WEATHER »

UCSB Professor Sentenced to Probation, Community Service in Theft, Battery Case

Dr. Mireille Miller-Young and Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust Attend Friday Hearing


Monday, August 18, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

UC Santa Barbara associate professor Dr. Mireille Miller-Young was sentenced Friday to three years of probation, 108 hours of community service, and 10 hours of anger management classes after pleading no contest to theft and battery charges that arose out of a heated encounter with anti-abortion protesters on campus last March. She was also ordered to pay a small fine and $500 of restitution.

During the March 4 incident, Miller-Young confronted members of the Christian group Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust and forcibly stole one of the demonstrator’s signs, which was later found destroyed. Some of the incident was caught on camera. Miller-Young, who is pregnant, initially defended her actions and said she was “triggered” by the signs’ graphic imagery of aborted fetuses. She initially pleaded not guilty to the misdemeanor charges but later issued a written apology and entered no contest pleas in July. A number of letters of support were submitted to Judge Brian Hill before Friday’s sentencing hearing.

Dr. Mireille Miller-Young
Click to enlarge photo

Dr. Mireille Miller-Young

Leila J. Rupp, a professor of feminist studies and UCSB’s associate dean of social sciences, described Miller-Young as a “warm, smart, dedicated teacher and scholar who works passionately in all areas of her life to make the world a better place.” She said the “unfortunate incident” and the “sharply critical coverage in The Santa Barbara News-Press has created a public image of Mireille that is wholly inaccurate.” Other letters said Miller-Young is “instinctively kind” and with “impeccable character.” Professor Eileen Boris wrote of the video footage: “If she appears smiling on camera, she is ‘wearing the mask,’ that is, she is hiding her actual state through a strategy of self-presentation that is a cultural legacy of slavery.”

Thrin and Joan Short, members of the Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust group that was protesting on campus March 4, were present for Miller-Young’s Friday sentencing. They were accompanied by their mother, Katie Short, Life Legal Defense Foundation legal director, who issued a statement after the hearing:

“While Miller-Young submitted a written apology to the court for taking and destroying the sign, the sincerity of that apology is undercut by other letters she submitted from colleagues, several of which attempt to shift the blame onto the pro-lifers,” she said. “Regardless of the actual level of her remorse, her conviction on three misdemeanor charges will undoubtedly be sufficient to dissuade her from any repetition of her outrageous conduct. … We hope that anyone else who might consider violence or vandalism against pro-life advocates will take note.”

)

Related Links

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

'We hope that anyone else who might consider violence or vandalism against pro-life advocates will take note.” What is the score now? double digits to this 1 act that resulted in what kind of violence? bruise, scratches, ego? The threats lie on the other side, justice; truly blind.

spacey (anonymous profile)
August 18, 2014 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Christ would've forgiven her; fanatics with financial motives press charges.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 18, 2014 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To be fair, I'll bet if the shoes were reversed the Professor would have filed charges.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 18, 2014 at 2:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

They should have sentenced her to having to do actual research instead of skating by under the umbrella of diversity.

nomoresanity (anonymous profile)
August 18, 2014 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The University should for trespassing.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 18, 2014 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The professor should not be teaching our children.

sslocal (anonymous profile)
August 18, 2014 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken: "The University should for trespassing."

Please clarify.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
August 18, 2014 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The professor doesn't teach anybody's children, University students are adults.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 18, 2014 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Never mind my comment about research. That would be cruel and unusual punishment to sentence a mental midget to something she could not possibly do.
If they are not our children then how come I can keep them on my health insurance and can claim them as dependents?

nomoresanity (anonymous profile)
August 18, 2014 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Blah, they set up an unpermitted display according to news reports. If you or I did that, campus police would be all over us. But thanks to the Prof they get off without so much as a finger wagging.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 18, 2014 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If the Short's were bona fide in violation of university regulations why did Miller-Young not get a counter-suit filed, not cop a plea, and get USCB to get all over them?

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 18, 2014 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Obamacare now considers college students to still be somebody's children. Proper use of the term. Adulthood has now been officially set back to age 26.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 18, 2014 at 2:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"If they are not our children then how come I can keep them on my health insurance and can claim them as dependents?"

Because you choose to continue to support them while they continue their education.

Yes, I realize they will always be "your children" in the sense that they are your offspring, but when they are 18 they become adults.. Encouraging society to turn the age of adulthood higher than it is already is a mistake, next thing you know your kids will be keeping their 'kids' on their health insurance policy until they are 30 and everybody will have a PhD in Sociology of Reality Television.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 18, 2014 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In my view, Judge Hill did just the right thing in bringing perspective back to this case. This was never more than an minor dispute between people who disagreed and let their emotions get the better of them. Professor Miller-Young should have kept her cool and not grabbed the sign, Ms. Short should not have chased Miller-Young across campus in an attempt to retrieve the sign. Both actions were examples of poor judgment brought on by over-heated emotion. Miller-Young has no doubt learned a lesson and been embarrassed doing so. I would hope that the Short family also learned a lesson. If one expresses himself or herself in a manner intended to offend people in order to make a point, that is ok, it is free speech. However, it is rational to assume that sooner or later, intentionally offensive speech will provoke the response of anger. Whenever the human emotion of anger is provoked the resulting human behaviors are unpredictable and can be unsafe for all parties involved. I would think that Ms. Short's mother should think twice about sending her minor daughter into situations with the intent to offend with the danger that anger will be provoked and the situation become unsafe for a minor child. One last word: Recently an adult male stand-up paddle-boarder punched a teenage male surfer at Campus Point. The assault was reported to the UCSB Police Department and they decided to do nothing about it. In my view, this act of adult on child violence was much more serious than the little shoving match between Miller-Young and Thrin Short. So why did the UCSB Police respond so thoroughly to one and not at all to the other?

Eckermann (anonymous profile)
August 18, 2014 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken: "Blah, they set up an unpermitted display according to news reports. If you or I did that, campus police would be all over us. But thanks to the Prof they get off without so much as a finger wagging."

"Un-permitted" you say? "Un-permitted" by whom? The area they were showing their "un-permitted" display has no permit requirement, as it is one of those so-called "free speech zones" where opposing points of view of any kind are legally permitted without the need for a permit.
Get off it man, yes, we know, you hate those people, but your hate cannot hide the fact that they were well within their legal bounds, a simple fact you just can't seem to accept or simply understand.
I know Ken, the legalities of certain freedoms escape your desires, but the same laws/rules that "permit" these dinbgalings to show their ignorance are the same laws/rules that permit you and your ilk to stage a counter-protest.
Well, as long as said counter-protest doesn't become a chain of illegal acts such as the nutty professor committed. She's an idiot and the world knows it.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
August 18, 2014 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

While people are sleeping under newspapers on park benches (assuming they don't get hassled by the cops) and others are working two to three jobs trying to survive and still barely able to pay the rent our hallowed education system ponies up salaries for people such as Miller-Young all the while crying foul about social inequality. (Yes I know this is off the main topic but it fits in with the bigger picture of what really matters in life: Survival)

What Miller-Young's actions typify is an attitude among many Left-wing academics of political correctness. Rather than saying "You're wrong, and here's why you're wrong", instead it's "shut up, and sit down". The knocking the sign aside is indicative of this. Miller-Young didn't like what was being said, so she threw a temper tantrum, and just as she behaved like a spoiled child, she got smacked on the hands like one and was sent to her room.

Now that the verdict has been rendered, let's all move on and learn the lesson that one has to respect the free speech rights of others if we are to have a truly free society.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 18, 2014 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It wasn't a dispute between two people, Eckerman. It was a University employee attacking another person and vandalizing personal property. For too long a time it was also a person who refused to acknowlege her own culpability insitgating this violent encounter. It was also a teaching moment for this mother-to-be who will be raising the next generation of Americans. I hope continues to improve as a role model for young people. I agree, she got off easy.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 18, 2014 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I also hope this feminist studies research profession investigate whether unabashedly playing the raging hormones card is a positive step forward or a negative step backwards in the feminist movement as a whole..

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 18, 2014 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Those Pro-Life protesters are a sickly bunch.

sbresident2 (anonymous profile)
August 18, 2014 at 5:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OKay blah, let's set up something innocuous, say a Decriminalize Skateboarding display without a permit, maybe set up a half pipe and see how far we get before campus police shut us down. Somehow since abortion is the topic it's Hail Mary time.
Notice I've never excused the Professor's actions, but since most everyone has been condemning her there's no need for me to join when there's also another guilty party: SAH.
You DO have to get a permit to set up a display on campus, it's for everybody's protection- protesters and nonprotesters.
Where did I say hate anyone? You misinterpret my smug cynicism and demand for equal justice.
I can't thrust some gross image in your face and get act surprised if you react. Everytime one does something like that it's a gamble. And SAH gambles with the safety of children by putting them in those circumstances to begin with.
So there :P

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 18, 2014 at 5:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Professor Eileen Boris wrote of the video footage: “If she appears smiling on camera, she is ‘wearing the mask,’ that is, she is hiding her actual state through a strategy of self-presentation that is a cultural legacy of slavery.”

Geez ... and to imagine that people pay good money to listen to this kind of "mumbo jumbo" from clowns like this !!!

I'm with you Bill Clausen: the elite club of academentia is too often so blatantly out of touch with how the peons of our community scratch out a living. In this case though the judge was not fooled by this so called "wearing of the mask"

yendopostal (anonymous profile)
August 18, 2014 at 8:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jarvis, how does one's employment status negate his or her status as a "person?" I respectfully, disagree with you. This was a conflict between two people (just as was the conflict between the adult stand-up paddle-boarder and the teenage surfer). With regard to Miller-Young's attempt to attribute her anger to some organic source (i.e., hormones associated with pregnancy), well, I agree that sounds silly. However, I understand that anger often feels as if one has been taken over by some foreign force and compelled to act in ways that seem uncharacteristic of one's normal behavior (e.g., The devil made me do it). Let's just agree that a couple of people with strongly held and opposing beliefs came into conflict and decorum and personal safety rights were violated as a result. It is interesting that I feel that I am able to understand and relate to both sides of this argument and discuss it without getting angry. Why can't others do so?

Eckermann (anonymous profile)
August 18, 2014 at 8:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Professor Eileen Boris wrote of the video footage: “If she appears smiling on camera, she is ‘wearing the mask,’ that is, she is hiding her actual state through a strategy of self-presentation that is a cultural legacy of slavery.” Yes folks, there are people who get paid (ALOT) to come up with this crap.

redbunz (anonymous profile)
August 19, 2014 at 7:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Prof Eileen Boris needs to thank the hundreds of thousands of white males who gave up their own lives to end slavery in the US. Let's all chip in and buy her a ticket to see Dinesh D'Souza's America.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 19, 2014 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@JarvisJarivis: "Prof Eileen Boris needs to thank the hundreds of thousands of white males who gave up their own lives to end slavery in the US."

And we all know what side of that equation you'd be on... (HINT: Not on the side of the abolitionists....)

@JarvisJarvis: "Let's all chip in and buy her a ticket to see Dinesh D'Souza's America."

I think there's a free showing for the next 10-16 months in Cell Block C of a federal penitentiary.

It's pretty brilliant that you whine and complain about some extremist organization baiting a pregnant woman into an argument (taking sides of the extremists, of course, because you wouldn't know a decent moral stance if it struck you with lightning) while citing a film made by a convicted felon who has all of the credibility of dirty diaper.

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
August 19, 2014 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken: "OKay blah, let's set up something innocuous, say a Decriminalize Skateboarding display without a permit, maybe set up a half pipe and see how far we get before campus police shut us down."

UCSB Skateboard Club ALREADY did that in the late 1980's through early 1990's and guess what? No hassles. Why? Because they brought their OWN ramp & didn't damage UCSB property. Oh, with no permit either. NEXT!

Ken: "Somehow since abortion is the topic it's Hail Mary time.
Notice I've never excused the Professor's actions, but since most everyone has been condemning her there's no need for me to join when there's also another guilty party: SAH."

The only thing SAH "is guilty" of is having an opposing point of view. they were within the law & the rules. The nutty professor? Not so much. NEXT!

Ken: "You DO have to get a permit to set up a display on campus, it's for everybody's protection- protesters and nonprotesters."

Not really Ken, you just have to keep your display "civil and obedient" in the "free speech zone, no permit required. If a permit was required for displays on campus then a majority of the idiots passing off as college students should be barred from campus. NEXT!

Ken: "Where did I say hate anyone? You misinterpret my smug cynicism and demand for equal justice."

You don't have to outright admit it, but it's alright to hate Ken, it is a protected freedom, just as it is SAH's protected freedom to hate abortion. That's a stupid stance they have, but a protected stance.

Ken: "I can't thrust some gross image in your face and get act surprised if you react. Everytime one does something like that it's a gamble. And SAH gambles with the safety of children by putting them in those circumstances to begin with."

Children? Really? The nutty professor is an adult, as were the students who helped her COMMIT A CRIME. How about the images the nutty professor thrusts in people's face? Did you stop to think those may be a gamble to get somebody to react? You obviously didn't.

In all Ken, I admire you non-conspiracy laden passion, you got a good heart, but your point, misguided. Laws were broken and it wasn't by SAH. Accept that fact. if laws were broken by SAH the reports would've made mention of it, but no such mention, so... In fact, the university scrambled to do damage control on behalf of the nutty professor in order to appease the SAH nuts into NOT suing for further damages. Consider the outcome a win because it could have been worse.

Current score: SAH: 5, UCSB/Nutty professor: 0. So there :P

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
August 19, 2014 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

When you take your modern automobile into the shop for repairs because it is too complicated to service on your own - they don't even have spark plugs anymore - you generally listen to what the service advisor tells you because he or she is a professional who has spent the time to learn that speciality. You don't understand it; you probably could if you spent the time. Similarly when visiting your physician, or when a lawyer's services are needed.

Yet somehow when a top academic, fully credentialed with degrees from the best universities in the land who has made her life's work the study of labor, race, gender, race, class, women's history and social politics, presents a learned opinion, anyone here feels they can weigh in as if their off the cuff opinions were worth serious consideration. Would you tell your doctors they didn't know what they were talking about and that despite your utter lack of medical education you know better? You might get lucky, they could be wrong, but generally we respect the education and skills of professionals, except, it seems, of professors, particularly women professors, who to our untutored ears seem to be spouting nonsense - at least stuff we don't understand nor want to understand.

I find the anti-intellectual bias demonstrated by many here to be appalling. You live here with the advantages brought by a great academic institution; please try to appreciate and respect it. (Full disclosure: I am married to a faculty member and I myself hold an advanced degree though I'm not a member of the academy.)

nelsound (anonymous profile)
August 19, 2014 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

nel, I think the issue is that somebody whose life work is supposed to be the study of labor, race, gender, race, class, equality, women's history and social politics attempted to violently take away somebody else's right to speak their opinion in a public venue which is the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

Apparently there is a feminist out there getting some attention who believes 90% of the male population should be culled and has promoted a national castration day for males.

http://www.vice.com/read/is-reducing-...

She believes that this would reduce the violence and problems in the world we have today.

Granted most feminists do not subscribe to these ideas, they do promote the concepts that led her to her conclusions.

Interestingly, one thing she doesn't mention is that women kill more babies than there are murders, by about 10-20 times in fact. In that sense if you believe abortion is murder, well, then women commit 10-20 times more murders than men. Why don't the professional feminists who talk about male violence ever talk about that?

The fact is most people are smart enough to educate themselves about various issues on their own and we don't always need to be dependent on professionals from that field. Sort of like how a lot of Catholic Priests molest children when there is probably a very tiny percentage of their congregation if any who would ever molest children, yet they are the ones at the front of the Church leading everybody in how to live avoiding sin.

Sometimes the people in the front of the room leading everybody have an agenda. Sometimes your car mechanic might be dishonest. That's why it's important to allow people to educate themselves and think for themselves rather than turning over all of their cognition to thou which has been bestowed by Govt. aka God or some such nonsense.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 19, 2014 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

agree sbresident2 that "Those Pro-Life protesters are a sickly bunch. " Issue should be finished and die out.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
August 19, 2014 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

^^^Finally, the voice of reason?

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
August 19, 2014 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow. Nelsound. You are a tithead. Thats all your.comment is worth.

redbunz (anonymous profile)
August 19, 2014 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 19, 2014 at 4:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If she were a top academic I would not have fairly disparaged her complete lack of peer reviewed research.

nomoresanity (anonymous profile)
August 19, 2014 at 6:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I really don't much give a damn what the professor did. What I do care about is the idea that a parent would allow a 16 year old to incite violence with such inflammatory images. If the 16 year old's parents didn't give their permission, it would be one thing. But if they encouraged this kind of behavior they should be held accountable for child endangerment.

buckwheat (anonymous profile)
August 19, 2014 at 8 p.m. (Suggest removal)

(Full disclosure: I am married to a faculty member and I myself hold an advanced degree though I'm not a member of the academy.)

nelsound (anonymous profile)
August 19, 2014 at 12:49 p.m.

Nelsound: I hold you in the highest regard for having the courage to reveal your identity, and moreover, I am in total awe of your academic credentials.

Buckwheat: Perhaps your vision of a totalitarian state may come to pass, but until then, we have this pesky thing called freedom of speech so unless the protestor posed a physical threat to Miller-Young, the good professor's actions were unjustified, no matter how offensive she or yourself may find find the protestors' actions.

"nel, I think the issue is that somebody whose life work is supposed to be the study of labor, race, gender, race, class, equality, women's history and social politics attempted to violently take away somebody else's right to speak their opinion in a public venue which is the pinnacle of hypocrisy. " -Loonpt-

I totally agree Loonpt. Again, these people speak of "diversity" and "tolerance" but in their cloistered world of faux-academics (as opposed to the part of academia that advances the quality of life for humanity, e.g. studies in medicine and science) tolerance is a one-way street.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 20, 2014 at 5:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

nelsound, you do seem to know which side of your toast is buttered. What do you think of the Poli-Sci faculty at UC Berkeley? Inerrant?

atomic_state (anonymous profile)
August 20, 2014 at 3:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Shouldn't we ask why images of aborted babies are "provocative" and "inflammatory"? Isn't it because people like Miller-Young deny the realities of abortion? They sanitize abortion by using the eumphemism of a "woman's right". They sanitize it by calling it a "health care choice". They deny the reality by likening the fetus to a parasite, an "uninvited guest" or by pretending that the fetus is just a blob of cells. And after all that denial it turns out that it was that blob of cells that made Miller-Young lose her cool.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 20, 2014 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You mean like you deny the reality of the Holocaust dewdly, we should picket you with such images of the camps, Menegele's "experiments" etc.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 20, 2014 at 5:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

KV's right, dewdly, you "sanitize" the Holocaust and while denying you deny it, the thrust of all you mass of posts is to deny the Holocaust. Troll.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
August 20, 2014 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken and DrDan,
There is a function on this forum that allows you to see all the posts of any poster. "Holocaust denial" is what you and DrDan use to discredit me and to avoid certain difficult questions about Zionism, but you will not find anything that could be construed as "holocaust denial" in any of my posts, nor will you find anything that "sanitizes" WW Ii carnage.

The "reality" of anything that happened during World War II can only be ascertained by investigation and an accumulation and assessment of facts. I do not subscribe to the idea that some history is off-limits for investigation and review, nor do I think that people with legitimate questions or alternate views should be silenced by threats of criminal prosecution.

You both are good examples of the uncanny truth of Godwin's Law.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 20, 2014 at 6:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: