What's The Law? It's What University of Wisconsin-Stout Administrators Feel That It Is, On Any Given Day. (Updated to Analyze UWS's Sudden Retreat)

Print This Post

You may also like...

21 Responses

  1. Mad Rocket Scientist says:

    Someday, a public official will, when confronted with the misbehavior of an underling, apologize for the behavior and institute real reform to ensure it doesn't happen again.

    I ain't giving up breathing or sex waiting for it to happen, though.

  2. TJIC says:

    > It is important to note that the posters were not removed to censor the professor in question. Rather, they were removed out of [ some euphemism for censorship ].

    Same old, same old.

    Horses sweat, men perspire, women glow.

    They censor, you edit, I merely have a legitimate concern about blah-blah-blah.

  3. eddie says:

    They meant well.

    Bless their hearts.

  4. EH says:

    These people are stupid and have rendered the phrase "legitimate concern" devoid of meaning.

  5. Dan says:

    "Mouth-of-Sauron" – man, I love this blog!

  6. Ken says:

    UWS's statement is, ultimate, a Spouse Apology. "I'm sorry you've come to the conclusion that I was wrong. How can we prevent that from happening again?"

  7. Scott Jacobs says:

    And if they truly DID believe them to "incite violence", they would stick to their guns and NOT back down.

    So either they KNOW the fucked up, or they are fucking cowards.

  8. Josh M. says:

    @Scott Jacobs: Why can't both be true? They know from the shitstorm they've generated that they fucked up, yet they still refuse to completely back down and give a genuine apology, so they're fucking cowards. If they had even a shred of decency and/or spine they would admit they screwed up and give a meaningful apology.

    However, as another commenter posted above, I ain't giving up sex or breathing to wait for it.

  9. NLP says:

    If the University of Wisconsin has reached the state where the word "kill" is regarded as a threat (did they warn the History and Literature departments?) then I am forced to the conclusion that Arlo Guthrie's classic "Alice's Restaurant" is banned on campus. I am thinking of two scenes from the draft board section, one where he is talking to the psychiatrist and yelling "'kill kill' and he was jumping up and down with me and we was both yelling 'kill kill' and the sergeant came in pinned a medal on me, sent me down the hall saying 'you're our boy'" and the later scene where he says, "you want to know if I'm moral enough to join the army burn women kids houses and villages after being a litterbug."

    I can't begin to consider the fear that would be unleashed on campus if that recording was played.

  10. Laura K says:

    Adam Balwdwin's article about this clusterfornication ended with another Serenity/Firefly quote that sent chills up my spine. "“Sure as I know anything, I know this – they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They’ll swing back to the belief that they can make people… better."
    Miranda…Sout…the TSA…

  11. NLP says:

    And a final thought about the nicey-nice kind of censorship displayed by the administration at UWS. During WWII Life magazine published a picture of two young Marines who died on a beach at New Guinea. Their faces were not visible, but they were clearly young. Many people complained about the picture. It was too brutal, it was unpatriotic to suggest that Marines might die, it was defeatist, and so on. The response from the managing editor was as follows: "If free men refuse to look at dead bodies then brave men have died in vain."

  12. SPQR says:

    Furthermore, the UW-Stout Center for Applied Ethics will schedule workshops and/or forums during this academic year on First Amendment rights and responsibilities in higher education.

    Why? Only three people need such workshops. The Chancellor, the Chief of Gestapo and their Spokesman. Why bother the innocent with the usual Communist self-abasement sessions?

  13. Hal_10000 says:

    The most telling thing is their rank hypocrisy on the "Kill the Bill" poster. Apparently, violent imagery is not bad when it's in favor of YOUR particular issue. Reminds me of when I was in college and my opposition to speech codes was seen as "oppression".

  14. Russell says:

    An apology is nice, dismissal of those who perpetrated this would be nicer. Of course thanks to those unions UWS enshrines, we know that will never happen.

  15. Dustin says:

    In other words, they learned nothing, but want the bad publicity to stop.

    They promise vague seminars on how to 'handle' first amendment issues, or whatever the hell that was.

    Basically what you'd expect. A nonapology and a 'you don't understand, and we're sorry for that'

  16. marco73 says:

    I love this paragraph:

    Therefore, UW-Stout has reconsidered its decision to remove the two posters from outside the professor’s office, meaning he can display them if he so chooses.

    So if they can put some pressure on the professor, he'll chose a different, more acceptable poster.

    I hope he puts up something really offensive.

  17. mojo says:

    Poster suggestions?

    Lord of the Rings: "Well boys, looks like meat's back on the menu!"

  18. Hasdrubal says:

    "Furthermore, the UW-Stout Center for Applied Ethics will schedule workshops and/or forums during this academic year on First Amendment rights and responsibilities in higher education.

    The "First Amendment… responsibilities" jumped out at me. I'm suspicious that they mean the responsibilities of speakers in exercising their 1A rights so as not to hurt anyone's feelings, rather than the responsibilities of authorities to ensure 1A rights are not infringed.

    But, to remind ourselves that there might still be hope, via Volokh.com, there still are university officials doin it right: http://thefire.org/article/13653.html

  19. Dwight Brown says:

    I thought the law was "No spill blood!" Thanks for the clarification.

  20. Gaunilo says:

    In a former life when confronted with the job of the administration in dealing with a screwup by someone working for me, I used the line "I look back with great nostalgia to the days when I only had to apologize for things I messed up personally." It seemed to work much better than attempts at justification.

  21. Bergman says:

    If, as UWS asserted, simply having the word "kill" in printed text makes the document in question an active threat to human lives, then I feel I must point out the presence of the word "kill" in the press releases and public statements published by UWS.

    Therefore if what the leadership of UWS asserts is true, they would have to censor themselves.