Get PJ Media on your Apple

Roger’s Rules

Mireille Miller-Young is an Associate Professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara. She teaches in the Department of Feminist Studies (“an interdisciplinary discipline that produces cutting-edge research,” offers an undergraduate major and minor, and houses “the minor in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer studies”). According to her university web page, Dr. Miller-Young’s “areas of emphasis” are “black cultural studies, pornography and sex work.” She appears to teach four courses: “Women of Color,” “Sexual Cultures Special Topics,” “Feminist Research and Practice,” and “Sexualities.”  She holds a Ph.D. in “American History and History of the African Diaspora” from New York University.  The title of her dissertation,  a book version of which is forthcoming from Duke University Press, is “A Taste for Brown Sugar: The History of Black Women in American Pornography.” She has contributed to such organs as $pread, “a quarterly magazine by and for sex workers and those who support their rights,” Colorlines, a magazine with “articles concerning race, culture, and organizing,” and the New York Times, a paper that — well, you know. Dr. Miller-Young, again according to her web page,  “has won several highly regarded grants and awards,” possibly for her contributions to C’Lick Me: A Netporn Studies Reader and  The Feminist Porn Book: The Politics of Producing Pleasure.

In other words, Dr. Miller-Young is a typical specimen of homo academicus (or perhaps I should say, mulier academica), circa 2014. The non-stop racial grievance mongering. The anaphrodisiac obsession with gutter sex. The bad prose. The cutesy nods to pop culture. The reflexive left-wing politics. The angry, intellectually nugatory posturing. It’s all a dime a dozen in the trendy precincts of the university today. Dr. Miller-Young is as dreary and predictable a representative of the low-wattage, affirmative-action branch of that enterprise as any cultural pathologist could wish for.  Would you let her loose on your delicately brought-up daughter?

While you ponder that question, let me repeat that there is nothing out of the ordinary about Dr. Miller-Young.  She is exactly what you can expect when you sign up for a course in the “humanities” these day.  I bring her to your attention not for her intellectual or pedagogical achievements. For what has just guaranteed Dr. Miller-Young her fifteen minutes of notoriety had nothing to do with her pathetic, polysyllabic banalities masquerading as scholarship but rather her unexpected entry into what some of her ideological consoeurs refer to as “direct action.” The Santa Barbara Independent broke the story under the admirably informative title “UCSB Professor Accused of Assaulting Anti-Abortion Activist.”

That just about sums it up.

A couple of weeks ago, a dozen anti-abortion students from Thomas Aquinas College set up on a heavily trafficked area of the UC Santa Barbara campus, displayed three large signs, and distributed pro-life literature to passersby. Dr. Miller-Young, accompanied by a few of her students, confronted the group, treating them to some angry words. She then, said the Independent, led a gathering crowd in chants of “Tear down the sign! Tear down the sign!” before she grabbed one of the banners and began transporting it across campus:

 One of the pro-life demonstrators, 21-year-old Joan Short, called 911 while her 16-year old sister Thrin began filming the incident. You can see the clip here. The Short sisters followed Dr. Miller-Young and two of here students into a college hall.

As Miller-Young and the students boarded an elevator, Joan said that Thrin repeatedly blocked the door with her hand and foot and that Miller-Young continually pushed her back. Miller-Young then exited the elevator and tried to yank Thrin away from the door while the students attempted to take her smartphone. “As Thrin tried to get away, the professor’s fingernails left bloody scratches on her arms,” Joan claimed. The struggle ended when Thrin relented, Miller-Young walked off, the students rode up in the elevator, and officers arrived to interview those involved.

The Short sisters, who later found their sign destroyed, decided to press charges.

The police report, which is available in redacted form here, is an extraordinary document.

The indispensable Eugene Volokh provides a digest on his blog here, quoting from the police report:

At about 1500 hours, I spoke to Miller-Young by telephone. I recorded my conversation with Miller-Young on my digital voice recorder.

In essence, Miller-Young told me that she felt “triggered” by the images on the posters. Miller-Young stated that she had been walking through the Arbor to get back to South Hall. Miller-Young said she was approached by people who gave her literature about abortion. Miller-Young said that she found this literature and pictures disturbing. Miller-Young said that she found this material offensive because she teaches about women’s “reproductive rights” and is pregnant. She said an argument ensued about the graphic nature of these images.

Miller-Young said that she situation became “passionate” and that other students in the area were “triggered” in a negative way by the imagery. Miller-Young said that she and others began demanding that the images be taken down. Miller-Young said that the demonstrators refused.

At which point, Miller-Young said that she “just grabbed it [the sign] from this girl’s hands.” Asked if there had been a struggle, Miller-Young stated, “I’m stronger so I was able to take the poster.”

Let’s pass over the bit about Dr. Miller-Young being pregnant and pause to digest her telling admission: “I’m stronger so I was able to take the poster.” Is that what they teach at the University of California at Santa Barbara?

But continue:

Miller-Young said that the poster had been taken back to her office. Once in her office, a “safe space” described by Miller-Young, Miller-Young said that they were still upset by the images on the poster and had destroyed it. Miller-Young said that she was “mainly” responsible for the posters destruction because she was the only one with scissors.

I asked if Miller-Young had carried the poster into her office or if she had students carried it. Miller-Young said that she had carried the poster but that there were students with her. Miller-Young went on to say that because the poster was upsetting to her and other students, she felt that the activists did not have the right to be there.

Again, let us pause to savor that reasoning: because the poster was upsetting to her and other students, she felt that the activists did not have the right to be there. Got that?

The officer continues:

I asked Miller-Young if she felt anything wrong had happened this afternoon. Miller-Young said that she did not know enough about the limits of free speech to answer my question. Miller-Young went on to say that she was not sure what an acceptable and legal response to hate speech would be. Miller-Young said that she was willing to pay for the cost of the sign but would “hate it.”

I explained to Miller-Young that the victims in this case felt that a crime had occurred. I told Miller-Young that I appreciated the fact that she felt traumatized by the imagery but that her response constituted a violation of law. Furthermore, I told Miller-Young that I was worried about the example she had set for her undergraduate students.

Miller-Young said that her students “were wanting her to take” the sign away. Miller-Young argued that she set a good example for her students. Miller-Young likened her behavior to that of a “conscientious objector.” Miller-Young said that she did not feel that what she had done was criminal. However, she acknowledged that the sign did not belong to her.

I asked Miller-Young what crimes she felt the pro-life group had violated. Miller-Young replied that their coming to campus and showing “graphic imagery” was insensitive to the community. I clarified the difference between University policy and law to Miller-Young and asked her again what law had been violated. . . . Miller-Young also suggested that the group had violated her rights. I asked Miller-Young what right the group had violated. Miller-Young responded, “My personal right to go to work and not be in harm.”

Miller-Young elaborated that one of the reasons she had felt so alarmed by this imagery is because she is about to have the test for Down Syndrome. Miller-Young said. “I work here, why do they get to intervene in that?”

I explained to Miller-Young that vandalism, battery and robbery had occurred. I also told Miller-Young that individuals involved in this case desired prosecution.

Just yesterday, prosecution is exactly what happened: The DA’s office issued a press release detailing misdemeanor charges for theft, battery, and vandalism against Dr. Miller-Young.  As Eugene Volokh observed when reporting on the DA’s press release, “perhaps the incident will indeed ‘set a good example for [the professor's] students,’” as Dr. Miller-Young said she was doing, though not in precisely the way she had envisioned.

The case will first be heard on April 4.  Meanwhile, it will be interesting to see what, if anything University of California administrators have to say about their briefly notorious “feminist.”

Also read: 

Another ‘Hate Crime’ Hoax on Campus

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
A porn professor has trouble with graphic images?

She gets "Triggered" at pro-life literature and that makes her go Rin Tin Tin?

The lack of accountability for radical leftism in a lawless Obamerica and provided cover by the conspiratorial Propaganda Machine, egged on by a hedonistic Hellywood, and championed by a Zinn, Chomsky, Ward Churchill academia.

She has no moral compass because there is no magnetic north...there is no way to get your moral bearings because being what Pajama Boy called a "liberal "f" a badge of honor, not the mark of shame it should be.

Like spoiled rotten toddlers, they get away with so much because those charged with teaching them right from wrong are irresponsible, decadent and utter failures in their assigned task.

She will get nothing more than a legal slap on the wrist, and likely much less.

She and her indoctrinated groupies will miss the point of the life lessons, the irony in their intolerance, and the abhorrence of the thuggery tactics.

Nothing will be learned here...which should be the motto hung over every admin building in academic Obamerica.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
"In essence, Miller-Young told me that she felt “triggered” by the images on the posters."

Lucky she wasn't a muslim man or a "trigger" might have triggered some serious head copping frenzy. Does she get "triggered" by the postman and run after him and bite him? Maybe she should ask a veterinarian to recommend a good class for suppressing "triggering". In any case the health board should probably call in a veterinarian to test her for rabies.

"Let’s pass over the bit about Dr. Miller-Young being pregnant"

The way she gets "triggered", is she PG with a pit bull?

"I asked if Miller-Young had carried the poster into her office or if she had students carried [carry] it. Miller-Young said that she had carried the poster but that there were students with her"

Future Hitler Youth in training, goose stepping behind Madame Fascist..
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
As soon as I heard this story I knew she was a QUILTBAG intersectional feminist because I get triggered into a flashback of completely predictable robots manufactured in a stereotype factory.

If she was wheeled around campus on a dolly in a coma there would be no essential difference from a state of wakefulness. Didn't another modular Series AX9IG robot write something about hating white belly dancers last week? They even look alike, like a fleet class Andrea Dworkin.

I'll tell you this: they don't miss many meals.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (88)
All Comments   (88)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Roger seems to think this is over and done. It is not. You will continue to see "microagressions" of just this sort consistently pleaded as defenses to actual assaults and batteries and conversions of personal property, theft, vandalism, whatever. Roger seems to assume that the charging of this particular agressor results in something meaningful. Bosh, flimshaw.
22 weeks ago
22 weeks ago Link To Comment
So does this mean if any military people or vets see a bunch of anti war protestors, does this mean they have the right to forcibly steal their signs. After all they probably are bigger, so they can steal the signs without much fear of physical retailiation. And they would be "triggered" and have the right to not see signs they dont like as they go to work. Somehow though, if they used that logic, the leftists would not be too sympathetic, and we would hear endlessly abour fascist suppression of free speech. But liberal fascism like this is now considered civil disobediance, and defending their right to not see anything that offends them.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Fascinating. I hope you write a follow-up on what happens in court, if it gets that far. The left, now that they control the media and the federal government, is finally showing its true colors; they are fascists. They do NOT believe in free speech, nor most of the rest of our Constitution. And they need to learn that they too must obey the laws of this country, regardless of how pure they THINK their motivations are.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
I know I don't need to say it, but every single rationalization and justification used by Dr. Miller-Young is precisely what I expect to hear from a naughty teen-ager.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Throw her ass in jail.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
It didn't go as she envisioned? That implies she was capable of thought which liberals routinely prove they aren't, not outside of the Limbic Centers of the brain which would explain the porn obsession and violence.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Look at this "lady's" "resume," and recall that it is her ilk who scream down conservatives for "demeaning women."
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Her resume has less dignity than a bearded lady.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
I recently had an embarrassing (for her) encounter. somebody introduced a young woman to me as dr. so & so. I asked her field and she replied 'feminist studies'.

i accidentally laughed a bit when she said that, couldn't be stopped. too quick for me. it just slipped out like a f... well, you know. it was funny. I heard that trying not to cough up a sudden laugh can be deadly to your health.

yeah, she didn't buy that excuse either. especially since all that trying to stop laughing just made me spit and cough and laugh some more. if i hadn't been been laughing i would have been voicing my admiration. yeah, my date didn't buy that argument either (later).

if a man had done to a young pregnant girl what she did he would likely be facing some far more serious charges. using those excuses she uses in court would probably get the book thrown at him. imagine a feminist judge. years in the 'lectric chair for sure. its because of the evil feminist/lawyer mating that women typically only do a fraction of the time men get for the same crime, like here. they typically don't face the really serious charges men see either, like here.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment

Not being in touch with current trends in psychobabble, the first time that I saw “triggered” used this way was a few weeks ago, when there was a brouhaha at some New England women’s college (Bennington?) when an extremely lifelike statue of a youngish white man sleepwalking while wearing only a pair of underpants was installed without warning. A number of the women complained that the sight of this statue would trigger them, but the counterargument (which apparently was successful) was that it was all right that the statue should be disturbing and provoking because it was Art.

So let the pro-life posters be declared to be Art. Although their content has not been mentioned in the news reports that I have seen about this incident, I presume that they are gruesome pictures of dismembered fetuses, so let them be designated as traveling exhibitions of the Museum of Medical Malpractice Art, or the Museum of Anti-Human Activities Art, or some such. Let the Museum be chartered according to all the legal requirements as a non-profit corporation (probably in the state of Delaware, primarily because the laws of Delaware are particularly favorable for chartering corporations, and only secondarily for the irony value of its being Vice-President Biden’s home state).

Then any display of the posters can be defended with all the arguments that have been used to defend displays of the Mapplethorpe photographs, the elephant-dung Madonna, the plastic crucifix in the bottle of urine, and any other more or less similar efforts to offend believers in traditional principles of faith and behavior. Let these precedents and parallels be emphasized as loudly and frequently as possible in the controversies that will follow. (Although I believe that the pictures are intended to touch consciences by showing the reality of abortion, at some level of psychology nearly everyone already knows, so sorrowful repentance is a rarer reaction to such pictures than the kind of guilty anger that Professor Miller-Young displayed.)

Wretchard’s discussion of this case included a comment that Professor Miller-Young is a member of the tribe of TWANLOC that wants to take over everything. Carrying out the Museum idea would be a way for people opposed to the tribe to take initiative instead of always just reacting to what the other side does. More ways to do this need to be found.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
WDM, your methods should be taught far and wide by the RNC ( don't teach. They help people do a job...wait a minute...what was it Republicans were supposed to be? OH! Now I remember! Be DIFFERENT than Democrats! ...I'm so confused...)
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
And of course, since there is no possible way that anyone besides the government would be willing to pay for such nonsense, you can rest assured that some 90-percent-plus of the Feminist Studies department and all of its graduate students are supported by the taxpayer. Also note that the state of California still pays the bulk of cost of running UC.

Your tax dollars at work!
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 5 Next View All