When you are in a poetry class, you are supposed to write poetry. Or at least that is what Southern Connecticut State University graduate student Edward Bolles thought when he signed up for English 202, Introduction to Poetry. But he and the professor, Kelly Ritter, had differences of opinion over the liberal political themes of poems selected by Professor Riitter, and the two developed a dislike for one anotehr. That led to Bolles to write a satirical poem about a racist white professor, loosely based upon Ritter.
That is when the crap hit the fan.
Southern Connecticut State University barred a student from a poetry class after his professor said a poem he submitted contained veiled threats to sexually assault her and her 3-year-old daughter.The student, Edward Bolles, said his poem entitled "Professor White," was meant to be a satirical piece about globalization. In it, a Mexican student named Juan has a sexual encounter with the daughter of his white professor.
Bolles' professor, Kelly Ritter, found the poem "disturbing," according to an April 8 campus police report, and said she believed the poem was a threat. University officials prohibited Bolles, who is Mexican, from attending his poetry class while he was investigated.
Now there are some key differences between Bolles and Juan, and between Ritter and the poem's title character. The main one is that the daughter with whom Juan has a sexual encounter is a college student, not a three-year old, while Bolles was unaware that Ritter had a daughter at all.
Bolles said the poem's interracial affair symbolizes white America's feeling that Mexicans are corrupting their culture. The encounter is not violent, and the professor's daughter brings Juan home to meet her disapproving mother."I came in using a different set of reasoning as context to look at the craft of poetry, and she was put off by it," Bolles said.
The poem ends with the professor trying to get Juan kicked out of school by calling one of his poems racist.
Ritter, claiming that the poem was a threat of sexual assault against bothe her and her daughter, filed a police report and demanded Bolles be removed from her class. Not only that, but she demanded that the student be required to submit to a psychiatric evaluation. Presumably the results of that evaluation, had it been required, would have been the basis for seeking Bolles expulsion from the college.
Bolles, though, fought back. After being put out of his class, he began a protest around campus. It got the results he wanted, probably because of the embarassing publicity that his actons generated.
Bolles began publicly protesting the university's decision Monday, wearing a "Save Professor White" shirt and handing out fliers on campus. After that protest began and university officials received calls from The Associated Press Monday, Bolles received a hand-delivered, one-sentence letter from the administration:"As a result of the investigation, I wish to inform you that no formal disciplinary charges will be filed on behalf of the university and you are permitted to return to your English 202, Section 1, course, Introduction to Poetry," Christopher Piscitelli, director of judicial affairs, wrote.
Bolles remains concerned about his return to the class. He declines to offer Ritter any apology, nor do I believe he should. Of greater concern is how he will be received by classmates following the two week absence from the class and Ritter's possible comments on it. He is also concerned about having fallen behind due to Ritter's persecution of a student she didn't like or agree with, amd whether or not he will be given a fair chance to recover from his forced exile.
And as an outside observer, I have to wonder what action will be taken against Professor Ritter for her unjust and unfounded actions against Edward Bolles.
The California Legislature is seeking to overturn the will of the people of California by considering Assembly Bill 19, The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, would amend the California Family Code to make marriage a gender neutral proposition in the state. This would, of course, make homosexual marriage legal and recognized in the state of California.
Unfortunately, this would also overturn Proposition 22, passed by the voters in 2000. It reads as follows.
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Now I may be a bit slow, but that seems pretty clear to me. Marriage, according to the California voters, is one man and one woman. It isnt two guys, two girls, or any other combination. The voters have spoken, approving Prop 22 with a 62% majority, and under the California Constitution the legislature cannot overrule that decision. But the supporters of homosexual marriage are still hell-bent on trying to validate and recognize something other than marriage between a man and a woman -- even if it means violating laws, constitutions, and the will of the people to get it.
I recently commented on the refusal of New York City law enforcement officials to file hate crime charges in a racially motivated attack where the perpetrators were black and the victims were white. Well, someone higher up on the food chain finally listened to the outrage of New Yorkers and other Americans, and have upgraded the charges.
City lawyers overruled the Police Department and charged a band of Brooklyn toughs with a hate crime for allegedly shouting, "Black power!" as they beat up a group of girls in Marine Park, The Post has learned.In a case that roiled racial tensions in Brooklyn and became a rallying point on white-supremacy Web sites locals are now second-guessing law enforcement.
Cops locked up five of the alleged attackers all juveniles but did not charge them with a bias crime.
The city's Corporation Counsel Office, which prosecutes cases in Family Court, raised the charges against the assailants.
Sources said the initial report did not include the comments allegedly made by the suspects. "It should have been a hate crime from day one," fumed one parent.
The article makes it clear that this was no simple fight in the park, but rather a premeditated action in which the original aggressors repeatedly set out to get more help to make sure they significantly outnumbered the six victims.
As you may or may not already be aware, members of the Watcher's Council hold a vote every week on what they consider to be the most link-worthy pieces of writing around... per the Watcher's instructions, I am submitting one of my own posts for consideration in the upcoming nominations process.
Here is the most recent winning council post, here is the most recent winning non-council post, here is the list of results for the latest vote, and here is the initial posting of all the nominees that were voted on.
Also, there is a spot open on the Watcher's Council -- see this link for details.