I kind of skipped over this story, but UA President Robert Shelton put out a memo about a week ago concerning the “blackface” party controversy. As I stated in my letter, I’m glad Dr. Shelton values freedom of speech. As far as the resulting forum is concerned, the Wildcat nailed it in their editorial today, giving a fail to both the national media and “the multicultural-philes who refuse to let it go.”

The fact is that blacks (which isn’t capitalized, Dr. Shelton!) aren’t the only people group targeted in such idiotic parties. Imagine my disgust when I see girls walking past wearing slutty scissored-up military uniforms clinging onto their douchebag boyfriends in baggy surplus camouflage. Where are the multiculturalists on this one?

The Politico has two stories (1 | 2) concerning the departure of Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) and others from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus after Sanchez accused its chairman Joe Baca of calling her a “whore.” Count Rep. Grijalva in among the defectors according to the first article there.

If you’re from Yuma, attempt to combine the kooky, hat-wearing mentality of former mayoral candidate Carol Engler combined with a teenage girl’s affinity/tendency for showing off her legs, except that Sanchez has a cat, not a hat. That’s Loretta Sanchez.

• Christmas card #1
• Christmas card #2
• Christmas card #3 (INNUENDO WARNING. I’M SERIOUS.)

I may be a conservative blogger, but I’m also completely against animal brutality. Somebody please rescue the cat.

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.

How to listen:

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

TUCSON, AZ — In the midst of snow falling upon the University of Arizona last Sunday afternoon and evening, administrators have temporarily banned snowball fights in an attempt to prevent the perpetuation of double standards and discrimination.

Said one unnamed official, “We currently ban tortilla-throwing at commencement ceremonies for a good reason; we don’t want to offend Hispanics. It’s only fair that we ban snowball fights for fear of offending Eskimos. Not only that, but it seems clear that the male gender has an apparent advantage in such activities. Restoring such activity to campus will require some way of evening the playing field.”

Meanwhile, campus peace activists are now investigating a possible instance of genocide, after about fifty homeless inhabitants of the campus were reported missing, each leaving their garments in a large pool of water in the very spot where they were last seen.

Music is “Frosty the Snowman” by Bing Crosby. If you didn’t know that after listening to it, you need to get out more often. This episode is licensed “All Rights Reserved” because I don’t feel like having the RIAA breathing down my neck over a Christmas song.

I have been sent a copy of the restroom resolution that failed 3-5-2 the other day.  The sender requested that I keep in a format that is not editable, so it’s in a secured PDF on the link (meaning you can’t print it or copy the text).

Let’s go through this in HTML part by part, though.  Hyperlinks added.

WHEREAS, The University of Arizona’s Statement on Restroom Access states that “the University allows individuals to use the restroom that corresponds to their gender identity”, and,

WHEREAS, Gender identity is defined by the statement as “an individual’s actual or perceived gender, including and individual’s self-image, appearance, expression, or behavior, whether or not that self-image, appearance, expression, or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the individual’s sex at birth as being either female or male” and,

WHEREAS, This policy creates a uncomfortable situation for many people who may experience difficulty and inconvenience in using a restroom occupied by people who are legally defined as being of the opposite gender, and

WHEREAS, This policy further frees an individual from the disciplinary and legal consequences of being in a bathroom for nefarious purposes if they falsely claim to ‘perceive’ themselves as a certain gender, and,

WHEREAS, Clearly marked gender neutral bathrooms provided for in The Statement on Restroom Access can be constructed and designated for the use individuals uncomfortable using gender specific restrooms…

Looks like they tried to find some middle ground here anyhow.  There’s nothing here against "gender neutral" restrooms.  As for the rest…

RESOLVED, That the Associated Students of the University of Arizona opposes the University of Arizona’s Statement on Restroom Access, as it currently exists, be it further

RESOLVED, That the Associated Students of the University of Arizona supports the enforcement of a gender specific bathroom policy for bathrooms clearly marked as “men” and “women”, be it further

RESOLVED, That the Associated Students of the University of Arizona supports the continued construction and designation of a reasonable amount of clearly marked bathrooms as gender neutral to serve individuals uncomfortable with using gender specific restrooms and individuals with issues not related to gender identity such as parents and attendants/caregivers.

So the resolution with this can’t violate University affirmative action policy as alleged earlier; it’s only the opinion of ASUA we’re trying to resolve here, begging the question over why the university’s Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Office got involved in the first place.

Then again, the Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Office has a long history of getting involved in politics rather than doing their racist and sexist jobs quietly.  The office’s assistant director, Francisco Gonzalez, regularly writes letters to the Arizona Daily Wildcat, all dealing with issues outside his official capacity while signing with his title.

Senators voting in favor of the resolution:

• Bryan Hill
• Shawn Ingram (author)
• Melodie Schwartz

Senators voting against the resolution:

• Mark Adams
• Jen Dang
• Steven Gerner
• Samantha Kerr
• Astrid Henao

• Jessica Anderson
• Lauren Conway

Most of my regular readers know I’m a big advocate of the Second Amendment being applied to the college campus.  Another case in point of all the things we could possibly concoct: Halloween.

First off, we have to treat fake weapons as real weapons just in case…

Romero said fake weapons are a big concern for UAPD.

UA policy prohibits weapons of any kind on campus, including fake or toy weapons that may be part of Halloween costumes.

If a caller reports that someone is on campus with a gun, even if the gun is just a prop, the UAPD will respond as if it were real.

"We will do whatever we have to do to keep everyone safe," Romero said.

I’m not saying police shouldn’t fire back if somebody points a fake gun at them.  I am saying that banning weapons period produces these kinds of sticky situations.  No word on whether tinfoil swords are weapons.  Perhaps witches brew is a form of biological warfare.

Of course, this is the University of Arizona, so discussions of Halloween would never be complete without mentioning race and gender. 

Halloween costumes are especially bothersome, making it hard for officers to identify whom they’re after. Even things like someone’s race or gender can be hidden behind a mask or under makeup.

"Somebody commits a crime, we’re looking for Richard Nixon or a Raggedy Ann and Andy duo," Romero said.

I return back to Scott Ott inspired satirical news with a podcast concerning the Tunnel of Oppression, an annual event here at the UA which seeks to "to challenge peoples’ ideas and perceptions of issues dealing with oppression."  I suspect that it may become politically charged as a result of having Proposition 107 on the ballot this year.

As such, the podcast is chock full of racial epithets, so make sure you keep the volume down (or use headphones) if you work at a liberal educational institution.  That won’t tend to muffle your laughter, though.  You’re on your own there.

Explanations of most slurs and epithets are available here, here, and here. 

Background music is Meltdown Man by Derek K. Miller of Penmachine.  Licensing is under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5.

How to listen:

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

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

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)

We may have a new university president, but he apparently is no different when it comes to affirmative action, er,  ‘diversity.’  Robert Shelton, like his predecessor, wants 25% of UA enrollment to be Hispanics, which would qualify the university to become an "Hispanic Serving Institution."

The disparity is not lost on the UA’s Hispanic population.

Giselle Celaya, a general biology sophomore who went to high school on Tucson’s south side, said her first day of classes came as a shock.

"I saw a lot of blonde girls. That was my very first impression, I’ll admit it," Celaya said. "I felt out of place. I was like, ‘Wow, I’m the only brunette.’"

Celaya said some people may feel intimidated by the lack of diversity.

"They just don’t feel like they fit in, and a lot of people don’t succeed because they don’t feel like, ‘Oh, this is where I belong,’" Celaya said.

[…]

"It’s very discouraging. It’s like, ‘Am I going to fit in? Am I going to be the minority?’" Celaya said. "And you are. You really are."

You know, some of us manage to get around our racial hangups and develop social and professional relationships outside of our ethnicities.  It’s especially common for those of us whose parents did.  If we can’t even get around the barrier of "fitting in" with people outside of one’s own ethnicity, the low Hispanic demographic is the least of our problems.

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.