners who deserve retribution.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
May 30, 2014 at 8:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This thread has better legs than Godzilla, one month and 299 comments later: Jonsgaucho and MrsDoverSharp are still going strong while other bloggers have fallen by the wayside in exhaustion and disgrace.
Which of one of these two heavyweights will score the KO comment?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 30, 2014 at 8:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I just made it 300.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
May 30, 2014 at 9:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"On a side note, I have heard anecdotally that Professor Miller-Young’s next court date is June 12th and is listed as a R&S/Settlement Conference."

Small blurb by Scott Steepleton in todays News Press said things are delayed until July 17. No reason why given, so Steepleton speculates that it has something to do with Miller-Young's pregnancy.

MrsDoverSharp (anonymous profile)
July 2, 2014 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Steepleton wrote:

..".....But if earlier statements to the police are any indication, Ms Miller-Young who reportedly was three months pregnant when the incident happened in early March would be close to eight months along when her court hearing comes around. Further delays, or even a birth could complicate the notion of speedy justice even more......

...She told UCSB police that given her pregnancy, the images of aborted fetuses on the protesters' postes triggered he to act against the protesters who were in the free-speech zone."

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
July 2, 2014 at 1:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

She pleaded no contest to the three charges. Sentencing is pending.

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

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
July 24, 2014 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Miller-Young pleaded no contest last month to Grand Theft Person, Vandalism, and Battery, all of which are misdemeanors. According to the press release, Miller-Young was sentenced to 108 hours of community service, 10 hours of anger management, three years probation, and ordered to pay a small fine and restitution of almost $500."

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
August 17, 2014 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Shorts should be barred from all UC campuses.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 17, 2014 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You mean their message should be censored, right Ken?

Botany (anonymous profile)
August 17, 2014 at 5:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No I mean since they've, by their own admission have refused to follow UC procedure like everyone else must do- resulting in this melee they too should also be penalized for their part in it. If they really cared about stopping abortions they should hold their pathetic protest on DP on a Saturday night when and where babies are actually being made; not in a dining area on campus. Maybe hand out prophylactics instead.
But they never will because this pathetic group of charlatans in Christian clothing has time and again has baited people into these situations then cried "foul" when some poor fool takes the bait. You know they're threatening to sue the City of SB over the protest buffer zone don't you? They themselves will physically harass people seeking medical attention. Far from heroes, they're the same ilk as dewdly.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 17, 2014 at 6:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Speech Is Free, Sometimes"

Codswallop! I charge $400 when I give a speech.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
August 18, 2014 at 4:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

While I disagree with their message, and they are certainly not heroes, I don't think banning them from UC campuses is appropriate. Sure, make them notify the office of student life so they can put up warning signs as soon as they get there...but in this case, the warning signs were up when this incident happened.

Yes their images were graphic, but over there years different groups have displayed graphic images in that area. To ban theirs because some disagree with their opinions isn't appropriate. If you're going to ban one group from displaying graphic images, then I say you have to ban all groups from displaying graphic images. Not just the ones some disagree with.

Funny that Professor Miller-Young committed the crimes and yet she is often being painted as the victim. Especially in the letters of support from other professors. I am continually surprised (though maybe I shouldn't be) that anyone could make excuses for her actions that day. If you are offended or triggered, walk away and remove yourself from what is causing you discomfort. When I am confronted with graphic images on campus that I don't want to see, I avert my eyes and keep on walking.

If "They themselves will physically harass people seeking medical attention." Then I will support having them charged with and convicted of their crimes.

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
August 18, 2014 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey people, on a serious note, I just saw this story has 309 posters, which I believe is far and away a record on The Independent's website.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
August 19, 2014 at 5:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: