David Horowitz responded to the news concerning SB 1612 two days ago, calling the bill "half right" in that it’s inappropriate for higher education but appropriate for K-12.  If the Arizona Legislature is looking to compromise on this one, this could fit the bill.  I consider myself fortunate not to have been exposed to extreme liberal bias during my high school day, though the misspellings of "resources" and "Calculus" on my school’s website are possible indicators of how the non-honors courses went.

 51   How may justices are there on the U.S. Supreme Court?

(Actual quiz answer I had to grade.  No kidding.)

Via fellow Cactus Alliance member Arizona Watchtower, there’s a new bill in the Arizona Senate which seeks to ban teachers from giving political opinions or endorsements in class.  In separate areas of the bill for K-12 teachers and public college or university instructors, the bill declares that such instructors may not in "working in their official capacity":

1. Endorse, support or oppose any candidate or nominee for local, state or federal public office or any elected or appointed local, state or federal official.
2. Endorse, support or oppose any pending, proposed or enacted local, state or federal legislation, regulation or rule.
3. Endorse, support or oppose any pending or proposed litigation in a local, state or federal court or endorse, support or oppose any judicial action taken by a local, state or federal court.
4. Advocate one side of a social, political or cultural issue that is a matter of partisan controversy.
5. Endorse, support or engage in any activities that hamper or impede the lawful access of military recruiters to campus.
6. Endorse, support or engage in any activities that hamper or impede the actions of local, state or federal law enforcement.

On the free speech side of things, there is this part:

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.

This only looks like an attempt at sobering the public and the court system, not the execution of the law.  The potential of violating freedom of speech in the execution of this law is very real.  As I’ve stated before, the problem is not teachers who happen to state opinions in class; there is a problem when teachers give opinion as truth and expect students to follow suit at the cost of their grades.  This bill goes beyond that while failing to address institutional bias against instructors holding conservative views.

Strangely, the term "official capacity" is not defined in the bill.  One provision that does need passing is one that would prevent instructors from using the title of a leadership position in order to state an official opinion of a public educational institution or one of its parts.  Case in point: Francisco Gonzalez, who speaking in an official capacity as the assistant director of the UA’s Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Office has written countless times (Search: 1|2) on political issues for which he ought to be using the title "UA staff member" so as not to give an official position.

As for speaking in the classroom, while teachers are acting in an "official capacity" while performing their jobs, it is a far cry from speaking as an official representative of the institution’s political opinion.  For failing to engage actual issues of academic and institutional bias in favor of looking good to casual conservatives who don’t read the text of bills, SB 1612 earns my opposition.

Update: The Wildcat has an article out about it this morning, which among many points does contain one good one concerning how graduate courses typically do focus upon a single perspective. In that situation, it seems to me that the problem arises when there are no classes focusing on opposing ones.

Update II:And speaking of bias, was it really necessary to note that David Horowitz happens to be a Fox News analyst? It sounds to me that the author and editor have some sort of beef against Fox News (surprise!) even though Horowitz isn’t actually speaking for them. One can notice on the front page of the printed edition and within the online article that Horowitz has a quote-box dedicated to him with the title “Fox News analyst.” They could have mentioned he’s the founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center (formerly known as the Center for the Study of Popular Culture) and FrontPageMag.com, but the journalists apparently see some reason to go at one perceived-to-be-questionable association rather than Horowitz’s primary activities. Expect a letter to the editor from yours truly.

Update III: Letter to the editor is in. Expect to see it Monday.

David Horowitz has come on the attack against the University of Arizona, and some are fighting back. I received the news of all this tonight when I got this email.

———- Forwarded message ———-

From: Jeff Larson <jlarson[at]u.arizona.edu>

Date: Feb 1, 2007 2:51 PM

Subject: David Horowitz’s attack on UA students and professors

To: Erin Hertzog <asuapres[at]email.arizona.edu>, David Reece < asuaevp[at]email.arizona.edu>, Jami Reinsch
<asuaavp[at]email.arizona.edu>

Cc: “Lauren E. Conway” <leconway[at]email.arizona.edu >, “Jessica A. Anderson”
<Jande687[at]email.arizona.edu>, “Melodie J. Schwartz” <melodies[at]email.arizona.edu >, “Astrid K. Henao”
<astridh[at]email.arizona.edu>, “Shawn T. Ingram” <sti[at]email.arizona.edu>, Jen Dang <
jendang[at]email.arizona.edu>, Samantha Kerr <sjkerr[at]email.arizona.edu>, Brad Burns <
bburns[at]email.arizona.edu>, Bryan Hill <bhill[at]email.arizona.edu>, Steven Gerner
<sgerner[at]email.arizona.edu>, Matt Boepple < mboepple[at]email.arizona.edu>, Becca Rodl
<beccar08[at]email.arizona.edu>, Chris Nagata < cnagata[at]email.arizona.edu>, Mattie Price
<mattiep[at]email.arizona.edu>, Mary Venezia <mary.venezia[at]nau.edu>

Members of the ASUA and ASA,

I want to draw your attention to a recent attack on me and a Sociology course that I teach and ask that the ASUA and ASA take action to support me and other UA instructors who are threatened by this. You may have already heard about this as it has piqued much discussion among professors and instructors on campus and has been reported in last week’s Tucson Weekly (article here). Last night the Graduate Student and Professional Council (GPSC) passed a resolution condemning the attack (see attached) and I am hoping that you will do the same.

David Horowitz is a high profile idealogue and his organization, the David Horowitz Freedom Center, have been waging a McCarthy-like witch hunt to root out leftwing academics. You might be familiar with his popular book listing the 101 “most dangerous” professors in the U.S.; now he has a new book in the works called Indoctrination U. The seven or so UA instructors that Horowitz has named (see his article here ) will, I’m told, be spotlighted in this book. Moreover, the DHFC has been aggressively promoting an “Academic Bill of Rights” that it hopes to turn into legislation that will place politicians in the role of watchdogs and censors and students in the role of informers. One such attempt in the AZ legislature has already been introduced and, thankfully, failed. Clearly, this does not promote a healthy teaching environment and is already affecting teachers in the classroom who may feel intimidated. The Horowistas’ claims, although they point fingers at individuals and our courses, are attacks on academic institutions. “Unfortunately they reflect a problem that is not isolated but systemic,” they write. As such, everyone in academia is potentially threatened by this. DHFC and its affiliate, Students for Academic Freedom, have mounted a controversial, visible, and well financed campaign against academic integrity that I think warrants a strong and unified denunciation.

The public response to these attacks, in my view, should come from the most prestigious and powerful among us - the presidents of universities, the celebrity academics, the Harvards and Stanfords - not just from the individual (and presumably most vulnerable) targets of the attacks. So far, President Shelton and the Board of Regents have offered no official response from this university - nothing, even as I and several distinguished faculty members, as well as the English and Women’s Studies departments, endure broadside political attacks.

How can the ASUA and ASA play a role? I think the associations can and should insist that President Shelton and the AZBoR emphatically and publicly denounce this outrageous attack. It should also take a strong public stance of its own and stand up for the students and graduate instructors that it represents. I’d be happy to talk more with you about this if you have questions, but I think the public record speaks for itself. We can’t let this guy continue to stir up controversy and threaten the integrity of the university while we remain silent. Please consider taking up this issue and pressing our university’s leaders to take a strong public stance against this witch hunt.

Sincerely,
Jeff Larson
Ph.D. Candidate
Department of Sociology

My first reaction is not a surprise that the University of Arizona hosts such courses as Horowitz lists. Rather, it’s that Horowitz would choose the name Indoctrination U when Evan Coyne Maloney has already reserved the title Indoctrinate U for his film about this kind of academic bias. I did inspect his latest book, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America, over the winter break, but the book contains no mention of the University of Arizona.

The email above also contined an attachment with a resolution GPSC just passed yesterday. Quoted in full:

GPSC Resolution Supporting the Free Exchange of Ideas

Whereas higher education should challenge students to think critically, debate and explore ideas they are not familiar with;

Whereas a free exchange of ideas between students and instructors is the key to learning on a college campus;

Whereas restrictions on what content is taught in the classroom, what subjects are open to debate and what ideas we as students can be exposed to would hamper the education students receive at the University of Arizona;

Whereas around the country there have been numerous politically motivated attempts to restrict the free exchange of ideas that is critical to education, often referred to as the so-called “academic bill of rights”;

Whereas proponents of these proposals have not been able to show that any problem exists;

Whereas students need elected officials and administrators to focus on issues such as improving the access to and the affordability of higher education in the State of Arizona;

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Graduate and Professional Student Council of the University of Arizona supports the free exchange of ideas and opposes any future attempt to institute the so-called “academic bill of rights” or any similar proposals;

Be it further resolved that the Graduate and Professional Student Council of the University of Arizona calls upon the Arizona State Legislature and the Arizona Board of Regents to maintain the University of Arizona as an open marketplace of ideas where free expression is exercised and where diverse views are expressed and debate of those ideas is encouraged.

Passed January 31, 2007
In favor: 17
Opposed: 1
Abstentions: 1

Before moving on, I should note that his investigation of English 101 concerns a course that occurred three years ago. All Horowitz mentions here is Sung Ohm’s English 101. Little did Horowitz apparently investigate that the syllabus to which he is linking comes from “Spring Semester 2004″ and only concerns two sections of the course: 121 and 135. This semester’s English 101 class consists of sections numbered from 1 to 23. Last semester it was 1 through 168! Horowitz seems to think this is what all English 101 classes are, but he is mistaken. My English 101 was partially themed around the advertising industry’s rhetoric. Truly, it was a fun and informative class.

Jeff Nelson, the individual who sent the above email, has also made a blog post about all the rage. The post is entirely incoherent, failing to understand the fundamental difference between using class professorship for political recruiting and doing so within a club.

The Academic Bill of Rights looks well-intentioned and well-principled, but I’m unsure as to how well it could be executed. Thankfully, what it looks not to advocate is action like the State legislature bill from last year that would have allowed students to opt out of “offensive” readings. Frankly, if you’ve been in college for four years and you’ve never been intellectually offended, go get your tuition money back; you’ve been wasting your time.

What the GPSC resolution seems to do is to mix up the rhetorical terms concerning the “marketplace of ideas.” Undoubtedly, the above mentioned State legislature bill doesn’t promote the marketplace, but I also fail to see what about Horowitz’s Academic Bill of Rights doesn’t promote it. Thus, I recommend an ASUA resolution condemning any attempt to suppress ideas as the State legislature tried it, and promoting the governmental passage of an Academic Bill of Rights similar to that which Horowitz has proposed.

Check that out…another question to ask the candidates!

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!).

Immediately following university President Robert Shelton’s declaration of support for becoming an "Hispanic-Serving Institution," the Wildcat looks alone in its support.  Yesterday and today, letter writers blasted the plan.

Okay, so one of those letters was mine.  And the supporters probably aren’t the vocal type, either.  Let’s see what this does.

Update: Later on, one guy did post in the comments of today’s mailbag.  Perhaps he’s a good example of Tucson High Magnet School’s lack of effectiveness in civic education.  After all, we are talking about a school where teachers openly encourage students to skip school in favor of pro-illegal immigration rallies and guest speakers tell students about how "Republicans hate Latinos."

Update II: Moreover, another teacher at Tucson High opposed a 9/11 memorial there.  One particular Republican henceforth called the school a "sweatshop of liberalism." (ht: Flopping Aces)

Forget the updates, I just decided to clean the entire thing up!

Looks like I’m going to transition from The Arizona Podcat to just doing the podcasts right here. It’s much easier for the user; I just have a bunch of setup to do.

Original show notes are as follows:

Yeah, unfortunately, I can’t support the cost of doing this website without a little advertising, so here it goes. Hope it doesn’t destroy my blogging career.

Okay, it’s fake just like everything else on this website. In addition, I’d like to introduce "Ratman", who in this episode plays his exact opposite.

Garrett — conservative student, narration
"Ratman" — liberal student

Music is "Stop Yield Go Merge" from Derek K. Miller’s Penmachine.

How to listen

Play episode | RSS 2.0 Feed (podcasts) | Subscribe with iTunes or other podcatcher

Guess what?  It’s election time again, and Iraq the Vote is at it again.  Of all the things I could possibly gripe about in the Wildcat’s article about the ASUA budget, Rock the Vote has to be the absolute worst.

Rock the Vote:

• Thinks a military draft is still in the works. (WTF?)
  
• Wants more government interference in health care.
• Capitalizes the racial terms "white" and "black".
• And more…

Regardless of whether one might agree with these positions, ASUA just took a major external political stand.  I was hoping that the higher number of conservatives would have changed things like this for the better, but I’m apparently wrong.

As if the University of Wisconsin didn’t have enough on its hands defending its continued employment of 9/11 conspiracist Kevin Barrett, the Alliance Defense Fund is now scrutinizing them for requiring religious clubs to include a non-discrimination statement in their constitutions. As quoted in the ADF letter, the non-discrimination statement for UW-Superior reads:

no person will be restricted because of age, race, creed, color, gender, sexual orientation, disabilities, national origin, ancestry, marital status, arrest record, or conviction record

Similarly, officials at UW-Madison de-recognized two organizations because of noncompliance with "an expansive nondiscrimination statement, that…prevents religous organizations from discriminating on the basis of religion.

The University of Arizona in comparison has a similar required non-discrimination statement, but I don’t see any religious organizations, including InterVarsity, raising any furor. InterVarsity chapters in recent history have had this happen twice to my knowledge: this case and another case at the University of North Carolina.

Furor came from the other side earlier when the Arizona Daily Wildcat reported that Priority College Ministry, an arm of First Southern Baptist Church, had received money from ASUA to put on its annual/semiannual "Overflow" event.  InterVarsity also received money early last year to put on "HipHop Night," but nothing came out of the Wildcat then.

The whole issue doesn’t just bring up issues of bias against sexual orientation or religion, it challenges the very concept of club recognition. The College Republicans have the right to discriminate against people wearing "I’m a Smart [donkey]" T-shirts.  Refuse and Resist has the right to ban "Christian Zionists."   Resulting intervention violates freedom of association and freedom of thought.  UW, UNC, and UA are best advised to leave its’ clubs with freedom of viewpoint intact and protected.

Disclosure (added at 5:27 p.m.): I am a former member of both First Southern Baptist Church and InterVarsity Christian Fellowship.

Update (6:23 p.m.): I got part of this wrong.  According to that aforementioned club handbook, "Religious organizations may be exempt from mandates against discrimination based on sexual orientation." [emphasis mine]  The language doesn’t give me complete comfort, but it’s good to know in case it does come up in the future.  Anti-kudos to my fact checking.