Can’t we all just get along?
ABC News: Professor Put on Leave After Abortion Spat
A college professor has been put on leave and will retire at the end of the semester after admitting she told students to destroy an anti-abortion display on campus.
Sally Jacobsen, a professor in the literature and language department at Northern Kentucky University, will not return to the school, President James Votruba said.
“I believe what she did was outside the scope of her employment,” Votruba said Monday.
Jacobsen acknowledged leading graduate students on Wednesday to a grassy area near the University Center to rip up about 400 crosses. The crosses, temporarily erected a week earlier by a group called Northern Right to Life, were meant to represent a cemetery for aborted fetuses.
It was unclear whether Jacobsen took part in dismantling the display. She could not be located for comment Monday afternoon. University police were investigating the vandalism report.
Katie Walker, a member of Northern Right to Life, said her group would like those who destroyed the crosses prosecuted.
“I just hope they’re held accountable for their actions,” Walker said.
What strikes me as odd about this is that this display was allowed on campus in the first place. Maybe that’s the problem with youth in America — they’re getting too lazy to demonstrate anymore. “We just have to unload a few hundred grave markers from the van and we’ll still have time to meet down at the malt shop to talk about what we’re wearing to this weekend’s sock hop.”
*Sigh* I guess I just miss the traditional values of shoe leather pounding the pavement in an old fashioned political demonstration.
Jacobsen said it originally wasn’t clear who had placed the crosses on campus.
She said that could make it appear that NKU endorsed the message.
Pulling up the crosses was similar to citizens taking down Nazi displays on Fountain Square, she said.
“Any violence perpetrated against that silly display was minor compared to how I felt when I saw it. Some of my students felt the same way, just outraged,” Jacobsen said.
http://news.nky.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20060414/NEWS0103/604140420
Good defense. I don’t know if the Judge would buy it, but I’m convinced. You might have the right to express your self, but I also have the right not to listen. If this display is where I have no choice but to see it, then may I not express myself as well? Because this is public property, the University can not give one side in a political debate an advantage over the other. In my opinion, that should include forcing someone to view an offensive message.
How could somebody be offended at something so trivial? Would she say it was okay as self expression to vandalize a Van Gogh or Picasso?
Sounds like this woman has hostility issues.
“You might have the right to express your self, but I also have the right not to listen.” – Great comment! The Freedom of Speech does not mean amnesty to action.
Is this particular pic really necessary????
the cost of Freedom is sometimes being offended by other peoples freedom.
It’s interesting (from the link above)
>
so according to her, destruction is a FOS right? I wonder what Planned parenthood’s comment is.
Once violence is condoned for one purpose it becomes OK for any purpose… It’s too bad so many people act out of anger.
Dan
I am a student at NKU and I’m glad to see the professor go. I support the freedom of speech, even when Sally Jacobsen doesn’t. She should be setting a good example for students, not this crap.
having free speech in this society means occasionally being exposed to messages you don’t agree with. there are people who want to live in a bubble where all they hear are soothing, agreeable, reassuring voices, but they cannot justify vandalism (which in this case is censorship) by arguing they have the right not to hear or see things they disagree with.
having free speech in this society means occasionally being exposed to messages you don’t agree with. there are people who want to live in a bubble where all they hear are soothing, agreeable, reassuring voices, but they cannot justify vandalism (which in this case is censorship) by arguing they have the right not to hear or see things they disagree with.
That is a very good point. Unfortunately, there isn’t an obligation on anyone’s part to listen. In this case, the crosses were placed where they had to be seen, there was no option. The argument that you do not have to open your eyes or listen to the words doesn’t wash. This isn’t about living in a bubble. It is, according to the Professor, extremely offensive. Offensive past the point of outrage. This was deliberate taunting.
I am quite sure that the reaction of a lot of the “Right to Lifers” would have been equally offended if there were 400 naked people standing there celebrating “Git Nekked Day”. Because this was done in front of a hall being used for a seminar on Choice, it becomes that much more offensive. So let’s move those 400 naked people to in front of a Church. In fact, let’s put them right in front of the front door where everyone exiting the Church must see them. Does it become a little plainer now?
9. it is perfectly plain – provocative speech is still protected speech. segregationists no doubt found civil rights protesters to be greatly offensive to their delicate sensibilities, and were unhappy about having to see them, but the First Amendment protects them.
living in a free society means being offended sometimes. the professor had no right to have the crosses vandalized any more than I would have the right to firebomb a billboard whose message I disagreed with because I could not avoid looking at it.
Sorry Mr. Fusion….but your wrong. If this display was so offensive then take it to the administration and file your complaint. Then like any good liberal would do when confronted with something they don’t like, sue the bastards, then demonstrate at the site. Being liberal and the group who erected the crosses christian, I’ll even bet the Professor could have managed to use the terms, racist and /or bigoted in there somewhere.
This is very similar to what has taken place on campuses where the university newspaper has printed something that one of the *protected* groups didn’t like and their papers were stolen and burned and threats were made against the staff.
It’s ok to disagree, even say so, or demonstrate, it’s not ok to just commit vandlism because your offended.