College Officials Needed Swift Lesson in Classroom Freedom

California college tried to suspend student who recorded his sexuality professor's anti-Trump rant.


There's something creepily totalitarian about Orange Coast College's handling of the now nationally known incident involving 19-year-old Caleb O'Neil, who was suspended from the college for two semesters for secretly videotaping one of his instructors engaging in an anti-Trump rant. The suspension was bad enough, but the college also insisted that O'Neil apologize to the professor and hand in an apologetic essay about his transgressions. Fortunately, after a groundswell of public support for the student—and academic freedom generally—the college backed down and rescinded the suspension and other sanctions.

For those who have missed the Register articles, human sexuality instructor Olga Perez Stable Cox was caught on video telling her class that Donald Trump's presidential victory was "an act of terrorism." The most frightening thing, she said, "is that the people who are leading the assault are among us." O'Neil eventually posted the video after being unsatisfied with the college's response. It went viral. As someone who campaigned for Trump, O'Neil had reason to fear the instructor's views could have repercussions on his grades. After all, he's one of those "among us."

O'Neil's supporters, including some local Republican leaders, blasted the professor for using her teaching position to shame students. The union representing faculty there criticized O'Neil for not engaging in an "open dialogue." The school administration said it would investigate the complaint filed against the teacher, but the only obvious repercussions so far are the harshly punitive sanctions it tried to impose against the student.

The college's letter to O'Neil, published on a website, understandably drew a backlash. It said that O'Neil's essay should, among other things, discuss his "thoughts and analyses on the impact of the video going 'viral' and the ensuing damage to Orange Coast College students, faculty and staff." So he was going to be required to write an essay—and the school was telling him the basic view he had to express in it.

Cox says she has received angry emails and messages and now feels "paranoid" and like she's been "attacked by a mob of people all across the country." Any threats and intimidation are wrong, of course. But this whole situation could have been avoided had the college administration acted in an even-handed manner in the beginning. We don't want a world where college professors are afraid to speak forthrightly to their classes, but students are at least owed an apology when subjected to an inappropriate rant.

O'Neil was being disciplined for violating the school's prohibition on unauthorized recording, which is a picayune point, given that this is a taxpayer-funded school. The First Amendment should still apply there. The punishment was outsized compared to the transgression. And even such a punishment would have been more tolerable if one could have any confidence the college treated with any seriousness Cox's in-classroom transgression.

This scene has sparked anger because it confirms the worst fears conservatives have about liberal intolerance in academia. In a sane world, a few apologies would suffice. "Hey, I was distraught about the election and was unfair in my comments." "OK, I was upset by your remarks and believed that a video was my only recourse." The administration would step in and everyone would sing "Kumbaya." Instead, lawyers got involved, and there was even a threatened recall of college board members. It's the result of a college that decided to dig in its heels rather than pursue fairness. The punitive response suggests the problem at Orange Coast goes a lot deeper than one professor's lack of a filter.

Ironically, Coast Colleges, the community college district that includes Orange Coast, has an entire Office of Equity, Inclusion and Compliance. One document posted on its website details the evils of "microaggressions"—"common, subtle messages that communicate racial indignations." Such indignations typically are "unconscious in nature," but they "have an integral influence on students' perceptions of campus climates as hostile, alienating and isolating."

The controversy isn't racial, although Cox reportedly referred to white supremacy and evoked the Civil War. But if a college system is so worried about unconscious, little aggressions that create a hostile and alienating classroom environment, shouldn't it also be worried about instructors who make loud, conscious and aggressive statements that are alienating to students with a minority political viewpoint? The hypocrisy here is almost too rich for words.

I admire O'Neil's willingness to fight back. It seems likely he's not the only student to endure such things, so this is a worthy fight. But perhaps he should find a school that values his temerity. Americans—and academics, in particular—need a healthy reminder of why free expression is the foundation of a free society. And why petty, unjust bureaucrats remain its enemy.

NEXT: Movie Review: Logan

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. [quote]human sexuality instructor[/quote]

    Why do they need this, I thought college was about hands on experience in this area?

    1. How else will students learn that gender is fashion and all sex is rape?

  2. “I admire O’Neil’s willingness to fight back. It seems likely he’s not the only student to endure such things, so this is a worthy fight. But perhaps he should find a school that values his temerity.”

    Hasn’t leaving colleges that violated conservative free speech basically led to the tyranny conservatives suffer on campuses now?

    All students should fight back and just sue the shit out of every college they can. At the minimum, bankrupt the places. Conservative lawmakers, state and federal, should pull every penny of public money out.

    1. And just how, exactly, do you bankrupt a state college?
      Come on now people, lead the charge for California session! End the madness.
      See how long they have the sixth largest economy in the world without all the federal funds flowing in. 🙂

      1. Pull every dime of government money. Pull all federal grants. Pull all student loans. Starve the beast and knife it.

      2. If the federal government stopped their much smaller payments to California, then California would stop sending the much larger payments to the Federal Government and it would be the Federal Government that would go broke not California.

        California has the sixth largest economy in the world. It is one of the main drivers of the US economy. Removing California from the US economy hurts the US not California.

        Why don’t you just get used to free speech instead? I keep reading this over here in the comments on Reason. Libertarians become authoritarians when it comes to dissent against their ideas or speakers they support, strange.

        I am loath to consider what a world run by people who don’t even understand their own ideology would look like. It is one thing to pose solutions and it is another thing to just be against everything that is and then both have no idea why you are against it, or what you can do to make anything better. I see that way too often among people that claim to libertarian.

        I get it that a lot of people want a better society, but many libertarian ideas clearly would destroy many of the positive institutions in our culture, and they do not provide any replacement. There are a few issues on which I agree with libertarian ideology and am grateful for libertarian support, but as a whole you have to balance ideas of liberty with common sense. I don’t see that happening enough.

    2. Attacking academia for perceived wrongs against decency and order is what totalitarians do.

      1. Ever pay of that bet, cunt?

      2. But stifling dissent in the classroom is what academics do? Sounds way better.

        1. Um, yeah, a lot of the time. The teacher is supposed to know more than the student. That’s the point.

          My personal taste is to leave current politics out of class unless that’s what the class is about, though.

      3. It’s interesting that you think academia and totalitarianism are mutually exclusive.

        1. It’s interesting that you think libertarianism and garden-variety fascism are mutually exclusive.

          1. It’s interesting that you think libertarianism and garden-variety fascism are mutually exclusive

            Yep, nothing says “fascism” like not paying for someone else’s health insurance or old age pension, or wanting to not be involved in foreign military adventures.

            Comments like this reveal why a real-estate huckster has discombobulated you boobs so thoroughly.

            1. The fascism comes in once you realize that like 1% of the population actually wants what you’re selling, and even they stop wanting it once they think about it for five minutes. So then you guys kinda start thinking about how to get what you think is best for society despite the will of the people you’d be imposing it on.

              The attacks on leftists, academics, journalists, and the like is just your lack of impulse control. Slap any label on it you want, anarchist to communist. You’re still a fucking loon who wants to impose a stupid idea on people who don’t want it.

              1. The fascism comes in once you realize that like 1% of the population actually wants what you’re selling, and even they stop wanting it once they think about it for five minutes. So then you guys kinda start thinking about how to get what you think is best for society despite the will of the people you’d be imposing it on.

                Uh, if those policies are passed with popular support, that’s called “the will of the people”, n’est-ce pas? That’s hardly “fascism” no matter how much you cry about it.

                The attacks on leftists, academics, journalists, and the like is just your lack of impulse control.

                Identifying social authoritarians isn’t a lack of impulse control just because they happen to agree with you. Sounds more like insecurity on your part that there are people who don’t want to just roll over and play dead when you snap your fingers. No wonder progressivism is such a control-freak, micro-managing ideology.

              2. The fact that you can even think of using the word “impose” when it comes to Libertarian ideas is prima facie proof that you don’t even understand what the Libertarian ideas are.

              3. FASCISM DEFINED:

                Government control of private means of production.

                WHERE is this a part of the story, or of OCC? Youse guys toss that word around whilst being clueless as to its meaning. Sort of like that stupid prof was tossing about other “trigger words” like “terrorism” and “white supremacy and “racist”.

                Doesn’t help.

          2. Well they are quite literally opposites.

            1. No, liberalism is the opposite. Libertarianism is a weird little cult belief just as prone to thugs wanting to impose it on everyone else as any other dumbass political philosophy some psychopath dreamed up one day.

              1. No, liberalism is the opposite

                Except you’re not a liberal, you’re a progressive with serious projection issues.

      4. Punishing students for exposing professors’ demonization of dissenting viewpoint, however is so untotalitarian.

        Also, forcing taxpayers to fund political indoctrination sessions is definitely totes untotalitarian. Can’t see why libertarians don’t get behind it.

      5. On target the fucking idiot, tyranny lover “Tony” spews what is supposed to come out of his tight ass. Yeah fuck you your going to be destroyed on this comment board. You must be a masochist.

  3. I am still waiting to find out why a sexuality professor, during teaching time, was giving a political speech. Sounds like fraud to me, taking pay while not doing her job.
    Oh, wait! California.

    1. You’re for faculty speech codes, then?

      1. When you put it that way, I guess I am. Is it too much to ask that a biology (math, English, whatever) professor use his or her class time to teach whatever they are being paid to teach? If they are not teaching the subject that they are being paid to teach they are defrauding their students.

        1. You’d leave it up to students like O’Neil to police them?

      2. Would you prefer to label is anti-fraud measures? If you’re paying for a course in a topic, then the course should be about that topic. If I had a math professor who decided “You know, I’ll teach chemistry INSTEAD”, it’d be a speech code to dismiss them for not doing their job?

    2. When a pastor makes an impassioned political sermon, liberals want to get rid of tax exemptions for churches. Why not the same for colleges and college professors? Colleges no longer get federal funds (grants, student aid, etc), and the IRS pulls in the professors for special grilling and auditing?

      1. When a pastor makes an impassioned political sermon, liberals want to get rid of tax exemptions for churches.

        Unless you go to one of the non-denominational or Evangelical churches, most religious institutions these days are pushing progressivism to the max. It’s one reason (along with a general decline in religious belief) why the membership rolls of so many churches have plummeted in recent years–they’ve basically become left-wing social clubs with a veneer of spirituality, particularly the “Jesus was a liberal!” line.

        It would actually be hilarious if Trump pulled the tax-exempt status for all churches based on UCC deacons, Presbyterian ministers, and Mormon elders harping about his immigration policies.

    3. I can see how some aspects of Trump’s campaign would be relevant to a human sexuality class. His pussy-grabbing repartee might be the starting point of a discussion of relevance to the course. I don’t see offhand how calling his election an act of terrorism would be relevant, but I would give her a chance to make the case that it is before doing anything like a reprimand or suspension.

      Most universities don’t allow recording of lectures without the instructor’s consent.

      1. Colleges accept federal monies and cannot decide to ignore the Constitution in doing so.

        The recording is out there. She didn’t make a case for its relevance.

        1. I assume you are referrring to the essay they tried to make the student write? I agree that’s a dumb thing to do, and the whole suspension was excessive. But without even looking at the student handbook, I can 95% guarantee that there is a policy against recording lectures without permission, simply because nearly every college has one.

          “The recording is out there. She didn’t make a case for its relevance.”

          Not to you or me, anyway.

          1. The lectures are at a public place. Lectured to the public. Attendance paid. Consideration by both parties. All of which, in part or in whole, place the lecture in the public domain. Therefore if such recording was not used in a for profit enterprise, the distribution of a single recording does not infringe on copyright if there was such a copyright. Regardless of student handbook declarations.

  4. This is happening across the country at public and private universities. I took several classes myself (in Theology no less) and rated the professors not on their knowledge but whether or not they revealed their political views to me through out the year. One in five failed my test severely. I can’t imagine how they would rate if the course had been anything else. Brainwashing at it’s best. Kuddos to O’Neil for enduring the harassment. No doubt he probably got an F in the class.

    1. My history classes 13 years years in my first year at college were the only classes I didn’t get an A in. My teachers openly said they would not be subjective, that “it’s okay to be a republican but it’s hot in hell”, and more and more crap. Every fucking day was a propaganda session for them. They knew nothing of history let alone how to teach it.

      That’s the difference between progs and everyone else (liberals or conservatives). Please give me one fucking example of a conservative teacher doing that in a class? I’m sure my statistics teacher was right leaning, and so was my econ teacher was right leaning, but you would hardly know. Leftists have to inject every fucking thing in life with their bullshit politics. Must not be able to stand on its own if you have to brainwash people.

      Seriously though, Robby, how can you even begin to argue ‘academic freedom’ and all that other crap? Teachers are paid to TEACH A FUCKING CLASS! They are not paid to spout their worthless political opinions. If my Calculus teacher started talking about gun control, how the fuck does that have anything to do with Calculus? Reason pays you to write these stories, yet I don’t see you stopping to write paragraphs on your favorite sports team or whatever.

      1. Unfortunately for Robbie, his favorite sportsball teams have suffered embarrassments this year. See the miracle shot at Northwestern, and the 3 OT defeat at Ohio State.

      2. To conservatives, political ideology and partisan membership is just another facet of life, it’s their personal opinion on governance. But to many progressives. it’s is nothing less than their religion. The center of their existence. The purpose of their being is to evangelize and indoctrinate, to engage in inquisition and persecution. When your very soul is at stake there’s no such thing as keeping your opinions to yourself during college class.

        p.s. Then you have libertarians. We’re actually worse than progressives on the whole ideology-as-religion thing. If we had numbers and positions of academic power we would give the progressives a run for their money in the classroom-as-religious-indoctrination-center department.

      3. If my Calculus teacher started talking about gun control, how the fuck does that have anything to do with Calculus?

        If they managed to then tie it to a discussion about how to use calculus to determine the area under the curve of the bullet’s path, then maybe.

        Though I would say the appropriate response would be a student replying, “Could you cut out the politics and get back to what I paid for — calculus lessons?”, rather than the administration getting involved.

        1. And when you fail the class and are accused of being overly disruptive?

        2. That assumes that the “control” part would have to do with the angle at which the projectile left the barrel.

      4. Robby’s not here, man.

        I think you are pretty much right that this is more of a being a shitty teacher issue than an academic freedom issue.

  5. I see no heroes here.
    Shit-weasels all around.

    1. That’s the best take on this whole thing. The professor was horrible and the student violated a policy designed to prevent cheating. (“No recording without permission” policies are usually designed to punish students who skip class and sometimes because of other student’s privacy concerns.) I’m sure both the kid and the professor will achieve stardom in the ideological blogosphere of their choice.

      1. I’m curious to know how someone would justify the position that baking cakes is a public act but giving a lecture is not.

      2. The student originally just took it to the administration to prove what was going on in the class. It didn’t go anywhere else until the administration refused to do or even say anything about it, as I understand the story. Nor was it the entire class session, just the rant.

        1. That does make a difference, and in that case the prof was completely out of line.

  6. Olga Perez “Stable” Cox?


    1. Oh, and I gather from the picture that the professor is the one whose freedom of expression is being abridged.

      1. More like expression of progressive victimology is being abridged, in their view. You know, the only correct perspective shared among the “woke” generation.

  7. According to Soave, O’Neil is ‘whining’.

  8. “apologize to the teacher”

    How about FUCK OFF, SLAVER!

    That teacher is a useless piece of shit who should be fired. You are paid to teach a fucking class, not bitch about your worthless fucking political ideology.

    If I showed up into work and didn’t do my fucking job, but just ranted about politics all day, I would be fired, because I wouldn’t be doing MY FUCKING JOB!

    1. I guess you don’t work for my company. The best thing about the Academy Awards announcement fiasco is that I didn’t have to spend the week in conversations about various actors and actresses brave speechifying against Trump.

      “OMG! Did you hear Fifi McDiddle’s acceptance speech! She’s so brave! I hope they don’t punish her for speaking truth to power!”

      1. I wonder what their reaction would be if you started reading Free to Choose to them and say you are speaking truth to power?

        1. I’m not sure, but I do know for a fact that one of them didn’t even know who Milton Friedman was. It’s purely partisan here at work. No underlying ideology. I can handle ideologue progressives, because at least they come from somewhere, but these guys are Team Blue Only.

          Trying to explain why I’m a libertarian: “So, you’re against Trump? I guess that’s okay if you’re for Hillary.” Serious. Silicon Valley is where these precious snowflakes go after they’ve been indoctrinated by the the colleges.

          1. Unfortunately the ‘smart’ progs will tell you Friedman was an evil fascist because – wait for it – he gave a lecture at a university in Argentina while Pinochet was in charge (which in their minds means he advised Pinochet).

    2. or “fuck you, you should be the one apologizing to me” for making threats, creating a hostile working environment, wasting my time, and not giving me what I paid for (for you to teach a class, not have a fucking sermon you cult fanatic)

    3. Dunno if this makes it any better, but honestly nobody is learning anything useful in a fucking Human Sexuality class anyway. The teacher could stand on her desk and fart the national anthem for an hour and these students would be getting the exact same value for their money.

      In my limited experience, this shit generally doesn’t happen in STEM classes because the teacher needs to stick to a demanding syllabus. They don’t have time to waste talking about politics or any other irrelevant bullshit.

      1. The teacher could stand on her desk and fart the national anthem for an hour and these students would be getting the exact same value for their money.

        To be fair, there *is* a (much smaller than current) market for that stuff. Get the taxpayer out of the equation and we’ll see just how much smaller.

        1. Sure there’s a market, and the value of this information has been firmly established at $0.

          Anyone with a strong enough gag reflex can head on over to everydayfeminism and learn all about affirmative consent, gender pronouns, male privilege, rape culture, fat acceptance, LGBTQIA rights, all that shit. Enough to cover this lady’s entire syllabus and more, I’m certain of that.

      2. The only classes in college where political comments ever came up were the humanities courses, and occasionally social sciences. None of the hard science profs I had bothered with that stuff.

        But this was also 20+ years ago, and the only right-wingers that the left was threatened by back then were Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, so they had a lot less to bitch about than they do today.

      3. Five years of engineering classes (double major) and I don’t think I could have told you what political party hardly any of my professors were. Even the one who wore fringed ties and sandals had scholastic standards he refused to compromise. Fun first day … after going over the syllabus and taking questions one student asked him about the curve. He replied there wasn’t one. General uproar to which he replied … “Five years from now you people are going to be designing the elevators I’m riding in. These are my standards.” I’m going, “YES!!! I like this guy.”

  9. Remember all the publicity about the Drexel professor who tweeted crap about “what is needed is white genocide” after Trump won the election? School officials were going to “talk to him about it.” But the media doesn’t seem to have pursued the story so we don’t know if the private university came down on him hard or endorsed academic freedom or what.

    1. This was reported extensively. They supported his academic freedom after their initial knee-jerk reaction of criticizing him without understanding the context.

      1. Citation needed, but without it, I think you’re wrong as regardless the context, if the professor said with sincerity “we need a white genocide”, he should be taken to task by the public (as he stated it publicly) and likely be fired.

        Why? Twofold – if you replace the word white with any other, black, female, trans, Asian, whatever, there would be no supporters.

        Secondarily, if he did toys in any other job at a private company, he would be fired. Morals clause and all.

        So I’m at a loss here with your implication that his asinine call for murdering 70% of the US population was rightly ignored once properly explained.

        Counter example: CEO of Mozilla apparently have money to a friend politician in 2003. That politician was apparently strongly pro-life, though neither the CEO, nor the former candidate ever said anything like “we need a genocide on abortion providers” yet CEO “resigned”.

        How the hell do we love in a world where a political donation can destroy a career, but calling for genocide should be ignored because “it was taken out of context”.

        SLD: Reason #12,389,245,122 that all education should be privately funded.

        PS: a quick Google search shows a professor with NO history of producing comedy or satire claiming his tweet was satire, while simultaneously defending it with historical examples of white genocide being a good thing.

        He’s a loser, who’s ignorant of histroy and has no control over his emotions. He shouldn’t be teaching.

        1. Actually, the donation was $1,000 to a group supporting Prop 8, an amendment against gay marriage in California back in 2014.

        2. I thought it was pretty clear the first time I read it that he was referencing the common use of the term “white genocide” — the one that comes up #1 in a Google search, and the one that has 30,000 hits on Breitbart. When people tweet about “draining the swamp”, it never occurrs to me that they actually mean reducing the water levels of swampland and its ecological impact. I always go with the common use definition first. So it was odd to me that the media ran with the literal (and politically irrelevant) definition of the phrase.

          But you’re right that if he WAS referring to murdering people, it would be really odd and Drexel’s initial response would have been appropriate. Fortunately, when asked, he issued a statement of clarification longer than 255 characters, so we don’t have to guess anymore.

  10. We don’t want a world where college professors are afraid to speak forthrightly to their classes, but students are at least owed an apology when subjected to an inappropriate rant.

    They aren’t owed an apology for an “inappropriate” rant — that’s free speech, if the students are free to respond back — the issue is that the words in the rant arguably threatened retaliation against any student who dared express a contrary opinion, which is the opposite of what the college administration should be encouraging in the classroom.

    And then the retaliation did occur, only from the admin rather than the professor.

    That’s the issue. Rants are one thing, actions or threatened actions to retaliate against free speech are quite another.

    1. Is it the teacher’s fucking job to ‘rant’ about their partisan hackery, or to teach a fucking class?

      If I’m paying $100 a class to sit and listen to you ramble about your fucking beliefs instead of teaching the class I paid for, how is that appropriate at all?

      Imagine taking a programming class and half the time the teacher is bitching about immigration or gun control or whatever? What the fuck does that have anything to do with teaching a fucking programming class?

      1. See above. It’s up to the students to tell the professor to do their damn job. If they persist in not teaching, then escalate to the administration.

        Every workplace I’ve been in, people would occasionally engage in a political discussion, but soon enough the boss would stop by and remind us to get back to work, which we would then promptly do.

        1. Yes, but these fucks act as if it’s their right to stand up their and preach their crap and if anyone says anything, queue the academic freedom BS. They are paid to teach a class.

          I had to deal with this shit all 4 years in college, and that was 9-13 years ago; I can only imagine how much worse it is now.

          Seriously who the fuck do you think you are that you can be paid to teach a subject and instead insert your bullshit opinions into everything, including saying to me on my first fall semester, “it’s okay to be a republican but it’s hot in hell”. How the fuck is that appropriate in ANY situation. How the fuck are you not fired on the spot

          1. You seem to have severe anger management issues. Did the proggie college do that to you?

            1. There’s really no point in arguing rationally with those people because they are not rational themselves. I mean my roommate didn’t even know what a school bond was, just that it meant more money to the schools, and he couldn’t comprehend any counter argument to it, because it means you hate the children.

              The only good response if ridicule. Or as we say here so often, Fuck Off, Slaver.

        2. Yes, the “boss” would put an end to the conversation. But if the boss were the one leading the conversation how many employees would cut him off? Professors are the bosses in this situation. A student can’t end the conversation without putting their grade in jeopardy. If it were an equal relationship I would agree with you but it isn’t.

        3. It’s up to the students to tell the professor to do their damn job. If they persist in not teaching, then escalate to the administration.

          the students have no ability to force it, and you’ve already said the administration shouldn’t have the ability to force it. You’ve left them with no solution

          1. The students ABSOLUTELY have a voice. Student reviews, in their various forms, are quite impactful. I’ve personally seen tenure denied because of it.

            1. Denied, maybe; revoked, never.

      2. It’s sort of like real life. I’m trying to code this feature into the software, but my coworker keeps ranting about Trump, and putting snarky comments about DeVos into code comments. Worse, he keep skipping out in the middle of the day to go drive his daughter to another protest.

      3. “Is it the teacher’s fucking job to ‘rant’ about their partisan hackery, or to teach a fucking class?”

        That depends. State or private college??

      4. Where can I find this $100 class? Asking for a friend.

      5. Programming? Gun control is irrelevant. A sexuality class? The political climate is highly relevant.

  11. Cox says she has received angry emails and messages and now feels “paranoid” and like she’s been “attacked by a mob of people all across the country.”

    There, there, dearie, retreat to your safe space in the faculty lounge where you’ll find only the comfort of sympathetic like-minded individuals – none of that “diversity” crap allowed in there, I’m sure.

    1. Diversity of opinion is apparently just a ruse to inject wrong mindedness into their repartee; right up their with fake news, you know.

  12. OT

    Obama’s former chief of staff advocates stop and frisk for Chiraq:…..story.html

    Second, we must give police wider leeway to stop and search suspects for illegal guns. Many people wrongly believe a federal judge in New York City ruled that stop-and-frisk policies are unconstitutional. In fact, the judge specifically said such tactics can be legal if they don’t amount to racial profiling.

    Since most killings in Chicago occur in predominantly black neighborhoods, many of the suspects searched for guns will be black. But remember, the shooting victims are overwhelmingly black. Tragically, Chicago’s gun violence is anything but colorblind. It’s a brutal and literal instance of targeting minorities.

    The distrust and lack of a constructive relationship between the police and some communities is all too real and must be addressed. But officers don’t need unreasonable constraints in trying to combat Chicago’s epidemic of violence. Among other things, the policy requiring officers to fill out cumbersome “receipts” for routine stops must be discarded immediately.

    1. But officers don’t need unreasonable constraints in trying to combat Chicago’s epidemic of violence.

      That pesky Fourth Amendment is so unreasonable!

      1. But the searches aren’t!

        1. is this like holder coming out against pot prohibition after he left office?

          1. the opposite wrt liberty.

        2. You have to have a warrant to do a search or else have “reasonable” cause to suspect that a crime is being committed. Simply being black (or hispanic or wearing baggy pants (unless you’re searching for fashion crimes) or whatever other irrelevant criteria) and hanging out in a black neighborhood is not sufficient.

  13. I guess this guy is a cause c?l?bre in the mouth-breather media. Never heard of him. He broke the rules and was punished accordingly. Because white Republican dudes can’t ever catch a break, the mouth-breather mob demanded special treatment for the poor soul, along with some obviously necessary crude and threatening attacks on the teacher. Intimidation complete, justice served!

    1. What I don’t get, is how is videotaping a public school college teacher different than recording a public police officer?

      That ‘teacher’ was threatening her students and the administration wasn’t doing anything. She was preaching ‘hate’ instead of teaching a class.

      If anything he should be heralded as a ‘whistleblower’.

      But no, only leftists are worthy of these protections

      1. Violates the DMCA, copyrighted content. Lucky he wasn’t served papers by the DHS.

      2. What I don’t get, is how is videotaping a public school college teacher different than recording a public police officer?

        I think that the difference is that college classes are not in public and by enrolling and taking classes the student agrees to certain rules.

        I’m not sure if that is good or sufficient reason, but it is a difference.

        1. The school doesn’t want its lectures posted on the Internet where people who haven’t paid tuition can get them. Also, lots of schools have attendance requirements and don’t want anyone recording the lecture for the class skipper. Finally, with video there are privacy issues for other students who end up in the recording.

          1. that does make sense, but I doubt anyone will pay for a rant by someone with a 6th grade understanding of politics. You can get that on the internet for free

            1. Yeah, but random rants on the internet aren’t always accredited.

          2. As I understand it, all he recorded was the rant and he took it to the college administration to get them to do something about it. It was only after they refused to do anything that he posted it online.

      3. Maybe white Republican dudes should act less like whiny little girls because educated people don’t agree with them on deporting Muslims and such.

        1. Someday you’ll have a coherent and relevant thought Tony, just keep trying.

        2. If you have a problem with Republicans, why don’t you go to a Republican site to complain, instead of one where most “educated” (or not) people are *against* deporting someone based on their religion?

    2. I know the definitions of every word in this post and yet, the way they are strung together produces no discernible meaning whatsoever.

    3. I appreciate your strict adherence to following the rules and meting out proper punishment, Tony.

      Will you apply that same logic next time liberal students smash in store windows and beat people unconscious because they’re upset over a speaker who was invited to campus? Or will you apply a lazy, mendacious double-standard that excuses their behavior because it was done in the name of an ostensibly progressive cause?

      I wonder which it will be??

      1. You really made that question too easy. Obviously I don’t condone violence or vandalism for any reason.

        1. You just selectively overlook it and rationalize it after the fact.

          1. On the contrary I have scolded liberals for these tactics and for protesting other people’s speech in the first place. I don’t think it is helpful to the cause to turn right-wing jackasses into martyrs, considering being martyrs to evil liberals is their entire shtick.

        2. Well if that’s true Tony then I appreciate your willingness to stand up for consistent principles and I apologize for my earlier snarky tone.

          It would make you more reasonable than most liberals I know and I’m happy to encourage that.

    4. Why doesn’t the troll filter work any more on reasonable?

  14. I’d just like to point out that the human sexuality teacher is named “Cox”.

    1. She and I share a surname. My mother’s maiden name was Dickson. I am very grateful no one thought about hyphenating last names when I was born.

  15. Such indignations typically are “unconscious in nature,” but they “have an integral influence on students’ perceptions of campus climates as hostile, alienating and isolating.”

    It appears many colleges today are infantilizing their students, discouraging them from becoming adults.

    1. Forget that microaggression stuff. I’d say this was a very major *macro*aggression.

  16. This article ends with a supposed wish the student looking for a more copacetic college. He should not ever be slighted for HIS choice of college that represents itself as not being a worthless hotbed of extremist elements. By being a public and open college paid for by the sweat of the taxpayer, Orange Coast College has the onus to be fair and inclusive of all their customers, STUDENTS. A dean, professor or instructor that FAILS this bar should be dismissed with prejudice whenever found. If a private college wants to be as Marxist, BLM or KKK as it can be, that is fine. No taxpayer assistance.

    Being a Southern Socialistic type who voted happily for Trump (Go Rand Paul), I do not hold this view with educating our youth, seeing vouchers as an imperfect solution.

    1. “If a private college wants to be as Marxist, BLM or KKK as it can be, that is fine. No taxpayer assistance.”

      That’s an incredibly difficult balance to strike. What are the accepted economic philosophies that public colleges are allowed to espouse? Marxism is not allowed, but free market capitalism is? What about Keynesianism? If George Mason was public, would you demand for no taxpayer assistance because too many faculty are pro-market? If too many capitalist faculty are hired, do you have to offset it with some socialist ones?

      Fortunately there are safeguards in place to make sure that students are treated fairly and are not personally targeted by the professor.

      1. Information about any of those groups, or any other, about what they believe or their reasons for doing so is one thing. Making it a personal *rant* on the part of a professor against a current event and those who had anything to do with it, especially not in a current events class, is something else.

        1. I’ve never met an economics professor who was not adamant about his view, and who did not teach with a highly slanted bias. It’s polarizing probably more than any other branch of science, and is probably taught less objectively than any other as well. Normalizing thought in an attempt to reduce bias is dangerous, futile, and anti-intellectual. I think it would be a huge mistake to apply the kind of standards I’m seeing people in this thread advocating.

          That’s not a defense of going off the rails however. It wasn’t clear what the utility of this teacher’s “rant” was, or why it seemingly turned into an attack. I had a chemistry professor do the same thing to me many years ago. It wasn’t right and I notified his chair. These things usually get handled internally pretty effectively. It’s actually quite difficult to sink a student, even when they deserve it. The appeal process is endless, especially if they’re unionized (often the case in graduate and medical school, for example).

          1. ” It’s polarizing probably more than any other branch of science”

            Because its only sort of science. There’s an element of interpretation that makes it not entirely objective.

  17. I wouldn’t call what Cox did a “rant” by any stretch of the imagination. It was delivered in a calm voice, and overall it sounds like she was trying to calm people rather than incite them. Not sure why the video got any attention at all, frankly. The response of O’Neill and many on the right tends to vindicate her assertions.

    1. She suggested people who voted for Trump are terrorists and white supremacists and ‘enemies amongst us.’ The calmness of her voice doesn’t mitigate the unhinged paranoia of her words.

      If a white supremacist goes an irrelevant racist diatribe and gets a lot if hate mail from black people does it vindicate his assertions?

    2. The response of O’Neil tends to vindicate her assertions?

      Yes how dare he… record her words verbatim and post them online for a wider audience to hear. Exposing her to criticism and dissenting opinion is basically an act of terrorism and I for one am surprised that he hasn’t been expelled for such violence.

  18. I am using it now & it’s awesome! I’ve signed up for my account and have been bringing in fat paychecks. For real, my first week I made ?350 and the 2nd week I doubled it & then it kinda snowballed to ?150 a day! just folllow the course.. they will help you out


  19. It’s not a constitutional issue, it’s a procedural one. The rule against recording is effectively there to people from gaining access to lectures and material without having paid for that access.

    Not that I necessarily support this rule. But calling it a free speech issue is simply not correct.

    1. A sober judge would recognize that the purpose of this recording was not to subvert tuition payment.

      Even then, I think it’s sophistry to suggest that people are desperate to get free access to lectures at Orange Coast College. If you don’t pay, you don’t get credit.

      1. Whether you agree or not, a college not allowing their lectures to be made public without consent isn’t exactly a unique thing. I’ve never considered that this could be a violation of the first amendment. I might start chanting “Attica” the next time I go to a financial seminar and they ask that it not be recorded (again, not a unique occurrence).

    2. In the dark ages, recording a class was considered note taking, and neither prohibited nor encouraged. I did have a couple professors point out that taking written notes reinforced the learning, but recording allowed more concentration on the teaching, with review of the recording allowing for note taking.
      Recording the class is one thing, publication (possibly) something else. I do not know the current rules in California, but just after the dark ages I lived there fro awhile, and you pretty much had to attend the campus they told you to, so he may not have all the “just go somewhere else” choice it seems.
      The dark ages = before Al Gore invented the internet. It was at that time all text and called ARPANET.

  20. Snowflake professor thinks it’s ok to intimidate students, but not for students to intimidate professors.

    Film at 11.

  21. “The most frightening thing, she said, “is that the people who are leading the assault are among us.” ”

    Blatant bullying and inciting aggressive acts against students. WhyTF hasn’t this teacher been FIRED?

  22. If, eight years ago, a professor at this same college had been recorded saying the same exact words but replaced the word “Trump” with “Obama”, there would have been massive marches, outrage, and repeated charges of racism on every national news network. The college administration would have then denounced the professor’s lecture and dismissed her in a matter of days. It’s quite obvious that the left is in total control of most educational institutions and only allows their views to be expressed, while tolerating violence against opposing views.

  23. Thugs can’t be reasoned with. The only thing they understand is power.

  24. The only swift lesson they will understand is “your funding is cut”. The Left understands this. Glibertarians and most Republicans don’t.

  25. I can see what your saying… Raymond `s article is surprising, last week I bought a top of the range Acura from making $4608 this-past/month and-a little over, $10,000 this past month . with-out any question its the easiest work I’ve ever had . I began this five months/ago and almost straight away started bringing in minimum $82 per-hr .
    ================================ http://WWW.4DAYJOBS.COM

  26. I can see what your saying… Raymond `s article is surprising, last week I bought a top of the range Acura from making $4608 this-past/month and-a little over, $10,000 this past month . with-out any question its the easiest work I’ve ever had . I began this five months/ago and almost straight away startad bringin in minimum $82 per-hr


  27. I believe this is one reason Trump had a good turnout from young adults.

  28. I am making $89/hour telecommuting. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is acquiring $10 thousand a month by working on the web, that was truly shocking for me, she prescribed me to attempt it. simply give it a shot on the accompanying site.


  29. My politics are closer to the student than the professor here, but I still see the school’s point: academic freedom for professors is undermined when their classroom can be surreptitiously broadcast to Internet lynch mobs.

    But would the school have come down equally hard on a progressive student who surreptitiously broadcast a conservative or libertarian professor to a progressive mob?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.