There is a tendency in life and politics to become the person you hate.
A clear example of this is unfolding before us in the continuing saga of Dr. Mireille Miller-Young, the associate professor of feminist studies, with an emphasis on pornography from a minority perspective, at UCSB.
Dr. Miller-Young is the subject of a police report having to do with her allegedly having committed vandalism, battery and robbery on campus against some young women, including a minor, who were engaged in an otherwise peaceful pro-life protest. The police report’s account of Dr. Miller-Young’s version of the facts tells me this woman is completely out of touch with not only the real world, but also with the heritage and foundation of both the civil rights and feminist movement. Dr. Miller-Young in essence has become “the man!”
Dr. Miller-Young states in the police report that she found the literature and pictures being presented by the pro-life advocates “disturbing,” “offensive,” “graphic,” “upsetting,” “traumatizing,” and “insensitive,” all of which threatened her “safety.” She likened the pro-life protest to hate speech and claims she had a moral right to act the way she did. In essence, Dr. Miller-Young doesn’t tolerate protest, as she claims that it was her rights that were being harmed by allowing the pro-life advocates to interfere in her life and work while on campus.
Trending: Democrats are God’s Judgement On America
First of all, pointing out the obvious to the oblivious, all the words Dr. Miller-Young used to describe the material she found so offensive would be the same exact words most people would use to describe the pornography she uses in her class and life’s work under the heading, “A Taste for Brown Sugar.”
Second, Dr. Miller-Young claims she had a moral right to physically attack a young woman, a minor no less, who is simply exercising her right to assemble, her right to protest, and to speak freely? But the real basis of Dr. Miller-Young’s right was her might. Dr. Miller-Young, when asked about the struggle, simply stated, “I am stronger.” Historically, I wonder how many women were beaten down during their struggle for women’s rights? Now look who is doing the beatdown.
Third, Dr. Miller-Young contends the protestors did not have a right to be on campus because they were upsetting her and some other students. Dr. Miller-Young believes a free speech zone on a college campus is there to ensure she doesn’t have to see or hear anything that will upset her? Honestly, I had visions of Gov. George Wallace on the steps of the schoolhouse as I read these statements.
Dr. Miller-Young, in her last line of defense, makes the case in the police report that she is pregnant and about to have her baby tested for Down Syndrome. We all know what that means. Hence, to be confronted with imagery of fetal development would be understandably upsetting. But that was the point the advocates were trying to make. Since when is a reality check a hate crime?
Editor’s note: On Friday, March 21, the Santa Barbara County District Attorney issued the following statement relative to the case:
Santa Barbara County District Attorney Joyce E. Dudley announced today the filing of the following misdemeanor charges against Mireille Miller-Young: PC 489(c) (theft from a person); PC 242 (battery); and PC 594(b)(2)(A) (vandalism). These charges are based upon an event that occurred at the University of California Santa Barbara on March 4, 2014, wherein the defendant allegedly took a protestor’s sign, committed a battery on another protestor and thereafter destroyed the sign. The case will be first heard in Santa Barbara Superior Court Department 8 on April 4, 2014.
First published at Santa Barbara News-Press
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.