According to the Cincinnati Enquirer (NOT the National Enquirer),
A professor at Northern Kentucky University said she invited students in one of her classes to destroy an anti-abortion display on campus Wednesday evening.
Witnesses reported "a group of females of various ages" committing the vandalism about 5:30 p.m., said Dave Tobertge, administrative sergeant with the campus police.
Sally Jacobsen, a longtime professor in NKU’s literature and language department, said the display was dismantled by about nine students in one of her graduate-level classes.
"I did, outside of class during the break, invite students to express their freedom-of-speech rights to destroy the display if they wished to," Jacobsen said.
Asked whether she participated in pulling up the crosses, the professor said, "I have no comment."
And why is she cagey on her own involvement in the vandalism?
NKU President James Votruba said any evidence of criminal conduct in the incident will be turned over to prosecutors. He said he appreciated the emotional nature of the abortion debate and was glad that diverse viewpoints are represented at the school, but he condemned the destruction of the crosses.
"Freedom-of-speech rights end where you infringe on someone else’s freedom of speech," Votruba said.
"I don’t buy the claim that this is an act of freedom of speech, to destroy property."
GET THE STORY.
(CHT to the reader who e-mailed.)
So . . . abortion advocates turn to violence.
Isn’t this a "Dog Bites Man!" story?
PRE-PUBLICATION UPDATE: Instapundit reports that Professor Jacobsen is being removed from her position.
Actually, Jimmy you are a little late on this story. She has agreed to retire at the end of the term, which is about as good as you can do with a tenured professor.
ummm… What about the freedom of speech rights of the people who put up the display? I guess you only have the right to speak if you agree with her…
“NKU President James Votruba said any evidence of criminal conduct in the incident will be turned over to prosecutors.”
While what the professor did is despicable, can it really be a criminal matter? If I see a sign advertising a rally in support of abortion and tear it down, have I committed a criminal act? Certainly it would be, for lack of a better term, rude, and obviously a university should not tolerate professors who perform such actions, but does it constitute a violation of the law? My instinct says no, but I’m far from an expert on such matters so any clarification would be greatly appreciated.
As an alumnus of NKU, Votruba had better remove that woman if he wants any support from me.
Typical liberal mentality. They let their emotions get in the way of their logic and common sense. As Votruba said, “Freedom-of-speech rights end when you infringe upon someone else’s freedom of speech.” I would expect a tentured professor at NKU to grasp this concept.
Mike, last I knew, vandalism and destruction of property was a crime in all 50 states.
A buddy of mine was worried about his daughter going off to college. I thought he meant, you know, regular daddy-concern-for-daughter stuff. But no, his chief fear was that his daughter wanted to study literature, and he said “You know, that’s the department where some of the worst crackpot professors hide out.” Too true.
Mike, Chris S. is right. You can not vandalize or destroy the property of others.
There is some gray area in a tangential issue: the illegal posting of materials. As an example, if a demonstrator posts a poster on the wall of a school for which they did not get permission to do so, it can lawfully be taken down. However, it can not be destroyed by a third party as they do not have the right to seize ownership of it. The best a third party could do is to take it down without damaging it and turn it into the school. But that person better make sure that the school didn’t grant permission for it to be posted or wouldn’t retro-actively grant that permission.
The school, depending on the situation, may be able to destroy it because it was posted on their property illegally and can seize ownership of it.
Ken. Interesting. I wonder whether, given how placards and flyers are actually treated in real life, if posting them is not tantamount to abandoning them, hence a ripper of such things posted WITHOUT permission is not usurping ownership of another’s property, but rather assuming ownership of abandoned property. Plus, de minimis non curat lex, and all that.
Ed writes, “You know, that’s the department where some of the worst crackpot professors hide out.”
As a PhD in American Literature and former prof of literaure I want to immediately and forceful address this accusation. It is absolutely untrue.
In fact, MOST of the crackpot profs in any given university are in the English department.
Fr. Philip, OP (former Lit Crackpot, current Theology Crackpot)
Thx, Pater (though you should have said, “Ed quotes”)…anyway, I’d be happy round up all the crackpot profs in English depts too! Just say the word.
Yes, it is vandalism. Especially since the pro-life group sought & received permission from the university to install the display.
The really problematic aspect of this is Jacobsen’s ascertion that the destruction of the display is her “free speech right”! Since when is vandalism free speech?
Also, the Enquirer story does not print it but there is actually a picture of Jacobsen in the act of vandalizing the display herself, with students helping.
I hope she enjoys her jail time.
To further what Gene is saying, this destruction by the professor and students was most definitely vandalism. My point about illegally posted stuff was theoretical in nature as, just as Gene states, these crosses were placed with permission and so my point doesn’t apply.
Ed, good point about abandoning. I’m not sure how that would play into it. It does seem that they’ve abandoned it. Maybe there is an issue of burden of proof? I know from being involved in some political campaigns that it was made clear that if we saw a competitor’s sign posted illegally that we were to contact the owner of the property and ask them to take it down or if absolutely necessary get permission from them to take it down. For public property that involved calling the local government (who were often slow to respond).
If I’m remembering correctly, I was told that if an owner didn’t care if anyone posted a sign, one of the “better” solutions was to post your sign over the competitors as it didn’t destory their property but effectively masked it.
Stories from the trenches…
We did the same demonstration at my school. Pro-choice people came over and screamed and swore at us, called us “f***ing losers”, told us to get a life, threatened to break all our displays, and some other stuff. Then they had the nerve to call US intolerant and ignorant and say we were shoving our views down their throats. All this before we even opened our mouths.
Yeah, where has this professor been all these years? Doesn’t she know she has the freedom to hold a counter protest but not to dismantle a protest she disagrees with?
The anti-abortion display was approved. She had no right to destroy it. More than mere vandalism has taken place here.
What I think is funny is that this middle-aged lady had to recruit youngsters do to her dirty work for her. Just another sign that the culture of Death is literally running out of believers. Ten years ago, the campus would have been crawling with ne’er-do-well 20-somethings ready to trample whole acres of crosses.
I wish the Thomas Moore Law Center would comment on this!
I just want to amplify the above answers to Mike’s question (all of which are correct). If the students broke the crosses, they committed Criminal Mischief; if they knocked down the crosses, they committed Criminal Tammpering; if the took the crosses, they committed Larceny. The professor, by encouraging them to destroy the display, committed the crime of Criminal Solicitation.
Why aren’t the students being expelled or at least being suspended for engaging in criminal activity? Or better yet, in these days of PC, for engaging in hate speech (if one were to accept the professor’s warped notion of free speech) and religious intolerance?
I am not a fan of hate speech laws because their application can be arbitrary, as we can see in this case. Crushing crosses, spay painting graffiti on church doors, having protesters enter a church and tip over the tabernacle during Mass — none of these are considered hate crime.
In the eyes of the “enlightened” this is acceptable behavior.
On the other hand, in places like Europe and Canada, openly proclaiming a centuries-old belief regarding homosexual acts (something which all faiths more or less agree on) can be considered (and is prosecuted as) hate speech. Even if the proclamation contains no exhortations to violence and only points out the sinful nature of the act.
Hate speech laws have been turned into a powerful weapon governments can use to limit both freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
While I think the idea of hate speech laws in principle is a good one, in application they give too much power to the state over individual rights.
Government is not god. That is why Communism fell. Because hate speech laws encourage the government to abuse this powerful tool, I think it should be avoided if possible and only used in more extreme circumstances (like when violence is advocated — although there were already legal protections in place against that before hate speech laws came into existence).
Peter,
Take pride in the fact that you have been chosen to sffer for Christ and his little ones.
I posted my comments here, but suffice to say, student protester Katie walker nailed it: “the dismantling of the display was about stifling free speech, not exercising it.”
“I don’t buy the claim that this is an act of freedom of speech, to destroy property.”
–agreed. Someone paid for those crosses. Someone took the time to place them there. Are they going to be reembursed for their money and their time?? Those folks were welcome to put up their own signs expressing an oposing view.. heck, they could have even gotten away with heckling. But freedom of speech does not extend to wrecking other people’s property.
Just posted at michellemalkin.com: The professor and 6 of the students have been charged with larceny and criminal mischief. The professor has also been charged with criminal solicitation. More students may be charged.