The headline of Professor Put on Leave After Abortion Spat says it all. It's not an abortion "spat", the woman exhorted students to deny freedom of speech to the students who had legitimately recieved permission to place the display. This from a paper which will cry foul anytime someone suggests that anti-Catholic or anti-Christian bigotry shouldn't be published as an attempt to suppress the bigot's freedom of speech.

What's the deal, Washington Post? Is freedom of speech only for liberals?

It's only freedom of speech as long as they agree with you.

That would be liberalspeak.

This also irks me how the media allows the pro-murder devils their 'preferred' moniker, while denying us the term 'pro-life.'

In other words, they get their 'positive' term 'pro-choice,' but we are described with a 'negative' term 'anti-abortion.'

Why can't they just make it even and call them 'pro-abortion?' Because they'll whine that they're 'not FOR abortion,' and they always get their way...

It's one of those little biases that they show, even if not fully aware of it...

CS,

I am most certain that they are aware. They want to keep it in the 'gray' area they love so much.

I don't see the bias in this article. It doesn't appear to me to be saying that the college professor was right in destroying the crosses, nor does it seem to me to imply that the college was wrong for dismissing her. It also doesn't appear to say that there was anything wrong or right about the display itself. I am not trying to be argumentative, please don't take it that way. I am really trying to understand your position on this.

The headline of the article suggests that it's an "abortion spat"... well it's not... it's the infringement on freedom of speech. The media automatically jumps on such infringements, unless it's by someone on the left against someone on the right.

What part of 'anti-abortion' do you not understand? By labeling the pro-life crowd as 'anti-abortion' they are taking sides. I haven't come across an article that states the 'pro-choice' crowd as 'pro-abortion'.

If you don't understand this vital distinction that implictly states the papers POV, then it's pointless explaining to you further.