UCSB Administrator Issues Statement on Free Speech

Michael D. Young’s Email Comes in Wake of Professor-Protestor Incident

Friday, March 21, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

Michael D. Young, UCSB’s Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, sent an email Wednesday to all university students expressing his views on free speech and reminding the campus that “We cannot pick and choose which views are allowed to be aired and who is allowed to speak.” Young doesn’t directly address the elephant in the room that likely prompted the communique — theft and battery charges filed against a UCSB faculty member in the wake of her confrontation with anti-abortion activists — but notes that “recent events” made the the school’s longstanding value of freedom of expression worth repeating.

Read the full letter below:

Dear Students:

Over the past several weeks, our campus has been visited by a number of outside groups and individuals coming here to promote an ideology, to promulgate particular beliefs (at times extreme beliefs), or simply to create discord that furthers a certain personal agenda. 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. During the past few weeks, UCSB has been visited by various anti-abortion crusaders. Some have been considerate and thoughtful in promoting their message; others have openly displayed images that many in our community find distressing and offensive. We have also seen earnest and thoughtful religious missionaries, and we have seen proselytizers hawking intolerance in the name of religious belief. As a consequence of interactions with the more extreme of our visitors, students have expressed outrage, pain, embarrassment, fear, hurt, and feelings of harassment. Moreover, I have received requests that the campus prohibit the peddling of “fear,” “hate,” “intolerance,” and “discord” here at UCSB.

Those of you who know me are aware that I have strong views on the matter of intolerance. You also know that I hold equally strong views on the sanctity of free speech. If you have heard me speak at Convocation or at anti-hate events, or if you have seen me officiating at the Queer Wedding, you know that my message on both counts is clear. Recent events lead me to believe that this message bears repeating.

First, the principle of freedom of expression resides at the very foundation of our society and, most certainly, at the foundation of a world-class university such as UC Santa Barbara. 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. If that were the case, then only those in charge—those holding power—would determine who gets to speak and whose views are heard.

Second, freedom is not free. 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! Law and policy ban only an extremely narrow band of speech and expression—“yelling ‘fire!’ in a crowded theatre,” for example, and child pornography. The price we pay to speak our own minds is allowing others to speak theirs, regardless of how oppositional their views are to our own. Our Founding Fathers—all white men of privilege, some even slave owners—got it right when designing the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Having firmly stated my support for freedom of expression, I hasten to follow with a lesson my mother taught me when I was a small child, a lesson that has remained with me the rest of my life and that I relay to our entering students every fall at Convocation. My mother taught me that just because you can say or do something doesn’t mean that you should. Civility plays an important role in how we choose to exercise our right to expression. We all have the right to say odious things, to display offensive slogans and placards, and to hurt and disrespect groups and individuals that disagree with us. The question is: should we? Should we engage in these behaviors just because we can or because they serve our political, religious, or personal agendas?

At UCSB, our students have proven that we are better than this. While it has not always been easy, time and again UCSB students have demonstrated that they can disagree about the critical issues of our time—fundamentally and passionately but within a framework of humanity and civility, respecting the dignity of those whose views they oppose. Time and time again, UCSB students have demonstrated that they understand their role in defining the character and quality of this campus community—revealing their unwillingness to lower themselves to the tactics of those whose agenda comes wrapped in intolerance and extremism.

And now we are tested once again, outsiders coming into our midst to provoke us, to taunt us and attempt to turn us against one another as they promote personal causes and agendas. If we take the bait, if we adopt negative tactics and engage in name calling, confrontation, provocation, and offensive behavior, then they win and our community loses.

While urging you to engage with differing ideas and opinions in a civil manner, I also want to remind you that you have the option not to engage at all. 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. And, finally, if you think demonstrators, activists, or proselytizers are violating the law, report them to the UC Police Department. If you think they are violating campus policies, report them to the Office of Student Life (OSL). Similarly, if you feel harassed or think you are being subjected to offensive speech or material as an involuntary audience, please contact the Office of Student Life immediately. Katya Armistead, Associate Dean of Student Life and Activities, can be reached at 805-893-8912. If you do not reach her, someone at the general OSL number (805-893-4550) will be able to relay your message to her. The campus regulations address UCSB’s free speech policies further:

What I am suggesting may not be easy, and it may feel more satisfying (at least for the moment) to lash out. (My mom often reminded me that doing the right thing is difficult.) If you feel that you must respond, hold a peaceful, thoughtful, civil, and dignified counter-demonstration, and show how students engage intellectually and politically at UCSB.


Michael D. Young

Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs


Independent Discussion Guidelines


Many of the current crop of commenters here at the Indy could use a lesson in civility as well. Alas, the veil of anonymity is their Achilles heel.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2014 at 7:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey, at least this story helps put UCSB on the map, kinda like that drunken Gauchos fan at the basketball game a couple weeks ago. First Sportscenter, then Fox News, what's next for UCSB in the headlines?

Schifter (anonymous profile)
March 22, 2014 at 12:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

While I agree with Michael Young's emphasis that we must respect free speech, I strongly feel that his whole slant on this issue is wrong. He strongly makes the point that "we are being tested by outsiders" implying that "we" (UCSB students and faculty) are normal and the "outsiders" are intolerant and extremists. He makes that clear in his sentence "Time and time again, UCSB students have demonstrated that they understand their role in defining the character and quality of this campus community—revealing their unwillingness to lower themselves to the tactics of those whose agenda comes wrapped in intolerance and extremism". It must be said that just because one has a different opinion about an issue does not make them wrong, and tolerance also requires listening to the opinions and beliefs of others.

67dog68 (anonymous profile)
March 22, 2014 at 7:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I must say I agree with 67dog68. Mr. Young came across rather odd to me. Yes, he championed free speech but he also interjected a bias that surprised me. His focus was on "outsiders" and their hate, intolerance and less than noble aims but what happened a few days ago was a UCSB teacher exhibiting hate, intolerance and less than noble aims, something that was not addressed in his letter. The letter only focused on "outsiders". Those that preach tolerance but don't practice it are the ones we should be focusing on and not "the outsiders".

ArtI (anonymous profile)
March 22, 2014 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

One last thing, what was this?
Our Founding Fathers—all white men of privilege, some even slave owners—got it right when designing the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Why include the all white men and slave owners? Why was that relevant ?
Strange to say the least.

ArtI (anonymous profile)
March 22, 2014 at 8:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)


" tolerance also requires listening to the opinions and beliefs of others."

no. tolerance literally requires nothing more than ignoring people while you walk by them, but doing nothing else.

eg: no active response. tolerance includes everything from plugging your ears and humming while you walk past, to sitting and listening to everything that they say and joining up.

tolerance means you tolerate something. that's it. it caries no stronger legal or cultural definition.

if you think so you are measurably wrong, and you should reacquaint yourself with the dictionary.

it should be pointed out that picket lines skirt the boundary of freedom of speech/expression and harassment.

if you block my entry into a building after I have asked you to allow me to get in for longer than about 5 seconds, its harassment. plain and simple.

monglobonglo (anonymous profile)
March 22, 2014 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Michael Young is confused, and worse misses the point,

"evangelical types" ??? What is this supposed to mean ? Imagine the large numbers of students on campus that identify with some sort of Christian belief. Are they lumped into this stereotypical slander as well?? How are they being made to feel by this type of message? How can he claim to speak for ALL groups on campus.

I also agree with the several others here in that he includes discussion of things that are not even relevant, and indeed takes a stance of "them and us", alltogether missing the point that some of the very intolerance that he refers to comes NOT from outside, but rather from INSIDE UCSB.

yendopostal (anonymous profile)
March 22, 2014 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I seem to recall rather vocal protests by UCSB students in the past against certain people being allowed to speak on campus. Not all of UCSB is as tolerant as they should be, so Mr. Young's comments should be applied inside as well as towards "outsiders".

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
March 22, 2014 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with his advice to students and faculty, but not necessarily with his views on what constitutes hate and intolerance. Occupy Wall St. protests were certainly an exercise in hate, yet the chancellery kept their mouths shut on that one.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 22, 2014 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How on earth was OWS an exercise in hate? I think you got that confused with the Bachman campaign.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 22, 2014 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Evangelical types" in common usage denotes religeous fanaticism.
As for SAH and the professor, they pretty much deserve each other but at least it gave lotsa people an opportunity to vent their anti-intellectualism (or brain envy.)

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

Brain envy? Anti intellectualism? Evangelical types? Nonsense! That's the silliest thing I've heard in a long time. Ken, these blanket statements make you appear anything but intelligent.

ArtI (anonymous profile)
March 22, 2014 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

a framework of civility is critical, but also a willingness to engage without going berserk. When Young writes "you have the option not to engage at all... If you do not want to be confronted by certain materials or expressions, you should avoid the free-speech areas ".
I am assuming the Prof. knew in advance that she might encounter these extreme images from the anti-abortion fanatics, and thus she had the intellectual option simply to avoid that portion of the free speech area, and thus save herself and UC this embarrassment.
Young's comment is studiously political, and I would've liked more criticism of the Professor's action which contravene what he says the open university stands for. Further, why isn't Chancellor Yang out in front on the issue?

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 22, 2014 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What a wonderful opportunity for SAH to illustrate Christs' teachings of forgiveness and compassion. Can they be that big?

The Prof is already going to suffer professional consequences with or without a criminal trial.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 22, 2014 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hatred of the rich, Ken. That's the main philosophy behind OWS. I'm not saying the rich deserve sympathy, but hate is hate. Just because it's directed against a group that's not oppressed or a minority doesn't make it any less so.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 22, 2014 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I believe that Mr. Young's point that many of the framers of the Constitution were slave owners is very relevant to his message. Slave ownership is and has always been inherently morally disordered regardless of historical or cultural context. It is morally disordered because the relationship, which includes one party being held in service against his or her will, cannot possibly pass the Rawls' test, that asks whether or not you would support slavery if you did not know whether or not you would be slave or slave owner. Mr. Young's point was that despite the fact that the 1st Amendment may have been crafted by morally disordered men, they nevertheless "got it right" and crafted something important in support of human justice. The reason this is relevant to Mr. Young's message is that he is making the point that everyone, regardless of the morality of his or her ideas, has the right to express them. That is an important point. In order to protect all speech we must protect speech with which we may not only disagree but that speech which we may find repugnant as well. Finally, in response to Dr. Dan, Mr. Young's message was issued, in his role as Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs, to the students not to faculty. It is not his job to criticize professors, that is the Chancellor's job.

Eckermann (anonymous profile)
March 22, 2014 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I accept your point about the letter to students, Eckermann, but my question stands, why isn't the UCSB top administrator out in front on this issue? The misdemeanor nature has been established, now Yang can speak. What about those of us who heartily support the University, and wish to hear a clarification by its leader.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 22, 2014 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm not a fly on the wall of Yang's office, but I would bet that his human resources people are telling him to be careful about public statements about a personnel matter until the professor has had her day in court. I agree that Yang should reinforce the existence of the "free speech zone" and UCSB's commitment to open and civil discourse. But he should be careful about getting into specific public recriminations until the legal process has played out.

Eckermann (anonymous profile)
March 22, 2014 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Certainly it is extreme to post large barf-inducing images right next to a lunch spot, the Arbor. One look and I almost lost my lunch. Actually, now, I wish I had barfed all over the young lady who approached me as I walked by. She was aggressive, but that did not bother me.

Disgusting, barf-inducing images in public do bother me.

I simply don't think free speech includes the right to cause people to barf in public. Right next to a lunch spot. That goes for barf-inducing images of *any* political leaning, whether of butchered fetuses or dead babies skewered by the bayonets of US soldiers.

UCSB should move its `free speech' spot 1000 feet away from any place that sells food or any vending machine, and require protesters with barf-inducing images to issue multiple warnings prior to their barf-inducing stuff.

But the protestors still showed a lack of respect for passers-by. I'm glad Miler-Young took the poster and destroyed it, but no doubt she broke the law and has to accept the consequences.

snugspout (anonymous profile)
March 22, 2014 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm not into labels. I'm Pro-choice unfortunately as I'm a Christian. I'm also a lifelong Democrat who recently changed parties out of protest and frustration at what the DemoRats have done to this country. I've worked construction all my life and watched these Liberal scum "Fundamentally Change" this country for the worse. Particularly our schools.

Read the following. I gurantee these books will become your "Bibles" when it comes to what the Liberals have done to our schools and children. Like Islam, they are a disease.

Indoctrination U: The Left's War Against Academic Freedom and The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America by David Horowitz
Ivory Towers On Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America by Martin Kramer
The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men by Christina Hoff Sommers (Go to Amazon and read the Preface to this and the Introduction to “Taken Into Custody” by Stephen Baskerville; Your days of believing you live in a free country will disappear forever when you finish this book.)

Plunder: How Public Employee Unions Are Raiding Treasuries, Controlling Our Lives and Bankrupting the Nation by Steven Greenhut
One Nation Under Arrest: How Crazy Laws, Rogue Prosecutors and Activist Judges Threaten You Liberty by Reosenzweig & Walsh

Two videos to watch:

PLEASE watch the Pioneer video “Disturb” at Noise Off-org. Scroll down to the stupid looking guy on the screen shot above “Pioneer Disturb” near the bottom of the page. And remember; this is a PROMOTIONAL video!

Purple Heart's Final Beat - A Soldier Suicide Story

What the heck, here are a few extras:

The Cairo Speech by Anne Bayefsky (Ass Kicking)

Daylight: The Story of Obama and Israel (Israel Video Network)

Whose sarin? By Seymour M. Hersh

LarrySingleton (anonymous profile)
March 22, 2014 at 6 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gee Larry, scum! That's not very Christian of you insult people so harshly. I consider myself a liberal and I would be offended if I thought that you had put any thought whatsoever into your invective. I have lived in countries that do not enjoy freedom and rights and I can attest that this country is not one of them. I feel free to live as I please and say whatever comes into my tiny little mind. I was free to choose the work I wanted to do and to accumulate wealth and retire. My children received excellent educations in our public school system all the way through university and are gainfully employed in their own careers. I am not always happy with the policies of our government but things seem to get corrected over time, so I am patient. I pay a lot of taxes, which is annoying, but a pretty good value for the cost for the most part. I understand that public policy is not static, it is a dynamic art that must adapt to many changing circumstances. I am glad that we live in a world of Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare, publicly funded education, and all the other social programs designed and implemented by liberals. Without those public policy programs we would all live in a meaner and more impoverished world. Relax Larry, enjoy life, its the only one you get.

Eckermann (anonymous profile)
March 22, 2014 at 7:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Relax Larry, enjoy life, its the only one you get.

Eckermann (anonymous profile)
March 22, 2014 at 7:52 p.m

According to this, you only live TWICE. (At 1:44 in the video)

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
March 22, 2014 at 9:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For the most, we should applaud Mr. Young's (and his mother's) understanding of the First Amendment. That said, It is unfortunate that he felt it necessary to mention his attendance at t Queer Weddings to, I guess, placate those in the UCSB community who would question his "PC purity." Just to be clear, I have long espoused true equality under law for the Gay Community to include marriage and all the rights afforded heterosexuals in our country. But that is not the issue here. The underlying central issue is the fact that UCSB made a disastrous decision it when it hired this tragically ignorant and violent professor. She clearly should have no place in a university or academic setting. Her comments to police, if accurate, display her shockingly narcissistic and childishly self-entitled personality. First rule of management: Never hire a problem. The problem is guaranteed to get worse .

Wahrheit (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2014 at 1:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

true that, WAHRheit, and she's embarrassing UC including alums like me. How did she merit Associate Prof. status? I don't mind porn studies or her subject areas, but her woeful ignorance of the First Amendment as shown in her police interview [it is here on the Independent, the police phone interview with her] was quite alarming. Her comments were actually in direct contravention of faculty behavior guidelines UC publishes elsewhere for their faculty. Free Speech is right in there, of course. This Assoc. Professor doesn't get what will Chancellor Yang do internally?? Let's hear your voice, Henry, it's about time.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2014 at 7:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Is Yang out in front on anything?

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2014 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Instead of Porn she should teach Narcissism 101.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2014 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Many of the current crop of commenters here at the Indy could use a lesson in civility as well. Alas, the veil of anonymity is their Achilles heel."

Oh spare us. In feminist-subjugated towns, like this one, wherein one's every other word is likely to 'trigger' social trashing, you have no business babbling on about civility. This right after a professor representing the world's largest and most officially coddled hate movement went totally ape and was not even caged by the top administrative monkeys at the school.

Sealion (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2014 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How embarassing for Young to be lecturing students while the one who needs the lecture is a faculty member who is clueless about the First Amendment.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2014 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I do hope that VC Young keeps closing ranks in his private totalitarian 'community' (aka OUR democratic public college). His hilarious victim-mongering will simply guarantee another lovely incident of 'triggered' moral outrage among his FACULTY and/or his students. He can't buy better publicity for spreading the word about how lost he (and his institution) is.

Sealion (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2014 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)


In the eyes of the law none of your vomit emotions are relevant – none,
So give it a rest and FYI assault can be no more than a touch. Maybe you should study more of the law especially the 4th Amendment which has been almost mooted by the digital abuse of your Government.

Also do not ever visit a loved one after open-heart surgery, you will vomit; same goes for hospice of a dying loved one. Human Beings are biomechanical and bodily fluids are part of the deal, get over it.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2014 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In the eyes of good taste and civility, barf-inducing posters are reprehensible.

Al Capone only went to jail on income tax violations, but he was a murderer. The law is imperfect.

Saying that Miller-Young did was `assault' is mere legal exaggeration by cowards.

When I've visited hospitals to see my loved ones ***I CHOOSE THE TIME, MY STATE OF MIND, AND THE STATE OF MY STOMACH***. When a barf-indicng poster is placed next to my regular lunch spot **WITH NO WARNING** I get to choose none of those.

Has conservatism declined in this country down to the squalor of insisting on the posting of disgusting giant posters of blood and entrails without warning in public spaces? That is a gross embarrassment. What would Goodie Knight think?

Hey howgreenwasmyvalley, why not post your home address so you can be subject to huge disgusting posters in your visual fields? I'll tell you why you don't, because you too find it revolting. You'd tear them down too. Good for you.

And good for Miller-Young, who cleared the Arbor Plaza of disgusting barf-inducing imagery. She made the world a whole lot better.

snugspout (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2014 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The type of image showed next to the Arbor (lunch spot) Plaza at UCSB, with no warning…. (don't click unless you are mentally and physically prepared)

Sorry, if showing that next to take-out restaurants with no warning is not, in my opinion, within the limits of free speech. Not a single news outlet that I've seen that is publicizing the Miller-Young case is actually showing the images we are talking about… they are too graphic for publication anywhere.

As I said, Miller-Young broke the law. She must do the time for her crime. But I applaud her, she made the plaza more civilized.

snugspout (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2014 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The problem behavior came from an associate professor, not from a student. Perhaps Vice Chancellor Young needs to write a similar screed to professors giving suggestions for how to behave in such incidents. It seems to me that Prof. Miller-Young is in need of such education.

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2014 at 8:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

First, Arti, to "One last thing, what was this?" >>Our Founding Fathers—all white men of privilege, some even slave owners—got it right when designing the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Why include the all white men and slave owners? Why was that relevant ?
Strange to say the least.<<

This is because he knows that many of today's thinkers question a lot of the colonial/revolution project and so he felt he needed to co-sign at least this part of American history.

I know and like Dr. Young, and yet here he comes across as a bit lost, fabricating an us v. them scenario that just isn't real.

ahem (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2014 at 12:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The purpose of graphic posters depicting the carnage of abortion is to break through the barriers that people have erected to protect themselves from the ugly truth.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2014 at 1:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Young most likely mentioned the slave holding of some of the Founders because it points out that you don't have to be perfect to do the right thing. You don't have to agree with the protestors to let them protest. Plenty of conservative groups have David Horowitz, Ann Coulter, Karen Hughes, etc on the UCSB campus. Henry Yang is a close friend of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, which no-one at UCSB complains about.

Whatever the purpose, the posters were placed right next to a lunch spot where the protestors should never have posted such barf-inducing images.

The main thing the protestors accomplished disgusting people who might otherwise have supported them. The protestors showed they didn't give a darn about making regular people barf, who were carrying or eating their lunch. People like that should never be listened to no matter what they say.

snugspout (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2014 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

so dewdly, you have the right and supreme (divinely-inspired) revelatory knowledge that makes it OK for you to decide "to break through the barriers" people have erected? Who elected you king?

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2014 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What an insight into the mindset of the UCSB administration. I am a leftist and pro birth control, abortion rights and other 'feminist' politics but this elitist and condescending foppery is pretty embarrassing. Dr. Young wrote this to UCSB staff to burnish his credentials with them. It caters to what he thinks are their prejudices and world views. But he needs to remember that the people who pay him are the residents to the state with a much broader view. They rightfully expect their employees to treat their views with respect and their right to be heard with the same.

RHS (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2014 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well said, Chancellor Young. Thanks for stating University policy and suggesting practical and legal ways to respond appropriately to speech that one may find offensive. The way I see it, identifying certain groups as evangelicals or outsiders is not meant to be all-inclusive, but relevant to recent events. I find it interesting that folks writing comments somehow have the ability to peer into Dr. Young's mind and be so sure of his motivations. University officials are allowed to express their personal views alongside statements of official policy. That's called leadership.

JohnDouglas (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2014 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany, OWS was not about hating the rich you idiot, it was about removing the money from politics... no wonder you're so confused. You cannot even separate reality from the hogwash that the MSM 24/7 newstainment pushed down your throat. Which would also explain your confusion as to the root of this issue.

Sam_Tababa (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2014 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now Sam, Botany's comments regarding hate and OWS say a little more about Botany's hate than it does about OWS. The bias is clear w/o names and uncomfortable stuffing of body holes. Let the plant out itself through the cracks.

spacey (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2014 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Spacey, so very true and quite astute... The man is biased and blinded by his own limited experience and narrow information sources. I'll let his misgivings speak for themselves as they do more to undermine his intentions than I ever could...

Sam_Tababa (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2014 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)


There was no complaint that the images were not aborted fetuses; in other words, the images presented the truth of abortion. The truth stands on its own feet - it doesn't need "supreme" or "divine" approval and it always wins in a battle with fantasy, pretense, and deliberate denial.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2014 at 1:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

so dewdly it's your divine or kingly assessment that these images present "the truth of abortion" -- what amazing baloney. The disgusting image are of a grisly surgery, maybe I can send you some "truthful" images of rectal surgery. Who gives a sht.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2014 at 2:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I know of a case of a baby born after 4 and a half months of pregnancy that not only survived, but was normal.

Take it from there.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2014 at 2:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sam and Spacey again need history lessons. Removing money from politics was only a small part of OWS's agenda. Google OWS to review what their agenda really was before you start spewing this revisionist history tripe.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2014 at 6:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I did check Wickipedia [it refers to great sources] on OWS and I have to go with Botany here. While, like the Tea Party [which it amusingly resembles in some ways], OWS has/had no official and formal policy outlet; OWS was about much more than just "removing money from politics"! It was about "social and economic inequality, greed, corruption and the [perceived] undue influence of corporations on government—particularly from the financial services sector. The OWS slogan, 'We are the 99%', refers to income inequality and wealth distribution in the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population."
As a self-described landlord, Botany is righteously afraid of income redistribution and reducing IN-equalities in our nation... I say at least get the GINI coefficient back to 1970 levels! Thus, Botany exudes hate, like spacey notes. Look, Botany: the big change is coming, and let's have OWS-II to hasten that good day, a return the America of the 1970s. Not a turn to hating the rich, but rather taxing the wealthy at an appropriate rate and redistributing it fairly to the bottom 20%. Over 20% of American children live below the poverty level. I know, it's scary for you, but you will do OK.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2014 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I just want to clarify that many OWS protesters realized that income inequality is due to income redistribution from the poor and middle class to the very wealthiest 1% who own and run top companies in the financial sector such as banks and Goldman Sachs.

Some OWS protesters even realized that the solution may not be MORE income redistribution by the same government who is an accomplice in carrying out these financial crimes currently, but by ending the wealth redistribution to the rich by exposing the Federal Reserve and how it is owned and controlled by the top companies in the financial sector.

Learn how that happens here:

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2014 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)


Pictures of mutilated, dead babies are not the equivalent of pictures of any other kind of "surgery". It would, perhaps, be less "disgusting" to look at pictures of newborns who had been suffocated but that neat and tidy sort of killing can't be done before the baby is born.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2014 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I feel sorry for you, dewdly, that you obsess on these images, that your mind dwells on this, and that you cannot accept a woman's right to make choices about her own body. At the same time, of course abortion is awful and there should be, and are, programs to encourage young women (and men!) to consider everything before embarking on the adventure of sex.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2014 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe they should have used pictures of dead fetuses being incinerated and used to heat hospitals like they do in the UK.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2014 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)


The pictures in question are not pictures of the woman's "own body" but of someone else's.

As a woman you predictably exhibit the contradictory notions that abortion isn't about killing an unborn baby, but at the same time you consider it "awful". Abortion is simply a choice about one's own body, but the woman, for some reason, "agonizes" over the choice. Abortion is simply a surgical procedure, but it is outrageous to show pictures of the resulting mutilated and dead babies.

You have been persuaded not only to deny the life of the fetus, but to deny your own female instinct that puts the welfare of one's baby ahead of everything else. That "choice" is automatic and no woman agonizes over it.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2014 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

got my gender wrong, dewdly, just like everything else in your moralistic screed!

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2014 at 5:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes Dr Dan, you have more objectivity than many others. Kudos for that. OWS sought to pit the 99% against the 1%. Of course if I sought to pit white against black, straight against gay or women against men, people would call me a purveyor of hate. But since the rich are a demonized group, hate directed against them is considered acceptable. I'm not afraid of income distribution as I am concerned about it's effects on our economy, and yes, my economic situation too. I work very hard for what I make. Many others don't. Should my labor be used to give them a free ride? I'm sure you think so.

But then again, I brought OWS as an example of freedom of speech. These people had a right to express their views just as these religious nuts do. (but not the right to block traffic among other things they did to inconvenience the public) Labeling some people as a hate group to limit their freedom of speech is just a cop out. The one thing you and I can agree on is that both these groups have the right to express their views.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2014 at 5:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)


Oh, I don't think so. Men don't get exercised over abortion, nor do they characterize other men as being "afraid" of "self-assured", "together" women.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2014 at 7:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

my, dewdly, I had no idea your line to your God meant you could divine the gender of posters on the Indy. Wonderful! As a man, I've fairly often observed other men being worried or afraid of powerful and together women. Read some more N.T., dude.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 27, 2014 at 1:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Come now, DrDanette, You not only divine the gender and religious belief of anonymous posters but you interpret any criticism of feminism as fear.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
March 27, 2014 at 2:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

dewdly, YOU began these silly gender attributions with your "As a woman..." comment directed "@DrDan" on Mar. 26, 4:19pm -- the only interesting point is to confirm that your fallacious reading of the New Testament resembles your equal inability to scroll up a bit and acknowledge your own comment. Ridiculous, like your views on abortion.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 27, 2014 at 2:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have no problem with true feminism, I just don't like mainstream feminism, just as I don't like mainstream religion.

Since we're talking about religion, and clearly you two (Dan and Dewdly) are well-versed, I will invoke the term often used in a theological context: "Apostasy".

True feminism is about women being free to do with their lives as they please, without having to answer to a patriarchy. As such, women can choose to be stay-at-home moms, business tycoons, or both. It isn't about us-vs.-them, it's simply about freedom.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 27, 2014 at 3 a.m. (Suggest removal)


You have assumed all along that I am a frightened male with religious beliefs, and you have done that because you have created a stereotype that allows you to dismiss arguments against abortion without addressing them.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
March 27, 2014 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany when you say that OWS was simply against income inequality and then you insinuate that the rich deserve the money they have, I think already you missed the spirit and the core of what most of them were talking about.

You know me, I'm against ANY income redistribution, I think people deserve to keep what they EARN. The problem, as many OWS protesters understood, is not that "all" rich people are bad, it is that there is a certain subsection of extremely wealthy people who control the banking and political establishment.

See this photo:

Read this article:

Now obviously I don't speak for all of OWS and many of the OWS protesters were simply engaging in a rich vs. poor mentality, but I was there and I will tell you that a lot of them "get it". You're not quite there yet.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 27, 2014 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)


If "true feminism" is just the freedom to live life as one chooses then why make it gender-specific? Feminism = Masculinism = Freedom. Mainstream feminism is objectionable because it is superfluous and involves and unnecessary conflict.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
March 27, 2014 at 7:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"If 'true feminism' is just the freedom to live life as one chooses then why make it gender-specific?"

Because by its very nature feminism is gender-specific. At the time of its inception, women did not have the same legal rights as men, and there was little if anything a woman could do who was being sexually harrassed in the workplace. Racism and sexism still exist, but the gender-divisive and the racially divisive politics we see in Feminist Studies/Ethnic Studies departments do not serve to overcome these evils, but to further them.

When a person is blinded by a sense of enttilement, or sees the money that can be made by jumping on the Gravy Train of these departments, it's easy to understand why they are alive and well.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 27, 2014 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As an aside--and DrDan will appreciate this--The Warheit will set you free.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 27, 2014 at 8:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Im ganna address the very first comment. I agree that its disgusting that people are so uncivil and hide behind their anonymity. These people are stupid jerks. Im getting sick of reading there stupid comments and they dont even have the guts to sign with there own names.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
March 27, 2014 at 8:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It looks as though dolphinpod has been smoking krill oil.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 28, 2014 at 6:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow. This is a bizarre letter.

I have a 'minor' in Feminist Studies from UCSB, and my politics, while non-dogmatic, lean to the left. When I first read about the professor's behavior, I cringed. She was clearly in the wrong. I am an emotional person, and have very strong beliefs, but I hope I'd have more self-control in that situation.

Mr. Young's statement is meandering, perplexing, and even startling. I understand, as one commenter posted, that he'd want to tread carefully while the saga plays out. But at times, his comments are so generic that I'm not sure what he is referencing; and his 'message' is inconsistent. He tells students to tolerate others, yet he denigrates 'outsiders' whose motives and intentions aren't pure. That is bothersome.

This letter adds to the disgrace that has fallen on UCSB. As a proud feminist and graduate of the university, I am disappointed by how the faculty and administrators have handled this issue. It's an embarrassment.

Finally, I'd like to add how frustrating it is to read comment after comment that attack posters so harshly. It's as if the confrontation between the protestor and the professor has been recreated in the story's comment section.

Terra (anonymous profile)
April 1, 2014 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Young's letter tries to please too many constituencies and manages to to meander into nothingness. Agree with you Terra: the big guy, Chancellor Yang, is too busy OR FRIGHTENED to get into this, although he is raising plenty of $ for his telescope in Hawaii. Perhaps you could pay attention to this matter of great interest to UCSB students,Henry. Perhaps you could do your job.

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
April 1, 2014 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: