University of Missouri Student Tim Tai Stands Up to Bullying Mob

Here's a fascinating six-and-a-half-minute video that provides a perfect microcosm of the challenges photographers face in standing up for their First Amendment rights. I think it provides a manageable opportunity for analysis and discussion of the issue. It shows a University of Missouri student photographer named Tim Tai calmly standing up for his rights...and by extension, all of ours.

The video, shot by Mark Schierbecker, shows Tim calmly facing down a mob of demonstrators that is attempting to bully him. Tim stands up for himself and repeatedly (and correctly) asserts and reasserts his right to be there and to take pictures; the students (and one professor, but I'll get to that) who are harassing him can resort only to the authority of the mob—they outnumber Tim, and they attempt to obstruct and intimidate him.

Other than "the mob rules," they have no other basis of authority.

Usually, the bullies we have to discuss are police or rent-a-cops and security guards. That sometimes clouds the issue because it makes it seem like the issue is photographers' stances regarding law enforcement officials and their authority.

It really isn't. Tim Tai is correct—as long as he is where he has a legal right to be, on public or community property, he can take pictures of anything and anyone who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That right can't be taken away from him just because someone put up a hand-drawn lawn sign that says "No Media."

It really doesn't matter who is bullying him—it could be a chief of police or a renegade student mob, the bouncer of a nightclub or a worksite foreman worried about OSHA violations. He is within his legal rights.

Of course, that might not save him from violence.

In this case, a more serious issue is the woman seen at the end of the video (above). She is Melissa Click, an Assistant Professor of Mass Media* in the Communication Department at the University of Missouri. She's clearly seen assaulting the videographer (her blow jolts the camera) and then inciting violence against his person, asking for "muscle" to help her "get this reporter out of here." (Keep in mind the "reporter" is a student.)

Is this appropriate behavior for a University faculty member? Even when acting out some fantasy of being a neo-1960s lawn-chair revolutionary, or whatever she thinks she's doing? Doesn't seem that way to a lot of people. The video of her unfortunate behavior went viral, and has created considerable backlash against her.

Criticism of Professor Click's actions has since been taken up as a cause among conservative media. Mark Schierbecker appeared on Fox News, and last Wednesday filed a complaint against Click alleging simple assault. Professor Click issued a prepared statement of apology and regret, and resigned a courtesy appointment with the School of Journalism. However, she apparently retains her professorship in the Communication Department, so headlines on the Web such as "Melissa Click Resigns" give the wrong impression.

Student photojournalist Tim Tai, from his website

Freedom of the press
But back to Tim Tai. I agree with the Atlantic writer James Fallows, who wrote, "...in real time, under mounting pressure, [Tim Tai] shows intellectual and emotional composure anyone in our business would admire. The way the students (and some professors) are dealing with him is the way I’ve seen officials in China deal with reporters, which is not a comparison that reflects well on them."

Amen. The persecution and obstruction of journalists is indeed a hallmark of authoritarian regimes. And we all need to stand up for freedom of the press...whoever the bullies might be.

Mike
(Thanks to Mani Sitaraman)

*I tell ya, ya can't make this stuff up.

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

[CORRECTION: An earlier version of this post said, "He is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution" which I'm not sure it true, where it now says "he is within his legal rights." —Mike]

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Wes: "The University of Missouri consistently receives a top 10 national ranking for its journalism programs. It received the #1 ranking in 2014 by College Magazine. How does a university with the highest reputation for journalism education justify keeping employed a professor caught on video behaving contrary to everything they teach? I have lived in within 100 miles of Mizzou 46 of my 48 years and have always been proud of their standing in journalism education. But I can't say that right now. I know it's one rogue individual from a group of outstanding educators; but the university needs to make the statement that this won't be tolerated by letting this "professor" find a job elsewhere."

Art in LA: "It's ironic that this happened in the 'Show Me' state. From the mo.gov website... 'I come from a state that raises corn and cotton and cockleburs and Democrats, and frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I am from Missouri. You have got to show me.' Go Tim!"

Dan Gorman: "I haven't followed this story closely, but I'd offer a few thoughts based on the linked video:

• I agree, the student journalist showed remarkable poise in a very difficult situation.
• The events in the video represent a finite slice of a much larger set of circumstances—what we see in the video is limited spatially, and chronologically, and may or may not be representative of the larger context.
• These events took place on a college campus, which by definition is a learning environment where people need the freedom to express themselves and to make mistakes—it may well be that some of the students in the video will have occasion to reflect on what took place, and may well choose to behave differently in an analogous situation going forward.
• Prof Click's behavior toward the end of the video certainly appears to be unfortunate for a teacher of journalism, and I respect everyone's right to express an opinion on this, but working as I do on a college campus I think we would do well to reserve judgment regarding her employment status—Prof. Click's faculty colleagues, college administrators, Mizzou students, and the people of Missouri are best positioned to determine what is in the best interests of the University, the students, and the state which supports them.

"We're all on a learning journey every day whether we're conscious of it or not, and we're all at different places on our individual journeys at any given time.  What's important is not to be right all the time, but to get better over time."

Nicholas Condon: "People can act entirely within their rights and still be rude jerks. Tai may be entirely within his rights, but he was behaving like a rude jerk."

Roger Bradbury: "Tim Tai held his cool far, far longer than I would have. The demonstrators are nothing but cowards and bullies. The video makes me angry. For much of this video, female demonstrators stand far too close to Tim, knowing that no matter how nasty they are, no matter how they force him back just by walking at him, if he pushes back an inch it will be a matter of, 'You can't hit me, I'm a girl!' While the big brave male demonstrators stand behind them, telling him he should go and ready to act in 'defence' of the women they hide behind.

"Like I said, cowards and bullies. I sincerely hope that Tim Tai is more representative of students in the USA than the deeply unpleasant members of this mob."

NancyP: "Click is on the way out, most likely. I suspect that she has been informed of non-renewal of contract. It can be hard to fire a prof mid-semester; one has to find a replacement, and that replacement has to cook up a course (assuming the course isn't canned) and get to know the students in a very short period of time so that grades can be given. Plus, the university lawyers have the final say on timing of firings.

"As for the protesting students, I was flabbergasted that they didn't have an appointed set of media spokespeople. What good does it do to have a famous J-school on campus if one can't be bothered to map a media strategy ahead of the event? The WHOLE POINT of the protest was to have their views heard and acted upon. They should have been in control by having a press conference with photo-ops. I take it that the guy fasting was elsewhere.

"Now as to their issues—yep, rural Missouri (and urban Missouri) can be quite racist. Administration can't do a darn thing about the non-student good ol' boys with confederate flags on their trucks yelling racist stuff at black people on the streets outside Mizzou. If the administration can figure out who did it, they could kick the sh*t-swastika guy out for vandalism. I can see that having some black counseling personnel at the student health center would be a wise thing to do. I have no idea how the administration can be successful attracting a sizable number of new black faculty from outside the state."

John (partial comment): "As a photographer who dabbled in protest photography, I feel his pain. Years ago I found myself between mounted NYPD officers and angry anti-war protesters (pre-Iraq II).

"The protesters took exception of me taking their images, asking for press ID (which I refused) and accusing me of being a police officer and the cops charged at me just like they did at the protesters.

"Can't win...."

Rob L: "As a Maneater [the student newspaper at the University of Missouri —Ed.] alum, and a Mizzou one as well, this was hard to watch. I still feel that the initial media reaction to some of this was a bit...navel-viewing, but Click was in the wrong. And she is a Communications prof, not a Journalism prof, and at Mizzou, that's a biiiig divide. She was removed almost immediately from an advisory role on the Student Media board, and her status as a guest professor in the Journalism school was revoked. I do think there is space to discuss that 'I have a right to take your picture' is a really bad argument to make to upset people, and that stepping back a few feet can help deescalate things. Props to Tim for keeping his cool, and if yall are curious, The Maneater has a great timeline of how we ended up here."

 

Comments

[Ray Bosch]

I think this would be a great opportunity for you to post the actual text of the first amendment, so that readers see the actual text, and know how well our founding fathers protected this essential freedom in a democracy.

[David Saxe]

I don't know where these imaginary politically correct "rules" come from. They seem to be invented on the spot. To quote a line from "Ferris Beuller's Day Off" "I weep for the future."

[David Zivic]

After perusing Tim's website it is apparent to me that he is a very talented and serious photographer. All the more reason why he should be at events like the one videoed and record the split seconds of time that the world needs to see to accurately reflect back on its actions. That is why the Constitution was written, and subsequent court rulings have upheld the premise.

[Dave in NM]

Professor Click needs to be fired on the basis of incompetence. It's this kind of "teaching" by example that leads to these kinds of confrontations. In her position as an educator at the scene, she had the opportunity and the responsibility to explain First Ammendment rights to the students that were harassing the photographer, yet she chose to escalate the situation by calling for more students to join in and harass the videographer.

There's absolutely no excuse for this. A basic understanding of the First Ammendment ought to be prerequisite to making one's living "educating" students in communications. You can't teach what you don't know.

[It's weird behavior, when you think about it. Doesn't feel rational to me. What are their aims in trying to keep reporters away? Psychologically the only thing I can think of to explain it is that, surrounded by people of like mind and upset and flustered about the injustices she was protesting, she succumbed to mob mentality. --Mike]

[Kenneth Tanaka]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Unfortunately, like trying to read some security guard your Bert Krages right-to-photograph card, this knowledge gets you nowhere in the heat of a moment.

[emptyspaces]

Ms. Click, as you may or may not know, took to social media before she appeared in that video, begging the media to come to the university and cover the event.

She's probably waited her whole life to have something to get all upset about, no matter what it was. The phenomenon is very well explained by a guest on Bill Maher's show recently.

[Benjamin Marks]

Well Tim stays cooler than I fear I would have. I struggle to understand the protesters' behavior; I can only think of it as a desperate need to curate the narrative of their own protest. I fear it would take a smarter group of protesters to do this successfully. I will say, and I am not sure this is a fair comparison although it is an inevitable one, that Martin King and the freedom riders of the 1960s had a much more sophisticated (and successful, in practical terms) view of how to manage the public view of their protests.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

As a man, I am deeply appalled and offended by the professor objectivizing men as "muscle"... how sexist of her! (s/a)

[JG]

Speaking of learning opportunities, this might be a good time to remind readers that the First Amendment does not apply to the actions of private persons, only to the actions of the government and its agents. (If you don't agree, then read the opening of its first sentence again carefully: "Congress shall make no law...")(emphasis added)

While Tim Tai's right to freely express himself was clearly being restricted, this restriction was imposed upon him by private persons, not the government or its agents, and therefore it didn't violate his First Amendment rights, as many have been quick to claim.

A possible exception might occur if one can successfully argue Professor Click was acting in her official capacity, therefore she was an agent of the government because she was an employee of a taxpayer funded public university, but that is quite a stretch based upon what I saw of her actions on the video.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting the students' and faculty's actions were appropriate, because they weren't. I am only pointing out that the Constitution doesn't protect the press from the people, only from their government.

[John]

As a photographer who dabbled in protest photography, I feel his pain. Years ago I found myself between mounted NYPD officers and angry anti-war protesters (pre-Iraq II).

The protesters took exception of me taking their images, asking for press ID (which I refused) and accusing me of being a police officer and the cops charged at me just like they did at the protesters.

Can't win...

At the same time, the media's presence does change the dynamics. Often, a protest gets louder and more animated when cameras are present, esp. when TV cameras get lifted on shoulders.

As a journalist, I'm ashamed of that professor and think she should have resigned immediately. If she's doesn't, she should be fired. Then again, I also think Brian Williams should have been kicked out right away and made to pay back his undeserved millions.

[Ed Hawco]

I can understand how, in our the highly polarized and politicized U.S. society — effects which are amplified in all dimensions on university campuses — a teacher might let her indignation and self-righteousness cloud her judgement during a highly politicized public event. After all, it’s very easy under such circumstances to fall into the trap of dividing people between “us” and “them” and to assume that all of “them” are against you and are out to undo whatever you’re setting out to accomplish.

So if Ms. Click sees and understands the error she committed, and sincerely apologizes for it, and makes restitution or atonement somehow, then this could be a very useful “teachable moment” in which the teacher is the one who is taught.

[Jack Nelson]

Someone smeared a swastika and someone else called someone the "n" word and the protestors come off as the bad guys. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. If they were trying to manage the media they could not have done a worse job..

[Rob L]

Separately - it's important to understand, not condone, but understand, that the students had been fighting a lot of false or misleading impressions and reporting in the media, and many were highly distrustful of anyone at that point. They were wrong, and the faculty on hand performed a massive disservice to their charges. Scared, frustrated, angry people aren't known for making great snap decisions. A lot of the initial twitter reaction, media wise, honestly had a bit of 'but we're on their side!' to it - which is also a good teaching moment, as no...no you weren't.

[Ben Rosengart]

Mike, you're lacking a lot of context here, and I don't think it serves you well.

The protestors had commandeered part of the quad as their living and discussion space. Some of the media entered there and behaved quite rudely, so the protestors tried to impose a perimeter.

Now, you can say that controlling space is only for the Legitimate Authorities, but the whole point of the protest was that the Authorities had forfeited their legitimacy by failing to address the students' concerns over a long period of time. In that space and time, the students were asserting their own authority.

Tim Tai had no obligation to recognize that authority, but calling this "persecution" and "authoritarian" is ridiculous. This was a raggedy band of students, not armed policemen.

You also cannot analyze this situation correctly without contemplating the effects of the students' race on how the media interprets their actions. And the historical role of the media in sensationalizing protests. Very often they have behaved as defenders of the status quo against legitimate grievances, and the students' distrust, fear, and anger towards them as a body are well deserved. Again, that's not Tim Tai's fault, but it's part of the story.

[Daniel]

The rabble cries for media coverage - as long as they can control it. Faced with the reality of an honest portrayal they jump to censorship in a heartbeat.
No different from any other totalitarian group, is it?

[I think you're allowing your filters to overwhelm your perception. --Mike]

[Dale]

In her role serving on an advisory board for Student Media, I wonder how Ms. Click would advise student journalists on how to cover a protest? That sure would be amusing to hear...

Given the loud demands for the University president to be fired for events beyond his control, it's interesting that there's not similar demand for Click to be fired for her actions.

[Peter]

Voice from a different perspective:

The historical context is key — legally, the 1st Amendment does protect journalists. But journalists do not have a great track record of covering civil unrest fairly. In the 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson commissioned a report to examine media coverage of race riots, which found that “media had sensationalized the disturbances, consistently overplaying violence and giving disproportionate amounts of time to emotional events and ‘militant’ leaders.” The Times had trouble covering the Watts riots. In covering protests in Baltimore earlier this year, many outlets gravitated first toward images of violence and fire.

“We were having some difficult dialogues there, talking about race,” said Jonathan Butler, the graduate student who went on a hunger strike. “That's a very sensitive space to be in and be vulnerable in. It was necessary to keep that space very healthy, a very open space for dialogue, versus it being a space where people are going to cover a story, exoticize people who are going through pain and struggle.”

http://www.latimes.com/local/education/community/la-me-edu-when-race-meets-free-speech-things-get-complicated-20151110-story.html

And this

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/race-and-the-free-speech-diversion

Why the different perspectives and focus? Maybe because the majority has no direct experience of what the students have experienced, have a hard time imagining it and thereby implicitly minimize it by reverting to another issue they can relate to.

[R. Edelman]

Tim Tai exhibited dignified and courageous behavior. There was absolutely no excuse for how he was treated. The people who were bullying him don't understand basic civics and the value of polite discourse. Perhaps it's our times, with cable network shows, combined with a feeling of entitlement. For those protesters, it's their way or the highway. That attitude is not confined to that particular university. It's been happening at other universities in the US for at least the past several years. It just hasn't been covered much in the press.

[Will]

The whole thing is just inept. The behavior of those involved has brought this to my attention, but left me with no idea whatsoever what they stand for and what their protest is about. Why make such an elaborate expression of free assembly and free speech if, when someone is looking, you aren't going to say anything?

And can someone explain to me what the rationale would be for restricting press access? It certainly gives the impression that you have something to hide, but I cannot for the life of me imagine what that would be.

[John D.P.]

I find it funny [in a depressed sort of way] that people who are rightly protesting over racial tension, fall into a similar trap that they are working against. We humans have a really hard time dealing with the 'other' whomever that might be. Racial issues are obviously about the 'other.' The opposite of racism is inclusion & understanding - but this is no easy solution. What ever failure of humanity that spawns racism, perhaps also manifests itself in how these protesters treated the reporter.

The same mechanisms of oppression are in us all.

[Colin K Work]

Hmm in the UK, we don't have our rights neatly codified, but essentially a photographers rights here are similar.

I think had this situation occurred in the UK, and police been present, the photographer would have been asked to move back, or risk arrest for causing a breach of the peace.

To be honest I don't think he behaved sensibly. There was no need for him to be that close (at one stage he has to jump to get a shot with a longer lens). From a professional point of view, he failed to do his job .. he did not succeed in documenting the event, nor do I see how he could have from point blank range ... in any case instead of covering the story he became the story - surely a journalistic fail?

Yes, he may well have been within his rights, but I think everyone has a responsibility to exercise those rights with consideration for others feelings and concerns. Bring out the big gun of the 1st amendment was in this case overkill, unnecessary for the event coverage, and confrontational.

[Ben Rosengart]

I think the media have covered this story spectacularly badly, because they identify with Tim Tai. And I'm surprised that Mike, who is usually eager to see all sides of an issue, framed the issue so tendentiously.

All of which is to say, reading the other comments here, I have the perception that people haven't heard both sides of the story. I urge you all to seek out some perspectives from people of color. Roxane Gay and Jelani Cobb have written well about it, for example.

[I'm not covering the whole story. I'm only covering the aspect of it that has to do with photographers' rights. I don't cover railroad accidents or railway safety either, only the incidents that involve photographers. Same idea. --Mike

[David Cope]

Great story, shocking hysteria in the protesters. Wish there was a way I could share just this post from my Facebook page.