Any story concerning a UA/ASU battle is usually newsworthy in the eyes of both bodies of students. Nonetheless, I think we can figure out which side the Arizona Republic is on.

The headline reads: UA gifts eclipsed by donations to ASU. UA basketball fans might find that surprising considering the typical number of wealthy, elderly fans in the stands at every game. Let’s give the author credit; he/she (no name) tried to make a case…

The University of Arizona’s endowments grew 18 percent for fiscal 2006.

However, Arizona State University’s gain eclipsed that of UA: up 42 percent.

But the Republic completely ignored the actual dollar figures… [emphasis added]

UA ended fiscal 2006 with $466 million in endowments, according to the Washington, D.C.-based National Association of College and University Business Officers. ASU had $394 million. Northern Arizona University’s endowment rose to $57 million.

The solution to this media bias problem is simple. Everybody stop donating to UA so that we have $0 in endowments. The administration will in turn be financially forced to fire all the liberal professors, name the Social Sciences building after Richard Mellon Scaife, and watch the endowments flow in again.

Okay, so that third sentence was implausible. Still, everybody stop donating. Then start donating as you did before, thereby forcing the Arizona Republic to report that UA endowments went up infinity percent. Media bias problem solved.

Friendly reminder: Please vote for my candidacy in the Political Blogging Scholarship if you haven’t already done so. Thanks very much to those who have.

The East Valley Tribune is reporting that ASU Residential Life has placed 22-year-old political science senior Ryan Visconti on probation. Visconti claims it was because he gave an interview to the Tribune concerning his “sensitivity training” as a resident assistant. ASU Residential Life says it was for missing a training session dealing with homosexuality.

Hat tip to Anonymous Mike at Zonitics, who brings up some good questions to consider.

From my experience here at that other school, I’ve found it interesting that most of this kind of sensitivity stuff happens to underclassmen, and considering that most students here at UA move out of the dorms after the first year, that makes dorms the ideal place. However, there are also classes which underclassmen inevitably must take, including but not limited to introductory writing courses (i.e. English 101/102) and “geneds.”

<RANT ALERT>

A short selection of proven methods of getting me angry with respect to political correctness or lack thereof…

1. Make me take the side with which I disagree in a debate and still let me beat you. Badly. (English 102; ‘gay’ marriage debate)
2. Emulate Noam Chomsky in claiming a good chunk of my maternal family still would have been massacred “had [Pol Pot] been Mother Teresa.” (INDV 103 — “What is Politics?”)
3. Offer me an ‘Asian-American’ scholarship. What? Because my (half) race holds me back? F-you! (APASA)
4. Use student government resources to force a political or moral stance in the name of non-consenting students. (Too many to mention.)

</RANT ALERT>

I will enjoy watching ADF and Mr. Visconti kick rear-end in court.

Remember this?

ASU’s paper reported Monday that one of the professors is going to be arraigned for assault. I don’t have word on what happened to Mitchell’s charges for intimidation and harassment, but I’d imagine they were dropped for being baseless.

I have concluded that University of Arizona President Shelton broke Arizona state law by having publicly spoken to encourage a specific vote on an elections issue.

I never reported this, but readers of the Wildcat may recall that UA President Robert Shelton spoke against 107 during the "UAdiscusses: Inclusion" event at the main student union (on-campus) on October 4th.

I have just been made aware of A.R.S. §15-1633, which includes this:

A. A person acting on behalf of a university or a person who aids another person acting on behalf of a university shall not use university personnel, equipment, materials, buildings or other resources for the purpose of influencing the outcomes of elections. Notwithstanding this section, a university may distribute informational pamphlets on a proposed bond election as provided in section 35-454. Nothing in this section precludes a university from reporting on official actions of the university or the Arizona board of regents.

I’m all for academic freedom, but we also must recognize that President Shelton is the ultimate representative of the university, not an individual college student with an opinion.  Even the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education recognizes that "representatives of the college" can be restricted in their speech.  I posted earlier concerning the ASU Undergraduate Student Government signing against Proposition 107, and whether such a thing might break state law or rules instituted here at the University of Arizona, but I would stop short in saying that student governments represent the university itself.  FIRE’s quote comes in the context of student-athletes, who can be considered representatives of the university.  President Shelton’s position as a representative is even more clear than that.

Former UA President Peter Likins did the same thing, though Dr. Likins’ most recent on-campus event did not include President Shelton.  Perhaps Dr. Shelton realized it would be a mistake within one month of an election.

This could be a matter of statutory interpretation, as the law also states "Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as denying the civil and political liberties of any person as guaranteed by the United States and Arizona Constitutions."  The primary difference here could be that President Shelton spoke at a university-sanctioned event occuring on-campus.  University (read: public) funds were used to take this position.

Let me know if you can find Attorney General Terry Goddard’s required guideline to the Arizona Board of Regents (which should have been sent before 01 January 2006) concerning such political speech.  We need to take a hard look at this issue for this and future elections.

Update: From the Arizona Board of Regents Policy Manual, we have this concerning political activity.

6-905 Political Activity  (PDF)

Employees may participate in political activity outside their employment, but shall not allow their interest in a particular party candidate, or political issue to affect the objectivity of their teaching or the performance of their regular university duties.

Oh, and we never see that, do we?

Via Sonoran Alliance, I read through a list of Prop 107’s opposers, which happened to include the ASU Undergraduate Student Government and the ASU Residence Hall Association.

I haven’t researched ASASU’s guidelines on this kind of stuff, but I did casually go through the ASUA Constitution and Bylaws.  The Constitution makes no mention of outside politics.  The Bylaws contains five mentions of terms containing the spelling "politic," amounting to the following.

(I.A.) No ASUA service, program, project, or committee shall endorse political events, lobby, or in any manner try to influence legislation unless authorized by the Legislative Branch or unless otherwise specified in these Bylaws. This will not affect programming of an educational nature. No ASUA elected representative, acting in an official capacity, shall endorse or shall introduce, unless equally and without exception, any political organizations, candidates, or events unless authorized by the legislative branch and approved by the ASUA President.

and…

(XI.B.5.) ASUA will fund politically oriented or religious recognized student organizations or clubs on the same basis as all other recognized student organizations. No recognized student organization will receive or be denied funding based upon its viewpoint. However, ASUA can only fund for the administration, execution, or maintenance of non-political/non-religious programs, services, or special events that are deemed beneficial to the student body by the ASUA Appropriations Board.

and…

(XII.A.) The ASUA Appropriations Board shall act as a non-political, funding advisory body to the ASUA Senate for all ASUA recognized clubs and organizations. All of its procedures shall assure fair and proper allocation of funds in accordance with the ASUA Constitution and Bylaws. All Appropriation Board decisions shall be subject to approval by the ASUA Senate.

These bylaws only take a simple majority to override, so I’m unconvinced that ASUA within itself has enough safeguard to prevent entering outside politics. Furthermore, I’m unaware of any UA policies, Board of Regents policies, or state laws that might influence this.

It’s already wrong for the Arizona Students’ Association to charge us a (refundable) dollar per semester to lobby for positions that we don’t necessarily support.  It’s wrong and downright hypocritical for ASUA to have a "Pride Alliance" when students with other moral positions on homosexuality don’t get equal standing.  Let’s hope they don’t take this farther.

Note: If you are a student at an Arizona public university and you want your dollar back, hit up asadoyourjob.org.

This is what I have verbatim from Mrs. Mitchell:

Breaking News: About 45 minutes ago [This is 3:55pm yesterday by my calculations –GPO], the police detective Osborne told me that charges have now been filed against me for “intimidation and harrassment.” Apparently, the flyers we put up (see attached) caused the professor to feel intimidated. Also, the police department says it was misrepresentation of them to put the ASU police phone # at the bottom of the flyers.

Additionally, the flyers somehow made it into residence hall postings.

My defense:

• I am extremely sorry for my role in the flyers. I had no idea it would interfere with the police investigation whatsoever.
• I actually thought we were helping the police. Additionally, I didn’t even file the charges until Tuesday because I thought I had to do the footwork to identify the professors first.
• I’ve never been involved in a criminal case before; I don’t know the processes of investigation and what’s not allowed.
• Since I am not a student here, I also did not know the posting policies, and had I known them, I would surely have abided by the rules. I am sorry about that too.
• The “WANTED…for assault” that the professor believes may have implicitly indicated her in the crime was just a theme on the Old Wild West kind of posters. We do live in Arizona, after all. It was a catchy look or theme to the flyer to get students’ attention.
• There was absolutely no vindictive or pre-meditated motive at work here. The flyers were thrown together last-minute in the heat of the moment, and students were passing them out because they felt indignant for their recruiter.
• The one and only motive of the flyer was simple: we wanted to identify the professors.

The sole press coverage of the assault that I’ve found is coming from the Douglas Daily Dispatch, which hasn’t mentioned the counter-charges.

Additionally, “johnny,” claiming the URL of the Student Press Law Center, thinks that Mrs. Mitchell is a racist.

i’m a white guy, emily mitchell sounds racist to me. for most of american history, minorities have been excluded. often brutally. terrorized. now you’ve started this group. sounds like a). a great way for emily mitchell to draw attention to her pathetic self and b). racists, ignorant about the past, finding ridiculous excuses to exclude non-whites and stir up racism. so minorities arent excluded from this club? why the hell would they want to join a club committed to their exclusion?
what an embarrassment for ASU.

As I said before, I dismiss the general notion of “hate crime” on constitutional grounds, and I don’t even agree with the CAMASU’s premise. There’s at least two things to learn here (with more to come):

• Just because you don’t agree with someone doesn’t justify assault! Unfortunately, the attitude within academia these days seems to be in favor of heckling or assaulting anybody with whom one does not agree right out of the marketplace of ideas. Just take a look at how Columbia University dealt with Minutemen Project co-founder Jim Gilchrist.
• The liberal response to CAMASU, if they are not hypocritical, should be exactly the same as their response to other “minority” groups on campus. As I said in a letter to the Wildcat earlier this year:
  

  […]

  University policy on multiple levels is bent on painting us students with a large brush into segregated factions whose members are apparently unable to develop social and professional relationships with members of any other faction. “Student affairs” offices split students into their own little racial hangouts. The greek system’s answer to diversity problems is to separate minorities into their own little fraternities and sororities apart from the others. The campus at large is no longer made up of over 35,000 individual students with unique thoughts, abilities and experiences; it is rather a collection of arbitrary demographic numbers based, if I may paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., upon the color of our skin rather than the content of our character.

  So long as the university continues to encourage segregation between ethnicities, we will have made progress neither through the term of our new university president nor since the days of the forced segregation against which good and decent Americans of all ethnicities fought mere decades ago.

Related posts:

• Breaking: Charges filed against Mitchell
• ASU “hate crime” followup
• Breaking: Conservative field rep assaulted, harrassed by ASU professors

Charges have been filed against Leadership Institute field representative Emily Mitchell for "intimidation and harrassment." In addition, the police department’s objection to the flyers was the misrepresentation presented at the bottom of the flyers asking people to call the ASU police. More to come later; I’m in a study session right now.

Interested Participant opines that what two ASU professors did to Leadership Institute field representative Emily Mitchell was not a hate crime, despite the subjectivity of the term.

Personally, I dismiss the notion of “hate crime”; such definitions are a violation of 14th Amendment equal protection. Heck, I don’t even agree with the premise of the club. What is clear is that the assault was not justified. Unclear is whether ASU is either going to handle this incident according to its own policies or establish a double-standard because of the color of Emily’s skin or the content of her politics.

Remember, we are talking about the same university that ordered a large American flag in a cafeteria be taken down post-9/11 for fear of offending foreign students. Interested Participant speculates that the ASU Police are “running interference.” I’m inclined to agree and hope we’re both wrong.

Update III: Followed up.

Emily Mitchell, a field representative for Leadership Institute, reports via email that two Arizona State University professors assaulted, injured, and harassed her yesterday over her support of Caucasian-American Men of ASU, an officially-recognized campus group.  Unfortunately for the assailants, she has video.

Mitchell’s hate crime report to the campus LBGTQ group, which is completely on her side on grounds of free speech, is as follows:

At ASU on Friday, September 29, I was verbally and physically assaulted by two professors who refused to reveal their names or departments.  Both told me my club, Caucasian American Men of ASU, “is a racist agenda.”  In truth, the club is about ENDING all forms of racial exclusion on campus by asking for equality.  When I prompted them to read my flyer to learn that we are trying to end racism and sexism, they both refused.  I was called “racist” by one professor “definitely racist,” by the other.  At this point, I pulled out the camera to get them saying this on tape, because I was sure no one would believe me without evidence.  Since my video camera is just a feature of a snapshot-style camera, they may not have realized they were being video taped.

I asked if I could record their viewpoint for educational purposes, and that our group encouraged open debate.  They said “OK,” but as soon as I began, one professor said I didn’t have her permission to take her picture.  She argued with me and then tried to steal my camera, wrangling me for it.  At this point, she managed to hit the big button that stops recording, but of course there is video of her snatching for it.  When she couldn’t pry it out of my hands, she deliberately took her thumb and tried to push the auto-extending lens back into the body of the camera, crunching the device that extends the lens.

I refuse to let go of my personal property, holding on tightly. She continues to crunch her thumb into my camera, and I’m now sure this is deliberate.  In the physical struggle to keep or damage my camera, she digs her hands in so hard her short fingernails scratch my hand until I bleed between my index and middle fingers.  I somehow manage to physically pry her fingers out of my skin and off my camera.

Shaking now, I was determined to get her and the other professor saying what they said to me on video.  I held the camera up while the assailant said, “You can’t take my picture because it’s illegal.  I work with indigenous peoples all the time, and they would never do that.”  After several other tidbits, two I remember verbatim as, “You have a racist agenda,” and “You have problems to work out.”  I realized the camera wasn’t running and I pressed the button harder this time.  Because she damaged the button, when I pressed it, it didn’t immediately begin recording (I now have to press it harder).  At this point, I try to get them to repeat their hate crime speech, and they don’t deny it.  They also refuse to reveal their identities.  The only information they would give me is that they are in “College of Fine Arts.”  I have the videos.

Epilogue:  I spent the rest of the afternoon with CAMASU students trying to make CAMASU a university-recognized group.  At almost 5:00, I went to the College of Fine Arts hoping a secretary could identify the faculty members for me.  A secretary was still there, Sherri Thompson (phone number removed –GPO), and, shaking like a leaf, I explained my situation.  I showed her the videos, and she was so appalled, she called cell phones to get the cell phone numbers of the people needed to immediately file an incident report.  I was advised to go to student health to clean up the wound and put some ice on it.  I have not heard back about the incident report, nor do I know what the consequences or procedures are for that, nor do I know if it’s different from reporting a hate crime.  But I figured I can use all the help I can get finding these women who hurt me so badly, physically and psychologically.

As Sherri was busily orchestrating the report, the Dean of the College of Fine Arts, Dean Kim, walked past us and into his office.  The secretary rushed after him to his office to explain the incident.  I followed.  Sheepishly entering his office, I showed him my injury and the videos.  He was apologetic and appalled, saying he was embarrassed and that it should be taken care of.  However, he didn’t recognize the faculty either.  He also explained that there are many, many faculty members in the College of Fine Arts.

So now I want to press charges, but I have no idea how.  And since I didn’t immediately call the police, and because by the time I would have, they had already vanished, I feel like now I have to get identification myself of these women.  But in order to do that, I will have to visit every department in the College of Fine Arts and ask the secretaries if they recognize the professors.

Should I just go department to department looking for their identification?  How do I find these people who hurt my feelings?  The whole point of our group is to END racism and sexism on campus.  Being called a racist is one of the most damaging insults I could have received, because racism is the very cause I’m trying to obliterate.

I REALLY NEED HELP!  Please help me find the women who accused me of a label without first even listening to me or reading my flyer.

12 News in Phoenix picked up on it and has this video about CAMASU, but not the violent incident.  Google News as of posting only makes mention of CAMASU, but not the incident, despite LI having put out a press release.

Emily has also been working very hard to promote change on the University of Arizona campus; I consider her a close associate.  At minimum, the professor who injured her ought to be fired on the spot.  The second surely doesn’t know anything about First Amendment freedom of the press: you have no right to privacy in your own conduct in a public area.  At least they weren’t political science professors.

Oddly enough, FIRE’s speech code rating of ASU is better than UA: a yellow as opposed to red.  Let’s see if they prove themselves worthy of yellow.

Update: Another press release. CAMASU students are now posting “Wanted” flyers for the two professors, but they are meeting resistance from the police, who contend that the flyers may “interfere in the investigation.” I’m not sure why the police have a problem; vandals are tearing down the flyers anyway.

TEMPE, AZ — Students at Arizona State University (ASU) posted “Wanted” flyers on campus yesterday in an attempt to identify two female professors who harassed and injured a female student recruiter at the Tempe campus.

But other members of the university community were not as willing to help find the two women.

“Within three hours someone had started taking down the flyers,” said Emily Mitchell, the Leadership Institute recruiter who was assaulted.

Members of the new, independent, student group, the Caucasian American Men of ASU (CAMASU), posted and handed out the flyers on Tuesday afternoon. The flyers pictured the two unknown professors who confronted Emily.

This morning ASU Police told Emily that they received “some complaints” about the flyers and requested that additional ones not be posted. And according to Laura Gill, an ASU police officer, the posters could “interfere with the investigation.”

Emily, a field representative for the Leadership Institute’s Campus Leadership Program, has filed a police report but is unable to press charges until she can identify her assailants.”

Emily also went to the College of Fine Arts, where the professors claimed to teach, and spoke with Dean Kwang-Wu Kim. Dean Kim said he did not recognize the pictures of the two faculty members, but was appalled at their behavior.

The initial confrontation occurred on Friday, September 29 while Emily recruited for the CAMASU group. The professors claimed Emily had “a racist agenda” and called her “a sexist.” One professor became aggressive, attempted to steal Emily’s camera, and scratched her, drawing blood.

Emily plans to press charges as soon as the assailant is identified.

To see images of the flyers click here: http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/press/

Update II: On the flip side of things, another Leadership Institute recruiter is being threatened with arrest for…uh…recruiting (without permission!).

These students apparently didn’t read the Wildcat on Tuesday:

A female student was referred to the Dean of Students Office for violating the code of conduct after using a men’s restroom in the Arizona Stadium, 540 N. Vine Ave., Sept. 23, reports stated.

Police were responding to a report of a fight at the south end of the stadium. When they arrived there was no evidence of a fight, but they noticed several females in line for the men’s restroom.

The females in line were told to leave immediately. An unidentified man notified police that there were two women in the restroom also.

Police waited outside for the women to exit the restroom.

A female UA student and a female Arizona State University student were approached by police and asked why they used the men’s restroom. The UA student said it was an emergency and the line for the women’s restroom was too long.

Police warned the women for criminal trespassing.

You know gals, you could have just claimed to be transsexual and you would have been fine. 

The University of Arizona strives to create and sustain a campus environment that supports and values all members of our community, including visitors.  One aspect of creating a comfortable environment is providing safe, accessible, and convenient restroom facilities.  Many people may experience difficulty and inconvenience when required to use gender-specific restrooms.  Parents with children of a different gender are not able to accompany them into a gender-specific restroom and the same holds true for others with attendants/caregivers of a different gender.  Additionally, transgender individuals may be subject to harassment or violence when using male- or female-specific restrooms.  Consequently, this statement has been developed to declare the University’s commitment to creating an inclusive and supportive campus environment.

 

In keeping with the University’s policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of gender identity, the University allows individuals to use the restroom that corresponds to their gender identity.  In addition, to address restroom facility access issues not related to gender identity such as parents and attendants/caregivers as described above, the University is committed to designating and maintaining a gender-neutral restroom in as many of its buildings as reasonably feasible.  In some instances a designated gender-neutral restroom may contain multiple stalls.  Additionally, the University is committed to include at least one gender-neutral restroom in new buildings constructed on campus to the extent feasible.

Peter Likins	Date  6/26/06
President

Uh huh.  Perhaps the Wildcat could have considered the possibility of an upstanding woman beating the crap out of a man dressing like a woman just to see them shower.  Not that certain naked men don’t spectate the men’s showers already.  The next thing you know, the "gender-neutral" restrooms won’t be as big and they’ll insist on same-sized rooms.

There is good news, though, and it has nothing to do with my car insurance.  We’re ranked higher than ASU in sexual health, so let’s hope we make it to the playoffs.  Our depth chart indicates that we need to improve our condom availability game, since they’re only available at multiple locations on campus for a very cheap price.  Care to guess who ranked last overall?  It wasn’t ASU.

Update: The survey results.