I watched the video linked in the article. When the professor grabs someone's arm (someone trying to obstruct him), this is labeled (by the video) an 'assault'. When he is dragged out of the building, being restrained by multiple protesters, this is not an assault - but the person punching one of the protesters, I assume to try and get them to let go of the professor - that is labeled an assault.

And the professor's plan to enter the building is labeled a 'premeditated attack'. The six people he had with him (far outnumbered by the protesters) are labeled a 'mob'.

Oh, and the video (in which the worst thing is a punch seen from afar) starts with a scary content warning for "physical assault and violence, abusive language, swearing".

Protests have been reduced to victimhood competitions, but rarely have I seen them become this pathetic.

I feel bad for the guy; had to be horrible watching your life's work being destroyed.

Chaining buildings shut is a fire hazard at the minimum, but felony trespassing + breaking & entering in reality. I understand the university officials desire to not make a scene, but not doing anything is just as bad.

As opposed to not having students arrested for trespassing in Garland Hall for 34 days? The disparity in consequences is striking. Why would you not expel the students who participated? Why did Baltimore's prosecutor drop all charges against the sit in participants who refused to leave after being offered immunity? You have the right to protest, but not for your protest to be consequence-free.

> You have the right to protest, but not for your protest to be consequence-free.

I don't understand what you mean here. Do you mean that you have the right to protest, but then you can be punished for protesting? That doesn't sound right.

The constitution protects your rights with the government, not your college.

To those that don't know, Povey is something of a giant in Speech Recognition. It's hard to find a recent ASR paper that doesn't cite him. So while his behavior is reprehensible he's probably not wrong that someone will hire him anyway.

I hope these protesters realize that the building they're holding hostage from the university costs money to run and maintain - which will probably be a factor in tuition costs getting even higher when they go to pay their bill next year.

If I was the university - I'd start by cutting power and water to the building. They're being too nice by giving them an out by granting immunity if they leave.

I wouldn't be so sure - at the more desirable schools, tuition is mostly a function of what people are willing to pay. That is why it increased so quickly.

"He said he had tried to take the building back from the students in part because a computer server that hosted his research was inside and malfunctioning."

If he had been successful this would have been a nearly perfect xkcd - https://xkcd.com/705/

I realize that's a little glib, but there isn't much of substance to say about something like this. If a university wants to abandon one of its buildings to students (or squatters, etc) going rouge and trying to take the building back isn't likely to end well for a university employee, regardless of the politics in play.

> Povey, 43, also wrote a 1,600-word essay about what happened, along with a treatise about how he believes white males are discriminated against in “this environment” and how he is expected to act like a “neutered puppy-dog."

If I had any inclination to feel sorry for the guy, it just evaporated.

(quote comes from a Baltimore Sun version of the article since I'm hitting the NYT paywall)

Note that neither paper gave the full quite in context.

This is bizarre. What was wrong with:

"Hey guys, I'm professor so-and-so, I need to get inside to fix the computer which I use for my research."

"Oh, professor so-and-so, nice to see you. Sure, come inside and we'll unchain the door to your lab so you can get in."