As many of you may have noticed already, ASUA presidential candidate Anthony Stuart reports that fifteen people (as of his first reports) have filed complaints against ASUA Senator Steven Gerner for setting up a website containing two frames: one with his candidate endorsement and the other with the official polling website.

Stuart posted a reply through a comment on the previous post as well as mistakenly emailing the entire ASUA listserv when he only wanted to send it to me. After some outcry, I clarified the situation and Stuart subsequently apologized for the mistake. There is a provision of the Elections Code that prohibits campaigning on listservs unless a club which owns a listserv is making an endorsement. Stuart clearly wasn’t intending to campaign on a listserv here; let’s hope the Elections Commission agrees.

In addition to the allegations in the comment and email, Stuart contends that not only is Gerner posting the website after it had been struck down by the Elections Commission, but also that this constitutes an egregious violation of both the Elections Code and his personal integrity. Moreover, the posting of the site endangers the candidates listed to major action from the Elections Commission. I recall that Elections Commissioner David Martinez III did mention during the mandatory candidate meeting following the petition deadline that individual candidates would be held responsible for clubs’ violations of the elections code, e.g. putting more than one candidate’s name on a single flyer. I didn’t talk to Stuart long on the phone (as he has a campaign event tonight), but I think this restriction is what he was talking about. As I’ve mentioned way too many times lately, Gerner is the central figure in the recent “Red” dealings (1 | 2 | 3 | 4) on which only the Growler has been reporting.

Should this particular issue come to the ASUA Supreme Court, it may come to an issue of the definition of “campaign staff” as debated in a case last year. At that time, it was ruled that candidate Rhonda Tubbs could not be punished for a campaign violation that fellow “Orange” ticket candidate Matt Van Horn committed on her behalf. As I understood it, Tubbs could not be disqualified because Van Horn technically wasn’t a member of her campaign staff. (By the way, the violation was for putting “Vote Rhonda Tubbs” on his AOL Instant Messenger profile. This act is no longer a violation under the new elections code.)

It is my belief that the ASUA Supreme Court is quite corrupt, at least after my experience with getting stonewalled either for not being a real journalist or for having criticized their inherent claim to objectivity after Justice Shar Bahrmani wrote a letter to the Wildcat concerning the Cade Bernsen sexual harassment allegations. Bahrmani still sits on the court. That’s right; Rep. Grijalva wasn’t the first guy to ever stonewall me for not being a real journalist in case you were wondering.

Meanwhile, the “Judicial Court” at Texas A&M University recently ruled that their elections rule concerning multiple candidate names was unconstitutional. Should a club make the exact mistake Commissioner Martinez was citing, this could be another constitutional issue for the court to decide.

I’m one to think Steven Gerner is within his constitutional rights regardless of whether Anthony Stuart was correct in calling him a “slimeball” over the phone. Constitutional rights unfortunately do not always entail etiquette, though if I was in his position I would have done what I’m doing now: endorse the candidates and avoid getting them in trouble.

The Elections Commission according to the Elections Code has 24 hours to respond to each of the 15 or more complaints received today. Stuart claims he sent his complaint within one hour of his reading it this morning, so expect something soon. Meanwhile, I’m contacting Gerner for comment and keeping a very watchful eye on everybody.

Coming tomorrow morning is a report concerning the current visit of mall evangelist “Brother” Jed Smock, including my confrontation with him and various candidates mocking him or using his crowd in order to campaign. I’ve actually had a change of heart about the guy, and I’m quite peeved at the candidates who decided to take advantage the way they did. If you haven’t voted yet and you’re considering candidates other than my endorsements, you will want to read this report before casting your ballot.

Full disclosure: I consider Steven a friend and we are registered as friends on Facebook after having taken a class together. I can always pledge to do my best to remain objective in such matters, but disclosure matters as well. Take that as you wish.

Roxana Vasquez | Arizona Daily Wildcat

There’s lots to post on today, but for now the quickest one I can put out is the original text of the letter I sent to the Wildcat, which I thought was much more eloquent and powerful than the Wildcat’s…uh…okay I’ll stop.

Among the most shallow possible responses to recent offensive speech at the University of Arizona, examples among which have been graphic pictures of pregnancy abortions and “gangsta”-themed parties, are calls for university administration to censor such speech. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor traditions of natural rights assert that one has the right to be protected from offensive speech. In fact, both assert that such speech ought to be protected. One who manages not to be exposed to offensive speech during a four-year college career should report immediately to the Administration building to request a tuition refund for not having learned anything.

Thankfully, the administration does not look to be taking any action to censor these examples of protected speech. In the wake of feminists selling candies resembling female anatomy on the mall, one observes that men and women with self-esteem have not been attempting to invoke the censorship of feminists’ current lyrical bastardization of the Australian folk song “Waltzing Matilda” for fear that our brothers and sisters from Down Under may otherwise become offended.

On a campus such as this, one also observes with genuine gratitude that opponents of feminists’ recent speech have chosen not to respond in turn by selling candies resembling male anatomy and hopes this remains so.

Garrett P. O’Hara
political science senior

Ironically, it just had to occur on the day the Wildcat is publishing my letter (or some messed-up version of it) that there are allegations coming out of the ASUA Senate against the ASUA Appropriations Board for cutting more funding than was justified and text-messaging the word “vagina” around. It is already well known that current appropriations board members tend to be more conservative than the senators, but the appropriations board is supposed to be nonpolitical.

In a Federal body this would be easy: stop funding everybody. I’m not advocating we move to that kind of system; ASUA club funding is a fact of life here, and it requires checks and balances in order to ensure fairness in the process. Allegations indicate that the board was liberally-biased in the past, the proper response to which is not to run a conservatively-biased board. I surely hope this isn’t what we’ve concocted, is it?

I’m not quite outraged one way or the other quite yet, but somebody had better explains this to me and the rest of the student body. Is the “Vagina Warrior” (which by the way is an insult to the military) lying about appropriations board members joking about the aforementioned withheld word? Is the appropriations board exhibiting conservative bias against a student organization with rights just like every other club, no matter how disgusting their ideas are?

My first class today is at 11 a.m., which I hope conveys a message that I got up this morning at 5 a.m. to get schoolwork done, and instead I’m defending “Vagina Warriors” ad nauseam for an hour and having no time to cover the elections as I promised. Is there something wrong here?

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!

(Updated)

An anonymous commenter just pointed out something important that I inadvertently left out of the RED light story, namely that Senator Gerner in his official capacity has been using the nickname “RED” for a while now. Two emails sent to all UA students from rtucker at email.arizona.edu [spaces added] regarding a proposed student technology fee contain the moniker. The respective emails were sent Jan 19th and Jan 23rd. Both looked similar, but I’ll post one to refresh memories. [HTML edited for brevity]

You were sent this message in accordance with U of A policy on email.

Dear Student,

Recently the Board of Regents postponed increases the Information
Technology Fee to $100 due to a lack of student voice in the fee
increase. As a result, students, staff and faculty have worked together
to create a survey designed to identify student information and
technology priorities. Participants in the survey will be entered into a
drawing FOR ONE OF FIVE $50 AWARDS.

http://www.arizona.edu/survey/123.htm

This survey is a result of university and state leaders taking an
interest in student priorities and your participation could directly
affect the outcome of this fee. Please take a few moments to complete
the survey before Jan. 26 by clicking this link:

http://www.arizona.edu/survey/123.htm

This survey should take approximately 10 minutes to complete. All
respondents will be entered in a drawing to win one of five $50 awards.
Thank you for your participation! Please refer any questions, comments,
or concerns to Steven Gerner. The state is listening! This is our chance
to be heard!

Thanks,
Steven “Red” Gerner
Student Body Senator
[phone number]
sgerner @ u.arizona.edu

An earlier post also mentions Gerner’s efforts concerning the student technology fee, but looking back, I see no mention of the “Red” moniker.

Addition of commentary (7:45 a.m.): Indeed, this looks to cross an ethical line. It’s clear that “Red” is not a longstanding nickname, or we would have seen it during Gerner’s senatorial campaign last year.

Full disclosure: Steven Gerner and I are former classmates from a political theory class and are registered as friends on Facebook.

Note: The email address rtucker @ email.arizona.edu is that of Raquel Tucker who according to the Daily Wildcat is an applications systems analyst in the Registrar’s Office. Emails from the address are a regular occurrence, announcing things such as student health insurance, registration deadlines, and tax information. For the most part, all of the emails concern official university business, so despite the appearance, the emails are not spam.

(Updated)

Much like last year, the current ASUA campaign strategy looks to involve packing people into large Facebook groups named for potential candidates, and then putting things up declaring a "campaign" immediately when the campaign begins.  This year’s campaign begins on February 12th according to the elections website, but I’ve been noticing some activity.

Remember Team Yellow?  A similar strategy looks to be back in the works, as three recent Facebook groups have declared an apparent alliance of "RED."  These include:

• RED - It’s more than a color
• The Awesomeness of Steven ‘RED’ Gerner
• I love James "RED" Pennington-McQueen
• Amy C. Drapkin is RED Hot!!!

I’m not assuming anything malevolent here, but what we’re definitely looking at here is an inevitability of a system where "official campaigning" is only allowed to take place within a specified amount of time.  Regardless of what the elections commissioner might think about this, it’s only fair that everybody finds out and is allowed to follow suit.

If anything makes this "RED" team a painfully obvious preliminary campaign, you might try reading one of the group’s walls…

Moreover, I was hoping that these elections would rise above petty slogans and monikers, but there was also no reason to think they actually would. 

Full disclosure: Steven Gerner and I are former classmates from a political theory class and are registered as friends on Facebook.

THIS IS NOT A SATIRE.

Former school superintendent Gary Knox in this morning’s Yuma Sun manages 815 words of moot rant concerning the possibility of using computer generation (CG) to produce a “make-believe production of a terrorist or anarchical group” with the ability to influence Americans.

Knox’s strongest argument is how far society has advanced in creating realistic CG, and how far it is inevitably destined, but it completely ignores what we’ve observed recently in the wake of the Reuters “fauxtography” and Ra^thergate scandals. Along with advances in CG and the Internet have come advances in the ability of individuals to personally investigate truth versus fiction. The Internet is already full of conspiracy theories ranging from various 9/11 conspiracies to the faking of the Apollo Moon Landings. Such falsehoods are not solely the result of the information age; they are the result of freedom of speech. Likewise, so is the general public’s outright rejection of such ideas.

What we learned (or perhaps more properly, that of which we were reminded) from the Reuters “fauxtography” scandal is that fake news doesn’t require CG, but rather only takes a biased reporter. The infamous Photoshopped smoke spirals photograph of Adnan Hajj wasn’t the only development of note from Israel’s bombing of Lebanon; it also resulted in serious investigation of photographs that were clearly “set-up” not through software, but by the photographers’ very own physical and/or verbal manipulation of the scene. Ultimately, it was the development of cyberspace that allowed individuals to start disputing the coverage that led to the conclusion of many careers.

The Killian documents scandal is an easy case to cite to show that bad news is not beyond television nowadays, but I hate to think that this is the only example involving video. The “visual tricks” that Knox cites are not some golden limit, but are rather a small step ahead from where we already are with respect to the bias of the news media. At least within conservative / libertarian circles, the media are biased towards the left. The far left says the media is far right.  Basically, we all agree that somebody is wrong.

Knox’s second to last sentence calls for us to “increase our vigilance and maintain a very healthy skepticism for what we hear and see.” Regardless for the increased apparency that such vigilance is necessary, it is only that – an increased apparency, not an increased need. I fail to see the particular grave danger that Knox sees; rather, I see an inevitable increase in skepticism in the wake of need that has already persisted for some time.

TUCSON, AZ — Amid the cheer of the season of the holiday we don’t speak of, the annual capitalistic boom of the month of December is allegedly having a negative impact upon the intellectual property rights of America’s universities. The first legal implication is now official, as the University of Arizona today filed suit against Santa Claus for copyright infringement and violation of the Establishment Clause after Mr. Claus allegedly gave an Arizona Wildcats sweatshirt, made in his own factory, as a gift to multiple children without asking permission of the university, paying the appropriate licensing fees, or removing any actual or perceived religious context.

University of Arizona President Robert N. Shelton commented that the religious context of such a gift presented a “clear and present danger to the mission of the university.” “It should be obviously clear why we don’t have regular classes during the Winter Solstice,” Dr. Shelton stated. “The religious context of being in school at such a time is too much for us to handle. We won’t tolerate it.”

The comment puzzled professors in the Astronomy department, who noted that Winter Session classes actually did take place during Winter Solstice, which actually occurred three days before the holiday we don’t speak of.

Arizona State University President Michael Crow tells the Growler that he does not expect to follow suit with Dr. Shelton, noting that inserting mention of the Devil into such a holiday “cancels things out.”

I’ve been sent a copy of the proposed ASUA elections code for next semester’s elections.  I haven’t compared it too closely, but the biggest thing that I did notice is more freedom for candidates to update their websites.  The previous code prohibited any update to a web site, including posts on MySpace and Facebook or public comments on blogs, without approval of the elections commissioner, a clear case of federally-unconstitutional prior restraint.  Kudos who whoever got this one in.

7-2.  WEB RESOURCES

7-2.01  Any and all web resources utilized for the purpose of campaigning by a candidate and/or a member of their campaign staff are subject to the scrutiny of the Elections Commissioner and bound by the rules and regulations of this Code.

7-2.02  Any and all websites, web pages, and/or profiles on online networking sites including, but not limited to Facebook and MySpace, utilized for the purpose of campaigning by a candidate and/or a member of their campaign staff shall be approved by the Elections Commissioner. Any changes made to the aforementioned after initial approval are subject to the rules and regulations of this Code.

The code also includes a provision allowing the elections commissioner not to conduct a primary election in the event of low candidate turnout.  This would have been relevant in last year’s election, as all 20 senatorial candidates made it to the general election precisely because there were 20 spots on the ballot (for ten seats).  It basically ended up being a formal poll.

2-1.02   In the event that there is a low candidate turnout, a Primary Election may not occur. Notification on the status of the Primary Election will occur within twenty-four (24) hours of the Candidate Packet deadline.

Readers and officials should feel free to point out any more major changes to the code.  The vote may take place at this afternoon’s senate meeting.  I have a prior commitment involving free food, so I won’t be able to show up.

Update: David Roney at Lighthouse Blog reports that his son’s Catholic school has a military uniform ban in place for its Halloween parade.  Of course, military costumes on the university campus typically amount to d****bag "Greek" parties or f***tard anti-war protesters.  Note that my language is typically more reserved than this.

FIRE’s Sean Clark comments in a recent post that censorship of offensive costumes is becoming all-too-common on the university campus.  I do remember one particular instance at the University of Tennessee when a five white students from Jackson, Tennessee decided to dress up as…The Jackson Five.  I’d certainly like to hear what they have to say on fake weapons.  And I don’t consider it beyond the University of Arizona (specifically Residence Life) to pull a censorship move.  The Growler is listening.

Remember: Wilbur Wildcat used to be armed with six-shooters.

FIRE’s website appears to be down; the post is reproduced below:

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?

Tuesday’s article about me in the Arizona Daily Wildcat wasn’t the only thing in there concerning bloggers and journalism.  Their website also included a poll question: "What is the role of a blogger in journalism?"  Results were as follows.

• 13%: They are journalists.
• 15%: They are watchdogs.
• 16%: They provide entertainment.
• 56%: They are not real journalists.

Despite all the talk about me, I’m inclined to agree; not all bloggers are journalists.  And as I mentioned earlier, I don’t consider myself to be a traditional journalist.  The poll misses an important point, however.  Some bloggers are traditional journalists.  Others are watchdogs.  Others provide entertainment.  Others simply provide unique insight from a different perspective.

It would be a mistake to attempt to categorize every political blogger into singularly distinct categories.  Rather, bloggers can be one or more of these.  Just because there happen to be three satirical podcasts on the Growler doesn’t mean that I don’t watchdog, nor does my watchdogging keep me from producing satire.  I even made a movie poster featuring Rep. Grijalva a while back after I had interviewed him for the first time back in the fall of 2003 as a freshman.

Some questions over the role of bloggers in elections still exist.  What is answered is that not all bloggers covering the elections are doing the same job.  Not all go out on the streets and interview candidates.  Not all simply provide witty commentary or satire.  And only a very small minority would go as far to say that they are trying to pose as "objective journalists."

Ultimately, we’re all citizens, whether we be citizen satirists, commentators, or journalists.  And it’s important to remember that the former two of that list don’t give up rights for not being the third.  Long live the blogosphere.

The Wildcat has the story on the Grijalva incident today.

Natalie Luna, press secretary for Grijalva, said O’Hara passed himself off as a journalist although he was a blogger.

Bloggers have more of a "mouthpiece," as they can be objective or not objective as they choose, Luna said.

Luna said there was initial confusion because Grijalva though O’Hara was a reporter with the Arizona Daily Wildcat.

However, when O’Hara did not get the answers he wanted, he began attacking Grijalva, Luna said.

Funny how other candidates didn’t feel I was "attacking" them, let alone think I was trying to turn public schools into "armed camps."

I’m currently trying to figure out the best way to include links to the rest of the Grijalva story to accomodate usability.  Expect a few random changes throughout the morning. 

The Arizona Daily Star has a little note about my ordeal today.  Mr. Scarpinato did greet me at last night’s gubernatorial debate to let me know this was going to be in there, but I was not approached for comment before the story was submitted.

As a matter of full disclosure, my previous posts about Mr. Scarpinato are here and here. 

You can go to the Grijalva category page to see only the information directly related to the incident in reverse chronological order or start from the top of this list:

• The initial report on the confrontation (includes incident and interview audio)
• Interviews with six other candidates
• A rebuttal of a false representation found on another blog
• Clarification on the nature of the physical contact between myself and the Grijalva staffer, as much of the blogosphere had it wrong initially.

There’s mass confusion on various blogs concerning the nature of my physical contact with the Grijalva staffer, not the least of which is oddly enough on a post critical towards me, so let me set the record straight:

Initial contact with the staffer was during the interview with Rep. Grijalva.  She said "You’re done" and condescendingly laid her hand on my right forearm in order to appease me.  She did this again after the second podcast clip when Grijalva stopped speaking.  Simply put, it was condescending and downright disrespectful, especially when you factor in that I’m 21 and she was about 35.  One could argue that she was taking advantage of her gender.  I’d certainly be more willing to sock a man who had laid his hand on my arm in that manner.

During the conversation between Rep. Grijalva and Mr. Drake, she grabbed my microphone (in my right hand the entire time) and forcefully switched it off.  I then switched it back on, moved to my right (east) and raised my arm up to get a better vantage point for the microphone, at which point she ripped the microphone cable from my recorder (which was in my left hand).  As such, aggressive contact occured at the time when she switched the microphone off, not when she was trying to condescend me earlier.  Theft (at minimum) occured when she ripped the cable from my recorder, as a small 3/32" to 1/8" adapter was lost in the process.  I ended up combing my hand through the sand below me to see if this adapter was around; I have no way of telling whether she had the adapter in hand or simply threw it away whether by incident or intention.

If you’re still confused, ask me.

Note: I replaced some of the language in the second paragraph shortly after posting.  I didn’t really need to be calmed down, but ultimately she wanted to keep the little pipsqueak plebian from approaching The Great Raúl.

Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion thinks…

• …that was intentionally "trying to start an argument."  I was actually trying to get a fresh interview with Rep. Grijalva just like I did with the rest of the candidates.  Somehow, Tedski thinks that asking a question that hasn’t come up as hot-button is automatically off-limits.  I’m a citizen, and this issue is important to me.  A citizen should not need any more qualifiers than that to ask a question of his or her elected officials.

• …that I "nudged [my] way between the two candidates."  Also false.  I pointed my microphone at them, but I never physically nudged my way.  My only physical contact with Rep. Grijalva was an initial handshake.  The rest of the contact was the staffer trying to end the interview ("You’re done") or switching off my microphone and then ripping the microphone cable out from the recorder, losing a piece of my personal property in the process.
• …that I "called a reporter."  I emailed various bloggers, but I never personally called any reporters from the mainstream media.  Mr. Drake has done that for me.

I recorded the podcast in that tone precisely because I had to get my thoughts down and get news of the event out.  This isn’t about my victimhood; this is about the kind of action that a sitting United States Congressman condones if not outright advocates.

Some supplemental items:

• I have called the Tucson Police Department in order to at least file a report and possibly press charges if I can get the identity of the staffer whom I believe to have assaulted me on the night of October 6th (depending on legal definitions).

• I am thankful to Rep. Grijalva’s Republican opponent Ron Drake, as he is fully behind me in this affair.
• I plan to attend tonight’s gubernatorial debate at the Student Union ballroom, and I’ve submitted a question similar to the one about the Second Amendment that I asked nearly all of the candidates from October 6th.  Conservative groups are asking conservatives to wear red, but I’m actually leaning more in favor of Barry Hess right now, so I think I’ll wear white.  That could change, though.