(final podcast link)

Thank you everybody for being such a great audience and an even better source of learning over the years. I fully intend for this to be the final post on the Arizona Growler. Hey, if professional athletes can call a long hiatus “retirement,” so can I. Therefore, I “retire” from politics.

Jeff Rutledge continues to pursue his degree in media arts and general business administration. Trevor Smith is graduating with a B.A. in political science and will be working in Washington (that’s all he let me say). Ratman continues to wreak common-sensical havoc upon liberal public schools in southwestern Arizona.

I was going to announce my specific career plans on this blog, but recent events have led me to handle this a little more securely. If you’d like to know, and if I know you (having only met on the Internet still counts), you can feel free to shoot me an email at gpohara at gmail dot com, and I’ll be more than willing to let you in on the secret.

On a podcast-related note, you might recall some legal research back on the “O’Hara Factor” where I determined that getting the Arizona Board of Regents to turn its current weapons policy around would be sufficient to restore gun rights on Arizona’s university campuses. I hope that helps anybody who decides to make a political push.

The Arizona blogosphere meanwhile looks as healthy and vibrant as ever. I only hope that more people pay attention as blogs become the norm as opposed to a niche. Thank you everybody for the good times. Please know full well that I’m leaving on a better note than what the podcast might imply. It’s a challenge that I hope will be taken up soon.

Best Regards,
G. P. O’Hara

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?

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.”

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:

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 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

The University of Arizona apparently spent $7.1 million dollars of the people’s money to plan for a now-defunct downtown "rainbow bridge."  Now that the bridge plan is gone, they want the City of Tucson to use the people’s money to pay for $3.6 million of that bill.  Yes, the bill’s justified, but wow, did this one go bad.

Anybody have any better plans? 

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

 

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

Peter Likins	Date  6/26/06
President

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

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

Update: The survey results.

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.

Update: Make that a $65 fee, not $50.  Not only that, it might increase to $100.

I have yet to test out UAWifi,  the bigger and supposedly better campus wireless network funded by the new $50-and-increasing technology fee.  Every time I try to connect, it merely rejects me.

For those who have figured it out (kind of), they don’t like it.  The network apparently mandates the user to run a "policy key" program.  This program supposedly ensures certain things on the computer according to the manufacturer’s website including:

• Authentication and Registration
• Anti-Virus
• Anti-Spyware
• Microsoft Patches
• P2P File Sharing
• Access Point
• Custom Policy Builder

And because I use Comodo instead of the supported programs, my system would theoretically be unsupported.

This isn’t just UAWifi; users in residence halls are also affected.  As for now, the wireless network "UAWireless," while unsecured, is still working and is where I’m posting this from right now.

More than ninety students have joined the Facebook group "Screw Policy Key" and are working to find a workaround, calling it spyware, which is ironically one of the things the policy key is supposed to protect against.  The people responsible for the change maintain that it isn’t.

Meanwhile, I think I might know a way around it, but I also don’t feel like getting sued.  We’ll see whether it works once it, well, works.  People ought to realize that CCIT closely monitors its network traffic in the first place, but requiring people to run intrusive software like this is quite scary.

I saw this earlier, but didn’t know whether to post until something was confirmed.  News sources now confirm that a 18-year-old female UA student was shot early yesterday in a drive-by shooting.  Some students on Facebook had already started a group entitled "Wildcats Against Violence," but the group lists the time as the night of the day before.

Time errors notwithstanding, it’s definitely the same party as FIJI is the same fraternity as Phi Gamma Delta.  The Facebook group reports that Theta Tau and Alpha Chi Omega are also within the vicinity.

Here’s what they didn’t tell you: 

Looking on Google Earth, FIJI is a dirt lot, so the picture is clearly old.  But notice what’s just southwest of that position.  FIJI, 1801 E First St, is just across the street from UAPD, 1852 E. First St.  This is further evidence that citizens cannot trust police as an alternative to the right to bear arms.

This is the second frat shooting this year and the third gun-related incident on university-related property to my knowledge.  Kappa Alpha was trying to remove an unwelcome guest when he pulled out a gun and shot an 18-year-old pledge.  And last semester on University and Park, a group of friends (including a good friend of mine) were mugged, with some of them getting pistol-whipped.

We had three at the nursing school killed back in 2002.  This year, we’ve had 22 aggravated assaults, including, at minimum, the University/Park mugging and FIJI.  How long will it take before we get our rights back?

Update: KVOA’s website thankfully does mention the vicinity to UAPD and notes that an officer heard the shots.  I also just remembered that back when I was in the fifth grade, my family and I were attacked by a raged driver…just near the Honolulu Police Department.  Go figure.

I posted earlier concerning a plan by ASUA senator Steven Gerner to give university credit for volunteerism.  While I initially supported it, the Wildcat basically killed it today, noting that UA administrators would have to be forced to determine what is actually "charity."  I also initially expressed concern that the program would be just a way for students to get easy credits.

As Plato would say, being corrected is more edifying than correcting someone else.

Update (9/5): Gerner and an associate respond.