Your Tax Dollars Pay His Salary

Posted by Jack

A University of California at Davis professor’s history of advocating for the murder of law enforcement officers during interviews and on Twitter has been brought to light by an article in the student newspaper. The university is condemning the professor’s comments.

English professor Joshua Clover reportedly said in a 2015 interview with SF Weekly, “People think that cops need to be reformed. They need to be killed.” He was answering the question: “What’s wrong with society today?”

Several old tweets from Clover’s account also advocated killing law enforcement officers and one even celebrated officer suicides.

“I am thankful that every living cop will one day be dead, some by their own hand, some by others, too many of old age #letsnotmakemore,” Clover reportedly tweeted on Nov. 27, 2014.

“I mean, it’s easier to shoot cops when their backs are turned, no?” Clover also reportedly tweeted on Dec. 27, 2014.

That last tweet, even though it is more than four years old, is particularly painful in Davis, where rookie police officer Natalie Corona was killed in an ambush last month.  Shot in the back.

UC Davis spokesperson said there was not much they could do about the professors comments, because Title IX of the Education Code only pertains to harassment or violence against a protected class, such as gays, lesbians, transgenders, minority races and such.  Police are not a protected class regarding hate speech under Title IX.

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Your Tax Dollars Pay His Salary

  1. Chris says:

    This professor’s words go far beyond legitimate critiques of the police as an institution and into unthinking bigotry. He should not be teaching at any level.

  2. Libby says:

    Jack, did you read any of these sources? That SF Weekly piece is total fluff.

    Question: “What’s wrong with society today?”
    “People think that cops need to be reformed. They need to be killed.”

    And that was between:
    “How much money do you have in your checking account?” and
    “What is your fondest memory?”

    Doesn’t his answer sound like total “off the cuff” stupidity? He shouldn’t have said it. He probably just had a run-in with some cop with a flag pole up his butt. Cops will behave badly, and people will get pissed … but does it really sound like he was “advocating” anything? He was spouting off.

    And frankly, the connection the student reporter makes is REALLY weak. I really don’t think the professor’s bad judgment, i.e., Twitter posts, in any way influenced the mentally ill person who killed Natalie.

    And anyway, Jack, you need to start distancing yourself from this sort of thing. That new cop revelation law has already made for some ugly press … there will be more … lots more.

    • Chris says:

      Doesn’t his answer sound like total “off the cuff” stupidity?

      No, because he said similar things many other times, as the article pointed out. And I don’t think I would say something like this in my worst moment. Let’s hold people to higher standards, please.

      • Libby says:

        Well then, you are just a stick. “They must all be killed” is a sentiment I apply frequently, to all manner of situations.

        No one in my milieu has been, as yet, silly, or frightened, or sufficiently paranoid to take it seriously.

        Geez.

  3. Joe says:

    “…against a protected class, such as gays, lesbians, transgenders, minority races and such. ”

    And Chris and Libby won’t be happy until Jack is a gender fluid, non-binary, transgender activist.

  4. Joe says:

    Can you image what would happen if he would have published that but replaced the word cops with antifa? He’d be banned from twiiter, facebook, etc. for life immediately and no doubt fired from the communist UC system.

  5. Chris says:

    I missed this part, Jack:

    UC Davis spokesperson said there was not much they could do about the professors comments, because Title IX of the Education Code only pertains to harassment or violence against a protected class, such as gays, lesbians, transgenders, minority races and such.

    I’m almost certain you’ve misunderstood the spokesperson. If not, they’ve misunderstood the law. Protected classes are not just about “minority races,” they’re about all races. Race itself is a protected class, as is religion, gender, gender identity, and orientation. Anti-discrimination law applies equally to whites as blacks, men and women, cisgender and transgender people, Christians and Muslims, gays and straights.

    It does not protect occupations, however, thus ruling out the police.

    • Post Scripts says:

      The spokesperson was clear enough, the bottom line is police are not protected. So we agree. However, in my opinion they should be, inciting an officer thru insults, threats, etc., or inciting violence in any form for other to commit against a police officer is illegal in every Western nation I know.

      It can be argued that you are a protected class as an instructor, not under Title 9, but under the Administrative Code and/or 69 Penal Code. 69 PC says as threatening or interfering with an officer, a judge, or school official in the performance of their is illegal. In plain English someone can’t approach you and say I am going beat your butt because I don’t like the way you are teaching. Aside from 415 PC, threats against a public school official can be charged as a felony, but rarely are. Granted, there is some debate that school supervisor qualifies as an executive officer, but so far cases those that have tried such case have gotten convictions. a few years ago 69 PC was upheld in the case of a school principal.

      “Every person who attempts, by means of any threat or violence, to deter or prevent an executive officer from performing any duty imposed upon such officer by law, or who knowingly resists, by the use of force or violence, such officer, in the performance of his duty, is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
      Penal Code 69 is similar to Penal Code 148(a)(1), misdemeanor resisting arrest, but it is more serious. It can be charged as felony, whereas resisting arrest is just a misdemeanor. Penal Code 69 criminalizes two separate types of conduct:
      (1) Attempting, by means of any threat or violence, to deter or prevent an executive officer from performing any duty imposed upon such officer by law; and
      (2) Actually resisting, by force or violence, such officer in the performance of his/her duty. People v. Hines (1997) 64 Cal. Rptr.2d 594”

      • Common Sense says:

        J. Makes a good point, and Chris, by the way you forgot to mention that Kendall Jenner wasn’t wearing any underwear at some big event. And given the dress she was wearing, she almost flashed everyone.

        Trump Trump Trump, let’s do the same research on the DNC and the Clinton’s. I’ll guess, if you do, you’ll find both parties, and people are fairly parallel in their methods and personnel.

        J’s comment holds value, so much so, you seeming go to extremes in an attempt to persuade people otherwise.

        There is no clean politics or candidates these days, and that fact is best represented by the current majority in the house, who’s only concern is destroying Trump, and has nothing to do serving the public’s best interest.

        • Chris says:

          J. Makes a good point, and Chris, by the way you forgot to mention that Kendall Jenner wasn’t wearing any underwear at some big event. And given the dress she was wearing, she almost flashed everyone.

          Trump Trump Trump, let’s do the same research on the DNC and the Clinton’s. I’ll guess, if you do, you’ll find both parties, and people are fairly parallel in their methods and personnel.

          J’s comment holds value, so much so, you seeming go to extremes in an attempt to persuade people otherwise.

          There is no clean politics or candidates these days, and that fact is best represented by the current majority in the house, who’s only concern is destroying Trump, and has nothing to do serving the public’s best interest.

          Are you having a stroke?

  6. Libby says:

    “However, in my opinion they should be, inciting an officer thru insults, threats, etc., or inciting violence in any form for other to commit against a police officer is illegal in every Western nation I know.”

    And it’s illegal here too, Jack, and the laws apply to everybody, not just cops … but it has to be a specific and credible threat, which this was not. You and the Trumpster, both, gotta toughen up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.