New link on the right. This is Mills' attempt to get Washington's Supreme Court to review his appeal of the case. It very clearly breaks down Mills' grievances with WWU's suspending him, the way they handled the suspension, and the way the courts have--so far--treated the situation as a whole.
Click on "Appellant's Statement of Reasons for Direct Review" and then drag your cursor over the stupidly narrow image. When you see a magnifying glass, click with it and the image will--magically-- zoom in to a readable size.
If any of you still have the issue of the student with cancer--and Mills' hard statement to her when she vacillated between putting her work up in class or allowing fear to win over--stuck in your craw, then read his explanation on page 11. If
that doesn't convince you--at the very least--that it's possible this issue was blown out of proportion, and--more to the point--taken entirely out of any context, in order to highlight its emotional weight, then go back to looking for updates on the MySpace page for that
prostitute that "triggered" the downfall of Eliot Spitzer or price comparisons on bottles of Paris Hilton's
perfume or whatever you normally "read".
Can you tell that my favorite line appears at the end?:
"There are no Washington cases which address assertions that the existing disciplinary rules for university professors are unconstitutionally vague and chill the exercise of freedom of speech."
In other words: You've been served. Hello? Served. Is anyone out there?
Served!
