A Tale of Two Fliers: Censorship?

IVC's Rocky Horror: Take One.

Word has reached the Dissenters that there are TWO competing fliers for the upcoming production of Rocky Horror Picture Show. The first was designed, approved and distributed - only to be recalled -as sources say -  by ASIVC, who disapproved of the imagery. ASIVC, according to sources, said that the original flier could be used, but only if ASIVC as a co-sponsor was removed. (See above.)

The solution? A new flyer, absent the "offensive" imagery. (See below.)

One wonders if those at ASIVC who were offended by the imagery (if, indeed, sources were accurate) have seen the play or film or heard about artistic freedom or academic freedom or censorship. There is an infinite supply of material to be offended by. Good luck with that.

IVC's Rocky Horror: Take Two. 

We at Dissent encourage all to support the production which, according to feverish rumor dreams, may pay a actually sneaky homage to IVC's own Rocky. See for yourself.  And, until opening night, Thursday October 25 (Let's help them SELL OUT!), keep a watch for the surviving original fliers - still unconfiscated - delighting and offending viewers on campus bulletin boards everywhere. Hot patootie, bless my soul, I really love that Rock and Roll!



Rebel Girl acknowledges the assistance of others in reporting this story  (you know who you are) and regrets her inability to devote more time to it but she has been busy lately what with a full load of classes and complaints and lawyers and meetings.  She does what she can with what she has. 
*

laugh at the liar, the fool

In “less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country.” (Laughter)

Would I lie to you?
Would I lie to you honey?
Now would I say something that wasn't true?
I'm asking you sugar
Would I lie to you?

Lies
La la la la la la lies

I know where you been
And I know what you been doing
Don't lie to me

In Case You Missed It: Colleges responsible if they know a student is dangerous and they fail to act

from Inside Higher Ed:

Duty to Protect: California Supreme Court has determined public colleges in the state must warn and shield their students from violent acts. Experts say the ruling could have nationwide implications. 

"In a decision that experts say could have nationwide significance, the California Supreme Court has ruled that public colleges and universities have a duty to protect their students from potential violence in “school-sponsored activities.”

This overturns a lower court decision and allows a former University of California, Los Angeles, student to proceed with her lawsuit against the institution, stemming from when she was attacked in a classroom more than eight years ago.

Katherine Rosen, who was 20 years old at the time of the 2009 assault and in her junior year at UCLA, was working in her chemistry class and had bent over to put some items in her desk drawer. Without provocation, another student, Damon Thompson, came up behind her and stabbed her in the chest and neck with a kitchen knife.

Rosen survived, despite life-threatening injuries. Thompson was charged and found not guilty by reason by insanity. The institution's Counseling and Psychological Services had treated Thompson off and on; he had been diagnosed with major depressive disorder and possibly schizophrenia and reported hearing insults and voices in his dormitory and classrooms. The lawsuit alleges the university knew of his aggressive tendencies and should have warned and guarded Rosen."

While Rebel Girl hasn't read the ruling (she's been so busy these days!) it's interesting to note that a commentator pointed out that "the decision relied upon an earlier Delaware ruling that universities have 'a legal duty to regulate and supervise foreseeable dangerous activities occurring on its property,' including 'the negligent or intentional activities of third persons.'"

From the LA Times article on the same ruling:

"The unanimous decision, among the first of its kind in the nation, put California's colleges on notice that they may be held responsible if they know a student is dangerous and fail to take steps to control him and protect others.

Citing the 2007 Virginia Tech killings, the state high court said public colleges and universities in California 'have a special relationship with their students and a duty to protect them from foreseeable violence.'
...

UCLA officials knew Damon Thompson, Rosen's assailant, suffered from paranoid delusions and auditory hallucinations [emphasis by Rebel Girl] , had been barred from campus housing and had told a teaching assistant that he believed Rosen was demeaning him[emphasis by Rebel Girl], according to court records.

'Although a criminal act is always shocking to some degree,' Corrigan wrote, 'it is not completely unpredictable if a defendant is aware of the risk.'
...

UCLA had a violence prevention strategy, but they didn't do it properly,' Dell'Ario said.

'They didn't report this guy up the chain the way they should have, and when they finally figured it out, it was too late,' he said.

The ruling in Rosen's case was limited. It did not extend liability for violence committed on campus by a stranger unknown to college officials [emphasis by Rebel Girl] or for an alcohol-related death at a student party, he said."