[baw]

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.d...0103/604140420
Display on abortion destroyed
400 crosses removed; NKU prof investigated
BY KAREN GUTIÉRREZ | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER


Northern Right To Life members - (from left) Ryan Jones, Nicole Smithson, Julie Broering and Katie Walker - stand next to crosses they erected to protest abortion. Vandals removed and scattered the crosses Wednesday. The group planned to guard the display overnight.

HIGHLAND HEIGHTS - 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.

NKU police are investigating the incident, in which 400 crosses were removed from the ground near University Center and thrown in trash cans. The crosses, meant to represent a cemetery for aborted fetuses, had been temporarily erected last weekend by a student Right to Life group with permission from NKU officials.

Public universities cannot ban such displays because they are a type of symbolic speech that has been protected by the U.S. Supreme Court.

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."

She said she was infuriated by the display, which she saw as intimidating and a "slap in the face" to women who might be making "the agonizing and very private decision to have an abortion."

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.

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."

He said he was gathering information about the extent of Jacobsen's participation.

"I don't know if she was pulling up the crosses, but I think she was out there with the students. If so, as far as I'm concerned, she went outside the conditions of her employment," Votruba said.

He declined to say what consequences she might face. Jacobsen is a tenured professor who has been at NKU since 1980.

Katie Walker, a sophomore who is president of the school's Northern Right to Life, said the group would like to see charges filed against those responsible.

"Campuses are supposed to be public forums. I think professors should encourage that," Walker said.

The sign explaining the cross display could not be found after the vandalism. But students retrieved the crosses, replanted them and put up a new sign.

Thursday night, Walker and others planned to camp out near NKU's main plaza and guard the display until this morning.

The Right to Life organization formed last month in response to activity by faculty members on the other side of the issue.

The faculty group is called Educators for Reproductive Freedom. So far, it has held two lunchtime discussions on campus with speakers from the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood.

The group's purpose is to learn more about laws and pending legislation that affect women's reproductive rights, said philosophy professor Nancy Hancock, one of the organizers.

Pro-life students got wind of the meetings and passed out literature near the doors. They also quickly elected officers, wrote a constitution and mounted the cross display.

Hancock said she considered the student activity an overreaction.

But Thursday, she said her group was appalled by the destruction of the cross display. None of the members had anything to do with it, she said.

"We would like to see respect for freedom of speech on this campus," Hancock said.

E-mail [email protected]

This sums it up pretty good;

"Freedom-of-speech rights end where you infringe on someone else's freedom of speech,"

[Dr Reducto]

I love it when liberals resort to fascist tactics.

Also noteable is an effort to report signature gathering (http://www.permanentdefense.org/SignatureGathering.html) so that protestors can come shut the petitioners down. The petitioners are trying to get enough signatures so that the initiative can be voted on by the state's voters. Apparently, the leftists in charge of the signature reporting don't want the decision left to the unwashed masses.

[subego]

Lefty pro-choice type expressing dismay with the teacher and her club of vandals.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by subego

Lefty pro-choice type expressing dismay with the teacher and her club of vandals.

Here's another lefty baby-killer giving the to the teacher and her students.

Freedom of speech does not extend to vandalism.

[Railroader]

Why don't those who commit actions own up to their responsibility?

Originally Posted by from the article quoted

Asked whether she participated in pulling up the crosses, the professor said, "I have no comment."

Do you think she was a participant?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Why don't those who commit actions own up to their responsibility?

Do you think she was a participant?

In a way I hope so.

Because if she didn't, I have to imagine her self-satisfied smug look as she watched.

At least if she participated there was probably sweat, gnashing of teeth, and a vein bulging on the forehead. I find that more tolerable for some reason.

You're right about her coyness however, what's the point of civil disobedience if you won't own up to it after? If I had done what she did, I would feel compelled to say I participated as a show of solidarity to the people whose lives I've been charged with enriching.

She's a coward.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by subego

She's a coward.

We agree.

[BRussell]

Yup, .

[Kevin]

This is my favorite line

"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.

She tried to spin it horribly.

[abe]

I like that in a liberal!

Although she is helping to move society closer to civil war.

[Kevin]

I am surprised they didn't burn the crosses.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I am surprised they didn't burn the crosses.

Hawwwwww!!!

Good one!!!!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I am surprised they didn't burn the crosses.

This is so very typical. There are a sect of people (left) that have spent their entire lives indicting others of intolerance, deceit, racism, bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia, etc... yet every opportunity they get their hypocrisy is exposed. Some examples;

- What are we doing in Iraq? We'll never change those people.
- Christians are intolerant. I wish we could eliminate them all or at least the ones that speak.
- Abortion is a woman's rights issue. I don't care what women have to say about it!
- REPUBLICANS ARE 25% MORE LIKELY TO VOTE DEMOCRAT THAN BLACK!!! Oh, Democrats are 38% more likely to vote Republican than black.
- Homosexuals are no different than animals. Homosexuality is normal in the animal kingdom. Ahh well, we'll ensure most of our constituency finds it distasteful while keeping the vocal minority on tour in a different country. We'll vote against their right to marry here.
- BUSH IS A LIAR!!! (...but democrats were saying the same things) BUSH IS A LIAR!!!
- We have the black vote. We'll always have the black vote. We don't need to really put them in positions of any importance, we already have their vote.

People are starting to see the party of the left for what it is. Quick to indict. Slow to represent.

[abe]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

This is so very typical. There are a sect of people (left) that have spent their entire lives indicting others of intolerance, deceit, racism, bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia, etc... yet every opportunity they get their hypocrisy is exposed. Some examples;

- What are we doing in Iraq? We'll never change those people.
- Christians are intolerant. I wish we could eliminate them all or at least the ones that speak.
- Abortion is a woman's rights issue. I don't care what women have to say about it!
- REPUBLICANS ARE 25% MORE LIKELY TO VOTE DEMOCRAT THAN BLACK!!! Oh, Democrats are 38% more likely to vote Republican than black.
- Homosexuals are no different than animals. Homosexuality is normal in the animal kingdom. Ahh well, we'll ensure most of our constituency finds it distasteful while keeping the vocal minority on tour in a different country. We'll vote against their right to marry here.
- BUSH IS A LIAR!!! (...but democrats were saying the same things) BUSH IS A LIAR!!!
- We have the black vote. We'll always have the black vote. We don't need to really put them in positions of any importance, we already have their vote.

People are starting to see the party of the left for what it is. Quick to indict. Slow to represent.

That's our Fuzzies!

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

People are starting to see the party of the left for what it is. Quick to indict. Slow to represent.

How do the liberal responses in this thread fit into this theory?

As you made no acknowledgment of them, I can only surmise they don't.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego

How do the liberal responses in this thread fit into this theory?

As you made no acknowledgment of them, I can only surmise they don't.

Allow me to explain;

- if we were to post a thread on the horrors of abortion clinic bombings for example; you would not see a "Bushie", "Rightie", "neocon", or "fundie" (as they've been called under the banner of 'tolerance') defend the activity because the activity is indefensible. This would not make them less "rightie" just as the lack of defending this action does not make the left here any less "left".

Who knows, perhaps the majority left opinion in this forum has been absent altogether because they do not find the action objectionable and would then be at odds with, but 3 of the same general ideology who actually do believe in freedom of speech.

Take a moment to read through the Calling all Progressives thread for a much better idea.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...l+progressives

[Helmling]

Were I to engage in the sort of generalizations you are here, then I might say something like, "Typical of Republicans to pounce on the actions of an individual as a sorry excuse to try to denounce the agenda of an entire segment of the political spectrum without actually engaging the issues. They always make use of personal attacks and name-calling to distract from the issues!"

But I wouldn't do that...

Perhaps you should just refrain from characterizing others in broad strokes and stick to the issues.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Helmling

Were I to engage in the sort of generalizations you are here, then I might say something like, "Typical of Republicans to pounce on the actions of an individual as a sorry excuse to try to denounce the agenda of an entire segment of the political spectrum without actually engaging the issues. They always make use of personal attacks and name-calling to distract from the issues!"

But I wouldn't do that...

Perhaps you should just refrain from characterizing others in broad strokes and stick to the issues.

This is the correct approach. Do not indict the group for the actions of a few members of the group.

(Of course, for those of you really do think the actions of a few can represent the whole group then say so. This will help us in understanding how to perceive your views on political discourse.)

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Helmling

Were I to engage in the sort of generalizations you are here, then I might say something like, "Typical of Republicans to pounce on the actions of an individual as a sorry excuse to try to denounce the agenda of an entire segment of the political spectrum without actually engaging the issues. They always make use of personal attacks and name-calling to distract from the issues!"

But I wouldn't do that...

Perhaps you should just refrain from characterizing others in broad strokes and stick to the issues.

Lawlz. Helmling won the thread.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Helmling

Were I to engage in the sort of generalizations you are here, then I might say something like, "Typical of Republicans to pounce on the actions of an individual as a sorry excuse to try to denounce the agenda of an entire segment of the political spectrum without actually engaging the issues. They always make use of personal attacks and name-calling to distract from the issues!"

That's funny. I'll remember that next time someone indicts Christianity for something Pat Robertson says. Fair enough? My indictment was agains the (left) who've spent their entire lives of indicting people for character flaws they have themselves. I then offered up the Progressives thread for a more clear example. You either; A. Read the progressives thread and was disgusted by what progress means to those who supposedly appreciate it or B. You didn't visit that thread for a clearer example of what I'm saying.

BTW; this is not the first example. You have a great many of these examples in this forum. For example; the "white Republicans vote for opposing Party over blacks by 25%" in bold, then the disclaimer that white Democrats vote for opposing Party over blacks by 38%. Why was the thread posted int his way? Why did you not challenge those of your noble ideals above? Would you hold someone of like ideology to the same standards?

But I wouldn't do that...

That's all I'm sayin'. You'd likely not call someone of your ideology to the carpet for the same infractions you claim of me. Think about that.

Perhaps you should just refrain from characterizing others in broad strokes and stick to the issues.

Okay. The issue is someone is attempting to squelch free speech. Care to guess what political affiliation they may be in this instance?

I'm not entirely sure on yours because this is your first post in this thread. Why would you not first express your distaste for the actions cited? In your desire to remain "relevant", you may want to start by addressing the thread topic instead of seeking out people to disagree with.

Imagine that, I'm confident you oppose my rant above and my ideology in general, but I have no clue what you think about the vandalism cited as the topic of this thread. Isn't that odd given your appreciation for thread adherence doctrine above??? Really, wasn't the way in which you worded the above just a veiled attempt to do exactly what you claim I've done? In honesty, you'd have to answer "yes".

[Millennium]

The hell of it is that it's so frickin easy to counter a display like this without resorting to vandalism. They could have, for example, set up their own cemetery display for mothers who will die if abortion is criminalized. But no, that would have been too much work for them, wouldn't it?

Besides which, since when did vandalism -which is an action, not speech- get covered under free-speech rights? What were these people saying when they destroyed the display? What was the message they were trying to convey? Plain and simple: there was no message. Call that whatever you want, but with no message, there can be no speech.

[UNTeMac]

Ah...the usual suspects are alive and well. I remember why I don't come in here much anymore.

The woman was wrong and let her feelings about the issue affect her judgement. People on both sides of the issue do this all the ti........ah what the hell's the use anyway.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Allow me to explain;

- if we were to post a thread on the horrors of abortion clinic bombings for example; you would not see a "Bushie", "Rightie", "neocon", or "fundie" (as they've been called under the banner of 'tolerance') defend the activity because the activity is indefensible. This would not make them less "rightie" just as the lack of defending this action does not make the left here any less "left".

Who knows, perhaps the majority left opinion in this forum has been absent altogether because they do not find the action objectionable and would then be at odds with, but 3 of the same general ideology who actually do believe in freedom of speech.

Take a moment to read through the Calling all Progressives thread for a much better idea.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...l+progressives

Okay ebuddy, you win.

If the only way we can continue to discuss things is for me to read that massively dull thread, then I'll just withdraw, but I'd rather if you tried to sum up.

I don't even really understand what your point is. I tried to read the thread twice. Couldn't get more than two pages in. All I got from it was that it was that it was a (left) troll.

Is your point that it wasn't smacked down by other lefties?

Puh-leeze don't make me read it again.

[placebo1969]

UPDATE: Professor Sally Jacobsen is no longer at NKU. She's either on leave or resigning. I tried to get a link to the press release, but it looks like the site's getting hit too hard right now.

Here's a link.

[Railroader]

Here's a picture of her. I am not sure of the authenticity of the picture, but a quick google image search gave me this: