E-Mail Revelations: Prof. Ellen Lewin’s Unprofesssional Intolerance

Ellen Lewin, a University of Iowa Professor of Anthropology and Gender, Women’s & Sexuality Studies in the Department of Gender, was so enraged by an e-mail invitation sent to the entire campus by the student Republican group that she fired off an e-mail in reply that said, succinctly,


The young Republicans circulated the e-mail, and now many people  and groups are calling for her dismissal. The incident has raised more ethical questions than mere civility.

Prof. Lewin’s message was uncivil, all right, as it would be if it came from a longshoreman and not a professor of higher learning. But from a professor to a group of students at her university? I am fairly certain that any high school in America would dismiss a teacher who sent such a message to, say, the chess club. Shouldn’t standards of conduct for professors be higher, not lower, than for high school students? Apparently Iowans don’t agree. The calls for Lewin’s dismissal have almost exclusively come from conservative groups, allowing their complaints to be dismissed as partisan attempts to get revenge on Lefty Lewin. Objecting to professors paid six-figure salaries to teach students how to reason, be analytical, and express themselves logically and articulately who resort to inarticulate, hateful obscenities in response to an invitation shouldn’t be an ideological act. Do progressives and liberals believe this is appropriate conduct for a professor? Or just appropriate conduct toward conservatives?

The president of the University, Sally Mason, reacted to the incident with a classic school administrator weasel message:

“Dear Members of the University Community:

“The University of Iowa encourages freedom of expression, opposing viewpoints, and civil debate about those opposing viewpoints. This is clearly articulated in our core values of Diversity and Respect. Because diversity, broadly defined, advances its mission of teaching, research, and service, the University is dedicated to an inclusive community in which people of different cultural, national, individual, and academic backgrounds encounter one another in a spirit of cooperation, openness, and shared appreciation.

“The University also strongly encourages student engagement in such discussions and supports students acting on their viewpoints. Student organizations are sometimes formed along political lines and act on their political beliefs. Even if we personally disagree with those viewpoints, we must be respectful of those viewpoints in every way. Intolerant and disrespectful discord is not acceptable behavior.”

This is a broad, general statement of principles without addressing the actual incident that provoked it. All right, President Mason, you are now on notice that you have a professor who is, by definition, intolerant, and whose first instinct when confronted with beliefs she doesn’t agree with is to engage in disrespectful discord. If it is unacceptable, what are you going to do about it? If she is not going to be treated exactly as a male professor would be treated who sent a “FUCK YOU” message to the campus Pro Choice group, I would like to know what your explanation is.

This is an especially perplexing incident when one looks at the invitation that set off the Professor. What can we learn about someone who is maddened by this text?

Conservatives in Iowa City: it is time to come out of the closet!

I know at times it feels like you are the only person that disagrees with this liberal town, but you are not alone! We are asking all Republicans, Independents leaning right, or just anyone slightly frustrated with the current one party controlling every level of Johnson County, and some levels of Iowa and U.S. government to STAND UP!

Conservative Coming Out Week will be April 18th – April 22nd. Here is the schedule of events that will be going on throughout the week:

Monday: Who is Conservative Anyway? Guess which athletes, movie stars, and performing artists are Republican. 11-1 on Kautz Plaza off of the T. Anne Cleary Walkway

Tuesday: Red vs. Blue Blood Drive from 2 to 6pm at the Carnival Room in Burge. Competition between the Republicans and Democrats for a good cause!

College Republican meeting that night at 8pm in 71 Schaeffer Hall with showing of “Journeys with George” in honor of President George W. Bush.

Wednesday: Come pick up your Doctors Notice to miss class for “sick of stress,” just like the Wisconsin public employees during the union protests from 11 to 1 on the Pentacrest.

Thursday : Red vs Blue games! Beat the UDems in kickball and flag football from 4-6 in Hubbard Park. Wear your respective political party’s color!

Stick around for an Animal Rights BBQ at 6pm.

Friday: Wear RED Day! Come out of the closet and show your true colors!

Should be a great week! Lets come out!

Only someone who is unhealthily disturbed by the very existence of conservatives, who hates them to the depths of her soul, could be so offended by such a mild and innocuous document. Is it responsible for any university to employ a teacher who is so rigid, so emotionally upset by diversity of opinion, who is so disrespectful of the views of others? The invitation itself appeals to bi-partisan harmony among “red” and “blue” students, while a professor is opposing it.

Professor Lewin, both in her half-baked apology for her intemperate remark, and a subsequent e-mail to the student group, showed just how irreparably intolerant, rigid and extreme she is.

First the apology [Commentary is underlined, in brackets]:

“This is a time when political passions are inflamed [ And yet, oddly, at other times of intense political debate, such as during the campus Vietnam War protests, no professor ever felt it necessary to say, shout, or write “Fuck you” to a student group.]  and when I received your unsolicited email, [Does Prof. Lewin write “Fuck You!” back to every unsolicited e-mail? If so, that’s a lot of “Fuck Yous”…] I had just finished reading some newspaper accounts of fresh outrages committed by Republicans [Nice: continue to denigrate and insult the group while apologizing to them! As we shall see, what this woman considers “outrages” is pretty outrageous.] in government. I admit the language was inappropriate, and apologize for any affront to anyone’s delicate sensibilities. [“Delicate sensibilities,” suggesting that no reasonable person would be “affronted”…the essence of a non-apology.] I would really appreciate your not sending blanket emails to everyone on campus, [Except that the whole idea of the invitation was to flush out campus conservatives who were afraid to expose their true beliefs on a campus dominated by intolerant ideology bullies like Prof. Lewin…] especially in these difficult times.” [“Difficult times,” meaning a time when civil discourse and citizens being able to disagree on the issues of the  day without using expressions of hate and contempt is impossible? You, Professor, are among those who are making these times difficult by your reflexive demonization of any but your own political allies.]

In a follow-up email, Lewin wrote:

“I should note that several things in the original message were extremely offensive, nearly rising to the level of obscenity. [Remember “rising to the level of obscenity” as you read the rest….] Despite the Republicans’ general disdain for LGBT rights you called your upcoming event ‘conservative coming out day,’ appropriating the language of the LGBT right movement. [ Since when does any movement own a phrase to the extent that it borders on “obscene” for it to be used by anyone else? Here is when: the use of the phrase is inappropriate and obscene to someone whose support for the group referenced is so great and whose hatred for the group using the language is so extreme that for the words to be even touched by the hated group amounts to defilement. I believe the debutantes felt similarly when the LGTG community borrowed “coming out” from them. There wasnothing about the conservative groups use of “coming out” or “in the closet” that was disrespectful to gays, or inappropriate in any way, except to a deluded extremist like Lewin . The parallel is apt and true: on campuses like Iowa, conservatives fear ostracizing and social isolation, much as gays have traditionally avoided making their sexual orientation known for fear of discrimination. Moreover, Lewin’s conduct proves the aptness of the comparison!] Your reference to the Wisconsin protests suggested that they were frivolous attempts to avoid work. [Foul: the invitation accurately recounted the documented use of fake doctors’ notes by teachers to justify taking sick leave to protest. Nothing in the invitation suggested it was frivolous; it was just dishonest.] And the ‘Animal Rights BBQ’ is extremely insensitive to those who consider animal rights an important cause. [ 1) It was a joke, you sad, humorless, obsessed woman. 2) Presumably just “BBQ” would have upset them too. 3) Another example of a speech-and-thought-censorship advocate objecting to language based on theoretical offense.] Then, in the email that Ms. Ginty sent complaining about my language, she referred to me as Ellen, not Professor Lewin, which is the correct way for a student to address a faculty member, or indeed, for anyone to refer to an adult with whom they are not acquainted. [Dear Professor: Act like a professional, and you will be addressed as one. How arrogant and self-obsessed do you have to be to be offended when someone you addressed with “Fuck You” responds without using your proper title?]  I do apologize for my intemperate language, but the message you all sent out was extremely disturbing and offensive.” [ Only to the deranged, Ellen.]

If the University of Iowa president is sincere when she says that “Because diversity, broadly defined, advances its mission of teaching, research, and service, the University is dedicated to an inclusive community in which people of different cultural, national, individual, and academic backgrounds encounter one another in a spirit of cooperation, openness, and shared appreciation”, then professors like Ellen Lewin should not be teaching there, should not be hired, and should not be tolerated. She doesn’t believe in cooperation, openness, or shared appreciation, and she is so offended by any individual or ideas that do not fit into her facile world view that she is consumed with hate and anger at the slightest whiff of them.

The problem isn’t one uncivil e-mail.

The problem is one hateful professor.

22 thoughts on “E-Mail Revelations: Prof. Ellen Lewin’s Unprofesssional Intolerance

  1. There are decent minded liberals (like a great number of my friends and professors) who don’t mind a bit of honest discussion with conservatives and then there are those liberals who seem to crave the feeling of feeling superior to those Neanderthal conservatives (Note that I could reverse the political affiliations I just mentioned and it would still hold true). Thanks a lot, Lewin, for helping to keep our level of political discourse mired in the mud right at a time when tempers are already irrationally high (at an even greater level than usual) all over the political spectrum.

  2. Jack — As I read this, I was thinking how wonderful it would be if the good Professor would read your smack-down of her despicable behavior. And then I began to wonder — do you ever email links to people you post on out of a sense of fairness, courtesy or otherwise? I’m not suggesting that this is ethically required, I am just curious.

  3. The calls for Lewin’s dismissal have almost exclusively come from conservative groups, allowing their complaints to be dismissed as partisan attempts to get revenge on Lefty Lewin.

    I’d simply point out that there’s a difference between condemning Lewin’s boorishness and strained reasoning (which I do) and thinking her tenure ought to be revoked for it (which I don’t). Speaking as both a university professor and a progressive, I’d rather not be represented in either capacity by the likes of Prof. Lewin, at least not in this manifestation. That doesn’t mean I think a university ought to violate the nature of academic tenure (and probably get themselves sued) to get rid of a professor simply for being obnoxious.

    • The fact that they can’t fire her, and they can’t, doesn’t change the fact that they should. “Obnoxious” doesn’t do her justice—many wonderful teachers are obnoxious. She’s sending a message that it is OK to verbally abuse students who have different ideas than the majority. Taboo, on a respectable college campus. You’re a fair and smart guy: answer this…If a professor sent a “Fuck You” message to the LGTG group on campus, what would have happened to him? Republicans are a minority at that college; her hostility, without any serious sanctions, resonates and makes them a target.

      • Perhaps she “should” be fired, but not calling for that which “can’t” happen hardly represents an ethical failing on the part of progressives.

        What would happen to the sender of your hypothetical e-mail? I know you’re going to think I’m hopelessly naive, but I really do think he’d be treated the same way Prof. Lewin is: a weasely administrative admonition, some serious condemnation concentrated in but not restricted to the political opposition, some tepid and ill-reasoned defenses (“academic freedom” and such), an editorial or two in the student newspaper, and not much else. Of course, if he weren’t already tenured, his chances would be hurt, probably considerably (and to anticipate your next question: yes, likely more than Lewin’s would have been in those circumstances).

        • I’d say you’re optimistic, but there’s nothing wrong with that. I just don’t think conduct like that from a professor should be a partisan matter—it’s a matter of professional ethics.

  4. Pingback: E-Mail Revelations: Prof. Ellen Lewin’s Unprofesssional Intolerance | Γονείς σε Δράση

  5. Want to get depressed? Read the astounding comments about this episode on the Huffington Post. Hardly any rational thought at all. Nobody seems to notice or care that she is a professor and the group was made up of students, or that the group’s e-mail was inoffensive and had no “horrible ideas” to rebut. All these people think like Ellen Lewin.


    • Thank you for your “blanket” invitation, Jack. I respectfully decline as I am sufficiently depressed for the nonce. We are in a Depression, of a depression, by and for, soon may it perish from the earth. Too much so to return to your previous block about Terry Jones to credit the person who posted a reply to the effect that (boiled down) : Media Maketh the Man. I’m not saying the traditional news sources are exempt from the behavior but by and large the electronic media such as Huff Puff live and thrive the same way the tabloids did and do — only by finding a new hook, gimmick, take on, or twist, and then max-manipulating it to attract the greatest amount of viewers. They waste my precious time. I could be tap dancing or listening to NPR. Or both. And look what it does to you? You switched an “e” onto “rational” that belonged on the “mad” group!!

  6. previous “blog,” I meant — although, in ethics and fairness, I should have left the correction to you so you could edit-me-back.

  7. I think that was a fair enough assessment, Jack. It’s sad that this sort of thing has become more or less common among tenured and sequestered academians. It just doesn’t make the news much.

    In fact, I found two things about the story more disturbing than Professor Lewin’s initial “remark” and disingenuous apology. First: President Sally Mason’s politically correct (and therefore empty) statement about “tolerance” and “diversity” which pretty well defined her as being squarely in Lewin’s camp. Second: The fact that both these screwy women hold high position in a public college and are able to spread their poisons of the mind to the children of the citizens who pay their salaries.

    How they must laugh in their conclaves at this. It fits with Lenin’s famous saying that “The last capitalist will sell us the rope with which we’ll hang him.” Essentially, the people of Iowa (and most of the other states) are paying for the downfall of all they stand for. And their radicalized children will be their executioners. After all, it happened in China.

  8. All I can say is this is a TYPICAL liberal mentality – preach freedom of speech, but be completely intolerant of it. Preach inhumane treatment of animals but practically advocate the slaughter of human babies, i.e, abortion (Planned Parenthood), Preach women’s rights but ignore the degradation, subservience of extremist Muslim women. Total hypocrites, especially this insane “professor” who doesn’t even deserve to be called by her first name let alone a title of professor. Liberalism IS a mental disorder of the highest order.

  9. Here’s an interview with University of Iowa Professors Timothy Hagle and Kembrew McLeod, Matt Sowada, the conservative co-host of the political talk radio show American Reason on KRUI, and Rod Sullivan from the Johnson County Board of Supervisors about Professor Ellen Lewin’s “F— You, Republicans!” email response to the University of Iowa College Republicans campus-wide invite for people to participate in “Conservative Coming Out Week.”


  10. One could forgive this professor for a temporary moment of passion, if only she had properly admitted her mistake and moved on, however, she tried to excuse her behavior and shift the blame back to the conservative group. This shows her lack of capacity to be a mature adult and she should be let go from the school. Everybody blurts out stupid things on occasion, and later, when their anger and sanity returns, they properly make amends for them. However, a sociopath always thinks it was somebody else to blame for her bad behavior. You can’t allow such a person to be a professor at your school!

  11. Yes, Lewin exhibits a sociopathic/psychopathic disregard for the rights of others. But to be a true sociopath or psychopath, the person so afflicted needs to have genuinely no insight that what they are doing is wrong. The elaborate tap-dancing and verbal acrobatics at work here indicate that miscreants like Lewin and her collaborators know pretty close to exactly what they are trying to get away with, and they work extensively at the guile needed to generate that gullibility– to the extent enough of the population can be conned. So, maybe it would be more accurate to call Lewin and her bosses borderline psychopaths who know exactly how to vacuum the goodies out of the taxpayers’ trough.

    To be among the top level of perceptive citizens who refuse to be anesthetized by Iowa City’s University of Zero Nobel Prizes and its habitual aspirations toward imaginative deceptions, it helps to notice that U of I administrators, along with accomplice “like-minded individuals” nationally, have for decades attempted to promulgate similar hallucinatory campaigns of calculated specious verbal mismanagement. This specific malaise has been otherwise known as “Newspeak” ever since George Orwell exposed such dubious devious tactics in his book “1984.” The recent Lewinesque umbrage taken at “coming out” being used by anyone other than the imperious insider few is merely the latest manifestation of a trend deliberately begun in the 1960’s by warping the word “gay” into supposedly becoming a synonym for “homosexual.”

    As Wikipedia explains: “Newspeak is a fictional language in George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. In it, it refers to the deliberately impoverished language promoted by state. The term was also used to discuss Soviet phraseology.[1] Orwell included an essay about it in the form of an appendix[2] in which the basic principles of the language are explained. Newspeak is closely based on English but has a greatly reduced and simplified vocabulary and grammar. This suits the totalitarian regime of the Party, whose aim is to make any alternative thinking—”thoughtcrime”, or “crimethink” in the newest edition of Newspeak—impossible by removing any words or possible constructs which describe the ideas of freedom, rebellion and so on. One character, Syme, says admiringly of the shrinking volume of the new dictionary: “It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.” Syme also stated that the eventual goal of re-editing the Newspeak dictionary was for the language to compress to a single word which would express every necessary thought or emotion. …(more text at Wikipedia)”

    Precisely so. The goal of the Orwellian totalitarians in both “1984″ and state-run Univ. Iowa administrative offices is to impoverish the language, direct the cattle upon Big Brother’s (or Big Sister’s) whim, and hope the peasants never notice how they are being verbally anesthetized and herded about. This directed linguistic impoverishment is in 2011 accompanied by large doses of fabricated “hatespeech” accusation as the current doubletalk substitute for Orwell’s originally stated “thoughtcrime” and “crimethink” verbiage. But as Abraham Lincoln observed: “You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.” The intricate precautions Lewin and her confederates observe strongly suggest that their selfish mental pathology is indeed borderline rather than completely delusional. At least for now.

  12. Here’s a little more (lot more, but it’s only part of what has been happening) detail, but it’s still only part of the story. The way this racket works is to split their dirty-work up into pieces, different people do various parts of the dirty-work, and then the mist of their anesthetic fog is supposed to creep about the landscape, taking over everything, while hopefully nobody notices what is going on. However, when the 50 pound bag of manure has 200 pounds stuffed into it, anyone who isn’t too brain-dead can start to notice what is going on. If you spend thousands of dollars doing private investigation work using trustworthy people who haven’t been bribed or blackmailed or otherwise compromised by the elaborate network activities, then you can get some real insights into specifically what has been going on. They basically work by a system of “L.I.E.S.” which is (1) they Lie to pretend to be what they aren’t, doing what they aren’t, etc. and specifically they lie to convince you your enemies are friends to be trusted, and your friends are enemies to be distrusted. Once you (hopefully, by their racket’s estimation) are conned by lies, they next want to (2) Infiltrate you, your family, your organization, your legislature, etc. to place their operatives and snoop for their cause. The first few who are infiltrated make way for the rest patiently and carefully over time, and they want to get their hands on the levers of power and influence in universities, the media, government, banking, and now the military. It started mostly with the Democrats, but now these homosexual network tactics are corrupting and anesthetizing large swathes of the Republican apparatus nationwide and locally also– as long as somnolent dummies don’t notice what is sneaking inside, and what their true selfish motives are. After lying and infiltrating, they want to (3) do Espionage to look ahead for blockages to avoid and opportunities to exploit, or ways to place more lies as pretexts for their next creeping-along advantage. The ultimate goal of Lying, Infiltrating, and Espionage is so they can (4) Sabotage you or your group and pick up the pieces for themselves. By turning the crank around and around on this sequence of parasitic power-grab moves, and denying what is going on and keeping people ignorant through mass-media they have long-since infiltrated and seized, they can then waltz away with most anything until people get wise to their tactics. Only a few do, in Iowa City or across the nations. A few years ago they even proclaimed Iowa City to be the Lesbian Capital of the Midwest in the Iowa City Public Library (posted on the wall) until somebody decided that was a little obvious and overly informative to society as the victim to be deceived. Here are a few more details derived from my years of investigations around Iowa City: Yes, unfortunately the Iowa City homosexual mafia seems to have taken a lot of its tactics from the lexicon of the 1930’s Deutschlanders and their SS and Sturmabteilung goons. Nazis, homosexuals, and Nazi homosexuals like Ernst Roehm always know that as kommandants of their own Animal Farm they are eternally more equal than anyone else, as now absurdly reflected in the Code of Iowa no less (with special favors based on “sexual orientation”, as well as in University of Iowa administration. As long as Joe Citizen hasn’t seen the inside of the University of Iowa degeneracies, he and 99% of the cozily “liberal” public deceptees will continue to be fooled by the “University” (sort of) and its carefully crafted propaganda image. Lewin’s outburst and feeble attempts to downplay it, along with her attempts beyond Oz to get us to “ignore the man {er, professor, sort of} behind the curtain” are merely a small indicator of a much larger problem. I was blackmailed at the felony level (Code of Iowa, 711.4 paragraph 5) by a U of Iowa administrator named Carol Aschenbrener, Assoc Dean of medical students and now a bigwig in Washington D.C., who also had money-juggling activities going on with thousands or maybe millions of dollars of misdirected Federal student loan funds (via her subordinate Kay Colangelo). The felony activity was based on years of lies and prior set-ups. When I talked to the wife of the local prosecutor, then-County Attorney Pat White, instead of prosecuting Ashenbrener he tipped her off ergo Aschenbrener had a university administrator friend in Columbia, Missouri try to bribe me out of state with a job offer to get rid of me. The Johnson Co. Democrats entrenched in Iowa City are happy to cover up crimes for one another, and White’s sinecure job security largely depended on keeping certain well-placed lefties happy. Part of the courthouse end of the Johnson Co. Democrat racket is to produce rigged non-random jury panels. That way, in case a prosecutor has to appear to put on a vigorous prosecution effort to look real good– then the protected party who contrived the jury from the fabricated jury panel still won’t have anything to worry about. Not if that select individual is a key Democrat apparatchik in Iowa City. A few years after I saw blackmail myself, Aschenbrener’s friend T. Anne Cleary, financially related to Aschenbrener and also part of the Iowa City/university lesbian network, blackmailed an already unstable student named Lu Gang, who in Nov. 1991 pulled out his gun and shot Cleary dead along with 4 or 5 others on campus (cf. the book “Deadly Scholarship” by Edwin Chen). Cleary’s title at the time was University Vice-President, and her successor under a new title of Associate Provost was Susan R. Johnson, yet another part of the Iowa City university lesbian network, who had previously been Dean of Faculty at the medical school and has for years been happy to go kill babies at the Emma Goldman abortion mill, which in turn generates blood-money profits for Democrat candidates. Lewin was hired into the University under Susan R. Johnson and “like-minded individuals” who are always trying to promote their own supposedly ‘personal-life’ agendas but on the taxpayer’s dime, especially when few or none notice what their elaborate hypocrisy is all about. So of course they would like to keep their cozy racket as covered-up and denied as possible. Mafia-styled organizations generally do. What was revealed by Ellen Lewin’s infantile outburst out of the Dept. of [Lesbian] Women’s Studies was merely a rare instance of lack of control in relation to concealing what is ordinarily kept concealed. Their philosophy and conduct is all about total dictatorship and censorship, Newspeak like Orwell’s book “1984” as in control over what they imperiously deem to be crimethought or hatespeech, and keeping the peasants as passively ignorant as a herd of sheep. There are many other examples of Iowa City’s problem with institutionalized “personal” perversion that they want funded by public money embezzled from your taxes, such as nursing professors manipulating nursing students into literally prostituting themselves in the beds of nursing professors before being swapped around like pieces of meat, Steve Sueppel clubbing his family to death Easter 2008 with the Iowa City police promptly denying they could ever possibly get to the bottom of the case (after Sueppel had spent hours leaving blow-by-blow teasing accounts on voicemail in his dad’s and brother’s law office the night of the multiple murders, plus written notes all over the murder scene as he was carrying out his murder sequences), the shooting of Eric Shaw as initiated by and covered up by Iowa City policeman Troy Kelsay, and other day-to-day examples of the homosexual network making as sure as possible that few or no ordinary citizens figure out how criminally corrupt and perverted they have made themselves, the “University” of Iowa, and all the aspects of legitimate governmental function they can stealthily infest to render illegitimate. Just remember Abraham Lincoln said: “You may deceive all the people part of the time, and part of the people all the time, but not all the people all the time.” The homosexual racket in Iowa City, funded with millions of dollars milked away from the allegedly “State” University, is far more dangerous in its deeds and aspirations than most plundered citizens realize. Continued anesthesia in the victims promotes continued plundering by the criminal racket, so that the perverted few can continue to prosper at the expense of the gullible many. To facilitate anesthesia about the homosexual racket, the Des Moines Register, Cedar Rapids Gazette, and Iowa City Press-Citizen are habitually eager accomplices, along with most TV stations. That’s why they were infiltrated and taken over years ago. And, for past performance according to Iowa City standards, Assoc. Provost Susan R. Johnson has meanwhile been promoted to University Omsbudsperson in University President Sally Mason’s office. So she’s in a very good position to protect Lewin and keep her on the state payroll at your expense, or if need be find Lewin a cushy sinecure in some other state where Joe Citizen has been kept even more ignorant as to how the homosexual racket juggles appearances whenever needed. It makes me wonder: Since the title omsbudsperson must be so insensitive and disrespectful to the needs of our oppressed lesbian sisterhood, how long will it be until Johnson is exalted by Big Sister with the more politically correct and deemed-appropriate title of University Omsbudsperdaughter?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.