Mizzou Fired the Professor Who Asked for 'Muscle.' So What's the Lesson for Campus Protesters?

Free speech is a primary value.

|

Download Video as MP4

This Thursday, the University of Missouri announced the firing of mass media professor Melissa Click, who gained online notoriety after a YouTube video depicted her hollering for some "muscle" to help her remove a camera man from a public space on campus amidst heated protests.

The video, which has racked up more than 2 million views on YouTube, also shows students blocking and arguing with University of Missouri student and ESPN photojournalist Tim Tai. Tai stands his ground and offers a spirited defense of the First Amendment, pointing out to the students that it is what protects their right to speak and protest as well.

This all happened a mere three days after another video depicted Yale students dressing down a professor whose wife questioned in an email whether or not it was appropriate for administrators to regulate or comment upon the Halloween costume choices of college students who are, after all, adults.

Several months have passed since those incidents occurred, but campus protests have not dissipated and may have even intensified. Just this week, Rutgers students smeared fake blood on themselves before chanting and staging a walk-out of a speech being given by conservative writer and provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. Counter-protesters began a chant of "Trump! Trump! Trump!," which Reason's Robby Soave argues is less an endorsement of Donald Trump's policies and more likely a trollish reaction to the "cult of political correctness" that's established a safe space for itself on American college campuses.

Watch the video above to hear Soave explain what lessons students should be taking away from these campus clashes.

Approximately 1.40 minutes.

Produced by Joshua Swain. Written by Robby Soave.

Music by Podington Bear.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

114 responses to “Mizzou Fired the Professor Who Asked for 'Muscle.' So What's the Lesson for Campus Protesters?

  1. We’re a culture, not a commentary. Outrage porn addict is not who I am and this is not okay.

    1. But I was going to dress up as you for Halloween! I even already bought the feathered boa!

      1. I don’t know who you think you’re going as but it ain’t me. Only one feather boa’s not gonna cut it.

        1. Well, it’s a really huge one, if that helps.

          1. As you probably know from my Tumblr, the boas are the only thing I wear, so modesty dictates at least three.

            1. You’re a size 3? Lose some weight!

              1. The 2nd and 3rd are needed to cover my magnum dong.

                1. Your anaconda needs two boas? Yikes.

        2. How about a leather boa?

          1. LEATHER IS MURDER

            …on the wallet!

  2. Reason, I know what you’re thinking. Don’t.

    1. Do it, Reason. Do it. All the cool kids are doing it, so why aren’t you?

  3. They don’t believe in free speech.

    1. Who does, when they’re in charge?

      1. Only right-wing whacko nut job Koch minions.

  4. I am both offended and outraged.

    1. Pick a side!

      1. I always choose “skins.”

          1. It doesn’t help. His preferred clothing styles are best described as containing excessive amounts of ‘mesh’ and ‘sheer’.

            He thinks it helps people better view his ‘juggling’.

  5. Tai stands his ground and offers a spirited defense of the First Amendment, pointing out to the students that it is what protects their right to speak and protest as well.

    I think that’s what’s at issue here – equal protection isn’t equal outcomes, it’s merely equal opportunity and therefore prioritizes those privileged enough to maximize their opportunities. And this is the shit they’ve been taught all their lives. “Equality” should mean equal outcomes and if I don’t get the outcomes I want, well that just proves there’s some sort of injustice going on that’s keeping me down. If it weren’t for the institutional injustice baked into our culture, we’d all be equally rich and smart and sexually desirable. And dammit, somebody owes me for me not getting my fair share.

    1. equal protection isn’t equal outcomes, it’s merely equal opportunity and therefore prioritizes those privileged enough to maximize their opportunities

      There is some truth to this. Of course, privilege is only one factor out of many, including skill, work, and luck.

      There are three major problems with their world view. The first is that they act in every way as if privilege maps directly onto groups (white, male, heterosexual, Christian, etc.), and utterly ignore individual experience (except when it is convenient for them).

      The second is that they treat any form of inequality, or really anything that causes certain people to have to work harder than others, as an injustice, instead of just plain old reality. And they have a reason for that. Injustice requires compensation for the injured and/or punishment for the criminal. So it becomes a power play.

      The third problem is that they think privilege for some automatically hurts others, and a lack of privilege for some automatically helps others. It’s a very zero sum way of thinking.

      1. Having said all that….

        I was arguing the other day that it would behoove us to try to understand why Trump supporters are so damn mad and to offer libertarian solutions to their complaints.

        And I think the same applies here. There is inequality in the world, and some of it is still propped up by institutional and cultural forces. That really does hurt some people, and it would behoove us to offer libertarian solutions to their complaints.

        1. You are assuming that they are complaining in good faith. You won’t get very far.

          Greenies complain about a thousand different things…the answer to all of them is destroy capitalism.

          Feminists complain about a thousand different things…the answer to all of them is destroy capitalism.

          OWS idiots complain about a thousand different things…the answer to all of them is destroy capitalism.

          BLS idiots complain about a thousand different things…the answer to all of them is destroy capitalism.

          The list goes on and on.

          Destroy capitalism = institute socialism. Socialism = antilibertarianism.

          1. The SJWs are just Marxists who substituted white males for the bourgeoisie.

            1. The SJWs are just Marxists who substituted white males for the bourgeoisie.”

              Bingo.

              1. Well, yea, but who doesn’t ?

          2. I’m not talking about the true believers. I’m talking about the masses that that agree inequality is a problem but listen to people like the above because they are, for the most part, the only ones offering any kind of solution (even if it is a solution in name only).

            It’s the same with Trump supporters. You aren’t going to convince the union shills, but there are a lot of people who agree that globalization hasn’t been an across the board win, and they listen to Trump because he is the only one talking about their concerns.

            I don’t think inequality is immoral, but I do think that a ton of government policies as well as the overall nature of the large regulatory state exacerbate it, and prevent a lot of people from improving their lot in life. So if we can bring those things down by appealing to people’s concerns over inequality, why not try?

            I don’t think globalization is a bad thing. On the contrary, I think it’s been a major contributing factor to the rise in living standards and helps promote peace through trade. But I do think that a ton of government policies and the welfare state make low-skill American workers less competitive and agile and prevent people from seeking out (or creating) new opportunities for themselves and others. So if we can bring those things down by appealing to people’s dissatisfaction with the loss of good paying blue collar jobs, why not try?

            1. Because you are offering an intellectual answer to an emotional problem.

              Trump is offering an emotional answer to emotional problems and that’s why he’s on top.

        2. There is inequality in the world, and some of it is still propped up by institutional and cultural forces. That really does hurt some people, and it would behoove us to offer libertarian solutions to their complaints.

          The reference to “institutional and cultural forces” gets my antenna twitching. So long as these are voluntary/cultural/civil, then the answer, if you don’t like them, also needs to be voluntary, etc.

          The problem with the SJWs is they’ve got a jackboot, and everything looks like a neck. I don’t know how you change that, even if you would prefer the society they are trying to create (which I wouldn’t, personally).

          1. The problem isn’t so much that they have a jackboot, but that they have convinced so many people to casually slip on the jackboot. You take away their power by taking away their popular support. I don’t have a grand plan for how to do that, but I’m fairly certain we aren’t going to be able to turn people into libertarians, not quickly, anyway, and not by explicitly trying to turn them into libertarians. But I think we can make progress by using libertarian ideas to offer solutions, even to issues we as libertarians are not really that concerned with.

            1. You take away their power by taking away their popular support.

              Their power doesn’t come from popular support. It comes from the State, in the form of Title IX regulations, anti-discrimination laws, and the people who enforce them with, at the end of the road, guns and clubs.

              Its no accident that the campus SJW/protest movement didn’t take off until the federal government stuck its nose in with a “reinterpretation” of Title IX.

              1. You saw a prime and frankly scary example of their real and pure view with Prof Click. She had zero problem asking for physical violence to deal with someone she suspected of being an “other”.

                She and her likes scares the shit out of me as they would and do have zero problem using violence to settle issues. The more power individuals like her get the greater the chance of the marxist solutions to problems being used as we have seen throughout history.

                Imagine being in her class, you think she would have any problem failing a white student who didn’t show the correct amount of contrition for their role in slavery or global warming ?

                1. Absolutely this. I think Trump has the gonads to tell these types to toss off and possibly slap Hillary on the wrist. She’s too powerful, though. She will never be be brought down.

              2. This.

                It’s definitely no coincidence that the DOE mandate on interpreting Titke IX predates these protests by just a couple of years.

                And many of us, when this I new interpretation was mandated, said this is the exactly the type if shit that would happen.

              3. I still think popular support, or at least apathy, undergirds all of that.

      2. As I’ve said before, I think a fair game of basketball between me and Michael Jordan would be both of us playing by the same rules and nevermind the fact that he’s going to slaughter me. For others, a fair game means one in which we both have the same chance of winning. Since you can’t make me as good a basketball player as Michael Jordan, the only way to even the odds is by hobbling Michael. But still, one of us is going to win which means it still wasn’t a fair game because you either hobbled him too much or not enough – and you can never tell beforehand whether the hobbling is fair or not but can only ever make a post hoc judgement. How is it fair to say we’ll play the game first and make up the rules afterward such that the game ends up in a tie? If the outcome is guaranteed to be the same no matter what, why bother playing the game?

        Why bother trying to “better” yourself if the rules are that nobody is allowed to benefit from being better than anybody else? What does “better” even mean if the law requires everybody gets treated exactly equally? Sure, your argument may be better than mine because you’re smarter and more logical and more sane than I am, but doesn’t equal treatment demand that us stupid illogical crazy people get the same respect for our opinions as everybody else?

    2. So you’re saying Harrison Bergeron is a form of dystopia and not the template on which to structure our society? Huh….

  6. How long before she gets hired at some other university for a tenure-track position? I’ll give it 6-12 months tops. After all, how can any college go for a semester without having hard-hitting academic research on Twilight fans?

    1. at 400k a year – good lord.

      1. She did *not* get paid 400K; I cannot understand how anyone can even think that was her salary. The 400K was for her, another person, and the *department dean*. And the dean probably got the lion’s share of it.

        Regurgitating a completely wrong “she got paid 400K” talking point just makes people look utterly uninformed and gullible.

        1. Ah, thanks,

      2. She actually made $400k/year????? That is incredibly high in academia. I’d like to see that broken down.

        1. She only got a salary of about 67K

          It was State benefits and pension that made her compensation equal to 400K in the private sector.

          (those are made up numbers but illustrate the point).

  7. I heard somebody defending the BLM group that wanted to use the library to hold their meetings that were for people of color only – no whites allowed – on the grounds that laws forbidding whites to discriminate against blacks were necessary and proper while laws forbidding blacks to discriminate against whites were not because of “marginalization”. Rich, straight white males have more power than other groups so these other groups need rules that correct the power imbalance. Never mind the fact that if you’ve got the power to change the definition of fairness and get rules passed favorable to yourself that you’re hardly marginalized – but more importantly that if you’re arguing that the definition of fairness is whatever you have the power to say it is, what is your principled objection to us rich straight white males imposing our definition of fairness and making rules favorable to ourselves as long as we have the power?

    1. I do not doubt that there may be a few dozen crackpots that actually believe this.

      Can you provide a link or citation to this?

      1. You seriously think there are only a few people who believe that discrimination is only wrong if it’s the wrong people doing the discriminating? You haven’t been paying attention to all the arguments over lawsuits regarding minority set-asides and race-based admissions programs and such?

        I don’t remember where I was reading some of the “it’s not racist when black people do it” arguments on the BLM thing, but I’m sure it was a reputable site and not one I would be embarrasssed to admit I browsed. *koff* Reddit *koff* I WAS ONLY THERE FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES!

        I wound up there because of the lady on NPR yesterday talking about the “Black Twitter” thing that I didn’t even know was a thing. When the interviewer asked her what about a white twitter or a latino twitter or gay twitter or whatever, the lady said something to the effect that marginalized people needed their own space to feel comfortable discussing issues in a way that they were comfortable with – with a suggestion that non-marginalized people really didn’t need that sort of space. My immediate reaction to hearing her say that was “what about us child-molesting white-supremacist Satanists? We’re pretty damn marginalized! Where’s our twitter?” (Yes, I do listen to NPR and watch CNN – it’s a “know your enemy” sort of thing.)

        1. I wound up there because of the lady on NPR yesterday talking about the “Black Twitter” thing that I didn’t even know was a thing. When the interviewer asked her what about a white twitter or a latino twitter or gay twitter or whatever, the lady said something to the effect that marginalized people needed their own space to feel comfortable discussing issues in a way that they were comfortable with – with a suggestion that non-marginalized people really didn’t need that sort of space. My immediate reaction to hearing her say that was “what about us child-molesting white-supremacist Satanists? We’re pretty damn marginalized! Where’s our twitter?” (Yes, I do listen to NPR and watch CNN – it’s a “know your enemy” sort of thing.)

          I wonder how she would feel about racial segregation in public schools.

    2. Really, who cares ? SJW thinking is so out of date it is sad. Libraries are all online today and there probably is little benefit for the people BLM claims to help by taking a physical library. The smart kids went online years ago. SJW need to keep up.

  8. I don’t think the reason we have so many threads about college speech and gays and so few about guns and economics is because the staff at Reason has gone all millennial and limp-wristed.

    . . . no matter what everybody else says.

    1. Meh, we can fix that.

      1. And how do you propose doing that?

        1. Twitter!

        2. Usually we discuss whatever the article is and then whatever we choose.

          The Reason staff seem to be all pro-second amendment but different individuals to different degrees. I think it has a lot to do with their individual backgrounds.

          1. I remember my father telling my brother and I when we were pretty young that soon most people will be born and raised in the city instead of rural areas and that that would completely change the culture of the country. We had no idea what he was talking about. I sure get it now.

          2. I’m not talking about where they stand on the topic. I’m talking about what topics they cover and how often.

            Campus speech is an important topic that effects us all.

            . . . well, at least everybody on the quad.

            And that’s why we should have three threads about it a day.

            Every day.

            1. The other day there was a by line that went something like, “Mizzou Professor Fired : Can We Move on Now Already?”

              And I thought to myself, “I don’t know, Robby. You tell us”.

              How many threads has he posted on the topic since?

              1. How many threads has he posted on the topic since?

                variations of the topic keep resurfacing at other campuses, so it’s not a one-off but, increasingly, more of a trend. And these Kampus Kiddies are one day going to leave the cocoon and, in some way, try to bring this into the workplace. As older people retire from the workforce, the sort of inculcation seen on campuses infects the societal body at large.

                The left is like a virus. You cannot kill it. It simply mutates based on the conditions around it and either lies in a dormant state until it can resurface or figures out how to battle the resistance tactics used against it.

                1. But you can nuke that bitch from orbit.

              2. It seems like Reason has specific writers assigned for certain topics. Soave is assigned to campus and speech issues, so he reports those that come up. And a lot come up. ENB covers sex issues, Bailey does science, etc.
                That being said, I agree they should have more articles on economic issues. After seeing “The Big Short,” I wondered what they’d think of it. But either they didn’t have anything on it or I missed it. And there are others that have come up that Reason seems to not have much to say about. Where are their economics and financial experts or reporters?

            2. I think it is pretty important because they are trying to export their tactics to wider society. Additionally those grads are tomorrows people of influence. It is a cancer that must be excised. Freedom of speech is the outward expression of freedom of conscience. Without that we will become a prison nation, or as Reagan put it we will fall into a thousand years of darkness.

              The left’s relentless attacks on the second amendment aren’t really about the second. They know they probably can’t really dispense with all of our rights until they disarm us. This movement appears to be an attempt to get at the first amendment without defeating that pesky second one.

              Keep in mind that Robby has to keep himself in shampoo and mousse and he probably gets paid by the article. Then everyone else has to weigh in now and then. But yeah, one a day would be plenty.

            3. They seem to give the staff leeway to report on what they know and care about. So Robby reports on campus free speech and sexual assault, because he is a recent college graduate.

              ENB reports on sex issues because…well, I’m a gentleman.

              Suderman is a nerd, so he reports on policy.

              It would be nice to have larger staff that focuses on more rigorous economic and policy analysis, but I guess the resources are limited, and Nick doesn’t seem to be so interested in those things.

              1. I would love an economic staffer.

                1. Veronique used post some pretty solid stuff here, but I don’t remember anything from her in ages.

                  1. I occasionally see stuff from her. Looking at her post history, she posts more frequently than I thought. In fact, every Thursday. Apparently, she doesn’t get her articles on Hit&Run;. You have to go to the Home page.

                    1. What, they’re making us use the backdoor?

                      They don’t want the rest of the world to see us using the front door?

                      Is it just becasue we have names like “muoy grande boner”, “masterbatin’ Pete”, and “Shrike’s Buttplug”?

                      I have it on high authority that those are actually very common names.

                      Or are they ashamed of us because we’re white and heterosexual?

                    2. Well, today I learned. That’s unfortunate, HyR is the place to be

                    3. There’s a home page?!?!

                  2. I am in love with Veronique.

                2. If you’re interested in classical liberal/libertarian economics, wander on over to cafehayek.com. Don Boudreaux is as insightful an economist as you’ll ever find. And (pun intended) right on the money.

    2. “I’m not going to say that Reason is a bunch of cosmotarians because that would be politically incorrect”, you mean?

      1. Given the original definition, I consider myself a cosmotarian, too. Means I’m not easily frightened by gays or Muslims–maybe less so than what you’d find over at Lew Rockwell’s?

        Okay.

        Don’t see why we need to abandon talking about the other stuff, too.

  9. “Mizzou Fired the Professor Who Asked for ‘Muscle.’ So What’s the Lesson for Campus Protesters?”

    Nothing really, since most of them are brainwashed useful idiots incapable of learning.

    Click threw away a 400k / year cushy job because she couldn’t help herself from acting like a 5 year old brat. You surely don’t expect someone like that to learn, do you?

    1. No rest lessons for the wicked brainwashed and fully indoctrinated.

    2. I just said this above, but it needs to be repeated until people fucking get it:

      She did *not* get paid 400K; I cannot understand how anyone can even think that was her salary. The 400K was for her, another person, and the *department dean*. And the dean probably got the lion’s share of it.

      Regurgitating a completely wrong “she got paid 400K” talking point just makes people look utterly uninformed and gullible.

      1. What difference does it make?

        1. It makes us look uninformed and gullible?

          1. Better then looking short, fat and stupid I suppose.

            1. Change that to “short, stupid, and soulless ginger” for a description of Click.

      2. I was thoughtlessly repeating what I had heard before.

        Still, my point holds.

  10. I NEED SUM BROWNSHIRTS OVER HERE!!

    1. The SJWs and the Nazis are creepily similar.

      Both preach victimhood, both are obsessed with race, both hate free speech, and “wrong think”, both use bullying tactics, both blame all their problems on one racial demographic, both support revisionist history, etc etc.

      1. They aren’t Nazis of course, but if you examine all of the authoritarian, collectivist movements you will find the same mentality and the same personality types.

        Yeah, they are similar.

      2. The SJWs socialists and the Nazis other socialists are creepily similar.

        Fixed that for you

      3. Have you played the Stormfront or SJW game on reddit?

        1. Holy shit, comedy gold Jerry.

        2. I do this all the time. =D

  11. Lesson??

    Don’t hire incompetent shitstains with red hair?

    1. Incompetent? It’s hardly her fault someone changed the rules this one time.

      1. No, she is incompetent.

        Anyone who stages a demonstration needs to know that reporters give the event free publicity, student reporters are probably on the side of other students, and therefore the way to handle such is to make friends with them, point them toward the action you want covered, and fed them your information.

        Communications profs should be teaching that to the other demonstrators. The way Click handled this “interview” is like an astronomy prof using stars to tell fortunes.

        I get your joke, and she did indeed piss on the First Amendment, but she’s incompetent because she’s a communications prof who doesn’t know the first thing about communications.

  12. Is it possible that the progs are all dyslexic? And when we are hearing Free Speech they have heard Speech Free all their lives?

  13. What’s the lesson for campus protestors?

    Howsabout: Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time. She committed a crime and got fired. This should be a surprise to no one over the age of 5. The fact that these college students apparently need a lesson in this is very ensaddening.

    1. I think the lesson is to make sure you have enough muscle for the job before you start the job. If she had had more maoist henchmen she could have intimidated the administration.

    2. I keep saying the lesson for the rest of us is this is what a communications professor looks like. I absolutely believe that Click was doing exactly what came naturally to her and what she teaches her students to do – tell your story exactly how you want to tell it and silence anybody that tries arguing with you by any means necessary. Click would have been one of those advising the protestors how crucial it is to Control The Narrative, and that’s what passes as journuhlism these days.

      I think most of us here are aware that “journalists” are not the strictly neutral truth-telling documentarians they pretend to be, they all have biases and they all spin the story to some extent or another but plenty of people take the news reporting at face value. They actually believe that The News is The Truth rather than merely what somebody wants you to believe is The Truth.

      1. how crucial it is to Control The Narrative

        Lesson 1: Don’t do stupid shit that completely contradicts your narrative.

        Click: “Ooh, minority students are are powerless and oppressed.”

        Click: “Silence that minority student! I need some muscle over here!”

        1. Control the Narrative 101:

          1. Journalists are your friends. Their job is to give you free publicity.
          a. Welcome them.
          b. Help them find the action you want covered.
          c. Hand them the information you want spread.
          2. Cameras and microphones are always on. Never never ever ever get nasty in front of either.

          A “Communications” prof should be teaching this, not learning it.

      2. controlling the narrative IS a key to good communication, but not when what you are saying is abject bullshit. I spent time as a news reporter on the other side as a PR guy. Controlling the narrative, from the corporate side, means sticking to the facts; you can’t lie because it eventually gets exposed. Doesn’t mean you say everything about everything, but at least be upfront on the known facts of a story.

        I get the Click’s version of control involves perpetuating a false narrative. Then again, I am not confusing her with genuine scholarship, either, more like rabble-rousing.

  14. It is Saturday and nearly 11:00…is it too early to drink? I have already done nearly a full day’s work in between sitting down here.

    1. Well I’m rewarding myself with a brew for finishing the tilling of my small backyard garden and pulled the weeds from my strawberry patch in preparation for Spring. Knock yourself out.

      1. What is going in the garden?

        I think I am sticking to just tomatoes and peppers this year. Peppers because…well, peppers. Tomatoes because you cant get really good tomatoes from the grocery store. Everything else is perennial ( plums, figs, muscadine, kumquat, pecan, herbs that reseed themselves etc.)

        1. Tomatoes and red peppers as well. Also zucchini, castor bean plants( you never know when you’ll need to whip up some ricin 😉 ) okra, squash and I’m considering whether to plant a few rows of corn. The strawberry patch is just a four foot by sixteen foot rectangular box up against the house. Nothing fancy. I raise a few veggies simply as a motivator to get off my ass and not spend all my spare time inside in front of a glowing computer or television screen.

        2. Suthen Boy have you ever tried this ?

          Plant a tomato plant by itself. Surround it with alternating pepper and garlic plants.

          They cross pollinate and make for some tasty tomatoes. You can also just plant garli and perrers in amongst you tomato plants if you want to do it in volume.

          Spreading leafy green seeds all around the tomatoes keeps from having to weed amongst the tomatos if you plant a lot of tomatoes.

          1. Peppers, tomatoes, and garlic… I’ll have to remember that.

            I was thinking about doing one of those “Three Sisters” garden patches like the Native Americans used to. I read that those three plants – like the trio you mentioned – will grow much better together than any of them would if planted separately.

            1. Try different types of squash. You will get interesting results.

  15. Seems to me the conflict at Missouri has much less to do with Free Speech than it does with common courtesy. The photographer had every right to take pictures and to watch and to participate, and the prof. and others had every right to complain about it. The problem is *how* she did it. Both have the same free speech rights, but both parties should also have an expectation of common courtesy. That’s where she failed.

    1. Well, she did explicitly and loudly assert that he had no right to be there doing what he was doing, i.e. she has first amendment rights and he does not.

      Her complaint boils down to the infantile ‘Stop looking at me!’. All that is missing is her calling for mommy to make him stop. Oh, wait. She did do that.

      *I did observe a 7 year old kid putting his finger less than an inch from another kid’s eye and saying over and over “I’m not touching you! I am not touching you!” within the last 48 hours.

      1. Siblings? Sounds like siblings.

    2. Both have the same free speech rights, but both parties should also have an expectation of common courtesy. That’s where she failed.

      Actually, what we have here is a failure to communicate. Click is a “communications” prof who doesn’t know what to do with a journalist who is trying to give her demonstration free publicity. It’s like the Occupy Wall Street folks who couldn’t manage a decent campsite telling you how to run the world.

  16. She claims she was in fear for her life because she thought the journalist had a gun:

    http://chronicle.com/blogs/tic…..gun/108951

  17. Props to Tim Tai.

  18. Why does everyone keep saying she was a journalism professor? She was a communications professor.

    Melissa Click learn nothing! Nothing!

  19. What’s the lesson? Oh, gee, I don’t know … be civil?

  20. The lesson is, agitate harder off camera.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.