WEATHER »

UCSB Police Department Releases Professor-Protestor Incident Report

Mireille Miller-Young Said She Had ‘Moral Right’ to Take and Destroy Anti-Abortion Activists’ Sign


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

The UC Santa Barbara Police Department has released its official report on the confrontation between Professor Mireille Miller-Young and a group of anti-abortion activists during which Miller-Young stole one of the activists’ signs, tussled with a teen girl trying to get it back, and then destroyed the sign with the help of her students.

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.”

Dr. Mireille Miller-Young
Click to enlarge photo

Dr. Mireille Miller-Young

The report was released with sections of it redacted and highlighted, and UCSB police have not responded to multiple phone calls and emails seeking comment over the last two weeks. The activists, part of a Christian ministry called Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, say they are pursuing robbery and assault charges against Miller-Young, claiming one of them was injured by Miller-Young as they followed her to her office with their sign. The incident was first reported by The Santa Barbara Independent, and has since been broadcast by major media outlets — primarily conservative and Christian — across the country.

In the report, Miller-Young also stated she’d be willing to pay for the cost of the sign but would “hate it.” She said she was “mainly” responsible for its destruction in her office — which she called a “safe space” — because she was the only one with scissors at the time. Miller-Young admitted to authorities that she probably shouldn’t have taken the poster but said she did the “right thing” because she believed the group was violating university policy and infringing on her rights. She likened her actions to that of a “conscientious objector.”

Read the full report in the attached PDF. The District Attorney’s Office has received the filing but has so far not filed any charges. Miller-Young, an associate professor with UCSB’s Feminist Studies Department and a school faculty member since 2005, has secured an attorney, who said it wouldn’t be appropriate to comment on the specifics of an open case. UCSB officials would similarly not talk about the incident or any disciplinary action against Miller-Young.

Related Links

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

Why is it that liberals always claim to be for civil rights. Freedom of speech in this case up until they don't agree with that speech. The first amendment doesn't say freedom of speech unless someone disagrees with you. Miller-Young trampled on these people's rights and should be held accountable for that. Higher education is supposed to be about the sharing of different ideas and opinions but with professes like Miller-Young who don't allow for opposing views this cheats students of true learning and leads to a system of indoctrination. She is a good example of what is wrong with our education system.

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

Only the DA can "purse robbery and assault charges."

The religious wackos can only sue for damages

taz (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This just shows the brazen arrogance and assumption that HER point of view is the "right" one. In my mind people like this have NO business masquerading as "academics" and especially influencing young minds where a supposedly open discussion of ideas and thoughts should be fostered. As mentioned above this can rob students of an opportunity to think for themselves instead of being swayed by an individual professor's ideology.

Also, Imagine for a moment there is an anti-war demonstration on campus and protesters are using graphic depictions of what war does to people and a professor decides that it is their right to steal this material arguing that because the images trigger something ? I have NO doubt that the left would go crazy with accusations, AND more
importantly campus administrators would not miss the opportunity to remind everyone to be tolerant and respectful of individual's rights. We've seen none of this from them in this case.

yendopostal (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"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.”"

Yeah, yeah, yeah, SAH are idiots, but they were within their Constitutional Rights, the nutty professor CLEARLY ISN'T.

"Miller-Young admitted to authorities that she probably shouldn’t have taken the poster but said she did the “right thing” because she believed the group was violating university policy and infringing on her rights. She likened her actions to that of a “conscientious objector.”"

She believed? Isn't that what SAH is practicing too? Conscientious objector? More like a NAZI!

Hey professor, do yourself and all around you a favor and read the Constitution some time!

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It will be interesting to see what criminal charges [if any] the DA's office files re this incident. IMO while they are annoying and self-righteous, the SAH demonstrators did not violate any rules, laws, policies or regulations. The report reads like the equally annoying and self-righteous professor is guilty of battery, vandalism and theft, and there were probably about 250 better ways the professor could have handled herself.

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 5:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The religious wackos can only sue for damages".

Thanks taz for your intellect and preschool mentality.

The mentality of the left has been on full display for quite sometime. All you have to do is walk down State St., go to any beach, sit in on any City Council or BOS meeting, go to UCSB and listen to people talk on campus.

These people couldn't function without government assistance. Hell, I don't even know how they get out bed in the morning without help.

Why is it the left have an extremely hard time dealing with others point of view? Why do these leftist wacko's have to violate others rights when they don't agree with some one? The left show their true colors every day but for some reason they are given a pass. I guess when the left pretty much own the media they can do whatever they want…

This "Professor" which she is not, she is a left-wing propagandist subsidized by the tax-payers should be fired immediately then sued. Then these victims should sue the hell out of the university for allowing and condoning this type of behavior by university employees.

Priceless (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 5:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Damn, I forgot to mention several things,

It is hard to believe that this individual is a "Professor". She has no idea what she is talking about relating to "What" she did. She has "No" clue she violated others rights. Is this the type of individual we want teaching our children?

Unbelievable. And all this coming from the "Porn" Professor. Yeah, she was really "traumatized" by the signs. Give me a break….

Priceless (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 6:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now it's in Dudley's hands. Will she do the right thing or will she cave into political pressure from the left?

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 6:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm not clear on whether Miller-Young is saying that it was an emotional response and now she realizes she overreacted or not.

If she realizes that people DO have the right to demonstrate, and publicly acknowledges this, then drop the charges, and move on.

Having said that, using graphic images to "raise awareness" is not only unneccesary, but disturbing. Whether it's this, or people putting pictures of animals being tortured on their Facebook pages, or showing pictures of people being lynched, one can get their message across in the strength of a good argument.

It sounds as though those involved need to grow up.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 6:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Might makes Right"
Sounds pretty right wing to me.

garfish (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 6:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Some people need to cut the "Liberal" label on this. I'm liberal and don't have a problem calling Asst. Professor Miller Young's actions wrong. Your comments pretty much put you in the same camp as those who would try to find her actions defensible, the professor herself, and the protestors - that of a zealot well beyond the right or left and off into the fanatical zone of the spectrum.

Reading this, the professor's unrepentant attitude is whats going to guarantee prosecution in some form.

pointssouth (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 7:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Among other parts of pointssouth's comment, I particularly agree with the first sentence. The left / right distinction almost always serves no purpose but to needlessly divide people, the 99.9%, often for the benefit of the .1%, which is a far more useful distinction to make these days. There's some very good things happening on behalf of the people versus the criminal government and corporate elites as a result of alliances among groups bringing people together from all points of the political spectrum.

Regarding Priceless': "It is hard to believe that this individual is a "Professor".": I'd add that anyone so foolish as to blabber on to the police to the extent she did is not smart enough to deserve the professor tag; no one should talk to the police without an attorney present, ever.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 8:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Liberal" used to mean that while you held strongly to the tenets of racial/gender/social equality, you also held just as strongly to the idea that through logical argument--not political correctness and force--you could make your point. In other words, the word "tolerance" truly meant something to old school Liberals.

Do not confuse the latter-day Thought Police/"Progressives" with true liberalism.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 9 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks, Bill, that reminds me that I wasn't mistaken for considering myself a liberal for many years, though I've increasingly shunned that label for about the past eight or ten years.

I wonder what percentage of people can even be categorized into any particular political label, even assuming it served a useful purpose.

Except for a handful of individual members of both, I detest the jackass gang [D] about as much as the elephant gang [R], am vehemently anti-war and anti- big government, strongly pro- 2nd Amendment (and just as strongly pro the rest of the Constitution, which obviously explains being anti- big government), and pro-choice. If I had to categorize myself, perhaps progressive libertarian, which I would think would be neither "left" nor "right."

Incidentally, in regards to the final sentence of the first paragraph of my previous comment, here's something that just came through my RSS feeds a few minutes ago:

'How to enact drone legislation in your state'
http://www.constitutioncampaign.org/b...

"...For example, the ACLU teamed up with the Tea Party in Virginia on drone legislation. This showed Virginian legislators that drone legislation was important to many people, helping the passage of Virginia’s two-year drone moratorium."

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 9:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The arrogance of these faux-liberal feminist monkeys is shocking. Don't call me a 'racist' for using the term 'monkey' here, either. “I’m stronger, so I was able to take the poster.”...particularly coming from a university professor AFTER she got caught, is pure monkey business. Even worse, the fact that she clearly believes she can get away with such shameless monkey business shows that she's got lots of support from other like-minded monkeys locally. This is how fascist (mainstream) feminists do business worldwide. Happily, however, this one got some very very pleasant surprises.'

Sealion (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 11:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The arrogance of these faux-liberal feminist monkeys is shocking. "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnVf1Z...

"particularly coming from a university professor AFTER she got caught, is pure monkey business."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYW0YV...

And finally, my fellow sea creature, while I agree with your points, do not call them "monkeys", but rather "Simian-Americans".

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2014 at 2:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Glad to see she's going with the "free speech for me but not for thee" argument. If you're gonna be a fascist you should own up to it.

Cromulent (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2014 at 6:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

When extremists try to provoke confrontations, sometimes, sadly, they get what they want. Also sadly, they never get what they deserve, at least not in this lifetime.

GregMohr (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2014 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sealion wrote:
"The arrogance of these faux-liberal...“I’m stronger, so I was able to take the poster.”...

Interesting point.

I had assumed "...I'm stronger..." was a feeble attempt (rather than just shutting up, idiot ;-) ) to suggest that there was not a struggle and that therefore her theft was not violent and therefore less of a theft, but perhaps it was simply empty-headed boasting.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2014 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is such a minor incident on all levels. Only the far right and their religious fueled hate and intolerance cares about such trivial and tripe matters. And only a group with a name as insulting as SOAH could even be as rude, insulting and downright obnoxious as to think a few pictures of aborted fetuses were a proper way to demonstrate. I find the actions of the professor to be off-putting but the actions of minors who are so obviously brainwashed, I find to be much more concerning.

The tactics used by these types of groups is an affront on freedom. They are the very definition of ignorant and their practices almost universally shunned by leaders of all religions. Its sad that people like this exist but they do and we must accommodate them regardless.

In other words: I dont care about this issue or this incident at all. The children got what they deserved and the professor is getting what she deserves... neither are worthy of our criminal justice system or the courts. Personally, I would have laughed at the girls and walked on... but I can understand how such offensive imagery would cause someone to get upset. After all that was the goal of the demonstrators and so they should be fine with the results...

Sam_Tababa (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2014 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dr. Charles Bradley used to live 2 houses down the street. When the protesters blocked the street while holding repugnant signs, I told them to move or I would call the Sheriff. They moved. When they blocked the street so that my elementary aged son could not pass before being yelled at and came home crying, I called the Sheriff. They were dispersed.

If campus rules were violated, prof should have called the campus police. The police would sort it out. Prof used very poor judgment. Sadly, the overburdened DA has real crime to deal with and now has to deal with this political nonsense.

LHThom (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2014 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Miller-Young is so out of order here and just plain WRONG!

Regardless of her beliefs & that she's pregnant, this did NOT give her the right to violate the young girls' right to free speech & expression.

Sorry, professor, but this isn't over yet and it's most likely going to cost you far more than the value of the poster in the end. Good learning lesson.

Oh, I suggest some anger management sessions before you get to court just to save yourself additional stress & also for your baby's sake.

Barron (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2014 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"The arrogance of these faux-liberal feminist monkeys is shocking." Is Rush Blowhard masquerading as Sealion?

discoboy (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2014 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"This is such a minor incident on all levels."

Only for simian-Americans (to borrow my fellow sea creature's term) that is. The rest of us know that to have a professor incite her students to theft, vandalism and assault in an attempt to attack free speech...and to have the university put it's head in the sand after said attack..holds very serious implications. Why do our local furry creatures have such difficulty with such obvious abuses of academic authority?

"Is Rush Blowhard masquerading as Sealion?" Is discoboy one of Rush's simian 'friends' too or is he just being intentionally obtuse here?

Sealion (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2014 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Every woman should have the right to choose. Dr. Mireille Miller-Young had the right to express herself. Those signs being cared by those crazies and the holding of doll fetus was obscene and totally gross.

VioletFlame (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2014 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

VioletFlame, so are the signs peace protesters and animal rights activists carry, ban those too!

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2014 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

While some may like to blow this whole thing out of proportion, even name calling for those who don't agree (monkey?), stolen property (home-made sign, kinkos at best), all you really have is a minor altercation. Constitution, restitution, altercation, push and shove. Could it have been bigger? Of course, but it wasn't. Liberal, biblical, trivial. Complaints about the 'left' having no tolerance not only shows your intolerance, it puts you not on the political right, but on the political wrong, just like those who teach teenagers to go protest something that they don't understand or have (thankfully) not had to live through things in life that bring up these so called 'choices', as if they think women like to use abortion as birth control. The women I know were not careless and loose when they needed treatment, they were victims of horrific crimes that resulted in the unthinkable. Give women the freedom to recover and not a life sentence to be reminded of the crime done unto them every day the rest of their life. Or let the mother live if she so chooses when it is found that she will not survive child birth. So, slap the professor on the wrist, buy the kids another poster for them to hang up in their bedroom and some band aids and bactine for the scratches.

spacey (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2014 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

VioletFlame I support your inner-strength and passion and I support a woman's right to choose as well. However other people support a baby's right to choose to live over the mother's right to kill a fetus. This isn't a black and white issue like you make it out to be. There are the woman's rights to consider, but there are also the rights of the baby to consider.

While I personally don't believe that a fetus in the early stages of pregnancy is the same as a baby, I recognize that is merely my opinion. It's a valid opinion to hold to want to protect fetuses from being slaughtered wholesale. I value a mother's right to privacy and prefer that the government not intervene in this particular area because even if you make a law it doesn't work and black market abortions will still occur at similar rates, causing mothers and fetuses to be injured and harmed more than necessary. Not to mention the nightmare scenario of a miscarriage which can be very difficult for a would-be mother turning into a public investigation. But that doesn't make pro-life arguments completely illegitimate either.

While I disagree with the tactics SAH is using for this issue, it should be taken up by the University to determine what limitations, if any can be taken against free speech in the free speech designated area and it is not a good idea to go vigilante in situations like this one and steal people's property and especially to be willing to assault the property owners over it.

There are many non-violent ways to deal with this and get them to leave. In the last article I recommended a music video shoot with a sorority in bikinis washing the Chancellor's car, or anything you can think of to out-free speech them.

See how this Subaru dealership uses non-violent free speech to combat free speech that they don't care for:

http://blogs.kansas.com/haveyouheard/...

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2014 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Pointssouth: "Some people need to cut the "Liberal" label on this."

You're 100% correct, but here's the problem from a historical standpoint.
In the 1980's up to early 1990's the religious right made their way up the political ladder and 1 tactic was the infamous book burning parties they threw.
As an independent, I always felt this was wrong and would equate (not compare) it to nazi behavior and tactics.
At the same time you had the forces of political correctness that while complaining about said "right wing" tactics, they practiced the art of stifling.
Any and all arguments not seen as pc was shouted down and referred to as "extremist right wing rhetoric" by the pc practitioners.
Even if the argument was 100% correct, because it was un-pc it was demonized.
The right side of the aisle has always been a bit clueless on many issues, but what they caught on to was that book burning is not a good practice and kind of moved from it, they also learned the art of counter-protest.
The religious aspect of the right still has a little bit of learning to do, but they're not as bad as before (with the exception of Westboro Baptist Church, burn in hell Fred Phelps!).
But interestingly enough, the left side has not changed their ways from the pc era.
Look at the many attempts by this presidential administration to stifle media outlets such as FOX News.
Alright, granted, FOX is a right wing mouthpiece, but you can say that MSNBC is a mouthpiece for the left with that same logic.
This administration has also tried to stifle criticism by the average citizen and has even sought to restrict free speech.
Even at the height of Dubya's career given the criticism he faced by the media, he never once sought to limit their access to him or administration.
What this current "liberal" administration is doing doesn't sound very "liberal" to me and guess who is taking their cue? So-called "liberals" that support this administration.
The "do as we say, not as we do" mindset is much more ingrained on the left side of the aisle these days than on the right and this is alarming.
Here's a comparison: Teabaggers versus occupiers and the tactics used.
When teabaggers used the "shouting down tactic to air their grievances the media labeled it as either racist, fascists.
When occupiers used the same tactic it was seen as "speaking democratically" or "civil discourse" and should be tolerated.
Same tactic, different groups, same grievances, different opinion by a media controlled by pc era mentalities and mostly (and sadly) leaning toward the "liberal" agenda.
I have seen MORE efforts by the left to stifle free speech than by the right in my lifetime.
The term "liberal" used to describe this professor is wrong in action, but correct for her agenda.
However, if her agenda was truly "liberal" then she would have no problem w/ the SAH goons expressing their point of view in a "liberal" manner, which they were in effect doing.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2014 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

*** makes perfect sense ***

Everyone woman should have the right to hire a person to kill the unborn living human inside her since in 93% of the cases (according to Planned Parenthood), that destruction is done between weeks 4 and 22 for convenience purposes.

Of course none of these pregnant women have any options since no one is waiting to adopt their children and the state offers no financial or other support when children are born.

Lastly, these 93% of convenience cases are due to women not knowing prior to sleeping with a man that she might get pregnant and that it might inconvenient for her to have a kid. She only knows these things between weeks 4 and 22.

So of COURSE we're all in support of her choice to kill unborn living humans via suction, chemicals and past week 18, scissors. Makes perfect sense to support this.

realitycheck88 (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2014 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sam_Tababa, It really doesn't matter if you agree with one group or another. Miller-Young violated these peoples rights assaulted them and stole their property. Your point of view is just like hers. I don't like this group so "they got what they deserved." The simple fact is she committed a crime and the DA should take this seriously. This was a hate crime pure and simple. The law is supposed to be free of all bias. It also doesn't matter if something offends you or anyone else. Freedom of speech was entended to protect offensive speech.

The school administration should also have some form of punishment. I'd personally like to see her fired. No person that tramples on the rights of others should be paid with tax payer money.

I personally am pro choice but I'll defend these people's rights just as I would any other group. No one should have their rights trampled on.

trainwrek (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2014 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I personally am pro choice but I'll defend these people's rights just as I would any other group. No one should have their rights trampled on."
-
This is what makes the American experiment (for all of it's obvious ills) worth fighting for. The best sides of us seem to appear when bigoted totalitarian baboons, like this coddled Gaucho professor, get carried away. Such a backlash to restore free speech, is very very heartening given our history (academic and otherwise) over the past 40 plus years.

Sealion (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2014 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)

When asked what he thought was the most beautiful thing in the world, Diogenes replied "Freedom of speech." And he didn't say whose.

atomic_state (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2014 at 5:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well it sure is obvious who the liberals are on this thread. To quote Sam_Tababa;

"This is such a minor incident on all levels. Only the far right and their religious fueled hate and intolerance cares about such trivial and tripe matters."

Just curious you nightcrawler, what is SO "intolerant or hateful" of a group of individuals trying to save the life of a baby?? And please, I don't want to hear your left BS of saving the life of a mother. Those percentages are so small they don't count. The mothers life is always the choice. But it's this farce you lefties use to further your agenda. The lives of babies are being murdered by the millions. But hey, to you lefties thats ok… Science today is now leaning toward life at conception than what you radicals want others to believe. The science is also now saying these babies feel pain.

Only the left are ok with violating the conservatives freedom of speech, but F&^k with the rights of the left you will get the wrath of radicals at your front door, your property vandalized, your rights victimized and so on.

Please spare me the "Right" is so intolerant it's getting quite boorish.

You should look at yourself in the mirror and thank your parents for allowing you to live. But instead your choice is a scalpel and vacuum..

Priceless (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2014 at 5:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Refreshing to see all the civility, here.

ahem (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2014 at 6:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Taz@3:48

Which religious whackos are you talking about?

The two teenagers exercising their legally protected and campus sanctioned rights?

Or the unhinged, deranged professor who ran over their rights because she had no other counter argument to them?

Because your post clearly indicates you hate the former while the latter is the only one in this story deserving disgust.

sencho (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2014 at 7:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sam_Tababa - It's interesting that you refer to representatives of an anti-abortion group involved in an altercation with a feminist professor as "girls".
I assume you'd refer to an 18 year-old uniformed MP armed with an AK-47 as a boy.
billclausen - "using graphic images to "raise awareness" is not only unneccesary, but disturbing".
It sounds like you got the point; the same point conveyed by marine conservation groups who display photos of dead animals tangled in plastic bags or strangled by six-pack packaging.
I don't recall a lot of tolerance among anti-war protesters back in the day.

I'm a little surprised that no one has noticed or mentioned the parallel between this incident and the recent Santa Barbara controversy involving Truett Cathy, Chick Fil-A CEO, Mayor Schneider and cc member Kathy Murillo. Opinion on LGBT issues probably parallels opinion on abortion, and is highly correlated with religious beliefs. This incident and the Chick Fil-A media frenzy involved liberals who considered themselves justified in protesting against the freedom of speech (or advocacy) of others who would probably be considered more conservative or right-wing.
Left and right and liberal and conservative have been used interchangeably by some commenters here, and I don't think left=liberal and right =conservative are accurate statements, but that's another topic.
The ACLU has represented the KKK in the past; not because of common ideology, but because freedom of speech only exists if it applies to everyone.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2014 at 9:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wonder if I should get into this...

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2014 at 1:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"slap the professor on the wrist, buy the kids another poster for them to hang up in their bedroom and some band aids and bactine for the scratches."

spacey (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2014 at 12:41 p.m.

Sounds good to me.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2014 at 2:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, and a little washing of the eyes and an apology to each of the Occupy Wall St. protesters that were pepper sprayed at UC Davis. (instead of the $30K each they received)

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2014 at 6:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How long should it take for the UCSB Chancellor to make a statement about their process inside the Administration of the University? In the administration of another public entity, say for example, the police department, who might open a query regarding a law officer that's committed a questionable act, you suspend the officer, pending the outcome of a deeper probe and final evaluation. Is this professor still teaching students? If so, why?

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2014 at 8:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

First off this is not a first amendment issue. The protesters were not restricted from protesting by any authority or any govt entity. You folks need to understand what the first amendment means... The professor was foolish for doing what she did but she did not restrict their rights, she simply acted out against them. Do you people understand the difference? If not, take a few courses on constitutional law and get back to me...

Second. A fetus is not a baby. Its a fetus. If you personally feel that the life of the fetus is the same as an adult, then I ask you how many children have you adopted? How many children have you fostered through to adulthood? How much money do you give to charities and orphanages? How much of your time is spent caring for these "babies" you're so interested in protecting? And finally, do you believe in capital punishment? Do you believe in killing an adult for an accused crime?

So yes, the hypocrisy of the right and its sheer ignorance is in full light. For those who are so eager to protect the life of an unborn, are also the ones demanding death and hiding behind the falsehoods of their faith and hiding comfortably behind the veil of your chosen religion. And worse, the ones demanding that all others live to your standards, what-ever they may be... Talk about forcing ones views onto others!

And yes, a 17 year old child is a child... not a woman. A child. For they have neither the legal rights of an adult nor the life experience to conclude any moral victory. Their opinions are that of their parents and their influences, not of their own doing.

Sam_Tababa (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2014 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A professor on government time at her place of work at the university is not a government entity or authority? Sorry Sam, you're the one that needs some remedial education here.

And the cause is irrelevant. It's a freedom of speech issue that was "censored" by a high level government employee at her place of work. Get a grip on reality dude.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2014 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany, I'm going to guess that you're young and so your view of the world is evolving... Let this be a lesson to you.

The actions of a single person are not those of the entity or the Govt. Regardless of whether she was an employee of the University, she did not represent the University in any manner of authority. She was not acting on its behalf nor enforcing any mandate or policy. It was not, is not and will not be a first amendment issue. I am sorry that doesn't fit your narrative, but its reality.

In reading your comments, it seems that your narrative is one lacking in any real clarity or understanding of law. You seem intent on proliferating your idea of what the First Amendment means rather than the rulings of SCOTUS over the last hundred plus years. Study up young man for if you're gong to go into the ring, at least you should know the rules...

Sam_Tababa (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2014 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Apparently Miller-Young forgot to read this email:

"UC system President Janet Napolitano said the university seeks "to create, and to nurture, an ethos of respect for others, and inclusion for all." That effort should not diminish the spirit of free speech and "robust constructive dialogue," she said, urging students, faculty and staff to maintain civility."

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-me-u...

yendopostal (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2014 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

14noscams, I recall plenty of socalled liberals on the Chick-Fil-A deal just stating, as I did, we'd vote with our wallets and not patronize the joint. The professor does need to be disciplined, and while I detest the anti-abortion folks they have the right to state their [to-me] abhorrent views in the Free Speech zone. She played into their hands, when she simply could have argued with them.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2014 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"First off this is not a first amendment issue. The protesters were not restricted from protesting by any authority or any govt entity. You folks need to understand what the first amendment means..." -Sam_Tababa

Sigh..

This is not a first amendment issue as far as the law is concerned, this is an issue of assault and theft by the professor and the students.

However, on another level it is a first amendment issue because the only defense the perpetrators have is that these people should not be allowed to have free speech and they were within their right to steal their materials and assault them. IF we assume a person has first amendment rights THEN we assume that the government will continue to protect the rest of their rights as they exercise their first amendment rights and that is why this is a first amendment issue.

"A fetus is not a baby. Its a fetus. If you personally feel that the life of the fetus is the same as an adult, then I ask you how many children have you adopted? How many children have you fostered through to adulthood? How much money do you give to charities and orphanages? How much of your time is spent caring for these "babies" you're so interested in protecting? And finally, do you believe in capital punishment? Do you believe in killing an adult for an accused crime? "

While I agree with you on the point that a fetus and a baby may not be fundamentally the same, the rest of your arguments related to giving foster care or to charity are not good arguments. I believe YOUR rights should be protected and that if somebody tries to murder, injure or steal from you that you have the right to defend yourself and that the perpetrator may be criminally negligent. However just because I care about your rights doesn't mean that I necessarily have to support your charity or make sure that you live in a nice house and go on nice vacations. A person who wishes to protect the rights of fetuses shouldn't be required to be responsible for them unless they are the one creating the fetuses.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2014 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Like you do when a bad song comes on the radio or a bad show comes on tv, you change the station/channel.
The nutty professor could've walked on by or made a constructive argument in opposition to the SAH point of view, but no.
She had to take a page out of the Lenin/Hitler/Stalin/Castro/Mao/Pol Pot/Amin/Ortega/Zelaya/Chavez/Maduro/Obummer playbook & go for the gold.
Sam_tabatha, the one that needs to do some learning, growing up, whatever here is you. This IS an 1st Amendment issue and the person who violated said amendment IS an employee of a tax funded, government run organization.
She may be a rouge player, but she was STILL on the UC timeclock when she and her minions did this.
I am willing to bet you're one of the many who cried "!st AMENEDMENT VIOLATION!" when certain country stations reused to play Dixie Chicks.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2014 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree there were many more better ways for the professor to handle her disagreement with the SAH bunch than the way she actually did. It seems to me her actions played right into the hands of the SAH, giving them more publicity for their cause and allowing them to milk it for all it's worth.

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2014 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh Blah, you poor sap. Who ever told you you were smart lied. Dixie Chicks? HA HA, seriously? Did you write that? too much...

The professor was wrong. End of story. But she was acting on behalf of the university! Why is that so hard for you? Oh, yes that's right see previous paragraph.

Its not a constitutional issue. Its a petty crime done by petty people over petty issues... Now if the university had removed the protesters without cause, that would be a potential first amendment issue. But they didnt an employee removed a sign acting on her own accord. She did not remove or restrict the protesters ability to exercise their right. Why is that so hard to distinguish? Is it because you have an alignment with the protesters ? Reading your comments its clear you do which means you cannot be objective and cannot be impartial... so you're off the jury and kicked to the bleachers. Enjoy your opinion, but as the great Lebowski said " We'll that's just your opinion man".

Loon - I get the feeling you just like to read your own words.. I am glad you feel that your right and everyone else is wrong - truly. But your idealistic and overly simple view of the world does not align the the reality. My point was to show the hypocrisy of the religious right in their race to control how, what, who and when you do what with your body, your home, your mind... The people who hold the fetus in such high regard drop their concern when the child is born, leaving a human to grow up and into the world without the love and support they claim they give to the fetus through their faith...

The solution is simple. Education and health care. But the Right wants none of that for they know that the more educated a woman is, the less likely they'll follow the church or any religion for that matter and over time, they need uneducated, ignorant masses in order to keep their flock alive... Personally, I'd give out condoms to all 13+ year olds and force people to be 18 and have the means to afford and care for children before they are allowed to have them... The elephant in the room is birth rate and who has the most children... the facts are clear. The more religious a culture, the more poverty and the more children born without hope...

Sam_Tababa (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2014 at 12:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How much of it becomes a first amendment issue for the university also depends on the university's response. Will they support this professor or discipline her? Right now I think they are waiting for the police investigation to conclude. If the university responds differently to this minor criminal issue than they would other similar minor criminal issues, then it does become a clear first amendment issue for the university. Many like Sam here are making their assessment of the professor's actions based on their specific dislike for the protesters' agenda. Hopefully, the university won't do the same. Either you are for free speech or against it, not just for speech that you agree with.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2014 at 12:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sam, it is a free speech issue. Miller-Young made it one when she said she did it on behalf of the students because it was upsetting them. By saying that she implies that it was her official duty as a professor to remove the sign for these protestors.

Acts of violence, theft, and destruction or property toward a religious group is covered in hate crime legislation. Miller-Young clearly committed a religious hate crime against these people. Because this was a hate crime her penalties if prosecuted and convicted for her crimes will should have harsher punishments. That being said I doubt the DA will do very much on this issue because of political reasons. The left tends to protect each other. I personally believe she should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. She should be made an example of so this doesn't happen again.

trainwrek (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2014 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wait a minute: So you're saying that a group calling themselves Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust is a religious group? They're a non profit but they're not a Church. So how do you get there from here? Or are you just associating their position with that of a religious org? Using that logic, the professor is on equal grounds as she can lay claim to being a member of any group that is against any other group for any reason... Spaghetti Monsters anyone? The other interesting thing is when is she an employee and when is she a private citizen? If she's only paid for her office and classroom time the argument could be made that she was expressing her constitutional rights as well... as a private citizen you have the right to defend yourself against perceived violence. The presence of such imagery and visceral might be construed as preceding violence. Slipper slope indeed. But I am not sure of her employment contract and the specifics of when and how they define her as an employee... Anyone know?

But I do think your point about the professor trying to counter the protesters is interesting. SCOTUS has ruled time and time again free speech does not include inflammatory images or putting people in harms way (fire in a crowded theater is the most famous example) or the representation of children in any sexual fashion. So I think you're off a bit.

Either way, it was not the University denying anyone's rights, it was the actions of a single employee. And I imagine that in her employment contract it stipulates that she does not represent the University in any official matter. So it becomes a case of a minor crime and major over reaction.

Sam_Tababa (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2014 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sammy_tab: "The professor was wrong. End of story. But she was acting on behalf of the university!"

Uh, DUH Dr. Obvious, THAT'S WHAT I SAID!

So Sammy_tab, DID you believe the Dixie Chicks were denied their 1st Amendment Rights? Judging by your attempt at smarts, you probably did... you sorry sap.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2014 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Blah, No you moron. The Dixie Chicks were never denied their rights. The free market reacted to their statement. Not the govt. Why is that so hard for you?

Here is the text of the first amendment in case you dont know what it actual says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

What's the first line read Blah? Does it say that no person shall prohibit the free exercise or does it say that Congress shall not legislate? Read it a few times and let us know what you think it says. Ok?

And not that it really matters but you should know that the Bush administration clearly violated the first amendment rights of many during their tenor. Do a little research on "Free Speech Zones" for clarity on this glaring and often criticized action by the Bush administration. We're you out there protesting this? Of course not, you were too busy taping yellow ribbons (made in China) to your SUV and declaring your love for Freedom and the troops by shopping.

And no, she was not acting on behalf of the University. Unless of course you have evidence to cite where as she is a spokesperson and or an administrative executive whose duties are clearly defined? If so please post for we'd all love to know if that is indeed the case.

Sam_Tababa (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2014 at 4:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sammy_tab: "And no, she was not acting on behalf of the University."

SO MAKE UP YOUR MIND ALREADY!

"SCOTUS has ruled time and time again free speech does not include inflammatory images or putting people in harms way (fire in a crowded theater is the most famous example) or the representation of children in any sexual fashion. So I think you're off a bit."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

Hey, sammy_tab, from your most likely favorite "news" source:

"In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Snyder v. Phelps that the group’s speech was protected by the First Amendment."

You're all over the place... you moron.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2014 at 4:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sam tababa: eugenicist in liberal clothing.

redbunz (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2014 at 4:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Redbunz -Not necessarily eugenics per se, but population control. We'd all be better off if less people were born and especially born into abject poverty...

Blah, you seriously make no sense. Yes, I said each time I posted, she was not acting as a representative of the University. Do you not read well? Do you need glasses?

And interestingly you cite Phelps - who died today thankfully... What is it you're citing in this case? That they were allowed to picket the funerals on public property? Yes. They won. But what does that have to do with inciting violence or using vulgarity or child pornography?

Try this: Define pornography for us Blah, I am sure you look at a lot of it. What is pornography?

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

She was at her place of work and on university time. Not only that, she directed subordinates to perform actions relating to the theft of the materials.

But yet, you say she was not acting in any kind of official capacity when she did this. OK, I think I understand now.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2014 at 5:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The more religious a culture, the more poverty and the more children born without hope...

Sam_Tababa (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2014 at 12:06 p.m.

...Like North Korea.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2014 at 8:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sammy_tab 1.0: "The professor was wrong. End of story. But she was acting on behalf of the university!"

sammy_tab 2.0: "Yes, I said each time I posted, she was not acting as a representative of the University.

Do you not write well? Do you need a brain?

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2014 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Blah, still waiting for your retort. I see you can cut and paste... but you cannot write or read. No where did I ever say she was an official representative of the university. You seem confused. Are you not well? Do you need meds to focus? What is wrong with you?

Please enlighten us all with your keen understanding and prose. There are several outstanding questions you keep ignoring.

Sam_Tababa (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2014 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sammy_tab, I'd ask if you're stupid, but we all know the answer.

Sammy_tab 3.0: "No where did I ever say she was an official representative of the university."

Subroutine loop back to sammy_tab 1.0: "But she was acting on behalf of the university!"

All YOUR comments. So was she acting on behalf of the university or not? Which one is it kid?
Turn down the Dixie Chicks for a minute, they're boggling your mush of a mind. Again, you seem to have trouble keeping track of what you say. of course, unless it is to berate others that oppose your limitations.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2014 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh I see, so you ignore the rest of the posts and their obvious context and instead focus on an obvious typo...one where a single word was left out... The word? Not.

We're still waiting for you to actually form a paragraph and reply to the many outstanding questions... Are you capable or just wish to be construed as inept?

And what's up with your fascination with the Dixie Chicks? Not only did you not reply to the post that called you out on that fallacy, you ignored the other ones as well. All the Rush Limbaugh listening hasnt helped you... keep trying though. We'll keep reading and waiting for something intelligent to flow from your fingers.

Sam_Tababa (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2014 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'd like to exercise my first amendment rights.

"Founder of Westboro Baptist Church, Fred Phelps, is on his deathbed in Kansas"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...

Can I get a Hallelujah?

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2014 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You really do live under a rock Loon. He died yesterday. It was on every news site and on every TV news channel. And yet you get your news from the UK 5days later? But yes, Hallelujah indeed!

Sam_Tababa (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2014 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Your day-to-day lives will be much better now that Fred Phelps has died.
The homeless will have shelter, broken families will be reunited, and those gang members you see walking around with that hostile glare in their eyes will hit the books and get on the honor rolls.

Yep. you have much to celebrate.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2014 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybee they should listen to this song about Phelps. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSQaO4...

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2014 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh yes, and all homophobia will disappear from the face of the earth now that he's dead.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2014 at 6:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Apr 4 Prof. Miller-Young has pleaded innocent and we'll get to go over all this in court. SAH is having a field day, but I see many liberals defending the admittedly-disgusting photos, and Miller is guilty of these misdemeanors. More interesting is how she got tenure [2005] without every publishing a book? She also did post-doctoral work at UCSB so must have impressed some in the feminist studies area…?

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
April 4, 2014 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Really? I don't think I've seen one person defend the photos, only their right to display them in a free speech area.

Botany (anonymous profile)
April 4, 2014 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: