even if it sometimes seems that way. Cheers to Northern Kentucky University president Jim Votruba:
A Northern Kentucky University literature professor could be disciplined for her role in the removal of nearly 400 crosses that were erected on campus as part of a school-sanctioned display by a right to life group.Tenured professor Sally Jacobsen, who has been teaching at NKU since 1980, said she found the display offensive and asked students in her British literature class Wednesday night if they wanted to take down the crosses.
During a break in class, Jacobsen said she asked "if any students wanted to participate in practicing their freedom of speech in destroying the very offensive right to life, anti-abortion display in the central plaza."
"Some did," she said.
Votruba said he would prefer Jacobsen and others who found the display offensive erect their own display.
"That's a civilized way to let ideas play off each other," he said....
In an e-mail sent to campus officials earlier this week and obtained by The Kentucky Post, Jacobsen demanded the display be removed immediately. She wrote that the crosses violated the separation of church and state because NKU is a state institution.
Votruba disagreed.
"If people are occasionally offended by points of view on a campus, that's what a university is all about," he said.
Votruba said he welcomes lively debate on such a hot-button issue on campus.
"We're a place where ideas get vetted," he said.
UPDATE: This news story, and accompanying photos, suggest that Jacobsen not only encouraged students to vandalize other students' display, she participated in the vandalism. The student "right to life" group is pressing charges, and I hope they throw the book at those responsible.
I may not agree with the pro-life movement, but this is clearly the wrong response.
[Jacobsen's contact info deleted by editor]
Did I miss some news stories somewhere?
Because I find it seriously had to believe Jim Vetruba's actions are some minority view.
I also think she should be sued for conversion, trespass to chattels, etc.
Perhaps, since she is a state employee, a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. I'm sure it is stretch, but might bear looking into.
Incidentally, stuff like this is why those (note use of "those" not "we") darned Christianists hold conspiracy-like theories on the views of universities and their hostility toward religion. Obviously this professor is flat-out wrong on the law, and is probably(?) not representative of the views of the faculty. Unfortunately it tends to be the loudest who get heard.
I'd also assume the students involved should be disciplined as well - if for lack of judgment in trusting their professor, if nothing else.
1) It's "Votruba" as in the article, not "Vetruba" as in the link.
2) Paul in DC: posting Prof. Jacobsen's personal contact information is in poor taste and no good will come of it. Do you really think that the "army of Davids" will cause Jacobsen to change her mind, renounce her misguided actions, and embrace the political views of the anonymous Volokh readers who contact her? It's far more likely she'll be pestered and harassed and use this as a post-hoc justification for more pestering and harassing. Sure, she started it, but two wrongs don't make a right.
I would hope someone would take the invitation to harrass the perpetrator down, and let the authorities handle the matter.
I assume North Texas which allowed something similar is run by a non-weenie.
The article states:It appears that Jacobsen may have objected to the crosses even if they "simply represented a desire to show one's faith in Jesus." Why, because Jacobsen herself wrote that relgious expression on University property somehow violated the separation of church and state.
I might find such an inference less than credible but for the fact the we are talking about someone who believes that destroying another's property is an excercise in free speech. In other words, about someone who does not have a firm grasp on even the most fundemental First Amendment principles. She really may believe that permitting religious expression on University property violates the First Amendment.
These actions are owed to a postmodernism, manifest most clearly in the various crit studies fields, that has much in common with fascism. Quite literally to its adherents, might makes right. Farber and Sherry addressed the similarities a few years ago.
It was unproductive and offensive, but allowable. How is that not the defination of free speech? Calling a spade a spade is now not being 100% behind free speech?
If the VC is happy to tolerate your invitation to harass the stupid professor in question, fine. It's not my blog either.
But you would be much more considerate not to do things which might invite legal action (or action in kind) against your hosts, however frivolous that action might prove to be.
I would treat her precisely the same way, but far worse than an "ordinary" vandal who did not attack free speech, even if I strongly agreed with her substantive message -- i.e., if, for example, she destroyed wooden swastikas that a group of neo-Nazi's had planted to show their support for National Socialism. The point is that she did more than merely vandalize property. In addition, she attacked, and attempted to thwart, somebody's right to free speech. She attempted to silence another. That makes her crime far worse than if she had, for example, simply destroyed an equivilent amount of raw wood or, to be more precise, raw wood with precisely the same economic value as the crosses at issue.
Justin, I'm sure, approved of that effort.
Would you say Voltaire saying wasn't a "rousing defense of free speech" as well?
Should Spanier be force to make some measley mouth this is good for X reason blah blah blah, comment and not have called the group to the reality carpet?
There is a distinction between saying "I do not have the right to stop free speech" and "We embrace free speech."
Not getting out of hand. I just think there is a more subtle point to be made here on how many laypeople misuse the "separation of church and state" issue. Stuff like a univeristy professor stating that it is per se improper to use a cross as part of a protest is exactly the type of stuff that gets people believing that the "Supreme Court has completely outlawed God from our schools" and whatnot. The backlash such statements create really annoy people like myself who *do* hold a relatively expansive view of the establishment clause.
here is a new article and photo of the professor caught in the act
a>
In particular, this framed my understanding:
Jacobsen said she felt "horribly violated" by the display, saying any woman going through the process of abortion "should not be slapped in the face by her university by calling her a scarlet woman."
While Jacobsen's logic is as rediculous as her solution, I find nothing in here saying that crosses in political speech are per se not okay - indeed, my guess is a woman, if we take her current rational as evidence of her overall logical skills, would have no problem with a cross being used at an anti-death penalty rally.
I know spelling hawks are tiresome, but you've made the same mistake twice, in different threads, and my inner red pencil is beating me about my inner head and shoulders: ridiculous.
Sorry,
Wince
Here is where you can inform yourself (for starters, at least) about the problem, including university-supported theft of publications that dissent from academic orthodoxies, vandalism, shutting down of bake sales and other forms of protest, etc.:
http://www.thefire.org/
Well, that answered *that* question.
Anyone think that this qualifies as a firing offense? Or is this something that might at most warrant a short period of lay off without pay?
1. As a matter of tactics, I disagree with the decision of the student group to press charges. Jacobsen has already made herself look stupid enough by doing this. A stance of graciousness by the group would be a wiser move.
Of course, I think this all the time. When one politician says something inflammatory and stupid, a politician from the opposing party always feels the need to get in front of the cameras and say "We are outraged by the un-American comments of Congresswoman Goofball, and call for her to apologize etc etc blah blah blah." Instead, if asked by the press to comment, they should just look calmly at the camera and say "You know what? Congresswoman Goofball's comments speak for themselves. I'm perfectly happy leaving the American public and her constituents to judge them, and her, accordingly."
2. As far as repercussions from the university, this actually might be one of the few times I could back a firing or somesuch. I mean, for a professor to have been in the system long enough to not only earn tenure but to be named an interim department director, and yet still not comprehend the difference between expressing ideas and supressing them -- well, that's pretty grievous.
On the other hand, as a practical matter, the policy Thorley Winston quotes above refers to "staff members," which is a term I've never heard applied to faculty. So I doubt that would fly.
- AJ
Good catch, my bad. I rechecked their policy and the rules regarding staff expressly do not apply to members of the faculty. However I was unable to locate any policy specific to members of the faculty for grounds for termination. Do public universities generally have such formal policies for dealing with allegations of misconduct on the part of faculty members and if so, does anyone know how I might located it or where to look since their HR department doesn’t seem to provide it?
Thanks
I disagree with the professors actions too, but I want to know this; where is your contact information so that those annoyed with your actions can do the same?
I can make a case for this not being true.
It's similar to a hate crime. A hate crime is punished more than a regular crime because the effect of the hate crime is to intimidate a group of people. If you get into an argument with your poker buddy and shoot him, that may make the other guys at the poker table feel unsafe, but it probably doesn't scare someone a mile away, and even if it does, it doesn't intimidate him into any particular course of action. If you shoot a black guy because he's black, all black people in the area will get scared, and the effect is to intimidate blacks into being subservient to whites.
Likewise, destroying property to intimidate one's political oppnents seems like it should be more of a crime than just destroying property on a lark.
I am not aguing that this is the best or most appropriate way to protest the display, but passing it off as a simple act of vandalism is too simplistic. If she ripped up the crosses surreptitiously, late at night, that would be different.
What if the College Nazis decided to put up a thousand swastikas to commerate Hitler's birthday and in protest, the local Synagogue got a group of students together to peacefully and non-violently remove them? Would you call that an act of vandalism.
What is more intimidating, a bunch of crosses? Or vandals seizing and destroying entire runs of a student newspaper that they disagree with? Similarly, the destruction of ROTC offices?
She did this because on most campuses she would have gotten away with this scott-free. It probably would have made her a hero, and, ultimately, got her a chairwomanship of a department. Or a post at a better school.
As a political act in the nature of civil disobedience, one might expect the political actors to accept the legal consequences of their act. (This is, as I recall, the core of "civil disobedience." Accepting the legal consequences is intended to bring shame on those who enact or enforce immoral [as defined by the protestors] laws or policies. In the civil rights marches of the '60's, for example, the dignified behavior of the arrestees was a remarkable statement concerning their belief in the morality of their cause.)
I would be impressed if the cross-removers had made their "political "statement by removing the crosses and then sitting down and waiting for the police to come and arrest them for vandalism. But, instead, it appears that they want to assert their "principles" at no cost to themselves.
Why is the time of day relevant?
Also, I think there's a difference between disobeying a law you think is bad, and making your political point by disobeying a completely different law. This professor doesn't believe that laws against vandalism should be changed to allow vandalizing of right-wing expression (or if she does, she doesn't dare say so in public). Otherwise, you could shoot your political enemies and claim that it counts as civil disobedience because you're disobeying the law against murder for your political act.
(This may require that you be willing to accept the punishment, but sometimes that does happen. Consider Zacarias Moussaoui. He clearly wants to be a martyr and is even going against his defense lawyers' wishes by admitting admit to his crimes.)
So, you're saying that you can't do that? ;-) That really complicates political discourse!
The professor destroyed crosses that were not her property and thus was guilty of vandalism.
When Cindy Sheehan had her protests outside the ranch of President Bush, parents of some soldiers who had died removed crosses bearing their childrens name. However those crosses did not belong to them, were they then not just as guilty of vandalism as the professor?