A California college student was suspended for revealing his professor’s ridiculous bias. Now, he’s punching back.

Yesterday, Andrea Ruth covered the story of a student at Orange Coast College, Caleb O’Neil, who was suspended for filming his professor’s anti-Trump rant:

The professor, Professor Olga Perez Stable Cox, calls Trump a “white supremacist.” She calls Mike Pence “one of the most anti-gay humans in this country.” She calls Trump’s election an “act of terrorism.” She assumes all her students agree with her and says “we are the majority.” She says she will go over “coping skills.”

One of those coping skills includes adding 2-3 more words to her name. “From now on, instead of Professor Olga Perez Stable Cox, I will be called Professor Olga Perez Stable Suarez Humbert-Gillers Cox.” Nah, I made that last part up.

For publishing this rant, Mr. O’Neil was praised for revealing an issue with the faculty suspended for a semester and ordered to write an essay about why he was such a bad boy.

Guess what? Now he’s not only appealing the suspension, but threatening a lawsuit:

19-year-old Caleb O’Neil will appeal.

The Orange Coast College freshman said Wednesday that he [will] file a lawsuit in federal court if his appeal is rejected.

“We think this is a clear example of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination that targets conservatives and we’re going to challenge it,” O’Neil’s attorney, Bill Becker, said at a news conference in Costa Mesa, according to CBS Los Angeles.

Becker told the Orange County Register that the suspension “is an attack by leftists in academia to protect the expressive rights of their radical instructors.”

These people need to market themselves better. Set up a fund. I’d donate.

To be fair, I’m not quite sure what the fella expected when he signed up for a “human sexuality class” taught by a Professor Olga Perez Farias-Smith Williams Gutierrez Walker Unstable Cox, or whatever her name is.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

I think I have forgotten about this the last couple of years, but I’m observing it this year. This blog began 14 years ago today, on February 17, 2003. I was thirty-four years old. Today I’m . . . older. My daughter, now 17, had recently had her third birthday. My son, now 14, was barely four months old.

Five years ago I made the following request on the nine-year blogiversary, and I would like to repeat it today, since the composition of the readership has changed:

On this blogiversary, I would ask the long-time readers how long they have been reading here. Tell me in comments. The longest-standing reader gets a cookie.

It will be a virtual cookie, to be sure, as we live in a virtual world. But if I meet you in person I’ll buy you a real one. Or maybe a real beer.

Thanks for reading.

As I said in my Fault Lines interview:

Blogging has brought both good and bad. I would say that, despite the SWATting and lawsuits and other nuisances, it’s mostly been a good thing, on balance. It’s brought me into contact with many, many people I never would have met otherwise — and many of those people are important in my life. In the end, it’s part of who I am. It’s hard to imagine myself without it.

I think I’ve said this before, but I went to a retirement party for AZ Bob not that long ago, and he was telling me what a funny and idiosyncratic crew of commenters I have. Rekindling The Jury Talks Back as a forum for civil discussion has reminded me that there are also many lurkers out there, including plenty who are quite regular readers. I appreciate all of you.

OK, most of you.