During the student protests at the University of Missouri, communication professor Melissa Click tried to obstruct student journalists covering the protests, which were taking place in a public space.
Student Tim Tai tried to take pictures and, as the following video shows, was rebuffed not only by the students, who tried to kick him out of that public space (a First Amendment no-no), but also by Click, who should have known better. She appears at 7:12 in this video, all worked up, telling the student that he needs to get out, calling for “some muscle over here” to kick the student out of the area, and, apparently, trying to snatch his camera.
Of course the students had every right to protest, and there was apparently a climate of racial bigotry that led to the protests, but Tai also had a right to report on any protests in public spaces.
Because of her actions, Click was charged with third-degree misdemeanor assault. A bunch of legislators—mostly Republicans, of course, suspicious of liberal faculty—wrote to the University President calling for her dismissal, while 116 fellow faculty members supported her, calling her actions “at most a regrettable mistake.”
Click herself, aware that her job was on the line, issued an apology, but it wasn’t really an apology, for she excused her behavior due to the actions of “spirited reporters”:
“I regret the language and strategies I used, and sincerely apologize to the MU campus community, and journalists at large, for my behavior, and also for the way my actions have shifted attention away from the students’ campaign for justice. My actions were shaped by exasperation with a few spirited reporters.”
Over at CNN, Marc Randazza, a First-Amendment lawyer, television commenter, and blogger, discusses her case and suggests what should be done with Click. It’s a thoughtful and reasoned analysis, and he concludes that criminal charges were unwarranted (Garrett Epps at The Atlantic agrees):
Just like Beetlejuice, the “muscle” arrived. Now [Click] is being criminally prosecuted for third-degree assault, a misdemeanor. She raised the stakes on foolishness, behaving like an over-privileged brat, thinking that the gun would never point the other way. After all, she was championing “social justice,” and as we have seen in the past, champions of this brand of leftist thought believe that their ends justify any means. Click decided that she was there to champion her political brand, and if it meant threatening a journalist, then that was the politically correct thing to do.
She was no longer an educator; she was a thug, calling for violence to suppress legitimate reporting. And how strange it is that the academic left was so quiet. When Donald Trump throws protesters or journalists out of his rallies, he gets (well deserved) scorn for it. After all, he is on the “other team.” But, when someone like Click calls for violence against a journalist to stop him from reporting, we hear crickets from “my side” of the political divide.
. . . The prosecution, like Click’s behavior, is politically motivated. She isn’t being prosecuted because of what she did, she’s being prosecuted because of what she represents. Now we have one disproportionate response met with another. We have a situation where disrespect for basic liberties, once unleashed, is out of control.
The correct response to excess is not more excess. What Click did might be technically illegal, but it does not warrant this selective prosecution. Click should be marched off of campus and into the unemployment line, but not into a jail cell.
I agree with Randazza. If the students weren’t prosecuted for similar actions, why Click? Sure, she was a communications professor and should have known better about how to act, but I don’t think she “assaulted” Tai any more than the other students. And it’s clear that a pack of Republicans is behind the prosecution.
Should she be fired? I go back and forth on this one. Her actions were out of line, her apology unconvincing, but firing is a serious action. In the end, though, I come down with Randazza that she should be booted out of Missouri because her actions were not befitting a faculty member in a communications department, and because of her “call for muscle,” i.e., using her authority to enlist physical force to give Tai the boot.
And, sure enough, Click was just let go—temporarily. When looking up what had happened to her, I found a three-hour-old report from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that Click was suspended last night by the University’s Board of Curators. This is not a permanent dismissal, which apparently depends on the results of the court action:
In a prepared statement, UM Board of Curators chairwoman Pam Henrickson said the board had directed the university’s general counsel to conduct an investigation to determine whether more discipline was necessary.
. . . This week, interim Mizzou Chancellor Hank Foley resisted calls to fire Click. He said he would wait for due process to play out.
Click is scheduled to be back in court on Feb. 16.
Whether or not she’s convicted or fired, she’ll have learned a lesson—a lesson that should be imparted to all students who are protesting in public. If you do that, you don’t have a right to selectively decide whether journalists can cover your actions, or whether some journalists but not all can be kicked out.
Tangentially related…
This, in turn, presents a larger problem. The discourse of this school of politics is resolutely immaterial in its language, with endless discussion of acknowledging and feeling and admitting and occupying, almost none of which amounts to what anyone might consider doing. Disclaiming white privilege doesn’t lower African Americans’ inordinately high unemployment rate or increase educational opportunities for children of first-generation immigrants. The alternative is simpler, but harder: to define racism in terms of actions, and to resolve to act in a way that is contrary to racism. Someone who never confesses their white privilege can take small-scale steps to reduce racial inequality, such as voting for candidates who support affirmative action or being an advocate for diversity in the hiring process at their job; someone who tweets all day about the dangers of white supremacy might still reinforce it by clutching their handbag closer when a black person gets on the subway. When we underestimate the immense work actually involved in dismantling racial inequality, we fail to confront the reality that the self-indictment involved in claiming white privilege, by failing to do anything materially to eliminate white privilege, is a farce.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/01/28/when-white-people-admit-white-privilege-theyre-really-just-congratulating-themselves/
I see a lot of virtue signalling in her actions, and in those of the students. Social status through simply identifying yourself as anti-racist + trying to silence others.
I believe PCC(E)’s last sentence “…you don’t have a right to selectively decide whether journalists can cover your actions, or whether some journalists but not all can be kicked out.” also applies to Donald Trump in his Megyn Kelly hijinks.
Trump has not kicked her out of anything. She can still do her job, unimpeded.
“it’s clear that a pack of Republicans is behind the prosecution.”
That’s likely true, but so what? I suspect it took months for Schierbecker (the reporter) to get justice because of the “selective prosecution” Marc Randazza suggests. The prosecutors didn’t want to charge her because she was a “good guy” fighting for social justice, and out of fear of the potential negative backlash.
Just imagine Click were a KKK member trying to prevent a reporter from filming their rally in a public place, and tell me I’m wrong. Not only would she have been charged, he would likely have been arrested, and charged on the spot.
So for now she’s suspended, rather than fired. But Click is an assistant professor, and apparently her tenure decision comes later this year:
Mizzou assembles task force to assess Click tenure
Could get interesting.
sub
Click’s action were despicable, certainly incomprehensible, for a communications educator. Her actions appear to results from the twisted thinking (and cultural guilt) that produces regressive liberalism, wherein past oppression warrants trampling of basic rights that liberals normally vigorously support.
Other examples include Ben Affleck’s unhinged attack on Sam Harris’ comment about Islam being the “mother lode of bad ideas” (calling Sam racist, which is bizarre given Islam is a religion not a race.) Perhaps the strangest of the regressive thinking is found in the attacks targeting ex-Muslims, by liberals, for calling out the dangers perpetrated in the name of Islam (i.e. Islam’s misogynist doctrine, homophobic laws & martyrdom bent.)
The current state of campus thinking on freedom of speech has produced pitched battles because of a “with us” / “against us” false dichotomy that losses sight of the big picture. I worry what will happen as these students, who fear facing ideas counter to their own, enter the real world and have to deal with difficult questions. The coddled minds that the MU situation exposed wouldn’t seem ready to actively participate in a helpful fashion.
I am not sure how fundamental human rights will survive fully intact given this fractious atmosphere. Certainly, prosecuting Click seems to demonstrates that divisive politics will play a larger part than reasoned thought.
“What Click did might be technically illegal, but it does not warrant this selective prosecution.” She hit Tim Tai. This isn’t something that shouldn’t be prosecuted? I could understand if Mr. Tai did not press charges, but to say we shouldn’t prosecute is something like religious people telling us that we shouldn’t prosecute for church/state issues.
Shocking and sad that a journalism professor would act so egregiously. It’s like a physics professor stepping off the roof and expecting to levitate. In both cases, however, you don’t need a Ph.D. to know that it’s stupid to behave that way.
For a naïve moment I thought that a “communication professor” would work in the field of, well, *communication*. You know, researching into things like information encoding schemes and bandwidth optimisation, etc., following in the footsteps of Claude Shannon.
Then I followed the link and what did I see?
“Her research interests center on popular culture texts and audiences, particularly texts and audiences disdained in mainstream culture. Her work in this area is guided by audience studies, theories of gender and sexuality, and media literacy. Current research projects involve 50 Shades of Grey readers, the impact of social media in fans’ relationship with Lady Gaga, masculinity and male fans, messages about class and food in reality television programming, and messages about work in children’s television programs”.
One can actually get paid to “research” this drivel?
What would you consider as valid research in communications, then?
Hmm – what about trying to find ways to make better use of the limited and very valuable resource that is the electromagnetic spectrum, instead of ephemera like Lady Gaga fans and ‘Shades of Grey’ readers?
I wouldn’t consider it “drivel,” since larger cultural expectations and assumptions are often hidden in plain view in such minutia of daily life. After all, if someone was studying the equivalent for ancient China or revolutionary France we’d probably consider it worthwhile.
No, to me the sad part here is that this situation is exactly the sort of thing which Click ought to be studying.
Agreed. To label the study of popular culture and social media as trivial is to dismiss a large area of human behavior as irrelevant. On the contrary, there is much to be learned there.
There are plenty on the Left who have condemned her actions, certainly within the “leftist media”, starting with the journalism dept. at her own school, which severed ties with her. I think the charge of hypocrisy is unwarranted.
But I’d also agree that criminal prosecution, or even summary dismissal, is unwarranted. Her actions should weigh heavily in her tenure application, where, as a representative of the university, the appropriate venue for judging her should take place.
Yes. Sometimes people use the term “regressive left.” Since many of us think of ourselves as on the left end of the spectrum, it’s good to be clear.
She is a foolish zealot, but criminal prosecution is not warranted and may be politically motivated. I suspect that her time at this school is limited, especially if she is denied tenure when that is decided in August. She has been suspended, but with pay. So, she will not be financially hurting and can use the time to plan moving elsewhere, which would afford a fresh start.
The best punishment for her would be a required course in freedom of the press. Also, it makes no sense to me at why she wanted to limit press access to the demonstration. Even if the photographer was working for an unfriendly source, how could the pictures hurt?
she was a thug, calling for violence but concludes that criminal charges were unwarranted is not consistent.
That is the litmus test for free speech, anything is permissible up to the point of violence or incitement to violence against a person or persons.
This is exactly the sort of behaviour that should be penalized, and given Clicks position of authority, severely so.
I agree. She called for violence against someone behaving in a reasonable,lawful manner in a public space.
I don’t understand why they were holding a demonstration in a public place, and then excluding the public. Seems a bit oxymoronic (or just moronic) to me.
If I were El Presidente, I’d probably issue a warning that if it happens again, she’ll be fired. IMO one relatively minor suppression of the press does not a dangerous authoritarian make. But I also recognize that this is something of a judgment call, and I certainly don’t get upset at the thought that others would think a warning too light. I disagree with you, but without antipathy. 🙂
“If I were El Presidente, I’d probably issue a warning that if it happens again, she’ll be fired.”
That could be complicated by her upcoming tenure process. The first event happened while she was untenured, a second event would probably come after receiving tenure, which could make it more difficult to enforce any penalty.
I have absolutely no problem with it being part of the tenure assessment. While in some ways “not extending the contract” may be equivalent to “firing,” I think in this case it is reasonable to say that an offence which doesn’t warrant immediate removal may nevertheless warrant non-promotion or non-extension of contract.
Concur. Plus it would put her in a position to be quite beholden to the powers-that-be who determine her professional future, and she would stay hunkered down and strive to stay out of trouble as she strives to attain tenure, which apparently was not sufficiently on her mind when she righteously expressed being offended by the presence of the media.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the point of a protest was to bring to light a grievance to the largest audience possible. Preventing journalists from taking pictures of the event sounds incredibly counterproductive, even if those journalists might not sympathize with your campaign. A protest that is held behind closed doors is what I call a “private meeting” where the aggrieved lick their boo-boos and whine about their troubles without actually accomplishing anything.
There’s no law requiring protesters to be logical in their strategies.
I guess to some people’s way of thinking, the purpose of a protest or other similar public display is to get people on your side; any press coverage that doesn’t get people on your side is therefore counter the mission of the protest.
Click is charged with committing a misdemeanor assault against a student who was exercising his rights on the campus. If she is convicted, of course she should be fired. Would the university tolerate a professor assaulting its students in the classroom?
What is the general ethos here about the Planned Parenthood related prosecution of those two people who went undercover to procure footage of PP selling “baby parts”?
I only bring it up because of the immense schadenfreude conservatives have for Melissa Click, but, of course, to them, it is a great injustice that those two are being prosecuted for using fake IDs. If they broke the law, they broke the law. I only say that because “rule of law” is a conservative principle of jurisprudence.
Good article here which offers some perspective:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/melissa-click-david-daleiden/431508/
I don’t even get what the students were trying to do – someone has to explain to me why they were so intent on removing the reporter. If you’re having a demonstration, don’t you want as many people as possible to see it? What is the point of a secret protest?
They were trying to be safe. Or something. Reporters can be very scary.
They somehow came to think of the press as being part of the establishment that they were protesting against. How they reached that conclusion is unclear, but it showed their ignorance of public affairs.
I can’t believe some people don’t strongly feel Click should be prosecuted. She physically threatened a journalist. Her brand of Authoritarian Left thinking is dangerous and needs to be stopped. These SJW types dream of causing real-life harm to people with whom they disagree. That Twitter trial in Canada involved two SJW-style feminists trying to frame a man for underage sex, even though he was mostly a feminist ally, but disagreed with their plans to doc and harass someone for a juvenile stunt.
Authoritarians only understand authority. Letting her off would send a terrible message and you know if the politics were reversed, most of by fellow leftist would show no mercy.
I agree on the point that she should be charged and prosecuted. The matter of her being dismissed from the university is the Universities’ business. Although that seems pretty harsh, to me, it is peripheral to what the criminal proceedings will decide.
How many people on the left really want those undercover infiltrators who “exposed” Planned Parenthood convicted for a felony? I honestly don’t care, but I think it is absurd if they are charged with a felony. I believe I am capable of showing some mercy or impartiality towards them, especially since they do not threaten my interests.
That SJW you cited attempted to misuse the force of law to deprive someone of his liberty; that is more serious than any remark about “some muscle”.
Really, who are the “authoritarian leftists”? Thank you for using that term instead of “Stalinist”. I though the term mainly referred to those type of anti-imperialists who support US adversaries such as Assad, Putin, and the Islamic Republic (like myself).
As for myself only understanding “authority”, I also understand the concept of Westaphalian sovereignty and state security (but, of course, that should be justified to defend a state against imperialism and to protect a socially progressive regime). It is other other side that uses force.
If that is too digressive, it is. But, I would not recommend you using “authoritarian leftists” on SJWs, as oppose to other leftists who sympathize and acknowledge the legitimacy of the national interests of US adversaries. I am just surprised that “authoritianism” has expanded to SJWs. And yes, I am a tankie.
The absence of more violence among SJWs is an odd phenomenon given the left once had celebrated terrorist elements. I guess it petered out before I was born, in the early 70’s. I think most SJWs are materially comfortable enough that violence can never prevail in a cost-benefit analysis. This of course belies their strident rhetoric of how they live a “police state,” “white supremacy” or “patriarchy,” it’s the thought that counts.
It also explains why for all their firebrand identity politics, they are willing to march along with neoliberal economics in the end, despite again, some lip service to the contrary.
Click’s conduct in this case goes to show that the dark-heart of authoritarianism dwells in all corners of the political spectrum, otherwise-bookish academics having no exemption.
I was glad to see she was charged. As far as I can see, she is also guilty of trying incite violence against another person. The fact that she is a teacher and her victim a student makes the matter, if possible, worse. She should be fired.
Her inability to even muster up a sincere apology bothers me more than anything else, because it indicates that she probably still doesn’t really see what she did as fundamentally wrong. If it weren’t for those darn “spirited reporters”…
The “apology” was an act of self-preservation, not contrition.
Frankly, I’m growing increasingly disillusioned with what constitutes “liberalism” in the public sphere these days. Between some of these campus protests, and nonsense like what recently went on at Goldsmiths in the UK… ugh. Maajid Nawaz really gave us a gift when he coined the term “regressive left” (even if I think it’s been overly-liberally applied to people since then).
Ironically, her dismissal (which PCC calls for) could be a far more serious matter for her in real terms – including financially – than the criminal charge, which will probably result in some minimal fine.
I would have gone the other way round – I’m pleased to see the assault charge (regardless of the motivation of whoever brought it) but I wouldn’t have taken the far more serious step of sacking her.
Just IMO.
cr
P.S. I’m assuming ‘assault’ is the most appropriate charge, since there probably isn’t a statute on ‘incitement to unlawfully evict reporters’.
IANAL. In England, assault is defined (Wikipedia) thus:
No actual violence or injury needs to take place. I’m interested to know what the equivalent law is in the USA.
” If the students weren’t prosecuted for similar actions, why Click? ”
Sadly the reason should be obvious, and once again it’s fear that drove this selective prosecution. Prosecuting any of the other individuals would have been disastrous for the university, perhaps even the police.
My wife who works at a university got quite frightened by the Dartmouth library assaults, where behavior that would have been called criminal assault under other circumstances was passed off as ‘protest’.
“Sadly the reason should be obvious . . . Prosecuting any of the other individuals would have been disastrous for the university, perhaps even the police . . . behavior that would have been called criminal assault under other circumstances was passed off as ‘protest’.”
Well, it seems that the strongest position one ought to put oneself into is to become a perpetual student.
She was a professor!? I remember this video, she definitely deserved to get fired.