<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; Adam Kissel</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/author/adam-kissel/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 13:47:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>Rewriting UCSB&#8217;s History of Viewpoint Discrimination against Horowitz</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/adam-kissel/rewriting-ucsbs-history-of-viewpoint-discrimination-against-horowitz/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=rewriting-ucsbs-history-of-viewpoint-discrimination-against-horowitz</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/adam-kissel/rewriting-ucsbs-history-of-viewpoint-discrimination-against-horowitz/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 04:09:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Adam Kissel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Daily Nexus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free Speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UCSB]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Viewpoint Discrimination]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=110571</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The lies and cover up continue.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/dh2.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-110578" title="dh" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/dh2.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="513" /></a></p>
<p><strong>Reprinted from <a href="http://thefire.org">TheFire.org</a>.</strong></p>
<p>Recently I <a title="described in detail" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/13782.html" target="_blank">described in detail</a> how University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) has been struggling to deny the obvious: Student government officials<em> <a title="completely denied" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/13219.html" target="_blank">completely denied</a></em> funding for $2,000 for a David Horowitz event sponsored by the College Republicans (CRs) earlier this year because of opposition to his views and expression, while a second group of student government officials voted to <em><a title="hide the evidence" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/13228.html" target="_blank">hide the evidence</a></em> by suppressing the minutes of the meeting and also engaged in viewpoint discrimination to deny much of the funding for the event.</p>
<p>The CRs <a title="had requested $1,770" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/13228.html" target="_blank">had requested $1,770</a>, and after a lot of <a title="airing strong denunciations" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/13228.html" target="_blank">strong denunciations</a> of Horowitz&#8217;s views and expression, the second student government body voted to allocate $1,100 for the event. But after the audience <a title="erupted in complaints" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/13221.html" target="_blank">erupted in complaints</a>, this body revisited the question and allocated only $800. Under pressure from FIRE, the UCSB administration stepped in and made sure that the CRs received $1,800, although it was very hard to figure out how UCSB had done the transactions until UCSB released a <a title="key document" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/13692.html" target="_blank">key document</a> on October 6.</p>
<p>Those are the facts; alternative accounts are undocumented at best and lies at worst. A couple of the lies made it into the <em>San Francisco Chronicle</em> <a title="yesterday" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/13782.html" target="_blank">yesterday</a>.</p>
<p>Last week, UCSB student newspaper <em>The Daily Nexus</em> published its own <a title="whitewash" href="http://www.dailynexus.com/2011-10-20/nonprofit-protests-funding-2/" target="_blank">whitewash</a> on some points, although it acknowledged many of the key facts, including the intervention of UCSB administrator Katya Armistead, Director of the Office of Student Life. A bunch of the misrepresentations in the article seem to be uncritical quotations of university officials, and some of them seem to be due to imprecise writing. Some of the themes in the article, however, are so misleading (or plainly incorrect) that they need to be addressed here.</p>
<p>As an initial matter, I should note that the main writer of the article, Katherine Friedman, left me a single voice mail at 7:44 pm (far after East Coast business hours) supposedly to get my comment on Tuesday, October 18. (FIRE&#8217;s website made it clear that I would be out of the office on October 19 giving lectures in Texas.) She apparently did not try again, and the article appeared on October 20.</p>
<p>As for the substance of the article, perhaps the most serious mistake was the uncritical acceptance of the idea that a &#8220;safety&#8221; rationale for denial of funding the event had merit:</p>
<blockquote><p>Though several students verbalized serious concerns for their personal wellbeing given Horowitz&#8217;s potential to incite violence, FIRE&#8217;s most recent statement mentioned only one such comment.</p></blockquote>
<p>As I <a title="wrote" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/13230.html" target="_blank">wrote</a> at the time, however, the &#8220;incitement&#8221; argument and the &#8220;I feel unsafe&#8221; argument have no merit in a situation like this. &#8220;Incitement&#8221; is about inspiring people who <em>agree</em> with you to join you in some unlawful act. If people are inspired to violence against David Horowitz or others because they hate what David Horowitz has to say, that makes David Horowitz and those others the victims of a mob. And as for safety, I wrote:</p>
<blockquote><p>In fact, if anybody might become violent because of Horowitz&#8217;s speech, it is one or more of his critics. As one person named Ahmed [Mostafa] said at the meeting:</p>
<p><em>Ahmed: If this is funded, whatever is incited from this is on the Council&#8217; hands. Reads quote from David about what wearing a headscarf means. I don&#8217;t want to endanger students and I don&#8217;t want my student fees to fund that endangerment. There have been many things that have been against law and we may need to take a stance and be put on the line.</em></p>
<p><em>[...]</em></p>
<p><em>Rachel: We can tell by the atmosphere of this meeting we are going to need the security [...]</em></p>
<p>But it is unconstitutional to lay the burden for others&#8217; violent conduct at the hands of the controversial speaker. As <a title="FIRE's letter to Chancellor Yang" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/13187.html" target="_blank">FIRE&#8217;s letter to Chancellor Henry T. Yang</a> pointed out, such a &#8220;heckler&#8217;s veto&#8221; would mean that the most intolerant, violent people in the community get to decide which speech will take place on campus, simply by threatening violence and interfering with an event and causing the speaker to have to pay for security to keep the violent protesters under control.</p></blockquote>
<p>Next, we should address the bellyaching from UCSB Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Michael Young.</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;The problem with FIRE is they wanted controversy where there is none, so they&#8217;re trying to create one,&#8221; Young said. &#8220;This had been resolved before FIRE got into it; they&#8217;re just trying to create a situation where none exists.</p></blockquote>
<p>This is plainly false. There was no controversy? Good luck persuading a single rational person on campus that David Horowitz&#8217;s speech wasn&#8217;t controversial <a title="among student organizations" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/13222.html" target="_blank">among student organizations</a> and in the <a title="student" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/13220.html" target="_blank">student</a> <a title="government" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/13221.html" target="_blank">government</a>, as reported multiple times by several <em>Daily Nexus</em> journalists. <em>The Daily Nexus</em> sure thought there was a funding controversy at the time. Why is Katherine Friedman throwing her fellow student journalists under the bus?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/adam-kissel/rewriting-ucsbs-history-of-viewpoint-discrimination-against-horowitz/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8216;San Francisco Chronicle&#8217; Reprints UCSB&#8217;s Lies about Viewpoint Discrimination against Horowitz Event</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/adam-kissel/san-francisco-chronicle-reprints-ucsbs-lies-about-viewpoint-discrimination-against-horowitz-event/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=san-francisco-chronicle-reprints-ucsbs-lies-about-viewpoint-discrimination-against-horowitz-event</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/adam-kissel/san-francisco-chronicle-reprints-ucsbs-lies-about-viewpoint-discrimination-against-horowitz-event/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2011 04:14:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Adam Kissel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[san francisco chronicle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UCSB]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Viewpoint Discrimination]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=110304</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[First Amendment rights on campus take another hit.
]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/SF-Chronicle.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-110312" title="SF-Chronicle" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/SF-Chronicle.jpg" alt="" width="450" height="374" /></a></p>
<p><strong>Reprinted from <a href="http://thefire.org/">TheFire.org</a>.</strong></p>
<p>Reasonable people disagree about a wide variety of   things. But sometimes, people just lie or misrepresent the truth. Sadly,   a lot of this is happening over at University of California, Santa   Barbara (UCSB), and the lies are making it into the press.</p>
<p>The documentation is quite clear on the following points:</p>
<blockquote><p>1.  Student government officials<em> <a title="completely denied" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/13219.html">completely denied</a></em> funding for $2,000 for a David Horowitz event sponsored by the College   Republicans, because of opposition to his views and expression. Some  of  the students stood up for free speech, but they lost to those  advocating  for &#8220;inclusivity.&#8221;</p>
<p>2.  A second group of student government officials voted to <em><a title="hide the evidence" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/13228.html">hide the evidence</a></em> by suppressing the minutes of the meeting. (Fortunately, we have the minutes anyway and have <a title="posted" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/13219.html">posted</a> them.)</p>
<p>3.  This second group of student government officials also voted to allocate $1,100 for the event, but only after <a title="airing strong denunciations" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/13228.html">airing strong denunciations</a> of Horowitz&#8217;s views and expression. After the audience <a title="erupted in complaints" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/13221.html">erupted in complaints</a>, these student government officials then revisited the question and allocated only $800.</p></blockquote>
<p>The documentation also is clear on these points:</p>
<blockquote><p>4.  FIRE brought this viewpoint discrimination to UCSB&#8217;s attention on <a title="May 6" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/13187.html">May 6</a> and <a title="June 7" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/13281.html">June 7</a>, 2011.</p>
<p>5.  On June 21, UCSB Campus Counsel Nancy Greenan Hamill <a title="replied" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/13691.html">replied</a> that the student government had &#8220;approved the requested $800 for   security and the Office of Student Life covered the additional $300   requested &#8230;. Accordingly, the College Republicans have received the   full amount of their $1,100 request.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>In contrast to Hamill&#8217;s statement, however, the College Republicans <a title="had requested $1,770" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/13228.html">had requested $1,770</a> that time. And the College Republicans&#8217; <a title="account" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/13693.html">account</a> showed no $800, $300, or $1,100 deposit. (I doubt that Hamill was the   one lying here; she probably just accepted whatever lies and   misrepresentations other people fed to her, even though the truth was   not hard to find.)</p>
<p>It was not until October 6 of this year that UCSB released a <a title="document" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/13692.html">document</a> showing that $1,800 had been deposited in the College Republicans&#8217;   account from UCSB&#8217;s After Dark program, split between money from the   UCSB Office of Student Life and the student government (the &#8220;Associated   Students&#8221; or AS). That&#8217;s when FIRE finally could confirm the truth,   which we announced in a <a title="nationwide press release" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/13697.html">nationwide press release</a> on October 10. UCSB had stepped up to its responsibilities in the wake of the viewpoint discrimination by the AS.</p>
<p>Journalist Bob Egelko then <a title="wrote" href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/12/BA7D1LGVT3.DTL">wrote</a> about the case in the <em>San Francisco Chronicle</em> on   October 13. Egelko made the error of calling FIRE a &#8220;conservative&#8221;   group, which I immediately pointed out to him. Disappointingly, this <a title="false characterization" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/10619.html">false characterization</a> has not been corrected.</p>
<p>Egelko got the rest of the facts right. But today the <em>Chronicle</em> ran a curious &#8220;<a title="correction" href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/25/MNRF1LLRVU.DTL">correction</a>&#8221; that includes at least two lies, based on zero evidence. The entire &#8220;correction&#8221; reads:</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>College Republicans reimbursed; Oct. 13; C5</strong><br />
A   story about an appearance by conservative author David Horowitz at UC   Santa Barbara misstated the student council&#8217;s actions on his $1,800  fee.  The council approved all the funding it was authorized to provide,   $800, and did not withhold any funding because of the speaker&#8217;s   viewpoint, as the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education alleged.   Katya Armistead, assistant dean of students, said the university   administration approved on its own the remaining $1,000 from a school   security fund.</p></blockquote>
<p>The first lie here is that the SA was   authorized to approve only $800. This idea has no basis in reality.   Before the audience eruption, in fact, the SA had already approved   $1,100, fully believing it was authorized to do so. Also, the complete   denial of funds the first time around is nowhere to be seen in this   &#8220;correction.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/adam-kissel/san-francisco-chronicle-reprints-ucsbs-lies-about-viewpoint-discrimination-against-horowitz-event/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>38</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Persecution of a Professor</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/adam-kissel/the-persecution-of-a-professor/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-persecution-of-a-professor</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/adam-kissel/the-persecution-of-a-professor/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2011 04:15:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Adam Kissel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=99872</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Widener Law professor is fully cleared of "harassment" and "discrimination" charges for using hypothetical scenarios.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Connell.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-99876" title="Connell" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Connell.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="355" /></a></p>
<p><em>Editorial note: This article from </em><strong><a href="http://thefire.org/">TheFire.org</a></strong><em> is reprinted below because it serves as a powerful commentary on the reactionaries who run our universities.</em></p>
<p>A unanimous hearing panel at Widener University School of Law in Delaware has <a title="fully cleared" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/13414.html">fully cleared</a> Professor Lawrence Connell of <a title="charges" href="http://www.thefire.org/case/858.html">charges</a> of &#8220;harassment&#8221; and &#8220;discrimination&#8221; for his use of the term &#8220;black   folks&#8221; in class and for using law school dean Linda L. Ammons, who is   black, as a character in hypothetical scenarios during lectures. A   faculty panel had recommended that Widener drop its attempts to dismiss   the tenured professor, but administrators reportedly induced students  to  issue further complaints to keep the prosecution going. Represented  by  attorney Thomas S. Neuberger, Connell is <a title="suing" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/13353.html">suing</a> Ammons and Widener for defamation.</p>
<p>Connell&#8217;s ordeal began on December 10, 2010, when Vice Dean J. Patrick Kelly <a title="accosted him and presented a binder full of charges" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/12939.html">presented him with a binder full of charges</a> alleging violations of Widener&#8217;s Faculty Member Discrimination and Harassment Code. Widener charged Connell with a <a title="long laundry list" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/12939.html">long list</a> of   supposed violations, many of which were redundant. One of the most   frivolous charges was that he was wrong to use the term &#8220;black folks&#8221; to   describe African-Americans, which Widener apparently saw as  necessarily  racist despite the fact that the term is widely used by  people  including <a title="President Barack Obama" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vgMnZIafeE">President Barack Obama</a>.   Other allegations involved Connell&#8217;s use of hypothetical examples of   violent crimes in his criminal law courses that involved law school   faculty and staff, including Ammons—even though such hypotheticals are  a <a title="longstanding tradition" href="http://volokh.com/2011/02/16/criminal-law-professor-suspended-for-classroom-hypotheticals/">longstanding tradition</a> in   law schools across the country. Other charges were taken out of   context, while still others, such as an alleged statement that &#8220;all   criminals are poor and all poor are black folk&#8221; are statements Professor   Connell unequivocally denies ever making.</p>
<p>According  to Connell,  Kelly informed him on December 20, 2010, that Ammons had  placed  Connell on administrative leave. On February 24, 2011, Ammons  wrote a <a title="letter" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/12990.html">letter</a> recommending that Connell be dismissed from the university. Connell addressed the charges in a <a title="39-page affidavit" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/12939.html">39-page affidavit</a> on   March 8, 2011. In the affidavit, Connell details his presentations of a   number of legal cases both in and out of class, and explains how his   presentations were misrepresented by a small number of complaining   students. He also denies calling a female police officer &#8220;honey,&#8221; notes   that there is nothing discriminatory or harassing about using the term   &#8220;black folks,&#8221; and notes that it is impossible to defend against such   vague and ambiguous allegations as that a professor made &#8220;racist and   sexist comments&#8221; in class. Connell also denies making any racist or   sexist comments in any classroom.</p>
<p>Although  Widener is a private  university, it has publicly committed itself to  protecting academic  freedom and freedom of expression <a title="on its website" href="http://www.widener.edu/about/vision.asp">on its website</a><strong> </strong>and in <a title="official documents" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/12987.html">official documents</a>. Tellingly, on March 7, the Informal Committee of Inquiry handling Connell&#8217;s case at Widener <a title="recommended" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/12938.html">recommended</a> that the dismissal proceedings be dropped.</p>
<p>Yet Connell&#8217;s ordeal did not end there. <a title="According to Neuberger" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/12991.html">According to Neuberger</a>,   on March 10, Ammons had two law students &#8220;refile their prior false   charges.&#8221; FIRE cannot independently investigate the students&#8217; side of   the story because Connell is prohibited from releasing all of the   details out of fear of punishment for retaliation. Widener&#8217;s <a title="Faculty Member Discrimination and Harassment Code" href="http://www.thefire.org/article/12989.html">Faculty Member Discrimination and Harassment Code</a> provides   that &#8220;[d]issemination of information relating to the case should be   limited in order that the privacy of all individuals involved is   safeguarded as fully as possible [...] to protect the Complainant from   retaliatory action by those named in the Complaint.&#8221; Retaliation can be   punished with dismissal from the university.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/adam-kissel/the-persecution-of-a-professor/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 436/450 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 09:08:39 by W3 Total Cache -->