Month: March 2024

In his March 25, 2024 column, Daily Gazette writer Andrew Waite took Mayor John Safford to task, claiming Safford had failed to deliver on his campaign promise to bring civility to City Council meetings because of the audience behavior at the March 19 Saratoga Springs City Council meeting. The problem, according to Waite, is the “mayor’s failure to establish meaningful dialog with outspoken members of the community as well as missteps by the Mayor and Public Safety Commissioner Coll…”

Most of us are familiar with the “Uncle Henry” syndrome. “Uncle Henry” is the family member who must be invited to Thanksgiving dinner. The rest of the family must endure his apocryphal pronouncements about things he has little understanding of or knowledge about. Waite has demonstrated his entitlement to this role with this column as well as others he has written (most notably his similarly flawed column on the Attorney General’s report on Saratoga Springs).

Some Basic Facts

Parts of Waite’s March 25, 2024 column are simply untrue.

Waite asserts:

“He’s [Mayor Safford] not running meetings any more smoothly than when former Mayor Ron Kim failed to keep things on track…”

Waite, March 25, 2024

This is simply untrue. Mayor Kim had given up any control over the public comment period. He first expanded the time limit for individual public comment to four minutes and then abandoned any limits altogether. Kim’s meetings were marathon events that, at times, ran over five hours. On at least two occasions, Kim had to adjourn the Council meeting without completing the city’s business because of the out-of-control behavior of members of Saratoga Black Lives Matter.

Mayor Safford was able to largely enforce his three-minute limit on speakers at the March 19 Council meeting. Only after Conservative Committee Chair David Buchyn used a quote from Lexis Figuereo that included the “n” word was the public comment period disrupted. Even then, in contrast to Kim, Safford’s patient repeated efforts to bring order were successful after only five or six minutes.

The Council was able to conduct all of its business without interruption and adjourn around 9 p.m. These are definitely improvements.

Misassigning Blame

Most disturbing was Waite’s assignment of blame for some of the regrettable behavior that did still occur at this Council meeting.

Central to Waite’s article is his allegation that the source of BLM’s uncivil behavior at meetings is the failure of members of the City Council to engage with them. This is so patently false and so easily refuted that it exposes the utter lack of Waite’s journalistic integrity. He is oblivious to the idea that the BLM people bear any responsibility for the toxic character of Council meetings.

First, consider the uncivil behavior (hint: it is not the Mayor).

Here is Waite’s opinion on how to stop this behavior:

“If Safford and Coll are serious about trying to bring civility to the city, they have to be serious about establishing meaningful relationships with members of the community – especially vocal and well-mobilized Black Lives Matter activists.”

Andrew Waite, March 25, 2024

Apparently, Mr. Waite is unaware of and has not bothered to research Mr. Figuereo’s unwillingness to enter into direct dialogue with members of the City Council over the past four years. For example, as long ago as 2021 then Finance Commissioner Michele Madigan proposed that the city hire a mediator to work with the city and BLM to respond to BLM’s demands. In fact, the city allocated money for this. Madigan invited BLM to participate in the selection of a mediator.

Figuereo rejected the offer. He had no interest in engaging beyond the group’s repeated, toxic protests.

This effort was not isolated. Over the years, many Council members have tried to engage with Figuereo one-on-one to no avail. Most recently, Pubic Works Commissioner Jason Golub, at a Council meeting, urged BLM to meet with him to discuss their concerns rather than continue to disrupt Council meetings. To date, BLM has not bothered to take him up on that offer. As recently as March 8, Public Safety Commissioner Tim Coll called Figuereo and invited him to have lunch and discuss his concerns. Figuereo put him off, telling him he would get back to him the next day. He never did.

A week and a half following the call, at a Council meeting, Figuereo blamed Coll’s letter to the editor in Saratoga Today for his unwillingness to meet with Coll. The letter was critical of BLM, but the tone was professional. (Use the link to assess it for yourself.)

Nevertheless, Waite puts on blinders and his Uncle Henry hat and takes Figuereo’s complaint that nobody wants to talk to him and have a relationship with him at face value.

More Misassigned Blame

Waite has also decided that “Coll has been part of the problem” because he “chose to fact check the New York State Attorney General’s report” without “acknowledging and condemning gross misconduct by past city officials.” Waite later admits that “…perhaps the AG report did deserve some scrutiny for conflating facts about which particular law enforcement unit demonstrated aggression at various levels.” What Waite refuses to acknowledge is that Figuereo is involved in several lawsuits against the city. It is simply ridiculous for Waite to demand that any city official make a statement “acknowledging ….misconduct by …city officials” while these cases are pending. It is equally odd to see any of this as somehow justifying BLM’s disruptive behavior at Council meetings

The Case of Jarrod Iler

Waite once again puts on his Uncle Henry hat in his discussion of the consideration of the hiring of former Troy police officer Jarrod Iler for a position with the Saratoga Springs Police Department. Some years ago, Iler had shot and wounded a black man the Troy police were trying to pick up for a parole violation. The man attempted to flee police in a car and tried to run down Iler, who fired his gun. Iler was cleared of any wrongdoing by a grand jury and went on to serve with distinction as an officer in Port Lucie, Florida. When Coll became aware of the Troy incident, however, he withdrew Iler from consideration, taking full responsibility and instituting a more vigorous vetting process for future hires. Waite ignores the fact that Coll had announced that Iler had been dropped from consideration before the March 19 meeting. No one from BLM had contacted Coll to voice concerns about the potential hiring and to urge him not to be hired; nevertheless, Waite insists that Coll backed off because of the public outcry. Waite also never asks why BLM bothered to show up to protest when they knew, as documented in the video of the meeting, that Iler was not going to be hired. They were not there to protest his hiring as that issue was dead, and they knew it.

In fact, this was simply another of the many opportunities for the BLM people to spend an hour and a half insulting and attempting to humiliate the members of the Council.

All of this was lost on Mr. Waite.

A Cheap Shot By Waite

Mayor John Safford is a kind and generous soul. He has the thankless job of trying to manage a meeting in which angry and troubled people abuse their privilege to speak during the public comment period to insult and belittle the soft targets of Council members who have to silently listen to them.

Safford was well aware of the volatile nature of the meeting and that attempting to remove a BLM person from the meeting had the potential to descend into a scrum during which someone might be hurt. It was apparent that raising his voice or otherwise behaving belligerently would only raise the temperature in the room. To his credit, he maintained the persona many of us know him for; a person trying to do the right thing.

This is not the way Waite saw things:

But in trying to enforce his own rules, Safford sounds a lot like a meek parent issuing empty threats to a young child without follow-through.

Andrew Waite, March 25, 2024

Waite owes Safford an apology.

[JK: I received this from Ed Lindner of Bikeatoga]

Hi All:  Now that we’re done digging out from the big snowstorm, we can go right back to thinking about getting out on our bikes and urging city officials to make Saratoga Springs a more bike-friendly community! 

One point that’s often overlooked when we talk about building good quality sidewalks and bike lanes is that these investments in Complete Streets are an investment in public health – particularly for seniors.  As AARP says, “a bike-friendly community is an age-friendly community.”  

If you’re looking to stay healthy and active as you grow older, come join us for a free panel presentation at the Saratoga Springs Public Library on Wednesday, March 27^th at 7:00 PM.

Our panelists:

• Jill VanKuren, CEO Saratoga Hospital
• Scott Clark, CEO Saratoga Regional YMCA
• Robyn Haberman, Associate State Director AARP New York
• Michael King, Transportation Planner. Owner, TrafficCalmer.com

We’ll explore the resources available at Saratoga Hospital and the Saratoga Regional YMCA to support seniors who want to stay physically active and independent.  AARP representative Robyn Haberman will discuss how public investments in sidewalks and bike lanes can help make Saratoga Springs an “AARP Livable Community.”  Mike King will talk about our city’s Complete Streets plan and the things that we can do better.   

We hope to see you on March 27, 2024. The program will run from 7 to 8:45PM in the Harry Dutcher Community Room at the Saratoga Springs Public Library. – Ed 

The image below was taken from Finance Commissioner Minita Sanghvi’s agenda for the March 19, 2024, Saratoga Springs City Council meeting. It documents her attempt to inappropriately fund on-call pay for the Deputy Accounts Commissioner for all of 2024.

I have written extensively about former Mayor Kim, Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran and Finance Commissioner Sanghvi inappropriately signing off on payments to their deputies in 2023 for so-called “on call” duties. “On Call” pay, readers will recall, was intended to recompense deputies in departments with “24/7 response requirements” who were “responsible for responding to emergency calls and assigning subordinate executive employees duties.”[Section E, Resolution for Non-Union Full Time Executive Employees] Instead, Deputy Accounts Commissioner Stacy Connors, for instance, was approved by Moran and paid by Sanghvi for attending a wake, city council meetings, etc. No specific reasons were given for payments to Finance Deputy Heather Crocker and Deputy Mayor Angela Rella. Sanghvi just paid them.

Now Moran, with Sanghvi’s assistance, is back trying again to access this on-call money inappropriately for his deputy for 2024.

An Inept Attempt At Damage Control

As documented in an earlier post, Commissioners Sanghvi and Moran attempted to slip through the Council an authorization to move money in the Accounts Department from “Risk and Safety” to a line identified as” On Call -Cover Payroll Expenses.” The amount, as seen above in a link to an item on Sanghvi’s agenda entitled innocuously “Budget Transfers-Payroll and Benefits,” was $6,520.00, enough to fund Connors for another year of on-call pay.

Outed the day before the Council meeting, Moran and Sanghvi were forced to back off, at least temporarily, from this proposal at the March 19, 2024, City Council meeting and to scramble to come up with an explanation for the switch they ended up making at the table.

Their strategy was to replace the number on the budget transfer with a lower number at the table when that agenda item came up and to offer a rambling set of excuses for the change.

Sanghvi claimed the $6,520.00 figure on her agenda was an error. The budget transfer amount should be $1,128.15, she said, to cover a deficit from paying Connors on-call money for the final quarter of 2023. The problem came when Mayor John Safford asked her, “Where did the number $6,520.00 come from?”

Moran and Sanghvi were all over the ballpark with rambling, often irrelevant, stories and excuses, none of which answered the Mayor’s question.

Moran often interrupted Sanghvi and had to be asked by the Mayor not to speak over the other Commissioner. At one point, Moran responded, “You think I do this stuff? I’m not involved in these things.” This was ironic because his deputy who was sitting behind him was the person who submitted the request for $6,520.00 to the Finance Department. Notice how, in the clip below, Moran goes on the offensive and tries to change the subject to the mayor’s office.

In this video clip, Sanghvi responds, “I believe the person [JK: Note she does not name the person she is talking about] redid it, not knowing it was only to cover the shortfall and not for the whole amount. This is my assumption; I have no idea what goes on in people’s minds.” [My emphasis] Again, the irony is that the person she is talking about who submitted the change is Stacy Connors, who is sitting behind her.

Readers may recall that the resolution establishing on-call was doctored to add the word “event” Adding that word was somehow supposed to justify Connors putting in for on call pay for attending things like the State of the City address I guess. The changed resolution was uploaded to the city’s website from Ms. Connors’ computer. As of the date of the Council meeting, it still had not been corrected despite the two City Attorneys confirming that this was not part of the resolution passed by the Council.

It Doesn’t Hold Up Under Scrutiny

What actually happened was that Sanghvi’s office had notified the Accounts Department that they had to address a deficit of $1,128.15. This was money paid in 2024 for the final quarter of on-call for Stacy Connors for 2023. It was pretty simple and direct. Accounts was asked to submit a budget transfer for that amount.

But Moran’s Deputy, Stacy Connors, did not submit a budget transfer for that amount. Instead, she altered the amount to $6,520.00. This would cover paying her for being on-call for all of this year. It is important to note that the change would obviously benefit her. It begs credibility that she was “confused” when she altered the request.

Under the commission form of government, Sanghvi and her staff are supposed to scrutinize all expenditures to catch abuses and errors. Sanghvi fails to explain how her staff, who had asked Accounts for a specific amount for the original transfer, was oblivious to the obvious major increase in that amount that they subsequently received and put on Sanghvi’s agenda. She also fails to explain how she missed it herself, as she is the one ultimately responsible for what goes on her agenda.

It’s Always The Coverup

What really raises questions about Moran’s and Sanghvi’s culpability in trying to get this funding through the Council is their utterly inept attempts to deflect, rationalize, and explain away the attempt to get the Council to approve funding on-call for Connors for the year.

The full discussion is nine minutes long, which I have included below. While I am providing some excerpts to get a proper sense of the poverty of Moran’s and Sanghvi’s attempts to evade the issues, I urge the readers to listen to the entire discussion.

Note how Sanghvi dismisses the City Attorneys’ opinion, which affirmed that the original resolution was designed for emergencies only, and instead tries to go off on a tangent, claiming the problem is with the resolution, which she claims should be amended or rescinded.

The problem for Sanghvi, and why she was so dismissive of the city attorneys’ opinion, was that the resolution was not the issue but its misuse to improperly pay deputies. Based on the discussion, it is unclear whether Sanghvi accepts that the payments were improper, of which her own deputy was a beneficiary.

Some Excerpts

Sanghvi dismisses attorneys opinion

Of course, the opinion affirmed that the adopted resolution did not authorize the payments to her deputy and two others. It’s no wonder she dismisses it.

The Account Department Was Advised By Finance What To Request To Correct The Deficit

The Entire Discussion

The controversy over extra on-call pay for city Deputies that surfaced earlier this year will be back in front of the City Council at their Tuesday, March 19 meeting. Saratoga Springs Commissioner of Accounts Dillon Moran has submitted a budget transfer request to Finance Commissioner Minita Sanghvi to move $6,250.00 to a line to cover on-call payroll expenses for his Deputy Stacy Connors for all of 2024. The funds would be enough to pay Connors for a full year of on-call duty, including retroactive pay for January, February, and the first half of March. Sanghvi has approved Moran’s request, putting it on her agenda to move it forward for a Council vote at the upcoming Tuesday, March 19 meeting.

Readers should understand that in the commission form of government, Commissioner Sanghvi as Finance Commissioner is supposed to be the watchdog of city funds and part of the city government’s checks and balance system. As such she has the authority to refuse to allow Moran’s request to go forward if she deems it inappropriate.

In this case, Commissioner Sanghvi has given Moran’s funding request the green light to move forward without even drawing her colleagues’ attention to this questionable action at today’s (Monday, 3/18) agenda meeting. Sanghvi was fully aware that the opinion issued by the City Attorneys in February raised grave questions regarding payments that were made to three deputies for on-call in 2023 and set guidelines for how this pay should be used moving forward.

Commissioner Sanghvi has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the city’s taxpayers’ money. On its face, it appears that she and Moran were hoping to sneak this by the Council.

Where Is The Correction?

As readers may recall, the City Attorneys’ opinion also determined that the resolution recorded by the Accounts Department regarding on-call pay had language inserted that was not in the resolution adopted by the Council. The language suspiciously attempted to expand the parameters of what constituted being on-call to include non-emergencies, which was used to expand Moran’s deputy’s eligibility for this pay. In a courteous email, the Mayor earlier this year directed Moran to correct the record. It does not seem coincidental that Moran has not made the correction and insists on paying his deputy for being “on-call” despite the legal opinion.

The Non-Authorization?

If the Council approves Sanghvi’s transfer Tuesday night, Moran will approve his deputy’s on-call requests, and Sanghvi will pay them. She will remind her colleagues that she was only carrying out their wishes.

New York State Law does not require municipalities to allow the public to comment at meetings. In contrast, Saratoga Springs’s government’s commitment to listening to the public is enshrined in its charter, which requires a public comment period to be included at all Council meetings.

The current administration’s policy limits speakers to three minutes each during the Council’s public comment period. The policy of having time limits for individual speakers goes back many years. Until the arrival of Saratoga Black Lives Matter, it was an accepted and noncontroversial policy routinely adhered to by its citizens.

Rules Do Not Apply To BLM

At the March 5, 2024, Saratoga Springs City Council meeting, most speakers adhered to the time limit, and Mayor John Safford attempted to enforce the three-minute rule uniformly.

BLM members Lexis Figureo, his sister Chandler Hickenbottom, and Tracy Sangare were the three glaring exceptions.

All three openly flaunted the rules and taunted the Mayor when he attempted to enforce the limit.

In the following video, Mayor Safford attempts to quietly advise Figuereo that he has exhausted his time. Undeterred, Figuereo continues his rant, telling the Mayor, “I will continue to speak. It’s called freedom of speech.” When Mayor Safford similarly advised Hickenbottom that she had exhausted her time, she told him, “I don’t care.”

This is the nub of the issue. Lex Figuereo, Chandler Hickenbottom, and Tracy Sangare do not believe that the Council’s reasonable limits, as allowed by state law, apply to them, and any attempt to enforce the three-minute limit is falsely condemned as racist and a violation of their freedom of speech.

The Disturbing Role of the Attorney General

The New York State Attorney General, rather than constructively addressing the disruptive behavior of the local BLM, has actually stoked further discord in our city.

How is it possible that the Attorney General’s office is not aware that local BLM members are continually violating the city’s code of conduct at City Council meetings, and how is it possible that they have incredibly characterized any effort to enforce its rules as violating BLM’s Freedom of Speech? This blindness, after three years of investigations, is simply breathtaking.

Figuereo makes clear that, in his eyes, the Attorney General supports his behavior and boasts that his lawsuit against the city for allegedly suppressing his freedom of speech will make him rich.

Giving BLM a Voice

This blog is committed to allowing its critics to have a voice.

In that spirit, here is the unedited video of the March 5, 2024, public comment period during which representatives of BLM ranted for an hour and ten minutes about the blogger and his editor (Jane Weihe), Mayor Safford and Public Safety Commissioner Tim Coll.

The Reckless Behavior of Some of Our Elected Officials

As noted, the city is already the subject of a lawsuit filed by Lexis Figuereo in federal court. There is also the real possibility that more lawsuits will be filed. I am told that our insurance carrier has contacted Council members asking them to withhold public comment on the Attorney General’s report due to the potential harm poorly considered comments might have on their efforts to defend the city in these suits.

Travelers Insurance declined to reinsure the city last year, and we were lucky to find another carrier who would. The city’s premiums have increased by close to a million dollars, and ignoring our insurer’s advice will do little to help the city’s coverage in the future.

BLM speakers pressed the Council to acknowledge and apologize for the alleged harm they had suffered. Given Figuereo’s lawsuit and the city insurer’s admonition to refrain from public discussion on the issue, it was imprudent for any member of the Council to accede to this.

That did not restrain Accounts Commissioners Dillon Moran, Finance Commissioner Minita Sanghvi, and Public Works Commissioner Jason Golub from making such declarations. Dillon Moran went on at great length with an emotional apology.

To his credit, Jason Golub observed that BLM’s repeated marathon denunciations at Council meetings did little to advance their cause. He told BLM that they would have a far greater impact if they met privately with members of the Council to discuss their issues and offered to do so personally.

Would that BLM would accept such sound advice. As this blog has noted repeatedly, however, for BLM, the excitement of berating members of the Council and being covered by area media is an end unto itself. It gives them a deep sense of empowerment that our officials must sit quietly while BLM taunts them and attempts to humiliate them. There have been many other offers by previous City Council members to meet with BLM to discuss their concerns. BLM has consistently rejected those offers. We’ll see if they will accept Commissioner Golub’s offer this time.

The Quandry For Mayor Safford

The policy of limiting the period for public comment to thirty minutes was not enforced at the March 5 meeting. As documented, the limit of three minutes per speaker was also not uniformly enforced.

I do not envy the Mayor. Enforcing his policies during the public comment period will not be easy. Still, if he does not, he will disappoint the many people who elected him to bring back civility and order.

Saratoga Springs Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran has proposed legislation establishing a registry for short-term rentals (STR) in the city.

I am very much in support of the need for the city to establish reasonable controls over STRs. There are issues of city liability, the safety of renters, the potential negative impacts of poorly managed rentals, and its potential impact on the rental and home sales market.

Unfortunately, this proposed legislation represents a pattern with Commissioner Moran of taking a basically well-intentioned idea and failing to take seriously the need to rigorously go through the less dramatic work of scrupulously crafting the legislative language required for success.

Moran’s approach is to throw together legislation relying on pushback by the public and potential legal challenges to refine it.

Moran was able to pull off his outdoor dining program because he was basically giving away public property to restaurants and bars that would not raise objections to his plans. I FOILed for any city documents related to how he arrived at his fees for this and was advised that no such documents existed.

With STRs, his cavalier methods have run into reality checks from affected constituencies.

As just one example of how poorly thought out his legislation is, under “Definitions” item 1.j:

“Unhosted short term rental” means the owner will not be present on the short term rental premises for the entire duration it is being rented. or will not be, at a maximum twenty-five (25) minutes (JK: my emphasis) from the short term rental premices during the duration it is being rented.

STR Item 1.j

I am not sure who (or if) the attorney who reviewed this was, but I was told by an attorney that travel time is never used in this context. The proximity of something is always measured by distance. Using time as a measure would make determining the validity of an application nearly impossible.

Similarly, the registration fee of $1,000.00 was arbitrary and inappropriate as numerous people have pointed out. This approach failed to consider the difference between a landlord with a large house who expects to frequently rent their property and someone briefly renting a room. Moran is now reconsidering the fees, but something as obvious as this should have been dealt with during the crafting of the legislation.

Moran defends all this by assuring people that all of this will be worked out over time. Now I grant that no legislation is perfect and that invariably it will evolve over time, but a legislator has the obligation to minimize the need for such changes. It is unfair to expect the public to correct obvious errors.

Two Scary People

Director of Religious and Spiritual Life Protects Students From Jane Weihe

Saratoga Black Lives Matter organized what they called a “teach-in” at Skidmore College on Friday, March 1. The meeting’s purpose was stated as “How Students Start a Movement from Palestine and Cop City to Saratoga Springs”.

Approximately twenty students, along with the college Director of Religious and Spiritual Life (apparently the title of what maybe used to be called a chaplain) and someone who identified themselves as being I think with the Office of Student Diversity.

Samira Sangare of Black Lives Matter was in charge of the event.

When the meeting began, Jane and I were sitting quietly in the last row of Emerson auditorium. A young man from BLM approached us and asked us politely to leave. We declined.

Jane and I were then approached by the Director of Religious and Spiritual Life. She also asked us to leave. She told us that the meeting was for students only and we were not allowed to attend.

Jane and I initially declined to leave. I was going to try to address the students to talk about the history of teach-ins which began as a response to the war in Vietnam.

In those years, teach-ins encouraged broad discussions. At the University of Wisconsin, where I was an undergraduate, they sometimes included representatives from the government who were there to defend the U.S. involvement in the war. There was no doubt that the exchanges were often spirited, but no one was silenced or asked to leave. People believed in the power of their ideas, and they were happy to defend them.

I agreed to step out in the hall with the Religious/Spiritual Director. She was courteous but insistent that we leave. I noted to her that colleges at one time encouraged dialogue and that it seemed unhealthy (I thought to myself, spiritually as well as intellectually) to remove people from a teach-in because they may not share your views. I was struck by how sad it was that this clearly intelligent and caring person should see her job as “protecting” students from ideas. I thought it was unhealthy for our democracy when people who shut down debate at a college are empowered by the institution.

In the meantime, Jane was still in her seat in the auditorium, and she was being confronted by the administrator from the Diversity Department and Sangare. Jane repeatedly asked Sangare, “What is going to be said here that you do not want us to hear?” Sangare did not reply.

The Diversity Administrator told Jane she needed to leave because she was making the students feel unsafe. Jane pointed out that she is an alumna of Skidmore College, that she is five foot three, and that she is seventy-six years old, an unlikely threatening presence. The Diversity person responded that a “Threat is not always a physical threat and that you should know that.” She told Jane, “I’m on the students’ side. I am here to protect the students.”

I decided that we should leave, and I returned to the auditorium. I thought I would still try to address the students. I was going to talk about the need in social movements to welcome dialogue, but I had gotten only a few words out when, Sangare shouted that I was John Kaufmann and urged people to clap so that I could not be heard which they did. To see them all clapping to silence me was truly disturbing. It was rather cultlike.

There are so many grim ironies here. To begin with, there is the fact that Sangare had repeatedly been instrumental in shutting down City Council meetings by shouting over the other members of the public and the Council.

There is also the obvious issue that a college is supposed to be a place where conflicting ideas can be discussed. Consider this excellent statement from Skidmore’s President, Marc Connor:

The response on some campuses has been, ‘thou shalt not,’ don’t let them say that, shut them down, censor that. And I understand that, you hear speech that you truly hate. The desire is to stop that speech. One of the things I’ve been saying on our campus is, the speech that we hate is not therefore ‘hate speech.’ Hate speech is very specific. It’s connected to immediate violence, intimidation, or harassment. There are things we hear that are offensive, but what that really is, is contested speech. It is speech that can mean multiple things. A slogan that is hateful in one context has a very different meaning in another context. And what is so important about contested speech is it needs to be engaged, needs to be interpreted, and it needs to be debated. And this, again, is something that college campuses are uniquely poised to do great privilege.

Marc Conner to WAMC

Well, apparently, his message did not reach the Religious/Spiritual Director or the administrator from the Office of Diversity or the students present at this “teach-in”.