Campus Conservative Group Attempts to Piss Off Campus Liberals, Succeeds


Lovely to see that "Gender Studies" specialists can acquire funding from a state university, all the while funding for proper arts and sciences is being dialed back so far that tenure-track positions within are going out of existence. Also lovely to see that university professors may readily lower themselves to the level of the troglodytes that so frequent our higher education system.
Ellen Lewin fed a troll.
Is that a classic younger sibling move, or what? Pick, pick, pick, then when your target explodes, run crying to mummy, "she's being mean to meeeee!" Jeez.

I also appreciated the "Whose Conservative anyway?" I don't know, Campus Conservatives, whose conservative are we talking about? Is this a Republican drinking game, but with no swearz?
This is all the conservative club ever did on my campus. They'd pull, on average, one ridiculous stunt a year. Inviting a homophobic lecturer for a lovely talk called "The Born Gay Myth" or something like was the first one I was there for, on a campus that was, last I looked, 40% gay- or bi-identified. Predictably, one sensible protest was organized but it fell apart into a whole bunch of screaming. The conservative nutcase got to feel persecuted and whine about it on various Fox-ish blogs, the angry lesbians and their allies got to yell at an enemy, and, well, everyone got what they wanted and nobody won. The next year they tried another weird pundit talking about how hate speech is a liberal conspiracy to oppress freedom-loving people everywhere, but no one took the bait, so it comes in waves. The rest of the time they were pretty much ignored, except when it turned out the club with about ten members that never did anything was getting several thousand in funding, or they put out a barely-edited newsletter with glossy paper and lots of color and shots of the apparently illiterate staff showing their cleavage (there were literally misspelled common words all over this thing; I'm not being a total elitist liberal snob here)... As far as I could tell their usual activity was mostly starting fights with each other and sighing loudly about how the school oppressed them. In fact, I think I remember a "Conservative Coming Out Day." So it's been done. And nobody came, of course. They were usually good for amusement.
Well, I'm with the College Republicans on this one. The professor's behaviour was unacceptable, and I can definitely see that one has to "come out" as Republican on a liberal campus. If the vast majority of people in an area are liberal, it becomes assumed (liberonormativity?). So I don't think the use of "come out" was inappropriate; I think it was playful at most, and perhaps very intelligent.

Also, while I don't quite get why the event was called an Animal Rights BBQ, is it an outrage to animal rights to eat meat? Well, yes and no. To paraphrase Dan, I'd rather be stewed than Republican. But if a vegetarian had a go at me for eating meat, I'd be rightly upset, in the same way that if I abused them for their position I'd be out of line.

Animals do not have the right to not get eaten. They never have, for billions of years. Vegetables are what food eats.
Yeah, the professor lost the high ground when she lost her temper. She--and her cause--might have been better served by sending her third e-mail, and not the first two.

Perhaps a left-leaning English professor could have chimed in with commentary on the multiple spelling and grammatical errors in the original invitation from the Young Republican group.
Bethany Jean Clement has a "Conservative Coming Out Day" every day with her constant "Animal Rights BBQ" posts. The difference is that you are more than justified in firing the flaming conservative at your newspaper. Maybe she can get her old job back at the Seattle Weekly with a more conservative audience.
I did my undergrad in Women's Studies, and loved it, but this prof is doing exactly the type of thing I would see all the time in my faculty: teach about oppression, about dismantling the master's house, and about revolution, and then fall back on "you're supposed to address me by my last name because tradition says so!!!!"

Shame that she lost her temper, because the Conservative group's email WAS ridiculous, and there's a lot to be criticised in it, but in this exchange they end up looking like the more respectful bunch. Too bad.
I don't know, I'm thinking that maybe instead of being the grammatically correct, measured, restrained Democrats, we could become the Honey Badger party: FUCK YOU, Republicans, Suck it. Honey Badger don't give a shit.
So some college Republican group is being cunty .... And the breaking news here is what, exactly?
I vote that we banish Raku for personal attacks.
Actually, I don't care about the "fuck you" but more about what @8 said. When addressing non-professors I often find myself using a first name without courtesy titles! Go figure. Way to dismantle the patriarchal order, you liberal non-com, you!

The Republicans were trolling and deserve whatever response they get. "Acceptable" responses are usually only required of one side, btw.
11 - Gimme a break, taunting people who acknowledge animal rights is what Bethany is paid to do. Not mentioning her in a post about other conservatives doing the same would be like not mentioning Dan Savage in a post about gay sex advice columnists.
"you're supposed to address me by my last name because tradition says so!!!!"

I agree with her: she's not your friend, it's university, she's a faculty member, and she has a doctorate. It's only polite and expected that you'd address her by her title and last name unless invited to do otherwise. I used to know someone who worked (in a non-academic position) at a university, who trumpeted the fact that he refused to address anyone by their title and last name, and I guarantee you it wasn't about "revolution" or "dismantling the master's house"; it was to make himself feel better about his insignificant, unskilled job.
I'd just like to double-check one thing -- the e-mail from the college Republicans was written by students? Are admissions standards at U of Iowa so low that they can't get students with good English skills to attend? That e-mail should have embarrassed every single one of the (10?) members of the campus conservative group. Deplorable.
@ 14, I don't address people with doctorates as "doctor." I reserve that for MD's.
"It's only polite and expected that you'd address her by her title and last name unless invited to do otherwise."

By who am I expected? Are you Emily Post? Not that that means much.

Your friend (or did you pose as that and indulge his behavior?) at the university probably did have some anti-authority issue but you certainly have your own set of rigid, bullshit mores too. Glad you are the arbiter for everyone.
The University of Iowa wasn't on my list of schools to attend, and it still isn't.
Is it only me who thinks however moronic the political views of a group are, and however bad the grammar is in their email circular, they should be allowed to express their views respectfully and attempt to raise awareness for their cause? And not get profane emails from faculty in the process?

I assume this is a tenured professor, which makes it harder, but if I received that email from a professor I'd want them fired.

I mean, I'm from Britain. We don't have freedom of speech. You guys do, and you seem to throw the concept out the window whenever someone who - our civil rights aside - believes in a different fiscal policy wants to speak.
@19 - To answer your question, in a word, no. You're allowed to speak your mind, publish your pamphlet, or make your film, but I am also allowed to stand next to your soapbox and call you a moron.

I love that this gender studies prof responded the way she did. I think some people need to be cursed, and often.
Regarding the professor's stated wish to be addressed as 'Dr. Lewin': A student not known to her personally referred to her by her first name. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that that student would be less likely to refer to a male professor the same way. That may be at the root of Lewin's complaint.

As to not wishing to refer to an academic as 'Dr.', how about a compromise: Professor Lewin.
Joseph in London, perhaps if conservatives on college campuses were only talking about fiscal policy, people wouldn't react the way they did in this exchange. But we've become used to conservatives talking less about money and more about denying people's rights. There no longer seems to be just a fiscal debate. Being conservative means a very different thing than it did a generation ago. I guess it would be akin to remaining silent while the KKK held a barbecue.
relax repubs, she was speaking Dick Cheney - appropriating your language.
Just like to remind Dingo @14 that Prof. Lewin insisted on being addressed politely after she sent an email telling the College Repubs to "F#$% off." Probably too late to take the high ground...

And Joseph in London @ 19: Well spoken. That's the real loss in this debate.
Ah, University of Iowa Republicans.....what would my college sex life have been without them? Sure, it was a lot of sneaking around and "double-dating", and Man-I-was-drunk-last-night, but it was always good.

Give it time.... The guys will move to Chicago and come out, and the girls will move back to Mason City or Estherville, marry their high school boyfriend and work in a bank.
Losing your temper with young conservatives... I can't blame her.

That much smug and willfully ignorant in one place would send anyone over the edge.
@19 thats not how we roll in the usa. repubs were trolling, and they triggered the response they wanted. read 22, politics are not intellectual here. god i WISH it was just about fiscal policy.

professorship is a very political position. university, academic, and public politics all come in play. the same standards do not apply for an academic, esp publicly employed.

FU was in order, as a flaming bag of dogshit, but she should have used her anon email account. signing your name is overrated.
Fuck You Republicans
Better yet, Republican, you need to be fucked.
Dear Heaven, I LOVE how that sanctimonious university official reprimands the Prof. Lewin about "They have First Amendment rights toooooo." Can someone please fucking explain to me how one gets to be a university official while lacking such a grade-school understanding of the First Amendment? All it says is that the government may not criminalize your speech. It does not set up a magical forcefield to ward off any "fuck you"s that others may wish to express upon hearing your speech!

@19, I'll forgive you, being from England and all, not understanding the First Amendment...but, dude, you TOTALLY don't get the concept of freedom of speech--it in no way prevents you from being criticized, nor does it insist that the tone of those listening to you must be measured or polite. It just means that you can't be fined/arrested/jailed/etc. for the content of your speech, NOT that your speech has to be admired, agreed with, or shown any level of social deference.
(1) "controlling every level Johnson County, and some levels of Iowa"
(2) "Whose Conservative Anyway?"
(3) "showing of [the film] 'Journey's with George' "
(4) "your Doctors' Notice to miss class"
(5) "wear your respective political parties color!"
(6) "Lets come out!"
Gender Studies is the new name for Women's Studies. Which is legit. And necessary. And a part of "real" arts & sciences. (For the record, I am not, nor have ever been, a Gender/Women's Studies major.) Funding goes where interest goes--and however little interest it may hold for you personally, it is still a matter of interest for many, many more. For all your concern and worry about "real" a&s departments, I can assure you there will be no English or Biology department going belly up because the school hired a Gender Studies professor.
And, honestly, if you don't like the fact that public universities are forced to make painful cuts to their programs, perhaps you should direct your ire toward those in charge of the federal and state budgets. But don't attack the academics because they're not the academic of your preference.
I sent an email to these idiots as soon as I got it - I'm doing a doctoral program here. I told them that conservatives are far from oppressed, and to stop appropriating terminology from a truly oppressed group for their own ends. But I never would written 'fuck you,' just because, well, they use this kind of crap. And they are. But get off Iowa, dudes. We do have the Writer's Workshop. And better weather than my hometown of Seattle.
Poor prof. I hope she socked some money away. It's going to be tough to pay TIAA CREF and the Aflac duck in that window between being fired and the ACLU lawsuit.
i'm a student at iowa. i think the only proper response would be to launch an "it get's better" project for republican college students.

"sure, you have to drink pbr now, but once you get that marketing gig in the loop, you'll be drinking top shelf vodka."

no one will go to their stupid events b/c there are only two weeks left in the semester and it's unusually cold for this time of year. EVENT PLANNING FAIL.
So basically someone made an outlandish claim and picked a fight on the internet today. Wow. Honestly, they're like 3 year olds at this point. It's pathetic and boring.
So I'm all for Republicans being the new "gays," if we can prevent them from marrying and having kids:) Seems only fair.
This is a crazy weird comment thread. Fuck those assholes. That professor just sent out a stupid email saying what we are all thinking. Who gives a fuck if they complain about their shitty "rights" to be fuck ups. They're irrelevant and dying out.

Student conservatives SHOULD be belittled. They SHOULD be disrespected. Theres no "respect equality." When they do respectable things everyone will stop telling them to go fuck themselves. If they keep pulling bullshit, people will keep pulling their card.

Additionally, they're lucky they just got a mean email. If they come to San Francisco with that bullshit, they'll be cutting a few teeth out of their fiscal mouth-budgets.
Hahaha! As if she'd ever get fired for something like that, even if she's not tenured (I have no idea if she is or isn't).

I'm pretty sure my university has a pro-life club or something but that's about it, conservative-wise. I know every once in awhile there's a random pro-life protest in a large common area, and it's inevitably a bunch of old white people marching around with signs of dead mangled fetuses and they're almost universally ignored except for a couple of first-years who point and whisper. I feel like that may be a better way to deal with idiots - pretend they aren't there and wait for them to die off.
Professors, unfortunately, don't *get* to tell students we dislike to 'fuck off' - not just because it's unprofessional, but (more importantly) because responding to ignorance with nothing more well-thought-out than a string of all-caps epithets is *unscholarly*. If you can't put aside your ego long enough to handle a confrontational dunderhead in your class, you need to pick a different profession.
16: "I don't address people with doctorates as "doctor." I reserve that for MD's"

Why? People with doctorates are not medical doctors, but they nevertheless have the title "doctor," particularly in a university environment.

@17: "you certainly have your own set of rigid, bullshit mores too. Glad you are the arbiter for everyone."

Nobody's asking you to announce yourself with a calling card or gasping with exaggerated shock over your failure to dab your chin with the right napkin, dirac. I realize you probably grew up an entitled, spoiled child overindulged by your parents and encouraged to see yourself as a precious snowflake to whom even minimal standards of courtesy don't apply lest they crush your creative spirit, and I see from your post that you think that common courtesies that cost nothing--such as an undergraduate university student addressing a professor as "Dr." plus their last name unless invited to do otherwise--are outmoded and unnecessary, but I fail to see how using an academic title in an academic context is a "bullshit more," and nor do I see how not using it accomplishes anything except revealing (a) your lack of manners and (b) your ignorance of the fact that a little bit of politeness can get you a long way....

....a fact which, as 24 pointed out, seems to have (temporarily?) escaped Dr. Lewin, but which still doesn't make her desire to be addressed by her title and last name any less legitimate.
This is all goodness. A university should be awash in provocative groups raising the ire of its faculty. Healthy it is!
@42 Mr. Dingo: Quite presumptuous--I was treated more like a little shitflake but raised with what you'd no doubt see as good manners. I can see you've still got a little reticle to hold up to everyone else. Your "minimal standards" and manners aren't universally applicable, however. Pontificating about them is outmoded and quaint. Get over it.

Lewin set the tone a little lower for her subsequent interaction, did she not?
Did someone say BBQ?
@ 42, it's because medical doctors are real doctors, while holders of doctorate degrees are not. And the doctorate degree holders I came across who insisted on being called "doctor" were all pompous asses. (Clarissa Pinkola Estes, I'm looking at you.)

I would probably end up calling these people "doctor" if I were in a university setting, but I'm not.
@44: "Mr. Dingo"--very amusing.

What world are you living in where it's not only not considered polite for an undergrad to address a professor they don't know by their title and last name, it's even "outmoded"? Do enlighten me.

And as I said before, she may have lowered the tone, but that still doesn't make her desire to be addressed by her title and last name instead of her first name any less legitimate.
46: nobody I know who has a PhD insists on being called "Dr. X" in every aspect of their lives--none of the medical doctors I know insist on it either--but in a university setting there's nothing strange about it at all.

And strictly speaking holders of doctorates are "doctors," even though in normal English we don't refer to them as such. They may not be healers, but that's not actually the same thing.
Ugh, all I can remember my school's CRs doing was shit-stirring with stunts like "Islamofascism Week."

It's unfortunate that Prof. Lewin lost the high ground with her first email because she made an extremely good point about appropriating the language of an actually oppressed group of people. And when the student replies to boo-hoo about "vulgarity" and "demonizing" and "vile responses" without the slightest hint of irony...I'm just filled with rage.
Almost everyone in that chain of e-mails comes off as childish and less versed in English than one might hope. The thread tells us less about politics than it does the quality of education at the University of Iowa.
Dingo, many college students are used to addressing their teachers in an informal manner.

In a series of semi-casual e-mails, the absence of strict formality in the case of titles is hardly worth remarking upon, much less whining about. In writing, use of official titles is typically reserved for formal occasions. None of these e-mails strike such a tone, nor do they seem to follow any professional style guide. This context isn't one which lends itself to someone being formally addressed without a hint of curt stiffness, pedantry, or sarcasm.

Ignoring such worries, the professor's complaint still comes off as petty, particularly in context. After all, she is clearly calling attention to this tiny slight in order to lessen the impact of her own lack of decorum. It's a child-like attempt to shift blame made all the worse by her being the professor in this situation.
She found that email "extremely disturbing?"


oh wait, she was serious


That should clear things up for you. You're welcome.

Short version: people who hold PhDs *should* be called "doctor," because doctorates are not, and have never been, solely the province of medical practitioners. The title comes from the Latin for "to teach." The first doctorates were given to practitioners of law. It hasn't got anything to do with medicine.
Those poor oppressed republicans, banned from marrying in most states... Oh wait...
@19: I totally agree with you that "however moronic the political views of a group are, and however bad the grammar is in their email circular, they should be allowed to express their views respectfully and attempt to raise awareness for their cause."

@30: You're also right that freedom of speech "in no way prevents you from being criticized, nor does it insist that the tone of those listening to you must be measured or polite," and therefore the professor had a right to send off her flaming email.

But i still think she shouldn't have done it. Not because it was wrong, but because it makes her (and by extension, her cause) look childish and reactionary. Such a direct and unnuanced expression of her outrage might please those of us who already agree with her, but for those who don't, or who are undecided, chances are it just makes them even less interested in paying any attention to what she (and by extension, the rest of us who side with her) might have to say.
@25 - everything you post makes me love you all over again (In a non-creepy, everything-this-person-writes-is-hilarious-and-smart, kind of way).
“I personally am offended when someone uses other cultural markers for their own purpose, such as using Native Americans for sports teams,” she said'

Can we leave the Blackhawks out of this?
Medical doctors are glorified technicians. Actually, just technicians. They don't study the human body beyond rote memorization, they aren't trained to be critical of the research findings that lead to the way they practice medicine and they are trained to act as if they are certain in the face of their own doubt. Basically, doctors are trained to be pompous assholes. I say this as someone who comes from a large family of medical professionals (some doctors, some not). This woman is right that a male faculty member is much less likely to be addressed by his first name by a student who has never met him. In that regard (and pretty much only that regard) she is right. I'd be pissed off if I got an email like that, too, but her responses were pretty ridiculous.

I also think comment 33 was right on the mark. For what it's worth.
meh, if the student group actually had any guts they would have skipped the ridiculous animal right bbq and gone straight to the rifle sight target map of the local abortion providers.

As it was, they weren't exactly doing anything to promote planks in the platform, just pretty boring stunts.

I feel for the prof, she lost it to a troll. I think her punishment should be time spent researching /b/.

Membership in a student group that would be that boring is punishment enough for the students involved.
I'm with @Joseph in London and @55 (Lourdes): as grating as the CR mail was to read (GRAMMAR. PUNCTUATION. FAIL. ARGH.), Dr. Lewin's response managed to lower the tone of the e-mail exchange even further. It may have satisfied her desire to vent, but accomplished nothing--unless you count enabling the CRs' desire to moan about their being demonised and victimised by the liberal establishment--and made her look inarticulate and childish. She should have sent the third e-mail or something similar if she wanted to make any sort of point at all. Biting sarcasm would've been nice; mocking the CR would have been great; 'FUCK YOU' just rings pathetic. I'm inclined to dismiss Professor Lewin for her juvenile response (and I'm definitely liberal), and I do think that her following up 'FUCK YOU' with whining about not being addressed by her title is a little rich. (Nevertheless, under any normal circumstances, students should address faculty as 'Doctor' or 'Professor' until invited to do otherwise, and I say this as someone with no doctorate who generally addressed her professors by their first name. That's just basic etiquette in an academic setting.)

Bottom line: I expected better from students and faculty from a university with a nationally recognised writing programme. What a disappointment.
I attended a lecture given by Dr. Lewin, in which she talked about her research with gay couples in the adoption process. Her research and methodology are sound, and her work is meaningful. And I fully support her 'intemperate language.' Seriously, the republicans around UI are assholes.
@31 ... and in Dr. Ellen Lewin's e-mail... "appropriating the language of the LGBT right movement."

I'd say that she's missing an 's' there, no? Otherwise, I'd have to assume she is referring to the Log Cabin Republicans.

Look more closely at the spelling and grammar on both sides, eh?
@62 it's obvious she doesn't reread what she writes, no?
@39 "Additionally, they're lucky they just got a mean email. If they come to San Francisco with that bullshit, they'll be cutting a few teeth out of their fiscal mouth-budgets."

And despite this kind of "violent rhetoric" (cue thunderclap) constantly appearing on lefty blogs, the left will never admit that it happens.

It's mind-boggling.

But anyway.

@41 said it best.

And bringing up the 1st Amendment here is kind of silly, because it doesn't really come into play. No one is being told not to respond. Both sides of the political divide regularly respond to any criticism with whining about their rights, but no one here has, have they? All that happened is someone non-sequitur-ly pointed out that the students have as much right to say what they want as Lewin does. Neither warring party said anything about rights. So I think it's a moot issue.

Dan's right, though. The college Republicans trolled the left, and the left got mad. The best reply would've been for Lewin to respond with this image:…
To the Etiquette Police:

You have been left behind. Come join us in the 21st century where we have new contraptions like email and twitter. There are new standards of decorum in wide use with these things. A concept like "flaming" may seem unfamiliar and frightening to you but the rest of us have incorporated it into our communication paradigm without the slightest damage to our civilization.
College 101:

Vegans don't like BBQs, gays get pissy when you take 'their words' and, yes, feminists don't have a sense of humor.

No wonder the Chinese are wiping our clocks if this is considered 'higher' education.

And yes, you should call your professors by their proper title.
The teachers initial response was totally inappropriate and was exactly what the college Republicans were looking for. She could have "won" that argument right off the bat by starting with a reasoned response, explaining her point of view and why their "coming out" BS is an insult to GLBT people, which of course is why they did it. Instead her response made her look like an immature child and enforced negative stereotypes about liberals and especially gender studies professors.
@64, yes some liberals occasionally get mad enough to "threaten" violence. The difference is that conservatives actually follow through with actual violence. I can pull up countless examples of conservatives getting violent. You'll have a hard time finding many examples of violent lefties in this country.
" You'll have a hard time finding many examples of violent lefties in this country."

Really? Then why are America's inner cities, that vote overwhelmingly democrat, so violent?
There's a difference between crime and politically motivated crime at which the right excels. And regular criminals--felons--usually lose their right to vote. But I am sure you knew all of that since you're a smart conservative!
"There's a difference between crime"

@70 Really? I'd say inner city urban crime is based on all sorts of fine, left wing ideals: a disrespect for law and order, open and accepted drug use, rejecting the two-parent family model, valuing welfare over hard work and, most fundamentally, an unwillingness to take responsibility for one's life and strive to improve it through honest, hard work but rather blame others.
I live in a world where I said this: Pontificating [as you and Lewin have both done] about [manners] is outmoded and quaint. It is. There's certainly various contexts but, again, your rules are not universal.

I also live in a world where, yes, her silly reaction to trolling forfeited any pretense of decorum or proper recognition of roles. (I know, your sense of comportment can't handle that.)

Generally, I live in a world where students are trained to be cogs in a machine built for the management class--little worker bees. I say this as coming out the other side of the Ph.D./indentured servitude scheme. I know the overall indoctrination process starts early but I don't think that should be encouraged in university where they may have a somewhat limited chance to free themselves from that nonsense.

Herr Doktor der philosophie dirac, commandant of the asshole in the sky, esq.
@72 this was in response to @47
I'm sure Prof. Lewin is a fine researcher. But she bit the troll bait. Her fuck-off was bad enough, giving the CRs almost all they were looking for in an evil-liberal caricature. Then, for good measure, she followed up with an eggheaded point about appropriating the language and an appeal to be addressed as Prof. So-and-so. That last one is particularly funny--a demand for courtesy after you've told your adversary to "fuck you."

All that's missing, really, is a sign-waving protest at the next CR event, complete with lots of energizing chants that start with "hey hey, ho ho" and "2-4-6-8."

I'm as pinko as the next gay. I despise Republicanism with every fiber of my sensitive new-age being. But I really, really, can't stand bad tactics. And tedious academic leftism is probably not helping the cause very much.
@68 "You'll have a hard time finding many examples of violent lefties in this country."

You have got to be kidding me. It took me a few minutes of googling to find all this.…

2 Major Activities and Suspected activities
2.1 Haymarket Police Memorial bombing October 7, 1969
2.2 "Days of Rage" October 9, 1969
2.3 Flint War Council, December 27–31, 1969
2.4 Park Place Police Station bombing, February 1970
2.5 New York City, Judge Murtagh arson attacks, February 1970
2.6 Greenwich Village townhouse explosion, March 1970
2.6.1 Underground Strategy Change
2.7 Declaration of a State of War, May 1970
2.8 June 1970 NYC Police Bombing
2.9 Federal Grand Jury Indicts 13 Weathermen Leaders
2.10 Timothy Leary prison break, September 1970
2.11 FBI's Most Wanted List, October 1970
2.12 Pentagon Bombing, 1972
2.13 Charges Dropped, 1973
2.14 Prairie Fire 1974

The situation was complicated around noon, when black-clad anarchists (in a formation known as a black bloc) began smashing windows and vandalizing storefronts, beginning with Fox's Gem Shop. This produced some of the most famous and controversial images of the protests. This set off a chain-reaction of sorts, with additional protesters pushing dumpsters into the middle of intersections and lighting them on fire, deflating the tires of police vehicles,[14] non-black bloc demonstrators joining in the property destruction, and a general disruption of all commercial activity in downtown Seattle.
Other protesters tried to physically block the activities of the black bloc. Seattle police, led by Chief Norm Stamper, did not react immediately, because they had been convinced by protest organizers during the protest-permit process that peaceful organizers would quell these kinds of activities.[15]…

(Too many to list. Look at the page.)…

"A 23-year-old man from Austin, Texas, who was connected to a group that planned to disrupt the Republican National Convention (RNC) in September 2008, was sentenced today in federal court to possessing destructive devices."

Someone made a documentary of this celebrating this guy and his accomplice as heroes and the guy who informed on them as a back-stabbing traitor.

And there's much, much, much more...
72/3: How sad that you think politeness is a form of "quaint," "outmoded" "indoctrination."
"You'll have a hard time finding many examples of violent lefties in this country."

I'm sorry, weren't you the folks who called the 1991 LA riots a 'rebellion'? Ditto for the Chicago, Detroit etc. riot in the 60s? Or is your idea of leftists just some quaint college professor in a tweed jacket with patched prattling on about how wonderful Communism has been for the world?
@75 - so we've had one comment on this thread that threatened a knuckle sandwich, but to me that doesn't seem to equate to (cue thunderclap) "all the time." Perhaps you're bad at math.

I also find it amusing that one of your recent examples (ie, almost this century!) mentions anarchists. They should be a conservative heroes, considering that they're all anti govt and all... Maybe you'd claim them if they tried drowning government in a bathtub instead.
@76 It's sad that you're intellectually dishonest and it doesn't lend any credibility to what you say to smear what I said.
doctors are doctors and there are more doctors than just MDs - ND, OD, DO, etc.

quaintness is in the eye of the beholder.
@66- It's so bizarre when people say "The Chinese are beating us at education." when the Chinese are beating down the doors of our colleges and universities because we provide such a better education.

@78 It happens as often on lefty sites as it does on righty sites. The only difference is the lefties are in total denial about their own violent history/tendencies/rhetoric, whereas the righties own it in a way that's irresponsible and juvenile.

Six to one, half-dozen to the other.
@78 By the way, I'm not a conservative, if that's what your last sentences means.
@83- Every single opinion I've ever heard you voice is in line with the neo-con perspective. You're either a liar or deluded, which is also in line with the neo-con mainstream.
Both the professor and the conservative students group should be ashamed. Conservatives are smarter than the mangled email sent out with all the punctuation and spelling errors. A clever point about the over-wrought language self pitying and self selecting minorities use about themselves was lost in the clutter.

And a professor, even the faux academic kind who teach 'gender studies' to a lot of unattractive women, women who are attractive but unpleasant or lesbian, and the comically timorous guys trying to date them anyway should have some modicum of decorum in her interactions with students. If she were working in the real world and behaved this way publically she'd be looking for a job right now.
@85: "Conservatives are smarter than the mangled email sent out with all the punctuation and spelling errors."
Presented without comment on my part.
@30 Oh, I wrote that unclearly. I wasn't saying the CR should be protected from criticism due to the First Amendment, only that I kinda feel that Lewin's comments are a little against the spirit of it. It seemed to me like she's trying to intimidate people out of using their right to speech.

In Britain, there's a very scary nationalist party called the British National Party, or BNP. I don't like them at all, but I do believe that if they have concerns about immigration and so on, the best thing is to let them argue that opinion and bring them into the debate.

Meanwhile, we have a referendum next month on switching the Alternative Vote election method (where you rank candidates in order of choice), and the prime minister is campaigning for a No vote, not because he thinks it will lead to more BNP MPs (like Congresspersons), but because it could lead to BNP supporters' votes (their second and third choice votes for *other* parties) being counted.

We don't have free speech in this country. The prime minister is campaigning openly against non-moderates' votes being counted, even when those votes are for moderate parties. Our politics is a closed hermeneutic circle and shockingly elitist.

Now, when Lewin sends only the words "Fuck You" from an official email account, isn't she trying to intimidate people (as well as views) that she finds unacceptable? Isn't she trying to shut down arguments? Isn't that a little against the spirit of the First Amendment, really?

I know the First Amendment enshrines Lewin's right to say "Fuck You" if she wants. But it only enshrines it against legal reproach. She can still get fired, or lose social standing. If I remember my rights law, for every right, there is a remedy (a way of ensuring the right is realized) - and I think the First Amendment implies (in spirit rather than in law) a collective responsibility to form a society that encourages free speech.
@85 Seattleblues, you missed out the massive GSS constituency of unattractive, annoying gay guys in impossibly tight pants, like me.
@85 Seattleblues, you shouldn't go around calling someone else a "faux academic" when you make things up and pretend they're true.

Tell me, you claim to enjoy engaging in debates. Do you ever really do that or do you always do what you do here, which is make broad statements you think are true and dismiss anyone who disagrees with you regardless of the facts?
I would so want to be in Band Camp with Natalie Ginty. Me and my flute. Ellen not so much. Is'nt that what matters?

First, thanks for 'missed out.' Don't know why but that phrase and using 'round' instead of 'around' have always sounded quintessentially British to me. Guess it comes from reading too much Wodehouse and Saki. Best cure in the world for a touch of melancholy is an Uncle Fred or Psmith story, in my humble opinion. The best dedication in any book was "To my critics, these pearls." And when I'm feeling a bit more sardonic HH Monroe hits the spot. To those liberals out there who haven't read them, don't let my endorsements put you off. They're great fun, like a mature version of Douglass Adams.

At any rate, it's been quite a while since college for me, and I was going by the Gender Studies students from when i was at school. I didn't realize they were a hotbed for unattractive annoying gay men in tight pants now. To be honest, for me that doesn't improve things though...
Southern 'Gentleman,'

Calling someone a liar repeatedly doesn't make it so. That you disagree with my opinions is your right. This doesn't make them false, or true. They are flawed, certainly, just as yours are. They are the result of books I've read, my parents and teachers, experiences I've had and so on. Just as yours are. They may be closer to or farther from reality than yours. But they are by nature subjective.

I'll believe your offended intellectual integrity when I see a single posting of yours calling out Savage or Goldy or one of the others here for cherrypicking their data, or outright mis-representing things to support their own positions. Until then, you're just setting up straw men.
Seattleblues, you say, "Calling someone a liar repeatedly doesn't make it so."

Calling homosexuality "a denial of every function of human sexuality" doesn't make it so either. Calling Dan Savage's son "unfortunate" doesn't make him unfortunate, and denying that that's an insult doesn't make it any less of an unnecessary remark. So too, for that matter, is calling Dan Savage "a thing" who, in your opinion, is attempting "destruction of my country from within", although kudos to you for adding that you "respect" his right to do so.

You may believe those you disagree with are cherry-picking the data, and you may even be right in some cases, but you don't present any data of your own. As I've said, you simply state your opinions as though they were facts. I've even presented some examples. Can you do the same?
@93, thank you. I love the sound of a good bitch slap.
@85- "Conservatives are smarter than the mangled email sent out with all the punctuation and spelling errors."

Not those conservatives, obviously.

If you are in fact a southern gentleman your ancestors bred a wonderful dog, the redbone coonhound. My 2 exemplars of the breed are trying to get my attention and only the uselessly busy or emotionally dead can deny the expression on a playful dogs face. Quickly then-

I don't cite studies for 2 reasons. I was in debate in college and high school, and am fully aware that seemingly respectable studies can be found to support any position whatever. I prefer trusting what I know to the knowledge of unknown strangers whose motives are obscure to me. And studies usually exist to confirm preconceptions. They don't ask questions to find answers but to justify what the author already thinks.

So I state opinions quickly as I have time. You don't agree with them. Fine. I don't see the reason for calling out my integrity, but if it makes you feel better about your own opinions that's your outlook.

@84 Really? A neo-con? Have you taken a look at whose blog's threads I'm commenting on?

Actually, don't answer.

You're obviously so blinded by your partisan loyalty to your "side" that you'll never have anything worthwhile to contribute to any political debate. You unswervingly toe the liberal line and think yourself a unique and brave thinker for it.

And that's why it bothers you when you come across people who don't toe any particular line. On some issues I agree with conservatives, on some issues I agree with liberals. On a lot of issues I disagree with both.

@96: So what you're saying is that because it's possible to make misleading statements that seem to be supported by evidence, the better alternative is to not supply any evidence?
Excuse me, but did one of your dogs sit on the keyboard just then?
The Republicans hosted a vegan BBQ? I can't imagine what else an animal rights BBQ would be... :-)

Unfortunately, Ellen* seems to be a fucking asshole (apologies to all anuses enthusiastically used for sex, and the persons possessing them). That's WAY the hell out of line for a faculty member, and her title-dropping rank-pulling is contrary to the spirit of every Women's Studies/Gender Studies/LGBTQ Studies class I've ever taken (they seek to dismantle power hierarchies, and every professor I've had has used her first name, without titles).

*I will not refer to you with any formal titles, you fucking hypocrite. How dare you simultaneously assert your credentials in a progressive, activist field of study and engage in un-self-critical reinforcement of institutionalized systems of privilege? Fuck YOU. You're making a marginalized field of study, one we happen to share, look really bad, rationalizing its marginalization (e.g. comment #1).

@1: Yes, it's terrible that Academia is starting to address the androcentric bias in fields of cultural studies like Anthropology or Sociology by creating/supporting Women's Studies/Gender Studies programs. How dare they! Academics should continue to conform to traditional White masculine norms. ... While I agree that it's really bad that arts programs are losing funding (more than other programs? Here at UW-Milwaukee, everyone's losing funding), your venom might be more-properly directed at something like Economics, which mostly just reinforces demonstrably bad models of human behavior, or Business, which advocates anti-social behavior.

No. I'm saying that your opinions are supported by the evidence of your choice and mine by the evidence of mine. Comparing cites wouldn't change opinions, so I won't waste my time with them.

Put it this way- Some economists think FDR New Deal policies brought us out of the Great Depression. Some think they made things worse or had no positive effect. Since the vast sums expended on WW2 and the re-building of Europe and Japan afterwards undoubtedly had a stimulative effect on the economy, all this is and will remain conjecture. This won't stop liberals from saying that in fact New Deal policies were stimulative, or conservatives from saying the opposite.

I might note that our experiences in Iraq and Afganistan suggest that it takes a federal spending event like WW2 to have a stimulative rather than a depressive effect. And that even 'small' wars might just be considered to have too great a human cost to justify them in economic terms. Just saying.

Point is, if the goal were rhetorical, the alteration of others behaviors or views, then cites and so on make sense. If it's just light entertainment in slow moments at work, not so much.