Official UCSB email to students about the wacky feminist professor

desert dude

Well-Known Member
So, an African American UCSB professor of feminist studies assaults a white 16 year old girl, denies her basic right to free speech, and destroys her property and the UCSB vice chancellor takes this as an opportunity to lecture students about "white privilege". Think about that. Suppose a white, arch conservative professor (I know, there aren't any of those but play along), maybe Ann Coulter, assaulted a 16 year old black girl who was marching in support of abortion rights and destroyed her property. Do you think the university would have said something along the lines of "bitch got what she deserved..."?

The left is so utterly bankrupt of morals, and common sense that they don't even know when to just say something simple like, "Things got out of control. We (she) fucked up and this does not represent the thinking of UCSB. We apologize, and it won't happen again. The professor has been sent to mandatory sensitivity training to educate her in how to interact in a color blind, multicultural environment."


Here is the full letter from Vice Chancellor Michael Young, e-mailed to students on March 19 and 21:
March 21, 2014
To: Campus Community
Fr: Michael D. Young Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs
Re: Students and Free Speech at UCSB
Below you will find an email communication that I sent out earlier this week to all UCSB students expressing my views on free speech. Sincerely, Michael D. Young Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs
March 19, 2014
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: http://www.sa.ucsb.edu/Regulations/campus_activities.aspx <http://www.sa.ucsb.edu/Regulations/campus_activities.aspx> .

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.
Sincerely, Michael D. Young Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs

 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
funny, the founders were white men of privilege, many of whom raped and beat their black slaves, who they considered to be mere property.

or, as desert dude would say, "simple, better times".
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
funny, the founders were white men of privilege, many of whom raped and beat their black slaves, who they considered to be mere property.

or, as desert dude would say, "simple, better times".
Since you put it like that I see how mistaken I am. It is clearly justified and reasonable for a black woman of privilege to assault a 16 year old, white girl and a black man of privilege to condone it, and what better opportunity can there be for the UCSB vice chancellor to point out to UCSB students the racist origins of free speech than this incident of bullying?


Here is the vice chancellor waxing eloquent on some important topic:

 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
we get it, you don't like black people and condone public pornography.
I get it. As long as the black woman of privilege has her feelings hurt it's cool to vandalize, rob and batter a child, and since it is a shrieking feminist it's all legit. LOL, Buck you are a carricature, and a determined propagandist.

Part of the arresting officer's statement:
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. &#8220;I work here, why do they get to intervene in that?&#8221;


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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/20/uc-santa-barbara-professor-steals-young-anti-abortion-protesters-sign-apparently-assaults-protesters-says-she-set-a-good-example-for-her-students/
 

killemsoftly

Well-Known Member
'gotcha'. the sooner americans stop playing this charlie sheen game of 'winning' the sooner they will actually solve a problem. the rest of the world is very alarmed at your infantile social insanity and will move to another currency soon (it doesn't matter how well your economy generates wealth if you are viewed as unstable). "...the ash-heap of history" awaits you. you decide not us.
 

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
I really offended my black female American American studies professor once.

she was in favor of slave reparations. I said that was a wonderful idea. That it is about time the descendants be compensated.

She congratulated me for my open mind.

I thanked her, and said yes, the injustice had gone on for far to long. It was about time those white families were compensated for having all that property confiscated by the federal government.

The class was silent for a good minute.
 

squarepush3r

Well-Known Member
I really offended my black female American American studies professor once.

she was in favor of slave reparations. I said that was a wonderful idea. That it is about time the descendants be compensated.

She congratulated me for my open mind.

I thanked her, and said yes, the injustice had gone on for far to long. It was about time those white families were compensated for having all that property confiscated by the federal government.

The class was silent for a good minute.
When did the federal government confiscate slaves?


Also, to the OP/original post, she seems to be supporting free speech and her statements were factual, what is to take offense about this? She agrees with the white founding fathers about the freedom of speech.
 

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
When did the federal government confiscate slaves?


Also, to the OP/original post, she seems to be supporting free speech and her statements were factual, what is to take offense about this? She agrees with the white founding fathers about the freedom of speech.
Prior to the civil war the United States had chattel slavery, property in other words.

The slaves were freed, thusly denying their owners of their property, and there was no compensation.

Of course I am not serious, I make the point because it is equally absurd as slave reparations.
 

squarepush3r

Well-Known Member
Prior to the civil war the United States had chattel slavery, property in other words.

The slaves were freed, thusly denying their owners of their property, and there was no compensation.

Of course I am not serious, I make the point because it is equally absurd as slave reparations.
You really think its equal to compare having no rights, with losing a bit of property?
Would you consider it equal "inconvenience" to live as a slave, or to lose an iPod?
 

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
You really think its equal to compare having no rights, with losing a bit of property?
Would you consider it equal "inconvenience" to live as a slave, or to lose an iPod?
Just because one wrong is more wrong does not make the other wrong not wrong.

Imagine a farm, it's implements, and slaves being in your family for generations. Then all of a sudden the means by which you maintain and produce your livelihood goes away? No, it is taken from you by force and without compensation. That is a pretty devastating turn of events. It quite literally made paupers out of aristocrats, and middle class small farm owners.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Just because one wrong is more wrong does not make the other wrong not wrong.

Imagine a farm, it's implements, and slaves being in your family for generations. Then all of a sudden the means by which you maintain and produce your livelihood goes away? No, it is taken from you by force and without compensation. That is a pretty devastating turn of events. It quite literally made paupers out of aristocrats, and middle class small farm owners.
those poor, persecuted white hetero christian males.

we all know how tough it is to be a white hetero christian male in america nowadays, you just opened my eyes to the historical struggle of white hetero christian males in this country.
 

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
those poor, persecuted white hetero christian males.

we all know how tough it is to be a white hetero christian male in america nowadays, you just opened my eyes to the historical struggle of white hetero christian males in this country.
It goes back a long way...

The problem is the constituents provides for compensation for the government removing your property from you.

Before you say that the owners were not citizens because of secession, the slave owners in Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and many territories were in the United States.

Like it or not, property was taken without compensation, and that is wrong.
 

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
in this case it was quite right.

unless you are defending the practice of slavery as less evil somehow.
No, slavery was, not evil, but bad. I'm glad it ended.

Some slave owners did evil things, but the possibility, and i think the majority, of slavery as practiced was done without malice. Evil requires malice, and you can practice slavery without that.

Anyway, that is irrelevant, one day a slave was a valuable piece of property, some people write something on a piece of paper, and then it is illegal and you just lost a lot of valuable property as a slave owner, did not get compensated,
That's seriously some of the worst logic I've ever seen
It isn't logic, it is law. Slave owners broke no law prior to 1865.
 

killemsoftly

Well-Known Member
It goes back a long way...

The problem is the constituents provides for compensation for the government removing your property from you.

Before you say that the owners were not citizens because of secession, the slave owners in Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and many territories were in the United States.

Like it or not, property was taken without compensation, and that is wrong.
They got it all back through extortionate lending to share croppers, jim crow laws, etc.
The south refused to change. It was forced on them. America could not afford to have their dirty little secret on tv in the 60's anymore. Europe would have embargoed american goods. The change was necessary and long overdue. Why not move on? Your country will never be what it could be until you resolve the issue of race. This is the beginning of a 'Democratic ascendancy', unless 'whitey' starts having 10 kids you are going to be outnumbered pretty soon. Better to include not exclude, no?
 

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
They got it all back through extortionate lending to share croppers, jim crow laws, etc.
The south refused to change. It was forced on them. America could not afford to have their dirty little secret on tv in the 60's anymore. Europe would have embargoed american goods. The change was necessary and long overdue. Why not move on? Your country will never be what it could be until you resolve the issue of race. This is the beginning of a 'Democratic ascendancy', unless 'whitey' starts having 10 kids you are going to be outnumbered pretty soon. Better to include not exclude, no?
Honestly, if this country gets to the point where it is ran by blacks, we will start our own country.


Again.
 

killemsoftly

Well-Known Member
I would be more concerned about corporate fascism. This race issue seems like a red-herring to me.
Just a thought.
 
Top