Original. Student reported. Your daily dose of Right-minded news and commentary from across the nation
UPDATE: Feminist Studies Professor Pleads No Contest to Attack on Pro-Life Teen

A UC Santa Barbara feminist studies professor pleaded no contest Thursday to all three criminal misdemeanor charges filed against her stemming from an altercation on campus in March in which she accosted a young pro-life activist and stole and destroyed her sign.

Associate Professor Mireille Miller-Young will be sentenced next month for the charges of grand theft person, battery and vandalism, the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s Office announced Thursday.

On March 4, Miller-Young – whose academic focus is on black cultural studies, pornography and sex work – came across a group of prolife students with graphic anti-abortion signs and essentially became frenzied by the exhibit, leading a small mob of students to chant “tear down the sign” before she and two other students stormed off with one of the displays.

The scholar then engaged in an altercation with a teenage prolife protestor who had followed the educator to retrieve it. Much of the scuffle was caught on camera, and it left visible scratches on the young girl’s arms.

Watch the video:

Pleading “no contest” means that Miller-Young does not contest the charges, which will go on her criminal record as a conviction for three misdemeanors. The legal significance is that it cannot be used – as could a guilty plea or a guilty verdict – as evidence in a subsequent civil lawsuit based on the conduct.

“Today’s plea brings us one step closer to seeing justice done in this case,” Life Legal Defense Foundation Legal Director Katie Short, the mother of Miller-Young’s victims, said in a statement. “Pro-life advocates should not be subjected to intimidation and violence for lawfully exercising their right to free speech, and we are happy to see that Ms. Miller-Young is being held accountable for her actions.”

After the incident, Miller-Young, who is pregnant, explained to authorities that the graphic images of aborted fetuses negatively “triggered” her to act in the way she did, adding she was a “conscientious objector.” She told police she felt she set a good example for her students, and that she had a “moral” right to act in the way she did.

Short’s father told Fox News in March that he hopes the prosecution of Miller-Young will serve as a lesson for those who seek to halt free speech on campus. “She was free to engage in a rational dialogue with them,” Short said. “Instead, she chose to bully them, steal and destroy their property, and hit and scratch my daughter.” UCSBcourtesyphoto

Life Legal Defense Fund reported Thursday that, to date, the university has made no public statement about the assault nor issued an apology for the criminal actions of its employee and students.

“Two weeks after the incident, Vice-Chancellor Michael Young sent a letter to University of California at Santa Barbara students and faculty decrying the presence of ‘outsiders coming into our midst to provoke us, to taunt us and attempt to turn us against one another,'” fund officials stated. “In what appeared to be a denouncement of the teens advocating a pro-life worldview, he urged students to notify the Office of Student Life if they ‘feel harassed’ or believe that ‘outsiders’ are violating the law.”

“It is not known whether the university has imposed any disciplinary sanctions on Miller-Young, who remains listed in the faculty directory.”

RELATED:

Read one College Fix contributor’s eye-witness account of the March 4 incident.

UCSB Student: Campus Prolife Protestors ‘Domestic Terrorists’

University Official Ridicules Pro-Life Demonstrator Who Was Attacked By Feminist Professor

Mother of Teenage Girl Accosted by Feminist Professor Calls for Civility

Jennifer Kabbany is editor of The College Fix ( @JenniferKabbany )

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

IMAGES: Courtesy photos

About the Author
Fix Editor
Jennifer Kabbany is editor of The College Fix. She previously worked as a daily newspaper reporter and columnist for a decade in Southern California, and prior to that held editorial positions at The Weekly Standard, Washington Times and FrontPageMagazine. She is also a Robert Novak Journalism Fellowship recipient and has contributed to National Review.

Add to the Discussion

  • Joseph Nye Welch

    First, Miller-Young should be dismissed from her tenured faculty position for cause. Not only did she behave in a violent way toward a young person who was not able to defend herself, which is bad enough, and not only did she act in a manner to intimidate those who disagree with her viewpoint, but she acted in a way that violates one of the central precepts of the university–namely, support for the free exchange of ideas and respect for those who express different views than your own. Imagine what would have happened to a conservative professor who did exactly the same thing against, say, a pro-choice demonstrator. I can assure you that we would be hearing all about the dismissal for cause process that would be started. How is this for a rule: you cannot have professors–who are supposed to be the grown-ups–attacking students because they express views with which the professors disagree.

    Second, I am hopeful that that young woman who was attacked brings a civil action against Miller-Young but also against the university. It is clear from the statements made by Michael Young that UCSB is creating a climate that supports these actions and anyone who would participate in these actions. Both Miller-Young and the university should be treated harshly in this case. I hope that the young victim of Miller-Young’s attack has a good lawyer who can carry this as far as possible.

  • Iwazaru

    I hope I see another video and front page nationwide media coverage where this Bully gets her well deserved come uppance, same with the mini bullies.

  • HG

    She will be a hero to a lot of people but without recognition. This story will not be on very many of the alphabet channels.

  • Kimo

    Why hasn’t she been charged with a hate crime? Obviously her rampage was triggered by Christophobia, heterophobia, hatred directed towards gender-normal behavior, and promoting an intolerant, hostile environment towards people with traditional values. The Universtiy must be compelled to institute sensitivity training to counteract this kind of intolerant behavior. Have the accomplices at least been expelled and their intolerant behavior noted on their permanent records?

    • maxsnafu

      You and I both know exactly why she hasn’t been charged with a hate crime: She’s Black.

  • PlainOldTruth

    The feminist ideology, like all other authoritarian collectivist ideologies, depends on fake statistics, bogus pseudo-science, and wildly skewed writing of history (with an aim to promote their utopian vision). Junk scholarship like that handed down by sanctimonious semi-educated martinets like this shameless specimen, is out-and-out thievery — theft from the student, theft from the taxpayer.

    Political correctness, and all other fraudulent authoritarian politicization (indoctrination) strategies, need to be exposed and defunded. The education industrry is overrun with useless and harmful bureaucrats and dogmatists. It is wreaking havoc on our culture and is destroying our economy. The dumbing-down of America must be reversed. IMMEDIATELY.

    • JohnnySocco

      “no contest” means that Miller-Young does not contest the charges, which
      will go on her criminal record as a conviction for three misdemeanors.
      The legal significance is that it cannot be used – as could a guilty
      plea or a guilty verdict – as evidence in a subsequent civil lawsuit
      based on the conduct.

      However I am sure that this does not apply to the University itself and I would imagine they would have a good case as there was no reported disciplinary actions. Caveat I’m not a lawyer and there’s probably things I am unaware of.)

      Personally I could I would go after the University like a rabid dog after a ham-hock. Not so much for the money but because they have not reprimanded this Professor. It sets a horrible example and probably intimidates even more students from expressing their ideas freely, which of course is supposed to be what Universities are all about.

  • shmiggen

    Who could have possibly impregnated this beast, and well…why would she attack a pro-lifer…..if she is about to give birth????? WTF?

  • All the pro-life protester was doing was being truthful. Every time one of the bully-feminists act the way this sorry excuse for a professor acted, they prove that the truth is their number one enemy. Hate it or not, like it or not, but the truth is the truth in which we owe the truth-haters NOTHING. And you had better believe the feminists are doing all they can to erase the truth. They will brainwash the masses if WE let them.

    Not me! That bully wouldn’t have taken MY sign. No, not at all! In fact, I think I will make me an anti-abortion sign…just as truthfully graphic… and find a venue to display it. Hey bully, care to try and stop me?

    • Matthew Lane

      “All the pro-life protester was doing was being truthful.”

      No actually they weren’t. They were passing off scientific hokum as real science, but that doesn’t matter, they still possess freedom of speech & are allowed to talk any bullshit they like, no matter how ideologically driven or ignorant.

      • Showing graphic, but uncomfortable-for-feminists, pictures of aborted babies is showing the truth of what actually exists. It makes no difference if the protesters were using pics of stillborn babies, the point is that late term abortions sever the life of humans and that truth is ugly and feminists do not want to see it or even let anyone else see it. All the protester was doing was being truthful. Wanting to save unborn humans is not anti female; it is pro life.

        • Matthew Lane

          “Showing graphic, but uncomfortable-for-feminists, pictures of aborted babies is showing the truth of what actually exists.”

          No its showing something deliberately created to be emotionally jarring in the hopes of facilitating an emotional response, rather than an intellectual one.

          “It makes no difference if the protesters were using pics of stillborn babies, the point is that late term abortions sever the life of humans”

          Except that outside of medical requirement its ILLEGAL to do so already. So what they are using is intellectually dishonest. so in that case what is being shown isn’t truth, as has already been pointed out “they were passing off scientific hokum as real science.”

          • Tullia_Ciceronis

            Actually, those images are certified to be the images of fetuses aborted in elective abortions by the photographer. A doctor who performed over 1,000 elective abortions certified that they are congruent with what he has seen and accurately dated as to week post-fertilization
            According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, 9 states in the US allow third trimester abortions with no restrictions. Medical necessity is loosely defined in law, and includes mental, familial, and sociological health.
            If the fetus is viable, the pregnancy can be terminated without killing the fetus. If the mother’s life or health is in danger, and emergency C-section can be performed and the fetus removed alive. Abortion simply requires the extra step of injecting the fetus’ heart with poison, which does nothing to help the mother’s health.

          • Matthew Lane

            “Actually, those images are certified to be the images of fetuses aborted in elective abortions by the photographer”

            A moot point since its showing something deliberately created to be emotionally jarring in the hopes of facilitating an emotional response, rather than an intellectual one.

            “If the fetus is viable, the pregnancy can be terminated without killing the fetus.”

            Nope. Sorry, but a foetus cannot survive outside of the host body, we do not have the technology to maintain a foetus out side of the host, I think you’ll find you are using the word foetus incorrectly.

          • Tullia_Ciceronis

            If you knew anything at all about science, you would realize that fetuses become viable at 24 weeks gestation. Killing the fetus after this point is unnecessary for the mother’s life and health. Third trimester abortions are medically unnecessary because by that time the fetus can survive outside the mother’s womb.

          • PJ4

            Actually the youngest baby to have survived outside the womb was 21 weeks old http://healthland.time.com/2011/05/27/baby-born-at-21-weeks-survives-how-young-is-too-young-to-save/

          • Griffonn

            Babies do not become babies because of some magical thing that happens to them during their trip down the birth canal.

            Babies turn from not-human to living human at the moment of conception. That’s science.

            For you to suggest that some living entities made entirely of their own unique human DNA “aren’t human” because you have come up with additional things that people “need” to do as a prerequisite to being human is not science.

          • PJ4

            Ironically he speaks of scientific hokum while referring to women as “hosts”

          • Matthew Lane

            “Ironically he speaks of scientific hokum while referring to women as hosts”

            Except that its not scientific hokum, a mother is in fact the host to a foetus.

          • PJ4

            Name one biology or embryology textbook or peer reviewed study or paper that refers to a mother as a host thereby referring to the child as a parasite Just one

          • PJ4

            Because they are pro-lifers & there only tactic is to utilise appeals to emotion

            So essentially you’re having an emotional reaction to the fact that you don’t like what pro lifers have to say and you’re assume that every pro lifer (by virtue or being pro life) will only use appeals to emotion

            I could say the exact same thing about pro aborts : that all they do is appeal to emotion

            No I’m challenging the emotionalised language & appeal to consequence used by these people because they don’t have a intellectual leg to stand on.

            No you’re not
            You don’t even know what was said
            So at best you can only challenge a conversation you’ve made up ion your head (where of course you always win)

            Sure there is when you are being asked to make an intellectual decision.

            Abortion is an action involving emotion. Your point is moot
            Everyone experiences emotions outside of psychopaths and sociopaths of course

          • GiveMeLibertyNow

            Your mother was a host to a douuushe bag.

          • Matthew Lane

            “Babies turn from not-human to living human at the moment of conception. That’s science.”

            LOL no they don’t & no that’s not science. Neither a blastocyst nor a zygote are human, in fact both are objectively closer to a cancerous growth than a human being. So if by your definition of humanity is conception than cancers must also be human.

            “For you to suggest that some living entities made entirely of their own unique human DNA “aren’t human” because you have come up with additional things that people “need” to do as a prerequisite to being human is not science.”
            Again, Cancer also has its own unique DNA, by your logic we can’t remove a cancerous growth since it too is a human being. It literally possess all the objective properties you just described.

          • Again, Cancer also has its own unique DNA, by your logic we can’t remove a cancerous growth since it too is a human being

            Can you explain the process by which fetal DNA is instantly transformed from that of a pseudo-cancerous entity into that of a human being the moment he or she exits the birth canal? This sounds like quite a metamorphosis…

          • MamaBear

            Adam, Matthew was very mistaken. Cancer is our own DNA that has mutated so that the cells no longer follow the normal patterns of cell regeneration and death. For example, breast cancer is mutated breast cancer cells. If breast cancer metastasizes to another organ, the new tumors are made up of mutated breast cancer cells.

          • GiveMeLibertyNow

            Matthew YOU are like a cancer. SHUT THE F UP.

          • PJ4

            Ok
            While I completely disagree with Mr Lane’s line of thinking, your approach of ad hominum after ad hominum is not helping Please stop
            He doesn’t deserve it; no one does
            If we are to win over hearts to the pro life movement we cannot expect to do so with invective language Ever heard the saying: you catch more flies with honey?
            Even of Mr Lane never becomes pro life, there are people who will be reading this Fences sitters will look at this and say, “well if this guys pro life then I’m glad I’m not!”

          • GiveMeLibertyNow

            Fine – but I can’t stand a lying sack of excrement spewing BS like Mr. Lane. I’m not trying to get Mr. Lane to change his feeble mind – only pointing out what a LIAR he is so people who believe in the sanctity of life see through his obfuscation and LIES. Mr. Lane feels NOTHING for a baby ripped apart and sucked out of the womb in the 9th month of pregnancy. He feels NOTHING for college students expressing their opinion and getting assaulted by a mad crazy floozie who calls herself a professor. Nope! All he does is LIE and try to lecture the rest of us with his stupidity. You’re welcome to your opinion and I’m welcome to mine. Mr. Lane is welcome to kiss my behind. 🙂

          • PJ4

            LOL no they don’t & no that’s not science.

            Really? That’s not science? Care to explain this then?

            “Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”

            A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

            Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

            Neither a blastocyst nor a zygote are human

            See above quote as you just lost all credibility.

            I actually thought for one second that I had finally found a worthy opponent
            When you said that you weren’t a liberal but were a secular humanist with a focus on science I really believed you!

            I thought, finally, someone just like me

            But then, you, (like the very liberals you say you’re not) decided to delve into science fiction

            Tell me, Mr. I’m-Focused-On-Science:

            How is it possible for a human to produce a non-human offspring?

            Please cite the exact biology, embryology, scientific study or peer reviewed paper backs up your claim that we are at any point in our development, non-human.

            Show all your work.
            I’ll even get you started.
            Let’s see what renowned pro choice biologist,Scott Gilbert, has to say about the subject:

            Traditional ways of classifying catalog animals according to their adult structure. But, as J. T. Bonner (1965) pointed out, this is a very artificial method, because what we consider an individual is usually just a brief slice of its life cycle. When we consider a dog, for instance, we usually picture an adult. But the dog is a “dog” from the moment of fertilization of a dog egg by a dog sperm. It remains a dog even as a senescent dying hound. Therefore, the dog is actually the entire life cycle of the animal, from fertilization through death.

            Developmental Biology, 6th edition
            Scott F Gilbert.
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9983/

            But just for purposes of entertainment, if we are non human then what exactly to you believe us to be at our very early stages?

            A dog?
            A fish?
            An alien being?

            in fact both are objectively closer to a cancerous growth than a human being.

            I’d love to know how you came to such a conclusion?
            This is.. in your own words: scientific hokum

            So if by your definition of humanity is conception than cancers must also be human.

            Leave it to a pro abort to spew scientific hokum by comparing a developmental stage of human life to a disease.

            You say you have a focus on science but it’s quite obvious you have not been in the same room as a biology text

            Again, Cancer also has its own unique DNA, by your logic we can’t remove a cancerous growth since it too is a human being. It literally possess all the objective properties you just described.

            No.
            You are conflating totipotency with potential over-expressed telemarase activity

            Cancer cells do not possess the totipotency that a blastocyst possesses.

            No other cell in the human body possess totipotency
            It is insane (scientific hokum, if you will) to even compare the two.

          • Griffonn

            You just make up any definitions you want.

            You’re a moron and a troll, so who cares?

          • Griffonn

            So exactly when does something that isn’t human become human, anyway?

            How do you support scientifically your assertion that a nothuman becomes a human “when I say it does” or “when I find it convenient”?

          • MamaBear

            You claim “Cancer also has its own unique DNA.”

            No, cancer does not have it’s own DNA. It is from a change or mutation of your own DNA. See “How Cancer Starts” American Cancer Society.

            http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/what-is-cancer
            The unborn child, from fertilized egg to fully developed fetus, not only has his or her own unique DNA (not a mutation), but follows a predictable prescribed pattern of development., stays contained within an organ that the sole function of is to provide a safe place to develop, and then at the end of 9 months exits the mother’s body. Any damage from an normal pregnancy, or even most difficult pregnancies, is extremely minimal compared to the mutilating surgeries, chemotherapies, radiation, and other treatments used to attempt (often unsuccessfully) to remove cancer from our bodies.

      • GiveMeLibertyNow

        Matthew you are a lying lieberal liar who lies to cover the truth. That disgusting excuse for a professor had NO RIGHT to attack that young woman. NONE. THAT is the issue you lying bag of excrement!

        • Matthew Lane

          Wow talk about a basic reading comprehension failure.
          How you got from me saying that the pro-life advocates speech is protected under freedom of speech, to saying the exact opposite is simply astounding.
          You remind me of that old classic quote: It is better to have people think you a fool & to remain silent then to open your mouth & removal all doubt.
          You just opened your mouth.

          • GiveMeLibertyNow

            Matthew you lying lieberal. You said the pro-life protestor was talking “bullshit” but you are just a pathetic loser liar like the rest of your commie liars. Your main point had nothing to do with freedom of speech. You’re full of baloney.

      • Tullia_Ciceronis

        What exactly was scientifically inaccurate about the posters? Those graphic images of aborted fetuses come from Center for Bioethical Reform, which has sworn affadavits of accuracy from a doctor who performed over 1,000 first and second trimester abortions and from the photographer that took the images.

        • Matthew Lane

          Its not the images that are inaccurate, but the bullshit said about them…. You know, exactly like you just tried to do in the above comment.

          • PJ4

            Its not the images that are inaccurate, but the bullshit said about them

            How do you know that what they were saying was inaccurate?

            Were you there?

            No its showing something deliberately created to be emotionally jarring in the hopes of facilitating an emotional response, rather than an intellectual one.

            So, you’re not challenging facts, you’re challenging that there’s emotion tied to them.

            Nothing wrong with emotions.

            There’s nothing wrong with something designed to evoke emotion as long as it’s not supplanting emotion for logic
            the pictures are meant to be an aid, not the entire argument .

          • Matthew Lane

            “How do you know that what they were saying was inaccurate?”

            Because they are pro-lifers & there only tactic is to utilise appeals to emotion.

            “So, you’re not challenging facts, you’re challenging that there’s emotion tied to them.”

            No I’m challenging the emotionalised language & appeal to consequence used by these people because they don’t have a intellectual leg to stand on.

            “Nothing wrong with emotions.”

            Sure there is when you are being asked to make an intellectual decision.

          • PJ4

            Its not the images that are inaccurate, but the bullshit said about them…. You know, exactly like you just tried to do in the above comment.

            Wait, so you admit that he images are accurate, yet Tulia’s defense of the accuracy of the pictures is bs?

            You’re contradicting yourself.

          • GiveMeLibertyNow

            Matthew, like all LIEberal liars, has to lie and cover up to defend his stupid evil beliefs. He is a lying ball of contradiction like most lieberal sheeple. He needs to wipe the commie jizzzzz off his chin and grow a pair.

          • Matthew Lane

            I’m not a liberal, I’m secular humanist with a non-partisan political view & a focus on science. An guess what, the dogmatic tactics used by these individuals was to lie to people, a right they possess under freedom of speech…. But still a lie.

          • PJ4

            Again, you have no idea what they were saying
            You’re only assuming here.
            You have no idea that what they were saying was a lie unless you were there and they were directly conversing with you.
            I don’t know any pro lifers who would like to further their agenda…. we don’t need to.
            Pro aborts on the other hand… they can’t use science, so all they have left is emotion and lies.
            (oh crap, I just pulled a Matthew Lane, sorry.. wont happen again)

          • Matthew Lane

            “Wait, so you admit that the images are accurate”

            If I show you a picture of a ship sailing over a horizon that image is 100% accurate. If I then announce that we need to stop sending ships over the horizon because they are falling off the face of the Earth, the information I’m now supplying about the images is bullshit.

            Same thing happened here. The image is correct, the spiel ABOUT the image is not.

          • PJ4

            Only that’s not what pro lifers are saying
            Not even close
            You have no idea what they were saying
            You cannot just assume what they said was wrong just because they are pro lifers And just because you happen to disagree with them

          • Griffonn

            Tsk, tsk, you’re doing that liberal “projection” thing again.

            You shouldn’t rely on emotion so heavily.

          • Matthew Lane

            Not a liberal at all mate & that’s not a refutation.

  • OldandNavy

    Oh, the hubris. Most of these feminist studies devotees are so thoroughly convinced of their own propaganda that they cry out about their moral privilege and justification – their incredible correctness. ……. as they act like terrible people.

  • GeorgeHanshaw1

    I guess the only real justice we will get is when this woman retires and finds out the California Liberal politicians have been underfunding her retirement for the last 30+ years.

    Those big retirement checks just aren’t going to be there after all.

    • mllyjul

      Sigh, yes they will. The federal government will bail them out at the expense of the taxpayers in all the other states. Liberals, Progressives, Democrats NEVER admit their failures, they just shift the responsibility for their failures to others.