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.
