Shriver: Lying and Incapable of taking a joke

Part of the narcissism and personality disorder that is Adam Shriver, Washington University's favorite adjunct blogger, is both his inability to take a joke and his obsessive focus on your friends at Insurgent Visuals.

Since we have day jobs, we don't post every day like Adam. Since we released the content to the Breitbart team, we let them run with the story and handle it their way. But to Adam Shriver, that just shows that we're liars, Shriver's just insane. His complaints make no sense. He repeats charges over and over, to make the 'big lie' true simply through repetition.

You can almost picture him, alone, in a relative's basement, or sipping latte at a Starbucks, saying "they're liars!" over and over in his head until it's true.

Adam is apparently also upset that he can't stalk our team's female members. So, we temporarily changed our profile pictures. Perhaps he'll have an easier time finding us now that we've used our real pictures on our about page.

In the meantime, if you have serious inquiries or questions, email us at insurgentvisuals@gmail.com

Oh, and for as much as Shriver wants to distract to issues of website design, profile pictures, tineye, etc., the central point in the UMKC violence videos, which was always in context, which no amount of left-wing spin can change, is that Judy Ancel said that violence is a tactic to be used when appropriate in politics, Don Giljum bragged about industrial sabotage and starting riots, and students at several colleges in Missouri were indoctrinated into radical left-wing political violence.

Adam Shriver: Often Wrong but Never in Doubt

Shriver whines and bemoans the fact that we just won't lay down and let him lie lie lie.

Shriver, the self-appointed media political officer/commissar of south St. Louis, says we were "busted" by Crooks and Liars and Media Matters, two organizations heavy on spin and light on substance.

Then the tired meme of "selective editing" came back up, even though we released the transcript and, surprise surprise, it doesn't help Judy, Don or Adam. Here's the old article for reference:

http://bigjournalism.com/insurgentvisuals/2011/05/05/u-of-missouri-epic-fail-no-amount-of-context-can-defend-judy-ancel/

But here's Shriver's pathetic point: distract and deflect from what Judy Ancel and Don Giljum said:

1. "Violence is a [political] tactic, to be used when appropriate." - Judy

2. "When you have a crisis, you have an opportunity to introduce a shock—which is a massive change. Generally, if you’re following the neo-liberal playbook, it’s one that shifts power dramatically." - Judy

3. I instigated a riot "where several police cars were burned." - Don

In what context are these comments ok?

EVEN JUDY DOESN'T LIE AS MUCH AS SHRIVER, she tries to say that her quotes were "pedagogical explanations" meaning that she was just challenging the students with ironic, contrary viewpoints. But she was approvingly citing to a documentary where violence had been used to get political results.

Adam Shriver is a committed leftist, he's made himself a public figure in the organizing for left-wing causes around St. Louis, and sees this as his personal jihad against the right. To that end, he's willing to lie, obfuscate and twist words, meaning and create distractions to avoid the obvious: these students were being indoctrinated into radical union organizing which made violence casual and lighthearted in order to radicalize them to do anything for the cause.

Judy and Don were never vindicated, but the left-wing noise machine was able to overwhelm the Breitbart team so that the story died the death of a thousand distractions. It's impressive how well they circled the wagons, but it's disgusting the extent to which they'll lie in order to advance their agenda.

The story stands for itself, the video speaks for itself, and the words were never out of context nor were they selectively edited.

Adam Shriver is a damn shrill. We hope Judy and Don at least bought him a beer for all his propagandizing.

Breitbart: The Full 30 hours is worse

No context can defend Judy Ancel

The ILS Labor Advisory Board

THE ILS LABOR ADVISORY BOARD

• Diane Arends - USWA 13
• Byron Austin, Chairman - GCIU 235
• Len Beauchamp - Boilermakers International
• Gene Bralley - Federal Mediation & Conciliation
• Joe Capra - IAM Local 778
• Sherwin Carroll - SEIU Local 96
• Andrea Moran Chapman - APWU Greater Metro Area Local
• Greg Chastain - Sheet Metal Workers Local 2
• Gordon Clark - Transport Workers Local 530
• Mike Damico - IBEW 124
• Beverly Garrett - AFGE
• Robert Gillis - AFSCME Local 500
• Jim Hadel - Tri-County Labor Council of Eastern Kansas
• Pricilla Jackson Evans - Longview - Social Science Division
• Dan Johnson - Teamsters Local 41
• Bernard Johnson - Mail Handlers Local 297
• Herb Johnson - Missouri AFL-CIO
• Garry Kemp- Greater Kansas City Building & ConstructionTrades Council
• Earl Lancaster - TCU Allied Services Division
• John Locke - IAFF Local 42
• Jenee Lowe - Pipefitters Local 533
• Jan Mammen - OPEIU Local 320
• Steve McLuckie - Missouri NEA
• Hugh McVey - MO AFL-CIO
• Jason Mendenhall - Laborers 663
• Cynthia Millentree - UAW Local 249
• Judy Morgan - Kansas City MO Federation of Teachers 691
• Cindi Nance - UFCW 576
• Dave Peterson and Donna Birks - UAW Local 31
• Prof. James Sturgeon - UMKC Economics Department
• AJ Villegas - CWA District 6
• Gene Wagner - UMKC - Economics Department
• Bridgette Williams - Greater KC AFL-CIO
• Jane Zeitner- Longview PACE

Big Journalism corrects KMOX

Two points in clarifying the content of the UMKC violence videos.

from an ally: KMOX is deleting comments on violence videos threads

So, one of the comments I made on KMOX comment board RE the article shriver linked to said something like

"Kevn [killeen],

where did media matters get the extended footage from? Only two people have the full 30 plus hours of video: breitbart and the university and you know bbart wouldn't give media matters the full footage. 

So, it must have been the university. Yet, the university says it can't release the full footage because of privacy concerns. The university NEVER asked the students for their permission for the university to record the footage. So, clearly the university is hiding something and the privacy issue is a red herring. 

What is the university hiding? Why wont they release the full footage?"

Gateway Pundit: Militancy Through Suggestion

A relevant article at Gateway Pundit about the UMKC violence videos.

The Media Spinsters

Mike Hendricks
mhendricks@kcstar.com
Kansas City Star
Editorializing away comments from Ancel, assuming the worst and then ignoring the story.

Adam Shriver
STL Activist Hub
Adjunct and Grad Student, Washington University
Personal friend, Tony Pecovinsky
A variety of posts spinning the story.

Teresa Albano
Co-Editor, People's World
Member, Communist Party USA
Union Organizer
Outright falsehoods in her story to defend Judy Ancel.

Matt Cantor
Newser.com
Using conclusory statements in headlines, outright falsehoods in the story

Tim Barker
STLToday.com
tbarker@post-dispatch.com - 314-340-8350
Spinning the story to be about "academic freedom" and not about the advocacy of political violence

Definitively why the Judy Ancel quote is entirely in context

Let's recap: videos released show Judy Ancel endorsing violence. Predictably, the left says they are "out of context." Is that true?

Here's the full context of her remarks.

STUDENT 1: I have a question for the class militants. Do you think that the contract would have been signed had the protests continued? In the smashing windows, breaking storefronts, looting, thing.

STUDENT 2: I think there was an element of it that really shocked people. I’m sure it brought a lot of people’s attention to it. I don’t think it’s the answer. I don’t think it’s like, the, a solution to the problem. But, I’m not willing to put any tactics off the table and I think it played a part.

STUDENT 3: I think it came to the people saying we’re not gonna shop, we’re gonna stick together and we’re not buy your goods. It was like a deal like with Gandhi where he started with a lot of that, but I think they would have stayed true to their goal of not buying economic power.

STUDENT 4: When they’re willing to give up violence, then I will too.

ANCEL: The one guy in the film, one of the guys who had been one of the young, um, SNCC types, said…What?

STUDENT: The Invaders [name of the militant group in the film]

[ANCEL:] — he represented the kind of thinking that went into this student on the coordinating committee and then later probably — well, coinciding with the Black Panthers. You know, he said violence is a tactic and it’s to be used when it’s appropriate, when it’s an appropriate tactic. Whether — they never come back to him to ask him what he thought of the window-smashing in that march or whether or not that was done by them or others or provocateurs. We don’t know that.

STUDENT 4: One more thing is that they’re trying to be a part of the larger society, we don’t, I don’t, necessarily want to be a part of of capitalist society. I want to take over the state with revolutionary movement which doesn’t exist.

STUDENT 2: For King too, he opened the doors and had a conversation with these guys [people using violence as a political tactic]. He didn’t denounce them, he didn’t lock them out.

STUDENT: I just think it’s interesting now, It’s mainstream to revere these figures like Martin Luther King and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and we forget how radical they were in their time and even today. Martin Luther King was all about social justice and like a radical vision for America that people today think they were only about civil rights and died with his work completed. FDR, I didn’t realize until I read a book about him, he wanted a second bill of rights that said everyone had a right to a job with a living wage, social security, health care, housing, that those things were rights. Today that would be, not even, he would be laughed out of Washington.

Also, per a previous post, here are the seven reasons why it was entirely in context considering the other things being said at the same time:

1. Violence was effectively used in the past.

2. The specific comment is made that "no tactics are off the table."

3. Another student says "when they're willing to give up violence, I will too" after a student says that economic tactics are the right way to go.

4. Ancel follows that comment about endorsing violence up by further approvingly citing to a SNCC leader who said that violence is a tactic, to be used when appropriate.

5. The comment is then made, following her direction, that the student "doesn't want to live in this society."

6. The same student then says, I want to take over the state with revolutionary movement which doesn’t exist.

7. Another student then points out to how FDR and MLK were just as radical as these people using violence.

This was always in context. This was always the intent, tone, diction and communicative desire of Judy Ancel: to teach impressionable student that violence was a tactic, to be used when appropriate.

Judy Ancel was always cited in context. Her remarks were never taken out of context. The school is covering for her because they've gone "all-in" defending her now and don't want to lose face. Media outlets are repeating the lies from Media Matters and other minor left-wing blogs. Only a few on the right are showing this for what it is: Judy Ancel teaching violence as an appropriate political tactic to be used when appropriate for labor organizing.

Answer from the left? Silence.

DailyKos: Complaining about context without providing any

The DailyKos makes several disingenuous arguments in this article, which we've already well addressed here.

This one stands out though:

Breitbart is a master of taking quotes out of context, deletion of what doesn't serve his purpose, and remixing to achieve totally different meaning. For example he has me saying:

o Breitbart's version: "Violence is a tactic and it's to be used when it's the appropriate tactic."

o The real version: After students had watched a film on the 1968 Memphis Sanitation Workers' Strike and the assassination of Martin Luther King, they were discussing nonviolence. I said, "One guy in the film. . . said 'violence is a tactic, and it's to be used when it’s the appropriate tactic.'. . . " The class proceeded to discuss and debate this.

This, of course, isn't the context at all.

The context of the specific question, not provided by Kos, is that:

1. Violence was effectively used in the past.

2. The specific comment is made that "no tactics are off the table."
3. Another student says "when they're willing to give up violence, I will too" after a student says that economic tactics are the right way to go.

4. Ancel follows that comment about endorsing violence up by further approvingly citing to a SNCC leader who said that violence is a tactic, to be used when appropriate.

5. The comment is then made, following her direction, that the student "doesn't want to live in this society."
6. The same student then says, I want to take over the state with revolutionary movement which doesn’t exist.

7. Another student then points out to how FDR and MLK were just as radical as these people using violence.

This was always in context. This was always the intent, tone, diction and communicative desire of Judy Ancel: to teach impressionable student that violence was a tactic, to be used when appropriate.

U of Missouri Epic Fail: No Amount of Context Can Defend Judy Ancel

http://bigjournalism.com/insurgentvisuals/2011/05/05/u-of-missouri-epic-fail-no-amount-of-context-can-defend-judy-ancel/

Why the left-wing blogs are wrong.

Several serious allegations are being leveled at Andrew Breitbart. Amusingly, these complaints are even taking shape as a verb: to be “Breitbarted” is to be maligned unfairly with “selectively-edited” video that is taken out of context. The left is so busy spinning memes to distract from Breitbart’s repeated and consistent revelations about institutions of the left that they retreat into messaging and marketing.

The union videos involving Judy Ancel and Don Giljum, teaching a course on labor studies at the University of Missouri Kansas City, are being aggressively rebutted by the bloggers who form the backbone of the mainstream media’s dying artifice, in order to quickly malign this story and suck out its life.

The defense of Judy Ancel relies on saying her comments are out of context. She radicalized her classes with repeated citations of violence and encouraged Don Giljum when he did the same. Judy's a radical union organizer.

If they can focus on trivialities, if they can avoid focusing on the core issues at stake, they can win through both attrition and distraction. Relying on a divided and much less aggressive conservative blogosphere, and less coordinated, they pick off their media targets with ease.

Specifically, Crooks and Liars has claimed these videos lacked context. To make that charge they focus on one of about six videos released so far, perhaps the most salacious one that includes Judy Ancel explaining that violence is a tactic, to be used when appropriate.

The defense of Ancel is important because she’s a professor, a member of the vaulted class of priestly self-appointed elites with whom the left cannot criticize. Dissent is patriotic, but not when it’s in the classroom.

Here’s what Crooks and Liars is saying:

Here is the full unedited transcript version of Ancel’s remark with sections in bold which were omitted from the Breitbart version:

ANCEL: The one guy in the film, one of the guys who had been one of the young, um, SNCC types, said

[crosstalk]

– he represented the kind of thinking that went into this student on the coordinating committee and then later probably — well, coinciding with the Black Panthers. You know, he said violence is a tactic and it’s to be used when it’s appropriate, when it’s an appropriate tactic. Whether — they never come back to him to ask him what he thought of the window-smashing in that march or whether or not that was done by them or others or provocateurs. We don’t know that.

If those unedited remarks are read as they stand, even without surrounding context, it’s clear the Breitbart video was edited to make it appear that Giljum and Ancel said the exact opposite of what they actually did say.

Shorter Breitbart version: Giljum and Ancel are calling for violent responses as appropriate tactics.

True version: Giljum believes violent responses would do more harm than good in today’s society, and Ancel is not commenting on the tactic, but on someone else’s tactics in a historical context. [my emphasis]

This sounds bad. It sounds as if there’s a conspiracy afoot. Andrew Breitbart is apparently part of the vast right wing conspiracy to attack unions and malign a peaceful professor who just made an innocuous comment in class.

In the leftist mind, relying on basic archetypes and simple story lines: It’s Shirley Sherrod all over again!

What’s missing, of course, is any context. The quote out of context as presented by Crooks and Liars attempts to justify Judy Ancel by saying “hey, she was just quoting someone …”

But that lacks context.

It lacks the notice that but a few minutes before, it was made clear that the discussion was about tactics. It lacks the context to know that the statement was made “nothing is off the table.” These inflammatory and incendiary statements were made to set a certain tone: militancy in achieving union objectives. Campaigns of intimidation to pressure businesses to accept union demands.

The other videos further add to this, they add to that context, they show the classroom environment that Judy Ancel and Don Giljum presented. Instead of tempering violence and quelling militancy, they encouraged it.

The full context of the Ancel quote doesn’t start where Crooks and Liars claims, it starts earlier. They also render unintelligible what is audible, they omit the beginning while claiming they have access to the full tapes, so they’re purposefully taking this out of context.

This is no surprise, and no surprise that so many other lackluster outlets are repeating the same line. It’s the talking points carefully crafted by the media politburo at Media Matters.

They first tried to ignore it, now they’re trying to ridicule it by saying it’s all a matter of context. Next the attack dogs like Richard Trumpka will get offensive. Their playbook is predictable.

Ancel is responding to a student who is proposing that non-violent social change should be the agreed value. She approvingly cites the SNCC leader (leader of a group called “The Invaders”) as a rebuttal to the student’s claim that one should follow Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Instead of augmenting and validating those leaders, Ancel stands with radical unions and Communist organizers in appreciating the value of violent political and social change.

To see it in pictures, to witness such amazing claims, is no doubt difficult for the left to accept. To console themselves they have resorted to this jihad of memes, that this is “Breitbarting” and this is “Shirley Sherrod” and this is the ACORN pimp suit all over again, this is the minor immaterial issue on which they want to anchor their rebuttal.

All we have to do is go to the context to see what Ancel was responding to, what she offered her comments in reaction to, and it confirms what we already know: Judy Ancel seems to teach violence as an appropriate political tactic to students at UMKC:

STUDENT 1: I have a question for the class militants. Do you think that the contract would have been signed had the protests continued? In the smashing windows, breaking storefronts, looting, thing.

STUDENT 2: I think there was an element of it that really shocked people. I’m sure it brought a lot of people’s attention to it. I don’t think it’s the answer. I don’t think it’s like, the, a solution to the problem. But, I’m not willing to put any tactics off the table and I think it played a part.

STUDENT 3: I think it came to the people saying we’re not gonna shop, we’re gonna stick together and we’re not buy your goods. It was like a deal like with Gandhi where he started with a lot of that, but I think they would have stayed true to their goal of not buying economic power.

STUDENT 4: When they’re willing to give up violence, then I will too.

—here’s where the left, i.e. Media Matters and Crooks and Liars, starts the transcript—

ANCEL: The one guy in the film, one of the guys who had been one of the young, um, SNCC types, said…What?

STUDENT: The Invaders [name of the militant group in the film]

[ANCEL:] — he represented the kind of thinking that went into this student on the coordinating committee and then later probably — well, coinciding with the Black Panthers. You know, he said violence is a tactic and it’s to be used when it’s appropriate, when it’s an appropriate tactic. Whether — they never come back to him to ask him what he thought of the window-smashing in that march or whether or not that was done by them or others or provocateurs. We don’t know that. [my emphasis]

—here’s where the left, i.e. Media Matters and Crooks and Liars, ends the transcript—

In the video, though, the discussion continues …

STUDENT 4: One more thing is that they’re trying to be a part of the larger society, we don’t, I don’t, necessarily want to be a part of of capitalist society. I want to take over the state with revolutionary movement which doesn’t exist.

STUDENT 2: For King too, he opened the doors and had a conversation with these guys [people using violence as a political tactic]. He didn’t denounce them, he didn’t lock them out.

STUDENT: I just think it’s interesting now, It’s mainstream to revere these figures like Martin Luther King and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and we forget how radical they were in their time and even today. Martin Luther King was all about social justice and like a radical vision for America that people today think they were only about civil rights and died with his work completed. FDR, I didn’t realize until I read a book about him, he wanted a second bill of rights that said everyone had a right to a job with a living wage, social security, health care, housing, that those things were rights. Today that would be, not even, he would be laughed out of Washington.

The quote and citation to Ancel is a true, accurate reflection of her beliefs. She approvingly cited to this SNCC leader to rebut a student who proposed adhering to non-violence. Her defense is to say this was a “pedagogical explanation” but it was, rather, a rebuttal to a claim for temperate tactics in politics.

Breitbart is correct, we’re correct, and the unions, left-wing blogs are wrong.

Let us predict that the chorus of voices on the left will equivocate, rationalize, nitpick, massage, message, spin, before they admit that this is wrong and immoral. They will never admit the obvious: that Judy Ancel’s class at the University of Missouri Kansas City advocated violence as a way to achieve political results – there was no speech against it.

Presented with the chance to embrace non-violence in class, Judy Ancel, a professor of the University of Missouri at Kansas City, pushed for more militancy and more radicalism instead of toning down the rhetoric. She taught her students that non-violent social change wasn’t enough. She cited to this former SNCC leader in order to push their minds further, to consider the use of violence for political change.

Let’s also not miss the chance to note the incredible, outlandish hypocrisy of these left-wing outlets that tried to pin the shooting of Cong. Giffords on the radical voices on talk radio and the extreme political rhetoric they claimed motivated the shooter. The mainstream media pointed to a small graphic on Sarah Palin’s website as encouraging violence. But here, where professors are explicitly endorsing violence, they find ways to say “oh, well that’s out of context!”

We don’t know who was hurt by the tactics that Ancel advocated, and we don’t know which companies were sabotaged by past students of Don Giljum, but we have them here explicitly explaining to students how to do it, why to do it and reinforcing the values and militant mindset to carry out such terror. There’s no place in politics for violent words nor violent actions, but too many in the left-wing blogosphere and at UMKC seem ready to rationalize, deflect and distract instead of admit their mistakes and fix the situation.

The University of Missouri at St. Louis (UMSL) wisely chose to push out labor radical Don Giljum, but along with the University of Missouri Kansas City (UMKC) has defended (and the latter retained Judy Ancel) the course and surviving instructor. Hoping the story blows over, the UMKC leadership has a chorus of left-wing bloggers rationalizing her instruction to students, in the form of citing a 60's radical to rebut a student's thoughts on adopting non-violence ... that violence is an appropriate political tactic in some circumstances. There's no defense of Judy Ancel's class.

No amount of context will satisfy hardened political operatives and left-wing bloggers. They are intent on covering up through semantics, hiding in plain sight the radicalism that passed for normal at UMKC. That they see this as the latest battleground in the war to protect liberals from reality is no surprise, but our minds should be conditioned to question their deconstruction of plain language outrages on video. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, for example, is a sham. It’s merely a mouthpiece for the AFL-CIO, and progressives, generally. Any POVs to the contrary are suppressed, and any story unfavorable to their buddies within the St. Louis Newspaper Guild – such as Communist Party USA for Missouri/Kansas leader, and fellow guild member Tony Pecinovsky, also featured in the footage recruiting students to the Communist Party and training students to destroy capitalism – which is to say, the American economy. Tony is also the local head of the Communications Workers of America – I suppose that plays into the Post-Dispatch’s thinking, too. Bullies protecting bullies. How can anyone take them seriously? Another reason why the Establishment Media is dying.

Judy Ancel is indefensible here. Her extreme comments were always in context.

UMKC Statement on the Violence Videos

The University of Missouri-Kansas City continues to review approximately 18 hours of unedited video from the Labor, Politics and Society class. From the review completed to date, it is clear that edited videos posted on the Internet depict statements from the instructors in an inaccurate and distorted manner by taking their statements out of context and reordering the sequence in which those statements were actually made so as to change their meaning.  Such selective editing is disturbing and the release of students’ images without their permission is a violation of their privacy rights.
We want to underscore our commitment to the importance of academic freedom, freedom of speech and the free-flowing discussion of challenging topics in our courses. We also recognize the serious responsibilities this places on us to ensure a balanced perspective is offered to our students within our curriculum.
In this particular case, we also affirm our belief that studying labor unions, their history, and their role in society is an important subject given the role they have played and continue to play in the United States and the world.  As a result, we continue to review the appropriate place for such an offering within our curriculum.
During the course of our review the past couple days, UMSL has accepted the resignation of its lecturer.


Statement from Gail Hackett, Provost
University of Missouri-Kansas City

Context, Editing and “Pedagogical Explanations”

Context, Editing and “Pedagogical Explanations” 

As the debate and various blogging and anti-blogging deconstructs the words of Judy Ancel, noted communist union organizer in Missouri, the most pivotal video becomes the flashpoint: the advocacy of violence to achieve political results.

Ancel’s explanation is that this is out of context in heavily edited videos displaying a pedagogical explanation.

It would be odd to make an entire fuss over just one snippet, one 10 second statement in one classroom among the 3000 four year colleges in the country. There are millions of adults in college, were these 20 the only that mattered? Surely Judy Ancel doesn’t deserve this kind of news attention! This was just a pedagogical explanation!

Are pedagogical explanations everywhere at risk of similarly being taken out of context in heavily edited videos in the blogosphere?

No. Clearly not. Ancel was not giving a pedagogical explanation, she was rebutting the point made directly before, about shunning non-violence. When one student mentioned that one should follow in the social change model of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Judy Ancel rebutted that point by using a quotation from a former SNCC leader who made the simple observation that violence is an appropriate political tactic.

At least some in the audience did not take away that she was just offering a “pedagogical explanation” but was offering a larger discussion about appropriate political tactics. Mere minutes earlier the statement was made that “no tactics are off the table.”

What tactics would have been off the table? Why, clearly, the tactic of political violence.

Judy cited to the example of revolutions. Previously she had noted that terrorism was a tactic to use that was no longer called terrorism when it was successful.

Let’s say that again so that it’s perfectly clear, terrorism against the people, political violence, leads to revolutions. Revolutions then clean up the historical record and make their people look like freedom fighters, but their tactics were legitimate. Judy seeks radical political change, Judy is a revolutionary. Judy endorses the use of political violence to get results, she just wants it to be successful to be a revolution.

There’s no way to sugarcoat this, and no way to spin this so that it denies the truth of what Ancel is saying: violence is a legitimate and desirable political tactic, terrorism, when it leads to a successful revolution.

The only reason there’s any squirming here is because she’s caught, in the sunlight, with her own words in public view. Judy no doubt expected this seminar to go off splendidly by introducing radicalism into her organizers without any problems. She thought that these casual mentions of political violence wouldn’t be noticed, after all they never had before. Judy thought that she could get them to see a bigger range of options, to use terrorism against businesses, to help bring in the FBI for a week to shut down a business.

Is that someone who thinks that violence isn’t an appropriate political tactic?

What Judy is caught saying is entirely in context with every other salacious thing said at this conference.

Judy wanted to teach these young organizers how to use violence, how to suggest violence, how to use soft terrorism in order to get political results.

She’s only sorry she’s been caught. This was not a “pedagogical explanation” it was a prescription for political tactics. Her explanation was that this was an effective tactic and ought to be considered.

The more Judy Ancel is put into context, the worse her words get. The University of Missouri system ought to be ashamed during these tough economic times, when so many workers are out of work, for spending money and supporting people like Ancel who suggest violence to shut down businesses and hurt other workers.

There’s no pedagogical explanation that can defend what she’s said.

Hilarious: UMKC tries to cover for Judy Ancel

To Whom it Concerns:

As many of you know, in recent days, heavily edited recordings of our class discussions have been posted on a variety of third-party political blogs and websites. Many of these videos feature clearly identifiable images and recordings of students, whose personal information (including such information as home address) is easily accessed via the UMKC student directory.

A quick perusal of the comments sections on the blogs and websites where these videos are posted will yield a host of threats, attempts to intimidate, and calls for violence and/or legal action against the students and teachers featured. These threats are reactions to opinions that were often not even those of the students or teachers featured, but rather pedagogical explanations of the positions expressed by historic figures in the field of labor relations.

Student records are protected by the Family Educational Rights Privacy Act, and to release those records without consent is both a violation of federal law, and a disservice to one's fellow students and citizens, especially when those records have been doctored in such a way as to engender the violent reaction that can be found on the various websites that are posting them. I would encourage those of you who feel that our privacy and safety should be respected and protected to contact the both the University and the Family Policy Compliance Office of the U.S. Department of Education to let them know you expect these videos to be removed and that you expect the persons responsible for this violation of your privacy to be held accountable.

Sincerely,
Stephen Davis