The punks at Univ. Santa Cruz posted contact info which Michelle linked to I believe, on her blog to report their harrassment of military recruiters at a campus job fair.
Having her post their contact info or link to it, threw the moonbats into a tizzy and they started emailing Michelle with their typically most hateful, racist, sexually degrading comments.
When Michelle posted the emails along with the email addresses of the bigoted, sexist, foul mouth leftist DUmmies or punks. It clearly states on her blog that all emails are subject to being posted UNLESS the sender requests that she doesn't.
Apparently none of them requested this (probably didn't read her policy to begin with) and then they were bent out of shape over that.
So this is their usual petty way of getting "revenge".
Pathetic morons.
What follows is an official doc from Santa Cruz-U.
Higher Education for Science and Engineering, March 1989
--snip:
PREFACE
This background paper focuses on the end point of educational preparation for science and engineering careers — undergraduate and graduate study. It places the issue of future supply in the broad cultural context of changing demographics, labor market adjustments, and intervention policies. In a dynamic economy and an increasingly technological society, planning is essential. But because of that very dynamism, the flexibility of workers is critical, as is the recognition that some short-term remedies may create longer-term problems.
The demographic trend of greatest significance is that the school-age population, beginning in the 1990s, will look unlike any we have ever seen in this Nation. That makes the future less certain and less predictable. It also warns us to be particularly careful with the extrapolations of the past that show, for example, a poor representation of minorities in these fields. The trend further suggest the need to identify and replicate programs and actions that seem to work, both inside school and out, to bring students into science and engineering and keep them there through completion of degrees.
History has shown that some students have not been well served by formal public education. If we are to bring more of these students into the ranks of scientists and engineers, promising programs are worth trying, even if they are unproven. We need to revise our methods and models of recruitment, clarify the image of "scientist” and “engineer,” and rethink the notion of "professional calling" as it relates to the accessibility of the scientific career.
This paper also represents the last leg of an OTA journey begun in 1984 at the request of the Science Policy Task Force of the House Committee on Science and Technology. Force (December 1985), warned of the perils of trying to project demand for scientists and engineers.
--end snip