Replies

Dear peers,

I am glad to see that Prof. White has touched upon so many interesting issues. I thank those who support the poem, and just as much those who hate it. Yes, I am a Conservative, if there is any doubt. And the poem was an attempt at satire that bit a little too hard, which is what satire is supposed to do. Persecution is a badge of honor for a satirist so I am flattered that Prof. Fritter [sic] thought so highly of my poem.

Here are some details that you might find useful.
Included is a narration of the events that are
occurring, a pasted version of the police report, and
a pasted version of the poem.

***
April 14, 2005

An English Student Gets Barred Indefinitely from
Poetry Class For Writing a Satiric Poem.

Edward Bolles was escorted out of a classroom by SCSU
officials on April 13 at 10:01 AM just before his
Introduction to Poetry Writing class started. He was
later told that he was barred from returning to class
indefinitely until a mediated interview with his
professor could be arranged to define parameters for
the opinions and creative content of Mr. Bolles'
future poetic works.

The poem at the center of controversy is titled
Professor White, which is a satire about globalization
and its effects on cultural traditions. While the
protagonist character, Juan Diego, desires to escape
tradition and compete in the global economy, his
professor, Dr. White, wishes to protect Juan from
intellectual influences that might dilute his racial
and cultural identity.

After reviewing the poem, which was submitted on April
8, Mr. Bolles' professor, Kelly Ritter, believed the
poem to be a coded message that expressed Mr. Bolles'
intention to sexually assault her. This accusation she
deduced from a scene in the poem where Juan Diego
develops an interracial relationship with fictitious
college student who happened to be the daughter of
Professor White. This interpretation was made despite
Prof. Ritter's repeated comments in class that
students should not read meanings that are not
explicit in the poems.

Professor Ritter, on pretext of fear for her sexual
security, put a restraining order on Mr. Bolles as the
latest attempt to censor his opinions and creative
content, says Mr. Bolles. In the morning of April 13,
Mr. Bolles was escorted out of the classroom by Chris
Piscitelli, Director of Judicial Affairs, while Prof.
Ritter hid in her office, and taken to a room for
interrogation. It was there that Mr. Bolles was told
that he was barred from attending future poetry
classes until a mediated interview could be arranged
between Mr. Bolles and Prof. Ritter. The topic of the
interview, Mr. Bolles was told, would be about how the
opinions expressed in his future poems could be
changed to conform to the liking of Prof. Ritter.
Throughout the semester, Mr. Bolles has observed
efforts by Prof. Ritter to put pressure on him to
conform to her parameters of acceptable opinions and
creative content. He claims that he was called a
racist earlier in the semester by his professor. He
claims that, after their first confrontation about
ideology, his grades have suffered unfairly, and that
when he sought explanations for the decline in his
grades he was given unclear and contradictory
explanations.

The great irony is that these unfolding events
parallel the plot in Professor White. In the poem,
Juan Diego was reported to the dean by his professor
for writing a controversial poem. The dean missed the
sarcasm and therefore had Juan Diego expelled from the
University and, consequently, from the United States.
Interestingly, the poem declares itself to be satire,
yet Southern Connecticut State University considers it
to be a serious intellectual threat, and is taking
pragmatic actions with the intention of containing
that threat.

***
LOG OF EVENTS

April 18- I was interviewed by Marie Kuhn of the
Southern News, a SCSU student news paper.

April 19, 11:45 AM- I was invited by Chris Piscitelli
to attend an intermediated interview with Prof. Ritter
for the morning of April 20. He refused to release
information about the case to Southern News.

April 19, 5:30 PM- Prof. Rosso of the English
department called me and wanted to mediate terms
between Prof. Ritter and I. He told me that Prof.
Ritter was terrified of me and that my interview with
the Southern News only made her more fearful of my
aggression.

April 20, 10:10 AM- I was chased down in the hall by
an intern of Judicial Affairs. He wanted me to go to
the mediated meeting. I told him that I would not
attend a meeting until I was supported by attorney.

April 20, 10:15- I was chased down in the hall by
Chris Piscitelli, Director of Judicial Affairs. He
wanted me to attend the mediated interview with Prof.
Ritter. I told him that I would not attend and come to
terms without my attorney (I had the Fire in mind). I
also told him that I would attend the meeting only
after he let me sign a form permitting the release of
information about the case. He flatly refused to let
me sign. He again urged me to attend the meeting
immediately but I walked away from him.

April 20, 10:25 AM: I was invited to another interview
with Marie Kuhn. She told me of the possibility of the
whole poem being published with the article.

April 20, 6:00 PM- Prof Rosso called again. He
suggested, as the intermediary, that I not return to
class and take an independent study with a new
professor for the rest of the semester. I told him
that I would forward the suggestion to my attorney. He
asked me why I would not respond to the suggestion
directly. I told him that I am not trained in law and
that the terms of agreement should be discussed with
an attorney. He said that he suspected I would make a
stand for free speech and he declined to volunteer as
an intermediary any further.

April 21, 12:20 PM- I was informed by a classmate that
Prof. Ritter was in the hall requesting security
officers to guard her office.

April 25, 10:30 AM- I set up a table outside of
Engleman Hall and started to distribute propaganda. I
also distributed homemade t-shirts, buttons, and pens
that said, “Save Prof. White!”
April 25, 11:00 AM- I called Associated Press
reporter, Matt Apuzzo, He was interested in the story
and asked for e-mail containing information about the
case and the poem.

April 25, 11:15 AM- I was approached by Prof. Florey
who told me that my actions were inappropriate and
could jeopardize my academic career in at SCSU.

April 25, 11:20 AM- I was handed a certified letter by
Judicial Affairs stating that formal disciplinary
charges would be dropped and that I could return to
the next class.

April 25, 1:15 PM- I was interviewed by Associated
Press.

April 25, 2:30 PM- I called The Fire to tell them that
the case was settled.

April 25, 4:00 PM- I was interviewed by Marie Kuhn to
update her on the protest. She took some pictures.

April 25 4:30 PM- I posed for an AP photographer in
front of the SCSU Library.

***

Police Report:
Complaint No. 05-1783/ Date of incident 04-08-05/ Type
of incident: Threatening/ Investigating officer: C.
McLean

"On 04-08-05, at 12:37 hrs, this officer was
dispatched to SCSU - Engleman Hall, Rm. D-259 to meet
with faculty member Kelly A. Ritter. Ms. Ritter was in
her office and was speaking with both Mr. Richard
Farricelli and Mr. Christopher Piscitelli about this
incident. Ms. Ritter stated on this date, student
Edward K. Bolles turn in a poem assignment that was
disturbing to Ms. Ritter- Ms. Ritter said she feels
the persons in the poem referred to herself and her 3
year old daughter. Ms. Ritter said, Mr. Bolles is
never happy with her grading and referred to himself
in the past as a lazy Mexican. The poem is (4) pages
long and has racist and sexual tones. Both Mr.
Farricelli and Mr. Piscitelli plan to contact Mr.
Bolles and have psychiatric help. Mr. Bolles will be
put out of classes until he has been cleared by a
doctor and university counselling [sic] staff."

Sincerely,
Edward Bolles

ekbolles@yahoo.com