Within the past two quarters, the abortion debate on campus has risen to an astronomical level. While I will not personally reveal my position on abortion, I feel that the materials the UCSB community has been exposed to have become increasingly more violent and triggering, meaning these materials often invoke a highly negative and/or emotional, mental or psychological response by people who have been affected.
Recently, I’ve seen more overwhelmingly insensitive material from the Pro-Life groups (both stemming from this campus and from off-campus organizations) on UCSB grounds. Personally, I feel their position on abortion is not the offensive matter in question, but I have a serious problem with their approach in how they are trying to educate and “inform” the student body.
In the case of recent events that have taken place, such as the “Graveyard” that took place in front of the SRB Fall Quarter and the overwhelmingly bloody and gory pictures that were displayed in the Arbor on March 4, 2014, UCSB students were given no warning that these events would be taking place; instead, students such as myself have had the unfortunate experience of being ambushed by these triggering materials. While I do believe events such as the “Graveyard” event — where numerous white crosses were placed in the lawn outside of the SRB signifying a ceremony for the loss of life — can be very beneficial for some, I feel students should be given the opportunity to actively choose to be a part of such events, not have the issue thrown at them while biking or walking through public pathways.
This is becoming increasingly unacceptable and insensitive. I understand that all are entitled to freedom of speech to express one’s opinions, but students should be given a warning before they are subjected to seeing such images blatantly placed in front of them. These groups have taken no consideration to the individuals who are directly or indirectly affected by abortion. UCSB prides itself on inclusivity and diversity, yet these groups have actively chosen to ignore the myriad people these images negatively impact. These groups have chosen to overlook these experiences, placing harmful and potentially damaging materials in front of students without so much as a warning. Student announcements are sent out every day, giving students warnings about numerous things; why aren’t such events required to do the same? I don’t think any group should be above that. It’s not the position I have a problem with, but rather the approach that is very insensitive, non-inclusive, violent and dangerous. These groups have failed to give students the right to choose to partake in such events, stripping individuals from their choice to practice self-care in topics as deep as abortion.
I am in no way representing any group I am affiliated with in regards to my opinion on this matter; however, as a student, I feel personally affected by the insensitivity shown towards the countless people who are affected by abortion. I am overwhelmed by these events and images, and I feel empathy for the students I witnessed crying after these protests. My intention is not to bash these groups, as the groups themselves and their position on abortion are of no pressing issue to me; however, their approach has been very triggering and problematic, especially in times as stressful as finals.
These groups are threatening the well-being of students, yet nothing is being done. We should not feel unsafe on our own campus. These acts of shaming and violence are beyond unacceptable, and in no case have these groups warned the student body before showing such images on campus. These groups need to see that although they are successful in initiating a response, it is not always about the damage you know you’re doing, but the damage you unknowingly do.
Delyla Mayers is a second-year feminist studies and sociology major.
But of course, feminist gender bigots have no problem with insensitive, violent, dangerous and criminal projections of their OWN hysterical hatred: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0 Nor do they warn others away from the omnipresent female supremacist hate mongering which is common on campuses the Western world over. It’s just ‘free speech for me, and censorship for thee’ that these modern day totalitarian twits propose for us all. News flash for feminists and for other illiberal PC ‘progressives’: free speech IS often ‘hate speech’ to those who have an evil agenda to push. Crying, becoming enraged, and TALKING back, is precisely the reason we… Read more »
I believe you misunderstood me. Two wrongs make two wrongs. Free speech is about allowing and even encouraging everyone to say what they damn well please in all public places on campus, unless they are REALLY interfering with other people’s business, shouting fire in a theater or threatening imminent harm. Removing ‘offensive’ material or even forcing the university to warn others about ‘offensive’ material is an outrage to free speech. It’s precisely the kind of tyranny which feminists regularly promote and commit particularly against anyone ‘offended’ by their hysterical hate speech. Hope that roughens up the slippery slope for you.
I’m don’t understand some your questions in context, so I’ll just reiterate what I said before for clarity. Pro-lifers, pro-choicers, feminist gender bigots, KKK members, anti-feminists, and even, heaven forbid, Republican ‘knuckle draggers’ or Mohammed cartoonists have every right to display whatever they damn well please on campus. I’m basically saying that I agree with almost everything you’ve written about free speech below. As for ‘finger pointing’, I did that because this post was written by an addled student from the totalitarian covens known as ‘Feminist Studies’ and ‘Sociology’…which is often an evil arm of Feminist Studies. I was hoping… Read more »
Your summation of “female communication” gives the impression that you are someone with a lot of deep-seated resentment towards the female gender, resulting in unsupported and frankly idiotic generalizations about women, which don’t even have a direct bearing on any comments here. Regarding your reference, please. Here is a pertinent quote from Chesler’s text, which quite clearly is at odds with your poorly drawn conclusions: “It is important to encourage women to express what they think and feel directly, openly, in the here-and-now. Women will learn that doing so will not kill anyone and that truth-telling does not have to… Read more »
Your false accusations of female gender resentment the primary shame game that ‘gendered’ feminists depend on to deflect attention from their hysterical hate movement. Your other ‘generalized’ cheap shots are of the same character. The day that feminist gender bigots, much less most women, truly engage in truth telling will be utterly shocking. For now though, professorial feminist gender bigots and their equally fascist students at UCSB seem content to attack OTHER women for telling THEIR truths directly, openly, and in the here and now. As Chessler said so clearly in Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman: ‘welcome to the lesser circles… Read more »
“UCSB prides itself on inclusivity and diversity, yet these groups have actively chosen to ignore the myriad people these images negatively impact. These groups have chosen to overlook these experiences, placing harmful and potentially damaging materials in front of students without so much as a warning” ~~~~ The first amendment exists to protect unpopular speech. a case can be made against the graphic depiction and gory photos, BUT ucsb is a publicly-funded university and the ability for school officials to stifle and censure speech is limited to safety concerns. the fundamentals of free speech in the u.s. does not incorporate… Read more »
pro-choicers=jews, militant pro-life group=nazis. is this how you guys see it? delusional.
No. Pro-choicers are generally, but not always, right wing religious nut cases who follow a fascist faith for a chance to go to some man-made Sky Daddy’s hotel in the hereafter. They’ve become ironically infamous for shooting the people whom they accuse of infanticide. But that said, who can argue with the logic of killing an unborn child and who can argue that they don’t have a right (just like everyone else) to shove that kind of mass killing right back into our faces? NOT me.
you mean pro-life people, right? the reality is that the pro-choice has successfully framed the debate as a religious vs. progressive conflict. but the reality there are many pro-lifers, and people on the fence, who are not rabidly religious and anti-contraception. and interestingly enough the pro choice movemen has no problem with religious organizations if they support abortion. the religious ooalation for reproductive choice is basically a front for the interests of planned parenthood. but hey that’s all good because pro-choicers are incapable of incorporating religious doctrine in their politics. religion is FINE if it supports their beliefs. if we… Read more »
Yes, I meant pro-life people. FYI: I’m broadly pro-life from an ethical prospective. I also hope to hear ALL GENUINE arguments by made by ALL sides. But fascist feminist and retarded religious ‘reasoning’ are merely oxymoronic insults to everyone’s intelligence so we’ll get no help from them.
You have been watching too many episodes of Orange is the New Black in forming your opinion of those who protest abortion.
Study harder, Delyla. Particularly, consider taking a class that explains the Bill of Rights. You can make up new terms for “I don’t like what you’re saying,” (like ‘triggering’) but your dislike of the speech is irrelevant, no matter how greatly you exaggerate it.
I guess they don’t teach you college kids anymore about the value of being challenged. Apparently, now that the left has firmly entrenched itself in academia, it is all about keeping the message what you want to hear. Funny, when I was in school, the left was always screaming about censorship. Now they have embraced it. My how things have changed. Sorry that your world view was challenged by the pro-life protestors. However, you might ask yourselves whether the reason you find these images “harmful” is becasue they prick your conscience just a bit… If you truly embrace abortion as… Read more »
Question Authority. Question Diversity.
So Delyla hears of a professor stealing the property and assaulting a 16 y/o girl for legally and peacefully demonstrating a point of view supported by a majority of Americans (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx#1) and her response is to criticize the girl for “abusing” her Constitution rights?
Maybe next she can write an Op-Ed criticizing a date rape victim for having that second glass of wine or wearing a skirt that didn’t go past her knees. Seems in line w/her logic.
It’s my Constitutional right to shame you or shock you or “trigger” you as much as I damn well please. Don’t like it? Join a cloistered convent, you precious little hothouse flower. And stay out of OUR public property where we are free to say anything we want.
I’m so offended (NOT). How dare you talk to me that way, you oppressive patriarchal pig? Since this is our fascist feminist academic coven, we deserve to be protected from ‘woman-hating’ monsters like you.
You are on your way to becoming Pro-life and anti-abortion but just have not realized it. Look if the abortionists argument held any validity whatsoever, then none of the fanatical proponents of abortion would have any feelings or reaction to the results of their actions in the least. The reaction would be the same as the viewing of a extracted tooth lying on a dentist’s tray. But even the most fanatical supporters’ have consciences which scream out in protest when confronted with the actual results of the act which they so vehemently support. You owe the people who put you… Read more »
“This is becoming increasingly unacceptable and insensitive.” What does this mean? Are you claiming there is a constitutional right to not be offended? Because there isn’t. If what I believe offends you, be offended. That’s ok. Just don’t prevent me from saying it.
Heresy, Remorsely, pure heresy. Don’t you know that at pigheaded PC schools like UCSB there are unconstitutional Kampus speech Kodes which enforce the silencing of ‘offensive’ speech. You are CURRENTLY prevented from saying it.
See FIRE’s free speech web site for the whole story.
“”these groups are threatening the well-being of students, yet nothing is being done. We should not feel unsafe on our own campus. These acts of shaming and violence are beyond unacceptable, and in no case have these groups warned the student body before showing such images on campus.”
As Colonel Jessup said, “You can’t handle the truth.” Abortion is grisly. That reality is too discomforting to face, so you’d rather banish any discussion of it.
If people can’t post up graphic pictures of two people having sex in a college campus courtyard, then why do pro-lifers get to post up graphic pictures of dead corpses and severed heads?
In your world of logic, I bet it would be completely acceptable to post porn and 3 by 5 foot pictures of vaginal STDs in a public space, like a public park, or in front of a government building. Right? Right?
You obviously love to murder innocent unborn babies.
I agree with Delyla Mayers that speech should be vetted. People can’t just expect to say anything they want without some oversight. I mean, really.
you’re joking, right? Who decides what speech is vetted? Were that the case, every newspaper, student rag (like this), radio station (NPR?), television station, internet news site, etc. would be screened by some panel and information arbitrarily censored. Perhaps you’d be more at home in North Korea?
The sad reality is that most every outlet you mention above IS vetted, at least in terms of censoring anti-feminist, Men’s Human Rights Movement or anything else that speaks to progressive totalitarian tyranny in schools or in our government. The New York Times and NPR are among the worst offenders.
Regulation directed at the content of speech (especially political speech) is highly suspect and no reasonable court would ever support this statement. While UCSB can make time, place, and manner restrictions, it has chosen not too. There are cases upon cases from Supreme Court history that cuts against this statement.
The problem is, what heretical speech censors can’t do via law, they do by way of social isolation and rejection of ideological apostates. You can add academic retaliation to the mix. While the lemmings are stupid, those holding the reins are astute about human behavior and cognitive science, and make use of the herd mentality.
As parents were are paying for our children to get an education, when all they are receiving is indoctrination, intimidation and a credential at the end if they keep their mouth shut and offer sacrifices to the pantheon of chosen deities.
Well Ms. Schvenzlerman, you just said what you wanted without any oversight. Do you believe your progressive(?)venues and talking heads consisting of either manipulative liars or ignorant submissive sheep should receive oversight from someone outside the pen? I hope I am being charitable by placing you in the submissive sheep category. Funny, it seems that the “progressives,” shut up when anyone challenges them and they aren’t accompanied by a mob to shout down truth. Why don’t you go running to your PC enforcers to delete all the critical comments, because (decent) people just can’t expect to say anything they want… Read more »
What I see here with the radical feminazi professor and her lemming like minions at UCSB, is the same thing being observed at campuses nationally. Which is that a particular side of the political spectrum (‘Progressives’) are phobic about seeing anything that would challenge their cherished pre-conceived notions.
Facts are condemned as ‘hateful’. Dogma trumps dialectic. This is anti-academic and anti-intellectual. Nothing exemplifies it better than this http://blastedfools.wordpress.com/2014/03/02/ignorance-is-strength/
My my, aren’t you such a tolerant lefty? Freedom for all, so long as it fits into your left leaning, fascist agenda. Tsk, tsk, so typical of the “tolerant” left.
If it is the image of abortion you object to, then perhaps protesters should show a stork flying away with the baby.
When does it become acceptable for a professor to take sign away from someone and make off with it as reportedly occurred on campus on March 4?
Isn’t this really just about shutting down the anti-abortion voice?
Of course you “won’t reveal your own position,” because you already have, Ms. Feminist Studies Major. Perhaps you might consider transferring to the University of Beijing, (and UC Berkeley will do just as well)where you will be safe from offensive, triggering, dangerous, violent and of course non-inclusive (did I miss anything?) speech revealing the horrors of abortion, including free forced abortions for all. I wonder what sort of employment is available for a Feminist Studies graduate? There just aren’t many high paying positions open for whining, crying and regurgitating memes. Just a suggestion: You might want to revisit Freshman English… Read more »
How UCSB has changed! How close-minded your Student Body has become. Why are you afraid of open debate? We fought for truth, freedom. Now, when confronted with the truth of abortion, rights of the unborn, UCSB students prefer to live in a cocoon, rather than welcome open discussion of human rights. Sure, live in the pretend world of denial, crushing debate, but our Society should have loftier goals. Sad to see UCSB has turned away from lifting Society. Party on.
i am surprised at all the thoughtful and intelligent comments pointing out the hypocrisy and disingenuous philosophy of the pro-choice movement and their tolerant advocates.
if the situation were reverse, how would the pro-choice movement respond?
It seems a little babyish to get upset about graphic depictions of reality.
But they are babies. And babies cry and throw tantrums when they don’t get what they want. But babies don’t go to jail and get sued. Tut tut.
“Trigger” materials? Good grief. Our college students these days come from a generation that has a difficult time facing reality. Poor baby Delyla has to be exposed to those awful images that may upset her. The immaturity of some younger people in today’s colleges just astounds me. I would expect nothing less from a feminist studies major. What a worthless degree. The degree of a little woman-child just trying to make sense of the complicated world she lives in, and trying to justify her outlook on the world through academic theory. Study something real, useful and practical. And, GROW UP.
Good advice, but it is unlikely any of them would choose to grow up and become a contributing, rather than a leeching, member of society when oh so sensitive, whiny, victim drama pays so much better via a consecrated pot of tax dollars dedicated to the not so great unwashed masses.
I don’t believe anyone is denying the reality of PTSD; posters have only been reiterating that smiling, triumphant MM-Y is a fraud and we would like to see the smile wiped off her face in criminal and civil court. I have a good friend, a therapist who treats veterans with PTSD by teaching them coping skills (another anecdote.) But I doubt that despite your research, you or anyone else would recommend keeping the campus free of the loud or sudden noises that might create triggers for veterans with PTSD. And veterans aren’t whining for the special privileges they actually deserve… Read more »
Life and the real world is triggering. Warning: Don’t get out of bed in the morning or you might face some triggers. But you also might face triggers if you don’t get up.
WARNING: If you set foot outside your home you might be triggered. Here’s a warning everyone is aware of but you won’t find it on the university website: If you don’t agree with and slavishly praise the idol of political correctness, you will be socially isolated, verbally attacked, possibly physically abused and may not pass courses taught by bigots. So, pretend you agree with their crap in classroom discussions and write papers that sync with your professor’s views if you wish to graduate. Once you receive your diploma, you may now practice free speech openly on campus. You should be… Read more »
Would you stop a anti racism group from displaying a hanging black man in the past and have a physical removal altercation with them? I guess not, how about if the fetus was a minority race, would that make a difference? You would let that group have their signs and not say a word of the graphic content and let be heard without a physical assault
Geez, the author of this article is a complete moron. The sound you hear is Thomas Jefferson and James Madison rolling over in their graves.
Replace the word abortion with the word gay / gay kiss in / marriage equality rally, then the victim with Christian / freshman from a rural area and we have the same facist BS this lady is pussing for.
Mein Furer! Ms. Feminist! Mein Furer! Don’t gas me during your man-hating and anti-freedom campaign.
I have just read the letter to campus from Vice Chancellor Young regarding the Miller-Young incident. It is disgusting and sickening. Talk about blaming the victim.
What I don’t get is, if the images are so “overwhelmingly insensitive,” so “overwhelmingly bloody and gory,” why would anyone defend the perpetrators of the act that produces the reality behind those images?
This screed is like attacking photographers who show us what war really looks like, or how many coffins were shipped home from the battlefield.
that analogy is flawed because you’re implying the photographers actively support and aim to oppress people who are being affected by the war
women are choosing what they want to do with their body and that is nobody’s choice but their own
the fact that people are trying to take away a woman’s right to choose is silly and the fact they are using shock tactics around people who are easily disturbed / are brought onto panic attacks by the images is less than ethical
I’m not “implying the photographers actively support and aim to oppress people who are being affected by the war”! The analogy is apt–both examples are of photographs that show the ugly by-product of an action. Abortion: the stated aim is to give a woman the right to choose to kill her fetus. (That’s what the preferred wording, “the right to freedom over her own body,” actually means.) The ugly by-product is dead fetuses. War: the stated aim is to support or defend democracy and/or human rights. (Arguably, the real aim to to create wealth for an elite few.) The ugly… Read more »