Archive for Wednesday, October 2, 2013

More than 100 active, retired faculty, staff support Guth’s “right of free speech”

October 2, 2013


More than 100 active and retired faculty and staff at Kansas University today released a signed statement in support of the free speech rights of Professor David Guth, who was placed on leave after he wrote a controversial tweet blasting the NRA.

Bill Tuttle, retired professor of history and American Studies, helped gather the signatures, saying he wanted to "stiffen the backbone of the university" in the face of calls from some legislators to have Guth fired or face appropriations battles.

"They are under attack," Tuttle said of the university.

The statement released by the current and former KU employees said, "Whatever one may think of Professor David Guth’s recent comments, we support his right to express his ideas, just as we support the rights of others to express their own opinions about his comments. Promoting freedom of expression should be a core value of any university."

Last month, after the Navy Yard shooting in Washington, D.C., Guth, a journalism professor, posted on the social media site Twitter: "The blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you. May God damn you."

Some criticized Guth, saying he was wishing death on the children of NRA members. Guth said he wasn't advocating violence, but trying to make gun-rights advocates see mass shootings from the point of view of the victims' families.

Top KU officials and the Kansas Board of Regents blasted Guth's statement, and KU said it would conduct a review of the situation. KU Vice Chancellor for Public Affairs Tim Caboni said today that KU was still forming the committee and the charge and scope of work for the review. "We are not going to create an artificial timeline for when the group will complete their evaluation," he said.

Guth was placed on indefinite leave, but KU Chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little said that was done to avoid disruption of his classes "and not because of the nature of the professor's comments, regardless of how controversial they may be."

At that time, Guth said he agreed to take administrative leave "in light of the abusive email threats I and others have received."

Contacted today by email, Guth declined to comment on the situation.

Earlier, most of the professors of the School of Journalism and department of anthropology supported Guth's rights to free speech. Some of those professors' names were also on the list released today.

Powerful legislators, including Senate President Susan Wagle, R-Wichita, have said Guth should be fired. And other legislators have said if he is not fired, then they will not vote for KU's budget.

Tuttle said, "We've seen this happen before with Susan Wagle going after Dennis Dailey."

Tuttle was referring to Wagle's allegations made in 2003 that Dailey, who had taught a human sexuality class, had shown pornographic videos, used inappropriate language and harassed female students. An investigation by KU found no validity to the claims.

At that time, Wagle had pushed through a budget amendment that could have eliminated $3.1 million in state funding to KU's School of Social Welfare budget, but then-Gov. Kathleen Sebelius vetoed the provision.

Here is the statement in support of Guth that was released today, followed by a list of the signers.

As members of the faculty and staff of the University of Kansas, the undersigned individuals strongly support the freedoms of expression specified in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Whatever one may think of Professor David Guth’s recent comments, we support his right to express his ideas, just as we support the rights of others to express their own opinions about his comments. Promoting freedom of expression should be a core value of any university.

Omofolabo Ajayi-Soyinka

Giselle Anatol

Robert Antonio

Margaret Arnold

William Arnold

Victor Bailey

Elizabeth Banks

Philip Baringer

Frank Baron

Alice Bean

Surendra Bhana

Henry Bial

John J. Bricke

CJ Brune

Robert Buddemeier

David Burress

Byron Caminero-Santangelo

Ben Chappell

Maggie Childs

Muriel Cohan

Tony Corbeill

Chris Crandall

Tom Cravens

Tamara Dutton

Arienne Dwyer

Jonathan Earle

Charles Eldridge

Mohamed El-Hodiri

Michael S. Engel

Paul Enos

Chuck Epp

Daphne Fautin

Josh Feldman

David Frayer

Bruce Frye

Bill Getz

Jane Gibson

E. Gaele Gillespie

Don Green

John Gronbeck-Tedesco

Don Haider-Markel

Mary Lynn Hamilton

Peter Haney

David Hann

David Hansen

Allan Hanson

Richard F. Hardin

John Hoopes

Randal Jelks

Paul Johnson

Mark Joslyn

Dennis Karney

David M. Katzman

Richard Kershenbaum

Aaron Ketchell

Dongbin Kim

Jeanne Klein

Elizabeth B. Kozleski

Clarence Lang

Mechele Leon

Cheryl Lester

Eve Levin

Burdett Loomis

Beverly Mack

Lucille Marino

Rose Marino

Don Marquis

Chuck Marsh

Bob Marvin

Gerald Mikkelson

Rachel Miller

Tim Miller

Jeffrey P. Moran

Joane Nagel

Karen Nordheden

David Ohle

Chris Petr

Catherine L. Preston

John Pultz

Sarah RobinsBrian Rosenblum

John Rury

Wayne Sailor

Richard Schowen

Elizabeth Schultz

Stephanie Scurto

Janet Sharistanian

Robert Shelton

Tom Skrtic

David Smith

Joey Sprague

Haskell Springer

John Staniunas

Bill Staples

Joan Stone

John Stratton

Patrick Suzeau

Edith Taylor

Sarah Goodwin Thiel

Gail Trottier

Sherrie Tucker

Thomas Tuozzo

Kathryn Nemeth Tuttle

Leslie Tuttle

William Tuttle

Peter Ukpokodu

Delbert Unruh

Kevin Willmott

Ted Wilson

James Woelfel

Lisa Wolf-Wendel

Nathaniel D. Wood


happyrearviewmirror 4 years, 5 months ago

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” ~ Voltaire

yourworstnightmare 4 years, 5 months ago

I assume Susan Wagle will now want all of these professors and staff fired.

oldvet 4 years, 5 months ago

She probably won't go after the 100, but the funding that comes out of KU's budget may impact them. And they don't have Sebelius to protect them this time.

snitty 4 years, 5 months ago

I'm glad so many at KU have spoken up in favor of free speech. The administration's review committee should heed this petition and reinstate Guth immediately, with a confirmation of his first amendment rights to say any damn thing he wants to as a free citizen.

jafs 4 years, 5 months ago

1st amendment rights aren't absolute.

And, it only applies to government, not the private sector.

We don't actually have "first amendment rights to say any damn thing" we want, without any consequences.

snitty 4 years, 5 months ago

2nd amendment rights aren't absolute either, though the NRA has practically made them so, and though some of the consequences of "overstepping" gun rights have been the deaths of hundreds of children. Yet, for the temerity of criticizing the NRA, Guth has already been threatened with the loss of his job, and death. I would agree that 1st amendment rights aren't absolute - they are almost absolutely gone.

jafs 4 years, 5 months ago

You seem to misunderstand my post.

The 1st amendment wasn't designed to protect people from the consequences of speaking freely, except to protect us from government actions in that regard. If I tell my boss he's an idiot, and he fires me, there's no 1st amendment issue there.

Also, there are certain kinds of speech that aren't even protected from government action, like advocating the violent overthrow of the government, slander, libel, fighting words, etc.

In order to understand that, you have to realize that speech is also an action, and that one can be held accountable for one's actions.

And, he didn't just "criticize" the NRA, he did a lot more than that. If he had just criticized them, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

2nd amendment rights are also not absolute, and the SC has held that various requirements, restrictions, etc. on gun possession are fine.

Scott Morgan 4 years, 5 months ago

This is the exact problem we have in this nation, it could be the last gasp. No problem with free speech, except those who try and tell us who can use free speech.

Of course, if the destructive obnoxious words belched by Guth would have been racist, aimed at liberal democrats, global warming alarmists, pro federalism folks, bet this distinguished group would hide in the woodwork.

verity 4 years, 5 months ago

You "bet."

Another gratuitous attack on liberals et al, even as you agree with them. Too funny.

Have you checked the political stand of everyone of the signees?

voevoda 4 years, 5 months ago

You bet wrong, wissmo. Try polling the list, and I think that you'll discover that virtually everyone would have signed the same statement if Guth's tweet had substituted "gun control lobbyists" for "nra."

oldvet 4 years, 5 months ago

would they have signed if he has substituted "obama" for "nra"...

MarcoPogo 4 years, 5 months ago

Jeesh, I don't know...would they have signed if he had substituted "Almond Joy" for "Mounds"? (We could do this all day.)

Liberty275 4 years, 5 months ago

It should be noted that their statement doesn't say anything about whether he should be allowed to go back to his job..

voevoda 4 years, 5 months ago

Do you really think, Liberty275, that the signators think Prof. Guth shouldn't be allowed to go back to his job? That any of think think he should be fired?

Liberty275 4 years, 5 months ago

This is what I think. I know two of the professors and I think I have never seen them beat around the bush, and instead will say exactly what they mean.

voevoda 4 years, 5 months ago

So, Liberty275, you think that all these professors got together at a giant meeting and excluded from the statement anything that they could not agree with? Don't you think that it is more likely that two profs, the ones named as the organizers, put together a minimalist statement and circulated it? If that was the case, then omissions from the statement do not represent deliberate exclusions because the signators demanded them.

Liberty275 4 years, 5 months ago

All I see is their statement. It doesn't say he should be allowed to go back to work. You can think it say's whatever you want it too.

jafs 4 years, 5 months ago

It also doesn't say he shouldn't be allowed to.

People who draw either conclusion are adding something to the mix.

voevoda 4 years, 5 months ago

My sources tell me that the reason the statement does not call for Prof. Guth to return to work is not because the signators don't want him to, as you would have it, Liberty275 and jafs. It's because he (and his students and colleagues) may be in danger, because he and the university have received threats of violence. It would be irresponsible for them to demand that the university lift the administrative leave if he would put his safety at risk by resuming teaching duties.

But if it pleases you to imagine, Liberty275 and jafs, that these 100 professors bothered to release this statement just as a subtle way of agreeing with public demands that Prof. Guth be sanctioned by the university, go ahead. I'm sure that the KU administration got the message that the signators intended, even if you couldn't grasp it.

jafs 4 years, 5 months ago

Why do you include me?

I said the opposite of Liberty.

Perhaps you didn't grasp my post, and should re-read it.

Liberty275 4 years, 5 months ago

You did not say the opposite of what I said. I said they made no mention of whether he should be allowed back and you said something about people drawing conclusions.

I drew no conclusion.

jafs 4 years, 5 months ago

You said they didn't say he should be allowed to go back to work, and I said they didn't say he "shouldn't" be allowed to do so.

I don't know why v would lump us together as if I had concluded they didn't want him to return.

Liberty275 4 years, 5 months ago

"I don't know why v would lump us together as if I had concluded they didn't want him to return."

I didn't reach that conclusion. We agree about the neutrality of the statement, but evidently voevoda has some source that claims so:

"the statement does not call for Prof. Guth to return to work... It's because he (and his students and colleagues) may be in danger, because he and the university have received threats of violence. "

Voevoda's source say's they did not call for his return to work for a specific reason. So far, he's the only of the three of us that has drawn a conclusion - based on his source.

jafs 4 years, 5 months ago


I had a problem with v stating that they didn't include it "not because they don't want him to" return, "as you would have it, Liberty and jafs".

I never suggested anything of the sort. Whether or not you did is up to you, of course, although it is a bit provocative to mention what you did if you don't think it actually means anything.

Liberty275 4 years, 5 months ago

"although it is a bit provocative to mention what you did if you don't think it actually means anything."

It gave us something to talk about.

I think Vovoda was just a little mixed up. I'm sure he meant no slight to you.

jafs 4 years, 5 months ago

That's true :-)

Could be - sometimes I'm a little sensitive.

Liberty275 4 years, 5 months ago

So they weren't calling for him to be allowed back to work, according to your source?

jadie 4 years, 5 months ago

Is it just me, or are there lots of people who failed civics in this state?

critical 4 years, 5 months ago

jadie, based upon what I read about happening today in Kansas, I can only assume that they stopped teaching civics there, because even if one failed the class, one would have at least heard of the right of Free Speech.

William Weissbeck 4 years, 5 months ago

I've been gone too long. Don't recognize any of the names, least of all the old guard from the J School.

scaramouchepart2 4 years, 5 months ago

You have been gone for a very long time and most are still working at KU

ComeOnMannnnnnn 4 years, 5 months ago

I thought he was put on leave because there were death threats sent to him?? I thought this was about safety in the classroom?

yourworstnightmare 4 years, 5 months ago

This is a tempest in a teapot.

What Guth tweeted was stupid, not earth-shattering.

This is exactly why Guth tweeted this, to evoke this sort of over reaction. Plus, he apparently is now getting paid without having to do his job, to teach.

Called a win-win. Guth gets publicity (he is a journalism professor after all) and now gets paid without working.

patkindle 4 years, 5 months ago

I agree with yourworstnightmare,, guth has attained most lawrencians dream, get a paycheck and do nothing, I suspect he didn't break a sweat when he worked for ku . his 100 allies are only showing their ignorance.

voevoda 4 years, 5 months ago

Perhaps, patkindle, you are showing your ignorance of the signators. Most faculty work 50+ hours per week, and I doubt that the signators are an exception.

For most faculty, being suspended from their job is a penalty, even if they are still being paid. That's why under university rules, suspension, even with pay, is among the most severe penalties for misconduct.

Topple 4 years, 5 months ago

I'm curious if they would support his freedom of speech if he was speaking out against liberal ideals so distastefully.

voevoda 4 years, 5 months ago

Yes, Topple; they would. If you read the statement, it specifies support for persons who are criticizing David Guth, just as they support his right to speak.

Of course, if David Guth had taken a pro-NRA stance in his tweet, it is unlikely that KU would be under pressure from the state legislature to fire him. Or that they would be receiving death threats.

Satirical 4 years, 5 months ago

What I learned today: hate speech is considered okay if it is directed at a conservative group.

If Guth just said something like "all NRA members are crazy", or "the NRA and conservatives don't care about people"--it would have been fine to express his political opinion. We should be careful to avoid chilling speech in an academic setting.

However, Guth's comment about the death of children of NRA members crossed a line into hate speech and should not be tolerated.

Centerville 4 years, 5 months ago

So why aren't they supporting free speech for everyone, not just for a crony?

voevoda 4 years, 5 months ago

On what basis do you assume that the signators aren't* in favor of free speech for everyone, Centerville? After all, the statement specifies support for the free speech rights for persons critical of David Guth.

If any of the persons who signed have ever called for the suppression of free speech of other people, Centerville, then you can "out" them right here. Otherwise, you are casting baseless aspersions on them, Centerville, and that is dishonorable.

Anthony Mall 4 years, 5 months ago

Oh Lawrence.... Defending the 1st and wanting to abolish the 2nd. He has the right to say whatever he wants! He also has to live with the consequences of shooting his mouth off to the world and in a way hoping others children die in a mass shooting! He should be fired, he should apologize, and he should move on with his life...

voevoda 4 years, 5 months ago

A reality check for reality_check79: tenured faculty cannot be fired without sufficient cause. The Kansas Board of Regents has made this rule, because it understands the value of the free expression of ideas, especially at the state's public universities. A single statement that he made as a private citizen hardly constitutes sufficient cause to rescind his tenure and fire him. And you should be glad that this is the case, reality_check79, or else the next person to be fired could well be a professor who endorsed an opinion dear to your heart.

Anthony Mall 4 years, 5 months ago

What about hoping the next victims of a mass shooting is dear to your heart? I never said I was against freedom of speech! I said you can say whatever you want. I also stated plain as day that when you speak you have to be adult enough to own it and pay the consequences! You do not have the freedom to just say anything you want with zero consequences. You cant just go off on your boss without being fired, you can't say anything you want to a lot of people, and you damn sure can't wish dead children because of your political beliefs! I own a gun, I'm for background checks, and I'm for people not being allowed to teach anything when they wish the children of certain groups dead in a mass shooting... Explain to me how that tweet was an expression of an idea? What if a student was a member of the NRA and had a child, parents were members? He easily could of wished one of his own students dead! That's not expression of an idea.... That's ignorance!

voevoda 4 years, 5 months ago

There is a huge range between "zero consequences" and "being fired." Prof. Guth has already suffered consequences, including being held up for ridicule, which you have provided in spades. I objected "plain as day" (as you like to put it) to one specific consequence that you advocated--that is, being fired. That would be a violation of university rules and Kansas Board of Regents policy. And yes, professors can "go off on [their] boss" without being fired. That's because universities recognize that bosses can be wrong, and knowledge advances when expression of ideas, even ideas that are provocative or repulsive, are freely permitted.

What is dear to my heart is the expression of a wide range of ideas and opinions, whether I agree with them or not. Unlike you, I don't want to suppress expression of ideas I disagree with. Instead, I like to argue against ideas I consider to be wrong. There are things about what David Guth tweeted that I disagree with (as I have expressed on other LJW forums), but the only legitimate consequence for a tweet he made as a private citizen off campus ought to be verbal criticism on the part of people who disagree with him, not any sort of negative employment action on the part of the university. Similarly, I wouldn't want to see you fired because of the opinions you have expressed here, even though I disagree with much of what you say. I wouldn't want to see you forbidden to teach just because I disagree with opinions you have expressed.

I'm sorry, reality_check79, that you cannot recognize that ideas you disagree with are still ideas. People learn not only from listening to ideas they agree with, but also--especially--by figuring out what they don't like about other ideas. While I'm sure you won't like me to say so, it does seem to me that you have learned something from Prof. Guth's tweet.

fiddleback 4 years, 5 months ago

It's about time we forget this profoundly stupid incident and move on. What does this statement accomplish besides thumbing noses at the reactionaries in the legislature who called for his immediate firing? I'm presuming most if not all of the signatories are aware that Guth's leave was for safety and not as punishment, and thus their primary motivations likely weren't to protest that decision.

So then what good does it do to make such a defiant but ultimately empty gesture when the legislature already hates KU? The people in that body can't be relied upon to understand any nuance, and I wouldn't put it past some of them to think that this was just a coded way for 100 more professors to say, "Yep, we hate the NRA too." Do all these folks want to see KU go private? This posturing doesn't seem likely to "stiffen the University's backbone," but just makes the job of obtaining anything near an adequate funding level all the harder.

voevoda 4 years, 5 months ago

What good does it do, fiddleback? It lets the legislature know that faculty at KU take freedom of speech seriously, and any attempt to try to force the university to suppress faculty members because of the views they take will be resisted. Ten years ago, the state legislature tried to suppress a professor, Dennis Dailey, and met with strong objections. Clearly, the state legislature (namely Susan Wagle), needs a refresher.

If the price of receiving state funding is the suppression of free speech on campus and silence on public policy issues, it is too high.

fiddleback 4 years, 5 months ago

I understand that it sends that message of resistance, and yet in terms of actual "good," it seems entirely pyrrhic. Most of these older campus members are no doubt more accustomed to a divided, nominally sane state government. Right now the lunatics have overrun the asylum, and KU has no significant allies or political leverage to stop them from further reducing state funding. It was one thing to “fight the good fight” for Dr. Dailey’s legitimate academic activities, but supporting a professor’s right to make flippantly hateful remarks hardly seems productive. Think of it this way: if you’re completely trapped for the short-term in an abusive relationship, is it wise to knowingly tempt the abuser to hit you again just because you know you’re in the right? Needless to say, you pick your battles, and I wish KU wasn’t picking this one.

Anthony Mall 4 years, 5 months ago

Voevoda... You have posted all day apologizing because people aren't on your level of blind praise for a professor who's job it is to teach kids! Not push a personal political belief! Your arrogant responses show you could care less about what he said or any of the students, faculty, or people he offended by his ignorance! People have been fired from plenty of jobs because of actions on social media and as much as you claim to know, I would think you would know that... Being a tenured professor should make him more accountable! I do not support the threats made against him! That being said, he should not be allowed back in a classroom. He can take his death wishes and leave. Who gets blamed if something did happen? Him? The man wished NRA members children murdered! That is someone who should not be teaching anywhere PERIOD! Your arrogance to ignore what he said and hide behind his right to say it is ridiculous...

voevoda 4 years, 5 months ago

reality_check79, I see that you are too emotionally engaged to be able to understand that defense of the principle of free speech for faculty does not constitute an endorsement of the content of the message.

You are wishing that a person should lose his job, career, and livelihood because of a single intemperate (but constitutional-defended) statement. That puts you in the same category as David Guth. You're not wishing for the death of his children, but you are wishing for something truly awful to happen to him, just because you strongly disagree with his stance on a public issue.

You are so angry, reality_check79, that you are now taking it out on me, simply because I defend professors who defend freedom of speech on university campuses. That ought not to be a controversial position, and I hope that once you calm down, you'll recognize this yourself.

Anthony Mall 4 years, 5 months ago

can you please read your comments on this thread and read your own words... you claim others are too attached yet feel the need to make people feel stupid... my guess is that your a friend or relative of this man and feel the need to stand up and defend his right to say anything he wants. facts are that you can't! I want him to be held accountable,,, he fails to comprehend the depth of his ignorant comments and you fail to see any view besides freedom of speech. should members of the westboro baptist church be allowed to teach? guessing you would have an issue with that... I hope someday you can remove yourself from the relationship you have with this man and see that there are consequences for posting things about wanting a certain groups children to die. you have failed to respond to any questions, or made any effort to justify keeping him other than "he shouldn't lose everything" blah blah blah.... he is not losing everything, he is losing his job... wish you and him the best of luck and hope he finds peace in his life other than wanting certain children to be victims of a mass shooting... good luck!

voevoda 4 years, 5 months ago

Really, reality_check79. You clearly have lost touch with reality if you need to posit that I must be a "friend or relative" of David Guth in order to be willing to stand up for the principle of freedom of speech on campus. In fact, I never met the man, and I probably never will. I know nothing about him except what has appeared in news stories.

If a member of the Westboro Baptist Church were a tenured faculty member, then he, too, would enjoy the protections of freedom of speech that are accorded to faculty members. If that person had been hired and received tenure through the usual rigorous process that scrutinizes his qualifications to teach, then I wouldn't have a problem with his doing so. I wouldn't think it was my place to try to get him fired because I disagreed vehemently with his political ideas.

Yes, wishing the sins of the fathers to be visited upon their children is a troubling idea. Clearly, it upsets you very, very much, reality_check79, because you mention it in virtually every posting. But it is an idea that is found in the Bible, and debated in the Bible. I don't know if you are a Bible-believing Christian, reality_check79, but the presence of this idea in the book that lies at the base of our civilization makes it legitimate for others to invoke it.

Anthony Mall 4 years, 5 months ago

killing of kids is the whole point here! you defend freedom of speech sp much yet dont feel anything for anyone he may have offended or scared on campus... wish he had responded to 1000's of requests to defend himself and his actions but he instead has chose to hide and refuse to face anyone. the safety of students and the campus comes before freedom of ignorance and possibly putting people in danger. he will never teach at ku again. he can take his tenure (because you think this is like a free pass to be stupid) and teach at a juco... it has happen at other schools and ku should be no different!

jayhawklawrence 4 years, 5 months ago

We have a long way to go to reach the level of maturity we ought to be as a civilization when we let this Professor's little tweet get everyone so bent out of shape.

The sad fact is that politicians take advantage of us every chance they get. In this case, Kansas Republicans.

I appreciate my CCL and what the NRA has done to protect that right, however I wish there was a better organization to support. They have become as extreme in their views as the Tea Party. Worse yet, they have a facade of protecting American freedoms but appear in reality to be motivated by money and political power above all else. They have a lot of people following them like cult members, blind and dumb.

Extremists on both sides playing in politics. Americans caught in the middle.

jafs 4 years, 5 months ago


It's very unfortunate, since I think most Americans are in the middle somewhere, and yet we don't have that represented well in politics.

Leslie Swearingen 4 years, 5 months ago

I wish the children of NRA members long and happy lives. I would never blast the NRA, or any other organization, when a shooting occurs, but instead put the blame and consequences on the shooter.

There is no way that you could get from that Tweet what he said he meant which makes him a woeful failure at written communication which means he is probably not a very good journalism professor.

avarom 4 years, 5 months ago

How come when Virgil Peck made is comments, he wasn't fired. Just gave an apology. This is disparity and discrimination. Plus, Virgil Peck was at work. What kind of sabbatical did Virgil go on? What kind of reprimand did he receive? Was Virgil suspended or written up? No, he gave an apology for his offensive comments and back to work he went. All was forgotten. Darn it, this seems like Curvilinear Disparity to me. If your in the government its okay and justified, without any retribution. Well, that unfair treatment is definitely being protrayed.

jhawk1998 4 years, 5 months ago

Fire all the active employees and terminate the pensions of the retirees. Advocating the death of anyone is never ok. These people are supposed to set an example for young people we are responsible for educating.

Leslie Swearingen 4 years, 5 months ago

Guth wrote that he wants the children of NRA members to be shot and to go to hell with their parents. That is what he wrote and that is what he meant. He is a mean, spiteful man, which does not in itself disqualify him from teaching, but the lesson he wants to give does. For every action there is a reaction.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.