How’s it hangin? Well, shriveled and withdrawn it turns out for the University of New Mexico and one of its iridescent professors. Looks like they were so used to having the seemingly inexhaustible cudgel of politically correctness to bludgeon the skull of any poor fool that dared question their rainbow of intolerance that they went a little too far.
The professor, Caroline Hinkley, taught a course, “Images of (Wo)men: From Icons to Iconoclasts”, and displayed her unmatched certitude of her convictions with masculine bravado in the syllabus that read as follows (via WND):
It’s quite clear that we do not expect anyone to necessarily agree with the positions and arguments advanced in our work. There’s controversy built right into the syllabus, and we can’t wait to hash out our differences.
Well, one student, Monica Pompeo, encouraged by the freedom of thought urged in the syllabus, let loose her opinion on an assignment to watch and write about a 1985 lesbian film. Her assignment wasn’t well received at all. Turns out the “can’t wait to hash out our differences” line in the syllabus really meant something entirely different, more like “can’t wait till you all agree with me and do so in writing”. Because when professor “open mind” Hinkley began to review Pompeo’s work, chamomile tea must’ve spewed from her mouth and gushed out her nose, in what must’ve been a surprising nonplussed reaction to what she was reading. Like a visceral gag-reflex provoked by the intolerable text that was burning into her retinas. Well, she must’ve thought, enough of that vile, wretched poison because:
Hinckley refused to read beyond the first two pages of her harsh critique. The professor described Pompeo’s opinion as “inflammatory and offensive” hate speech and said it would be in her best interest to drop the class.
Unfortunately for the professor and the University it turns out Pompeo took the syllabus quite literally and was indeed ready to “hash out… differences” because she took the University and professor Intolerant to court charging the Univeristy and professor violated her constitutional rights by claiming she was improperly dismissed because she described “…lesbianism as perverse in an assigned critique of a lesbian romance file.”
The University sought to dismiss the case, but
Chief U.S. District Judge M. Christina Armijo denied a motion by the university to dismiss a case brought by student Monica Pompeo, who claimed she was improperly dismissed from the class for describing lesbianism as perverse in an assigned critique of a lesbian romance film.
The Judge goes on and nails it (emphasis mine):
Judge Armijo, in her Sept. 29 order, wrote that the First Amendment “violation in this case arises from the irreconcilable conflict between the all-views-are-welcome description of the forum and [the professor’s] only-those-views-with-which-I-personally-agree-are-acceptable implementation of the forum.”
The court continued…
“The court questions whether a university can have a legitimate pedagogical interest in inviting students to engage in ‘incendiary’ and provocative speech on a topic and then punishing a a student because he or she did just that. Simply because plaintiff expressed views about homosexuality that some people may deem offensive does not deprive her views of First Amendment protection. Plaintiff has made out a plausible case that Hinkley ostracized her because of Hinkley’s personal disagreement with plaintiff’s ideology, and not for legitimate pedogogical purpose.”
Don’t look now… but are things looking up… now if we can only get this voter fraud thing under control.
