Saturday, April 12, 2014

Student suspended for calling gun-grabbing governor a "f**king snake"

A Connecticut college has suspended a student for agressively questioning a gun-grabber politician:
A Connecticut community college suspended a student veteran for his aggressive questioning of Democratic Gov. Dannel Malloy during a public forum, prompting a First Amendment advocacy group to condemn the college for its flagrant disrespect for free speech and due process. 
The student, Nicholas Saucier, tried to get Malloy to answer questions about his support for gun control legislation, which has put Saucier’s ammunition manufacturing business in jeopardy. Saucier followed Malloy to his car after the governor finished speaking at a public forum at Asnuntuck Community College. The exchange took place in October of last year, and was captured on video
Shortly thereafter, Saucier received notice from the administration that he was suspended on grounds that his “continued presence on campus would present a danger to the persons, property and/or academic process of the College.”
The student was officially charged with engaging in harassment and showing disrespect for Malloy, in violation of ACC’s student code. Administrators claimed that Saucier became increasingly hostile, called Malloy a “fucking snake,”...
The comparison is insulting, to be sure. I suspect that the suspension was imposed after the college got hundreds of emails from outraged snakes.


  1. The last two paragraphs make it clear that Saucier's suspension is an act of political retribution for daring to question authority.

  2. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthApril 12, 2014 at 8:02 AM

    Interesting case, Doc.

    Apparently, Saucier was offered two options.

    The "informal" option, without a hearing, required him to...
    • accept responsibility for "all charges" including harassment (disagreement w/governor), threats to physical safety (videotaping the incident) and a college requirement to "demonstrate good citizenship";
    • voluntarily withdraw from the college;
    • and complete an "appropriate professional evaluation" (political re-education).

    The "formal" option, Saucier was informed, entailed...
    • a secret hearing with no recording or verbatim record;
    • no pre-established rules of evidence;
    • the empaneled kangaroos would enjoy broad discretion on what evidence Saucier was permitted to put forth in his defense;
    • and Saucier would be given but a short time during the hearing to review the evidence against him with no opportunity to challenge.

    So, in other words, the counter-revolutionary Saucier could either admit guilt, subject himself to political re-education, and possibly be reinstated, OR Saucier would be denied prior discovery, and tried and convicted by a panel of judges empowered to ignore exculpatory evidence.

    This case serves as an excellent example of how American courts will operate given sufficient time for Progressives to pack the judiciary. For those too impatient to wait, a quick look back to the Soviet courts should fill in the blanks.

    1. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthApril 12, 2014 at 8:07 AM

      By the way, the source for the requirements listed above is the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), and can be found here: