pageok
pageok
pageok
Not All University Presidents are Craven Weenies

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.

Justin (mail):
Good stuff. I also think vandelism is a crime - has anyone noted calling the cops?

I may not agree with the pro-life movement, but this is clearly the wrong response.
4.14.2006 12:16pm
Paul in DC:
Dr. Sally Jacobsen

[Jacobsen's contact info deleted by editor]
4.14.2006 12:29pm
Charles Chapman (mail) (www):
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."
This is a person who does not have a clue.
4.14.2006 12:39pm
llamasex (mail) (www):
Which University President let a display get destroyed or I guess I should ask which University Presidents let displays get destroyed?

Did I miss some news stories somewhere?

Because I find it seriously had to believe Jim Vetruba's actions are some minority view.
4.14.2006 12:39pm
Charles Chapman (mail) (www):
Justin said:
I also think vandelism is a crime
I agree.

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.
4.14.2006 12:42pm
El Capitan (mail):
" She wrote that the crosses violated the separation of church and state because NKU is a state institution."

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.
4.14.2006 12:47pm
Justin (mail):
Well, treating her worse than any other vandal simply because you disagree with *her* message would be have a chilling effect as well. I assume her being discipled (probably fired for her egregious show of poor judgment) and paying a fine would be the adequate judgment. As far as lawsuits against her, I'm not sure whether the damages here are going to be that significant - to the degree that they're real, of course she should pay back the pro-life group for the cost of her destruction.

I'd also assume the students involved should be disciplined as well - if for lack of judgment in trusting their professor, if nothing else.
4.14.2006 12:49pm
Abdul (mail):
Two things:
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.
4.14.2006 12:49pm
Justin (mail):
El Capitan - let's not get out of hand here. This woman's actions were clearly based on political animus, not religious animus. If those crosses simply represented a desire to show one's faith in Jesus, they would never have been vandalized.
4.14.2006 12:50pm
Justin (mail):
Paul in DC: Do you really think that was neccesary? Or appropriate?

I would hope someone would take the invitation to harrass the perpetrator down, and let the authorities handle the matter.
4.14.2006 12:51pm
Paul in DC:
Abdul: I disagree that it is in poor taste, and I believe you defame the readership of the Conspiracy by suggesting that "no good will come" of giving this community of wise and gentle friends of liberty ready access to the information. I believe much good can come from assisting the Conspirators and their readers in contacting the Professor, and would be interested to hear from any who succeed in reaching her.
4.14.2006 12:54pm
llamasex (mail) (www):
Hey, look some more of this NOT ALL college president's exist... It's almost like they are a majority or something.
'Catch immigrant' game raises an outcry at PSU
The College Republicans at Penn State University wanted to enter the debate about the nation's borders by playing a "Catch an Illegal Immigrant Game."

People would be invited to "catch" group members wearing orange shirts symbolizing illegal aliens.

Amid the student outcry that ensued, they softened their plan to an illegal immigration awareness day in which leafleting and speech-making would let both sides air their views on immigration policies.

But that hasn't entirely erased the bad feeling over the campus event, now planned for Wednesday.

Yesterday, about 150 students and some faculty opposed to the idea rallied in the student union building. And the university itself joined the fray, urging the College Republicans to "re-think their approach as a step toward fostering civility on campus."

Penn State President Graham Spanier labeled the original idea "unproductive and offensive."

On any college campus, one person's crusade against intolerance is another person's bow to political correctness. Even as groups such as the Black Caucus and Latino Caucus registered passionate objections, others said they viewed the Republicans' plan -- the game included -- as a reasonable way to highlight concern about the nation's porous borders.

"You have to be creative to get students to listen to you," sophomore Chuck Knight wrote in a letter to the editor published recently in the student newspaper, The Daily Collegian. "For that matter, you have to be creative anytime you are trying to raise concern about something."

An official with the College Republicans seemed at a loss yesterday to understand the continuing outrage as he stood within earshot of speakers who decried his group as discriminatory and insensitive.

"They're against something that no longer exists," said Seth Bender, 20, chairman of the group and a sophomore from Lebanon. "I think they're just misinformed."

He said the controversy helped publicize the event. But he also said even some within his organization were uneasy with the original idea.

....

"The Constitution allows College Republicans and other student groups to hold expressive events, even ones that may be deemed offensive by some," said Penn State spokesman Tysen Kendig.

Still, he said, there is lingering ill will that the event would be staged in any form. Some who registered complaints with the administration said they saw uncomfortable likenesses to the original game, down to participants designated to discuss illegal immigration wearing orange shirts.

Similar events staged by conservative students on other campuses, including the University of North Texas, have stirred emotions. And that was true at Penn State yesterday as protesters like alumnus Michael Benitez called the event unfit for his alma mater:

"If we're supposed to be a place that promotes diversity and social intelligence, why is this happening?"


I assume North Texas which allowed something similar is run by a non-weenie.
4.14.2006 12:56pm
Charles Chapman (mail) (www):
If those crosses simply represented a desire to show one's faith in Jesus, they would never have been vandalized.
I'm not so sure. I'm not saying that I'm convinced you are wrong. But I'm far from convinced you are correct.

The article states:
[Jacobsen] wrote that the crosses violated the separation of church and state because NKU is a state institution.
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.
4.14.2006 12:59pm
Justin (mail):
In DB's defense, as a former Wolverine I can attest that Penn State, regardless of how its run, consists entirely of weenies. :)
4.14.2006 1:00pm
llamasex (mail) (www):
Yep, University of North Texas can join up with Ketucky and Penn as non-weenie run

Latino students and organizations from UNT and other area universities, along with several representatives from the League of United Latin American Citizens gathered to discuss "Capture an Illegal Immigrant Day," held Wednesday by UNT's chapter of Young Conservatives of Texas. ....

Dean Ken Ballom said the university does not grant or deny access to the free-speech zones based on content.
4.14.2006 1:01pm
davidbernstein (mail):
Spanier's quoted comment is hardly a rousing defense of free speech.
4.14.2006 1:07pm
Constantin:
Frightening that folks like the NKU professor and the Lil' Che's at Santa Cruz see no problem with resorting to physical means if they think it advances their ends. A UC-SC professor endorsed this explicitly last night on Hannity &Colmes (Colmes agreed, apparently missing the irony that the students were using violence to achieve their ends of eliminating from campus a group--the military--because in their minds that group uses violence to achieve its ends).

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.
4.14.2006 1:08pm
llamasex (mail) (www):
What are you talking about David?

Penn State President Graham Spanier labeled the original idea "unproductive and offensive."


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?
4.14.2006 1:12pm
Steve:
I suppose encouraging a bunch of people to telephone the professor at work is "free speech," much like destroying the crosses was "free speech."
4.14.2006 1:20pm
anonymous coward:
I disagree that the Penn State "catch immigrant" game is unproductive. It is highly productive, at least if one disagrees with the College Republicans.
4.14.2006 1:27pm
Anderson (mail) (www):
Paul in DC: This is not your blog.

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.
4.14.2006 1:28pm
Charles Chapman (mail) (www):
Justin said:
Well, treating her worse than any other vandal simply because you disagree with *her* message would be have a chilling effect as well.
I am not advocating treating her worse because I disagree with her message. [I may or may not agree with her substantive message; the issue is irrelevant.]

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.
4.14.2006 1:31pm
davidbernstein (mail):
All I see is that the president of the university said that the ideas were offensive and unproductive, and sent his spokesperson out to point out that the school had to tolerate the speech because of the First Amendment. That's not a suppression of speech, but it ain't a rousing endorsement of it, like Votruba's.
4.14.2006 1:34pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

Abdul: I disagree that it is in poor taste, and I believe you defame the readership of the Conspiracy by suggesting that "no good will come" of giving this community of wise and gentle friends of liberty ready access to the information. I believe much good can come from assisting the Conspirators and their readers in contacting the Professor, and would be interested to hear from any who succeed in reaching her.
To be honest, putting her contact information is rather like the homosexuals who decided to create a database of contact information for people who signed the initiative to put a "one man, one woman" initiative on the ballot in Massachusetts. Yeah, I'm sure that some people would use that information only for polite and respectful communications--but it encourages nutcases to go crazy.

Justin, I'm sure, approved of that effort.
4.14.2006 1:36pm
llamasex (mail) (www):
David it seems on par with Voltaire's(?) famous quote which I am pretty sure you've quoted "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

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?
4.14.2006 1:39pm
REL (mail):
llamasex,
There is a distinction between saying "I do not have the right to stop free speech" and "We embrace free speech."
4.14.2006 1:45pm
Charles Chapman (mail) (www):
llamasex said:
Voltaire's(?) famous quote which I am pretty sure you've quoted "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The question mark was a good catch. It was not said by Voltaire, but by Evelyn Beatrice Hall. See also Voltaire wrote, ...., Wikipedia on Voltaire
4.14.2006 1:51pm
El Capitan (mail):
Justin,

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.
4.14.2006 1:58pm
The Drill SGT (mail):
A bit more from the UKC Leadership:


"Freedom-of-speech rights end where you infringe on someone else's freedom of speech," Votruba said.

"I don't buy the claim that this is an act of freedom of speech, to destroy property."

He said he was gathering information about the extent of Jacobsen's participation.

"I don't know if she was pulling up the crosses, but I think she was out there with the students. If so, as far as I'm concerned, she went outside the conditions of her employment," Votruba said.



here is a new article and photo of the professor caught in the act

a>
4.14.2006 2:39pm
Justin (mail):
El Capitan, fair enough, though I have a different view of the underlying facts - nothing I read led to the conclusion that Jacobsen felt it "per se improper to use a cross as part of a protest."

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.
4.14.2006 3:00pm
Justin (mail):
Clayton, don't be too sure of everything. Nothing is so refreshing as the constant attribution to me of arguments I do not support on this blog.
4.14.2006 3:02pm
Peter Wimsey:
An interesting feature of this controversy is that the pro-life group is now getting much more coverage than would ever have resulted from the display. Thus, not only does the professor potentially face criminal charges, but she has also done much more to publicize the display than remaining silent would have done.
4.14.2006 3:25pm
Wince and Nod (mail) (www):
Justin,

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
4.14.2006 3:46pm
Federal Dog:
"Because I find it seriously had to believe Jim Vetruba's actions are some minority view."


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/
4.14.2006 3:56pm
Charles Chapman (mail) (www):
Michelle Malkin has a photograph of a person, allegedly Jacobsen, tearing down the "Cemetery of Innocents" sign hereself.
4.14.2006 4:00pm
TO:
Justin, doesn't your judge have any work for you to do?
4.14.2006 4:54pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
It will come as a surprise to approximately nobody that in addition to being an English professor, Prof. Jacobsen is also "Interim Director of Women's Studies" at NKU.
4.14.2006 5:01pm
Anderson (mail) (www):
[Jacobsen's contact info deleted by editor]

Well, that answered *that* question.
4.14.2006 5:15pm
Thorley Winston (mail) (www):
Someone suggested firing the professor for her role in the vandalism of a student display. According the University's HR policy:
A staff member who conducts himself in a manner that reflects unfavorably upon the University, the department, and himself will be subject to immediate discharge, without advance notice and without further pay, for such causes as, but not limited to, the following:
Dishonesty
Drinking or Drunkenness during working hours
Drug abuse
Destructive Negligence
Falsification of records
Insubordination
Imperiling safety of fellow employees
Unauthorized absence from duty
Willful violation of rules
For minor misconduct not warranting discharge, a staff member may be subject to administrative discipline which may include short periods of lay off without pay. The period of lay off will be commensurate with the offense committed.
Misconduct penalties are subject to the prior approval of the division head and the Director of Human Resources.

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?
4.14.2006 6:10pm
Alaska Jack (mail):
Re the question of consequences to be suffered by Prof. Jacobsen:

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
4.14.2006 6:43pm
Thorley Winston (mail) (www):
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.


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
4.14.2006 7:07pm
Owen Hutchins (mail):
Pual in DC-
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?
4.14.2006 9:38pm
TO:
What do you mean? His name's Paul, and he's in DC. What more do you need?
4.14.2006 11:40pm
Ken Arromdee (mail):
Well, treating her worse than any other vandal simply because you disagree with *her* message would be have a chilling effect as well.

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.
4.15.2006 12:15am
Freder Frederson (mail):
Were the crosses removed in public, during the middle of the day? If so, doesn't the act of removing the crosses become a political act in and of itself, and therefore worthy of 1st amendment protection.

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.
4.15.2006 10:22am
Bruce Hayden (mail) (www):
What I think must be remembered is that many universities are just the opposite. They don't prosecute vandals who vandalize as a form of political protest, as long as the political protest is politically correct. Thus, student newspapers that print stuff that is not politically correct have almost their entire run seized by vandals and destroyed, with no consequences to the vandals. Yet, if the vandalism involved tearing down one of those S. African villages so popular during Aparthaid, then the vandals would be arrested, tried, and expelled, the later often summarily, and invariably with little due process.

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.
4.15.2006 11:27am
Bruce Hayden (mail) (www):
I should add that civil disobience requires that one pay the price of one's convictions. That means that if it is a crime to vandalize, and one vandalizes to make a political point, then one should be willing to do the jail time. It is frankly silly to assert that she shouldn't be charged simply because it was political speech. If that were ever accepted, that would be a slippery slope like few others.
4.15.2006 11:30am
Porkchop (mail):
Fred Frederson wrote:

Were the crosses removed in public, during the middle of the day? If so, doesn't the act of removing the crosses become a political act in and of itself, and therefore worthy of 1st amendment protection.

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.

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.
4.15.2006 11:37am
Lawstsoul:
"Fighting words!"
4.15.2006 12:20pm
Federal Dog:
"Were the crosses removed in public, during the middle of the day? If so, doesn't the act of removing the crosses become a political act in and of itself, and therefore worthy of 1st amendment protection."


Why is the time of day relevant?
4.15.2006 3:35pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
If so, doesn't the act of removing the crosses become a political act in and of itself, and therefore worthy of 1st amendment protection.
No. No more than me keying your car because I don't agree with your Volokh posts is a "political act worthy of 1st amendment protection." A crime doesn't cease to be a crime because you have a political motive for it.
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.
In fact, it would not. There's no "sneakiness" component to the crime of vandalism.
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.
Yes, of course.
4.15.2006 5:19pm
Ken Arromdee (mail):
As a political act in the nature of civil disobedience, one might expect the political actors to accept the legal consequences of their act.

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.)
4.15.2006 11:54pm
Ken Arromdee:
Grumble. Can't edit my posts... strike one "admit".
4.15.2006 11:56pm
Porkchop (mail):
Ken Aromdee wrote:


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.

So, you're saying that you can't do that? ;-) That really complicates political discourse!
4.16.2006 9:35am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
I can't see where Horowitz gets his silly ideas about professors.
4.16.2006 11:51pm
Ed:
Not being a lawyer, I was wondering about this comparison.

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?
4.17.2006 1:40pm
eddy:
Sally Jacobsen has been relieved of her duties and will retire. See: http://www.nku.edu/includes/newsArticle.php?ID=2218
4.18.2006 12:18pm