The craziness continues with Melissa Click, back to rant about her firing from the University of Missouri. “This is all about racial politics,” she claimed in Monday’s interview with the Chronicle of Higher Education. “I’m a white lady. I’m an easy target.”
In November, then-Professor Click prevented a student reporter from covering student protests at the University of Missouri. She called for “muscle” to help remove the reporter.
The university curators voted to fire her because she “was not entitled to interfere with the rights of others, to confront members of law enforcement or to encourage potential physical intimidation against a student.”
For those comments on race, Click has the role as “unintentional destroyer of college campuses’ PC edifice,” Carrie Lukas, managing director of the Independent Women’s Forum (IWF), told the New York Post.
Lukas also believes that Click’s lawsuit against the university for allegedly not following the rules in similar firing cases like hers “may have merit.”
“Where was Click when [Tom] Wolfe was being similarly sacrificed for political expedience?” Lukas asked.
To be consistent, Click would have to go further:
If Click is serious about raising awareness about the unfair, quasi-judicial proceedings that pass for justice at American universities, perhaps she could lead a class-action suit with all the students — particularly men — who have been subjected to sexual-assault tribunals or tossed out over dubious Title IX violations for creating a “hostile” environment.
It does not seem that that was the point of Monday’s interview. “Being Melissa Click” is a sympathetic feature. Click was complaining about her firing in the way she knew how. While “I wasn’t the one in charge,” Click claimed, she “was the one held accountable.”
Click is looking for employment elsewhere and will be offering her prospective employers a 10-page curriculum vitae, citing her publications on “femininity, affluence, and whiteness in the Martha Stewart phenomenon,” Twilight, and Fifty Shades of Grey. A compilation of the nine “most preposterous” citations was published by the Daily Caller.