UCSB Professor Charged with Theft and Battery

Mireille Miller-Young Accused of Stealing Anti-Abortion Sign, Pushing and Scratching Campus Demonstrator

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

The District Attorney’s Office has filed formal charges against the UC Santa Barbara professor accused of stealing an anti-abortion protester’s sign then destroying it after a physical confrontation on campus March 4. Mireille Miller-Young is charged with theft, battery, and vandalism, all misdemeanors. Her arraignment is scheduled for April 4.

According to eyewitness accounts and a UCSB police report, Miller-Young had been approached by a group of anti-abortion activists holding large banners with graphic photographs of aborted fetuses. After exchanging “passionate” words with the demonstrators — who are part of a Riverside-based ministry called Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust — Miller-Young reportedly took one of the signs, walked with it across campus, then destroyed it in her office with scissors and help from students. A 16-year-old activist said she was pushed and scratched by Miller-Young when she tried to follow her. The incident, which was first reported by The Santa Barbara Independent, has since been covered by national media outlets.

Dr. Mireille Miller-Young
Click to enlarge photo

Dr. Mireille Miller-Young

In her interview with police, Miller-Young suggested the activists had violated her rights by displaying upsetting imagery at her place of work and that she believed she had a “moral right” to remove the material from sight. Miller-Young told authorities she is pregnant and was “triggered” by the violent photographs. The police report — parts of which were redacted upon release, including the reporting officer’s name — is reproduced in its entirety below:

At about 1500 hours, I spoke to Miller-Young by telephone. I recorded my conversation with Miller-Young on my digital voice recorder.

In essence, Miller-Young told me she felt “triggered” by the images on the posters. Miller-Young stated that she had been walking through the Arbor to get back to South Hall. Miller-Young said she was approached by people who gave her literature about abortion. Miller-Young said that she found this literature and pictures disturbing. Miller-Young said that she found this material offensive because she teaches about women’s “reproductive rights” and is pregnant. She said an argument ensued about the graphic nature of these images. Miller-Young said that she [sic] situation became “passionate” and that other students in the area were “triggered” in a negative way by the imagery. Miller-Young said that she and others began demanding that the images be taken down. Miller-Young said that the demonstrators refused. At which point, Miller-Young said that she “just grabbed it [the sign] from this girl’s hands.” Asked if there had been a struggle, Miller-Young stated, “I’m stronger so I was able to take the poster.”

Miller-Young said that the poster had been taken back to her office. Once in her office, a “safe space” described by Miller-Young, Miller-Young said that they were still upset by the images on the poster and had destroyed it. Miller-Young said that she was “mainly” responsible for the poster’s destruction because she was the only one with scissors.

I asked if Miller-Young had carried the poster into her office or if she had students carried [sic] it. Miller-Young said that she had carried the poster but that there were students with her. Miller-Young went on to say that because the poster was upsetting to her and other students, she felt that the activists did not have the right to be there.

I asked Miller-Young if she knew the students who had been with her (the students I had seen in the video). Miller-Young said that she was under the impression that I had already spoke to one of the students (Ito). Miller-Young refused to provide me with the unidentified student’s name, stating that she was not comfortable with it. Miller-Young said that she was concerned with protecting her students who she believed were “following” her.”

I asked Miller-Young if she felt anything wrong had happened this afternoon. Miller-Young said that she did not know enough about the limits of free speech to answer my question. Miller-Young went on to say that she was not sure what an acceptable and legal response to hate speech would be. Miller-Young said that she was willing to pay for the cost of the sign but would “hate it.”

I explained to Miller-Young that the victims in this case felt that a crime had occurred. I told Miller-Young that I appreciated the fact that she felt traumatized by the imagery but that her response constituted a violation of law. Furthermore, I told Miller-Young that I was worried about the example she had set for her undergraduate students.

Miller-Young said that her students “were wanting her to take” the sign away. Miller-Young argued that she set a good example for her students. Miller-Young likened her behavior to that of a “conscientious objector.” Miller-Young said that she did not feel that what she had done was criminal. However, she acknowledged that the sign did not belong to her.

I asked Miller-Young what crimes she felt the pro-life group had violated. Miller-Young replied that their coming to campus and showing graphic imagery was insensitive to the community. I clarified the difference between University policy and law to Miller-Young and asked her again what law had been violated. Miller-Young said that she believed the pro-life group may have violated University policy. Miller-Young said that her actions today were in defense of her students and her own safety.

Miller-Young said she felt that this issue was not criminal and expressed a desire to find a resolution outside of the legal system. Miller-Young continued and stated that she had the “moral” right to act the way she did.

I asked Miller-Young if she could have behaved differently in this instance. There was a long pause, “I’ve said that I think I did the right thing. But I acknowledge that I probably should not have taken their poster.” Miller-Young also said that she wished the anti-abortion group had taken down the images when they demanded them to. Miller-Young also suggested that the group had violated her rights. I asked Miller-Young what right the group had violated. Miller-Young responded, “My personal right to go to work and not be in harm.” Miller-Young elaborated that one of the reasons she had felt so alarmed by this imagery is because she is about to have the test for Down Syndrome. Miller-Young said, “I work here, why do they get to intervene in that?”

I explained to Miller-Young that vandalism, battery, and robbery had occurred. I also told Miller-Young that individuals involved in this case desired prosecution.

I later booked the torn sign into evidence at UCPD. I also uploaded the audio files of my interviews into digital evidence.

I request that a copy of my report, along with all related supplemental reports, be forwarded to the District Attorney’s Office for review.


Independent Discussion Guidelines

"Miller-Young suggested the activists had violated HER rights by displaying upsetting imagery at HER place of work, and that SHE BELIEVED she had a “moral right” to remove the material from sight."

Moralistic, self-righteous, arrogant, self-centered, sounds pretty much like a right wing nut job.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2014 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No judge in his/her right mind will prosecute this without knowing it will go straight to California Superior Court and beyond.

bythesea (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2014 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)


Miller-Young is a typical liberal. "I'm all for free-speech, as long as you agree with me!"

arebel1 (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2014 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why is a 16-year-old protesting at UCSB during this time? She should be at high school, attending class. If she's home schooled, she'd be far better served sitting in on a UC lecture than wasting her time outside in the sun with these awful signs.

slouchingtowardSB (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2014 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Judges don't prosecute, they preside.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2014 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Miller-Young said that she did not know enough about the limits of free speech to answer my question. Miller-Young went on to say that she was not sure what an acceptable and legal response to hate speech would be."

1. One of her areas of specialization is Reproductive Rights, and yet she is not familiar with the First Amendment?

2. The appropriate legal response to true hate speech and actions is prosecution under the law, which she is rightly facing.

It's very clear who the intolerant "hater" was in this episode.

Non_Apologist (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2014 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I award damages to the plaintiff: one piece of poster board and two glitter pens. Justice served."

srev (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2014 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@serv It is a criminal case, not a civil suit. The civil suit will come later as it should. The perpetrator should be hammered. A person in her position should not steal, commit battery, and vadalize other people property. the perpetrator knew she was stealing the sign,she admits it in the video. She assaulted a minor. Just because she do not like the message, doesn't make it hate speech (typical liberal). Surprise she did not pull the Race Card.

The perpetractor should of just walk away (I am sure she wish she would of now). She wanted to showoff to her little idiot followers. I like how after the cop stated that she may have committed multiple criminals. She stated that she "would like to settle it outside of the legal system". I am sure she would, but too late.

grecohold (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2014 at 5:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The posters of aborted fetuses were just grotesque. I should not have to lose my lunch because I walk through the free speech zone.

I am very open to the argument that abortion is murder. I don't agree with that argument… pro-life people don't strongly advocate naming and burying miscarried fetuses, which to me proves they don't really believe fetuses are human. They mainly hate the human intervention to terminate the fetus, not the termination of the fetus per se. And they make extremely good points that human intervention in this case is wrong.

Showing me pictures of butchered fetuses just alienates me, though.

I laud Miller-Young for getting really disgusting photos out of the public space. Miller-Young should plead guilty and take the rap, do the time because she did the crime. And I'm glad she committed that crime because she took truly awful images out of the public space.

Just because pornography or images of butchered fetuses or butchered Vietnamese, Jews, American Indians, Iraqis, Russians, or butchered cattle *can* be posted in public doesn't mean it is good taste to do so.

Miller-Young made the plaza a much more civilized place. I thank her. But she is criminally guilty. I thank her for taking the rap.

snugspout (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2014 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The horrific pictures of the holocaust that I viewed in JHS, in a Life Magazine book and in latter years in Pasadena are still with me today but I did not Assault anyone, I reflected on why human beings do this. The desciptions of the Spanish Inquisition are equally disgusting and morbid, but again I reflected on why human beings do this to each other in the name of God.

I recently watched the movie Django Unchained and one scene showed a well built African Slave paraded through the street with a hideous iron mask on, it was revolting and made me angry. First I wanted to make sure that Hollywood was not trying to drum up false anger, I took to the internet.

Yes these iron masks and other barbarious contrapions were used on human beings, I did not Assault anyone in my anger.

Intense Graphic images have long been used to get people to think and reflect about human conduct.

Human Beings have a very violent history on this planet.

Civil Rights are not limited by peoples emotional responses to others and their ideas and beliefs no matter what you personally think of them.

Civil Rights are not open to mob rule, if they were Rosa Parks would still be in the back of the bus and George Wallace would have won.

Civil Rights belong to each of us and no matter how much we disagree with other points of view, we must respect their right to have it.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2014 at 7:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One chooses the time and place to pick up a book or see a movie. One can prepare one's mind prior to opening a book on the Holocaust or read a review about the contents of Django unchained.

The disgusting images of butchered fetuses where placed on the `Arbor Plaza', named after the Arbor, the central lunch spot for UCSB.

I had no warning while walking along eating my taco that a huge bloody picture of a fetus would appear before me and make be nearly vomit.

Making people barf is not a Civil Right. Making people barf is just gross and people who do it don't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Rosa Parks.

Assault is an ambulance-chaser's exaggeration. Yes, Miller-Young broke the law and deserves to do the time. But the plaza is far more civilized for her actions.

snugspout (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2014 at 7:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Snugspout, if your spout is so snug, why does vomit manage to get out of it?

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2014 at 8:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And thus began the War of the Spouted Bloggers.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2014 at 9:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Snug when placed in certain locations.

snugspout (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2014 at 10:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Chalk one up for free speech. Like the content or not.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
March 22, 2014 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The pro-choice activists have always relied on revolting, "back alley/coat hanger" imagery to persuade people to believe that legal abortion is simple, safe, and hygienic. In addition, major justifications for abortion are fetal deformity and genetic abnormalities - which not only "trigger" revulsion, but have the power to compel people to kill the fetus.

It's not the images that bother Miller-Young it's opposition to abortion.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
March 22, 2014 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

how amazing, dewdly, that you can see so deeply in Miller-Young's mind and emotions... what a loaded term to use "kill"... were you one of the placard=holders?

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 22, 2014 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is the perfect example of a liberal bully who believes she has the "moral authority" to do as she please because something offends her. Her educational background depicts a person without any morals to speak of in her life long quest to examine and write about the dark side of porn, black porn, black women in porn. Such drivel with no redeeming human value!!!

throwemout (anonymous profile)
March 22, 2014 at 5:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

what a loaded term to use "kill"... were you one of the placard=holders?

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 22, 2014 at 4:54 p.m.

The term "kill" is used in music.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
March 22, 2014 at 5:08 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 6:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ladies: don't you feel full-filled and empowered that you can hire someone to kill the living human inside you up to 24 weeks! How cool!

After all, that's what it means to be a woman - make the choice to sleep with a guy knowing full well you could get pregnant but never really have to worry about it - because you can legally end your pregnancy via suction tubes, chemical dissolution or with scissors after it's been killed.

This last method is *ensured* to never be taken away from you (by radical feminists and other deniers of what's actually happening) so that you can *wait* up to 24 weeks to do this empowering, woman-full-filling act. Congrats! Go Women's power! Yayyy!

[and of course there are no waiting adoptive parents, private charities or government financial support if you carried to term - so those options are totally out - abort away!]

realitycheck88 (anonymous profile)
March 22, 2014 at 7:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As always, other topics make it into these threads, and this one is no exception but that's ok, because while they are ancillary topics, they are nonethless part of the overall issue of political thought.

Larry makes some excellent points, and I will elaborate.

As I've said before, (but since there are new people joining the blogs I must repeat) liberalism in its true form is not what we are seeing in much of academia, or *mainstream civil rights activism and feminism. I will relate my mom (1927-2008) and my dad (1928-2012) to this. The were Old School Chicago Democrats. She was an artist, he was a Jazz drummer. They hung out with dope smokers, beatniks, interracial couples, hipsters, and like their friends, were cutting-edge creative folks who "walked the walk" of fighting for social justice and equality long before it became hip to have black friends or talk about (as it was called back then) "women's lib". Having said this, they were not anti-American, they believed that if you come into this country, you learn the language and don't demand everyone speak to you in your native tongue, they believed in the sanctity of marriage, (my dad was at her side when she died) they didn't tolerate their kids "acting out" in school, or in a restaurant, and they believed in personal responsibility.

The point is, they (and their friends) believed in *equality*, not today's "progressive" mantra of overpaid parasites sitting in the hallowed halls of academia preaching the divisiveness of "multiculturalism", and the emasculating gender politics we see alive in well in "tolerant" Santa Barbara.

The point of true "liberalism" is that you have your beliefs, and you share them, and when somebody challenges those beliefs you A: Come up with a better argument, or B: Have the humility to admit that you learned something and move on. Clearly,much of today's mainstream academic world has hijacked these principles, while making very comfortable saleries for spreading their now-apostasized message. Meanwhile, young men who have no exposure to the true message of Peace And Love think that any message of feminism/gender equality has no merit, just as False Prophets such as Al Sharpton, MEChA, and others, have perverted the civil rights movement, not only dividing people, but hurting the very cause they profess to defend.

Sadly, history will show that unless the fact is pointed out that many of these imposters are not representative of the noble struggle for equality, the justified cries for social justice by legitimate feminists and civil rights advocates will fall on deaf ears.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 22, 2014 at 8:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

fine, fine, BC, but occasionally try some new lines rather than your regurgitated rant vs. those "overpaid parasites sitting in the hallowed halls of academia preaching the divisiveness of 'multiculturalism', " It's a bit more complex. And so you know, the "multiculturalism" you summon up isn't celebrated that way, or espoused that way; the term has been essentially dropped.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2014 at 7:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

THANK YOU billclausen...well said!! the hypocrisy of today's left is difficult to understand....with eye's closed,fingers in their ears shouting no, no , no...they are the epitome of of who they say they are against... I pray their veils fall from their eyes before it is too late for all of us.

ceebee (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2014 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What a bunch of irrelevant drivel. This is about some impolite protestors debasing the public space next to a lunch spot with barf-inducing posters. If you support them then you support giant disgusting posters everywhere, like in front of your house.

In this case, Miller-Young acted like a true conservative, she supported decorum and politeness in the public space. She must do the time but I for one am glad she did the crime.

snugspout (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2014 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And tomorrow the posters will be back. So tell me what purpose was served by her criminal actions?

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

Generalizations of the reactions of liberals or conservatives is extremely lazy thinking. Labels and pigeon-holing are not only bad, but highly unscientific.

There are many liberals who are aghast at what happened. There are thousands of liberals and conservatives who, for the most part, work together every day with shared attitudes that are mainstream, and all contribute a great deal to society.

There are many conservatives and liberals who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, with varying degrees of both. And the great independent faction that can vote either way, share many ideals of the left and the right.

I wish that topics could be debated on the merit, and not used as a means of bashing one side or the other - because that is a fantasy world. I bet most liberals at UCSB do not agree with what occurred, and thus to lump them all together as supporting this behavior is both reprehensible and wrong.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2014 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Nobody credible thinks the Professor behaved properly but that is NOT to let SAH off the hook. Don't forget: they admit they bypassed standard procedure which includes warning signs (not unlike an R or MA rating) that explicit imagery was being exhibitted.
You can't break the rules then cry crocodile tears becuase somebody else also broke the rules.
Both sides behaved badly. They're like fighting children and so many commentators want to make this into a football game.

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

It's good to know that Tabatha would never lump conservatives together on any issue either.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2014 at 10:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This must be an example of the "independent thought, critical reasoning, and creativity" that UCSB claims to value in their mission statement.

wonkieloop (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2014 at 12:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@LarryS, if your other references are as biased as your refs to the Israel Video Network, which has articles supporting expansion of illegal Israeli "settlements" (call them COLONIES) and is totally one-sided [e.g. ], then no one will follow your rants.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2014 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nobody `proper' would post giant barf-inducing images in a public space next to a lunch spot. Freedom of speech never should cover making people sick with revolting images, whatever the political intent.

Only disgusting, tasteless, ill-educated people do such a rotten thing.

All of you who support the demonstrators: why not post your addresses so the protestors can post giant images of sliced up fetuses with their entrails leaking out, ***SO YOU CAN SEE THEM ALL THE TIME OUT YOUR WINDOWS***? I can tell you why you don't: you don't want revolting barf-inducing images in the public space either. Good for you.

Miller-Young certainly did the proper thing that any polite, respective person must support. She did so rudely. She broke the law. She'll pay the price.

But all who believe in civilized, proper, public spaces must support her

snugspout (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2014 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DrDan: Yes, the term has been "mostly dropped" because of the stigma attached to it. When people have such an agenda, they know that being slicker about their intolerance is the way to advance it.

Denying that these people are intolerant and splitting hairs over terms du jour doesn't make their narrow mindedness any less obvious.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2014 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So the same Christian Right that tried to outlaw Hustler magazine is complaining about "free speech" and their right to post graphic images at a school? The hypocrisy goes both ways on this one... I'm sure if someone posted up some hardcore anal porn outside their church they'd be right there supporting their "free speech" rights...

taylorm (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2014 at 7:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The "two wrongs make a right" argument doesn't wash.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2014 at 10:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)


"Kill" is the right word; anything else is euphemistic.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2014 at 2:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sad day for California when its professors are burning books.

Ms. Miller-Young works at a university, one of the few places in society specifically dedicated to the level-headed and civilized exploration of issues, many of them complex. A place where competing viewpoints are tolerated for the precise purpose of helping all involved in the debate arrive at a truer and less insular perspective.

Coming into contact with representatives of a viewpoint that has been prominent in the news for decades, she is curiously scandalized and driven into an emotional and solipsistic frenzy. This professor is traumatized - nay, victimized - simply by ideas that challenge her dogma. She cannot and will not abide them, so she encourages her students to destroy them.

A sad - and very dangerous - day for democracy when professors are stifling free speech.

lambopolis (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2014 at 7:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

From the UCSB Faculty Handbook on Faculty Behavior:
"The rights and responsibilities of University of California faculty are explained in the Academic Personnel Manual, section 015. In summary, faculty rights include rights to free inquiry; to present controversial material relevant to a course of instruction; to enjoy freedom of expression; to participate in the governance of the university; and to peer review in matters of promotion, tenure, and discipline. The section on responsibilities includes: ethical principles regarding students, scholarship, the institution, colleagues; and examples of unacceptable behavior. In general, the ethical principles stress fairness and respect for others and honesty in scholarship. Persons who fail to meet responsibilities may face disciplinary sanctions ranging from censure to dismissal."
Most relevant is the right to "enjoy freedom of expression" which the Prof. most certainly DID, but in doing so violated the free expressions -- however horrific -- of others. She must pay the piper; and these are indeed only misdemeanor charges.
@snugspout, you are contradictory, and Millter-Young did NOT do "the proper thing" -- further, it isn't true that "all who believe in civilized, proper, public spaces must support her." I completely agree with her horror and anger at these barf-inducing images, yes, but as a Prof she had means and methods to try to induce her administration -- Yang where are you?? -- to remove or mitigate them. She went wild instead, and broke the law.

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

Ms. Miller-Young is laughably lacking in insight, which proves that smart people aren't necessarily much better than stupid people when it comes to attending to the rights of others.

Offensiveness is what academe is supposed to be about, and usually is. One's reaction to said offensiveness has a lot to do with one's maturity, or lack thereof.

But it seems that political dogma blindly drives Ms. Miller-Young. She claims that she teaches about women’s “reproductive rights” and is pregnant. She is also about to have the test for Down Syndrome.

What a great set-up! She gets pregnant to validate her female credibility, then she is going to get a Down Syndrome test on the fetus, setting up the perfect storm of an abortion to validate her ultra-liberal credibility. And if the Affordable Care Act pays for everything, ladies and gentlemen, we have a trifecta! Ding, ding, ding!

The sad part is Miller-Young probably will not be convicted of the crimes that she's confessed to committing. But I wonder if the looneyversity will do much about it.

If, on the other hand, a student had committed these act, would the outcome likely be different?

I suspect so.

Rufus2354 (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2014 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have a sneaking suspicion that, when all is said and done, this 'Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust' (which is the anti-woman version of the Westboro Baptist Church) is going to look at lot less like just some poor old victim of a radical professor and a lot more like a group that came to a college campus to instigate a confrontation and ended up baiting a pregnant woman, who just so happened to be a professor, into an unfortunate confrontation.

And the fact that this comments section is littered with one time visitors who are all-so-knowing about the circumstances of the incident is very... convenient.

But hey - when you've been trying to suppress women's rights for 4 decades (longer really) and you keep losing, i guess desperate times call for desperate measures. And by the way, stop calling yourselves 'pro-life' - because no reasonable person is buying that line anymore. You don't care about anyone but yourselves - and slugging out a bunch of gory photos isn't a moral act - it's a reprehensible and dishonest and you're all disgusting, vile people for supporting it.

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2014 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@DrDan, I disagree. Barf-inducing posters right next to a cluster of restaurants and food trucks is *not* within the realm of free speech or free expression. The extremity of the posters is amplified by the fact that neither the Independent nor any other media outlet has published the actual photos… (here is a link, don't click it unless you are prepared and have a strong stomach):

Getting that poster out of the Arbor Mall was most certainly the proper thing.

Miller-Young's method of doing so was most probably illegal and certainly rude. Indeed she should have known how to do it right, by lodging proper complaints. But this was not a story of an out-of-control liberal professor subjecting meek but stalwart protestors to a whomping. It was the story of agents provocateurs putting an absolutely disgusting giant image next to a lunch spot where hundreds of people might well barf due to the image.

Miller-Young's basic logic was sound. Disgusting images like that have no place in the public space next to a lunch spot. There are limits on free expression… people can't decide to butcher a few cattle on the street outside your house, DrDan. One can go on and on with other examples. Making people barf by a restaurant falls squarely over the line.

So for me, I have to agree that Miller-Young did the right thing but in the wrong way. She will pay, just like police who make minor mistakes when arresting a murderer have to pay with the agony of seeing the murderer go free. But like the police, Miller-Young mostly did the right thing.

snugspout (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2014 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If the posters are unpleasant at that specific location, maybe the university's free speech zone should be moved elsewhere? Yes?

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2014 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sure, a `graphic image' zone could be placed anywhere on campus 1000' from any establishment that sells or prepares food, or any place where food is regularly consumed (like picnic tables put out for public use).

You'll quickly find that any spot like that has no foot traffic.

It is not at all clear to me that graphic images are speech in the first place, but that is splitting legal hairs. It took a huge long set of court cases for flag burning to fall under `free speech'. I'm not at all sure I agree with that, simply because a flag has a very special significance during battle, and burning one inflames soldiers who have been through real battles.

In any case, the disgusting images posted in the Arbor Mall were incompatible with the normal activity of that particular place at that particular time. I think that is a normal restriction on `free expression'. But I"m no attorney.

snugspout (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2014 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)


I think you and Miller-Young share the same expectation, but that is only because you are arrogantly self-satisfied and expect that the University is a world unto itself where you may move among those whose opinions you have adopted without the need to examine those opinions.

What you don't realize is that the American university is the most anti-woman place on earth. That is where a woman's role as wife and mother is denied, where the serial sexual relationship replaces love and marriage, and where she learns to deny the humanity of the unborn.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2014 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Enough with the moral fairy tale. Let me know when you meet Jesus face to face instead of the voices inside your head. What's the deal, She blind y'all with Science?

spacey (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2014 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@dewdly: "What you don't realize is that the American university is the most anti-woman place on earth. That is where a woman's role as wife and mother is denied, where the serial sexual relationship replaces love and marriage, and where she learns to deny the humanity of the unborn."

What baloney. Seriously, you actually believe this nonsense?

The University teaches women how to think for themselves and how to stand up to bullies like you. Why can't you just be honest and admit that educated, self-assured women frighten you?

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2014 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

agree ETR, & hey dewdly just admit how terrified you are of confident, assertive, together women... it will be OK.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2014 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What happens when the confident, assertive, together women find out that dedicating their life to Corporate America isn't as fulfilling as they thought it would be and realize they wasted the best years of their life focusing on their career when they could have been attracting a mate and having a family?

I mean, maybe not every woman is cut out for that and it is a good idea for every woman should have some education and career that they can fall back on if they need to. But the shear amount of propaganda out there telling women that being a stay at home mother is unfullfilling and that they need to focus so much energy on their career has caused long term disappointment for many.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2014 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

great, loon, how magnanimous you are writing "it is a good idea for every woman should have some education" ... and how condescending. I don't see this propaganda you note, and 3 of my 4 sisters attained multiple degrees and great positions and ALL THREE have children and are terrific moms.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2014 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry, this is an internet comment section, I'm not publishing my work on here. The ideas are more important than grammatical mistakes due to last minute restructuring of sentences without regard to former structuring.

And my views are nothing like what you described. I have no issue with women doing whatever they want and getting whatever type of education they want. What I do have a problem with is that telling women that their role as a mother is not life fulfilling and that they need to go out and be a corporate whore or a government leech to have a truly fulfilling life. Often they end up disappointed and sometimes alone.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2014 at 5:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

there was no comment re your grammar, loon, it was about your apparent condescension. I'm glad I misunderstood you and that you "have no issue with women doing whatever they want and getting whatever type of education they want. " I happen to agree with you that the mother role is absolutely life fulfilling ... but there are so many fantastic women who work for corporations or the government and are also fine moms. Do you call men who work for corporations "corporate gigolos" or "corporate prostitutes"?

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2014 at 7:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ETR/DrDan: As for women standing up for themselves, try bullying a farm girl living back in the Midwest and see how quickly she's got a shotgun pointed at you.

Of course, some of them are so strong physically, they could probably take you out with an uppercut.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2014 at 7:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Enough with the moral fairy tale. Let me know when you meet Jesus face to face instead of the voices inside your head. What's the deal, She blind y'all with Science?

spacey (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2014 at 1:21 p.m.

According to Thomas Dolby, yes she did.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2014 at 7:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Stop blaming Trigger, Mireille! Roy Rogers rode Trigger, & his wife Dale Evans rode Buttermilk. And she kept him behind Trigger, even though Buttermilk was a faster quarterhorse.

atomic_state (anonymous profile)
March 25, 2014 at 12:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I completely agree with everything atomic_state just said.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
March 25, 2014 at 2:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OK, BC, but of course you know that less that 5% of the US population now live on farms... so how about the other 97.5% of American women?

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 25, 2014 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

God, please forgive Dr. Dan, he's such a sanctimonious kiss ass....and can't help it. Amen.

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
March 25, 2014 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"5% of the US population now live on farms"
How will you keep'em
Down on the farm
After they've seen

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 25, 2014 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

thanks for praying for me, Don, hope you feel better soon.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 25, 2014 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Don jose, black and white tv America is like, over 60 years ago now. Pray your man in the moon shows compassion for your judgment of others.

spacey (anonymous profile)
March 25, 2014 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Miller....Who? What? Weird name..Whats wrong with you people.

rycuff (anonymous profile)
March 25, 2014 at 7:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK, BC, but of course you know that less that 5% of the US population now live on farms... so how about the other 97.5% of American women?

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 25, 2014 at 9:50 a.m.

Thank you for asking me DrDan. This link might provide some insight to why some women are strongly pro-gun.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 25, 2014 at 8:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken: Aren't there co-op farms still in I.V.?

billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 25, 2014 at 9:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm just glad we have this idiot teaching our "best and brightest." Wonder what this woman is getting paid. Typical behavior from our "intellectual" left: censure opposing viewpoints. Not much tolerance there. What crimes did they commit? "their coming to campus and showing graphic imagery was insensitive to the community." Where do they find these people to teach?

BillyCrystal614 (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2014 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Can somebody maybe explain the first amendment to Dianne Feinstein?

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2014 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

HA! look at what Billy Crystal wrote above. They gotta search hard for someone to call a leftist that exhibits behaviour indicative of every blowhard on the wrong. We can say the exact same thing about the wrong and it is true, when Billy Crystal throws it at the left, he has to find the needle in the haystack at a university that the actual 'left' probably believe shares in the blame. I think the person is running out of alias names, they keep posting the same idea here and there. "Typical behaviour..." So what, maybe I'm British.

spacey (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2014 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Finally an article about this incident at UCSB that exactly encapsulates what I think about the situation. How come this unpublished tenured professor (Question: How do you do that?) isn't already suspended? What's going on in the University? This will not be good for University fund raising! Tsk. Tsk.

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2014 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

She has published articles, and Duke U. Press is bringing out her book BROWN SUGAR (her Ph.D. diss.). I don't know how she could have gotten tenure without a real book out there, and the list of articles is fluffy and trendy. Much as I want to support her subject area and respect research in this domain, she is not an impressive example of homo academicus. Maybe she's one of those sanctimonious kiss-asses you rail about, Don? Yes, this will not help UCSB fundraising, and we STILL haven't heard from Chancellor Yang about this, although we know all about his Hawaian telescope project. C'mon, Henry, do your job.
She is also the lowest rated of the 4 profs who teach her subject, and the 15 student comments generally rate her easy, one-sided, and not too inspiring:

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2014 at 5:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All the pre-March 2014 comments are quite positive. After that, probably mostly sock puppets and trolls who never took her class posted.

snugspout (anonymous profile)
March 27, 2014 at 10:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What a complete douche bag that professor is. I can't wait to see her prosecuted. Then what will she be? Just another worthless negro with a criminal record. The apple sure doesn't fall far from the tree.

JohnWW88 (anonymous profile)
March 27, 2014 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey campus Police.

211 PC (robbery) is used when an item is strong armed physically from another person.

484 PC is used when a theft occurs but not taken from the person directly.

(example; one leaves a bike outside a store and another takes it while the victim is not in possession at the immediate moment)

She took the sign physically, directly from the hands of the girls. Why charge her with the lessor, she strong armed the girl ? Don't you usually charge the worse offense so the DA has room to negotiate ?? Furthermore, with injuries to a child, where are the CHILD ENDANGERMENT charges ???

Seems we need an outside agency to step in due to the bias of campus PD as well as the potential Constitutional violations.

Worst of all was UCSB's Chancellor's statements in his "alleged" apology completely insults "Christians" specifically. He didn't generalize and say religion, his comments were directed at specifically at Christians.

Another example of failure of tolerance by those who claim to be tolerant.

Stay classy SB, you just lost a few tourists. My family will never go to your town again. Warmest regards, No Labels (Carlsbad, CA)

nolabels (anonymous profile)
March 28, 2014 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, looks like the anti-abortion protestors violated UC regulations concerning signs that were too big.

Perhaps all Miller-Young was doing was enforcing the regulations.

And then these protestors resisted a campus faculty member who was merely enforcing the regulations. The protestors perhaps were openly disrespectful of both the regulations and a faculty member who was enforcing the rules.

snugspout (anonymous profile)
March 30, 2014 at 9:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What this professor did was wrong. However, I am so sick and tired of the Pharisees using horrendous tactics to oppose abortion. It's funny how these Christians do the exact opposite things Christ would do. How about people post pictures of gay men hugging in public spaces outside their churches. They would surely do the same or worse than this professor did. How perverse can someone be when they believe graphic pictures of dead fetus's are less atrocious then a homosexual couple.

sbanarchy (anonymous profile)
April 8, 2014 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: