College pro-life group threatens legal action for desecration of cross display
During the predawn hours of April 20, Western Kentucky University student Elaina Smith desecrated a display that had been erected by pro-life group Hilltoppers for Life by draping condoms over each of the 3,700 crosses that had been constructed to memorialize the number of children killed each day by abortion in the U.S.
Hilltoppers had received permission from the university for their display.
But when members of the group called campus police to stop Smith, they came but stood by, claiming they “couldn’t do anything because the condoms aren’t actually vandalization.”
Smith said the condoms were part of an art project. WBKO reported “[h]er Art Professor, Kristina Arnold, says she did not disprove of the idea and that she encourages learning.”
The WBKO story (which includes video of Smith desecrating the display) added Smith had apologized for her actions, but she has not. Last night Students for Life of America was forwarded this email from Smith:
From: “Smith, Elaina, C”
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 3:11 PM
Subject: Elaina Smith
During the week of April 16th, the Hilltoppers for Life’s pro-life display remained un-interrupted. The student body tolerated this intrusion without major incident. The voice of the pro-life community was heard. On the last day of this event, I attempted to add to the visual dialogue with my own voice and was met with strong resistance. I take this subject very seriously, and had hoped to remind people of the effectiveness of condoms and other forms of contraception in preventing unwanted pregnancies. I do not ask that everyone agree with my point of view or the way in which I tried to express it. However, I stand by my actions. I do not believe that I impeded anyone else’s freedom of expression. I did not break any laws. I did not damage any property. I voluntarily removed the condoms even though I was not required to do so. At the time, I thought that the matter had ended there. I do not feel that I should apologize for attempting to exercise the freedoms that we all are entitled to.
Elaina Smith
This morning Alliance Defense Fund sent a letter to WKU President Dr. Gary Ransdell on behalf of Hilltoppers, expressing hope to “resolve this matter amicably” but listing stipulations for that to happen, including public apologies from Smith and the head of campus security, assurances that Smith would not get credit for her “visual dialogue,” and disclosure of who purchased and supplied Smith with the condoms.
ADF also requested all university documents that discussed Hilltoppers and Elaina Smith’s involvement in Kristina Arnold’s art class from January 1, 2012 to present.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
This isn’t quite as bad as the vandalism described in Jill’s article, but there was, of course, vandalism just in the past couple weeks on the campus of my alma mater too.
http://dartreview.com/dartlog/2012/4/18/cemetery-of-the-innocents-under-assault.html
Is there any action that CAN’T be justified under the specious pretext of “art”?
This is so disgusting! Who gave her permission to desecrate another person’s display? I am appalled. If she wishes to make a piece of art, then she should make her own, not destroy another’s! This is sickening! Just sick.
Maybe whoever purchased 3,700 condoms for this should have donated them to help all those college students at Georgetown who “can’t afford” their contraception.
The student body tolerated this intrusion without major incident.
It’s not an “intrusion” if you have permission to be there.
Amen to that, Kate.
Well, I guess if she ever has a display of art in the public in the future… She wouldn’t mind if someone went around covering it with crosses or statues of the Virgin Mary, right? Because its not damaging anything? I hate this ‘modern art’ BS… It’s not art, you’re not clever, and you aren’t ‘breaking boundaries’… Admit that you’re never going to be a talented master like DaVinci and GET A REAL MAJOR. Lol.
I agree with guest. I’m anxious to know where she got those 3700 condoms. If she believes they are so great at preventing unwanted pregnancy, wouldn’t it have made much more sense to give them to “needy” sexually active college students, rather than waste them on desecrating a display?
I don’t see anything that Miss Smith has to apologize for. Just as Hilltopper’s for Life was expressing their view by erecting crosses to illustrate how many abortions are performed each day in the US, Miss Smith was expressing her viewpoint by showing how many abortions could be prevented in the first place by consistently using birth control. Miss Smith had permission to be there, removed the condoms when she was finished, and did no lasting damage to the memorial. It is not freedom unless both sides are allowed to express their opinions.
Michelle, if this girl wanted to express her side of things in a mature and respectful manner, she should have gotten a permit from the university and created her own display, just like the pro-life group did. There’s no excuse for vandalism.
Michelle: Smith was predatory on someone else’s art. If you’re justifying that — game on.
Mods, will you give me permission to edit Michelle’s future posts?
To use a rude locution, if you think the first amendment means free speech is its best contribution to society when it most resembles a mash-up cluster-fark, you’re stoned out of your gourd.
Michelle – so you are OK if I go get a rubber stamp that says “abortion is murder” and travel around stamping it on every pro-choice poster, flyer, display, etc that I can find? Heck, maybe I will stamp it on the foreheads of a few people standing around holding “I support Planned Parenthood” signs. After all, I am just expressing my viewpoint, right? It’s not freedom unless both sides get to express their opinions, right? They can wash it off their foreheads, so no lasting damage, right? Give me a break.
Bryan, please do that.
Personally, Brian, my own art form will consist of projecting 180 degree out of phase sound wherever people who happen to oppose my ideas are speaking, in ways that create silence. It should be easy, since I’m apparently entitled to inject this signal into the equipment they provide for their own use.
Ironically, this silence will be engendered as a consequence of my projecting exactly the same things as my opponents, acoustically.
Thus in doubling the power of their own speech will I create silence. Now that’s art!
@Michelle: By the phrase “did no lasting damage” you imply that you agree some temporary damage was indeed done to the memorial. Hilltoppers for Life is not interfering with Smith’s ability to express her view by expressing theirs. Smith has every right to have her say, but she does not have the right to damage the chosen method of expression used by those who disagree with her.
So every fetus that’s aborted is Christian? Who knew!
And FYI, Tyler, stamping stuff on people’s foreheads, without their permission, is considered assault.
The popsicle crosses were on university property (bleachers). The bleachers weren’t damaged. There was no damage to the crosses. The condoms were removed. A student display was “interfered” with – not “vandalized.” Rude, yes – criminal, no.
The people who put up displays like this are professional victims who go baiting for any sort of adverse response that they can spin as vandalism or oppression in order to boost their own profile. “Waaaaah, they put condoms on our dinky little plastic crosses for 10 minutes to take a picture for an art project! Send in the lawyers!” Pretty pathetic.
Can it really be considered YOUR art project if you simply take someone else’s display and add something to it? That’s not very original, Ms. Smith… and it’s kind of lazy. If I were your teacher you would definately NOT be getting an “A for Effort” since there wasn’t much effort involved.
joan- Come on. You KNOW that if the Hilltoppers for Life had gone decided to place crosses on a Planned Parenthood display that the entire COUNTRY would be in an uproar. Cecile Richards would hold a press conference and Sandra Fluke would go on The View crying her little eyes out about the outrageous, hating, racist, sexist, dangerous, ignorant, bullying of the pro-life movement.
Go to Arlington National Cemetery and put condoms on those crosses for “art.” Let’s see how far you get.
CC – pay attention – my name is Bryan, not Tyler – I guess all those mental gymnastics trying to justify your culture of death are straining your brain
and I am just being artistic and expressing my views – it’s not freedom unless both sides get their say, right? no permanent harm, right? after all, those foreheads were in a public place – I will wash their foreheads for them if they want once I am finished – those people that hold those “I support PP” signs are just professional victims – pretty pathetic – I am just “interfering,” not assaulting – it’s not assault, it’s “art” – get with the program
Go to Arlington National Cemetery and put condoms on those crosses for “art.” Let’s see how far you get.
Right, Arlington National Cemetery is equivalent to bleachers, adorned with cheap plastic crosses, at a university. Really?
I guess all those mental gymnastics trying to justify your culture of death are straining your brain
Sorry Bryan. And speaking of straining the brain, periods are customarily used at the ends of sentences. Once again – stamping things on people’s faces, without permission, is assault.
But as Joan notes, ain’t no party like a “pro-life” pity party. But not to worry, this is quite the story over at the Fox News website and Fox Nation. Roger Ailes has your back!
Accessorizing crosses with condoms hardly compares to the type of vandalism experienced by Planned Parenthood. Just recently, a nice “pro-lifer” detonated an explosive device at a Texas clinic. Makes the condom caper look like child’s play. Ya think!
CC – now you sound like one of those “professional victims who go baiting for any sort of adverse response that they can spin as vandalism or oppression in order to boost their own profile”
and it was Wisconsin, not Texas – you really seem to be having trouble today – do you need some help? try http://www.abortionrecovery.org/
Don’t feed the trolls (CC, joan), y’all…
I know you are right, but it is so much fun, Paladin
You forgot “Michelle”, Paladin ;)
My only real concern is the art teacher supporting the act – teachers helping students detroy the artworks of other students should not happen in any school.
CC: And you can’t even conceive the possibility that the guy who lit an incendiary device on a Sunday evening might be the father of an aborted baby? These types of rage-based actions are very commonly done by parents of aborted babies. Any one who has spent time praying outside abortion centers has experienced the fury of people enraged by the sight of a rosary or an artistic rendition of an embryo in the womb. Abortion advocates often talk about peace and love while they endorse the brutal mutilation of children in the womb.
We pro-lifers have found that standing up to bullies does cause the bully to back off. I’m pleased to see the Kentucky students stand up to this vandal.
OK folks, by the proabort logic here you can “interfere” with anyone’s property as long as you don’t actually damage it. So by proabort logic the following would merely be considered “rude” actions:
-Set a cross on fire next to a black person’s home
-Put a noose on the neck of the statue of a black person
-Tape some swastikas to a Jewish person’s front door
The “interference” with the prolife display is the equivalent of Westboro Baptist “Church” leaving the safety of public streets and going right into a church during the funeral for a soldier, and placing their “Thank God For Dead Soldiers” sign on top of the casket.
What would the university do if the pro life group had not got a permit and just put up their display?
What would the university do if the pro life group had added images of aborted fetuses to a pro choice display?
The university’s response is very poor form. The student should be suspended.
At least two of ADF’s demands–that they be told what credit she will receive and that they be informed about disciplinary action–arguably could not be met without violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
The Hilltoppers for Life were wronged, but there is such a thing as overplaying the victim card.
@LisaC: I don’t know about the credit one. They didn’t ask to know what credit she would get, but to know that she wouldn’t receive any. Basically, to be told that an arguably criminal act would not be validated as a legitimate academic practice. The discipline one, though, I agree on. That would be tricky for the school to follow through on without overstepping going the other direction. I have a feeling the “disciplinary action against Dr. Arnold” demand will be a sticky one as well. I can’t imagine any university willingly acceding to that request no matter how outrageous the conduct of the professor in question.
I suspect, though, that the ADF isn’t expecting WKU to meet all of these demands so much as it wants the university to know that they are willing to make them. A lot of the letter reads like a “We are big, scary lawyers. PH3AR US!!!” act rather than a strict list of things that absolutely must happen or else. Which isn’t to say that I don’t think the ADF is serious, or that they wouldn’t actually take WKU to court if it came to that, or even that they wouldn’t be perfectly happy if the university just waves the white flag at the outset. But there is something to be said for trying to intimidate your opponent at the beginning of a confrontation, which, I suspect is the main purpose of a lot of the letter. Especially that last sentence.
Ok, so “bromance” is the word we use now to describe two guys who are fast friends. What should we call the relationship between cc and Joan? Trollmance? Trollove? You owe us, ladies: you never would have found each other had it not been for us pro-lifers, ;>).
cc, I would like to see you post video of yourself putting condoms on someone else’s art display. That would be Oscar-worthy. Oscar-the-Grouch worthy, that is.
So, according to the campus police draping condoms on stuff is not vandalism on the campus of Western Kentucky University. Fine, someone up there please acquire a box of condoms and drape them all across the police station door handles and squad cars and see if they then think it is not some kind of violation. (You might want to wait until after finals.)
I would never wear such a dress, but I saw some very couture-looking dresses made out of condoms on the internet last year. Tacky, sure, but some of them took a lot of work to make. Someone needs to educate Miss Smith that if she wants to be an artist, she needs to actually do some work, the kind that takes skill and talent. I also agree with some of the other commenters and I think Smith and Arnold should reveal who their condom benefactor was; I’m sure it would speak volumes. When I was in college, having money to waste on 3,000 condoms would have been quite a luxury.
To be fair, I also find the crosses not to be art, either, but they were meant as a statement, not an art project.
cc, you know I jest with you out of love! Or is it joust? LOL!
Elaina understands that promiscuous sex and bad condoms lead to abortions.
She’s deliberately trying to push buttons. Instead – play her game and flip it on her.
I think it actually adds to the statement the pro-lifer’s are making in a weird way.
For starters, she removed a whole mess of 17% failure rate condoms from their designed use. It strongly says to me “If you use these condoms, you’ll have to go through a painful abortion fi you don’t want your child.”
Also she’s making a strong “sexualizing the children statement” by putting them on the crosses. What a novel way of promoting Planned Parenthood and abortionist’s predatory practices on the young and innocent.
Maybe she’s making a statement about the sex of these children? If so maybe she wants to put condoms only 50% of the crosses?
Do tell Elaina….
Did she obtain the condoms from Planned Parenthood as free supplies?
If so, her “artwork” might be publicly funded.
Sue her and in the discovery process have her produce receipts for her little project. That a great discovery question ADF.
Would prove very interesting if Planned Parenthood provided the materials.
It is when we reach the lowest of common denominators that our resident trolls come out from underneath their rocks to spew their nastiness. Nothing excites trolls more than the crude antics of their fellow travelers.
LisaC: I don’t know about the credit one. They didn’t ask to know what credit she would get, but to know that she wouldn’t receive any. Basically, to be told that an arguably criminal act would not be validated as a legitimate academic practice.
Well, ‘no credit’ means getting an F, and FERPA prohibits releasing grades without the student’s permission. I don’t know, but my guess is that that’s how the University’s lawyers will handle it.
Fine, someone up there please acquire a box of condoms and drape them all across the police station door handles and squad cars and see if they then think it is not some kind of violation.
It would probably be littering.
one can not make art by using another’s materials, property or public display without that other person’s consent. The student who ‘added’ to the display did so without permission from the university or the pro-life group that did get proper permission for their display.
The student did get permission from her art teacher. But that teacher did not get permission from the pro-life group to augment or change the PL display, and she did not got permission from the school administration for any display. The teacher, for sure, was way out of line. If any of her own art projects – paintings, sculpture or anything else was tampered with, augmented or changed without her permission YOU CAN BE SURE she would have screamed to high heaven with complaint.
The school should apologize, and the teacher should be reprimanded. The student should have some discipline/warning – and both should make an apology to the PL group and the school.
That the school would look the other way, even though this is a small matter versus actual damage to property or person, it still is serious and important. As a good parent does – when those in their charge misbehave, the discipline should be just and swift and proper. And if they let it go or look the other way, they will invite more mayhem.
Free speech is great. Art is wonderful….and purposely changing an approved display without permission from the school or creators is an abuse. Want to make a statement? Make your own art/statement/display and get permission. but it’s hands-off another’s display.
She’s supposed to be an art student, and she couldn’t come up with anything “artistic” on her OWN?
Her parents must be so proud of how she’s spending their money! (SARCASM)
Whenever I see a Planned Parenthood advert, or a Pro-Choice poster of any sort, I will douse it with red paint. Water-based, of course, so you can wash it right off and it will cause no lasting damage. You see, it symbolizes the blood of all the children who’ve lost their lives at Planned Parenthood clinics for the sake of Pro-Choice ideals.
Also, LisaC:
They wanted to be sure she would not receive credit for THAT assignment. It would be up to the professor’s discretion to allow the student to make-up the assignment by doing a different one, or not. Also, “no credit” does not equal “F”. Even if this was the only assignment she was allowed to submit, and received no credit for it, that doesn’t mean that her grade for the class will be an “F”, there would be no way for anyone besides herself or her instructor to know how her grade averaged, and I don’t know what you’re smokin’, but nobody is asking for that information, either. I’m afraid you’re grasping at straws.
Somebody ought to t.p. the office of the campus police and ask if that’s vandalism.
of course not, Hans! Especially if the white bands of TP are symbols of their oppression of free expression of the students! :P
outstanding!!!
@ CC, joan, michelle: thanks for the great posts. you are making the poor things (who need to look up ‘vandalism’ in a dictionary so as not to use it improperly) run around in small circles wetting themselves. i wish i had contact information for elaina smith so i could thank her also. she is a hero!
is that Mill Run as in abortion “mill”? and “run”ning from the truth?
Running around in small circles? Wetting themselves? LOL
I heart the newbies.
They wanted to be sure she would not receive credit for THAT assignment. It would be up to the professor’s discretion to allow the student to make-up the assignment by doing a different one, or not. Also, “no credit” does not equal “F”. Even if this was the only assignment she was allowed to submit, and received no credit for it, that doesn’t mean that her grade for the class will be an “F”, there would be no way for anyone besides herself or her instructor to know how her grade averaged, and I don’t know what you’re smokin’…
I’m just high on the Code of Federal Regulations, and no, I wasn’t talking about the student’s course grade–‘no credit’ on a graded assignment is an F. What one calls an ‘F’ or ‘no credit,’ though, is irrelevant. FERPA prohibits, with limited exceptions, revealing anything about a student’s academic performance. That includes course grades, grades on individual assignments, and even attendance. Quoting from a handy summary on USD’s website:
Such things as progress in a course, deficiencies in a subject area, scores and grades on papers, exams, etc. are all examples of personally identifiable information that make up part of the student’s education record. This information is protected under FERPA.
However, any general statement on the professor’s syllabus about an assignment (e.g. ‘no credit will be given to installations that damage property’) would not be covered by FERPA. And if Ms. Smith were to tell another student if she got credit and that student then relayed it to a third party, it also would not be a FERPA violation.
Addendum:
I’m not saying that I know the University will stand on the FERPA issue. But it’s a possibility.
[Paladin]
Don’t feed the trolls (CC, joan), y’all…
[Pamela]
You forgot “Michelle”, Paladin ;)
:) Good catch… I forgot the disclaimer:
“This list of trolls does not pretend to be comprehensive.”
@Bryan: at least wash your hands when you’re done, all right? :) You don’t know where those trolls have been…
Ninek wrote:
Ok, so “bromance” is the word we use now to describe two guys who are fast friends. What should we call the relationship between cc and Joan? Trollmance? Trollove? You owe us, ladies: you never would have found each other had it not been for us pro-lifers, ;>).
Gaah!! Let me borrow a phrase from Jack, and say: you owe me for the labour and materials needed for my next brain-bleaching, Ninek! Good heavens… :)
Carla wrote:
Running around in small circles? Wetting themselves? LOL. I heart the newbies.
I hesitate to use the image (especially after Ninek’s last colourful comment), but: it seems that the trolls are breeding, and we’re witnessing the results of a new troll birth! I wonder if trolls are pro-life with respect to their own offspring, so long as the offspring are confirmed trolls… hm.
All these trolls look alike to me. It is funny to see them make excuses for what was essentially a hate crime committed with the consent of a professor.
Incidentally, did anyone actually watch the video? It goes thusly: (emphasis added, and some “ums,” etc excerpted.
Hilltopper for Life: Hello! I understand what you’re doing. It’s not a problem. I can’t do anything to stop you because we’re taking them down. But we are going to film you, so be prepared for that.” [Explains that Students for Life of America told them to call if anything happened.] “If this is for a class, I mean, that’s fine. We are taking them down in literally four or five hours, so you probably want to be done. So if you want to continue, we are going to film you.”
Art students: “All right.”
Hilltopper for Life: “It’s up to you.”
Art students: “Is there any way I could get a copy of that?”
[Discussion ensues, in which Hilltopper says that he’ll check with Students for Life about giving them a copy]
Hilltopper for Life: “I really don’t…we’re doing to be taking them down. And if you all are still working, we’re going to be taking them down. So you probably won’t be finished. This was a weeklong thing, we’re done tomorrow, so.”
Art students: “Yeah, that’s why she waited until the end of the week.”
Hilltopper for Life: “Okay. Right, cause we didn’t want any vandalism, and honestly, this is an organized response. So I’m not really saying, ‘Stop! Because if somebody was ripping them down and pulling them apart…”
Art students: “No.”
Hilltopper for Life: “...we would try to stop them, ’cause that is destruction. But this is…”
Art student: “Oh, we understand that.”
Hilltopper for Life: “Right. I’m just letting you know, I’d like to film this so we have good documentation. Okay?”
Art student: “Awesome.”
Hilltopper for life: “Okay.”
Art student: “We could take the whole thing down for you. If you don’t take it down tomorrow, she could…”
Hilltopper for life: “No, we’re saving the crosses…”
Art student: “All right.”
Hilltopper for life: “Because those were a hefty expense on us. So just so you’re aware, we’re going to film. Okay?”
Art students: “Okay.”
Hilltopper for life: “All right.”
[Several minutes pass, in which Hilltoppers follow art students to document]
Second video, which apparently begins after Hilltoppers consulted with Students For Life. Video begins mid-conversation.
Art student: “…I just think it’s kind of weird that you’re allowed to express yourself and I’m not.”
Hilltopper for life: “Certainly. But we did follow the proper channels…”
Art student: “So did I.”
Hilltopper for life: “But we need documentation of that. I’m just going by what our representative told us based on his experience with very similar cases of this sort of stuff. Many other campuses have put up Cemeteries of the Innocents, and what we’re going by is what his experiences have told him, as far as vandalism is concerned. He said it was vandalism, and said if there’s not documentation, there’s not approval, then we can contact the administration about this.”
Art student: “Okay. I’d like to see your documentation.”
Hilltopper for life: “Okay. Follow me.”
Art student: “We’d rather you do it up here.”
Hilltopper for life: “Okay. Matt, can you get the…” [inaudible] “be right back.”
[Third video begins, students still putting condoms on crosses. Inaudible conversation between art students. Hilltopper returns showing documentation of permission to put on display, showing that the display ends on the 20th.]
Art student: “And this is signed by who?
[Hilltopper for Life is not sure; search for business cards, eventually produces name]
Art student: “Okay. So, it’s the twentieth.”
Hilltopper for life: “Certainly…So we are taking them down, literally, in two-and-a-half to three hours.”
Art student: “Okay.”
Hilltopper for life: “So that was the agreed time to take it down, so we do have permission to be here. But the question is, and remains, do you have written documentation that says that you can put this up. ‘Cause otherwise, we can simply take it down before anyone sees it.”
Art student: “Yeah, that’s okay. This is for a class. As long as it gets done. She has permission to do this, so she’s asked for every other installation piece she’s done…We both have permission to be here…There’s no need to be…”
[Video ends.]
According to the student newspaper, the campus police came when called, said that the incident was not vandalism but the art student would be charged with criminal littering if they did not pick up after themselves. “Once police informed Sohl [Hilltopper for Life] of Smith’s intent to remove the condoms, Sohl said “that changes everything; that will be fine,” according to the incident report. The report states that Sohl’s primary concern was his group having to remove the condoms themselves as they picked up the display.”
So the story being told by the ADF does not seem to match either what the Hilltoppers for Life’s own video shows, or what the campus police’s incident report shows. If the Hilltoppers had ever actually told the art student that they considered the condoms desecration, or even told them to stop, that would be one thing. Apparently, they didn’t. This appears to be an issue largely manufactured by Students for Life.
This is what I mean by ‘Overplaying the victim card.’
Sorry for the eye bleach, P!
Overplaying the victim card, oh yeah, I’ve seen that on the television, they’re calling it the War on Women. I call THAT overplaying the victim card. LOL!
I’m completely baffled by the people who think this is ok. If this girl was displaying artwork and I draped sheets over them , promising to remove them whenever I was done making my statement…..that’s ok? You can’t tamper with other people’s property in the name of free speech.
@LisaC: That is really disappointing. It sounds like Hilltoppers for Life virtually gave this chick permission. :( Good catch, though.
Why waste condoms? Condoms should not be wasted but used for the very important purposes of preventing unwanted pregnancies and preventing STDs.
Don’t waste condoms!
Amusingly, the Hilltoppers for Life are now saying on their Facebook page that they did not request the involvement of ADF. It is unclear whether ADF is actually representing them at all.
I guess they didn’t understand how a video sting is supposed to work.
No, it sounds like they’re new at large-scale displays, had never had one tampered with, asked for advice, and didn’t like the advice they were given. That doesn’t sound too unusual.
I think some other art students should have come along and replaced the crosses with Qurans (leaving the condoms atop them).
I wonder what the condom artists would think about being thus credited with desecrating Islam, though the simple application of a categorical imperative to their expedient of adulterating others’ expression.
After the school said they said sorry (and that is just stupid you say sorry and everything is alright??) and she found it was a lie I would have retained a lawyer ans sent her the papers that they are being sued for what ever they can.
This is like when the liberals put the Virgin Mary in elephant dong, how dare they. That shows they have no moral compass.
Elaina is obviously not mature enough to even fully comprehend her actions. There are probably several guys lining up so she can show them other uses for condoms too. Sadly, she is an abortion waiting to happen. And she does deserve to be sentenced with a criminal fine and community service to teach her a lesson in the need to respect other people. And her professor deserves to be sentenced to twice the fine and triple the community service for her role in the desecration.
This group of pro-life college students seemed too gentle in their response to the abuse of the condom gang. They should follow it up with another project and by assisting Elaina from getting a ‘no-credit’ on her art assignment. They could redecorate the college campus office of the nutty professor with posters of aborted fetuses and offer Elaina a chance to pin any left over condoms to the posters as a make up art assignment.
LisaC,
Thanks for being our stenographer but the students did not give them permission. They said they could not stop her AFTER they were told by Elaina that she had gotten permission from school administrators to hang condoms on their display. The smallness of your mind is showing when you can’t even condemn such an obvious act of vandalism.
rasqual,
They don’t desecrate muslim sacramentals because they are afraid that the local muslim IMAM would declare a fatwah against them and kill them.
Steve,
There are no such worries for them when they desecrate Christian sacramentals. The Lord can take care of Himself.
LisaC,
Thanks for being our stenographer but the students did not give them permission. They said they could not stop her AFTER they were told by Elaina that she had gotten permission from school administrators to hang condoms on their display. The smallness of your mind is showing when you can’t even condemn such an obvious act of vandalism.
Hee! There’s a body of research suggesting that when ideologues are presented with objective evidence that their arguments are wrong, they simply become more convinced instead of reevaluating their claims. I wondered how long it would be before someone here illustrated that theory.
Hilltoppers for Life’s own video shows that Ms. Smith didn’t even speak until after the videographer said it’s “not a problem” and if it was for a class, “that’s fine.” The video is right here. But hey, don’t let evidence pop your bubble.
For the people who keep bringing up Islam: your imaginary examples almost had me convinced that Ms. Smith is, indeed, a Christian-hating, Muslim-fearing hypocrite who would never have put a condom on a Koran made of Popsicle sticks. But then I asked myself, “Why would a Muslim make an object s/he considers sacrosanct out of Popsicle sticks and duct-tape it a stadium bleacher in the first place?” And then I asked myself, “Why would anyone over the age of seven think that any object made of Popsicle sticks and duct-taped to a stadium bleacher was meant to be held sacrosanct? Doesn’t a Popsicle-stick figure, by its very nature, fail to inspire reverence?” And so not only did you lose me on the “Christian-hating, Muslim-fearing hypocrite” front, but you also left me thinking that whoever came up with the Popsicle-stick idea for this particular Cemetery of Innocents is sort of a doofus.
Also, did the Hilltoppers for Life have to eat eight thousand Popsicles to come up with the sticks, which seems excessive, or did they just melt them and throw them away, which seems wasteful? And, of course, who paid for the eight thousand Popsicles, which the Hilltopper for Life on the video identified as a “hefty expense?”
You can buy popsicle sticks at craft stores.
Well Lrning obviously that is also just a waste. Why spend money on popsicle sticks that you can get for free inside a popsicle? That money could have gone to all the baybeez that those rascally pro-lifers always claim to want to save but hate after birth! /sarcasm.
The point is not what is said to be the point. If the student group did not buy the popsicle sticks new, or eat or melt the popsicles to get the sticks, if they had instead accepted donated popsicle sticks (I used to help an elderly woman who compulsively saved paper towel tubes because she could not bear throwing out something potentially useful; rather than fight her on it I merely got her in touch with a local school, who took her donated paper towel tubes and used them in craft projects, and that way she felt useful and thrifty while they got something they needed) then they would be taking popsicle sticks away from poor underprivileged children who have no popsicle sticks of their own. And so forth. See, the actual point is that there is absolutely nothing that you can do that is not a waste, of money or time or resources, when it comes to mounting a protest to abortion.
As for the actual artistic criticism of the popsicle-stick crosses, I can only disagree. I find a kind of plainsong beauty in everyman forms of art. For example, with all the flying that is the rage in professional theater these days – it seems every Broadway production has someone flying in it, even when it’s out of context – the most effective “flying” I saw in the last two years involved no actual flying at all. It was an off-Broadway production of Peter Pan and all “flying” was clever visual illusions instead – set pieces with seesaw units hidden in them, etc. Stuff any high school shop could have built. There is certainly a place for genius and talent, but there is also a place for populist everyday efforts. It’s the difference between an opera and the songs we used to sing each night, together, at my summer camp. Being a good singer, hitting high notes, coming up with unusual harmonies or riffs was not the point of the songs we sang at camp. They were simple melodies that everyone could sing, and so we all sang them together. They were simple so as to be accessible to every person who there. When it comes to public displays of this nature, I think that something grassroots and accessible indicates the breadth and scope of the support for that movement and thus is actually an effective artistic tool. Genius talent and originality are top-down efforts. This is showing bottom-up support.
Alexandra said,
“Doesn’t a Popsicle-stick figure, by its very nature, fail to inspire reverence?”
No less than a golden cross to a Christian Alexandra. I find it disingenuos of you (or dissappointing at best) to think you really do not understand…It is not the cross that is sacrosanct; it is what the cross symbolizes. Are you having a bad day?
Alexandra said:
Hilltoppers for Life’s own video shows that Ms. Smith didn’t even speak until after the videographer said it’s “not a problem” and if it was for a class, “that’s fine.”
But the email from the student who desecrated the exhibit stated:
“I attempted to add to the visual dialogue with my own voice and was met with strong resistance”
Who do we believe Alexandra? You or the quote from the person that was there actually committing the vandalism? Was Elaina lying about being met with strong resistance?
LisaC: Thanks for the wonderful reasoning. Public schoolchildren are now free to put crosses made of trivial materials all over public school property all the time, because there’s nothing conceivably sacred about them on account of their material composition.
Nice to know schools won’t have as problem with that! Litigation will now cease to involve symbolic expression, since the materials are the principle determinant of whether a thing is religiously significant!
Alexandra,
Above post should have been directed as LisaC not you.
Rasqual,
Does that mean all of those memorial crosses along roadsides and on military installations etc should get to stay as long as they are made of wood or can they only be made of popsicle sticks? LisaC wasn’t completely clear on wether or not all wood cannot be made holy.
LisaC. Lets take this to trial. I’ll be the attorney for the Hilltoppers for Life and you be Elaina Smith. I have you on the stand and I ask you.
1) Elaina, what did you mean when you said that you had approval from the school to hang condoms on the exhibit?
2) In your email to Student’s for Life what did you mean when you stated that you were met with strong resistance when you tried to “add your own voice” to the other students exhibit?
Did you get a read of that sign that the condom-hanging girl had posted. It is at the start of the video. The condom hanging girlwrites ”For me each condom represents an unwanted pregnancy that could have been prevented.” Her ‘raging’ battle against unwanted pregnancy is spilling over onto the Hilltopper’s exercise of their pro-life protest. She probably takes the pill too and doesn’t even realize that taking BC makes it harder to prevent unwanted pregnancy cause your ovulation cycle is constantly getting disrupted. I hope she gets a chance to read this post and wakes up her senses so she can smell the stink she is raging for and that she may open her heart to welcoming the beauty of the life that she is raging against.
In the second video the condom hanging girl stated that she followed the proper channels in getting aprroval to hang condoms on their exhibit. She is a liar. Granted, she was just following the lead of another guy that was with her who said that during the prior confrontation.
LisaC,
I like your spunky ridicule of the pro-life students and their little display. Funny.
By the way, weren’t you the girl in Schindler’s List yelling “Goodbye Jews!”?
LisaC. Lets take this to trial. I’ll be the attorney for the Hilltoppers for Life and you be Elaina Smith. I have you on the stand and I ask you.
Truthseeker, I’m very, very sorry to be the one to break this to you, but if you want to play attorney, maybe like you’ve seen on TV, you have to look at evidence. Sometimes that means watching videos that go on for minutes, and reading things that go on for pages and pages. You can’t expect everyone else to do the work for you.
In your email to Student’s for Life what did you mean when you stated that you were met with strong resistance when you tried to “add your own voice” to the other students exhibit?
If you watch the videos, which go on, as I said, for many long minutes, you will see that Hilltoppers for Life initially did not object to Ms. Smith’s actions, but they did after talking to Students for Life. That’s what I meant when I said in my earlier post–and I know that it was several looooong paragraphs–that the issue was largely manufactured by Students for Life and that the Hilltoppers for Life are ‘overplaying the victim card.’ Do you know what ‘overplaying the victim card’ means, truthseeker? It means that even though I think that the threats of a lawsuit being made on their behalf is silly, I do think that what happened to the display wasn’t right.
Elaina, what did you mean when you said that you had approval from the school to hang condoms on the exhibit?
The faculty member who approved the project explained this in a statement that is, I’m sure, much too long for you to read. In brief, the professor says that art students had been working on a number of “installation projects” for the past ten weeks, and had altered each others’ work in the course of that time. According to the professor, because Hilltoppers for Life placed their display amidst several “installation projects” and on a spot where a project had stood the previous week. Ms. Smith believed that the location of the Hilltoppers’ display and their request for feedback indicated that they meant for other students to ‘interact’ with it. Clearly, she was wrong. However, given the context, the Hilltoppers perhaps should have told her, “No, this isn’t like the other projects” when she began, instead of what they actually told her, which was “It’s fine” and “If you want to continue…it’s up to you.” Maybe she’d have done it anyway, but you know what? The Hilltoppers would have a much more dramatic video if they had her putting on the condoms after they said “Stop” instead of “I’m not saying ‘stop.'”
Incidentally, according to the police report, when the Hilltoppers did eventually ask her to stop, it was because they didn’t want to do the pickup. I’ll link it in another post–not that anyone will bother to read it–to avoid having this one flagged as spam.
By the way, weren’t you the girl in Schindler’s List yelling “Goodbye Jews!”?
No, I was the tall guy. I think his name was ‘Oskar’ something.
Police report.
Nowhere in the police report does it say that the vandals had administrative permission to vandalize the other students exhibit. It says that they were told that they had permission from a professor to do it. If they did’ this police report only incriminates the professor. If thet didn’t then it incriminates the vandals. And there is room for the campus security to be discplined tfor stating in his report that he could not stop them cause they were not actually damaging the exhibit. What a bunch of bs. I guess that means he wouldn’t mind if they decorated his car with condoms too since they wouldn’t damage his car.
If you watch the videos, which go on, as I said, for many long minutes, you will see that Hilltoppers for Life initially did not object to Ms. Smith’s actions, but they did after talking to Students for Life.
LisaC, The first words out of the Hilltoppers mouth is ”we can’t stop you”. And even if you took that as permission you have admitted that permission had been withdrawn minutes later. So all your banter about having permission becomes meaningless bs once that permission was withdrawn. You know it is a lie for you to say the only reason they didn’t want condoms on their display was cause they didn’t want to clean them up. Does honesty even matter to you?
Lets look at the context honestly. Those crosses were placed by the Hilltoppers as memorial representations to stand up for the voices of the ones killed in abortion. And your story is that you can speak for these students and tell me it is fact that these same students would not be offended by someone draping condoms over their memorial. And for the record, if I were there they never would have gotten to hang those condoms. The question I would ask is when the condom gang informed the professor of their intent to desecrate the other students exhibit; why didn’t he/she mention it to the Hilltoppers?
LisaC,
No, no. Oskar Schindler and Roul Wallenberg were good friends of mine. Perhaps you weren’t that girl cheering on the Jews to the death camp. More likely, you were some girl disapproving of the dotted “i”s and crossed “t”s of Schindler’s List.
Does honesty even matter to you?
Yes, truthseeker, honesty is very important to me. Accuracy and nuance is also important to me, which is, I believe, where you and I part company.
No, no. Oskar Schindler and Roul Wallenberg were good friends of mine.
Along with the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy, no doubt. I’m not going to hazard a guess about my place in your fantasy life, and frankly, I’d probably rather not know.
Yes, truthseeker, honesty is very important to me.
Then you would honestly say the professor had no right to send other students out to hang condoms on the Hilltoppers for Life exhibit at 2:30am without at least notifiying the Hilltoppers of their intent. Why do you suppose they kept it hidden and did it under cover of night? Answer: to try and humiliate the Hilltoppers when people noticed the condoms the following morning. The professor should be suspended.